Languages

for Specific Purposes

language as a self-contained ‘monosystem’
→ heterogeneous realisations on account of
•geographic spread,
•fragmentation into dialects,
•use in literary expression,
•ethnic, political, civil and intellectual history of
each language/nation.
⇓
language as a “socio-cultural polysystem”
(Wandruszka, 1974) or a “diasystem”, i.e. a
system of systems (Weinreich, 1953).
 Language variations:
diatopic
Diatopic variation (geographic) with two main
standards, British English and American English
(and other regional and national varieties claiming
for standard status)
•Pronunciation
•Stress
•Spelling
•Vocabulary
•Syntax
 Language variations:
diastratic
Diastratic variation (social)
Key factor: prestige
Social variation is a function of
• Social group
• Social network
• Education
 Language variations:
diamesic

Diamesic variation (due to medium)

Written language
vs
Spoken language
 Language variations:
diamesic
Written language
• Focus on message
• More impersonal expression (e.g. use of passive forms
with no specification of agent)
• Less subjective, less emotional, more precise
• Suited to communication across space and time
• No scope for negotiation or change in response to
recipient’s reactions
• Less redundant, more economical
• More varied vocabulary, avoidance of repetition, words
chosen more carefully, longer words
• Accuracy and precision in the use of words
 Language variations:
diamesic
Spoken language
• More use of personal reference, e.g. 1st person pronoun
• More subjective, more emotional, less precise
• Changes resulting from feedback from receivers
• “Local” use of language, dependence on context and
shared socio-cultural background
• More limited vocabulary, more repetition, more one-
syllable words, more concrete nouns
• Extensive use of generic terms (thing, stuff, do etc.)
• Use of fillers (I mean, you know, etc.)
• Reliance on intonation, gestures, etc.
 Language variations:
diachronic
Diachronic variation (chronological, historical)

• Pre-English period
• Old English
• Middle English
• Early Modern English
• Modern English
• Late Modern (Contemporary English)
 Language variations:
diaphasic
Diaphasic (or diatypic) variation
(contextual-functional)
Variation in language use determined by
context and purpose of message,
e.g. the language of politics, the language of
economics, the language of the law, the
language of medicine etc.
Diaphasic (or diatypic) variation:
proliferation of terms

• Special Languages
• Microlanguages
• Technolets
• Languages for special or specific purposes
(LSPs)
• Domain-Specific languages or specialized
languages
 LSPs
• LSPs, i.e. functional language varieties
used in specific domain are the result of a
diatypic variation.
• LSPs do represent actual languages
enclosing a mixture of more or less
specific morphosyntactic features
coexisting in a different degree as
compared to general language.
 LSPs

Initially, research focused on lexicon, the most marked trait

of LSPs, or “the most obvious distinguishing characteristic”.

Later, textual and rhetorical aspects been given

consideration, with a progress from vocabulary through
syntax to textual and rhetorical organisation → complexity
of factors involved in the use of LSPs = semiotically
complex sociolinguistic varieties of language connected
with a wide range of contextual and situational factors.
 LSPs and registers
First studies on specialized languages
on registers, a term borrowed from the
language of music and applied to indicate
the different code varieties available to the
speaker who can choose the most suitable
‘level’ and variety of language for a given
communicative act, with variations in lexico-
grammar as well as in style.
 LSPs and registers
• Registers are varieties according to use
(use-related variety) and differ from each
other primarily in language form (grammar
and lexis).
• Registers reflect another aspect of the
social order, that of social processes, the
different types of social activity that people
commonly engage in.
 LSPs and registers
• A register is a variety especially marked by a
special set of vocabulary (e.g. technical
terminology) associated with a profession or
occupation or other defined social group.
• Register is a semantic concept, as it refers to all
situational and contextual variables that
contribute to the semantic configuration of a
communicative act (Halliday, McIntosh and
Strevens 1964; Halliday 1978).
 LSPs and registers
Register is related to 3 main relevant aspect of the context
of situation:
•the FIELD OF DISCOURSE: the type of social action that
is taking place, its topic and participants’ knowledge about
it and the purpose of he communicative event
•the TENOR OF DISCOURSE which is determined by the
role of participants, their interpersonal and social
relationships.
•the MODE OF THE DISCOURSE, the way in which the
text functions in relation to the situation; it is related to the
medium (written or oral, or a combination of both), the
channel (face-to-face, telephone) and the genre to which
the text belong.
 LSPs and genres

Genre is another dimension of variation.

The word comes from the French (and,
originally, Latin) word for ‘kind’ or ‘class’. It
may be referred to a set of texts with
recognizable formal and stylistic similarities,
e.g. poetry and prose.
 LSPs and genres
It is a recognizable communicative event
characterized by a set of communicative
purposes identified and mutually understood
by the members of the professional or
academic community in which it occurs
(Swales 1990).
Therefore, genre is primarily characterized
by the communicative purposes that is
intended to fulfil.
 LSPs and genres
Changes in communicative purposes give us a
different genre. Bhatia points out that minor
changes or modifications help us to distinguish
SUB-GENRES. But we also find instances of
SUPER-GENRES incorporating a constellation of
individually recognized genres that display strong
similarities across disciplinary and professional
boundaries (e.g. advertisements, sales letters).
Conventionally, we have been using a number of
terms to identify genres, such as advertising or
promotional genres, reports etc.
 REFERENCES
• Bhatia V.K. (1993), Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings,
London, Longman.
• Bhatia V.K., 2002, “Professional Discourse: Towards a Multi-dimensional Approach
and Shared Practice”, in C.N. Candlin, Research and Practice in Professional
Discourse, City University of Hong Kong Press, Hong Kong.
• Gotti M. 2003. Specialized Discourse: Linguistic features and Changing Conventions,
Peter Lang, Bern.
• Halliday M.A.K., McIntosh A., Strevens P. (1964), The Linguistic Sciences and
Language Teaching, London, Longman.
• Halliday M.A.K. (1978), Language as Social Semiotic: the Social Interpretation of
Language and Meaning, London, Edward Arnold (trad. it. G. Berruto, Il linguaggio
come semiotica sociale. Un’interpretazione sociale del linguaggio e del significato,
Bologna, Zanichelli, 1983).
• Swales J.M. (1990), Genre Analysis – English in Academic and Research Settings,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Wandruszka M. (1974), “La lingua quale polisistema socioculturale”, in AA.VV.
(1974), Italiano d’oggi – lingua non letteraria e lingue speciali, Trieste, Lint: 3-17.
• Weinreich U. (1953), Languages in Contact, The Hague, Mouton (trad. it. Lingue in
contatto, con saggi di G. Francescato, C. Grassi e L. Heilmann, Torino, Boringhieri,
1974).