As some of my recent posts have indicated, my first time out to the SBL annual meeting was very enjoyable. I learned an awful lot, and I met some new people, some of whom I’d been hoping to meet. I also didn’t do enough fun things or meet enough new people, which is a problem I intend to remedy next time. I did see many, many sessions, and one of the things that I have often been told about SBL presentations was entirely true. Though some of them are very good, and entirely engaging, some of them are very, very, very boring. I’ve been reading some Ruqaiya Hasan this week, and she’s given me some language to help pin down why, from the perspective of functional linguistics (SFL particularly), that is.
The presentations that I saw at SBL that were poor were not poor due to mediocre research or specious reasoning. In fact very few of the presentations I saw suffered from plain old crappy scholarship. Instead they suffered from problems related to register.* In some cases this was unavoidable. This isn’t because those presentations were bad. The problem was a breakdown between Field and Mode.
Briefly, Field is an SFL term used to describe “the nature of the social activity…the kind of acts being carried out and their goal(s)” (Hasan, Language, Context, and Text, 56). In the case of the presentations I’m thinking of, the kinds of acts being carried out were just too much for the Mode, or the way in which they were being carried out. Mode is essentially concerned with the way language itself is being used in communication, including the idea of Channel (phonic or graphic) and Medium (Spoken or Written) (Hasan, 57-59). The semantic content and rhetorical drive of these presentations were too heavy for a phonic channel (something spoken aloud). The latter could not bear the weight of the former. The weight of the information that was brought to bear simply overrode what was possible for the social situation of an oral presentation. It was like watching a hippo sit on a folding chair.
The other kind of breakdown that I saw was related less to a conflict between Field and Mode, and more to a conflict between two sub-categories of Mode. As I just indicated, Hasan differentiates between Channel (phonic/graphic) and Medium (spoken/written). At first this seems redundant, as it seems that a phonic Channel should always have a spoken Medium. But she uses this distinction to illustrate that some kinds of communication involve splitting this expected pairing. Think of a personal letter (Hasan, 59), where the Medium is words written on paper, but the Channel is much more like phonic communication, like speaking aloud in a conversational tone. One is writing, to borrow Hasan’s term, “as-if” one were speaking.
That as-if is very important, particularly for oral presentations. What happened in many of the SBL presentations I attended is that the presenter wrote a scholarly paper, and then when presenting it, spoke as-if he or she were still writing a scholarly paper. Spoken Medium but Graphic Channel. This is backwards. One can split the expected Channel-Medium pairing, but it has to happen in the other direction. Thus one would write the presentation as-if it were an oral presentation meant to be heard by the audience and not a paper meant to be read by the audience. There is no need to dumb things down to do this. All that is required is that one writes as one would speak in, for instance, a classroom setting. Use the first person personal pronoun (for shame!), use contractions (sir, I protest!), even the occasional colloquialism isn’t out of the question (the very idea!). What you present at a conference can’t possibly be a full paper in any case, as there simply isn’t the time (average journal articles being 25-30ish pages). It is only sensible, then, to try to line up your Channel with what will have the maximal communicative effect for your audience.
* Yes, I know I talk about linguistic register a lot. In case you haven’t cottoned on yet, it’s part of my dissertation research…in theory at least.