Martin & Rose (2007: 300-1):
The other dimension of mode analysis we need to consider here is the complementary monologue through dialogue cline. This scale is sensitive to the effects of various technologies of communication on the kind of interactivity that is facilitated in spoken vs written discourse, and across a range of electronic channels such as short wave radio, intercom, telephone, fax, e-mail, chat rooms, websites, radio, audio tape, CD/MD, television, DVD/VCD, video and film. The key material factors here have to do with whether interlocutors can hear and see one another (aural and visual feedback) and the imminence of a response (immediate or delayed).
Obviously our written data is not ideal for illustrating this cline here. But technologies facilitate textures; they don’t absolutely determine them. And in any case a technology such as writing affords various degrees of interactivity along the continuum. There’s the possibility of writing dialogue for one thing (scripts of various kinds) and projection can always be used to import dialogue, as it was in Mandela’s exemplum for the imagined repartee:
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, yet again, the unacknowledged source here is Hasan (1989 [1985]: 58):
[2] To be clear, here Martin & Rose confuse context (the mode distinction between monologue and dialogue) with language (dialogue and projection in texts).
[3] To be clear, here Martin & Rose misrepresent the Mandela text (p259) as a script, for the purposes of their argument:
No comments:
Post a Comment