You are on page 1of 18


In this paper I propose to analyze what are style, context, and register. One is style; you were probably not surprised to learn that your language is spoken differently in the different parts of the world: dialects are a common phenomenon. But you may not be aware that you speak two or more dialects of your own language. When you are out with your friends, you talk one way: when you go on a job interview, you talk differently. These situation dialects are called style. Register, or context of situation as it is formally termed, is the set of meanings, the configuration of semantic patterns, that are typically drawn upon under the specific conditions, with the words and structures that are used in the realization of these meanings (Halliday, 1978:23). Language variation according to the situation in which it is used is called register variation, and varieties of a language that are typical of a particular situation of use are called registers. Each situation makes its own communicative demands informational, social, referential, expressive and people use the features of their language which meet the communicative demands of the situation. The set of language features phonological, lexical, syntactic and pragmatic which is normally used to meet the demands of a particular communicative situation is the register of that situation. Register are simply a rather special case of a particular kind of language being produced by the social situation. Language, like other forms of social activity, has to be appropriate to the speaker using it. This is why, in many communities men and womens speech is different. In certain societies, as we have seen, a man might be laughed to scorn if he used language inappropriate to his sex just as he would be if, in our society he were to wear a skirt. Then, women who were a skirt would also be in danger if being laughed at. (a woman competing in a sprint race or going for a swim in a skirt would undoubtedly look somewhat in congruous, to the point of inviting laughter). Language, in other words, varies not only according to the social characteristic of the speaker (such as his social

class, ethnic group, age and sex but also according to the social context in which he find himself. The same speaker uses different linguistic varieties in different situations and for different purposes such as the way people talk in court, in school, at business meetings and at graduation ceremonies reflects the formality of those contexts and the social roles people take in them. We use more relaxed language at home with those we know well. When we talk differently to babies and adults, or to people from different social backgrounds, we are adapting or accommodating our language to our audience.


A first useful explanation is provided by the notion of style and the related dimension of formality. At times, we are more careful, and at times we are more relaxed in our speech or writing, just as at times we are more careful or more relaxed in other kinds of behavior, like how we dress or eat. This varying level of attention to variety forms a natural continuum, the various levels of which can be divided up in different ways. Each language has its own way of doing this: some, like Javanese or Japanese, have a finely graded set of levels, marked specifically in morphological and lexical choice. How many distinct points there are on what is really a continuum is not important, but most accounts of language (such as those in good dictionaries and complete grammars) now make some reference to levels of stylistic variation. The cautious writer or speaker is warned in this way how others might react to possible choices, just as etiquette books advise readers how to avoid embarrassment in social settings. In the sociolinguistic interviews that Labov conducted in the New York City study referred to earlier, he found evidence of the informal style (the vernacular he was most interested in) being used when a person he was interviewing interrupted to speak to a child who had entered the room, or offered a cup of coffee to the interviewer, or became excited about the story he or she was telling. In the interview, Labov would elicit more formal used by asking the subject to read a passage or read a list of words. To obtain more casual speech, he asked the subject to tell an emotionally significant story. This gave him three or four levels, and the possibility of comparing changes in certain features at each of them. Nearly everybody has at least an informal and a formal style. In an informal style the style the rules of contraction are used more often, the syntactic rules of negation and agreement may be altered, and many words are used that do not occur in the formal style.

Many speakers have the ability to use a number of different styles, ranging between the two extremes of formal and informal. Speakers of minority dialects sometimes display virtuosic ability to slide back and forth along a continuum of styles that may range from the informal patterns learned in a ghetto to formal standard. When William Labov was studying Black English used by Harlem youths he encountered difficulties because the youths (subconsciously) adopted a different style in the presence of white strangers. It took time and effort to gain their confidence to the point where they would forget that their conversations were being recorded and so use their normal style. Many cultures have rules of social behavior that strictly govern style. In some Indo European languages there is the distinction between you familiar and you polite. German du and French tu are to be used only with intimates ; sie and vous are more formal and used with non intimates. French even has a verb tutoyer which means to use the tu form, and German uses the verb duzen to express the informal, or less-honoric style of speaking. Other languages have a much more elaborate code of style usage. In Thai one uses kin eat to his intimates, and very informally ;but he uses thaan eat informally with strangers, and rabprathaan on formal occasions or when conversing with dignitaries or esteemed persons ( such as ones parents ). Thai also has a style for talking about Buddhist monks. The verb eat is chan when said of a monk. The ordinary third-person pronoun in Thai is khaw he, she, it, they, but if the person referred to is a monk a Thai must use than. Japanese and Javanese are also languages with elaboration styles that must be adhered to in certain social situations. One mark of an informal style is the frequent occurrence of slang. Almost everyone uses slang on some occasions, but if the it is not easy to define word. One linguist has defined slang as one of those things that everybody can recognize and nobody can define. The use of slang, or colloquial language, introduces many new words into the language, by recombining old words into new meanings. Spaced out, right

on, hangup, and rip-off have all gained a degree of acceptance. More rarely, slang will come up with an entirely new word for the language, such as barf, flub, and pooped.Slang often grass and pot have widened their meaning to marijuana : pig and fuzz are derogatory terms for policeman :rap, cool, dig, stoned, bread and split have all extended their semantic domain. The words we have cited sound slangly because they have not gained total acceptability. Words such as dwindle, freshman, glib, and mob are former slang words that in time over came their unsavory origin. It is not always easy to know where to draw the line between slang words and regular words. This seems always to have been true. In 1890, John S. Farmer, coeditor with W. E. Henley of slang and its analogues. Remarked: the borderland between slang and the queens English is an illdefined territory, the limits of which have never been clearly mapped out. Hippie and pot are no longer recognized as slang by some persons, but are by others. Also, one generations slang is not another generations slang. Fan (as in dodger fan) was once a slang term, short for fanatic. Phone, too, was once a slangy, clipped version of telephone, as TV was a television. In shakespeares time, fretful and dwindle were slang, and recently goof, blimp, and hot dog were all hard-core slang. The use of slang varies from region to region, as one would expect, so slang in New York and slang in Los Angeles are not the same. Interestingly, the word slang is slang in British English for scold. Slang word and phrases are often invented in keeping with new ideas and customs. They may represent in attitudes better than the more conservative items of the vocabulary. Their importance is shown by the fact that it was thought necessary to give the returning Vietnam prisoners of war a glossary of eighty six new slang words and phrases, from acid to zonked. The words on this list prepared by the air force had come into use during only five years.

The term register is widely used in sociolinguistics to refer to varieties according to use, in linguistic a register is a subset of a language used for a particular purpose or in a particular setting. The term was first used by the linguist Thomas Bertram Reid in 1956, and brought into general currency in the 1960 by a group of linguists who wanted to distinguish between variations in language according to the user (defined by variables such as social background, geography, sex and age), and variations according to use,in the sense that each speaker has arrange of varieties and chooses between them at different times (Halliday et al, 1964) Halliday (1964) identifies three variables that determine register: field, tenor, and mode. Field (the subject matter of the discourse) Where utterances are embedded in an ongoing activity so that they help to sustain and shape it, then the notion of field refers to the activity itself. An utterance such as: -scalpel . . . clips . . . swab here would have as its field the activity of a surgical operation ; whereas an utterance such as; -this is alpha romeo tango requesting clearance to proceed to runway one, over would have as its field yhe activity of taxi-ing an aircraft. Not all instances of language are so closely embedded in an ongoing set of actions, since utterance (spoken or written) may be concerned with a topic or subject matter (ranging form last nights TV programmed to sub-atomic physic) quite remote from the immediate circumstances in which they are produced. In such cases the notion of fields refers not so much to an ongoing activity but to the subject matter of the text.

Tenor (the participant and their relationship) Whereas the field corresponds loosely to what a text is about, tenor refers to the kind of social relation ship enacted in or by the text. The notion of tenor, therefore, highlights the way in which linguistics choices are affected not just by the topic or subject matter of communication is taking place. Assume for a moment a situation in which one person (A) needs someone else (B) to open the door: there is a variety of ways in which this need may be expressed verbally. Indeed, it is difficult to exhaust the possibilities, but A might address B in any of the following ways: 1. Could you possibly open the door? 2. You couldnt open the door, could you? 3. I dont suppose you could open the door for me, could you? 4. Please open the door. 5. Open the door, will you. 6. Open the door. 7. The door! 8. Why dont you open the door? 9. Arent you going to open the door, then? All these utterance, give verbal expression to the same basic need on As part, but they clearly do so in subtly different ways. They differ along various dimensions related to the kind of social relationship obtaining between A and B. some versions are more polite than others: for instance, (1), (2), (3) and (4) are more polite than either (5) or (6). Some versions imply more power or status on As part relative to B, e.g. (7) compared with (1). Some versions imply a greater degree of assumed obligation on Bs part to perform the action, e.g. (8) or (9) compared with (1) or (2).

The examples, there fore, express different forms of social relationship between A and B. th aspects of social relationship most crucial under the heading of tenor include politeness, degrees of formality, and the relative statuses of participants; and these dimensions of interpersonal relations affect a whole range of linguistic choices. The use of modal auxiliary verbs such as might, may, can, could, would, especially in utterances that request action, is often related to politeness. Mode (the channel of communication, e.g. spoken or written) In addition to considerations of topic and social relationship, language is also sensitive to the means adopted for communication. These have varied in an astonishing variety of ways across different cultures and between different historical periods, ranging from tablets of stone and marks on papyri to smoke signals and drum beats. The principal distinction within mode is between those channels of communication that entail immediate contact and those that allow for deferred contact between participants. The prime instance of this distinction in our own culture is that between speech and writing. Despite the fact that even the most literate amongst us spend much more of our time engaging with the spoken medium, it tends to be the written medium that conditions our view of language. This is because control of the two modes is achieved in very different ways. We developed the capacity to speak very early in life with little conscious awareness of the processes involved and with little explicit instruction and as the focus of conscious attention. Indeed it is a prime component of the initial school curriculum and in this context relative relative success or failure in handling the mode attracts praise or censure. The very act of judging the written mode is easier of course, because of its relative permanence in contrast to the transitory nature of speech. Because speech is all-

pervasive, it is taken for granted. Because engagement with the written mode is always something of a struggle, it can unjustifiably come to stand as a tangible though partial sign of overall linguistic competence. Every language has five registers, which are types or levels of language traditionally used in different situations (Joos, 1967). These five registers are: Frozen: printed unchanging language such as bible quotations; often contains archaisms. Formal: one-way participation, no interruption. Technical vocabulary; Fussy semantics or exact definitions are important. Includes introductions between strangers. Consultative: Two-way participation. Background information is provided prior knowledge is not assumed. Backchannel behavior such as uh huh, I see, etc. is common. Interruptions allowed. Casual: In group friends and acquaintances. No background information provided. Ellipses and slang common. Interruptions common. Intimate: Non-public. Intonation more important than wording or grammar. Private vocabulary. Each register is of decreasing formality and its usage depends largely on the relation ship between the two participants in any conversation. Joss also found that there are social rules about the changing of register within a single conversation to go one register downs remains socially acceptable, while dropping two or more registers is considered socially offensive. This can impact students in poverty many ways. Usually these children do not have access to the formal register of their language, as it is not spoken at home, and often they are even unable to use this formal register.

Unfortunately, standardized test and job interviews are conducted in the formal register, which puts those in poverty at a great disadvantage. Additionally, since these students often converse casually, they frequently make use of non-verbal signals or assists that help assign meaning to the language. Thus, when attempting to express themselves in writing, students can become lost without the non-verbal strategies of communication on which they have come to rely. Between these registers, one also finds differences in discourse patterns. There are two meanings of discourse which must be considered. The first refers to the manner in which information is organized. In the formal register, one usually gets straight to the point. In the casual, however, it is common to find patterns that go around the point before returning to it. This means that those without access to the formal register are often hard to follow and frustrating in conversation to those more accustomed to the formal register. This can have ramifications in areas like the conversation in parent-teacher conferences and student writing. Another meaning of discourse is attached to the differences between primary and secondary discourse. Which are the language and individual first acquired and the language of the larger society that must be used in order to function, respectively. Teachers must recognize this disconnect and try to understand it, as students may not perform as well if they attend a school conducted in a language other than their primary discourse. They must essentially translate between one pattern or discourse and another. This compilation requires that teachers actually teach the formal register and its patterns of discourse to the students who have not yet mastered it. It is not simply enough to expect that they will acquire the language through exposure, as true language acquisition requires a significant relationship between the learner and the modeler.

Many social factors can come into play in controlling which variety form this verbal repertoire is actually to be used on particular occasion. For example, if a speaker is talking to the people he works with about their work, his language is like to be rather different from that he will use, say, at home with his family. While note had been taken earlier of the effect of social class on speech, it was the work of William Labov in New York that established social stratification, the study of class distinction in speech, as a major topic in sociolinguistics. Labov himself started out with a purely linguistic question. He wanted to know how, in the terms of the structural linguistics that was in vogue when he was a graduate student, to set up a phonological analysis that included features that were sometimes zero. What were you to do, he asked, in New York City, where speakers sometime pronounced the /r/ after a vowel (post-vocalic /r/) and sometimes didnt? the notion of free variation, the notion that the choice of variant was uncontrolled and without significance, was widely used for such cases, but it seemed an satisfactory dodging of the question. He wondered next whether there was any scientifically observable explanation to the variation. In a clever pilot study, he found that the shop staff (socioeconomically similar in level, but finely varied by the differences in customers and prices) showed regular and predictable variation. The percentage of r-coloration (any tendency to pronounce post-vocalic /r/), he found, correlated closely with the social level of the customers of the store. In fact, in one store, he found a higher percentage of use of the prestige feature among sales people on the higher, more expensive floors of the store. In later studies, using extensive interviews with subjects selected on the basis of their socioeconomic classification, the relevance of sociolinguistic evidence to socioeconomic stratification was firmly established. In cities, variations in speech provide clear evidence of social status.

There are historical explanations for social differentiation. The coming of a group Tewa speakers to the Hopi villages in Arizona explains why the people in the village of Hano were bilingual in Hopi and Tewa, but it was sociocultural and religious differences that accounted for the maintenance of this cleavage for two hundred years. There were similar reasons for the three distinct dialects of Baghdad Arabic, one Christian, one Jewish, and the third Moslem. The different religious groups lived in the same city while maintaining social and cultural isolation. While historical differences may also be the original cause of social differentiation in large cities (and this is certainly true now as increasingly large groups of immigrants arrive in most cities), there can develop socially marked stratification within a single language. New York is the classic case. Leaving aside the special minority groups (the Blacks and the Hispanics). New Yorkers speak a kind of English that includes the same features, but with certain crucial and socially relevant differences in their distribution. Certain salient phonological variables (such as the r-colouring or the pronunciation of [th] or the height of the vowels in bad or off) vary in all speakers in various situations, with a more standard or prestigious version appearing more often in more formal speech. Thus, the pattern for lower middle-class speakers in New York was to use the stigmatized /t/ or /t/ pronunciations only occasionally in very careful speech reading word lists, to use it about 20% of the time in careful speech, and to use it 30% of the time in casual speech. Each social level (as determined on the basis of income, occupation, and education) had a similar gradation according to style or degree of formality. But there were also marked differences between the social levels. In casual speech, for instance, the uppermiddle class would used a stigmatized form about 10% of the time, the lower-middle class about 20%, the working class about 80%, and the lower class about 90 %. Thus, the same feature differentiated the stylistic level and the social level.

In practice, these fairly fine differences, which affect only a small part of speech and do not interface with intelligibility, help New Yorkers to identify themselves and each other socially. Sometimes they do this even more subtly and sensitively than do more obvious socioeconomic markers like income and education. There are social forces leading to or delaying the diffusion. One striking observation was a tendency in the upwardly mobile, and socially insecure lower-middle class to over-use (relative to the normal slope) socially desirable features in very careful speech and reading. This hypercorrection suggest that the feature is recognized as a stereotyped rather than still serving as an unconscious social marker. The analyses we have discussed to date of these variations have depended on associating linguistic features (for example, the percentage of r-coloration) with social or demographic factors (gender, educational level, socioeconomic status). As far as it goes, the explanatory power of these correlation and causation are not the same thing. We obtain a more powerful account of what is involved if we add social psychological factors like attitude and accommodation, and consider them as causes.


1. Javanese one uses mangan eat to his friends, and very informally ; but he uses nedo eat informally with strangers, and dahar on formal occasions or when conversing with dignitaries or esteemed persons (such as to our parents). 2. Javanese one uses sampeyan you to the stranger and panjenengan you when conversing with dignitaries persons. 3. Japanese one uses hara stomach for men and onaka stomach for women. 4. German one uses du for informal greeting, but for formal greeting they uses sie. 5. In Indonesian language one uses kau you to his intimates and non informally, but he uses anda you when conversing with esteemed persons.


Johannes Iwan Iwan Johannes : What is your opinion about the girl that I introduce to you last night? : She is core duo Intel with 4 gigabyte memory. : Wow, thats great Based on the conversation above, the first speaker asked the opinion about the girl to the second speaker. Then, he answer that the Pc case is good, it means that the girl is very beautiful. Next, he asked about her Pentium to the first speaker, he said she has core duo Intel means that she is smart girl. This conversation was happen between the people who work at the computer store.

: I think she has a good PC(personal computer) case, how about her Pentium?

Soldier 1: Kodok satu, kodok satu disini kadal bunting sudah disarang lebah,copy. Soldier 2: Di copy kadal buntung, disini kodok satu menuju sasaran. Soldier 1: Kadal buntung perlu telur banyak, sarang lebah banyak lebahnya, copy. Soldier 2: Dicopy, siap untuk memakan sarang lebah. Tetap di posisi kadal buntung,copy. Those conversations are happen between soldier when they want to attack their enemy. They uses special code on walkie-talkie such as kodok satu, kadal buntung it means the name of the team, telur is the code name of soldier and sarang lebah is the code name of the enemy.


Example 1 At school Asti: Excuse me mam, I want to ask about our assignment, when we must collect to you? Teacher: next week, on third February you must collect your assignment. Asti: I will, Thank you mam At home

Asti: Ma where is my shoes? I couldnt find it. Mother: Over there, under the table. Can you see that? Asti: Oh yeah, thanks ma Example 2 In Javanese conversation With friends Ariek: Hei, koen wingi nang endi? Awakmu digoleki karo bayu! Yogi: Lapo, aku wingi nang THR tuku klambi

Ariek: Oh walah, mangkane koen gak onok nang omah. Yo wes lek ngunu, iku loh bayu saiki nang lapangan. Yogi: Iyo suwun, maringunu tak mrono. With his parents Father : Le, awakmu wingi digoleki bayu, kowe nang endi? Yogi Yogi : Wonten nopo pak, larene madosi kulo? : Ngge pun pak, kula teng nggene bayu rumiyin, monggo. Father : Yo ora wero le, paling ono perlu. Father : Yo le, ojo mole bengi-bengi yo le. Example 3 Conversation between pedicab driver Bejo Bejo : Cak, yok opo wingi sampeyan narik oleh piro? : Wah enak laan, dibayar 20.000. Parmin : Jamput, wingi aku momot wong lemu, mek dibayar 20.000. Parmin : Enak gundulmu iku abot ngengkoline goblok. ket kotamadya sampe jembatan merah rasane ambekan ilang . Bejo : Saknone cak, cak Conversation between teacher Teacher 1: Menurut bapak, anak anak sekarang sudah ada peningkatan nilai atau tidak? Teacher 2: Kalau dilihat dari nilai mereka akhir akhir ini, ada sedikit peningkatan. Teacher1: Tidak sia-sia kita buat bimbingan belajar selama ini, benar kan pak? Teacher2: Benar sekali bu, tapi kita harus meningkatkannya lagi. In example no 1 we speak differently when we at the school and at home , this happen because of social context. We speak with different participant and setting

In example no 2 how the way we speak with our friends and our parents is distinguish. We tend to use polite language when we speak with our parents, but if we talk with our friends we can use informally or slang language. In example 3 the conversation between pedicab driver will quite different with conversation between the teacher. This is because of the topic what is being talked about and besides that pedicab driver more tend to use impolite languge than the teacher it is because of different background education.