In this chapter, we are concerned with the “hybridity” of registers — the mixture of functional varieties of language operating in different institutional domains [fn1] (with “register” in the original sense of the term in systemic functional linguistics, e.g. Halliday, McIntosh & Strevens, 1964; Hasan, 1973; Halliday, 1978; Matthiessen, 1993, 2013; Lukin et al., 2008).
For example, registers
... [Show full abstract] involving some kind of event line include both (1) recounts of events that have actually taken place as one prominent way of chronicling or recording the past and (2) narratives of events that are imagined to have taken place in a fictitious world. These two registers are clearly distinct prototypes, operating in different institutions such as the institution of academic history and the institution of entertainment-&-recreation, and involving different professional writers such as historians and fiction writers. However, factual recounts and fictional narratives shade into one another in biographical narratives that are based in part on the lives of real people. This blurring between the two is what Halliday (2011: Section 5.3) characterizes as the current “fashion for fake histories”, relating it to “the reaction against the dominance of ideational meaning in some highly technologized cultures”:
"In literature, there is now a fashion for fake histories — fictional stories woven around real people and events, blurring the distinction between chronicle and fantasy and weaving a web of interpersonal tensions and emotions. […] The reaction against the perceived tyranny of information is a flight into the interpersonal regions of meaning."
In order to explore such registerial hybridity further, we will draw on a context-based typology of registers — that is, a typology of functional variation in language seen “from above”, from the vantage point of context (see Matthiessen, 2006; Teruya, 2007; Matthiessen, Teruya & Lam, 2010; Matthiessen, 2013, forthc.). We introduce this typology in Section 2.
Having introduced it, we will present an interpretation of “hybridity” based on the notion of indeterminacy that was put forward in Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 547-562) as a way of getting at “fuzziness”, “vagueness”, “ambivalence” and the like (cf. Halliday, 1995; Matthiessen, 1995). We will introduce the following types of indeterminacy: ambiguities, overlaps, blends, neutralizations and complementarities in Section 3.
In the remainder of the chapter, we will discuss the first four of these types of indeterminacy (leaving complementarities for another occasion) — ambiguities in Section 4, overlaps in Section 5, blends in Section 6, and neutralizations in Section 7. In the Conclusion (Section 8), we return to the context-based register typology and locate the cases of indeterminacy we have discussed within it. We round off the chapter with a brief consideration of other kinds of register mixing.
---
[fn 1:] We use the term register in its original sense in systemic functional linguistics of a functional variety of language — rather than in the derived sense of the contextual setting of field, tenor and mode in which such a functional variety operates (as in Martin, 1992).