Introduction

In the course of reading papers for the workshop, it became clear that we do not all share the same terminology. This may appear to be a very minor concern, manageable (as stated by many) by each of us clearly defining our terminology, but on closer examination, it seems that it is not merely an issue of terminology, but a lack of agreement on what I will be referring to as the underlying primitives, the variables used for the analysis. Consequently, this discussion will be shaped by the need to agree on some finite number of primitives for the analysis of what I prefer to refer to (following Biber and Finegan, 1994) as “register,” but which is discussed in Bell's chapter under the cover term “style.”

To the degree that terminology alone is at issue, careful definitions may permit inter-researcher communication (“I say [tomeitow]; you say [tomatow].”) but to the degree that we do not share our theoretical analytical primitives, our work may not be comparable no matter how carefully we define our terms. It is not sufficient for us to each define carefully what we are looking at, if we do not reach an understanding that will permit us to all follow a research design that would make our work mutually intelligible.

The present paper will attempt to evaluate the primitives advanced by Allan Bell, whose seminal paper (1984) launched the research focus that is being discussed here.