Linguistic analysis of field, tenor, and mode in a Robert Pattinson interview

Conversation

Mode, Tenor, and Field in a Casual Conversation: An Interview with Twilight's Robert Pattinson

The movie trilogy based off the book series Twilight has caused an immense stir amongst filmgoers, especially female filmgoers, of all ages above a certain hormonal threshold. Having personally seen these movies, the author can say with a fair amount of confidence that there is little truly intellectual or philosophical value in the story told; even the mythic elements and character archetypes that are touched on in the films never fully develop. This does not mean that there is absolutely no academic value derived from the film, however, and in fact a certain interview conducted with Robert Pattinson, one of the stars and primary heartthrobs of the Twilight series, provides interesting information about the movies and bout the nature of language.

In the following pages, an interview with Robert Pattinson conducted by "Chuck the Movieguy," an amateur-ish movie reviewer with a video blog series and available for viewing on youtube, will be examined according to certain linguistic concepts. Specifcially, the field, tenor, and mode of this particular conversation will be identified and analyzed, so as to develop a fuller and more detailed understanding of exactly what is being said (and not said), and how it is being said. A great deal of artifice is explicitly referenced in the conversation and is also found to be embedded in certain external aspects of the conversation and its context as well, showing a much greater degree of continuity and integrity in the various conversational elements than might be expected, yet for reasons without much integrity at all.

Field

In linguistic terminology, the term "field" refers to the explicit subject matter or topic of a given conversation (Kleifgen 2006). In other words, the field is the substance of the conversation as it can be perceived through the actual words and their dictionary (or commonly understood) definitions and meanings (Kleifgen 2006). In some perspectives, this is the simplest, most direct, and primary aspect of language, and the one whose purpose must be directly fulfilled before moving to include deeper levels of conversation Kleifgen 2006). Through an examination of the field of a given conversation, the effects of subject matter and meaning on vocabulary and word choice in a particular instance can be demonstrated.

In this interview the subject matter is, broadly put, Twilight. Mor specifically, the field of the conversation is Robert Pattinson's role in the movie series and the enormous fan response that it has generated. This includes some commentary on the effect of this fan response on Chuck the Movieguy's website, and while certain specifics of the filming and promotional experience are discussed it is generally in the context of the craze surrounding Pattinson. In noting the peculiarities of filming and fan response, Pattinson describes feelings of both awkwardness and fear due to the pressures that the fans create, brining the emotional experience of facing these fans and contending with them during filming into the field as well. Overall, the field of the conversation contains the experience of filming certain scenes, the enormity of fan response to the films, and the effects of fan response on filming and publicity.

The choice of words that this field leads to is a very interesting feature of this conversation, because despite the casual seeming nature of the conversation there are certain undercurrents that seem to be affecting and limiting word choice to some degree. Specifically, Chuck the Movieguy turns to the camera and addresses the viewer directly a few times, and while it is clear from the language used that Pattinson is made uncomfortable by the attention he receives from fans, neither Chuck nor Pattinson use any language that could be considered aggressive or offensive -- words that might be expected given the conversation's field. Words that are used a lot by both Pattinson and Chuck are "I" and "they," referring to the fans, which set up a clear dichotomy and thus establishing a certain degree of camaraderie by association for the two participants in the conversation, as well.

Mode

The third major category of analysis for conversations is the mode, which can be thought of as answering the question, "What is the language doing?," or perhaps, "How is the language doing what it does?" (Kleifgen 2006). The mode contains some basic information such as the "code" -- the language being spoken, and more specifically the dialect or iteration of that language -- and more complex parameters such as the precise function of the language and the way in which one conversation compares to other conversations (Kleifgen 2006). The physical type of communication present, such as written text, email, spoken word, etc., is also considered an important part of the mode for any conversation or other language-based interaction or communication between individuals.

The mode in the conversation at hand is quite obviously spoken English, and the two speakers appear to be sharing the same exact code despite different regional backgrounds and countries of origin leading to a greater possibility that there would be some divergence of language between the two. At the same time, it is not clear that the two conversants here are truly listening to each other; Chuck the Movieguy has a tendency to interrupt Pattinson before the actor is done responding to a question, and at the same time some of Pattinson's responses seem only tangentially related to the questions asked. It seems at times as though the content of the conversation is not as important to either participant as is the simple fact that the conversation is taking place, making the mode somewhat difficult to ascertain.

It becomes easier to understand exactly what the language is accomplishing here, and how it is accomplishing its purpose, when the overall context of the conversation is examined. Pattinson is here as part of what is known as a junket, a large gathering of individuals from the press brought together with people involved in the production and promotion of a film for the express purpose of creating a big media hubbub. Interviewers and actors meet with each other in rapid succession, allowing all interviewers to get a brief and essentially pointless crack at each of the actors or other involved parties for the purposes of putting together soundbites and sometimes presenting entire interviews. Chuck is told by an off-screen voice that he is out of time at the end of this interview, showing a distinct sift in the power dynamic and also reminding the viewer that what is occurring in this conversation is an attempt to promote, on both sides -- Pattinson is promoting his career and his movie, and Chuck the Movieguy is promoting his career and his video blog. As long as the two can be seen interacting in a personable way, this mission is accomplished.

Conclusion

The conversation between Chuck the Movieguy and Robert Pattinson is ultimately meaningless, which is ironic due to the fact that much of what is discussed is the essential meaninglessness of the film. Still, it provides an interesting conversation for examination. Even Twilight can't be all bad if it can help us understand the concepts if field, tenor, and mode.

Referneces

Chuck the Movieguy. (2009). Interview with Robert Pattinson. Accessed 8 April 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YIoPgyTXYg&cc=1

Kleifgen, J. (2006). Field, Tenor, Mode & the Web. Accessed 8 April 2011. http://www.tc.columbia.edu/faculty/kleifgen/tech_n_lit/notes_ftm_halliday.htm