Systemic Functional Linguistics - Science topic

I started writing a long response and then the website disappeared so a shorter version this time. Check out out Lexis education website, in particular https://lexised.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Recipe-for-success-Lina-Russo-2021.pdf.

Very happy to follow up with you as this isa burning issue for me!

Cheers

Brian Dare

Nikolarea Ekaterini , sure. Thanks.

Although I made my doctorate with Greimas, I would not recommend getting involved with his complicated theories, given the rather modest aim of you interest in narrativity. I think the best text on narrativity, with no particular epistemological presuppositions, in Logique de récit, by Claude Bremond from 1973. As far as I know, there is no English translation. The best overview in English may still be Narratology : the form and functioning of narrative, by Gerald Prince, from 1982. Both references are rather old, but Prince at least has an ongoing online handbook project here: http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/users/gerald-prince

Best wishes

Göran Sonesson

Dear Mohammad，

Thanks for your patience in answering my questions. The detailed explanations are rather helpful to me. Actually, as I see it, genre colonization and genre appropriation are two sides of a coin. I am looking forward to reading your new papers. Kindly let me know when they come out.

best wishes,

Wenge

Yes, CDA can be applied to the study of language (which means everyday language I guess) and literature, as for the former, there are CDA based anlayses such as about US presidential addresses, and for the latter there are anlayses about JK Rowling's Harry Potter noves. 

You may find my chapter "Deonstemic Modals in Legal Discourse: The Cognitive Semiotics of Layered Actions" (available in penultimate draft form on researchgate useful. Cognitive Linguistic approaches to modality and mood share many commitments with SFG.

I think it is important to remember that nominalisation is a central feature of academic discourse and texts - it is what makes both reading and writing in the university so difficult for so many students on entry. Alerting students to the fact that academic discourse is no-one's mother tongue helps them to recognise the strangeness of this particular use of language and that which sets it apart from everyday speech. So pointing out explicit evidence of how nominalisation works is, from my experience, very useful for all students. The fact that the use of the passive emerges is also crucial to draw attention to - the one response here shows how it works in the Sciences, but the other key work it does is to overtly conceal agency -  in many contexts, the deliberate choice to use the passive is underpinned by sinister motives. So yes, teach it, but don't go over the top with it. It will become more and more apparent to students anyway, as they progress through their studies. It is also possible to create authentic activities - within a discipline, derived from a relevant text s.

Depending on the type of multimodality you are looking at, there are a range of other approaches. Considering text-image relations, apart from Forceville, a look at the works by Hartmut Stöckl, Ludwig Jäger or Werner Holly might be of interest to you. If you are interested in gesture-speech relations from a linguistic perspective, works by Ellen Fricke, Cornelia Müller or Alan Cienki might be of helpful. A good overview of multimodality research on speech and gesture, also presenting approaches from psychology, semiotics, or anthropology, for instance, is given in the 2 volume handbook "Body-Language-Communication" published by de Gruyter in 2013 and 2014. 

Dear colleague,

I have written different papers on Appraisal Theory and newspaper discourse. You can have a look at my publications in my profile. They may be useful for your research.

Best Regards

Apparently both approaches might look pretty similar but they are different at heart. To me, appraisal framework (AF) is more structural focused whereas critical discourse analysis (CDA) is more social and radical in its stances. AF looks at how interpersonal meaning has been established in the language use; CDA analyses how particular language use influences and affects its audience i.e. the former is concerned with the product whereas the latter is not only concerned with the process and the possible consequences but also how to improve circumstances in a given situation. CDA goes beyond the meaning of language by locating hidden ideologies, which are much stronger than judgments detected through AF. Judgments are results of ideologies that form the basis of particular language use. Unlike AF, CDA is philosophically analytical in broader perspectives with greater implications. CDA might well have a change agenda to reform and relieve the audience affected by the misuse of language power which AF is unlikely to target. Contrary to CDA, AF has limited scope of analyzing language under three main categories of attitude, engagement and graduation. On the other hand, CDA has much broader perspectives and stances to decode the language and its meaning at micro and macro level.