SFG provides a scheme for organising the exploration of linguistic practices. It does not, in itself, provide a basis for addressing issues of power and authority, nor is it necessarily the case that linguistically-based organisational languages are always appropriate for the description of non-linguistic practices. CDA, for example, seems to want to deploy such languages in order to read the social or psychological motivation imagined to be implicit in textuality, but without a theoretical apparatus that directly structures the social or the psychological. In a paper now more than twenty years old, Gunther Kress pointed to the importance of considering the social motivation of the sign, but did not then, nor, as far as I can see, has since provided any theorising of motivation. My project has been to attempt to develop a sociological organisational language that does not seek or claim to describe that which lies beyond its ability to theorise. This is not a closed system, but one that learns from its theoretical and empirical encounters. I want to illustrate two instances of such learning. Both of these were responses to a presentation by Gunther Kress on a masters module that I run at the IoE.

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>