Martin & Rose (2007) on the 'waviform' nature of textual modality
Sunday, 10 Jul 2016, 17:39
Visible to anyone in the world
Sometimes a perception seems so right and academic writers express it with absolutely clear graphic descriptions. At other times I feel the need to redraw them to extract the meanings they have for me. Is this a useful exercise in academic learning? Are its outcomes shareable or do graphics only have clear meaning for their drafter?
I thought I'd test this by redrawing the fig from p. 199 of Martin & Rose (2007) illustrating the meaning and agency of Halliday's terms in Systemic Functional Linguistics to describe periodicity (topographical shape & structure as an element of meaning-making in text).
Can this have meaning for others beside me. of course, when I use it in my EMA I intend to try and explain it but it helped me. Any comments.
Of course, you'd have to know something about SFL to even start thinking about this.
Martin & Rose (2007) on the 'waviform' nature of textual modality
Sometimes a perception seems so right and academic writers express it with absolutely clear graphic descriptions. At other times I feel the need to redraw them to extract the meanings they have for me. Is this a useful exercise in academic learning? Are its outcomes shareable or do graphics only have clear meaning for their drafter?
I thought I'd test this by redrawing the fig from p. 199 of Martin & Rose (2007) illustrating the meaning and agency of Halliday's terms in Systemic Functional Linguistics to describe periodicity (topographical shape & structure as an element of meaning-making in text).
Can this have meaning for others beside me. of course, when I use it in my EMA I intend to try and explain it but it helped me. Any comments.
Of course, you'd have to know something about SFL to even start thinking about this.
All the best
Steve