Abstract

Against the backdrop of proliferating research on multimodality in the fields of literacy and writing studies, this article considers the contributions of two prominent theoretical perspectives—Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and Situated Literacies—and the methodological tensions they raise for the study of multimodality. To delineate these two perspectives’ methodological tensions, I present an analysis of selected recent literature from both approaches and then analyze these tensions further as they emerge in two empirical studies published in this journal illustrating each approach. Despite the fact that SFL and Situated Literacies share some underlying theoretical assumptions and are sometimes drawn upon in concert by scholars, I illustrate how they differ in their treatment of multimodal texts and practices—as well as their methodologies—research design, data collected, analytic methods, and possible implications. This article thus seeks to outline the respective contributions of SFL and Situated Literacies to ongoing research on multimodality in literacy and writing studies and to encourage a conversation across theoretical and methodological borders.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2013-07-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088313488073
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication

Cites in this index (5)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Written Communication
  4. Written Communication
  5. Written Communication
Also cites 21 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2010.01073.x
  2. 10.1080/09500780108666803
  3. 10.4324/9780203448885
  4. 10.1177/1468798409105585
  5. 10.4135/9781446288238
  6. 10.1177/1470357210382186
  7. 10.1080/01596301003679719
  8. 10.1177/1468798409105587
  9. 10.1111/j.1741-4369.2012.00678
  10. 10.3402/edui.v3i3.22041
  11. 10.1177/1468794111399836
  12. 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
  13. 10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003
  14. 10.1016/j.linged.2009.12.003
  15. 10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
  16. 10.1177/1468798409105586
  17. 10.26522/brocked.v21i1.236
  18. 10.1080/00131725.2012.708617
  19. 10.1080/09658410903431721
  20. 10.1177/1468798412438752
  21. 10.1080/1358684X.2012.704583
CrossRef global citation count: 16 View in citation network →