Contrasting Systemic Functional Linguistic and Situated Literacies Approaches to Multimodality in Literacy and Writing Studies

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.

Assessing students’ multimodal compositions: an analysis of the literature

“…artifacts, experiences, technological tools); promoting flexible criteria; and including iterative, formative practices. Changing “what counts” in classrooms is a stated aim of multiliteracies and other social semiotic approaches foundational to much of the work on multimodality in English education (Anderson, 2013; Nash, 2018; Zammit, 2018). However, the realities of classrooms, schools, policies, and teacher perspectives are also important as undeniable mediators of classroom practice.…”

“…Multiliteracies is a common theoretical lens through which multimodal literacies are cast (Anderson, 2013), drawing on the New London Group (1996) and others (Cope and Kalantzis, 2009) who argue that texts and meaning making are fluid, sociohistorically shaped, and contextually situated. However, despite the prevalence of multiliteracies approaches in scholarship on English language education as well as studies documenting the promise of multimodal composition, students’ multimodal compositions are often assessed in ways that are incommensurate with a multiliteracies approach or with insufficient flexibility and complexity (Davis and Reed, 2003; Mills and Exley, 2014; Wahleithner, 2014).…”

Seeing Academically Marginalized Students’ Multimodal Designs From a Position of Strength

“…Multimodality is a family of approaches with varied theoretical and methodological tenets (Jewitt, 2014). The social semiotic perspective to which we ascribe cuts across many approaches taken by scholars interested in the affordances of MTs and digital media authoring practices (Anderson, 2013). Studies of multimodal design from a social semiotic perspective acknowledge the equal importance of text and social context for interpreting meaning (Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanič, 2000; NLG, 1996).…”

Multimodal Resemiotization and Authorial Agency in an L2 Writing Classroom

“…Multimodal representation and communication have long been part of writing studies, beginning with the basic visual and spatial elements of traditional paper-based texts, and expanding more recently to audio and video elements in multimedia texts (Lotherington & Jenson, 2011; Palmeri, 2012). Although multimodality long predates the digital era in human communication, with the expansion of digital multimedia over the past two decades, multimodality has come to increasingly dominate students’ textual landscapes and writing processes (Adami & Kress, 2014; Anderson, 2013; Fraiberg & You, 2012; Kress, 2003; Selfe, 2009; Wolfe, 2005). Writers often strategically weave modes and discourses from different times and places into their texts when they engage in writing that integrates semiotic resources into a multimodal ensemble (e.g., Jewitt, 2006; Jewitt & Kress, 2003).…”

“…In particular, it investigates the design process of reusing, revising, remixing, and redistributing semiotic resources across contexts, the contextual factors shaping designing choices, and the authorial stances in creating a multimodal text. This investigation aims to expand aspects of multimodal writing and literacy practice by examining the discursive nature of the design process in linguistically and culturally diverse contexts, and by looking at both its texts and practices using principles of sociosemiotic ethnography (Anderson, 2013; Iedema, 2001; Prior, 2013; Prior & Thorne, 2014; Vannini, 2007). This multimedia-based study also adds a new layer to the existing research on remediation through an examination of how meaning making is shaped by a new medium, and how meanings are shifted across semiotic modes in the context of digital authoring.…”