>Perhaps it is possible to distill the essence of a powerful discourse, so
>that it can be presented more efficiently... Halliday and Martin 1993
>Writing Science (University of Pittsburg Press and Falmer-now Taylor &
>Francis) is an attempt to do that for science discourse, including some
>history. Taken alongside the work of Lemke, Bazerman and Myers, maybe we
>are getting to an essence... the evolution of grammatical metaphor
>(nominalisation etc.) to establish technical terms in their taxonomies of
>uncommonsense and to organise the flow of information in argument in
>comsumable ways. Perhaps grammatical metaphor and its deployment in
>definition, classification and explanation can be taught more cheaply
>than an entire science curriculum - but still comprise the powerful stuff
>that might be revoiced from other than mainstream positions.
Perhaps. I wonder though what counts as a revoicing of the powerful
stuff rather than a watered-down version of it. Can you point to
examples?
Can we use already _revoiced_ powerful discourses as models for
what works, or do we compromise their "essence" by doing so?
I ask because you (and many others) seem to define the powerful
stuff in terms of of its dominance markers, the authoritativeness
of the voice. Maybe that's necessary for science discourse - the linkages
between social/ideological positioning & its virtuosity.
>From where I sit, it seems less so of social science & other critical
discourses.
I would benefit from reference to specific texts/ data in your answer.
Thanks, Jim.
Judy
Judy Diamondstone
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu
.................................................