Abstract

ABSTRACTI compare M.A.K. Halliday’s metafunctional system with Jay Lemke’s for the purposes of doing Critical Discourse Analysis. The differences I foreground turn specifically on notions of context and the distinction that Kenneth Burke makes between scientistic and dramatistic approaches to the analysis of meaning. I use a corpus of political and journalistic texts on ‘austerity’ discourses, and two examples from creative arts research projects, to demonstrate differences in the contextual potentials of the two systems that have implications for critical analysis. The analysis highlights differences in what Burke describes as analytic range and circumference, and differences in directionality between the two systems. Halliday’s metafunctions provide a gateway into deeper and more detailed analysis of language, directing analysis into aspects of the text below the level of the clause. Lemke’s is an action focused, two-way semiotic interface between cultural groups and the meanings they make, whether by means of language alone or by multimodal means, and demands that analysis begin with culture.