Systemic Functional Linguistics as appliable linguistics: social accountability and critical approaches
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is concerned with the relationship between Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and with SFL as a resource for socially accountable academic work. First it locates SFL within the general category of appliable linguistics (as opposed to either theoretical or applied linguistics), an approach to the study of language that is also designed to be socially accountable. Then, against the background of SFL, it traces the development first of Critical Linguistics and then of CDA, also identifying other influences incorporated within these traditions. Next, it compares CDA with other orientations within discourse analysis from the perspective of SFL, and proposes the notion of appliable discourse analysis (ADA). This leads to an overview of the dimensions of ADA, and finally to the question of the place of ADA within a general appliable linguistics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it