I tend not to do things like that. I can see where some people might
find it as a way to unburden some of the work around a concept by
differentiating it into 2.... but either works.
gee of course reminded me of kress, which reminds me of the discussion
of affordances in van leeuwen's 'introducing social semiotics'
textbook, which might be all one needs to do 'discourse on the object
level' if one wanted to do it through a theory of affordances in
relation to design.
On Apr 23, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Gavin Melles wrote:
> It might pay to use James gees distinction of D/discourse big D for
> the non textual stuff
>>
>
<snipped for the relief of digest readers who i often forget>
|