APPL710/910 Critical Review Essay Assignment
Added on - 03 May 2020
APPL710/910 Critical Review Essay Assignment
Trusted by +2 million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 4 of 13 pages
Running Head:EXPLORING DISCOURSE IN CONTENT AND ACTION1EXPLORING DISCOURSE IN CONTENT AND ACTIONName:Institution:Course Code:
EXPLORING DISCOURSE IN CONTENT AND ACTION2Article summary and critical review.Exploring Discourse in Content and Action.The concept of exploring discourse in content and action fall under APPL910 in the study unit.This particular unit has a core objective on different discourse analysis such as spoken, written aswell as multimodal discourse (Flowerdew, 2014). Collectively, the discourse analysis is based ona range of real-life situations, domains as well as settings. Typically, this type of discourse canbe traced back in the historical, institutional as well as in domestic contexts (Locke, 2004). Manyscholars and researchers have used discourse analysis research and practice so as to focus onexplanatory, interpretivist along with descriptive analysis on the methodologies associatedexploring discourse in content and action.Critically, discourse analysis is based on interdisciplinary concept that involves semiotics,discourse as well as linguistics, analysis (Marylene, 2014). It main concern is articulated bytheories and researches on social processes as well as in social change. By emphasizing so muchon political analysis of policies along with many practices in the society, the aspects of criticaldiscourse analysis indicate how scholars and researchers contribute to reproduction of dominantdiscourses (Maslow, 2013). This discourse analysis in content and action assert a desire forpositive social, cultural economic as well as political change. From this particular point of view,a distinct understanding of what happens in a given interactional episode tend to be contingent aslong as one is able to understand the most appropriate place in the desired macro societal context(Paltridge, 2012). Therefore, a lot of information concerning the concept of discourse in contentan action has been analyzed by different researchers and scholars in relation to the focus of theresearch and the point of interest of that particular researcher.The main focus of this particular paper is to critically review the relevant journal articles onexploring discourse in content and action (Rogers, 2011). The following journal articles will beused in this report.1Sarangi, S., Clarke, A. Bennett, K., & Howell, L.(2003). Categorization practices acrossprofessional genres: some analytical insights from genetic counselling. In S.Sarangi & T.Van Leeuwen (eds)Applied linguistics and communities of practice. London. Continuum(pp.150-168).
EXPLORING DISCOURSE IN CONTENT AND ACTION32Roberts, C. & Campbell, S. (2005). Fitting stories into boxes.Journal of AppliedLinguistics2(1), (pp.45-72).3Sarangi, S. & Candlin, C. (2003). Categorization and explanation of risk: a discourseanalytical perspective.Health, Risk & Society, 5(2), (pp.115-124).In this case, the three peer reviewed journal articles for academic work will reviewed. (1)Categorization practices across professional genres: some analytical insights from geneticcounselling. In S.Sarangi & T. Van Leeuwen (Eds)Applied linguistics and communities ofpracticeby Sarangi, Clarke, Bannett & Howell. (2003), (2)Fitting stories into boxes.Journal ofAppliedLinguisticsby Roberts & Campbell (2005)and (3)Categorization and explanation ofrisk: a discourse analytical perspective.Health, Risk & Societyby Sarangi & Candlin (2003).The three articles have been selected so as to address the objectives on theme 2 in connection toexploring recourse in content and action. In that case, the three-academic peer reviewed journalarticles indicated above have attempted to critically review, analyze and emphasize on the coreconcept of discourse in content and action in similar definition as well as with distinct generaloverview.To begin with, we review article (1).Categorization practices across professional genres: someanalytical insights from genetic counselling. In S.Sarangi & T. Van Leeuwen (Eds)Appliedlinguistics and communities of practiceby Sarangi, Clarke, Bannett & Howell. (2003). Thisarticle indicates the methods or models used to approach discourse analysis. According to thearticle, different analysts adopt the most appropriate methodologies and procedures. They focuson the topic and research questions along with their main point of focus. The researcher tends tojustify their own methodologies so as to express the best point of views and interests(Sarangi,Clarke, Bennett & Howell,2003). According to the assertions of this article there has beendebate in discourse research. Discourse in content and action rumble on despite the manychallenges. The proponents of the traditions tend to challenge the claims of other researchers anddifferent viewpoints.
EXPLORING DISCOURSE IN CONTENT AND ACTION4The author of this article focusses on debate raised by different researchers and theorists in theirdiverse nature of domains, disciples, nature of data along with discourse traditions. Based on thearguments of this article, the disciplines that diversify from discourse analysis include sociology,psychology, politics, social policy and cultural studies(Sarangi, Clarke, Bennett & Howell,2003). In the same note, the domains in this case include social relation, sense making, culture,mind and social interaction. This implies that the relationship between these domains anddisciplines has a perfect positive correlation. The research approach used in this article is mixedresearch approach. This is because it has applied both qualitative and quantitative data methods.The type of data considered in this article is gathered via interview, group focus, politicalspeeches, conversations occurring naturally, media representations, documents as well asexperimental records.In conclusion, the content of this article focusses on improving social and health care services, ithas expounded on critical thinking based on different views of social aspects(Sarangi, Clarke,Bennett & Howell,2003). It is therefore appropriate to select the most appropriate researchmethodologies by explicitly applying the concepts of discourse, discourse analysis and discoursein content and action demonstrated from the traditions of discourse analysis.By reviewing article (2),fitting stories into boxes.Journal of AppliedLinguisticsby Roberts &Campbell (2005), the growth of critical discourse analysis is the main focus. By the assertion ofthis article, discourse analysis affirm itself as an aspect of social science as well as humanitywhich has been applied to offer scientific approaches to language study since it has beenmanifested across the different cohorts of people (Roberts & Campbell, 2005). According toRoberts and Campbell, discourse analysis is close to intellectual orthodoxy. The article assertthat critical discourse analysis is a theory that need to be utilized in inclusive sense. However,discourse analysis has been subjected to risk of over-generalization but this article aims atexploring the specific usefulness of critical discourse analysis and prove its necessity toresearchers and other scholars (Roberts & Campbell, 2005). This has been demonstrated by aclose relationship between content and action with discourse analysis as well as from the aspectsof power such as inequality, dominance and political struggle.The article is about how critical discourse analysis relate to language and power. It also indicatesin small extent the relationship between struggle and conflict. The article indicates how criticaldiscourse analysis incorporate the concept of microanalysis of texts. This has been achieved by