This critique addresses questions posed in the assignment.

Thus the analysis treats questions of theme, cohesiveness, thoughtfulness, and originality. More broadly, this essay addresses how the author treated discourse analysis in understanding the purpose of human language. The following sections correspond to the assignment. Section one assesses the authors point of view. Section two discusses the interrelatedness of points in the assigned readings with those of others. The next section details how specific points in the chapters relate to broader themes and meta-topics. Section four addresses the clarity of questions posed within the chapters. The fifth section reports on implicit statements of originality. The last section addresses the quality of writing. 1. The author reverts to the first person only once to express their interpretation of an issue.

However, the examples that accompany the critical points in the chapters are accompanied by repeated uses of the first person plural pronoun we, where the author seems to treat the reader as an academic colleague in discourse analysis. Beyond the authors use of inclusive language, there are no references to personality, personal experiences, or reflections. There is, although, one occurrence where the reader gets a sense of the authors perspective. It is in the statement: language has a rather magical property (p. 84) 2. The chapters do connect to other course readings and broader points articulated in

research literature. Themes contained in the reading echo themes that run throughout the literature on discourse analysis (Gee) and the broader methodological literature, specifically relative to context. Beyond context, recurring themes throughout the reading included meaning, subtexts, archetypes, communities of meaning, social processes (building up versus tearing down), cultural influences, reflexivity, and asking questions of data.

The most consistent theme was meaning making through context. That is, in discourse analysis, it is not enough to comprehend what a speaker is saying. A student of discourse analysis must not only be concerned about speech itself, but the actions that given uses of language carry out, for anything one says performs some kind of constituent action. This too, reflects a hallmark of qualitative analysis: making meaning out of data based on context. 3. The readings focus on rules to decipher meaning connected to larger methodological

ideas. The grammatical rules discussed in the first chapter, while relative to discourse analysis, reflected the starting point of qualitative analysis. In qualitative analysis, there must be a predetermined set of rules or parameters that determine how the researcher will approach the data. As the author suggests, in discourse analysis, grammatical rules help determine the property of context. In qualitative analysis, rules might refer to the humanly devised constrains that shape human interaction, based on parameters stipulated by the researcher. Nonetheless, they are rules; a starting point for research and the validity of scholarship. Another aspect of this reading which connected to larger ideas and topics was how a researcher determines what is relevant. Insofar as discourse analysis, relevancy is determined by both the explicit actions of the speaker and their implicit understanding of the world, where they make a picture based upon their own context. This links to other research domains to the extent that articulated (explicit) and tacit (implicit) knowledge comprise reality and meaning, where subjects or objects build things in the world, make them happen, or try to make them true. 4. The chapters do pose thoughtful questions that are raised through different parts of the

readings to the extent that empirical, real-world examples accompany academic discussions. The reading introduces several discourse analysis tools preceded by definitions, intellectual discussions, and methodological tips. In fact, the chapters are built around tools for research.

And the introductory metaphor of language as a car or language as a building is echoed throughout the chapters. Accompanying the research tools are serial questions that assist the reader in bridging abstract concepts with real-world examples. Further, the author makes methodological complexities simple by employing examples ranging from physics to law. In particular, to separate the specialist style of language from the vernacular style of language, the author employs the hornworm example. This example is reiterated throughout the chapters. 5. The reading makes original points that are not explicit in the reading, relative to culture.

First, the author repeatedly references African American culture, as if to ignore the normative values and vernacular styles of other cultures. Thus to the extent that this is an original point that is not explicit in other reading, the author achieves that goal. Second, the author speaks of the big D in discourse analysis. No other readings reference the big D. Thus, this is original. In the authors own words: I use the term because such groups continue through timefor the most part, they were here before we arrived on earth and will be here after we leaveand we can see them as communicating (discoursing) with each other through time and history, using us as their contemporary mouthpieces. 6. These chapters were well written to the extent that that they introduced a theme that we

do more with language than give each other information, which continued through each chapter. The 27 intercalary tools were also helpful because they allowed the reader to connect real world examples to an academic discussion. Further, the sub-unit organizational tools (enumeration) aided the reader in deciphering what the specific scholarly objective the author was attempting to accomplish in a given section. This was important because the author repeatedly employed the metaphors of building things up and tearing things down, which became confusing.