Talk:Recontextualisation

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 7 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LSislen, Wj4265a. Peer reviewers: Jb8527a.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled]

I find the original wiki-critique a bit of the point, hence I have changed it. The critique had two points:

That the article should be expanded. That would be fine. When I return to this topic, I will see to it.
That there are too few inline quotations. There are references underpinning all the content article so a reader interested in the content get an overview and a good starting point. The content is a condensed exposition of the main points of recontextualisation - adding inline quotations is not relevant except in connection with an expansion and enrichment of the article. It is not poor academic style to summarise what others have said. However, there are too few exact refereces.

But, please notice, no one has mentioned any errors or grave omissions in the text.

In short, I think point 1 is the relevant critique. Subsidary, that would imply more inline quotations. There are also too few exact references.

Needs an example

Article needs an example or two, plus explanation of how the example maps to the definition. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 13:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recontextualization Peer Review for LSislen

In the initial overview of the topic of recontextualization, it would appear to me that the one sentence definition of the term could be simplified into more layman's terms. That being said, I'm not familiar with the topic, so that could be more difficult than I am perceiving. Either way, just wanted to bring attention to it!
"recontextualisation implies a change of meaning and redefinition" change of meaning and redefinition appear to mean the same thing in this context, I think you could take one of these out here and have it flow better.
It might help your readers if you give a simple definition as to what "the social economy of texts" is.
As I continue to make comments going down, I think the biggest comment overall is the fact that I think the language could be simplified more, as the article right now uses a good deal of vocabulary particular to the field that might be outside the understanding of the average reader.
In the Section of Per Linell's different levels of recontextualization, I think examples similar to the one at the end of the interdiscursive definition would be useful in the previous two definitions as well.
I like and appreciate the comprehensive nature of the citations in this article!
For the final section on precontextualization, is there any more information available on this topic? This seems more like a footnote or an aside that an additional section.

Jb8527a (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]