Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261773565
CITATIONS READS
395 10,683
2 authors, including:
Ruth Wodak
Lancaster University
254 PUBLICATIONS 7,521 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Transnational Governance of the University Field. (RJ FSK15-1068:1) The Travel & Translation of
Global Ideas & the Role of Intermediary Organizations View project
Special Issue Call for papers: Voluntas International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ruth Wodak on 16 January 2015.
CRITICAL
DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
VOLUME I
Concepts, History, Theory
Edited by
Ruth Wodak
SAGE Publications Inc. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research
2455 Teller Road or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this
publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd in any form, or by any means, only with the prior
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of
Mathura RoadA reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms
New Delhi 110 044 of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency.
Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd should be sent to the publishers.
3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub Every effort has been made to trace and acknowledge all
Singapore 049483. the copyright owners of the material reprinted herein.
However, if any copyright owners have not been located
and contacted at the time of publication, the publishers
will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements at
the first opportunity.
Typeset by:
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
Printed on paper from sustainable
resources A catalogue record for this book is available from
the British Library
Printed by:
Appendix of Sources xi
Editors Introduction: Critical Discourse Analysis xix
Ruth Wodak
46. Discourse at Work: When Women Take on the Role of Manager 313
Luisa Martn Rojo and Concepcin Gmez Esteban
47. Who Am I Gonna Do This With?: Self-Organization, Ambiguity
and Decision-Making in a Business Enterprise 345
Florian Menz
48. Get Shot of the Lot of Them: Election Reporting of Muslims in
British Newspapers 373
John E. Richardson
49. We Are Dealing with People Whose Origins One Can Clearly Tell
Just by Looking: Critical Discourse Analysis and the Study of
Neo-Racism in Contemporary Austria 395
Ruth Wodak and Bernd Matouschek
All articles and chapters have been reproduced exactly as they were rst pub-
lished, including textual cross-references to material in the original source.
19. Teddy Bear Stories, Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Theo van Leeuwen
Social Semiotics, 13(1) (2003): 527.
2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd. Reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis
Ltd, http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals via Copyright Clearance Centers
Rightslink service.
24. If Both Opponents Extend Hands in Peace Why Dont They Meet?
Mythic Metaphors and Cultural Codes in the Israeli Peace Discourse,
Dalia Gavriely-Nuri
Journal of Language and Politics, 9(3) (2010): 449467.
Reprinted with kind permission by John Benjamins Publishing Company,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia. www.benjamins.com
27. Arab and American Computer War Games: The Inuence of a Global
Technology on Discourse, David Machin and Usama Suleiman
Critical Discourse Studies, 3(1) (2006): 122.
2006 Taylor & Francis. Reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd,
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals via Copyright Clearance Centers
Rightslink service.
28. Time to Get Wired: Using Web-based Corpora in Critical Discourse Analysis,
Gerlinde Mautner
Discourse & Society, 16(6) (2005): 809828.
Published by SAGE Publications Ltd. Reprinted with permission.
48. Get Shot of the Lot of Them: Election Reporting of Muslims in British
Newspapers, John E. Richardson
Patterns of Prejudice, 43(34) (2009): 355377.
2009 Taylor & Francis. Reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd,
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals via Copyright Clearance Centers
Rightslink service.
49. We Are Dealing with People Whose Origins One Can Clearly Tell Just by
Looking: Critical Discourse Analysis and the Study of Neo-Racism in
Contemporary Austria, Ruth Wodak and Bernd Matouschek
Discourse & Society, 4(2) (1993): 225248.
Published by SAGE Publications Ltd. Reprinted with permission.
57. Critical Semiotic Analysis and Cultural Political Economy, Bob Jessop
Critical Discourse Studies, 1(2) (2004): 159174.
2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd. Reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis
Ltd, http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals via Copyright Clearance Centers
Rightslink service.
B
eginning in the late 1980s, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (or
Critical Discourse Studies [CDS]) has now become a well-established
eld in the social sciences. CDA cannot be regarded as a discrete
academic discipline in any traditional sense, with a xed set of theories,
categories, assumptions or research methods. Instead, CDA can be seen as
a problem-oriented interdisciplinary research programme, subsuming a
variety of approaches, each drawing on different epistemological assump-
tions, with different theoretical models, research methods and agenda.
What unites them is a shared interest in the semiotic dimensions of power,
injustice and political-economic, social or cultural change in our globalised
and globalising world and societies. The roots of CDA lie in rhetoric, text
linguistics, anthropology, philosophy, socio-psychology, cognitive science,
literary studies and sociolinguistics, as well as in applied linguistics and
pragmatics.
Many denitions of the aims and procedures, the doing of CDA, can be
found in the vast literature and, of course, also online. For example, the
glossary of CADAAD (http://cadaad.net/glossary/critical-discourse-
analysis)1 lists the following already well-known denitions, some important
scholars and several frequently cited books:
The emphasis here is less on theory and methodology and more on the
aims and interests of critical researchers. However, not all scholars commit-
ted to CDA share every aspect of this denition: Van Leeuwen (2006: 294)
primarily emphasises the research agenda and the application of results
when describing CDA:
Critical discourse analysis is founded on the insight that text and talk play
a key role in maintaining and legitimating inequality, injustice and oppres-
sion in society. It employs discourse analysis to show how this is done,
and it seeks to spread awareness of this aspect of language use in society,
and to argue explicitly for change on the basis of its ndings.
Forchtner, 2012; Fowler, Hodge, Kress & Trew, 1979; Keller, 2011; Le & Short,
2009; Locke, 2004; Machin & Mayr, 2012; Van Dijk, 2008; Van Dijk, 2012;
Van Leeuwen, 2005, 2008; Weiss & Wodak, 2007; Wodak & Chilton, 2007
(2005); Wodak, 2011a, b; Wodak & Meyer, 2009a; Young & Harrison, 2004).
As an adequate point of departure, I suggest the following framing denition
for all CDA approaches:3
In general, CDA is characterised by a number of principles (see above): for
example, all approaches are problem oriented, and thus necessarily interdiscip-
linary and eclectic. Moreover, CDA is characterised by the common interests in
demystifying ideologies and power through the systematic and retroductable4
investigation of semiotic data (written, spoken or visual). CDA researchers also
attempt to make their own positions and interests explicit while retaining their
respective scientic methodologies and while remaining self-reective of their
own research process.
Michael Toolans comprehensive reader (2002) illustrated for the
rst time the huge diversity of this quite new eld. The present four
volumes 10 years later offer insight into an even bigger range of theor-
etical approaches, epistemological histories, aims, interests and research
agendas, which all map the current complexity of the eld. Volume I
unites some seminal articles, which dened the eld at the outset 30 years
ago, as well as new important theoretical developments and critical
debates. Volume II presents the plethora of methodological approaches.
Volume III includes various case studies, which apply different methods
and address a range of social problems. Finally, Volume IV collects current
important debates, specically concerning the concept of critique and
the integration of other social science theories and methodologies from
other disciplines into CDA (such as various forms of argumentation theory
on the one hand, and history, economics, geography, gender studies and
media studies on the other). Hence, signicant new theories, methodolo-
gies, research agendas and applications are documented here. The eld is
thriving and has become much more diversied; new challenges and
debates have emerged, relevant applications in many social domains are
targeted. More specically, the approaches of CDA have been and are con-
tinuously being taken up by other neighbouring disciplines; inter- and
transdisciplinarity lead to new innovative ideas, some of which are
included in the manifold methodologies (Volume II), the case studies
(Volume III) and in the necessarily small selection of new developments
and debates in Volume IV.
The signicant difference between Discourse Studies and CDS/CDA lies
in the constitutive problem-oriented interdisciplinary approach of the latter.
CDA does not therefore study a linguistic unit per se but rather social phe-
nomena, which are necessarily complex and thus require a multi-/inter-/
transdisciplinary and multimethodical approach. The objects under investi-
gation do not have to be related to negative or exceptionally serious social
to certain aspects of the social world, e.g. the schema [...] whites have about
blacks, which may feature a category appearance (1993: 258; 1998).
Fairclough, on the other hand, has a more Marxist view of ideology in which
ideologies are constructions of practices from particular perspectives [...]
which iron out the contradictions, dilemmas and antagonisms of practices
in ways which accord with the interests and projects of domination
(Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999: 26). But such disagreements have not led
to any major divisions within the eld; such different approaches and
epistemologies usually enhance constructive debates and developments.
What thus unites CDA and analysts is neither a restrictive and dogmatic
methodology nor a theoretical orthodoxy, but rather salient common goals,
that is, the critique and challenge of hegemonic discourses, texts and genres
that re/produce inequalities, injustices, mystication and oppression in con-
temporary societies. Researchers in CDA also rely on a variety of grammati-
cal approaches. Thus, any criticism of CDA should always specify, which
research or researcher they relate to. This is why I suggest using the notion
of a research programme, which many researchers nd useful and to which
they can relate. This programme or set of principles has changed over the
years due to the new developments in CDA and in the Social Sciences in
general (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Wodak, 1996, 2011b).
is shaped by them, but it also shapes them. That is, discourse is socially
constitutive as well as socially conditioned it constitutes situations,
objects of knowledge, and the social identities of and relationships
between people and groups of people. It is constitutive both in the sense
that it helps to sustain and reproduce the social status quo, and in the
sense that it contributes to transforming it. Since discourse is so socially
consequential, it gives rise to important issues of power. Discursive prac-
tices may have major ideological effects that is, they can help produce
and reproduce unequal power relations between (for instance) social
classes, women and men, and ethnic/cultural majorities and minorities
through the ways in which they represent things and position people.
(Fairclough & Wodak, 1997: 260)
2.2. Critique
In the West, and in various European languages, the term critical (or its
translation equivalents) has a rather complex history; it is clear, however,
that proponents of CDA use discourse analysis to challenge what they regard
as undesirable social and political practices (e.g. Fowler, Hodge and Kress,
who referred to their endeavours as Critical Linguistics; see Chilton et al.,
2010 for an extensive discussion of the developments in the eighteenth,
nineteenth and twentieth centuries).8 CDA encompasses varied understand-
ings of the terms critical, criticism and critique. One can distinguish at
least three interrelated concepts. First, the critical analysis of discourse can
imply to make the implicit explicit. More specically, it means making
explicit the implicit relationship between discourse, power and ideology,
challenging surface meanings and not taking anything for granted. Moreover,
critical discourse analysts do not stop after having deconstructed textual
meanings; the practical application of research results is also aimed at. For
instance, in Wodak (1996, 2001: 9), I refer to the application of the results
to communication problems in, for example, schools and hospitals. Chiltons
early work on the discourse of nuclear deterrence stems from peace activism
during the Cold War period (Chilton, 1988, 1996). Van Dijk (1998) stated
that CDS should be involved in the critique of social inequality. Kresss com-
ment on the goals of CDA may serve as a summary of this meaning of being
critical:
From within linguistics and literary studies, the work of Mikhail Bakhtin
(1986) has proved relevant to CDA (Lemke, 1995). In addition, Volosinovs
(1973) work was the rst linguistic theory of ideology. It claims that linguis-
tic signs are the material of ideology, and that all language use is basically to
be perceived as ideological. Bakhtins work emphasises the dialogical (and
ideological) properties of texts, while also introducing the idea of intertext-
uality (see also Kristeva, 1986).
It is important to distinguish between ideology (or other frequently used
terms such as stance/beliefs/opinions/Weltanschauung/position) and dis-
course (Purvis & Hunt, 1993: 474ff). Quite rightly, Purvis and Hunt state
that these concepts do not stand alone but are associated not only with
other concepts but with different theoretical traditions (ibid.). Thus, ideol-
ogy is usually (more or less) closely associated with the Marxist tradition,
whereas discourse has gained much signicance in the linguistic turn in
modern social theory by providing a term with which to grasp the way in
which language and other forms of social semiotics not merely convey
social experience but play some major part in constituting social objects
(the subjectivities and their associated identities), their relations, and the
eld in which they exist (ibid.: 474). The conation of ideology and dis-
course thus leads, I believe, to an inationary use of both ideologies and
discourses, both concepts thus tend to become empty signiers simultan-
eously indicating texts, positioning and subjectivities as well as belief sys-
tems, structures of knowledge and social practices (see Wodak, 2008).
Many articles in Volume I (both seminal well-known articles as well as
much more recent ones) propose manifold denitions and condense import-
ant theoretical debates about the (sometimes confused) use of the salient
concepts of critique, discourse, text, context, ideology and power.
Discussions about the various and interdisciplinary epistemological
underpinnings of CDA approaches and suggestions for new developments
can be found in Volume IV.
Power is another concept that is central to CDA, as it often analyses the
language use of those in power, who are responsible for the existence of
inequalities. Typically, CDA researchers are interested in the way discourse
(re)produces social domination, that is, power abuse by one group over
others, and how dominated groups may discursively resist such abuse. This
raises the question of how CDA researchers dene power (i.e. the relation-
ships where power is negotiated, established, enacted or performed) and
what moral standards allow them to differentiate between power use and
abuse a question, which has so far had to remain unanswered (Billig,
2008).
4. Criticisms
It is not surprising that CDA is frequently confronted with manifold criti-
cisms in respect of the inherent fuzziness of its concepts and denitions,
although it is precisely the latter that allows for rapid innovative develop-
ment of the eld (cf. Renkema, 2004: 284; Wodak, 2006, 2009). CDA has
mostly received some strong-worded critiques from within linguistics where
Discourse-Historical
Approach (Ruth Wodak and
Inductive detailed
Corpus-Lingustics
Approach (Gerlinde Critical
Mautner) Theory
Dispositive Analysis
(Siegfried Jger and
Deductive general
S. Moscovici
Florentine Maier)
perspective
Sociocognitive Approach
Symbolic
(Teun van Dijk)
Interactionism
Dialectical Relational
Approach
M.K. Halliday
(Norman Fairclough)
[t]here is no reason for supposing that for academics, writing their aca-
demic articles, the active forms are psychologically primary. In my article
and in this reply, I have struggled to resist the grammatical forms with
which my ngers are so familiar. I have redrafted, often with a struggle,
many sentences which spontaneously spilled out in the passive form. I
have probably used the rst person singular here more times than I have
done in all the rest of my publications put together. And so now, I do not
5. Perspectives
The goal of this introduction was to provide a summary of CDA approaches
and contextualise the articles in the four volumes; moreover, I discuss some
of the similarities and differences as well as the epistemological background
and salient concepts, which are relevant for all research in the CDA tradition.
One of CDAs volitional characteristics is its diversity. Nevertheless, a few
stable elements can be detected:
CDA works eclectically in many aspects. The whole range between grand
theories, middle-range theories (both drawing on critical theory and the
social sciences) and linguistic theories is adopted, although each single
approach emphasises different levels.
Interdisciplinarity is inherently necessary to grasp complex social phe-
nomena.
There is no accepted canon of data collection, but many CDA approaches
work with existing data, that is, texts not specically produced for their
respective research projects. However, ethnography and eldwork have
become more common as many scholars recognise the inherent limita-
tions of written data or ritualised and staged data like parliamentary
debates, public speeches, and so forth.
Operationalisation and analysis are problem oriented and imply linguistic
expertise.
self-reection at every point of ones research, and distance from the data
that are being investigated. It is important to keep description and interpre-
tation apart, thus enabling transparency and retroduction. Of course, not all
of these recommendations are consistently followed, and they cannot always
be implemented in detail because of time pressures and similar structural
constraints; therefore, some critics will continue to state that CDA is torn
between too much linguistic analysis or too much focus on context; social
research and political argumentation or de-contextualised micro-analysis;
quantitative data or qualitative case studies; traditional data such as newspa-
pers or ethnography and new social media and so forth. Dichotomies never
make sense as research in CDA is much more differentiated; triangulation is
a major characteristic of many studies, thus the integration of multiple data
sources and methodologies has become common. In any case, such criticism
keeps a eld alive because it encourages self-reection, new questions and
related responses and thus innovation.
Notes
1. Accessed 22 August 2012.
2. Accessed 22 August 2012.
3. Fairclough and Wodak provide a list of the eight main tenets of CDA (1997) which
continue to remain salient (see also Fairclough, Mulderrig & Wodak, 2011 in Volume
I). In spite of some reformulations of this list, the core principles have remained stable
over the years (such as that CDA addresses social problems; power relations are dis-
cursive; discourse constitutes society and culture; discourse does ideological work;
and so forth).
4. Retroductable, a translation of the German term nachvollziehbar, means that in the
Humanities and Social Sciences (and in qualitative research in general), we cannot
test hypotheses or prove them like in the quantitative paradigm. In contrast, though,
qualitative analyses must be transparent, selections and interpretations justied and
value positions made explicit. In this way, the procedures and meanings of qualitative
analyses remain intersubjective and can, of course, also be challenged.
5. See Language and Power by Fairclough (1989), Language, Power and Ideology by Wodak
(1989), Prejudice in Discourse by van Dijk (1985).
6. See Fairclough and Wodak (1997); Reisigl and Wodak (2001, 2009); Weiss and Wodak
(2007a, b [2003a, b]); Wodak and Meyer (2001, 2009a, b).
7. See Billig (2003, 2008); Chilton and Wodak (2007 [2005]); Wodak and de Cillia
(2006) for an extensive discussion of this issue.
8. The meanings of the word critical in English also include nontechnical meanings,
such as censorious and in some contexts denunciatory. However, the predominant
sense in English and European languages is cognitive. That is, to engage in critique
is to engage in a rational conceptual activity. It is useful to distinguish this sense from
everyday uses of the verb criticize, which denotes an interactive social activity that
somehow incorporates a normative ethical or quasi-ethical standpoint. The verb criti-
cize in this sense is a speech act verb (Chilton et al., 2010).
9. Here, Holzscheiter refers to the concept of language game, as introduced by the
philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein in his seminal book Philosophical Investigations
(Wittgenstein, 1967). Language games dene rule-governed context-dependent units
of social and communicative behaviour into which we are all socialised in our respect-
ive cultures. This concept captures verbal and nonverbal meaning-making, thus all
forms of semiosis.
10. Unfortunately, it is necessary to neglect here much research, which could certainly be
also categorised as critical, such as feminist CDA (Lazar, 2005 [2007]).
11. See Wodak and Richardson (2012) for fascist text and talk historically and also the
continuities to date.
12. See Blommaert (2005); Heer, Manoschek, Pollak and Wodak (2008); Martin and
Wodak, (2003); Reisigl (2007).
References
Althusser, Louis (1971) Ideology and ideological state apparatus. in: Lenin and Philosophy
and Other Essays. London: New Left Books.
Baker, Paul, Gabrielatos, Costas, Khosravinik, Majid, Krzyzanowski, Micha, McEnery, Tony
& Wodak, Ruth (2008) A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse
analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers
in the UK press. Discourse & Society 19(3): 273305.
Bakhtin, Mikhael (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press.
Billig, Michael (2003) Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. in: Wodak,
Ruth & Weiss, Gilbert (Eds.) CDA and Interdisciplinarity. London: Macmillan, pp.
3546.
Billig, Michael (2008) Nominalizing and de-nominalizing: a reply. Discourse & Society
19(6): 783800.
Blommaert, Jan (2005) Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984) Homo Academicus. Paris: Les ditions de Minuit.
Caldas-Coulthard, Carmen-Rosa & Coulthard, Malcolm (Eds.) (1996) Texts and Practices:
Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London, England: Routledge.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan (2006) Politics and Rhetoric. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Chilton, Paul (1988) Orwellian Language and the Media. London: Pluto.
Chilton, Paul (1994) La plaie quil convient de fermer... Les mtaphores de discourse
raciste. Journal of Pragmatics 21(6): 583619.
Chilton, Paul (1996) Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common
European Home. Berne: Peter Lang.
Chilton, Paul (2004) Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London:
Routledge.
Chilton, Paul (2005 [2007]) Missing links in mainstream CDA. Modules, blends and the
critical instinct. in: Wodak, Ruth & Chilton, Paul (Eds.) A New Agenda in (Critical)
Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1952.
Chilton, Paul & Lakoff, George. (Eds.) (1995) Metaphor in Foreign Policy Discourse.
Dartmouth: Aldershot.
Chilton, Paul, Tian, Hailong & Wodak, Ruth (2010) Reections on discourse and critique
in China and the West. Journal of Language and Politics. 9(4) (2010): 489506.
Chouliaraki, Lilie & Fairclough, Norman (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Delanty, Gerard, Wodak, Ruth & Jones, Paul (Eds.) (2011) Migration, Identity and
Belonging. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Engel, Jakob & Wodak, Ruth (2009) Kalkulierte Ambivalenz: Strungen und das
Gedankenjahr: Die Causen Siegfried Kampl und John Gudenus. in: de Cillia, Rudolf &
Wodak, Ruth (Eds.) Gedenken im Gedankenjahr. Innsbruck: Studienverlag, pp. 79100.
Engel, Jakob & Wodak, Ruth (2012) Calculated ambivalence and the denial of the
Holocaust. in: Wodak, Ruth & Richardson, John E. (Eds.) Analyzing Fascist Discourse.
Fascism in Text and Talk. London: Routledge (in press).
Fairclough, Norman (1989) Language and Power. London, New York: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman (1992a) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.
Fairclough, Norman (1992b) Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman (2000) New Labour, New Language? London: Routledge.
Fairclough, Norman (2003) Analyzing Discourse: Text Analysis for Social Research. London:
Routledge.
Fairclough, Norman (2010) Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd rev. edn). London: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman & Fairclough, Isabela (2010) Argumentation analysis in CDA. in: De
Cillia, Rudolf, Gruber, Helmut, Krzyzanowski, Micha & Menz, Florian (Eds.) Diskurs,
Politik, Identitt. Tbingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 5971.
Fairclough, Norman & Wodak, Ruth (1997) Critical discourse analysis. in: van Dijk, Teun
A. (Ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage, pp. 258284.
Fairclough, Norman, Mulderrig, Jane & Wodak, Ruth (2011) Critical discourse analysis.
in: Van Dijk, Teun A (Ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage, pp. 357378.
Forchtner, Bernhard (2011) Critique, the discourse historical approach, and the Frankfurt
School. Critical Discourse Studies 8(1): 114.
Forchtner, Bernhard (2012) Critical Discourse Analysis, in: Chapelle, Carol A (Ed.) The
Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell (in press).
Forchtner, Bernhard & Tominc, Ana (2012) Critique in the discourse-historical approach.
Journal of Language and Politics 11(1) (2012): 3150.
Foucault, Michel (1975) Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.
Fowler, Roger, Hodge, Bob, Kress, Gunther & Trew, Tony (1979) Language and Control.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Gee, James (2004) Discourse Analysis. Theory and Method. London: Routledge.
Graham, Phil (2002) Space and cyberspace: on the enclosure of consciousness. in:
Armitage, John & Roberts, Jay (Eds.) Living with Cyberspace: Technology & Society in
the 21st Century. London: The Athlone Press.
Gramsci, Antonio (1978 [19211926]) Selections from the Political Writings (Ed. Quentin
Hoare). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Habermas, Jrgen (1967) Erkenntnis und Interesse Knowledge and Interest. Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp.
Halliday, Michael AK (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward
Arnold.
Heer, Hannes, Manoschek, Walter, Pollak, Alexander & Wodak, Ruth (Eds.) (2008) The
Discursive Construction of History: Remembering the German Wehrmachts War of
Annihilation. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Holzscheiter, Anna (2005) Power of discourse and power in discourse. An investigation
of transformation and exclusion in the global discourse of childhood. PhD Thesis, FU
Berlin.
Jger, Siegfried & Maier, Florentine (2009) Theoretical and methodological aspects of
Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. in: Wodak, Ruth &
Meyer, Michael (Eds.) Methods of CDA. London: Sage, pp. 3461.
Jessop, Bob, Fairclough, Norman & Wodak, Ruth (Eds.) (2008) Higher Education and the
Knowledge-Based Economy in Europe. Rotterdam: Sense.
Keller, Rainer (2011) Diskursforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Kienpointner, Manfred (1996) Argumentationstheorie. Munich: UTB.
Klemperer, Viktor (1975/1947) LTI Lingua Tertii Imperii: Die Sprache des Dritten Reiches.
Leipzig: Reclam.
Koller, Veronika (2004) Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: a Critical
Cognitive Study. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Kovcs, Andras & Wodak, Ruth (Eds.) (2003) Nato, Neutrality and National Identity: The
case of Austria and Hungary. Vienna: Bhlau.
Kress, Gunter (1996) Representational resources and the production of subjectivity: ques-
tions for the theoretical development of critical discourse analysis in a multicultural
society. in: Caldas-Coulthard, Carmen R. & Coulthard, Malcolm (Eds.) Texts and
Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 1531.
Kress, Gunter & Van Leeuwen, Theo (1996) Reading Images. London: Routledge.
Kristeva, Julia (1986) Word, dialogue and novel. in: Moi, Toril (Ed.) The Kristeva Reader.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Krzyzanowski, Micha (2010) The Discursive Construction of European Identity. Bern: Peter
Lang.
Krzyzanowski, Micha & Oberhuber, Florian (2007) (Un)Doing Europe. Bern: Peter Lang.
Krzyzanowski, Micha & Wodak, Ruth (2009a) The Politics of Exclusion. The Austrian Case.
Boulder: Transaction Press.
Krzyzanowski, Micha & Wodak, Ruth (2009b) Theorising and analysing social change
in Central and Eastern Europe: the contribution of critical discourse analysis. in:
Galasinska, Alexandra & Krzyzanowski, Micha (Eds.) Discourse and Transformation
in Central and Eastern Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1740.
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Lazar, Michelle M (Ed.) (2005) Feminist critical discourse analysis. Gender, power, and ideol-
ogy in discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Le, Thao & Short, Megan (2009) Critical discourse analysis. An interdisciplinary perspective.
Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Lemke, Jay (1995) Textual Politics. London: Arnold.
Lemke, Jay (2001) Discursive technologies and the social organization of meaning. Special
Issue of Folia Linguistica 35(12): 7996.
Locke, Terry (2004) Critical Discourse Analysis. London, New York: Continuum.
Lukes, Steven (2005 [1974]) Power: A Radical View. Cambridge: Polity.
Machin, David & Mayr, Andrea (2012) How To Do Critical Discourse Analysis. London:
Sage.
Martin, Jim & Wodak, Ruth (Eds.) (2003) Rereading the Past. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mautner, Gerlinde (2008) Analysing newspapers, magazines and other print media. in:
Wodak, Ruth & Krzyzanowski, Micha (Eds.) Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social
Sciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 3053.
Mautner, Gerlinde (2009) Checks and balances: how corpus linguistics can contribute to
CDA. in: Wodak, Ruth & Meyer, Michael (Eds.) Methods of CDA. London: Sage, pp.
122143.
Messer, Michi, Schroeder, Renee & Wodak, Ruth (Eds.) (2012) Migrations. Interdisciplinary
Perspectives. Berlin: Springer.
Mulderrig, Jane (2006) The governance of education. A corpus-based critical discourse
analysis of UK Education Policy Texts 1972 to 2005. PhD Thesis. Lancaster University.
Muntigl, Peter, Weiss, Gilbert & Wodak, Ruth (2000) European Union Discourses of
Un/employment. An Interdisciplinary Approach to Employment Policy-Making and
Organizational Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Panagl, Oswald & Wodak, Ruth (Eds.) (2004) Text und Kontext. Mnchen: Konigshausen.
Purvis, Trevor & Hunt, Alan (1993) Discourse, ideology, ideology, discourse, ideology
BJS 44(3): 473499.
Reisigl, Martin (2007) Nationale Rhetorik in Gedenk und Festreden. Tbingen:
Stauffenburg.
Reisigl, Martin & Wodak, Ruth (2001) Discourse and Discrimination. Rhetorics of Racism
and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.
Reisigl, Martin & Wodak, Ruth (2009) The discourse-historical approach. in: Wodak, Ruth
& Meyer, Michael (Eds.) Methods of CDA. London: Sage, pp. 87121.
Renkema, Jan (2004) Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Richardson, John (2004) (Mis)representing Islam. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Richardson, John & Wodak, Ruth (2009) Visual argumentation in racist discourse.
Controversia 6(2): 4577.
Schiffrin, Deborah (1994) Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stubbs, Michael (1997) Whorfs children: critical comments on critical discourse analysis
(CDA). in: Ryan, Ann and Wray, Alison (Eds.). Evolving Models of Language. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters, pp. 100116.
Toolan, Michael (Ed.) (2002) Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Concepts in Linguistics (4
Volumes). London: Routledge.
Van Dijk, Teun A (1985) Prejudice in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Van Dijk, Teun A (1993) Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2):
249283.
Van Dijk, Teun A (1998) Ideology. London: Sage.
Van Dijk, Teun A (2001) Multidisciplinary CDA: a plea for diversity. in: Wodak, Ruth &
Meyer, Michael (Eds.) Methods of CDA. London: Sage, pp. 95120.
Van Dijk, Teun A (2005) Racism and Discourse in Spain and Latin America. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Van Dijk, Teun A (2008) Discourse and Context. A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, Teun A (2009) Critical Discourse Studies: a sociocognitive approach. in: Wodak,
Ruth & Meyer, Michael (Eds.) Methods of CDA. London: Sage, pp. 6286.
Van Dijk, Teun A (2012) Critical Discourse Analysis. in: Hamilton, Heidi, Tannen, Deborah
& Schiffrin, Deborah (Eds.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: OUP (in press).
Van Dijk Teun A & Kintsch, Walter (1983) Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New
York: Academic Press.
Van Eemeren, Frans & Grootendorst, Rob (2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation:
The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Leeuwen, Theo (2005) Typographic meaning. Visual Communication 4(2): 137142.
Van Leeuwen, Theo (2006) Critical Discourse Analysis. in: Brown, Keith (Ed.) Encyclopedia
of Language and Linguistics (2nd edn., Vol. 3). Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 290294.
Van Leeuwen, Theo (2008) Analyzing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, Theo (2009) Discourse as the recontextualisation of social practice: a
guide. in: Wodak, Ruth & Meyer, Michael (Eds.) Methods of CDA. London: Sage, pp.
144161.
Van Leeuwen, Theo (2011) The Language of Colour. London: Routledge.
Volosinov, Valentin I. (1973 [1928]) Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York:
Seminar.
Weiss, Gilbert & Wodak, Ruth (2003a [2007a]) Introduction models of interdisciplin-
arity. in: Weiss, Gilbert & Wodak, Ruth (Eds.) CDA. Theory and Interdisciplinarity.
Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 137.
Weiss, Gilbert & Wodak, Ruth (Eds.) (2003b [2007b]) CDA. Theory and Interdisciplinarity.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Wengeler, Martin (2003) Topos und Diskurs. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Widdowson, Henry G (1995). Discourse analysis: a critical view. Language and Literature
4(3): 157172.
Widdowson, Henry G (1996). Reply to Fairclough: discourse and interpretation: conjec-
tures and Refutations. Language and Literature 5(1): 5769.
Widdowson, Henry G (2004) Text, Context, Pretext. Critical Issues in Critical Discourse
Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
0 Introduction_FPP.indd
View publication stats xliii 10/22/2012 5:27:03 PM