132 Ruth Wodak
Editors’ Comments
Theoretical relevance
How can documents be designed to ful¼ll political goals?
In Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) this issue is studied
within a broad politico-linguistic framework. For document
design it is especially interesting which rhetorical phenom-
ena are used to create a special e¬ect. In this paper a leading
person in CDA presents a theoretical framework for analyz-
ing these phenomena. (Her latest book is reviewed in this
same issue by another outstanding researcher in CDA; see
page 187).
Starting from a four-level concept of context a model is
presented to analyze di¬erent kinds of strategies in rhetorical
devices, such as self-representation and mitigation. This ap-
proach is especially important because of its method of trian-
gulation using three main factors in document design: the
content, the discursive strategies and the linguistic means.
This paper proves that this kind of ‘new rhetorical analysis’
can fruitfully detect important phenomena within a well-
ordered theoretical framework.
Practical relevance
It is one thing to say that, for example, extreme right-wing
politicians in some European countries use a language that
broadens the gap between ‘us’ and ‘them’, but it is another
thing to present a coherent framework of analysis. It is one
thing to say that, for example, the use of the word ‘opera-
tion’ instead of ‘mass murder’ is in some contexts a neo-
Nazi characteristic, but it is another thing to prove this. The
research presented in this paper is based on some political
documents from Austria from the time that this country had
Jörg Haider’s FPÖ party in the government. The strength of
this approach is that it can easily be applied to other docu-
ments concerning, for example, the debate between western
and Islamic cultures, or the Mid-East con½ict, or the contro-
versies in the Korean area. In doing so, this paper provides
support to professionals in political language as well as jour-
nalists and communicators in diplomatic activities for
detecting when rhetorical devices are used for reaching po-
litical goals.

Ruth Wodak
Populist discourses
The rhetoric of exclusion in written genres
Keywords: Critical discourse analysis, discourse historical
approach, media analysis, rhetorical strategy, calculated
ambivalence, implications, insinuation, written genres
Populist rhetoric is not restricted to rightwing or leftwing
political parties. Populist rhetoric is characterized through
multiple linguistic strategies which allow the persuasive
inclusion of many, also contradictory electorates, and the
exclusion of “others”. This paper examines written genres
from the media and coalition agreements in Austria, since
the so-called “Wende” in the year 2000 when a new coalition
gevernment was decided upon between the People’s Party
and the rightwing populist party, the Freedom Party.
Through the detailed linguistic analysis of texts, some
(linguistic) explanations for the success of rightwing
populist parties in the European Union member states will
be offered.
Introduction: Political discourse and populism1
After 13 years of Grand Coalition between the Right and
Left, Austria got a rightwing government on the 4th of Feb-
ruary 2000, between the Rightwing Populist party, FPÖ, and
the Christian Social Party, ÖVP. Hence, for the ¼rst time, a
rightwing populist party became part of the government of
an EU member state. This fact caused a lot of debate and
polarisation in the Austrian society. The 14 other member
Populist
Document Design discourses
4(2), 132–148 133
© 2003 by John Benjamins Publishing Co.
states of the European Union decided on “measures against
the Austrian government” on a bilateral level, which ¼nally
turned out to be counter-productive because they stimulated
a chauvinist discourse, which tried to assemble “all Austri-
ans against the EU”. Not only the government should feel
criticized but — as widely promoted by the media — all of
“Austria” felt “under attack” (see Wodak and Pelinka, 2002;
Hummer and Pelinka, 2002; Reisigl and Wodak, 2002).
The ‘rhetoric of exclusion’, which is constituted by met-
onymic and Manichean dichotomies or divisions between
insiders and outsiders or between the ‘good guys’ and
the ‘bad guys’, became extremely popular. Complex issues
were often reduced to simple answers, and blatant slogans
and vague metaphors made wide interpretations and identi-
¼cations possible. Such rhetoric is, of course, not a new
invention. Political discourse and communication are fun-
damentally based on distinguishing between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’
as one of the most important functions to allow, on the one
hand, positive self presentation of the speakers/writers and,
on the other hand, negative other presentation of opponents
(Van Dijk, 1984). Once such groups have been discursively
constructed, various linguistic strategies and tools are used
to debase the ‘other’ and to characterize the In-group as
positive. This allows for identi¼cation with the In-group; it
also allows for negative characterization of the Out-group,
and consequently, it is made possible to blame the Out-
group for certain social phenomena, which usually have
much more complex causes. Such rhetoric has old traditions
134 Ruth Wodak
(see Wodak 2001a, 2001b; Wodak 2002a), going back to
Greek and Roman writers and philosophers. The construc-
tion of groups and the strategic characterization of these
groups must therefore be seen as constitutive for persuasive
discourse (see also Chilton and Schae¬fner, 2002).
Scape-goating, blaming the victim, victim-perpetrator
reversal, trivialization, and denial are among the most com-
mon argumentative strategies used to convince voters or
listeners/viewers of ‘necessary’ political measures, such as
restricting immigration and legitimizing such restrictions,
which often enough contradict the democratic traditions
and values of many nation states.2 Of course, depending on
the genre and ¼eld of political discourse, the linguistic real-
izations di¬er: the more anonymous and general the genre,
the more explicit exclusionary discourses and discourses of
di¬erence tend to be. The more o~cial the setting, the more
such prejudices and stereotypes are embedded into positive
self — presentation and realized in implicit or latent linguis-
tic units or clauses (presuppositions, implicatures, infer-
ences, allusions; etc.). Thus, the context of each utterance
has to be taken into account when analyzing its exclusionary
force.3
Right-wing populist discourses in Europe (in France,
Switzerland, Italy and Austria) share many common features
that ter Wal (1997, 1999), Blommaert and Verschueren
(1998), Taguie¬ (1998) and Taggart (2000) have character-
ized extensively elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is important to
ask how such political movements succeed in addressing so
many di¬erent voter groups and what main topics or pro-
grammatic issues seem so convincing and persuasive to so
many. To attempt to answer this question, it is relevant to
investigate each of these political movements historically
and synchronically by itself, because the countries listed
above di¬er in many respects (see Jones, 2000; Demirovic
and Bojadvijev, 2002), historically, socially and politically.
In this paper, I cannot o¬er a comprehensive analysis of
all these important aspects. I will therefore restrict myself to
Austria and to the success of the FPÖ since 1986 when Jörg
Haider became the leader of the FPÖ. Speci¼cally, I will be
concerned with some aspects of the coalition paper of the
ÖVP-FPÖ government, which has been in o~ce since Febru-
ary 4th, 2000 up to 24th of November. Very abruptly and
surprisingly, the government collapsed in September 2002,
after months of on-going chaos and con½icts. The ambiva-
lence and tensions between simultaneously trying to act as
an opposition party and as a governing party got too strong,
the con½icts inside the FPÖ and resulting power struggles
lastly led to a failure of the coalition.
In analyzing some of the aspects of the ÖVP and FPÖ
coalition paper from the year 2000, it will become clear which
topics are fore-grounded and which argumentative strate-
gies are applied in such a speci¼c written genre in the ¼eld
of politics. Moreover, we suggest theories, which might ex-
plain the speci¼c success of the Austrian right-wing populist
movement. While illustrating some theoretical consider-
ations about this phenomenon, it will be necessary to ¼rst
present a few relevant linguistic concepts from Functional
Systemic Linguistics, Argumentation Theory and Actors
Analysis, used in the “Discourse-historical Approach” (see
Wodak and Meyer, 2001; Reisigl and Wodak, 2001). Thereaf-
ter, before embarking upon the more systematic analysis of
two written genres (interviews in news papers and the coali-
tion paper), I would like to summarize some important char-
acteristics of right wing populist discourses.
The discourse-historical approach
The discourse-historical approach, committed to Critical
Discourse Analyses, adheres to the socio-philosophical ori-
entation of Critical Theory.4 As such, it follows a complex
concept of social critique which embraces at least three inter-
connected aspects, two of which are primarily related to the
dimension of recognition and one to the dimension of action
(see Reisigl and Wodak, 2001 for an extended discussion):
1. ‘Text or discourse immanent critique’ aims at discover-
ing inconsistencies, (self-)-contradictions, paradoxes
and dilemmas in the text-internal or discourse-internal
structures.

2. In contrast to the ‘immanent critique’, the ‘socio-
diagnostic critique’ is concerned with the demystifying
exposure of the — manifest or latent — possibly
persuasive or ‘manipulative’ character of discursive
practices. With socio-diagnostic critique, the analyst
exceeds the purely textual or discourse internal sphere.
She or he makes use of her or his background and
contextual knowledge and embeds the communicative
or interactional structures of a discursive event in a
wider frame of social and political relations, processes
and circumstances. At this point, we are obliged to
apply social theories to interpret the discursive events
(see below, theory of context).
3. ‘Prognostic critique’: This form of critique contributes
to the transformation and improvement of communica-
tion (for example, within public institutions by elabo-
rating proposals and guidelines for reducing language
barriers in hospitals, schools, courtrooms, public
o~ces, and media reporting institutions [see Wodak,
1996]).
In contrast to some views on CDA, CDA is not concerned
with evaluating what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; CDA — in my view
— helps to make choices at each point in the research itself,
transparent. It should also justify theoretically why certain
interpretations of discursive events seem more valid then
others.
One methodical way for critical discourse analysts to
minimize the risk of being biased is to follow the principle of
triangulation. Thus, one of the most salient distinguishing
features of the discourse-historical approach is its endeav-
our to work with di¬erent approaches, multimethodically
and on the basis of a variety of empirical data as well as
background information (for example Wodak et al., 1998
and Wodak et al., 1999).
In investigating historical, organizational and political
topics and texts, the discourse-historical approach attempts
to integrate a large quantity of available knowledge about the
historical sources and the background of the social and po-
litical ¼elds in which discursive ‘events’ are embedded. Fur-
Populist discourses 135
ther, it analyzes the historical dimension of discursive ac-
tions by exploring the ways in which particular genres of
discourse are subject to diachronic change (Wodak et al.,
1990; Wodak et al., 1994). Lastly, and most importantly, this
is not only viewed as ‘information’: at this point we integrate
social theories to be able to explain the so-called context.
The notion of ‘discourse’
In accordance with other approaches devoted to CDA, as has
already been implied, the discourse-historical approach per-
ceives both written and spoken language as a form of social
practice (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997). A discourse is a way
of signifying a particular domain of social practice from a
particular perspective (Fairclough, 1995, p. 14). We assume
a dialectical relationship between particular discursive prac-
tices and the speci¼c ¼elds of action (including situations,
institutional frames and social structures), in which they are
embedded. On the one hand, the situational, institutional
and social settings shape and a¬ect discourses, and on the
other, discourses in½uence discursive as well as non-discur-
sive social and political processes and actions. In other
words, discourses as linguistic social practices can be seen
as constituting non-discursive and discursive social prac-
tices and, at the same time, as being constituted by them.
In the following, I would like to make a distinction
between ‘discourse’ and ‘text’, following Lemke’s interest-
ing approach (Lemke, 1995). ‘Discourse’ can thus be
understood as a complex bundle of simultaneous and se-
quential interrelated linguistic acts, which manifest them-
selves within and across the social ¼elds of action as
thematically interrelated semiotic, oral or written tokens,
very often as ‘texts’, that belong to speci¼c semiotic types,
i.e. genres (see Girnth, 1996). The most salient feature of
the de¼nition of a ‘discourse’ is the macro-topic, like ‘unem-
ployment’. Interdiscursivity can be seen when, for example,
a racist argument (taken from the discourse on immigration
restrictions) is used while arguing for other policies to com-
bat unemployment. Each macro-topic allows for many
sub-topics: ‘Unemployment’ thus covers sub-topics like
136 Ruth Wodak

‘market’, ‘trade unions’, ‘social welfare’, ‘global market’,
‘hire and ¼re policies’ and many more. Discourses are open
and hybrid and not closed systems at all; new sub-topics can
be created, and intertextuality and interdiscursivity allow for
new ¼elds of action. Discourses are realized in both genres
and texts.
‘Texts’ can be conceived as materially durable products
of linguistic actions (see Ehlich, 1983, Graefen, 1997, p.26,
Reisigl, 2003). A ‘genre’ may be characterized, following
Norman Fairclough, as the conventionalized, more or less
schematically ¼xed use of language associated with a par-
ticular activity, as “a socially rati¼ed way of using language
in connection with a particular type of social activity”
(Fairclough, 1995, p.14). Thus, a proposal on combating
unemployment manifests certain rules and expectations ac-
cording to social conventions. The proposal itself follows
certain textual devices, the contents follow certain ideologi-
cal concepts put forward by a speci¼c political group (like
the trade unions).
‘Fields of action’ (Girnth, 1996) may be understood as
segments of the respective societal ‘reality’, which contrib-
ute to constituting and shaping the ‘frame’ of discourse. The
spatio-metaphorical distinction among di¬erent ¼elds of
action can be understood as a distinction among di¬erent
functions or socially institutionalized aims of discursive
practices. Thus, for example, in the area of political action

Fields of Action Field of Control

Formation of Party-internal Political
Law Making Public Opinion Development Advertising, Political Political
Political and Self Executive and Executive and
of an Informed Marketing &
Procedure Presentation Administration Administration
Opinion Propaganda
Genres
• Laws • Press releases • Party • Election • Decisions • Decisions
• bills • press programs , programs (approval/ (approval/
• amendments conferences declarations , • slogans, rejections: rejections:
• speeches and • interviews statements speeches in asylum-stay- asylum-stay-
contributions • talk shows and election work) work)
of MPs • lectures and speeches of campaigns • inaugural • inaugural
• regulations contributions to principle • announcements speeches speeches
• recommenda- conferences • speeches on • posters • coalition • coalition
tions • articles, books party • election papers, papers,
• prescriptions • commemora - conventions, etc. Brochure speeches of speeches of
• guidelines, etc. tive speeches • direct mailings ministers/heads ministers/heads
• inaugrual sp.,. etc. • fliers, etc. • governmental • governmental
answers to p.q. answers to p.q.

1 1 1 1 1 1
opic Topic Topic Topic Topic Topic
u rse T urse urse urse urse urse
Disco D is c o D is c o D is c o D is c o D is c o

Figure 1 Selected dimensions of discourse as social practice

 Populist discourses 137

we distinguish between the functions of legislation, self-
presentation, the manufacturing of public opinion, develop-
ing party-internal consent, advertising and vote-getting,
governing as well as executing, and controlling as well as
expressing (oppositional) dissent (see Figure 1 above). A
‘discourse’ about a speci¼c topic can ¼nd its starting point
within one ¼eld of action and proceed through another one.
Discourses and discourse topics ‘spread’ to di¬erent ¼elds
and discourses. They cross between ¼elds, overlap, refer
to each other or are in some other way socio-functionally
linked with each other.
We can represent the relationship between ¼elds of ac-
tion, genres and discourse topics with the example of the
area of political action in Figure 1 above.
Figure 2 further illustrates the interdiscursive and inter-
textual relationships between discourses, discourse topics,
genres (as types) and texts (as tokens):
In this diagram, interdiscursivity (e.g. the intersection of
discourse A and discourse B) is indicated by the two big
overlapping ellipses. Intertextual relationships in general
are represented by dotted double arrows. The assignment of
texts to genres is signalled by simple arrows. The topics to
which a text refers are indicated by small ellipses to which
simple dotted arrows point, the topical intersection of
di¬erent texts is signalled by the overlapping small ellipses.
Finally, the speci¼c intertextual relationship of thematic ref-
erence of one text to another is indicated by simple broken
arrows (see application in the methodology below).
Our triangulatory approach is based on a concept of
‘context’ which takes into account four levels; the ¼rst one is
descriptive, while the other three levels are part of our theo-
ries on context:
1. the immediate, language or text internal co-text;
2. the intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between
utterances, texts, genres and discourses;
3. the extralinguistic social/sociological variables and
institutional frames of a speci¼c ‘context of situation’
(Middle Range Theories);
4. the broader sociopolitical and historical contexts, which
the discursive practices are embedded in and related to
(Grand Theories).

genre x genre y genre z genre u

text x text yx text u

time axis

topic x1 topic yz1 topic u1

Di
sc
ou

topic x2 topic yz2 topic u2

rs
e
A

topic x3 topic yz3 rse B

Discou

Figure 2 Interdiscursive and intertextual relationships between discourses, discourse topics, genres and texts
138 Ruth Wodak

Grand Theory

Middle Range Theory

Mesotheory 1 Mesotheory 4

Mesotheory 2 Mesotheory 3

Discourse Theory

Linguistic Analyses

Perspectivation Argumentation
Strategies
Strategies of
Self Representation Mitigation and Intensification
strategies

Figure 3 Levels of theories and linguistic analysis

In our examples, I will make the sequential analysis trans-
parent, following the categories of analysis, which will be
de¼ned below.
The research programme
In this section, I would like to focus on the study of dis-
courses of discrimination. However, I would ¼rst like to
stress the most important characteristics of our discourse-
historical CDA approach:
1. The approach is interdisciplinary.
2. Interdisciplinarity is located on several levels: in theory,
in the work itself, in teams, and in practice.
3. The approach is problem-oriented, not focused on spe-
ci¼c linguistic items.
4. The theory as well as the methodology are necessarily
also eclectic; i.e., theories and methods are integrated
which are helpful in understanding and explaining the
object under investigation.
5. The study always incorporates ¼eldwork and ethnogra-
phy to explore the object under investigation (study from
the inside) as a precondition for any further analysis and
theorizing.
6. The approach is abductive: a constant movement back
and forth between theory and empirical data is neces-
sary.
7. Multiple genres and multiple public spaces are studied,
and intertextual and interdiscursive relationships are in-
vestigated. Recontextualization is the most important
process in connecting these genres as well as topics and
arguments (topoi).
8. The historical context is always analyzed and integrated
into the interpretation of discourses and texts.
9. The categories and tools for the analysis are de¼ned ac-
 Populist discourses 139

cording to all these steps and procedures as well as to the
speci¼c problem under investigation.
10. Grand Theories serve as a foundation (see above); in the
speci¼c analysis, Middle-Range Theories serve the ana-
lytical aims better.
11. Application is the target. The results should be made
available to experts in di¬erent ¼elds and, as a second
step, be applied with the goal of changing certain discur-
sive and social practices.
Categories of analysis
1. How are persons named and referred to linguistically?
2. What traits, characteristics, qualities and features are
attributed to them?
3. By means of what arguments and argumentation
schemes do speci¼c persons or social groups try to jus-
tify and legitimize the exclusion, discrimination, sup-
pression and exploitation of others?
4. From what perspective or point of view are these labels,
attributions and arguments expressed?
5. Are the respective utterances articulated overtly, are they
even intensi¼ed or are they mitigated?

The speci¼c discourse-analytical approach is three-dimen-
sional: after (1) having established the speci¼c contents or
topics of a speci¼c discourse, (2) the discursive strategies
(including argumentation strategies) were investigated.
Then (3), the linguistic means (as types) and the speci¼c,
context-dependent linguistic realizations (as tokens) (4).
In the following, we will describe from an abstract view-
point some of the discourse-analytical tools useful in the
analysis of populist discourses. There are several discursive
elements and strategies that, in our discourse analytical view,
deserve to receive special attention. Selecting ¼ve of the many
di¬erent linguistic or rhetorical means by which persons are
included or excluded from groups, we orient ourselves to ¼ve
simple, but not at all randomly selected questions:
According to these questions, we are especially interested in
¼ve types of discursive strategies, which are all involved in
the positive self- and negative other-presentation. We view,
and this needs to be emphasized, the discursive construc-
tion of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ as the basic fundaments of dis-
courses of identity and di¬erence. And such discourses are
salient for discourses of populism.
By ‘strategy’ we generally mean a more or less accurate
and more or less intentional plan of practices (including
discursive practices) adopted to achieve a particular social,
political, psychological or linguistic aim. As far as the dis-
cursive strategies are concerned, that is to say, systematic
ways of using language, we locate them at di¬erent levels of
linguistic organization and complexity.5

Table 1 Discursive strategies for positive self- and negative other representation
Strategy
Referential / nomination
Predication
Argumentation
Perspectivation framing or
discourse representation
Intensi¼cation, mitigation
Objectives
Construction of in-groups
and out-groups
Labelling social actors more or less
positively or negatively, deprecatorily
or appreciatively
Justi¼cation of positive or
negative attributions
Expressing involvement
Positioning speaker’s point of view
Modifying the epistemic status
of a proposition
Devices
– Membership categorization
– Biological, naturalizing and depersonalizing metaphors and metonymies
– Synecdoches (pars pro toto, totum pro pars)
– Stereotypical, evaluative attributions of negative or positive traits
– implicit and explicit predicates
– topoi used to justify political inclusion or exclusion, discrimination or
preferential treatment
– reporting, description, narration or quotation of (discriminatory) events
and utterances
– intensifying or mitigating the illocutionary force or (discriminatory)
utterances
140 Ruth Wodak
First, there are referential strategies or nomination strate-
gies by which one constructs and represents social actors,
for example, in-groups and out-groups. This is done in a
number of ways: Membership categorization devices, in-
cluding tropical reference by biological, naturalizing and
depersonalizing metaphors and metonymies, and synecdo-
ches in the form of a part standing for the whole (pars pro
toto) or a whole standing for the part (totum pro parte) are
most relevant.
Second, once constructed or identi¼ed, the social actors
as individuals, group members or groups, are linguistically
provided with predications. Predicational strategies may, for
example, be realized as stereotypical, evaluative attributions
of negative and positive traits in the linguistic form of im-
plicit or explicit predicates. These strategies aim either at
labeling social actors more or less positively or negatively,
deprecatorily or appreciatively. They cannot neatly be sepa-
rated from the nomination strategies. Moreover, in a certain
sense, some of the referential strategies can be considered
to be speci¼c forms of predicational strategies, because the
pure referential identi¼cation very often already involves a
denotatively as well as connotatively more or less depreca-
tory or appreciative labeling of the social actors.
Third, there are argumentation strategies and a fund of
topoi through which positive and negative attributions are
justi¼ed, through which, for example, it is suggested that
the social and political inclusion or exclusion, the discrimi-
nation or preferential treatment of the respective persons or
groups of persons is justi¼ed.
Fourth, discourse analysts may focus on the perspectiva-
tion, framing or discourse representation by means of which
speakers express their involvement in discourse, and posi-
tion their point of view in the reporting, description, narra-
tion or quotation of discriminatory events or utterances.
Fifth, there are intensifying strategies on the one hand,
and mitigation strategies on the other. Both of them help to
qualify and modify the epistemic status of a proposition by
intensifying or mitigating the illocutionary force of racist,
antisemitic, nationalist or ethnicist utterances. These strate-
gies can be an important aspect of the presentation inas-
much as they operate upon it by sharpening it or toning it
down.
Strategic aspects of self- and other-presentation:
Reference
Predication
Positive self-presentation & Perspectivation and involvement
Negative other-presentation Intensi¼cation or mitigation
Argumentation
Figure 4 Strategies of self- and other-presentation
Some speciýc linguistic terms
Let us now turn to a number of linguistic terms that are of
particular importance for the description of populist dis-
courses:
Since in the case we are concerned with “allusions” are
of central importance, they ought to given more detailed
consideration: through allusions (cf. also Wodak et al. 1990)
one can suggest negative associations without being held
responsible for them. Ultimately the associations are only
suggested. The listeners must make them meaningful in the
act of reception (Wodak & de Cillia, 1988, p.10). Allusions
depend on shared knowledge. The person who alludes to
something counts on resonance, i.e. on the preparedness of
the recipients consciously to call to mind the facts that are
alluded to.
In the area of politics, allusions may have the intention,
and achieve the result, of devaluing political opponents,
without accepting responsibility for what is implicitly said,
because this was not, of course, said explicitly: at best an
invitation was given to make particular connections. What is
not pronounced creates, in the case of allusions, a kind
of secrecy, and familiarity suggests something like: “we all
know what is meant”. The world of experience or allusion
exists, however, in a kind of ‘repertoire of collective knowl-
edge’. Allusions frequently rely on topoi and linguistic pat-
terns already in play which show a clear meaning content, or
which point to well-established stereotypes.

Franz Januschek de¼nes ‘allusions’ in the following way:
‘[…] In contrast to slogans, allusions require active, thinking and
discriminating recipients. Not everyone can understand allu-
sions, and those who do understand them have to do something
about it: they have to give meaning to the allusion. The creator of
the allusion can thereby renounce responsibility for the meaning
that arises: he may distance himself. In other words: allusions
can be very short — but they can never be one-sided communica-
tive acts. And, allusions may be understand in a highly explosive
way — but always so subtly that they provoke contradiction and
cannot be casually filed away in particular drawers. Whereas
electoral slogans tend to cause fragmented discourse to break
down completely, allusions drive it forward. Under the conditions
of fragmentized political communications they are the linguistic
means that relies on the fact that citizens, under these same
conditions, generally act intelligently and not merely as puppets
for the cleverest manipulators’ (Januschek, 1994).
Allusions are conscious references to common experiences;
but the level and degree of this consciousness can di¬er. If
someone uses the word ‘special treatment’ (Sonderbehand-
lung) today, in most cases they can hardly be aware of the fact
that this could be understood as an allusion to the gassing of
a selected proportion of the newly arrived transports of de-
tainees at the Auschwitz annihilation camp.
While the act of allusion is fundamentally symbolic,
what is alluded to may be both symbolic and non-symbolic
behavior. To put this in more concrete terms: one can al-
lude to utterances, but also to events, processes, and practi-
cal actions. A general characterization of the functions of
allusions must bring out their group-including or excluding
e¬ect: the group becomes more aware of its existence as
such and thereby of their di¬erence from all others. Both
belong together, although there may be clear di¬erences of
emphasis. In understanding allusions we must distinguish
two stages: Understanding that there is an allusion and un-
derstanding what is meant by the allusion.
In the case of racist, xenophobic or anti-Semitic allu-
sions, no enclosed ideological edi¼ce is directly and com-
pletely addressed and spelled out. It is rather that an
amalgam of ideological tenets is invoked by linguistic ‘clues
Populist discourses 141
and traces’, in order to relate to a particular set of beliefs and
a ‘discourse space’ — irrespective of where the ‘roots’ of this
‘discourse space’ may lead.
The concept of presuppositions is central to linguistic
Pragmatics. The analysis of presuppositions within speech
act theory, which began with John Austin and John Searle,
makes it possible to make explicit the implicit assumptions
and intertextual relations that underlie text-production (see
Schi¬rin, 1994).
There are many linguistic phenomena that have been
related to presuppositions. Here I shall follow the overview
given in Yule (1996, ch. 4).
Populism
Dubiel (1994) has shown remarkably well how right wing
populism essentializes the ‘vox populi’, instrumentalizing
this as legitimation for opposing ‘those up there’ and for
constructing dichotomies between the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ guys,
thus allowing for some xenophobic and anti-Semitic under-
tones. Nohlen (1998, 514f) distinguishes between three
kinds of populism: populism as negatively evaluated politics;
populism as mass movement; and populism as strategy of
uni¼cation and agitation (see also Reisigl, 2001 for an exten-
sive discussion). All descriptions and analyses of populist
movements strongly emphasize the neo-conservative slo-
gans and the huge attraction for groups, whose members feel
insecure due to globalization and changing economies. This
insecurity may lead to a cry for nationalistic identities and
for uni¼cation, as well as for exclusion of ‘others’. Scape-
goating and conspiracy theories are some of the typical strat-
egies to be observed in all right wing populist groups.
Reisigl (2001) enumerates nine characteristics of popu-
list discourses, some of which we have already mentioned
above. Besides scape-goating, Manichean depicturing of
‘Us’ and ‘Them’, and opposing ‘those up there’, ¼ve more
elements should be mentioned here: Such parties endorse
charismatic personalities and focus on strong leadership.
The parties are hierarchically structured, like classical
142 Ruth Wodak
‘Führerparteien’. Moreover, they project very simplistic narra-
tives of the past, where often enough they and their believers
are ‘victims’ of ‘others’, be that other nations, other
ethnicities etc. (see also Reinfeldt, 2000). Lastly, we would
like to emphasize the strong anti-intellectual sentiments,
which are also produced and used to manipulate the elector-
ate. Thus, contradicting new opinions are uttered everyday,
what was said yesterday has no meaning anymore the next
day; often enough, it seems as though such politicians are in
denial of the logic of ordinary people’s short-term memory
(see also Wodak, 2002).
Finally, one of the most important argumentative strate-
gies to be detected is the strategy of ‘calculated ambiva-
lence’: utterances are formulated in a way, which allows for
possible ambiguous interpretations and is open for at least
two opposing meanings. Some examples will be given in the
course of this paper (see also Reisigl and Wodak, 2002).
One example should illustrate our necessarily short
theoretical remarks:
Jörg Haider’s implicit conception of history was scrutinized in
Pro¼l, August 21st, 1995:
Haider: “I have said that the soldiers of the Wehrmacht have
made democracy in its existing form in Europe possible. If they
had resisted, if they hadn’t been in the East, if they had not
conducted military campaigns, we would have . . .”
Pro¼l: “What does that mean ‘resisted’ . . . after all, it was a war
of conquest of the German Wehrmacht.”
Haider: “Well, then we have to ask what really happened.”
What did “really” happen? In the above-mentioned strategy
of calculated ambivalence, Haider leaves the answer open
for the audience. Moreover, the use of the adverb “really” in
this context, opposing the statement of the journalist of
Profil, implies for some that Haider’s ¼rst answer (“the
Wehrmacht have made democracy”) would be the ‘real an-
swer’. The macro-strategy of this short sequence could be
described as a move to a meta-level and to a di¬erent conver-
sational structure. Haider does not follow the question-an-
swer scheme, which is part of the interview genre. He poses
his own question as an answer. The question has to be seen
as a rhetorical question. The answer is — this is implied —
known to the readers or could be extracted out of the co-text.
And this leads us back to the implicature mentioned above.
More defensive strategies are added: distortion, re-de¼ni-
tion, the o¬setting of old myths and the creation of new
ones. The result is that an ultimate history is proposed and
rewritten as being the authentic one, the one that many war
veterans probably agree with. This Haider version of history
is also welcomed by some of the so-called ‘future genera-
tions’ (as Haider often likes to call himself). Such a version
of history allows the maintenance of the Austrian ‘victim
myth’ (Mitten, 2000), which has shaped the conception of
the Nazi past for many Austrians for a long time. This per-
ception of history includes the practice of equating.
When asked, whom he saw as the biggest criminals (thus
‘unrespectable’ people) of the 20th century, Haider equated
Hitler and Stalin with Churchill. Hence, he did not take into
account who of the three statesmen represented what ideol-
ogy in which system of government, what the consequences
and results were, nor who the aggressors and the victims or
defendants were. The victims, too, were equated:
Pro¼l: “Do you consider the Nazi dictatorship a dictatorship like
any other?”
Haider: “I believe that one should not make gradual distinctions
when talking about totalitarian systems. One should reject them
altogether…There was an era of military conflicts in which our
fathers were involved. At the same time, there were operations
occurring within the framework of the Nazi regime that cannot be
accepted. But no family members of mine were involved in the
latter.”
Pro¼l: “Do I understand you correctly? ‘Operations’? What exactly
do you call ‘operations’?”
Haider: “Oh well, activities and measures against parts of the
population that were blatant human rights violations.”
Pro¼l: “Do you have any problems calling it genocide or mass
murder?”
Haider: “If you like, then it was mass murder.”
In this sequence, a discourse analysis allows to distinguish
several strategies and conversational moves. Again, one
¼nds vague answers, which allow for several di¬erent inter-

pretations; one the one hand, Haider allows for identi¼ca-
tion with the war generation and the ‘fathers’, on the other
hand, he rejects some of the ‘operations’ of the Nazi time.
He also quickly adds that his own family had no part in these
‘operations’. The use of such a euphemism is part of the
‘calculated ambivalence’ as one of the general strategies. His
third move “If you like, then it was mass murder” suggests
that he super¼cially agrees with the journalist; but not be-
cause he might believe so himself; rather as a gesture to
please the journalist, which he makes explicit by hedging.
Thus he marks linguistically that this is not his own opinion
but possibly an attempt to be politically correct. Of course,
such discourses were not the only cause for such a huge
electoral support in Austria. But the discourses and evalua-
tions, the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ guys mark
perceptions, opinions and beliefs, which are widely spread
in the population.
The coalition program
The discourse topics, inter alia, which we ¼nd in some short
excerpts of the coalition program are the following:
– Dealing with the NS past, the victims mentioned are
prisoners of war (Wehrmacht soldiers), the Sudeten
Germans and forced labor.
– In dealing with foreigners, there is a clear distinction
between Austrians and ‘foreigners’ who are de¼ned by
their mother tongue (not German) and not by citizen-
ship; this means that Austrian citizens whose mother
tongue is not German still fall under the label of ‘for-
eigners’.
– In dealing with employment, we ¼nd a clear re½ection of
neoliberal theories (dominance of competitiveness, ½ex-
ibility, cutting back of social welfare, privatization);
– In dealing with women, they are encouraged to stay
home and care for the children; but at the same time,
networks for successful women are to be installed.
Populist discourses 143
Let us now take one example from the many text sequences I
have chosen from the coalition program between FPÖ and
ÖVP: dealing with the Nazi Past.
The Federal Government commits itself to the continuation of the
policy of sensitivity and critical confrontation with the Nazi past.
The aim is to clarify things without reservation, to dissect the
patterns of injustice and to pass on this knowledge to the coming
generations as a warning for the future. As regards the matter of
Nazi slave labour, the Federal Government, in the light of the
interim report of the Austrian Historical Commission and with
due regard to the primary responsibility of the companies
concerned, will work for appropriate solutions.
The Federal Government will work for fair solutions to the
questions of all persons compelled to perform forced labour
during the Second World War, Austrian prisoners of war and the
German-speaking populations expelled to Austria as a result of
the Benes decrees and the Avnoj regulations…
The main social actor in this paragraph is the ‘Federal gov-
ernment’: in a relational process, the aim — probably of the
government, but the agent is not speci¼ed — is to commit
itself, clarify, dissect, pass on, and work. These are all em-
bedded clauses, far removed from any social actors. Mate-
rial, verbal and mental processes are applied. If we continue
our analysis, we ¼nd abstract nominalised processes, actu-
ally grammatical metaphors, like the “continuation of the
policy of sensitivity”, “critical confrontation”, “patterns of
injustice” and “appropriate solutions”. I will brie½y com-
ment on each of these: what is a policy of sensitivity? As we
do not know what the policy was up to now, this remains
very vague. “Sensitivity” can mean several things in this co-
text: it can mean that one should approach this topic care-
fully, consider the victims and perpetrators, or not go into
detail, or other possibilities. At this point, our theoretical
assumptions would have to guide the analysis. Our theories
about the o~cial Austrian way of dealing with the Nazi-past
(see below) suggest that the last meaning will be chosen.
This provides a good example for the necessity of integrat-
ing social theory into the microanalysis. But, in any case, we
144 Ruth Wodak
are not informed about any details, nothing in this whole
paragraph is spelled out precisely. The material verbs, which
do imply activities, have no goal-participants which would
serve as more detailed information. “To clarify things with-
out reservation” again leads to many questions: which
“things”? Implied are — most probably — war crimes, but
this is not said. It could also mean Austrian participation in
Nazi crimes, it actually could mean anything.
"Without reservation” serves as moral legitimation.
Readers should be given the impression that Austrians would
really confront the Nazi-past. But, only “things” are sup-
posed to be clari¼ed. The next verb is “dissect” — “dissect
patterns of injustice”. This presupposes that there were “pat-
terns of injustice” and this embedded clause is the ¼rst more
precise evaluation of the past. But again, we do not know
which patterns, since they are not enumerated in any way. At
this point, one could also argue, that the vagueness is neces-
sary because the genre of a coalition paper implies such a
programmatic style. On the other hand, one could also argue
that a new government should make its policies as clear as
possible.
Comparing this paragraph with others in the program, it
is striking that other policies are much more detailed in their
implementation than this one. Thus, we have to include
intertextuality into our analysis; and intertextuality
at several levels: comparisons with previous coalition pro-
grams, comparisons with other parts of the coalition pro-
gram, with speeches of government politicians and so on.
Finally — and of course, there would be much more to say —
one explicit issue is proposed: “Nazi slave labor”. A commis-
sion of historians who are to investigate all the documents
concerned with slave labor was formed one year ago. This
means that no precise solutions can be suggested yet, only
“appropriate” solutions. The attribute remains vague — ap-
propriate for whom, who decides?
When we take into account the opinions of the FPÖ in
this matter that were illustrated above, then we should be
quite concerned as to what these measures might be. We
need to investigate other genres to be able to interpret this
piece of text. And, looking back at our main question, we
need theories about “dealing with the Nazi past” to be able
to understand this text as a typical ‘symptom’ of Haider’s
success!6
If we look at the macro structure of this one paragraph,
there are several macro arguments and strategies involved:
¼rst, convincing everybody that nothing will change, thus
reassuring people who might be frightened. Secondly, a
strategy of camou½age because Haider’s utterances about
the Nazi-past contradict the statements about ‘injustice’.
Thirdly, a de-contextualization of all the demands on restitu-
tion: restitution is restricted to Slave labor, prisoners of war
(Wehrmacht) and the Sudeten Germans. Jews, Roma and
Sinti and other victims are not mentioned. Thus, the govern-
ment is able to argue that they are in fact coping with the
important demands of some victims, and through silence,
they pass over the other victims. The claims of survivors
which are nowadays being voiced are then pronounced as
not valid: this has led to serious debates and in the last resort
to explicit anti-Semitism (“they have survived anyway, what
more do they want?”).
The genre of a coalition program
To understand the rhetoric of the coalition paper better, it is
important to consider the functions of the genre of a coali-
tion paper:
A coalition program is supposed to unite the voters and
make a clear political statement in contrast to the previous
government and previous coalition programs. Changes,
therefore, should be clearly marked, and the language will
be used to construct certain ideologies and political posi-
tions. A coalition program has identity-creating and repro-
ducing functions, marking the distinctions between ‘Us’
and ‘Them’. It should be precise but also vague, permitting
di¬erent ways of implementation and allowing for unex-
pected changes in global economies and politics. It has to be
innovative and also to implement the promises made during

the election. It has to legitimize unpopular measures in
terms of the party ideologies. And ¼nally, it has to be persua-
sive and readily comprehensible.
This particular coalition program is even more complex.
It contains a preamble, which the president required before
swearing in the new government (see appendix); a state-
ment which emphasizes Human Rights and all explicit Eu-
ropean Values from Maastricht and Amsterdam. For this
reason, of course, the sections that follow should not con-
tradict this preamble in any way (which also accounts for the
vagueness).
From the point of view of genre theory, a coalition pro-
gram belongs to the ¼eld of political texts and implements
promises of the election campaigns, in compromise with
the coalition party and with economic and legal conditions
and necessities. Thus, it recontextualizes certain topoi and
topics from the campaigns; on the other hand, an intertex-
tuality to previous programs is visible in several aspects: it is
made clear, that certain continuities have to be retained;
however, a new politic is announced. Comparing this coali-
tion program with the previous one, it becomes apparent
that new ½ag words and new topics are introduced, for ex-
ample in dealing with immigration or also in dealing with
privatization. This ambivalence and tension between conti-
nuity and a ‘new start’ is speci¼cally marked in this
program through the above-mentioned preamble. The dis-
tinction to policy papers is also quite clear (see Muntigl,
Weiss and Wodak, 2000). Policy papers make suggestions
for politicians to consider and also serve as possible legiti-
mation for certain political decisions. A coalition program
spells out goals and aims with some hints to their possible
implementation; it is action oriented. It is thus realized as
list of intentions and actions for the future; and, at the same
time, it has to be vague and ½exible enough to be able
to deal with unexpected social changes. Linguistically, this
ambivalence leads to declarative sentences and a factual
mode with material verbs. However, a hybrid text evolves
due to the overlap between ideological and political state-
ments or slogans, and clear professional expert discourses
Populist discourses 145
of certain speci¼c social ¼elds, like ‘health care’, ‘budget’
etc. It would lead to far in the scope of this paper to com-
pare and analyze in depth the previous coalition programs
of the ‘Grand Coalition’ and the new program of the
right wing government; I have to point readers to other
publications on this issue (see Wodak and Pelinka, 2002,
Scharsach, 2000; Moehring, 2001).
Conclusions and discourse model of populist discourse
If we summarize the di¬erent discourses and topics from
our short analysis of the coalition paper and other genres,
like interviews in weeklies, we ¼nd the following character-
istics of rightwing populist beliefs:
– Revisionism as motor to deal with the Nazi past.
– Exculpation of Wehrmacht and SS from war crimes.
– Neo-liberal economies which support young
entrepreneurs.
– Pro family discourses.
– Discourses which support career women.
– Racist discourses.
– Anti-EU enlargement discourses.
– Anti privileges discourses.
– Pro ‘Austrian’ discourses.
Populism is not a classic ideology (if we follow Karl
Mannheim’s de¼nition for example). It is not a clear and
causally connected edi¼ce but a mixture of often contradic-
tory measures which appeal to very di¬erent voters and also
re½ect social tensions and changes in the respective society.
The FPÖ is a party, which thus has at least 10 di¬erent motives
for potential voters. Hence, the electoral groups addressed
are all those persons, which stand against privileges, against
those ‘up there’, for ½exibility and privatization. Moreover, it
is directed to yuppies, to old soldiers and former Nazis,
against trade unions, to young people, to all those afraid of
losing jobs, to mothers and employed women, to all ‘true
Austrians’, to mention just a few.
146 Ruth Wodak

The speci¼c Austrian past and theories about collective
memory and legitimation are necessary for our explanation
of the FPÖ’s success, in contrast to other rightwing populist
parties. In Austria, the war crimes and the involvement of the
Wehrmacht in some of these have to be justi¼ed because
most men of the older generation and the fathers of the
younger generation were part of the Wehrmacht. As already
stated before, to accuse them means accusing a huge part of
the Austrian population. Karl Jasper’s 1946 essay ‘Die Schuld-
frage’ distinguished four di¬erent kinds of guilt: criminal,
political, moral and metaphysical. In our context, his second
category ‘political guilt’ has become used as ‘moral’ or ‘his-
torical’ responsibility. “Everybody,” he argued, “is co-re-
sponsible for the way he is governed”. (Jasper, 1979, p.21).
And he continues: “A Volk is responsible for the quality of its
policy” (Jasper, 1979, p.44). But, as our 1990 study on the
Waldheim a¬air illustrates, no Austrians (and probably no-
body) are happy to be confronted with guilt. As argued by the
historian Richard Mitten (2000), there are several ways out of
this dilemma, and this can be linked to our analysis of a
‘justi¼cation discourse’: if accused or attacked, one denies,
plays down, relativises or turns the tables (‘identi¼cation
with the aggressor’; Anna Freud). And this theory is well
illustrated by the rhetoric of the FPÖ.
For an understanding and explanation of all these — at
¼rst glance — unrelated issues we need an approach which
is both historically oriented and context-sensitive. More-
over, we need to analyze di¬erent genres and di¬erent
groups of texts. Therefore, we need a variety of linguistic
tools, which are adequate for a speci¼c genre and also well
justi¼ed middle-range theories to explain this European and
Austrian phenomenon. For example, the small sequences of
text analyzed in this paper need historical theories about
Austria’s coping with the Nazi past. Without such important
approaches from neighboring disciplines, the manifest and
latent content of these texts would stay incomprehensible
(see Weiss and Wodak, 2003).
The year 2002 has seen quite a number of elections in the
member states of the EU and in Europe, such as in Hungary,
France, The Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Germany, Po-
land. On the one hand, the further rise of the ‘Right’ is
proclaimed, on the other hand, the end of the old dichotomy
between ‘Left and Right’ is considered. Old labels and con-
cepts seem obsolete, and we are dealing with new rightwing
populist parties, which are similar in some respects, but
di¬er in many salient dimensions. It would be important to
compare the rhetoric in all these countries and speci¼cally,
the rhetoric of these new rightwing populist parties, to avoid
simple generalizations. This would enable us to understand
the con½icting tendencies between globalization and na-
tionalism as well as between the search for new transna-
tional identities and the accompanying insecurity and fears.
‘Haider’ has become a metaphor for a certain European de-
velopment and rhetoric. It is called ‘Haiderization’. It would
be very important not to spread this metaphor without hav-
ing analyzed — as mentioned above — patterns of similarity
and di¬erence. However, we can state that the ongoing de-
bates across Europe on ‘Haider’ have provided a ¼rst topic of
a ‘European debate’, a new European public space, an im-
portant characteristic of Europe’s search for and construc-
tion of a new identity.

Notes
1. This paper is an extended and revised version
of “Discourse and Politics: The Rhetoric of
Exclusion” in Wodak and Pelinka (Eds) (2002).
The theoretical approach is elaborated in Reisigl
and Wodak (2001) and Reisigl (2003).
2. See Martin-Rojo and van Dijk (1997); Van
Dijk (2000); Wilson (1990); Chilton and
Schae¬ner (1997); Wodak and Van Dijk (2000);
Reisigl and Wodak (2000, 2001); Blommaert
and Verschueren (1998).
3. Wodak et al. (1990); Wodak (2000a, b);
Benke (2000); Benhabib (1996).
4. See Horkheimer and Adorno (1991 [1944]),
Marcuse (1980), Horkheimer (1992), Bonß and
Honneth (Eds. 1982), Behabib (1992), Honneth
(1989), Honneth (1990), Honneth (1994),
Menke and Seel (1993), Calhoun (1995),
Habermas (1996, 1998).
5. All these strategies are illustrated by
numerous categories and examples in Reisigl
and Wodak (2001, Chapter 2). It would be
impossible owing to space restrictions to

present all these linguistic devices in this
chapter.
6. As mentioned above, this new government
has negotiated restitution payments for slave
labor and for Shoa survivors. It is di~cult to
understand why the Coalition program does not
mention restitution payments; have these been
negotiated because of the pressure on Austria, or
out of other motives? We can only speculate at
this point. Nevertheless, it is the ¼rst govern-
ment since 1945, which has done so. In which
relationship these payments are to be seen to the
every day beliefs and antisemitic prejudices is
not clear as yet.
References
Benhabib, S. (1992) Situating the Self. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Benhabib, S. (1996). The Democratic Movement
and the Problem of Di¬erence. In S.
Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and Di¬erence:
Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (pp. 3–
18). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Benke, G. (2000). Diskursanalyse als sozialwis-
senschaftliche Unter-suchungsmethode.
SWS Rundschau, 2, 140–162.
Blommaert, J. & Verschueren, J. (1998). The
Diversity Debate. London: Routledge.
Bonß, W. & Honneth, A. (Eds.) (1982).
Sozialforschung als Kritik. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp.
Calhoun, C. (1995). Critical social theory. Culture,
history, and the challenge of di¬erence. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Chilton, P. & Schae¬ner, Ch. (1997). Discourse
and Politics. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as
Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A
Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp.206–231).
Volume 2. London: Sage.
Chilton, P. & Schae¬ner, Ch. (2002). Politics as
Text and Talks. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Demirovic, A. & Bodjavijev, M. (2002).
Konjunkturen des Rassismus. Münster:
Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Dubiel, H. (1994). Ungewißheit und Politik.
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Ehlich, K. (1983). Text und sprachliches
Handeln. Die Entstehung von Texten aus
dem Bedürfnis nach Überlieferung. In A.
Assmann, J. Assmann and C. Hardmeier
(Eds.) Schrift und Gedächtnis. Beiträge zur
Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation,
(pp. 24–43). München: Fink.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis:
The Critical Study of Language [Language in
Social Life Series]. London [etc]: Longman.
Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical
Discourse Analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.)
Discourse as Social Interaction (pp. 258–284).
London: Sage.
Girnth, H. (1996). Texte im politischen Diskurs.
Ein Vorschlag zur diskursorientierten
Beschreibung von Textsorten. Muttersprache,
Vol.106/1, 66–80.
Graefen, G. (1997). Der wissenschaftliche Artikel –
Textart und Textorganisation. Frankfurt am
Main: Lang.
Habermas, J. (1996). Die Einbeziehung des Anderen.
Studien zur politischen Theorie. Frankfurt am
Main: Suhrkamp.
Habermas, J. (1998). Die postnationale Konstellati-
on. Politische Essays. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp.
Honneth, A. (1989). Kritik der Macht. Frankfurt
am Main: Suhrkamp.
Honneth, A. (1990). Die zerrissene Welt des Sozialen.
Sozialphilosophische Aufsätze. Frankfurt am
Main: Suhrkamp.
Honneth, A. (1994). Kampf um Anerkennung. Zur
moralischen Grammatik sozialer Konflikte.
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Horkheimer, M. (1992). Traditionelle und kritische
Theorie: Fünf Aufsätze. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp.
Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T.W. 1991 [1944].
Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische
Fragmente. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
Hummer, W. & Pelinka, A. (2002). Österreich unter
EU-Quarantäne. Die Maßnahmen der 14’ gegen
die österreichische Bundesregierung aus
politikwissenschaftlicher und juristischer Sicht.
Populist discourses 147
Chronologie, Kommentar, Dokumentation. Wien:
Linde.
Januschek, F. (1994). Haider und der rechtspop-
ulistische Diskurs in Österreich. In G.
Tributsch (Ed.), Schlagwort Haider. Ein
politisches Lexikon seiner Aussprüche von 1986 bis
heute. Mit einem Essay von Franz Januschek (pp.
298–301). Wien: Falter Verlag.
Jaspers, K. (1946/1979). Die Schuldfrage. Für
Völkermord gibt es keine Verjährung. München:
R. Piper & Co.
Jones, L. (2000). Foreigner and Asylum Politics
in Western Europe. In R. Wodak and T. van
Dijk (Eds.), Racism at the Top. Klagenfurt:
Drava.
Lemke, J. (1995). Textual Politics: Discourse and
Social Dynamics. London [etc.]: Taylor &
Francis.
Marcuse, H. (1980). Ideen zu einer kritische Theorie
der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp.
Martin-Rojo, L. & Van Dijk, T.A. (1997). There
was a problem and it was solved! Legitima-
tion the expulsion of illegal immigrants in
Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse
and Society. Vol. 84(4), 523–567.
Menke, C. & Seel, M. (1993). Zur Verteidigung der
Vernunft gegen ihre Liebhaber und Verächter.
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Mitten, R. (2000). Guilt and Responsibility in
Germany and Austria. Paper presented to the
conference “Dilemmas of East Central Europe:
Nationalism, Totalitarianism, and the Search for
Identity”. A Symposium Honouring István Déak.
March 24–25, 2000. Columbia University.
Möhring, R. (2001). Österreich allein zuhause.
Politik, Medien und Justiz nach der politischen
Wende. Frankfurt am Main: IKO-Verlag.
Muntigl, P., Weiss, G. & Wodak, R. (2000).
European Union Discourses on Unemployment. An
interdisciplinary approach to employment policy-
making and organizational change. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Nohlen, D. (1998). Lexikon Dritte Welt.
Länder,Organisationen, Theorien, Begri¬e,
Personen. Reinbeck bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Reisigl, M. (2000). Literarische Texte als
148 Ruth Wodak
heuristische Quellen und kunstfertige
Herausforderung für die sprachwissen-
schaftliche Analyse gesprochener Sprache
— Eine Fallstudie am Beispiel von Friedrich
Glauser. In O. Panagl (Ed.). (pp. 237–319).
Vienna: Böhlau.
Reisigl, M. (2003). Wie eine Nation herbeigeredet
wird. Dissertation Institut fur Sprachwissen-
schaft, Vienna.
Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (Eds.) (2000). The
Semiotics of Racism. Wien: Passagen Verlag
Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and
Discrimination. London: Routledge.
Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2000). ‘Austria ¼rst’. A
Discourse-Historical Analysis of the
Austrian ‘Anti-Foreigner-Petition’ in 1992
and 1993. In M. Reisigl and R. Wodak
(Eds.), The Semiotics of Racism. Vienna:
Passagen Verlag.
Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2002). Die Rhetorik
des Nationalpopulismus – einige
diskursanalytische und argumentations-
theoretische Überlegungen zum “nationa-
len Schulterschluss”. In A. Demirovic & M.
Bodjavijev. Konjunkturen des Rassismus (pp.
90–111). Münster: Westfälisches Dampf-
boot.
Reinfeldt, S. (2000). Nicht-wir und Die-da. Studien
zum rechten Populismus. Wien: Braumüller.
Scharsach, H.-H. (2000). Haider. Österreich und die
Rechte Versuchung. Hamburg: Rororo.
Schi¬rin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Taggart, P. (2000). Populism and the pathology of
representative politics. Paper presented in
Workshop on Populism, European University
Institute, Florence, 14–15 January 2000.
Taguie¬, P.-A. (1998). Populismes et anti-
populismes: le choc des argumentations. In
Mots, Vol. 55 (June), 5–26.
Ter Wal, J. (1997). Credibility Strategies in Political
Discourses. (unpublished paper)
Ter Wal, J. (1999). New Right, New Racism?
Alleanza Nazionale and the Lega Nord in Debates
on Immigration in Italien Parliament. Paper
presented at the 22th International Society of
Political Psychology Conference July, 1999.
Amsterdam.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1984). Prejudice in Discourse.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2000). Critical Discourse
Analysis. In D.Tannen, D.Schi¬rin &
H.Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse
Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Weiss, G. & Wodak, R. (2003). Critical Discourse
Analysis. Theory and Interdisciplinarity.
London: MacMillan.
Wilson, J. (1990). Politically speaking. Oxford:
Blackwell
Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of Discourse. London:
Longman.
Wodak, R. (2000a). The rise of racism – an
Austrian or a European phenomenon?
Discourse & Society, 11(1), 5–6.
Wodak, R. (2000b). Wer echt, anständig und
ordentlich ist bestimme ich! – Wie Jörg
Haider und die FPÖ die österreichische
Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft
beurteilen. Multimedia, 20/2/2000.
Wodak, R. (2001a). Multiple Identities: The Role
of Female Parliamentarians in the EU
Parliament. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerho¬
(Eds.)(In print). Handbook of Language and
Gender. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wodak, R. (2001b). Diskurs, Politik, Identität.
In O. Panagl, H. Goebl & E. Brix (Eds), Der
Mensch und seine Sprache(n) (pp. 133–155).
Wien: Böhlau.
Wodak, R. (2002a). Europe in the Search of New
Identities. In C. Candlin (Ed.). Research and
Practice in Professional Discourse. Hong Kong:
City University of Hong Kong Press.
Wodak, R. (2002b). Discourse and Politics: The
Rhetoric of Exclusion. In R. Wodak & A.
Pelinka (Eds.). The Haider Phenomenon in
Austria. New Brunswick: Transaction Press.
Wodak, R. & de Cillia, R. (1988). Sprache und
Antisemitismus. Institut für Wissenschaft
und Kunst. Mitteilungen, 4,1988.
Wodak, R., Pelikan, J., Nowak, P., Gruber, H.,
de Cillia, R., Mitten, R. (1990). ‘Wir sind alle
unschuldige Täter!’ Diskurshistorische Studien zum
Nachkriegsantisemitismus. Frankfurt, Main:
Suhrkamp.
Wodak, R. [et al.] (1994). Die Sprachen der
Vergangenheiten. Ö¬entliches Gedenken in
österreichischen und deutschen Medien. Frankfurt
am Main: Suhrkamp.
Wodak, R, de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., Liebhart, K.,
Hofstätter, K. and Kargl, M. (1998). Zur
diskursiven Konstruktion nationaler Identität.
Frankfurt, Main: Suhrkamp.
Wodak, R, de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., Liebhart, K.
(1999). The Discursive Construction of National
Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press (revised and shortend translation of R.
Wodak, R. de Cillia, M. Reisigl, K. Liebhart,
K. Hofstätter, K. and M. Kargl 1998).
Wodak, R. & van Dijk, T. (Eds) (2000). Racism at
the Top. Klagenfurt: Drava.
Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds.) (2001). Methods of
Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
Wodak, R. & Pelinka, A. (Eds) (2002). The Haider
Phenomenon in Austria. New Brunswick:
Transaction Press.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
about the author
Ruth Wodak is Professor for Applied Linguistics
at the Department of Linguistics at the
University of Vienna. Her ¼elds of Interest are
Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics, Organisa-
tional Research, Identity Research, Gender
Studies, Research on Comprehensability of
Texts, Research on Racism and Anti-Semitism.
She is Director and Initiator of the Research
Center ‘Discourse, Politics and Identity’ at the
University in Vienna. Recent publications are EU
Discourses on Unemployment, Benjamins 2000 (with
G. Weiss and P. Muntigl); Racism at the Top, Drava
2000 (with Teun van Dijk); The Haider Phenomenon
in Austria, Transaction Press 2002 (with A.
Pelinka); Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, Sage
2001 (with M. Meyer); Critical Discourse Analysis.
Theory and Interdisciplinarity, Palgrave/MacMillan
2003 (with G. Weiss).
Contact: ruth.wodak@univie.ac.at