Date post: | 14-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | raimundo-sousa |
View: | 220 times |
Download: | 0 times |
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 1/21
Critical Discourse Analysis
Author(s): Jan Blommaert and Chris BulcaenSource: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 29 (2000), pp. 447-466Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/223428
Accessed: 20/02/2009 16:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 2/21
Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2000. 29:447-66
Copyright? 2000 by Annual Reviews. All rightsreserved
CRITICALDISCOURSEANALYSIS
JanBlommaertGhent University, Department of African Languages and Cultures, B-9000 Gent,
Belgium;e-mail: [email protected]
Chris BulcaenGhentUniversity,Departmentof English,B-9000 Gent,Belgium;e-mail: [email protected]
Key Words linguistics, ocialtheory,power, deology,critique
* Abstract Thispaperprovidesa surveyof criticaldiscourseanalysis(CDA),arecent school of discourseanalysisthat concerns tself with relationsof powerand
inequality n language.CDA explicitlyintendsto incorporateocial-theoreticaln-
sightsinto discourseanalysisandadvocates ocial commitment nd interventionismin research.The mainprogrammaticeaturesanddomainsof enquiryof CDA arediscussed,withemphasison attemptsoward heory ormation y oneof CDA'smost
prominentcholars,NormanFairclough.Another ectionreviews hegenesisanddis-
ciplinarygrowthof CDA, mentionssome of the recent criticalreactions o it, andsituatest within he widerpictureof a new criticalparadigm evelopingn a numberof language-orientedsub)disciplines.Inthis criticalparadigm, opicssuch as ideol-
ogy, inequality, ndpower igureprominently,ndmanyscholars roductively ttemptto incorporateocial-theoreticalnsights nto thestudyof language.
INTRODUCTION
Criticaldiscourseanalysis (CDA) emerged
in the late 1980s as aprogrammaticdevelopment n Europeandiscoursestudiesspearheadedby NormanFairclough,
Ruth Wodak,Teun van Dijk, and others. Since then, it has become one of themost influentialandvisible branchesof discourseanalysis (as can be seen in the
anthology by Jaworski& Coupland1999). We providean overview of the mainthrustsof this movement,discuss criticallyits mainfoci of attention,and situateit in a wider panoramaof developmentsin linguistics. In so doing, we hope toshow that the criticalturn n studies of languageis by no means restricted o anysingle approachbutrepresentsa moregeneralprocessof (partial)convergence ntheoriesandpracticesof researchon language.CDAprovidedacrucial heoretical
andmethodological mpetusfor this paradigm,butit could benefit from a closerintegrationwith new developments.
0084-6570/00/1015-0447$14.00 447
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 3/21
448 BLOMMAERT BULCAEN
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
The CDA ProgramThe purposeof CDA is to analyze "opaqueas well as transparenttructural e-
lationshipsof dominance, discrimination,power and control as manifested in
language"(Wodak 1995:204). More specifically,"[CDA]studiesreal, and often
extended, nstancesof social interactionwhich take(partially) inguisticform. Thecriticalapproachs distinctive n its view of (a) therelationshipbetweenlanguageandsociety,and(b) therelationshipbetweenanalysisand thepracticesanalysed"(Wodak1997:173).
CDAstates hatdiscourse s sociallyconstitutiveas well associallyconditioned.
Furthermore, iscourse is an opaque power object in modem societies and CDAaimsto make it more visible andtransparent.
It is an important haracteristic f the economic, social and culturalchangesof late modernity hattheyexist as discourses as well as processesthat are
takingplace outsidediscourse,and that theprocessesthat aretakingplaceoutside discourse aresubstantively hapedby these discourses.
Chouliaraki& Fairclough 1999:4)
The most elaborateand ambitiousattempt oward heorizing he CDAprogramis
undoubtedlyFairclough'sDiscourse and Social
Change(1992a).
Faircloughconstructsa social theoryof discourseandprovidesa methodological blueprintfor criticaldiscourseanalysis npractice. [Otherprogrammatictatementsof CDA
can be foundin Fairclough 1992b, 1995b),Chouliaraki& Fairclough 1999), van
Leeuwen(1993), vanDijk (1993a,c, 1997), and Wodak 1995, 1997).]
Fairclough 1992a) sketchesa three-dimensional rameworkor conceivingof
andanalyzingdiscourse. The firstdimension s discourse-as-text,.e. thelinguisticfeaturesandorganization f concrete nstancesof discourse. Choicesandpatternsin vocabulary e.g. wording,metaphor),grammar e.g. transitivity,modality),co-
hesion (e.g. conjunction, chemata),and textstructuree.g. episoding,turn-taking
system) shouldbe systematicallyanalyzed(see below for CDA'srelianceon cer-tain branchesof linguistics). The use of passiveverbforms in news reporting, or
instance,can have the effect of obscuringthe agent of political processes. This
attention o concrete extual eaturesdistinguishesCDAfromgermaneapproachessuch as Michel Foucault's,according o Fairclough 1992a).
The second dimension is discourse-as-discursive-practice,.e. discourse as
something hat sproduced, irculated,distributed,onsumed nsociety.Faircloughsees these processes largelyin termsof the circulationof concretelinguisticob-
jects (specific texts or text-typesthatareproduced,circulated,consumed,and so
forth),butkeepingFoucault n mind,remarkablyittle time is spenton resources
and other "macro"conditions on the productionand distributionof discourse.Approachingdiscourse as discursivepracticemeans that in analyzingvocabu-
lary, grammar, ohesion, andtext structure,attentionshould be given to speech
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 4/21
CRITICALDISCOURSEANALYSIS
acts, coherence, and intertextuality-three aspects that link a text to its context.
Faircloughdistinguishesbetween "manifest ntertextuality"i.e. overtly drawing
uponother exts)and "constitutiventertextuality"r"interdiscursivity"i.e. textsare made up of heterogeneouselements: generic conventions,discourse types,register,style). Oneimportant spectof the firstform is discourserepresentation:how quoted utterancesare selected, changed, contextualized(for recent contri-butions to the study of discourse representation,see Baynham& Slembrouck
1999).The thirddimensionis discourse-as-social-practice,.e. the ideologicaleffects
and hegemonic processes in which discourse is a feature(for CDA'suse of thetheories andconceptsof AlthusserandGramsci,see below). Hegemonyconcerns
powerthatis achievedthroughconstructingalliances andintegrating lasses and
groups throughconsent, so that "thearticulationand rearticulation f orders ofdiscourse s correspondingly ne stake n hegemonic struggle" Fairclough1992a:
93). It is from this third dimension that Faircloughconstructs his approach o
change:Hegemonieschange,andthis can be witnessed ndiscursivechange,whenthe latter s viewed from the angle of intertextuality.The way in which discourseis being represented, espoken,or rewritten heds light on the emergenceof newordersof discourse,strugglesovernormativity, ttemptsatcontrol,and resistance
againstregimesof power.Fairclough 1992a) is explicit with regard o his ambitions:The model of dis-
course hedevelops
is framed n atheory
ofideological processes
insociety,
fordiscourseis seen in termsof processes of hegemonyandchanges in hegemony.Fairclough uccessfully dentifies arge-scalehegemonicprocessessuch asdemoc-
ratization,commodification,and technologizationon the basis of heteroglossicconstructionsof text genres and styles (see example below). He also identifiesthe multipleways in which individualsmove throughsuch institutionalizeddis-cursiveregimes,constructing elves, social categories,and social realities. At thesame time, the generaldirection s one in which social theoryis used to providea linguisticmetadiscourseandin which the target s a refinedandmorepowerfultechniqueof text analysis.
CDA'slocus of critiqueis the nexus of language/discourse/speech nd socialstructure.It is in uncovering ways in which social structure mpinges on dis-course patterns,relations,and models (in the form of power relations,ideolog-ical effects, and so forth), and in treatingthese relations as problematic,thatresearchersn CDA situatethe criticaldimensionof theirwork. It is notenoughto
lay barethesocialdimensionsof languageuse. Thesedimensionsare theobjectofmoral andpoliticalevaluationandanalyzingthemshouldhave effects in society:empowering hepowerless,giving voices to the voiceless, exposing powerabuse,andmobilizingpeopletoremedysocialwrongs.CDAadvocates nterventionismnthesocialpractices tcritically nvestigates.Toolan 1997) evenoptsfor aprescrip-
tive stance: CDA should make proposalsfor change and suggest correctionstoparticulardiscourses. CDA thusopenly professesstrongcommitments o change,empowerment,andpractice-orientedness.
449
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 5/21
450 BLOMMAERT BULCAEN
Methodology
On a methodological evel, CDApresentsa diversepicture.Forhistoricalreasons
(see below), the use of systemic-functional inguistics s prominent,butcategoriesand conceptshave also been borrowedfrom more mainstreamdiscourseanaly-sis andtext linguistics, stylistics, social semiotics, social cognition,rhetoric,and,morerecently,conversationanalysis. Wodakand her associates havedevelopeda
discourse-historicalmethodintent on tracingthe (intertextual)historyof phrasesand arguments see, for example, Wodak 1995, van Leeuwen & Wodak 1999).The method startswithoriginaldocuments e.g. in theiranalysisof the Waldheim
affair,Wehrmachtdocuments on war activities in the Balkan),is augmentedby
ethnographic esearchaboutthepast(e.g. interviewswith warveterans),andpro-
ceeds towide-rangingdatacollection andanalysisof contemporary ewsreporting,politicaldiscourse, ay beliefs, and discourse.
Somepractitioners f CDA welcome thediversityof methodology Chouliaraki& Fairclough1999:17); others strive for a systematicand focused framework,
based, for instance, on concepts of genre and field and on the sociosemantic
representation f social actors(vanLeeuwen 1993, 1996).
Althoughsuch scholarsas Kress(1997) and Kress & van Leeuwen(1996) (seealso Slembrouck1995) emphasizethe importanceof incorporating isual imagesinto conceptsof discourse and move towardbroadermultimodalconceptionsof
semiosis, the generalbias in CDA is toward inguisticallydefinedtext-concepts,
and linguistic-discursive extual structuresare attributeda crucial function inthe social productionof inequality, power, ideology, authority,or manipulation(vanDijk 1995).
PreferredTopics
CDA's preferencefor work at the intersectionof language and social structure
is manifest in the choice of topics and domains of analysis [panoramas an be
found,forexample, nSchaffner& Wenden 1995), Caldas-Coulthard Coulthard
(1996), Blommaert& Bulcaen(1997)]. CDApracticionersendto workonapplied
andapplicable opicsand social domains such as the following.1. Political discourse See, for example,Wodak 1989), Chiltonet al (1998),
Fairclough 1989, 1992a),andFairclough& Mauranen 1997).
2. Ideology Discourseis seen as a meansthroughwhich (andin which)
ideologies arebeingreproduced. deologyitself is a topic of considerable
importancen CDA. Hodge & Kress(1979) set thetone with theirwork.
Morerecently,vanDijk (1998) has produceda sociocognitivetheoryof
ideology.
3. Racism Particular ttentionwithinthis studyis given to racism. VanDijk
standsout as a prolificauthor 1987, 1991, 1993b),butthe topichas alsobeen coveredby manyothers(fora survey,see Wodak& Reisigl 1999).Relatedto the issue of racismis a recent interest n the discourseon
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 6/21
CRITICALISCOURSENALYSIS
immigration e.g. MartinRojo & vanDijk 1997, van Leeuwen & Wodak
1999).
3. Economicdiscourse See, for example,Fairclough 1995b). The issue ofglobalizationhas been formulatedas an importantpreoccupationor CDA
(Slembrouck1993, Chouliaraki& Fairclough1999:94).
4. Advertisement ndpromotionalculture See, for example, Fairclough(1989, 1995b),Slembrouck 1993), andThorborrow (1998).
5. Media language See, for example,Fairclough 1995a), vanDijk (1991),Kress(1994), andMartin-Rojo 1995).
6. Gender See especially the representation f womenin the media(e.g.Talbot1992;Caldas-Coulthard 993, 1996;Clark& Zyngier1998;Walsh
1998;Thorborrow 1998).
7. Institutionaldiscourse Languageplays a role in institutionalpracticessuch as doctor-patient ommunication e.g. Wodak1997), social work
(e.g. Wodak1996, Hall et al 1997), andbureaucracySarangi&
Slembrouck1996)
8. Education See, for example,Kress(1997) and Chouliaraki 1998).Education s seen as a majorarea for the reproduction f social relations,
including representation ndidentityformation,but also forpossibilitiesof
change. Faircloughand associateshavedevelopeda criticallanguage
awareness CLA) approach hatadvocatesthe stimulationof criticalawarenesswith studentsof pedagogicaldiscourses anddidactic means(cfClarket al 1989, 1990;Fairclough1992c, Ivanic 1998).
9. Literacy CDA studies of literacyhave linkedup with those
anthropologicalandsociolinguistic analysesthat view literacyas "situated
practices" e.g. Heath1983, Street1995), e.g. in the context of localcommunities(Barton& Hamilton1998) or education(Baynham1995,New LondonGroup1996, Cope & Kalantzis2000). Scholarsworking n
these "newliteracystudies"havejoined effortsin a new book series
(Bartonet al
2000, Cope& Kalantzis
2000,Hawisher& Selfe
2000).In all thesedomains, ssues of power asymmetries,exploitation,manipulation,
and structuralnequalitiesarehighlighted.
SocialTheory
CDA obviously conceives discourse as a social phenomenonand seeks, conse-
quently, to improve the social-theoreticalfoundations for practicingdiscourse
analysis as well as for situatingdiscourse in society. A fundamentalaspect ofCDA is that t claimsto takeits startingpointin social theory.Twodirectionscan
be distinguished.On the one hand, CDA displays a vivid interestin theories ofpowerandideology. Mostcommonin thisrespectare theuse of Foucault's 1971,1977) formulationsof "ordersof discourse"and "power-knowledge,"Gramsci's
451
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 7/21
452 BLOMMAERT BULCAEN
(1971) notion of "hegemony,"and Althusser's(1971) concepts of "ideologicalstateapparatuses"nd"interpellation."Works n which connectionsbetweendis-
course andpowerprocesses arebeing spelled out are also widely cited, such asLaclau & Mouffe (1985) and Thompson(1990). In Fairclough(1992a), for ex-
ample,thesetheoriesandconceptsaregivena linguistictranslation ndprojectedonto discourseobjectsand communicativepatterns n an attempt o accountfor
the relationshipbetween linguistic practiceand social structure,and to providelinguistically groundedexplanations or changesin theserelationships.
The second direction hatcan be distinguished s anattempt o overcome struc-turalistdeterminism.Inspirationhereis usuallyfoundin Giddens'(1984) theoryof structuration, here a dynamicmodel of therelationshipbetween structure nd
agencyis proposed.Giddens servesas the theoreticalbackgroundo CDA'sclaim
thatactual anguageproducts tand n dialecticrelation o social structure,.e. thatlinguistic-communicativevents can be formative or largersocial processesand
structures.Obviously, when the relationshipbetween linguistic-communicative(or othersemiotic)action and social processesis discussed,frequentreference s
also madeto the workof Bourdieu 1991) andHabermas1984, 1987). Bourdieu's
workis also influential n studies on educationalpractices.The use of these theories can be partlytracedbackto the influence of cultural
studieson CDA, in particularhe seminal activitiesof the Centrefor Contempo-
raryCulturalStudiesof theUniversityof Birmingham.CDA still holdspacewith
culturalstudiesin that tcontinually, houghcritically,engages
with new research
trends n, forexample,postmodern,eminist,postcolonial,andglobalizationstud-
ies [fora"rethinking"f CDA that ntends oground t morefirmly n socialtheory,see Chouliaraki& Fairclough 1999)].
It is importanto realize thatdespitetheinputfrom a varietyof social-scientific
disciplines, CDA should primarilybe positioned in a linguistic milieu, and its
successes should be measuredprimarilywith the yardstickof linguisticsandlin-
guisticallyorientedpragmaticsand discourseanalysis.
An Example:Conversationalization
To Fairclough,many fields of contemporarypublic life are characterizedby "a
widespreadappropriationf the discursivepracticesof ordinaryife in publicdo-
mains" Fairclough& Mauranen1997:91). The new economicmodel of "flexible
accumulation,"or instance,is implemented hroughpracticalchangesin organi-zationsas well as through he productionof abundantmanagerialdiscoursethat
has become hegemonic.Flexible workformsalso involve new uses of language,suchas "the routinisedsimulationof conversational pontaneity"Chouliaraki&
Fairclough1999:5),thathavepowerfulandpossiblydamagingeffects. Becauseof
the highly linguistic-discursive haracterof many changes in late modernityand
theincreasingdesign
andcommodification flanguage orms,
a criticalanalysis
of
discoursebecomes all the moreimportantn fields as diverseas marketing, ocial
welfarework,andpoliticaldiscourse.
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 8/21
CRITICAL ISCOURSE NALYSIS
Inthepoliticalfield forinstance,Fairclough&Mauranen1997) comparepolit-ical interviewsover a time spanof 35 yearsandidentifya clear shift from a formal
andrigidinterviewingstyle towarda mode of interaction hatresemblesordinaryconversation.Recentpolitical nterviewsarecharacterized y acasualmanner, ol-
loquial speechforms,reciprocaladdress orms,andrepetitions.Furthermore,heynote howMargaretThatcher's1983speech stylecrosses socialclass lines: She"ap-
propriatesand simulatesvariousconversational oices,"whereasHaroldMacmil-
lan n 1958"projects consistentclass-specificconversational oice"(Fairclough&Mauranen1997:117). Thus,Thatcher's onversational tyledemonstrates owpo-litical discoursein the 1980s has "colonized"everyday speechgenresin ordertoachievehegemonyandincreased egitimation or the voice of authority.
To Fairclough, his development n political discourse is indicativeof a wider
changein ordersof discoursein contemporary ocieties. These developmentsaresummarized n three large categories: democratization,commodification,and
technologization(Fairclough1992a:200-24). In general,these developmentsalltouch on ways in which discoursegenresfrom one sphereof life impingeon oth-ers for functionalpurposes,and this againsta backgroundof changes in powerrelationshipsn society. Thus,thelanguageof advertizinghasmovedintothe con-versationaldomain n anattempt o allignits messageswiththepreoccupations findividualcustomers as illustrated, orinstance,by the use of directaddress,as in"DidYOU get YOUR Barclay'scard?").Similarly, governmentcommunciationhas
adoptedless formaland more conversational
tyles (e.g. allowing peopleto
directly respondto governmentmessages), andotherprofessionssuch as welfareworkhave followed the same track.Althoughthis may allow for more effective
communication, t blurs theboundariesbetweeninformationandpersuasion,andit obscures"objective"power relationshipsby suggestingthe equalityof conver-sationalrapportn asymmetricalnstitutional nteractions.
Inthistypeof research, mpiricaldataanalysis sdirectly ed into alargerpictureof what discourseand discoursemodes do in society. Thequestionremains,how-
ever, whethersuch large-scaletransformationsn societies can be demonstratedon thebasis of empiricaldatathatare,in effect, restrictedn scope, size, andtime
range. Itwould be interesting, orexample,to compare he "conversationaltyle"of MacmillanandThatcher o that of JohnMajorandTonyBlair.
SITUATINGCDA
The Historyof CDA
In historicalsurveys such as Wodak's(1995), reference is made to the "critical
linguists"of the Universityof EastAnglia,who in the 1970s turned o suchissues
as (a) the use of language n social institutions, b) therelationshipsbetween lan-guage,power,and deology,and(c) whoproclaimedacritical, eft-wing agenda or
linguistics.Theworksof Hodge&Kress(1979) andFowleret al(1979) are seminal
453
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 9/21
454 BLOMMAERT BULCAEN
in thisrespect(for surveys,see Fowler 1996, Birch 1998). Their work was basedon the systemic-functionaland social-semiotic linguistics of Michael Halliday,
whose linguisticmethodologyis still hailed as crucial to CDA practicesbecauseit offers clear and rigorous linguistic categoriesfor analyzingthe relationshipsbetweendiscourseandsocial meaning(see, e.g. Chouliaraki& Fairclough1999).Next to Halliday'sthree metafunctions ideational,interpersonal,extual mean-
ing), systemic-functionalanalyses of transivity,agency, nominalization,mood,information low,andregisterhave been adoptedby CDA. Martin 2000) reviews
the usefulness of systemic-functional inguistics for CDA, suggestingthat CDAshouldapply systemic-functionalnotions moresystematicallyandconsistently.
Fairclough'sLanguageand Power (1989) is commonlyconsideredto be thelandmarkpublication or the "start" f CDA. In this book,Faircloughengagedin
an explicitly politicized analysisof "powerful"discourses n Britain[Thatcheritepoliticalrhetoricandadvertisementsee above)] andoffered the synthesisof lin-
guisticmethod,objectsof analysis,andpoliticalcommitment hathas become thetrademark f CDA.
Generally, hereis a perceptionof a "coreCDA" ypicallyassociated with thework of NormanFairclough,RuthWodak,and Teun van Dijk, and a numberof
relatedapproachesn CDA such as discursivesocialpsychology (e.g. the workof
MichaelBillig, CharlesAntaki,MargaretWetherell), ocial semiotics and workon
multimodalityndiscourse e.g. GuntherKressandTheo vanLeeuwen),systemic-functional inguistics (e.g. JayLemke),andpoliticaldiscourseanalysis (e.g. Paul
Chilton).
Although the influence of Halliday's social-semiotic and grammaticalwork
is acknowledgedandverifiable,referencesto otherdiscourse-analyticprecursors(such as Michel Pecheux)arepost hoc andinspiredmoreby a desire to establisha coherenttradition hanby a genuinehistoricalnetworkof influences. One can
also note that the universeof mobilized sources invokedto support he CDA pro-gramis selective. Referencesto work done in American inguisticsandlinguistic
anthropologyarerare[withthe exceptionof researchon literacy(see above)],as
are references to some precursorswho have had a manifestinfluence on many
"critical" pproacheso language(e.g. FerruccioRossi-Landi,Louis-JeanCalvet)and to critical workin other strandsof languagestudies(e.g. in sociolinguistics).Thepotentialrelevanceof these largelyoverlooked raditions s discussedbelow.
Despitethepresenceof landmark ublicationsandof someacknowledgedead-
ing figures, he boundariesof the CDAmovementas well as theparticularity f its
program eem to haveemerged n an ad hoc fashion. Scholars dentifyingwiththe
label CDA seem to be unitedby the commondomains andtopicsof investigationdiscussedabove,an explicit commitment o social action and to the political left
wing, a common aim of integrating inguistic analysis and social theoryand-
though in more diffuse ways-by a preferencefor empiricalanalysis within a
set of paradigms, ncludingHallidayansystemic-functional inguistics,conversa-tion analysis, Lakoff-inspired pproacheso metaphor,argumentationheory, ext
linguistics,and social psychology.
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 10/21
CRITICAL ISCOURSE NALYSIS
There s sometendencywithinCDA toidentify tself asa"school,"anda number
of writingsareprogrammatically rientedtowardthe formationof a community
of scholarssharing he sameperspective,and to some extentalso sharingsimilarmethodologiesand theoreticalframeworks.Fairclough(1992a:12-36) surveysa
varietyof discourse-analyticapproaches,qualifiedas "noncritical,"n contrast ohis own criticalapproach.Such boundary-shaping racticesare worded in such
resolute terms thattheyresultin suggestivedivisions within discourseanalysis-"critical" ersus "noncritical"-thatare hard o sustain n reality[acomment alsomadeby Widdowson(1998)].
CDA has known a remarkable uccess with studentsand scholars. CDA has a
major orumof publication n thejournalDiscourse &Society,startedn 1990andeditedbyvanDijk(see e.g. vanDijk 1993c); naddition,aEuropean nteruniversity
exchange programdevoted to CDA is now in place, and variousWeb sites andelectronic discussion forums offer contacts and informationon CDAprojectsand
viewpoints.This activepursuitofinstitutionalization as an effect onwhat ollows.Tosomeextent,the "school"characteristics f CDAcreate, o some,animpressionof closureandexclusiveness withrespectto "critique" s a mode, ingredient,and
productof discourseanalysis.
CriticalReception
Criticalreactions o CDAcenteron issues ofinterpretation
ndcontext. In a seriesof reviewarticles,Widdowson 1995, 1996, 1998)has criticizedCDAfor its blur-
ring of importantdistinctions between concepts, disciplines, and methodologies(forreactions,see Fairclough1996, Chouliaraki& Fairclough1999:67). First,henotes thevaguenessof manyconcepts(whatis preciselymeantby discourse,text,structure,practice,andmode?)and models (how manyfunctionsandlevels, andhow can these be proven?).This generalfuzziness is not helpedby the rhetoricaluse of conceptsfromsocial theory.Second,Widdowsonarguesthat,in its actual
analyses, and despite its theoreticalclaims to the opposite, CDA interpretsdis-courseunderthe guise of criticalanalysis.CDA does not analyzehow a text can
be read in many ways, orunderwhat social circumstancest is producedandcon-sumed. The predominanceof interpretation egs questionsaboutrepresentation(cananalystsspeakfor the averageconsumerof texts?),selectivity,partiality, nd
prejudice see also Stubbs1997).The mostfundamental roblem o Widdowson sthatCDA collapses togethersignificationandsignificance,andultimatelyseman-tics andpragmatics.Texts are found to have a certain deological meaningthat isforceduponthe reader. This ratherdeterministicview of humanagencyhas alsobeen criticizedby Pennycook(1994).
Anothercritical debate on CDA was initiatedby Schegloff (1997) and con-tinued by others (Wetherell1998; Billig 1999a,b; Schegloff 1999a,b; see also
Chouliaraki& Fairclough 1999:7). In Schegloff's opinion, there is a tendencyto assume the a priorirelevanceof aspects of context in CDA work: Analystsprojecttheirown politicalbiases andprejudicesonto theirdata andanalyzethem
455
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 11/21
456 BLOMMAERT BULCAEN
accordingly.Stablepatternsof powerrelations are sketchy,often based on littlemore than social andpolitical commonsense, and thenprojectedonto (andinto)
discourse. Schegloff'sownproposalsarethose of orthodoxconversationanalysis:Relevantcontext should be restricted o that context to which participantsn aconversationactivelyandconsequentiallyorient[aposition equallyvulnerable o
critique(see, e.g. Duranti1997:245-79)]. The problematicstatus of context inCDA analyseswas also observedby Blommaert(1997a), who qualifiedthe useof contextin some CDA work as narrative ndbackgrounding nd who noted the"uncritical" cceptanceof particular epresentations f historyand social realityas "backgroundacts" n analyses.
A New CriticalParadigm
The premisethatcritiquederives frominvestigatingandproblematizing he con-nection betweenlanguageandsocial structure s obviouslynotrestricted o CDA.Neither is the tendencyto support his premiseby meansof insights from othersocial-theoretical ields of inquiry, seeking a more sustainablesocial, cultural,and/or historicalfoundation or linguistic analysis.In fact, one can say that bothelements characterize new criticalparadigmnow observable n linguisticanthro-
pology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics,applied linguistics, and other fields. Thereis now far more criticalresearch han thatdevelopingunder he headingof CDA
alone, and one of the surprising eaturesin the CDA literature s the scarcityof
referencesto thisplethoraof work.What follows is a brief and selectivesurveyof thisparadigm,organizedon the
basis of threegeneralfeatures:ideology, inequalityandpower,and social theory.The surveyis not meant to imply an absolutecontrastbetween CDA and other
criticaldevelopmentsn linguistics. CDA is anoriginalcontribution o this critical
paradigm,and some of the scholarswe mention below (e.g. Cameron,Rampton)can be saidto have been influencedby CDA. Also, certainbranchesof CDA have
takenstockof criticaldevelopmentsn linguisticanthropology, otablythe studies
of literacymentionedabove.
Ideology One prominentfeature is the developmentof ideology into a cru-cial topic of investigationand theoretical elaboration.In linguistic anthropol-ogy, Michael Silverstein's work on linguistic ideologies has been seminal, and
it has given rise to a research raditionwith considerablecriticalpunch.Startingfrom views of linguisticideology as embedded n linguisticstructureSilverstein1979), wider views of linguistic-ideologicalphenomenaweredeveloped(for sur-
veys, see Woolard& Schieffelin 1994, Woolard1998) andwere used to analyze
patternsof languageuse andinterlanguage/intervarietyelationships hat carried
clearsocietalpowerorpolicyconnotations Silverstein1996,Schieffelin&Doucet
1998, Errington1998, Spitulnik1998). New inquiries nto aspectsof mediation,intertextuality,ndrepresentationdrawingextensivelyon such authorsas Peirce,Bakhtin,and Habermas) ed to importantnsights into authorityand hierarchies
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 12/21
CRITICAL ISCOURSENALYSIS
of genresandways of speaking(Gal & Woolard1995) and into the dynamicsof
contextualization ndthenatureof text andtextualizationHanks1989,Bauman&
Briggs 1990, Silverstein & Urban1996). Therenewedfocus on ideology shapeda new way of formulating anguage-society relationshipsand opened new av-enues for analyzing language practiceandreflexively discussing analyticalprac-tice. Scholarlytraditionswere reviewedin light of these reformulatedquestions(Irvine 1995; Blommaert1996, 1997b), and established views of languageand
society were questioned(Silverstein1998). Apartfrom a widespreadacceptanceof the notionof "construction"n suchresearch,animportant timulusforreflex-ive research nto analyticalpracticeswas providedby Goodwin's(1994) work on"professional ision,"which arrived t adeeplycriticalperspectiveonprofessionalauthorityand expertstatusin contemporary ociety, and which demonstratedn
greatdetail the anchoringof such status andauthorityn situatedand contextual-ized social practice.Similarresultswere yielded by Mertz(1992) in analysesofthe discursiveteachingstrategiesof professors n an American aw school.
Ideology has also become a crucial concern outside linguistic anthropology.In sociolinguistic milieux in Europeand elsewhere, similar attentionto the im-
plicit theories underlyingestablished views of language and language practiceemergedin roughlythe same period.Joseph& Taylor's(1990) collection of es-
says broke groundin investigatingthe ideological foundationsof the languagesciences, observingthat"[l]inguistics s perhapsmoreof a problemthan a solu-tion" in the social sciences
(Laurendeau1990:206).Williams
(1992) provideda
trenchantocial-theoretical ritiqueof mainstreamociolinguistics,demonstratingits Parsonian tructural-functionalistnderpinningssee also Figueroa1994). Inthemeantime,Milroy& Milroy(1985) hadwrittena landmark tudyon linguisticpurismandprescriptivism, ndCameronhadboth dentifiedanumberof language-ideological phenomena abeled verbalhygiene (Cameron1995) and coauthoredanimportant ollectionof criticalessayson thepracticeof sociolinguisticresearch
(Cameronet al 1992).In the field of pragmatics, ideology has become a major field of inquiry
(Verschueren1999). Reflexive awarenessaboutthe ideologies guiding scholarly
practiceshas been attestedin the critical surveys of one of pragmatics'mostprominentbranches,politenesstheory(Eelen 1999, Kienpointner1999). Spurredby workof BourdieuandLatour,applied inguistshaveequallybegun nvestigatingthe underlyingassumptionsof analysis in education(e.g. Alexander et al 1991)and in other domains of professionalpractice(Gunnarsonet al 1997, Linell &
Sarangi1998).
Inequalityand Power A secondfeatureof the criticalparadigm s the renewedattention o inequalityandpowerin relation o language n society.CDA is surelynot alone in its predilection orpoliticaland other"powerful" iscourseas an ob-
ject of analysis. Linguisticanthropologists uchas Bloch (1975) andBrenneis &Myers(1984) brokegroundwithinfluentialcollections of studies on politicaldis-course genresin non-Western ocieties, and this line of work has been continued
457
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 13/21
458 BLOMMAERT BULCAEN
with importantheoretical esultsby otherscholars(e.g. Duranti1988). A precur-sorto CDAwas workby Mey (1985), whichwaspresentedas a contribution o the
theoryof pragmatics. Wilson's (1990) influentialstudyof political discourse ispragmaticnapproach ndobjective,as arethoseof, forexample,Diamond 1996),Harris 1995), andKuzar 1997). Studiessuch as those by Flowerdew(1998) arebased on rhetorical nalysis.Similarly,professionalsettings nwhichpower asym-metries occur have been explored by a varietyof discourse-analyticalraditionswithinpragmatics,notablyconversation nalysis(e.g.Firth1995,Grossen&Orvig1998).
An issue thathas gainedprominence n research s that of inequalityand the
positioningof individualsandgroups n contemporaryocial andpoliticalhierar-chies. Hymes' (1996) reedition of criticalessays on educationand narrative e-
openeddebates on theallocationof speakingrightsandlinguistic-communicativeresources,offered an interestingreappraisal f Bernstein(as well as of Bourdieuand Habermas),and arguedforcefully for more attention o communicative n-
equalitiesin linguistic anthropologyand sociolinguistics.The locus of such in-
equalities was found in differencesbetween available narrativeresources(e.g.colloquial, dialect, anecdotal)and (often institutionally)requirednarrativere-sources(e.g. standard, iterate, ogical) (cf also Ochs & Capps 1996). Similarly,two recent volumes editedby CharlesBriggs (1996, 1997b),following an earlierone editedby Grimshaw 1990), placedconflict and its discursiveresourceshighon the
agenda.In
particular,Briggsshowed how the constructionof texts and
discourses acrosscontexts-processes of entextualization-can result in power-ful social effects, thus focusing on inequalities n the control over contexts (seeBarthes1956)as well asoverspecificgenresandwaysof speaking.Powerdependsnot only on access to resourcesbut also on access to contexts in which resourcescan be used. The similaritiesbetween this researchprogramand the intertextual
analysis proposed n Fairclough 1992a) arestriking.Detailed attention o narratives lso provideda fertileground or investigating
historyand the historicalpowerrelationshipshatputpeoplein theircurrent ocio-
geographicalspace. From differentperspectives,bothCollins (1998) and Fabian
(1990) demonstrated ow narratives f group(or local geographical)historycanyieldtracesof pastrelationships etweenpolitical,cognitive,and deological hege-monies andpatternsof resistance. Similarconcernsof languageand socialhistoryhave yielded an innovativebody of workin sociolinguistics,in which languagesandlanguagevarietiesaredescribed n termsof politicized (or politicizable)in-dexicalities. We thus arriveat views of languagein society thathinge on powerhierarchies,powersemiotics, andpowereffects, often relatedto identity politicsand nfluencedbythe workof identifiablepoliticalactors n society(Woolard1989;Heller1994, 1999;Jaffe1999). Theinfluenceof Bourdieuand Gramsci s clearinthiswork,as is the tendencyto framethe storyof language n society in material-
ist terms and thetendencyto blendlarge-scalepoliticaland societal observationswithdetailedanalysesof linguistic-communicativeractices[thusarriving t whatHeller(1999) calls a "sociolinguisticethnography"].Of particular mportancen
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 14/21
CRITICALISCOURSENALYSIS
thisrespect s Rampton's 1995) work. Ramptonaddresses heways in whichlocal
subcultural dentitiesarebeing formed andmanipulatedby meansof a varietyof
communicativestyles amongmulti-ethnicadolescentgroupsin Britain.Drawingon a wide range of social-theoreticalsources (including, prominently,Giddens,
Gilroy,andGoffman),Ramptondemonstrates he flexible allocationpracticesofcommunicative esources n identitywork.Simplecorrelatesbetweenidentityand
speech style/varietydo not hold, and what becomes clear is that linearrelation-
shipssuch as thatbetween "nativespeaker," competence," nda particular roup
identityare less thansatisfactory ools for grasping he intricateworkof expertiseand affiliationdetectable n the field.
All the approachesdiscussed so fargive prideof place to issues of linguistic-communicativeresourcesplacedagainsta doublebackground f large-scalesoci-
etalprocesseson the onehand,andmicro-level nteraction vents onthe other.Theconnectionbetweenlanguageand social structure s not madea priori;rather,t is
soughtin the practical nterplaybetweenconcrete actions andgroup-or society-level forcesandpatterns. nworksuchasthatby RamptonandBriggs,theblendingof ethnography ndsociolinguisticshas led to veryproductiveandnuanced reat-
ments of context asproducedboth on-line andsituationally, et tied tolargercondi-tions of productionand circulationof semioticresources n empiricallyverifiable
ways. This sort of work thus offers importantcorrectionsboth to conversation-
analyticalrestrictionsof context to the one-time,oriented-towardmembers'con-text
(Briggs 1997a)andto the"narrative"nd
backgrounded ontext-by-definitionof CDA. Needless to say, this type of work also offers advantagesover workthat focuses on differenceswithoutconsidering he ways in which differencesare
sociallyrankedand madeconsequential asin much workon intercultural ommu-
nication),as well as over workthatassumesrelativelystablerelationshipsbetween
linguisticvarietiesandsociopolitical unctions asinwork nthe"linguistic ights"paradigm).
Social Theory A thirdfeatureof the criticalparadigm, alreadymentionedin
passing, is the common desire to find social-theoreticalsupportfor analytical
treatmentsof language. Languageis studiedfor what it tells one aboutsociety,andlinguistic method should be open to theoretical nsights into the structureofsocieties. There s abodyof literature n which calls forimproved ncorporation fsocial theory ntolinguisticanalysisarebeingvoiced, oftenadvocatingmaterialist
approacheso questionsof linguisticresourcesand the social use of language,and
engagingin discussions of Marxistscholars,rangingfrom Gramsciand BourdieutoRossi-Landi Woolard1985,Rickford1986,Laurendeau 990,Irvine1989,Gal
1989). The reassessmentof Bernstein'sworkby Hymes (1996) has alreadybeenmentioned. An incorporationof historicaltheory into the analysis of languagein society was attempted n Blommaert(1999). Goodwin (1994) compellingly
demonstrates owprofessionalexpertise,seenintermsof situated emioticpracticeinvolving discourse,bodily practice,andinstitutionalization, an be viewed as aFoucaultian"power-knowledge."
459
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 15/21
460 BLOMMAERT BULCAEN
The sources for new insightsareinfinite,and so farlittleuse has been madeofa greatnumberof potentiallyusefuldevelopments n otherdisciplines. Historical
theoryhas so farhardlybeen used as a resource for criticalstudies of language,despitetheobviouslyrelevant ontributions f scholarssuchas, forexample,Marc
Bloch, FernandBraudel,CarloGinzburg,PeterBurke,ImmanuelWallerstein,andEdwardThompson.Equallyless noticed, in the oppositedirection,is the poten-tial effect of newreinterpretations,thnographicallystablished,of BenjaminLeeWhorf(providedamongothersby Hymes andSilverstein)on social theory. Theidea of metacommunicative evels in social communicativebehavior as well asthatof the functionalrelativityof languages,styles, andgenreshave apotential or
becomingimportant ritical oolsbothforlinguisticsand for othersocial-scientific
disciplinesin which languageand communicativebehavior eature-history, an-
thropology,psychology,and sociology immediatelycome to mind. The effect ofthese insightson the ways in which texts, narratives,documentary vidence, andso forth are treated as sources of "meaning" or "information")an contribute
significantly o a greaterawarenessof small buthighlyrelevantpowerfeatures nsuchmaterials.
ASSESSINGCDA
The above selectivesurvey
is aimed atdemonstrating
hatCDA,
as anoriginaland stimulatingresearchdiscipline, shouldbe situatedwithin a widerpanorama
of commonconcerns,questions,andapproachesdevelopingamonga much wider
scholarlycommunity.At the sametime,CDAmaybenefitfrom the criticalpoten-tial of these relateddevelopments n orderto remedysome of its theoreticaland
methodologicalweaknesses,notablythose relatedto the treatmentsof contextin
CDA. The latter s arguably hebiggest methodological ssue facedby CDA.
At the micro-level, concrete instances of talk or concrete features of text
could be analyzed more satisfactorily f a more dynamic concept of context-contextualization-were used. The developmentsin linguistic anthropology, n
which processes of contextualization de- and recontextualization, ntextualiza-tion(Bauman& Briggs 1990, Silverstein&Urban1996)]could be a fertile sourceof inspiration or developinga dynamic conceptof context. In general,moreat-
tention to ethnographyas a resourcefor contextualizingdata andas a theoryfor
theinterpretationf datacouldremedysome of the currentproblemswith context
andinterpretationn CDA (forgeneraldiscussions andarguments, ee Duranti&
Goodwin 1992, Auer& diLuzio 1992).At the macro-level,CDA seems to pay little attentionto mattersof distribu-
tion and resultingavailability/accessibilitypatternsof linguistic-communicativeresources.Only the texts become objectsof a political economy; the conditions
of productionof texts andmore specificallythe way in which the resourcesthatgo into text are being managedin societies are rarelydiscussed (e.g. with re-
spectto literacy,control overcodes, etc). At thispoint,recentsociolinguisticand
linguistic-anthropologicalwork, such as that of Hymes, Briggs, Woolard,Gal,
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 16/21
CRITICAL ISCOURSE NALYSIS
Rampton,and Heller could considerablycontribute owarda more refinedim-
age of languages, genres,andstyles, as embedded n flexiblebuthighly sensitive
repertoires hat have a historyof sociopoliticaldistribution.Linguisticresourcesare contextsin the sense thatthey arepartof the conditions of productionof anyutteranceor text and thus determinewhat can and cannot be saidby some peoplein some situations.
Thewayinwhich CDAtreats hehistoricityof text(largelyreducible oassump-tions about ntertextual hains)could benefitfromgenuinelyhistorical heoretical
insights. On the one hand, stock could be taken of the "naturalhistories of dis-course"perspectivedevelopedby Silverstein& Urban(1996); on the otherhand,the acknowledgmentof an intrinsic and layered historicityof each social eventcould contribute o more accurate assessments of what certain texts do in soci-
eties. The contextualization f discoursedatawouldbenefitfrom a moreattentivestance towardthe historicalpositioningof the events in which the discourse dataare set (as well as of the historicalpositioningof the momentof analysis: "Whynow?"is a relevantquestionin analysis).
CDA is still burdenedby a very "linguistic"outlook,which preventsproduc-tive ways of incorporating inguistic and nonlinguisticdimensions of semiosis
(apparent,or instance,in the verypartial nterpretation f Foucault's"discours"in Fairclough'swork). Here as well, a moreethnographicallynformedstance,inwhichlinguisticpractice s embedded n moregeneralpatternsof humanmeaning-ful
action,could be
highly productive.Goodwin's workcould serve as an
examplehere.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thankAlessandroDuranti,Ben Rampton,and Stef Slembrouckforvaluablecomments on a first version of thispaper.
Visit the Annual Reviews homepage at www.AnnualReviews.org
LITERATURE ITED
Alexander A,SchallertMD,HareVC. 1991.
Comingoterms:how researchersn learn-
ing and iteracyalkaboutknowledge.Rev.Educ.Res. 61(3):315-43
AlthusserL. 1971. Lenin and PhilosophyandOtherEssays.London:New LeftBooks
AuerP,diLuzioA, eds.1992.TheContextual-ization
ofLanguage.Amsterdam:
BenjaminsBarthesR. 1956. Mythologies.Paris:Le SeuilBartonD, HamiltonM. 1998. Local Litera-
cies: Readingand Writing n One Commu-
nity.London:Routledge
BartonD, HamiltonM, IvanicR, eds. 2000.SituatedLiteracies: Readingand Writing nContext. ondon:Routledge
BartonD, IvanicR, eds. 1991.Writingn the
Community.London:SageBauman ,BriggsC.1990.Poetics ndperfor-
manceas criticalperspectivesn languageandsocial life. Annu.Rev.
Anthropol.19:59-
88
BaynhamM. 1995.LiteracyPractices: Investi-
gating Literacy n Social Contexts.London:
Longman
461
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 17/21
462 BLOMMAERT* BULCAEN
BaynhamM, SlembrouckS, eds. 1999. SpeechRepresentationand InstitutionalDiscourse.
SpecialIssue Text
19(4):459-592Billig M. 1999a.Whose terms?Whose ordinar-iness? Rhetoricand deologyinconversation
analysis.Discourse Soc. 10(4):543-58
Billig M. 1999b. Conversation nalysisand theclaims of naivety.Discourse Soc. 10(4):572-76
Birch D. 1998. Criticism, linguistic. In Con-cise Encyclopediaof Pragmatics,ed. JMey,pp. 190-94. Oxford,UK:Pergamon/Elsevier
Bloch M, ed. 1975. Political Language and
Oratory in TraditionalSocieties. London:Academic
Blommaert J. 1996. Language planning asa discourse on language and society: onthe linguistic ideology of a scholarlytradi-
tion. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 20(3):199-222
Blommaert J. 1997a. Whose background?Comments on a discourse-analyticrecon-
structionof the WarsawUprising. Pragmat-
ics 7(1):69-81Blommaert J. 1997b. Workshopping: noteson professionalvision in discourseanalysis.Antwerp Pap. Linguist., Vol. 91. Antwerp,Belgium: Univ.Antwerp
BlommaertJ, ed. 1999. Language IdeologicalDebates. Berlin: De Gruyter
BlommaertJ, Bulcaen C, eds. 1997. Political
Linguistics.Amsterdam:BenjaminsBourdieu P. 1991. Language and Symbolic
Power Cambridge,UK:Polity
BrenneisDL, MyersFR,eds. 1984.DangerousWords:LanguageandPolitics in thePacific.New York: NY Univ.Press
BriggsC,ed. 1996.DisorderlyDiscourse: Nar-
rative, Conflictand Inequality.New York:Oxford Univ. Press
Briggs C. 1997a. Notes on a 'confession': theconstruction of gender, sexuality and vi-olence in an infanticide case. See Briggs1997b,pp. 519-46
BriggsC, ed. 1997b.
Conflictand Violence in
PragmaticResearch.SpecialissuePragmat-ics 7(4):451-633
Caldas-CoulthardCR. 1993. From discourse
analysis to critical discourse analysis: thedifferential
representationof women andmenspeaking n writtennews.InTechniquesof Description: Spoken and Written Dis-
course, ed. JM Sinclair, M Hoey, G Fox,
pp. 196-208. London:RoutledgeCaldas-Coulthard R. 1996. 'Womenwho pay
for sex. And enjoy it': transgressionversus
morality n women'smagazines.See Caldas-Coulthard& Coulthard1996,pp. 250-70
Caldas-Coulthard R,CoulthardM, eds. 1996.Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical
DiscourseAnalysis.London:RoutledgeCameronD. 1995. VerbalHygiene. London:
RoutledgeCameronD, FrazerE, HarveyP, RamptonB,
RichardsonK. 1992.ResearchingLanguage:Issuesof Powerand Method.London: Rout-
ledgeChilton P, Mey J, Ilyin M, eds. 1998. Politi-
cal Discourse in TransitionnEurope1989-
1991. Amsterdam:Benjamins
ChouliarakiL. 1998. Regulationin 'progres-sivist' pedagogic discourse: individualized
teacher-pupilalk.Discourse Soc. 9(1):5-32ChouliarakiL, FaircloughN. 1999. Discourse
in Late Modernity: Rethinking CriticalDiscourse Analysis. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniv. Press
ClarkR, FaircloughN, IvanicR, Martin-Jones
M. 1989. Criticalanguageawareness.Part1:
A criticalreviewof threecurrent pproaches.Lang.Educ.4(4):249-60
ClarkR, FaircloughN, IvanicR, Martin-JonesM. 1990. Criticallanguageawareness.Part2: Towards riticalalternatives.Lang.Educ.
5(1):41-54Clark U, Zyngier S. 1998. Women beware
women: detective fiction and critical dis-
courseanalysis.Lang.Lit.7(2):141-58Collins J. 1998. Understanding Tolowa
Histories: WesternHegemoniesand Native
AmericanResponses.New York:Routledge
CopeB, KalantzisM, eds. 2000. Multilitera-
cies: Literacy Learningand the Design ofSocial Futures.London:Routledge
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 18/21
CRITICALDISCOURSEANALYSIS
Diamond J. 1996. Status and Power in Ver-
bal Interaction: A Study of Discourse in
a Close-Knit Social Network. Amsterdam:Benjamins
DurantiA. 1988. Intentions, anguageand so-
cial action in a Samoancontext.J. Pragmat.12:13-33
Duranti A. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology.
Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press
DurantiA, Goodwin C, eds. 1992 RethinkingContext.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv.
Press
Eelen G. 1999. Ideology in politeness: a crit-
ical analysis. PhD thesis. Univ. Antwerp,Antwerp,Belgium. 353 pp.
Errington JJ. 1998. Indonesian('s) develop-ment: on the state of a language of state.
See Schieffelinet al 1998, pp. 271-84
FabianJ. 1986.Languageand Colonial Power.
Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv.Press
Fabian J. 1990. Historyfrom Below. Amster-dam: Benjamins
Fairclough N. 1989. Language and Power.
London:LongmanFairclough N. 1992a. Discourse and Social
Change.Cambridge,UK:PolityFaircloughN. 1992b. Linguisticand intertex-
tual analysiswithin discourseanalysis.Dis-
course Soc. 3:193-217
Fairclough N, ed. 1992c. Critical LanguageAwareness.London:Longman
FaircloughN. 1995a. Media Discourse. Lon-
don: Arnold
FaircloughN. 1995b.CriticalDiscourse Anal-
ysis. London:LongmanFaircloughN. 1996.A replyto HenryWiddow-
son's 'Discourse analysis: a critical view.'
Lang.Lit. 5(1):49-56
FaircloughN, MauranenA. 1997. The conver-sationalization f politicaldiscourse:a com-
parative view. See Blommaert & Bulcaen
1997, pp. 89-119
FigueroaE. 1994. SociolinguisticMetatheory.Oxford,UK: Pergamon
Firth A. 1995. The Discourseof Negotiation:Studiesof Language in the Workplace.New
York:Pergamon
Flowerdew J. 1998. TheFinal Yearsof British
Hong Kong:TheDiscourseof ColonialWith-
drawal.Hong Kong:
Macmillan
FoucaultM. 1971. L'Ordredu Discours. Paris:
Gallimard
FoucaultM. 1977.DisciplineandPunish.Lon-
don: Lane
Fowler R. 1996. On Critical Linguistics.See Caldas-Coulthard& Coulthard 1996,
pp. 3-14Fowler R, Hodge R, Kress G, Trew T. 1979.
Languageand Control.London:Routledge,
KeganPaul
Gal S. 1989. Languageandpolitical economy.Annu.Rev.Anthropol.18:345-67
GalS, WoolardK,ed. 1995. ConstructingLan-
guages and Publics. Special IssuePragmat-ics 5(2):129-282
Giddens A. 1984. The Constitutionof Soci-
ety. Outlineof the Theoryof Structuration.
Cambridge,UK:PolityGoodwin C. 1994. Professional vision. Am.
Anthropol.96(3):606-33
GramsciA. 1971. Selectionsfrom the PrisonNotebooks.London:Lawrence,WishartGrimshawAD, ed. 1990. ConflictTalk: So-
ciolinguistic Investigationsof Argumentsn
Conversation.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv.Press
GrossenM, Orvig AS, eds. 1998. Clinical In-
terviewsas Verbal nteractions:A Multidis-
ciplinaryOutlook.SpecialIssue Pragmatics8(2):149-297
GunnarssonBL, Linell P, Nordberg B, eds.
1997. The Construction f ProfessionalDis-course.London:Longman
HabermasJ. 1984. TheTheoryof Communica-tiveAction. Vol. 1. Reasonand theRational-
izationof Society.London:HeinemannHabermasJ. 1987. TheTheoryof Communica-
tive Action. Vol. 2. Lifeworldand System:A
Critique of Functionalist Reason. London:Heinemann
Hall C, Sarangi S, Slembrouck S. 1997.Moral construction in social work dis-course. See Gunnarson t al 1997, pp. 265-91
463
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 19/21
464 BLOMMAERT? BULCAEN
Hanks W. 1989. Text andtextuality.Annu.Rev.
Anthropol.18:95-127HarrisS. 1995.
Pragmaticsand
power.J.
Prag-mat.23:117-35
HawisherGE, Selfe CL,eds. 2000. GlobalLit-eracies and the World-WideWeb.London:
RoutledgeHeath SB. 1983. Wayswith Words:Language,
Life and Work n Communitiesand Class-rooms. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv.Press
Heller M. 1994. Crosswords: Language, Ed-ucation and Ethnicity in French Ontario.
Berlin: De GruyterHeller M. 1999. Linguistic Minorities and
Modernity: A SociolinguisticEthnography.London:Longman
HodgeR,KressG. 1979.LanguageasIdeology.London:Routledge, KeganPaul
HodgeR,KressG. 1993.LanguageasIdeology.London:Routledge.2nded.
Hymes DH. 1996. Ethnography,Linguistics,Narrative Inequality: Toward an Under-
standing of Voice.London:Taylor,FrancisIrvine J. 1989. When talk isn't cheap: lan-
guage and political economy. Am. Ethnol.
16(2):248-67Irvine J. 1995. The familyromanceof colonial
linguistics: genderandfamilyin nineteenth-
century representations of African lan-
guages.See Gal & Wolard1995,pp. 139-53.Ivanic R. 1998. Writingand Identity:The Dis-
coursal Construction f Identity n Academic
Writing.Amsterdam:Benjamins
Jaffe A. 1999. Ideologies in Action: LanguagePoliticson Corsica. Berlin: De Gruyter
JaworskiA, CouplandN, eds. 1999. The Dis-courseReader.London:Routledge
JosephJE, TaylorTJ,eds. 1990. Ideologies ofLanguage.London:Routledge
KienpointnerM, ed. 1999.Ideologiesof Polite-ness. SpecialIssuePragmatics9(1):1-176
Kress G. 1994. Text andgrammaras explana-tion. In Text,Discourse and Context: Rep-resentations
of Povertyin Britain, ed. UH
Meinhof,KRichardson,pp. 24-46. London:
Longman
Kress G. 1997. BeforeWriting.Rethinking hePaths to Literacy.London:Routledge
KressG,
van Leeuwen T.1996. Reading Im-ages: The Grammarof VisualDesign. Lon-
don: RoutledgeKuzar R. 1997. Split word, split subject, split
society.Pragmatics7(1):21-54LaclauE, MouffeC. 1985. Hegemonyand So-
cialist Strategy.London: VersoLaurendeau P. 1990. Theory of emergence:
towards a historical-materialistic pproachto the history of linguistics. See Joseph &
Taylor1990,pp. 206-20
LinellP,SarangiS, eds. 1998. DiscourseAcrossProfessionalBoundaries.Special Issue Text
18(2):143-318MartinJR. 2000. Close reading:functional in-
guistics as a tool for critical discourse anal-
ysis. In Researching Language in Schoolsand Communities: Functional LinguisticPerspectives,ed. L Unsworth,pp. 275-302.London:Cassell
MartinRojo L. 1995. Division and rejection:
from the personificationof the Gulf conflictto thedemonizationof SaddamHussein.Dis-courseSoc. 6:49-80
MartinRojo L, van Dijk T. 1997. "Therewasa problem,andit was solved!":legitimatingthe expulsionof 'illegal' migrants n Span-ish parliamentary iscourse. Discourse Soc.
8(4):523-66Mertz E. 1992. Linguisticideology andpraxis
in U.S. law school classrooms.Pragmatics2/3:325-34
Mey J. 1985. Whose Language? A Studyin Linguistic Pragmatics. Amsterdam:
BenjaminsMilroy J, Milroy L. 1985. Authority n Lan-
guage: InvestigatingLanguagePrescriptionand Standardisation.London: Routledge,
KeganPaul
Milroy J, Milroy L. 1999. Authority n Lan-
guage: Investigating Standard English.London:Routledge.3rd ed.
New LondonGroup.
1996.Apedagogy
of mul-
tiliteracies: designing social futures.Harv.Educ. Rev.66:60-92
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 20/21
CRITICALDISCOURSEANALYSIS
Ochs E, Capps L. 1996. Narratingthe self.
Annu. Rev.Anthropol.25:19-43
Pennycook A. 1994. Incommensurabledis-courses?Appl.Linguist.15(2):115-38
Rampton B. 1995. Crossing: Languageand EthnicityAmongAdolescents.London:
LongmanRickfordJ. 1986.Theneed for new approaches
to social class analysis in sociolinguistics.
Lang. Commun.6(3):215-21
Sarangi S, Slembrouck S. 1996. Language,
Bureaucracy and Social Control. London:
Longman
SchiiffnerC, WendenA, eds. 1995. Languageand Peace. Aldershot,UK:Dartmouth
Schegloff EA. 1997. Whose text? Whose con-
text? Discourse Soc. 8(2):165-87
Schegloff EA. 1998. Reply to Wetherell.Dis-
course Soc. 9(3):413-16
Schegloff EA. 1999a. 'Schegloff's texts' as
'Billig's data': a critical reply. DiscourseSoc. 10(4):558-72
SchegloffEA. 1999b.Naivete vs sophistication
or disciplinevs self-indulgence.A rejoinderto Billig. Discourse Soc. 10(4):577-82Schieffelin BB, Doucet RC. 1998. The 'real'
Haitian Creole: ideology, metalinguistics,andorthographichoice. See Schieffelin et al
1998, pp. 285-316
Schieffelin BB, Woolard KA, KroskrityPV,eds. 1998. Language Ideologies: Practice
and Theory.New York:Oxford Univ. Press
Silverstein M. 1979. Language structureand
linguistic ideology. In The Elements: A
Parasession on LinguisticUnitsand Levels,ed. PR Clyne, WF Hanks, CL Hofbauer,
pp. 193-247. Chicago: Chicago Linguist.Soc.
Silverstein M. 1996. Monoglot 'standard' n
America: standardization nd metaphorsof
linguistichegemony.In The Matrixof Lan-
guage: Contemporary inguisticAnthropol-ogy, ed. D. Brenneis,RS Macaulay,pp.284-306. Boulder,CO: Westview
SilversteinM.1998.Contemporaryransforma-tions of local linguisticcommunities.Annu.
Rev.Anthropol.27:401-26
SilversteinM,UrbanG,eds. 1996.NaturalHis-
toriesof Discourse.Chicago:Univ.Chicago
PressSlembrouckS. 1993. Globalising flows: pro-motional discoursesof government n West-
ern European 'orders of discourse.' Soc.
Semiot.3(2):265-92SlembrouckS. 1995. Channel.See Verschueren
et al 1995, pp. 1-20.
SpitulnikD. 1998. Mediating unity and diver-
sity: theproduction f language deologiesin
Zambianbroadcasting.See Schieffelinet al
1998, pp. 163-88
Street B. 1995. Social Literacies: CriticalApproaches to Literacy in Development,
Ethnography nd Education.London:Long-man
Stubbs M. 1997. Whorf's children: critical
comments on CDA. In EvolvingModels of
Language,ed. A Ryan,A Wray,pp. 100-16.MiltonKeynes,UK:MultilingualMatters
TalbotM. 1992. The constructionof genderin
a teenage magazine. See Fairclough1992a,
pp. 174-99ThompsonJB. 1990.IdeologyandModernCul-
ture.Cambridge,UK:PolityThomborrow J. 1998. Playing hard to get:
metaphorandrepresentationn thediscourse
of car advertisements.Lang. Lit. 7(3):254-72
ToolanM. 1997.What s criticaldiscourseanal-
ysis andwhy arepeople sayingsuch terrible
thingsabout t? Lang.Lit.6(2):83-103vanDijkT.1987.Communicating acism: Eth-
nic Prejudice n Thoughtand Talk.NewburyPark,CA: Sage
van Dijk T. 1991. Racism and the Press.London:Routledge
vanDijkT.1993a. Criticalanddescriptivegoalsin discourseanalysis.J. Pragmat.9:739-63
vanDijkT. 1993b. Elite Discourseand Racism.
NewburyPark,CA: Sagevan Dijk T. 1993c. Principles of critical dis-
courseanalysis.Discourse Soc. 4:249-83
van Dijk T. 1995. Discourseanalysisas ideol-ogy analysis.See Schaffner& Wenden1995,
pp. 17-33
465
7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 21/21
466 BLOMMAERT? BULCAEN
van Dijk T. 1997. What is political discourse
analysis? See Blommaert& Bulcaen 1997,
pp. 11-52vanDijkT.1998.Ideology:AMultidisciplinaryApproach.London:Sage
vanLeeuwenT. 1993. Genre andfield in criti-cal discourseanalysis:a synopsis.DiscourseSoc. 4(2):193-223
van Leeuwen T. 1996. The representationof social actors. See Caldas-Coulthard&
Coulthard1996,pp. 32-70
van LeeuwenT, WodakR. 1999. Legitimizingimmigration control: discourse-historical
analysis.Discourse Stud.1(1):83-118VerschuerenJ, ed. 1999. Language and Ide-
ology. SelectedPap. 6th Int.Pragmat. Conf.
Antwerp,Belgium: Int.Pragmat.Assoc.VerschuerenJ, OstmanJO, BlommaertJ, eds.
1995. Handbookof Pragmatics1995. Ams-
terdam:BenjaminsWalshC. 1998. Genderandmediatizedpolitical
discourse:a case studyof presscoverageof
MargaretBeckett'scampaign ortheLabour
leadership in 1994. Lang. Lit. 7(3):199-214
WetherellM. 1998. Positioningandinterpreta-tive repertoires:CA and post-structuralismin dialogue.Discourse Soc. 9(3):387-412
WiddowsonH. 1995. Discourse analysis: a
critical view. Lang.Lit.4(3):157-72WiddowsonH. 1996.Replyto Fairclough.Dis-
course and interpretation: conjecturesand
refutations.Lang.Lit.5(1):57-69WiddowsonH. 1998. The theoryand practice
of criticaldiscourseanalysis.Appl.Linguist.19(1):136-51
Williams G. 1992. Sociolinguistics: A Socio-logical Critique.London:Routledge
Wilson J. 1990. Politically Speaking. The
Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language.London:Blackwell
WodakR, ed. 1989. Language,Power and Ide-
ology. Studies in Political Discourse. Ams-
terdam:BenjaminsWodakR. 1995. Criticallinguistics and criti-
cal discourseanalysis.See Verschueren t al
1995,pp. 204-10
Wodak R. 1996. Disorders of Discourse.London:Longman
WodakR. 1997. Criticaldiscourseanalysisandthe study of doctor-patientnteraction.See
Gunnarsson t al 1997,pp. 173-200Wodak R, Reisigl M. 1999. Discourse and
racism: Europeanperspectives.Annu. Rev.
Anthropol.28:175-99WoolardKA.1985.Languagevariation ndcul-
turalhegemony:towardanintegrationof so-
ciolinguisticsandsocial theory.Am. Ethnol.2(4):738-48
Woolard K. 1989. Double Talk:Bilingualismand the Politics of Ethnicity in Catalonia.Stanford:StanfordUniv. Press
WoolardKA. 1998. Language ideology as a
field of inquiry.See Schieffelin et al 1998,
pp. 3-47
WoolardKA, SchieffelinBB. 1994. Language
ideology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:55-
82