critical discourse analysis methodology

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on 5 May 2022 by Amy Luo . Revised on 5 December 2022.

Discourse analysis is a research method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real-life situations.

When you do discourse analysis, you might focus on:

• The purposes and effects of different types of language
• Cultural rules and conventions in communication
• How values, beliefs, and assumptions are communicated
• How language use relates to its social, political, and historical context

Discourse analysis is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and cultural studies. It is also called critical discourse analysis.

Table of contents

What is discourse analysis used for, how is discourse analysis different from other methods, how to conduct discourse analysis.

Conducting discourse analysis means examining how language functions and how meaning is created in different social contexts. It can be applied to any instance of written or oral language, as well as non-verbal aspects of communication, such as tone and gestures.

Materials that are suitable for discourse analysis include:

• Books, newspapers, and periodicals
• Marketing material, such as brochures and advertisements
• Business and government documents
• Websites, forums, social media posts, and comments
• Interviews and conversations

By analysing these types of discourse, researchers aim to gain an understanding of social groups and how they communicate.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Unlike linguistic approaches that focus only on the rules of language use, discourse analysis emphasises the contextual meaning of language.

It focuses on the social aspects of communication and the ways people use language to achieve specific effects (e.g., to build trust, to create doubt, to evoke emotions, or to manage conflict).

Instead of focusing on smaller units of language, such as sounds, words, or phrases, discourse analysis is used to study larger chunks of language, such as entire conversations, texts, or collections of texts. The selected sources can be analysed on multiple levels.

Discourse analysis is a qualitative and interpretive method of analysing texts (in contrast to more systematic methods like content analysis ). You make interpretations based on both the details of the material itself and on contextual knowledge.

There are many different approaches and techniques you can use to conduct discourse analysis, but the steps below outline the basic structure you need to follow.

Step 1: Define the research question and select the content of analysis

To do discourse analysis, you begin with a clearly defined research question . Once you have developed your question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

Discourse analysis is a method that can be applied both to large volumes of material and to smaller samples, depending on the aims and timescale of your research.

Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context

Next, you must establish the social and historical context in which the material was produced and intended to be received. Gather factual details of when and where the content was created, who the author is, who published it, and whom it was disseminated to.

As well as understanding the real-life context of the discourse, you can also conduct a literature review on the topic and construct a theoretical framework to guide your analysis.

Step 3: Analyse the content for themes and patterns

This step involves closely examining various elements of the material – such as words, sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure – and relating them to attributes, themes, and patterns relevant to your research question.

Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions

Once you have assigned particular attributes to elements of the material, reflect on your results to examine the function and meaning of the language used. Here, you will consider your analysis in relation to the broader context that you established earlier to draw conclusions that answer your research question.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Luo, A. (2022, December 05). Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/discourse-analysis-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

Case study | definition, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | guide & examples, content analysis | a step-by-step guide with examples.

Critical Discourse Analysis: Definition, Approaches, Relation to Pragmatics, Critique, and Trends

• First Online: 01 January 2015

Cite this chapter

• Linda R. Waugh 3 ,
• Theresa Catalano 4 ,
• Khaled Al Masaeed 5 ,
• Tom Hong Do 6 &
• Paul G. Renigar 7  

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ((PEPRPHPS,volume 4))

9264 Accesses

16 Citations

This chapter introduces the transdisciplinary research movement of critical discourse analysis (CDA) beginning with its definition and recent examples of CDA work. In addition, approaches to CDA such as the dialectical relational (Fairclough), socio-cognitive (van Dijk), discourse historical (Wodak), social actors (van Leeuwen), and Foucauldian dispositive analysis (Jӓger and Maier) are outlined, as well as the complex relation of CDA to pragmatics. Next, the chapter provides a brief mention of the extensive critique of CDA, the creation of critical discourse studies (CDS), and new trends in CDA, including positive discourse analysis (PDA), CDA with multimodality, CDA and cognitive linguistics, critical applied linguistics, and other areas (rhetoric, education, anthropology/ethnography, sociolinguistics, culture, feminism/gender, and corpus studies). It ends with new directions aiming towards social action for social justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

The authors would like to thank the following for their comments on an earlier draft of this chapter: Alessandro Capone, Jacob Mey, Neal Norrick, and Teun van Dijk. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the three graduate assistants who helped with the references: Ji Guo and Qizhen Deng who worked with Theresa Catalano, and most especially, Steve Daniel Przymus who has a keen eye for detail and worked tirelessly, even while he was on vacation, with Linda Waugh.

In much of his work, Fairclough has insisted upon his “text orientation,” that is, a focus on particular authentic texts.

The issue of whether a family name beginning with “van” should be written with a lower case “v” or an upper case “V” is a difficult one. Van Dijk uses V on his website; however, in many citations of his work, “v” is used, and his name is alphabetized under “v.” We will use the latter spelling (unless Van is the first word in a sentence) and alphabetization; the same is true of other names, such as van Leeuwen.

We will use CDA in our discussion, even though van Dijk prefers ‘critical discourse studies’, since he feels that the latter is, for him, a more general term than CDA, covering critical analysis, critical theory, and critical applications . It also aligns with the term ‘discourse studies’, rather than ‘discourse analysis’, since he views discourse studies as a multidisciplinary field that is not limited to analysis or to any particular type or method of analysis. Indeed, for him “CDS is not a method, but rather a critical perspective, position or attitude ” (van Dijk 2009b , p. 62).

See the discussion of S. Jӓger’s work in Dispositive Analysis below.

In their introduction to the volume Foundations of Pragmatics, the first one in the new series, Handbooks of Pragmatics, published by Mouton de Gruyter.

Note that the journal Critical Discourse Studies and its acronym CDS are in italics in the text, while the trend in Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) is denoted in regular font.

Achugar, M. 2007. Between remembering and forgetting: Uruguayan military discourse about human rights (1976–2004). Discourse and Society 18:521–547.

Google Scholar  

Achugar, M. 2008. What we remember: The construction of memory in military discourse . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Adami, E., and G. Kress. 2013. Using multimodal analysis in investigating digital texts: The case of a food blog. Presentation given at the 2013 Conference of the International Communication Association, London, UK, 17–21 June 2013.

Adorno, A. 1969. Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie . Berlin: Luchterhand.

Ahmadvand, M. 2011. Critical discourse analysis: An introduction to major approaches. Dinamika Bahasa dan Ilmu Budaya [ Indonesian Journal of Linguistic and Cultural Studies ] 5 (1): 82–90.

Althusser, L. 1971. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes towards an investigation). In Lenin and philosophy and other essays , ed. L. Althusser, 127–186. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Andersen, A. A. 2003. Discursive analytical tools: Understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann . Bristol: Policy.

Anderson, K. T., and P. Wales. 2012. Can you design for agency? The ideological mediation of an out-of-school digital storytelling workshop. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 9 (3): 165–190.

Anthonissen, C., and J. Blommaert. 2007. Discourse and human rights violations . Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Austin, J. 1962. How to do things with words . London: Oxford University Press.

Baker, P. 2006. Corpora in discourse analysis . London: Continuum.

Baker, P., and T. McEnery. 2005. A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics 4 (2): 197–226.

Baker, P., C. Gabrielatos, M. Khosravinik, M. Krzyzanowski, T. McEnery, and R. Wodak. 2008. A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society 19 (3): 273–306.

Bakhtin, M. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics . Trans: C. Emerson Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Barkho, L. 2011. The role of internal guidelines in shaping news narratives: Ethnographic insights into the discursive rhetoric of Middle East reporting by the BBC and Al-Jazeera English. Critical Discourse Studies 8 (4): 297–309.

Bar-Tal, D. 2000. Shared beliefs in a society: Social psychological analysis . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Barthes, R. 1967. Système de la mode . Paris: Seuil.

Barthes, R. 1967/1983. Section I (Chapters 1–4): Method. The Fashion system . Trans: M. Ward and R. Howard. New York: Hill.

Barthes, R. 1972. Mythologies . Trans: A. Lavers. St. Albans: Paladin [French original: 1957].

Barthes, R. 1974. Mythen des Alltags . Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp (Trans:1957, Mythologies . Paris: Editions du Seuil).

Barthes, R. 1984. Camera lucida . London: Fontana.

Bartlett, T. 2012. Hybrid voices and collaborative change: Contextualising positive discourse analysis . New York: Routledge.

Bauer, M., and B. Aarts. 2000. Corpus construction: A principle for qualitative data collection. In Qualitative researching with text, image and sound, ed. M. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 19–37. London: Sage.

Belluigi, D. Z. 2009. Exploring the discourses around “creativity” and “critical thinking” in a South African creative arts curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 34 (6): 699–717.

Benwell, B. 2005. “Lucky this is anonymous!” Men’s magazines and ethnographies of reading: A textual cultural approach. Discourse & Society 16 (2): 147–172.

Berger, P.L., and T. Luckmann. 1967. The social construction of reality . Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Berlin, J. 1988. Rhetoric and ideology in the writing class. College English 50 (5): 477–494.

Bernstein, B. 1962. Social class, linguistic codes and grammatical elements. Language and Speech 5 (4): 221–240.

Bernstein, B. 1971. Class, codes and control 1: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bernstein, B., ed. 1973. Class, codes and control 2: Applied studies towards a sociology of language . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bernstein, B. 1975. Class, codes and control 3: Towards a theory of educational transmissions . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bhatia, A., and V. K. Bhatia. 2011. Discursive illusions in legislative discourse: A socio-pragmatic study. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 24:1–19.

Billig, M. 2002. Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. In Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity, ed. G. Weiss and R. Wodak, 35–46. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Billig, M. 2008. The language of critical discourse analysis: The case of nominalization. Discourse & Society 19 (6): 783–800.

Biria, R., and A. Mohammadi. 2012. The socio pragmatic functions of inaugural speech: A critical discourse analysis approach. Journal of Pragmatics 44:1290–1302.

Blackledge, A. 2011. Discourse and power. In The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis, ed. J. Gee and M. Handford. London: Routledge.

Blommaert, J. 2001. Critique is/as critique. Critique of Anthropology 2 (1): 3–32.

Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse: A critical introduction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blommaert, J. 2009. Ethnography and democracy: Hymes’s political theory of language. Text & Talk 29 (3): 257–276.

Bloomaert, J., and C. Bulcaen. 2000. Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 29:447–466.

Bloor, M., and T. Bloor. 2007. The practice of critical discourse analysis: An introduction . London: Hodder Arnold.

Blum-Kulka, S., and M. Hamo. 2011. Discourse pragmatics. In Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction , ed. T. A. van Dijk, 2nd ed., 143–164. London: Sage.

Bogatyrev, P. 1971. The function of folk costume in Moravian Slovakia . The Hague: Mouton.

Bourdieu, P. 1987. Die Kritik der feinen Unterschiede . Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp (Trans: of 1979, La Distinction: Critique sociale du jugement . Paris: Les Editions de Minuit).

Boxer, D. 2002. Applying sociolinguistics . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Breeze, R. 2011. Critical discourse analysis and its critics. Pragmatics 21 (4): 493–525.

Brown, R., and A. Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solildarity. In Style in language, ed. T. A. Sebeok, 253–276. Harmondsworth: Penguin (Reprinted in P. Giglioli (Ed.), 1972, Language and social context , 252–282).

Brown, P., and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, R., and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brumfit, C. 1997. How applied linguistics is the same as any other science. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 7 (1): 86–94.

Bublitz, W., and J. Norrick. 2011. Introduction: The burgeoning field of pragmatics. In Foundations of pragmatics . Vol. 1, ed. W. Bublitz and N. Norrick, . Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Bucholtz, M. 2003. Theories of discourse as theories of gender: Discourse analysis in language and gender studies. In The handbook of language and gender, ed. J. Holmes and M. Meyerhoff, 43–68. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Bussolini, J. 2010. What is a dispositive? Foucault Studies 10:85–107.

Caborn, J. 2007. On the methodology of dispositive analysis. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 1 (1): 115–123. http://cadaad.net/journal .

Callow, J. 2006. Images, politics and multiliteracies: Using a visual metalanguage. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 29 (1): 7–23.

Cameron, D. 1990. Introduction. In Women in their speech communities: New perspectives on language and sex, ed. J. Coates and D. Cameron, 3–12. London: Longman.

Cameron, D. 1992. Feminism and linguistic theory . 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.

Cameron, D. 1997. Theoretical debates in feminist linguistics: Questions of sex and gender. In Gender and discourse, ed. R. Wodak, 21–36. London: Sage.

Cameron, D. 1998. Gender, language and discourse: A review essay. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 23 (4): 945–973.

Cameron, D., and J. Coates. 1990. Some problems in the sociolinguistic explanations of sex differences. In Women in their speech communities: New perspectives on language and sex, ed. J. Coates and D. Cameron, 13–26. London: Longman.

Candlin, C. N. 1989. General editor’s preface. In Language and Power . 1st ed., ed. N. Fairclough, vi–x. London: Longman.

Carbaugh, D. 1988. Talking American: Cultural discourses on Donahue . Norwood: Ablex.

Carbaugh, D. 2005. Cultures in conversation . Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carbaugh, D. 2007. Cultural discourse analysis: Communication practices and intercultural encounters. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 36 (3): 167–182.

Carbaugh, D. 2010a. Distinctive qualities in communication research . New York: Routledge.

Carbaugh, D. 2010b. Resituating cultural studies in communication: Cultural discourse analyis. In Hybrids, differences, visions: On the study of culture, ed. C. Baraldi, A. Borsari, and A. Carli, 101–116. Aurora: John Davies.

Carpenter, R. H. 1994. The stylistic persona of Bill Clinton. From Arkansas to Aristotelian Attica. In Bill Clinton on stump, state, and stage, ed. S. Smith, 101–132. Fayetteville: The University of Arkansas Press.

Catalano, T. 2012. The denaturalization of Romanies in Italy: How language and image work together. The International Journal of the Image 2 (4): 159–172.

Catalano, T. 2014. The Roma and Wall Street/CEOs: Linguistic construction of identity in U.S. and Canadian crime reports. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 38 (2) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2013.803768 .

Catalano, T., and A. Moeller. 2013. Media discourse and dual language programs: A critical linguistic analysis. Discourse, Context & Media 2 (4): 165–174.

Catalano, T., and L. R. Waugh. 2013a. The language of money: How verbal and visual metonymy shapes public opinion about financial events. International Journal of Language Studies 7 (2): 31–60.

Catalano, T., and L. Waugh. 2013b. A critical analysis of metonymy in image and text: The ideologies behind crime reports of Latinos and Wall Street/CEOs. Critical Discourse Studies 10 (4): 406–426.

Cazden, C. 2001. Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning . 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press [1st ed: 1988].

Charteris-Black, J. 2004. Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Charteris-Black, J. 2006. Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse & Society 17 (6): 563–582.

Charteris-Black, J. 2011. Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor . 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Charteris-Black, J. 2014. Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cheshire, J., and P., Trudgill, eds. 1998. The sociolinguistics reader: Vol. 2, gender and discourse . London: Arnold.

Chilton, P. 1994a. La plaie qu’il convient de fermer: Les métaphores du discours raciste. Journal of Pragmatics 21 (6): 583–619.

Chilton, P., ed. 1994b. Schémas cognitifs du discourse raciste français . Vol. 4. Rotterdam: Institute for Social Policy Research.

Chilton, P. 1996a. The meaning of security . East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Chilton, P. 1996b. Security metaphors: Cold war discourse from containment to common European home . Bern: Peter Lang.

Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice . London: Routledge.

Chilton, P. 2005a. Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinary, ed. R. Wodak and P. Chilton, 19–51. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Chilton, P. 2005b. Manipulation, Memes and metaphors: The case of Mein Kampf '. In Manipulation, ed. L. de Saussure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chilton, P. 2007. Is it possible to compare political rhetoric across cultures? International round table on discourse . Hong Kong: City University.

Chilton, P. 2010. The language–ethics interface: Reflection on linguistics, discourse analysis and the legacy of Habermas. In Discourse-politics-identity, eds R. de Cillia, H. Gruber, M. Krzyzanowski, and F. Menz, 33–43. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.

Chilton, P. 2014. January 4. Professor Paul Chilton, Department of Linguistics and English Language. http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/profiles/paul-chilton . Accessed 4 Jan 2014.

Chilton, P. forthcoming. Language and critique: Rethinking critical discourse analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chilton, P., and C., Aubrey, eds. 1983. Nineteen eighty-four in 1984: Autonomy, control and communication . London: Comedia.

Chilton, P., and G. Lakoff. 1995. Foreign policy by metaphor. In Language and peace , ed. C. Schäffner and A. I. Wenden, 37–60. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Chilton, P., and R. Wodak, eds. 2007. A new research agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity . Amsterdam: Benjamins (Revised 2nd ed.).

Chouliaraki, L., and N. Fairclough. 1999. Discourse in late modernity : Rethinking critical discourse analysis . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Christie, C. 2000. Gender and language: Towards a feminist pragmatics . Edingburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Cienki, A. 1998. Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In ed. J. -P. Koenig, 189–204. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Cienki, A. 2008. Why study metaphor and gesture? In Metaphor and gesture, ed. A. Cienki and C. Müller, 5–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cienki, A., and C. Müller, eds. 2008a. Metaphor and gesture . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cienki, A., and C. Müller. 2008b. Metaphor, gesture and thought. In The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, ed. R. Gibbs, 462–501. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cienki, A. 2009. When speech and gesture come together: Forms of multimodal metaphor in the use of spoken language. In Multimodal metaphor, ed. C. Forceville and E. Urios-Aparisi, 297–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Clarke, I., W. Kwon, and R. Wodak. 2012. A context-sensitive approach to analyzing talk in strategy meetings. British Journal of Management 23:455–473. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00759.

Clary-Lemmon, J. 2009. The rhetoric of race and the racialization of composition studies. College Composition and Communication 61 (2): 1–17.

Coates, J. 1993. Women, men and language . London: Longman.

Coates, J. 1997. Women’s friendships, women’s talk. In Gender and discourse, ed. R. Wodak, 245–262. London: Sage.

Collins, J. 2011. Foreword: Introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed., ed. R. Rogers, ix–xiii. New York: Routledge.

Connerton, J., ed. 1976. Critical sociology: selected readings . Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Cook, G. 1992. The discourse of advertising . London: Routledge.

Cope, B., and M. Kalantzis, eds. 2000. Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures . London: Routledge.

Coulthard, M., and M. Montgomery, eds. 1981. Studies in discourse analysis . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Courtine, J. -J. 1981. Analyse du discours politique (le discours communiste adressé aux chrétiens). Langages 62 (whole volume).

Da Silva, D. E. G. 2012. Social representations and experiential metafunction: Poverty and media discourse. In Proceedings of ISFC 35: Voices around the world, ed. C. Wu, C. Matthiessen, and M. Herke. Sydney: The 35th ISFC Organizing Committee.

Davis, H., and P. Walton, eds. 1983. Language, image, media . Oxford: Blackwell.

De Cillia, R., M. Reisigl, and R. Wodak. 1999. The discursive construction of national identities. Discourse & Society 10 (2): 149–173.

Deckert, S., and C. Vickers. 2011. An introduction to sociolinguistics: Society and identity . New York: Continuum.

Djonov, E., and S. Zhao. 2014. Critical multimodal studies of popular discourse . London: Routledge.

Downes, W. 1998. Language and society . 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duranti, A. 1997. Linguistic anthropology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duranti, A., and C. Goodwin. 1992. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eisenhart, C. 2008. Reporting Waco: The constitutive work of bureaucratic style. In Rhetoric in detail: Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture, ed. B. Johnstone and C. Eisenhart, 57–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

El Refaie, E. 2001. Metaphors we discriminate by: Naturalized themes in Austrian newspaper articles about asylum seekers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (3): 352–371.

Engels, F. 1895. Letter to Conrad Schmidt. In Reader in Marxist philosophy, ed. H. Selsam and H. Martel, 176–179. New York: International (1963).

Engels, F. 1976. Anti-Dühring . Peking: Foreign Languages Press [Orig. date of pub.:1877–1878].

Ennis-McMillan, M. 2001. Suffering from water shortage: Social origins of bodily distress in a Mexican community. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 15 (3): 368–390.

Erckenbrecht, U. 1973. Marx’ Materialistische Sprachtheorie . Kronberg: Scriptor Verlag.

Every, D. 2013. Shame on you: The language, practice and consequences of shame and shaming in asylum seeker advocacy. Discourse & Society 24 (6): 667–686.

Fairclough, N. 1985. Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 9:739–763.

Fairclough, N. 1988. Discourse representation in media discourse. Sociolinguistics 17:125–139.

Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power . London: Longman.

Fairclough, N., ed. 1992a. Critical language awareness . London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. 1992b. Discourse and social change . Cambridge: Polity.

Fairclough, N. 1992c Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 3 (2): 193–217.

Fairclough, N. 1992d. Critical discourse analysis in practice: Description. Language and Power . 2nd ed., 91–116. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. 1995a. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language . London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. 1995b. General introduction. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language . 1st ed., 1–20. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. 1995c. Media discourse . London: Edward Arnold.

Fairclough, N. 1998. Political discourse in the media: An analytical framework. Approaches to media discourse , 142–162. Oxford: Blackwell.

Fairclough, N. 1999. Global capitalism and critical awareness of language. Language Awareness 8 (2): 71–83.

Fairclough, N. 2000. New labour, new language? London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. 2001a. Introduction: critical language study. In Language and power . 2nd ed, ed. N. Fairclough. Edinburgh: Pearson Education.

Fairclough, N. 2001b. Critical discourse analysis. In How to Analyze Talk in Institutional Settings: A Casebook of Methods, ed. A. McHoul and M. Rapley. London: Continuum.

Fairclough, N. 2003. Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research . London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. 2006. Language and globalization . London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. 2009. A dialectical-relational approach. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 162–186. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Fairclough, N. 2010a. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language . 2nd ed. Harlow: Longman.

Fairclough, N. 2010b. General introduction. In Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language . 2nd ed., 1–21. Harlow: Longman.

Fairclough, N. 2010c. Introduction. To section C, dialectics of discourse: Theoretical developments. In Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language . 2nd ed., 163–166. Harlow: Longman.

Fairclough, N. 2011. Semiotic aspects of social transformation and learning. In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed., ed. R. Rogers, 119–127. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fairclough, N. 2012. Critical discourse analysis. International Advances in Engineering and Technology 7:452–487.

Fairclough, I., and N. Fairclough. 2012. Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students . London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N., and R. Wodak. 1997. Chapter 10: Critical discourse analysis. In Discourse as social interaction, ed. T. A. van Dijk, 258–284. London: Sage.

Fairclough, N., P. Graham, J. Lemke, and R. Wodak. 2004a. Introduction. Critical Discourse Studies 1 (1): 1–7.

Fairclough, N., B. Jessop, and A. Sayer. 2004b. Critical realism and semiosis. In Realism, discourse and deconstruction, ed. J. Joseph and J. Roberts, 23–42. London: Routledge (Reprinted in Fairclough. N. 2010a. Critical discourse analysis. pp. 202–222. Page numbers in the text are to this reprinted version).

Fairclough, N., J. Mulderrig, and R. Wodak. 2011. Critical discourse analysis. In Discourse studies, ed. T. A. van Dijk, 357–378. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental spaces. Aspects of meaning construction in natural language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in thought and language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fauconnier, G. 1999. Methods and generalizations. In Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope and methodology, ed. T. Janssen and T. Redeker, 95–128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fauconnier, G., and M. Turner. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Conceptual structure, discourse and language, ed. A. E. Goldberg, 113–130. Stanford: CSLI.

Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities . New York: Basic Books.

Fillmore, C. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. Linguistics Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.

Finger, U. D. 1976. Sprachzerstörung im Gruppen . Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Flader, D., and R. Wodak-Leodolter. 1979. Therapeutische Kommunikation . Königstein/Ts: Skriptor.

Foluke, U. 2011. Event models: A socio-cognitive study of selected interrogations in 2008 quasi-judicial public hearing on Federal Capital Territory (FCT) administration in Nigeria. Studies in Literature and Language 3 (1): 37–44. doi:10.3968/j.sll.1923156320110301.300.

Forceville, C. 1996. Pictorial metaphor in advertising . London: Routledge.

Forceville, C. 2005. Cognitive linguistics and multimodal metaphor. In Bildwissenschaft: Zwischen Reflektion und Anwendung, ed. K. Sachs-Hornbach, 264–284. Cologne: Von Halem.

Forceville, C. 2007. Pictorial and multimodal metaphor in commercials. In Go figure! New directions in advertising rhetoric, ed. E. McQuarrie and B. Phillips, 272–310. Armonk: ME Sharpe.

Forceville, C. 2008. Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought , ed. R. Gibbs, 462–482. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Forceville, C. 2014. The strategic use of the visual mode in advertising metaphors. In Critical multimodal studies of popular discourse, ed. E. Djonov and S. Zhao, 55–70. London: Routledge.

Forceville, C., and E. Urios-Aparis, eds. 2009. Multimodal metaphor . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Forchtner, B., M. Krzyzanowski, and R. Wodak. 2013. Mediatization, right-wing populism, and political campaigning: The case of the Austrian Freedom Party. In Media talk and political elections in Europe and America, ed. A. Tolson and M. Ekström, 205–228. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Forgas, J., ed. 1981. Social cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding . London: Academic.

Foucault, M. 1971. L’ordre du discours . Paris: Gallimard.

Foucault, M. 1972. Orders of discourse. Social Science Information 10 (2): 7–30.

Foucault, M. 1977a. The archaeology of knowledge Trans: A. Sheridan Smith. New York: Random House.

Foucault, M. 1977b. Language, counter-memory, practice, ed. D. Bouchard and S. Simon. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Foucault, M. 1978. The history of sexuality . Vol. 1. New York: Random House.

Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison . Harmondsworth: Penguin Books (Trans: A. Sheridan [French original: 1975]).

Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge — Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 . Brighton: Harvester.

Foucault, M. 1984. The order of discourse. In Language and politics, ed. M. Shapiro, 108–138. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Foucault, M. 1993. Die Ordnung des Diskurses . 2nd ed. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer (Trans: W. Seitter [French original: 1971, L’ordre du discours ]).

Foucault, M. 2002. The archaeology of knowledge . London: Routledge (1st English ed., 1972).

Fowler, R. 1986. Linguistic criticism (1st ed., 1986, in preparation since 1981; 2nd ed., 1996b).

Fowler, R. 1987. Notes on critical linguistics. In Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday . 2 vols., eds. T. Threadgold and R. Steele. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press . London: Routledge.

Fowler, R. 1996. On critical linguistics. In Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis , ed. C. R. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard, 3–14. London: Routledge.

Fowler, R. 1979. Critical Linguistics. ed. R. Fowler et al. (pp. 185–213 and 220–222 endnotes). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Fowler, R., B. Hodge, G. Kress, and T. Trew. 1979. Language and control . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Freitas, E., and B. Zolkower. 2009. Using social semiotics to prepare mathematics teachers to teach for social justice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 12 (3): 187–203.

Galasinski, D. 2011. The patient’s world: Discourse analysis and ethnography. Critical Discourse Studies 8 (4): 253–265.

Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Gavriely-Nuri, D. 2010a. If both opponents “extend hands in peace” Why don’t they meet? Mythic metaphors and cultural codes in the Israeli peace discourse. Journal of Language and Politics 9 (3): 449–468.

Gavriely-Nuri, D. 2010b. The idiosyncratic language of Israeli ‘peace’: A cultural approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (CCDA). Discourse & Society 21:565–585.

Gavriely-Nuri, D. 2012. Cultural approach to CDA. Critical Discourse Studies 9 (1): 77–85.

Gavriely-Nuri, D. 2013. The normalization of war in Israeli discourse 1967–2008 . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education (Lexington Books).

Gavriely-Nuri, D. 2014. Collective memory as a metaphor: The case of speeches by Israeli prime ministers 2001–2009. Memory Studies 7 (1): 46–60.

Gee, J. P. 2011. Discourse analysis: what makes it critical? In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed., ed. R. Rogers, 23–45. New York: Routledge. Gibbons, A. 2011. Multimodality, cognition and experimental literature. London: Routledge.

Giglioli, P. P., ed. 1972. Language and social context . Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Girnth, H. 1996. Texte im politischen Diskurs. Ein Vorschlag zur diskursorientierten Beschreibung von Textsorten. Muttersprache 106 (1): 66–80.

Gleason, H. 1973. Contrastive analysis in discourse structure. In Readings in Stratificational Linguistics , eds. A. Makkai and D. Lockwood. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Goatly, A. 2007. Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.

Graham, L. J. 2007. Schooling attention deficit hyperactivity disorders: Educational systems of formation and the ‘behaviourally disordered’ school child. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Graham, L. J. 2009. The cost of opportunity. Paper presented at the Philosophy in Education Society of Australasia (PESA) Annual Conference, December 3–6. University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Graham, L. J. 2011. The product of text and ‘other’ statements: Discourse analysis and the critical use of Foucault. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43 (6): 663–674.

Graham, L. J., and R. Slee. 2008. An illusory interiority: Interrogating the discourse/s of inclusion. Educational Philosophy and Theory 40 (2): 247–260.

Graham, P. W., T. Keenan, and A. Dowd. 2004. A call to arms at the end of history: A discourse-historical analysis of George W. Bush’s declaration of war on terror. Discourse & Society 15 (2–3): 199–221.

Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts , ed. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic.

Grice, H. P. 1989. Study in the way of words . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Grimes, J. 1975. The thread of discourse . The Hague: Mouton.

Gutiérrez, K. 2008. Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly 43 (2): 148–164.

Habermas, J. 1971a. Erkenntnis und Interesse . Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J. 1971b. Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz. In Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie, ed. J. Habermas and N. Luhmann. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J. 1975. Legitimation crisis . Trans: T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon.

Habermas, J. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns . Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J. 1984. Theory of communicative action , vol 1: Reason and the rationalization of society . Trans: T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. 1998. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy . Cambridge: MIT Press.

Haig, E. 2004. Some observations on the critique of critical discourse analysis. Studies in Language and Culture 25 (2): 129–149.

Hall, S. 1982. The rediscovery of “ideology”: Return of the repressed in media studies. In Culture, society and the media, ed. M. Gurevitch, T. Bennet, J. Curran, and J. Woollacott, 56–90. London: Methuen.

Hall, S., C. Critcher, T. Jefferson, J. Clarke, and B. Roberts. 1978. Policing the crisis . London: Macmillan.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1971. Linguistic function and literary style: An enquiry into the language of William Golding’s The Inheritors . In Literary style: A symposium, ed. S. Chatman, 330–365. New York: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the function of language . London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1976. Anti-languages. UEA Papers in Linguistics 1:15–45.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning . London: Edward Arnold/Baltimore: University Park Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar . 2nd ed. London: Arnold. (1994).

Halliday, M. A. K., and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English . London: Longman.

Hamilton, D., ed. 1981. Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior . Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Hariman, R. 1995. Political style: The artistry of power . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Haroche, C., P. Henry, and M. Pêcheux. 1971. La sémantique et la coupure saussurienne: langue, langage, discours. Langages 24:93–106.

Harré, R. 1967. An introduction to the logic of the sciences . London: Macmillan.

Hart, C. 2010. Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science: New perspectives on immigration discourse . Hertfordshire: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Hart, C. 2011. Moving beyond metaphor in the cognitive linguistic approach to CDA: Construal operations in immigration discourse. In Critical discourse studies in context and cognition, ed. C. Hart, 71–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hartley, J. 1982. Understanding news . London: Methuen.

Harvey, D. 1996. Justices, nature and the geography of difference . Oxford: Blackwell.

Hawisher, G. E., and C. L. Selfe. 1991. The rhetoric of technology and the electronic writing class. College Composition and Communication 42 (1): 55–65.

Hawisher, G. E., C. L. Selfe, B. Moraski, and M. Pearson. 2004. Becoming literate in the information age: Cultural ecologies and the literacies of technology. College Composition and Communication 55 (4): 642–692.

Hobsbawm, E. 1977. Gramsci and political theory. Marxism Today 21 (7):205–213.

Hodge, B., and G. R. Kress. 1988. Social semiotics . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Hodge, B., G. Kress, and G. Jones. 1979. The ideology of middle management. In Language and control , ed. R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress, and T. Trew, 81–93. London: Routledge.

Hoggart, R. 1976. Foreword. In Bad news . Vol. I, ed. Glasgow University Media Group. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Holmes, J. 1986. The function of you know in women and men’s speech. Language in Society 15:1–21.

Holmes, J. 1996. Sex and language. In Kontaktlinguistik — Contact Linguistics — Linguistique du contact, ed. H. Goebl, P. Nelde, Z. Stary, and W. Wölck, 720–725. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Holmes, J. 1997. Story-telling in New Zealand women’s and men’s talk. In Gender and Discourse, ed. R. Wodak, 263–293. London: Sage.

Holmes, J. 2005. Power and discourse at work: Is gender relevant? In Feminist critical discourse analysis, ed. M. Lazar, 31–60. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Holsanova, J. 2008. Discourse, vision, and cognition . Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Hong, J. J. W. 2012. “Challenge” or “collaboration” social interaction and recontextualization: McDonald’s CSR report. Critical Discourse Studies 9 (2): 149–162.

Honzl, J. 1976. Dynamics of the sign in the theatre. In Semiotics of art: Prague School contributions, ed. L. Matejka and I. Titunik. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hornberger, N. H. 2011. Dell H. Hymes: His scholarship and legacy in anthropology and education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 42 (4): 310–318.

Hornberger, N., and S. McKay, eds. 2010. Sociolinguistics and language education . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Huckin, T., J. Andrus, and J. Clary-Lemon. 2012. Critical discourse analysis and rhetoric and composition. College Composition and Communication 64 (1): 107–129.

Hudson, R. 1996. Sociolinguistics . 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K., and B. Paltridge, eds. 2011. The Bloomsbury companion to discourse analysis . London: Bloomsbury.

Hymes, D., ed. 1969a. Reinventing anthropology . New York: Random House.

Hymes, D. 1969b. The use of anthropology: Critical, political, personal. In Reinventing anthropology, ed. D. Hymes, 3–79. New York: Random House.

Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In Sociolinguistics, eds. J. Pride and J. Holmes, 269–293. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Hymes, D. 1977. Foundations in sociolinguistics . London: Tavistock Press.

Hymes, D. 1980. Speech and language: On the origins and foundations of inequality among speakers. In Language in education: Ethnolinguistic essays, ed. D. H. Hymes, 19–61. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Hymes, D. 1996. Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: Toward an understanding of voice . Bristol: Taylor and Francis.

Hymes, D., and J. Fought. 1975/1981. American structuralism. In Current trends in linguistics, vol. 13: Historiography of linguistics, ed. T. Sebeok, 903–1176. The Hague: Mouton (Reissued as Hymes and Fought 1981. American structuralism . The Hague: Mouton).

Ingham, R., S. Hall, J. Clarke, J. Marsh, and J. Donovan. 1978. Football Hooliganism, the Wider Context . London: Inter-Action Imprint.

Isbuga-Erel, R. F. 2008. A CDA approach to the translation of taboos in literary texts within the historical and socio-political Turkish context. In Papers from the Lancaster University postgraduate conference in linguistics & language teaching . Vol. 2, ed. M. Khosravinik and A. Polyzou, 58–77. Lancaster: Lancaster University.

Jäger, M. 1996. Fatale effekte. Die Kritik am Patriarchat im Einwanderungsdiskurs . Duisburg: DISS.

Jäger, M., and S. Jäger. 2007. Deutungskämpfe: Theorie und Praxis Kritischer Diskursanalyse . Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Jäger, S. 1993. Kritische Diskursanalyse . Münster: Unrast Verlag.

Jäger, S. 1999. Einen Königsweg gibt es nicht. Bemerkungen zur Durchführung von Diskursanalysen. In Das Wuchern der Diskurse: Perspektiven der Diskursanalyse Foucaults, ed. Hannelore Bublitz, Andrea D. Bührmann, Christine Hanke, and Andrea Seier, 136–147. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

Jäger, S. 2004. Kritische Diskursanalyse . 4th unrevised ed. Münster: Unrast.

Jäger, S., and Maier, F. 2009. Theoretical and methodological aspects of Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 34–61. London: Sage.

Jakobson, R. 1971. Studies in verbal art . Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Jameson, F. 1981. The political unconscious . London: Psychology Press.

Jaworski, A., and N. Coupland, eds. 1999. The discourse reader . London: Routledge.

Jefferson, G. 1974. Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society 2:181–199.

Jefferson, G. 1978. Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, ed. Jim Schenkein. New York: Academic Press.

Jewitt, C. 2006. Technology, literacy and learning: A multimodal approach . London: Routledge.

Jewitt, C., and G. Kress. 2003. Multimodal literacy . New York: Peter Lang.

Johnson, D. C. 2011. Critical discourse analysis and the ethnography of language policy. Critical Discourse Studies 8 (4): 267–279.

Johnstone, B. 2008. Discourse analysis . Malden: Blackwell.

Katz, E., and P. Lazarsfeld. 1955. Personal Influence . New York: Free Press.

Kecskes, I. 2014. Can intercultural pragmatics bring some new insight into pragmatic theories? In this volume .

Keating, E., and A. Duranti. 2011. Discourse and culture. In Discourse studies, ed. T. A. van Dijk, 331–356. London: Sage.

Kendall, S., and D. Tannen. 1997. Gender and language in the workplace. In Gender and discourse, ed. R. Wodak, 81–105. London: Sage.

Kheirabadi, R., and S. B. A. Moghaddam. 2012. The linguistic representation of Iranian and Western actors of Iran’s nuclear program in international media: A CDA study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2 (10), 2183–2188.

Khosravanik, M. 2010. The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Politics 9 (1): 1–28.

Kim, K. H. 2014. Examining US news media discourses about North Korea: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 25 (2): 221–244.

Kitzinger, C. 2000. Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism & Psychology 10:163–93.

Klemperer, V. 1995. Ich will Zeugnis ablegen bis zum letzten. Tagebücher 1933–1941 , ed. Walter Nowojski unter Mitarbeit von Hadwig Klemperer. Berlin: Aufbau-Verlag.

Klemperer, V. 1999–2001. I will bear witness: a Diary of the Nazi years . Vol. 1: 1933–1941, Vol. 2: 1942–1945. Trans: M. Chamers. New York: Modern Library.

Koller, V. 2004. Metaphor and gender in business media discourse: A critical cognitive study . Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Koller, V. 2005. Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: Evidence from business media discourse. Discourse & Society 16 (2): 199–224.

Koller, V., and P. Davidson. 2008. Social exclusion as conceptual and grammatical metaphor: A cross-genre study of British policy-making. Discourse & Society 19 (3): 307–331.

Kotthoff, W., and R. Wodak. 1997. Communicating gender in context . Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kövecses, Z. 2000. Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture and body in human feeling . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kövecses, Z. 2006. Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, C. 2002. Language and culture: A social semiotic perspective. ADFL Bulletin. 33 (2): 9–15.

Kress, G. 1976. Halliday: System and function in language . London: Oxford University Press.

Kress, G. 1985a. Ideological structures in discourse. In Handbook of discourse analysis . Vol. 4, ed. T. A. van Dijk, 27–42. London: Academic.

Kress, G. 1985b. Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice . Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Kress, G. 1989. Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice . Oxford: Oxford University Press [new edition of 1985b].

Kress, G. 1990. Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 11:84–97.

Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to communication . London: Routledge.

Kress, G. 2011. Discourse analysis and education: A multimodal social semiotic approach. In An Introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed., ed. R. Rogers, 205–226. New York: Routledge.

Kress, G. 2012. Discourse analysis and education: A multimodal social semiotic approach. In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed., ed. R. Rogers, 205–226. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kress, G., and R. Hodge. 1979. Language as ideology . 2nd ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (R. Hodge and G. Kress 1993. Language as ideology . London: Routledge).

Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen. 1996/2006. Reading images: The grammar of visual design . London: Routledge.

Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication . London: Arnold.

Krzyzanowski, M. 2010. The discursive construction of European identities: A multi-level approach to discourse and identity in the transforming European Union . Bern: Peter Lang.

Krzyzanowski, M. 2011. Ethnography and critical discourse analysis: Towards a problem-oriented research dialogue. Critical Discourse Studies 8 (4): 231–238.

Krzyzanowski, M., and R. Wodak. 2009. The politics of exclusion: Debating migration in Austria . New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Kubota, R. 1999. Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. Tesol Quarterly 33 (1): 9–35.

Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Labov, W. 1966a. Hypercorrection by the lower middle class as a factor in linguistic change. In Sociolinguistic patterns, ed. W. Labov, 122–143. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (1991).

Labov, W. 1966b. The social stratification of English in New York City . Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Labov, W. 1971. The notion of ‘system’ in creole languages. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, ed. D. Hymes, 447–472. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Labov, W., and J. Waletzky. 1967. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In Essays on the verbal and visual arts, ed. J. Helm. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind . Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lakoff, G. 1991. Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify the war in the gulf. Journal of Urban and Cultural Studies 2:59–72.

Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Metaphor and thought . 2nd ed., ed. A. Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by . Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lam, W. 2009. Literacy and learning across transnational online spaces. E-learning 6 (4): 303–324.

Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I. Theoretical prerequisites . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2. Descriptive application . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. 2002. Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar . 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J, and S. Thorne. 2006. Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lau, S. 2013. A study of critical literacy work with beginning English language learners: An integrated approach. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 10 (1): 1–30.

Lazar, M., ed. 2005a. Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse . Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lazar, M. 2005b. Politicizing gender in discourse: Feminist critical discourse analysis as political perspective and praxis. In Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse, ed. M. Lazar, 1–30. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lazar, M. 2005c. Performing state fatherhood: The remaking of hegemony. In Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse, ed. M. Lazar, 139–163. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lazar, M. 2007. Feminist critical discourse analysis: Articulating a feminist discourse praxis. Critical Discourse Studies 4:141–167.

Lecourt, D. 1975. Marxism and epistemology: Bachleard, Canguilhem and Foucault . London: New Left Books.

Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics . London: Longman.

Leont’ev, A. 1978. Activity, consciousness, and personality . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, C., and J. Ketter. 2011. Learning as social interaction: Interdiscursivity in a teacher and researcher study group. In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed., ed. R. Rogers, 128–153. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lewis, C., P. Enciso, and B. Moje. 2007. Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency and power. TESL-EJ 12 (3): 1–4.

Lindekens, R. 1971. Eléments pour une sémiotique de la photographie . Paris: Didier.

Link, J. 1983. Was ist und was bringt Diskurstaktik. kultuRRevolution 2:60–66.

Link, J. 1992. Die Analyse der symbolischen Komponente realer Ereignisse: Ein Beitrag der Diskurstheorie zur Analyse neorassistischer Äusserungen. In Der Diskurs des Rassismus . Vol. 46, ed. S. Jäger and F. Januschek, 37–52. Oldenburg: Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie.

Louw, B. 1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, ed. M. Baker, G. Francis, and E. Tognini-Bonelli, 157–176. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Luke, A. 2002. Beyond science and ideological critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22: 96–110.

Luke, A. 2004. Notes on the future of critical discourse studies. Critical Discourse Studies 38 (1): 132–141.

Lutz, B., and R. Wodak. 1987. Information für Informierte. Linguistische Studien zu Verständlichkeit und Verstehen von Hörfunknachrichten. Wien: Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Maalej, Z. 2007. Doing critical discourse analysis with the contemporary theory of metaphor: Towards a discourse model of metaphor. In Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis: Application and theory, ed. C. Hart and D. Lukes, 132–158. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Macgilchrist, F. 2007. Positive discourse analysis: Contesting dominant discourses by reframing the issue. Critical Approaches to Discourse Across the Disciplines 1 (1): 74–94.

Machin, D. 2007. Introduction to multimodal analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.

Machin, D. 2013. What is multimodal critical discourse studies? Discourse studies 10: 347–355.

Machin, D., and A. Mayr. 2007. Antiracism in the British government’s model regional newspaper: The “talking cure”. Discourse & Society 18 (4): 453–478.

Machin, D., and A. Mayr. 2012a. How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction . Los Angeles: Sage.

Machin, D., and A. Mayr. 2012b. Corporate crime and the discursive deletion of responsibility: A case study of the Paddington rail crash. Crime Media Culture 9 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1177/1741659012450294.

Machin, D., and U. Suleiman. 2006. Arab and American computer war games: The influence of a global technology on discourse. Critical Discourse Studies 3 (1): 1–22.

Malinowski, B. 1935. Coral Gardens and their Magic . London: Allen and Unwin.

Marinara, M., J. Alexander, W. P. Banks, and S. Blackmon. 2009. Cruising composition texts: Negotiating sexual difference in first-year readers. College Composition and Communication 60: 269–296.

Marmaridou, S. 2011. Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Foundations of pragmatics, ed. W. Bublitz and N. Norrick, 77–106. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Martin, C. A. 1997. Staging the reality principle: System-functional linguistics and the context of theatre. PhD Thesis. Macquarie University, Sydney.

Martin, J. R. 1984. Lexical cohesion, field, and genre: Parceling experience and discourse goals. In Linguistics and semiotics: Text semantics and discourse semantics. Proceedings of the second rice symposium, ed. J. Copeland. Houston: Rice University Press.

Martin, J. R. 1992. English text: System and structure . Amsterdam: Benjamins.Martin, J. R. 1999. Grace: The logogenesis of freedom. Critical Discourse Studies 1 (1): 29–56. Reprinted in Toolan, M. (ed.). 2002. Critical discourse analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics, Vol. 3, 170–201. London: Routledge.

Martin, J. R. 2000. Close reading: Functional linguistics as a tool for critical discourse analysis. In Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistic perspectives, ed. L. Unsworth, 275–302. London: Cassell.

Martin, J. R. 2002a. Blessed are the peacemakers: Reconciliation and evaluation. In Research and practice in professional discourse, ed. C. Candlin, 187–227. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.

Martin, J. R. 2002b. Positive discourse analysis: Power, solidarity and change. In Critical discourse analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics . Vol. 3, ed. M. Toolan, 170–201. London: Routledge.

Martin, J. R., and D. Rose. 2003. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause . London: Continuum.

Martin, J. R. 2004. Mourning: How we get aligned. Discourse and Society 15 (2–3): 321–344.

Martinec, R. 1998. Cohesion in action. Semiotica 120:161–180.

Martinez, A. 2009. The American way: Resisting the empire of force and color-blind racism. College English 71 (6): 584–595.

Martinez, G. 2003. Classroom based dialect awareness in heritage language instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal 1 (1): 1–14.

Marx, K., and F. Engels. 1845/1970. The German ideology . Trans: C. Arthur. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Masuda, A. 2012. Critical literacy and teacher identities: A discursive site of struggle. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 9 (3): 220–246.

Mautner, G. 2008. Analyzing newspapers, magazines and other print media. In Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences, ed. R. Wodak and M. Kryzanowski, 30–53. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mautner, G. 2010. Language and the market society: Critical reflections on discourse and dominance. London: Routledge.

Maynard, D. 1980. Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica 30:263–290.

McElhinny, B. 1997. Ideologies of public and private language in sociolinguistics. In Gender and Discourse, ed. R. Wodak, 106–139. London: Sage.

McGrath, T. 2008. The role of the national ESL scales in the production of culturally competent Australian citizens: A Foucauldian analysis. Unpublished Honours Thesis. The University of Sydney, Australia.

McInnes, D. P. R. 1998. Attending to the instance: Towards a systemic based dynamic and responsive analysis of composite performance text. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.

McKay, S., and N. Hornberger, eds. 1996. Sociolinguistics and language teaching . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McKenna, B. 2004. Critical discourse studies: Where to from here? Critical Discourse Studies 1 (1): 9–39.

Meadows, B. 2007. Distancing and showing solidarity via metaphor and metonymy in political discourse: A critical study of American statements on Iraq during the years 2004–2005. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 1 (2): 1–17.

Meadows, B. 2009. Nationalism and language learning at the US/Mexico border: An ethnographically sensitive critical discourse analysis of nation, power, and privilege in an English language classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tucson: University of Arizona.

Medina, C. 2010. Reading across communities in biliteracy practices: Examining translocal discourses and cultural flows in literature discussions. Reading Research Quarterly 45 (1): 40–60.

Metz, C. 1974a. Film language . New York: Oxford University Press.

Metz, C. 1974b. Language and cinema . The Hague: Mouton.

Mey, I. 2001. The CA/CDA controversy. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (4): 609–615.

Mey, J. 1979. Introduction. In Pragmalinguistics: Theory and practice, ed. J. Mey, 9–17. The Hague: Mouton.

Mey, J. 2000. When voices clash: A study in literary pragmatics . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Mey, J. 2001. Pragmatics: An introduction . 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Meyer, M. 2001. Between theory, method and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 14–31. London: Sage.

Milroy, J., and L. Milroy. 1978. Belfast: Change and variation in an urban vernacular. In Sociolinguistic patterns in British English, ed. P. Trudgill, 19–36. London: Arnold.

Mills, S. 1995. Feminist stylistics . London: Routledge.

Minsky, A. 1980. A framework for representing knowledge. In Frame conceptions and text understanding, ed. D. Metzing, 1–25. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Mittelberg, I. 2008. Peircean semiotics meets conceptual metaphor: Iconic modes in gestural representations of grammar. In Metaphor and gesture, ed. A. Cienki and C. Müller, 115–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mittelberg, I., and L. Waugh. 2009. Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gestures. In Multimodal metaphor , ed. C. Forceville and E. Urios-Aparisi, 329–356. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Moll, L., ed. 1990. Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moll, L. 2014. L.S. Vygotsky and education . New York: Routledge.

Moscovici, S. 2000. Social representations: Explorations in social psychology . ed. G. Duveen. Cambridge: Polity.

Mukařovský, J. 1976. Art as semiotic fact. And the essence of the visual arts. In Semiotics of art: Prague school contributions, ed. L. Matejka and I. Titunik. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Mulderrig, J. 2012. The hegemony of inclusion: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis of deixis in education policy. Discourse & Society 23 (6): 1–28.

Müller, C. 2004. Forms and uses of the palm up open hand: A case of a gesture family? In The semantics and pragmatics of everyday gestures, ed. C. Müller and R. Posner, 233–256. Berlin: Weidler.

Müller, C., and A. Cienki. 2009. When speech and gesture come together: Forms of multimodal metaphor in the use of spoken language. In Multimodal metaphor, ed. C. Forceville and E. Urios-Aparisi, 297–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Musolff, A. 2004. Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Musolff, A. 2006. Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 21 (1): 23–38.

Musolff, A. 2007. What role do metaphors play in racial prejudice? The function of antisemitic imagery in Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”. Patterns of Prejudice 41 (1): 21–44.

Musolff, A. 2010. Metaphor, nation and the holocaust. The concept of the body politic . London: Routledge.

Musolff, A. 2012. Special feature: The study of metaphor as part of critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies 9 (3): 301–310.

Nattiez, J. J. 1976. Fondéments d’une sémiologie musicale . Paris: Uge.

Newfield, D. 2011. Multimodality, social justice and becoming a “really South African” democracy: Case studies from language classrooms. In Social justice language teacher education, ed. M. R. Hawkins, 23–48. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Newmeyer, F. J. 1986. Linguistic theory in America: The first quarter century of transformational generative grammar . 2nd ed. Orlando: Academic.

Nichols, J. 1984. Functional theories of grammar. Annual Review of Anthropology 13:97–117.

Nordensvard, J. 2013. The mass production of quality ‘human material’: Economic metaphors and compulsory sterilization in Sweden. Critical Discourse Studies 10 (2): 172–186.

O’Halloran, K. 1999. Interdependence, interaction and metaphor in multisemiotic texts. Social Semiotics 9 (3): 317–354.

O’Halloran, K., and C. Coffin. 2004. Checking overinterpretation and underinterpretation: Help from corpora in critical linguistics. In Applying English grammar, ed. A. Hewings, C. Coffin, and K. O’Halloran, 275–297. London: Arnold.

O’Halloran, K. L., S. Tan, B. Smith, and A. Podlasov. 2011. Multimodal analysis within an interactive software environment: Critical discourse perspectives. Critical Discourse Studies 8 (2): 109–125.

Olausson, U. 2009. Global warming—global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty. Public Understanding of Science 18 (4): 421–436.

Ortanez, M., and S. Glantz. 2009. Trafficking in tobacco farm culture: Tobacco companies’ use of video imagery to undermine health policy. Visual Anthropology Review 25 (1): 1–24.

O’Toole, M. 1994/2011. The language of displayed art . Leicester: Routledge.

Paltridge, B. 2012. Discourse analysis . 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury (1st ed.: 2006. London: Continuum).

Panagl, O., and R. Wodak. 2004. Text und Kontext. Theoriemodelle und methodische Verfahren im transdisziplinären Vergleich . Würzburg: Königshausen and Neumann.

Pavlenko, A. 2005. Ask each pupil about her methods of cleaning: Ideologies of language and gender in Americanisation instruction (1900–1924). The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8 (4): 275–297.

Pêcheux, M. 1982. Language, semantics, and ideology: Stating the obvious . London: Macmillan. (Trans: By H. Nagpal of Les vérités de La Palice , 1975).

Pennycook, A. 1990. Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. Issues in Applied Linguistics 1:8–28.

Pennycook, A. 1997. Critical applied linguistics and education. In Encyclopedia of language and education, ed. R. Wodak and D. Corson, 23–31. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Pennycook, A. 2004. 32 Critical applied linguistics. In The handbook of applied linguistics, ed. A. Davies and C. Elder, 784–807. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Peyroux, E. 2012. Legitimating business improvement districts in Johannesburg: A discursive perspective on urban regeneration and policy transfer. European Urban and Regional Studies 19 (2): 181–194.

Pfeiffer, O. E., E. Strouhal, and R. Wodak. 1987. Recht und Sprache . Vienna: Orac.

Popkewitz, T., and S. Lindblad. 2000. Educational governance and social inclusion and exclusion: Some conceptual difficulties and problematics in policy and research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 21 (1): 5–44.

Portero-Muñoz, C. 2011. Noun-noun euphemisms in the language of the global financial crisis. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies 33 (2): 137–157.

Prussing, E. 2008. Sobriety and its cultural politics: An ethnographer’s perspective on “culturally appropriate” addiction services in Native North America. ETHOS 36 (3): 354–375.

Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J. Svartvik. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English . London: Longman.

Reisigl, M. 2011. (Critical) discourse studies and pragmatics: Commonalities and differences. In Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, ed. C. Hart, 7–26.

Reisigl, M., and R. Wodak. 2001. Discourse and discrimination, rhetorics of racism and antiSemitism . London: Routledge.

Reisigl, M., and R. Wodak. 2009. The discourse historical approach. In Methods of critical discourse analysis , ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 87–121. London: Sage.

Riad, S., and E. Vaara. 2011. Varieties of national metonymy in media accounts of international mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies 48 (4): 737–771.

Richards, J., J. Platt, and H. Weber. 1985. Longman dictionary of applied linguistics . London: Longman.

Richardson, E. 2007. ‘She was workin like foreal’: Critical literacy and discourse practices of African American females in the age of hip hop. Discourse & Society 18 (6): 789–809.

Richardson, J., and M. Colombo. 2013. Continuity and change in anti-immigrant discourse in Italy: An analysis of the visual propaganda of the Lega Nord. Journal of Language and Politics 12 (2): 180–202.

Richardson, K. 1987. Critical linguistics and textual diagnosis. Text 7:145–163.

Ritivoi, A. D. 2008. Talking the (political) talk: Cold War refugees and their legitimation through style. In Rhetoric in detail: Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture , ed. B. Johnstone and C. Eisenhart. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Rogers, R. 2002. Through the eyes of the institution: A critical discourse analysis of decision making in two special education meetings. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 33 (2): 213–237.

Rogers, R., ed. 2011a. An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed. New York: Routledge [1st ed.: 2004, Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum].

Rogers, R. 2011b. Critical approaches to discourse analysis in educational research. In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed., ed. R. Rogers, 1–20. New York: Routledge [1st ed.: 2004, Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum].

Rogers R., and M. Mosley. 2008. A critical discourse analysis of racial literacy in teacher education. Linguistics and Education 19 (2): 107–131.

Rogers, R., and M. Mosley-Wetzel. 2013. Studying agency in literacy teacher education: A layered approach to positive discourse analysis. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 10 (1): 62–92.

Rogers, R., E. Malancharuvil-Berke, M. Mosley, D. Hui, and G. O’Garro Joseph. 2005. Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research 75 (3): 365–416. doi:10.3102/00346543075003365.

Roloff, M., and C. Berger. 1982. Social cognition and communication . Beverly Hills: Sage.

Ryle, G. 1945. Philosophical arguments . Oxford: Clarendon.

Rymes, B. 2009. Critical discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection . Cresskill: Hampton.

Saint, S. 2008. A critical discourse analysis of corporate environmental harm. Internet Journal of Criminology 1–29. http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Saint%20 -.

Santa Ana, O. 1999. Like an animal I was treated: Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse. Discourse & Society 10 (2): 191–224.

Santa Ana, O. 2002. Brown tide rising: Metaphors of Latinos in contemporary American public discourse . Austin: University of Texas Press.

Santa Ana, O. 2013. Juan in a hundred: The representation of Latinos on network news . Austin: University of Texas Press.

Schank, R., and R. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding . Norwood: Ablex.

Schmitt, N., and M. Celce-Murcia. 2002. An overview of applied linguistics. In An introduction to applied linguistics, ed. N. Schmitt, 1–16. London: Arnold.

Scholte, B. 1969. Toward a reflexive and critical anthropology. In Reinventing anthropology, ed. D. Hymes, 430–457. New York: Random House.

Scollo, M. 2011. Cultural approaches to discourse analysis: A theoretical and methodological conversation with special focus on Donal Carbaugh’s cultural discourse theory. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 6 (1): 1–32.

Searle, J. 1969. Speech acts . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. 1979. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Shardakova, I., and A. Pavlenko. 2004. Identity options in Russian textbooks. Journal of Language Identity and Education 3 (1): 25–46.

Shi-Xu. 2005. A cultural approach to discourse . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shi-Xu. 2012. Why do cultural discourse studies? Towards a culturally conscious and critical approach to human discourses. Critical arts 26 (4): 484–503.

Slembrouck, S. 2001. Explanation, interpretation and critique in the analysis of discourse. Critique of Anthropology 21 (1): 33–57.

Strawson, P. 1950. On referring. Mind 59:320–344.

Stubbs, M. 1996. Text and corpus analysis . Oxford: Blackwell.

Stubbs, M. 1997. Whorf’s children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis. In Evolving models of language, ed. A. Wray and A. Ryan, 100–116. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Stubbs, M. 2001. Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics . Oxford: Blackwell.

Tajfel, H., ed. 1981. Differentiation between social groups . London: Academic.

Tajfel, H. 1982. Social identity and intergroup relations . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Takayama, K. 2009. Is Japanese education the “exception”? Examining the situated articulation of neo-liberalism through the analysis of policy. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education 29 (2): 125–142.

Talbot, M. 2005. Choosing to refuse to be a victim: ‘Power feminism’ and the intertextuality of victimhood and choice. In Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse , ed. M. Lazar, 167–180. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Talmy, L. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12:49–100.

Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics . Cambridge: MIT Press.

Taylor, N. 2008. Critical analysis of the adult literacy curriculum: Instructional or regulative? Research in Post-Compulsory Education 13 (3): 307–314.

Therborn, G. 1980. The ideology of power and the power of ideology . London: Verso.

Thibault, P. 1986. Text, discourse and content: A social semiotic perspective . Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle [Toronto Semiotic Circle Monographs. Vol. 3].

Thibault, P. 1989. Genres, codes and pedagogy: Towards a critical social semiotic account. Southern Review 21 (3): 243–264.

Thibault, P. 1991. Social semiotics as praxis . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4 (2): 91–112.

Thomas, A. 2014. Points of difference: Intermodal complementarity and social critical literacy in children’s multimodal texts. In Critical multimodal studies of popular discourse, ed. E. Djonov and S. Zhao, 217–231. London: Routledge.

Thompson, J. 1984. Studies in the theory of ideology . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Thompson, S. 1992. Functional grammar. In International encyclopedia of linguistics, ed. W. Bright, 37–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Threadgold, T. 2003. Cultural studies, critical theory and critical discourse analysis: Histories, remembering and futures. Linguistik Online 14 (2): 5–37.

Titscher, S., M. Meyer, R. Wodak, and E. Vetter. 2000. Methods of text and discourse analysis . London: Routledge (Trans: B. Jenner).

Tolson, A. 2006. Media talk: Spoken discourse on TV and radio . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Tomasello, M. 2008. Origins of human communication . Cambridge: MIT Press.

Toolan, M. J. 1988. Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction . London: Routledge (2nd ed.: 2001).

Toolan, M. J., ed. 2002. Critical discourse analysis. 3. Concurrent analyses and critiques . Vol. 3. London: Taylor & Francis.

Trudgill, P. 1972. Sex, covert prestige, and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1:179–196.

Trudgill, P. 1974. The social differentiation of English in Norwich . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Unsworth, L. 2014. Point of view in picture books and animated film adaptations: Informing critical multimodal comprehension and composition pedagogy. In Critical multimodal studies of popular discourse, ed. E. Djonov and S. Zhao, 202–216. London: Routledge.

van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Text and context . London: Longman.

van Dijk, T. A. 1981. Studies in the pragmatics of discourse . The Hague: Mouton.

van Dijk, T. A. 1984. Prejudice in discourse: An analysis of ethnic prejudice in cognition and conversation . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

van Dijk, T. A., ed. 1985a. Handbook of discourse analysis, 4 vols . London: Academic Press.

van Dijk, T. A., ed. 1985b. Discourse and communication. Berlin: de Gruyter.

van Dijk, T. A. 1985c. Cognitive situation models in discourse production: The expression of ethnic situations in prejudiced discourse. In Language and social situations, ed. J. Forgas, 61–80. New York: Springer.

van Dijk, T. A. 1986. A programm [sic] for critical discourse analysis. Unpublished.

van Dijk, T. A. 1987a. Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk . Newbury Park: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 1987b. Schoolvoorbeelden van racisme: De reproduktie van racisme in maatschappijleerboeken ( Textbook examples of racism: The reproduction of racism in social science textbooks ). Amsterdam: Socialistische Uitgeverij Amsterdam.

van Dijk, T. A. 1987c. News analysis. Case studies in national and international news in the press: Lebanon, ethnic minorities, refugees and squatters . Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

van Dijk, T. A. 1987d. Elite discourse and racism. In Approaches to discourse, poetics and psychiatry, ed. I. Zavala, T. van Dijk, and M. Diaz-Diocaretz, 81–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

van Dijk, T. A. 1988a. News as discourse . Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

van Dijk, T. A. 1988b. News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press . Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

van Dijk, T. A. 1989a. Mediating racism: The role of the media in the reproduction of racism. In Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse, ed. R. Wodak, 199–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

van Dijk, T. A. 1989b. Structures of discourse and structures of power. In Communication yearbook 12, ed. J. Anderson, 18–59. Los Angeles: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 1990. Discourse & society: A new journal for a new research focus. Discourse & Society 1 (1): 5–16. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 1991a. Racism and the press . London: Routledge.

van Dijk, T. A. 1991b. Editorial: Discourse analysis with a cause. The Semiotic Review of Books 2 (1): 1–2.

van Dijk, T. A. 1992. Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society 3 (1): 87–118.

van Dijk, T. A. 1993a. Editor’s foreword to critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4 (2): 131–132.

van Dijk, T. A. 1993b. Elite discourse and racism . London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 1993c. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society 4 (2): 249–283.

van Dijk, T. A. 1995. Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In Language and peace , ed. C. Schäffner and A. Wenden, 17–36. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

van Dijk, T. A. 1997a. The study of discourse. In Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: Discourse as structure and process, ed. T. van Dijk, 1–34. London: Sage

van Dijk, T. A. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach . London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 1999. Critical discourse analysis and conversation analysis. Discourse and Society 10 (4): 459–460.

van Dijk, T. A. 2001a. Critical discourse analysis. In Handbook of discourse analysis, ed. D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. Hamilton, 352–371. Oxford: Blackwell.

van Dijk, T. A. 2001b. Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 95–120. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 2001c. Algunos principios de la teoría del contexto [Some principles of the theory of context]. ALED. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios del Discurso 1 (1): 69–82.

van Dijk, T. A. 2004. From text grammar to critical discourse analysis: A brief academic autobiography. From his website http://www.discourses.org/ .

van Dijk, T. A., ed. 2007. Discourse studies. Sage benchmark studies in discourse analysis . 5 vols. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 2008. Discourse and context: A socio-cognitive approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. 2009a. Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk . Leiden: Cambridge University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. 2009b. Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2nd ed., ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 62–86. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 2011. Discourse and ideology. In Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, ed. T. A. van Dijk, 379–407. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 2012a. The role of the press in the reproduction of racism. In Migrations: Interdisciplinary perspectives, ed. M. Messer, R. Schroeder, and R. Wodak, 15–29. New York: Springer.

van Dijk, T. A. 2012b. Discourse and knowledge. In Handbook of discourse analysis, ed. J. P. Gee and M. Handford, 587–603. London: Routledge.

van Dijk, T. A. 2012c. Knowledge, discourse and domination. In Pragmaticizing understanding. Studies for Jef Verschueren, ed. M. Meeuwis and J. O. Östman, 151–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

van Dijk, T. A. 2012d. A note on epistemic discourse analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology 51:478–485 (Special Issue: Twenty five years of discursive psychology. M. Augoustinos (Ed.)).

van Dijk, T. A. 2014a. Racism—thirty years later. In this volume, Berlin: Springer.

van Dijk, T. A. 2014b. Discourse and knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. 2014c. Ideology. In The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, ed. G. Mazzoleni.

van Dijk, T. A. 2014d. Discourse-cognition-society: Current state and prospects of the socio-cognitive approach to discourse. In Contemporary Studies in Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. C. Hart and P. Cap.

van Dijk, T. A., and R. Wodak. 1988. Introduction: Discourse, racism, and ideology. Text 8:1–4.

van Leeuwen, T. 1993. Genre and field in critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society 4 (2): 193–223.

van Leeuwen, T. 1996. The representations of social actors. In Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis, ed. C. R. Caldas-Couthard and M. Coulthard, 32–70. London: Routledge.

van Leeuwen, T. 1999. Speech, music, sound . London: Macmillan.

van Leeuwen, T. 2005. Introducing social semiotics . London: Routledge.

van Leeuwen, T. 2006. Critical discourse analysis. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics . 2nd ed., Vol. 3, ed. K. Brown, 290–294. Oxford: Elsevier.

van Leeuwen, T. 2008. Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.

van Leeuwen, T. 2009. Discourse as the recontextualization of social practice: A guide. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis 2:144–161.

van Leeuwen, T. 2013. Critical analysis of multimodal discourse. In Encyclopedia of applied linguistics, ed. C. Chapelle, 1–5. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

van Leeuwen, T., and R. Wodak. 1999. Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies 1 (1): 83–118.

Velázquez, I. 2008. Intergenerational Spanish language transmission: Attitudes, motivations and linguistic practices in two Mexican American communities. PhD Diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Velázquez, I. 2009. Intergenerational Spanish transmission in El Paso, Texas: Parental perceptions of cost/benefit. Spanish in Context 6 (1): 69–84.

Velázquez, I. 2013. Individual discourse, language ideology and Spanish transmission in El Paso, Texas. Critical Discourse Studies 10: 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2013.789975 .

Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding pragmatics . London: Arnold.

Villanueva, V. 1993. Bootstraps: From an American academic of color . Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and language . Cambridge: MIT Press [E. Hanfmann, G. Vakar (Eds. and Trans.)].

Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society. In The development of higher psychological processes, ed. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wasson, C. 2004. The paradoxical language of enterprise. Critical Discourse Studies 1 (2): 175–199.

Weiss, G., and R. Wodak. 2003. Introduction: Theory, interdisciplinarity and critical discourse analysis. In Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity, ed. G. Weiss and R. Wodak, 1–32. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wertsch, J. 1985. Vygotsky and the social formation of mind . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Widdowson, H. 1998. The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics 19 (1): 136–151.

Widdowson, H. G. 2004. Text, context, pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis . Oxford: Blackwell.

Wilkinson, S., and C. Kitzinger. 1995. Introduction. In Feminism and discourse: Psychological perspectives, ed. S. Wilkinson and C. Kitzinger, 1–9. London: Sage.

Willen, S. 2011. Do “Illegal” Im/migrants have a right to health? Engaging ethical theory as social practice at a Tel Aviv open clinic. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 25 (3): 303–330.

Williamson, J. 1978. Decoding advertising: Ideology and meaning in advertising . London: Marion Boyers.

Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical investigations . Oxford: Blackwell.

Wodak, R. 1981. Women relate, men report: Sex differences in language behavior in a therapeutic group. Journal of Pragmatics 5: 70–93.

Wodak, R. 1984. Hilflose Nähe? — Mütter und Töchter erzählen . Vienna: Deuticke.

Wodak, R. 1985. Aspekte des geschichtlichen, geschlechts- und generations-spezifischen Lautwandels in Wien: eine Untersuchung zum Sprachverhalten von Müttern und Töchtern. In Sprachwandel und feministische Sprachpolitik: internationale perspektiven, ed. M. Hellinger. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Wodak, R. 1986. Language behavior in therapy groups . Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Wodak, R. 1987. At last I know ... Sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic aspects of the therapeutic process and its effect. In Neurotic and Psychotic Language Behaviour , ed. R. Wodak and P. van de Craen, 9–41. Clevedon: Multilingual Affairs.

Wodak, R., ed. 1989. Language, power, and ideology: Studies in political discourse . Vol. 7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wodak, R. 1993. Discourse and racism. Special issue of Folia Linguistica .

Wodak, R. 1995. Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In Handbook of pragmatics, ed. J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, and J. Blommaert, 204–210. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Wodak, R. 1996. Disorders of discourse . London: Longman.

Wodak, R. 1997a. Introduction: Some important issues in the research of gender and discourse. In Gender and discourse, ed. R. Wodak, 1–20. London: Sage.

Wodak, R., ed. 1997b. Gender and discourse . London: Sage.

Wodak, R. 2001a. The discourse-historical approach. In Methods of critical discourse analysis . 1st ed., ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 63–95. London: Sage.

Wodak, R. 2001b. What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer. London: Sage.

Wodak, R. 2004. Vorwort. In Text und kontext. Theoriemodelle und methodische Verfahren im transdisziplinären Vergleich, ed. O. Panagl and R. Wodak, 7–9. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

Wodak, R. 2005. Gender mainstreaming and the European Union: Interdisciplinarity, gender studies and CDA. In Feminist critical discourse analysis, ed. M. Lazar, 90–113. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wodak, R. 2006. Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive approaches in CDA. Discourse Studies 8 (1): 179–190.

Wodak, R. 2007. Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics and Cognition 15 (1): 203–225.

Wodak, R. 2008. Politics as usual: The discursive construction and representation of politics in action . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wodak, R. 2009. The discourse of politics in action: Politics as unusual . London: Palgrave.

Wodak, R. 2011a. Critical discourse analysis: Overview, challenges, and perspectives. In Pragmatics of society, ed. G. Andersen and K. Aijmer, 627–650. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Wodak, R. 2011b. Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In Discursive pragmatics, ed. J. Östman, P. Ledin, and J. Verschueren, 50–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wodak, R., ed. 2013a. Critical discourse analysis . 4 vols. Los Angeles: Sage.

Wodak, R. 2013b. The strategy of discursive provocation: A discourse-historical analysis of the FPÖ’s discriminatory rhetoric. In Doublespeak: the framing of the far-right since 1945, 99–120. Berlin: ibidem-Verlag.

Wodak, R. 2013c. Dis-citizenship and migration: A critical discourse-analytical perspective. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 12 (3): 173–178.

Wodak, R. 2013d. Editor’s introduction. Critical discourse analysis: Challenges and perspectives. In Critical discourse analysis . Vol. 1, ed. R. Wodak, xxi–xlv. Los Angeles: Sage.

Wodak, R., and G. Benke. 1996. Gender as a sociolinguistic variable. In ed. F. Coulmas, 127–150. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wodak, R., and P. Chilton. 2007. Preface. In A new research agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity, ed. P. Chilton and R. Wodak, xi–sviii. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Wodak, R., and R. de Cillia. 1988. Sprache und Antisemitismus. Special issue, Institut für Wissenschaft und Kunst. Mitteilungen 4.

Wodak, R., and R. de Cillia. 2006. Politics and language: Overview. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics . Vol. 9, 2nd ed., ed. K. Brown. Oxford: Elsevier.

Wodak, R., and M. Krzyzanowski, eds. 2008. Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences . Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wodak, R., and M. Meyer, eds. 2001. Methods of critical discourse analysis . 1st ed. London: Sage.

Wodak, R., and M. Meyer, eds. 2009a. Methods of critical discourse analysis . 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Wodak, R., and M. Meyer. 2009b. Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In Methods of critical discourse analysis . 2nd ed., ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 1–33. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Wodak, R., and M. Reisigl. 2001. Discourse and racism. In The handbook of discourse analysis, ed. D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. Hamilton. Malden: Blackwell.

Wodak, R., and P. van de Craen. 1987. Neurotic and psychotic language behavior . London: Multilingual Matters.

Wodak, R., and T. A. van Dijk, eds. 2000. Racism at the top . Klagenfurt: Drava.

Wodak, R., S. Moosmüller, U. Doleschal, and G. Feistriter. 1987. Sprachliche Gleichbehandlung von Mann und Frau . Vienna: Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales.

Wodak, R., R. de Cillia, K. Blüml, and E. Andraschko. 1989. Sprache und Macht — Sprache und Politik . Vienna: Bundesverlag.

Wodak, R., J. Pelikan, P. Nowak, H. Gruber, R. de Cillia, and R. Mitten. 1990. Wir sind alle unschuldige Täter! Diskurshistorische Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus . Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Wodak, R., et al. 1992. Schulpartnerschaft — Kommunikation in der Schule. Vienna: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft (Project report [et al. in bib.]).

Wodak, R., R. de Cillia, M. Reisigl, and K. Liebhart. 1999. The discursive construction of national identity . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Zhang, H., C. Paul, H. Yadan, and J. Ewn. 2011. Critique across cultures: Some questions for CDA. Critical Discourse Studies 8 (2): 95–107.

Zienkowski, J. 2011. Discursive pragmatics: A platform for the pragmatic study of discourse. In Discursive pragmatics, ed. J. Zienkowski, J. O. Östman, and J. Verschueren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

Prof. Linda R. Waugh

Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA

Prof. Theresa Catalano

Department of Modern Languages, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

Prof. Khaled Al Masaeed

Department of English, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

Tom Hong Do

Department of French and Italian, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

Dr. Paul G. Renigar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda R. Waugh .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Messina, Messina, Italy

Alessandro Capone

Dept. of Lang & Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark

Jacob L. Mey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Waugh, L., Catalano, T., Masaeed, K., Hong Do, T., Renigar, P. (2016). Critical Discourse Analysis: Definition, Approaches, Relation to Pragmatics, Critique, and Trends. In: Capone, A., Mey, J. (eds) Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_4

Published : 01 August 2015

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-12615-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-12616-6

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Methods of Critical Discourse Studies

• Ruth Wodak - Lancaster University, UK, University of Lancaster, UK
• Michael Meyer - Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria
• Description

This   is a sophisticated and nuanced introduction to critical discourse analysis (CDA) that covers a range of topics in an accessible, engaging style. With international examples and an interdisciplinary approach, readers gain a rich understanding of the many angles into critical discourse analysis, the fundamentals of how analysis works and examples from written texts, online data and images.

This new edition:

• expands coverage of multimodality
• adds two new chapters on social media and analysis of online data
• supports learning with a guided introduction to each chapter
• includes a new and extended glossary

Clearly written, practical and rigorous in its approach, this book is the ideal companion when embarking on research that focuses on discourse and meaning-making.

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

This volume offers the most thorough introduction to current methods and areas of application of critical discourse analysis, collecting and representing the work of the leading scholars in the field. This book is a must and an invaluable resource for scholars and students interested in the nexus between discourse, power and society.

This is the best overview of CDS I know. Revised, updated with new topics such as social media, and easier to read. This book is a must for all students of discourse studies.

A classic collection on critical discourse analysis. Bringing together seminal pieces by the leading figures of the field and innovative contributions by younger scholars, this updated and enhanced edition constitutes both an important scholarly achievement and a most valuable teaching resource.

The book is undoubtedly an essential read and a valuable sourcebook for scholars and students interested in the interplay among discourse, ideology and power.

I have noticed an increased interest in CDA among research students. This book is scientifically designed to guide students on the method. The most interesting aspects is the clear, explicit yet rigorous approach taken in writing this book.

An interesting read, enabling students to develop their knowledge and understanding of the topic.

Really useful to have a guide that looks at a good range of approaches to doing critical discourse analysis. Will include on the recommended reading for our MA module in Qualitative Methods and also recommend to undergrads using CDA for their dissertations.

New to the Third Edition of Methods of Critical Discourse Studies:

• Expanded coverage of multimodality
• Chapters on social media and analysis of online data
• A guided introduction to each chapter
• A new and extended glossary
• Updated pedagogy: student-focussed examples, further reading lists, and tasks/activities 
• Updated pedagogy: student-focussed examples, further reading lists, and tasks/activities 

Preview this book

Sample materials & chapters.

Critical Discourse Studies: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology

For instructors

Select a purchasing option, related products.

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Do a Critical Discourse Analysis

Last Updated: April 7, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Christopher Taylor, PhD . Christopher Taylor is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of English at Austin Community College in Texas. He received his PhD in English Literature and Medieval Studies from the University of Texas at Austin in 2014. There are 8 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 89,185 times.

The field of critical discourse analysis (CDA) involves taking a deeper, qualitative look at different types of texts, whether in advertising, literature, or journalism. Analysts try to understand ways in which language connects to social, cultural, and political power structures. As understood by CDA, all forms of language and types of writing or imagery can convey and shape cultural norms and social traditions. While there is no single method that covers all types of critical discourse analyses, there are some grounding steps that you can take to ensure that your CDA is well done. [1] X Research source

Working with a Text

• Texts could include things like Moby Dick , Citizen Kane , a cologne advertisement, a conversation between a doctor and their patient, or a piece of journalism describing an election.

• As a first step, circle all of the adverbs and adjectives in the text. Then, consider what they might suggest about the tone of the piece.
• Look for tone words to help you figure out what the author is trying to convey.
• For example, say you're looking at a piece of political journalism about the president. If the text describes the president as “the goofball in the Oval Office,” the attitude is sarcastic and critical.
• However, if the president is described as “the leader of the free world,” the attitude is respectful and even reverential.
• If the article simply refers to the president as “the president,” its attitude is deliberately neutral, as if the text refuses to “take sides.”

• For example, think about a news report about international immigrants coming to a country. The newscaster can create different types of community by referring to the immigrants as “strangers,” “refugees,” or “aliens.”
• The word “refugees” will prompt sympathy among listeners and will help build a community between citizens and immigrants, while “alien” will help create hostile feelings and will exclude the immigrants from the nation's community.

• For example, an 18th century short story that begins, “The savages attacked the unarmed settlers at dawn,” contains implicit interpretations and biases about indigenous populations.
• Another story that begins, “The natives and settlers made a peaceful arrangement,” has a comparatively benign interpretation of historical events.

Analyzing the Text's Form and Production

• For example, think about the difference between an author who writes a novel for money and one who writes for their own pleasure.
• The first author would want to tap into popular trends ends of the day in order to profit, while the second author would be less concerned with pleasing the public.

• For example, consider the case of a CEO delivering a speech in person to their company. The fact that they're delivering a speech and not sending an open letter shows that openness and transparency are important to the CEO and the company culture.
• If the CEO did not deliver a speech, but only sent an email to board members and top executives, the formal change would imply that the text had a very different audience. The email would make the CEO seem less personal, unconcerned about their own workers, and elitist in who they chose to address.

• For example, say that a contemporary writer opens a poem or story with: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Quoting Charles Dickens at once shows that the author is well-read and also grounds their writing in the English Victorian literary tradition.

Tracing Power in Social Practices

• For example, if a political speakers says, “our forefathers smile upon us today,” they are using patriarchal language.
• The term “culture” should be taken very broadly. Businesses can have cultures, as can communities of all sizes, countries, language groups, racial groups, and even hobbyists can have specific cultures.

• For example, consider 2 different magazine ads for trucks. In the first, a rugged-looking man sits in a truck below the words “The vehicle for men.” In the second, a family sits in a truck and the ad copy reads, “A truck to hold everybody.”
• The first ad seems to rely on stereotypical ideas of masculinity, while the second seems more inclusive.

• For example, imagine a politician whose slogan is “All energy should come from coal!” Because of the extremity of the stance, you may suspect that the candidate represents a fringe party that doesn't share many of the mainstream party's views.
• You could confirm this suspicion by looking at other candidates' speeches to see how they address the fringe candidate. If other candidates critique the fringe candidate, the latter is likely part of a sub-group whose views aren't shared by the main political culture.

• For example, companies like Ikea, Emirate Airlines, and McDonald's have strong cultures and norms that exist internationally.

Expert Q&A

• In an academic setting, CDA isn't tied to 1 single field or discipline. Instead, CDA helps students in a variety of fields understand ways in which the production of texts carries cultural meaning. Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0
• As with any other theoretical field, there are many different ways to perform critical discourse analyses. However, they're largely the same at the core: the models all examine ways in which texts at the smallest (word-based) and the largest (social and cultural) levels have an impact on how communities are formed and what readers believe about the world. Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://www.history.ac.uk/1807commemorated/media/methods/critical.html
• ↑ https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/ed270/Luke/SAHA6.html#4
• ↑ https://study.com/academy/lesson/interpreting-literary-meaning-how-to-use-text-to-guide-your-interpretation.html
• ↑ https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourse-analysis/
• ↑ https://youtu.be/3w_5riFCMGA?t=378
• ↑ https://youtu.be/3w_5riFCMGA?t=669
• ↑ https://www.uv.es/gimenez/Recursos/criticaldiscourse.pdf
• ↑ https://youtu.be/3w_5riFCMGA?t=358

About This Article

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Andrew Boyle

Jul 6, 2020

Did this article help you?

Oct 23, 2020

Aliyu Muhammad

Nov 29, 2022

SK Chakraborty

Apr 16, 2022

Aug 2, 2019

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

• Skip to content
• Skip to Commentary section menu

The abolition of the slave trade

• about this site

You are here: Reports » Phase 1: media » Methods » Critical discourse...

Critical discourse analysis

Critical discourse analysis is a methodology that enables a vigorous assessment of what is meant when language is used to describe and explain. There is a proliferation of terms within critical discourse analysis which is reflective of the various influences in the development of the methodology. There is however a broadly agreed agenda in these studies;

'to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power' (Fairclough 1995: 132).

Texts, language, communication should therefore always be considered in their social context, they both shape and are informed by wider processes within society. In this manner texts do not merely passively report upon the world, but they imbue it with meaning, fabricate it, shape perspectives and call the world into being. The broad term discourse can be employed in these circumstances as it refers to the various ways in which communication between people is achieved. Discourse can be considered as an 'active relation to reality' (Fairclough 1992: 41). Fairclough (2003: 26) has delineated three characteristics of discourse which describe its operation within social life, as 'part of the action.' These are;

• Genres (ways of acting)
• Discourses (ways of representing)
• Styles (ways of being)

'Genres' refer to a particular way of manipulating and framing discourse; examples of genres are church sermons, interviews and political speeches. Genres are significant because they provide a framework for an audience to comprehend discourse, though evidently due to this quality, 'genres' can be the locus of power, domination and resistance. 'Discourses/representation' is crucial in assessing the means by which apparently similar aspects of the world can be appreciated and understood from different perspectives or positions. Finally, 'styles' are the ways in which discourse is used to constitute a sense of being and identity, how identification is located through the application and manner of particular discourses.

Discourse is thereby a means of being and doing and the way this specific practice is understood and interpreted is demonstrative of a further three analytical elements of study; production, form and reception. The structure and relationship of these three and their interplay through political and cultural concerns develop the myriad of social effects of discourse (Fairclough 2003: 11). This social effect is dependent upon the audience accessing, comprehending, using and resisting this discourse. Discourse should not be considered in isolation; rather, discourses act upon and influence one another in an act of intertextuality. This term concerns the way that specific discourses are understood only with reference to separate discourses. The Russian linguist Mikhail Bakhtin (1986) described this situation as 'dialogism', discourses referencing implicitly or explicitly other discourses as a further indication of the social life of discourse. Bakhtin (1986, 121) stated that, 'the author has his own inalienable right to the word, but the listener also has his own rights, and those whose voices are heard in the word before the author comes upon it also have their rights.'

The subtle use of dialogism implied by Bakhtin is that discourses relate to other past forms of communication whilst foreseeing future modes of discourse. Intertextuality or dialogism is a means by which discourse situates itself within a web of social, political and cultural concerns. The plethora of discourse however ensures that forms are always competing against one another for dominance, power and control (after Foucault 1980: 35). Within society certain discourses are more powerful than others. This is not to deny the power of agency within the reception of discourse, rather it reveals the subtle means by which agents make themselves into subjects through discursive features. An obvious example would be the government or legal codes which prescribe the boundaries of operation in everyday life. There are however more subtle domineering discourses which function to maintain perceptions and attitudes. These may operate on a subtle level; van Dijk (1991) for instance examined the racist discourses which operated within the British press. By practising certain modes of exclusionary discourse, particularly the use of pronouns, 'we', 'us', 'them', newspapers in Britain were shown to participate and propagate in a discourse of a dominating, white, overwhelming middle-class Britain. The mode of reporting was shown to be less subtle as the, 'dominant definition of ethnic affairs has consistently been a negative and stereotypical one: minorities or immigrants are seen as a problem or a threat, and are portrayed preferably in association with crime, violence, conflict, unacceptable cultural differences, or other forms of deviance (van Dijk 1991: 20). This discourse is certainly opposed and disputed by alternative discourses, but the power of the position the Press hold ensures that it is the former discourse which is heard. Bakhtin (1984) referred to this variety of discourse as 'heteroglossia', a term which recognises the multitude of forms of discourse and the means in which some succeed in their dominance.

Critical discourse analysis therefore examines the form, structure and content of discourse, from the grammar and wording employed in its creation to its reception and interpretation by a wider audience. The employment of verbs, pronouns and nouns within discourse is as much part of this analysis as the assessment of the content and tone of the discourse. The methodology facilitates an assessment based upon more than simple quotations but upon what the discourse is doing and what it is being asked to do in its production, dissemination and consumption.

Bibliography

• Bakhtin, M. (1984) Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, ( Theory and History of Literature , Volume 8). Edited and translated by C. Emerson. Manchester. Manchester University Press.
• Bakhtin, M. (1986) Speech genres and other late essays . Trans. by V.W. McGee. Austin. University of Texas Press.
• Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change . Polity Press. Cambridge.
• Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis . Longman. London.
• Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research . New York and London. Routledge.
• Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977 . Edited by C. Gordon. Brighton. Harvester Press.
• van Dijk, T. (1991) Racism and the Press . New York and London. Routledge.

Methods | back to the top

• Introduction
• Phase 2: exhibitions
• Phase 3: audiences

Institute for the Public Understanding of the Past and the Institute of Historical Research , 2007

• Search Menu
• Supplements
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Submit?
• About Digital Scholarship in the Humanities
• About the European Association for Digital Humanities
• About the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. From critical discourse analysis to CADSs
• 3. Data and methodology
• 4. Findings
• 5. Discussion and conclusion
• Author contributions
• Data availability

Towards a ‘synergy’ of text mining and critical discourse analysis: a corpus-assisted discourse study of imagining China in Hong Kong political discourse

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Ming Liu, Towards a ‘synergy’ of text mining and critical discourse analysis: a corpus-assisted discourse study of imagining China in Hong Kong political discourse, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities , 2024;, fqae010, https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqae010

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This study proposes to incorporate text mining into critical discourse analysis (CDA) to give a corpus-assisted discourse study of the particular ways of imagining Hong Kong’s relations to China in the public speeches of three former Chief Executives in the two decades after its handover. With the computer-assisted text-mining tool KH Coder, this study combines the methods of quantitative text mining and qualitative discourse analysis to examine their preferential ways of imagining China at different levels of discourse: (1) topics/themes, (2) discursive strategies, and (3) linguistic means and realizations. It generates illuminating findings concerning their preferential ways of imagining Hong Kong’s relations to China as well as the analytic potential of incorporating text mining into CDA. It is expected that it can lead to more studies towards this endeavour.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2055-768X
• Print ISSN 2055-7671
• Copyright © 2024 EADH: The European Association for Digital Humanities
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.