research paper on critical discourse analysis

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on August 23, 2019 by Amy Luo . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Critical discourse analysis (or 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 conduct 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.  

Table of contents

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Unlike linguistic approaches that focus only on the rules of language use, discourse analysis emphasizes 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 analyzed on multiple levels.

Discourse analysis is a qualitative and interpretive method of analyzing 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. Following these steps can help you avoid pitfalls of confirmation bias that can cloud your analysis.

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: Analyze 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.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

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 Citation Generator.

Luo, A. (2023, June 22). Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 11, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourse-analysis/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

What is qualitative research | methods & examples, what is a case study | definition, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society pp 71–135 Cite as

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

• Linda R. Waugh 3 ,
• Theresa Catalano 4 ,
• Khaled Al Masaeed 5 ,
• Tom Hong Do 6 &
• Paul G. Renigar 7  
• First Online: 01 January 2015

9213 Accesses

16 Citations

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

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 .

Buying options

• 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

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

Cite 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

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 9 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.

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

Share link with colleague or librarian

Stay informed about this journal!

• Get New Issue Alerts
• Get Advance Article alerts
• Get Citation Alerts

A Critical Discourse Analysis of the UK SEND Review Green Paper

In this paper we carry out a Critical Discourse Analysis ( cda ) of the UK Government’s 2022 Green Paper ‘Right Support, Right Place, Right Time’, known as ‘the SEND Review’. Our analysis is informed both by Critical Higher Education Policy Discourse Analysis ( chepda ) framework and by our cognizance of how the term ‘special educational needs’ is constructed in the context of the state’s active and passive enactment of policies that continue to diminish the quality of disabled people’s lives. Our analysis focuses principally on deconstruction of the Green Paper with close attention to modes of legitimation, interdiscursivity, intertextuality, presupposition/implication, and lexico-grammatical construction. We present three main areas of interest: the (mis)use of and omission of ‘need’, the ubiquitous and ambiguous use of ‘we’, and the presentation of ‘newness’ in the SEND Review.

In this paper we carry out a Critical Discourse Analysis ( cda ) of the UK Government’s 2022 Green Paper ‘Right Support, Right Place, Right Time’, known as ‘the SEND Review’. Our analysis is informed both by Hyatt’s (2013) Critical Higher Education Policy Discourse Analysis ( chepda ) framework and by our cognizance of how the term ‘special educational needs’ is constructed in the context of the state’s active and passive enactment of policies that continue to diminish the quality of disabled people’s lives. Our analysis focuses principally on deconstruction of the Green Paper with close attention to modes of legitimation, interdiscursivity, intertextuality, presupposition/implication, and lexico-grammatical construction. We present three main areas of interest: the (mis)use of and omission of ‘need’, the ubiquitous and ambiguous use of ‘we’, and the presentation of ‘newness’ in the SEND Review.

• Introduction

In this paper we carry out a Critical Discourse Analysis ( cda ) of the UK Government’s 2022 Green Paper ‘Right Support, Right Place, Right Time’, known as ‘the SEND Review’ 1 (Department for Education (DfE), 2022e ). We ask, how does the SEND Review and its language both hide and reveal governmental attitudes towards, and priorities for, disabled children and young people? Our analysis is informed both by Hyatt’s (2013) Critical Higher Education Policy Discourse Analysis ( chepda ) framework and by our cognizance of how the term ‘special educational needs’ is constructed in the context of the state’s active and passive enactment of policies that continue to diminish the quality of disabled people’s lives. The paper focuses principally on deconstruction of the Green Paper with close attention to modes of legitimation, interdiscursivity, intertextuality, presupposition/implication, and lexico-grammatical construction. In our analysis, we examine how apparently subtle shifts in language construction can enable principles of neoliberalism to become naturalised and embedded. England’s position as ‘the social laboratory of neoliberal education’ ( Ball, 2016 , p.1047), a place where disabled people’s human rights have been breached by the state, points to the SEND Review as a key site for interrogation of neoliberal educational ideology. As a result, this paper is an important contribution internationally to Disability Studies in Education ( dse ) through its exposure of some of the key manoeuvres of state policy in disabled young people’s lives.

Here we provide a brief roadmap to the paper. We begin with the context of this project, exploring how Disability Studies in Education can be a helpful lens for understanding both the ideological and policy landscape of disabled children’s education within the global project of neoliberalism. We go on to a methodology section which outlines both the suitability of cda with/in dse and the methods by which we analysed the SEND Review. We then go on to present three main areas of interest: the (mis)use of and omission of ‘need’, the ubiquitous and ambiguous use of ‘we’, and the presentation of ‘newness’ in the SEND Review.

as a response to the widespread recognition that the system was failing to deliver improved outcomes for children and young people, that parental and provider confidence was in decline, and, that despite substantial additional investment, the system had become financially unsustainable p.9.

Such a political warrant might reassure readers of the Green Paper that the government has taken responsibility for the well-documented failings of the SEND system ( UK Parliament, 2021 ; House of Commons Education Committee, 2019 ; National Network for Parent Carer Forums, 2019 ; Ofsted, 2021a ) and lead them to expect the contents of this public consultation to engender hope for a revolutionised approach to special educational needs that is fit for purpose for the communities it serves. This hopeful future with a distancing from the past is a well-worn policy tactic – a work of temporal construction in which new policy ‘constructs either overtly, implicitly or by neglect, an historical past, a present and a desired imagined future … Policy is about creating a better-imagined future and in discursively constructing such an imagined future is about governing the present’ ( Lingard, 2021 , p.348). To offer us the means to interrogate this policy work, we situate our project within Disability Studies in Education ( dse ).

We write this paper with(in) the frame work of dse as a conscious positioning of both our ideological orientation to the construction of ‘special educational needs’ and our analytical means of interrogating the Green Paper itself. The very premise of SEND policy conceives of certain ‘bodyminds’ ( Price, 2015 ) as requiring intervention in order to be granted access to the basic right to education. This premise demands interrogation. As Danforth and Gabel (2008) set out, dse is a space for ‘critical analyses that doubt the sincere company line, critique the mundane play of power and press the professions and community to experiment with new forms of participation, solidarity and equity’ (p.1). As we write this, we are mindful of Penketh’s reflections on the last round of SEND educational reforms in 2014: ‘We need to continue to remind educators, at all levels, that people do not ‘have’ special educational needs … their educational needs are made special as a result of the ways in which we conceptualise and organise our education systems’ ( Penketh, 2014 , p.1486). Over eight years later, a period which spans nearly the entirety of some young people’s educational lives, we have reflected on the failings of those reforms ( UK Parliament, 2021 ; House of Commons Education Committee, 2019 ; National Network for Parent Carer Forums, 2019 ; Ofsted, 2021b ) and we consider the effects of policy amnesia and the means by which the SEND Review seeks to proffer a bold new vision for the SEND system.

Implementing inclusive education has proven problematic all over the world. The reasons are multiple, but one of them can presumably be related to the way students with disabilities are “created”, viewed, and responded to as “special education students” within schools. p.1

For as long as the childhoods of disabled children remain ideologically conceptualised through policy and practice as the exception to the norm, despite the government’s own recognition of the rising numbers of ‘children with SEND’ ( DfE, 2022f ), we would argue that the system for educating such children (and education as a whole) will remain largely unchanged regardless of state intervention in policy reform. That said, scrutiny of policy reform is a vital tool of dse , and arguably dccs too, given the importance of policy reform in the state apparatus at a time of intense neoliberal conservatism. In the UK, disabled people of all ages have come under attack from political rhetoric and policy which is implicitly and explicitly intended to reduce state spending on disability-related issues, bringing reduced quality of life and opportunities for disabled people (see the Healing Justice Ldn Deaths by Welfare Project, 2022 ). In 2017, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ( uncrpd ) published a damning report following a 2016 inquiry which condemned the UK Government for ‘grave and systematic violations of disabled people’s human rights’ including the right to education. In the wake of the uncrpd ’s explicit recommendations for better consultation with disabled people, the High Court in November 2021 ruled that the National Disability Strategy was unlawful because the government had failed to consult lawfully (Binder v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, 2023). In this context of a state which actively and passively enacts policies that diminish the quality of disabled people’s lives, it is evident that close scrutiny of the current SEND Review is vital. Of course, while these systematic exclusions are specific examples, they are reflective of a broader ideological project of neoliberalism internationally.

Neoliberalism provides an ethical framework for the organisation and operation of our social institutions including schooling. Schools are forged within the furnace of competitive individuals, and students are reduced to the bearers of results … As individual units, students manifest risk or opportunity. p.16

Policy reform is a fundamental tactic of neoliberal education systems, bringing the ever-alluring modernist promise of policy as a means of progression from an inadequate present to a bright future ( Ball, 2021 ). SEND policy has seen a volley of some of the most significant reforms of any education policy in England and those reforms show little sign of let-up. For example, since the publication of the SEND Review Green Paper in March 2022, a further public consultation on the timeline for Education and Health Care Plan ( ehcp ) Annual Reviews ( DfE, 2022b ) was announced on the back of a High Court judgement that local authorities were routinely breaching the current legislative framework for this area (R (L, M and P) v Devon County Council, 2022). As the parent advocate Tania Tirraoro (2022) astutely commented, one might be inclined to conclude that the consultation was the consequence of the DfE’s dissatisfaction with the judgement: ‘if you don’t like a legal clarification that’s been made, don’t worry, you can just change the law concerned’. Another public consultation which recently closed was the revision of school behaviour and exclusion guidance ( DfE, 2022a ). It has significant implications for disabled young people who are disproportionately at risk of exclusion ( DfE, 2022d ) and subject to some of the most problematic behaviour interventions (see the Challenging Behaviour Foundation’s 2020 report on the use of restraint in schools). This new guidance further entrenches the government’s commitment to zero-tolerance approaches to behaviour in schools, with Alternative Provision 2 now being expected to ‘provide the leadership and expertise to develop capacity in mainstream schools, building on strong behaviour cultures’ ( DfE, 2022a , Ch4(8)). The final consultation of relevance running concurrently to the SEND Review was the Ofsted and Care Quality Commission’s (2022) new approach to SEND inspections.

These concurrent consultations all with direct consequences to the education of disabled young people show that the SEND policy field is rapidly evolving and has deeply intertwined strands. Moreover, all of these consultations interact with both the (now scrapped) Schools Bill (2022) , and the Schools White Paper ( DfE, 2022c ) entitled ‘Opportunity for all: strong schools with great teachers for your child’, published the same week as the SEND Review. Significant agendas in these instruments included a new register for young people who are not in school and/or are home-educated, new legislation regarding attendance policies, and enhanced powers to issue fixed penalty notices to parents. The Schools White Paper explicitly cross-references the SEND Review in its broadest terms: it ‘complements plans, which will be set out in the SEND Review, for a clearer interaction between the SEND system and the support that should be readily available in all schools’ (p.44). Likewise, the SEND Review refers to the White Paper: ‘The proposals in this green paper will build upon the ambitious vision for an effective education system that the Schools White Paper seeks to deliver’ (p.78). This intertextual referencing leaves the reader with the obligation to cross-check that each of the document’s promises to the other is realised. As a technique, it serves to ‘support, reinforce and legitimise [the] particular construction, representation and projection of preferred meanings’ ( Hyatt, 2013 , p.841) in the Review. This makes it much more difficult to challenge problematic assumptions and assertions within the Review, thus creating a barrier to raising legitimate concerns. It is with the intention of raising concerns that this paper asks, how does the SEND Review and its language both hide and reveal governmental attitudes of, and priorities for, disabled children and young people?

• Methodology

Texts appear to people, and with real consequences, texts enter our lives. In the context of our lives, texts come to life. This life reflects, if only in a flash, the meaning of the being of that which the text speaks … p.26

In the dse context of this paper, it is evident that texts such as the SEND Review and its interrelated educational policy documents bring in to being the meaning of disabled childhoods. Arguably, given the significance of SEND policy in the daily lives of disabled children and families, this meaning is more than a flash, it is an omnipresent authority on the quality of those daily lives. We believe, given that significance, that cda offers us a means of laying bare what is both hidden and revealed about government attitudes towards the education of disabled young people, and their priorities for both future policy and practice.

In this paper we follow Hyatt’s (2013) Critical Higher Education Policy Discourse Analysis ( chepda ) framework rather than perhaps the more obvious adoption of Fairclough (1995) or a successor such as Baachi (2009) . Both the aforementioned approaches would have undoubtedly allowed for a rich exploration so whilst a departure from cda  s with/in cds that have come before, we hope to contribute to the rich analytical toolkit that can be utilised in countering the marginalisation of disabled childhoods. As central as Fairclough’s (1995) work is to cda , and everything we, as researchers know of it, we sought more methodological instruction. Van Aswegen et al (2019) developed an analysis using both Bacchi’s ‘what’s the problem represented to be?’ ( wpr ) approach and Hyatt’s (2013) chepda framework. We increasingly found ourselves drawn to the chepda framework specifically, due to its pedagogically instructive approach. As researchers we want to continually learn in the research process rather than relying on approaches to analysis that we may find longworn or stagnant due to our familiarity with them. The chepda framework, aligned theoretically with Fairclough (1995), excited us as it provided not only methodology but method too, with its clearly defined analytical tactics that we could apply to the document to a greater or lesser extent depending on their utility. Although our policy interest was not he , we took Hyatt at his word that the framework was always intended as ‘transdisciplinary, offering a purposeful approach for engaging in critical policy study regardless of the policy domain’ ( Van Aswegen et al, 2019 , p.188). The umbrella processes, contextualising and deconstructing were used to formulate our approach to our readings and re-readings before moving towards the minutiae of textual analysis. These two dimensions of the analysis are explained in turn.

• Methods of Contextualising & Deconstructing the Policy

Policies usually proffer a critique of what has gone before, while often working incrementally, in form, language and approach, with previous policies in the domain. This incrementalism is often hidden by aspirational descriptors of the new policy. New Ministers of Education want to leave their mark; this has a temporal effect on the policy language. lingard , 2021 , p.248

Given the dense intertextuality involved in the crowded SEND policy field, a contextual analysis is essential. This contextualising began with a close reading of the Education Act (1944) , followed by examination of recent wider SEND policy, allowing evidence of changing language to inform our analysis.

Our analysis principally involves a close deconstruction of the document with attention to modes of legitimation, interdiscursivity, intertextuality, presupposition/implication, and lexico-grammatical construction. Through repeated close reading we tabulated occurrences of each of these features and considered where there were repetitions and emphasises that spanned the document. From here we rationalised the most pertinent findings into an interrogation of the ways in which young people’s ‘needs’ were legitimised and the presuppositions involved in this, a lexico-grammatical exploration of the intended and imagined audience of the Review in ‘who are ‘we?’’, and an analysis of the interdiscursivity at work in the quantity, and quality of ‘newness’ in the document. It became apparent that certain vocabulary was notable in its volume, thus collating the occurrences of particular phraseology’s prolific use enabled a means of analysing its function.

For the most part, we focus on the Green Paper’s Executive Summary (the first 17 pages of the 100-page document) though we do take our analysis to the main chapters at points where particular substance is found there. We take this approach because it became clear that the substance of the analysis is concentrated in the efforts of the paper’s authors to construct a succinct and robust summary. Much of the discourse on the evidentiary, political and accountability warrants lies in the summary, and its text is steeped in the weight of the implicit. It is here that most of the heavy discursive lifting is happening – the onboarding process, as it were.

• Findings and Discussion

We now go on to consider the discursive tactics of the Green Paper which ‘make further moves thinkable and doable, and ultimately make them obvious and indeed necessary’ ( Ball, 2016 , p.1048). We map how and where these moves are traced over time to transform the unacceptable into something logical, inevitable and even virtuous and we consider what further moves are likely to come to naturalise and neutralise the future educational landscape for disabled children. Policy is ‘multi-layered and in its folds, contours, cracks and crevices, it contains, constrains and constructs privilege as well as dispossession through (re)enforcing marginality and exclusion’ ( Hodkinson & Burch, 2019 , p.156). In this sense, we are interested in the minutiae of the policy text itself, while considering its accumulation and its significance as a moment in the development of the neoliberal conservative architecture.

• Contextualising and Deconstructing

The SEND Review Green Paper is contextualised explicitly as informed by the Covid-19 pandemic, a period which the document acknowledges had a disproportionately negative impact on disabled young people. In the Review’s predecessor which introduced the 2014 Code of Practice, the Green Paper titled ‘Support and Aspiration: a new approach to special educational needs and disability’, the contextualising warrant was austerity – ‘the current financial climate does not allow any government to be careless with resources’ ( DfE, 2011 , para 14). Austerity was used to contextualise and justify the scope and scale of the policy reforms at that time, with a now familiar aim of reducing spending ( Hoskin, 2019 ; Norwich, 2014 ), an aim that evidently has not been achieved. It is notable that austerity and its impacts – including its structural consequence, poverty – are not mentioned at all in the current SEND Review. Austerity as a warrant has been superseded by a global pandemic, providing the backdrop to the current Green Paper as both an explanatory force ‘exacerbating the challenges’ within previous policy and a political warrant for the proposed reforms: ‘Close working with the sector during the pandemic … demonstrated that reform is needed’ ( DfE, 2022e , chapter 1 para 8). In each Green Paper, austerity and the global pandemic respectively have been invoked to set the bounds of state accountability for previous policy failures in the face of seemingly uncontrollable (global) forces.

In Lehane’s (2017) analysis of three SEND Code of Practices (which provide the legislative framework in England), she noted that the documents became longer with each reform. We would contend, following Lehane, that the current Green Paper is written not to be read. Related to this contention, the barrier most commonly reported by parents in their ability to respond to the consultation exercise in our broader project [project title anonymised] was that the document is largely impenetrable, even with extensive prior knowledge of the policy and legislative landscape, and so lengthy that it would never lend itself to meaningful and active engagement (Pluquailec, O'Connor and Sadler, 2022). Given that a repeated aim in the Green Paper itself (chapter 1 para 29) and in the associated press communications from Ministers ( bbc Newsround, 2022 ) is to restore parents’ confidence in the SEND system, the irony has not been lost on these same parents that the document is, at best, promotional rather than dialogic ( Fairclough, 2013 ) and, at worst, exclusionary.

• (1) The (Mis)use and Omission of ‘Need’

… reform is made up of small, incremental moves and tactics … Things that at one time seemed unthinkable become over time the common sense and the obvious of policy, as ‘what works’ and as ‘best practice’; they become embedded in a ‘necessarian logic’ ball , 2016 , p.1048.

In this analysis of the ‘SEND’ Review, it is important to consider the use of this acronym and how it informs change. In some respects, it provides a useful way of identifying those children and young people who require different or additional support in educational settings; like many other disability labels, it also allows people to find each other and form communities ( Pluquailec, 2022 ). However, its use is not without problems. Children are no longer described as ‘needing’ something from others: they simply ‘have sen/d ’. By this etymological nominalisation, what children need and the action required to meet the need can be absent from the language. Children are construed as passive bearers of disability. Billig (2008) notes that ‘over time a new noun might be derived from a verb and become established as a standard lexical item in the language’ (p.787). This does not necessarily imply subterfuge, but nominalisation does permit ‘habits of concealment’ (Fowler, in Billig, 2008 , p.80). The concealment of need is a core component of the SEND Review.

The framing of ‘need’ as something a child ‘has’, rather than a requirement for others to act on behalf of the child, is not inevitable. In the Education Act (1944) , this responsibility of others was clear. The phrase ‘special educational treatment’ occurred 12 times in the 1944 document, each time preceded by a verb: require, need or provide. This phrasing demanded action from government. Further, ‘special educational treatment’ was explicitly described as ‘… the need for securing that provision is made for pupils …’ (8-2(c)), again ensuring that action was an inevitable consequence of need. By the time the Warnock Report ( 1978 ) was released, the concept of ‘special needs’ was in use, defined specifically as the need for particular interventions (6.3). Thus, the word ‘need’ still connoted a requirement for action.

In the SEND Review, however, the use of ‘need’ has significantly changed. ‘Need’ appears 420 times in the Review, sen appears 177 times, and SEND 355 times. By their nature, sen and SEND are nouns. ‘Need’ is also predominantly nominalised. Where ‘need’ is used as a verb, it is either in a mitigating context, such as ‘fewer children and young people will need additional interventions’ (p.42) and ‘young people should be able to access the support they need to thrive without the need for an ehcp ’ (p.13), or it is used to describe what the system ‘needs’. Having a system that ‘needs’ things, and children who just ‘have needs’, helps to characterise educational requirements as obstacles to ‘the system’ rather than necessary adjustments required by students. For example, in a section entitled ‘There are three key challenges facing the SEND system’ (p.10), ‘high needs cost pressures’ are at the centre, with funding cuts presented as a way of meeting this ‘need’. Occurrences of the verb form of need relate to ‘future funding’ and ‘targeting spending’ (p.11) (things ‘the system’ needs). Meanwhile, the nominalisation of children and young people’s needs reduces them to cost pressures – a financial burden on ‘the system’ which has been given an ‘unprecedented level of investment’ (p.11). This linguistic strategy serves to conceal the true significance of children’s needs. In this way, the government establishes a ‘naturalised ideological position’ within which the ‘value and usefulness’ of removing funds from the SEND system is rationalised. ( Hyatt, 2013 , p.840).

With the omission of ‘need’ we find minimising replacements, for example: ‘When children and young people did not get the support they wanted, they often felt excluded …’ (Ch1, 18). Here, support is not described as a need; to describe it as a ‘want’ reduces its value and import. This attenuation allows what follows to go unchallenged: the children only ‘felt’ excluded, rather than ‘they became excluded due to their needs being unmet’. Parental needs are diminished in a similar way: they only ‘ feel they need to secure ehcp  s and … specialist provision’ [italics added], ‘as a result of low confidence’ (Ch1, 32). Presenting ‘need’ as a feeling instead of an actuality permits inaction. There is a presupposition here that parents are not cognizant of their children’s educational rights. This is compounded by the statement that this ‘feeling’ is caused by another feeling (low confidence). Hyatt ( 2013 , p.841) notes that ‘presuppositions help to represent constructions as convincing realities’. Here, they allow the government to elide responsibility for the problems encountered by parents and carers in trying to ensure appropriate support for their children.

The way nominalised ‘needs’ are categorised in the text can also tell a story. In Key Facts (p.7), diagnostic labels are presented as subcategories of ‘needs’. For example, ‘Amongst pupils with an ehcp , the most common primary type of need in 2021 was Autistic Spectrum Disorder (30%)’. This puts the focus on labels borne by the young person rather than what needs to be done for the young person, because Autism Spectrum Disorder is a diagnosis not a description of particular educational needs. In effect, ‘needs’ are erased. It is also disheartening to note how the term ‘high needs’ is used throughout the SEND Review. Historically, references to ‘high needs’ connoted greater requirements on educators to meet a young person’s greater needs. In this Green Paper, ‘high needs’ appears 34 times, 32 of which relate to spending, budgets, investment and funding. Here, ‘high need’ is presented as a financial issue, nothing more.

‘Need’ is not the only word that is (mis)used/omitted in this way. ‘Include’/‘inclusion’ follows a similar pattern and we explore this in finding 3 ‘What’s new?’, below. Further, ‘reintegration’ makes an appearance in place of ‘inclusion’. This occurs within the information for consultation 14, on funding (Ch4, 20), and relates to the creation of new ‘performance tables’ for Alternative Provision, where providers will be graded on their ‘success’ in ‘reintegrating the children and young people back into mainstream schools’. The text is silent on exactly how this ‘reintegration’ will take place. Alternative Provision is presented as a way to ‘build capacity to address behavioural or other needs that present a barrier to learning’ (Ch 4(2)). Alternative Provision settings will involve ‘time-limited placements’ and ‘longer-term transitional placements’ for pupils. The omission of ‘inclusion’, replaced by ‘reintegration’, gives the surface appearance of inclusion (integration) but actually specifies that children and young people will be excluded from their schools and placed elsewhere. This mode of legitimation is ‘moral evaluation’ ( Hyatt, 2013 , p840) of ‘behaviour’ as a ‘barrier to learning’ rather than the result of a child’s needs not being met. As part of the ‘new national vision for Alternative Provision’, ‘high standards of behaviour’ are expected (Ch3, 13) with ‘strong behaviour cultures’ (Ch4, 8). There is a moral implication here that ‘behaviour’ is a reason to remove children from their educational settings and send them to other settings where they will learn to ‘behave’ appropriately. Given that ‘Alternative Provision’ is mentioned 249 times in the SEND Review, it is evident that pupil ‘inclusion’ is being replaced to some extent by a process that involves pupil ‘reintegration’, in a to-and-fro between different settings.

• (2) Who Are ‘We’?

Example 1 : We need a strong specialist sector that has a clear purpose to support those children and young people with more complex needs who require specialist or Alternative Provision’ p13.

Example 2 : We need funding reform and strengthened accountability across the system so that everyone knows the role they play, is incentivised and held to account for doing so. We need a strong focus on delivery, supporting the move to a more inclusive system that starts to deliver now, and in the long-term for children, young people and their families. p25

This pattern is problematic not least because the SEND Review is a consultation document seeking public feedback, while the language sows seeds in readers’ minds about what they should feel and, in turn, how they ought to respond.

Where ‘we’ is used in the document to refer exclusively to the Review’s authors and implementers, it is worth stopping to unpack the implicit authority that this use embeds in the paper’s narration. On these occasions of ‘we’, verbs are rarely conjugated in the past tense and few are in the present tense. The most common pattern is the present perfect tense, often used when there is more interest in the outcome of an action than the action itself. These statements are dominated by the authoritative voice of ‘we’, with little substance accorded to the action or process: ‘we have listened’, ‘we have considered’, ‘we have heard’. Little or no space is given to the active voices that were listened to, considered, or heard. In each case, the outcomes of these actions play favourably into a sense of a Review process that simply wants to get on with the task at hand (perhaps chiming with a common media soundbite of the current Government Front Bench: getting on with ‘delivering on the people’s priorities’). The lack of reported opinions, arguments or submissions from ‘heard’ stakeholders obliges the reader to assume that those voices are well-represented in the paper’s proposals, rather than affording readers the opportunity to draw that conclusion themselves. One need only turn towards public commentary immediately following the Green Paper’s publication to conclude that some of those voices do not feel properly listened to, considered or heard. For example, when the Green Paper was published it had no British Sign Language or Easy Read versions. ‘It is tragically ironic’, said Simon Knight, a headteacher of a special school, ‘that a consultation designed to address the dysfunctionality of the SEND system is, through the lack of suitable adapted materials, disadvantaging those very people the consultation is intended to improve outcomes for’ (Knight, in Booth, 2022 , n.p.). It was only after public backlash that these versions were published, six weeks later. The consultation deadline was in turn extended but only by three weeks.

We are clear that in an effective and sustainable SEND system that delivers great outcomes for children and young people, the vast majority of children and young people should be able to access the support they need to thrive without the need for an ehcp or specialist or Alternative Provision place … p.13

Here, the use of ‘We are clear’ (that an effective ‘system’ delivers great outcomes) is notable. Unlike children and families who ‘feel’, ‘we’ are ‘clear’ (we do not ‘feel’). Also, ‘we’ do not promise to ‘do’ any action; ‘we’ are just ‘clear’ that it should be done. The language enables an eliding of responsibility, simultaneously highlighting substantial problems and acknowledging what ‘should’ be done without actually locating accountability for the problems, or promising to fix them.

‘We’ is conspicuously absent from the ‘Key Facts: the SEND and Alternative Provision system in numbers’ where the scale and quantification of the problem at hand is laid out. Within this scene-setting section, which mainly takes the form of budgetary ‘facts’ serving as evidentiary warrant for both the Review and its proposed reforms, ‘we’ is nowhere to be seen. This is notable as a distancing move, creating space between the ‘we’ of the government and the evidence of the SEND system’s entrenched failings. As Hyatt (2013) notes, ‘The selection of voice … can be motivated by the desire to elide agency and therefore systematically background responsibility for actions in some instances or to foreground responsibility in others’ (p.842). Allowing ‘we’ into this section would invite association with failure and risk the reader noticing that perhaps ‘we’ had something to do with the conditions of that failure.

• (3) What is, in Fact, ‘New’?

It may appear trite to analyse the use of ‘newness’ in a Green Paper – it is, after all, a set of proposed policy reforms. There are two reasons that we do this analysis. The first is sheer numbers. The word ‘new’ appears a total of 119 times in the document. Its place of highest frequency is the Executive Summary where it occurs more than a dozen times within only four summary points. The profusion of ‘new’ prompted questions about the legitimacy of its use – one is inclined to wonder what would be left of the current SEND system with newness on such an industrial scale. This leads us to ask what function is ‘new’ serving in the Green Paper. Taken at face value, readers would tend towards optimism; with so much newness in the air, real reform is an inevitable goal and consequence of this SEND Review. Going beyond the quantification of newness in the document, what indeed is new? To begin the answer to this question, Table 1 sets out 15 different phrases in the document that contain the word ‘new’, all referring to specific initiatives for the SEND system.

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions  

Privacy Statement  

Cookie Settings  

Accessibility

Legal Notice

Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Statement   |  Cookie Settings   |   Accessibility   |  Legal Notice   |  Copyright © 2016-2024

Copyright © 2016-2024

• [66.249.64.20|185.147.128.134]
• 185.147.128.134

Character limit 500 /500

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Last »
• Critical Discourse Analysis Follow Following
• Critical Discourse Studies Follow Following
• Teun A. Van Dijk Follow Following
• Discourse Analysis Follow Following
• Political Discourse Analysis Follow Following
• Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Analysis Follow Following
• Sociolinguistics Follow Following
• Language and Ideology Follow Following
• Norman Fairclough Follow Following
• Corpus Linguistics Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024