Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society

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

Abstract

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

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    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.

  2. 2.

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

  3. 3.

    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.

  4. 4.

    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).

  5. 5.

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

  6. 6.

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

  7. 7.

    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.

References

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledgeSelected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Brighton: Harvester.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. 1996. Sex and language. In KontaktlinguistikContact LinguisticsLinguistique du contact, ed. H. Goebl, P. Nelde, Z. Stary, and W. Wölck, 720–725. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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].

    Google Scholar 

  • 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].

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.)).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda R. Waugh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12615-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12616-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics