critical discourse analysis phd

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

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

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

When you conduct discourse analysis, you might focus on:

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

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

Table of contents

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

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

Materials that are suitable for discourse analysis include:

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

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

There are many different approaches and techniques you can use to conduct discourse analysis, but the steps below outline the basic structure you need to follow. Following these steps can help you avoid pitfalls of confirmation bias that can cloud your analysis.

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

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

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

Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context

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

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

Step 3: Analyze the content for themes and patterns

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

Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions

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

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

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

Research bias

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Luo, A. (2023, June 22). Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourse-analysis/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

What is qualitative research | methods & examples, what is a case study | definition, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

4 Critical Discourse Analysis

Martin Reisigl is Professor of German Linguistics at the University of Bern, Switzerland. His publications include The Discursive Construction of National Identity, 2nd ed. (with Ruth Wodak et al. 2009), Nationale Rhetorik in Fest- und Gedenkreden (2007), and Discourse and Discrimination. Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism (with Ruth Wodak 2001).

• Published: 28 January 2013
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has entered the mainstream of linguistic and social science research with a strong transdisciplinary orientation and social engagement. This chapter introduces six variants of CDA: (1) Fairclough’s approach, which is strongly social theoretically embedded and informed by systemic functional linguistics; (2) van Leeuwen’s and Kress’s social semiotic and systemic functional approach; (3) van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach; (4) the form of CDA promoted by the Duisburg Group around S. and M. Jäger, who keenly draw on Foucault’s approach to discourse analysis and Link’s discourse theory; (5) the Oldenburg approach, which is upheld by Gloy, Januschek, and others; and (6) the “Viennese” and “Lancaster” traditions of CDA, often termed the “discourse historical approach” and sometimes “discourse sociolinguistics.”

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has entered the mainstream of linguistic and social science research with a strong transdisciplinary orientation and social engagement. It developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, after the critical turn loomed as “critical linguistics” in the 1970s had spread and consolidated in the fields of discourse analysis and sociolinguistics. Until now, CDA has differentiated itself into at least six variants: (1) Fairclough’s approach, which is strongly social theoretically embedded, and informed by systemic functional linguistics; (2) van Leeuwen’s and Kress’s social semiotic and systemic functional approach; (3) van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach; (4) the form of CDA promoted by the Duisburg Group around S. and M. Jäger, who keenly draw on Foucault’s approach to discourse analysis and Link’s discourse theory; (5) the Oldenburg approach, which is upheld by Gloy, Januschek, and others; (6) and finally the “Viennese” and “Lancaster” tradition of CDA, which is often termed the “discourse-historical approach” and sometimes “discourse sociolinguistics,” and which, among many others, Wodak and I myself align with.

These six versions of CDA are introduced in the present chapter. Before focusing on the single variants, the next section will concentrate on the relationship between discourse analysis (particularly CDA) and sociolinguistics, by looking at both the relevance of the different ways of doing CDA for sociolinguistics and the tensions between the two linguistic “branches.” In the following section, it will be demonstrated that the subdisciplinary status of (critical) discourse analysis within linguistics and the relationship between (critical) discourse analysis and sociolinguistics is historically dynamic and dependent on scientific culture. The chapter then generally depicts common features of the heterogeneous group of critical approaches to discourse. The crucial concepts of discourse and context, as they are conceived of in the six versions of CDA, are then explained and contrasted with each other. Next, the chapter deals with basic research interests and the steps of research practices, as they are outlined in the various approaches. Remarks on future developments conclude the chapter.

Critical Discourse Analysis and Sociolinguistics

Sociolinguistics and discourse analysis started developing almost simultaneously, but developed out of partly differing scientific traditions in various areas of the world.

The term “sociolinguistics” seems to have been coined by Currie in 1949 to delineate the program of a field of research that is concerned with the study of social functions and significations of speech factors (Currie 1952 ; see Dittmar 1997 : 19f.). From the 1960s—and especially from the 1970s—onward, sociolinguistics established itself as a countermovement (first in the United States and then in Europe and elsewhere) against (American) structuralism or descriptivism, which was formally oriented and neglected the social aspects of language use, and was against conventional dialectology. Sociolinguistics soon became a well-established branch of linguistics committed to the study of the concrete language use of social groups and linguistic varieties in different societies (see Dittmar 1997 : 20).

Most of the sociolinguistic approaches consider “discourse” as language in use, as parole, or as utterances in a social context; and “discourse analysis,” as a method to analyze this language use. Since “sociolinguistics” was soon conceptualized as a specific field that studies the social aspects of language (use), and since “discourse analysis”—among sociolinguistics—was often “just” seen as a “method,” it seemed obvious that “discourse analysis” was simply subordinated to “sociolinguistics.”

In the same year in which Currie publicly introduced the notion of “sociolinguistics,” that is, in 1952, the American structuralist Harris referred to the term “discourse analysis” in order to designate a formal method for the analysis of language above the sentence level, a method for the analysis of connected speech or writing, that is, of discourses (Harris 1952 ). Harris indicated two approaches: “One can approach discourse analysis from two types of problems, which turn out to be related. The first is the problem of continuing descriptive linguistics beyond the limits of a single sentence at a time. The other is the question of correlating ‘culture’ and ‘language’ (i.e. non-linguistic and linguistic behavior)” (Harris 1952 : 1). The distributionalist was particularly concerned with the first problem and tried to develop a sort of text grammar. The second problem was disregarded until the late 1960s, when Pêcheux and Foucault became interested in the relationship between language and culture in France. The Birmingham group (Coulthard, Sinclair, and others) started to deal with the first, but partly also with the second issue in mid-1970s (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975 ). Since then, the discourse-analytical focus on intertextuality, interdiscursivity, social semiotics, and the social, political, and historical context of language in use has continuously broadened.

However, for a long time, discourse analysis was predominantly seen as part of sociolinguistics or pragmatics. Sinclair and Coulthard ( 1975 : 6) regarded their approach to be mainly sociolinguistic. Stubbs ( 1988 : 1) designed discourse analysis to be “the linguistic analysis of naturally occurring connected spoken or written discourse,” and considered discourse analysis to be “sociolinguistic analysis of natural language.” Brown and Yule ( 1983 : viiif.) characterized “discourse analysis” as a linguistic approach that encompasses a wide range of activities “at the intersection of disciplines as diverse as sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, philosophical linguistics and computational linguistics.” Since the mid-1980s, discourse analysis has increasingly been attempting to connect linguistics with sociology, philosophy, history, political science, psychology, literary studies, anthropology, pedagogy, and geography. This trans- and interdisciplinary development was particularly fostered after the critical turn. Today, CDA is one of the most influential sections within discourse analysis.

In our day, discourse analysis is emancipating itself both from sociolinguistics and pragmatics. It is no longer just seen as method of language analysis, but conceived of as a multidimensional project incorporating theory, methods, methodology, and empirically based research practices that yield concrete social applications.

Studying sociolinguistic work, we find various theoretical conceptions of the relationship between sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and discourse analysis. In the present context, I just want to focus on three such representations. They tend toward subordinating discourse analysis and including it—mostly completely—within sociolinguistics. According to them, “discourse” is language in social use on the level of parole, and “discourse analysis” is a qualitative method neighboring conversation analysis. If they make a distinction between macro- and microsociolinguistics, they incorporate discourse analysis into the latter (see figure 4.1 ).

Discourse analysis appears at different, and sometimes opposing, places within sociolinguistic categorizations. Dittmar, for instance, regards “discourse analysis” as one of the five domains of “interactional sociolinguistics.” He considers pragmatics to be a hypernym of interactional sociolinguistics (Dittmar 1996 : 14f.; see figure 4.2 ).

In contrast, Schiffrin tends toward using “discourse analysis” as a cover term that encompasses a series of linguistic branches. In her 1994 book Approaches of Discourse , she distinguishes between six approaches to discourse, namely: (1) speech act theory, (2) interactional sociolinguistics, (3) ethnography of communication, (4) pragmatics, (5) conversation analysis, and (6) variation analysis. Here, the relationships between discourse analysis and interactional sociolinguistics go the other way round. Schiffrin’s separation of pragmatics and speech act theory can be contested.

A geometrical representation of the relationship between discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics

The selective synopsis of linguistic handbooks, textbooks, and specialized literature outcrops a variety of relationships of inclusion, subordination, and intersection with respect to the connection of discourse analysis to sociolinguistics. The categorizations often contradict each other, and some scholars—for example, Trudgill ( 2004 : 3)—rightly emphasize that distinctions between different subbranches of linguistics are by no means precise and unambiguous.

Trudgill relates this statement to the subbranches of sociolinguistics. He locates discourse analysis partly within and partly outside sociolinguistics:

Discourse analysis is a branch of linguistics which deals with linguistic units at levels above the sentence, i.e. texts and conversations. Those branches of discourse analysis which come under the heading of language and society presuppose that language is being used in social interaction and, thus, deal with conversation. (Other non-sociolinguistic branches of discourse analysis are often known as text linguistics.) Discourse analysis is contrasted by some writers with conversation analysis, an area of sociolinguistics which has connections to ethnomethodology and which analyses the structure and norms of conversation such as the relationship between questions and answers, or summonses and responses. (2004: 4)From Trudgill’s ( 2004 : 1–5) explanations emerge rather complex relationships between sociolinguistics and discourse analysis. They can be reproduced schematically (see figure 4.3 ).

Even though I agree with Trudgill’s general claim that distinctions between different subbranches of linguistics are not clear-cut and definite, the arbitrariness of distinctions among various linguistic branches is not satisfactory. Disciplinary monocentrism leads to questionable oversimplification. It leads to a tendency of sociolinguistics considering not only discourse analysis, but also pragmatics and, partly, conversation analysis as well, as parts or “subfields” of sociolinguistics. In turn, from a discourse-analytical point of view, sociolinguistics (especially interactional sociolinguistics) but also pragmatics, conversation analysis, text linguistics, and semantics are often treated as parts of discourse analysis. In contrast to such biased subordinations, I favor a theoretical conceptualization that assumes the relationship among discourse analysis and sociolinguistics, as well as other linguistic branches, as being one of family resemblance. This notion, taken from Wittgenstein’s Philosophische Untersuchungen ( Philosophical Investigations; [1952] 1989: 277ff.), permits us to grasp the intersections of linguistic (sub)branches more adequately than unidirectional incorporations. The relationship of family resemblance is illustrated by figure 4.4 .

This theoretical modeling is a suggestion developed in the actual version of the discourse-historical approach to CDA, which has been influenced by sociolinguists such as Bernstein ( 1975 , 1996 ), Labov ( 1966 , 1972 ) and Hymes (1974), particularly during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. This is the reason why the term “discourse sociolinguistics” temporarily circulated as a label for this approach, especially between 1993 and 1996 (e.g., Matouschek & Wodak 1995 ; Wodak 1996 : 1–8). Viennese “discourse sociolinguistics” is characterized as sociolinguistics that studies text and context as interdependent factors of equal importance, and that takes an analytical stance both from an “outsider-perspective” and an ethnographic “insider-perspective” (Wodak 1996 : 3). It is especially designed for the critical analysis of “language barriers” and “disorders” of institutional discourses, with special attention to doctor-patient interaction, school committee meetings, news broadcasts, and therapeutic communication. In contrast to former sociolinguistic approaches, discourse sociolinguistics introduces an interdisciplinary framework that, among other things, tries to connect its critical claims to Jürgen Habermas’s discourse theory as a source for normative standards. Differently from Habermas’s abstract theory, discourse sociolinguistics soon became engaged in attempts to contribute to the practical solution of communication problems in the above-mentioned institutions.

A geometrical representation of the relationship of family resemblance

As for the relationship between sociolinguistics and discourse analysis in other variants of CDA, the inspiration by sociolinguistic theories is conspicuous in Fairclough’s and van Dijk’s work, whereas it has been of less significance in van Leeuwen and Kress’s research and in the two German approaches.

Fairclough’s relationship to “traditional” sociolinguistics is, however, rather broken. Fairclough ( 1992 ) refers to early critical linguists (Fowler et al. 1979 : 185–195), who reject the dualistic sociolinguistic conception of language and society. Instead of merely trying to establish and insolate single correlations between language and society, analysts should look for deeper causal relations, including the impact and influence of language on society. They should analytically focus on complete texts or discourse fragments, and not just on single linguistic features or elements—an analytical perspective often adopted by variationist sociolinguistics (Fairclough 1992 : 26f.). Against Labov and Fanshel ( 1977 ), Fairclough stresses the principle of heterogeneity of discourse as a basic element of his theory of “intertextuality.” He underlines that the boundaries between styles are less clear cut and that configurations of style in therapeutic discourse are less static than Labov and Fanshel suggest (Fairclough 1992 : 22f.). He argues that Labov and Fanshel ignore the reproductive ideological work of therapies, and sums up: “Labov and Fanshel stop short of a critical analysis of therapeutic discourse, while providing valuable analytical resources for such an analysis” (Fairclough 1992 : 23). Furthermore, Fairclough’s criticism of former sociolinguistic, but also pragmatic, work aims at the concept of “context.” Partly relying on Foucault’s archeology of knowledge, Fairclough argues that the simple appeal to “context” does not allow us to explain what is said or written or how a text or discourse fragment is interpreted. Rather, the analysis of the relationship between “text” and “context” has also to take into consideration that the building up of discursive formations includes the ordered formation of concepts, including the theoretical concepts that are used for specific analytical (e.g., sociolinguistic or discourse-analytical) purposes (Fairclough 1992 : 47f.). In this sense, Fairclough, who strongly emphasizes the dialectical relationship between text and context and the diachronic dimension of historically changing discursive practices, rejects the position of a naive sociolinguistic realism or positivism. However, Fairclough still opts for a specific form of realism, that is, for “critical realism” (2006: 12). This epistemic position acknowledges that social relations and “objects” have a materiality that is not just conditioned by human knowledge, but that this materiality is nevertheless heavily influenced by social (co-)constructions performed by social subjects (Fairclough 2006 : 12).

As for the Duisburg group, sociolinguistics is even more ostentatiously criticized, although many of Fairclough’s points can also be found in S. Jäger’s work ( 1984 , 2001 a: 28–51). Jäger is strongly influenced by French poststructuralist theories, particularly by Foucault. He rejects positivist sociolinguistic theories that claim to utterly mirror the connections between language and society. Jäger refutes the analytical separation of language and society, which partly is terminologically reflected in the word “sociolinguistics” itself (Jäger 2001 a: 28, 46). He contests Bernstein’s theory of language barriers (Jäger 2001 a: 28–39) and Labov’s renunciation of taking content systematically into account in addition to form (Jäger 2001 a: 40). Jäger criticizes the sociolinguistic lack of a general social theory that consistently anchors language and language use in a social context (Jäger 2001 a: 45). Similarly to Fairclough, Jäger stresses the close interconnections between linguistic and other social conditions and factors (Jäger 2001 a: 50f.).

To sum up: CDA emerged as an attempt to abandon some of the traditional dualisms reproduced by older forms of sociolinguistics and to bring language and society closer together, as well as text and context. Its theoretical and methodological framework was designated to include form, function, structure, and content analysis, and related to content analysis, the study of ideological presuppositions. CDA crystallized into an interdisciplinary group of approaches that try to systematically take into account in their analyses the social, political, and historical dimension of language use in context. In addition to the critique of naive epistemic realism, several of the CDA approaches argue against the causal-deterministic belief in the existence of discourse-independent or pre-discursive social factors that monodirectionally control discursive practices. In contrast, they regard sociological variables such as class and gender as discourse dependent, and see the discourse analysts’ contribution to the co-construction of discourses and discourse units by their analyses. The discourse-historical variant and Fairclough’s CDA assume an epistemic in-between position, since they both stress a dialectical relationship between discursive and other social structures.

General Characteristics of Critical Discourse Analysis

There are a series of commonalities that unite the various approaches to CDA:(1) They all claim to be “critical,” and not just “descriptive,” and they found their concepts of critique on ethical (e.g., democratic) principles and norms. They are sociopolitically engaged and very often application oriented—in the sense that their social critique aims at social change toward improvements. They make claims of emancipation and criticize various forms of discursively constituted power abuse and hegemonic social structures that lead to injustice and social discrimination. In addition to these more practical aims, they make epistemic, theory-related claims of exposure or enlightenment: they are concerned with making transparent opaque, contradictory, power-related, manipulative relationships among language and society or social structures.

There have been several controversial intellectual disputes about the differences between “descriptive” and “critical” approaches to language and discourse. These debates encased a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions. The first and most basic misconception lies in the assumption that there can be such a thing as a purely descriptive science (e.g., linguistics or discourse analysis). If a descriptive science really existed, it would have to be free of any attempt to explain and argue. Obviously, there is no science without explanation and argumentation. Second, the strict opposition must be questioned with respect to the scientific practice of describing itself. Provided that describing means to represent a research object iconically through a scientific metalanguage (including visual metalanguage), an accurate description relies on the recurring procedure of critically comparing the scientific representamen and the represented object—the comparison focusing on the question of adequate structural similarity between object and “sign body.” Third, good scientists should always try to reflect on their own conditions, possibilities, and general as well as pragmatic limits of generating scientific knowledge—in the sense that Kant conceived of “critique” as propaedeutics. In short: good science is always critical, even where its task is to describe.

(2) With respect to their understanding of discourse, the six approaches put emphasis on the action-related quality of discourses (discourse is conceived of as social practice), on the situatedness, the context dependence of discourses, and on the socially constructed as well as constructive character of discourses (see number 4 following for more details).

(3) Their epistemological position can be characterized as non- or antipositivist. Critical discourse analysts reject the idea of a “neutral science” and do not believe in the possibility of an objective view of the research object, because they are—to different degrees—constructivist. Their constructivism, however, does not end in voluntarism and radical relativism. An approach such as the discourse-historical one, for instance, aspires to intersubjectively comprehensible analyses and interpretations of their empirical data.

(4) The research data are mostly composed of corpora of “authentic,” “natural” communication that have not been elicited by the analysts for research purposes (except for focus group discussions and interviews). However, it is particularly clear for oral communication that “primary data” (conversations as they are perceived on site) are first transformed into “secondary data” by the semiotic selection of the “camera eye” and “microphone” and then transmuted into “tertiary data” through further selection and abstraction by the analysts who produce transcripts of a specific precision that depends on the analysts research interests.

(5) Research interests of the critical discourse analysts are directed toward various social problems with a linguistic or discourse-related dimension. In this sense, the starting point of critical discourse studies is problem orientation, especially with respect to various forms of social discrimination and their discursive realization, but also with respect to problems of communication in various institutions and with respect to political manipulation through various discursive strategies.

(6) These research interests relate to a social theoretical background that is strongly influenced by a western European neo- or post-Marxist alignment (Critical Theory, Habermas, Gramsci, Althusser, Pêcheux, Laclau, Mouffe), although the specific theoretical background varies from approach to approach.

(7) A last, common feature of all CDA approaches is their trans- or interdisciplinary orientation and, as a result, their multi-methodical and eclectic alignment. This eclecticism is a strength, since it allows for the triangulation of the research object, for its kaleidoscopic inspection. Sometimes, however, it brings along the risk of building theoretical contradictions by hastily mixing Foucault, Habermas, Bourdieu, Giddens, and Luhmann, and so on.

The Concepts of Discourse and Context

Concepts of discourse.

Discourse is the central category of every discourse analysis, although there are approaches that take other concepts as the basic analytical category, as, for example, is the case in Foucault’s archaeological approach, which takes “statement” to be the principal notion of discourse analysis (Foucault 1992 ). In addition to the commonalities that interconnect the six approaches to CDA with respect to their understanding of discourse (see point 2 in the preceding section, “General Characteristics of Critical Discourse Analysis”), there are also striking differences in their theoretical conceptualizations of the notion.

Fairclough delineates two major usages of the word “discourse.” In a general sense, he determines “discourse” to be an abstract collective noun that cannot be made plural and occurs without definite and indefinite articles. In this sense, the noun abstractly denotes any transindividual semiotic form of social practice that is regulated by social conventions and that is both socially constituted and socially constitutive (Fairclough 1992 : 63f., 2003: 123f.). According to Fairclough, “discourse” in this sense embraces three dimensions: first, the semiotic aspect of being realized as spoken and written or visualized “text”; second, this understanding of “discourse” includes the dimension of “discursive practice,” that is to say, processes of text production, distribution, and consumption; and third, it involves the social-cultural context and practice the discursive practice is linked with or embedded in. This social-cultural practice relates to social conditions, relationships and processes of social organization, especially to institutions, ideologies and power relations (Fairclough 1992 : 73).

Fairclough uses the word “discourse” also in a more specific sense as a concrete individualizing count noun that can occur with an indefinite or definite article and in the plural. In this sense, the term serves to characterize a particular oral, written, or somehow differently semiotically realized way of representing aspects of the word (e.g., social life) from a specific perspective (Fairclough 1996 : 71, 2001a: 235, 2001b: 123). In other words: discourses are, according to this conceptualization, particular semiotic representations of experience, of specific aspects of the “external” material world or the “internal” world of thoughts, beliefs and emotions, or of interpersonal, social relationships (see Fairclough 2003 : 124).

The social semiotic and systemic functional approach advocated by Kress and van Leeuwen regards “discourses,” among others, as specific social semiotic acts, as an ongoing flow or process of semiosis that becomes manifest in texts, which have to be understood as concrete material objects, as products of semiosis, as frozen or preserved traces of the rapidly disappearing discourse (Hodge & Kress [1988] 1991 : 12, 264). In their book on multimodal discourse, Kress and van Leeuwen characterize “discourses” as socially constructed and socially situated forms of knowledge about (certain aspects of) reality (Kress & van Leeuwen 2001 : 4, 20). In part, they consider “discourse” to be an entity that is relatively independent of genre, mode, and design, but—at the same time—they stress that discourses can only be realized in semiotic modes that have developed the means for realizing them. In his Introduction to Social Semiotics , van Leeuwen ( 2005 : 275) characterizes discourses as resources for representation and knowledge about ways of representing some aspects of reality. According to this theoretical understanding of discourse, discourses merge two sorts of elements: they connect representations of social practices and evaluations, purposes and legitimations relating to these social practices. Van Leeuwen ( 2005 : 275) further explains that there may be several discourses about a given aspect of reality, making sense of it in different ways and combing semiotic resources and genres in different ways.

Van Dijk, in his socio-cognitive approach to CDA, or “critical discourse studies” (which is the term he actually uses), prefers a rather wide notion of discourse. He designates “discourse” as a complex “communicative event” that becomes manifest and observable in a great variety of semiotic significations, including conversational interaction and written text, as well as associated gestures, facework, typographical layout, images, and any other “semiotic” or multimedia dimension of meaning (van Dijk 2001 b: 98; see also van Dijk 2001 a: 356). In this meaning, “discourse” is conceived of as part of the discourse–cognition–society triangle. According to van Dijk, “cognition” involves personal and social cognition, beliefs, and goals as well as evaluations and emotions, and any other “mental” or “memory” structures, representations, or processes. As for the concept of society, van Dijk ( 2001 b: 98) explains: “‘Society’ is meant to include both the local microstructures of situated face-to-face interactions, as well as the more global, societal and political structures variously defined in terms of groups, group-relations, movements, institutions, organisations, social processes, political systems and more abstract properties of societies and cultures.”

The Duisburg group around S. and M. Jäger defines “discourse” as an entity that regulates and determines reality and forms consciousness (S. Jäger 2001 a: 130). They see discourses as superindividual, institutionally consolidated practices of articulation, which do not simply reflect social reality and relationships in a passive way, but which actively constitute and organize social reality (S. Jäger 2001 a: 129). S. Jäger metaphorically qualifies “discourse” as a materialized flow of knowledge and societal knowledge resources stored through the course of time—a flow that determines individual and collective action and thus exercizes power (S. Jäger 2001 b: 82; see also Jäger & Meier 2009 ). S. and M. Jäger comprehend “discourse” as a result of historical processes and, following J. Link, as a “social manner of speaking” that has been institutionalized and that adheres to particular rules that can change over time. S. Jäger theoretically distinguishes between “discourse levels,” “discourse strands,” and “discourse fragments.” A “discourse fragment” is a text or a part of a text that deals with a specific topic, for example, with the topic of “foreigners.” “Discourse fragments” appear on different “discourse levels” conceived of as “social places” from which people speak or write, for instance, science, politics, media, education, everyday life, business life, and administration. “Discourse strands” are best explained as thematically interrelated sequences of homogeneous “discourse fragments.” Examples of discourse strands would be “migration,” “women,” “economy,” and “social affairs.” Discourse strands are, among others, characterized by “collective symbols” in the sense of “cultural stereotypes,” which are immediately understood by the members of the same speech community. Finally, S. Jäger poses the category of “discourse positions.” Such positions are social class, sex and gender, age, profession, income, and religious affiliation.

The Oldenburg approach shows a series of close links with the Duisburg group, although it distinguishes itself from the Duisburg approach by a stronger linguistic alignment. Gloy ( 1998 : 16) and Januschek ( 2007 : 15) consider discourse to be both a linguistic activity and a complex social system of orientation. Gloy ( 1998 : 8) conceives of discourses as dynamic, continually constituted formations of communicative practices and as supertexts that are specifically formed in historical processes of social conflicts. They are formed through macro-structural relationships established between single texts, although a single text can “belong” to various discourses. This approach regards discourses as networks of thematically, semantically, temporally, and institutionally linked texts that are socio-culturally embedded and that cannot be grasped as being organized in a strict linear manner, because the intertextual, ana-, and catadeictic references are partly constituted by later reception processes (Gloy 1998 : 8, 12, 14, 16).

The version of the discourse-historical Approach (DHA) opts for a terminological choice that sees a “discourse” as a specific complex of context-dependent, diachronically changing semiotic practices that are situated within specific fields of social action: “Fields of action” (Girnth 1996 ) can be understood as segments of the respective societal “reality,” which fulfill different socially institutionalized functions of discursive practices (Reisigl & Wodak 2001 : 35f.). In accordance with the other approaches to CDA, the DHA regards discourses as both socially constituted and socially constitutive semiotic practices that relate to a particular social issue or problem. In addition, it considers a discourse to be connected with a specific macro-topic and to the argumentation about validity claims, such as truth and normative validity. Not least from the argumentation character, I deduce that a “discourse” prototypically involves various social actors who participate in the discourse and—taken together—bring in different points of view, not only one (see Reisigl 2003 : 91ff.). In this respect, the DHA deviates from Fairclough’s, van Leeuwen’s and S. Jäger’s as well as M. Jäger’s approaches, which adopt mono-perspectivity as a constitutive element of a discourse.

As we learn from this short overview, which is far from being complete, the theoretical conceptions of “discourse” in CDA are by no means homogeneous, although they all stress the socially constructive as well as constructed character of discourse, the context dependence of discourse, and the actional or “practical” character of discourses.

Concepts of Context

A further key notion of CDA is context. “Context” literally means “with the text.” Nevertheless, the word is also used in the sense of “with the discourse”: “the term itself suggests that it is all that comes ‘with the text’, that is, the properties of the ‘environment’ of discourse” (van Dijk 1998 : 211). The notion was introduced in order to abandon the reductionist understanding of language and language analysis as it has been promoted for a long time by decriptivist linguistics. Thus, context has become a defining moment of discourse, because discourse analysts frequently conceive of discourse as “text in context” or “text plus context” or “language use in social context.” This understanding, which is based on a container metaphor, implies a twofold relationship of inclusion: text is included in context, and discourse includes both text and context. Most of the approaches to CDA seem to share such a view, although they opt for different accentuations in their understanding of “context” and its operational breakdown into various macro-, meso- and micro-dimensions. All in all, the explicit reference to the term and notion of “context” is performed most empathically in the Viennese approach and in Teun van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach.

Fairclough is very much interested in connecting CDA with critical social theories. This orientation affects his concept of context, which, on the whole, encompasses linguistic, social, political, and economic factors and therein transcends the local understanding of conversation analysis. Fairclough assumes a dialectical relationship of influence between texts or utterances and contexts. He considers social structures and fields, domains, situational variables, and the like, to be contextual features. Fairclough argues that “the relationship between an utterance and its verbal and situational context is not a transparent one: how context affects what is said or written, and how it is interpreted, varies from one discursive formation to another. For instance, aspects of the social identity of a speaker such as gender, ethnicity or age which are likely to substantially affect forms and meanings in a conversation may have little effect in a conference of biologists” (Fairclough 1992 : 47). In his methodological outline of how to analyze discourse practices, that is, the production, distribution, and consumption of text, Fairclough distinguishes between context in a narrow sense, as that which precedes (or follows) in a text (i.e., the more or less immediate verbal context), and the “context of situation,” that is, the totality of social practice of which the discourse is a part, as the overall social context (Fairclough 1992 : 81f). According to Fairclough, context plays a crucial role in the interpretation of text, in reducing its ambivalence of illocutionary force: “Verbal context has two sorts of effect: First, it may eliminate one or more of the senses. Second, it may give relative salience to one of the senses without eliminating the others” (Fairclough 1995 : 114).

Kress and van Leeuwen pay particular attention to the context dependence of the discourse construction and to the question of which specific semiotic resources as well as semiotic modes form the basis for a specific production of discourse: “Discourses are socially constructed knowledges of (some aspect of) reality. By ‘socially constructed’ we mean that they have been developed in specific social contexts, and in ways which are appropriate to the interests of social actors in these contexts. [ … ] Any discourse may be realised in different ways. The ‘ethnic conflict’ discourse of war, for instance, may be realised as (part of) a dinner-table conversation, a television documentary, a newspaper feature, an airport thriller, and so on. In other words, discourse is relatively independent of genre, of mode, and (somewhat less) of design. Yet discourses can only be realised in semiotic modes which have developed the means for realising them” (Kress & van Leeuwen 2001 : 4f.). The semiotic turn in CDA strongly advanced by the seminal work of Kress and van Leeuwen lead to a shifting of the conceptual boundaries among “text,” “discourse” and “context.” Under the heading of “multimodality,” Kress and van Leeuwen started to include various semiotic aspects or dimensions into their discourse analytical framework that formerly were considered to belong to the concept of “context.”

The most salient distinguishing feature of van Dijk’s conception of context is the cognitive orientation. Van Dijk defines context “as the structured set of all properties of a social situation that are possibly relevant for the production, structures, interpretation and functions of text and talk” (van Dijk 1998 : 211). Van Dijk argues that it is not the “context itself” that influences written and spoken discourse, “but rather the context models of language users. Such context models are stored in episodic memory” (van Dijk 1998 : 212). Among the dimensions of context included in the context models of language users distinguished by van Dijk ( 1998 : 214–227) are the social or institutional domains or fields; the overall interaction or type of speech event; the functions (of genres); the intentions; the props and relevant objects; the participant roles, professional roles, and social roles; the affiliations or memberships; and the ideas about the social other and various social representations (see also van Dijk 2008 ).

Within the approach of the Duisburg Group, context analysis becomes most relevant with respect to the analysis of the “institutional framework.” Every discourse fragment is considered to be embedded in such an institutional framework. This approach primarily analyzes newspaper articles. For the study of newspaper articles, the institutional framework is conceptualized as comprising at least the following contextual elements: media, general orientation of the newspaper or journal, technical quality of the newspaper (paper, print quality, readability), section/column in which the article appears, genre of the article, author of the article and other authors of the newspaper, event(s) linked to the discourse fragment, and occasion of the article (Jäger 2001 a: 175). In addition, this form of context analysis includes the analysis of salient intertextual relationships.

The Oldenburg approach shares a lot of features with the Duisburg Approach, but as far as its verbal and contextual analyses are concerned, it is more micro-oriented. The scholars of the Oldenburg approach focus more on the integral analysis of single texts and single pieces of communication than the scholars of the Duisburg Group do. The Oldenburg approach is highly interested in the study of intertextual relationships and textual chains, and of the context of reception. It particularly focuses on the context knowledge required for the analysis of implicit relationships realized by allusions, evocations, and connotations and for the analysis of the semantic polyphony of texts and conversations. Januschek ( 1986 ) develops a “linguistics of allusion,” Gloy ( 1998 ) outlines a program for reception research with respect to talk shows dealing with ethical issues.

The DHA favors a concept of “context” that relates to four dimensions: (1) the immediate, language internal co-text and co-discourse, that is, the thematic and syntactic coherences, lexical solidarities, collocations, connotations, implications, presuppositions, and the local interactive processes (including turn taking, the exchange of speech acts, linguistic activity patterns, etc.); (2) the intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between utterances, texts, genres, and discourses (e.g., discourse representation and allusions or evocations); (3) the extra-linguistic social/sociological variables and institutional frames of a specific “context of situation” (e.g., the formality of situation; the place, time, and occasion of the communicative event; the addressees; the interactive as well as political roles of the participants; their political and ideological orientation, gender, age, profession, and level of education, as well as their ethnic, regional, national, and religious affiliation or membership); and (4) the broader sociopolitical and historical context that the discursive practices are embedded in and related to, that is to say, the fields of action and the history of the discursive event as well as the history to which the discourse topics relate.

As its name tells us, the discourse-historical approach deals intensely with the historical context of discourses and with questions of recontextualization. The importance of historical context knowledge for the interpretation of a discourse fragment can be illustrated by an example taken from the political context of Austria. In the regional election campaign in Carinthia in spring 2009, the Austrian right-wing populist party BZÖ (Bündnis Zukunft Österreich, meaning “Alliance for the Future of Austria”) used the poster shown in figure 4.5 . The party was founded in 2005 by Jörg Haider, after irreconcilable disagreements within the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), whose leader Haider had been for about 20 years.

The poster realizes an argumentation scheme called “topos of continuity,” saying: if you vote for us, we will guarantee you political continuity. Thus, the poster shows how the three leading politicians of the BZÖ in Carinthia—Gerhard Dörfler, Uwe Scheuch, and Harald Dobernig—after Jörg Haider’s lethal car incident in October 2008, represented themselves as guarantors of the continuity of Haider’s politics and as those who will take care of Carinthia and the Carinthian voters. This topos seems to have been convincing to many voters, because the BZÖ remained by far the strongest party after the last election in Carinthia, in March 2009, but this was also due to the strong compassion effect elicited in Austrians after Haider’s accident. The most interesting point about the poster is that—from the perspective of an ahistorical, purely text-internal, and discourse-internal analysis—it looks harmless. But from the perspective of a critical analysis that takes the historical context into account and looks at intertextual as well as interdiscursive relationships, the poster represents a very strange case of—maybe—ambivalence, because it seems to contain various messages at one and the same time. At least for those Austrian voters and critical discourse analysts who know the Austrian history, it clearly relates to National Socialism, although you would not assume this from just looking at the allegedly innocent sentence and commissive speech act “we will take care of your Carinthia,” the illocutionary force of which is backed and intensified both verbally and nonverbally. Two verbal intensifiers are (1) the three signature-like first names of the politicians, which serve a nomination strategy aiming to establish an informal interpersonal relationship between the politicians and potential voters, and (2) the elliptic reinforcement “For sure,” literally ‘Guaranteed.’ Nonverbal authentication of the promise is underlined by the seemingly direct eye contact between the visually represented politicians and the viewers of the posters (see van Leeuwen 2008 ) as well as by the friendly smiling faces. However, the promise “we will take care of your Carinthia” also alludes to an utterance verbalized by Jörg Haider in 1991, when he was forced to resign as the head of the region of Carinthia because he had praised the National Socialist employment policy, describing it as an “orderly employment policy,” in contrast to the employment policy of the Austrian government. Haider resigned saying “Passt mir auf mein Kärnten auf!,” (‘Take care of my Carinthia!’). But this is only half of the story, because in 1945, during the last days of the Second World War, Carinthia had a National Socialist “Gauleiter,” that is to say, a National Socialist head of the administrative district of Carinthia, named Friedrich Rainer, and this Gauleiter is said to have pronounced the same directive speech act, “Passt mir auf mein Kärnten auf!” (‘Take care of my Carinthia!’) in a radio speech broadcast from a bunker when it was clear that the National Socialists had lost the war and the Gauleiter had to resign. The election slogan suggests a pseudo-dialogic answer to Haider’s request verbalized in 1991, aiming to feign political continuity, but indirectly it also constitutes a connection with the National Socialist period. This is a recurring feature of both the BZÖ and the FPÖ: they nourish a highly problematic, ambivalent, and partly affirmative relationship to National Socialism. However, this relationship is often not expressed explicitly, but in a coded way, and maybe not even always intentionally so. In the case of the poster, the critical discourse analyst can demonstrate the mimetic, iconic historical link to National Socialism, although it cannot simply be claimed that this link was intentionally constructed by allusion to National Socialism, because such a claim falls under the burden-of-proof rule, and the specific proof of intentionality is difficult in the present case, even though it is possible that the semantic polyphony and the two specific historical links were reckoned with on purpose by the producers of the poster. An element that backs the assumption of calculated ambivalence is the fact that the bunker currently houses a “Haider museum,” that is, a memory place dedicated to the former leader of the BZÖ and FPÖ—despite all the controversial discussions about the National Socialist connotations of that place.

“Alliance for the Future of Austria” poster

Research Interests and Research Practice

CDA is problem oriented and starts its work with the identification of a social problem that includes a linguistic or semiotic dimension. In the best case, an empirical CDA project ends with the application-oriented attempt to contribute to the solution or reduction of the problem in question.

The discourse-related problems dealt with in CDA are manifold. They include:

discourse and discrimination (racism, antisemitism, “xenophobia,” “Islamophobia,” and sexism; see Reisigl & Wodak [2001]);

language barriers in various social institutions (communication in court; language of the law; doctor-patient interaction; therapeutic communication; mass-mediated communication relevant for citizens’ political participation, e.g., radio news, press coverage, political TV discussions, etc.; and communication in schools and at universities, etc.; see Wodak, Menz, & Lalouschek [1989]);

discourse/language and politics/policy/polity, including language policy (language and nationalism, policy for and against linguistic minorities, right-wing populist rhetoric, European integration, European constitution, etc.; see Reisigl [2008)] Wodak [2009]);

discourse and history (dealing with the past, with special attention to National Socialism and Fascism and the dealing with them in the National Socialist and Fascist successor states; see Heer, Manoschek, Pollak, & Wodak [2008]);

discourse and economy (e.g., neoliberal policy against public welfare systems, marketization of public institutions such as universities; see e.g., Fairclough [1993] 2000 ),

discourse and identity (e.g., identity struggles of various kinds, including national as well as transnational/European identities, ethnic identities, gendered identities, linguistic identities; see Wodak, De Cillia, Reisigl, & Liebhart [2009]),

discourse-related research on social organizations (e.g., analysis of decision-making procedures in the institutions of the European Union; see Muntigl, Weiss, & Wodak [2000]); and

discourse in the media and social change (e.g., problems, but also chances arising from mass-mediated globalization processes; Fairclough [2006]; Machin & van Leeuwen [2007]).

In order to analytically deal with these problems, CDA approaches offer helpful methodologies, but not analytical toolboxes that can be applied mechanically, because every convincing analysis should be based on accurate interpretation and scientific creativity and requires the analysts to reflect upon previous topic-related theoretical and practical knowledge as well to carry out pilot analyses that lead to the development of partly new discourse analytical categories and the adaptation of existing discourse analytical categories.

Just to mention two of the methodologies outlining the steps for empirical research. Fairclough ( 2009 : 167–182) sketches a CDA methodology for his approach that includes four research stages:

Focus upon a social wrong, in its semiotic aspect :

(a) Select a research topic that relates to or points out a social wrong and that can productively be approached in a transdisciplinary way with a particular focus on dialectical relations between semiotic and other “moments.”

(b) Construct objects of research for initially identified research topics by theorizing them in a transdisciplinary way.

Identify obstacles to addressing the social wrong :

(a) Analyze dialectical relations between semiosis and other social elements: between orders of discourse and other elements of social practices, between texts and other elements of events.

(b) Select texts, focuses, and categories for their analysis, in the light of and appropriate to the constitution of the object of research.

(c) Carry out analyses of texts, both interdiscursive analysis, and linguistic/semiotic analysis.

Consider whether the social order “needs” the social wrong .

Identify possible ways past the obstacles (in this stage, the analysis moves from a negative to a positive critique).

The DHA delineates an idealized sequence of eight stages and steps in research practice. They can be implemented recursively (for more details, see Reisigl [2008] and Reisigl & Wodak [2009: 96ff.]):

The starting point of the research is the awareness of a social and political problem that possesses linguistic aspects. The first step of an investigation consists of activating preceding theoretical knowledge about the problem in question.

The second step is the triangulatory collection and “creation” of discursive data to analyze (by means of observation, audio-visual registration, etc.) and the research on and gathering of contextual information (by research in archives, by source research, etc.). Data collection relies on criteria such as the selection of specific discourses and discourse topics, fields of action, semiotic media, genres, social actors, areas of communication, and periods of time, etc.

The third phase comprises the preparation and selection of data for the specific analyses . The principal tasks to be completed in this phase are to look through the collected data and to further sort it. If required by the research question, registered oral data have to be transcribed according to specific necessities of precision determined by research interests.

The fourth step is dedicated to the specification of the research question and the formulation of hypotheses on the basis of a rapid checking of the data or a part of it.

A qualitative pilot analysis may follow as the fifth research step. It aims to refine and sharpen, that is, to adjust the analytical instruments.

The research proceeds with detailed case studies that are chiefly qualitative, but can also be partly quantitative in their character. This stage operates on the macro-, meso- and micro-level of linguistic analysis as well as on the level of context. This step comes to an overall interpretation of the single results of analysis and takes into account the social, historical, and political context of the analyzed discursive data.

It follows the meticulous formulation of a critique that seeks to reveal problematic discursive strategies, solve specific problems of (institutional) communication, or improve communication by fighting communicative deficits or inefficiencies (e.g., linguistic barriers in different social institutions). The critique points to opaque, contradictory, and manipulative relations among power, language, and social structures and commits itself to cognitive and political emancipation and improvement of communication.

The social utilization and application of the detailed analytical results on the basis of accurate critique can be seen as the last stage of research. This application consists both of the publication of books and journal articles and of widely accessible recommendations and public commentaries, training seminars, further education courses, didactic expositions, and radio transmissions on the issue in question.

Concluding Remarks

Historical developments show that CDA is quickly gaining scientific elaboration and institutional autonomy. CDA has already reached the linguistic mainstream. This may have implications for the concept of critique, since the formerly oppositional, antihegemonic critique may become part of a hegemonic project, and this may lead to a mitigation of some of the former dimensions of critique. Especially the younger generation of critical discourse analysts is asked to reflect on this development and to resharpen critical tools where they become less sharp in the process of academic establishment (Billig 2003 ). Another major task for CDA is to further the development of an integrative analytical framework that brings social theory and linguistic analysis even closer together, thus leaving behind a purely additive combination of linguistic and social scientific knowledge. Since the social problems CDA is dealing with are multifaceted and multidetermined, only a convincingly integrative framework can increase the prospects for success of the problem-solving proposals elaborated by critical discourse analysts, which—in the future—will be challenged by a series of new social problems relating to discourses of various kinds.

Bernstein B.   1975 . Class, codes, and control: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. New York : Schocken Books.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Bernstein B.   1996 . Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London : Taylor & Francis.

Billig M.   2003 . Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity, 35–46. Bassingstoke, UK : Palgrave Macmillan.

Boxer D.   2002 . Applying sociolinguistics. Domains and face-to-face-interaction. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.

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

Currie H. C.   1952 : A projection of socio-linguistics: The relationship of speech to social status.   Southern Speech Journal 18 : 28–37.

Dittmar N.   1996 . Soziolinguistik. Studienbibliographie. Heidelberg : Groos.

Dittmar N.   1997 . Grundlagen der Soziolinguistik. Ein Arbeitsbuch mit Aufgaben. Tübingen : Niemeyer.

Fairclough N.   1992 . Discourse and social change. Cambridge : Polity Press.

Fairclough N.   1993 . Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities.   Discourse & Society 4 : 133–59.

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

Fairclough N.   1996 . Technologisation of discourse. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis, 71–83. London : Routledge.

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

Fairclough N.   2001 a. The discourse of new Labour: Critical discourse analysis. In M. Wetherell , S. Taylor , & S. J. Yates (eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis, 229–66. London : Sage.

Fairclough N.   2001 b. Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, 121–38. London : Sage.

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

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

Fairclough N.   2009 . A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. 2nd ed., 162–86. London : Sage.

Foucault M.   1992 . Archäologie des Wissens. Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp.

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

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

Gloy K. ( 1998 ). Ethik-Diskurse. Praktiken öffentlicher Konfliktaustragung. Skizze eines Forschungsvorhabens. Oldenburg : University of Oldenburg.

Harris Z. S.   1952 . Discourse analysis.   Language 28 : 1–30.

Heer H. , W. Manoschek , A. Pollak , & R. Wodak (eds.) ( 2008 ). The discursive construction of history: Remembering the Wehrmacht’s war of annihilation. Translated from the German by S. Fligelstone . Basingstoke, UK : Palgrave Macmillan.

Hodge R. , & Kress G. [ 1988 ] 1991. Social semiotics. Cambridge : Polity.

Hymes D.   1974 . Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia : University of Pensylvania Press.

Jäger S.   1984 . (W)ENDE der Soziolinguistik?   OBST 29 : 156–81.

Jäger S.   2001 a. Kritische Diskursanalyse: Eine Einführung , 3rd ed. Duisburg : DISS.

Jäger S.   2001 b. Diskurs und Wissen. Theoretische und methodische Aspekte einer Kritischen Diskurs- und Dispositivanalyse. In R. A. Keller , W. Hirseland , W. Schneider , & W. Viehöver (eds.), Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse , Vol. 1: Theorien und Methoden, 81–112. Opladen : Leske + Budrich.

Jäger S. , & Meier F.   2009 . Theoretical and methodical aspects of Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispostitive analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis , 2nd ed., 34–61. London : Sage.

Januschek F.   1986 . Arbeit an Sprache. Konzept für die Empirie einer politischen Sprachwissenschaft , Opladen : Westdeutscher Verlag.

Januschek F.   2007 . Warum sprachwissenschaftliche Analyse unverzichtbar ist. Diskursbegriff und Zielsetzungen des Oldenburger Ansatzes der KDA.   DISS-Journal. Zeitung des Duisburger Instituts für Sprach- und Sozialforschung (DISS) 16 : 15–18.

Johnstone B.   2000 . Qualitative methods in sociolinguistics. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

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

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

Labov W.   1972 . Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov W. , & Fanshel D.   1977 . Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. San Diego. Academic Press.

Machin D. , & van Leeuwen T.   2007 . Global media discourse: A critical introduction. London : Routledge.

Matouschek B. , & Wodak R.   1995 . Diskurssoziolinguistik. Theorien, Methoden und Fallanalysen der diskurshistorischen Methode am Beispiel von Ausgrenzungsdiskursen.   Wiener Linguistische Gazette 55- 56 / 1995: 34–71.

Muntigl P. , Weiss G. , & Wodak R.   2000 . European Union discourses on un/employment: An interdisciplinary approach to employment policy-making and organizational change. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.

Reisigl M. 2003. Wie man eine Nation herbeiredet. Eine diskursanalytische Untersuchung zur sprachlichen Konstruktion der österreichischen Nation und österreichischen Identität in politischen Fest- und Gedenkreden. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Vienna.

Reisigl M.   2008 . Analyzing political rhetoric. In R. Wodak & M. Krzyżanowski (eds.), Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences , 96–120. Bassingstoke, UK : Palgrave Macmillan.

Reisigl M. , & Wodak R.   2001 . Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London : Routledge.

Reisigl M. , & Wodak R.   2009 . The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis , 2nd ed., 87–121. London : Sage.

Schiffrin D.   1994 . Approaches to discourse. Oxford : Blackwell.

Sinclair J. M. , & Coulthard R. M.   1975 . Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford : Oxford University Press..

Stubbs. M.   1983 . Discourse analysis. The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford : Blackwell.

Stubbs M.   1988 . Educational linguistics. Oxford : Blackwell.

Thibault P.   1988 . Discourse analysis in sociolinguistics. In N. Dittmar & P. Schlobinski (eds.), The sociolinguistics of urban vernaculars: Case studies an their evaluation , 154–60. Berlin : de Gruyter.

Trudgill P.   2004 . The subject matter of sociolinguistics/Der Gegenstand der Soziolinguistik. In U. Ammon , N. Dittmar , K. J. Mattheier , & P. Trudgill (eds.), Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society /Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft , vol. 1/1, 1–5. Teilband. Berlin : de Gruyter.

Van Dijk T. A.   1998 . Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London : Sage.

Van Dijk T. A.   2001 a : Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis , 95–120. London : Sage.

Van Dijk T. A.   2001 b. Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin , D. Tannen , & H. E. Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis , 352–71. Oxford : Blackwell.

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

Van Leeuwen T.   2005 . Introducing social semiotics. London : Routledge.

Van Leeuwen T.   2008 . The visual representation of social actors. In T. Van Leeuwen , Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis , 136–48. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Wittgenstein L.   1989 . Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Tagebücher 1914–1916. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Werkausgabe Band 1. Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp.

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

Wodak R.   2009 . The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Bassingstoke, UK : Palgrave Macmillan.

Wodak R. , Menz F. , & Lalouschek J.   1989 . Sprachbarrieren. Die Verständigungskrise der Gesellschaft. Vienna : Edition Atelier.

Wodak R. , de Cillia R. , Reisigl M. , & Liebhart K.   2009 . The discursive construction of national identity. 2nd ed. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

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

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

Critical Discourse Analysis

Theory and Interdisciplinarity

• © 2003
• Gilbert Weiss (PhD in Social and Economic Sciences, Research Associate) 0 ,
• Ruth Wodak (Professor of Applied Linguistics, Director) 1

Research Centre for Discourse, Politics and Identity, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

Research Centre for Discourse, Politics and Identity, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria University of Vienna, Austria

27k Accesses

98 Citations

4 Altmetric

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

Access this book

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (14 chapters)

Front matter, introduction: theory, interdisciplinarity and critical discourse analysis.

Gilbert Weiss, Ruth Wodak

Critical ≠ Critical ≠ Critical

Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique.

• Michael Billig

Critical Discourse Analysis and the Development of the New Science

• Carlos A. M. Gouveia

Reflexivity and the Doubles of Modern Man: The Discursive Construction of Anthropological Subject Positions

• Marianne W. Jørgensen

Debating and Practising Interdisciplinarity

The discourse-knowledge interface.

• Teun A. van Dijk

Critical Discourse Analysis and Evaluative Meaning: Interdisciplinarity as a Critical Turn

• Phil Graham

Texts and Discourses in the Technologies of Social Organization

• Jay L. Lemke

Identities in Flux: Arabs and Jews in Israel

• Marcelo Dascal

Political and Somatic Alignment: Habitus, Ideology and Social Practice

• Suzanne Scollon

Voicing the ‘Other’: Reading and Writing Indigenous Australians

• Jim R. Martin

From Theory to Social and Political Practice

Activist sociolinguistics in a critical discourse analysis perspective.

• Patricia E. O’Connor

Discourse at Work: When Women Take On the Role of Manager

• Luisa Martín Rojo, Concepción Gómez Esteban

Cross-Cultural Representation of ‘Otherness’ in Media Discourse

• Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard

Interaction between Visual and Verbal Communication: Changing Patterns in the Printed Media

• Christine Anthonissen

Back Matter

• discourse analysis
• sociolinguistics

About this book

Editors and affiliations, university of vienna, austria, about the editors, bibliographic information.

Book Title : Critical Discourse Analysis

Book Subtitle : Theory and Interdisciplinarity

Editors : Gilbert Weiss, Ruth Wodak

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230288423

Publisher : Palgrave Macmillan London

eBook Packages : Palgrave Language & Linguistics Collection , Education (R0)

Copyright Information : Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2003

Softcover ISBN : 978-0-230-55514-3 Published: 18 October 2007

eBook ISBN : 978-0-230-28842-3 Published: 18 October 2007

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XI, 321

Topics : Sociolinguistics , Discourse Analysis

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Unable to find any suggestions for your query...

The Essex website uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are consenting to their use. Please visit our cookie policy to find out which cookies we use and why. View cookie policy.

Centre for Ideology and Discourse Analysis

Part of Department of Government

We offer a distinctive transdisciplinary space within which to engage in the systemic and critical study of ideologies and discourses

The Centre for Ideology and Discourse Analysis (clDA) is committed to the transdisciplinary and systematic study of contemporary ideologies and discourses, and their impact on institutions, movements and policies. Rooted in the work of Ernesto Laclau, who was a founding figure of the Centre, and other members of the Essex School of Discourse  Analysis, we gather together critical scholars who evaluate key problems and promises of the current age, using a wide range of critical and explanatory idioms of analysis. 

The Centre connects research, education and political practice by actively involving its members in research projects, hosting seminars, academic visits and working with other institutions in the UK and Europe.

Its members include staff from other Departments and Centres at the University, our MA and PhD students, as well as numerous PhD students, early career researchers, and established academics who take part in our activities as Visiting PhDs or Fellows of the Centre.

"The problem with 'actually existing' liberal democracies is not with their constitutive values crystallized in the principles of liberty and equality for all, but with the system of power which redefines and limits the operation of those values. This is why our project of 'radical and plural democracy' was conceived as a new stage in the deepening of the 'democratic revolution', as the extension of the democratic struggles for equality and liberty to a wider range of social relations." Ernesto Laclau & Chantal Mouffe

Our research

cIDA builds its intellectual community through regular activities, organised within related clusters:

• poststructuralist, post-Marxist and psychoanalytic theories of ideology and discourse
• democratic theory, governance and critical policy analysis
• research methods in critical political theory
• populism and radical democracy
• democracy, justice and social movements
• mass media, communication and political agency
• critical fantasy studies

cIDA and its members have forged extensive links with other Universities and Centres across the globe that actively draw on the tradition of the ‘Essex School of Discourse Theory’, including the work of the CIDA Directors - Professors Glynos & Howarth - on the ‘Logics Approach’ to critical social and political analysis. Through collaborative projects and visiting professorships they have established links with a wide range of institutions, including Stockholm University, CBS, the State University of Rio de Janeiro and UFPE, Recife, and the University of Bergen.

The directors are also active members of the International Research Network DeSiRe (Democracy, Signification, Resistance) , which is a collaborative relation between academics at Free University, Brussels (lead organization), Essex, Uppsala, and Aristotle University, Thessaloniki.

cIDA initiates and coordinates major events beyond its regular seminar series, including international conferences and workshops, such as:  

• “Logics, Critical Explanation and the Future of Critical Political Theory: Applying Discourse Analysis in Multiple Contexts” (2019)
• “The Politics of Numbers within the New Technologies of Governance” (2019) 
• “Essex Transform: Democracy and Active Citizenship in Academia”(2018)
• “Populism and ‘Constructing a People’” (2017)
• “Austerity, Resistance and Emergent Imaginaries: From Occupied Squares to the Parliament and the Neighbourhood” (2017)

Our upcoming Summer Schools:

1q doing discourse analysis: populism, neoliberalism and radical democratic politics - 10th july 2023 2i applying discourse theory: politics, ideology, populism - 18th august 2023, our previous summer schools:.

Applying Discourse Theory: Politics, Ideology, Populism

Doing Discourse Analysis: Neoliberalism, Populism and Radial Democracy

Published works

• Glynos, J., Howarth, D., Flitcroft, R., Love, C., Roussos, K. and Vazquez, J., (2021).  Logics, discourse theory and methods: Advances, challenges and ways forward . Journal of Language and Politics. 20 (1), 62-78.
• Glynos, J. (2021) Critical Fantasy Studies,  Journal of Language and Politics 20(1): 95-111.
• Bloom, P. and Śliwa, M., (2021).  Hacking work: Critically examining the implications of the new discourse and practices of hacking for work intensification and organisational control. Human Relations, 001872672199676-001872672199676
• Griggs, S., Howarth, D. and Feandeiro, A., (2020).  The Logics and Limits of ‘Collaborative Governance’ in Nantes: Myth, Ideology and the Politics of New Urban Regimes . Journal of Urban Affairs. 42 (1), 91-108.
• Griggs, S. and Howarth, D., (2019).  Discourse, policy and the environment: hegemony, statements and the analysis of UK airport expansion. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. 21 (5), 464-478.
• Barnett, N., Griggs, S. and Howarth, D., (2019).  Whatever happened to Councillors? Problematising the deficiency narrative in English local politics . Political Studies. 67 (3), 775-794.
• Carter, D. and Warren, R., (2019).  Metonyms and metaphor: the rhetorical redescription of public interest for the International Accounting Standards Board. Critical Policy Studies. 13 (3), 280-305.
• Howarth, D., (2018).  Marx, discourse theory and political analysis: negotiating an ambiguous legacy . Critical Discourse Studies. 15 (4), 377-389.
• De Cleen, B., Glynos, J. and Mondon, A. (2018) Critical Research on Populism: Nine Rules of Engagement,  Organization, 25(5): 649-661.
• Griggs, S., Hall, S., Howarth, D. and Seigneuret, N., (2017).  Characterizing and evaluating rival discourses of the ‘sustainable city’: Towards a politics of pragmatic adversarialism . Political Geography. 59, 36-4.
• Glynos, J. and Voutyras, S. (2016) Ideology as Blocked Mourning: Greek National Identity in Times of Economic Crisis and Austerity , Journal of Political Ideologies, 21(3): 201-224· 
• Howarth, D., (2015).  Ernesto Laclau: Post-Marxism, Populism, and Critique . Routledge Taylor & Francis. 978-0-415-87087-0.
• Glynos, J., Speed, E. and West, K. (2015) Logics of Marginalisation in Health and Social Care Reform: Integration, Choice and Provider-blind Provision,  Critical Social Policy, 35(1): 45-68.

Our academic staff frequently feature within the wider press and media. Below are some examples of their latest appearances:

• View The New Pretender article by Anam Kuraishi, PhD candidate, the University of Essex titled  "Freedom-loving Brits" Taking back control: Post-truth in the COVID era.  
• Read The New Pretender article  Of apples and oranges - Donald Trump and the threat of aspiration fascism  which features research by Julius Schneider & Reid Kleinberg who are PhD researchers at cIDA, Department of Government, University of Essex.
• View The New Pretender article by Craig Love PhD candidate, University of Essex titled  Seizing the moment? Scotland, coronavirus and the question of Independence . 
• Read The New Pretender article  Expectedly unprecedented: Media discourses on COVID-19 and gender violence in Mexico  which features research by Jimena Vazquez & Kostis Roussos. 
• Read The New Pretender article by Ryan Flitcroft titled  Our finest hour - A very British response to crisis.  
• View The Conversation article by Professor David Howarth on  Heathrow 2.0 a 'sustainable airport' that pretends no one has to choose between planes and pollution.  
• Read the Prospect article by Professor David Howarth and Professor Steven Griggs titled Heathrow's third runway won't fly . 
• Read the Independent article  The success of Syriza in Greece has been driven by Marxism, populism and yes - Essex University.  
• Read The Conversation article by Professor David Howarth titled Boris Island is sunk but it may help other airports expand.

Research Projects

• Subjectivity and valuation in community economies (ESRC, 2020 - 2021)
• Exit Polling on Effectiveness and Research of Bradwell B Public Consultation Event (BECG, 2020)
• The Legacy of Discourse Studies: Current Applications and the Future of the Essex School in Ideology and Discourse Analysis (ESRC, 2018 -2019)
• Timebanking in Essex (ESRC, 2016-2018)
• Collaborative Governance in Cities under Austerity: An Eight-case Comparative Study (ESRC, 2014)
• The prospects for sustainable aviation in the UK (ESRC, 2010)

Watch the latest seminars and lectures from the Centre for Ideology on Discourse Analysis.

• Course Finder
• Undergraduate study
• Postgraduate study
• Short courses and CPD
• International students
• Study online
• Apprenticeships
• Summer Schools
• Essex living
• Essex Sport
• Colchester Campus
• Southend Campus
• Loughton Campus
• Student facilities
• Student services
• Research excellence
• Research showcase
• Media requests
• Research Excellence Framework (REF)
• Research institutes and centres
• Departments
• How to pay your fees
• General - [email protected]
• Undergraduate - [email protected]
• Postgraduate - [email protected]
• +44 (0) 1206 873333
• University of Essex
• Wivenhoe Park
• Colchester CO4 3SQ

• Accessibility
• Our privacy statements
• Our transparency return
• Modern slavery and human trafficking

• Make a Gift
• Directories

Search form

You are here, critical discourse analysis, related faculty.

Events mentioning "Critical Discourse Analysis"

More content tagged with this term:.

• Publications
• Projects & Grants
• Dissertations
• Graduate Students
•   Instagram
•   Newsletter

Critical Discourse Analysis Summer School

Maastricht Netherlands

The first four editions of the online version of this Summer School course in 2020 (twice), 2021 and 2022 were fully booked. The 2023 edition lasts from 21 August until 1 September. Please click here for more information about the 2023 edition.

Critical Discourse Analysis Summer School (12-16 August 2019; €600; 2 ECTS)

Introduction: The campaigns of both supporters and opponents of BREXIT, the many photos on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram and the debate on whether media should speak of immigrants or refugees underline the importance of language and images in (social) media. This course teaches you the skills to study the possible meanings of media texts and, if applicable, the juxtaposed images. You learn how particular words, phrases and visual elements can be interpreted in terms of a broader debate in society. Other key elements of the course are the role of the national and ideological context in the production of a media text, and the underlying power relations in society. Further, you learn how to develop a coherent analytical framework and structure for your research paper or thesis. In a step by process, you will address these questions by applying a critical discourse analysis (CDA) method. You will write a paper in which you will use the method of Richardson (2007), or a method of your own choice, to analyze discourses in one or more news articles or social media posts. Interactive lectures and roundtable discussions help you prepare for the different steps in the writing process.

Goals: -Designing a framework to study discourses in (social) media, in line with your research objectives. -Developing a qualitative method to conduct critical discourse analysis of media representations and select the relevant textual (and possibly visual) elements. -Addressing the role of the national and ideological context in which media operate. -Understanding the complexity of text-image relations and their role in meaning-making processes. -Compiling a dataset for your dissertation or thesis that is manageable and relevant.

Prerequisites: -Strong motivation and good command of English are essential to get a pass for the course; -Basic knowledge of textual analysis is recommended; -Aimed at Bachelor/ Master/ PhD students in Media Studies/ Journalism/ Cultural Studies/ Linguistics/ Political Sciences/ International Relations/ Geography/ History. If in doubt, please contact Leonhardt for personal course selection advice.

Recommended reading: Below you find some general reading suggestions. It is not required to do some reading before the course. If you like to read something, select the sources that are closest to your research interests. Alternatively, please ask Leonhardt for personal reading advice or check his website: http://www.geomeans.com/category/media-representations/reading-lists-media-representations/ -Fowler, R. (1991) Language in the news. Discourse and ideology in the press. -Jørgensen, M. and Phillips, L. (2002) Discourse analysis. As theory and method. -Machin, D. (2007) Introduction to multimodal analysis. -Machin, D. and Mayr, A. (2012) How to do critical discourse analysis. -Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2001) Discourse and discrimination. Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. -Richardson, J. (2007) Analysing newspapers. An approach from critical discourse analysis. -Royce, T. D. (2006). Intersemiotic complementarity: A framework for multimodal discourse analysis. In T. D. Royce, & W. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 63-109). -Van Efferink, L. (2018) Our Research Paper Template for Textual/Visual/Multimodal Media Analysis. https://www.geomeans.com/our-research-paper-template-for-textual-visual-multimodal-media-analysis/ -Van Leeuwen, T. (2008) Discourse and practice. New tools for critical discourse analysis. -Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds., 2016) Methods of critical discourse studies.

Read more about the online 2020 edition of this Summer School: https://discourseanalysis.net/en/online-media-representations-and-research-methods-summer-school-second-edition