discourse analysis researchgate

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.

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

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

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

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

When you do discourse analysis, you might focus on:

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

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

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

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

Materials that are suitable for discourse analysis include:

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context

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

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

Step 3: Analyse the content for themes and patterns

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

Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

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

Architecture and Design
Asian and Pacific Studies
Business and Economics
Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Computer Sciences
Cultural Studies
Engineering
General Interest
Geosciences
Industrial Chemistry
Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
Jewish Studies
Library and Information Science, Book Studies
Life Sciences
Linguistics and Semiotics
Literary Studies
Materials Sciences
Mathematics
Social Sciences
Sports and Recreation
Theology and Religion
Publish your article
The role of authors
Promoting your article
Abstracting & indexing
Publishing Ethics
Why publish with De Gruyter
How to publish with De Gruyter
Our book series
Our subject areas
Your digital product at De Gruyter
Contribute to our reference works
Product information
Tools & resources
Product Information
Promotional Materials
Orders and Inquiries
FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
Repository Policy
Free access policy
Open Access agreements
Database portals
For Authors
Customer service
People + Culture
Journal Management
How to join us
Working at De Gruyter
Mission & Vision
De Gruyter Foundation
De Gruyter Ebound
Our Responsibility
Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Discourse Analysis and the Study of Organizations

David Grant and Rick Iedema

In this paper we provide an overview of research into organizational discourse, making a tentative distinction between organizational discourse studies (emerging from organization and management theory) and organizational discourse analysis (emerging from more linguistic-oriented research). Our primary aim is to focus on organizational discourse studies in a fashion that complements, rather than replicates, previous overviews of the field. In so doing, we suggest that organizational discourse research is too complex and multivariate to be pigeonholed on the basis of academic discipline or research method. Further, abstracting the multiplicity of organizational discourse research endeavors into just two single dimensions as do Alvesson and Kärreman (2000), for example, runs the risk of losing some of this richness. We aim to provide insight into the complexity of organizational discourse and the philosophical and methodological richness that it embodies by highlighting that commentators often straddle dierent positions. To this end, we propose five dimensions by which to map this rich domain of research. Our concluding argument is that organizational discourse studies (ODS) and organizational discourse analysis (ODA) would do well to combine the former's normative and the latter's analytical prerogatives with attention to practitioner-situated problematics and struggles.

X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

Discourse and Second Language Learning

Reference work entry
First Online: 08 June 2017
Cite this reference work entry

Diana Boxer 5 &
Weihua Zhu 6

Part of the book series: Encyclopedia of Language and Education ((ELE))

1384 Accesses

3 Citations

This chapter presents a big picture of the past, present, and future of the intersection between discourse and second language learning. It traces back to early developments in the two fields tackling negotiated interaction; learner variation; accommodation theory; acculturation; initiation, response, feedback (IRF) patterns in classroom discourse; and cross-cultural communication. Then it discusses the major contributions to discourse-based SLA research including language identity, language socialization, sociocultural theory (SCT), and conversation analysis. All these discursive approaches have been feeding the ongoing cognitive-social debate, which was recapitulated in the 2007 focus issue of Modern Language Journal (Volume 91, Issue Supplement s1). Responding to the debate, Atkinson (Modern Lang J 86:525–545, 2002) proposed a socio-cognitive approach, which takes an ecological perspective that could conflate cognitive and social orientations. Young (Discursive practice in language learning and teaching. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, 2009) espoused practice theory to examine diverse resources that participants deploy in a practice and the relationship between the practice, its generic history, and the participants’ personal histories. Another current qualitative research focuses on plurilingualism or pragmatic development in varying discourses. Discursive approaches to second language acquisition (SLA) are facing such challenges as documenting SLA over time and going beyond monolingual, instructed settings. One possible solution is adopting Ethnography of Speaking or Interactional Sociolinguistics for longitudinal studies conducted in multilingual, uninstructed contexts. The approaches are moving toward post-structuralism and multidirections, which can illuminate, from both etic and emic perspectives, fluid identities, contingent learning outcomes, and nonlinear evolution of social participation in practices. The future of SLA research can benefit most from the integration of different approaches and the reconcilement of cognitive and social sides.

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

Access this chapter

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

For a thorough overview of Critical Discourse Analysis, see Fairclough ( 1995 ).

Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitve approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 86 , 525–545.

Article Google Scholar

Beebe, L., & Giles, H. (1984). Speech accommodation theories: A discussion in terms of second language acquisition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46 , 5–32.

Google Scholar

Boxer, D., & Cortes-Conde, F. (2000). Identity and ideology: Culture and pragmatics in content-based ESL. In J. K. Hall & L. Verplaste (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 203–219). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Duff, P., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 95–116). New York: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language . London/New York: Longman.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Koike, D. (Eds.). (2012). Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts: Methodological issues . Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81 , 285–300.

Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Language and social identity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hasko, V., Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2013). Special issue focusing on ‘Capturing L2 development through learner corpus analysis’. Modern Language Journal, 97 (S1).

Hatch, E. (Ed.). (1978). Second language acquisition . Rowley: Newbury House.

Kasper, G. (1997). Beyond reference. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 345–360). London: Longman.

Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J. (2011). The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 24–47). New York: Routledge.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book Google Scholar

Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4 , 126–141.

Magnan, S., Lafford, B., Firth, A., & Wagner, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., Gass, S., Lee, J., & Roots, R., Firth, A., & Wagner, J., Swain, M., Deters, P., Tarone, E., Mori, J., Block, D., Lantolf, J., & Johnson, K., Freeman, D., Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A., & Canagarajah, S. (2007). Focus Issue. Modern Language Journal, 91 (Supplement s1).

Markee, N., Kasper, G., Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S., Young, R., & Miller, E., Mori, J., Kasper, G., He, A., & Markee, N. (2004). Special issue focusing on ‘Classroom talk’. Modern Language Journal, 88 (4), Commentaries by Gass, S.; Larsen Freeman, D.; Hall, J.K.; and Wagner, J. (2004).

McKay, S., & Wong, S. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency in second language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66 , 577–608.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moore, D. (2006). Plurilingualism and strategic competence in context. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3 , 125–138.

Mori, J., & Zuengler, J. (2008). Conversation analysis and talk-in-interaction in classrooms. In N. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 773–785). Springer US.

Norton, B., & McKinney, C. (2011). An identity approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 73–94). New York: Routledge.

Preston, D. (2002). A variationist perspective on SLA: Psycholinguistic concerns. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 141–159). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rampton, B. (1997). Second language research in late modernity: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 8 , 329–333.

Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 150–171). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Chapter Google Scholar

Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15 , 163–191.

Schumann, J. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7 , 379–392.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach . Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). “New” mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. Modern Language Journal, 91 , 820–836.

Tarone, E. (1988). Variation in interlanguage . London: Edward Arnold.

Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research – 1997–2007. Modern Language Journal, 91 , 837–848.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Young, R. (2009). Discursive practice in language learning and teaching . Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

Zhu, W. (2014). Rapport management in strong disagreement: An investigation of a community of Chinese speakers of English. Text & Talk, 34 (5), 641–664.

Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40 , 35–58.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Diana Boxer

Department of Asian Languages and Cultures, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Diana Boxer or Weihua Zhu .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA

Stanton Wortham

Deoksoon Kim

Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Stephen May

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Boxer, D., Zhu, W. (2017). Discourse and Second Language Learning. In: Wortham, S., Kim, D., May, S. (eds) Discourse and Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02243-7_30

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02243-7_30

Published : 08 June 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-02242-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-02243-7

eBook Packages : Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

Share this entry

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

IMAGES

Discourse Analysis
What is Discourse Analysis
Discourse Analysis Research Methodology
PPT
PPT
Discourse Analysis in Research

VIDEO

Discourse Analysis part one
Coherence
What is Discourse Analysis? text, context, co-text
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS- GROUP 1 ASSIGNMENT 1 PRESENTATION
Discourse Analysis (definition, struktur teks, speaking & writing)

COMMENTS

(PDF) DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
discourse analysis is a method for the analysis of connected speech or. writing, for continuing descriptive linguistics beyond the limit of a simple. sentence at a time (Harris 1952). Meanwhile ...
PDF Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology
an analysis of a vast number of phenomena of text grammar and language use:coher-ence, anaphora, topics, macrostructures, speech acts, interactions, turn-taking, signs, politeness, argumentation, rhetoric, mental models, and many other aspects of text and discourse. The significant difference between DS and CDS (or CDA) lies in the constitutive ...
PDF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
discourse analysis that is centrally relevant to ﬁrst language research. This brief overview of "discourse analysis in educational research" is not meant to be taken as comprehensive but, instead, to spark interest in one of more of the approaches mentioned and promote further intellectual inquiry. DORIS WARRINER
Discourse Analysis
Description. Discourse analysis (DA) draws from a diverse range of intellectual sources including classical studies of rhetoric, post-structuralism, ethnomethodology, speech-act philosophy, social psychology, and linguistics. However, a central identifying feature of DA is that it concentrates on the way discourse acts on and creates our reality.
Introduction to Discourse Analysis and Argumentation Theory
Therefore, discourse analysis does not study the language itself, but the language in use (Gee, 2011).It is a broad and interdisciplinary field, connected with other disciplines such as semiotics (Eco, 1979), linguistics (Serrano, 1983) or communication studies (Chandler, 2003).There are two main methodological approaches which are differentiated by their respective goals (Gee, 2011):
Rigor, Transparency, Evidence, and Representation in Discourse Analysis
the data and objects of analysis for discourse analysis studies. Despite the progress in the evolution of various types of discourse analysis and the rich methodological and empirical literature on discourse analysis, conducting empirical discourse analysis remains a challenging enterprise.
Qualitative Research: Discourse Analysis
What is discourse analysis? Discourse analysis is about studying and analysing the uses of language. Because the term is used in many different ways, we have simplified approaches to discourse analysis into three clusters (table 1) and illustrated how each of these approaches might be used to study a single domain: doctor-patient communica
4 Critical Discourse Analysis
Oxford Handbooks. Collection: Oxford Handbooks Online. 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 ...
Political Discourse Analysis: Exploring the Language of Politics and
Adopting an inclusive conception of politics and discourse, I consider the relationship between PDA and critical discourse analysis (CDA). I close with a review of studies of political discourse in terms of their theoretical and analytic frameworks and the socio-political issues they address. Works Cited
Critical Discourse Analysis: Exploring its Philosophical Underpinnings
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) stresses that language use, discourse, and communication should be studied in their social, cultural and political contexts. A considerable amount of literature has been produced and the use of CDA as a research methodology has been so wide across various disciplines of social sciences. The current body of ...
Critical Discourse Analysis
How language use relates to its social, political, and historical context. Discourse analysis is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and cultural studies. It is also called critical discourse analysis.
Discourse Analysis as a Research Strategy
Chapter 5, Discourse and the Strategic usage of Europe elaborates a research strategy allowing for the study of the strategic use of discourse for political purposes and serves as an illustration of the role of discursive agency politics. Chapter 6, Discourse, Myths and Emotions in EU Politics develops an analytical strategy for the study of ...
Critical Discourse Analysis
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.
Discourse Analysis
It covers the different approaches in discourse analysis: enunciative approach, communication approach, sociolinguistic approach, interactionist and conversational approaches, and pragmatic ...
Discourse Analysis and the Study of Organizations
In this paper we provide an overview of research into organizational discourse, making a tentative distinction between organizational discourse studies (emerging from organization and management theory) and organizational discourse analysis (emerging from more linguistic-oriented research). Our primary aim is to focus on organizational discourse studies in a fashion that complements, rather ...
From image to identity icon: Discourses of organizational visual
This article explores how universities construe organizational identities and engage digital audiences through images on web homepages. Combining visual content analysis and a discourse-analytic approach informed by social semiotics, I interpret the discourses of identity in 400 images from organizational homepages of four top-tier public universities in Sydney, Australia - University of ...
Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is interested, among other things, in the organizational structures of texts. One way in which this might be examined is through identifying the schematic structures of texts; that is, the discourse structure of texts such as arguments, reports, descriptions, and explanations which come together in the writing of larger texts such as in academic essays or assignments.
PDF Discourse Analysis: Strengths and Shortcomings
The analysis follows the methodological template of critical discourse analysis, by identifying the nomination, predication, and argumentation strategies employed in the text. In conclusion, we briefly reflect on the strengths and shortcomings of this methodology, also drawing from our own experiences in the field. 2.
PDF Discourse and Second Language Learning
non-instructional. Analysis of both the big "D" discourse and the little "d" discourse (Gee 2012) can promote the understanding of how a second language is learned and used. Insights resulting from discourse analysis can provide the ﬁeld of second language acquisition (SLA) with important theoretical, methodological, and peda-
(PDF) Tudás, hatalom és diskurzusok Teun A. Van Dijk ...
Critical Discourse Analysis (or Critical Discourse Studies - CDA/CDS) examines the relationship between texts, discourses and power, dominance, power abuses and social inequalities.