DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis

7/27/2019 DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discurso-critical-discourse-analysis 1/21

Critical Discourse Analysis

Author(s): Jan Blommaert and Chris BulcaenSource: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 29 (2000), pp. 447-466Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/223428

Accessed: 20/02/2009 16:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of

Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/223428?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/223428?origin=JSTOR-pdf



Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2000. 29:447-66

Copyright? 2000 by Annual Reviews. All rightsreserved

CRITICALDISCOURSEANALYSIS

JanBlommaertGhent University, Department of African Languages and Cultures, B-9000 Gent,

Belgium;e-mail: [email protected]

Chris BulcaenGhentUniversity,Departmentof English,B-9000 Gent,Belgium;e-mail: [email protected]

Key Words linguistics, ocialtheory,power, deology,critique

* Abstract Thispaperprovidesa surveyof criticaldiscourseanalysis(CDA),arecent school of discourseanalysisthat concerns tself with relationsof powerand

inequality n language.CDA explicitlyintendsto incorporateocial-theoreticaln-

sightsinto discourseanalysisandadvocates ocial commitment nd interventionismin research.The mainprogrammaticeaturesanddomainsof enquiryof CDA arediscussed,withemphasison attemptsoward heory ormation y oneof CDA'smost

prominentcholars,NormanFairclough.Another ectionreviews hegenesisanddis-

ciplinarygrowthof CDA, mentionssome of the recent criticalreactions o it, andsituatest within he widerpictureof a new criticalparadigm evelopingn a numberof language-orientedsub)disciplines.Inthis criticalparadigm, opicssuch as ideol-

ogy, inequality, ndpower igureprominently,ndmanyscholars roductively ttemptto incorporateocial-theoreticalnsights nto thestudyof language.

INTRODUCTION

Criticaldiscourseanalysis (CDA) emerged

in the late 1980s as aprogrammaticdevelopment n Europeandiscoursestudiesspearheadedby NormanFairclough,

Ruth Wodak,Teun van Dijk, and others. Since then, it has become one of themost influentialandvisible branchesof discourseanalysis (as can be seen in the

anthology by Jaworski& Coupland1999). We providean overview of the mainthrustsof this movement,discuss criticallyits mainfoci of attention,and situateit in a wider panoramaof developmentsin linguistics. In so doing, we hope toshow that the criticalturn n studies of languageis by no means restricted o anysingle approachbutrepresentsa moregeneralprocessof (partial)convergence ntheoriesandpracticesof researchon language.CDAprovidedacrucial heoretical

andmethodological mpetusfor this paradigm,butit could benefit from a closerintegrationwith new developments.

0084-6570/00/1015-0447$14.00 447



448 BLOMMAERT BULCAEN

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

The CDA ProgramThe purposeof CDA is to analyze "opaqueas well as transparenttructural e-

lationshipsof dominance, discrimination,power and control as manifested in

language"(Wodak 1995:204). More specifically,"[CDA]studiesreal, and often

extended, nstancesof social interactionwhich take(partially) inguisticform. Thecriticalapproachs distinctive n its view of (a) therelationshipbetweenlanguageandsociety,and(b) therelationshipbetweenanalysisand thepracticesanalysed"(Wodak1997:173).

CDAstates hatdiscourse s sociallyconstitutiveas well associallyconditioned.

Furthermore, iscourse is an opaque power object in modem societies and CDAaimsto make it more visible andtransparent.

It is an important haracteristic f the economic, social and culturalchangesof late modernity hattheyexist as discourses as well as processesthat are

takingplace outsidediscourse,and that theprocessesthat aretakingplaceoutside discourse aresubstantively hapedby these discourses.

Chouliaraki& Fairclough 1999:4)

The most elaborateand ambitiousattempt oward heorizing he CDAprogramis

undoubtedlyFairclough'sDiscourse and Social

Change(1992a).

Faircloughconstructsa social theoryof discourseandprovidesa methodological blueprintfor criticaldiscourseanalysis npractice. [Otherprogrammatictatementsof CDA

can be foundin Fairclough 1992b, 1995b),Chouliaraki& Fairclough 1999), van

Leeuwen(1993), vanDijk (1993a,c, 1997), and Wodak 1995, 1997).]

Fairclough 1992a) sketchesa three-dimensional rameworkor conceivingof

andanalyzingdiscourse. The firstdimension s discourse-as-text,.e. thelinguisticfeaturesandorganization f concrete nstancesof discourse. Choicesandpatternsin vocabulary e.g. wording,metaphor),grammar e.g. transitivity,modality),co-

hesion (e.g. conjunction, chemata),and textstructuree.g. episoding,turn-taking

system) shouldbe systematicallyanalyzed(see below for CDA'srelianceon cer-tain branchesof linguistics). The use of passiveverbforms in news reporting, or

instance,can have the effect of obscuringthe agent of political processes. This

attention o concrete extual eaturesdistinguishesCDAfromgermaneapproachessuch as Michel Foucault's,according o Fairclough 1992a).

The second dimension is discourse-as-discursive-practice,.e. discourse as

something hat sproduced, irculated,distributed,onsumed nsociety.Faircloughsees these processes largelyin termsof the circulationof concretelinguisticob-

jects (specific texts or text-typesthatareproduced,circulated,consumed,and so

forth),butkeepingFoucault n mind,remarkablyittle time is spenton resources

and other "macro"conditions on the productionand distributionof discourse.Approachingdiscourse as discursivepracticemeans that in analyzingvocabu-

lary, grammar, ohesion, andtext structure,attentionshould be given to speech




acts, coherence, and intertextuality-three aspects that link a text to its context.

Faircloughdistinguishesbetween "manifest ntertextuality"i.e. overtly drawing

uponother exts)and "constitutiventertextuality"r"interdiscursivity"i.e. textsare made up of heterogeneouselements: generic conventions,discourse types,register,style). Oneimportant spectof the firstform is discourserepresentation:how quoted utterancesare selected, changed, contextualized(for recent contri-butions to the study of discourse representation,see Baynham& Slembrouck

1999).The thirddimensionis discourse-as-social-practice,.e. the ideologicaleffects

and hegemonic processes in which discourse is a feature(for CDA'suse of thetheories andconceptsof AlthusserandGramsci,see below). Hegemonyconcerns

powerthatis achievedthroughconstructingalliances andintegrating lasses and

groups throughconsent, so that "thearticulationand rearticulation f orders ofdiscourse s correspondingly ne stake n hegemonic struggle" Fairclough1992a:

93). It is from this third dimension that Faircloughconstructs his approach o

change:Hegemonieschange,andthis can be witnessed ndiscursivechange,whenthe latter s viewed from the angle of intertextuality.The way in which discourseis being represented, espoken,or rewritten heds light on the emergenceof newordersof discourse,strugglesovernormativity, ttemptsatcontrol,and resistance

againstregimesof power.Fairclough 1992a) is explicit with regard o his ambitions:The model of dis-

course hedevelops

is framed n atheory

ofideological processes

insociety,

fordiscourseis seen in termsof processes of hegemonyandchanges in hegemony.Fairclough uccessfully dentifies arge-scalehegemonicprocessessuch asdemoc-

ratization,commodification,and technologizationon the basis of heteroglossicconstructionsof text genres and styles (see example below). He also identifiesthe multipleways in which individualsmove throughsuch institutionalizeddis-cursiveregimes,constructing elves, social categories,and social realities. At thesame time, the generaldirection s one in which social theoryis used to providea linguisticmetadiscourseandin which the target s a refinedandmorepowerfultechniqueof text analysis.

CDA'slocus of critiqueis the nexus of language/discourse/speech nd socialstructure.It is in uncovering ways in which social structure mpinges on dis-course patterns,relations,and models (in the form of power relations,ideolog-ical effects, and so forth), and in treatingthese relations as problematic,thatresearchersn CDA situatethe criticaldimensionof theirwork. It is notenoughto

lay barethesocialdimensionsof languageuse. Thesedimensionsare theobjectofmoral andpoliticalevaluationandanalyzingthemshouldhave effects in society:empowering hepowerless,giving voices to the voiceless, exposing powerabuse,andmobilizingpeopletoremedysocialwrongs.CDAadvocates nterventionismnthesocialpractices tcritically nvestigates.Toolan 1997) evenoptsfor aprescrip-

tive stance: CDA should make proposalsfor change and suggest correctionstoparticulardiscourses. CDA thusopenly professesstrongcommitments o change,empowerment,andpractice-orientedness.

449




Methodology

On a methodological evel, CDApresentsa diversepicture.Forhistoricalreasons

(see below), the use of systemic-functional inguistics s prominent,butcategoriesand conceptshave also been borrowedfrom more mainstreamdiscourseanaly-sis andtext linguistics, stylistics, social semiotics, social cognition,rhetoric,and,morerecently,conversationanalysis. Wodakand her associates havedevelopeda

discourse-historicalmethodintent on tracingthe (intertextual)historyof phrasesand arguments see, for example, Wodak 1995, van Leeuwen & Wodak 1999).The method startswithoriginaldocuments e.g. in theiranalysisof the Waldheim

affair,Wehrmachtdocuments on war activities in the Balkan),is augmentedby

ethnographic esearchaboutthepast(e.g. interviewswith warveterans),andpro-

ceeds towide-rangingdatacollection andanalysisof contemporary ewsreporting,politicaldiscourse, ay beliefs, and discourse.

Somepractitioners f CDA welcome thediversityof methodology Chouliaraki& Fairclough1999:17); others strive for a systematicand focused framework,

based, for instance, on concepts of genre and field and on the sociosemantic

representation f social actors(vanLeeuwen 1993, 1996).

Althoughsuch scholarsas Kress(1997) and Kress & van Leeuwen(1996) (seealso Slembrouck1995) emphasizethe importanceof incorporating isual imagesinto conceptsof discourse and move towardbroadermultimodalconceptionsof

semiosis, the generalbias in CDA is toward inguisticallydefinedtext-concepts,

and linguistic-discursive extual structuresare attributeda crucial function inthe social productionof inequality, power, ideology, authority,or manipulation(vanDijk 1995).

PreferredTopics

CDA's preferencefor work at the intersectionof language and social structure

is manifest in the choice of topics and domains of analysis [panoramas an be

found,forexample, nSchaffner& Wenden 1995), Caldas-Coulthard Coulthard

(1996), Blommaert& Bulcaen(1997)]. CDApracticionersendto workonapplied

andapplicable opicsand social domains such as the following.1. Political discourse See, for example,Wodak 1989), Chiltonet al (1998),

Fairclough 1989, 1992a),andFairclough& Mauranen 1997).

2. Ideology Discourseis seen as a meansthroughwhich (andin which)

ideologies arebeingreproduced. deologyitself is a topic of considerable

importancen CDA. Hodge & Kress(1979) set thetone with theirwork.

Morerecently,vanDijk (1998) has produceda sociocognitivetheoryof

ideology.

3. Racism Particular ttentionwithinthis studyis given to racism. VanDijk

standsout as a prolificauthor 1987, 1991, 1993b),butthe topichas alsobeen coveredby manyothers(fora survey,see Wodak& Reisigl 1999).Relatedto the issue of racismis a recent interest n the discourseon



CRITICALISCOURSENALYSIS

immigration e.g. MartinRojo & vanDijk 1997, van Leeuwen & Wodak

1999).

3. Economicdiscourse See, for example,Fairclough 1995b). The issue ofglobalizationhas been formulatedas an importantpreoccupationor CDA

(Slembrouck1993, Chouliaraki& Fairclough1999:94).

4. Advertisement ndpromotionalculture See, for example, Fairclough(1989, 1995b),Slembrouck 1993), andThorborrow (1998).

5. Media language See, for example,Fairclough 1995a), vanDijk (1991),Kress(1994), andMartin-Rojo 1995).

6. Gender See especially the representation f womenin the media(e.g.Talbot1992;Caldas-Coulthard 993, 1996;Clark& Zyngier1998;Walsh

1998;Thorborrow 1998).

7. Institutionaldiscourse Languageplays a role in institutionalpracticessuch as doctor-patient ommunication e.g. Wodak1997), social work

(e.g. Wodak1996, Hall et al 1997), andbureaucracySarangi&

Slembrouck1996)

8. Education See, for example,Kress(1997) and Chouliaraki 1998).Education s seen as a majorarea for the reproduction f social relations,

including representation ndidentityformation,but also forpossibilitiesof

change. Faircloughand associateshavedevelopeda criticallanguage

awareness CLA) approach hatadvocatesthe stimulationof criticalawarenesswith studentsof pedagogicaldiscourses anddidactic means(cfClarket al 1989, 1990;Fairclough1992c, Ivanic 1998).

9. Literacy CDA studies of literacyhave linkedup with those

anthropologicalandsociolinguistic analysesthat view literacyas "situated

practices" e.g. Heath1983, Street1995), e.g. in the context of localcommunities(Barton& Hamilton1998) or education(Baynham1995,New LondonGroup1996, Cope & Kalantzis2000). Scholarsworking n

these "newliteracystudies"havejoined effortsin a new book series

(Bartonet al

2000, Cope& Kalantzis

2000,Hawisher& Selfe

2000).In all thesedomains, ssues of power asymmetries,exploitation,manipulation,

and structuralnequalitiesarehighlighted.

SocialTheory

CDA obviously conceives discourse as a social phenomenonand seeks, conse-

quently, to improve the social-theoreticalfoundations for practicingdiscourse

analysis as well as for situatingdiscourse in society. A fundamentalaspect ofCDA is that t claimsto takeits startingpointin social theory.Twodirectionscan

be distinguished.On the one hand, CDA displays a vivid interestin theories ofpowerandideology. Mostcommonin thisrespectare theuse of Foucault's 1971,1977) formulationsof "ordersof discourse"and "power-knowledge,"Gramsci's

451




(1971) notion of "hegemony,"and Althusser's(1971) concepts of "ideologicalstateapparatuses"nd"interpellation."Works n which connectionsbetweendis-

course andpowerprocesses arebeing spelled out are also widely cited, such asLaclau & Mouffe (1985) and Thompson(1990). In Fairclough(1992a), for ex-

ample,thesetheoriesandconceptsaregivena linguistictranslation ndprojectedonto discourseobjectsand communicativepatterns n an attempt o accountfor

the relationshipbetween linguistic practiceand social structure,and to providelinguistically groundedexplanations or changesin theserelationships.

The second direction hatcan be distinguished s anattempt o overcome struc-turalistdeterminism.Inspirationhereis usuallyfoundin Giddens'(1984) theoryof structuration, here a dynamicmodel of therelationshipbetween structure nd

agencyis proposed.Giddens servesas the theoreticalbackgroundo CDA'sclaim

thatactual anguageproducts tand n dialecticrelation o social structure,.e. thatlinguistic-communicativevents can be formative or largersocial processesand

structures.Obviously, when the relationshipbetween linguistic-communicative(or othersemiotic)action and social processesis discussed,frequentreference s

also madeto the workof Bourdieu 1991) andHabermas1984, 1987). Bourdieu's

workis also influential n studies on educationalpractices.The use of these theories can be partlytracedbackto the influence of cultural

studieson CDA, in particularhe seminal activitiesof the Centrefor Contempo-

raryCulturalStudiesof theUniversityof Birmingham.CDA still holdspacewith

culturalstudiesin that tcontinually, houghcritically,engages

with new research

trends n, forexample,postmodern,eminist,postcolonial,andglobalizationstud-

ies [fora"rethinking"f CDA that ntends oground t morefirmly n socialtheory,see Chouliaraki& Fairclough 1999)].

It is importanto realize thatdespitetheinputfrom a varietyof social-scientific

disciplines, CDA should primarilybe positioned in a linguistic milieu, and its

successes should be measuredprimarilywith the yardstickof linguisticsandlin-

guisticallyorientedpragmaticsand discourseanalysis.

An Example:Conversationalization

To Fairclough,many fields of contemporarypublic life are characterizedby "a

widespreadappropriationf the discursivepracticesof ordinaryife in publicdo-

mains" Fairclough& Mauranen1997:91). The new economicmodel of "flexible

accumulation,"or instance,is implemented hroughpracticalchangesin organi-zationsas well as through he productionof abundantmanagerialdiscoursethat

has become hegemonic.Flexible workformsalso involve new uses of language,suchas "the routinisedsimulationof conversational pontaneity"Chouliaraki&

Fairclough1999:5),thathavepowerfulandpossiblydamagingeffects. Becauseof

the highly linguistic-discursive haracterof many changes in late modernityand

theincreasingdesign

andcommodification flanguage orms,

a criticalanalysis

of

discoursebecomes all the moreimportantn fields as diverseas marketing, ocial

welfarework,andpoliticaldiscourse.



CRITICAL ISCOURSE NALYSIS

Inthepoliticalfield forinstance,Fairclough&Mauranen1997) comparepolit-ical interviewsover a time spanof 35 yearsandidentifya clear shift from a formal

andrigidinterviewingstyle towarda mode of interaction hatresemblesordinaryconversation.Recentpolitical nterviewsarecharacterized y acasualmanner, ol-

loquial speechforms,reciprocaladdress orms,andrepetitions.Furthermore,heynote howMargaretThatcher's1983speech stylecrosses socialclass lines: She"ap-

propriatesand simulatesvariousconversational oices,"whereasHaroldMacmil-

lan n 1958"projects consistentclass-specificconversational oice"(Fairclough&Mauranen1997:117). Thus,Thatcher's onversational tyledemonstrates owpo-litical discoursein the 1980s has "colonized"everyday speechgenresin ordertoachievehegemonyandincreased egitimation or the voice of authority.

To Fairclough, his development n political discourse is indicativeof a wider

changein ordersof discoursein contemporary ocieties. These developmentsaresummarized n three large categories: democratization,commodification,and

technologization(Fairclough1992a:200-24). In general,these developmentsalltouch on ways in which discoursegenresfrom one sphereof life impingeon oth-ers for functionalpurposes,and this againsta backgroundof changes in powerrelationshipsn society. Thus,thelanguageof advertizinghasmovedintothe con-versationaldomain n anattempt o allignits messageswiththepreoccupations findividualcustomers as illustrated, orinstance,by the use of directaddress,as in"DidYOU get YOUR Barclay'scard?").Similarly, governmentcommunciationhas

adoptedless formaland more conversational

tyles (e.g. allowing peopleto

directly respondto governmentmessages), andotherprofessionssuch as welfareworkhave followed the same track.Althoughthis may allow for more effective

communication, t blurs theboundariesbetweeninformationandpersuasion,andit obscures"objective"power relationshipsby suggestingthe equalityof conver-sationalrapportn asymmetricalnstitutional nteractions.

Inthistypeof research, mpiricaldataanalysis sdirectly ed into alargerpictureof what discourseand discoursemodes do in society. Thequestionremains,how-

ever, whethersuch large-scaletransformationsn societies can be demonstratedon thebasis of empiricaldatathatare,in effect, restrictedn scope, size, andtime

range. Itwould be interesting, orexample,to compare he "conversationaltyle"of MacmillanandThatcher o that of JohnMajorandTonyBlair.

SITUATINGCDA

The Historyof CDA

In historicalsurveys such as Wodak's(1995), reference is made to the "critical

linguists"of the Universityof EastAnglia,who in the 1970s turned o suchissues

as (a) the use of language n social institutions, b) therelationshipsbetween lan-guage,power,and deology,and(c) whoproclaimedacritical, eft-wing agenda or

linguistics.Theworksof Hodge&Kress(1979) andFowleret al(1979) are seminal

453




in thisrespect(for surveys,see Fowler 1996, Birch 1998). Their work was basedon the systemic-functionaland social-semiotic linguistics of Michael Halliday,

whose linguisticmethodologyis still hailed as crucial to CDA practicesbecauseit offers clear and rigorous linguistic categoriesfor analyzingthe relationshipsbetweendiscourseandsocial meaning(see, e.g. Chouliaraki& Fairclough1999).Next to Halliday'sthree metafunctions ideational,interpersonal,extual mean-

ing), systemic-functionalanalyses of transivity,agency, nominalization,mood,information low,andregisterhave been adoptedby CDA. Martin 2000) reviews

the usefulness of systemic-functional inguistics for CDA, suggestingthat CDAshouldapply systemic-functionalnotions moresystematicallyandconsistently.

Fairclough'sLanguageand Power (1989) is commonlyconsideredto be thelandmarkpublication or the "start" f CDA. In this book,Faircloughengagedin

an explicitly politicized analysisof "powerful"discourses n Britain[Thatcheritepoliticalrhetoricandadvertisementsee above)] andoffered the synthesisof lin-

guisticmethod,objectsof analysis,andpoliticalcommitment hathas become thetrademark f CDA.

Generally, hereis a perceptionof a "coreCDA" ypicallyassociated with thework of NormanFairclough,RuthWodak,and Teun van Dijk, and a numberof

relatedapproachesn CDA such as discursivesocialpsychology (e.g. the workof

MichaelBillig, CharlesAntaki,MargaretWetherell), ocial semiotics and workon

multimodalityndiscourse e.g. GuntherKressandTheo vanLeeuwen),systemic-functional inguistics (e.g. JayLemke),andpoliticaldiscourseanalysis (e.g. Paul

Chilton).

Although the influence of Halliday's social-semiotic and grammaticalwork

is acknowledgedandverifiable,referencesto otherdiscourse-analyticprecursors(such as Michel Pecheux)arepost hoc andinspiredmoreby a desire to establisha coherenttradition hanby a genuinehistoricalnetworkof influences. One can

also note that the universeof mobilized sources invokedto support he CDA pro-gramis selective. Referencesto work done in American inguisticsandlinguistic

anthropologyarerare[withthe exceptionof researchon literacy(see above)],as

are references to some precursorswho have had a manifestinfluence on many

"critical" pproacheso language(e.g. FerruccioRossi-Landi,Louis-JeanCalvet)and to critical workin other strandsof languagestudies(e.g. in sociolinguistics).Thepotentialrelevanceof these largelyoverlooked raditions s discussedbelow.

Despitethepresenceof landmark ublicationsandof someacknowledgedead-

ing figures, he boundariesof the CDAmovementas well as theparticularity f its

program eem to haveemerged n an ad hoc fashion. Scholars dentifyingwiththe

label CDA seem to be unitedby the commondomains andtopicsof investigationdiscussedabove,an explicit commitment o social action and to the political left

wing, a common aim of integrating inguistic analysis and social theoryand-

though in more diffuse ways-by a preferencefor empiricalanalysis within a

set of paradigms, ncludingHallidayansystemic-functional inguistics,conversa-tion analysis, Lakoff-inspired pproacheso metaphor,argumentationheory, ext

linguistics,and social psychology.




There s sometendencywithinCDA toidentify tself asa"school,"anda number

of writingsareprogrammatically rientedtowardthe formationof a community

of scholarssharing he sameperspective,and to some extentalso sharingsimilarmethodologiesand theoreticalframeworks.Fairclough(1992a:12-36) surveysa

varietyof discourse-analyticapproaches,qualifiedas "noncritical,"n contrast ohis own criticalapproach.Such boundary-shaping racticesare worded in such

resolute terms thattheyresultin suggestivedivisions within discourseanalysis-"critical" ersus "noncritical"-thatare hard o sustain n reality[acomment alsomadeby Widdowson(1998)].

CDA has known a remarkable uccess with studentsand scholars. CDA has a

major orumof publication n thejournalDiscourse &Society,startedn 1990andeditedbyvanDijk(see e.g. vanDijk 1993c); naddition,aEuropean nteruniversity

exchange programdevoted to CDA is now in place, and variousWeb sites andelectronic discussion forums offer contacts and informationon CDAprojectsand

viewpoints.This activepursuitofinstitutionalization as an effect onwhat ollows.Tosomeextent,the "school"characteristics f CDAcreate, o some,animpressionof closureandexclusiveness withrespectto "critique" s a mode, ingredient,and

productof discourseanalysis.

CriticalReception

Criticalreactions o CDAcenteron issues ofinterpretation

ndcontext. In a seriesof reviewarticles,Widdowson 1995, 1996, 1998)has criticizedCDAfor its blur-

ring of importantdistinctions between concepts, disciplines, and methodologies(forreactions,see Fairclough1996, Chouliaraki& Fairclough1999:67). First,henotes thevaguenessof manyconcepts(whatis preciselymeantby discourse,text,structure,practice,andmode?)and models (how manyfunctionsandlevels, andhow can these be proven?).This generalfuzziness is not helpedby the rhetoricaluse of conceptsfromsocial theory.Second,Widdowsonarguesthat,in its actual

analyses, and despite its theoreticalclaims to the opposite, CDA interpretsdis-courseunderthe guise of criticalanalysis.CDA does not analyzehow a text can

be read in many ways, orunderwhat social circumstancest is producedandcon-sumed. The predominanceof interpretation egs questionsaboutrepresentation(cananalystsspeakfor the averageconsumerof texts?),selectivity,partiality, nd

prejudice see also Stubbs1997).The mostfundamental roblem o Widdowson sthatCDA collapses togethersignificationandsignificance,andultimatelyseman-tics andpragmatics.Texts are found to have a certain deological meaningthat isforceduponthe reader. This ratherdeterministicview of humanagencyhas alsobeen criticizedby Pennycook(1994).

Anothercritical debate on CDA was initiatedby Schegloff (1997) and con-tinued by others (Wetherell1998; Billig 1999a,b; Schegloff 1999a,b; see also

Chouliaraki& Fairclough 1999:7). In Schegloff's opinion, there is a tendencyto assume the a priorirelevanceof aspects of context in CDA work: Analystsprojecttheirown politicalbiases andprejudicesonto theirdata andanalyzethem

455




accordingly.Stablepatternsof powerrelations are sketchy,often based on littlemore than social andpolitical commonsense, and thenprojectedonto (andinto)

discourse. Schegloff'sownproposalsarethose of orthodoxconversationanalysis:Relevantcontext should be restricted o that context to which participantsn aconversationactivelyandconsequentiallyorient[aposition equallyvulnerable o

critique(see, e.g. Duranti1997:245-79)]. The problematicstatus of context inCDA analyseswas also observedby Blommaert(1997a), who qualifiedthe useof contextin some CDA work as narrative ndbackgrounding nd who noted the"uncritical" cceptanceof particular epresentations f historyand social realityas "backgroundacts" n analyses.

A New CriticalParadigm

The premisethatcritiquederives frominvestigatingandproblematizing he con-nection betweenlanguageandsocial structure s obviouslynotrestricted o CDA.Neither is the tendencyto support his premiseby meansof insights from othersocial-theoretical ields of inquiry, seeking a more sustainablesocial, cultural,and/or historicalfoundation or linguistic analysis.In fact, one can say that bothelements characterize new criticalparadigmnow observable n linguisticanthro-

pology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics,applied linguistics, and other fields. Thereis now far more criticalresearch han thatdevelopingunder he headingof CDA

alone, and one of the surprising eaturesin the CDA literature s the scarcityof

referencesto thisplethoraof work.What follows is a brief and selectivesurveyof thisparadigm,organizedon the

basis of threegeneralfeatures:ideology, inequalityandpower,and social theory.The surveyis not meant to imply an absolutecontrastbetween CDA and other

criticaldevelopmentsn linguistics. CDA is anoriginalcontribution o this critical

paradigm,and some of the scholarswe mention below (e.g. Cameron,Rampton)can be saidto have been influencedby CDA. Also, certainbranchesof CDA have

takenstockof criticaldevelopmentsn linguisticanthropology, otablythe studies

of literacymentionedabove.

Ideology One prominentfeature is the developmentof ideology into a cru-cial topic of investigationand theoretical elaboration.In linguistic anthropol-ogy, Michael Silverstein's work on linguistic ideologies has been seminal, and

it has given rise to a research raditionwith considerablecriticalpunch.Startingfrom views of linguisticideology as embedded n linguisticstructureSilverstein1979), wider views of linguistic-ideologicalphenomenaweredeveloped(for sur-

veys, see Woolard& Schieffelin 1994, Woolard1998) andwere used to analyze

patternsof languageuse andinterlanguage/intervarietyelationships hat carried

clearsocietalpowerorpolicyconnotations Silverstein1996,Schieffelin&Doucet

1998, Errington1998, Spitulnik1998). New inquiries nto aspectsof mediation,intertextuality,ndrepresentationdrawingextensivelyon such authorsas Peirce,Bakhtin,and Habermas) ed to importantnsights into authorityand hierarchies



CRITICAL ISCOURSENALYSIS

of genresandways of speaking(Gal & Woolard1995) and into the dynamicsof

contextualization ndthenatureof text andtextualizationHanks1989,Bauman&

Briggs 1990, Silverstein & Urban1996). Therenewedfocus on ideology shapeda new way of formulating anguage-society relationshipsand opened new av-enues for analyzing language practiceandreflexively discussing analyticalprac-tice. Scholarlytraditionswere reviewedin light of these reformulatedquestions(Irvine 1995; Blommaert1996, 1997b), and established views of languageand

society were questioned(Silverstein1998). Apartfrom a widespreadacceptanceof the notionof "construction"n suchresearch,animportant timulusforreflex-ive research nto analyticalpracticeswas providedby Goodwin's(1994) work on"professional ision,"which arrived t adeeplycriticalperspectiveonprofessionalauthorityand expertstatusin contemporary ociety, and which demonstratedn

greatdetail the anchoringof such status andauthorityn situatedand contextual-ized social practice.Similarresultswere yielded by Mertz(1992) in analysesofthe discursiveteachingstrategiesof professors n an American aw school.

Ideology has also become a crucial concern outside linguistic anthropology.In sociolinguistic milieux in Europeand elsewhere, similar attentionto the im-

plicit theories underlyingestablished views of language and language practiceemergedin roughlythe same period.Joseph& Taylor's(1990) collection of es-

says broke groundin investigatingthe ideological foundationsof the languagesciences, observingthat"[l]inguistics s perhapsmoreof a problemthan a solu-tion" in the social sciences

(Laurendeau1990:206).Williams

(1992) provideda

trenchantocial-theoretical ritiqueof mainstreamociolinguistics,demonstratingits Parsonian tructural-functionalistnderpinningssee also Figueroa1994). Inthemeantime,Milroy& Milroy(1985) hadwrittena landmark tudyon linguisticpurismandprescriptivism, ndCameronhadboth dentifiedanumberof language-ideological phenomena abeled verbalhygiene (Cameron1995) and coauthoredanimportant ollectionof criticalessayson thepracticeof sociolinguisticresearch

(Cameronet al 1992).In the field of pragmatics, ideology has become a major field of inquiry

(Verschueren1999). Reflexive awarenessaboutthe ideologies guiding scholarly

practiceshas been attestedin the critical surveys of one of pragmatics'mostprominentbranches,politenesstheory(Eelen 1999, Kienpointner1999). Spurredby workof BourdieuandLatour,applied inguistshaveequallybegun nvestigatingthe underlyingassumptionsof analysis in education(e.g. Alexander et al 1991)and in other domains of professionalpractice(Gunnarsonet al 1997, Linell &

Sarangi1998).

Inequalityand Power A secondfeatureof the criticalparadigm s the renewedattention o inequalityandpowerin relation o language n society.CDA is surelynot alone in its predilection orpoliticaland other"powerful" iscourseas an ob-

ject of analysis. Linguisticanthropologists uchas Bloch (1975) andBrenneis &Myers(1984) brokegroundwithinfluentialcollections of studies on politicaldis-course genresin non-Western ocieties, and this line of work has been continued

457




with importantheoretical esultsby otherscholars(e.g. Duranti1988). A precur-sorto CDAwas workby Mey (1985), whichwaspresentedas a contribution o the

theoryof pragmatics. Wilson's (1990) influentialstudyof political discourse ispragmaticnapproach ndobjective,as arethoseof, forexample,Diamond 1996),Harris 1995), andKuzar 1997). Studiessuch as those by Flowerdew(1998) arebased on rhetorical nalysis.Similarly,professionalsettings nwhichpower asym-metries occur have been explored by a varietyof discourse-analyticalraditionswithinpragmatics,notablyconversation nalysis(e.g.Firth1995,Grossen&Orvig1998).

An issue thathas gainedprominence n research s that of inequalityand the

positioningof individualsandgroups n contemporaryocial andpoliticalhierar-chies. Hymes' (1996) reedition of criticalessays on educationand narrative e-

openeddebates on theallocationof speakingrightsandlinguistic-communicativeresources,offered an interestingreappraisal f Bernstein(as well as of Bourdieuand Habermas),and arguedforcefully for more attention o communicative n-

equalitiesin linguistic anthropologyand sociolinguistics.The locus of such in-

equalities was found in differencesbetween available narrativeresources(e.g.colloquial, dialect, anecdotal)and (often institutionally)requirednarrativere-sources(e.g. standard, iterate, ogical) (cf also Ochs & Capps 1996). Similarly,two recent volumes editedby CharlesBriggs (1996, 1997b),following an earlierone editedby Grimshaw 1990), placedconflict and its discursiveresourceshighon the

agenda.In

particular,Briggsshowed how the constructionof texts and

discourses acrosscontexts-processes of entextualization-can result in power-ful social effects, thus focusing on inequalities n the control over contexts (seeBarthes1956)as well asoverspecificgenresandwaysof speaking.Powerdependsnot only on access to resourcesbut also on access to contexts in which resourcescan be used. The similaritiesbetween this researchprogramand the intertextual

analysis proposed n Fairclough 1992a) arestriking.Detailed attention o narratives lso provideda fertileground or investigating

historyand the historicalpowerrelationshipshatputpeoplein theircurrent ocio-

geographicalspace. From differentperspectives,bothCollins (1998) and Fabian

(1990) demonstrated ow narratives f group(or local geographical)historycanyieldtracesof pastrelationships etweenpolitical,cognitive,and deological hege-monies andpatternsof resistance. Similarconcernsof languageand socialhistoryhave yielded an innovativebody of workin sociolinguistics,in which languagesandlanguagevarietiesaredescribed n termsof politicized (or politicizable)in-dexicalities. We thus arriveat views of languagein society thathinge on powerhierarchies,powersemiotics, andpowereffects, often relatedto identity politicsand nfluencedbythe workof identifiablepoliticalactors n society(Woolard1989;Heller1994, 1999;Jaffe1999). Theinfluenceof Bourdieuand Gramsci s clearinthiswork,as is the tendencyto framethe storyof language n society in material-

ist terms and thetendencyto blendlarge-scalepoliticaland societal observationswithdetailedanalysesof linguistic-communicativeractices[thusarriving t whatHeller(1999) calls a "sociolinguisticethnography"].Of particular mportancen



CRITICALISCOURSENALYSIS

thisrespect s Rampton's 1995) work. Ramptonaddresses heways in whichlocal

subcultural dentitiesarebeing formed andmanipulatedby meansof a varietyof

communicativestyles amongmulti-ethnicadolescentgroupsin Britain.Drawingon a wide range of social-theoreticalsources (including, prominently,Giddens,

Gilroy,andGoffman),Ramptondemonstrates he flexible allocationpracticesofcommunicative esources n identitywork.Simplecorrelatesbetweenidentityand

speech style/varietydo not hold, and what becomes clear is that linearrelation-

shipssuch as thatbetween "nativespeaker," competence," nda particular roup

identityare less thansatisfactory ools for grasping he intricateworkof expertiseand affiliationdetectable n the field.

All the approachesdiscussed so fargive prideof place to issues of linguistic-communicativeresourcesplacedagainsta doublebackground f large-scalesoci-

etalprocesseson the onehand,andmicro-level nteraction vents onthe other.Theconnectionbetweenlanguageand social structure s not madea priori;rather,t is

soughtin the practical nterplaybetweenconcrete actions andgroup-or society-level forcesandpatterns. nworksuchasthatby RamptonandBriggs,theblendingof ethnography ndsociolinguisticshas led to veryproductiveandnuanced reat-

ments of context asproducedboth on-line andsituationally, et tied tolargercondi-tions of productionand circulationof semioticresources n empiricallyverifiable

ways. This sort of work thus offers importantcorrectionsboth to conversation-

analyticalrestrictionsof context to the one-time,oriented-towardmembers'con-text

(Briggs 1997a)andto the"narrative"nd

backgrounded ontext-by-definitionof CDA. Needless to say, this type of work also offers advantagesover workthat focuses on differenceswithoutconsidering he ways in which differencesare

sociallyrankedand madeconsequential asin much workon intercultural ommu-

nication),as well as over workthatassumesrelativelystablerelationshipsbetween

linguisticvarietiesandsociopolitical unctions asinwork nthe"linguistic ights"paradigm).

Social Theory A thirdfeatureof the criticalparadigm, alreadymentionedin

passing, is the common desire to find social-theoreticalsupportfor analytical

treatmentsof language. Languageis studiedfor what it tells one aboutsociety,andlinguistic method should be open to theoretical nsights into the structureofsocieties. There s abodyof literature n which calls forimproved ncorporation fsocial theory ntolinguisticanalysisarebeingvoiced, oftenadvocatingmaterialist

approacheso questionsof linguisticresourcesand the social use of language,and

engagingin discussions of Marxistscholars,rangingfrom Gramsciand BourdieutoRossi-Landi Woolard1985,Rickford1986,Laurendeau 990,Irvine1989,Gal

1989). The reassessmentof Bernstein'sworkby Hymes (1996) has alreadybeenmentioned. An incorporationof historicaltheory into the analysis of languagein society was attempted n Blommaert(1999). Goodwin (1994) compellingly

demonstrates owprofessionalexpertise,seenintermsof situated emioticpracticeinvolving discourse,bodily practice,andinstitutionalization, an be viewed as aFoucaultian"power-knowledge."

459




The sources for new insightsareinfinite,and so farlittleuse has been madeofa greatnumberof potentiallyusefuldevelopments n otherdisciplines. Historical

theoryhas so farhardlybeen used as a resource for criticalstudies of language,despitetheobviouslyrelevant ontributions f scholarssuchas, forexample,Marc

Bloch, FernandBraudel,CarloGinzburg,PeterBurke,ImmanuelWallerstein,andEdwardThompson.Equallyless noticed, in the oppositedirection,is the poten-tial effect of newreinterpretations,thnographicallystablished,of BenjaminLeeWhorf(providedamongothersby Hymes andSilverstein)on social theory. Theidea of metacommunicative evels in social communicativebehavior as well asthatof the functionalrelativityof languages,styles, andgenreshave apotential or

becomingimportant ritical oolsbothforlinguisticsand for othersocial-scientific

disciplinesin which languageand communicativebehavior eature-history, an-

thropology,psychology,and sociology immediatelycome to mind. The effect ofthese insightson the ways in which texts, narratives,documentary vidence, andso forth are treated as sources of "meaning" or "information")an contribute

significantly o a greaterawarenessof small buthighlyrelevantpowerfeatures nsuchmaterials.

ASSESSINGCDA

The above selectivesurvey

is aimed atdemonstrating

hatCDA,

as anoriginaland stimulatingresearchdiscipline, shouldbe situatedwithin a widerpanorama

of commonconcerns,questions,andapproachesdevelopingamonga much wider

scholarlycommunity.At the sametime,CDAmaybenefitfrom the criticalpoten-tial of these relateddevelopments n orderto remedysome of its theoreticaland

methodologicalweaknesses,notablythose relatedto the treatmentsof contextin

CDA. The latter s arguably hebiggest methodological ssue facedby CDA.

At the micro-level, concrete instances of talk or concrete features of text

could be analyzed more satisfactorily f a more dynamic concept of context-contextualization-were used. The developmentsin linguistic anthropology, n

which processes of contextualization de- and recontextualization, ntextualiza-tion(Bauman& Briggs 1990, Silverstein&Urban1996)]could be a fertile sourceof inspiration or developinga dynamic conceptof context. In general,moreat-

tention to ethnographyas a resourcefor contextualizingdata andas a theoryfor

theinterpretationf datacouldremedysome of the currentproblemswith context

andinterpretationn CDA (forgeneraldiscussions andarguments, ee Duranti&

Goodwin 1992, Auer& diLuzio 1992).At the macro-level,CDA seems to pay little attentionto mattersof distribu-

tion and resultingavailability/accessibilitypatternsof linguistic-communicativeresources.Only the texts become objectsof a political economy; the conditions

of productionof texts andmore specificallythe way in which the resourcesthatgo into text are being managedin societies are rarelydiscussed (e.g. with re-

spectto literacy,control overcodes, etc). At thispoint,recentsociolinguisticand

linguistic-anthropologicalwork, such as that of Hymes, Briggs, Woolard,Gal,




Rampton,and Heller could considerablycontribute owarda more refinedim-

age of languages, genres,andstyles, as embedded n flexiblebuthighly sensitive

repertoires hat have a historyof sociopoliticaldistribution.Linguisticresourcesare contextsin the sense thatthey arepartof the conditions of productionof anyutteranceor text and thus determinewhat can and cannot be saidby some peoplein some situations.

Thewayinwhich CDAtreats hehistoricityof text(largelyreducible oassump-tions about ntertextual hains)could benefitfromgenuinelyhistorical heoretical

insights. On the one hand, stock could be taken of the "naturalhistories of dis-course"perspectivedevelopedby Silverstein& Urban(1996); on the otherhand,the acknowledgmentof an intrinsic and layered historicityof each social eventcould contribute o more accurate assessments of what certain texts do in soci-

eties. The contextualization f discoursedatawouldbenefitfrom a moreattentivestance towardthe historicalpositioningof the events in which the discourse dataare set (as well as of the historicalpositioningof the momentof analysis: "Whynow?"is a relevantquestionin analysis).

CDA is still burdenedby a very "linguistic"outlook,which preventsproduc-tive ways of incorporating inguistic and nonlinguisticdimensions of semiosis

(apparent,or instance,in the verypartial nterpretation f Foucault's"discours"in Fairclough'swork). Here as well, a moreethnographicallynformedstance,inwhichlinguisticpractice s embedded n moregeneralpatternsof humanmeaning-ful

action,could be

highly productive.Goodwin's workcould serve as an

examplehere.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to thankAlessandroDuranti,Ben Rampton,and Stef Slembrouckforvaluablecomments on a first version of thispaper.

Visit the Annual Reviews homepage at www.AnnualReviews.org

LITERATURE ITED

Alexander A,SchallertMD,HareVC. 1991.

Comingoterms:how researchersn learn-

ing and iteracyalkaboutknowledge.Rev.Educ.Res. 61(3):315-43

AlthusserL. 1971. Lenin and PhilosophyandOtherEssays.London:New LeftBooks

AuerP,diLuzioA, eds.1992.TheContextual-ization

ofLanguage.Amsterdam:

BenjaminsBarthesR. 1956. Mythologies.Paris:Le SeuilBartonD, HamiltonM. 1998. Local Litera-

cies: Readingand Writing n One Commu-

nity.London:Routledge

BartonD, HamiltonM, IvanicR, eds. 2000.SituatedLiteracies: Readingand Writing nContext. ondon:Routledge

BartonD, IvanicR, eds. 1991.Writingn the

Community.London:SageBauman ,BriggsC.1990.Poetics ndperfor-

manceas criticalperspectivesn languageandsocial life. Annu.Rev.

Anthropol.19:59-

88

BaynhamM. 1995.LiteracyPractices: Investi-

gating Literacy n Social Contexts.London:

Longman

461



462 BLOMMAERT* BULCAEN

BaynhamM, SlembrouckS, eds. 1999. SpeechRepresentationand InstitutionalDiscourse.

SpecialIssue Text

19(4):459-592Billig M. 1999a.Whose terms?Whose ordinar-iness? Rhetoricand deologyinconversation

analysis.Discourse Soc. 10(4):543-58

Billig M. 1999b. Conversation nalysisand theclaims of naivety.Discourse Soc. 10(4):572-76

Birch D. 1998. Criticism, linguistic. In Con-cise Encyclopediaof Pragmatics,ed. JMey,pp. 190-94. Oxford,UK:Pergamon/Elsevier

Bloch M, ed. 1975. Political Language and

Oratory in TraditionalSocieties. London:Academic

Blommaert J. 1996. Language planning asa discourse on language and society: onthe linguistic ideology of a scholarlytradi-

tion. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 20(3):199-222

Blommaert J. 1997a. Whose background?Comments on a discourse-analyticrecon-

structionof the WarsawUprising. Pragmat-

ics 7(1):69-81Blommaert J. 1997b. Workshopping: noteson professionalvision in discourseanalysis.Antwerp Pap. Linguist., Vol. 91. Antwerp,Belgium: Univ.Antwerp

BlommaertJ, ed. 1999. Language IdeologicalDebates. Berlin: De Gruyter

BlommaertJ, Bulcaen C, eds. 1997. Political

Linguistics.Amsterdam:BenjaminsBourdieu P. 1991. Language and Symbolic

Power Cambridge,UK:Polity

BrenneisDL, MyersFR,eds. 1984.DangerousWords:LanguageandPolitics in thePacific.New York: NY Univ.Press

BriggsC,ed. 1996.DisorderlyDiscourse: Nar-

rative, Conflictand Inequality.New York:Oxford Univ. Press

Briggs C. 1997a. Notes on a 'confession': theconstruction of gender, sexuality and vi-olence in an infanticide case. See Briggs1997b,pp. 519-46

BriggsC, ed. 1997b.

Conflictand Violence in

PragmaticResearch.SpecialissuePragmat-ics 7(4):451-633

Caldas-CoulthardCR. 1993. From discourse

analysis to critical discourse analysis: thedifferential

representationof women andmenspeaking n writtennews.InTechniquesof Description: Spoken and Written Dis-

course, ed. JM Sinclair, M Hoey, G Fox,

pp. 196-208. London:RoutledgeCaldas-Coulthard R. 1996. 'Womenwho pay

for sex. And enjoy it': transgressionversus

morality n women'smagazines.See Caldas-Coulthard& Coulthard1996,pp. 250-70

Caldas-Coulthard R,CoulthardM, eds. 1996.Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical

DiscourseAnalysis.London:RoutledgeCameronD. 1995. VerbalHygiene. London:

RoutledgeCameronD, FrazerE, HarveyP, RamptonB,

RichardsonK. 1992.ResearchingLanguage:Issuesof Powerand Method.London: Rout-

ledgeChilton P, Mey J, Ilyin M, eds. 1998. Politi-

cal Discourse in TransitionnEurope1989-

1991. Amsterdam:Benjamins

ChouliarakiL. 1998. Regulationin 'progres-sivist' pedagogic discourse: individualized

teacher-pupilalk.Discourse Soc. 9(1):5-32ChouliarakiL, FaircloughN. 1999. Discourse

in Late Modernity: Rethinking CriticalDiscourse Analysis. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniv. Press

ClarkR, FaircloughN, IvanicR, Martin-Jones

M. 1989. Criticalanguageawareness.Part1:

A criticalreviewof threecurrent pproaches.Lang.Educ.4(4):249-60

ClarkR, FaircloughN, IvanicR, Martin-JonesM. 1990. Criticallanguageawareness.Part2: Towards riticalalternatives.Lang.Educ.

5(1):41-54Clark U, Zyngier S. 1998. Women beware

women: detective fiction and critical dis-

courseanalysis.Lang.Lit.7(2):141-58Collins J. 1998. Understanding Tolowa

Histories: WesternHegemoniesand Native

AmericanResponses.New York:Routledge

CopeB, KalantzisM, eds. 2000. Multilitera-

cies: Literacy Learningand the Design ofSocial Futures.London:Routledge




Diamond J. 1996. Status and Power in Ver-

bal Interaction: A Study of Discourse in

a Close-Knit Social Network. Amsterdam:Benjamins

DurantiA. 1988. Intentions, anguageand so-

cial action in a Samoancontext.J. Pragmat.12:13-33

Duranti A. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology.

Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press

DurantiA, Goodwin C, eds. 1992 RethinkingContext.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv.

Press

Eelen G. 1999. Ideology in politeness: a crit-

ical analysis. PhD thesis. Univ. Antwerp,Antwerp,Belgium. 353 pp.

Errington JJ. 1998. Indonesian('s) develop-ment: on the state of a language of state.

See Schieffelinet al 1998, pp. 271-84

FabianJ. 1986.Languageand Colonial Power.

Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv.Press

Fabian J. 1990. Historyfrom Below. Amster-dam: Benjamins

Fairclough N. 1989. Language and Power.

London:LongmanFairclough N. 1992a. Discourse and Social

Change.Cambridge,UK:PolityFaircloughN. 1992b. Linguisticand intertex-

tual analysiswithin discourseanalysis.Dis-

course Soc. 3:193-217

Fairclough N, ed. 1992c. Critical LanguageAwareness.London:Longman

FaircloughN. 1995a. Media Discourse. Lon-

don: Arnold

FaircloughN. 1995b.CriticalDiscourse Anal-

ysis. London:LongmanFaircloughN. 1996.A replyto HenryWiddow-

son's 'Discourse analysis: a critical view.'

Lang.Lit. 5(1):49-56

FaircloughN, MauranenA. 1997. The conver-sationalization f politicaldiscourse:a com-

parative view. See Blommaert & Bulcaen

1997, pp. 89-119

FigueroaE. 1994. SociolinguisticMetatheory.Oxford,UK: Pergamon

Firth A. 1995. The Discourseof Negotiation:Studiesof Language in the Workplace.New

York:Pergamon

Flowerdew J. 1998. TheFinal Yearsof British

Hong Kong:TheDiscourseof ColonialWith-

drawal.Hong Kong:

Macmillan

FoucaultM. 1971. L'Ordredu Discours. Paris:

Gallimard

FoucaultM. 1977.DisciplineandPunish.Lon-

don: Lane

Fowler R. 1996. On Critical Linguistics.See Caldas-Coulthard& Coulthard 1996,

pp. 3-14Fowler R, Hodge R, Kress G, Trew T. 1979.

Languageand Control.London:Routledge,

KeganPaul

Gal S. 1989. Languageandpolitical economy.Annu.Rev.Anthropol.18:345-67

GalS, WoolardK,ed. 1995. ConstructingLan-

guages and Publics. Special IssuePragmat-ics 5(2):129-282

Giddens A. 1984. The Constitutionof Soci-

ety. Outlineof the Theoryof Structuration.

Cambridge,UK:PolityGoodwin C. 1994. Professional vision. Am.

Anthropol.96(3):606-33

GramsciA. 1971. Selectionsfrom the PrisonNotebooks.London:Lawrence,WishartGrimshawAD, ed. 1990. ConflictTalk: So-

ciolinguistic Investigationsof Argumentsn

Conversation.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv.Press

GrossenM, Orvig AS, eds. 1998. Clinical In-

terviewsas Verbal nteractions:A Multidis-

ciplinaryOutlook.SpecialIssue Pragmatics8(2):149-297

GunnarssonBL, Linell P, Nordberg B, eds.

1997. The Construction f ProfessionalDis-course.London:Longman

HabermasJ. 1984. TheTheoryof Communica-tiveAction. Vol. 1. Reasonand theRational-

izationof Society.London:HeinemannHabermasJ. 1987. TheTheoryof Communica-

tive Action. Vol. 2. Lifeworldand System:A

Critique of Functionalist Reason. London:Heinemann

Hall C, Sarangi S, Slembrouck S. 1997.Moral construction in social work dis-course. See Gunnarson t al 1997, pp. 265-91

463



464 BLOMMAERT? BULCAEN

Hanks W. 1989. Text andtextuality.Annu.Rev.

Anthropol.18:95-127HarrisS. 1995.

Pragmaticsand

power.J.

Prag-mat.23:117-35

HawisherGE, Selfe CL,eds. 2000. GlobalLit-eracies and the World-WideWeb.London:

RoutledgeHeath SB. 1983. Wayswith Words:Language,

Life and Work n Communitiesand Class-rooms. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv.Press

Heller M. 1994. Crosswords: Language, Ed-ucation and Ethnicity in French Ontario.

Berlin: De GruyterHeller M. 1999. Linguistic Minorities and

Modernity: A SociolinguisticEthnography.London:Longman

HodgeR,KressG. 1979.LanguageasIdeology.London:Routledge, KeganPaul

HodgeR,KressG. 1993.LanguageasIdeology.London:Routledge.2nded.

Hymes DH. 1996. Ethnography,Linguistics,Narrative Inequality: Toward an Under-

standing of Voice.London:Taylor,FrancisIrvine J. 1989. When talk isn't cheap: lan-

guage and political economy. Am. Ethnol.

16(2):248-67Irvine J. 1995. The familyromanceof colonial

linguistics: genderandfamilyin nineteenth-

century representations of African lan-

guages.See Gal & Wolard1995,pp. 139-53.Ivanic R. 1998. Writingand Identity:The Dis-

coursal Construction f Identity n Academic

Writing.Amsterdam:Benjamins

Jaffe A. 1999. Ideologies in Action: LanguagePoliticson Corsica. Berlin: De Gruyter

JaworskiA, CouplandN, eds. 1999. The Dis-courseReader.London:Routledge

JosephJE, TaylorTJ,eds. 1990. Ideologies ofLanguage.London:Routledge

KienpointnerM, ed. 1999.Ideologiesof Polite-ness. SpecialIssuePragmatics9(1):1-176

Kress G. 1994. Text andgrammaras explana-tion. In Text,Discourse and Context: Rep-resentations

of Povertyin Britain, ed. UH

Meinhof,KRichardson,pp. 24-46. London:

Longman

Kress G. 1997. BeforeWriting.Rethinking hePaths to Literacy.London:Routledge

KressG,

van Leeuwen T.1996. Reading Im-ages: The Grammarof VisualDesign. Lon-

don: RoutledgeKuzar R. 1997. Split word, split subject, split

society.Pragmatics7(1):21-54LaclauE, MouffeC. 1985. Hegemonyand So-

cialist Strategy.London: VersoLaurendeau P. 1990. Theory of emergence:

towards a historical-materialistic pproachto the history of linguistics. See Joseph &

Taylor1990,pp. 206-20

LinellP,SarangiS, eds. 1998. DiscourseAcrossProfessionalBoundaries.Special Issue Text

18(2):143-318MartinJR. 2000. Close reading:functional in-

guistics as a tool for critical discourse anal-

ysis. In Researching Language in Schoolsand Communities: Functional LinguisticPerspectives,ed. L Unsworth,pp. 275-302.London:Cassell

MartinRojo L. 1995. Division and rejection:

from the personificationof the Gulf conflictto thedemonizationof SaddamHussein.Dis-courseSoc. 6:49-80

MartinRojo L, van Dijk T. 1997. "Therewasa problem,andit was solved!":legitimatingthe expulsionof 'illegal' migrants n Span-ish parliamentary iscourse. Discourse Soc.

8(4):523-66Mertz E. 1992. Linguisticideology andpraxis

in U.S. law school classrooms.Pragmatics2/3:325-34

Mey J. 1985. Whose Language? A Studyin Linguistic Pragmatics. Amsterdam:

BenjaminsMilroy J, Milroy L. 1985. Authority n Lan-

guage: InvestigatingLanguagePrescriptionand Standardisation.London: Routledge,

KeganPaul

Milroy J, Milroy L. 1999. Authority n Lan-

guage: Investigating Standard English.London:Routledge.3rd ed.

New LondonGroup.

1996.Apedagogy

of mul-

tiliteracies: designing social futures.Harv.Educ. Rev.66:60-92




Ochs E, Capps L. 1996. Narratingthe self.

Annu. Rev.Anthropol.25:19-43

Pennycook A. 1994. Incommensurabledis-courses?Appl.Linguist.15(2):115-38

Rampton B. 1995. Crossing: Languageand EthnicityAmongAdolescents.London:

LongmanRickfordJ. 1986.Theneed for new approaches

to social class analysis in sociolinguistics.

Lang. Commun.6(3):215-21

Sarangi S, Slembrouck S. 1996. Language,

Bureaucracy and Social Control. London:

Longman

SchiiffnerC, WendenA, eds. 1995. Languageand Peace. Aldershot,UK:Dartmouth

Schegloff EA. 1997. Whose text? Whose con-

text? Discourse Soc. 8(2):165-87

Schegloff EA. 1998. Reply to Wetherell.Dis-

course Soc. 9(3):413-16

Schegloff EA. 1999a. 'Schegloff's texts' as

'Billig's data': a critical reply. DiscourseSoc. 10(4):558-72

SchegloffEA. 1999b.Naivete vs sophistication

or disciplinevs self-indulgence.A rejoinderto Billig. Discourse Soc. 10(4):577-82Schieffelin BB, Doucet RC. 1998. The 'real'

Haitian Creole: ideology, metalinguistics,andorthographichoice. See Schieffelin et al

1998, pp. 285-316

Schieffelin BB, Woolard KA, KroskrityPV,eds. 1998. Language Ideologies: Practice

and Theory.New York:Oxford Univ. Press

Silverstein M. 1979. Language structureand

linguistic ideology. In The Elements: A

Parasession on LinguisticUnitsand Levels,ed. PR Clyne, WF Hanks, CL Hofbauer,

pp. 193-247. Chicago: Chicago Linguist.Soc.

Silverstein M. 1996. Monoglot 'standard' n

America: standardization nd metaphorsof

linguistichegemony.In The Matrixof Lan-

guage: Contemporary inguisticAnthropol-ogy, ed. D. Brenneis,RS Macaulay,pp.284-306. Boulder,CO: Westview

SilversteinM.1998.Contemporaryransforma-tions of local linguisticcommunities.Annu.

Rev.Anthropol.27:401-26

SilversteinM,UrbanG,eds. 1996.NaturalHis-

toriesof Discourse.Chicago:Univ.Chicago

PressSlembrouckS. 1993. Globalising flows: pro-motional discoursesof government n West-

ern European 'orders of discourse.' Soc.

Semiot.3(2):265-92SlembrouckS. 1995. Channel.See Verschueren

et al 1995, pp. 1-20.

SpitulnikD. 1998. Mediating unity and diver-

sity: theproduction f language deologiesin

Zambianbroadcasting.See Schieffelinet al

1998, pp. 163-88

Street B. 1995. Social Literacies: CriticalApproaches to Literacy in Development,

Ethnography nd Education.London:Long-man

Stubbs M. 1997. Whorf's children: critical

comments on CDA. In EvolvingModels of

Language,ed. A Ryan,A Wray,pp. 100-16.MiltonKeynes,UK:MultilingualMatters

TalbotM. 1992. The constructionof genderin

a teenage magazine. See Fairclough1992a,

pp. 174-99ThompsonJB. 1990.IdeologyandModernCul-

ture.Cambridge,UK:PolityThomborrow J. 1998. Playing hard to get:

metaphorandrepresentationn thediscourse

of car advertisements.Lang. Lit. 7(3):254-72

ToolanM. 1997.What s criticaldiscourseanal-

ysis andwhy arepeople sayingsuch terrible

thingsabout t? Lang.Lit.6(2):83-103vanDijkT.1987.Communicating acism: Eth-

nic Prejudice n Thoughtand Talk.NewburyPark,CA: Sage

van Dijk T. 1991. Racism and the Press.London:Routledge

vanDijkT.1993a. Criticalanddescriptivegoalsin discourseanalysis.J. Pragmat.9:739-63

vanDijkT. 1993b. Elite Discourseand Racism.

NewburyPark,CA: Sagevan Dijk T. 1993c. Principles of critical dis-

courseanalysis.Discourse Soc. 4:249-83

van Dijk T. 1995. Discourseanalysisas ideol-ogy analysis.See Schaffner& Wenden1995,

pp. 17-33

465



466 BLOMMAERT? BULCAEN

van Dijk T. 1997. What is political discourse

analysis? See Blommaert& Bulcaen 1997,

pp. 11-52vanDijkT.1998.Ideology:AMultidisciplinaryApproach.London:Sage

vanLeeuwenT. 1993. Genre andfield in criti-cal discourseanalysis:a synopsis.DiscourseSoc. 4(2):193-223

van Leeuwen T. 1996. The representationof social actors. See Caldas-Coulthard&

Coulthard1996,pp. 32-70

van LeeuwenT, WodakR. 1999. Legitimizingimmigration control: discourse-historical

analysis.Discourse Stud.1(1):83-118VerschuerenJ, ed. 1999. Language and Ide-

ology. SelectedPap. 6th Int.Pragmat. Conf.

Antwerp,Belgium: Int.Pragmat.Assoc.VerschuerenJ, OstmanJO, BlommaertJ, eds.

1995. Handbookof Pragmatics1995. Ams-

terdam:BenjaminsWalshC. 1998. Genderandmediatizedpolitical

discourse:a case studyof presscoverageof

MargaretBeckett'scampaign ortheLabour

leadership in 1994. Lang. Lit. 7(3):199-214

WetherellM. 1998. Positioningandinterpreta-tive repertoires:CA and post-structuralismin dialogue.Discourse Soc. 9(3):387-412

WiddowsonH. 1995. Discourse analysis: a

critical view. Lang.Lit.4(3):157-72WiddowsonH. 1996.Replyto Fairclough.Dis-

course and interpretation: conjecturesand

refutations.Lang.Lit.5(1):57-69WiddowsonH. 1998. The theoryand practice

of criticaldiscourseanalysis.Appl.Linguist.19(1):136-51

Williams G. 1992. Sociolinguistics: A Socio-logical Critique.London:Routledge

Wilson J. 1990. Politically Speaking. The

Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language.London:Blackwell

WodakR, ed. 1989. Language,Power and Ide-

ology. Studies in Political Discourse. Ams-

terdam:BenjaminsWodakR. 1995. Criticallinguistics and criti-

cal discourseanalysis.See Verschueren t al

1995,pp. 204-10

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

WodakR. 1997. Criticaldiscourseanalysisandthe study of doctor-patientnteraction.See

Gunnarsson t al 1997,pp. 173-200Wodak R, Reisigl M. 1999. Discourse and

racism: Europeanperspectives.Annu. Rev.

Anthropol.28:175-99WoolardKA.1985.Languagevariation ndcul-

turalhegemony:towardanintegrationof so-

ciolinguisticsandsocial theory.Am. Ethnol.2(4):738-48

Woolard K. 1989. Double Talk:Bilingualismand the Politics of Ethnicity in Catalonia.Stanford:StanfordUniv. Press

WoolardKA. 1998. Language ideology as a

field of inquiry.See Schieffelin et al 1998,

pp. 3-47

WoolardKA, SchieffelinBB. 1994. Language

ideology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:55-

82

Documents

DISCURSO Critical Discourse Analysis