ANALYTIC FAAMEWORKS

18'4

Poner. J. (on pn:ssl l)iscuu"" analysi in t.UlarJy ind

A. Rrymat' (cds). //anJlw'' oJ vara ArW/.$'-' London.

...

Poner. J. and ;JwardJi. !). (2003) Rcthinkon~ cog~ouon:

on c, 111!<, di~ou,,.: 1nd mind'. //umun Studus. 1n
111

pn:ss.J. & llcpi>um. A. 2003). "J'm a bit conccmcd" Pottcr.

Early 1c1ior1> and psych<llogical cons1ructions in a child
pn>1ccuon hclplin<', Re.<anh on J.unguut und S1xitil
/ntradion. on pn:ss.
Pocr.
J. and Wclhcrcll. M. ( 1987) VL1course anJ S<x:ial
/':ry<'Ao/ugy: B<?vinJ Artitudt.<and Bhuviuur. London:

Sac. C. and Poner. J. (2004)

Puchra.

Fu1:us Gmup Pra<'ti<"e.

London: Sagc.
Rofc, M. (1996) Thc social organisalion ofsocial work'.
PhlJ 1hcsis. Loughborough Univc~ity.
Sacks. H. (1%3) Socioloical dcscription', Berkeley
Jwmal oj Sodolugy. M: 1- 16.
Sacks. 11 . (IQ92) lectul't'-' on Conwrsution.

vols 1and JI,

cd. G. Jcfcrson. Oxford: Basil Blackwcll.

Schc~1.,rr. E.A. (1991) convcrsation analysis and
socially shan:d cognition', in L. Rcsnick, J. Lcvinc and
S. Tcasley (cds). Persrwctives on Suciu//y Shured
Cognition. Washington. OC: American Psychological

Associauon. pp. 15()-71.

Scbcglof. E.A. (1997) Whosc tcxl'! Whosc contcxf!',
DurouTJ unJ Svciety, 8: 165-87.
Schcglof. E.A. (!999)"'Schcglotfs icxts" as "Billig's daia":
a criucal rcply'. DiJcwne aNi Soety, 10: 5511-72.
Silwman. D. (1997) Di>cvurus uf Counselling: HIV
CuuMelling a.< S<Kial Jnteructwn. London: Sagc.

Silvcnnan, D. ( 1998) llurvq. S11ck.i: Soiiu/ .

CunVt''-'"" A11uly.m . Oxlord: l'ol"t I' &1nc
.

1 y '1:si
"""
Smoth.
D. ( 1990) Txl.~. la,1.1 mu/ Fmininit .
he Rel<1tio1t1 oj Rulrng. London. Routledge
)'. Ep.,,,.ng
lC Moldcr, 11. and runcr, J. (cds) (in

Cugnilimr: Di.1cour.w , Mi11J un 1. P.rcss ra1~

.CJ<"IU/ 1
~
Cambridge: Cambridge Unrvcrsity Pres. 1ru,1iun.
ten Havc, P. ( ! 99K) Doi11g Conversa/ion
Londun: Sugc.
Anuly,;,
van Dijk, T.A. ( l 996a) Dis<'vurse a., S
.
Proce.is (vol. 1 uf Dis<'ourse Stu tru,turr UlltJ
in: A /,f
Jilciplinary /ntnKfu,1io11). London: Sagc.
"''
van Dijk, T.A. (1996b) Dilmurse us Socia/ lnt" ..
(vol. 2 of D1.1course Stutlies: A Multid. . ""'""
JntnHluctim1). London: Sagc.
1Jctp/inory
Wcthcrcll, M. (199K) 'Positioning and intcrprctativc
toircs: convcrsahon analysrs and po>1-structlll1ll.l'Cpcr.
dialob'llC', Discour.' anJ SuI)', 9: 387412 stn '"
Wcthcrcll, .M. and Poner.
J. ( 1992) Muppin the.l
.
.
u11guugr

12
Critical discourse analysis
RuthWodak

. chapter, 1 first attempt to provide an

1h1.5 of sorne importan! approaches to criti"c'"''.'.~:urse analysis, as well as a methodology
,al drs al sing data from a CDA pcrspective.
fllf ~ ylly 1 will focus on central concepts and

hort.summary of the htstori.

SP'e111ca
. and presentas
1efll1S loprnent of cnttcal d1scourse analysis.
. w111 be 1mposs.
e31.deve problems o f space, tt
1
ow~; fustrate ali the different approaches with
1ble
earnples I will have to refer readers to
~
'. ocrctcsearch
and' references where examples
re
.
d'S
other
e ciaborated
and d1scusse
. econdly, J will
JI
lify importan! d1mens10ns of our own
eiernp
.
, and methodo1ogy, the ' d.1scourse-h.1stoncal
~ry
.
oach' and d"1scuss sorne ofth e most 1mporJpptrissue; of applying CDA to specific research
ran
. 2
.1005 and text ana1ysts.
qu.>
.
11
. . ' (CL) and 'critiTh~ 1crms 'crittca mgu1st1cs
ca! discourse analysis' (CDA) are often used
mterchangeably. In fact, recently the tenn CDA
11:crns 10 have been preferred and is being used to
Jino1e 1he thcory formerly identified as CL.
Thus, 1will continue to use COA exclusively in
~ischaptcr (see Anthonissen, 2001, for an exten,i1c discussion ofthese tenns). The roots ofCDA
he mconcepts of rhetoric, text linguistics and
,ociolinguistics, as well as in applied linguistics
andprngmatics.
10

tf Ruc1.rn1: D1scrmrse anti lhe legitimutiun uf

Bnghton: . HarvcstcriWhcathcafNcw York: Columbia Unovcrs1ty Prcss.

Wcthcrcll, M.. Taylor, S. and Yates, S.J. (cds) (lOOI

E.tp/uitatiun .

Discuurse Theory arul Pract1ce: A ReaJer. london:

Sagc.
Widdicombc, S. and Wooffill, R. (1995) Th lunguugr uf
Yuuth Suhculturt!s: Social ltientily in Aclion. london:

HarvcstcrfWhcatshcaf.
Wiggins. S. (2002) 'Talking with your mouth ful!: gusta.
tory mmn and 1hc cmbodimcnl of plcasurc', Reseurch
un language and Social lnteruction, 35: 311-36.

'PERSONAL' HISTORY
ANDTHE DEVELOPMENT
OFTHE'CDA GROUP'
1myself was educated as a sociolinguist in the
1970s. The relationship between language and
!();ie1y, broadly speaking, became the focus of
~;s0 new paradigm, quite in opposition to the
mskyan approach or to other grammar

....
J

lheories (Leodolter 1975

debates were manife 1 \Al Ihat time, niany
Habennas and Noams C~uc as bctween Jrgen
quantilative and qu 1.laomsky, or bctwccn 1he
. scicnccs (see e
a 1 ttvc parad"1gms .on the
social
.
1courel 1974) 1 .
that time that the t d '
rcahzcd at
~
s u Y of lang

1rom any context, would n , uagc: 1solated

~ocia! proccsses. Moreover o~ g1ve ms1ghts into
tsolated utterances
' 1 e mterpretatton of
ambiguous. This turn ~o~hcusuallyl v.aguc and
a
fi
~
.
socia sc1enccs and
c~X ~m onna1 hnguistics ultimatcly led to
. owever, 1 have always retained im
tant characteristics of sociolinguistics sucl~~
fiel.dwork and ethnography; moreover the a licatt0n of multiple methodsi5 1
php
.
.
re evant w en
studymg d1scourses as well (sec Wodak 1996
1996b).
'
a,
. COA as a whole network of scholars emerged
m the early l990s, following a small symposium
m Amsterdam in January 1991. Through the supp~~ of the University of Amsterdam, Teun van
Otjk, Norman Fairclough, Gunther Kress, Theo
van Leeuwen and 1 spent two days together, and
had the wonderful opportunity to discuss
theories and methods of discoursc analysis,
specifically COA. The meeting made it possible
to confront with each other the very distinct and
different approaches that are relevan! nowadays.
In this process of group formation, differences
and sameness were laid out - differences
towards other theories and methodologies in discourse analysis (see Titscher et al., 2000), and
sameness in a programmatic way, which could
frame the differing theoretical approaches of the
various schools (see Wodak and Meyer, 2001).
Basically, COA as a school or paradigm is characterized through a programmauc set of .pnnc1ples (see below). Moreover, it is.charac.tenzed,by
the common interests m demysllfymg tdeol~gtes
and power through the systemahc mvesttgauon

196

nokcll or
. .
bc ihcy wnncn. '
l.lf sem1011c Jalll.
. 1 0 anenipl 10 111akc
ar.:hcr.; as
. .
visual. el),.. roe . . ,.1 il whik rc1a1nt11g
rsnccllvC' cXP '
.
1hc:1r
n iX ,.- icthodolog1cs.
~ir rc>pc.'Cll\c sc1cn111tc n irk ,,. ulso markcd
'""Thc start ot 1he CDA

.
. nct\\l
[)i"k's oumal
D1s,
nh
ot
vun
ihr.lllgh 1hc Iau..~ . 1990) us wdl as 1hrough
,11ur.o<' ""'' s,,, ,..,_, l
an1 meeting dctcr
t.. . 1 Thc Amsteru
sc1eral b<>O '. . . start un ancmpt bolh 10
n1ineJ an insu1uuona.1 . .~mmc (En1smus, for

"

constitutc ~n, cxch~n~cP:'~ultiplc joint projccls

1hrtC ycarsl llS "e
shotars of Jiffcrent
. bclWCC 11 ~
and collaborauons . 1 1ssu. of o;w-ourst' ""''
coun1rics and a sxcia
c. , the abovc
.
i\hich prcsentcu
Son~f.1' l 1993 . hes Sincc then new joumals
mcnuoncd approac :
ws havc bccn
d. muluplc ovcn1c
tiavc appcarc
, _ . COA is 811 cstablished
wnncn. and nowa...,ys
paiudigm in 1inguis1ics.

IDEOLOGY, poWER. 01scouRSE

AND CRITIQUE

Deconstruc1ing thc label of this rcscarch

progn1mmc - 1 iicw COA bas1cally as a rescarch
prob'T3111mC, the rcasons for which 1 w1ll expla1n
below - entails that we have to define ~~at ~DA
mcans whcn cmploying thc 1crms c~1!cal and
'discoursc . Most reccn1ly, Michael B1lhg (2003)
has clcarly pointcd to thc fa~t that . C~A has
becomc an established academ1c d1sc1phne w1th
the sume rituals and institu1ional pracuces as al 1
o1her academic disciplines. lronically, he asks
the qucstion whelhcr this mighl mean that COA
has bccome uncrilical' - or 1f 1hc use of
acronyms such as COA might serve 1~e same
purposcs as in other tradilional, no~-cnucal d1s
ciplines, namely, 10 exclude. outs1dcrs and to
myslify 1hc functions and mtcnuons of thc
rescarch. 1 cannol answcr Billig's qucstions
extensi1cly in this chapler. But 1do believe that he
poinls to po1entially very fruitful and necessary
debates for COA.
At this point, J would likc to slress thal COA
has never been and has never attcmp1ed to be or
to provide one single or specific theory. Neither
is one spccific methodology charac1eristic of
research in COA. Quite the contrary, studics in
COA are mullifarious, derived from quite differenl 1hcorelical backgrounds, oriented 1owards
differcnt dala and me1hodologies. Rescarchcrs in
COA also rcly on a varicly of grammatical
approaches. The defini1ions of 1he 1erms 'discourse', cri1ical', 'idcology', 'power' and so on
are also manifold. Thus, any criticism of COA
ahould always specify which research or
researcher thcy relate to. 1 mysclf would suggcsl

CltlTICAL DllC
OlJlts

ANALYTIC FRAMEWORKS

using 1hc 1101ion of u 'school' fo

progrnm01c, which muny rcsca
(DA, or of
and to which lhcy can rclaic. T~~slcrs lind 11 "1!~
sel of p1inciplcs has changcd 0 [lrograrnrnc 0ul
Fairclough and Wodak 1997). ver thc }'car~ (scc
, r
. su.ch a hctcrogcncous school mi h1
mg tor somc; 011 lhc othcr hand g_
1 be con1, .
open discussions and debalcs, fo h'. allows ,~
.
d
1
d 1 .
r e unge . r
anns an goa s. un or mnovatio 1
s in lhc
'total and closcd' thcorics. such n.. ~ comras1 10
Chomsky's gcneralivc transfonn1.s ~r exarnplc
. hac 1 Ha ll 1"d ay ' s syslcmic ~10nal .grarnrnar
or M1c
guistics, COA has ncvcr had thc im~~~llonul li11.
and <loes not want to
g of 'seer
. havc such an 1magc
Thc hctcrogcnetty of methodol .
1hcoretical approachcs that can be e&OUnd
ogical. and
1
field would tcnd to confinn van Dijk's . n lh1s
COA and CL 'are at most a sharcd pe . roint lha1
doing linguistic, semiotic or discou:..S~ctivc on
(van Dijk, 1993: 253). Bclow, sum~c analysis'
1
ofthesc principies, which are adhered % ~e sorne
researchcrs.
Y rnost
COA sccs 'languagc as social
.
(Fairclough and Wodak, 1997). and con~~~~llcc'
'contcxt of languagc use' to be crucial (Bes lhc
2000; Wodak, 2000):
nke,

sccs disco~rsc - l~ng~gc use in spccch and

wnung - as a torm of social prac1icc'. Dcscrib"
discoursc as social practicc implics a dialcciical '.1"g

h"
1ar d1scursivc

uons
_ P bc1wccn a _part1cu
cvcn1 and"lhc
s11uauon(s), msutuuon(s) and social slruclurc{s), whi h
framc i1: Tite discursivc. cvcnt
cll
. is shapcd by 1hcm bu1
also shapcs thcm. That 1s, d1scoursc is sociolly consliiu1ivc as wcll as socially condi1ioncd - il cons1i1U1cs silua1ions, objccts of knowlcdgc, and 1hc social idcnlilics o
and rcla1ionships bclwccn pcoplc and b'l"Oups ofpcoplc.
11 is cons1iru1ivc bolh in lhc scnsc lhat il hclps 10 susiain
and reproduce thc social siatus quo, and in thc scnsc
1hat il con1ribu1cs 10 lrJnsfonnin: il. Sincc discoursc is
so socially conscqucntial, it :ivcs risc 10 impo&Uni
issucs of powcr. Discursivc prncliccs muy havc maJor
idcoloicol cfTccts - 1ha1 is, 1hcy can hdp produce nnd
reproduce uncqual powcr rclalions bclwccn (for
instancc) social classcs, womcn and mcn, und
c1hnic/cullural majoritics and minori1ics through 1hc
ways in which lhcy represen! 1hing:> and posi1ion
pL'Oplc. (Fairclouh and Wodak. 1997: 25K)

COA

Of course, 1hc term 'discourse' is uscd vcry

differcntly by diffcrenl rcscarchcrs and also in
different academic cultures. In the German and
Central Europcan contcxt, a distinction is madc
between 'tcxt' and ' discourse', reta1ing 10 1hc
tradition in tcxl linguistics as well as to rhcloric
(see Vass 1992 Brnncr and Griifcn, 1994;
Wodak, t996a, f~r summaries). In thc Englishspcaking world, 'discourse' is often uscd both for
written and oral texts (sce Schiffrin, t 994). 01hcr

Afu.t.VSia

1tcrs disungu1sh bclwccn diffcre

re>'~~cincss: Lcmkc (1995 defines ~~le~els

11
f sb ncrcte real iiation of abstr4CI ti ' a.
d"
. ') lh
onn1 of
0..,. co
t~ icdgC: (' 1scoursc , us adhenng to a
~o~u1tian
approac~ (sec alsoapproach
Jiigcr, 200! mor-e
~ouco t e Jiscoursc-h1stoncal
. ).clabh
.
~e

11 link to t e soc10-cognitive theo

l ' and
oflltc
o jk (1985, 1993, 1998) and view?'d.o f
fcun ' as a1fonn of knowledge and memo IS

vaJI
coutf practiccs, whcreas 'tex1'

illustr4 1es ry of

soC18 oral uttcrances or wrilten docu con-

'!e.t1~1gl and Wodak, 20~1 ).

ments

t""" shared perspccuve and program

file
h t

me of
relalC to t e erm cn11ca1. ' which . h
[OA of sorne 'critica! hnguists' could be
influcnce of 1he Frankfurt School and
10
Habermas (Fay, 1987: 203 Thomp
(f.: Anthonissen, 2001 ).
71 is
used in a broader
' se. denoting, as
argucs, the praciical
,en , of social and pohucal cngagemcnt' . h
~1og
. ll . ti
d
w1 1
... sociolog1ca y m onne construction of
w' (J(Iings et al., 1973: 808). Hence , ._
ocie.,
. 11 k.
..
en
' e' is essenlla Y ma mg v1s1ble the interuqu eciedness ofthings' (Fairclough 1995 747 .
Connerton, 1976_: 11-39). The
' Jhe conlribution of cnhcal _theory to the underfCDA and the not1on sof cnt1cal'

a d
10
,1an
f
. 1 .
n
dlng O
idcology' are o part1cu ar 1mportance (see
~nthonissen, 2001, for an extens1ve discussion
f this issue). ~ .
O Critica! theones, ?d thus also COA, are
afforded spec1al standmg as
for human
,tion. They are _a1med producmg 'cnlightenand emanc1pauon . Such thcories seek not
3
to descn.be and expl_ain, but al so to root out
' nly
v
aparticular kmd of delus1on. E ven with differing
, ncepts ofideology, critica! thcory seeks to ereate0 awarcness in agenlS of the ir own nceds and
inter.:sts. Thi_s
of course,,
taken up by
Bourdicu s conccpts of v1olcnce symboliquc' and 'mconnaissancc'
.
f COA . (Bourdieu, 1989).
Onc of the aims o . . 1s to 'dcmystify ' discourses by dectphcnng 1dcologics.
In agreement with its critica! theory prcd.!cssors, COA cmphas1zcs the need far interJ1sciplinary work in ordcr 10 gain a proper
understandmg of how Janguagc functions in con111ruting an~ ~nsmittin~ knowlcdge, in organizing
10Cml mstllullons or m exercisi ng power (see
Groharn, 2002; Lemke, 2002; Martin 2003
1an D1Jk, 2003).
'
'
An i_mportanl perspective in COA related to
the ~otJOn of 'power' is that it is very rare that a
:11__1s the work of any one person. In texts dis rs1vc d1 f~erences are negotiated; they are govmed by dtfferences in po
h h .
encoded in a d
. wer, w ic ts m part
n delennmed by discourse and by

~::e~

'~e

Jiit:"

~:nc~pt conventKr1o~ally

N~wadays ~~

m~s

10

~:~1so

refe.renc~

.'

ni~nt

Pi~rre

~as,

gui~es

a~so

:':~~~. Thc:thryretl>re
teta
......
.~... ~ are

117

,._
isc:.
ditrenn ~~

domi~~.'.'.,'~ie.
COfltendi of
Th::""""
ng lllld

and

"""""

lli.ce.

ltl\I -~
- dc:ti
111- ,
with ' ining fcat
....,.
ilnd
llCC t&tonce
wh1ch inco Mi lo devctap a ilion in '<ICllJ
only lhe 'POrat
th11 u.
of
1
lrol, bui
of struggte:
Pl"cmia;e.
iza11on of come n1e1tcJ1t11atuy
wcr nd con.
spaccs and J>Cling
rccon1ex1ua1
(1 d
genrc
- ' van

e ema, 1997 s, are clo~cl

ous J!Ubhc
Powcr is aboui 1999; Muntigl yclancnded lo
l1cularly aboui
of differcn/1., 2000.
1 and parsocial struci
e cffccts of d"ffie,
guage and
Thc
ercnccs in
is
en:un:ci;
:an.
ways la
1a pow .
anpower
nguage indces po cr m numbcr
'
mvolvcd wb
wcr cxpr
ovcr and a chall
ere thcre is'
csscs
derive from 1 cnge lo powcr p contcn11on
to challenne anguagc, but lang~a~cwcr docs no1
b .
,, power 10
b 10 can be
1
utions ofpo
. ' subvcrt it
used
1
Languagc
the shon and
d1strifor d1fferenccs in pa lincly artic11lated
structurcs.
owcr m hierarch"1ca1 ic_e
CD
.
social
int A m1"ht
" be de timcd
eresled in analysing
as fundamentally
parent structural 1 opaque as well as 1
discriminat1on,
of
m language. In olher wond control as manifesled
Ugate critically
COA aims 10 inves1
constiluted 1
as i1 s
Y language use (or m' dcgmmized,
disco
1scourse l Mand so on
. urse analysts would th
ost cntical
that 'language is
endorse Habennas's
and social force. 11 s medium
10 of domire
of organized
erves leg1tim1ze
legtllmizaiions lan
of power
power.
_Insofar
as the
articulated
_relauons
... are
no1

guage
1s

(Habermas, 1967. 259).

a so ideological'

''

,::'~~~a cent~~~::DA
1i::'
~ lan~
~~~ :

~Jpoor
d1scou~sand

r~~a11ons
01~res. con~tant

~~age entw~~e~~~~ocmatt1ers

t~:t

i~

pn:~~;~

N~

the1~~
~e ~";'

po~:;~onships domm:~:

~xpressed,

cla~m
nat~n
~llons

socia~ds.'

meq~ahty

als~

SOHE PRINCIPLES OF
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

The
app roac h is
mterdisciplinary

.
Probl
m our socteues
are loo comple to be sludied
ems
from ~ smgl~ perspec1ive. This entails diffcrent ~tmcnsions of intcrdisciplinarity: lhe
theones draw on ne1ghbouring disciplines
and l_fY 10 mtegratc thcse theories. Teamwork
cons1sts. of differenl rescarchers from ditTerent trddttt0nally defined disciplines working
together. Lastly, the methodologies are also
adapted to the data under investigation.

'

..

ANALYTIC FRAMEWORKS

roblem-orienied, rather
ific lin,'llistic items.
2 Thc a~h; :
lhall fo1.-used
pc:cthc items of rescarch.
Soo;ial probk:IJ15 arcdenlity so.:ial change',
su.;h as rac1sm. 1
d' Id be studied
rse are an ~ou
"hich. ol cou ' rs ciives. The . CD".'
from rnan1fol~- pe ~d iext analys1s - is
d rnens1on - discourse
i
. ble approachcs.
one of rnany possi
as the mcthodologics
, Thc tticones as we11 .
d ....-hods are

1
e theoncs an .. ~
are ec1ecu~. adequate for an underin1cgratcd thdat pa;canation of thc object under
s,Wlding an ex
4

~:~~ti~~~ays incorporates fiel_d work and

cthno,'f8~hy to explore 1he ~bJeCt . under
investi ation ( study from thc ins1de) as a prefor any further analys1s an~ theoTh. pproach rnakes 11 poss1blc to
. .
nzmg.
is a
.

h
.
.d fining the data 10 1llustratc a t eory
~~~cr. wc deal "ith 1>onom-up and topdown approaches at th<:.same ume.
Thc approach is abducuvc:: a constan! movcmcnt back and forth betwecn ~cory and
cmp1rical data is necessal)'. Th1s is a prercquis.itc for principie 4.
.
Muluplc genres and rnultiple pubhc spaccs
are studicd. and intertcxtual and mterd1scursi\ c relation; hips are investigated. Reconie~
tualization ;, the most importan! process m
connecting thcse genres as well as topics and
argumeni. (wpoi). In our pos_tmodem soc1cties. we are dealing with hybnd and mnovativc gcnn:s. as wcll as "'ith new notions of
' time'. identity and ' space' . Ali these
notions have undergonc significan! change;
for e~ample. fragrnented' identities have
replaced the notion of holistic identities'.
Tbe historical context is always analysed and
integrated into the interpretation of discour...:. and texL. The notion of 'change'
(see principie 6) has become inherent in the
srud} of text and discoursc.
111< categories and tools for the analysis are
dc:fiocd in accordance with ali thesc steps and
procedures and also with thc specific problern
unJ.:r inv.:stigation. This entails sorne eclectici,m as well as pragmatism. Differcnt
.ipproache,. in COA use different grarnmatical
lheories, al1hough many apply systemic functional linguistics in sorne way or 01her.
Grdlld theories rnighl serve as a foundation;
in 1he specific analysis, Middle-Range
Theore. .erve the airns beuer. The problcmoncnt.e d approach entails the use and testing
of M1ddle-Range Thcories. Grand Theories
result in large gaps between structure/coniext
and linguistic realiza1ions (although sorne
gaps must remain unbridgeable ).

cood1ti~n

10

CIUTICAt. Dtsc

Practice and application are .

results should be made aval
1 ~~cd at lhc
in different fields and, as a . e to exPc
a~plied with thc goal of c~Ond step, ;::
d1scurs1ve and social practices. &ng Ccrta1\

HAIN RESEARCH AGENDA

In this section, 1 provide a short ove .

rv1ew of
most 1mportant research agenda and
!he
as wcll as empirical approaches in co'~eoretica1
above-menuoned scholars and school Ali !he
!he principies laid out in the previous s relaic to
with differcnt priorities duc 10 th~tion, bu1
interests.
lT spccific

Longuage o( the Ncw Capitalism

Fairclough ( 1989) sets out the social lh .
undcrpinning C OA, and as in other early eones
.

k

f
cntical
lmgu1suc wor , a vancty o textual exampl
analysed to illustl'.'te thc field, its aim:s:
methods of analy_s1s. Laler, Fairclough 0 992
1995)_ and Chouharak1 and Fairclough ( 1999
cxpla~n and c laborate sorne advances in COA)
showmg not only how th.c analy1ical framework
for researchmg language m relation to power a d
idcology devcloped, but also how COA is use~I
in disclosing the discursive nalure of much contemporary social and cultural change. In particular
the language of the mass media is scrutinized ~
a site of power, of slruggle, and also as a sire
where languagc is often apparcntly transparent.
Media institutions often purport to be neuiral, in
thal they provide space for public discourse,
reflect slates of affairs disinteres!edly, and givc
the percepiions and arguments of thc newsmakers. Fairclough shows !he fallacy of such
assumptions, and illustniles !he m edialing and
constructing role of the media with a varicty of
examples.
Fairclough has also been concemcd with !he
' lang uage of New Labour' (2000). His mosl
recent work has been cenlred around the therne
of language in New Capitalism - focusing on
language/discourse aspects of !he contemporary
restructuring and 're-scaling' (shift in relations
belween globa l, regional, national and local) of
capitalis m. The book with Lilie Chouliaraki
( 1999) specifically marked somelhing of a shift
in his version of COA towards a greater centring
ofsocial practices, sceing discoursc as a momcnt
of social practiccs dialeclically in1crconnec1ed
with other momcnts. Fairclo ug h has also worked
wilh sociological 1heorists Bob J essop and

w Sayer in theorizing language ('

c ritical realist philosophy s;:mos~s')

11
,,1.tll"e fairclough's grammatical tools (SOcl al)
nC

ti
re ate to
;.C 1'iday's sys1em1c
unctional lin . .
.
"" di 1- as we 11 as to conversalion agu1stics
119~'y' docs Fairclough undenakc fie~:1ysis.
l:I"
.
pi
fi
work
mself. H1s exa~ heshmos 1 requcntly illustrate
'.:'...orctical
e. ahs less_ mtcrcst in rcpre"'" UIt"e

samP mg or m t e rehabili ry or vald

1 11
;~11 . f data
y
bQ<l1CS 0

,, phil GrahamN e 1abCorates . the rcsearch on the

f ew apita 11sm (G h
blems o .
.
.
.
ra am, 2002
~ro J J. The h1stoncal mvesugation of hortato '
_00,.. compares the emergence and struonlry
~O5
h 'd .
. h
Ob es
g~een Churc '
iv.me ng t' monarchs and
tic: ular forces over leg1Umate uses of !he sennon
in Western . Europe between the tenth and
ourteenth centunes wllh contemporary struggles
enres that are used to mollvate people on
'~r g
Th
. fi
f h
a
1035S scale.
e mam ocus o t e study is to
iore and explam the relat1onships betwee
media, new genres, institutions an
. d socianl
1 The perspecuve is prichaJlgC al a macro 1eve_.
. 1 1cal polillcal eco

1
rnarily h1s or

nom1c, re ational
afld dynamic. ~enres. are_ pr~duced, textured and
w1thm mstllution_al contexts over
u
f
1
long periods o ume. n turn, 1~stitutions invest
ars _ in sorne cases m1llenma - developing
~~aintaining _and ad~~ting. generic fonns 1~
ing social cond1t1ons m order to main1ain
Chang
to gain power. Graham believes that at certain
01
times in history, . cer:iain genres become very
. fi
t
.
effecuve or m_o 11va mg or mampu 1ating large
;ections of soc1ety. Because gen res are developed within institutions, and thus within the
realms of vested mlerests, they display inherent
axiological biases.
The second_ project (Graham, 2003) synthesizes ""rspectives from Marx's political econromy, new media theory and critica! discourse
analysis to investigate relationships between new
media, language a nd social perceptions of value.
The corpu_s for the resea rch is 'new economy'
pohc1es wnh the ostens1ve purpose of promoting
1he w1despread use of new infonnation and communica1ion technologies (ICTs). The nature of
knowkdge and its status as a commodity fonn
immcd1ately become problematic. In the tradiof dialectical argumentation Graham
accep1s the claims that knowledge ca~ become a
dommant commodity fonn; that a global economy
can be built on such fonns; and that our new media
mus(, m
ti
emergen~~7teh . unda~ental fway: _underpin tbe
is new 1onn o pohllcal economy
The researc.h problem is therefore fonnulated.
as
a h
ship ~s1onca1 investigation into the relationP.:rce .tween language, new m edia and social
P11ons of value.

1\pdrt

:rr!l

~'~'p''

~nsformed

''"

cla1l~s,

0URSEAf11At.:

. .

,.,

:Ys1s

Th
e SOdo-cornitive PPTOoch

Tcun van 01.. ,

and disco Jk s car1ier work
.
the intcresutrseh analysis (1977 ~e ll l hnguistics
bas.
e ta.kcs

1 man ~
e units and
. m tcxts and d.
ests
e.a l linguistic th:'1.al practices.
hnguisie 1ntcres1

onsts

'. he traees thc o cr' cn11.

scntenccs and . m um1s oflanguage 1 ng1ns of
m text- a d
argcr than
.
meanmgs. Van 0 .. k n context-dcpcnd
ercd thc
'J and Kin!sch
ency of
of d.
(19!0) consid1anguagc relevancc
processin, scoursc to the study of
cogn111ve model ofgd. . Their dcvelopmcnt of
md d
ISCOU
a
iv1 uals gradually d rse understanding in
models for explainin 1 eveloped into cognitivc
mg a1 a societal leve(~y~~ co_nslruchon of meanto media discourse . . DiJk tums specifically
refleciion on com ' l?vmg not only his own
(van DiJ.k 1986) mbumcahon m the mass med1
.
'
' ut also b . .
a
1heones
and applicatio
nngi~g logether thc

81
Lik~~~~rscs.u

mteres!ed
ns .f uses
vanety
of
m d . din the producuon
andof~scholars
e ' iscourscs (van ok
unctions
cally analysing

'J 1985). In cri1i

vanous kinds 0 f d.
encode prejudice
D
scourses tha1
developing a
ijk's interest is in
cognitive discourse1ca model. that will explain
(Wodak
processmg m h .
Aft :.nd van Dijk, 2000).
ec amsms
15
er
earlier work on disc
Teun van Dijk generalized h. o_urse and. racism,
ideologies towards a
is mleres1 m racisl
more general m lfd . .
nary project on ideology (van oik'
sciphbook, mtended as the fi
f J
). In th1s
ideology he develo
1rst o severa( others on
in tenns' of an ac/s a new theory _of ideology,
societal and discursountd?f the_ soc10-cognitive,
1
He defines ideologi~vseas mthens1~ns of ideology.
th
.
e ax1oma11c basis of
e social representations of a social
trolling more specific, socially sharelgrroup, contudes and d
oup am1
'" uect
y, hthe. opinions of the group
h
rnernbers ' and
. .

ence t e1r actions. He especially

msists that funher work on ideologies needs 10
10
explore b>reater dept_h the detailed structures of
the mental representahon of ideologies and their
relallons to group altitudes and knowledge
These _slructures probably reflect the basi~
prop~rlles of the societal position of a group in
relahon to olher groups, and may consist of a
social group self-scherna with a limited nurnber
of characteristic categories, such as !he typical
act1ons,_a1ms, norms and resources of a group.
The ultnnate atrn of this long-lerm project is to
provtde_a detailed theory of the ways in which
1deolog1es are expressed and reproduced by disM
1
course. ost recen! y, Teun van Dijk has taken
upa more detailed study ofthe role ofknowledge
in discourse. A third topic in his rescarch is a
new approach to thc study of context. Onc of the
main arguments of 1his research is 1hat thcre is

theo;e/~

1 ~9 ~

CllJTICAt_ O

190

t .id coneatualialion. bur

mo.a:h ~ m conlCA
v Di-lt propases
lil) 111 dlcorY of coateXL 811 ~ models in
defino: contell.l 111 totm_of conlC'Xf ...~

hanil)

'

..,__.,J>c

_ thllr is, m rerms o .......-"-

mel110I).

of !he oogoing commu-

J)nanuc ~rion. 11 is !bese conrcxr

--"VC eVClll ..,
1d-

,_.

Di;~s vicw

conuol al

iall

IS

mookb rbal. 111 van - ,,..11

lftd ~ and cspcc y a
~ of dJ:5counC rhal adapl ir 10 the_curren
silulrion - ai it IS undcrs>od by thc partJCipanl5 :web as !il)'k and rhctoric (van DiJk. 2001 ).
Mubr~

Rccognition of the conlribution of ali the aspccts

oflhe convnunicative conrcxr to rexr meanmg,_as
wcll as a gnming awan:ness in media studies
~nerally of rhe importance of non-ve_rbal
aspects of rcxts. has turncd artenuon to sem1_~nc
devices in discour.iC other than the hngu1suc
enes. In pmticular. the rheory pul forward by
l(n:si; and van Leeuwen (1996) should be menrioned herc, as 1his provides a useful framework
for considering the communicative potcnual of
visual dc\1ces in the media (sec Anthomssen,
2001 ; Scollon. 2001). Van Leeuwen studied film
and relevision production as wcll as Hallidayan
linguistic.s. His principal publ!cations are concemed with tapies such as the mronauon of d1sc
jockeys ami newsreaders, the language .of television interviews and newspaper reponmg and,
more recently. the M!miotics of visual communicatioo and music. Van Leeuwen developed a
ID051 mluential methodological tool : the actor's
analysis ( 1993 ). This taxonomy allows for the
analysis of (both wriuen and oral) data, related to
agency in a very differentiated and validated
way. The taxonomy has since then been widely
.,iplied in data analysis.
Recently. Van Leeuwen has focused on sorne
arcas of ~isual communication, especially the
scmiotics of handwriting and iypography and the
question of colour. He is increasingly moving
away from using a systemic-functional approach
as the single model and feels that it is imponant
for social .emiotics to realize that semiotic disCOtITTe~ and methods are linked to semiotic practices. and that grammars are one type of semiotic
discou~e that is linked to a specific kind of control over specific kinds of semiotic practices. To
givc an example of a very different type of discourse, histories of art and design focus on the
fCDliotic innovations of specific individuals in
tbeir historical contexts, rather than on a synnous approach to semiotic systems. Howc_r. they, too,_are linked to the specific ways in
h1ch production and consumption is regulated

in thal arca. 11 is imponam far SOc

providc . modcls of semiotic ~iotics lo
appropnate to the practiccs thcy
tbat ~
different semiotic praetices are Dlodcl, lllld as
organized. il is not possible 10 vcry diff~y
model to ali. Ali of this is ctosci iipply a 1ing1c
1
role and status of semiotic prac ~ ~ to tbc
and this is currently undcrgoing
SOclet)r,
result of thc fact that it is incrcasinglchangc as 1
porations and semiotic technologie/ gl<>ba COrnational institutions, that rcgulate '
!han
duction and consumplion.
1Cntio11c Jln).
This cmphasis on rcgulatory Pracf
to a rcsearch approach in three sta JCCs has led
with the analysis of a panicular ca-ggcs, stan111g
"' ory OfculturaJ artefacts or communicativc e
"'~ts.
moving to a second set of texts ( and/vcnt, thcn
r
. . cvents
or CUlt-
arte.acts
andfor commun1cat1vc
_,.,
those that seck to rc~'lllatc the produ~llalncly
consumption of the first set, and final! on illld
to a third sel of texts, namely actual initanmoving
producing or consuming texts (etc) belo ces Of
.
.

nging to
the firsl set. For mstance, m a study ofbab
van Leeuwen and bis team analysed the t y toys,

oys and
their sem1ot1c potenlla1, as objects-for-use nd
cultural icons, then studied discourses seek1. as
.
to
mfluence how they are used, e.g. relevant
secuons of parentmg books and ma"azines t
.
o
~
advert1semcnts,
texts on toy packaging, etc., and
finally transcnbed analysed videos of moth
and babies using these same toys toget~~
(Caldas-Coulthard and van Leeuwen, 2001.
Th1s type of work leads to a panicular relation
between discourse analysis, ethnography, history
and theory in which these disciplines are no
longer contributing to the whole through sorne
kind of indefinable synergy or triangulation, but
are complementary in quite specific ways.
Jay Lemke and Ron and Suzie Scollon also
have to be mentioned in this context. In the last
few years Lemke's work has emphasized multimedia semiotics, multiple time scales and hypertexts/traversals. He extended his earlier work on
embedded ideologies in social communication
from analysis ofverbal text to integration ofverbal text with visual images and other presentational media, with a particular focus on
evaluative meanings. This work emphasizes the
implicit value systems and their connections to
institutional and personal identity.
The work on multiple time scales is an extension of earlier work on ecological-social systems
as complex dynamic systems with semiotic
cultures. lt is very imponant in considering _ali
aspects of social dynamics to consider lookmg
across multiple time scales, i.e., how processes
and practices that takc place al relatively faster
ratcs are organized within the framework ofmore

nuhcr

1
Sco\J
cflallging features of SOcial . _
"SE~~
;1,,wl)'1.1Uures. This is a promisin nstitu1i_on~
~ ' h o the so-called micro/mac g Practica
-.A.oac 1 11 d th
ro Probl
Jl'l~(heoreuca y an me odologically (L ern,
lJI ?()() ). H1s newest work has co Crnkc,
, ;()()O
themes to develop the id mb1ned
ti-'th b we tell our lives as narratives ea tha1
,thO"gthern as hypenexts. Building o~ we expc.
n'.,._--e --rnantic resources of hvn..n research
thC ...
d th
, "" ext as
"" _ he propase
at postmodem 1.fi
a
_.,i,l)lfl.
.be
d ti
1 e-styl
11'"':- -re.asingly h rate rom panicular i . es
JfC ill"...,les and that we tend to move nstuu.
- .di w
ti
.
on rnu1
11"'- 1me scales, rom mvolvement .

uple n~on 10 another, creating new k _mdsone

~
m
~
1ii> ng less bound 10 fixed genres and r .
Jl)(Jlll ~e surf' across channels, websi t egis'!S. a.s
Th ' .
es and
ti: ... ex.,,.riences.
1s 1s seen as a new h.
.
'''"'.L.velopmen
r
t, n 01 supp1ammg
.
.
IStonmstitut
al .,..

ons
.... ilding up new socio-cu1tural possibi . '
hUI""
1 hes
and o\er them.
''t n all this work, Lemke
uses critica!
.
Nationa1 Soc 1

f
..
social

a rst 1
o cnt1cal dis
cnt1ca1 philol . SUage becarn
sern tics as an. extens1on
d h
course
Klemperer (K!og1ca1 observaf10 e thc obicct of
J1131ysis, combine wll models of the material
ernpe
ns bv v
emergent social phenomena His co
e_ver, . was the ti rer, 1975 ). Utz M,
ktor
tJaSC Of
.

ncem
_ ith social and cultural change: how 1-1 h
hngu1stic Pract" rst to subject th aas, how.
'"'
.
.
.
appi:OS. how 1t 1s constramed,_ and the ways in
depth analysis/~: ~~ationaJ Social~me:eryday
.hich is 11 expectedly unpred1ctable.
approach of . . NS texts to e)(e o_an in1989a, 989b :-esweisenana/yse' <
Mmphfy his
The problem that Ron and Suzie Scollon
analysis' b His h1stotical . aas, 1984,
,jdreSS in recent work 1s to build a fonnal th
Foucault 'de:~d on thc theori:~g~entation
reiical and_a practica! _link b~~een discourse :~
mined b
. nstrates how d.
. M1chel
action. It 1s an acllv1st po~ltlon that uses tools
y SOC1ety . .
ISCOurse 1 d
social
.

1.e.
in what
be
s eterand strateg1es of engaged d1sc?urse analysis and
may
terrned
. practice'. In hprac11ces during th Nis _analysis of lang a
ihus requires a formal ~nalys1s of how its own
betw
e ational s
uage
aciions can be accomphshed t_hrough discourse
_een 1932 and 1938 h
oc1alist regime
.e showed how the di
curs1ve practices of
and 1ts analys1s. The problems
m
developin
th.
g IS
.
.
farnework are that act1on 1s always mulf
1m~acted by the NS ~:~ty m Gerrnany w~
b
th h
ip e,
social-revolutionist underturse charactenzed by
both m t e sense a_t t ere ~re always simultaneous parallel and mteractmg actions at an
had s~perseded almost al~n~s. Nazi discourse
~rms of language
(practtces), a fact th
moment we choose to analyse, as well as in th~
1
individua( who did a made 11 difficult for an
sense
that these multiple actions operate
-fli . .
across
hon of an unwor1dJ~t ;oant cherish the tradidi enng time sea1es so that it is not at ali 1
tha1 we can see 'h.1gher leve! actions as . c ear
guage in a critical-reflec1~nt1c1sm l? use lan.
f 'I
s1mp1e
bas1cally understood
h e way. D1scourse is
compos1tes o ower leve(' actions Th 1.nk

e 1 ages
the conditions ofthe poasl__t el result of collusion:
are more _complex. Jay Lemke's work is of
.
.
itica SOc1a! and 1 . .
Prae t ice
1mpose them 1 '
.
mguis11c
course, an important resource in Iooking into'1h
problem.
is
the back of the subese ves p_racllcally behind
not see throu h
~ cts, wh1le the actors do
Ron Scollon's recent work furth
h .
di!l'eloped ._, d.
ers t e idea
'violence symtil~~~e~)ai;;e (cf. also Bourdieu's
. m ,.,e iated Discourse: The N,
. ,r
Pract1ce (2001) th
.
.
exu.s oJ
tifies the rules that
iscourse analysis idenusefully unders;
practtce m general is most
fascist text. In the same e a text, for example, a

way as grarnmar characthat are linked .o as many separate practices

t~nzes the structure of sentences, discourse rules
liOns between dm a nexus of practice. The rela1scourse and
e -;:1ctenze utterancesltexts that are acceptable
il?many and com 1
a nex~s of practice
w1t . m a certam practice. The focus is not on
ren1interest is in tp ~x and rarely d1rect. His curNattonal Socialist language per se, but the aim is
th.:se linkages thtymg to open up and explcate
to re_c ord and analyse the spectrum of linguistic
nexus analysis. T~~u!h w?at could . be called
rel~hons based on a number oftexts dealing with
~t in two pro
ork is now bemg carried
vanou_s spheres of life. These texts represent a
Suz
~ects. 1n th fi
.
ie Scollon h
. e Irst, wh1ch Ron and
comphcated network of similarities, which overlap
ave Wntten b

a out m Discourses
and mtersect. Therefore it is also important to do

J;ese

'.

O:'

mak

CRITICAL D1scouRse ANALYs1s

RAMEWORKS
A

AN LY"flC F

, from
i 92
of icxts rcsul11ng
re inscn bcd
pol> phollY . d1cuons a d poh11cal
,,. ro rhc . 1al conrra , social an . 1 roviJ1ve:;1
bul
nio iexl ' " in; rcc1p<:>. by NS po 1 are ulll(O:'"
icxts
who
,
1
conicxt~ agncul1u~1\1s idcology, d1scourse) a~<
s1ons o nucs ot t h. dom1nant of poss1b e
also by ' ,0 i-ed in 1 " preseniauvc
niaicly
re
posed by
l"""d'"'in a sarnplc
e
. pro
ana ,-- NS d1scours
' analys1s
ncen1nc
1cxb of od of rcad1n; d as a co
sys,Thc me1h
describe
us m five d
. may be . 10 the corp lf-declare
M:;'eneuuc
of
1he siaghe uc stcps. ta) ' (b) descnpuo
analys1s of
tema of thc 1ex1.
he con1enl, (e) ' (d) proof'. of thc s1agmg_. and (e)
ing (/ . - and meanin; - rhc analys1s,
admg
rhe sensc ndus1on ot
forrns of re be
v1s10nal co of compcung text JI should
developmcnt IR) In th1s con
of tcxls may
com;,etmg
stresscd
d1sclosmg thc
Apphcatwns
resultdecfrom
d laten! content.98 232) can be
iared an
1 19
d .
selfTiL-;cher et a . f Jorg Ha er s
this
s analys1s J:nuschek. i 992)
found '" Ja
NS d1scourse ( . e Nazi occuallus1ons 10 ~h:nalys1s of texts ollt ~89 1995).
and
n Sauer s
ds (Sauer,
'
d
' f the Nctherlan
f CDA (Jager
pauon ou1sburg School
on Foucauh s
- The J99l Jger. 1999) d g to Jager (1999:
Jager.

. Accor m
.. and
not1on of d1sco~.matenahty >Ui generis ural
J 16) discoursc is
. materialisuc cult
and AlexeJ N.
thcorY. on the on
, (LeontJCV, 1
.
.
h acuv1ty theory
mbohsm ' (Lmk,
speec
collecllve sy
l. d and
Jrgen
Lmk s
h d As mstitutiona ize
19
88). on the olher ai;e~h modes, disc_ourses
conventionahzed sp relalions, which m tu_m
express soc1etal P"er
This 'overall d1sd by discourses.
d
are mfluence ty
h
Id be vrsualize as
wh1c cou

coorse' O SOCJe '

/' (l"terally 'diSCUrslVC
a 'islcunm!> Gt'w1mme
'hensible in differ
swanmng'). Ixcomes c~~~~sed of d1scourse
cnt d1scourse strands ( . biect) at different dis'"'~ts
su '
u"6"~" from !he samepollllcs,
med ta, and so
co~ levels (science,
. 11 embedded,
on). Every d1scourse is hc1s~::i~a:d future disand has re~rcu.smns on u
ourse In addmun lo the above levels, the strucj
of d1scourse may be dissected mto: spec1a
d1scourse 'crsu> mterdiscourse, d1scurs1ve
cvmis and d1scurs11e conte>tt, dtscourse postl!~n,
ovcnll soc1etal d1scourse and interwoven d1scoorsea, themes, bundles of d1scourse _strands,
llld hiatory. present and future of d1scou~se
llrlndl. DA makes a contnbul!on to (media)
a,.:t research, as i1 analyses the 1mpac1 of d1s~ on 1nd111dual and collec11ve conscmus' 9tss. lnd1v1dual d1scourse fragmen1s that are as

;~1;.:11h~ ::~'~rom

niun'~:~~a:S.

appr::~~ement th~ ~f

con.ren~,.,emerung)

(M~. ':~:

r:a~:~~~encc betwe~~

methodn~schek

a~ .

~ws

disc~rse theo~ h~nl.

Le~;)~:~~

fro111 the
uc as possible' are selec1ed
1
haractcns
1 for concrete ana ys1s. Selection
d matena
f h d
archive
a structunil analys1s o t e 1 entifiect
based
on
d . These fragments rk
are analysed
is
stran
d
iscourse1 ps ( ms
. . 11iuuonal framewo , le>tt 'sur.
in five s e . -rhetoncal means, prograrn111a11c.
f:a
cc', hnguisuc
for
1 messages and m1erprcta11on,
.
ideologica , 11h of concrete quesuons regarding
which a wca
175-!!7.
. formu 1a icd (Jiiger, 1999:
d
ak Thc
ihe texl ~s of the hegcmomc 1scours: rn .es
uniformily
lysis requ1res only a relatively11
Possible lhat ana0 f discourse fragmen1s'. Jger
mber
small
nu
concrele model analyscs dealing
(
1999) offers
day rac1 sm, the analys1s
. of lhe 'diswith cvery ofbiopower' in a da1ly ncwspaper,
coursc strand cr's analys1s of intcrwoven d1sand Margret
J g10 thc 'criticism of patnarchy in
relatmg
courses
n discoursc'.
immigrauo
e

Lexicometry

0 f poi itical science and pohtiThe combinatio~ dominantly undcr a strong

cal philosophy ~re 11 thc one hand and French
Marxist influencc 1h hand is typrcal of French
.
the o er
f'
lingursucs on
.
Basicall y, two d1 1eren1
.
analys1s.
.
The 1rs1 1s.
discourse
b drstinguished.
approaches may e a computer-a1ded stat1st1pohucal lexic~me~~lJ~al lexrcon, dcveloped a1
cal approach
t P S upe rieure at Samt-Cloud. A
1 Normale
the Eco e ( g texts o f the French Commumst
d
text corpus e. d Texts are then compare on
Party) is prepare :
ti equency ( cf. Bonnafous
the basis of rela~~~ r One study shows, for
and Tourme
)._ frequency of the words
h r,the1 re 1at1ve
.
1
example, ow
rcant Y
. .. vanes stb'Tlt .ffi
, nd ~a/arie
'travailleur
a
.
s
reflecting
dt
erent
F
h trade umon ,
between rene .
d how the freq uen ey
pohtical ideolo?1es, (~:oupe de Saint-Cloud,
changes over time Toumier 1995).
1982 Bonnafous and
1 theo~ and Foucault's
Al;husser's
of reference for the
a1or pom s
1
theory were
.
h discourse ana ys1s,
d mcy, m
Frene
o
second ten en
. h 1Pecheux ( 1982 ). isnotably the work of M te el uage and ideology
course is the place wherel a~g is the analysis of
meet, and di~cours_e asn~f ~~~guage use, and of
ideological d1mens1on
fr'deology. Both
. . - languagc o
the matenahzauon m
.
of words vary
d
5
the words use and the mcanmg
, le pos1tion from
accordmg to thc class stru~g to the 'discurwhich they are used - acco~ ~:~ed within. For
si ve formation ' they arel 'ot lf1s particularly
d
.
. e 1 se olitical vo1ce,
instance, the wor 'strugg
associated with a workm~-c 1ass_ p formation is
and Jts meaning_ in that ~1scur~~=n used from
was polit1cal
drfferent from Jts meanmg~ ti
otherpositions. Pecheux' s mam ocus

id~olog1cat

pecially 1he relauonship

11
es tic and communist
e'- france,
d mocra
d1s5
-ours cial e 0 f"tical disco urse. Pecheux
,ll>" cenv1t11 left
P 1' e ffects of discursive
"'''''
10 g1ca
. 1 b for-urse ' e ,deo
copie as socia su ~ects.
1
'.,ses
that peoplc are
10 th
in 1ttiusser. h
position of sources of
''
g A " agmary
h . d.
' ,ho1n . thC im reas actually 1 e1r iscourse
1 -cd in urse, whe
!ves are effects of the1r
111
theY 1h_e m7: ,_ The sources . and
1
J ndee 1 posllJOn n gpositioning are htdden
0
J ogica f rtieir ow typically not aware of
e es o
h y are
. 1 d.
r' roC
ess
neop le T efrom w1ihm a part1cu
.
. ar ,. 1scur1
n1 1"~.iwrrting
ver
the
d1scurs1vc
tfl ng.
Morco

1onnad
pe3k
tion.
ple are pos1Uonc are
1n which peothe complex whole in
',,, e foJ1Tlh
v1t
d by

h' h
1
es shape . ursive format1ons , w 1c
11,on> ' 1ve'
of disc . ourse' _ but people are
0
Radical change in the
shap
.vare of that051
uoned m discourse can come
no' ople are .P revolution.
.
.ay pe palit1cal .
lleagues changed the1r
0
nlY
fromx .and dhishco
P'cheu
ot er 1ssues in the late
p lh970s
11e. on thrs an
ain ueneau, 1987; ec eux,
11cd ear
s ly 980s
(M ogf Foucault increased,
. fluence
h as
:JJ1
The m .
tudies began to
of
discursive formations m
d1d th mplex m1xmg
eity and ambivalence of
ihexlS.coan d the
Courtme, 1981 ). Sorne other
.
11" 15 see, e.g., 1. estigate detailed rhetoncal
x ch researchers 7v in the presidential camfor
1995. The
of
paigns of 19 ra matics is also promment,
~nglo-Saxon
P Fgren ch linguist . Benveniste
,
f the
. . '
rhal o
h e work on 'enonc1atwn
(1 996/1974),
':'
.
osphenomena.
In
this
framed on de1c11c
. d
ts
focuse
d ( 1995) produced deta1 1e accoun
Achar
ti
ctioning
of
a
very
wide
range
1
lh po
htrca un
e types
(see Fairclough and Wodak , 1997,
of iexl
for more details).

~ ns
~

193
his1ory, decidcd in favour of .
approach', Wh1ch macte 11
thc rnany d1ffercn1 gcnres lhat were :it:us on
tthe1d1fferen1 poh11ca1 fields of act1on < atcd in
ua 1zat1on ) (see Wodak et al
.rccontcxW
200ia) The d '
h
1990 odak,
.
iscoursc. stoncal
approach
bcen furthcr
elaborated
in a nurnbe
f has
o racist
rnore
recent stud tes, for exarnple, in a studyr on
aga1nst rnrnrgrants frorn Rorna.
n1a
m a study on the d iscoursc about nation
and national . identity in Austria and in the
European .l!n1on (Muntigl et al., 2000 Woct k
and van D1Jk, 2000).
'

~in
pasiuonm~ ~uggests

!>O~s1~lc l~1a~gulatory

r ~~r disc~

~mse
~ m1nan~alls
p~cheuX

'interdi~~g.

1988)~1 Bak~tm. ~f

em~ as1~e

heteroge~

~i~ms. ~~a~~de

in~uence

~nd

~ork,

THE 'DISCOURSE-HISTORICAL
APPROACH'

The study for which the discourse-historical

approach was actually developed, first attempted
10 lrace in detail the constitution of an antillmitic slcreotyped image, or 'Feindbild', as it
rmerged in public discourse in the 1986 Austrian
of Kurt Waldheim
1presidential campaign
i 'odak et al., 1990, Gruber 199 J Mitten

199J

,
'
able to study the discourse
the 'Waldheim
Affair' ' ' comext' was
iravelled

!la
into vanous d imensions. The research
six researchers from three
ields (hnguistics, psychology and

~ut

, -J. In arder to be

diffe;e~~n~sling o~

d~scnrn1nauon
an~

relation~hips

. The latter study was concerned With the analys1s of the

between the discursivc
construc11on o f na1tonaf sarneness and the discursive con_struc1ton of difference leading to pofiticaf
and _social exclus1on of specific out-groups. The
that discourscs about nations and
n?ttona_I 1dent1ttes rely on at Ieast four lypes of
n:iacro-strategies. These are construc.
_(airning at the construction of
preservative or justificatory
at
and repmstrateg1es
of nattonal 1dent1ties or narratives of
1denttty), transfonnative strategies (aiming at the
change of national identities) and destructive
strategies (aiming at the disrnantling of nationaJ
identities). Depending on the context - that is to
say, on the social field or dornain in which the
events' related to the topic under
mvesttgatton take place - one or other of the
with these strategies is brought
mto prommence. The research on ' Discourse
Politics, ldentity' is now located in a research
centre
of Vienna (see lml!.;t
www.univ1e.ac. tld1 co u e- olit ics-i nti .
Our triangulatory approach is based o n a concept of 'context' that takes into account four
levels (see Figure 13.1); the fi.rst one is descriptive,
while the other three levels are pan of our
theories on context:

fin~tngs ~ugg~s~
~1scurs1ve
ltv~ stra~g1e~

natton~I 1de~t1~1es),
(a1rn1~g ~e c~nservation

~uct1on

:discursiv~

~pects co~necte~

a~ ~e Univ~rsity

the immediate, language or text interna!

co-text;

the intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between utterances, texts, genres and
discourses;

the extralinguistic social/sociological variables

and institutional frames o f a specific 'context
of situation' (Middle-Range Theories);
the broader socio-political and historical contexts, which the discursive practices are
embedded in and related to (Grand Theories).

These levels of context are applied in the

analysis of the data and relate to each other. Only
by taking the

larger

context

and

the co-text of

CRITICAL

ANALYTIC FAAMEWORKS

...hle 2. I

Disco

..
UttSE ANALy
..... 1 -------=--_:_:":....':"f>osf!ive
Sel(-- ond neroti
SIS
.
Discursive suotegies for

~ 0 rher.,._

Ob;ectives

--------....:........:.:._-

Grand Theory

19S

.-,..resentat;o,,

ConstniCtion of inout-groups
Croupi nd
l'1tmbersn1p c.i

Bio1011ca1, ""' 'Of<>rintJon

Mlcldle RanP Theory

l.abelling social
positi.,.,_, or ctors more or ls
...,
negatiy ly
es
deprecatorily
e '
Justifiation of ~; PPreclatively

utributions

tive or negtive

Expressing invalve
s
k
ment;Po.- . .
pea er s point of
ltlonong
Modifyi
Vlew
ng the epistem.
proposltion
oc Status of

Dlscourse Theory

~ Un1u1sUcAnalyses ~

~~tion ~

Penpecttvation ..___

Stnt~of

Self Represencation

Strategies

unerances into account. is it possible to grasp the

inter1extuality and interdiscursivity of whole discourscs on ethnic groups or on specific persons.
Moreover. certain wpoi are recontextual ized
from one public domain to the next, but realized
through different 1inguistic devices (ledema,
1999: Wodak. 2000). A comprehensivc analysis
should thus relate different approaches and
theories from neighbouring disciplines as well.
To ul'Kkrsiand rdcist. xenophobic or anti-Semitic
discourses. it is importan! to tum to historical,
socio-p>ychological. sociological, psychoanalytic and political claims because the phenomenon is ' complcx (see Wodak and Reisigl,
1999). In th~ example below, 1 cannot summarize ali thc>e different. but relevant. theoretical
and lll<!lhoological theories. 1 will highlighr
only 1ho..: 1har hdp to understand and explain the
spccitic ca_.,e study in this chapter, which deals
with r~.:cnr racist discourses and the Haider
pheoomcnon' 1see abo Wodak and Pelinka. 2002).
The rangc of argumentative strategies and insinuation> "ill illustrdte new dimensions of the dis7
cur.,J\c con>lruction of the 'othcr' in discourse.
M_ore _importantly. the precise discourse analysis
w1ll 11lU>tr.ite how importan! it might be to
mtegrate >cveral lcveb of context and a

re the respective utterances

arti'c u1ated
.
.
A
overtly.
are they even mtens1fied orare the
mirigated?
Y

Strategies

f11Ure 12. I Levels o( theofieS ond inguisric onalysis.

mult!-theorctical . a~proach when analysin

pohucal commumcat1on.
g
The spccific discourse-analytical approach
applied in the four studies referred to is threedimensional: after ( 1) having established the
specific contents or topics of a specific discourse
(2) the discursive strategies (including argumen'.
tation strategies) were investigated. Then (3), thc
linguistic meaos (as types) and the specific,
context-dependent linguistic realizations (as
tokens) werc examined (4).
There are severa! discursive elements and
strategies that, in our discourse-analytical vicw,
deservc to receive special attention. We orient
ourselves to fivc constitutive questions:
How are persons namcd and referred to
linguistically?
2 What traits, charactcristics, qualities and
features are attributed to them?
3 By meaos of what arguments and argurncntation schcmes do specific persons or social
groups try to justify and legitirnize thc inclusion or cxclusion of others?
4 From what perspcctive or point of view are
thcse labels, attributions and argurncnts
cxpressed?

Synecdoches

"''"tonYmies

cording to these questions, we are espe 11

~e
. fi
f d.
c1a y
:1nieresred m 1ve
types o 1scursive strateg1es
.
.
,..hich are ali mvolved m the positive self- and
negarive other-prese~tat10n. We view - and this
n~ds to be . e~phas1~ed -. the d1scursive con11\lcrion o.f us and them . as the basic fundal!l(OIS of d1sco~rses of 1denllty and difference.
By 'strategy we gencrally_ mean a more or
less accurate _and rn?re or less mtentional plan of
pracrices (m~ludmg ~1scursive practices)
aJopred to ach1ev.e a pa~1cular social, political,
psycholog1cal or hngu1sllc a1m. As far as the discu~ive strateg1es are c?ncemed, that is to say
systemauc ways of usmg language, we loe 1 '
1hem at different leve Is of linguistic
andcomplex1ty" (see Table 13.1).
In 1he example below, 1 will illustrate each
level of context an~ make the sequcntial analysis
uansparent, followmg the categories of analysis
1hat w11l be defined below. Specifically
.
L.
d .h
'we WI 11
..: conceme_ w1t the four lcvels of context and
!he lmgu1s11c meaos that relate the conte t
eachother. This implies that we have to d x s to
suate h

emonr . _ow ce.rtam uttcrances realized through

mgu1s11c dev1ces point to extral1"ng . t.
~l~ d' h .
UIS IC con.. ' iac romcally and synchronicall 1
ase we are de r
.
Y n our
~hi~h can onl ~ mg 1th xenophobic remarks,
~in rhctoncaly e un erstood by analysing cermeans top 1
presupposition
'
oi, imp 1cat1ons and
s as well as

illlpactofsuch d .
msmuatrons. The
fri!Sped when 1 i~course, however, can only be
u111oiy and re)'atmg
such meanmgs

.
to Austrian
po i!Jcal developments and, most

organizati~:

sono11z1"1

Stereo,,,._. (pars Pro IQlo

., ,..IQI ev
, '""'1 p
negalive
Uillve ttnb
ro PorJ)
lmplicit a d PD<1ive lralts utions ar
n explicit pred"
-,...,. used 10 justi
. cates
exclusion d" _ry PDloticil lncl lo
trea
, iscnmination
us n or
Repo,.;llnent
or preferont1a1
ng, d0$criptJo
quoutJon ar
n, narrtion or
lntenslfyin
evenu nd Utte
g ar mibga .
rances
force of un
ling the illocuti

o;

r,,.,.,

erances

Argumenta~
lntensification
and Mitigation

Metephors ndr,zinc nd dep.,.

-onary

imponamly, to the
..
of ant1-foreib'ller di pol111cal instrumenral .
Let us
scourses.
1zat1on
00
are 0 f panicular
w tum to some lmguistic

of exclusion d mponance for th dterrns that

an di .
e ese
we are conce
scnm1nation. Oft
npt1on
negallve as i:ied w1th al/usions en enough,
sible for th:"~~ons without bei~gr::e,~ suggest
ciations m th. e hsteners must make respon.
e act of re
.
e the assoc 1.11 a,
1988 1O)
cep!Jon (Wodak
knowledge . .The . Allusions depend on ~~~ d~
thing counts on p~rson who alludes to so%e
on the preparedness ~~~:ness. f~r resonance, ..~~
to call to mind the facts t~ rec1p1ents consciously
. In the arca of pohtic at are alluded to.
mtention, and ach s, allus1ons may have the
ieve the
..
pol1t1cal opponents 'th resu1t, of devaluing
bT
' w1 out a
responsi.;ceptmg
ity fior what is implicitl
not, of course sa1d ex 1 y sa1 , because this was

'
p ICll(y at be

was g1ven to make rt

st an mv1tation
IS not pronounced :
icula~ connections. What
sions, a kind of secreceates, m the case of allusomething like 'we a/k and fam1hanty suggests
world of experience or ~ow what _s meant'. The
in a kind of 're
.
llus1on ex1sts, however
Allusions ti perto1re of collective knowledge,'
requently rely
.

pattems already in 1 on topo1 and lmgu1st1c

P ay wh1ch show
1
meanmg content (cf 'E t C
'
a e ear
1992 ~

as oast, see Minen

, 1or d1scussion) or which .

established and
'h
pomt_to wellt
per aps even ant1Sem1tic
s ereo'?'.pes (such as 'Jewish speculators and
crooks , cf. Wodak and de Cillia, 1988: 15).
Franz Januschek defines 'allusions' in the
followmg way:
In conl_rasno_slogans, allusioos rcquirc active, lhinkin

and d1scnmrnating rccipicnlS. Not cvcryonc can

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

.,...,e FRAME...,.,.RKS
..-.-

197

AJllAL

dO undcrsi.and
-' cJio5" who ve 10 ivc
1U$i0'1" Jhing
""' abOUI 1
r. lh<'Y
~ al
lb<: ~
allUSion can
Jll<rn 111vc to dO ::n. ThC '"''"'~e rncanin fal
.,..,..,n~ 10 fC al ,,.-sp0nsibililY ''" '!her worJs: allu
~by ,..,,.,.,,,.,..,
. himsclf. In o
cr be onc
....... ~
J1sU11)&.:t:
can ocv
ari>t"' he bC
niaYvct'f ,...
.~rt _ ""' lhY
. ns mY be
nd allusO
soons ~n
. auvc acis. ;. .
""' aJways so
,.... ornmuni<
1 ivc wY be
si_. < . a hi:lilY cxp os . ion and cannol
unJC<S'ooJ on rovokc con1111d1d . Wbc0:4S c(L'C
,..blly d1at fCy p 1n,.;culardfaW<"'cd discou!SC '

'""'"'
casual1Yfik...I awYd 10,,...
cause
im:
d . il forward.
iopns 1cn
n nv
wal sdO n .:ompJcicly. allus. ~ palirical commubreak '"condilions o fragmcn":.ns lhal rdiL'S on ihc
Undcf fc h.: ""'lhC (inguisUC m . ndliOOS. gcncr
n,.anon'" 1. y - cr fcSC sam CO
for 1hc
f,.;1 thal ,,ucns. und nol rncrcly as puppclS
i)'
aci
iniclligcndy
andJ
hck.
1994:
29K- JOIJ
al
. 1aior>. ( anuso
c(cvc"-'s' rnanoP"
.
politicians
in , forc1gners,
.
In cxcluding and debaS sg By this kind of d1s.
uppos1e 8 1lus1on
(rcquenl IY us
mply ccrtain pres
course st111tcgy. thcy ' le sec as common sense
tions. which many peo: This is, of course, nota
belids. or sharcd trut : rejudiced discoursc.
ew Jinguisuc strJlegy in p 11tcians
and other
n

enable po 1
d
Hcncc, allus1ons
-iblc mcaning attnbutc to
speaJ.:crs ID deny th: poss h !.di iefs of the readcr.;

d retcr to t e "'
!lle allus1on an . d n10 che uiterance.
or listencrs proJcctc ', ~u pSitiof1.\' is central to
Thc conccpt of pn . :; anal sis of presuppolingu isiic pr.igma11csh. T t 1beoyry which bcgan
h. peec ac

sitions w1t m s . nd John Scarlc. makes il poswith John Ausun ~- . the implicit assumptions
sibk ID make. lexpl~~:~ns that underlie texl proand 101crtcx1ua re
(sec Schiffrin, 1994).
fr
ducuon
.
blic discourses, el thc case of r.ic1sl pu
.
.
nti no encloscd 111cist idcological ed1fice is
d~~~tl;. and complctely addressed a_nd ~pe~le~
oul 11 is 111thcr ihat an amalgam of ideo og1c.~
. . . ok d by lin"uistic 'clues and ir.ices '
tenets 1s mv e
<>
f1
d
in ordcr ID relate to a particular sel of be he s an
a 'discoursc space' - irrespec~1ve of wherc thc
'roots. of this 'discourse spacc may lead.
Now that we have presentcd sorne central
icrms (for furthcr concepts from rhetonc thc
reader is referred to !he very substanual hteraturc
on thc subjcct - see note 1), 1 will apply them to
our cxample. Hencc, the very complcx relauonships bclween mcanings, discourses and contexts
should become tr.insparent.

19'

'EVEN BLACK AFRICANS': A

SHORT DISCOURSE-HISTORICAL
ANALYSIS
Thc following cxamplc" is taken from an interv1ew with Jirg Haidcr, the then leader of the

Austriu.n Freedom Party (FPO) (sec W

pelinka, 2002). The interview was Prin~~ and
Austrian weekly P':fil on 24 ~ebruary 1~~ the
page 19. The top1c was a d1rectivc ( W. . on
issued on 26 November 199~. by thc FP~"'1g)
an and now Mm1ster of fmance v_ 1Poht1C1
.
d
""'r lie1
Gr.isscr, at that ume eputy _hea_d of the gov nz
ment of thc provm~e of Cannth1a in Austri ern.
also the highest offic1al (landesrar) in thc b 1 and
. dustnes
. m
. earmth'1a. In his di UI ding
u.nd tourist m
.
.
d
h..
Grasser mstructe as consu1tant (Refen:ntl'echve
)
. 1d
1 .
en for
rcgu auon in the 1
roadworks to me u . e ba 1d
.
ender
invitations for pu bl ac u1 . mg proJccts that such
projects were .1. be camed out exclusivcly b
ndigenous (hemn~d1) workers
or by workcrs,rornY
1
U .
states of the Eur~pea.n mon. As a consequcn
n intensive pubhc d1scuss1on
.
G arose, and a s-ce,
uvng
a
protest was_made agamst. rasser's proposa of
institutionahzmg such an exclus1onary prdcticc
finally. Grasscr rev_oked the _ direc~ive. During th~
discussion, Jorg Ha1der was mterv1ewed aboui thc
Grasser affair'. The joumalist from Pmji/, Klaus
Dutzler, askcd Haider what he, as lcader of thc
: p(), was going to recomm~nd to Grasscr, his
fcllow party member and proteg at that time:

Profil: You will nol rccommcnd Karl-Hcinz Grasscr

thal he givc in'!
lfaidcr: Wc ncvcr lhoughl differenlly and will cominuc
do so. Thc indignation, of eoursc, jusi comes from
che sidc of 1hose like lhe Carinlhian guild masicr for
consiruc1ion. a socialist, who makcs moncy ou1 of
chcap labour from Slovcnia and Croalia. And if, today,
one gocs by onc of Hans Pcler Hasclstcincr's 'lllbau'
building sitcs, and thcrc, lhc forcigncrs, cvcn down 10
black Africans, cut and carry bricks, thcn !he Auslrian
construclion workcr rcally thinks somclhing. Thcn onc
must undcrstand, if thcrc are emotions.
IO

Haider's answer is remarkablc in respect of ~he

employcd referential strate~1es'. the negauv.c
other-prcsentation by the attnbullons and prcd1cations directcd against the diffcrent gmups of
'them', and thc cnthymenic ar~umentauon s7rv
ing the justification of 'cmouons'. ag~'.nst thc
forcigncrs, cven down to black Afncans .
.
The social actors mcntioned by thc JOumahsl
are J6rg Haider' social-deictically addresscd
as 'Sie' (the Ger~an formal tcrm of. addrcss)'.
and 'Karl-Hcinz Grasscr'. Thc s.ocial actor~
mcntioncd by Haidcr are - in thW scqucnua
appcarancc - 'wc', 'thc socialist Cannth1an gu1ld
. , 'th cheap Jabour from
master for construct1on , e
. ' h bu1' lding contractor
Sfovenia and Croat1a , t e
.
1es
rt "Libera
(and politician of the Austnan pa Y .
,
Forum") Hans Petcr Haselstciner'. 'thc forcigne~ '

A .1 . n construcuon
.
'black Afr1cans' and thc us na
workcr'.

re at least three strategic moves in this

rtiere a cripl from the interview. The first one
of the FPO as 8
11or1 trans
Jitical self-prese~tallon
5
. the pO holds firm pos1t1ons and acts publicly
IS
thal Jn this way, Haider
.
..arlY
woos the voters'
asked by the
r11 ul11\ onO
,According to the quest1on
fa'our._ one would expcct an answer with a
jotl11.ah 5 : structure in which Haider (as a saycr)
11J1s1t1VI Yornrnend (a verbal and/or mental
1
,vould r~c the terms of Halliday, 1994) to
1
process ( ~e receiver or. target) that he do some1
ar11sse~ rop0sal). Ha1der does not meet this
(a . pn He refuses to present himself
111ing tllO
. . b'1s rre11 ow party
esPcC'ti as. a Jeader ad v1smg
esphC~/ in public (and thercby thrcatening
(l'lcrTlb , reputation and that of the party).
arasser 5 takes refuge in a referentially ambigu1ns1c~d (rather than using the .expected 'I'),
0 us w lps to evade the exclusive referential
.vh1ch heth on Grasser and on h.1mself . The
roeus
t we' allows different, though not
arnb 1 V~ enexclusive, interpretations. On thc one
niutu. Y n be understood as 'party-we' which is
.
hand 1tdca10 demonstrate a e1osed , unammous,
intende 'tion of thc whole party on the issue in
fi~cd.posiThe temporal deixis by past and future
quesuo; ks this conjecture. lf one knows the
1ense ~~ the FP and the fact that Haider has
h1storY uthoritarian party leader smce he carne
tieen
an aer in I 986, one 1s
. templed to .mterpret
.
1nto po~ s a sort ofplural ofmajesty. This could
1ne we)'ed
to prescribe how the party mem bers of
be ar~ are required to think al the momcnt and
ihcfi e Of course, this is a presupposition and
in utur .
. .
.d
. .
an allusion because nothmg 1s sat dethx~11c1t1bY:
However, after havmg _1?tr00ucc . 1s am 1,'Uous wc', which, in add1t10? t? havmg the Ftwro
functions mentio~ed ~bove., ~nv1tes l?tenua1
, iers 10 join Ha1der s pos11ton. Hatder then sets
~t to prcsent the critics ofthe directive negatively.
This is thc second strateg1~ move. -~a1der dehberaicly chooses two ~romment cnucs (who are
also political adversanes) as partes pro tolo 1~ the
groups of critics. He debases the soc~ahst
Carinthian guild master (whom he docs not 1dcn1ify by propcr name) by depicting him asan unsocial, capitalist socialist who exploits 'the cheap
labour (Arheitskriifte) from Slovenia and Croatia'.
This image of thc unsocial capitalist who cgoistically wants to profit from wage dumping is also
inferentially passed on to the sccond political opponcnt mcntioned by Haidcr. Wc can assume that the
readcr knows from thc Austrian political contcxt
1ha1 the building contractor, Hans Peter Hasclslcincr, is a politician (' infcre nce, prcsupposition' ).
H~ider's third stratcgic movc is partly embeddcd m thc negative prcscntation of Hans Peter
Haselstciner. lt is realize d as an imaginary

:e

i:

scenario (with thc charactcr

cxample) and aims t . .fof an argumcntativc
hostility towards forc~ JUSh Y the 'emm1ons' of
the shifl of res nsibil~'TIC~s. This movc rclics on
trujectiu in ali~ that pf;c~~~ ~~~!~~~cal tcml~, o~ a
. . mes on rlaselstcmcr and thc . . .
instc d f
soc1ahst Cannth1an guild master
d a . o on !hose who havc racist 'cmotions:
an HH_aid~r h1mself (for instigating populism).
a1der s th1rd movc contains a blatant racist
uttcrance. Here, the party lcadcr discursivcl
c?nstructs a discriminatory hicrarchy of 'fo~
c1gners' around thc phcnotypic featurc of sk~n
~olour :-- stnctly spcaking, around the visible
dcv1a11.on_' (black) of a spccific group of 'foreigncrs (1.e,. b!ack Africans) from thc ' average
wh1te Austnan . Most probably it is no accident
that Ha1der rcfcrs to 'black Africans' that is to
say. that he explicitly uses thc word :black . In
the cont~xt g1ven, the attribute 'black' has an
1ntens1fymg fu~ction. h helps Haider (who,
though he cxphc1tly dcmes 11 latcr on in thc interv1ew, ~ants to emotionalize) to carry his blackand-wh1tc portrayal to extremes in a literal sense
as well. The racist intensification ' cven down to
black Africans' , implies that in Austria, black
Afncan workers, because of their most visible
othemess', are 'an even worse evil' than other
'forcigners', and therefore functions as argumentative 'backing'. Haider seems to intcnd to construct the greatest possible visual diffcrence
between Austrians and 'forei,'llcrs'. His utteranc.e ~an thus be secn as an example of 'differenllahst racism' in its literal sense. As their
self-appointed spokesman, he asks for understanding for the Austrian workers' 'emotions' in
the face of the 'foreign and even black African
workers' . At this point, Haider does not argue
why 'one' should understand the 'emotions'. He
simply relies on the discriminatory prejudice that
'foreigncrs' take away working places from 'ingroup members'. Furthcnnore, he relies on the
unspoken postulate that 'Austrians', in comparison with 'foreigners', should be privileged with
respect to employment.
These argumentation strategics have stayed in
public discourses in Austria ever sincc. The construction of a 'thrcat by forcib'ller.;' as a major
topos in public discourses becausc of 'losing
jobs' is taking over the debates on EU enlargement as well.

SUMMARY: METHODOLOGICAL
STEPS

Of course, it is not possiblc to provide ~ r~lly

extcnsive application of the discourse-h1stoncal

CIUTICAl_ DISC

AJ"ALYTIC FRAMEWORKS

onc short
categones JO

roach anJ ali illi would like to summanze

app . . Nen:rthde1>s. 1
.
be used JO thc
S'Cuon.
t procedul\'s to
.... mo.st importan
..
11..
.
. . itk 1cxts.
analys1s ot sJ>C'
. nd context
.
about thc co- a
.
Sampk intonnau~n
politi.:al. histoncal,
1
f 1he toe! 1so.:ia
etc.). dis.:oursc to which the
Once the gcnre andbcc~ cstablished, sample
tc~t belongs ha'c. . ~ rmation cstabhsh
more e.thnog_raph11:, -'"t~rtex1uali1~ (texls on

- 1ty anu JO e
1ntcrd1s.:ur.;iv
.th imilar a rguments,
.
. , , tCXL' WI
~
similar 1opi~>. ,' _ of aciion, gcnn:s).
macro-topi.:s. tidds undcr investigation, for from 1hc problem
- h questions and
e resear~
mulatc precis
. , fields for explanatory
~xplon: ncighbounng

1 aspecls.
1heori~ and theorcuca. arch questions into
Opcra1ionalizc the rcsc
198

~y.:hological.

linguis1ic ca1cgoncs:_ _ quen1ially on to the

Apply 1hesc ca legones se . 1 approachcs to
in" theoreuca
1cxt " h 11e us "' .
, . 1 , from the
.
1 1he .mcamngs r~su ung
JOlcrprc
rcsearch qucsuons.
h
c ific
,
t'" . conlext diagram for t e spe
Dra" up ""
. '"
tc:1.1 and lhe fic:ld..~ of ac11ons.
.
hile
Makc an cxtcnsive inlerpretauond w the
. to thc rc~arch quesuons an to
rctumJOg
. ~ .
.
problem undcr mvesugauon.

Tbese steps are taken severa! ti!Tk.'S, always comin~

and going between text, ethno,'Tilph~.theones an

anal sis Most importantly. the dec1s 1ons that are

~tly requin:d in the analysis have to be made
cons. and Jus 11fied The mediation between
e xp11cll

thcories and empirical analys1s, between the socia

and !he tcxL will nevcr be implemented totally._ A
._ and hermeneutics and mterpretauve
gap tX!SlS,
dcvices are always needed to bridge the gap .

ACKNOWLEDGEHENTS
This short swnmary is based on long and extensive
discussions with my friends, colleagues and con:searchers as well as students. 1 would like tomention and thank Rudolf de Cillia, Martin Reisigl,
Gertr.1ud
Benke,
Gilbert
Weiss,
Bemd
Mai~hek. Michael Meyer and Richard Minen,
with ali of whom 1 have worked together over the
years. Moreover, many ideas have come up with
m y students. 1 would like to thank Usama
Suleunan. Alexander Pollak, Maria Arduc and
Otrbtine Anthonissen for their insights and e labor.uio!I.'>. finally, 1 would like to thank my peergroup. "hom 1 have written about, and the many
collcagues 1 have not been able to mention here.

NOTES
Scc Wodak a nd Mcycr (2001); w<>dak ,
Tiaschcr el al. O 991!, 2000); Rcisigl alld (~002;
(2001); van D1k (2001): Fairclough and W~
( 1997); Wciss and Wodak (2003 ); Blomma.:"'Odali:
Bukacn (2000); Anlhumsscn (2001 J: Pollak (~lle!
etc.
21.
2 Scc also Rcisigl and Wodak (2001) ; w<>dak
12
2001 b); Wodak and de Cillia (2002a. 2oo bJ 001a,
2
Scc lunguuge and Puwa by Norman FaircJou
( 19119). language, Power and ld"ofugy try
gh
Wodak ( 19!19), and Pn:judice in Discuursr b
van Dijk ( 1985 ).
Y cun
4 Thc Erasmus nctwor~ consis1e.d of a CO<lpcr.uion
bctwccn S1c;fncd Jagc_r (Du1sburg), Pcr Lin,,IJ
(Linkping), Norman Fa1rclough (Lancas1er), Tcun
van Dijk (Ams1erdam). Gunther Krcss llondon
Thco van Lccuwcn (London) and Ruih Woe1~
(Vicnna).
In !he J960s, many scholars_ adoptcd a more Crihcal
pcrsp<.-clivc in languagc slud1cs. Among thc first was
rhe frcneh scholar Pchcux ( 1982), whosc PProach
rraccd its ruols lo !he work of !he Russian lhconsis
Bakhtin ( 1981) and Volosinov ( 1973), bolh of whon
had postulatcd an inlegra!ion of languagc and social
proccsscs in lhc l 930s. Thc tcrm itsclfwas appan:nlly
coincd by Jacob Mcy ( 1974).
6 for more dc1ails scc Wodak et al. (1998, 1999;
Reisigl (1991!); de Cillia el al. (1999): Rcisigl and
Wodak (2001 ).
7 Thc ncw ;ovcmmcnt in Austria, which brought aboui
lhc so-callcd Wende', was installcd on 4 February
2000. lmmcdiatcly al\cr its installarion, 1hc olhcr
membcr siatcs of !he EU dccidcd on ' measun:s
a;ainsl lhe ;ovcmmcnt' bccausc - for lhc firs1 time in
1he history of !he EU - an cxtrcmist ri;ht-wing populist party was pan of a govcmmcm (for Ibis debate
and its dcvclopmcnt, scc Kopeinig and Koianko,
2000; Wodak. 2000a; 2000b; Wodak and Pclinka.
2002).
R Ali these s1ra1cgies are illustrated by numcrous
categoricsand cxamplcs in Rcisigl and Wodak (2001,

:ulh

c~2~

.
.
9 This cxamplc is lhc summary of an ex1ens1vc analys1s
in Rcisigl and Wodak (2001).
JO Sce Rcisigl and Wodak (2001) for a dctaikd contcxt
analysis and contcxt diagram of thc discoursc
scquencc abovc.

REFERENCES
Achard, P. ( 1995) . Formation discursive, dialogismc el
sociologic', langages, 117: 82- 95.
.
Anthonisscn, C . (2001) 'On !he ctTcctivity of media cen. of lmgu1sl1c,

paralinguisuc
and
sorship: an analys1s
.
.
o!her communicativc dcvices uscd to dcfy media_resine
tions'. Unpublishcd PhD lhcsis, Univcrsity of Vienna.

. M. (1981) The D1afug1c lmag;,,utla,,, Aus .

0

~n:
S-~hU. ,.;rs11y
o fTcxas Prcss.
L)DI: G. (2000) Oiskursanalyse als SOzialwisacnk< tiliche Untersuchungsmc!hodc', SWS Rlllldsc"""
g,: ns<'ha
, . 40-62.
.
Nr~~istc. E. (196611974) Probfemes de /iflguistiqu~
.:n . / 2 vols. Pans: Galhmard. Reprime() ll
.(n~ro e.
crgs.
~ rf 983.
..
.
J1>
(l003) cn11cal, d1scourse analysis and h
.
, . G W .
1 e
, M.
9il1~ . of critique , in
.
e1ss and R. Wo<&ak
hc1oric
D.
A I
r
CriJicol
iscours.- " ys1.<: Thevry Ufld
cdS~.15cip/inurily. London ; Palgravc Macmillan
fnrt'"
'

c~ j_

35

pP
and Bulcacn, C. {2000) 'Critica! discoursc
al'"'rna . Annual Review ofAnthropofvgy, 29: 447-{;
6
ariaJ~is 's. and Toumier, M . (1995) 'Analysc du di~
il<'~xicomtric, communication et politiquc', Mvts,
' 7 67-81.
JI
p (cd.) ( 1989) la nob/esse d 't!iat. p80

,111'1'" . . .
B< . ans de Mmu11.

fdlll G and Gracfcn, G. (cds) (1994) Texte und

arnncr.

.Opladcn: Wcsldcutschcr Vcrlag.

o;sturse.

_ ld&<-Coul!hard, C.R. and van Lceuwcn, T. (200!)

''
first roys and thc d1scurs1ve eonstructions of
BabYs
.

r
.
.
,abyhood'. spcc1al 1ssuc o Folia linguistica,
xxv(l - 2): 151-112.
;<, --i L. and Fairclough, N. ( 1999) Discoure in
( houh"'-
R h .nk . C . . ID .
Latr Modernity: .etbt ghmgU n11c~ ptscourse Ana/y. Edinburgh: Edm ur
m vcrs1ty rcss.
c~I. A. ( 1974) Methode und Me.vsung in der Soziologie.
kfun am Mam: Suhrkamp.
Frannon P. ( 1976)
H ow
connc
.
.
.Societies Remembur
' .
Cambridge: Cambridge Umvcrsuy Prcss ( 1996 rcprint).
Courtinc. J.-J. (1981) 'Analysc du d1scours politiquc',
Langages, 62.
. Cillia. R., Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (1999) 'The disdc cursivc coostrucrion of national idcntitics', Discourse
andSociety, 10: 149- 73.
Faitclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. London;
Longman.
fairclough, N. ( 1992) Discourse and Social Change.
London: Polity Prcss.
fairclough, N. (1995) Critica/ Discourse Analysis: The
Critica/ Study of Language (Language in Social Lifc
Series). Harlow: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2000) New Labour, New Language?
Loodon; Routlcdgc.
Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R . (1997) 'Critica! discourse
analysis', in T.A . van Dijk (cd.). lntroduction to
Discourse Analysis. London; Sagc, pp. 258-84.
Fay, B. ( 1987) Critica/ Social Science. London: Polity Press.
Graham, P. (2002) ' Spacc and cybcrspacc: on lhc enclosure of eonsciousncss', in J. Annitagc and J. Robcrts
(cds), Living with Cyberspace: Tec hno/ogy and Society
in the 2/st Century. London: Athlonc Prcss.

Graham, P. (2003) The Dig ital Dark Ages: New

~d1a,
1

New Literacies, and S ocio-politica/ Change.

Ncw York: Pcter Lang. (For thc series New Literacies
nd Digital Epfatemo/ogies, cd. C. Lankshcar and
M. KnobcJ.) (In prcss).

OU1tSE "NAJ.vs1s
Groupc de Sain1-CJ<>uc1
l 9'
U,, ''0Cab1Afa;
Cl9RlJ la PUl\'J/e
frafl<; .
,.. C'lflrJira/ d
'>""'icu/e: ""'"G be aues (/~71 - 1~76 p . C<mruf UM.,
nu r, H. (1 991 J Allli.s llls: PUF.
,..,
AOplJ]U,... 'Wa/dh.,,,, . io :;""~"'11> itn Afedirod;,.,,,.. n
ladcn: Dcu1schcr rr llpr.,,,.. W1~
Univcr>i1A11vcrla1W
IUld
Vcrlag.
Habc
CSldcu11chcr
rmas, J. 0967)E~
.
u,,, fflteTY:stj. FranH ""'"'-' IUtd 1"''""" [K,.,,.,. d
Halliday M A K ( un arn Main. Suhrurnp
11
'
19KS)
.

Grammur. Londo . Ed

ntf'OtJu,11un lo Fw11c .

Halliday M A K n. Ward Amold.

'">11af
. . . 0 994) ltrod .
lcdGrammur (2nd cd.). london !'Auc-uan
Funcrionu/
cma, R. ( 1997 'I ntcrac1i . Ward Arnold.
changc: planning as
onal dynani1cs and SOcial
doc1ora1 thcsis, Univcrs::::.h;g;ncsis' . Unpublishcd
!edema, R. and Wodak R
~ ncy.
11999
tic>nal discolUlic and'
lntroduction; {},aniza.
Pracllccs Dilcvurse and So..;..y,
1O: 15- 20.

'

Jagc_r. S. (1999) Krilische D

- Einfhrung. Duisburg: DISS
ulcu'>anafyie. Ei11"
Jagcr, S. (2001) Discoursc d. kn
an
owlcdg R
.. '" . Wodak
and M. Mcycr (cds), Meth<><b o
Ana/ysis. London Sa
3 . Cnt1ca/ Discourse
Ja
ge, pp. 2-{;2.
gcr, M. and Jagcr, S. (1993) v
.
crstnclcungcn - Dcr
rassistischc Diskurs und se.
chcn Gcsamtdis&rurs dcr ';:' Bedcutung fr den politisin S. Jagcr and /n Link ~:""'~ublik Dcutscbland',
Rassismus ,.__,d.
.
), ie vierte G<!Wu/t
~"' 1e Medien Duisbu ,. DIS

Januschek, F. ( 1992 )
h
rg. . S, PJl. 49- 79.
Ansp' J
ce ts-popuhsmus und NS
ic ungen arn Bcispicl des . .

Jr H 1d ,
OS1Crrc1ch1schcn Politikcrs
g
cr DISS-Texte Nr. / 5 Col
.G

ogne. NN .
Januschck F (1 994) ' J
.
. ~a'.dcr und dcr n:chispopulistischc
Diskurs' i~ ()
SICrrc1ch. ID W. Tributsch (cd) Sch/
worr Haider. Vicnna; Fal1er Verlag, pp. 29S.:)01 agKl~mpcrcr, V. (1975/1947) LTJ liflgua Tertii ltnper;i. Die
prache des Dn1ten Reiches. Lcipzig: Rcclam.
Kopc1mg, M. and .Koianko, C. (2000) Eine europiiische
A.flail'f! Der We1Sen-Bericht und die SanJcr
sterreich. Vicnna: Czcmin.
wnen gegen

'R

Krcss, G. and van Ll:cuwcn T (1996) R d. I

ea 1ng mages
London; Routlcdgc.
Krings, H. et al. (1973) Ha11dbuch phi/osophischer
Grundbegriffe. Munich: Koscl.
Lemkc, J. ( 1995) TexlUa/ Pa/itics: Discourse and Social
Dynamics. London: Taylor & Franeis.
Lemkc, J. (2001) ' Discursivo technologics and the social
organization of mcaning', spccial lssuc of Folia
Linguistica (cd. R. Wodak), Critica/ Disrourse A.na/ysis in Postmodern Societies, XXXV/(1- 2): 79-97.
Lemkc, J. (2002) ' Multimedia gcnres for scicncc cducation and scicntific litcracy', in M. Schleppcgrell aod
M.C. Colombi (cds). Developing Advanced lileriu:y in
First and Second languages. Mabwah, NJ: Erlbawn,
pp. 21-44.
Lcodolter, R. (= Wodak) (1975) Das Sprachverha/ten von
Angek/agten bei Gerichl. Kronbcrgffs.: S<:riptor.
Leontjcv, A.N. (1984) ' Dcr allgcmcinc Ttigkcitsbcgrifl',
in D. Vichwcgcr (cd.), Grundfragen einer Theorie der
sprach/ichen Tiiligkeit. Berlin, pp. 13-30.

,ANALYTIC FRAMEWORKS
.UI

Obcr Kollcktivsymbolik

itn

poli~

LiM.. J. t I
.
Jilirctl TcndcnzCO
Oiilturs 1-1 11ftt1 AlllCtl aa 101A
~.17111: -47-SJ.
.
.
.
U. 119841 .4/s ~ &ist Ju &-wcltaft n~
~....
Spra:il< i .V;1tiU11a1su:1 1'"""'
~- w~-r Vcrtag.
.

>-"

MMI. U. t l'IS'MI .lrllnkY.>hnl - ' politisdw Spracll ...u~- FrulNn""' Main. Sulublnp.
. .
Mus, U. ( I ~'lb l . Spncll<: ltn NallO~SOZl&h~llS
J\MI)..: ciDcr R<ld< ciDCS SludcaicnfuoktioolrS ID
K. Ehla:b t<d.l. Sproc.k,.. F..,~ Franktiut am
~ Sulirbmp. PP. 101-97.
Me.......... D. (19lf71.lltMwll ,,,..Ja1tca t'll ONJ/J.-St'
,....,_,, _ Pans: Ha.;hcac:.
.
......._ J.R 1 ~ 0031 VOUll& thc -oc1>cr-: rcadmg and
nbllC indigcoous AusintiaoS". io G Wc1ss and

Jt. "'odak

tcdsl. Cnncai l>iscow'st' 4 ""~"":

n-r,

-4 _..,,OpbMrity. London: Palgra..: Macm1llan.

pp. 199-:?19
Me). J. ( l 9~41,,,..,,,.,_,, . 07.bd: Bla.-twcil ( 1994 ~).
Msacn. R t 19'111 11w Polllia of Alltist'lllilic Prrjudict!:
nw lf~ ~- i Aarria. Bouldcr. CO:
Wosnic"' Prcss.
Mwoogl, P. Wc= G. and Wodak. R. (:!0001 EIUV('t!all
u-. ~"" "" U,..,,,qJi~wnt1: .411 /11~rrJiscipli
_.., .4ppro=lt w EwcpJo_,..,,..,., Polic)~Mabtrg and
~_, Clttutgc.. Amstcrdam: BcnJanns.
Ndlan. M. t191C) /..altgwlgr. Snruwics and ldrology
(:?ad cd.I. l.Dadon: Maanillan.
Ndl<w.. M. t 19118) ()iSCO<lf"C - StruCIWC or C\'eRI'. in
C. Nclsoo and L. Grossb..-rg (cds). Mar:rism and IM
t.rprrta1<NI of C.UIMW. Loodoo: MacmiUan.
~ A. (:!002) l(ritischc: Disk~ysc und hisIOri>cbc Fon.:-buog". m B . Zicmano (cd.). Pf!rspt'A:tiwn
r JliJtorud.<!11 Frinien:s/ondumg. Es.sen: Klancxt
Vcrlag. pp. 153- 7:!.
Rcisigl. M. ti 998) -50 Jahrc z,..circ Republilr." - Zur
dsk.wsiven Koosuuktioo dcr su:~icbiscbcn ldcnlilt
ill pohuschcn Gcdenkredco'. in O . Paoagl (ed .),
F,.,._11,.<Qner in der Politi1. Kontinuilii~n und Brche.
V1CD11a: Blllau. pp. 217- 51.
lttisiil. M . aad Wodak, R . (2001) Discourse and
Disavntfl<llion. London: Routlcdgc.
C. 119891 Nazi-Dcutsch fr Nicdcrlindcr. Das
Koozept dcr NS-Spracbpolilik io dcr Dcutscbco
Zcitung ia den Nicdcrbndcn 1940-1945', in K. Ehlicb
(cd.. Spnu.Jw u.. Fasc/Wmw. Fraolr.fun am Main:
Suhrkamp. pp. :!37- Kll.
S..C.. C 11995 Spracb-..isscnschaft und NS-Faschismus. L.:hrcn aus dcr sprachwisscoschaftlichco
Etfondwng di..-s Sprachgcbr.wchs dcutschcr Naliooal~'D und PropagandiSICO fr deo rrlittcl- und
Olleuropj.ucbcn UmbruchT. in K. Stcinke (cd.). Die
S(lrucM Ju Diba~11 Wlld Diklatorrn. Heidelberg:
Cat1 W uucr. pp. 9--96.
Sdoiffnn. D. t 19')4) A~ to DilcOllne. Oxford:
's.
Bbctn.cU
' ' : ; ....... R. (200 1) Mrdwtcd l>Ucouru: Tite Ne:nu of

s..cr.

hw.nu Loodc.: &oudcdp:.

. R and Scolloa. S.W (2002 Heno Alla/ys: Dis.,._,., """~ ~ ,_,_,_ to.do.: lloualedp:.

Cltl"ttc4L O

p.::

Tbompsoo. J.B. (1988) Critica/ Hr,.,,,r

11
"' ( 41h

Cambridge: Cambridge Univcrsity

cu.1.
Tiiscbcr. S . Wodak. R . Mcycr. M . &lid Vcnc
Mt:11toden d.-r Te.<hlnal)-sr. Wicsbadco: W r, E.. 099~
Vcrlag.
CSldeutscbe,
Titsehcr. S .. Wodak. R . Mcycr, M . alld Vc11cr
Mrt~ o/Text and Disroune Anaiy,u. ~,:'O()ot
van D1Jlr.. T.A. (t9n) Tat and Contat: Exp,,,.,,. ~!:<.
tite S.-Mantic.r and Prugmatio vf Dco
/Ion 111
Loogmao.
lll>t!. li&rio.,.:
Dijk. T.A. ( 1981) Sn.dii<S in tltr Pra
.
DisCUlll'Sr. Thc Hague: Mou1on.
l:'Natio o/
van DiJlr.. T .A. (1985) Prrjudice i11 Di.sn>vrsr. Arn.~
\'ali

Bcnj&mlOS.

--uaro.

c-.,, .

van Dijl. T .A. (cd.) (1986) Ducvurs,, and

tion: N,,.... .4pprocJch."3 to tlir Ana/ysis of .,
Mni<'a.
- ' C
,.,..,, Mft!
"'
Disc-oune anu ommwrication. Bcrtin: de G
van Dijlr.. T.A. (1993) 'Principies of cribcat
analysis". Dumwu and Society. 4(2): 249_83 SC-Oursc
-.n Dijl. T.A. ( 1998) ldro/Og_l: A Mulnai.J;~
Study. London: Sagc.
'P ""'J'

T'

van Dijlr.. T.A. (2001) 'Critica) discoursc analysis", in

D. Tannco. D. Schiffiin and H. Hamihon (cds), H~

u/DiscourseAna~1-s1s. Oxford: Blaclr.""cll, pp. 35271
van 01!lr.: T.A. (,2003) The discoursc-1.:nowledge imc;.
tace . m G . \\e1ss and R. Wodak (eds), Critica/ D;.,.
course ..fnalys1s: Th.:ory and lntenii.sciplinarit\'
London: Palgn.\'e Macmillan. pp. 85- 109.

van Dij". T .A. and Kiotsch, W . (1983) Strat~es of

Discourse Compn!hension. New York: Academic Press.
wn L<.-cuwcn, T. ( 1993) Languagc and rcprcscnralioa:
thc rccoo1cx1ualisalion of participaots, ac1ivilics
and rcaclioos'. Thcsis. Dcpartrncnr of Linguistics.
Univcrsiry of Sydney.
Vass, E. (1992) 'Diskursanalysc als inrcrdisziplioin."S
Forschungsgcbic1'. MA thcsis. Univcrsity of Vicnna.
Volosinov, V.l. ( 1973) Marxism and the Philosoplry of
Language. Ne"" York : Seminar Prcss (origioally
publishcd 1928 ).
Wciss. G. and Wodalr.. R. (cds) (2003) Critica/ Disrouru
Ana~1-sis: Theory and lnterriisciplinaril}c Loodoo: Palgravc Macmillan.
Wodak, R. (cd.) (1989) Languagr, Po'Wl'r and /deo/ogy.
Amstcrdam: Bcnjamios.
Wodal, R. ( l 996a) Disorriers in Discuuru. Londoo:
Longman.
Wodak, R. ( l 996b) The gcncsis of racis1 discoursc in Ausuia siocc 1989', in C .R. Caldas-Coulthard aod M.
Coulthard (cds). Tats anti Practices: Reudings in Critica/
Discuurse Ana/ysis. London: Routlcdgc. pp. 107- 28.
Wodak. R. 12000) Rccontexrualisa1ion and !be rransformalion of mcaning: a critical discoursc aoalysis of
dcl:isioo making in EU-mcctings aboul cmploymcn1
policies. in S . Sarangi aod M. Coulthard (cds).
Discuurse and Social Lije. Harlow: Pcarson Educalioo.
pp. 185-206.
Wodak, R. (2000a) Gucs1 cdi1orial: ' Thc rise of racism an Austrian or an Europcan Phcnomcnon ', Discourse
and Soc:iety, 11 ( 1): 5--0 .
Wodalr.. R . (2000b) from conlict to conscnsus? Thc cc;C-OllSlruclion of a policy papcr', in P. Munligl. G . Wciss

scou"sEAf,Al:"-

Wodak. Eump.-un Union n 1

d ~
s<uur
l:ll'1 . >/tJl.,,,enl. Amstcrdnm: Bcnjarnin~
s.-s on
7
(,..,-.IR. (2001a) wha1 COA is abour _ ~~u 3- 114.
mina.y of
11.Jak ry imporlBOl concepts and ils d.
h 1SIO
' ve 1Pille
11> wodal' and M. Mcycr (c-ds), Metht'<J.. . ?ts'. in
lt
.., ,fnalysis . London: Sa;e, pp. _ " (ri1icu/
1 13
i..<Co""
b) Th d .

(t . (2001
e iscoursc-h1s1orica1
\\<,Jsk. u ()(iak and M. Mcycr (cds), M<'thc-'- 8_1;Proach',
lt ,.
.
'<LO u, Cr .
111
1n """'' .ft1<J~1s1.-. Londoo: Sa;c, pp. 6 3_ 94
<-u/
P.". R (:?002) Nutional and Trunsnutiona/ e . .
11Jsk~ ulld Otht'r ldentities Oriented tu lru noo.,._.
t 11" [ U Ofiicia/s. Florcncc (in Prcss).
<'n-1..,.,,.
''h. R. and de Cillia. R. ( 1988) 'Sprach
11 .,.tal>: rruusmus ' . Vicnna: lnslitu1 fr Wissc be Und
~nu><
nsc ft Und
UJl5l"\lill<'i/U11get1, .4 .
~ . R. and de C1lha. R. (2002a) oisco
11~ s'. in J/andbuch Suziu/inguistilc.
and
!"-',u, n prcss).
r in. de
Gru)'IC' '
,Jsk. R. and de Cillia, R. (2002b) sprachlichc Id
11 ' ti .. . multikulturellcs und mullilinguatcs Erbc <o0
D IC .
.,. . M
lllld
hCZukunfl. , m . salcy and P. Srachel (cds) n....
.,~
.
v
.p
~""
,v. G;tfiichmis.ses. 1enna. assagco Verlag (in Prcss).
0

11

a::7".

.alS
V.
'"'.1-k. R. &ll<f
,., Cr11ica/ "'
Mcycr, M l
201
... Oda
'-"' "'""
. "<la1
H _k. R. nd P Aou/y,.,_ 4nc1ol2001) M.,tic.J.
1dcr - an in e nk-: >.. (200, .~: S..c.
of
(eds) .,.,_
lr<>d11c11n
I huni '"
T ..,. Haid
- n R. w
"ldhc
W~~lion
Phr110"'11oo .~ &ll<f >. P~lrn ~
.....,. R
--. pP
"e"' B
. , in..,
E lnd RcisiI 11- vi1.
""'"'-ick. NJ
~ Jle"'Pccti,..;.. 119991 n,sc

Pr::

w~t 5 -99.

.A"'"'IR.o.;...,."::rscllld....,isrn:

To R. lid van o
f ANllmp.,1o,,,
Klagcnfun: o~~~ T. (cdsJ (200o) R .
'
nd ".~: Pchkan, J. , ,
<lcisni
"'llllc0
"Wak. p
Tiitr!' 0 . R. 0990 w .. G_
"'bcr. H., de e .
tis., 11. . ulau.,h;.,10 h " """ a//,
. lha, R.
W~ ~"'"' Fiankfunca ~~;,,n""" N::::nli..ld;gr
H e. - . de Cillia, Rm -..in: s..,...__
"llan.

wo!:i..

' '"

,.,

SlilJcr K

., R .

-""lllp.

Ko,,."1U:ti nd Kargi M"'51&1,

M., l icbhan.
Suhrk~ " llationaJ., 1~ . ~1 998) z.,,. duL . K.
- ..p.
"N11w. F
"'"I"""

Wodak, R d
.
lnkfun aro,,_ , .
. e C11li R.
"~D .
0999) The D ":_ . Rcisig~ M
.
111}. E.dinb
"ew:.1..., c,,,.,11t.c . &nd L1cbhen, K
urgli: Edinburg, U .
of Nan,,,,., 1_,_
n1vcrsry Press.
~....

''"