Critical Discourse Analysis

Author(s): Jan Blommaert and Chris Bulcaen

Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 29 (2000), pp. 447-466
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/223428 .
Accessed: 27/12/2010 20:22

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 at .
http://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 service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org
 Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2000. 29:447-66
Copyright? 2000 by AnnualReviews. All rightsreserved

CRITICALDISCOURSEANALYSIS

JanBlommaert
Ghent University, Department of African Languages and Cultures, B-9000 Gent,
Belgium; e-mail: Jan.blommaert@rug.ac.be

ChrisBulcaen
Ghent University,Departmentof English, B-9000 Gent,Belgium;
e-mail: chris.bulcaen@rug.ac.be

Key Words linguistics,social theory,power,ideology,critique

* Abstract This paperprovidesa surveyof criticaldiscourseanalysis(CDA), a
recentschool of discourseanalysisthat concernsitself with relationsof power and
inequalityin language.CDA explicitly intendsto incorporatesocial-theoreticalin-
sightsinto discourseanalysisand advocatessocial commitmentand interventionism
in research.The main programmaticfeaturesand domainsof enquiryof CDA are
discussed,with emphasison attemptstowardtheoryformationby one of CDA'smost
prominentscholars,NormanFairclough.Anothersectionreviewsthe genesisanddis-
ciplinarygrowthof CDA, mentionssome of the recentcriticalreactionsto it, and
situatesit withinthe widerpictureof a new criticalparadigmdevelopingin a number
of language-oriented (sub)disciplines.In this criticalparadigm,topics suchas ideol-
ogy, inequality,andpowerfigureprominently,andmanyscholarsproductivelyattempt
to incorporatesocial-theoretical
insightsinto the studyof language.

INTRODUCTION

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) emerged in the late 1980s as a programmatic

developmentin Europeandiscourse studies spearheadedby NormanFairclough,
Ruth Wodak, Teun van Dijk, and others. Since then, it has become one of the
most influentialand visible branchesof discourse analysis (as can be seen in the
anthology by Jaworski& Coupland 1999). We provide an overview of the main
thrustsof this movement, discuss critically its main foci of attention,and situate
it in a wider panoramaof developmentsin linguistics. In so doing, we hope to
show that the critical turnin studies of language is by no means restrictedto any
single approachbut representsa more generalprocess of (partial)convergencein
theoriesandpracticesof researchon language. CDA provideda crucialtheoretical
and methodologicalimpetus for this paradigm,but it could benefit from a closer
integrationwith new developments.

0084-6570/00/1015-0447$14.00 447
448 ? BULCAEN
BLOMMAERT

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

The CDA Program

The purpose of CDA is to analyze "opaqueas well as transparentstructuralre-
lationships of dominance, discrimination,power and control as manifested in
language"(Wodak 1995:204). More specifically, "[CDA] studies real, and often
extended,instancesof social interactionwhich take(partially)linguisticform.The
criticalapproachis distinctivein its view of (a) the relationshipbetween language
and society, and (b) the relationshipbetween analysis and the practicesanalysed"
(Wodak1997:173).
CDA statesthatdiscourseis socially constitutiveas well as socially conditioned.
Furthermore,discourse is an opaque power object in modem societies and CDA
aims to make it more visible and transparent.

It is an importantcharacteristicof the economic, social and culturalchanges

of late modernitythatthey exist as discoursesas well as processes that are
takingplace outside discourse, and that the processes that are takingplace
outside discourseare substantivelyshapedby these discourses.
Chouliaraki& Fairclough(1999:4)

The most elaborateand ambitiousattempttowardtheorizingthe CDA program

is undoubtedlyFairclough'sDiscourse and Social Change (1992a). Fairclough
constructsa social theory of discourse and provides a methodologicalblueprint
for criticaldiscourseanalysisin practice. [Otherprogrammaticstatementsof CDA
can be found in Fairclough(1992b, 1995b), Chouliaraki& Fairclough(1999), van
Leeuwen (1993), van Dijk (1993a,c, 1997), and Wodak(1995, 1997).]
Fairclough(1992a) sketches a three-dimensionalframeworkfor conceiving of
andanalyzingdiscourse. The firstdimensionis discourse-as-text,i.e. the linguistic
featuresand organizationof concreteinstancesof discourse. Choices andpatterns
in vocabulary(e.g. wording,metaphor),grammar(e.g. transitivity,modality), co-
hesion (e.g. conjunction,schemata),and text structure(e.g. episoding,turn-taking
system) should be systematicallyanalyzed(see below for CDA'sreliance on cer-
tain branchesof linguistics). The use of passive verb forms in news reporting,for
instance, can have the effect of obscuringthe agent of political processes. This
attentionto concretetextualfeaturesdistinguishesCDA fromgermaneapproaches
such as Michel Foucault's,accordingto Fairclough(1992a).
The second dimension is discourse-as-discursive-practice,i.e. discourse as
somethingthatis produced,circulated,distributed,consumedin society.Fairclough
sees these processes largely in terms of the circulationof concrete linguistic ob-
jects (specific texts or text-types that are produced,circulated,consumed, and so
forth),but keeping Foucaultin mind, remarkablylittle time is spent on resources
and other "macro"conditions on the productionand distributionof discourse.
Approachingdiscourse as discursive practice means that in analyzing vocabu-
lary, grammar,cohesion, and text structure,attentionshould be given to speech
 CRITICALDISCOURSEANALYSIS 449

acts, coherence, and intertextuality-three aspects that link a text to its context.
Faircloughdistinguishesbetween "manifestintertextuality"(i.e. overtly drawing
upon othertexts) and "constitutiveintertextuality"or "interdiscursivity" (i.e. texts
are made up of heterogeneous elements: generic conventions, discourse types,
register,style). One importantaspect of 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,i.e. the ideological effects
and hegemonic processes in which discourse is a feature (for CDA's use of the
theoriesand concepts of Althusserand Gramsci,see below). Hegemonyconcerns
power that is achieved throughconstructingalliances and integratingclasses and
groups throughconsent, so that "the articulationand rearticulationof orders of
discourseis correspondinglyone stakein hegemonic struggle"(Fairclough1992a:
93). It is from this third dimension that Fairclough constructshis approachto
change: Hegemonieschange,andthis can be witnessedin discursivechange,when
the latteris viewed from the angle of intertextuality.The way in which discourse
is being represented,respoken,or rewrittensheds light on the emergenceof new
ordersof discourse, strugglesover normativity,attemptsat control,andresistance
againstregimes of power.
Fairclough(1992a) is explicit with regardto his ambitions:The model of dis-
course he develops is framedin a theory of ideological processes in society, for
discourse is seen in terms of processes of hegemony and changes in hegemony.
Faircloughsuccessfullyidentifieslarge-scalehegemonicprocesses such as democ-
ratization,commodification,and technologizationon the basis of heteroglossic
constructionsof text genres and styles (see example below). He also identifies
the multiple ways in which individualsmove throughsuch institutionalizeddis-
cursiveregimes, constructingselves, social categories,and social realities. At the
same time, the general directionis one in which social theory is used to provide
a linguistic metadiscourseand in which the targetis a refinedand more powerful
techniqueof text analysis.
CDA's locus of critiqueis the nexus of language/discourse/speechand social
structure.It is in uncovering ways in which social structureimpinges on dis-
course patterns,relations, and models (in the form of power relations, ideolog-
ical effects, and so forth), and in treating these relations as problematic, that
researchersin CDA situatethe criticaldimensionof theirwork. It is not enough to
lay barethe social dimensionsof languageuse. These dimensionsarethe object of
moral and political evaluationand analyzingthem should have effects in society:
empoweringthe powerless, giving voices to the voiceless, exposing power abuse,
andmobilizingpeople to remedysocial wrongs.CDA advocatesinterventionismin
the social practicesit criticallyinvestigates.Toolan(1997) even opts for a prescrip-
tive stance: CDA should make proposals for change and suggest correctionsto
particulardiscourses. CDA thus openly professes strongcommitmentsto change,
empowerment,and practice-orientedness.
450 ? BULCAEN
BLOMMAERT

Methodology
On a methodologicallevel, CDA presentsa diversepicture. Forhistoricalreasons
(see below), the use of systemic-functionallinguisticsis prominent,but categories
and concepts have also been borrowedfrom more mainstreamdiscourse analy-
sis and text linguistics, stylistics, social semiotics, social cognition, rhetoric,and,
more recently,conversationanalysis. Wodakand her associateshave developed a
discourse-historicalmethod intent on tracingthe (intertextual)history of phrases
and arguments(see, for example, Wodak 1995, van Leeuwen & Wodak 1999).
The method startswith originaldocuments(e.g. in theiranalysis of the Waldheim
affair,Wehrmachtdocuments on war activities in the Balkan), is augmentedby
ethnographicresearchaboutthe past (e.g. interviewswith war veterans),andpro-
ceeds to wide-rangingdatacollection andanalysisof contemporarynews reporting,
political discourse,lay beliefs, and discourse.
Some practitionersof CDA welcome the diversityof methodology(Chouliaraki
& Fairclough 1999:17); others strive for a systematic and focused framework,
based, for instance, on concepts of genre and field and on the sociosemantic
representationof social actors (van Leeuwen 1993, 1996).
Althoughsuch scholarsas Kress (1997) and Kress & van Leeuwen (1996) (see
also Slembrouck1995) emphasizethe importanceof incorporatingvisual images
into concepts of discourse and move towardbroadermultimodalconceptions of
semiosis, the general bias in CDA is towardlinguisticallydefined text-concepts,
and linguistic-discursivetextual structuresare attributeda crucial function in
the social productionof inequality,power, ideology, authority,or manipulation
(van Dijk 1995).

PreferredTopics
CDA's preferencefor work at the intersectionof language and social structure
is manifest in the choice of topics and domains of analysis [panoramascan be
found,for example,in Schaffner& Wenden(1995), Caldas-Coulthard & Coulthard
(1996), Blommaert& Bulcaen(1997)]. CDA practicioners tendto workon applied
and applicabletopics and social domains such as the following.
1. Political discourse See, for example, Wodak(1989), Chiltonet al (1998),
Fairclough(1989, 1992a), and Fairclough& Mauranen(1997).
2. Ideology Discourse is seen as a means throughwhich (and in which)
ideologies are being reproduced.Ideology itself is a topic of considerable
importancein CDA. Hodge & Kress (1979) set the tone with theirwork.
More recently,van Dijk (1998) has produceda sociocognitivetheoryof
ideology.
3. Racism Particularattentionwithin this study is given to racism. VanDijk
standsout as a prolific author(1987, 1991, 1993b), but the topic has also
been coveredby many others (for a survey,see Wodak& Reisigl 1999).
Relatedto the issue of racismis a recent interestin the discourseon
 ANALYSIS
DISCOURSE
CRITICAL 451

immigration(e.g. MartinRojo & van Dijk 1997, van Leeuwen & Wodak
1999).
3. Economic discourse See, for example, Fairclough(1995b). The issue of
globalizationhas been formulatedas an importantpreoccupationfor CDA
(Slembrouck1993, Chouliaraki& Fairclough1999:94).
4. Advertisementandpromotionalculture See, for example, Fairclough
(1989, 1995b), Slembrouck(1993), and Thorborrow (1998).
5. Media language See, for example, Fairclough(1995a), van Dijk (1991),
Kress (1994), and Martin-Rojo(1995).
6. Gender See especially the representationof women in the media (e.g.
Talbot 1992; Caldas-Coulthard1993, 1996; Clark& Zyngier 1998; Walsh
1998; Thorborrow 1998).
7. Institutionaldiscourse Languageplays a role in institutionalpractices
such as doctor-patientcommunication(e.g. Wodak 1997), social work
(e.g. Wodak 1996, Hall et al 1997), and bureaucracy(Sarangi&
Slembrouck1996)
8. Education See, for example, Kress (1997) and Chouliaraki(1998).
Educationis seen as a majorareafor the reproductionof social relations,
includingrepresentationand identityformation,but also for possibilities of
change. Faircloughand associates have developed a criticallanguage
awareness(CLA) approachthat advocatesthe stimulationof critical
awarenesswith studentsof pedagogicaldiscourses and didacticmeans (cf
Clarket al 1989, 1990; Fairclough1992c, Ivanic 1998).
9. Literacy CDA studies of literacyhave linked up with those
anthropologicaland sociolinguistic analyses that view literacyas "situated
practices"(e.g. Heath 1983, Street 1995), e.g. in the context of local
communities(Barton& Hamilton 1998) or education(Baynham 1995,
New London Group 1996, Cope & Kalantzis2000). Scholarsworkingin
these "new literacy studies"havejoined efforts in a new book series
(Bartonet al 2000, Cope & Kalantzis2000, Hawisher& Selfe 2000).
In all these domains,issues of power asymmetries,exploitation,manipulation,
and structuralinequalitiesare highlighted.

Social Theory
CDA obviously conceives discourse as a social phenomenon and seeks, conse-
quently, to improve the social-theoreticalfoundations for practicing discourse
analysis as well as for situating discourse in society. A fundamentalaspect of
CDA is thatit claims to take its startingpoint in social theory. Two directionscan
be distinguished.On the one hand, CDA displays a vivid interest in theories of
power and ideology. Most common in this respectarethe use of Foucault's(1971,
1977) formulationsof "ordersof discourse"and "power-knowledge,"Gramsci's
452 ? BULCAEN
BLOMMAERT

(1971) notion of "hegemony,"and Althusser's (1971) concepts of "ideological

state apparatuses"and "interpellation."Worksin which connectionsbetween dis-
course and power processes are being spelled out are also widely cited, such as
Laclau & Mouffe (1985) and Thompson (1990). In Fairclough(1992a), for ex-
ample, these theoriesand concepts are given a linguistic translationand projected
onto discourse objects and communicativepatternsin an attemptto account for
the relationshipbetween linguistic practice and social structure,and to provide
linguisticallygroundedexplanationsfor changes in these relationships.
The second directionthatcan be distinguishedis an attemptto overcome struc-
turalistdeterminism.Inspirationhere is usually found in Giddens' (1984) theory
of structuration,where a dynamicmodel of the relationshipbetween structureand
agency is proposed. Giddensserves as the theoreticalbackgroundto CDA'sclaim
thatactuallanguageproductsstandin dialecticrelationto social structure,i.e. that
linguistic-communicativeevents can be formativefor largersocial processes and
structures.Obviously, when the relationshipbetween linguistic-communicative
(or other semiotic) action and social processes is discussed, frequentreferenceis
also madeto the workof Bourdieu(1991) andHabermas(1984, 1987). Bourdieu's
work is also influentialin studies on educationalpractices.
The use of these theories can be partlytracedback to the influence of cultural
studies on CDA, in particularthe seminal activities of the Centrefor Contempo-
raryCulturalStudiesof the Universityof Birmingham.CDA still holds pace with
culturalstudiesin thatit continually,thoughcritically,engages with new research
trendsin, for example,postmodern,feminist,postcolonial,andglobalizationstud-
ies [fora "rethinking"of CDA thatintendsto groundit morefirmlyin social theory,
see Chouliaraki& Fairclough(1999)].
It is importantto realize thatdespitethe inputfrom a varietyof social-scientific
disciplines, CDA should primarilybe positioned in a linguistic milieu, and its
successes should be measuredprimarilywith the yardstickof linguistics and lin-
guistically orientedpragmaticsand discourseanalysis.

An Example:Conversationalization
To Fairclough,many fields of contemporarypublic life are characterizedby "a
widespreadappropriationof the discursivepracticesof ordinarylife in public do-
mains"(Fairclough& Mauranen1997:91). The new economic model of "flexible
accumulation,"for instance, is implementedthroughpracticalchanges in organi-
zations as well as throughthe productionof abundantmanagerialdiscourse that
has become hegemonic. Flexible workformsalso involve new uses of language,
such as "theroutinisedsimulationof conversationalspontaneity"(Chouliaraki&
Fairclough1999:5), thathave powerfulandpossibly damagingeffects. Because of
the highly linguistic-discursivecharacterof many changes in late modernityand
the increasingdesign andcommodificationof languageforms,a criticalanalysisof
discoursebecomes all the more importantin fields as diverse as marketing,social
welfare work, and political discourse.
 CRITICAL
DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS 453

In the political field for instance,Fairclough& Mauranen(1997) comparepolit-

ical interviewsover a time spanof 35 years and identify a clear shift from a formal
and rigid interviewingstyle towarda mode of interactionthatresembles ordinary
conversation.Recentpoliticalinterviewsarecharacterizedby a casualmanner,col-
loquial speech forms,reciprocaladdressforms, andrepetitions.Furthermore,they
notehow MargaretThatcher's1983 speech style crosses social class lines: She "ap-
propriatesand simulatesvariousconversationalvoices," whereasHaroldMacmil-
lanin 1958 "projectsa consistentclass-specificconversationalvoice"(Fairclough&
Mauranen1997:117). Thus,Thatcher'sconversationalstyle demonstrateshow po-
litical discourse in the 1980s has "colonized"everydayspeech genres in orderto
achieve hegemony and increasedlegitimationfor the voice of authority.
To Fairclough,this developmentin political discourse is indicativeof a wider
change in ordersof discourse in contemporarysocieties. These developmentsare
summarizedin three large categories: democratization,commodification, and
technologization(Fairclough1992a: 200-24). In general, these developmentsall
touch on ways in which discoursegenres from one sphereof life impinge on oth-
ers for functional purposes, and this against a backgroundof changes in power
relationshipsin society. Thus, the languageof advertizinghas moved into the con-
versationaldomainin an attemptto allign its messages with the preoccupationsof
individualcustomers(as illustrated,for instance,by the use of directaddress,as in
"Did YOU get YOUR Barclay's card?").Similarly,governmentcommunciation
has adopted less formal and more conversationalstyles (e.g. allowing people to
directlyrespondto governmentmessages), and otherprofessions such as welfare
work have followed the same track.Although this may allow for more effective
communication,it blurs the boundariesbetween informationand persuasion,and
it obscures "objective"power relationshipsby suggesting the equality of conver-
sationalrapportin asymmetricalinstitutionalinteractions.
In this type of research,empiricaldataanalysisis directlyfed into a largerpicture
of what discourseand discoursemodes do in society. The questionremains,how-
ever, whether such large-scale transformationsin societies can be demonstrated
on the basis of empiricaldatathat are, in effect, restrictedin scope, size, and time
range. It would be interesting,for example, to comparethe "conversationalstyle"
of Macmillanand Thatcherto thatof John Majorand Tony Blair.

SITUATINGCDA
The History of CDA
In historical surveys such as Wodak's (1995), reference is made to the "critical
linguists"of the Universityof East Anglia, who in the 1970s turnedto such issues
as (a) the use of languagein social institutions,(b) the relationshipsbetween lan-
guage, power,andideology, and(c) who proclaimeda critical,left-wing agendafor
linguistics.The worksof Hodge & Kress(1979) andFowleret al (1979) areseminal
454 ? BULCAEN
BLOMMAERT

in this respect (for surveys, see Fowler 1996, Birch 1998). Theirwork was based
on the systemic-functionaland social-semiotic linguistics of Michael Halliday,
whose linguistic methodology is still hailed as crucial to CDA practicesbecause
it offers clear and rigorous linguistic categories for analyzing the relationships
between discourseand social meaning(see, e.g. Chouliaraki& Fairclough1999).
Next to Halliday's three metafunctions(ideational, interpersonal,textual mean-
ing), systemic-functionalanalyses of transivity,agency, nominalization,mood,
informationflow, and registerhave been adoptedby CDA. Martin(2000) reviews
the usefulness of systemic-functionallinguistics for CDA, suggesting that CDA
should apply systemic-functionalnotions more systematicallyand consistently.
Fairclough'sLanguage and Power (1989) is commonly considered to be the
landmarkpublicationfor the "start"of CDA. In this book, Faircloughengaged in
an explicitly politicized analysis of "powerful"discoursesin Britain [Thatcherite
political rhetoricand advertisement(see above)] and offered the synthesis of lin-
guistic method,objects of analysis, andpolitical commitmentthathas become the
trademarkof CDA.
Generally,there is a perceptionof a "core CDA"typically associated with the
work of NormanFairclough,Ruth Wodak,and Teun van Dijk, and a numberof
relatedapproachesin CDA such as discursivesocial psychology (e.g. the work of
MichaelBillig, CharlesAntaki,MargaretWetherell),social semiotics andworkon
multimodalityin discourse(e.g. GuntherKressandTheo vanLeeuwen), systemic-
functionallinguistics (e.g. Jay Lemke), andpolitical discourseanalysis (e.g. Paul
Chilton).
Although the influence of Halliday's social-semiotic and grammaticalwork
is acknowledgedand verifiable,referencesto otherdiscourse-analyticprecursors
(such as Michel Pecheux) are post hoc and inspiredmore by a desire to establish
a coherenttraditionthan by a genuine historicalnetworkof influences. One can
also note thatthe universeof mobilized sources invokedto supportthe CDA pro-
gramis selective. Referencesto work done in Americanlinguistics and linguistic
anthropologyare rare [with the exception of researchon literacy (see above)], as
are references to some precursorswho have had a manifest influence on many
"critical"approachesto language(e.g. FerruccioRossi-Landi,Louis-JeanCalvet)
and to criticalwork in other strandsof language studies (e.g. in sociolinguistics).
The potentialrelevanceof these largely overlookedtraditionsis discussed below.
Despite the presenceof landmarkpublicationsandof some acknowledgedlead-
ing figures,the boundariesof the CDA movementas well as the particularityof its
programseem to have emergedin an ad hoc fashion. Scholarsidentifyingwith the
label CDA seem to be unitedby the common domains and topics of investigation
discussed above, an explicit commitmentto social action and to the political left
wing, a common aim of integratinglinguistic analysis and social theory and-
though in more diffuse ways-by a preference for empirical analysis within a
set of paradigms,includingHallidayansystemic-functionallinguistics, conversa-
tion analysis, Lakoff-inspiredapproachesto metaphor,argumentationtheory,text
linguistics, and social psychology.
 CRITICAL
DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS 455

Thereis some tendencywithinCDA to identifyitself as a "school,"anda number

of writings are programmaticallyorientedtowardthe formationof a community
of scholars sharingthe same perspective,and to some extent also sharingsimilar
methodologies and theoreticalframeworks.Fairclough(1992a:12-36) surveys a
varietyof discourse-analyticapproaches,qualifiedas "noncritical,"in contrastto
his own critical approach.Such boundary-shapingpractices are worded in such
resolute termsthatthey result in suggestive divisions within discourseanalysis-
"critical"versus "noncritical"-that are hardto sustainin reality [a commentalso
made by Widdowson(1998)].
CDA has known a remarkablesuccess with studentsand scholars. CDA has a
majorforumof publicationin thejournalDiscourse & Society, startedin 1990 and
editedby vanDijk (see e.g. vanDijk 1993c);in addition,a Europeaninteruniversity
exchange programdevoted to CDA is now in place, and various Web sites and
electronicdiscussion forumsoffer contactsand informationon CDA projectsand
viewpoints. This activepursuitofinstitutionalizationhas aneffect on whatfollows.
To some extent,the "school"characteristicsof CDA create,to some, an impression
of closure and exclusiveness with respect to "critique"as a mode, ingredient,and
productof discourse analysis.

CriticalReception
Criticalreactionsto CDA centeron issues of interpretationand context. In a series
of review articles,Widdowson(1995, 1996, 1998) has criticizedCDA for its blur-
ring of importantdistinctionsbetween concepts, disciplines, and methodologies
(for reactions,see Fairclough1996, Chouliaraki& Fairclough1999:67). First,he
notes the vagueness of many concepts (whatis precisely meantby discourse,text,
structure,practice, and mode?) and models (how many functions and levels, and
how can these be proven?).This generalfuzziness is not helped by the rhetorical
use of concepts from social theory.Second, Widdowsonarguesthat, in its actual
analyses, and despite its theoreticalclaims to the opposite, CDA interpretsdis-
course underthe guise of critical analysis. CDA does not analyze how a text can
be readin many ways, or underwhat social circumstancesit is producedand con-
sumed. The predominanceof interpretationbegs questions about representation
(can analysts speakfor the averageconsumerof texts?), selectivity,partiality,and
prejudice(see also Stubbs 1997). The most fundamentalproblemto Widdowsonis
thatCDA collapses togethersignificationand significance,and ultimatelyseman-
tics and pragmatics.Texts are found to have a certainideological meaningthat is
forced upon the reader. This ratherdeterministicview of humanagency has also
been criticizedby Pennycook (1994).
Another critical debate on CDA was initiated by Schegloff (1997) and con-
tinued by others (Wetherell 1998; Billig 1999a,b; Schegloff 1999a,b; see also
Chouliaraki& Fairclough 1999:7). In Schegloff's opinion, there is a tendency
to assume the a priori relevance of aspects of context in CDA work: Analysts
projecttheir own political biases and prejudicesonto their data and analyze them
456 ? BULCAEN
BLOMMAERT

accordingly.Stable patternsof power relations are sketchy, often based on little

more than social and political common sense, and then projectedonto (and into)
discourse. Schegloff's own proposalsarethose of orthodoxconversationanalysis:
Relevant context should be restrictedto that context to which participantsin a
conversationactively and consequentiallyorient [a position equally vulnerableto
critique (see, e.g. Duranti 1997:245-79)]. The problematicstatus of context in
CDA analyses was also observed by Blommaert(1997a), who qualified the use
of context in some CDA work as narrativeand backgroundingand who noted the
"uncritical"acceptanceof particularrepresentationsof history and social reality
as "backgroundfacts"in analyses.

A New CriticalParadigm
The premise that critiquederives from investigatingand problematizingthe con-
nection between languageand social structureis obviously not restrictedto CDA.
Neither is the tendency to supportthis premise by means of insights from other
social-theoreticalfields of inquiry, seeking a more sustainablesocial, cultural,
and/or historicalfoundationfor linguistic analysis. In fact, one can say that both
elementscharacterizea new criticalparadigmnow observablein linguistic anthro-
pology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics,applied linguistics, and other fields. There
is now far more criticalresearchthan that developing underthe heading of CDA
alone, and one of the surprisingfeatures in the CDA literatureis the scarcity of
referencesto this plethoraof work.
Whatfollows is a brief and selective surveyof this paradigm,organizedon the
basis of threegeneralfeatures:ideology, inequalityand power,and social theory.
The survey is not meant to imply an absolute contrastbetween CDA and other
criticaldevelopmentsin linguistics. CDA is an originalcontributionto this critical
paradigm,and some of the scholarswe mentionbelow (e.g. Cameron,Rampton)
can be said to have been influencedby CDA. Also, certainbranchesof CDA have
takenstock of criticaldevelopmentsin linguisticanthropology,notablythe studies
of literacymentionedabove.

Ideology One prominentfeature is the development of ideology into a cru-

cial topic of investigation and theoretical elaboration.In linguistic anthropol-
ogy, Michael Silverstein's work on linguistic ideologies has been seminal, and
it has given rise to a researchtraditionwith considerablecritical punch. Starting
from views of linguistic ideology as embeddedin linguistic structure(Silverstein
1979), wider views of linguistic-ideologicalphenomenawere developed (for sur-
veys, see Woolard& Schieffelin 1994, Woolard1998) and were used to analyze
patternsof language use and interlanguage/intervariety relationshipsthat carried
clearsocietalpowerorpolicy connotations(Silverstein1996, Schieffelin& Doucet
1998, Errington1998, Spitulnik 1998). New inquiriesinto aspects of mediation,
intertextuality,and representation(drawingextensively on such authorsas Peirce,
Bakhtin, and Habermas)led to importantinsights into authorityand hierarchies
 CRITICAL
DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS 457

of genres and ways of speaking (Gal & Woolard1995) and into the dynamics of
contextualizationandthe natureof text andtextualization(Hanks1989, Bauman&
Briggs 1990, Silverstein& Urban 1996). The renewedfocus on ideology shaped
a new way of formulatinglanguage-society relationships and opened new av-
enues for analyzing languagepracticeand reflexively discussing analyticalprac-
tice. Scholarly traditionswere reviewed in light of these reformulatedquestions
(Irvine 1995; Blommaert 1996, 1997b), and established views of language and
society were questioned(Silverstein 1998). Apartfrom a widespreadacceptance
of the notion of "construction"in such research,an importantstimulusfor reflex-
ive researchinto analyticalpracticeswas providedby Goodwin's (1994) work on
"professionalvision,"which arrivedat a deeply criticalperspectiveon professional
authorityand expert status in contemporarysociety, and which demonstratedin
greatdetail the anchoringof such statusand authorityin situatedand contextual-
ized social practice. Similarresults were yielded by Mertz (1992) in analyses of
the discursiveteaching strategiesof professorsin an Americanlaw school.
Ideology has also become a crucial concern outside linguistic anthropology.
In sociolinguistic milieux in Europe and elsewhere, similar attentionto the im-
plicit theories underlying established views of language and language practice
emerged in roughly the same period. Joseph & Taylor's(1990) collection of es-
says broke ground in investigatingthe ideological foundationsof the language
sciences, observing that "[l]inguisticsis perhapsmore of a problemthan a solu-
tion" in the social sciences (Laurendeau1990:206). Williams (1992) provided a
trenchantsocial-theoreticalcritiqueof mainstreamsociolinguistics,demonstrating
its Parsonianstructural-functionalist underpinnings(see also Figueroa 1994). In
the meantime,Milroy & Milroy (1985) had writtena landmarkstudyon linguistic
purismandprescriptivism,andCameronhadbothidentifieda numberof language-
ideological phenomenalabeled verbal hygiene (Cameron 1995) and coauthored
an importantcollection of criticalessays on the practiceof sociolinguisticresearch
(Cameronet al 1992).
In the field of pragmatics, ideology has become a major field of inquiry
(Verschueren1999). Reflexive awarenessabout the ideologies guiding scholarly
practices has been attested in the critical surveys of one of pragmatics' most
prominentbranches,politeness theory (Eelen 1999, Kienpointner1999). Spurred
by workof BourdieuandLatour,appliedlinguistshaveequallybeguninvestigating
the underlyingassumptionsof analysis in education (e.g. Alexanderet al 1991)
and in other domains of professional practice (Gunnarsonet al 1997, Linell &
Sarangi 1998).

Inequality and Power A second featureof the criticalparadigmis the renewed

attentionto inequalityand power in relationto languagein society. CDA is surely
not alone in its predilectionfor political and other"powerful"discourse as an ob-
ject of analysis. Linguistic anthropologistssuch as Bloch (1975) and Brenneis &
Myers (1984) brokegroundwith influentialcollections of studies on political dis-
course genres in non-Westernsocieties, and this line of work has been continued
458 ? BULCAEN
BLOMMAERT

with importanttheoreticalresultsby otherscholars(e.g. Duranti1988). A precur-

sor to CDA was workby Mey (1985), which was presentedas a contributionto the
theory of pragmatics. Wilson's (1990) influentialstudy of political discourse is
pragmaticin approachandobjective,as arethose of, for example,Diamond(1996),
Harris(1995), and Kuzar(1997). Studies such as those by Flowerdew(1998) are
basedon rhetoricalanalysis.Similarly,professionalsettingsin which powerasym-
metries occur have been explored by a variety of discourse-analyticaltraditions
withinpragmatics,notablyconversationanalysis(e.g. Firth1995, Grossen& Orvig
1998).
An issue that has gained prominencein researchis that of inequalityand the
positioningof individualsand groupsin contemporarysocial and political hierar-
chies. Hymes' (1996) reedition of critical essays on educationand narrativere-
opened debateson the allocationof speakingrightsand linguistic-communicative
resources,offered an interestingreappraisalof Bernstein(as well as of Bourdieu
and Habermas),and arguedforcefully for more attentionto communicativein-
equalities in linguistic anthropologyand sociolinguistics. The locus of such in-
equalities was found in differences between available narrativeresources (e.g.
colloquial, dialect, anecdotal) and (often institutionally)requirednarrativere-
sources (e.g. standard,literate,logical) (cf also Ochs & Capps 1996). Similarly,
two recent volumes edited by CharlesBriggs (1996, 1997b), following an earlier
one edited by Grimshaw(1990), placed conflict and its discursiveresourceshigh
on the agenda. In particular,Briggs showed how the constructionof texts and
discourses across contexts-processes of entextualization-can result in power-
ful social effects, thus focusing on inequalitiesin the control over contexts (see
Barthes1956) as well as over specific genresandways of speaking. Powerdepends
not only on access to resourcesbut also on access to contexts in which resources
can be used. The similaritiesbetween this researchprogramand the intertextual
analysis proposedin Fairclough(1992a) are striking.
Detailed attentionto narrativesalso provideda fertile groundfor investigating
historyandthe historicalpowerrelationshipsthatputpeople in theircurrentsocio-
geographicalspace. From differentperspectives,both Collins (1998) and Fabian
(1990) demonstratedhow narrativesof group (or local geographical)history can
yield tracesof pastrelationshipsbetweenpolitical,cognitive,andideologicalhege-
monies andpatternsof resistance. Similarconcernsof languageand social history
have yielded an innovativebody of work in sociolinguistics, in which languages
and language varieties are describedin terms of politicized (or politicizable) in-
dexicalities. We thus arriveat views of language in society that hinge on power
hierarchies,power semiotics, and power effects, often relatedto identitypolitics
andinfluencedby the workof identifiablepoliticalactorsin society (Woolard1989;
Heller 1994, 1999; Jaffe 1999). The influenceof Bourdieuand Gramsciis clear in
this work, as is the tendencyto framethe story of languagein society in material-
ist terms and the tendencyto blend large-scalepolitical and societal observations
with detailedanalysesof linguistic-communicativepractices[thusarrivingat what
Heller (1999) calls a "sociolinguisticethnography"].Of particularimportancein
 ANALYSIS
DISCOURSE
CRITICAL 459

this respectis Rampton's(1995) work. Ramptonaddressesthe ways in which local

subculturalidentities are being formed and manipulatedby means of a varietyof
communicativestyles among multi-ethnicadolescent groups in Britain.Drawing
on a wide range of social-theoreticalsources (including, prominently,Giddens,
Gilroy, and Goffman),Ramptondemonstratesthe flexible allocation practicesof
communicativeresourcesin identitywork. Simple correlatesbetween identityand
speech style/varietydo not hold, and what becomes clear is that linear relation-
ships such as thatbetween "nativespeaker,""competence,"and a particulargroup
identityare less than satisfactorytools for graspingthe intricatework of expertise
and affiliationdetectablein the field.
All the approachesdiscussed so far give pride of place to issues of linguistic-
communicativeresourcesplaced againsta double backgroundof large-scalesoci-
etal processeson the one hand,andmicro-levelinteractioneventson the other.The
connectionbetween languageand social structureis not made a priori;rather,it is
sought in the practicalinterplaybetween concrete actions and group- or society-
level forces andpatterns.In worksuch as thatby RamptonandBriggs, the blending
of ethnographyand sociolinguistics has led to very productiveand nuancedtreat-
mentsof contextas producedbothon-line andsituationally,yet tied to largercondi-
tions of productionand circulationof semiotic resourcesin 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" andbackgroundedcontext-by-definition
of CDA. Needless to say, this type of work also offers advantagesover work
thatfocuses on differenceswithoutconsideringthe ways in which differencesare
socially rankedandmadeconsequential(as in muchworkon interculturalcommu-
nication),as well as over workthatassumesrelativelystablerelationshipsbetween
linguisticvarietiesandsociopoliticalfunctions(as in workin the "linguisticrights"
paradigm).

Social Theory A third feature of the critical paradigm,already mentioned in

passing, is the common desire to find social-theoreticalsupportfor analytical
treatmentsof language. Language is studied for what it tells one about society,
and linguistic method should be open to theoreticalinsights into the structureof
societies. Thereis a body of literaturein which calls for improvedincorporationof
social theoryinto linguistic analysis arebeing voiced, often advocatingmaterialist
approachesto questionsof linguisticresourcesandthe social use of language,and
engaging in discussions of Marxistscholars,rangingfrom Gramsciand Bourdieu
to Rossi-Landi(Woolard1985, Rickford1986, Laurendeau1990, Irvine 1989, Gal
1989). The reassessmentof Bernstein'swork by Hymes (1996) has alreadybeen
mentioned. An incorporationof historical theory into the analysis of language
in society was attemptedin Blommaert (1999). Goodwin (1994) compellingly
demonstrateshow professionalexpertise,seen in termsof situatedsemioticpractice
involving discourse, bodily practice, and institutionalization,can be viewed as a
Foucaultian"power-knowledge."
460 ? BULCAEN
BLOMMAERT

The sourcesfor new insights are infinite,and so far little use has been made of
a greatnumberof potentiallyuseful developmentsin otherdisciplines. Historical
theory has so far hardlybeen used as a resourcefor critical studies of language,
despitethe obviously relevantcontributionsof scholarssuch as, for example,Marc
Bloch, FernandBraudel,CarloGinzburg,PeterBurke,ImmanuelWallerstein,and
EdwardThompson.Equally less noticed, in the opposite direction, is the poten-
tial effect of new reinterpretations,
ethnographicallyestablished,of BenjaminLee
Whorf (providedamong others by Hymes and Silverstein)on social theory. The
idea of metacommunicativelevels in social communicativebehavior as well as
thatof the functionalrelativityof languages,styles, andgenreshave a potentialfor
becomingimportantcriticaltools bothfor linguisticsandfor othersocial-scientific
disciplines in which language and communicativebehaviorfeature-history, an-
thropology,psychology, and sociology immediatelycome to mind. The effect of
these insights on the ways in which texts, narratives,documentaryevidence, and
so forth are treatedas sources of "meaning"(or "information")can contribute
significantlyto a greaterawarenessof small but highly relevantpower featuresin
such materials.

ASSESSINGCDA
The above selective survey is aimed at demonstratingthat CDA, as an original
and stimulatingresearchdiscipline, should be situatedwithin a wider panorama
of common concerns,questions,and approachesdevelopingamonga much wider
scholarlycommunity.At the same time, CDA may benefitfromthe criticalpoten-
tial of these relateddevelopmentsin orderto remedy some of its theoreticaland
methodologicalweaknesses, notablythose relatedto the treatmentsof context in
CDA. The latteris arguablythe biggest methodologicalissue faced by CDA.
At the micro-level, concrete instances of talk or concrete features of text
could be analyzed more satisfactorilyif a more dynamic concept of context-
contextualization-were used. The developments in linguistic anthropology,in
which processes of contextualization[de- and recontextualization,entextualiza-
tion (Bauman& Briggs 1990, Silverstein& Urban1996)] could be a fertile source
of inspirationfor developing a dynamic concept of context. In general, more at-
tention to ethnographyas a resourcefor contextualizingdata and as a theory for
the interpretationof datacould remedy some of the currentproblemswith context
and interpretationin CDA (for generaldiscussions and arguments,see Duranti&
Goodwin 1992, Auer & diLuzio 1992).
At the macro-level, CDA seems to pay little attentionto mattersof distribu-
tion and resulting availability/accessibilitypatternsof linguistic-communicative
resources.Only the texts become objects of a political economy; the conditions
of productionof texts and more specifically the way in which the resourcesthat
go into text are being managed in societies are rarely discussed (e.g. with re-
spect to literacy,controlover codes, etc). At this point, recent sociolinguisticand
linguistic-anthropologicalwork, such as that of Hymes, Briggs, Woolard,Gal,
 CRITICAL
DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS 461

Rampton, and Heller could considerablycontributetoward a more refined im-

age of languages, genres, and styles, as embeddedin flexible but highly sensitive
repertoiresthat have a history of sociopolitical distribution.Linguistic resources
are contexts in the sense that they are partof the conditions of productionof any
utteranceor text and thus determinewhat can and cannotbe said by some people
in some situations.
The way in which CDA treatsthe historicityof text (largelyreducibleto assump-
tions aboutintertextualchains) could benefitfrom genuinely historicaltheoretical
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 historicity of each social event
could contributeto more accurateassessments of what certain texts do in soci-
eties. The contextualizationof discoursedatawould benefitfrom a more attentive
stance towardthe historicalpositioning of the events in which the discourse data
are set (as well as of the historicalpositioning of the moment of analysis: "Why
now?" is a relevantquestion in analysis).
CDA is still burdenedby a very "linguistic"outlook, which preventsproduc-
tive ways of incorporatinglinguistic and nonlinguistic dimensions of semiosis
(apparent,for instance, in the very partialinterpretationof Foucault's"discours"
in Fairclough'swork). Here as well, a more ethnographicallyinformedstance, in
which linguisticpracticeis embeddedin moregeneralpatternsof humanmeaning-
ful action, could be highly productive.Goodwin'sworkcould serve as an example
here.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank Alessandro Duranti, Ben Rampton, and Stef Slembrouckfor
valuablecomments on a firstversion of this paper.

Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org

LITERATURE
CITED

AlexanderPA,SchallertMD, HareVC. 1991. BartonD, HamiltonM, IvanicR, eds. 2000.

Comingto terms:howresearchers in learn- SituatedLiteracies: Reading and Writingin
ing andliteracytalkaboutknowledge.Rev. Context.London:Routledge
Educ. Res. 61(3):315-43 BartonD, IvanicR, eds. 1991. Writingin the
Althusser L. 1971. Lenin and Philosophy and Community.London: Sage
OtherEssays.London:NewLeftBooks BaumanR, BriggsC. 1990.Poeticsandperfor-
AuerP,diLuzioA, eds. 1992.TheContextual- manceas criticalperspectiveson language
izationofLanguage.Amsterdam:Benjamins and social life. Annu.Rev.Anthropol.19:59-
88
BarthesR. 1956. Mythologies.Paris: Le Seuil
BartonD, HamiltonM. 1998. Local Litera- BaynhamM. 1995. LiteracyPractices: Investi-
cies: Reading and Writingin One Commu- gating Literacyin Social Contexts.London:
nity.London:Routledge Longman
462 BLOMMAERT * BULCAEN
BaynhamM, SlembrouckS, eds. 1999. Speech
Representationand InstitutionalDiscourse.
Special Issue Text19(4):459-592
Billig M. 1999a.Whose terms? Whose ordinar-
iness? Rhetoricandideology in conversation
analysis. Discourse Soc. 10(4):543-58
Billig M. 1999b. Conversationanalysis and the
claims of naivety.Discourse Soc. 10(4):572-
76
Birch D. 1998. Criticism, linguistic. In Con-
cise Encyclopediaof Pragmatics,ed. J Mey,
pp. 190-94. Oxford,UK: Pergamon/Elsevier
Bloch M, ed. 1975. Political Language and
Oratory in TraditionalSocieties. London:
Academic
Blommaert J. 1996. Language planning as
a discourse on language and society: on
the linguistic ideology of a scholarly tradi-
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):69-81
Blommaert J. 1997b. Workshopping: notes
on professionalvision in discourseanalysis.
Antwerp Pap. Linguist., Vol. 91. Antwerp,
Belgium: Univ. Antwerp
BlommaertJ, ed. 1999. Language Ideological
Debates. Berlin: De Gruyter
BlommaertJ, Bulcaen C, eds. 1997. Political
Linguistics.Amsterdam:Benjamins
Bourdieu P. 1991. Language and Symbolic
Power Cambridge,UK: Polity
BrenneisDL, Myers FR, eds. 1984. Dangerous
Words:Languageand Politics in the Pacific.
New York:NY Univ. Press
Briggs C, ed. 1996. DisorderlyDiscourse: Nar-
rative, Conflict and Inequality. New York:
OxfordUniv. Press
Briggs C. 1997a. Notes on a 'confession': the
construction of gender, sexuality and vi-
olence in an infanticide case. See Briggs
1997b, pp. 519-46
Briggs C, ed. 1997b. Conflictand Violence in
PragmaticResearch.Special issue Pragmat-
ics 7(4):451-633
Caldas-CoulthardCR. 1993. From discourse
analysis to critical discourse analysis: the
differential representation of women and
men speakingin writtennews. In Techniques
of Description: Spoken and WrittenDis-
course, ed. JM Sinclair, M Hoey, G Fox,
pp. 196-208. London: Routledge
Caldas-CoulthardCR. 1996. 'Womenwho pay
for sex. And enjoy it': transgressionversus
moralityin women'smagazines.See Caldas-
Coulthard& Coulthard1996, pp. 250-70
Caldas-CoulthardCR, CoulthardM, eds. 1996.
Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical
Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge
Cameron D. 1995. VerbalHygiene. London:
Routledge
CameronD, FrazerE, Harvey P, RamptonB,
RichardsonK. 1992. ResearchingLanguage:
Issues of Powerand Method.London: Rout-
ledge
Chilton P, Mey J, Ilyin M, eds. 1998. Politi-
cal Discourse in Transitionin Europe1989-
1991. Amsterdam:Benjamins
ChouliarakiL. 1998. Regulation in 'progres-
sivist' pedagogic discourse: individualized
teacher-pupiltalk. Discourse Soc. 9(1):5-32
ChouliarakiL, FaircloughN. 1999. Discourse
in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical
Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
Univ. Press
ClarkR, FaircloughN, Ivanic R, Martin-Jones
M. 1989. Criticallanguageawareness.Part1:
A criticalreviewof threecurrentapproaches.
Lang. Educ. 4(4):249-60
ClarkR, FaircloughN, Ivanic R, Martin-Jones
M. 1990. Critical language awareness. Part
2: Towardscriticalalternatives.Lang. Educ.
5(1):41-54
Clark U, Zyngier S. 1998. Women beware
women: detective fiction and critical dis-
course analysis. Lang. Lit. 7(2):141-58
Collins J. 1998. Understanding Tolowa
Histories: WesternHegemonies and Native
AmericanResponses. New York:Routledge
Cope B, Kalantzis M, eds. 2000. Multilitera-
cies: Literacy Learning and the Design of
Social 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,language and 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 Rethinking
Context.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 Schieffelin et 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: Longman
Fairclough N. 1992a. Discourse and Social
Change. Cambridge,UK: Polity
FaircloughN. 1992b. Linguistic and intertex-
tual analysis within discourse analysis. Dis-
course Soc. 3:193-217
Fairclough N, ed. 1992c. Critical Language
Awareness.London: Longman
Fairclough N. 1995a. Media Discourse. Lon-
don: Arnold
FaircloughN. 1995b. Critical Discourse Anal-
ysis. London: Longman
FaircloughN. 1996. A reply to HenryWiddow-
son's 'Discourse analysis: a critical view.'
Lang. Lit. 5(1):49-56
FaircloughN, MauranenA. 1997. The conver-
sationalizationof political discourse: a com-
parative view. See Blommaert & Bulcaen
1997, pp. 89-119
Figueroa E. 1994. Sociolinguistic Metatheory.
Oxford, UK: Pergamon
Firth A. 1995. The Discourse of Negotiation:
Studies of Language in the Workplace.New
York: Pergamon
CRITICALDISCOURSEANALYSIS 463
FlowerdewJ. 1998. The Final Yearsof British
Hong Kong: TheDiscourse of ColonialWith-
drawal. Hong Kong: Macmillan
FoucaultM. 1971. L'Ordredu Discours. Paris:
Gallimard
FoucaultM. 1977. Discipline and Punish. Lon-
don: Lane
Fowler R. 1996. On Critical Linguistics.
See Caldas-Coulthard& Coulthard 1996,
pp. 3-14
Fowler R, Hodge R, Kress G, Trew T. 1979.
Languageand Control.London: Routledge,
KeganPaul
Gal S. 1989. Languageand political economy.
Annu.Rev.Anthropol.18:345-67
Gal S, WoolardK, ed. 1995. ConstructingLan-
guages and Publics. Special Issue Pragmat-
ics 5(2):129-282
Giddens A. 1984. The Constitution of Soci-
ety. Outline of the Theory of Structuration.
Cambridge,UK: Polity
Goodwin C. 1994. Professional vision. Am.
Anthropol.96(3):606-33
Gramsci A. 1971. Selections from the Prison
Notebooks.London: Lawrence,Wishart
Grimshaw AD, ed. 1990. Conflict Talk: So-
ciolinguistic Investigationsof Argumentsin
Conversation.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Grossen M, Orvig AS, eds. 1998. Clinical In-
terviewsas VerbalInteractions:A Multidis-
ciplinary Outlook.Special Issue Pragmatics
8(2):149-297
GunnarssonBL, Linell P, Nordberg B, eds.
1997. The Constructionof ProfessionalDis-
course. London: Longman
HabermasJ. 1984. The Theoryof Communica-
tive Action. Vol. 1. Reason and the Rational-
ization of Society. London: Heinemann
HabermasJ. 1987. The Theoryof 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 Gunnarsonet al 1997, pp. 265-
91
464 BLOMMAERT ? BULCAEN
HanksW. 1989. Textand textuality.Annu.Rev.
Anthropol.18:95-127
HarrisS. 1995. Pragmaticsand power.J. Prag-
mat. 23:117-35
HawisherGE, Selfe CL, eds. 2000. Global Lit-
eracies and the World-WideWeb.London:
Routledge
Heath SB. 1983. Wayswith Words:Language,
Life and Workin Communitiesand Class-
rooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Heller M. 1994. Crosswords: Language, Ed-
ucation and Ethnicity in French Ontario.
Berlin: De Gruyter
Heller M. 1999. Linguistic Minorities and
Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography.
London: Longman
Hodge R, KressG. 1979.Languageas Ideology.
London: Routledge,KeganPaul
Hodge R, KressG. 1993.Languageas Ideology.
London: Routledge. 2nd ed.
Hymes DH. 1996. Ethnography,Linguistics,
Narrative Inequality: Toward an Under-
standing of Voice.London: Taylor,Francis
Irvine J. 1989. When talk isn't cheap: lan-
guage and political economy. Am. Ethnol.
16(2):248-67
IrvineJ. 1995. The family romanceof colonial
linguistics: genderand family in nineteenth-
century representations of African lan-
guages. See Gal & Wolard1995, pp. 139-53.
Ivanic R. 1998. Writingand Identity: The Dis-
coursal Constructionof Identityin Academic
Writing.Amsterdam:Benjamins
Jaffe A. 1999. Ideologies in Action: Language
Politics on Corsica. Berlin: De Gruyter
JaworskiA, CouplandN, eds. 1999. The Dis-
course Reader.London: Routledge
Joseph JE, TaylorTJ, eds. 1990. Ideologies of
Language.London: Routledge
KienpointnerM, ed. 1999. Ideologies of Polite-
ness. Special Issue Pragmatics9(1): 1-176
Kress G. 1994. Text and grammaras explana-
tion. In Text,Discourse and Context: Rep-
resentations of Poverty in Britain, ed. UH
Meinhof, K Richardson,pp. 24-46. London:
Longman
Kress G. 1997. Before Writing.Rethinkingthe
Paths to Literacy.London: Routledge
Kress G, van Leeuwen T. 1996. Reading Im-
ages: The Grammarof VisualDesign. Lon-
don: Routledge
KuzarR. 1997. Split word, split subject, split
society. Pragmatics7(1):21-54
LaclauE, Mouffe C. 1985. Hegemonyand So-
cialist Strategy.London: Verso
LaurendeauP. 1990. Theory of emergence:
towards a historical-materialisticapproach
to the history of linguistics. See Joseph &
Taylor 1990, pp. 206-20
Linell P,SarangiS, eds. 1998. DiscourseAcross
Professional Boundaries. Special Issue Text
18(2):143-318
MartinJR. 2000. Close reading:functionallin-
guistics as a tool for critical discourse anal-
ysis. In Researching Language in Schools
and Communities: Functional Linguistic
Perspectives,ed. L Unsworth,pp. 275-302.
London: Cassell
Martin Rojo L. 1995. Division and rejection:
from the personificationof the Gulf conflict
to the demonizationof SaddamHussein.Dis-
course Soc. 6:49-80
MartinRojo L, van Dijk T. 1997. "Therewas
a problem,and it was solved!": legitimating
the expulsion of 'illegal' migrantsin Span-
ish parliamentarydiscourse. Discourse Soc.
8(4):523-66
Mertz E. 1992. Linguistic ideology and praxis
in U.S. law school classrooms. Pragmatics
2/3:325-34
Mey J. 1985. Whose Language? A Study
in Linguistic Pragmatics. Amsterdam:
Benjamins
Milroy J, Milroy L. 1985. Authorityin Lan-
guage: InvestigatingLanguagePrescription
and Standardisation.London: Routledge,
KeganPaul
Milroy J, Milroy L. 1999. Authorityin Lan-
guage: Investigating Standard English.
London: Routledge. 3rd ed.
New LondonGroup.1996. A pedagogyof mul-
tiliteracies: designing social futures. Harv.
Educ. Rev.66:60-92

Ochs E, Capps L. 1996. Narrating the self.
Annu.Rev.Anthropol.25:19-43
Pennycook A. 1994. Incommensurable dis-
courses? Appl. Linguist. 15(2):115-38
Rampton B. 1995. Crossing: Language
and EthnicityAmong Adolescents. London:
Longman
RickfordJ. 1986. The need 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. Language
and 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. Discourse
Soc. 10(4):558-72
Schegloff EA. 1999b.Naivete vs sophistication
or discipline vs self-indulgence.A rejoinder
to Billig. Discourse Soc. 10(4):577-82
Schieffelin BB, Doucet RC. 1998. The 'real'
Haitian Creole: ideology, metalinguistics,
andorthographicchoice. See Schieffelinet al
1998, pp. 285-316
Schieffelin BB, Woolard KA, Kroskrity PV,
eds. 1998. Language Ideologies: Practice
and Theory.New York: OxfordUniv. Press
Silverstein M. 1979. Language structureand
linguistic ideology. In The Elements: A
Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels,
ed. PR Clyne, WF Hanks, CL Hofbauer,
pp. 193-247. Chicago: Chicago Linguist.
Soc.
Silverstein M. 1996. Monoglot 'standard'in
America: standardizationand metaphorsof
linguistic hegemony. In The Matrix of Lan-
guage: ContemporaryLinguisticAnthropol-
ogy, ed. D. Brenneis,RS Macaulay,pp. 284-
306. Boulder,CO: Westview
SilversteinM. 1998. Contemporarytransforma-
tions of local linguistic communities.Annu.
Rev.Anthropol.27:401-26
CRITICALDISCOURSEANALYSIS 465
SilversteinM, UrbanG, eds. 1996. NaturalHis-
tories of Discourse. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Slembrouck S. 1993. Globalising flows: pro-
motional discourses of governmentin West-
ern European 'orders of discourse.' Soc.
Semiot. 3(2):265-92
SlembrouckS. 1995. Channel.See Verschueren
et al 1995, pp. 1-20.
SpitulnikD. 1998. Mediatingunity and diver-
sity: theproductionof languageideologies in
Zambianbroadcasting.See Schieffelin et al
1998, pp. 163-88
Street B. 1995. Social Literacies: Critical
Approaches to Literacy in Development,
Ethnographyand Education.London:Long-
man
Stubbs M. 1997. Whorf's children: critical
comments on CDA. In Evolving Models of
Language,ed. A Ryan, A Wray,pp. 100-16.
Milton Keynes, UK: MultilingualMatters
TalbotM. 1992. The constructionof genderin
a teenage magazine. See Fairclough 1992a,
pp. 174-99
ThompsonJB. 1990. IdeologyandModernCul-
ture.Cambridge,UK: Polity
Thomborrow J. 1998. Playing hard to get:
metaphorandrepresentationin the discourse
of car advertisements.Lang. Lit. 7(3):254-
72
ToolanM. 1997. Whatis criticaldiscourseanal-
ysis and why are people saying such terrible
things aboutit? Lang. Lit. 6(2):83-103
vanDijk T. 1987. CommunicatingRacism: Eth-
nic Prejudicein Thoughtand Talk.Newbury
Park,CA: Sage
van Dijk T. 1991. Racism and the Press.
London: Routledge
van Dijk T. 1993a.Criticalanddescriptivegoals
in discourse analysis.J. Pragmat.9:739-63
van Dijk T. 1993b.Elite Discourse and Racism.
NewburyPark,CA: Sage
van Dijk T. 1993c. Principles of critical dis-
course analysis. Discourse Soc. 4:249-83
van Dijk T. 1995. Discourse analysis as ideol-
ogy analysis. See Schaffner& Wenden1995,
pp. 17-33
466 BLOMMAERT ? BULCAEN
van Dijk T. 1997. What is political discourse
analysis? See Blommaert& Bulcaen 1997,
pp. 11-52
vanDijk T. 1998.Ideology: A Multidisciplinary
Approach.London: Sage
van Leeuwen T. 1993. Genre and field in criti-
cal discourseanalysis: a synopsis.Discourse
Soc. 4(2):193-223
van Leeuwen T. 1996. The representation
of social actors. See Caldas-Coulthard&
Coulthard1996, pp. 32-70
van Leeuwen T, WodakR. 1999. Legitimizing
immigration control: discourse-historical
analysis. Discourse Stud. 1(1):83-118
VerschuerenJ, ed. 1999. Language and Ide-
ology. Selected Pap. 6th Int. Pragmat. Conf.
Antwerp,Belgium: Int. Pragmat.Assoc.
VerschuerenJ, OstmanJO, BlommaertJ, eds.
1995. Handbookof Pragmatics 1995. Ams-
terdam:Benjamins
WalshC. 1998. Genderandmediatizedpolitical
discourse: a case study of press coverage of
MargaretBeckett's campaignfor the Labour
leadership in 1994. Lang. Lit. 7(3):199-
214
WetherellM. 1998. Positioningand interpreta-
tive repertoires: CA and post-structuralism
in dialogue. Discourse Soc. 9(3):387-412
Widdowson H. 1995. Discourse analysis: a
criticalview. Lang. Lit. 4(3): 157-72
WiddowsonH. 1996. Reply to Fairclough.Dis-
course and interpretation:conjectures and
refutations.Lang. Lit. 5(1):57-69
Widdowson H. 1998. The theory and 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:Benjamins
Wodak R. 1995. Critical linguistics and criti-
cal discourseanalysis. See Verschuerenet al
1995, pp. 204-10
Wodak R. 1996. Disorders of Discourse.
London: Longman
WodakR. 1997. Criticaldiscourseanalysis and
the study of doctor-patientinteraction.See
Gunnarssonet al 1997, pp. 173-200
Wodak R, Reisigl M. 1999. Discourse and
racism: Europeanperspectives.Annu. Rev.
Anthropol.28:175-99
WoolardKA. 1985. Languagevariationandcul-
turalhegemony: towardan integrationof so-
ciolinguistics and social theory.Am. Ethnol.
2(4):738-48
Woolard K. 1989. Double Talk: Bilingualism
and the Politics of Ethnicity in Catalonia.
Stanford:StanfordUniv. Press
Woolard KA. 1998. Language ideology as a
field of inquiry.See Schieffelin et al 1998,
pp. 3-47
WoolardKA, Schieffelin BB. 1994. Language
ideology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:55-
82