TEUN A. VAN DIJK
0 Introduction: What Is Critical Discourse Analysis?
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that prim-arily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted,reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. Withsuch dissident research, critical discourse analysts take explicit position, and thuswant to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality.
Some of the tenets of CDA can already be found in the critical theory of theFrankfurt School before the Second World War (Agger 1992b; Rasmussen 1996). Itscurrent focus on language and discourse was initiated with the \"critical linguistics\"that emerged (mostly in the UK and Australia) at the end of the 1970s (Fowler et al.1979; see also Mey 1985). CDA has also counterparts in \"critical\" developments insociolinguistics, psychology, and the social sciences, some already dating back to theearly 1970s (Birnbaum 1971; Calhoun 1995; Fay 1987; Fox and Prilleltensky 1997;Hymes 1972; Ibanez and Iniguez 1997; Singh 1996; Thomas 1993; Turkel 1996; Wodak1996). As is the case in these neighboring disciplines, CDA may be seen as a reactionagainst the dominant formal (often \"asocial\" or \"uncritical\") paradigms of the 1960sand 1970s.
CDA is not so much a direction, school, or specialization next to the many other\"approaches\" in discourse studies. Rather, it aims to offer a different \"mode\" or\"perspective\" of theorizing, analysis, and application throughout the whole field. Wemay find a more or less critical perspective in such diverse areas as pragmatics,conversation analysis, narrative analysis, rhetoric, stylistics, sociolinguistics, ethno-graphy, or media analysis, among others.
Crucial for critical discourse analysts is the explicit awareness of their role in soci-ety. Continuing a tradition that rejects the possibility of a \"value-free\" science, theyargue that science, and especially scholarly discourse, are inherently part of andinfluenced by social structure, and produced in social interaction. Instead of denyingor ignoring such a relation between scholarship and society, they plead that suchrelations be studied and accounted for in their own right, and that scholarly practices
Critical Discourse Analysis 353
be based on such insights. Theory formation, description, and explanation, also indiscourse analysis, are sociopolitically \"situated,\" whether we like it or not. Reflec-tion on the role of scholars in society and the polity thus becomes an inherent partof the discourse analytical enterprise. This may mean, among other things, that dis-course analysts conduct research in solidarity and cooperation with dominated groups.Critical research on discourse needs to satisfy a number of requirements in order toeffectively realize its aims:•••••
As is often the case for more marginal research traditions, CDA research has to be\"better\" than other research in order to be accepted.It focuses primarily on social problems and political issues, rather than on currentparadigms and fashions.
Empirically adequate critical analysis of social problems is usually multidisciplinary.Rather than merely describe discourse structures, it tries to explain them in terms ofproperties of social interaction and especially social structure.
More specifically, CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm,legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of power and dominance in society.
Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271-80) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows:
1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.
CDA addresses social problemsPower relations are discursive
Discourse constitutes society and cultureDiscourse does ideological workDiscourse is historical
The link between text and society is mediated
Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatoryDiscourse is a form of social action.
Whereas some of these tenets have also been discussed above, others need a moresystematic theoretical analysis, of which we shall present some fragments here as amore or less general basis for the main principles of CDA (for details about theseaims of critical discourse and language studies, see, e.g., Caldas-Coulthard andCoulthard 1996; Fairclough 1992a, 1995a; Fairclough and Wodak 1997; Fowler et al.1979; van Dijk 1993b).
1 Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks
Since CDA is not a specific direction of research, it does not have a unitary theoreticalframework. Within the aims mentioned above, there are many types of CDA, andthese may be theoretically and analytically quite diverse. Critical analysis of conversa-tion is very different from an analysis of news reports in the press or of lessons andteaching at school. Yet, given the common perspective and the general aims of CDA,we may also find overall conceptual and theoretical frameworks that are closelyrelated. As suggested, most kinds of CDA will ask questions about the way specific
354 Teun A. van Dijk
discourse structures are deployed in the reproduction of social dominance, whetherthey are part of a conversation or a news report or other genres and contexts. Thus,the typical vocabulary of many scholars in CDA will feature such notions as \"power,\"\"dominance,\" \"hegemony,\" \"ideology,\" \"class,\" \"gender,\" \"race,\" \"discrimination,\"\"interests,\" \"reproduction,\" \"institutions,\" \"social structure,\" and \"social order,\" be-sides the more familiar discourse analytical notions.'
In this section, I focus on a number of basic concepts themselves, and thus devise atheoretical framework that critically relates discourse, cognition, and society.
1.1 Macro vs. micro
Language use, discourse, verbal interaction, and communication belong to the micro-level of the social order. Power, dominance, and inequality between social groups aretypically terms that belong to a macrolevel of analysis. This means that CDA has totheoretically bridge the well-known \"gap\" between micro and macro approaches, whichis of course a distinction that is a sociological construct in its own right (Alexanderet al. 1987; Knorr-Cetina and Cicourel 1981). In everyday interaction and experiencethe macro- and microlevel (and intermediary \"mesolevels\") form one unified whole.For instance, a racist speech in parliament is a discourse at the microlevel of socialinteraction in the specific situation of a debate, but at the same time may enact or bea constituent part of legislation or the reproduction of racism at the macrolevel.
There are several ways to analyze and bridge these levels, and thus to arrive at aunified critical analysis:
1 Members–groups: Language users-engage in discourse as members of (several)
social groups, organizations, or institutions; and conversely, groups thus may act\"by\" their members.
2 Actions–process: Social acts of individual actors are thus constituent parts of group
actions and social processes, such as legislation, newsmaking, or the reproductionof racism.
3 Context–social structure: Situations of discursive interaction are similarly part or
constitutive of social structure; for example, a press conference may be a typicalpractice of organizations and media institutions. That is, \"local\" and more \"global\"contexts are closely related, and both exercise constraints on discourse.
4 Personal and social cognition: Language users as social actors have both personal
and social cognition: personal memories, knowledge and opinions, as well asthose shared with members of the group or culture as a whole. Both types ofcognition influence interaction and discourse of individual members, whereasshared \"social representations\" govern the collective actions of a group.
1.2 Power as control
A central notion in most critical work on discourse is that of power, and more specific-ally the social power of groups or institutions. Summarizing a complex philosophicaland social analysis, we will define social power in terms of control. Thus, groups have
Critical Discourse Analysis 355
(more or less) power if they are able to (more or less) control the acts and minds of(members of) other groups. This ability presupposes a power base of privileged accessto scarce social resources, such as force, money, status, fame, knowledge, informa-tion, \"culture,\" or indeed various forms of public discourse and communication (ofthe vast literature on power, see, e.g., Lukes 1986; Wrong 1979).
Different types of power may be distinguished according to the various resourcesemployed to exercise such power: the coercive power of the military and of violentmen will rather be based on force, the rich will have power because of their money,whereas the more or less persuasive power of parents, professors, or journalists maybe based on knowledge, information, or authority. Note also that power is seldomabsolute. Groups may more or less control other groups, or only control them in spe-cific situations or social domains. Moreover, dominated groups may more or less resist,accept, condone, comply with, or legitimate such power, and even find it \"natural.\"The power of dominant groups may be integrated in laws, rules, norms, habits,and even a quite general consensus, and thus take the form of what Gramsci called\"hegemony\" (Gramsci 1971). Class domination, sexism, and racism are characteristicexamples of such hegemony. Note also that power is not always exercised in obvi-ously abusive acts of dominant group members, but may be enacted in the myriad oftaken-for-granted actions of everyday life, as is typically the case in the many formsof everyday sexism or racism (Essed 1991). Similarly, not all members of a powerfulgroup are always more powerful than all members of dominated groups: power isonly defined here for groups as a whole.
For our analysis of the relations between discourse and power, thus, we first findthat access to specific forms of discourse, e.g. those of politics, the media, or science,is itself a power resource. Secondly, as suggested earlier, action is controlled by ourminds. So, if we are able to influence people's minds, e.g. their knowledge or opin-ions, we indirectly may control (some of) their actions, as we know from persuasionand manipulation.
Closing the discourse–power circle, finally, this means that those groups who con-trol most influential discourse also have more chances to control the minds andactions of others.
Simplifying these very intricate relationships even further for this chapter, we cansplit up the issue of discursive power into two basic questions for CDA research:1 How do (more) powerful groups control public discourse?
2 How does such discourse control mind and action of (less) powerful groups, and
what are the social consequences of such control, such as social inequality?I address each question below.'
1.2.1 Control of public discourse
We have seen that among many other resources that define the power base of agroup or institution, access to or control over public discourse and communication isan important \"symbolic\" resource, as is the case for knowledge and information (vanDijk 1996). Most people have active control only over everyday talk with familymembers, friends, or colleagues, and passive control over, e.g. media usage. In many
356 Teun A. van Dijk
situations, ordinary people are more or less passive targets of text or talk, e.g. of theirbosses or teachers, or of the authorities, such as police officers, judges, welfare bur-eaucrats, or tax inspectors, who may simply tell them what (not) to believe or whatto do.
On the other hand, members of more powerful social groups and institutions, andespecially their leaders (the elites), have more or less exclusive access to, and controlover, one or more types of public discourse. Thus, professors control scholarly dis-course, teachers educational discourse, journalists media discourse, lawyers legaldiscourse, and politicians policy and other public political discourse. Those whohave more control over more — and more influential — discourse (and more discourseproperties) are by that definition also more powerful. In other words, we here pro-pose a discursive definition (as well as a practical diagnostic) of one of the crucialconstituents of social power.
These notions of discourse access and control are very general, and it is one of thetasks of CDA to spell out these forms of power. Thus, if discourse is defined in termsof complex communicative events, access and control may be defined both for thecontext and for the structures of text and talk themselves.
Context is defined as the mentally represented structure of those properties of thesocial situation that are relevant for the production or comprehension of discourse(Duranti and Goodwin 1992; van Dijk 1998b). It consists of such categories as theoverall definition of the situation, setting (time, place), ongoing actions (includingdiscourses and discourse genres), participants in various communicative, social, orinstitutional roles, as well as their mental representations: goals, knowledge, opin-ions, attitudes, and ideologies. Controlling context involves control over one or moreof these categories, e.g. determining the definition of the communicative situation,deciding on time and place of the communicative event, or on which particip-ants may or must be present, and in which roles, or what knowledge or opinionsthey should (not) have, and which social actions may or must be accomplished bydiscourse.
Also crucial in the enactment or exercise of group power is control not only overcontent, but over the structures of text and talk. Relating text and context, thus, wealready saw that (members of) powerful groups may decide on the (possible) dis-course genre(s) or speech acts of an occasion. A teacher or judge may require a directanswer from a student or suspect, respectively, and not a personal story or an argu-ment (Wodak 1984a, 1986). More critically, we may examine how powerful speakersmay abuse their power in such situations, e.g. when police officers use force to get aconfession from a suspect (Linell and Jonsson 1991), or when male editors excludewomen from writing economic news (van Zoonen 1994).
Similarly, genres typically have conventional schemas consisting of various categor-ies. Access to some of these may be prohibited or obligatory, e.g. some greetings in aconversation may only be used by speakers of a specific social group, rank, age, orgender (Irvine 1974).
Also vital for all discourse and communication is who controls the topics (semanticmacrostructures) and topic change, as when editors decide what news topics willbe covered (Gans 1979; van Dijk 1988a, 1988b), professors decide what topics willbe dealt with in class, or men control topics and topic change in conversations withwomen (Palmer 1989; Fishman 1983; Leet-Pellegrini 1980; Lindegren-Lerman 1983).
Critical Discourse Analysis 357
Although most discourse control is contextual or global, even local details of mean-ing, form, or style may be controlled, e.g. the details of an answer in class or court, orchoice of lexical items or jargon in courtrooms, classrooms or newsrooms (MartinRojo 1994). In many situations, volume may be controlled and speakers ordered to\"keep their voice down\" or to \"keep quiet,\" women may be \"silenced\" in many ways(Houston and Kramarae 1991), and in some cultures one needs to \"mumble\" as aform of respect (Albert 1972). The public use of specific words may be banned assubversive in a dictatorship, and discursive challenges to culturally dominant groups(e.g. white, western males) by their multicultural opponents may be ridiculed in themedia as \"politically correct\" (Williams 1995). And finally, action and interactiondimensions of discourse may be controlled by prescribing or proscribing specificspeech acts, and by selectively distributing or interrupting turns (see also Diamond1996).
In sum, virtually all levels and structures of context, text, and talk can in principlebe more or less controlled by powerful speakers, and such power may be abused atthe expense of other participants. It should, however, be stressed that talk and text donot always and directly enact or embody the overall power relations between groups:it is always the context that may interfere with, reinforce, or otherwise transformsuch relationships.1.2.2 Mind control
If controlling discourse is a first major form of power, controlling people's minds isthe other fundamental way to reproduce dominance and hegemony.' Within a CDAframework, \"mind control\" involves even more than just acquiring beliefs about theworld through discourse and communication. Suggested below are ways that powerand dominance are involved in mind control.
First, recipients tend to accept beliefs, knowledge, and opinions (unless they areinconsistent with their personal beliefs and experiences) through discourse from whatthey see as authoritative, trustworthy, or credible sources, such as scholars, experts,professionals, or reliable media (Nesler et al. 1993). Second, in some situations parti-cipants are obliged to be recipients of discourse, e.g. in education and in many jobsituations. Lessons, learning materials, job instructions, and other discourse types insuch cases may need to be attended to, interpreted, and learned as intended byinstitutional or organizational authors (Giroux 1981). Third, in many situations thereare no pubic discourses or media that may provide information from which alternat-ive beliefs may be derived (Downing 1984). Fourth, and closely related to the previouspoints, recipients may not have the knowledge and beliefs needed to challenge thediscourses or information they are exposed to (Wodak 1987).
Whereas these conditions of mind control are largely contextual (they say some-thing about the participants of a communicative event), other conditions are discurs-ive, that is, a function of the structures and strategies of text or talk itself. In otherwords, given a specific context, certain meanings and forms of discourse have moreinfluence on people's minds than others, as the very notion of \"persuasion\" and atradition of 2000 years of rhetoric may show.'
Once we have elementary insight into some of the structures of the mind, and whatit means to control it, the crucial question is how discourse and its structures are able
358 Teun A. van Dijk
to exercise such control. As suggested above, such discursive influence may be due tocontext as well as to the structures of text and talk themselves.
Contextually based control derives from the fact that people understand and repres-ent not only text and talk, but also the whole communicative situation. Thus, CDAtypically studies how context features (such as the properties of language users ofpowerful groups) influence the ways members of dominated groups define the com-municative situation in \"preferred context models\" (Martin Rojo and van Dijk 1997).CDA also focuses on how discourse structures influence mental representations. Atthe global level of discourse, topics may influence what people see as the most import-ant information of text or talk, and thus correspond to the top levels of their mentalmodels. For example, expressing such a topic in a headline in news may powerfullyinfluence how an event is defined in terms of a \"preferred\" mental model (e.g. whencrime committed by minorities is typically topicalized and headlined in the press:Duin et al. 1988; van Dijk 1991). Similarly, argumentation may be persuasive becauseof the social opinions that are \"hidden\" in its implicit premises and thus taken forgranted by the recipients, e.g. immigration may thus be restricted if it is presupposedin a parliamentary debate that all refugees are \"illegal\" (see the contributions inWodak and van Dijk 2000) Likewise, at the local level, in order to understand dis-course meaning and coherence, people may need models featuring beliefs that re-main implicit (presupposed) in discourse. Thus, a typical feature of manipulation isto communicate beliefs implicitly, that is, without actually asserting them, and withless chance that they will be challenged.
These few examples show how various types of discourse structure may influencethe formation and change of mental models and social representations. If dominantgroups, and especially their elites, largely control public discourse and its structures,they thus also have more control over the minds of the public at large. However, suchcontrol has its limits. The complexity of comprehension, and the formation and changeof beliefs, are such that one cannot always predict which features of a specific text ortalk will have which effects on the minds of specific recipients.
These brief remarks have provided us with a very general picture of how discourseis involved in dominance (power abuse) and in the production and reproduction ofsocial inequality. It is the aim of CDA to examine these relationships in more detail.In the next section, we review several areas of CDA research in which these relation-ships are investigated.'
2 Research in Critical Discourse Analysis
Although most discourse studies dealing with any aspect of power, domination, andsocial inequality have not been explicitly conducted under the label of CDA, we shallnevertheless refer to some of these studies below.
2.1 Gender inequality
One vast field of critical research on discourse and language that thus far has notbeen carried out within a CDA perspective is that of gender. In many ways, feminist
Critical Discourse Analysis 359
work has become paradigmatic for much discourse analysis, especially since much ofthis work explicitly deals with social inequality and domination. We will not reviewit here; see Kendall and Tannen, this volume; also the books authored and edited by,e.g., Cameron (1990, 1992); Kotthoff and Wodak (1997); Seidel (1988); Thorne et al.(1983); Wodak (1997); for discussion and comparison with an approach that emphas-izes cultural differences rather than power differences and inequality, see, e.g., Tannen(1994a); see also Tannen (1994) for an analysis of gender differences at work, in whichmany of the properties of discursive dominance are dealt with.
2.2 Media discourse
The undeniable power of the media has inspired many critical studies in many dis-ciplines: linguistics, semiotics, pragmatics, and discourse studies. Traditional, oftencontent analytical approaches in critical media studies have revealed biased, stereo-typical, sexist or racist images in texts, illustrations, and photos. Early studies ofmedia language similarly focused on easily observable surface structures, such as thebiased or partisan use of words in the description of Us and Them (and Our/Theiractions and characteristics), especially along sociopolitical lines in the representationof communists. The critical tone was set by a series of \"Bad News\" studies by theGlasgow University Media Group (1976, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1993) on features of TVreporting, such as in the coverage of various issues (e.g. industrial disputes (strikes),the Falklands (Malvinas) war, the media coverage of AIDS.)
Perhaps best known outside of discourse studies is the media research carried outby Stuart Hall and his associates within the framework of the cultural studies para-digm. (See, e.g., Hall et al. 1980; for introduction to the critical work of culturalstudies, see Agger 1992a; see also Collins et al. 1986; for earlier critical approaches tothe analysis of media images, see also Davis and Walton 1983; and for a later CDAapproach to media studies that is related to the critical approach of cultural studies,see Fairclough 1995b. See also Cotter, this volume.)
An early collection of work of Roger Fowler and his associates (Fowler et al. 1979)also focused on the media. As with many other English and Australian studies in thisparadigm, the theoretical framework of Halliday's functional-systemic grammar isused in a study of the \"transitivity\" of syntactic patterns of sentences (see Martin, thisvolume). The point of such research is that events and actions may be described withsyntactic variations that are a function of the underlying involvement of actors (e.g.their agency, responsibility, and perspective). Thus, in an analysis of the media ac-counts of the \"riots\" during a minority festival, the responsibility of the authoritiesand especially of the police in such violence may be systematically de-emphasized bydefocusing, e.g. by passive constructions and nominalizations; that is, by leavingagency and responsibility implicit. Fowler's later critical studies of the media con-tinue this tradition, but also pay tribute to the British cultural studies paradigm thatdefines news not as a reflection of reality, but as a product shaped by political,economic, and cultural forces (Fowler 1991). More than in much other critical workon the media, he also focuses on the linguistic \"tools\" for such a critical study, such asthe analysis of transitivity in syntax, lexical structure, modality, and speech acts.Similarly van Dijk (1988b) applies a theory of news discourse (van Dijk 1988a) in
360 Teun A. van Dijk
critical studies of international news, racism in the press, and the coverage of squat-ters in Amsterdam.
2.3 Political discourse
Given the role of political discourse in the enactment, reproduction, and legitimiza-tion of power and domination, we may also expect many critical discourse studies ofpolitical text and talk (see Wilson, this volume). So far most of this work has beencarried out by linguists and discourse analysts, because political science is among thefew social disciplines in which discourse analysis has remained virtually unknown,although there is some influence of \"postmodern\" approaches to discourse (Derianand Shapiro 1989; Fox and Miller 1995), and many studies of political communicationand rhetoric overlap with a discourse analytical approach (Nimmo and Sanders 1981).Still closer to discourse analysis is the current approach to \"frames\" (conceptualstructures or sets of beliefs that organize political thought, policies, and discourse) inthe analysis of political text and talk (Gamson 1992).
In linguistics, pragmatics, and discourse studies, political discourse has receivedattention outside the more theoretical mainstream. Seminal work comes from PaulChilton; see, e.g., his collection on the language of the nuclear arms debate (Chilton1985), as well as later work on contemporary nukespeak (Chilton 1988) and metaphor(Chilton 1996; Chilton and Lakoff 1995).
Although studies of political discourse in English are internationally best knownbecause of the hegemony of English, much work has been done (often earlier, andoften more systematic and explicit) in German, Spanish, and French. This work is tooextensive to even begin to review here beyond naming a few influential studies.Germany has a long tradition of political discourse analysis, both (then) in the West(e.g. about Bonn's politicians by Zimmermann 1969), as well as in the former East(e.g. the semiotic-materialist theory of Klaus 1971) (see also the introduction by Bachem1979). This tradition in Germany witnessed a study of the language of war and peace(Pasierbsky 1983) and of speech acts in political discourse (Holly 1990). There is alsoa strong tradition of studying fascist language and discourse (e.g. the lexicon, propa-ganda, media, and language politics; Ehlich 1989).
In France, the study of political language has a respectable tradition in linguisticsand discourse analysis, also because the barrier between (mostly structuralist) lin-guistic theory and text analysis was never very pronounced. Discourse studies areoften corpus-based and there has been a strong tendency toward formal, quantitative,and automatic (content) analysis of such big datasets, often combined with criticalideological analysis (Pecheux 1969, 1982; Guespin 1976). The emphasis on automatedanalysis usually implies a focus on (easily quantifiable) lexical analyses (see Stubbs,this volume).
Critical political discourse studies in Spain and especially also in Latin America hasbeen very productive. Famous is the early critical semiotic (anticolonialist) study ofDonald Duck by Dorfman and Mattelart (1972) in Chile. Lavandera et al. (1986, 1987)in Argentina take an influential sociolinguistic approach to political discourse, e.g. itstypology of authoritarian discourse. Work of this group has been continued andorganized in a more explicit CDA framework especially by Pardo (see, e.g., her work
Critical Discourse Analysis 361
on legal discourse; Pardo 1996). In Mexico, a detailed ethnographic discourse analysisof local authority and decision-making was carried out by Sierra (1992). Among themany other critical studies in Latin America, we should mention the extensive workof Teresa CarbO on parliamentary discourse in Mexico, focusing especially on theway delegates speak about native Americans (CarbO 1995), with a study in English oninterruptions in these debates (CarbO 1992).
2.4 Ethnocentrism, antisemitism, nationalism, and racism
The study of the role of discourse in the enactment and reproduction of ethnic and\"racial\" inequality has slowly emerged in CDA. Traditionally, such work focused onethnocentric and racist representations in the mass media, literature, and film (Dinesand Humez 1995; UNESCO 1977; Wilson and Gutierrez 1985; Hartmann and Hus-band 1974; van Dijk 1991). Such representations continue centuries-old dominantimages of the Other in the discourses of European travelers, explorers, merchants,soldiers, philosophers, and historians, among other forms of elite discourse (Barker1978; Lauren 1988). Fluctuating between the emphasis on exotic difference, on theone hand, and supremacist derogation stressing the Other's intellectual, moral, andbiological inferiority, on the other hand, such discourses also influenced public opin-ion and led to broadly shared social representations. It is the continuity of this socio-cultural tradition of negative images about the Other that also partly explains thepersistence of dominant patterns of representation in contemporary discourse, media,and film (Shohat and Stam 1994).
Later discourse studies have gone beyond the more traditional, content analyticalanalysis of \"images\" of the Others, and probed more deeply into the linguistic, semi-otic, and other discursive properties of text and talk to and about minorities, immi-grants, and Other peoples (for detailed review, see Wodak and Reisigl, this volume).Besides the mass media, advertising, film, and textbooks, which were (and still are)the genres most commonly studied, this newer work also focuses on political dis-course, scholarly discourse, everyday conversations, service encounters, talk shows,and a host of other genres.
Many studies on ethnic and racial inequality reveal a remarkable similarity amongthe stereotypes, prejudices, and other forms of verbal derogation across discoursetypes, media, and national boundaries. For example, in a vast research programcarried out at the University of Amsterdam since the early 1980s, we examined howSurinamese, Turks, and Moroccans, and ethnic relations generally, are represented inconversation, everyday stories, news reports, textbooks, parliamentary debates, cor-porate discourse, and scholarly text and talk (van Dijk 1984, 1987a, 1987b, 1991, 1993).Besides stereotypical topics of difference, deviation, and threat, story structures, con-versational features (such as hesitations and repairs in mentioning Others), semanticmoves such as disclaimers (\"We have nothing against blacks, but . . .\description of Others, and a host of other discourse features also were studied. Theaim of these projects was to show how discourse expresses and reproduces underly-ing social representations of Others in the social and political context. Ter Wal (1997)applies this framework in a detailed study of the ways Italian political and media dis-course gradually changed, from an antiracist commitment and benign representation
362 Teun A. van Dijk
of the \"extracommunitari\" (non-Europeans) to a more stereotypical and negative por-
trayal of immigrants in terms of crime, deviance, and threat.
The major point of our work is that racism (including antisemitism, xenophobia,and related forms of resentment against \"racially\" or ethnically defined Others) is acomplex system of social and political inequality that is also reproduced by discoursein general, and by elite discourses in particular (see further references in Wodak andReisigl, this volume).
Instead of further elaborating the complex details of the theoretical relationshipsbetween discourse and racism, we shall refer to a book that may be taken as aprototype of conservative elite discourse on \"race\" today, namely, The End of Racismby Dinesh D'Souza (1995). This text embodies many of the dominant ideologies in theUSA, especially on the right, and it specifically targets one minority group in theUSA: African Americans. Space prohibits detailed analysis of this 700-page book (butsee van Dijk 1998a). Here we can merely summarize how the CDA of D'Souza's TheEnd of Racism shows what kind of discursive structures, strategies, and moves aredeployed in exercising the power of the dominant (white, western, male) group, andhow readers are manipulated to form or confirm the social representations that areconsistent with a conservative, supremacist ideology.
The overall strategy of D'Souza's The End of Racism is the combined implementa-tion, at all levels of the text, of the positive presentation of the in-group and thenegative presentation of the out-group. In D'Souza's book, the principal rhetoricalmeans are those of hyperbole and metaphor, viz., the exaggerated representation ofsocial problems in terms of illness (\"pathologies,\" \"virus\"), and the emphasis of thecontrast between the Civilized and the Barbarians. Semantically and lexically, theOthers are thus associated not simply with difference, but rather with deviance (\"illeg-itimacy\") and threat (violence, attacks). Argumentative assertions of the depravityof black culture are combined with denials of white deficiencies (racism), with rhet-orical mitigation and euphemization of its crimes (colonialism, slavery), and withsemantic reversals of blame (blaming the victim). Social conflict is thus cognitivelyrepresented and enhanced by polarization, and discursively sustained and repro-duced by derogating, demonizing, and excluding the Others from the community ofUs, the Civilized.
2.5 From group domination to professional and
institutional power
We have reviewed in this section critical studies of the role of discourse in the(re)production inequality. Such studies characteristically exemplify the CDA perspect-ive on power abuse and dominance by specific social groups.' Many other studies,whether under the CDA banner or not, also critically examine various genres ofinstitutional and professional discourse, e.g. text and talk in the courtroom (see Shuy,this volume; Danet 1984; O'Barr et al. 1978; Bradac et al. 1981; Ng and Bradac 1993;Lakoff 1990; Wodak 1984a; Pardo 1996; Shuy 1992), bureaucratic discourse (Burtonand Carlen 1979; Radtke 1981), medical discourse (see Ainsworth-Vaughn andFleischman, this volume; Davis 1988; Fisher 1995; Fisher and Todd 1986; Mishler1984; West 1984; Wodak 1996), educational and scholarly discourse (Aronowitz 1988;
Critical Discourse Analysis 363
Apple 1979; Bourdieu 1984, 1989; Bernstein 1975, 1990; Bourdieu et al. 1994; Giroux1981; Willis 1977; Atkinson et al. 1995; Coulthard 1994; Duszak 1997; Fisher and Todd1986; Mercer 1995; Wodak 1996; Bergvall and Remlinger 1996; Ferree and Hall 1996;Jaworski 1983; Leimdorfer 1992; Osler 1994; Said 1979; Smith 1991; van Dijk 1987,1993), and corporate discourse (see Linde, this volume; Mumby 1988; Boden 1994;Drew and Heritage 1992; Ehlich 1995; Mumby 1993; Mumby and Clair 1997), amongmany other sets of genres. In all these cases, power and dominance are associatedwith specific social domains (politics, media, law, education, science, etc.), their pro-fessional elites and institutions, and the rules and routines that form the backgroundof the everyday discursive reproduction of power in such domains and institutions.The victims or targets of such power are usually the public or citizens at large, the\"masses,\" clients, subjects, the audience, students, and other groups that are depend-ent on institutional and organizational power.
3 Conclusion
We have seen in this chapter that critical discourse analyses deal with the relation-ship between discourse and power. We have also sketched the complex theoreticalframework needed to analyze discourse and power, and provided a glimpse of themany ways in which power and domination are reproduced by text and talk.
Yet several methodological and theoretical gaps remain. First, the cognitive inter-face between discourse structures and those of the local and global social context isseldom made explicit, and appears usually only in terms of the notions of knowledgeand ideology (van Dijk 1998). Thus, despite a large number of empirical studies ondiscourse and power, the details of the multidisciplinary theory of CDA that shouldrelate discourse and action with cognition and society are still on the agenda. Second,there is still a gap between more linguistically oriented studies of text and talk andthe various approaches in the social. The first often ignore concepts and theories insociology and political science on power abuse and inequality, whereas the secondseldom engage in detailed discourse analysis. Integration of various approaches istherefore very important to arrive at a satisfactory form of multidisciplinary CDA.
NOTES
I am indebted to Ruth Wodak for hercomments on an earlier version of thischapter, and to Laura Pardo for furtherinformation, about CDA research in LatinAmerica.
1 It comes as no surprise, then, thatCDA research will often refer to theleading social philosophers and socialscientists of our time when theorizing
these and other fundamental notions.Thus, reference to the leading scholarsof the Frankfurter School and to
contemporary work by Habermas (forinstance, on legitimation and his last\"discourse\" approach to norms anddemocracy) is of course common incritical analysis. Similarly, manycritical studies will refer to Foucault
364 Teun A. van Dijk
when dealing with notions such aspower, domination, and discipline orthe more philosophical notion of\"orders of discourse.\" More recently,the many studies on language, culture,and society by Bourdieu have becomeincreasingly influential; for instance,his notion of \"habitus.\" From anothersociological perspective, Giddens's
structuration theory is now occasionallymentioned. It should be borne in mindthat although several of these socialphilosophers and sociologists makeextensive use of the notions of
language and discourse, they seldomengage in explicit, systematic discourseanalysis. Indeed, the last thing criticaldiscourse scholars should do is touncritically adopt philosophical orsociological ideas about language anddiscourse that are obviously uninformedby advances in contemporary linguisticsand discourse analysis. Rather, thework referred to here is mainlyrelevant for the use of fundamentalconcepts about the social order andhence for the metatheory of CDA.
2 Space limitations prevent discussion of
a third issue: how dominated groupsdiscursively challenge or resist thecontrol of powerful groups.
3 Note that \"mind control\" is merely ahandy phrase to summarize a very
complex process. Cognitive psychologyand mass communication researchhave shown that influencing the mindis not as straightforward a process assimplistic ideas about mind controlmight suggest (Britton and Graesser1996; Glasser and Salmon 1995;Klapper 1960; van Dijk and Kintsch1983). Recipients may vary in their
interpretation and uses of text and talk,also as a function of class, gender, orculture (Liebes and Katz 1990).
Likewise, recipients seldom passivelyaccept the intended opinions of specificdiscourses. However, we should notforget that most of our beliefs about
the world are acquired throughdiscourse.
4 In order to analyze the complex
processes involved in how discoursemay control people's minds, we wouldneed to spell out the detailed mentalrepresentations and cognitive
operations studied in cognitive science.Since even an adequate summary isbeyond the scope of this chapter, wewill only briefly introduce a fewnotions that are necessary to
understand the processes of discursivemind control (for details, see, e.g.,
Graesser and Bower 1990; van Dijk andKintsch 1983; van Oostendorp andZwaan 1994; Weaver et al. 1995).5 Note that the picture just sketched isvery schematic and general. The
relations between the social power ofgroups and institutions, on the onehand, and discourse on the other, aswell as between discourse and
cognition, and cognition and society,are vastly more complex. There aremany contradictions. There is not
always a clear picture of one dominantgroup (or class or institution)
oppressing another one, controlling allpublic discourse, and such discoursedirectly controlling the mind of thedominated. There are many forms ofcollusion, consensus, legitimation, andeven \"joint production\" of forms ofinequality. Members of dominantgroups may become dissidents andside with dominated groups, and viceversa. Opponent discourses may beadopted by dominant groups, whetherstrategically to neutralize them, orsimply because dominant power andideologies may change, as is forinstance quite obvious in ecologicaldiscourse and ideology.
6 Unfortunately, the study of the
discursive reproduction of classhas been rather neglected in thisperspective; for a related approach,though, see Willis (1977).
REFERENCES
Agger, B. (1992a). Cultural Studies as
Critical Theory. London: Falmer Press.Agger, B. (1992b). The Discourse of
Domination. From The Frankfurt Schoolto Postmodernism. Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press.Albert, E. M. (1972). Culture patterning
of speech behavior in Burundi. InJ. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds),Directions in Sociolinguistics: TheEthnography of Communication(pp. 72-105). New York: Holt,Rhinehart, and Winston.
Alexander, J. C., Giesen, B., Munch, R.,
and Smelser, N. J. (eds). (1987). TheMicro—Macro Link. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and
Curriculum. London: Routledge andKegan Paul.
Aronowitz, S. (1988). Science as Power:
Discourse and Ideology in ModernSociety. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.
Atkinson, P., Davies, B., and Delamont, S.
(eds). (1995). Discourse and
Reproduction. Essays in Honor of BasilBernstein. Cresskill, NJ: HamptonPress.
Bachem, R. (1979). Einfiihrung in die
Analyse politischer Texte. (Introductionto the Analysis of Political Discourse).Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag.Barker, A. J. (1978). The African Link:
British Attitudes to the Negro in the Eraof the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1550-1807.London: Frank Cass.
Bergvall, V. L. and Remlinger, K. A.
(1996). Reproduction, resistance andgender in educational discourse: therole of critical discourse analysis.Discourse and Society 7(4), 453-79.Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, Codes and
Control. Volume 3, Towards a Theory ofEducational Transmissions. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Critical Discourse Analysis 365
Bernstein, B. (1990). The Structuring of
Pedagogic Discourse. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Birnbaum, N. (1971). Toward a Critical
Sociology. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Boden, D. (1994). The Business of Talk.
Organizations in Action. Cambridge:Polity.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo Academicus.
Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). La noblesse d'etat.
Grandes &ales et esprit de corps. Paris:Minuit.
Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J. C. and Saint-Martin, M. (1994). Academic Discourse.Linguistic Misunderstanding and
Professorial Power, Cambridge: PolityPress.
Bradac, J. J., Hemphill, M. R., and Tardy,
C. H. (1981). Language style on trial:effects of \"powerful\" and \"powerless\"speech upon judgments of victimsand villains. Western Journal of SpeechCommunication, 45(4), 327-41.
Britton, B. K. and Graesser, A. C. (eds).
(1996). Models of Understanding Text.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Burton, F. and Carlen, P. (1979). Official
Discourse. On Discourse Analysis,Government Publications, Ideology andthe State. London: Routledge andKegan Paul.
Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. and Coulthard,
M. (eds). (1996). Texts and Practices:Readings in Critical Discourse
Analysis. London: Routledge andKegan Paul.
Calhoun, C. (1995). Critical Social Theory.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Cameron, D. (ed.) (1990). The Feminist
Critique of Language. A Reader.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Cameron, D. (1992). Feminism and
Linguistic Theory. Second edition.London: Macmillan.
366 Teun A. van Dijk
Carl* T. (1992). Towards an
interpretation of interruptions inMexican parliamentary discourse.Discourse and Society, 3(1), 25-45.CarlDO, T. (1995). El discurso parlamentario
mexicano entre 1920 y 1950. Un estudiode caso en metodologia de analisis dediscurso. (Mexican ParliamentaryDiscourse between 1920 and 1950. ACase Study in the Methodology of
Discourse Analysis). 2 volumes. Mexico:CIESAS and Colegio de Mexico.Chilton, P. (ed.) (1985). Language and the
Nuclear Arms Debate: Nukespeak Today.London and Dover, NH: FrancesPrinter.
Chilton, P. (1988). Orwellian Language and
the Media. London: Pluto Press.
Chilton, P. (1996). Security Metaphors. Cold
War Discourse from Containment toCommon House. Bern: Lang.
Chilton, P. and Lakoff, G. (1995). Foreign
policy by metaphor. In C. Schaffnerand A. L. Wenden (eds), Language andPeace, (pp. 37-59). Aldershot:Dartmouth.
Collins, R., Curran, J., Garnham, N.,
Scannell, Schlesinger, P., and Sparks,C. (eds). (1986). Media, Culture, andSociety. London: Sage. ,
Coulthard, R. M. (ed.) (1994). Advances in
Written Text Analysis. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Danet, B. (ed.) (1984). Legal discourse.
Text, 4, 1/3, special issue.
Davis, H. and Walton, P. (eds). (1983).
Language, Image, Media. Oxford:Blackwell.
Davis, K. (1988). Power Under the
Microscope. Toward a Grounded Theoryof Gender Relations in MedicalEncounters. Dordrecht: Forts.
Derian, J. D. and Shapiro, M. J. (1989).
InternationallIntertextual Relations.Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Diamond, J. (1996). Status and Power in
Verbal Interaction. A Study of Discoursein a Close-knit Social Network.Amsterdam: Benjamin.
Dines, G. and Humez, J. M. M. (eds).
(1995). Gender, Race, and Class inMedia. A Text-reader. London, CA:Sage.
Dorfman, A. and Mattelart, A. (1972). Para
leer el Pato Donald. ComunicaciOn deMasa y Colonialismo. (How to ReadDonald Duck. Mass Communication andColonialism). Mexico: Siglo XXI.Downing, J. (1984). Radical Media: The
Political Experience of AlternativeCommunication. Boston: South EndPress.
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds). (1992).
Talk at Work. Interaction in InstitutionalSettings. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
D'Souza, D. (1995). The End of Racism:
Principles for Multiracial Society. NewYork: Free Press.
Duin, A. H., Roen, D. H., and Graves, M.
F. (1988). Excellence or malpractice:the effects of headlines on readers'recall and biases. National ReadingConference (1987, St Petersburg,Florida). National Reading ConferenceYearbook, 37, 245-50.
Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds). (1992).
Rethinking Context: Language as anInteractive Phenomenon. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Duszak, A. (ed.) (1997). Culture and Styles
of Academic Discourse. Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter.
Ehlich, K. (ed.) (1989). Sprache im
Faschismus. (Language under Fascism).Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Ehlich, K. (ed.) (1995). The Discourse of
Business Negotiation. Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter.
Essed, P. J. M. (1991). Understanding
Everyday Racism: An InterdisciplinaryTheory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Fairclough, N. L. (1992a). Discourse and
Social Change. Cambridge: PolityPress.
Fairclough, N. L. (ed.) (1992b). Critical
Language Awareness. London:Longman.
Fairclough, N. L. (1995a). Critical DiscourseAnalysis: The Critical Study ofLanguage. Harlow, UK: Longman.Fairclough, N. L. (1995b). Media Discourse.London: Edward Arnold.Fairclough, N. L. and Wodak, R. (1997).
Critical discourse analysis. InT. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies.
A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2.Discourse as Social Interaction(pp. 258-84). London: Sage.
Fay, B. (1987). Critical Social Science.
Cambridge: Polity.Ferree, M. M. and Hall, E. J. (1996).
Rethinking stratification from afeminist perspective: gender, race, andclass in mainstream textbooks. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 929-50.
Fisher, S. (1995). Nursing Wounds. Nurse
Practitioners, Doctors, Women Patients,
and the Negotiation of Meaning. NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers UniversityPress.
Fisher, S. and Todd, A. D. (eds). (1986).
Discourse and Institutional Authority.
Medicine, Education, and Law.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fishman, P. (1983). Interaction: the work
women do. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae,
and N. Henley (eds), Language,
Gender, and Society (pp. 89-101).
New York: Pergamon Press.
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News.
Discourse and Ideology in the Press.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., and
Trew, T. (1979). Language and Control.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Fox, C. J. and Miller, H. T. (1995).
Postmodern Public Administration.
Toward Discourse. London, CA: Sage.
Fox, D. R. and Prilleltensky, I. (1997).
Critical Psychology. An Introduction.
London: Sage.
Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking Politics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gans, H. (1979). Deciding What's News.
New York: Pantheon Books.
Critical Discourse Analysis 367
Giroux, H. (1981). Ideology, Culture, and the
Process of Schooling. London: FalmerPress.Glasgow University Media Group. (1976).
Bad News. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.Glasgow University Media Group. (1980).
More Bad News. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.Glasgow University Media Group. (1982).
Really Bad News. London: Writers andReaders.Glasgow University Media Group. (1985).
War and Peace News. Milton Keynesand Philadelphia: Open UniversityPress.
Glasgow University Media Group. (1993).
Getting the message. In J. Eldridge(ed.), News, Truth and Power. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.Glasser, T. L. and Salmon, C. T. (eds).(1995). Public Opinion and the
Communication of Consent. New York:Guilford Press.Graesser, A. C. and Bower, G. H. (eds).(1990). Inferences and TextComprehension. The Psychology ofLearning and Motivation, vol. 25. NewYork: Academic Press.Gramsci, A. (1971). Prison Notebooks. NewYork: International Publishers.Guespin, L. (ed.) (1976). Typologiedu discours politique (Typologyof political discourse). Languages,41.Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A., and Willis,P. (eds). (1980). Culture, Media,Language. London: Hutchinson.Hartmann, P. and Husband, C. (1974).Racism and the Mass Media. London:Davis-Poynter.Holly, W. (1990). Politikersprache.Inszenierungen and Rollenkonflikte iminformellen Sprachhandeln einesBundestagsabgeordneten. (Politician'sLanguage. Dramatization and RoleConflicts in the Informal Speech Acts of aBundestag Delegate). Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.368 Teun A. van Dijk
Houston, M. and Kramarae, C. (eds).
(1991). Women speaking from silence.Discourse and Society, 2(4), specialissue.
Hymes, D. (ed.) (1972). Reinventing
Anthropology. New York: VintageBooks.
Ibanez, T. and Iiiiguez, L. (eds). (1997).
Critical social psychology. London:Sage.
Irvine, J. T. (1974). Strategies of status
manipulation in the Wolof greeting.In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (eds),Explorations in the Ethnography ofSpeaking (pp. 167-91). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Jaworski, A. (1983). Sexism in textbooks.
British Journal of Language Teaching,21(2), 109-13.
Klapper, J. T. (1960). The Effects of Mass
Communication. New York: FreePress.
Klaus, G. (1971). Sprache der Politik
(Language of Politics). Berlin: VEB
Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.Knorr–Cetina, K. and Cicourel, A. V. (eds).
(1981). Advances in Social Theory andMethodology. Towards an Integration ofMicro- and Macrosociologies. London:Routledge and Kegan PauL
Kotthoff, H. and Wodak, R. (eds). (1997).
Communicating Gender in Context.Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lakoff, R. T. (1990). Talking Power. The
Politics of Language. New York: BasicBooks.
Lauren, P. G. (1988). Power and Prejudice.
The Politics and Diplomacy of RacialDiscrimination. Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.
Lavandera, B. R., Garcia Negroni, M. M.,
Lopez OcOn, M., Luis, C. R.,
Menendez, S. M., Pardo, M. L., Raiter,A. G., and Zoppi–Fontana, M. (1986).Analisis sociolingilistico del discursopolitico. Cuadernos del Institute deLingiiistica, 1(1). Buenos Aires:
Instituto de Lingiiistica, Universidadde Buenos Aires.
Lavandera, B. R., Garcia Negroni, M. M.,
Lopez OcOn, M., Luis, C. R.,
Menendez, S. M., Pardo, M. L., Raiter,A. G., and Zoppi–Fontana, M. (1987).Analisis sociolingiiistico del discursopolitico (II). Cuadernos del Institute deLingiiistica. Buenos Aires: Instituto deLinguistica, Universidad de BuenosAires.
Leet-Pellegrini, H. (1980). Conversational
dominance as a function of genderand expertise. In H. Giles, W. P.Robinson, and P. Smith (eds),Language: Social PsychologicalPerspectives (pp. 97-104). Oxford:Pergamon Press.
Leimdorfer, F. (1992). Discours academique
et colonisation. Themes de recherche surl'Algerie pendant la periode coloniale.(Academic Discourse and Colonization:Research on Algeria during the ColonialPeriod). Paris: Publisud.
Liebes, T. and Katz, E. (1990). The Export of
Meaning: Cross–cultural Readings of\"Dallas.\" New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Lindegren–Lerman, C. (1983). Dominant
discourse: the institutional voice andthe control of topic. In H. Davis andP. Walton (eds), Language, Image,
Media (pp. 75-103). Oxford: Blackwell.Linen, P. and Jonsson, L. (1991). Suspect
stories: perspective-setting in an
asymmetrical situation. In I. Markovaand K. Foppa (eds), Asymmetries inDialogue. The Dynamics of Dialogue(pp. 75-100). n.d. Barnes and NobleBooks/Bowman and LittlefieldPublishers: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Lukes, S. (ed.) (1986). Power. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Martin Rojo, L. (1994). Jargon of
delinquents and the study of
conversational dynamics. Journal ofPragmatics, 21(3), 243-89.
Martin Rojo, L. and van Dijk, T. A. (1997).
\"There was a problem, and it wassolved!\" Legitimating the expulsion of\"illegal\" immigrants in Spanish
Critical Discourse Analysis 369
parliamentary discourse. Discourse and Pardo, M. L. (1996). Derecho y lingilistica:Society, 8(4), 523-67.Mercer, N. (1995). The Guided Construction
of Knowledge. Talk Amongst Teachersand Learners. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.
Mey, J. L. (1985). Whose Language. A Study
in Linguistic Pragmatics. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.Mishler, E. G. (1984). The Discourse ofMedicine. Dialectics in MedicalInterviews. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mumby, D. K. (1988). Communication and
Power in Organizations: Discourse,
Ideology, and Domination. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Mumby, D. K. (ed.) (1993). Narrative and
Social Control: Critical Perspectives.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mumby, D. K. and Clair, R. P. (1997).
Organizational discourse. In
T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as
Social Interaction. Discourse Studies.
A Multidisciplinary Introduction,
vol. 1 (pp. 181-205). London: Sage.Nesler, M. S., Aguinis, H., Quigley, B. M.,
and Tedeschi, J. T. (1993). The effect
of credibility on perceived power.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology,23(17), 1407-25.
Ng, S. H. and Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power
in Language. Newbury Park: Sage.
Nimmo, D. D. and Sanders, K. R. (eds).
(1981). Handbook of Political
Communication. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
O'Barr, W. M., Conley, J. M., and Lind, A.
(1978). The power of language:
presentational style in the courtroom.
Duke Law Journal, 14, 266-79.
Osler, A. (1994). Still hidden from history:
the representation of women in
recently published history textbooks.Oxford Review of Education, 20(2),
219-35.
Palmer, M. T. (1989). Controlling
conversations: turns, topics, and
interpersonal control. Communication
Monographs, 56(1), 1-18.
Como se juzga con palabras (Law and
Linguistics: How to Judge with Words).Buenos Aires: Nueva Vision.Pasierbsky, F. (1983). Krieg und Frieden in
der Sprache. (War and Peace inLanguage). Frankfurt: Fischer.Pecheux, M. (1969). Analyse Automatique duDiscours. Paris: Dunod.Pecheux, M. (1982). Language, Semantics
and Ideology. New York: St Martin's
Press.Radtke, I. (ed.) (1981). Die Sprache desRechts und der Verwaltung. Vol. 2.Deutsche Akademie far Sprache undDichtung, Die OffentlicheSprachgebrauch. (The Language of theLaw and the Administration. Vol. 2.German Academy of Language andLiterature, Official Language Use).Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Rasmussen, D. M. (ed.) (1996). TheHandbook of Critical Theory. Oxford:Blackwell.Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York:
Random House (Vintage).Seidel, G. (ed.) (1988). The Nature of theRight. A Feminist Analysis of OrderPatterns. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Shohat, E. and Stam, R. (1994). UnthinkingEurocentrism. Multiculturalism and theMedia. London: Routledge and KeganPaul.Shuy, R. W. (1992). Language crimes. TheUse and Abuse of Language Evidence inthe Court Room. Oxford: Blackwell.Sierra, M. T. (1992). Discurso, cultura ypoder. El ejercio de la autoridad en lospueblos hfiethiifis del Valle del Mezquital.(Discourse, Culture and Power. TheExercise of Authority in the Hfialtfui(Otoml) Villages of the MezquitalValley). Gobierno del Estado de
Hidalgo: Centro de Investigaciones yEstudios Superiores en AntropologiaSocial.Singh, R. (ed.) (1996). Towards a CriticalSociolinguistics. Amsterdam:Benjamins.370 Teun A. van Dijk
Smith, D. E. (1991). Writing women'svan Dijk, T. A. (1993b). Principles of
experience into social science.critical discourse analysis. DiscourseFeminism and Psychology, 1(1), 155-69.and Society 4(2), 249-83.Tannen, D. (1994a). Gender and Discourse.van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Discourse, power
New York: Oxford University Press.and access. In R. C. Caldas-CoulthardTannen, D. (1994b). Talking from 9 to 5.and M. Coulthard (eds), Texts and
How Women's and Men's ConversationalPractices: Readings in Critical DiscourseStyles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who GetsAnalysis (pp. 84-104). London:Credit, and What Gets Done at Work.Routledge and Kegan Paul.New York: Morrow.van Dijk, T. A. (1998a). Ideology. ATer Wal, J. (1997). The reproduction ofMultidisciplinary Study. London:
ethnic prejudice and racism throughSage.
policy and news discourse. The Italian van Dijk, T. A. (1998b). Towards a theorycase (1988-92). Florence: PhD,of context and experience models inEuropean Institute.discourse processing. In H. vanThomas, J. (1993). Doing CriticalOostendorp and S. Goldman, (eds),
Ethnography. Newbury Park: Sage.The Construction of Mental ModelsThorne, B., Kramarae, C., and Henley, N.During Reading. Hillsdale, NJ:
(eds). (1983). Language, Gender andErlbaum.Society. Rowley, MA: Newburyvan Dijk, T. A. and Kintsch, W. (1983).House.Strategies of Discourse Comprehension.
New York: Academic Press.Turkel, G. (1996). Law and Society. Critical
Approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn andVan Oostendorp, H. and Zwaan, R. A.Bacon.(eds). (1994). Naturalistic Text
Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.UNESCO. (1977). Ethnicity and the Media.
Van Zoonen, L. (1994). Feminist MediaParis: UNESCO.
Studies. London: Sage.van Dijk, T. A. (1984). Prejudice in
Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Weaver, C. A., Mannes, S. and Fletcher, C.van Dijk, T. A. (1987). CommunicatingR. (eds). (1995). Discourse
Racism: Ethnic Prejudice in Thought andComprehension. Essays in Honor ofTalk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Walter Kintsch. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.van Dijk, T. A. (1987). SchoolvoorbeeldenWest, C. (1984). Routine Complications:
van Racisme. De Reproduktie vanTroubles with Talk between Doctors and
Patients. Bloomington: IndianaRacisme in Maatschappijleerboeken
(Textbook Examples of Racism, TheUniversity Press.Reproduction of Racism in Social ScienceWilliams, J. (ed.) (1995). PC Wars. PoliticsTextbooks). Amsterdam: Socialistischeand Theory in the Academy. New York:Uitgeverij Amsterdam.Routledge and Kegan Paul.van Dijk, T. A. (1988a). News as Discourse.Willis, P. (1977). Learning to Labour: How
Working Class Kids Get Working ClassHillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
van Dijk, T. A. (1988b). News Analysis.Jobs. London: Saxon House.
Case Studies of International andWilson, C. C. and Gutierrez, F. (1985).National News in the Press. Hillsdale,Minorities and the Media. Beverly Hills,NJ: Erlbaum.CA, and London: Sage.van Dijk, 1'. A. (1991). Racism and theWodak, R. (1984). Determination of guilt:
Press. London: Routledge and Kegandiscourses in the courtroom. In C.Paul.Kramarae, M. Schulz, and W. M.van Dijk, T. A. (1993a). Elite Discourse andO'Barr (eds), Language and Power
Racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(pp. 89-100). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Critical Discourse Analysis 371
Wodak, R. (1985). The interaction between Wodak, R. (1997). Gender and Discourse.
judge and defendant. In T. A. van Dijk(ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis.Vol. 4. Discourse Analysis in Society
(pp. 181-91). London: Academic Press.
Wodak, R. (1987). \"And where is the
Lebanon?\" A socio—psycholinguistic
investigation of comprehension and
intelligibility of news. Text, 7(4), 377—
410.Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of Discourse.
London: Longman.
London: Sage.Wodak, R. and van Dijk, T. A. (eds)
(2000). Racism at the Top. Klagenfurt:Drava Verlag.Wrong, D. H. (1979). Power: Its Forms,Bases and Uses. Oxford: Blackwell.Zimmermann, H. D. (1969). Die politischeRede. Der Sprachgebrauch BonnerPolitiker. (Political Speech. Language
use of Bonn's Politicians). Stuttgart:Kohlhammer.
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容