Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I (Con)Textualizing Discourses
- Part II Perspectives and Modes of Analysis
- Part III Discourse Materialities and Embodiment
- Part IV (Trans)Locations and Intersections
- Part V Ethics, Inequality and Inclusion
- Part VI Discourses, Publics and Mediatization
- Index
- References
Part II - Perspectives and Modes of Analysis
Introduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 September 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I (Con)Textualizing Discourses
- Part II Perspectives and Modes of Analysis
- Part III Discourse Materialities and Embodiment
- Part IV (Trans)Locations and Intersections
- Part V Ethics, Inequality and Inclusion
- Part VI Discourses, Publics and Mediatization
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies , pp. 115 - 254Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Reference
Mondada, L. (2014). The Local Constitution of Multimodal Resources for Social Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 65: 137–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Further Reading
This volume has an excellent collection of different ways in which multiactivity can appear in various contexts and with various practices.
This book covers many of the “stages” found in medical consultations (diagnosis, treatment, etc.) and, as such, provides examples of how full interactions may be broken down into activity units.
This is the primary resource for the details of sequential organization.
Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L. and Nevile, M. (eds.) (2014). Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Maynard, D. W. (eds.) (2006). Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
References
Antaki, C. (ed.) (2011). Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in Institutional Talk. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1999). Whose Terms? Whose Ordinariness? Rhetoric and Ideology in Conversation Analysis. Discourse & Society 10(4): 543–82.Google Scholar
Bolden, G. B. (2009). Implementing Incipient Actions: The Discourse Marker “So” in English Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5): 974–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (2001). Answers and Evasions. Language in Society 30(3): 403–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Holt, E. (1998). Figures of Speech: Figurative Expressions and the Management of Topic Transition in Conversation. Language in Society 27: 495–522.Google Scholar
Drew, P., Raymond, G. and Weinberg, D. (eds.) (2006). Talk and Interaction in Social Research Methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Evans, B. (2013). Order on the Court: The Interactional Organization of Basketball Practice Activities. Doctoral thesis, University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (2010). Responses to Wh-Questions in English Conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(2): 133–56.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2010). Closing in on Story Openings and Closings: Evidence from Conversational Stories in Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 10(2): 345–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on Story Structure and the Organization of Participation. In Atkison, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 225–46.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and Within: Alternative Sequential Treatments of Continuers and Assessments. Human Studies 9(2–3): 205–17.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1489–522.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2015). Narrative As Talk-in-Interaction. In De Fina, A. and Georgakopoulou, A. (eds.) The Handbook of Narrative Analysis. London: Wiley. 195–218.Google Scholar
Hepburn, A. and Potter, J. (2011). Designing the Recipient: Some Practices that Manage Advice Resistance in Institutional Settings. Social Psychology Quarterly 74: 216–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Sorjonen, M.-L. (1994). Constituting and Maintaining Activities across Sequences: And-Prefacing as a Feature of Question Design. Language in Society 23: 1–29.Google Scholar
Hoey, E. M. (2015). Lapses: How People Arrive at, and Deal with, Discontinuities in Talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction 48(4): 430–53.Google Scholar
Hofstetter, E. and Stokoe, E. (2018). Getting Service at the Constituency Office: Analyzing Citizens’ Encounters with Their Member of Parliament. Text & Talk 38(5): 551–73.Google Scholar
Holt, E. and Drew, P. (2005). Figurative Pivots: The Use of Figurative Expressions in Pivotal Topic Transitions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(1): 35–61.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation. In Schenkein, J. (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press. 219–48.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1988). On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation. Social Problems 35(4): 418–41.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. and Schenkein, J. (1978). Some Sequential Negotiations in Conversation: Unexpanded and Expanded Versions of Projected Action Sequences. In Schenkein, J. (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press. 155–72.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2018). What Does Embodied Interaction Tell Us about Grammar? Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. H. and Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, Requests, and the Organization of Assistance in Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Kent, A. and Kendrick, K. H. (2016). Imperative Directives: Orientations to Accountability. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(3): 272–88.Google Scholar
Kevoe-Feldman, H. and Robinson, J. D. (2012). Exploring Essentially Three-Turn Courses of Action: An Institutional Case Study with Implications for Ordinary Talk. Discourse Studies 14(2): 217–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, C. (2000). Doing Feminist Conversation Analysis. Feminism & Psychology 10(2): 163–93.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2013). Action Formation and Ascription. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. London: Wiley-Blackwell. 103–30.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2008). Using Video for a Sequential and Multimodal Analysis of Social Interaction: Videotaping Institutional Telephone Calls. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 9(3): Art. 39.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014). The Temporal Orders of Multiactivity: Operating and Demonstrating in the Surgical Theatre. In Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L. and Nevile, M. (eds.) Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 31–75.Google Scholar
Nevile, M. (2015). The Embodied Turn in Research on Language and Social Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 48(2): 121–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding. American Sociological Review 68(6): 939–67.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. and Zimmerman, D. H. (2007). Rights and Responsibilities in Calls for Help: The Case of the Mountain Glade Fire. Research on Language and Social Interaction 40(1): 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. (2003). An Interactional Structure of Medical Activities during Acute Visits and Its Implications for Patients’ Participation. Health Communication 15(1): 27–59.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. (2013). Overall Structural Organization. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. London: Wiley-Blackwell. 257–80.Google Scholar
Romaniuk, T. (2013). Pursuing Answers to Questions in Broadcast Journalism. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(2): 144–64.Google Scholar
Rossi, G. (2012). Bilateral and Unilateral Requests in Italian: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes 49(5): 426–58.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation. Language 50: 696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in Conversational Openings. American Anthropologist 70: 1075–95.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Identification and Recognition in Telephone Conversation Openings. In Psathas, G. (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers. 23–78.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to Preliminaries: “Can I Ask You a Question?” Sociological Inquiry 50(3–4): 104–52.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the Organization of Sequences as a Source of “Coherence” in Talk-in-Interaction. In Dorval, B. (ed.) Conversational Organization and Its Development. Norwood: Ablex. 51–77.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Schegloff’s Texts as Billig’s Data: A Critical Reply. Discourse & Society 10(4): 558–72.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. and Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to Respond: Well-Prefaced Responses to Wh-Questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2): 91–115.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seuren, L. (2018). Assessing Answers: Action Ascription in Third Position. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(1): 33–51.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2012). Declaratives, Questioning, Defeasibility. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(1): 53–60.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2017). Action in Interaction Is Conduct under a Description. Language in Society 46(3): 313–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., … Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and Cultural Variation in Turn-Taking in Conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26): 10587–92.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. and Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing Response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1): 3–31.Google Scholar
Stokoe, E. (2013a). Overcoming Barriers to Mediation in Intake Calls to Services: Research-Based Strategies for Mediators. Negotiation Journal 29(3): 289–314.Google Scholar
Stokoe, E. (2013b). The (In)Authenticity of Simulated Talk: Comparing Role-Played and Actual Interaction and the Implications for Communication Training. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(2): 165–85.Google Scholar
Walker, T., Drew, P. and Local, J. (2011). Responding Indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2434–51.Google Scholar
Further Reading
This collection encompasses studies of communication with older people in different care settings. The range of approaches allows readers to appreciate the insights afforded by different methods.
This is a very influential study in the field of discursive approaches to later life. The data are experimental, but the authors show clearly how detailed analysis of participants’ actual talk reveals more nuance about what is going on in particular exchanges than simple quantitative measures.
This collection offers multiple perspectives on narrative and older age, encompassing not only narrative as therapy but also the way different groups construct themselves through narrative.
This is an excellent collection of essays encompassing a wide range of aspects of communication and ageing. Although the chapters do not explicitly focus on wellbeing, many argue that wellbeing is at issue (for example those by Coupland and Grainger).
This volume explores representations of ageing from several different disciplinary perspectives. Although not all the authors adopt a strictly language-based discourse-analytic approach, the chapters, as a whole, offer insights into the way everyday discourses connect with wider societal discourses.
Backhaus, P. (ed.) (2011). Communication in Elderly Care: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Coupland, N., Coupland, J. and Giles, H. (1991). Language, Society and the Elderly. Oxford, UK/Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kenyon, G.M., Bohlmeijer, E. and Randall, W.L. (eds.) (2011). Storying Later Life: Issues, Investigations, and Interventions in Narrative Gerontology. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, J. F. and Coupland, J. (eds.) (2004). Handbook of Communication and Aging Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ylänne, V. (2012). Representing Ageing: Images and Identities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
References
Agren, A. (2017). What Are We Talking About? Constructions of Loneliness among Older People in the Swedish News-Press. Journal of Aging Studies 41: 18–27.Google Scholar
Andrews, F. M. and Robinson, J. P. (1991). Measures of Subjective Wellbeing. In Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R. and Wrightsman, L. S. (eds.) Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 61–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, C. (2011). Six Kinds of Applied Conversation Analysis. In Antaki, C. (ed.) Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in Institutional Talk. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 1–14.Google Scholar
Ashida, S., Sewell, D., Schafer, E. and Schroer, A. and Friberg, J. (2018). Social Network Members Who Engage in Activities with Older Adults: Do They Bring More Social Benefits than Other Members? Ageing and Society 39(5): 1050–69.Google Scholar
Backhaus, P. (2011a). “Me Nurse, You Resident”: Institutional Role-Play in a Japanese Caring Facility. In Backhaus, P. (ed.) Communication in Elderly Care: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Kindle ed. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Backhaus, P. (ed.) (2011b). Communication in Elderly Care: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Kindle ed. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Blanchflower, D. G. and Oswald, A. J. (2008). Is Well-Being U-Shaped over the Life Cycle? Social Science & Medicine 66(8): 1733–49.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and Interaction: A Sociolinguistic Linguistic Approach. Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 585–614.Google Scholar
Calasanti, T., Sorensen, A. and King, N. (2012). Anti-ageing Advertisements and Perceptions of Ageing. In Ylänne, V. (ed.) Representing Ageing: Images and Identities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 19–35.Google Scholar
Charalambidou, A. (2011). Language and the Ageing Self: A Social Interactional Approach to Identity Constructions of Greek Cypriot Older Women. Unpublished PhD thesis, King’s College London.Google Scholar
Chatwin, J. (2014). Conversation Analysis as a Method for Investigating Interaction in Care Home Environment. Dementia 13(6): 737–46.Google Scholar
Coupland, J. and Gwyn, R. (eds.) (2003). Discourse, the Body, and Identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2004). Age in Social and Sociolinguistic Theory. In Nussbaum, J. F. and Coupland, J. (eds.) Handbook of Communication and Aging Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 69–90.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2011). Preface. In Backhaus, P. (ed.) Communication in Elderly Care: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Kindle ed. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. and Coupland, J. (1999). Ageing, Ageism and Anti-ageism: Moral Stance in Geriatric Medical Discourse. In Hamilton, H. E. (ed.) Language and Communication in Old Age: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. New York/London: Garland. 177–208.Google Scholar
Coupland, N., Coupland, J. and Giles, H. (1991). Language, Society and the Elderly. Oxford, UK/Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Custers, A. F. J., Kuin, Y., Riksen-Walraven, M. and Westerhof, G. J. (2011). Need Support and Wellbeing during Morning Care Activities: An Observational Study on Resident–Staff Interaction in Nursing Homes. Ageing and Society 31(8): 1425–42.Google Scholar
De Fina, A. (2011). Special Issue: Researcher and Informant Roles in Narrative Interactions: Constructions of Belonging and Foreign-ness. Language in Society 40(1): 27–38.Google Scholar
Dickinson, A. and Gregor, P. (2006). Computer Use Has No Demonstrated Impact on the Well-Being of Older Adults. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64(8): 744–53.Google Scholar
Engfer, H. (2011). Cake or Meat? A Case Study on Dinner Conversations in a Migrant-in-the-Family Household in Germany. In Backhaus, P. (ed.) Communication in Elderly Care: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Kindle ed. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fealy, G. et al. (2012). Constructing Ageing and Age Identities: A Case Study of Newspaper Discourses. Ageing and Society 32(1): 85–102.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2008). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, 3rd (Kindle) ed. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2007). Small Stories, Interaction and Identities. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive Footing. In Holt, E. and Clift, R. (eds.) Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 16–46.Google Scholar
Grainger, K. (2004). Communication and the Institutionalized Elderly. In Nussbaum, J. F. and Coupland, J. (eds.) Handbook of Communication and Aging Research, Kindle ed. Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 479–97.Google Scholar
Heinemann, T. (2011). From Home to Institution: Roles, Relations, and the Loss of Autonomy in the Care of Old People in Denmark. In Backhaus, P. (ed.) Communication in Elderly Care: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Kindle ed. London /New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Heinrichsmeier, R. (2016). The Interactional Construction of Ageing Identities: A Linguistic Ethnography of Older Women’s Narratives, Talk and Other Practices in a Hair Salon. Unpublished PhD thesis, King’s College London.Google Scholar
Heinrichsmeier, R. (2020). Ageing Identities and Women’s Everyday Talk in a Hair Salon. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. N. and Vesperi, M. D. (1995). The Culture of Long Term Care: Nursing Home Ethnography, Kindle ed. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Hydén, L. C. and Örulv, L. (2009). Narrative and Identity in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Case Study. Journal of Aging Studies 23(4): 205–14.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. In Lerner, G. H. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 13–31.Google Scholar
Jolanki, O. H. (2004). Moral Argumentation in Talk about Health and Old Age. Health 8(4): 483–503.Google Scholar
Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D. and Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing Well-Being: The Empirical Encounter of Two Traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82(6): 1007–22.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (2006). Gender and Humor: The State of the Art. Journal of Pragmatics 38(1): 4–25.Google Scholar
Lumme-Sandt, (2011). Images of Ageing in a 50+ Magazine. Journal of Aging Studies 25(1): 45–51.Google Scholar
Marsden, S. and Holmes, J. (2014). Talking to the Elderly in New Zealand Residential Care Settings. Journal of Pragmatics 64: 17–34.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2009). Special Issue: Dealing with Life Changes: Humour in Painful Self-Disclosures by Elderly Japanese Women. Ageing & Society 29(6): 929–52.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2019). Looking through the Glasses of Lee, a Woman with Alzheimer’s. Corpora in Language and Aging Research (CLARe4) (Helsinki, February 27–March 1).Google Scholar
Moremen, R. D. (2008). Best Friends: The Role of Confidantes in Older Women’s Health. Journal of Women & Aging 20(1–2): 149–67.Google Scholar
Näslund, S. (2017). Age Ascription as a Resource and a Source of Resistance: An Interactional Study of Health Professionals’ Castings of Patients into the Category “Old.” Journal of Aging Studies 41(Supplement C): 28–35.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. and Mandelbaum, J. (2005). Conversation Analytic Approaches to the Relevance and Uses of Relationship Categories in Interaction. In Fitch, K. L. and Sanders, R. E. (eds.) Handbook of Language and Social Interaction (e-book). Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rawlins, W. K. (2004). Friendships in Later Life. In Nussbaum, J. F. and Coupland, J. (eds.) Handbook of Communication and Aging Research. Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 273–99.Google Scholar
Ryan, E. B., Hummert, M. L. and Boich, L. H. (1995). Communication Predicaments of Aging: Patronizing Behavior toward Older Adults. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 14(1–2): 144–66.Google Scholar
Steptoe, A., Deaton, A. and Stone, A. A. (2015). Subjective Wellbeing, Health, and Ageing. The Lancet 385(9968): 640–8.Google Scholar
Uotila, H., Lumme-Sandt, K. and Saarenheimo, M. (2010). Lonely Older People as a Problem in Society: Construction in Finnish Media. International Journal of Ageing and Later Life 5(2): 103–30.Google Scholar
Ward, R., Vass, A., Aggarwal, N., Garfield, C. and Cybyk, B. (2008). A Different Story: Exploring Patterns of Communication in Residential Dementia Care. Ageing and Society 28(5): 629–51.Google Scholar
Wetherell, M. (2007). A Step Too Far: Discursive Psychology, Linguistic Ethnography and Questions of Identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(5): 661–81.Google Scholar
Williams, K. N. (2011). Elderspeak in Institutional Care for Older Adults. In Backhaus, P. (ed.) Communication in Elderly Care: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Kindle ed. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. (2018). Is It Love or Loneliness? Exploring the Impact of Everyday Digital Technology Use on the Wellbeing of Older Adults. Ageing and Society 38(7): 1307–31.Google Scholar
Wooffitt, R. and Widdicombe, S. (2006). Interaction in Interviews. In Drew, P., Raymond, G. and Weinberg, D. (eds.) Talk and Interaction in Social Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 28–49.Google Scholar
Wright, K. B. and Query, J. L. (2004). Online Support and Older Adults: A Theoretical Examination of Benefits and Limitations of Computer-Mediated Support Networks for Older Adults and Possible Health Outcomes. In Nussbaum, J. F. and Coupland, J. (eds.) Handbook of Communication and Aging Research. Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 499–519.Google Scholar
Ylänne, V. (2015). Representations of Ageing in the Media. In Twigg, J. and Martin, W. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Cultural Gerontology. London: Routledge. 369–70.Google Scholar
Further Reading
This textbook assumes no prior knowledge of corpus linguistics. It is a useful introduction to how corpus tools can be used in discourse analysis.
This is a substantial edited book comprising thirteen independent studies where corpus linguistics and discourse analytic methodologies are practically combined.
This complements the previous two books in that it encourages students and researchers to critically reflect on CADS research.
Baker, P. and McEnery, T. (eds.) (2015). Corpora and Discourse Studies: Integrating Discourse and Corpora. Palgrave Advances in Language and Linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. and Marchi, A. (eds.) (2018). Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
References
Ancarno, C. (2018). Interdisciplinary Approaches in Corpus Linguistics and CADS. In Taylor, C. and Marchi, A. (eds.) Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. London/New York: Routledge. 130–56.Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2016, February). Arguments For and Against DIY Corpus Tools Creation: A Debate about Programming. Keynote lecture given at the Corpus Statistics Group Launch Event, Department of English Language and Applied Linguistics, University of Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
Baker, P. (2004). Querying Keywords: Questions of Difference, Frequency, and Sense in Keywords Analysis. Journal of English Linguistics 3: 346–59.Google Scholar
Baker, P. (2018a). Conclusion: Reflecting on Reflective Research. In Taylor, C. and Marchi, A. (eds.) Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. 281–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. (2018b). Which Techniques of Down-Sampling Best Complement a Corpus-Assisted Discourse Analysis? A Case Study on Press Representations of Obesity.Google Scholar
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravinik, M., Krzyzanowski, M., McEnery, T. and Wodak, R. (2008). A Useful Methodological Synergy? Combining Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics to Examine Discourses of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK Press. Discourse & Society 19: 273–306.Google Scholar
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brookes, G. and Baker, P. (2017). What Does Patient Feedback Reveal about the NHS? A Mixed Methods Study of Comments Posted to the NHS Choices Online Service. British Medical Journal Open 7.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2009). Keyness: Words, Parts-of-Speech and Semantic Categories in the Character-Talk of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14: 29–59.Google Scholar
Drasovean, A. (2017). A Cross Linguistic Corpus-Assisted Study of the Representation of Animals in Romanian and British Online Newspapers. Unpublished PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (1998). Corpus Linguistic Techniques Applied to Textlinguistics. System 26: 541–52.Google Scholar
Gregory, I. N. and Hardie, A. (2011). Visual GISting: Bringing Together Corpus Linguistics and Geographical Information Systems. Lit Linguist Computing 26: 297–314.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2010). Corpus Linguistics and Theoretical Linguistics: A Love–Hate Relationship? Not Necessarily …. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15: 327–43.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2005). Computational and Quantitative Studies, ed. by Webster, J. J.. Collected Works of Halliday, M. A. K., Vol. 6. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hardt-Mautner, G. (1995). “Only Connect”: Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics. UCREL Technical Paper 6. Lancaster: University of Lancaster. 1–31.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ivankova, N. V. and Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mixed Methods. In Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.135–61.Google Scholar
Kilgariff, A. (2009). Simple Maths for Keywords. In Mahlberg, M., González Díaz, V. and Smith, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL2009). University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Kilgariff, A. (2012). Getting to Know Your Corpus. In Sojka, P., Horak, A., Kopecek, I. and Pala, K. (eds.) Proceedings of Text, Speech, Dialogue (TSD2012). SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-32790-2.Google Scholar
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi: New Age International.Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N. and di Cristofaro, M. (2018). “I Know This Whole Market Is Based on the Trust You Put in Me and I Don’t Take That Lightly”: Trust, Community and Discourse in Crypto-drug Markets. Discourse & Communication 12: 608–26.Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N., Izura, C. and Pérez-Tattam, R. (2016). Understanding Grooming Discourse in Computer-Mediated Environments. Discourse, Context & Media 12: 40–50.Google Scholar
Marchi, A. (2010). “The Moral in the Story”: A Diachronic Investigation of Lexicalised Morality in the UK Press. Corpora 5: 161–89.Google Scholar
Marchi, A. and Taylor, C. (2018). Introduction: Partiality and Reflexivity. In Taylor, C. and Marchi, A. (eds.) Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. London/New York: Routledge. 1–15.Google Scholar
Mautner, G. (2016). Checks and Balances: How Corpus Linguistics Can Contribute to CDA. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Sage Publications. 154–79.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. and Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. and Hardie, A. (2013). The History of Corpus Linguistics. In Allan, K. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 725–45.Google Scholar
Nolte, I., Ancarno, C. and Jones, R. (2018). Inter-religious Relations in Yorubaland, Nigeria: Corpus Methods and Anthropological Survey Data. Corpora 13: 27–64.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. (2017). Posthumanism and Deconstructing Arguments: Corpora and Digitally-Driven Critical Analysis. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Partington, A. (2009). Evaluating Evaluation and Some Concluding Thoughts on CADS. In Morley, J. and Bayley, P. (eds.) Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies on the Iraq Conflict: Wording the War. London/New York: Routledge. 261–304.Google Scholar
Partington, A. (2010). Modern Diachronic Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (MD-CADS) on UK Newspapers: An Overview of the Project. Corpora 5: 83–108.Google Scholar
Samaie, M. and Malmir, B. (2017). US News Media Portrayal of Islam and Muslims: A Corpus-Assisted Critical Discourse Analysis. Educational Philosophy and Theory 49: 1351–66.Google Scholar
Scott, M. (2001). Comparing Corpora and Identifying Key Words, Collocations, and Frequency Distributions through the WordSmith Tools Suite of Computer Programs. In Ghadessy, M., Henry, A. and Roseberry, R. L. (eds.) Small Corpus Studies and ELT: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. (2009). In Search of a Bad Reference Corpus. In Archer, D. (ed.) What’s in A Word-List? Investigating Word Frequency and Keyword Extraction. London/New York: Routledge. 99–112.Google Scholar
Sealey, A. and Charles, N. (2013). “What Do Animals Mean to You?”: Naming and Relating to Nonhuman Animals. Anthrozoös 26: 485–503.Google Scholar
Sealey, A. and Pak, C. (2018). First Catch Your Corpus: Methodological Challenges in Constructing a Thematic Corpus. Corpora 13: 229–54.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (2004). Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (1993). British Traditions in Text Analysis: From Firth to Sinclair. In Baker, M., Francis, G. and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.) Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–36.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (2008). What Is Corpus Linguistics? What the Data Says. ICAME Journal 32: 179–200.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. and Marchi, A. (eds.) (2018). Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. and Hunston, S. (2006). System and Corpus: Exploring Connections. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Studies in Corpus Linguistics, Vol. 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wright, D. and Brookes, G. (2019). “This Is England, Speak English!”: A Corpus-Assisted Critical Study of Language Ideologies in the Right-Leaning British Press. Critical Discourse Studies 16: 56–83.Google Scholar
Further Reading
This book provides an introduction to corpus-assisted critical metaphor analysis with applications to a range of discursive contexts including politics, economics and religion.
This book discusses a range of discursive strategies and linguistic features from a critical cognitive linguistic perspective with example analyses of discourses of national security, war and immigration.
This book provides an introduction to cognitive linguistic critical discourse studies with chapters on structural configuration, identification, framing and positioning. A range of contemporary discourses are analyzed including discourses of riots, strikes and protest, discourses of austerity, discourses of military intervention and discourses of immigration.
This book provides an introduction to multimodality and considers, from a social semiotic perspective, the functions of different parameters, including point of view, in visual and multimodal texts.
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
References
Cap, P. (2006). Legitimisation in Political Discourse. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Cap, P. (2008). Towards a Proximisation Model of the Analysis of Legitimisation in Political Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40(1): 17–41.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of Abstract Concepts: Good and Bad in Right- and Left-Handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology 138(3): 351–67.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2006). Britain as a Container: Immigration Metaphors in the 2005 Election Campaign. Discourse & Society 17(6): 563–82.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2017). Fire Metaphors: Discourses of Awe and Authority. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (1996). Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York, Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. and Ilyin, M. (1993). Metaphor in Political Discourse: The Case of the “Common European House.” Discourse & Society 4(1): 7–31.Google Scholar
Croft, W. and Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
El Refaie, E. (2001). Metaphors We Discriminate By: Naturalised Themes in Austrian Newspaper Articles about Asylum Seekers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(3): 352–71.Google Scholar
El Refaie, E. (2003). Understanding Visual Metaphor: The Example of Newspaper Cartoons. Visual Communication 2(1): 75–96.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistics Society of Korea (ed.) Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co. 111–37.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1985). Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222–54.Google Scholar
Fridolfsson, C. (2008). Political Protest and Metaphor. In Carve, T. and Pikalo, J. (eds.) Political Language and Metaphor: Interpreting and Changing the World. London: Routledge. 132–48.Google Scholar
Fuoli, M. and Hart, C. (2018). Trust-Building Strategies in Corporate Discourse: An Experimental Study. Discourse & Society. doi.org/10.1177/0957926518770264.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittleberg, I., Coulson, S. and Spivey, M. (eds.) (2007). Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2011). Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2013a). Event-Construal in Press Reports of Violence in Political Protests: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to CDA. Journal of Language and Politics 12(3): 400–23. Pre-proof version. Manuscript accepted for publication in Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2013b). Constructing Contexts through Grammar: Cognitive Models and Conceptualisation in British Newspaper Reports of Political Protests. In Flowerdew, J. (ed.) Discourse and Contexts. London: Continuum. 159–84.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2016). Viewpoint in Linguistic Discourse: Space and Evaluation in News Reports of Political Protests. Critical Discourse Studies 12(3): 238–60.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2017). Metaphor and Intertextuality in Media Framings of the (1984–85) British Miners’ Strike: A Multimodal Analysis. Discourse & Communication 11(1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2018a). Metaphor and the (1984–5) British Miners’ Strike: A Multimodal Analysis. In Hart, C. and Kelsey, D. (eds.) Discourses of Disorder: Representations of Riots, Strikes and Protests in the Media. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 133–53.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2018b). Event-Frames Affect Blame Assignment and Perception of Aggression in Discourse on Political Protests: An Experimental Case Study in Critical Discourse Analysis. Applied Linguistics 39(3): 400–21.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2018c). “Riots Engulfed the City”: An Experimental Study Investigating the Legitimating Effects of Fire Metaphors in Discourses of Disorder. Discourse & Society 29(3): 279–98.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2019). Spatial Properties of ACTION Verb Semantics: Experimental Evidence for Image Schema Orientation in Transitive vs. Reciprocal Verbs and Its Implications for Ideology. In Hart, C. (ed.) Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Text and Discourse: From Poetics to Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, C. and Cap, P. (eds.) (2014). Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hart, C. and Fuoli, M. (2020). Objectification strategies outperform subjectification strategies in military interventionist discourses. Journal of Pragmatics 162: 17–28.Google Scholar
Hawkins, S. (2014). Teargas, Flags and Harlem Shake: Images of and for Revolution in Tunisia and the Dialectics of the Local in the Global. In Werbner, P., Webb, M. and Spellman-Poots, K. (eds.) Global Protest: The Arab Spring and Beyond. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 31–52.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Koller, V. (2004). Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A Critical Cognitive Study. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Koller, V. (2005). Critical Discourse Analysis and Social Cognition: Evidence from Business Media Discourse. Discourse & Society 16(2): 199–224.Google Scholar
Koller, V., Hardie, A., Rayson, P. and Semino, E. (2008). Using a Semantic Annotation Tool for the Analysis of Metaphor in Discourse. metaphorik.de 15: 141–60.Google Scholar
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D. and Greenberg, J. (2009). Evidence that Self-Relevant Motives and Metaphoric Framing Interact to Influence Political and Social Attitudes. Psychological Science 20(11): 1421–6.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M. (2004). The Foundations of Mind: Origins of Conceptual Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marín Arrese, J. (2011). Effective vs. Epistemic Stance and Subjectivity in Political Discourse: Legitimising Strategies and Mystification of Responsibility. In Hart, C. (ed.) Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 193–224.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2003). Ideological Functions of Metaphor: The Conceptual Metaphors of Health and Illness in Public Discourse. In Dirven, R., Frank, R. M. and Pütz, M. (eds.) Cognitive Models in Language and Thought: Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 327–52.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2007). What Role Do Metaphors Play in Racial Prejudice? The Function of Antisemitic Imagery in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Patterns of Prejudice 41(1): 21–43.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Robins, S. and Mayer, R. E. (2000). The Metaphor Framing Effect: Metaphorical Reasoning about Text-Based Dilemmas. Discourse Processes 30(1): 57–86.Google Scholar
Santa Ana, O. (2002). Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Semino, E., Hardie, A., Koller, V. and Rayson, P. (2005). A Computer-Assisted Approach to the Analysis of Metaphor Variation across Genres. In Barnden, J., Lee, M., Littlemore, J., Moon, R., Philip, G. and Wallington, A. (eds.) Corpus-Based Approaches to Figurative Language. Birmingham: University of Birmingham School of Computer Science. 145–53.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf’s Children: Critical Comments on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). In Ryan, A. and Wray, A. (eds.) Evolving Models of Language. Clevedon: British Association for Applied Linguistics. 100–16.Google Scholar
Subtirelu, N. C. and Gopavaram, S. R. (2016). Crowdsourcing Critical Discourse Analysis: Using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to Explore Readers’ Uptake of Comments about Language on RateMyProfessors.com. CADAAD 8(1): 38–57.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H and Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning. PLoS ONE 6(2): e16782. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, D. and Wright, S. (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 31–54.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2): 249–83.Google Scholar
Walsh, P. (1990). Imagery as a Heuristic in the Comprehension of Metaphorical Analogies: Representation, Reasoning, Analogy and Decision-Making. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (2016). Critical Discourse Studies: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds.) Methods in Critical Discourse Studies. London: Sage. 1–22.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds.) (2016). Methods in Critical Discourse Studies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Further Reading
This shows how metaphor and metonymy are used to promote particular interpretations of a conflict event in Russia. It is argued that, in this way, the structure of the event itself is modified.
This outlines cognitive, discourse-analytic and practice-based perspectives to metaphor and framing, arguing that each is best suited for particular types of research goals. It sets out a blueprint for how different approaches to metaphor and framing can be integrated into a coherent model.
This is a review of the state of knowledge on how and under what conditions metaphors have been found to shape thinking. Theoretical and practical implications, as well as key challenges and opportunities for future research, are highlighted throughout.
Pinelli, E. (2016). The Role of Metaphor and Metonymy in Framing Terrorism: The Case of the Beslan School Siege in the Russian Media. Metaphor and the Social World 6(1): 134–55.Google Scholar
Semino, E., Demjén, Z. and Demmen, J. (2018). An Integrated Approach to Metaphor and Framing in Cognition, Discourse and Practice, with an Application to Metaphors for Cancer. Applied Linguistics 39(5): 625–45.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., Hendricks, R. K. and Boroditsky, L. (2017). How Linguistic Metaphor Scaffolds Reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Science 21(11): 852–63.Google Scholar
References
Appleton, L. and Flynn, M. (2014). Searching for the New Normal: Exploring the Role of Language and Metaphors in Becoming a Cancer Survivor. European Journal of Oncology Nursing 18(4): 378–84.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (ed.) (2000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boeynaems, A., Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A. and Steen, G. J. (2017). The Effects of Metaphorical Framing on Political Persuasion: A Systematic Literature Review. Metaphor and Symbol 32(2): 118–34.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (2011). Metaphor and Reconciliation: The Discourse Dynamics of Empathy in Post-Conflict Conversations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (2017). Using Metaphor for Peace-Building, Empathy and Reconciliation. In Semino, E. and Demjén, Z. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language. New York: Routledge. 426–42.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. and Deignan, A. (2006). The Emergence of Metaphor in Discourse. Applied Linguistics 27(4): 671–90.Google Scholar
Cameron, L., Low, G. and Maslen, R. (2010). Finding Systematicity in Metaphor Use. In Cameron, L. and Maslen, R. (eds.) Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities. London: Equinox. 116–46.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Croft, W. and Cruse, D. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. and Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deignan, A., Littlemore, J. and Semino, E. (2013). Figurative Language, Genre and Register. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
El Refaie, E. (2001). Metaphors We Discriminate By: Naturalized Themes in Austrian Newspaper Articles about Asylum Seekers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(3): 352–71.Google Scholar
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–8.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1985). Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2): 222–53.Google Scholar
Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T. and Thibodeau, P. H. (2018). War Metaphors in Public Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 33(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (ed.) (2008). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. and Cameron, L. (2008). The Social-Cognitive Dynamics of Metaphor Performance. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research 9(1–2): 64–75.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behaviour. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of California.Google Scholar
Grady, J. (2017). Using Metaphor to Influence Public Perceptions and Policy: How Metaphors Can Save the World. In Semino, E. and Demjén, Z. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language. New York: Routledge. 443–54.Google Scholar
Hampe, B. (ed.) (2017). Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, C. J. (2017). Metaphor and Intertextuality in Media Framings of the (1984–85) British Miners’ Strike: A Multimodal Analysis. Discourse and Communication 11(1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Hauser, D. and Schwarz, N. (2015). The War on Prevention: Bellicose Cancer Metaphors Hurt (Some) Prevention Intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41(1): 66–77.Google Scholar
Koller, V. (2004). Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A Critical Cognitive Study. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
L’Hôte, E. (2014). Identity, Narrative and Metaphor: A Corpus-Based Cognitive Analysis of New Labour Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2001). September 11. Metaphorik.de. www.metaphorik.de/aufsaetze/lakoff-september11.htm.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2010). Why It Matters How We Frame the Environment. Environmental Communication 4(1): 70–81.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, J. [1690](1979). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. by Nidditch, P. H.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mahon, J. E. (1999). Getting Your Sources Right: What Aristotle Didn’t Say. In Cameron, L. and Low, G. (eds.) Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 69–80.Google Scholar
McCartney, M. (2014). The Fight Is On: Military Metaphors for Cancer May Harm Patients. British Medical Journal 349: g5155.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. In Winston, P. (ed.) Knowledge and Cognition. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. 201–310.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2006). Metaphor Scenarios in Public Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 21(1): 23–38.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. (2009). “The Post-Antibiotic Apocalypse” and the “War on Superbugs”: Catastrophe Discourse in Microbiology, Its Rhetorical Form and Political Function. Public Understandings of Science 18(5): 574–88.Google Scholar
Pinelli, E. (2016). The Role of Metaphor and Metonymy in Framing Terrorism: The Case of the Beslan School Siege in the Russian Media. Metaphor and the Social World 6(1): 134–55.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1): 1–39.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. and Cameron, L. (2014). Open Hearts or Smoke and Mirrors: Metaphorical Framing and Frame Conflicts in a Public Meeting. Metaphor and Symbol 29(3): 204–23.Google Scholar
Schön, D. (1993). Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem-Setting in Social Policy. In Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought Cambridge, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 137–63.Google Scholar
Semino, E. and Demjén, Z. (2017). The Cancer Card: Metaphor and Humour in Online Interactions about the Experience of Cancer. In Hampe, B. (ed.) Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 181–99.Google Scholar
Semino, E. and Koller, V. (2009). Metaphor, Politics and Gender: A Case Study from Italy. In Ahrens, K. (ed.) Politics, Gender and Conceptual Metaphors. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 36–61.Google Scholar
Semino, E., Demjén, Z. and Demmen, J. (2018). An Integrated Approach to Metaphor and Framing in Cognition, Discourse and Practice, with an Application to Metaphors for Cancer. Applied Linguistics 39(5): 625–45.Google Scholar
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Hardie, A., Payne, S. and Rayson, P. (2018). Metaphor, Cancer, and the End of Life: A Corpus-Based Study. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T. and Pasma, T. (2010). A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tay, D. (2017). Using Metaphor in Healthcare: Mental Health. In Semino, E. and Demjén, Z. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language. New York: Routledge. 371–84.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P.H. and Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning. PLoS ONE 6(2): e16782.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., Hendricks, R. K. and Boroditsky, L. (2017). How Linguistic Metaphor Scaffolds Reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Science 21(11): 852–63.Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg. (2007). Discourse Metaphors: The Link between Figurative Language and Habitual Analogies. Cognitive Linguistics 18(3): 445–66.Google Scholar
Further Reading
Angermuller, J., Nonhoff, M., Herschinger, E., Macgilchrist, F., Reisigl, M., Wedl, J., … Ziem, A. (eds.) (2014). Diskursforschung. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch. Zwei Bände. Band 1: Theorien, Methodologien und Kontroversen. Band 2: Methoden und Analysepraxis Perspektiven auf Hochschulreformdiskurse. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
Angermuller, J., Maingueneau, D. and Wodak, R. (eds.) (2014). The Discourse Studies Reader: Main Currents in Theory and Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baxter, J. (2016). Positioning Language and Identity: Poststructuralist Perspectives. In Preece, S. (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity. Oxford/New York: Routledge. 34–49.Google Scholar
Torfing, J. (1999). New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Žižek. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
References
Althusser, L. ([1966]2003). The Humanist Controversy and Other Writings (1966–67). London/New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Angermuller, J. (2007). Qu’est-ce que le “poststructuralisme français”? A propos de la réception des tendances françaises de l’analyse du discours en Allemagne. Langage et société 120: 17–34.Google Scholar
Angermuller, J. (2014). Poststructuralist Discourse Analysis: Subjectivity in Enunciative Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Angermuller, J. (2015). Why There Is No Poststructuralism in France: The Making of an Intellectual Generation. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Angermuller, J. (2017). Renouons avec les enjeux critiques de l’Analyse du Discours. Vers les Études du discours. Langage & société 160–61:145–61.Google Scholar
Angermuller, J. (2018a). Accumulating Discursive Capital, Valuating Subject Positions: From Marx to Foucault. Critical Discourse Studies 15(4): 415–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1457551.Google Scholar
Angermuller, J. (2018b). Truth after Post-Truth: For a Strong Programme in Discourse Studies. Palgrave Communications 4(30): 1–8. www.nature.com/articles/s41599-018–0080-1.Google Scholar
Angermuller, J., Maingueneau, D. and Wodak, R. (eds.) (2014). The Discourse Studies Reader: Main Currents in Theory and Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Angermuller, J., Nonhoff, M., Herschinger, E., Macgilchrist, F., Reisigl, M., Wedl, J., Wrana, D. and Ziem, A. (eds.) (2014). Diskursforschung. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch. Zwei Bände. Band 1: Theorien, Methodologien und Kontroversen. Band 2: Methoden und Analysepraxis Perspektiven auf Hochschulreformdiskurse. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
Ashmore, M., Myers, G. and Potter, J. (1995). Discourse, Rhetoric, Reflexivity: Seven Days in a Library. In Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Pinch, T. and Petersen, J. (eds.) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: Sage. 321–42.Google Scholar
Bachmann-Medick, D. (2006). Cultural Turns: Neuorientierung in den Kulturwissenschaften. Hamburg: Rowohlt [transl. Cultural Turns: New Orientations in the Study of Culture, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2016].Google Scholar
Bamberg, M. and Georgakopoulo, A. (2008). Small Stories as a New Perspective in Narrative and Identity Analysis. Text & Talk 28(3): 377–96.Google Scholar
Baxter, J. (2016). Positioning Language and Identity: Poststructuralist Perspectives. In Preece, S. (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity. Oxford/New York: Routledge. 34–49.Google Scholar
Beetz, J. and Schwab, V. (eds.) (2017). Material Discourse – Materialist Analysis: Approaches in Discourse Studies. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, Codes, and Control, 4 vols. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bernstein, K. A. (2016). Post-Structuralist Potentialities for Studies of Subjectivity and Second Language Learning in Early Childhood. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 17(2): 174–91.Google Scholar
Bloom, H., de Man, P., Derrida, J., Hartman, G. H. and Hillis Miller, J. (eds.) (1979). Deconstruction and Criticism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (1991). De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur. Paris: Gallimard [transl. On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006].Google Scholar
Bröckling, U., Krasmann, S. and Lemke, T. (eds.) (2000). Gouvernementalität der Gegenwart. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Busch, B. (2012). The Linguistic Repertoire Revisited. Applied Linguistics 33(5): 503–23.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, J., Laclau, E. and Žižek, S. (2000). Contingency, Hegemony, Universality. Paris: Verso.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. and Kulick, D. (2003). Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, P. M. (2013). Poststructuralist Theory and Sociolinguistics: Mapping the Linguistic Turn in Social Theory. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(11): 580–96.Google Scholar
Charaudeau, P. (1983). Langage et discours. Eléments de sémiolinguistique. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Charaudeau, P. and Maingueneau, D. (2002). Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Conein, B., Courtine, J.-J., Gadet, F., Marandin, J.-M. and Pêcheux, M. (1981). Matérialités discursives, Actes du Colloque des 24–26 avril 1980, Paris X-Nanterre. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
Dean, M. (1994). Foucault’s Methods and Historical Sociology. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
De Cleen, B. and Stavrakakis, Y. (2017). Distinctions and Articulations: A Discourse Theoretical Framework for the Study of Populism and Nationalism. Javnost – The Public: Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture 24(4): 301–19.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. (2002). L’Île déserte et autres textes. Paris: Minuit [transl. Desert Islands and Other Texts (1953–1974). New York: Semiotexte, 2004].Google Scholar
Derrida, J. (1967). De la grammatologie. Paris: Minuit [transl. Of Grammatology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976].Google Scholar
Derrida, J. (1999). Marx & Sons. In Sprinker, M. (ed.) Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida’s Specters of Marx. London/New York: Routledge. 213–69.Google Scholar
Détrie, C., Siblot, P. and Verine, B. (2001). Termes et concepts pour l’analyse du discours. Une approche praxématique. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L. and Rabinow, P. (1983). Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics 2nd ed. with afterword by/interview with Foucault, Michel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O., Todorov, T., Sperber, D., Safouan, M. and Wahl, F. (1968). Qu’est-ce que le structuralisme? Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Ehlich, K. (1986). Funktional-Pragmatische Kommunikationsanalyse – Ziele und Verfahren. In Hartung, W. (ed.) Untersuchungen zur Kommunikation – Ergebnisse und Perspektiven (Internationale Arbeitstagung in Bad Stuer, Dezember 1985). Berlin: Akademie. 15–40.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Policy Studies. Critical Policy Studies 7(2): 177–97.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2017). CDA as Dialectical Reasoning. In Flowerdew, J. and Richardson, J. E. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. and Richardson, J. (eds.) (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1966). Les Mots et les choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard [transl. The Order of Things. An Archeology of the Human Sciences. London: Routledge, 2002].Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1969). L’Archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard [transl. The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. London: Routledge, 1989].Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. ([1983]1994). Structuralisme et poststructuralisme. In Dits et écrits, tome 4. 1980–1988. Paris: Gallimard. 431–457 [transl. Structuralism and Post-Structuralism. In Faubion, J. D. (ed.) Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology: Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984. New York: The New Press, 1998, 433–58].Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (2004). Territoire, population, sécurité. Paris: Gallimard, Seuil [transl. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007].Google Scholar
Fraser, N. (1995). Pragmatism, Feminism, and the Linguistic Turn. In Benhabib, S., Butler, J., Cornell, D. and Fraser, N. (eds.) Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange. New York: Routledge. 157–72.Google Scholar
Grossberg, L., Nelson, C. and Treichler, P. (eds.) (1992). Cultural Studies. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Guilhaumou, J. (1993). A propos de l’analyse de discours: les historiens et le “tournant linguistique.” Langage & société 65: 5–38.Google Scholar
Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A. and Willis, P. (eds.) (1980). Culture, Media, Language. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Herzog, B. (2016). Discourse Analysis as Social Critique: Discursive and Non-discursive Realities in Critical Social Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Howarth, D. and Glynos, J. (2007). Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Kiesling, S. (2006). Hegemonic Identity-Making in Narrative. In De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. and Bamberg, M. (eds.) Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 261–87.Google Scholar
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London/New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Licoppe, C. (2010). The “Performative Turn” in Science and Technology Studies: Towards a Linguistic Anthropology of “Technology in Action.” Journal of Cultural Economy 3: 181–8.Google Scholar
Maingueneau, D. (1991). L’Analyse du discours. Introduction aux lectures de l’archive. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Maingueneau, D. (1994). Die ‚französische Schule‘ der Diskursanalyse. In Ehlich, K. (ed.) Diskursanalyse in Europa. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 187–95.Google Scholar
Marttila, T. (2016). Post-Foundational Discourse Analysis: From Political Difference to Empirical Research. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. (2012). Poststructuralism and Its Challenges for Applied Linguistics. Applied Linguistics 33(5): 473–82.Google Scholar
Motschenbacher, H. (2009). Speaking the Gendered Body: The Performative Construction of Commercial Femininities and Masculinities via Body-Part Vocabulary. Language in Society 38: 1–22.Google Scholar
Norton, B. and Morgan, B. (2013). Poststructuralism. In Chapelle, C. A. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Orlandi, E. (1990). Análise de discurso: princípios e procedimentos. Campinas: Pontes.Google Scholar
Parker, I. and Pavón-Cuéllar, D. (eds.) (2014). Lacan, Discourse, Event: New Psychoanalytic Approaches to Textual Indeterminacy. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2002). Poststructuralist Approaches to the Study of Social Factors in Second Language Learning and Use. In Cook, V. (ed.) Portraits of the L2 User. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 275–302.Google Scholar
Pêcheux, M. (1969). Analyse automatique du discours. Paris: Dunod [transl. Automatic Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1995].Google Scholar
Pêcheux, M. (1975). Les Vérités de La Palice. Paris: Maspero [transl. Language, Semantics and Ideology: Stating the Obvious. London: Macmillan, 1982].Google Scholar
Possenti, S. (2009). Questões para analistas do discurso. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial.Google Scholar
Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2009). The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA). In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. 87–121.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (ed.) (1967). The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (1989). Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Free Association.Google Scholar
Rosier, L. (1999). Le discours rapporté: histoire, théories, pratiques. Bruxelles: Duculot.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K. and von Savigny, E. (eds.) (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schmitz, J. R. (2017). English as a Lingua Franca: Applied Linguistics, Marxism, and Post-Marxist Theory. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada 17(2): 335–54. Epub March 23, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-6398201710866.Google Scholar
Smith, D. E. (1999). Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In Nelson, C. and Grossberg, L. (eds.) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 271–313.Google Scholar
Torfing, J. (1999). New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Žižek. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Van Langenhove, L. and Harré, R. (1999). Introducing Positioning Theory. In Harré, R. and van Langenhove, L. (eds.) Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of Intentional Action. Oxford: Blackwell. 14–31.Google Scholar
Warnke, I. (ed.) (2007). Diskurslinguistik nach Foucault: Theorie und Gegenstände. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
White, H. (1987). The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Widmer, J. (1986). Langage et action sociale. Aspects philosophiques et sémiotiques du langage dans la perspective de l’ethnométhodologie. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis: A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis. Pragmatics and Cognition 15(1): 203–25.Google Scholar
Zienkowski, J. (2012). Overcoming the Post-Structuralist Methodological Deficit: Metapragmatic Markers and Interpretive Logics in a Critique of the Bologna Process. International Pragmatics Association 22(3): 501–34.Google Scholar
Zienkowski, J. (2017). Reflexivity in the Transdisciplinary Field of Critical Discourse Studies. Palgrave Communications 3(17007).Google Scholar
Žižek, S. (1991). Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar