Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-6mz5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T16:09:26.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Discourse Analysis*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Gunther Kress
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The label Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is used by a significant number of scholars with a diverse set of concerns in a number of disciplines. It is well-exemplified by the editorial statement of the journal Discourse and Society, which defines its envisaged domain of enquiry as follows: “the reproduction of sexism and racism through discourse; the legitimation of power; the manufacture of consent; the role of politics, education and the media; the discursive reproduction of dominance relation between groups; the imbalances in international communication and information.” While some practitioners of Critical Discourse Analysis might want to amend this list here or there, the set of concerns sketched here well describes the field of CDA. The only comment I would make, a comment crucial for many practitioners of CDA, is to insist that these phenomena are to be found in the most unremarkable and everyday of texts—and not only in texts which declare their special status in some way. This scope, and the overtly political agenda, serves to set CDA off on the one hand from other kinds of discourse analysis, and from textlinguistics (as well as from pragmatics and sociolinguistics) on the other.

Information

Type
Foundations of Discourse
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 11 , March 1990 , pp. 84 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aers, D. R., Hodge, R. and Kress, G. R.. 1982. Literature, language and society in England 1580–1680. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.Google Scholar
*Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. [Tr. R. Nice.]Google Scholar
Chilton, P. 1988. Orwellian language and the media. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Clark, R. et al. , 1987. Critical language awareness. Lancaster: Centre for language in social life, University of Lancaster. [CLSL Working Paper 1.]Google Scholar
*Dews, P. 1987. The logics of disintegration: Post-structuralist thought and the claims of critical theory. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Dijk, T.A. van and Kintsch, W.. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1988. Discourse in social change: A conflictual view. Lancaster: Centre for Language in Social Life, University of Lancaster. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1989b. Language and ideology. In Knowles, M. and Malmkjaer, K. (eds.) Language and ideology. Birmingham: English Language Research Centre: University of Birmingham. 9–27.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1989c. What might we mean by ‘enterprise discourse’? Lancaster: Centre for Language in Social Life, University of Lancaster. [Research Paper 14.]Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1990. Technologization of discourse. Lancaster: Centre for Language in Social Life, University of Lancaster. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1991. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. In Press. Critical linguistics. In Bright, W. et al. , (eds.) Oxford international encyclopedia of linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
*Foucault, M. 1972a. Orders of discourse. Social science information. 10.2.7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Foucault, M. 1972b. The archeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications. [Tr. A. Sheridan Smith.]Google Scholar
Fowler, R. G. 1982. Linguistic criticism. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. G. 1987. Notes on critical linguistics. In Steele, R. and Threadgold, T. (eds.) Language topics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. G. 1990. Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. G. Forthcoming. Critical linguistics. In Malmkjaer, K. (ed.) The linguistics encyclopaedia. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
*Habermas, J. 1984. Theory of communicative active. Vol. I: Reason and the rationalization of society. London: Heineman. [Tr. T. McCarthy.].Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1989. Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1989. Language, contexct and text: A social semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1986. The ontogensis of ideology: An interpretation of mother-child talk. In Threadgold, T. et al. ,. (eds.) Semiotics, ideology, language. Sydney: Sydney Association for Studies in Society and Culture. 125–146. [Sydney Studies in Society and Culture. No. 3.].Google Scholar
Hodge, R. and Kress, G. R.. 1974. Transformations, models and processes: Towards a useable linguistics. Journal of literary semantics. 4.1.4–18.Google Scholar
Hodge, R. and Tripp, D.. 1986. Children and television. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hodge, R. 1982. Learning to write. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Hodge, R. 1991a. Towards a social theory of language. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hodge, R. 1991b. Writing as social process. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Hodge, R. and Threadgold, T.. 1988. Towards a social theory of genre. Southern review. 21.3.215–243.Google Scholar
Luke, A. 1989. Open and closed texts: The semantic/ideological analysis of curricular narratives. Journal of pragmatics. 13.1.Google Scholar
McHoul, A.W. and Luke, A. (eds.) 1989. Discourse analysis in Australia. [special issue of Journal of pragmatics. 13.2.]Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M.. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steele, R. and Threadgold, T. (eds.) 1988. Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday. 2 Vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thibault, P. 1986. Text, discourse and content: A social semiotic perspective. Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle. [Toronto semiotic circle monographs. Vol. 3.].Google Scholar
Thibault, P. 1989a. Genres, codes and pedagogy: Towards a critical social semiotic account. Southern review. 21.3.243–264.Google Scholar
Thibault, P. 1989b. Semantic variation, social heteroglossia, intertextuality: Thematic and axiological meaning in spoken discourse. Critical studies, 1.2.181–209.Google Scholar
Threadgold, T. 1987. The semiotics of Halliday, Voloshinov and Eco. American journal of semiotics. 4.3.107–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Threadgold, T. 1989. Talking about genre: Ideologies and icompatible discourses. Journal of cultural studies, 3.3.208–29.Google Scholar
Threadgold, T. et al. (eds.) 1986.Semiotics, ideology, language. Sydney: Sydney Association for Studies in Society and Culture [Sydney Studies in Society and Culture. No. 3.]Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, T. 1985. Rhythmic structures of the film text. In van Dijk, T. (ed.) Discourse and communication: New approaches to the analysis of mass media, discourse and communication. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
van, Leeuwen T. 1986. The consumer, the producer, and the state:Analysis of a television news item. In Threadgold, T. et al. (eds.) Semiotics, ideology, language. Sydney: Sydney Association for Studies in Society and Culture. 203–224. [Sydney Studies in Society and Culture. No. 3.].Google Scholar
van, Leeuwen T. 1987a. Generic strategies in press journalism.Australian review of applied linguistics. 10.2.199–220.Google Scholar
van, Leeuwen T. 1987b. Semiotics of easy listening music: Changed times, changed tunes. Sydney: Sydney Association for Studies and Culture. Mimeo.Google Scholar
*Voloshinov, V. I. 1973. Marxism and the philosphy of language. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar