Critical Discourse Analysis Author(s): Jan Blommaert and Chris Bulcaen Reviewed work(s): Source: Annual Review of Anthropology,

Vol. 29 (2000), pp. 447-466 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/223428 . Accessed: 07/06/2012 15:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2000. 29:447-66 Copyright? 2000 by AnnualReviews. All rightsreserved

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

JanBlommaert
Ghent University, Department of African Languages and Cultures, B-9000 Gent,

Belgium; e-mail: Jan.blommaert@rug.ac.be

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

Key Words linguistics,social theory,power,ideology,critique * Abstract This paperprovidesa surveyof criticaldiscourseanalysis(CDA), a recentschool of discourseanalysisthat concernsitself with relationsof power and social-theoretical ininequalityin language.CDA explicitly intendsto incorporate and interventionism sightsinto discourseanalysisand advocatessocial commitment in research.The main programmatic featuresand domainsof enquiryof CDA are towardtheoryformation discussed,with emphasison attempts by one of CDA'smost Anothersectionreviewsthe genesisanddisscholars,Norman prominent Fairclough. ciplinarygrowthof CDA, mentionssome of the recentcriticalreactionsto it, and situatesit withinthe widerpictureof a new criticalparadigm in a number developing of language-oriented (sub)disciplines.In this criticalparadigm, topics suchas ideolandpowerfigureprominently, andmanyscholars ogy, inequality, productively attempt to incorporate social-theoretical into the insights studyof language.

INTRODUCTION
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) emerged in the late 1980s as a programmatic developmentin Europeandiscourse studies spearheaded by NormanFairclough, Ruth Wodak, Teun van Dijk, and others. Since then, it has become one of the most influentialand visible branchesof discourse analysis (as can be seen in the anthology by Jaworski& Coupland 1999). We provide an overview of the main thrustsof this movement, discuss critically its main foci of attention,and situate it in a wider panoramaof developmentsin linguistics. In so doing, we hope to show that the critical turnin studies of language is by no means restrictedto any single approachbut representsa more generalprocess of (partial)convergencein theoriesandpracticesof researchon language. CDA provideda crucialtheoretical and methodologicalimpetus for this paradigm,but it could benefit from a closer integrationwith new developments.
447

0084-6570/00/1015-0447$14.00

448

? BULCAEN BLOMMAERT

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS The CDA Program

The purpose of CDA is to analyze "opaqueas well as transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination,power and control as manifested in language"(Wodak 1995:204). More specifically, "[CDA] studies real, and often which take(partially)linguisticform.The extended,instancesof social interaction criticalapproachis distinctivein its view of (a) the relationship between language and society, and (b) the relationshipbetween analysis and the practicesanalysed" (Wodak1997:173). CDA statesthatdiscourseis socially constitutiveas well as socially conditioned. discourse is an opaque power object in modem societies and CDA Furthermore, aims to make it more visible and transparent. It is an important characteristic of the economic, social and culturalchanges of late modernitythatthey exist as discoursesas well as processes that are takingplace outside discourse, and that the processes that are takingplace outside discourseare substantivelyshapedby these discourses. Chouliaraki& Fairclough(1999:4) The most elaborateand ambitiousattempttowardtheorizingthe CDA program is undoubtedlyFairclough'sDiscourse and Social Change (1992a). Fairclough constructsa social theory of discourse and provides a methodologicalblueprint statementsof CDA for criticaldiscourseanalysisin practice. [Otherprogrammatic & Fairclough(1999), van can be found in Fairclough(1992b, 1995b), Chouliaraki Leeuwen (1993), van Dijk (1993a,c, 1997), and Wodak(1995, 1997).] for conceiving of framework Fairclough(1992a) sketches a three-dimensional i.e. the linguistic dimension is andanalyzingdiscourse. The first discourse-as-text, andpatterns of discourse. Choices of concrete instances featuresand organization in vocabulary(e.g. wording,metaphor),grammar modality), co(e.g. transitivity, hesion (e.g. conjunction,schemata),and text structure (e.g. episoding,turn-taking system) should be systematicallyanalyzed(see below for CDA'sreliance on certain branchesof linguistics). The use of passive verb forms in news reporting,for instance, can have the effect of obscuringthe agent of political processes. This attentionto concretetextualfeaturesdistinguishesCDA fromgermaneapproaches such as Michel Foucault's,accordingto Fairclough(1992a). i.e. discourse as The second dimension is discourse-as-discursive-practice, in consumed is that distributed, circulated, Fairclough society. something produced, sees these processes largely in terms of the circulationof concrete linguistic objects (specific texts or text-types that are produced,circulated,consumed, and so little time is spent on resources forth),but keeping Foucaultin mind, remarkably and other "macro"conditions on the productionand distributionof discourse. Approachingdiscourse as discursive practice means that in analyzing vocabulary, grammar,cohesion, and text structure,attentionshould be given to speech

CRITICALDISCOURSEANALYSIS

449

acts, coherence, and intertextuality-three aspects that link a text to its context. (i.e. overtly drawing Faircloughdistinguishesbetween "manifestintertextuality" or "interdiscursivity" (i.e. texts upon othertexts) and "constitutive intertextuality" are made up of heterogeneous elements: generic conventions, discourse types, register,style). One important aspect of the firstform is discourserepresentation: how quoted utterancesare selected, changed, contextualized(for recent contributions to the study of discourse representation,see Baynham & Slembrouck 1999). The thirddimensionis discourse-as-social-practice, i.e. the ideological effects and hegemonic processes in which discourse is a feature (for CDA's use of the theoriesand concepts of Althusserand Gramsci,see below). Hegemonyconcerns power that is achieved throughconstructingalliances and integratingclasses and of orders of groups throughconsent, so that "the articulationand rearticulation discourseis correspondingly one stakein hegemonic struggle"(Fairclough1992a: 93). It is from this third dimension that Fairclough constructshis approachto change: Hegemonieschange,andthis can be witnessedin discursivechange,when the latteris viewed from the angle of intertextuality. The way in which discourse is being represented,respoken,or rewrittensheds light on the emergenceof new ordersof discourse, strugglesover normativity, attemptsat control,andresistance againstregimes of power. Fairclough(1992a) is explicit with regardto his ambitions:The model of discourse he develops is framedin a theory of ideological processes in society, for discourse is seen in terms of processes of hegemony and changes in hegemony. Faircloughsuccessfullyidentifieslarge-scalehegemonicprocesses such as democratization,commodification,and technologizationon the basis of heteroglossic constructionsof text genres and styles (see example below). He also identifies the multiple ways in which individualsmove throughsuch institutionalizeddiscursiveregimes, constructingselves, social categories,and social realities. At the same time, the general directionis one in which social theory is used to provide a linguistic metadiscourseand in which the targetis a refinedand more powerful techniqueof text analysis. CDA's locus of critiqueis the nexus of language/discourse/speech and social structure.It is in uncovering ways in which social structureimpinges on discourse patterns,relations, and models (in the form of power relations, ideological effects, and so forth), and in treating these relations as problematic, that in CDA situatethe criticaldimensionof theirwork. It is not enough to researchers bare the social dimensionsof languageuse. These dimensionsarethe object of lay moral and political evaluationand analyzingthem should have effects in society: empoweringthe powerless, giving voices to the voiceless, exposing power abuse, andmobilizingpeople to remedysocial wrongs.CDA advocatesinterventionism in the social practicesit criticallyinvestigates.Toolan(1997) even opts for a prescriptive stance: CDA should make proposals for change and suggest correctionsto discourses. CDA thus openly professes strongcommitmentsto change, particular empowerment,and practice-orientedness.

450

? BULCAEN BLOMMAERT

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

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

ANALYSIS DISCOURSE CRITICAL

451

3.

4. 5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

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

In all these domains,issues of power asymmetries,exploitation,manipulation, and structural inequalitiesare highlighted.

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

452

? BULCAEN BLOMMAERT (1971) notion of "hegemony,"and Althusser's (1971) concepts of "ideological state apparatuses" and "interpellation." Worksin which connectionsbetween discourse and power processes are being spelled out are also widely cited, such as Laclau & Mouffe (1985) and Thompson (1990). In Fairclough(1992a), for exand projected ample, these theoriesand concepts are given a linguistic translation onto discourse objects and communicativepatternsin an attemptto account for the relationshipbetween linguistic practice and social structure,and to provide linguisticallygroundedexplanationsfor changes in these relationships. The second directionthatcan be distinguishedis an attemptto overcome structuralistdeterminism.Inspiration here is usually found in Giddens' (1984) theory of structuration, where a dynamicmodel of the relationship between structure and to CDA'sclaim agency is proposed. Giddensserves as the theoreticalbackground thatactuallanguageproductsstandin dialecticrelationto social structure, i.e. that events can be formativefor largersocial processes and linguistic-communicative structures.Obviously, when the relationshipbetween linguistic-communicative (or other semiotic) action and social processes is discussed, frequentreferenceis also madeto the workof Bourdieu(1991) andHabermas (1984, 1987). Bourdieu's work is also influentialin studies on educationalpractices. The use of these theories can be partlytracedback to the influence of cultural the seminal activities of the Centrefor Contempostudies on CDA, in particular raryCulturalStudiesof the Universityof Birmingham.CDA still holds pace with culturalstudiesin thatit continually,thoughcritically,engages with new research trendsin, for example,postmodern, feminist,postcolonial,andglobalizationstudof CDA thatintendsto groundit morefirmlyin social theory, ies [fora "rethinking" see Chouliaraki & Fairclough(1999)]. It is important to realize thatdespitethe inputfrom a varietyof social-scientific should primarilybe positioned in a linguistic milieu, and its CDA disciplines, successes should be measuredprimarilywith the yardstickof linguistics and linguistically orientedpragmaticsand discourseanalysis.

An Example:Conversationalization
To Fairclough,many fields of contemporarypublic life are characterizedby "a of the discursivepracticesof ordinarylife in public dowidespreadappropriation mains"(Fairclough& Mauranen1997:91). The new economic model of "flexible for instance, is implementedthroughpracticalchanges in organiaccumulation," zations as well as throughthe productionof abundant managerialdiscourse that has become hegemonic. Flexible workformsalso involve new uses of language, & such as "theroutinisedsimulationof conversationalspontaneity" (Chouliaraki of Because effects. and possibly damaging Fairclough1999:5), thathave powerful the highly linguistic-discursivecharacterof many changes in late modernityand of languageforms,a criticalanalysisof the increasingdesign andcommodification in fields as diverse as marketing,social discoursebecomes all the more important welfare work, and political discourse.

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

453

In the political field for instance,Fairclough& Mauranen (1997) comparepolitical interviewsover a time spanof 35 years and identify a clear shift from a formal and rigid interviewingstyle towarda mode of interactionthatresembles ordinary conversation. Recentpoliticalinterviewsarecharacterized colby a casualmanner, address and forms, they repetitions.Furthermore, loquial speech forms,reciprocal notehow Margaret Thatcher's1983 speech style crosses social class lines: She "apvoices," whereasHaroldMacmilpropriatesand simulatesvariousconversational voice"(Fairclough lanin 1958 "projects a consistentclass-specificconversational & Mauranen1997:117). Thus,Thatcher's conversational demonstrates how style political discourse in the 1980s has "colonized"everydayspeech genres in orderto achieve hegemony and increasedlegitimationfor the voice of authority. To Fairclough,this developmentin political discourse is indicativeof a wider societies. These developmentsare change in ordersof discourse in contemporary summarizedin three large categories: democratization,commodification, and technologization(Fairclough1992a: 200-24). In general, these developmentsall touch on ways in which discoursegenres from one sphereof life impinge on others for functional purposes, and this against a backgroundof changes in power relationshipsin society. Thus, the languageof advertizinghas moved into the conversationaldomainin an attemptto allign its messages with the preoccupations of individualcustomers(as illustrated,for instance,by the use of directaddress,as in "Did YOU get YOUR Barclay's card?").Similarly,governmentcommunciation has adopted less formal and more conversationalstyles (e.g. allowing people to directlyrespondto governmentmessages), and otherprofessions such as welfare work have followed the same track.Although this may allow for more effective communication,it blurs the boundariesbetween informationand persuasion,and it obscures "objective" power relationshipsby suggesting the equality of conversationalrapportin asymmetricalinstitutionalinteractions. In this type of research,empiricaldataanalysisis directlyfed into a larger picture of what discourseand discoursemodes do in society. The questionremains,howin societies can be demonstrated ever, whether such large-scale transformations on the basis of empiricaldatathat are, in effect, restrictedin scope, size, and time range. It would be interesting,for example, to comparethe "conversational style" of Macmillanand Thatcherto thatof John Majorand Tony Blair.

SITUATING CDA The History of CDA

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

454

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

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

455

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

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

456

? BULCAEN BLOMMAERT accordingly.Stable patternsof power relations are sketchy, often based on little more than social and political common sense, and then projectedonto (and into) discourse. Schegloff's own proposalsarethose of orthodoxconversationanalysis: Relevant context should be restrictedto that context to which participantsin a conversationactively and consequentiallyorient [a position equally vulnerableto critique (see, e.g. Duranti 1997:245-79)]. The problematicstatus of context in CDA analyses was also observed by Blommaert(1997a), who qualified the use of context in some CDA work as narrative and backgrounding and who noted the of "uncritical" of acceptance particular representations history and social reality as "background facts"in analyses.

A New CriticalParadigm
The premise that critiquederives from investigatingand problematizingthe connection between languageand social structure is obviously not restrictedto CDA. Neither is the tendency to supportthis premise by means of insights from other social-theoreticalfields of inquiry, seeking a more sustainablesocial, cultural, and/or historicalfoundationfor linguistic analysis. In fact, one can say that both elementscharacterize a new criticalparadigm now observablein linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics,applied linguistics, and other fields. There is now far more criticalresearchthan that developing underthe heading of CDA alone, and one of the surprisingfeatures in the CDA literatureis the scarcity of referencesto this plethoraof work. Whatfollows is a brief and selective surveyof this paradigm,organizedon the basis of threegeneralfeatures:ideology, inequalityand power,and social theory. The survey is not meant to imply an absolute contrastbetween CDA and other criticaldevelopmentsin linguistics. CDA is an originalcontribution to this critical and some of the scholars we mention below Cameron, (e.g. Rampton) paradigm, can be said to have been influencedby CDA. Also, certainbranchesof CDA have takenstock of criticaldevelopmentsin linguisticanthropology, notablythe studies of literacymentionedabove. Ideology One prominentfeature is the development of ideology into a crucial topic of investigation and theoretical elaboration.In linguistic anthropology, Michael Silverstein's work on linguistic ideologies has been seminal, and it has given rise to a researchtraditionwith considerablecritical punch. Starting from views of linguistic ideology as embeddedin linguistic structure (Silverstein 1979), wider views of linguistic-ideologicalphenomenawere developed (for surveys, see Woolard& Schieffelin 1994, Woolard1998) and were used to analyze relationshipsthat carried patternsof language use and interlanguage/intervariety clearsocietalpowerorpolicy connotations(Silverstein1996, Schieffelin& Doucet 1998, Errington1998, Spitulnik 1998). New inquiriesinto aspects of mediation, and representation intertextuality, (drawingextensively on such authorsas Peirce, Bakhtin, and Habermas)led to importantinsights into authorityand hierarchies

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

457

of genres and ways of speaking (Gal & Woolard1995) and into the dynamics of contextualization andthe natureof text andtextualization (Hanks1989, Bauman& The focus on ideology shaped Silverstein & Urban renewed 1996). Briggs 1990, a new way of formulatinglanguage-society relationships and opened new avenues for analyzing languagepracticeand reflexively discussing analyticalpractice. Scholarly traditionswere reviewed in light of these reformulatedquestions (Irvine 1995; Blommaert 1996, 1997b), and established views of language and society were questioned(Silverstein 1998). Apartfrom a widespreadacceptance of the notion of "construction" in such research,an importantstimulusfor reflexive researchinto analyticalpracticeswas providedby Goodwin's (1994) work on "professional at a deeply criticalperspectiveon professional vision,"which arrived in and status authority expert contemporarysociety, and which demonstratedin detail the of such statusand authorityin situatedand contextualgreat anchoring ized social practice. Similarresults were yielded by Mertz (1992) in analyses of the discursiveteaching strategiesof professorsin an Americanlaw school. Ideology has also become a crucial concern outside linguistic anthropology. In sociolinguistic milieux in Europe and elsewhere, similar attentionto the implicit theories underlying established views of language and language practice emerged in roughly the same period. Joseph & Taylor's(1990) collection of essays broke ground in investigatingthe ideological foundationsof the language sciences, observing that "[l]inguisticsis perhapsmore of a problemthan a solution" in the social sciences (Laurendeau1990:206). Williams (1992) provided a trenchant social-theoretical critiqueof mainstream sociolinguistics,demonstrating its Parsonianstructural-functionalist (see also Figueroa 1994). In underpinnings the meantime,Milroy & Milroy (1985) had writtena landmark studyon linguistic andCameronhadbothidentifieda numberof languagepurismandprescriptivism, ideological phenomenalabeled verbal hygiene (Cameron 1995) and coauthored an important collection of criticalessays on the practiceof sociolinguisticresearch (Cameronet al 1992). In the field of pragmatics, ideology has become a major field of inquiry (Verschueren1999). Reflexive awarenessabout the ideologies guiding scholarly practices has been attested in the critical surveys of one of pragmatics' most prominentbranches,politeness theory (Eelen 1999, Kienpointner1999). Spurred by workof BourdieuandLatour,appliedlinguistshaveequallybeguninvestigating the underlyingassumptionsof analysis in education (e.g. Alexanderet al 1991) and in other domains of professional practice (Gunnarsonet al 1997, Linell & Sarangi 1998). Inequality and Power A second featureof the criticalparadigmis the renewed attentionto inequalityand power in relationto languagein society. CDA is surely not alone in its predilectionfor political and other"powerful" discourse as an object of analysis. Linguistic anthropologistssuch as Bloch (1975) and Brenneis & Myers (1984) brokegroundwith influentialcollections of studies on political discourse genres in non-Westernsocieties, and this line of work has been continued

458

? BULCAEN BLOMMAERT with important theoreticalresultsby otherscholars(e.g. Duranti1988). A precursor to CDA was workby Mey (1985), which was presentedas a contribution to the theory of pragmatics. Wilson's (1990) influentialstudy of political discourse is in approach andobjective,as arethose of, for example,Diamond(1996), pragmatic Harris(1995), and Kuzar(1997). Studies such as those by Flowerdew(1998) are basedon rhetorical analysis.Similarly,professionalsettingsin which powerasymmetries occur have been explored by a variety of discourse-analytical traditions withinpragmatics, conversation Firth Grossen & Orvig 1995, notably analysis(e.g. 1998). An issue that has gained prominencein researchis that of inequalityand the social and political hierarpositioningof individualsand groupsin contemporary chies. Hymes' (1996) reedition of critical essays on educationand narrativereopened debateson the allocationof speakingrightsand linguistic-communicative of Bernstein(as well as of Bourdieu resources,offered an interestingreappraisal and Habermas),and arguedforcefully for more attentionto communicativeinequalities in linguistic anthropologyand sociolinguistics. The locus of such inequalities was found in differences between available narrativeresources (e.g. colloquial, dialect, anecdotal) and (often institutionally)requirednarrativeresources (e.g. standard,literate,logical) (cf also Ochs & Capps 1996). Similarly, two recent volumes edited by CharlesBriggs (1996, 1997b), following an earlier one edited by Grimshaw(1990), placed conflict and its discursiveresourceshigh on the agenda. In particular,Briggs showed how the constructionof texts and discourses across contexts-processes of entextualization-can result in powerful social effects, thus focusing on inequalitiesin the control over contexts (see Barthes1956) as well as over specific genresandways of speaking. Powerdepends not only on access to resourcesbut also on access to contexts in which resources can be used. The similaritiesbetween this researchprogramand the intertextual analysis proposedin Fairclough(1992a) are striking. Detailed attentionto narratives also provideda fertile groundfor investigating thatputpeople in theircurrentsociohistoryandthe historicalpowerrelationships geographicalspace. From differentperspectives,both Collins (1998) and Fabian how narratives of group (or local geographical)history can (1990) demonstrated betweenpolitical,cognitive,andideologicalhegeyield tracesof pastrelationships monies andpatternsof resistance. Similarconcernsof languageand social history have yielded an innovativebody of work in sociolinguistics, in which languages and language varieties are describedin terms of politicized (or politicizable) indexicalities. We thus arriveat views of language in society that hinge on power hierarchies,power semiotics, and power effects, often relatedto identitypolitics andinfluencedby the workof identifiable politicalactorsin society (Woolard1989; Heller 1994, 1999; Jaffe 1999). The influenceof Bourdieuand Gramsciis clear in this work, as is the tendencyto framethe story of languagein society in materialist terms and the tendencyto blend large-scalepolitical and societal observations with detailedanalysesof linguistic-communicative practices[thusarrivingat what Heller (1999) calls a "sociolinguisticethnography"].Of particular importancein

ANALYSIS DISCOURSE CRITICAL

459

this respectis Rampton's(1995) work. Ramptonaddressesthe ways in which local subculturalidentities are being formed and manipulatedby means of a varietyof communicativestyles among multi-ethnicadolescent groups in Britain.Drawing on a wide range of social-theoreticalsources (including, prominently,Giddens, Gilroy, and Goffman),Ramptondemonstratesthe flexible allocation practicesof communicativeresourcesin identitywork. Simple correlatesbetween identityand speech style/varietydo not hold, and what becomes clear is that linear relationand a particular group "competence," ships such as thatbetween "nativespeaker," intricate tools for the work of expertise are less than grasping identity satisfactory and affiliationdetectablein the field. All the approachesdiscussed so far give pride of place to issues of linguisticcommunicativeresourcesplaced againsta double backgroundof large-scalesocieventson the other.The etal processeson the one hand,andmicro-levelinteraction is not made a priori;rather,it is connectionbetween languageand social structure sought in the practicalinterplaybetween concrete actions and group- or societyIn worksuch as thatby RamptonandBriggs, the blending level forces andpatterns. and sociolinguistics has led to very productiveand nuancedtreatof ethnography mentsof contextas producedbothon-line andsituationally, yet tied to largerconditions of productionand circulationof semiotic resourcesin empiricallyverifiable ways. This sort of work thus offers importantcorrectionsboth to conversationanalyticalrestrictionsof context to the one-time, oriented-towardmembers'context (Briggs 1997a) andto the "narrative" andbackgrounded context-by-definition of CDA. Needless to say, this type of work also offers advantagesover work thatfocuses on differenceswithoutconsideringthe ways in which differencesare commusocially rankedandmadeconsequential(as in muchworkon intercultural between nication),as well as over workthatassumesrelativelystablerelationships linguisticvarietiesandsociopoliticalfunctions(as in workin the "linguisticrights" paradigm). Social Theory A third feature of the critical paradigm,already mentioned in passing, is the common desire to find social-theoreticalsupportfor analytical treatmentsof language. Language is studied for what it tells one about society, and linguistic method should be open to theoreticalinsights into the structureof societies. Thereis a body of literature in which calls for improvedincorporation of social theoryinto linguistic analysis arebeing voiced, often advocatingmaterialist approachesto questionsof linguisticresourcesandthe social use of language,and engaging in discussions of Marxistscholars,rangingfrom Gramsciand Bourdieu to Rossi-Landi(Woolard1985, Rickford1986, Laurendeau 1990, Irvine 1989, Gal The reassessment of Bernstein's work 1989). by Hymes (1996) has alreadybeen mentioned. An incorporationof historical theory into the analysis of language in society was attemptedin Blommaert (1999). Goodwin (1994) compellingly demonstrates how professionalexpertise,seen in termsof situatedsemioticpractice can be viewed as a discourse, involving bodily practice, and institutionalization, Foucaultian"power-knowledge."

460

? BULCAEN BLOMMAERT The sourcesfor new insights are infinite,and so far little use has been made of a greatnumberof potentiallyuseful developmentsin otherdisciplines. Historical theory has so far hardlybeen used as a resourcefor critical studies of language, of scholarssuch as, for example,Marc despitethe obviously relevantcontributions Bloch, Fernand Braudel,CarloGinzburg,PeterBurke,ImmanuelWallerstein,and EdwardThompson.Equally less noticed, in the opposite direction, is the potential effect of new reinterpretations, established,of BenjaminLee ethnographically Whorf (providedamong others by Hymes and Silverstein)on social theory. The idea of metacommunicative levels in social communicativebehavior as well as thatof the functionalrelativityof languages,styles, andgenreshave a potentialfor criticaltools bothfor linguisticsandfor othersocial-scientific becomingimportant in which disciplines language and communicativebehaviorfeature-history, anthropology,psychology, and sociology immediatelycome to mind. The effect of these insights on the ways in which texts, narratives, documentaryevidence, and so forth are treatedas sources of "meaning"(or "information") can contribute to a awareness of small but relevant greater significantly highly power featuresin such materials.

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

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

461

Rampton, and Heller could considerablycontributetoward a more refined image of languages, genres, and styles, as embeddedin flexible but highly sensitive repertoiresthat have a history of sociopolitical distribution.Linguistic resources are contexts in the sense that they are partof the conditions of productionof any utteranceor text and thus determinewhat can and cannotbe said by some people in some situations. The way in which CDA treatsthe historicityof text (largelyreducibleto assumptions aboutintertextual chains) could benefitfrom genuinely historicaltheoretical On the one stock could be taken of the "natural histories of dishand, insights. course"perspectivedevelopedby Silverstein& Urban(1996); on the otherhand, the acknowledgmentof an intrinsic and layered historicity of each social event could contributeto more accurateassessments of what certain texts do in societies. The contextualization of discoursedatawould benefitfrom a more attentive stance towardthe historicalpositioning of the events in which the discourse data are set (as well as of the historicalpositioning of the moment of analysis: "Why now?" is a relevantquestion in analysis). CDA is still burdenedby a very "linguistic"outlook, which preventsproductive ways of incorporatinglinguistic and nonlinguistic dimensions of semiosis of Foucault's"discours" (apparent,for instance, in the very partialinterpretation in Fairclough'swork). Here as well, a more ethnographically informedstance, in which linguisticpracticeis embeddedin moregeneralpatternsof humanmeaningful action, could be highly productive.Goodwin'sworkcould serve as an example here. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to thank Alessandro Duranti, Ben Rampton, and Stef Slembrouckfor valuablecomments on a firstversion of this paper. Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org LITERATURE CITED Alexander PA,Schallert MD, HareVC. 1991. BartonD, Hamilton M, IvanicR, eds. 2000. to terms:howresearchers in learnSituatedLiteracies: Reading and Writingin Coming talkaboutknowledge. Rev. Context. London: ing andliteracy Routledge Educ. Res. 61(3):315-43 Barton in the D, IvanicR, eds. 1991. Writing
London: Sage Community.

Althusser L. 1971. Lenin and Philosophy and

Other NewLeftBooks Bauman andperforR, BriggsC. 1990.Poetics Essays.London: AuerP,diLuzio on language A, eds. 1992.TheContextual- manceas criticalperspectives
izationofLanguage.Amsterdam:Benjamins BarthesR. 1956. Mythologies.Paris: Le Seuil

88 BartonD, Hamilton M. 1998. Local Litera- BaynhamM. 1995. LiteracyPractices: Investicies: Reading and Writingin One Commu-

and social life. Annu.Rev.Anthropol.19:59-

nity.London: Routledge

gating Literacyin Social Contexts.London:

Longman

462

BLOMMAERT * BULCAEN Caldas-Coulthard CR. 1993. From discourse analysis to critical discourse analysis: the differential representation of women and men speakingin writtennews. In Techniques of Description: Spoken and WrittenDiscourse, ed. JM Sinclair, M Hoey, G Fox, pp. 196-208. London: Routledge Caldas-Coulthard CR. 1996. 'Womenwho pay for sex. And enjoy it': transgressionversus moralityin women'smagazines.See CaldasCoulthard & Coulthard1996, pp. 250-70 Caldas-Coulthard CR, Coulthard M, eds. 1996. Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge Cameron D. 1995. VerbalHygiene. London: Routledge CameronD, FrazerE, Harvey P, RamptonB, Richardson K. 1992. ResearchingLanguage: Issues of Powerand Method.London: Routledge Chilton P, Mey J, Ilyin M, eds. 1998. Political Discourse in Transition in Europe19891991. Amsterdam:Benjamins ChouliarakiL. 1998. Regulation in 'progressivist' pedagogic discourse: individualized talk. Discourse Soc. 9(1):5-32 teacher-pupil ChouliarakiL, FaircloughN. 1999. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press ClarkR, FaircloughN, Ivanic R, Martin-Jones M. 1989. Criticallanguageawareness.Part1: A criticalreviewof threecurrent approaches. Lang. Educ. 4(4):249-60 ClarkR, FaircloughN, Ivanic R, Martin-Jones M. 1990. Critical language awareness. Part 2: Towardscriticalalternatives. Lang. Educ. 5(1):41-54 Clark U, Zyngier S. 1998. Women beware women: detective fiction and critical discourse analysis. Lang. Lit. 7(2):141-58 Collins J. 1998. Understanding Tolowa Histories: WesternHegemonies and Native AmericanResponses. New York:Routledge Cope B, Kalantzis M, eds. 2000. Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures.London: Routledge

BaynhamM, SlembrouckS, eds. 1999. Speech Representationand InstitutionalDiscourse. Special Issue Text19(4):459-592 Billig M. 1999a.Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoricandideology in conversation analysis. Discourse Soc. 10(4):543-58 Billig M. 1999b. Conversation analysis and the claims of naivety.Discourse Soc. 10(4):57276 Birch D. 1998. Criticism, linguistic. In Concise Encyclopediaof Pragmatics,ed. J Mey, pp. 190-94. Oxford,UK: Pergamon/Elsevier Bloch M, ed. 1975. Political Language and Oratory in TraditionalSocieties. London: Academic Blommaert J. 1996. Language planning as a discourse on language and society: on the linguistic ideology of a scholarly tradition. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 20(3):199222 Blommaert J. 1997a. Whose background? Comments on a discourse-analyticreconstructionof the WarsawUprising.Pragmatics 7(1):69-81 Blommaert J. 1997b. Workshopping: notes on professionalvision in discourseanalysis. Antwerp Pap. Linguist., Vol. 91. Antwerp, Belgium: Univ. Antwerp BlommaertJ, ed. 1999. Language Ideological Debates. Berlin: De Gruyter BlommaertJ, Bulcaen C, eds. 1997. Political Linguistics.Amsterdam:Benjamins Bourdieu P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power Cambridge,UK: Polity BrenneisDL, Myers FR, eds. 1984. Dangerous Words:Languageand Politics in the Pacific. New York:NY Univ. Press Briggs C, ed. 1996. DisorderlyDiscourse: Narrative, Conflict and Inequality. New York: OxfordUniv. Press Briggs C. 1997a. Notes on a 'confession': the construction of gender, sexuality and violence in an infanticide case. See Briggs 1997b, pp. 519-46 Briggs C, ed. 1997b. Conflictand Violence in PragmaticResearch.Special issue Pragmatics 7(4):451-633

CRITICALDISCOURSEANALYSIS Diamond J. 1996. Status and Power in Verbal Interaction: A Study of Discourse in a Close-Knit Social Network. Amsterdam: Benjamins DurantiA. 1988. Intentions,language and social action in a Samoancontext. J. Pragmat. 12:13-33 Duranti A. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press DurantiA, Goodwin C, eds. 1992 Rethinking Context.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Eelen G. 1999. Ideology in politeness: a critical analysis. PhD thesis. Univ. Antwerp, Antwerp,Belgium. 353 pp. Errington JJ. 1998. Indonesian('s) development: on the state of a language of state. See Schieffelin et al 1998, pp. 271-84 FabianJ. 1986. Languageand Colonial Power. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Fabian J. 1990. Historyfrom Below. Amsterdam: Benjamins Fairclough N. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman Fairclough N. 1992a. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge,UK: Polity FaircloughN. 1992b. Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse Soc. 3:193-217 Fairclough N, ed. 1992c. Critical Language Awareness.London: Longman Fairclough N. 1995a. Media Discourse. London: Arnold FaircloughN. 1995b. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman FaircloughN. 1996. A reply to HenryWiddowson's 'Discourse analysis: a critical view.' Lang. Lit. 5(1):49-56 FaircloughN, MauranenA. 1997. The conversationalizationof political discourse: a comparative view. See Blommaert & Bulcaen 1997, pp. 89-119 Figueroa E. 1994. Sociolinguistic Metatheory. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Firth A. 1995. The Discourse of Negotiation: Studies of Language in the Workplace. New York: Pergamon

463

FlowerdewJ. 1998. The Final Yearsof British Hong Kong: TheDiscourse of ColonialWithdrawal. Hong Kong: Macmillan FoucaultM. 1971. L'Ordredu Discours. Paris: Gallimard FoucaultM. 1977. Discipline and Punish. London: Lane Fowler R. 1996. On Critical Linguistics. See Caldas-Coulthard& Coulthard 1996, pp. 3-14 Fowler R, Hodge R, Kress G, Trew T. 1979. Languageand Control.London: Routledge, KeganPaul Gal S. 1989. Languageand political economy. Annu.Rev.Anthropol.18:345-67 LanGal S, WoolardK, ed. 1995. Constructing guages and Publics. Special Issue Pragmatics 5(2):129-282 Giddens A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge,UK: Polity Goodwin C. 1994. Professional vision. Am. Anthropol.96(3):606-33 Gramsci A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks.London: Lawrence,Wishart Grimshaw AD, ed. 1990. Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigationsof Argumentsin Conversation.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Grossen M, Orvig AS, eds. 1998. Clinical Interviewsas VerbalInteractions:A Multidisciplinary Outlook.Special Issue Pragmatics 8(2):149-297 GunnarssonBL, Linell P, Nordberg B, eds. 1997. The Constructionof ProfessionalDiscourse. London: Longman HabermasJ. 1984. The Theoryof Communicative Action. Vol. 1. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. London: Heinemann HabermasJ. 1987. The Theoryof Communicative Action. Vol. 2. Lifeworldand System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. London: Heinemann Hall C, Sarangi S, Slembrouck S. 1997. Moral construction in social work discourse. See Gunnarsonet al 1997, pp. 26591

464

BLOMMAERT ? BULCAEN Kress G. 1997. Before Writing.Rethinkingthe Paths to Literacy.London: Routledge Kress G, van Leeuwen T. 1996. Reading Images: The Grammarof VisualDesign. London: Routledge KuzarR. 1997. Split word, split subject, split society. Pragmatics7(1):21-54 LaclauE, Mouffe C. 1985. Hegemonyand Socialist Strategy.London: Verso LaurendeauP. 1990. Theory of emergence: towards a historical-materialisticapproach to the history of linguistics. See Joseph & Taylor 1990, pp. 206-20 Linell P,SarangiS, eds. 1998. DiscourseAcross Professional Boundaries. Special Issue Text 18(2):143-318 MartinJR. 2000. Close reading:functionallinguistics as a tool for critical discourse analysis. In Researching Language in Schools and Communities: Functional Linguistic Perspectives,ed. L Unsworth,pp. 275-302. London: Cassell Martin Rojo L. 1995. Division and rejection: from the personificationof the Gulf conflict to the demonizationof SaddamHussein.Discourse Soc. 6:49-80 MartinRojo L, van Dijk T. 1997. "Therewas a problem,and it was solved!": legitimating the expulsion of 'illegal' migrantsin Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse Soc. 8(4):523-66 Mertz E. 1992. Linguistic ideology and praxis in U.S. law school classrooms. Pragmatics 2/3:325-34 Mey J. 1985. Whose Language? A Study in Linguistic Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins Milroy J, Milroy L. 1985. Authorityin Language: InvestigatingLanguagePrescription and Standardisation.London: Routledge, KeganPaul Milroy J, Milroy L. 1999. Authorityin Language: Investigating Standard English. London: Routledge. 3rd ed. New LondonGroup.1996. A pedagogyof multiliteracies: designing social futures. Harv. Educ. Rev.66:60-92

HanksW. 1989. Textand textuality. Annu.Rev. Anthropol.18:95-127 HarrisS. 1995. Pragmaticsand power.J. Pragmat. 23:117-35 HawisherGE, Selfe CL, eds. 2000. Global Literacies and the World-Wide Web.London: Routledge Heath SB. 1983. Wayswith Words:Language, Life and Workin Communitiesand Classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Heller M. 1994. Crosswords: Language, Education and Ethnicity in French Ontario. Berlin: De Gruyter Heller M. 1999. Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography. London: Longman Hodge R, KressG. 1979.Languageas Ideology. London: Routledge,KeganPaul Hodge R, KressG. 1993.Languageas Ideology. London: Routledge. 2nd ed. Hymes DH. 1996. Ethnography,Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Toward an Understanding of Voice.London: Taylor,Francis Irvine J. 1989. When talk isn't cheap: language and political economy. Am. Ethnol. 16(2):248-67 IrvineJ. 1995. The family romanceof colonial linguistics: genderand family in nineteenthcentury representations of African languages. See Gal & Wolard1995, pp. 139-53. Ivanic R. 1998. Writingand Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identityin Academic Writing.Amsterdam:Benjamins Jaffe A. 1999. Ideologies in Action: Language Politics on Corsica. Berlin: De Gruyter JaworskiA, CouplandN, eds. 1999. The Discourse Reader.London: Routledge Joseph JE, TaylorTJ, eds. 1990. Ideologies of Language.London: Routledge M, ed. 1999. Ideologies of PoliteKienpointner ness. Special Issue Pragmatics9(1): 1-176 Kress G. 1994. Text and grammaras explanation. In Text,Discourse and Context: Representations of Poverty in Britain, ed. UH Meinhof, K Richardson,pp. 24-46. London: Longman

CRITICALDISCOURSEANALYSIS Ochs E, Capps L. 1996. Narrating the self. Annu.Rev.Anthropol.25:19-43 Pennycook A. 1994. Incommensurable discourses? Appl. Linguist. 15(2):115-38 Rampton B. 1995. Crossing: Language and EthnicityAmong Adolescents. London: Longman RickfordJ. 1986. The need for new approaches to social class analysis in sociolinguistics. Lang. Commun.6(3):215-21 Sarangi S, Slembrouck S. 1996. Language, Bureaucracy and Social Control. London: Longman SchiiffnerC, WendenA, eds. 1995. Language and Peace. Aldershot,UK: Dartmouth Schegloff EA. 1997. Whose text? Whose context? Discourse Soc. 8(2):165-87 Schegloff EA. 1998. Reply to Wetherell.Discourse Soc. 9(3):413-16 Schegloff EA. 1999a. 'Schegloff's texts' as 'Billig's data': a critical reply. Discourse Soc. 10(4):558-72 Schegloff EA. 1999b.Naivete vs sophistication or discipline vs self-indulgence.A rejoinder to Billig. Discourse Soc. 10(4):577-82 Schieffelin BB, Doucet RC. 1998. The 'real' Haitian Creole: ideology, metalinguistics, andorthographic choice. See Schieffelinet al 1998, pp. 285-316 Schieffelin BB, Woolard KA, Kroskrity PV, eds. 1998. Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory.New York: OxfordUniv. Press Silverstein M. 1979. Language structureand linguistic ideology. In The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, ed. PR Clyne, WF Hanks, CL Hofbauer, pp. 193-247. Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc. Silverstein M. 1996. Monoglot 'standard'in America: standardization and metaphorsof linguistic hegemony. In The Matrix of Language: Contemporary LinguisticAnthropology, ed. D. Brenneis,RS Macaulay,pp. 284306. Boulder,CO: Westview SilversteinM. 1998. Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities.Annu. Rev.Anthropol.27:401-26

465

SilversteinM, UrbanG, eds. 1996. NaturalHistories of Discourse. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Slembrouck S. 1993. Globalising flows: promotional discourses of governmentin Western European 'orders of discourse.' Soc. Semiot. 3(2):265-92 SlembrouckS. 1995. Channel.See Verschueren et al 1995, pp. 1-20. SpitulnikD. 1998. Mediatingunity and diverof languageideologies in sity: theproduction Zambianbroadcasting.See Schieffelin et al 1998, pp. 163-88 Street B. 1995. Social Literacies: Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, and Education.London:LongEthnography man Stubbs M. 1997. Whorf's children: critical comments on CDA. In Evolving Models of Language,ed. A Ryan, A Wray,pp. 100-16. Milton Keynes, UK: MultilingualMatters TalbotM. 1992. The constructionof genderin a teenage magazine. See Fairclough 1992a, pp. 174-99 ThompsonJB. 1990. IdeologyandModernCulture.Cambridge,UK: Polity Thomborrow J. 1998. Playing hard to get: in the discourse metaphorandrepresentation of car advertisements.Lang. Lit. 7(3):25472 ToolanM. 1997. Whatis criticaldiscourseanalysis and why are people saying such terrible things aboutit? Lang. Lit. 6(2):83-103 vanDijk T. 1987. Communicating Racism: Ethnic Prejudicein Thoughtand Talk.Newbury Park,CA: Sage van Dijk T. 1991. Racism and the Press. London: Routledge van Dijk T. 1993a.Criticalanddescriptivegoals in discourse analysis.J. Pragmat.9:739-63 van Dijk T. 1993b.Elite Discourse and Racism. NewburyPark,CA: Sage van Dijk T. 1993c. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse Soc. 4:249-83 van Dijk T. 1995. Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. See Schaffner& Wenden1995, pp. 17-33

466

BLOMMAERT ? BULCAEN of criticaldiscourseanalysis.Appl. Linguist. 19(1):136-51 Williams G. 1992. Sociolinguistics: A Sociological Critique.London: Routledge Wilson J. 1990. Politically Speaking. The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. London: Blackwell WodakR, ed. 1989. Language,Power and Ideology. Studies in Political Discourse. Amsterdam:Benjamins Wodak R. 1995. Critical linguistics and critical discourseanalysis. See Verschueren et al 1995, pp. 204-10 Wodak R. 1996. Disorders of Discourse. London: Longman WodakR. 1997. Criticaldiscourseanalysis and the study of doctor-patientinteraction.See et al 1997, pp. 173-200 Gunnarsson Wodak R, Reisigl M. 1999. Discourse and racism: Europeanperspectives.Annu. Rev. Anthropol.28:175-99 WoolardKA. 1985. Languagevariation andculturalhegemony: towardan integrationof sociolinguistics and social theory.Am. Ethnol. 2(4):738-48 Woolard K. 1989. Double Talk: Bilingualism and the Politics of Ethnicity in Catalonia. Stanford:StanfordUniv. Press Woolard KA. 1998. Language ideology as a field of inquiry.See Schieffelin et al 1998, pp. 3-47 WoolardKA, Schieffelin BB. 1994. Language ideology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:5582

van Dijk T. 1997. What is political discourse analysis? See Blommaert& Bulcaen 1997, pp. 11-52 vanDijk T. 1998.Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach.London: Sage van Leeuwen T. 1993. Genre and field in critical discourseanalysis: a synopsis.Discourse Soc. 4(2):193-223 van Leeuwen T. 1996. The representation of social actors. See Caldas-Coulthard& Coulthard1996, pp. 32-70 van Leeuwen T, WodakR. 1999. Legitimizing immigration control: discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Stud. 1(1):83-118 VerschuerenJ, ed. 1999. Language and Ideology. Selected Pap. 6th Int. Pragmat. Conf. Antwerp,Belgium: Int. Pragmat.Assoc. VerschuerenJ, OstmanJO, BlommaertJ, eds. 1995. Handbookof Pragmatics 1995. Amsterdam:Benjamins WalshC. 1998. Genderandmediatizedpolitical discourse: a case study of press coverage of Beckett's campaignfor the Labour Margaret leadership in 1994. Lang. Lit. 7(3):199214 WetherellM. 1998. Positioningand interpretative repertoires: CA and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse Soc. 9(3):387-412 Widdowson H. 1995. Discourse analysis: a criticalview. Lang. Lit. 4(3): 157-72 WiddowsonH. 1996. Reply to Fairclough.Discourse and interpretation:conjectures and refutations.Lang. Lit. 5(1):57-69 Widdowson H. 1998. The theory and practice