what is critical discourse research

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on 5 May 2022 by Amy Luo . Revised on 5 December 2022.

Discourse analysis is a research method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real-life situations.

When you do discourse analysis, you might focus on:

• The purposes and effects of different types of language
• Cultural rules and conventions in communication
• How values, beliefs, and assumptions are communicated
• How language use relates to its social, political, and historical context

Discourse analysis is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and cultural studies. It is also called critical discourse analysis.

Table of contents

What is discourse analysis used for, how is discourse analysis different from other methods, how to conduct discourse analysis.

Conducting discourse analysis means examining how language functions and how meaning is created in different social contexts. It can be applied to any instance of written or oral language, as well as non-verbal aspects of communication, such as tone and gestures.

Materials that are suitable for discourse analysis include:

• Books, newspapers, and periodicals
• Marketing material, such as brochures and advertisements
• Business and government documents
• Websites, forums, social media posts, and comments
• Interviews and conversations

By analysing these types of discourse, researchers aim to gain an understanding of social groups and how they communicate.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Unlike linguistic approaches that focus only on the rules of language use, discourse analysis emphasises the contextual meaning of language.

It focuses on the social aspects of communication and the ways people use language to achieve specific effects (e.g., to build trust, to create doubt, to evoke emotions, or to manage conflict).

Instead of focusing on smaller units of language, such as sounds, words, or phrases, discourse analysis is used to study larger chunks of language, such as entire conversations, texts, or collections of texts. The selected sources can be analysed on multiple levels.

Discourse analysis is a qualitative and interpretive method of analysing texts (in contrast to more systematic methods like content analysis ). You make interpretations based on both the details of the material itself and on contextual knowledge.

There are many different approaches and techniques you can use to conduct discourse analysis, but the steps below outline the basic structure you need to follow.

Step 1: Define the research question and select the content of analysis

To do discourse analysis, you begin with a clearly defined research question . Once you have developed your question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

Discourse analysis is a method that can be applied both to large volumes of material and to smaller samples, depending on the aims and timescale of your research.

Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context

Next, you must establish the social and historical context in which the material was produced and intended to be received. Gather factual details of when and where the content was created, who the author is, who published it, and whom it was disseminated to.

As well as understanding the real-life context of the discourse, you can also conduct a literature review on the topic and construct a theoretical framework to guide your analysis.

Step 3: Analyse the content for themes and patterns

This step involves closely examining various elements of the material – such as words, sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure – and relating them to attributes, themes, and patterns relevant to your research question.

Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions

Once you have assigned particular attributes to elements of the material, reflect on your results to examine the function and meaning of the language used. Here, you will consider your analysis in relation to the broader context that you established earlier to draw conclusions that answer your research question.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Luo, A. (2022, December 05). Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 31 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/discourse-analysis-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

Case study | definition, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | guide & examples, content analysis | a step-by-step guide with examples.

Critical Discourse Analysis: Definition, Approaches, Relation to Pragmatics, Critique, and Trends

• First Online: 01 January 2015

Cite this chapter

• Linda R. Waugh 3 ,
• Theresa Catalano 4 ,
• Khaled Al Masaeed 5 ,
• Tom Hong Do 6 &
• Paul G. Renigar 7  

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ((PEPRPHPS,volume 4))

9367 Accesses

16 Citations

This chapter introduces the transdisciplinary research movement of critical discourse analysis (CDA) beginning with its definition and recent examples of CDA work. In addition, approaches to CDA such as the dialectical relational (Fairclough), socio-cognitive (van Dijk), discourse historical (Wodak), social actors (van Leeuwen), and Foucauldian dispositive analysis (Jӓger and Maier) are outlined, as well as the complex relation of CDA to pragmatics. Next, the chapter provides a brief mention of the extensive critique of CDA, the creation of critical discourse studies (CDS), and new trends in CDA, including positive discourse analysis (PDA), CDA with multimodality, CDA and cognitive linguistics, critical applied linguistics, and other areas (rhetoric, education, anthropology/ethnography, sociolinguistics, culture, feminism/gender, and corpus studies). It ends with new directions aiming towards social action for social justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

The authors would like to thank the following for their comments on an earlier draft of this chapter: Alessandro Capone, Jacob Mey, Neal Norrick, and Teun van Dijk. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the three graduate assistants who helped with the references: Ji Guo and Qizhen Deng who worked with Theresa Catalano, and most especially, Steve Daniel Przymus who has a keen eye for detail and worked tirelessly, even while he was on vacation, with Linda Waugh.

In much of his work, Fairclough has insisted upon his “text orientation,” that is, a focus on particular authentic texts.

The issue of whether a family name beginning with “van” should be written with a lower case “v” or an upper case “V” is a difficult one. Van Dijk uses V on his website; however, in many citations of his work, “v” is used, and his name is alphabetized under “v.” We will use the latter spelling (unless Van is the first word in a sentence) and alphabetization; the same is true of other names, such as van Leeuwen.

We will use CDA in our discussion, even though van Dijk prefers ‘critical discourse studies’, since he feels that the latter is, for him, a more general term than CDA, covering critical analysis, critical theory, and critical applications . It also aligns with the term ‘discourse studies’, rather than ‘discourse analysis’, since he views discourse studies as a multidisciplinary field that is not limited to analysis or to any particular type or method of analysis. Indeed, for him “CDS is not a method, but rather a critical perspective, position or attitude ” (van Dijk 2009b , p. 62).

See the discussion of S. Jӓger’s work in Dispositive Analysis below.

In their introduction to the volume Foundations of Pragmatics, the first one in the new series, Handbooks of Pragmatics, published by Mouton de Gruyter.

Note that the journal Critical Discourse Studies and its acronym CDS are in italics in the text, while the trend in Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) is denoted in regular font.

Achugar, M. 2007. Between remembering and forgetting: Uruguayan military discourse about human rights (1976–2004). Discourse and Society 18:521–547.

Google Scholar  

Achugar, M. 2008. What we remember: The construction of memory in military discourse . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Adami, E., and G. Kress. 2013. Using multimodal analysis in investigating digital texts: The case of a food blog. Presentation given at the 2013 Conference of the International Communication Association, London, UK, 17–21 June 2013.

Adorno, A. 1969. Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie . Berlin: Luchterhand.

Ahmadvand, M. 2011. Critical discourse analysis: An introduction to major approaches. Dinamika Bahasa dan Ilmu Budaya [ Indonesian Journal of Linguistic and Cultural Studies ] 5 (1): 82–90.

Althusser, L. 1971. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes towards an investigation). In Lenin and philosophy and other essays , ed. L. Althusser, 127–186. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Andersen, A. A. 2003. Discursive analytical tools: Understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann . Bristol: Policy.

Anderson, K. T., and P. Wales. 2012. Can you design for agency? The ideological mediation of an out-of-school digital storytelling workshop. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 9 (3): 165–190.

Anthonissen, C., and J. Blommaert. 2007. Discourse and human rights violations . Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Austin, J. 1962. How to do things with words . London: Oxford University Press.

Baker, P. 2006. Corpora in discourse analysis . London: Continuum.

Baker, P., and T. McEnery. 2005. A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics 4 (2): 197–226.

Baker, P., C. Gabrielatos, M. Khosravinik, M. Krzyzanowski, T. McEnery, and R. Wodak. 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 (3): 273–306.

Bakhtin, M. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics . Trans: C. Emerson Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Barkho, L. 2011. The role of internal guidelines in shaping news narratives: Ethnographic insights into the discursive rhetoric of Middle East reporting by the BBC and Al-Jazeera English. Critical Discourse Studies 8 (4): 297–309.

Bar-Tal, D. 2000. Shared beliefs in a society: Social psychological analysis . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Barthes, R. 1967. Système de la mode . Paris: Seuil.

Barthes, R. 1967/1983. Section I (Chapters 1–4): Method. The Fashion system . Trans: M. Ward and R. Howard. New York: Hill.

Barthes, R. 1972. Mythologies . Trans: A. Lavers. St. Albans: Paladin [French original: 1957].

Barthes, R. 1974. Mythen des Alltags . Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp (Trans:1957, Mythologies . Paris: Editions du Seuil).

Barthes, R. 1984. Camera lucida . London: Fontana.

Bartlett, T. 2012. Hybrid voices and collaborative change: Contextualising positive discourse analysis . New York: Routledge.

Bauer, M., and B. Aarts. 2000. Corpus construction: A principle for qualitative data collection. In Qualitative researching with text, image and sound, ed. M. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 19–37. London: Sage.

Belluigi, D. Z. 2009. Exploring the discourses around “creativity” and “critical thinking” in a South African creative arts curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 34 (6): 699–717.

Benwell, B. 2005. “Lucky this is anonymous!” Men’s magazines and ethnographies of reading: A textual cultural approach. Discourse & Society 16 (2): 147–172.

Berger, P.L., and T. Luckmann. 1967. The social construction of reality . Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Berlin, J. 1988. Rhetoric and ideology in the writing class. College English 50 (5): 477–494.

Bernstein, B. 1962. Social class, linguistic codes and grammatical elements. Language and Speech 5 (4): 221–240.

Bernstein, B. 1971. Class, codes and control 1: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bernstein, B., ed. 1973. Class, codes and control 2: Applied studies towards a sociology of language . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bernstein, B. 1975. Class, codes and control 3: Towards a theory of educational transmissions . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bhatia, A., and V. K. Bhatia. 2011. Discursive illusions in legislative discourse: A socio-pragmatic study. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 24:1–19.

Billig, M. 2002. Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. In Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity, ed. G. Weiss and R. Wodak, 35–46. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Billig, M. 2008. The language of critical discourse analysis: The case of nominalization. Discourse & Society 19 (6): 783–800.

Biria, R., and A. Mohammadi. 2012. The socio pragmatic functions of inaugural speech: A critical discourse analysis approach. Journal of Pragmatics 44:1290–1302.

Blackledge, A. 2011. Discourse and power. In The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis, ed. J. Gee and M. Handford. London: Routledge.

Blommaert, J. 2001. Critique is/as critique. Critique of Anthropology 2 (1): 3–32.

Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse: A critical introduction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blommaert, J. 2009. Ethnography and democracy: Hymes’s political theory of language. Text & Talk 29 (3): 257–276.

Bloomaert, J., and C. Bulcaen. 2000. Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 29:447–466.

Bloor, M., and T. Bloor. 2007. The practice of critical discourse analysis: An introduction . London: Hodder Arnold.

Blum-Kulka, S., and M. Hamo. 2011. Discourse pragmatics. In Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction , ed. T. A. van Dijk, 2nd ed., 143–164. London: Sage.

Bogatyrev, P. 1971. The function of folk costume in Moravian Slovakia . The Hague: Mouton.

Bourdieu, P. 1987. Die Kritik der feinen Unterschiede . Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp (Trans: of 1979, La Distinction: Critique sociale du jugement . Paris: Les Editions de Minuit).

Boxer, D. 2002. Applying sociolinguistics . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Breeze, R. 2011. Critical discourse analysis and its critics. Pragmatics 21 (4): 493–525.

Brown, R., and A. Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solildarity. In Style in language, ed. T. A. Sebeok, 253–276. Harmondsworth: Penguin (Reprinted in P. Giglioli (Ed.), 1972, Language and social context , 252–282).

Brown, P., and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, R., and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brumfit, C. 1997. How applied linguistics is the same as any other science. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 7 (1): 86–94.

Bublitz, W., and J. Norrick. 2011. Introduction: The burgeoning field of pragmatics. In Foundations of pragmatics . Vol. 1, ed. W. Bublitz and N. Norrick, . Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Bucholtz, M. 2003. Theories of discourse as theories of gender: Discourse analysis in language and gender studies. In The handbook of language and gender, ed. J. Holmes and M. Meyerhoff, 43–68. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Bussolini, J. 2010. What is a dispositive? Foucault Studies 10:85–107.

Caborn, J. 2007. On the methodology of dispositive analysis. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 1 (1): 115–123. http://cadaad.net/journal .

Callow, J. 2006. Images, politics and multiliteracies: Using a visual metalanguage. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 29 (1): 7–23.

Cameron, D. 1990. Introduction. In Women in their speech communities: New perspectives on language and sex, ed. J. Coates and D. Cameron, 3–12. London: Longman.

Cameron, D. 1992. Feminism and linguistic theory . 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.

Cameron, D. 1997. Theoretical debates in feminist linguistics: Questions of sex and gender. In Gender and discourse, ed. R. Wodak, 21–36. London: Sage.

Cameron, D. 1998. Gender, language and discourse: A review essay. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 23 (4): 945–973.

Cameron, D., and J. Coates. 1990. Some problems in the sociolinguistic explanations of sex differences. In Women in their speech communities: New perspectives on language and sex, ed. J. Coates and D. Cameron, 13–26. London: Longman.

Candlin, C. N. 1989. General editor’s preface. In Language and Power . 1st ed., ed. N. Fairclough, vi–x. London: Longman.

Carbaugh, D. 1988. Talking American: Cultural discourses on Donahue . Norwood: Ablex.

Carbaugh, D. 2005. Cultures in conversation . Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carbaugh, D. 2007. Cultural discourse analysis: Communication practices and intercultural encounters. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 36 (3): 167–182.

Carbaugh, D. 2010a. Distinctive qualities in communication research . New York: Routledge.

Carbaugh, D. 2010b. Resituating cultural studies in communication: Cultural discourse analyis. In Hybrids, differences, visions: On the study of culture, ed. C. Baraldi, A. Borsari, and A. Carli, 101–116. Aurora: John Davies.

Carpenter, R. H. 1994. The stylistic persona of Bill Clinton. From Arkansas to Aristotelian Attica. In Bill Clinton on stump, state, and stage, ed. S. Smith, 101–132. Fayetteville: The University of Arkansas Press.

Catalano, T. 2012. The denaturalization of Romanies in Italy: How language and image work together. The International Journal of the Image 2 (4): 159–172.

Catalano, T. 2014. The Roma and Wall Street/CEOs: Linguistic construction of identity in U.S. and Canadian crime reports. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 38 (2) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2013.803768 .

Catalano, T., and A. Moeller. 2013. Media discourse and dual language programs: A critical linguistic analysis. Discourse, Context & Media 2 (4): 165–174.

Catalano, T., and L. R. Waugh. 2013a. The language of money: How verbal and visual metonymy shapes public opinion about financial events. International Journal of Language Studies 7 (2): 31–60.

Catalano, T., and L. Waugh. 2013b. A critical analysis of metonymy in image and text: The ideologies behind crime reports of Latinos and Wall Street/CEOs. Critical Discourse Studies 10 (4): 406–426.

Cazden, C. 2001. Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning . 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press [1st ed: 1988].

Charteris-Black, J. 2004. Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Charteris-Black, J. 2006. Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse & Society 17 (6): 563–582.

Charteris-Black, J. 2011. Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor . 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Charteris-Black, J. 2014. Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cheshire, J., and P., Trudgill, eds. 1998. The sociolinguistics reader: Vol. 2, gender and discourse . London: Arnold.

Chilton, P. 1994a. La plaie qu’il convient de fermer: Les métaphores du discours raciste. Journal of Pragmatics 21 (6): 583–619.

Chilton, P., ed. 1994b. Schémas cognitifs du discourse raciste français . Vol. 4. Rotterdam: Institute for Social Policy Research.

Chilton, P. 1996a. The meaning of security . East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Chilton, P. 1996b. Security metaphors: Cold war discourse from containment to common European home . Bern: Peter Lang.

Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice . London: Routledge.

Chilton, P. 2005a. Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinary, ed. R. Wodak and P. Chilton, 19–51. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Chilton, P. 2005b. Manipulation, Memes and metaphors: The case of Mein Kampf '. In Manipulation, ed. L. de Saussure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chilton, P. 2007. Is it possible to compare political rhetoric across cultures? International round table on discourse . Hong Kong: City University.

Chilton, P. 2010. The language–ethics interface: Reflection on linguistics, discourse analysis and the legacy of Habermas. In Discourse-politics-identity, eds R. de Cillia, H. Gruber, M. Krzyzanowski, and F. Menz, 33–43. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.

Chilton, P. 2014. January 4. Professor Paul Chilton, Department of Linguistics and English Language. http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/profiles/paul-chilton . Accessed 4 Jan 2014.

Chilton, P. forthcoming. Language and critique: Rethinking critical discourse analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chilton, P., and C., Aubrey, eds. 1983. Nineteen eighty-four in 1984: Autonomy, control and communication . London: Comedia.

Chilton, P., and G. Lakoff. 1995. Foreign policy by metaphor. In Language and peace , ed. C. Schäffner and A. I. Wenden, 37–60. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Chilton, P., and R. Wodak, eds. 2007. A new research agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity . Amsterdam: Benjamins (Revised 2nd ed.).

Chouliaraki, L., and N. Fairclough. 1999. Discourse in late modernity : Rethinking critical discourse analysis . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Christie, C. 2000. Gender and language: Towards a feminist pragmatics . Edingburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Cienki, A. 1998. Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In ed. J. -P. Koenig, 189–204. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Cienki, A. 2008. Why study metaphor and gesture? In Metaphor and gesture, ed. A. Cienki and C. Müller, 5–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cienki, A., and C. Müller, eds. 2008a. Metaphor and gesture . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cienki, A., and C. Müller. 2008b. Metaphor, gesture and thought. In The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, ed. R. Gibbs, 462–501. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cienki, A. 2009. When speech and gesture come together: Forms of multimodal metaphor in the use of spoken language. In Multimodal metaphor, ed. C. Forceville and E. Urios-Aparisi, 297–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Clarke, I., W. Kwon, and R. Wodak. 2012. A context-sensitive approach to analyzing talk in strategy meetings. British Journal of Management 23:455–473. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00759.

Clary-Lemmon, J. 2009. The rhetoric of race and the racialization of composition studies. College Composition and Communication 61 (2): 1–17.

Coates, J. 1993. Women, men and language . London: Longman.

Coates, J. 1997. Women’s friendships, women’s talk. In Gender and discourse, ed. R. Wodak, 245–262. London: Sage.

Collins, J. 2011. Foreword: Introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed., ed. R. Rogers, ix–xiii. New York: Routledge.

Connerton, J., ed. 1976. Critical sociology: selected readings . Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Cook, G. 1992. The discourse of advertising . London: Routledge.

Cope, B., and M. Kalantzis, eds. 2000. Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures . London: Routledge.

Coulthard, M., and M. Montgomery, eds. 1981. Studies in discourse analysis . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Courtine, J. -J. 1981. Analyse du discours politique (le discours communiste adressé aux chrétiens). Langages 62 (whole volume).

Da Silva, D. E. G. 2012. Social representations and experiential metafunction: Poverty and media discourse. In Proceedings of ISFC 35: Voices around the world, ed. C. Wu, C. Matthiessen, and M. Herke. Sydney: The 35th ISFC Organizing Committee.

Davis, H., and P. Walton, eds. 1983. Language, image, media . Oxford: Blackwell.

De Cillia, R., M. Reisigl, and R. Wodak. 1999. The discursive construction of national identities. Discourse & Society 10 (2): 149–173.

Deckert, S., and C. Vickers. 2011. An introduction to sociolinguistics: Society and identity . New York: Continuum.

Djonov, E., and S. Zhao. 2014. Critical multimodal studies of popular discourse . London: Routledge.

Downes, W. 1998. Language and society . 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duranti, A. 1997. Linguistic anthropology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duranti, A., and C. Goodwin. 1992. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eisenhart, C. 2008. Reporting Waco: The constitutive work of bureaucratic style. In Rhetoric in detail: Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture, ed. B. Johnstone and C. Eisenhart, 57–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

El Refaie, E. 2001. Metaphors we discriminate by: Naturalized themes in Austrian newspaper articles about asylum seekers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (3): 352–371.

Engels, F. 1895. Letter to Conrad Schmidt. In Reader in Marxist philosophy, ed. H. Selsam and H. Martel, 176–179. New York: International (1963).

Engels, F. 1976. Anti-Dühring . Peking: Foreign Languages Press [Orig. date of pub.:1877–1878].

Ennis-McMillan, M. 2001. Suffering from water shortage: Social origins of bodily distress in a Mexican community. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 15 (3): 368–390.

Erckenbrecht, U. 1973. Marx’ Materialistische Sprachtheorie . Kronberg: Scriptor Verlag.

Every, D. 2013. Shame on you: The language, practice and consequences of shame and shaming in asylum seeker advocacy. Discourse & Society 24 (6): 667–686.

Fairclough, N. 1985. Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 9:739–763.

Fairclough, N. 1988. Discourse representation in media discourse. Sociolinguistics 17:125–139.

Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power . London: Longman.

Fairclough, N., ed. 1992a. Critical language awareness . London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. 1992b. Discourse and social change . Cambridge: Polity.

Fairclough, N. 1992c Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 3 (2): 193–217.

Fairclough, N. 1992d. Critical discourse analysis in practice: Description. Language and Power . 2nd ed., 91–116. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. 1995a. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language . London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. 1995b. General introduction. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language . 1st ed., 1–20. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. 1995c. Media discourse . London: Edward Arnold.

Fairclough, N. 1998. Political discourse in the media: An analytical framework. Approaches to media discourse , 142–162. Oxford: Blackwell.

Fairclough, N. 1999. Global capitalism and critical awareness of language. Language Awareness 8 (2): 71–83.

Fairclough, N. 2000. New labour, new language? London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. 2001a. Introduction: critical language study. In Language and power . 2nd ed, ed. N. Fairclough. Edinburgh: Pearson Education.

Fairclough, N. 2001b. Critical discourse analysis. In How to Analyze Talk in Institutional Settings: A Casebook of Methods, ed. A. McHoul and M. Rapley. London: Continuum.

Fairclough, N. 2003. Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research . London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. 2006. Language and globalization . London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. 2009. A dialectical-relational approach. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 162–186. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Fairclough, N. 2010a. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language . 2nd ed. Harlow: Longman.

Fairclough, N. 2010b. General introduction. In Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language . 2nd ed., 1–21. Harlow: Longman.

Fairclough, N. 2010c. Introduction. To section C, dialectics of discourse: Theoretical developments. In Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language . 2nd ed., 163–166. Harlow: Longman.

Fairclough, N. 2011. Semiotic aspects of social transformation and learning. In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed., ed. R. Rogers, 119–127. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fairclough, N. 2012. Critical discourse analysis. International Advances in Engineering and Technology 7:452–487.

Fairclough, I., and N. Fairclough. 2012. Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students . London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N., and R. Wodak. 1997. Chapter 10: Critical discourse analysis. In Discourse as social interaction, ed. T. A. van Dijk, 258–284. London: Sage.

Fairclough, N., P. Graham, J. Lemke, and R. Wodak. 2004a. Introduction. Critical Discourse Studies 1 (1): 1–7.

Fairclough, N., B. Jessop, and A. Sayer. 2004b. Critical realism and semiosis. In Realism, discourse and deconstruction, ed. J. Joseph and J. Roberts, 23–42. London: Routledge (Reprinted in Fairclough. N. 2010a. Critical discourse analysis. pp. 202–222. Page numbers in the text are to this reprinted version).

Fairclough, N., J. Mulderrig, and R. Wodak. 2011. Critical discourse analysis. In Discourse studies, ed. T. A. van Dijk, 357–378. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental spaces. Aspects of meaning construction in natural language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in thought and language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fauconnier, G. 1999. Methods and generalizations. In Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope and methodology, ed. T. Janssen and T. Redeker, 95–128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fauconnier, G., and M. Turner. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Conceptual structure, discourse and language, ed. A. E. Goldberg, 113–130. Stanford: CSLI.

Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities . New York: Basic Books.

Fillmore, C. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. Linguistics Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.

Finger, U. D. 1976. Sprachzerstörung im Gruppen . Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Flader, D., and R. Wodak-Leodolter. 1979. Therapeutische Kommunikation . Königstein/Ts: Skriptor.

Foluke, U. 2011. Event models: A socio-cognitive study of selected interrogations in 2008 quasi-judicial public hearing on Federal Capital Territory (FCT) administration in Nigeria. Studies in Literature and Language 3 (1): 37–44. doi:10.3968/j.sll.1923156320110301.300.

Forceville, C. 1996. Pictorial metaphor in advertising . London: Routledge.

Forceville, C. 2005. Cognitive linguistics and multimodal metaphor. In Bildwissenschaft: Zwischen Reflektion und Anwendung, ed. K. Sachs-Hornbach, 264–284. Cologne: Von Halem.

Forceville, C. 2007. Pictorial and multimodal metaphor in commercials. In Go figure! New directions in advertising rhetoric, ed. E. McQuarrie and B. Phillips, 272–310. Armonk: ME Sharpe.

Forceville, C. 2008. Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought , ed. R. Gibbs, 462–482. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Forceville, C. 2014. The strategic use of the visual mode in advertising metaphors. In Critical multimodal studies of popular discourse, ed. E. Djonov and S. Zhao, 55–70. London: Routledge.

Forceville, C., and E. Urios-Aparis, eds. 2009. Multimodal metaphor . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Forchtner, B., M. Krzyzanowski, and R. Wodak. 2013. Mediatization, right-wing populism, and political campaigning: The case of the Austrian Freedom Party. In Media talk and political elections in Europe and America, ed. A. Tolson and M. Ekström, 205–228. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Forgas, J., ed. 1981. Social cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding . London: Academic.

Foucault, M. 1971. L’ordre du discours . Paris: Gallimard.

Foucault, M. 1972. Orders of discourse. Social Science Information 10 (2): 7–30.

Foucault, M. 1977a. The archaeology of knowledge Trans: A. Sheridan Smith. New York: Random House.

Foucault, M. 1977b. Language, counter-memory, practice, ed. D. Bouchard and S. Simon. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Foucault, M. 1978. The history of sexuality . Vol. 1. New York: Random House.

Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison . Harmondsworth: Penguin Books (Trans: A. Sheridan [French original: 1975]).

Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge — Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 . Brighton: Harvester.

Foucault, M. 1984. The order of discourse. In Language and politics, ed. M. Shapiro, 108–138. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Foucault, M. 1993. Die Ordnung des Diskurses . 2nd ed. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer (Trans: W. Seitter [French original: 1971, L’ordre du discours ]).

Foucault, M. 2002. The archaeology of knowledge . London: Routledge (1st English ed., 1972).

Fowler, R. 1986. Linguistic criticism (1st ed., 1986, in preparation since 1981; 2nd ed., 1996b).

Fowler, R. 1987. Notes on critical linguistics. In Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday . 2 vols., eds. T. Threadgold and R. Steele. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press . London: Routledge.

Fowler, R. 1996. On critical linguistics. In Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis , ed. C. R. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard, 3–14. London: Routledge.

Fowler, R. 1979. Critical Linguistics. ed. R. Fowler et al. (pp. 185–213 and 220–222 endnotes). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Fowler, R., B. Hodge, G. Kress, and T. Trew. 1979. Language and control . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Freitas, E., and B. Zolkower. 2009. Using social semiotics to prepare mathematics teachers to teach for social justice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 12 (3): 187–203.

Galasinski, D. 2011. The patient’s world: Discourse analysis and ethnography. Critical Discourse Studies 8 (4): 253–265.

Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Gavriely-Nuri, D. 2010a. If both opponents “extend hands in peace” Why don’t they meet? Mythic metaphors and cultural codes in the Israeli peace discourse. Journal of Language and Politics 9 (3): 449–468.

Gavriely-Nuri, D. 2010b. The idiosyncratic language of Israeli ‘peace’: A cultural approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (CCDA). Discourse & Society 21:565–585.

Gavriely-Nuri, D. 2012. Cultural approach to CDA. Critical Discourse Studies 9 (1): 77–85.

Gavriely-Nuri, D. 2013. The normalization of war in Israeli discourse 1967–2008 . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education (Lexington Books).

Gavriely-Nuri, D. 2014. Collective memory as a metaphor: The case of speeches by Israeli prime ministers 2001–2009. Memory Studies 7 (1): 46–60.

Gee, J. P. 2011. Discourse analysis: what makes it critical? In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed., ed. R. Rogers, 23–45. New York: Routledge. Gibbons, A. 2011. Multimodality, cognition and experimental literature. London: Routledge.

Giglioli, P. P., ed. 1972. Language and social context . Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Girnth, H. 1996. Texte im politischen Diskurs. Ein Vorschlag zur diskursorientierten Beschreibung von Textsorten. Muttersprache 106 (1): 66–80.

Gleason, H. 1973. Contrastive analysis in discourse structure. In Readings in Stratificational Linguistics , eds. A. Makkai and D. Lockwood. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Goatly, A. 2007. Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.

Graham, L. J. 2007. Schooling attention deficit hyperactivity disorders: Educational systems of formation and the ‘behaviourally disordered’ school child. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Graham, L. J. 2009. The cost of opportunity. Paper presented at the Philosophy in Education Society of Australasia (PESA) Annual Conference, December 3–6. University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Graham, L. J. 2011. The product of text and ‘other’ statements: Discourse analysis and the critical use of Foucault. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43 (6): 663–674.

Graham, L. J., and R. Slee. 2008. An illusory interiority: Interrogating the discourse/s of inclusion. Educational Philosophy and Theory 40 (2): 247–260.

Graham, P. W., T. Keenan, and A. Dowd. 2004. A call to arms at the end of history: A discourse-historical analysis of George W. Bush’s declaration of war on terror. Discourse & Society 15 (2–3): 199–221.

Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts , ed. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic.

Grice, H. P. 1989. Study in the way of words . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Grimes, J. 1975. The thread of discourse . The Hague: Mouton.

Gutiérrez, K. 2008. Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly 43 (2): 148–164.

Habermas, J. 1971a. Erkenntnis und Interesse . Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J. 1971b. Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz. In Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie, ed. J. Habermas and N. Luhmann. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J. 1975. Legitimation crisis . Trans: T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon.

Habermas, J. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns . Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J. 1984. Theory of communicative action , vol 1: Reason and the rationalization of society . Trans: T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. 1998. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy . Cambridge: MIT Press.

Haig, E. 2004. Some observations on the critique of critical discourse analysis. Studies in Language and Culture 25 (2): 129–149.

Hall, S. 1982. The rediscovery of “ideology”: Return of the repressed in media studies. In Culture, society and the media, ed. M. Gurevitch, T. Bennet, J. Curran, and J. Woollacott, 56–90. London: Methuen.

Hall, S., C. Critcher, T. Jefferson, J. Clarke, and B. Roberts. 1978. Policing the crisis . London: Macmillan.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1971. Linguistic function and literary style: An enquiry into the language of William Golding’s The Inheritors . In Literary style: A symposium, ed. S. Chatman, 330–365. New York: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the function of language . London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1976. Anti-languages. UEA Papers in Linguistics 1:15–45.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning . London: Edward Arnold/Baltimore: University Park Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar . 2nd ed. London: Arnold. (1994).

Halliday, M. A. K., and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English . London: Longman.

Hamilton, D., ed. 1981. Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior . Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Hariman, R. 1995. Political style: The artistry of power . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Haroche, C., P. Henry, and M. Pêcheux. 1971. La sémantique et la coupure saussurienne: langue, langage, discours. Langages 24:93–106.

Harré, R. 1967. An introduction to the logic of the sciences . London: Macmillan.

Hart, C. 2010. Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science: New perspectives on immigration discourse . Hertfordshire: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Hart, C. 2011. Moving beyond metaphor in the cognitive linguistic approach to CDA: Construal operations in immigration discourse. In Critical discourse studies in context and cognition, ed. C. Hart, 71–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hartley, J. 1982. Understanding news . London: Methuen.

Harvey, D. 1996. Justices, nature and the geography of difference . Oxford: Blackwell.

Hawisher, G. E., and C. L. Selfe. 1991. The rhetoric of technology and the electronic writing class. College Composition and Communication 42 (1): 55–65.

Hawisher, G. E., C. L. Selfe, B. Moraski, and M. Pearson. 2004. Becoming literate in the information age: Cultural ecologies and the literacies of technology. College Composition and Communication 55 (4): 642–692.

Hobsbawm, E. 1977. Gramsci and political theory. Marxism Today 21 (7):205–213.

Hodge, B., and G. R. Kress. 1988. Social semiotics . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Hodge, B., G. Kress, and G. Jones. 1979. The ideology of middle management. In Language and control , ed. R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress, and T. Trew, 81–93. London: Routledge.

Hoggart, R. 1976. Foreword. In Bad news . Vol. I, ed. Glasgow University Media Group. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Holmes, J. 1986. The function of you know in women and men’s speech. Language in Society 15:1–21.

Holmes, J. 1996. Sex and language. In Kontaktlinguistik — Contact Linguistics — Linguistique du contact, ed. H. Goebl, P. Nelde, Z. Stary, and W. Wölck, 720–725. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Holmes, J. 1997. Story-telling in New Zealand women’s and men’s talk. In Gender and Discourse, ed. R. Wodak, 263–293. London: Sage.

Holmes, J. 2005. Power and discourse at work: Is gender relevant? In Feminist critical discourse analysis, ed. M. Lazar, 31–60. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Holsanova, J. 2008. Discourse, vision, and cognition . Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Hong, J. J. W. 2012. “Challenge” or “collaboration” social interaction and recontextualization: McDonald’s CSR report. Critical Discourse Studies 9 (2): 149–162.

Honzl, J. 1976. Dynamics of the sign in the theatre. In Semiotics of art: Prague School contributions, ed. L. Matejka and I. Titunik. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hornberger, N. H. 2011. Dell H. Hymes: His scholarship and legacy in anthropology and education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 42 (4): 310–318.

Hornberger, N., and S. McKay, eds. 2010. Sociolinguistics and language education . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Huckin, T., J. Andrus, and J. Clary-Lemon. 2012. Critical discourse analysis and rhetoric and composition. College Composition and Communication 64 (1): 107–129.

Hudson, R. 1996. Sociolinguistics . 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K., and B. Paltridge, eds. 2011. The Bloomsbury companion to discourse analysis . London: Bloomsbury.

Hymes, D., ed. 1969a. Reinventing anthropology . New York: Random House.

Hymes, D. 1969b. The use of anthropology: Critical, political, personal. In Reinventing anthropology, ed. D. Hymes, 3–79. New York: Random House.

Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In Sociolinguistics, eds. J. Pride and J. Holmes, 269–293. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Hymes, D. 1977. Foundations in sociolinguistics . London: Tavistock Press.

Hymes, D. 1980. Speech and language: On the origins and foundations of inequality among speakers. In Language in education: Ethnolinguistic essays, ed. D. H. Hymes, 19–61. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Hymes, D. 1996. Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: Toward an understanding of voice . Bristol: Taylor and Francis.

Hymes, D., and J. Fought. 1975/1981. American structuralism. In Current trends in linguistics, vol. 13: Historiography of linguistics, ed. T. Sebeok, 903–1176. The Hague: Mouton (Reissued as Hymes and Fought 1981. American structuralism . The Hague: Mouton).

Ingham, R., S. Hall, J. Clarke, J. Marsh, and J. Donovan. 1978. Football Hooliganism, the Wider Context . London: Inter-Action Imprint.

Isbuga-Erel, R. F. 2008. A CDA approach to the translation of taboos in literary texts within the historical and socio-political Turkish context. In Papers from the Lancaster University postgraduate conference in linguistics & language teaching . Vol. 2, ed. M. Khosravinik and A. Polyzou, 58–77. Lancaster: Lancaster University.

Jäger, M. 1996. Fatale effekte. Die Kritik am Patriarchat im Einwanderungsdiskurs . Duisburg: DISS.

Jäger, M., and S. Jäger. 2007. Deutungskämpfe: Theorie und Praxis Kritischer Diskursanalyse . Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Jäger, S. 1993. Kritische Diskursanalyse . Münster: Unrast Verlag.

Jäger, S. 1999. Einen Königsweg gibt es nicht. Bemerkungen zur Durchführung von Diskursanalysen. In Das Wuchern der Diskurse: Perspektiven der Diskursanalyse Foucaults, ed. Hannelore Bublitz, Andrea D. Bührmann, Christine Hanke, and Andrea Seier, 136–147. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

Jäger, S. 2004. Kritische Diskursanalyse . 4th unrevised ed. Münster: Unrast.

Jäger, S., and Maier, F. 2009. Theoretical and methodological aspects of Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 34–61. London: Sage.

Jakobson, R. 1971. Studies in verbal art . Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Jameson, F. 1981. The political unconscious . London: Psychology Press.

Jaworski, A., and N. Coupland, eds. 1999. The discourse reader . London: Routledge.

Jefferson, G. 1974. Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society 2:181–199.

Jefferson, G. 1978. Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, ed. Jim Schenkein. New York: Academic Press.

Jewitt, C. 2006. Technology, literacy and learning: A multimodal approach . London: Routledge.

Jewitt, C., and G. Kress. 2003. Multimodal literacy . New York: Peter Lang.

Johnson, D. C. 2011. Critical discourse analysis and the ethnography of language policy. Critical Discourse Studies 8 (4): 267–279.

Johnstone, B. 2008. Discourse analysis . Malden: Blackwell.

Katz, E., and P. Lazarsfeld. 1955. Personal Influence . New York: Free Press.

Kecskes, I. 2014. Can intercultural pragmatics bring some new insight into pragmatic theories? In this volume .

Keating, E., and A. Duranti. 2011. Discourse and culture. In Discourse studies, ed. T. A. van Dijk, 331–356. London: Sage.

Kendall, S., and D. Tannen. 1997. Gender and language in the workplace. In Gender and discourse, ed. R. Wodak, 81–105. London: Sage.

Kheirabadi, R., and S. B. A. Moghaddam. 2012. The linguistic representation of Iranian and Western actors of Iran’s nuclear program in international media: A CDA study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2 (10), 2183–2188.

Khosravanik, M. 2010. The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Politics 9 (1): 1–28.

Kim, K. H. 2014. Examining US news media discourses about North Korea: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 25 (2): 221–244.

Kitzinger, C. 2000. Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism & Psychology 10:163–93.

Klemperer, V. 1995. Ich will Zeugnis ablegen bis zum letzten. Tagebücher 1933–1941 , ed. Walter Nowojski unter Mitarbeit von Hadwig Klemperer. Berlin: Aufbau-Verlag.

Klemperer, V. 1999–2001. I will bear witness: a Diary of the Nazi years . Vol. 1: 1933–1941, Vol. 2: 1942–1945. Trans: M. Chamers. New York: Modern Library.

Koller, V. 2004. Metaphor and gender in business media discourse: A critical cognitive study . Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Koller, V. 2005. Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: Evidence from business media discourse. Discourse & Society 16 (2): 199–224.

Koller, V., and P. Davidson. 2008. Social exclusion as conceptual and grammatical metaphor: A cross-genre study of British policy-making. Discourse & Society 19 (3): 307–331.

Kotthoff, W., and R. Wodak. 1997. Communicating gender in context . Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kövecses, Z. 2000. Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture and body in human feeling . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kövecses, Z. 2006. Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, C. 2002. Language and culture: A social semiotic perspective. ADFL Bulletin. 33 (2): 9–15.

Kress, G. 1976. Halliday: System and function in language . London: Oxford University Press.

Kress, G. 1985a. Ideological structures in discourse. In Handbook of discourse analysis . Vol. 4, ed. T. A. van Dijk, 27–42. London: Academic.

Kress, G. 1985b. Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice . Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Kress, G. 1989. Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice . Oxford: Oxford University Press [new edition of 1985b].

Kress, G. 1990. Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 11:84–97.

Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to communication . London: Routledge.

Kress, G. 2011. Discourse analysis and education: A multimodal social semiotic approach. In An Introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed., ed. R. Rogers, 205–226. New York: Routledge.

Kress, G. 2012. Discourse analysis and education: A multimodal social semiotic approach. In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed., ed. R. Rogers, 205–226. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kress, G., and R. Hodge. 1979. Language as ideology . 2nd ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (R. Hodge and G. Kress 1993. Language as ideology . London: Routledge).

Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen. 1996/2006. Reading images: The grammar of visual design . London: Routledge.

Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication . London: Arnold.

Krzyzanowski, M. 2010. The discursive construction of European identities: A multi-level approach to discourse and identity in the transforming European Union . Bern: Peter Lang.

Krzyzanowski, M. 2011. Ethnography and critical discourse analysis: Towards a problem-oriented research dialogue. Critical Discourse Studies 8 (4): 231–238.

Krzyzanowski, M., and R. Wodak. 2009. The politics of exclusion: Debating migration in Austria . New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Kubota, R. 1999. Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. Tesol Quarterly 33 (1): 9–35.

Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Labov, W. 1966a. Hypercorrection by the lower middle class as a factor in linguistic change. In Sociolinguistic patterns, ed. W. Labov, 122–143. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (1991).

Labov, W. 1966b. The social stratification of English in New York City . Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Labov, W. 1971. The notion of ‘system’ in creole languages. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, ed. D. Hymes, 447–472. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Labov, W., and J. Waletzky. 1967. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In Essays on the verbal and visual arts, ed. J. Helm. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind . Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lakoff, G. 1991. Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify the war in the gulf. Journal of Urban and Cultural Studies 2:59–72.

Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Metaphor and thought . 2nd ed., ed. A. Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by . Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lam, W. 2009. Literacy and learning across transnational online spaces. E-learning 6 (4): 303–324.

Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I. Theoretical prerequisites . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2. Descriptive application . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. 2002. Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar . 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J, and S. Thorne. 2006. Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lau, S. 2013. A study of critical literacy work with beginning English language learners: An integrated approach. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 10 (1): 1–30.

Lazar, M., ed. 2005a. Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse . Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lazar, M. 2005b. Politicizing gender in discourse: Feminist critical discourse analysis as political perspective and praxis. In Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse, ed. M. Lazar, 1–30. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lazar, M. 2005c. Performing state fatherhood: The remaking of hegemony. In Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse, ed. M. Lazar, 139–163. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lazar, M. 2007. Feminist critical discourse analysis: Articulating a feminist discourse praxis. Critical Discourse Studies 4:141–167.

Lecourt, D. 1975. Marxism and epistemology: Bachleard, Canguilhem and Foucault . London: New Left Books.

Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics . London: Longman.

Leont’ev, A. 1978. Activity, consciousness, and personality . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, C., and J. Ketter. 2011. Learning as social interaction: Interdiscursivity in a teacher and researcher study group. In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed., ed. R. Rogers, 128–153. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lewis, C., P. Enciso, and B. Moje. 2007. Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency and power. TESL-EJ 12 (3): 1–4.

Lindekens, R. 1971. Eléments pour une sémiotique de la photographie . Paris: Didier.

Link, J. 1983. Was ist und was bringt Diskurstaktik. kultuRRevolution 2:60–66.

Link, J. 1992. Die Analyse der symbolischen Komponente realer Ereignisse: Ein Beitrag der Diskurstheorie zur Analyse neorassistischer Äusserungen. In Der Diskurs des Rassismus . Vol. 46, ed. S. Jäger and F. Januschek, 37–52. Oldenburg: Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie.

Louw, B. 1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, ed. M. Baker, G. Francis, and E. Tognini-Bonelli, 157–176. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Luke, A. 2002. Beyond science and ideological critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22: 96–110.

Luke, A. 2004. Notes on the future of critical discourse studies. Critical Discourse Studies 38 (1): 132–141.

Lutz, B., and R. Wodak. 1987. Information für Informierte. Linguistische Studien zu Verständlichkeit und Verstehen von Hörfunknachrichten. Wien: Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Maalej, Z. 2007. Doing critical discourse analysis with the contemporary theory of metaphor: Towards a discourse model of metaphor. In Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis: Application and theory, ed. C. Hart and D. Lukes, 132–158. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Macgilchrist, F. 2007. Positive discourse analysis: Contesting dominant discourses by reframing the issue. Critical Approaches to Discourse Across the Disciplines 1 (1): 74–94.

Machin, D. 2007. Introduction to multimodal analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.

Machin, D. 2013. What is multimodal critical discourse studies? Discourse studies 10: 347–355.

Machin, D., and A. Mayr. 2007. Antiracism in the British government’s model regional newspaper: The “talking cure”. Discourse & Society 18 (4): 453–478.

Machin, D., and A. Mayr. 2012a. How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction . Los Angeles: Sage.

Machin, D., and A. Mayr. 2012b. Corporate crime and the discursive deletion of responsibility: A case study of the Paddington rail crash. Crime Media Culture 9 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1177/1741659012450294.

Machin, D., and U. Suleiman. 2006. Arab and American computer war games: The influence of a global technology on discourse. Critical Discourse Studies 3 (1): 1–22.

Malinowski, B. 1935. Coral Gardens and their Magic . London: Allen and Unwin.

Marinara, M., J. Alexander, W. P. Banks, and S. Blackmon. 2009. Cruising composition texts: Negotiating sexual difference in first-year readers. College Composition and Communication 60: 269–296.

Marmaridou, S. 2011. Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Foundations of pragmatics, ed. W. Bublitz and N. Norrick, 77–106. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Martin, C. A. 1997. Staging the reality principle: System-functional linguistics and the context of theatre. PhD Thesis. Macquarie University, Sydney.

Martin, J. R. 1984. Lexical cohesion, field, and genre: Parceling experience and discourse goals. In Linguistics and semiotics: Text semantics and discourse semantics. Proceedings of the second rice symposium, ed. J. Copeland. Houston: Rice University Press.

Martin, J. R. 1992. English text: System and structure . Amsterdam: Benjamins.Martin, J. R. 1999. Grace: The logogenesis of freedom. Critical Discourse Studies 1 (1): 29–56. Reprinted in Toolan, M. (ed.). 2002. Critical discourse analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics, Vol. 3, 170–201. London: Routledge.

Martin, J. R. 2000. Close reading: Functional linguistics as a tool for critical discourse analysis. In Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistic perspectives, ed. L. Unsworth, 275–302. London: Cassell.

Martin, J. R. 2002a. Blessed are the peacemakers: Reconciliation and evaluation. In Research and practice in professional discourse, ed. C. Candlin, 187–227. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.

Martin, J. R. 2002b. Positive discourse analysis: Power, solidarity and change. In Critical discourse analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics . Vol. 3, ed. M. Toolan, 170–201. London: Routledge.

Martin, J. R., and D. Rose. 2003. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause . London: Continuum.

Martin, J. R. 2004. Mourning: How we get aligned. Discourse and Society 15 (2–3): 321–344.

Martinec, R. 1998. Cohesion in action. Semiotica 120:161–180.

Martinez, A. 2009. The American way: Resisting the empire of force and color-blind racism. College English 71 (6): 584–595.

Martinez, G. 2003. Classroom based dialect awareness in heritage language instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal 1 (1): 1–14.

Marx, K., and F. Engels. 1845/1970. The German ideology . Trans: C. Arthur. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Masuda, A. 2012. Critical literacy and teacher identities: A discursive site of struggle. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 9 (3): 220–246.

Mautner, G. 2008. Analyzing newspapers, magazines and other print media. In Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences, ed. R. Wodak and M. Kryzanowski, 30–53. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mautner, G. 2010. Language and the market society: Critical reflections on discourse and dominance. London: Routledge.

Maynard, D. 1980. Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica 30:263–290.

McElhinny, B. 1997. Ideologies of public and private language in sociolinguistics. In Gender and Discourse, ed. R. Wodak, 106–139. London: Sage.

McGrath, T. 2008. The role of the national ESL scales in the production of culturally competent Australian citizens: A Foucauldian analysis. Unpublished Honours Thesis. The University of Sydney, Australia.

McInnes, D. P. R. 1998. Attending to the instance: Towards a systemic based dynamic and responsive analysis of composite performance text. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.

McKay, S., and N. Hornberger, eds. 1996. Sociolinguistics and language teaching . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McKenna, B. 2004. Critical discourse studies: Where to from here? Critical Discourse Studies 1 (1): 9–39.

Meadows, B. 2007. Distancing and showing solidarity via metaphor and metonymy in political discourse: A critical study of American statements on Iraq during the years 2004–2005. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 1 (2): 1–17.

Meadows, B. 2009. Nationalism and language learning at the US/Mexico border: An ethnographically sensitive critical discourse analysis of nation, power, and privilege in an English language classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tucson: University of Arizona.

Medina, C. 2010. Reading across communities in biliteracy practices: Examining translocal discourses and cultural flows in literature discussions. Reading Research Quarterly 45 (1): 40–60.

Metz, C. 1974a. Film language . New York: Oxford University Press.

Metz, C. 1974b. Language and cinema . The Hague: Mouton.

Mey, I. 2001. The CA/CDA controversy. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (4): 609–615.

Mey, J. 1979. Introduction. In Pragmalinguistics: Theory and practice, ed. J. Mey, 9–17. The Hague: Mouton.

Mey, J. 2000. When voices clash: A study in literary pragmatics . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Mey, J. 2001. Pragmatics: An introduction . 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Meyer, M. 2001. Between theory, method and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 14–31. London: Sage.

Milroy, J., and L. Milroy. 1978. Belfast: Change and variation in an urban vernacular. In Sociolinguistic patterns in British English, ed. P. Trudgill, 19–36. London: Arnold.

Mills, S. 1995. Feminist stylistics . London: Routledge.

Minsky, A. 1980. A framework for representing knowledge. In Frame conceptions and text understanding, ed. D. Metzing, 1–25. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Mittelberg, I. 2008. Peircean semiotics meets conceptual metaphor: Iconic modes in gestural representations of grammar. In Metaphor and gesture, ed. A. Cienki and C. Müller, 115–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mittelberg, I., and L. Waugh. 2009. Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gestures. In Multimodal metaphor , ed. C. Forceville and E. Urios-Aparisi, 329–356. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Moll, L., ed. 1990. Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moll, L. 2014. L.S. Vygotsky and education . New York: Routledge.

Moscovici, S. 2000. Social representations: Explorations in social psychology . ed. G. Duveen. Cambridge: Polity.

Mukařovský, J. 1976. Art as semiotic fact. And the essence of the visual arts. In Semiotics of art: Prague school contributions, ed. L. Matejka and I. Titunik. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Mulderrig, J. 2012. The hegemony of inclusion: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis of deixis in education policy. Discourse & Society 23 (6): 1–28.

Müller, C. 2004. Forms and uses of the palm up open hand: A case of a gesture family? In The semantics and pragmatics of everyday gestures, ed. C. Müller and R. Posner, 233–256. Berlin: Weidler.

Müller, C., and A. Cienki. 2009. When speech and gesture come together: Forms of multimodal metaphor in the use of spoken language. In Multimodal metaphor, ed. C. Forceville and E. Urios-Aparisi, 297–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Musolff, A. 2004. Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Musolff, A. 2006. Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 21 (1): 23–38.

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): 21–44.

Musolff, A. 2010. Metaphor, nation and the holocaust. The concept of the body politic . London: Routledge.

Musolff, A. 2012. Special feature: The study of metaphor as part of critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies 9 (3): 301–310.

Nattiez, J. J. 1976. Fondéments d’une sémiologie musicale . Paris: Uge.

Newfield, D. 2011. Multimodality, social justice and becoming a “really South African” democracy: Case studies from language classrooms. In Social justice language teacher education, ed. M. R. Hawkins, 23–48. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Newmeyer, F. J. 1986. Linguistic theory in America: The first quarter century of transformational generative grammar . 2nd ed. Orlando: Academic.

Nichols, J. 1984. Functional theories of grammar. Annual Review of Anthropology 13:97–117.

Nordensvard, J. 2013. The mass production of quality ‘human material’: Economic metaphors and compulsory sterilization in Sweden. Critical Discourse Studies 10 (2): 172–186.

O’Halloran, K. 1999. Interdependence, interaction and metaphor in multisemiotic texts. Social Semiotics 9 (3): 317–354.

O’Halloran, K., and C. Coffin. 2004. Checking overinterpretation and underinterpretation: Help from corpora in critical linguistics. In Applying English grammar, ed. A. Hewings, C. Coffin, and K. O’Halloran, 275–297. London: Arnold.

O’Halloran, K. L., S. Tan, B. Smith, and A. Podlasov. 2011. Multimodal analysis within an interactive software environment: Critical discourse perspectives. Critical Discourse Studies 8 (2): 109–125.

Olausson, U. 2009. Global warming—global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty. Public Understanding of Science 18 (4): 421–436.

Ortanez, M., and S. Glantz. 2009. Trafficking in tobacco farm culture: Tobacco companies’ use of video imagery to undermine health policy. Visual Anthropology Review 25 (1): 1–24.

O’Toole, M. 1994/2011. The language of displayed art . Leicester: Routledge.

Paltridge, B. 2012. Discourse analysis . 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury (1st ed.: 2006. London: Continuum).

Panagl, O., and R. Wodak. 2004. Text und Kontext. Theoriemodelle und methodische Verfahren im transdisziplinären Vergleich . Würzburg: Königshausen and Neumann.

Pavlenko, A. 2005. Ask each pupil about her methods of cleaning: Ideologies of language and gender in Americanisation instruction (1900–1924). The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8 (4): 275–297.

Pêcheux, M. 1982. Language, semantics, and ideology: Stating the obvious . London: Macmillan. (Trans: By H. Nagpal of Les vérités de La Palice , 1975).

Pennycook, A. 1990. Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. Issues in Applied Linguistics 1:8–28.

Pennycook, A. 1997. Critical applied linguistics and education. In Encyclopedia of language and education, ed. R. Wodak and D. Corson, 23–31. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Pennycook, A. 2004. 32 Critical applied linguistics. In The handbook of applied linguistics, ed. A. Davies and C. Elder, 784–807. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Peyroux, E. 2012. Legitimating business improvement districts in Johannesburg: A discursive perspective on urban regeneration and policy transfer. European Urban and Regional Studies 19 (2): 181–194.

Pfeiffer, O. E., E. Strouhal, and R. Wodak. 1987. Recht und Sprache . Vienna: Orac.

Popkewitz, T., and S. Lindblad. 2000. Educational governance and social inclusion and exclusion: Some conceptual difficulties and problematics in policy and research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 21 (1): 5–44.

Portero-Muñoz, C. 2011. Noun-noun euphemisms in the language of the global financial crisis. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies 33 (2): 137–157.

Prussing, E. 2008. Sobriety and its cultural politics: An ethnographer’s perspective on “culturally appropriate” addiction services in Native North America. ETHOS 36 (3): 354–375.

Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J. Svartvik. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English . London: Longman.

Reisigl, M. 2011. (Critical) discourse studies and pragmatics: Commonalities and differences. In Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, ed. C. Hart, 7–26.

Reisigl, M., and R. Wodak. 2001. Discourse and discrimination, rhetorics of racism and antiSemitism . London: Routledge.

Reisigl, M., and R. Wodak. 2009. The discourse historical approach. In Methods of critical discourse analysis , ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 87–121. London: Sage.

Riad, S., and E. Vaara. 2011. Varieties of national metonymy in media accounts of international mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies 48 (4): 737–771.

Richards, J., J. Platt, and H. Weber. 1985. Longman dictionary of applied linguistics . London: Longman.

Richardson, E. 2007. ‘She was workin like foreal’: Critical literacy and discourse practices of African American females in the age of hip hop. Discourse & Society 18 (6): 789–809.

Richardson, J., and M. Colombo. 2013. Continuity and change in anti-immigrant discourse in Italy: An analysis of the visual propaganda of the Lega Nord. Journal of Language and Politics 12 (2): 180–202.

Richardson, K. 1987. Critical linguistics and textual diagnosis. Text 7:145–163.

Ritivoi, A. D. 2008. Talking the (political) talk: Cold War refugees and their legitimation through style. In Rhetoric in detail: Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture , ed. B. Johnstone and C. Eisenhart. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Rogers, R. 2002. Through the eyes of the institution: A critical discourse analysis of decision making in two special education meetings. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 33 (2): 213–237.

Rogers, R., ed. 2011a. An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed. New York: Routledge [1st ed.: 2004, Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum].

Rogers, R. 2011b. Critical approaches to discourse analysis in educational research. In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . 2nd ed., ed. R. Rogers, 1–20. New York: Routledge [1st ed.: 2004, Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum].

Rogers R., and M. Mosley. 2008. A critical discourse analysis of racial literacy in teacher education. Linguistics and Education 19 (2): 107–131.

Rogers, R., and M. Mosley-Wetzel. 2013. Studying agency in literacy teacher education: A layered approach to positive discourse analysis. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 10 (1): 62–92.

Rogers, R., E. Malancharuvil-Berke, M. Mosley, D. Hui, and G. O’Garro Joseph. 2005. Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research 75 (3): 365–416. doi:10.3102/00346543075003365.

Roloff, M., and C. Berger. 1982. Social cognition and communication . Beverly Hills: Sage.

Ryle, G. 1945. Philosophical arguments . Oxford: Clarendon.

Rymes, B. 2009. Critical discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection . Cresskill: Hampton.

Saint, S. 2008. A critical discourse analysis of corporate environmental harm. Internet Journal of Criminology 1–29. http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Saint%20 -.

Santa Ana, O. 1999. Like an animal I was treated: Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse. Discourse & Society 10 (2): 191–224.

Santa Ana, O. 2002. Brown tide rising: Metaphors of Latinos in contemporary American public discourse . Austin: University of Texas Press.

Santa Ana, O. 2013. Juan in a hundred: The representation of Latinos on network news . Austin: University of Texas Press.

Schank, R., and R. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding . Norwood: Ablex.

Schmitt, N., and M. Celce-Murcia. 2002. An overview of applied linguistics. In An introduction to applied linguistics, ed. N. Schmitt, 1–16. London: Arnold.

Scholte, B. 1969. Toward a reflexive and critical anthropology. In Reinventing anthropology, ed. D. Hymes, 430–457. New York: Random House.

Scollo, M. 2011. Cultural approaches to discourse analysis: A theoretical and methodological conversation with special focus on Donal Carbaugh’s cultural discourse theory. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 6 (1): 1–32.

Searle, J. 1969. Speech acts . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. 1979. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Shardakova, I., and A. Pavlenko. 2004. Identity options in Russian textbooks. Journal of Language Identity and Education 3 (1): 25–46.

Shi-Xu. 2005. A cultural approach to discourse . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shi-Xu. 2012. Why do cultural discourse studies? Towards a culturally conscious and critical approach to human discourses. Critical arts 26 (4): 484–503.

Slembrouck, S. 2001. Explanation, interpretation and critique in the analysis of discourse. Critique of Anthropology 21 (1): 33–57.

Strawson, P. 1950. On referring. Mind 59:320–344.

Stubbs, M. 1996. Text and corpus analysis . Oxford: Blackwell.

Stubbs, M. 1997. Whorf’s children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis. In Evolving models of language, ed. A. Wray and A. Ryan, 100–116. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Stubbs, M. 2001. Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics . Oxford: Blackwell.

Tajfel, H., ed. 1981. Differentiation between social groups . London: Academic.

Tajfel, H. 1982. Social identity and intergroup relations . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Takayama, K. 2009. Is Japanese education the “exception”? Examining the situated articulation of neo-liberalism through the analysis of policy. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education 29 (2): 125–142.

Talbot, M. 2005. Choosing to refuse to be a victim: ‘Power feminism’ and the intertextuality of victimhood and choice. In Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse , ed. M. Lazar, 167–180. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Talmy, L. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12:49–100.

Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics . Cambridge: MIT Press.

Taylor, N. 2008. Critical analysis of the adult literacy curriculum: Instructional or regulative? Research in Post-Compulsory Education 13 (3): 307–314.

Therborn, G. 1980. The ideology of power and the power of ideology . London: Verso.

Thibault, P. 1986. Text, discourse and content: A social semiotic perspective . Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle [Toronto Semiotic Circle Monographs. Vol. 3].

Thibault, P. 1989. Genres, codes and pedagogy: Towards a critical social semiotic account. Southern Review 21 (3): 243–264.

Thibault, P. 1991. Social semiotics as praxis . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4 (2): 91–112.

Thomas, A. 2014. Points of difference: Intermodal complementarity and social critical literacy in children’s multimodal texts. In Critical multimodal studies of popular discourse, ed. E. Djonov and S. Zhao, 217–231. London: Routledge.

Thompson, J. 1984. Studies in the theory of ideology . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Thompson, S. 1992. Functional grammar. In International encyclopedia of linguistics, ed. W. Bright, 37–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Threadgold, T. 2003. Cultural studies, critical theory and critical discourse analysis: Histories, remembering and futures. Linguistik Online 14 (2): 5–37.

Titscher, S., M. Meyer, R. Wodak, and E. Vetter. 2000. Methods of text and discourse analysis . London: Routledge (Trans: B. Jenner).

Tolson, A. 2006. Media talk: Spoken discourse on TV and radio . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Tomasello, M. 2008. Origins of human communication . Cambridge: MIT Press.

Toolan, M. J. 1988. Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction . London: Routledge (2nd ed.: 2001).

Toolan, M. J., ed. 2002. Critical discourse analysis. 3. Concurrent analyses and critiques . Vol. 3. London: Taylor & Francis.

Trudgill, P. 1972. Sex, covert prestige, and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1:179–196.

Trudgill, P. 1974. The social differentiation of English in Norwich . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Unsworth, L. 2014. Point of view in picture books and animated film adaptations: Informing critical multimodal comprehension and composition pedagogy. In Critical multimodal studies of popular discourse, ed. E. Djonov and S. Zhao, 202–216. London: Routledge.

van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Text and context . London: Longman.

van Dijk, T. A. 1981. Studies in the pragmatics of discourse . The Hague: Mouton.

van Dijk, T. A. 1984. Prejudice in discourse: An analysis of ethnic prejudice in cognition and conversation . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

van Dijk, T. A., ed. 1985a. Handbook of discourse analysis, 4 vols . London: Academic Press.

van Dijk, T. A., ed. 1985b. Discourse and communication. Berlin: de Gruyter.

van Dijk, T. A. 1985c. Cognitive situation models in discourse production: The expression of ethnic situations in prejudiced discourse. In Language and social situations, ed. J. Forgas, 61–80. New York: Springer.

van Dijk, T. A. 1986. A programm [sic] for critical discourse analysis. Unpublished.

van Dijk, T. A. 1987a. Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk . Newbury Park: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 1987b. Schoolvoorbeelden van racisme: De reproduktie van racisme in maatschappijleerboeken ( Textbook examples of racism: The reproduction of racism in social science textbooks ). Amsterdam: Socialistische Uitgeverij Amsterdam.

van Dijk, T. A. 1987c. News analysis. Case studies in national and international news in the press: Lebanon, ethnic minorities, refugees and squatters . Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

van Dijk, T. A. 1987d. Elite discourse and racism. In Approaches to discourse, poetics and psychiatry, ed. I. Zavala, T. van Dijk, and M. Diaz-Diocaretz, 81–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

van Dijk, T. A. 1988a. News as discourse . Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

van Dijk, T. A. 1988b. News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press . Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

van Dijk, T. A. 1989a. Mediating racism: The role of the media in the reproduction of racism. In Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse, ed. R. Wodak, 199–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

van Dijk, T. A. 1989b. Structures of discourse and structures of power. In Communication yearbook 12, ed. J. Anderson, 18–59. Los Angeles: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 1990. Discourse & society: A new journal for a new research focus. Discourse & Society 1 (1): 5–16. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 1991a. Racism and the press . London: Routledge.

van Dijk, T. A. 1991b. Editorial: Discourse analysis with a cause. The Semiotic Review of Books 2 (1): 1–2.

van Dijk, T. A. 1992. Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society 3 (1): 87–118.

van Dijk, T. A. 1993a. Editor’s foreword to critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4 (2): 131–132.

van Dijk, T. A. 1993b. Elite discourse and racism . London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 1993c. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society 4 (2): 249–283.

van Dijk, T. A. 1995. Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In Language and peace , ed. C. Schäffner and A. Wenden, 17–36. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

van Dijk, T. A. 1997a. The study of discourse. In Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: Discourse as structure and process, ed. T. van Dijk, 1–34. London: Sage

van Dijk, T. A. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach . London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 1999. Critical discourse analysis and conversation analysis. Discourse and Society 10 (4): 459–460.

van Dijk, T. A. 2001a. Critical discourse analysis. In Handbook of discourse analysis, ed. D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. Hamilton, 352–371. Oxford: Blackwell.

van Dijk, T. A. 2001b. Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 95–120. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 2001c. Algunos principios de la teoría del contexto [Some principles of the theory of context]. ALED. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios del Discurso 1 (1): 69–82.

van Dijk, T. A. 2004. From text grammar to critical discourse analysis: A brief academic autobiography. From his website http://www.discourses.org/ .

van Dijk, T. A., ed. 2007. Discourse studies. Sage benchmark studies in discourse analysis . 5 vols. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 2008. Discourse and context: A socio-cognitive approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. 2009a. Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk . Leiden: Cambridge University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. 2009b. Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2nd ed., ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 62–86. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 2011. Discourse and ideology. In Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, ed. T. A. van Dijk, 379–407. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 2012a. The role of the press in the reproduction of racism. In Migrations: Interdisciplinary perspectives, ed. M. Messer, R. Schroeder, and R. Wodak, 15–29. New York: Springer.

van Dijk, T. A. 2012b. Discourse and knowledge. In Handbook of discourse analysis, ed. J. P. Gee and M. Handford, 587–603. London: Routledge.

van Dijk, T. A. 2012c. Knowledge, discourse and domination. In Pragmaticizing understanding. Studies for Jef Verschueren, ed. M. Meeuwis and J. O. Östman, 151–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

van Dijk, T. A. 2012d. A note on epistemic discourse analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology 51:478–485 (Special Issue: Twenty five years of discursive psychology. M. Augoustinos (Ed.)).

van Dijk, T. A. 2014a. Racism—thirty years later. In this volume, Berlin: Springer.

van Dijk, T. A. 2014b. Discourse and knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. 2014c. Ideology. In The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, ed. G. Mazzoleni.

van Dijk, T. A. 2014d. Discourse-cognition-society: Current state and prospects of the socio-cognitive approach to discourse. In Contemporary Studies in Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. C. Hart and P. Cap.

van Dijk, T. A., and R. Wodak. 1988. Introduction: Discourse, racism, and ideology. Text 8:1–4.

van Leeuwen, T. 1993. Genre and field in critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society 4 (2): 193–223.

van Leeuwen, T. 1996. The representations of social actors. In Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis, ed. C. R. Caldas-Couthard and M. Coulthard, 32–70. London: Routledge.

van Leeuwen, T. 1999. Speech, music, sound . London: Macmillan.

van Leeuwen, T. 2005. Introducing social semiotics . London: Routledge.

van Leeuwen, T. 2006. Critical discourse analysis. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics . 2nd ed., Vol. 3, ed. K. Brown, 290–294. Oxford: Elsevier.

van Leeuwen, T. 2008. Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.

van Leeuwen, T. 2009. Discourse as the recontextualization of social practice: A guide. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis 2:144–161.

van Leeuwen, T. 2013. Critical analysis of multimodal discourse. In Encyclopedia of applied linguistics, ed. C. Chapelle, 1–5. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

van Leeuwen, T., and R. Wodak. 1999. Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies 1 (1): 83–118.

Velázquez, I. 2008. Intergenerational Spanish language transmission: Attitudes, motivations and linguistic practices in two Mexican American communities. PhD Diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Velázquez, I. 2009. Intergenerational Spanish transmission in El Paso, Texas: Parental perceptions of cost/benefit. Spanish in Context 6 (1): 69–84.

Velázquez, I. 2013. Individual discourse, language ideology and Spanish transmission in El Paso, Texas. Critical Discourse Studies 10: 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2013.789975 .

Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding pragmatics . London: Arnold.

Villanueva, V. 1993. Bootstraps: From an American academic of color . Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and language . Cambridge: MIT Press [E. Hanfmann, G. Vakar (Eds. and Trans.)].

Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society. In The development of higher psychological processes, ed. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wasson, C. 2004. The paradoxical language of enterprise. Critical Discourse Studies 1 (2): 175–199.

Weiss, G., and R. Wodak. 2003. Introduction: Theory, interdisciplinarity and critical discourse analysis. In Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity, ed. G. Weiss and R. Wodak, 1–32. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wertsch, J. 1985. Vygotsky and the social formation of mind . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Widdowson, H. 1998. The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics 19 (1): 136–151.

Widdowson, H. G. 2004. Text, context, pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis . Oxford: Blackwell.

Wilkinson, S., and C. Kitzinger. 1995. Introduction. In Feminism and discourse: Psychological perspectives, ed. S. Wilkinson and C. Kitzinger, 1–9. London: Sage.

Willen, S. 2011. Do “Illegal” Im/migrants have a right to health? Engaging ethical theory as social practice at a Tel Aviv open clinic. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 25 (3): 303–330.

Williamson, J. 1978. Decoding advertising: Ideology and meaning in advertising . London: Marion Boyers.

Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical investigations . Oxford: Blackwell.

Wodak, R. 1981. Women relate, men report: Sex differences in language behavior in a therapeutic group. Journal of Pragmatics 5: 70–93.

Wodak, R. 1984. Hilflose Nähe? — Mütter und Töchter erzählen . Vienna: Deuticke.

Wodak, R. 1985. Aspekte des geschichtlichen, geschlechts- und generations-spezifischen Lautwandels in Wien: eine Untersuchung zum Sprachverhalten von Müttern und Töchtern. In Sprachwandel und feministische Sprachpolitik: internationale perspektiven, ed. M. Hellinger. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Wodak, R. 1986. Language behavior in therapy groups . Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Wodak, R. 1987. At last I know ... Sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic aspects of the therapeutic process and its effect. In Neurotic and Psychotic Language Behaviour , ed. R. Wodak and P. van de Craen, 9–41. Clevedon: Multilingual Affairs.

Wodak, R., ed. 1989. Language, power, and ideology: Studies in political discourse . Vol. 7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wodak, R. 1993. Discourse and racism. Special issue of Folia Linguistica .

Wodak, R. 1995. Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In Handbook of pragmatics, ed. J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, and J. Blommaert, 204–210. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Wodak, R. 1996. Disorders of discourse . London: Longman.

Wodak, R. 1997a. Introduction: Some important issues in the research of gender and discourse. In Gender and discourse, ed. R. Wodak, 1–20. London: Sage.

Wodak, R., ed. 1997b. Gender and discourse . London: Sage.

Wodak, R. 2001a. The discourse-historical approach. In Methods of critical discourse analysis . 1st ed., ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 63–95. London: Sage.

Wodak, R. 2001b. What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer. London: Sage.

Wodak, R. 2004. Vorwort. In Text und kontext. Theoriemodelle und methodische Verfahren im transdisziplinären Vergleich, ed. O. Panagl and R. Wodak, 7–9. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

Wodak, R. 2005. Gender mainstreaming and the European Union: Interdisciplinarity, gender studies and CDA. In Feminist critical discourse analysis, ed. M. Lazar, 90–113. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wodak, R. 2006. Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive approaches in CDA. Discourse Studies 8 (1): 179–190.

Wodak, R. 2007. Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics and Cognition 15 (1): 203–225.

Wodak, R. 2008. Politics as usual: The discursive construction and representation of politics in action . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wodak, R. 2009. The discourse of politics in action: Politics as unusual . London: Palgrave.

Wodak, R. 2011a. Critical discourse analysis: Overview, challenges, and perspectives. In Pragmatics of society, ed. G. Andersen and K. Aijmer, 627–650. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Wodak, R. 2011b. Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In Discursive pragmatics, ed. J. Östman, P. Ledin, and J. Verschueren, 50–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wodak, R., ed. 2013a. Critical discourse analysis . 4 vols. Los Angeles: Sage.

Wodak, R. 2013b. The strategy of discursive provocation: A discourse-historical analysis of the FPÖ’s discriminatory rhetoric. In Doublespeak: the framing of the far-right since 1945, 99–120. Berlin: ibidem-Verlag.

Wodak, R. 2013c. Dis-citizenship and migration: A critical discourse-analytical perspective. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 12 (3): 173–178.

Wodak, R. 2013d. Editor’s introduction. Critical discourse analysis: Challenges and perspectives. In Critical discourse analysis . Vol. 1, ed. R. Wodak, xxi–xlv. Los Angeles: Sage.

Wodak, R., and G. Benke. 1996. Gender as a sociolinguistic variable. In ed. F. Coulmas, 127–150. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wodak, R., and P. Chilton. 2007. Preface. In A new research agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity, ed. P. Chilton and R. Wodak, xi–sviii. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Wodak, R., and R. de Cillia. 1988. Sprache und Antisemitismus. Special issue, Institut für Wissenschaft und Kunst. Mitteilungen 4.

Wodak, R., and R. de Cillia. 2006. Politics and language: Overview. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics . Vol. 9, 2nd ed., ed. K. Brown. Oxford: Elsevier.

Wodak, R., and M. Krzyzanowski, eds. 2008. Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences . Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wodak, R., and M. Meyer, eds. 2001. Methods of critical discourse analysis . 1st ed. London: Sage.

Wodak, R., and M. Meyer, eds. 2009a. Methods of critical discourse analysis . 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Wodak, R., and M. Meyer. 2009b. Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In Methods of critical discourse analysis . 2nd ed., ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 1–33. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Wodak, R., and M. Reisigl. 2001. Discourse and racism. In The handbook of discourse analysis, ed. D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. Hamilton. Malden: Blackwell.

Wodak, R., and P. van de Craen. 1987. Neurotic and psychotic language behavior . London: Multilingual Matters.

Wodak, R., and T. A. van Dijk, eds. 2000. Racism at the top . Klagenfurt: Drava.

Wodak, R., S. Moosmüller, U. Doleschal, and G. Feistriter. 1987. Sprachliche Gleichbehandlung von Mann und Frau . Vienna: Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales.

Wodak, R., R. de Cillia, K. Blüml, and E. Andraschko. 1989. Sprache und Macht — Sprache und Politik . Vienna: Bundesverlag.

Wodak, R., J. Pelikan, P. Nowak, H. Gruber, R. de Cillia, and R. Mitten. 1990. Wir sind alle unschuldige Täter! Diskurshistorische Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus . Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Wodak, R., et al. 1992. Schulpartnerschaft — Kommunikation in der Schule. Vienna: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft (Project report [et al. in bib.]).

Wodak, R., R. de Cillia, M. Reisigl, and K. Liebhart. 1999. The discursive construction of national identity . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Zhang, H., C. Paul, H. Yadan, and J. Ewn. 2011. Critique across cultures: Some questions for CDA. Critical Discourse Studies 8 (2): 95–107.

Zienkowski, J. 2011. Discursive pragmatics: A platform for the pragmatic study of discourse. In Discursive pragmatics, ed. J. Zienkowski, J. O. Östman, and J. Verschueren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

Prof. Linda R. Waugh

Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA

Prof. Theresa Catalano

Department of Modern Languages, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

Prof. Khaled Al Masaeed

Department of English, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

Tom Hong Do

Department of French and Italian, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

Dr. Paul G. Renigar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda R. Waugh .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Messina, Messina, Italy

Alessandro Capone

Dept. of Lang & Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark

Jacob L. Mey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Waugh, L., Catalano, T., Masaeed, K., Hong Do, T., Renigar, P. (2016). Critical Discourse Analysis: Definition, Approaches, Relation to Pragmatics, Critique, and Trends. In: Capone, A., Mey, J. (eds) Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_4

Published : 01 August 2015

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-12615-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-12616-6

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Critical discourse analysis and information and communication technology in education.

• Cheryl Brown Cheryl Brown University of Canterbury
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.794
• Published online: 28 August 2019

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a cross-disciplinary methodological and theoretical approach. At its core CDA explores the intersections between discourse, critique, power, and ideology which hold particular values for those teaching in developing contexts. CDA has emerged as a valuable methodological approach in cultural and media studies and has increased in prominence since the 2010s in education research where it is drawn on to explore educational policy, literacy education, and identity. This research has intersected with the field of information systems which has explored the dominant discourses and discursive practice of how information and communication technologies (ICTs) are viewed in policy and the contradictions between rhetoric and reality. It has also been drawn on in research in developing contexts to critique the role of ICTs in education. A brief historical background to CDA and overview of the key components of the approach will be provided. How CDA has been drawn on in educational studies will be examined and research on CDA will be highlighted to explore discursive practices of students and the influence of students’ digital identities on their engagement with and experience of online learning. By focusing on four key constructs of CDA—namely meaning, context, identity, and power—the potential of CDA to critically investigate how students’ are constructing their technological identity in an increasingly digital world will be demonstrated, particularly as examples of research emanating from developing contexts will be drawn.

• critical discourse analysis
• higher education
• information and communication technology
• digital world

Historical Overview

During the 1960s, the term “discourse” began to take on a more philosophical and theoretical meaning (Mills, 2004 ). In trying to provide an all-encapsulating summary of the theoretical conception of discourse, van Dijk ( 1997 ) notes that it goes beyond who uses the language to include the how, why and when. Underpinning this is a communicative event which observes that when people use language to communicate ideas, beliefs, or emotions, they do it as part of a more complex social event (i.e., within a context). Therefore, the three main dimensions of discourse analysis are language use, communication of beliefs, and interaction in social situations (van Dijk, 1997 ).

Critical approaches to discourse analysis first began to emerge as a cohesive paradigm in the early 1990s (Billig, 2003 ; Wodak & Myers, 2001 ) with the coming together of a network of scholars in Amsterdam (van Dijk, 2001 ), the launch of the journal Discourse and Society , and the “rise to fame” of various seminal, critical discourse analysis (CDA) books, such as Language and Power (Fairclough, 2001 ) and Language, Power and Ideology (Wodak, 1989 ). Billig ( 2003 ) notes the change from Fairclough’s discussion of critical approaches (in the plural) in his 1992 Discourse and Social Change to the use of the definite article in his book Critical Discourse Analysis in 1995 , which seemed to signal the recognition of a CDA that is used to refer particularly to Fairclough’s brand of discourse analysis.

CDA (as opposed to other types of discourse analysis) regards language as social practice and has been described as “at most a shared perspective on doing linguistic, semiotic and discourse analysis” (van Dijk, 1993 , p. 131) due to the “heterogeneity of methodological and theoretical approaches represented in this field of linguistics” (van Dijk, 2001 , p. 2). Its roots lie in “classical rhetoric, text linguistics and sociolinguistics as well as in applied linguistics and pragmatics,” and it still has a huge continuity with critical linguistics (van Dijk, 2001 , p. 3).

What distinguishes CDA from other sociolinguistic approaches relates primarily to the problem under investigation. Myers sums it up as “it endeavors to make explicit power relationships which are frequently hidden and thereby to derive results which are of practical relevance” (Myers, 2002 , p. 15). Because one of the central tenets of CDA is that discourses cannot be understood without reference to context, it draws on extra-linguistic factors in its research approach (Myers, 2002 ), particularly social processes and structures (Wodak & Myers, 2001 ).

CDA emerged at a time of growth in critical paradigms in other disciplines, such as critical anthropology and critical psychology (Billig, 2003 ). Billig ( 2003 , p. 37) notes that “in this context, the term ‘critical’ can be seen to mark out a specific genre of academic studies.” While most critical discourse analysts do not tend to position themselves directly with philosophers from the critical theory school, such as Kant and Popper, there are two philosophers who have had a strong influence on the development of CDA, namely Foucault and Habermas (Weiss & Wodak, 2003 ).

However, even though CDA does not have a specific association with a single critical theorist, it does share the concerns and agenda of critical theorists in that it argues that language is always “part and parcel of, and partially constitutive of, specific social practices and the social practices always have implications for inherently political things like status, solidarity, the distribution of social goods and power” (Gee, 2004 , p. 23). Gee notes that when discourse analysis combines a model, grammar or textual analysis (of some kind) with sociopolitical and critical theories of society and its institutions, it becomes critical. Critical approaches always examine the implications of status, power, distribution of social goods, and solidarity.

Critical Discourse Analysis and Theory

One of the strengths of CDA is that it is multidisciplinary and essentially diverse (van Dijk, 2001 ). In fact, van Dijk ( 2001 , p. 95), who is one of its original proponents, says that good CDA scholarship seldom follows just one person or one approach but is enriched through the integration of the “best work of many people, famous or not, from different disciplines, countries, cultures and directions of research.” However, given that CDA is concerned with the critique of ideology and the effects of domination, it has clear links to critical theory. There is quite a broad range of epistemological and ontological positions that fall under the ambit of critical theory, ranging from the Frankfurt school of Habermas, Adorno, and Horkheimer, to the actor–network theory of Latour, to Marxism, to Bourdieu, to Foucault and Heidegger (Howcroft & Trauth, 2004 ). While there is no such thing as a uniform, common theory formation determining CDA (Weiss & Wodak, 2003 ), it can also be argued that the plurality of theory in CDA is a positive phenomenon to which this research discipline owes its dynamics. The mediation between the social and linguistic levels of texts is highly relevant to the theory formation process of CDA (Weiss & Wodak, 2003 ). The CDA viewpoint is likened to Giddens’s “duality of structure” and Bourdieu’s “structured and structuring structures”—as social systems and societies are not viewed as self-contained entities (Weiss & Wodak, 2003 ). However, this flexibility within CDA has also been criticized, as lack of theoretical consistency or “indiscriminate mixing” can lead to inconsistencies that become even more acute when under the influence of grand theorists like Bourdieu and Giddens (Myers, 2002 ).

Weiss and Wodak ( 2003 ), therefore, recommend a number of steps in order to develop an integrated theoretical framework. Clarification of the theoretical assumptions regarding text, discourse, language, action, social structure, institution, and society should be done preceding analysis. This creates the framework for analytical operationalization. When using CDA, it is not about what grand theory is needed but rather which conceptual tools are relevant to solve which problem in which context. This makes the context of the discursive practice very important.

This requires the development of conceptual tools that are “capable of connecting the level of text or discourse analysis with sociological positions on institutions, actions and social structures” (Weiss & Wodak, 2003 , p. 8). These conceptual tools are analytical interfaces that allow connection between the linguistics and the sociological. They do not represent a “self contained edifice of theories” (Weiss & Wodak, 2003 , p. 8) but rather an integrated theoretical framework and mediate between “text and institution, communication and structure and discourse and society” (Weiss & Wodak, 2003 , p. 9).

The notion of discourse offers us possibilities for engaging critically with language and meaning located in the context of use (the speakers and their intentions in wider social, cultural, and political worlds).

Common Themes

While CDA has been noted as having a heterogeneity of methodological and theoretical approaches, cornerstones to the approach have been described as discourse, ideology, and power (Weiss & Wodak, 2003 ; Wodak & Myers, 2001 ). CDA, like many other dominant theories of education, arose in the Global North, and whatever the opportunity for critical analyses it offers, has aimed at uncovering power relations, often focusing on disempowered groups, such as women (Adam, 2002 ; Kvasny, 2006 ; Trauth & Howcroft, 2006 ) or lower socioeconomic groups (Bozionelos, 2004 ; Lizie, Stewart, & Avila, 2004 ). This has made it a very useful approach for scholars operating in developing contexts (Brown, 2011 ; Ng’āmbi, 2008 ; Wagid & Wagid, 2016 ) and those exploring black discursive identity (Brock, 2018 ).

While the term discourse is used differently by researchers, all share the perspective that language use in speech and writing is a form of social practice (Fairclough, 2009 ) and that discursive practices—the process through which texts are produced (created) and consumed (received and interpreted)—are an important form of social practice which contribute to the constitutions of the social world (including identities and relations) (Pennycook, 2001 ).

Language is not viewed as powerful on its own but is seen to gain power by the use people make of it (Weiss & Wodak, 2003 ). Discursive practices contribute to unequal power relations between social groups, namely class and gender, which have ideological effects. The research focus of CDA is therefore on the discursive practices which construct representations of the world, social subjects, and social relations (including power); and the role these have in furthering the interests of particular social groups (Fairclough, 2001 ; Pennycook, 2001 ; Wodak & Myers, 2001 ).

Differences and Points of Contention

One of the main criticisms leveled at CDA from “outside” the field is that it is an ideological interpretation and not an analysis. It has been criticized particularly for being prejudiced in favor of a particular ideological commitment (i.e., the uncovering of power imbalances and hidden meanings) and selecting texts that support this preferred interpretation (Myers, 2002 ).

However, the main response to this has been that CDA is transparent about its positions and commitments, and does not hide this bias (Myers, 2002 ). CDA is not politically neutral but is committed to social change and takes the side of oppressed social groups (Jørgenson & Phillips, 2002 ). In this, van Dijk ( 2001 ) notes that it is biased scholarship and is proud of it. He also notes that biased scholarship is not necessarily bad scholarship if based on rigorous scholarship with explicit and systematic methods that are empirically grounded.

This particular conflation of discourse and ideology has been tackled head on by Pennycook ( 2001 ), who also takes issue with the way the real world is confused with ideology in CDA and consequently adopts a more explicitly Foucauldian position on discourse that separates discourse and ideology, suggesting that the latter determines the former. Discourses are about the creation and limitation of possibilities; they are systems of power and knowledge within which subject positions are taken up. A Foucauldian analysis is not concerned with how discourses (texts) reflect social reality, but how they produce social reality (Pennycook, 2001 ).

Critical discourse researchers also openly acknowledge the diversity of theoretical and methodological approaches, publishing books that explicitly explore the multidisciplinary range of both (Weiss & Wodak, 2003 ; Wodak & Myers, 2001 ).

Critical discourse researchers are not shy of self-criticism or reflection. Billig ( 2003 ) raises the issue of subjecting the field of CDA to its own critique in an endeavor to be reflexively self-critical and aware that CDA must necessarily occur within an academic context of power and economic relations. Billig ( 2003 ) notes that academics themselves replicate power imbalances through the process of teaching, grading and passing or failing students.

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

CDA as a multidisciplinary set of theories and methods has been adopted in educational research by scholars exploring the ideological nature of educational practices and the social, historical, and political contexts in which they emerge and are transformed.

It has increased in prominence in educational research over the past 20 years, particularly in countries where English is the primary language: the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, or Canada (Rogers et al., 2016 ). In a review of CDA and education-related literature between 2004 and 2016 , Rogers et al. ( 2016 ) noted that the majority of studies were situated in the higher education contest (including teacher education and professional development), but were also scattered across early childhood right through middle and high school settings to include community and adult education. Nearly half of the studies included a focus on cultural and linguistic diversity of students or teachers, or an emphasis on local, state, or national ideologies. Although the study of global technologies in CDA research increased (20%), Rogers et al. ( 2016 , p. 24) noted a paucity of CDA research in the area of online learning and became interested by the lack of critical examination of digital data sources, commenting that CDA was “amply prepared to inquire into how meanings are made in an increasingly digital world.”

Rogers ( 2004 ) notes that Gee is one of the few examples where discourse theories have been applied to matters of learning. It is therefore not surprising that many of the applications of his research have a firm base in the areas of education. In addition, because of his explicit link between Discourses and identities, Gee’s ( 2000 ) approach to discourses has been utilized by various researchers across many different contexts (e.g., fan fiction writing, internationalization of universities, and science learning) to examine how individuals use language and text to identify aspects of their identity when traditional markers of identity are unavailable. Gee’s concept of big D Discourse encompasses more than just the use of language (what he refers to as little d discourse); it includes ways of being (thinking, acting, and interacting) (Gee, 2005 ) that take on socially meaningful identities in various situations or contexts.

For example, Black ( 2008 ) looks at the world of online gaming and how individuals use language and text to identify aspects of their identity when traditional markers of identity are unavailable. She examines the sort of roles an individual occupies compared to the one ascribed to them by society. Brown, Reveles, and Kelly ( 2005 ) examine how the relationship between language, identity, and classroom learning can provide insights into how students learn to become literate members of a scientific community. They note that, in every discursive exchange, speakers and listeners are co-constructing meaning through interactions that position them as certain types of people. Their examples focus on students’ demonstrations of themselves as experts, willing participants in the discourse, and outsiders.

Gee’s notion of D(d)iscourse has been drawn on to better understand the way in which groups of students construct science knowledge in an engineering context. Kittleson and Southerland ( 2004 ) did not find much evidence of competing discourses and attributed this to the unusual homogeneity of the students’ group, but they did note that the disciplinary discourse of engineering was an important element in structuring the groups’ interactions. In order to understand their work on a project, students had to be aware of the ways in which they actualized their understanding of being engineers and doing engineering.

The contradictions between different types of discourses were also explored in an Australian education context where primary school girls struggled with discourses of ethnicity in a Studies of Asia curriculum project (Hamston, 2006 ). Here Fairclough’s earlier textually oriented discourse analysis (TODA) was complemented by Bakhtin’s theory of dialogue. This enabled a micro-linguistic description of the data, which was foundational to the students’ struggle with discourses and their framing of it within the curriculum and an exploration of the shift toward the individual nature of the struggle occurring at a micro level within the classroom. The flexibility of CDA to work alongside other approaches enabled foregrounding of both the larger social discourses at play as well as the individual internalized discourses.

Discourses and Information and Communication Technologies

In the field of information systems CDA has played a role in understanding people’s interaction with ICTs generally, which has aided in interpreting hidden meaning about ICTs and in understanding what ICTs are, how they can be used, and how different understandings affect use (Stahl, 2004 ).

Examples of this include analysis of media discourses about technology projects and applications in Canada and South Africa (Chigona & Chigona, 2008 ; Chigona, Mjali, & Denzl, 2007 ; Cukier, Bauer, & Middleton, 2004 ; Cukier, Ngwenyama, Bauer, & Middleton, 2009 ), and the exploration of contradictions between rhetoric and reality in Egyptian ICT policy (Stahl, 2004 , 2008 ). This has been extended into the education context with a CDA analysis of specifically ICT educational policy in Cameroon (Ndenge, 2013 ), Zambia (Konayuma, 2012 ), and Rwanda (Byungara et al., 2016 ). The research concludes that CDA was useful in understanding the particular historical, social, and political contexts, and some of the contradictions between these in terms of the perceived and actual role of ICTs in education in developing contexts.

Building on CDA research of discursive practice and genres in relation to global or national ICT policy (Roode, Speight, Pollock, & Webber, 2004 ; Thompson, 2004 ), Ng’ambi ( 2008 ) explored social practices (text messages) in a community of online learners in the South African higher education context. He highlighted the tension between perceptions of inflexibility of traditional teaching practices and student demands for flexible learning. In Pakistan Perveen ( 2015 ) evaluated discursive practice in online discussion forums and noted how a virtual context (which lacks explicit social context as it is anonymous and devoid of usual demographic details) enables a neutrality that can be very empowering for learners as it does not explicitly reproduce sociopolitical hierarchies. Rambe ( 2012 ) analyzed academic relations in social media sites such as Facebook using CDA in the South African higher education context. He noted less formal, more liberating discourses, and a nascent developing networked learning culture (although one where learning was still regarded as shallow rather than deep, and that has not achieved its transformational potential). CDA was also used as an analytical tool to engage secondary school students deliberately and critically to explore social, political, and cultural issues using Facebook as a social media platform (Waghid & Waghid, 2016 ).

Using CDA to explore interactions in a virtual learning environments, Giles ( 2017 ) examined how learners use discourse devices to portray identities and how this can contribute to their learning in the higher education context in Mexico. She foregrounds the complexity of multiple identities and their role in creating a social presence which is essential for effective learning in a virtual context. In the South African higher education context, Brown explored discursive practices using CDA to expose hidden assumptions about power and implicit ideologies related to technology in education. The dominant Discourse around learning was about efficiency rather than effectiveness of learning with some students viewing technology as a liberator with access to information equating to knowledge (in their mind). However, they lacked the critical digital literacy abilities that are needed to transform their learning. There is also a small but significant group who feel alienated by technology. These students are marginalized and face enormous challenges in using technology effectively for their learning (Brown, 2012 ; Brown & Hart, 2012 ).

Similarly, but with a focus on instructors this time, the discursive practices around online learning were explored at open universities in two countries where cultural norms meant the relationship between students and teachers were viewed quite differently (Lee & Brett, 2014 ). The prevailing rhetorical discourse was shown to be one of interactivity (or lack of it). Like Brown, Lee noted this had the potential to marginalize particular groups of students and urged researchers not to have a single-minded focus on developing more effective interactive distance education practices as the only response to online education ( 2014 ).

Discourses about Information and Communication Technologies and Education

Research on discourses of ICTs in education has revealed a variety of themes across educational settings, and while researchers have named these differently and noted varying levels of dominance across their contexts, these can generically be categorized as technological optimism, disembodiment, liberation, imperialism/globalization (digital divide), and productivity (Brown, 2012 ; Budd, 2005 ; Sasseville, 2004 ).

Technological optimism privileged technology, seeing it as a “force to which all things must respond and adapt” (Budd, 2005 ), as having “no choice but to follow technological evolution” and from the teachers’ point of view, as essential for today’s job market (Sasseville, 2004 ), and being essential for the working world since “nowadays wherever a person is working, a computer is needed” (Brown, 2012 , p. 50).

The invisible space or disembodiment in the virtual space due to a lack of physical presence offered both positive dimensions to learning, namely anonymity and potential empowerment for marginal groups (Budd, 2005 ), and negative ones as learners feel disconnected: “a person can depend too much on using ICTS & not even use their own mind to think & study from books” (Brown, 2012 , p. 51).

The myth of freedom of information and notions of liberation through the availability of free information ignores the reality that information is commodified and controlled. Sasseville notes that having access to so much information changes the way students think ( 2004 ) while Brown ( 2012 ) notes both opportunities this offers students in terms of furthering themselves in their studies and in contrast new forms of discrimination.

The discourse on imperialism, which Budd ( 2005 ) notes, acknowledges social divisions and yet still “sells” ICTs to the world as potentially liberating for development, which contributes to reinforce the myth of the global marketplace and neoliberal education. Brown ( 2012 ) notes that students in developing contexts often view this as “the privilege of having access to and using these new technologies” (p. 50).

Productivity discourses viewed ICTs as having a strong imperative and helping students to get things done better, faster, and to keep up with the fast pace of life. However, teachers in Sasseville’s study ( 2004 ) were also aware of the challenges of learning to use new technologies and were principally concerned with the lack of time at their disposal.

Value of Critical Discourse Analysis as an Approach to Information and Communication Technologies in Education

Avgerou and Madon ( 2004 ) note that it is necessary to understand new technologies (i.e., the Internet and the mobile phone), which can only be achieved by taking into account their symbolic meaning in everyday life. One of the ways of examining meaning is to look at identity, as identity also acts as a source of meaning and experience for people (Koc, 2006 ). It is not just about how the technology is adopted, but also about the way it is integrated into people’s lives (Cushman & McLean, 2008 ). However, critical research involves a shift away from just individual situations and local meanings to the system of relations which make these meanings possible (Trauth & Howcroft, 2006 ). Thus, context is critical if we are to understand how ICTs are used, especially in developing countries (Avgerou & Madon, 2004 ).

Issues of power surface when people’s freedom to set and pursue their own goals and interests or achieve their personally constructed life projects are curtailed (Cushman & McLean, 2008 ; Zheng & Walsham, 2008 ). That is, where local actors are not able to shape ICTs to their interests and appropriate their functionality.

Consequently, Brown ( 2011 ) foregrounded four key analytical concepts which she believed were key to exploring the relationship between ICTs and learning in a resource constrained context. These were identity and meaning (which were considered essential in understanding how new technologies were appropriated), context (which was necessary to examine the system as a whole), and power (as this influenced what was possible within the context the actors operated within).

One of the key elements of discourse analysis (critical or not) is the relationship between form (the hard structures of the linguistic system, i.e., the words, nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc.) and the function (the soft structures; i.e., the communicative purpose or, as Gee [ 2004 , 2005 ] phrases it, the “meaning potential”) (Rogers, 2004 ). Gee’s ( 1994 ) premise is that literacy in and of itself does not lead to any higher level cognitive skill, but that literacy acquisition is a form of socialization into a mainstream way of taking meanings, of making sense of experiences, and that, as students participate in different literacy practices, they begin to partake of this set of values and norms, of this worldview.

Given that higher education institutions are expected to produce students who are computer proficient and have 21st-century skills, the importance of having a positive attitude toward computers and high computer self-efficacy is critical to students learning (Kilfoil, 2015 ; Schlebusch, 2017 ). It is therefore not surprising that students are so positive about ICTs and their role in education. How can they not be? In Brown’s ( 2011 ) research students were positive about the global opportunities ICTs enable, the value of ICTs for learning, the access to information offered, and the efficiencies ICTs offered them in life. However, by excavating beneath the surface of the Discourse and endeavoring to uncover hidden meanings, it became clear that “discursive mechanisms” limited what could be said, in what forms, and what was counted as worth knowing or remembering (Mills, 2004 ). Using this concept of hidden meanings, one can see how hard it is for students to say anything negative about computers and technology. Their overwhelmingly positive attitudes are not necessarily a true reflection of what they think. It is a consequence of operating in a larger context where negativity with regard to ICTs is perceived to be associated with ignorance which is then associated with backwardness (Brown, 2011 ).

CDA has been noted by Ainsworth and Hardy ( 2004 , p. 225) as being “regularly used to study identity.” For Gee ( 1996 ), capital “D” Discourses are a sort of identity kit. They are the combination of what people say, do, think, feel, and value. Each community or social group masters a home-based discourse that integrates words, actions, values, feelings, attitudes, and thinking in specific and distinctive ways. Each of these discourses is connected to a particular social group’s way of being in the world, its “form of life,” its very identity it regards itself as having (Gee, 1996 ). Discourses are acquired through enculturation into a social practice and they cannot be taught (Gee, 1996 ).

Each discourse incorporates a usually taken-for-granted and tacit theory of what counts as a normal person and the right way to think, feel, and behave. These theories crucially involve viewpoints on the distribution of social goods, like status and worth, and material goods in society (who should and should not have them). They are defined not just by what they are, but also by what they are not (i.e., often in relation to an opposing discourse).

Discourse theories are related to the distribution of social power and hierarchical structure in society and empower the groups who have the least conflict between their discourses. Sometimes people’s discourses can be conflicting. For example a discourse can be at odds with a person’s other social practices. Gee ( 2005 ) also notes that it is a great advantage when secondary discourses are compatible in words, deeds, and values with one’s primary discourse.

However, identity construction is more than the sum of an individual’s social experiences. There is an inherent tension between group affiliation and individual agency. Membership of an identity group does not determine behavior but, as Foucault notes ( 1994 ), there is an ease with which people readily accept the social groupings imposed.

Students do not just talk about technology, but also about how technology makes them feel, what values it holds for them, and what role they see for technology in their lives. These collections of ideas are a representation of an identity, in that it shows how students understand their relationship to the digital world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how they understand their possibilities for the future (Norton, 2000 ). As Foucault ( 1994 ) notes, membership of an identity group does not determine one’s behavior, but there is an ease with which people readily accept the social groupings imposed on them. Many students do not exercise individual agency and move with the mainstream Discourse, feeling like outsiders, marginalized, excluded, lost, and powerless. Thus, technological identity has a role in both facilitating and constraining students’ participation and future opportunities (Brown, 2011 ).

Blommaert ( 2005 ) notes that context is a crucial methodological and theoretical issue within CDA as it comes in various shapes and sizes, and operates at different levels from very small to very big. Context is potentially everything and potentially infinite, but it can be to some extent predictable.

Another important aspect of context is Foucault’s ( 1969 ) rooting of discourse as a historical product, Gee ( 2008 , p. 162) notes that, in this regard, it is sometimes helpful to say that “it is not individuals who speak and act but rather that historically and socially defined Discourses speak to each other through individuals. The individual instantiates, gives body to a Discourse every time he or she acts or speaks, and thus carries it and ultimately changes it through time.”

In other words, discourses are systematically organized sets of statements that give expression to the meanings and values of an institution. Beyond that, they define, describe, and delimit what it is possible to say and what it is not possible to say (and by extension, what to do, and what not to do) with respect to the area of concern of that institution, whether marginally or centrally (Pennycook, 2001 ).

In resource constrained contexts there exists an economic and moral dilemma with regard to using technology for learning and teaching as students come from diverse backgrounds, geographical locations, and material and technological capacities. In South African higher education this means that access to ICTs cannot be assumed (Broekman, Enslin, & Pendlebury, 2002 ; Brown & Pallitt, 2015 ; Czerniewicz & Brown, 2014 ). This dilemma is not unique to the context of developing countries. Even in contexts with high Internet penetration like New Zealand, disparities of digital access have also been observed as a consequence of socioeconomic background (Internet World Stats, 2016 ). This influences the number of digital devices in the home, the types of devices available, and whether the device(s) are shared or individually owned by students (Hartnett, 2017 ). The contextual reality is that we cannot ever assume equality, and we need to consciously choose not to disadvantage particular groups of students due to their socioeconomic or cultural contexts.

Theoretically, the concept of power is hotly contested. In a history of theoretical conceptions of power, Hindess ( 1996 ) describes three core views of power at the level of the individual. The first view of power is as a capacity to act, where people use power over things and people. In this view, there is an unequal relationship between those who use power for their own purposes and those who are subject to its effects; and power is used as an instrument of domination.

The second view of power is one where the subjugated are covertly excluded from decision-making structures and thus, while they might be exercising some voice, that voice is not heard.

The third view of power is where the subjugated are compliant in their powerlessness, failing to recognize that their interests are at risk or not making any attempts to defend these interests.

The view of power and identity as being open to change is crucial as it opens up opportunities or possibilities for interventions—a crucial aspect of critical research.

Norton ( 2000 , p. 7) comes up with a very useful succinct definition of power as the “socially constructed relations among individuals, institutions and communities through which symbolic and material resources in society are produced, distributed and validated” relations that are inevitably produced in language.

Having access and being seen to be computer or digitally literate is a big status symbol, and students perceive the opportunities afforded through digital technologies and use of ICTs as giving them higher status and more power. Interestingly, there is a contradiction though as students with empowerment also come with feelings of disempowerment. They feel they are operating in an environment with limited options and choices, hence limiting their sense of empowerment. Thus, students are encouraged to embrace technology but within its existing structures and processes, in other words, they seldom challenge it in the way described by Kvasny and Trauth ( 2002 , p. 276) as “commandeering IT to charts one’s own usage and career course.” However, there is some evidence of students who demonstrate agency and drive to achieve their goals, despite contextual challenges (Czerniewicz & Brown, 2014 ).

CDA as a theoretical and methodological approach enables researchers to systematically explore language (in whatever form it takes) and to move beyond understanding what people say to understanding meaning. This enables them to uncover hidden power dynamics, critique the status quo, and challenge dominant views. CDA places the unit of analysis at the level of the individual, and foregrounds social and cultural contexts by situating lived experiences in a landscape of culturally situated practices and by enabling a more nuanced understanding of peoples’ worlds. Research drawing on CDA to explore the intersection of ICTs and education has demonstrated its value as a lens for questioning assumptions, understanding the marginalized, and mapping contradictions between policy and practice. Yet there is still further potential to draw on this approach in educational studies in particular by exploring technological identities and practices. The type of technological identity a student holds creates both academic opportunity and obstacles for them. By understanding the act of being a student in social, economic, political, and educational terms and how students construct their technological identities and position themselves, they can benefit from better support. In their learning, viewing identities as a product of participation in communities (i.e., as contextually specific) can strengthen the investigation of how digital experiences influence individuals’ relationhships with technology.

This article has demonstrated that, although CDA has been dominated by analysis of formal texts like policy documents, there is a move to using and encouraging CDA in new emerging texts and discourses, particularly in resource constrained contexts. This is an underdeveloped opportunity for CDA to expand as a methodological approach to exploring the intersections of learning in a digital world.

• Adam, A. (2002). Exploring the gender question in critical information systems. Journal of Information Technology , 17 , 59–67.
• Ainsworth, S. , & Hardy, S. (2004). Critical discourse analysis and identity: Why bother? Critical Discourse Studies , 1 (2), 225–235.
• Avgerou, C. , & Madon, S. (2004). Framing is studies: Understanding the social context of is innovation. In C. Avgerou , C. Ciborra , & F. Land (Eds.), The social study of information and communication technology (pp. 162–182). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Billig, M. (2003). Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity . New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Black, R. W. (2008). Adolescents and online fan fiction . New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction . London, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Bozionelos, N. (2004). Socio-economic background and computer use: The role of computers anxiety and computer experience in their relationship. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 61 , 724–746.
• Brock, A. (2018). Critical technocultural discourse analysis. New Media & Society , 20 (3), 1012–1030.
• Broekman, I. , Enslin, P. , & Pendlebury, S. (2002). Distributive justice and Information Communication Technologies in higher education in South Africa. South African Journal of Higher Education , 16 (1), 29–35.
• Brown, B. A. , Reveles, J. M. , & Kelly, G. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education , 89 (5), 779–802.
• Brown, C. (2011). Excavating the meaning of information and communication technology use amongst South African university students: A critical discourse analysis (Doctoral thesis). University of Cape Town, South Africa.
• Brown, C. (2012). University students as digital migrants. Language and Literacy , 14 (2), 41–61.
• Brown, C. , & Hart, M. (2012). Exploring higher education students’ technological identities using critical discourse analysis. In P. Isaias & M. B. Nunes (Eds.), Information systems research and exploring social artifacts: Approaches and methodologies . Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Brown, C. , & Pallitt, N. (2015). Personal mobile devices and laptops as learning tools. In W. R. Kilfoil (Ed.), Moving beyond the hype: A contextualised view of learning with technology in higher education . Pretoria: Universities South Africa.
• Budd, Y. ((2005, November 15–18). Technological discourses in education . Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory into Research. University of Tasmania, Australia.
• Byungara, J.-C. , Hansson, H. , Masengesho, K. , Karunaratne, T. (2016). ICT capacity building: A critical discourse analysis of Rwandan policies from higher education perspective. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning , 19 (2), 46–62.
• Chigona, A. , & Chigona, W. (2008). MXit up in the media: Media discourse analysis on a mobile instant messaging system. Southern Africa Journal of Information and Communication , 9 , 42–57.
• Chigona, W. , Mjali, P. , & Denzl, N. (2007, November 18–23). Role of ICT in national development: A critical discourse analysis of South Africa’s government statements . Paper presented at the QualIT’07 Qualitative research in IT, Wellington, New Zealand.
• Cukier, W. , Bauer, R. , & Middleton, C. (2004). Applying Habermas’ validity claims as a standard for critical discourse analysis. In B. Kaplan , D. P Truex , D. Wastell , A. T. Wood-Harper , & J. DeGross (Eds.), Information systems research: Relevant theory and informed practice (pp. 233–258). London, U.K.: Kluwer Academic.
• Cukier, W. , Ngwenyama, O. , Bauer, R. , & Middleton, C. (2009). A critical analysis of media discource on information technology: Preliminary results of a proposed method for critical discourse analysis. Information Systems Journal , 19 , 175–196.
• Cushman, M. , & McLean, R. (2008). Exclusion, inclusion and changing the face of information systems research. Information Technology & People , 21 (3), 213–221.
• Czerniewicz, L. , & Brown, C. (2014). The habitus and technological practices of rural students: A case study. South African Journal of Education , 34 (1), 1–14
• Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). London, U.K.: Longman.
• Fairclough, N. (2009). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In R. Wodak & M. Myers (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd rev. ed., pp. 162–186). London, U.K.: SAGE.
• Foucault, M. (1969). The archaeology of knowledge ( A. M. Sheridan Smith , Trans.). London, U.K.: Routledge.
• Foucault, M. (1994). Truth and power. In J. Faubion (Ed.), Power (pp. 111–133). New York, NY: The New Press.
• Gee, J. (1994). Orality and literacy: From the savage mind to ways with words. In J. Maybin (Ed.), Language and literacy in social practice (pp. 168–192). Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
• Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses . London, U.K.: Falmer.
• Gee, J. (2000). Identity as an analytical lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education , 25 (1), 99–125.
• Gee, J. (2004). What is critical about critical discourse analysis? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis (pp. 19–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Gee, J. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Gee, J. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies (2nd ed.). London, U.K.: Falmer.
• Giles, D. (2017). Discourse in the development of identities in an online teacher education programme . Memorias del Encuentro Internacional de Educación a Distancia , 5 (5).
• Hamston, J. (2006). Bakhtin’s theory of dialogue: A construct for pedagogy, methodology and analysis. Australian Education Researcher , 33 (1), 55–74.
• Hartnett, M. (2017). Differences in the digital home lives of young people in New Zealand. British Journal of Educational Technology , 48 (2), 642–652.
• Hindess, B. (1996). Discourses of power . Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
• Howcroft, D. , & Trauth, E. (2004). The choice of critical information systems research. In B. Kaplan , D. P. Truex , D. Wastell , A. T. Wood-Harper , & J. DeGross (Eds.), Relevant theory and informed practice: Looking forward from a 20 year perspective on IS research (pp. 195–211). London, U.K.: Kluwer.
• Internet World Stats . (2016). Internet world stats: Usage and population statistics .
• Jørgenson, M. , & Phillips, M. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method . London, U.K.: SAGE.
• Kilfoil, W. R. (Ed.) (2015). Moving beyond the hype: A contextualised view of learning with technology in higher education . Pretoria: Universities South Africa.
• Kittleson, J. , & Southerland, S. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 41 (3), 267–293.
• Koc, M. (2006). Cultural identity crisis in the age of globalisation and technology. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology , 5 (1), 37–43.
• Konayuma, G. (2012). A critical discourse analysis of e-learning policies in education and training in Zambia . Paper presented at the ODL 12, Pretoria, South Africa.
• Kvasny, L. (2006). Let the sisters speak: Understanding Information Technology from the standpoint of the “other.” Database for Advances in Information Systems , 37 (4), 13–25.
• Kvasny, L. , & Trauth, E. (2002). The digital divide at work and at home: Discourses about power and underrepresented groups in the Information Society. In E. Whitley , E. Wynn , & J. DeGross (Eds.), Global and organizational discourse about information technology (pp. 273–294). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
• Lee, K. , & Brett, C. (2014). A critical discourse analysis: Reconceptualising online distance learning through a Foucauldian lens . Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networked Learning 2014.
• Lizie, A. , Stewart, C. , & Avila, G. (2004, July 24–30). Cultural dimensions of the digital divide: Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and Brockton’s Cape Verdeans . Communication and Technology Policy Division 2004 International Association for Media and Communications Research Conference, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
• Mills, S. (2004). Discourse: The new critical idiom . London, U.K.: Routledge.
• Myers, M. (2002). Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Myers (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 14–31). London, U.K.: SAGE.
• Ndenge, K. (2013). Analysing Cameroon government’s ICT policy documents and trainee teachers’ perception of ICT in education policy implementation using critical discourse analysis . Paper presented at the Pan-Commonwealth Forum 7 (PCF7).
• Ng’ambi, D. (2008). A critical discourse analysis of students anonymous online postings. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education , 4 (3), 31–39.
• Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change . Harlow, U.K.: Pearson Education.
• Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Perveen, A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis of moderated discussion board of abstract virtual university of Pakistan . Open Praxis , 7 (3), 243–262.
• Rambe, P. (2012). Critical discourse analysis of collaborative engagement in Facebook postings. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 28 (2), 295–314.
• Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Rogers, R. , Schaenen, I. , Schott, C. , O’Brien, K. , Trigos-Carrillo, L. , Starkey, K. , & Chasteen, C. (2016). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature, 2004 to 2012 . Review of Educational Research , 86 (4), 1192–1226.
• Roode, D. , Speight, H. , Pollock, M. , & Webber, R. (2004, June 14). Its not the digital divide—Its the socio-techno divide! Paper presented at the 12th European conference on Information Systems Turka.
• Sasseville, B. (2004). Integrating information and communication technology in the classroom: A comparative discourse analysis . Canadian Journal of Learning Technology , 30 (2).
• Schlebusch, C. L. (2017). Computer anxiety, computer self-efficacy and attitudes towards the Internt at of first year students at a South African University of Technology. African Education Review , 15 (3), 72–90.
• Stahl, B. (2004, August). Whose discourse? A comparison of the Foucauldian and Habermasian concepts of discourse in critical is research . Paper presented at the Proceedings of the tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York.
• Stahl, B. (2008). Empowerment through ICT: A critical discourse analysis of the Egyptian ICT policy. In C. Avgerou , M. L. Smith , & P. van der Besselaar (Eds.), Social dimensions Of information and communication technology policy. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing (vol. 282, pp. 161–177). Boston, MA: Springer.
• Stahl, B. (2009). Critical research and ethics. In C. Brooke (Ed.), Critical research in information systems (pp. 25–40). Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier.
• Thompson, M. (2004). ICT, power, and developmental discourse: A critical view. Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries , 20 (4), 1–25.
• Trauth, E. , & Howcroft, D. (2006). Social inclusion and the information systems field: Why now? In E. Trauth , D. Howcroft , T. Butler , B. Fitzgerald , & J. D. Gross (Eds.), Social inclusion: Societal and organisational implications for information systems (pp. 347–364). Boston, MA: Springer.
• van Dijk, T. (1993). Editor’s foreword. Discourse and Society , 4 , 131–142.
• van Dijk, T. (1997). Discourses as structure and process . London, U.K.: SAGE.
• van Dijk, T. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M. Myers (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis . London, U.K.: SAGE.
• Wagid, Z. , & Wagid, F. (2016). Examining digital technology for (higher) education through action research and critical discourse analysis. South African Journal of Higher Education , 30 (1), 265–284.
• Weiss, G. , & Wodak, R. (2003). Introduction: Theory, interdisciplinarity and critical discourse analysis. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 1–34). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Wodak, R. (1989). Language, power, and ideology: Studies in political discourse Amsterdam, The Netherlands: J. Benjamins.
• Wodak, R. , & Myers, M. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis . London, U.K.: SAGE.
• Zheng, Y. , & Walsham, G. (2008). Inequality of what? Social exclusion in the e-society as capability deprivation. Information Technology & People , 21 (3), 222–243.

Related Articles

• Critical Perspectives on Evaluative Research on Educational Technology Policies in Latin America

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 31 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|195.158.225.244]
• 195.158.225.244

Character limit 500 /500

For an exact search, surround your words with double quotes.

Critical Discourse Analysis: What Is It?

A downloadable version of this explainer is available here: 

Overview: The Fundamentals

The language we use to communicate, along with other cultural artifacts such as images, films, music, and social media, has a life well beyond the simple denotation or literal meaning. Language is infused with normative cultural values, hegemonic power structures, bias, and subjectivity.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) describes a series of approaches to how researchers (socio-environmental [S-E] and others) may critically analyze texts and cultural artifacts to reveal connotations and draw out the larger cultural narratives that these connotations support. What is the social context of the story being told and why is the teller relating it in this particular narrative structure, lexicon, and moment in time? Analysts study how language is used in discourse in order to:

• Consider the contexts in which texts are produced, distributed, and consumed.
• Designate the ways people use texts to construct a sense of self, society, and material reality.
• Explore a deeper context in which textual features influence wider social discourse, political stances, institutional values and choices, and to support or challenge hegemonies. (Burke 187)

The goal of CDA is to reveal submerged power structures and elaborate on the role of discourse in both reflecting and constructing social realities. It is based on the premise that language can reflect dominant cultural, political, gendered (etc.) views and practices whether conscious or unconscious. Some forms of CDA make use of big data, for example from social media posts, to analyze a range of cultural, demographic, geographic, and historical perspectives on human-environment interactions. Others use artificial intelligence and social network analysis to deduce how big data that consolidates language can be translated into network visuals and thematic clusters to illustrate cultural trends. But there are many other forms. This series of explainers elaborates on those most useful to S-E research.

CDA is a collection of approaches to analyzing texts that spans the disciplines and goes by many names: sentiment analysis, qualitative content analysis, opinion or emotion analysis, thematic analysis, narrative analysis, psychosocial analysis, visual discourse analysis, and ecolinguistics.   

Theoretical Background: Barthes’ Denotation, Connotation, and Myth

Literary theorist Roland Barthes’ discourse theory of denotation, connotation, and myth elaborates on how social structures and norms impose submerged values on public discourse. For example:

Denotation : 1) A rose is a flower of the genus Rosa. 2) A rose is a saleable good with market values that support a multi-billion dollar industry.

Connotation: 1) A rose is a symbol of romance. It imbues values of passion, beauty, and faithfulness.  2) A person who gives you roses loves you. Cultural Narrative or Myth: You must buy roses for your beloved on Valentine’s Day! The denoted “rose” extends to connote a culturally valued outcome: love and romance. The flower industry commodifies the connotation. That step allows the industry to fuel large-scale production and distribution to benefit the global flower industry. Then the discourse takes the next step to cultural myth: You must buy roses for your beloved on Valentine’s Day! 

Here, CDA unpacks how a simple material thing like a dozen roses becomes a cultural idea, recirculated annually through industry advertising. It reveals submerged economic priorities and shows how a flower’s social meaning translates to an environmentally impactful industry. Using CDA to review advertising produces fascinating results and provides tools to analyze problematic forms of environmental discourse like greenwashing. CDA methods serve a wide range of analytical needs.

Sample Research Questions for CDA Analysis, with Illustrative Research Papers:

(Links to these papers are provided below.)

• How do denotation and connotation reveal submerged power structures and hegemonies? (Benjaminsen 2020; Stibbe 2015)
• How have various stakeholders spoken, written, and visualized their perspectives on particular S-E issues? (Burke et al. 2015) 
• How does the lack of discourse on a subject indicate erasures or subordinations of stakeholder perspectives or an incomplete understanding of the complexity of a S-E system? (Hoover et al. 2021)
• How can we translate texts into groupings, themes, and S-E network visuals that reveal relationships among system components? Can CDA reveal patterns of discourse that exhibit a range of perspectives in S-E systems? (Urbanitti et al. 2020)
• How can scientists working with stakeholders use language to empower their perspectives on the proper course of governance or management of S-E systems? (Lund et al. 2022)
• In what ways can quantitative analysis be a starting point for qualitative synthesis methods that support the integration of disciplinary silos, geographies, stakeholders, and governance regimes? (Keith et al. 2022)
• How can computer-based textual and visual analysis help us process and find significant trends in big data and social media activity? (Vigl et al. 2021)

Further Reading

Further explainers are available on: 

• Visual Discourse Analysis
• Narrative Discourse Analysis
• Qualitative Content Analysis
• Artificial Intelligence, Social Network, and Social Media Analysis

These articles provide overviews and examples of how we may employ CDA to better understand how forms of discourse affect our perception and governance of S-E systems.     

Blanc, G. The Invention of Green Colonialism. (H. Morrison, Trans.). Polity Press. (2022). Burke, B.J., Welch-Divine, M., & Gustafson, S. (2015). Nature Talk in an Appalachian Newspaper: What Environmental Discourse Analysis Reveals about Efforts to Address Exurbanization and Climate Change. Human Organization , 74(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.17730/0018-7259-74.2.185 Benjaminsen, T.A. (2021). Depicting decline: images and myths in environmental discourse analysis.  Landscape Research , 46 (2), 211-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2020.1737663 Gadsden, G.I.,  Golden, N., & Harris, N.C. (2023). Place-Based Bias in Environmental Scholarship  Derived from Social–Ecological Landscapes of Fear. BioScience , 73(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac095 Hoover, F., Meerow, S., Grabowski, Z.J., & McPhearson, T. (2021). Environmental justice implications of siting criteria in urban green infrastructure planning. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning , 23 (5), 665-682. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.1945916 Keith, R.J., Given, L.M., Martin, J.M., & Hochuli, D.F. (2022), Collaborating with qualitative  researchers to co-design social-ecological studies. Austral Ecology , 47 (4), 880-888. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.13172 Lund, A.J., Harrington, E., Albrecht, T.R. et al. (2022). Tracing the inclusion of health as a component of the food-energy-water nexus in dam management in the Senegal River Basin. Environmental Science and Policy, 133, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.03.005 O'Neill, S.J., & Smith, N. (2014), Climate change and visual imagery. WIREs Climate Change, 5 (1), 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.249

Stibbe, A. (2020). Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live By (2nd edition). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367855512

Urbinatti, A.M., Benites-Lazaro, L.L., de Carvalho, C.M., & Giatti, L.L. (2020). The conceptual basis of water-energy-food nexus governance: systematic literature review using network and discourse analysis. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences , 17 (2), 21-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2020.1749086 Vigl, L.E., Marsoner, T., Giombini, V. et al. (2021). Harnessing artificial intelligence technology and social media data to support Cultural Ecosystem Service assessments. People and Nature , 3 (3), 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10199

Heidi Scott, SESYNC

Related Content

Critical discourse analysis resources, the political ecology of participatory conservation: institutions and discourse, enhancing water security for the benefits of humans and nature—the role of governance, using the ‘regime shift' concept in addressing social-ecological change.

• 🆕 Interactive Articles

What is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)? Explained

• by Discourse Analyzer
• April 9, 2024 May 27, 2024

Are you ready to enhance your learning by asking the assistant?

Alternatively, if you don't have an account yet

The exploration into the realms of Discourse Analysis (DA) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) unveils a nuanced spectrum of language study that bridges linguistic form and social function, melding the microscopic scrutiny of textual elements with a macroscopic analysis of socio-political undercurrents. By distinguishing between general DA’s focus on language mechanics and CDA’s emphasis on language as a conduit of power and ideology, this discourse navigates through the foundational pillars, theoretical diversities, and methodological approaches characterizing each field. The exposition delves into CDA’s historical evolution, drawing from a rich intellectual heritage that spans Marxist theory, social constructionism , and systemic functional linguistics, thereby setting a comprehensive backdrop for understanding the critical dimensions of language as a social instrument.

Definition and Scope

General discourse analysis, distinction between general discourse analysis and cda, 1) historical background, 2) key figures, 3) theoretical influences, 4) evolution, 1) objectives of cda, 2) key concepts of cda, 3) underlying theories, frequently asked questions, 1. understanding discourse analysis.

Discourse Analysis (DA) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) represent interconnected yet distinct areas within the broader field of linguistics, each with its unique focus, methodologies, and theoretical underpinnings. Understanding the definition and scope of these disciplines, as well as the distinctions between them, is crucial for navigating the complex landscape of language study.

Discourse Analysis is a diverse field that examines how language is used in texts and contexts, aiming to understand not just what is said, but how it is said, and the effects it produces in different situations. DA encompasses a wide range of texts (spoken, written, or multimodal) and considers various levels of language use, from micro-level features (such as word choice and sentence structure) to macro-level structures (like conversations, narratives, and entire texts). The scope of DA is broad, covering various disciplines including linguistics, sociology, psychology, and anthropology. It aims to reveal the nuanced ways in which language constructs social reality, identities, relationships, and power dynamics.

General Discourse Analysis focuses on the structures and functions of language in use. It seeks to describe and analyze the patterns and rules governing discourse, without necessarily delving into the broader social and ideological implications. General DA is primarily concerned with how language works in various communicative contexts, how meanings are constructed and negotiated, and how coherence and cohesion are achieved in texts.

Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

Critical Discourse Analysis extends beyond the descriptive aim of general discourse analysis by explicitly engaging with the socio-political dimensions of discourse. CDA is underpinned by a critical theory framework that views language as a form of social practice that both reflects and shapes societal structures and power relations. The critical in CDA denotes a commitment to examining the ideological underpinnings and power dynamics embedded within discourse, with the aim of uncovering inequality, dominance, and discrimination.

The key distinction between general DA and CDA lies in their focus and aims:

• Focus: While general DA may concentrate on the linguistic features and communicative functions of discourse, CDA delves deeper into the socio-political contexts, examining how discourse practices perpetuate or challenge power structures and ideologies.
• Aims: General DA aims to understand and describe discourse patterns and rules, whereas CDA seeks to critically analyze the role of discourse in maintaining or resisting social inequalities. CDA is inherently normative, aiming not just to analyze but also to contribute to social change by highlighting and challenging oppressive discourse practices.
• Methodological Approaches: CDA employs a broader range of interdisciplinary methodologies, drawing from social theory, cultural studies, and even cognitive linguistics , to analyze the intersection of language, power, and society. While general DA might focus on linguistic analysis, CDA integrates this with a critical examination of the historical, cultural, and political contexts of discourse.

Both Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis offer valuable insights into the complex role of language in society, but they do so from different perspectives and with different objectives. While DA provides the tools for analyzing language use across various contexts, CDA builds on this foundation with a critical approach that seeks to understand and challenge the social forces that shape discourse practices. Together, they contribute to a comprehensive understanding of discourse as a pivotal element in human communication, culture, and society.

2. Origins and Evolution of CDA

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) emerged as a distinct area of study in the late 20th century, drawing on a rich tapestry of intellectual traditions and responding to the growing recognition of the pivotal role of language in shaping social relations, identities, and power structures. Its origins and evolution are marked by contributions from several key figures and the integration of diverse theoretical influences, reflecting its interdisciplinary nature.

CDA’s roots can be traced to the 1970s and 1980s, a period marked by burgeoning interest in the ways language functions within society to perpetuate power imbalances. It developed as a response to traditional linguistics and discourse analysis, which often focused on language structure without adequately considering the social and political contexts of language use. CDA sought to bridge this gap by explicitly linking linguistic analysis to critical theories of society, thereby uncovering the ideological dimensions of discourse.

Several scholars have been instrumental in shaping CDA, each bringing their unique perspectives and theoretical frameworks:

• Norman Fairclough: A foundational figure in CDA, Fairclough’s work emphasized the dialectical relationship between discourse and social structure. His model of CDA focuses on three dimensions: text analysis, discourse practice (production and interpretation of texts), and sociocultural practice (the broader social and cultural structures that inform discourse practices).
• Teun A. van Dijk: Van Dijk’s contributions to CDA include a focus on the cognitive aspects of discourse and how they relate to power and ideology. He has been particularly interested in how societal power relations are reproduced through discourse and has explored issues related to racism, political discourse, and the media.
• Ruth Wodak: Wodak has contributed significantly to the development of CDA through her work on the Discourse-Historical Approach, which emphasizes the importance of historical context in understanding discourse. Her research has covered a wide range of topics, including nationalism, racism, and political communication.

CDA is characterized by its theoretical pluralism, drawing on a range of intellectual traditions to inform its critical stance:

• Marxist Theory: The influence of Marxist ideas about ideology, hegemony, and economic and social structures is evident in CDA’s focus on power relations and inequality in discourse.
• Social Theory: The work of sociologists and social theorists, including Pierre Bourdieu and Michel Foucault, has informed CDA’s understanding of the relationship between language, power, and society. Foucault’s concept of discourse as a means of social control and Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic power are particularly influential.
• Pragmatics and Functional Linguistics: From the field of linguistics, CDA draws on pragmatics and systemic functional linguistics (SFL), using tools from these areas to analyze how language functions in its social context. SFL, associated with M.A.K. Halliday, provides a framework for exploring how language choices reflect and construct social relations.

Over the years, CDA has expanded its focus to encompass a wide range of social issues and discourses, including gender, race, identity, environmental discourse, and media studies, among others. It has also incorporated new methodological approaches and engaged with emerging social and technological changes, such as the rise of digital media. The field continues to evolve, reflecting ongoing shifts in social dynamics, technological advancements, and theoretical developments.

The origins and evolution of Critical Discourse Analysis illustrate its development as an interdisciplinary field that seeks to understand the intricate relationships between language, power, and society. Through the contributions of key figures and the integration of diverse theoretical influences, CDA provides a powerful framework for analyzing how discourse shapes and is shaped by social structures and power relations, with a continual commitment to social justice and change.

3. Principles of CDA

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is distinguished by its specific objectives, key concepts, and underlying theoretical frameworks, all of which coalesce to offer a comprehensive approach to understanding discourse. At its core, CDA seeks not just to describe discourse features but to uncover the power dynamics and ideologies that are embedded within and reproduced through language use. This approach is underpinned by several guiding principles, objectives, and theoretical underpinnings.

The primary objectives of CDA include:

• To Reveal Power Structures: CDA aims to uncover how discourse practices contribute to the maintenance and contestation of power relations within society. It seeks to expose the ways in which language is used to dominate, oppress, or marginalize certain groups.
• To Understand Ideology: A key objective is to analyze how ideologies are embedded in discourse and how they shape individuals’ perceptions of reality, influencing their beliefs and actions.
• To Promote Social Change: Beyond analysis, CDA has a normative aspect, aspiring to contribute to social change by highlighting and challenging unfair power relations and the ideologies that support them.

Several key concepts underpin the practice of CDA, including:

• Power and Hegemony: Power relations and the concept of hegemony, as introduced by Antonio Gramsci, are central to CDA. Discourse is seen as a means through which power is exercised and hegemonic ideologies are naturalized.
• Ideology: CDA investigates how language serves to manifest and reproduce ideologies, understood as systems of belief that represent the interests of dominant social groups as universal truths.
• Discursive Practices: The term refers to the ways in which texts are produced, distributed, and consumed within specific socio-cultural contexts, focusing on how these practices influence and are influenced by social structures.
• Intertextuality and Recontextualization: These concepts refer to the ways in which texts draw upon, transform, and relate to other texts. CDA explores how discourses are shaped by and contribute to broader discursive fields.

CDA draws on a variety of theoretical frameworks to inform its analysis:

• Marxist Theories of Ideology: Marxist concepts of ideology and economic and cultural hegemony inform CDA’s understanding of how discourse reflects and reinforces social inequalities.
• Social Constructionism: This perspective, which views knowledge and reality as constructed through discourse, underlies CDA’s approach to analyzing how language shapes perceptions of the world.
• Foucauldian Theory: Michel Foucault’s theories about discourse, power/knowledge, and governmentality are integral to CDA, particularly his view of discourse as a vehicle for power relations.
• Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL): SFL provides tools for analyzing how linguistic choices in texts reflect and construct social relations, offering a methodological foundation for CDA’s linguistic analysis.

Navigating the intricate landscape of Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis reveals a profound interconnection between linguistic structures and societal dynamics, where language emerges not merely as a medium of communication but as a pivotal force in shaping social reality. Through the lens of DA, we gain insights into the functional and structural aspects of language use across various contexts, laying bare the mechanics of meaning-making and interaction. CDA, in turn, elevates this analysis to a critical plane, where language is scrutinized as a vehicle of power, ideology, and resistance, reflecting and reinforcing social hierarchies and norms. The journey from the origins of CDA, through its theoretical evolution, to the articulation of its core principles, underscores a commitment to not just decipher the complexities of discourse but to envisage a pathway towards social equity and change. This comprehensive exploration underscores the pivotal role of discourse analysis in unraveling the layers of language that construct and contest the fabric of social life, offering a reflective mirror to the intertwined narratives of linguistic expression and societal structure.

Discourse Analysis is a field of linguistics that examines how language is used in texts and contexts. It aims to understand not just the content of communication but also how that content is expressed and its effects in various situations. DA covers a wide range of texts, from spoken to written or multimodal, and considers language use from micro-level features like word choice to macro-level structures such as narratives and entire texts.

While General Discourse Analysis focuses on the structures and functions of language in use, aiming to describe and analyze discourse patterns without delving into broader social implications, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) extends this by engaging with the socio-political dimensions of discourse. CDA examines how discourse practices perpetuate or challenge power structures and ideologies, with a normative aim of contributing to social change by highlighting oppressive discourse practices.

The primary objectives of CDA include revealing power structures, understanding how ideologies are embedded in discourse and influence perceptions of reality, and promoting social change by challenging unfair power relations and ideologies.

Key figures in CDA include Norman Fairclough, who emphasized the relationship between discourse and social structure; Teun A. van Dijk, with a focus on the cognitive aspects of discourse related to power and ideology; and Ruth Wodak, known for her work on the Discourse-Historical Approach and its emphasis on historical context in understanding discourse.

CDA is shaped by theoretical influences from Marxist theory, focusing on ideology, hegemony, and social structures; social theory, including the work of sociologists like Pierre Bourdieu and Michel Foucault on language, power, and society; and systemic functional linguistics, which provides tools for analyzing how language functions in its social context.

Key concepts include power and hegemony, ideology, discursive practices, and concepts like intertextuality and recontextualization. These concepts help CDA practitioners analyze how discourse reflects, reproduces, and challenges social structures and power relations.

CDA views ideology as a system of beliefs embedded in discourse that serves to manifest and reproduce the interests of dominant social groups as universal truths. It aims to uncover how these ideologies shape individuals’ perceptions and actions.

CDA employs a broader range of interdisciplinary methodologies, integrating linguistic analysis with a critical examination of historical, cultural, and political contexts to analyze the intersection of language, power, and society. This contrasts with general DA’s focus on linguistic features and communicative functions without necessarily considering socio-political contexts.

CDA has evolved from its origins in the late 20th century, expanding its focus to include a wide range of social issues and discourses, such as gender, race, identity, and environmental discourse. It has incorporated new methodological approaches and engaged with technological changes like digital media, reflecting ongoing shifts in social dynamics and theoretical developments.

CDA plays a critical role in understanding how discourse practices contribute to the maintenance and contestation of power relations within society. By uncovering the ways language is used to dominate or marginalize, CDA seeks to promote social change by challenging oppressive discourse practices and the ideologies that support them, aiming to contribute to a more equitable society.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Privacy Policy

What Is Critical Discourse Analysis?

• Gavin Kendall Queensland University of Technology

Author Biography

Gavin kendall, queensland university of technology, how to cite.

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Copyright (c) 2007 Gavin Kendall

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

Most read articles by the same author(s)

• Rainer Diaz-Bone, Andrea D. Bührmann, Encarnación Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Werner Schneider, Gavin Kendall, Francisco Tirado, The Field of Foucaultian Discourse Analysis: Structures, Developments and Perspectives , Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research: Vol. 8 No. 2 (2007): From Michel Foucault's Theory of Discourse to Empirical Discourse Research
• Andrea D. Bührmann, Rainer Diaz-Bone, Encarnación Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Werner Schneider, Gavin Kendall, Francisco Tirado, Editorial FQS 8(2): From Michel Foucault's Theory of Discourse to Empirical Discourse Research , Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research: Vol. 8 No. 2 (2007): From Michel Foucault's Theory of Discourse to Empirical Discourse Research
• Gary Wickham, Gavin Kendall, Critical Discourse Analysis, Description, Explanation, Causes: Foucault's Inspiration Versus Weber's Perspiration , Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research: Vol. 8 No. 2 (2007): From Michel Foucault's Theory of Discourse to Empirical Discourse Research

Make a Submission

Current issue, information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Usage Statistics Information

We log anonymous usage statistics. Please read the privacy information for details.

Developed By

2000-2024 Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research (ISSN 1438-5627) Institut für Qualitative Forschung , Internationale Akademie Berlin gGmbH

Hosting: Center for Digital Systems , Freie Universität Berlin Funding 2023-2025 by the KOALA project

Privacy Statement Accessibility Statement

The Queen Is Gone: Reading Former Colonies’ Reaction Through Critical Discourse Analysis

• Mamona Yasmin Khan , Syeda Amna Manzoor

The study probes the Britain’s former colonies reaction to Queen Elizabeth II’s death. British people often glorify the Queen as an epitome of benevolence, but there is a need explore how people of British former colonies perceive her. To serve this purpose, news articles from four former British colonies have been chosen. These colonies are India, Pakistan, Africa, and Bangladesh. Using non random sampling, four news articles have been archived from The Dawn, The Daily Star, Times of India, and Punch news. It is within the framework of Van Dijk’s Critical Discourse Analysis Model (2007) that the research has critically examined the news articles following interpretive paradigm. The researcher has found that in all the news articles, Queen is portrayed as the ‘negative-other’, whereas ex-colonies are described as victims of her empire. Therefore, the discursive device of victimization is most frequently used in the chosen articles. The findings of the study indicate that the Queen's passing serves as a somber reminder of the darkest moments of colonial history. The findings also show that to former colonies, the death of Queen is tantamount to end of the bloodiest chapter in the history.

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0

Old publisher:  Transnational Press London

New Publisher:  Migration Letters & The London Publishers

Northeastern computer scientist receives prestigious early-career award for game design research

• Search Search

Assistant professor of computer science Alexandra To has received an NSF CAREER Award for research that bridges game design with critical race theory.

• Copy Link Link Copied!

Alexandra To has been around games for most of her life. “I grew up in a nerd household, which I’m very proud and happy to say,” she says.

Now, To — an assistant professor in the Khoury College of Computer Sciences and co-appointed in the College of Arts, Media and Design — has received a prestigious National Science Foundation CAREER Award for her academic scholarship bridging game design and critical race theory.

The CAREER Award “Supports early-career faculty who have the potential to serve as academic role models in research and education and to lead advances in the mission of their department or organization,” according to the NSF’s website .

To is primarily interested in asking how game designers approach race in the design process and what tools she can build to support them on a practical level.

“Very often, we’ll see … stories of final products, or games going to market, and then audiences being really upset with things like racial representation or gender representation,” To says.

“I want to find out, why does that happen? If we’re teaching folks to do this sort of iterative playtesting and design, why is this feedback not coming up sooner?”

To will interview designers, asking questions like, “When, if ever, do you talk about race when you’re designing games? What does that look like if you’re an indie game designer and you’re a one-person team, versus someone who’s working at a really big studio?” 

In the case of a big studio, “game design decisions have to get run past a multidisciplinary team of producers, other designers, developers, maybe funders, maybe people who are doing sound design.”

Part of the complexity of the research arises simply from the complexity of the teams involved.

The CAREER Award will support To as she conducts interviews to learn about designers’ processes and their resources — or lack thereof — builds educational resources and discussion guides for the classroom, designs activities for professional designers and constructs “a larger theoretical framework.”

Featured Stories

Dominique Biron turned weaknesses into strengths on her way to the NCAA track and field championships

Your podcast needs a theme song. Good Dog Licensing can help

Bicultural staff can better boost chances of success in international negotiations, Northeastern researcher explains

Why is 2024 predicted to be one of the most active hurricane seasons in history? And how can communities be more resilient?

“I really want [the project] to be shaped by conversations with, again, working game designers,” To says. “I intend to talk to students eventually too, but I want to start with folks who have left the classroom and are out making things.”

To, who has taught game design courses since she joined Northeastern University in 2020, wants to know exactly how students who have gone through game design programs utilize what they’ve learned.

“How are they applying the theories and the methods that we teach them in the classroom when they’re out working?” she asks. “And then, using that information, that’s really going to inform what the shape of my work looks like.”

To specializes in a subfield of computer science called human-computer interaction (HCI). “We are inherently multidisciplinary,” she says, with “roots in computer science, design and cognitive science” and many other fields.

In her classes on both HCI and game design, To encourages her students to approach their projects iteratively: “we make a prototype, [then] we put it in front of actual potential end-users.” Researchers and designers then collect that feedback to refine the end product.

“I very often tell the students, ‘You should feel ready and comfortable completely throwing out the prototype you started with, completely starting over from scratch,’” she says. “And rather than seeing that as a failure, viewing it as a productive part of the design process.”

“At least the way I teach game design, it’s built on the same philosophy of iterative design. In games, we would call that playtesting.”

To is adopting this mentality for her NSF CAREER research as well. “No matter what, in the process of experimenting,” she says, “I’m going to learn something really interesting, and we’ll hopefully come to other theories and engagement with race that will work better for that context.”

“That might require some pivoting on my part, but I’m excited about it,” she continues. “No matter what, I think I’m going to find out something interesting.”

It’s also important, to To, to acknowledge how “critical race theory is really embedded in the context of the U.S.” she says. “However, games are an international industry, right? There are people all over the world, millions and millions of people who play games, and the American concept of race, I am very aware, does not translate easily to other contexts. So that’s something that I’m mindful of.”

To thanked several faculty and staff coworkers for their guidance and mentorship in navigating the grant writing process: Jonathan Bell , Jane Kokernak and Andrea Stith in the Khoury College of Computer Sciences and Liz Allen , who conducted the CAMD Summer Grant Writing fellowship, along “with peer mentorship from many other faculty,” To says.

“This is my first ever external grant,” she continues. “Khoury and CAMD both have meaningful resources for mentorship around this [grant], I don’t think I could have done this without” them.

University News

Recent Stories

Uncertainty about young voters stems from the age group’s complexity

Young Americans are definitionally the country’s future. That’s particularly true in the realm of politics.

Barack Obama’s election in 2008 heralded a new era in American politics. Younger Americans turned out heavily for the popular Democrat, facilitating his easy win over Republican John McCain and ripping open a partisan divide between their voting patterns and those of older Americans.

But that was 16 years ago, and voters who were under 30 in 2008 are now between 34 and 45 years old. America’s young voters today hold different views than young voters used to — and look different from the Obama-coalition young voters who have driven so much analysis in the ensuing years. Those differences, in fact, are central to understanding why there’s so much uncertainty about how young voters will vote in November — if they do at all.

Sign up for the How to Read This Chart newsletter

For one thing, we often talk about President Biden ’s weak polling with young voters and his weak polling with non-White voters as separate things. But they are related, given that young voters are more likely to be non-White.

Using data from the two most recent General Social Surveys (national polls completed in 2021 and 2022), we get a sense of how the U.S. adult population breaks down. Among Americans 18-30, there were about twice as many White people as non-White people. Among Americans ages 65 and older, there were about six White respondents for every non-White respondent. Many of the younger non-White respondents were Hispanic; part of the reason that older populations are more heavily White is that immigration was restricted during the mid-20th century baby boom.

At the same time, younger Americans are more likely to identify as independent than older Americans. That’s particularly true of young non-White people. In the GSS, about half of Whites under 30 were independent or independents who lean to one party or the other. Six in 10 non-Whites were. Among the oldest respondents, about a third of Whites were independents but only 3 in 10 non-Whites.

This is a central issue. As I wrote in November , the fact that younger Americans are often not actually Democrats means there isn’t a sense of institutional loyalty to the party or its candidates. That they are independents who often vote for Democrats has been good enough for a lot of Democrats in a lot of elections, but when the question at hand centers on a particular person — in November, President Biden — that is disadvantageous. In statewide races, younger voters (like lots of voters) will recognize the (D) or (R) before the name. They know Biden’s name and that of his opponent … which we’ll come back to in a moment.

We can see how this question of institutional association manifests in participation. Earlier this year, Pew Research Center published data showing that there was still a wide gap between younger and older Americans in their political views.

This overlaps with race, too. Non-White respondents in Pew’s data were much more likely to identify as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents and, as noted above, younger Americans are more likely to be non-White. The GSS data also shows that 4 in 5 of those under 30 who identify as Republican or Republican-leaning independents are White.

The Pew analysis, though, looked only at registered voters — people who were participating in the political process to at least some extent. Gallup data released in February considered the political views of adults regardless of registration status. It found, unlike Pew, that there was a significant shift toward Republican identification among younger and non-White Americans, even if they didn’t register as Republicans.

There is some indication that younger voters are more frequently registering as Republicans than in the past. That my be a reflection of Biden’s increased unpopularity and its corollary: Donald Trump’s decreased unpopularity.

Earlier this year, I used YouGov data to show that views of Trump now are less negative among several groups than during his presidency. Compare the percentage of respondents each month who say they view him unfavorably with the average during his presidency.

Democratic, Black and Hispanic respondents still generally view Trump negatively, but less than they used to.

That analysis didn’t break down age, so I asked YouGov for data by age and gender. In part, this was a function of recent Brookings analysis documenting the divergence in values between young men and young women. What the YouGov polling shows is that, in every age group, men view Trump less negatively than women. But notice the annual averages broken out at the bottom of the chart below: Views among younger Americans have grown more positive since he first took office while views among older Americans sank before rebounding slightly.

In 2024, young men view Trump about as negatively as older women do. The 2017 annual average showed a nearly 50-point gap.

The silver lining for Biden is that he fares much better among those more-engaged voters. The best encapsulation of this phenomenon comes from the Harvard Youth Poll released earlier this year. Among all respondents under 30, Biden gets about 45 percent. Among those most likely to vote, he’s closer to 60 percent. Support for Trump, meanwhile, doesn’t change.

Historically, of course, younger people are less likely to vote anyway. That was one reason the Obama result was so striking: Young people actually turned out! Siena College polling conducted for the New York Times and Philadelphia Inquirer in six battleground states found that younger people were less likely to say they were likely to vote than respondents overall.

That same poll also showed that younger people were a bit more skeptical about the political and economic system than older Americans. More than three-quarters said the system needs to be torn down completely or changed significantly. Such sentiments turn up elsewhere , too — and in states where young people were more likely to view Trump’s interest in upending the system as a positive, Trump fared better.

Here we could segue into other areas in which younger Americans diverge from older Americans, like media consumption. New research from Pew shows that younger Americans are less likely to get news about the election from journalists and news organizations than older Americans, while they are more likely than older people to get it from friends, celebrities, social media personalities and other ordinary people they don’t know.

But this is probably to a significant extent a function of whether those groups seek out election news. If you aren’t trying to stay up to speed on the election, it makes sense that you would get more information passively from non-news sources. Consider that the Harvard Youth Poll found that younger Americans had the same general concerns about the election as older Americans, suggesting that the differences in consumption (or reception) of political news didn’t lead to a divergence in priorities.

So what do we have? A less engaged, more diverse population that isn’t as hostile to Trump as it used to be even as it has grown more skeptical of Biden — and lacks the institutional ties to the Democratic Party that might incline them to vote for the incumbent president anyway. There are a lot of fringes and asterisks that can modify those descriptors, but that appears to be the important distillation.

What will matter in November, then, is who turns out to vote. Which, of course, is what matters every November.

Election 2024

Get the latest news on the 2024 election from our reporters on the campaign trail and in Washington.

Who is running?: President Biden and Donald Trump secured their parties’ nominations for the presidency . Here’s how we ended up with a Trump-Biden rematch .

Presidential debates: Biden and Trump agreed to a June 27 debate on CNN and a Sept. 10 debate broadcast by ABC News.

Key dates and events: From January to June, voters in all states and U.S. territories will pick their party’s nominee for president ahead of the summer conventions. Here are key dates and events on the 2024 election calendar .

Abortion and the election: Voters in about a dozen states could decide the fate of abortion rights with constitutional amendments on the ballot in a pivotal election year. Biden supports legal access to abortion , and he has encouraged Congress to pass a law that would codify abortion rights nationwide. After months of mixed signals about his position, Trump said the issue should be left to states . Here’s how Biden’s and Trump’s abortion stances have shifted over the years.