Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies and Beyond [1st ed.] 9783030493776, 9783030493790

This book explores the problem-oriented interdisciplinary research movement comprised of Critical Discourse Analysis (CD

1,133 96 5MB

English Pages XXV, 406 [427] Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies and Beyond [1st ed.]
 9783030493776, 9783030493790

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xxv
Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), and Beyond (Theresa Catalano, Linda R. Waugh)....Pages 1-12
Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts (Theresa Catalano, Linda R. Waugh)....Pages 13-70
Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders (Theresa Catalano, Linda R. Waugh)....Pages 71-154
The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS (Theresa Catalano, Linda R. Waugh)....Pages 155-217
Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses (Theresa Catalano, Linda R. Waugh)....Pages 219-245
CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections (Theresa Catalano, Linda R. Waugh)....Pages 247-324
What CDA/CDS Scholars are Doing to Make a Difference in the World (Theresa Catalano, Linda R. Waugh)....Pages 325-388
Back Matter ....Pages 389-406

Citation preview

Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 26

Theresa Catalano Linda R. Waugh

Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies and Beyond

Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology Volume 26 Editor-in-Chief Alessandro Capone, University of Messina, Italy Consulting Editors Keith Allan, Monash University, Australia Louise Cummings, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Wayne Davis, Georgetown University, Washington, USA Igor Douven, University of Paris-Sorbonne, France Yan Huang, University of Auckland, New Zealand Istvan Kecskes, State University of New York at Albany, USA Franco Lo Piparo, University of Palermo, Italy Antonino Pennisi, University of Messina, Italy Francesca Santulli, Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Italy Editorial Board Members Noel Burton-Roberts, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia Brian Butler, University of North Carolina, Asheville, USA Marco Carapezza, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy Felice Cimatti, Università della Calabria, Cosenza, Italy Eros Corazza, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Marcelo Dascal, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel Michael Devitt, City University of New York, New York, USA Frans van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Alessandra Falzone, University of Messina, Messina, Italy Neil Feit, State University of New York, Fredonia, USA Alessandra Giorgi, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy Larry Horn, Yale University, New Haven, USA Klaus von Heusinger, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany Katarzyna Jaszczolt, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Ferenc Kiefer, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary Kepa Korta, ILCLI, Donostia, Spain Ernest Lepore, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA Stephen C. Levinson, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Fabrizio Macagno, New University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Jacob L. Mey, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark Pietro Perconti, University of Messina, Messina, Italy Francesca Piazza, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy Roland Posner, Berlin Institute of Technology, Berlin, Germany Mark Richard, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA Nathan Salmon, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA Stephen R. Schiffer, New York University, New York, USA Michel Seymour, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada Mandy Simons, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA Timothy Williamson, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Anna Wierbizcka, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia Dorota Zieliñska, Jesuit University of Philosophy and Education Ignatianum, Kraków, Poland More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11797

Theresa Catalano • Linda R. Waugh

Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies and Beyond

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

Linda R. Waugh Departments of French, English, Linguistics, Anthropology; Language, Reading and Culture; and Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching University of Arizona Tucson, AZ, USA

ISSN 2214-3807     ISSN 2214-3815 (electronic) Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ISBN 978-3-030-49377-6    ISBN 978-3-030-49379-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49379-0 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To our students and all those fighting for social change and justice.

Acknowledgments First and foremost, we would like to thank Luigi Catalano and Ron Breiger for their loving, patient, and tireless support throughout the writing process. Theresa would also like to thank her parents Jacqueline Bifano Scholar and Eric Scholar for their support and for always taking pride in what she does. We are also grateful for our children’s support—Isabella Catalano, Lorenzo Catalano, and Valentina Catalano and David Waugh-Breiger. Monique Monville-Burston also deserves much gratitude for her patience and understanding. We want to acknowledge Khaled Al Masaeed, Tom Hong Do, and Paul Renigar for their original contributions to the chapter from which this book was drawn (Waugh et al., 2016).1 We would also like to express our great appreciation to David Machin, Andreas Musolff, Teun van Dijk, Theo van Leeuwen, and Ruth Wodak for their advice, the time they took to converse with us about various issues and topics in the book regarding their own work, the way they helped connect us to other CDS scholars, their feedback on the first draft, and their general support, all of which have helped in making the book better than it would have been. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the input from two anonymous reviewers of our book whose advice prompted us to make needed changes. Our gratitude also goes to Helen van der Stelt and Jolanda Voogd for their work with us for most of the time it took us to write this book, to Anita Ramchat and Malini Arumugam for seeing us through the rest, to the other editors and production team at Springer, as well as to Alessandro Capone and Jacob Mey for encouraging us to write this book in the first place and to Alessandro for including it in his book series and waiting patiently for it to be done. We also want to extend heartfelt thanks to all of the contributors to Chap. 7 who took the time to think about the way they connect their work to the world and send a description to us to be published here (in the order they appear in Chap. 7): Ruth Wodak, Teun van Dijk, Andreas Musolff, Leticia Yulita, David Machin, Felicitas Macgilchrist, Marcus Otto, Riem Spielhaus, Richard Jackson, Paul Chamness Iida, John Richardson, Theo van Leeuwen, Rebecca Rogers, Paul Renigar, Emily Suh, Katelyn Hemmeke, Ian Roderick, Timothy Reagan, and Grace Fielder—and ourselves. We also appreciate the help with references and formatting that Aiqing Yu and Uma Ganesan gave us. And finally, thanks to you, our readers, who purchased this book. It means a lot to us that you are reading it, and we hope that after you do, you will be inspired to do CDA/ CDS work of your own.

1  Waugh, L.R., Catalano, T., Al Masaeed, K., Hong Do, T., & Renigar, P. (2016). Critical discourse analysis: History, approaches, relation to pragmatics, critique, trends and new directions. In A.  Capone. & J.  Mey (eds.). Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. (pp. 71–136). Berlin: Springer Verlag (in the series “Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy and Psychology”).

vii

Contents

1 Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), and Beyond ������������������������������������    1 1.1 General Definition of CDA, CDS and CDA/CDS����������������������������    1 1.2 Three Recent Examples of CDA/CDS����������������������������������������������    4 1.2.1 “Fabricating the American Dream in US media Portrayals of Syrian Refugees: A Discourse Analytical Study” (Bhatia & Jenks, 2018) ��������������������������������������������    4 1.2.2 “Traces of Neoliberalism in English Teaching Materials: A Critical Discourse Analysis” (Babaii & Sheikhi, 2018)������������������������������������������������������    5 1.2.3 “The Selfie as a Global Discourse” (Veum & Undrum, 2018)������������������������������������������������������    6 1.3 What is in this Book��������������������������������������������������������������������������    7 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   11 2 Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts����������������   13 2.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   13 2.2 British Linguistics: John R. Firth and Bronislaw Malinowski����������   14 2.3 Michael A. K. Halliday and the Systemicists ����������������������������������   15 2.3.1 Introduction: Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG), Language as Social Semiotic (SocSem) ������������������������������   15 2.3.2 Stratal-Functional Model, System, Structure and SFG��������   19 2.3.3 Text and Context: Register and Genre����������������������������������   20 2.3.4 The Three Metafunctions: Ideational, Interpersonal, and Textual����������������������������������������������������������������������������   23 2.3.5 Grammatical Metaphor ��������������������������������������������������������   28 2.3.6 ‘Appliable Linguistics’ and Social Action����������������������������   29 2.4 Critical Linguistics (CritLing)����������������������������������������������������������   31 2.4.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������   31 2.4.2 CritLing and Other Approaches to Linguistics ��������������������   32 ix

x

Contents

2.4.3 Definition of CritLing; Fowler et al. (1979a): ‘Language and Control’, and Other Work����������������������������   34 2.4.4 Kress and Hodge 1979: ‘Language as Ideology’������������������   39 2.4.5 CritLing: Interdisciplinarity and a ‘Useable’ Approach ������   40 2.4.6 Kress 1989: ‘Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice’������������������������������������������������������   42 2.5 Hodge and Kress 1988: ‘Social Semiotics’ and Other Work������������   45 2.6 Kress and Van Leeuwen 1996: ‘Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design’ ������������������������������������������������������   49 2.6.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������   49 2.6.2 General Overview ����������������������������������������������������������������   52 2.6.3 The Three Metafunctions in Visual Design��������������������������   53 2.6.4 Other Facets of the Visual ����������������������������������������������������   59 2.7 Kress and van Leeuwen 2001: ‘Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication’��������������   61 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   63 3 Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   71 3.1 Introduction: Discourse Analysis (DA) and van Dijk 1985: ‘Handbook of Discourse Analysis’ ��������������������������������������������������   71 3.2 Start of CDA ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   73 3.2.1 Symposium in Amsterdam in 1991: Similarities and Differences in the Original CDA Group������������������������   73 3.2.2 CDA: Consolidation and Development��������������������������������   78 3.3 Gunther Kress: Multimodal Learning and Education����������������������   82 3.4 Introduction to Norman Fairclough, Teun Van Dijk, Ruth Wodak, and Theo van Leeuwen ����������������������������������������������   83 3.5 Norman Fairclough ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   83 3.5.1 Introduction and Early Work������������������������������������������������   83 3.5.2 Fairclough 1989a: ‘Language and Power’, i.e., Discourse, Power, and Ideology������������������������������������   85 3.5.3 Critical Analysis of Discourse Samples: Description, Interpretation, Evaluation��������������������������������   89 3.5.4 Fairclough 1992a: ‘Discourse and Social Change’ and 1995a: ‘Media Discourse’����������������������������������������������   90 3.5.5 Fairclough 1995b: ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ and Early CDA����������������������������������������������������������������������   93 3.6 Teun A. van Dijk ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   94 3.6.1 Introduction and Early Work������������������������������������������������   94 3.6.2 Project on Racism and Discourse; Discourse-Cognition-­Society Triangle ��������������������������������   97 3.6.3 van Dijk 1984: ‘Prejudice in Discourse’������������������������������  100 3.6.4 Other work on Ethnic Prejudice and Racist Ideologies��������  103 3.6.5 Media Discourse and Racism�����������������������������������������������  104 3.6.6 van Dijk 1993: ‘Elite Discourse and Racism’ and Other Work ��������������������������������������������������������������������  107

Contents

xi

3.7 Teun van Dijk and Ruth Wodak: Productive Professional Collaboration����������������������������������������������������������������  109 3.7.1 Shared Intellectual and Social Justice Interests��������������������  109 3.7.2 Consequences of Research on Racism and Antisemitism������������������������������������������������������������������  112 3.8 Ruth Wodak��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  113 3.8.1 Introduction and Early Work������������������������������������������������  113 3.8.2 Wodak 1989: ‘Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse’����������������������������������������������  115 3.8.3 Wodak 1996: ‘Disorders of Discourse’: Discourse Sociolinguistics and Early CDA ������������������������������������������  116 3.8.4 Discourses of Antisemitism: Waldheim, Haider and Discourses of National Identity��������������������������������������  119 3.8.5 Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) in 2000 ������������������  121 3.8.6 Discourse, Politics, Identity (DPI) Wittgenstein Research Centre��������������������������������������������������������������������  127 3.8.7 Wodak 2015: ‘The Politics of Fear’ and Research on Populism��������������������������������������������������������������������������  129 3.8.8 Biographer and Historian of CDA/CDS ������������������������������  130 3.9 Theo van Leeuwen����������������������������������������������������������������������������  131 3.9.1 Introduction and Early Work������������������������������������������������  131 3.9.2 Van Leeuwen 2005: ‘Introducing Social Semiotics’������������  133 3.9.3 van Leeuwen 2008a: ‘Discourse and Practice’; Toys as Discourse�����������������������������������������������������������������  135 3.9.4 Joint Work on Multimodality, Global Media Discourse and Semiotic Software: Machin, and Djonov and Zhao������������������������������������������������������������  138 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  141 4 The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS������������������������������������������������������  155 4.1 Introduction: CDA, CDS and CDA/CDS������������������������������������������  155 4.2 Panoply of Work in CDA/CDS: Criteria for the Main Approaches ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  158 4.2.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������  158 4.2.2 Issues with the Main Approaches to CDA/CDS ������������������  159 4.2.3 Synthesis of our Analysis of the Major Approaches������������  161 4.2.4 What the Approaches Have in Common������������������������������  163 4.3 Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA)������������������������������������������  164 4.3.1 The Major Properties of DRA����������������������������������������������  164 4.3.2 The Values of DRA ��������������������������������������������������������������  166 4.3.3 Changes in Fairclough’s Approach ��������������������������������������  167 4.4 Sociocognitive Approach (SCA)������������������������������������������������������  170 4.5 Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA)��������������������������������������������  173

xii

Contents

4.6 Social Semiotics (SocSem) and Multimodal Approaches (MCDA)������������������������������������������������������������������������  178 4.6.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������  178 4.6.2 SocSem Tools������������������������������������������������������������������������  180 4.6.3 SocSem and Classification����������������������������������������������������  182 4.6.4 SocSem and Multimodality��������������������������������������������������  183 4.6.5 Multimodality, SocSem and Other Approaches��������������������  185 4.7 Dispositive Analysis Approach (DPA)����������������������������������������������  187 4.8 Corpus Linguistic Approach (CorpLingA) ��������������������������������������  190 4.9 Cognitive Linguistic Approaches (CogLingA) ��������������������������������  194 4.9.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������  194 4.9.2 Critical Metaphor and Metonymy Analysis��������������������������  196 4.9.3 Hart’s Approaches to CogLing���������������������������������������������  200 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  202 5 Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses��������������������������������������������������  219 5.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  219 5.2 Widdowson vs. Fairclough����������������������������������������������������������������  221 5.3 The ‘Critical’ Aspect������������������������������������������������������������������������  223 5.4 Methodological and Theoretical Shortcomings��������������������������������  224 5.5 Context����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  225 5.6 Relationship with Readers of Texts��������������������������������������������������  228 5.7 Paying Attention to Other Fields and Modalities������������������������������  228 5.8 Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA)��������������������������������������������������  231 5.9 The Move (from PDA) to Generative Critique ��������������������������������  234 5.10 Attention to Culture in the Construction of Discourse ��������������������  235 5.11 Researcher Reflexivity����������������������������������������������������������������������  236 5.12 Redefining CDA/CDS����������������������������������������������������������������������  237 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  240 6 CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections ��������������������������������  247 6.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  247 6.2 CDA/CDS and Critical Applied Linguistics ������������������������������������  248 6.3 CDA/CDS and Education ����������������������������������������������������������������  252 6.3.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������  252 6.3.2 Norman Fairclough ��������������������������������������������������������������  253 6.3.3 Rebecca Rogers: Primary and Secondary Education������������  258 6.3.4 James Paul Gee ��������������������������������������������������������������������  260 6.3.5 CDA/CDS, Education and the Media ����������������������������������  262 6.4 CDA/CDS and Sociolinguistics��������������������������������������������������������  266 6.5 CDA/CDS and Anthropology/Ethnography��������������������������������������  271 6.6 CDA/CDS and Culture����������������������������������������������������������������������  276 6.7 CDA/CDS and Gender Studies ��������������������������������������������������������  285 6.8 CDA/CDS and Queer Linguistics/Theory/Studies ��������������������������  290 6.8.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������  290 6.8.2 Queer Theory/Queer Studies������������������������������������������������  291

Contents

xiii

6.8.3 Queer Linguistics and Queer Discourse Studies������������������  291 6.8.4 Special Issue of ‘Discourse & Society’ on Queer Linguistics/Queer Discourse Studies��������������������  293 6.9 CDA/CDS and Pragmatics����������������������������������������������������������������  294 6.9.1 Introduction: Definition of Pragmatics ��������������������������������  294 6.9.2 Pragmatics Concepts in CDA/CDS Scholarship������������������  297 6.10 CDA/CDS and Ecolinguistics����������������������������������������������������������  301 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  306 7 What CDA/CDS Scholars are Doing to Make a Difference in the World����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  325 7.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  325 7.2 Ruth Wodak��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  327 7.2.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  327 7.2.2 Attempting to Make a Difference ����������������������������������������  328 7.3 Teun A. van Dijk ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  331 7.3.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  331 7.3.2 Practical and Social Applications of van Dijk’s Work����������  331 7.4 Andreas Musolff ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  333 7.4.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  333 7.4.2 Reaching the Public through CDA����������������������������������������  334 7.5 Leticia Yulita ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  334 7.5.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  334 7.5.2 Using CDA to Inform Teaching��������������������������������������������  335 7.6 David Machin������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  336 7.6.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  336 7.6.2 Fostering the Development of Critical Citizens and Challenging Injustice ����������������������������������������������������  337 7.7 Felicitas Macgilchrist, Marcus Otto, and Riem Spielhaus����������������  338 7.7.1 Short Biography of Felicitas Macgilchrist����������������������������  338 7.7.2 Short Biography of Marcus Otto������������������������������������������  339 7.7.3 Short Biography of Riem Spielhaus ������������������������������������  339 7.7.4 Shaping and Changing How Discourse Unfolds������������������  339 7.8 Richard Jackson��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  340 7.8.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  340 7.8.2 How CDA Informs my Teaching, Public Engagement, Activism and Politics������������������������������������������������������������  341 7.9 Paul Chamness Iida (Known earlier as Paul Chamness Miller) ������  342 7.9.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  342 7.9.2 Using CDA to Model how to Dialogue about and Advocate for Social Justice��������������������������������������������  342 7.10 John Richardson��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  344 7.10.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  344 7.10.2 Taking the Emancipatory Agenda of CDS out ‘Into the World’��������������������������������������������������������������������  345

xiv

Contents

7.11 Theo van Leeuwen����������������������������������������������������������������������������  346 7.11.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  346 7.11.2 For my Students��������������������������������������������������������������������  346 7.12 Rebecca Rogers��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  347 7.12.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  347 7.12.2 From Describing Educational Inequities to Creating Space for Social Justice: The Interventionist Promise and Potential of Critical Discourse Analysis����������  348 7.13 Paul G. Renigar ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  358 7.13.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  358 7.13.2 Moving CDA/CDS Beyond the Boundaries of Academia��������������������������������������������������������������������������  359 7.14 Emily Suh and Katelyn Hemmeke����������������������������������������������������  363 7.14.1 Short Biography of Emily Suh����������������������������������������������  363 7.14.2 Short Biography of Katelyn Hemmeke��������������������������������  364 7.14.3 Unmasking Ideology Underlying Adoption Discourse��������  364 7.15 Ian Roderick��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  366 7.15.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  366 7.15.2 Teaching against Employability��������������������������������������������  366 7.16 Timothy Reagan��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  368 7.16.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  368 7.16.2 Infusing a Critical Perspective on Linguistics Topics in the Educational Domain����������������������������������������  368 7.17 Grace E. Fielder��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  369 7.17.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  369 7.17.2 CDA/CDS and Community Outreach����������������������������������  370 7.18 Linda R. Waugh��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  370 7.18.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  371 7.18.2 Sign, Sign, Everywhere a Sign ��������������������������������������������  372 7.19 Theresa Catalano������������������������������������������������������������������������������  373 7.19.1 Short Biography��������������������������������������������������������������������  373 7.19.2 CDA/CDS and My Community��������������������������������������������  373 7.20 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  381 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  382 Epilogue������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  389 Reference����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  390 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  391

Preface

We did not just decide one day that what the world needed most was one more book about Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA1) or Critical Discourse Studies (CDS). Rather, the idea for this book came from the chapter about CDA (“Critical Discourse Analysis: History, approaches, relation to pragmatics, critique, trends, and new directions”) we had written (along with co-authors Khaled Al Masaeed, Tom Hong Do, and Paul Renigar) for the volume Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society, edited by Alessandro Capone and Jacob Mey (see Waugh et al., 2016).2 In that chapter, our primary goal was to describe CDA and its relation to pragmatics, but soon after we began to write it, we realized that there was so much to talk about and describe that we could not possibly fit them all into one chapter (even a very long one, as that chapter became). Capone and Mey agreed with us and suggested that we do a book on CDA. Our original aim was to include the history of Critical Linguistics (CritLing), which was the main source for CDA, and also to make the book broader than just CDA and its relation to pragmatics. We then decided to include a discussion of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) which CritLing—and some scholars in CDA—were influenced by, more about Social Semiotics (SocSem), as well as a larger discussion of the relation between CDA and CDS, which would be signaled by the title of the book and by more attention to CDS in the text, since they are both part of the same research domain/program, which we are calling CDA/CDS, as will be discussed later in the book. In the long run, it was not just a matter of taking the chapter and expanding on it—we made many changes, left out or shortened some discussions, added or lengthened others, and reconceived others, etc. In essence, the book became its own

1  For information about the acronyms and abbreviations used in this Preface and in the rest of the book, see the “List of Acronyms and Abbreviations.” 2  Waugh, L.R., Catalano, T., Al Masaeed, K., Hong Do, T., & Renigar, P. (2016). Critical discourse analysis: History, approaches, relation to pragmatics, critique, trends and new directions. In A.  Capone. & J.  Mey (Eds.). Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 71–136). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag (in the series “Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy and Psychology”).

xv

xvi

Preface

creature, going in its own direction, and forging its own path, which means that it is now both similar to and different from the 2016 chapter. At the same time, both CDA and CDS have changed between 2014, when we finished writing the chapter, and February 2018, our “cut-off” point for including anything new about the remarkable growth and evolution of this research domain. We also noted in our research the differing views and perspectives on CDA, especially the different categorizations of the main approaches to CDA/CDS. There were also the ways in which the field was changing in order to address new technologies and their influence and the role in areas of importance to CDA/CDS and also to forge interdisciplinary connections with many other research domains. That is, we realized the importance of describing in detail the development of this dynamic field, the work of its founders and its progression through the years, as well as the overlapping variety of theoretical foundations from which CDA/CDS scholars draw. As a result, we decided that there was a need for some synthesizing in order to show more general patterns in terms of definitions, terminology, approaches, and interdisciplinary connections. And, finally, we wanted to provide emerging and well-established scholars with a point of reference for different approaches and connections to disciplines as well as specific examples they can use to guide their own CDA/CDS scholarship. Hence, the book attempts to do all of this—synthesize definitions, recognize contributions by major scholars in the field, document its origin and development over time, describe major frameworks and interdisciplinary connections, and provide some recent examples of each. As a result, besides the text itself, we hope the reference sections at the end of each chapter will be a valuable resource for anyone interested in this area. Additionally, during the course of writing this book, many major political and social events have occurred, e.g., the vote for Brexit in the UK, the election of Donald Trump as President of the USA, evidence of Russian interference in the UK and the US elections, the rise of populist governments in Europe and worldwide, the (re)emergence of white-supremacist and neo-Nazi movements, the ongoing issue of refugees and (im)migrants, evidence of racism, antisemitism, bigotry and hate— and so forth—all of which are still continuing and have an enormous influence on the world we live in. These events have made us think harder and more deeply about the point of doing “critical” work. As we describe in our introductory chapter, CDA/ CDS is aimed at examining social inequality and how it is produced and reproduced through many different types of communication, including those that were established in the twentieth century as well as social media such as Twitter, TV news sources, and the myriad other new and emerging modes in the twenty-first century. At the same time, we began to see in the USA, Turkey, Brazil, and elsewhere (see, e.g., the online version of The Guardian for a more extensive list3) the continued weakening of the free press, as well as the mass awakening of women (e.g., Women’s March) and youth (e.g., the rise of the 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg 3  See also “The global slump in press freedom: Illiberal regimes are clamping down on independent media across the world”(2018, July 23), in The Economist. Retrieved from: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/07/23/ the-global-slump-in-press-freedom.

Preface

xvii

about climate change), and the recent emergence of activism among people of color, especially ‘blacks’, and so forth—and so we began to question why we do this work at all, if not to spur, or support in some small way, social change toward social justice. As a result, we decided to add a final chapter (Chap. 7) in which we feature the voices of both prominent and emerging CDA/CDS scholars who have agreed to tell readers of the book what they are doing to connect to the world and to address the issue of why CDA/CDS matters—what CDA/CDS scholars are doing to make a difference in the world. We hope our readers will find this book informative, useful, and thought-­ provoking, and that it will help by continuing, and creating, many conversations and much dialogue about CDA/CDS as well as by inspiring our readers to use their knowledge to do something good in the world. Lincoln, NE  Theresa Catalano Tucson, AZ   Linda R. Waugh

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

CDA CDS CDA/CDS CCDA/CCDS CL CLA CLS CogLing CogLingA CorpLing CorpLingA CritLing DA DHA DPA DRA DS FCDA MCDA SAA SocSem SCA SFG SFL

Critical discourse analysis Critical discourse studies Critical discourse analysis/Critical discourse studies Cultural approach to CDA/CDS Critical linguistics (in the writing of the critical linguists and others quoted in this book) Critical language awareness Critical language study Cognitive linguistics Cognitive linguistic approach Corpus linguistics Corpus linguistic approach Critical linguistics (in the text of this book) Discourse analysis Discourse-historical approach Dispositive analysis approach Discourse-relational approach Discourse studies Feminist critical discourse analysis Multimodal approaches to CDA/CDS [Multimodal CDA] Social actors approach Social Semiotics Sociocognitive approach Systemic functional grammar Systemic functional linguistics

xix

xx

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Other Abbreviations Chap. X

refers to another chapter in this book (e.g., see Chap. 3 means “see Chap. 3 in this book”). Sect. x.y.(z) refers to another section in this book (e.g., see Sect. 3.6.1 means “see chapter 3, section 6.1 in this book” and 3.6.1 (without Sect.) means the same thing. A short note about the acronyms and abbreviations in the book (including the Preface, the Contents, the chapter, section and subsection titles, and the texts of all the chapters): we have tried to use only a few acronyms and abbreviations since we know that too many would be difficult for the reader. Some of the acronyms and abbreviations are used in the texts we cite, but others are not—we created them for use in the context of this book. Since we assume that some readers will not read the chapters in their order in the book, each of the acronyms or abbreviations listed here (in alphabetical order) is first presented in each chapter in its full, written out form, and then given in its acronymic or abbreviated form. The only ones for which this isn’t true are CDA, CDS, and CDA/CDS, which are presented in full at the beginning of the book and then used throughout the book. Note that these acronyms change when translated (e.g., CDA becomes ACD in Spanish).

Foreword: Critical Discourse Analysis/Studies— Challenges, Concepts, and Perspectives Ruth Wodak Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Challenges This comprehensive overview is both timely and topical—and very important. In our fast changing, globalized and globalizing world, the systematic and critical, qualitative and quantitative analysis of text, talk, and image, of gestures, habitus, and performance, of interaction on front- and backstage provides entry points to understanding and explaining the many complex aspects of the rapid developments, the tensions, and contradictions, which involve all of us in different and context-­ dependent ways. This is why discourse studies (DS) and critical discourse analysis (CDA)/studies (CDS) have become ever more relevant, not only in linguistics, but also in neighboring social science fields. It is important, for example, to understand how and why demagogues still succeed in mobilizing large audiences after the terrible histories and experiences of the twentieth century—does this mean that one cannot learn from past failures, crises, and catastrophes (e.g., Forchtner, 2016)? Why are some people able to transgress all norms and conventions of dialogue, break taboos, and disrupt interaction—and others not; which challenges do social media pose; which positive and negative consequences does the use of social media imply and for whom, when, and where; which messages resonate in which way and why? And how are discrimination and exclusion legitimized in democratic societies; how are counter-discourses established, and so forth? The manifold transgressions and the normalization of the hitherto unsayable have multiple effects in and on our democratic and pluralist societies which should be carefully investigated (Wodak, 2018, 2020a): changing or even abolishing specific (communicative) institutional procedures may lead to discursive struggles and discursive shifts (Krzyżanowski, 2020) which might imply the

xxi

xxii

Foreword: Critical Discourse Analysis/Studies—Challenges, Concepts, and Perspectives

h­ ollowing out of such institutions, not abruptly but step by step (Wodak, 2019a); discourses enable, accompany, and manifest such developments. One of the huge challenges critical researchers are confronted with is the current rejection of academic elites and scholarly expertise by far-right populist parties and by their followers, i.e., parties which are governing or supporting governments in many countries in Europe and beyond. This leads to a rejection of fact-based knowledge. Facts are being degraded to the status of opinions, the so-called alternative facts. Manifold lies are disseminated by powerful people, without any consequences or sanctions, even without the need to apologize if such untruths are uncovered. Simple solutions naturally allow for rapid successes, yet they frequently turn out to be shortsighted, ineffective, or even false. Moreover, the performance of politics is gaining the upper hand at the expense of differentiated as well as complex content. Slogans have taken over the function of arguments; and superficial consensus—the function of a plurality of opinions and of discussion (e.g., Wodak, 2020b). CDA/S are not only concerned with analysis, interpretation, and explanation— but also with application. Apart from academic relevance, many practical applications have been achieved and implemented, especially in the fields of inter alia education, politics, medicine, advertising, social work, and journalism. Insights into power relationships, into the power of discourse, and power in discourse support awareness of hegemonic struggles and the creation of counter-discourses in such struggles. Accordingly, Holzscheiter (2010) distinguishes three modes of exercising power in discourse which should be considered when designing applications of the results of in-depth studies: power in discourse is defined as actors’ struggles with different interpretations of meaning. Power over discourse is defined as possessing general “access to the stage” in macro- and micro-contexts, i.e., processes of inclusion and exclusion. Finally, power of discourse relates to “the influence of historically grown macro-structures of meaning, of the conventions of the language game in which actors find themselves.”

Some Important Concepts Nowadays, DS involves scholars from a range of disciplines. Many actually contest the idea that it is derived from linguistics, even in the larger sense of the term. To this extent, DS could be considered to be not only a transdisciplinary or even post-­ disciplinary project but rather one which runs counter to the division of knowledge into specialized disciplines and subdisciplines (e.g., Angermuller, Maingueneau, & Wodak, 2014). Generally, “discourse” is used in two ways: (a) as a pragmatic understanding, predominant among linguistic and micro-sociological discourse analysts, who consider discourse as a process of contextualizing texts, language in use, the situated production of speech acts, or a turn-taking practice; (b) a socio-historical understanding, preferred by more macro-sociological discourse theorists interested in power, for whom “discourse” refers to the ensemble of verbal and non-verbal practices of large social communities (Wodak, 2019b).

Foreword: Critical Discourse Analysis/Studies—Challenges, Concepts, and Perspectives

xxiii

In order to have some meaning for somebody, texts need to be contextualized (Wittgenstein, 1967). For discourse analysts, therefore, meaning is a fragile and contested construction of the discourse participants. While discourse may take place between the physically present participants of an interaction in an institutional setting, it can also be produced in and by large communities mediated through ­newspapers, a range of online genres, social movements, and television. Embedded in larger socio-historical configurations and structures, discursive practices can operate with various types of media—oral, written, multimodal, allowing large or small numbers of participants to communicate over shorter or longer distances. The significant difference between DS and CDA/S lies in the constitutive problem-­oriented interdisciplinary approach of the latter. CDA/S does not study a linguistic unit per se (such as sentence structure, metaphors, pronouns, and so forth) but rather social phenomena which are necessarily complex and thus require a multi-/inter-/transdisciplinary and multi-method approach. In contrast to much common-sense understandings, the objects under investigation do not have to be related to negative or exceptionally “serious” social or political experiences or events; indeed, this is a frequent misunderstanding of the aims and goals of CDA/S and of the term “critical” which does not necessarily mean “negative” (Chilton, Tian, & Wodak, 2010). Any social phenomenon lends itself to critical investigation, to be challenged and not taken for granted, not to be essentialized. Also, in contrast to many beliefs, CDA/S has never been and has never attempted to be or to provide one single or specific theory (Wodak & Meyer, 2015a, 2015b). Indeed, Van Dijk (2008: 82) has pointed to “the lack of theory about the norms and principles of its [CDA’s] own critical activity.” More specifically, what is needed— Forchtner (2011: 2) argues—is an “extensive elaboration of why one’s critique is particularly reliable.” Furthermore, it is important, in my view, to distinguish between ideology (and other frequently used terms such as stance/beliefs/ opinions/Weltanschauung/position) and discourse (Purvis & Hunt, 1993: 474ff). Quite rightly, Purvis and Hunt state that these concepts “do not stand alone but are associated not only with other concepts but with different theoretical traditions” (1993: 474). Thus, “ideology” is usually (more or less) closely associated with the Marxist tradition, whereas “discourse” has gained much significance in the linguistic turn in modern social theory “by providing a term with which to grasp the way in which language and other forms of social semiotics not merely convey social experience but play some major part in constituting social objects (the subjectivities and their associated identities), their relations, and the field in which they exist” (1993: 474). The conflation of “ideology” and “discourse” might thus lead to an inflationary use of both “ideologies” and “discourses,” in which both concepts tend to simultaneously indicate texts, positioning, and subjectivities as well as belief systems, structures of knowledge, and social practices.

xxiv

Foreword: Critical Discourse Analysis/Studies—Challenges, Concepts, and Perspectives

Perspectives Critical scholarship can make a significant contribution to enlightenment, yet “scholarship” needs to take a stance and express itself in comprehensible ways, in many different public spheres, many languages, and via different genres of text and talk. Obviously, academics and intellectuals, of all people, belong to the so-called elites. Academia and academics must therefore seek to enter into dialogue with ­different groups of people, to answer questions, to listen, without a moralizing forefinger while at the same time indicating clear boundaries of the acceptable based on the principles of our pluralistic democracies, of human rights, and our constitutions. Theresa Catalano and Linda Waugh have produced a much-needed book—a book which helps answer some of the questions posed at the outset. It allows tracing the history of the discipline of CDA/S; and by so doing, it points to important new approaches to confront the major challenges our societies will have to cope with. This is why I hope that this book reaches and inspires many readers, inside academia and beyond. References Angermuller, J., Maingueneau, D., & Wodak, R. (2014). The discourse studies reader: An introduction, in: Angermuller, J., Maingueneau, D. & Wodak, R. (Eds.): The discourse studies reader: Main currents in theory and analysis. (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Chilton, P., Tian, H., & Wodak, R. (2010). Reflections on discourse and critique in China and the West. Journal Language & Politics 9(4): 489–507. Forchtner, B (2016). Lessons from the past? Memory, narrativity and subjectivity. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Forchtner, B. (2011). Critique, the discourse historical approach, and the Frankfurt School, Critical Discourse Studies 8(1): 1–14. Holzscheiter, A. (2010). Children’s rights in international politics: The transformative power of discourse, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Krzyżanowski, M. (2020). Discursive shifts and the normalisation of racism: Imaginaries of immigration, moral panics and the discourse of contemporary Right-­Wing Populism. Social Semiotics 30 (in press). Purvis, T., & Hunt, A. (1993). Discourse, ideology, ideology, discourse, ideology … The British Journal of Sociology 44(3): 473–499. Van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and context. A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wittgenstein, L. (1967[1953]). Philosophische untersuchungen, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Wodak, R (2018). Vom Rand in die Mitte—‘Schamlose normalisierung’. Politische Vierteljahres Zeitschrift 75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-018-0079-7. Wodak, R (2019a). Entering the ‘Post-Shame Era’—the rise of illiberal democracy, populism and neo-authoritarianism in EU-rope: The case of the turquoise-blue

Foreword: Critical Discourse Analysis/Studies—Challenges, Concepts, and Perspectives

xxv

government in Austria 2017/2018, in Special Issue “The Limits of EU-rope, edited by R. Foster & J. Grzymski, Global Discourse 9(1): 195–213. https://doi. org/10.1332/204378919X15470487645420. Wodak, R. (2019b). Discourse and European Integration. KFG Working Papers 86: FU Berlin. Wodak, R. (2020a). The politics of fear and hope: Europe at the crossroads. (in press). Wodak, R. (2020b). ‘The boundaries of what can be said have shifted’: An expert interview with Ruth Wodak (questions posed by Andreas Schulz) Discourse & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926519889109. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2015a [2009]). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In: R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.) Methods of critical discourse studies. (pp. 1–32, 3rd rev. edn). London: Sage. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1177/0957926519889109.

Chapter 1

Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), and Beyond

“To draw the consequences for political action from critical theory is the aspiration of those who have serious intentions, and yet there is no general prescription unless it is the necessity for insight into one’s own responsibility.” (Horkheimer quoted in O’Neill, 1979, from Wodak, 2001: 1)

1.1  General Definition of CDA, CDS and CDA/CDS Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA1), along with Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), is a problem-oriented interdisciplinary research movement, school, or field (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 3) which studies language and other semiotic systems in use and subsumes “a variety of approaches, each with different theoretical models, research methods and agenda” (Fairclough, Mulderrig, & Wodak, 2011: 357). It is interested in “analyzing hidden, opaque, and visible structures of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in language” (Wodak & Meyer, 2016b: 12). Its objective is to examine critically the relationship between language, ideology, power and social structure, for example, social inequality as it is constructed, re-produced, legitimized, and resisted in language and other modes of communication. CDA emerged after a small symposium in Amsterdam as a loosely networked group of scholars in the 1990s and has since then developed into a broadly based international program with a set of approaches that explores the relationships between discourse (language use) and the people who create and use it, and the social and political contexts, structures, and practices in which it occurs. It aims (Flowerdew and Richardson (2018: 1) “to advance our understanding of how discourse figures in social processes, social figures, and social change”. By critically studying discourse, it emphasizes the way in which language is implicated in issues  See the List of Acronyms and Abbreviations.

1

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 T. Catalano, L. R. Waugh, Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies and Beyond, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 26, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49379-0_1

1

2

1  Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Critical Discourse Studies (CDS)…

such as power and ideology that determine how language is used, what effect it has, and how it reflects, serves, and furthers the interests, positions, perspectives, and values of those who are in power. From this point of view, discourse perpetuates social patterns like domination, discrimination, exploitation, dehumanization, naturalization, and (ideologically driven) ‘common sense’—unless its usually hidden effects are exposed so that awareness, resistance, emancipation and social action can bring about social change and social justice. Thus, CDA typically is ‘normative’, in that it judges what is right and what is wrong and “addresses social wrongs in their discursive aspects and possible ways of righting or mitigating them” (Fairclough, 2010: 11). While we have been using CDA up to now in this introduction, we must note briefly that some scholars have begun to use the acronym CDS (for Critical Discourse Studies) for various reasons, such as to denote the expansion of CDA into a larger transdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary research domain, and/or to convey a rejection of language or language-based analysis as its major focus (see further discussion in Sect. 4.1). This means that CDS has recently replaced CDA for some (but not all) major scholars in the field in their most recent publications. In this book (see below Sect. 1.3 and Chaps. 2 and 3) we are taking a historical look at CDA, starting from its origins in Critical Linguistics (CritLing) in the 1970s to its development into CDA in the 1990s and early 2000s, to currently, when it is referred to as either CDA or CDS or both (and we use either one in our discussion, depending on the scholar or approach). And when we talk about general trends in this research area, we use our own acronym ‘CDA/CDS’, which recognizes the historical and intellectual ties between them and at the same time is a more inclusive way of referring to all the scholars and all the approaches in this domain. As we will see, many of the statements in these three opening paragraphs (and not just the issue of CDA vs. CDS) are highly contested, not only by those who have had sometimes very strong critiques of CDA/CDS (see Chap. 5), but also by those who practice it. There are many different approaches to CDA/CDS and not all their adherents agree with others on basic questions or even recognize their affinity with each other. As said above, scholars differ on whether or not language (or linguistics) should be central and, as a result, some bring in semiotic and multimodal approaches which deal with the meaning potential of modes besides language and analyze them differently. Furthermore, scholars differ in their definitions of the terminology they use (e.g., ‘discourse’, ‘critical’, ‘context’). These, and other differences will be discussed in Chap. 4 and elsewhere, but for a more detailed description see Wodak and Meyer (2016a). As for the commonalities across the approaches to CDA/CDS, Wodak and Meyer (2009b: 2) provide a helpful list of seven dimensions (see van Dijk, 2007; Wodak, 2008) of discourse studies (DS, and DA, in Wodak, 2001), which “some parts of the new fields/paradigms/linguistic sub-disciplines of semiotics, pragmatics, psychoand sociolinguistics, ethnography of speaking, conversation analysis” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 2) that deal with discourse with a non-critical approach have in common. The seven dimensions are (italics, single quotes, and bullet points in the original):

1.1  General Definition of CDA, CDS and CDA/CDS

3

• an interest in the properties of ‘naturally occurring’ language use by real language users (instead of a study of abstract language systems and invented examples) • a focus on larger units than isolated words and sentences, and hence, new basic units of analysis: texts, discourses, conversations, speech acts, or communicative events • the extension of linguistics beyond sentence grammar towards a study of action and interaction • the extension to non-verbal (semiotic, multimodal, visual) aspects of interaction and communication: gestures, images, film, the internet and multimedia • a focus on dynamic (socio)-cognitive or interactional moves and strategies • the study of the functions of (social, cultural, situative [situated] and cognitive) contexts of language use. • an analysis of a vast number of phenomena of text grammar and language use: coherence, anaphora, topics, macrostructures, speech acts, interactions, turn-­ taking, signs, politeness, argumentation, rhetoric, mental models and many other aspects of text and discourse. They also go on to say that “the significant difference between DS and CDS (or CDA) lies in the constitutive problem-oriented, interdisciplinary approach of the latter, apart from endorsing all of the above points” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 2)— as well as its critical stance. These will be discussed throughout this book, but we would like to note here that some scholars also refer to this approach as “multidisciplinary” (e.g., van Dijk, 1998, 2009, 2016), “cross-disciplinary” (Wodak, 2001) or “transdisciplinary” (see Fairclough, 2009, 2015) when referring to CDA/CDS, or at least their own approach to CDA.  In addition, Wodak and Meyer (2009a, 2009b/2016a, 2016b) distinguish between “interdisciplinary” as characteristic of the “theoretical framework” as a whole vs. its application to “the collection and analysis of data” (see Sect. 4.5 for more on this in relation to Wodak’s discoursehistorical approach). We have decided to use inter-/multi-/cross-/trans-­disciplinary interchangeably, in relation to the way that scholars we discuss use the terms themselves, without differentiation and without attempting to take sides. In this case, we adhere to the adage “let a thousand flowers bloom”. In principle, CDA/CDS can be used in relation to any type of topic, in any type of discourse, in any type of medium (discourse modality), adopting a variety of types of methodology—although a given CDA/CDS scholar or group of analysts will prefer/focus on one or more of these, according to their own predilections. With these provisos in mind, we can say that many of the topics that CDA/CDS takes up include the unjust or biased treatment of people based on differences (e.g. religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, social (or socioeconomic) class/status, nationality/citizenship status and stereotyping) and the related use of language, discourse and other semiotic phenomena by groups (e.g. Wall Street CEOs, corporations, Mafia, politicians, governments, media) to gain power, stay in power, or oppress minority groups. In addition, much CDA/CDS work often focuses on capitalism, globalization, and/or neoliberalism (which are all highly inter-connected), as well as nationalism, language planning/policy and pedagogy, including the analysis

4

1  Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Critical Discourse Studies (CDS)…

of teaching materials and policy documents, and more recently, environmental (climate change) discourse. These are treated in a wide variety of discourse contexts including media discourse of all types (e.g. film, newspapers, TV news broadcasts, internet, email, social media—e.g., Twitter and other social media), as well as elite, literary, and narrative discourses, government policy meetings, advertising, legal/ courtroom, medical, cross-/inter-/transcultural, parental/family discourses and conversational interaction. The discourse modalities studied are equally wide: e.g., written texts, monomodal and multimodal texts, visual, oral/aural/spoken, musical, natural/mechanical, etc.—although the majority of work in CDA/CDS is on linguistic and visual modalities.

1.2  Three Recent Examples of CDA/CDS In order to grasp more concretely what CDA/CDS is and does, we begin by giving brief synopses of three recently published articles, which in no way represent all approaches; rather, they provide a quick glance at both how CDA/CDS works and three different trends in the field. In doing so, our intention is not to restrict the description of the field to only these specific applications of CDA, but rather to aid readers in understanding the range of research being done that calls itself CDA or CDS. Furthermore, the examples illustrate CDA/CDS and its use and need in society as well as the different types of topics and issues covered and the range of countries and disciplines of CDA/CDS scholars. The articles were chosen as suitable examples of CDA/CDS based on the following criteria: (1) The article specifically mentions CDA or CDS and clearly fits within our definitions of what CDA/CDS is and does; (2) The article was published in 2018, the year much of this book was written in order to show the most recent trends and issues, and in a well-regarded journal; (3) The three examples together represent different topics, as well as genders, nationalities and locations of the authors; (4) The articles vary in theoretical framework and disciplines of interest; and (5) The articles represent high-quality research that poses important and interesting questions for our readers to ponder. In our discussion below we use some technical terminology that is contained in the articles and which we will define later in the book.

1.2.1  “ Fabricating the American Dream in US media Portrayals of Syrian Refugees: A Discourse Analytical Study” (Bhatia & Jenks, 2018) This first example by two associate professors of English from Hong Kong Polytechnic university—Aditi Bhatia and Christopher J. Jenks—investigates media portrayals of refugees within the context of the ‘American Dream’ and argues that

1.2  Three Recent Examples of CDA/CDS

5

the political climate in the era of President Trump of the US (2017-present) demands a new understanding of “how the refugee construct is connected vis-à-vis the political rhetoric of the Trump Administration, as well as to the Syrian refugee crisis” (2018: 221). The authors analyze opinion, editorial, and news pieces from American mainstream media as well as independent news sources from both liberal and conservative perspectives. Selected data focuses on Syrian refugees or refugees in the context of the Syrian war and is examined in terms of: (1) Historicity (e.g., how events are recontextualized based on how participants connect actions to the past); (2) Linguistic and semiotic action (e.g., conceptualisations of the world via critical metaphor analysis); and (3) Social impact (e.g., the categorizations of people according to the way they are represented in the text). The analysis reveals how the American Dream is used as a rhetorical tool to inform the media’s respective audiences as to how individuals come to understand policy decisions. Furthermore, Syrian refugees are shown to fit within two largely opposing narratives: they are (a) hardworking victims of war in need of protection, or (b) a threat to American life that must be feared. Bhatia and Jenks carefully reveal the rhetorical tools by which these narratives are portrayed, demonstrating how in the case of (a), the media acts as “social educator”, evaluating the crisis through the frame of past war experiences and reminding Americans of the consequences of war; but at the same time, it invokes in audiences “not only a sense of guilt, but also the need for White saviourism” (2018: 227). This narrative represents a “humanistic perspective on the crisis while at the same time exploiting a banal understanding of the American dream” (2018: 221). In the case of (b), the authors show how the opposing narrative fits within the Trump campaign discourse of ‘Make America Great Again’ by positioning Syrian immigrants as “not great” and as a result, Americans must meet Syrians with “disdain, anger, and fear” in order to protect the “American way of life” (2018: 234). Bhatia and Jenks come to a revealing and foreboding conclusion about the value of the media in general, noting that, regardless of political affiliation, media sources compete to project their story (which typically differs from the opposing political view) and do an excellent job of persuading readers to support their viewpoint. Yet, even though they make it easy for readers to align with their view, this obviously does not mean that the media sources are trustworthy.

1.2.2  “ Traces of Neoliberalism in English Teaching Materials: A Critical Discourse Analysis” (Babaii & Sheikhi, 2018) This study by Esmat Babaii, an associate professor of applied linguistics at Kharazmi University in Iran, and Mohammad Sheikhi, who has an MA in Teaching English as a Foreign Language, is one of many CDA/CDS articles that take up Fairclough’s call (2015: 252, see Sect. 3.5.5) to expose neoliberal ideologies and fight back against them. Here they study those ideologies as manifested in English language

6

1  Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Critical Discourse Studies (CDS)…

textbooks used in Iranian private language institutes. Rather than taking a sweeping approach that condemns all “Western” values seen in English teaching, Babaii and Sheikhi (2018) use systematic and careful analysis to show exactly how neoliberal thinking is manifested in textbooks and how it shapes (or attempts to shape) learners’ views of the world2. In an informative discussion of neoliberalism and the way that multicultural competence is viewed as another type of human capital in a world where market values reign, the authors show how English is commonly portrayed as a commodified skill and teachers are the providers of this skill to learners. On the basis of a corpus consisting of 67% of the English language teaching materials in the language institutes of Tehran, the authors use Fairclough’s approach to analyze the constraints that are put on Iranian learners by American and British publishers on content (e.g., type or category of information provided in the books) and the relations/subjects (e.g., type of social relationships and roles ascribed to the people— aka ‘social actors’—depicted in the material). Their findings expose language examples that convey high value placed on competition among individuals, hypothetical scenarios that give importance to economic concerns over healthcare and well-being, and that in highlighting a cosmopolitan and globalized world, English-­ speakers are valued over non-English speakers and Anglo-American cultures/locations are shown in more positive ways and are advocated for over “Eastern” ones. The authors conclude by calling for teachers to utilize critical pedagogy to counter the “inculcation” found in the textbooks that naturalizes “partial and interested practices to facilitate the exercise and maintenance of power” (2018: 261). Hence, by teaching critical thinking and sensitizing students to the “overt as well as covert messages they encounter in the media and teaching materials”, teachers can use the textbooks they are given while employing critical pedagogy to counter the neoliberal thinking expressed in them.

1.2.3  “ The Selfie as a Global Discourse” (Veum & Undrum, 2018) This final example of recent CDA/CDS work, by Aslaug Veum, an associate professor in Text and Communication Studies at the University College of Southeast Norway, and Linda Victoria Moland Undrum (2018), who holds a Master’s degree in Text and Communication Studies and is a critical multimodal discourse analysis (CMDA, see Sect. 4.6)3 of meaning-making as it occurs through digital self-­portraits known as ‘selfies’.

 See Chap. 4 for a more detailed discussion of neoliberalism and CDA/CDS’s role in resisting it.  Our readers will see in Chaps. 2, 4, and elsewhere that we refer to this approach as MCDA or Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis, but as we note in that chapter, some scholars also refer to it as Critical Multimodal Discourse Analysis (e.g., CMDA) as is the case with Veum and Undrum. Nevertheless, both acronyms refer to the same approach, which examines not only language but all elements of communication; in this particular case, the main focus is on image and text (including 2 3

1.3 What is in this Book

7

Utilizing CDA/CDS, social semiotics, and multimodality, and drawing on a number of scholars from these areas, the authors examine the meaning potential of the selfies with regard to Halliday’s (1994) “meta-functions” of language (discussed in Sect. 2.3.4). Additionally, their study frequently draws on Kress and van Leeuwen’s work (1996, 2001, which we discuss in detail in Sect. 2.6, especially Sect. 2.6.3). With a corpus of 100 selfies published on Instagram, the authors examined interaction with viewers via gaze and camera shot/angle, whether the person was represented within a contextualized setting and as performing an action (or not), and whether or not the images appeared to be digitally edited. The findings show that the majority of selfies are of single individuals who are largely under the age of 30 and that more women than men were selfie producers. Interestingly, most of the selfies were images of the subject in passive positions, although the few selfies that showed the subjects to be participating in an ongoing act or in essence, doing something, were of men. Typically, the selfies were shown in settings that don’t indicate time or place and are highly de-contextualized; moreover, they were also “designed, calculated and generalized” through digital editing (2018: 93). The authors also found that the majority of the images were “demanding images” in which the person gazes directly at the viewer, and most of the images had high angles, communicating power on behalf of the viewer, and they presented themselves horizontally and frontally, with no intent of expressing power for the person in the image, but rather constructing themselves as friends. Additionally, the meaning potential of the texts balanced between making the statement of “this is me” to “this is how I want to be” (2018: 93). Text analysis revealed the common use of hashtags as well as slang and abbreviations (e.g., #wbu? [what about you?]), and a “style of the street” that conveyed a particular identity and resembled “advertising style”, as discussed by Fairclough (1992, 1995, see Sects. 3.5.4 and 3.5.5) (2018: 97). The authors conclude that image banks have influenced the visual norm of social media, leaving traces of globalization and the marketization of discourse. In essence, even though selfie-makers do not have to fulfill commercial targets such as in advertising, they seem to adapt a homogenized multimodal language co-opted from commercial venues, thereby “spreading values and interests of global corporations” (2018: 100). As a consequence, social media users receive a limited view of how people (especially young women) should behave and look.

1.3  What is in this Book As we mentioned in our Preface, this book aims to help scholars and students understand what CDA/CDS is and what it does. As such, we synthesize many major publications that take up this topic, comparing and contrasting definitions and hashtags, slang and abbreviations).

8

1  Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Critical Discourse Studies (CDS)…

categorizations, demonstrating patterns and overall tendencies in terms of how scholars define the field and what they do, as well as discussing different (and often overlapping) approaches to CDA/CDS. Because our goal is to inform readers about what the field consists of and what has been published in it, we do not provide our own critique of particular approaches or trends (but we do highlight critiques by others in Chap. 5) nor do we take sides in disagreements about terminology, approaches or aims. Rather, we highlight what we believe each school of thought/ approach and each interdisciplinary connection contribute to scholarship in this area. CDA/CDS as a field is growing very fast, and new publications that touch on various issues within the field seem to be coming out continuously. As such, as our readers digest the contents of this book, we would like to note that it is impossible to cover everything, or mention everyone, and if we have overlooked anyone’s work in the process, it is not intentional. In addition, in February 2018, we had to stop collecting new studies in order to finish the book and prepare it for the publication process, and so in this regard, we invite new and well-established scholars alike to write about what we have missed, as well as new frontiers of the future. Before we outline the other chapters in this book, we would like first to say a few words about the Foreword written by Ruth Wodak, since it is an important addition that puts our book into context and underscores the importance of CDA/CDS in the current political/social climate of tensions, contradictions, and challenges, such as the rejection of fact-based knowledge and the people who produce it. She also provides her own up to date version of CDA/CDS: the definitions of ‘discourse’, the difference between DA and DS and critical DA, concern with explaining in detail how one’s critique is “reliable” (Forchtner 2011: 2), and also the difference between ‘discourse’ and ‘ideology’. She encourages CDA/CDS scholars to have conversations with, and listen to, different groups of people, while at the same time insisting on principles of pluralistic democracies and human rights. We now turn to the other chapters in this book in order to provide readers with a road map to what they will find as they continue to read. In Chap. 2, we provide the foundation for understanding CDA/CDS by first taking a brief look at British linguistics in the 1970s, especially Bronislaw Malinowski’s and Firth’s ideas. We then discuss Michael Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG), and Language as Social Semiotic (SocSem), including his stratal-functional model, notions of text and context (and register and genre), the three metafunctions, grammatical metaphor and ‘appliable linguistics’, as well as some ideas originated by James Martin. Next, we consider critical linguistics (CritLing): its definition, its relation to other approaches, its interdisciplinarity, important works such as Language and Control (Fowler Hodge, Kress, and Trew (1979) and Language and Ideology (Kress and Hodge 1979), its practicality and applicability as an approach, and its elaboration in the later work by Gunther Kress (1985/1989) on Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice. We then focus on the complex relationship between CritLing and SocSem, especially the further development of SocSem in Robert (Bob) Hodge and Kress’s book, Social Semiotics (1988) and, especially in Kress and Theo van Leeuwen’s work on the three metafunctions of visual design in Reading Images (1996). We

1.3  What is in this Book

9

conclude by reflecting on the development of multimodality in their book, Multimodal discourse (2001) and on the relationship between CritLing, SocSem and CDA. In Chap. 3, we introduce the general domain of discourse analysis (DA) (including text linguistics) and discuss van Dijk’s role in propagating DA and discourse studies (DS) as well as his (1985) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, which helped pave the way for the development of CDA. We then describe a small symposium in Amsterdam in January 1991 about DA and a ‘critical’ approach to DA—which eventually became critical discourse analysis (CDA). We describe briefly the events that led up to the symposium and what was achieved there followed by the consolidation and development of CDA. Next, we describe the five participants in the symposium, beginning with a short description of Kress’s work in the late 1980s/early 1990s, before he decided to pursue his interests in education. We then continue with a discussion of the work of Norman Fairclough, van Dijk, and Ruth Wodak, which includes detailed descriptions of their most important contributions before 1991, their work in the 1990s, in general their relation to what is now CDS/CDA, the productive professional collaboration of van Dijk and Wodak, and special attention to Wodak’s role as promoter, biographer and historian of how CDA has developed and changed over the years. We complete the chapter with a look at van Leeuwen’s work in SocSem, multimodality, and its relation to CDA. Chapter 4 further discusses the relationship between CDA and CDS and then describes the seven most common and best known approaches that are frequently cited in the literature, are used in the most publications, have appeared in major journals in the field and are currently commonly used by scholars. The approaches (their acronyms in this book and one or more of the major scholars who are associated with the approach) are: discourse-historical (DHA, e.g., Wodak), dispositive analysis (DPA, e.g., Siegfried Jäger and Florentine Maier), sociocognitive (SCA, e.g., van Dijk), dialectical-relational (DRA, e.g., Fairclough), social semiotic/multimodal (MCDA, e.g., Kress and van Leeuwen, David Machin), corpus linguistic (CorpLingA, e.g., Paul Baker and Gerlinde Mautner) and cognitive linguistic (CogLingA, e.g., Paul Chilton and Jonathan Charteris-Black). We compare them and discuss how widely they are known and listed as ‘approaches’ across CDA/ CDS scholarship as given in Table 4.1 (which also lists a few others). We then explain their origins and development over time, as well as the scholars associated with founding them or doing significant work in them and we include central concepts and distinguishing features. We also note the differing definitions of important terminology (such as ‘discourse’, ‘critical’, ‘context’, ‘power’ ‘history’, and ‘ideology’) since it varies widely across approaches. We end each section of this chapter by providing citations of articles so that readers interested in any particular approach to CDA/CDS can easily find some of the most recent work in that area. Chapter 5 describes the critiques of CDA/CDS, especially those which have been well-documented through the years. Although we use CDA/CDS in this discussion, we note that much of the critique was published when CDA was the only designation used, but we also recognize that many, but not all, of the critiques are applicable to CDA/CDS or, in a few cases, were addressed by work in CDS. We begin with a

10

1  Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Critical Discourse Studies (CDS)…

discussion of Widdowson’s well-known critique of CDA and Fairclough’s (and later, Wodak’s) response to it, followed by critiques of what ‘critical’ in ‘critical discourse analysis/studies’ means, as well as the need for reflexivity within the field, particularly in terms of what it actually accomplishes outside academia. Additionally, we address methodological and theoretical shortcomings, the need for more contextually oriented analyses that attend to cultural influences, relationships between readers, text producers, researchers and texts, and the initial lack of attention paid to other fields and modalities. In addition, we address the various responses to different problems with CDA including recent changes (in CDA or CDS) in focus and direction, the emergence of Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA), the move toward ‘generative critique’, more attention to culture in the construction of discourse, researcher reflexivity, and how the field continues to redefine itself. In Chapter 6 we clarify and underscore the importance of interdisciplinarity in CDA/CDS research and then describe the most salient and best known connections between CDA/CDS and many other disciplines or areas. This means that, on the one hand, we focus on CDA/CDS work that makes a connection to other disciplines and/or the integration of perspectives, etc. of other disciplines into CDA/CDS research, and on the other hand, we discuss areas of research that note their connection to CDA/CDS and the integration of CDA/CDS perspectives, theories, methods, etc. into their own scholarship. These connections include the following fields: critical applied linguistics, education, anthropology/ethnography, sociolinguistics, gender studies, queer linguistics, pragmatics and ecolinguistics. For each section, we describe the major focus of research as well as important concepts and how they connect to, or derive from, CDA/CDS. We then provide examples of work in each of these areas including a detailed list of references for each section for those interested in knowing more. Finally, Chap. 7 asks the important question of how and why CDA/CDS matters in the world. It documents some of the ways in which well known CDA/CDS scholars, as well as emerging scholars in the field, see their work as connected to the world around them outside of academia. This includes (in many cases), ways in which scholars reach their students (who in turn, take action) through CDA/CDS scholarship. In particular, the chapter describes, in the words of 21 CDA/CDS scholars, the ways they attempt to make social change through many different types of actions, such as (to name just a few), writing political books, creating blogs, being an expert witness, consulting for activist organizations and anti-racist associations, writing and singing songs, analyzing discourse practices as a member of a public school board, being a consultant on legal texts, writing Op Ed’s about political discourse, and advising NGO’s on refugee issues related to xenophobic climates. We then encourage scholars to reflect on why and how their CDA/CDS work matters. We conclude the book with our Epilogue, which re-frames our work in light of the global pandemic, worldwide protests against systemic racism and many political challenges at this time (midway through 2020). First, we begin with the history of CDA.

References

11

References Babaii, E., & Sheikhi, M. (2018). Traces of neoliberalism in English teaching materials: A critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(3), 247–264. Bhatia, A., & Jenks, C.  J. (2018). Fabricating the American dream in US media portrayals of Syrian refugees: A discourse analytical study. Discourse & Communication, 12(3), 221–239. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold. Fairclough, N. (2009). General introduction. In Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed., pp. 1–21). Harlow/NY: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (1st ed., Fairclough 1995). Harlow: Pearson Education. Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd, updated and expanded edition of Fairclough 1989, 2001). London: Longman. Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed., pp. 357–378). London: Sage. Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J.  E. (2018). Introduction. In J.  Flowerdew & J.  E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 1–11). London/New York: Routledge. Forchtner, B. (2011). Critique, the discourse historical approach, and the Frankfurt School. Critical Discourse Studies 8(1):1–14. Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Kress, G. (1985/1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Geelong, VIC: Deakin University Press; (1st edition, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press). Kress, G., & Hodge, R. (1979). Language as ideology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. [2nd edition: Hodge and Kress 1993]. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold. O’Neill, J. (1979). Kritik und Erinnerung. Studien zur politischen und sinnleichen Emanzipation. [Criticism and memory. Studies on Political and Emotional Emancipation]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. van Dijk, T. (Ed.). (1985). Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 4). London: Academic Press. van Dijk, T. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage. van Dijk, T. (Ed.). (2007). Discourse studies, Vol. I–V (Vol. I, pp. xvix–xlii). London: Sage Publications. [Sage Benchmarks in Discourse Studies]. University Press. van Dijk, T. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In Wodak and Meyer (2009). (Ed.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 62–86). London: Sage. van Dijk, T. (2016). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In Wodak and Meyer (Eds.), Methods in Critical Discourse Studies (3rd ed., pp. 62–85). London: Sage. Veum, A., & Undrum, L.  V. M. (2018). The selfie as a global discourse. Discourse & Society, 29(1), 86–103. Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (Eds). Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–13.) London/ Thousand Oaks: Sage. Wodak, R. (2008). Preface to the first edition: ‘How history is made’—The origins and aims of the project. In H. Heer, W. Manoschek, A. Pollak, & R. Wodak (Eds.), The discursive construction of history: Remembering the Wehrmacht’s war of annihilation (pp. xii–xvi). Houndsmills,

12

1  Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Critical Discourse Studies (CDS)…

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Translation from German original 2003: Wie Geschichte gemacht wird. Czernin Verlag. By Steven Fligelstone). Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009a). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009b). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R.  Wodak & M.  Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 1–33). London: Sage. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016a). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016b). Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.pp. 1–22). London: Sage.

Chapter 2

Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

2.1  Introduction This chapter and the next are devoted to the precursors to, and the beginnings of, CDA. CDA did not arise all at once, since the originating work was developed at different times in various different academic communities and, in some cases, without their knowing about similar work until later. It is widely agreed that Critical Linguistics (CritLing1), which was developed in the UK and Australia in the 1970s, was the earliest founding stone of CDA from within linguistics. It culminated in two important books at the end of the 1970s (Language and Control, Fowler, Hodge, Kress, & Trew, 1979a ; Language and Ideology, Kress & Hodge, 1979) and then others in the 1980s (especially Kress, 1989, Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice)—all of which we will discuss below. CritLing came out of the line of British functionalist linguistics begun by John R. Firth, which was infused with the ideas of his anthropological colleague Bronislaw Malinowski, and was quite different from the formalist and structuralist approaches to linguistics at that time. Firth’s most eminent successor was generally recognized to be Michael A.  K. Halliday, who developed Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) and Social Semiotics (SocSem). CritLing “was closely associated with ‘systemic’ linguistic theory (Halliday, 1978, 1985a)” (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997: 263), and thus many critical linguists and many of those—but by no means all—in CDA have used SFL and SFG as their main linguistic source. As a result, “an understanding of the basic claims of Halliday’s grammar and his approach to linguistic analysis is essential for a proper understanding of CDA” (Wodak, 2001: 8), as developed not only by Halliday himself but also other ‘systemicists’ who have “not only applied the theory, but also elaborated it” (e.g., Kress, 1976; Martin &

1  For this and other acronyms used in this chapter, see the List of Acronyms and Abbreviations. And for CDA/CDS see also (Chap. 4), Sect. 4.1.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 T. Catalano, L. R. Waugh, Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies and Beyond, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 26, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49379-0_2

13

14

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

Hasan, 1989; Martin, 1992). Halliday’s approach is very different from other linguists of the time (and now), and therefore, we will discuss those facets that are most important for an understanding of CritLing and CDA/CDS.  However, we should also say here that other approaches in linguistics, such as discourse analysis (DA) and text linguistics and also sociolinguistics, and/or in other disciplines (e.g., ethnography and linguistic anthropology in anthropology; speech act theory in philosophy and then pragmatics; microsociology in sociology) and the interdisciplinary area of pragmatics are important both as precursors to or developing at the same time as CDA/CDS and were used in CDA/CDS. We will define those very briefly below as they become relevant. But first, we set the scene briefly, with a few words about Firth and Malinowski.

2.2  B  ritish Linguistics: John R. Firth and Bronislaw Malinowski John Rupert Firth (Firth, 1957a; Bazell, Catford, Halliday, & Robins, 1966; Palmer, 1968a) was seen by many as the ‘father’ of British linguistics and founder of the London School (aka Firthian linguistics) at the University College of London (UCL). While he was familiar with the European and American approaches to linguistics at that time, he was very different from them, since he embraced many of the ideas of his well-regarded colleague at UCL, the British social anthropologist (of Polish origin) Bronislaw Malinowski (1923, 1935), the “father of modern ethnography” (Duranti, 1985: 196; see Sects. 4.5, 6.4, and 6.5), who worked on the “primitive” languages and cultures of the South Pacific. Malinowski declared that language is “an instrument of action” (Malinowski, 1935); thus, language is not self-contained; rather, it is dependent on the society and culture in which it is used (Kress, 1976: viii). In this way, language and culture are “bound up inextricably with one another and the context of situation is indispensable for the understanding of the words” (Malinowski, 1923: 306; see Firth, 1957b), where ‘context of situation’ is often understood as the speech event, generally defined (Jakobson, 1960; Hymes, 1964, 1972; see Sects. 6.4 and 6.5). Malinowski emphasized that the meaning of a word is its use, defined meaning as function in (social) context and declared that “the meaning of any particular instance of everyday speech is […] deeply embedded in the living processes of persons maintaining themselves in society” (1952: 13). He also pioneered the study of (types of) situational meaning (1957a: 179–180). Firth developed his theory of language based on these ideas and established his “functional” approach (see Firth, 1934, 1935, 1957c), which accepted Malinowski’s idea of context of situation, his “view of the relation between language and society” and his “definition of meaning as function in context” (Kress, 1976: x). He extended the latter to all linguistic units (e.g., sounds, words, sentences), and thus he didn’t consider the study of meaning (semantics) as a separate area of linguistics, since for

2.3  Michael A. K. Halliday and the Systemicists

15

him linguistics is ultimately concerned with the meaning of linguistic items in context. He also developed the notion of system as a set of choices in a given context; and eventually he characterized the language system as polysystemic, composed of several systems, including the systems of sound (for which he developed prosodic analysis, which many see as his major achievement—see Palmer, 1968b: 8; Kress, 1976: xv).

2.3  Michael A. K. Halliday and the Systemicists 2.3.1  I ntroduction: Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG), Language as Social Semiotic (SocSem) The British-born linguist, Michael Alexander Kirkwood Halliday (aka M.A.K. or Michael Halliday) had some of his education in China and the rest in the UK, wrote his dissertation under Firth, taught at various universities in the UK, and ultimately became Professor and head of the Department of General Linguistics at UCL. After spending some time away from UCL at other places (including in the US), he went to Australia in early 1976 as the Foundation Professor and head of the Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney, from which he retired in 1987. Starting with his writings in the early 1960s, he was productive until well into the 2000s (he passed away in April 2018). He developed his own wide-ranging functional theory of language and grammar—Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL, aka Systemic or Functional Linguistics) and Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG, aka Systemic or Functional Grammar), and language as Social Semiotic (SocSem)—with an emphasis on language purpose, language system and language use in social and cultural (i.e., semiotic) contexts. The systemic linguists (systemicists) who generally followed this theory and agreed with Halliday on many (but not all) points suggested various additions, emendations, and elaborations to his approach, especially his wife, Ruqaiya Hasan (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 1985; Martin & Hasan, 1989) at Macquarie University and his University of Sydney colleague James Martin starting in the 1980s (see Martin, 1992), Robin Fawcett (Fawcett, 2000) at Cardiff University, and his colleague and biographer Jonathan Webster, Director of the Halliday Centre for Language Studies at the City University of Hong Kong. We will pay special attention to SFL/SFG as it was defined from the 1970s until well into the 1990s in Australia, since it was during this time period when it was influential on CritLing, SocSem, and also (to a certain extent) on the beginnings of CDA; we will also identify proposals by Hasan and Martin in particular which are cited by others (see in particular Eggins, 2004, which we have used as our major source for description and exemplification of SFL). Halliday called his approach ‘functional’, that is, he viewed language as being as it is for the expression and exchange of meaning (having to do with purpose and

16

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

meaning); and eventually, he and his co-author and former student, Christian Matthiessen, said that “functionality is intrinsic to language […] the entire ­architecture of language is arranged along functional lines” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 31, bolding in the original)2. Due to this, he saw language as connected with all the areas that make human beings what we are, and he (and his colleagues, students, and followers) explored the overlapping areas of linguistics with other disciplines, such as sociology, anthropology/ethnography, psychology, history, politics, education (Halliday, 2002a: 5). In other words, one of the foundational ideas in SFL was that, rather than seeing linguistics as autonomous (independent) according to “the prevailing ideology of the 60s and 70s” (1978: 4, i.e., of the American linguist Noam Chomsky among others), Halliday believed that linguistics should be interdisciplinary, since each perspective for viewing language “is equally valid and language looks somewhat different from each of these vantage points” (2002a: 6) and an understanding of language needs to take all of this into account. Systemicists have looked at language in terms of, e.g., grammar, text and discourse analysis, stylistics, register variation, phonology (especially intonation and prosody), computational linguistics, language education, cognition, machine translation, and so on. However, Halliday favored the sociocultural angle and thus his major focus was on language use as an activity that takes place in sociocultural contexts3. He also believed that language system and language use are in a dialectic relationship; thus he disagreed with Chomsky and others, who divided abstract competence from concrete performance and viewed linguistics as the study of competence only (Halliday, 1978: 4; 1970: 145; see also Martin, 2013). For Halliday, SFL “provides something to think with, a framework of related concepts that can be drawn on in many different contexts where there are problems that turn out to be, when investigated, essentially problems of language” (2009: viii). It makes available what is necessary in order to “say sensible and useful things” (1994a: xv) about language (spoken or written) and understand the purposes it serves. This was based on four fundamental and intertwined theoretical claims about language use in the systemic approach (see Eggins, 2004: 3): (1) that it is functional: the form of language is determined by the functions it has evolved to serve; (2) that its function is semantic: it is “a system for making meanings” (Halliday, 1994: xvii); (3) “that these meanings are influenced by the social and cultural context in which they are exchanged” (Eggins, 2004: 3) and thus it is situationally and socioculturally contextual; and (4) “that the process of using language is a semiotic process, a process of making meanings by choosing” (2004: 3)—all of which Eggins summarized as a “functional-semantic approach to language” (2004: 3).

2  From now on, in all cases where there are italics or bolding in a quotation, those come from the original. 3  He made no separation between ‘society’ and ‘culture’ and so we will use both nouns interchangeably or together, as well as the adjectives ‘social’, ‘cultural’, and, especially, ‘sociocultural’.

2.3  Michael A. K. Halliday and the Systemicists

17

This functional-semantic approach is the backdrop for understanding how language operates in society. It “has developed as it has, both in the functions it serves, and in the structures which express these functions, in response to the demands made by society and as a reflection of these demands” (Kress, 1976: xx), as a means by which people can accomplish everyday social life (Eggins, 2004: 3) and thus, there is no separation between language and society. Halliday worked on “an interpretation of the functioning of language in socially significant contexts” (1973a: 8), including the deepest patterns of culture and social structure, as “the principle whereby the culture regulates the range of meanings […] that is typically associated by its members with particular social contexts” (Kress, 1976: xxi). He cited the British sociologist Basil Bernstein’s social-cultural theory of codes (1971, 1973, 1977), including restricted and elaborated codes, and the general principles of “sociological semantics” for relating meaning to “the social contexts in which language operates” (Halliday, 1973a: 8). His point was that meanings are “themselves the expression, or realization, of options in behavior, and some of these options have a broad socio-cultural significance”. And since the function of language is to make meanings, language is an “infinitely complex network of meaning potential” (1978: 5). For Halliday, this meant that language is a ‘social semiotic’ (SocSem, see Halliday, 1978; see also Halliday & Hasan, 1985; Hasan, 2015). He insisted on the term ‘social’ “to indicate that language is an evolved system arising from the exchange of meanings between the members of a community as they lead their daily lives. Language constructs social life, just as social life is constructed by language” (Steele, 1987: xxii). He also used the formulation ‘social semiotic’ to refer to “interpreting language within a sociocultural context, in which the culture itself is interpreted in semiotic terms” (1978: 2), since the context of situation is a “semiotic structure whose elements are social meanings” (Kress, 1976: xxi) and culture is “an edifice of meanings—a semiotic construct”. For Halliday’s SocSem approach, “semiosis”—“the making and understanding of meaning” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 5)—is done by social practices in a community. In this, he was influenced by the ideas of the American anthropologist-­ linguist, Benjamin Lee Whorf (1956), especially his insistence on the link between language, culture, and thought and his “view of language as the embodiment of a conceptual system” (Kress, 1976: x) and grammatical categories as providing what he called a “world view” (Whorf, 1956). Halliday (1973a, 1973b) credited Bernstein (1967, 1971, 1973) with showing that many interesting questions about language have to do with meaning differences and their different functions in different contexts. He also stressed “how the semiotic systems of the culture become differentially accessible to different social groups” (1978: 2), as in Bernstein’s notion of restricted vs. elaborated codes and that, in order to explain words like AIDS, macho, or privatization, one needs to “refer to their social origins and uses” (Fowler, 1991a: 91). Halliday lauded the American sociolinguist William Labov (1966, 1970a, 1970b) for having shown “how variation in the linguistic system is functional in expressing variation in social status and roles” (Halliday, 1978: 2) and advocated asking and answering such sociolinguistic questions as “How and why do people of

18

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

different social classes or other subcultural groups develop different dialectal ­varieties and different orientations towards meaning?” (1978: 108)4 for which he would have a SocSem answer. Furthermore, Halliday adopted “a perspective on language that is grounded in how we actually use language to construe reality and enact social relationships” (Webster 2009: 1), influenced again by Whorf (1956). For him, both language in general and the particular language(s) we learn, especially early in life, inform the way we see and understand the world, which means that our view of that world is the result of the social process by which children learn language (1978: 1; see also Halliday, 1975; Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Halliday, 1977a). In particular, the child is Learning how to mean (Halliday, 1975/1977), i.e., constructing the “functional semantic system of the mother tongue” (Kress, 1976: xxi) for use in future social interactions of meaning-making; at the same time, the child is building up an understanding of reality that is “inseparable from the construal of the semantic system in which the reality is encoded” (Halliday, 1978: 1). Indeed, “language (and other semiotic systems) has developed and is as it is because of the meanings that people have needed to create in order to communicate; semiotic systems (such as language) reflect, construe and enact our reality” (Andersen, Boeriis, Maagerø, & Tønessen, 2015: 2). In addition, in Halliday’s view, language use is in a dialectic relationship with society which it both reflects and creates, since language not only transmits the social order, it also potentially modifies it. And, since speakers have the possibility of creating new meanings and of acting upon and shaping the social world, language can change in order to adapt to the particular needs and interests of the society in which it is used and/or it can create or change those needs and interests (and thus he took exception to the strict separation of synchrony and diachrony/history in most other linguistic approaches). And finally, Halliday also used the formulation ‘language is a social semiotic’ to mean that “language, like other semiotic systems, is a systemic resource for making and exchanging meaning” (Webster, 2015b: 316), and it also refers to “interpreting language within a sociocultural context, in which the culture itself is interpreted in semiotic terms” (1978: 2), since culture (including society) is “an edifice of meanings—a semiotic construct”. And since language is one of the semiotic systems that both constitutes and is constituted by a given society, this enables members of that society to understand each other, act out social structure, affirm their statuses and roles, establish and transmit shared systems of value and knowledge, and so forth. This integration of language into a larger, SocSem framework (see Halliday, 1978; Halliday & Hasan, 1985; Hasan, 2015) started a robust intellectual trend in the field which still exists today in various forms (see Sects. 2.5, 2.6, and 3.9) and is connected with CDA/CDS (see Sect. 4.6); we view this as the SFL/SFG version of SocSem. 4  He included in this language in urban society vs. ‘antilanguages’, which are generated by an ‘antisociety’, i.e., criminal gangs, the underworld, subcultures, etc., which have their own distinct social structure and thus an alternative social reality, a different social world (see Halliday, 1978: 164–182).

2.3  Michael A. K. Halliday and the Systemicists

19

2.3.2  Stratal-Functional Model, System, Structure and SFG For his functional-semantic approach, Halliday developed a coherent and explicit framework “within which it is possible to state the relationship of units on all levels to each other” and which “provides a statement of the context of all linguistic units” (Kress, 1976: xvi). He proposed a “stratal-functional” (aka “scale-and-category”) hierarchical model of levels of language (1973a, 1976a, 1976b, 1978; inspired by Hjelmslev, 1953; Firth, 1957a; Lamb, 1966)—and later he used a set of concentric circles (Halliday, 1985a, 1994a). In both of these models he visualized language as going from meaning to form (and not the reverse, as in many other approaches). The highest stratum (outermost circle) is ‘semantics’, the meaning related to the clause or clause complex in the sentence. The other meaning-oriented units go (downward or inward) from clauses to phrases, then to words and morphemes, and then to form-­ oriented units, such as sounds and their combinations, at the bottom (the innermost circle). For the meaning- (or content-) oriented units (i.e., clause complexes, clause, phrase, word, morpheme) Halliday used Firth’s term, ‘lexicogrammar’ (or just ‘grammar’), which combines syntax, morphology and lexis (lexicon) and which he defined in terms of meaning potential, i.e., its capacity to be used for meaning-­ making. And since for him, all form carries meaning, he rejected the strict separation of meaning and form in many twentieth century linguistic approaches. But lexis is not a separate component since it includes not only vocabulary (words), but also, e.g., unanalyzed phrases, lexical/syntactic patterns (e.g., greeting formulas) and collocations. Thus lexis is the “delicate” end of (lexico)grammar, where “delicacy” means depth in detail (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2006: 6; see also Halliday, 1961; Hasan, 1996). In other words, lexis and grammar are at different ends of a cline and are therefore “different ways of looking at the same phenomenon” (Halliday & Mathiessen, 2006: 6). And lexicogrammar is a ‘natural’ symbolic system because “both the general kinds of grammatical pattern that have evolved in language, and the specific manifestations of each kind, bear a natural relation to the meanings they have evolved to express” (Halliday, 1994a: xviii; see also Kress, 1993). Inspired by Malinowski’s ideas about language as a range of possibilities (its potential), Prague School notions of the paradigmatic axis and Firth’s vision of language as polysystemic, Halliday defined system as a paradigmatic array of options (1973a: 51–52), of choices; for example, a clause may be imperative or indicative, and if indicative, declarative or interrogative, and if interrogative then either a yes/no question or a wh- question. Choices like these carry the meaning potential that lies behind every instance of text, i.e., what the speaker can do, say and mean in an act of communication; and the “power of language resides in its organization as a huge network of interrelated” and meaningful choices, which are “terms in systems, with interrelated systems represented in the form of a system network” (Webster, 2015b: 317). Language users select from those options for forming their texts and thus semantics includes the study of both the meaning potential of units in the system and the “realized” meaning in a specific instance of use (“instantiation”). In other words, in SFL there is no separation between ‘semantics’ (the study of meaning) and ‘pragmatics’ (the study of meaning in use) that other linguists make.

20

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

Once the language user makes the choices, they are arrayed in what Halliday called ‘structure’; this includes the syntactic (syntagmatic) arrangements and combinations, as in the clause; they are typically hierarchical in (semantic) organization but linear in (syntagmatic) realization. However, the ‘systemic networks’ that lie behind the structural array free the grammar from the restrictions imposed by structure since they precede it. In other words, Halliday construed the nature of language as going not only from meaning and function to form but also from system to structure; as a result, meaning and system have priority over, and determine, form and structure. This meant that his approach was very different from other contemporary approaches, since most of them were “primarily syntagmatic in orientation” (Halliday, 1994a: xxviii) and structuralist, with form at their foundation (‘formalist’), while he, in contrast, allied himself with primarily paradigmatic and functional(ist) ones, such as the Prague School (see Vachek, 1966), which takes semantics as its foundation and focuses on text (see Martin, 2013). In contrast with other approaches to language, Halliday wrote a detailed (although not complete) (multi)functional grammar of English that would provide a concrete example of his SFL/SFG approach and serve the needs of, e.g., linguistic, stylistic, educational and semiotic research into language (use). His An Introduction to Functional Grammar (IFG, Halliday, 1985a, 1994a; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, Matthiessen, 2014) is “an introduction both to a functional theory of the grammar of human language in general and to a description of the grammar of a particular language, English, based on this theory” (Matthiessen, 2014: xiii); and more specifically it is an explicit and detailed description of the meaning-making resources of English (see also Eggins, 2004). In Halliday’s view his functional grammar of English, as detailed in IFG, is “functional in three distinct although closely related senses” (1994a: xiii), i.e., in its interpretation of: (1) texts, (2) the system, and (3) the elements of linguistic structures. What is detailed in IFG, however, is not the systemic, but rather “the structural portion which determines how the options are realized” (Halliday, 1994a: xv) in their syntagmatic (syntactic) combinations (e.g., phrases, clauses, clause complexes). As a result, IFG is meant to account for how (the English) language is used; and thus “the aim has been to construct a grammar for purposes of text analysis; one that would make it possible to say sensible and useful things about any text, spoken or written, in modern English” and show “how, and why, the text means what it does” (1994a: xv).

2.3.3  Text and Context: Register and Genre In SFL, text (or discourse5) is a spoken or written instance of language use, an instantiation (realization) of the system and structure of a language “in any medium, that makes sense to someone who knows the language (cf. Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 5  Halliday occasionally uses the term ‘discourse’ and ‘discourse analysis’ in addition to ‘text’ and ‘text analysis’; but he doesn’t use ‘discourse’ in the sense proposed by Michel Foucault and adopted by many in CritLing and CDA/CDS (see Chaps. 3 and 4).

2.3  Michael A. K. Halliday and the Systemicists

21

Chap. 1)” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 3). As we will see, systemicists refer to text either with the mass noun ‘text’ (without an article), thereby giving it a more abstract meaning, or with the count noun ‘a/the text’ (with an article), which has a more concrete meaning. We will follow these conventions for the use of ‘text’, ‘a/ the text’6 (and a few other nouns) in our discussion below. Given the different perspectives in the SFL approach, text is both process, e.g., speaking, which is dynamic and unfolding in time, and product, e.g., what has been said, which may be present to us in memory as product, or a written text which is presented as product (Halliday, 1994a: xxii). (Spoken) text as process is at the same time (an) intersubjective activity, sociocultural event, semiotic encounter, act of meaning making, exchange of meaning in context of situation, semantic process of social dynamics, and so forth (Halliday, 1977b). At the same time text is the primary channel of the transmission of culture, and as such may be long-lasting or ephemeral, momentous/memorable or trivial/soon forgotten, spoken or written, prose or verse. As well, in Halliday’s view, the system and its realization in text are the same thing seen from different points of view, since they display deep complementarity. And since text takes place, and is realized, in a socioculturally defined context, it is the meeting point of that context and linguistic expression (Eggins, 2004: 21); indeed, Eggins (2004: 2) stated that Halliday’s interest was in “the meanings of language in use in the textual processes of social life, the ‘sociosemantics’ of text” (2004: 2). It should be underscored here that from systemicists’ point of view, “there is no single meaning ‘in’ a text which can be ‘uncovered’/‘discovered’ by analysts” (Birch & O’Toole, 1987a, 1987b: 11). Thus, textual meaning is not the sole property of the speaker/writer nor the hearer/ reader; and how a text is received (and understood) is not a passive process, since meaning is constructed and/or interpreted by writer and reader, speaker and hearer. Therefore, what SFL does is to offer a way for textual analysis and criticism to show “how, why and where those interpretations come from” (1987a, 1987b: 11). Halliday and other systemicists have participated in the analysis of both spoken and written highly valued literary texts and mundane everyday texts and insisted that no new branch or separate level of linguistics (e.g., stylistics) is needed for analyzing literary texts, scientific ones, a mystery novel, a fund-raising letter, or a dissertation (see Halliday, 2002b) since SFL/SFG should handle all types of text. Halliday described an (oral) defense of a dissertation that he participated in as a lexicogrammatical event (since it used lexical items/grammar to build the text of the defense), which exemplified the power of discourse to change the environment that engendered it (Webster, 2015b: 326), since at the end a Ph.D. was awarded and was thus an expanded performative. However, he also conceded that the latter “would

6  We think that this creative use of English by using ‘text’ (and other technical terms such as ‘clause’, ‘theme’, ‘subject’, ‘actor’) in the generic sense, without any article in a context where a speaker/reader of one of the versions of standard English would expect an article, expands the meaning making potential of English. But it is also one of the many reasons why some have found SFL/SFG difficult to understand. We also want to recognize the creative use of ‘mean’ in a generic sense, in ‘learning how to mean’ (and to a certain extent in ‘meaning-making’, ‘meaning potential’, etc.).

22

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

obscure a more fundamental point, which is that every text is performative in this sense. There can be no semiotic act that leaves the world exactly as it was before” (Halliday, 1994b: 254). The basic unit of text is clause, a lexicogrammatical unit which is made up of smaller units (phrases, words) and at the same time is part of higher units, such as clause complexes or complex sentences, which combine in various ways to create text. Clause contributes to the overall meaning of a text in three different ways. (1) It is a representation and conveys some type of information: a way of understanding since it construes ongoing experience with some type of meaning; thus, e.g., the ‘actor’ of the clause functions as the active participant in the process, the element portrayed by the speaker as the one who “did the deed” (Halliday, 1994a: 34). (2) It is an exchange: a transaction between speaker and hearer; thus, e.g., the ‘subject’ of the clause functions as the element the speaker makes responsible for the validity of what s/he is saying. (3) It is a message, which is construed by the way it functions in the overall text; thus, e.g., the ‘theme’ of the clause selected by the speaker functions as the point of departure for the message, as the ground(ing) for what s/he is going to say. And, according to Halliday, “Theme, Subject and Actor do not occur as isolates: each occurs in association with other functions from the same strand of meaning” (1994b: 34). The fact that Halliday discussed on the one hand lexicogrammar and semantics in terms of clause and on the other hand text in terms of cohesion and coherence (see below) was seen early on as a problem in his approach, which then led to a series of proposals by others in SFL/SFG about semantics at the text/discourse level, see, e.g., Martin’s proposal (1985, 1992; Martin & Rose, 2003, 2008; see Andersen et  al., 2015) for “discourse semantics”, which is higher level or outer concentric circle after (lexicogrammatical) semantics and thus the place where theme and rheme are located, among others. Halliday also insisted that an understanding of the text as a whole rests on the connection between it and its context since the actual choice among the various possibilities (options) takes place in a given context: the context of situation (situational configuration), which is the immediate (linguistic and situational) context (the context of the speech event) in which a given text is situated, to which it contributes and from which it gets (part of) its meaning. For some in SFL, there is another level or type of context: the (more variable and larger) sociocultural context, which encompasses all facets that are relevant for a text in a particular society. Halliday proposed that there are three aspects of the context of situation (the immediate context of the speech event) that are relevant collectively for understanding how we use language: field, tenor and mode (as in Halliday, 1985a, 1994b, although there has been some controversy about how they should be defined, which we can’t detail here). For Halliday, ‘field’ refers to characteristics of the social process and the subject-matter being treated—for instance, a discussion about Bernstein’s ideas in a classroom, based on a reading of some of his work. ‘Tenor’ touches on the social characteristics of the participants, their status(es), their social roles, their relationship (power or solidarity), etc.—for instance, one teacher and many postgraduate students engaged in discussion in a classroom. ‘Mode’ refers to

2.3  Michael A. K. Halliday and the Systemicists

23

the role language plays in the interaction, the kind of text that is being made by the interaction, the part it plays in the immediate context and various aspects of the channel of communication—for instance, a very complex monologic and dialogic, partly unscripted and partly prepared, classroom discussion. The values of the three variables of field, tenor, mode taken together help language users trace situational context, identify it and predict the meanings to be communicated, and thus make language efficient and understandable in communication. For some systemicists, field, tenor and mode together determine the ‘register’ of a text, the functional variety of language that corresponds to the specific situation, “the configuration of semantic resources that the member of a culture typically associates with a situation type” (Fowler, 1991b: 37). The other facet of context, culture/society, enables participants, for example, to understand each other, act out social structure, affirm their statuses and roles, and establish and transmit shared cultural systems of value and knowledge (Halliday, 1978: 2). With regard to text, the dimension at issue here, according to some systemicists, especially Martin (1986, 1992; Martin & Rose 2008) and the “Sydney School”, is ‘genre’, “which has to do with the social relevance of a text” (Birch & O’Toole, 1987b: 1). It is the product of recognizable and recurrent social activity types, which “become habitualized and, eventually, institutionalized as genres” (Eggins, 2004: 58; see Bakhtin, 1994: 83)—e.g., ordinary conversations, (spoken and written) narratives, job interviews, medical pamphlets, textbooks, etc. Members of a society develop genres as models since they can reproduce them easily in order to accomplish their goals and because doing something in almost the same way over and over again saves time and energy (see Berger and Luckmann, 1967: 71; Eggins, 2004: 57). Genres also make communication with, and understanding by, the listener possible or at least more efficient (Bakhtin, 1994: 84). Genre is another contentious area of SFL and has been given other definitions; for example, in a SocSem context, genre is a reflection of the semiotic structures which mediate between the cultural context (institutions and ideologies) and the sayings and doings of the community (Threadgold, 1986: 5, 35; see also Lemke, 1985; Thibault, 1991). At the same time, since genres are social in nature, they are fluid, dynamic and subject to change as social patterns change in speaking and/or in writing.

2.3.4  T  he Three Metafunctions: Ideational, Interpersonal, and Textual Halliday developed very early the notion of ‘metafunction’ and defined it as the organization of the functional framework around three major, and interconnected, kinds of meaning in (adult) language use: “firstly, the ideational function through which language lends structure to experience”, and construes reality and our understanding of the world; “secondly, the interpersonal function which constitutes relationships between the participants; and thirdly, the textual function which constitutes

24

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

coherence and cohesion in texts” and texture (Wodak, 2001: 8). They permeate the whole view of language in SFL, for instance, they occur every time we use language and are “intrinsic to language as both system and process” (Hasan, 2015: 123); they are “each equally essential in the formation of the semantic and grammatical units”, including clauses, sentences and texts, which contain features of meaning which come from all three; and “each is nonhierarchical” (2015: 123). That is, “our utterances overwhelmingly display all metafunctional strands of meaning-wording” (Hasan, 2015: 132) continuously and simultaneously, and in principle, each clause contains features of meaning which come from each of the three metafunctional areas and every text encodes meaning on these three levels simultaneously. One general way to understand them is that the ‘ideational’ and the ‘interpersonal’ strands are woven together by the ‘textual’ metafunction into a unified text (or discourse); and the task of the analyst is to disentangle them in order to identify them. In the ideational metafunction, language is used to transmit information between members of a society (Kress, 1976: xix) about the world around them; it also makes sense of or construes our experience in both our outer and inner (thought) worlds and is akin to what others have called the propositional content, cognitive meaning or referential function of sentences (early on it was separated into the ‘informational’ or ‘logical’ vs. ‘experiential’ functions, but then the two were coalesced). It also has a dialectical relationship with social structure—reflecting, creating and influencing it. Moreover, in this view, the world is not a fixed, objective reality represented neutrally through language (as assumed by many linguists, philosophers, and cognitive psychologists), since the world we talk about can differ depending on who is speaking, which language is being used, how it is used, what its socio-­ cultural context is, who is using it, and so forth—and also because language (use) lends structure to experience and thus can change it. At the level of context of situation, in Halliday’s view, ideation has to do with ‘field’, what the text is about; at the semantic level, it has to do with “how we represent reality in language” (Eggins, 2004: 206). The clause, which is the main resource provided by the grammar of English for ideation, is made up of two components of (lexico)grammar: experiential meaning and logical linkage. With regard to the former, the role of the clause is to represent “some process—some doing or happening, saying or sending, being or having—with its various participants and circumstances” (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 29). Transitivity is the major system involved in this: “Transitivity patterns represent the encoding of experiential ­meanings: meanings about the world, about experience, about how we perceive and experience what is going on. By examining the transitivity patterns in text, we can explain how the situation is being constructed, i.e., we can describe ‘what is being talked about’ and how shifts in the field are achieved” (Eggins, 2004: 249). While the classification of process types expressed by verbs is not entirely agreed upon by all systemicists, we can say, following Halliday (1994a: 106–175, Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004), that there are three major types in English. (1) Material processes of doing-and-happening in the physical world, with the basic meaning “that some entity does something, undertakes some action” (Eggins, 2004: 215) at some time or place, under certain circumstances; (2) Mental processes of sensing, think-

2.3  Michael A. K. Halliday and the Systemicists

25

ing, feeling, seeing, etc. in the world of consciousness, typically with a conscious human participant and a non-active participant; (3) Relational processes where things are stated in relation to other things (they are assigned attributes or identities). And, there are three minor process types, e.g., physiological or psychological behavior; verbal actions; and existential processes (e.g., there is). As for the logical linkage of clauses, they can put clause complexes into “coherent, semantically sequenced packages” (Eggins, 2004: 295), e.g., according to whether they are either equal and independent, as in coordination (parataxis, with and, or, but) or unequal with one dependent on the other, as in subordination (hypotaxis, with if, while, since). In the ideational metafunction, the structural mechanisms create a grid through which the view of the (social and natural) world is mediated (Halliday & Mathiessen, 2004: 28). In addition, ideational structure, both experiential and logical, is in a dialectical relationship with social structure—it both reflects and influences it. Hence, a “text, under social pressures, offers a mediated, partial, interpretation of the objective reality of which it claims to speak” (Fowler, 1991a: 91). Language constructs “human experience. It names things, thus construing them into categories […] and the fact that these differ from one language to another is a reminder that the categories are in fact construed in language” (Halliday & Mathiessen, 2004: 29). As well, “there is no facet of human experience which cannot be transformed into meaning. In other words, language provides a theory of human experience, and certain of the resources of the lexicogrammar of every language are dedicated to that function”. In the interpersonal metafunction, i.e., language is used to establish, maintain and specify relations between members of society and thus between the participants in an interaction; every text addresses someone and enacts our personal and social relations. When we question, offer something, or express our attitude about what we are saying, we are utilizing the interpersonal metafunction, which expresses intersubjective meanings (i.e., shared by the participants in an interaction) about roles (social relationships with other language users) and attitudes. This kind of meaning is quintessentially associated with “‘language as action’” (2004: 30); and since “one of the main purposes of communicating is to interact with other people: to establish and maintain appropriate social links with them” (Thompson, 1984: 38), it has to do with the way relations between speaker and hearer (or writer and reader) are established through, or expressed by, language. In the context of situation, the interpersonal metafunction has to do with who the participants are, what relation they have with one another, and what they are doing with each other, and thus it is related to, e.g., “politeness”, a complex concept based on a number of linguistic, contextual and cultural factors (see Brown & Levinson, 1987). At the lexicogrammatical (clause) level, it has to do with text as an exchange between the participants, who make statements, ask questions or give commands, by using the mood structure of the clauses. It also has to do with modality, a very complex area of English grammar which allows language users to express attitudes or judgments and is typically divided into two different kinds of meanings (Eggins, 2004: 172–174): on the one hand, probability, where the speaker expresses judgments as to the degree of likelihood of something happening or being (e.g., possibly,

26

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

probably, certainly, i.e., low, median, and high likelihood), and on the other hand, usuality, “where the speaker expresses judgments as to the frequency with which something happens” or exists (low: sometimes, median: usually, or high: always). Modality is also involved in conveying (degrees and types of) “obligation, necessity”, e.g., You should/must/are obliged to/are required to read ‘Harry Potter’ (see Eggins, 2004: 179; cf. Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 147). It is through these highly complex systems of mood and modality that speakers of English make meanings about “the power or solidarity of their relationship; the extent of their intimacy; their level of familiarity with each other; and their attitudes and judgments” (Eggins, 2004: 184) and so forth. Thus, there is a direct link between the clausal patterns, the semantics of interpersonal meanings and the context of situation; therefore, “in studying the grammar of the clause as exchange we are actually studying how interpersonal meanings get made […] we have a way of uncovering and studying the social creation and maintenance of hierarchic, socio-cultural roles” (2004: 187). The ideational and interpersonal metafunctions are usually combined in messages as the two basic functions of language: (1) “every message is both about something and addressing someone”; and, (2) the two metafunctions can be “freely combined—by and large, they do not constrain each other” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 30). However, the successful “negotiation” of a text involves more than these two types of meaning; they have to be combined in a way that is understandable and reliable. This is the task of the textual metafunction, where language is used to provide textual meaning, “texture, the organization of discourse as relevant to the situation” (2004: 30). Thus in this metafunction, actual discourse (text) is created. It facilitates the construction or composition of text for communication by building up sequences of sentences and by “organizing the discursive flow and creating cohesion and continuity as it moves along” (2004: 30), such that the ideational meanings and the interpersonal ones are woven together into a unified text. Since the textual metafunction relates to how (the) text is organized as a message so that it can be negotiated, Halliday described it early on as the “relevance” or “enabling” metafunction (Halliday, 1975/1977: 95, 97; see also Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 30): it enables the connecting of facets of ideational meaning with interpersonal meaning so that the resulting text is effective (has textual meaning), given its purpose and context. The textual metafunction is thus of “crucial ideological ­significance … it undoubtedly ‘breathes relevance into the other two’” (Birch & O’Toole, 1987b: 11). It is also concerned with communicating both information and aspects of interpersonal relations as efficiently as possible through the overall organization of the text and through making it relevant to both the context of situation and the culture/society of which it is a part. This means that the content associated with the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions must be constructed in such a way that it “signals to us which part of the text is more/less important to an understanding of the overall text” (Eggins, 2004: 295) and that it enables listeners and readers through clauses to interpret the speaker’s or writer’s priorities and direction.

2.3  Michael A. K. Halliday and the Systemicists

27

Thus, the textual metafunction brings together the construction of a text, its internal organization, its composition, the way in which bits of text are related to each other semantically, and so forth, so that they have the property of textual unity (texture). This is the result of the interaction of two components: ‘cohesion’ and ‘coherence’. Cohesion ties the elements of the text together and creates connectedness of its linguistic forms and patterns and continuity between one part of text and another (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 1985). It can be seen as the ‘glue’ of the text. At the same time, it “is fundamentally about the ongoing contextualization of meanings” (Eggins, 2004: 51) and can be divided into three main types (2004: 33–53; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: Chap. 9): “reference”, which has to do with the introduction of participants (people, places, and things) and keeping track of them; “lexical cohesion”, concerned with how words in a text relate to each other through classification or composition or word chains (lexical strings); and “conjunction”, focused on “how the writer creates and expresses logical relationships between the parts of a text” (Eggins, 2004: 47), as in textual coordination and subordination. The other component of texture, ‘coherence’, refers to the way a group of sentences relates to the context (Halliday & Hasan, 1976: 23). For some systemicists (but not all), coherence can be broken down into the two types discussed above: registerial coherence in relation to the context of situation (Eggins, 2004: 29) and generic coherence in relation to the context of culture. In very effective texts, contextual coherence and internal (organizational) cohesion act together and reflect each other. The textual metafunction also deals with the system of theme (vs. rheme), the topic of one of Halliday’s first major series of articles (1961, 1967–1968; see also 1985), based on work in the Prague School. The general assumption is that there is a major configuration of clauses “into the two functional components of Theme (point of departure for the message) and Rheme (new information about the point of departure)” (Eggins, 2004: 296). The system of theme “contributes very significantly to the communicative effect of the message” (2004: 298) since it is concerned with what the clause is going to be about (theme has sometimes been called the ‘psychological’ subject of the clause, but not necessarily the grammatical subject) and with what is going to develop the theme, i.e., the rheme. The thematic structure of the clause is typically signaled by the order of the constituents of the clause, with the theme coming first (in English, but not necessarily in other languages), and is often analyzed as given, or familiar, information. Rheme is everything after that in the clause (and is often new, or unfamiliar, information about the theme). Given and new are analyzed as part of information structure and typically realized through intonation, as well as other elements in spoken English (see Halliday, 1967) and still other, different elements in written English (and this seems to differ across varieties of English); given this complexity, they will not be treated in depth here (see Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 87–205; Halliday & Greaves, 2008). Work on the theme/rheme structure of the clause is merely the first (micro) level of textual organization since theme or rheme may be related to the topic and/or the subject, and may be associated with other elements of the clause. In addition, as proposed by Martin, texts are made of sentences, paragraphs, phases, etc. and include other elements, such as hyperTheme or macroTheme, etc. (Martin, 1992a; Martin & Rose, 2003, 2008; see also Eggins, 2004: 326).

28

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

2.3.5  Grammatical Metaphor Halliday’s definition of what he called ‘grammatical metaphor’ was associated with the ideational and interpersonal metafunction, his work on the difference between spoken and written language, and his (controversial) claim (1985/1989: 95; see also 1994a) “that written language is associated with the use of grammatical metaphor”7 and spoken language isn’t or is less so. While the notion of metaphor is often found in, e.g., rhetoric, literature, and cognitive linguistics, and in CDA/CDS (see Sect. 4.9) for, e.g., the use of a lexical item that normally means one thing to mean something else, Halliday’s notion is quite different. From his point of view, there are typical ways of saying things in (lexico)grammar, which he calls “congruent”, and there are “others that are in some respect ‘transferred’ or metaphorical” (1994a: 342) or ‘non-congruent’. In some cases, they become so frequent that they may not be recognized as metaphors (a point also made in cognitive linguistics and in CDA/CDS). In grammatical metaphor, according to Halliday, there is first the decoupling and then the recoupling of lexicogrammar and semantics. Thus, in the lexicogrammar of everyday English, nouns typically encode things and people, while verbs typically encode happenings and processes, as with the verb discuss. However, a grammatical metaphor is used when, e.g., that same process is represented with different grammar, e.g., a noun such as discussion, which is non-congruent, i.e., metaphorical,8 because in this case the noun is used to encode a process. Thus, one of the major ways grammatical metaphor arises is through nominalization (e.g., a noun is used instead of a verb, or an adjective). The grammatical metaphor of nominalization can also be used to express a particular attribute of a person or thing: e.g., ambivalence which can be used to mean ‘people are ambivalent towards/about’ something (see Thompson, 1984: 167). There are of course types of grammatical metaphors that are not nominalizations, e.g., the verb shows that with discussion as its subject (as in e.g., ‘this discussion shows that …’) can be interpreted to mean ‘as a result of discussing, people find out …’. More important than understanding what nominalizations are is knowing the consequences of using them. Nominalizations often lead to condensation and encapsulation, in which there is a reduction and/or loss of various types of information, e.g., the doer of the process (and details of the process) is unknown, as in the use of ambivalence or discussion where it’s unknown who is ambivalent (the word people can be used in the more congruent version, but that is still vague) or what it entails. These types have been the focus of much work first in CritLing and then in CDA/CDS since nominalization can lead to avoiding naming the doer of a process

7  According to the strict definition of metaphor vs. metonymy, this is actually a case of metonymy—however we will not go into that issue here. 8  He rejected the term ‘applied linguistics’ (and also ‘applicable linguistics’), since he felt that for some it was too narrow in scope, and used instead ‘appliable linguistics’, since it denoted application to some specific task; since his approach was very wide and embraced anything having to do with language, it had wide scope.

2.3  Michael A. K. Halliday and the Systemicists

29

(which is also the case in the use of passive constructions). Nominalization can also make it more difficult for the reader or hearer to disagree with a point because it is expressed as if it were an objective, factual description of the event/activity, as in, e.g., David’s failure to apply common sense led to…—in the sense of ‘it is a fact that David failed to apply common sense and therefore…’—even if it is only a claim on the part of the speaker or writer). However, in some cases, it is almost impossible to give a complete, congruent rewording “which adequately reflects the meanings encoded in the metaphorical wording” and this “opens a potentially bottomless pit of possible rewordings” (Thompson, 1984: 177). In other words, the concept of grammatical metaphor “is essential in explaining how the language works, but it is a dangerously powerful” concept (1984: 177). Despite that issue, it has become an important part of CDA/CDS analyses, although they don’t often used the term ‘grammatical metaphor’ nor do they recognize the importance Halliday gave to it.

2.3.6  ‘Appliable Linguistics’ and Social Action Halliday called his approach to language part of ‘appliable linguistics’, by which he meant that, given the interdisciplinary and functional orientation of his model of language, it could be applied to a variety of domains and uses. In IFG, Halliday said that “a theory is a means of action, and there are very different kinds of action one may want to take involving language” (1994a: ix; see also 1969). More generally, given his commitment to social justice from his earliest days as a student with a commitment to Marxim, he wanted to create a linguistic theory that would be “socially accountable” in two senses: “that it put language in its social context, and at the same time it put linguistics in its social context, as a mode of intervention in critical social practices” (Halliday, 1993: 73). In other words, he envisioned linguistics as an “ideologically committed form of social action” (1985b: 5; see also 2015) and he imagined the possibilities from a functional and social perspective of making the world better. Thus, he devoted his career—as have other systemicists—to the development of an approach that could be used to address productively many different human and societal concerns, most notably his “concern with language in relation to the process and experience of education” (1978: 5). For instance, very early on, he searched for new ways of teaching language (see Halliday, McIntosh, & Stevens, 1964) in order to improve literacy rates, including programs for primary and secondary school students. In 1973b, Halliday argued for talking about reading readiness in social-functional terms, taking spoken language seriously in education, reappraising the significance of both reading and writing and seeing them in the context of the learning of language as a whole. He also worked with teachers at all levels (primary, secondary, tertiary) in various aspects of language teaching and learning, including developing one’s native language (mother tongue), studying foreign languages, and learning about the nature of language (1978: 5). He eventually became “convinced of the importance of the sociolinguistic background to everything that goes on in the classroom”, including the linguistic

30

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

patterns found in the family, neighborhood, school and community, as well as the child’s specific experiences of language from infancy (1978: 5). He argued that we should build educational contexts on what children already know (including what they know about language), by starting from what is common knowledge to all, thereby creating continuity between the culture children come from and that of school. He also explored the sociolinguistic aspects of mathematical education in light of e.g., the relation between mathematics and natural language and the issue of levels of technicality; these were accompanied by a “‘checklist’ of possible sources of linguistic difficulty facing a learner of mathematics” (1978: 204). In all of this he greatly influenced many different scholars in SFL and in other approaches. Halliday also said that knowledge of the standard language should not be a precondition of success by school children, but learning the standard language could be “a natural consequence of the process of learning to read and write” (1978: 210). He argued for “a milieu that is child-centred but in which the teacher functions as a guide, creating structure with the help of the students themselves” (1978: 210). His argument was that our societies need to change our cultural attitudes towards language (and education, learning and teaching)—we need to be “a lot more serious about language, and at the same time a great deal less solemn about it” (1978: 210). And he also suggested topics, each one accompanied by points to consider, that could be explored by “linguists of all ages” (1978: 211), such as teachers in their study groups, pupils in class or students in their families, regarding: language development in young children; language and socialization; a neighbourhood language profile; language in the life of the individual; language and the context of situation; language and institutions (e.g., family, school, factory); language attitudes (see Halliday et al., 1964) (1978: 211–235); and so forth. The applications of his approach by himself and others are too many to list here, but we can give an overall sense of their breadth by saying that they ranged from “research applications of a theoretical nature to quite practical tasks where problems have to be solved” (1994a: xxix) in a number of domains, e.g., theoretical, historical, developmental, textual, variational, aesthetic, evolutionary, societal/cultural, educational, medical, communicational, computational, legal, etc. domains. “Underlying all these very varied applications is a common focus on the analysis of authentic products of social interaction (texts), considered in relation to the cultural and social context in which they are negotiated” (Eggins, 2004: 2) and the most generalizable application of SFL, is “to understand the quality of texts: why a text means what it does, and why it is valued as it is” (Halliday, 1994a: xix) and why it is or is not effective. In the 1990s through to the current decade, SFL has been “increasingly recognized as a very useful descriptive and interpretive framework for viewing language as a strategic, meaning-making resource” (Eggins, 2004: 2) and has been used by systemicists to say ‘sensible and useful’ things about texts not only in language education and child language development, but also in the study of computational linguistics, media discourse, casual conversation, history, administrative language, among others (see Eggins, 2004: 2 for specific references). Some have adopted SFL as a whole, with many aspects agreed upon and only a small list of others open to debate (e.g., genre, register, syntax), leading some to say that it is

2.4  Critical Linguistics (CritLing)

31

a ‘closed system’ in the sense of Chomsky’s theory. And, yet, many of the ideas that Halliday and the systemicists incorporated into SFL have inspired scholars in a variety of other intellectual and (inter)disciplinary areas. As a result, others, like ourselves, have found it ‘useful to think with’ and have been inspired by certain SFL/SFG ideas, such as: language (system) as resource and a set of options, meaning as central, meaning potential, meaning making, language system and language use as related to each other, language as social semiotic, metafunctions (especially the interpersonal and textual), the social nature of grammar, grammatical metaphor, sociocultural significance of meaning choices, grammar and lexicon as linked with each other, etc. As a linguistic and functional approach to meaning in text, systemic linguistics has (or has had) common ground with text grammarians and discourse analysts from a range of perspectives […] points of connection with research in areas such as sociolinguistics […] and the ethnography of speaking […] exploring ways in which social and cultural context impacts on language use. As a semiotic approach, it has common ground with semiotic theoreticians and those, following Fairclough, working in what has become known as the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach (Eggins, 2004: 21)

In 2008, The Halliday Centre for Intelligent Applications of Language Studies was launched at the City University of Hong Kong (directed by Jonathan Webster, see Webster, 2015a) “to apply our knowledge about how language works” in order to “construe our experience and enact social relationship; apply linguistic insight in such areas as education, and computer processing of language, i.e. practicing ‘appliable linguistics’”. SFL/SFG as a theory of language is practiced world-wide, particularly in language education, where it is associated with work in applied linguistics, linguistics, educational linguistics, education, second language acquisition, corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, natural language generation and processing, and so forth. SFL has led to, e.g., the International Systemic Functional Linguistics Association (ISFLA), which puts on an annual conference that rotates between Australia, Asia, the Americas and Europe, has two highly informative websites (with many pages of information and lists of publications, conferences, ­publishers, software, etc.), and has published many volumes of collected or selected papers. And there are many other resources, too numerous to list here. We will now turn to the discussion of CritLing.

2.4  Critical Linguistics (CritLing) 2.4.1  Introduction Critical Linguistics (CritLing) began in the (mid-) 1970s and continued into the 1980s and 1990s (and beyond); the Critical Linguists were also called the East Anglians, since they were at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Great Britain during a very formative period of their joint work. They were a group of “socially directed” (Fowler, 1991a: 89), “and politically aware” (Wodak & Chilton, 2005: xi)

32

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

scholars, who, through very productive collaboration, proposed and developed “systematic ways of analyzing the political and social import of text” (2005: xi). They drew their “theoretical support from the intellectual interests and social engagements of a group of co-writers/co-workers (David Aers, Roger Fowler, Bob [aka Robert] Hodge, Gunther Kress, Tony Trew) whose disciplinary interests ranged from Literary Criticism, Sociology, Politics, Philosophy to Linguistics, and who all had a theoretical and practical commitment to different forms of Marxism” (Kress, 1991: 166). During that time, being critical, Marxist and activist was very much in the air in the UK, intellectually and politically, and thus they were dealing with the issue of what linguistics could offer scholars in the humanities and social sciences that would be meaningful in that context. While members of the group developed many of their ideas in papers with each other (and a few others) that were published in the local UEA Papers in Linguistics, they are best known for two major books which together have been called the CritLing manifesto: first, Language and Control (Fowler, Hodge, Kress, & Trew, 1979a), chapters of which were co-authored by one or more of them (and in one case, Gareth Jones); this book is known as the foundational text of CritLing. And, secondly, Language as Ideology (Kress & Hodge, 1979), which was seen by some as a more advanced version of CritLing, given its more interdisciplinary, programmatic and theoretically explicit account with sharper focus on ideology (Kress, 1991: 166, 172). It was also characterized (Hodge & Kress, 1993: 159) as “a handbook” for CritLing9, and “as the first comprehensive account of the theory of language that underpinned the critical discourse enterprise” (1993: ix), i.e., CDA. During the 1980s and early-mid 1990s, there were modifications and extensions of CritLing by Fowler (in the UK) and especially by Hodge and Kress (in Australia and the UK in the case of Kress), and others. The most important other CritLing publications, from the point of view of their influence on and impetus towards CDA, were Kress 1985a and Hodge and Kress 1988 (on SocSem); we will discuss them below, after our general discussion of CritLing.

2.4.2  CritLing and Other Approaches to Linguistics According to Kress (1990: 88), CritLing had two aims: (1) “to use the tools provided by linguistic theories […] to uncover the structures of power in texts, and (2) to make the discipline of linguistics itself more accountable, more responsible, and more responsive to questions of social equity”. For their linguistic approach, CritLing borrowed many ideas from many linguists, although Halliday’s approach, which was “the most fully developed” (Fowler, Hodge, Kress, & Trew, 1979b: 3) of the functionalist theories of language, was “the major inspiration behind the model” 9  Hodge and Kress 1993 is the 2nd edition of Kress and Hodge 1979, with the same title (Language as Ideology), in which there is a new, long chapter on “Reading Power” (1993: 153–213) about ‘language and the war in the Arabian Gulf’ and other topics, including CDA.

2.4  Critical Linguistics (CritLing)

33

of CritLing (Fowler, 1991a: 91) since it used “chiefly concepts and methods associated with the ‘systemic-functional’ linguistics developed by M.A.K.  Halliday” (Kress, 1990: 89). However, it needs to be understood that, on the one hand, there were some of Halliday’s (and systemicists’) ideas that they rejected explicitly or implicitly, and on the other hand, they combined Halliday’s approach with ideas from other approaches, so that it became an “eclectic” (Fowler, 1991b: 243) “composite of a number of sources” (Fowler et al., 1979b: 3), as we will see below. As we know from the discussion above, Halliday was actively working on his ideas and publishing them in the 1970s through the 1990s, including his contribution to the first issue of the UEA papers (1976b); as well, Kress had studied under Halliday and finished editing Halliday’s book on function and structure (Halliday, 1976a) after his arrival at UEA. They were also attracted by the fact that Halliday insisted that there are “strong and pervasive connections between language structure and social structure” (Fowler & Kress, 1979: 185) and that he “propose[d] that the structures of language have developed in response to the communicative needs that language is called upon to serve” (Fowler, 1991a: 90). For them, this “implied a demand for a thorough-going account of social structure in order to make sense of linguistic structurings” (Kress, 1991: 163), and therefore they rejected “theorizing ‘language’ and ‘society’ as separate entities” (Fowler, 1991a: 92), as was widespread at the time (and to this day) in much of ‘mainstream’ linguistics. They took text “as the relevant linguistic unit, both in theory and in description/ analysis” (Kress, 1990: 88). They selected and adapted certain parts of Halliday’s model for their own use, “drew largely on categories from sentence and below-­ sentence grammar” and used many Hallidayan concepts, such as metafunctions, transitivity types, modality, theme, and so forth. They worked on, e.g., the many lexico-grammatical resources of ideational and interpersonal meaning and cohesive and other devices for textual structuring. They ultimately “worked to make the model less ‘narrowly linguistic’ and more integrated with general theories of society and ideology” (Fowler, 1991a: 91; see also Kress, 1985a; Threadgold, 1986) and also better suited to the analysis of text. They were also influenced by Chomsky’s early work in transformational(-generative) grammar (TG, 1957, 1965; see also Smith & Wilson, 1979), especially as “reinterpreted in the direction of the earlier formulations of Zellig Harris” (Kress, 1991: 166), but they were careful to say that they did not agree with post-1965 Chomskyan theory. On the one hand, they were in accord with Halliday that there were many flaws in Chomsky’s work; indeed, they used the term ‘autonomous linguistics’ (a negative evaluation) to group Chomsky with the earlier American descriptivists (influenced by Bloomfield) and the European structuralists, since they all separated language from society and culture. On the other hand, they endorsed Chomsky’s acceptance of Harris’ extension of linguistics to the sentence (i.e., not just sound and word structure), but they disagreed with his claim that the sentence is an abstract structure and the highest unit of language, since they analyzed actual, concrete language use and included discourse and text as an essential part of the scope of linguistics. And they also argued that what seems to be the same sentence could have different meanings in different

34

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

contexts and thus that context and contextualization also had to be treated in depth in any linguistic approach. As a result, they accepted Chomsky’s claim that an active sentence and its corresponding passive are (closely) related to each other through transformations, which Trew (1979a: 94; 1979b: 117; also Kress & Trew, 1978a, 1978b) characterized as a “departure […] from the more familiar notion of transformation”, since they were in total disagreement with Chomsky, who also said that the active and passive have the same meaning. For example, Trew analyzed two newspaper headlines—Rioting Blacks Shot Dead by Police [as ANC Leaders Meet] vs. Police Shoot 11 Dead in Salisbury Riot (1979a: 94)—as different in meaning and thus in need of an in-depth analysis according to the character of the discourse, its context(s), purpose(s), ideology, and so forth. That is, they (van Leeuwen, 2006: 292–293): took the fundamental step of interpreting grammatical categories as potential traces of ideological mystification, and broke with a tradition in which ways of saying the same thing were seen as mere stylistic variants, or as conventional and meaningless indicators of group membership categories such as class, professional role, and so on.

They also used Chomsky’s concept of surface vs. deep (or underlying) structure (Chomsky, 1965; see also 1970, 1971, 1972) as inspiration for their technique of starting from the surface of the text and attempting to “recover the forms which were the starting point of the utterance” (Kress & Hodge, 1979: 17) in their quest to uncover hidden meaning and ideologies and provide demystification. This was not at all what Chomsky meant by the relationship between deep and surface structure (since he didn’t include in that relationship hidden meaning, ideology or demystification), and he and his followers objected strongly to what they saw as a redefinition of his terminology (see Kress & Trew, 1978a, 1978b; Fowler, 1972, 1977). The critical linguists referenced as well Chomsky’s writings on political and social issues and his condemnation of the war in Vietnam (e.g., Chomsky, 1969). Given their commitment to social change (discussed below), they found the political side of Chomsky’s thinking attractive, but they disagreed with his rigid separation of linguistic theory from political theory and his refusal to see any relationship or connection between his political writings and his linguistic work (see Caldas-­ Coulthard & Coulthard, 1996: xi). In the long run, the critical linguists continued to use the term transformation (and deep structure, although less often) according to their own definition.

2.4.3  D  efinition of CritLing; Fowler et al. (1979a): ‘Language and Control’, and Other Work What differentiated CritLing from other linguistic approaches of that time the most clearly was announced boldly and unequivocally by the use of the term ‘critical’ in the name of their approach. The term ‘critical linguistics’ was “quite self-­consciously adapted” (Kress, 1990: 88) from Critical Sociology (the title of Connerton, 1976;

2.4  Critical Linguistics (CritLing)

35

see now Cook, 1987), and was used in the title of “the synoptic and programmatical concluding chapter” (Fowler, 1991a: 89), their code of practice, by Fowler and Kress (1979), titled “Critical Linguistics”, of their co-authored book (Fowler, Hodge, Kress & Trew, 1979a, 1979b: Language and Control10). It was also used in the title of Part IV “Towards a Critical Linguistics” of (Chilton, 1985a). Critical (and critique) were associated with a set of assumptions that are important in understanding their point of view, since many of them were different from many other approaches at that time and were carried into CDA. It meant an approach to linguistics “which is aware of the assumptions on which it is based and prepared to reflect critically about the underlying causes of the phenomena it studies, and the nature of the society whose language it is” (Fowler & Kress, 1979: 186). It critiqued both existent social forms and the discipline of linguistics, since the latter was dominated by asocial, apolitical approaches in which language was autonomous from society, including European and American linguistics (but not, as we saw above, SFL). It also positioned CritLing in the context of its more general socio-philosophical counterpart, critical theory, e.g., contemporary (neo)Marxist, post-structuralist, post-modernist and deconstructionist theories of the 1970s and the 1980s, as well as the “cross-fertilization between linguistics and the social sciences […] a remarkably interdisciplinary and international project” (Wodak & Chilton, 2005: xi). As a result, CritLing was responsive to the “major questions put by post-modernist writing, especially in its post-structuralist mode, without, at the same time, adopting headlong many of its major tenets” (Kress, 1991: 171). Thus, their goal “was to provide an illuminating account of verbal language as a social phenomenon, especially for use of critical theorists in a range of disciplines—history, literary and media studies, education, sociology—who wanted to explore social and political forces and processes as they act through and on texts and forms of discourse” (Hodge & Kress, 1979: vii), and “to relate forms of thought to the existence of the producers of those thoughts, as individuals living in a material world under specific conditions in specific societies at given times” (1979: ix). The critical linguists stated that their approach was motivated by the fact that “so much of social meaning is implicit” (Kress, 1990: 196), even when it is conveyed by language, so that what is needed is the activity of unveiling, or demystifying, a text’s (hidden) meaning. CritLing was also devised in response to problems of fixed, invisible ideology permeating language. As Kress said, they were ultimately critiquing “the structures and goals of a society which has impregnated its language with social meanings many of which we regard as negative, dehumanizing and restrictive in their effects”. They also aimed at developing a social, and socially directed, application of linguistic analysis which would expose the “strong and pervasive connections between language structure and social structure” (Fowler & Kress, 1979: 185), including structures of power. They sought, “to display to consciousness the pat It is important to note that while this book was co-authored, each chapter is attributed to specific authors; while “all were submitted to the other authors for criticism, and most were extensively revised as a result” (1979: 4), we have decided to specify the chapters and their authors in our discussion and in the list of references.

10

36

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

terns of belief and value which are encoded in the language—and which are below the threshold of notice for anyone who accepts the discourse as ‘natural’” (Fowler, 1991b: 67). In this respect, they endorsed the ideas of the American linguists/anthropologists Edward Sapir (1921) and Benjamin Lee Whorf (1956) about ‘linguistic relativity’ (in ways similar to Halliday), i.e., that the language we use “embodies specific views—or ‘theories’—of reality” (Fowler et al., 1979b: 1), they accepted the ‘weak’ (non-deterministic) version of Whorf’s view as ‘influence’ of language upon thought and agreed that “syntax can code a world-view without any conscious choice on the part of a writer or speaker” (Fowler & Kress, 1979: 185)—but they rejected the strong/extreme position of linguistic determinism also attributed to Whorf. They went on to argue that “world-view comes to language-users from their relation to the institutions and the socio-economic structure of their society. It is facilitated and confirmed for them by a language use which has society’s ideological impress”. Thus, they argued for an ideological point of view in research, “since any aspect of linguistic structure, whether phonological, syntactic, lexical, semantic, pragmatic or textual, can carry ideological significance” (Fowler, 1991b: 67) and society (including culture) is neither innocent nor neutral nor natural. In doing their version of social linguistics and their social theory of the functioning of language, they rejected “the dichotomy between the grammatical structures of a language and the ways in which these are employed in actual instances of communication” (Thompson, 1984: 118). Thus, they were pleased to see that sociolinguists (and others) were breaking with the structuralist and generativist tradition that regarded language as monolithic and were documenting various types of sociolinguistic variation. However, they were dismayed by conventional, or “correlational”, sociolinguistics (as exemplified by Labov, 1972a, 1972b; Trudgill, 1974), which studied language and society as two independent phenomena that can be separately described and quantified, “so that one is forced to talk of ‘links between the two’, whereas for us language is an integral part of social process” (Fowler & Kress, 1979: 189). As such, language “serves to confirm and consolidate the organizations that shape it, being used to manipulate people, to establish and maintain them in economically convenient roles and statuses, to maintain the power of state agencies, corporations and other institutions” (1979: 190). Thus, terms like correlation are “too weak an account of the relationship. Sociolinguistic variation is to be regarded as functional rather than merely fortuitous” (Fowler, 1991a: 92). Social groupings influence linguistic behavior, which in turn influences and manipulates (unconsciously, automatically) non-linguistic behavior, since “variation in types of discourse is inseparable from social and economic factors” (Fowler et al., 1979b: 1). As a result, “linguistic variations reflect and, what is more, actively express the structural social differences which give rise to them. They express social meanings” and should be studied in this light (Fowler et al., 1979b: 1). The critical linguists also rejected the sociolinguists’ claim that their description of linguistic variation of various types and its circumstances was done “objectively and scientifically, without evaluation of the phenomena described” (Fowler & Kress, 1979: 192). As an example, they stated that Labov’s notion (1966, 1972a) of upward social mobility as the reason why certain individuals in a stratified class

2.4  Critical Linguistics (CritLing)

37

system use certain linguistic elements, “should be regarded not as a generally applicable concept in sociological theory but as a product of the academic ideology of a particular society” (Fowler & Kress, 1979: 192), i.e., the US. They also said that the idea that forms of language are “freely chosen” (1979: 194) hides the fact that they are selected not just because they are appropriate in the given situation, but also because that “appropriateness is established by socio-economic factors outside the control of the language-user” and which are often unconscious, learned through socialization and sanctioned by the “social norms” established by those in power. In addition, while they agreed that language is an instrument of social communication, they insisted that language usage is “a part of social process. It constitutes social meanings and thus social practices” (Fowler et al., 1979b: 1). What speakers say “is interconnected with the life of individuals in social formations” (Chilton, 1985b: xv), and, since language is “one of the mechanisms through which society reproduces and regulates itself” (Kress, 1991: 93), it is also “an intervention in social processes. Critical linguistics invites a view of language that makes ‘intervention’ a general principle: language is a social practice, one of the mechanisms through which society reproduces and regulates itself. Hence, language is ‘in’ rather than ‘alongside’ society” (Fowler, 1991a: 93) and society is ‘in’ language. The critical linguists set out to “describe the social, interpersonal and ideological functions” (Fowler et al., 1979b: 3) of many linguistic constructions in a wide variety of actual examples of “ordinary texts”, including the media and popular culture, as well as literary texts (of “high” or “low” culture), and so forth11 (see Fowler, 1981: 24–45). For them, all of these “show how linguistics structures are used to explore, systematize, transform, and often obscure, analyses of reality; to regulate the ideas and behavior of others; to classify and rank people, events and objects; to assert institutional or personal status” (Fowler et al., 1979b: 3). In other words, as stressed in the title of the book—Language and Control—language, language use and language structure (patterning) are employed for control or limitation of behavior, thought, belief, ideologies, etc. An early, much cited and admired, example of work in this area was Trew’s comparison (1979a, mentioned above; see also Kress & Trew, 1978a, 1978b) of headlines from different British newspapers that covered the same event of civil disorder in what is now Zimbawbwe (formerly Rhodesia). Trew argued that the choice of certain linguistic devices (e.g. the passive rather than the active) could affect the meaning and force of the text as a whole. Therefore, linguistic analysis could expose the potential ideological significance of using constructions in which agents of the verbal process are explicitly stated as subjects of the verb or downgraded in a by-phrase or not stated at all. He discussed in detail (1979a: 94) the implications of the newspaper headline: ‘RIOTING BLACKS

 Other types of texts they worked on include (bureaucratic) rules and regulations, interviews, birth registration certificates, and official announcements, as well as greeting cards, pop songs, conversations, and university guidelines on student enrollment.

11

38

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

SHOT DEAD BY POLICE AS ANC12 LEADERS MEET’.13 Here, ‘Blacks’ are classified as rioters, are put at the beginning of the sentence and are thus salient, while the actions of the police, who did the killing, are de-emphasized by the passive constructions, and in this case could be elided, as in (the possible but unattested) ‘rioting blacks shot dead as ANC leaders meet’, leading to what many called an agentless passive; this could also be done by the use of a grammatical metaphor, i.e., a nominalization (‘the shooting of rioting blacks’). By contrast, the structure of the headline about the same event in another paper, ‘Police Shoot 11 Dead in Salisbury Riot’, effectively does the reverse: that is, the police are prominent, while the phrase ‘11 Dead’, which is expanded in the text to ‘Eleven African Demonstrators’, are presented as victims. In sum, Trew suggests that linguistic structure is both an effect of, and contributes to, the different slant in the two newspapers and thus can be aligned with their different ideological orientations. He (1979a, 1979b) also did “some particularly fruitful work on ‘discourse in progress’ in newspapers—the transformation of materials from news agencies and other sources into news reports, and the transformations a story undergoes from one report to another, from reports to in-depth analyses to editorials, over a period of time” (Fairclough, 1995: 26) and also looked at the transformation in real time of the development (rewriting, recasting, updating, etc.) of a story over a period of days. All of these findings were more than reminiscent for the critical linguists of George Orwell’s novel 1984 (Orwell, 1949; see also Orwell, 1968). In fact, Hodge and Fowler (1979) is a study of “Orwellian linguistics” and emphasizes Orwell’s recognition of “some of the connections between language, ideas and social structure” (Fowler et al., 1979b: 2). Indeed, they said that Orwell’s novel had an impact on their general consciousness about the language of politics (Hodge & Fowler, 1979: 6), how thought could be controlled or limited through language, and how Orwell’s concepts of ‘doublethink’, ‘newspeak’, and ‘duckspeak’ “rest on recognizable principles of language-patterning” (Hodge & Fowler, 1979: 2, 9). In fact, Paul Chilton’s edited book, Language and the Nuclear Arms Debate: Nukespeak Today (1985a, 1985b; see also 1988, 1996), used the term ‘Nukespeak’ in its title as a punning allusion to ‘newspeak’; it included contributions by the critical linguists and other scholars with similar concerns from the UK, Australia, and western Europe about nuclear (dis)armament14.

 ANC stands for the African National Congress, the (mostly Black and African) opposition to the white rule. 13  As we go to press in the midst of a global Black Lives Matter movement, it strikes us that this same type of headline is still being produced today, and hence the work of critical linguists that started in the 1970s is still relevant, useful, and needed in 2020 (sadly). 14  Chilton published several other studies on Orwell, e.g., 1988, Orwellian Language and the Media, and 1996, Security Metaphors. He is still very active politically but is no longer in CritLing or CDA, since he became attracted to cognitive linguistics (see Sect. 4.9). 12

2.4  Critical Linguistics (CritLing)

39

2.4.4  Kress and Hodge 1979: ‘Language as Ideology’ As said above, Kress and Hodge, who had participated in Fowler et al. 1979a, also co-authored Language as ideology (Kress & Hodge 1979 [1st Edn.]; Hodge & Kress, 1993 [2nd Edn.]). They underscored the social nature of language, its status as a social fact; they also did a more thorough exposition of CritLing than was in the other part of the CritLing ‘manifesto’ (Fowler et al., 1979a, 1979b); and in the context of their discussion of ideology in language, they explored their debt to Sapir (1921), Whorf (1956), Fillmore (1968) and Halliday (Sect. 2.3), and others, as well as their debt to and differences with Chomsky. Their book, as they said in the Preface, aimed “to provide an illuminating account of verbal language as a social phenomenon, especially for use of critical theorists in a range of disciplines—history, literary and media studies, education, sociology—who wanted to explore social and political forces and processes as they act through and on texts and forms of discourse” (Kress & Hodge, 1979: vii). Therefore, the task they set for themselves and for linguistics was “to relate forms of thought to the existence of the producers of those thoughts, as individuals living in a material world under specific conditions in specific societies at given times […] linguistics had to provide the theoretical and methodological framework for the analysis of materials studied by all kinds of intellectual and cultural historian, indeed, by everyone concerned with culture and thought” (1979: ix). In short, they set out to show that “the requisite theory must encompass the study of syntax and the basic rule systems of the language along with the social uses of language, that is, the relations between language and society and between language and mind, in a single integrated enterprise” (1979: 2). In conformity with CritLing thinking, they insisted that their “conception of social reality includes antagonisms and conflicts within and between groups in a class society […] linguistics, then, is an exceptionally subtle instrument for the analysis of consciousness and its ideological bases, the ‘true shapes […] of invisible and bodiless thought’” (1979: 13) and thus, it “should ‘be an instrument of discovery, clarification and insight’, to make language itself speak” (1979: 14; with reference to Whorf, 1956). As a result, they insisted, no linguistic form is neutral—not only does the (choice of a given) materiality of language have meaning, but also all representation is mediated. Thus a central component of their program was that language reflects, (re)produces, and constructs ideology, and linguistics allows the analyst to explore the value systems and sets of beliefs that reside in texts, since language use has “society’s ideological impress” and “ideology is linguistically mediated and habitual” for the user (1979: 185). For them, ideology is a systematic body of ideas “organized from a particular point of view” (1979: 6), which underlies our “everyday perceptions of the world (whether social or ‘natural’)” (Trew, 1979a: 97), including taken-for-granted assumptions, beliefs and value-systems. And since language is often overlooked or taken for granted, “the differences in constructs may seem to be natural, universal and unalterable when in reality they may be produced by a specific form of social organization” (Belsey, 1980: 42). What interested the

40

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

critical linguists most, therefore, was to bring ideology, which is hidden under “the habitualisation of discourse, to the surface for inspection” (Fowler, 1991a: 89), particularly in the context of social formations (Fowler, 1987: vol. 2: 482; see also Kress & Hodge, 1979)—in order to shed light not only on social and political processes (Fowler, 1991a: 89) but also on the “ways in which people order and justify their lives” (1991a: 92), and to challenge and change them. This type of consciousness-­raising was also evident (Chilton, 1985a, 1985b) in Nukespeak, since it was intended to expose the obfuscation and dissimulation surrounding the discourse on nuclear arms, and also in (Threadgold, Grosz, Kress, & Halliday, 1986; Hodge & Kress, 1988; Thibault, 1989). At the same time, Kress and Hodge stressed that “language is ideological in another, more political, sense […] it involves systematic distortion” (1979: 6), i.e., the abuse of language by those with social and political power. Indeed, they underscored that inequality of power is a prominent facet of social structure which influences linguistic structure and use, with the result that “language not only encodes power differences but is also instrumental in enforcing them” (Fowler & Kress, 1979: 195), and, in some cases, in creating them. As a result, ideology is pervasive and thus all texts in all types of contexts should be put under the CritLing linguistic lens. Kress also published an “extended account of the operation of ideological structures in the language uses of the media, in print, radio and television” (1991: 169); and in other work of the same time (cf. Kress & Threadgold, 1988), he gave more attention than in earlier work in CritLing to productive and interpretative practices associated with (types of) texts. Of particular interest also was the work of Theo van Leeuwen, who was to co-author important work later with Kress (see Sect. 2.6), and who at this time did meticulously detailed analyses (see 1983, 1985a) of the interrelation of sound, language, and other aspects of social practices in the speech of radio announcers on different radio stations, showing how the station policies, their audience, and their approaches to news values, were realized in certain phonological facets of their speech (e.g., pitch, rhythm, intensity). In the same vein, he also worked on images and the “ideological effects of editing of videotapes in television news programmes (1985b, 1986)”, and on the socio-semantics of music (1987) and other semiotic modes (see discussion in Sect. 3.9). All of this would be part of his later work with Kress on SocSem (see Sects. 2.6 and 2.7).

2.4.5  CritLing: Interdisciplinarity and a ‘Useable’ Approach Given their beliefs and goals, the critical linguists went further against the ‘mainstream’ of linguistics by espousing an inter/multidisciplinary approach to language and text, with input from other domains to linguistics and output from linguistics to those same and different domains; in other words, they engaged in what Kress (1991: 170) called “intellectual trade”. As said above, they were very interested in

2.4  Critical Linguistics (CritLing)

41

interdisciplinary connections with other fields of knowledge than those related to texts or linguistics, and as a result, they embraced insights, analytical concepts and terms from a variety of different sources. They insisted that “linguistics had to provide the theoretical and methodological framework for the analysis of materials studied by all kinds of intellectual and cultural historians, indeed, by everyone concerned with culture and thought” (Kress & Hodge, 1979: ix) and thus linguistics could be seen as a branch of anthropology, sociology or psychology, and also as an instrument for the study of culture. While their work in the late 1970s was strongly critical of “the dominant currents” in all the disciplines they dealt with (Fowler et  al., 1979b: 5), by the late 1980s—in the opinion of Kress (1991: 171)—the “critical aspects of social and philosophical theorising” also led them to question some of the bases for linguistics itself, such as the notion of ‘speaker’ as an unproblematic construct. They were influenced by “the increasing focus on the socially and linguistically formed social ‘subject’ who is active in the construction and reconstruction of text. This in turn has led to questions around the concept of the language system as a stable and unproblematic entity in most linguistic theories, including systemic-functional linguistics” (1991: 171). As part of their interdisciplinary effort and their desire to reach linguists and scholars in other domains, the critical linguists also insisted that their approach should lead to practical analysis, in the sense of an useable mode of analysis (but not an analytical routine), that is “simple and consistent enough to be applied by non-­linguists in a ‘do-it-yourself’ critical linguistics of texts” (Fowler et al., 1979b: 4). Thus, their aim was to create a wide-ranging and interdisciplinary approach for those interested in linguistics, sociolinguistics, sociology, political theory, social theory, and so forth. In this effort, Fowler and Kress (1979) included “an annotated checklist of linguistic features which have frequently proved revealing” (1979: 198), while cautioning that “there is no predictable one-to-one association between any one linguistic form and any specific social meaning”. Indeed, they warned that to lift “components of a discourse out of their context and consider them in isolation would be the very antithesis” (1979: 198) of their approach, which relates different features and processes to each other and insists on the “multi-functional use of linguistic form and […] emphasis on the systematic nature of selections”. For their part, Hodge and Kress included two appendices in the second edition of their book in an attempt to help the reader: (1) “Key concepts in a theory of social semiotics” (1988: 261–268), and (2) an “Annotated bibliography” of a diverse “set of readings from many different disciplines” that were influential on their thinking (1988: 269–272). These were invaluable then, and they still are, as a way of showing their originality, their positioning in linguistics and critical theory, and their interdisciplinarity.

42

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

2.4.6  Kress 1989: ‘Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice’ While there were many works by the critical linguists in the 1980s and 1990s that were important and influential, there are certain works that have been singled out by one or more of the prominent originators and current practitioners of CDA15. Notable among those16 is Kress (1989, first edition in 1985b), Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice, especially for his discussion of educational texts and “spoken dialogue, including interview” (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997: 264); and the shifts he makes in CritLing can be seen as an affirmation of, and response to, critiques of his own earlier work as well as the need for more work on CritLing, some of which eventually led to CDA.  Kress’s book17 presents “a theory in which all aspects of linguistic activity appear as social practice, and in which all linguistic forms and processes are treated as and accounted for in terms of social forms and social processes” (1989: 1). This includes the social practice of interviews, on which we will focus here. Kress had already participated in research in this area in (Fowler et al., 1979a), where they were treated as sociolinguistic mechanisms of control of subordinate groups by dominant ones, and “not simply a random example of the role of language in social practice. Their embodiment of inequality of power and their use as an instrument of control make them a typical example” (Fowler et al., 1979b: 2). Kress and Fowler (1979) and Hodge, Kress and Jones (1979) related the linguistic features of interviews to the functions and meanings of the social situation and the purposes of the participants. Kress and Fowler (1979) defined an interview as a type of conversation, a rather simple and clear genre in which the means of expression are highly overt, strict and (socially) legitimized; it is socially structured face-to-face discourse that “exhibits an inequality, a skew in the distribution of power” (1979: 63). And they showed how language reflects this inequality through an in-depth analysis of, e.g., on the one hand, type of interview, status of the ­participants, issue of agency, conflicting ideologies, etc., and on the other hand, passives, nominalization, pronouns, modality, questions, syntax, transitivity, verb types, etc. In their opinion, “these interviews are only a specialized, institutionally validated, variety of the interactions revolving around power differences which go on all the time in our society” (1979: 80).

 Wodak 2001 refers to Fowler 1991a for an account of CritLing; we also recommend Kress 1990, since each one provides somewhat different pictures written by two major critical linguists. These two articles—and many other sources, especially Fairclough and Wodak 1997; Kress 1991; Wodak 2001; Wodak and Meyer 2009, 2016—have informed our discussion of CritLing in this chapter. 16  Two other books mentioned are by Fowler (1986, 1991c). 17  The difference between the 1985 and 1989 editions is that the 1989 edition has a Forward (pp. v–xii) by the editor (Frances Christie) of the series it was published in. Since the pagination of both editions is identical, we cite 1989, but the reader can find the given quote in either the 1985 or the 1989 edition. 15

2.4  Critical Linguistics (CritLing)

43

The major difference between Kress’ account in (1989) and these earlier studies is his use of “discourse” as defined in the work of Michel Foucault (1972), and in particular the idea that “institutions and social groupings have specific meanings and values which are articulated in language in specific ways” (Kress, 1989: 6). As a consequence, “discourses are systematically-organised sets of statements which give expression to the meanings and values of an institution. Beyond that, they define, describe, and delimit what it is possible to say and not possible to say […] with respect to the area of concerns of that institution, whether marginally or centrally” (1989: 6–7). For Foucault, Kress said, discourse also “organises and gives structure to the manner in which a particular topic, object, process is to be talked about. In that it provides descriptions, rules, permissions and prohibitions of social and individual actions” (1989: 7) from the point of view of the meanings and values of a specific institution. Citing types of discourse—such as educational, nationalist, sexist, feminist, patriarchal, romantic, Christian, conservative, capitalist, medical, etc.—Kress said that they “do not exist in isolation but within a larger system of sometimes opposing, contradictory, contending, or merely different discourses”, which result in dynamic relations, shifts, movement, mismatches, disjunctions, discontinuities, and so forth, especially when they collide in a particular context. Discourses attempt to reconcile these differences “by making that which is social seem natural and that which is problematic seem obvious […] unchallengeable […] ‘common sense’” (1989: 10), with no alternatives. As a result, speaking/listening and writing/reading are often determined by one’s place in (intersecting sets of) discourses. He also insisted that we are all members of social groups in which several different institutions and their discourses operate and intersect and thus we are subject to “social group discursive multiplicity, contestation, and difference” (1989: 11). The discursive history of each member of a social group may be the same as, partially similar to, or quite different from, others in the same social place, and thus there is “social determination of an individual’s knowledge of language on the one hand, and individual difference and differing position vis-à-vis the linguistic system on the other” (1989: 11–12). This is particularly apparent in dialogues such as interviews, which “display discursive difference at every point” and “the structure of difference particularly clearly” (1989: 12, 14), since by definition they are built on differences around power and knowledge. Kress (1989: 23) also makes the point that the “forms and functions of the social occasion and the purposes of the participants clearly give form and meaning” to the interview as a genre in spoken language. Its interactional nature is foregrounded and a number of formal features structure the interaction, e.g., turn-taking is directed by the interviewer, who has power and control; the text of the interview is overtly motivated by difference; and “the textual strategies are direction and questioning, on the part of the interviewer, and response, information, and definition, on the part of the interviewee” (1989: 23). Interviews are, thus, highly structured and rule governed. Kress also emphasizes that while the forms and meanings of texts are determined by discourses and genres, the sources of which are social/cultural, they are at the same time the product of individual speakers who are located in “a network of social relations, in spe-

44

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

cific places in a social structure” (1989: 5) with their specific modes and forms of speaking, practices, values, meanings, demands, prohibitions and permissions, as well as “the kinds of texts that have currency and prominence in that community, and the forms, contents and functions of those texts” (1989: 6). Thus, in an interview, they are themselves “attempting to make sense of the competing, contradictory demands and claims of differing discourses” (1989: 31). As a result, “the discursive differences are negotiated, governed by differences in power, which are themselves in part encoded in and determined by discourse and by genre” (1989: 32). The resolution of these discourses is the source of dialogue, with oneself or with another, and leads to texts that are not the work of any one person (Bakhtin, 1986) and are the sites of struggle and linguistic and cultural change. For Kress, language is entwined in social power, including distributions of power and relations of difference, in a number of ways—by indexing it, expressing it, heightening it, challenging it, subverting it, and even altering it in some cases. Power differences and their effects are often conceptualized through textual and visual metaphors using space and distance, and language often articulates a finely nuanced means of talking about social hierarchical structures, both as a static system and as a dynamic process—as often happens in interviews (1989: 53), since they are social occasions and genres that are based on power differences. He examines ‘keeping one’s distance’, both in the spatial arrangement of interviewer and interviewee and through linguistic usage, such as pronouns, names, modes of behavior, commands, modality—all of which help in the assignment of, e.g., superior knowledge and more power to the interviewer vs. inferior knowledge and less power to the interviewee. This can be mitigated by politeness conventions on the part of the interviewer or heightened by subject positions, e.g., an assertive interviewer vs. a tentative interviewee. The interviewer may also create more distance, by assuming “a certain stance towards the content of the interaction, or to the possibility of an interaction … a retreat into an institutional impersonality, or a retreat into individual invisibility … [which] make the sources of power or authority difficult to detect, and therefore difficult or impossible to challenge” (1989: 57). This also extends to the various forms of language, e.g., high vs. low register, working class vs. middle class, etc. and which ones are deemed to be appropriate in a given interview situation. These issues are “subject to the laws of social power” (1989: 64), including the class, race, gender, ethnicity, age, status, etc. of the interlocutors, the particular genre (e.g., job interview for an English teacher vs. for a sales manager), the particular institution (e.g., education vs. industry), and so forth. This shows that “we need to adopt a constantly critical stance towards our own practices and assumptions, in every detail and at every level” (1989: 66) and to realize that all social activity, including linguistic activity, is governed by larger, and sometimes competing, ideologies. All of this signifies that “while discourse and genre provide the systematicallyorganised linguistic categories which make up a text, ideology determines the configuration of discourses that are present together and their articulation in specific genres. Ideology is therefore intricately connected into the construction of texts” (1989: 83), into how the discourses are to be valued, how they relate to each other,

2.5 Hodge and Kress 1988: ‘Social Semiotics’ and Other Work

45

and how they are arranged in text in response to the demands of larger social structures. As a result, he claims that ideology is typically resistant to change (and thus, perhaps paradoxically, ideology can be conservative), since it is based on established social and material practices, and even when there is change, it provides the categories that often shape the thinking about the new discourse practices, including how to classify them and how to make them into common sense. But there is at the same time a tension between social reality and social and material practices; and “material practices continue to affect and shape cultural ideological categories, those of language included. Here, in this difference and in this constant dialogue lies the motor of social change, and therefore of language change” (1989: 84). This can consist of a change in the ideological, discursive and generic positions of individual speakers or a change in the linguistic system brought about by speakers in some cases, which is in contrast with the tradition in (socio)linguistics and historical linguistics which focuses on, and considers as very likely, changes in the system with no human agency. Kress was also interested in how individual action can effect change. He took as his example ‘sexist discourse’, about which there was much written at the time, which suggests specific subject positions for women, which in turn strongly shape the kinds of language women use or is used about women. The effects of gender roles (and sexism) meant that a woman had a typical placement in certain types of genres; for example, if she participated in an interview, she was not usually the interviewer and more likely the interviewee, treated as not being intelligent, patronized by the interviewer, and so forth. If the situation is generalized, the same types of texts are produced on many occasions and a recognizable manner of speaking emerges and is seen as the natural or proper way for women to talk or be talked about. However, “modes of talking can become altered. The theoretical analyses of feminist writers, and the social practices of feminists over a long period are bringing about a recognisable change in the discourse around gender, and in social practices” (Kress, 1989: 94, we will discuss this in more detail in Sect. 6.7). As we will see, much of what Kress called for in 1989 was taken up by CDA and thus his book could be seen as pre-/proto-CDA. However, before we go into this, we first need to discuss developments within SocSem that Kress was also very much involved in.

2.5  Hodge and Kress 1988: ‘Social Semiotics’ and Other Work Hodge and Kress’s highly praised book, Social Semiotics (1988), while it acknowledged that Halliday’s book (1978)18 “had a profound influence on our own theory” (Hodge & Kress, 1988: 270), it set out to correct a number of intrinsic limitations in the scope of CritLing and in particular in the theory of their earlier work (Kress &  They also praised him in their “Preface” “for his inspiring example as a researcher, teacher and explorer of the social functions of language” (Hodge and Kress, 1988: ix).

18

46

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

Hodge, 1979; Fowler et al., 1979a; Aers, Hodge, & Kress, 1981). These needed to be redressed “in order to fulfill our initial aim for a usable, critical theory of language” (Hodge & Kress, 1988: vii). Thus they presented a way forward and proposed an updated CritLing version of SocSem. They began with “social structures and processes, messages and meanings as the proper standpoint from which to attempt the analysis of meaning systems” (1988: vii). They also emphasized that a theory of language “has to be seen in the context of a theory of all sign systems as socially constituted and treated as social practices” (1988: vii–viii), and thus that linguistics and the study of verbal language should be “thoroughly assimilated into a general theory of the social processes through which meaning is constituted and has its effects”, i.e., a “theory of communication and society” (1988: viii). Their earlier theoretical position of language as ideology (Kress & Hodge, 1979; see Sect. 2.4.4) was extended to all the means whereby a society constitutes its cultures and its meanings: “texts and contexts, agents and objects of meaning, social structures and forces and their complex relationship together constitute the minimal and irreducible object of semiotics analysis” (Hodge & Kress, 1988: viii). They thus extended the critical linguists’ sociopolitical orientation to meaning-making in general, and presented a coherent and useable framework which was both an interdisciplinary synthesis and a single coherent scheme of methods and concepts, from semiotics, linguistics, psychology, sociology and others (see also Hodge, 1990). Their work was based especially on semiotics and in particular, on a number of premises that they wanted to emphasize as different from and/or a furthering of their earlier joint work (Kress & Hodge, 1979) as well as Halliday (1978), e.g.: meaning is produced and reproduced under specific social conditions and through specific material forms and agencies; meaning exists in relationship to concrete subjects and objects and is inexplicable except in terms of this set of relationships; society is typically constituted by structures and relations of power, either exercised or resisted; society is characterized by conflict and cohesion, so that the structures of meaning at all levels, from dominant ideological forms to local acts of meaning, show traces of contradiction, ambiguity, and polysemy. “So for us, texts and contexts, agents and objects of meaning, social structures and forces and their complex interrelationships together constitute the minimal and irreducible object of semiotic analysis” (Hodge and Kress, 1988: viii). In previous work Kress (1982) had already said that “a more comprehensive notion of ‘text’ will have to include both the verbal and pictorial elements of the one text” (1982: xi); and thus, in Social Semiotics “real efforts [were] made to understand systems of representation other than language— visual images, music, and performance. This understanding is then ‘turned back’ on language in new theorizations of the characteristics of language” (Kress, 1990: 94) and they argued that “no single code can be successfully studied or fully understood in isolation because meaning resides so persuasively in a multiplicity of visual, aural, and behavioral codes” (1990: 96). As a result, “meaning, in all its manifestations and in all places and how meaning is made, was the issue which provided the underlying coherence” of their work (Böck & Pachler, 2013: 23–24). They took a multi-semiotic standpoint and applied it to a wide range of semiotic media and

2.5 Hodge and Kress 1988: ‘Social Semiotics’ and Other Work

47

forms: e.g., images, TV, comics, sculpture, fashion, architecture, culture, media, education, and advertising. Since the central premise of their approach was that “the social dimensions of semiotic systems are so intrinsic to their nature and function that the systems cannot be studied in isolation” (Hodge & Kress, 1988: 1), they set themselves against ‘mainstream’ semiotics (or semiology), which, like ‘mainstream’ linguistics of the time, “emphasizes structures and codes, at the expense of functions and social uses of semiotic systems, the complex interrelations of semiotic systems in social practice, all of the factors which provide their motivation, their origins and destinations, their form and substance. It stresses system and product, rather than speakers and writers or other participants in semiotic activity as connected and interacting in a variety of ways in concrete social contexts” (1988: 1). Despite this criticism, they didn’t reject semiotics, as others did; rather, they argued for a reconstitution, and a reconsideration, of a ‘new’ semiotics (just as the critical linguists had argued for a ‘new’ linguistics), since “semiotics […] must provide this possibility of analytic practice, for the many people in different disciplines who deal with different problems of social meaning and need ways of describing and explaining the processes and structures through which meaning is constituted” (1988: 2; see also Hodge & Kress, 1982). Hodge and Kress (1988) took as their starting point the Marxist critique of capitalism and their view of ideology as “a level of social meaning with distinctive functions, orientations and content for a social class or group” (1988: 3) which can be combined with other ideologies to represent “the social order as simultaneously serving the interests of both dominant and subordinate”. As a result, “the meanings and the interests of both dominant and non-dominant act together in proportions that are not predetermined, to constitute the forms and possibilities of meaning at every level” (1988: 8). For an example of this, see the discussion (in Sect. 4.6) of their analysis of a billboard advertisement for Marlboro cigarettes and its amendment by a group against ‘unhealthy promotions’ (1988: 8–9). They used Saussure’s structuralist theory of semiotics as “an antiguide” and articulated an “alternative semiotics” (1988: 18) based on “Saussure’s Rubbish Bin” (1988: 15–18), which they conceptualized as being filled with those facets of language which Saussure minimized, or treated as fixed and not needing further linguistic analysis, or claimed were not amenable to scientific analysis, or excluded from linguistics and semiotics as extrasemiotic phenomena. They, however, treated those very same facets as the basic premises of their work. They focused on: culture, society and politics; other semiotic systems in addition to language; the processes and the products of speaking (parole); signifying practices in other codes; “the processes of signification, the transactions between signifying systems and structures of reference … [and] the material nature of the sign” (1988: 18). Reflecting on issues discussed in Kress and Hodge (1979), they argued that there is an intrinsic connection between diachrony, time, history, process and change, since all semiotic activity takes place in time and is subject to transformational activity, and every transformation is a concrete event with agents and reasons derived from material and social life (1988: 35).

48

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

In the course of the book, they amplified various facets of their theory: e.g., context as meaning; style as ideology; social definitions of the real and reality; transformation and time; transformations of love and power: the social meaning of narrative; and entering semiosis: training (young) subjects for culture. At the same time, they analyzed a wide range of verbal and visual phenomena and discussed an impressive variety of visual artifacts with (usually photographic) visual accompaniment: e.g., paintings, mosaics, sculptures, a photograph in a magazine, a children’s drawing, cartoons, a hand-written text, kinship diagrams, family photographs, and so forth. Other phenomena discussed in the text (without visual accompaniment) were just as wide: e.g., fashion, a TV interview, a magazine article, rites of passage in various communities (e.g., weddings, birthdays, funerals), the social meaning of folklore, and so forth. Moreover, the inclusion of renderings of the visual phenomena made the book very different from earlier ones and helped to open up a new way of discussing and presenting visual (social) semiotics, which paved the way for further development in this area (see the next section and Sect. 4.6). In essence, SocSem as Hodge and Kress (1988) present it is the study of both the social dimensions of meaning and the power of human processes of signification and interpretation in shaping individuals and societies. It is primarily interested in the way language is used in social contexts, whether visual or verbal in nature, and the way we use language to create society (see Thibault, 1991; Machin and Mayr, 2012). It also includes the study of how people design and interpret the meanings of texts, and addresses the issue of how meanings are adapted as society changes. Hodge and Kress also tried to account for the variability of semiotic practices. This different focus shows how individual creativity, changing historical circumstances, and new social identities and projects can change patterns of design and usage, since, from their SocSem perspective, the many different channels for meaning-­ making are not fixed into unchanging codes but are resources which people use and adapt (or design) to make meaning. This view provided the impetus for them and many other SocSem scholars to reject the term ‘sign’ and replace it with ‘resource’, based on Halliday’s view that the grammar of a language is a “resource for making meanings” (1978: 192; see Sect. 2.3). Two years later, Hodge (1990) published a book on literature as discourse, in which he provided a highly accessible exposition of the concepts and methods of CritLing SocSem and a new type of (literary/linguistic) criticism that puts forth a theorization of (English) literature. He characterized the framework presented in (Hodge & Kress, 1988) as an interdisciplinary synthesis and a single coherent scheme of methods and concepts (from semiotics, linguistics, psychology, ­sociology and others), a new strategy for dealing with text in all its media and forms, and “a broadly based practice that is situated socially and historically” (Hodge, 1990: 233)—which is also needed for work on literature. The notion of language as social semiotic, i.e., socially derived and with socially instrumental meanings, and this new interdisciplinary version of SocSem, became the model for investigation by Australian scholars at the interface of language, literary and semiotic studies, who did (dynamic) intertextual analysis, such as Terry Threadgold (1986, 1988a, 1988b)

2.6 Kress and Van Leeuwen 1996: ‘Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design’

49

and Paul Thibault (1991), who found Halliday’s original SocSem model too closely preoccupied with linguistic structure (grammar). In 1993, Hodge and Kress published the second edition of Language as Ideology, in which they positioned themselves as being proponents neither of the older version of CritLing nor of CDA, which had started in 1991 (see Sect. 3.2). They developed CritLing as a theory of language as a social practice, where “the rules and norms that govern linguistic behaviour have a social function, origin and meaning” (1993: 204). Their involvement in SocSem had a profound influence on much subsequent research. The relation between CritLing and SocSem was very strong, and for some, CritLing encompassed SocSem, while for others SocSem encompassed CritLing; those practicing SocSem used the term SocSem to emphasize the interplay between language and other social semiotic systems (Hodge & Kress 1988; Kress & Threadgold, 1988) and semiotically oriented studies of literature (Threadgold, 1988a, 1988b). Still others continued to use CritLing as they developed what would become CDA or they discussed CDA favorably (Fairclough 1992, 1995). Meanwhile, SocSem was about to undergo a new phase.

2.6  K  ress and Van Leeuwen 1996: ‘Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design’ 2.6.1  Introduction SocSem had a renewal of sorts through the publication of Kress and van Leeuwen’s book, Reading images, in 1996 (2nd edition 2006; earlier version 1990), which represented a turn to the visual. Theirs was the first systematic account of the “grammar” (i.e., the choices and rules of combination) of visual design, which “offers a much more comprehensive theory of visual communication than the earlier book” of 1990 (2006: ix), which was less theoretical and more practical (i.e., oriented on practice). They set their 1996 book in the theoretical framework of SocSem and SFL/SFG (cf. O’Toole, 1994)19, which gave them the tools they needed in order to understand visual ­representation and communication and to put analytical and methodological emphasis on the integration of the visual and the verbal as semiotic phenomena. They stipulated two major caveats: that the affordances and formal organizational meanings differ across the two modes (due to, e.g., the prevalence of time in spoken language and space in images) and that the term grammar means that visual analysis should move beyond interpreting the meaning of individual elements  O’Toole 1994 is a functional semiotic approach to the language of displayed art, e.g., sculpture, architecture, and painting, using Halliday’s SFL and especially his metafunctions (with different labels and definitions to suit the realms he discussed). He included a discussion of social semiotics near the end of the book, that is, he considered what kind of social meanings are at play, but he didn’t try to do a grammar of visual design, as Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) did.

19

50

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

(i.e., treating them as isolated words) and beyond focusing on the ‘denotative’ vs. ‘connotative’ meanings, iconographical vs. iconological, significance of elements in images. In short, it should “examine the structures such elements form within a visual composition” (Djonov & Zhao, 2018: 4). Due to their 1996 book, Kress and van Leeuwen, separately and together, are seen as the founders of the addition of visual (aspects of) texts to SocSem, and more widely, of serious visual analysis in semiotics and other domains. They also provided an impetus for looking at the ways in which images (and other modes of communication) are not neutral, since they reflect social and power relationships, ideology, and a particular version of social reality (Machin, 2007). And they launched (see also Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001) the new area called multimodality (see Sect. 2.7), which has had far-reaching effects on SocSem in general, CDA/CDS (see Sect. 4.6), work in visual communication and visual semiotics—and beyond. Since Reading Images (the title was inspired by Reading Television, by Fiske & Hartley, 1979) was set within the theoretical framework of SFL/SFG SocSem, they discussed three schools of semiotics that “applied ideas from the domain of linguistics to other, non-linguistic modes of communication” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996: 6), such as painting, cinema, theatre, photography, fashion, music, etc. These were: the Prague School, which drew on the Russian Formalists and their concept of foregrounding, which results from deviation from standard forms for artistic or aesthetic purposes; the Paris School of semiotics (semiology), which applied the ideas of Saussure and others; and the “still fledging movement in which insights from linguistics have been applied to other modes of representation has two sources, both drawing on the ideas of Michael Halliday” (1996: 6). One source grew out of CritLing in the 1970s at UEA and led “to the outline of a theory that might encompass other semiotic modes” (1996: 6), as provided in Hodge and Kress (1988; discussed in Sect. 2.5). The other was a development of SFL and SocSem by Australian scholars in semiotically oriented studies of literature (Threadgold, Thibault), music (van Leeuwen, 1996: 6), and visual semiotics (O’Toole—and “ourselves”, Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996: 6). As they said in their preface (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006: viii), Halliday’s “view of language as social semiotic and the wider implications of his theory” gave them the means to go beyond structuralist approaches and thus it influenced their work greatly. In addition, they cited and used much previous work in art history and visual communication. We have discussed above various aspects of Kress’s prior work in SFL, CritLing and SocSem (see Sects. 2.3.1, 2.4, and 2.5). As for van Leeuwen, we should note here that, in an interview much later, he called his career “a mixture of design and serendipity” (Andersen et  al., 2015: 93). In this case, he had much of the background needed to work with Kress on this project. He was both a practitioner and a theorist of the visual, who had long experience in scriptwriting, film direction, editing and production and at the same time, knowledge of Paris School semiotics, interest in social theory, experience working with SFL/SFG and SocSem, and a deep-seated conviction that “creativity and intellect can be combined” (2015: 94). He also had a desire to write about “the language of the image” (2015: 93—we will discuss further his work in SocSem and CDA in Sects. 3.9 and 4.6). Kress and van

2.6 Kress and Van Leeuwen 1996: ‘Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design’

51

Leeuwen’s joint work on visual communication began in the later 1980s and included, especially, the stimulating environment of the Newtown Semiotic Circle in Sydney (the ‘Semiotics Salon’), where they participated in discussions and debates about SocSem which “helped shape our ideas in more ways than we can acknowledge” (2006: vii)—they gave special thanks to “Jim Martin” and “Fran Christie” (who were in Sydney) and “Bob Hodge” (who was at Murdoch University in Perth, Western Australia). From that participation came their 1990 book, which was “used in courses on communication and media studies, and as a methodology for research in areas such as media representation, film studies, children’s literature and the use of illustrations and layout in school textbooks” (1996: ix). The 1996 book was finished and published when both were in London, Kress at the Institute of Education and van Leeuwen at the College of Printing. Their “view that language and visual communication both realize the same more fundamental and far-reaching systems of meaning that constitute our cultures, but that each does so by means of its own specific forms” (1996: 17) and their specific proposals, “had a positive reception among a wide group from the professions and disciplines which have to deal with real problems and real issues involving images” (2006: vii). However, the application of ideas from, or at least the search for parallels with, linguistics for the analysis of visuals was controversial (see Machin, 2007 for an overview). In the Preface to the 2nd edition (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006), they answered some critiques by stating that they had attempted to use the general semiotic aspects of Halliday’s SFG (Halliday, 1985a), e.g., the metafunctions, and not its “specific linguistically focused features”, and that their goal of showing (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006: viii) “how visual communication works in comparison to language” had been misunderstood as “an attempt to impose linguistic categories on the visual”, while their concern was, rather, to bring out both “the differences between language and visual communication” and “the broader semiotic principles that connect, not just language and image, but all the multiple modes in multimodal communication”. In light of these critiques, they delimited and/or reformulated in (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, 2nd edition) various parts of their proposal and addressed various omissions of the first edition, e.g., moving images, color, a wider range of three dimensional objects. At the same time, they reflected on the major societal changes in images and their use in the 10 years between the two editions and expressed their thoughts about the future of visual communication, given all the new affordances and meanings due to technology, the internet, websites, web-based images, social media, etc. Those reflections, however, led others to take a critical perspective on the issue of the unity and dominance of western visual language on which their analysis (in Kress & van Leeuwen, 1990, 1996, 2006) is based. This is because this unity derives from the global power of the western mass media and cultural industries and their technologies, which sometimes co-exists with more traditional forms (with higher, equal or lower status), or creates transitional forms/ stages through the integration of (often dominant) western elements with a local visual semiotic, or exerts a normalizing influence through a variety of means on visual communication around the world, and so forth. All of this, others said, should

52

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

be looked at more carefully with a critical lens (see further discussion of this in Sect. 3.9.4, which deals with van Leeuwen’s later work, in which he did just that).

2.6.2  General Overview As said above, Kress and van Leeuwen deliberately left aside the study of visual lexis or vocabulary (specific signs, which many previous accounts of visual semiotics had concentrated on) since their primary aim was to make generalizations about visual design and also to discuss “the broad historical, social and cultural conditions that make and remake visual ‘language’” (1996: 4) in the Western visual cultural tradition (including regional and social variation) over the last five centuries or so. They used visual design as an all-encompassing term to cover “oil painting as well as magazine layout, the comic strip as well as the scientific diagram” (1996: 3), and many other types of visual texts, and thus they analyzed a wide range of examples, from children’s drawings to textbook illustrations, photo-journalism to fine art, scientific and other diagrams to maps and charts, and so forth. And they also “made a beginning with the study of three-dimensional communication: sculpture, children’s toys, architecture and everyday designed objects” (1996: vii). The term ‘grammar’ denotes how meaning is produced through recurring visual patterns of combination which are semiotic resources for meaning making in the actions and artifacts we use to communicate and the way in which people, places and things depicted in images “are combined into a meaningful whole […] in visual ‘statements’ of greater or lesser complexity and extension” (1996: 1). Thus, they set out to provide “inventories of the major compositional structures which have become established as conventions in the course of the history of visual semiotics, and to analyse how they are used to produce meaning by contemporary image-makers” (1996: 1). They also said that visual communication in general is less the domain of specialists than before and much more crucial in the area of public communication, leading to new and more rules and most importantly to the need for everyone to have ‘visual literacy’. Reading Images had theoretical aims in addition to descriptive ones, and thus it developed a framework that could be used for ideological analysis, since, just as different ideological positions can be expressed by different grammatical structures (e.g., active vs. passive), they saw “images of whatever kind as entirely within the realm of ideology” (1996: 12), and thus different images could convey different ideologies. They also regarded their book as “a contribution to a broadened critical discourse analysis” (1996: 13; CDA had already started in 1991; see Sect. 3.2), which would encompass other semiotic modes than language, especially since at that time there was an “incursion of the visual into many domains of public communication where formerly language was the sole and dominant mode” (1996: 13). This became a significant theme in CDA/CDS itself (see Sect. 4.6). They argued that “visual structures realize meanings as linguistic structures do also” (1996: 2). Moreover, just as the term ‘grammar’ is often understood to mean a set of normative rules in speaking and writing, many creative and aesthetic uses of (the grammar of)

2.6 Kress and Van Leeuwen 1996: ‘Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design’

53

language exist in literature and poetry (and elsewhere); in the same way, the grammar of visual design can be creatively employed by those in the fine arts, and at the same time it can be used in socially normalized ways to underpin the production of layouts, images, diagrams for reports, brochures, communiqués, advertising, etc. Since their book is on visual design, it is about sign making (cf. Halliday’s notion of meaning making) or sign using, about “representation as a process in which the makers of signs […] seek to make a representation of some object or entity, whether physical or semiotic, and in which their interest in the object, at the point of making the representation, is a complex one, arising out of the cultural, social and psychological history of the sign-maker, and focused by the specific context in which the sign is produced” (1996: 6). This means that visual signs do not necessarily pre-­ exist their making, nor are they necessarily encoded in a repository of signs, rather they are the result of a process of construction of signs as “motivated conjunctions of signifiers (forms) and signifieds (meanings)” (1996: 7), where ‘motivation’ is understood “in relation to the sign maker and the context in which the sign is produced” (1996: 7; see also Kress, 1993), in relation to what the producer wants to convey. In this way, the producer’s choice of a given sign in a given context is motivated, in both its form and its meaning. What is also crucial here is that the concept of motivation comes into play in the use of a sign in a social context. This means that semiotic resources like images do not have fixed meanings but instead have a semiotic potential that can be applied differently in different contexts (see Abousnnouga & Machin, 2013). In what is one of the striking aspects of the breadth of how they define the visual, Kress and van Leeuwen (1996: 11) exemplified these and many other theoretical points by children’s drawings (and illustrations in children’s books), because they believed that “the production of signs by children provides the best model for thinking about sign-making, and that it applies also to fully socialized and acculturated humans”. Indeed, the first few figures discussed in (1996: 6–10) are drawings by very young children and the section about visual literacy analyzes an illustration from Baby’s First Book by an adult about “every night I have my bath before I go to bed” (1996: 21). Later in their book (1996: 155–158), they compared two Self-­ Portraits by Rembrandt and two drawings by two 8-year-old boys of themselves for the covers of their class projects. Their point is that we can see the interpersonal metafunction at work in both the portraits and the drawings, especially in how they convey (in Rembrandt) and don’t convey (in the class projects) interaction with the viewer.

2.6.3  The Three Metafunctions in Visual Design As Kress and van Leeuwen say in their Introduction (1996: 13), the structuring principle of both their ideas and the book came from Halliday (1985a, their major source of inspiration, and 1978), in particular his three metafunctions (see Sect. 2.3.4), which they (re)define as a “social semiotic theory of communication” (Kress

54

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

& van Leeuwen, 1996: 40), with the understanding that each semiotic mode “has to serve several communication (and representational) requirements, in order to function as a full system of communication”. Their discussion of the ideational (experiential) metafunction (1996: 45–113) deals with (1) narrative representations, which design social action, and (2) conceptual representations, which design social constructs—on the basis of both of which they discuss “the patterns of representation which the ‘grammar of visual design’ makes available” (1996: 13) for representing the world around us in social and natural space and inside us in conceptual space. They divided images into two types: detailed naturalistic pictures (e.g., a photograph of people in a landscape) and highly abstract images (such as abstract art, or diagrams, maps, charts). And they analyzed each of them into participants and processes (1996: 47). They combined Arnheim’s art theory (1974, 1982) about volumes or masses (i.e., participants) and vectors, tensions or dynamic forces (i.e. processes), with Halliday’s SFG and SocSem (1978, 1985), and extended Halliday’s notions of action and process vs. actor, goal, and recipient to specific visual signs that are “about something which participants are doing to other participants” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996: 49). In other cases, they analyzed a picture about participants who are simply carriers of meaning (through their attributes) as being “about the way participants fit together to make up a larger whole” (Machin, 2007: 127), i.e., not about doing anything, but about being “what they are”. On this basis, they divided “representational structures” into two types: narrative or social action structures, which present “unfolding actions and events, processes of change, transitory spatial arrangements” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996: 79), vs. conceptual structures, which represents “participants in terms of their more generalized and more or less stable and timeless essence, in terms of class or structure or meaning”. In the case of social action, the participants (of various sorts, e.g., people, animals, objects) are the actors or agents who are connected to a vector (e.g., road, arrow, line), i.e., “they are represented as doing something to or for each other” (1996: 56). They call this a narrative, as long as there is some feature of directionality in the image, e.g., a painting of soldiers creeping up on their enemy with guns pointing at them. Conceptual representations design social constructs, such as classifications, where participants are related to each other in terms of a kind of relation, an overt or covert taxonomy (typically with at least one participant who is ­superordinate and one or more who are subordinate (1996: 81)). Examples include illustrations of various artifacts found in an archeological dig, tree structure diagrams, pie-charts, graphs—and many of the diagrams found in (Halliday, 1985a, 1978) and in this book (see Table 4.1, this volume) and many scientific and technical books) (see also Machin, 2007: 127). Kress and van Leeuwen’s discussion of the interpersonal metafunction treats representation and interaction, i.e., designing the position of the viewer, and modality, i.e., designing models of reality. It “deals with the patterns of interaction which the ‘grammar of visual design’ makes available, and hence with the things we can do to or for each other with visual communication, and with the relations between the makers and viewers of visual ‘texts’ which this entails” (1996: 13). In their view

2.6 Kress and Van Leeuwen 1996: ‘Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design’

55

“any semiotic system has to be able to project a particular social relation between the producer, the viewer and the object represented” (1996: 41). Participants produce and make sense of images “in the context of social institutions which, to different degrees and in different ways, regulate what may be ‘said’ with images, and how it should be said, and how images should be interpreted” (1996: 119). The involvement of participants may be direct and immediate (face-to-face) or there may be no immediate and/or no direct involvement. The context of production and the context of reception may be the same or at least connected—or there may be a disjunction between them; in the former case, the producer and the viewer may be physically present, but in the (very common) case of disjunction, typically the producer is absent and the viewer has only the image. Whether there is connection or disjunction between the contexts of production and reception, they have in common “the image itself, and a knowledge of the communicative resources that allow its articulation and understanding, a knowledge of the way social interactions and social relations can be encoded in images” (1996: 120). As a result “the interactive meanings are visually encoded in ways that rest on competencies shared by producers and viewers … [they] derive from the visual articulation of social meaning in face-to-face interaction, the spatial positions allocated to difference kinds of social actors in interaction” (1996: 120–121). From this a variety of meanings arise. There are many different kinds of interpersonal relations, e.g. a person in a photograph may “address viewers directly, by looking at the camera” (1996: 43) or may seem to look directly as the viewer’s eyes or make an inviting gestures, etc.—they call this a “demand” image (based on Halliday, 1985a), which demands something from the viewer (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996: 118), asks for some sort of (possibly) imaginary relationship between the viewer and the image and therefore conveys a sense of interaction. Or the person may be “turned away from the viewer and this conveys the absence of a sense of interaction” (1996: 43), there is absence of gaze at the viewer—it is an ‘offer’ image (Halliday, 1985a), the participant is the object of the viewer’s scrutiny (not only in photographs of people, but also in the cases of a drawing in a scientific textbook, and also diagrams, maps and charts, etc., Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996: 119). And, we understand both types of interpersonal images, “because we understand the way images represent social interactions and social relations” (1996: 121), including relations with objects. There are other, interpersonal, facets of images: e.g., size of the frame (a scale from close-up to medium to long shot), which suggests different relations between participants and viewers, with regard to, e.g., social distance, ranging from close personal distance to far personal distance to close social distance to far social distance to public distance (1996: 130–135; see also van Leeuwen, 1986). These patterns can be conventionalized in, e.g., television, diagrams, newspaper and magazine photos, advertisements, landscapes, and they are typically not in an either-or relation but in “scales” or gradations (see Machin, 2007). However, because they are conventional, they can also lead to misunderstanding, due to intercultural differences. Another way in which images bring about or reproduce relations between represented participants and the viewer is perspective, the selection of an angle, a point

56

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

of view. There are various meanings associated with horizontal vs. oblique angle: a frontal view typically represents involvement or intimacy or subjectivity (part of our world, something we are involved with), whereas the further it goes to an oblique angle, the more detachment there is or objectivity (not part of our world), with degrees (or a scale) of involvement-shading-into-detachment (1996: 142–143). In either case, they can express subjective attitudes that are “often socially determined” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996: 135) and yet “naturalized” at the same time, based on an “impersonal, geometric basis”. Beginning with the Renaissance, “visual composition became dominated by the system of perspective, with its single, centralized viewpoint” (1996: 136), dependent on the viewer. This resulted in two types of images, either “subjective”, “with (central) perspective (with a built-in point of view)”, or “objective”, “without (central) perspective (without a built-in point of view)” (1996: 136). Many late nineteenth and twentieth century images combine both (as do, e.g., advertisements, 1996: 138–139). The angle of the shot is also important: a vertical angle can signify differences of imaginary symbolic power, depending on whether the viewer sees the participant from above, looking down (and thus, the viewer is represented as exerting symbolic power over the participant, who could have lower status, vulnerability, or inferiority), or looking up from below (which represents less power and status, vulnerability or inferiority for the viewer and more power, authority or respect for the participant (1996: 146)). A horizontal camera angle can symbolize equality and no power differential (see further discussion of distance, angle, gaze in Sect. 4.6.3). According to Machin (2007: 48) “it was Kress and Hodge (1979) in Language as Ideology who first pointed out that modality could also be expressed non-verbally”, but it was Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) who proposed a variety of visual techniques “whereby modality can be reduced and reality can be avoided or changed”. As said (in Sect. 2.3.4), in SFG, ‘modality’ refers to the truth value or credibility or degree of certainty of statements about the world; and in their discussion of “modality: designing models of reality”, Kress and van Leeuwen (1996: 159) stated that “one of the crucial issues in communication is the question of the reliability of messages”. Is what we see true, real, or is it fiction, something outside reality? “The questions of truth and reality remain insecure, subject to doubt and uncertainty, and, even more significantly, to contestation and struggle” (1996: 159). And yet we have to make decisions and we have to trust (or not) the information we receive, and thus the message (text, visual image) should have some modality markers, i.e., cues established by the social groups within which we interact as reliable guides to the truth, factuality, certainty, credibility of messages, or their falsehood, fiction, doubt, unreliability20. Visual SocSem does not claim to establish absolute truth or falsity of 20  The current chapter was written in 2018 and updated in 2019 when modality questions of truth, factuality, certainty and credibility (and the attendant issue of trust) vs. falsehood, fiction, doubt, unreliability (and distrust) were uppermost in the minds of many, due to various political events during those years, in Europe, the UK, and the US, and which continued in 2019 (particularly with the issue of Brexit and the impeachment inquiry and trial of Donald Trump)—and they have kept continuing in 2020.

2.6 Kress and Van Leeuwen 1996: ‘Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design’

57

messages, but it can show how a visual proposition is represented as true or not (1996: 159), according to the values and beliefs of a given group. That is, the definition of reality is based on “currently dominant conventions and technologies of visual representation” (1996: 163) and “abstraction relative to the standards of contemporary naturalistic representation” (1996: 165). And “modality is realized by a complex interplay of visual cues” (1996: 167), based on eight modality markers (scales) of visual modality that go from “‘certain’ to ‘uncertain’ with ‘probable’ in between” (Machin, 2007: 48), but also can descend again to lower modality, if it goes beyond what is judged to be “naturalistic”, according to the (social) criteria for what counts as real. There are also, e.g., scales for color (1996: 165–168; also Kress & van Leeuwen, 2002), contextualization (“degrees of articulation of the background”, Machin, 2007: 51), representation from “maximum abstraction to maximum representation of pictorial detail” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996: 166). These rest “on culturally and historically determined standards of what is real and what is not” (1996: 168), which can differ according to social communities and over time. This has led to different coding orientations (Bernstein, 1981), “which inform the way in which texts are coded by specific social groups, or within specific institutional contexts” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996: 170), of which there are four types in western society: technological (based on the effectiveness of the visual representation as a kind of “blueprint”); sensory (used in contexts “in which the pleasure principle is allowed to be dominant”); abstract (used by sociocultural elites and thus a mark of social distinction, e.g., “in ‘high’ art, in academic and scientific contexts”); and naturalistic, assumed to be common sense. This last one has been dominant in our society—although with new image technologies, the status of this type of coding is coming into crisis (1996: 170–171). The issue of modality is particularly complex in modern art, which attempts to redefine reality and to reject photographic naturalism (1996: 171–180). Kress and van Leeuwen (1996, 2006) also discussed the meaning of composition (see also van Leeuwen, 2003), which is based on the textual metafunction and deals with “the way in which representations and communicative acts cohere into the kind of meaningful whole we call ‘text’” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996: 14), which covers any kind of semiotic artifact. Given that “any semiotic system has to have the capacity to form texts, complexes of signs which cohere both internally and with the context in and for which they were produced” (1996: 41), visual grammar provides a range of resources and different compositional arrangements in order “to allow the realization of different textual meanings”. In particular, it is concerned with “the way the representational and interactive elements are made to relate to each other, the way they are integrated into a meaningful whole” (1996: 181) by “three principles of composition” (1996: 183): (1) ideational “information value”, i.e., placement of elements left and right, top and bottom, (2) interpersonal salience which attracts the viewer’s attention according to foreground vs. background placement, relative size, contrasts in tonal value or color, differences in sharpness, etc.; and (3) textual “framing”, i.e., framing devices such as dividing lines, or connectedness or disconnectedness of the elements of the image. This happens not only with single pictures or simple images, but also with composite visuals, or “multimodal texts

58

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

(and any text whose meanings are realized through more than one semiotic code is multimodal)” (1996: 183). They concluded that the meanings of this type of text are not simply the sum of the meaning of discrete elements or parts, but that “the parts should be looked upon as interacting with and affecting one another” (1996: 183) and thus, the whole is “an integrated text”, and neither the verbal nor the visual aspects of the text are by definition prior to or more important than or independent of the other. This, they explain, is why they draw comparisons between visual and verbal communication, seek to break down disciplinary boundaries between the study of each, and use comparable language and terminology for both. Using these multimodal texts/images, they then go on to discuss elements of the composition of the whole image (1996: 177–200) based on information value, salience and framing, which they apply to an array of visual phenomena (such as film, advertisements, newspapers, painting, diagrams, science textbooks, children’s drawings), each of which can have a variety of ideological meanings, depending on many factors. They identify three types of information value, dependent on placement in the image. In those cultures with a left to right, top to bottom writing system, the first is left vs. right placement, where left placement means ‘given’ (familiar, agreed upon, point of departure) and right placement means ‘new’ (unknown, not yet agreed upon, needing special attention) (1996: 181, cf. ‘theme’ vs. ‘rheme’ in Halliday, Sects. 2.3.2–2.3.4). The second is top vs. bottom placement, where top placement means ‘ideal’ (aspirations, desires, abstract representation, idealized, generalized) and bottom placement means ‘real’ (more or less factual, specific and detailed, realistic, practical). The third is center vs. margin(s), with “the crucial element” (Arnheim, 1982; Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996: 192), the ‘nucleus’ of the information, in the center vs. the elements that are ‘ancillary’ or ‘secondary’ in the margins. This third dimension is less used in Western art and when it is, it is typically combined with one or both of the others, and the center is the bridge between, e.g., ‘given’ on the left and ‘new’ on the right, and thus acts as ‘mediator’ (1996: 209, although there are many complexities). They defined interpersonal ‘salience’ as “the degree to which an element draws attention to itself, due to its size, its place in the foreground or its overlapping of other elements, its colour, its tonal values, its sharpness or definition, and other features” (1996: 210). Typically, it creates an interpersonal hierarchy of importance among the elements, selecting some as more important or more worthy of attention, and it interacts with given-new, ideal-real and center-margin, in a variety of ways. In visuals, “when composition is the integration mode, salience is judged on the basis of visual clues” (1996: 202), such as the greater the weight of an element, the greater its salience, which may also depend on potent cultural symbols, size, color, tone, focus, foregrounding, overlapping, etc. The third key element in composition, ‘framing’, can be stronger or weaker; if it is stronger, what is framed is a separate unit of information, and context then shows the precise nature of the separation. Framing stresses individuality and differentiation, a gap of some sort, whereas its absence or a weak frame stresses group identity, as belonging together, and a strong sense of connection across the frame of the (two) parts of the image. Framing can be given by frame lines, objects in the image, discontinuities of color or shape, or

2.6 Kress and Van Leeuwen 1996: ‘Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design’

59

empty space; and connectedness can be emphasized by vectors, depicted elements, abstract graphic elements, or repetition of shapes or colors. And every element, given or new, ideal or real, center or margin, can be framed either strongly or weakly or not at all. While those compositional elements seem to be well established in Western art, Kress and van Leeuwen show that the issue of “reading paths” by the viewer is quite complex. Some reading paths are obvious, as in linear (syntagmatic) compositions which are strictly coded to be read horizontally left to right and line by line and vertically top to bottom (1996: 204) as in densely printed pages of text (such as this one). Or they can be more paradigmatic, less strictly coded and read in more than one way, such as websites, which are “specifically designed to allow multiple reading paths”, and also “increasingly many texts (newspapers, billboards, comic strips, advertisements, websites) are of this kind” (1996: 208), and this is even more the case in the twenty-first century. It is a fascinating part of the new ways of communication, and “the study of the meaning of new kinds of reading paths has barely begun” (1996: 206) and has become another issue of interest in visual studies, including in van Leeuwen’s work (see Sect. 3.9.4).

2.6.4  Other Facets of the Visual Kress and van Leeuwen also discuss the issue of the materiality of meaning, i.e., the materiality of the signs themselves, including the surfaces on which inscriptions are made (e.g., paper, canvas, film, computer screen), and the means and processes of inscription (e.g., ink, paint, chemicals), since, e.g., “it means something quite specific whether a painting is executed in watercolours or in oil, whether a knife is used to apply the paint or a spraygun” (1996: 230). However, they point out that many linguists would say that it is the same text when written with a pencil on scrappy bits of paper with bad handwriting, or pen and ink on glossy paper with no cross-outs or corrections, or printed out on good bond paper using a word-processor and printer (Halliday, 1985a calls this ‘realization’, see Sect. 2.3)—as long as they are identical word-for-word. However, a teacher, a sculptor, an artist, a potential employer or a marketing executive would say that they are very different, since presentation ­matters. Thus, Kress and van Leeuwen (1996: 14) emphasize that differences in presentation contribute to the meaning of visual texts. And, we could add, the meaning of, e.g., a spoken text, differs when produced with a different regional or social or foreign accent and/or with a variety of different intonations (as van Leeuwen had said several years before, see Sect. 3.9.1). For Kress and van Leeuwen, representational practices differ in the degree to which the materiality of the text plays a role in semiosis. In their view, “the material expression of the text is always significant” (1996: 216); it is a separately variable semiotic feature. “Texts are material objects which result from a variety of representational and production practices that make use of a variety of signifier resources organized as signifying systems” (1996: 216), each of which contributes to the

60

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

meaning of the text in its own particular way. Thus, the production of a text is “a culturally and socially produced resource for meaning-making” and “it is in this process that unsemioticized materiality is drawn into semiosis” (1996: 231). Meaning potentials are different from culture to culture, from context to context, etc. And even typography and letterform have their own meaning potential, metaphorical association and transport of meaning, and metafunctions. Thus, it is not the case that all of the aspects that go into the making of an image are part of a single representational system in which all the units are of the same kind. For example, a portrait painting involves multiple signifying systems, including not only various aspects of the painting itself, but also the size of the painting, the type of canvas it is on, various aspects of the frame, the caption on the painting or above or next to the painting, the signature of the artist, and so forth. The different means and processes of inscribing words constitute one system among many since they can be changed while other aspects of the production of the image are held constant. In addition, any of the signifying systems can realize all the choices from the ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions. This is also the case with language; in particular, the material expression of the text is, from a social semiotic point of view, always meaningful, a separately variable semiotic feature, a culturally and socially produced resource for meaning making. This is highly complex and there is no established inventory in relation to, e.g., the way representations are produced, especially in view of various new technologies. Thus, there are produced by, e.g., (1) the hand (with a variety of means for creating the representation, e.g., pencil, pen, typewriter, etc.), (2) recording (of various sorts), e.g., printing press, and (3) synthesizing technologies. These are linked to ongoing theoretical discussions not only about production but also about transmission, reception, and distribution and the ongoing (changes in the) limits of technology—all of which bring up many other issues (see 1996: 217–238). In addition, in their extension of their previous discussion “into the domain of three-dimensional visuals” (1996: 14), Kress and van Leeuwen underscored key similarities and differences between two- and three-dimensional objects. They showed that the latter are themselves also subject to a grammar of visual design, as in sculptures, which are primarily symbolic objects “for contemplation and veneration” (1996: 240) vs. three-dimensional “designed objects” such as scientific models, children’s toys, or everyday objects, which are made for practical use (for the user), although they may also “convey symbolic messages”, and there are many other types of objects such as motorcars, architecture, and stage sets (which were explored later by van Leeuwen, see Sect. 3.9). All of these depend on available forms and meanings, but they also bring in new categories (e.g., for sculpture: presence or absence of a pedestal, frontal or oblique placement with respect to the viewer, etc.; see also discussion of van Leeuwen’s work in Sect. 3.9). They also discussed moving images and the role of color, as in film (later discussed in Kress & van Leeuwen, 2002; van Leeuwen, 2011). And, finally, as we have seen in our discussion, many of the images and objects discussed by Kress and van Leeuwen were composites of more than one semiotic mode—for which they used the term ‘multimodality’.

2.7 Kress and van Leeuwen 2001: ‘Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media…

61

2.7  K  ress and van Leeuwen 2001: ‘Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication’ While Kress and van Leeuwen’s work on the grammar of visual design became well known for its many proposals about the analysis of visual images and was part of the turn to focusing on visual design as a distinct mode, there was perhaps even more interest within the SocSem and ultimately the CDA community in their new concept of ‘multimodality’. Multimodality was based on their recognition that the way we communicate is typically done through a number of semiotic modes simultaneously (see also O’Toole, 1994). One of the new ideas in Kress and van Leeuwen (1990, 1996) was their argument that we should not analyze each semiotic resource on its own, but rather the ensemble, the “multimodal text” (1996: 177), whose meanings are realized simultaneously through more than one semiotic mode. They insisted that each of the modes “should be looked upon as interacting with and affecting one another” (1996: 177), and the choices from various semiotic resources should be studied as to how they interact to create meaning multimodally. In their work, they did not treat “the verbal text as prior and more important, nor treat visual and verbal text as entirely discrete elements” (1996: 177); rather they looked at the whole as an “integrated text” in which the “integration of different semiotic modes is the work of an overarching code whose rules and meanings provide the multimodal text with the logic of its integration”. They also indicated that the verbal and visual were not the only semiotic modes that could combine into a text, but that there can be many modes in many different combinations with different (meta)functions and hierarchies, and that the analyst should pay equal and equally detailed attention to each without privileging one of them and also interpreting them in terms of how they interact with and affect each other. Kress and van Leeuwen discussed the new theoretical concept of multimodality briefly in their 1996 and 2006 texts, but it received much greater attention in their co-authored book (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001) on Multimodal Discourse, and other publications (e.g., van Leeuwen, 1999; Kress, van Leeuwen, & García, 2000; Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, & Tsatsarelis, 2001; Kress, Jewitt, Franks, Bourne, Hardcastle, Jones, & Reid, 2005; van Leeuwen, 2005; Kress, 2010; see also Sects. 3.9 and 4.6). Kress and van Leeuwen (2001: 2) present “a view of multimodality in which common semiotic principles operate in and across different modes” and reflect on the fact that with advances in digital technologies, non-specialists are increasingly able to select and combine semiotic resources in a way that only specialists were able to do in the past, and that therefore, the study of contemporary communication requires “a unified and unifying semiotics” (2001: 2). This rests on two fundamental facets of human communication. The first is that it is multimodal: for example, “meaning-making involves selecting from different modes (e.g., written language, sound, gesture, visual design) and media (e.g., face-to-face, print, film) and combining these selections according to the logic of space (e.g., a sculpture), time (e.g., a sound composition), or both (e.g., a film)” (Djonov & Zhao,

62

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

2013: 1; see also Kress, 2010). Thus, “multimodality names both a field of work and a domain to be theorized” (Kress, 2010: 54). The second facet of human communication is that it is always social, as underscored by work in all types of SocSem, and thus it is both defined by and construes its social context, and over time it can be transformed by and transform that social context. Multimodal Discourse (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001) is based on “the idea of communication”, of how people “use the variety of of semiotic resources to make signs in concrete social contexts” (2001: Preface). At the same time, it also presents the “common semiotic principles [which] operate in and across different modes” (2001: 2). It presents “fundamental principles for a unified theory of multimodality” (Djonov & Zhao, 2018: 5), such as: the study of multimodal communication should focus on “broad semiotic principles that apply across different semiotic resources”; and multimodal analysis should always consider “semiotic resources in relation to specific, situated social practices” in context (see also Moschini, 2014) and should deal with all aspects of communication in their complexity (see Kress, 2018). Kress and van Leeuwen (2001) define four ‘strata’ (based on Halliday, 1985) of analysis: discourse, i.e., “socially constructed knowledges of (some aspect of) reality” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001: 4); design (the arrangement, the composition, of discursive materials); production (the material realization of a semiotic event or object); and distribution (which in the late twentieth and into the twenty-first century often adds or changes meaning, 2001: 7). Interest in multimodality led to work by others influenced by SocSem and/or SFL, who saw the exciting consequences of this new point of view for their own research and publications (e.g., Lemke, 1998; Scollon, 2001; Norris, 2004; and others). Multimodal SocSem (see van Leeuwen, 2005; Andersen et  al., 201521) became even more interdisciplinary in nature and a way of ­understanding the practice of meaning-making across a range of texts and institutions, and also allowing different theoretical voices, all concerned with the process and practice of semiotic meaning-making, to dialogue with each other—for example, in the journal Social Semiotics (founded in 1991). In light of heightened interest in multimodality, many have said that there is much more multimodality than there had been before, that the 2000s and on are a historic moment when there are ongoing changes in the roles of the different modes and a broad change in the way we communicate (going from monomodality to more and more multimodality, and a different distribution of the three metafunctions, see Machin, 2007), due to the many new digital, computational, and internet-based technologies and their semiotic potentials and to the fact that frames are dissolving

 Andersen et al. 2015, on Social Semiotics: Key Figures, New Directions, focused on, and included interviews with, Christian Matthiessen, James Martin, Gunther Kress, Theo van Leeuwen, and Jay Lemke, who were chosen by the authors because they were inspired by the work of Halliday in SFL and his model of SocSem while developing original work of their own. Among other things, the interviews highlight their main lines of thought and discuss how they relate to both Halliday’s original concept of SocSem and to each other. We focus here only on Kress and van Leeuwen, since they had the most impact on SocSem in relation to CDA (see also Sects. 3.2 and 3.8).

21

References

63

everywhere and formerly clear boundaries are becoming ever more blurred (see more in Sect. 3.9 on van Leeuwen and Sect. 4.6 on SocSem and multimodality). Multimodality has been embraced by various other domains and has become a field of research in its own right. It was also incorporated into SocSem and (along with SocSem and SFL) into DA/DS, which for some is named multimodal DA (MDA) and DS (MDS). Research on multimodality can also be critical (but not necessarily part of CDA/CDS) and yet at the same time some of the critical approaches have been taken into, or have become part of, CDA/CDS as multimodal CDA (MCDA, to be discussed in Sect. 4.6). Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 264) characterize the visual and multimodal version of SocSem by saying that it “draws attention to the multi-semiotic character of most texts in contemporary society, and explores ways of analyzing visual images […] and the relationship between language and visual images”. In their estimation, SocSem also attends not only to productive and interpretive practices of texts but also to the texts themselves, and reflects a new orientation to struggle and historical change in discourse. Both Kress and van Leeuwen have taken multimodality into new domains—Kress in his research on education along with his students and colleagues (see Böck & Pachler, 2013) and van Leeuwen in his ongoing interest and innovations in SocSem (see Sect. 3.9 and Djonov & Zhao, 2013, 2018). Given the important presence of multimodality in CDA, we postpone further discussion to Sects. 3.9 and 4.6. We now turn to Chap. 3, in which we will discuss the (official) emergence of CDA and the work of its founders, Kress, Fairclough, van Dijk, Wodak and van Leeuwen.

References Abousnnouga, G., & Machin, D. (2013). The language of war monuments. London: Bloomsbury. Aers, D., Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1981). Literature, language and society in England (pp. 1580– 1680). Dublin: Gill Macmillan. Andersen, T., Boeriis, M., Maagerø, E., & Tønessen, E. (2015). Social Semiotics: Key figures, new directions. London/NY: Routledge. Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception. In Berkeley/LA: University of California Press. Arnheim, R. (1982). The power of the centre. Berkeley/LA: University of California Press. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. (1994). Speech genres. In P. Morris (Ed.), The Bakhtin reader: Selected writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, Voloshinov (pp. 80–87). London: Edward Arnold. Bazell, C., Catford, J., Halliday, M., Robins, R. (Eds.) (1966). In memory of J.R. Firth, London: Longmans, Green and Co. Belsey, C. (1980). Critical practice. London: Methuen. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Doubleday. Bernstein, B. (1967). The role of speech in the development and transmission of culture. In G.  Klopf & W.  Hohman (Eds.), Perspectives on learning. New  York, NY: Mental Health Materials Center.

64

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control: Vol. I. Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bernstein, B. (1973). Class, codes and control. Vol. II: Applied studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge. Bernstein, B. (1977). Class, codes and control. Vol. III: Towards a theory of educational transmissions. London: Routledge. Bernstein, B. (1981). Codes, modalities and the process of cultural reproduction: A model. Language in Society, 10, 327–363. Birch, D., & O’Toole, M. (1987a). Functions of style. London: Pinter Publishers. Birch, D., & O’Toole, M. (1987b). Introduction: The power of functional stylistics. In D. Birch & M. O’Toole (Eds.), Functions of style (pp. 1–11). London: Pinter Publishers. Böck, M., & Pachler, N. (Eds.). (2013). Multimodality and social semiosis: Communication, meaning-making, and learning in the work of Gunther Kress. London: Routledge. Brown, G., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness—some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caldas-Coulthard, C.  R., & Coultard, M. (1996). Preface. In C.  R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. xi–xii). London: Psychology Press. Chilton, P. (Ed.). (1985a). Language and the nuclear arms debate: Nukespeak Today. London: Pinter. Chilton, P. (1985b). Introduction. In P.  Chilton (Ed.), Language and the nuclear arms debate: Nukespeak Today (pp. xii–xxiii). London: Pinter. Chilton, P. (1988). Orwellian Language and the media. [essays written 1981–1985]. London: Pluto Press. Chilton, P. (1996). Security metaphors: Cold war discourse from containment to Common House. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1969). American power and the new Mandarins. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalizations. In R.  Jacobs & P.  S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell. Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovitz (Eds.), Semantics. London: Cambridge University press. Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch. Connerton, P. (Ed.). (1976). Critical sociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Cook, J. (1987). Critique. In R.  Fowler (Ed.), A dictionary of modern critical terms (2nd ed., pp. 49–51). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Djonov, E., & Zhao, S. (2013). From multimodal to critical multimodal studies through popular discourse. In E. Djonov & S. Zhao (Eds.), Critical multimodal studies of popular discourse (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge. Djonov, E., & Zhao, S. (2018). Social Semiotics: A theorist and a theory in retrospect and prospect. In S. Zhao, E. Djonov, A. Björkvall, & M. Boeriis (Eds.), Advancing multimodal and critical discourse studies: Interdisciplinary research inspired by Theo van Leeuwen’s Social Semiotics (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge. Duranti, A. (1985). Sociocultural dimensions of discourse. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 1, Disciplines of discourse (pp. 193–230). London: Sage. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). London/NY: Continuum. (1st edn.: 1994). Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Arnold. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, Vol. 2, Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). London: Sage.

References

65

Fawcett, R. (2000). A theory of syntax for systemic functional linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York, NY: Hold, Rinehart & Winston. Firth, J. (1934). Linguistics and the functional point of view. English Studies, 16, 2–8. Firth, J. (1935). The technique of semantics, Transactions of the Philological Society, 36–72. Reprinted in Firth, J.R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951 (pp. 7–33). London: Oxford University Press. Firth, J. (1952). Linguistic analysis as a study of meaning. In F. Palmer (Ed.), Selected papers of J.R. Firth, 1952–59 (pp. 12–26). London: Longman. Firth, J. R. (1957a). Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press. Firth, J. R. (1957b). Ethnographic analysis and language with reference to Malinowksi’s views. In R.  W. Firth (Ed.), Man and culture: An evaluation of the work of Bronislaw Malinowski (pp. 93–118). New York: Humanities Press. Firth, J. R. (1957c). A Synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. In Studies in linguistic analysis (Special volume of the Philological Society), (pp. 1–32). Oxford. Reprinted in Palmer, F. Ed. 1968a. (pp. 168–205). Fiske, J., & Hartley, J. (1979). Reading television. London: Methuen. Foucault, M. (1972). Orders of discourse. Social Science Information, 10, 7–30. Fowler, R. (1972). Style and the concept of deep structure. Journal of Literary Semantics, 1, 5–14. Fowler, R. (1977). Headlinese: A counter-example to the Ohmann Thesis. UWA Papers in Linguistics, 3, 36–48. Fowler, R. (1981). Literature as social discourse. London: Batsford. Fowler, R. (1987). Notes on critical linguistics. In T. Threadgold & R. Steele (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday (pp. 481–492). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Fowler, R. (1986/1996). Linguistic criticism. [1st edn., 1986, 2nd edn. 1996]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fowler, R. (1991a). Critical linguistics. In K.  Malmkjaer (Ed.), The linguistics encyclopedia (pp. 89–93). London: Routledge. Fowler, R. (1991b). On critical linguistics. In C. Caldas-Coulthard, & M. Coulthard, (Eds.). Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis. (pp.  481–492). London: Routledge. Reprinted in M. Toolan, (Ed.) (2002). Critical discourse analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics. Vol. I: Precursors and Inspirations (pp. 346-357). London: Routledge. Fowler, R. (1991c). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London/NY: Routledge. Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979a). Language and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979b). Preface. In R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress, & T. Trew (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 1–5). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Fowler, R., & Kress, G. (1979). Chapter 10: Critical linguistics. In R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress, & T. Trew (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 185–213). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Halliday, M. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word, 17, 241–292. Abridged version in Kress 1976. Halliday, M. (1967–1968). Notes on transitivity and theme in English (Parts 1–2), Journal of Linguistics 3.1, 37–81 and 3.2, 199–244 (1967), 4(2): 179–215 (1968). Halliday, M. (1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. Halliday, M. (1969). Relevant models of language. Educational Review, Revised Version in Halliday, 1973, 9–21. Halliday, M. (1970). Language structure and language function. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics (pp. 140–165). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Halliday, M. (1973a). Explorations in the function of language. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. (1973b). Foreword. In T. Mackay, D. Thompson, & B. Schaub (Eds.), Breakthrough to literacy (American edition). CA: Glendale.

66

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

Halliday, M. (1975/1977). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of Language. London: Edward Arnold/NY: American Elsevier. Halliday, M. (1976a). In G.  Kress (Ed.), System and function in language. London: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M. (1976b). Anti-languages. UEA Papers in Linguistics, 1, 15–45. Halliday, M. (1977a). Aims and perspectives in linguistics. Applied Linguistics Association of Australia: Occasional Papers 1. Halliday, M. (1977b). Text as semantic choice in social contexts. In T. van Dijjk & J. Petöfi (Eds.), Grammars and descriptions (pp. 176–226). Berlin: de Gruyter. Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. (1985/1989). Spoken and written language. Geelong, VIC/Oxford: Deakin University Press/Oxford University Press. Halliday, M. (1985a). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. (1985b). Systemic background. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse: Selected theoretical papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop (pp. 1–15). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Halliday, M. (1992). Some lexicogrammatical features of the zero population growth text. Reprinted. In J. Webster (Ed.), The collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Vol. 2. Linguistic studies of text and discourse (pp. 197–227). London: A&C Black. Halliday, M. (1993). Language in a changing world. Canberra: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. Halliday, M. (1994a). An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd Edn., with new preface (pp. xi–xii). Introduction (pp. xiii–xxxv). London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. (1994b). ‘So you say “Pass”. Thank you three muchly.’ Reprinted. In J.  Webster (Ed.), The Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday. Vol. 2. Linguistic studies of text and discourse (pp. 228–286). London: A&C Black. Halliday, M. (2002–2007). Collected works, Vols. 1–11. Edited by J.  J. Webster. London and New York: Continuum/Bloomsbury. Vol. 1 (2002): On grammar. Vol. 2 (2002). Linguistic studies of text and discourse. Vol. 3 (2003). On language and linguistics. Vol. 4 (2003). The language of early childhood. Vol. 5 (2004). The language of science. Vol. 6 (2005). Computational and quantitative studies. Vol. 7. (2005). Studies in English language. Vol. 8 (2006). Studies in Chinese language. Vol. 9 (2007). Language and society. Vol. 10 (2007). Language and education. Vol. 11 (2013) Halliday in the 21st Century [publications of 2004–2012]. Halliday, M. (2002a). Introduction: A personal perspective. In J.  Webster (Ed.), The collected works of M.A. K. Halliday, Vol. 1. On grammar (pp. 1–14). Bloombury: London/NY. Halliday, M. (2009). Preface. In M. Halliday & J. Webster (Eds.), Continuum companion to systemic functional linguistics (pp. vii–viii). London/NY: Continuum. Halliday, M. (2015). The Influence of Marxism. In J. Webster (Ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday (pp. 94–100). London/NY: Bloomsbury Academic. Halliday, M., & Greaves, W. (2008). Intonation in the grammar of English. London: Equinox. Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, text and context. Geelong, VIC: Deakin University Press. (Republished by Oxford University Press, 1989). Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). Introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Education. Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2006). Construing experience through meaning: A language-­ based approach to cognition. London/NY: Continuum. Halliday, M., McIntosh, A., & Stevens, P. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching (pp. 233–234). London: Longmans. Hasan, R. (1996). In C. Cloran, D. Butt, & G. Williams (Eds.), Ways of saying: Ways of meaning. London: Cassell.

References

67

Hasan, R. (2015). Systemic functional linguistics: Halliday and the evolution of a social semiotic. In J. Webster (Ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday (pp. 101–134). London/ NY: Bloomsbury. Hjelmslev, L. (1953). Prolegomena to a theory of language. Baltimore: Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics. 2nd ed: 1961/1991. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Hodge, B., & Fowler, R. (1979). Chap. 1: Orwellian linguistics. In R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress, & T. Trew (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 6–25). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hodge, B., & Kress, G. (1982). Functional semiotics. Australian Journal of Cultural Studies, 1, 1–17. Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Jones, G. (1979). Ch. 5.: The ideology of middle management. In R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress, & T. Trew (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 81–93). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hodge, R. (1990). Literature as discourse: Textual strategies in English and History. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. [1st edn.: Kress & Hodge 1979]. Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. In J.  Gumperz & D.  Hymes (Eds.) The ethnography of communication. pp.  1–34. [Special issue] American Anthropologist 66 (6) pt. 2. Hymes, D. (1972). Models for the interaction of language and social life. In J.  Gumperz & D.  Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt. Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kress, G. (1976). Introduction. In G. Kress (Ed.), Halliday: System and function in language (pp. vii–xxi). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kress, G. (1982). Learning to write. London & NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1994 (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Kress, G. (1985a). Discourses, texts, readers and the pro-nuclear arguments. In P. Chilton (Ed.), Language and the nuclear arms debate: Nukespeak today (pp.  65–87). London/Dover, NH: Frances Pinter. Kress, G. (1985b). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Geelong, VIC: Deakin University Press. Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. (2nd edition of 1985b). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kress, G. (1990). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11(84), 84–99. Kress, G. (1991). Critical discourse analysis. In M. Clyne (Ed.), Linguistics in Australia: Trends in research (pp. 163–180). Canberra, Australia: Academy of Social Sciences. Kress, G. (1993). Against arbitrariness: The social production of the sign as a foundational issue in critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4, 169–193. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge. Kress, G. (2018). Chap. 2: Changing academic sense: A personal recollection of collaborative work. In S. Zhao, E. Djonov, A. Björkvall, & M. Boeriis (Eds.), Advancing multimodal and critical discourse studies: Interdisciplinary research inspired by Theo van Leeuwen’s social semiotics. London: Routledge. Kress, G. & Fowler, R. (1979). Chap. 4: Interviews. In R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress, T. Trew, (Eds.) Language and control. (pp. 63-80). London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. Kress, G., & Hodge, R. (1979). Language as ideology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. [2nd edition: Hodge and Kress 1993].

68

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Franks, A., Bourne, J., Hardcastle, J., Jones, K., et  al. (2005). English in urban classrooms: A multimodal perspective on teaching and learning. London: Routledge Falmer. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum. Kress, G., & Threadgold, T. (1988). Towards a social theory of genre. Southern Review, 2(3), 215–243. Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1978a). Transformation and discourse: A study in conceptual change. Journal of Literary Semantics, 7(1), 29–48. Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1978b). Ideological transformations of discourse: Or, how the Sunday Times got its message across. The Sociological Review, 26(4), 755–776. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1990). Reading images. Geelong, VIC: Deakin University Press. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2002). Colour as a semiotic mode: Notes for a grammar of colour. Visual Communication, 1, 343–368. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Visual interaction. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (2nd ed., pp. 362–384). New York: Routledge. Kress, G., van Leeuwen, T., & García, R. L. (2000). Semiótica discursiva. In El discurso como estructura y proceso (pp. 373–416). Barcelona: Gedisa. Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Labov, W. (1970a). The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale, 23, 30–87. Labov, W. (1970b). The logic of non-standard English. Georgetown University monograph series on Languages and Linguistics, 22. Labov, W. (1972a). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. (1972b). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lamb, S. (1966). Outline of stratificational grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lemke, J. (1985). Ideology, intertextuality and the notion of register. In J. Benson & W. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse, Vol. 1: Selected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop (pp. 275–294). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning in visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge. Machin, D. (2007). Introduction to multimodal analysis. London: Bloomsbury. Machin, D. & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. London: Sage. Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. Supplement to: Ogden, C. & Richards, I. The meaning of meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Malinowski, B. (1935). Coral gardens and their magic, Vol. 2, Allen & Unwin. Martin, J. (1986). Grammaticalization ecology: The politics of baby seals and kangaroos. In T.  Threadgold, W.  Grosz, G.  Kress, & M.  Halliday (Eds.), Semiotics, ideology, language (pp. 225–268). Sydney: Sydney Association for Studies in Society and Culture. Martin, J. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martin, J. (Ed.). (2013). Interviews with M.A.K.  Halliday: Language turned back on himself. London/NY: Bloomsbury. Martin, J., & Hasan, R. (Eds.). (1989). Language development: Learning language, learning culture. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. 2007 (2nd ed.). London: Continuum. Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.

References

69

Matthiessen, C. (2014). Introduction. In M. A. K. Halliday & C. Matthiessen (Eds.), Introduction to functional grammar (4th ed., pp. xiii–xvii). London: Routledge. Moschini, I. (2014). Interview with Theo van Leeuwen. LEA, 3, 203–222. [LEA=Lingue e letterature d’Oriente e d’Occidente]. Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction. London: Routledge. O’Toole, M. (1994). The language of displayed art. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Inc. Orwell, G. (1968). In S.  Orwell & I.  Angus (Eds.), The collected essays, journalism and letters of George Orwell (Vol. 4). London: Secker & Warburg. Also republished in 1970 by Harmondsworth: Penguin. Palmer, F. (Ed.). (1968a). Selected papers of J. R. Firth 1952-1959. London: Longman. Palmer, F. (1968b). Introduction. In F.  Palmer (Ed.), Selected Papers of J.R.  Firth 1952–1959 (pp. 1–11). London: Longman. Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New  York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World. Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated discourse: The nexus of practice. London: Routledge. Smith, N., & Wilson, D. (1979). Modern linguistics: The results of Chomsky’s revolution. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Steele, R. (1987). Introduction. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday (Vol. I, pp. xix–xxii). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Thibault, P. (1989). Semantic variation, social heteroglossia, intertextuality: Thematic and axiological meaning in spoken discourse. Critical Studies, 1, 181–209. Thibault, P. (1991). Social semiotics as praxis: Text, social meaning making, and Nabokov’s ‘Ada’. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Thompson, J. (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Threadgold, T. (1986). Semiotics-ideology—language. In T. Threadgold, E. Grosz, G. Kress, & M. Halliday (Eds.), Semiotics, ideology, language (pp. 15–60). Sydney: Sydney Association for Studies in Society and culture. Threadgold, T. (1988a). Semiotics in Australia. In J.  Umiker-Sebeok & T.  Sebeok (Eds.), The semiotic web: A yearbook of semiotics (pp. 231–272). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Threadgold, T. (1988b). Stories of race and gender: An unbounded discourse. In D.  Birch & O. Toole (Eds.), Functions of style. London: Pinter. Threadgold, T., Grosz, E., Kress, G., & Halliday, M. (Eds.). (1986). Semiotics, ideology, language. Sydney: Pathfinder Press. Trew, T. (1979a). Chap. 6: Theory and ideology at work. In R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress, & T. Trew (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 94–116). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Trew, T. (1979b). Chap. 7: ‘What the papers say’: Linguistic variation and ideology difference. In R.  Fowler, B.  Hodge, G.  Kress, & T.  Trew (Eds.), Language and control (pp.  117–156). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Trudgill, P. (1974). Linguistic change and diffusion: Description and explanation in sociolinguistic dialect geography. Language in Society, 3(2), 215–246. Vachek, J. (Ed.). (1966). A Prague School reader in linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. van Leeuwen, T. (1983). Impartial speech: Observations on the intonation of radio newsreaders. Australian Journal of Cultural Studies, 2, 84–89. van Leeuwen, T. (1986). Proxemics of the television interview. Australian Journal of Screen Theory, 17(18), 125–141. van Leeuwen, T. (1987). Generic strategies in press journalism. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 199–220. van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech music, sound. London: Macmillan. van Leeuwen, T. (2003). A multimodal perspective on composition. In T. Ensink & C. Sauer (Eds.), Framing and perspectivising in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

70

2  Precursors to CDA and Important Foundational Concepts

van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Psychology Press. van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Critical discourse analysis. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, (pp. 290–4). Oxford: Elsevier. van Leeuwen, T. (2011). The language of colour—An introduction. London: Routledge. Webster, J. (2009). An introduction to Continuum companion to systemic functional linguistics. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. Webster (Eds.), Continuum companion to systemic functional linguistics (pp. 1–11). London/New York: Continuum. Webster, J. (Ed.). (2015a). The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K.  Halliday. London/NY: Bloomsbury. Webster, J. (2015b). Text linguistics. In J.  Webster (Ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to M.A.K. Halliday (pp. 315–326). London/NY: Bloomsbury Academic. Whorf, B. (1956). In J. Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about—a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (1st ed., pp. 1–13). London: Sage. Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. (2005). Preface. In R.  Wodak & P.  Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R.  Wodak & M.  Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 1–32). London: Sage. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016). Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (3rd edn., with new title) (pp. 1–22). London: Sage.

Chapter 3

Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

3.1  I ntroduction: Discourse Analysis (DA) and van Dijk 1985: ‘Handbook of Discourse Analysis’ This chapter recounts how critical work in discourse analysis (DA) became a recognized program of academic research, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). However, before doing that, we will first discuss briefly the general domain of DA. We have already traced in Chap. 2 the interest within systemic functional linguistics (SFL/ SFG) in the analysis of text, the focus within critical linguistics (CritLing) on critical analysis of texts and discourse and within social semiotics (SocSem) in textual and visual analysis. At roughly the same time, independently of those developments, scholars in a variety of disciplines in other parts of the world had an interest in many types and phenomena of language use. Starting in the 1960s, there were various scattered attempts to study discourse and texts in a variety of disciplines, not only linguistics, but also e.g., philosophy, sociology, anthropology, and the emerging area of pragmatics. This led, in the early 1970s, to “the publication of the first monographs and collections wholly and explicitly dealing with systematic discourse analysis” (van Dijk, 1985c: 4), which then opened up in the later 70s and early 80s to “a more widespread, interdisciplinary, and broader study of textlinguistics and discourse” (1985c: 6). This was part of an interdisciplinary trend that went against the autonomous approaches in linguistics that took the isolated sentence as the highest unit to be analyzed—segregated from other sentences, text, discourse, use, context of situation, culture and society, etc.—and in the same way saw linguistics as strictly separate from other disciplines, like anthropology and sociology, and also from its own subdisciplines, like sociolinguistics. The scholars in the new interdisciplinary trend (to which SFL/SFG was also connected) were independent of each other at first, since they were working in different research traditions, but they brought “new ideas about language use, linguistic variation, speech acts, conversation, other © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 T. Catalano, L. R. Waugh, Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies and Beyond, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 26, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49379-0_3

71

72

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

dialogues, text structures, communicative events, and their cognitive and social contexts” (van Dijk, 1985c: 8), which soon led to (more) integrated interdisciplinary study of language use and discourse. Teun van Dijk, who had been a contributor to the history and development of DA (including text linguistics) with his own research and writings (more about this in Sect. 3.6.1), was a major force behind the growth and international prestige of DA through journals he edited and especially his fourvolume Handbook of Discourse Analysis (1985a) and his introductions to the Handbook as a whole and each of the volumes (e.g., 1985c, 1985d, as well as in his edited volume, 1985h, on Discourse and Communication, in which he had an introduction (1985i) and a chapter on the ‘structure of news in the press’ (1985j)). In the Preface to the Handbook he said that it was a “multidisciplinary1 publication” (1985b: xi) that dealt with the “presentation of the various disciplines of discourse analysis, introduction to descriptive methods, study of important genres of (dialogical) discourse, and application in critical social analysis” (1985b: xi–xii). He put an emphasis on attention to “a common object of research—discourse (or texts, conversations, message, etc.)—despite a large variety of theories, descriptive approaches and empirical methods” (1985b: xiii—this is also true of CDA, as we will see, in Sects. 3.2 and 4.2). This variety is evidenced by the breadth of disciplines represented in the Handbook: the central ones of “linguistics, psychology, social psychology, sociology and anthropology” (1985b: xiii), more recent interest from “history, law, artificial intelligence, and philosophy … [and] the methods of discourse analysis developed in poetics (literary scholarship), stylistics, rhetoric, or content analysis (e.g., in mass communication research)”. Importantly for DA and CDA, van Dijk’s own writings at that time and the writings of others he included in the Handbook showed the interest that he took “in texts and discourses as basic units and social practices” (Wodak, 2001a: 7). Vol. 2: ‘Dimensions of discourse’ covers various descriptive methods of DA from linguistics (such as his own, van Dijk, 1985g, on ‘semantic discourse analysis’) as well as those on the “boundary of linguistics and other disciplines, such as pragmatics and analyses of argumentation, narrative, and nonverbal communication” (van Dijk, 1985f: xiii). At the same time, the Handbook contains “the work of a variety of scholars for whom language and how it functions in discourse is variously the primary object of research, or a tool in the investigation of other social phenomena. This is in a way a documentation of the ‘state of the art’ of critical linguistics in the mid-1980s” (Wodak, 2001a: 7). The Handbook was also a harbinger of some of the scholars, topics, and concerns of CDA, especially in Volume 4: ‘Discourse Analysis in Society’. In his introduction to Vol. 4, van Dijk discusses the issue of “possible applications and social relevance for the study of discourse” (1985d: 3), arguing for what he called “critical discourse analysis” (1985d: 6) and emphasizing the need for both “a sound discourse analysis” and “an adequate and critical social analysis” 1  Van Dijk (and others) often use terms like interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, cross-disciplinary, transdisciplinary for DA (and later, discourse studies DS) and also CDA/CDS. We will not make a difference between these in citing other scholars—and will use the terms that van Dijk uses when citing him—and in our own discussions we will use the term interdisciplinary.

3.2  Start of CDA

73

(1985d: 8). The volume includes chapters by, among others, Fowler (1985) on power, Kress (1985b) on ideological structures in discourse and Wodak (1985) on the interaction between judge and defendant in the courtroom. Van Dijk and others continued to turn their attention to further development of CritLing and DA throughout the rest of the 1980s. This set the stage for CDA, to which we now turn.

3.2  Start of CDA 3.2.1  S  ymposium in Amsterdam in 1991: Similarities and Differences in the Original CDA Group “CDA as a network of scholars emerged in the early 1990s, following a small symposium in Amsterdam, in January 1991” (Wodak, 2001a: 4), which was organized by van Dijk who, as Professor at the University of Amsterdam, secured funding for the meeting from the University. As a result, he, Norman Fairclough (Lancaster), Gunther Kress (London), Theo van Leeuwen (Sydney), and Ruth Wodak (Vienna) met for 2 days to discuss “theories and methods of Discourse Analysis, specifically CDA” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 3). They mutually recognized the similarity of their work in spite of their many differences, became the loosely knit “original CDA group” (van Leeuwen, 2008a: xx), and reached a set of agreements about a way forward. As we will see in our discussions below (Sects. 3.3–3.9), in the late 1970s through the early-mid 1990s, (descriptive) phrases such as ‘critical analysis of discourse’, ‘critical approach to discourse analysis’, ‘critical discourse analysis’, ‘critical text(-)linguistics’, ‘critical language study’ (and others, such as ‘critical sociolinguistics’, ‘critical language awareness’) had been used in various publications, along with or instead of, the already established Critical Linguistics (CritLing, see Sect. 2.4). The various phrases with the term ‘critical’ indicated that many of the ideas that were to become part of the field of CDA were ‘in the air’ but had not yet coalesced into a recognized research paradigm nor had one particular way of designating it become standardized as a set name (and acronym). However, by the mid-­ late1990s, “the label CDA came to be used more consistently” (Wodak, 2001a: 5) for this research program. Before Jan. 1991, the five participants in Amsterdam had not all known each other personally, although Kress and van Leeuwen had already worked together in Australia (see Sect. 2.6) and van Dijk and Wodak in Europe (see Sect. 3.7). In general, they had very distinct backgrounds and experiences, “which have, of course, changed significantly since 1991 but remain important, in many respects” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 3). Thus, they had not thought of themselves as sharing strong interests in the same issues. However, “in this process of group formation, differences and sameness were exposed: differences towards other theories and

74

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

methodologies in discourse analysis (see Titscher, Meyer, Wodak & Vetter, 20002) and sameness in a programmatic way, which could frame the differing theoretical approaches of the various biographies and schools of the respective scholars” (Wodak, 2001a: 3). All of those were already evident in 1991 and/or have developed even further since then (see Chap. 4, also van Dijk, 2007a). Three of the participants at the meeting had also published books in the 1980s, “which were coincidentally (or because of a Zeitgeist) published simultaneously and led by similar research goals” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 3–4), especially their critical aims and their focus on discourse, power and ideology with regard to social issues: van Dijk, 1984 (Prejudice in Discourse), Fairclough, 1989b (Language and Power) and Wodak, 1989a (Language, Power and Ideology). Since all three books were seen as pre-/ proto-CDA, we will discuss them in some detail in the sections devoted to each author later in this chapter. What unified the founders of CDA and their colleagues and differentiated them most clearly from other types of DA (and also from pragmatics and sociolinguistics, among other areas) was their general “constitutive, problem-oriented, interdisciplinary approach” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 2). ‘Constitutive’, ‘problem-oriented’ and ‘interdisciplinary’ are all equally important in the identification of the approach, which provided a base that allowed them to act as a group and at the same time maintain their individuality. As a result, their unifying parameters were “rather specifics of research questions (critique) than the theoretical positioning” (Wodak & Meyer, 2016b: 17) which they use to analyze, understand, and explain social phenomena of various sorts. And this stance has remained a hallmark of CDA since then, along with other generally accepted facets, such as common agreement that language is a social practice (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997), that both language use and context (or ‘text and context’) are equally important and that context should include a variety of factors (the list has been extended and expanded to include, e.g., situation-specific, social, cultural, historical, (socio)cognitive, and political factors, although not everyone uses all of these). And while CDA research is not focused on specific linguistic items for their own sake, it requires some linguistic expertise, since it is necessary for, e.g., deciding on which items are relevant for which specific research objectives (and vice versa) and how to interpret them. CDA has a major interest in de-mystifying (deconstructing) power and ideologies (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 3); it “aims to shed light on the discursive aspects of societal disparities and inequalities [and] frequently detects the linguistic means used by the privileged to stabilize or even to intensify inequalities in society” (2009b: 32) and also to show how discourse properties are used in “social processes of power, hierarchy-building, exclusion and subordination”. In addition, those who are part of CDA make their own positionings and interests explicit (2009b: 3) and at the same time they are “self-reflective of their own research process”. This means that, as much as possible, they maintain distance from the data and keep description and interpretation

2  Wodak and Meyer (2009b, 2016b) mention Renkema (2004), Wetherell et al. (2001), Wodak and Kryzyžanowski (2008), and Wodak (2008a).

3.2  Start of CDA

75

apart from each other, so as to be transparent in their analysis. At the same time, they want “to produce and convey critical knowledge that enables human beings to emancipate themselves from forms of domination through self-reflection. Thus they are aimed at producing ‘enlightenment and emancipation’ … and seek to create awareness in agents of their own needs and interests” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 7). As for the differences between the five scholars in the original CDA group, they were many; but, as Wodak and Meyer (2009b: 32) said, they were “volitional characteristics”, a conscious decision about the (wide) foundation on which they were to be a group. They had been trained in different areas of and approaches to linguistics and thus had no common linguistic theory or methodology. Fairclough, Kress and van Leeuwen were influenced by Halliday’s SFL/SFG and were familiar, as well, with the work of, e.g., Malinowski, Firth, Whorf, Bernstein, etc. (see Sects. 2.2– 2.4). However, they were involved in different projects in 1991 and after. Kress and van Leeuwen went on to develop their own version of SocSem (and thus we devoted Sects. 2.5 and 2.6 to these ideas)—but their interests diverged after that (see Sects. 3.3 and 3.9). For their part, van Dijk and Wodak were different from them (having no prior interest in SFL/SFG nor CritLing nor SocSem), but they also had different backgrounds in linguistics—van Dijk in text grammar, discourse pragmatics and coherence, and discourse comprehension (see Sect. 3.6), and Wodak in sociolinguistics and applied linguistics (see Sect. 3.8). However, the two of them did have various interests in common (Sect. 3.7). The ‘original five’ also had grounding in a diverse set of social, critical and sociocognitive theories. CDA “has never been and has never attempted to be or to provide one single or specific theory” (Wodak & Meyer, 2016b: 5—as against many other domains in the social and human sciences. Indeed, it “emerged as a mixture of social and linguistic theories” (Wodak & Meyer, 2016b: 19) and has remained that way ever since; this has meant that there is not just one single approach to CDA but several (see Chap. 4, which discusses the current seven main approaches). Thus, each scholar had—and still has—his or her own theoretical inclinations. For example, a quick overview for the ‘original five’ would point out that Kress and Fairclough were allied with Marxism (but in different ways), van Dijk with social cognition, Wodak with the Frankfurt School, and van Leeuwen with SFL/SFG and SocSem. This diversity led Fairclough to say: “I believe we should be open to a wide range of theory” (2000: 163); Van Dijk suggested that CDA/CDS should be seen as “a heterogeneous ‘movement’ with various methodologies and epistemological positions” (2008: 822); and Wodak and Meyer commented on the “huge variety of theories, ranging from theories on society and power in Michel Foucault’s tradition, theories of social cognition, and theories of functional grammar as well as individual concepts that are borrowed from larger theoretical traditions” (2016b: 13). These theories can be classified in various ways (as laid out in, e.g., Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Meyer, 2001; Wodak & Meyer, 2009b; 2016b; Fairclough, Mulderrig, & Wodak, 2011). Wodak and Meyer (2009b: 32) summarize the situation in this way: “CDA works eclectically in many aspects. The whole range between grand theories and linguistic theories is evoked, although each approach

76

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

emphasizes different levels” of theory, which can be arrayed as (all quotes from Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 24): • epistemology (“theories that provide models of the conditions, contingencies and limits of human perception … between the poles of realism and constructivism”); • general social theories, i.e., Grand Theories (which “conceptualize relations between social structure and social action and thus link micro- and macro-­ sociological phenomena”); • middle-range theories (with a focus on “specific social phenomena … or on specific subsystems of society”); • micro-sociological theories (which “try to make sense of and explain social interaction”); • sociopsychological or sociocognitive theories (which “focus on the social conditions of emotion and cognition”); • discourse theories (which “aim at the conceptualization of discourse as a social phenomenon and try to explain its genesis and its structure”); • linguistic theories (“e.g., theories of semantics, pragmatics, of grammar or of rhetoric, [which] describe and explain the patterns specific to language systems and verbal communication”). In this connection, Wodak and Meyer (2009b) characterized five of the approaches in their book—which are also included in this one (see Sects. 3.5–3.9, 4.2–4.8)—in terms of their theoretical background and “main theoretical attractor”, i.e., major linguistic, social, cognitive, or critical thinker(s) (2009b: 20, Fig. 1.1) who has been very influential on their work—although in all cases they have also had other influences: • for Wodak and Reisigl’s Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), the main theoretical background/theoretical attractor is Critical Theory (the Frankfurt School, especially Habermas) and Symbolic Interactionism (e.g., Goffman, 1970) (see also Sects. 3.8 and 4.5 for these and other influences and for more on the approach). • for van Leeuwen’s Social Actor Approach (SAA) the main theoretical background is Halliday’s SFL/SFG (functional grammar), and SocSem (see Sect. 2.3), as well as Critical Theory (see Sects. 3.9 and 4.6 where SAA is only one of the approaches discussed). SAA is one part of van Leeuwen’s approach to CDA, which he calls ‘discourse as the recontextualization of social practice’ (Van Leeuwen, 2009a, 2016b); he said (2009a: 146–148, 160–161; 2016a: 140–141, 153) that he is influenced by other theorists, such as Malinowski (1923) and Bernstein (1981, 1986, 1990: Chap. 5), and others. • for Siegfried Jäger and Florentine Maier’s Dispositive Analysis Approach (DPA) it is Foucault and his “structuralist explanations of discursive phenomena” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 25), and some others, as discussed in Sect. 4.7.

3.2  Start of CDA

77

• for van Dijk’s Sociocognitive Approach (SCA, Sects. 3.6.6 and 4.4) it is Moscovici’s ‘social representation theory’ (Moscovici 1982, 2000) and earlier work by e.g., Durkheim. • for Fairclough’s Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA, see Sect. 4.3) the main theoretical tradition is Marxist theory and Marxism (1992; see Sects. 3.5 and 4.3 for more discussion of this and other influences). This leaves aside two fairly newly formed approaches: the corpus linguistic approach (CorpLingA, see Sect. 4.8) and the cognitive linguistic approach (CogLingA, see Sect. 4.9). CorpLingA was included in Wodak and Meyer (2009b: 20) as influenced by Critical Theory but not in 2016b (see p. 18). This is because CorpLingA—and CogLingA—both “offer methodologies and methods for analyzing specific data sets without relying strongly on specific theoretical attractors” (Wodak & Meyer, 2016b: 18). However, they are very different from each other in many ways (see Sects. 4.8 and 4.9). This way of classifying by general theoretical approach—and theoretical attractor—“neglects the interconnectedness of particular approaches (Hart & Cap, 2014b, in their introduction)” on other grounds (Wodak & Meyer, 2016b: 19). However, we agree with most of those in CDA/CDS that this classification is very useful and thus we use it here (see Chap. 4, especially Sect. 4.2) and it does not preclude discussion of, or classification by, other types of similarities across approaches. Moreover, as we will see, while diversity is sometimes seen as a weakness, showing a lack of cohesion, being too eclectic, or masking a failing/failure (as claimed in some critiques of CDA/CDS, see Chap. 5), it is an eclectic pluralism held together with a few basic convictions that has been a cohesive and coherent strength. The methodologies and types of analysis of the various approaches have the same eclecticism. CDA has been from the beginning one overall school that has integrated several different research schools with very different methodologies, and also with diverse perspectives and procedures, about which, already in 1991, “a very stimulating and rapidly expanding debate was begun among scholars, approaches and methodologies” (Wodak & Chilton, 2005b: xii). As a result, while all of the approaches can be seen as in some sense hermeneutic (i.e., where “hermeneutics can be understood as the method of grasping and interpreting meanings”, Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 22), their interpretative perspectives have different emphases and sometimes even include quantitative procedures, especially in the case of CorpLingA. In other words, CDA/CDS has changed in many ways since 1991, due not only to developments within the original approaches but also the addition of new scholars, theories, research frameworks, empirical methods, specific questions of research, and so forth. This heterogeneity has allowed for “continuous debates, for changes in the aims and goals, and for innovation” (Wodak & Meyer, 2016b: 5). And this has also meant that many scholars (including the current co-­authors) could join the CDA/CDS research program by agreeing with the parameters that unify the group, e.g., problem-oriented research questions, critique, and an interdisciplinary approach (among others)—without giving up their own interests, projects, or ways of working or having to take on theoretical (or other types of) positioning they may

78

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

not be comfortable with. And we are convinced that it is because of this, and the hard work of the original CDA group as well as those who joined them in the early years, that CDA/CDS has become an established, i­ nstitutionalized and international academic framework—a development that has not changed its pluralistic character (Wodak, 2001a: 11; 2001c: 64), despite those who predicted it would (see Chap. 5). Other consequences of this eclecticism are that there have been different definitions of basic terminology, most notably ‘discourse’, which has a wide range of meaning in CDA/CDS (Wodak & Meyer, 2016b: 6) and also ‘text’, with its different and sometimes conflicting definitions (and per force, the difference between discourse and text). As well, ‘critique’/’critical’ has different meanings in the Frankfurt School, especially in Horkheimer and Habermas, vs. in CritLing vs. in some approaches to CDA (see Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 6–7). Given this situation for ‘discourse’, ‘text’ and ‘critique/critical’, we will not attempt to define them—nor ‘power’, ‘ideology’ or ‘context’, etc.—for CDA in general (see Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 4–10; 2016b: 5–12, for a general discussion). However, we will define, when relevant, what these terms mean for each approach (see Chap. 4, Sect. 4.2).

3.2.2  CDA: Consolidation and Development The formation of the CDA group and its consolidation and the development of CDA as a network of scholars was abetted by the launch in 1990 of van Dijk’s international multi- (and trans-)disciplinary journal, Discourse & Society (International Journal for the study of discourse and communication in their social, cultural and political contexts), which was founded to publish scholarship in the various fields studying discourse and communication and for “the further development of a serious critical paradigm” (van Dijk, 1990: 10). This new journal fits the cause of CDA well since it is issue-oriented, i.e., it deals with relevant social problems, especially “group-based forms of inequality” (1990: 10) and “power differences” (1990: 11), and goes behind these surface forms in order to explore “the more complex and hidden mechanisms of discursively based (trans)formations of social cognitions, ideology and socio-political and cultural structures that give rise to such interactional expressions of inequality in the first place” (1990: 11). In addition, van Dijk wanted Discourse & Society “to encourage cooperation and solidarity, stimulate coherence, and initiate new cross-disciplinary developments […] and promote a new field of socio-political discourse analysis” (1990: 13)—this succinct statement seems also to characterize the aims of the meeting in Amsterdam in 1991. This ‘new field’ would include (in harmony with van Dijk’s commitment to social justice, see Sect. 7.3) scholars from, and issues of interest to, southern Europe and/or countries from the southern hemisphere as well as women and (racial and ethnic) ‘minority scholars’ from many disciplines of the humanities and social sciences. The journal provided a common medium for publishing critical research and a Forum (discussion) section. As a result of the discussions of the original CDA group, there was a Special Issue of Discourse & Society (volume 4.2) edited by van Dijk (1993b) on CDA,

3.2  Start of CDA

79

with his Editor’s Forward (van Dijk, 1993c) and papers originally presented at the Jan. 1992 (second) workshop on CDA, also held in Amsterdam, with contributions by Fairclough (1993), Kress (1993), van Leeuwen (1993), Wodak and Matouschek (1993), and van Dijk (1993d). Discussions of all of these are included, when relevant, in the sections in this chapter dedicated to their work. Wodak said about this Special Issue and other joint ventures since then (1996: x): “I have been fortunate to be able to discuss many important theoretical issues about ‘critical linguistics’3 with my colleagues and friends Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Theo van Leeuwen and Gunther Kress. They have been a source of invaluable knowledge of varied cultural contexts of discourse production, of theoretical rigour and of criticism of individual or collaborative work. Yet the collegial atmosphere of mutual respect in which these critical exchanges have taken place has been nearly as rewarding as the criticism itself”. The 1991 Amsterdam meeting was also an institutional beginning of CDA due to other plans: more (international, national and local) CDA symposia, conferences, colloquia and workshops in various venues; an ERASMUS exchange program— which was funded by the European Union for 1993–1996 with Wodak as Coordinator; joint projects and collaborations between scholars (in addition to the original group) who came from different countries and approaches (see Kress, 1990, 1991); and a co-authored introduction to CDA that eventually resulted in a widely cited chapter (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997), in van Dijk’s (1997a) edited book on DS (see also Fairclough et al., 2011; Wodak, 2011; in van Dijk, 2011a). In addition to Discourse & Society, several other new journals that welcomed CDA/CDS work were created, e.g., Critical Discourse Studies, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, Visual Communication and later, The Journal of Language and Politics, and Discourse and Communication, as well as the open-access e-journal published by the international network of scholars, Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines (CADAAD), which also sponsors international conferences every 2 years. As well, there were various collaborative interdisciplinary CDA projects, book series, handbooks and readers, and introductory texts and textbooks—and a wide variety of other printed and electronic sources for DA/DS that include CDA and CDS. All of this activity abetted the development and consolidation of CDA. There were several early proponents of CDA who wrote about it (and in some cases, its relation to CritLing) in the 1990s, such as Kress (1990, 1991, 1993a, 1996), Fowler (1987, 1991, 1996), Fairclough (1993, 1995b: 1–20), and most of all van Dijk (e.g., 1993d, 1996, 1997c, 1999a—see also 2001a, 2001b, 2007b, 2009a, 2011c, 2013d, 2015, 2016a). The first edited collection of papers in book form with the label CDA was published in 1996, with a Preface by the editors Carmen CaldasCoulthard and Malcolm Coulthard (1996a), who had both been involved in a descriptive approach to DA before (see, e.g., Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Coulthard, 1977/1985; Coulthard & Montgomery, 1982; Coulthard, 1992, 1994) and who felt

3  As noted below, Wodak, among others, used both ‘critical linguistics’ and ‘critical discourse analysis’ as more or less synonymous terms for their critical work in the early to mid 1990s.

80

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

that it was “part of their professional role to investigate, reveal and clarify how power and discriminatory value are inscribed in and mediated through the linguistic system” (1996: xii). Their book included contributions by each of the co-editors and scholars who continued to do CritLing and/or were early members of the CDA group (e.g., Caldas-Coulthard, 1996; Coulthard, 1996a; Fowler, 1996; Fairclough, 1996; Kress, 1996; van Dijk, 1996; van Leeuwen, 1996; Wodak, 1996b). Among the overviews of CDA/CDS, the earliest, most comprehensive and informative are the volumes co-edited by Wodak and Michael Meyer (2001, 2009a, 2016a) and their introductory overview chapters that cover the history, concepts, development and different approaches to CDA (Wodak & Meyer, 2001, 2009a; Meyer, 2001) and later to CDS (Wodak & Meyer, 2016a, which also includes a Glossary). Their translation into other languages (e.g., Spanish, Japanese and Arabic, see the Preface in Wodak & Meyer, 2016a: x) underscores the international interest in CDA/CDS and its perspective. During this period, Wodak (co-)edited and (co-)authored introductions to other books on CDA/CDS and put long discussions of it in other work (for more on Wodak as historian and biographer of the CDA group, see Sect. 3.8.8). There also were others who contributed to documenting the new research field, e.g., the edited collections with introductions by Toolan, 2002a, 2002b (4 Vol.)—and later Hart & Cap, 2014a, 2014b). All of this was important in establishing and developing CDA as a new intellectual domain of academic research with a clear and recognized academic identity; and the use of the term CDA (and eventually CDS, see Sect. 4.1) became a way of showing allegiance to a general framework and a common enterprise carried out by a group of scholars (Wodak, 2001a) which opens up a whole new array of questions and concerns. By 2009, CDA had become “an established discipline, institutionalized across the globe in many departments and curricula” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 4, 2016b: 5). It attracted an increasing number of researchers and “many more academic posts and programmes of study and research, and it has become more mainstream, and certainly more ‘respectable’ than it was in the early days” (Fairclough, 2010: 10). As for the relation between CritLing, SocSem and CDA, there were many who saw CDA as a continuation of, or as occupying the same paradigmatic space as, CritLing (see Kress, 1990, 1991; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Wodak & Meyer, 2001) and given that fact, some used CDA and Critical Linguistics/ CL4 interchangeably as near-synonyms for a while. However, Wodak et al. (1999) said that, in contrast with CritLing, those doing CDA “place great emphasis on the analysis of empirical data” (1999: 2) (more than those in CritLing). There were others who agreed with van Dijk that CDA and CritLing “are at most a shared perspective on doing linguistic, semiotic or discourse analysis” (van Dijk, 1993b: 131). And 4  CL was used as the acronym for ‘critical linguistics” by its founders and also by some in CDA (such as Wodak). However, later CL was created as an acronym for ‘cognitive linguistics’, which is also discussed in this book (see Sect. 4.9). In order to avoid confusion, we have created the more transparent acronyms, ‘CritLing’ and ‘CogLing’ for these two, very different types of linguistics, while keeping CL for CritLing in quotations, but not in our text. See the List of Acronyms and Abbreviations.

3.2  Start of CDA

81

Kress (1990: 94) stated that there is a large continuity between the two, due to two claims they had in common—that discourses are i­deological (Kress, 1985a/1989) and there is no “arbitrariness” of the linguistic sign (Kress, 1993a) since it is social in origin, development and use. However, Kress also said that CDA was “emerging as a distinct theory of language, a radically different kind of linguistics” (1990: 94). Fairclough knew CritLing well, but he developed his own, somewhat different, approach (Critical Language Studies [CLS], see Sect. 3.5.1); he joined CDA in the mid 1990s (Fairclough, 1995b; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997), but he also distanced himself from it in some of his subsequent publications (e.g., Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999—see Sects. 3.5 and 4.3). Some of the others who had been doing CritLing did not join the CDA research program for various reasons (see Fowler, 1996), while scholars from other backgrounds joined the growing CDA group fairly early, such as Caldas-Coulthard and Coulthard, cited above (1996b), Lilie Chouliaraki (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999) and Luisa Martín Rojo (Rojo & van Dijk, 1997)—and Ron Scollon (Scollon, 2001), who later left CDA (before he passed away)—and many others (see Chaps. 4 and 6). Also, since CritLing was heavily influenced by, and interrelated with, SFL/SFG (see Sect. 2.4), there was recognition of the credit CDA owed to the systemicists directly or indirectly, especially given their interest in social meaning and their influence on Kress, Fairclough and van Leeuwen (Martin & Wodak, 2003b: 3–4; Young & Harrison, 2004a, 2004b). In (1995a: 20), Fairclough said that CDA has “passed through the first flush of youth and is embarked upon the maturation process”, which involved new agendas and more scholars and emerging or evolving approaches (theory and methodology) “which frequently find innovative ways of integrating the more traditional theories or of elaborating them” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 3, see Chap. 4 for a discussion of the ‘main approaches’). Various critiques have been made of the new program (see Chap. 5) and over time a variety of new interdisciplinary connections have been formed (see Chap. 6); and this has continued as the maturation process has deepened. The preferred name for this program for much of this time was CDA, but (see Sect. 4.1 for more detail) in the 2000s and 2010s the label Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) began to be used interchangeably with, in addition to, or instead of CDA, depending on the scholar. For its part, Social Semiotics (SocSem, see Sects. 2.5, 2.6, 3.9, and 4.6) has continued to be used by many to embrace a socially oriented critical approach to literature, semiotics, visual analysis, multimodality and so forth, either separate from or in the context of CDA/CDS, and some of the critical work in SocSem was incorporated into CDA/CDS as either SocSem or multimodality or both, e.g., Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA, see Sect. 4.6); and van Leeuwen, in particular, has continued to work on both CDA and SocSem (see Sect. 3.9). With that background, we now turn to a discussion of the five founders of CDA, “the original ‘critical discourse analysis group’” (van Leeuwen, 2008a: ix). In each case, after providing a short introduction, we discuss their pre- and early CDA writings, along with other pertinent information about their CDA activities, and their work on their approach to CDA; the most recent version of their approach is discussed in Chap. 4.

82

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

3.3  Gunther Kress: Multimodal Learning and Education In the course of an interview published in Andersen, Boeriis, Maagerø, and Tønessen (2015a: 69–92), Gunther Kress said that his “life has been a series of accidents, really” (p. 88), starting with his move to Australia from Germany with his parents when he was sixteen and thus the necessity of “learning a new culture and a new language ‘on the job’” (2015a: 69), which led him to think about many issues that were to become a focus of his research. As said in Sects. 2.4–2.7, he was central in the development of CritLing and SocSem in the 1970s and 1980s (in the UK and Australia); and while in Australia, he “was in a place that focused on media studies and media production, cultural studies, cultural production” (2015a: 88), which was influential on his thinking and his eventual scholarship. At the time of the Jan. 1991 meeting in Amsterdam, he and van Leeuwen had just published the early version of their book on reading images (1990—see Sect. 2.6.1) and he had left Australia and moved to the Institute of Education in London (later the Institute of Education of University College London [UCL]) as Professor of English (later, Professor—then Chair—of Semiotics and Education). When van Leeuwen was also in London, having moved there in 1993 (see 3.9.6), they finished the more extensive and better known Reading Images: A Grammar of Visual Design (1996, 2nd revised edition in 2006, see Sect. 2.6), which was heavily influenced by Halliday’s SFG and SocSem ideas (see Sect. 2.3) and was a major catalyst in the further development of the study of visual communication. This visual version of SocSem was the context in which they originated and developed, along with many others, the new international field of multimodality (see Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001 and Sects. 2.7 and 4.6). One of Kress’s earlier publications (1985a/1989, discussed in Sect. 2.4.6) was an important impetus for CDA; and in Kress (1990: 84–97) he gave an account of the theoretical foundations and sources of CritLing (see Sect. 2.4 and also Kress, 1991, 1993, 1996) and listed criteria that characterize work in CDA, which Fairclough and Wodak (1997; see also Fairclough et  al., 2011) took up and elaborated upon. However, while some of his criteria are agreed-upon common ground in CDA (see Chap. 4), others are controversial (see Wodak, 2001a). According to Wodak, Kress’s work contained “many of the basic assumptions of CL/CDA that were salient in the early stages, and were elaborated in later development of the theory” (2001a: 5). In Sept. 1994, Kress participated in the highly influential meeting of, and eventual article (1996) by, “the New London group” (ten scholars who met in the American town of New London, including also Fairclough), which discussed the future of literacy pedagogy. In order to meet the projected challenges for education in the new century, the group emphasized “assisting learners in developing conscious awareness of and control over the relation between discourse and specific socio-historical, political, and cultural contexts, and thereby equipping them to successfully participate in and transform social practices” (Djonov & Zhao, 2014b: 7). They also made plans to foster collaborative research relationships and programs of curriculum development. Given Kress’s new position and the many serious issues around education in Britain at that time—which were due in particular to profound

3.5  Norman Fairclough

83

social changes and the rise of neoliberal agendas—most of his effort went into “an integration of his previous interests in language and social power, with educational matters of vital importance for social futures on a cultural as well as an individual level” (Andersen et al., 2015a: 10). This led to his “strong commitment to multimodal learning as well as the politics of education” (Andersen et al., 2015a: 10), and his special interests in multimodal teaching and learning (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001), literacy in the new media age (Kress, 2003), and multimodal literacy (Jewitt & Kress, 2003), and related domains. He and his colleague Carey Jewitt founded the Centre for Multimodal Research at UCL in 2006; a volume in his honor (Böck & Pachler, 2013) celebrated his work on multimodality and social semiosis, in relation to communication, meaning-making, and learning. His contributions were recognized by his becoming a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE). Sadly, while still contributing to scholarship and giving keynote addresses at conferences, he passed away in June 2019.

3.4  I ntroduction to Norman Fairclough, Teun Van Dijk, Ruth Wodak, and Theo van Leeuwen We will now focus on Fairclough (Sect. 3.5), van Dijk (Sect. 3.6), Wodak (Sect. 3.8) and van Leeuwen (Sect. 3.9), the four others at the Amsterdam meeting, who were influential in not only the founding, but also the further growth, of CDA as a network of scholars. As said in Sect. 3.2.2, Fairclough, van Dijk and Wodak had already had significant publications in the 1980s which addressed issues that would become central in CDA, including their pre-/proto-CDA books and many other publications that also contained concerns, ideas, analyses, etc. that were part of CDA (and other research programs). And van Leeuwen had already been laying the groundwork for his many contributions to SocSem and CDA.  We will focus here on the relevant work of each of them in the 1980s and 1990s (and beyond in some cases), which will then lead into our detailed discussion of their most recent approaches to present-­ day CDA/CDS in Chap. 4 (Sects. 4.3–4.6).

3.5  Norman Fairclough 3.5.1  Introduction and Early Work At the time of the Jan. 1991 meeting, Norman Fairclough was at the University of Lancaster, where he later became Professor, and then Emeritus Professor, of Language in Social Life; he was one of the early and leading figures in CDA and critical approaches more generally. Linguist and Marxist social theorist, Fairclough criticized mainstream linguistics for its “desocialization of language and discourse”

84

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

(1985a: 759) and lack of connection between language structure (grammar, competence) and language use (discourse, performance). He praised (1989a: 6–12) some of the new developments in linguistics for opening up the study of language and having some elements that were close to his own views, including in particular: Halliday’s SFL/SFG (Sect. 2.3)—connection between language/grammar and society; socolinguistics—the socially constituted nature of language; pragmatics—language use as a form of action; and discourse analysis—discourse and text as prime examples of language (use) and as objects of analysis (Sect. 3.1). However, he argued that none of these look critically (enough) at society, language practice/use, discourse, meaning, etc. Fairclough has had different, but overlapping, critical approaches to his linguistic work over the years, including, in the 1980s and early 1990s, Critical Language Study (CLS), which had much in common with CritLing (see Sect. 2.4), but there was “by no means an identity of views” (Fairlough, 1985: 747). His work aimed “to show up connections which may be hidden from people” (1989a: 5) between language and society, to analyze the linguistic elements of social interactions and also expose “their generally hidden determinants in the system of social relationships, as well as hidden effects they may have upon that system”. In his book on Language and Power (1989a: 246) he cited favorably Kress’s “valuable” book (1985a/1989, see Sect. 2.4.6), which he saw as close to his own work, but later he criticized CritLing (Fairclough, 1992a: 25–30; 1995b: 25–28) for its (too) narrow conceptualization of the interconnectedness of language, power and ideology. And he lauded SocSem (Sects. 2.5 and 2.6; Hodge & Kress, 1988; Kress & van Leeuwen, 1990) for its interest in visual semiosis and productive and interpretative practices and its “orientation towards struggle and historical change in discourse and towards the development of a theory of genre (van Leeuwen, 1986, 1993a)” (Fairlough, 1995b: 28). One of Fairclough’s early publications, “Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis” (1985), came from his work on developing an analytical framework, both theory and method, for studying connections between language, ideology and power; it contained many ideas which he was to develop further (in 1989a, 1995a). He proposed a “‘global’ explanatory critical approach to discourse analysis” (1985: 753), which is very different from non-critical, descriptive frameworks with “non-explanatory (or only ‘locally’ explanatory) goals” (1985: 754). He called for DA to investigate “verbal interactions in terms of their determination by, and their effects on, social structures” (1985: 747; see also Giddens, 1981), which are not necessarily apparent to interactants and result in “opacity” (Fairclough, 1985: 746) and “naturalization”, and thus are seen as “common sense”; as a result, he said, “the goals of critical discourse analysis are also therefore ‘denaturalizing’” (1985: 746). Fairclough also argued that social actions, including discourse, tend to cluster in terms of institutions (1985: 748), which are thus the more important locus of analysis than, e.g., casual conversation (the focus of work at the time from a noncritical perspective). For him, institutions have their own ways of constructing those who participate in them as “subjects” (1985: 750), e.g., by imposing ideological and discoursal constraints upon them, which are understood as non-ideological ‘common sense’, i.e., as “based in the nature of things and people, rather than in the

3.5  Norman Fairclough

85

interests of classes or other groupings” (1985: 746). As a consequence, he said, naturalized ideologies and practices become part of the unsaid implicit presuppositions common to interactants. He called for a rational research program with a principled, systematic way of (a) sampling from the infinite amount of discourse in institutional contexts for analysis; combined with (b) a sociological account of the institution under study, its relationship to other institutions and the relations between forces within it; and linked to (c) an account of the ‘order of discourse’ (Foucault, 1971), “the ordered set of discursive practices associated with a particular social domain or institution … and boundaries and relationships between them” (Fairclough, 1995a: 12). These three led to his analysis of “ideological and discoursal” power using the work of Foucault (e.g. 1971, 1979) as “a suggestive starting point for such research” (Fairclough, 1985: 759).

3.5.2  Fairclough 1989a: ‘Language and Power’, i.e., Discourse, Power, and Ideology The ideas presented in (Fairclough, 1985) culminated, along with similar ones in other papers (e.g., 1982, 1988a, 1988b), in his influential book Language and Power (1989a, 2nd ed., 2001, 3rd edn. 2015); the first edition was cited by Wodak (2001a: 4, see also Breeze, 2011: 495) as one of the pioneering publications leading to CDA. As the title indicates, 1989a is about language and power, “or more precisely about connections between language use and unequal relations of power” (Fairlough, 1989a: 1), i.e., about showing the “significance of language in the production, maintenance, and change of social relations of power” (1989a: 1) and also about raising the consciousness of the general public concerning “how language contributes to the domination of some people by others, because consciousness is the first step towards emancipation” (1989a: 1). And while there are sociolinguistic studies that show how social conventions distribute power unequally, they haven’t tried to “explain these conventions as the product of relations of power and struggles for power” (1989a: 1). In contrast, he said, “my approach will put particular emphasis upon ‘common-sense’ assumptions which are implicit in the conventions according to which people interact linguistically, and of which people are generally not consciously aware” (1989a: 2), and yet those ‘common-sense’ assumptions are ideologies which are by definition closely linked to power. This is because “the nature of the ideological assumptions embedded in particular conventions, and so the nature of those conventions themselves, depends on the power relations which underlie the conventions” (1989a: 2). He chose to focus on this ideological dimension not just because the linkage of language and power had been neglected but rather because the exercise of power is “increasingly achieved through ideology, and more particularly through the ideological workings of language” (1989a: 2). This had also been recognized by social theorists and had led to what has been called the ‘linguistic turn’ in social theory, with the recognition not only of language as the primary

86

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

means of control but also of the contemporary growth of language in terms of its complexity, variety and use. Fairclough characterized his CLS as an alternative orientation (1989a: 13) to non-critical grammar-oriented approaches and (socio)linguistic frameworks (see 2.4). When fully elaborated, CLS would place “a broad conception of the social study of language at the core of language study” (1989a: 13) and would work with functionalist approaches (such as Halliday, 1985; see Sect. 2.3), as well as continental pragmatics (especially Mey, 1985, a critical approach to pragmatics) and cross-­ disciplinary trends in DA (e.g., van Dijk, 1985a; see Sect. 3.1). It would focus on how language and society are interrelated, with an emphasis on power and ideology. He also presented what he called “critical discourse analysis” (1989a: 14) as a procedure for critical analysis, consisting of “description of text and processes of producing and interpreting texts, and the analysis of their social determinants and effects” (1989a: 14). Fairclough stressed that the conception of language needed for CLS is “discourse, language as social practice determined by social structures” (1989a: 17), “a socially conditioned process, conditioned that is by other (non-linguistic) parts of society” (1989a: 22), which has an “internal and dialectical relationship” (1989a: 23) with society. He also said (following Foucault) that discourse is the result of “socially constituted orders of discourse, sets of conventions” (1989a: 23), sets of practices associated with a particular social domain or institution that are “ideologically shaped by power relations in social institutions and in society as a whole” (1989a: 23) and thus have effects on, as well as are determined by, social structures, such that they contribute to social continuity and change”. A discourse for Fairclough is the language associated with a particular social field or practice (e.g., medical discourse)5—which is close to Halliday’s notion of meaning-making as one element of the social process (see Sect. 2.3) but is very different from (written and spoken) ‘text’ in the Hallidayan sense, which is the result of language use and language activity and of processes of production and interpretation and thus should be studied historically and dynamically. Fairclough also said that, in addition to a focus on discourse itself, attention should be paid to power relations in discourse, how power relations and power struggles shape and transform the discourse practices of a society or institution, and “the relationship between texts, processes and interactions and their social conditions” (1989a: 26), including their situational and institutional context and larger social structures. For this work, he brought many ideas into linguistics from critical and social theory—especially when it is concerned with a better understanding of the trends of contemporary capitalism and the language (or discourse) of each of them. For his critique he used many sources but positioned himself in relation to three recent contributions to social theory that “have explored the role of language in the exercise, maintenance and change of power” (1989a: 12); they influenced him the most in the early stage of his work and would also underpin certain aspects of

 See Sect. 2.3 for a discussion of text and discourse in Halliday and Sect. 4.3 for further discussion of Fairclough’s later conceptualization of ‘discourse’/’discourses’ and ‘orders of discourse’.

5

3.5  Norman Fairclough

87

(his approach to) CDA. These contributions were: (1) The theory of ideology, its importance as a mechanism of power in modern society, “as against the exercise of power through coercive means” (1989a: 12), and language as the major locus of ideology (see Gramsci, 1971; Althusser, 1971; Pêcheux, 1982; Thompson, 1984; McLellan, 1986). (2) The work of Foucault (1971, 1972), “which has ascribed a central role to discourse in the development of specifically modern forms of power” (Fairclough, 1989a: 12). And (3) the ideas of Habermas (1984), “whose ‘theory of communicative action’ highlights the way in which our currently distorted communication nevertheless foreshadows communication without such constraints” (Fairclough, 1989a: 12–13). Later, he was also influenced by the ideas of Bourdieu (1977, 1982, 1984) about, e.g., capital and power. Despite their contributions to social theory, the major failing of all of this work, according to Fairclough, was that they did not engage in the analysis of particular instances of discourse—while his own orientation was on how (higher-level) theory could be used to inform analysis of real texts about real happenings. As a result, he tied “the abstractions of Bourdieu, Foucault and Habermas to the actualities of encounters, linking the work of British and Australian ‘critical linguists’ … to the mainstream of European social theory” (Candlin, 1989: viii). What emerged was his own social-and-linguistic theory: a critique of particular kinds of ideological discourse and their role in the reproduction of the social order of British, and more generally, Western society, of the 1970s to the 1990s (and to the present), where his critique was based on a commitment to a critical, socialist (Marxist) approach to language, ideology and power (1989a). Fairclough used all of this in his later work on language and education (1990a, 1992b), discourse and social change (1992a), media discourse (1995b) and political discourse (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999). As well, he reacted through his publications to the many social and political issues that arose in the UK (and globally) in this time period. His broad objective was “to develop ways of analyzing language which address its involvement in the working of contemporary capitalist societies” (Fairclough, 2010: 1), not only because capitalism is the dominant economic system internationally and in need of critique, but also because any economic system affects all aspects of social life. As a result, in his work on language and discourse, he took on a variety of ‘macro’ issues having to do with the overlap of economic and political domains in, e.g., new/global capitalism, neoliberalism, globalization, and others. For Fairclough, putting discourse at the center of what language is entails placing the relationship between discourse, power and ideology at the center of analysis and understanding power and ideology in their relationship to discourse. With regard to discourse and power, he looked at the two major aspects of the power/language relationship, i.e., power ‘behind’ discourse, and power ‘in’ discourse. In the case of the former, his focus was on “how orders of discourse, as dimensions of the social orders of social institutions or societies, are themselves shaped and constituted by relations of power” (1989a: 43), for example, the differentiation of dialects into standard and nonstandard, the conventions associated with a particular order of discourse, or discourse type (e.g., the discourse of medical examinations), and the ­various constraints on access to discourse within orders of discourse, which expose

88

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

‘free speech’ as a myth. In the case of power ‘in’ discourse: discourse is “a place where relations of power are actually exercised and enacted” (1989a: 43) as in face-­ to-­face encounters between unequals (1989a: 44–47) or cross-cultural discourse where “the non-powerful people have cultural and linguistic backgrounds different from those of the powerful people” (1989a: 47); and “the ‘hidden power’ of the discourse of the mass media” (1989a: 43) is one-sided between those in power and the rest of the population, who are not aware of that fact. Thus “the whole social order of discourse is put together and held together as a hidden effect of power” (1989a: 55). In this way, he put forth “a broad framework within which we can think about longer-term tendencies in and consequences of social struggles over discourse” (1989a: 74), including constraints on and struggles over discourse contents (knowledge and beliefs), the social relationships enacted, and the social identities (social subjects of an institution or society) enacting them. With regard to discourse and ideology, Fairclough expressed his view that “conventions routinely drawn upon in discourse embody ideological assumptions which come to be taken as mere ‘common sense’, and which contribute to sustaining existing power relations” (1989a: 77), and hence he dwelt on “common sense in the service of power” (1989a: 77) and on “how ideologies are embedded in features of discourse which are taken for granted as matter of common sense” (1989a: 77). As a result, “the coherence of discourse is dependent on discoursal common sense” (1989a: 77), which is itself related to processes of discourse interpretation. All of this, he said, needs to be foregrounded (1989a: 77–78), because it affects the meanings of linguistic expressions, conventional practices of speaking, social subjects and situations of discourse; and it can also sustain unequal relations of power (1989a: 84), since, as is well known, “ideology is most effective when its workings are least visible” (1989a: 85). There can also be struggles between “ideologically diverse discourse types” (1989a: 90) and their conventions, norms, and codes of practice. In political discourse, for example, a given party or political force tries to win “general acceptance for its own discourse types as the preferred” ones (1989a: 90), such that they become “natural, and legitimate because it is simply the way of conducting oneself” (1989a: 91). Indeed, he said that ‘naturalization’ is “the royal road to common sense” (1989a: 92) and to being perceived as non-ideological, outside of ideology, and neutral. The same is true of ‘interactional routines’, “the conventional ways in which participants interact with each other” (1989a: 98), e.g., in buying-and-selling transactions in stores, interviews with social workers, consultations with doctors, etc. Citing Althusser (1971), Fairclough pointed out that the social processes of producing subject positions and social subjects are learned, are specific to discourse types and are ideologically variable, and yet people “are not conscious of being socially positioned as subjects, and standardly see their own subjective identities as somehow standing outside and prior to society” (1989a: 105). The same is true of the meanings of words and linguistic expressions, which are also naturalized. “Naturalization, then is the most formidable weapon in the armoury of power, and therefore a significant focus of structure” (1989a: 106); and it is “ideological to the extent that it contributes to sustaining unequal power relations, directly or indirectly” (1989a: 107).

3.5  Norman Fairclough

89

3.5.3  C  ritical Analysis of Discourse Samples: Description, Interpretation, Evaluation Fairclough devoted a significant portion of Language and Power (1989a) to what he called “critical discourse analysis in practice … critical analyses of discourse samples” (1989a: 14), making use of, but also going beyond, other approaches by “providing a synthesis of necessary theoretical concepts and analytical frameworks for doing critical analyses” (1989a: 14). He viewed these as “a procedure for a close analysis of texts in terms of those features which can lead to an understanding of power relations and ideological processes in discourse” (1989a: 109), and as a pedagogical or methodological exercise to illustrate CLS. He divided analysis into three stages: “description of text, interpretation of the relationship between text and interaction, and explanation of the relationship between interaction and social context” (1989a: 109). With respect to description, he acknowledged Halliday’s (1985) approach to grammar (see Sect. 2.3) as “particularly fruitful” (Fairclough, 1989a: 139) as well as Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) work on sentence connection (‘cohesion’); he also mentioned discussions of the relationship between meaning and ideology by CritLing (Kress & Hodge, 1979; Fowler, Hodge, Kress, & Trew, 1979—see Sect. 2.4). He claimed that the “formal features of texts have experiential, relational, expressive or connective value” (Fairclough, 1989a: 140); three of them are correlated with Halliday’s metafunctions (experiential = ideational, relational = interpersonal and connective = textual, see Sect. 2.3.4). The fourth, ‘expressive’ value is “a trace of and cue to the producer’s evaluation (in the widest sense) of the bit of the reality it relates to … [it] is to do with subjects and social identities” (1989a: 112). He further stated that experiential, relational and expressive values are connected to “three aspects of social practice which … may be constrained by power (contents, relations, and subjects) and their associated structural effects (on knowledge and beliefs, social relationships, and social identities)” (1989a: 140). In his discussion of the stages of interpretation and explanation, Fairclough elaborated on his belief that the relationship between text and social structures is indirect and mediated by the discourse connected to the text. Common ground and background assumptions are assumed to be in operation by the discourse participants and allow them to understand each other (unless something goes wrong), because discourse works, and people understand each other, in spite of a large gap between what is said and what is meant and/or understood. However, “neither the dependence of discourse on background assumptions, nor the ideological properties of these assumptions which link them to social struggles and relations of power, are generally obvious to discourse participants. Interpretation and explanation can therefore be seen as two successively applied procedures of unveiling, or ­demystification” (1989a: 141). While some scholars in pragmatics, DA, cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence (AI) call these assumptions ‘background knowledge’, or a ‘knowledge base’, which allows people to produce, interpret and evaluate texts, Fairclough rejected the term ‘knowledge’ as misleading, since for him the background assumptions are “naturalized ideologies” (1989a: 141) that are

90

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

common to members of a social community. As a result, interpretations are generated by “what is in the text and what is ‘in’ the interpreter” (1989a: 141), i.e., what the interpreter brings to interpretation, as well as what is activated in the interpreter by features of the text, aka, ‘interpretative procedures’. In his discussion of these procedures, Fairclough considered the major domains of interpretation, their connection to major elements of ‘naturalized ideologies’, and the specific resources they are based on. For example, the intertextual context (the context of other texts, genres, discourses and their combinations as discussed in Kristeva, 1986; Kress & Threadgold, 1988; Thibault, 1991) is connected to interactional history and assumptions about which previous discourses the current one is connected to and thus, for example, what can be taken as common ground. However, this may be imposed by the most powerful participant on others and thus may be ideological in nature, just as the meaning of the text, including implicit meanings and pragmatic conventions, can be determined by the participant with the most power and is thus potentially also ideological (1989a: 156). The textual resources associated with various interpretative procedures are mental representations of some aspects of the world, which are also ideologically variable. In explanation, the relationship between text and social structures is mediated by the social context of the discourse, since “the discourses in which these values are embedded themselves only become real, socially operative, as parts of institutional and societal processes of struggle” (1989a: 140–141) and power relations. Thus, “the objective of the stage of explanation is to portray a discourse as part of a social process, as a social practice, showing how it is determined by social structures” (1989a: 163). It is also concerned with which elements of interpretative practices that participants draw upon have an ideological character, how a discourse is positioned in relation to struggles at the situational, institutional, and societal levels, whether the struggles are overt or covert, whether the discourse is normative or creative, whether the discourse contributes to sustaining existing power relations or transforming them, and so forth. Fairclough also clarified the position of the analyst in interpretation vs. explanation as similar to that of the participants, since analysts draw on their own interpretative procedures in order to explicate how participants draw upon theirs (1989a: 167). But what distinguishes analysts is the need to explain what they are doing and to develop self-consciousness about how discourse is rooted in ‘common-­ sense’, i.e., in ‘ideological assumptions’. Furthermore, analysts should not bring in untheorized assumptions nor act “as if explanation could be theory-independent or theory-neutral” (1989a: 167), since it can’t be.

3.5.4  Fairclough 1992a: ‘Discourse and Social Change’ and 1995a: ‘Media Discourse’ Several of the themes Fairclough treated in Language and power (1989a) were given longer treatment in his books and papers in the 1990s, at the same time as he began to grapple with major social issues that developed in the UK in particular and

3.5  Norman Fairclough

91

Western society more generally. In his book on Discourse and social change, Fairclough identified “certain broad tendencies in discursive change affecting the societal order of discourse, and relate[d] these tendencies to more general directions of social and cultural change” (1992a: 200), e.g., the move to neoliberalism, which he was to write about at length later (see 3.5.5, 4.3, 6.3.2). This early work was a synthesis of socially- and linguistically-oriented views of discourse, which resulted in his multidimensional approach and ultimately his ‘social theory of discourse’. It was centered on an analysis and critique of the “significant shift in the social functioning of language … [and] changes in language practices” (1992a: 6). Fairclough’s claim was that the important aspects of discourse and wider social and cultural changes in contemporary society are having a major impact “upon the contemporary order of discourse” (1992a: 200), in the following ways: (1) “‘democratization’” of discourse (1992a: 201), “the removal of inequalities and asymmetries in the discursive and linguistic rights, obligations and prestige of groups of people” in, e.g., “relations between languages and social dialects, access to prestigious discourse types, elimination of overt power markers in institutional discourse types with unequal power relations, a tendency towards informality of language, and changes in gender-related practices in language”. But since the processes of these changes were very uneven, he had questions about how real or how cosmetic they were (1992a: 201). (2) “commodification” of discourse (1992a: 207), “the process whereby social domains and institutions […] come to be organized and conceptualized in terms of commodity production, distribution and consumption” and as part of ‘enterprise culture’ (Fairclough, 1990b). This is exemplified by sectors of education and associated educational discourse being referred to as ‘industries’ that focus on “producing, marketing, and selling cultural or educational commodities to their ‘clients’ or ‘consumers’” (1992a: 207), i.e., their students. For example, he pointed out that in a brochure about a specific program at a university, the vocabulary of skills or competence is used (1992a: 209–210), as are genres like advertising, which include photographs, graphics, and the blending of information and persuasion (1992a: 210–215). (3) “technologization” of discourse (Fairclough, 1992a: 215–218; see Habermas, 1984; Foucault, 1981), by which he meant that discourses like interviewing, teaching, counseling, advertising, are often handled by designated social agents, and thus “establish a close connection between knowledge about language and discourse, and power” (Fairclough, 1992a: 215), are “associated with an extension of strategic discourse to new domains” (1992a: 216), and are part of the shift of private discourse “into the public domain” (1992a: 217).

Fairclough said that there were three different ways of interpreting these tendencies, but the interpretation he developed the most in the book was a “hegemonic model of discursive practice … the disarticulation of existing configurations of discourse types and elements, and the rearticulation of new configurations, giving prominence to interdiscursivity and intertextuality” (1992a: 223), which “seems to make sense of the contemporary societal order of discourse” (1992a: 224). However, he calls for further research since even this model is inadequate for analyzing all of the domains he looked at and the tensions between them. The effect of social change on discourse and the issue of the role of discourse in social change remained a focus of interest of his well into the 2000s, around such developments as not only neo(-) liberalism, but also globalization, new capitalism, New Labour (in the UK), and other domains—all of which he considered to be part of the ideology of the knowledge based economy (Fairclough et al., 2008).

92

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

In his study of public language (Faircough, 1994) and in his book on Media Discourse (1995a), about “public affairs media—news, documentary, magazine programmes, dealing with politics, social affairs, science, and so forth” (1995a: 3), Fairclough scrutinized the mass media in Britain, the US and Australia. He showed the fallacy of their assumption of neutrality (‘objectivity’), contended that the media is a site of power and struggle, and illustrated the mediating and constructing role of the media with a variety of examples. He argued for a satisfactory analysis, which would include the use of a critical discourse analysis framework, along with an intertextual analysis of media texts showing how “media texts transform and embed within themselves other texts, and in terms of how they draw upon and combine together available discourses and genres” (Fairclough, 1995a: 19). His critical analysis of media discourse (1995a: 53) involved a perspective that, according to him, combined two essential properties of any instance of discourse: its status as a communicative event and the order of discourse it is part of. In explaining this, he specified that since he views language use as social practice it is a “socially and historically situated mode of action, in a dialectal relationship with other facets of the social … It is socially shaped, but is also socially shaping—or socially constitutive … language use—any text—is always simultaneously constitutive of (1) social identities, (2) social relations, and (3) systems of knowledge and belief” (1995a: 55), which may lead to complex mixtures of different discourse types and orders of discourse. Thus, for example, “the order of discourse of a social institution or social domain is constituted by all the discursive types which are used there” (1995a: 55; see Sect. 6.3.2.2 for orders of discourse in higher education). His aim was to define those discourse types for the media, the overall structure of the order of discourse, and the way it is evolving (1995a: 56, 62–68). In several chapters of 1995a, he revisited some of the topics already discussed in 1989a and 1992a but brought new insights to them at the same time. His discussion of media discourse includes the mixture and tension between private language and public language and also “between information and entertainment” (1995a: 10), as shown in the popular word ‘infotainment’. They are indicative of two related tendencies in public affairs media: “to become increasingly conversationalized” (1995a: 9, see also 1994), and “to move increasingly in the direction of entertainment—to become more ‘marketized’” (1995a: 10). He likened this to the ongoing marketization of universities (Fairclough, 1992a, 1993), aka the commodification of universities, which is part of a “longer-term study of change in higher education” (1995b: 159) in the UK (see Sect. 6.3.2). He argued for a discourse perspective on this change, i.e., for an analysis of discourse practices alongside sociocultural ones. He also stated that “it is becoming essential for effective citizenship that people should be critically aware of culture, discourse and language” (1995a: 201) and thus they should be taught “critical media literacy” (1995a: 201).

3.5  Norman Fairclough

93

3.5.5  Fairclough 1995b: ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ and Early CDA As said above, after the 1991 meeting in Amsterdam the term CDA was used alongside earlier terms (like CritLing or, in Fairclough’s case, CLS) as near-synonyms, but it eventually supplanted them. Fairclough’s book of 1995 with the title Critical Discourse Analysis (1995b) is an example of this: it is a compilation of ten of his papers, seven of which had been previously published, and thus they constitute, to a certain extent, a retrospective of his writings using the CLS framework; two of the papers were about topics in his earlier books discussed above (1992a, 1992b); and the tenth one was tied to (1995a). Thus they represent the development of his work up to 1995, which he put under CDA at that time. The much larger second edition (Fairclough, 2010) with more recent studies is discussed in Sect. 4.3. In his General Introduction, Fairclough characterized broadly the four sections of the book as being the major concerns of his research during that time period; at the same time, he identified them as dealing with “a range of issues and problems, which are … on the current agenda of critical discourse analysis” (1995b: 1). As he noted there are overlaps between the sections and papers, “all of which are orientated towards a single broad objective: to develop ways of analyzing language which address its involvement in the workings of contemporary capitalist society” (1995b: 1). For Section A, on language, ideology and power, see Sect. 3.5.2. Section B is centered on his conviction that evolving discourse practices have taken on “a major role in sociocultural reproduction and change” (1995b: 2) and are “an important part of wider processes of social and cultural change” (1995b: 87). For this analysis he developed a three-dimensional framework that combines Bakhtinian (1986) theory of genre and Gramscian (1971) theory of hegemony, and investigates social change “in terms of the mapping onto one another of shifting, unstable sociocultural practices” (Fairclough, 1995b: 2), due to e.g., marketization and technologization of discourse (see Sect. 3.5.4 and also Fairclough, 1996). Section C, which is addressed to those outside of language studies, argues for “a substantial element of textual analysis within discourse analysis as a method of social research in various disciplines” (1995b: 3), with the goal of showing the value of “socially and culturally sensitive discourse analysis” (1995b: 186). In Section D, about Critical Language Awareness (CLA, see 1995b), he is concerned with applying CDA to education and specifically to the study of language in schools (see Sect. 6.3.2). He organized the rest of his discussion of the issues and problems in CDA in terms of controversies around CDA, including on the one hand differences between scholars doing CDA and those in adjacent fields, and on the other hand differences among those doing CDA (1995b: 3)—which have to do with text and language, discourse practices, and sociocultural practice. He argues for: a view of text as multi-semiotic; the existence of both homogeneous and heterogeneous texts (including ‘heteroglossia’, Bakhtin, 1986); analysis of processes of text production, distribution and consumption and “of institutional and discoursal practices within which texts are embedded” (Fairclough, 1995b: 9); and the combination of “CDA of dis-

94

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

cursive events with ethnographic analysis of social structures and settings” (1995b: 9–10). He concludes by saying that this is “the moment for some consolidation, for some collective thought to be given to the unity and coherence of CDA” (1995b: 10), with the hope that his general introduction to the volume will “contribute to that debate” (1995b: 20). Indeed Wodak and Meyer said that he showed “how CDA is useful in disclosing the discursive nature of much contemporary social and cultural change” (2009b: 12). In later work Fairclough changed from the term ‘discourse’ in the sense of meaning-­making to ‘semiosis’, which should, he said, reduce confusion and suggest that (C)DA is concerned with various semiotic modalities and includes, e.g., visual ones (as in Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996) and their various roles in making meaning. Since discourse in this sense is an element of the social process that is dialectically related to others, he argued that “CDA focuses not just upon semiosis as such, but on the relation between semiotic and other social elements” (2009: 163). Eventually, he changed the name of his approach to the “dialectical-relational version of CDA in transdisciplinary social research (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999)” (Fairclough, 2009:162). DRA is discussed in Sect. 4.2.

3.6  Teun A. van Dijk 3.6.1  Introduction and Early Work Teun A. van Dijk was Professor of Discourse Studies at the University of Amsterdam at the time of the meeting in Amsterdam in Jan. 1991, and is now Professor at Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona (see Sects. 3.7, 4.4, and 7.3). There were many (positive and very important) results of the 1991 meeting (see Sect. 3.2) that were due in no small part to his wide background in and promotion of DA (Sects. 3.1 and 3.6.1.1), his professional status, energy and vision, and his founding in 1990 of the journal Discourse & Society for “the further development of a serious critical paradigm” (van Dijk, 1990: 10; see Sects. 3.2 and 3.7). All of this positioned him well to be one of the founders of, and an active participant in, CDA (see his website6 for further discussion). Van Dijk has also been engaged in very important editorial work throughout his career; he founded several other journals in addition to Discourse & Society, e.g., Discourse Studies (founded in 1999), Discurso e Sociedad (2005, on-­ line), and Discourse and Communication (2007). These provided a publication venue for himself and others where they could consolidate developments in cross-­ disciplinary endeavors and provide a forum in the context of which researchers could “transgress” (van Dijk, 1999b) the remaining barriers and boundaries at the cross-roads of those endeavors. He also edited, or encouraged others to edit, Special Issues on CDA/CDS-related themes, for instance, his volume of Discourse &  http://www.discourses.org.

6

3.6  Teun A. van Dijk

95

Society on ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ (Vol. 4.2, 1993, see Sect. 3.2). Van Dijk also continued his editing of collected articles and chapters in books about DA into the mid 1990s (see Sect. 3.1), and after that, about the domain of discourse studies (DS), which he founded as a “new cross-discipline that comprises the theory and analysis of text and talk in virtually all disciplines of the humanities and social sciences” (van Dijk, 1997b: xi). He promoted and documented DS through the journal Discourse Studies and edited books, their prefaces and introductions (e.g., 1997a, 1997b, 1997c [2 volumes, 1st edition]; 2011a, 2011b, 2011c [1 volume, 2nd edition]; and 2007a, 2007b [5 volumes, Sage Benchmarks in Discourse Studies), all of which also included work in CDA/CDS (see Sect. 3.2.2). 3.6.1.1  Early Publications in DA: Text Grammar and Pragmatics In line with his interest in DA/DS more generally, van Dijk himself was actively doing research and publishing his own work in the linguistic analysis of discourse and text, beginning with his (1972) book on ‘text grammars’ (and text(-)linguistics) and continuing with further research on ‘text and context’, ‘macrostructures’, and ‘discourse pragmatics’ (e.g., 1977, 1980, 1981). All of these books went beyond the prevailing focus of the time in linguistics on sentences, showing “his interest in texts and discourses as basic units and as social practices” (Wodak, 2001a: 7, cited above). He understood linguistics “in a broad ‘structural-functional’ sense” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 25)—although he didn’t use SFL/SFG and was quite critical of it (see van Dijk, 2008a). As he explained in his ‘academic autobiography’ (2004), his early book on aspects of (generative) text grammars (van Dijk, 1972) was influenced by Chomsky’s approach to generative grammar (e.g., 1965, 1966, 1968) and in it he attempted to provide an explicit description of the (grammatical) structure of texts, including an account of semantic coherence relations between sentences. For the latter, he introduced the notion of ‘macrostructures’ (van Dijk, 1980), since texts have not only local (microstructural, intersentential) relations, but also global/ textual semantic coherence structures that define their overall organization. Those structures have to do both with meaning (e.g., discourse topic) as well as form—for which he later used the term “superstructures”, i.e., “the abstract, schematic structures that organize the overall form or format of the text, as we know them from the theory of narrative or the theory of argumentation (van Dijk, 1980)” (van Dijk, 2004—see van Dijk 1985j about news discourse schemata). As he explained later, he felt that the “basic principles of text grammar are still sound today” (van Dijk, 2004) but that many aspects of his approach had been (too) speculative. “What remained though was the importance of the notion of coherence in any semantic theory of discourse, and the obvious idea that texts also are organized at more global, overall levels of description” (van Dijk, 2004). Between the later 1970s and the mid 1980s, his work widened into a multi-­ pronged discussion of various properties of text and discourse, in a mixture of (text) grammar (and text linguistics), (formal, propositional) semantics, and (discourse) pragmatics. For instance, in his discussion of text and context, he focused on local

96

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

coherence relations between sentences based on referential relations within a possible world (1977); he also defined coherence relations as formal (causal, conditional) or functional (e.g., when the relations can be described as generalization, specification, explanation, and exemplification); and he stipulated that pragmatic and cognitive parameters need to be added, since discourse is not coherent in the abstract but in the sense of coherent-for-discourse-participants (2004) in a specific communicative situation. He formulated rules for deriving what he called ‘macro-­ propositions’ from micro-propositions, as in the summary of a text. He defined pragmatics as having to do with action generally, and speech acts specifically, and with conditions of ‘appropriateness’ (i.e., the successfulness) of speech acts. His work on the pragmatics of discourse (1981; see also 2004) included the pragmatic connectedness of a sequence of (micro-)speech acts, their contribution and relation to the overall coherence of the text, so that they then make up macro-speech acts (e.g., a news report is a macro assertion). In the same vein, language users’ recall of a conversation-as-action may not include “the detailed, local speech acts, but rather the pragmatic ‘upshot’ or ‘point’ of a discourse, that is, its overall macro speech act” (2004), e.g., a summary of a conversation as ‘he warned/promised/told me that […]’. 3.6.1.2  v an Dijk and Kintsch 1983: ‘Strategies of Discourse Comprehension’ Given van Dijk’s interest in developing a “cognitive theory of speech act processing and communication” (1981: 2), he “worked for a decade, mainly in collaboration with Walter Kintsch, on the cognitive psychology of text processing” (van Dijk, 1989b: vii). This culminated in their co-authored book on the Strategies of Discourse Comprehension (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983), which received the Outstanding Book Award of the American Association of Educational Psychology in 1984. Many of van Dijk’s earlier ideas on text grammar were coupled with their new research and findings; their work “considered the relevance of discourse to the study of language processing. Their development of a cognitive model of discourse understanding in individuals gradually developed into cognitive models for explaining the construction of meaning on a societal level” (Wodak, 2001a: 7) and triggered “research in discourse and cognition from interdisciplinary and critical perspectives” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 13). They defined ‘strategy’ as involving “human action, that is, goal-oriented, intentional, conscious and controlled behavior (van Dijk, 1977, 1980)” (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983: 62) for their model. They said that what language users actually do when they process text is to “start with the (tentative) interpretation of the first words of a sentence before it has been fully heard or read” (van Dijk, 2004)—i.e., comprehension is ‘on line’, linear, fast, dynamic—and hypothetical and may (need to) be repaired as the text continues. Language users also may use information from both text and context at the same time and/or operate on several text levels simultaneously. And the same is true of discourse production, since we speak (or write) without a fully developed structure or whole discourse ‘in mind’ and may make changes as it progresses (including this book!).

3.6  Teun A. van Dijk

97

Since they assumed that discourse participants represent sentences (more strictly, propositions) and their meanings in memory, van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) worked on the strategies for their manipulation (analysis, interpretation and storage) in the minds of language users. In this regard, they worked with many different explanatory concepts that they and others put forward at this time. For example, the concept of the presupposition and activation of (vast amounts of) social-cultural ‘world knowledge’ that language users need for a variety of processes—such as understanding a text, defining coherence relations between sentences (or utterances), and constructing macrostructures. This included the concept of ‘scripts’ (Schank & Abelson, 1977, Sect. 3.6.2), i.e., the abstract ways people organize their knowledge about stereotypical events (such as eating in a restaurant). They also developed the notion of a mental (or situation) model, which allows language users to work with not just the meaning of a text, but also a semantic “representation of the event or situation that text is about” (2004). According to van Dijk (2004), this mental model ‘grounded’ the theory of (referential) coherence by defining it relative to a situation in the world (or at least in the language user’s (inter)subjective (re)construction of the world). It also gave a way of understanding many other phenomena: macrostructure in terms of the higher level macrostructure in the model itself (and not ‘in’ the text); the processing of a text as starting from the model; the recall of a text as based on a model constructed for that text that may be derived from both the contents of the text and such things as world knowledge; the representation of an event (including a text) in the model in terms of not just the event but also general, socially shared cognitive representations which may include evaluative beliefs, opinions and ideologies, as well as personal opinions and emotions about that event; and so forth. ‘Knowledge’ may thus be seen as a generalization and abstraction from these models.

3.6.2  P  roject on Racism and Discourse; Discourse-Cognition-­Society Triangle In 1980, after teaching in Mexico City for several months, van Dijk decided that text grammars and psychological theories “had very little to do with the real problems in this world” (2004), especially “the ways racism is expressed, reproduced or legitimated through text and talk” (2004). He began to refocus his research on the “crucial social dimension of discourse … [and] a systematic account of specific discourse structures of language use” (van Dijk, 2016b: 286) with a more critical perspective and a focus on racism. At the same time, he expanded on his earlier interests to include “major applications in the structures and processing of news in the press” (2016b: 286). In analyzing various kinds of discourses that encode prejudice, van Dijk was interested in exposing the growing breadth and depth of racist discourse and developing a theoretical model that would explain the role of not only cognitive discourse processing mechanisms but also social ones. He expanded on his repertoire for work in this area to include rhetoric (the use of persuasive strategies) and

98

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

argumentation (the ways we convince others of the truth or acceptability of what we say, the ways we justify or refute a standpoint)—as well as ideas from various approaches to mass communication. This change in his research goals led to work in five major research projects: Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), Racism and Discourse, Discourse and Ideology, Theory of Context, and Discourse and Knowledge (see his website7, which includes, for each project, an explanatory introduction and a list of some of his publications). Our primary focus here will be his Project on Racism and Discourse, which has occupied him for almost 40 years. His first series of published work on racism was in the 1980s and early 1990s, first in Dutch and then in English, with several books and articles (for example, van Dijk, 1984, 1987, 1988a (Chap. 3); van Dijk & Wodak, 1988a, 1988b; van Dijk, 1991, 1993a; Wodak & van Dijk 2000); it continued well into the 2000s (e.g., van Dijk, 2005a, 2009c—see van Dijk, 2016b). We will begin with van Dijk 1984 (in Sect. 3.6.3). For this work he developed his cross-disciplinary ‘Discourse-Cognition-­ Society triangle’: as he said in (1984: ix), he was primarily interested in the relationship between discourse (especially discourse structures) and the cognitive and social contexts of language use. He developed an account in terms of “cognitive models of social attitudes and intergroup conflicts as well as in terms of a sociology of communicative interaction and its context” (1984: ix), or, as he put it later, the relationship between “the sociocognitive structures of ethnic prejudice and the social and political functions of racist discourse” (2016b: 287; see also 2001a: 95–120). This work was inter- (multi-, cross-) disciplinary, a combination of a discursive, conversation analytic, cognitive, social psychological, and sociopolitical “approach to the study of discursive racism” (2016b: 289). However, before embarking on that discussion, we need to underscore that van Dijk used the phrase ‘ethnic prejudice’ as in the quote above and in his early work in this area (e.g., in the text of van Dijk, 1984), to mean (negative) prejudice against ‘ethnic’ people—e.g., racial minorities, immigrants, refugees8—on the part of the dominant (usually white) members of Dutch (van Dijk, 1984), and (in later work) other European, UK, and US societies. Other phrases that include the word ‘ethnic’ are similar: ethnic ‘discourse’/ ‘opinions’/ ‘attitudes’/ ‘stereotypes’/ ‘ideologies’/ etc., mean negative (or pejorative) discourse or opinions, attitudes, stereotypes or ideologies by whites— concerning ethnic or non-white people (racial minorities, certain kinds of immigrants and refugees); since this is different from other meanings of ‘ethnic prejudice’, we will put it in single quotes in our text. Van Dijk cited his own previous linguistic and pragmatic studies of discourse (e.g., 1972, 1977, 1980, 1981), from which he drew many notions (see Sect. 3.6.1.1) that were relevant to this new work, such as “conditions on local semantic coherence, the concept of semantic macrostructure, the analysis of speech act sequences”  www.discourses.org.  He made no rigorous difference between racial minorities, immigrants, refugees, people of different ethnicities in his (early) work when speaking about ‘prejudice’, ‘racism’, etc. He also “does not nearly distinguish between ethnicism, racism and adjacent forms of discrimination” (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001: 21) because he finds these concepts to be fuzzy and overlapping. 7 8

3.6  Teun A. van Dijk

99

(1984: 2) and the nature of narrative structures. He also referenced his work with Kintsch (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983; see Sect. 3.6.1.2), which he used to analyze the strategic nature of talk by the interviewees about minorities (van Dijk, 1984: 3). He also drew on some of the work in “(cognitive) social psychology about (ethnic and other) stereotypes, group schemata and biased information processing about minority groups” (1984: 3). He paid attention to general, socially shared ‘scripts’, which (can) include evaluative beliefs, opinions, and ideologies and which are also linked to the issue of (presupposed) ‘world knowledge’ that undergirds the understanding of a text—for which he used the situation (or semantic) model of what a text is about (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). He also developed a ‘context model’ (aka a ‘pragmatic model’) “to represent ethnic attitudes in general and prejudice in particular” (1984: ix; see also Sect. 3.6.1.2), which he characterized in his (much later) book on discourse and context (2008) as being comprised of the subjective “definition of the relevant properties of the communicative situation by the discourse participants” (2008: backcover); he saw this as a mediating interface which accounts for many facets of discourse. Since this type of model was elaborated in his more mature work, it will be discussed in more detail later (in Sect. 4.4). In addition, van Dijk theorized about (negative) ethnic attitudes, stereotypes, and prejudice in ways that were compatible with research in the (new) area of ‘social cognition’ (Forgas, 1982; see also Moscovici, 1982, 2000 about ‘social representations’) which looked at the knowledge, attitudes, ideologies, norms and values of social collectivities such as groups, organizations, and institutions—that are typically expressed in discourses (and texts). He viewed prejudice “as a central property of social members of groups, on the one hand, and of groups and intergroup relations, on the other hand” (van Dijk, 1984: 3; citing Tajfel, 1981, 1982), which led him to become convinced that “ethnic prejudice cannot be fully understood without an explicit account of its functions for observation, action and interaction” (van Dijk, 1984: 3) in interethnic encounters and in society at large. He also defined prejudice as a ‘group schema’ since “prejudice is both a cognitive and a social phenomenon. It is not merely a characteristic of individual beliefs or emotions about social groups, but a shared form of social representation among group members, acquired during processes of socialization and transformed and enacted in social communication and interaction … we will therefore label our approach ‘sociocognitive’” (1984: 13), a label (and eventually an acronym, SCA) he has kept ever since in relation to his ‘triangular’ Discourse-Cognition-Society approach and which he later used as his approach to CDA/CDS. He also made various updatings and some changes in its meaning, some of which we will discuss in this section—but see Sect. 4.4 about the latest version of SCA. Van Dijk also focused on other communicative and social functions served by prejudiced talk “such as interpersonal persuasion, the diffusion of social beliefs and opinions in the community, group solidarity, or normalization of attitudes and social precepts for the behavior towards minority groups” (1984: 4). He noted that there was much written on racism and anti-ethnic and anti-minority attitudes in various types of texts (e.g., media discourse, political propaganda, laws and regulations), but only some of it was based on systematic analysis (1984: 8) and there was little

100

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

about it in the literature on the functions of everyday talk. Thus his work on ‘ethnic prejudice’ contributed to studies that aimed at the critical analysis of prejudice, including his own prior work on news reporting in the (Dutch) press and secondary school textbooks, two types of discourse he did more work on in the later 1980s (see 1993, Chaps. 5, 6, 7, for a summary).

3.6.3  van Dijk 1984: ‘Prejudice in Discourse’ Van Dijk’s 1984 book on ‘prejudice in discourse’ was about the ways in which (white) Dutch people of different social backgrounds in different neighborhoods of Amsterdam talked about immigrants (and refugees) in everyday conversation. This “modest monograph” (van Dijk, 1984: 2) was singled out by Wodak (2001a: 4) as one of three studies that helped launch CDA. Van Dijk wrote that motivation for the project came from “the realization that ethnic prejudice and racism are a rapidly spreading problem in our society, especially also in Western European countries” (1984: x), and that, therefore, studying “the processes in which racist beliefs and attitudes are formed and diffused … including informal everyday conversation” was imperative. His work was “also intended as a demonstration of the feasibility and necessity of an applied, critical approach to discourse analysis” (1984: x). Van Dijk had both an empirical and a theoretical perspective on prejudiced discourse: he analyzed how white people talk about ethnic minority groups and how what they say expresses their underlying prejudices. His empirical data consisted of nondirected, recorded interviews with (white) Dutch people in various neighborhoods of Amsterdam about ‘life in the city’. Since it was crucial for understanding their attitudes and prejudice, he relied on his own knowledge of, and he provided information for the reader about, the historical, cultural, and socio-economic background of the Netherlands, and “the expression of ethnic attitudes in other types of discourse” (1984: 8), such as the media (news, TV programs, advertising, movies), political propaganda, laws and regulations, and so on (some of which he wrote about in more detail later). His interview data showed that many people cited news reporting in the press (discussed in Sect. 3.6.5) as evidence for their beliefs, and other research showed that the media provided a very specific picture of the ethnic situation, including “the overall negative evaluation of minorities in our society” (van Dijk, 1984: 10). His own prior research had revealed that the same negative view was present in secondary school textbooks, where the representation of minority groups is very often “an incomplete, biased, ethnocentric, if not a prejudiced presence” (1984: 10), and also in comics and children’s literature. All of this is important “because many of the more specific beliefs about minorities in conversations derive from what we have read and heard about them from other sources” (1984: 10) which help to transmit what eventually become general cultural ‘beliefs’. He also took into account the contexts of prejudiced discourse, specifically “the social constraints on interaction and communication as well as the strategies in the

3.6  Teun A. van Dijk

101

presentation of the self” (1984: 46), and assumptions about the listener. “Discourse appears to be one of the most important media linking the individual and the social, the cognitive and the interactional dimensions of racism” (1984: 53). As a result of this work, he discerned and defined “the 7 D’s of Discrimination: Dominance, Differentiation, Distance, Diffusion, Diversion, Depersonalization or Destruction, and Daily Discrimination” (1984: 40), which tend to organize many, if not all, discursive and non-discursive “actions, against, about, or with minority members”, Since van Dijk’s focus was on “how prejudices may be related, both through cognitive and social strategies, to the ways people express them in everyday conversation or other types of discourse” (1984: 41), a significant part of Prejudice in Discourse “tries to connect various cognitive representations and strategies with the discourse characteristics of what people say about minorities” (1984: 155), and also the contents and style of prejudiced talk. This allowed him “to make valid inferences about the actual contents and organization of ethnic prejudice, as well as about their social functions” (1984: 41) and to make claims about “which properties of discourse are typical or possible expressions or manifestations of underlying ethnic prejudices and ideologies” (2016b: 291). He looked at both the global, overall organization of talk, “in terms of semantic macrostructures (topics), of narrative structures, and of argumentation” (1984: 155–156) and the local features of talk, including lexical and propositional meanings, which may be implied or presupposed but not explicitly asserted. He also examined, “semantic moves, style and rhetoric, speech act sequences, and conversational phenomena” (1984: 156), as well as more ‘subtle’ features of talk (intonation, syntax, rhetorical figures and other properties such as turn taking, repairs, pauses, hesitations, and so on). He paid attention to various pragmatic properties of the communicative event (van Dijk, 1981), including intention, current mood and emotions of participants, their opinions, and their interactional concerns such as self-presentation and impression formation. He found that there were “two major interactional strategies of talk about minorities, viz. those of positive self-representation and of effective persuasion and communication” (1984: 156), so that they were “geared towards the enhancement of their persuasive effects rather than towards a proof of their solidity or validity”. He also found significant (mostly negative) stereotypes, in the formulation of prejudices and other beliefs by the (white) Dutch about immigrants and minorities, which were also abundant elsewhere, for example, in storytelling (narrative structures and contents), which dealt with a stereotypical list of topics, including crime, housing, work, social benefits and cultural deviance. Stories also shed light on the (often stereotypical) situation models of ethnic events (related to, e.g., criminal acts); they often ended with negative conclusions or a moral that “defines the ultimate communicative and persuasive functions of storytelling about minorities” (1984: 156). Some stories functioned to provide plausibility for prejudicial opinions and abounded in fallacies about minorities—and yet they were still highly effective. And the same was true of local ‘semantic moves’, such as in the “familiar racist disclaimers … I have nothing against immigrants, but … [which] provide a positive basis for the next negative expressions” (1984: 157) and are typically “functional within the interactional strategies of positive self-presentation and effective persuasion,

102

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

and have as their direct aim the monitoring and the management of (wanted) inferences of the hearer”. Allied to the issue of stereotypes were his consistent findings that, as he said later, “racist ideologies, as well as other ideologies, tend to be organized by a polarized representation of Us versus Them, where positive characteristics of the in-­ group and negative characteristics of the out-group are emphasized, whereas Our own negative properties (such as racism) and the positive characteristics of Them tend to be mitigated” (van Dijk, 2016b: 291). There may also be marginal in-group members (the Others among Us, such as neo-Nazis). This was correlated with his finding that one of the prevalent topics in prejudiced discourse could be summarized by the keywords “difference, deviance, and ‘threat’” (2016b: 291). In this case, difference is sometimes associated with exoticism but it “soon deteriorates into a focus on unacceptable differences, that is, into deviance” (2016b: 291) from ‘us’, due to, e.g., religion, religion-related clothing and buildings (e.g., the hijab and mosques), not speaking our language, and “lack of adapting themselves to our culture, norms, and values”, and thus “the Other may be perceived as a threat when they are defined as ‘waves’ or as ‘invaders’ of our country, as a threat to Western values and norms, or when they are seen as aggressive and criminal”. He also looked at local features of talk, local meanings in “lexical items, person and group descriptions, implications and presuppositions, and metaphors” (2016b: 292)9 and found the same pattern of polarization: we are “normal, modern, tolerant, intelligent, hardworking, responsible, and law-abiding, whereas the Others (immigrants, minorities) tend to be described as strange, traditional or backward, intolerant, aggressive, and as criminal”. Van Dijk concluded from this that ‘ethnic prejudice’ is “defined in terms of an organized set of beliefs and opinions about minority groups, that is, as a ‘group schema’” (1984: 23), which is general, decontextualized and abstract and used by the majority group in the interpretation of specific actions by minorities. He also proposed an “(ethnic) attitude schema” (1984: 155) founded on a “number of basic categories (origin, appearance, socioeconomic, cultural, etc.) that are used to collect and order information (beliefs, opinions) about minority groups … [and are] directly interrelated with the features of the context of a racist society”, since this type of prejudice is “a shared, group-dependent, social representation”. In addition, he used his situation model to show how the negative organization of prejudice is accommodated to “concrete information about situations and events” (1984: 155). Van Dijk also studied the production features of interview interaction by the Dutch majority whites, which included pauses, hesitations, corrections, etc., especially when they carefully used expressions for designating ethnic minorities, their properties and actions. He interpreted this on-line monitoring of speech as due to the force of social norms, values, and constraints as well as “the requirements of 9  We are struck by the fact, as no doubt van Dijk was when writing his 2016 chapter, that what he described in 1984 is in many respects close to, or almost identical with the current wave of racism and accompanying discourse in the West, including the US (2016-the present). It is very sad that so little progress was made in this domain in the more than 30 years between his two publications and that he still has to write opinion pieces about this issue.

3.6  Teun A. van Dijk

103

interactional strategies of positive self-presentation as tolerant, understanding citizens and as credible ‘victims’ at the same time” (1984: 157, ‘victims’ because ‘those’ minorities cause ‘us’ harm, stress, loss of livelihood, etc.). That is, those interviewed felt the need to make a good impression on the interviewer by avoiding racist talk but also the desire to express negative opinions. These set up conflicting aims, not only in actual production of speech but also at other levels, such as “topical sequencing, storytelling, argumentation, semantic moves, style and rhetoric” (1984: 157). He used these formal, semantic, pragmatic, argumentative, stylistic and rhetorical aspects of discourse in conjunction with social and individual cognitive schemas and models in this and other work on racism to understand the ways in which dominant members of a community talking about minorities not only express and enact power but also draw on their own mental models and group and ethnic schemas, through which they attempt to construct the same ones in the hearer, in order to influence, manipulate, and control the hearer’s discourses, social cognition, and mind.

3.6.4  Other work on Ethnic Prejudice and Racist Ideologies Van Dijk’s book (1984) was his first (in English) to address the topic of prejudice and racism through discourse and cognition in the Netherlands; he continued to publish in this domain about several other countries. For example (van Dijk, 1987) is about the ways that ‘ethnic prejudice’ is communicated in San Diego, California; later, he published on the relation between discourse and racism more generally in the US (Smitherman-Donaldson & van Dijk, 1988)—with similar findings. He also studied the representation of immigrants in textbooks, and found that either the books ignore them altogether or repeat simple stereotypes or even racist prejudices (summary in van Dijk, 1993a, Chap. 6). This led to increasing interest on his part in formulating a more general account of the role of power and ideologies in society and their reproduction and legitimation through discourse—and in applying his discourse-cognition-society ‘triangular approach’ not only to racism but also to associated issues. In 1988, van Dijk and Ruth Wodak co-edited a Special Issue of Text (8, (1–2): 1988a) on Discourse, Racism and Ideology based on a symposium they held at the International Conference on the Social Psychology of Language. In their introduction to the volume they said that the papers reported the results of ongoing research projects in the UK and the Netherlands which fill the gap of ­paying close attention to the micro-level of interaction, discourse and social cognition, since it is at this level “that racism and its sustaining ideologies are actually enacted, manifested, realized, legitimated, and reproduced, on the one hand, and experienced, interpreted and resisted against, on the other hand” (van Dijk & Wodak, 1988b: 2). In their view, a more explicit and systematic account of prejudice in these terms would go beyond the limitations of traditional social psychological and discourse analytic approaches to attitudes and prejudice and would at the same time

104

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

foster “further understanding of the crucial role of text and talk in the expression, enactment, legitimation and communication of racism” (1988b: 2). In a move that was novel at the time, they decided that systematic analysis of accounts and interpretation of intergroup encounters by some of those involved would give further insight into the cognitive mechanisms of interpretation and production of racist events and also provide empirical data about the social nature of those events (1988b: 3). Thus, on the one hand several contributions in the Special Issue show how racism may be reproduced in the discourse of ‘white’ group members; and on the other hand studies of the accounts of ‘black’ group members show how these ‘white’ strategies may be “analyzed, understood and further interpreted as manifestations of prejudice, discrimination and racism” (1988b: 3). They stipulated that the voice of the ‘other’ can contribute to our understanding and must be heard, as in the analysis of and resistance against, both antisemitism (in Wodak’s own work, see Sects. 3.8.4 and 3.8.5) and “ethnicism against other, often Third World, immigrant groups, in North-Western European societies, in general” (van Dijk & Wodak, 1988b: 3–4). They hoped that this project would open up approaches to DA that combine analysis of structures and strategies of text and talk with both a cognitive approach focused on production and comprehension and a social approach to the various facets of the context, which would provide a much more complex understanding of the ideological functions of discourse in social situations and society at large (1988b: 4). In their opinion, DA had become sophisticated enough to make a significant contribution to the problem of dominance and inequality inherent in racism, which was a direction that a critical (approach to) discourse analysis should take (1988b: 4; see Sect. 3.7).

3.6.5  Media Discourse and Racism In his work critically analyzing discourses that encode these types of prejudice, van Dijk wrote on a variety of issues, but he focused on two interconnected ones, the reproduction of racism in various types of discourse (including the media) and the study of news in the press (especially newspapers). He used a slightly altered version of his discourse-cognition-society triangle by focusing on discourse and text, socio-cognitive models of discourse production and comprehension and mass media and communication (in e.g., 1985e, 1985i, 1988a, 1988b, 1989a, 1991, 1993a). He began with his study of the role of the Dutch media in the reproduction of racism, especially through their coverage of immigrants in the early 1980s (see now Chap. 7 of van Dijk, 1993a). It then expanded to include several sub-projects about the Netherlands, the US and Europe, and (most recently) Latin/South America, for which he was interested in the way the prejudice of white majorities against racial and ethnic minorities (including indigenous groups), immigrants, refugees and

3.6  Teun A. van Dijk

105

people from the South10 (and developing nations) in general (2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2005a, 2009c, 2010, 2011d, 2013b), is expressed, reproduced or legitimated in many situations. He has said that it is this project, and his interest in ideology (van Dijk, 1998; Sects. 4.4 and 7.3), that inspired him to help establish, and to engage in, CDA. At the beginning he worked on the structures of news discourse, and then turned once again to racism with this as his basis. Since many of his arguments are familiar because they are the same as in his work on racism in general, we will focus here on his new proposals, namely, his argument for his theoretical framework in the study of news in the press and other media and mass communication in general, which constitutes a move away from the classical (descriptive) approach of content analysis to an explicit, systematic, and critical account of media discourse and a concern for the production and reproduction of ideologies in and through the media (1985i: 3). In his review of previous research, van Dijk mentions Fowler et al. (1979) on the relation between language and ideology in the media from a CritLing perspective (see Sect. 2.4) and their “close analysis of the grammatical structures of media messages about an event” (van Dijk, 1985i: 4). And while he admitted that “a syntactic analysis of sentences alone may already reveal biases in the description of facts” (1985i: 4), he also asserted that his type of DA would allow researchers to “trace further properties of media messages that go beyond those of syntactic structures of single sentences”. In his book on news as discourse, van Diijk set as his task an “outline of a theory of news, focusing on the discourse structures of news and the social cognition of production and interpretation” (1988a: 181) which would combine “linguistic, discourse analytical, psychological and sociological analysis of news discourse and news processes” (van Dijk, 1988a: 15; see also 1985i). However, he also began to question whether analyses such as these actually contribute to solving real issues such as inequality, poverty, or oppression (1988a: 290; see Sect. 3.6.2) and called for “a completely different way of doing academic work” that focuses more on social change (1988a: 294). In News Analysis (1988b, the companion book to 1988a), he discussed three case studies of news in the Dutch press about ethnic minority groups, refugees, and ‘squatters’, and presented his argument for understanding the processes of the reproduction of racism through a “framework of ­historical, political, socio-economic and cultural power relations in society” (1989a: 202), which he incorporated into his triangular approach. His conclusions (to 1988a) do not differ widely from his earlier studies, although he argued more than before that the Press is part of the problem of racism, and that Dutch journalists, who are

 The South here means ng., Africa (vs. Europe), everything south of the U.S. border with Mexico, the southern hemisphere (vs. the northern one), and in some cases, southern Europe vs. northern Europe; in other words, areas where much of the population is poor, people of color, ‘minorities’, etc.. However, this term along with others such as ‘Global South’, ‘Developing World’ or ‘Majority World’ have all been critiqued as problematic in various ways (see Silver, 2015); hence we believe the best way to deal with this issue is to refer to specific countries/geographic areas when possible instead of combining them all together.

10

106

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

part of the cultural elite and consider themselves to be balanced and neutral (1988b: 21) in their reporting, “contribute to the autonomous production of racism at least as much as they participate in its reproduction” (1988b: 211). He also said that “the mass media (news, film, advertising, fiction) play a crucial role in the persuasive reproduction of dominant ideologies in general, and of ethnic ideologies in particular […] The media not only express, reflect or disseminate ethnic opinions, but actively mediate them, both among the various power elites themselves, as well as between the elites and the public” (1988b: 213). Van Dijk’s book on Racism and the Press (1991) continued this theme, by addressing, as he said in the Preface, the issue of “how exactly the Press is involved in the continuity of racism” (1991: x), i.e., how journalists (continue to) play a role “in the discursive reproduction of the ideological framework that legitimates the ethnic and racial dominance of the white group”, in north-western societies of Europe. He noted that the book is meant for a broad audience, with the hope that it would “inspire more students and scholars in the humanities and social sciences actively to join the struggle against racism and to engage in the detailed and explicit analysis of the many dimensions of the discursive reproduction of racism by the Press in their own countries” (1991: xi). Furthermore, he said: “I hope that journalists will also profit from this book, if only by seeing more clearly the implications of their everyday routine writing (or non-writing) about race” (1991: xi; see Sect. 7.3.2). He ended the Preface with a “call to the readers” (1991: xii), stating that research on the reproduction of racism in the Press is arduous and labor-­intensive, which means that “it needs to be a collective, interdisciplinary and international enterprise” (1991: xii) and “would highly benefit from your critical comments, suggestions, examples, experiences or [your] own research results” (1991: xii–xiii), sent to his official university postal address. He focused on the British press—from right-wing tabloids to conservative and liberal newspapers—with occasional analyses of the Dutch press and brief reports on the results of earlier research on other countries. Some of the most important findings were that the presence of minorities in politics, social affairs and culture is under-reported, and even whites who are against racism (i.e., anti-racist whites) are systematically associated with “intolerance, unreliability or even reverse ‘racism’, whereas the negative actions of white authorities and organizations tend to be ignored or minimized” (1991: 246). At the same time, minority journalists “continue to be discriminated against in hiring, promotion and news story assignments” (1991: 245). And finally, he said that the reproduction of racism by the Press is largely effective because it manufactures a consensus about minorities and sets the agenda for public discussion, and, “more important, they strongly suggest how the readers should think and talk about ethnic affairs” (1991: 245). He concluded that this book (and his earlier work) provides evidence to support the claim that “the reproduction processes involved are essentially controlled by the elites” (1991: 253, see Sect. 3.6.6), and since racist ideologies are learned, “a large part of this social learning process operates through formal education and the mass media”. This leads to “the conclusion that the Press plays a central role in the initial reproduction of racism by the elites” (1991: 253) and that since the role of the Press is “largely

3.6  Teun A. van Dijk

107

symbolic and ideological and hence based on discursive practices”, it needs to be analyzed thoroughly and systematically including “the subtleties of ethnic reporting” (e.g., the underlying bias in reporting about ethnic/racial groups). However, he felt that most of the “fundamental questions of this problem are still on the agenda” (1991: 254). The book ends with an ‘Appendix’ (1991: 255–257), consisting of “Guidelines for Race Reporting” by the National Union of Journalists for “all of its members to follow when dealing with race relations subjects. If you are a member these are your guidelines” (1991: 255). As is clear, this book and others in his Project on Racism were part of van Dijk’s professional and personal crusade for social justice (see Sect. 7.3).

3.6.6  v an Dijk 1993: ‘Elite Discourse and Racism’ and Other Work Van Dijk’s book on Elite Discourse And Racism “provisionally concludes more than a decade of research into the relationship between discourse and racism” (1993a: ix), by bringing together his work of the 1980s and early 1990s about racism in everyday conversations, textbooks and the press, and extending this range to other types of elite discourse, by politicians, scholars, and corporate managers, as well as, for example, Western parliaments, academic sociology textbooks, and personnel managers of large corporations. It analyzes previous results from the perspective of the role of many types of elites in the reproduction of white dominance over other racial/ethnic groups and both integrates and elaborates on his earlier research. He bases his interest in these elites on the assumption that power and influence are (typically) discursive and “are implemented by preferential access to and control over public discourse and its consequences for the manufacture of consensus. This is particularly the case for the symbolic elites, those who control the means of communication and who are engaged in the manufacturing of public opinion” (1993a: ix–x). His focus is, thus, on the more subtle discursive dimensions and seemingly ‘respectable’ forms of modern elite racism (1993a: xi), through a discussion of political, corporate, academic, educational, and media discourse in a few (Western) countries. His approach is, as in his other work, complex and multidisciplinary, an interplay of “scholarly, social, cultural, and political insights” (1993a: 18) that makes use of “discourse analysis, linguistics, cognitive and social psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, and history”, which he then combines into a “coherent theoretical framework in which a multidisciplinary concept of discourse plays a central and organizing role”. He emphasizes that contemporary racism, which includes ethnicism, “that is, group dominance based on perceived or constructed cultural differences” (1993a: 47–48), is not only a consequence of current white group dominance but is also historically rooted in the dominance of whites over others across several centuries not only in Europe but also in (former) colonies. His

108

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

focus is on the ‘symbolic’ elites and an examination of how they “speak and write about ethnic minorities, and persuasively contribute to the manufacture of the ethnic consensus among the white group at large” (1993a: 48), with a systematic study of their discourse, their relation to social cognitions (including attitudes), and the embedding of the discourses in a complex framework. This framework is the basis for an integrated account of “the various modes and modalities of elite racism” (1993a: 48), in terms of the familiar triangular link between discourse, (social) cognition and society, in which “discourse is a form of social action and a cultural product … a rather explicit manifestation of and source of social knowledge and beliefs … [which] reflects much of the contents and structures of the social cognitions, including prejudices and racist ideologies, which are otherwise difficult to access”. Near the end of the Preface he notes that writing this book was “an arduous enterprise, if not, at times, an impossible task” (1993a: x)11. His reflections on the ways in which academics can fight against racism are more somber and less hopeful than 2 years earlier (in van Dijk, 1991; see Sect. 3.6.5, when he sent out a call to the readers—see also Sect. 7.3). Nevertheless, he does extend another ‘Call to the Readers’, saying this time that “since there is little systematic work on discourse and racism, I am particularly interested in personal feedback from readers and users of this book: scholars as well as undergraduate and graduate students or others involved in the analysis of or the struggle against racism” (1993a: xi)—which could be sent to his postal or email address at the university. In 2000, van Dijk returned once again to the issue of elite racism in parliamentary debates (in Wodak & van Dijk, 2000). He wrote two chapters for the book: one on its “Theoretical Background” (2000a: 13–30), which contained the same themes discussed above, and the other on “Parliamentary Debates” (2000b: 45–78), which was also the topic of Chap. 3 of van Dijk 1993 on political discourse (based on other data). The debates were collected in 1996–1997 in 6 EU countries (Austria, France, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands), each with different ethnic situations, immigration histories, and parliamentary systems12. They centered on the topic of immigration and related ethnic issues. For this, a random selection was made from the speeches by Prime Ministers and members of parliament from mainstream parties (not the radical Right) and were examined to shed light on the role of official discourse in parliamentary debates in the (re)production of racism. They

 We find his handling of the data to be excellent and we note in solidarity his disappointment in the academic elites, especially those in many approaches to linguistics, who do not “feel that it is indeed part of their professional role to investigate, reveal and clarify how power and discriminatory value are inscribed in and mediated through the linguistic system” (Caldas-Coulthard & Coulthard, 1995a: xi). 12  There were also other differences in terms of which groups suffer discrimination and the specific practices of discrimination, due to the fact that: only some countries subscribed to the Schengen treaty, only some had a colonial past, and only some had recruited foreigners as immigrant workers; the concepts and definitions of nationality and citizenship are different across the countries; the memory of the Holocaust and WW II is important for all formerly occupied countries, but in different ways; in some countries the term ‘race’ is a taboo; and while explicit antisemitism is a taboo, racism against minorities is overt. 11

3.7  Teun van Dijk and Ruth Wodak: Productive Professional Collaboration

109

also looked for any anti-racist discourse that might be present, i.e., the formulation and propagation of opposition, dissident, non-dominant, or non-/anti-racist opinions (see also Reisigl & Wodak, 2000c). After this book was finished, van Dijk went on to look (more) at racist discourse in media and textbooks, as well as political discourse in Spain (van Dijk, 2005a; written as a complementary study to van Dijk, 1993a), where he examined, in particular, discursive reactions to recent immigration. He conducted careful analysis of the media, political discourse, textbooks and other public discourses; he found that Spain reproduces, but in a less radical way, the kind of racist discourse found elsewhere in Western Europe. He also showed that discursive Euro-racism is ubiquitous in several Latin American countries (e.g., Mexico, Argentina and Chile, van Dijk, 2005a, 2008), where ages-old ethnicism and racism against indigenous people and Afro-Latinos has prevailed in elite discourse since the days of colonialism and slavery and remains a major social problem, even (or especially) if ignored or denied. In the later 1990s, his own work turned to a more specific focus on issues of importance to the theoretical development of both SCA and CDA/CDS, such as the relation between discourse and ideology, manipulation, context(s), society, and knowledge (e.g., van Dijk, 1998, 2006, 2008, 2009b, 2014; discussed in Sect. 4.4). He also continued to write about (anti)racist political discourse in Brazil, as well as about social movements, discourse, and cognition (Sects. 4.4 and 7.3). Meanwhile, some of the elites—including journalists—in the Netherlands attacked him for his work on racism in journalistic discourse and effectively cut off his ability to conduct his research in the way he wanted to; he left and went to Pompeo Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain in 2001, became Professor and then Director of the Centre for Discourse Studies, and still lives in Barcelona (for more, see Sects. 3.7.2 and 7.3).

3.7  T  eun van Dijk and Ruth Wodak: Productive Professional Collaboration Before leaving our discussion of van Dijk and going on to Ruth Wodak, we want to point to the collaborative and productive professional relationship between the two of them that was undoubtedly one of the underlying factors for the success of the meeting in Amsterdam and of CDA/CDS in general since then; we will also write about the consequences for each of them of their research on ‘delicate’ topics in the Netherlands and Austria.

3.7.1  Shared Intellectual and Social Justice Interests Despite the differences in their backgrounds in linguistics, their professional identities and their approaches to DA, van Dijk and Wodak knew of and appreciated each other’s work already in the 1980s. He invited her to contribute a chapter (Wodak,

110

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

1985) to his Handbook of Discourse Analysis (van Dijk, 1985a; see Sect. 3.1). They met in person in 1986 at a conference on ideology in Utrecht, where she also met van Dijk’s co-authors on a book about discourse, poetics and psychiatry (Zavala, van Dijk, & Díaz-Diocaretz, 1987); Zavala and Díaz-Diocaretz were also the series editors of ‘Critical Theory: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language, Discourse and Ideology’ for John Benjamins, and she later published her book on ‘language, power, and ideology’ (Wodak, 1989a, see Sect. 3.8.2) in that series. Her characterization of meeting all three of them in 1986 was: “What a wonderful experience and what a stimulating discussion!” (Wodak, 1989c: xix). Van Dijk and Wodak had many things in common—e.g., interest in (critical work in) DA; background in pragmatics; interest in socio-psychological/cognitive concepts and more particularly in theories of social cognition; an inter-/multi-/cross-disciplinary orientation, operationalization and integration of a broad range of linguistic, pragmatic and argumentative features in their analysis of specific texts; preference for both empirical research with ‘real’ data and theoretical concerns; and research on similar topics, in particular racism and antisemitism. As van Dijk said later (2011c: 6), it was not surprising “that much of our research on discourse and racism was mutually inspiring, and that we were able to cooperate so closely for so many years”. That cooperation led to many important milestones in the emergence and development of CDA. In their joint introduction to the Special Issue of Text, on “Discourse, Racism and Ideology” (van Dijk & Wodak, 1988a) they said that the Issue represented “but one of the many directions a critical discourse analysis may (and in our view, should) take in the years ahead” (1988b: 4). A year later, van Dijk published a paper (1989a) in her edited volume (1989a), which she praised in her Introduction (Wodak, 1989b: xviii) as presenting “a thorough and impressive analysis of the way racism is transmitted through the media in the Netherlands. It is not only important how much is said about foreigners (classical content-analysis), but even more so what and how it is put and this is precisely the very productive type of contribution critical linguistics13 can make”. Van Dijk praised her book (1989a) as “CDA before its time” (2001a: 120) and noted that “it is also important because the work of several German-language scholars is translated into English here” and it contained papers on “fascism, racism, prejudice, patriarchy, and political discourse”, all of which were to become important topics in CDA. In addition to being one of the five participants in the 1991 meeting in Amsterdam about CDA (see Sect. 3.2), Wodak was centrally involved in various follow-up activities planned at the meeting (and subsequent ones): e.g., she contributed an article (Wodak & Matouschek, 1993) to the Special Issue of Discourse & Society he edited about CDA (van Dijk, 1993b); and she co-authored a chapter about CDA (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997) for (van Dijk, 1997a), that had been agreed on but was delayed (see also Fairclough et al., 2011 in van Dijk, 2011a). In a continuation of their joint interest in racism, Wodak and van Dijk co-edited the book Racism at the

13  We need to remind the reader that Wodak used the term ‘critical linguistics’ for critical work by herself, van Dijk, and others into the 1990s, before CDA was established and the acronym adopted.

3.7  Teun van Dijk and Ruth Wodak: Productive Professional Collaboration

111

Top (2000), which concerns parliamentary debates about immigration in various countries of Europe. It was the result of a project funded through her Discourse Politics and Identity Centre (DPI, see Sect. 3.8.6—van Dijk was on its International Advisory Board); the research was carried out by a team of international scholars from various disciplines (Wodak, 2003: 26–27, 44–45); and van Dijk wrote two chapters for the book (2000a, 2000b; cf. van Dijk, 2000c in Reisigl & Wodak, 2000a; see also 2000c and Sect. 3.6.6). The analysis was accomplished using a combination of their two approaches—her DHA (Sects. 3.8.5 and 4.5) and his SCA (Sects. 3.6.2–3.6.6, and 4.4); that combination was also used in Titscher, Meyer, Wodak, & Vetter, 2000. Later, in their book on the ‘politics of exclusion’, which is about antisemitism, racism and xenophobia, Michał Krzyżanowski and Wodak lauded van Dijk’s “truly innovative approach to discourse and racism, which serves to explain cognitive discourse processing mechanisms related to the production and reproduction of racism” (2009: 15; with reference to van Dijk, 1984, 2005a, 2005b). As we noted above (Sects. 3.1, 3.2, and 3.6.1) van Dijk was the major historian and biographer of DA/DS, a major figure in the founding of CDA, editor of (and contributor to) a Special Issue of Discourse & Society on CDA (1993b; see also van Dijk, 1993c, 1993d), and author of several important articles and chapters about CDA. Once CDA was launched, Wodak became the major historian and biographer, and in particular she co-edited three highly regarded books that introduced CDA/ CDS (Wodak & Meyer, 2001, 2009a, 2016a). In the introductions to those books (Wodak, 2001a; Wodak & Meyer, 2009b, 2016b), van Dijk was mentioned several times (see also Sect. 3.2) and also his multidisciplinary, ‘triangular’ approach which was to become his SCA to CDA (Sects. 3.6 and 3.6.2); and his chapters on his approach were included in all three editions (van Dijk, 2001a, 2009a, 2016a). She also supported his later efforts to broaden, and rename, CDA as CDS. Like him, she changed her designation for the field (as in the title of, and the “Introduction” to, Wodak & Meyer, 2016a, 2016b; see Sects. 3.8.8 and 4.1), and she also included the issue of (social) cognition generally in CDA/CDS. In addition to her edited volumes with van Dijk, she co-edited a book with Paul Chilton (Wodak & Chilton, 2005a, 2005b), a cognitive linguist who had been part of CritLing; Chilton’s chapter (2005) in that book argued for a more cognitive approach to CDA (see also Sect. 4.9) and van Dijk had an important chapter in that book (2005b) about ‘contextual knowledge management in discourse production’. Van Dijk published chapters in books and articles in Special Issues of journals edited by Wodak in the early 2000s: on discourse, ideology and context (van Dijk, 2001c) in a Special Issue of Folia Linguistica about CDA in post-modern societies (Wodak, 2001b); on the discourse-knowledge interface (van Dijk, 2003) in (Weiss & Wodak, 2003a) about CDA; on politics, ideology and discourse (van Dijk, 2005c) in a volume on politics and language (Wodak, 2005). For his part, in his Sage Benchmarks in Discourse Studies, van Dijk (2007a) reprinted (Wodak, 1991; see also Wodak, Nowak, Pelikan, Gruber, de Cillia, & Mitten et  al., 1990; and Sect. 3.8.4) on antisemitic discourse in Austria. In addition, he participated in the Festschrift für Ruth Wodak (de Cillia, Gruber, Krzyżanowski, & Menz, 2010) with a paper on the coverage of immigration in Spanish textbooks (van Dijk, 2010).

112

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

In her four-volume edited book about CDA (Wodak, 2013; Sage Benchmarks in Language and Linguistics), she reprinted three of his articles (van Dijk, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c); taken together, they (1) provide an excellent overview of his triangular/SCA approach (van Dijk, 2013a [originally published in 2006]; also van Dijk, 1998, 2001c; Sects. 3.6.5 and 3.6.6); (2) examine the discursive strategies and cognitive and social functions of the denial of racism (van Dijk, 2013b [originally published in 1992]); and (3) give a summary (van Dijk, 2013c [originally published as 2006]) of the structures and processes of discursive manipulation “through positive self-representation and negative other-representation expressing ideological conflict” (2013c: 338) in speeches by (former) Prime Minister Blair of the UK. In addition to all of their shared intellectual interests, Wodak and van Dijk also have an overlapping and strong focus on social justice (see Sects. 7.2 and 7.3, for more on this and how each of them has participated in ‘making a difference in the world’). They co-founded CRITICS (Centres for Research Into Text, Information and Communication in Society), the only remaining (but important) activity of which is the CRITICS-L Listserv. They also established IASR (International Association for the Study of Racism, with about 200 European scholars in the mid 1990s), which “reacts to racist discourse in the public sphere through resolutions, letters, expertise, etc.” (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997: 281); however, it is currently active only in Austria (see Sect. 7.2), due to lack of financial assistance elsewhere. And each of them has reached out to those they have written for and about in order to get more data and/or to bring the results of their research to them: e.g., as said above, van Dijk asked his ‘readers’ to help with research on prejudice and racism (Sects. 3.6.5 and 3.6.6) and talked with Dutch journalists about his issues with their discourse on racism (see Sects. 7.3.1 and 7.3.2). Wodak and her colleagues (from the 1980s on, including in her DPI center, see Sect. 3.8.6, also Sect. 7.2) wrote for doctors, lawyers, teachers on how to communicate effectively with others, held training seminars for those groups and for politicians and bureaucrats, and, as her research became more critical and political, provided expert opinions for courts on, e.g., the use of presuppositions and hidden meanings in discourse; they were also involved in issues about non-sexist and non-discriminatory language use.

3.7.2  Consequences of Research on Racism and Antisemitism And finally, we want to point out the serious consequences that both van Dijk and Wodak have suffered for taking strong stands in their work on sensitive social issues, especially contemporary racism and antisemitism in the Netherlands and Austria (and also in Europe more generally), while also being highly visible and ­well-­regarded in their professional domains. As Wodak has said, those social issues “touch the core of the respective national communication to which the researcher belongs. For example, research on concrete antisemitic, xenophobic and racist occurrences is much more controversial in certain academic and national contexts and is sometimes regarded as ‘unpatriotic’, or hostile. This explains the serious

3.8  Ruth Wodak

113

problems which some critical scholars have encountered when venturing into such sensitive fields (Heer, Manoschek, Pollak & Wodak, 2008)” (Wodak & Meyer, 2016b: 19). This has led to heavy consequences for their professional and personal lives, since each of them decided to leave their positions in order to continue their careers away from their home language, culture and country, not to speak of family and friends (which we empathize with, recognizing the strain they each must have been under). In 2001, van Dijk went to Pompeo Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain (where he continues to live), became Professor and then Director of the Centre for Discourse Studies (see Sect. 7.3); he has been very active in his new home with publishing (see Sects. 3.6.6 and 4.4). As for Wodak, in 2004 she became Chair in Discourse Studies and then Distinguished Professor at Lancaster University (see Sect. 7.2). She retired in 2014 and returned to Vienna (where she continues to live), where she had remained affiliated with the University. She too has been very active with publishing (see Sect. 3.8.1 just below, and Sects. 3.8.6, 3.8.7, and 4.5).

3.8  Ruth Wodak 3.8.1  Introduction and Early Work At the time of the meeting in Amsterdam in 1991 (see Sects. 3.2 and 7.2), Ruth Wodak was Professor of Applied Linguistics and Chair of the Department of Linguistics at the University of Vienna, where she had been teaching since 1975 and was awarded “Habilitation” in 1980. In 1996, she received the Wittgenstein Prize for Elite Researchers and established a center on Diskurs, Politik, Identität (DPI, aka Discourse, Politics, Identity), first at the University of Vienna and then at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna (see Sect. 3.8.6). As just said, from 2004 to 2014 she was Chair in Discourse Studies and then Distinguished Professor at Lancaster University, commuting regularly between the UK and Austria; she retired early in 2014 as Emerita Distinguished Professor and returned to Vienna (where she continues to live), where she had remained affiliated with the University of Vienna. She is co-editor of three journals in the area of CDA/CDS: Discourse & Society, Critical Discourse Studies, and the Journal of Language and Politics, and is a member of Academia Europaea and the British Academy of the Social Sciences (FAcSS). She has been very prolific: according to the CV on her website at the University of Lancaster in Feb. 2018, from 1972 to 2018 she published 41(co-) authored and (co-) edited books, monographs and Special Issues of journals, and 500+ articles in a variety of journals and chapters in books. Her research interests have been multiple, wide-ranging, diverse, and interdisciplinary in scope; in her 2018 CV, she listed seven Key Research Interests: Discourse Analysis, Organizational Discourse, Sociolinguistics, Language and/in Politics, Prejudice and Discrimination, Gender Studies, and Methodologies of Qualitative Analysis and Linguistic Fieldwork. However, her research interests have changed many times over the course of her

114

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

career and have been changing again up to our cut-off date of 2018 as she finishes current projects and takes up new ones. While most of her publications are relevant for CDA/CDS in some way, we will discuss only a few here (see also Sects. 3.7.1, 4.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 6.9, and 7.2). Due to the many stimulating and important debates around various social issues, very early on Wodak became acquainted with Critical Theory (the ‘Frankfurt School’, e.g., the thinking of Habermas (1969, 1970a on ‘systematically distorted communication’, 1970b; and Horkheimer & Adorno, 1969) and decided to study language use and its relation to society, i.e., sociolinguistics. In an early study (Leodolter, 1975—she published as Leodolter, Wodak-Leodolter, and Wodak-­Engel before the mid-1980s) of institutional behavior she focused on “power and social class, using text-linguistic and phonological variables” (1996a: 5). Her post-­doctoral (“Habilitation”) dissertation was on language behavior in therapy groups (see Wodak, 1981), for which she used the term Applied Linguistics (widely defined). According to her Introduction (to Wodak, 1996a: 1–8; see Sect. 3.8.3), the various dimensions of sociolinguistics changed considerably from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, as had her own view of her projects. In particular, there was an emerging interest in oral communication at the level of the text (discourse), which led to, e.g., a methodological convergence of the fields of discourse analysis and sociolinguistics and equal attention to ‘text’ (or ‘discourse’) and ‘context’. This meant the integration of concepts important for the definition of context from a variety of domains: (socio)linguistics; sociology, (social) psychology, and history; and discourse analysis/theory—which dovetailed with her commitment to interdisciplinary research. As well, in line with her interest in discourse, she was attracted to the ‘qualitative turn’ in sociolinguistics—such as in Habermas’s ‘world of life’ (‘qualitative research’, see 1981), Bourdieu’s ‘symbolic capital’ (1987) and Foucault’s genealogical poststructuralist concept of ‘discourse’ (‘orders of discourse’, 1971, 1972—see Wodak, 1996a: 6; also Titscher, Meyer, Wodak, & Vetter, 2000; Kendall, 2007). She published many co-authored books, chapters and articles about her “ambitious empirical studies” (Wodak, 1996a: x) conducted during that time and formed the ‘Vienna Group’ (aka the ‘Vienna School’), comprised of colleagues, PhD students and former students, who conducted and published research with her (some of which is discussed in 1996a). They also wrote guidelines and practical proposals, e.g., for doctors on how to communicate effectively with patients, and they held training seminars, e.g., for teachers, doctors, and lawyers, and later for politicians and bureaucrats. They also applied their results in “teaching, in practice-related seminars, within organizations, in giving expert evidence, in the production of guidelines and in offering expert opinions” (Wodak, 2003: 5). Later, as her research became more critical and political, she provided expert opinions for courts on, e.g., the use of presuppositions and hidden meanings in discourse; she was also involved in issues about non-discriminatory, and non-sexist, language use. That is, she and her students were also addressing more ‘praxis’-oriented concerns, e.g., by providing answers to the question, “can sociolinguistics help remedy the inequalities it identifies?” (1996a: 6; see Sect. 7.2).

3.8  Ruth Wodak

115

3.8.2  W  odak 1989: ‘Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse’ In the same year as Fairclough’s Language and Power (Sect. 3.5.2), Wodak published her edited book on Language, Power and Ideology (1989a), which has been seen as a harbinger of the CDA program: “this important collection of studies is certainly CDA before its time and definition” (van Dijk, 2001: 120, see his own contributions, van Dijk, 1989a, 1989b). In the Notes on Contributors, she listed her areas of research as: “socio- and psycholinguistics as well as discourse analysis, (class- and sex-)specific language behaviour, language minorities, mass communication, therapeutic discourse, legal discourse, doctor-patient discourse, language and ideology, antisemitism, etc.” (1989b: x)—which were the topics of her nine books and over 100 articles/chapters from 1972 to 1989). In her “Introduction” (1989c) she stated that all the papers in 1989a dealt critically with the social and political practice of language as well as “with the dialectics between society (including its subsystems), power, values, ideologies, opinions expressed and constituted in and about language” (1989c: xiv). Citing Habermas (1971), Wodak said that what guided her critical analysis was uncovering injustice and inequality and taking the side of the powerless and suppressed (1989c: xiv). She agreed with (Adorno, 1969) that no research is completely objective, and thus researchers should state their values, analyze all aspects of the issue under investigation, take into account multiple data and methods before drawing conclusions or interpreting/explaining the findings—and at the same time they should maintain a certain distance from the problem being investigated. She aligned herself specifically with “‘critical linguistics’ (or ‘critical discourse analysis’)” (1989c: xiv–v, see Sect. 2.4), and characterized its threefold aims as: (1) diagnosis, by uncovering and de-mystifying social processes and making “mechanisms of manipulation, discrimination, demagogy, and propaganda explicit and transparent” (1989c: xiv); (2) interpretation of the results of the diagnosis (using all means at one’s disposal); and (3) coming to an understanding of “why reality is structured in a certain way” (1989c: xiv) through examining everything in the context, an interdisciplinary task. As a result, she said, “practical and political steps should be taken by teams of practitioners, researchers in other fields and the people who are most involved” (1989c: xv)—with “the hope […] that changes can be brought about” (Wodak, 1989c: xv). She stated that while “the study of the relationship between language and power or language and politics began a long time ago” (1989c: xv) in work on rhetoric and stylistics, bringing this “detailed and subtle approach from a critical point of view” (1989c: xv) to other areas was new (citing Chilton, 1985a, 1985b; Kress, 1985a/1989, 1985b; Seidel, 1985). She placed her volume in this new paradigm since it “draws together diverse theoretical and methodological concepts in analyzing issues of social relevance” (Wodak, 1989b: xv). The papers in (Wodak, 1989a) were divided into: I. Language and totalitarism [aka totalitarianism]. II. Language of politics/or politicians. III. Institutions, control and discourse in specific settings. Her own paper (1989d: 137–164), in part II, was

116

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

on the power of political jargon, for which she analyzed a discussion (on Club-2, a regular Austrian TV program) which was held on the 10th anniversary of the 1968 student movement in Europe—between a conservative journalist, a liberal political scientist, and two well-known student leaders. She addressed particularly the questions: “how do group languages grow, how does jargon create reality, what is the relationship between political jargon and specific ideologies?” (1989c: xvii). Her focus was on their image-making, self-portrayal and argumentative (persuasive, justifying or challenging) strategies at the text-level, various facets of their utterances at the syntactic level, and their use of political slogans, jargon and technical terms. She also compared their jargon with that of the ‘green movement’ (1989c: xvii), since she was interested in the ways in which technical jargon is created and used, and may either divide or consolidate groups.

3.8.3  W  odak 1996: ‘Disorders of Discourse’: Discourse Sociolinguistics and Early CDA During the 1990s, influenced by the change in sociolinguistics and also emerging CDA, Wodak revisited her earlier work and reformulated it; this led, among other things, to her book on Disorders of discourse (1996a), in which she discussed more generally and theoretically and also framed in a different way the results of her studies from the 1970s to the early 1990s on various types of institutional (aka organizational) discourse, in particular, doctor-patient interaction in a hospital outpatient clinic, meetings in schools between teachers and pupils, therapeutic communication in groups, and radio news bulletins. She was especially interested in not only ‘discourse(s)’ per se but also the problem of ‘disorders’, i.e., lack of understanding, misunderstandings and various barriers to effective communication, as well as the conflicts in these (and similar types of) situations that were due to “gaps between distinct and insufficiently coincident cognitive worlds: the gulfs that separate insiders from outsiders, members of institutions from clients of those institutions, and elites from the normal citizen uninitiated in the arcana of bureaucratic language and life” (1996a: 2). Those gaps and gulfs can also result from, e.g., unfamiliar professional and technical jargon as well as occasions “where worlds of knowledge and interests collide with one another” (1996a: 2). At the same time, and more importantly, she showed that the understanding of how institutions work needs to be ­redefined, since, contrary to the assumptions of both the public and earlier academic research, institutional culture is not always characterized by ‘harmony’, but by conflicts, contradictions, and disorders of discourse, which should be seen as having an emphasis on discourse and power. And, since reality in institutions is produced and reproduced through discourse, she stressed “the dialectic between ‘objective’ reality (such as buildings) and the inside life of the organization” (1996a: 12). Wodak’s approach, ‘discourse sociolinguistics’, which she placed at the intersection of linguistics and sociology, sociolinguistics and discourse theory, studied discourse

3.8  Ruth Wodak

117

(and text) in (social) context, and thus it was “capable of identifying and describing the underlying mechanisms that contribute to those disorders in discourse which are embedded in a particular context … and inevitably affect communication” (1996a: 3). She focused on the production and comprehension of authentic discourses within institutions, using an ethnographic approach (i.e., as the analyst, she observed the behavior first-hand inside the institution) in order to see it from the perspective of insiders; and when she concentrated on the impact of institutional products on those outside the institution she used an ‘outside’ approach through tests and interviews which she complemented with observation from within the institution. In this way “discourse sociolinguistics, like critical linguistics … aims at de-mystifying the disorders of discourse, in actual language use in institutions and in the intersection of institution and everyday life” (1996a: 3). She later (2000: 144–145) said that the emergence of this type of critical perspective in (socio)linguistics could be understood as a reaction against non-critical contemporary pragmatics (e.g., speech act theory) and Labov’s quantitative-correlative sociolinguistics (see Wodak, 1995a: 205; see also Fowler et al., 1979; and Sect. 2.4); and she was in agreement with Mey (1985), who explicitly favored a critical direction in linguistic pragmatics. She also stressed the view (see Kress & Hodge, 1979) that “discourse cannot exist without social meanings, and that there must be a strong relation between linguistic and social structure” (Titscher et al., 2000: 145; see Sects. 2.3–2.5). As a result she dealt with theoretical and methodological issues in relation to her data and their context and to her politically oriented (‘praxis’) concerns about how or whether the linguistic behavior of people in the institutions could be altered: “is it possible today to realize the emancipatory claims of sociolinguistics, i.e. can sociolinguistics help remedy the inequalities it identifies?” (1996a: 6) and how should we address the problem of “why there are so many disorders and such little understanding” (1996a: 6)? The empirical data were taken from studies Wodak and her collaborators had carried out over the preceding 20 years, but in 1996a she approached the data from her new viewpoint. She integrated the findings of two very different levels of analysis: on the one hand, those (socio)linguistic approaches that enable description of how conversations are structured and show “how communication problems are constituted at the micro-level of the text itself” (1996a: 7), pointing to gender, age, status, class, ethnicity, etc., and on the other hand, sociological theories, such as Parsons’ systems theory approach and Habermas’ ‘critical theory’, both of which study the macro-level conditions that “promote or hinder social communication at the levels of the institution and society”. With these tools, her analysis of the daily routines of an outpatient clinic led her to formulate generalizations about ‘frame conflicts’, where the worlds of knowledge and interest collide. Her study of public discourse, e.g., radio news bulletins, as well as comprehension tests and in-depth interviews with test subjects allowed her to delineate the characteristics of discourse that restrict or impede understanding. This led to her larger conclusion that reformulation of the texts of news bulletins would help in only a limited way since they would have to make not only technical improvements but also enhance both

118

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

experience and background knowledge on the part of the listeners, a task which goes well beyond sociolinguistics. In answering her own question about “what a critical discourse sociolinguistic analysis of institutional discourse is seeking to achieve” (1996a: 8), she took issue with both Habermas’ concept (1969, 1970a, 1970b) of the ‘ideal speech situation’ and Foucault’s “genealogical poststructuralist concept of ‘discourse’ (1993)” (Wodak, 1996a: 8) and declared (1996a: 13) that her own concept of ‘discourse’ had changed over many years of studying institutions. It shared certain elements with van Dijk’s approach (1990: 163ff; 1993a (see Sect. 3.6)) and also Fairclough’s (1992a: 62ff (see Sect. 3.5.4)), since she defined ‘discourse’ as ‘text in context’ (van Dijk, 1990: 164), a ‘set of texts’ (Dressler and Merlini-Barbaresi, 1994: 6ff), and a form of or a part of ‘social action’. However, she insisted that ‘discourse’ is not necessarily a self-contained (social or communicative) act, because it also evidences intertextuality: “there is no objective beginning and no clearly defined end, because every discourse is related to many others and can only be understood on the basis of others” (Wodak, 1996a: 14). She also cited Fairclough (1992a: 62; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997 (in press at the time, see Sect. 3.2)), who emphasized that discourse is a “form of ‘social practice’ […] socially constitutive, as well as socially shaped—it constitutes situations, objects of knowledge, and the social identities of and relationships between people and groups of people. It is constitutive both in the sense that it helps sustain and reproduce the social status quo, and in the sense that it contributes to transforming it” (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997: 258). The reality-­ constituting elements of discourses are consequential; for instance, they can give rise to ideological effects because they aid in the (re)production of unequal power relations “through the ways in which they represent things and position people” (Wodak, 1996a: 15). As a consequence the case studies in the book are “investigated by way of discourses which originate in organizations and are all connected with questions of power and ideology” (1996a: 15). In summing up, she states that discourses are “multi-layered, verbal and non-verbal, they are rule-bound, the rules being either manifest or latent, they determine actions and also manifest them, they are embedded in forms of life (cultures), of which they are simultaneously co-­ constituent” (1996a: 17). She viewed discourse sociolinguistics as one of the ‘schools’ in CDA, for which she provided a list of “some principles of critical discourse analysis (CDA)” (1996a: 17) in its theoretical approach as outlined in (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997) and also as discussed extensively in (Fairclough, 1992a, 1993; Kress, 1993a; van Dijk, 1993d; Wodak, 1995a). Those principles and the chapters they correlate with (in Wodak, 1996a: 17–20) are: (1) CDA addresses social problems (all chapters). (2) Power relations are discursive (Chap. 3 on “Hierarchy or democracy? Power and discourse in school committee meetings”). (3) Discourse constitutes society and culture (Chap. 2 on “‘What pills are you on now?’ Doctors ask, and patients answer”). (4) Discourse does ideological work (Chap. 4 on “Understanding the news? Information for the already informed!”). (5) Discourse is historical (Chap. 5 on “‘Self reflection and emancipation?’ Sociolinguistic aspects of the therapeutic process and its effect”). (6) The link between text and society, between the micro

3.8  Ruth Wodak

119

and the macro, is mediated (Chap. 4 again). (7) CDA is interpretive and explanatory (Chap. 5 again). (8) Discourse is a form of social action (Chaps. 2, 3, and 4 again). She also stressed the ongoing evolution of CDA, since it “is in the process of developing its own methods and tools in order to analyse discourses, which are ‘distorted’ by power and ideology” (1996a: 17, see Chap. 4).

3.8.4  D  iscourses of Antisemitism: Waldheim, Haider and Discourses of National Identity There were various significant and disturbing political events in Austria starting in the mid 1980s that resulted in very controversial political, media and other types of public discourses that Wodak and her colleagues analyzed closely; this led to a new, multifaceted line of research and many publications by herself and her ‘Vienna group’. The first event was the ‘Waldheim Affair’ of 1986, when Kurt Waldheim (former Secretary General of the United Nations) was campaigning for president of Austria and his involvement with the infamous German (Nazi) Wehrmacht during the second World War was revealed and discussed in the media. When his supporters said that the disclosures were part of a defamation campaign and a conspiracy by the foreign press and Jews (including the World Jewish Congress), the public discourses that resulted were filled with (often virulent) antisemitism, racism, anti-­ ethnic bias, and so forth. As a result, Wodak began a multi-year process of positioning herself “explicitly with [her] research on anti-Semitism and racism” (Wodak, in Kendall, 2007; see also Sect. 3.8.7). She and her group worked with very large amounts of discursive data showing, e.g., the persistence, revival and creation of new types of antisemitic discourse in Austria (e.g., Reisigl & Wodak, 2001: 91–143; Wodak, 2001c: 67–93; see also Gruber, 1991; Mitten, 1992; Mitten & Wodak, 1993). In the case of Waldheim, they traced in detail the construction of a ‘Feindbild’ as it emerged in public discourse—a hostile, antisemitic stereotyped “image of the Jew as the enemy, which, in turn reinforced existing prejudices” (Wodak & Pelinka, 2002b: x). In order to be able to study the Feindbild, its context had to be unpacked into various dimensions; this necessitated the work of six researchers from three fields (linguistics, history, psychology) and an approach that focused on many different genres in the different political fields of action. The team developed its categories with an emphasis on ‘integrative interdisciplinarity’ (Wodak et  al., 1990). They studied the rhetorical strategies used for constructing discourses of justification; they contrasted newspaper reports and news bulletins in Austria with the reporting by the New York Times in the US about, e.g., “atrocities committed by the Wehrmacht in the Balkans and the deportation of Jews from Greece” (Wodak, 2001c: 70); and they reported on the systematic distortion of the facts in the Austrian sources. She and her colleagues noted that there was “a perceptible shift in public discourse, which developed a distinctive ‘us’ and ‘them’ pattern” (Wodak & Pelinka, 2002b: ix). The outgroup (‘them’) were Jews, leftists, a few Austrians who were

120

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

interested in ‘digging up’ Austria’s Nazi past, and everyone outside of Austria; and the ingroup was the ‘real’ Austrians (‘us’). In their overview of the political and media discourse in 1986 and its aftermath, they also noted that before these events there was typically a marked difference between the various private and public discursive forms—e.g., open, explicit, antisemitic discourses in private domains and coded, implicit ones in public domains (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001). However, they concluded that some of the older taboos “with respect to antisemitism fell away in certain public realms, especially in the media” (2001: 142; see Wodak & Pelinka, 2002b: x). Wodak and her team also looked at the discourses about events that occurred in 1988, including the Austrian “Gedenkjahr” (‘Year of Commemoration’), i.e., the 50th anniversary of Hitler’s occupation of Austria. Their data for these studies included all sorts of oral and written texts and all types of media: e.g., newspapers, radio reports, television news broadcasts, speeches by Austrian politicians, and official political and media recollections of those past events. This allowed for a critical examination of the Austrian Nazi past, the often conflicting narratives about Austrian history, and the myths that cast Austria as the ‘victim’ of, not the ‘perpetrator of’ or ‘collaborator in’, WW II war crimes (even though the latter was well documented in many different sources). Another major research focus was the Austrian reaction to the arrival of refugees from the former Warsaw Pact countries after the fall of the ‘iron curtain’ in 1989–1990 (see in particular, Matouschek, Wodak, & Januschek, 1995). When they were not welcomed, the nationalist and racist discourses that accompanied this issue were filled with fears concerning, e.g., loss of cultural identity, changes in the Austrian way of life, being overwhelmed by the ‘flood’, ‘massive stampede’, ‘exodus’ of immigrants14 who were a threat to law and order, and so forth. This led to, e.g., restrictive measures against not only refugees (especially those seeking asylum) but also those who were living in Austria and were applying for status as residents. And it led also, once again, to antisemitism. This was particularly true of the anti-immigrant discourse in the xenophobic ‘Austria First’ (‘Österreich zuerst’), Anti-Foreigner-Petition campaign of Jörg Haider starting in the early 1990s, with explicit racist and antisemitic slogans of his ultra-right-wing Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) (see Reisigl & Wodak, 2000a, 2000b, 2001; Wodak, 2001c; Wodak & Pelinka, 2002a, 2002b; Wodak, 2002). As Wodak and Matouschek (1993: 225) noted earlier, that discourse merged with “prejudices against Jews, Turks and bicycle riders” (citing van Dijk’s work, e.g., 1984, 1987, 1993a on racism; see Sects. 3.6.3–3.6.6), as well as against the refugees and immigrants from former Warsaw pact countries, which created “a generic neo-racist discourse” (Wodak & Matouschek, 1993: 225; see also Reisigl & Wodak, 2000b, 2001: 148–151). She along with her colleagues also studied the claims by Haider and the FPÖ that they would protect Austrians against ‘aliens’ and ‘foreigners’; and they analyzed the slogans, such as ‘Stop Overforeignization’ and ‘Stop the Abuse of

 These same tropes emerged later in anti-immigrant discourse in other parts of Europe and the US and have been discussed in e.g., CDA/CDS studies of metaphors (see Sect. 4.9).

14

3.8  Ruth Wodak

121

Asylum’—and showed that they used a variety of linguistic devices in a ‘coded’ language of racism and antisemitism. There were also various discourses about the Austrian nation and national identity, for the analysis of which Wodak et al. (1998, 1999; see also Matouschek et al., 1995; Sects. 3.8.6 and 3.8.7) looked at the discursive construction of national sameness on the one hand and difference on the other hand, which allowed, once again, for the exclusion of ‘outgroups’ (Wodak, 2001c: 71). She and her ‘Vienna Group’ were able to follow the evolution of the arguments brought up and their (re)contextualization in various public discourses in light of “the social interests of the participants and their power relations” (Wodak, 2001c: 72).

3.8.5  Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) in 2000 While Wodak and the members of her ‘Group’ (the ‘Vienna School of Discourse Analysis’) were analyzing the many and multi-faceted discourses associated with this political upheaval in Austria, they were also establishing a new, critical approach that would be the basis for her work from then to the present, combining empirical research with theoretical grounding. This became what she called discourse-­ historical analysis, aka the discourse-historical approach (DHA), which went well beyond her concerns in her (discourse) sociolinguistic approach (Sect. 3.8.3) and was committed to the goals of CDA (Wodak, 2001c: 64), which began to emerge in the 1990s (Sect. 3.2). As she made clear (2001c: 70; see also Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, & Liebhart, 1999: 2), DHA was developed to analyze the series of antisemitic and racist discourses in the ‘Waldheim affair’ and in particular the ‘Feindbild’ in public discourse during Waldheim’s presidential campaign of 1986 (see Sect. 3.8.4 and Wodak et al., 1990; Gruber, 1991; Mitten, 1992). By the early years of the 1990s, several of the major characteristics of DHA were established; they were, as Reisigl and Wodak (2016: 31) defined them: (1) “interdisciplinary research with a special focus on historical embedding”; (2) ‘triangulation’ as a methodological principle, which combined various perspectives, including multiple and different data, theories, methods, and researchers (who were working as a team); and (3) practical application of results. The Vienna Group “combined linguistic analysis with historical and sociological approaches” (2016: 31) and mounted an exhibition about ‘Post-war antisemisim’ at the University of Vienna already in 1987, based on their analysis at that time of the many texts and genres used in their research. DHA was elaborated further as they dealt with the other political issues in Austria mentioned above, as well as discourses about “nation and national identity in Austria (Matouschek et  al., 1995; Reisigl, 2007; Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, & Liebhart, 2009)” (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016: 31), for which they took “several current social scientific approaches as a point of departure, … [and] developed a method of description and analysis that has applications beyond” (Wodak, 2001c: 71) the specific case(s) under discussion. DHA was described and exemplified in more or less the same form in a series of publications by Wodak and/or her students in 1999–2002;

122

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

we will use this ‘2000’ version in our discussion and in particular their analysis of the discriminatory discourse of Jurgen Haider’s FPÖ ‘Austria First’ petition of 1992–1993 (as presented in Wodak, 2001c: 72–93; see also Reisigl & Wodak, 2001: 31–90, 144–204; also Wodak et al., 1999). DHA was developed further in the context of her DPI Centre (see Sect. 3.8.6) when they enlarged their study to encompass “comparative interdisciplinary and transnational projects relating to the issue of European identities and European politics of the past (Heer et al., 2008; Kovács & Wodak, 2003)” (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016: 31). And she worked on it while she was in the UK from 2004 to 2014 (see Sect. 3.7.2), after she returned to Vienna in 2014 (see Sect. 3.8.7) and up to now. The latest version of DHA, which is both similar to (in its major lines) and different from (in certain specificities) this ‘2000’ version, is discussed in Sect. 4.5. In 2000, Wodak defined DHA as having roots in Bernstein’s sociolinguistic approach (Wodak et al., 1999: 7), as being situated in CDA as well as in the socio-­ philosophical orientation of Critical Theory (e.g., Habermas, 1996; Horkheimer & Adorno, 1969; and other theoreticians, many of them from the Frankfurt School; see Wodak, 2001c: 94, n4; Reisigl & Wodak, 2001: 31–90). She also said that it was “grounded in the political and ethical grid of values of Critical Theory” (Wodak et al., 1999: 7)—which undergirds, for instance, her commitment to being critical and self-reflexive as well as to pursuing practical applications of her research for people, institutions and communities outside of academia. Seeking a way to deal with “the theory crisis in the social sciences” (2001c: 64), she supplemented Critical Theory with “a more pragmatically oriented theoretical approach” (2001c: 64; see Mouzelis, 1995), which “relate[s] questions of theory formation and conceptualization closely to the specific problems that are to be investigated” (Wodak, 2001c: 64) and focuses on the conceptual pragmatic tools needed for analysis of a given problem, that is, it engages in “problem oriented science” (2001c: 64; see Sects. 1.1, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2). DHA was based on a complex concept of “social critique” with three interconnected aspects (see also Reisigl & Wodak, 2001: 32–34): (1) “text or discourse-immanent critique” (Wodak, 2001c: 65) which is aimed at finding inconsistencies, self-contradictions, or other such problems in the text or discourse being analyzed; (2) “socio-diagnostic critique” (2001c: 65) by the analyst who, making use of background and contextual knowledge and studying the structures of a discursive event in relation to socio-political processes and circumstances, aims to expose and demystify the “possibly persuasive or ‘manipulative’ character of discursive practices” (2001c: 65); and (3) ‘prognostic critique’ (or “prospective critique”, Reisigl & Wodak, 2001: 33), which is associated with an ethical and practical dimension nurtured by a sense of justice; and because it is future oriented, it could contribute to “the transformation and improvement of communication” (Wodak, 2001c: 65; see also Wodak, 1996a)—as in, e.g., guidelines for avoiding sexist language use (Kargl, Wetschanow, Wodak & Perle, 1997; see also 3.8.1). Wodak also stipulated that in order to minimize being biased, the analysis should follow her updated “principle of triangulation” (2001c: 65), that is, work with different approaches/theories, multiple methods, and many types of empirical data, along

3.8  Ruth Wodak

123

with information (Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, Liebhart, Hofstätter, & Kargl, 1998; Wodak et  al., 1999) about the historical sources and background of the socio-­ political arena in which the particular events under investigation are found and the ways in which they are subject to (diachronic) change (Wodak et al., 1990). Wodak defined (written and spoken) ‘discourse’ as a type of social practice (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997), i.e., as a “way of signifying a particular domain of social practice from a particular perspective (Fairclough, 1995b: 14)” (Wodak, 2001c: 66). Because of their dialectic relationship, social practices constitute (shape and affect) discourses, and discourses in turn shape and affect both discursive and non-­discursive social practices. Discursive practices themselves are embedded in social ‘fields of action’ (Girnth, 1996), which are segments of social reality and include e.g., contexts of situation, institutional frames and social structures; and the social fields in turn “contribute to constituting and shaping the ‘frame’ of discourse’” (Wodak, 2001c: 66) and are differentiated by their functions or aims. Thus, in the domain of political action, the fields include (2001c: 66–68, see Fig. 4.1) “law making”, “formation of public opinion”, “political advertising”, etc., each of which is associated with specific discourse genres—e.g., law making is associated with “laws, bills, amendments”, etc. And each of these in turn is associated with (a range of) specific discourse topics. In her differentiation of ‘discourse’ and ‘text’ (based on Lemke, 1995), Wodak (2001c) further specifies that discourses are very often manifested as interrelated oral or written texts (material products of linguistic acts) and the texts themselves are typically classified in conventionalized, schematically defined types, or ‘genres’ (Fairclough, 1994; Girnth, 1996; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997), which are characterized by textual topics and sub-topics, (often) associated with a particular social activity, and constrained by rules and expectations in connection with social conventions. DHA also integrates social theories in order to define the (textual-discursive, socio-institutional, socio-political, historical) context in which discursive events happen. In her approach, ‘context’ has four levels: (1) the immediate, internal co-text; (2) the “intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between utterances, texts, genres and discourses” (2001c: 67)—intertextual and interdiscursive relationships exist when, e.g., part of a text or a discourse is incorporated into another text (as in paraphrase) or discourse (as when racist anti-immigrant discourse is used in a discussion of unemployment); (3) extralinguistic social variables and “institutional frames of a specific ‘context of situation’” (2001c: 67); and (4) sociopolitical and historical contexts. Wodak stressed the most important characteristics of DHA as the following (2001c: 69–70, references below are our addition): it is interdisciplinary on several different levels—“in theory, in the work itself, in research teams, and in practice”15; it is problem oriented; it is eclectic in theory and methodology, using whatever can be helpful; it incorporates fieldwork and ethnography (i.e., study and observation from the inside) as a “precondition” before doing any further analysis or theorizing;

15  Note that in the 2001 version of the book, methods and methodology and practical application are not emphasized, whereas in the latest version (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016) they are (see Sect. 4.5).

124

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

it is “abductive” in the sense that there is constant movement back and forth between theory and empirical data; it studies multiple genres and public spaces, investigates intertextual and interdiscursive relationships, and uses the concept of ‘recontextualization’ (van Leeuwen, 1993; van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999) to connect genres, topics and arguments (topoi); it always analyzes and integrates the historical context in the interpretation of discourses and texts; it determines the categories and tools of analysis according to its own steps and procedures and the specific problem being investigated; it uses a multi-methods approach, with different types of empirical data and much background information (Wodak et al., 1998, 1999); it has ‘grand theories’ as a general foundation (e.g., Critical Theory), but ‘middle range theories’ “serve the purposes of analysis better” (2001c: 70) since they are suited to the specific problem or social situation being analyzed; and its target is ‘practice’, i.e., the results should be made available to other experts and should also be applied in order to change existing discursive and social practices. The historical dimension, which integrates and also is integrated with, e.g., the discursive-textual, ethnographic, sociological, political, psychological and linguistic dimension, in analysis and interpretation, is considered in two ways: (1) by combining as much “information as possible on the historical background and the original historical sources in which discursive ‘events’ are embedded” (Wodak et  al., 1999: 7–8) and (2) by tracing diachronic change, which some types of discourse undergo, in a specific time period. We need to note that the emphasis put on the importance of the historical context was driven by the data she was analyzing and it was also what distinguished most her approach from others in DA and CDA, and thus it was used in the name DHA. Wodak characterized the DHA method used in the four studies about the ‘Austria first’ petition as “three-dimensional” (2001c: 72, all quotations below from this source): (1) establish first the contents or topics of specific discourses “with racist, anti-Semitic, nationalist or ethnicist ingredients”; (2) investigate the “discursive strategies (including argumentation strategies)” used; and (3) identify and examine “the linguistic means (as types) and the specific, context-dependent linguistic realizations (as tokens) of the discriminatory stereotypes” (Wodak, 2001c: 72), with a focus on, e.g., how persons are named and referred to linguistically. In her discussion (2001c: 72–93) of the tools that are useful for analyzing discourses about racial, national and ethnic issues, she took as her case-study, Haider’s FPÖ ‘Austria First’ petition (1992–1993) and the discourses around it (Sect. 3.8.4). She delineated five types of discursive strategies, i.e., the set of discursive practices or the systematic types of language use employed for achieving a particular aim, in this case, the “linguistic or rhetorical means by which persons are discriminated against in an ethnicist or racist manner” (2001c: 72) and which were all involved in positive ‘self’ and negative ‘other’ presentation. One of those strategies was (2001c: 73): “argumentation”, which was used for “justification of positive or negative attributions”, through e.g., the topoi of justification. She further clarified that argumentation and ‘topoi’ could be used when discussing “the different forms of social exclusion and discrimination … both arguing for and against racism, ethnicism and nationalism” (2001c: 73). The notion of ‘topos’ (plural, ‘topoi’) comes from argumentation theory, where

3.8  Ruth Wodak

125

it is defined as a (socially conventional) rule that connects the argument(s) in the argument scheme with the conclusions (Kienpointer, 1992: 194), either implicitly or explicitly. Wodak provided a short list of some 15 topoi (e.g., topoi of usefulness, danger, humanitarianism, justice, etc.) that could be useful in the “analysis of typical content-related argument schemes” (2001c: 74, see Table 4.2) and she exemplified how they might be used in arguing for or against racism and ethnicism. Topoi may be plausible; or, if not plausible, they may be ‘fallacies’ (Kienpointer, 1996) since they are violations of “rules for rational disputes and constructive arguing” (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001: 70). Reisigl and Wodak used the notion of fallacy especially in their analysis of “the persuasive, manipulative, discursive legitimation of racist, ethnicist, nationalist, sexist and other forms of discrimination” (2001: 71). They also pointed to a set of ‘pragmatic fallacies’ used to justify discrimination (2001: 71–74) and analyzed some “typical content-related argument schemes used for and against discrimination” (2001: 75–80). One brief example is the fallacy of ‘abuse’ (2001: 80), which is based on the argumentation scheme—“if a right or an offer for help is abused, the right should be changed or the help should be withdrawn or measures against the abuse should be taken” (2001: 80). This was used when (right-wing) politicians such as Haider, in his ‘Austria first’ petition, argued that ‘aliens’ or ‘foreigners’ ‘exploit’ the welfare or social security system and thus something in the system should be changed, or it should be withdrawn, or measures should be taken against that ‘exploitation’ (Wodak, 2001c; Reisigl & Wodak, 2001: 144–204). In the rest of her discussion, Wodak provided a good deal of background information which is important for understanding the ‘Austria first’ petition: some historical context about the FPÖ and its xenophobic anti-foreigner tone, the context of the FPÖ’s recent election success, the application of her discourse model to the specific populist discourse in Austria of 1993 with topics and sub-topics (2001c: 79, Fig. 4.5), a contrastive analysis of potential intertextual and interdiscursive relations between the petition and Austrian discourse about ‘national security’ (2001c: 79, Fig.  4.6, see also Reisigl & Wodak, 2001), and necessary information about the genre of the petition. In her (in-depth) analysis of the petition she identified topoi and fallacies, polemical rhetoric, various discursive strategies, ambiguities (multiple possible readings), presuppositions, inferences, etc., and pointed out discriminatory formulations, anti-foreigner prejudices, scapegoat strategies, and so forth. Her conclusion summarized the seven most important procedures (which are recursive, and constantly go between text, ethnography, theories and analysis) used in the analysis of this text (Wodak, 2001c: 93 for all quotes): (1) “sample information about the co-text and context of the text”; (2) establish “the genre and discourse to which the text belongs”, “sample more ethnographic information”, “establish interdiscursivity and intertextuality”; (3) “formulate precise research questions and explore neighboring fields for explanatory theories and theoretical aspects”; (4) “operationalize the research questions into linguistic categories” (including rhetorical, argumentative and other devices); (5) “apply these categories sequentially to the text while using theoretical approaches to interpret the meanings resulting from the research questions”; (6) “draw up the context diagram for the specific text and the fields of actions”; and (7) “make an extensive interpretation while returning to the

126

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

research questions and to the problem under investigation”. While we can’t dwell on this at any length, Wodak was (and is still) very concerned about rigorous and evidence-­based methodology (see now Sect. 4.5); by 2000, DHA had become much more nuanced and wide-ranging than in the early 1990s in its use of, e.g., argumentation theory, pragmatics, rhetoric, genre theory, discourse and text theory, context theory, and other approaches to (political) discursive strategies. Given the interdisciplinary stance of DHA, in another book on ‘the Haider phenomenon’ Wodak and Anton Pelinka (2002a) included papers by scholars from political science, history, anthropology and linguistics which looked at, in particular, the combination of discourses about, e.g., protecting jobs, keeping Austria from being ‘colonized’ by other cultures, maintaining the traditional economic security provided by the Austrian welfare state, answering the worries of Austrians about the EU (especially its push to enlargement by admitting former Warsaw pact states and its rhetoric of globalization), and so forth. All of these were associated with the populist rhetoric of exclusion used by Haider and his allies (see Wodak, 2002; see Sect. 3.8.7 for more on populism). There also was DHA work published in a long series of books and papers to analyze discourses about (the Austrian) nation and other discourses of nationalism which gave rise to nationalistic emotions, symbols and actions and xenophobia, and the ‘discursive construction of national identity’ (Wodak et al., 1999) in the context of discussion about the possible membership of Austria in the European Union (EU)—based on the concept of ‘nation’ as an ‘imagined community’ (Anderson, 1983). While their findings can’t be generalized on every point, many of the tendencies they found are observable across Europe, since discursive constructs of national identities (tend to) emphasize national uniqueness and intra-national uniformity and ignore intra-national difference. In the second edition of their book (Wodak et al., 2009), which was based on data collected in 2005 and contrasted with the 1995 data analyzed in the first edition, they found that the discursive strategies had changed, since they were “accompanied by chauvinism, revisionism, EU-scepticism and racist, xenophobic beliefs” (Wodak et  al., 2009: 203; see also Krzyżanowski & Wodak, 2009). They stressed that there had been a move toward a confluence of racism and xenophobia, which created a new kind of racism, which is expressed as the ‘denial of racism’ (as also brought out by van Dijk, 1989a), normalizes ‘othering’, and is ‘syncretic’, a mixture of racist and xenophobic prejudices and stereotypes, i.e., a “‘xeno-racism’” (Krzyżanowski & Wodak, 2009: 3). It is also subject to “many socio-political, historical, discursive, and socio-cognitive processes” (2009: 4), which were analyzed in various studies connected with projects related to European identities and European politics of memory (Kovács & Wodak, 2003; Heer et al., 2008; Reisigl & Wodak, 2009: 95), some of which were connected with her DPI Centre.

3.8  Ruth Wodak

127

3.8.6  D  iscourse, Politics, Identity (DPI) Wittgenstein Research Centre In 1996 Wodak was awarded the highly prestigious Wittgenstein Prize for Elite Researchers (1997–2003)—the first time this prize was awarded to a woman and the first time for research in an area of the humanities/social sciences. This resulted in the ‘Discourse, Politics, Identity’ (DPI, ‘Diskurs, Politik, Identität’) Wittgenstein Research Centre, located first at the University of Vienna (1997–1999), while she continued her work as Professor and Chair, and then at the Austrian Academy of Sciences (1999–2003), where she was Research Professor. She recruited and worked with an interdisciplinary research team (see Wodak, 2003) from many different countries; it consisted of linguists with different perspectives in the areas of discourse studies and sociolinguistics—and, as well, sociologists, political scientists, and historians. Most of them were in the early stages of their careers and had their first substantial (post-doctoral) research position at the Centre. In addition, there was a 12-member International Advisory Board of well-known experts. The participants in the Centre produced many publications, including books, special issues of journals, and articles in books and journals (many of them in collaboration with others working on the DPI team or the Advisory Board). They established in 2002 the well-regarded Journal of Language and Politics, an interdisciplinary and critical forum (mentioned in 3.2)—Wodak was its executive editor (now senior editor). They organized, and/or participated in, 15 conferences, panels, workshops, and sessions in those years. And, in addition to this basic research, they also applied their results in “teaching, in practice-related seminars, within organizations, in giving expert evidence, in the production of guidelines and in offering expert opinions” (Wodak, 2003: 5), in line with her previous attention to practical applications of her scholarship (see also Sects. 3.8.1 and 7.2). In her presentation of the work of the Centre, Wodak said “we have devoted ourselves to the great adventure of the European Union and to the search for identity in the EU. At the same time, we have also examined the ‘politics of the past’ in Austria and Germany. This is because, unlike many de-historicizing approaches, we believe that the present and the future cannot be handled without an understanding of and confrontation with past times. At every level, the past will always catch up with us and it cannot be eradicated” (2003: 5, see Sect. 3.8.4). There were seven different projects undertaken at the Centre; some of them were entirely new, others were already in progress and were completed at the Centre, and still others were prolongations of existing projects with a different focus—for example, the “shift to comparative interdisciplinary and transnational projects relating to the study of European identities and European politics of the past (Heer et al., 2008; Kovácz & Wodak, 2003)” (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016: 31). The projects were: (1) ‘“The EU is not the nanny of Eastern Europe”: Attitudes and patterns of argumentation in Austrian discourses on EU-enlargement’. (2) ‘EU discourses on unemployment: An interdisciplinary study of employment policies and organizational change in the European Union’. (3) ‘European “soul searching”: German, British and French discourses on

128

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

Europe’. (4) ‘Racism at the top’. (5) ‘The discursive construction of history: “How history is constructed”’. (6) ‘The Wehrmacht and crimes of the Wehrmacht in public and private memory in Austria and Germany after 1945’. (7) ‘National focal point for Austria, in connection with the formation of an EU-wide information network on RAXEN’ (Racism and Xenophobia European Network—Wodak was Director of the Austrian focal point). For these projects, various participants in the DPI also continued to work on DHA with her and developed it further in light of the new topics being analyzed (Wodak, 2004; Wodak & Meyer, 2009b; Reisigl & Wodak, 2009). All of the projects had different durations, different principal investigators and research teams (always including Wodak, along with others at DPI or on the Advisory Board or recruited to join the project), various sources of funding in addition to the Wittgenstein Prize (depending on the project), and a variety of different goals and outcomes. The DPI Center was an immense and very complex undertaking and it is a tribute to Wodak’s professional, intellectual, and organizational abilities that she was able to form a group of this sort and to have many successful outcomes. For example, she (2003: 50–64) lists 312 publications (books, Special Issues of journals, articles and chapters) between 1997 and 2002 by 13 different researchers (some of them in collaboration with others at the center, and thus listed more than once, and/or with other scholars elsewhere), of which 107 are by Wodak herself. There was also a journalist who wrote a commissioned report on the basis of ethnographic work with the DPI team (Flos, 2003). However, as Wodak said in her interview with Kendall (2007, see Sects. 3.7.2 and 7.2), when she talked about being a public intellectual as well as an academic, “there are risks involved; taking a stance and writing in other nonacademic genres (newspapers) can make a scholar more vulnerable—this happened to me in Vienna, 2002/2003, and basically also led to the closure of my research centre in 2003 … by right-wing, anti-Semitic, and sexist members of the Academy who also ‘opposed interdisciplinary critical research vehemently’ (see also the Times Higher Education Supplement November 2003, for details on this ‘case’)” (Wodak in Kendall 2007; see Sect. 7.2). She has since discussed those issues with regard to the consequences of writing about topics that are “sensitive” in certain national contexts and can be seen as not only “controversial” but also as “unpatriotic” or “hostile” (Wodak & Meyer, 2016b: 19; see Sect. 3.7.2). In any case, she decided to leave her position at the University of Vienna in 2004 when she was ‘headhunted’ to be Norman Fairclough’s successor at Lancaster University (see Sects. 3.7.2 and 3.8.1), where she became Distinguished Professor and Chair in Discourse Studies. She stayed there for 10 years, commuted regularly between Lancaster and Vienna, retired early in 2014 and returned to Vienna, where she had remained affiliated with the University. During that time period, and while teaching and working with students, she finished and/or continued her work that came out of the DPI center and also began new offshoots and topics around the EU, including European identities, the European Parliament, and ‘politics in action’ (see Wodak et al., 2009; Wodak, 2011), the ‘politics of fear’, and some other non-EU topics (see Sect. 4.5).

3.8  Ruth Wodak

129

3.8.7  W  odak 2015: ‘The Politics of Fear’ and Research on Populism A year after her return to Vienna from Lancaster, Wodak’s highly acclaimed book appeared, namely, The Politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean (2015a, in German translation 2016, currently being translated into Russian). It was chosen as the academic book of the year in the Humanities in 2017 by the Austrian Ministry of Science on the basis of public voting and a jury—which showed that she had met her goal of writing a book of scientific merit based on DHA that could be read and appreciated by the public (see Sects. 6.9.2 and 7.2). It also thrust her even more than before into the public sphere and led to many invitations to speak about far-right populist discourse/politics, including, e.g., a 2018 European Commission lecture. The book provides fifteen illustrative ‘vignettes’ (e.g., there was a ‘vignette’ about the ideologies of Euro-scepticism and the search for European identities) along with in-depth analyses of ‘snapshots’ of the “political situation in Austria, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the Ukraine, the UK and the US” (Wodak, 2015b: xii). She focuses on the rhetoric, performance and argumentation of micro-politics of right-wing populist politicians across Europe through the many discourses, genres, images and texts in both formal and informal contexts, on the ‘front’ and ‘backstage’ (Goffman, 1959, 1971) of politics, and elaborates on the (inter)dependencies between politics and the media through several case studies. She embeds her analysis not only in various types of contextual information, including, e.g., the ‘facts and figures’ of national and EU elections, but also in “theoretical discourse-analytic, sociological, historical and political science theories” (2015b: xii), which help to guide the “fine-grained linguistic, pragmatic, rhetorical and argumentation analysis” (2015b: xii). She also looks at the recontextualization and ‘glocalisation’ (the blending of the global and local) in images and posters across several right-wing political parties. She analyzes salient linguistic phenomena, discursive strategies, rhetorical tropes, argumentation schemes and specific ‘topoi’ that occur in right-wing populist rhetoric (see Sect. 6.9.2 for how Politics of Fear incorporates pragmatics concepts; for a discussion of topoi see also Sect. 4.5 with different examples). “Using close linguistic analysis and impressively deep political insight, Wodak takes apart the strategies, rhetoric and half-truths of today’s right wing populists” (statement by Billig on the back cover of Wodak, 2015b), which she divided into two types: on the one hand, neo-Nazi movements, extreme fair-right parties, and horrific hate crimes, and on the other hand, “‘soft’ right-wing populist parties” (2015b: 2), which she labeled as ‘the Haiderization of politics’ (see Sects. 3.8.4– 3.8.6). She also uncovered the normalization of nationalistic, xenophobic, racist and antisemitic rhetoric and revealed “the micro-politics of right-wing populist parties” (2015b: 2): how discourses, genres, images and texts are performed and manipulated in both formal and informal contexts, such as “in everyday politics, in the media, in campaigning, in posters, slogans and speeches” (2015b: 2), and she pointed to their openness to change and further developments. She stated that popu-

130

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

list parties and politicians create fear and ‘legitimize’ their proposals in various ways (see van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999 for the notion of ‘legitimation’). And she included what she called “the right-wing populist perpetuum mobile” (Wodak, 2015b: 19; see also Sect. 6.9.2), which she deconstructed into a dynamic set of nine (discursive) acts in an example of what she calls the ‘politics of denial’, whereby politicians/members of a political party: create a scandal through some event; deny the accusations about the (offensive) meaning of the scandal; redefine and equate the scandal with other phenomena; claim victimhood; dramatize and exaggerate the event that set this off; justify the event through freedom of speech (which shifts the frame and triggers another debate); construct the accusation as a conspiracy with scapegoats; launch a new scandal; and give a quasi-apology if needed (2015b: 19–20). And she summarizes the characteristics of populist parties in terms of nine features (2015b: 20–22; see also 2013c), which are discussed in some detail in six chapters on the politics of: identity (theories and definitions), exclusion (protecting borders and the people), nationalism (language and identity), denial (of offensive language or stance, such as antisemitism), charisma (performance and the media), and patriarchy (gender and the body politic). The final chapter discusses the normalization of exclusion: with sections on the ‘Haiderization’ of Europe (2015b: 177), mainstreaming and normalization, nativist body politics: East and West, the politics of fear, (not) falling into the trap (of the ‘perpetuum mobile’); and an epilogue on new developments in Germany in autumn 2014. She has announced the preparation of a second edition to be published in Sept. 2020, since it was indeed prophetic about the few, but highly consequential, years between 2015 and now, when farright populism has spread much further, become even more important in Europe, the UK (Brexit), and the USA (election of President Trump has developed what she calls the shameless normalization of their populist discourses), and so forth. We are eager to see the new edition.

3.8.8  Biographer and Historian of CDA/CDS We will close this discussion by recognizing briefly Wodak’s role in defining, establishing and expanding CDA/CDS.  As noted (in Sects. 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, and 3.7) van Dijk was the widely recognized promoter, biographer and historian of DA/DS who organized the meeting in Jan. 1991 that led to CDA and also contributed various articles and chapters on CDA/CDS to Special Issues of journals and edited volumes, especially in the 1990s and early 2000s. In the later 1990s and into the 2000s Wodak became the (unofficial) biographer and historian of CDA/CDS, whose work has been very influential on this book (along with the contributions of Kress, van Leeuwen, O’Toole, cited above in Sect. 3.2.2). Her three co-edited volumes in English (with Michael Meyer16) are particularly noteworthy, i.e., her ‘Methods’

16

 Professor for Business Administration at Vienna University of Economics and Business

3.9  Theo van Leeuwen

131

books about CDA/CDS (Wodak & Meyer, 2001, 2009a, 2016b; see Sect. 3.2.1), including the chapters in those books on DHA (Wodak, 2001c; Reisigl & Wodak, 2009, 2016) and the introductions to those volumes (Wodak, 2001a; Wodak & Meyer, 2009b, 2016b) which deal with history, agenda, theory and methodology and include discussion of the founders and their common ground, their differences, their research agendas, and a variety of methodological issues pertinent to CDA/ CDS. Each of the volumes also contains chapters by various participants in CDA and CDS about their own approach (she was especially careful to include English versions of the chapters about ‘dispositive analysis’ (DPA), since other books, articles and chapters in this framework are not readily available in English—see Jäger, 2001; Jäger & Maier, 2009, 2016; also Sect. 4.7). In addition to the ‘Methods’ books, Wodak has been diligent in other ways in defining and documenting the ever-­ evolving CDA/CDS domain. For instance (see also Sects. 3.2 and 4.2), she has (co-) edited, and (co-)authored introductions to, other books that are partially or wholly about CDA/CDS (e.g., Wodak & Ludwig, 1999; Weiss & Wodak, 2003a, 2003b; Martin & Wodak, 2003a, 2003b; Wodak & Chilton, 2005a, 2005b; Wodak, 2013a, 2013b; Richardson et al., 2014a, 2014b; Angermuller et al., 2014a, 2014b; Wodak & Forchtner, 2018) and has also participated in writing other pieces on CDA (e.g., Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Wodak, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2013a, 2013b; Titscher, Meyer, Wodak, & Vetter, 2000; Reisigl & Wodak, 2000a, 2000b; Reisigl & Wodak, 2001; Wodak & Krzyżanowski, 2008; Fairclough et al., 2011). They have been very influential on this chapter and this book; indeed, much of our framing of CDA/CDS comes from what is said in the ‘Methods’ books.

3.9  Theo van Leeuwen 3.9.1  Introduction and Early Work Characterizing his career as “a mixture of design and serendipity” (interview in Andersen et al., 2015b: 93) and his strong belief in combining “creativity and intellect” (2015: 94), Theo van Leeuwen had a first career as a scriptwriter and film producer in the Netherlands and then in Australia, then he was a tutor in courses on film and television production with interests in semiotics, and throughout much of this time period (and after) he was also a jazz pianist. At the time of the 1991 meeting in Amsterdam, he was Senior Lecturer in Mass Communication at Macquarie University in Sydney and was also working on his doctoral thesis in Linguistics at the University of Sydney, which he finished in 1992 (see 1993b). Kress and van Leeuwen 1990 (see Sect. 2.6) had been published and they were working on the more theoretical, integrated and better known Kress and van Leeuwen 1996 version (and, later, the 2006 second edition) on ‘reading images’, which was completed Administration.

132

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

after Kress had moved to the Institute of Education in London (see Sect. 3.3) and van Leeuwen had taken up, in 1993, a position as Principal Lecturer at the London College of Printing (later the London College of Communication, see Sect. 4.6). Their joint work gave an impetus to the study of “the semiotics of visual communication” (Wodak, 2001a: 8) and “the interaction between the verbal and visual in texts and discourse” (2001a: 8), which created a “framework for considering the communicative potential of visual devices in the media” (2009b: 15) and opened up the study of multimodal discourse. Van Leeuwen held teaching and research positions in media, language and (mass) communication, as well as administrative positions, in Australia and the UK.  He is currently Emeritus Professor, University of Technology, Sydney; he is as well Professor of Multimodal Communication in the Department of Language and Communication, at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense. He participated in the founding of the journal Social Semiotics and was founding editor of Visual Communication. He is a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. Van Leeuwen studied SFL/SFG and SocSem (see Sect. 2.4, 2.5) in connection with his interest in developing an analytical (and not just an interpretative) approach to his work and wrote a series of articles starting in the 1980s on topics such as “the intonation of disc jockeys and newsreaders, the language of television interviews and newspaper reporting, and, more recently, the semiotics of visual communication and music” (Wodak, 2001a: 8–9, e.g., van Leeuwen, 1983, 1985, 1988; Bell & van Leeuwen, 1994). His Ph.D. thesis (see 1993b), written under James Martin of the University of Sydney, “whose work on activity sequences was a key inspiration” (van Leeuven, 2008a: ix; see Martin, 1984, 1992), was on the representation in text of social actors (participants) and social actions (events). He created and exemplified various categories of representation for his analysis of a newspaper article, “Our Race Odyssey” (about immigration in Australia, published in 1990 in the conservative Sydney Morning Herald—see next section and Sect. 4.6); his thesis focused in particular on racist discourse that represents immigration in a way that is founded on fear (e.g., fear of loss of livelihood and cultural identity, cf. van Dijk Sect. 3.6 and Wodak Sect. 3.8). He outlined the meaning potential of social actors and social actions of various sorts and established a ‘sociosemantic’ inventory of the ways in which they can be represented, as well as the sociological and critical relevance of the categories, as discussed in (van Leeuwen, 1995, 1996, and 2008a). His analysis was praised as a “systematic way of analyzing the protagonists and their semantic roles in discourse and various genres” (Wodak, 2001a: 8); it became his Social Actors Approach (SAA) which was part of his Discourse as the Recontextualization of Social Practice Approach to CDA (discussed below in Sect. 3.9.3, van Leeuwen, 2009a, 2016b). We should also note van Leeuwen’s continued collaboration on more SocSem themes with Kress on discourse semiotics, the (critical) analysis of newspaper layout, visual interaction, and the semiotic landscape (e.g., Kress & van Leeuwen, 2007); he also contributed a paper on color schemes to a volume in honor of Kress (van Leeuwen 2016a; see also Kress & van Leeuwen, 2002; van Leeuwen, 2005a, 2011 on color as a semiotic mode). Kress (2018) con-

3.9  Theo van Leeuwen

133

tributed a recollection of their collaborative work to a volume in honor of van Leeuwen; and van Leeuwen (2019) wrote a moving obituary about Kress. Just as for the other founders of CDA, we will discuss some of his work here, and his approach as it has been incorporated in CDA/CDS in Sect. 4.6; however, since van Leeuwen was working on a continuation of his work in SocSem and multimodality and since some of that work criss-crossed with CDA at various moments, we will look at it in more detail here (see also Sect. 7.11).

3.9.2  Van Leeuwen 2005: ‘Introducing Social Semiotics’ In 2005, van Leeuwen developed a new, wide-ranging, integrated, version of SocSem based on much of his previous work, including Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) and relevant studies incorporated in (van Leeuwen, 2008a; see Sect. 3.9.3). Out of this came his carefully crafted book, Introducing Social Semiotics, “an accessible, and, above all, usable introduction” (2005a: xi) about “the ways in which different aspects of modern society combine to make meaning” (2005a: frontispiece), an intellectually rich, interdisciplinary approach with key theoretical contributions. He stated that while his work in SocSem was originally inspired by Prague School and Paris School semiotics, the focus in this book was not on sign, structure and system as in those approaches, but rather on “the way people use semiotic ‘resources’ […] in the context of specific social situations and practices” (2005a: xi) and defined semiotic resources as “the actions and artefacts we use to communicate” (2005a: 3). Earlier, he had explored these resources and their semiotic values in speech, music and sound, including their materiality, e.g., the various material components of sound, such as pitch, loudness, duration, rhythm, movement, range, sound quality, vibrato, etc. (1999). He drew on many, shorter papers in the 1990s and 2000s, which ranged over various topics such as visual semiotics and semiotics of music, the news, and the media, as well as interdisciplinarity, intertextuality, and multimodality, and also developed a variety of new frameworks (including provenance and experiential meaning), for studying color, kinetic design, voice, tactile and visual texture, timbre, etc. For example, he said that taste needs to be placed in the context of the semiotics of action since “it is only in our physical experience of materials, that the qualities of those materials can be perceived” (1998: 149), e.g., touching, licking, sucking, biting, chewing, combined with our knowledge of the provenance of the materials and the cultural values assigned to them. He also revisited old topics and added new ones: the semiotics of a variety of phenomena—such as voice, decoration, listening, kinetic typography, film lighting; critical analysis of musical discourse; grammar of movement (the 4th dimension); social semiotic theory of synesthesia, aesthetics and text; and so forth. His co-edited Handbook of Visual Analysis (van Leeuwen & Jewitt, 2001) and Special Issue of Discourse Studies (Thornborrow & van Leeuwen 2001) about authenticity in media discourse were also a source of ideas. And he focused on the role of social, histori-

134

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

cal, cultural and political factors, in keeping with the socio-political and critical orientation of his research. These (and many other insights) led van Leeuwen to define his new, unified version of SocSem in contrast to his own (and others’) previous work (2005a: xi): rather than focusing on the semiotics of individual modes in isolation (such as music or language or image) or with reference to a given type of human perception (such as sound, sight, or taste), he developed further the concept of multimodality (Sect. 2.7), by looking at “semiotic modes, exploring what they have in common as well as how they differ, and investigating how they can be integrated in multimodal artefacts and events” (2005a: xi). Rather than “describing semiotic modes as though they have intrinsic characteristics and inherent systematicities or ‘laws’” (2005a: xi), he explored “how people regulate the use of semiotic resources, again in the context of specific social practices and institutions and in different ways, and to different degrees”. And, rather than focusing on meaning in the sign, he stressed that semiotic resources have a meaning potential which is dynamic and both shapes and is shaped by the social contexts in which the resources are used (2005a: 285). And, in answer to his own question—what kind of activity is social semiotics?—he defined it as “a practice oriented to observation and analysis, to opening our eyes and ears and other senses for the richness and complexity of semiotic production and interpretation, and to social intervention, to the discovery of new semiotic resources and new ways of using existing semiotic resources” (2005a: xi), an approach that “comes into its own when it is applied to specific instances and specific problems” (2005a: 1). And, finally, he focused on the relationship between meaning making and “the interests/agency of meaning-makers, and the ways in which specific institutional and broader social contexts govern the use of semiotic resources” (Djonov & Zhao, 2018: 3). As a result, van Leeuwen’s book (2005a) discusses many of the semiotic resources and semiotic modes that surround us and carry socio-cultural value and significance—such as language, gesture, images, music, food, dress, magazines, and everyday (often three-dimensional) objects; it also touches on the historical development of certain semiotic resources, such as the press and advertising. Drawing on his earlier work, he combined his ideas about resources and modes on the one hand and genre, style, framing, salience, rhythm, and so forth on the other hand, and brought together the various facets of SocSem analysis by presenting them in three different categories: (1) The “Semiotic principles” (2005a: 1) “that make social semiotics a new and distinctive approach to the practice and theory of semiotics”, including not only “Semiotic resources” (2005a: 3) for representation, i.e., meaning-making, but also “Semiotic change” (2005a: 26), e.g., innovation, adaptation, resistance, etc.), “Semiotic rules” (2005a: 47) of different kinds that are taken up in different ways in different contexts and “change over time” (2005a: 53), and “Semiotic functions” (2005a: 69), including a discussion of functionalism in architecture, sociology, anthropology, linguistics and semiotics (2005a: 69–79). (2) The key “Dimensions of Semiotic Analysis” (2005a: 91): “Discourse” (“how semiotic resources are used to construct representations”, “Genre” (“how semiotic

3.9  Theo van Leeuwen

135

resources are used to enact communicative interactions”), “Style” (“how people use semiotic resources to ‘perform’ genres, and to express their identities and values in doing so”, and “Modality” (“how people use semiotic resources to create the truth or reality values of their representations, to communicate, for instance, whether they are to be taken as fact or fiction, proven truth or conjecture, etc.”. (3) The various “ways in which different kinds of semiotic resources are integrated to form multimodal texts and communicative events” (2005a: 179), through “Multimodal cohesion”, which includes: “Rhythm [which] provides coherence and meaningful structure to events unfolding over time” in, e.g., interaction and film, music, etc. (see also 2005b); “Composition [which] provides coherence and meaningful structure to spatial arrangements”, in e.g., images, layout, and three-­ dimensional arrangements; “Information linking … [which] links between the items of information” in both time- and space-based media, including multimodal texts; and “Dialogue … how the structures of dialogic exchanges and form of musical interaction can be used to understand the relationships between semiotic modes in multimodal texts and communicative events”. All of this is supported by a wide variety of texts such as photographs, advertisements, magazine pages, and film stills, as well as many other apposite examples from a wide variety of semiotic practices.

3.9.3  van Leeuwen 2008a: ‘Discourse and Practice’; Toys as Discourse In his book on discourse and practice, van Leeuwen (2008a) brought together his work of the previous 15 years on CDA and (critical) SocSem with an emphasis on his theoretical and methodological papers (including 1993b) and a focus on his “conception of discourse as recontextualized social practice” (2008a: 3). As he said in the Preface of his book, he developed his analytical framework for (C)DA from two main sources: “Michel Foucault’s concept of discourse as semantic constructions of specific aspects of reality that serve the interests of particular historical and/ or social contexts” (2008a: vii) and “Michael Halliday’s concept of ‘register’ as a semantic variety of language, a social dialect which is distinct in its semantics rather than in its phonology and lexicogrammar”. These can be realized by any one semiotic (verbal or visual) mode alone or together or with other modes, in which case the construction is multimodal and should be analyzed through multimodal discourse analysis (see Sect. 4.6) and multimodal semiotics (see Djonov & Zhao, 2014a, 2014b: 7; also O’Halloran, 2004; O’Halloran & Smith, 2011). The approach he designed was based, once again, on Bernstein’s (1990: 184) concept of “recontextualization” and his claim that semantic shifts take place in the move from “the context in which knowledge is produced to the pedagogic context in which it is reproduced and disseminated” (van Leeuwen, 2008a: vii). Those shifts are determined by what Bernstein called “recontextualizing principles … which

136

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

selectively appropriate, relocate, refocus and relate to other discourses to constitute its own order and orderings” (Bernstein, 1990: 184). Van Leeuwen widened this view with his own “assumption that all discourses recontextualize social practices” (2008a: vii), not just pedagogical ones, and they can also change the meaning of those social practices, and “that all knowledge is, therefore, ultimately grounded in practice”. The book is itself a recontextualization of his previously published work identified in the Preface (2008a: viii); he relates that work specifically, or more specifically than before, to CDA; and it led to further recontextualizations by himself and many in CDA/CDS as well as in SocSem and multimodality (and other areas). The introductory analytical and methodological chapter, “Discourse as the Recontextualization of Social Practice” (2008a: 3–22), was rewritten (van Leeuwen, 2009a, 2016b) for the Wodak and Meyer volumes (2009a, 2016a) about CDA and CDS. It shows how the recontextualizing principles are “linked to key elements of social practices: actors and their roles and identities, actions and their performance styles, setting, and timings” (2008a: vii), in which he explained the role of each of these components in establishing social structure. He also identifies how each of them undergoes the many kinds of transformations that happen in the process of recontextualization, such as substitutions, deletions, rearrangements, and additions (e.g., repetitions, reactions, evaluation). As a result, the process of recontextualization may eliminate some aspects of the social practice from the discourse, or it may “add elements such as purposes and legitimations for the actions” (2008a: vii). This means that, in many cases, the details of the social practices that discourses focus on may not be discernable in them. Thus, there is both a link between practice and discourse and a (potentially large) “distinction between social practices and their representation in texts, or discourses” (Djonov & Zhao, 2018: 8), which is why the same social practice may attract “a plurality of discourses” (van Leeuwen, 2008a: 6). He explores all of this in a detailed account, which shows how the various categories of social practices can undergo this process and how each of them works in specific discursive contexts. He uses many examples—among them, a corpus of (multimodal) texts about the social practices of the first day at school of young children, the article “The Race Odyssey” (see 1993b) and, more sporadically, an antinuclear speech, videos of children at play, etc. As he explains in his methodological and analytical discussion of recontextualization, he begins (as in 1993b) with a sociosemantic inventory of, e.g., the participants (social actors) and their actions (social actions), as well as sociological categories (such as agency) and their possible linguistic (and rhetorical) representation. He insists that it is the inventory that comes first and the linguistic representation that comes after, in contrast with most approaches to CDA, which are much more language/textual in their orientation; and he visualizes each one with network tables he created. The rest of the book is on various aspects of the inventory: representing social actors (aka social actor theory); representing social action; time in discourse, e.g., the timings of social practices; space in discourse, e.g., the settings of social practices as represented in verbal ­discourse and visual images; the discursive construction of legitimation through authority, moral evaluation, rationalization, and mythopoesis; the discursive con-

3.9  Theo van Leeuwen

137

struction of purpose; the visual representation of social actors, based on his social actor theory and his work on the grammar of visual design (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996/2006; see also van Leeuwen, 2000b on visual racism and visual representation of others). We should add that van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999) use his model of the discursive construction of legitimation along with Wodak’s DHA (see Sects. 3.8.5 and 4.5) to analyze immigration; it is a very important resource that has aided other scholars in their understanding of, and to help them with their own, recontextualization analyses). The final chapter (Chap. 9, van Leeuwen, 2008a) is on representing social actors with toys (dolls, teddy bears, and especially Playmobil figures) and is based on his (highly acclaimed) ‘Toys as Communication’ research program which he had started to work on with Staffan Selander in 1995–1998 (with funding from the Royal Bank of Sweden; cf. also Kress, 1982/1994 about Lego toys). He continued it in collaboration with Carmen Caldas-Coulthard and it resulted in a series of papers: (Caldas-Coulthard & van Leeuwen, 2001) about the discursive construction of babyhood in a Special Issue of Folia Linguistica edited by Wodak on ‘CDA in post-modern societies’; (Caldas-Coulthard & van Leeuwen, 2002) on display dolls like Barbie, Sindie and action men; (2003b) about teddy bear stories in a Special Issue of Social Semiotics on ‘critical social semiotics’ (edited by Caldas-Coulthard, 2003a, about the relation of SocSem, multimodality and CDA); and (van Leeuwen & Caldas-Coulthard, 2004) on dolls and kinetic design, for interactive and/or representational play. In addition, Van Leeuwen (2005a: 79–89) did a (meta)functional analysis of a pram rattle, including its pragmatics, ideational and interpersonal meaning potential (see Sects. 2.3.4 and 2.6.3), rules of use, and an analysis of (a transcript of) actual use. This line of research culminated in his work on Playmobil figures (meant for children’s play, van Leeuwen, 2008a; see also van Leeuwen, 2008c, 2009b; see Sect. 4.6), emphasizing the multimodal nature of semiotic production and interpretation. He focused on the preschool version of a Playmobil toy system. For this research, he studied the way toys are “designed and marketed to communicate a particular perspective on the social world” (van Leeuwen, 2008a: 150). And he also looked at the way that e.g., the social roles, identities and meanings of Playmobil figures can be read in videos of children at play in preschool and home settings (2008a: 154). As a result of the work presented in this book, van Leeuwen provided more tools for reaching the goal of CDA/CDS: “to reveal how discourses help perpetuate or expose and challenge social boundaries, oppression and inequality” (Djonov & Zhao, 2018: 8). Moreover, as van Leeuwen insisted (2013: 2), “the discourses that need the scrutiny of a critical eye are now overwhelmingly multimodal and mediated by digital systems that take multimodality entirely for granted”. However, (racist) stereotypes are found increasingly in multimodal texts, e.g., in advertisements and other forms of popular culture (see van Leeuwen, 2000a), including children’s toys, and they need serious CDA/CDS and SocSem analysis.

138

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

3.9.4  J oint Work on Multimodality, Global Media Discourse and Semiotic Software: Machin, and Djonov and Zhao Van Leeuwen ventured into other new, critical, domains in a long-standing and very generative collaboration with David Machin (see, e.g., Machin & van Leeuwen, 2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d), whom he singled out (in the Preface to van Leeuwen, 2005a) as having produced “several of the key examples” (2005a: xii) used in that book; he also said that their ‘joint work’ had “been a constant source of inspiration” (2005a: xii). That joint work includes the analysis of, e.g., global magazines, global media discourse, computer/mobile games, toys as discourse—through the lenses of visual semiotics, multimodality, aesthetics, schemas, genre analysis—with a focus on the contrast of global and local discourses, homogeneity and diversity, political discourse, kinetic design, verbal and visual styles, and so forth. Their co-edited Special Issue of the Journal of Language and Politics explores multimodality, politics, and ideology (Machin & van Leeuwen, 2016a, 2016b, for more on this see Sect. 4.6). The topics in this collaboration highlight van Leeuwen’s recent focus on an issue of great concern to him and Machin: “the role and status of semiotic practices in society are currently undergoing change as a result of the fact that it is increasingly global corporations and semiotic technologies, rather than national institutions, which regulate semiotic production and consumption” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 15; see also van Leeuwen & Suleiman, 2008). In their book about global media discourse, Machin and van Leeuwen (2007) provide some of the findings of a 5-year Leverhulme Trust grant awarded to van Leeuwen (2000–2005) for research on language and global communication (and other topics) carried out at Cardiff University’s Centre for Language and Communication, of which van Leeuwen was Director and Chair. In this interdisciplinary project combining the fields of “political economy, discourse analysis and ethnography” (2007: viii)—a combination van Leeuwen saw as essential for deep, qualitative work but had seldom been able to achieve before, due to inadequate funding—they “studied how globalization has changed language and communication in a range of fields” (2007: vii), including the media. For this work, they devised a critical approach to the (verbal and visual) discourse of global media, based on three intertwined semiotic areas: (1) Context, i.e., “the main themes of globalization theory” (2007: 3) and their applications to case studies. (2) Discourses, especially stories, which convey to listeners, readers and viewers how the world works (in order to “engender different kinds of identity and community from those traditionally fostered in nation states” (2007: 39), i.e., how people behave or should behave (as in the kinds of identities created for women in the global magazine Cosmopolitan, which “propagates its ideal of the ‘fun, fearless female’ in 50 different versions around the world” (2007: 39), and what types of problems there are and the solutions that are available for dealing with them (i.e., the representation of the war on terrorism, as depicted in American computer games vs. alternative ones developed by Middle Eastern game designers). (3) Language

3.9  Theo van Leeuwen

139

and image, “the forms and formats of global media communication” (2007: 105), which combine localized content with the genres of global media and global visual and verbal styles. In their analysis of the women’s magazine Cosmopolitan they note that “the same genre of communication is used for the domains of work, sex, relationships and fashion” (2007: 105) and that the overall message is that (women’s) empowerment “can only be achieved through the consumption of global goods and services” (2007: 105). They discuss language styles, including localized English and local languages— where the language used has to adapt to the requirements of global media formats (as in the English-language version of a Vietnamese newspaper, and the linguistic style of the Indian, Spanish, Chinese, and Dutch versions of Cosmopolitan). And they look at the global visual language, in particular large collections of images provided by global image banks (such as Getty Creative Image) for use worldwide. As can be expected, their findings are multiple and nuanced—and very troubling. In essence they discuss the trend to global domination by transnational and large national media conglomerates through the rise of global media, which is leading to “homogenization of world culture through Western media, and through the values and kinds of identity they promote” (2007: 5), in particular through templates associated with American news, movies, advertising and magazines. They point out that this model of the world and its peoples promotes new kinds of identity and community which “serve the interests of global consumer capitalism” (i.e., neoliberalism) (2007: 39) and that global visual discourses are increasingly designed to fit with advertisements and, like other global messages, are focused on the symbolic representations associated with late capitalist consumer society. These discourses also foster new “lifestyle identities” (2007: 171), i.e., preferred leisure time activities, attitudes and consumer choices, through aligning practices and values with the consumption of goods and services. In addition, realms of life, such as work, leisure and relationships that were previously seen as separate, have merged and operate by the same rules, such as seeking an edge in a world of competitors. This leads to the second area of concern: the worldwide impact of forms and formats of global media communication: what is typically localized content is embedded in global media structure such that “the linguistic style of global media expresses the values and interests of corporations” (2007: 170) with some local accents. And while some national and local cultures still exist alongside global culture and are “still very much alive” (2007: 171), others are being pushed towards the margins, becoming static and “hollowed out”, i.e., turned into a surface feature, a tourist attraction and/or a museum exhibit. It is true that the new global culture has its own diverse choices and lifestyles—however, it is unclear how deep these new identities go and whether they ultimately can satisfy “the human need for identity and belonging” (2007: 171) Van Leeuwen also explored the issue of the impacts of advanced technology17 through sole-authored and collaborative papers with, in particular, Emilia Djonov

17

 His 2009 book with Martinec seems to be more optimistic and to offer ways of thinking about

140

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

and Sumin Zhao (van Leeuwen, 2009c; van Leeuwen, Djonov, & O’Halloran, 2013; Djonov & van Leeuwen, 2014, 2018; Zhao, Djonov, & van Leeuwen, 2014; see also Djonov & Zhao, 2014a, 2014b) on the new, semiotic technologies and practice and semiotic software, and critical multimodal studies about the ways in which technologies and software (such as bullet points, Powerpoint) shape social and semiotic practices due to their (built-in) capacities for meaning-making. He and his collaborators researched the multimodal analysis of software, the power of semiotic software, the issue of normativity and software, music and gender in mobile games, and genre issues in online shopping, among other issues. Their ideas provided “tools for understanding the seismic social, cultural and political changes in the past two decades and thereby have influence beyond semiotics, communication studies, and applied linguistics, in fields such as education, arts, design, media, cultural and management studies” (Djonov & Zhao, 2018: 2) and in the global social world. Once again they raised the issue of global homogeneity and the loss of diversity. Due to van Leeuwen’s many publications on a variety of topics in SocSem, he was one of five scholars (in addition to Christian Matthiessen (see Sect. 2.3), James Martin (see Sect. 2.3), Kress (see Sects. 2.6, 2.7, and 3.3) and Jay Lemke) who were featured in the book, Social Semiotics: Key Figures, New Directions (Andersen et al., 2015b), including an in-depth interview with each scholar. The interview with van Leeuwen (Andersen et  al., 2015b: 93–113), written up by the authors and approved by him) covers (social) semiotics, sign making, multimodality and mode, technology and meaning, theory building, linguistics and interdisciplinarity and has been very helpful for this section. And in 2018 a volume in van Leeuwen’s honor appeared (Zhao et al., 2018), celebrating “the illustrious academic career of Theo van Leeuwen, a social semiotician, a seasoned jazz pianist, and a founder of the research field of multimodality. Born in the Netherlands in 1947, Van Leeuwen’s career in semiotics spans four decades and two continents” (2018: 1). In their chapter on his contribution to SocSem, Djonov and Zhao (2018: 1) remark on his work’s “breadth and evolving nature, its range in subjects and perspectives, and its transdisciplinary reach”, with research on, e.g., film, children’s toys, music, school textbooks, women’s magazines, kinetic art, news journalism, semiotic software and a large variety of other issues, as discussed here. They remarked on his rich background in a wide range of theories and perspectives, not only the Paris and Prague schools of semiotics and Foucault’s theory of discourse but also the Bauhaus art and design movement, Arnheim’s psychology of visual perception, Schafer’s studies of music and sound, Gage’s theory of color, and the anthropologist Goffman. It is fitting that we should finish this chapter with van Leeuwen’s transdisciplinary reach, as this will prepare the reader for the discussion in Chap. 4 about CDS and the various approaches to CDA/CDS.

new media design, especially websites and other multimedia products; it provides a “map for how we believe new media design should evolve” (Martinec & van Leeuwen, 2008: 195).

References

141

References Adorno, T. (1969). Der positivismusstreit in der deutschen soziologie. Berlin-Neuwied: Luchterhand. Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. Lenin and philosophy and other essays. London: New Left Books. Andersen, T., Boeriis, M., Maagerø, E., & Tønessen, E. (2015a). Social semiotics: Key figures, new directions. London: Routledge. [Contains interviews with Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen]. Andersen, T., Boeriis, M., Maagerø, E., & Tønessen, E. (Eds.). (2015b). ‘Theo van Leeuwen’ [interview]. Social semiotics: Key figures, new directions (pp. 93–113). London: Routledge. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. 1993: London: Verso. Angermuller, J., Maingueneau, D., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2014a). The discourse studies reader: Main currents in theory and analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Angermuller, J., Maingueneau, D., & Wodak, R. (2014b). The discourse studies reader: An introduction. In J. Angermuller, D. Maingueneau, & R. Wodak (Eds.), The discourse studies reader: Main currents in theory and analysis (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: Texas University Press. Bell, P., & van Leeuwen, T. (1994). The media interview: Confession, contest, conversation. Sydney: UNSW Press. Bernstein, B. (1981). Codes, modalities, and the process of cultural reproduction: A model. Language in Society, 10, 327–363. Bernstein, B. (1986). On pedagogic discourse. In: J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook for theory and research in the sociology of education (pp. 205–40). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Bernstein, B. (1990). The structure of pedagogic discourse: Class, codes and control. London: Routledge. Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, H. (2000). Critical discourse analysis: An overview. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 447–466. Böck, M., & Pachler, N. (Eds.). (2013). Multimodality and social semiosis—Communication, meaning-making, and learning in the work of Gunther Kress. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Trans. R.  Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire: L’économie des échanges linguistiques. Paris: Fayard. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Trans. R. Nice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Breeze, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis and its critics. Pragmatics Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 21(4), 493–525. Caldas-Coulthard, C. (1996). ‘Women who pay for sex. And enjoy it’: Transgression versus morality in women’s magazines. In C. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 250–270). London/NY: Routledge. Caldas-Coulthard, C., & Coulthard, M. (1996a). Preface. In C. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. xi–xii). London/NY: Routledge. Caldas-Coulthard, C., & Coulthard, M. (Eds.). (1996b). Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis. London/NY: Routledge. Caldas-Coulthard, C. & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Baby’s first toys and the discursive construction of childhood. In Wodak, R. (Ed.) Special Issue on ‘Critical discourse analysis in post modern societies’. Folia Linguistica XXXV (1–2), 157-182. Caldas-Coulthard, C., & van Leeuwen, T. (2002). Stunning, shimmering, iridescent: Toys as the representation of gendered social actors. In L. Litosseleti & J. Sunderland (Eds.), Gender identity and discourse analysis (pp. 91–110). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

142

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

Caldas-Coulthard, C. & van Leeuwen, T. (Eds). (2003a). Special Issue, on Critical social semiotics. Social Semiotics, 13. Caldas-Coulthard, C. & van Leeuwen, T. (2003b). Teddy bear stories. In Caldas-Coulthard, C. & van Leeuwen, T. (Eds.) Special Issue on Critical social semiotics. Social Semiotics 13(1): 5–27. Candlin, C. (1989). Preface. In N.  Fairclough (Ed.), Language and power (pp. vi–x). London: Longman. Chilton, P. (Ed.). (1985a). Language and the nuclear arms debate: Nukespeak today. London: Pinter. Chilton, P. (1985b). Introduction. In P.  Chilton (Ed.), Language and the nuclear arms debate: Nukespeak today (pp. xii–xxiii). London: Pinter. Chilton, P. (2005). Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In R. Wodak & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. 19–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a theory of syntax. Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. NY: Harcourt, Brace and World. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. de Cillia, R. (2010). In H. Gruber, M. Krzyżanowski, & F. Menz (Eds.), Diskurs, politik, identität— Discourse, politics, identity [Festschrift für Ruth Wodak]. Tübingen: Stauffenberg Verlag. de Cillia, R., & Wodak, R. (2009). Gedenken im “Gedankenjahr”. Zur diskursiven Konstruktion österreichischer Identitäten im Jubiläums jahr 2005. Wien-Innsbruck: Studien Verlag. Coulthard, M. (1996a). The official version: Audience manipulation in police records of interviews with suspects. In C. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 166–178). London/NY: Routledge. Coulthard, M. (1977/1985). An introduction to discourse analysis (1st/2nd edition). London: Longman. Coulthard, M. (Ed.). (1992). Advances in spoken discourse analysis. London: Routledge. Coulthard, M. (Ed.). (1994). Advances in written text analysis. London: Routledge. Coulthard, M., & Montgomery, M. (Eds.). (1982). Studies in discourse analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Djonov, E., & van Leeuwen, T. (2014). Bullet points, new writing and the marketization of discourse: A critical multimodal perspective. In E. Djonov & S. Zhao (Eds.), Critical multimodal studies of popular discourse (pp. 232–250). London/NY: Routledge. Djonov, E., & van Leeuwen, T. (2018). The power of semiotic software: A critical multimodal perspective. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 566–581). London/NY: Routledge. Djonov, E., & Zhao, S. (Eds.). (2014a). Critical multimodal studies of popular discourse. London/ NY: Routledge. Djonov, E., & Zhao, S. (2014b). From multimodal to critical multimodal studies. In E. Djonov & S. Zhao (Eds.), Critical muiltimodal studies of popular discourse (pp. 1–14). London/NY: Routledge. Djonov, E., & Zhao, S. (2018). Social semiotics: A theorist and a theory in retrospect and prospect. In S. Zhao, E. Djonov, A. Björkvall, & M. Boeriis (Eds.), Advancing multimodality and critical discourse studies: Interdisciplinary research inspired by Theo van Leeuwen’s social semiotics (pp. 1–12). NY: Routledge. Dressler, W., & Merlini-Barbaresi, L. (1994). Morphopragmatics, diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German and other languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fairclough, N. (1982). Review of Bolinger. Language—the Loaded Weapon. Language in Society, 11, 110–120. Fairclough, N. (1985). Descriptive and critical approaches to discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 739–763. [citations are from this original]. Reprinted in Fairclough, Critical

References

143

discourse analysis: The critical study of language (1995) (27–53), London/NY: Longman/2nd edn. (2010) (30–55). Harlow: Pearson Longman. Fairclough, N. (1988a). Register, power and sociosemantic change. In D.  Birch & M.  O’Toole (Eds.), The functions of style (pp. 111–125). London: Pinter Publications. Fairclough, N. (1988b). Discourse representation in media discourse. SocioLinguistics, 17, 125–139. Fairclough, N. (1989a). Language and power. London: Longman. (2nd. Edn, 2001, 3rd Edn. 2015). Fairclough, N. (1989b). Preface. In Language and power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1990a). Critical linguistics, ‘New times’ and language education. In R.  Clark, N. Fairclough, R. Ivanič, N. McCleod, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Language and power: Proceedings of the 1989 annual meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics. London: CILT. Fairclough, N. (1990b). What might we mean by ‘enterprise discourse’? In R.  Keat & N. Abercrombie (Eds.), Enterprise culture (pp. 38–57). London: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (1992a). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity. Fairclough, N. (Ed.). (1992b). Critical language awareness. London/NY: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1992c). Introduction. In Critical language awareness (pp.  1–29). London/NY: Longman.. Fairclough, N. (1992d). The appropriacy of appropriateness. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 33–56). London/NY: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. In van Dijk, T. (Ed.). Special Issue, Discourse & Society, on Critical Discourse Analysis, 4(2): 133–168. Reprinted in Fairclough 1995b, Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. (1st Edn., pp. 130–166) London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1994). Conversationalisation of public discourse and the authority of the consumer. In R.  Keat, N.  Whitely, & N.  Abercrombie (Eds.), The Authority of the consumer (pp. 253–268). London: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (1995a). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold. Fairclough, N. (1995b). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (1st ed.). London: Longman. (2nd. Edn. 2010). Fairclough, N. (1996). Technologisation of discourse. In C.  Caldas-Coulthard & M.  Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 71–83). London/NY: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2000). Discourse, social theory, and social research: The discourse of welfare reform. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 4, 163–195. Fairclough, N. (2001). Author’s Preface to the Second Edition. In Language and power (pp. viii– x). London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2009). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 162–186). London: Sage. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. 2nd ed. (1st edn. Fairclough 1995). Harlow: Pearson Education. Fairclough, N., Jessop, B., & Wodak, R. (2008). The knowledge-based economy and higher education in Europe. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed., pp. 357–378). London: Sage. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, Vol. 2, Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). London: Sage. Flos, B. (2003). Wie Wissenschaft gemacht wird: Forschungsalltag im DPI-Team (pp.  67–80)/ Doing science: Everyday research life in the DPI team (or the joys and sorrows of interdisciplinarity) (pp. 83–94). [Shortened and adapted version of German original). In Wodak, R. (Ed.) Diskurs, politik, identität: Sechs Jahre Forschungsschwerpunkt/Discourse, politics, identity: Six years of research. DPI. Universität Wien: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.

144

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

Forgas, J. (Ed.). (1982). Social cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding. London: Academic Press. Foucault, M. (1971). L’Ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. Trans. A. Sheridan. London: Tavistock. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Trans. A.  Sheridan. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. [1975=French original]. Foucault, M. (1981). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Foucault, M. (1993). Die ordnung des diskurses. 2nd edition, trans. W. Sitter. Frankfurt: Fischer. (French original: 1971). Fowler, R. (1985). Power. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, Volume 4: Discourse analysis in society (pp. 61–82). London: Academic Press. Fowler, R. (1987). Notes on critical linguistics. In T. Threadgold & R. Steele (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday (pp.  481–492). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Fowler, R. (1991). Critical linguistics. In K.  Malmkjaer (Ed.), The linguistics Encyclopedia (pp. 89–93). London: Routledge. Fowler, R. (1996). On critical linguistics. In C. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp.  481–492). London: Routledge. Reprinted in Toolan, M. (2002) (Ed.). Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics. Vol. I: Precursors and Inspirations. (pp. 346–357). London: Routledge. Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Preface. In R. Fowler et al. (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 1–5). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Giddens, A. (1981). Agency, institution and time-space analysis. In K. Knorr-Cetina & A. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Towards an integration of micro- and micro-sociologies (pp. 161–174). Boston/London/Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Girnth, H. (1996). Texte im politischen Diskurs: Ein Vorschlag zur diskursorientierten Beschreibung von Textsorten. Muttersprache, 106(1), 66–80. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. NY: Anchor. Goffman, E. (1970). Strategic interaction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. NY: Basic Books. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Gruber, H. (1991). Antisemitismus im Mediendiskurs: Die Affäre ‘Waldheim’ in der Tagespresse. Wiesbaden: Deutsher Universitätsverlag. Habermas, J. (1969). Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Habermas, J. (1970a). On systematically distorted communication. Inquiry, 13, 205–218. Habermas, J. (1970b). Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry, 13, 360–375. Habermas, J. (1971). Theorie und Praxis. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Cited by Wodak. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action, vol. I: Reason and the rationalization of society. Trans. T. McCarthy. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Habermas, J. (1996). Die Einbeziehung des Anderen. Studien zur politischen Theorie. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main. Halliday, M. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hart, C., & Cap, P. (Eds.). (2014a). Contemporary critical discourse studies. London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Hart, C., & Cap, P. (2014b). Introduction. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp. 1–16). London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Heer, H., Manoschek, W., Pollak, A., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2008). The discursive construction of history: Remembering the Wehrmacht’s war of annihilation. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Translation from German original 2003: Wie Geschichte gemacht wird. Czernin Verlag. By Steven Fligelstone). Hodge, B., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

References

145

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. (1969). Dialektik der Aufklärung: Philosophische Fragmente. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. Jäger, S. (2001). Discourse and knowledge: Theoretical and methodological aspects of a critical discourse and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–62). London: Sage. Jäger, S., & Maier, F. (2009). Theoretical and methodological aspects of Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 34–61). London: Sage. Jäger, S., & Maier, F. (2016). Analysing discourses and dispositives: A Foudauldian approach to theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (pp. 109–136). London: Sage. Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal literacy. NY: Peter Lang. Kargl, M., Wetschanow, K., Wodak, R., & Perle, N. (1997). Kreatives Formulieren. Anleitungen zu geschlechtergerechtem Sprachgebrauch. Vienna: Bundesministerium für Frauenangelegenheiten und Verbraucherschutz. Kendall, G. (2007). What is critical discourse analysis? Ruth Wodak in conversation with Gavin Kendall. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 8.2, Art. 29. Kienpointer, M. (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Function von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzberg. Kienpointer, M. (1996). Vermunftig argumentieren: Regeln und techniken der diskussion. Hamburg: Rowohlt. Kovács, A., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2003). NATO, neutrality and national identity: The case of Austria and Hungary. Vienna: Böhlau. Kress, G. (1982/1994). Learning to write. London/London: Routledge and K.  Paul/Routledge. Deleteted from Kress 3.3. Kress, G. (1985a/1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Geelong, VIC: Deakin University Press. 1st Edn./Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2nd Edn. Kress, G. (1985b). Ideological structures in discourse. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, Volume 4: Discourse analysis in society (pp. 27–42). London: Academic Press. Kress, G. (1990). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11(84), 84–99. Kress, G. (1991). Critical discourse analysis. In M. Clyne (Ed.), Linguistics in Australia: Trends in research (pp. 163–180). Canberra: Academy of Social Sciences. Kress, G. (1993). Against arbitrariness: The social production of the sign as a foundational issue in critical discourse analysis. In van Dijk, T. (Ed.) Special Issue on Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 169–191. Kress, G. (1996). Representational resources and the production of subjectivity: Questions for the theoretical development of Critical Discourse Analysis in a multicultural society. In C. Caldas-­ Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 15–31). London/NY: Routledge. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London/NY: Routledge. Kress, G. (2018). Changing academic common sense: A personal recollection of collaborative work. In S. Zhao, E. Djonov, A. Björkvall, & M. Boeriis (Eds.), Advancing multimodal and critical discourse studies: Interdisciplinary research inspired by Theo van Leeuwen’s Social Semiotics (pp. 19–29). NY: Routledge. Kress, G., & Hodge, R. (1979). Language as ideology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. [2nd edition: Hodge and Kress 1993] Deleted from Fairclough discussion. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2007). The semiotic landscape. In P.  Griffiths, A.  Merrison, & A. Bloomer (Eds.), Language in use—A reader (pp. 344–350). London: Routledge. Kress, G., & Threadgold, T. (1988). Toward a social theory of genre. Southern Review, 21, 215–243. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1990). Reading images. Geelong, VIC: Deakin University Press. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge. (2nd edition: 2006).

146

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2002). Colour as a semiotic mode: Notes for a grammar of colour. Visual Communication, 1, 343–369. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge. 2nd edition. (1st edition: 1996). Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In J. Kristeva & T. Moi (Eds.), Desire in language. The Kristeva reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Krzyżanowki, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The politics of exclusion: Debating migration in Austria. New Brunswick/London: Transaction Publishers. Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor and Francis. Leodolter, R. (1975). Das Sprachverhalten von Angeklagten-bei Gericht. Kronberg: Skriptor. Machin, D. & van Leeuwen, T. (2003). Global schemas and local discourses in Cosmopolitan. Journal of SocioLinguistics 7.4: 493-513. Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2014). Genre analysis in media discourse. In A.  Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (3rd ed., pp. 172–193). London: Routledge. Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2004). Global media: Generic homogeneity and discursive diversity. Continuum, 18, 99–120. Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2005a). Language style and lifestyle: The case of a global magazine. Media, Culture and Society, 27(4), 577–600. Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2005b). Computer games as political discourse: The case of Blackhawk Down. Journal of Language and Politics, 4, 119–141. Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Global media discourse: A critical introduction. London: Routledge. Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2009). Toys as discourse: Children’s war toys and the war on terror. Critical Discourse Studies, 6, 51–63. Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2010). Global media and the regime of lifestyle. In N. Coupland (Ed.), The handbook of language and globalization (pp. 625–643). Oxford: Blackwell. Machin, D. & van Leeuwen, T. (Eds.) (2016a). Special Issue on Multimodality, politics and ideology. Journal of Language and Politics 15. Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2016c). Sound, music and gender in mobile games. Gender and Language, 10(3), 412–432. Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2016d). Branding the self. In C. Caldas-Coulthard & R. Iedema (Eds.), Identity trouble: Critical discourse and contested identities (pp.  43–57). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Machin, T., & van Leeuwen, T. (2016b). Introduction: Multimodality, politics and ideology. In Machin, D. and van Leeuwen, T. (Eds.), Special Issue on Multimodality, politics and ideology. Journal of Language and Politics, 15, 243–258. Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. Ogden & I. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Martin, J. (1984). Language, register and genre. In F.  Christie (Ed.), Children writing: Reader (pp. 21–34). Geelong, VIC: Deakin University Press. Martin, J. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Martin, J., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2003a). Re/reading the past: Critical and functional perspectives on time and value (Vol. 8). London: John Benjamins. Martin, J., & Wodak, R. (2003b). Introduction. In J. Martin & R. Wodak (Eds.), Re/reading the past: Critical and functional perspectives on time and value (pp. 1–18). London: John Benjamins. Martinec, R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2008). The language of new media design: Theory and practice. London: Routledge. Matouschek, B., Wodak, R., & Januschek, F. (1995). Notwendige Massnahmen gegen Fremde? Genese und Formen von rassistichsen Diskursen der Differenz. Vienna: Passagen Verlag. McLellan, D. (1986). Ideology. London: Open University Press. Mey, J. (1985). Whose Language? A study in linguistic pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

References

147

Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 14–31). London: Sage. Mitten, R. (1992). The politics of antisemitic prejudice: The Waldheim phenomenon in Austria. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Mitten, R., & Wodak, R. (1993). On the discourse of racism and prejudice. Folia linguistica, 27(2/4), 191–215. Moscovici, S. (1982). On social representations. In J. Forgas (Ed.), Social cognition: Perspectives on everyday undersanding (pp. 181–209). London: Academic Press. Moscovici, S. (2000). Social representations. Cambridge: Polity Press. Mouzelis, N. (1995). Sociological theory: What went wrong? Diagnoses and remedies. London: Routledge. O’Halloran, K. (Ed.). (2004). Multimodal discourse analysis. London: Continuum. O’Halloran, K., & Smith, B. (Eds.). (2011). Multimodal studies: Exploring issues and domains. London: Routledge. Pêcheux, M. (1982). Language, semantics and ideology. London: Macmillan. Reisigl, M. (2007). Nationale Rhetorik in Gedenk- und Festreden. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2000a). The Semiotics of racism. Approaches in critical discourse analysis. Vienna: Passagen Verlag. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2000b). “Austria first”: A discourse-historical analysis of the Austrian ‘anti-foreigner-petition’ in 1992 and 1993. In M. Reisigl & R. Wodak (Eds.), The Semiotics of Racism (pp. 269–303). Vienna: Passagen Verlag. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2000c). Discourse and racism. In R. Wodak & T. van Dijk (Eds.), Racism at the top: Parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European States (pp.  31–44). Klagenfurt-Celovec: Drava. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London/NY: Routledge. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R.  Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 87–121). London: Sage. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2016). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R.  Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (pp. 23–61). London: Sage. Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Richardson, J., Krzyżanowski, M., Machin, D., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2014a). Advances in critical discourse studies. London: Routledge. Richardson, J., Krzyżanowski, M., Machin, D., & Wodak, R. (2014b). Preface. In Advances in critical discourse studies (pp. xiv–xix). London: Routledge. Rojo, L. M., & van Dijk, T. (1997). ‘There was a problem and it was solved!’ Legitimating the expulsion of ‘illegal’ immigrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society, 8(4), 523–567. Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Scollon, R. (2001). Action and text: Towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter)action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 139–183). London: Sage. Seidel, G. (1985). Political discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. IV, pp. 43–60). London: Sage. Silver, M. (2015, Jan. 4). If you shouldn’t call it the third world, what should you call it? NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/01/04/372684438/ if-you-shouldnt-call-it-the-third-world-what-should-you-call-it Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford University Press. Smitherman-Donaldson, G., & van Dijk, T. (Eds.). (1988). Discourse and discrimination. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

148

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. London [sic]: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thibault, P. (1991). Social semiotics as praxis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Thompson, J. B. (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Thornborrow, J. & van Leeuwen, T. (Eds.) (2001). Special Issue, on Authenticity in media discourse. Discourse Studies 3. Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: Sage. (Translated from 1998, Methoden der Textanalyse. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag). Toolan, M. (Ed.). (2002a). Critical discourse analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics (Vol. I–IV). London/NY: Routledge. Toolan, M. (2002b). General introduction. In M. Toolan (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics (Vol. I). London/NY: Routledge. van Dijk, T. (1972). Some aspects of text grammars. The Hague: Mouton. van Dijk, T. (1977). Text and context: Exploration in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman. van Dijk, T. (1980). Macrostructures. In An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. van Dijk, T. (1981). Studies in the pragmatics of discourse. The Hague/Berlin: Mouton. van Dijk, T. (1984). Prejudice in discourse. An analysis of ethnic prejudice in cognition and conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. van Dijk, T. (Ed.). (1985a). Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 4). London: Academic Press. van Dijk, T. (1985b). Preface to the four volumes. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 1, pp. xi–xii). London: Academic Press. van Dijk, T. (1985c). Introduction: Discourse analysis as a new cross-discipline. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 1. Disciplines of discourse (pp. 1–10). London: Academic Press. van Dijk, T. (1985d). Introduction: The role of discourse analysis in society. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 4. Discourse analysis in society (pp.  1–8). London: Academic Press. van Dijk, T. (1985e). Preface to Volume 1: Disciplines of discourse. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 1. Disciplines of discourse (p. xiii). London: Academic Press. van Dijk, T. (1985f). Preface to Volume 2: Dimensions of discourse. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 2. Dimensions of discourse (pp. xiii–xiv). London: Academic Press. van Dijk, T. (1985g). Semantic discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 2. Dimensions of discourse (pp. 103–136). London: Academic Press. van Dijk, T. (Ed.). (1985h). Discourse and communication: New approaches to the analysis of mass media discourse and communication. Berlin/NY: Walter de Gruyter. van Dijk, T. (1985i). Introduction: Discourse analysis in (mass) communication research. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse and communication: New approaches to the analysis of mass media discourse and communication (pp. 1–8). Berlin/NY: Walter de Gruyter. van Dijk, T. (1985j). Structures of news in the press. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse and communication: New approaches to the analysis of mass media discourse and communication (pp. 69–93). Berlin/NY: Walter de Gruyter. van Dijk, T. (1987). Communicating racism. Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. van Dijk, T. (1988a). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. van Dijk, T. (1988b). News analysis. Case studies of international and national news in the press. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. van Dijk, T. (1989a). Mediating racism. The role of the media in the reproduction of racism. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse (pp. 199–226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

References

149

van Dijk, T. (1989b). Notes on contributors. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse (p. vii). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. van Dijk, T. (1990). Editor’s Foreword—Discourse & Society: A new journal for a new research focus. Discourse & Society 1(1): 5–16. London: Sage Publications. van Dijk, T. (1991). Racism and the press. London: Routledge. van Dijk, T. (1993a). Elite discourse and racism. London: Sage. van Dijk, T. (1993b). Special Issue on critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2). van Dijk, T. (1993c). Editor’s forward. In van Dijk, T. (Ed.) Special Issue on critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 131–132. van Dijk, T. (1993d). Principles of critical discourse analysis. In: Van Dijk, T. (Ed.) Special Issue on critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. van Dijk, T. (1996). Discourse, power and access. In C.  Caldas-Coulthard & M.  Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 84–104). London/NY: Routledge. van Dijk, T. (1997a). Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. Vol. 1: Discourse as structure and process, Vol. 2: Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage. van Dijk, T. (1997b). Preface. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, Vol. 1: Discourse as structure and process (pp. xi–xii). London: Sage. van Dijk, T. (1997c). The study of discourse. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, Vol. 1: Discourse as structure and process (pp. 1–34). London: Sage. van Dijk, T. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage. van Dijk, T. (1999a). CDA and Conversation Analysis. Discourse & Society, 10(4), 459–470. van Dijk, T. (1999b). Editorial: Discourse Studies: A new multidisciplinary journal for the study of text and talk. Discourse Studies, 1(1), 5–6. van Dijk, T. (2000a). Theoretical background. In R. Wodak & T. van Dijk (Eds.), Racism at the top: Parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European states (pp. 13–30). Frankenburg/ Celovec: Drava Verlag. van Dijk, T. (2000b). Parliamentary debates. In R. Wodak & T. van Dijk (Eds.), Racism at the top: Parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European states (pp. 45–78). Frankenburg/ Celovec: Drava Verlag. van Dijk, T. (2000c). On the analysis of parliamentary debates on immigration. In M.  Reisigl & R.  Wodak (Eds.), The semiotics of racism: Approaches in critical discourse analysis (pp. 85–104). Vienna: Passagen Verlag. van Dijk, T. (2001a). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 95–120). London: Sage. van Dijk, T. (2001b). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Oxford: Blackwell. van Dijk, T. (2001c). Discourse, ideology and context. In Wodak, R. (Ed.). Special Issue on Critical discourse analysis in post-modern societies. Folia linguistica, XXXV(1–2), 11–40. van Dijk, T. (2003). Discourse-knowledge interface. In R. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis (pp. 85–109). London: Palgrave Macmillan. van Dijk, T. (2004). From text grammar to discourse analysis: A brief academic autobiography. Retrieved from http://www.discourses.org/From%20text%20grammar%20to%20critical%20 discourse%20analysis.html. [Version 2.0] [no pagination] van Dijk, T. (2005a). Racism and discourse in Spain and Latin America. Amsterdam: Benjamins. van Dijk, T. (2005b). Contextual knowledge management in discourse production: A CDA perspective. In R.  Wodak & P.  Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis (pp. 71–100). Amsterdam: Benjamins. van Dijk, T. (2005c). Politics, ideology and discourse. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Volume on Politics and language (pp. 728–740). London: Elsevier. van Dijk, T. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. Reprinted in Wodak, R. (Ed.) (2013). Critical discourse analysis, Vol. IV, Applications, interdisciplinary perspectives and new trends (pp. 315–340).

150

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

van Dijk, T. (Ed.). (2007a). Discourse studies (Vol. I–V). London: Sage. (Sage Benchmarks in Discourse Studies). van Dijk, T. (2007b). Editor’s Introduction: The study of discourse: An introduction. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies (Vol. I, pp. xix–xlii). London: Sage. (Sage Benchmarks in Discourse Studies). van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and context. A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Dijk, T. (2009a). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R.  Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 62–86). London: Sage. van Dijk, T. (2009b). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Dijk, T. (Ed.). (2009c). Racism and discourse in Latin America. Lamham: Lexington Books. van Dijk, T. (2010). Racism, discourse and textbooks. The coverage of immigration in Spanish textbooks. In R. de Cillia, H. Gruber, M. Krzyżanowski, & F. Menz (Eds.), Diskurs, Politik, Identität—Discourse, Politics, Identity [Festschrift für Ruth Wodak] (pp. 427–438). Tübingen: Stauffenberg Verlag. van Dijk, T. (2011a). Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage. van Dijk, T. (2011b). Preface. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed., pp. xv–xviii). London: Sage. van Dijk, T. (2011c). Introduction: The study of discourse. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed., pp. 1–7). London: Sage. van Dijk, T. (2011d). Discourse and racism: Some conclusions of 30 years of research. Paper given at the 17th International Workshop on Discourse Studies, Madrid, 24–25 March 2011 (pp. 1–16). [On his website]. van Dijk, T. (2013a). Discourse, context and cognition. In R.  Wodak (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis. Vol. 1. Concepts, history, theory (pp. 237–255). London: Sage. [Sage Benchmarks in Language and Linguistics]. Original in: Discourse Studies 8(1) (2006): 159–176. van Dijk, T. (2013b). Discourse and the denial of racism. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis. Vol. 1, Concepts, history, theory (pp. 257–290). London: Sage. [Sage Benchmarks in Language and Linguistics] Original in: Discourse & Society 3(1) (1992): 87–118. van Dijk, T. (2013c). Discourse and manipulation. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis. Vol. IV.  Applications, interdisciplinary perspectives and new trends (pp.  315–340). London: Sage. [Sage Benchmark in Language and Linguistics] Original in: Discourse & Society 17(3) (2006): 359–383. van Dijk, T. (2013d). CDA is NOT a method of critical discourse analysis. Asociacion de Estudios Sobre Discurso y Sociedad. Retrieved from https://www.edisoportal.org/ debate/115-cda-not-method-critical-discourse-analysis. van Dijk, T. (2014). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Dijk, T. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, H. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 466–485). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. van Dijk, T. (2016a). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R.  Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods in critical discourse studies (3rd ed., pp. 62–85). London: Sage. van Dijk, T. (2016b). Discourse and racism: Some conclusions of 30 years of research. In A. Capone & J. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 285–296). Heidelberg: Springer. van Dijk, T. website: www.discourses.org. van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. NY: Academic Press. van Dijk, T. & Wodak, R. (Eds.) (1988a). Special Issue: Discourse, racism and ideology. Text 8. van Dijk, T., & Wodak, R. (1988b). Introduction: Discourse, racism, and ideology. In Special Issue: Discourse, racism and ideology. Text, 8, 1–4. van Leeuwen, T. (1983). Impartial speech: Observations on the intonation of radio newsreaders. Australian Journal of Cultural Studies, 2, 84–89. van Leeuwen, T. (1985). The producer, the consumer and the state: Analysis of a television news item. In T. Threadgold, E. Grosz, G. Kress, & M. Halliday (Eds.), Semiotics, ideology, language (pp. 203–224). Sydney Association for Studies in Society and Culture.

References

151

van Leeuwen, T. (1987). Generic strategies in press journalism. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 199–220. van Leeuwen, T. (1988). Changed times, changed tunes: Music and the ideology of the news. In J. Tulloch & G. Turner (Eds.), Australian television: Programs, pleasures and politics. Allen and Unwin: Sydney. van Leeuwen, T. (1993a). Genre and field in critical discourse analysis: Synopsis. In van Dijk, T. (ed.)Special Issue, on. Critical Discourse Analysis, Discourse & Society, 4(2), 193–223. van Leeuwen, T. (1993b). Language and representation: The recontextualization of participants, activities and reactions. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney. van Leeuwen, T. (1995). Representing social action. Discourse & Society, 6, 81–107. van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–70). London/NY: Routledge. van Leeuwen, T. (1998). Taste in the framework of a semiotics of materiality. In A. Piroëlle (Ed.), La représentation sociale du goût. Dijon: Université de Bourgogne: PRISM. van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech, music, sound. London: Macmillan. van Leeuwen, T. (2000a). The construction of purpose in discourse. In S. Sarangi & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Discourse and social life (pp. 66–82). London: Longman. van Leeuwen, T. (2000b). Visual racism. In M. Reisigl & R. Wodak (Eds.), The semiotics of racism: Approaches in critical discourse analysis (pp. 330–350). Vienna: Passagen Verlag. van Leeuwen, T. (2005a). Introducing social semiotics. London: Psychology Press. van Leeuwen, T. (2005b). Time in discourse. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 1, 125–145. van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Critical discourse analysis. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 290–294). Oxford: Elsevier. van Leeuwen, T. (2008a). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. van Leeuwen, T. (2008b). Space in discourse. In L.  Unsworth (Ed.), Multimodal semiotics— Functional analysis in contexts of education (pp. 34–50). London: Continuum. van Leeuwen, T. (2009a). Discourse as the recontextualization of social practice: A guide. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 144–161). London: Sage. van Leeuwen, T. (2009b). The world according to Playmobil. Semiotica, 173, 299–315. van Leeuwen, T. (2009c). Discourse and technology. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 379–392. van Leeuwen, T. (2011). The language of colour: An introduction. London: Routledge. van Leeuwen, T. (2013). Critical analysis of multimodal discourse. In C.  Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 6039–6044). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. van Leeuwen, T. (2016a). Colour schemes. In M. Böck & N. Pachler (Eds.), Multimodality and social semiosis—Communication, meaning-making, and learning in the work of Gunther Kress (pp. 62–71). London: Routledge. van Leeuwen, T. (2016b). Discourse as the recontextualization of social practice: A guide. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed., pp. 137–153). London: Sage. van Leeuwen, T. (2019). Obituary: Gunther Rolf Kress (26 November 1940–20 June 2019). Discourse & Society, 30(6), 653–654. van Leeuwen, T., & Caldas-Coulthard, C. (2004). The semiotics of kinetic design. In D. Banks (Ed.), Text and texture: Systemic-functional viewpoints on the nature and structure of text (pp. 355-60). Paris: L’Harmattan. van Leeuwen, T., Djonov, E., & O’Halloran, K.  L. (2013). “David Byrne really does love PowerPoint”: Art as research on semiotics and semiotic technology. Social Semiotics, 23(3), 409–423. van Leeuwen, T., & Jewitt, C. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of visual analysis. London: Sage.

152

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

van Leeuwen, T., & Suleiman, U. (2008). Globalizing the local: The case of an Egyptian superhero comic. In N. Coupland (Ed.), The handbook of language and globalization (pp. 232–255). NY: Wiley-Blackwell. van Leeuwen, T., & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies, 1(1), 83–119. Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2003a). Critical discourse analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003b). Introduction: Theory, interdisciplinarity and critical discourse analysis. In G.  Weiss & R.  Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis (pp.  1–32). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Simeon, Y. (Eds.). (2001). Discourse as data. London: Sage. Wodak, R. (1981). Das Wort in der Gruppe. Linguistische Studien zur therapeutischen Kommunication. Vienna: Akademie des Wissenshaften. (English trans: Wodak 1986). Wodak, R. (1985). The interaction between judge and defendant. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis. Volume 4: Discourse analysis in society (pp. 181–202). London: Academic Press. Wodak, R. (Ed.). (1989a). Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wodak, R. (Ed.). (1989b). Notes on contributors. In Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse (pp. vi–xi). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wodak, R. (1989c). Introduction. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wodak, R. (1989d). 1968: The power of political jargon: A ‘Club 2’ discussion. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Language, power andiIdeology: Studies in political discourse (pp. 137–165). Amsterdam: John Benajamins. Wodak, R. (1991). Turning the tables: Antisemitic discourse in post-war Austria. Discourse & Society, 2, 65–83. Reprinted in van Dijk, T. (Ed.) (2007). Discourse studies. Vol. V, 350-368. London: Sage. (Sage Benchmarks in Discourse Studies). [Citations in text based on page numbering in 2007]. Wodak, R. (1995a). Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In J.  Verschueren & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Manual (pp. 204–210). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Wodak, R. (1995b). Critical Linguistics and the study of institutional communication. In P. Stevenson (Ed.), The German language and the real world (pp. 205–230). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wodak, R. (1996a). Disorders of discourse. London: Longman. Wodak, R. (1996b). The genesis of racist discourse in Austria since 1989. In C. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 107– 128). London/NY: Routledge. Wodak, R. (2001a). What CDA is about—a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R.  Wodak & M.  Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–13). London/Thousand Oaks: Sage. Wodak, R. (Ed.). (2001b). Special Issue. Critical discourse analysis in post-modern societies. Folia Linguistica, XXXV, 1–2. Wodak, R. (2001c). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). London/Thousand Oaks: Sage. Wodak, R. (2002). Discourse and politics: The rhetoric of exclusion. In R. Wodak & A. Pelinka (Eds.), The Haider phenomenoon (pp. 33–60). London/New Jersey: Transaction Press. Wodak, R. (Ed.) (2003) Diskurs, Politik, Identität: Sechs Jahre Forschungsschwerpunkt [= Discourse, politics, identity: Six years of Research]. Universität Wien: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. [with many photos] Wodak, R. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 197–213). London: Sage. Wodak, R. (Ed.). (2005). Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Volume on Politics and language. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

References

153

Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis. Pragmatics and Cognition, 15(1), 203–225. Wodak, R. (2008a). Introduction: Terms and concepts. In R. Wodak & M. Krzyżanowski (Eds.), Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences (pp. 1–42). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Wodak, R. (2008b). Preface to the first edition: ‘How history is made’—The origins and aims of the project. In H. Heer, W. Manoschek, A. Pollak, & R. Wodak (Eds.), The discursive construction of history: Remembering the Wehrmacht’s war of annihilation (pp. xii–xvi). Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Translation from German original 2003: Wie Geschichte gemacht wird. Czernin Verlag. By Steven Fligelstone). Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), The continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 38–53). London: Continuum. Wodak, R. (Ed.). (2013a). Critical discourse analysis (Vol. 1–4). London: Sage. [Sage Benchmarks in Language and Linguistics]. Wodak, R. (2013b). Editor’s Introduction: Critical discourse analysis—Challenges and perspectives. In R.  Wodak (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis. Vol. 1: Concepts, history, theory (pp. xxi–xlv). London: Sage. Wodak, R. (2013c). ‘The strategy of discursive provocation—a discourse-historical analysis of the FPÖ’s discriminatory rhetoric. In M. Feldman & P. Jackson (Eds.), Doublespeak: The rhetoric of the Far-rights since 1945 (pp. 101–122). Frankfurt: Ibidem. Wodak, R. (2015a). The politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean. London: Sage. [German translation: (2016). Politik mit der Angst. Zur Wirkung rechtspopulistischer Diskurse. Konturen Verlag. Austrian Scientific Book Prize for the Social Sciences and Humanities, Feb. 2017]. Wodak, R. (2015b). Preface. In R. Wodak (Ed.), The politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean (pp. x–xvi). London: Sage. Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. (Eds.). (2005a). A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity. London: John Benjamins. Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. (2005b). Preface. In R. Wodak & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. xi–xviii). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (1999). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. (Abbreviated translation of German original of 1998). (2nd, extended edition: 2009). Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity. (2nd, extended edition; 1st edition in English: 1999; German original: 1998). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., Liebhart, K., Hofstätter, K., & Kargl, M. (1998). Zur diskursiven Konstruktion nationaler Identität. Franfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Wodak, R., & Krzyżanowski, M. (Eds.). (2008). Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Wodak, R., & Forchtner, B. (Eds.) (2018). The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics. London/New York: Routledge. Wodak, R., & Ludwig, C. (Eds.). (1999). Challenges in a changing world—Issues of critical discourse analysis. Vienna: Passagen Verlag. Wodak, R., & Matouschek, B. (1993). ‘We are dealing with people whose origins one can clearly tell just by looking’: CDA and the study of neo-racism in contemporary Austria. In van Dijk, T. (Ed.) Special Issue, on. Critical Discourse Analysis, Discourse & Society, 4(2), 225–248. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis (1st ed.). London: Sage. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009a). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

154

3  Symposium in Amsterdam, Formation of CDA, Work of the Founders

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009b). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R.  Wodak & M.  Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 1–33). London: Sage. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016a). Methods of critical discourse studies. (3rd edn., with new title). London: Sage. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016b). Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. (3rd edn., with new title) (pp. 1–22). London: Sage. Wodak, R., Nowak, P., Pelikan, J., Gruber, H., de Cillia, R., & Mitten, R. (1990). “Wir sind alle unschuldige Täter”, Diskurshistoriche Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus. [“We are all innocent perpetrators!” Discourse-historical studies of post-war antisemitism]. Frankfurt/ Main:Suhrkamp. Wodak, R., & Pelinka, A. (Eds.). (2002a). The Haider phenomenon. London/New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. Wodak, R., & Pelinka, A. (2002b). Introduction: From Waldheim to Haider. In R.  Wodak & A.  Pelinka (Eds.), The Haider phenomenon (pp. vii–xxvii). London/New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. Wodak, R., & van Dijk, T. (2000). Racism at the top: Parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European states. Klagenfurt/Celovec: Drava Verlag. Young, L., & Harrison, C. (Eds.). (2004a). Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis: Studies in social change. London/NY: Continuum. Young, L., & Harrison, C. (2004b). Introduction to the collection. In L.  Young & C.  Harrison (Eds.), Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis: Studies in social change (pp. 1–11). London/NY: Continuum. Zavala, I., van Dijk, T., & Díaz-Diocaretz, M. (1987). Approaches to discourse, poetics and psychiatry. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Zhao, S., Djonov, E., Björkvall, A., & Boeriis, M. (Eds.). (2018). Advancing multimodal and critical discourse studies: Interdisciplinary research inspired by Theo van Leeuwen’s Social Semiotics. London/NY: Routledge. Zhao, S., Djonov, E., & van Leeuwin, T. (2014). Semiotic technology and practice: A multimodal social semiotic approach to Powerpoint. Text and Talk, 34, 349–375.

Chapter 4

The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

4.1  Introduction: CDA, CDS and CDA/CDS Before we describe the best known approaches to CDA/CDS, we need to address again the issue of the relation between CDA and CDS. As said in the Preface and also in Chap. 1, we view both CDA and CDS as part of the same overall research domain, as do many practitioners. It is clear that CDA is the ‘older’ name and CDS the ‘newer’ one. This is evidenced in this book by the (almost) exclusive use of CDA in Chaps. 2 and 3, which are focused on the precursors to and the emergence of CDA. But now that we are moving on to its further development, we will be discussing both CDA and CDS, since, in recent years, some of the critical discourse scholars have transitioned from using just CDA and have moved more toward (only) CDS (van Dijk, 2011). A few examples of this include the journal Critical Discourse Studies, but also recent books, articles, and chapters, and handbooks1 (such as van Dijk, 2016; Wodak & Meyer, 2016a; Flowerdew & Richardson, 2018a). This has led to various subtle and substantive differences in the use of the two names. Some have kept with the original term CDA since CDA is widely known and used and they are comfortable with it (or they use both CDA and CDS, more or less interchangeably), or they see CDS as simply an organic extension of CDA in its more mature stage and thus CDA is still appropriate. For others, CDS is more commonly used to refer to the field as a whole while CDA denotes the methodology or ‘analysis’ in the narrow sense. And, for still others, CDS means that scholarship of this sort is more wide-ranging and expansive than in CDA (see Sect. 4.2.1 below). For example, they see CDA as interdisciplinary but centered on linguistics as its ‘pilot’ discipline with a more restrictive grammatical, lexical or textual orientation; and, in contrast, they 1  We can note that the older term discourse analysis (DA), on which the label CDA is built, exists alongside the newer term, discourse studies (DS) on which CDS is built, with certain parallel issues of the difference(s) between them; we also note that DA continues to be widely used by many scholars.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 T. Catalano, L. R. Waugh, Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies and Beyond, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 26, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49379-0_4

155

156

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

see CDS as a broader multi/trans/cross-disciplinary field of study at the crossroads of language and society and other domains of human experience and in which various facets of expansive areas of context are studied and integrated (see Richardson, Krzyżanowski, Machin, & Wodak, 2014b). And they also make a parallel between critical discourse ‘studies’ and ‘discourse studies’ (DS) on the one hand and gender or culture or East Asian ‘studies’ (etc.) on the other hand, which for them points to the widening and the maturing of CDA into CDS and gives the field more credibility and a different positioning. And yet, as Zhang, Paul, Yadan, and Wen (2011: 95) point out, “there is a large amount of work using the label ‘CDA’ emerging in other parts of the world, in other languages and under social and political conditions that are very different from those of liberal-democratic Europe”. Given the beliefs of critical scholarship, we do not want to ‘disenfranchise’ those who use CDA in various parts of the world and we do not want to ‘privilege’ either CDA or CDS; therefore we are using our own acronym CDA/CDS to show that we see them as tightly tied with each other both chronologically and intellectually and we also view everyone under this name, including ourselves, as working together “harmoniously” (Zhang et al., 2011: 105). Tracing the use of these terms over time, the earliest scholarly publication we could find that explicitly addresses the issue of the difference between the terms ‘critical discourse analysis’ and ‘critical discourse studies’ as a programmatic use is the inaugural issue of the journal Critical Discourse Studies, established in 2004. In the introduction to the first issue, Fairclough, Graham, Lemke and Wodak (2004: 1) mark the emergence of a “field of critical discourse studies” which “draws upon but goes beyond established enclaves of specialized work on discourse”. Later they add (2004: 4): The development of a field of critical discourse studies, characterized as it is by a remarkable degree of interdisciplinarity, gives rise to a wide range of issues which we hope this journal will be able to address.

Despite the journal’s title and clear stance regarding the use of ‘critical discourse studies’ (CDS) to denote the field at large, many of the articles it publishes use ‘critical discourse analysis’ (CDA) in their titles and texts. And as we noted above, the use of CDA has still continued in the work (and titles) of many well-known scholars, including Fairclough, whose much expanded second edition (2010) of Critical Discourse Analysis kept the same title. However, on the website for Rebecca Roger’s (2011) version of An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education (with that title), there is a video of a lecture by Teun van Dijk in which he states his preference for the label, critical discourse ‘studies’ in the introduction to his talk (2011; excerpt from video transcription, single quotes by the authors): […] I would like to propose to all of you if you would like to do, as I will do, henceforth, not use ‘critical discourse analysis’ but ‘critical discourse studies’ because ‘analysis’ suggests that it is mostly analysis and not much theory … so in the same way that we have ‘feminist studies’ or ‘gender studies’ and so on, I would like to propose that we henceforth use ‘critical discourse studies’ … (van Dijk, 2011).

4.1  Introduction: CDA, CDS and CDA/CDS

157

And we should note the title of (van Dijk, 2013): ‘CDA is NOT a method of critical discourse analysis’ (see also Wodak, 2013b; Wodak & Meyer, 2016b: 2). Here, it is clear that van Dijk is (one of) the major proponent(s) of a move from CDA to CDS as the label of this research field. Much before the programmatic use of the term, van Dijk called it CDS in publications such as Elite Discourse and Racism (1993b, on the back cover), his paper ‘Discourse Semantics and Ideology’ (1995b), and then, more systematically, his book Discourse and Power (2008b), in which he explicitly proposed using CDS instead of CDA (van Dijk, personal communication, May 24, 2019), and he was also talking about it in public lectures (such as the one in 2011 we mention above). However, outside of the journal Critical Discourse Studies, the name still hadn’t caught on in titles of major academic publications until a few years later, and then not for everyone. In Wodak and Meyer’s Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis books, the authors (2001, first edition) use the terms Critical Linguistics (CritLing) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) interchangeably, while in the 2nd edition (2009a), Wodak and Meyer (2009b) have a decided preference for CDA (but they allude to CDS). And in the 3rd edition (2016a), they adopt CDS, including in the title, which became Methods of Critical Discourse Studies and in the Introduction (Wodak & Meyer, 2016b: 3). They explain this evolving terminology by first providing a lengthy quote from van Dijk (2013) justifying this change. Hart and Cap (2014a) used CDS in the title of their edited book (Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies), although, again, individual authors (e.g., van Leeuwen, 2014) varied in their chapters as to the use of CDS or CDA. And all of the chapters in Richardson, Krzyżanowski, Machin and Wodak (2014a) were originally published in Special Issues of the journal Critical Discourse Studies (2008, 2009, 2011). Both CDA and CDS are used in the joint Preface (Richardson et al., 2014b) and the titles and texts of the chapters, showing once again the interchange between the two. Ian Roderick’s book (Roderick is currently on the editorial board for Critical Discourse Studies) uses ‘studies’ in the title: Critical Discourse Studies and Technology: A Multimodal Approach to Analyzing Technoculture (2016) and quotes van Dijk (2009b: 62) to justify using CDS in order to avoid confusion. Finally, Flowerdew and Richardson title their 2018 book The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies and note in the introduction (2018b: 1–2): While CDS is rapidly becoming the favorite acronym, Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) was previously referred to as Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and in fact, the initial pre-­ publication title for this volume used this term. While we prevaricated for some time over whether to update the title, our minds were made up with the change of the third edition of Wodak and Meyer’s (2016a) influential Methods of Critical Discourse Studies from the title of the first two editions, which was Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. As van Dijk (2009b: 62) has observed, the rationale for this change of designation resides in the fact that CDA was increasingly not restricted to applied analysis, but also included philosophical, theoretical, methodological, and practical developments (of which not all use the term CDS). This indeed, is reflected in many of the chapters of this volume (although the case studies included as a part of nearly all of the chapters focus on analysis); hence our decision to update the title.

158

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

Flowerdew and Richardson are both on the editorial board of the journal Critical Discourse Studies (Richardson is current editor), so it is not surprising that they adopt this term in their book. A final example of this is Ledin and Machin (2018), whose recent book is called Doing Visual Analysis: From Theory to Practice. Although the authors use MCDA (multimodal critical discourse analysis) and CDA when they talk about the field as a whole (2018: 27–28), they note that “CDA as a field of research today has become institutionalized as critical discourse studies (CDS)”. Given the above information, the historical and intellectual linkage of CDA and CDS with each other, the substantial overlap between them and general situation of CDA and CDS, we have decided to include both (using our own acronym CDA/ CDS) in this book. We will now move on to our discussion of the best-known approaches to CDA/CDS research.

4.2  P  anoply of Work in CDA/CDS: Criteria for the Main Approaches 4.2.1  Introduction In this chapter, we will use the term ‘approaches’ (and sometimes ‘frameworks’ or ‘models’ or ‘research strategies’) as a way of talking about the panoply of work in CDA/CDS.  Wodak (2001a, b; in Wodak & Meyer, 2001; see also Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Reisigl & Wodak, 2001), who was the main historian and biographer of the early days of CDA (see Sect. 3.8.8), seems to have been the first to point out and document that there were various different approaches which could be listed under the heading of CDA (not just different critical approaches to DA, for which see van Dijk, 2006/2011; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997) and also that they could be seen as a strength of CDA. As Wodak points out (2001a, b; see also Sect. 3.1) the variety of approaches is in a certain sense the result of the natural evolution of CDA from the 1991 symposium in Amsterdam with five different scholars and their ‘shared perspective’, which includes “the concept of power, the concept of history, and the concept of ideology” (Wodak, 2001a: 3) in addition to a ‘critical’ perspective. And this is so in spite of the many differences between them—including the fact that, as will become clear, both the notion of ‘discourse’ and also ‘critique/critical’, ‘context’, ‘power’, ‘history’, ‘ideology’, and others, were understood in different ways by the ‘original CDA group’ as well as the successor groups and researchers (see Sect. 3.2). In other words, they were at the beginning—and they remain—as also said above (Sect. 3.1), “an international heterogeneous, closely knit group of scholars … bound together more by a research agenda and programme than by some common theory or methodology“ (Wodak, 2001a: 4). That is, there was a wide variety of different approaches and linguistic tools used to analyze discourse (as indicated by the subtitle of Wodak & Meyer, 2001, 2009a, 2016a). And Meyer

4.2  Panoply of Work in CDA/CDS: Criteria for the Main Approaches

159

(2001) also pointed out other issues that had not been adequately discussed (e.g., the operationalization of the various theories, the relation between the linguistic and social dimensions, the definition of ‘context’, the achievement of ‘true’ inter- or cross- or transdisciplinarity, and so forth (see also Wodak, 2001a)).

4.2.2  Issues with the Main Approaches to CDA/CDS The purpose of this chapter is not to document, describe or prescribe all ways of doing CDA/CDS work or to place each scholar’s work into neat little boxes (which, in any case, can’t be done). Rather, the purpose is to provide a convenient way of thinking about the domain of CDA/CDS, its approaches and its influences. In doing so, we recognize that many scholars (such as Wodak) are happy to take inspiration from a variety of frameworks, since she in particular feels that the basis of her work lies principally in her own approach (DHA) to CDA/CDS, with overlays/additions that show the influence of other models (such as van Dijk’s SCA) and of other fields, such as sociolinguistics (see Sects. 3.8.3 and 6.4), pragmatics (see Sect. 6.9) and so forth. Furthermore, it is actually more common to find CDA/CDS scholarship that combines two or more approaches than work which strictly adheres to one. We would also like to point out that across the numerous scholarly works that describe and explain CDA/CDS, there are differences in names and groupings (and even understandings) of the various approaches. Our chapter synthesizes them into the most commonly discussed, but also according to what we hope will make sense to our readers in terms of grasping the scope of work in this domain. We also want to underscore that we do not say that any approach is better or more useful, given that we feel this greatly depends on a variety of factors and the different contexts in which scholars are working (and because this is not the aim of our book). However, we do note in what ways each approach, in our opinion, makes a significant addition to the field. The question of what approaches there are to CDA/CDS has become more and more complex as the field has developed, and perhaps even more problematic in the sense that many of them have changed greatly over time and increasingly they have tended to overlap with each other and even with ones outside of CDA/CDS (we expand on this below) or to bring into CDA/CDS domains that weren’t originally thought of as part of its scope (e.g., multimodality, corpus linguistics, cognitive linguistics). Since the 2000s CDA/CDS approaches have been defined and mapped out in various ways, such as in terms of their relation to various theories in other domains (e.g. post-structuralism and cognitive psychology) or whether they are concerned with linguistic content or structure (e.g. syntagmatic, paradigmatic, cohesive, conceptual) or if they focus on the cognitive or functional (social) dimensions of discourse (see Hart & Cap, 2014a: 6–8). And, as Wodak and Meyer (2016b: 19) point out, “different authors in the field use theoretical entry-points in a rather eclectic way depending on their specific interests and research questions”. In addition, scholars have brought attention to a past lack of recognition of the

160

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

i­nterconnectedness of each of the approaches to the others (Hart & Cap, 2014b; Wodak & Meyer, 2016b). Even when the approaches are designated as the same, they are often referred to in somewhat different ways by different authors (e.g., ‘corpus based approaches’ vs. ‘corpus linguistic approaches’). Fairclough, Mulderrig, and Wodak (2011: 361–366) divide them into the following categories: critical linguistics (CritLing) and social semiotics (SocSem), “Fairclough’s approach”, SCA, DHA, argumentation and rhetoric, and corpus linguistic approaches (CorpLingA). Angermuller, Maingueneau and Wodak (2014: 361) categorize them as DRA, SCA, SocSem and visual grammar, DPA, and DHA, noting that they have been (and continue to be) “elaborated, challenged, changed, and reformulated”, and “new approaches have been developed”. Hart and Cap (2014b) give the topic of approaches much attention, discussing in detail each one, while adding some that are not listed in previous sources, such as critical cognitive pragmatics, legitimization-proximization model, cognitive linguistic approach (CogLingA), critical metaphor analysis and CorpLingA. Each of them is defined in terms of the most salient elements they analyze (e.g. grammatical metaphor, argumentation, conceptual metaphor, frequency and reference), epistemological orientation (e.g. post-structuralism, systemic functional grammar) and focus on structure versus content or functional versus cognitive dimensions of discourse. Roderick (2016) mentions four major approaches, DRA, DHA, SCA and SocSem and MCDA and also notes that recently there has been an additional alignment of corpus linguistics and cognitive linguistics with critical approaches. Wodak and Meyer (2016b: 17–21) include chapters on the following five major approaches which are updated versions of the same approaches as in the 2009 version of their book: DHA (Reisigl and Wodak), SCA (van Dijk), DRA (Fairclough), DPA (Jäger and Maier), and discourse as the recontextualization of social practice (van Leeuwen). They also include three other chapters on: CorpLingA (Mautner 2009, 2016), analysis of visual and multimodal texts (Jancsary, Höllerer, & Meyer, 2016), and CDS and social media (KhosraviNik & Unger, 2016)—which are more narrow in their conceptualization than the other five. Thus, several different types of ‘approaches’ are presented in Wodak’s co-edited ‘Methods of CDA/CDS’ books, including (as documented in Sect. 4.2) four that have been part of the CDA/CDS group across 2001–2016 (although each of them has evolved over that time period) and four others that were created during this time period and are still very active. In addition, we should note that Kress distanced himself from CDA very early on and hence is not included in the ‘Methods of CDA/CDS’ books at all, and Ron Scollon was included in Wodak and Meyer (2001), but not in later versions, since he withdrew from CDA and then passed away. Most recently, Flowerdew and Richardson (2018b: 8), in their comprehensive edited volume, The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, dedicate one section of the book to “current predominant approaches to CDS” and note that it covers “more established theoretical-analytic positions” (such as the DRA, SCA, DHA and MCDA). However, they also address “newer approaches” (2018a: 8), which stress the role of cognition (e.g., CogLingA) (Hart & Cap, 2014a, 2014b), culture (Gavriely-Nuri, 2018; see Sect. 6.6) and corpora (e.g., CorpLingA) (Mautner,

4.2  Panoply of Work in CDA/CDS: Criteria for the Main Approaches

161

2009, 2016; Subtirelu & Baker, 2018), as well as positive discourse analysis (PDA, Bartlett, 2018; see Sect. 5.8). Although no other sources discussed above included PDA as an approach, Flowerdew and Richardson (2018b: 8) justify its placement in their book, saying that they chose to include it because of its focus on discourses and texts that “offer hope and solutions rather than emphasizing problems and negative forces, as is often the case in mainstream CDS”.2

4.2.3  Synthesis of our Analysis of the Major Approaches In this section, we compare some of the most important scholarly works that dedicate significant attention to ‘approaches’ to CDA/CDS; and while we do not claim nor can we aim to represent every article that has dealt with them, our goal is to include some of the most recent and most cited sources of this information. Below, Table 4.1 synthesizes our analysis of the books/articles and their listing of the major approaches. We have organized the scholarly works in terms of their chronological order (from left to right) and the names of the approaches in alphabetical order. Note that the presence of an approach that is explicitly named in the scholarly work is indicated with an “X”. If the approach is included, but the title varies in some way from the title we list, that variant is given in parentheses. Given this variety in terminology and difference of opinion as to whether or not certain perspectives are included in the list of major (or most common) approaches to CDA/CDS, we have chosen to outline in this chapter the seven best known approaches according to the following criteria: they are frequently cited in the literature, have the most publications, have appeared in major journals in the field (especially Discourse and Society, Critical Discourse Studies, Discourse Studies, and Social Semiotics) and are currently commonly used by scholars in the field. In addition, we will treat other emerging approaches or combinations of CDA/CDS with other disciplines in Chap. 6. We have also chosen to use names for the approaches that are most commonly found in the literature, or reflect current trends in the field, as in the case of the social semiotics/multimodal approach (SocSem/ MCDA). Therefore, this chapter covers the following approaches: DRA, SCA, DHA, SocSem/MCDA, DPA, CorpLingA, and CogLingA, starting with the approaches of the original founders in the order in which we discussed them in Chap. 3. However, we would also like to affirm once again (see Hart & Cap, 2014a; Wodak & Meyer, 2016b) the interconnectedness of all of the approaches and the fact that much CDA/CDS work combines approaches, topics and fields of study which come from different schools of thought and a wide range of disciplines. In addition, it is rare to find a researcher who uses only one approach without the 2  Although we agree with this assessment of the value of PDA, we decided to place our discussion of it in Chapter 5, as a response to critique of CDA since only Flowerdew and Richardson label it as an approach, and our discussion of PDA explains in detail why we believe it is more of a changed focus rather than a different approach.

X X

X

X

X

X

X (grouped together with critical linguistics) X X

X (social actors)

X

X (Social semiotics and visual grammar)

X X

X

Angermuller, Maingueneau, and Wodak (2014)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Roderick (2016)

X (analysis of visual and multimodal texts) X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X (multi-modal CDA)

X

X X

X X

X(stresses the role of corpora)

X (stresses the role of cognition)

Wodak and Meyer Flowerdew and (2016a) Richardson (2018a)

a

While we choose not to feature CDA/CDS and social media as a separate approach in this chapter, we would like to point out that CDA/CDS scholars have recently given increasing attention to social media, and more and more studies have been published analyzing social media discourse. We refer to many of these studies throughout the book and cite them where relevant in terms of the approach used to analyze that type of discourse

Sociocognitive

X

X (corpus based)

X (called ‘Fairclough’s X approach’) X X X X (includes argumentation and rhetoric)

X (includes four different cognitive approaches—see below, Sect. 4.9.3) X

Wodak and Meyer Fairclough, Mulderrig, Hart and Cap (2009a) and Wodak (2011) (2014a)

Positive Discourse Analysis Recontextualization of X (social social practice actors) Social semiotics/multimodal approach

Discourse Historical Foucauldian/Dispositive analysis

Corpus Linguistic Approaches Critical Linguistics Cultural Approaches Dialectical-Relational

CDA/CDS and Social Mediaa Cognitive Approaches

Name of approach (in alphabetical order)

Table 4.1  Books/articles that address CDA/CDS approaches (in chronological order)

162 4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

4.2  Panoply of Work in CDA/CDS: Criteria for the Main Approaches

163

i­nfluence of, or the borrowing of terminology or concepts from, another. Wodak is an excellent example of a scholar who borrows from many disciplines and scholarly works and is also consistently forthright about how the work of others has influenced her own. Her highly regarded book (2015), The Politics of Fear (discussed in Sects. 3.8.7, 4.5, and 7.2), relies on DHA and also includes, e.g., multimodal analysis from a SocSem frame. Therefore, we agree that one of the advantages of CDA/ CDS is “its lack of set ways of conducting analysis” (Baker, 2012) and one of its strengths is the fact that different approaches can be combined with different disciplines (to be discussed in Chap. 6) and can be used to analyze different types of texts (see also Wodak & Meyer, 2009a, 2016a).

4.2.4  What the Approaches Have in Common What is important about the different approaches and what ties them together is that they have a number of characteristics in common (see Sect. 3.2). For example, they are problem/issue oriented, interdisciplinary and eclectic, and share an interest in “demystifying ideologies and power through the investigation of semiotic data (e.g., written, spoken, or visual)” (Wodak and Meyer, 2016b: 4). In addition, they each aim to “investigate critically social inequality” as it is expressed, constituted and legitimized in discourse (2016b: 12). Moreover, they work eclectically as a group in terms of theoretical background, touching upon an entire range of theories from Grand Theories to micro(-linguistic) ones (2016b: 17); they also state that “there is no accepted canon of data sampling”, but that “operationalization and analysis are problem-oriented and imply linguistic expertise” (2016b: 22). They also share core beliefs related to the role of discourse and society (see Paltridge, 2012: 188–190; Wodak & Meyer, 2016b; see our individual discussions of each approach below for more specific details). Given this, most types of CDA/CDS seek to ask questions about the way specific discourse properties are deployed in the reproduction of social dominance, and (no matter the approach) attempt to define whose interests are being represented, e.g., which social actors, groups, or institutions have the power to convince, harm, dominate, or control others and to what ends. But it also has a role in helping people break free from the deleterious effects that are uncovered in CDA/CDS analyses (see Chap. 7 for more details). Social power is seen as a source of control, a power base of privileged access to scarce social resources, such as force, money, status, fame, knowledge, information, language, and specific forms of discourse, including especially public discourse and access to ways to instill beliefs about the world through discourse and communication. We would also add that all of the approaches have now taken a ‘multimodal turn’ (Jewitt, 2009; Machin, 2013) in the sense that they affirm and account for the fact that meaning-making in communication does not happen only through language and thus all of the approaches we describe here are in essence multimodal, but some more than others (and not all use the term). What’s new is not that communication is multimodal, since (as said in Sects. 2.6,

164

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

2.7, and 3.9) it has always been that way, but that it has been becoming increasingly more multimodal in our global and technologically interconnected world, which has led to both recognition of this fact in the CDA/CDS community and attempts to build multimodality into theories and into understanding of communication. Despite these commonalities, the several frameworks of CDA/CDS scholarship vary considerably according to scientific methodology, theoretical influence and “ability to ‘translate’ their theoretical claims into instruments and methods of analysis” (Wodak & Meyer, 2016b: 14). Each approach, combination of approaches and school of thought has “different theoretical models, research methods and agenda” (Fairclough et al., 2011: 357) (see Sect. 3.2). Below, we outline the origins of each major approach, associated scholars and research focus/foci, as well as central concepts/distinguishing features, including (when applicable) their definition of ‘discourse and other concepts given above.

4.3  Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA) 4.3.1  The Major Properties of DRA As said above, Fairclough is one of the key figures in the realm of CDA (he doesn’t use the term CDS; see also Sect. 3.5 on CLS and CLA); his Language and Power book (Fairclough, 1989–, 2nd ed. 2001, 3rd ed. 2015) is commonly considered one of the pioneering publications for the genesis of CDA (see Sects. 3.1 and 3.5.2). He has been very prolific and has continued to publish in this area since that time, although the ways in which he has characterized his particular approach to CDA have also evolved over the course of his career (see Fairclough, 2018 for the latest version). Like Wodak (see Sect. 3.8.1) he actively read social theory before the advent of CDA, although his work is heavily influenced by Marxism (see Sect. 3.5.1) while hers is more influenced by the Frankfurt School. According to Wodak and Meyer (2009b: 27), the DRA: focuses upon social conflict in the Marxian tradition and tries to detect its linguistic manifestations in discourse, in specific elements of dominance, difference and resistance … He understands CDA as the analysis of the dialectical relationships between semiosis (including language) and other elements of social practice … His approach to CDA oscillates between a focus on structure and a focus on action.

One measure of Fairclough’s own maturation in CDA is a comparison of the first edition of his book (see also Sect. 3.5.5), Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (1995) with the 2nd edition (2010a). The former is a collection of ten papers written between 1983 and 1992, grouped into four sections: ‘Language, ideology and power’; ‘Discourse and sociocultural change’; ‘Textual analysis in social research’; and ‘Critical Language Awareness’ (see Sect. 3.5.5). In the second edition, there are 23 papers (six from the first edition) from 1983 to 2008, for which he kept the first two sections as before, renamed the fourth section as ‘Language and

4.3  Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA)

165

education’, and added four others: ‘Dialectics of discourse: Theoretical developments’; ‘Methodology in CDA research’; ‘Political discourse’; and ‘Globalisation and ‘transition”. The four new sections are a reflection of the ways in which his work developed between 1995 and 2010. In the general introduction (2010b) to the second edition he states that the broad objective of his work in CDA had remained the same: “to develop ways of analysing language which address its involvement in the workings of contemporary capitalist societies” and to better understand how capitalism prevents, limits or facilitates “human well-being and flourishing” (Fairclough, 2010a: 1–2). Fairclough’s DRA approach to CDA has three basic properties. It is “relational” in the sense that it focuses on social relations and not individuals, and these relations are “dialectical” in the sense of “being different but not ‘discrete’, i.e., not fully separate” (Fairclough, 2016: 87), not either fully exclusive or separate from each other (Fairclough, 2010a: 4). In addition, it is “transdisciplinary” because when analyzing dialectical relations between discourse and other objects, elements or moments, as well as internal elements, analysis must cut “across conventional boundaries between disciplines” (Fairclough, 2010a: 4). Hence, there is dialogue between disciplines, theories and frameworks. The transdisciplinary nature of the approach also “allows for various ‘points of entry’ for the discourse analyst, the sociologist, the political economist and so forth, which focus upon different elements or aspects of the object of research” (Fairclough, 2010a: 5). His approach is also “realist” (see Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999, 2010; Fairclough, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2010b, 2012), because it posits that there is a real world (which includes the social world), which exists regardless of how well we know or understand it. In his ‘critical realist approach’, he recognizes that the natural and social worlds differ and the social world depends upon human action for its existence and is socially constructed. With this as the basis, Fairclough (2016: 87) uses the term ‘discourse’ in various interlocking senses including: “(a) meaning-making as an element of the social process, (b) the language associated with a particular social field or practice (e.g. ‘political discourse’), (c) a way of construing aspects of the world associated with a particular social perspective (e.g. a ‘neo-liberal discourse of globalization’)”. In order to avoid confusion among these different meanings of discourse he uses the term ‘semiosis’ in Halliday’s sense (1985) of ‘meaning-making’ (e.g., how we understand the world) which “frames social interaction and contributes to the construction of social relations” (Fairclough et al., 2004: 219). But he also insists that elements such as social relations, power, institutions, etc. are only partly, not purely, semiotic, and thus he opens up the question about the “relations as articulations between semiotic and non-semiotic elements … and between semiotic elements” (Fairclough, 2010b: 164). Specific ‘discourses’ (vs. ‘discourse’) “are semiotic ways of construing aspects of the world (physical, social or mental) which can be generally identified with different positions or perspectives of different groups of social actors” (Fairclough, 2016: 88). And ‘orders of discourse’ (Fairclough, 1992—­configurations of different genres, discourses and styles; see also Foucault,

166

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

19723)—are “the semiotic dimension of (networks of) social practices which constitute social fields, institutions, organizations, etc.” (Fairclough, 2016: 89). He reserves the term ‘text’ for the semiotic dimension of events4; it encompasses written, conversational, interviews, and multimodal texts.

4.3.2  The Values of DRA We agree with Fairclough that one of the values of the DRA lies in its ability to make sense of data from different perspectives (Fairclough, 2009, 2016). Moreover, DRA allows people to see through the “complex dialectical relations between semiotic and non-semiotic elements which constitute the social, political and economic conditions of their lives”—something most people are not capable of doing by themselves (Fairclough, 2016: 106). Drawing on the work of Harvey (1996), Fairclough argues for theoretical diversity through incorporating the macro level of social structure and the micro level of social action. Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999: 16) posit the following: We see CDA as bringing a variety of theories into dialogue, especially social theories on the one hand and linguistic theories on the other, so that its theory is a shifting synthesis of other theories, though what it itself theorises in particular is the mediation between the social and the linguistic—the ‘order of discourse’, the social structuring of semiotic hybridity (interdiscursivity).

In fact, DRA refuses to be limited to specific fields or methodologies and, therefore, Fairclough et al. (2011: 362) posit that this approach “has explored the discursive aspect of contemporary processes of social transformation … [through a] commitment to transdisciplinarity—whereby the logic and categories of different disciplines are brought together into dialogue with one another”. Fairclough (2016: 91–95, 104) organizes the implementation of DRA into four stages: (1) focus on a social wrong (e.g., an order which is detrimental to human well-being) with special attention to dialectical relations between semiotic and other ‘moments’; (2) identify obstacles to addressing the social wrong (e.g., what is it about the way society is structured that prevents it from being addressed?); (3) consider whether the social order ‘needs’ the social wrong for the greater good to occur (e.g., the suppression of political differences in favor of a consensus is seen as necessary for a state to operate); and (4) identify possible ways past the obstacles (e.g., texts that offer alternative imaginaries, oppositional strategies). He describes the core analytical categories of this approach as being semiosis (and other social elements), discourse/style/genre, order of discourse (and social practices), text (and 3  This concept is influenced by Foucault’s (1972: 211) idea of discourse as not simply “that which translates struggles or systems of domination”, but as the entity “for which and by which there is struggle” and the idea that discourse itself is the power that needs to be seized. 4  In much of his work, Fairclough insists upon his ‘text-orientation’, that is, a focus on particular authentic texts.

4.3  Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA)

167

social event), interdiscursivity (and interdiscursive analysis), recontextualization and operationalization (enactment, inculcation, materialization) (2016: 171). An excellent example of DRA (included in Fairclough, 2009, 2016; see also Fairclough, 2000) is his political discourse analysis of the Foreword to a government document written by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and a critique of Blair’s ‘New Labour’ government by two former members of the Labour Party. Fairclough begins with a summary of the political condition at that time (with a detailed description of the role of globalization and neo-liberalism) and then shows how the texts define relations between the companies and national governments, and the contrast between what is, and what should be, inferred in relations between the EU and national governments, demonstrating the dialectical nature of these relations and placing the focus on semiosis. He then explains (2016: 105) how the first text “depoliticises by construing a consensus on the global economy as an inevitable fact of life and building national competitiveness as a necessary response” whereas the second text “politicises by construing the globalised economy as a stake in struggles between governments and transnationals, and capital and labour, and by opposing that construal to the government’s concensualist construal” (2016: 105). Fairclough’s approach has been criticized for spending too much time on depoliticization and not enough on politicization (which he justifies as a known bias stemming from his involvement in the left-wing politics of the 1970s), and while he does not agree that this is a limitation, he does admit that more cognitively oriented research on discourse could be complimentary to the DRA (2016: 106). Some other work by Fairclough taking this approach includes his research on the discourse of New Labour (2003), which supplies many examples of applications of this approach, his (2005) analysis of neo-liberalism and its effects on the branding of Bãsecsu, a presidential candidate in Romania, his (2006) work on the politically powerful concepts of globalization, and various chapters in (2010b), described above.

4.3.3  Changes in Fairclough’s Approach Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) present a new approach to the analysis of political discourse as a contribution to the development of CDA, somewhat different from the political discourse analysis of Chilton (2004, 2010), which we will discuss shortly, and Wodak’s DHA (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009, 2016; Wodak, 2001a, 2009; de Cillia & Wodak, 2006, discussed below). What is new is “that it views political discourse as primarily a form of argumentation … practical argumentation, argumentation for or against particular ways of acting, argumentation that can ground decision” (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012: 1), and the 2012 book includes a framework for analyzing and evaluating political discourse from this point of view, using many examples stemming from the financial crisis (2007–2011). Since it is meant to be a textbook for advanced students, one of its objectives is pedagogical and methodological, “to provide a new and better method that can be replicated in the analysis of different sets of data” (2012: 13).

168

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

Fairclough (2015, 2016) stresses (again) the dialectical character of his approach, and how this aids in making it attuned to transdisciplinary research, enhancing the capacity of “various bodies of social theory and research to address often neglected semiotic dimensions” as well as taking from them perspectives and research logics that move the approach itself forward (2016: 105). He also addresses his critics (again), reiterating his response to the critique we mentioned above about spending too much time on depoliticization and not enough on politicization but also adding that he agrees with Chilton’s (2005a) argument that people are capable of doing their own political critique. However, he does not believe that this means they are “generally capable of seeing the dialectical relations between semiotic and nonsemiotic elements that constitute the social, political and economic conditions of their lives” (Fairclough, 2016: 106). Hence, the “essence of CDA and what distinguishes [the DRA] from other forms of (critical) analysis” as he sees it, is the way in which it explains how discourse relates to other elements of the existing reality (2015: 6). It is these explanations for why particular discourses exist that make up the “critical” in CDA (2015: 7) and also what render it something that average media consumers do not normally arrive at on their own. Furthermore, he argues that if we don’t understand how existing societies work, we cannot understand how discourse figures within them nor how we can change societies for the better. Thus, we must emphasize “the power behind discourse rather than just the power in discourse” with the aim of raising consciousness of how language contributes to the domination of some people over others (2015: 3). In this view, social reality begins with discourse and thus if one wishes to critique the discourse, one needs to start with critiquing the existing social reality (a point discussed in Sect. 3.5). In addition, he reiterates how CDA “is nothing if not a resource for struggle against domination” (2015: 3), and its whole point and purpose is to provide those undergoing social struggle with a resource in advancing the struggle toward “social emancipation” (2015: 252) and against neo-liberalism. We believe that Fairclough’s emphasis on resistance to neoliberalism is a crucial research direction for many of the areas which CDA/CDS touches upon. An excellent example of recent CDA/CDS work that tackles neoliberalism (and explains how CDA/CDS is an apt tool for doing so) is Ulysse (2013), who doesn’t explicitly say he is doing DRA, but he does cite Fairclough’s work frequently, and both his topic and his analysis are clearly influenced by it. In his chapter in Counterpoints: Paradigms of research for the twenty-first century, he describes how neoliberalism can be defined as a discourse and cites studies that trace its development (e.g., Davies & Bensel, 2007). Additionally, he breaks down concepts such as ‘privatization’ (which he says rarely delivers on what it purports to do), ‘the free market’, ‘deregulation’, and ‘freedom’. Ulysse declares ‘freedom’ to be symbolic and virtually impossible to enjoy on an equal basis in a neoliberal world (2013: 227–232). Most importantly, he demonstrates how neoliberal ideologies are propagated, implemented, and reinforced, overtly and covertly, with the ultimate effect of both consciously and unconsciously controlling “the thoughts and behaviors of people in their respective societies” (2013: 232).

4.3  Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA)

169

Another excellent example of scholarship that makes the connection between CDA/CDS and its role in challenging neoliberalism is Chun (2018). In his chapter (in Flowerdew & Richardson, 2018a), he provides a detailed definition of neoliberalism and globalization and gives an example of counter narratives to neoliberalism put forward by reader comments in an opinion piece in the New York Times. He then suggests that these comments serve as models for discursive strategies and practices that contest “neoliberal common-sense beliefs” and “question who benefits and who is left behind in our societies” because of them (Chun, 2018: 431). He also argues that the primary aim of CDA/CDS is to “remake new common-sense beliefs based on our collective and communal agencies in solidarity among each other against the onslaught and ravages of neoliberalism” (2018: 431). Up to now, we have explained the major characteristics of Fairclough’s approach as well as some of the changes in it over time. To summarizes these changes briefly, the first version was oriented to the post-World War 2 social settlement and centered on critique of ideological discourse as “part of a concern with the reproduction of the existing social order” (Fairclough, 1989); the second was related to the move to neoliberalism and centered on critique of discourse as social change (Fairclough, 1992); his third and latest version is “CDA as dialectical reasoning”, and in (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012), he examines the 2007 and after financial/economic crisis and focuses on deliberative discourse as a strategy to overcome it. In this latest iteration, Fairclough defines ‘dialectical reasoning’ as a form of practical argumentation which emphasizes the connection between critique, explanation and action. He describes how it works in four steps—which are somewhat different from the four stages he described in Wodak and Meyer 2016a, discussed above. He explains that his most recent version puts more emphasis on supporting political action “to change social life for the better” such as seeking solutions to problems like the funding of education (Fairclough, 2018: 13, 17). The four steps named are: (1) normative critique of discourse (basically, describing the discourse); (2) explaining what features brought about this state of affairs; (3) critiquing this state of affairs; (4) advocating action to change the existing state of affairs for the better (2018: 16). Another valuable addition in Fairclough (2018: 24) that allows us to understand the evolution of his approach is the presentation of the essential elements of dialectical reasoning which are: (1) how to recognize an argument; (2) how to identify what type of argument it is; (3) how to identify the premises and conclusion of the argument; (4) how to evaluate it; (5) how to identify an explanation and its parts; (6) how to identify reasons, motives and causes and the connections between them; (7) how to evaluate and critique argumentation as a first step in the sequence of deliberation-decision-action-change; (8) how to develop counter arguments; (9) how to identify the ‘terms of debate’ and their limitations; and (10) how to approach changing the terms of debate. Finally, he envisions scholars in CDA as opening up a dialogue with those involved in political action, and he proposes dialectical reasoning as a way for CDA to “contribute to political action to change existing reality for the better”, and as a method of “showing how deliberation enables and constrains decision, action and change, which can be opened up by changing the terms of debate” (2018: 25). To illustrate this revised approach, he

170

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

uses a case study of the Kilburn Manifesto (“a political manifesto for transcending neoliberalism”) (2018: 19–21). For a more recent and detailed look at how the DRA has changed over the years, see Fairclough’s own account of these changes (which we have cited a few things from above) in Flowerdew and Richardson (2018a), where he contends that there are three main versions of his approach, which have transformed in response to social changes (2018: 14).

4.4  Sociocognitive Approach (SCA) The sociocognitive approach (SCA), first developed by Teun van Dijk in the 1980s with some changes since then (see van Dijk, 2016 and Sect. 3.6), emphasizes the importance of the study of cognition in the critical analysis of discourse, communication and interaction and the cognitively mediated relationship between discourse and society. Emphasizing his use of the term CDS exclusively (as opposed to CDA, see our discussion of this in Sect. 4.1), van Dijk contends that CDS is a critical perspective or attitude within the field of discourse studies (DS) that “uses different methods of the humanities and social sciences” (2016: 65). In this approach, ‘discourse’ is seen as a multidimensional social phenomenon which is a linguistic object, an action, a form of social interaction, a social practice, a mental representation, an interactional or communicative event or activity, a cultural product, or even an economic commodity that can be bought and sold (van Dijk, 2009b: 66–67). The concept of ‘social cognitions’5 is central to van Dijk’s approach, which represents the socio-psychological dimension of CDS, and draws on ‘social representation theory’ (Moscovici, 2000), which refers to the “bulk of concepts, opinions, attitudes, evaluations, images and explanations which result from daily life and are sustained by communication” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 25). These socially shared representations of (perceptions of, ways of thinking about) societal groups and relations—as well as mental processes such as interpretation, thinking and arguing, making inferences and learning—form a core element of the individual’s social identity (van Dijk, 1993a; Meyer, 2001). Along with abstract knowledge of the world they link the social system on the one hand and the individual’s cognitive system on the other hand and are shared among members of the same social group, just as attitudes and ideologies are shared (van Dijk, 2016). In SCA, social cognitions are viewed as part of a discourse-cognition-society “triangle” in which relations between discourse and society are seen as cognitively mediated (van Dijk, 2016: 64, see Sect. 3.6). In her overview of CDA Wodak (2011: 60) notes that cognition provides the “missing link” that demonstrates how societal structures are “instituted, legitimated, confirmed or challenged by text or talk”, and we agree with 5  Van Dijk uses the plural “social cognitions” here to donate the concrete noun referring to the many different representations that people share. When he uses “cognition” in the singular, he is referring to the abstract noun and general process of acquiring knowledge and understanding as opposed to specific socially shared representations.

4.4  Sociocognitive Approach (SCA)

171

Wodak that this is a significant element that SCA adds to CDA/CDS research. Control of the ‘public mind’ is accomplished through this linking of discourse to social cognitions, and social cognitions also explain the production as well as the understanding of discourse. Social representations are relevant in the context of (personal, group, cultural) knowledge, attitudes and ideologies (Wodak, 2011: 26) and the exercise of power involves the influence of knowledge, beliefs, values, plans, attitudes, ideologies, norms and values, all of which are part of social cognition. Van Dijk also describes how discursive units (ranging from one word to sentences to very long utterances) are linked to the generation of prejudice and discrimination, turning his focus to the study of (discourse and) context (2001b, 2008a, 2009a). He argues that there has been much interest in context and contextualization in CDA, but little research on the details and theory of context, which he defines as dynamic representations of the ongoing communicative event (van Dijk, 2009b: 73–75; see also Sects. 3.6.1 and 3.6.2; Wodak, 2011: 61). This is accomplished by incorporating the very important idea of context models (see Sect. 3.6.1.2, aka pragmatic models), a type of mental model that is salient to the participants and “represents how each participant understands and represents the communicative situation” (van Dijk, 2016: 67) which helps them achieve a variety of dynamic processes. Thus, context models control much of discourse production and understanding, such as genre, topic choice, local meanings and coherence, along with speech acts, rhetoric, and style (2001a: 109). They represent the models of events that language users refer to in the discourse as well as “dynamic pragmatic models of (each moment of) the very communicative event in which they participate” (2012b: 589). They allow language users to adapt their discourse to the communicative situation in which they find themselves, and “since at least the time, the knowledge and the intentions of the context model change permanently during discourse processing (production, comprehension), context models are fundamentally dynamic” (2012b: 589). And, finally, they control the pragmatic aspect of discourse because they “define the appropriateness of discourse with respect to the communicative situation” and work to manage knowledge in interaction (2016: 67). In this sense, language users adapt their discourse to the assumed knowledge of the other participants, recognizing the intentions of other speakers/social actors (Tomasello, 2008). Groups in power affect discourse through the social representations shared by those groups. Thus, when looking at discourse, SCA can help us bridge the gap between the ‘micro’ level (language use, discourse, verbal interaction, and communication) and the ‘macro’ level (power, dominance, and inequality between social groups) of society, and is thus particularly useful in uncovering hidden ideologies embedded in the discourse. Furthermore, SCA helps us to understand how discourse can be a “primary source of evidence for underlying social representations” (van Dijk, 2014a: 290). Throughout his more recent work in CDS—and linked to his pre-CDA and early CDA work on racism and discrimination in discourse and communication (see Sects. 3.6.1–3.6.4)—van Dijk has used SCA to focus on the (re)production of racism in discourse and communication (see recently van Dijk, 2012a, 2014a, 2016;

172

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

Wodak, 2011: 60; and also Sects. 3.6.5 and 3.6.6) as well as the media, and also to examine more general questions of power abuse and the reproduction of inequality through ideologies, integrating elements from his earlier studies on cognition that found that those who control the most dimensions of discourse (i.e. topics, style, setting) have the most power (see Wodak, 2011: 60). He has also written extensively on ideology, in particular his book (van Dijk, 1998) in which he proposed a new, multidisciplinary theory of ideology based on the reformulation and integration of three central concepts: (1) the status, internal organization and mental functions of ideologies in terms of social cognitions; (2) the social, political, cultural and historical conditions and functions of ideologies; and (3) the formation, changes, and reproduction of ideologies through socially situated discourse and communication. For van Dijk (1998: 8) “ideologies may be very succinctly defined as the basis of the social representations shared by members of a group”, e.g., ways of organizing good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, true vs. false, us vs. them. Van Dijk’s more recent work investigates the role of knowledge in discourse (van Dijk, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d, 2014b), another area that he feels is underrepresented in the literature; he summarizes a theory of ‘natural’ knowledge and its relevance for the study of text and talk, as well as a basis for his own work on social cognition and discourse (van Dijk, 2014c). In his book on ‘discourse and knowledge’ (2014b), he takes a multidisciplinary approach to studying the relationship between discourse and knowledge and argues that discourse can only be produced or understood in terms of shared sociocultural knowledge, which is acquired through text and talk. As in all the approaches we list here, SCA is often combined with other ones that overlap and complement it in some way, and hence render the analysis specifically suited to the data. One recent example that illustrates van Dijk’s triangular SCA, the multimodal turn of CDA/CDS and the way in which CDA/CDS often combines approaches, is from his contribution to Wodak & Meyer (2016a: 65–66). He examines a billboard in Britain for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) during the 2014 parliamentary elections in which UKIP used blatant racist and xenophobic propaganda to win (surprisingly, for many) 10 new members of the European parliament (MEPs) and 27.5% of the vote (Kirkup & Swinford, 2014). In his brief analysis, van Dijk shows how the interpretation of the multimodal messages in the billboard (such as image and color) requires cognitive structures such as shared sociocultural knowledge (aka background knowledge) about the unemployment situation in the UK at that time and the lifting of restrictions for workers from Eastern Europe (which brought new immigrants to the UK). In addition, he points to the role of attitude and ideology, as well as the ‘context model’ of readers of the billboard (e.g., how they understand and represent the situation), which features emotions such as anger and fear. We should also underscore the way that UKIP’s campaign played upon the emotions of voters was a major factor in UKIP’s rise to power, the eventual success of the 2016 BREXIT vote and the UK’s exit from the European Union. Hence, van Dijk’s analysis (which he conducted before the BREXIT vote) was spot on in identifying exactly how voters were manipulated by UKIP—and how SCA is very useful since it uncovered this fact.

4.5  Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA)

173

Van Dijk has published the most of any scholar on SCA (and one could argue that he has done a large part of the work that explains and models SCA). Indeed, most of van Dijk’s work in this area has been as sole author, although he has occasionally co-authored with Wodak (e.g., Wodak & van Dijk, 2000; see Sects. 3.6.6 and 3.7; see also Clarke, Kwon, & Wodak, 2012) and a few others. However, there are a few examples of other scholars who have taken up CDA/CDS work using SCA, alone or in combination with other approaches, in recent years (such as Isbuga-Erel, 2008; Olausson, 2009; Foluke, 2011; Peyroux, 2012; Ushchyna, 2017).

4.5  Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) The term ‘discourse-historical approach’ (DHA) first appeared in Ruth Wodak’s studies that were conducted with the ‘Vienna School of Discourse Analysis’ (which included her current and former students and colleagues) and were about post-war Austria and antisemitic discourses (see Sect. 3.8.5). In general, DHA adheres to the socio-philosophical orientation of Critical Theory, especially the thinking of Habermas (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001), supplemented with an approach that relates theory formation and conceptualization to the specific problems being investigated. It also features a multi-methodological, interdisciplinary approach to empirical data as well as the integration of available background information into the analysis of different layers of a spoken or written text (Ahmadvand, 2011; Krzyżanowski & Wodak, 2009: 21). Analysts using this approach perceive both written and spoken language to be forms of social practice and assume a dialectical relationship between discursive practices and the situations they are embedded in (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). Wodak has focused on issues of methodology, hence the emphasis on ‘Methods’ in the title of her 2001/2009/2016 co-edited books with Meyer on CDA/ CDS (and also of the non-CDA-oriented Titscher, Meyer, Wodak, & Vetter, 2000 (1998  in German)) which discusses each of the approaches (aka frameworks, research strategies) in terms of their different methods, among other issues (which shows that CDA/CDS in general is not a method (see van Dijk, 2012d)). On her website at Lancaster University6, Wodak refers to DHA as “an interdisciplinary, problem-oriented approach which analyses the changes of discursive practices over time and in various genres”. With respect to the first principle, being “interdisciplinary”, Reisigl and Wodak (2009: 89) referred to its application to the collection and analysis of data from various sources and various analytical perspectives (which is also the case for other CDA approaches); and by problem-oriented, she meant (as discussed in Sect. 3.2) that the focus is on, e.g., some social problem or issue, not on particular linguistic issues. These both are related to the principle of ‘triangulation’ (Wodak & Meyer, 2016b: 26), which combines empirical observations, theories and methods from various disciplines, as well as background

 https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/linguistics/about/people/ruth-wodak

6

174

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

i­nformation in the study of a given issue. However, in the latest definition of DHA, Reisigl and Wodak (2016: 31) note again that it is interdisciplinary—which they identify as the first of the ten most important principles of DHA—but they re-frame it as involving theory, methods, methodology, research practice and practical application whereas earlier definitions did not include all of these (see Sect. 3.8.5). As to changes in discursive practices over time, of the founders of CDA/CDS, Wodak is the one who has insisted the most on the incorporation of (wide-ranging) historical data into any (C)DA/(C)DS, critical or not, including the historical embedding of discourses and texts and “explor[ing] how discourses, genres and texts change in relation to sociopolitical change” (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009: 90). And there are other important principles of DHA (2016: 31–32): it incorporates fieldwork and ethnography; it moves recursively between theory and empirical data; it studies numerous genres and public spaces as well as intertextual relationships (the way in which texts are linked to other texts, e.g., through taking a portion of one text and inserting it into another text, as in quotation) and interdiscursive ones (the way in which discourses are linked to each other, e.g., a discourse on one topic may refer to topics or sub-topics of other discourses (2016: 27–28), as when (racist) arguments about restrictions on immigration are used in discussions about combatting unemployment); its categories and methods that are not fixed once and for all (2016: 32); it uses ‘Grand theories’, which “conceptualize relations between social structure and social action and thus link micro- and macro-sociological phenomena” (Wodak, 2009b: 204) and augments them further with ‘middle-range theories’, which are concerned with “specific social phenomena … [or] specific subsystems of society” and provide a better theoretical basis; and it views the application of results and the communication of them to the public as important aims, along with some form of social action (see Sect. 7.2.1.2). The definition of ‘discourse’ in DHA has evolved from the early 2000s and has become quite complex in the most recent version; “a cluster of context-dependent semiotic practices that are situated within specific fields of social action; socially constituted and socially constitutive; related to a macro-topic; linked to the argumentation about validity claims such as truth and normative validity involving several social actors who have different points of view” (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016: 27). The presence of intertextuality and interdiscursivity in the DHA framework means that discourses are often dynamic and open and hybrid, since, e.g., new subtopics are easily created, and discourses and their topics may cross from one social field to another, may overlap with each other, or may be socio-functionally linked with each other in some way. Scholars in DHA have also added to the theory of discourse by linking texts, discourses and genres (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016: 28–29) with fields of action (Girnth, 1996), such that texts are parts of discourses that can be assigned to genres, which are “a “socially conventionalized type and pattern of communication that fulfills a specific social purpose in a specific social context [or a] mental scheme that refers to specific procedural knowledge about a specific text function and the processes of text production, distribution and reception” (2016: 27). Discourses can be realized through many different genres and texts; for instance, the discourses of climate change (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016: 27) may be realized in genres such as TV

4.5  Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA)

175

debates on environmental policies, guidelines for reducing carbon emissions, speeches by climate scientists, online comments about articles on climate change, and so forth. And, finally, fields of action indicate segments of reality that make up partial frames of a discourse and are “defined by different functions of discursive practices” (2016: 28). For example, in the general area of political action, “formation of public attitudes” could be one field while “political advertising” could be another (2016: 28–29). Thus, there is a type of dialectical relationship between discursive practices and the fields of action they are embedded in. In DHA, ideology is seen as a perspective that is often one-sided and encompasses “a worldview, a system composed of related mental representations, convictions, opinions, attitudes, values and evaluations, which are shared by members of a special social group” (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016: 25). Fully developed ideologies such as conservatism are referred to as ‘grand narratives’. For example (in the version articulated by President Donald Trump of the US during his candidacy in 2016), it includes representations of what a society looks like now (e.g., it is going downhill), models of what the society should be in the future (e.g., ‘Make America great again’ [MAGA]), and models of how to go from the present to the future (e.g., don’t allow Muslims or Mexicans to enter the US, keep American ‘exceptionalism’ alive, keep American jobs in the US, etc.). These narratives differ from ‘grand theories’ (mentioned above) because they are not based on empirical evidence or scholarly research or a specific approach to social theory. Nevertheless, the ideologies serve as powerful means of “creating shared social identities” and of establishing, maintaining and transforming unequal power relations through discourse (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016: 25). DHA generally focuses on politics and many types of political discourse; analysts are enjoined to make sure not to get lost in “theoretical labyrinths”, but instead to attempt to develop conceptual tools that are adequate for specific social problems (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016: 26), such as van Dijk’s notions (see Sect. 3.6.2) of “positive self” and “negative other” presentation, which Wodak used in analyzing antisemitic and racist discourses (see Sects. 3.8, 3.4, and 3.5). In terms of its general methodology, DHA is three dimensional (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016: 32): (1) identify “the specific content or topic(s) of a specific discourse”, (2) investigate the “discursive strategies”, and (3) examine “the linguistic means (as types) and context-­ dependent linguistic realizations (as tokens)”. As for the identification of the strategies that need special attention in the analysis, they frequently orient themselves to five questions (e.g., “what arguments are employed in the discourse in question?” (2016: 32), are they “articulated overtly, intensified or mitigated?”). They then provide (2016: 34)7 an eight-step program that a “thorough, ideal-­typical” 7  At this point, we would like to recognize the importance of Martin Reisigl’s input in the development of DHA, particularly in this phase, given the amount of scholarly work he co-authored with Wodak and sole-authored himself in the 2000s (see Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, 2009, 2016; Reisigl, 2007, 2011, 2014). For example, we note that it is his chapter with Wodak (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016) which lays out the latest version of DHA in detail and which we have cited heavily in this discussion.

176

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

DHA should follow (although they are aware that not all projects will have the time, personnel or money to be realized on this scale, and thus they say that smaller studies, such as PhD projects, which might include case studies or a pilot study, are also worthwhile). The program is the following (each step is to be implemented recursively): (1) Activate and consult preceding theoretical knowledge (e.g., collect, read, discuss previous research). (2) Collect data and context information, which vary depending on a variety of factors such as events, media, social actors, etc. (3) Select and prepare data for analysis (e.g., transcribe interviews or downsize data). (4) Identify research questions and assumptions based on the literature review and first skimming of the data. (5) Conduct a qualitative pilot analysis of context, macro- and micro-analysis. (6) Include detailed (primarily qualitative but also quantitative) case studies of a range of data. (7) Formulate a critique/interpret and explain results taking context knowledge and the three dimensions of critique into account. (8) Propose practical applications of the results of the analysis that target some social impact. Reisigl and Wodak illustrate DHA using their own pilot study on news reporting about climate change, which places special focus on ‘argumentation strategies’. They define ‘argumentation’ as a “linguistic as well as a cognitive pattern of problem-­solving that manifests itself in a (more or less regulated) sequence of speech acts which form a complex and more or less coherent network of statements” (2016: 35), which (the speaker hopes) will persuade listeners. Topoi (singular ‘topos’) are “parts of argumentation that belong to the required premises” and “connect the argument(s) with the conclusion, the claim” (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016: 35; see the discussion of topoi in earlier work in DHA in Sect. 3.8.5); they are “socially conventionalized and recur habitually”. The reasoning can be convincing (sound) or not reasonable, i.e., not based on sound arguments, in which case the topoi are called ‘fallacies.’ They then list ten rules for ‘rational disputes and constructive arguing’ (e.g., rule 2, “obligation to give reasons—parties that advance a claim may not refuse to defend that claim when requested to do so” (2016: 36); see van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992; van Eemeren, Garssen, & Meuffels, 2009). Those rules enable discussants to differentiate sound topoi from fallacies; and if these rules are violated, then fallacies will occur (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016: 36). With regard to news reporting on climate change, they go through all eight steps in their ‘programme’ illustrating how the process would occur in this specific case. Some of the important, but fallacious, argumentation schemes they find from their analysis include the ‘argument from nature’ (topos or fallacy of nature) which argues that temperatures rise and fall naturally and therefore we shouldn’t worry about climate change, and the ‘argument of ignorance’ (topos or fallacy of ignorance) that “stresses the lack of (scientific) understanding of the issue under discussion” and puts forth

4.5  Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA)

177

the idea that scientists are just trying to scare people (2016: 54). Of note is their section on the application of the results, which contends that the study should not end with scholarly publication of the results. Rather, the insights need to be made available to the “‘general public’ (e.g., via recommendations, newspaper commentaries, training seminars, radio broadcasts and political advising)”, which means that the way it is written will need to be transformed for different audiences, genres, and communicative practices (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016: 56). We believe this is an important element that differentiates DHA from other approaches, not only because it is included as one of the steps of analysis, but also because it explicitly makes researchers understand that they cannot simply take their findings from their scholarly work to the public without involving some recontextualization (including rewording, adopting a different stance, different register, i.e., style of writing, etc.). A highly important element of Wodak’s approach, which differentiates her from many adherents of CDA/CDS and which we want to emphasize here, is the inclusion of the ‘insider’ or ‘emic’ perspective through an ethnographic approach (mentioned briefly above), which she adopted before DHA was formulated and has kept ever since. Out of many examples, we can mention one way of examining how minorities or migrants actually experience racial or ethnic discrimination in today’s societies, by conducting focus groups in which relevant topics regarding the issue at hand are discussed (in Krzyżanowski & Wodak, 2009: 4; see also van Dijk & Wodak, 1988; Sect. 3.6.4). We believe that the incorporation of ethnographic approaches along with the fact that DHA traces the changes in discursive practices over time are what make DHA particularly comprehensive and insightful. For a clear example of how DHA works, see The Politics of Exclusion: Debating Migration in Austria (Krzyżanowski & Wodak, 2009). In addition, The Politics of Fear (Wodak, 2015) is informed by DHA but since it is meant for a larger audience, she doesn’t stress its theoretical underpinnings. The book also includes multimodal analysis from a SocSem frame which draws on the work of Blasch (2012), who develops the analytical categories of Kress (2003), van Leeuwen (1996), and Dyer (1998) to create a framework for “analysing the media constructions of (hyperreal) politicians’ identities and positionings on the World Wide Web” (Wodak, 2015: 136). See also our discussion of ethnography and CDA/CDS in Sect. 6.5, and more discussion of The Politics of Fear (and how pragmatics is utilized in CDA/CDS) in Sect. 6.9.2. DHA is currently thriving through Wodak’s prolific scholarship, forceful presentations, impressive grasp of much work on argumentation and rhetoric, and continual development of her approach, which she sometimes combines with several other fields in or aligned with CDA/CDS (e.g., those discussed in Chap. 6, especially Sects. 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, and 6.9). Wodak continues to have a full schedule of research and writing and is currently involved in multiple projects related to DHA. For example, in 2015–2018 she was PI of a research project on the discursive construction of identity in Austria (2017a, a topic she had already explored earlier—see Sect. 3.8.4—but came back to with new insights); she was also involved in a project about the narratives told by children of Austrian Holocaust survivors (2017c); and she collaborated with her former students about the ‘refugee crisis’ in Europe (Krzyżanowski, Triandafyllidou, & Wodak, 2018). In addition, she is continuing to

178

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

publish on right-wing populism and/or nationalism (e.g., Stoegner & Wodak, 2016; Wodak, 2016, 2017b, 2018a, 2018b, 2018d, 2018e; Wodak & Krzyżanowski, 2017; Rheindorf & Wodak, 2018; Wodak & Forchtner, 2018b); social media (Unger, Wodak, & KhosraviNik, 2016; Wodak, 2018c), and migration issues (Wodak, 2018f). There are many publications by Wodak, some with colleagues and (former) students, and others without her, that utilize DHA in CDA/CDS scholarship, too many in fact for us to cite all of them, since she is very prolific, and so are her co-authors. Hence we will conclude this section by providing some references to DHA scholarship that include Wodak as sole or co-author that were not already cited above (stopping at our date limit of Feb. 2018). These include: de Cillia, Reisigl, and Wodak (1999), Krzyżanowski and Wodak (2009), Clarke, Kwon, and Wodak (2012), Forchtner, Krzyżanowski, and Wodak (2013), Wodak (2013a, 2013b, 2015, 2017a), Wodak and Boukala (2015), Forchtner and Wodak (2018), and Wodak and Forchtner (2018b). Finally, we list (some) publications that illustrate DHA by scholars besides Wodak, such as Graham, Keenan, and Dowd (2004), Machin and Suleiman (2006), KhosraviNik (2010), Krzyżanowski (2010), Von Stuckrad (2013), Boukala (2016), Forchtner and Schneickert (2016), Klymenko (2016), Wu, Huang, and Zheng (2016), Dimitrakopoulou and Boukala (2017), Dorostkar and Preisinger (2017), Krzyżanowski and Ledin (2017), and Sayers, Harding, Barchas-Lichenstein, Coffey, and Rock (2017). Also worth noting is Forchtner (2016), which provides an innovative approach to DHA in CDA/CDS and as well includes narrative theory.

4.6  S  ocial Semiotics (SocSem) and Multimodal Approaches (MCDA) 4.6.1  Introduction As discussed above (in Sects. 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 3.3, and 3.9), social semiotics (SocSem) has a long history and is connected with Halliday’s SFL, CritLing, multimodality, and, especially, van Leeuwen’s more recent work. SocSem is interested in both the way language is used in social contexts and the way we use language “to create society” (Machin & Mayr, 2012: 17) as well as the way society creates language. Note that ‘semiotics’ as it is used here is different from Fairclough’s use of the word, which was meant more in the classical sense, heavily influenced by Saussure’s work without emphasis on the social dimension. Based on our definition above of what SocSem is, we will outline what SocSem approaches to CDA/CDS are interested in doing and how this is accomplished. In addition, we decided to treat SocSem and multimodality8 (see Sects. 2.7 and 3.9) together because, although they

8  The term ‘multimodality’ emerged in the 1990s when it began to be used alongside/interchangeably with social semiotics as a way of emphasizing the way meaning is created in texts “not only by language but also visually” (Ledin & Machin, 2018: 24), although it encompasses much more than that.

4.6  Social Semiotics (SocSem) and Multimodal Approaches (MCDA)

179

are different, they are inherently intertwined from a CDA/CDS point of view in, e.g., MCDA; thus, this section explains the connection between them, as well as their connection to CDA/CDS. A SocSem approach to CDA/CDS focuses on describing the available choices of signs used in communication so that we can go on to understand what it is that people are actually doing with them. Because SocSem can be seen as “a way of accounting for a radically changing society and re-orienting the field to deal with a whole new set of social issues” (Zhao, Djonov, Björkvall, & Boeriis, 2017: 10), it is easy to see why it aligns with the goals and aims of CDA/CDS. And, because communication is so much more than just language, this approach has considered all ways of making meaning, such as gesture, images, language, sounds, etc. (Kress, 2010). In a sense, SocSem has been always been about more than just language, because it is based in semiotics, which classifies language under a larger umbrella category of types of sign-making resources in various modalities (with an emphasis on the verbal and visual). Hence, researchers doing MCDA “see linguistic and visual modes of communication as manifestations of a single underlying semiotic capacity” (Hart, 2015: 238). Influenced by a wide range of sociological and linguistic theories utilizing sources from Malinowski to Bernstein and Bourdieu (Wodak & Meyer, 2009b: 27; see above) and drawing on the work of M.A.K. Halliday (1978, 1985), Foucault’s notion of discourse (1972) and CritLing (Fowler, Hodge, Kress, & Trew, 1979; see Sect. 2.4) as well as Chomskyan linguistics and French semiotics (Barthes, 1973), the SocSem approach takes the view that all communication (not just language) has underlying patterns and conventions which determine why we do and say certain things, as well as why certain things stand for other things. Hence, in the SocSem theory of communication, the aim is to describe and document the “underlying resources available to those who want to communicate meanings” (whether these meanings are expressed verbally, visually, through materials, etc.) and then analyze “the way that these are used in settings to do particular things” (Machin & Mayr, 2012: 18). SocSem approaches are also interested in the ways that signs have been used both in the past and in the analyzed context, as part of their ‘meaning potential’,9 that is, the “range of possibilities that are able to carry the intended ideas, values and attitudes” of the discourse being analyzed (Abousnnouga & Machin, 2013: 22) as well as other discourses, including future ones. More importantly, SocSem is concerned with the interests of the sign-maker, and why he/ she would want the signs to mean and do what they do, as well as what specific means were used to create them (Kress, 2010). For example, Abousnnouga and Machin’s (2013) study of the discourses of war as they are expressed in war monuments shows how materials like marble, granite and bronze suggest ancient times or

9  The idea of ‘meaning potential’ comes from SFL (see discussion of Halliday in Sect. 2.3) which defines it as all of the options that can be used to convey what is meant. For example, a text, which he defines as whatever is said or written, can be seen as ‘actualized’ meaning potential whereas the range of possible things that could be said in a particular situation would be the meaning potential. For Halliday, language itself is a meaning potential.

180

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

the values and attitudes of the ancient warrior—because they are durable and long lasting, and have been used throughout time. Thus they can convey these meanings in a way that plastic or paper materials cannot. Another important concept in this approach (which is based on Halliday, 1978, 1985) is the notion of ‘semiotic resource’, which is central to van Leeuwen’s theory of SocSem (van Leeuwen, 2005, 2008; Djonov & Zhao, 2017: 2; see Sect. 3.9), and “reflects Halliday’s model of language as a social semiotic resource whose meaning-­ making potential is dynamic, and shapes (and is shaped by) the social contexts in which it is employed”. In this sense, semiotic resources do not have fixed meanings but instead they have (as said above, and in Sect. 2.6.2) a semiotic potential that can be applied differently in different contexts (Abousnnouga & Machin, 2013). A good example of this can be seen in Hodge and Kress (1988: 8–12), which explains in detail their theoretical framework for SocSem. In their example (see Sect. 2.5), they show a Marlboro billboard in which the original headline is “New. Mild. And Marlboro” featuring a photograph of a cowboy on a horse (smoking) and a packet of Marlboro cigarettes to the right of the cowboy. However, on the top of the billboard, graffiti artists have crossed out some letters and written over the original, changing the headlines to “New. Vile. And a bore”, with speech bubbles that say “cough cough” and “poo this macho stinks” along with “cancer sticks” and a $ sign on top of the cigarettes, and “r.i.p.” [=rest in peace] on an (obviously) fake tombstone in the background. In a careful analysis, the authors demonstrate the layers of meaning and the ways in which the graffiti writers revealed their interpretation of the signs (Hodge & Kress, 1988: 8–12). They also note that in SocSem one cannot assume that texts produce exactly the meanings and effects that their authors hope for, and it is resistance and struggle as well as the “uncertain outcomes” that must be studied at the level of social action. SocSem approaches should therefore acknowledge the “importance of the flow of discourse in constructing meanings around texts”, paying close attention to its dialogic nature, as in their example. In addition, meaning should always be seen as negotiated, not just imposed on the reader/viewer by the author/s, and the attention of the analyst should be focused on how the social practices in question are represented ideologically.

4.6.2  SocSem Tools One set of tools that helps for this has been provided by van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999) (and more recently, an updated version by van Leeuwen, 2005, 2016; see also Sect. 3.9). These SocSem tools are particularly adapted to MCDA, which we will discuss shortly, and are based on the idea that discourses are ‘recontextualizations’ (i.e., transformations, van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999; see Sects. 3.9.2 and 3.9.3) of social practice. That is, representation of social actors is based on what people do and thus texts (which are the evidence for the existence of discourses) should be interpreted as representations of social practice. In addition, van Leeuwen (2008: 6, 2009, 2016) stresses the difference between social practices themselves

4.6  Social Semiotics (SocSem) and Multimodal Approaches (MCDA)

181

and representations of social practices, noting that in many texts, aspects of representation are more important than the (representation of) the social practice itself. Hence, when a person reads or views information about an event, someone else has prepared it—it is not the actual event that is being presented, but someone else’s version of it (e.g., the journalist’s as well as the editor’s, in the news media). In the same way, in an article with text and some photographs in an online newspaper about, e.g., the #NeverAgain movement (a grass-roots student led movement for gun control in the US), different aspects of it would be shown, depending on what the source is, which images or videos are shown as iconic of the events, and who the creator was. For example, the students might be represented as responding to the horrors of school shootings (e.g., Taylor, 2018) or as being anti-gun (“Parkland high school students,” 2018). Hence, the students could be depicted in a myriad of different ways because when an event is represented: specific choices have to be made (since space is limited), a coherent narrative has to be told, the newspaper may have already taken a stance (e.g., on shootings) or have a political stance (e.g., about gun control), the newspaper needs to pay attention to ratings (in view of the so-called ‘bottom line’, i.e., their financial success/well-being), and many other factors. Most importantly, the interest of the sign-maker (or those in control of the sign-maker) in portraying events or social actions in a particular way is typically given precedent. Like other approaches, scholars with a SocSem lens view ‘discourses’ as the broader ideas communicated by a text (van Dijk, 1991; Fairclough, 2000; Wodak & Meyer, 2016a) and as “models of the world in the sense described by Foucault (1979)” (Abousnnouga & Machin, 2013: 24). In laying out the set of tools for analyzing discourse, van Leeuwen (2016, also 2009) highlights the crucial elements of social practices which are always present (e.g. actions, performance modes, actors, presentations styles, times, spaces, resources, eligibility, see Sect. 3.9). He also discusses important processes that can transform the representation of social actions (i.e., using deletion, substitution and addition in the text) and describes how social actions are actually transformed through using verbs that are actions and reactions and are “cognitive” (e.g., ‘grasp’), “perceptive” (e.g., ‘has a nose for’) or “affective” (e.g. ‘feel’) (van Leeuwen, 2016: 148; cf Halliday, 1985; see Sect. 2.3). In addition, actions can be seen as “material” (e.g. ‘buys’) “semiotic” (e.g. ‘articulate’) or “behavioral” (e.g. ‘communicates’). Actions and reactions can also be seen as “activated” (shown dynamically) or “de-activated” (shown in a static way), represented as brought about by human agency or not, and generalized or represented abstractly (van Leeuwen, 2016: 149–150). Fairclough (1995) had already argued that when these “transformations” occur, it is evidence that there is ideological work at play, and van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999) provided a good example of how this is done in an analysis of official letters from the Austrian government that notify immigrant workers of the rejection of their ‘family reunion’ applications which would have allowed them to bring family members to Austria if they had been accepted. Combining SocSem (with emphasis on the recontextualization of social practice) and the DHA approach to CDA/CDS, van Leeuwen and Wodak were able to link the analyzed discourse to the history of post-war immigration in Austria more generally.

182

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

4.6.3  SocSem and Classification In SocSem approaches that look at non-verbal modes, analysis focuses on social roles (such as ‘agency’) instead of linguistic/grammatical categories such as ‘nouns’ or ‘passive sentence’ and the elements examined are linked through the concept of ‘social actors’ rather than linguistic concepts such as ‘nominal groups’ (see van Leeuwen, 2008: 23–54, which offers an expansive inventory of the ways we can classify people and the ideological effects these classifications can have). These classifications often include ‘personalization’ vs. ‘impersonalization’ (e.g., in the former case, a statement like ‘Professor Smarty required students to attend the conference’ vs. in the latter case, ‘The university required students to attend the conference’). In addition, a distinction is made between ‘individualism’ versus ‘collectivization’ (e.g., ‘Two women, Mary Smith and Lisa Gonzalez, were injured in the riots’ vs. ‘Protesters were injured in the riots’), and ‘specification’ vs. ‘genericization’ (e.g., ‘Yassine’ vs. ‘a Muslim man’). Other classifications include ‘nomination’ or ‘functionalization’ (people referred to in terms of who they are or what they do), use of ‘honorifics’ (e.g., titles that suggest a degree of seniority or respect, such as the use of Sheriff Arpaio to legitimize the arrest of a Latino man and connect it to immigration issues, see Catalano & Waugh, 2013b) and ‘objectivization’ (when objects are represented through a feature such as ‘the beauty’) (Machin & Mayr, 2012: 83). Objectivization can also be dehumanizing, such as when women’s bodies are equated to cars (e.g., in Italian, a woman can be described as having a nice ‘carrozzeria’, meaning ‘body’, but using the technical word for car bodies). In contrast, ‘humanization’ occurs when animals or objects are seen as human beings and given human characteristics. ‘Anonymization’ happens when sources are referred to by terms like ‘Some people…’ and ‘aggregation’ when participants are quantified and treated as statistics, as in ‘Hundreds of immigrants…’). A final category listed is ‘suppression’, which is the exclusion (see also ‘deletion’ above) of social actors or parts of an event in a text (Machin & Mayr, 2012: 85). With regard to personalizing/impersonalizing or representing people as individuals/groups, image can do the same as language in the above examples by showing photos of people all dressed in the same way, e.g., the picture in (van Leeuwen, 2008: 145) of Muslim women wearing veils. Three key factors in representing people in images are distance, angle and gaze (see Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006: 114–153; also Sect. 2.6.3). Just as in many real life situations, in image, distance can signify social relations (van Leeuwen, 2008: 97) and as such, it becomes symbolic (2008: 138). Thus, if people are shown in a close-up shot, this can represent intimacy and the social actors are seen as “one of us”; the opposite is true if the camera distance is a long shot. In the case of angle, vertical angle (whether we see the person from above, at eye level or from below) can relate power distances. Thus, looking down on someone/something is the same as exerting imaginary symbolic power (Bourdieu, 1991) over that person, while looking up at someone/something represents symbolic power over the viewer and authority or respect (e.g. photographs of eagles with upward camera angles symbolizing their majestic nature). The

4.6  Social Semiotics (SocSem) and Multimodal Approaches (MCDA)

183

horizontal camera angle (whether we see a person frontally or from the side—or somewhere in between) can symbolize involvement or detachment, depending on the context, and can lead to objectivization, for example, when people are not looking at us and thus they are objects for our scrutiny (van Leeuwen, 2008: 141). Also important in how we represent social actors visually is what or who is excluded from the image, such as in van Leeuwen’s discussion (2008) of Playmobil toys that have no black, brown or yellow people, or a photo supposedly representing the Roma people, where they are shown begging (see Catalano, 2012). From a SocSem viewpoint, the choices journalists make in how people are represented are based on the way they wish to signpost what kind of person they are representing (Machin & Mayr, 2012: 103). Thus, it is essential to describe carefully the various representational strategies for different participants according to the categories shown above (or variations of them, whether verbal or visual) and to connect this to broader discourses.

4.6.4  SocSem and Multimodality As mentioned earlier, much CDA/CDS work using the SocSem approach has paid attention to non-verbal signs, beginning with early work such as Hodge and Kress (1988) and later Kress and van Leeuwen (1990, 1996, 2001, 2006) and many others, but scholars such as van Leeuwen have felt that the ‘social’ in SocSem should also be focused on more (Andersen, Boeriis, Maagerø, & Tønessen, 2015; Sect. 3.9.4). Keeping this in mind, it is clear that multimodality, as coined and developed by Kress and van Leeuwen (1996, 2001; and later, van Leeuwen, 2005; Kress, 2010), was informed by SocSem and highly influenced by it (see Sect. 3.9.3). This area has now emerged as a field in its own right (Machin, 2016), as Multimodal Discourse Analysis (MDA), and Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA), mentioned above. For example, scholars such as Wodak and Meyer (2016a) have included analysis of visual and multimodal texts as one of the approaches to CDA/CDS in the latest version of their Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (see Jancsary, Höllerer, & Meyer, 2016). As we said earlier, the idea behind multimodality is that: meaning is communicated not just through language but also through other modes such as visuals, gestures, materials, packaging, etc.; often these various modes are used simultaneously; often, other modes are doing things that are different from, or have different effects than, language could have; and they are (often) working together. The term ‘multimodality’ can be used to “designate a theoretical approach as well as a multifaceted scholarly practice” (Maiorani & Christie, 2014). Obviously (as said above), the fact that people have used many modes of communication is not new—people have always used image and other non-verbal forms to communicate; in fact, image, gesture, and other modes have been “a part of human cultures longer than script” (Kress, 2010: 5). And the fact that they are often combined with each other is also not new, since they have been part of face-to-face communication across human history and cultures. What is new (especially in the twenty-first

184

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

c­ entury) is how they’ve become so prevalent through technology, the web, etc. The reason why there has been a “multimodal turn” (Jewitt, 2009) in CDA/CDS research (and in other academic domains) in the last decade is because “the world of communication has changed and is changing still; and the reasons for that lie in a vast web of intertwined social, economic, cultural and technological changes” (Kress, 2010: 5). Globalization is one major factor in this change. Forces of neoliberal ideologies have sponsored and amplified the conditions of globalization that make it possible for the characteristics of one place to be present and active in another (Kress, 2010). According to Kress, the effects of globalization have brought radical instability, which has caused far-reaching changes in semiotic production (e.g., how meaning is made), dissemination of messages and meaning, and mediation and communication—all of which have changed profoundly. The use of recent technologies (e.g., social media) “enables modes to be configured, be circulated, and get recycled in different ways” (Jewitt, 2009: 1) and we must have theories and tools that allow us “to understand and account for the world of communication as it is now” (Kress, 2010: 7; on this see also Machin & van Leeuwen, 2007). The SocSem theory of multimodality (Kress, 2010, see also Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996/2006, 2001) on which MCDA is based views the relation of form and meaning as one of aptness and “best fit” (Kress, 2010: 55). MCDA is interested in the affordances of the various modes (i.e., what the mode facilitates happening or hiding or inhibiting), the way they shape meaning, and the way they work together. To give a mundane example, this author (Theresa’s) IPhone has seven different keyboards that allow her to move between the languages she needs to use when texting. However, if she does not remember to change from one keyboard to the next (when texting someone who speaks a different language), the keyboard stays the same and produces auto-corrected gibberish that she later needs to apologize for. Hence, the mode of IPhone texting affords her different keyboards that can alter her meanings unintentionally and shape all types of mis-communications. It also affords her the use of emojis, which have in turn led to mis-communication since she doesn’t always use glasses for reading and she has been known to send emojis with frowny faces when she meant to send smiley ones. In addition, she has been overcome with the desire (because it takes ‘SO LONG’ as opposed to using a computer) to use texting language such as “u” instead of “you” (to her co-author) and acronyms such as the infamous “LOL”, which has also affected meaning (and which seems to have different meanings for different people or in different contexts: laugh-out-loud, lots-­ of-­luck, lots-of-love; see Heaney, 2013 for other meanings). Another excellent example of how different modes have different affordances was given by Kress (2010: 16) in which he demonstrates how a drawing of a cell with a nucleus includes information about, e.g., size and location, that simply saying “the cell has a nucleus” does not. Besides looking at the way in which various modes shape meaning, MCDA is interested in looking at the way that different modes interact since these ‘intersemiotic relations’ (van Leeuwen, 2005) can be complementary, or in tension, or relate in other ways. As Lemke (2002: 303) observes:

4.6  Social Semiotics (SocSem) and Multimodal Approaches (MCDA)

185

No [written or spoken] text is an image. No text or visual representation means in all and only the same ways that text can mean. It is this essential incommensurability that enables genuine new meanings to be made from the combinations of modalities.

A good example of how visual and written text can be in tension is in Catalano and Waugh (2013b) in which the authors studied the way that CEOs are represented in crime reports. They found that while some of the text descriptions of the CEOs talked about their negative actions, the photographs included with the analysis showed them in high status clothing (e.g., suit and tie) with smiles and friendly faces, as opposed to standard ‘mug shots’ which are common practice for perpetrators of street crime. These mixed messages were crucial to MCDA because they were able to show how images can contribute subliminal messages that change the overall representation of a social actor and result in a less (or more) negative impression of what the person actually did (in this case, less negative in the case of the heinous crimes committed by CEOs that harmed many people). Bearing in mind the Catalano and Waugh (2013b) paper mentioned above and the body of work we have done in this area, we cannot imagine doing CDA/CDS without taking into account multimodality.

4.6.5  Multimodality, SocSem and Other Approaches There are many different approaches to the field of multimodality, but not all of them intersect with the interests of CDA/CDS (Machin, 2013). Hence, while much CDA/CDS work has taken a multimodal turn, the field of multimodality in general has not taken a critical turn. That is, with the exception of MCDA (also often referred to as a social-semiotic approach to multimodality), most approaches to multimodality are not critical, and focus on issues like rendering visible (i.e., evident) those “phenomena that we are unaware of as participants in an interaction” in the highly descriptive Conversation Analysis approach (Jewitt, Bezemer, & O’Halloran, 2016: 102) or “analysing the nature of the intersemiotic relations that are established and identifying the expansions of meaning that take place as semiotic choices are resemiotised”, in the SFL approach (Jewitt, Bezemer, & O’Halloran, 2016: 50, see also Sect. 2.3). Even some work claiming to take a social-semiotic approach to multimodality is not necessarily critical in the sense that it does not aim to reveal ideologies behind the different modes of communication analyzed. According to Machin (2016), the current state of the field of multimodality is fragmented internally and externally, due to a variety of divergent core interests. For example, Jewitt (2011) divides current approaches to multimodal studies into three areas: SocSem multimodal analysis, multimodal DA, and multimodal interactional analysis. Jewitt, Bezemer, and O’Halloran (2016) list the same approaches, but with slightly different terminology (e.g., multimodal DA is called the ‘systemic functional linguistics’ approach), but they also add other approaches: Conversation Analysis, geo-semiotics (or discourses of place), multimodal ethnography,

186

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

­ ultimodal corpus analysis, and multimodal reception analysis (which combines m eye-­tracking methods with a focus on cognitive processes). Machin (2016) categorizes them slightly differently, positing that they range from those influenced by O’Toole’s The Language of Displayed Art (1994) and Halliday’s SFL (1978), which focus on how different modes communicate different meta-functions (O’Halloran, 2008), to those interested in multimodal metaphor and metonymy (Catalano & Waugh, 2013b), to sociolinguists who study interactional analysis (Scollon & Scollon, 2004; Norris, 2004) and focus on the way that language use in settings is part of the interplay of different semiotic resources and complex ‘multimodal ensembles’ (Norris, 2004), to those influenced by Kress and van Leeuwen’s Reading Images (1996, 2006) and Halliday (1978) and who emphasize situated meaning and the affordances of semiotic resources rather than the system itself. We would also argue that some of these approaches overlap with each other. Machin (2016) contends that scholars engaged in MCDA need to look toward other disciplines and take seriously the work done in many other fields (e.g. visual studies and media and cultural studies) that have been analyzing these things for some time. At the same time, he emphasizes that more attention and care needs to be given to the kinds of tools and approaches that best fit the aims of CDA/CDS. In his view (2016: 332), “we must favor an approach which better locates the sign both as motivated and as having form, but also which roots it in ideology and how this shapes the way the world appears to us”. In this sense, he encourages more work that analyzes semiotic resources while paying attention to wider discourses and institutional processes and dynamics of hegemony that shape the choice to use them and “the way that political ideologies are infused into culture more widely” (Machin & van Leeuwen, 2016: 243). In our opinion, this is the key element that multimodality brings to CDA/CDS, because if we just looked at language or each mode separately, we would not get the full ideological picture in the larger discourse. Machin and van Leeuwen (2016: 251) lay out very clearly what an MCDA of political discourse stemming from the ideas proposed above might look like. They demonstrate how it progresses by first focusing on “the signifier” (e.g., visual or audible evidence) and describing it, then focusing on “the signified, or meaning”, by showing the meaning potential and how it is actualized in the particular context under analysis (and whether it comes from experience or cultural provenance). The third stage then focuses on the wider significance of the semiotic resources, which requires analysts to draw on their “knowledge of language and other semiotic modes, a knowledge of culture and history, and a knowledge of sociological theory to help us understand the role of multimodal discourse in social life” (2016: 254). This type of MCDA updates SocSem analysis in a way that is suited to current times and also makes it relevant to important issues of political power, such as neoliberalism and the struggle against it, which, as we noted earlier, Fairclough and many others believe is one of the most important issues that CDA/CDS should be concerned with at the moment. Indeed, in the interest of modeling how scholars make their biases explicit, we would also like to say that we agree wholeheartedly with this assessment and the need for more CDA/CDS work in this domain.

4.7  Dispositive Analysis Approach (DPA)

187

Because of the multimodal turn, there are many recent examples of articles that take a SocSem/multimodal approach to CDA/CDS, and in fact, in the latest issues of Discourse and Society, Critical Discourse Studies, Social Semiotics, Journal of Language and Politics and other important journals in the field, multimodal analyses combined with other approaches appear to be more numerous than purely textual ones. For example, Special Issues in 2016 of both Discourse and Society (Vol 27, issue 3) and Journal of Language and Politics (Vol 15, issue 3) included many articles that involve multimodal CDA/CDS and new conceptualizations in the field because of it. A few good examples of other recent multimodal work (informed by SocSem) that take approaches which align well with CDA/CDS include Moran and Lee (2013), Roderick (2013, 2016, 2018), Ledin and Machin (2015), Oostendorp (2015), Strom (2015, 2016), Catalano and Gatti (2016), Catalano and Waugh (2017), Lirola (2016), McMurtrie and Murphy (2016), Monson, Donaghue, and Gill (2016), Pérez-Latorre, Oliva, and Besalú (2016), Lindsay and Lyons (2017), Way and Akan (2017), Veum and Moland Undrum (2018), Wodak and Forchtner (2018a). In addition, if readers are interested in a guide to MCDA that provides tools for this type of analysis and with a critical lens, Ledin and Machin’s recent book Doing Visual Analysis (2018) is highly recommended, since they emphasize the range of semiotic materials included when we talk about “visual communication” (2018: 3). In the book, they examine the packaging of shampoo bottles, pasta, and baby food, as well as smart phone design, spatial design (such as in classrooms) and data representation (and more), and they provide a guide/tool kit for the analysis of these different types of visual domains. They also introduce a theoretical model based on the idea of how the visual is used to accomplish a variety of different objectives. Moreover, they argue that because discourse and ideology are fused into everything we create and use and which both direct and afford social practices, a critical approach is needed in order to reveal these discourse and ideologies. They posit that tools from SocSem are particularly useful in helping CDA scholars answer research questions about the ways in which the meanings of visual (or other types of) communication reference other “well-trodden themes and established institutionalized uses” (Ledin & Machin, 2018: 191), as well as how ideology and power drive the way we look at the world, and help shape what we think and what we do. We agree with many who have been mentioned in this section that multimodality and visual analysis, etc. in relation to CDA/CDS have many important contributions to make and should be very generative of ideas and publications in the years to come.

4.7  Dispositive Analysis Approach (DPA) Many who practice CDA/CDS (e.g., Wodak) recognize implicitly or explicitly the influence of Michel Foucault’s discourse theory on the field. From the beginning, Fairclough, for example, has invariably cited Foucault (see especially Fairclough, 1992, Chap. 2: “Michel Foucault and the analysis of discourse”: 37–61); but few actually apply Foucault’s work in DA—rather they “put Foucault’s perspective to

188

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

work” (Courtine, 1981: 40; cited by Fairclough, 1992: 38). However, the Dispositive Analysis approach (DPA) is in essence, CDA/CDS based on Michel Foucault’s discourse theory (Jäger & Maier, 2009). At the heart of this theory are the issues of what knowledge is (and discourse, for that matter), how it arises and is passed on to others, what function it has for constituting subjects, and what impact it has on societal shaping and development (Jäger & Maier, 2009: 34). The DPA (as described by Jäger & Maier, 2009) is oriented toward the cultural sciences and of all the approaches reviewed in this chapter, it is the least concerned with the structural/ grammatical/linguistic features of a text (the micro level) and the most focused on the macro level, “large categories, identified with equally large chunks of often undeconstructed text” (Threadgold, 2003: 11). “Discourse analysis and its extension, dispositive analysis, aim to identify the knowledges contained in discourses and dispositives, and how these knowledges are firmly connected to power relations in power/knowledge complexes” (Jäger & Maier, 2009: 34–35). Jürgen Link and his team are the scholars most closely associated with developing this approach (1982, 1983, 1988, 1992, 2008; Link & Link-Heer, 1990). Link, an emeritus professor of modern German literature and discourse theory at the University of Dortmund, is known for his theory of normalism/normativity, which he provided a sophisticated analysis of in (1997/2013). Drawing on Foucault’s concept of ‘dispositifs’ (the total of all social means through which normalities are produced), he theorizes what constitutes the ‘normal’, how it is in a constant state of flux, and what is regarded as normal vs. abnormal (Mihan, Haakenson, & Link, 2004). According to Link, a ‘discourse’ is defined as “an institutional way of talking that regulates and reinforces action and thereby exerts power” (Link, 1983: 60; Jäger & Maier, 2009: 45). ‘Discourse’ in this approach can also be seen as the flow of all societal knowledge stored over time (Jäger, 1993, 1999), which determines individual and collective actions and exercises power, thus shaping society (Jäger & Maier, 2009); and ‘discourse strands’ exist at the level of concrete utterances located on the surface of texts (Foucault, 2002). Both are different from a (single) text since “a discourse with its recurring contents, symbols and strategies, leads to the emergence and solidification of ‘knowledge’ and therefore has sustained effects” (Jäger & Maier, 2009: 38). As to ‘power over discourse’, since discourses are supra-­ individual, they take on a life of their own as they evolve; and thus only groups that have power can effect changes in discourse, for example because they have access to the media or more wealth. DPA serves as an important analytical strategy for some CDA/CDS practitioners, enabling them to examine the multiple and complex dimensions of power manifested in the dynamic relationship of discourses, actions, and objects (Andersen, 2003: 27; Caborn, 2007: 113; Jäger & Maier, 2009: 39–42). Analysts using this approach “look to statements not so much for what they say but what they do; that is, one questions what the constitutive or political effects of saying this instead of that might be?” (Graham, 2011: 667). Moreover, the dispositive contributes to DA/ DS by insisting that analysis should move beyond the exclusive domain of language towards work on non-linguistic elements.

4.7  Dispositive Analysis Approach (DPA)

189

As Foucault explains, the dispositive is a thoroughly heterogeneous ensemble consisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions—in short, ‘the unsaid’ as much as (or even more than) ‘the said’ (Foucault, 1980: 194). The dispositive is essentially the “net which can be woven” between the above-mentioned elements (Foucault, 1978: 119–120) the interplay of discursive practices (e.g., writing, thinking), non-discursive practices (sawing a tree, walking across the street) and manifestations and/or the materializations of these practices (e.g., constructing a building and/or the existence of a school building) and the relationship between all these elements (Jäger & Maier, 2009: 39). It is an eclectic assemblage of language and material objects that attempts to show how forms are linked together as functional elements of an apparatus. This heterogeneity of elements is significant in Foucault’s analysis of discursive and non-­ discursive practices of a dispositive, the various elements of which are viewed not as mutually exclusive but as connected. Thus it is “not so much the individual elements that make […] up [a dispositive but] the particular arrangement and the relations between them” (Bussolini, 2010: 92), which are important because they arise in response to a particular need. When an urgent situation occurs, society responds by organizing text, talk, people, organizations, institutions, and materials together (Jäger and Maier, 2009: 42). When these various elements come together, that is, when they are connected with the purpose of addressing a crisis, the connections constitute the dispositive. While Foucault sees these elements as being somehow connected, he does not explicitly link discursive and non-discursive practices together and is rather vague about the ‘bond’ between them. Turning to Leont’ev’s ‘activity theory’ (1978) in order to extend Foucault’s notion of the dispositive, Jäger and Maier (2009) make an explicit connection among discourses, actions, and objects. In activity theory, meaning is assigned to an object when a need arises, for which human action is employed in order to shape raw materials into purposeful objects used to fulfill that specific need. More precisely, “meaning is assigned to an object through work” (Jäger & Maier, 2009: 43). Leontjev’s activity theory (1978), they point out, is significant because it explains human action as the “bond” that connects “subject and object, society and objective reality” (Jäger & Maier, 2009: 43). In this view, the dispositive is the connection between discursive practices (thinking and talking), non-discursive practices (human action), and materialization (objects produced by human action) together, all of which are based on knowledge that is transmitted through discourse. Discourse is seen as powerful because it transports knowledge, which is the basis of all thinking and talking, acting, and material objects. On the basis of knowledge, we not only ascribe meaning to objects but also conduct our actions around the meanings we ascribe to them. This means that the attribution of meaning always entails physical action. Human action is used to transform raw materials into objects, which retain their meaning insofar as the discourse sustains them. The DPA approach can be seen in microcosm in Foucault’s Discipline and Punish (1979) and History of Sexuality (1978) as well as in Klemperer’s (1995) diaries. However, in these examples, the method is applied implicitly by “analyzing

190

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

the discourses, assembling knowledge, consulting statistics, critically deconstructing them, drawing conclusions from them and so on” (Jäger & Maier, 2009: 61). Thus, there is no explicit “how-to book” on DPA, but according to Jäger and Maier, there are books (and others cited below) that can be used to generate ideas as to how we can analyze discourse, action and the resulting materializations and/or manifestations in the future. They themselves provide “a little toolbox for discourse analysis” (Jäger & Maier, 2009: 52–56) which was updated in the 2016 version (Jäger & Maier, 2016: 127–134) and point the reader to Jäger’s (2004) methodological justification for each of the tools. Prior to this, Graham (2011) had attempted to remedy the lack of a model for Foucauldian DA by developing a DPA methodological plan that includes description, recognition and classification and provides clear examples for each. Scholars interested in DPA might find Graham’s article useful particularly for doing educational research and for tracing “the relationship between words and things: how the words we use to conceptualize and communicate end up producing the very ‘things’ or objects of which we speak” (p. 668). There are a small number of studies (cited below) that use primarily this approach: Link (1992), Jäger (1993, 2004), Jäger (1996), Klemperer (1999–2001; according to Jäger & Maier, 2009: 60, this “can be read as a dispositive analysis”), Popkewitz and Lindblad (2000), Graham (2007), Jäger and Jäger (2007), Graham and Slee (2008), McGrath (2008). But only Rodriguez and Monreal (2017) was published recently (2017, i.e., since Jager & Maier, 2009; Graham, 2011). Thus, from our point of view, there is an unfortunate lack of specific examples using DPA (see the footnote below for more on this10), since its knowledge of and adherence to Foucault’s original ideas mean that it shows promise and deserves more attention in the context of CDA/CDS.

4.8  Corpus Linguistic Approach (CorpLingA) A common critique of CDA/CDS approaches (see Sect. 5.4 for more details) has been that researchers often ‘cherry-pick’ data, i.e., choose only those data that match a preconceived point/argument they want to make (Baker, 2012). The integration of CDA/CDS with corpus studies research has come about in response to this critique and also to related criticism that not only early CDA but also CDS has traditionally lacked quantitative and comparative methods (Machin & Mayr, 2012: 216). Thus the introduction of corpus techniques (largely taken from CorpLing) into

 We would like to note that we deliberated about including DPA as one of our major approaches since we had a very difficult time finding scholarly articles that explicitly used it after 2009, except for Rodriguez and Monreal (2017). We felt that it is very possible that there is more recent work that utilizes it and that we did not find it (perhaps given the fact that, unfortunately, neither of us reads German fluently, the language in which much DPA scholarship is written). We decided to include DPA because, after creating our table of approaches of CDA/CDS scholarship given above, we noted that every major source that discusses CDA/CDS approaches included it and that there seems to be a broad consensus as to its importance by CDA/CDS scholars.

10

4.8 Corpus Linguistic Approach (CorpLingA)

191

CDA/CDS helps to address the problem of the representativeness of the samples of language analyzed and the need to check the hypotheses developed in qualitative analysis so that they are quantifiably verifiable. In addition, it allows analysts to work with a much larger amount of data than when using manual techniques. CorpLingA uses computer support “to analyze authentic, and usually very large, volumes of textual data” (Mautner, 2016: 155). Alongside reference corpora such as the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the Corpus of Historical American English (Davies, 2010), some examples of this type of computer support include concordance software such as Alongside Wordsmith, Ant Conc freeware (Anthony, 2005, July), Concordance, TextStat, AdTat, and tools to create collocational networks that represent relationships visually such as GraphColl (see Baker & McEnery, 2015b). Stubbs (1996) and Baker (2006) each give an excellent introduction to CorpLing and also explore its value for DA. Charteris-Black’s work (2004, 2006), also cited in the next section on cognitive linguistics (since he does critical metaphor analysis), is based on a CorpLingA. In his books, he explains why a CorpLingA should be used in analyzing metaphor because of the importance of having a large and representative sample of language (that includes a wide range of texts). He also describes how CorpLing can be used to measure the frequency of metaphors. Mautner’s chapter in Wodak and Krzyżanowski (2008) deals with the analysis of newspapers, magazines and other print media using CorpLing and contains an excellent discussion of how to combine both qualitative and quantitative methods and methodologies. She illustrates how to put together what some have called a ‘small corpus’, which is often what is used, given the qualitative nature of much CDA/CDS research. Based on Bauer and Aarts (2000: 31–34), she outlines a cyclical (rather than a random) method of sampling (Mautner, 2008: 35) or, alternatively, a top-down approach (2008: 36), leading to a “specialized, topic-oriented and diachronic corpus (see Baker, 2006: 26–29)”. She says that the use of these techniques balances subjective judgment with “rigour and choices exposed to critical scrutiny. The key correctives are transparency and accountability” (Mautner, 2008: 37). She then lays out the components of an analytical toolkit, using traditional aspects of both CDA/CDS and CorpLing. For example, she suggests that the connotative meaning (evaluative load) of words, which CDA/CDS analysts often work with and is widely shared in a speech community (Stubbs, 2001: 35), can easily be checked by taking a word like ‘undesirables’ and getting comparative evidence from a reference corpus, such as the British National Corpus or Wordbanks Online (both of which have many millions of words). With the types of software available to deal with very large corpora, it is relatively fast and easy to find out what the shared connotations are (Mautner, 2008: 45). In this way analysts can put their judgment of evaluation in perspective and make sure they don’t over- or under-interpret (O’Halloran & Coffin, 2004). Mautner also suggests that the typical CorpLing technique of finding the collocations that a word normally occurs in, which gives it a “consistent aura of meaning” or “semantic prosody” (Louw, 1993: 175), can be used in CDA/CDS. For example, for an expression like ‘rampant immigration’, the researcher can use the British

192

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

s­ ections of Wordbanks Online and find that, for ‘rampant’, the aura is consistently negative, given the types of words it typically is used with (e.g., ‘commercialism’, ‘consumerism’, ‘materialism’, ‘corruption’, ‘inflation’ (Mautner, 2008: 45). She further points out that an expression such as ‘ethnic diversity’, which is an example of “nodes around which ideological battles are fought” (Stubbs, 2001: 188; see also Mautner, 2008: 46), and thus are of interest to CDA/CDS, can be either positive or negative, depending on who uses it and in what textual and political contexts. This necessitates going backwards and forwards in the text in order to check “the dynamism of meaning-making as the text proceeds” (O’Halloran & Coffin, 2004: 85), not only other words and expressions used in the text but also images, thereby incorporating MCDA as well. In the same way, Mautner’s (2010) book Language and the Market Society incorporates CDA/CDS and CorpLing to examine the marketization of language in various aspects of society. Mautner’s revised chapter in Wodak and Meyer (2016a) includes an excellent (updated) discussion of the potential contributions of CorpLing to CDA/CDS as well as different perspectives and therefore contributes to methodological triangulation (McEnery & Hardie, 2012: 233); it also helps to reduce researcher bias, which has consistently been a strong issue in CDA/ CDS. And finally, the combination of quantitative and qualitative perspectives on textual data allows for the detailed examination of “collocational environments” (a.k.a. co-textual contexts) as well as the ability to see patterns in the discourse (Mautner, 2016: 156). Mautner (2016: 174–176) also provides a detailed discussion of epistemological issues and warnings regarding this approach. In particular, she notes that evidence may be laid out by corpus software, but it “never speaks for itself” (2016: 174). Hence, human analysts (not computer software) must be the ones to make the connections. Furthermore, she points to the importance of working out an item’s social significance, being careful not to draw over-encompassing conclusions, remembering that corpora are not the only tools for observing language use, and remaining flexible and transdisciplinary. She also argues that analysts must recognize that corpus evidence is not superior to manual or qualitative procedures, but complementary, and that statements about the presence, absence or frequency of an item in one data set only make sense in comparison with others. Additionally, we need to clarify whether our software tools provide quantitative or qualitative data and avoid making “pseudo-quantitative statements” such as ‘some’, ‘most’, ‘the majority’, etc. when actual quantification did not occur, because in quantitative data, “you either count or you don’t: there is no legitimate half-way house” (Mautner, 2016: 176). Finally, she reminds analysts that corpus linguistic techniques cannot make up for flawed designs or samples. Paul Baker has also published a large body of work in this area, which includes his edited volume (2009) Contemporary Corpus Linguistics in which Mautner (2009) wrote a chapter on the combination of CDA/CDS and CorpLing. Baker (2012) responds to criticism of CDA/CDS and how the use of CorpLing can provide answers to some of the critiques:

4.8  Corpus Linguistic Approach (CorpLingA)

193

This is why I would argue that any analytical tools and methods that are rigorous and grounded in scientific principles such as representativeness, falsification, data-driven approaches, using statistical approaches to test hypotheses and a desire to provide a full picture of representation (not just the negative cases) can only serve to help to improve CDA’s standing, ultimately making its findings more influential (2012: 255).

Taking the reader step by step through his analysis of the representation of Islam and Muslims in the British press, Baker (2012) shows how corpus-driven procedures determined that Muslims tended to be linked to the concept of extreme belief much more than moderate or strong belief. However, he then methodically presents the problems and different choices he had to make as an analyst in interpreting this data. This leads him to conclude that no matter how much quantitative analysis and use of statistics we apply, they are still subject to human bias. Hence (not unlike Mautner’s warnings), he posits that we should be careful not to overstate the ability of CorpLing to reduce researcher bias. He suggests increased researcher reflexivity as one way to address this problem (see Chap. 5). In their edited volume entitled Corpora and discourse studies: Integrating discourse and corpora (2015a), Baker and McEnery bring together studies that utilize CorpLing in DA/DS (including different text-types and different types of DA/DS, not just CDA/CDS). In their own chapter, the authors examine discourse on Twitter regarding people who receive government support (referred to as ‘benefits’) in the UK between the years 2008–2009 and 2011–2012. Using CorpLing, they found that the discourse around benefits in 2012 was less sympathetic and told more negative stories both at the individual level and on the level of the wider society, representing the previous government as soft, open to abuse, and in need of reform. More recently, Subtirelu and Baker (2018) provide a detailed look at the development of CorpLing in CDA after it first started in the 1990s. Tracing the first actual linkage of CDA to corpus approaches to Hardt-Mautner (1995), the authors highlight the method as a response to the ‘cherry-picking’ critique of CDA (as said above) but also discuss popular methodologies in corpus approaches and how they have been developed through the years. Another valuable part of the chapter is a clear example from the authors of a corpus approach to CDA that centers around US negotiations of the ‘fiscal cliff’ (a term referring to the undesirable effects expected to incur as a result of budget decisions scheduled either to take effect or to expire11) and its coverage in two different news sources. In their analysis, the authors take readers through six steps: (1) Research topic and questions; (2) Background research; (3) Corpus collection; (4) corpus-driven analysis-keywords extraction; (5) Qualitative analysis; and (6) Corpus-based analysis-collocation analysis (in which they sought evidence for generalizations through corpus data) (2018: 110–117). In doing so, they are able to illustrate how techniques from corpus linguistics such as keyword or collocation analysis are particularly helpful in supporting generalisations about discourse, both in the form of how words or phrases might be used generally as well as how characteristic of a set of texts a particular usage of a word or phrase is (Subtirelu & Baker, 2018: 118). 11

 See Catalano and Waugh (2013a) for a critical metonymy analysis of fiscal cliff.

194

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

In addition, they show how technology in corpus approaches can assist in making more credible interpretations about salient patterns in large amounts of data that might have been overlooked otherwise. We recommend this chapter to anyone interested in the development of the field, learning about new technologies in corpus approaches such as GraphColl (which can create instant collocational networks to give a visual representation of relationships, including those between concepts), and how CorpLing can be integrated into CDA. For those readers interested in the digital humanities (i.e., applying computational tools and methods to disciplines such as literature, history, and philosophy), Kieran O’Halloran’s (2017) book on corpora and digitally-driven critical analysis lays out a clear methodology for using a corpus approach to CDA in the context of digital humanities. The book goes into detail on how to use corpus tools as a way of examining arguments in the public sphere, and provides convincing arguments as to why corpus tools are useful in CDA/CDS. Some other examples of corpus approaches include Kim’s (2014) study that investigates the way in which North Korea is constructed in the US media by analyzing collocational patterns, and Partington (2014), who looks at the role of a corpus approach in evaluating why certain terms are absent from corpora. Rheindorf (2018) provides a useful model for integrating quantitative and qualitative analysis in CDA/CDS scholarship; he is continuing to publish much more in this area, particularly on how to use a DHA perspective while combining corpus and qualitative methods. Additionally, see Bednarek and Caple (2014), Brindle (2016), Jeffries and Walker (2017), O’Halloran (2012), Pérez-Paredes, Jiménez, and Hernández (2017), Potts (2013), Potts, Bednarek, and Caple (2015), and Wilson and Krizsán (2017). Although above we have stated the way in which corpus approaches have addressed shortcomings in CDA/CDS scholarship, we would like to stress that because of the ever-present need to take context into consideration, we believe it is important for CDA/CDS scholars doing corpus approaches to always return to context, which sometimes means having a small corpus and/or going through the data manually and taking the time to look at it in terms of how linguistic elements have different meanings in different contexts.

4.9  Cognitive Linguistic Approaches (CogLingA) 4.9.1  Introduction Increasingly, cognitive linguistics12 (CogLing) has influenced and been influenced by the field of CDA/CDS in multiple and varying ways, many of which are discussed in Hart and Lukeš (2007a, 2007b), as well as more recent work such as Hart  For some, capitalized “Cognitive Linguistics” refers to the work of Lakoff, Langacker, Fillmore, Fauconnier, and others mentioned in this section whereas ‘cognitive linguistics’ not capitalized refers to the study of linguistics which is cognitive in orientation (Hart & Lukeš, 2007b: x). In addition, we use the acronym CogLing in order not to confuse it with critical linguistics or other areas, while other scholars often use CL.

12

4.9  Cognitive Linguistic Approaches (CogLingA)

195

(2011a, 2011b) and Hart and Cap (2014a). A number of approaches to CDA/CDS incorporate a CogLing lens and theories and they address the analysis of discourse differently. Oswald (2014: 98) refers to this as the “cognitive turn” and like other scholars in this area, he finds a natural and complementary nexus between the two perspectives. Fauconnier and Turner (2002) define CogLing as a scholarly perspective on the study of language, conceptual systems, human cognition and meaning construction (see also Hart, 2010: 24). It is concerned with how we make meaning of our world and how we define our everyday realities (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 3; Fauconnier & Turner, 2002). Cognitive linguists believe that communication involves conceptual processes, and that language is based on the same system that we use in thought and action. Thus, linguistic structure provides us indirect access to those processes and that system is in this sense a “window to the mind” (Fauconnier, 1999: 96; Hart, 2010: 72). According to Hart (adapted from 2018a: 78), the principle aims of CogLing are: (i) to model the conceptual structures invoked by language; (ii) to disclose the ideological qualities and legitimating potentials which conceptual structures, may carry. CogLing approaches focus on “interpretation-stage analysis” (Fairclough, 1995: 59), which is concerned with how readers/viewers construct meaning (Hart, 2018a: 78). No other mainstream approaches besides CogLing commonly use cognitive theories of language (Hart, 2010), although other approaches, such as van Dijk (van Dijk, 1985, 1988, 1993a, 1993b, 1995a; see Sect. 4.4) attend to cognition (from a social psychological approach, as social cognition). Some CDA/CDS scholars (such as Wodak) have noted that in the past, CogLingA have been largely excluded from CDS for unjustifiable reasons (Wodak, 2006), and Chilton (2005a, 2005b), a cognitive linguist, has argued that CogLing theories have been underused in CDA/CDS and have not received enough attention in the literature. Recently, scholars have begun to counter the critique (Widdowson, 2004) that CDA/CDS lacks a systematic linguistic analysis, or, as noted earlier, that SFL is inadequate for its needs (van Dijk, 2008a), and there has been an increasing focus on the possibilities that a CDA/ CDS and CogLing combination allows in analysis. Adding to this, Jeffries (2010: 128) notes that the use of CogLing theories could help us to understand the mechanisms by which ideological influence operates (a point also made by van Dijk). Scholars such as Chilton (2005a), Hart (2010, 2011a, 2018a, 2018b), Hart and Cap (2014b), Koller (2005), Musolff (2012, 2014), and Wodak (2006) have been some of the most outspoken advocates for this combination, especially CDA/CDS and metaphor analysis, although Hart and Cap (2014a, 2014b) and Hart (2018a, 2018b) (to be discussed below) reveal many more areas where CogLing and its theories are compatible with CDA/CDS13.

 Not all work on metaphor is directly or only inspired by cognitive linguistics, but it is the most important influence.

13

196

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

While Paul Chilton is often cited as one of the founders of CDA/CDS, he has never explicitly applied the term CDA or CDS to his own work on the discourse of politics and international relations (cf. Chilton, 1994a, 1996b, 2004, 2005a, 2005b; Chilton & Lakoff, 1995). He has participated in work with CDA/CDS scholars like Wodak, albeit typically as a critic of CDA (Chilton & Wodak, 2007; Wodak & Chilton, 2007). Chilton has more recently (like Hart, 2010) drawn on cognitive evolutionary psychology to ask whether there might exist an innate ‘critical instinct’ and if so, what the role of CDA/CDS is (Chilton, 2005a), a position that has been challenged by other CDA/CDS researchers (Fairclough, 2009; van Dijk, 2006/2011; Wodak, 2007). Chilton’s argument is that the most fundamental issue is whether societies provide the freedom to enable the ‘critical instinct’ to operate (Wodak & Meyer, 2009a: 14). His CDA-type work (i.e., Chilton, 2007) could be described as “comparative discourse analysis that crosses linguistic, cultural and political boundaries” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009a: 14) and is largely concerned with universal aspects of language and the human mind, integrating CogLing into CDA/CDS and attempting to address his own critiques about CDA/CDS work. Chilton’s most recent work, with the exception of a 2016 Chinese translation of Wodak and Chilton (2007), focuses more on concepts in CogLing, and less on CDA/ CDS. For example, his book, Language, Space and Mind: The Conceptual Geometry of Linguistic Meaning (2014) examines the geometric elements used to describe concrete spatial expressions and cognitions. The book lays out in detail ‘Deictic Space Theory’ (developed from Chilton’s earlier model of 2004, ‘Discourse Space Theory’) which is rooted in embodied geometry and has underpinnings related to neuroscience. The theory proposes a three-dimensional conceptual space that integrates different types of distance (i.e., attentional distance, temporal distance and epistemic distance) that allow for the unification of numerous linguistic-conceptual phenomena such as tense, aspect and modality. Nothing in the book’s description mentions CDA/CDS or an application of this work to CDA/CDS.

4.9.2  Critical Metaphor and Metonymy Analysis There has been an increasing trend of integrating critical metaphor research into CDA (and often incorporating corpus approaches as well) which has been highly successful and numerous publications have occurred since Charteris-Black first introduced the term ‘critical metaphor analysis’ in 2004 (he also argued for ‘corpus approaches’ to critical metaphor analysis as noted in 4.8 and combined them both in his work). In the case of Charteris-Black, while he recognizes the value of the ­cognitive approach to metaphor because it explains the “correspondence between otherwise irreconcilable domains by accessing the semantics of metaphor” (2004: 17), he feels that it doesn’t account for individual speaker meaning. For that, he says that a pragmatic view of metaphor is needed, since speakers use metaphor with the goal of ‘persuasion’ (and thus he aligns his work on metaphor with rhetoric) and

4.9  Cognitive Linguistic Approaches (CogLingA)

197

this means that metaphor choice is motivated by ideology (2004: 247)14. He argues that ‘cognitive semantics’ can explain how metaphors are understood, but a pragmatic perspective can explain why a particular metaphor is chosen and what purpose it serves in a given discourse context (we will discuss pragmatics in Sect. 6.9). In the end, he argues for a combination of a cognitive and a pragmatic approach to metaphor (and cites also Forceville, 1996: 35, who shares this point of view), and also, ultimately, a view of metaphor based on “the interrelatedness of linguistic, cognitive, pragmatic, cultural, ideological and historical factors” (Charteris-Black, 2004: 251; see also 2006), in which he uses cognitive semantics. He carried this theme further in a series of books: (Charteris-Black, 2005/2011, revised and updated 2nd edition) focuses on rhetoric (and rhetorical schemes and strategies), the persuasive power of metaphors (and the myths they create), and ideology and political discourse, a detailed analysis of the speeches of several different British and American politicians; he develops this further in discussing the ‘design’ of leadership style (2007); he looks at metaphor and gender in British Parliamentary debates (2009); he encompasses various approaches to rhetoric, critical approaches to discourse (with special focus on Wodak’s DHA), critical metaphor analysis (with attention to social cognition as in van Dijk’s work) (2014)—and discusses various ‘case studies’ (e.g., speeches of British and American politicians); he wrote on ‘fire metaphors’ (and metonyms)—the discourse of ‘awe and authority’, language (lexical semantics, corpora and collocates), conceptual metaphor theory and thought—and more specifically it discusses a variety of religious and political discourses, including in visual media (British political cartoons) (2017). He also co-authored a book on gender and the language of illness (Charteris-Black & Seale, 2010) which combines his approach with a sociological one. Some examples of other publications featuring CogLing (and spanning disciplines) include Chilton (1994a, 1994b, 1996a, 1996b), Chilton and Lakoff (1995), Santa Ana (1999, 2002, 2013), El Refaie (2001), Koller (2004, 2005), Musolff (2004, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2016), Goatly (2007), Maalej (2007), and Nordensvard (2013). In addition, in the Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language (2017) edited by Semino and Demjén, Musolff (2017b) has a chapter on metaphor and persuasion in politics incorporating CogLing, and Hidalgo-Downing and Kraljevic-­ Mujic (2017) address persuasion in commercial advertising, both of which specifically mention CDA/CDS (but neither of them say specifically that they use CogLing).

 At this point, we would like to note that what is often called metaphor in some of the scholarly work we cite in this section is in some cases actually metonymy, or at least it includes metonymy on some level. We believe it is important to separate out the two when possible, and recognize which one is being used in a given text, partly because this difference helps us to deal with the relation between text and image. We also believe, along with Portero-Muñoz (2011), Littlemore (2015), and others that metonymy is the larger and more ubiquitous process, and hence more attention needs to be paid to metonymy and its role in motivating metaphors that shape or are shaped by the way we think.

14

198

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

Another important scholar who has established himself as a leader in this area is Andreas Musolff (also cited above) who, focusing mainly on metaphor analysis15 (2012: 303), underscores its importance in unmasking racist ideology in discourse, pointing out “the argumentative advantage that metaphor gives its users when they want to dis-qualify political developments, social groups or even individuals as threatening the identity or continued existence of a nation state” and thus metaphor’s relevance to CDA/CDS. Moreover, he demonstrates the usefulness of critical metaphor theories as a fundamental means of concept and argument-building, incorporating a modified cognitive approach informed by Relevance Theory (which provides a framework for explaining influence through the analysis of information-­ processing mechanisms, see Oswald, 2014) within CDA/CDS (Musolff, 2012: 303). Musolff also shows how critical metaphor analysis can align nicely with DHA. In Musolff (2014) he compares the metaphors used during particular political periods in order to help readers understand their danger when seen through a historical lens, such as the current re-surfacing of particular metaphors commonly used during Nazi times. Additionally, in his book Political Metaphor Analysis (2016), he integrates critical metaphor analysis with DHA and CorpLingA and demonstrates how using corpuses (corpora) at different points in time can reveal the origins of “metaphor scenarios16” that draw on past historical contexts and utilize them in current contexts. One point of focus is the metaphor JEWS ARE PARASITES. Reviewing documents such as Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1933) (and going back much further in time) Musolff traces the origins of this metaphor and then follows it into modern times as it is used to stigmatize individuals. Another important revelation in Musolff’s book is arrived at by using experiments in which students write their interpretations of the metaphor NATIONS AS PERSONS17.  Through initial data collection in which students from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds gave their interpretation of the way in which ‘nation’ can be described in terms of the human body (Musolff, 2016: 120), he found (2016: 129) that (as opposed to Lakoff & Johnson’s, 1980 claims) “metaphor understanding and interpretation is at least as variable as metaphor use and production”. Musolff then concludes, somewhat controversially, that because his findings show that hearers/readers vary greatly in their metaphor interpretations and creatively de- and reconstruct metaphors to fit new scenario versions, the idea of a naïve hearer/reader who understands and ­automatically accepts the ideological bias of political metaphors is no longer viable. Thus, we cannot absolve readers/hearers of dangerous metaphors “of their respon-

 We need to underscore that not everyone who does metaphor (or metonymy) analysis is necessarily a cognitive linguist. 16  According to Musolff (2016: 30), “metaphor scenarios” are “discourse-based culturally and historically mediated” versions of a source domain which include “specific narrative and evaluative perspectives” and they consist of a set of assumptions made about the prototypical elements of a story or event and participants’ ethical evaluations of these elements which are related to the attitudes and emotional stances present in the respective discourse community. 17  Musolff has recently published more on this metaphor resulting from years of gathering data from students around the world so we encourage readers to seek out this newest work as well. 15

4.9  Cognitive Linguistic Approaches (CogLingA)

199

sibility for letting themselves be manipulated” (2016: 131). For example, when people hear others call social groups ‘parasites’, we cannot let the notion of a naïve hearer/reader who is manipulated by metaphor “become a convenient excuse” for inaction and refusal to denounce racist discourse (Musolff, 2016: 131). Musolff does caution, though, that these conclusions are based on limited research, and much more needs to be done in order to truly gain evidence for this claim. More recently, Musolff has begun to focus on hate speech (e.g., Musolff, 2017a, 2018). His forthcoming article (pre-publication draft) in Pragmatics & Society illustrates the strategic use of figurative language in self-legitimizing discourse which enables hate speakers to convey their message while denying that it is discriminatory or racist. This then makes it difficult to prosecute them for hate speech. Musolff argues for the presentation of sophisticated counter-narratives that undermine the implicit speech utilized by hate speakers so as to beat them at their own game (Musolff, 2018 draft; 2019). Finally, Musolff has also moved into MCDA, with a multimodal critical metonymy/metaphor analysis of online news sources that report on unaccompanied youths from Central America and Border Patrol/immigration officials in the US (Catalano & Musolff, 2018 draft; 2019). Findings from this study reveal verbal and visual metonymies that dehumanize and criminalize child migrants while Border Patrol/immigration enforcement discourse creates WAR/WILD WEST metaphors that justify the militarization of the border. The article also shows how revealing underlying conceptualizations of migrants by immigration and border control agencies helps readers understand the social imaginary which allows the government to garner public support for unjust policies and treatment of migrants (with particular focus on the Trump administration). It is also worth noting that metaphorical discourse can be found in visual (and other) data, and MCDA of metaphorical discourse has been also conducted by scholars such as El Rafaie (2003), Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (2009), Bounegru and Forceville (2011), Forceville (2014a, 2014b), and Tseronis and Forceville (2017). As can be seen, Charles Forceville (who works on gesture, among other domains) has been a leader in this area, and his work (especially with Urios-Aparisi, 2009) is frequently cited in studies that examine multimodal metaphor, regardless of whether or not it is also combined with CDA/CDS. Critical metonymy analysis has recently taken an equal place with metaphor in the integration of CogLing into CDA and several publications that feature analysis of metonymy (uniquely or in addition to metaphor) have emerged in the last few years, including MCDA of metonymy (Meadows, 2007; Portero-Muñoz, 2011; Riad & Vaara, 2011; Velázquez, 2013; Catalano & Moeller, 2013; Catalano & Waugh, 2013a, 2013b, 2017). These types of analyses (like those concerned with metaphor) expose the use of metonymy as a tool of persuasion and manipulation and add more depth, resulting in a more detailed and systematic analysis.

200

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

4.9.3  Hart’s Approaches to CogLing Although much work has been done in CogLing with critical metaphor/metonymy analysis, Hart (2010, 2011a; Hart & Lukeš, 2007a, 2007b) believes that CogLing (2016: 336) has much more to offer CDA analysts. One major contribution that he has discussed (Hart, 2011a) that has not been fully utilized is the new perspective it can offer on objects of analysis such as the use of a passive sentence without the agent, which could be analyzed/interpreted through cognitive linguistic notions such as profiling/backgrounding (Croft & Cruse, 2004) and metonymy (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001). In addition, Hart believes that Talmy’s theory of Force-Dynamics (Talmy, 1988, 2000), which refers to how entities react with respect to force, is useful in understanding and explaining our “conceptualisations of physical interactions but also, by metaphorical extension, social, psychological, political, legal and linguistic interactions”, particularly in discourse related to immigration (Hart, 2011b: 273). Besides force-dynamics, Hart also encourages the use of other CogLing concepts, such as mental spaces (Fauconnier, 1994, 1997), conceptual blending (Fauconnier & Turner, 1996, 2002) and cognitive grammar (Langacker, 1987, 1991, 2002, 2008) (as cited in Hart, 2010: 25). In their book, Hart and Cap (2014a) first categorized CogLing approaches into four distinct groups: ‘critical metaphor analysis’ (e.g., unmasking ideology in discourse), ‘critical cognitive pragmatic approach’ (e.g., how language users try to influence their addressees or audience), ‘legitimization-proximization model’ (e.g., concerned with how speakers help legitimize their actions by showing that an external threat is encroaching on the addressee), and ‘cognitive linguistic approach’ (described above, including visual grammar). However, in (2018a, 2018b), Hart simplifies this classification and refers to all the different approaches as CogLing. Since the publication of his 2010 book, Hart has produced a large body of work that continues to expand the applications of CogLing to the CDA/CDS realm (see Hart, 2011a, 2011b, 2014, 2015 2016, 2018a, 2018b). As we mentioned earlier, Hart (2011a) discusses how CogLing can inform CDA in so many ways other than just metaphor analysis, mainly due to the way it can explicitly address conceptualization, which CDA had taken for granted. Hart develops these concepts even further in (Hart and Cap 2014a, 2014b), adapting the vocabulary of film studies as a metaphor for the way the brain performs these construal operations. In their introductory article to a Special Issue of Discourse & Society dedicated to “moving beyond foundations” Krzyżanowski and Forchtner (2016: 259) view Hart’s work on CogLing (along with others) as “indispensable input in the debate which concerns the need for empirical analysis that is oriented toward language-in-­ use”, and also as “theoretically well-informed and conceptually rich”. They also point out that “Hart presents an argument from cognitive linguistics which suggests that understanding language involves the construction of multimodal mental representations, the properties of which can be approached within frameworks of multimodal social semiotics and the wider multimodal CDS” (2016: 259). In Hart’s view, we should use CogLing to “illuminate the nuances of meanings communicated via

4.9  Cognitive Linguistic Approaches (CogLingA)

201

language” (Hart, 2016: 345). Furthermore, he calls for a change in direction of influence from linguistic forms of DA influencing non-linguistic forms to the other way around (or at least a bi-directional influence). Here, he further develops the concept of ‘point of view’, including visual examples from The Guardian and The Telegraph in the UK and how each newspaper presented the same event of a political protest in different ways depending on the perspective that was featured. What is innovative about this work is the way in which Hart shows how visual grammar (such as whether a person appears on the left or right of the visual frame) can be analyzed from the perspective of the viewer, and how this can work together with verbal discourse from the perspective of ‘point of view’, in particular, anchor, angle and distance (Hart, 2015; drawing on ideas in Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996, 2006 and others). Hart demonstrates how in conceptualizing visual images, viewers tend to sympathize more with those positioned on the right. This is based on the idea (Casasanto, 2009) that people tend to associate rightward space with positive ideas, and leftward space with negative ones (and left for old information and right for new information, Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996). The reason for this is that most people are right-hand dominant, which means they can manipulate objects that are located to the right of the body better,18 which helps in the analysis of how pictures act as co-text. What is noteworthy in this perspective is the way in which literal language uses as well as non-literal/figurative ones (e.g., metaphor) can actually be felt or visually imagined by those experiencing them verbally. For an example of this, Hart cites research that describes how when a reader comes across the metaphor IMMIGRATION IS A FLOOD, it can result in feelings of drowning because it involves a “simulation of events which are technically impossible but are imagined as if they were real” (Hart, 2016: 347). According to him, the most important thing to take away from multimodal studies that incorporate CogLing such as his own is the way in which they “illuminate some of the subtle ways in which language contributes to the social construction of knowledge and values” (Hart, 2016: 346), which is particularly important given the increasingly visual practices of news communication. Hart’s work on CogLing has continued to progress. In 2018, he published two chapters in two different handbooks which demonstrate his evolving ideas in CogLing (Hart, 2018a, 2018b). In both chapters, instead of dividing up the sub-­ categories into four types, as above, he simplifies them in three over-arching categories: ‘image schema analysis’ (e.g., a fundamental way of helping us understand the way the world works), ‘metaphor analysis’ (see Sect. 4.9.2, but it also includes

 This line of reasoning makes the first author wonder if she construes events the opposite way, since she is left-handed. Hence, there are still issues to be considered about left-handers, since they may be a ‘minority’ but they shouldn’t be treated as not of interest (which wouldn’t be a very CDA/ CDS way of treating the topic). Also, the second author, who is decidedly right-handed and much more verbal than visual, has trouble working with left=old/negative and right=new/positive, including when using a large monitor that can accommodate old and new versions of a text (as in the case of writing this book)!

18

202

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

multimodality), and ‘discourse world analysis’ (e.g., how meaning is construed in discourse beyond the sentence). However, this area of CogLing is clearly in flux at the time (Feb. 2018) of this writing, and is sure to change and develop more in the future (we note that Hart has announced a new book). We hope to see more development in multimodal work in this area, particularly in terms of using multimodal cognitive types of analysis as tools of resistance. We believe that because of the way that image/video can reach viewers on an emotional level, it is particularly powerful when combined with written text and other modes; hence, it is essential that scholars in this area use CDA/CDS tools to uncover the ideologies hidden in these types of texts. Having finished our discussion of the major approaches to CDA/CDS, in the next chapter we will examine the large body of research that has critiqued CDA/CDS and ways in which more recent work in CDA/CDS attempts to address these concerns. In doing so, we will illustrate the ability of CDA/CDS scholars to be reflexive and thoughtful about their work.

References Abousnnouga, G., & Machin, D. (2013). The language of war monuments. London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. 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. Andersen, A. A. (2003). Discursive analytical tools: Understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann. UK: Policy Press. Andersen, T. H., Boeriis, M., Maagerø, E., & Tønessen, E. S. (2015). Social semiotics: Key figures, new directions. London/New York: Routledge. Angermuller, J., Maingueneau, D., & Wodak, R. (2014). The discourse studies reader. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Anthony, L. (2005, July). AntConc: Design and development of a freeware corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom. In IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005 (pp. 729–737). New York: IEEE. Baker, P. (2006). Corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum. Baker, P. (Ed.). (2009). Contemporary corpus linguistics. London: Continuum. Baker, P. (2012). Acceptable bias? Using corpus linguistic methods with critical discourse anlaysis. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(3), 247–256. Baker, P., & McEnery, T. (2015a). Corpora and discourse studies: Integrating discourse and corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Baker, P., & McEnery, T. (2015b). Who benefits when discourse get democratized? Analysing a Twitter corpus around the ritish benefits stree debate. In P.  Baker & T.  McEnergy (Eds.), Corpora and discourse studies: Integrating discourse and corpora (pp. 244–265). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Barthes, R. (1973). Mythologies (Tr. A. Lavers). St. Albans: Paladin. [French original: 1957]. Bartlett, T. (2018). Positive discourse analysis. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 133–148). London/New York: Routledge. Bauer, M., & Aarts, B. (2000). Corpus construction: A principle for qualitative data collection. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 19–37). London: Sage.

References

203

Bednarek, M., & Caple, H. (2014). Why do news values matter? Towards a new methodological framework for analysing news discourse in Critical Discourse Analysis and beyond. Discourse & Society, 25(2), 135–158. Blasch, L. (2012). Die Politikerin ais (hyper)mediales Identitatkonstrukt. Unpublished MA dissertation, Dept. of Linguistics, Vienna University. Boukala, S. (2016). Rethinking topos in the discourse historical approach: Endoxon seeking and argumentation in Greek media discourses on ‘Islamist terrorism’. Discourse Studies, 18(3), 249–268. Bounegru, L., & Forceville, C. (2011). Metaphors in editorial cartoons representing the global financial crisis. Visual Communication, 10(2), 209–229. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Brindle, A. (2016). A corpus analysis of discursive constructions of the Sunflower Student Movement in the English-language Taiwanese press. Discourse & Society, 27(1), 3–19. 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. Retrieved from http://cadaad.net/journal Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 138(3), 351–367. 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., & Gatti, L. (2016). Representing teachers as criminals in the news: A multimodal critical discourse analysis of the Atlanta schools’ “Cheating Scandal”. Social Semiotics. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1145386 Catalano, T., & Moeller, A. (2013). Media discourse and dual language programs: A critical linguistic analysis. Discourse, Context & Media, 2(4), 165–174. Catalano, T., & Musolff, A. (2019). ‘Taking the Shackles off’: Metaphor and metonymy of migrant children and border officials in the U.S. Metaphorik de, 29, 11–46. Catalano, T., & Waugh, L. R. (2013a). The language of money: How verbal and visual metonymy shapes public opinion about financial events. International Journal of Language Studies, 7(2). Catalano, T., & Waugh, L. (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. Catalano, T., & Waugh, L. (2017). Representations of power: A critical multimodal analysis of U.S. CEOs, the Italian Mafia and government in the media. Journal of Language and Politics., 15(6), 790–817. Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Charteris-Black, J. (2005/2011). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. London: 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. (2007). The communication of leadership the design of leadership style. London: Routledge. Charteris-Black, J. (2009). Metaphor and gender in British parliamentary debates. In K. Ahrens (Ed.), Politics, gender and conceptual metaphors (pp. 139–165). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Charteris-Black, J. (2014). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Charteris-Black, J. (2017). Fire metaphors: Discourses of awe and authority. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Charteris-Black, J., & Seale, C. (2010). Gender and the language of illness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Chilton, P. (1994a). La plaie qu’il convient de fermer: Les métaphores du discours raciste. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(6), 583–619.

204

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

Chilton, P. (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/New York: Routledge. Chilton, P. (2005a). Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In R. Wodak & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinary (pp. 19–51). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Chilton, P. (2005b). Manipulation, memes and metaphors: The case of Mein Kampf. In L. de Saussure & P. Schulz (Eds.), Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century: Discourse, language, mind (pp. 15–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chilton, P. (2007). Is it possible to compare political rhetoric across cultures? In 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 R. de Cillia, H.  Gruber, M.  Krzyżanowski, & F.  Menz (Eds.), Discourse-politics-identity (pp. 33–43). Vienna: Stauffenburg Verlag. Chilton, P. (2014). Language, space and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chilton, P., & Lakoff, G. (1995). Foreign policy by metaphor. In C. Schäffner & A. I. Wenden (Eds.), Language and peace (pp. 37–60). Aldershot: Ashgate. Chilton, P., & Wodak, R. (2007). A new research agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Revised 2nd ed.). Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis in organizational studies: Towards an integrationaist methodology. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1213–1218. Chun, C. W. (2018). Neoliberalism, globalization and critical discourse studies. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 421–433). London/New York: Routledge. Clarke, I., Kwon, W., & Wodak, R. (2012). A context-sensitive approach to analyzing talk in strategy meetings. British Journal of Management, 23, 455–473. https://doi.org/10.111 1/j.14678551.2011.00759 Courtine, J. J. (1981). Analyse du discours politique. Language, 62. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davies, B., & Bensel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 23(3), 247–259. Davies, M. (2010). The corpus of historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/. De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (1999). The discursive construction of national identities. Discourse & Society, 10(2), 149–173. De Cillia, R., & Wodak, R. (2006). Ist Österreich ein “deutsches” Land?: Sprachenpolitik und Identität in der Zweiten Republik. Innsbruck: StudienVerl. Dimitrakopoulou, D., & Boukala, S. (2017). Exploring democracy and violence in Burundi: A multi-methodical analysis of hegemonic discourses on Twitter. Media, War & Conflict. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1750635217727311 Djonov, E., & Zhao, S. (2017). Social semiotics: A theorist and a theory in retrospect and prospect. In S. Zhao, E. Djonov, A. Björkvall, & M. Boeriis (Eds.), Advancing multimodal and critical discourse studies: Interdisciplinary research inspired by Theo Van Leeuwen’s social semiotics (pp. 1–17). London/New York: Routledge. Dorostkar, N., & Preisinger, A. (2017). Cyber hate’vs.‘cyber deliberation. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(6), 759–781.

References

205

Dyer, R. (1998). Stars (with a Supplementary Chapter and Bibliography by Paul McDonald; new edition). London: BFI British Film Institute Publishing. El Rafaie, E. (2003). Understanding visual metaphor: The example of newspaper cartoons in visual communication. London: Sage. El Refaie, E. (2001). Metaphors we discriminate by: Naturalized themes in Austrian newspaper articles about asylum seekers. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 5(3), 352–371. Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London/New York: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold. Fairclough, N. (1999). Global capitalism and critical awareness of language. Language Awareness, 8(2), 71–83. Fairclough, N. (2000). New labour, new language? London/New York: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London/New York: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2005). Neo-liberalism–a discourse-analytical perspective. Polifonia, 10(10), 21–52. Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and globalization. London/New York: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2009). A dialectical-relational approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 162–186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fairclough, N. (2010a). General introduction. In Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language, (2nd ed. pp. 1-21). Harlow/NY: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2010b). Introduction. To Section C, Dialectics of discourse: Theoretical developments, in Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language, (2nd ed. pp. 163-166). . Harlow/NY: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2012). Critical discourse analysis. International Advances in Engineering and Technology, 7, 452–487. Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2016). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In R.  Wodak & M.  Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (3rd ed., pp. 86–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fairclough, N. (2018). CDA as dialectical reasoning. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 13–25). London/New York: Routledge. Fairclough, N., Graham, P., Lemke, J., & Wodak, R. (2004). Introduction. Critical Discourse Studies, 1(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900410001674489 Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies (pp. 357–378). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Chapter 10: Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). London: 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 T. Janssen & T. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope and methodology (pp. 95–128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A.  E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 113–130). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books. Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (2018a). The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies. London/New York: Routledge.

206

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J.  E. (2018b). Introduction. In J.  Flowerdew & J.  E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 1–10). London/New York: Routledge. Foluke, U. (2011). Event models: A socio-ognitive 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. https://doi.org/10.3968/j.sll.1923156320110301.300 Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London: Routledge. Forceville, C. (2014a). The strategic use of the visual mode in advertising metaphors. In E. Djonov & S. Zhao (Eds.), Critical multimodal studies of popular culture. (Routledge studies in multimodality; No. 8) (pp. 55–70). London/New York: Routledge. Forceville, C. (2014b). Relevance Theory as model for analysing visual and multimodal communication. In D. Machin (Ed.), Visual communication (pp. 51–70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (Eds.). (2009). Multimodal metaphor (Vol. 11). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Forchtner, B. (2016). Lessons from the past? Memory, narrativity, and subjectivity. New  York: Springer. Forchtner, B., Krzyżanowski, M., & Wodak, R. (2013). Mediatization, right-wing populism, and political campaigning: The case of the Austrian Freedom Party. In A. Tolson & M. Ekström (Eds.), Media talk and political elections in Europe and America (pp. 205–228). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Forchtner, B., & Schneickert, C. (2016). Collective learning in social fields: Bourdieu, Habermas and critical discourse studies. Discourse & Society, 27(3), 293–307. Forchtner, B., & Wodak, R. (2018). Critical discourse studies: A critical approach to the study of language and communication. In B. Forchtner & R. Wodak (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and politics (pp. 135–150). London/New York: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1972). Orders of discourse. Social Science Information, 10(2), 7–30. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1). New York: Random House. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (Tr. A.  Sheridan). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. [French original: 1975]. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge—Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Brighton: Harvester Press. Foucault, M. (2002). The archaeology of knowledge. London/New York: Routledge. (1st English edition, 1972). Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Gavriely-Nuri, D. (2018). Cultural approach to CDA (CCDA): From theory to practice. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 120–132). London/New York: Routledge. Girnth, H. (1996). Texte im politischen Diskurs. Ein Vorschlag zur diskursorientierten Beschreibung von Textsorten. Muttersprache, 106(1), 66–80. Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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. (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., & Slee, R. (2008). An illusory interiority: Interrogating the discourse/s of inclusion. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(2), 247–260. Graham, P., Keenan, T., & Dowd, A. M. (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.

References

207

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London/Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold/University Park press. Halliday, M.  A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. (2nd ed., 1994). Hardt-Mautner, G. (1995). ‘Only connect’: Critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics. In UCREL Technical Paper 6. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University Press. Hart, C. (2010). Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science: New perspectives on immigration discourse. Hertfordshire, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan. Hart, C. (2011a). Moving beyond metaphor in the cognitive linguistic approach to CDA: Construal operations in immigration discourse. In C. Hart (Ed.), Critical discourse studies in context and cognition (pp. 71–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hart, C. (2011b). Force-interactive patterns in immigration discourse: A cognitive linguistic approach to CDA. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 269–286. Hart, C. (2014). Construal operations in online press reports of political protests. In C. Hart & P.  Cap (Eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp.  167–188). London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Hart, C. (2015). Viewpoint in linguistic discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, 12(3), 238–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2015.1013479 Hart, C. (2016). The visual basis of linguistic meaning and its implications for critical discourse studies: Integrating cognitive linguistic and multimodal methods. Discourse & Society, 27(3), 335–350. Hart, C. (2018a). Cognitive linguistic critical discourse studies. In J. Flowerdew & J. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 77–91). London & New York: Routledge. Hart, C. (2018b). Cognitive linguistic critical discourse studies: Connnecting language and image. In R. Wodak & B. Forchtner (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and politics (pp. 187–201). London/New York: Routledge. Hart, C., & Cap, P. (Eds.). (2014a). Contemporary critical discourse studies. London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Hart, C., & Cap, P. (2014b). Introduction. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp. 1–16). London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Hart, C., & Lukeš, D. (Eds.). (2007a). Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis: Application and theory. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. [Published in 2007; copyright in 2010]. Hart, C., & Lukeš, D. (2007b). Introduction: Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis. In C. Hart & D. Lukeš (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis: Application and theory (pp. 1–27). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. [Published in 2007; copyright in 2010]. Harvey, D. (1996). Justices, nature and the geography of difference. Oxford: Blackwell. Heaney, K. (2013). The 12 meanings of LOL: Because it doesn’t really mean “laughing out loud” anymore. Buzzfeed. Retrieved from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katieheaney/ the-12-meanings-of-lol Hidalgo-Downing and Kraljevic-Mujic. (2017). Metaphor and persuasion in commercial advertising. In E. Semino & Z. Demjen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp. 323–336). London/New York: Routledge. Hitler, A. (1933). Mein Kampf (23rd ed.). Munich: Franz Eher Nachfolger. Hodge, B., & Kress, G. R. (1988). Social Semiotics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. 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 M. Khosravinik & A. Polyzou (Eds.), Papers from the Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics & Language Teaching, 2 (pp. 58–77). Lancaster: Lancaster University. Jäger, M. (1996). Fatale effekte. Die Kritik am Patriarchat im Einwanderungsdiskurs. Duisburg: DISS.

208

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

Jäger, M., & Jäger, S. (2007). Deutungskämpfe: Theorie und Praxis Kritischer Diskursanalyse. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Jäger, S. (1993). Kritische Diskursanalyse. Münster: Verlag. Jäger, S. (1999). Einen Königsweg gibt es nicht. Bemerkungen zur Durchführung von Diskursanalysen. Hannelore Bublitz/Andrea D.  Bührmann/Christine Hanke/Andrea Seier (Hg.). In Das Wuchern der Diskurse: Perspektiven der Diskursanalyse Foucaults (pp.  136– 147). Frankfurt aM/New York: Campus. Jäger, S. (2004). Kritische Diskursanalyse. 4th unrevised edition. Münster: Unrast. Jäger, S., & Maier, F. (2009). Theoretical and methodological aspects of Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 34–61). London, UK: Sage. Jäger, S., & Maier, F. (2016). Analysing discourses and dispositives: a Foucauldian approach to theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd edition) (pp. 109–136). London, UK: Sage. Jancsary, D., Höllerer, M. A., & Meyer, R. E. (2016). Critical analysis of visual and multimodal texts. In R.  Wodak & M.  Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (3rd ed., pp. 180–204). London: Sage. Jeffries, L. (2010). Opposition in discourse: The construction of oppositional meaning. London: Continuum. Jeffries, L., & Walker, B. (2017). Keywords in the press: The New Labour years. London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Jewitt, C. (2009). Technology, literacy, learning: A multimodal approach. London: Routledge. Jewitt, C. (2011). Different approaches to multimodality. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 14–27). London/New York: Routledge. [1st edition 2009]. Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality. London/New York: Routledge. KhosraviNik, 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. KhosraviNik, M., & Unger, J. W. (2016). Critical discourse studies and social media: Power, resistance and critique in changing media ecologies. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (3rd ed., pp. 205–233). London: Sage. Kim, K.  H. (2014). Examining US news media discourses about North Korea: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 25(2), 221–244. Kirkup, J., & Swinford, S. (2014). UKIP storms European elections. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10855972/Ukip-storms-Europeanelections.html Klemperer, V. (1995). Ich will Zeugnis ablegen bis zum letzten. Tagebücher 1933–1941. Hrsg. v. 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. (tr. M. Chamers). NY: Modern Library. Klymenko, L. (2016). Nation-building and presidential rhetoric in Belarus. Journal of Language and Politics, 15(6), 727–747. 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. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London/New York: Routledge. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London/New York: Routledge. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1990). Reading Images: Sociocultural aspects of language and education. Geelon, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London/ New York: Routledge.

References

209

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge. Krzyżanowski, M. (2010). The discursive construction of European identities: A multi-level approach to discourse and identity in the transforming European Union. Bern: Peter Lang.. Krzyżanowski, M., & Forchtner, B. (2016). Theories and concepts in critical discourse studies: Facing challenges, moving beyond foundations. Discourse & Society, 27(3), 253–261. Krzyżanowski, M., & Ledin, P. (2017). Uncivility of the web: Populism in/and the borderline discourses of exclusion. Journal of Language and Politics, 16, 566–581. Krzyżanowski, M., Triandafyllidou, A., & Wodak, R. (2018). The mediatization and the politicization of the “Refugee Crisis” in Europe. Special Issues, Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 15, 2–3. Krzyżanowski, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The politics of exclusion: Debating migration in Austria. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press. 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. Ledin, P., & Machin, D. (2015). How lists, bullet points and tables recontextualize social practice. Critical Discourse Studies, 12(4), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2015.1039556 Ledin, P., & Machin, D. (2018). Doing visual analysis: From theory to practice. London/New York: Sage. Lemke, J. (2002). Travels in hypermodality. Visual Communication, 1(3), 299–325. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lindsay, S., & Lyons, A. C. (2017). “Pour it up, drink it up, live it up, give it up”: Masculinity and alcohol in pop music videos. Men and Masculinities, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/10971 84X17696189 Link, J. (1982). Kollektivsymbolik und Mediendiskurse. kulturRRevolution, 1, 6–21. Link, J. (1983). Was ist und was bringt Diskurstaktik. kultuRRevolution, 2, 60–66. Link, J. (1988). Literaturanalyse als Interdiskursanalyse. In J.  Fohrmann & H.  Muller (Eds.), Diskurstheorien und Literaturwissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Link, J. (1992). Die Analyse der symbolischen Komponente realer Ereignesse: Ein Beitrag der Diskurstheorie zur Analyse neorassistischer Äusserungen. In S.  Jäger & F.  Januschek (Eds.), Der Dikurs des Rassismus, 46 (pp.  37–52). Oldenburgh: Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie. Link, J. (1997/2013). Versuch uber den Normalismus. Wie Normalitat produziert wird. Opladen: Westdeut. Link, J. (2008). Dispositiv. In C. Kammler, R. Parr, & U. J. Schneider (Eds.), Foucault-Handbuch (pp. 237–242). Leben–Werk–Wirkung: Stuttgart/Weimar. Link, J., & Link-Heer, U. (1990). Diskurs/Interdiskurs un Literaturanalyse. Zeitschrift für Linguistik un Literaturwissenschaft (LiLi), 77, 88–99. Lirola, M.M. (2016): Linguistic and visual strategies for portraying immigrants as people deprived of human rights, Social Semiotics. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2015.1137164. Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

210

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer?: The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Maalej, Z. (2007). Doing critical discourse analysis with the contemporary theory of metaphor: Towards a discourse model of metaphor. In C. Hart & D. Lukes (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis: Application and theory (pp. 132–158). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Machin, D. (2013). What is multimodal critical discourse studies? Critical Discourse Studies, 10, 347–355. Machin, D. (2016). The need for a social and affordance-driven multimodal critical discourse studies. Discourse & Society, 27(3), 322–334. Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. London: Sage. Machin, D., & Suleiman, U. (2006). Arab and American computer war games: The influence of a global technology on discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, 3(1), 1–22. Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Global media discourse: A critical introduction. London: Routledge. Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2016). Introduction: Multimodality, politics and ideology. In Machin, D. and van Leeuwen, T. (Eds.) Special Issue. Multimodality, politics and ideology. Journal of Language & Politics, 15(3), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.15.3.01mac Maiorani, A., & Christie, C. (2014). Introduction. In A. Maorani & C. Christie (Eds.), Multimodal epistemologies (pp. 1–12). London/New York: Routledge. Mautner, G. (2008). Analyzing newspapers, magazines and other print media. In R.  Wodak & M. Krzyżanowski (Eds.), Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences (pp. 301–353). Houndmills, Basinstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mautner, G. (2009). Checks and balances: How corpus linguistics can contribute to CDA.  In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods in critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 122–143). London: Sage. Mautner, G. (2010). Language and the market society: Critical reflections on discourse and dominance. London, New York: Sage. Mautner, G. (2016). Checks and balances: How corpus linguistics can contribute to CDA.  In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (3rd ed., pp. 154–179). London: Sage. McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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. McMurtrie, R. J., & Murphy, A. (2016). Penetrating spaces: A social semiotic, multimodal analysis of performance as rape prevention. Social Semiotics, 26(4), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10350330.2016.1189728 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. Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 14–31). London: Sage. Mihan, A., Haakenson, T. and Link, J. (2004). Standard deviation: An interview with Jürgen Link. Cabinet. http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/15/mihan_haakenson.php. Monson, O. Donaghue, N. & Gill, R. (2016). Working hard on the outside: A multimodal critical discourse analysis of The Biggest Loser Australia, Social Semiotics, doi: https://doi.org/10.10 80/10350330.2015.1134821.

References

211

Moran, C., & Lee, C. (2013). Selling genital cosmetic surgery to healthy women: A multimodal discourse analysis of Australian surgical websites. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(4), 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2013.813772 Moscovici, S. (2000). In G. Duveen (Ed.), Social representations: Explorations in social psychology (Vol. 41). Cambridge: Polity Press. 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/ New York: Routledge. Musolff, A. (2012). Special feature: The study of metaphor as part of critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(3), 301-310. Musolff, A. (2014). Metaphor in the discourse-historical approach. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp.  45–66). London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Musolff, A. (2016). Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Musolff, A. (2017a). Introduction: Language aggression in public debates on immigration. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 5(2), 175–177. Musolff, A. (2017b). Metaphor and persuasion in politics. In E. Semino & Z. Demjen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp. 309–322). London/New York: Routledge. Musolff, A. (2018). Language under totalitarian regimes. The example of political discourse in Nazi Germany. In R. Wodak & B. Forchtner (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and politics (pp. 660–672). London: Routledge. Musolff, A. (2019). Hostility towards immigrants’ languages in Britain: A backlash against ‘super-­ diversity’? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(3), 257–266. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1520859 Nordensvard, J. (2013). The mass production of quality ‘human material’: Economic metaphors and compulsory sterilization in Sweden. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(2), 172–186. Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. London/New York: Routledge. O’Halloran, K. (2008). Systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery. Visual Communication, 7, 443–475. O’Halloran, K. (2012). Electronic deconstruction: Revealing tensions in the cohesive structure of persuasion texts. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(1), 91–124. O’Halloran, K. (2017). Posthumanism and deconstructing arguments: Corpora and digitally-­ driven critical analysis. London/New York: Routledge. O’Halloran, K., & Coffin, C. (2004). Checking overinterpretation and underinterpretation: Help from corpora in critical linguistics. In A. Hewings, C. Coffin, & K. O’Halloran (Eds.), Applying English grammar (pp. 275–297). London: Arnold. O’Toole, M. (1994). The language of displayed art. Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh-Dickenson University Press. Olausson, U. (2009). Global warming—global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 421–436. Oostendorp, M. (2015). The multimodal construction of the identity of politicians: Constructing Jacob Zuma through prior texts, prior discourses and multiple modes. Critical Discourse Studies, 12(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2014.962066 Oswald, S. (2014). It is easy to miss something you are not looking for: A pragmatic account of covert communicative influence for (critical) discourse analysis. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.),

212

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp.  97–120). London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury. Parkland high school students protest gun violence (2018, February 20). Fox News. Retrieved from https://video. foxnews.com/v/5737148982001/#sp=show-clips. Partington, A. (2014). Mind the gaps: The role of corpus linguistics in researching absences. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(1), 118–146. Pérez-Latorre, O., Oliva, M., & Besalú, R. (2016). Videogame analysis: A social-semiotic approach. Social Semiotics. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1191146 Pérez-Paredes, P., Jiménez, P. A., & Hernández, P. S. (2017). Constructing immigrants in UK legislation and Administration informative texts: A corpus-driven study (2007–2011). Discourse & Society, 28(1), 81–103. 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. Popkewitz, T., & Lindblad, S. (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. Potts, A. (2013). At arm’s length: Methods of investigating constructions of the ‘Other’ in American disaster and disease reporting. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University Press. Potts, A., Bednarek, M., & Caple, H. (2015). How can computer-based methods help researchers to investigate news values in large datasets? A corpus linguistic study of the construction of newsworthiness in the reporting on Hurricane Katrina. Discourse & Communication, 9(2), 149–172. Reisigl, M. (2007). Nationale Rhetorik in Gedenk-und Festreden. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Reisigl, M. (2011). Grundzüge der Wiener Kritischen Diskursanalyse. In R. Keller, A. Hirseland, U. J. Schneider, W. Viehöver, et al. (Eds.), Handbuch Sozialwissenshaftliche Diskursanalyse. Band 1: Theorien und Methoden (pp. 459–497). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Reisigl, M. (2014). Argumentation analysis and the Discourse-Historical Approach: A methodological framework. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp. 69–98). London: Bloomsbury. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination, rhetorics of racism and anti-­ Semitism. London/New York: Routledge. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 87–121). London: Sage. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2016). The discourse historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 23–61). London: Sage. Rheindorf, M. (2018). Disciplining the unwilling. In M. Kranert & G. Horan (Eds.), Doing Politics: Discursivity, performativity and mediation in political discourse (pp. 179–210). London: John Benjamins. Rheindorf, M., & Wodak, R. (2018). Borders, fences, and limits—Protecting Austria from refugees: Metadiscursive negotiation of meaning in the current refugee crisis. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 16, 15–38. Riad, S., & Vaara, E. (2011). Varieties of national metonymy in media accounts of international mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 737–771. Richardson, J., Krzyżanowski, M., Machin, D., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2014a). Advances in critical discourse studies. London/NY: Routledge. Richardson, J., Krzyżanowski, M., Machin, D., & Wodak, R. (2014b). Preface. In J. Richardson, M. Krzyżanowski, D. Machin, & R. Wodak (Eds.), Advances in critical discourse studies (pp. xiv–xix). London/NY: Routledge.

References

213

Roderick, I. (2013). Representing robots as living labour in advertisements: The new discourse of worker–employer power relations. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(4), 392–405. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/17405904.2013.813773 Roderick, I. (2016). Critical discourse studies and technology: A multimodal approach to analyzing technoculture. London/Oxford/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Roderick, I. (2018). Multimodal critical discourse analysis as ethical praxis. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(2), 154–168. Rodriguez, S., & Monreal, T. (2017). “This state is racist”: Policy problematization and undocumented youth experiences in the New Latino South. Educational Policy, 31(6), 764–800. Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2011). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 29–48). London: Routledge. 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. Sayers, D., Harding, J., Barchas-Lichtenstein, J., Coffey, M., & Rock, F. (2017). Speeding up or reaching out? Journal of Language and Politics, 16(3), 388–411. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (2004). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging internet. London/ New York: Routledge. Semino, E., & Demjen, Z. (2017). The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language. London/ New York: Routledge. Stoegner, K., & Wodak, R. (2016). ‘The man who hated Britain’: The discursive construction of ‘national unity’in the Daily Mail. Critical Discourse Studies, 13(2), 193–209. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/17405904.2015.1103764 Strom, M. (2015). Intersemiotic relationshipsin Spanish-language media in the United States: A critical analysis of the representation of ideology across verbal and visual modes. Discourse & Communication, 9(4), 487–508. Strom, M. (2016). Spanish-language print media in the USA: A social semiotic analysis of ideological representations in photojournalism. Social Semiotics, 26(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/10350330.2015.1080039 Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. Subtirelu, N. C., & Baker, P. (2018). Corpus-based approaches. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp.  106–119). London/New York: Routledge. Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Taylor, A. (2018). Photos: Teenagers demand ‘never again’ in an age of mass shootings. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/02/ florida-gun-control-protests-photos/553883/. Threadgold, T. (2003). Cultural studies, critical theory and critical discourse analysis: Histories, remembering and futures. Linguistik Online, 14(2), 5–37. Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: Sage. Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tseronis, A., & Forceville, C. (2017). Arguing against corporate claims visually and multimodally: The genre of subvertisements. Multimodal Communication, 6(2), 143–157. Ulysse, B. (2013). Chapter 13: Culling methodological tools, honing research skills: A paradigm of critical discourse analysis on neoliberalism. In Counterpoints 436 (pp. 219–233). New York: Peter Lang. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42981920.

214

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

Unger, J., Wodak, R., & KhosraviNik, M. (2016). Critical discourse studies and social media data. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 277–292). London: Sage. Ushchyna, V. (2017). Manipulative use of risk as a stance in political communication. Discourse & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517734424 van Dijk, T.  A. (1985). In T.  A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse and communication. Berlin/NY: de Gruyter. van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the press. London/New York: Routledge. van Dijk, T.  A. (1993a). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 249–283. van Dijk, T. A. (1993b). Elite discourse and racism (Vol. 6). London/New York: Sage. van Dijk, T. A. (1995a). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In C. Schaffner & A. Wenden (Eds.), Language and peace (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. van Dijk, T. A. (1995b). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society, 5(2), 243–289. van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage. van Dijk, T. A. (2001a). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 95–120). London: Sage. van Dijk, T.  A. (2001b). 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. (Ed.). (2006/2011). Discourse studies. 5 vols. Sage benchmark studies in discourse analysis. London: Sage. van Dijk, T.  A. (2008a). Discourse and context: A socio-cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Dijk, T. A. (2008b). Discourse and power. London: Macmillan International Higher Education. 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 R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 62–86). London: Sage. van Dijk, T. A. (2011). Multiple approaches. (Video). In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis is education. London: Routledge. Retrieved from http://cw.routledge. com/textbooks/9780415874298/videos.asp van Dijk, T.  A. (2012a). The role of the press in the reproduction of racism. In M.  Messer, R.  Schroeder, & R.  Wodak (Eds.), Migrations: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp.  15–29). New York: Springer. van Dijk, T. A. (2012b). Discourse and knowledge. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 587–603). London/New York: Routledge. van Dijk, T. A. (2012c). Knowledge, discourse and domination. In M. Meeuwis & J. O. Östman (Eds.), Pragmaticizing understanding. Studies for Jef Verschueren (pp. 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. (2013). CDA is NOT a method of critical discourse analysis. In: EDISO debate-­ Asociacion de Estudios Sobre Discurso y Sociedad. Retrieved from www/edisoportal.org/ debate/115-cda-not-method-critical-discourse-analysis. van Dijk, T.  A. (2014a). Discourse and racism: Some conclusions of 30 years of research. In A.  Capone & J.  L. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 285–296). Berlin: Springer. van Dijk, T.  A. (2014b). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Dijk, T. A. (2014c). Discourse-cognition-society: Current state and prospects of the sociocognitive approach to discourse. Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, 121–146.

References

215

van Dijk, T.  A. (2016). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R.  Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 62–85). London: Sage. van Dijk, T., & Wodak, R. (1988). Introduction: Discourse, racism, and ideology. In Special Issue: Discourse, racism and ideology. Text, 8, 1–4. van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrect: Springer. van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representations of social actors. In C.  R. Caldas-Couthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–70). London/New York: Routledge. van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London/New York: Routledge. 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. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 144–161). London: Sage. van Leeuwen, T. (2016). Discourse as the recontextualization of social practice—a guide. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 137–153). London: SAGE. van Leeuwen, T., & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies, 1(1), 83–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2013.789975 van Leeuwen, T. A. (2014). Critical discourse analysis and multimodality. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp. 281–297). London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Velázquez, I. (2013). Individual discourse, language ideology and Spanish transmission in El Paso, Texas. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(3), 245–262. Veum, A., & Undrum, L.  V. M. (2018). The selfie as a global discourse. Discourse & Society, 29(1), 86–103. Von Stuckrad, K. (2013). Secular religion: A discourse–historical approach to religion in contemporary Western Europe. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 28(1), 1–14. Way, L. C., & Akan, A. (2017). Coverage of bombings for political advantage: Turkish on-line news reporting of the 2016 Ankara attacks. Social Semiotics, 27(5), 545–566. Widdowson, H.  G. (2004). Text, context, pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Wilson, T., & Krizsán, A. (2017). Politics in science. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(6), 849–869. Wodak, R. (2001a). What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R.  Wodak & M.  Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–13). London: SAGE. Wodak, R. (2001b). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). London/Thousand Oaks: Sage. 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. (2009). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as unusual. London: Palgrave. Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis: Overview, challenges, and perspectives. In G.  Andersen & K.  Aijmer (Eds.), Pragmatics of society (pp.  627–650). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Wodak, R. (2013a). The strategy of discursive provocation: A discourse-historical analysis of the FPÖ’s discriminatory rhetoric. In P. Jackson & M. Feldman (Eds.), Doublespeak: The framing of the far-right since 1945 (pp. 99–120). Berlin: Ibidem-Verlag.

216

4  The Main Approaches to CDA/CDS

Wodak, R. (2013b). Dis-citizenship and migration: A critical discourse-analytical perspective. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 12(3), 173–178. Wodak, R. (2015). The politics of fear. London: Sage. Wodak, R. (2016). Politik mit der Angst: Zur Wirkung rechtspopulistischer Diskurse. Vienna: Konturen. Wodak, R. (2017a). Suppression of the Nazi past, coded languages, and discourses of silence: Applying the Discourse-Historical Approach to post-war antisemitism in Austria. In D.  M. Seymour & M. Camino (Eds.), The Holocaust in the twenty-first century. Contesting/contested memories (pp. 197–220). London/New York: Routledge. Wodak, R. (2017b). The “Establishment”, the “Élites”, and the “People”: Who’s Who? Journal of Language and Politics, 16(4), 551–565. Wodak, R. (2018a). Driving on the right: The Austrian case. Center for the Analysis of the Radical Right (CARR). https://www.radicalrightanalysis.com/2018/04/09/ driving-on-the-right-the-austrian-case/. Wodak, R. (2018b). The radical right and anti-Semitism. In J. Rydgren (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the radical right (pp. 61–85). NY: Oxford University Press. Wodak, R. (2018c). Introductory remarks: From ‘Hate speech’ to ‘hate tweets’. In M. Pajnik & B. Sauer (Eds.), Populism and the web: Communicative practices of parties and movements in Europe (pp. xvii–xxiii). London/New York: Routledge. Wodak, R. (2018d). Discourses about nationalism. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 403–420). London/New York: Routledge. Wodak, R. (2018e). Language and politics. In J. Culpeper, P. Kerswill, R. Wodak, T. McEnery, & F.  Katamba (Eds.), English language:Description, variation and context (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Wodak, R. (2018f). ‘Timeless places’-Narratives about flight, exile and belonging. Journal of Applied Linguistics & Professional Practice, 13(1–3), 343–367. Wodak, R., & Boukala, S. (2015). European identities and the revival of nationalism in the European Union: A discourse-historical approach. Journal of Language and Politics, 14(1), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.14.1.05wod Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. (2007). Preface. In P. Chilton & R. Wodak (Eds.), A New research agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. xi–sviii). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (1999). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wodak, R., & Forchtner, B. (2018a). The Routledge handbook of language and politics. London/ New York: Routledge. Wodak, R., & Forchtner, B. (2018b). The fictionalization of politics. In R. Wodak & B. Forchtner (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and politics (pp. 572–586). London/New York: Routledge. Wodak, R., & Krzyżanowski, M. (Eds.). (2008). Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences. Houndmills, Basinstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wodak, R., & Krzyżanowski, M. (2017). Right-wing populism in Europe & USA: Contesting politics and discourse beyond ‘Orbanism’ and ‘Trumpism’. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(4), 471–484. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis (1st ed.). London: Sage. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009a). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009b). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R.  Wodak & M.  Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 1–33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016a). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

References

217

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016b). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R.  Wodak & M.  Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 1–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wodak, R., & van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Racism at the top. Parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European states. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag. Wodak, R.  E. (2017c). “Whose Story?”: Narratives of persecution, flight, and survival told by children of Austrian Holocaust survivors. In Diversity and Super-Diversity: Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (pp.  17–36). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Wu, J., Huang, S., & Zheng, R. (2016). Recontextualization and transformation in media discourse: An analysis of the First-Instance Judgment of the Peng Yu Case. Discourse & Society, 27(4), 441–466. Zhang, H., Paul, C., Yadan, H., & Wen, J. (2011). Critique across cultures: Some questions for CDA. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(2), 95–107. Zhao, S., Djonov, E., Björkvall, A., & Boeriis, M. (Eds.). (2017). Advancing Multimodal and Critical Discourse Studies: Interdisciplinary Research Inspired by Theo Van Leeuwen’s Social Semiotics. London/New York: Routledge.

Chapter 5

Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses

5.1  Introduction “CDS has come a long way, theoretically as well as analytically, since its beginnings” (Krzyżanowski & Forchtner, 2016b: 254). CDA/CDS has not only increased attention given to pressing social issues, but it has moved scholars from seeing language as abstract to seeing it as a way to represent speakers/writers’ “beliefs, positions, and ideas” (Mogashoa, 2014:105). It has focused on the way in which language and power are connected, and the way that discourse not only represents the world but constitutes it, and more recently, the way that other modes of communication (e.g., image, sound, color, etc.) have contributed to this. It has given us a scholarly lens with which to see the world, and for those that seek to resist oppressive forces in the world, it can give them hope. However, while it offers substantial potential applications in a wide range of contexts, it has received its share of criticism. According to Haig (2004: 5), “although there have been, and continue to be, a great number of critics of CDA (so much so that the activity threatens to develop into a whole new academic cottage industry of its own) essentially they are all concerned with asking, from their several perspectives, the same fundamental question: Does CDA produce valid knowledge?”. Before entering into our discussion of the different critiques, we would like to note several things. First, for much of this volume (except in direct quotations of other scholars), we have used ‘CDA/CDS’ to show that they aren’t separate from each other and also to underscore how the field/research program is evolving. However, in Chap. 2, and to a certain extent, in three we very often use ‘CDA’ alone, since in the time period under discussion, only ‘CDA’ was used and ‘CDS’ didn’t exit or wasn’t used (or much more rarely). Hence, in much of this chapter, where most of the critique came about when the term ‘CDS’ had not yet been used, readers will note the frequent use of ‘CDA’ alone, except near the end of the chapter where we discuss the creation of CDS in light of the critique we explore here, or in places © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 T. Catalano, L. R. Waugh, Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies and Beyond, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 26, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49379-0_5

219

220

5  Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses

where the authors we cite use CDS or both CDA and CDS. In addition, we want to emphasize that some of the critiques of CDA are also valid for CDS, while others were ‘answered’ by the creation of CDS. A second issue is that we decided to center the book more on the historical development of CDA, its various approaches and multidisciplinary connections—and less on critiques. Given that, this chapter provides more of a synthesis of the common critiques, rather than a detailed account of every single issue by every scholar who has critiqued it, especially when very similar critiques are made by the same or other scholars. In this way, we focus on what CDA was, is, and will be (hopefully) in the future. We would also like to point out that the fact that CDA has received so much critique shows that the field has really elicited much attention, which means that people are reading CDA work, and it has earned a distinct place among other fields. Furthermore, most (but not all) of the criticisms were made with the aim of making CDA work better, not tearing it apart. In fact, many of the critiques were put forth by CDA scholars themselves as part of reflexive practice, and as such (as we point out later), many CDA scholars have responded to the critiques with changes or additions to the field which have resulted in improvements. We also need to remind the reader that, as discussed in Sect. 3.2 and as shown in Chap. 4, CDA is made up of several different approaches. This means that any criticism of CDA meant to address the whole program is usually only valid for part of it, since (see Wodak & Meyer, 2001, 2009, 2016) it is not monolithic, and many of the approaches are so different from each other that they are not all subject to the same criticism: not all have the same underlying theories, analytical questions, methods, goals, etc. For example, some critics of CDA who lean toward quantitative research (and in some cases doubt the benefits of qualitative research) consider knowledge to be valid only when there are tests that show its validity. This then raises the constant question of whether CDA is knowledge or just opinion, given that CDA scholars are straightforward about declaring their own bias (and many, even in the sciences, have said that the ‘lack of bias’ in science is an illusion). But this is not the opinion of everyone, and so all of this should be kept in mind as readers advance through the chapter. While we cannot cover the extensive critique in its entirety, the overall aim of this chapter is not to take sides in the debates about the field, but to describe some of its most important multi-layered facets and show briefly how scholars in the field have attempted to remedy these problems and continually improve CDA research as a whole—although, at times, we make it known which critiques we take seriously. We do this by beginning with a brief discussion of a well-known debate (via articles in Language and Literature 1995/1996) between Henry G. Widdowson and Norman Fairclough, which marks the start of a long series of critiques aimed at CDA, followed by a later response by Wodak (2006). We then discuss various other critiques in detail, including what it means to be ‘critical’; methodological and theoretical shortcomings; the need for, as well as the role of, context; the relationship with readers of texts; and the need to attend to other fields and modalities. We also discuss critiques dealing with the need to pay more attention to how political ideologies are infused into culture more widely and the necessity of amplifying the

5.2  Widdowson vs. Fairclough

221

theoretical foundations of CDA that look closely at the spread of neoliberal ideologies and the changing discursive dynamics in an increasingly mediatized world. In addition to addressing some responses to each critique immediately after it is discussed, we conclude the chapter by describing in some detail various changes of focus in, and extension of, the field such as positive discourse analysis, generative critique, more attention to culture and the need for CDA to turn inward (become self-critical and self-reflexive) including reflection on researcher ideologies and the way that CDA scholars are continually (and currently) re-defining the field.

5.2  Widdowson vs. Fairclough In 1995, the same year when Fairclough’s 1995 book Critical Discourse Analysis (see Sect. 3.5.5) was published, and when CDA came to be more widely known, Henry Widdowson published a substantial “critical review” of CDA in Language and Literature (Widdowson, 1995). Soon after, Fairclough (whose work was largely targeted in Widdowson’s article), was invited to react by writing a response (1996). Because this was one of the earliest evaluations of CDA by a well-known scholar, and also because there was a response from a leader in CDA this critique (and the reply) became well known and cited by CDA scholars, including in Special Issues of Discourse & Society (1997, 2008) which were dedicated to responding to it. In addition, the debate was reprinted in the 4th volume of Toolan’s (2002) series on CDA. Widdowson’s (2004) book Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis, gave some of the same critiques. And Wodak (2006) published a later response in Language in Society. As a result of all this attention and the importance given to it, we decided to provide a brief outline of the critique and response from Fairclough, as well as the later response by Wodak1 Among some of the principal concerns that Widdowson has had with CDA is the way that ‘discourse’ is (not) defined and how it seems to be something everyone is talking about, but yet no one really knows what it is. As such, it is “in vogue and vague” (Widdowson, 1995: 158). He also argues that a text should be identified by its social intent, not by its linguistic size, and that identifying something as a text is

1  Another important and well-publicized debate in this area was between Schegloff and Michael Billig which appeared in a Special Issue of Discourse & Society in 1999. Since this debate largely discussed differences between conversation analysis and CDA (and began with Schegloff’s (1997) article “Whose text, whose context?” which compared the two with a critical eye on CDA) we will not describe it in detail in this chapter except to say that the issue of methodology, and researchers imposing their own assumptions on readers came up (which we will discuss shortly in Sect. 5.4 and elsewhere). However, interested readers can consult Schegloff (1997, 1999a, 1999b) and Billig (1999a, 1999b) for more information about the details of this contentious debate between scholars from two very different approaches to discourse analysis.

222

5  Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses

not the same as interpreting what it means, which is why ‘discourse’ is different from ‘text’2. Furthermore, for him, “what a writer means by a text is not the same as what it means to a reader” (p. 164). Additionally, Widdowson takes aim at CDA scholars’ “commitment to reveal the impositions of power and ideological influence” because he argues that analysts should not assume that “ideology is already fixed in the language” (pp. 167–168) nor should they narrow down their interpretations to one possibility. Furthermore, he says that what is actually revealed through the analysis is not the ideological influence of the text producer but the discourse perspective of the analyst. Fairclough’s response addresses Widdowson’s argument about the failure of CDA to distinguish between ‘text’ and ‘discourse’, saying that Widdowson misrepresents CDA by claiming there is usually only one interpretation of texts offered and there are rarely suggestions of alternative interpretations. To refute this point, he quotes from his own work (1992), which reiterates that texts are open to multiple interpretations and that “diversity of interpretation of texts is a central assumption in the theoretical framework” of CDA (1996: 50). Fairclough goes on to discuss Widdowson’s claim that CDA’s ideological commitment is where its ‘prejudice’ comes from, and evidence of how it favors particular ideologies. He argues that CDA scholars “see things wrong with their societies” and “are committed to making changes through forms of intervention involving language”, but it is not a political party and “the particular nature of political commitments and strategies of intervention vary widely” (1996: 52). He then accuses Widdowson of offering a “classical liberal distinction between ideology and science (or theory): on the one hand, ideology, commitment, prejudice and partiality (CDA); on the other hand, science and impartiality (e.g., Widdowson)” (p. 52). According to Fairclough, we all write from within our own discursive practices and commitments and interests, except that CDA is “better placed to recognize its own partiality” (p. 53), and he goes on to point out ideological assumptions in Widdowson’s own theoretical framework that color the way he views CDA. In response to Widdowson’s critique of discourse being “in vogue and vague” (1995: 158), Fairclough points out that the concept of discourse is “variously understood, and widely contested” and so trying to define it simply and finitely is “a hopeless and fruitless task” (1996: 54, which is exactly why we don’t attempt to do it in this book). Overall Fairclough says Widdowson’s critique of CDA constitutes a misleading picture of current CDA work which is different from CritLing in that it emphasizes how discursive practices are “heterogeneous in forms and meanings” and can be analyzed as “facets of wider processes of social and cultural change” (Fairclough, 1996: 55). As mentioned above, there is more discussion of the Widdowson vs. Fairclough debate in two Special Issues of Discourse & Society in 1997 and 2008, which also bring up other critiques—we will address those in the next sections. However, we

 See Sect. 4.5 for a discussion of the difference between text and discourse (and other concepts) regarding DHA.

2

5.3  The ‘Critical’ Aspect

223

feel it is important to say here that Wodak’s (2006) response to Widdowson’s appraisal of CDA is part of a review of Widdowson (2004) and three other books on DA. She notes that “criticism of CDA seems to be at the top of Widdowson’s agenda and has been for years” (Wodak, 2006: 606). She then responds to each of his principle concerns, for example, his claim about their lack of attention to methodology, by pointing to a number of more recent books and articles that attend to this and by making note that he neglected to read entire studies that give special attention to methodology before critiquing them. Another example: she addresses his claim that CDA analysts are not neutral but that they should be by aligning with Fairclough’s response on this point, that is, essentially, ‘no one is!’. Nonetheless, despite the rejection of many of Widdowson’s points, Wodak still agrees with some of his assessment of problems with CDA and makes a point of emphasizing that these kinds of controversies make research in this field “interesting and worthwhile” (2006: 609) and can lead to important changes. We now turn to a discussion of specific elements that have been at the center of debate about what is wrong with CDA from the point of view of other scholars.

5.3  The ‘Critical’ Aspect With regard to the ‘critical’ aspect of CDA, Billig (2002) draws particular attention to its role in self-understanding and ‘marketing’ of CDA. He posits that approaches like CDA are “critical of the present social order” and “position themselves as being critical of other academic approaches that are not primarily addressed to the critique of existing patterns of dominance and inequality” (Billig, 2002: 38). He then argues that critical approaches need to be self-reflexive and this includes an examination of the marketization of CDA and the way in which it is a “brand” itself, and how its scholarly works are products. In addition, Billig says that CDA scholars need to examine academia, the exercise of power through grading, and the way that certain scholars and theories are promoted over others. Furthermore, scholars need to consider the potential risk of the loss of intellectual creativity due to the field becoming more established (Billig, 2002: 43–44) as well as, according to (Breeze, 2011: 493), the “possibility for it to be taken for granted, simply accepted as a valid way of thinking and researching, alongside the other paradigms that have attained intellectual respectability” (see Sect. 5.10 for Wodak’s and others’ response to this). In addition, as part of the question of what ‘critical’ means, Chilton has questioned “whether CDA has had genuine social effects” (Chilton, 2005: 21) and Bartlett echoes this, asking if it has ever really offered genuine emancipatory alternatives (2012)—and indeed van Dijk has claimed that CDA/CDS has often resulted in a “blame game” rather than contributing to any real solutions or resistance (2009: 4). One of the results of some of this type of criticism has been to make CDA scholars more reflexive. In fact, Wodak and others have shown their appreciation for critiques of CDA and its benefits to the field in various statements they have made regarding the need for reflexivity (see Sect. 5.10 for examples). In Chap. 7 we

224

5  Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses

explore questions such as those posed by Chilton and Bartlett by looking outside of academia to see how CDA/CDS scholars have addressed the issue of, e.g., ‘social effects’, both in their scholarship and, even more, in the ways they have connected their scholarship to handling (or trying to handle) real world situations. Often, this has not occurred in academic work per se, but in other genres such as films, novels, song-writing, social media/blogs, being board members of anti-racist associations, and so forth. This is because CDA/CDS scholars, like others in any field, often have to work within the constraints of academia and many of the results of their research do not ever reach the general public. However, there are many who are taking their work outside the academic realm, and there appears to be an increasing trend (which seems to have taken priority since populist governments started winning elections in Europe, Brexit passed in the UK and Donald Trump was elected President in the US), in which scholars and professional organizations associated with CDA/CDS are highlighting even more how it can be used as a resource for social change. We— along with those who have generously contributed their thoughts to this volume— will describe how this is being accomplished in Chap. 7.

5.4  Methodological and Theoretical Shortcomings The next critique we will address is related to methodology and, in particular, methodological shortcomings, since there are many who feel that CDA’s analytical models are too vague. According to Schegloff (1997), CDA does not provide an analysis of texts that is sufficiently detailed or systematic, which results in researchers imposing their own assumptions on the reader. Similarly, Widdowson (1998: 136) contends that CDA scholars draw selectively and unsystematically on different methodologies in analyzing the data and also accuses (2004) them of blurring important distinctions between concepts, disciplines, and methodologies. As mentioned earlier, he notes that many concepts and analytical models are ‘vague’ and blames CDA for condoning ‘biased’ interpretations of discourse under the guise of critical analysis. Breeze (2011: 520) adds that analysts have sometimes “move[d] too quickly from the language data to the stage of interpretation and explanation of those data in terms of some type of social theory”. Additionally, she said that care needs to be taken in how data is obtained and subsequently interpreted in order to apply the same standards of rigor when handling language data as in many other areas of linguistics. Breeze proposes corpus linguistics (CorpLing) as one way to have a more representative overview across a larger sample of languages (2011: 503, 520) and to avoid “‘cherry-picking’ or selecting isolated instances of discourse that confirm the existing ideological biases of the researcher” (Bartlett, 2012: 4). She contends that although CDS draws on a wide range of theories about language and society, these theories are not always clearly defined, and there is a “tendency to draw on an eclectic mix of concepts from different intellectual traditions, not all of which are compatible” (2011: 520). Along these same lines, Widdowson (1998: 136) argues that

5.5 Context

225

CDA “analysis is not the systematic application of a theoretical model, but a rather less rigorous operation, in effect a kind of ad hoc bricolage which takes from theory whatever concept comes usefully to hand”. Since the publication of Widdowson’s (and others’) critiques, corpus linguistic approaches (CorpLingA) to CDA/CDS have become more common (e.g. Baker, 2006, 2012; Mautner, 2008, 2016; see Sect. 4.8). The strength of CorpLing lies in its ability to address the critique that CDA lacks quantitative and comparative methods and their affordances. Specifically, CorpLing is a way to grapple with the problems of measuring the representativeness of the samples of language analyzed (Machin & Mayr, 2012: 216), whether there’s enough data (and it’s not ‘cherry-­ picked’), the verifiability of the data, data replication, and so forth. All of this can be accomplished through the use of computer support that allows scholars to analyze large amounts of textual data and makes it relatively easy to find out, e.g., what the shared connotations are (see Sect. 4.8 for more details). However, despite the fact that CorpLing has served remarkably well in handling methodological problems, Mautner (2016: 176) still cautions that CorpLing techniques can never make up for faulty design or biased samples. In addition, it cannot solve many of the problems that quantitatively inclined researchers associate with qualitative research, e.g., lack of statistical significance, subjectivity of interpretive work, lack of generalizability, etc. To address this, scholars such as Rheindorf (2018) have recently pushed for more eclectic approaches that can handle both qualitative and quantitative aspects of research. As with other critiques of CDA, not all of these issues have been resolved (or are resolvable at all) due to the nature of the research people are doing and the inclinations of the researchers. And some of them are not unique to CDA, since the issue of qualitative vs. quantitative research (with or without something like CorpLing) crosscuts many disciplines of the humanities and social sciences.

5.5  Context CDA has also been criticized for not bringing ‘context’ (variously defined) seriously into CDA work—most notably by van Dijk (1999, 2008, 2009), who has argued forcefully for bringing in context and making a case that it is legitimate to examine text and context separately and explore how features of the context affect, or are affected by, the text. He has also said that individual researchers need to determine how much particular external categories are important in understanding the text and how far the analysis should go (co-text, speech event context, social and cultural context, historical context, etc.) However, he also argues vigorously that CDA researchers should not feel constrained by rigid disciplinary norms. Blommaert (2005: 34–35) has also discussed what he perceives as the failure of some in CDA to take into account the social factors behind the production of texts or the social consequences of their production (see also Bartlett, 2012: 5). Jones (2004), Jones and Collins (2006, 2010) and Collins and Jones (2006) also find fault with context in CDA (among other issues). They argue that CDA has not done a good job of

226

5  Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses

showing how the linguistic phenomena they analyze are related to or contribute to or result from the social history they are part of, and thus it is not clear exactly how CDA is used to “find the communicational means, occasions and practices which will contribute to advancing a particular agenda” (Jones, 2018, personal communication). Furthermore, Collins and Jones (2006) posit that CDA does not pinpoint the contribution that communicational acts and processes make to social history nor does it pay enough attention to the real social process within which discourse exists, while Jones and Collins (2006) claim that CDA takes the play of words and word meanings within a verbal system and abstracts them from communicative practices instead of thinking critically about, or engaging intellectually with, those practices. Jones (2004: 112) takes particular issue with Fairclough’s3 approach, arguing that it has an “upside-down view of the role of discourse in relation to the social process as a whole” and that some CDA approaches would do better to engage in “careful, informed and critical examination of communicative activities”. According to Jones and Collins (2006: 43) this exposes “the workings of power based on diligent exploration and informed piecing together and analysis of the facts and circumstances” rather than the linguistic analysis that they see as divorced from social context. Many of the above critiques were common because early work in CDA (with the exception of DHA and SCA) often concentrated on decontextualized samples of language, so that texts or parts of texts are analyzed without regard to their immediate context or to wider issues related to their production, distribution or consumption (Breeze, 2011: 514). For example, Verschueren (2001: 60–70), in a critique of Fairclough’s (pre-/proto-CDA) Language and Power (1989), notes that Fairclough does not place texts in the type of social and intertextual context within which they would usually be read. For instance, he “takes a linguistic feature such as nominalisation in news reports, and interprets it as being used to obfuscate issues of agency and avoid attribution of responsibility” (Breeze, 2011: 506), while in that case, which had been reported about in various issues of the same newspaper, it might have been quite clear to readers where the responsibility lay, and thus context has to be seen more widely. Slembrouck posits that CDA has been mostly text-based and at best speculative in claims about how actual participants are likely to interpret texts, exchanges and moves within talk (2001: 43). Some critics have also argued that CDA does not always look closely at the linguistic features of interactions, and thus there is a tendency to jump too quickly to the ‘macro’ context, making assertions as to how macro relations might be mapped onto micro interactions (Widdowson, 1998). After a review of the critique of context in CDA, it is clear that, with the exception of DHA and SCA (see Sects. 4.4 and 4.5), early CDA work paid less attention 3  We would like to note here that much of the critique discussed above alludes to the problem we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. That is, it treats CDA as homogenous while, as said already in Sect. 3.2, it is decidedly heterogeneous and that is one of its strengths. Given this, while we agree this is important critique, we caution that readers should read it in terms of its application to specific approaches and not others (a point that Wodak & Meyer, 2009: 5 also make “any criticism of CDA should always specify which research or researcher they relate to”).

5.5 Context

227

to context, but more recent work that has employed a variety of approaches has attended much more to context and to a wider view of context (not just co-text, or situational context, but also social, cultural, political, historical, etc. context). For example, there is scholarship (e.g., Abousnnouga & Machin, 2013; Leitch & Palmer, 2010; Musolff, 2016), which is grounded in different disciplines and approaches to CDA/CDS and addresses these concerns and pays more attention to context in their analyses. In addition, Flowerdew (2017) describes how conversation analysis and systemic functional linguistics (SFL) can aid CDA/CDS research in different ways since they work with naturally-occurring data in real life contexts or relate language form to context. One study that explicitly mentions this issue is Leitch and Palmer (2010), which examines the analysis of texts in context and how it has been applied to organizational studies; the authors argue that the problem of context has not been adequately addressed in CDA and they show how specific texts can be linked to specific contexts. They also note (paying heed to van Dijk’s concern that CDA scholars need not be constrained by rigid norms of analytic practice) that their purpose is to “strengthen the rigour of CDA in organization studies rather than to standardize it” (Leitch & Palmer, 2010: 1195). Since its inception, DHA approaches have paid close attention to context because they include the historical circumstances related to the data being analyzed and thus are able to connect the data to specific times and events. The best example of this is Wodak’s work, which from its earliest, pre-CDA stages was concerned with how much and what types of historical information should be included in DA, ‘discourse sociolinguistics’ and CDA (especially in DHA), and Reisigl and Wodak (2001, 2009, 2016) have argued for the importance of looking at the historical context in any text analysis (see Sect. 4.5). In addition, as said in Chap. 3, Musolff’s (2016) work on political metaphor scenarios combines DHA with CorpLing (and CogLing) showing systematically the presence of metaphor scenarios throughout history, which is then linked to current racist/antisemitic discourse with the aim of holding speakers accountable for the more covert hate speech they try to deny. Finally, studies such as Catalano and Mitchell-McCollough (2019) have examined the representation of groups in the US media over two different time periods (e.g., unaccompanied minors fleeing Central America in 2014 and then at the time of the 2016 election). They found that coverage during the two time periods revealed similar patterns of representing migrant children as dangerous water and threats, with only a small percentage of the discourse dedicated to global compassion and pleading on their behalf. But also, there were more troubling narratives related to government policies of family separation and militarization of the border in the US that surfaced in the later data due to the political context (including election politics) that had changed.

228

5  Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses

5.6  Relationship with Readers of Texts Another major criticism of CDA has to do with the relationship with readers of the analyzed texts. In fact, much of CDA research proceeds on the basis that there is a simple, one-to-one relationship between the text and its reader, or the discourse and its recipient, and reader response or audience reception is often naively assumed to be the same as the researcher’s interpretation of the text (Breeze, 2011: 521). Widdowson (1998) has strongly advocated for the inclusion of discussion with the readers (and producers) of texts, since he sees CDA as not only relying on the analyst’s view of a text’s possible meaning, but also not considering the role of the reader in the consumption and interpretation of the text. In the wake of criticism against CDA for the problem of this disconnect between the researcher as against writers and readers of texts, scholars have offered ethnographic methodologies as a potential corrective (Wodak & Meyer, 2016). Blommaert (2005), for instance, finds that CDA’s linguistically oriented research practices can benefit from these and other (social science-related) methodologies. Machin and Mayr (2012: 217) also note what can be gained by adding an ethnographic dimension, citing studies such as McFarland (2006), which illustrate the dangers of analysts making claims about reactions to texts without ever talking to readers. In particular, McFarland shows how women’s reactions (shown from interviews) to Fairclough’s analysis of The Pregnancy Book “were different in significant ways to the positions attributed to them by Fairclough” (Machin & Mayr, 2012: 217). Machin and Mayr also advocate for adding an ethnographic dimension to the analysis of newspaper discourse, which can mean interviewing editors and journalists about their choices; their article (2007) and Stubbs’ (1997) are good examples of such approaches (for more details and examples of ethnographic approaches to CDA, see Sects. 4.5 and 6.5) as is Machin and Lydia Polzer’s (2015) book Visual Journalism in which they interview visual journalists about their work.

5.7  Paying Attention to Other Fields and Modalities CDA has also been criticized for being “too linguistic or not linguistic enough” (Wodak & Meyer, 2016: 22). In the case of being too linguistic, CDA is sometimes caught between linguists and non-linguists on the one hand, and on the other hand those scholars who come from media studies or other areas that have well developed theories for handling multimodal data; many have complained that CDA relies too much on linguistic methods of analysis which are not always applicable to multimodal data when analyzing visual communication (see our discussion in Sects. 2.7 and 4.6 for more on this topic, as well as Machin, 2016). Along these lines, CDA has been criticized for putting “a very high price on linguistic-textual analysis and not paying attention to non-linguistic texts. In addition, it has been criticized for relying too much on systemic-functional linguistics” (Blommaert, 2005: 34), while exclud-

5.7  Paying Attention to Other Fields and Modalities

229

ing other critical schools that look at language and also other approaches to linguistics that could be used in a critical analysis. Blommaert assures the reader that “linguists have no monopoly over theories of language and that means there are more candidates for critical potential … than SFL” (2005: 35). Van Dijk (2008) raises concerns that the SFL notion of context focuses too much on the lexico-­ grammatical level of language and is limited to the analysis of clause structure and thus is not useable for studying other discourse structures (see Sects. 3.6 and 4.4). He also argues that SFL has ignored many of the developments in DA, linguistics, and psychology of the last decade(s) and has been little influenced by the social sciences even though it is a ‘functional’ approach. Since the time of van Dijk’s critique (2008: 827), much work has been done to use more eclectic approaches and draw on theories from other areas in the social sciences as well as expand on the “multidisciplinary” approach of CDA by accounting for what other fields have already done. However, there is still a need for CDA researchers to engage more with other fields, since it is often the case that, unfortunately, while they can tell CDA scholars much about a particular concept or issue, their approach might not integrate well with CDA aims. For example, Machin (2016) urges scholars in multimodal CDA/CDS (Sect. 4.6) to engage with the fields of visual studies and media and cultural studies that have been looking at similar concepts for decades, but then he warns them that many of these studies don’t necessarily align with a “socially driven form of analysis such as CDA” and instead, these approaches and concepts may simply “cloud and distract” (2016: 324) their perspective. In addition to addressing the need to work more across disciplines, a recent Special Issue of Discourse & Society focuses on theoretical and conceptual challenges in CDS that we will discuss in more detail shortly. Another main disadvantage of CDA related to the above critique of being “too linguistic”, is that CDA depends on available discourse (Blommaert, 2005), and it is not possible to analyze discourse that is absent. So, there is no means to investigate what could have been said or was said in another context that the analyst is unaware of, was not able to have access to, and/or was not interested in investigating (although there are many scholars who have tried, by looking at, e.g., different headlines used in newspapers for the ‘same event’—CritLing, see Sect. 2.4). CorpLing has come forward as an (at least partial) solution to this problem. But, many have said that, in order to fully contextualize discourse within the sociopolitical landscape, CDA analysts need to look beyond language. On the basis of the work of Stubbs (1997), Breeze (2011: 509) contends that if researchers want to make claims about what people think on the basis of what they read or hear, they ought to obtain non-­ linguistic evidence about their beliefs, or examine their behavior, and that, in any case, it is unreasonable to assume a one-way influence from discourse to thought. Although Stubbs (1997) and Breeze (2011) make good arguments in this regard, they do not attempt to provide suggestions about how to remedy the problem without using language4. 4  It is worth mentioning here that many of the critiques of CDA have also been made of many—but not all—(non-critical/ descriptive) discourse analysis/studies (DA/DS), such as the critique of being ‘too linguistic’.

230

5  Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses

Despite this, we found a few studies that attempt to examine beliefs of readers and how their thoughts and behaviors have been affected by media discourse. One such study is by Leudar, Hayes, Nekvapil and Baker (2008), who examine the effects of media discourse about refugees and asylum seekers on those very groups in the UK by analyzing the way they position themselves and reshape their identities in interviews and biographic narratives; what the researchers found was that they made the “grounds of contemporary hostile rejections false and irrelevant to themselves” (2008: 187). What is innovative about their technique is that they were able to trace the effects of hostile discourse about them in the media to the way the participants thought and talked about themselves through the use of dialogic networks, which the authors argue can inform us about the origin of discourses and how they are used in situ (Leudar et al., 2008: 188). Catalano (2016) also examined (indirectly) the effects of public discourse, through interviews that centered on migration experiences with migrants and refugees from around the world. One example of how the migrants/refugees revealed the way that discourse (in this case, legal terminology in immigration contexts) affected their experience can be seen below, where the participant considers the way that certain immigration terms made him feel welcome or not welcome: […] they stamp you and they give you a ‘landed immigrant’ status so you know, that’s a big difference between Canada and the United States. You, in—in the United States you’re a ‘legal alien’ in uh, in Canada, you’re a ‘landed immigrant.’ So, it’s a—so from that point of view you feel very welcome … into the country (Catalano, 2016: 181).

Furthermore, in several interviews, participants used terminology they had been exposed to in media discourse (i.e., ‘illegal’) to describe themselves, even though they did not align ideologically with the use of the term, which puts migrants in a frame of criminality (Catalano, 2016: 117). The use of terms such as ‘illegal’ (i.e., ‘ilegal’ in Spanish, the language of these particular interviews) revealed that participants were well aware of the terminology used to talk about them. While both of these studies are linguistic in orientation, they do get closer to Breeze’s critique that we cannot really know the effects of discourse on readers or communities where the discourse is prevalent without using, in this case, qualitative interview techniques, or, in other cases, ethnographic ones (see Sects. 4.5 and 6.5) or other means of getting at the perspective of the people involved. Besides Leudar et al. (2008), the field of CogLing (and eclectic approaches such as that of Catalano (2016) which combines ethnographically informed methods with CDA/CDS and CogLing) has much to offer CDA/CDS in terms of looking at the way that thought shapes discourse and vice-versa. Hart (2015; see Sect. 4.9) examines point of view, basing his work on theoretical foundations from the field of CogLing, such as the idea that language is embodied, i.e., that language is grounded in physical experience and the fact that “the conceptual processes involved in language and discourse are not principally distinct from processes that function in other experiential realms like visual perception and spatial cognition” (2015: 239). The upshot of the embodied nature of language is that we can infer that lin-

5.8  Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA)

231

guistic constructions include or invoke properties related to visuo-spatial experience, which can reveal much about thought, and hence address Stubbs and Breeze’s (1997/2011) critiques that CDA lacks non-linguistic evidence about readers’ beliefs.

5.8  Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA) Another criticism that has received a great deal of attention has been the negative nature of CDA, or more accurately, the way in which it is deconstructive as opposed to constructive (Martin, 2004). According to Breeze, given the assumptions made in CDA about the nature of society, and the “overwhelming interest in exposing ideological manipulation that shapes and perpetuates power imbalances through discourse, it is hardly surprising that language scholars of this school find it easier to deconstruct than to construct” (2011: 516). Researchers such as Luke (2002), Martin (2004), and Bartlett (2012) have criticized CDA for focusing on deconstruction of discourse rather than contributing to bringing real solutions in order to make needed changes in the world. Martin draws particular attention to these issues, locating CDA as part of “a pathological disjunction in twentieth century social sciences and humanities research which systematically elides the study of social processes which make the world a better place in favour of critique of processes which disempower and oppress” (2004: 186) and calls for a serious attempt to re-configure CDA in a more positive sense. Breeze suggests that it is perhaps because of CDA’s self-image as a “critical” force, that the focus of this work has been deconstructive versus constructive (Breeze, 2011: 517). Breeze argues that scholarship that explores emancipatory discourses or positive changes in social language use would be better, because it would provide information about the way that positive transformations can be brought about (Breeze, 2011: 521). Hence, PDA came out of the above critique about CDA and Martin’s repeated call for a focus on texts that analysts don’t find objectionable. This critique of negative vs. positive has been addressed by scholars such as Wodak who contend that being critical is not about being positive or negative, it is about questioning the extant social order (personal communication, March 11, 2018). However, a close reading of Martin (2004: 184) reveals that his comments about being “negative” are more centered on the need to “focus on community, taking into account how people get together and make room for themselves in the world—in ways that redistribute power without necessarily struggling against it”, and hence this critique is about doing scholarship that can make positive change and pointing out the kinds of positive changes that people are trying to make (see Chap. 7). In addition, Bartlett’s (2012) and Luke’s (2002) critiques are about how CDA can actually pose solutions and be involved in CDA rather than be more ‘positive’.

232

5  Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses

According to Haig (2004: 13), Martin’s analysis of excerpts from the autobiography of Nelson Mandela or the music of U2 (2000) are excellent examples of the kind of work he is referring to here: If discourse analysts are serious about wanting to use their work to enact social change, then they will have to broaden their coverage to include discourse of this kind—discourse that inspires, encourages, heartens; discourse we like, that cheers us along. We need, in other words, more positive discourse analysis alongside our critique; and this means dealing with texts we admire, alongside those we dislike and try to expose (Martin 1999 [2002]: 196–197).

Other articles (e.g. Martin, 2002) and particularly the book by Martin and Rose (2003) also provided excellent examples of the kind of work he referred to. It wasn’t until after 2004 that Martin explicitly named the term PDA (see Bartlett, 2012) and provided three examples of what it is for him, including genre renovation, evaluative language, and narrative in the context of post-colonial relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. For the latter, he shows how the government report Bringing Them Home (that details the ‘National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families’) gives voice to Indigenous Australians through multimodal discourse which involved a combination of spoken testimony with policy documents, language, and image (Martin, 2004). In addition, Martin suggests “that communities are formed around attitudes to things”, noting that empathy is just as important as persuasion when the goal is to align readers with the authors’ point of view and “the political power of narrative closure is something positive discourse analysis cannot afford to ignore” (2004: 13, 18). While some scholars would disagree with this differentiation and/or sub-­ categorization of PDA as an approach or type of CDA/CDS, we decided that it was important to include it, show how people have responded, and also let readers know that there is still controversy as to whether this constitutes its own approach—see Table in Sect. 4.2, where we show that Flowerdew and Richardson (2018) believe that PDA is its own approach, but many others do not, and we discuss why we decided not to include PDA in Chap. 4, but in this chapter instead. Since 2004, other articles have appeared that have explicitly named PDA as their approach (e.g. Macgilchrist, 2007; Rogers & Mosley-Wetzel, 2013). These studies are rooted in the conviction that deconstruction of social problems is very different from positive reconstruction and betterment of society, especially because this positive approach is “fuelled by the potential for analysis to have an effect—however small—on the social world” (Macgilchrist, 2007: 74). PDA has thus billed itself as an alternative to traditional CDA critique of discourse that addresses the need for “a complementary focus on community, taking into account how people get together and make room for themselves in the world—in ways that redistribute power without necessarily struggling against it” (Martin, 2004: 7). In this regard, it can be seen as making visible different social actors by giving voice and thus presence to those who have been traditionally marginalized by dominant discourse practices including those in new multimodal genres.

5.8  Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA)

233

According to Martin, PDA is (re)constructive, and without it “our understanding of how change happens, for the better, across a range of sites [is crippled…] And this hampers design, and perhaps even discourages it since analysts would rather tell us how struggle was undone than how freedoms were won” (2004: 7–8). By examining texts from the perspective that moves beyond critique towards positive social changes, analysts envision and design an emancipatory alternative. Therefore, it focuses on discourse that does good rather than the opposite (Macgilchrist, 2007) and seeks to show how freedoms were won, takes a stand and positively values some aspect of social change, which may involve “looking at discourses we don’t typically associate with CDA, and in addition considering whether new kinds of analysis are required by consideration of these sites” (Martin, 2004: 8). This ‘yin and yang approach’ in which deconstructive and constructive activity is required seeks to understand, expose, and resist social inequality by looking at both its positive and negative aspects (Bartlett, 2012: 7). Macgilchrist (2007) provides an excellent example of how this is done by examining strategies for bringing forward marginal discourses into the mainstream news media. Her paper discusses current research (e.g., Laclau & Mouffe, 1985; Lakoff, 2002, 2004; Bamberg & Andrews, 2004) on counter-discourse and takes a case study approach to illustrating five strategies used in those few texts which contest the mainstream discourse, providing evidence of how PDA can be useful in the investigation of media discourse. In the realm of teacher education, Rogers and Mosley-Wetzel (2013) put forth an informative multimodal analysis of agency and leadership in a workshop about culturally relevant teaching and argue that PDA is not really a new approach, but instead, a shift in focus (which could be taken as evidence of the way in which CDA, as well as DA and DS, has been extended and expanded and how the term CDS could be used to indicate this, see Sect. 4.1). They demonstrate how the teacher participant in their article accepts and extends invitations for agency, uses problems to enhance learning, as well as narratives and counter-­narratives, and creates multiple storylines for herself and others. Finally, they call for more research of this type that considers agency across contexts. Despite its initial popularity, its emergence across disciplines and its attempts to address critiques aimed at CDA, PDA itself has been subject to a fair amount of criticism, some of which is similar to what has been said of CDA since there are many things in common between them. Scholars such as Bartlett (2012) warn us that there is a danger in only focusing on and celebrating the positive without “due consideration of the social factors that created the conditions of possibility for such texts at the local level and how structural features within the wider sociopolitical context might make it possible for such positive change to take hold and spread” (2012: 7). In addition, Bartlett asserts that PDA often lacks a detailed analysis of context that accounts for how hegemonic discourses continue to circulate, including whose interests they serve and how they fail to acknowledge the tensions which exist and how emergent reconfigurations of power relations at the local level can exploit these tensions to “reorient existing structural conditions of domination within the wider society” (2012: 8). This then results in the failure of PDA to consider how the sociocultural background of both producers and receivers affects the

234

5  Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses

meaning of texts. As a result of this critique, there has been a call for the voices of the ‘oppressed’ to be heard rather than solely the analyst’s and for a comparison of the findings of the analyst with what the members of the target community think and say (a point made above, see Rogers, 2011; Wodak & Savski, 2018) and addressed by Leudar et al. (2008) and Catalano (2016) as well as others.

5.9  The Move (from PDA) to Generative Critique Recent work in this area has attempted to address these shortcomings and many no longer find the term ‘PDA’ to be useful. According to Macgilchrist, this is because “positive” oversimplifies the issue and makes it appear as if this type of approach was separate from CDA/CDS (personal communication, July 30, 2016). This is evident in the fact that a search of the major CDA/CDS journals (e.g. Critical Discourse Studies, Discourse & Society and others) did not yield any articles besides Rogers and Mosley-Wetzel (2013) and Macgilchrist (2016) that have been published since 2013 that specifically mention ‘PDA’. Instead, Macgilchrist (2016) insists that PDA is really about the move to orient CDA to a more generative critique and she reframes it (p. 273) in terms of ‘postfoundational’ thinking, which has the potential to: (1) orient analysis more immediately to generative, ambivalent, reparative critical practices; (2) free analysis from the foundationalism arguably associated with critical theory’s justification for taking a particular moral or political stance, thus enabling analysts to simply (although it is no simple matter) state the coordinates of their standpoints; and (3) move CDA on from post-positivist debates about objectivity and bias, in order to embrace surprise, irony and transgressive validities.

Macgilchrist (2016: 264) believes that postfoundational thought (which questions the solidity and pervasiveness of foundations such as truth, universality, essence, etc.) is the answer, because postfoundational approaches aim to question what is considered to be true, and in the context of research, this means thinking about the partial truths we are constructing in our research questions, aims, and topics of research. She also acknowledges that social exclusion and discrimination continue to be pervasive and CDA scholars must always attend to how dominant discourse is being challenged. However, she believes the field of CDA is changing because the world is changing, and as a result, new demands are being made on DS, critical or not. Since more people are “simultaneously accessing multiple, contradictory news stories”, knowledge claims are made more visible because it is easier to see how they are constructed (2016: 273). Hence, she says, the role of the CDA analyst now is to examine conflict and dissonance, not just the acceptance of already established dominant ways of thinking. This means deconstructing the way in which lies are constructed as “alternative facts” (Bradner, 2017), and how reality is bent and spun (e.g., by politicians such as Donald Trump) in ways which favor political agendas and manipulate the public via a variety of media venues including social media. Through examining social change that is happening, as well as breakdowns

5.10  Attention to Culture in the Construction of Discourse

235

and disruptions, we can also critique power imbalances by sharing these “hope-­ giving, on-the-ground practices” which are “oriented to equality and heterogeneous well-being” (Haraway, 1997: 95, as cited in Macgilchrist, 2016: 273). Macgilchrist (2016) gives two examples of what this type of CDA scholarship might look like. The first one (Macgilchrist, 2015; Macgilchrist & Van Praet, 2013) examines different accounts of social movements and radical democracy in history textbooks in the US and looks at how the worker and soldier council movements of 1918–1919 have, since the 1960s, been associated with violence and anti-­democratic thinking through their contact with the Soviet Union. However, the authors found that alternative interpretations of these councils in terms of a socialist democracy were not included, and in fact, little teaching of social movement history exists in mainstream history curricula (Macgilchrist, 2015; Macgilchrist & Van Praet, 2013). By examining heated discussions of the textbook with the publishers after which the resulting text reframed the movement as more “moderate and thoughtful” (Macgilchrist & Van Praet, 2013: 641), the authors were able to link the text and talk to “broader contemporary shifts towards more diverse understandings of democracy” in which social movements can be studied as “participatory, social and conflictual” (Macgilchrist, 2016: 272). A second example Macgilchrist (2016) gives is Gibson-Graham’s (2006) work that critiques capitalist dominance and its perceived homogeneity, the aim of which is to “help create the discursive conditions under which socialist or other non-­ capitalist construction becomes a ‘realistic’ present activity rather than a ludicrous or utopian future goal” (Gibson-Graham, 1996: 263f). However, in order to do this, we must first “smash Capitalism and see it in a thousand pieces”. In his analyses, Gibson-Graham makes visible “the diversity, change and disunity which breaks up today’s apparently unified capitalist economy” (Macgilchrist, 2016: 272), ultimately questioning the inescapability of capitalism today, and taking a first step toward imagining a different way (Gibson-Graham, 2014). In reframing the way we think about “economy”, Gibson-Graham looks to those who are already reshaping new economic languages that are oriented to the concerns of community economies. For Macgilchrist, generative critique such as those outlined above, which are oriented to well-being, should be the new frontier for CDA and thus, work that “addresses unequal power relations through (fine-grained) analysis of hope-giving, reparative discourse” is a new direction that brings real promise for the future (Macgilchrist, 2016: 262).

5.10  Attention to Culture in the Construction of Discourse CDA research has been accused by Shi-xu of being (too) Euro-centric and paying (too) little attention to “the possibilities of the existence of other cultural concepts, theory and approaches, and of their own cultural limitations and bias” (2012: 485). In addition, he argues that it is often taken for granted in CDA research that “human discourses have (more or less) the same (categories of) structure and process and

236

5  Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses

operate more or less equally across cultures” and “culturally divergent forms of discursive practice and local practical needs for discourse research are usually ignored” (2012: 485). Chilton (2005, 2016) states that CDA now has to work in a global environment; and opening up to other societies is unavoidable because it has been adopted in many regions and nations and under many different types of political and social regimes. Thus, he says, questions such as “Is CDA a western import? Is critique based on relative or absolute values? On what values is critique based?” must be asked. In addition, CDA has lacked a way of dealing with the encounter between culture and discourse in general and the triangle discourse/culture/critical analysis in particular (Gavriely-Nuri, 2012: 78). These questions are echoed in Kecskes (2014), who looks at a new trend (emerging from this critique) that includes theoretical research on culture as a key player in the construction of discourse, which has begun to grow in the last few years. While we will discuss the cultural approach to CDA/CDS, (which strengthens the connection of culture to discourse) in more detail in Sect. 6.6, it is worth noting here that this approach grew out of the above critique, and that, starting in 2010, Gavriely-Nuri has been a leader in its development.

5.11  Researcher Reflexivity Another area of critique of CDA is that CDA scholars need to be more self-critical and self-reflexive, including the way they reflect on their own ideologies. This means that analysts must be sure that their “own use of language is not marked, even corrupted, by those ideological factors that they seek to identify in the language of others” (Billig, 2008a: 783). Thus, in Billig’s view, CDA researchers should be particularly concerned with examining their own use of language (which Billig himself does) and analyze their own writings for the same linguistic forms they criticize others of using, such as nominalizations and passivizations (2008a: 784). He suggests that in the aim of being reflexive, CDA researchers “need to use simpler, less technical prose that clearly ascribes actions to human agents” (Billig, 2008a: 783). In particular, Billig criticizes Fairclough in a series of articles that became part of a Special Issue in Discourse & Society (2008a, 2008b) on CDA and nominalization. In the articles, Billig claims that, in his explanation of nominalizations, Fairclough avoids using phrases that draw attention to the activities that language users must accomplish when they nominalize and as a result, he is vague about how this transformation takes place. In his responses to Billig’s critique, Fairclough (2008a, 2008b) points out that he appreciates the opportunity for debate in the field and is “grateful to him for making me think more about what I am doing” (2008a: 811). He agrees with Billig’s notion that CDA scholars should be more careful about their own writing and should “make the question of how we write more of an issue than we have done” (p. 812). However, he stresses that scholars write for different audiences and that this means that when writing for people in the field, the technical

5.12  Redefining CDA/CDS

237

jargon cannot be taken out. He also dismisses the idea of trying to write for a general readership. Despite rebuffing many of Billig’s critiques (2008a, 2008b), Fairclough (even just by the fact that he was willing to debate this through several back and forth articles in this Special Issue) was able to listen to critique and dialog about it as part of the whole process of CDA developing and growing as a field. This is noteworthy because another critique of CDA has been that there is a lack of internal dialog which has tended to “consolidate CDA from the outside, as an intellectual paradigm with its own hierarchy and systems of control, but also detracts from the seriousness of its intellectual enterprise” (Breeze, 2011: 519). However, Wodak and Meyer, encourage more critique that allows for “fruitful and necessary debates for CDA” (2009: 32) and looks for changes in its aims and goals, essentially keeping the field alive “because it necessarily triggers more self-reflection and encourages new responses and innovative ideas” (Wodak & Meyer, 2016: 22). Lin’s (2014: 228) review of CDA in applied linguistics calls on scholars in this field to attempt more “up-front critical reflexive studies and action on its own status as an academic discipline”. And the recent Special Issue of Discourse & Society (2016), which we discuss below, also continues to keep the field alive with new frameworks and shifts in focus.

5.12  Redefining CDA/CDS As we have demonstrated in this chapter, response to multilayered critique has redefined CDA and propelled scholars in the field to propose new frameworks and shifts in analytic focus. In this section, we continue to describe changes in CDA as a result of critique, occasionally returning to the critique itself in order to remind reviewers of the origin of such shifts and changes. As mentioned in Sect. 4.1, the journal Critical Discourse Studies was created in 2004 to provide a forum for new work that deals with much of the critique mentioned here. In addition, for some scholars this post-critique work can be recognized by the creation of the new label CDS. We will now focus on current critique and responses to it that can be seen in Special Issues of the Journal of Language and Politics and Discourse & Society in 2016. This more recent dialogue results from societal changes that have forced the field to reflect once again on the purpose and direction of CDA/CDS. According to Machin and van Leeuwen (2016b: 243), “The power of governments is increasingly shared between the government and the media, and increasingly shifting from government to private capital, with complex relations of mutual dependence and complex tensions between these three”. Hence, public communication increasingly addresses the public as consumers, rather than as citizens. This “marketization of discourse” (Fairclough, 1993; Mautner, 2010; see also Sects. 3.5.4 and 3.9.4) is characterized by aesthetically pleasing designs, a conversational style and increased use of multimodal resources which are facilitated by “technologies for everyday communication that are made available worldwide by global IT corporations” (Machin & van

238

5  Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses

Leeuwen, 2016b: 244). Thus, “the power of the global economy and the neoliberal principles that underpin it has been on the rise” (Sewell, 2005) and understanding this shift is paramount for CDA/CDS scholars. Machin and van Leeuwen thus point to the need to “pay increasing attention to the way that political ideologies are infused into culture more widely” (2016b: 243; see also Sect. 3.9.4). In the Special Issue of the Journal of Language and Politics dedicated to multimodality (2016a), Machin and van Leeuwen (2016b) tackle in their introduction the connection between multimodality, politics and ideology (see also Sects. 3.9.2 and 4.6) through including topics such as computer software, reality TV. shows, and apps and games targeted at young children, as well as the use of strategic diagrams, the design of office furniture, the promotion of health care services and also new kinds of corporate images which claim to promote gender diversity. In laying out the critique that more attention needs to be paid to the way that political ideologies are infused into culture other than, or in addition to, written discourse, Machin and van Leeuwen provide a sequential model for analysts to follow (which we discussed in more detail in Sect. 4.6) which first identifies the signifier and visible/audible evidence which the text or object of analysis provides, then focuses on the meaning and finally, attends to its wider significance. In doing this, analysts can and should show not only what is communicated but what is not, revealing gains and losses (Kress, 2005) and the extent of recontextualization (van Leeuwen, 2008; Machin, 2013) that gives rise to the new forms of political discourse mentioned here. Machin and van Leeuwen conclude that CDA/CDS scholars who engage in MCDA should identify which resources are harnessed for which ideological purposes and how they are used to recontextualize social practices in the service of neoliberal ideology, such as the way Roderick (2016) showed how office furniture design does not facilitate individual work or long-term projects (Machin & van Leeuwen, 2016b: 255). It is worth mentioning that this recent shift, while different in important ways from before, because of its focus on multimodality, still aligns with Fairclough’s (2015) call to fight back against neoliberal forces (see Sects. 3.5.4 and 4.3). In a similar article in the Special Issue of Discourse & Society dedicated to ‘Theoretical and Conceptual Challenges in Critical Discourse Studies’ (edited by Krzyżanowski & Forchtner, 2016a), Machin (2016) repeats these same arguments that critical multimodal research (and MCDA) needs to show how different semiotic resources are used to serve the interests of particular institutions and ideologies, but also points out that in the burgeoning field of multimodal studies, not all types of multimodal work fit neatly within the aims of CDA/CDS. In particular, he posits that CDA/CDS scholars should continue to focus on multimodality but remember to take care to “show how discourses seek to control and shape social practices in the interests of dominant ideology” (Machin, 2016: 331). That is, instead of just describing what the different modes do and how they interact, scholars should analyze more what the interactions of multiple means of communication do. In addition, he addresses the continuing critique, mentioned above, that CDA does not pay attention to nor connect with what other fields are doing and argues for more engagement with wider scholarly work (2016: 332; see Chap. 6 on the inter/multidisciplinary connections of CDA/CDS).

5.12  Redefining CDA/CDS

239

In the same Special Issue of Discourse &Society, in their introduction Krzyżanowski and Forchtner (2016b) also call for CDA/CDS to be enriched by other fields in order to help CDA/CDS theory move beyond its foundations “as well as face socio-political and academic challenges ahead” (2016: 254). We have already mentioned the contributions by Hart (2016), Machin (2016), and Macgilchrist (2016) to this Special Issue; other articles include Forchtner and Schneickert (2016), Herzog (2016a), see also Herzog (2016b), and Krzyżanowski (2016). Herzog (2016a) answers Krzyżanowski’s and Forchtner’s call for the adoption of theory from other fields, by proposing the merging of immanent (aka normative) critique with DA/DS, since it can help CDA/CDS to “ground, anchor or justify its normative claims” and “defend a normative stance that is ultimately anchored in the claim that human-made suffering should vanish” (Herzog, 2016a: 289). In his (2016b) book, which builds on his article, Herzog further develops his theoretical approaches to critique, also including analytical tools and examples. He adds that immanent critique can provide theoretically informed research questions for discourse analysis, such as questions regarding the existence of (silent) suffering, the process of the social production of that suffering and the structural obstacles to ending such suffering (Herzog, 2016a: 289).

Fairclough (2015: 12) gives a clear explanation of normative critique, saying that, as opposed to transcendental critique, it “does not go outside the social reality it is critiquing to find a measure or standard against which reality can be evaluated and criticized (e.g. to religion or philosophy)”. Instead, it “identifies internal contradictions within that social reality, including those between what is supposed or said to happen and what actually does happen” (2015: 12). Fairclough argues that CDA is unique because unlike other forms of critical analysis, it proceeds from normative critique of discourse to “explanatory” critique, which “provides the crucial link between normative critique of discourse and action to change existing reality” (2015: 19). He then argues that this type of DA can result in social change. Forchtner and Schneickert (2016) add to new theoretical applications of CDA/ CDS by proposing a merger of Bourdieu, Habermas and DHA in one framework, which would bring together “the idea of providing detailed linguistic analysis of, possibly, diachronic developments (DHA) through a series of sociological concepts (Bourdieu) on the basis of an imminent idea of transcendence” (2016: 304). They first introduce Bourdieu’s framework into DHA, then discuss links and alleged contradictions between Habermas and Bourdieu and finally, they indicate how collective learning processes might be integrated into field theory. A final article in the Special Issue dealing with CDS theory is by Krzyżanowski (2016) and argues that an in-depth rethinking of the ways in which CDS approaches recontextualisation is needed. This responds to the fact that “contemporary public discourse increasingly revolves around debating and redefining various social and political and indeed abstract concepts, often in lieu of re/presenting the actual society or its members” and that this type of discourse supports “the spread and solidification of neoliberal tendencies in contemporary societies” (2016: 309, 318). One example he gives of this change is the case of contemporary discourses on immigration which feature

240

5  Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses

concepts such as ‘integration’ and use it as “a catch-all excuse for the fierce criticism of social groups—in this case migrants—who can thereby be very easily targeted by politicians and journalists and stigmatised as those who allegedly ‘do not follow integration’, do not ‘want to integrate’ and hence should not belong (Krzyżanowski, 2010; Bennett, 2015)” (Krzyżanowski, 2016: 310). Krzyżanowski argues that CDA/CDS needs a set of new conceptual and analytical tools that can help it deal with such problems and proposes that its theoretical (as well as related analytical) tools should be combined with Begriffsgeschichte (‘conceptual history’), which is concept-oriented and based on the idea that the central object of historical inquiry should not be events, but “social and political concepts which come to define societies and various facets of social order” (2016: 312). He then suggests that CDA/CDS could be enhanced not only by combining Begriffsgeschichte and critical-analytical views but also by re-thinking how we approach recontextualization (2016: 318). In this way, the combination of the two can lead to more in-depth examination of how recontextualisation and transformation of meanings operate in discourses to define and regulate the contemporary public realm. A clear example (2016) of how to do this is by examining discourse related to multilingualism which frames its benefits in terms of economic gain. Having discussed the major critiques of CDA and responses by scholars to them, we want the reader to keep in mind that, as is the case throughout this book, we have established a cut-off date of Feb. 2018 for discussion of new work. We note that, as this book goes to press, new trends and responses to critique continue to emerge, and so it is inevitable that we have missed some very recent ones in this chapter that readers know about. We now turn to the way in which CDA/CDS is currently engaging with other disciplines.

References Abousnnouga, G., & Machin, D. (2013). The language of war monuments. London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Baker, P. (2006). Corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum. Baker, P. (2012). Acceptable bias? Using corpus linguistic methods with critical discourse anlaysis. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(3), 247–256. Bamberg, M., & Andrews, M. (2004). Introduction. In M.  Bamberg & M.  Andrews (Eds.), Considering Counter-narratives: Narrating, resisting, making sense (Vol. 4, pp. ix–1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bartlett, T. (2012). Hybrid voices and collaborative change: Contextualising positive discourse analysis. New York: Routledge. Bennett, S.T. (2015). Constructions of migrant integration in British public discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan. Billig, M. (1999a). Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse & Society, 10(4), 543–558. Billig, M. (1999b). Conversation analysis and the claims of naivety. Discourse & Society, 10(4), 572–576.

References

241

Billig, M. (2002). Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp.  35–46). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Billig, M. (2008a). The language of critical discourse analysis: The case of nominalization. Discourse & Society, 19(6), 783–800. Billig, M. (2008b). Nominalizing and de-nominalizing: A reply. Discourse & Society, 19(6), 829–841. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bradner, E. (2017, January 23). Conway: Trump White House offered ‘alternative facts’ on crowd size. CNN Politics. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/index.html. Breeze, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis and its critics. Pragmatics, 21(4), 493–525. Catalano, T. (2016). Talking about global migration: Implications for language teaching. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Catalano, T., & Mitchell-McCollough, J. (2019). Representation of unaccompanied or separated children from Central America in the United States: Media vs. migrant perspectives. In A. Musolff & L. Viola (Eds.), Migration and media: Discourses about identities in crisis (pp. 239–262). London: John Benjamins. Chilton, P. (2005). Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In R. Wodak & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinary (pp. 19–51). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Chilton, P. (2016). November 3. Professor Paul Chilton, Department of Linguistics and English Language. Retrieved November 3, 2016 from http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/profiles/paul-chilton. Collins, C., & Jones, P. E. (2006). Analysis of discourse as “a form of history writing”: A critique of Critical Discourse Analysis and an illustration of a cultural-historical alternative. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 14(1–2), 51–69. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change (Vol. 10). Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: Theuniversities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133–168. Fairclough, N. (1996). A reply to Henry Widdowson’s ‘Discourse analysis: A critical view’. Language and Literature, 5(1), 49–56. Fairclough, N. (2008a). The language of critical discourse analysis: Reply to Michael Billig. Discourse & Society, 19(6), 811–819. Fairclough, N. (2008b). A brief response to Billig. Discourse & Society, 19(6), 843–844. Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). London: Longman. Flowerdew, J. (2017). Critical discourse studies and context. In J.  Flowerdew & J.  Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp.  165–178). London/New York: Routledge. Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (2018). The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies. London/New York: Routledge. Forchtner, B., & Schneickert, C. (2016). Collective learning in social fields: Bourdieu, Habermas and critical discourse studies. Special Issue. Krzyżanowski, M. & Forchtner, B. (Eds.) Theoretical and Conceptual Challenges in Critical Discourse Studies. Discourse & Society, 27(3), 293–307. Gavriely-Nuri, D. (2012). Cultural approach to CDA. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(1), 77–85. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (1996). The end of capitalism (As we knew it). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006). A post-capitalist politics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Gibson-Graham, J.  K. (2014). Being the revolution, or, how to live in a ‘more-than-capitalist’ World threatened with extinction. Rethinking Marxism, 26(1), 76–94.

242

5  Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses

Haig, E. (2004). Some observations on the critique of critical discourse analysis. Studies in Language and Culture, 25(2), 129–149. Haraway, D.  J. (1997). [email protected]_Millennium.FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse. New York: Routledge. Hart, C. (2015). Viewpoint in linguistic discourse space and evaluation in news reports of political protests. Critical Discourse Studies, 12(3), 238–260. Hart, C. (2016). The visual basis of linguistic meaning and its implications for critical discourse studies: Integrating cognitive linguistic and multimodal methods. Special issue. Krzyżanowski, M. & Forchtner, B. (Eds.) Theoretical and Conceptual Challenges in Critical Discourse Studies. Discourse & Society, 27(3), 33–350. Herzog, B. (2016a). Discourse analysis as immanent critique: Possibilities and limits of normative critique in empirical discourse studies. Special issue. Krzyżanowski, M. & Forchtner, B. (Eds.) Theoretical and Conceptual Challenges in Critical Discourse Studies. Discourse & Society, 27(3), 278–292. Herzog, B. (2016b). Discourse analysis as social critique: Discursive and non-discursive realities in critical social research. Amsterdam: Springer. Jones, P. E. (2004). Discourse and the materialist conception of history: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis. Historical Materialism, 12(1), 97–125. Jones, P. E., & Collins, C. (2006). Political analysis versus critical discourse analysis in the treatment of ideology: Some implications for the study of communication. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 14(1–2), 28–50. Jones, P.  E., & Collins, C. (2010). State ideology and oppositional discourses: Conceptual and methodological issues. In M.  Huspek (Ed.), Oppositional discourses and democracies (pp. 17–39). London: Routledge. Kecskes, I. (2014). Can intercultural pragmatics bring some new insight into pragmatic theories? In A.  Capone & J.  Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 43–70). New York: Springer. Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of text, knowledge and learning. Computers and Composition, 22, 5–22. Krzyżanowski, M. (2010). The discursive construction of European Identities. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Krzyżanowski, M. (2016). Recontextualisation of neoliberalism and the increasingly conceptual nature of discourse: Challenges for critical discourse studies. Special Issue. Krzyżanowski, M. & Forchtner, B. (Eds.) Theoretical and Conceptual Challenges in Critical Discourse Studies. Discourse & Society, 27(3), 308–321. Krzyżanowski, M., & Forchtner, B. (Eds.). (2016a). Special Issue. Theoretical and conceptual challenges in critical discourse studies. Discourse & Society, 27(3), 253–261. Krzyżanowski, M., & Forchtner, B. (2016b). Introduction. Theories and concepts in critical discourse studies: Facing challenges, moving beyond foundations. In Special Issue. Krzyżanowski, M. & Forchtner, B. (Eds.) Theoretical and Conceptual Challenges in Critical Discourse Studies. Discourse & Society, 27(3), 253–261. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical politics. London: Verso. Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate: The essential guide for progressives. White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green Pub. Co.. Leitch, S., & Palmer, I. (2010). Analysing texts in context: Current practices and new protocols for critical discourse analysis in organization studies. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1194–1212. Leudar, I., Hayes, J., Nekvapil, J., & Baker, J.  T. (2008). Hostility themes in media, community and refugee narratives. Discourse & Society, 19(2), 187–221. https://doi. org/10.1177/0957926507085952

References

243

Lin, A. (2014). Critical discourse analysis in applied linguistics: A methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000087 Luke, A. (2002). Beyond science and ideological critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 96–110. Macgilchrist, F. (2007). Positive discourse analysis: Contesting dominant discourses by reframing the issue. Critical Approaches to Discourse Across the Disciplines, 1(1), 74–94. Macgilchrist, F. (2015). Geschichte und Dissens: Diskursives Ringen um Demokratie in der Schulbuchproduktion [History and dissensus: Discursive struggles over democracy in textbook publishing]. In S. Fegter, F. Kessl, A. Langer, et al. (Eds.), Erziehungswissenschaftliche Diskursforschung: Empirische Analysen zu Bildungs-und Erziehungsverhältnissen [Educational studies and discourse studies: Empirical analyses of educational relations] (pp. 193–209). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Macgilchrist, F. (2016). Fissures in the discourse-scape: Critique, rationality and validity in post-­ foundational approaches to CDS.  Special Issue. Krzyżanowski, M. & Forchtner, B. (Eds.) Theoretical and Conceptual Challenges in Critical Discourse Studies. Discourse & Society, 27(3), 262–277. Macgilchrist, F., & Van Praet, E. (2013). Writing the history of the victors? Discourse, social change and (radical) democracy. Journal of Language and Politics, 12(4), 626–651. Machin, D. (2013). What is multimodal critical discourse studies? Discourse Studies, 10, 347–355. Machin, D. (2016). The need for a social and affordance-driven multimodal critical discourse studies. Special Issue. Krzyżanowski, M. & Forchtner, B. (Eds.).Theoretical and Conceptual Challenges in Critical Discourse Studies. Discourse & Society, 27(3), 322–334. Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2007). Antiracism in the British government’s model regional newspaper: The “talking cure”. Discourse & Society, 18(4), 453–478. Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. London: Sage. Machin, D. & Polzer, L. (2015). Visual journalism. New York: Macmillan Education. Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2016a). Special Issue. Multimodality, politics and ideology. Journal of Language and Politics, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.15.3.01mac Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2016b). Introduction. Special Issue. Multimodality, politics and ideology. Journal of Language and Politics, 15(3), 243–258. Martin, J. R. (2000). Close reading: Functional linguistics as a tool for critical discourse analysis. Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistic perspectives. L. Unsworth (pp. 275–302). London: Cassell. Martin, J. R. (2002). Blessed are the peacemakers: Reconciliation and evaluation. In C. Candlin (Ed.), Research and practice in professional discourse (pp.  187–227). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press. Martin, J. R. (2004). Positive discourse analysis: Power, solidarity and change. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 49, 179–200. Reprinted in M. Toolan (Ed.) (2002), Critical discourse analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics, Vol. 3 (pp. 170–201). London, Routledge. [Page number references refer to the reprinted version.]. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Mautner, G. (2008). Analyzing newspapers, magazines and other print media. In R.  Wodak & M. Kryzanowski (Eds.), Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences (pp. 301–353). Houndmills, Basinstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.. Mautner, G. (2010). Language and the market society. In Critical perspectives on discourse and dominance. London: New York. Mautner, G. (2016). Checks and balances: How corpus linguistics can contribute to CDA.  In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 154–179). London: Sage. McFarland, K. (2006). Strengthening critical discourse analysis: The Babybook revisited. Retrieved from http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/reli/resources/lap_mcfarland_2006.pdf.

244

5  Critiques of CDA/CDS and Responses

Mogashoa, T. (2014). Understanding critical discourse analysis in qualitative research. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 1(7), 104–113. Musolff, A. (2016). Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination, rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London: Routledge. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 87–121). London: Sage. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2016). The discourse historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (pp. 23–61). London: Sage. Rheindorf. (2018). Disciplining the unwilling: Normalization of (demands for) punitive measures against immigrants in Austrian populist discourse. In M. Kranert & G. Horan (Eds.), Doing politics: Discursivity, performativity and mediation in political discourse (Vol. 80, pp. 179– 208). London: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Roderick, I. (2016). The politics of office design: Translating neoliberalism into furnishing. Journal of Language and Politics, 15(3), 274–287. Rogers, R. (2011). The sounds of silence in educational tracking: A longitudinal, ethnographic case study. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(4), 239–252. Rogers, R., & Mosley-Wetzel, M. (2013). Studying agency in literacy teacher education: A layered approach to positive discourse analysis. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10(1), 62–92. Schegloff, E. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society, 8(2), 165–187. Schegloff, E. A. (1999a). Schegloff’s texts’ as Billig’s data’: A critical reply. Discourse & Society, 10(4), 558–572. Schegloff, E. A. (1999b). Naivete vs sophistication or discipline vs self-indulgence: A rejoinder to Billig. Discourse & Society, 10(4), 577–582. Sewell, W. H. (2005). From ‘state-centrism’ to neoliberalism: Macro-historical contexts of population health since World War II. In P. Hall & M. Lamont (Eds.), Successful societies: Institutions, cultural repertoires and health (pp. 254–287). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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. Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf’s children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis. In A. Wray & A.  Ryan (Eds.), Evolving models of language (pp.  100–116). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Toolan, M. J. (2002). Critical discourse analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics. Vol. 4. Current debates and new directions. London/New York: Routledge. van Dijk, T.  A. (1999). Critical discourse analysis and conversation analysis. Discourse and Society, 10(4), 459–460. van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A socio-cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Leiden: Cambridge University Press. van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Verschueren, J. (2001). Predicaments of criticism. Critique of Anthropology, 21(1), 59–81. Widdowson, H.  G. (1995). Discourse analysis: A critical view. Language and Literature, 4(3), 157–172. Widdowson, H.  G. (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 (Vol. 12). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

References

245

Wodak, R. (2006). Review focus: Boundaries in discourse analysis. Language in Society, 35(4), 595–611. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis (1st ed.). London: Sage. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R.  Wodak & M.  Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 1–33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Wodak, R., & Savski, K. (2018). Critical discourse-ethnographic approaches to language policy. In J. W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 93–112). Oxford: OUP.

Chapter 6

CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections

6.1  Introduction CDA/CDS has always been interdisciplinary1 (see Sect. 1.1 and Chaps. 3 and 4). This is due in part to its origins in DA (Sect. 3.1), and also to being formed by scholars who themselves were interdisciplinary (Sect. 3.2) and continued to be so in this new endeavor. It is also because most approaches to CDA/CDS are connected to general social theories (‘Grand Theories’), ‘middle-range’ theories, and so forth (as explained in Sect. 3.2, see Reisigl & Wodak, 2016: 17), which are interdisciplinary in their focus and have influenced many of the academic areas that CDA/CDS is connected to. We also note that the commitment to interdisciplinarity and various kinds of theoretical positioning has meant that the earlier approaches—Dialectical-­ Relational (DRA), Sociocognitive (SCA), Discourse-Historical (DHA), and Dispositive (DPA) Approaches (Wodak & Meyer, 2001, 2009, 2016, see Sects. 4.3– 4.5 and 4.7)—have, over time, created contacts with even more fields or (research) areas or in different ways than before. And it is not a surprise that new approaches have arisen since then and have become institutionalized in CDA/CDS, in the sense that they are included in the Main Approaches (Chap. 4)—Social Semiotics and Multimodal (SocSem and MCDA), Corpus Linguistic (CorpLingA) and Cognitive Linguistic (CogLingA) Approaches (Sects. 4.6, 4.8, and 4.9)—and that they too are interdisciplinary. We will not revisit this issue of the interdisciplinarity of CDA/ CDS here since it is discussed throughout this book and also treated by many articles, chapters and books cited in Chaps. 1–5; we can simply say that we believe, along with other CDA/CDS scholars, that the interdisciplinary stance coupled with openness to theoretical positioning of CDA/CDS is the key to the rich, subtle and

1  As noted in Sect. 1.1 and in Sect. 3.1 (see also Sects. 1.1 and 3.5), some CDA/CDS scholars prefer to use the terms multi-, cross- or trans-disciplinary with some slight differences in connotation for some, but we will not address that issue here.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 T. Catalano, L. R. Waugh, Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies and Beyond, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 26, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49379-0_6

247

248

6  CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections

complex nature of our work. It also makes the field more relevant, up to date, and effective, since it is dynamic and accommodates new approaches, new scholars, new topics, new research problems, new methods, etc. (as said in Sect. 3.2). What we will be exploring in this chapter is the multiple ways in which CDA/ CDS has connected with different fields that are not currently part of it (and perhaps never will be)—and conversely the way that work in other areas has serious linkages with CDA/CDS. We also note that of the fields we will cover, the majority (if not all) of them are also interdisciplinary and/or open to ties with scholarship in other areas—which, in fact, is not surprising. We view this as a relationship that can go in one or both directions: CDA/CDS research that has a serious connection with some facet(s) of a specific field, and/or scholarship in another area with a strong connection to some facet(s) of CDA/CDS. This may be because scholars in CDA/CDS integrate or combine explicitly theories/methods/approaches/research practices/ concepts/perspectives (and so forth) from other areas into their scholarship or are influenced by them in some way and/or because scholars in other areas incorporate any one of those theories/methods, etc. from CDA/CDS into their research or are influenced by them. In some cases, this connection is recognized by the CDA/CDS community, for example, through chapters in edited books, articles in journals, Special Issues of journals, etc., or through specific mention in scholarship. In the reverse direction, it is made explicit through books/articles, etc. and/or through the positioning of the scholarship in the other fields or areas in relation to CDA/ CDS. While there are possibly other areas or disciplines that have these kinds of connections, the ones featured in this chapter are those that are the best established or the most obvious about their relationship with CDA/CDS—and are the most notable from our point of view. They are the following (in this order in this chapter): critical applied linguistics, education, anthropology/ethnography, sociolinguistics, gender studies, queer linguistics, pragmatics and ecolinguistics. In each section, we describe basic concepts important to the scholarship in the given field/area, and then we explain how CDA/CDS incorporates or combines theories/models, etc. from them into its own scholarship or how they integrate CDA/CDS scholarship into theirs (before Feb. 2018, our cutoff date). We begin with critical applied linguistics.

6.2  CDA/CDS and Critical Applied Linguistics There are many different definitions of applied linguistics and since it is not our purpose here to resolve the issue of what it is, we will quote three fairly short ones. Richards et al. (1985: 15) define it as “the study of second and foreign language learning and teaching” and “the study of language and linguistics in relation to practical problems, such as lexicography, translation, speech pathology, etc.”. For Brumfit (1997: 93) it is “the theoretical and empirical investigation of real-world problems in which language is a central issue.” And Schmitt and Celce-Murcia (2002: 1) say that it uses “what we know about (a) language, (b) how it is learned,

6.2  CDA/CDS and Critical Applied Linguistics

249

and (c) how it is used, in order to achieve some purpose or solve some problem in the real world.” For these scholars, and many others, applied linguistics is an interdisciplinary field and it draws on linguistics, sociolinguistics, education, sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, to name but a few. Pennycook (1990), who was the first to coin the term ‘critical applied linguistics’ and to place a critical emphasis on applied linguistics, claims it is a “critical approach to applied linguistics” (2001/2009: 1; for a definition of critical applied linguistics and its main concerns, see Pennycook (2001/2009, Chap. 1). Pennycook recognizes that there is a substantial amount of confusion around what it means to be ‘critical’ in addition to the confusion around the definition of ‘applied linguistics’. However, it is a “useful umbrella under which a number of emerging approaches to language and education can be described” (Pennycook, 1997: 23). In essence, it takes a critical approach to the study of language that emphasizes making applied linguistics matter, and remakes the connections between discourse, language learning, and language use, and the social and political contexts in which all of them occur. Moreover, as Pennycook points out, ‘critical applied linguistics’ draws on a variety of critical approaches to develop an understanding of the relationship between language, culture, and discourse, coupled with a belief that research in this area needs to focus on an analysis of the micropolitics of everyday life. Two of the many critical approaches he includes in critical applied linguistics are CDA/CDS and critical linguistics (CritLing) (1997: 23–24). Pennycook (1997: 25) also posits that critical applied linguistics should not only explore “questions of language and inequality” but also attempt to “change those conditions”. Mahboob and Paltridge (2013: 1) echo this call, stating that the purpose of this approach is “not only to understand and explain how power is constructed and exercised through language, but also to change the practices and empower those who are at risk from oppressive practices”. Thus, it should be seen as a way of thinking and doing that is always problematizing (much like CDA/CDS). In fact, Pennycook (2004) explains that he sees it as a dynamic, constantly shifting approach to language in multiple contexts, rather than a method, a set of techniques, or a sum of related critical approaches to language domains. In his own words (2004: 803–804), this approach is not just the addition of a critical dimension to AppLing [=applied linguistics], but rather opens up a whole new array of questions and concerns, issues such as identity, sexuality, access, ethics … or the reproduction of Otherness that have hitherto not been considered as concerns related to AppLing.

Critical applied linguistics examines inequality in terms of linking micro-­ relations of applied linguistics to macro-relations of social and political power. In this vein, it empowers applied linguists in the sense that it enables them to make the connection between discourse, language learning, language teaching, language use, and the social and political contexts in which these processes take place. Critical applied linguistics studies the “ways in which education, regulation, and the study and use of language relate to the realization, maintenance, and ­reproduction

250

6  CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections

of the distribution of power in society” (Mahboob & Paltridge, 2013: 1). It focuses on how power is performed, reproduced, and resisted through language study fields, including language policy and planning, language codification, language teaching, language learning, and language testing. For example, a critical approach to language policy should focus on the “regulations, laws, policies and practices that relate to the use and functional distribution of languages”, examining questions such as the privileged positions certain languages are given, and how the use of certain languages helps those in power to maintain power. In this area, Phillipson’s (1992) book Linguistic Imperialism was one of the first to examine the role, function and power of English as a global language. In addition, Canagarajah (1999), Mahboob (2002), and Pennycook (2001/2009) note the power of English (and how it is used to devalue local languages) as well as the importance of studying how English is appropriated and/or resisted in various communities around the world. In addition, this work examines the discursive construction of English as directly connected to modernization and how English is marketed as a “language of diplomacy, education, finance, globalization, science, technology, tourism, and so forth” (Mahboob & Paltridge, 2013: 2); but conversely, the relationship between English and modernization-globalization can best be described as tenuous. In the area of language codification, critical applied linguistic studies are interested in understanding which languages become codified and used as models of education as well as the consequences speakers face when they don’t adhere to standardized varieties. Kachru (1990) has investigated these questions regarding World Englishes while Nero (2006) has looked into creole studies. Another area of research that has sprung from the study of World Englishes and critical language policy is that of the non-native English speakers in the Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) movement (Mahboob, 2010; Mahboob & Golden, 2013; Lowe & Kiczkowiak, 2016). Experts in this area have raised awareness of inequities for non-native English speakers—often referred to as ‘native-­ speakerism’—and have connected those issues to race. For example, Crump (2014) draws on critical race theory to connect subject-as-seen with subject-as-heard (i.e., accent), urging scholars to continue to investigate “the ways in which race, racism and racialization intersect with issues of language, belonging and identity” (2014: 207). Crump’s work also connects to the area of critical language teaching, in which the importance of identity in discussion of language teaching and learning is highlighted, such as by Canagarajah (1999) and other scholars who connect research to practice and illustrate ways in which creative classroom strategies can be used to engage with local context, needs and resources. In addition, critical applied linguistic scholarship that combines with genre studies (e.g. Martin & Rose, 2008) urges the explicit teaching of the discourses of power so that students from disadvantaged backgrounds can move out of their position by producing written texts that will help them gain access to power. Related to this same goal, critical language learning research examines how power relations affect language learning as well as “the social identities, wishes, desires and histories of language learners” (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005: 281).

6.2  CDA/CDS and Critical Applied Linguistics

251

A final area of critical applied linguistics examined by Mahboob and Paltridge (2013) is that of language testing, in which Shohamy’s (2001) book The Power of Tests marked a turning point where the focus changed from measurement and validity to ethical issues that question what tests actually do and how they change people’s lives. McNamara and Shohamy (2008) examined the use of language tests for citizenship, immigration and asylum purposes in Australia, as well as various countries in Europe, the UK, and the US, arguing for the need for more advocacy on behalf of (and by) the people affected by the tests so that the unfair policies that they focus on can be challenged; and Wodak (2013a, 2013b) and Wodak and Boukala (2015) combined CDA/CDS with critical applied linguistics to examine language testing policies. In addition to the areas of critical applied linguistics highlighted by Mahboob and Paltridge (2013), Lin (2014: 219) also notes that it has been used to address the field of applied linguistics itself, as well as public and media discourses and other educational discourses. This research includes topics such as educational policies and classroom interactions, curriculum, creative writings and texts produced by and about discourses of or on educators, teacher-educators, community leaders, new immigrants etc. In the area of textbook analysis, Lin gives the example of (de los Heros, 2009), which looks at the way in which textbooks in Peru contradict language policies that advocate for the teaching of respect for indigenous languages and language diversity, and also cites other examples of work in this area (e.g. Le Roux, 2008) but notes that these studies could be improved by showing how the textbooks are actually used in different ways by school participants (Lin, 2014). In studies that focus on discursive construction of identities (e.g. Briscoe & De Oliver, 2012; Gu, 2010), Lin notes that more researcher reflexivity is needed as well as interdisciplinary research methods and perspectives. In her discussion of media discourse analysis (DA) (e.g. O’Halloran, 2007 and Baker, Gabrielatos, & McEnery, 2013, which both utilize corpus linguistics), Lin acknowledges that both studies are socially committed, problem-oriented and reflexive, and they both use a diverse range of methods. However, she advocates for more research to adopt Wodak’s DHA since it emphasizes “collecting data over a period of time, highlighting the importance of the longitudinal, historical dimension of CDA” (Lin, 2014: 226; see Sect. 4.5). In terms of the connection of critical applied linguistics to CDA/CDS, it is not hard to see how its aims are similar to those of CDA/CDS, and how they can easily intersect. According to Mahboob and Paltridge (2013), they both aim to de-­construct power relations that are “not evident, on first sight, to people” (2013: 5) and to describe and seek to “change discriminatory practices that are related to descriptions, perceptions and policies and practices of language” (2013: 5) and work in the areas of critical applied linguistics described above intersects in important ways with CDA/CDS. Not all applied linguistic work is critical, but much work that is uses CDA/CDS as a theoretical foundation and framework from which to describe the naturalization of “power, prestige and authority” with the goal of resisting them in order to bring about social change (Mahboob & Paltridge, 2013: 6). Some other examples of critical applied linguistic studies not mentioned here but worth reading

252

6  CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections

include Kubota, (1999), Martinez (2003), and Anya (2016), on racialized identities of second language learners in Brazil (which was the 2019 recipient of the American Association of Applied Linguistics First Book Award). In addition, in the next section we describe Fairclough’s work in education which overlaps to some degree with critical applied linguistics.

6.3  CDA/CDS and Education 6.3.1  Introduction Another area that has incorporated the use of CDA/CDS into its research is that of education, at all levels. In this section, we demonstrate how CDA/CDS can not only be combined with educational issues to explore power relations in teaching and learning, but also how it can be a potent tool to counter neoliberal forces (as mentioned by Fairclough, see Sects. 3.5.4, 3.5.5, and 4.3). Just as in other areas, educational realms have been highly affected by neoliberal ideologies, and CDA/CDS has emerged as one tool that can expose them in order to resist them (see Sect. 6.3.2.2 for more). Since the late 1990s, educational researchers have increasingly engaged in CDA/ CDS to answer questions about the relationship between language and society, and as they do so, they show its applicability to education and at the same time continually reshape its boundaries (Rogers et  al., 2005). Before this, scholarship that engaged critically with education, such as that of Paulo Freire and critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970/2018), didn’t necessarily focus on language per se, with the exception of some of Fairclough’s (and his colleagues’) early work (see the next Sect. 6.3.2). However, much CDA/CDS work in this area draws on the work of critical pedagogy, or at least works toward the same aims, but focuses explicit attention on language. Other early examples of linguistic analysis in education (such as Cazden, 1988/2001) made sense of the ways in which people make meaning in educational contexts (Rogers et al., 2005: 366). The current wide use of CDA/CDS in educational research is due perhaps to its compatibility with educational issues in many areas, and the increasing willingness of CDA/CDS scholars to look across disciplines for applications. For example, if one considers educational practices to be communicative events, then it is easy to understand how Fairclough’s approach (2011) can be useful in examining the ways in which text, talk and other semiotic interactions involved in learning are constructed in varying contexts (Rogers, 2011a: 1). CDA/CDS is also useful in education because it provides a way of conceptualizing interaction that is quite compatible with Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective (1962, 1978; see Wertsch, 1985; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) in educational research (Moll, 1990/2014; Gutiérrez, 2008; Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 2007) and applied linguistics in general and allows for the interpretation of multimodal social practices such as those found in education (Rogers, 2011a: 1).

6.3  CDA/CDS and Education

253

In addition, CDA/CDS and educational research are both committed to addressing problems through a range of theoretical perspectives. Many of the problems in the globalized system of education have to do with power and inequality, and CDA/ CDS is particularly equipped with the tools needed to address these issues and the complex movement across educational sites, practices, and systems in a world of global inequalities (Rogers, 2011a: 1; also Collins, 2011). As more and more educational researchers adapt CDA/CDS tools to their research, “interesting and substantive concerns arise about how it is applied to educational issues, how it affects other research and approaches in education, and how it might be reviewed in the non-educational research traditions from which it came” (Rogers et al., 2005: 366).

6.3.2  Norman Fairclough Since the publication of his work with colleagues in the linguistics department at Lancaster University (e.g., Clark et al., 1990) and his edited book (1992) Critical Language Awareness, Norman Fairclough has been a leader in calling for Critical Language Study (CLS) (which later developed into some facets of CDA) to deal with educational issues and has been very influential in this area, as will be explored in the next three sections (see also Sect. 3.5). 6.3.2.1  Language Education According to Fairclough (1999: 79), “The need for critical awareness of discourse in contemporary society should make it a central part of language education in schools, colleges and universities.” Fairclough first began to emphasize this point in Critical Language Awareness (1992), and later included it along with CDA in his 1995 book. One of the results of his work with the Language, Ideology and Power research group at Lancaster (and those who helped shape this work—Luciano Celes, Stef Slembrouck, and Mary Talbot) was an article that reviewed current approaches to ‘language awareness’ (Clark, Fairclough, Ivanič, & Martin-Jones, 1990), followed by his own edited volume Critical Language Awareness (Fairclough, 1992). In Clark et al. (1990: 251), Fairclough and his co-authors compare critical and non-critical approaches to language awareness, defining it as “a person’s sensitivity to and conscious awareness of the nature of language and its role in human life”. Using an extract of the poem ‘Queen of Hearts’ in standard British English vs. Jamaican English from a writing textbook in which the standard variety of English is presented to students as the appropriate way to use language in writing as opposed to Jamaican English, the authors argue that “the sociolinguistic order is portrayed as a natural order rather than an order which has become naturalized” (Clark et al., 1990: 258). In addition, they contend that “the extract encourages learners to think that ‘dialects other than standard English’ are appropriate only for quaint written uses such as nursery rhymes, stories and poems”, and the way the dialect vs. the

254

6  CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections

standard is presented “objectifies and sanitises language in a way which isolates it from its social context: learning about language separately from purposeful language use” (p. 259). They then suggest that education should equip children for the reality that there are inequalities within the “sociolinguistic order” (p. 260). That is, there are reasons why standard English is preferred in formal situations, and why certain other varieties are stigmatized in those same situations. In other words, these orders of discourse did not just naturally happen to be this way—they have to do with colonization, domination, and power. The authors conclude that CLA (and CDA) “complements the development of language capabilities and can empower learners to challenge the status quo, and to work for change” (p. 260)2. In the introduction and his chapter on ‘the appropriacy of appropriateness’, Fairclough (1992; see also Sects. 3.5.1, 3.5.4, and 4.3) reiterates that “development of a critical awareness of the world, and of the possibilities for changing it, ought to be the main objective of all education, including language education” (p.  7). He adds that in CLA (versus non-critical approaches), language education should be a “resource for tackling social problems which centre around language” (p. 12). He also draws on the work of critical pedagogy scholars such as Freire (1985) and Giroux (1983), to argue that language education should provide learners with an understanding of the way in which social issues can be resolved outside of schools as well as within educational contexts. Again, he uses the teaching of standard English as an example. Essentially, he says that, “in passing on prestigious practices and values such as those of standard English without developing a critical awareness of them, one is implicitly legitimising them and the asymmetrical distribution of cultural capital” (Fairclough, 1992: 15). In other words, in a CDA/CDS view of language education, we should make students aware of the way society values or devalues different language varieties but also raise the question as to how, and why, dominant rules about language variation and policy could be challenged and disregarded. Although he does not propose exact ways to do this, others in the volume (which we discuss below) do; in addition, as we discuss also in Sect. 6.4 below, there are sociolinguists who adhere to this line of research, and often cite Fairclough in their work (e.g. Boxer, 2002; Deckert & Vickers, 2011; Downes, 1998). In the rest of the edited volume on CLA, language education scholars give examples of how to challenge and resist dominant ideologies as related to topics like critical literacy (Wallace, 1992), raising student consciousness about the writing process (Clark, 1992), academic writing (Ivanič & Simpson, 1992), English teaching, information technology (Stubbs, 1992), euphemisms, school discourse, and empowerment of high school students in Botswana (McKenzie, 1992), the treatment of minority languages in the British educational system (Bhatt & Martin-Jones, 1992), and how to challenge the domination of standard varieties by using non-standard varieties for prestigious purposes (Janks & Ivanič, 1992). Besides the two works discussed above, Fairclough also attended to language education issues in Language and Power (1989/2001/2015; discussed in Sects.

 Much of this work overlaps with Fairclough’s other work in sociolinguistics (see Sect. 6.4).

2

6.3  CDA/CDS and Education

255

3.5.2 and 3.5.3), advocating for the use of CLS (and later CDA) in the teaching of English as a Second Language because these learners include some of the “most disadvantaged sections of the society, whose experiences of domination and racism are particularly sharp” (Fairclough, 2015: 230). He notes that developing a “critical consciousness3 of discourse” as a basis for ideological struggle is something that has already been established in English as a Second Language research, but that other areas such as public service (i.e., nursing) or trade unions could also benefit from the use of CDA. 6.3.2.2  Philosophy of Education and CDA/CDS Besides focusing on language education, Fairclough also problematized the meaning and purpose of education in general, connecting it to CDA/CDS aims. In his book on CDA (1995/2013; see Sect. 3.5.5), he discusses his work on CLA but also alludes to the ‘marketization’ of education as well as the “contemporary tendency of the purposes of education to narrow down towards serving the needs of the economy” (Fairclough, 1999: 81, e.g., ‘neoliberalism’, aka ‘neo-liberalism’, see Sects. 3.5 and 6.3.2.3). In addition, he questions the status quo of educational reform and what the true purpose of education is (2013: 555, see also Fairclough, 1999). In his analysis (in both 1995/2013 and 1999), he argues against the ideologies put forth by the Dearing Report (National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, 1997, in the UK) which views teaching and learning as “‘key skills’ which are seen as transferable from one sphere of life to another and as the basis for future success including successful ‘lifelong learning’” (Fairclough, 1999: 80). The problem with this, according to Fairclough, is that if we see education as learning communication skills which, once learned, can be transferred freely from one context to another, we can over-generalize and ignore local contexts and ways in which each context might need a different approach. And because “discourse is a complex matching of models with immediate needs in which what emerges may be radically different from any model, ambivalent between models, or a baffling mixture of models, and where flair and creativity may have more impact than skill” (1999: 80), this can result in disastrous consequences. To illustrate such consequences, he gives the example of someone using skills learned in interviewing university candidates to interview celebrities on a T.V. talk show (1999: 80). Accordingly, he rejects the archaic ‘transmission’ model of education in which knowledge and skills are supposedly passed on to the learner, and instead, he argues that critical approaches do not just pass on information, they teach students to question what they learn.

3  The use of ‘critical consciousness’ here reflects Freire’s influence on Fairclough’s work in education, since it is a translation of the Portuguese conscientização, developed by Freire (1974) to refer to an awareness of social and political contradictions and how to take action against oppressive elements in one’s life. Freire’s work is also grounded in post-Marxist critical theory, so it makes sense that Fairclough draws on it in his efforts to bridge CDA and education.

256

6  CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections

In another chapter (2011: 119), Fairclough turns to educational research and notes that his earlier work in the late 90s and early 2000s (e.g., Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 2000a, 2000b, 2001c, 2003; Chiapello & Fairclough, 2002; Fairclough, Jessop, & Sayer, 2003) was criticized for not incorporating a view of learning. He then seeks to remedy this problem by addressing the “possibilities for and limitations of critical educational research motivated by emancipatory (e.g., antiracist) agendas for learning and social transformation” (Fairclough, 2011: 126). He suggests overall that educational researchers consider both structural characteristics and factors to do with agency in looking at educational issues. In essence, he views educational research as part of a network of social practices which includes classroom teaching, administration, educational research, government and educational policy (in part as a means of control or governance) in which researchers can seek to create more equal relations between the orders of discourse, such as (for example) between academic research and classroom teaching. Furthermore, he suggests that educational researchers see themselves as agents using their research to “develop, recontextualize, and seek to enact and inculcate new discourses” 2011: 126), which can be done through dialog between researchers and teachers (and, possibly, students). 6.3.2.3  Neoliberalism and Higher Education As alluded to earlier, Fairclough has used CDA/CDS to address neoliberalism in English language education (2015: 229–238; 2013: 544–557) as well as in higher education in the UK (1993, 2007), and in Austria and Romania (Wodak & Fairclough, 2010). In 2000, he published a brief article in Discourse & Society calling for “co-­ ordinated action against neo-liberalism on the part of critical language researchers” (Fairclough, 2000c: 147). He adopts Bourdieu’s definition of neoliberalism as a “political project for the reconstruction of society in accord with the demands of an unrestrained global capitalism” (Bourdieu, 1998, as cited in Fairclough, 2000c: 147). In this two-page call for action, he states clearly the problems of neoliberal ideologies and actions which result in “an increasing gap between the rich and the poor, less security for most people, less democracy, major environmental damage” (p.  147). He ends the paper with a call for an international network to link the diverse work that is already going on and to encourage more to happen, giving his email address for interested scholars to contact him. Fairclough has not been alone in this endeavor and has joined other British and European scholars (especially Wodak) in looking at the issue of ‘education and the knowledge-based economy in Europe’ (Jessop, Fairclough, & Wodak, 2008; see Jessop, 2004, 2008 on critical semiotic analysis and cultural political economy, and Jessop & Sum, 2010; also Sum, 2009). Mautner (2006), has also looked at the use of the “buzzword”, ‘entrepreneurial university’, in higher education. Other scholars, such as Davies and Bansel (2007) have examined neoliberalism in education in other areas such as Australia and New Zealand, while Machin and Ledin (2016), Ledin and Machin (2016, 2018) have looked at document design in higher education in Sweden as it

6.3  CDA/CDS and Education

257

relates to neoliberalism, and in the US, CDA/CDS researchers have explored neoliberalism in K-12 education (e.g., Rogers, 2011a). Despite the fact that many others have also been tackling this subject, we are dedicating this section to Fairclough’s work on neoliberalism and education because he has concentrated such a large amount of his attention to this area and has also been a leader in calling for CDA/CDS scholars to do the same. Most noteworthy is his belief, stressed at the end of Language and Power (2015: 252), that the primary struggle of CDA/CDS “must be against neo-liberalism”, which is similar to his call for a network of scholars working against neoliberalism mentioned above (Fairclough, 2000c). He also used examples of neoliberal discourse in higher education to demonstrate how his DRA approach to CDA works (e.g., Fairclough, 1995; see also Sect. 4.3). For example, in Chap. 4 of Fairclough (1995, which first appeared in Discourse & Society in 1993), he analyzes the way that public discourse has been transformed by the marketization (i.e., “restructuring of the order of discourse on the model of central market organisations”) of discourse in higher education in Britain (Fairclough, 1993: 143). Basically, this concerns the way in which universities have become more like businesses than educational institutions. He justifies using higher education discourse as an example because it represents a typical case of “processes of marketisation and commodification in the public sector more generally” (Fairclough, 1995: 101). In addition, he notes that his paper is part of a longer study of higher education in collaboration with Susan Condor, Olivia Fulton, and Celia Lury, in which they look at “changing organizational forms, discursive practices, and social and professional identities in higher education” (Fairclough, 1993: 166). He introduces the idea of marketization by discussing how educational institutions establish an ‘internal’ market by making departments more financially autonomous, using managerial approaches in staff appraisal and evaluation and paying more attention to marketing, and also how they treat students as ‘customers’—and how all these changes are top-down4. He demonstrates the way these changes are represented discursively (including through his DRA approach to CDA, see Sect. 4.3), by examining academic documents such as job advertisements, a packet from an academic conference, a curriculum vitae, and an undergraduate prospectus for the years 1967–1968, 1986–1987 and 1993. He concludes that the discursive shifts are indicators of the decline of stable institutional identities in favor of “more entrepreneurial identities” as well as a “decline in the implicit (unspoken) authority of the institution over its applicants, potential students, and potential staff” (Fairclough, 1993: 157). As a result, academics then reconstruct their own identities on a more self-promotional/entrepreneurial basis by highlighting or foregrounding their personal qualities. Another paper in which he covers similar ground is Fairclough (2007). Later, Fairclough and Wodak (2008; Wodak & Fairclough, 2010) demonstrate how CDA can be used to analyze policy documents such as the Bologna Declaration

4  We assume that this will sound familiar to many of the readers of this book, since these issues are now prevalent in, e.g., the rest of Europe and North America.

258

6  CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections

(1999), which outlines the ‘Bologna process’ (i.e., the series of meetings and ­agreements between EU countries to ensure they are comparable in standards and quality of higher education) and their implementation. In Wodak and Fairclough (2010), which analyzes the implementation of the Declaration using Austria and Romania as ‘case studies’, they show how the reforms are recontextualized in order to get others to actively agree with changes as if they are a necessary pre-condition for implementing the Bologna process. Some of these changes in Austria include the disappearance of participatory structures (in contrast to what was actually proposed in the Declaration) and the increased power of University Councils, which consist of a large number of politically appointed members. In addition, ‘autonomy’ became a euphemism for new managerial and hierarchical structures which are dependent on political interests, funding for research was cut, and private elite universities were created. In Romania, implementation of the Declaration resulted in “deep changes in social and personal relations and in professional and personal identities which are profoundly at odds with existing social relations and identities in Romanian” higher education (Wodak & Fairclough, 2010: 36). A valuable part of the analysis is the way they go into depth examining the two specific cases to show how the same policies and processes can look very different (and have different results) in two very different contexts. Having just looked at Fairclough’s (and colleagues’) influence on the connection of CDA/CDS to educational issues in Europe and elsewhere, we now turn to two scholars who have had an impact in this area in the United States.

6.3.3  Rebecca Rogers: Primary and Secondary Education We should note that much of the work we will describe in this section relates to K-12 (primary and secondary) education. When applicable, we will provide needed background information about the US education system in footnotes, so that it is understandable to all readers. At the same time, many issues, such as neoliberal ideologies and privatization of education (including the privatization of teacher preparation programs), are also relevant to many other countries in the world, e.g., Brazil, Chile, Turkey, Portugal and the UK (cf. Diniz-Pereira & Zeichtner, 2018; see also Fairclough Sects. 3.5.2 and 3.5.4). Rebecca Rogers has undoubtedly had a great influence on scholarly work that connects CDA/CDS and education. One of her most important contributions is her edited volume (2011a, 2nd updated edition) introducing CDA in education, in which all of the chapters explore different facets of education from a CDA/CDS perspective. Rogers’ introductory chapter (2011b) provides an excellent overview that explains the link between CDA/CDS and education and the range of areas and topics explored in the educational realm in which CDA/CDS is employed as an analytical tool. Fairclough’s chapter considers the semiotic aspects of social transformation and learning, noting this as a gap both in CDA/CDS in general and in his own work in particular. He approaches questions of learning from the fundamental

6.3  CDA/CDS and Education

259

problem of the “performativity of texts,” using the term ‘semiosis’ “to refer in a general way to language and other semiotic modes such as visual image” (2011: 119). Kress’s chapter (2011) is a multimodal social semiotic (SocSem) approach to education (see also Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996/2006; Sects. 2.6, 2.7, and 4.6 on SocSem and multimodality). And Lewis and Ketter (2011) focuses on learning as social interaction and on the “nature of learning over time among members of [a] study group” (2011: 128). On Rogers’ book’s website updated for the 2011 edition5, there is a long bibliography (up to 2010) as well as syllabi from each of the authors for courses in CDA/ CDS and education. The site also lists journals dedicated to the study of discourse, language, talk and text which feature articles that relate to educational issues, such as Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, Journal of Classroom Interaction, Language and Education, Linguistics and Education, Classroom Discourse, and TESOL Quarterly. There are also transcribed interviews with James Gee (from 2009), Norman Fairclough (from 2003) and Gunther Kress (from 2004) that illustrate the varied backgrounds that continue to inform CDA/CDS. Finally, the website offers videos6 that feature some of the contributors to the book, such as not only Fairclough, Gee, and Kress, but also van Leeuwen, Caldas-Coulthard, Chouliaraki, James Collins, Luisa Martín Rojo and van Dijk (see Sect. 4.1, since in that video he recommends that scholars adopt the term ‘CDS’). In addition, the various scholars discuss the principles and methods of CDA/CDS as well as future directions, such as the move toward more multimodal work, more attention to the global south and its relationship with the global north, and reflexivity in the field in terms of which voices are being privileged in CDA/CDS work and which are not. Rogers collaborated with Melissa Mosley-Wetzel (2013, 2014) on an article and book that connect literacy education with CDA/CDS; in their 2014 book, which is geared toward those interested in critical literacy, teacher education, DA and teacher research, they illustrate how CDA can be used in the service of literacy education, defining critical literacy as an “approach to literacy education that seeks to both disrupt unjust texts and social practices and use literacy to reimagine and redesign new possibilities” (Rogers & Mosley-Wetzel, 2014: ix). In addition, critical literacy can be a way to encourage students to use language to question the relationship between language and power and understand how these relationships are socially constructed and how they can take action to promote social justice (Lewison, Leland, & Harste, 2007/2015). Furthermore, critical literacy is about analyzing popular culture and media. Rogers and Mosley-Wetzel (2014) is especially useful for teachers of CDA/CDS because it provides a model (with good examples) for how to teach students to do CDA/CDS and also critical literacy skills. This is especially relevant at a time when media representations of people have increasing power and presence in the lives of students. In light of the political climate post-2016 in the US, reaching students in terms of teaching them to be critical con-

 http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415874298/.  http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415874298/videos.asp.

5 6

260

6  CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections

sumers of media and to question what is behind the stories they have access to becomes even more vital to the survival of democratic societies and cannot be taken lightly (cf. Wodak, 2015 for more about this situation worldwide). In Chap. 7, we also take a look at the way in which CDS scholars try to reach the world through education, including Rebecca Rogers, who provides a very detailed and in-depth description of her own work in her own words, as well as the many things she is doing in CDA/CDS that connect to social change, particularly as regards education (see Sect. 7.12.2). Another recent work by Rogers worth mentioning is her comprehensive chapter (Rogers, 2016), where she outlines the progress of CDA/CDS and the increase in educational research that draws on CDS/CDA theory, methods, and aims, and surveys over 30 years of scholarship; thus, it is highly informative about CDA/CDS and education. She discusses reflexivity (researcher self-positioning), social action (political commitment on the part of the researcher), and context (the linguistic boundaries of the inquiry), as three qualities of CDA research important to educational researchers, and also several examples of studies that represent ‘low’, ‘medium’, and ‘high’ levels of these qualities. In addition, she notes the evolving framework of CDA/CDS and the way it has responded to changes in educational policy and practice. In terms of future directions for the field of CDA/CDS and education, Rogers proposes more attention to examining virtual communities of learning and discourses that are produced through classroom Wikis, smartboards, tablets, and multiplayer gaming systems in order to show the larger community (including policymakers) what occurs in this type of learning. To read more examples of similar CDA/CDS work in the field of education, the following are especially recommended: Anderson (2008) (persuasive letter writing); Anderson and Wales (2012) (digital studies); Belluigi (2009) (art education); Graff (2010) (critical pedagogy in a multicultural literacy course); Lam (2009) (digital studies); Lau (2013) (biliteracy); Masuda (2012) (teacher education); Medina (2010) (biliteracy); Taylor (2008) (adult literacy); Richardson (2007) (family and community literacies); Rogers and Mosley (2008) (racial literacy in teacher education); Schaenen (2010) (teacher action research on genre construction); Shardakova and Pavlenko (2004) (foreign language learning); and Takayama (2009) (race, culture, ethnicity).

6.3.4  James Paul Gee James Paul Gee is another influential and well-known scholar in this area. In (Gee, 2011a), about what makes DA critical, he argues that “language-in-use is always part and parcel of, and partially constitutive of, specific social practices, and that social practices always have implications for inherently political things like status, solidarity, the distribution of social goods, and power” (2011a: 28, also 29, 31–32), although many of his books don’t use the term ‘critical’. He uses the term ‘discourse’ (or ‘little d’ discourse) to mean “any instance of language-in-use or any

6.3  CDA/CDS and Education

261

stretch of spoken or written language (often called a ‘text’ in the expanded sense where texts can be oral or written)” (2011c: 205). On the other hand, ‘Big “D” Discourse’ refers to “ways of combining and integrating language, actions, interactions, ways of thinking, believing, valuing, and using various symbols, tools, and objects to enact a particular sort of socially recognizable identity” (2011a: 36; 2011b: 176–184). Later (2018: 163–165), he refers to ‘Big “D” Discourses’ as “socially recognizable ways of being different kinds of people” and ‘Conversations’ (‘Big “C”’) as debates over time between and among Discourses which “many people in society know much about”. His concept of ‘Conversations’ resembles very much Musolff’s idea of ‘discourse scenarios’ (2016) mentioned in Sect. 4.8) and also the broader definition of ‘discourse’ put forth by Fairclough and others, all based in one way or another on Foucault (1972, 1976, 1979). Gee has produced a body of work that connects (‘critical’) discourse methods and perspectives to education, and, according to his own website, his “book ‘Sociolinguistics and Literacies’ (Fifth Edition, 2015) was one of the founding documents in the formation of the ‘New Literacy Studies’” And his book ‘An Introduction to Discourse Analysis’ (Fourth Edition, 2014) brings together his work on a methodology for studying communication in its cultural settings, an approach that has been widely influential over the last two decades”7 (see also Sects. 3.3 and 3.5, since both Kress and Fairclough also participated in the New London group meeting). Gee (2017) continues this focus in his book on teaching and learning literacy. His textbooks introducing DA (Gee, 1999 and new editions in 2005/2011a/2014a) and about how to do DA (Gee, 2011b/2014) have been very prominent in the education realm in the US (among others of his books), and many studies that connect education and CDA/CDS (and DS) cite his work and use his terminology, such as big “D” and little “d”. Another example is ‘figured worlds’, which he uses to mean pictures/concepts (in our minds) of a simplified world that captures what is taken to be typical or normal and that vary by context and by people’s social and cultural groups (2011b: 170). In the field of cognitive linguistics (CogLing, discussed in 4.9), this might be referred to as ‘mental models’ or ‘frames’, and is also similar to van Dijk’s concept of social cognition. Some of Gee’s more recent publications focus on video games and in Gee (2015), he combines his work on gaming with DA/DS. According to Carrillo Masso (2016: 102), a well-known scholar in the field of game studies, numerous other scholarly publications exist that study the nexus between language and gaming (e.g. Carrillo Masso & Ensslin, 2010; Ensslin, 2011, to name a few), and there are some challenges to separating DA/DS from multimodality in some places and uniting them in others. Because of this, academics and scholars interested in the connection between DA/DS and education might find his book (Gee, 2003/2007, 2nd ed.) on what video games teach us about language and learning more relevant since it situates video games as powerful learning devices by analyzing language to show how video

7

 https://webapp4.asu.edu/directory/person/1054842.

262

6  CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections

games shape identities and thus—far from being a waste of time—their use can actually facilitate the learning of content. Gee has a range of interests as a scholar, and although he continues to work in the area of DA (see 2018), he still publishes across a wide variety of areas including literacy and learning. What’s more, Gee is known for the accessibility of his work, and his books are full of relevant examples that target the interests of his readers and make them engaging and easy-to-understand, which is perhaps one reason why they are so widely read.

6.3.5  CDA/CDS, Education and the Media Besides its use in exploring K-12 educational practices and the development of critical literacy in the US, CDA/CDS has increasingly become important in the analysis of media discourse related to education. With the increasing privatization of education, the vilification of teacher preparation programs and debilitating narratives of failing schools and corrupt teachers’ unions in the US—responding to and creating an awareness of how educators and education are represented in the media (and how this in turn affects educational policy and public opinion of education) has become imperative. As a result, many recent studies have taken an interest in exposing the way language is used to represent various elements/actors in the educational realm. Cohen’s (2010) study was one of the first to track the narrative of educational crisis in media discourse. In an analysis of educational news discourse in a US newspaper, she calls attention to the way that teachers are represented in the media and then exposes how micro-level language patterns shape the templates framing news coverage, favoring and highlighting the language of ‘Accountability’ over ‘Caring’, and argues that teachers need to have a larger role as crucial stakeholders in policy debates. She also encourages teacher educators (e.g., those responsible for the preparation of K-12 teachers) to cultivate teacher candidates who are aware that critical, public voices should be “a central part of teacher professional identity and teacher education” and calls for “more sustained and developed studies of those producing the education news” (Cohen, 2010: 116, 117). Pini does just that, examining websites for educational management organizations (the for-profit private companies that manage charter schools in the US8) finding that their rhetoric “builds an ideal model of education that is not consistently supported by evidence and veils the for-profit character of the companies” (2011: 268, 287). In doing this, they portray “traditional” public schools (which all children have the right to attend for free and are paid for by the government) as tired and anachronistic and need to be replaced by a “superior” market model of education which they propose. Pini (2011: 287) then concludes with a description of how privatization proposes itself as a magical solution to educational problems, masking its real “for-profit” nature.

8  In the US, ‘charter schools’ refers to K-12 schools that are subject to fewer regulations than public schools but receive less—but still some—public funding. Some of these schools are for-profit.

6.3  CDA/CDS and Education

263

Goldstein (2011) also examines media framing of educational issues, this time looking at ‘No Child Left Behind’ (NCLB)9 and educational reform. The article demonstrates how the (visual and textual) media framing of NCLB and market reforms positioned them as the only solution to address the failures of public education by attacking teachers’ unions and individual teachers. Gabriel & Lester (2013) explore value-added measurement (VAM)10 and the ways in which the media discourse functioned to politicize and (over)simplify issues related to VAM which ultimately influence how the public perceives teacher effectiveness. Taking a different angle and focus, Catalano and Moeller (2013) investigated media coverage of dual language programs (a type of bilingual education in which biliteracy, bilingualism, and interculturality are goals)11 in the US and found that media representation of these programs reproduced dominant metaphors that compared education to business and connected to dominant discourses about immigration, such as discourses that view immigrants pejoratively in terms of ‘dangerous water’ (Santa Ana, 2002; see Sect. 4.8). Valdez, Delavan and Freire (2016a) conducted a critical content analysis of newspaper reports about bilingual education programs (including dual language) in Utah, focusing on discourses related to these programs. The authors found that the discourse demonstrated a shift from an equity/heritage policy framework to a global human capital one in US language education policy discourses. This shift represents a change in audience and an emphasis on marketability that ultimately overshadows equity (cf. Freire, Valdez, & Delavan, 2017; Valdez, Freire, & Delavan, 2016b for similar studies and conclusions). Correspondingly, Lu and Catalano (2015) looked at reader response to media discourse about dual language programs and found that two types of discourses were represented in the debate about dual language education: both multilingual12

9  NCLB was a legislative act of 2001, which is most known for the increased role of the federal government in holding schools accountable (via standardized tests) for learning by their students. After much controversy, it was replaced by the ‘Every Student Succeeds Act’ (ESSA, passed in December, 2015). The new act has modified but not eliminated provisions related to standardized tests. 10  Value-added measurement (VAM) is a statistical approach that is increasingly being used as a measure of teacher effectiveness. The tool connects student scores on standardized tests to the effectiveness of teachers. Even though the creators of the statistical tool warned that it should never be used as the sole indicator of effectiveness and should never be made public, it is currently being used to make important decisions such as “hiring, promotion, tenure, and dismissal” and as a way to judge the success of teacher education programs (Gabriel & Lester, 2013: 7). 11  In the 1980s–1990s in the US, bilingual education programs came under attack by ‘English only’ advocates falsely accusing the programs of not teaching students English. Many laws/policy changes were made during this time that prohibited or put limitations on programs (San Miguel, 2004). The term ‘dual language’ represents a ‘re-branding’ of these programs in light of this political context (cf. Katznelson & Bernstein, 2017 for more details), and hence we use both terms interchangeably in our discussion, since both are used in the literature. 12  In some cases we use ‘multilingual’ to denote the multiple varieties spoken by students, and in other cases we use ‘bilingual’ because these are the official names of programs or they denote that content is delivered in two languages although students may speak many more than just two, and hence they are considered multilingual.

264

6  CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections

discourses (which advocate for additive language education in which students learn new languages while maintaining and developing their other language/s) and monolingual discourses (in which the dominant language is argued to be the only one of importance and home languages are only a vehicle in which to learn this L2, and hence no longer needed once the dominant language is acquired). However, they warn advocates of the programs that over-emphasis on global human capital runs the risk of further marginalizing the already marginalized minority language speakers and does not necessarily help win more support for these programs. In a similar vein, Katznelson and Bernstein (2017) studied the 2016 overturning of California’s Proposition 227 (which eliminated bilingual education in California). Using CDA/ CDS, they examined the framing of bilingual education in both the original proposition and its repeal, noting a marked shift in the way that bilingual education was represented. Although Proposition 58 was passed (which implements the California Multilingual Education Act of 2016, effectively dissolving the English-only requirement of Proposition 227), and hence worth celebrating, Katznelson and Bernstein (2017) caution against the way neoliberal and global human capital discourses are used to “sell” multilingualism to voters, arguing for alternative discourses that question neoliberal logic that eclipses the needs of communities for which dual language education was designed in the first place, and consequently suppress democratic values that are “usurped by the unitary focus on economic value” (p. 22). A final article with a similar focus is that of Delavan, Valdez and Freire (2017); it examines the focus by Utah on bilingual education programs, using CDA/CDS to investigate the way in which state promotional materials represent the three different constituencies of dual language programs (e.g., maintenance, heritage, and world language13) and their interests. Similar to the studies mentioned above, findings revealed that discourses on dual language programs targeted the White, ‘world language’ constituency, by privileging economic arguments that erase equity and local language concerns associated with maintenance and non-White heritage constituencies. Hence, all of the above studies utilized CDA/CDS to show how neoliberal discourses interplay with language education and favor global capital and economic discourses that privilege dominant groups instead of promoting local diversity and equity. As for multimodal studies that connect CDA/CDS, education and media discourse, Faltin Osborn and Sierk (2015) conducted a multimodal semiotic analysis of the representation of many future teachers in the Teach for America program. In their analysis, they showed how Teach for America used image and graphics to align readers with a positive representation of their organization and caution that the website plays an important role in drawing in young people who know little about the program and who are attracted to the way in which the program positions itself as a  According to Delavan, Valdez and Freire (2017: 87), the maintenance constituency is composed of students who speak the target language when they enter school. The heritage constituency includes those who don’t initially speak the target language but are connected to it through their heritage, and the world language constituency is comprised of those who want to learn the language as a foreign/world language.

13

6.3  CDA/CDS and Education

265

solution to educational challenges and a way to provide high quality education to minority students. This portrayal is misleading, because, while providing a highly positive visual picture of the program’s effects, it backgrounds and erases problems with the program, such as under-preparation of its recruits and its role in the destruction of public education, including the decline of African-American teachers in urban communities (White, 2016). In addition, its managerial and technocratic approach to education excludes a discussion of larger, systemic problems such as poverty, segregation and unequal funding (Strauss, 2016). A critical multimodal (MCDA) study focusing on education and the media by Catalano and Gatti (2016) is one of very few studies that examine how teachers themselves are represented, showing how, like groups lacking power in crime discourse, they are “demonized and stigmatized in the popular media” (Greer & Jewkes, 2005: 29). Catalano and Gatti examine the representation of teachers in the Atlanta ‘Cheating Scandal’ (in which teachers were charged with racketeering for changing the test scores of their students), illustrating how the media’s framing of teachers as criminals both reflects and conceals the specific interests of the powerful ‘educational reform’ movement (in which privatization of public education is a large part of the agenda) and the corporations that benefit from a narrative that blames educational problems on teachers. The authors conclude by calling for more counter-narratives that expose how dominant representations reify negative public perceptions of teachers. As regards education policy and CDA/CDS, in 2017 Education Policy Analysis Archives published a Special Issue on the intersection of education policy and DA (largely focusing on issues within the US). The introductory chapter by Lester, Lochmiller and Gabriel (2017) highlights the usefulness of CDA/CDS when attending to educational policy issues (citing Rogers et  al., 2016; see Sect. 6.3.3) and declares that CDA/CDS is the “dominant discourse analytic approach” used by education policy scholars (2017: 2). The six articles in the Special Issue share a common interest in using CDA/CDS to understand “new ways forward for communities, communication, and commitments, particularly as language is used to construct and resist policies in action” (2017: 4). For example, Burman et  al. (2017) uses a Foucaldian approach to examine participant narratives as sites of resistance, struggle, and reformation. Wilinski (2017) explores pre-kindergarten policies, looking closely at state-funded community partnerships, which whitewash and overlook the differences in power, position, and discourse within and between partnered organizations. Koyoma (2017) examines civic education and civic identify formation, specifically as regards voting among Latino youth. Hurst (2017) looks at district superintendents’ political tweets to see how language is used to represent their engagement with the public (and how they present it) in the policymaking process and in activism. Supovitz and Reinkordt (2017) investigate tweets related to the Common Core State Standards and underscore the importance of revising the citizenship curriculum to include how students can be politically active online. Finally, Gildersleeve (2017) explores the intersection of higher education policies and immigration policies, describing the subject positions made available for understanding students as having “undocumented” and/or “illegal” identities.

266

6  CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections

In this section, we have described work in education that utilizes the tools of CDA/CDS to expose neoliberal agendas and ideologies that affect all areas of education. Of all the areas affected by neoliberalism, the educational sphere has, we believe, the most urgent need for the tools and perspective CDA/CDS has to offer because, as Nelson Mandela said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”. Without counter-narratives to neoliberal propaganda that could lead to changing policies and ways of thinking about schooling (such as those investigated in the articles and special issues mentioned above), (public) education in the US (and see Fairclough Sect. 3.5.4 about the UK) will continue on a path to destruction.

6.4  CDA/CDS and Sociolinguistics The relationship between DA and sociolinguistics is so close that for many scholars, especially those in Europe, DA/DS14 (sometimes including CDA/CDS) is seen as a sub-category of sociolinguistics. For example, Wodak (Sect. 3.8.1) was trained as a sociolinguist, among other things, and later became a discourse analyst—we discuss ‘discourse sociolinguistics’ in her work (Sect. 3.8.3). We should also note that she was co-editor of The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics (2010) and is profiled by Anthonissen (2001) in the Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics15 (which also includes an article by Kress on critical sociolinguistics). As well, Boxer (2002: 7) says that “CDS is the quintessential applied sociolinguistics, as its goal is to transform societal values through the exposing of harmful ways of speaking”. There are quite a few books on sociolinguistics that include sections or chapters on DA/DS and/or CDA/CDS (e.g., Cheshire & Trudgill (Eds.), 1998; Deckert & Vickers, 2011; Downes, 1998; Boxer, 2002; Hornberger & McKay, 2010; Hudson, 1996). In addition to the books that feature DA, there are a few recent examples of sociolinguistic studies that explicitly comment on their use of CDA/CDS, for example (Block, 2018), which defines sociolinguistics as a “broad church” (2018: ix) that encompasses both the ‘socio’ and the ‘linguistic’ side of research, and discusses at length the issue of neoliberalism (see Sect. 6.3, and in particular, Sect. 6.3.2 on Fairclough’s work, which overlaps with the aims of sociolinguistics), with reference to education and research funding and rising inequality in the world. Block (2018) focuses on five areas of (socio)linguistic research in which the issue of ‘political economy’ is applied (as said above, his theoretical viewpoint is within a critical Marxist approach and he adopts a critical realist lens): what he calls the ‘English divide’ (between 14  Since sociolinguistics is almost invariably concerned with spoken language, the types of DA/DS used are typically those applied to spoken language; in addition, other terms than ‘discourse’ or ‘text’ are used for the object of analysis: speech, (face-to-face) interaction, talk, conversation, and so forth. 15  In our discussion above we looked at those scholars who see (C)DA/(C)DS as part of, or closely tied to, pragmatics, which is also focused on spoken language, conversation and interaction.

6.4  CDA/CDS and Sociolinguistics

267

those who speak English and those who do not); language in the workplace; the use of economic theories to explain linguistic phenomena; language and tourism; and in his last chapter ‘inequality, class and class warfare’, using CDA/CDS and referring to (Wodak, 2013a) about right-wing populism in Europe, he analyzes discourses and discursive strategies of home evictions and protests in Spain in 2013. However, it is important to note that many sociolinguistic studies that align with the aims, methodologies and perspectives of CDA/CDS do not always mention it per se. And we should add that linguistic anthropology, as practiced in the US, also includes DA/DS and sometimes issues close to CDA/CDS (see Sect. 6.5) as well as sociolinguistics. Many of the themes that sociolinguists (and many linguistic anthropologists) have been concerned with have been taken up by CDA/CDS scholars, since it shares with sociolinguistics the assumption that language use should be studied in a social context (e.g., Duranti & Goodwin, 1992). Therefore, CDA/CDS often employs sociolinguistic methods for examining the linguistic features of different types of discourse units and the way they are tied together to create meaning. It also concerns itself with critically examining the social context in which interaction occurs in order to understand and interpret meaning within that particular social context. In the same manner, there has always been much work in sociolinguistics that has both the intention and frequently the effect of making changes in social practices. Similar concerns about language and society have yielded an innovative body of work in sociolinguistics (about, e.g., race, ethnicity, class/socio economic status (SES), immigrant status, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.). For example, an issue that has gained prominence in sociolinguistic research is that of inequality and the positioning of individuals and groups in contemporary social and political hierarchies. There is much overlap between CDA/CDS work in sociolinguistics and anthropology/ethnography (which we will address in Sect. 6.5), and scholars such as Dell Hymes could be mentioned here (as well as in Sects. 6.5 and 6.6). In fact, Hymes was (at least) a linguist, sociolinguist, linguistic anthropologist, cultural anthropologist, and folklorist, as well as the founder of ethnography of speaking/communication; he also coined the term ‘communicative competence’. Hymes’s (1969a) edited ‘antitextbook’ called Reinventing Anthropology contains an introduction on “The Use of Anthropology: Critical, Political, Personal”16 and sections with articles by noted anthropologists on ‘studying dominated cultures’, ‘studying the cultures of power’, ‘responsibilities of ethnography’, and ‘critical traditions’ (the latter including a chapter by Scholte ‘Towards a Reflexive and Critical Anthropology’). Hymes’ (1996) critical essays on education and narrative reopened debates on the allocation of speaking rights and linguistic-communicative resources and argued forcefully for more attention to communicative inequalities in linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics. He never used the term CritLing (or CDA/CDS) and yet his work fits right into the heart of this area. Scholars like Blommaert and Hornberger, among

16  Note that Hymes’ use of the word ‘critical’ in (1969b) is earlier than the critical linguists discussed in Sect. 2.4, but it doesn’t seem that they knew about it.

268

6  CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections

others, have focused on reviving Hymes’ work and shedding light on its critical approach. Blommaert (2009) posits that whenever one reads Hymes, it becomes obvious that “most of his oeuvre … can be read as a political statement [and] an attempt toward a critical science of language in social life” (2009: 257). The idea that differences in language use contribute to social discrimination and actual inequality is central in Hymes’ work, and he notes that the study of language has to a great extent developed as an instrument of exclusion and domination (1969b). We have decided to include him in the CDA/CDS and Sociolinguistics section, while recognizing that much of his work overlaps with other areas, and that it is Hymes’ expansive focus on context, language and culture, speech, and social life that makes him known to and appreciated by CDA/CDS scholars. Hornberger (2011) points out that “language inequality is an enduring theme of Hymes’s work (1980, 1996) and his vision of the role of language in achieving—and denying—social justice in and out of schools shines clearly in all of his essays” (2011: 317). It is for these reasons that Blommaert states that Hymes’s work “was a critical discourse analysis long before anyone laid claim to that term” (2009: 273). For his part, Blommaert has criticized CDA for “overlooking sociolinguistics” (2005: 36), mainly arguing that more attention to sociolinguistics could improve, for example, Fairclough’s book (1989/2001, latest edition 2015) on language standardization and his “account of inequalities between people in the communicative resources which they have at their disposal” (Fairclough, 2015: 25). Furthermore, the addition of sociolinguistics could contribute to overcoming “closure to particular societies”, which is another of Blommaert’s critiques (2005: 36) of CDA (mentioned in Sect. 5.9). Fairclough’s latest edition of Language and Power (2015) addresses this critique, adding that he believes it is valid that he only focused on Britain in his book because his point was to introduce CDA to students and colleagues of other disciplines and show how it could contribute to other areas of research. We also adopted a similar approach in our previous section on CDA/CDS and education, in which we focused largely on work surrounding US educational contexts in order to demonstrate the type of research that is being done by scholars we are most familiar with. Fairclough agrees with Blommaert that it is important not to assume universal validity for one’s way of life and that CDA/CDS work should ask how the findings are relevant to the world in both large and small communities everywhere (2005: 26). He then questions whether his version of CDA/CDS (developed in Britain and with similar countries in mind) can be applied to countries like China or Tanzania, adding that he thinks it can (citing Fairclough, 2006 and 2009 as examples of how). He argues that there are things in common between all of these countries and others, such as hegemonic relations and struggles with neoliberalism, and that international and intercultural solidarity can be both a virtue in itself and an antidote to nationalism, as well as an effective means of resistance if organized on an international scale (Fairclough, 2006: 37). Since sociolinguistics can be defined as the study of language in relation to social factors, such as how people with different social identities speak and how their speech changes depending on social context, it is not surprising that many sociolinguistic and CDA/CDS studies have to do with language education. In the field of

6.4  CDA/CDS and Sociolinguistics

269

Spanish Heritage Language Studies, Ducar (2006) addresses the representation of Latinos17 and US varieties of Spanish in the Spanish Heritage Language context in the US. Using CDA/CDS, she shows how both culture and language are represented in intermediate level university Spanish as a Heritage Language textbooks, illustrating how such texts present US Spanish-speaking people’s culture and their language varieties. Her findings reveal an overall marginalized presentation of US Latinos and their language, due largely to the textual emphasis on and discussion of immigration related issues that follow society’s naturalized presentation of immigrants as “Other” (2006: 231). She notes that it is important to see the connection between the degradation of immigrants and minorities and the simultaneous belittling of their variety of the Spanish language. The study concludes with suggestions for improving textbooks and Spanish as a Heritage Language pedagogy, advocating for a sociolinguistics (and/or corpora) informed textbook, in which students would “have a clearer picture of the reality of the language variation that is currently only treated in brief, as a geographic side-note in the texts” (2006: 247). In addition, Ducar argues that other (non Euro-centric) varieties of Spanish must be legitimized, and that community varieties should be emphasized and valued. Furthermore, students should be taught critical perspectives that are dependent on student agency and produce “more informed students who are better prepared to function with their knowledge of the intricate interaction of language and society” (2006: 255). A similar example of CDA/CDS and sociolinguistics in regards to Spanish as a Heritage Language textbooks is Leeman and Martinez (2007), a critical analysis of language ideologies in the instructional discourse of Spanish for heritage speakers in the US.  Focusing on prefaces and introductions in the textbooks published between 1970 and 2000, their findings revealed that the intertextual discourse emerging in the textbooks correlated with “broader ideologies regarding the societal role of the university, the positioning of ethnic studies programs, and the portrayal of cultural and linguistic diversity within academia and society at large” (Leeman & Martínez, 2007: 35). Furthermore, in their diachronic analysis, they found that discourses of textbooks from the 1970s and 1980s tended to “underscore access, inclusion, and representation for minority Spanish language students” while textbooks published in the 1990s emphasized “economic competitiveness and globalization” (2007: 35). They argue that students and educators in the field should examine the ideologies present in their discourse (in this case, in Spanish as a Heritage Language textbooks) so that they can either reinforce or challenge existing ideologies that assess the value of language (as well as culture and people) in particular ways. This shift from an emphasis on inclusion and access to a concern for global competition marks a change in how diversity was construed formerly in terms of social justice and now reframed as a business resource or commodity. These findings are echoed by other studies that examine this issue in the representation of dual language  Latinx (plural Latinxs) is the gender-neutral way of saying Latino, Latina, or [email protected] It is used by an increasing number of scholars and activists (Love Ramirez & Blay, 2017). In this book, we adopt this term when authors refer to it as such. If authors (such as in the case of Ducar) use ‘Latinos’, we use their terminology as in above.

17

270

6  CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections

p­rograms, such as Delavan et  al. (2017), Freire et  al. (2017), Katznelson and Bernstein (2017), Lu and Catalano (2015), and Valdez et al. (2016a, 2016b), which are described in more detail in Sect. 6.3.5. Burns and Waugh (2018) revisit the issue of textbooks in Spanish as a Heritage Language classrooms but this time with a case study that looks at attitudes toward language variety at a Southwestern university in the US. Using CDA/CDS perspectives and tools, they found systematic reinforcement of the ideology of a monolithic ‘standard’ Spanish in the textbooks and curricula, with only cursory attention to regional varieties of Spanish and both implicit and explicit de-legitimization of US Spanish. The study also included data from focus group meetings in which the teachers identified a clash between on the one hand program goals (such as validating students’ varieties of Spanish while also developing academic/professional registers of Spanish) and on the other hand classroom realities in which the ‘standard’ was valued and students’ non-standard varieties were tolerated or de-valued. Showstack (2012) investigates classroom discourse in two Spanish language courses for Spanish-English bilingual students (at a university in central Texas) in order to understand the ways that participants used language to construct their linguistic and cultural identities. The study shows how Spanish heritage speakers reproduce hegemonic discourses about language and cultural diversity and how bilingual identities of students are connected to socially constructed discourses on the value of different language varieties and cultural experiences that represent an oversimplification of the social world. Findings showed how participants constructed simplified categories of different kinds of US Hispanics, often assuming a connection between language and identity and positioning themselves and others within these categories. In doing so, they constructed their own languages skills and cultural backgrounds as either a benefit or a deficit, and in particular, linguistic mixing was viewed more negatively than monolingual standard varieties. Results of the study suggest the need to make heritage language learners more aware of the differences among Spanish speakers and the nature of the social world. Achugar (2008) examines Spanish language use along the Southwest Texas border and how local norms for language use respond to and contest dominant monolingual ideologies. Analyzing interviews with university personnel (e.g. president, program director, professor) and newspaper articles, she shows how “institutional actors from the media and education contest dominant monolingual language ideologies by situating these views historically and connecting them to key conceptual metaphors that encapsulate language ideologies” (2008: 1). In doing so, she challenges national ideologies that portray monolingualism and standard ‘English’ as the only option that can bring social and economic success and proposes Spanish and bilingualism as legitimate alternatives. These counter narratives question the deficit perspective on bilingualism and see it as the cause of inequality, bringing to light other possible sources for social injustice in this community such as “oppression, discrimination, and economic exploitation among others” (2008: 16). A similar study that combines sociolinguistics and CDS is Velázquez (2013), which draws on a larger study (Velázquez, 2008) that describes household language practices and patterns of language maintenance and shift in families in El Paso,

6.5  CDA/CDS and Anthropology/Ethnography

271

Texas. Velázquez (2013) examines how these speakers conceptualize language use and language users, and what this tells us about how individual discourse maps onto larger language ideologies. Findings reveal how the metaphors, metonyms, referential strategies, and deictic expressions used by a group of middle-class bilinguals illustrates the tensions between ideologies of language pride and language panic (i.e., in the sense of positioning Latinx populations as an imminent threat) that are central to the Mexican American language experience, particularly in this area of the country. Velázquez’s recent book (2018) is a sociolinguistic analysis of every-­ day household language dynamics and language planning efforts in a group of first-­ generation Spanish-speaking families in the US Midwest (as opposed to her earlier work in El Paso). In this comparison of the self-perceptions and attitudes of the mother and one child in each household about their family language and its viability in public and private spaces, Velázquez aims to understand Spanish maintenance and loss from the perspective of the family, and to analyze the impact of attitudes and self-perceptions on household language dynamics.

6.5  CDA/CDS and Anthropology/Ethnography Critical approaches have been employed in ethnographic studies in anthropology (including linguistic anthropology) that examine the discourses of, e.g., local policies regarding white racism and ‘mock Spanish’ (Hill, 1995, 2007, 2008), water distribution (Ennis-McMillan, 2001), drug addiction and subjectivity (Prussing, 2008), corporate manipulation and health policies (Ortanez and Glantz, 2009), and immigrants’ rights to health care (Willen, 2011). And an anthropological study by Wasson (2004) about the “Sigma Corporation”, which combines ethnographic methodologies with insights from CDA/CDS, has investigated, among other things, the impact of workplace discourse on social actors’ perceptions. She examines ‘enterprise’ language and its associated ideologies and contends that the use of this language—e.g., marketplace metaphors such as buy-in and taking ownership—by corporate employees shap