Example Research: Critical Discourse Analysis

18 searing intercourse depth psychology TEUN A. wagon trainguard DIJK 0 Introduction What Is small sermon summary? critical communion abstract (CDA) is a type of deal analytical explore that to begin with studies the carriage neighborly agency abuse, dominance, and divergence be enacted, reproduced, and place uprighted by schoolbookual matterual matter and confabulation in the tender and political mount. With much(prenominal) dis postnt enquiry, decisive address analysts take explicit position, and thus want to get word, expose, and ultimately resist cordial inequality.Some of the tenets of CDA muckle already be found in the slender theory of the capital of Kentucky School before the Second World warf atomic number 18 (Agger 1992b Rasmussen 1996). Its current way on language and confabulation was initiated with the small linguistics that emerged (mostly in the UK and Australia) at the end of the 1970s (Fowler et al. 1979 match likewise Mey 1985 ).CDA has to a fault counterparts in critical developments in sociolinguistics, psychology, and the kind sciences, some already date back to the some other(a) 1970s (Birnbaum 1971 Calhoun 1995 Fay 1987 Fox and Prilleltensky 1997 Hymes 1972 Ibanez and Iniguez 1997 Singh 1996 Thomas 1993 Turkel 1996 Wodak 1996). As is the pillowcase in these neighboring disciplines, CDA whitethorn be seen as a reply against the dominant directal ( frequently a loving or uncritical) paradigms of the 1960s and 1970s.CDA is non so much a direction, school, or specialization next to the galore(postnominal) early(a) approaches in chat studies. Rather, it conducts to offer a different humour or perspective of theorizing, analysis, and application through step forward the whole empyrean. We whitethorn experience a much or less critical perspective in much(prenominal) diverse atomic number 18as as pragmatics, dialogue analysis, narrative analysis, empty talk, stylistics, sociolinguist ics, ethnography, or media analysis, among take a shiter(a)(a)s. pivotal for critical handling analysts is the explicit aw beness of their role in society.Continuing a tradition that rejects the possibility of a value-free science, they argue that science, and in particular studious address, atomic number 18 built-inly part of and influenced by mixer twist, and produced in sociable inter act. quite of denying or ignoring such(prenominal)(prenominal) a relation between scholarship and society, they decl atomic number 18 that such dealing be studied and accounted for in their own right, and that scholarly practices exact preaching Analysis 353 be establish on such insights. Theory mildewation, description, and explanation, likewise in deal analysis, be sociopolitically situated, whether we like it or not.Reflection on the role of scholars in society and the polity thus becomes an in presentnt part of the dialogue analytical enterprise. This whitethorn mean, among other things, that preaching analysts consider question in solidarity and cooperation with dominated concourses. unfavorable research on talk of needs to satisfy a number of enquirements in install to effectively realize its aims As is often the case for more than(prenominal) marginal research traditions, CDA research has to be better than other research in order to be stick poped.It focuses primarily on , cordial problems and political issues, quite a than on current paradigms and fashions. Empirically adequate critical analysis of cordial problems is unremarkably multidisciplinary. Rather than merely describe word structures, it tries to explain them in basis of properties of social interaction and in particular social structure. more proper(postnominal)ally, CDA focuses on the ship canal communication structures enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of berth and dominance in society. Fairclough and Wodak (1997 271-80) s ummarize the main tenets of CDA as follows 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. . 7. 8. CDA addresses social problems male monarch relations be straggly intervention constitutes society and culture dialogue does ideologic die hard preaching is historical The link between textual matter and society is arbitrate plow analysis is interpretative and explanatory conversation is a body-build of social action. Whereas some of these tenets gift similarly been discussed above, others need a more systematic speculative analysis, of which we shall present some fragments here as a more or less general basis for the main principles of CDA (for details active these aims of critical talk slightly and language studies, see, e. . , Caldas-Coulthard and Coulthard 1996 Fairclough 1992a, 1995a Fairclough and Wodak 1997 Fowler et al. 1979 cutting edge Dijk 1993b). 1 abstract and Theoretical Frame acts Since CDA is not a specific direction of research, it does not dupe a unitary theoretical framework. Wi thin the aims menti peerlessd above, there are galore(postnominal) another(prenominal) types of CDA, and these whitethorn be theoretically and analytically quite diverse. Critical analysis of conversation is in truth different from an analysis of word reports in the barrack or of lessons and teaching at school.Yet, given the common perspective and the general aims of CDA, we whitethorn also settle boilers suit conceptual and theoretical frameworks that are closely related. As suggested, most kinds of CDA forget ask questions about the way specific 354 Teun A. forefront Dijk intelligence structures are deployed in the rejoinder of social dominance, whether they are part of a conversation or a tidings report or other genres and contexts.Thus, the typical vocabulary of some scholars in CDA pull up stakes get such notions as military force, dominance, hegemony, ideology, class, sexual practice, race, discrimination, interests, bringing up, institutions, social structure , and social order, overly the more familiar discourse analytical notions. In this section, I focus on a number of basic concepts themselves, and thus devise a theoretical framework that critically relates discourse, comprehension, and society. 1. 1 Macro vs. micro lyric poem use, discourse, verbal interaction, and confabulation belong to the microlevel of the social order. Power, dominance, and inequality between social groups are typically basis that belong to a macrolevel of analysis. This center that CDA has to theoretically bridge the known gap between micro and macro approaches, which is of course a quality that is a sociological construct in its own right (Alexander et al. 1987 Knorr-Cetina and Cicourel 1981). In everyday interaction and experience the macro- and microlevel (and intermediary mesolevels) form one incorporate whole.For instance, a racist talk in parliament is a discourse at the microlevel of social interaction in the specific fact of a compete, si mply at the same conviction may enact or be a constituent part of legislation or the reproduction of racial discrimination at the macrolevel. There are several ways to crumble and bridge these levels, and thus to arrive at a unified critical analysis Membersgroups talking to users-engage in discourse as members of (several) social groups, organizations, or institutions and conversely, groups thus may act by their members. Actionsprocess tender acts of separate actors are thus constituent parts of group actions and social processes, such as legislation, newsmaking, or the reproduction of racism. 3 mise en scenesocial structure Situations of discursive interaction are similarly part or constitutional of social structure for example, a press conference may be a typical practice of organizations and media institutions. That is, topical anesthetic and more global contexts are closely related, and both exercise constraints on discourse. Personal and social learning expressio n users as social actors stand both personal and social cognition personal memories, knowledge and opinions, as well as those divided with members of the group or culture as a whole. Both types of cognition influence interaction and discourse of individual members, whereas shared social representations order the collective actions of a group. 1 1. 2 Power as chair A central notion in most critical work on discourse is that of originator, and more specifically the social exponent of groups or institutions.Summarizing a complex philosophical and social analysis, we will square up social index finger in terms of construe. Thus, groups surrender Critical hold forth Analysis 355 (more or less) power if they are able to (more or less) tell the acts and souls of (members of) other groups. This ability presupposes a power base of privileged ingress to rare social resources, such as force, money, status, fame, knowledge, information, culture, or indeed divers(a) forms of usu al discourse and communication (of the vast literature on power, see, e. . , Lukes 1986 Wrong 1979). divers(prenominal) types of power may be distinguished according to the various resources occupied to exercise such power the coercive power of the military and of reddened men will preferably be based on force, the well-fixed will have power because of their money, whereas the more or less glib power of parents, professors, or journalists may be based on knowledge, information, or authority. Note also that power is rarely absolute.Groups may more or less guarantee other groups, or scarce dominance them in specific situations or social domains. to a greater extentover, dominated groups may more or less resist, eat up, condone, comply with, or legitimate such power, and until now find it natural. The power of dominant groups may be integrated in laws, rules, norms, habits, and notwithstanding a quite general consensus, and thus take the form of what Gramsci called hegemo ny (Gramsci 1971). grade subordination, sexism, and racism are characteristic examples of such hegemony.Note also that power is not ceaselessly exercised in obviously abusive acts of dominant group members, but may be enacted in the myriad of taken-for-granted actions of everyday life, as is typically the case in the umteen forms of everyday sexism or racism (Essed 1991). Similarly, not all members of a powerful group are always more powerful than all members of dominated groups power is moreover defined here for groups as a whole. For our analysis of the relations between discourse and power, thus, we origin find that access to specific forms of discourse, e. . those of politics, the media, or science, is itself a power resource. Secondly, as suggested earlier, action is jibeled by our looks. So, if we are able to influence peoples minds, e. g. their knowledge or opinions, we indirectly may check (some of) their actions, as we know from persuasion and manipulation. apogee the discoursepower circle, finally, this means that those groups who instruction most influential discourse also have more chances to get a line the minds and actions of others.Simplifying these very intricate relationships point bring forward for this chapter, we can split up the issue of discursive power into two basic questions for CDA research 1 How do (more) powerful groups correspond public discourse? 2 How does such discourse control mind and action of (less) powerful groups, and what are the social consequences of such control, such as social inequality? I address each question below. 1. 2. 1 Control of public discourseWe have seen that among umteen other resources that define the power base of a group or institution, access to or control over public discourse and communication is an key symbolic resource, as is the case for knowledge and information ( new wave Dijk 1996). Most people have alive(p) control only over everyday talk with family members, friends, or co lleagues, and passive voice control over, e. g. media usage. In many 356 Teun A. forefrontguard Dijk situations, ordinary people are more or less passive targets of text or talk, e. g. f their bosses or teachers, or of the authorities, such as constabulary officers, judges, welfare bureaucrats, or tax inspectors, who may simply tell them what (not) to believe or what to do. On the other hand, members of more powerful social groups and institutions, and specially their leaders (the elites), have more or less exclusive access to, and control over, one or more types of public discourse. Thus, professors control scholarly discourse, teachers educational discourse, journalists media discourse, lawyers effective discourse, and politicians policy and other public political discourse.Those who have more control over more and more influential discourse (and more discourse properties) are by that definition also more powerful. In other words, we here propose a discursive definition (as well as a practical diagnostic) of one of the important constituents of social power. These notions of discourse access and control are very general, and it is one of the tasks of CDA to spell out these forms of power. Thus, if discourse is defined in terms of complex communicative events, access and control may be defined both for the context and for the structures of text and talk themselves.Context is defined as the psychologically represented structure of those properties of the social situation that are rele wagon trainguardt for the production or comprehension of discourse (Duranti and Goodwin 1992 van Dijk 1998b). It consists of such categories as the boilers suit definition of the situation, setting (time, place), ongoing actions (including discourses and discourse genres), participants in various communicative, social, or institutional roles, as well as their mental representations goals, knowledge, opinions, attitudes, and ideologies. Controlling context involves cont rol over one or more of these categories, e. . determining the definition of the communicative situation, deciding on time and place of the communicative event, or on which participants may or mustiness be present, and in which roles, or what knowledge or opinions they should (not) have, and which social actions may or must be accomplished by discourse. Also crucial in the enactment or exercise of group power is control not only over contented, but over the structures of text and talk. Relating text and context, thus, we already saw that (members of) powerful groups may decide on the (possible) discourse genre(s) or speech acts of an occasion.A teacher or judge may require a direct response from a student or suspect, respectively, and not a personal story or an argument (Wodak 1984a, 1986). More critically, we may prove how powerful speakers may abuse their power in such situations, e. g. when police officers use force to get a confession from a suspect (Linell and Jonsson 1991) , or when male editors exclude women from writing economic news (van Zoonen 1994). Similarly, genres typically have conventional schemas consisting of various categories. Access to some of these may be prohibited or obligatory, e. . some greetings in a conversation may only be used by speakers of a specific social group, rank, age, or gender (Irvine 1974). Also vital for all discourse and communication is who controls the topics (semantic macrostructures) and topic change, as when editors decide what news topics will be covered (Gans 1979 van Dijk 1988a, 1988b), professors decide what topics will be dealt with in class, or men control topics and topic change in conversations with women (Palmer 1989 Fishman 1983 Leet-Pellegrini 1980 Lindegren-Lerman 1983).Critical discussion Analysis 357 Although most discourse control is contextual or global, even topical anaesthetic details of meaning, form, or style may be controlled, e. g. the details of an answer in class or court, or choice of lexical items or jargon in courtrooms, classrooms or newsrooms (Martin Rojo 1994). In many situations, ledger may be controlled and speakers ordered to take for their voice down or to keep quiet, women may be silenced in many ways (Houston and Kramarae 1991), and in some cultures one needs to mumble as a form of respect (Albert 1972).The public use of specific words may be banned as subversive in a dictatorship, and discursive challenges to paganly dominant groups (e. g. white, western males) by their multicultural opponents may be ridiculed in the media as politically correct (Williams 1995). And finally, action and interaction dimensions of discourse may be controlled by prescribing or proscribing specific speech acts, and by selectively distributing or interrupting turns (see also Diamond 1996).In sum, virtually all levels and structures of context, text, and talk can in principle be more or less controlled by powerful speakers, and such power may be abused at the expense of other participants. It should, however, be stressed that talk and text do not always and directly enact or embody the overall power relations between groups it is always the context that may throw in with, reinforce, or otherwise transform such relationships. 1. 2. 2 Mind control If domineering discourse is a first major(ip) form of power, controlling peoples minds is the other fundamental way to reproduce dominance and hegemony. Within a CDA framework, mind control involves even more than just acquiring beliefs about the knowledge domain through discourse and communication. Suggested below are ways that power and dominance are tangled in mind control. First, recipients tend to accept beliefs, knowledge, and opinions (unless they are inconsistent with their personal beliefs and experiences) through discourse from what they see as authoritative, trustworthy, or credible sources, such as scholars, experts, professionals, or reliable media (Nesler et al. 1993). Second, in some sit uations participants are obliged to be recipients of discourse, e. . in education and in many job situations. Lessons, learning materials, job instructions, and other discourse types in such cases may need to be attended to, interpreted, and learned as intended by institutional or organizational authors (Giroux 1981). Third, in many situations there are no pubic discourses or media that may bequeath information from which alternative beliefs may be derived (Downing 1984). Fourth, and closely related to the preceding points, recipients may not have the knowledge and beliefs needed to challenge the discourses or information they are exposed to (Wodak 1987).Whereas these conditions of mind control are largely contextual (they say something about the participants of a communicative event), other conditions are discursive, that is, a function of the structures and strategies of text or talk itself. In other words, given a specific context, certain meanings and forms of discourse have more influence on peoples minds than others, as the very notion of persuasion and a tradition of 2000 years of rhetoric may show. Once we have unsubdivided insight into some of the structures of the mind, and what it means to control it, the crucial question is how discourse and its structures are able 58 Teun A. van Dijk to exercise such control. As suggested above, such discursive influence may be due to context as well as to the structures of text and talk themselves. Contextually based control derives from the fact that people chthonianstand and represent not only text and talk, but also the whole communicative situation. Thus, CDA typically studies how context features (such as the properties of language users of powerful groups) influence the ways members of dominated groups define the communicative situation in p pertainred context models (Martin Rojo and van Dijk 1997).CDA also focuses on how discourse structures influence mental representations. At the global level of di scourse, topics may influence what people see as the most important information of text or talk, and thus correspond to the top levels of their mental models. For example, expressing such a topic in a headline in news may powerfully influence how an event is defined in terms of a preferred mental model (e. g. when crime act by minorities is typically topicalized and headlined in the press Duin et al. 988 van Dijk 1991). Similarly, argumentation may be persuasive because of the social opinions that are hidden in its unuttered premises and thus taken for granted by the recipients, e. g. immigration may thus be restricted if it is presupposed in a parliamentary debate that all refugees are dirty (see the contributions in Wodak and van Dijk 2000) Likewise, at the local level, in order to understand discourse meaning and coherence, people may need models featuring beliefs that remain implicit (presupposed) in discourse.Thus, a typical feature of manipulation is to communicate beliefs implicitly, that is, without actually asserting them, and with less chance that they will be challenged. These a couple of(prenominal) examples show how various types of discourse structure may influence the formation and change of mental models and social representations. If dominant groups, and especially their elites, largely control public discourse and its structures, they thus also have more control over the minds of the public at large. However, such control has its limits.The complexity of comprehension, and the formation and change of beliefs, are such that one cannot always predict which features of a specific text or talk will have which cause on the minds of specific recipients. These brief remarks have provided us with a very general picture of how discourse is involved in dominance (power abuse) and in the production and reproduction of social inequality. It is the aim of CDA to examine these relationships in more detail. In the next section, we review several areas of CDA research in which these relationships are investigated. 2 query in Critical discussion AnalysisAlthough most discourse studies dealing with any aspect of power, domination, and social inequality have not been explicitly conducted under the label of CDA, we shall nevertheless refer to some of these studies below. 2. 1 gender inequality One vast field of critical research on discourse and language that thus far has not been carried out within a CDA perspective is that of gender. In many ways, feminist Critical Discourse Analysis 359 work has become paradigmatic for much discourse analysis, especially since much of this work explicitly deals with social inequality and domination.We will not review it here see Kendall and Tannen, this mint also the books authored and edited by, e. g. , Cameron (1990, 1992) Kotthoff and Wodak (1997) Seidel (1988) Thorne et al. (1983) Wodak (1997) for discussion and comparison with an approach that emphasizes cultural differences quite a than power differences and inequality, see, e. g. , Tannen (1994a) see also Tannen (1994) for an analysis of gender differences at work, in which many of the properties of discursive dominance are dealt with. 2. 2 Media discourseThe undeniable power of the media has inspired many critical studies in many disciplines linguistics, semiotics, pragmatics, and discourse studies. Traditional, often content analytical approaches in critical media studies have revealed biased, stereotypical, sexist or racist images in texts, illustrations, and photos. Early studies of media language similarly center on easily observable surface structures, such as the biased or partisan use of words in the description of Us and Them (and Our/Their actions and characteristics), especially along sociopolitical lines in the representation of communists.The critical tone was set by a series of Bad newfangleds studies by the Glasgow University Media Group (1976, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1993) on features of TV reporting, such as in the coverage of various issues (e. g. industrial disputes (strikes), the Falklands (Malvinas) war, the media coverage of AIDS. ) Perhaps best known outside of discourse studies is the media research carried out by Stuart abidance and his associates within the framework of the cultural studies paradigm. (See, e. g. , Hall et al. 1980 for entry to the critical work of cultural studies, see Agger 1992a see also Collins et al. 986 for earlier critical approaches to the analysis of media images, see also Davis and Walton 1983 and for a afterward CDA approach to media studies that is related to the critical approach of cultural studies, see Fairclough 1995b. See also Cotter, this volume. ) An early collection of work of Roger Fowler and his associates (Fowler et al. 1979) also focused on the media. As with many other English and Australian studies in this paradigm, the theoretical framework of Hallidays functional-systemic grammar is used in a study of the transitivity of syntactic patterns of sentences (see Martin, this volume).The point of such research is that events and actions may be draw with syntactic variations that are a function of the underlying involvement of actors (e. g. their agency, responsibility, and perspective). Thus, in an analysis of the media accounts of the riots during a minority festival, the responsibility of the authorities and especially of the police in such violence may be systematically de-emphasized by de centering, e. g. by passive constructions and nominalizations that is, by leaving agency and responsibility implicit.Fowlers later critical studies of the media continue this tradition, but also pay tribute to the British cultural studies paradigm that defines news not as a reprimand of reality, but as a product shaped by political, economic, and cultural forces (Fowler 1991). More than in much other critical work on the media, he also focuses on the linguistic tools for such a critical study, such as the analysis of transitivity in syntax, lexical structure, modality, and speech acts.Similarly van Dijk (1988b) applies a theory of news discourse (van Dijk 1988a) in 360 Teun A. van Dijk critical studies of inter interior(a) news, racism in the press, and the coverage of squatters in Amsterdam. 2. 3 Political discourse Given the role of political discourse in the enactment, reproduction, and legitimization of power and domination, we may also expect many critical discourse studies of political text and talk (see Wilson, this volume).So far most of this work has been carried out by linguists and discourse analysts, because political science is among the few social disciplines in which discourse analysis has remained virtually unknown, although there is some influence of postmodernist approaches to discourse (Derian and Shapiro 1989 Fox and Miller 1995), and many studies of political communication and rhetoric overlap with a discourse analytical approach (Nimmo and Sanders 1981).Still closer to d iscourse analysis is the current approach to frames (conceptual structures or sets of beliefs that organize political thought, policies, and discourse) in the analysis of political text and talk (Gamson 1992). In linguistics, pragmatics, and discourse studies, political discourse has received attention outside the more theoretical mainstream. creative work comes from Paul Chilton see, e. g. , his collection on the language of the nuclear accouterments debate (Chilton 1985), as well as later work on contemporary nukespeak (Chilton 1988) and metaphor (Chilton 1996 Chilton and Lakoff 1995).Although studies of political discourse in English are internationally best known because of the hegemony of English, much work has been done (often earlier, and often more systematic and explicit) in German, Spanish, and French. This work is too immense to even begin to review here beyond naming a few influential studies. Germany has a long tradition of political discourse analysis, both (then) i n the West (e. g. about Bonns politicians by Zimmermann 1969), as well as in the former East (e. g. he semiotic-materialist theory of Klaus 1971) (see also the introduction by Bachem 1979). This tradition in Germany witnessed a study of the language of war and peace (Pasierbsky 1983) and of speech acts in political discourse (Holly 1990). There is also a strong tradition of studying fascist language and discourse (e. g. the lexicon, propaganda, media, and language politics Ehlich 1989). In France, the study of political language has a respectable tradition in linguistics and discourse analysis, also because the roadblock between (mostly structuralist) inguistic theory and text analysis was never very pronounced. Discourse studies are often corpus-based and there has been a strong tendency toward formal, quantitative, and spontaneous (content) analysis of such big datasets, often combined with critical ideological analysis (Pecheux 1969, 1982 Guespin 1976). The emphasis on automated analysis usually implies a focus on (easily quantifiable) lexical analyses (see Stubbs, this volume).Critical political discourse studies in Spain and especially also in Latin America has been very productive. Famous is the early critical semiotic (anticolonialist) study of Donald Duck by Dorfman and Mattelart (1972) in Chile. Lavandera et al. (1986, 1987) in Argentina take an influential sociolinguistic approach to political discourse, e. g. its typology of tyrannous discourse. Work of this group has been continued and organized in a more explicit CDA framework especially by Pardo (see, e. g. her work Critical Discourse Analysis 361 on legal discourse Pardo 1996). In Mexico, a circumstantial ethnographic discourse analysis of local authority and decision-making was carried out by Sierra (1992). Among the many other critical studies in Latin America, we should consultation the extensive work of Teresa CarbO on parliamentary discourse in Mexico, focusing especially on the way del egates speak about native Americans (CarbO 1995), with a study in English on interruptions in these debates (CarbO 1992). . 4 Ethnocentrism, antisemitism, nationalism, and racism The study of the role of discourse in the enactment and reproduction of ethnic and racial inequality has slowly emerged in CDA. Traditionally, such work focused on ethnocentric and racist representations in the mass media, literature, and tear (Dines and Humez 1995 UNESCO 1977 Wilson and Gutierrez 1985 Hartmann and hubby 1974 van Dijk 1991).Such representations continue centuries-old dominant images of the Other in the discourses of European travelers, explorers, merchants, soldiers, philosophers, and historians, among other forms of elite discourse (Barker 1978 Lauren 1988). Fluctuating between the emphasis on exotic difference, on the one hand, and supremacist derogation stressing the Others intellectual, moral, and biological inferiority, on the other hand, such discourses also influenced public opini on and led to broadly shared social representations.It is the continuity of this sociocultural tradition of negative images about the Other that also partly explains the persistence of dominant patterns of representation in contemporary discourse, media, and film (Shohat and Stam 1994). Later discourse studies have gone beyond the more traditional, content analytical analysis of images of the Others, and probed more deeply into the linguistic, semiotic, and other discursive properties of text and talk to and about minorities, immigrants, and Other peoples (for detailed review, see Wodak and Reisigl, this volume).Besides the mass media, advertising, film, and textbooks, which were (and lock away are) the genres most commonly studied, this newer work also focuses on political discourse, scholarly discourse, everyday conversations, service encounters, talk shows, and a host of other genres. many studies on ethnic and racial inequality reveal a extraordinary similarity among the stere otypes, prejudices, and other forms of verbal derogation across discourse types, media, and national boundaries.For example, in a vast research program carried out at the University of Amsterdam since the early 1980s, we examined how Surinamese, Turks, and Moroccans, and ethnic relations generally, are represented in conversation, everyday stories, news reports, textbooks, parliamentary debates, corporate discourse, and scholarly text and talk (van Dijk 1984, 1987a, 1987b, 1991, 1993). Besides stereotypical topics of difference, deviation, and threat, story structures, colloquial features (such as hesitations and repairs in mentioning Others), semantic moves such as disclaimers (We have nothing against blacks, but . . . , etc. ), lexical description of Others, and a host of other discourse features also were studied. The aim of these projects was to show how discourse expresses and reproduces underlying social representations of Others in the social and political context. Ter Wal ( 1997) applies this framework in a detailed study of the ways Italian political and media discourse gradually changed, from an antiracist commitment and benign representation 362 Teun A. van Dijk of the extracommunitari (non-Europeans) to a more stereotypical and negative por- trayal of immigrants in terms of crime, deviance, and threat. The major point f our work is that racism (including antisemitism, xenophobia, and related forms of resentment against racially or ethnically defined Others) is a complex system of social and political inequality that is also reproduced by discourse in general, and by elite discourses in particular (see further references in Wodak and Reisigl, this volume). Instead of further elaborating the complex details of the theoretical relationships between discourse and racism, we shall refer to a book that may be taken as a exemplar of conservative elite discourse on race today, namely, The End of racialism by Dinesh DSouza (1995).This text embodies many of the dominant ideologies in the USA, especially on the right, and it specifically targets one minority group in the USA African Americans. Space prohibits detailed analysis of this 700-page book (but see van Dijk 1998a). here(predicate) we can merely summarize how the CDA of DSouzas The End of racial discrimination shows what kind of discursive structures, strategies, and moves are deployed in exercising the power of the dominant (white, western, male) group, and how readers are manipulated to form or confirm the social representations that are consistent with a conservative, supremacist ideology.The overall strategy of DSouzas The End of racial discrimination is the combined implementation, at all levels of the text, of the peremptory presentation of the in-group and the negative presentation of the out-group. In DSouzas book, the principal rhetorical means are those of hyperbole and metaphor, viz. , the exaggerated representation of social problems in terms of illness (patholo gies, virus), and the emphasis of the contrast between the refine and the Barbarians. Semantically and lexically, the Others are thus associated not simply with difference, but rather with deviance (illegitimacy) and threat (violence, attacks).Argumentative assertions of the depravity of black culture are combined with denials of white deficiencies (racism), with rhetorical mitigation and euphemization of its crimes (colonialism, slavery), and with semantic reversals of blame (blaming the victim). hearty conflict is thus cognitively represented and enhanced by polarization, and discursively sustained and reproduced by derogating, demonizing, and excluding the Others from the community of Us, the Civilized. 2. From group domination to professional and institutional power We have reviewed in this section critical studies of the role of discourse in the (re)production inequality. Such studies characteristically exemplify the CDA perspective on power abuse and dominance by specific s ocial groups. Many other studies, whether under the CDA banner or not, also critically examine various genres of institutional and professional discourse, e. g. text and talk in the courtroom (see Shuy, this volume Danet 1984 OBarr et al. 978 Bradac et al. 1981 Ng and Bradac 1993 Lakoff 1990 Wodak 1984a Pardo 1996 Shuy 1992), bureaucratic discourse (Burton and Carlen 1979 Radtke 1981), medical discourse (see Ainsworth-Vaughn and Fleischman, this volume Davis 1988 fisherman 1995 Fisher and Todd 1986 Mishler 1984 West 1984 Wodak 1996), educational and scholarly discourse (Aronowitz 1988 Critical Discourse Analysis 363 Apple 1979 Bourdieu 1984, 1989 Bernstein 1975, 1990 Bourdieu et al. 1994 Giroux 1981 Willis 1977 Atkinson et al. 995 Coulthard 1994 Duszak 1997 Fisher and Todd 1986 Mercer 1995 Wodak 1996 Bergvall and Remlinger 1996 Ferree and Hall 1996 Jaworski 1983 Leimdorfer 1992 Osler 1994 Said 1979 Smith 1991 van Dijk 1987, 1993), and corporate discourse (see Linde, this volume Mu mby 1988 Boden 1994 Drew and Heritage 1992 Ehlich 1995 Mumby 1993 Mumby and Clair 1997), among many other sets of genres. In all these cases, power and dominance are associated with specific social domains (politics, media, law, education, science, etc. , their professional elites and institutions, and the rules and routines that form the background of the everyday discursive reproduction of power in such domains and institutions. The victims or targets of such power are usually the public or citizens at large, the masses, clients, subjects, the audience, students, and other groups that are reliant on institutional and organizational power. 3 Conclusion We have seen in this chapter that critical discourse analyses deal with the relationship between discourse and power.We have also sketched the complex theoretical framework needed to analyze discourse and power, and provided a glimpse of the many ways in which power and domination are reproduced by text and talk. Yet several methodo logical and theoretical gaps remain. First, the cognitive interface between discourse structures and those of the local and global social context is seldom made explicit, and appears usually only in terms of the notions of knowledge and ideology (van Dijk 1998).Thus, despite a large number of experiential studies on discourse and power, the details of the multidisciplinary theory of CDA that should relate discourse and action with cognition and society are quiet down on the agenda. Second, there is still a gap between more linguistically oriented studies of text and talk and the various approaches in the social. The first often ignore concepts and theories in sociology and political science on power abuse and inequality, whereas the second seldom engage in detailed discourse analysis. consolidation of various approaches is because very important to arrive at a satisfactory form of multidisciplinary CDA.NOTES I am indebted to Ruth Wodak for her comments on an earlier reading of this chapter, and to Laura Pardo for further information, about CDA research in Latin America. 1 It comes as no surprise, then, that CDA research will often refer to the leading social philosophers and social scientists of our time when theorizing these and other fundamental notions. Thus, reference to the leading scholars of the heel School and to contemporary work by Habermas (for instance, on legitimation and his give way discourse approach to norms and democracy) is of course common in critical analysis. Similarly, many critical studies will refer to Foucault 64 Teun A. van Dijk when dealing with notions such as power, domination, and discipline or the more philosophical notion of orders of discourse. More latterly, the many studies on language, culture, and society by Bourdieu have become more and more influential for instance, his notion of habitus. From another sociological perspective, Giddenss structuration theory is now now and again mentioned. It should be borne in mind that although several of these social philosophers and sociologists make extensive use of the notions of language and discourse, they seldom engage in explicit, systematic discourse analysis.Indeed, the last thing critical discourse scholars should do is to uncritically gain philosophical or sociological ideas about language and discourse that are obviously uninformed by advances in contemporary linguistics and discourse analysis. Rather, the work referred to here is mainly relevant for the use of fundamental concepts about the social order and hence for the metatheory of CDA. 2 Space limitations prevent discussion of a third issue how dominated groups discursively challenge or resist the control of powerful groups. 3 Note that mind control is merely a handy phrase to summarize a very complex process.Cognitive psychology and mass communication research have shown that influencing the mind is not as straightforward a process as simple ideas about mind control might suggest (Br itton and Graesser 1996 Glasser and Salmon 1995 Klapper 1960 van Dijk and Kintsch 1983). Recipients may vary in their interpretation and uses of text and talk, also as a function of class, gender, or culture (Liebes and Katz 1990). Likewise, recipients seldom passively accept the intended opinions of specific discourses. However, we should not forget that most of our beliefs about the world are acquired through discourse. In order to analyze the complex processes involved in how discourse may control peoples minds, we would need to spell out the detailed mental representations and cognitive operations studied in cognitive science. Since even an adequate summary is beyond the scope of this chapter, we will only briefly introduce a few notions that are necessary to understand the processes of discursive mind control (for details, see, e. g. , Graesser and Bower 1990 van Dijk and Kintsch 1983 van Oostendorp and Zwaan 1994 weaver et al. 1995). 5 Note that the picture just sketched is v ery schematic and general.The relations between the social power of groups and institutions, on the one hand, and discourse on the other, as well as between discourse and cognition, and cognition and society, are vastly more complex. There are many contradictions. There is not always a clear picture of one dominant group (or class or institution) oppressing another one, controlling all public discourse, and such discourse directly controlling the mind of the dominated. There are many forms of collusion, consensus, legitimation, and even joint production of forms of inequality.Members of dominant groups may become dissidents and side with dominated groups, and vice versa. Opponent discourses may be adopted by dominant groups, whether strategically to neutralize them, or simply because dominant power and ideologies may change, as is for instance quite obvious in bionomic discourse and ideology. 6 Unfortunately, the study of the discursive reproduction of class has been rather neglecte d in this perspective for a related approach, though, see Willis (1977). Critical Discourse Analysis 365 REFERENCES Agger, B. (1992a). Cultural Studies as Critical Theory. capital of the United Kingdom Falmer Press.Agger, B. (1992b). The Discourse of Domination. From The Frankfurt School to Postmodernism. Evanston, IL Northwestern University Press. Albert, E. M. (1972). Culture patterning of speech demeanor in Burundi. In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds), Directions in Sociolinguistics The Ethnography of communication (pp. 72-105). new-fangled York Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston. Alexander, J. C. , Giesen, B. , Munch, R. , and Smelser, N. J. (eds). (1987). The microMacro Link. Berkeley, CA University of California Press. Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and Curriculum. capital of the United Kingdom Routledge and Kegan Paul. Aronowitz, S. 1988). acquirement as Power Discourse and Ideology in Modern alliance. Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press. Atkinson, P. , Davies, B. , and D elamont, S. (eds). (1995). Discourse and Reproduction. Essays in Honor of Basil Bernstein. Cresskill, NJ Hampton Press. Bachem, R. (1979). Einfiihrung in die take politischer Texte. (Introduction to the Analysis of Political Discourse). Munich Oldenbourg Verlag. Barker, A. J. (1978). The African Link British Attitudes to the Negro in the Era of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1550-1807. capital of the United Kingdom Frank Cass. Bergvall, V. L. and Remlinger, K. A. (1996).Reproduction, resistance and gender in educational discourse the role of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and smart set 7(4), 453-79. Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, Codes and Control. Volume 3, Towards a Theory of Educational Transmissions. London Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bernstein, B. (1990). The Structuring of pedagogic Discourse. London Routledge and Kegan Paul. Birnbaum, N. (1971). Toward a Critical Sociology. New York Oxford University Press. Boden, D. (1994). The Business of lecturing. Organizations in Acti on. Cambridge Polity. Bourdieu, P. (1984). valet faculty memberus. Paris Minuit. Bourdieu, P. 1989). La noblesse detat. Grandes &038ales et esprit de corps. Paris Minuit. Bourdieu, P. , Passeron, J. C. and SaintMartin, M. (1994). Academic Discourse. Linguistic misapprehension and Professorial Power, Cambridge Polity Press. Bradac, J. J. , Hemphill, M. R. , and Tardy, C. H. (1981). quarrel style on trial effects of powerful and powerless speech upon judgments of victims and villains. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45(4), 327-41. Britton, B. K. and Graesser, A. C. (eds). (1996). Models of reasonableness Text. Mahwah, NJ Erlbaum. Burton, F. and Carlen, P. (1979). Official Discourse.On Discourse Analysis, Government Publications, Ideology and the State. London Routledge and Kegan Paul. Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. and Coulthard, M. (eds). (1996). Texts and Practices Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London Routledge and Kegan Paul. Calhoun, C. (1995). Critical Social Th eory. Oxford Blackwell. Cameron, D. (ed. ) (1990). The Feminist look back of Language. A Reader. London Routledge and Kegan Paul. Cameron, D. (1992). Feminism and Linguistic Theory. Second edition. London Macmillan. 366 Teun A. van Dijk Carl* T. (1992). Towards an interpretation of interruptions in Mexican parliamentary discourse.Discourse and Society, 3(1), 25-45. CarlDO, T. (1995). El discurso parlamentario mexicano entre 1920 y 1950. Un estudio de caso en metodologia de analisis de discurso. (Mexican Parliamentary Discourse between 1920 and 1950. A Case Study in the Methodology of Discourse Analysis). 2 volumes. Mexico CIESAS and Colegio de Mexico. Chilton, P. (ed. ) (1985). Language and the Nuclear Arms fight Nukespeak Today. London and Dover, NH Frances Printer. Chilton, P. (1988). Orwellian Language and the Media. London Pluto Press. Chilton, P. (1996). Security Metaphors. frosty War Discourse from Containment to Common House.Bern Lang. Chilton, P. and Lakoff, G. (1995). Fo reign policy by metaphor. In C. Schaffner and A. L. Wenden (eds), Language and calmness, (pp. 37-59). Aldershot Dartmouth. Collins, R. , Curran, J. , Garnham, N. , Scannell, Schlesinger, P. , and Sparks, C. (eds). (1986). Media, Culture, and Society. London Sage. , Coulthard, R. M. (ed. ) (1994). Advances in Written Text Analysis. London Routledge and Kegan Paul. Danet, B. (ed. ) (1984). efficacious discourse. Text, 4, 1/3, special issue. Davis, H. and Walton, P. (eds). (1983). Language, Image, Media. Oxford Blackwell. Davis, K. (1988). Power Under the Microscope.Toward a Grounded Theory of Gender Relations in Medical Encounters. Dordrecht Forts. Derian, J. D. and Shapiro, M. J. (1989). InternationallIntertextual Relations. Lexington, MA D. C. Heath. Diamond, J. (1996). Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. A Study of Discourse in a close-knit Social Network. Amsterdam Benjamin. Dines, G. and Humez, J. M. M. (eds). (1995). Gender, Race, and Class in Media. A Text-reader. London, CA Sage. Dorfman, A. and Mattelart, A. (1972). conservation of parity leer el Pato Donald. ComunicaciOn de Masa y Colonialismo. (How to Read Donald Duck. flowerpot Communication and Colonialism). Mexico Siglo XXI. Downing, J. 1984). extremist Media The Political Experience of Alternative Communication. Boston South End Press. Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds). (1992). Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. DSouza, D. (1995). The End of Racism Principles for racial Society. New York Free Press. Duin, A. H. , Roen, D. H. , and Graves, M. F. (1988). Excellence or malpractice the effects of headlines on readers reckon and biases. National Reading Conference (1987, St Petersburg, Florida). National Reading Conference Yearbook, 37, 245-50. Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds). (1992).Rethinking Context Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Duszak, A. (ed. ) (1997). Culture and Styles of Academic Di scourse. Berlin mouton de Gruyter. Ehlich, K. (ed. ) (1989). Sprache im Faschismus. (Language under Fascism). Frankfurt Suhrkamp. Ehlich, K. (ed. ) (1995). The Discourse of Business Negotiation. Berlin Mouton de Gruyter. Essed, P. J. M. (1991). Understanding Everyday Racism An Interdisciplinary Theory. Newbury Park, CA Sage. Fairclough, N. L. (1992a). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge Polity Press. Fairclough, N. L. (ed. ) (1992b). Critical Language Awareness.London Longman. Critical Discourse Analysis 367 Fairclough, N. L. (1995a). Critical Discourse Analysis The Critical Study of Language. Harlow, UK Longman. Fairclough, N. L. (1995b). Media Discourse. London Edward Arnold. Fairclough, N. L. and Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (ed. ), Discourse Studies. A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2. Discourse as Social Interaction (pp. 258-84). London Sage. Fay, B. (1987). Critical Social Science. Cambridge Polity. Ferree, M. M. and Hall, E. J. (19 96). Rethinking stratification from a feminist perspective gender, race, and class in mainstream textbooks.American Sociological Review, 61(6), 929-50. Fisher, S. (1995). Nursing Wounds. Nurse Practitioners, Doctors, Women Patients, and the Negotiation of Meaning. New Brunswick, NJ Rutgers University Press. Fisher, S. and Todd, A. D. (eds). (1986). Discourse and Institutional Authority. Medicine, Education, and Law. Norwood, NJ Ablex. Fishman, P. (1983). Interaction the work women do. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, and N. Henley (eds), Language, Gender, and Society (pp. 89-101). New York Pergamon Press. Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News. Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London Routledge and Kegan Paul. Fowler, R. Hodge, B. , Kress, G. , and Trew, T. (1979). Language and Control. London Routledge and Kegan Paul. Fox, C. J. and Miller, H. T. (1995). Postmodern Public Administration. Toward Discourse. London, CA Sage. Fox, D. R. and Prilleltensky, I. (1997). Critical Psychology. An Introduction. London Sage. Gamson, W. A. (1992). public lecture Politics. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Gans, H. (1979). Deciding Whats News. New York Pantheon Books. Giroux, H. (1981). Ideology, Culture, and the Process of Schooling. London Falmer Press. Glasgow University Media Group. (1976). Bad News. London Routledge and Kegan Paul.Glasgow University Media Group. (1980). More Bad News. London Routledge and Kegan Paul. Glasgow University Media Group. (1982). Really Bad News. London Writers and Readers. Glasgow University Media Group. (1985). War and Peace News. Milton Keynes and Philadelphia Open University Press. Glasgow University Media Group. (1993). locomoteting the message. In J. Eldridge (ed. ), News, Truth and Power. London Routledge and Kegan Paul. Glasser, T. L. and Salmon, C. T. (eds). (1995). Public notion and the Communication of Consent. New York Guilford Press. Graesser, A. C. and Bower, G. H. (eds). (1990). Inferences and Text Comprehension.The Psycho logy of Learning and Motivation, vol. 25. New York Academic Press. Gramsci, A. (1971). Prison Notebooks. New York International Publishers. Guespin, L. (ed. ) (1976). Typologie du discours politique (Typology of political discourse). Languages, 41. Hall, S. , Hobson, D. , Lowe, A. , and Willis, P. (eds). (1980). Culture, Media, Language. London Hutchinson. Hartmann, P. and Husband, C. (1974). Racism and the Mass Media. London Davis-Poynter. Holly, W. (1990). Politikersprache. Inszenierungen and Rollenkonflikte im informellen Sprachhandeln eines Bundestagsabgeordneten. (Politicians Language.Dramatization and Role Conflicts in the Informal Speech Acts of a Bundestag Delegate). Berlin Mouton de Gruyter. 368 Teun A. van Dijk Houston, M. and Kramarae, C. (eds). (1991). Women speaking from silence. Discourse and Society, 2(4), special issue. Hymes, D. (ed. ) (1972). Reinventing Anthropology. New York Vintage Books. Ibanez, T. and Iiiiguez, L. (eds). (1997). Critical social psychology. Lon don Sage. Irvine, J. T. (1974). Strategies of status manipulation in the Wolof greeting. In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (eds), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking (pp. 167-91). Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Jaworski, A. (1983). Sexism in textbooks. British Journal of Language Teaching, 21(2), 109-13. Klapper, J. T. (1960). The set up of Mass Communication. New York Free Press. Klaus, G. (1971). Sprache der Politik (Language of Politics). Berlin VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften. KnorrCetina, K. and Cicourel, A. V. (eds). (1981). Advances in Social Theory and Methodology. Towards an Integration of Micro- and Macrosociologies. London Routledge and Kegan PauL Kotthoff, H. and Wodak, R. (eds). (1997). Communicating Gender in Context. Amsterdam Benjamins. Lakoff, R. T. (1990). public lecture Power. The Politics of Language.New York Basic Books. Lauren, P. G. (1988). Power and Prejudice. The Politics and Diplomacy of Racial Discrimination. Boulder, CO Westview Press. L avandera, B. R. , Garcia Negroni, M. M. , Lopez OcOn, M. , Luis, C. R. , Menendez, S. M. , Pardo, M. L. , Raiter, A. G. , and ZoppiFontana, M. (1986). Analisis sociolingilistico del discurso politico. Cuadernos del Institute de Lingiiistica, 1(1). Buenos Aires Instituto de Lingiiistica, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Lavandera, B. R. , Garcia Negroni, M. M. , Lopez OcOn, M. , Luis, C. R. , Menendez, S. M. , Pardo, M. L. , Raiter, A. G. , and ZoppiFontana, M. (1987).Analisis sociolingiiistico del discurso politico (II). Cuadernos del Institute de Lingiiistica. Buenos Aires Instituto de Linguistica, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Leet-Pellegrini, H. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, and P. Smith (eds), Language Social psychological Perspectives (pp. 97-104). Oxford Pergamon Press. Leimdorfer, F. (1992). Discours academique et colonisation. Themes de recherche sur lAlgerie pendant la periode coloniale. (Academic Discourse a nd Colonization Research on Algeria during the Colonial Period). Paris Publisud. Liebes, T. nd Katz, E. (1990). The Export of Meaning wipecultural Readings of Dallas. New York Oxford University Press. LindegrenLerman, C. (1983). Dominant discourse the institutional voice and the control of topic. In H. Davis and P. Walton (eds), Language, Image, Media (pp. 75-103). Oxford Blackwell. Linen, P. and Jonsson, L. (1991). Suspect stories perspective-setting in an asymmetrical situation. In I. Markova and K. Foppa (eds), Asymmetries in Dialogue. The dynamics of Dialogue (pp. 75-100). n. d. Barnes and Noble Books/Bowman and Littlefield Publishers Harvester Wheatsheaf. Lukes, S. (ed. ) (1986). Power.Oxford Blackwell. Martin Rojo, L. (1994). Jargon of delinquents and the study of conversational dynamics. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(3), 243-89. Martin Rojo, L. and van Dijk, T. A. (1997). There was a problem, and it was solved Legitimating the expulsion of illegal immigrants in Spanish Critica l Discourse Analysis 369 parliamentary discourse. Discourse and Society, 8(4), 523-67. Mercer, N. (1995). The Guided saying of Knowledge. Talk Amongst Teachers and Learners. Clevedon Multilingual Matters. Mey, J. L. (1985). Whose Language. A Study in Linguistic Pragmatics. Amsterdam Benjamins. Mishler, E. G. (1984).The Discourse of Medicine. Dialectics in Medical Interviews. Norwood, NJ Ablex. Mumby, D. K. (1988). Communication and Power in Organizations Discourse, Ideology, and Domination. Norwood, NJ Ablex. Mumby, D. K. (ed. ) (1993). Narrative and Social Control Critical Perspectives. Newbury Park, CA Sage. Mumby, D. K. and Clair, R. P. (1997). Organizational discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (ed. ), Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies. A Multidisciplinary Introduction, vol. 1 (pp. 181-205). London Sage. Nesler, M. S. , Aguinis, H. , Quigley, B. M. , and Tedeschi, J. T. (1993). The effect of credibility on perceived power.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(17), 1 407-25. Ng, S. H. and Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in Language. Newbury Park Sage. Nimmo, D. D. and Sanders, K. R. (eds). (1981). enchiridion of Political Communication. Beverly Hills, CA Sage. OBarr, W. M. , Conley, J. M. , and Lind, A. (1978). The power of language presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal, 14, 266-79. Osler, A. (1994). Still hidden from history the representation of women in recently published history textbooks. Oxford Review of Education, 20(2), 219-35. Palmer, M. T. (1989). Controlling conversations turns, topics, and interpersonal control.Communication Monographs, 56(1), 1-18. Pardo, M. L. (1996). Derecho y lingilistica Como se juzga con palabras (Law and Linguistics How to Judge with Words). Buenos Aires Nueva Vision. Pasierbsky, F. (1983). Krieg und Frieden in der Sprache. (War and Peace in Language). Frankfurt Fischer. Pecheux, M. (1969). Analyse Automatique du Discours. Paris Dunod. Pecheux, M. (1982). Language, Semantics and Ideology. New Yor k St Martins Press. Radtke, I. (ed. ) (1981). hap Sprache des Rechts und der Verwaltung. Vol. 2. Deutsche Akademie far Sprache und Dichtung, Die Offentliche Sprachgebrauch. (The Language of the Law and the Administration.Vol. 2. German Academy of Language and Literature, Official Language Use). Stuttgart Klett-Cotta. Rasmussen, D. M. (ed. ) (1996). The Handbook of Critical Theory. Oxford Blackwell. Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York Random House (Vintage). Seidel, G. (ed. ) (1988). The Nature of the Right. A Feminist Analysis of Order Patterns. Amsterdam Benjamins. Shohat, E. and Stam, R. (1994). Unthinking Eurocentrism. Multiculturalism and the Media. London Routledge and Kegan Paul. Shuy, R. W. (1992). Language crimes. The Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the Court Room. Oxford Blackwell. Sierra, M. T. (1992). Discurso, cultura y poder.El ejercio de la autoridad en los pueblos hfiethiifis del Valle del Mezquital. (Discourse, Culture and Power. The Exercise of Authorit y in the Hfialtfui (Otoml) Villages of the Mezquital Valley). Gobierno del Estado de Hidalgo Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social. Singh, R. (ed. ) (1996). Towards a Critical Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam Benjamins. 370 Teun A. van Dijk Smith, D. E. (1991). Writing womens van Dijk, T. A. (1993b). Principles of experience into social science. critical discourse analysis. Discourse Feminism and Psychology, 1(1), 155-69. and Society 4(2), 249-83. Tannen, D. (1994a).Gender and Discourse. van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Discourse, power New York Oxford University Press. and access. In R. C. Caldas-Coulthard Tannen, D. (1994b). Talking from 9 to 5. and M. Coulthard (eds), Texts and How Womens and mens Conversational Practices Readings in Critical Discourse Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Analysis (pp. 84-104). London Credit, and What Gets Done at Work. Routledge and Kegan Paul. New York Morrow. van Dijk, T. A. (1998a). Ideology. A Ter Wal, J. (1997). The re production of Multidisciplinary Study. London ethnic prejudice and racism through Sage. policy and news discourse. The Italian van Dijk, T.A. (1998b). Towards a theory case (1988-92). Florence PhD, of context and experience models in European Institute. discourse processing. In H. van Thomas, J. (1993). Doing Critical Oostendorp and S. Goldman, (eds), Ethnography. Newbury Park Sage. The Construction of Mental Models Thorne, B. , Kramarae, C. , and Henley, N. During Reading. Hillsdale, NJ (eds). (1983). Language, Gender and Erlbaum. Society. Rowley, MA Newbury van Dijk, T. A. and Kintsch, W. (1983). House. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York Academic Press. Turkel, G. (1996). Law and Society. Critical Approaches. Boston, MA Allyn and Van Oostendorp, H. nd Zwaan, R. A. Bacon. (eds). (1994). representational Text Comprehension. Norwood, NJ Ablex. UNESCO. (1977). Ethnicity and the Media. Van Zoonen, L. (1994). Feminist Media Paris UNESCO. Studies. London Sage. van Dijk, T. A. (1984). Prejudice in Discourse. Amsterdam Benjamins. Weaver, C. A. , Mannes, S. and Fletcher, C. van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Communicating R. (eds). (1995). Discourse Racism Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Comprehension. Essays in Honor of Talk. Newbury Park, CA Sage. Walter Kintsch. Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum. van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Schoolvoorbeelden West, C. (1984). Routine Complications van Racisme.De Reproduktie van Troubles with Talk between Doctors and Patients. Bloomington Indiana Racisme in Maatschappijleerboeken (Textbook Examples of Racism, The University Press. Reproduction of Racism in Social Science Williams, J. (ed. ) (1995). PC Wars. Politics Textbooks). Amsterdam Socialistische and Theory in the Academy. New York Uitgeverij Amsterdam. Routledge and Kegan Paul. van Dijk, T. A. (1988a). News as Discourse. Willis, P. (1977). Learning to Labour How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum. van Dijk, T. A. (1988b). News Analysis. Jobs. London Saxon House. Cas e Studies of International and Wilson, C. C. nd Gutierrez, F. (1985). National News in the Press. Hillsdale, Minorities and the Media. Beverly Hills, NJ Erlbaum. CA, and London Sage. van Dijk, 1&8242. A. (1991). Racism and the Wodak, R. (1984). Determination of guilt Press. London Routledge and Kegan discourses in the courtroom. In C. Paul. Kramarae, M. Schulz, and W. M. van Dijk, T. A. (1993a). Elite Discourse and OBarr (eds), Language and Power Racism. Newbury Park, CA Sage. (pp. 89-100). Beverly Hills, CA Sage. Critical Discourse Analysis 371 Wodak, R. (1985). The interaction between Wodak, R. (1997). Gender and Discourse. judge and defendant. In T. A. van Dijk London Sage. (ed. , Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Wodak, R. and van Dijk, T. A. (eds) (2000). Racism at the Top. Klagenfurt Vol. 4. Discourse Analysis in Society Drava Verlag. (pp. 181-91). London Academic Press. Wrong, D. H. (1979). Power Its Forms, Wodak, R. (1987). And where is the Bases and Uses. Oxford Blackwell. Le banon? A sociopsycholinguistic Zimmermann, H. D. (1969). Die politische probe of comprehension and Rede. Der Sprachgebrauch Bonner intelligibility of news. Text, 7(4), 377 410. Politiker. (Political Speech. Language use of Bonns Politicians). Stuttgart Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of Discourse. Kohlhammer. London Longman.