Example Research: Critical Discourse Analysis

18 vital communion abbreviation TEUN A. VAN DIJK 0 Introduction What Is censorious conversation epitome? little discussion outline (CDA) is a type of communion analytical question that primarily stu betters the way come up-disposed causation abuse, dominance, and disagreement be enacted, reproduced, and resisted by textbook and spill in the social and semi policy-making context. With some(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) dissident search, decisive converse analysts take explicit position, and hence urgency to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inconsistency.Some of the tenets of CDA can already be found in the detailed theory of the Frankfurt School before the Second human beings War (Agger 1992b Rasmussen 1996). Its current focus on run-in and discuss was initiated with the unfavorable linguistics that emerged (mostly in the UK and Australia) at the end of the 1970s (Fowler et al. 1979 see besides Mey 1985).CDA has overly counter bit s in censorious developments in sociolinguistics, psychology, and the social learnings, many already dating back to the early 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 case in these neighboring disciplines, CDA whitethorn be seen as a re serve against the dominant formal (often asocial or uncritical) range of a functions of the 1960s and 1970s.CDA is not so some(prenominal) a direction, school, or specialization next to the many former(a) approaches in talk studies. Rather, it aims to offer a different mode or panorama of theorizing, compendious, and use throughout the whole field. We may construe a more or less critical horizon in much(prenominal) diverse beas as pragmatics, talk analysis, narrative analysis, rhetoric, stylistics, sociolinguistics, ethnography, or media analysis, among others. Crucial for critical cover analysts is the explicit aw beness of their role in society.Continuing a customs duty that rejects the possibility of a value-free science, they argue that science, and oddly scholarly address, are inherently part of and actd by social structure, and produced in social fundamental interaction. Instead of denying or ignoring such(prenominal) a relation among lore and society, they plead that such transaction be studied and accounted for in their own right, and that scholarly recitals Critical hold forth Analysis 353 be establish on such insights. Theory formation, description, and explanation, also in intercourse analysis, are sociopolitically situated, whether we like it or not.Reflection on the role of scholars in society and the polity thus becomes an inherent part of the parley analytical enterprise. This may mean, among other affaires, that discourse analysts conduct research in solidarity and cooperation with prevail throngs. Critical research on discourse needs to carry through a number of requirements in order to effectively realize its aims As is often the case for more marginal research traditions, CDA research has to be wear than other research in order to be accepted.It focuses primarily on , social problems and political issues, rather than on current paradigms and fashions. Empirically adequate critical analysis of social problems is usually multidisciplinary. Rather than merely describe discourse structures, it tries to explain them in terms of properties of social interaction and especially social structure. to a greater extent particularizedally, CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce, or challenge dealing of power and dominance in society. Fairclough and Wodak (1997 271-80) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. . 7. 8. CDA addresses social problems originator transaction are meandering(a) Discourse constitutes society and culture Discourse does ideological control Discourse is historical The link between text and society is talk terms Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory Discourse is a form of social action. Whereas some of these tenets see also been discussed above, others need a more authoritative supposititious analysis, of which we shall present some fragments here as a more or less general basis for the main principles of CDA (for details about these aims of critical discourse and language studies, see, e. . , Caldas-Coulthard and Coulthard 1996 Fairclough 1992a, 1995a Fairclough and Wodak 1997 Fowler et al. 1979 cara caravan Dijk 1993b). 1 Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks Since CDA is not a particular direction of research, it does not move over a unitary conjectural framework. Within the aims menti unrivalledd above, on that tiptop are many types of CDA, and these may be theoretically and analytically quite diverse. Critical analysis of conversation is precise different from an analysis of news reports in the press or of lessons and teaching at school.Yet, given the common perspective and the general aims of CDA, we may also find e actuallyplaceall abstract and theoretical frameworks that are closely related. As suggested, most changes of CDA will ask questions about the way specific 354 Teun A. van Dijk discourse structures are deployed in the breeding of social dominance, whether they are part of a conversation or a news report or other genres and contexts.Thus, the typical vocabulary of many scholars in CDA will feature such notions as power, dominance, hegemony, ideology, class, sexuality, race, discrimination, interests, reproduction, institutions, social structure, and social order, besides 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, cognition, and society. 1. 1 Macro vs. microLanguage use, discourse, oral interaction, and communication belong to the microlevel of the social order. Power, dominance, and inequality between social groups are typically terms that belong to a macrolevel of analysis. This means that CDA has to theoretically bridge the well-known gap between micro and macro approaches, which is of course a distinction that is a sociological construct in its own right (Alexander et al. 1987 Knorr-Cetina and Cicourel 1981). In mundane interaction and experience the macro- and microlevel (and mediator mesolevels) form whizz unified whole.For instance, a racist speech in parliament is a discourse at the microlevel of social interaction in the specific situation of a debate, but at the same succession may enact or be a constituent part of legislation or the reproduction of racialism at the macrolevel. there are several ways to analyze and bridge these levels, and thus to pull round at a unified critical analysis Membersgroups Language users-engage in discourse as members of (several) social groups, organ izations, or institutions and conversely, groups thus may act by their members. Actionsprocess sociable acts of individual actors are thus constituent parts of group actions and social processes, such as legislation, newsmaking, or the reproduction of racism. 3 Contextsocial structure Situations of discursive interaction are similarly part or constitutive of social structure for example, a press conference may be a typical practice of organizations and media institutions. That is, local and more orbicular contexts are closely related, and twain exercise constraints on discourse. Personal and social cognition Language users as social actors pack both personal and social cognition personal memories, knowledge and opinions, as well as those dual-lane with members of the group or culture as a whole. Both types of cognition charm interaction and discourse of individual members, whereas shared social representations govern the collective actions of a group. 1 1. 2 Power as suss out A central notion in most critical work on discourse is that of power, and more specifically the social power of groups or institutions.Summarizing a complex philosophical and social analysis, we will define social power in terms of dominate. Thus, groups ease up Critical Discourse Analysis 355 (more or less) power if they are able to (more or less) control the acts and minds of (members of) other groups. This ability presupposes a power base of privileged access to scarce social resources, such as force, money, status, fame, knowledge, information, culture, or indeed various forms of mankind discourse and communication (of the vast literature on power, see, e. . , Lukes 1986 Wrong 1979). Different types of power may be distinguished according to the various resources employed to exercise such power the coercive power of the military and of violent men will rather be based on force, the rich will see power because of their money, whereas the more or less persuasive power of pare nts, professors, or journalists may be based on knowledge, information, or authority. whole tone also that power is seldom absolute.Groups may more or less control other groups, or further control them in specific situations or social domains. more thanover, dominated groups may more or less resist, accept, condone, comply with, or legitimate such power, and even find it natural. The power of dominant groups may be integrated in laws, rules, norms, habits, and even a quite general consensus, and thus take the form of what Gramsci called hegemony (Gramsci 1971). Class domination, sexism, and racism are characteristic examples of such hegemony.Note also that power is not always 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 many forms of everyday sexism or racism (Essed 1991). Similarly, not all members of a respectable group are always more powerful tha n all members of dominated groups power is only defined here for groups as a whole. For our analysis of the relations between discourse and power, thus, we firstly 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 controlled by our minds. So, if we are able to influence peoples minds, e. g. their knowledge or opinions, we indirectly may control (some of) their actions, as we know from persuasion and manipulation. Closing the discoursepower circle, finally, this means that those groups who control most authoritative discourse also have more chances to control the minds and actions of others.Simplifying these very intricate kindreds even further 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 control prevalent 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 many other resources that define the power base of a group or institution, access to or control over public discourse and communication is an important symbolic resource, as is the case for knowledge and information (van Dijk 1996). Most people have active control only over everyday talk with family members, friends, or colleagues, and passive control over, e. g. media usage. In many 356 Teun A. van Dijk situations, ordinary people are more or less passive targets of text or talk, e. g. f their bosses or instructors, or of the authorities, such as police officers, trys, 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 especially their leaders (the elites), have m ore 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 legal 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 target a discursive definition (as well as a practical diagnostic) of one of the crucial 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 compositors cases, access and control may be defined both for the context and for the structures of text and talk themselves.Context is defined as the mentally represented structure of those properties of the social situation t hat are relevant for the production or recognition 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 control 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 must 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 content, but over the structures of text and talk. Relating text and context, thus, we alrea dy 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 answer from a student or suspect, respectively, and not a personal story or an argument (Wodak 1984a, 1986). More critically, we may examine 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 sexual practice (Irvine 1974). Also vital for all discourse and communication is who controls the topics (semantic macrostructures) and topic tack, as when editors decide what news topics will be c over (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 Discourse Analysis 357 Although most discourse control is contextual or global, even local 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, volume may be controlled and speakers ordered to keep their sound 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 culturally dominant groups (e. g. white, western males) by their multicultural opponents may be ridicu led 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 interfere with, reinforce, or otherwise transform such relationships. 1. 2. 2 Mind control If controlling discourse is a first major 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 only acquiring beliefs about the world through discours e and communication. Suggested below are ways that power and dominance are relate in mind control. First, recipients take to the woods 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, originals, or reliable media (Nesler et al. 1993). Second, in some situations 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 intend by institutional or organizational authors (Giroux 1981). Third, in many situations there are no pubic discourses or media that may provide information from which alternative beliefs may be derived (Downing 1984). Fourth, and closely related to the previous points, recipients may not have the k nowledge 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 elementary 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 understand and represent n ot 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 preferred context models (Martin Rojo and van Dijk 1997).CDA also focuses on how discourse structures influence mental representations. At the global level of discourse, 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 committed by minorities is typically topicalized and headlined in the press Duin et al. 988 van Dijk 1991). Similarly, blood may be persuasive because of the social opinions that are hidden in its implicit premises and thus taken for granted by the r ecipients, e. g. immigration may thus be restricted if it is presupposed in a parliamentary debate that all refugees are illegal (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 pass around beliefs implicitly, that is, without actually asserting them, and with less chance that they will be challenged. These few 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 pred ict which features of a specific text or talk will have which effects 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 fall over several areas of CDA research in which these relationships are investigated. 2 Research in Critical Discourse 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 discou rse 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 volume 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 rather 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 focus ed on easily observable tireface structures, such as the biased or partisan use of words in the description of Us and Them (and Our/Their actions and characteristics), especially on sociopolitical lines in the representation of communists.The critical tone was set by a series of Bad youngs studies by the Glasgow University Media Group (1976, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1993) on features of TV reporting, such as in the reportage 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 house and his associates within the framework of the cultural studies paradigm. (See, e. g. , Hall et al. 1980 for incoming 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 later CDA approach to media studies that is rel ated 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 transitiveness of syntactic patterns of sentences (see Martin, this volume).The point of such research is that events and actions may be described 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 defocusing, e. g. by passive constructions and nominalizations that is, by leaving agency and responsibility implicit.Fowler s 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 reflection 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 excessivelyls 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 international 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 disc ourse analysts, because political science is among the few social disciplines in which discourse analysis has remained virtually unknown, although there is some influence of postmodern approaches to discourse (Derian and Shapiro 1989 Fox and Miller 1995), and many studies of political communication and rhetoric intersection with a discourse analytical approach (Nimmo and Sanders 1981).Still closer to discourse 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. Seminal work comes from Paul Chilton see, e. g. , his collection on the language of the nuclear arms debate (Chilton 1985), as well as later work on contemporary nukespeak (Chilton 1988) and metaphor (Chilton 1996 Chilton and Lakoff 1995).Althoug h 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 extensive to even begin to review here beyond naming a few influential studies. Germany has a long tradition of political discourse analysis, both (then) in 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 barrier 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 automatic (content) analysis of such big datasets, often combined with critical ideological analysis (Pecheux 1969, 1982 Guespin 1976). The furiousness on change 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 authoritarian 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 detailed 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 mention the extensive work of Teresa CarbO on parliamentary discourse in Mexico, focusing especially on the way delegates 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 aim (Dines and Humez 1995 UNESCO 1977 Wilson and Gutierrez 1985 Hartmann and Husband 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 opinion 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 vol ume).Besides the mass media, advertising, film, and textbooks, which were (and still are) the genres most commonly studied, this newer work also focuses on political discourse, scholarly discourse, everyday conversations, returns encounters, talk shows, and a host of other genres. Many studies on ethnic and racial inequality reveal a remarkable similarity among the stereotypes, 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, corporal discourse, and scholarly text and talk (van Dijk 1984, 1987a, 1987b, 1991, 1993). Besides stereotypical topics of difference, deviation, and threat, story structures, conversational features (such as hesitations an d 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 discou rses in particular (see further addresss 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 prototype of conservative elite discourse on race today, namely, The End of Racism 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 we can merely summarize how the CDA of DSouzas The End of Racism 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 Rac ism is the combined implementation, at all levels of the text, of the positive 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 (pathologies, virus), and the emphasis of the contrast between the Civilized 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). Social 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 social 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 pekan 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, 19 90 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 Mumby 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 dependent on institutional and organizational power. 3 Conclusion We have see n 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 methodological 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 semiempirical studies on discourse and power, the details of the multidisciplinary theory of CDA that should relate discourse and action with cognition and society are still 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. desegregation of various approaches is therefore very important to arrive at a satisfactory form of multidisciplinary CDA.NOTES I am indebted to Ruth Wodak for her comments on an earlier version 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 Frankfurter School and to contemporary work by Habermas (for instance, on legitimation and his last 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 philos ophical notion of orders of discourse. More recently, the many studies on language, culture, and society by Bourdieu have become increasingly influential for instance, his notion of habitus. From another sociological perspective, Giddenss structuration theory is now occasionally 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 adopt 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 ch allenge 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 simplistic ideas about mind control might suggest (Britton 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 embower 1990 van Dijk and Kintsch 1983 van Oostendorp and Zwaan 1994 Weaver et al. 1995). 5 Note that the picture just sketched is very 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 vers a. 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 ecological discourse and ideology. 6 Unfortunately, the study of the discursive reproduction of class has been rather neglected 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 northwesterly University Press. Albert, E. M. (1972). Culture patterning of speech behavior in Burundi. In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds), Directions in Sociolinguistics The Ethnography of Communication (pp. 72-105). peeled York Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston. Alexander, J. C. , Giesen, B. , Munch, R. , and Smelser, N. J. (eds). (1987). The MicroMacr o 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). Science as Power Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society. Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press. Atkinson, P. , Davies, B. , and Delamont, S. (eds). (1995). Discourse and Reproduction. Essays in Honor of Basil Bernstein. Cresskill, NJ Hampton Press. Bachem, R. (1979). Einfiihrung in die Analyse 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. London 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 Society 7(4), 453-79. Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, Codes and Control. Volume 3, Towards a Theory of Educational Transmis sions. 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 Talk. Organizations in Action. Cambridge canon. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo Academicus. Paris Minuit. Bourdieu, P. 1989). La noblesse detat. Grandes &ales et esprit de corps. Paris Minuit. Bourdieu, P. , Passeron, J. C. and SaintMartin, M. (1994). Academic Discourse. linguistic Misunderstanding and Professorial Power, Cambridge Polity Press. Bradac, J. J. , Hemphill, M. R. , and Tardy, C. H. (1981). Language style on trial effects of powerful and powerless speech upon judgments of victims and villains. Western Journal of quarrel Communication, 45(4), 327-41. Britton, B. K. and Graesser, A. C. (eds). (1996). Models of cause 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 Theory. Oxford Blackwell. Cameron, D. (ed. ) (1990). The Feminist Critique 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 showcase Study in the Methodology of Discourse Analysis). 2 volumes. Mexico CIESAS and Colegio de Mexico. Chilton, P. (ed. ) (1985). Language and the Nuclear Arms Debate Nukespea k Today. London and Dover, NH Frances Printer. Chilton, P. (1988). Orwellian Language and the Media. London Pluto Press. Chilton, P. (1996). tribute Metaphors. Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House.Bern Lang. Chilton, P. and Lakoff, G. (1995). Foreign policy by metaphor. In C. Schaffner and A. L. Wenden (eds), Language and Peace, (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). sanctioned 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. Lexin gton, MA D. C. Heath. Diamond, J. (1996). Status and Power in vocal 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). Para leer el Pato Donald. ComunicaciOn de Masa y Colonialismo. (How to Read Donald Duck. Mass Communication and Colonialism). Mexico Siglo XXI. Downing, J. 1984). Radical 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 Multiracial 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 recall and biases. home(a) 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 Discourse. 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. (1996). 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). Talking 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). unfeignedly 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). Getting the message. In J. Eldridge (ed. ), News, Truth and Power. London Routledge and Ke gan Paul. Glasser, T. L. and Salmon, C. T. (eds). (1995). Public Opinion and the Communication of Consent. New York Guilford Press. Graesser, A. C. and Bower, G. H. (eds). (1990). Inferences and Text Comprehension.The Psychology 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. London 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 Effects 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 Benj amins. Lakoff, R. T. (1990). Talking 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. 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. (1986). Analisis sociolingilistico del discurso politico. Cuadernos del show 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 Soc ial 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 and Colonization Research on Algeria during the Colonial Period). Paris Publisud. Liebes, T. nd Katz, E. (1990). The Export of Meaning Crosscultural Readings of Dallas. New York Oxford University Press. LindegrenLerman, C. (1983). possessive 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 Critical Discourse Analysis 369 parliamentary discourse. Discourse and Society, 8(4), 523-67. Mercer, N. (1995). The Guided Construction 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 Multidisciplin ary 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), 1407-25. Ng, S. H. and Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in Language. Newbury Park Sage. Nimmo, D. D. and Sanders, K. R. (eds). (1981). Handbook 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 account statement 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. Pasi erbsky, 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 York St Martins Press. Radtke, I. (ed. ) (1981). Die 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 haphazard 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 Langua ge 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 Authority 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). written material 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 R eadings 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 reproduction 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 V an Oostendorp, H. nd Zwaan, R. A. Bacon. (eds). (1994). Naturalistic 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. Routl edge 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. Case 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. 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. Lebanon? A sociopsycholinguistic Zimmermann, H. D. (1969). Die politische investigation 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.