Critical Discourse Analysis, Wodak

8/10/2019 Critical Discourse Analysis, Wodak.

1/9

ANALYTIC FAAMEWORKS

18 4

Poner. J. on pn:ssl l)iscuu"" analysi

n

t.UlarJy

ind

A

Rrymat

(cds).

//anJlw''

oJ

vara

ArW/.$'-'

London.

oner. J.

and

;JwardJi. )

. (2003) R c t h i n k o n ~

c o g ~ o u o n

on

c,

111

111


2/9

ANALYTIC FRAMEWORKS

196

nokcll

or

. . bc ihcy

wn

ncn. '-

l.lf

sem1011c

Jalll. .

1

0

anenipl 10 111akc

l)

ar.:hcr.;

as

. .

visual. e

, roe . . ,. il whik rc1a1nt11g

rsnccllvC'

cXP

1

' .

1hc:1r

"

n

iX .-

icthodolog1cs.

rc>pc.'Cl\c sc1cn111tc n irk ,,. ulso markcd

' h CDA nct\\l .

Thc

start ot 1 e . [)i"k's oumal

D1s-

I

, nh

ot

vu

n

ihr.lllgh

1hc au . .

1990

)

us

wdl

as

1hrough

,11ur.o ' ~ ~ c i n c s s :

Lcmkc (1995 defines

~ ~ l e ~ e l s

0

f sb ncrcte realiiation of abstr4CI ti '

11

a. : ' : ~ ~ ~ Thc:thryretl>re teta 117

..,.

co d .

) lh

onn1 of ...... . ~ . . . are

, ._

icdgC: (' 1scoursc , us adhenng to

a and

lli.ce. - isc:.

~ o ~ u 1 t i a n a p p r o a c ~ (sec also Jiigcr, 200 mor-e d o m i ~ ~ . ' . ' . , ' ~ i e . COfltendiof ditrenn

o u c

11

Jiscoursc-h1stoncal approach . ).

Th::"""" ng lllld

ltl\I ~

l

o e h .

clab- -

dc:ti

111-

,

' and link to t e soc10-cognitive theo with ' ining fcat ....,.

o

lltc

vaJI

o

1

k (1985, 1993, 1998) and view?'d .of

ilnd , : : ~ ~ ~ a

c e n t ~ ~ ~ : : D A

llCC t&tonce

fcun ' as a fonn

of knowledge and memo

IS wh1ch inco Mi lo devctap

a

ilion in '


3/9

ANALYTIC FRAMEWORKS

,

.

. roblem-orienied, rather

2

Thc a ~ h :

ific lin,'llistic items.

lhall

fo1.-used

pc:cthc

items

of

rescarch.

Soo;ial probk:IJ15 arcdenlity so.:ial change',

su.;h as rac1sm.

1

d'

Id

be

studied

rse

are an

~ o u

h ich. ol

cou '

rs ciives. The .CD".'

from r n a n 1 f o l ~ - pe iext analys1s - is

d rnens1on - discourse

i . ble approachcs.

one

of

rnany possi

11

as the mcthodologics

, Thc

tticones

as

we . d ....-hods are

1

e

theoncs an ..

are ec

e c u ~ .

1

adequate for an under-

in1cgratcd

thd

at

pa;canation of

thc object under

s,Wlding an ex

~ : ~ ~ t i ~ ~ ~ a y s

incorporates fiel_

work

and

4

c t h n o , f 8 ~ h y

to

ex

plore

1h

e

b J e C t

und

er

investi ation ( study from thc

in

s1de) as a pre

c o o d 1 t i ~ n

for any further analys1s

a n ~

theo-

. . Th. pproach rnakes 11 poss1blc to

nzmg. is a . h .

.d fining the data

10

1llustratc a t eory

~ ~ ~ c r .

wc deal

"ith

1>onom-up

an

d top

down approaches at th


4/9

190

t . id coneatualialion. bur

mo.a:h

m conlCA

v Di-lt

propases

hanil) lil) 111 dlcorY

of

oateXL 811 models in

'

defino:

contell.l 111

totm

_of conlC'Xf ...

thllr

is ,

m rerms o . . . . . . . -"-

..,__.,J>c mel110I). - of

he oogoing

commu-

J)nanuc ~ r i o n .

11

is

bese conrcxr

--"VC eVClll ..,

1 d-

,_. - D i ; ~ s vicw

conuol

al IS

mookb rbal.

111

van -

,,..

-

iall

lftd

and

cspcc y a

of dJ:5counC rhal adapl ir

10

the_ urren

silulrion -

i

it IS undcrs>od by

thc

partJCipanl5 -

:web as

i l) 'k

and rhctoric (van

DiJk.

2001 ).

M u b r ~

Rccognition

of

the conlribution of ali the aspccts

oflhe

convnunicative conrcxr to rexr meanmg,_as

wcll as

a

gnming awan:ness in media studies

~ n e r a l l y of rhe importance of non-ve_bal

aspects

of

rcxts.

has

turncd artenuon to s e m 1 ~ n c

devices in discour.iC other than the hngu1suc

enes. In pmticular.

the

rheory

pul

forward

by

l(n:si;

and

van Leeuwen (1996) should

be

men

rioned herc, as 1his provides a useful framework

for considering the communicative potcnual of

visual dc\1ces in the media (sec Anthomssen,

2001 ; Scollon. 2001). Van Leeuwen studied film

and relevision production as wcll as Hallidayan

linguistic.s. His principal publ cations

are con

cemed

with

tapies

such as the mronauon

of

d1sc

jockeys ami newsreaders, the language .

of

tele

vision interviews

and

newspaper reponmg and,

more

recently.

the

M miotics of visual

communi

catioo and music. Van Leeuwen developed a

ID051 mluential methodological tool : the actor's

analysis ( 1993). This taxonomy allows for the

analysis

of

(both

wriuen and

oral) data, related to

agency in a very differentiated and validated

way. The taxonomy has since then been widely

.,iplied in data analysis.

Recently. Van Leeuwen

has

focused on sorne

arcas

of ~ i s u a l

communication, especially the

scmiotics of handwriting

and

iypography

and the

question of colour.

He

is increasingly moving

away from using a systemic-functional

approach

as

the

single model and feels that it is imponant

for social

.emiotics

to realize that semiotic

dis

C O t I T T e ~

and methods

are linked

to semiotic

prac

tices. and that

grammars

are

one type

of

semiotic

d i s c o u ~

that is linked to a specific kind of con

trol over specific kinds of

semiotic

practices.

To

givc an example of a very different

type

of dis

course, histories of art

and design

focus

on the

fCDliotic innovations of specific individuals in

tbeir

historical contexts, rather than on a

syn

nous approach to semiotic systems. How

c_. they, too,_ re linked to the specific

ways

in

h1ch

production

and

consumption

is

regulated

in thal arca. 11 is imponam

far

SOc

providc.

modcls

of

semiotic

~ i o t i c s lo

appropnate to the practiccs thcy tbat

different semiotic praetices are Dlodcl, lllld

as

organized. il is not possible

10

vcry d i f f ~ y

model

to

ali.

Ali

of

this

is ctosci iipply

a 1ing1c

role and status of semiotic

p r a c

to tbc

and

this

is currently undcrgoing SOclet)r,

result of hc fact

that

it

is

incrcasingl

hangc as

1

porations

and

semiotic technologie/ glba

COr

national institutions, that rcgulate '

nuhcr

han

duction and consumplion. 1Cntio11c Jln).

This cmphasis on rcgulatory Pracf

to

a

rcsearch approach in

three

sta

JCCs

has

led

with the analysis of a panicular ca-ggcs, stan111g

' ory Of

culturaJ artefacts

or

communicativc e " ' ~ t s

moving

to a

second set

of

texts

( and/vcnt,

thcn

r df . .

or

CUlt-

arte.acts an or

commun1cat1vc

cvents

_,.,

those that

seck

to

r c ~ l l l a t c the p r o d u ~

l l a l n c l y

consumption

of

the

first

set, and

final

on

illld

to a third sel of exts, namely actual initanmoving

producing or

consuming

texts (etc)

belo ces Of

. . nging to

the firsl set . For mstance, m a study ofbab

van Leeuwen

and

bis

team

analysed

the t y toys,

h

1

oys and

t

eir

sem1ot1c

potenlla

, as objects-for-use

nd

cultural icons, then studied

discourses

seek

1

as

. t o

mfluence

how they are

used, e.g. relevant

secuons of parentmg books

and ma azines

t

ad

. o

vert1semcnts, texts on toy packaging, etc., and

finally transcnbed analysed videos of moth

and

babies

using

these

same

toys

t o g e t ~ ~

(Caldas-Coulthard and van Leeuwen, 2001.

Th1s type of

work

leads to a

panicular

relation

between discourse analysis, ethnography,

history

and

theory

in which these

disciplines

are no

longer

contributing

to

the

whole

through sorne

kind of indefinable synergy or

triangulation, but

are complementary in

quite

specific

ways.

Jay

Lemke and Ron

and Suzie

Scollon also

have

to be mentioned

in

this

context.

In the last

few years

Lemke's work has emphasized

multi

media

semiotics,

multiple time scales and hyper

texts/traversals. He

extended his earlier

work on

embedded

ideologies

in

social

communication

from

analysis ofverbal

text to

integration ofver

bal text with visual images and other

presenta

tional

media, with

a

particular

focus on

evaluative meanings. This work emphasizes the

implicit value

systems

and their connections

to

institutional and

personal

identity

.

The

work

on

multiple

time

scales

is

an exten

sion

of

earlier

work

on ecological-social systems

as complex dynamic systems

with

semiotic

cultures. lt is very imponant

in

considering

_ali

aspects of social dynamics to consider lookmg

across multiple

time scales

, i.e., how processes

and practices that takc place al relatively

faster

ratcs

are organized within the framework

ofmor

e

CllJTICAt_ O

1

Sco\J

cflallging features of SOcial . _

S E ~ ~

;1,

wl)'1.1Uures. This is

a

promisin n s t i t u 1 i o n ~

~ ' h

1

o the so-called micro/macg Practica

-.A.oac

d th ro Probl

J l l ~ ( h e o r e u c a y an me odologically L ern,

lJI

?()() ).

H1s newest work has co Crnkc,

,

;()()O

J;ese

themes to develop the id mb1ned

ti-'th b we

tell

our lives as

narratives

ea tha1

,thO"gthern

as

hypenexts. Building we expc.

n'.,._--e --rnantic resources of hvn..n research

th ...

d

th

,

ext

as

""

_

he propase

at postmodem

1

.fi a

_.,i,l)lfl. .be d ti 1 e-styl

11'"':- -re.asingly h rate rom panicular i . es

JfC ill" ..,les and that we tend to move nstuu.

- .d i w ti . on rnu1

11 '-

1

me

scales, rom

mvolvement .

uple

n ~ o n

10

another

,

creating new

k_mdsone

m

1

i> ng less bound 10 fixed genres and r .

Jl)(

Jlll

surf'

across channels, websit egis-

' S. a.s Th ' . es and

ti: ... ex.,,.riences. 1s 1s seen

as

a new h. .

''' ' r t,

01

1 . .

ISton-

.L.velopmen n

supp

ammg

mstitut

al .,..

1

ons

.... lding up

new

socio-cu tural possibi . '

hUI 1 hes

and o\er them.

''t all this work,

Lemke

uses critica .

n f . . social

tics as

an

extens1on o cnt1cal

dis

sern

.

d

h

course

J1131ysis,

combine wll models of the

material

Of

emergent social

phenomena

His

co

tJaSC

.

ncem

_ ith social

and cultural change

:

how

1

1

h

'

'

. . . ap

pi:OS.

how

1t 1s constramed

,_ and the ways in

.hich is expectedly unpred1ctable.

The problem that

Ron

and Suzie Scollon

,jdreSS in recent

work

1s to build a fonnal th

reiical and_a

pract

ica _

ink b ~ ~ e e n

discourse

action.

It 1s

an

acllv1st

p o ~ l t l o n

that uses

tools

and strateg1es of

engaged

d1sc?urse analysis and

ihus requires a formal

~ n a l y s 1 s

of how its

own

aciions can be accomphshed t_

hrough

discourse

and 1ts

analys1s.

The problems

m

developin th

.

k

h

. .

g IS

farnewor

are t

at

act1on 1s

alway

s

mulf

b th h ip

e,

bo

th m e sense a_t

ere

always simultane-

ous parallel

and mteractmg

act i

ons at an

moment we choose

to

analyse, as well as in t h ~

sens that

these multiple

actions operate

-li . .

1

across

d enng time sea es so

that it

is not at ali

1

tha

h. h c ear

1we

can

see 1g

er

le

ve

actions as

.

1

f ' I s1mp e

compos

1tes o ower leve(' actions Th

1

nk

e 1

ages

are more _complex.

Jay Lemke's

work

is

of

course

, an important

resource in Iooking

into '

1h

problem. is

Ron Scollon 's

recent work furth

h .

di lelo

ped

._, d. ers

t e

idea

. m .,e iated Discourse: e N . r

Pract ce (2001) th . . exu s oJ

usefully unders; O: practtce m general is most

that are

linked .o

as many separate practices

liOns between

dm

a

nexus of practice

.

The rela-

1scourse and

il?many and com 1 a n e x ~ s of

practice

ren1

nterest

is in

tp and rarely d1rect. His cur

th :se

li

nkages th ymg to

open

up and explcate

nexus

anal

ysis.

T ~ ~ u h

w?at

could

.

be

called

in two pro ork is now bemg carried

Suz ~ e c t s . 1n

th fi .

ie Scollon h . e Irst, wh1ch Ron and

ave Wntten

b

a

out

m Discour

ses

Nationa1 Soc 1

a rst 1

cnt1ca1 philol . SUage becarn

Klemperer (K og1ca1 observaf 10 e thc obicct of

ernpe ns bv v

e_ver, . was the ti rer, 1975 ). Utz M, ktor

hngu1stic

Pract"

rst to subject th aas, how.

depth n a l y s i s / ~ :

~ ~ a t i o n a J S o c i a l ~ m e : e r y d a y

approach

of

. . NS texts to e)(e o_an in -

1989a, 9

89

b -esweisenana/yse


5/9

R MEWORKS

A

LY"flC F

possible are selec1ed fro111 the

N uc as '

1

haractcns

1

for concrete

ana

ys1s. Selection

e d matena f h d

archive a structunil analys1s o t e 1 entifiect

, from

rcsul11ng bcd

i

92

of cxts

re

inscn

pol> phollY . d1cuons a d poh11cal

,,.

ro rhc

. 1al conrra , social an . 1 rovi-

; ~ 1 ; . : 1 1 h ~ : : ~ ~ r o m

J1ve:;1

i u n ~ : ~ ~ a : S bul

nio iexl ' in;

rcc1p. by NS

po

1 are ulll-

1 (O:'" icxts who ,

c o n i c x t ~

u l 1 u ~ 1 \ 1 s

idcology, d1scourse)

a ~ "

cen

~ i n

left P

0

1

ffects of

discursive

for-

"''' ' '

v1t11 1 g1ca e . 1 b

- urse ' e ,deo

0

copie

as socia su ~ e c t s .

'.,ses

th p a s i u o n m ~ ~ u g g e s t s that peoplc are

in 1ttiusser .

h

position of

sources

of

''

g A agmary h . d.

'

,ho1n

.

thC im reas actually

1 e1r

iscourse

cd

in urse, whe

ve

s are effects

o f

the1r

d i s c ~ theY

1h

_

m7:

_

The

sources . and

1

J

1

ndee

1

posllJOn

n gposi

tioning ar

e htdden

0

ogica f rtieir

ow

typically

no

t aware

of

'

e

es

o h y

are

.

1

d .

C

ess le

T

e

ihm

a part1cu

ar

1scur-

r neop

from w1

. . ,.

1

n1

w r r t i n g

ver the

d1scurs1vc

1onna-

t

fl

ng.

Morco

d

pe3k

1

tion. ple are pos1Uonc

are

'

e foJ1Tlh n which peothe

complex whole

in

,,,

v1t

1

d by

h' h

on>

'

1

es shape .

ursive format1ons

, w 1c

~ m s e ve

of

disc

.

ourse'

_

but people are

n a n ~ a l l s i n t e r d i ~ ~ g Radical ch a

n

ge in the

p ~ c h e of hat shap d m discourse can come

vare

051

uone

no

ople are P revolution. .

.ay pe palit1cal .

lleagues

changed the1r

0

nY romx and hishco

1

ss

ues

in the late l 970s

'c

heu

. d

ot

er

p

h

e.

on thrs an ain

ueneau,

1987;

ec eux,

11c

11

s ly 980s

(M

gf

Foucault increased,

as

ear . fluence o h

:JJ1

The m .

tudies began to e m ~

a s 1 ~ e

of

a k ~ t m

discursive formations

m

d1d

h

mplex m1xmg

eity and ambivalence o f

ihe co d the h e t e r o g e ~ 1981 ).

Sorne

other

xlS an Courtme, .

" see, e.g., . estigate detailed rhetoncal

1

x

15

ch

re

searchers

1

7v

in

the presidential cam-

~ m s . for ~ ~ a ~ ~ d e 1995. The i n ~ u e n c e o f

pa

i

gns of

19

ra

matics

is also promment, ~ n d

~ n g l o - S a x o n P Fg

ch

l inguist Benveniste

, f

the

ren

. . . '

rha

l o h e work on enonc1atwn

1 996/1974), : .osphenomena.

In this

frame-

d

on de1c11c .

1

d ts

f c

use

d ( 1995)

produced deta1

e

accoun

~ o r k

Achar

1

i ctioning o f

a

very wide range

lh

po

htrca un k 1997

of

e ( Fairclough and

Woda , ,

f exl types see

for

more

details).

TH DISCOURSE-HISTORICAL

APPROACH

The study for which the discourse-historical

approach was actually

developed,

first at tempted

10 lrace in detail the constitution o f an anti

llmic slcreotyped image, or Fe indbild , as

it

r

me

r

ge

d n public

discourse in the 1986 Austrian

p

e

si

dential campaign o f

Kurt

Waldhe im

i 'odak et al., 1990,

Gruber

199J Mitten

1

9J

, '

, -J

n arder to be

able to

study the discourse

~ u t the 'Waldheim

Affair '

' comext ' was

ira

ve led '

la into

vanous

d i

mensions.

The research

; e ~ ~ n ~ s l i n g six researchers from three

ields

(hnguistics,

psychology and

his1

ory

,

decidcd

in favour

of

.

approach', Wh1ch macte 11 > O ~ s 1 ~ l c l ~ 1 a ~ g u l a t o r y

thc rnany d1ffercn1 gcnres lhat were

: i t :u s

on

the d1fferen1 poh11ca1 fields of act1on


6/9

ANALYTIC FAAMEWORKS

Grand Theory

Mlcldle RanP

Theory

Dlscourse Theory

Un1u1sUcAnalyses

~ ~ t i o n A r g u m e n t a ~

Penpecttvation ___

D

Strategies

S t n t ~ o f

Self

Represencation

lntensification

and Mitigation

Strategies

f11Ure 12. I Levels o heofieS

ond

inguisric onalysis.

unerances into account.

is

it possible to grasp the

inter1extuality and interdiscursivity

of

whole dis

courscs

on

ethnic groups

or

on specific persons.

Moreover. certain

wpo

are recontextual zed

from

one public domain

to

the next, but realized

through different

1

nguistic devices (ledema,

1999: Wodak. 2000). A comprehensivc analysis

should thus relate different approaches and

theories

from

neighbouring disciplines

as

well.

To ul'Kkrsiand rdcist. xenophobic

or

anti-Semitic

discourses. it is importan to tum to historical,

socio-p>ychological. sociological, psycho

analytic and political claims because the pheno

menon

is

'

complcx (see Wodak and Reisigl,

1999).

In

t h ~ example below, 1 cannot summa

rize

ali thc>e different. but relevant. theoretical

and

lll< lhoological theories.

1

will highlighr

only

1h

o..:

1har

hdp to understand and explain the

spccitic ca_.,e study in this chapter, which deals

with

. : c n r racist discourses and the Haider

pheoomcnon'

1see

abo Wodak and Pelinka. 2002).

The rangc of argumentative strategies and insin

uation> ill illustrdte new dimensions

of

the dis

cur.,J\c

con>ruction

of

the 'othcr'

in

discourse.

7

M_re_mportantly. the precise discourse analysis

w1ll

11lU>tr.ite

how importan it might be to

mtegrate >cveral lcveb

of

context and a

mult -theorctical .

a ~ p r o a c h

when analysin

pohucal commumcat1on. g

The spccific discourse-analytical approach

applied in the four studies referred to is three

dimensional: after (

1)

having established the

specific contents or topics of a specific discourse

(2) the discursive strategies (including argumen'.

tation strategies) were investigated. Then (3), thc

linguistic meaos (as types) and the specific,

context-dependent

linguistic realizations (as

tokens) werc examined

4)

.

There are severa discursive elements and

strategies that, in our discourse-analytical vicw,

deservc to receive special attention. We orient

ourselves to fivc constitutive questions:

How are persons namcd and referred to

linguistically?

2

What traits, charactcristics, qualities and

features

are

attributed to them?

3

By meaos

of

what arguments and argurncnta

tion schcmes do specific persons or social

groups try

to

justify and legitirnize thc inclu

sion or cxclusion of others?

4 From what perspcctive or point

of

view

are

thcse labels,

attributions

and argurncnts

cxpressed?

CRITICAL

Disco

...

hle

1

2. I Discursive suotegies for . . UttSE ANAL

y

.....

-------=--_:_:":....':"f>osf ive Sel - SIS

. - ond neroti

Ob;ectives

0

rher.,._

--------. . . . :. . . . . . . . :. :._- .

,..resentat;o,,

19S

ConstniCtion

of n-

ou t-groups

Croupi

nd

l'1tmbersn1p c.i

Bio1011ca1,

""'

OfrintJon

l.abelling social

positi.,.,_, or

ctors more

or s

. . .

negatiy ly

e s

deprecatorily e '

Metephors nd ,zinc nd dep.,.

Synecdoches "''"tonYmies sono11z1"1

Stereo ._. pars

Pro IQlo

. ..IQI ev ,

""'1

Justifiation of PPreclatively

utributions

tive

or negtive

negalive o; Uillve ttnb ro PorJ)

lmplicit a d PD


7/9

E

...,.,.RKS

.,...,e

FRAM

..-.-

AJllAL

dO

undcrsi.and

19' -

cJio5" who ve 10 ivc

al

1U$i01" '

r

lht"

'

he niaY

~ r t _

' lhY

. ns mY

be

bC vct f ... nd allusO

soons . auvc

acis.

;. . '

aJways so

,....

ornmuni< 1

ivc

wY - be

si_. < . a hi:lilY cxp

os

. ion and cannol

unJC


8/9

AJ ALYTIC FRAMEWORKS

198

. .

onc short

categones JO

roach anJ ali illi would like to

summanze

app . . Nen:rthde s. 1 . be used JO thc

S'Cuon. t procedul\'s to

.. . mo.st importan . .

11.. . . . itk 1cxts.

analys1s

ot

sJ>C' .

nd context

.

about thc

co- a .

Sampk

n t o n n a u ~ n

1

politi.:al. histoncal,

f 1he toe 1so.:ia

~ y : h o l o g i c a l

etc

.).

dis.:oursc

to which

the

Once the gcnre

and c c ~ cstablished, sample

t c ~ t

belongs ha 'c

. . rmation cstabhsh

more e.thn og_aph11:, - ' t ~ r t e x 1 u a l i 1 ~ (texls on

- 1ty anu JO e

1

ntcrd1s.:ur.;iv .th imilar a rguments,

. . , , tCXL WI

s

imilar

1 o p i ~ > . , _of aciion, gcnn:s) .

macro-topi.:s.

tidds

undcr investigation, for-

fr om 1hc

problem

-h

question

s and

e r e s e a r ~

mulatc precis . , fields for explanatory

p l o n ncighbounng

1

aspecls

.

1 h e o r i ~ and theorcuca

. arch

questions

into

Opcra1ionalizc

the rcsc

linguis

1i

c

ca1cgoncs:_

_ quen1ially on to the

Apply 1hesc

ca

egones

se

. 1

approachcs to

h 1

in" theoreuca

1c

xt " 1 e us "' . , . 1 , from the

. 1 1he

mcamngs r ~ s u ung

JOlcrprc .

rcsearch

qucsuons

. h c

ific

, t'" .

conlext diagram for

t e

spe

Dra" up "" . '"

tc:1.1 and

lhe

f i c : l d ~

of ac11ons. .

hile

Makc an cxtcnsive

inlerpretauond

w

the

.

to th

c

~ a r c

quesuons an

to

rctumJOg . . .

problem undcr mvesugauon .

Tbese

steps are taken severa ti Tk.S,

alway

s

c o m i n ~

and

going between text,

e t h n o , T i l p h ~

. heones an

anal sis

Most

importantly. the dec1s1ons that are

requin:d in

the

analysis

have to be made

cons

1

and Jus

11

fied

The mediation between

e xp 1cll .

thcories and empirical analys1s, between the socia

and he tcxL will nevcr be

implemented

totally ._ A

._ and hermeneutics and mterpretauve

gap

tX SlS,

dcvices

are

always needed to bridge the

ga

p.

CKNOWLEDGEHENTS

This short swnmary is based on long and extensive

discussions with my friends,

colleagues and

co

n:searchersas well as students . 1would like tomen

tion

and thank

Rudolf

de

Cillia, Martin Reisigl,

Gertr.1ud

Benke

,

Gilbert Weiss, Bemd

M a i ~ h e k . Michael Meyer and Richard

Minen

,

with ali of whom 1 have

wo

rk

ed

together

over

the

years . Moreover, many ideas have come up with

m y st

udents.

1 would like to thank Usama

Suleunan. Alexander Pollak, Maria Arduc and

Otrbtine

Anthonissen for their insights and e labo

r.uio I.'>.

fina

lly, 1

would

like to

thank my

peer

group. "hom 1 have written about, and the many

co llcagues 1have not been able to

mention here.

NOTES

Scc Wodak and Mcycr (2001); wdak ,

Tiaschcr

el

al . O

991 ,

2000); Rcisigl alld ( ~ 0 0 2

(2001); van D1k (2001): Fairclough and ~

( 1997); Wciss and Wodak (2003 ; Blomma.:'Odali:

Bukacn (2000); Anlhumsscn (2001 J: Pollak ( ~ l l e

etc.

21.

2 Scc also Rcisig l and Wodak (2001) ; wdak

2001 b); Wodak and de Cillia (2002a. 2oo

2

bJ

12

001a,

Scc lunguuge and Puwa by Norman FaircJou

(

19119).

language

,

Power

and ld ofugy try gh

Wodak ( 19 19), and

Pn:judice in Discuursr

b ulh

van Dijk (1985 . Y cun

4 Thc Erasmus

n c t w o r ~

consis1ed

of

a

CO


9/9

,ANALYTIC FRAMEWORKS

.U I Obcr Kollcktivsymbolik

itn

p o l i ~

LiM.. J. t I . Jilirctl

TcndcnzCO

Oiilturs 1-1 11ftt1 AlllCtl aa 101A

~ . 1 7 1 1 1 . . .

U. 119841

.4/s

~ &ist

Ju -wcl taf t

~ . . . . >-" Spra

:il< i .

V;1tiU11a1su:

1

1

' '

w ~ - r

Vcrtag. .

MMI. U. t l'IS'MI .lrllnkY.>hnl -

olitisdw

Spracll

..

u -

FrulNn""' Main.

Sulublnp

. . .

Mus,

U. ( I ' l b l .

Spncllcr-:

rcadmg

and

nbllC indigcoous AusintiaoS". io G Wc1ss and

Jt. "'odak tcdsl. Cnncai l>iscow'st' n-r ,

-4

_..,,OpbMrity. London: Palgra..: Macm1llan.

pp. 199-:?19

Me)

. J. ( l 4 1 , , , . . , , , . , _ , ,

07.bd:

Bla.-twcil ( 1994

Msacn.

R

t 19'111 11w

Polllia

of Alltist'lllilic Prrjudict :

nw

l f ~ ~ i

Aarria.

Bouldcr. CO :

Wosnic"'

Prcss.

Mwoogl, P Wc= G.

and

Wodak.

R.

(: 0001

EIUV('t all

u - .

, . . , , , q J i ~ w n t 1

.411

/ 1 1 ~ r r J i s c i p l i

_ ..

, .

4ppro=lt w

EwcpJo_,..,,..,., P o l i c ) ~ M a b t r g

and

~ _ ,

Clttutgc.. Amstcrdam: BcnJanns.

Ndlan.

M. t191C) /..altgwlgr. Snruwics and

ldrology

(:?ad

cd.I.

l.Dadon:

Maanillan.

Ndl:

rruusmus ' . Vicnna: lnslitu1 fr

Wissc

be

Und

nd Pchkan, J. , ,

Documents

Critical Discourse Analysis, Wodak