Volume 21, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


This article briefly reviews the rise of Critical Discourse Analysis and teases out a detailed analysis of the various critiques that have been levelled at CDA and its practitioners over the last twenty years, both by scholars working within the “critical” paradigm and by other critics. A range of criticisms are discussed which target the underlying premises, the analytical methodology and the disputed areas of reader response and the integration of contextual factors. Controversial issues such as the predominantly negative focus of much CDA scholarship, and the status of CDA as an emergent “intellectual orthodoxy”, are also reviewed. The conclusions offer a summary of the principal criticisms that emerge from this overview, and suggest some ways in which these problems could be attenuated.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abercrombie, N
    (1996) Television and Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Antaki, C. , M. Billig , D. Edwards , and J. Potter
    (2003) Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings. InDiscourse Analysis Online, 1, retrieved8 September, 2011, on: www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssca1/DAOLpaper.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arminen, I
    (2005) Institutional Interaction: Studies of Talk at Work. Aldershot: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, P. , C. Gabrielatos , M. Khosravinik , M. Krzyzanowski , T. McEnery , and R. Wodak
    (2008) A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse and Society 19: 273-306. doi: 10.1177/0957926508088962
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088962 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhatia, V.K
    (2002) Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Ibérica4: 3-19.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Billig, M
    (2002) Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. In G. Weiss and R. Wodak (eds.), Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 35-46.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blommaert, J
    (2001) Context is/as critique. Critique of Anthropology21: 13-32. doi: 10.1177/0308275X0102100102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X0102100102 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bluhm, C. , D. Deissler , J. Scharloth , and A. Stukenbrock
    (2000) Linguistische Diskursanalyse: Überblick, Probleme, Perspektiven. Sprache und Literatur in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 88: 3-19.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bourdieu, P
    (1984a) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (1984b) Homo Academicus. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bredehöft, S. , K. Gloy , F. Januschek , and R. Patzelt
    (1994) Studium der Arbeitslösigkeit. Zur diskursiven Aneignung neuer Lebenssituationen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Caldas-Coulthard, C. , and M. Coultard
    (eds.) (1996) Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Candlin, C. , and K. Hyland
    (1999) Writing: Texts, processes and practices. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chouliaraki, L. , and N. Fairclough
    (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity. Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Coseriu, E
    (1980) Textlinguistik: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fairclough, N
    (1985) Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics9: 739-763. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(85)90002‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90002-5 [Google Scholar]
  17. (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1992a) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1992b) Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society3.2: 193–217. doi: 10.1177/0957926592003002004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002004 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1996) A reply to Henry Widdowson's 'Discourse analysis: A critical view'. Language and Literature5.1: 49-56. doi: 10.1177/096394709600500105
    https://doi.org/10.1177/096394709600500105 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2000) New Labour, new language?London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fairclough, N. , and R. Wodak
    (1997) Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage, pp. 258-284.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Fish, S
    (1980) Is There A Text in This Class?Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Foucault, M
    (1969) The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (1981) The order of discourse. In R. Young (ed.), Untying the text: A post-structural anthology. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 48-78.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fowler, R
    (1991) Language in the News. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1996) Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fowler, R. , B. Hodge , G. Kress , and T. Trew
    (1979) Language and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gergen, K
    (1994) Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gloy, K
    (1998) Ethik-Diskurse. Praktiken öffentlicher Konfliktaustragung. Skizze eines Forschungs- vorhabens. Ethik-Diskurse. Praktiken öffentlicher Konfliktaustragung. Arbeitspapier Nr. 1. Oldenburg: Universität Oldenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gramsci, A
    (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Habermas, J
    (1976) Verwissenschaftlichte Politik und öffentliche Meinung. In J. Habermas (ed.), Technik und Wissenschaft als 'Ideologie'. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, pp. 120-45.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hammersley, M
    (1997) On the foundations of critical discourse analysis. Language and Communication 17: 237-248. doi: 10.1016/S0271‑5309(97)00013‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(97)00013-X [Google Scholar]
  35. Harding, S
    (2004) Introduction. In S. Harding (ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hodge, R. , and G. Kress
    (1993) Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hoey, M
    (1996) Contrast and compatibility in the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’. In C. Caldas- Coulthard , and M. Coulthard (eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp.150-163.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Jäger, S
    (1999) Kritische Diskursanalyse. Eine Einführung. Duisburg: Dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kant, I
    (1781) [1964] Critique of Pure Reason. London: Dent.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kress, G. , and T. van Leeuwen
    (1992) Structures of visual representation. Journal of Literary Semantics21.2: 91–117. doi: 10.1515/jlse.1992.21.2.91
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.1992.21.2.91 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kress, G
    (1996) Representational resources and the production of subjectivity: Questions for the theoretical development of critical discourse analysis in a multicultural society. In C. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard (eds.), Text and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp.15-31.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kuo, S.H. , and M. Nakamura
    (2005) Translation or transformation? A case study of language and ideology in the Taiwanese press. Discourse & Society16: 393–418. doi: 10.1177/0957926505051172
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926505051172 [Google Scholar]
  43. Luke, A
    (2002) Beyond science and ideological critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics22: 96-110. doi: 10.1017/S0267190502000053
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000053 [Google Scholar]
  44. Maas, U
    (1989) Sprachpolitik und politische Sprachwissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Macintyre, A
    (1981) After Virtue. A study in moral theology. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Martin, J
    (2004) Positive discourse analysis: Solidarity and change. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 49: 179-202.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Mautner, G
    (2001) Checks and balances: How corpus linguistics can contribute to CDA. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 122-143.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Meyer, M
    (2001) Between theory, method and politics: positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage, pp. 14-31.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Nightingale, V
    (1996) Studying Audiences: The Shock of the Real. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Olson, D. , and N. Filby
    (1972) On the comprehension of active and passive sentences. Cognitive Psychology3: 361-381. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(72)90013‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90013-8 [Google Scholar]
  51. Partington, A
    (2003) The Linguistics of Political Argumentation: The Spin-doctor and the Wolf-pack at the White House. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. (2006) Metaphors, motifs and similes across discourse types: Corpus assisted discourse studies (CADS) at work. In A. Stefanowitsch and S. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.267-304. doi: 10.1515/9783110199895
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110199895 [Google Scholar]
  53. Peace, P
    (2003) Balancing power: The discursive maintenance of gender inequality by wo/men at university. Feminism and Psychology 13.2: 159–180. doi: 10.1177/0959353503013002003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353503013002003 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pêcheux, M
    (1982) Language, semiotics and ideology. (2nd ed.) London: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Potter, J
    (1998) Cognition as context (Whose cognition?). Research on Language and Social Interaction 31.1: 29-44. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3101_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3101_2 [Google Scholar]
  56. Reese, S. , O. Gandy , and A. Grant
    (2003) Perspectives on Media and our Understanding of the Social World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Reisigl, M
    (2007) Nationale Rhetorik in Fest- und Gedenkreden. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Reisigl, M. , and R. Wodak
    (2001) Discourse and discrimination. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. (2009) The discourse historical approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage. pp. 87-121.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Rogers, R. , E. Malancharuvil-Berkes , M. Mosley , D. Hui , and Joseph G. O’Garro
    (2005) Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research 75.3: 365-416. doi: 10.3102/00346543075003365
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003365 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sarangi, S. , and C. Roberts
    (1999) Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, institutional and management settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110208375
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208375 [Google Scholar]
  62. Schegloff, E
    (1997) Whose text? Whose context?Discourse and Society8.2: 165-187. doi: 10.1177/0957926597008002002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008002002 [Google Scholar]
  63. Scholem, G
    (1982) Walter Benjamin: The story of a friendship. New York: New York Review of Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Scholes, R
    (1994) Textual Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Shaw, B
    (1985) Reason, nostalgia, and eschatology in the critical theory of Max Horkheimer. The Journal of Politics47.1: 160-181. doi: 10.2307/2131070
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2131070 [Google Scholar]
  66. Schroder, K
    (2002) Discourses of fact. In K.B. Jensen (ed.), Handbook of Media and Communication Research. London: Routledge, pp. 98-116.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Slembrouck, S
    (2001) Explanation, interpretation and critique in the analysis of discourse. Critique of Anthropology21: 33-57. doi: 10.1177/0308275X0102100103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X0102100103 [Google Scholar]
  68. Stenvall, M
    (2007) Fear of terror attack persists: Constructing fear in reports on terrorism by international news agencies. In A. Hodges and C. Nilep (eds.), Discourse, War and Terrorism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.205-222. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.24.14ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.24.14ste [Google Scholar]
  69. Stubbs, M
    (1994) Grammar, text and ideology. Computer-assisted methods in the linguistics of representation. Applied Linguistics15.2: 201-223. doi: 10.1093/applin/15.2.201
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.2.201 [Google Scholar]
  70. (1997) Whorf’s children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis. In A. Ryan , and A. Wray (eds.), Evolving models of language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp.100-116.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Toolan, M
    (1997) What is critical discourse analysis and why are people saying such terrible things about it?Language and literature6.2: 83-102. doi: 10.1177/096394709700600201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/096394709700600201 [Google Scholar]
  72. van Dijk, T
    (1991) Racism and the press. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. (1993) Elite discourse and racism. Newbury Park: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781483326184
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483326184 [Google Scholar]
  74. (1999) Critical discourse analysis and conversation analysis. Discourse and Society10.4: 459-460. doi: 10.1177/0957926599010004001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010004001 [Google Scholar]
  75. (2003) Critical discourse analysis?In D. Schiffrin , D. Tannen and H. Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 352-371.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Van Dijk, T
    (2006) Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society17.3: 359-383. doi: 10.1177/0957926506060250
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250 [Google Scholar]
  77. Verschueren, J
    (2001) Predicaments of criticism. Critique of Anthropology21.1: 59-81. doi: 10.1177/0308275X0102100104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X0102100104 [Google Scholar]
  78. (2011) Ideology in Language Use: Pragmatic guidelines for empirical research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139026277
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026277 [Google Scholar]
  79. Wales, R. , and R. Grieve
    (1969) What is so difficult about negation?Attention, Perception and Psychophysics6. 6: 327-332. doi: 10.3758/BF03212785
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212785 [Google Scholar]
  80. Weiss, G. , and R. Wodak
    (2002) Introduction: Theory, interdisciplinarity and critical discourse analysis. In G. Weiss and R. Wodak (eds.), Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-32. doi: 10.1057/9780230514560
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230514560 [Google Scholar]
  81. Widdowson, H
    (1996) Reply to Fairclough. Discourse and interpretation. Conjectures and refutations. Language and Literature5.1: 57-69. doi: 10.1177/096394709600500106
    https://doi.org/10.1177/096394709600500106 [Google Scholar]
  82. (1998) The theory and practice of Critical Discourse Analysis. Applied Linguistics19.1: 136-151. doi: 10.1093/applin/19.1.136
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.136 [Google Scholar]
  83. (2005) Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Wodak, R
    (1986) Language behavior in therapy groups. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. (1996) Disorders of discourse. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. (2001) The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage, pp. 63-95.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. (2007) Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis: A cross-disciplinary enquiry. Pragmatics and Cognition 15.1: 203-225. doi: 10.1075/pc.15.1.13wod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.15.1.13wod [Google Scholar]
  88. (2011) Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In J. Östman , P. Ledin , and J. Verschueren (eds.), Discursive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 50-69. doi: 10.1075/hoph.8.04wod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.8.04wod [Google Scholar]
  89. Wodak, R. , J. Pelikan , P. Nowak , H. Gruber , R. de Cillia , and R. Mitten
    (1990) Wir sind alle unschuldige Täter!” Diskurshistorische Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error