Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper gives a critical overview of analytical approaches dominating the field of discourse studies in the last three decades, from the perspective of their philosophical and formative bases: social constructionism and linguistics. It explores different conceptions of the theoretical nexus between these two bases leading to the emergence of three distinct yet complementary strands of thought (i–iii). The paper starts with poststructuralist views of discourse salient in (i) Laclau and Mouffe’s Discourse Theory. Laclau and Mouffe’s assumption that no discourse is a closed entity but rather transformed through contact with other discourses is taken as the introductory premise to present a large family of (ii) critical discourse studies, characterized as text-analytical practices explaining how discourse partakes in the production and negotiations of ideological meanings. Finally, the paper discusses (iii) three recent discourse analytical models: Discourse Space Theory, Critical Metaphor Analysis and the Legitimization-Proximization Model. These new theories take a further step toward consolidation of the social-theoretical and linguistic bases in contemporary discourse studies. The empirical benefits of this consolidation are discussed in the last part of the paper, which includes a case study where the new models are used in the analysis of Polish anti-immigration discourse.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Althusser, Louis
    1971Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Angermuller, Johannes, Dominique Maingueneau & Ruth Wodak
    (eds) 2014The Discourse Studies Reader. Main Currents in Theory and Analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.184
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.184 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Paul
    2006Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid KhosraviNik, Michał Krzyżanowski, Anthony McEnery & Ruth 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 & Society19: 273–306. 10.1177/0957926508088962
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088962 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1981The Dialogic Imagination. Edited byM. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua
    1954 Indexical expressions. Mind63: 359–379. 10.1093/mind/LXIII.251.359
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LXIII.251.359 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartlett, Tom
    2018 Positive discourse analysis. InJohn Flowerdew & John Richardson (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, 133–147. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Benke, Gertraud
    2000 Diskursanalyse als sozialwissenschaftliche Untersuchungsmethode. SWS Rundschau2: 140–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Benveniste, Emile
    1966Problèmes de linguistique générale 1. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blommaert, Jan & Chris Bulcaen
    2000 Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology29: 447–466. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.447
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.447 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bourdieu, Pierre
    1992Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Breeze, Ruth
    2011 Critical Discourse Analysis and its critics. Pragmatics21: 493–525. 10.1075/prag.21.4.01bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.4.01bre [Google Scholar]
  13. Bühler, Karl
    1934Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: Fischer.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cap, Piotr
    2006Legitimization in Political Discourse. Newcastle: CSP.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2013Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.232
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.232 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2017aThe Language of Fear: Communicating Threat in Public Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑59731‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59731-1 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2017b From ‘cultural unbelonging’ to ‘terrorist risk’: communicating threat in the Polish anti-immigration discourse. Critical Discourse Studies15: 285–302. 10.1080/17405904.2017.1405050
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2017.1405050 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cap, Piotr & Urszula Okulska
    (ed.) 2013Analyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50 [Google Scholar]
  19. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2004Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230000612
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2005Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230501706
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501706 [Google Scholar]
  21. Chilton, Paul
    2004Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2005 Missing links in mainstream CDA: modules, blends and the critical instinct. InRuth Wodak & Paul Chilton (eds) A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis, 19–51. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.13.05chi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.13.05chi [Google Scholar]
  23. 2014Language, Space and Mind: The Conceptual Geometry of Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511845703
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845703 [Google Scholar]
  24. Chouliaraki, Lilie & Norman Fairclough
    1999Discourse in Late Modernity. Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Derrida, Jacques
    1970 Structure, sign, and play in the discourse of the human sciences. InRichard Macksey & Eugenio Donato (eds) The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man, 247–272. Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dunmire, Patricia
    2011Projecting the Future through Political Discourse: The Case of the Bush Doctrine. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.41
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.41 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fairclough, Norman
    1989Language and Power. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1992Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1995Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Fairclough, Norman & Ruth Wodak
    1997 Critical discourse analysis. InTeun van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction, 258–284. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Fetzer, Anita
    2018 Discourse analysis. InAndreas H. Jucker, Klaus P. Schneider & Wolfram Bublitz (eds) Methods in Pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics, Volume 10), 401–421. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110424928‑016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-016 [Google Scholar]
  32. Flowerdew, John & John Richardson
    (eds) 2018The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Foucault, Michel
    1971L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1972The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. Translated byAndrew M. Sheridan. New York: Pantheon.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Fowler, Roger, Gunther Kress & Tony Trew
    1979Language and Control. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Fowler, Roger
    1991Language in the News. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Giltrow, Janet & Dieter Stein
    (eds) 2009Genres in the Internet. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.188
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.188 [Google Scholar]
  38. Goatly, Andrew
    2007Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.23 [Google Scholar]
  39. Golato, Andrea & Peter Golato
    2018 Ethnomethodology and conversation. InAndreas H. Jucker, Klaus P. Schneider & Wolfram Bublitz (eds) Methods in Pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics, Volume 10), 380–399. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110424928‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-015 [Google Scholar]
  40. Gramsci, Antonio
    1973Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1978Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 1994Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hansen, Allan & Andre Sonnichsen
    2014 Discourse, the political and the ontological dimension: an interview with Ernesto Laclau. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory15: 255–262. 10.1080/1600910X.2014.941889
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2014.941889 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hart, Christopher
    2011 Moving beyond metaphor in the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to CDA: construal operations in immigration discourse. InChristopher Hart (ed.), Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, 171–192. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.43.09har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43.09har [Google Scholar]
  45. 2013 Event-construal in press reports of violence in political protests: a Cognitive Linguistic Approach to CDA. Journal of Language and Politics12: 400–423. 10.1075/jlp.12.3.05har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.12.3.05har [Google Scholar]
  46. 2014Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hart, Christopher & Piotr Cap
    (eds) 2014Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Hodge, Robert & Gunther Kress
    1993Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Jessop, Bob & Ngai-Ling Sum
    2018 Language and critique: some anticipations of critical discourse studies in Marx. Critical Discourse Studies15: 325–337. 10.1080/17405904.2018.1456945
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1456945 [Google Scholar]
  50. Jørgensen, Marianne & Louise Phillips
    2002Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781849208871
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208871 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kaal, Bertie
    2015 How ‘real’ are time and space in politically motivated worldviews?Critical Discourse Studies12: 330–346. 10.1080/17405904.2015.1013483
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2015.1013483 [Google Scholar]
  52. KhosraviNik, Majid & Johann Unger
    2016 Critical discourse studies and social media: power, resistance and critique in changing media ecologies. InRuth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (3rd ed.), 205–233. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Koller, Veronika
    2005 Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: evidence from business media discourse. Discourse & Society16: 199–224. 10.1177/0957926505049621
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926505049621 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kopytowska, Monika
    (ed) 2017Contemporary Discourses of Hate and Radicalism across Space and Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.93
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.93 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kopytowska, Monika, Łukasz Grabowski & Julita Woźniak
    2017 Mobilizing against the Other: cyberhate, refugee crisis and proximization. InMonika Kopytowska (ed.) Contemporary Discourses of Hate and Radicalism across Space and Genres, 30–55, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.93.11kop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.93.11kop [Google Scholar]
  56. Krzyżanowski, Michał & Bernhard Forchtner
    2016 Theories and concepts in critical discourse studies: facing challenges, moving beyond foundations. Discourse & Society27: 253–261. 10.1177/0957926516630900
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516630900 [Google Scholar]
  57. Lacan, Jacques
    2007The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XVII: The Other Side of Psychoanalysis. Translated byRichard Grigg. London: Norton.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Laclau, Ernesto
    1990New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 1993 Power and representation. InMark Poster (ed.) Politics, Theory and Contemporary Culture, 14–45. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 1996 The death and resurrection of the theory of ideology. Journal of Political Ideologies1: 201–220. 10.1080/13569319608420738
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13569319608420738 [Google Scholar]
  61. Laclau, Ernesto & Chantal Mouffe
    1985Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Luke, Allan
    2002 Beyond science and ideological critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics22: 96–110. 10.1017/S0267190502000053
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000053 [Google Scholar]
  64. Macgilchrist, Felicitas
    2014 Media discourse and de/coloniality. A post-foundational approach. InChristopher Hart & Piotr Cap (eds), Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, 385–405. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Maingueneau, Dominique & Johannes Angermüller
    2007 Discourse analysis in France: a conversation. Forum: Qualitative Social Research8, art. 21. www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/254/559#gcit
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Marín Arrese, Juana
    2011 Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse: legitimising strategies and mystification of responsibility. InChristopher Hart (ed.) Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, 193–224. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.43.10mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43.10mar [Google Scholar]
  67. Martin, James R.
    2004 Positive discourse analysis: solidarity and change. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses49: 179–202.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Martin, James R. & David Rose
    2003Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. McEnery, Anthony & Paul Baker
    (eds) 2015Corpora and Discourse studies: Integrating Discourse and Corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. McNair, Brian
    2011An Introduction to Political Communication (5th ed.). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203828694
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203828694 [Google Scholar]
  71. Mouffe, Chantal
    (ed.) 1993The Return of the Political. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Musolff, Andreas
    2004Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230504516
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516 [Google Scholar]
  73. 2016Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. O’Halloran, Kieran
    2010 How to use corpus linguistics in the study of media discourse. InAnne O’Keeffe & Michael McCarthy (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, 563–576. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203856949‑40
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856949-40 [Google Scholar]
  75. Partington, Alan
    2006 Metaphors, motifs, and similes across discourse types: corpus assisted discourse studies (CADS) at work. InAnatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Gries (eds) Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, 267–304. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Perrez, Julien & Min Reuchamps
    2015 Special issue on the political impact of metaphors. Metaphor and the Social World5: 165–176. 10.1075/msw.5.2.00int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.5.2.00int [Google Scholar]
  77. Reisigl, Martin & Ruth Wodak
    2001Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Anti-Semitism. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Sardinha, Tony B.
    2011 Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada11. doi:  10.1590/S1984‑63982011000200004
    https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-63982011000200004 [Google Scholar]
  79. Saussure, Ferdinand de
    1966Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Stubbs, Michael
    1997 Whorf’s children: critical comments on critical discourse analysis. InAnn Ryan & Alison Wray (eds) Evolving Models of Language, 100–116. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 2002 Two quantitative methods of studying phraseology in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics7: 215–244. 10.1075/ijcl.7.2.04stu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.7.2.04stu [Google Scholar]
  82. 2004 Language corpora. InAlan Davies & Catherine Elder (eds) Handbook of Applied Linguistics, 106–132. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470757000.ch4
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757000.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  83. Taylor, Charlotte & Anna Marchi
    (eds) 2018Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Tseronis, Assimakis & Charles Forceville
    (ed.) 2017Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.14 [Google Scholar]
  85. Unger, Johann
    2016 The interdisciplinarity of critical discourse studies research. Palgrave Communications2: 15037. 10.1057/palcomms.2015.37
    https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.37 [Google Scholar]
  86. Van Dijk, Teun
    1999 Critical Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis. Discourse & Society10: 459–470. 10.1177/0957926599010004001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010004001 [Google Scholar]
  87. 2008Discourse and Context: A Socio-Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511481499
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499 [Google Scholar]
  88. Van Eemeren, Frans & Rob Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Van Leeuwen, Theo
    2005Introducing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Widdowson, Henry
    1998 The theory and practice of Critical Discourse Analysis. Applied Linguistics19: 136–151. 10.1093/applin/19.1.136
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.136 [Google Scholar]
  91. 2005Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Wodak, Ruth
    2011 Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. InJan Zienkowski, Jan-Ola Ostman & Jef Verschueren (eds) Discursive Pragmatics, 50–70. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.8.04wod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.8.04wod [Google Scholar]
  93. (ed.) 2012Critical Discourse Analysis (4volumes). London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Wodak, Ruth & Michael Meyer
    (eds) 2016Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Yus, Francisco
    2011Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.213
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.213 [Google Scholar]
  96. Zienkowski, Jan, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren
    (eds) 2011Discursive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.8 [Google Scholar]
  97. Zinken, Jorg
    2007 Discourse metaphors: the link between figurative language and habitual analogies. Cognitive Linguistics18: 445–466. 10.1515/COG.2007.024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.024 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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