Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-smtgx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-01T16:59:27.734Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Discourse Analysis in Applied Linguistics: A Methodological Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2014

Angel Lin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The critical turn arrived in the field of applied linguistics in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and the field has since witnessed a burgeoning body of literature drawing on a variety of analytical frameworks and methodological approaches that are loosely labeled as critical discourse analysis (CDA). A methodological review of the role of CDA in the field is thus timely both to provide signposts for researchers wishing to draw on CDA methods in applied linguistics research and to provide some theoretical and methodological resources to evaluate the rapidly growing body of CDA-oriented applied linguistics research. Unlike some methodological tools, such as corpus analytic tools that can be inserted into a diverse range of theoretical frameworks (e.g., positivist studies, interpretive studies, critical studies), CDA cannot be applied divorced from its paradigmatic theories, as it is closely related to a specific set of social theories about the nature of language, literacy, identity, social practice, and the social world. CDA methods thus cannot be applied without also a concomitant commitment to CDA's theoretical orientations. In this review, the theoretical commitments as well as the classic methods of CDA will first be discussed and then the major areas in which CDA researchers typically conduct their studies are outlined together with a review of the variety of methodological approaches used in these different areas. The strengths as well as the limitations of these approaches will be discussed with examples of recent studies using CDA in the field of applied linguistics. The article will conclude with some suggestions for future directions of CDA methodological development.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 34 , March 2014 , pp. 213 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bhatia, V. K., Flowerdew, J., & Jones, R. H. (Eds.). (2008). Advances in discourse studies (pp. 233–244). London, UK: Routledge.

This collection contains articles by Ron Scollon and Rodney Jones on how to use the notion of discourse itineraries to critically analyze the circulation of texts, practices, bodies, and objects and trace their evolving trajectories. It also contains other useful articles for CDA researchers including John Flowerdew's review article on CDA and Vijay Bhatia's article on critical genre analysis, among others, which can offer useful frameworks for CDA researchers.

Lin, A. M. Y. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: Overview. In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1466–1471). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

This article provides an overview of the historical development of CDA and the major areas of work and contribution of CDA studies in applied linguistics.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

This collection offers a comprehensive methodological introduction to the frameworks and methods used by key CDA researchers (Teun van Dijk, Ruth Wodak, and Norman Fairclough). It also contains chapters detailing corpus-based methods and multimodality analysis methods and how they can be fruitfully applied to CDA.

REFERENCES

Agha, A. (2007) Language and social relations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Althusser, L. (1984). Essays on ideology. London, UK: Verso.Google Scholar
Apple, M. W. (1979). What correspondence theories of the hidden curriculum miss. The Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies, 5, 101–112.Google Scholar
Apple, M. W. (2001). Comparing neoliberal projects and inequality in education. Comparative Education, 37, 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., & McEnery, T. (2013). Sketching Muslims: A corpus driven analysis of representations around the word “Muslim” in the British Press 1998–2009. Applied Linguistics, 34, 255–278. doi:10.1093/applin/ams048Google Scholar
Block, D. (2013). The structure and agency dilemma in identity and intercultural communication research. Language and Intercultural Communication, 13, 126–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, D., Gray, J., & Holborow, M. (2012). Neoliberalism and applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communication, 25, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J., & Varis, P. (2011). Enough is enough: The heuristics of authenticity in superdiversity. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 2, 1–13.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo academicus. Paris, France: Minuit.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Briscoe, F. M., & De Oliver, M. (2012). School leaders’ discursive constructions of low-income and minority families identities: A marketplace racism/classism. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 9, 247–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. In Li, W. (Ed.), Applied Linguistics Review (pp. 1–28). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. (Ed.). (2013a). Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms. Oxford, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. (2013b). Translingual practice: Global English and cosmopolitan relations. Oxford, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W. (2013). Corpus-based linguistic approaches to critical discourse analysis. In Chapelle, C. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1353–1360). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chun, C. (2010). Discourse itineraries in an EAP classroom: A collaborative critical literacy praxis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de los Heros, S. (2009). Linguistic pluralism or prescriptivism? A CDA of language ideologies in Talento, Peru's official textbook for the first-year of high school. Linguistics and Education, 20, 172–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchêne, A., & Heller, M. (Eds.). (2012). Language in late capitalism: Pride and profit (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2009). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 162–186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1980). Power /knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (Gordon, C., Ed.; Gordon, C., Marshall, L., Mehpham, J., & Soper, K., Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (2003). The essential Foucault: Selections from essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984. (Rabinow, P. & Rose, N. S., Eds.). New York, NY: New Press.Google Scholar
García, O. (2005). Positioning heritage languages in the United States. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 601–605.Google Scholar
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, UK: Francis & Taylor.Google Scholar
Gramsci, A. (1975). Letters from prison. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Gu, M. M. (2010). The discursive construction of college English learners’ identity in cross-cultural interactions. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 7, 298–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliver, T. (2010). Immigrant success stories in ESL textbooks. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 725–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1987). Knowledge and human interests. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heller, M. (2011). Paths to post-nationalism: A critical ethnography of language and identity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. H. (2008). Good sex and bad karma: Discourse and the historical body. In Bhatia, V. K., Flowerdew, J., & Jones, R. H. (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 245–257). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2002). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject: What foreign language learners say about their experience and why it matters. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kulick, D. (2003). Language and desire. In Holmes, J. & Meyerhoff, M. (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 119–141). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London, UK: Verson.Google Scholar
Le Roux, K. (2008). A Critical discourse analysis of a real-world problem in mathematics: Looking for signs of change. Language and Education, 22, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. (1992). Competing discourses: Perspectives and ideology in language. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Li, W. (2011). Multilinguality, multimodality, and multicompetence: Code- and modeswitching by minority ethnic children in complementary schools. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 370–384.Google Scholar
Lin, A. M. Y. (2014). Hip-hop heteroglossia as practice, pleasure, and public pedagogy: Translanguaging in the lyrical poetics of “24 Herbs” in Hong Kong. In Blackledge, A. & Creese, A. (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 119–136), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luke, A. (2008). TESOL in the corporate university. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 305–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mautner, G. (2009). Checks and balances: How corpus linguistics can contribute to critical discourse analysis. In Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 122–143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ministerio de Educación (2005). Ley general de educación No 28044 y sus reglamentos. Lima: GTZ (German Cooperation Agency)/PROEDUCA.Google Scholar
Motha, S., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2014). “Non-coercive rearrangements”: Theorizing desire in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishler, E. G. (1991). Research interviewing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Halloran, K. (2007). Critical discourse analysis and the corpus-informed interpretation of metaphor at the register level. Applied Linguistics, 28, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, A. (1990). Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 1, 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, A. (2010). Critical and alternative directions in applied linguistics. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). This discourse-historical approach (DHA). In Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 87–121). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2012). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. (2008). Discourse itineraries: Nine processes of resemiotization. In Bhatia, V. K., Flowerdew, J., & Jones, R. H. (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 233–244). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Takahashi, K. (2013). Language desire: Gender, sexuality, and second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, S. (2010). Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instrument to social practice. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 128–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, S. (2011). The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, identity, and ideology in a speech event. Applied Linguistics, 32, 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Elite discourse and racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In Wodak, R. & Meyer, M., (Eds.), (Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 62–86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford, UKOxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Lier, L. (Ed.). (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective (Vol. 3). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wortham, S. (2012). Beyond macro and micro in the linguistic anthropology of education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 43, 128–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar