Discourse studies: Between social constructionism and linguistics. A critical overview

Open access


This paper gives a critical overview of the 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 (and thus far final) step towards 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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Althusser L. 1971. Lenin and philosophy and other essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.

  • Angermuller J. Maingueneau D. and Wodak R. (eds) 2014. The discourse studies reader. Main currents in theory and analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Baker P. 2006. Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.

  • Baker P. Gabrielatos C. KhosraviNik M. Krzyżanowski M. McEnery T. and Wodak R. 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 & Society vol. 19 no. 3 pp. 273-306.

  • Bakhtin M. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Edited by M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.

  • Bar-Hillel Y. 1954. Indexical expressions. Mind vol. 63 pp. 359-379.

  • Benke G. 2000. Diskursanalyse als sozialwissenschaftliche Untersuchungsmethode. SWS Rundschau vol. 2 pp.140-162.

  • Benveniste E. 1966. Problemes de linguistique gènêrale 1. Paris: Gallimard

  • Blommaert J. and Bulcaen C. 2000. Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology vol. 29 no. 4 pp. 447–466.

  • Bourdieu P. 1992. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.

  • Breeze R. 2011. Critical Discourse Analysis and its critics. Pragmatics vol. 21 no. 3 pp. 493–525.

  • Buehler K. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: Fischer.

  • Cap P. 2006. Legitimization in political discourse. Newcastle: CSP.

  • Cap P. 2013. Proximization: The pragmatics of symbolic distance crossing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Cap P. 2017a. The language of fear: Communicating threat in public discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • Cap P. 2017b. From ‘cultural unbelonging’ to ‘terrorist risk’: Communicating threat in the Polish anti-immigration discourse. Critical Discourse Studies vol. 15 no. 3 pp. 285-302.

  • Cap P. and Okulska U. (ed.) 2013. Analyzing genres in political communication: Theory and practice. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Charteris-Black J. 2004. Corpus approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • Charteris-Black J. 2005. Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • Chilton P. 2004. Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.

  • Chilton P. 2005. Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules blends and the critical instinct. In: R. Wodak and P. Chilton eds. A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins pp. 19-51.

  • Chilton P. 2014. Language space and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Chouliaraki L. and Fairclough N. 1999. Discourse in late modernity. Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  • Derrida J. 1970. Structure sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In: R. Macksey and E. Donato eds. The languages of criticism and the sciences of man. Baltimore MD: John Hopkins University Press pp. 247-272.

  • Dunmire P. 2011. Projecting the future through political discourse: The case of the Bush Doctrine. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Fairclough N. 1989. Language and power. London: Longman.

  • Fairclough N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge MA: Polity Press.

  • Fairclough N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.

  • Fairclough N. and Wodak R. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In: T. van Dijk ed. Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage pp. 258-284.

  • Fetzer A. 2018. Discourse analysis. In: A.H. Jucker K.P. Schneider and W. Bublitz eds. Methods in pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics Volume 10). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 401-421.

  • Flowerdew J. and Richardson J. (eds) 2018. The Routledge handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Routledge.

  • Foucault M. 1971. L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.

  • Foucault M. 1972. The archeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. Translated by A. M. Sheridan. New York: Pantheon.

  • Fowler R. Kress G. and Trew T. 1979. Language and control. London: Routledge.

  • Fowler R. 1991. Language in the news. London: Routledge.

  • Giltrow J. and Stein D. (eds) 2009. Genres in the Internet. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Goatly A. 2007. Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Golato A. and Golato P. 2018. Ethnomethodology and conversation. In: A.H. Jucker K.P. Schneider and W. Bublitz eds. Methods in pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics Volume 10). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 380-399.

  • Gramsci A. 1973. Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.

  • Halliday M. A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

  • Halliday M. A.K. 1994. Introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

  • Hart C. 2011. Moving beyond metaphor in the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to CDA: Construal operations in immigration discourse. In: C. Hart ed. Critical discourse studies in context and cognition. Amsterdam: Benjamins pp. 171-192.

  • Hart C. 2013. Event-construal in press reports of violence in political protests: A cognitive linguistic approach to CDA. Journal of language and politics vol. 12 no. 3 pp. 400-423.

  • Hart C. 2014. Discourse grammar and ideology: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.

  • Hart C. and Cap P. (eds) 2014. Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London: Bloomsbury.

  • Hodge R. and Kress G. 1993. Language as ideology. London: Routledge.

  • Jessop B. and Sum Ngai-Ling. 2018. Language and critique: Some anticipations of critical discourse studies in Marx. Critical Discourse Studies vol. 15 no. 2 pp. 325-337.

  • M. Jørgensen and Phillips L. 2002. Discourse Analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.

  • Kaal B. 2015. How ‘real’ are time and space in politically motivated worldviews? Critical Discourse Studies vol. 12 no. 3 pp. 330-346.

  • Koller V. 2004. Metaphor and gender in business media discourse: A critical cognitive study. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • Lacan J. 2007. The seminar of Jacques Lacan Book XVII: The other side of psychoanalysis. Translated by R. Grigg. London: Norton.

  • Laclau E. 1990. New reflections on the revolution of our time. London: Verso.

  • Laclau E. 1993. Power and representation. In: M. Poster ed. Politics theory and contemporary culture. New York: Columbia University Press pp. 14-45.

  • Laclau E. 1996. The death and resurrection of the theory of ideology. Journal of political ideologies vol. 1 pp. 201-220.

  • Laclau E. and Mouffe C. 1985. Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.

  • Lakoff G. and Johnson M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Luke A. 2002. Beyond science and ideological critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. Annual review of applied linguistics vol. 22 no. 1 pp. 96-110.

  • Macgilchrist F. 2014. Media discourse and de/coloniality. A post-foundational approach. In: C. Hart and P. Cap eds. Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London: Bloomsbury pp. 385-405.

  • Marin Arrese J. 2011. Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse: Legitimising strategies and mystification of responsibility. In C. Hart ed. Critical discourse studies in context and cognition. Amsterdam: Benjamins pp. 193-224.

  • Martin J. R. 2004. Positive discourse analysis: Solidarity and change. Revista canaria de estudios Ingleses vol. 49 pp. 179-202.

  • Martin J. R. and Rose D. 2003. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.

  • Mouffe C. (ed.) 1993. The return of the political. London: Verso.

  • Musolff A. 2004. Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • Musolff A. 2016. Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.

  • O’Halloran K. 2010. How to use corpus linguistics in the study of media discourse. In: A. O’Keeffe and M. McCarthy eds. The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge pp. 563-576.

  • Partington A. 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.

  • Phillips N. and Hardy C. 2002. Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. London: Sage.

  • Reisigl M. and Wodak R. 2001. Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and anti-semitism. London: Routledge.

  • Saussure F. de. 1966. Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Stubbs M. 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.

  • Stubbs M. 2002. Two quantitative methods of studying phraseology in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics vol. 7 no. 2 pp. 215-244.

  • Stubbs M. 2004. Language corpora. In: A. Davies and C. Elder eds. Handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell pp. 106-132.

  • Unger J. 2016. The interdisciplinarity of critical discourse studies research. Palgrave Communications vol. 2: 15037.

  • Van Dijk T. 1999. Critical Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis. Discourse & Society vol. 10 no. 4 pp. 459-470.

  • Van Dijk T. 2008. Discourse and context: A socio-cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Van Eemeren F. and Grootendorst R. 1992. Argumentation communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Van Leeuwen T. 2005. Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.

  • Widdowson H. 1998. The theory and practice of Critical Discourse Analysis. Applied Linguistics vol. 19 no. 1 pp. 136-151.

  • Widdowson H. 2005. Text context pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Wodak R. 2011. Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In: J. Zienkowski J-O Ostman and J. Verschueren eds. Discursive pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins pp. 50-70.

  • Wodak R. (ed.) 2012. Critical Discourse Analysis (4 volumes). London: Sage.

  • Wodak R. and Meyer M. (eds) 2016. Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.

  • Yus F. 2011. Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Zienkowski J. Östman J-O. and Verschueren J. (eds) 2011. Discursive pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Zinken J. 2007. Discourse metaphors: The link between figurative language and habitual analogies. Cognitive Linguistics vol.18 no. 3 pp. 445-466.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 95 95 43
PDF Downloads 179 179 59