encyclopedia of language & linguistics, second edition...(maas, 1984). his historical...

Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only. Not for reproduction or distribution or commercial use

This article was originally published in the Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Second Edition, published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier

for the author's benefit and for the benefit of the author's institution, for non-commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in

instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator.

All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your

personal or institution’s website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier's permissions site at:

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial

Wodak R and de Cillia R (2006), Politics and Language: Overview. In: Keith Brown, (Editor-in-Chief) Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Second Edition, volume 9,

pp. 707-719. Oxford: Elsevier.

Zernicke P H (1990). ‘Presidential roles and rhetoric.’Political Communication and Persuasion 7,231–245.

Zupnik Y-J (1994). ‘A pragmatic analysis of the use of persondeixis in political discourse.’ Journal of Pragmatics 21,339–383.

Politics and Language: Overview 707

Politics and Language: Overview

e

Author'

s P

R Wodak, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UKR de Cillia, Vienna University, Austria

� 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Development of a New Field

In this overview to the section, we deal very brieflywith the history of research on Language and Politics,as well as with fields that are not or are only verybriefly covered in the entire section. Moreover, wepropose working definitions of basic concepts funda-mental to the whole field of research. Finally, we sum-marize some of the most important research strandsaccording to topic-oriented questions arising out ofthe developments and changes in our globalized andglobalizing societies.

The entries in this overview cover the most impor-tant research domains in the field of languageand politics, both on a theoretical and on a methodo-logical level. Thus, we cover aspects of classic andmodern rhetoric up to more sociologically orientedmethods, such as ‘frame analysis,’ as well as newand hybrid multimodal genres (the Internet). Wealso elaborate on such topics as politics and gender,ideology, discrimination, political speeches, and therepresentation of war.

History of Research in the Field of Language andPolitics

The research on language in/and politics in the field oflinguistics seems to be quite young, although rhetoric isone of the oldest academic disciplines and was alreadyconcerned with aspects of political communication inancient times (see Rhetoric, Classical).

After World War II, Lasswell and Leites (1949)published one of the most important studies on quan-titative semantics in the field of language and politics,developing approaches from communication andmass media research. The famous economist Friedrichvon Hajek (1968) similarly discussed the impact oflanguage on politics during his stay at the LondonSchool of Economics. In the same vein, researchstarted in Central Europe, mainly in Germany, inthe late 1940s (see Discourse of National Socialism,Totalitarian).

Encyclopedia of Language & Lin

rsona

l Cop

yMoreover, the novel 1984 by George Orwell most

certainly was a significant point of departure for thedevelopment of the entire field (see Newspeak). Ofcourse, all this research was influenced by the massiveuse of propaganda in World War II and in theemerging Cold War in the 1950s.

‘Political linguistics’ (Politolinguistik) is an attemptto integrate scientific research dealing with the analysisof political discourse into an academic discipline. Klein(1998) argued that the ‘‘linguistic study of politicalcommunication’’ is a subdiscipline of linguistics thatdeveloped mainly in the German-speaking area sincethe 1950s. He cited the critical linguistic research thatstarted in the wake of National Socialism and wasconducted by Klemperer (1947) and Sternberger et al.(1957) as paving the way for the new discipline. Be-cause these studies provoked criticism for being inade-quate from the perspective of linguistic theory, a newmethodological approach emerged in the late 1960s. Itdrew on various linguistic subdisciplines (pragmatics,text linguistics, media research) and primarily prag-matic theories or theoretical concepts. Organizationalacademic structures have developed only recently: Forexample, the ‘‘Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sprache in der Poli-tik’’ was registered as a nonprofit organization in 1991and has been organizing major conferences every twoyears since 1989.

Political linguistics was characterized by Burkhardt(1996) in a programmatic article as a ‘‘subdisciplinebetween linguistics and political science’’ that to alarge extent still needed to be established. Its purposewas to remedy the confusion of concepts identified byhim in this research field. Burkhardt proposed the useof ‘political language’ as the generic term comprising‘‘all types of public, institutional and private talkson political issues, all types of texts typical of politicsas well as the use of lexical and stylistic linguisticinstruments characterizing talks about political con-texts.’’ It included talking about politics and politicalmedia language, as well as the so-called language ofpolitics. Moreover, he suggested that a differentiationshould be made between the ‘language of politicians’and ‘language in politics’ as such. Burkhardt pro-posed the term ‘political linguistics’ (Politolinguistik)for the ‘‘hitherto nameless discipline’’ that was

guistics (2006), vol. 9, pp. 707–719

708 Politics and Language: Overview

Author'

s Pe

committed to studying political language (in theabove sense).

Previous research in this field investigated, ratherrandomly, individual phenomena of political language.As particularly promising methods and techniques tobe used for ‘ideological reconstruction,’ Burkhardtlisted four different procedures: ‘‘lexical-semantic tech-niques’’ (analysis of catchwords and value words, ofeuphemisms, and of ideological polysemy); ‘‘sentenceand text-semantic procedures’’ (e.g., analysis of tropes,of ‘‘semantic isotopes,’’ and of integration and exclu-sion strategies); ‘‘pragmatic text-linguistic techniques’’(i.e., analysis of forms of address, speech acts, allusions,presuppositions, conversation, argumentation, rheto-ric, quotations, genres, and intertextuality); andfinally ‘semiotic techniques’ (icon, symbol, andarchitecture-semiotic analysis). This catalogue ofmethods could be particularly useful as a checklistfor the concrete task of analysts. In the future,Burkhardt suggested, political linguistics should gobeyond studies critical of the present and aim at com-parative analysis both in diachronic and interculturalterms so as to overcome the ‘obsession’ with politi-cians (i.e., to make not only the language of politiciansbut also the ‘act of talking politics’ the subjectof study). In terms of ‘bottom-up linguistics,’ thevoter was to become the subject of linguistic analysisas well.

As noted above, National-Socialist language, oneof the important starting points for the study oflanguage and politics, became the object of criticalphilological observations first by Viktor Klemperer(1947). Utz Maas was, however, the first linguist tosubject the everyday linguistic practices of NationalSocialism (NS) to in-depth analysis: he used NS textsto exemplify his approach of ‘Lesweisenanalyse’(Maas, 1984). His historical ‘‘argumentation analy-sis’’ based on the theories of Foucault demonstratedhow discourse is determined by society (i.e., in whatmay be termed ‘a social practice’).

In his detailed analysis of language practices duringthe NS regime between 1932 and 1938, Maas wasable to show how the discourses in Germany wereaffected by NS ideology, which was characterized bysocial-revolutionary undertones. Nazi discourse hadsuperseded almost all forms of language (practices), afact that made it difficult for the individual who didnot want to cherish the tradition of an unworldlyRomanticism to use language in any critical–reflective way. Discourse in Maas’s approach wasunderstood as the result of ‘collusion’: the conditionsof the political, social, and linguistic practices quasi-impose themselves behind the back of the subjects,

Encyclopedia of Language & Ling

rsona

l Cop

y

while the actors do not ‘‘see through the game’’ (cf.also Bourdieu’s notion of ‘violence symbolique’).

Discourse analysis thus identifies the rules thatmake a text into a fascist text. In the same way asgrammar characterizes the structure of sentences,discourse rules characterize utterances/texts that areacceptable within a certain social practice. The focusis not on NS language per se, but rather the aim isto record and analyze the spectrum of linguistic rela-tions based on a number of texts dealing with variousspheres of life in the Nazi period. These texts repre-sent a complicated network of similarities that over-lap and intersect. Therefore, it is also important todo justice to the ‘polyphony’ of texts resulting fromthe fact that social contradictions are inscribed intothem. Texts from diverse social and political contexts(cooking recipes, local municipal provisions on agri-culture, texts by NS politicians, and also by critics ofthis ideology, who were ultimately involved inthe dominant discourse) are analyzed by Maas in asample representative of almost all possible texts andgenres of NS discourse; discourse is understood in thesense of linguistic ‘staging’ of a certain social practice.

Ehlich (1989) proposed different methodologicalapproaches to ‘‘language during fascism,’’ includingcontent analyses, language statistics, historical phi-lology, semantics, and stylistics based not only onlinguistic–sociological approaches but also on ‘argu-mentation analysis.’ He stressed the central role oflinguistic activity during fascism, in which verbalaction was de facto limited to acclamation, whereasthe contrafactual impression of self-motivated activi-ty was created in a setting of mass communication.From a perspective of ‘‘linguistic pragmatics orientedtowards societal analysis’’ (Ehlich, 1989: 31), he iden-tified these characteristics of fascist linguistic action:the strategy of making communication phatic; thepropositional reduction of communication, which inturn is closely linked to the promise of a ‘simpleworld’; the order as another central pattern of linguis-tic action characterized inter alia by the systematicelimination of the listener’s decision and conscious-ness and implying a ‘‘mandatory speechlessness of theaddressee’’; linguistic actions serving the purpose ofdenunciation, which become extremely common, afact that has decisive effects on elementary linguisticactions, such as jokes entailing life-threatening risks.Given this mental terror, many people demonstrated‘conformity’ in their linguistic actions as a formof self-protection, and sometimes linguistic actionturned into linguistic suffering mainly expressed bysilence. Against this background, only a minoritymanaged to transform suffering into linguistic

uistics (2006), vol. 9, pp. 707–719

e


Author'

s P

resistance, which had to be anonymous andsubversive. (see Discourse of National Socialism, To-talitarian).

Language and Politics/Language Policies/Language Planning

The delimitation between different research areas andtopics in the context of language and/in politics isby nature difficult, and the distinction between lan-guage and politics/language policies and languageplanning is blurred. Although this extensive areacannot be covered in detail in this section (see Lan-guage Planning and Policy: Models; Language Poli-cies: Policies on Language in Europe), it doeshighlight some basic facts about language policies.

Language policies deal with two main areas: (1)political measures targeted at an individual language(e.g., the prohibition of certain terms), or (2) therelations among different languages and their socialimportance, function, relevance in international com-munication, etc. Measures that target usage of anindividual language influence the awareness of speak-ers by prohibiting or making mandatory the use ofspecial terms and phrases or through the governmentregulation of language use. In general, imposing suchmeasures requires extensive political power and canbe done more easily in totalitarian political systems.The homogenization of language use in terms of reg-ulating specific vocabularies and prohibiting specificmodes of expression under the NS regime offers illus-trative examples: the absurd racist categorization ofpeople as ‘Jews,’ ‘half-Jewish,’ and ‘quarter-Jewish’ toprepare and justify the Holocaust; the use of cynicaleuphemisms like ‘Crystal Night’ for the pogrom ofNovember, 1938; or defining ‘Aryanization’ as theexpropriation of Jewish property organized by thestate. These examples show that there is no clear-cutdistinction between language and/in politics, on theone hand, and language policies, on the other hand.Another example is the systematic avoidance of theterm assimiljacja (assimiliation) in the former SovietUnion when describing the phenomenon of switchingfrom a mother tongue (L1) into Russian. The phrase‘transition to the second mother tongue’ (vtoroij rod-noij jazyk) was used instead, and thus a term witha negative connotation was replaced by one with apositive connotation (see Haarmann, 1987).

However, everyday language also shows that lan-guage and politics are two overlapping subjects,which is the focus of this article. Such terms andphrases as ‘to make redundant,’ ‘Social Securityscroungers,’ ‘economic migrants,’ ‘free-market econ-omy,’ and ‘pay agreement adjustment’ convey a


rsona

l Cop

y

specific approach to reality and are partly consciouslycreated for this purpose. This also applies to wordcoining aimed at political correctness (Negro–black–nonwhite–colored–African–American, as well as ‘ebo-nics’ for the speech and language of African–Americanpeople). An important issue in this context is gender-neutral wording, which affects not only the vocabularybut also the morphology of a language (e.g., by insert-ing in German nouns a capital ‘I’ and adding a femaleending).

Language policies pursued to reduce the impactof English on other languages are a recent develop-ment. In some countries, such as France and Poland,legislation has been adopted to prevent the spread ofAnglicisms. In France, the ‘‘Act on the Use of theFrench Language’’ was passed in 1994 (Loi Toubon,Act No. 669/94 of August 1994), making the use ofAnglicisms in specific contexts – at least theoretically– a punishable offense. A terminology committee atthe ministerial level prepared proposals for replacingAnglicisms by words of French origin (e.g., remuemeninges for brainstorming; restovite for fast food, orbande promo for video clip) and compiled a glossarywith about 3000 terms. This measure of languageplanning also comes under the heading ‘languageand politics.’ In Poland a law similar to that in Francewas passed in 1999; the ‘Act on the Polish Language’stipulated that all names of goods and services have tobe Polish. This measure can be classified as ‘statusplanning.’ The reasons given for adopting this lawwere the great importance of the Polish language forthe national identity and the prevention inter aliaof the ‘vulgarization’ of the Polish language, as theEnglish version of this Act reads.

A second important aspect of language policiesis concerned with the status and social function oflanguages. This area covers such issues as the socialrole and significance of languages or varieties of lan-guages, language conflicts, language and identity,measures to grant specific languages used in a state,the status of an official language in the national terri-tory, and measures to promote languages as languagesof communication and foreign languages at the inter-national level. Two different aspects of the social func-tion of languages have to be distinguished: (1) issuesregarding language policy theory and language plan-ning (language politics), and (2) issues concerningthe concrete implementation of language policy mea-sures adopted more or less consciously (languagepolicies).

At the national level, governments may enact lan-guage policy and language planning measures, aswell as legislation concerning the role and status of

guistics (2006), vol. 9, pp. 707–719


Author'

s Pe

languages spoken by the inhabitants of the state (i.e.,all measures concerning the standardization, use, andactive promotion of these languages within and alsooutside the territory of the state). Even if no con-sciously planned measures are undertaken and if thesephenomena are ignored or rejected, this laissez-fairepolicy can be classified as a language policy. Impor-tant questions relating to the status of languagesinclude the following: Which language fulfills thefunction of a national language and of an officiallanguage used as a means of communication betweenthe state and its citizens, which languages are used aslanguages of instruction, and which languages aretaught as foreign languages?

International language policy is influenced by thestatus and the significance of different languages as ameans of supranational and international communi-cation; for example, as a supraregional or globallanguage of communication or as official and work-ing languages in international organizations, such asthe UN, the Council of Europe, or NATO and infederations of states like the EU or the former USSR.Important questions in this area include the selectionand use of language/s in negotiations between two ormore states and the language/s of diplomacy, or ofinternational agreements and treaties (authentic ver-sions). Important issues in the arena of internationallanguage policy include phenomena of linguistic im-perialism, the increasingly dominant role of Englishas an international lingua franca, models of supra-national communication within the EU at theEuropean level, linguistic phenomena in the wakeof European labor migration, and the emergence ofnew allochthonous linguistic minorities in countriesexperiencing large waves of migration.

In the context of immigration and in connectionwith the increasing deconstruction of national states,with their dwindling influence on language policy, achange of paradigms in the perception of languageand the state, and also language and the individual,has taken place in sociolinguistics. Individual multi-lingualism and social plurilingualism are now con-sidered the standard – ‘‘monolingualism is curable,’’as the editors of the journal Sociolinguistica(Ammon et al., 1997) put it. Foreign language policy(which languages are taught to what extent inwhich countries?) as well as measures to promotethe use of languages through foreign cultural policiesand cultural institutes (e.g., the British Council,Institut Francais, Goethe Institut, IstitutoCervantes) play a crucial role in internationallanguage policy.


rsona

l Cop

y

Discourse/Text/Politics

In this section, we first define relevant concepts andterms used in research on language and politics, thenpull together the most important characteristics ofsignificantly different approaches, and finally presentsome of their most important findings and studies.

Research in the field of language and politics hasexpanded enormously in recent years (Fairclough,1992; Blommaert and Verschueren, 1998; Reisigland Wodak, 2001; Wodak, 2001a; Wodak, 2001b;Gruber et al., 2003; Chilton, 2004). According to theunderlying specific theoretical approach, the notionof discourse is defined in many different ways. Sincethe 1970s and 1980s, this notion has been subject tomanifold semantic interpretations. These vague mean-ings have become part of everyday language use, afact highlighted inter alia by Ehlich (2000), who alsopresented specific definitions of discourse that werelinked to the British, French, and German researchtraditions. For example, in British research, the term‘discourse’ is often used synonymously with theterm ‘text’ (i.e., meaning authentic, everyday linguis-tic communication). The French discours, however,focuses more on the connection between languageand thought; that is, the ‘‘creation and societal main-tenance of complex knowledge systems’’ (Ehlich,2000: 162). In German pragmatics, Diskurs denotes‘‘structured sets of speech acts.’’ Other possible defi-nitions range from a ‘‘promiscuous use of ‘text’ and‘discourse’ ’’ (Ehlich, 2000), as found predominantlyin Anglo-Saxon approaches, to a strict definitionfrom the perspective of linguistic pragmatics (seeTitscher et al., 2000).

We endorse Lemke’s (1995: 7) definition, whichdistinguishes between text and discourse inthe following way:

‘‘When I speak about discourse in general, I will usuallymean the social activity of making meanings with lan-guage and other symbolic systems in some particularkind of situation or setting. . . . On each occasion whenthe particular meanings, characteristic of these dis-courses are being made, a specific text is produced. Dis-courses, as social actions more or less governed by socialhabits, produce texts that will in some ways be alike intheir meanings. . . . When we want to focus on the spe-cifics of an event or occasion, we speak of the text; whenwe want to look at patterns, commonality, relationshipsthat embrace different texts and occasions, we can speakof discourses.’’

The notion of politics is also defined in many dif-ferent ways depending on the theoretical framework:It ranges from a wide extension of the concept

uistics (2006), vol. 9, pp. 707–719

r's P

erson

al Cop

y

Figure 1 Selected dimensions of discourse as social practice. (From Reisigl and Wodak, 2001: 38).


Authoaccording towhichevery social utterance orpracticeof

the human as a zoon politikon is ‘political’ to a notionof politics referring only to the use of language by poli-ticians in various settings and in political institutions:

‘‘On the one hand, politics is viewed as a struggle forpower, between those who seek to assert their powerand those, who seek to resist it. On the other hand,politics is viewed as cooperation, as the practices andinstitutions that a society has for resolving clashes ofinterest over money, influence, liberty, and the like’’(Chilton, 2004: 3).

Chilton (2004) embraced an interactive view of poli-tics, which cuts through both these dimensions men-tioned above. This is also the perspective endorsed inthis article.

Furthermore, it is important to define the politicaldomains and the genres that are relevant in this field


(in the sense of Bourdieu’s theory of fields, habitus,and capitals). The most important domains are sum-marized in Figure 1.

The triangulatory discourse–historical approach isbased on a concept of context that takes into accountfour levels; the first one is descriptive, whereas theother three levels are part of theories dealing withcontext (see Figure 2);

1. the immediate, language or text internal cotext2. the intertextual and interdiscursive relationship

among utterances, texts, genres, and discourses3. the extralinguistic social/sociological variables

and institutional frames of a specific ‘context ofsituation’ (Middle Range Theories)

4. the broader sociopolitical and historical contexts,in which the discursive practices are embeddedand related.

guistics (2006), vol. 9, pp. 707–719

l Cop

yFigure 2 Levels of theories and linguistic analysis. (From Wodak and Meyer, 2001: 69).


Author'

s Pe

The most salient feature of the definition of a dis-course is the macrotopic, such as language policies.Interdiscursivity can be detected when, for example,an argument (taken from the discourse on immi-gration restrictions) is used while arguing for otherpolicies to combat unemployment. Each macrotopicallows for many subtopics: Unemployment thus cov-ers such subtopics as market, trade unions, social wel-fare, global market, hire and fire policies, and manymore. Discourses are not closed systems at all; rather,they are open and hybrid. New subtopics can becreated, and intertextuality and interdiscursivityallow for new fields of action and new genres. Dis-courses are realized in both genres and texts (seeGenres in Political Discourse).

Inter/Trans/Multidisciplinarity

Research on language and/in politics is primarilyinter- or transdisciplinary. The concepts ‘theory’ and‘interdisciplinarity’ refer to the conceptual and disci-plinary framework conditions of discourse–analyticalresearch. Discourse analysis has concentrated on theprocess of theory formation and has emphasized theinterdisciplinary nature of its research since its begin-ning (Weiss and Wodak, 2003). The plurality of theo-ry and methodology can be highlighted as a specificstrength of the research summarized in this overview.Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999: 16) described theeclectic nature of critical discourse analysis (CDA) asfollows:

‘‘We see CDA as bringing a variety of theories intodialogue, especially social theories on the one hand


rsonaand linguistic theories on the other, so that its theory is

a shifting synthesis of other theories, though what ititself theorizes in particular is the mediation betweenthe social and the linguistic – the ‘order of discourse,’the social structuring of semiotic hybridity (interdiscur-sivity). The theoretical constructions of discoursewhich CDA tries to operationalize can come from vari-ous disciplines, and the concept of ‘operationalization’entails working in a transdisciplinary way where thelogic of one discipline (for example, sociology) can be‘put to work’ in the development of another (forexample, linguistics).’’

This statement underlines the direct connectionbetween theory and interdisciplinarity or transdisci-plinarity that is typical of discourse analysis.

The sociologist Helga Nowotny (1997: 188) out-lined the concepts of inter/trans/pluri-disciplinaritybriefly and very accurately:

‘‘Pluri(multi-)disciplinarity shows in the fact thatthe manifold disciplines remain independent. Nochanges are brought about in the existing structures ofdisciplines and theories. This form of academic cooper-ation consists in treating a subject from differingdisciplinary perspectives. Interdisciplinarity may berecognized in the explicit formulation of a standardizedtransdisciplinary terminology. This form of co-operation is used to treat different subjects within aframework of an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinarydesign. Transdisciplinarity manifests itself when re-search across the isciplinary landscape is based on acommon axiomatic theory and the interpenetration ofdisciplinary research methods. Cooperation leads to abundling or clustering of problem-solving approaches

uistics (2006), vol. 9, pp. 707–719


rooted in different disciplines and drawing on a poolof theories.’’

e

Author'

s P

Current Research in Language andPolitics

Some Research Dimensions

Having reviewed the relevant theoretical conceptsand studies, we present here a summary of the impor-tant research issues:

. How widely or narrowly should political action (orpolitical language behavior) be defined? Shouldit be restricted to the study of traditional politicalgenres (like speeches, slogans, debates), or are alleveryday actions in some way ‘political’?

. What is the role of the political elites? Who deter-mines political issues? Is it thus important to inves-tigate the media; the rhetoric of politicians,teachers, and scholars, as well as managers; orthe language used by ‘men and women on thestreet’ and their respective belief systems? Thisquestion leads to the debate about possible causal-ities: whether it is top down or bottom up. Dopeople believe what the politicians (media) tellthem, or do the citizens influence the slogansin an election campaign? What about grassrootsmovements?

. Politics is tied to ideologies, party programs, opin-ion leaders, and political interests. How do ideolo-gies and belief systems manifest themselves invarious genres of political discourse? How aretopoi and arguments recontextualized through var-ious genres and public spaces? (see RhetoricalTropes in Political Discourse).

. What are the main functions of political dis-courses? To answer this question, we have to ex-amine strategies of persuasion, negotiation,polarization, etc. On the one hand, politics servesto find consensus and compromises and to makedecisions. On the other hand, politics leads towars and conflicts (see Metaphors in Political Dis-course; Political Rhetorics of Discrimination; Polit-ical Speeches and Persuasive Argumentation andWar Rhetoric). How do power structures influencedecision-making strategies?

. Finally, what are the main settings where politicalpractices take place (‘doing politics’)? How do thestructures of various organizations and institutionsinfluence political discourses?

There are certainly many more related questions,such as the influence of globalizing processes on


language change or changes in political rhetoric andits functions over time (see Multimodality and theLanguage of Politics; Kovacs and Wodak, 2003)).

rsona

l Cop

y

Critical Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysisand the Analysis of Political Discourses

The terms ‘Critical Linguistics’ (CL) and ‘CriticalDiscourse Analysis’ (CDA) are often used inter-changeably. CL developed in the 1970s and 1980s,primarily at the University of East Anglia, around thework of Roger Fowler, Tony Trew, and Gunther Kress.In more recent research, it seems that the term CDAis preferred and is used to denote the theory formerlyidentified as CL. CDA sees ‘‘language as social prac-tice’’ (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997) and considersthe context of language use to be crucial (Weiss andWodak, 2003; Wodak and Weiss, 2004). Moreover,CDA takes a particular interest in the relation be-tween language and power. CDA research specificallyconsiders institutional, political, gender, and mediadiscourses (in the broadest sense) that testify tomore or less overt relations of struggle and conflict(see Critical Discourse Analysis).

The shared perspective of CL and CDA relates tothe term ‘critical,’ which in the work of some ‘criticallinguists’ could be traced to the influence of theFrankfurt School or of Jurgen Habermas. The conti-nuity between CL and CDA is visible mostly in theclaim that discourses are ideological and that thereis no arbitrariness of signs. Functional–systemic lin-guistics has proven to be most important for the textanalysis undertaken by CL (see Halliday, 1978).

CL and CDA are rooted in classical rhetoric, textlinguistics, and sociolinguistics, as well as in appliedlinguistics and pragmatics. The objects under investi-gation by the various departments and scholars whoapply CDA differ, although gender issues, issues ofracism, media discourses, the rise of right-wingpopulism, and dimensions of identity politics havebecome very prominent (see Media, Politics, and Dis-course: Interactions; Gender and Political Discourse;Newspeak; Frame Analysis and Political Rhetorics ofDiscrimination). The methodologies used also differgreatly: Small qualitative case studies can be found, aswell as large data corpora, drawn from fieldwork andethnographic research.

CL and CDA may be defined as fundamentallyinterested in analyzing both opaque and transparentstructural relationships of dominance, discrimina-tion, power, and control as manifested in language.Four concepts figure indispensably in all CDA work:the concepts of critique, power; history; and ideology

guistics (2006), vol. 9, pp. 707–719


Author'

s Pe

(see Language Ideology; Politics, Ideology and Dis-course and Gender and Political Discourse).

The notion of critique carries very different mean-ings: Some adhere to the Frankfurt School and othersto a notion of literary criticism or to Marx’s notions(see Reisigl and Wodak, 2001 for an overview). Ideol-ogy is seen as an important aspect of establishing andmaintaining unequal power relations. For Eagleton(1994), the study of ideology must consider the varie-ty of theories and theorists who have examined therelation between thought and social reality. All thesetheories assume ‘‘that there are specific historical rea-sons why people come to feel, reason, desire andimagine as they do’’ (Eagleton, 1994: 15).

For CDA, language is not powerful on its own:Rather, it gains power by the use powerful peoplemake of it. Thus, CDA focuses on processes of inclu-sion and exclusion, of access to relevant domains ofour societies. Moreover, CDA emphasizes the needfor interdisciplinary work in order to gain a properunderstanding of how language functions in, for ex-ample, constituting and transmitting knowledge,organizing social institutions, or exercising power.

Texts are seen as sites of struggle in that they showtraces of differing discourses and ideologies (‘voices’in the Bakhtinian sense), contending and strugglingfor dominance. Not only the struggles for power andcontrol but also the intertextuality and recontextua-lization of competing discourses are closely attendedto in CDA.

Different Theoretical Approaches ConcerningDiscourse and Politics

Fairclough set out the social theories underpin-ning CDA, and as in other early critical linguisticwork, a variety of textual examples are analyzed toillustrate the field, its aims, and methods of analysis.Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) showed not onlyhow the analytical framework for investigating lan-guage in relation to power and ideology developedbut also how CDA is useful in disclosing the discursivenature of much contemporary social and culturalchange. They particularly scrutinized the language ofthe mass media as a site of power and of struggle andalso where language is apparently transparent. Mediainstitutions often purport to be neutral in that theyprovide space for public discourse, they reflect statesof affairs disinterestedly, and they give theperceptions and arguments of the newsmakers. Fair-clough showed the fallacy of such assumptions byillustrating the mediating and constructing role ofthe media with a variety of examples.

van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) considered the rele-vance of discourse to the study of cognitive languageprocessing. Their development of a cognitive model


rsona

l Cop

y

of discourse comprehension gradually developed intocognitive models for explaining the construction ofmeaning on a societal level. The notion of ‘strategy’proved to be fruitful for a number of studies onlanguage and politics (see below).

In critically analyzing various kinds of discoursesthat encode prejudice, van Dijk was interested indeveloping a theoretical model that explained cogni-tive discourse processing mechanisms related to theproduction and reproduction of racism. Most re-cently, van Dijk (2004) has focused on elaboratingmodels of context and knowledge.

The Duisburg School of CDA draws on Foucault’snotion of discourse, on the one hand, and Alexej N.Leontjew’s ‘‘speech activity theory’’ (Leontjew, 1984)and Jurgen Link’s ‘‘collective symbolism’’ (Link,1988), on the other hand. As institutionalized andconventionalized speech modes, discourses expresssocietal power relations, which in turn areaffected by discourses. This ‘overall discourse’ ofsociety, which could be visualized as a ‘‘diskursivesGewimmel’’ (literally, discursive swarming), becomesmanifest in different ‘discourse strands’ (comprisingdiscourse fragments of the same subject) at differ-ent discourse levels (science, politics, media, etc.).Every discourse is historically embedded and hasrepercussions on current and future discourse. In ad-dition to the above levels, the structure of discoursemay be dissected into special discourse vs. inter-discourse; discursive events and discursive context;discourse position; overall societal discourse and in-terwoven discourses; themes and bundles of discoursestrands; and the history, present, and future of dis-course strands. These fragments are analyzed in fivesteps – institutional framework, text ‘surface,’ lin-guistic–rhetoric means, programmatic-ideologicalmessages, and interpretation – for which concretequestions regarding the text are formulated.

For example, the discourse of the so-called NewRight in Germany was analyzed by Jager and Jager(1993), who based their research on different right-wing print media. They identified important commoncharacteristics – specific symbols, ‘ethnopluralism’[apartheid], aggressiveness, and antidemocratic atti-tudes – as well as significant linguistic and stylisticdifferences relating to the different target groups ofthe newspapers.

The combination of political science and politicalphilosophy (predominantly with a strong Marxistinfluence) and of French linguistics is typical ofFrench discourse analysis. Essentially, two differentapproaches may be distinguished.

The first is ‘political lexicometry,’ a computer-aided statistical approach to political lexicon devel-oped at the Ecole Normale Superieure at Saint-Cloud.

uistics (2006), vol. 9, pp. 707–719

e


Author'

s P

A text corpus (e.g., texts of the French CommunistParty) is prepared. Texts are then compared on thebasis of the relative frequency of specific words. Onestudy shows, for example, how the relative frequencyof the words ‘travailleur’ and ‘salarie’ varies signifi-cantly among French trade unions, reflecting differentpolitical ideologies; it also shows how that frequencychanges over time (Groupe de Saint-Cloud, 1982).

Althusser’s theory on ideology and Foucault’s theo-ry were major points of reference for the secondapproach in French discourse analysis, notably thework of Michel Pecheux (1982). Discourse is the placewhere language and ideology meet, and discourseanalysis is the analysis of ideological dimensions oflanguage use and of the materialization in languageof ideology. Both the words used and the meanings ofwords vary according to the position in the classstruggle from which they are used; in other words,according to the ‘discursive formation’ within whichthey are located. For instance, the word ‘struggle’itself is particularly associated with a working classpolitical voice, and its meaning in that discursiveformation is different from its meanings when usedfrom other positions.

Pecheux’s main focus was political discourse inFrance, especially the relationship between social-democratic and Communist discourses within leftpolitical discourse. He emphasized the ideologicaleffects of discursive formations in positioning peopleas social subjects. Echoing Althusser, he suggestedthat people are placed in the ‘imaginary’ position ofbeing sources of their discourse, whereas actuallytheir discourse and indeed they themselves are theeffects of their ideological positioning. The sourcesand processes of their own positioning are hiddenfrom people, who are typically not aware of speak-ing/writing from within a particular discursive forma-tion. Moreover, the discursive formations withinwhich people are positioned are themselves shapedby the ‘complex whole in dominance’ of discursiveformations, which Pecheux called ‘interdiscourse’;however, people are not aware of that shaping. Radi-cal change in the way people are positioned indiscourse can only come from political revolution.

In the 1980s, the influence of Michel Foucaultincreased, as did that of Mikhael Bakhtin. Studiesbegan to emphasize the complex mixing of discursiveformations in texts and the heterogeneity and ambiv-alence of texts (for example, see Courtine, 1981).

An increased recognition of the contribution of allaspects of the communicative context to text mean-ing, as well as a growing awareness in media studiesof the importance of nonverbal aspects of texts, hasfocused attention on semiotic devices in discourse


rsona

l Cop

y

other than linguistic ones. In particular, the theoryput forward by Kress and van Leeuwen (1996)provided a useful framework for considering thecommunicative potential of visual devices in themedia. This research is closely related to the roleand status of semiotic practices in society, which iscurrently undergoing change because, increasingly,global corporations and semiotic technologies, ratherthan national institutions, are regulating semioticproduction and consumption.

This emphasis on regulatory practices has led toa three-stage research approach, starting with theanalysis of a particular category of texts, culturalartifacts, or communicative events; then moving to asecond set of texts (and/or cultural artifacts and/orcommunicative events) – namely those that seek toregulate the production and consumption of thefirst set; and finally moving to a third set of texts,namely actual instances of producing or consumingtexts (etc.) belonging to the first set. This type ofwork creates a particular relation among discourseanalysis, ethnography, history, and theory in whichthese disciplines are no longer contributing to thewhole through some kind of indefinable synergyor triangulation, but are complementary in quitespecific ways.

In the last few years, Jay Lemke’s work has empha-sized multimedia semiotics, multiple timescales, andhypertexts/traversals. He extended his earlier work onembedded ideologies in social communication froman analysis of verbal texts to an integration of verbaltexts with visual images and other presentational me-dia, with a particular focus on evaluative meanings.His work has emphasized the implicit value systemsand their connections to institutional and personalidentity. In all this work, Lemke uses critical socialsemiotics as an extension of critical discourse analy-sis, combined with models of the material base ofemergent social phenomena. His concern is with so-cial and cultural change: how it happens, how it isconstrained, and the ways in which is it expectablyunpredictable (Lemke, 1995).

Lemke’s newest work has developed the idea that,although we tell our lives as narratives, we experiencethem as hypertexts. Building on research on the se-mantic resources of hypertext as a medium, he pro-posed that postmodern lifestyles are increasinglyliberated from particular institutional roles and thatwe tend to move, on multiple timescales, from in-volvement in one institution to another; we createnew kinds of meaning, being less bound to fixedgenres and registers, as we ‘surf’ across channels,websites, and lived experiences. This lifestyle is seenas a new historical development that does not

guistics (2006), vol. 9, pp. 707–719

or's P

erson

al Cop

y

Figure 3 The discourse about the Waldheim Affair. (From Wodak, 2004: 192).


Authsupplant institutions, but rather builds up new socio-cultural possibilities on top and over them. These newlifestyles imply new forms of participation in politicsas well as in the media.

The problem that Ron and Suzie Scollon address intheir recent work is how to build a formal theoreticaland a practical link between discourse and action.Theirs is an activist position that uses tools and stra-tegies of engaged discourse analysis in taking actionand thus requires a formal analysis of how its ownactions can be accomplished through discourse andits analysis. Ron Scollon’s (2001) recent workfurthers the idea developed in Mediated discourse:the nexus of practice that practice in general is under-stood most usefully as many separate practices that


are linked in a nexus, an overlap of topical discourses.The relations between discourse and a nexus of prac-tice are many and complex and rarely direct. Hiscurrent interest is in trying to open up and explicatethese linkages through ‘nexus analysis.’ The focus ofhis recent work has been to theorize the link betweenindexicality in language (and discourse and semioticsmore generally) and the indexable in the world.This could also be described as theorizing the linkbetween producers of communications and the mate-rial world in which those communications are placedas a necessary element of their semiosis. Ron Scollonis applying this model of analysis to the ‘discursivepolitics of food production and to the discourses ofenvironmental politics.’

uistics (2006), vol. 9, pp. 707–719

e

opy

Table 1 Discursive strategies for positive self- and negative other-representation

Strategy Objectives Devices

Referential/nomination Construction of in-groups and out-groups Membership categorization

Biological, naturalizing and depersonalizing

Metaphors and metonymies

Synecdoches (pars pro toto, totum pro pars)

Predication Labeling social actors more or less positively or

negatively, deprecatorily or appreciatively

Stereotypical, evaluative attributions of negative

or positive traits

Implicit and explicit predicates

Argumentation Justification of positive or negative attributions Topoi used to justify political inclusion or

exclusion, discrimination or preferential

treatment

Perspectivation, framing, or

discourse representation

Expressing involvement Reporting, description, narration, or quotation of

events and utterancesPositioning speaker’s point of view

Intensification, mitigation Modifying the epistemic status of a proposition Intensifying or mitigating the illocutionary force of

utterances

From Wodak (2001b: 73).


Author'

s P

The study in which the discourse–historical ap-proach was actually first developed tried to trace indetail the constitution of an anti-Semitic stereotypedimage or ‘Feindbild,’ as it emerged in public discoursein the 1986 Austrian presidential campaign of KurtWaldheim (Wodak et al., 1990). The discourse aboutthe Waldheim Affair spread to different fields of po-litical action, involving many different genres andtopics. Figure 3 illustrates in simplified terms thediscourse and the most relevant relationships amongfields of action, genres, and discourse topics.

To illustrate this context-dependent approach,we present some of the many layers of discourseinvestigated in the study of the Waldheim Affair. Dur-ing the 1986 election, Waldheim had at first deniedactive involvement with Nazism and Nazi militaryoperations in the Balkans.

To contradict his assertion, there were documentsof the Wehrmacht about the war in the Balkans ingeneral, as well as documents relating specifically toWaldheim’s activities there. There were also severalstatements and interviews with Wehrmacht veteranswho had served with Waldheim. One step removedfrom these materials was the research by historians onthe Balkan war in general and on Waldheim’s war-time role in particular. At still another level there wasthe reporting in Austrian newspapers on the Balkanwar, on Waldheim’s past, and on historical researchinto the war and Waldheim’s role in it. There werereports in newspapers on Waldheim’s own explana-tion of his past; in addition, all these previously men-tioned aspects were reported in foreign newspapers,especially in The New York Times. Simultaneously,the press releases and documents of the World JewishCongress provided an autonomous informational and


rsona

l Cdiscursive source. Finally, there were statements ofand interviews with politicians, as well as the ‘voxpopuli,’ on all these topics.

Though sometimes tedious and very time consum-ing, such a discourse–historical approach allowed usto record the varying perceptions, selections, and dis-tortions of information. As a result, we were able totrace in detail the constitution of an anti-Semiticstereotyped image or ‘Feindbild’ of ‘the others’ as itemerged in public discourse in Austria in 1986.

The discourse–historical approach has been elabo-rated further in several more recent studies; for exam-ple, in studies on right-wing populist rhetoric, asdeveloped by Jorg Haider and the Freedom Party inAustria on discourses about coming to terms withtraumatic pasts; and on the discursive constructionof national and European Identities (Wodak et al.,1999; Martin and Wodak, 2003; Wodak and Weiss,2004). Particularly, the mediation between contextand text has been elaborated further (see Figure 2).

Questions of identity politics are becoming increas-ingly important in societies full of tensions betweenglobalizing processes and nationalistic trends (whois included and who is excluded). Five questionshave proven to be relevant for new theoretical andmethodological approaches:

1. How are persons named and referred to linguisti-cally?

2. What traits, characteristics, qualities, and featuresare attributed to them?

3. By means of what arguments and argumentationschemes do specific persons or social groups try tojustify and legitimize the inclusion/exclusion ofothers?

guistics (2006), vol. 9, pp. 707–719


4. From what perspective or point of view are theselabels, attributions, and arguments expressed?

5. Are the respective utterances articulated overtly,are they even intensified, or are they mitigated?

To answer these questions, we are especially inter-ested in five types of discursive strategies, which areall involved in the positive self- and negative other-presentation. We view, and this needs to be empha-sized, the discursive construction of ‘US’ and ‘THEM’as the basic fundaments of discourses of identity anddifference.

By ‘strategy’ we generally mean a more or lessaccurate and more or less intentional plan of practices(including discursive practices), adopted to achieve aparticular social, political, psychological, or linguisticaim. We locate the discursive strategies – that is tosay, systematic ways of using language – at differentlevels of linguistic organization and complexity (seeTable 1).

For example, when analyzing patterns of exclusion/inclusion, we have to demonstrate how certain utter-ances realized through linguistic devices point toextralinguistic contexts, diachronically andsynchronically. Moreover, the strategies for positiveself- and negative other-presentation are systematical-ly used in constructing discourses on identity anddiscrimination at all levels of group formation(local, regional, national, transnational, and global).

thor's

Pe

Perspectives

Questions of identity politics are always tied to issuesof difference and discrimination, as well as globalizingand localizing processes. One the one hand, we ob-serve enormous complexity; on the other hand, we seetendencies to simplify through dichotomizing strate-gies. Righturing populist discourses employ inter aliasuch simplifying strategies. Ongoing research istaking these tensions, contradictions, and new ten-dencies into account.
u ASee also: Critical Discourse Analysis; Discourse of Nation-
al Socialism, Totalitarian; Frame Analysis; Gender and

Political Discourse; Genres in Political Discourse; Lan-

guage Ideology; Language Planning and Policy: Models;

Language Policies: Policies on Language in Europe;

Media, Politics, and Discourse: Interactions; Metaphors

in Political Discourse; Multimodality and the Language of

Politics; Newspeak; Political Rhetorics of Discrimination;

Political Speeches and Persuasive Argumentation; Poli-

tics, Ideology and Discourse; Pragmatics: Overview;

Rhetoric, Classical; Rhetoric: Semiotic Approaches; Rhe-

torical Tropes in Political Discourse; Stylistics; Systemic

Theory; Text and Text Analysis; War Rhetoric.


rsona

l Cop

y

Bibliography

Ammon U, Mattheier K J & Nelde P H (eds.) (1997).‘Einsprachigkeit ist heilbar–Uberlegungen zur neuenMehrsprachigkeit Europas. [Monolingualism is curable-Reflections on the new multilingualism in Europe. Lemonolinguisme est curable-Reflections sur le nouveauplurilinguisme en Europe].’ Sociolinguistica 11.

Bakhtin M (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin:University of Texas Press.

Blommaert J & Verschueren J (1998). The diversity debate.London: Routledge.

Burkhardt A (1996). ‘Politolinguistik. Versuch einer Orts-bestimmung.’ In Klein J & Diekmannshenke H (eds.)Sprachstrategien und Dialogblockaden. Linguistischeund politikwissenschaftliche Studien zur politischenKommunikation. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 75–100.

Chilton P A (2004). Analyzing political discourse. London:Routledge.

Chouliaraki L & Fairclough N (1999). Discourse inlate modernity. Rethinking. ‘Critical discourse analysis.’Edinburgh: University Press.

Courtine J-J (1981). ‘Analyse du discours politique.’Langages 62.

Eagleton T (ed.) (1994). Ideology. London: Longman.Ehlich K (1989). ‘Uber den Faschismus sprechen – Analyse

und Diskurs.’ In Ehlich K (ed.) Sprache im Faschismus.Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 7–34.

Ehlich K (2000). ‘Diskurs.’ In Gluck H (ed.) Metzler Lex-ikon Sprache. Stuttgart: Metzler. 162–163.

Fairclough N (1992). Discourse and social change. Oxford,UK & Cambridge, MA: Polity Press & Blackwell.

Fairclough N & Wodak R (1997). ‘Critical discourse analy-sis.’ In van Dijk T A (ed.) Discourse as social interaction.Discourse studies: a multidisciplinary introduction,vol. 2. London: Sage. 258–284.

Groupe de Saint-Cloud (1982). La Parole syndicale: etudedu vocabulaire confederal des centrales ouvrieres fran-caises (1971–1976). Paris: PUF.

Gruber H, Menz F & Panagl O (2003). Sprache und poli-tischer Wandel. Bern: Lang.

Haarmann H (1987). ‘Sprachen- und Sprachpolitik.’ InAmmon U, Dittmar N & Mattheier K J (eds.) HandbuchSoziolinguistik. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 1660–1678.

Halliday M A K (1978). Language as social semiotic.London: Edward Arnold.

Jager M & Jager S (1993). ‘Verstrickungen – Der rassis-tische Diskurs und seine Bedeutung fur den politischenGesamtdiskurs in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.’ InJager S & Link J (eds.) Die vierte Gewalt. Rassismusund die Medien. Duisburg: DISS. 49–79.

Klein J (1998). ‘Politische Kommunikation – Sprachwis-senschaftliche Perspektiven.’ In Jarren O, Sarcinelli U &Saxer U (eds.) Politische Kommunikation in derdemokratischen Gesellschaft. Ein Handbuch mit Lexi-konteil. Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.186–210.

Klemperer V (1947). LTI. Lingua Tertii Imperii. DieSprache des Dritten Reiches. Leipzig: Reclam.

uistics (2006), vol. 9, pp. 707–719

e

Politics of Teaching 719

P

Kovacs A & Wodak R (eds.) (2003). NATO, neutrality andnational identity. The case of Austria and Hungary.Vienna: Bohlau.

Kress G & van Leeuwen T (1996). Reading images. London:Routledge.

Lasswell H D & Leites N C (1949). Language of politics:studies in quantitative semantics. New York: G. W.Stewart.

Lemke J (1995). Textual politics: discourse and socialdynamics. London: Taylor and Francis.

Leontjew A N (1984). ‘Der allgemeine Tatigkeitsbegriff.’In Viehweger D (ed.) Grundfragen einer Theorie dersprachlichen Tatigkeit. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.13–30.

Link J (1988). ‘Uber Kollektivsymbolik im politischen Dis-kurs und ihren Anteil an totalitaren Tendenzen.’ kultuRRevolution 17/18, 47–53.

Maas U (1984). Als der Geist der Gemeinschaft eineSprache fand. Sprache im Nationalsozialismus. Opladen:Westdeutscher Verlag.

Martin J & Wodak R (eds.) (2003). Re/reading the past.critical and functional perspectives on time and value.Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Nowotny H (1997). ‘Transdisziplinare Wissensproduktion –eine Antwort auf die Wissensexplosion?’ In Stadler F (ed.)Wissenschaft als Kultur. Vienna/New York: Springer.188–204.

Pecheux M (1982). Language, semantics and ideology.London: Macmillan.

Reisigl M & Wodak R (2001). Discourse and discrimina-tion. London: Routledge.

Scollon R (2001). Mediated discourse: the nexus of practice.London: Routledge.

Sternberger D, Storz G & Sußkind W E (1957). Aus demWorterbuch des Unmenschen. Hamburg: Claassen.

Titscher S, Meyer M, Wodak R & Vetter E (2000). Methodsof text and discourse analysis. London: Sage.

Author'

sPolitics of TeachingT Santos, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, USA

� 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

This article examines the role of politics in appliedlinguistics and second language teaching. It beginswith the traditional, mainstream understanding ofthe interface between politics and applied linguistics,i.e., language policy and planning, and moves fromthere to the rise since the 1990s of an alternativeview of that interface, i.e., critical applied linguistics.The characteristics and positions of critical appliedlinguistics are outlined, and the major domains of


rsona

l Cop

y

van Dijk T A (2004). ‘Contextual knowledge managementin discourse production: a CDA perspective.’ In Wodak R& Chilton P A (eds.) New agenda in CDA. Amsterdam:Benjamins.

van Dijk T A & Kintsch W (1983). Strategies of discoursecomprehension. New York: Academic Press.

von Hajek F A (1968). The confusion of language in politi-cal thought: With some suggestions for remedying it.London: Institute of Economic Affairs.

Weiss G & Wodak R (eds.) (2003). Critical discourse analy-sis. Theory and interdisciplinarity. London: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Wodak R (2001a). ‘What CDA is about – a summary of itshistory, important concepts and its developments.’ InWodak & Meyer (eds.). 1–14.

Wodak R (2001b). ‘The discourse–historical approach.’ InWodak & Meyer (eds.). 63–95.

Wodak R (2004). ‘Discourses of silence.’ In Thiesmeyer L(ed.) Discourse and silencing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.179–209.

Wodak R & Chilton P A (eds.) (2004). New agenda inCDA. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Wodak R & Meyer M (eds.) (2001). Methods of criticaldiscourse analysis. London: Sage.

Wodak R & Weiss G (2004). ‘Visions, ideologies and utopiasin the discursive construction of European identities:organizing, representing and legitimizing Europe.’ In PutzM, Neff A, van Aertselaer G & van Dijk T A (eds.)Communicating ideologies: language, discourse andsocial practice. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 225–252.

Wodak R, Nowak P, Pelikan J, Gruber H, de Cillia R &Mitten R (1990). Wir sind alle unschuldige Tater. Dis-kurshistorische Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus.Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Wodak R, de Cillia R, Reisigl M & Liebhart K (1999). Thediscursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh:University Press.

applied linguistics such as international English andEnglish for academic purposes are discussed from theperspectives of both mainstream and critical appliedlinguistics.

The Politics of Mainstream AppliedLinguistics

Language Policy and Planning

The branch of mainstream applied linguistics inex-tricably tied to politics and sociopolitical relationsis language policy and planning (LPP). Indeed, asKaplan and Baldauf pointed out, LPP may be consid-ered the ne plus ultra of applied linguistics in society,

guistics (2006), vol. 9, pp. 707–719

encyclopedia of language & linguistics, second edition...(maas, 1984). his historical...

Documents