approaches to media texts

◆ 105

In our contribution, we focus on qualitative linguistic approaches tomedia texts—especially on the approaches developed within critical

linguistics and critical discourse analysis. There are several importantreasons for this choice: In recent decades, there has been a significantincrease in international interest in applying qualitative research methodsto the study of social and cultural processes. Although the traditionalempirically oriented approach to media texts, mainly represented byquantitative content analysis, is still widespread in mass communicationresearch (McQuail, 2000, p. 235), some observers (e.g., Jensen &Jankowski, 1991) speak of a “qualitative turn” in media studies. Thisshift of paradigm is not a question of preferences for particular method-ologies but corresponds to conceptual and theoretical frameworksdistinct from the traditional sender-receiver model.

We cannot, however, elaborate on all the important research in con-versation analysis (CA) and sociolinguistics, which has been concernedwith media analysis, due to the shift of paradigm mentioned above. CAemerged in the 1960s (see Titscher, Wodak, Meyer, & Vetter, 2000, fora summary). It is based on ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967; Sacks,Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) as an interpretative approach to sociol-ogy, which focuses mainly on the organization of everyday life. Despitethe specificity of its name, CA represents a generic approach to thestudy of social interaction. Much of the media text research in this fieldfocuses on relevant aspects of broadcast news interviews (Greatbach,1986; Heritage, 1985), talk radio (Hutchby, 1991), and talk shows

5APPROACHES TO MEDIA TEXTS

� Ruth Wodak and Brigitta Busch

05-downing.qxd 7/27/2004 5:22 PM 05

106–––◆–––Prolegomena

♦♦ The Concept of the Text

The present trend in approaches to mediatexts can be characterized by turning awayfrom “text-internal readings, where readersare theorized as decoders of fixed mean-ings, to more dynamic models, wheremeanings are negotiated by actively partici-pating readers” (Meinhof, 1994, p. 212). Itwould be beyond the scope of this contri-bution to discuss the different strands thathave led to a more dynamic view of thetext. But we would like to emphasize thatsome of the works that have influenced thechange of paradigms in media studies havebeen equally influential in critical linguisticapproaches, such as aspects of the work ofthe Bakhtin Circle by the early 20th-centuryRussian semioticians, Halliday’s (1978)work on social semiotics and pragmatics,the Foucauldian notion of discourse, andargumentation theories. Van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach has also had a consider-able impact (see below).

All these approaches endorse an interac-tive model of communication, which is far

more complex than the traditional modelsin mass communication. Media texts areperceived as dialogic, and the readingsdepend on the receivers and on the settings.Researchers presume, therefore, that readers/listeners or viewers interact with media (notonly by writing letters to the editor but alsoby interpreting and understanding them inspecific subjective ways). Media texts alsodepend on intertextual relations with manyother genres, diachronically or synchroni-cally. Texts relate to other texts, representedby the media, through quotes or indirectreferences, thus already adding particularmeanings or decontextualizing and recon-textualizing meanings. Media thus produceand reproduce social meanings.

Barthes (1966/1994), in his essay“Introduction to the Structural Analysis ofNarrative,” differentiates between the workand the text. Work refers to the artifact, tothe fixed pattern of signifiers on pages,whereas text refers to the process of mean-ing making, of reading. Fiske (1987/1989)takes up Barthes’s differentiation to distin-guish between a program (on television)and a text: “Programmes are produced,

(Gruber, 1991; Kotthoff, 1997). CA describes the formal structure ofconversations (openings, turn takings, closings, topic control, interrup-tions, etc.) and analyzes how they operate under the institutionalconstraints of media. The strength of CA is based in detailed linguis-tic description, focusing on the organization of interaction, withoutconsidering the context. Context is defined within the text, depen-dent on the explicit mentioning of relevant factors by the speakers (seeSchegloff, 1998).

In recent approaches to media texts mentioned above, however, the“text” as such has been somewhat “decentralized,” and the focus ofinterest has shifted to the (social, cultural, political) context and to the“localization” of meaning. A similar change of paradigm in approachesto texts has been occurring in linguistics. Media texts are also frequentlybeing used as data corpora in linguistic analysis. Garrett and Bell (1998,p. 6) point out that more than 40% of the papers published in the lead-ing journal Discourse & Society are based on media texts. In this chap-ter, we argue that the agendas in both disciplines are obviouslyconverging and that interdisciplinary approaches to media texts canoffer deeper insights.

05-downing.qxd 7/27/2004 5:22 PM Page 106

Approaches to Media Texts–––◆–––107

distributed, and defined by the industry:texts are the product of their readers. So aprogramme becomes a text at the momentof reading, that is, when its interaction withone of its many audiences activates some ofthe meanings/pleasures that it is capable ofprovoking” (p. 14).

LINGUISTIC AND NONLINGUISTICMETHODS OF TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

Titscher et al. (2000) provide an over-view of current methods of text analysisthat cover a broad and diverse range ofmethods such as grounded theory, ethno-graphic approaches, psychoanalytically ori-ented methods, qualitative heuristic textanalysis, narrative semiotics, CA, andcritical discourse analysis (CDA). On thebasis of the definition of text provided byde Beaugrande and Dressler (1981), theauthors suggest that the two dimensions ofcoherence (the semantic dimension, whichis constitutive for the construction of mean-ing) and cohesion (the syntactic dimension)are constitutive of the text. The main dif-ference between linguistic and nonlinguisticanalysis is that nonlinguistic methods focusmainly on the semantic dimension of coher-ence, whereas linguistic methods are basedon a systematic analysis of both dimen-sions. The aim is to make the interconnec-tion between the cohesion and coherencedimensions apparent (Titscher et al., 2000,pp. 49ff).

Linguistic and sociolinguistic analysispays attention to the linguistic detail, to theform and “texture” of the text (Fairclough,1995, p. 21), aiming at illuminating socio-cultural contexts. Garrett and Bell (1998)and Fairclough (1995) provide an overviewof different text and discourse-analyticalapproaches and their application in mediastudies. Approaches situated within criticallinguistics (CL) emphasize the importanceof the context, the social and historical sit-uativity of the text, and the intertextual/interdiscursive dimension. Thus, the claimis not to unveil “hidden meanings,” as this

would imply a static, reified conceptionof the text, but to identify and analyze dis-cursive strategies, argumentation schemes(topoi), and means of realization (in verbalas well as in other semiotic modes), as putforward by the discourse-historical approach(see below). Bell (1984), for example, whileexamining the microlinguistic level devel-oped in audience design, considers conso-nant groups in word endings. Fowler (1991)applies some tools of functional linguistics(transitivity, use of passives, nominalizations,modality, etc.) in studying the language ofnews media. This means that media analysisis problem oriented and not dogmaticallyrelated to the one or other linguistic theoryor methodology. What seems appropriateis a multimethod approach that combinesdifferent levels of analysis and thus differenttools.

Linguistic methods are time-consumingin their detailed attention to the text, espe-cially when it comes to audio or audiovisualtexts, which necessitate accurate transcrip-tion. In approaches to media texts, mixedmethods are very often employed. Examplesof such mixed approaches are the workof the Glasgow Media Group (1976, 1980,1985) on news programs or van Dijk’swork (1998) comparing news reports indifferent countries. Both combine contentanalysis with text-linguistic and discourse-analytical approaches.

As far as media are concerned, linguisticapproaches have so far been focusingmainly on the moment of the text, in thesense of Fiske’s “program” or Barthes’s“work” (see above). Although there hasbeen increasing interest in audiences in thepast years, studies that link media text andreception are still scarce (e.g., Lutz &Wodak, 1987; Meinhof, 1994; Morley,1980; Richardson, 1998). Meinhof andSmith (2000) elaborate Kristeva’s conceptof intertextuality to frame the collection ofpapers concerned with this link.

The news genre has been the mostprominent research focus so far in linguis-tic approaches to texts, especially in dis-course analysis. The press has received



comparatively more attention than television,and outside of conversation analysis, radiohas been relatively neglected, except forsome studies of news programs (e.g., Lutz &Wodak, 1987).

CDA

The terms critical linguistics (CL) andcritical discourse analysis (CDA) are oftenused interchangeably. In fact, recently, theterm CDA seems to have been preferredand is being used to denote the theory for-merly identified as CL. The roots of CDAlie in classical rhetoric, text linguistics, andsociolinguistics, as well as in applied lin-guistics and pragmatics. The notions ofideology, power, hierarchy, and gender,together with sociological variables, wereall seen as relevant for an interpretation orexplanation of text. The subjects underinvestigation differ for the various depart-ments and scholars who apply CDA.Gender issues, issues of racism, mediadiscourses, political discourses, organiza-tional discourses, or dimensions of identityresearch have become very prominent.1

Bell and Garrett (1998) and Marris andThornham (2000) provide excellent over-views on recent media studies and theirrelationships to CDA.

The methodologies differ greatly in all ofthese studies, on account of the aims of theresearch and also the methodologiesapplied: Small qualitative case studies are tobe found, as well as large data corpora,drawn from fieldwork and ethnographicresearch. CDA takes a particular interest inthe relationship between language andpower. The term CDA is used nowadays torefer more specifically to the critical linguis-tic approach of scholars who find the largerdiscursive unit of text to be the basic unitof communication. This research specifi-cally considers more or less overt relationsof social struggle and conflict in all thedomains mentioned above.

Deconstructing the label of this researchprogram means that we have to define whatCDA means when employing the terms

critical and discourse. Most recently,Michael Billig (2002) has clearly shown thatCDA has become an established academicdiscipline with the same rituals and institu-tional practices as all other academic disci-plines. Ironically, he asks whether this mightmean that CDA has become “uncritical” orwhether the use of acronyms such as CDAmight serve the same purposes as in othertraditional, noncritical disciplines—namely,to exclude outsiders and to mystify the func-tions and intentions of the research. We can-not answer Billig’s questions extensively inthis chapter. But we do believe that he sug-gests some interesting and potentially veryfruitful and necessary debates for CDA.

Researchers in CDA rely on a variety ofgrammatical approaches. The definitions ofthe terms discourse, critical, ideology,power, and so on are also manifold (seebelow; Garrett & Bell, 1998; van Dijk,2002; Wodak, 1996a). Thus, any criticismof CDA should always specify whichresearch or researcher they relate to becauseCDA as such cannot be viewed as a holisticor closed paradigm.

The Notions of Discourse,Critical, Power, and Ideology

CDA is concerned with “language associal practice” (Fairclough & Wodak,1997) and considers the context of languageuse to be crucial (Benke, 2000; Wodak,2000):

CDA sees discourse—language use inspeech and writing—as a form of “socialpractice.” Describing discourse as socialpractice implies a dialectical relationshipbetween a particular discursive eventand the situation(s), institution(s) andsocial structure(s), which frame it: thediscursive event is shaped by them, but italso shapes them. That is, discourse issocially constitutive as well as sociallyconditioned—it constitutes situations,objects of knowledge, and the socialidentities of and relationships betweenpeople and groups of people. It is consti-tutive both in the sense that it helps to



sustain and reproduce the social statusquo and in the sense that it contributesto transforming it. Since discourse is sosocially consequential, it gives rise toimportant issues of power. Discursivepractices may have major ideologicaleffects—that is, they can help produceand reproduce unequal power relationsbetween (for instance) social classes,women and men, and ethnic/culturalmajorities and minorities through theways in which they represent things andposition people. (Fairclough & Wodak,1997, p. 258)

Of course, the term discourse is usedvery differently by different researchers andalso in different academic cultures. In theGerman and Central European context, adistinction is made between text anddiscourse, relating to the tradition in textlinguistics as well as to rhetoric (for sum-maries, see Brünner & Graefen, 1994;Wodak, 1996a). In the English-speakingworld, discourse is often used both for writ-ten and oral texts (see Schiffrin, 1994).Other researchers distinguish between dif-ferent levels of abstractness: Lemke (1995)defines text as the concrete realization ofabstract forms of knowledge (discourse),thus adhering to a more Foucauldianapproach (see also Jäger, 2001).

In the discourse-historical approach, weelaborate and relate to the sociocognitivetheory of Teun van Dijk (1985, 1993, 1998)and view discourse as a form of knowledgeand memory, whereas text illustrates con-crete oral utterances or written documents(Reisigl & Wodak, 2001). Critical mediastudies view discourse as interactive, asnegotiated between producers and audience,as a process in construction. Text is the(oral, visual, or written) manifestation ofthis (see Garrett & Bell, 1998).

The shared perspective and programof CDA relate to the term critical, which inthe work of some “critical linguists” could betraced to the influence of the Frankfurtschool or Jürgen Habermas (Anthonissen,2001; Fay, 1987, p. 203; Thompson, 1988,pp. 71ff). Nowadays, this concept is

conventionally used in a broader sense,denoting, as Krings argues, the practicallinking of “social and political engagement”with “a sociologically informed construc-tion of society” (Krings, Baumgartner, &Wildly, 1973, p. 808). At the same time, inFairclough’s (1995) words, “In human mat-ters, interconnections and chains of cause-and-effect may be distorted out of vision.Hence ‘critique’ is essentially making visiblethe interconnectedness of things” (p. 747;see also Connerton, 1976/1996, pp. 11–39).

For CDA, language is not powerful onits own—it gains power by the use power-ful people make of it, specifically in newpublic spaces or new genres providedby globalized media (Baudrillard, 2000;Fairclough, 2000a; Habermas, 2000; Hall,2000a, 2000b). In agreement with its criti-cal theory predecessors, CDA emphasizesthe need for interdisciplinary work to gaina proper understanding of how languagefunctions in constituting and transmittingknowledge, in organizing social institu-tions, or in exercising power.

Not only the notion of struggles forpower and control but also the “intertextu-ality” and “recontextualization” of compet-ing discourses in various public spaces andgenres are closely attended to. Power isabout relations of difference, particularlyabout the effects of differences in socialstructures. The constant unity of languageand other social matters ensures that lan-guage is entwined in social power in anumber of ways: Language indexes power,expresses power, and is involved where thereis contention over and a challenge to power.Power does not derive from language, butlanguage can be used to challenge power, tosubvert it, to alter distributions of power inthe short and the long term.

THEORETICAL ANDMETHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES

Kress (1990) concentrates on what heterms the “political economy” of represen-tational media—that is, an attempt tounderstand how various societies value



different modes of representation and howthey use these different modes of represen-tation. (This is a different sense of the termpolitical economy from the one Waskodeploys in Chapter 15, this volume.) A cen-tral aspect of this work is the attempt tounderstand the formation of the individualhuman being as a social individual inresponse to available “representationalresources.” One by-product of this researchinterest has been Kress’s increasing involve-ment in overtly political issues, includingthe politics of culture. Moreover, he hasbeen concerned with multimodality andsemiotics. Together with Theo van Leeuwen,Kress has developed a taxonomy that allowsthe precise description and interpretationof visual data (Kress & van Leeuwen,1996). This work has influenced researchon the new media (see Lemke, 2001;Scollon, 1999).

The work of Fowler, Kress, Hodge, andTrew (1979) has been cited to demonstratethe early foundations of CL. Later workof Fowler (1991, 1996) shows how toolsprovided by standard linguistic theories (a1965 version of Chomskyan grammar andHalliday’s [1985] theory of systemic func-tional grammar) could be used to uncoverlinguistic structures of power in texts. Notonly in news discourses but also in literarycriticism, Fowler illustrates that systematicgrammatical devices function in establish-ing, manipulating, and naturalizing socialhierarchies. Fowler concentrated on analyz-ing news discourses and in providing gram-matical tools (transitivity and modality) forsuch an analysis.

Fairclough (1989) sets out the social the-ories underpinning CDA, and as in otherearly critical linguistic work, a variety oftextual examples are analyzed to illustratethe field, its aims, and methods of analysis.Later, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999)explain and elaborate some advances inCDA, showing not only how the analyticalframework for researching language in rela-tion to power and ideology developed butalso how CDA is useful in disclosing thediscursive nature of much contemporary

social and cultural change. Particularly thelanguage of the mass media is scrutinizedas a site of power and social struggle, aswell as a site where language is often onlyapparently transparent. Media institutionsoften purport to be neutral, in that theyprovide space for public discourse, reflectstates of affairs disinterestedly, and give theperceptions and arguments of the news-makers. Fairclough shows the fallacy of suchassumptions and illustrates the mediatingand constructing role of the media with avariety of examples.

Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) early onconsidered the relevance of discourse to thestudy of language processing. Their devel-opment of a cognitive model of discourseunderstanding in individuals graduallydeveloped into cognitive models for explain-ing the construction of meaning at a soci-etal level. Van Dijk turned specifically tomedia discourse, not only giving his ownreflection on communication in the massmedia (van Dijk, 1986) but also bringingtogether the theories and applications ofa variety of scholars interested in the pro-duction, uses, and functions of media dis-courses (van Dijk, 1985). In criticallyanalyzing various kinds of discourses thatencode prejudice, van Dijk is interested indeveloping a theoretical model that willexplain cognitive discourse processingmechanisms (Wodak & van Dijk, 2000).Most recently, van Dijk has focused onissues of racism and ideology (van Dijk,1998) and on an elaboration of a theory ofcontext (van Dijk, 2001). The sociocogni-tive model of van Dijk is based on theassumption that cognition mediates between“society” and “discourse.” Long term andshort-term memories and certain mentalmodels shape our perception and compre-hension of discursive practices and alsoimply stereotypes and prejudices, if suchmental models become rigid and overgener-alized. The methodology used is eclectic,based primarily on argumentation theoryand semantic theories.

In the Vienna school of CDA, the investi-gation of language use in institutional



settings is central (Muntigl, Weiss, &Wodak, 2000; Wodak, 1996a). A new focuson the necessity for a historical perspectiveis also introduced (the discourse historicalapproach). A second important researchfocus of the Vienna school of CDA is thestudy of racism and anti-Semitism in themedia and other public spaces (see Wodak,1996b; Wodak et al., 1990; Wodak, deCillia, Reisigl, & Liebhart, 1999; Wodak,Menz, Mitten, & Stern, 1994; Wodak &van Dijk, 2000; and below). Thirdly, and ofcourse related to the latter two issues, is thestudy of identity constructions and changesof identities at national and transnationallevels.

Recognition of the contribution of allaspects of the communicative context totext meaning, as well as a growing aware-ness in media studies generally of theimportance of nonverbal aspects of texts,has turned attention to semiotic devices indiscourse other than the linguistic ones.Pioneering work on the interaction betweenthe verbal and visual in texts and discourse,as well as on the meaning of images, hasbeen done by Theo van Leeuwen (Kress &van Leeuwen, 1996). Particularly thetheory put forward by Kress and vanLeeuwen (1996) should be mentioned here,as this provides a useful framework for con-sidering the communicative potential ofvisual devices in the media (see Anthonissen,2001; Scollon, 2001). Van Leeuwen studiedfilm and television production as well asHallidayan linguistics. His principal publi-cations are concerned with topics such asthe intonation of disc jockeys and news-readers, the language of television inter-views and newspaper reporting, and, morerecently, the semiotics of visual communi-cation and music. His approach hasincreasingly led him into the field of educa-tion. Van Leeuwen (1993) distinguishes twokinds of relations between discourses andsocial practices:

discourse itself [as] social practice,discourse as a form of action, as some-thing people do to or for or with each

other. And there is discourse in theFoucauldian sense, discourse as a way ofrepresenting social practice(s), as a formof knowledge, as the things people sayabout social practice(s). (p. 193)

“Critical discourse analysis,” accordingto van Leeuwen, is or should be concernedwith both these aspects: “with discourse asthe instrument of power and control as wellas with discourse as the instrument of thesocial construction of reality” (van Leeuwen,1993, p. 193). Van Leeuwen (1993) devel-oped a most influential methodologicaltool: the actors analysis. This taxonomyallows for the analysis of both written andoral data, related to agency in a very differ-entiated and validated way. The taxonomyhas since then been widely applied in dataanalysis.

The Duisburg school of CDA (Jäger, 1993,2001) draws on Foucault’s notion of dis-course. According to Jäger (1999, p. 116),discourse is “materiality sui generis,” and dis-course theory is a “materialistic culturaltheory.” Jäger is also influenced by AlexejN. Leontjev’s “speech activity theory”(Sprechtätigkeitstheorie, Leontjev, 1984)and Jürgen Link’s (1988) “collective sym-bolism.” As institutionalized and conven-tionalized speech modes, discourses expresssocietal power relations, which in turn areaffected by discourses. This “overall dis-course” of society, which could be visualizedas a “diskursives Gewimmel” (literally: “dis-cursive swarming”), becomes comprehensi-ble in different discourse strands (composedof discourse fragments from the samesubject) at different discourse levels (science,politics, media, etc.). Every discourse is his-torically embedded and has repercussionson current and future discourse. The unifor-mity of the hegemonic discourse makes itpossible that analysis requires only a “rela-tively small number of discourse frag-ments.” Siegfried Jäger and Margret Jäger(1999) offer concrete model analyses deal-ing with everyday racism, the analysis ofthe “discourse strand of biopower” in adaily newspaper (S. Jäger), and an analysis



of interwoven discourses relating to the“criticism of patriarchy in immigrationdiscourse” (M. Jäger). The discourse of theso-called “new right” in Germany was alsoanalyzed by M. Jäger and S. Jäger (1993),who based their research on different right-wing print media. They identified importantcommon characteristics (e.g., specific sym-bols, “ethno-pluralism” [apartheid], aggres-siveness, antidemocratic attitudes, etc.) aswell as significant linguistic and stylisticdifferences dependent on the different targetgroups of the newspapers.

SOME RESEARCH AGENDAS

With the debate on globalization and onEuropean integration, there is an increasinginterest in media and multilingual audi-ences, cross-cultural and transnational per-spectives, and the global-local articulation.Most of the research in these fields focuseson structural or political dimensions and/oron audience research, but there are only afew research projects concerned with mediatexts. Richardson and Meinhof (1999) con-tributed to filling the gap with a series ofcomparative case studies on satellite televi-sion programs proposed by news channelsaddressing a global audience (News Corp’sSky News and Germany’s n.tv), local TVchannels in Germany and Britain, andthe European TV experience (ARTE, Euro-News), drawing on discourse analysis,applied linguistics, and social semiotics.

Equally interested in addressing multilin-gual audiences and in multilingual texts is awhole range of sociolinguistic and linguis-tic research covering a very diverse rangeof media and genres that vary from multi-lingual aspects in advertising (Grin, 1996),code switching in popular music (e.g.,Bentahlia & Davies, 2002), and differentaspects of subtitling and dubbing (Gambier,1997) to the emergence of “Hinglish” and“Spanglish”—hybrid Hindi-English andSpanish-English spoken codes, respectively—in radio and TV. Nevertheless, researchersworking in linguistics and media studies

point out that there is a serious lack ofsystematic research available on languageand the media in multilingual settings(Boyd-Barrett, Nootens, & Pugh, 1996;Grin, 1996; Leitner, 1997; Robins, 1997).The new transnational configurations ofmedia landscapes with their particulararticulations between the local and theglobal would thus necessitate deeperinsights. Concerning ethnic minorities, themedia text-oriented research mainly investi-gates the representation of the “Other” in(mainstream) media (see below). In the fieldof minority media, a shift of paradigm hasoccurred (Busch, 1999b): In the past, ques-tions of access to information and minorityrights were a main focus, whereas presentwork concentrates more on constructionsof (multiple) identities. Consequently, audi-ence-centered approaches are now domi-nant. From the linguistic point of view, therole of media in supporting/reviving minor-ity or less used languages has been a con-cern throughout. The scarce text-analyticalstudies of media in minority languages inEurope show that, particularly amongsmaller language communities, the spec-trum of topics covered has considerablynarrowed, leading to a focus on questionsinternal to the group (Busch, 1999a).

THE REPRESENTATIONOF THE “OTHER”

The representation of the “Other,” therepresentation of cultural diversity, and thereproduction of racism and xenophobiathrough media have been key research top-ics in the past few decades. Such studieshave traditionally used a (critical) discourseanalysis and cultural studies approach.2

All these studies focus on the productionand reproduction of stereotypes throughprint media and the internet, as well asthrough TV. Van Dijk’s sociocognitiveapproach focuses on the schemata throughwhich minorities are perceived and illus-trated, as well as on headlines in the press.Headlines and their syntactic and semantic



configuration typically represent “others”as perpetrators and agents, as anonymousand criminal, whereas the police and victimsare passivized and presented as suffering.

The 1986 “Waldheim affair” in Austria,which exposed the former United Nations(UN) general secretary as having lied abouthis past in the German Wehrmacht,brought latent anti-Semitic prejudices to thefore. “Jews,” “certain circles,” “Jews full ofrevenge,” “rich Jews,” “Socialist Jews,” andso on were accused of being part of a“world conspiracy” to attack Waldheimall around the world. The political partythat launched Waldheim’s candidacy forthe Austrian presidency (the AustrianPeople’s Party), functionalized old and newanti-Semitic stereotypes in this electioncampaign. Very characteristic of theAustrian variety of such discourses weresubtle linguistic features, such as implica-tions, insinuations, and facile categoriza-tions because blatant anti-Semitic slanderhas been taboo in official contexts in post-war Austria. The election campaign for theright-winger Jörg Haider and the right-wing populist party (Freedom Party) inVienna 2001 again made use of such stereo-types.3 This illustrates how, wheneverscapegoats are needed to channel anxieties,insecurities, aggressions, or failures, racistand anti-Semitic discourses appear and arereproduced through the media.

Stuart Hall (2000b) has also been able todemonstrate that the British media arebiased when writing or talking aboutminorities and migrants. Specifically, inrecent riots and conflicts (such as inBradford in 2001), the unemployed youngpeople who felt and were in realityexcluded from access and participation inmany social domains were depicted verynegatively and associated with criminalityand drug abuse. More and more in Europe,immigrants, especially African men, havecome to be blamed for drug-related crimes.

Immigration laws throughout the Euro-pean Union have become stricter, and hencediscrimination and racism became stron-ger, legitimizing such restrictions. Fear of

unemployment was thus highlighted. Thesetotally constructed fears and threats startedimmediately after the fall of the Iron Curtainin 1989–1990 (see Reisigl & Wodak, 2000,2001). The media reporting went throughthree distinct phases: Firstly, a rather pater-nalistic, condescending tone was appliedtowards those countries and people “whohad no democratic experience.” Secondly, adiscourse of “pity” took over, as soon as theliving conditions of some population groupsbecame known. And thirdly, as soon asmigrants started crossing the borders to theWest, racist beliefs and attitudes becameloud. Thus, it was possible to study andexemplify the genesis of racism in mediareporting (Matouschek, Januschek, &Wodak, 1995).

The terrorist attacks in the United Stateson September 11, 2001, reinforced anti-Islamic feelings and prejudices. The repre-sentations in the media of Muslims and theIslamic religion generalized the fear ofterrorism to all people who “look different.”Usama Suleiman (2001) has analyzed thereporting in the Israeli, Palestinian, and U.S.media about a number of important eventssince the founding of the state of Israel.He was able to show that the representationof Israelis in the Palestinian press, ofPalestinians in the Israeli press, and of bothconflicting parties in the American press wassignificantly biased because of the interestsof leading political elites. One frequently hadthe impression that totally different eventsand people were being written about.

Arab reporting about Israel has becomemore and more laden with old anti-Semiticstereotypes since the new wars in theMiddle East of 2001–2002 (see Wistrich,2002). Conflicts in that period also led tomore anti-Semitic clichés in the Europeanpress: analogies to Nazis and to concentra-tion camps were drawn in the French andGerman media. European Jews—even allJews—were made responsible for Israeligovernment policies.

Overall, strategies of generalization,blaming the victims, and victim-perpetratorreversal were increasingly prominent. Stories



about one bad experience with “one Jew,Roma, Arab, Turk, and so on” were gener-alized onto the whole ethnic group. Such“prejudice stories” characterize media report-ing as well as everyday racism (Essed, 1993).Disclaimers are another salient feature ofsuch reporting: “Everybody has best Jewish,Turkish . . . friends, but . . . .” These clausesalways introduce massive prejudices. The“denial of racism” (van Dijk, 1988a,1988b) is another important characteristic.Denying racist, anti-Semitic, or xenophobicattitudes while latently functionalizing themin anti-immigrant reporting is necessary inpluralistic societies that claim to be “open”and “tolerant” (see Martín-Rojo & vanDijk, 1997; Wodak & van Dijk, 2000).

ter Wal (2002) has provided an overviewof research in racism and cultural diversityin the mass media for the European Union,for the European Monitoring Center onRacism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism(www.eumc.at). She found that in theperiod researched (1995–2000), the pre-dominant methodology used was quantita-tive content analysis, but in many studies,two or more approaches were incorpo-rated. The most common combination wasthat of content and discourse analysis or ofdiscourse analysis complemented by ethno-graphic fieldwork and semiotic analysis.Especially in the Scandinavian countries,Spain, Italy, Austria, and the Netherlands,qualitative discourse analysis was wellestablished in the field. Another frequentapproach to media texts was the culturalstudies approach, which focuses on themythical elements on which ideological sig-nifications have been built. The majority ofthe research was on the press, some on tele-vision, but virtually none on radio. Theperspective gradually shifted from an analy-sis of news production and news contentto a more contextualized analysis, takinginto consideration the audience perspectiveand the possibility of negotiating identities.When the 15 member states of the EuropeanUnion were compared, it could be shownthat in all countries, a big difference existedbetween tabloids and more elite media,

which confirms the difference in modes ofexpression of prejudice between elites andordinary people (see Wodak & van Dijk,2000). On the other hand, all countriesemployed the linguistic features mentionedabove in their reporting and news items.Access to the media was also very difficultfor minority-ethnic professionals.

HATE SPEECH AND WAR

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and theoutbreak of armed conflicts in Southeasternand Eastern Europe, media developments inthe so-called countries of transition becamea focus of interest. On the level of textanalysis, the questions of hate speech,biased reporting, and representation ofminorities have attracted research interest.Some of these works use quantitative con-tent analysis; others combine quantitativeaspects with qualitative text or discourse-analytical approaches. The scope rangesfrom case studies on particular media (e.g.,Kuzmanic, 1999, on racism, sexism, andchauvinism in Slovenian print media; Valic,1997, on war reporting on local radio inSerbia) to studies on the representation ofparticular groups (e.g., Erjavec, Hrvatin, &Kelbl, 2000, on Roma in Slovenia).Qualitative work mainly refers to the theo-retical and methodological approachesdeveloped by CDA (in particular, van Dijk,1991; Wodak, 1996b).

During and after the war in formerYugoslavia, two major international textanalysis projects were initiated and financedby nongovernmental organizations toinvestigate hate speech: The project “Mediaand War” (Skopljanac Brunner, Gredelj,Hodzic, & Kristofic, 2000) broughttogether a large interdisciplinary group ofresearchers from Croatia and Serbia, a dif-ficult task in a period of complete commu-nication blockade in the region. Its findingswere based on a large body of data drawnfrom the print media—the two majordailies in the respective countries Vjesnikand Politika— and television news programs



on the national (state) stations. Similar tovan Dijk’s (1991) comparative study ofnews discourses, the core of the “Mediaand War” study combined content analy-sis and discourse analysis methods comple-mented with a semantic field analysis(Skiljan, 2000) on the word rat (war), aswell as background information on thepolitical situation and the role of the mediaduring the period of disintegration of for-mer Yugoslavia and the outbreak of war inCroatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The pub-lication (Skopljanac Brunner et al., 2000)that resulted from this study refrains fromdrawing general conclusions and does notextrapolate the findings to draw more gen-eral conclusions about hate speech. It isleft to the reader to compare the conclu-sions drawn by different authors employingdifferent methods of analysis (tacit trian-gulation). A main focus is the discursivestrategies employed in constructing newnational identities in which strategies ofcreating in-groups and out-groups byemphasizing differences between “us” and“them” play a key role, as well as strate-gies of internal homogenization, such asinvoking “national unity and solidarity,”and of victimizing one’s own group whileaccusing the other of aggression. It wasstriking how frequently Croatian mediadwelt on locating the newly founded stateon a map of the imaginary: Croatia wasdepicted as an integral part of Europe, andEurope, in turn, was depicted as a centuries-old Schicksalsgemeinschaft—a communityformed by historical destiny—based onChristian values.

Another recent major international textanalysis project in Southeastern Europe wasthe “Balkan neighbors project,” whichinvolved researchers in Albania, Bulgaria,Greece, Macedonia, Romania, Turkey, andYugoslavia (Balkan Neighbours News-letter, 2000, Issue 10). It was also initiatedand financed by nongovernmental organi-zations. Between 1994 and 2000, the projectmonitored mainstream print media. Ineach country, a range of several dailies andweekly political magazines with a different

global perspective were selected for themonitoring process. Each affiliated researchcenter extracted from the press texts con-cerning the other countries involved in theproject as well as texts concerning national,ethnic, linguistic, and religious minoritieswithin the country. Within such texts,verbal realizations of stereotypes and preju-dices were located and analyzed. As theproject had a strong emphasis on dissemi-nation, findings were published at 6 monthlyintervals in a substantial news bulletin(Balkan Neighbours Newsletter, 1994–2000), which was circulated to opinionleaders in the different countries. The datawere also available on the internet (www.access.online.bg/bn/newsletters). Each bul-letin comprised a short description of theanalyzed papers, an overview of the majorpolitical events, and a contextualized com-pilation of the extracted stereotypes. Thelong monitoring period made it possible topin down moments of transformation ofparticular stereotypes in relation to certainevents. Transformations occurred not onlywhen armed conflict broke out but also,for example, after a major earthquake inTurkey, when Greece provided rapid help.

FEMINIST RESEARCH

Feminist readings of media texts haveboth an academic and a political focus (seeKuhn, 2000, 62ff). On one hand, manystudies have compared representations ofmen and women in magazines as well as innewspapers or on TV talk shows (seeEggins & Iedema, 1997; Kotthoff, 1997;Lalouschek, 2002; Wetschanow, 2003;Winship, 1986). On the other hand, femi-nist criticism focuses on a different decon-struction of texts, on “women’s genres”and the construction of femininity (seeKuhn, 1984). The aim of such studies isto question dichotomies and traditionaldistinctions, such as the public-private,the knowledge-pleasure, and the masculine-feminine splits (see also Marris &Thornham, 2000, pp. 330ff). The slogan

05-downing.qxd 7/27/2004 5:22 PM 5


that stems from the women’s liberationmovement—“the private is political”—hasbecome very important for these analyses,which also include soap operas, infotain-ment, talk shows, crime stories, thrillers,and so on.

These first relevant studies were comple-mented recently by an attempt to includerace, class, and ethnicity into such analyses(Squire, 2000). It was agreed that feministanalysis needs to be placed in context andthat discourse analysis of media aboutgender roles needs to be context dependent(see Kotthoff & Wodak, 1997). Muchwork has also followed postmodern think-ing (Brunsdon, 1991) by introducing newgenres, the concept of “fragmentation,”and an emphasis on deconstructing subjec-tivity and on the collapse of boundaries—including those of gender.

The study of Wetschanow (2003) ana-lyzes media reporting on violence againstwomen and on the reporting of rape cases inAustrian print media as well as TV.Although she concentrates on one centralEuropean country, the results could quiteeasily be generalized. By combining quanti-tative content analysis with qualitative criti-cal discourse analysis of media texts, sheillustrates convincingly how strategies of cat-egorization are significantly different for thevictims and perpetrators, as well as for menand women. The strategy of victim-perpetra-tor reversal is applied frequently, and themen who are accused of raping a woman areswitched into the role of passive victims whowere seduced and could not defend them-selves against their sexual drives. Women aredepicted as seductresses, as initiators, andthus possibly guilty of the harm done tothem. The adjectives employed as attributesmark these differences and characteristics.

The same pattern holds true for violence.Patricia O’Connor (2002) has investigatedand also worked with victims of violence(men and women), as well as with perpetra-tors in prisons. O’Connor (2002) andMcElhinny (1997) were able to demonstrateempirically, through their discourse analy-sis of interactions and media texts, that

officials, police officers, and bureaucratswere always represented benevolently,whereas the victims, often enough women,were blamed for being weak, not remem-bering accurately, or being noncompliant.They are thus doubly harassed: first in theterrible situation and context of violenceand, secondly, through the representationin the media and at court or through otherbureaucracies that define them.

Eggins and Iedema (1997) studied notonly the language of women’s magazines inAustralia but also the visual images ofwomen by employing important features ofHallidayan functional systemic grammarand visual grammar, developed by Kress andvan Leeuwen (1996) (see above). Eggins andIedema compared two Australian magazines,New Woman and She. Although both mag-azines express similar topical dimensions(orientation to appearance, to hetero-sexuality, to women and men in isolation[without other variables], etc.), they addressdifferent audiences: New Woman calls forwomen’s empowerment through individualchange and thus neutralizes the possibilityof real emancipation as a political process.She, in contrast, provides simple dichotomicanswers to and evaluations of complexproblems and constructs rigid boundariesbetween “women and men,” between the“good and bad,” the “beautiful and theugly,” and so on. The authors conclude thatthe magazines offer “difference withoutdiversity” and thus—they claim—stabilizethe status quo.

PERSPECTIVES

In our ever more globalizing world,media have gained more power. The impactof media on political developments anddecision making still has to be fullyexplored. Moreover, the influence of mediaon the production and reproduction ofbeliefs, opinions, stereotypes, prejudices,and ideologies also has to be thoroughlyinvestigated and compared throughoutdifferent countries worldwide. Qualitative



in-depth studies on audiences, reception,and perceptions of readers, viewers, or lis-teners are also missing.

The cultural influence of the U.S. mediaon other media (e.g., in Europe) has slowlystarted to be perceived. This influence isapparent in the construction of new genres,new public spaces, new modes of adver-tisement, and so on. The impact of trans-national media (such as CNN or ARTE)on identity construction has yet to beinvestigated.

Access to media is another relevant fac-tor. Who are the decision makers; who arethe journalists, producers, and investiga-tors; and who is represented and how? Andwho watches, listens, and reads what? Theproblem of media literacy and of the com-prehensibility of media poses big questionsfor participation in democratic societies.

Lastly, research is needed on new genres,which Lemke (2001) labels as “traversals,”as encompassing time and space, such asthe internet or channel surfing. Time-spacedistanciation and time-space compression(Giddens, 2000) have to be considered intheir impact on our access to information.

We do not believe that we have enumer-ated all the relevant phenomena, whichrequire more interdisciplinary and transdisci-plinary research. We hope to have made clearthat media research from a critical discourse-analytical point of view, in combination withmany other theoretical approaches, mightprovide some answers to all these importantquestions.

♦♦ Notes

1. See Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, andLiebhart (1999); Blommaert and Verschueren(1998); Martín-Rojo and van Dijk (1997); Pedro(1997); many editorials in Discourse & Societyover the years, specifically the debate betweenMichael Billig and Emanuel Schegloff (1999);Iedema and Wodak (1999); Wodak and Iedema(in press); Wodak and de Cillia (in press); andWodak & van Dijk (2000).

2. See Hall (2000a, 2000b); Fairclough(2000a, 2000b); Wodak et al. (1990); Wodak(2001a, 2001b); Reisigl and Wodak (2001);Matouschek, Januschek, and Wodak (1995); terWal (2002); Suleiman (2001); van Leeuwen(2000); Wodak and van Dijk (2000); van Dijk(1997, 1998); Stern (2000); Mitten (1992);Gruber (1991); and Wodak and Reisigl (1999).

3. See Wodak and Pelinka (2002).

♦♦ References

Anthonissen, C. (2001). On the effectivity ofmedia censorship: An analysis of linguistic,paralinguistic and other communicativedevices used to defy media restrictions.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-sity of Vienna.

Balkan Neighbours Newsletter. (1994–2000).Sofia, Bulgaria: ACCESS Association.

Barthes, R. (1994). Introduction a l’analysestructurale des récits [Introduction to thestructural analysis of narrative]. In Oeuvrescomplètes. Tome II. 1966–1973 [Completeworks: Vol. 2. 1966–1973]. (Edition estab-lished and presented by Éric Marty). Paris:Éditions du Seuil. (Original work published1966)

Baudrillard, J. (2000). The masses: The implosionof the social in the media. In P. Marris &S. Thornham (Eds.), Media studies (pp. 99–108). New York: New York University Press.

Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design.Language in Society, 13(2), 145–204.

Bell, A., & Garrett, P. (1998). Approaches tomedia discourse. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Benke, G. (2000). Diskursanalyse als sozialwis-senschaftliche Untersuchungsmethode[Discourse analysis as social sciencemethodology]. SWS Rundschau, 40(2),140–162.

Bentahlia, A., & Davies, E. (2002). Languagemixing in rai music: Localisation or global-isation? Language & Communication, 22,187–207.

Billig, M. (2002). Critical discourse andanalysis. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.),



Critical discourse analysis: Theory andinterdisciplinarity. London: Macmillan.

Billig, M., & Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Debate:Critical discourse analysis and conversationanalysis. Discourse & Society, 10(4),543–582.

Blommaert, J., & Verschueren, J. (1998). Thediversity debate. London: Routledge.

Boyd-Barrett, O., Nootens, J., & Pugh, A.(1996). Multilingualism and the massmedia. In P. Nelde, Z. Stary, & W. Wölk(Eds.), Kontaktlinguistik. Ein interna-tionales Handbuch zeitgenössischerForschung [Contact linguistics: An interna-tional manual of contemporary research](Vol. 1, pp. 426–431). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Brünner, G., & Graefen, G. (Eds.). (1994).Texte und Diskurse [Texts and discourses].Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Brunsdon, C. (1991). Pedagogies of the feminine:Feminist teaching and women’s genres.Screen, 32(4), 360–383.

Busch, B. (1999a). Der virtuelle Dorfplatz.Minderheitenmedien, Globalisierung undkulturelle Identität [The virtual villagesquare: Minority media, globalization, andcultural identity]. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava.

Busch, B. (1999b). Von Minderheitenmedienzu Medien in multilingualen & multikul-turellen Situationen. Versuch eines Über-blicks über das Forschungsfeld [Fromminority media to media in multilingual andmulticultural context: Overview of the fieldof research]. Medienjournal, 23(2), 3–12.

Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999).Discourse in late modernity: Rethinkingcritical discourse analysis. Edinburgh, UK:Edinburgh University Press.

Connerton, P. (1996). How societies remember.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress. (Original work published 1976)

de Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. U. (1981).Einführung in die Textlinguistik [Intro-duction to text linguistics]. Tübingen,Germany: Nie.

Eggins, S., & Iedema, R. (1997). Differencewithout diversity: Semantic orientation andideology in competing women’s magazines.In R. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse(pp. 165–196). London: Sage.

Erjavec, C., Hrvatin, S., & Kelbl, B. (2000). Weabout the Roma: Discriminatory discoursein the media in Slovenia. Ljubljana, Slovenia:Open Society Institute.

Essed, P. (1993). Everyday racism. London: Sage.Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power.

London: Longman.Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analy-

sis: The critical study of language. London:Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2000a). Critical analysis of mediadiscourse. In P. Marris & S. Thornham (Eds.),Media studies (pp. 308–325). New York:New York University Press.

Fairclough, N. (2000b). The discourse of socialexclusion. In M. Reisigl & R. Wodak(Eds.), The semiotics of racism (pp. 65–84).Vienna: Passagen Verlag.

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Criticaldiscourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk(Ed.), Introduction to discourse analysis(pp. 258–284). London: Sage.

Fay, B. (1987). Critical social science. London:Polity.

Fiske, J. (1989). Television culture. London:Routledge. (Original work published 1987)

Fowler, R. (1991). Critical linguistics. InK. Halmkjaer (Ed.), The linguistic encyclo-pedia (pp. 89–93). London: Routledge.

Fowler, R. (1996). Linguistic criticism. Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press.

Fowler, R., Kress, G., Hodge, R., & Trew, T.(Eds.). (1979). Language and control.London: Routledge.

Gambier, Y. (Ed.). (1997). Les transfertslinguistiques dans les médias audiovisuels[Linguistic transfers in the audiovisualmedia]. Villeneuve d’Ascq, France: Pressesuniversitaires du Septentrion.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodol-ogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Garrett, P., & Bell, A. (1998). Media discourse:A critical overview. In A. Bell & P. Garrett(Eds.), Approaches to media discourse(pp. 1–21). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Giddens, A. (2000). Sociology. London: Polity.Glasgow University Media Group. (1976). Bad

news. London: Routledge.Glasgow University Media Group. (1980). More

bad news. London: Routledge.



Glasgow University Media Group. (1985). Warand peace news. Buckingham, UK: OpenUniversity Press.

Greatbach, D. (1986). Aspects of topical organi-sation in news interviews: The use of agenda-shifting procedures by news interviewees.Media, Culture and Society, 8(4), 441–455.

Grin, F. (1996). Plurilinguisme en matière de pub-licité [Plurilinguism as regards advertising]. InP. Nelde, Z. Stary, & W. Wölk (Eds.), Kon-taktlinguistik. Ein internationales Hand-buch zeitgenössischer Forschung [Contactlinguistics: An international manual of con-temporary research] (Vol. 1, pp. 438–444).Berlin: de Gruyter.

Gruber, H. (1991). Antisemitismus imMediendiskurs. Die Affäre “Waldheim” inder Tagespresse [Antisemitism into mediadiscourse: The “Waldheim” affair in thedaily press]. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Univer-sitätsverlag/Westdeutscher Verlag.

Habermas, J. (2000). The public space. InP. Marris & S. Thornham (Eds.), Mediastudies (pp. 92–98). New York: New YorkUniversity Press.

Hall, S. (2000a). Encoding/decoding. In P. Marris& S. Thornham (Eds.), Media studies(pp. 51–61). New York: New York Univer-sity Press.

Hall, S. (2000b). Racist ideologies and themedia. In P. Marris & S. Thornham (Eds.),Media studies (pp. 271–282). New York:New York University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as socialsemiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Introduction to func-tional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews:Aspects of the production of talk for over-hearing audiences. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.),Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 3,pp. 95–119). London: Academic Press.

Hutchby, I. (1991). The organisation of talk onradio. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk(pp. 119–137). London: Sage.

Iedema, R., & Wodak, R. (1999). Introduction:Organizational discourses and practices.Discourse & Society, 10(1), 5–19.

Jäger, M., & Jäger, S. (1993). Verstrickungen—Der rassistische Diskurs und seine Bedeutung

für den politischen Gesamtdiskurs in derBundesrepublik Deutschland. [Entangled:racist discourse and its significance for overallpolitical discourse in the Federal Republicof Germany]. In S. Jäger & J. Link (Eds.),Die vierte Gewalt: Rassismus und die Medien[The fourth force: Racism and the media](pp. 49–79). Duisburg: DISS.

Jäger, S. (1993). Kritische Diskursanalyse. EineEinführung [Critical discourse analysis: Anintroduction]. Duisburg, Germany: DISS.

Jäger, S. (2001). Discourse and knowledge:Theoretical and methodological aspects ofcritical discourse analysis. In R. Wodak &M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical dis-course analysis (pp. 32–62). London: Sage.

Jäger, S., & Jäger, M. (1999). Kritische Dis-kursanalyse. Eine Einführung [Critical dis-course analysis: An introduction]. Duisburg,Germany: DISS.

Jensen, K. B., & Jankowski, N. W. (1991). Ahandbook of qualitative methodologies formass communication research. London:Routledge.

Kotthoff, H. (1997). The interactional achieve-ment of expert status: Creating asymmetriesby “teaching conversational lectures” in TVdiscussions. In H. Kotthoff & R. Wodak(Eds.), Communicating gender in context(pp. 139–178). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kotthoff, H., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (1997). Com-municating gender in context. Amsterdam:Benjamins.

Kress, G. (1990). Critical discourse analysis.Annual Review of Anthropology, 11, 84–97.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Readingimages. London: Routledge.

Krings, H., Baumgartner, H. M., & Wildly, C.(1973). Handbuch philosophischer Grund-begriffe [Handbook of philosophical funda-mental concepts]. Frankfurt: Kösel.

Kuhn, A. (1984). Women’s genres. Screen,25(1), 18–28.

Kuhn, A. (2000). The power of the image. InP. Marris & S. Thornham (Eds.), Mediastudies (pp. 62–67). New York: New YorkUniversity Press.

Kuzmanic, T. (1999). Hate speech in Slovenia:Slovenian racism, sexism and chauvinism.Ljubljana, Slovenia: Open Society Institute.



Lalouschek, J. (2002). Gesundheitkommunikationim Fernsehen [Communication on healthproblems in TV]. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, University of Vienna.

Leitner, G. (1997). The sociolingistics of com-munication media. In F. Coulmas (Ed.),Handbook of sociolingistics (pp. 187–204).Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse andsocial dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.

Lemke, J. (2001). Discursive technologies andthe social organization of meaning. FoliaLinguistica, 35(1–2), 79–96.

Leontjev, A. N. (1984). Der allgemeineTätigkeitsbegriff [The general activity term].In A. A. Leontjev, A. N. Leontjev, & E. G.Judin (Eds.), Grundfragen einer Theorie dersprachlichen Tätigkeit [Basic questions of atheory of linguistic activity] (pp. 13–30).Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Link, J. (1988). Über Kollektivsymbolik im poli-tischen Diskurs und ihren Anteil an total-itären Tendenzen [Collective symbols inpolitical discourses and their impact ontotalitarian tendencies]. kultuRRevolution,17–18, 47–53.

Lutz, B., & Wodak, R. (1987). Information fürInformierte [Information for the informed].Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Marris, P., & Thornham, S. (Eds.). (2000). Mediastudies. New York: New York UniversityPress.

Martín-Rojo, L., & van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Therewas a problem and it was solved: Legiti-mation of the expulsion of illegal immi-grants in Spanish parliamentary discourse.Discourse & Society, 8(4), 523–567.

Matouschek, B., Januschek, F., & Wodak, R.(1995). Notwendige Massnahmen gegenFremde? [Necessary measures against for-eigners?]. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.

McElhinny, B. (1997). Ideologies of public andprivate language in sociolinguistics. InR. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse(pp. 106–139). London: Sage.

McQuail, D. (2000). Mass communicationtheory (4th ed.). London: Sage.

Meinhof, U. (1994). Double talk in news broad-casts. In D. Graddol & O. Boyd-Barrett(Eds.), Media texts: Authors and readers

(pp. 212–223). Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters and The Open University.

Meinhof, U., & Smith, J. (2000). Intertextualityand the media: From genre to everyday life.Manchester, UK: Manchester UniversityPress.

Mitten, R. (1992). The politics of antisemiticprejudice: The Waldheim phenomenon inAustria. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Morley, D. (1980). The “Nationwide” audience.London: British Film Institute.

Muntigl, P., Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2000).European Union discourses on unemploy-ment: An interdisciplinary approach toemployment policy-making and organiza-tional change. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

O’Connor, P. (2002). Activist linguistics: Insideour method/inside our theory. In G. Weiss& R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourseanalysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity(pp. 223–241). London: Macmillan.

Pedro, E. R. (1997). Discourse analysis. Lisbon:Ed. Colibri/Associação Portuguesa deLinguística.

Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2000). Thesemiotics of racism. Vienna: PassagenVerlag.

Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse anddiscrimination. London: Routledge.

Richardson, K. (1998). Signs and wonders:Interpreting the economy through televi-sion. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Newapproaches to media discourse (pp. 220–251).London: Blackwell.

Richardson, K., & Meinhof, U. (1999). Worldsin common? Television discourse in achanging Europe. London: Routledge.

Robins, K. (Ed.). (1997). Programming forpeople: From cultural rights to culturalresponsibilities (Report for the UnitedNations Television Forum, New York,November 19–21, 1997). Rome: RAI.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974).A simplest systematics for the organisationof turn-taking in conversation. Language,50, 696–735.

Schegloff, E. (1998). Text and context paper.Discourse & Society, 3, 4–37.

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse.Oxford, UK: Blackwell.



Scollon, R. (1999). Mediated discourse analysis.London: Longman.

Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated discourse: Thenexus of practice. London: Routledge.

Skiljan, D. (2000). Semantics of war. In N.Skopljanac Brunner, S. Gredelji, A. Hodzic,& B. Kristofic (Eds.), Media and war.Zagreb, Croatia: Centre for Transition andCivil Society Research.

Skopljanac Brunner, N., Gredelj, S., Hodzic, A.,& Kristofic, B. (Eds.). (2000). Media andwar. Zagreb, Croatia: Centre for Transitionand Civil Society Research.

Squire, A. V. (2000). Prinzessin Diana [PrincessDiana]. Working paper, University ofVienna.

Stern, F. (2000). The “Semitic” gaze from thescreen: Cinematic discourse of the other. InM. Reisigl & R. Wodak (Eds.), The semi-otics of racism: Approaches in critical dis-course analysis (pp. 351–362). Vienna:Passagen Verlag.

Suleiman, U. (2001). The other-territory-peace.Working paper, University of Vienna.

ter Wal, J. (Ed.). (2002). Racism and culturaldiversity in the mass media: An overview ofresearch and examples of good practice inthe EU member states, 1995–2000. Vienna:European Research Centre on Migrationand Ethnic Relations.

Thompson, J. B. (1988). Critical hermeneutics(4th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Titscher, S., Wodak, R., Meyer, M., & Vetter, E.(2000). Methods of text and discourseanalysis. London: Sage.

Valic, N. D. (1997). Ricocheting words. Belgrade:Argument.

van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Prejudice in discourse.Amsterdam: Benjamins.

van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1986). Discourse andcommunication: New approaches to theanalysis of mass media discourse and com-munication. Berlin: de Gruyter.

van Dijk, T. A. (1988a). News analysis.New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

van Dijk, T. A. (1988b). News as discourse.New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the press.London: Routledge.

van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of criticaldiscourse analysis. Discourse & Society,4(2), 249–283.

van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as social inter-action. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisci-plinary study. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis.In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton(Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp.352–371). Oxford, UK: Oxford UniversityPress.

van Dijk, T. A. (2002). The discourse-knowledgeinterface. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.),Critical discourse analysis: Theory andinterdisciplinarity (pp. 85–109). London:Macmillan.

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

van Leeuwen, T. (1993). Language and represen-tation: The recontextualisation of partici-pants, activities and reactions. Departmentof Linguistics thesis, University of Sydney,Sydney, Australia.

van Leeuwen, T. (2000). Visual racism. In M.Reisigl & R. Wodak (Eds.), The semioticsof racism: Approaches in critical discourseanalysis (pp. 363–391). Vienna: PassagenVerlag.

Wetschanow, K. (2003). Vergewaltigung. Einediskursanalytische Studie zur medialenRepräsentationspolitik in Österreich [Rape:A discourse-analytical study of the politicsof representation in Austria]. Unpublisheddissertation, University of Vienna.

Winship, E. C. (1986). Reaching your teenager.Munich, Germany: Reinhardt.

Wistrich, J. (2002, June). Islam, Israel and thenew anti-Semitism. Paper presented at theInstitut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universityof Vienna.

Wodak, R. (1996a). Disorders in discourse.London: Longman.

Wodak, R. (1996b). The genesis of racist dis-course in Austria since 1989. In C. R.Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.),Texts and practices: Readings in criticaldiscourse analysis (pp. 107–128). London:Routledge.



Wodak, R. (2000). Recontextualisation and thetransformation of meaning: A critical dis-course analysis of decision making in EU-meetings about employment policies. InS. Sarangi & M. Coulthard (Eds.),Discourse and social life (pp. 185–206).Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

Wodak, R. (2001a). The discourse-historicalapproach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.),Methods of critical discourse analysis(pp. 63–94). London: Sage.

Wodak, R. (2001b). What CDA is about—asummary of its history, important conceptsand its developments. In R. Wodak &M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical dis-course analysis (pp. 1–13). London: Sage.

Wodak, R., & de Cillia, R. (in press). Discourseand politics. In U. Ammon & K. Mattheier(Eds.), Handbuch Soziolinguistik [Hand-book of sociolinguistics]. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., &Liebhart, K. (1999). The discursive con-struction of national identity. Edinburgh,UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Wodak, R., & Iedema, R. (in press). Com-munication in institutions. In U. Ammon &

K. Mattheier (Eds.), Handbuch Soziolinguistik[Handbook of sociolinguistics]. Berlin: deGruyter.

Wodak, R., Menz, F., Mitten, R., & Stern, F.(1994). Die Sprachen der Vergangenheiten:öffentliches Gedenken in österreichischenund deutschen Medien [The languages ofpast times. Public memory in Austrianand German media]. Frankfurt/Main:Suhrkamp.

Wodak, R., & Pelinka, A. (Eds.). (2002). TheHaider phenomenon. New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Press.

Wodak, R., Pelikan, J., Nowak, P., Gruber, H.,de Cillia, R., & Mitten, R. (1990). Wir sindalle unschuldige Täter! DiskurshistorischeStudien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus[“We are all innocent perpetrators!”Discourse-historical studies of postwarantisemitism]. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

Wodak, R., & Reisigl, M. (1999). Discourse andracism: European perspectives. AnnualReview of Anthropology, 28, 175–199.

Wodak, R., & van Dijk, T. (Eds.). (2000).Racism at the top. Klagenfurt, Austria:Drava.


approaches to media texts

Documents