Critical Discourse Analysis: Exploring its Philosophical Underpinnings

References

• Ainsworth, S., and C. Hardy. 2004. “Critical Discourse Analysis and Identity: Why Bother?” Critical Discourse Studies 1: 225–59. doi: 10.1080/1740590042000302085
   Google Scholar
• Alcoff, L. 1991. “The Problem of Speaking for Others.” Cultural Critique 20: 5–32. doi: 10.2307/1354221
   Google Scholar
• Althusser, L. 1971. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blommaert, J., and C. Bulcaen. 2000. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 447–66. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.447
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. 1973. “The Three Forms of Theoretical Knowledge.” Social Science Information 12: 53–80. doi: 10.1177/053901847301200103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. 1977. “The Economics of Linguistic Exchanges.” Social Science Information 16: 645–68. doi: 10.1177/053901847701600601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. 2003. “Participant objectivation.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9: 281–294. doi: 10.1111/1467-9655.00150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breeze, R. 2011. “Critical Discourse Analysis and its Critics.” Pragmatics 21: 493–525. doi: 10.1075/prag.21.4.01bre
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilisa, B. 2012. Indigenous Research Methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Emerson, R. M., R. I. Fretz, and L. L. Shaw. 2011. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 2001. “Critical Discourse Analysis as a Method in Social Scientific Research.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. pp. 121–138, edited by R. Wodak and M. Meyer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 2008. “The Language of Critical Discourse Analysis: Reply to Michael Billig.” Discourse & Society 19: 811–19. doi: 10.1177/0957926508095896
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 2013. “Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Policy Studies.” Critical Policy Studies 7: 177–97. doi: 10.1080/19460171.2013.798239
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N., and R. Wodak. 1997. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In Discourse as Social Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 258–284), edited by T. A. Van Dijk. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1971. “Orders of Discourse.” Social Science Information 10: 7–30. doi: 10.1177/053901847101000201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1986. “What Is an Author?” In Critical Theory Since 1965 (pp. 138–148), edited by H. Adams and L. Searle. University Press of Florida.
   Google Scholar
• Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: E. Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Harding, S. 1995. “‘Strong Objectivity’: A Response to the New Objectivity Question.” Synthese 104: 331–49. doi: 10.1007/BF01064504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkesworth, M. 2006. “Contending Conceptions of Science and Politics: Methodology and the Constitution of the Political.” In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn (pp. 27–49), edited by D. Yanow and P. Schwartz-Shea. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Hume, D. 2007. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Janks, H. 1997. “Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 18: 329–42.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. C. 2011. “Critical Discourse Analysis and the Ethnography of Language Policy.” Critical Discourse Studies 8: 267–79. doi: 10.1080/17405904.2011.601636
   Google Scholar
• Kamler, B., B. Comber, and J. Cook. 1997. “Introduction: Critical Discourse Analysis, or Life after the Linguistic Turn.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 18: 325–7.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kvale, S., and S. Brinkmann. 2009. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lather, P. 1993. “Fertile Obsession: Validity after Poststructuralism.” The Sociological Quarterly 34: 673–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00112.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lather, P. 2006. “Paradigm Proliferation as a Good thing to think with: Teaching Research in Education as a Wild Profusion.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 19: 35–57. doi: 10.1080/09518390500450144
   Google Scholar
• Lopez, K. A., and D. G. Willis. 2004. “Descriptive Versus Interpretive Phenomenology: Their Contributions to Nursing Knowledge.” Qualitative Health Research 14: 726–35. doi: 10.1177/1049732304263638
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupton, D. 1995. “Postmodernism and Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse and Society 6: 302–4. doi: 10.1177/0957926595006002014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehta, S., and P. Ninnes. 2003. “Postmodernism Debates and Comparative Education: A Critical Discourse Analysis.” Comparative Education Review 47: 238–55. doi: 10.1086/376538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okasha, S. 2002. Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pêcheux, M. 1982. Language, Semantics, and Ideology: Stating the Obvious. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Regmi, K. D. 2016. “Critiquing Hegemony of Capitalism: A Call for Popular Education.” International Critical Thought 6: 190–208. doi: 10.1080/21598282.2016.1172326
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricardo, D. 1891. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: G. Bell.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, R., E. Malancharuvil-Berkes, M. Mosley, D. Hui, and G. O. Joseph. 2005. “Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A Review of the Literature.” Review of Educational Research 75: 365–416. doi: 10.3102/00346543075003365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rostow, W. W. 1990. The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Said, E. W. 1978. Orientalism. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Saussure, F. D. 1966. Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Pennsylvania State University (Electronic Classics Series Collection). Retrieved from: http://worldlibrary.org/collection.aspx?collection=67).
   Google Scholar
• Smith, L. T. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Dunedin: Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Spivak, G. C., and R. C. Morris. 2010. Can the Subaltern Speak?: Reflections on the History of an Idea. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stiglitz, J. E. 2002. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. 1994. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse and Society 5: 435–6. doi: 10.1177/0957926594005004001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wodak, R. 2011. “Critical Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis.” In Discursive Pragmatics: A Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights (pp. 50–70), edited by J. Zienkowski, J. Ostman, and J. Verschueren. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Young, L., and C. Harrison. 2004. Systemic Functional Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis: Studies in Social Change. New York: Continuum International.
   Google Scholar
• Yu, F. 2011. “On Evaluation of the Theoretical Soundness of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 1: 875–8.
   Google Scholar