Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Discourse & Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Van Dijk, T. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Critical discourse analysis and nominalization: problem or pseudo-problem?

Teun A. Van Dijk

POMPEU FABRA UNIVERSITY, SPAIN

This reply to Billig's article emphasizes that, as for all discourse, one should not only analyse texts, but also their contexts. The issue is not the primary use or abuse of nominalization or any other feature of discourse in CDA, but the study of the systematic abuse of discursive power by hiding the negative role of elite actors and the consequences of such discourse properties on the mental models of the recipients. CDA scholars do not study nominalizations in isolation, but within the text and context of the discourses studied critically. Of course they know that nominalizations have many other functions beyond these forms of obfuscation. If CDA itself uses nominalizations in its analytical discourse it does so like any scientific discourse. Because in this case there is no question of hiding the negative role of powerful actors, Billig's criticism is pointless, and creates a pseudo-problem. Finally a psychological basis for the description of nominalization is supplied, as Billig expects, but such an explanation cannot be provided by discursive psychology (DP), contrary to what Billig suggests, because DP explicitly rejects such cognitive analyses of language use.

Key Words: CDA • cognitive processing • context • context models • critical discourse analysis • discourse production • ideology • mental models • nominalization • power

Discourse & Society, Vol. 19, No. 6, 821-828 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0957926508095897


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Discourse SocietyHome page
J. E. Bonnin
Religious and political discourse in Argentina: the case of reconciliation
Discourse Society, May 1, 2009; 20(3): 327 - 343.
[Abstract] [PDF]