Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Critique of Anthropology
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 Slembrouck, S.
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?

Explanation, Interpretation and Critique in the Analysis of Discourse

Stef Slembrouck

Department of English, Ghent University, Belgium

The first half of this article offers an assessment of critical discourse analysis, as developed since the 1980s and understood at the time in terms of a much-needed departure from predominantly descriptive modes of linguistic enquiry which prevented an adequate thematization of power, inequality and ideology. In this review I draw attention to some enduring tensions in the model’s aspirations between (1) being an interpretative mode of enquiry which inevitably adopts a discourse participant’s point of view, (2) offering social-theoretically informed explanations of discourse which overcome limitations inherent in a participant’s outlook and (3) formulating an interventionist programme of emancipation which prioritizes dialogue with institutional members. With an eye to relieving some of these tensions, I explore, in the second half of my article, what might be gained from a dialogic confrontation with reflexive research traditions within linguistic anthropology. In particular, recent work on the ‘natural histories of discourse’ takes the situatedness of entextualizations of discourse-in-context as one of its main forces of enquiry.

Key Words: critical discourse analysis • critique • institutional intervention • natural history of discourse • (re)contextualization/entextualization

Critique of Anthropology, Vol. 21, No. 1, 33-57 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/0308275X0102100103
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
 Health (London)Home page
J. Cherrington and M. Breheny
Politicizing dominant discursive constructions about teenage pregnancy: re-locating the subject as social
Health (London) , January 1, 2005; 9(1): 89 - 111.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Discourse StudiesHome page
S. Slembrouck
Book Reviews
Discourse Studies, August 1, 2003; 5(3): 444 - 446.
[PDF]