The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Discourse: Definitions and contradictions
Abstract
With the question “What is ‘discourse?’ “ as the starting point, this paper addresses ways of identifying particular discourses, and attends to how these discourses should be distinguished from texts. The emergence of discourse analysis within psychology, and the continuing influence of linguistic and post‐structuralist ideas on practitioners, provide the basis on which discourse‐analytic research can be developed fruitfully. This paper discusses the descriptive, analytic and educative functions of discourse analysis, and addresses the cultural and political questions which arise when discourse analysts reflect on their activity. Suggestions for an adequate definition of discourse are proposed and supported by seven criteria which should be adopted to identify discourses, and which attend to contradictions between and within them. Three additional criteria are then suggested to relate discourse analysis to wider political issues.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Austin, J. L. (1975) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 · Cited by 21,496
Cited by
Dilemmas in qualitative health research
Yardley, L. (2000) · Psychology & Health · doi:10.1080/08870440008400302 · Cited by 2,310
Metadata
- Authors
- Parker, I.
- Venue
- Philosophical Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1990-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 187-204
- ISSN
- 0951-5089 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-394X
- OpenAlex
- W2155961540
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Discourse: Definitions and contradictions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09515089008572998
- The paper
- Parker, I. (1990). Discourse: Definitions and contradictions. Philosophical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089008572998
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
