CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 224Cultural and political discourse analysisLinguistics and Education ResearchMedia Discourse and Social Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 154 of the 178 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Análisis Crítico del Discurso

Open access
Van Dijk, Teun A.·2016·Revista Austral de Ciencias Sociales
DOI 10.4206/rev.austral.cienc.soc.2016.n30-10
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Este artículo proporciona una revisión actualizada de un campo de investigación conocido comúnmente como Análisis Crítico del Discurso (ACD).Primero se esclarecen algunos aspectos sensibles asociados con su carácter multidisciplinar y disidente.Luego se introduce un marco teórico triádico basado en la relación entre discurso, cognición y sociedad, con el cual se abordan los modos como los grupos hegemónicos controlan el texto y el contexto y, en consecuencia, la mente de las personas, las dimensiones macro y micro de las estructuras sociales donde dicho control discursivo se manifiesta, y sus formas de dominación más prominentes como son el abuso de poder y la desigualdad social.Después se repasan algunas investigaciones de ACD sobre discurso y género, discurso y racismo, y discurso y poder mediático, político, profesional e institucional.Se concluye apuntando ciertos pendientes teóricos y metodológicos, que enfatizan la necesidad de contar con una interfaz cognitiva manifiesta, una adecuada integración entre orientaciones lingüísticas y sociopolíticas, y una atención más decidida hacia discursos de contrapoder o resistencia, entre otros.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4206/rev.austral.cienc.soc.2016.n30-10

Cites

154 of 154 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 178 references

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Clark, K. 1992. "The linguistics of blame: Representation of women in The Sun's reporting of crimes of sexual violence". Language, text and context: Essays in stylistics. Londres: Routledge. 208-224.
  2. Cotter, C. 2015. "Discourse and Media". The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (2nd Ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 795- 821.
  3. Drake, A. 2009. New essays on the frankfurt school of critical theory. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
  4. Riggins, S. (Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 131-152.
  5. Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G. y Trew, T. 1979. Language and control. Londres: Routledge y Kegan Paul.
  6. Henley, N., Miller, M. y Beazley, J. 1995. "Syntax, semantics, and sexual violence: Agency and the passive voice". Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, (1-2), 60-84.
  7. Johnson-Laird, P. 1983. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  8. Knorr-Cetina, K. y Cicourel, A. 1981. Advances in social theory and methodology: Towards an integration of micro-and macrosociologies. Londres: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  9. Markova, I. y Foppa, K. (Eds.). Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 75-100.
  10. Lukes, S. 1986. Power. Oxford: Blackwell.
  11. Martin, J. 1998. Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.
  12. Matoesian, G. 1993. Reproducing rape: Domination through talk in the courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  13. Nesler, M., Aguinis, H., Quigley, B. y Tedeschi, J. 1993. "The effect of credibility on perceived power". Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, (17): 1407-1425.
  14. van Dijk, T. 2008b. Discourse and power. Basingstoke y Nueva York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  15. van Dijk, T. 1991. Racism and the press. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.
  16. Wodak, R. y Reisigl, M. 2015. "Discourse and Racism". The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (2nd Ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 576-596.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Van Dijk, T. A.
Venue
Revista Austral de Ciencias Sociales
Publisher
Sistema de Bibliotecas UACH
Published
2016
Issue
30
Pages
203-222
ISSN
  • 0717-3202 (ISSN-L)
  • 0718-1795
DOI
10.4206/rev.austral.cienc.soc.2016.n30-10
OpenAlex
W2969613294
Cited by
224
References
178
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
14.58
Type
journal article
Language
es
Open access
Locations
  • Revista Austral de Ciencias Sociales (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Cultural and political discourse analysis
  • Social Sciences › Education › Linguistics and Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Discourse and Social Analysis
Keywords
critical discourse analysis, discursive control, hegemonic groups, power and domination, social inequality, media power, resistance discourse, cognitive interface

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