Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 785

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies

·2017·Routledge eBooks

Abstract

There are two ways to set up a discussion of critical discourse analysis and media studies. First, we would privilege something called Critical Discourse Analysis, the capitalized identity embodied in the acronym\n“CDA”.\n This approach has some obvious advantages. It gives an immediate focus and coherence to the discussion. It suggests reflection on a particular research tradition now well-known across the social sciences. The second approach would be wary of an institutionalized CDA identity....

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 · 10.4324/9781315739342

Cites

34 of 34 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 34 references

Cited by

See all 785

Metadata

Venue
Routledge eBooks
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2017-07-06
OpenAlex
W2905314843
Cited by
785
References
34
FWCI
56.77
Type
book
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: The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9781315739342
The paper
The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. (2017). Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739342

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.