Abstract
In this response to a critique by Hugh Tyrwhitt-Drake of an earlier article (Flowerdew, 1997a), this paper discusses questions of description and interpretation in critical discourse analysis (CDA). In particular it discusses these issues under the following five postulates: CDA does not deal with 'facts'; CDA is reflexive; CDA is open to multiple readings; CDA must be plausible; and CDA is subject to the same limitations of linguistic communication as any other discipline. © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1089-1099 |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue number | 8 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Aug 1999 |
Research Keywords
- Critical discourse analysis
- Description
- Implicature
- Interpretation
- Reflexive relationship
- Rhetoric
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Description and interpretation in critical discourse analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver