Basic Theoretical Insights on Ideology and Discourse Analysis

  • Mohamed Douifi
Part of the Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse book series (PSDS)


The purpose of this concise introductory chapter is to demarcate the overarching theoretical boundaries of the adopted conceptual framework and to expound, in some detail, the underlying rationale of the research design and methodology. It is intended to critically survey the major theoretical trends that scrutinized the organic nexus between language and ideology, notably those falling under the broad realm of (Critical) Discourse Studies. Primarily, this is made through recurrent references to a mosaic of Marxist interpretations and a few other language-oriented perspectives from the (post)structuralist theory.


  1. Althusser, L. (2006). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). The Anthropology of the State: A Reader, 9(1), 86–98.Google Scholar
  2. Arthur, C. (Ed.). (1970). The German ideology. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Barth, H. (1976). Truth and ideology (trans: Lilge, F.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Penguin Putnam.Google Scholar
  5. Birkland, T. (1997). After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cammett, J. M. (1967). Antonio Gramsci and the origins of Italian communism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Cox, R. W., & Sinclair, T. J. (1996). Approaches to world order. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  10. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fairclough, N. (2013a). Language and power (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Fairclough, N. (2013b). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 258–284). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  17. Forgacs, D. (Ed.). (2000). The Gramsci reader: Selected writings 1916–1935. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  19. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (trans: Sheridan, A.). London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  20. Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Fowler, R., Hodge, R., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  22. Garzone, G., & Sarangi, S. (Eds.). (2007). Discourse, ideology and ethics in specialized communication. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  23. Gee, J. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Graber, D. A. (1981). Political languages. In D. D. Nimmo & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 195–223). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (trans. and Eds. Hoare, Q., & Nowell Smith, G.). London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  26. Gregor, J. A. (2003). Metascience and politics: An inquiry into the conceptual language of political science. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Hall, S. (1996). Gramsci’s relevance for the study of race and ethnicity. In D. Morley & K. H. Chen (Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies (pp. 411–440). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Harris, Z. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language, 28(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Head, B. W. (1985). Ideology and social science: Destutt de Tracy and French liberalism. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holub, R. (1992). Antonio Gramsci: Beyond Marxism and postmodernism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Hotlgraves, T. M. (2002). Language as social action: Social psychology and language use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  32. Howson, R., & Smith, K. (Eds.). (2008). Hegemony: Studies in consensus and coercion. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Ives, P. (2004). Language and hegemony in Gramsci. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  34. Iyengar, S. (1990). The accessibility bias in politics: Television news and public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, S. (2006). Antonio Gramsci. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Krieger, J. (Ed.). (2013). The Oxford companion to comparative politics (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Krosnick, J., & Brannon, L. A. (1993). The impact of war on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: George Bush and the Gulf conflict. American Political Science Review, 87, 963–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuypers, J. A. (2002). Press bias and politics: How the media frame controversial issues. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  42. Leftwich, A. (1983). Redefining politics: People, resources, and power. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  43. MacDonnell, D. (1986). Theories of discourse. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  44. McNally, M., & Schwarzmantel, J. (Eds.). (2009). Gramsci and global politics: Hegemony and resistance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Morton, A. D. (2003). Historicizing Gramsci: Situating ideas in and beyond their context. Review of International Political Economy, 10(1), 118–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nye, J. S. (2011). The future of power. Philadelphia: Perseus Books Group.Google Scholar
  47. Pêcheux, M. (1982). Language, semantics, and ideology: Stating the obvious (trans: Nagpal, H.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. Rubinstein, N. (1987). The history of the word politicus in early-modern Europe. In A. Pagden (Ed.), The languages of political theory early-modern Europe (pp. 41–56). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schake, K. N. (2009). Managing American hegemony: Essays on power in a time of dominance. Stanford, CA: Hoover University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Spariosu, M. (1989). Dionysus reborn: Play and the aesthetic dimension in modern philosophical and scientific discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Ulrich, R. (1994). Linguistics, anthropology and philosophy in the French enlightenment: A contribution to the history of the relationship between language theory and ideology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  53. Van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Ideological discourse analysis. The New Courant, 4, 135–161.Google Scholar
  56. Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis. In J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Political linguistics (pp. 11–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  57. Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Walker, M. (Ed.). (2003). Science and ideology: A comparative history. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Weiner, I. B., Healy, A. F., & Proctor, R. W. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of psychology: Experimental psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  60. Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (Eds.). (2001). Discourse theory and practice. Oxford: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Williams, R. (1980). Base and superstructure in Marxist cultural theory. In R. Williams (Ed.), Problems in materialism and culture: Selected essays (pp. 31–49). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  63. Zavala, I. M., van Dijk, T. A., & Diaz-Diocaretz, M. (Eds.). (1987). Approaches to discourse, poetics and psychiatry. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Douifi
    • 1
  1. 1.English DepartmentUniversity of Algiers-2AlgiersAlgeria

Personalised recommendations