Language and Discourse in Contemporary South African Politics: A Critical Discourse Analysis

References

• Allen, W. 2007. “Australian Political Discourse: Pronominal Choice in Campaign Speeches.” In Selected Papers from the 2006 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, edited by M. Laughren and I. Mushin. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:12794
   Google Scholar
• Al-Rassam, E. M. 2010. “Analyzing Political Discourse: Towards a Pragmatic Approach.” College of Basic Education Researchers Journal 10 (1): 528–552.
   Google Scholar
• Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon.
   Google Scholar
• Beard, A. 2000. The Language of Politics. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Blom, J. P., and J. Gumperz. 1972 “Social Meaning in Linguistic Structure: Code-Switching in Norway.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, edited by J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, 407–434.
   Google Scholar
• Bretton H. L. 1976. “Political Science, Language, and Politics.” In Language and Politics, edited by W. M. O’Barr and J. F. O’Barr, 432–448. The Hague: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Charteris-Black, J. 2011. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230319899
   Google Scholar
• Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218
   Google Scholar
• Cockcroft, R., and S. M. Cockcroft. 1992. Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric. London: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22254-4
   Google Scholar
• De Wet, J. C. The Art of Persuasive Communication: A Process. 3rd ed. Cape Town: Juta.
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, G., and M. Cobb. 1999. “The Candidate as Catastrophe: Latitude Theory and the Problems of Political Persuasion.” In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, edited by D. Mutz, P. Sniderman, and R. Brody, 225–247. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 2001. Language and Power. 2nd ed. Harlow: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/019924264X.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Giles, H., and P. M. Smith. 1979. “Accommodation Theory: Optimal Levels of Convergence.” In Language and Psychology, edited by H. Giles and R. St. Clair, 45–65. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, H. 2004. Analysing Real Texts. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-05005-2
   Google Scholar
• Huckin, T., J. Andrus, and J. Clary-Lemon. 2012. “Critical Discourse Analysis and Rhetoric and Composition.” College Composition and Communication 64 (1): 107–129. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23264919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jowett, G. S., and V. O’Donnell. 1992. Propaganda and Persuasion. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luntz, F. 2007. Words That Work. New York: Hyperion.
   Google Scholar
• New Mexico Media Literacy Project. 2001. The Language of Persuasion. Albuquerque: Media Literacy for Health.
   Google Scholar
• Purvis, T., and A. Hunt. 1993. “Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideology.” British Journal of Sociology 44 (3): 473–499. https://doi.org/10.2307/591813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, R., E. Malancharuvil-Berkes, M. Mosley, D. Hui, and G. O. G. Joseph. 2005. “Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A Review of the Literature.” Review of Educational Research 75 (3): 365–416. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
   Google Scholar
• Simon, P. 1982. Gramsci’s Political Thought: An Introduction. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
   Google Scholar
• Stenbakken, A. T. A. 2007. “What Makes a Politician Persuasive? A Study of Ideology, Rhetoric and Modality in Speeches by Tony Blair and George W. Bush.” MA thesis, University of Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Stubbs, M. 1997. “Whorf’s Children: Critical Comments on Critical Discourse Analysis.” In Evolving Models of Language, edited by A. Wray and A. Ryan, 100–116. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. 1993. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse and Society 4 (2): 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. 1995a. “Aims of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Japanese Discourse 1:17–27.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. 1995b. “Discourse Semantics and Ideology.” Discourse and Society 6 (2): 243–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926595006002006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. 1995c. “Ideological Discourse Analysis.” In “Interdisciplinary Approaches to Discourse Analysis,” edited by E. Ventola and A. Solin, special issue, New Courant 4: 135–161. http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Ideological%20discourse%20analysis.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. 1997. “What Is Political Discourse Analysis?” In Political Linguistics, edited by J. Blommaert and C. Bulcaen, 11–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.03dij
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. 1998. “Opinions and Ideologies in the Press.” In Approaches to Media Discourse, edited by A. Bell and P. Garret, 21–63. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. 2000a. “Ideologies, Racism, Discourse: Debates on Immigration and Ethnic Issues.” In Comparative Perspectives on Racism, edited by J. Ter Wal and M. Verkuyten, 91–116. Aldershot: Ashgate. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315196374-5
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. 2000b. “On the Analysis of Parliamentary Debates on Immigration.” In The Semiotics of Racism: Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by M. Reisigl and R. Wodak, 85–103. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. 2001a. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, edited by D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. E. Hamilton, 352–371. Malden: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. 2001b. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” In Discourse Theory and Practice, edited by M. Wetherel, S. Taylor, and S. Yates, 300–317. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. 2004. “Critical Discourse Analysis and Context.” Presentation at the First Annual International Conference of Critical Discourse Analysis, Valencia, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. 2013. “Ideology and Discourse” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies, edited by M. Freeden and M. Stears. Oxford Handbooks Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.013.007
   Google Scholar
• Van Eemeren, F. 2005. “Foreword: Preview by Review.” In Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, edited by L. de Saussure and P. Schulz, ix–xvi. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17.01eem
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, T. 2000. “Characteristics of Australian Political Language Rhetoric: Tactics of Gaining Public Support and Shirking Responsibility.” Journal of Intercultural Communication 4. https://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr4/zheng.htm
   Google Scholar