[Althusser, L., 1971. Lenin and philosophy and other essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Angermuller, J., Maingueneau, D. and Wodak, R. (eds), 2014. The discourse studies reader. Main currents in theory and analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/z.184]Search in Google Scholar
[Baker, P., 2006. Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.10.5040/9781350933996]Search in Google Scholar
[Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., KhosraviNik, M., Krzyżanowski, M., McEnery, T. and Wodak, R. 2008. A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 273-306.10.1177/0957926508088962]Search in Google Scholar
[Bakhtin, M., 1981. The dialogic imagination. Edited by M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bar-Hillel, Y., 1954. Indexical expressions. Mind, vol. 63, pp. 359-379.10.1093/mind/LXIII.251.359]Search in Google Scholar
[Benke, G., 2000. Diskursanalyse als sozialwissenschaftliche Untersuchungsmethode. SWS Rundschau, vol. 2, pp.140-162.]Search in Google Scholar
[Benveniste, E., 1966. Problemes de linguistique gènêrale 1. Paris: Gallimard]Search in Google Scholar
[Blommaert, J. and Bulcaen, C., 2000. Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 447–466.10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.447]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Bourdieu, P., 1992. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Breeze, R., 2011. Critical Discourse Analysis and its critics. Pragmatics, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 493–525.10.1075/prag.21.4.01bre]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Buehler, K., 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: Fischer.]Search in Google Scholar
[Cap, P., 2006. Legitimization in political discourse. Newcastle: CSP.]Search in Google Scholar
[Cap, P., 2013. Proximization: The pragmatics of symbolic distance crossing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.232]Search in Google Scholar
[Cap, P., 2017a. The language of fear: Communicating threat in public discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave.]Search in Google Scholar
[Cap, P., 2017b. From ‘cultural unbelonging’ to ‘terrorist risk’: Communicating threat in the Polish anti-immigration discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 285-302.10.1080/17405904.2017.1405050]Search in Google Scholar
[Cap, P. and Okulska, U. (ed.), 2013. Analyzing genres in political communication: Theory and practice. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.50]Search in Google Scholar
[Charteris-Black, J., 2004. Corpus approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230000612]Search in Google Scholar
[Charteris-Black, J., 2005. Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230501706]Search in Google Scholar
[Chilton, P., 2004. Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203561218]Search in Google Scholar
[Chilton, P., 2005. Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In: R. Wodak and P. Chilton, eds. A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 19-51.10.1075/dapsac.13.05chi]Search in Google Scholar
[Chilton, P., 2014. Language, space and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511845703]Search in Google Scholar
[Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N., 1999. Discourse in late modernity. Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Derrida, J., 1970. Structure, sign, and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In: R. Macksey and E. Donato, eds. The languages of criticism and the sciences of man. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, pp. 247-272.]Search in Google Scholar
[Dunmire, P., 2011. Projecting the future through political discourse: The case of the Bush Doctrine. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.41]Search in Google Scholar
[Fairclough, N., 1989. Language and power. London: Longman.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fairclough, N., 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fairclough, N., 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R., 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In: T. van Dijk, ed. Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage, pp. 258-284.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fetzer, A., 2018. Discourse analysis. In: A.H. Jucker, K.P. Schneider and W. Bublitz, eds. Methods in pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics, Volume 10). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 401-421.]Search in Google Scholar
[Flowerdew, J. and Richardson, J. (eds), 2018. The Routledge handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315739342]Search in Google Scholar
[Foucault, M., 1971. L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.]Search in Google Scholar
[Foucault, M., 1972. The archeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. Translated by A. M. Sheridan. New York: Pantheon.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fowler, R., Kress, G. and Trew, T., 1979. Language and control. London: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fowler, R., 1991. Language in the news. London: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Giltrow, J. and Stein, D. (eds), 2009. Genres in the Internet. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.188]Search in Google Scholar
[Goatly, A. 2007. Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.23]Search in Google Scholar
[Golato A. and Golato, P., 2018. Ethnomethodology and conversation. In: A.H. Jucker, K.P. Schneider and W. Bublitz, eds. Methods in pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics, Volume 10). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 380-399.10.1515/9783110424928-015]Search in Google Scholar
[Gramsci, A., 1973. Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.]Search in Google Scholar
[Halliday, M. A. K., 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.]Search in Google Scholar
[Halliday, M. A.K., 1994. Introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hart, C. , 2011. Moving beyond metaphor in the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to CDA: Construal operations in immigration discourse. In: C. Hart, ed. Critical discourse studies in context and cognition. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 171-192.10.1075/dapsac.43.09har]Search in Google Scholar
[Hart, C. , 2013. Event-construal in press reports of violence in political protests: A cognitive linguistic approach to CDA. Journal of language and politics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 400-423.10.1075/jlp.12.3.05har]Search in Google Scholar
[Hart, C. , 2014. Discourse, grammar and ideology: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hart, C. and Cap, P. (eds), 2014. Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London: Bloomsbury.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hodge, R. and Kress, G., 1993. Language as ideology. London: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Jessop, B. and Sum, Ngai-Ling., 2018. Language and critique: Some anticipations of critical discourse studies in Marx. Critical Discourse Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 325-337.10.1080/17405904.2018.1456945]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[M. Jørgensen and Phillips, L., 2002. Discourse Analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.10.4135/9781849208871]Search in Google Scholar
[Kaal, B., 2015. How ‘real’ are time and space in politically motivated worldviews? Critical Discourse Studies, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 330-346.10.1080/17405904.2015.1013483]Search in Google Scholar
[Koller, V., 2004. Metaphor and gender in business media discourse: A critical cognitive study. Basingstoke: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230511286]Search in Google Scholar
[Lacan, J., 2007. The seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XVII: The other side of psychoanalysis. Translated by R. Grigg. London: Norton.]Search in Google Scholar
[Laclau, E., 1990. New reflections on the revolution of our time. London: Verso.]Search in Google Scholar
[Laclau, E., 1993. Power and representation. In: M. Poster, ed. Politics, theory and contemporary culture. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 14-45.]Search in Google Scholar
[Laclau, E., 1996. The death and resurrection of the theory of ideology. Journal of political ideologies, vol. 1, pp. 201-220.10.1080/13569319608420738]Search in Google Scholar
[Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C., 1985. Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M., 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Luke, A., 2002. Beyond science and ideological critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. Annual review of applied linguistics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 96-110.10.1017/S0267190502000053]Search in Google Scholar
[Macgilchrist, F., 2014. Media discourse and de/coloniality. A post-foundational approach. In: C. Hart and P. Cap, eds. Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 385-405.]Search in Google Scholar
[Marin Arrese, J., 2011. Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse: Legitimising strategies and mystification of responsibility. In C. Hart, ed. Critical discourse studies in context and cognition. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 193-224.10.1075/dapsac.43.10mar]Search in Google Scholar
[Martin, J. R., 2004. Positive discourse analysis: Solidarity and change. Revista canaria de estudios Ingleses, vol. 49, pp. 179-202.]Search in Google Scholar
[Martin, J. R. and Rose, D., 2003. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mouffe, C. (ed.), 1993. The return of the political. London: Verso.]Search in Google Scholar
[Musolff, A., 2004. Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230504516]Search in Google Scholar
[Musolff, A., 2016. Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.]Search in Google Scholar
[O’Halloran, K., 2010. How to use corpus linguistics in the study of media discourse. In: A. O’Keeffe and M. McCarthy, eds. The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 563-576.10.4324/9780203856949-40]Search in Google Scholar
[Partington, A., 2006. Metaphors, motifs, and similes across discourse types: Corpus assisted discourse studies (CADS) at work. In: A. Stefanowitsch and S. Gries, eds. Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 267-304.10.1515/9783110199895.267]Search in Google Scholar
[Phillips, N. and Hardy, C., 2002. Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. London: Sage.10.4135/9781412983921]Search in Google Scholar
[Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R., 2001. Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and anti-semitism. London: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Saussure, F. de., 1966. Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.]Search in Google Scholar
[Stubbs, M., 1997. Whorf’s children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis. In: A. Ryan and A. Wray, eds. Evolving models of language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 100-116.]Search in Google Scholar
[Stubbs, M., 2002. Two quantitative methods of studying phraseology in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 215-244.10.1075/ijcl.7.2.04stu]Search in Google Scholar
[Stubbs, M., 2004. Language corpora. In: A. Davies and C. Elder, eds. Handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 106-132.10.1002/9780470757000.ch4]Search in Google Scholar
[Unger, J., 2016. The interdisciplinarity of critical discourse studies research. Palgrave Communications, vol. 2: 15037.10.1057/palcomms.2015.37]Search in Google Scholar
[Van Dijk, T., 1999. Critical Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis. Discourse & Society, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 459-470.10.1177/0957926599010004001]Search in Google Scholar
[Van Dijk, T., 2008. Discourse and context: A socio-cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511481499]Search in Google Scholar
[Van Eemeren, F. and Grootendorst, R., 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.]Search in Google Scholar
[Van Leeuwen, T., 2005. Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203647028]Search in Google Scholar
[Widdowson, H., 1998. The theory and practice of Critical Discourse Analysis. Applied Linguistics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 136-151.10.1093/applin/19.1.136]Search in Google Scholar
[Widdowson, H., 2005. Text, context, pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470758427]Search in Google Scholar
[Wodak, R., 2011. Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In: J. Zienkowski, J-O Ostman and J. Verschueren, eds. Discursive pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 50-70.10.1075/hoph.8.04wod]Search in Google Scholar
[Wodak, R. (ed.), 2012. Critical Discourse Analysis (4 volumes). London: Sage.10.4135/9781446286289]Search in Google Scholar
[Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds), 2016. Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.]Search in Google Scholar
[Yus, F., 2011. Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.213]Search in Google Scholar
[Zienkowski, J., Östman, J-O. and Verschueren, J. (eds), 2011. Discursive pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/hoph.8]Search in Google Scholar
[Zinken, J., 2007. Discourse metaphors: The link between figurative language and habitual analogies. Cognitive Linguistics, vol.18, no. 3, pp. 445-466.10.1515/COG.2007.024]Search in Google Scholar
