Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T01:53:25.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Michelle M. Lazar (ed.), Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2007

Deborah Cameron
Affiliation:
English, Oxford University, Worcester College, Oxford OX1 2HB, UK, deborah.cameron@ell.ox.ac.uk

Abstract

Michelle M. Lazar (ed.), Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse. Houndmills, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Pp. xi, 260. Hb $75.00.

As the title suggests, this is a collection of feminist work carried out within the paradigm of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which Michelle Lazar glosses in her editor's introduction as “a critical perspective on unequal social relations sustained through language use” (p. 1). It does not seem to be a goal of the book to develop a distinctively feminist variant of CDA, or to engage in dialogue with its leading theorists (most of whom are men, and tend to be politically pro-feminist but not deeply influenced by feminism in a theoretical sense). Rather, contributors use established CDA methods to address questions about gender as one case of “unequal social relations sustained through language use.” That in itself is not a new endeavor – gender features as one topic in most books and edited collections of CDA, and it is also the theme of numerous journal articles – but this, perhaps surprisingly, is the first book-length volume specifically dedicated to the subject.

Type
BOOK REVIEWS
Copyright
2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCE

Sunderland, Jane (2000). Baby entertainer, bumbling assistant and line manager: Discourses of fatherhood in parentcraft texts. Discourse & Society 11:24974.Google Scholar