Share This Article:

Representational Pattern of Discursive Hegemony

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:56KB) PP. 135-140
DOI: 10.4236/ojml.2013.32018    4,102 Downloads   6,112 Views   Citations
Author(s)    Leave a comment


The paper aims to construct a practical representational pattern, which is to uncover the way the discursive hegemony exists in the content of text. The representational pattern will be embarked upon level by level, mainly from the linguistic perspective such as field of discourse, transitivity, and the choice and meaning of words. For the reason of non-discursive elements having determined effects in the formation of discursive hegemony, the paper will also explore hegemony beyond the linguistic perspective by means of the concept "discourse" constructed in Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis model. In addition, a particular written text will be chosen to further testify the way of how hegemony is represented in a particular text or discourse.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Liu, M. (2013) Representational Pattern of Discursive Hegemony. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 3, 135-140. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2013.32018.


[1] Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In L. Althusser (Ed.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.
[2] Augelli, E., & Murphy, C. (1988). American’s quest for supremacy and the third world: A gramscian analysis. London: Pinter Publishers.
[3] Baldwin, E., Longhurst, B., Smith, G.., McCracken, S., & Ogborn, M. (2004). Introducing cultural studies. Beijing: Pearson Education Asia Limited and Peking University Press.
[4] Bush, G. W. (2001a). Statement by the president in his address to the nation.
[5] Bush, G. W. (2001b). Address to a joint session of congress and the american people.
[6] Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London and New York: Longman.
[7] Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London and New York: Rouledge.
[8] Foucault, M. (1971). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon Books.
[9] Fowler, R. (1986). Linguistic criticism. London: Oxford University Press.
[10] Gee, J. P. (2004). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 19-50). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
[11] Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
[12] Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
[13] Halliday, M. A. K. (1976). System and function in language: Selected papers. London: Oxford University Press.
[14] Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
[15] Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[16] Joseph, J. (2002). Hegemony: A realist analysis. London: Routledge.
[17] Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
[18] Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology and point of view. London and New York: Routledge.
[19] Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352-371). Oxford: Blackwell.
[20] Wrong, D. H. (1979). Power: Its forms, bases, and uses. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.