Critical discourse analysis and nominalization: problem or pseudo-problem?

Abstract

This reply to Billig's article emphasizes that, as for all discourse, one should not only analyse texts, but also their contexts. The issue is not the primary use or abuse of nominalization or any other feature of discourse in CDA, but the study of the systematic abuse of discursive power by hiding the negative role of elite actors and the consequences of such discourse properties on the mental models of the recipients. CDA scholars do not study nominalizations in isolation, but within the text and context of the discourses studied critically. Of course they know that nominalizations have many other functions beyond these forms of obfuscation. If CDA itself uses nominalizations in its analytical discourse it does so like any scientific discourse. Because in this case there is no question of hiding the negative role of powerful actors, Billig's criticism is pointless, and creates a pseudo-problem. Finally a psychological basis for the description of nominalization is supplied, as Billig expects, but such an explanation cannot be provided by discursive psychology (DP), contrary to what Billig suggests, because DP explicitly rejects such cognitive analyses of language use.