Despite the existence of long-held binaries between secular and sacred, private and public spaces, school and religious literacies in many contemporary societies, the significance of religion and its relationship to education and society more broadly has become increasingly topical. Yet, it is only recently that the investigation of the nexus of discourse and religion in educational practice has started to receive some scholarly attention. In this chapter, religion is understood as a cultural practice, historically situated and embedded in specific local and global contexts. This view of religion stresses the social alongside the subjective or experiential dimensions. It explores how, through active participation and apprenticeship in culturally appropriate practices and behaviors, often mediated intergenerationally, and the mobilization of linguistic and other semiotic resources but also affective, social and material resources, membership in religious communities is constructed and affirmed. The chapter reviews research strands that have explored different aspects of discourse and religion in educational practice as a growing interdisciplinary field. Research strands have examined the place and purpose of religion in general and evangelical Christianity in particular in English Language Teaching (ELT) programs and the interplay of religion and teaching and learning in a wide range of religious and increasingly secular educational contexts. They provide useful insights for scholars of discourse studies into issues of identity, socialization, pedagogy and language policy.

Social interaction in the twenty-first century involves dynamic use of multilingual and multimodal semiotic resources and is often characterized by the transient, momentary occurrence of creative features. This chapter aims to present Translanguaging as an analytical framework for such dynamic use and creative features in social interaction. The chapter begins with an outline of the diverse phenomena of dynamic and creative practices involving multiple languages and multimodal semiotic resources. Special attention is paid to new media mediated interaction. The characteristics of such practices are identified and discussed. And theoretical issues such as temporality and momentarity are addressed. The chapter then reviews the various analytic concepts, frameworks and approaches that may help to understand these practices, their characteristics and the theoretical issues herein. It focuses specifically on those that have the capacity to offer new insights into the dynamics at the interface of the temporal and spatial dimensions of human social interaction and the creativity of multilingual language users. Perspectives from social semiotics and multimodality, as well as the traditional sociolinguistic and discourse analytic approaches are included. Thus, concepts such as creativity and criticality are also critiqued. The theoretical motivations for the translanguaging perspective and the methodological implications of adopting such a perspective are then discussed and highlighted. It aims to show the added value of translanguaging as an analytic framework for social interaction in the linguistically and culturally diverse world today.

Linguistics as a modern science has invested its attention in describing structural rules and “trustworthy” parameters, which involve ideologies of objectivity, stability and invariance. These references conceived of language as an autonomous structured entity that created a kind of fixed ontology, relegating historical phenomena to a subaltern position. One can thus say that linguistics and history have been traditionally kept apart in the field of mainstream language studies. Considering the self-enclosure of linguistics, in this chapter, we begin by discussing how historicity and language are associated by different twentieth-century philosophers whose insights into historicity speak well to contemporary views of language as discourse. We then move into exploring how history is brought into textuality in present-day discourse studies by focusing on the macro–micro theoretical constructs of interdiscursivity and intertextuality. We conclude by drawing upon the relevance of such a theoretical apparatus to account for discourse circulation in fluid and superdiverse contexts. A specific question orients our line of reasoning and the pathway we construct: How can we, as discourse analysts, deal with the temporal–spatial horizon of history in view of the accelerated and ephemeral time-space references we experience nowadays? This question reflects our concern with the challenges that contemporary chronotopes pose to discourse analysis.

Sequence organization was the pioneering insight that gave rise to conversation analysis (CA) and it remains the primary assumption in CA studies about how discourse is structured and how speakers manage their talk. In order to study discourse in an empirically grounded way, we must demonstrate how our analysis reflects the participants’ understanding of their own talk. CA does this through the concept of “response relevance.” When a speaker talks, they make relevant some “next” response, so speakers are always responding to some prior turn and simultaneously making relevant a next turn. In this way, participants demonstrate their understandings of prior talk while responding. These demonstrations form the basis of the “next turn proof procedure,” which is how CA uses participants’ responses as demonstrations of participants’ own analyses of prior talk. In this chapter, I explain how CA’s focus on sequence and “next” turns allows for an empirical understanding of how discourse is organized. I first outline the principles of sequence organization, starting with the concept of response relevance and adjacency pairs, before explaining pre-, insert and post-expansion components. Next, I review sequence research from the past four decades, highlighting the focus on specific sequences such as pre-sequences, storytelling and the effect of institutional contexts. More recent streams in sequence research include the investigation of “lapses” or discontinuities in interaction, the attempts to describe overall sequence structures of full (typically institutional) encounters, the focus on temporality, and investigations of closing sequences. Finally, I discuss the (sometimes uncritical) use of the words “activity” and “project” in CA research, and what evidence is presented for its effect on sequence.

Starting from the premise that discourse is what brings organizations into being, this chapter presents a state-of-the-art review of research on corporate discourse. Its main goal is to evaluate the contributions that discourse analytical perspectives and methodologies have made to the understanding of organizational practices, showing how corporations use discourse strategically to create and maintain corporate identity and perform ideological work. This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part reviews studies concerned with aspects of internal communications, highlighting discursive strategies for “doing” business and adopted across contexts and media including business meetings, job interviews and business emails. The second part discusses studies investigating external communications, focusing specifically on communications with investors and stakeholders as well as with the wider world. Studies exploring CEO letters, annual and corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports, advertising and branding are reviewed. This part also discusses research that examined corporate communications in “moments of crisis,” showing how corporations strategically employ discourse to maintain a positive public image. The final sections summarize the implications and the need for “doing” discourse analysis in corporate environments and conclude with avenues for further research.

In many parts of the world, the enduring inequalities in both educational experiences and academic outcomes across linguistically and culturally different groups complicate widespread discourses of “diversity” and “inclusion.” The study of discourse, as a means of theoretical and methodological inquiry, has advanced our collective understanding of how social power and inequality are enacted, (re)produced and resisted through texts and discourse-in-interaction in educational contexts. This chapter begins with an overview of early work that has yielded remarkable insights into how diversity and inclusion are patterned in and through everyday classroom socialization routines. It then proceeds to sketch how current trends of discourse study have enriched our discussion of the complexity of language, ideology and power inherent in the educational discourse. We present ongoing tensions concerning the theoretical, methodological and applied dimensions of this work. The chapter concludes by delineating some implications for educational practices and future directions for expanded work in the study and understanding of discourses of diversity and inclusion.

Transnationalism, globalization and superdiversity are constructs used for thinking about flows of people, information, capital, texts and ideas, how they are connected and the effects of these flows on social relations. While there are many differences in these constructs, this entry highlights commonalities of focus, intellectual roots and methods used to analyze flows and connectivity. I start by noting that much of the work carried out in this area was done by sociologists, anthropologists and those working in cultural studies, most of whom had little interest in how communicative activity figured in generating and sustaining flows, what such communicative activity looked like or how the communicative repertoires of mobile people opened or closed future life world potentials. I then go on to point out that, within sociolinguistics, the use of these concepts and the study of the phenomena they refer to have been characterized by a constant drive to understand connections between communicative events that are part of these flows, how and why different communicative events are valued, and how and why such differences can create inequality. In doing so, I point out that much of this scholarship has led to the creation of new concepts and invitations to reconceptualize how we think about language in social life.

This chapter maps the emerging conceptual terrain of posthumanism and its relevance for discourse studies, with a particular focus on sociolinguistics and applied linguistics work. Posthumanism is a label applied to a range of theoretical and methodological approaches across the humanities and social sciences that are calling into question dominant assumptions generated by Western Enlightenment thinking about the human by giving greater consideration to the role of material objects, animals and the environment in understanding the social world. Posthumanism thus considers the implications of the central role of materialism in our understandings of human agency, language, cognition and society. For discourse studies, a turn to posthumanism requires us to examine the role of discourse in how humans become entangled with the material world through their everyday embodied interactions with objects, artifacts, technologies, plants, animals, and the built and natural environment. Through embracing an activity-oriented perspective toward these human–nonhuman entanglements, the implications are that we must rethink modernist categorical boundaries between subject/object, human/nonhuman and society/nature, both within metadiscourses about these dichotomies and through a more microanalytic lens in the analysis of text and talk.

This chapter provides an overview of the concept of “mediatization” and its different applications. It distinguishes “institutional,” “social constructionist” and “linguistic-anthropological” understandings of the concept. After defining and discussing each understanding, the chapter draws attention to how the linguistic-anthropological approach may be employed in discourse-analytical research. Specifically, the approach is argued to be highly amenable with a focus on metapragmatics. Much like a focus on metapragmatics reflects language users’ awareness of language use, mediatization may reflect their understanding of the nature of the communication they are engaged in. After providing several examples, the chapter discusses how discourse-analytic methods may further complement the development of mediatization frameworks. Looking ahead, these developments will need to take into account a surge in multimodal content, the increasingly global reach of communications, and ever-shifting social media potentials.

The notion of language rights has proven to be highly controversial. It has typically been invoked in calls for the state to protect and recognize the heritage languages of minority communities. Implicit in such calls is a reliance on traditional understandings of what it means to be a member of a language community, to be a speaker of that community’s affiliated language, and to be a citizen of the state within which the community is embedded. But the conceptions of citizenship as well as those of community and language are changing – often in response to global shifts in mobility and migration. And these changes exacerbate rather than mitigate the problematic nature of language rights. In this chapter, I review various studies of citizenship, mobility, migration and language rights. Among the points that I make are the following: A fuller appreciation of implications of these changes needs to take into account the impact of neoliberalist ideologies. Recent developments such as the gig economy and virtual migration also need to be factored in. Underlying all these is the idea of personhood and how it variously informs the understanding of what it means to be a migrant, a citizen and a speaker of a language. I then flesh out the theoretical and policy implications of these studies, arguing that there is need to move beyond language rights if the migrant-citizen-language nexus is to be properly understood and fruitfully addressed.

Metaphor involves the perception of similarities or correspondences between unlike entities and processes, so that one can experience, think and communicate about one thing in terms of another – lives as journeys, minds as machines, emotions as external forces, and so on. A consistent thread in the history of the study of metaphor concerns the potential of different metaphor choices to reflect and facilitate different ways of viewing topics or phenomena – a function of metaphor that is itself metaphorically captured by the notion of “framing.” The related phenomenon of metonymy, although less well studied in these terms, also facilitates framing in discourse. In this chapter, we review research on the framing power of metaphor and metonymy, with a particular focus on studies that are relevant to or directly concerned with the use of metaphor in discourse, broadly conceived. We begin with an overview of rhetorical approaches to metaphor as a tool for persuasion and of cognitive approaches to metaphor as a tool for thinking, including both theoretical and empirical studies. We review a variety of studies that have investigated the framing function of metaphor, and, to a lesser extent, metonymy, in authentic language use from a range of sources (e.g. politics, science and education) and using different qualitative and/or quantitative methods. Focusing on metaphor, where the evidence is most robust, we critically examine the relationship between, broadly speaking, cognitive and discourse-based approaches to metaphor. We go on to provide a concrete example of the framing function of metaphor in healthcare discourse, and show how cognitive and discourse perspectives can be usefully combined into a multilevel analytical framework that can, among other things, be used to make recommendations for professional practice and training.

Although the notion of “populism” goes back to Roman/Greek antiquity, the twenty-first century has seen a surge in both the success of such movements and academic interest in them, especially their rhetorics, discourse and politics. In engaging with populism, discourse studies has interfaced with political and social sciences and struggled to find a conceptually sound and empirically grounded definition, while avoiding an overly broad use of the term. In this, the field is far from homogenous, but it offers many insightful approaches to studying contemporary populist politics. A specific point of interest (and contention) is the interrelationships among rhetorical strategies, discourse-analytical concepts relating populism to hegemony or society (such as interdiscursivity, recontextualization and normalization) and the agenda of populist politics. Behind this looms the larger question of the status of populism itself. While some scholars regard populism as an ideology, others call it a movement or syndrome. While some argue that it is both a form and a content, others maintain that it is only a style or, rather, that it combines specific forms with specific contents. In terms of evaluation, some argue that (at least contemporary) populism is a danger to democracy or, more specifically, to liberal democracy, while others see it as an integral part of any democracy or even a positive force. Central among the traits identified in populist politics is its divisiveness and appeal to “the people”: It divides society into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, the “pure people” versus the “corrupt elite.” At the same time, it is antipluralist in claiming that it alone represents the true will of the people, claiming to raise that will over all else. This often links to a larger opposition constructed by populist politics: “national” versus “international” interests. Beyond such commonalities, populist politics, their rhetorics and discourse differ strikingly across the globe and across political affiliations. Empirical discourse studies engage with the specifics of the rhetorics employed by populist politics and how they relate to discourses within the respective contexts.

This chapter discusses the idea that discourse is central to how race is culturally understood and the form it takes in different contexts. Through the notions of “racialization” and “racialized,” as the semiotic and ideological processes through which race comes to be produced and reified through language practices, it proposes to study ideological processes instead of fixed racial categories, which entails moving beyond the study of the ideology of racism towards the study of its ideological practice. This chapter also addresses the links between race and language that emerge dynamically through discursive practice. It sustains that language and race intersect in two main ways: in “racial discourse,” or discourse that takes race as its topic, and in “racialized linguistic practice,” or the use of language associated with specific racialized groups. It finally recommends integrating the different discursive approaches that address language and race under the wider perspective of language as social practice. This entails researching what race does in specific contexts through the understanding of how power relations emerge in local contexts, how people make sense of their social practices, and how wider social structures influence discursive practices.