MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION OF UKRAINE

LVIV POLYTECHNIC NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGIES

Department of Applied Linguistics

SYNOPSIS OF

THE DISCOURSE STUDIES READER

(edited by Johannes Angermuller, Dominique Maingueneau, Ruth Wodak)

Presented by:

The student of FLPL-11

Anastasiia Khudiak

Supervised by:

Prof. Ivan Bekhta

Lviv 2020
 2

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................ 3
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 4
SECTION I. Theoretical Inspirations: Structuralism versus Pragmatics ................... 5
SECTION II. From Structuralism to Poststructuralism ............................................. 7
SECTION III. Enunciative Pragmatics ...................................................................... 9
SECTION IV. Interactionism .................................................................................. 11
SECTION V. Sociopragmatics ................................................................................ 14
SECTION VI. Historical Knowledge ...................................................................... 16
SECTION VII. Critical Approaches ........................................................................ 17
CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 19
REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 20
 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Discourse Studies (abbreviated as DS) is a fast-developing field they consider

meaning as a product of social practices. Meaning is not to be understood as an
inherent property of utterances or texts, but it results from the use that is made of
language in specific contexts studying the social production of meaning. In recent
years, the fast development of DS has attracted researchers from different fields of
the humanities and social sciences.

Today, as a truly interdisciplinary field, DS is at the crossroads of language

and society. Such an interdisciplinary tendency, however, has also created a unique
gap within the existing DS literature: despite the proliferation of new publications on
DS in the market, few of them are able to offer comprehensive coverage of the major
approaches within DS due to the increasing complexity of the field. Therefore, it is
encouraging to see the publication of “The Discourse Studies Reader”, which offers
a timely solution to the problem.

“The Discourse Studies Reader” Edited by Johannes Angermuller, Dominique

Maingueneau, and Ruth Wodak, includes snippets of 40 readings from some of the
most influential discourse researchers in Europe and North America, covering the
main theoretical strands within DS, from its early theoretical inspirations to its latest
developments in critical scholarship. This book is divided into seven sections: (1)
“Theoretical Inspirations: Structuralism versus Pragmatics”, (2) “From Structuralism
to Poststructuralism”, (3) “Enunciative Pragmatics”, (4) “Interactionism”, (5)
“Sociopragmatics”, (6) “Historical Knowledge”, and (7) “Critical Approaches”.
 4

INTRODUCTION

The Introduction discusses the social nature of discourse and offers a brief
historical review of DS. As a polymorphous notion, the term “discourse” has been
used in two distinctive ways in DS literature: a socio-historical understanding and a
pragmatic understanding. The common denominator of the two strands, according to
the editors, is that both approaches consider meaning as a product of social practice
and assert that the understanding of language can be only accomplished in specific
contexts. The editors further argue that the field of DS should be understood as an
integration of both discourse theory and discourse analysis. Discourse theory mainly
deals with the symbolic construction of society, whereas discourse analysis mainly
refers to studies on language in use in the Anglo-American pragmatics tradition.
Despite the above distinction, however, it would be problematic to divide DS into
theoretical and analytical camps since the two approaches are interdependent with
each other. For the editors, the aim of this reader is two-fold: to present the main
currents in DS, as well as to bridge the gap between the two strands within DS. The
Introduction ends with a quick overview of the 40 selections and the organizing
principles of these texts.
 5

SECTION I. Theoretical Inspirations: Structuralism versus Pragmatics

The first section brings together texts from authors who are not discourse
theorists or discourse analysts. As theoretical forerunners, nevertheless, they have
strongly contributed to the development of the field of Discourse Studies. They are
as well as linguists (Saussure, Harris); one (Bakhtin) is best known as a literary critic;
but also philosophers (Wittgenstein, Austin, Grice); and one (Mead) is a sociologist
and psychologist.

This section shows us that the sound thoughts of the scientists on language
have laid the foundation of DS. The section starts with three pioneers of
structuralism: Ferdinand de Saussure, Mikhail Bakhtin, and Zellig S. Harris.
According to Saussure, the meaning of a sign is determined by its value in a semiotic
system. In contradistinction to Saussure, the discussion of polyphonic discourse,
which is proposed by Bakhtin, in the novel, by contrast, originates the dialogic
conception of language and culture.

The snippet by Harris here comes from his influential 1952 article on
distributionalism, which takes linguistic study beyond the levels of words and
sentences.

The section then pays attention to four pioneers of pragmatics: George Herbert
Mead, Ludwig Wittgenstein, John L. Austin, and H. Paul Grice. Mead, by contrast
with other theorists in this section, was a social philosopher and psychologist, whose
specialization was in the field of social action theory. In contrast to structuralism,
Mead claims that meaning-making activities of individuals emerge from their daily
interactions. The selected work of Wittgenstein here comes from his second phase,
in which he introduces the term “language game” in order to highlight the notion that
the source of meaning is ordinary speech.

Austin offers a glimpse of his influential speech-action theory, which has

inspired a variety of theoretical strands in pragmatics. The end of the section is about
H. Paul Grice’s discussion of the intentionality of communication and its complex
 6

cognitive process. This offers a cognitive explanation of the speech-context

interaction.

Both pragmatic and structural theories of language have spawned a wealth of

intellectual developments in the social sciences and humanities. If they are
sometimes seen as mutual alternatives, their rather different backgrounds need to be
taken note of.

Today, these intellectual traditions have blended to a degree that these

characterizations appear stereotypical and obsolete, especially in a field like
discourse analysis which has resulted from the productive encounter of both strands.
This section comprises key passages from some prominent founding fathers of
structuralist linguistics, beginning with Saussure, and pragmatic philosophy, starting
with Wittgenstein.
 7

SECTION II. From Structuralism to Poststructuralism

This includes various major authors who are considered to be poststructuralists

in the international intellectual debate. We can divide them in to different groups:
four French thinkers Jacques Lacan (a psychoanalyst), Louis Althusser (a Marxist
philosopher), Stuart Hall, Ernesto Laclau, and Judith Butler of the 1960/70s, as well
as two theorists of language (Michel Pêcheux, Michel Foucault). Their discourse
theoretical contributions was taken up and developed by poststructuralist discourse
theorists in the English-speaking world.

The second section presents snippets from various authors engaged in the
international debate on structuralism. Altogether, the intellectual contributions from
both structuralism and post-structuralism have delineated the contour of
contemporary DS. Best known as the pioneer of psychoanalysis, Lacan regards
language as a medium of the subject. The snippet demonstrates Lacan’s view on the
universal relations between subject, signifier and the object of desire.

Compared with Lacan’s wild conceptualization, theorization of Althusser

concerns discourse’s determinant role in the creation of the subject and ideology. His
snippet focuses on how subjectivity is created through language use. in accordance
with Althusser, Pêcheux considers the subject as a discursive effect, and the snippet
here illustrates his views on the close connections between ideology, language and
discourse.

For many discourse researchers following the socio-historical tradition,

Michel Foucault represents the project of discourse theory. The selected snippet by
Foucault here is translated into English for the first time; in it Foucault provides a
brief summary of his ideas on discourse around 1970. The rest of part of Section Two
is dedicated to three prominent scholars. They developed the discourse project in
their respective fields.

The snippet by Hall reports his famous “encoding/decoding” communication

model, which, from a discursive point of view, highlights the relative autonomy of
 8

information receivers. Laclau’s snippet mainly deals with how hegemony is achieved
through discursive practices. Butler’s recent work on discursive construction of
political identities is described in the final text of the section.
 9

SECTION III. Enunciative Pragmatics

The third section (“Enunciative Pragmatics”) presents a major trend in

discourse pragmatics It overviews enunciative pragmatics, a contemporary strand of
discourse pragmatics mainly developed by linguists in the French-speaking world.
The focus of enunciative pragmatics is analytical perspectives on discourse (how the
world is delivered via discursive practices). The snippets from five scholars are
included here: Êmile Benveniste, Dominque Maingueneau, Jacqueline Authier-
Revuz, Oswald Ducrot, and Johannes Angermuller.

The beginning text by Benveniste sums up his arguments on a pragmatic

understanding of language and the process of enunciation as an appropriation
operated by parole toward langue.

The snippet by Maingueneau considers enunciation from the perspective of

discourse genres. Particularly, Maingueneau countenances the concept of
“enunciation scene”, which defines the frames of enunciation activities. Authier-
Revuz’s text deals with the heterogeneity of enunciation activities. According to
Authier-Revuz, a discourse is not strictly controlled by the intention of its
producer(s): f discourse is also restricted by “interdiscourse”, a discursive entity
connected with ideology.

The theoretical focus of Ducrot is the polyphonic aspect of enunciation. The

polyphonic theory of enunciation decentralizes the enunciator as the center of the
enunciation activity. The ends of third section is concentrated on writing on
subjectivity Angermuller within enunciation, where he approaches discourse as a
positioning practice toward texts.

The enunciative-pragmatic approach may be considered a variety of discourse

pragmatics but it is above all an analysis of language as a system, deeply concerned
with subjectivity, not a theory of communication. Nowadays it can be counted among
the most prominent currents in discourse analysis. Like others, this approach
 10

highlights the reflexivity of speech activity, which allows the speakers to convert the
system of language into discourse.
 11

SECTION IV. Interactionism

The fourth section is dedicated to interactional discourse analysts, from the

Anglo-American world, who come from sociology (Sacks, Goffman, Cicourel),
anthropology (Gumperz), education (Gee) and psychology (Potter). Its focus is on
symbolic interactionism, a school of thought mainly inspired by micro-sociology in
North America. From an interactionist perspective, social reality is created via
symbolic negotiations of countless everyday situations and discourse has played an
important role in this process. As such, interactive discourse analysis emphasizes
studying the sense and meaning making mechanisms in daily contexts.

Influenced by Harold Garfinkel and ethnomethodology as well as by his

teacher Aaron Cicourel, the American sociologist Harvey Sacks devised an approach
to the study of conversations and interactions which is today known as Conversation
Analysis (CA). Together with Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson, he developed
a taxonomy of verbal interaction, focusing first on telephone calls and other
routinized and clearly defined, brief genres of interaction. Through the careful and
detailed transcription and analysis of sometimes small text extracts, intricate systems
of interruptions, turn-taking, repairs, question-answer sequences and so forth could
be established which characterize all conversations to a certain degree. CA became
most influential when studying relevant social interaction in hospitals, with traffic
controllers, and in broadcast and TV interviews and debates. As a methodological
principle, conversation analysts typically insist on taking the context into account
only if it is made relevant by the discourse participants, which excludes contextual
information not directly available to them. As one of the foundational figures of
conversation analysis, Sacks centres his research mainly on verbal interactions in
clearly defined and short genres such as telephone calls. The taken snippet provides
a brief introduction to the rule-governed nature of our daily conversations.

Compared to Sacks, Goffman sees interactions as rituals, and his passage here
offers a broad conceptualization of premises, which applies not only to the logical
assumptions of speech, but also to generally accepted basic knowledge. In social
 12

interaction, he makes a distinction between a front stage where individuals, like

actors, are on stage, and a back stage, i.e. private places, where individuals can put
aside the roles they play in public. Social interactions, he argues, make the world an
ordered, predictable place. He considers interactions as rituals; from this viewpoint,
when we disrupt the norms of interaction, we thus actually disrupt society.

Gumperz studied how linguistic knowledge and social factors interact in the
interpretation of discourse, how the context and the cultural background of the
interlocutors affect their conversational inferences and their interpretation of non-
verbal signs (“contextualization cues”). People from different cultures who speak the
“same” language contextualize what is said differently.The snippet by Gumperz is
dedicated to the topic of intercultural encounters. For Gumperz, cultures differ in the
communicative resources, which are offered to their members and in the issue,
cultural background reveals a critical analytical perspective for the study of
interactive conventions.

The snippet by Cicourel provides an example of his recent work on language

and cognition. This one emphasizes the value of discourse in child development and
childcare. Cicourel developed approaches to studying context in much detail and
distinguished between broad and narrow contexts when analysing texts and
discourse. Because of his emphasis on context, he distanced himself from some of
his most famous students, such as Harvey Sacks, and the school of Conversation
Analysis. For Cicourel, language plays an active role in creating and sustaining social
interaction and social reality.

Gee’s passage in the section introduces his conceptualization of discourse and

discourse analysis. Gee argues that the study of meaning must consider language as
an integration of saying (presentation), doing (practice), and being (identity).

The final snippet by Potter summarizes his definition of discursive

psychology, which argues that traditional concepts of socio-cognition should be re-
formulated from a social-constructivist and discursive perspective.
 13

These developments remind of the important contribution made by

interactionist and praxeological theorists to discourse research as the study of situated
talk, but also more generally as the investigation of communicative processes in
larger communities.

Preferring the empirical observation of oral discourse through qualitative

methods, researchers have inspired a great deal of investigation at the crossroads of
language and society, such as studies of politeness and face (Brown and Levinson,
1987), of communicative genres (Luckmann) as well as of materiality and mediality.
As the boundaries between different traditions are becoming increasingly blurred,
linguistic and sociological approaches necessarily feed into and off each other.
 14

SECTION V. Sociopragmatics

The fifth section is dedicated to an approach that is characterized as

“sociopragmatics”, an approach focusing on the constraints on discourse imposed by
the context. To be more clear, the contextual constraints discussed here mainly refer
to two phenomena:

1. the resources/rules of the linguistic system

2. the institutional settings of discursive practice.

Indeed, implicitly or explicitly, discourse analysts whose research is

sociopragmatically-oriented usually agree on the idea that the notion of genre plays
a key role in their research. They refuse to reflect upon discourse practices without
taking into account the linguistic properties of the texts (be them oral or written) that
those practices make possible, or to reflect on texts without taking into account the
communication settings they are part of. Therefore, such approaches differ from
Conversation Analysis and from linguistic approaches that aim to describe the
cohesion and coherence of texts

The section’s snippets are selected from the following authors:

M. A. K. Halliday, Theo van Leeuwen, Konrad Ehlich, Patrick Charaudeau, Ruth
Amossy, and John Swales. The section begins with a snippet from Halliday, in which
scholar proposes a sociosemiotic theory of language. He discusses key notions such
as text, situation, and register within this framework. If Halliday in this text claims
to be a “sociolinguist” and the term “discourse” does not yet play a key role,
Halliday’s work can be seen in many respects as a forerunner of discourse analysis.
While he uses the vocabulary of structural linguistics (“text”, “code”, “semiotic”,
“system”) and terms that are specific to linguistics, he intertwines them with notions
and questions from the social sciences.

Using a selected article from a conservative English newspaper, text from van
Leeuwen highlights the various discursive resources in English for depicting social
actors. This kind of interrogation is typical of the research conducted by people
 15

working within the frame of systemic-functional linguistics. Besides, this text is also
oriented towards Critical Discourse Analysis: “How are the relevant social actors
represented in an instance of a particular kind of racist discourse – a discourse which
represents immigration in a way that is founded on fear?”

The snippet by Charaudeau deals with the relationship between discursive

strategies and contextual constraints. Charaudeau distinguishes three levels of
constraints (i.e. situational, discursive, and formal) and argues that the subject of a
discourse needs to posit his/her own existence through discursive strategies, which
are in line with these constraints.

Amossy’s approach to discourse is anchored in the argumentative nature of

language. In her selected text, Amossy defends a broad conception of argumentation,
where argumentation counts as an intrinsic feature of discursive practice. By the end
of the section we deal with Swale’s discussion of genre and discourse community.
 16

SECTION VI. Historical Knowledge

The section on “Historical Knowledge” is strongly linked to traditions in

Germany (Busse/Teubert, Luckmann, Koselleck) and France (Robin). In general, the
historical approach to discourse emphasizes the fact that meanings are produced
under certain historical conditions.

The section begins with Régine Rohin’s reflections on fact, how discourse
theories can be applied to historiography. She presents a study that points out
characteristic differences between speeches by French left-wing political leaders
from the first half of the 20th century.

Then, the snippet by Reinhart Koselleck introduces his conceptual history

approach, which, making use of discourse analysis. Koselleck believed that all
historical reflection implies an understanding of historically contingent values and
practices in their respective contexts. The focus of conceptual history is on the
evolution of key concepts such as citizen (Bürger), criticism (Kritik), party (Partei)
and tolerance (Toleranz) in early modern history.

Similarly, the snippet by Dietrich Busse and Wolfgang Teubert shows readers
historical semantics, which presents a language-oriented history of words and
concepts.

The section’s final text comes from Thomas Luckmann, where he reviews how
institutional settings influence the formation of communicative genres from a
historical perspective.

These approaches rely heavily on interpretive methods, such as the

documentary method, coding strategies and the analysis of interpretive schemes.
 17

SECTION VII. Critical Approaches

The book ends with a section, which brings together texts by researchers who
refuse to separate discourse analysis from ethical or societal preoccupations. These
researchers share an interest in the discursive dimensions of power and injustice, as
well as in social and cultural change.

The final section is dedicated to critical approaches, which refer to the various
methods following critical theories under the general umbrella term “critical
discourse analysis” (CDA). Even though there is no clear-cut distinction between
empirical and critical approaches such as those categorized as Critical Discourse
Analysis / Studies (CDA/CDS), a primary concern of all approaches under the
umbrella of CDA/CDS is to reveal how complex social problems are linguistically
represented and to suggest ways of challenging them, deconstructing them,
understanding them and opening up possibilities of overcoming them.

The section starts with two theoretical texts on the relation between discourse
and critical thinking. The snippet by Jürgen Habermas explores the normative aspect
of discourse; that is, “real” discourse in daily life is inevitably constrained by
relations of power and domination. Habermas refers to theoretical debates from the
Anglo-American world, notably from the universe of discourse pragmatics,
including analytical philosophy, speech-act theory and interactionism. As a result, he
presents a more liberal version of Critical Theory, which places high hopes on the
positive social effects of common, rational and deliberative exchange among citizens
in the public sphere.

To compare with, the snippet by Han Blommaert and Jef Verschueren is about
the discursive construction of otherness and how discourse analysis can offer a
valuable entry point into ideology. The section presents the work of three leading
CDA proponents:

• Norman Fairclough discusses his theoretical contour of CDA as a problem-

driven field with ethical commitment. He focuses on social conflict in the
 18

Marxian tradition and tries to detect its linguistic manifestations in discourses,

in particular elements of dominance, difference and resistance. According to
the DRA, every social practice has a semiotic element. Productive activity,
social relations, social identities, cultural values, consciousness and semiosis
are dialectically related elements of social practice.
• Teun van Dijk approaches CDA from a socio-cognitive perspective, arguing
that the interaction between discourse and society requires the mediation of a
socio-cognitive interface. . He argues that whereas (criticaland other)
Discourse Studies have paid great attention in the last few decades to the
structures of text and talk, they have only paid lip service to the necessity of
developing the relations between text and context. In the selected pages
below, van Dijk presents his conception of “Critical Discourse Studies” as a
problem-oriented field based on an “ethical assessment”. Characterising his
own orientation as a “sociocognitive” approach, he presents how the shared
knowledge of specific epistemic communities is shaped by hegemonic
interests and power relations.
• Ruth Wodak illustrates her discourse-historical approach by showing a
detailed analysis of Austrian populist right-wing rhetoric and its underlying
anti-Semitism. Wodak is also concerned with the possible practical relevance
of critical research and has been involved in the formulation of anti-
discriminatory guidelines (related to gender and also ethnicity) for the media
and public sphere in Austria.
 19

CONCLUSIONS

As shown in the selected snippets, the editors have paid special attention to the
various epistemic traditions of previous DS literature and how these traditions,
despite their differences, have together drawn the contour of current DS research.

Another important feature of this reader is the breadth of the selected texts.
Some theorists included in the volume are not discourse scholars per s1e.
Nevertheless, their theories have been particularly influential for discourse
researchers outside the traditional disciplinary boundary of linguistics. Such a well-
rounded view of DS would benefit readers and bridge the gap between the existing
strands within DS.

Finally, the short introduction before each snippet offers an essential

elaboration of the selected theorist’s approach toward DS, which also makes the book
an ideal resource book to learn the history of DS itself.

The book is a perfect source for graduate students and early career researchers
who are looking forward to broadening their theoretical understandings of Discourse
Studies.
 20

REFERENCES

1. Althusser, Louis. 1969. For Marx. Harmondsworth: The Penguin Press.

2. Amossy, Ruth. 2005. The argumentative dimension of discourse. In Practices of
Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, 87–98.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
3. Austin, John L. 1962[1955]. How to Do Things with Words. The William James
Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press.
4. Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse. A Critical Introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511610295
5. Butler, Judith, Ernesto Laclau, and Slavoj Žižek. 2000. Contingency, Hegemony,
Universality. Paris: Verso.
6. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
Routledge: London, New York.
7. Dijk, T. A. van. 2001. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In Handbook of Discourse
Analysis, ed. by D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, and H. Hamilton, 352–371. Oxford:
Blackwell.
8. Dijk, T. A. van. 2003. “The Discourse-Knowledge Interface.” In Critical
Discourse Analysis. Theory and Interdisciplinarity, eds. by G. Weiss, and R.
Wodak, 85–109. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
9. Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Discourse. London: Routledge.
10. Foucault, Michel. 1972[1969]. The Archaeology of Knowledge & The Discourse
on Language. New York: Pantheon.
11. Foucault, Michel. 2002[1966]. The Order of Things. An Archaeology of the
Human Sciences. London: Routledge.
12. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
13. Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol.
3: Speech Act, edited by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York:
Academic Press.
 21

14. Gumperz, John. 1971. Language in Social Groups. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
15. Harris, Zellig S. 1952. “Discourse Analysis.” Language 28: 1–30. DOI:
10.2307/409987
16. Koselleck, Reinhart. 1979. “Begriffsgeschichte und Sozialgeschichte.” In
Historische Semantik und Begriffsgeschichte, edited by Reinhart Koselleck, 19–
36. Stuttgart: Klett.
17. Pêcheux, M. 1983. “Über die Rolle des Gedächtnisses als interdiskursives
Material. Ein Forschungsprojekt im Rahmen der Diskursanalyse und
Archivlektüre.” In Das Subjekt des Diskurses. Beiträge zur sprachlichen Bildung
von Subjektivität, edited by M. Geier and Woetzel H. Argument-Sonderband,
50–58. Berlin.
18. Pêcheux, Michel. 1995[1969]. Automatic Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam,
Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
19. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1974[1916]. Course in General Linguistics. London:
Fontana.
20. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1961[1921]. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London:
Routledge.
21. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1997. Philosophische Untersuchungen / Philosophical
Investigations. Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell. 1953.
22. Wodak, R. 2004b. “Critical discourse analysis.” In Qualitative Research Practice,
eds. C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, and D. Silverman, 197–213. London:
Sage.
23. Wodak, R. 2006. “Mediation between discourse and society: assessing cognitive
approaches in CDA.” Discourse Studies 8: 179–190. DOI:
10.1177/1461445606059566
24. Wodak, R. 2008. “The Contribution of critical linguistics to the analysis of
discriminatory practices and stereotypes in the language of politics.” In
Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 4, eds. R. Wodak and V. Koller. Berlin:
De Gruyter.
 22

25. Wodak, R. and Reisigl, M. 2002. “…wenn einer Ariel heisst…” Ein
linguistisches Gutachten zur politischen Funktionalisierung antisemitischer
Ressentiments in Österreich. In Dreck am Stecken. Politik der Ausgrenzung, eds.
by Pelinka and Wodak, 134–172. Vienna: Czernin.