Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What Is Critical Discourse Analysis
What Is Critical Discourse Analysis
What Is Critical Discourse Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................3
1.1 CDA: Historical Outline .....................................................................................3
1.2 What is Discourse? .............................................................................................8
1.3 Discourse as Social Practice .............................................................................. 11
1.4 Text, Discourse, and Semiosis ........................................................................... 14
1.6 What is Critical in Discourse Analysis? ............................................................. 26
1.7 Intertextuality and (Inter) disciplinarity............................................................ 30
1.7.1 Intertextuality ............................................................................................ 31
1.7.2 Interdisciplinarity ..................................................................................... 35
1.7.3 Transdisciplinarity ..................................................................................... 36
1.8 The critique of CDA ........................................................................................ 38
1.9 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 41
Works Cited
2
What is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)?
Just as even a single sentence has traditionally been seen to imply a whole language, so a single discourse implies a
whole society. (Fairclough, 1989, p. 152)
1.0 Introduction
CDA) will be presented, and some notions and concepts, such as discourse, critical,
text, and semiosis, will be clarified. In doing so, many relationships of CDA to other
components such as social structure, social event, social practice, and orders of
discourse are introduced in such ways that grant redefinitions to discourse and
discourse analysis as well as show why CDA is critical and how its constructing
components ( i.e., critical, discourse, and analysis) draw its meaning and contribute to
The roots of CDA lie in Classical Rhetoric, Text Linguistics and Socio-
2002), and some of its tenets can already be found in Jürgen Habermas and the critical
theory of the Frankfurt School before the Second World War (Van Dijk, 1993). The
social theorists, such as Foucault (1972) and social linguists, such as Pecheux (1975),
who help understand ideology in relations to discourse, which becomes the primary
example, Foucault was concerned with the representation of knowledge, and the
context in which such representations are given form and meaning, and ultimately can
be applied. Some concepts of discourse, which CDA's researchers used later, were
3
introduced by social theorists (e.g., Foucault 1972; Bourdieu 1974), linguists (e.g.,
2009).
The current focus of CDA on language and discourse was initiated with
Critical Linguistics that emerged mostly in the UK and Australia at the end of the
1970s (Fowler et al, 1979). Though CDA is based on Critical Linguistics (CL)
grammatical structures of passive and active voice may refer to different ideological
functions. Ideational function concerns the external world, e.g., ideas, ideologies, and
theories. Interpersonal function expresses the speaker role in the speech situation, e.g.,
the personal commitment and the interaction with others. Textual function concerns
the creation of text, e.g., how information is structured and related. It is the text-
forming function, which provides the texture and the relation of language to its
environment, including both verbal and nonverbal acts. Halliday's view of language as
a "social act" is central to many of CDA's practitioners (Fairclough, 1989, 1992, 1993;
Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999; Fowler et al., 1979). According to Fowler et al.
4
(1979, p. 185), CL asserts "that there are strong and pervasive connections between
developed (van Leeuwen, 2009). It provided the fundamental insight that made it
possible to move linguistic analysis beyond formal description and use it as basis for
social critique (Halliday, 1973, 1978). To Fairclough (1989), CL and CDA are
Van Leeuwen (2006) pointed out that the emergence of CDA as a term may be
traced in Fairclough's works from 1989 to 1995. In his (1989), he used other terms
Awareness (CLA) and Critical Language Studies (CLS). In his edited (1992), he used
Critical Language Awareness (CLA) and used critical discourse analysis without
analysis as a form of CLS. In his (1995), a decisive terminological shift was made
when Fairclough published his book Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 1995).
In the same stream, van Dijk (1993) shows that CDA and CL "are at most a shared
psychology, and the social sciences, some of them already dating back to the early
1970s (Billig, 2002; Wodak, 1996). As is the case in these neighboring disciplines,
CDA may be seen as a reaction against the dominant formal (often "asocial" or
5
Van Dijk (1993) traced back to the philosophers of the Enlightenment or to
Marx, and more recently to the members of the Frankfurt School, which started with
Frankfurt, Germany. Its researches and writings highlight the relationship between the
social philosophy and science. Most common proponents were Walter Benjamin
(1892- 1942), Herbert Marcuse (1898- 1979), Marx Horkheimer (1895- 1973),
(1891- 1937), and his followers in France and the UK, including most notably Stuart
Hall and the other members of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (Hall,
1981). Likewise, first in France, later also in the UK and the USA, the influence of the
work of Althusser (1971), Foucault (1972), among others, can be traced. Finally, the
feminist scholarship has also an exemplary role in the critical approach to language
CDA has actually started as a new direction of discourse analysis in the mid -
1980s by such works of a group of linguists, such as Fairclough, van Dijk, and
Wodak. It is originated to seek the relationship between discourse and society and it
by the same group, which were later published as a special issue of "Discourse and
Society" in 1993. The group gradually expanded and continued to meet annually from
1992 onward, and since then several influential papers were published and two new
journals started to appear from 2004: namely, Critical Discourse Studies and the
6
discourses, political discourses, organizational discourses or dimensions of identity
research (Wodak, 2001a). The notions of "ideology", "power", hierarchy, and gender
together with sociological variables were all seen as relevant for an interpretation or
explanation of text and the subjects under investigation may differ according to
paradigm, school or discourse theory (van Dijk,1993; Fairclough, 2003; Weiss and
Wodak, 2003). It is not a linguistic system like Fredinand de sassure's langue and
and it never provides one single or specific theory, nor is it considered a specific
discourse, derived from quite different theoretical backgrounds, oriented towards very
different data and methodologies (Wodak, 2007). It is founded on the insight that text
and talk play a key role in maintaining and legitimating inequality, injustice, and
oppression in society. It uses variable methods of discourse analysis to show how this
is done, and it seeks to spread awareness of this aspect of language use in society, and
to argue explicitly for change on the basis of its findings (Leeuwen, 2006). It is
primarily interested and motivated by pressing social issues, which it hopes to better
work are chosen or elaborated as a function of their relevance for the realization of
7
multidisciplinary approach to discourse and highly sophisticated theories are required
After introducing the historical background that CDA based and derived from,
in the following sections some issues about discourse and CDA should be clarified
and answered.
The term ‘discourse’ is used in several ways within the broad field of
(above the sentence), and functionally, a particular focus, e.g., on language use
(Schiffrin, 1994). Structuralists are concerned mostly with the language form, e.g.
paradigm views discourse as language above the sentence (e.g., a type of structure),
and a definition derived from the functionalist paradigm views discourse as language
language structure and language function as they complement and feed each other,
language is used in context and formal emphasis on extended patterns. The functional
approach fills the gap that the structural approach left in the linguistic theory. The
1977b; Schiffrin, 1994). For example the abstract sentence “I’m cold” can occur in
8
innumerable utterances (acts), e.g., to close the window, to turn the condition on or
off, etc. This means that utterances are the sentences in different contexts, and
linguistic processes (speaking forms, interactions, etc.). In this respect, text is defined
said, or written, in an operational context, as distinct from a citational context like that
of words listed in a dictionary" (Halliday, 1978, pp. 108: 9). To Halliday (1978), a
spoken text is simply what is said in a piece of written discourse and a spoken
discourse can be encoded in written text. In other words, written text is an abstract
theoretical construct realized by spoken discourse and vice versa (Brown and Yule,
1983; van Dijk, 1977). Then, text is not only the written forms (e.g., registers and
genres) of language but it is the spoken ones (e.g., dialects) also; it is ‘the meaning
potential’: the selected meaning from the total set of options that constitute what can
languages in terms of text and discourse respectively. Whereas text is written and
but as "practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak" (p. 49). By
discourse, Foucault means "a group of statements which provide a language for
9
particular historical moment" (Hall, 1981, p. 291). Discourse, Foucault argues,
constructs the topic. It governs the way that a topic can be meaningfully talked about.
It also influences how ideas are put into practice and used to regulate the conduct of
others. This in turn means that discourse (or discourses in the social theoretical sense)
can limit and restrict other ways of talking and producing knowledge about it (e.g.
the linguistic form of social interaction that is either embedded in social context of
situation or that it interprets the social system that constitutes the culture of
that environment through the process of interaction and semantic choice. Text is the
including visual images, music, gestures, and the like that represent and endorse it. On
the other hand, texts are produced by socially situated speakers and writers. For
participants in discourse, their relations in producing texts are not always equal: there
will be a range from complete solidarity to complete inequality. Meanings come about
through interaction between readers and receivers and linguistic features come about
as a result of social processes, which are never arbitrary. In most interactions, users of
language bring with them different dispositions toward language, which are closely
social practice.
10
1.3 Discourse as Social Practice
language is crucial (Fairclough, 1989, 1993, 2003; van Dijk 1993, 1997, 2001; Gee,
1990; van Leeuwen, 2006; Wodak, 1996, 2000, 2001; Scollon 2001; and Wodak,
2000). Discourse involves both written and spoken language as a form of social
practice (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997, p. 35). Following Fairclough (1995), Reisigl
and Wodak (2000) consider discourse as "a way of signifying a particular domain of
Fairclough (1989) shows that a critical analyst is not only concerned with analyzing
texts, but with analyzing the relationships between texts, processes, and their social
accordingly: description that concerns the formal properties of the text that concerns
with what a text says, interpretation that concerns the relationship between text and
interaction, and explanation that concerns the relationship between interaction and
particular discursive practices and the specific fields of action (including situations,
institutional frames and social structures) in which they are embedded. Social settings
affect and are affected by discourse. In other words, discourse shape social settings
and it is shaped by them (Wodak, 2007). Social structures as well as social events are
parts of social reality and the relationship between social structures and social events
depends upon mediating categories, which Fairclough called ‘social practices’, the
forms of social activities, which are articulated together to constitute social fields,
social practices within the social network. Following Focault (1985b), Faiclough
11
(1992, 2003), calls this social network "orders of discourse", the semiotic specific
socially shaped and also socially shaping. The task of CDA is to explore the tension
between these two sides of practice, the socially shaped and socially shaping. It has
the role to make those involved in the discourse who may not be aware of the
relations. Social practice is a part of discourse that shapes matters of meaning that
social structures and concrete social events as parts of social reality (Fairclough,
1993). Similarly, Michael Meyer (2001, p. 28) shows that many modern theories of
CDA imply some kind of circularity between social action and social structure, since
they concern two levels of interpretation. The first concerns general social theories,
often called 'grand theories', which conceptualize relations between social structure
and social action, providing top-down explanations (i.e., social structures interpret
action). The second concerns bottom-up explanation (i.e., actions interpret structure),
which links micro- and macro-sociological phenomena together. However, van Dijk
(1993, p. 251) argues that CDA 'prefers to focus on the elites and their discursive
strategies for the maintenance of inequality' through studying top down relations of
him, this will often be effective and adequate, because it is easy to assume that
directive speech acts such as commands or orders may be used to enact power, and
12
the style, rhetoric, or meaning of texts for strategies that aim at the concealment of
social power relations, for instance by playing down, leaving implicit or understating
responsible agency of powerful social actors in the events represented in the text.
CDA, hence, studies the relation between society, discourse and social cognition,
which is the necessary theoretical and empirical interface that should be examined in
detail. Social cognition is the missing link between discourse and dominance, a
is either embedded in social context of situation or that it interprets the social system
and semantic choice. Text is the realization of such environment. CDA treats
discourse as a type of social practice including visual images, music, gestures, and the
like that represent and endorse it. Texts are produced by socially situated speakers and
writers. For participants in discourse, their relations in producing texts are not always
Meanings come about through interaction between readers and receivers and
linguistic features come about as a result of social processes, which are never
dispositions toward language, which are closely related to social status (Fairclough,
1989).
13
1.4 Text, Discourse, and Semiosis
Fairclough (2005) uses text in a generalized sense for the discoursal element
of social events (i.e., not just written but also spoken interaction). Texts are
understood in the light of their relation to other elements of social events and social
structures, as well as of their relation to social practices, the mediating forms between
social events and social structures and the forms of social activity, which include
social relations, social identities, and social subjects. He also uses the term 'semiosis'
rather than ‘discourse’ to refer in a general way to language and other semiotic modes
such as visual image, and the term ‘text’ for semiotic elements of social events (i.e.,
Faiclough (1989) defined text as a product rather than a process; and discourse
in the whole is the process of social interaction. Elsewhere (2003, 2005), he uses the
term ‘discourse’ for linguistic and other semiotic elements (such as visual images and
‘body language’) of the social, and considers text as the linguistic/semiotic elements
of social events, analytically isolable parts of the social process. It is a particular way
for instance, there are different political discourses (liberal, conservative, social-
democratic etc) which represent social groups and relations between social groups in a
society in different ways. To him, text is any actual instance of language in use,
whereas discourse can be used in either a general or a particular way: (a) general
with other elements and (b) particular meaning, such as New Labour ‘Third Way’
style. A genre is a particular way of acting socially, which means acting together, i.e.,
interacting; for instance, there are different genres for consulting, discussing or
14
interviewing. A style is a particular way of being, i.e., a particular identity; for
which can be characterized as different styles. For Fairclough, the social world
consists of abstract social structure and concrete social events. Social practices are the
mediating parts between the two elements. Social structure is represented generally by
language, social practices are represented by orders of discourse, and social events are
represented in texts. Semiosis is an element of the social at all levels. Semiosis figures
Texts, which represent the social concrete events, are the social resources of
discourses, genres, and styles. They do not simply reflect discourses, genres, and
styles, but they actively rework and articulate them together in distinctive and
potentially novel ways. The analysis of texts in this respect, according to Fairclough
(1992), shows how texts articulate different discourses, genres and styles together,
potentially drawing from diverse orders of discourse, and of social agents to use
existing social resources in innovative ways potentially showing the capacity which,
subject to certain conditions, may contribute to changing the character of and relations
between social practices. The causal powers of social agents in social events are thus
conditional upon pre-structured properties of social life, knowledge of which can only
concrete events which can show the socially transformative and constructive powers
of social agents.
Here, CDA stepped forward Foucault's approach that argued that the analysis
15
articulation of meaningful content, or the expression of an individual or collective
psychology. Instead, it is analyzed not only at the level of 'things said,' (i.e., linguistic
analysis), the level at which statements have their 'conditions of possibility' and their
conditions of relation to one another but at the level of semiotic features (Foucault,
1972). Thus, discourse is not just a set of articulated propositions, nor is it the trace of
relations within which all of these other factors gain their sense. Fairclough (2003)
called such analysis of text as 'Interdiscursive', which includes linguistic and semiotic
analysis of text features that allows the analyst to assess the relationship and tension
between the causal effects of agency in the concrete event and the causal effects of
practices and structures, and to detect shifts in the relationship between orders of
and process of discourse. It is a product because it can be stored, retrieved, bought and
sold, cited and summarized and so forth, and it is a process because it is grasped
through regarding what we might call ‘texturing’ (Fairclough 2003). In other words,
relations, social and personal identities. The role of critical discourse analyst is to
analyze relations between discourse and other elements of the social, and to analyze
facets of social structure and social practice (Fairclough, 1993). All linguistic forms,
including language use, text, talk, and every kind of verbal and written
16
1992, 2001, and 2003), a part of communicative event (van Dijk, 1997), and a form of
knowledge and memory, whereas text illustrates concrete oral utterances or written
language as he wrote:
In a similar vein, van Dijk (1998) argued that CDA is a field that is concerned
with studying and analyzing written and spoken texts to reveal the discursive sources
of power, dominance, inequality and bias. It examines how these discursive sources
are maintained and reproduced within specific social, political and historical contexts.
the connections between discourse practices, social practices, and social structures,
However, CDA isn't based on a single theory or method which is uniform and
17
involves linguistic and social approaches, which would endorse Habermas's claim that
language is a medium of domination and social force in such a way that it serves to
legitimize relations of organized power. Weiss and Wodak (2003, p. 6) suggest that
“the whole theoretical framework of CDA seems eclectic and unsystematic”. Whereas
linguistics traditionally focused on the micro analysis of texts and interactions, social
science was traditionally concerned with social practice and social change. In CDA
and the structural (Fairclough 1995a). In CDA, texts do not only provide facts, but
they provide many instances of the facts because it does not only concern with what a
text says, but also how that text portrays facts in various ways in which each and
every text becomes a unique creation of a unique creator. Texts also do not describe
facts, but they propose problems that the analyst tries to solve.
etc.), which are satisfied with recognizing what a text says and restating the key
remarks of the text, CDA goes two steps further. First, it recognizes what a text says
and it reflects on what the text does. Second, it gives instances of interpretations to
what the text, as a whole, means from both what it says and what it does. Meyer
well as it advocates the role for groups who suffer from social discrimination and
inequality.
Many theorists in CDA present the general principles of CDA in their own
terms (van Dijk, 1993; Wodak, 1996; Fairclough and Wodak, 1997). Fairclough and
18
2. Power relations are discursive
5. Discourse is historical
The first principle is that CDA addresses social problems. CDA not only
focuses on language and language use, but also on the linguistic characteristics of
social and cultural processes. CDA follows a critical approach to social problems in
its endeavors to make explicit power relationships which are frequently hidden. It
aims to derive results which are of practical relevance to the social, cultural, political
and even economic contexts (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997). In CDA, social cognition
is the missing link between discourse and society. Van Dijk (1993, p.252) argues that:
in order to relate discourse and society, and hence discourse and the reproduction of
dominance and inequality, we need to examine in detail the role of social
representations in the minds of social actors. More specifically, we hope to show that
social cognition is the necessary theoretical (and empirical) interface , if not the
missing link , between discourse and dominance. In our opinion, neglect of such social
cognitions has been one of the major theoretical shortcomings of most work in critical
linguistics and discourse analysis.
Here, CDA stepped beyond Critical Linguistics and Discourse Analysis since
it concerns most with social cognition in van Dijk's terms or the orders of discourse
and social practice in Fairclough's. The second principle of CDA is that power
relations are discursive. That is CDA explains how social relations of power are
exercised and negotiated in and through discourse (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997).
The third principle is that discourse constitutes society and culture. This means that
19
every instance of language use makes its own contribution to reproducing and
Wodak, 1997). The fourth principle is that discourse does ideological work. In other
ideologies are produced, it is not enough to analyze texts; the discursive practice (how
the texts are interpreted and received and what social effects they have) must also be
considered (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997). The fifth principle is that discourse is
historical. Thus discourses can only be understood with reference to their historical
society and ideology in historical terms (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997; Wodak, 1996,
2001). The sixth principle is that discourse is mediated between text and society.
1993). Fairclough studies this mediated relationship between text and society by
looking at ‘orders of discourse’ (Fairclough, 1989; 1993). Van Dijk (1997) introduces
‘mediated action’ and ‘mediational means’ (Scollon, 2001). The seventh principle is
that CDA is interpretative and explanatory. CDA goes beyond textual analysis. It is
not only interpretative, but also explanatory in intent (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997;
Wodak, 1996, 2001). These interpretations and explanations are dynamic and open,
and may be affected by new readings and new contextual information. The eighth
principle is that discourse, from the point of view of CDA, is a form of social action.
The principal aim of CDA is to uncover opaqueness and power relationships. CDA is
communicative and socio-political practices (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997). Van Dijk
20
(1995, pp.17-18) adds features and criteria that CDA generally characterizes,
and society.
- It may pay attention to all levels and dimensions of discourse( i.e., those of
among others.
- Many studies in CDA are however not limited to these purely “verbal”
(group) relations of power, dominance and inequality and the ways these are
nationality or world-region.
- Much work in CDA is about the underlying ideologies that play a role in the
21
- Among the descriptive, explanatory and practical aims of CDA studies is the
ways to influence the minds (and indirectly the actions) of people in the
Van Dijk shows that CDA pays more attention to issues and problems,
relations of resistance, compliance and acceptance. Van Dijk (2001, 2009) claimed
that CDA is concerned with social problems, representing it as discourse analysis with
opposes those who abuse text and talk in order to establish, confirm, or legitimate
their abuse of power: "CDA does not deny, but explicitly defines and defends its own
sociopolitical position. That is, CDA is biased – and proud of it" (van Dijk, 2001, p.
96). This does not mean that power and dominance are not merely seen as unilaterally
imposed on others, but they may seem jointly produced, e.g. when dominated groups
for understanding of actual power and dominance relations in society, and although
and discourse, critical approach prefers to focus on the elites and their discursive
strategies for the maintenance of inequality. In doing so, the relations between
discourse structures and power structures should be studied, for instance the usage of
directive speech acts such as commands or orders may help understand how power is
22
enacted and how dominance is reproduced. Moreover, the style and the rhetoric of the
text that create different strategies that aim at the concealment of social power
relations and how such strategies are represented are crucial to CDA. To van Dijk,
relations between discourse, power, dominance, social inequality. It concerns with the
role of discourse in the (re) production and challenge of dominance, the exercise of
including political, cultural, class, ethnic, racial and gender inequality. It reveals and
analyzes how power relations are presented, legitimized, denied, concealed among
investigate and show what structures, strategies, or other properties of text, talk,
verbal interaction or communicative events that play a role in achieving power and
• It draws from linguistic analysis, and tries to link linguistic features to wider
including critical discourse analysis, social linguistics, and social semiotics, are
23
context-sensitive forms of discourse analysis, and all share the following
characteristics:
1. They address contemporary societal issues, seeking to show how people are
2. They give special attention to underlying factors of ideology, power, and resistance.
3. They link together analyses of text, discursive practices, and social context.
conceptions of discourse.
and ethos.
9. Unlike other forms of cultural criticism, they ground their analyses in close,
10. To encourage political activism, they try to make their analyses accessible to the
general public by, for example, minimizing the use of technical jargon and
belletristic style. He claims that such critical approaches, including CDA, embody
the generic features that share the critical spirit that is held in common among the
rhetoric conceals as much as it reveals through its relationship with power and
knowledge. They are also not detached and impersonal, but rather have as their
object something which they are "against"; and they have “consequences” in the
24
sense that they “identify the possibilities of future action available to the
studies as it puts more emphasis both on the fine-grained details of text and on the
knowledge and including discursive practices in the analysis. The objective of critical
discourse analysis, on this view, is not simply analysis of discourse, but analysis of
the relations between discourse and non-discoursal elements of the social, in order to
discourse can cause changes in other elements of social structures) (Huckin, 2002).
Fairclough (2003; 2005) argues that both abstract social structure and concrete
social events are two parts of the social world, and the relation between what is
structurally possible and what actually happens is complex. Social practices are the
others, and the retention of these selections over time, in particular areas of social life.
Social practices meditate between social structures and social events. The following
hand, social practices are represented in orders of discourse, and social events are
realized in texts. Discourse analysis, in this view, has a doubly relational character: it
is concerned with relations between discourse and other social elements (i.e., text
25
analysis), and relations between texts as discoursal elements of events and ‘orders of
incorporates discourse analysis into social and organizational research that includes
the claim that such research should include detailed analysis of texts.
discourse as an element of social processes and social events, and also an element of
social practices. It encompasses other forms as well as text, such as visual images and
body language, and texts with different semiotic forms (Fairclough, 2005).
The term 'critical' may relate in the work of some 'critical linguists' and could
1984). In language studies, the term ‘critical’ was first used to characterize an
approach that was called Critical Linguistics (Fowler et al., 1979). Among other ideas,
those scholars held that the use of language could lead to a mystification of social
In CDA, Adam Lodges and Chad Nilep (2007, p. 4) explained what they mean
Lodges and Nilep here showed that the position of the analyst as a scholar
should be taken into account in such a way that it makes critical scholarship be
26
motivated not only to study society for what it is, but for what it might become. In this
Fairclough (1992, p. 9) argued that the present form of CDA 'implies showing
connections and causes that are hidden’ in its critical approach in such a way that the
operations of discursive patterns of ideology that can conceal features of the social
world can be decoded and uncovered. To Fairclough (1992a, 1995), critical means
between properties of texts and social processes, and power relations, which are not
obvious to people who produce and interpret texts. CDA is critical because it doesn't
only describe, but it also interprets and explains the relationship between the form
(i.e., grammar, , morphology, semantics, syntax, and pragmatics) and the function
(i.e., how people use language in different situations to achieve an aim.) of language.
In doing so, the critical discourse analyst is not neutral, but explores hidden power in
In the same vein, Ruth Wodak (2001, p. 1), following van Dijk (1986),
distinguished critical science from non-critical sciences as the former asks further
questions than the latter, such as those of responsibility, interests, and ideology.
prevailing social problems and chooses the perspectives of those who suffer most, and
critically analyzes those in power, those who are responsible, and those who have the
means and the opportunity to solve such problems. To Wodak (2001), to be critical is
to have a 'distance to the data, embedding the data in the social, taking a political
27
stance explicitly, and a focus on self-reflection as scholars doing research' (p.9). This
means researchers should be objective in their analysis and subjective to their results
and findings that should be put in practical seminars for teachers, doctors and civil
critical theory should be directed at the totality of society in its historical specificity
society by integrating all the major social sciences, including economics, sociology,
Billig (2002. pp. 36-40) shows crucial features that differentiate the recent
critical approaches, including CDA, from previous ones, such as Kant (1781, 1964),
Karl Popper (1976), and Jean Piaget (in Erica Burman,1996). He gave particular
meanings to the current use of being critical, summarized as follows: First, critical
approaches claim to be critical of the present social order, namely their targets are
power elites that sustain social inequality and injustice (van Dijk, 1997). Therefore,
means of criticizing the social order. Therefore, CDA is distinguished from previous
other academic approaches that are not primarily addressed to the critique of existing
analysis). For example, Fairclough (1992a, p. 12) writes that ‘critical approaches
differ from non-critical approaches in not just describing discursive practices, but also
28
Fairclough (1993), Critical discourse analysis is ‘critical’ in the sense that it aims to
reveal the role of discursive practice in the maintenance of the social world, including
those social relations that involve unequal relations of power, and its aim is to
contribute to social change along the lines of more equal power relations in
objective, but critical in the sense to be committed to social change. Third, CDA is
augmented by critical social analysis and the tools of social analysis should be
semiotics, and social linguistics embodied the generic features that any critical must
satisfy: they share the same critical spirit that is held in common among the divergent
power/knowledge"; they are "not detached and impersonal, but rather have as their
object something which they are ‘against"; and they have "consequences" in the sense
that they "identify the possibilities of future action available to the participants" (p.
368).
Jorgensen and Phillips (2002, p. 2) also argue that critical approaches "have in
common the aim of carrying out critical research, that is, to investigate and analyze
critique of such relations can be made with an eye on the possibilities for social
29
theoretical premises, including particular understandings of discourse, social practice
and critique, which lead to particular aims, methods and empirical focal points." The
critical part in CDA seeks to create awareness in agents of their own needs and
ideologies (Weiss and Wodak, 2000, p. 14). Gee (2005) states that 'approaches to
discourse analysis that avoid combining a model of grammatical and textual analysis
(of whatever sort) with sociopolitical and critical theories of society and its
language study arises from the answers it introduces to questions of how and why
rather than just to answer what questions that focus on description and statement of
facts. He also shows that CDA is critical because it is used in special sense of aiming
to show up connections which may be hidden from people – such as the connection
between language, power, and ideology and it analyses social interactions focusing
CDA and are used to help the analyst understand, explain, and analyze the complexity
of intertexual and interdiscursive texts. They are also interconnected and dependent
on each other and the following section explores their meanings as used and referred
in CDA.
30
1.7.1 Intertextuality
types, and analysis of discourses in texts (Fairclough, 1995b). For Fairclough (1992,
previously encountered texts are incorporated into a new text and are usually, but not
always, explicitly marked with devices such as quotation marks and reporting clauses.
He argues that linguistic means such as quotation and verbs of reporting are on a
discourse, discourse representation accounts for a major part of what news is:
- The explicit and implicit relations that a text or utterance has to prior, contemporary
and potential future texts. Through such relations a text evokes a representation of
the discourse situation, the textual resources that bear on the situation, and how the
current text positions itself and draws on other texts.
For the purpose of analysis, Bazerman distinguishes such implicit and explicit
relations in different levels of a text at which it invokes another text and relies on the
other text as a resource. He identifies six levels of intertextuality that emerge in a text.
These are:
31
3- background, support, and contrast,
certain techniques that represent the words and utterances of others, starting with the
most explicit:
a) direct quotation.
b) indirect quotation.
f) using language and forms that seem to echo certain ways of communicating,
The intertextual analysis examines how writers draw on other sources for the
writing of their texts. It explores how the writers include other sources in their texts,
what types of sources the writers used, how the writers used these sources, and how
the writers positioned themselves in relation to other sources to make their own
intertextuality.
1. Underline or highlight each reference in the text and then create a list of all
instances;
2. List how such reference is expressed whether through a direct quotation, indirect
32
3. Make comments on how or for what purpose the intertextual element is being used
5. look for a pattern from which you start developing conclusions, which again would
In the same vein, following White (2002a), Wei Wang (2007) introduced a
vocalisation’ is concerned with the internal voice of the writer or speaker which
involve the inclusion in the text of some explicitly external voice. Intra-vocalisation is
considered under the resources of ‘modality, proclaims and disclaims’, whereas extra-
Attributed
Personal or impersonal
33
Identified or unidentified
Specific or generic
Singular or plural
Unattributed
Background information
Evidence
Others
sources).
source in terms of textual integration, source type, and endorsement. This framework
covers the explicit intertextual presentation (i.e., direct and indirect quotation,
‘Textual integration’ indicates the degree of integrating the material by the use of
paraphrase or by direct quoting. ‘Source type’ refers to the source in more or less
34
personalized, named, specific or authoritative ways; and ‘endorsement’ indicates
various degrees of support for material (White, 2002a; Wang 2007, p. 133).
1.7.2 Interdisciplinarity
interdisciplinarity: the centralist, the pluralist, and the integrationist. He pointed out
between different autonomous disciplines, each of which sees itself as the center of
the universe of knowledge, and charts its relations to other disciplines. The core of
each discipline is formed by its theories, methods and central subject matters.
The pluralist model brings all disciplines together as equal partners and as
autonomous and self-sufficient in the way they operate without affecting their
identities nor their values. Like the pluralist model, the integrationist model focuses
on problems rather than methods and brings together researchers from different
disciplines. In this view, no single discipline can satisfactorily address any given
problem on its own. As a result disciplines are seen as interdependent, and research
projects involve team work with specific divisions of labor and specific integrative
autonomy to define what will count as a research problem and how it will be
mechanisms (e.g. through specialist terminologies), and with distinct perspectives and
that can contribute in specific ways to integrated projects. In such a context the
linguist, for example, is not just a linguist but one who is skillful in linguistics and
35
knows how to do certain types of linguistic research and can therefore make a specific
and useful contribution to interdisciplinary research projects in such a way that brings
projects that are interdisciplinary as a whole, but without affecting other contributing
disciplines (i.e., sociology and linguistics), and intertextuality concerns with the
relations between one text and other texts in one hand and to other social practices
and activities on the other. Interdiscursivity of a text refers to the presence within it
other genres and styles of other texts. A single text may incorporate more than one
genre or style, and may refer to and adopt genres and styles which relate to other
the shift of meanings either within a single genre or across genres. In the process of
1.7.3 Transdisciplinarity
work of any one person . In this perspective, texts are sites of struggles as they
involve traces of differing discourses and ideologies (Wodak, 2001, Leeuwen, 2001).
Moreover, CDA approach mediates between social theories and linguistic theories
(Fairclough, 1992, 3003, Van Dijk, 1997, 2002; Wodak, 2002; Weiss and Wodak,
2002). Therefore, the CDA proponents believe that the complex interrelations
36
between discourse and society cannot be analyzed adequately unless linguistic and
transdisciplinary way where the logic of one discipline (i.e., sociology) can be ‘put to
1999).
and Bernstein were borrowed into CDA (Weiss and Wodak, 2002). This
field of linguistics would tend to confirm van Dijk’s point that CDA and Critical
discourse analysis’ (van Dijk, 1993, p. 131). CDA sees ‘language as social practice’
(Fairclough and Wodak, 1997), and considers the context of language use to be
crucial. This form of cooperation is used to treat different subjects within a framework
of a transdisciplinary design. This means that discourse analysis in this view involves
working in dialogue with particular bodies of social theory and approaches to social
37
research, identifying specific research questions for discourse analysis within the
object of research, seeking to ensure that relations between discourse and other social
disciplines complement each other and they coexist in a form of cooperation, which
disciplines and drawing on a pool of theories. (Weiss and Wodak, 2002, p.18).
Analysis (CA) in the following points (Rebecca Rogers, 2004). First, political and
social ideologies are projected onto the data rather than being revealed through the
data. This means that the critic analyst enters his/her analysis with predefined criteria
or patterns to apply to chosen parts of the text (i.e., the target data of analysis).
Second, there is no balance between social theory and linguistic method. Third, many
discourse analyses are extracted from social contexts. This implies that what
Schegloff (1999) pointed out that many linguists working in CDA invoke many
concepts from social theory, such as 'power differences or hegemony', when it is not
always so clear how the participants are linguistically indexing something like what'
For the first point, Fairclough and Wodak (1997) argue that CDA is not seen a
38
view that may change over the years. Similarly, Van Dijk (1993) pointed out that
CDA does not primarily aim to contribute to a specific discipline, paradigm, school,
which it hopes to better understand through discourse analysis. For the second, Van
Dijk (1993) shows that theories, descriptions, methods and empirical work are chosen
sociopolitical goal because it is impossible to analyze the whole data in details. For
the third, CDA is trasdisciplinary approach (Fairclough, 1995, 2003; van Dijk, 1997,
1993; Wodak, 2002) due to the difficulty and complexity of its task (uncovering
social inequality and power abuse). Discourse analysis here involves a political
critique of those responsible for its perversion in the reproduction of dominance and
inequality. In doing so, critical discourse analyst should be aware of social and
political issues. This means that CDA is ideological since 'any critique by definition
Billig (2002) argues that analysts should not have to wait until "power" or
"abuse" are actually brought up or attended to before the analyst can invoke them.
Invoking them need not be an imperialistic move, but rather an informed and
cautionary attempt to fill-out the social and cultural forces which have come to make
possible the encounter in the first place. Billig (2002) basically argues that CA should
become more ideological in its fine-grained efforts and less neutral. Because Billig
should aim less for pure empiricism and more for an open and reflexive ideological
Silverman (2001) concluded that both CDA and CA have different analytic
agendas and starting points and each orientation is operating at a different level of
39
analysis. CA, for example, is simply designed to reveal how things like pronomial
language practices (Firclough, 1989, van Dijk, 1997, 2003). The debate isn't that CA
is really about when and how things like "context" and "participant orientation" are
brought into the analytic discussion, and how they ground claims-making (Silverman,
2001, p. 19).
Fairclough and Wodack (1997) suggest that such critiques exist because of the
which research or researcher they relate to because CDA as such cannot be viewed as
a holistic or closed paradigm and such program or set of principles has changed over
the years.
Philo (2012, p. 17) argued that "critical discourse analysis would be more
in its inability to show the relationships between a text and social interests; the
existence of the diversity of social accounts compared to what is present (and absent)
in a specific text; and the impact of external factors such as professional ideologies on
the manner in which the discourses are represented as well as the fact that the text
actually has different meanings to different types of receivers. He also claimed that
such analysis, in certain cases, may affect the accuracy of representation of texts as
well as some participants (i.e., politician speakers) may exaggerate what they are
saying or may speak of things they want to happen as if they are already happening,
40
and this may create misinterpretation of discourse. To handle such problems, Philo
suggests that CDA-analysts must fill the gap between text and reality, or between
1.9 Conclusion
This chapter has given a background view about discourse in general and
developed from the theory formerly identified as Critical Linguistics (CL), regarding
language (i.e., discourse) as social practice (Wodak, 2001; Fairclough and Wodak,
1997). It takes into consideration the context of language use to be crucial (Wodak,
2000). CDA takes particular interest in the relation between language and power and its
research area is specifically about institutional, political, gender and media discourses; its
orientation is concerned with political issues, and its focus is extensive to be diverse in focus
and interdisciplinary in scholarship (Blackledge, 2005). In CDA, text is used to refer to the
larger discursive unit that represents the basic unit of communication, whereas discourse
to understand why text is produced and to see its interaction with social structure.
41
Works Cited
Althusser, L. 1971. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. In L. Althusser ed., Lenin
and Philosophy and other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Bazerman, C. 2004. Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts. In C. Bazerman & P.
Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and
textual practices (pp. 83-96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Billig, Michael 2002. Critical Discourse Analysis and the Rhetoric of Critique. In Critical
Discourse Analysis Theory and Interdisciplinarity, Weiss and Wodak, eds. New York, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Blackledge, Adrian 2005. Discourse and Power in a Multilingual World, John Benjamins,
North America.
Bourdieu, Pierre 1974. Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction. In: Karabel, J., &
Halsey, A. H. (eds.) Power and Ideology in Education. Oxford University Press, New York, pp.
487-511.
Brown, Gillian and George Yule 1983. Discourse Analysis. U.S.A: Cambridge University
Press.
Chouliaraki, Lilie and Norman Fairclough 1999, Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking
Critical Discourse Analysis, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.
Dijk, T .van 2002b. Political discourse and political cognition. In Politics as Text and Talk.
Analytical approaches to political discourse Paul A. Chilton and Christina Schäffner, eds., (pp.
204-236). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Available: http://www.discourses.org/
Dijk, T .van 2003. The Discourse-Knowledge Interface. In Critical Discourse Analysis Theory
and Interdisciplinarity, Weiss and Wodak, eds. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Dijk, T. van 1977. Pragmatic macrostructures in discourse and cognition. In: M. de Mey, et
al., Eds., CC 77 . (pp. 99-113). University of Ghent.
Dijk, T. van 1993. Analyzing Racism through Discourse Analysis. Some Methodological
Reflections. In: J. Stanfield (Ed.), Race and ethnicity in Research Methods . (pp. 92-134).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Socialist Studies Bulletin , 30, 1992, 17-23.
42
Dijk, T. van 1995. Power and the News Media. In D. Paletz (Ed.), Political Communication
and Action. (pp. 9-36). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Available online on:
http://www.discourses.org/
Dijk, T. van 1996. Discourse, power and access. In Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and
Malcolm Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and Practices. Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis . (pp.
84-104). London: Routledge. Available: http://www.discourses.org/
Dijk, T. van 1997. Political discourse and racism. Describing Others in Western
Parliaments. In S. H. Riggins (Ed.), The Language and Politics of Exclusion. Others in
Discourse. (pp. 31-64). Thousand Oaks, CA: -Sage. Available online on:
http://www.discourses.org/
Dijk, T. van 1997a. Cognitive context models and discourse. In M. Stamenow (Ed.).
Language Structure, Discourse and the Access to Consciousness . (pp. 189-226). Amsterdam:
Benjamins. Available: http://www.discourses.org/
Dijk, T. van 1997b. What is political discourse analysis? Key-note address Congress
Political Linguistics. Antwerp, 7-9 -December 1995. In Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (Eds.),
Political linguistics.(pp. 11-52). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Available:
http://www.discourses.org/
Dijk, T. van 1999. Context and Experience Models in Discourse Processing. In Herre van
Oostendorp & Susan Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during
reading. (pp. 123-148). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Available online on:
http://www.discourses.org/
Dijk, T. van 1999. Media, Racism and Monitoring In Kaarle Nordenstreng & Michael Griffin
(Eds.), International Media Monitoring. (pp. 307-316). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Available:http://www.discourses.org/
Dijk, T. van 2000. Ideologies, racism, discourse: Debates on immigration and ethnic issues.
In: Jessika ter Wal & Maykel Verkuyten (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on racism. (pp. 91-
116). Aldershot etc.: Ashgate. Available: http://www.discourses.org/
Dijk, T. van 2000. New(s) Racism: A discourse analytical approach. In: Simon Cottle
(Ed.), Ethnic Minorities and the Media. (pp. 33-49). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University
Press. Available: http://www.discourses.org/
43
Dijk, T. van 2001. Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin & H. Hamilton
(Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. (pp. 352-371). Oxford: Blackwell. Available online on:
http://www.discourses.org/
Dijk, T. van 2001. Discourse, ideology and context. Folia Linguistica, XXX/1-2, 11-40.
Available online on: http://www.discourses.org/
Dijk, T. van 2002a. Political discourse and Ideology In Clara Ubaldina Lorda & Montserrat
Ribas (Eds.), Anàlisi del discurs polític. (pp. 15-34). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
IULA. Available: http://www. discourses.org/
Dijk, T. van 2009. Society and Discourse: How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk,
Cambridge University Press, United States of America.
Dijk, T. van, Discourse and racism 2002. In David Goldberg & John Solomos (Eds.), The
Blackwell Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies. (pp. 145-159). Oxford: Blackwell.
Available online on: http://www.discourses.org/
Dijk, T.van 1995. Opinions and Ideologies in the Press. Paper Round Table on Media
Discourse, Cardiff, July 8-10. Published in Allan Bell and Peter Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to
Media Discourse. ( pp. 21-63 ). Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Fairclough , Norman 1993 Critical discourse analysis and the commodification of public
discourse, Discourse and Society 4.2 1993: 133-68.
Fairclough, Isabela and Fairclough, Norman 2012. Political Discourse Analysis: A method
for advanced Students, Routledge, London and New York.
Fairclough, Norman 2003: Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Oxon
and New York: Routledge.
Fairclough, Norman 1995b. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. In
Language in Social Life Series, London.
Fairclough, Norman 1995c: Critical Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman 1996. Rhetoric and critical discourse analysis: A reply to Titus
Ensink and Christoph Sauer. Current Issues in Language & Society, 3(3), 286-289.
Fairclough, Norman 2005. Discourse Analysis in Organization Studies: The Case for Critical
Realism , Organization Studies 26: 915-939.
44
Fairclough, Norman 2005b. Critical Discourse Analysis in Transdisciplinary Research. In A
New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity,
Wodak, Ruth and Chilton Paul, eds., John Benjamins Publishing co., USA.
Fairclough, Norman 2006. Tony Blair and the language of politics. Available at: http://
www.opendemocracy.net / democracy – blair / blair_language_4205. jsp Accessed: 15 May
2009.
Fairclough, Norman and Ruth Wodak 1997. Critical Discourse Analysis. In Discourse as
Social Interaction, Teun van Dijk, ed.. London: Sage. 258-84.
Fowler R, Hodge B, Kress G, and Trew T (eds.) 1979, Language and control. London:
Routledge.
Gee, James Paul 1990, Social Linguistics and Literacies : Ideology in Discourses, New York,
The Flames Press.
Gee, James Paul 2005, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, USA,
Routledge.
Gee, James Paul 2011. How to do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit, USA and Canada,
Routledge.
Hall, S. 1981 'Notes on Deconstructing the Popular' In People's History and Socialist
Theory, London: Routledge.
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood 1978, Language as Social Semiotics: The Social
Interpretation of Language and Meaning, London, Edward Arnold (publishers) Ltd.
Huckin, Thomas 2002, Critical Discourse Analysis and the Discourse of Condescension in
Discourse Studies in Composition, ed. E. Barton and G. Stygall. Hampton.
Jorgensen, Marianne and Louise Phillips 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method,
New Delhi, Sage. Available: http://www.discourse-in-society.org/dis-pol-ideo.htm. Accessed:
3-1- 2012
M. Reisigl and R. Wodak, eds. 2000. The semiotics of racism. Approaches to Critical
Discourse Analysis, Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
45
Meyer, Michael, 2001. Between Theory, Method and Politics: Positioning of the
Approaches to CDA. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. eds., Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis. London: Sage.
Meyer, Michael, 2001. Between Theory, Method and Politics: Positioning of the
Approaches to CDA. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. eds., Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis. London: Sage.
Pecheux, Michel 1975, Language, Semantics and Ideology, London, The Macmillan Press
Ltd.
Philo, G. 2012. Can Discourse Analysis Successfully explain the Content of Media and
Journalistic Practice’ in Journalism Studies , Vol 8 Number 2.
Saussure, de, F. 1959. Course in general linguistics. New York: The Philosophical Library.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1999. "Schegloff's Texts' as Billig's Data:' A Critical Reply," Discourse
and Society, 10:4, 558-72.
Schiffrin, D., Deborah Tannen, & Hamilton, H. E. (eds.). (2001). Handbook of Discourse
Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Scollon, R. 2001. Mediated Discourse. The Nexus of Practice. London: Routledge (in press).
Sheyholislami, Jaffer (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis, Excerpts from the MA Thesis,
September 2001, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada: Yesterday’s “separatists” are today’s
“resistance fighters”: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the representation of Iraqi Kurds in The
Globe and Mail and The New York Times.
Sheyholislami, Jaffer (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis, Excerpts from the MA Thesis,
September 2001, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada: Yesterday’s “separatists” are today’s
“resistance fighters”: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the representation of Iraqi Kurds in The
Globe and Mail and The New York Times.
Svetanant, Chavalin, 2009. Revealing Linguistic Power: Discourse Practice toward “Youth”
in Japanese and hai Newspapers, Japan Review, 2009, 21:225–240. Available:
http://shinku.nichibun.ac.jp/jpub/pdf/jr/JN2106.pdf. Accessed on 12- 08- 2012.
Van Leeuwen, T. 2006. Critical Discourse Analysis, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, Elsevier
Ltd.
46
Wang, Wei 2007. Newspaper commentaries on terrorism in China and Australia: A
contrastive genre study. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1701. Accessed: 5-4-2012.
Weiss, Gilbert and Ruth Wodak, eds. 2002, Critical Discourse Analysis Theory and
Interdisciplinarity, New York, PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.
Wooffitt, Robin 2005, Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and
Critical Introduction, London, SAGE.
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/14706/Proceedings%20RIS%20200
9%20-%20Maarten%20van%20Leeuwen.pdf?sequence=2.
47