Discourse:

Since discourse is an interdisciplinary term that is used in various contexts and perspectives, it
is no surprise that it will be attributed to multiple definitions by different scholars. (Van Dijk,
1997, p. 2) claimed that discourse is "the use of language by people to convey ideas, thoughts, or
beliefs within a social context.", while Cook (1989) views discourse as “a stretch of language
perceived to be meaningful unified, and purposive.”. Also, discourse is interpreted simply as
language in use, which refers to the norms, preferences, and expectations that link language to
the context in which it is used.

Wodak and Ludwig (1999), asserted that discourse and society are intertwined. They thus have
an impact on one another. Discourse plays an important role in shaping the reality of societies,
people’s history, culture, and way of life are conveyed through discourse. People and discourse
are interrelated to each other because understanding discourse entails understanding its users and
understanding the underlying beliefs and value systems of people is made easier by examining
their language. Rukaya Hassen,2015. (P.119). Similarly, Fairclough (1992) assumes that there is
a reciprocal relationship between discourse and society, which makes discourse both socially
constituted and socially constitutive (p.64), this highlights the idea that societal elements like
classes, norms, and institutions shape discourse. On the other hand, discourse represents social
reality. It's a dynamic interplay where language reflects and influences the structures and
dynamics of society. Scollon and Scollon (2001); as cited in Rukaya. H (2015): “Discourse refers
to socially shared habits of thought, perception, and behavior reflected in numerous texts
belonging to different genres.” This definition suggests that discourse encompasses the shared
ways in which people think, perceive, and behave, as expressed in various types of texts. It
highlights the influence of social context on the creation and interpretation of written or spoken
communication across different genres.

It can be found sometimes that the term “Text” is used interchangeably with the term
“Discourse”, while text focuses on linguistic content, discourse extends beyond to consider the
broader communicative context, including the relationships, power dynamics, and cultural
influences that shape communication. Accordingly, Schiffrin (1994), made the following
distinction between text and discourse:

I will use the term “text” to differentiate linguistic material (e.g. what is said, assuming a
verbal channel) from the environment in which “sayings” (or other linguistic production)
occur (context). In terms of utterances, then the text is the linguistic content: the stable
semantic meanings of words, expressions, and sentences, but not the inferences available
to hearers depending upon the contexts in which words, expressions, and sentences are
used (...) Context is thus a word filled with people producing utterances: people who have
social, cultural, and personal identities, beliefs, goals, and wants, and who interact with
one another in various socially and culturally defined situations (p.363).

Schiffrin’s distinction evolves around the idea that text involves linguistic material, while
discourse encompasses both the linguistic content (text) and the surrounding context in which it
emerges.

Discourse analysis :
Discourse analysis is a field or a spectrum that examines language use in social contexts. Its
main purpose is to decipher communication and peel the latter's layers to reach the meaning
behind it, all while investigating both forms of communication which are spoken or written
forms. It was mentioned in the Handbook of Discourse Analysis Edited by Schiffering, D et al,
that the field of discourse analysis has developed quickly, and because of the diversity of
disciplines, the term "discourse" has been defined differently by various scholars based on their
points of view, For instance, according to Fosold (1990), "the study of discourse is the study of
language use." Other writers, on the other hand, define discourse analysis as the study of
anything that goes beyond a sentence.

But this is not everything, because trying to define discourse analysis and putting it in one frame
can be an intricate assignment and a challenging process since it's polysemic. "Discourse
analysis is a term which has no single stable definition and is therefore used differently by
different theorists.", as cited in Hogan, S. 2013. Hogan (2013) emphasized the versatility and the
multiple facets that discourse analysis has, and that's agreed upon by many linguistics such as
Schiffin, Tanner, and Hamilton (2000) when they stood by a particular facet of discourse
analysis as Hogan (2013) mentioned in her research paper, they claimed that the word
"discourse" has "generally been defined as anything beyond the sentence", in which a person
scratches the superficial level of any communication and makes his way through the profound
level, the level beyond the sentence. While for other linguists such as Fasold (1990), as cited in
Hogan (2013) discourse analysis is ‘primarily a study of language use’, this definition only
explores the facet of language use, it focuses on the unraveling the subtleties in linguistic
interactions and how language operates in daily conversations.

James Paul Gee (1999) on the other hand claimed in his book "An Introduction to Discourse
Analysis" that discourse analysis is "the study of language-in-use", he then accompanied this
definition with an example in his book that aligned with the former, he used the example of Yu-
Gi-Oh to illustrate the concept of "discourses" and how they shape and form our understanding
and interactions within a particular culture or community. "The language on Yu-Gi-Oh! cards do
not get their meaning first and foremost from definitions or verbal explanations, that is, from
other words. It gets its meaning from what it is used to do, in this case, play a game. This is
language as doing." Said Gee (1999, p4), so to understand the Yu-Gi-Oh references, a person has
to be within the Yu-Gi-Oh community.

Critical Discourse Analysis :

Critical Discourse Analysis’s diverse origins can be traced back to a rich tapestry of disciplines
including Rhetoric, Text linguistics, Anthropology, Philosophy, Socio-Psychology, Cognitive
Science, Literary Studies, and Sociolinguistics. Additionally, its foundations can be found in
Applied Linguistics and Pragmatics. In the early 1990s, a group of brilliant scholars came
together to form CDA, a network dedicated to the study of Discourse Analysis. This remarkable
initiative was sparked by a small gathering in Amsterdam in January 1991, where Teun van Dik,
Norman Fairclough, Gunther Kress, Theo van Leeuwen, and Ruth Wodak had the privilege of
spending two days exchanging ideas and exploring the intricacies of CDA's concepts and
methodologies. Thanks to the support of the University of Amsterdam, this gathering laid the
foundation for the emergence of CDA as a thriving scholarly community. (Ruth Wodak and
Michael Meyer, 2009).

Teun A. van Dijk is considered one of the founders of Critical Discourse Studies. According to
Van Dijk (2015):“ Critical Discourse analysis is a type of discourse analysis research that
primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted,
reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in social and political contexts”. This means that
Critical Discourse Analysis examines how language is used to enforce power dynamics,
inequality, and dominance in social and political contexts, while also investigating how language
can be utilized for resistance and social change.

Van Dijk ( 2015), assumed that CDA is not just another research approach in the study of
discourse; it is a critical perspective that permeates various areas of discourse studies. It can be
found in discourse grammar, Conversation Analysis, discourse pragmatics, rhetoric, stylistics,
narrative analysis, argumentation analysis, multimodal discourse analysis, social semiotics,
sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication, and even the psychology of discourse
processing. In essence, CDA is not just about studying discourse, but it is a discourse study with
a distinct attitude. Van Dijk (2015), also provided the following elements as the main properties
of CDA :

•It focuses primarily on social problems and political issues rather than the mere study of
discourse structures outside their social and political contexts.
•This critical analysis of social problems is usually multidisciplinary.
Rather than merely describe discourse structures, it tries to explain them in terms of
properties of social interaction and especially social structure.
•More specifically, CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm,
legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of power abuse (dominance) in society (P.
467).

On the other hand, Fairclough and Wodak, 1997 as cited in Van.D, 2015, p.467, summarized
the following points as the crucial tenets of CDA :
• CDA addresses social problems.
•Power relations are discursive.
•Discourse constitutes society and culture.
•Discourse does ideological work.
• Discourse is historical.
•The link between text and society is mediated.
•Discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory.
•Discourse is a form of social action.

Van Dijk (2015), tried to make a connection between the micro levels of society which include (
language, discourse, and communication) to the macro levels of society which refers to (power,
dominance, and ideology) which he regarded as the central aim of CDA.
According to Van Dijk(2015), one of the main notions that are strongly related to CDA is the
notion of “Power”, which he defined as “Control” or more specifically “ Social control” of
groups, He strongly argues that the level of power a group possesses is directly proportional to
their ability to manipulate and influence the thoughts and behaviors of another group of
individuals.
Dominant people can exercise power over controlled people through what is called social
resources such as (money, force, information, knowledge, culture, and public speeches and
communication). Accordingly, Controlling discourse allows people to control their minds,
ideologies, intentions, plans, attitudes, and actions. To exercise power through discourse, one
must control the textual features of the text for example ( the lexical choice and rhetorical
features…etc), and context (time and place), as well as the participant's backgrounds, goals, and
implications. ( pp. 469-471)

On the other hand, Fairclough, as cited in Flowerdew, J & Richardson, J.E. (2017) has provided
the notion of “dialectical reasoning” to refer to CDA, which emphasizes the interconnectedness
of explanation, critique to action which could potentially reinforce political action to change
social life to the better. According to Fairclough:“ CDA is a form of critical social analysis.”, It
goes beyond simply criticizing discourse, but also aims to bring about positive change. By
examining the relationship between discourse and other social elements like power, ideologies,
and institutions, CDA offers a comprehensive critique of social reality. However, its objective is
not just to critique, but to inspire action for a better society. While CDA itself is not action, it
serves as a stepping stone towards it, we cannot move from critique to action without proper
explanation.

Fairclough, (2013), has suggested that CDA is “ a form of practical argumentation.”, it connects
critique, explanation, and action in a range of premises to a claim of what should be done. It
serves as a valuable tool to dissect political discourse, such as debates, that heavily rely on
practical arguments. Fairclough, (2013), as cited in Flowerdew, J & Richardson, J.E. (2017)

Political Discourse :

van Dijk (1997); Fairclough and Fairclough (2012), as cited in Tannen, D., et al,(2000), have
agreed upon the idea that Political discourse encompasses various forms of communication, such
as speeches, debates, interviews, and policy documents, that are directly related to politics. On
the other hand, Cicero (1971), used the term rhetoric to refer to Political discourse, which in turn
refers to specific methods of persuasion that are used within the political context.
Hogan, S. 2013. Understanding Discourse Analysis. James Paul Gee. An Introduction To
Discourse Analysis, 3rd edition.

Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W.(2001).Discourse and Intercultural Communication. In Tannen, D.,

Hamilton, H. E., & Schiffrin, D. (2nd ed). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Uk: Blackwell.

Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E., & Schiffrin, D. (2000). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis.

Fasold, R. (1990). Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wodak, R. & Ludwig, C. (Eds.) (1999). Challenges in a changing world: Issues in Critical
Discourse Analysis. Vienna: Passagenverlag.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What Is Political Discourse Analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics.

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse Analysis. (p.363). Oxford: Blackwell

Cook. G. 1989. Discourse. (p.156). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. UK: Polity Press.

Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory and
Methodology.

Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W.(2001). In Hassen, R.(2015). Discourse as Medium of Knowledge:

Transmission of Knowledge by Transmission of Discourse People Live. 6(31)

Van Dijk, T.A. (2015). Critical Discourse Analysis. In Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E., & Schiffrin,
D. (2nd ed). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 466- 471). Uk: Wiley Blackwell.

Fairclough, N. In Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (2018). The Routledge Handbook of

Critical Discourse Studies (pp.13-14). London and New York: Taylor & Francis.