Critical Discourse

Analysis and
Discursive Devices
Used in Text
Analysis
Prof. Leeroi Christian Q. Rubio, LPT, MAEd
Faculty, English Language Studies
National University, Manila
 CRITICAL
DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
 CRITICAL DISCOURSE

• entails the use of seen in CDA as:

rational analysis to • a language text, spoken
question the limits of or written;
human knowledge and • discourse practice (text
the understanding of production and text
the physical world interpreta­tion); and
• sociocultural practice
THREE CHARACTERISTICS OF DISCOURSE
(Fairclough, 2003)

discourses
genre (ways styles (ways
(ways of
of acting) of being)
representing)
 deal with a specific way of
manipulating and framing discourse

GENRES considered significant because they

(ways of provide a framework for an audience
to comprehend discourse
acting)
can be the locus of power, domination
and resistance
DISCOURSES (ways of representing)
• crucial in assessing the means by which apparently similar
aspects of the world can be appreciated and understood
from different perspectives or positions

STYLES (ways of being)

• refer to the ways in which discourse is used to constitute a
sense of being and identity, how identification is located
through the application and manner of particular
discourses
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
• Critical discourse analysis is a methodology that enables a
vigorous assessment of what is meant when language is used to
describe and explain.

•Moreover, it is is a form of discourse analysis that is a broad and

complex interdisciplinary field (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997; Wodak
and Meyer 2001) with different theories, methodologies and research
issues (Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002; Weiss and Wodak, 2003;
Blommaert, 2005).
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
• Critical discourse analysis is a perspective on critical scholarship:
a theory and a method of analysing the way that individuals and
institutions use language (Richardson, 2007)

• It asserts that meaning in discourse hides in or lies behind the

words (the language). It argues that textual meaning is constructed
through an interaction between producer, text and consumer rather
than simply being read off the page by all readers in exactly the same
way' (Richardson, 2007)
KEY THEORISTS
OF CDA
• Norman Fairclough
• Ruth Wodak
• Teun van Dijk
CRITICAL DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
• Critical discourse analysis 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 the specific
social, political and historical
contexts (van Dijk, 1998).
AGENDA OF CDA

• 'to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality

and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and
texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and
processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise
out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and
struggles over power' (Fairclough, 1995)
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
•CDA aims to criticize connections between properties of texts and
social processes and relations (ideologies, power relations) which are
generally not obvious to people who produce and interpret those texts,
and whose effectiveness depends upon this opacity (Fairclough, 1992).
FOR FAIRCLOUGH (1995)

Language use is
always
simultaneously
constitutive of:

systems of
social relations;
social identities; knowledge and
and
beliefs
3 PRINCIPLES OF CRITICAL
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
(Fairclough & Wodak, 1997)

• CDA addresses social problems.

• In CDA, power relations are discursive.
• Discourse constitutes society and culture
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
• CDA includes linguistic (1) description of the
language text; (2) interpretation of the
relationship between the discursive processes
and the text; and (3) explanation of the
relationship between the discursive processes
and the social process.
FAIRCLOUGH’S 3 STAGES OF CDA

• Description - refers to the stage that is concerned with the formal properties of
a text

• Interpretation - deals with the relationship between text and interaction and
views the text as the product of a process of production and as a resource in
the process of interpretation

• Explanation - concerned with the relationship between interaction and social

context with social determination of the process of production and
interpretation and their social effects
 DISCURSIVE EVENT

TEXT DISCURSIVE PRACTICE

SOCIAL PRACTICE
TEXT

• analyzed in CDA through its

features such as lexis (choice of
words, patterns in vocabulary),
grammar (use of active and
passive voice, modals) and
cohesion (use of conjunctions,
synonyms and text structures
(problem-solution, cause-effect,
turn-taking)
DISCURSIVE PRACTICE

• refers to the process of text production, distribution and

consumption in society
• seen in discourse by paying attention to intertextuality, which links
a text to other texts and its contexts; and interdiscursivity, when
texts are made up of heterogeneous elements or various discourse
types, such as mix of formal and informal language in different texts.
SOCIAL PRACTICE

• deals with issues important for

social analysis including power
relations and ideological
struggles that discourses
produce, challenge or transform
in some way
PUT IN MIND

• In critical discourse analysis, one

must always be CRITICAL.
• CDA sees the relationship
between language and society
being dialectical.
 DISCURSIVE
DEVICES IN
TEXT ANALYSIS
 what is discourse?

In this how can we analyze a discourse?

section, what can be analyzed in a discourse?

we will what are the several types of discourse markers

know. . .
and devices?

what should we consider in analyzing a discourse?

Let’s take a step
back. . .
“Language has power. The
language we use in public political
discourse and the way we talk about
events and people in everyday life
makes a difference in the way we think
and the way we act about them...when
we make meaning, the world is
changed as a consequence. This power
is subtle. It does not hit like a hammer
or first. It is mysteriously ambiguous.”
(Mehan, 1997:250)
What is
discourse?
DISCOURSE
Discourse theory has received prominence in social sciences
(Young & Harrison, 2004).

Crystal (as cited in Millward, 2013) defined discourse as a unit of

language larger than a sentence that has coherence. It operates beyond
grammar level and focuses on context and social functions of a
language.
DISCOURSE
Discourse is a “set of meanings, metaphors, representations,
images, stories, statements, and so on. It refers to a particular picture
that is painted of an event (or person or class of persons)...If we
accept...that a multitude of alternative versions of events is potentially
available through language, this means that...there may be a variety of
different...way[s] of representing the world.” (Burr, 1995:48)

According to Millward (2005), “grammatical and phonological

elements, context, situation, purpose, pitch, intonation and gesture can
play a decisive role in the process of comprehension”.
How can we analyze a
discourse?
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
is not just the study of language, but a way of looking at language that
focuses on how people use it in real life to do things like joke and argue and
persuade and flirt, and to show that they are certain kinds of people or
belong to certain groups.

DA involves “...analysis of what people do” in talk and text. (Potter,

1997:146)

“...the analytic task is to examine how participants descriptively

construct them.” (Edwards, 1997:48)
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
FOCUS OF DA
• Purposes and effect of languages
• Cultural rules and conventions in communication
• Values and beliefs and assumptions and how they are communicated
• How language use relates to its social, political and historical context
• Contextual meaning of language
• Social aspects of communication and the ways people use language
• Larger chunks of language
What can be analyzed
in a discourse?

Since discourse of any type is
important for understanding,
close attention should be given
to all segments one of which is
cohesion.
Cohesion is achieved through
interpretability which
necessitates simultaneous
processing of many linguistic
elements including discourse
markers (Foucart, Romero-
Rivas, Gort, & Costa, 2016).
DISCOURSE MARKERS
"Discourse markers are words or
phrases that function within the
linguistic system to establish
relationships between topics or
grammatical units in discourse"
(Hellermann & Vergun, 2007, p.158).
Textual discourse markers are the
ones used for organization of
written and spoken discourse and
interpersonal discourse markers are
the ones indicating the writer or
speaker’s stance towards the
content or the potential reader and
listener (Dafouz-Milne, 2008).
What are the several
types of discourse
markers and devices?
HYLAND’S (2005) DISCOURSE MARKERS

Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal model of metadiscourse recognizes the

existence of two dimensions of interaction:
1. interactive dimension which “concerns the writer’s awareness of a
participating audience and the ways he or she seeks to accommodate its
probable knowledge, interests, rhetorical expectations and processing abilities”.

2. interactional dimension deals with the ways the writer’s comment on their
own messages to make their views known while revealing “the extent to which
the writer works to jointly construct the text with the reader”
HYLAND’S (2005) DISCOURSE MARKERS
HYLAND’S (2005) DISCOURSE MARKERS
SOME MORE DISCURSIVE DEVICES
(taken from the lecture of Lennon, 2015)
SOME MORE DISCURSIVE DEVICES
(taken from the lecture of Lennon, 2015)
DISCURSIVE DEVICES

Discursive devices can be defined as “a lexicon or register of terms and

metaphors drawn upon to characterize and evaluate actions and events” (Potter
& Wetherell, 1987, p. 138).

Discursive devices analysis is an action-oriented, or performative,

approach because it focuses on the actions that people perform with discourse,
such as accusing, blaming, praising, justifying, and so forth.
DISCURSIVE DEVICES

The approach, of course, also draws on speech act theory, which argues
that speech acts have performative effects beyond being informative (Austin,
1962; Searle, 1979), and it develops Wittgenstein’s frequently used metaphor of
language as a toolbox (1958) and his thesis that speech happens jointly with
activities (1969).
Why analyze Discursive Devices?

The notion of discursive devices enables us to see how actors draw on a portfolio of
resources to maintain their self-identities, forge identification with others, and respond to “an
ever-changing kaleidoscope of situations” (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 156).

Another advantage of the notion of discursive devices lies in its ability to analyze how
a dominant rhetoric remains in spite of contestation and contradiction. As Phillips, Lawrence,
and Hardy (2004) argue, “regardless of how complete they may appear, discourses, in fact, are
always the subject of some degree of struggle” (p. 637).
 ACTIVITY #2 - IDENTIFY THE DISCURSIVE
DEVICE Example Discursive Device

1. ‟Im not racist, but. . .” ● Specificity

2. Fox news is crap compared to CNN ● Vagueness

3. I think its right and wrong at the same time. ● Consensus/collaboration

4. NO NO NO! ● Scene-setting

5. It was a normal day, really. I was just on my commute when the bomb ● Disclaimers
went off.

6. The local MP has agreed to set up a petition, and everyone at work ● Extreme case formulations
agrees.

7. Just under 7% are now unemployed. We‟ve made over 1000 jobs a ● Three-part lists
day since 2010.

8. every, all, none, best, least, as good as it gets, always, perfectly, brand new, ● Contrasts
absolutely
 What should we
consider in analyzing a
discourse?
 1
FU
N
C
E
T IO
h o x p la N
w in
do ‘ w
es h
it at i
‘s s
o u be
nd i n
’? g d
o ne
2 ’i
.e.

D
EV
IC
‘h E
w ow
3 steps in doing an analysis

h a th
t d is
ev is
ic ac
es co
ar m
e u pl
s e is h
d? ed
’ i.e
.
3

IM
PL
IC
‘i AT
pa den IO
d e tt e t if i N
pi vic rns cat S
ct es ’ i io
ur c .e n
e/ on . h an
v e s ow d
r s t ru
i o c d o i n te
n ? t a t rp
m he ret
or di at
e g ffe ion
en ren o
er t f
al
 3 Ways of Looking at Discourse
Formal
Approach
- language above the level
of clauses and sentences.
● Linguistic features (words and
grammar which help to link the
different parts of the text or
conversation together).
● The overall pattern of the text or
conversation.
Functional Social
Approach Approach
- how people use language - the way we use language
to do things (e.g. when tied up with the way
questions, issue warnings, we construct different
apologies). social identities.
● Kinds of action. ● Ideologies, agenda, interest etc.
● How people use discourse strategically ● Perspectives
to try to communicate their
● Power
interpretations of a situations or manage
their relationships with other people.
In a nutshell. . .

Discourse is a “set of meanings, metaphors, representations, images,

stories, statements, and so on. It operates beyond grammar level and focuses
on context and social functions of a language.

We can analyze a discourse through discourse analysis, as is not just the

study of language, but a way of looking at language that focuses on how
people use it in real life to do things like joke and argue and persuade and flirt,
and to show that they are certain kinds of people or belong to certain groups.
In a nutshell. . .
We can apply discourse analysis in different levels of communication
of a text such as vocabulary, grammar, structure and many more.
Furthermore, we can analyze author’s interests through their discourse
markers and devices.

Lastly, we have to consider the function, device, and implications

of the text in doing an analysis. The formal, functional, and social
aspect of the text should also be put into account.
References:
Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Polity Press. Cambridge.

Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. Longman. London.

Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York and London. Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977. Edited by C. Gordon. Brighton. Harvester Press.

Kuhi, D., Asadohllahfam, H., & Anbarian, K.D. (2014). The effect of metadiscourse use on iranian EFL learners’ lecture comprehension.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1026-1035.

Lennon, H. (2015). Lecture on Learning and Doing Discourse Analysis. Sheffield Hallam University.

Melissa N.P. Johnson, Ethan McLean, in International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second Edition), 2020

Mohamadi, Z., & Rahimpour, M. (2018). Task types and discursive features: Mediating role of meta-talk in focus. Journal of Language
Teaching Research, 6(1), 17-40.

Whittle, A., Mueller, F., Mangan, A. (2008). In search of subtlety: discursive devices and rhetorical competence. Management Communication
Quarterly, 22(1), 99-122.