Critical discourse analysis emerged from 'critical linguistics' developed at the University of East

Anglia in the 1970s, and the terms are now often interchangeable. [2][3] Sociolinguistics was paying
little attention to social hierarchy and power.[4] CDA was first developed by the Lancaster school of
linguists of which Norman Fairclough was the most prominent figure. Ruth Wodak has also made a
major contribution to this field of study.
In addition to linguistic theory, the approach draws from social theory and contributions from Karl
Marx, Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Jrgen Habermas, Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu
in order to examine ideologies and power relations involved in discourse. Language connects with
the social through being the primary domain of ideology, and through being both a site of, and a
stake in, struggles for power.[1] Ideology has been called the basis of the social representations of
groups, and, in psychological versions of CDA developed by Teun A. van Dijk and Ruth Wodak, there
is assumed to be a sociocognitive interface between social structures and discourse structures.
[5]
The historical dimension in critical discourse studies also plays an important role. [6]

Methodology[edit]
Although CDA is sometimes mistaken to represent a 'method' of discourse analysis, it is generally
agreed upon that any explicit method in discourse studies, the humanities and social sciences may
be used in CDA research, as long as it is able to adequately and relevantly produce insights into the
way discourse reproduces (or resists) social and political inequality, power abuse or domination. [7]
[8]
That is, CDA does not limit its analysis to specific structures of text or talk, but systematically
relates these to structures of the sociopolitical context. CDA has been used to examine political
speech acts, to highlight the rhetoric behind these, and any forms of speech that may be used to
manipulate the impression given to the audience.[9] However, there have been flaws noted with CDA.
For example, it has been said that it is simultaneously too broad to distinctly identify manipulations
within the rhetoric, yet is also not powerful enough to appropriately find all that researchers set out to
establish.[10]
Norman Fairclough developed a three-dimensional framework for studying discourse, where the aim
is to map three separate forms of analysis onto one another: analysis of (spoken or written)
language texts, analysis of discourse practice (processes of text production, distribution and
consumption) and analysis of discursive events as instances of sociocultural practice. [1][11] Particularly,
he combines micro, meso and macro-level interpretation. At the micro-level, the analyst considers
various aspects of textual/linguistic analysis, for examples syntactic analysis, use of metaphor and
rhetorical devices [clarification needed]. The meso-level or "level of discursive practice" involves studying issues
of production and consumption, for instance, which institution produced a text, who is the target
audience, etc. At the macro-level, the analyst is concerned with intertextual and interdiscursive
elements and tries to take into account the broad, societal currents that are affecting the text being
studied.[12][13]

Notable academics[edit]
Notable writers include Norman Fairclough, Micha Krzyanowski, Paul Chilton, Teun A. van
Dijk, Ruth Wodak, Phil Graham, Theo Van Leeuwen, Siegfried Jger, Christina Schffner, James
Paul Gee, Roger Fowler, Gunther Kress, Mary Talbot, Lilie Chouliaraki, Thomas Huckin, Hilary
Janks, Veronika Koller and Bob Hodge.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_discourse_analysis