CRITICAL DISCOURSE

ANALYSIS

SHAFQAT ZAIDI
 Critical
studying and taking issue with how
dominance and inequality are reproduced
through language use:
social inequality, based on gender, ethnicity,
class, origin, religion, language, sexual
orientation and other criteria that dene
dierences between people. Their ultimate
goal is not only scientic, but also social and
political, namely change. In that case, social
discourse analysis takes the form of a critical
discourse analysis. (van Dijk 1997: 223)
 A fully critical account of discourse would
require a theorization and description of
both the social processes and structures which
give rise to the production of a text, and of the
social structures and processes within which
individuals or groups as social historical
subjects create meanings in their interaction
with texts (Wodak 2001: 23)
 Discourse
Discourse has two dierent but related senses
(Fairclough 2003: 34).
The rst is language in use. It refers to the
meanings made in interaction with those features
of context which are relevant, e.g. tone of voice of
participants, facial movements, hand-gestures
Foucault (1972) describes discourses as ways of
talking about the world which are tightly
connected to ways of seeing and comprehending
it.
 Analysis
Faircloughs framework in CDA (2001). It
consists of three stages: description,
interpretation and explanation.
Description
Text should be described as rigorously and as
comprehensively as possible relative to the
analytical focus
Interpretation
How the text might lead to dierent discourses
for dierent readers in dierent discourse
practices or the situations of language use.
It is concerned with conjecturing the cognition
of readers/listeners, how they might mentally
interact with the text.
Explanation
Explains connections between text and
discourse.
Social and cultural context, the socio-cultural
practices.
Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a

type of discourse analytical research that
primarily studies the way social power
abuse, dominance, and inequality are
enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text
and talk in the social and political
context.

TEUN A. VAN DIJK

 Critical Discourse Analysis?
CDA investigates how language use
reproduces the perspectives, values and ways
of talking of the powerful, which may not be in
the interests of the less powerful.
CDA sees language as social practice
(Fairclough andWodak,1997)
(CDA) prim- arily studies the way social
power abuse, dominance, and inequality are
enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and
talk in the social and political context.
 CDA is especially drawn to texts where the
marginal and relatively powerless are
(mis)represented by the powerful.
CDA how language use can be bound up with
(ab)use of power.
CDA is in discourse analysis with an
attitude (van Dijk 2001: 96).
 Development
Critical theory of Frankfurt schools before
WW2
Critical linguistics (Britain, Australia) end of
1970s
Counterparts in critical sociolinguistics,
Psychology, social sciences early 1970s
A reaction against formal / social/ uncritical
paradigms of 1960s_1970s
 CDA: purposes
1. to understand,
2. expose, Caldas-Coulthard and
Coulthard Fairclough
3. and ultimately resist Fairclough and Wodak
Fowler et al. van Dijk
social inequality.

rejects the possibility of a "value-free" science

science, and especially scholarly discourse, are
inherently part of and influenced by social
structure, and produced in social interaction.
 CDA: purposes

4.It focuses primarily on, social problems and

political issues
5. How discourse structures enact, confirm,
legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of
power and dominance in society.
 cda
Theory formation, description, and
explanation, also in discourse analysis,
are socio-politically "situated,
A "dominant discourse" is
Discourse analystscreated
conduct by thoseresearch
in power, in
and it becomes the
solidarity and cooperation
accepted way of with
looking at
dominated groups. (or speaking about) the
subject, since it is repeated so
much
A CDA research must be
"better" than other research in order to be accepted.

It focuses primarily on social problems and political issues, rather

than on current paradigms and fashions.

Empirically adequate 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 and dominance in society.
 Tenets of Cda

1. CDA addresses social problems

2. Power relations are discursive
3. Discourse constitutes society and culture
4. Discourse does ideological work
5. Discourse is historical
6. The link between text and society is mediated
7. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory
8. Discourse is a form of social action.
Fairclough and Wodak (1997)
 Cda: theoretical
framework

no unitary theoretical framework (but closely

related )>> many diverse types of CDA >>
exploring roughly the same question the ways
discourse structures are deployed in the
reproduction of social dominance
 Some CDA notions
"power," "interests,"
"dominance, "reproduction,"
"hegemony, "institutions,
"ideology," "social structure,
"class," "social order,"
"gender," + other discourse
"race, analytical notions.'
"discrimination,
 most discourse studies dealing
with any aspect of power,
domination, and social
inequality have not been
explicitly conducted under the
label of CDA
 Conceptual and
Theoretical Frameworks

Macro vs. Micro

Language use, discourse, verbal interaction,
and communication belong to the micro- level
of the social order.
Power, dominance, and inequality between
social groups belong to a macrolevel of
analysis.
 Social order levels
Micro In everyday
Language use, interaction
discourse, verbal and
experience
interaction, and the macro-
communication and
microlevel
(and
Macro intermediary
Power, dominance, "mesolevels")
and inequality form one
between social unified whole.

groups
Cda: Social order levels
unified critical analysis>>analyzes and bridges these levels
1 Membersgroups

2 Actionsprocess

3 Contextsocial structure

4 Personal and social cognition: ( + shared "social

representations" govern the collective actions of a group)
ways to analyze and bridge
these levels
Membersgroups: Language users-engage in
discourse as members of (several) social
groups, organizations, or institutions.

2 Actionsprocess: Social acts of individual

actors are constituent parts of group actions
and social processes, such as legislation, news
making, or the reproduction of racism.
3 Contextsocial structures:
interactions are part of social structure; for
example, a press conference and media
institutions.

4 Personal and social cognition:

Language users as social actors.
personal memories, knowledge and opinions,
shared with members of the group or culture
as a whole.
 Cda: power
Power>> social power >> control the acts and
minds of
(members
Presupposition of a power base of) other
to access the social resources, groups.

such as force, money, status, fame, knowledge,

information, "culture," or indeed various forms
of public discourse and communication
 Power as control
power may be distinguished according to the
various resources employed to exercise power.
military and of violent men will rather be
based on force, the rich will have power
because of their money, whereas the more or
less persuasive power of parents, professors, or
journalists may be based on knowledge,
information, or authority.
 Cda: power
types of power:
Coercive
Persuasive
(the dominated groups react differently.)
Power >> integrated in laws, rules, norms, habits, and
even a quite general consensus === "hegemony
(from Gramsci 1971)
Class domination, sexism, and racism are characteristic
examples of such hegemony.
 Cda: power&discourse
Some discourses have inherent power
Discourses can influence minds

if we are able to influence

people's minds, e.g. their
knowledge or opinions,
we indirectly may control
(some of) their actions
Active vs. passive control

members of more powerful social groups and institutions, and especially

their leaders (the elites), have more or less exclusive access to, and
control over, one or more types of public discourse. Thus, professors
control scholarly discourse, teachers educational discourse, journalists
media discourse, lawyers legal discourse, and politicians policy and
other public political discourse.

Those who have more control over more and more influential
discourse (and more discourse properties) are by that definition also
more powerful.
 Control of public discourse
Power base of a group or institution, access to or
control over public discourse and communication
is an important "symbolic" resource, as is the case
for knowledge and information (van Dijk 1996).
Most people have active control only over
everyday talk with family members, friends, or
colleagues, and passive control over, e.g. media
usage situations, ordinary people are more or less
passive targets of text or talk, e.g. of their bosses
or teachers, or of the authorities, police officers,
judges, bureaucrats, who may simply tell them
what (not) to believe or what to do.
 group power controls not only over content,
but over the structures of text and talk. Thus,
members of powerful groups decide on the
(possible) dis- course genre(s) or speech acts
of an occasion.
 "mind control Within a CDA framework:
recipients tend to accept beliefs, knowledge, and opinions
of authoritative, trustworthy, scholars, (Nesler et al. 1993).
in some situations participants are obliged to be
recipients of discourse, Giroux 1981).
in many situations there are no public discourses or media
that may provide information from which alternative
beliefs may be derived (Downing 1984).
recipients may not have the knowledge and beliefs needed
to challenge the discourses or information they are
exposed to (Wodak 1987).
Contextual vs. discursive conditions of mind control
 Cda: Gender inequality

feminist work <> paradigmatic for much discourse

analysis

Famous works:
Cameron (1990, 1992);
Kotthoff and Wodak (1997);
Seidel (1988);
Thorne et al.(1983); Wodak (1997) Tannen (1994)
 Cda: Mediadiscourse
Studied in>> linguistics, semiotics, pragmatics, and discourse studies

Early analyses >> easily observable surface structures,

Glasgow University Media Group (1976, 1980, 1982, 1985,

1993)>>> on features of Tv reporting, in the coverage of various issues
(e.g. industrial disputes (strikes) etc.

Stuart Hall and his associates within the framework of the cultural
studies paradigm.

Earlier critical approaches >> Davis and Walton 1983

Later CDA approaches >> Fairclough 1995, Cotter, Fowler

 Halliday's functional-systemic
grammar is
used in a study of the "transitivity" of
syntactic patterns of sentences

events and actions may be described with

syntactic variations
 Cda : Political discourse

linguists and discourse analysts

some influence of "postmodern" approaches to discourse (Derian and

Shapiro 1989; Fox and Miller 1995)

many studies of political communication and rhetoric overlap with

discourse analytical approach

closer to discourse analysis is the current approach to "frames" (conceptual

structures or sets of beliefs that organize political thought, policies, and
discourse) in the analysis of political text and talk (Gamson 1992).

Seminal work > Paul Chilton (the language of the nuclear arms debates;
metaphor)
 Cda : Political discourse

Germany has a long tradition of political

discourse analysis (1960s) [speech acts in
political discourse ,the lexicon, propaganda]

France>>emphasis an analysis usually implies

a focus on easily quantifiable lexical analyses
 references
Discourse and Power by Van Dijk
http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical
%20discourse%20analysis.pdf