University of Mosul

College of Education
Department of English

Applied Linguistics

A Seminar in
Critical Discourse analysis

Instructor: Dr. Kamal H. Hussein

Presented by: Ruaa Dhiaa

 i. Introduction:

Language is a multi-layered mode of communication. It is believed that words or their combinations are
always socially, politically, and economically loaded. To understand various hidden agendas carried by
the language Critical Discourse analysis is used.
Critical Discourse analysis is a very interesting field in the domain of applied linguistics and in order to
understand CDA in a good way we need to tackle the following questions in details: What is critical
discourse analysis? How is it different discourse analysis? What are its aims, and approaches? and more
importantly what are the terms/ notions related to CDA?

a. What is Critical Discourse analysis (CDA)?

We will start first by examining some of the the available definitions for Critical Discourse analysis
(CDA):

Fairclough, defines CDA as “a form of critical social science geared to illuminating the problems which
people are confronted with by particular forms of social life, and to contributing resources which people
may be able to draw upon in tackling and overcoming those problems”.

Van Dijk regards CDA as 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.

Foucault introduces his point of view of discourse in terms of his concept of knowledge or episteme; he
does not think of discourse as a piece of text, but as "practices that systematically form the objects of
which they speak". By discourse, Foucault means "a group of statements which provide a language for
talking about a way of representing the knowledge about – a particular topic at a particular historical
moment”. Discourse, as 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. discussing working-class crime
as an individual problem in the media can marginalize an alternative conception of it being a social
problem).

In brief we can say, Critical Discourse analysis is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse.
It is regarded as analytical viewpoint which looks into the relationship between power and discourse, and
particularly investigates the way in which authority, dominance and social inequality are constructed,
sustained, reproduced and resisted in the discourse of written texts and spoken words.

It is very important to point out that discourse is different from text because it includes other linguistic
processes such as (speaking forms, interactions, etc.).

If we view the mentioned definitions, it should be inferred that some key concepts figure prominently in
any work in CDA. These are power, dominance, ideology, social inequality, reproduction, resistance,
struggle, etc.

Looking at CDA historical development; CDA was set forth in the early 1990s by a group of scholars such
as Theo van Leeuwen, Gunther Kress, Teun van Dijk, and Norman Fairclough. At that time, theories and
methods of CDA have been formulated to differentiate this paradigm from other theories and
methodologies in Discourse Analysis. Later on, the term has been known under many designations. While,
according to their fields of research or areas of study, some scholars prefer the concept Critical Linguistics
(CL), others choose to use the label Critical Discourse Studies (CDS).

CDA stems from a critical theory of language which sees the use of language as a form of social practice.
All social practices are tied to specific historical contexts and are the means by which existing social
relations are reproduced or contested and different interests are served. It is the questions pertaining to
interests. Since the last decade or so, there has been a resurgence of the application of the theory of CDA
to a range of studies. Critical discourse analysis is systematically involved in studying the ways through
which language is used to legitimate unequal power relations, organize and stratify the society in favour of
the ruling class

b. Difference between DA and CDA:

As may be guessed from the label of each of the two concepts, CDA and DA (Discourse Analysis) do not
mean the same thing. Discourse Analysis simply refers to the linguistic analysis of connected writing and
speech meaning that discourse analysis can be applied to all areas of research, with a method of analysis
intrinsically linked to its theoretical and methodological foundations. (Brown & Yule). The major focus in
Discourse Analysis is the use of language in social context. CDA on the other hand, specifically considers
how language works within institutional and political discourses as well as specific discourses in order to
uncover overt or more often, covert inequalities in social relationships. Language use in speech and
writing is seen as a social practice, which ‘implies a dialectical relationship between a particular
discursive event and the situation(s), institution(s), and social structure(s) which frame it.

ii. Aims of Critical Discourse analysis:

It can be quite difficult to extract the aims of CDA. The problems addressed by critical discourse analysts
range from those of major international importance to relatively small-scale ones concerning individuals.
These significantly interrelated and both are equally valid as subjects for analysis; below the aim of
critical discourse analysis Briefly discussed:

- To analyse discourse practices that reflect or construct social problems;

- To investigate how ideologies can become frozen in language and find ways to change that;

- To increase awareness of how to apply these objectives to specific cases of injustice, prejudice,
and misuse of power.

- To demonstrate the significance of language in the social relations of power;

- To investigate how meaning is created in context;

 - to investigate the role of speaker/writer purpose and authorial stance in the construction of
discourse.

iii. Terms/notions related to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA):

There are a number of crucial notions in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) that require special attention
and are mentioned below:

a. Ideology:

We all use the notion of ideology very often, and so do newspapers and politicians. Most of the time, we
do not use it in a very positive sense. We may speak of the ideologies of communism, or neoliberalism,
pacifism or consumerism, and many other -isms, but seldom qualify our own ideas as an "ideology". And
there are thousands of articles and books written about it since the notion was invented by French
philosopher Destutt de Tracy at the end of the 18th century.

But what are ideologies exactly?

Ideology In terms of power relations, is a crucial concept for CDA, conceived of as a cognitive system
(van Dijk, 1998). Van Dijk (1998, p8) defined ideology as “the basis of the social representations shared
by members of a group”. Ideology may influence what is understood and accepted as true or false. It is the
output of our logic system, and the framework of a person's world view. It helps people to behave in a
certain way according to the situation they adapted to and perceived as right or common.

Van Dijk (1998) pointed out that social interpretation and the practice of power in relation to other groups
are something that most scholars would agree with when it comes to ideological practice. Ideology
includes a person's beliefs, disposition, expression of feelings (non-verbal), and so on.

Below are some of the ideology’s characteristics highlighted by van Dijk in his paper “Discourse
semantics and ideology”:

• Ideologies are cognitive. Although ideologies obviously are social and political, and related to
groups and societal structures; they also have a crucial cognitive dimension. In intuitive terms,
they involve mental objects such as ideas, thought, beliefs, judgements and values. That is, one
element of their definition implies that they are ‘belief systems’. It is especially in the study of
social and political cognition that such belief systems have been examined in more detail and
although used or applied by individual social actors as group members, they are shared social
representations.

• Ideologies are social: ideologies have been defined in sociological or socio-economic terms, and
usually related to groups, group positions and interests or group conflicts such as class, gender or
‘race’ struggles, and hence to social power and dominance as well as their legitimation. we
 assume that not only dominant groups, but also dominated groups have ideologies that control
their self-identification, goals and actions. The same is true for other social groups, such as
professionals (journalists, professors), action groups (anti-racists, environ- mentalists, Pro-Life
anti-abortionists, etc.), or organizations and insti- tutions (bureaucracies, the police).

• Ideologies are socio-cognitive. Acting as an interface between the cognitive and the social, there
is the important dimension of social belief systems, such as those of knowledge, opinions and
attitudes. That is, ideologies are essentially shared (or contested) by the members of social groups.
In the same way as there is no ‘private’ language, there are, according to our definition, no
personal ideologies. .

• Ideologies may have various degrees of complexity. Ideologies as defined here need not be fully
developed and explicit systems of belief. On the other hand, although research shows that not all
people have very explicit political ideologies, they may well have more detailed ideologies about
other, group- relevant social issues. These ideologies may range from simple to very complex, and
consist of a few basic propositions or of large frameworks such as the ideologies of ‘democracy’
or ‘socialism’.

• Ideologies have contextually variable manifestations. That ideological expressions of group

members often appear to be absent, vague, confused, contradictory or incoherent does not imply
that ideologies themselves are contradictory or that ideologies do not exist in the first place.
Personal and contextual variation of ideological discourse and action may be due to, for example,
(1) the fact that people are members of, or identify with, several groups, and hence may share
several, sometimes mutually contradictory, ideologies and values; (2) general social norms or
laws (e.g. against discrimination) constraining ‘free’ ideologically based action; (3) contextual
constraints (goals, politeness, impression management, etc.); and (4) the personal experiences,
biography, motivation, emotions, dilemmas or principles of each social member. In sum, before
basic ideologies can ‘express’ themselves in social practices, many other social, socio-cognitive
and personal factors may intervene that influence such expressions. This also means that
ideologies are not deterministic: they may influence or monitor or control social discourse and
action, but they do not cause or determine these, nor are they the only mental systems controlling
discourse production and comprehension.

• Ideologies are general and abstract: ideology might be taken as evidence that ideologies are
‘locally produced’, and that no general, abstract system should or need be postulated. The main
theoretical reason is that, without an assumption of relative stability and continuity of ideological
systems, we would be unable to explain why social members so often are consistent and similar in
their ideological expressions. Strictly local, situational or contextual descriptions are unable to
account for context-independent similarity of discourse and action of many group members.

b. Discourse and Power:

Language and Power presents a radical view of CDA. It emphasizes the power behind discourse rather
than just the power in discourse (how people with power shape the ‘order of discourse’ as well as the
social order in general, versus how people with power control what happens in specific interactions such
as interviews). It correspondingly emphasizes ideology rather than (just) persuasion and manipulation. It
views discourse as a stake in social struggle as well as a site of social struggle, and views social struggle
as including class struggle. It sets as an objective for CDA raising people’s consciousness of how
language contributes to the domination of some people by others, as a step towards social emancipation.
This is radical stuff, one might say! But isn’t this just 1970s radicalism which is now terribly
old-fashioned, out of date as well as out of fashion? I don’t think so, so let me explain why.

c. Manipulation and society:

To understand and analyse manipulative discourse, it is crucial to first examine its social environment. It
is assumed that one of the characteristics of manipulation, for instance as distinct from persuasion, is that
it involves power and domination. An analysis of this power dimension involves an account of the kind of
control that some social actors or groups exercise over others
We also have assumed that such control is first of all a control of the mind, that is, of the beliefs of
recipients, and indirectly a control of the actions of recipients based on such manipulated beliefs. In order
to be able to exercise such social control of others, however, social actors need to satisfy personal and
social criteria that enable them to influence others in the first place. This influence can be due to social
criteria, or psychological factors, such as character traits, intelligence, learning, etc. Social conditions of
manipulative control. for example, parents can manipulate their children because of their position of
power and authority in the family, professors can manipulate their students because of their institutional
position or profession and because of their knowledge, and the same is true for politicians manipulating
voters, journalists manipulating the recipients of media discourse or religious leaders manipulating their
followers. This does not mean that children cannot manipulate their parents, or students their teachers, but
this is not because of their position of power, but as a form of opposition or dissent. Manipulating people
involves manipulating their minds, that is, people’s beliefs, such as the knowledge, opinions and
ideologies which in turn control their actions. We have seen, however, that there are many forms of
discourse-based mental influence, such as informing, teaching and persuasion, that also shape or change
people’s knowledge and opinions.

d. Persuasion:

Persuasion can be defined as a scientific art which is closely connected with our life. Linguistically
speaking, persuasion is achieved through many techniques called "persuasive devices". These persuasive
devices are covered in different domains of life. Accordingly, persuasion has been defined in various
methods according to communication as a communication process in which a communicator searches to
draw out a desired response from his receiver.

planning a communication that achieves a change of the hearer's mental attitude towards a specific
statement requires the speaker to hypothesis and maintain an adequate model of the hearer's beliefs and to
update it according to the effects that the speaker's propositions have on the hearer's mental state.

Political discourse is a method of decision making in a democracy. A decision implies that some
agreement prevails as to which of several courses of action is most desirable for achieving a goal
Therefore, within constructive political discourse, each alternative course of action is expected to, be
strongly advocated, receive a complete and fair hearing, and be critically analysed to reveal its strengths
and weaknesses.

iv. Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis:

There is a range of approaches to CDA. Among them we will outline those of three prominent scholars;
the Socio-Cultural Approach (Fairclough), socio-cognitive (van Dijk), discourse historical (Wodak):

• Fairclough’s Socio-Cultural Approach :

Like the functional analysis of Halliday, Fairclough’s system of discourse analysis has three dimensions,
since discourse is seen simultaneously as: a text (spoken or written, including visual images), a discourse
practice production, consumption and distribution of the text, and a socio-cultural practice. Subsequently,
Fairclough provides a three-dimensional framework for the analysis of text and discourse: (a) the
linguistic description of the formal properties of the text; (b) the interpretation of the relationship between
the discursive processes/interaction and the text, and finally, (c) the explanation of the relationship
between discourse and social and cultural reality. According to Fairclough, there are some underlying
assumptions behind certain selections of discourse. These assumptions are never value-free and innocent;
rather they are ideologically driven and motivated. Therefore, discursive practices may have ideological
effects since they can produce and reproduce unequal power relations between social classes, gender
groups and ethnic and cultural majorities and minorities through the ways they represent things and
position people.

From this point of view, Fairclough argues that "the exercise of power, in modern society, is increasingly
achieved through ideology". Drawing on the discourse-power-ideology relationship, he introduces the
concept of hegemony which he defines as "a way of theorizing change in relation to the evolution of
power relations which allows a particular focus upon discursive change, but at the same time a way of
seeing it as contributing to and being shaped by wider processes of change". He further contends that
orders of discourse are not static, but may change over time. Changing the power relations in a social
interaction determines these changes

• Van Dijk’s Socio-Cognitive Approach :

In accordance with Fairclough‟s critical approach, the socio-cognitive approach put forth by Van Dijk
which perceives discourse as a form of social practice. However, it does not focus on discursive practice.
Van Dijk rather concentrates on social cognition as the mediating part between text and society. He claims
that CDA needs to account for the various forms of social cognitions that are shared by the social
collectivities (groups, organizations and institutions). Van Dijk further identifies two levels of (discourse)
analysis: macro vs. micro. Language use, discourse, verbal interaction and communication determine the
micro level of social order, while the macro level refers to power, dominance and inequality between
social groups. In sum, Van Dijk claims that CDA should not limit itself to a study of the relationship
between discourse and social structure, but that language use and discourse always presuppose the
intervening mental models, goals and general social representations (knowledge, attitudes, ideologies,
norms, values) of the language users. In other words, the study of discourse triangulates between
society/culture/situation, cognition and discourse/language.

• Wodak’s Discourse-Historical Approach:

Like Fairclough‟s and Van Dijk‟s approaches, Wodak‟s discourse-historical approach views discourse as
a form of social practice. Wodak has focused on the interdisciplinary and eclectic nature of CDA, since
problems in our society are too complex to be studied from a single point of view. Thus, to understand and
explain the object under investigation, one needs to integrate diverse theories and methods. She thus
contends that according to Wodak studies in CDA are multifarious, derived from quite different
theoretical backgrounds, oriented towards different data and methodologies; further Wodak believes that
all discourses are historical and can; therefore, only be understood with reference to their context. This
means that discourse is connected synchronically and diachronically with other communicative events
which are happening at the same time or which have happened before.

References:

- G. Brown and G. Yule, Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

- Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London and
New York: Longman.

- Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse Semantics and Ideology. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 243-289.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926595006002006

- Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11 (2), 115-140.