Chapter 01; Introduction to CDA

Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to studying

language that focuses on the way discourse shapes and is shaped by power
relations in society. It aims to uncover hidden ideologies and power dynamics
embedded in texts, speeches, and communication practices. CDA views language
not as neutral but as a social practice that can reinforce or challenge social
inequality. Key factors in CDA include the examination of context, intertextuality,
language structures (such as vocabulary, grammar, and syntax), and the roles of
participants in communication. Scholars like Norman Fairclough and Teun A. van
Dijk have emphasized the importance of analyzing discourse within its social,
political, and historical contexts to reveal how language contributes to the
construction and maintenance of dominance and control.

The term was introduced by Zeilling Harris in 1952 to examine

 Language beyond the level of sentence

 Relation between linguistic and non-linguistic behavior
 To look at the patterns of language at text level as well as social and cultural
level
 To look from textually oriented view of discourse to socially oriented view
of discourse
 The relationship between language and context
 The pragmatic view of the text
 The discourse structure of the text
 Cultural ways of speaking and writing
 Communicative competence and discourse

Different Views or Aspects of DA;

1- Discourse as Social Construction of Reality

Discourse as the social construction of reality refers to the idea that language
does not merely reflect the world but actively shapes how we perceive and
understand it. Through repeated patterns of speech and writing, certain
beliefs, values, and norms become accepted as "truth" within a society. This
process influences how individuals see themselves and others, what is
considered normal or deviant, and how social roles are defined. For
example, media discourse that consistently describes immigrants using terms
 like “influx” or “crisis” can construct a reality where immigration is seen as
a threat, shaping public opinion and policy in a negative direction. Thus,
discourse plays a powerful role in constructing the social realities we live by.

2- Discourse and Socially Situated Identities:

Discourse plays a crucial role in shaping and expressing socially situated

identities, meaning that who we are is deeply connected to how we use
language in specific social contexts. Identities are not fixed traits but are
constructed, negotiated, and performed through interaction and
communication. The way people speak, the words they choose, and the
discourses they align with can signal their membership in particular social
groups, such as gender, ethnicity, profession, or class. For instance, a teacher
may use authoritative yet supportive language in the classroom to construct
an identity of both knowledge-holder and mentor, while using more casual
speech with friends to present a different side of their identity. These shifts
illustrate how discourse allows individuals to position themselves differently
depending on the social situation, audience, and purpose.

3- Discourse is a performance

Discourse as a performance means that language is not just a tool for

communication but an active way of doing things—performing roles,
constructing identities, and influencing social interactions. When people
engage in discourse, they are not simply expressing thoughts; they are
performing particular identities and social roles depending on the context.
This idea draws on the work of scholars like Erving Goffman and Judith
Butler, who emphasize that just like actors on a stage, individuals use
language to "perform" who they are in different situations. For example, a
politician delivering a speech is performing authority and leadership, using
persuasive language, rhetorical devices, and confident tone to influence the
audience. In this sense, discourse becomes a dynamic act that shapes social
reality through repeated and context-sensitive performances.

4- Discourse and intertextuality

Intertextuality in discourse refers to the way texts and spoken language draw
upon, reference, or echo other texts, creating layers of meaning that connect
different discourses. It suggests that no piece of discourse exists in isolation;
 rather, it is shaped by and responds to previous texts, ideas, or cultural
references. This connection helps reinforce shared knowledge, values, or
ideologies within a community. For example, a news article discussing
climate change might reference scientific reports, political speeches, or
earlier media coverage, thus building its meaning through those prior texts.
Intertextuality allows discourse to be richer and more persuasive, while also
revealing how meaning is socially constructed through a network of related
voices and contexts.

Assumptions of Discourse Analysis:

There are four assumptions of DA
1. Language is ambiguous

Language is inherently ambiguous, meaning that words, phrases, or

sentences can have multiple meanings depending on the context, tone,
cultural background, or the listener’s interpretation. This ambiguity arises
because language is not a fixed system—it is shaped by human experience,
emotion, and intention, which can vary greatly. For example, the sentence “I
saw her duck” can mean either that someone saw a woman’s pet bird or that
the woman quickly lowered her head to avoid something. Without context,
the exact meaning remains unclear. Ambiguity in language can lead to
misunderstandings, but it also allows for creativity, humor, and layered
meaning in communication. In discourse analysis, recognizing ambiguity is
essential to understanding how meaning is negotiated and how different
interpretations can reflect deeper social and cultural dynamics.

2- Language is Always in the World

The phrase “language is always in the world” means that language is never
neutral or isolated—it is always shaped by and shapes the social, cultural,
historical, and political contexts in which it is used. Every time we speak or
write, we draw on shared knowledge, values, norms, and power structures
that exist in the world around us. Language reflects our identities,
relationships, beliefs, and ideologies, and it plays a role in constructing
social realities. For example, the way media outlets report the same event
can vary based on political or cultural perspectives, showing that language
choices are influenced by real-world positions and interests. In discourse
analysis, this concept reminds us that studying language is also studying the
society that produces and uses it.
3-The Way We Speak Language Is Inseparable from Who We Are

The way we use language is deeply tied to our identity—it reflects and shapes who
we are, how we see ourselves, and how others see us. Our accent, vocabulary, tone,
and even the languages or dialects we choose to speak signal aspects of our
background such as culture, ethnicity, social class, education, gender, and
profession. For example, a person may switch between formal and informal
language depending on whether they are in a workplace or among friends,
performing different aspects of their identity. This idea, central to discourse
analysis, emphasizes that language is not just a tool for communication but also a
performance of self. It is through language that we construct, negotiate, and
express our identities in everyday life—making the way we speak inseparable from
who we are.

4-Language Is Never Used All by Itself

The idea that “language is never used all by itself” means that language always
occurs within a broader context—it is shaped by who is speaking, to whom, where,
when, why, and how. Language is always accompanied by social meanings,
cultural references, tone, gestures, facial expressions, and shared understandings.
For example, the phrase “We need to talk” can carry different meanings depending
on the situation, relationship between speakers, and the way it is said. Even written
language comes with context, such as the medium (email, novel, academic paper),
audience, and purpose. In discourse analysis, this principle highlights that
understanding language use requires looking beyond words to the social practices
and environments in which communication happens. Language is always
embedded in interaction, intention, and interpretation—it never stands alone.

Discourse and Text

 Meaning is the most important thing that makes a text, it has to make a sense
 Every meaningful thing is termed as a text and the basis of meaning is
choice
 Different patterns of texture as associated with different kinds of text
 Devices are structured in a functional way with main points in the beginning
and details ….
Genre analysis
The study of social functions of the text is called genre analysis.

Mitchell and the Discourse Structure of Text

James Mitchell, a key figure in discourse analysis, emphasized the importance of

structure in texts—not just in terms of grammar or vocabulary, but in how
meaning is organized across longer stretches of language. According to Mitchell,
the structure of a text is shaped by both its function (what it is trying to achieve)
and its context (where, when, and why it is produced). He proposed that texts are
not random collections of sentences but follow certain discourse structures or
patterns of organization that guide interpretation.

Key Ideas from Mitchell on Discourse Structure:

1. Text as a Structured Whole: A text is more than a sum of its parts—it has
an internal logic or structure that gives it unity and coherence.
2. Coherence and Cohesion: Coherence refers to the overall sense and flow of
ideas, while cohesion involves the linguistic devices (e.g., pronouns,
conjunctions, repetition) that link sentences and ideas together.
3. Genre and Purpose: Different genres (narrative, argument, explanation)
have different structural features. For example, a narrative often has a
beginning, complication, and resolution.
4. Stages of Discourse: Mitchell suggested that texts can be analyzed in stages
or moves, each contributing to the text’s communicative purpose. For
example, a scientific report might include an introduction, method, results,
and conclusion.

Example:

In a newspaper article, Mitchell would look at how headlines, lead paragraphs,

background information, and quotes are organized to inform or persuade the reader
—showing that this structure is not random but follows a socially recognized
pattern.

Conclusion:

Mitchell’s contribution lies in showing that texts are socially constructed and
purposefully organized, and that understanding their structure helps us uncover
how meaning is made in real-life communication.

Aspects of Genres
Three important aspects of genres

a. Genres are communicative events

b. Conventions and Constraints

c. Creativity

The image outlines three important aspects of genres in discourse analysis.

Here's an explanation of each:

1. Genres are Communicative Events

Genres are not just categories of texts—they are socially recognized types of
communication that occur in specific contexts for specific purposes. For example,
a job interview, a news article, or a scientific report are all genres with their own
expected patterns, roles, and purposes. They help participants understand what
kind of communication is taking place and what is expected of them.

2. Conventions and Constraints

Each genre follows certain conventions—patterns of structure, language, and style

that are considered typical or appropriate. These conventions also act as
constraints, limiting what can or should be said and how it should be presented.
For instance, a research article typically follows an IMRaD structure (Introduction,
Methods, Results, and Discussion), while a personal letter has a more informal
tone and flexible structure.

3. Creativity

Even within the boundaries of genre conventions, there is room for creativity.
Writers and speakers can innovate, personalize, or challenge genre norms while
still being recognizable within that genre. This flexibility allows language users to
express individuality, adapt to new contexts, or even change how genres evolve
over time.

Together, these aspects highlight that genres are dynamic—they guide

communication, but also adapt and grow with social and cultural practices.
Emergence of CDA

 CDS developed historically out of Critical Linguistics (CL), an approach to

language study developed at the University of East Anglia
 CL emphasizes on the role of ideology and power relations in the practice of
language use and the persuasive power of syntactic forms, such as the
passive and nominalized forms (Kress 1989).
 Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) is an inter-disciplinary approach to
language in use - how discourse figures in social processes, social structures
and social change.
 CDS is practiced in a wide range of fields, apart from language studies, such
as anthropology, business studies, geography, health studies, media studies,
psychology and tourism studies.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s as
an interdisciplinary approach to studying language and power. It developed in
response to a growing interest in how language reflects, reinforces, and challenges
social inequalities, ideologies, and power structures.

Key Factors in Its Emergence:

1. Influence of Critical Theory: CDA draws heavily from critical theory,

especially the ideas of the Frankfurt School, which emphasized the role of
ideology and power in shaping society. Scholars like Jürgen Habermas
influenced the idea that discourse is a form of social action.
2. Discontent with Formal Linguistics: Traditional linguistics often focused
only on grammar and structure. CDA emerged as a reaction to this
limitation, aiming to analyze how language functions in real social contexts
—especially in relation to power, dominance, and inequality.
3. Social and Political Changes: The late 20th century saw global changes
such as mass media expansion, globalization, neoliberal policies, and
increasing awareness of social injustice. These shifts made it important to
study how language plays a role in maintaining or resisting these changes.
4. Multidisciplinary Foundations: CDA combined insights from linguistics,
sociology, psychology, philosophy, and media studies. It built on the work
of scholars like Michel Foucault (discourse and power), Norman
 Fairclough, Teun A. van Dijk, and Ruth Wodak, who became key figures
in developing the field.
5. Focus on Power and Ideology: At its core, CDA is concerned with how
discourse produces and reproduces power relations, social identities,
inequalities, and ideological processes in society.

CDA as a Method of Research

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a qualitative research method that

investigates the relationship between language, power, and society. As a method,
CDA goes beyond simply describing how language is used; it critically examines
how discourse shapes and is shaped by social structures, ideologies, and power
relations. Researchers using CDA typically analyze texts—such as political
speeches, media articles, advertisements, or classroom interactions—to uncover
hidden meanings, biases, or ideologies embedded within them. CDA treats
language as a form of social practice and focuses on how it contributes to the
maintenance or challenge of social inequalities.

Example:
A researcher studying newspaper reports about immigration might use CDA to
examine how immigrants are portrayed. They may find that certain words like
"flood" or "invasion" are used frequently, suggesting a negative or threatening
image. By identifying these linguistic choices, the researcher can argue that the
media discourse may influence public opinion and reinforce xenophobic attitudes.

In this way, CDA as a research method helps reveal the subtle ways language
contributes to power dynamics in society.

The Aim of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

The main aim of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is to uncover the hidden
power relations, ideologies, and social inequalities that are embedded in language
and communication. CDA seeks to analyze how discourse—spoken or written
language in use—not only reflects but also shapes social reality. It focuses on the
ways language contributes to the construction and maintenance of dominance,
discrimination, and control, as well as how it can be used to resist or challenge
these structures.

CDA is not just about describing language patterns; it aims to be critical and
transformative, raising awareness and promoting social change. By revealing how
seemingly neutral or everyday language supports unequal power relations (e.g., in
media, politics, education, or law), CDA empowers individuals and groups to
question and challenge those discourses.

In short, the goal of CDA is to make visible how language contributes to social
injustice and to encourage more equitable and inclusive communication practices.

Assumptions of CDA:

1. Language use is always social:

Language doesn't exist in isolation—it is always used in a social context and
shaped by social interactions. Every act of communication carries social
meaning and implications.
2. Discourse both reflects and constructs the social world:
Discourse is not just a mirror of society; it also plays an active role in
shaping our understanding of reality. Through language, people construct
meanings, identities, norms, and institutions.
3. Discourses are ‘always socially, politically, racially and economically
loaded’ (Rogers, 2004, p.6):
This assumption highlights that discourse is never neutral. It is influenced by
—and contributes to—power relations and ideologies related to social class,
race, politics, and economics.

Together, these assumptions underscore CDA’s goal: to uncover the hidden power
structures and ideologies embedded in language use.
Key Scholars of CDA:

Certainly! Here’s a detailed overview of the key scholars of Critical Discourse

Analysis (CDA) — Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, and Teun A. van Dijk
— focusing on their contributions, theoretical frameworks, and distinctive
approaches:

Key Scholars of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

1. Norman Fairclough

Background and Significance:

Norman Fairclough is widely regarded as one of the pioneers of Critical Discourse
Analysis. His work, grounded in both linguistics and social theory, has been
foundational in shaping CDA as a distinct interdisciplinary approach.

Main Contributions:

 Three-Dimensional Model:
Fairclough’s most influential contribution is his three-dimensional
framework for analyzing discourse. This framework insists that discourse
should be studied on three interrelated levels:
1. Text — The actual spoken or written language (words, grammar,
vocabulary, rhetorical devices).
2. Discursive Practice — How texts are produced, distributed, and
consumed, focusing on the processes of text creation and
interpretation.
3. Social Practice — The broader social, cultural, political, and
economic context within which the discourse occurs, emphasizing the
relationship between language and power in society.
 Language and Power:
Fairclough’s work examines how language both reflects and perpetuates
power relations and ideology. He argues that discourse is not neutral but is a
form of social practice that helps maintain social inequalities. His book
Language and Power (1989) remains a key text for understanding how
language shapes social relations.
  Interdisciplinary Approach:
Fairclough draws from Marxist theory, social constructivism, and linguistics
to understand how discourse both shapes and is shaped by social structures.
 Critical Orientation:
His approach is explicitly political, aiming to reveal how language functions
ideologically to sustain unequal power dynamics, especially those related to
class, gender, and ethnicity.

Example of Application:
Fairclough has analyzed political speeches, media texts, and institutional
communication to show how power is enacted linguistically — for example, how
politicians use language to construct identities and justify policies.

2. Ruth Wodak

Background and Significance:

Ruth Wodak is another foundational figure in CDA, particularly noted for
integrating historical and socio-political contexts into discourse analysis. She is
best known for developing the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA).

Main Contributions:

 Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA):

Wodak’s DHA emphasizes the importance of analyzing discourse within its
historical context, acknowledging that discourses evolve over time and are
embedded in social and political realities. This approach combines linguistic
analysis with historical research, sociology, and political science.
 Interdisciplinary and Contextual:
Wodak argues that discourse cannot be understood in isolation but must be
studied as part of broader social processes, including memory, ideology, and
power relations.
 Focus on Identity and Politics:
Her work often addresses issues of nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism, and
migration discourse. She explores how discourses construct group identities
and legitimize exclusion or discrimination.
 Political Discourse:
Wodak is known for analyzing political rhetoric, especially in European
contexts. Her work uncovers how politicians use language to manipulate
public opinion, promote fear, or exclude marginalized groups.
Example of Application:
Wodak has extensively studied the discourse of the Austrian Freedom Party,
demonstrating how political language can legitimize xenophobia and racism
through seemingly normalized everyday talk.

3. Teun A. van Dijk

Background and Significance:

Teun A. van Dijk is a key figure in CDA, particularly noted for integrating
cognitive science with discourse analysis. His approach focuses on the relationship
between discourse, cognition, and social power.

Main Contributions:

 Social Cognition and Discourse:

Van Dijk argues that to understand discourse and its power effects, analysts
must examine how discourse is processed in the minds of individuals —
through beliefs, mental models, and schemas. This cognitive dimension is
crucial to how ideology is maintained and reproduced.
 Ideology as Social Cognition:
He defines ideology as a system of ideas and beliefs that organize and justify
social practices, especially inequalities. Discourse plays a central role in
shaping and reinforcing these ideologies cognitively.
 Critical Focus on Racism and Media:
Van Dijk has done extensive research on how racism and discrimination are
enacted through media discourse, political talk, and everyday
communication. His analyses reveal subtle linguistic mechanisms that
sustain exclusion and stereotypes.
 Multilevel Analytical Framework:
His approach includes:
o Analysis of textual structures (e.g., semantics, syntax),
o Contextual factors (social, cultural, political),
o And cognitive structures (mental representations and beliefs of
discourse participants).

Example of Application:
Van Dijk’s analysis of news reports has uncovered how subtle language choices
and framing can marginalize ethnic minorities or construct “us vs. them”
oppositions that perpetuate social division.
Comparative Summary
Scholar Key Focus Methodology/Approach Key Concepts
Language as Three-dimensional model (text, Power, ideology,
Norman
social practice, discursive practice, social discourse as social
Fairclough
power relations practice) practice
Historical and Identity
Ruth political Discourse-Historical Approach construction,
Wodak context of (DHA), interdisciplinary historical context,
discourse politics, racism
Cognitive
Ideology, social
Teun A. van processes Social cognition integrated with
cognition, media
Dijk behind discourse analysis
discourse, racism
discourse

Conclusion

Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, and Teun A. van Dijk are seminal figures in the
development of Critical Discourse Analysis, each bringing unique perspectives that
have enriched the field:

 Fairclough provides a systematic framework to connect language with

social structures and power.
 Wodak integrates discourse analysis with historical and political contexts,
emphasizing how identities and ideologies are constructed over time.
 Van Dijk adds the cognitive dimension, exploring how mental processes
underpin ideological effects in discourse.

Together, their work enables a comprehensive analysis of how language functions

not merely as communication but as a tool of power and social control.

Chapter 02
Background of CDA

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s as an
interdisciplinary approach to studying language, developed by scholars like
Norman Fairclough, Teun A. van Dijk, and Ruth Wodak. It evolved from critical
linguistics, sociolinguistics, and discourse studies, aiming to examine how
language relates to power, ideology, and society. CDA is rooted in the idea that
discourse is not neutral or merely reflective of reality but actively shapes social
structures, identities, and relationships. It seeks to uncover the hidden ideologies
within texts and spoken communication, particularly those that reinforce
inequality, discrimination, and dominance.
Example: In Fairclough’s analysis of political speeches, he reveals how politicians
subtly use inclusive terms like “we” or “our nation” to construct national identity
and unity, often masking exclusionary or authoritarian policies.

Main Features of CDA

CDA has several key features that distinguish it from other forms of discourse
analysis. It is inherently critical, meaning it goes beyond describing language to
question its role in maintaining social hierarchies. It is also interdisciplinary,
drawing from fields such as linguistics, sociology, psychology, and political
science. CDA emphasizes contextual analysis, considering both the immediate
textual context and the broader socio-historical background. Another core feature
is its focus on power relations, examining how discourse legitimizes or challenges
social inequality.
Example: Ruth Wodak’s Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) examines
Austrian political discourse by linking contemporary anti-immigrant language to
historical patterns of nationalism and racism, thus highlighting the continuity of
exclusionary ideologies.

Principles of CDA

The principles of CDA include the belief that discourse is a form of social
practice, that it both reflects and shapes society. CDA assumes that language is
ideologically loaded and used strategically to serve particular interests. It holds
that all discourse is situated within power structures, and analyzing language can
reveal how dominance is enacted or resisted. Another principle is that discourse is
dynamic and changeable, meaning that meanings are constructed and
reconstructed over time through interaction. Lastly, CDA promotes social
responsibility, encouraging analysts to expose and challenge unjust uses of
language.
Example: Teun van Dijk, in his work on media discourse, shows how newspapers
may describe immigrants using passive or criminalized terms (“flood of refugees,”
“illegal entrants”), which cognitively shapes readers’ perceptions and reinforces
xenophobic attitudes.

Demands on a Critical Discourse Analyst

 As is often the case for more marginal research traditions, CDA research has
to 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.
Chapter 03

Aspects of DA

Mentioned in Chap 01

Communicative Competence and Discourse

Communicative competence, introduced by Dell Hymes in 1972, goes beyond

knowing the rules of grammar; it involves the ability to use language effectively
and appropriately in various social contexts. Hymes proposed four interrelated
components. Grammatical competence refers to knowledge of syntax,
morphology, and vocabulary; sociolinguistic competence involves understanding
how to use language appropriately based on context, status, and culture; discourse
competence relates to the ability to produce coherent and cohesive spoken or
written texts; and strategic competence is the ability to overcome communication
difficulties using strategies like paraphrasing or asking for clarification. This model
recognizes that communication is not only about forming correct sentences but also
about making them meaningful and suitable to context.
Example: A student might correctly form a sentence like “Can I borrow your
pen?” (grammatical competence), use it politely with a teacher instead of a friend
(sociolinguistic competence), follow it with an explanation like “Mine ran out of
ink, and I need to finish this note” (discourse competence), and rephrase it if the
teacher didn’t understand: “May I use your pen just for a moment?” (strategic
competence).
Discursive Competence (Bhatia, 2004)

Discursive competence, as proposed by Vijay Bhatia in 2004, focuses on the

ability to effectively interpret, produce, and participate in extended pieces of
communication within professional, academic, or institutional contexts. He divides
this competence into three parts: textual competence (the ability to construct well-
formed and coherent texts), generic competence (understanding and using
different genres—like emails, reports, essays—appropriately), and social
competence (the ability to negotiate and respond to the social roles, purposes, and
power relations embedded in discourse). This model emphasizes that successful
communication in real-life contexts, especially professional ones, requires more
than grammar—it requires mastery of structure, convention, and social interaction.
Example: In writing a formal job application letter, a candidate uses appropriate
paragraphing and cohesive devices (textual competence), follows the expected
format and tone for job applications (generic competence), and shows awareness of
the employer–applicant power dynamic by using respectful, formal language
(social competence).

Certainly! Below is a clear explanation of the differences between spoken and

written discourse using the features you mentioned. Each point contrasts spoken
and written language, followed by brief examples.

1. Grammatical Intricacy

 Written discourse tends to have more complex grammatical structures,

with embedded clauses and long, syntactically sophisticated sentences.
 Spoken discourse often uses simpler structures, relying more on
coordination (e.g., using "and") than subordination.

Example:

 Written: Although she was tired, she completed the report before the
deadline.
 Spoken: She was tired, but she finished the report.

2. Lexical Density
  Written texts are more lexically dense, meaning they contain more content
words (nouns, adjectives, verbs) than grammatical or function words.
 Spoken language is less dense, often using more pronouns, prepositions,
and auxiliary verbs.

Example:

 Written: Urbanization has accelerated due to rapid industrial development.

 Spoken: Cities are growing fast because industries are developing quickly.

3. Nominalization (Grammatical Metaphor)

 Written discourse often uses nominalization—turning verbs or adjectives

into nouns—to express ideas abstractly and concisely.
 Spoken discourse tends to be more direct, using verbs to show action.

Example:

 Written: The implementation of the policy was successful.

 Spoken: They implemented the policy, and it worked well.

4. Explicitness

 Written discourse is usually more explicit; writers cannot rely on shared

physical context, so they explain more.
 Spoken discourse can be less explicit, relying on intonation, gestures, and
shared knowledge.

Example:

 Written: Please submit your application, along with all required documents,
to the admissions office by Friday.
 Spoken: Just drop the papers off by Friday, okay?

5. Contextualization
  Spoken language is highly contextualized, meaning it depends on
immediate context (like place, time, gestures).
 Written language is decontextualized and must stand alone without
situational cues.

Example:

 Spoken: Put it over there. (Requires physical context)

 Written: Place the file on the shelf beside the window.

6. Spontaneity

 Spoken discourse is often spontaneous and unplanned, leading to on-the-

spot thinking.
 Written discourse is usually planned and edited, resulting in greater
organization and clarity.

Example:

 Spoken: So, um, I was thinking maybe we could, like, meet later?
 Written: I suggest we schedule a meeting later today.

7. Repetition, Hesitation, and Redundancy

 Spoken language features repetition, pauses, and fillers as speakers think

while speaking.
 Written language minimizes redundancy and is typically more concise.

Example:

 Spoken: Well, you know, I—I just thought maybe we could, um, try again?
 Written: I propose we make another attempt.
Chapter 04

What Does It Take To Do A Critical Discourse Analysis?

Major things to consider

1-Critical Discourse Analysis and Genre

Here is a well-developed paragraph on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and

Genre, incorporating your points and example:

Critical Discourse Analysis and Genre

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) pays close attention to genre as a key vehicle
through which social meanings, ideologies, and power relations are conveyed and
enacted. The choice of genre in any communicative event is never neutral; it
reflects specific discourse goals, such as persuading, informing, legitimizing, or
silencing. For example, genres like policy reports, public speeches, commission
documents, and promotional leaflets are strategically designed to project authority,
expertise, and consensus. Flowerdew (2004) highlights how the public
consultation document promoting Hong Kong as a “world-class city” employed
the language of certainty and command, particularly through the use of the modal
verb “will” rather than more open or dialogic forms like “may” or “could.” This
subtle grammatical choice presented the city’s development plans as predetermined
and non-negotiable, effectively discouraging dissent and constructing a voice of
authority. Furthermore, genres may be hybridized—as in the inclusion of a
soundtrack combining traditional Chinese and Western music—to evoke both local
authenticity and global appeal, supporting a unified, idealized identity. In such
cases, the blending of genres serves to impose a dominant perspective rather than
engage in genuine public consultation. CDA thus explores how such genre
manipulation extends beyond traditional boundaries to shape perceptions, manage
public opinion, and reinforce ideological positions under the guise of neutrality or
inclusivity.

2-CDA and Framing

Certainly! Here's a clear and detailed paragraph on Critical Discourse Analysis

(CDA) and Framing, including explanation and example:

CDA and Framing

In Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), framing refers to the way language is used
to shape how a topic, event, or group is understood by the audience. Framing
determines what is included or excluded, which aspects are emphasized, and
how reality is constructed through discourse. It is a powerful discursive tool that
influences public perception by guiding interpretation and normalizing
particular viewpoints. CDA examines how specific lexical choices, metaphors,
syntactic structures, and headlines are used to promote or suppress ideologies. For
example, media coverage of immigration may frame immigrants as a “crisis” or
“flood,” evoking threat and urgency, whereas the same issue could be framed more
humanely using terms like “asylum seekers” or “families in need.” Such framing
not only reflects but also reinforces power relations, shaping attitudes toward
social groups and public policies. CDA aims to uncover these hidden frames to
expose underlying ideologies and question how language is used to legitimize
authority, marginalize groups, or manufacture consent.

 Foregrounding: what is chosen to emphasize

 Backgrounding: what is chosen to de-emphasize or leave out of the text.
o can easily be identified in newspaper reporting.
 Presupposition: background knowledge, assumptions, attitudes and points
of view that the text presupposes.
 Topicalization: what has been put at the front of each sentence to indicate
what it is about
 Agency: who initiates the action.
o Agent-patient relationship – who does what to whom
o who has the most authority and power in the discourse
o what agents have been left out of sentences – when the passive voice
has been used and why
 Choice of words:
o Connotations of particular words or phrases
o Degree of formality or informality
o Degree of technicality
o Degree of certainty (in its extreme form, may close issues to
discussion and negotiation)
o Attitude of an author/speaker
o

3. CDA and Multimodality

Multimodality in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) refers to the idea that
communication is not limited to written or spoken language alone but involves
multiple modes such as images, sound, color, layout, gestures, and design. CDA
recognizes that meaning is constructed through the interplay of these semiotic
resources, especially in media texts, advertisements, websites, political campaigns,
and public displays. A multimodal approach within CDA critically analyzes how
different modes work together to convey ideologies, shape social realities, and
influence interpretation. For example, a government public health campaign
might combine authoritative language (“You must stay home”), a serious facial
expression in imagery, the color red (symbolizing danger), and somber background
music. Together, these modes reinforce urgency, control, and fear, framing the
message as non-negotiable. By exploring how visual, textual, and auditory
elements support or challenge dominant discourses, CDA with a multimodal lens
offers a deeper understanding of how power operates through all forms of
communication, not just verbal text.

4. CDA and Identity

In Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), identity is seen as a socially

constructed and dynamic concept that is continuously shaped and reshaped
through language and discourse. CDA explores how individuals and groups
are positioned, represented, and labeled in texts and talk, revealing the
ways in which language contributes to constructing identities related to
gender, ethnicity, class, nationality, profession, or ideology. Through
discourse, speakers may claim, resist, or negotiate identities depending on
the context and power relations involved. For instance, in political discourse,
a leader may construct a national identity by using inclusive pronouns like
“we” and “our people”, while simultaneously portraying an opposing group
as “them” or “outsiders”, thereby drawing boundaries and asserting
authority. Similarly, media discourse might label protestors as “rioters” or
“freedom fighters”, which significantly influences how their identity is
perceived by the public. CDA critically examines these identity
constructions to uncover the ideologies and power structures that underpin
them, showing how language can both empower and marginalize.

5. CDA and the World Wide Web

 A potential site for CDA but an analyst has to be cautious in many ways.

The World Wide Web offers a rich and dynamic site for Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA), as it hosts vast amounts of multimodal, interactive, and user-
generated content that reflects and shapes social ideologies, power relations, and
identities. From social media posts, blogs, online news, and forums to websites of
institutions and governments, digital discourse is constantly evolving and highly
influential. However, CDA analysts must approach web-based data with caution,
as online content is often contextually fragmented, edited or anonymous, and
influenced by algorithms and platform-specific norms. For example, a political
message shared on Twitter may use hashtags, emojis, and hyperlinks to signal
solidarity, provoke reaction, or promote an ideology—but without knowing the
speaker’s background, intended audience, or the intertextual connections,
interpretations can be limited or biased. Furthermore, digital texts are frequently
recontextualized, copied, or remixed, blurring the line between original and
adapted meanings. Thus, while the web offers valuable opportunities for
analyzing discourse in real time and on a global scale, CDA practitioners must
critically consider authenticity, authorship, interactivity, and audience
reception when analyzing online discourse.

6- Criticisms of CDA

Despite its valuable insights into the relationship between language, power, and
ideology, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has faced several criticisms. One
major critique is its lack of methodological transparency—CDA is often accused
of being too interpretive or subjective, as analysts may impose their own
ideological stance onto the text without clearly explaining how their conclusions
were reached. Another criticism is that CDA can be overly deterministic,
portraying individuals as entirely shaped by discourse and overlooking their
agency or ability to resist dominant ideologies. Additionally, critics argue that
CDA often focuses heavily on textual analysis, sometimes neglecting the broader
socio-economic or historical context in which the discourse occurs. Some
scholars also point out that CDA’s normative stance—its aim to expose and
challenge power relations—makes it difficult to maintain objectivity. Finally,
there are concerns about selective data use, where analysts may focus only on
examples that support their arguments. Despite these concerns, CDA remains a
powerful tool for uncovering hidden ideologies in language, though it requires
careful application and reflexivity to maintain academic rigor.
Chapter 05 DHA

Discourse Historical Approach

Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA)

The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) is a strand of Critical Discourse

Analysis developed primarily by Ruth Wodak and her colleagues. It focuses on
analyzing discourse by systematically integrating historical, political, and social
context into the interpretation of texts. DHA aims to uncover how language is used
to construct, maintain, or challenge ideologies, particularly related to power,
identity, and exclusion (e.g., racism, nationalism, or discrimination).
One of DHA’s core principles is that discourse must be understood within its real-
world context, including its intertextual and interdiscursive links—how texts
draw upon or relate to other texts and discourses over time. Analysts using DHA
often combine linguistic analysis (such as word choice, argumentation strategies,
and rhetorical devices) with historical and sociopolitical knowledge to critically
examine how meanings evolve and are reproduced.

Example: In studying anti-immigration discourse, DHA would not only analyze

the language used in media or political speeches but also trace how that language
connects to historical narratives, legal frameworks, and broader public debates on
national identity.

Eight Stage program

A detailed DHA ideally follows an eight-stage program

1- Literature Review
In the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), the literature review
plays a foundational role by mapping existing research, identifying
key discourses, and offering insights into the historical and social
background of the topic under analysis. Unlike conventional
literature reviews that focus mainly on academic debates, a DHA-
oriented literature review is interdisciplinary and context-sensitive,
combining theoretical discussions with historical, political, and
sociocultural perspectives relevant to the discourse under study.

2- Collection of Data and Context Information

In the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), collecting both

textual data and contextual information is fundamental for
analyzing how discourse shapes and reflects power, ideology, and
social identities. Textual data includes any form of communication—
such as political speeches, newspaper articles, policy documents, or
online content—that addresses the topic under investigation.
However, DHA goes beyond the surface of these texts by integrating
historical, political, and social context to fully understand the
meaning and function of discourse. This involves gathering
background knowledge such as legal frameworks, institutional
 practices, public debates, and relevant socio-political events. The
approach is interdisciplinary and triangulated, ensuring that
discourse is interpreted not in isolation, but within the structures that
influence it. By combining various data types and sources, DHA
reveals how certain representations become dominant while others are
silenced.

Example: Gender Representation in STEM Education

Suppose a DHA study examines how female students are represented in
government policy documents about STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics) education. The textual data might include
official curricula, ministerial speeches, and promotional materials for STEM
programs. The contextual information would involve analyzing gender
policies in education, enrollment statistics over time, societal attitudes
toward women in science, and media portrayals of female scientists. By
combining these sources, DHA can uncover whether the discourse genuinely
promotes gender equality or subtly reinforces stereotypes—e.g.,
emphasizing “helping girls catch up” may imply male superiority as the
norm.

3- Selection and preparation of data for analysis

In the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), the process of
selecting and preparing data is a crucial step that ensures the
relevance, richness, and analytical depth of the discourse study. Data
is selected based on the research questions, societal relevance, and
the discursive event being studied. Analysts aim for strategic
sampling, not necessarily large quantities of text, but materials that
are representative of dominant or contested discourses. These can
include political speeches, media reports, advertisements, educational
materials, or digital content. Once selected, data is organized and
prepared through transcription (for spoken data), coding, and
contextual annotation, such as marking time, speaker, platform, and
social/political background.
Preparation also involves distinguishing intertextual and
interdiscursive references—that is, how texts draw on or relate to
other texts or discourses—and formatting them for deeper linguistic
and argumentative analysis. Importantly, DHA emphasizes
triangulation by including diverse genres and sources to gain a fuller
understanding of how discursive strategies operate across contexts.
 Example: Analyzing Media Coverage of Climate Protests

A researcher studying how youth climate protests are portrayed in the

media may select articles from major national newspapers during a
peak protest period. The preparation stage would involve organizing
the data by date, political orientation of the source, headline structure,
and thematic focus (e.g., coverage framing activists as heroes,
troublemakers, or idealists). Transcripts of interviews with protestors
or statements by political leaders may also be included to support
triangulation. This enables the analyst to trace how different voices
and ideologies interact and compete in the discourse surrounding
climate activism.

4- Research Questions and Formulation of Assumptions

In the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), research begins with
the careful formulation of research questions and initial
assumptions that guide the entire analytical process. Research
questions in DHA are typically critical and problem-oriented,
focusing on how language reflects, maintains, or challenges power
relations, ideologies, identities, or social inequalities. These
questions are often shaped by observing real-world issues,
controversies, or patterns in public discourse. Instead of testing
hypotheses in a traditional scientific sense, DHA uses assumptions as
interpretive starting points based on previous studies, theoretical
frameworks, or socio-political knowledge. These assumptions are
flexible and open to revision as the analysis progresses.

Example:
If a researcher is investigating the discourse of mental health
awareness campaigns, a possible research question might be:
"How is mental health represented in public awareness
campaigns, and what ideologies or assumptions underlie these
representations?"
An assumption guiding this research could be:
"Mental health is often framed in ways that emphasize individual
responsibility while minimizing systemic causes such as poverty or
workplace pressure."
As the research unfolds, this assumption may be supported, refined, or
challenged based on what the data reveals. This dynamic process
 ensures that DHA remains reflexive, context-sensitive, and
grounded in real discourse practices.

5- Qualitative Pilot Analysis

Qualitative Pilot Analysis in DHA

In the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), a qualitative pilot analysis is a

preliminary step used to test and refine research tools, analytical categories, and
assumptions before conducting a full-scale study. It involves selecting a small,
representative sample of data and analyzing it in-depth to explore discursive
patterns, strategies, and themes. This step helps the researcher determine
whether their research questions, assumptions, and methods are appropriate
and allows for early identification of unexpected findings or context-specific
discursive features.

The pilot analysis focuses on:

 Identifying initial discursive strategies (e.g., nomination, predication,

argumentation)
 Exploring linguistic features (e.g., metaphors, modality, lexical choices)
 Noting intertextual references and ideological standpoints
 Testing coding categories for clarity and relevance

Example:

Suppose you're studying political discourse on youth unemployment. In a pilot

analysis, you might select two government speeches and one newspaper
editorial. You examine how youth are referred to (e.g., "future of the nation" vs.
"idle generation") and identify predicational strategies (e.g., associating youth
with innovation vs. laziness). You might also test your coding scheme on how
responsibility is assigned—whether the problem is framed as structural or
individual. Insights from this mini-analysis help refine your coding system, adjust
your assumptions, and sharpen your analytical focus for the full study.

6- Detailed Case Study

Detailed Case Study in DHA

In the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), a detailed case study is a focused,
in-depth investigation of a specific discursive event, text, or set of texts situated
within their historical, political, and social contexts. This approach allows
researchers to trace how particular discourses emerge, evolve, and function within
real-life situations. A detailed case study involves systematic analysis of language
use, discursive strategies (such as nomination, predication, and argumentation),
and the ideological implications behind the discourse. Importantly, the case is not
viewed in isolation—its connections to broader discourses (interdiscursivity) and
other texts (intertextuality) are essential components of analysis. The goal is to
uncover how discourse constructs meaning, reinforces or challenges power, and
shapes social understanding.

Example: Case Study on Media Discourse and Women's Leadership

A researcher conducts a DHA case study on how a leading newspaper covered the
appointment of the first female CEO of a national bank. The analysis includes
articles, editorials, and social media commentary from the week of the
announcement. The researcher examines:

 Nomination strategies (e.g., how she is named: “mother of two,” “female

executive,” “finance expert”)
 Predication (e.g., qualities attributed to her: “competent,” “emotional,”
“ambitious”)
 Argumentation strategies (e.g., how her appointment is justified or
questioned)
 Contextual factors (e.g., gender equality debates, corporate history,
national economic policies)

The study reveals that while the language appears celebratory, subtle discursive
patterns reinforce traditional gender roles, often focusing on her family life more
than her professional qualifications. The case study thus highlights how media
discourse can both support and constrain women’s leadership narratives.

7- Formulation of Critique
In the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), the formulation of
critique is the final and most crucial stage, where the analyst
synthesizes findings to critically evaluate how discourse
contributes to power relations, ideology, discrimination, or social
injustice. This critique is not just about pointing out bias or
 manipulation; it involves a deep, context-sensitive reflection on how
language constructs social realities and influences public perception
and action. The critique links linguistic analysis with broader societal
implications, questioning how certain representations become
dominant, whose voices are included or excluded, and what interests
are served.
DHA aims to uncover the hidden or normalized ideologies behind
texts and show how discourse can reinforce or resist hegemonic
structures (such as racism, sexism, nationalism, or neoliberalism).
The critique also often suggests alternatives or more inclusive
discursive practices.
Example:
After analyzing a series of news articles on poverty, a DHA-based critique
might reveal that poor individuals are often described with passive or
dehumanizing terms (e.g., “the needy,” “burden on the state”), while
structural causes such as wage inequality or housing policies are ignored.
The critique would highlight how this discourse individualizes a systemic
issue, promoting blame and reducing empathy. It may also suggest that
alternative discourses—highlighting resilience, systemic barriers, and
community support—can lead to more equitable understandings and
solutions.

8- Application of the detailed analytical result

In the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), the application of detailed

analytical results involves using the insights gained from the analysis to inform
broader social, political, or academic goals. This stage moves beyond description
to demonstrate how the findings can challenge dominant ideologies, influence
policy, raise public awareness, or support marginalized voices. By exposing
how language shapes power relations and social identities, DHA provides a
foundation for critical reflection and social change.

Applications can take various forms, such as:

 Informing policy debates by highlighting biased or exclusionary discourse.

 Guiding media literacy programs to help audiences critically engage with
texts.
 Supporting activism by uncovering oppressive language and suggesting
alternatives.
  Contributing to academic theory by refining concepts of discourse,
ideology, and power.

Example:

After a DHA study reveals that political speeches around climate change
frequently use language that downplays urgency (e.g., “gradual adjustments”
instead of “immediate crisis”), these results could be used to:

 Advocate for clearer, more urgent communication in environmental policy.

 Develop workshops to help journalists and politicians recognize and change
their framing.
 Support activist campaigns that challenge complacency and demand stronger
action.

By applying detailed analytical results in this way, DHA research moves from
analysis to impact, fostering critical awareness and contributing to social
transformation.

Characteristics and Research Interests in DHA

 DHA is Problem-Oriented
The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) is fundamentally problem-
oriented, meaning it begins with a concrete social or political issue that
requires critical investigation. Rather than analyzing language for its own
sake, DHA focuses on how discourse contributes to or reflects real-world
problems such as inequality, discrimination, power abuse, or social conflict.
This approach views discourse as both a product and producer of social
realities, aiming to uncover the underlying ideologies, power relations, and
historical contexts that shape and sustain these problems. By addressing
specific social concerns, DHA provides insights that can inform
interventions, raise awareness, and promote social change.

Example:
A DHA study might explore how media discourse around homelessness
 constructs the problem. Instead of merely describing language use, the
research investigates how the discourse frames homelessness as an
individual failure rather than a systemic issue, thus shaping public attitudes
and policy responses. This problem-oriented focus allows the study to
critique dominant narratives and suggest ways to reframe homelessness that
promote empathy and structural solutions.

 Language as Part of a Broader Social Analysis

A key characteristic of the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) is that

the study of language—whether oral, written, or visual—is treated as only
one part of a broader research process. DHA does not isolate language as
a purely linguistic phenomenon; instead, it situates language within its
historical, social, political, and cultural contexts. This means that
analyzing texts or spoken discourse is always connected to understanding
the wider social practices, power relations, and ideological struggles that
shape and are shaped by that discourse.
By integrating linguistic analysis with contextual investigation, DHA
enables researchers to reveal how language functions as a tool of social
action—how it constructs identities, legitimizes authority, or marginalizes
groups. The focus on multiple modes (oral, written, visual) reflects the
complexity of contemporary communication and ensures a holistic
understanding of discourse.

Example:
In a DHA study of political campaigns, analyzing the language of speeches
(oral) is complemented by examining campaign posters (visual) and social
media posts (written and multimodal). This combined analysis shows not
just what is said but how images, text, and speech work together to construct
a politician’s identity and influence public opinion within a specific
historical and social context.

 Interdisciplinary Investigation in DHA

A defining feature of the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) is its
commitment to interdisciplinary investigation. DHA draws not only on
linguistics but also on fields like history, sociology, political science,
anthropology, and media studies to provide a rich, multi-dimensional
understanding of discourse. This interdisciplinary stance allows researchers
to situate language use within complex social, cultural, and historical
frameworks, uncovering how discourses are shaped by and help shape
 wider societal processes.By combining insights from different disciplines,
DHA goes beyond surface-level textual analysis to examine power
relations, ideological formations, institutional practices, and historical
continuities or changes. This holistic approach enables a more nuanced
critique of how language functions in real-world contexts and its role in
maintaining or challenging social structures.

Example:
When analyzing political rhetoric around nationalism, a DHA researcher
might incorporate historical analysis of nation-building narratives,
sociological theories on identity and group membership, and media studies
perspectives on public opinion formation. This interdisciplinary blend
enriches the analysis by linking linguistic patterns to broader societal
dynamics such as collective memory, social cohesion, and political
mobilization.

 Multisource and Multiperspective Analysis in DHA

In the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), analyzing, understanding,
and explaining complex social phenomena requires the use of many
different and accessible sources of data examined from various analytical
perspectives. This characteristic highlights DHA’s commitment to
triangulation—combining diverse types of data (such as speeches, media
texts, interviews, official documents, and visual materials) to gain a fuller,
more nuanced picture of discourse in context. Rather than relying on a single
text or perspective, DHA integrates multiple voices, genres, and modes of
communication, which allows for richer and more reliable
interpretations.Moreover, applying varied analytical lenses—linguistic,
historical, sociopolitical—helps reveal the multiple layers of meaning,
power relations, and ideological processes embedded in discourse. This
comprehensive approach ensures that discourse is not analyzed in isolation
but as part of dynamic social practices.

Example:
In a study of environmental debates, a DHA researcher might analyze
government policy papers, activist speeches, newspaper editorials, and social
media campaigns, while also considering historical environmental
legislation and public opinion surveys. By combining these diverse data
sources and analytical angles, the study can unpack how environmental
issues are framed differently by stakeholders, how historical contexts shape
current debates, and how power operates through language across platforms.
  The Three-Dimensional Nature of DHA

The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) is uniquely three-dimensional,

meaning it analyzes discourse on three interconnected levels:

1. Specific Contents or Topics: DHA first identifies the themes or topics that
are central to the discourse. This involves understanding what the discourse
is about—such as immigration, climate change, or social justice—and the
particular issues or problems it addresses within its specific context.
2. Discursive Strategies: The approach then investigates the strategies used
to construct and communicate these topics, such as nomination (how
people or groups are named), predication (what attributes are assigned),
argumentation (how claims are justified), and intensification or mitigation.
These strategies reveal how meaning is shaped to influence audiences or
sustain power relations.
3. Linguistic Means: Finally, DHA examines the linguistic means employed
to realize these strategies. This includes both types (the general categories of
linguistic features, like metaphors, modal verbs, or nominalizations) and
tokens (the specific instances of these features in the text, shaped by the
context). This detailed linguistic analysis links micro-level language use
with macro-level social processes.

Example:

In analyzing political discourse about refugees, DHA would:

1. Identify the topic as “refugee crisis.”

2. Explore discursive strategies, such as portraying refugees as a “threat” or
“victims.”
3. Examine linguistic means, like the use of metaphors (“flood of refugees”),
modal verbs expressing certainty or threat (“must be controlled”), and
specific adjectives used in the context to influence perception.

This three-dimensional framework allows DHA to provide a comprehensive and

contextually grounded analysis of discourse.

 Beyond History
 DHA does not only considers history but includes extensive areas like
 Discourse and discrimination (e.g. racism, ethnicism, nationalism,
xenophobia, islamophobia, sexism);
 Language barriers in various social institutions (hospitals, court rooms,
authorities, academic and media institutions);
 Discourse and Politics
 Discourse and Identity
 Discourse in the Media
 Discourse and History
 Discourse and Ecology

Discursive Strategies in DHA

In the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), discursive strategies are
the methods used by speakers or writers to construct meaning, represent
social actors, justify actions, and influence opinions within a specific social
and historical context. DHA identifies several key strategies that help reveal
how language shapes ideology and power relations:

1. Nomination
This strategy concerns how people, groups, events, or phenomena are named
or categorized. Nomination shapes perception by selecting specific labels
that carry particular connotations. For example, media outlets may refer to
unemployed youth as either “job seekers” or “welfare dependents,” which
influences public attitudes toward them.
2. Predication
Predication involves ascribing qualities, characteristics, or attributes to the
nominated subjects. It describes what is said about someone or something,
often to portray them positively or negatively. For instance, political
opponents might be predicated as “corrupt” or “inefficient” to undermine
their credibility.
3. Argumentation
Argumentation includes the reasons or justifications given to support claims
or viewpoints. It often draws on commonplaces or topoi—culturally shared
 assumptions—to legitimize arguments. For example, a government speech
might argue that stricter immigration laws are necessary by appealing to the
topos of security (“We must protect our borders to keep citizens safe”).
4. Intensification and Mitigation
This strategy concerns how statements are strengthened or softened.
Intensifiers make claims more forceful (“extremely dangerous”), while
mitigators soften assertions (“somewhat concerning”). For example, a
climate scientist might say, “The effects of global warming are severe,” to
emphasize urgency, whereas a politician might say, “There are some
concerns about climate change,” to downplay the issue.
5. Perspectivization
Perspectivization expresses the speaker’s or writer’s viewpoint or attitude
toward the content, indicating subjectivity or stance. For example, a news
article might describe a protest as “a peaceful demonstration” or “a
disruptive riot,” reflecting different perspectives on the same event.
6. Intertextuality and Interdiscursivity
This involves linking a text to other texts (intertextuality) or blending
different discourses (interdiscursivity). It shows how meaning is shaped by
references to wider social and cultural narratives. For example, a politician’s
speech might reference historical events (intertextuality) or combine legal
discourse with moral arguments (interdiscursivity) to strengthen their
position.

Concept of Critique

Concept of Critique in the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA)

In the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), critique is a fundamental element

that goes beyond simply describing or interpreting discourse. It involves a critical
evaluation of how discourse constructs, maintains, or challenges power
relations, ideologies, and social inequalities. The aim of critique in DHA is to
uncover the hidden assumptions, biases, and interests behind language use and
to expose how discourse can reinforce domination or marginalization.
Critique in DHA is context-sensitive and historically informed, meaning that
analysts pay close attention to the social, political, and historical conditions in
which discourse occurs. This enables a deeper understanding of why certain
meanings prevail, whose voices are silenced, and how language functions as a
tool of social control or resistance.

Ultimately, critique is not just analytical but emancipatory, as it seeks to raise

awareness and promote more just and democratic forms of communication and
social relations.

Example:

A DHA critique of media coverage on immigration might reveal that refugees are
frequently framed as “illegal threats,” which serves to justify exclusionary policies
and public fear. By exposing this biased discourse, the critique challenges
dominant narratives and advocates for more inclusive and humane representations.

Political Critique in DHA

In the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), political critique focuses on how

language is used to sustain, legitimize, or challenge political power and ideologies.
It involves analyzing political discourse—such as speeches, policies, media
coverage, or campaign material—to reveal how certain narratives are constructed
to gain support, marginalize opposition, or control public opinion. Political critique
aims to expose the manipulative or persuasive strategies used by powerful actors
and to uncover whose interests are being served by specific discourses.

Example:
In a government speech promoting austerity, a DHA-based political critique might
reveal how the use of terms like “economic responsibility” or “necessary cuts”
frames austerity as rational and inevitable, while ignoring the social impact on
vulnerable populations. This critique highlights how language is used to justify
unpopular policies and silence dissent.

Three theoretical Sources

1. First Generation of Critical Theory

The first generation of Critical Theory—notably Adorno, Horkheimer, and
Benjamin—deeply influences the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA),
particularly in its commitment to critiquing domination, ideology, and power
abuse. Rooted in the Frankfurt School, this tradition views language and culture
not merely as neutral tools of communication but as mechanisms through which
social control is maintained. It sees ideology as a set of beliefs that often disguise
particular class or political interests as if they were in the common good,
thereby legitimizing inequality, exclusion, and exploitation.

DHA inherits this critical lens by treating discourse as a site where ideologies are
embedded, normalized, and resisted. It investigates how discriminatory
narratives become dominant, how language marginalizes certain groups, and how
media and institutional discourses reproduce social hierarchies—much in the way
the Frankfurt School critiqued the culture industry for producing passive
consumers of ideology.

2- Relationship of DHA to Foucault

The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) maintains a critical and selective

relationship with the work of Michel Foucault—marked by deep intellectual
interest, but also theoretical reservations. DHA draws on Foucault’s concept of
critique as an attitude—a questioning stance that challenges taken-for-granted
truths and asks, in his words, “how not to be governed in this way and at this
price” (Foucault, 1990: 12). In this sense, DHA adopts Foucault’s idea of critique
as a tool for resisting domination, exposing how social norms and relationships
are constructed and presented as natural or inevitable.

However, DHA diverges from Foucault in important ways. While Foucault often
refrained from explicit political judgment and focused more on the archaeology
and genealogy of knowledge and power, DHA insists on a clear normative
stance—particularly in challenging racist, sexist, or authoritarian discourses.
Where Foucault emphasized discourse as power/knowledge, DHA combines this
with historical and sociopolitical context, and aligns more directly with
emancipatory goals.

3- DHA and the Influence of Habermas’s Later Critical Theory

The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) is also significantly influenced by the

later Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas, especially his concepts of discourse
ethics and deliberative democracy. Habermas emphasizes the importance of
rational communication free from domination, where all participants have equal
opportunity to contribute to discourse. His theory of discourse ethics proposes that
norms and truths should be agreed upon through open, inclusive dialogue guided
by reason rather than power.

DHA takes up this orientation by analyzing how real-life discourses—particularly

in politics, media, and public institutions—deviate from these ideal conditions. It
examines how inequalities in power, access, and representation distort
communication, limiting the democratic ideal of mutual understanding and
consensus. DHA thus uses Habermas’s normative framework to critique
manipulative, exclusionary, or hegemonic discourses, and to advocate for more
just and participatory forms of communication.

The four validity claims originally distinguished by Habermas serve as criteria for
a differentiated concept of critique in the DHA:

• (theoretical) truth,
• (expressive) truthfulness,
• Normative rightness
• Comprehensibilty

Validity Claims

 Theoretical Truth
This refers to whether a statement about the world is factually accurate or
verifiable. DHA uses this to assess whether discourse presents misleading
or manipulated information.
Example: A government report claiming that poverty rates have
decreased might be critically examined to determine whether this is
supported by actual data.

 Expressive Truthfulness
This involves the speaker’s sincerity or authenticity—whether they
genuinely believe what they are saying. DHA critiques discourse when it
identifies rhetoric that conceals true motives.
Example: A politician claiming to “listen to the people” while suppressing
dissent could be exposed as inauthentic or performative.
 Normative Rightness
This claim assesses whether discourse aligns with shared social values and
norms, such as justice or equality. DHA critiques discourse that violates
 these norms or normalizes exclusion and discrimination.
Example: A media portrayal that subtly reinforces gender stereotypes can be
challenged for undermining normative values of equality.
 Comprehensibility
This refers to whether the language used is clear and understandable.
DHA evaluates discourse that deliberately uses technical jargon,
euphemisms, or ambiguity to obscure meaning or avoid accountability.
Example: Bureaucratic language in policy documents might obscure harmful
decisions by avoiding plain language (e.g., saying “streamlining services”
instead of “cutting healthcare”).

Three Forms of Critique in the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA)

According to Reisigl and Wodak, the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA)

employs three distinct but interconnected forms of critique to analyze discourse
comprehensively. These forms help reveal not only how discourse operates on the
surface, but also how it functions ideologically and impacts society both now and
in the future.

1. Text or Discourse-Immanent Critique

This form focuses on the internal features of the discourse itself—such as logic,
coherence, consistency, and use of rhetorical devices. It asks whether a text is
internally contradictory, misleading, or linguistically manipulative.
Example: A campaign speech that claims to support environmental policies while
promoting increased industrial activity could be criticized for its internal
contradiction.

2. Socio-Diagnostic Critique

This critique links the discourse to wider social and historical contexts,
uncovering underlying ideologies, power relations, and discriminatory
practices. It often draws on knowledge from sociology, history, or political
science.
Example: An analysis of news media framing of welfare recipients as “lazy”
reveals a deeper socio-political agenda that stigmatizes poverty and justifies
welfare cuts.
3. Prospective Critique

This form is forward-looking and considers the potential consequences of the

discourse. It explores how certain narratives may shape future thinking, actions, or
policy decisions.
Example: A critique of anti-immigrant rhetoric might warn that continued use of
such language could normalize xenophobia and erode democratic values over
time.

Together, these three forms of critique allow DHA to move from linguistic detail
to ideological analysis and social impact, making it a powerful tool for
uncovering and challenging the role of discourse in shaping society.
Chapter 06 Fairclough Model

Introduction to Fairclough’s Model of Critical Discourse Analysis

Norman Fairclough, one of the foundational figures in Critical Discourse

Analysis (CDA), developed a comprehensive three-dimensional model to
systematically analyze the relationship between language, power, and society. His
approach is rooted in the belief that discourse is not just a reflection of social
realities but also a powerful tool that shapes, maintains, and challenges power
relations and ideologies in society.

Fairclough’s model integrates linguistic analysis with social theory, offering a

framework that links the micro-level of textual features to the macro-level of social
structures and cultural practices. According to Fairclough, every communicative
event (such as a newspaper article, political speech, or advertisement) can be
examined on three interrelated levels:

 the text itself (what is said and how it is structured),

 the discursive practice (how the text is produced and interpreted), and
 the social practice (the broader societal and ideological context in which the
discourse operates).

This multidimensional approach allows researchers to uncover how discourse

reinforces or challenges power dynamics, making it a key tool for analyzing
texts in political, institutional, media, and everyday contexts. Through this model,
Fairclough aimed to encourage not just academic understanding but also critical
awareness and social change.

Theorist View on CDA

Sure! Here are small passages on each theorist’s view with reference to
Fairclough’s model:

Norman Fairclough
Fairclough’s model is foundational in CDA, emphasizing that discourse must be
studied at three levels: the text itself, the discursive practices that produce and
interpret the text, and the social practices shaping those discourses. He argues that
language is not neutral but a social practice that both reflects and shapes power
relations. This model enables analysts to connect detailed linguistic analysis with
broader social and political structures, revealing how ideology operates through
language.

Ruth Wodak

Ruth Wodak builds on Fairclough’s social practice dimension by adding a strong

historical perspective through her Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA). She
argues that understanding discourse requires examining its evolution over time and
its connection to social memory. Wodak stresses that CDA should analyze how
past and present contexts influence the construction of meaning, especially in
political and discriminatory discourses.

Teun A. van Dijk

Van Dijk complements Fairclough’s model by focusing on the cognitive processes

behind discourse. He highlights the role of mental models and social cognition in
how texts are produced and interpreted within social contexts. His approach
enriches the discursive practice level by showing how shared beliefs and ideologies
shape understanding, particularly in media discourse involving race and power.

Paul Chilton

Chilton focuses on political discourse and adds to Fairclough’s text and discursive
practice levels by analyzing the use of metaphor, modality, and framing in
language. He shows how these linguistic features construct political realities and
convey authority or persuasion. Chilton’s work helps reveal how political actors
use language strategically to influence public opinion and maintain power.

Siegfried Jäger
Jäger’s concept of discourse strands and fragments ties closely with
Fairclough’s notion of intertextuality in discursive practices. He emphasizes that
fragments of discourse, recurring across different texts and contexts, contribute to
sustaining ideologies. Jäger extends Fairclough’s model by showing how these
repeated elements function across texts to uphold dominant social structures and
beliefs.

Aspects of Fairclough`s Model

3D model;

Absolutely! Here’s a concise explanation of Fairclough’s three stages in his 3D

model:

Fairclough’s Three Stages of CDA

1. Description
This stage involves the detailed linguistic analysis of the text itself.
Analysts examine vocabulary, grammar, cohesion, and text structure to
describe how the text is constructed and what meanings are conveyed at the
micro-level.
2. Interpretation
At this stage, the focus shifts to discursive practice—how the text is
produced, distributed, and consumed. The analyst interprets the processes
behind the text, such as who the producers and audiences are, and how the
text fits into broader communication practices.
3. Explanation
The final stage links the discourse to social practice. Here, the analyst
explains how the discourse relates to social structures, power relations, and
ideologies. It looks at the wider societal context that shapes and is shaped by
the discourse.
Chapter 07 Genres Analysis

Genre Analysis

Genre analysis is the study of how texts are structured and organized according to
their communicative purposes within specific social contexts. It examines the
typical features, conventions, and expectations of different genres—such as
speeches, reports, advertisements, or academic papers—and how these influence
the way meaning is created and understood.

Genres are socially recognized categories of texts that follow particular patterns in
terms of content, style, and structure. By analyzing a genre, researchers can
uncover how language choices shape and reflect social roles, relationships, and
power dynamics.
For example, a political speech often uses persuasive language, rhetorical
questions, and repetition to engage and influence an audience, while a scientific
report follows a formal, objective structure with clear sections like introduction,
methods, results, and conclusion to convey information precisely.

In Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), genre analysis helps explore how different
genres serve ideological functions, reproducing or challenging social norms and
power relations. It also examines how genres may shift or blend to achieve specific
effects or control meaning, such as mixing informal and formal styles in
advertising to appear both trustworthy and approachable.

Genre Analysis and various forms of writings

Khud c likhna h

Steps of Genre analysis

Here are the key steps in genre analysis explained clearly:

Steps in Genre Analysis

1. Identify the Genre

Determine what type of text or discourse you are analyzing (e.g., academic
article, business email, political speech). Understand its general social
purpose and typical audience.
2. Collect and Select Texts
Gather a representative sample of texts belonging to that genre. Make sure
the texts are relevant and diverse enough to show typical features.
3. Analyze the Overall Purpose
Examine the communicative goal of the genre—what is it trying to achieve?
(e.g., to inform, persuade, entertain, instruct).
4. Examine Structural Features
Look at how the text is organized. Identify common sections, stages, or
moves typical for the genre (e.g., introduction, body, conclusion; problem-
solution; background-information).
 5. Analyze Linguistic Features
Focus on language use such as vocabulary, grammar, sentence structure,
tone, and style typical to the genre. Identify formal or informal language, use
of passive voice, modality, and other features.
6. Consider Contextual Factors
Take into account the social, cultural, and institutional context where the
genre is used. This helps explain why certain linguistic choices are made.
7. Compare and Contrast
If possible, compare texts within the genre or across related genres to
understand variation and flexibility.
8. Draw Conclusions
Summarize how the genre’s features serve its social purpose and how
language shapes the expectations of writers and readers within that context.

Chapter 08 Main Tenets of CDA

1. CDA Addresses Social Problems

CDA is concerned with examining how discourse contributes to social issues such
as inequality, racism, sexism, or political oppression. It reveals how language can
reinforce or challenge these problems.
Example: Analyzing media coverage of refugees can show how language frames
them as threats or victims, influencing public attitudes and policy.

2. Power Relations Are Discursive

Power is not only exercised through physical means but is also embedded and
enacted in language use. Discourse both reflects and shapes power dynamics in
society.
Example: In workplace emails, a manager’s directives use authoritative language
that enforces hierarchy and control over employees.

3. Discourse Constitutes Society and Culture

Discourse doesn’t just describe social reality; it helps construct it. Our
understanding of social identities, roles, and cultural norms are shaped through
discourse.
Example: Gender roles are perpetuated through everyday language, like calling
assertive women “bossy,” which shapes cultural perceptions of femininity.

4. Discourse Does Ideological Work

Discourse serves to promote and reproduce certain ideologies—sets of beliefs and

values—that benefit particular groups in society.
Example: Political speeches might use language that promotes nationalism,
encouraging loyalty and justifying exclusion of outsiders.

5. Discourse Is Historical

Discourse must be understood in relation to its historical context since past events,
traditions, and social changes influence how language is used and interpreted.
Example: The rhetoric around “freedom” in American politics has evolved based
on historical events like the Civil Rights Movement or post-9/11 security concerns.
6. The Link Between Text and Society Is Mediated

Texts do not directly mirror social reality but are produced and interpreted through
social institutions, conventions, and power relations.
Example: News media coverage of climate change varies depending on the
political orientation of the media outlet, shaping different public perceptions.

7. Discourse Analysis Is Interpretative and Explanatory

CDA does not just describe language but seeks to explain how discourse relates to
social practices and power structures, uncovering hidden meanings and intentions.
Example: Analyzing political debates to reveal how certain phrases mask
underlying power struggles or ideological positions.

8. Discourse Is a Form of Social Action

Language is an active tool that shapes social interactions and realities, influencing
how people think, behave, and organize society.
Example: Anti-discrimination laws use specific legal language to change social
behavior and promote equality.

Chapter 09 Multimodality in CDA

Two books of Kress and van Leeuwen’s ‘Reading Images’ (1996) and O’Toole’s
‘The Language of Displayed Art’ (1994) has been appreciated as founding the field
of multi-modality

Multimodality

Multimodality refers to the use and analysis of multiple modes of communication

—such as language, images, sounds, gestures, and spatial design—working
together to create meaning. Unlike traditional discourse analysis that focuses
mainly on written or spoken language, multimodal analysis looks at how these
different modes interact and complement each other in texts, media, and social
practices.

For example, in a political campaign video, meaning is created not only through
the spoken words (language) but also through visuals (such as the candidate’s
facial expressions, setting, and colors), music (which can evoke emotions), and
even body language. All these modes together shape how the message is received
and understood.

In Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), multimodality helps explore how power

and ideology are communicated beyond language alone—showing how images and
sounds can reinforce or challenge social relations and identities.

Meta-Functions

Semiotic modes, or connected systems of resources such as language, images, and

gestures, are used simultaneously to perform three key functions in
communication, according to Halliday and Hasan (1985).

First, the ideational meta-function refers to how these modes represent or say
something about the world around us—for example, describing events, people, or
objects.

Second, the interpersonal meta-function signals relationships between

participants, expressing attitudes, emotions, or social roles, like showing politeness
or authority.

Third, the textual meta-function organizes the various semiotic elements into a
coherent, structured whole, ensuring the message flows logically and makes sense
within its context. Together, these functions explain how different modes combine
to create meaningful and effective communication.

Approaches of Multimodal Approach

Approaches in Multimodality

Multimodality is studied through various approaches, each focusing on different

aspects of how multiple modes work together to create meaning. Here are some
key approaches:

1. Social Semiotic Approach

 Developed by Michael Halliday and furthered by Gunther Kress and Theo

van Leeuwen.
 Focuses on how different semiotic modes (language, images, gestures) are
socially shaped and used to make meaning in specific contexts.
 Emphasizes the role of power, ideology, and culture in shaping multimodal
communication.
 Example: Analyzing how colors and layout in a magazine ad influence
consumer attitudes.

2. Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and Multimodality

 Extends Halliday’s linguistic theory to other modes.

 Studies how ideational, interpersonal, and textual metafunctions operate
across modes.
 Examines grammar and structure not just in language but in images and
design as well.
 Example: Looking at how a webpage’s visual design complements the
written text to guide user interaction.
 3. Cognitive Approach

 Focuses on how humans perceive and process multiple modes

simultaneously.
 Studies how meaning is constructed in the mind from combining visual,
auditory, and linguistic inputs.
 Example: Investigating how viewers interpret the combination of music and
imagery in films.

4. Interactional and Conversation Analysis

 Studies multimodal interaction in face-to-face communication, such as

gestures, gaze, and body language alongside speech.
 Explores how meaning is co-constructed in real-time social interactions.
 Example: Examining how hand gestures complement spoken instructions
during a meeting.

5. Critical Multimodal Analysis

 Combines multimodality with Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).

 Explores how multimodal texts enact power relations and ideologies.
 Example: Analyzing political campaign posters to reveal how images and
slogans reinforce dominant political ideologies.

Chapter 10 Approaches to CDA

Socio-cultural Approach

Here’s a clear passage summarizing the Socio-cultural Approach in Fairclough’s

framework:

The Socio-cultural Approach to discourse analysis, prominently developed by

Norman Fairclough, views discourse as deeply embedded in social and cultural
contexts. Fairclough’s system of discourse analysis operates on three
interconnected dimensions:

1. Text — This includes any spoken or written language, as well as visual

images, that form the communicative content.
2. Discourse Practice — This involves the processes of production,
distribution, and consumption of texts, focusing on how texts are created,
circulated, and interpreted in specific contexts.
3. Socio-cultural Practice — This dimension connects discourse to broader
social structures, power relations, and cultural norms, emphasizing how
discourse both shapes and is shaped by society.
4.

the Socio-Cognitive Approach by Van Dijk:

The Socio-Cognitive Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis, developed by

Teun A. Van Dijk, emphasizes the role of social cognition as the crucial link
between discourse (text) and society. Van Dijk argues that to fully understand
discourse, CDA must consider the mental processes and shared knowledge—
beliefs, attitudes, and ideologies—that social groups, organizations, and
institutions use to produce and interpret texts (Van Dijk, 2001). This approach
identifies two levels of discourse analysis:

1. The micro-level, focusing on the linguistic and textual features of discourse.

2. The macro-level, dealing with the social structures, power relations, and
cognitive frameworks that influence and are influenced by discourse.

By bridging cognition and society, Van Dijk’s approach explores how shared
mental models shape the production and reception of discourse, revealing hidden
power dynamics.