Lecture 1

Critical Discourse Analysis

 Discourse

• Stretch of language larger than the sentence

• Language in use
• The sort of language used to construct some
aspect of reality from a particular perspective
 Approaches to the phenomenon of
discourse

• Structural approach to discourse

• Functional approach to discourse
• Constructionist approach to discourse
 Structural approach to discourse

• Focuses on linguistic form - ‘extended

sequences of utterances or sentences, and how
those ‘texts’ are produced and organized in
systematic ways’ (Biber et al., 2007: 1)
Functional approach to discourse
• Importance to the purposes and functions of
language. Functional analyses include all
uses of language because they focus on the
way in which people use language to achieve
certain communicative goals.
• Roman Jakobson: language performs six
functions…
 Recent approach to Discourse
• Recently researchers started talking about
bidirectional and complex relations between
discourses and social practices.

Discourses of Social Practice

“Healthy Food” Healthy lifestyle
Discourse as Social Practice (Fairclough)

• Not focus on ‘the description of particular texts or the

analysis of language structure and use’

• Focuses on:

• Socio-cultural orientation to discourse

• ‘the actions of participants in particular communication
events’.
• Speech/discourse communities and power (Biber et al.,
2007: 2).
 Discourse as a Social Practice
• From a perspective of ideological/social
theory, it is theorized in terms of social
practice (Fairclough, 1992). Chouliaraki &
Fairclough (1999) consider it as “the sort of
language used to construct some aspect of
reality from a particular perspective”. For
Foucault (1972), it as not merely knowledge
regarding cultural ways, but also a form of
social practice (e.g. event).
• To view discourse in terms of social practice,
according to Fairclough (1992), signifies three
things:
1) language is a part of society
2) language is a social process
3) language is a socially conditioned process.
 language is a part of society

• Firstly, there is no external relation between society and language, but an

internal and dialectical one. In other words, linguistic phenomena are
social phenomena and social phenomena are partly linguistic phenomena.
• The linguistic phenomena as social mean we listen, speak, read, and write
according to the socially determined ways. In other words, it means that
we use language according to the social conventions.
• Social phenomena are linguistic in a sense that language activity does
not merely reflect social practices and processes, but a part of those
practices and processes.
• In addition, Fairclough has highlighted the point that all linguistic
phenomena are social, but not all social phenomena are linguistic. The
society is a whole, whereas, language is merely one strand of this whole.
 language is a social process
• Secondly, language is a social process. Here, Fairclough approaches
language in a way where discourse can be differentiated from the text.
• He uses the term text the way Halliday has used including both written and
spoken text. A text is a product of the whole process of the production of a
text. Conversely, discourse is a whole process of the social interaction, and
the text is just a part of it. This process includes text, process of the
production (a text is a product for it), and process of the interpretation (a
text is a resource for it).
• Thus, text analysis is only a part of this discourse analysis. The formal
properties of the text are seen as traces of productive process, and cues in
the process of interpretation. Productive and interpretative processes
involve interplay between formal properties of the text and MRs (‘member
resources’). These MRs include people’s representation of the social world,
their knowledge of language, assumptions, values, beliefs and so on.
language is a socially conditioned process
• Thirdly, these processes of production and interpretations are socially
determined. In other words, language is conditioned by the non-
linguistic factors of the society.
• These MRs are cognitive and social. They are cognitive because they
are present in one’s mind, and social as generated and transmitted in a
society.
• Moreover, they are unequally distributed in the society, and people
use these MRs to engage in the social practice of discourse.
• Discourse involves social conditions (of production and
interpretation). These social conditions are linked to three levels of
social organization:
1) the level of social situation in which the discourse is occurred
2) the level of social institutions constituting the discourse
3) the level of society. These social conditions shape the MRs, which
in turn shape the processes of production and interpretation of the texts.
• Hence, viewing discourse in terms of social practice means
analyzing the relationship between texts, their processes and
social conditions. It posits that language does not merely reflect
reality, but can change the reality. This is a social constructionist
paradigm, which posits that discourse produces social realities.
• The claims of this paradigm, as discussed by Fairclough (2013),
Burr (1995), Jorgensen & Phillips (2002) are as following:

1) knowledge is subjective in nature, which is the by-product of

discourses
2) this world is discursively constructed
3) knowledge is constructed in social interaction.
 Discourse and Power
• The concept of discourse given by Foucault is important to
understand the significant role of power in the construction of
discourses.
• Foucault focuses on the rules of discursive construction
working behind the system of statements. He views that such
rules guide, which statements are to be included/ constructed
or excluded / not constructed. He views truth as discursive,
where a person has accessibility to the constructed events,
happenings and subjects. He is keen to understand who is kept
silent and empowered to speak in the system of statements.
For him, discourse is a place where relations of power are
actually exercised and enacted.
• According to him, power and knowledge are linked together
in discourse, where power produces knowledge, and power
and knowledge directly imply one another.
 Discourse and Ideology
• The relation between discourse and ideology is
seen in terms of interchangeability (Purvis &
Hunt, 1993)
• Fairclough views discourse as ideological in
nature, and power is achieved through
ideology.
Discourse theory shares, somewhat, grounds
with the Marxism
• Marxist theorists view ideology as linked to economic structures (Marx
& Fowkes, 1977). Ideology is considered a “critical weapon in the
context of class oppression and the main contradiction between capital
and labor” (Larraín, 2007; p.13). It is the distorted view of reality and a
false consciousness having no link with the real life situation. It
alienates the powerless from the real situation in life. The powerless are
controlled by the aura constructed by ideology. Ideology gives the
system of belief to a working class working for the powerful/elite class.
The powerless are considered passive in this power structure.
• Marx’s concept of ideology suggests that economic base is a
determining factor of what can be said or thought. Discourse theory
does not negate the role of economics in the determination of thoughts,
however, it views economic relations as one type of power-relations
rather than taking it as deterministic force.
• Gramsci, on the other hand, considers the role of cultural forces in
constructing the social values accepted and endorsed by people in a
society (Mills, 1997). He takes into account the consent of the powerless
in maintaining the ideology/belief of the powerful, and discusses this
situation in terms of hegemony. Marx emphasizes that the economic
forces determine people’s action/thought, whereas, Gramsci gives
importance to the popular culture as a site of struggle. Thus, Gramsci
places culture in a central position of ideological struggle.
• Althusser (1984) views ideology as complex in nature. He posits that
ideology works in the state apparatuses that disseminate and maintain it,
and reality is constructed by various institutions - political, judicial and
educational institutions. He has linked ideology and language, and given
a detailed account of the construction of the subjects in the system of
discourses.
 Discourse and Identity
• Historically, the concept of identity is linked to the concept of self particularly in the field of
psychology . A psychologist, Erikson, says that identity suggests both a persistent sameness
within oneself and a persistent sharing of some kind of essential character with others.
• Identity is a slippery term. Though it is used often, rarely defined, which varies according to
the various disciplines. It has been viewed in a number of perspectives: individual’s property
or as something that develops in a social interaction, something that resides in a mind or
behaviour; adheres to the group or individual, something personal or relational.
• The concept of identity has become complex as it involves various processes of
communication and various agents. Moreover, its types are defined in various ways, i.e. in our
interaction with different types of people, we negotiate various kinds of identities. It can be
viewed in terms of individual and collective identities.
• Some identities have concrete referents (John Brown), others are abstract related to religious
or national communities. These are called individual and collective identities. Social identities
are large categories of belonging- including gender, race and political affiliation.
• Personal identities are constructs including physical and moral characteristics differentiating
one person from another.
• Situational identities are the roles linked to specific situation/context, e.g. doctor and patient,
teacher and student.
• Discourse plays an important role in the construction and negotiation of
identities. When we speak, we tell others about ourselves (Cameron, 2001).
In other words, human communication is used to construct our images and
those of others, classify people, align or distance ourselves from others.
• Chouliaraki & Fairclough (1999) maintain that “in communicative
interaction, people don’t represent the world abstracting but in the course
of and for the purpose of their social relations with others” (p.9).
• Thus, the role of discourses in the construction of identities is significant
and central. Though the relationship between discourse and identity is
recognized in the past, but recently, it is being considered a self-sufficient
field of inquiry in a number of disciplines of social sciences including
discourse analysis. Recently, there is a shift towards a social constructionist
and interactionist paradigm (Fina, 2011).
• Within discourse, the latest trend on identity
focusing on a social constructionist paradigm
is emerged not only due to development in the
field of discourse, but the movements and
trends in other disciplines. The important
reflections are symbolic interactionism (Mead,
1934); social constructionism; (Luckman &
Berger, 1967) and feminist work on identity by
Butler (1990).
• Hall (2000) says that identity is a process, not the series of attributes.
• Gidden sees it a process, not a set of personal attributes
• Zimmerman & Wieder (1970) maintain that constructing identities is a
discursive work.
• Litosseliti & Sunderland (2002) also view that identity develops in relation
to others, it changes as the relationship changes.
• Jaworski & Coupland (1999) says that identity is fluid, multiple, and never
complete.
• Fairclough (1992) posits that I and You are constructed via the socialization
process with different discourses. The study of power relation is important
to understand the nature of subject positions and identity construction.
Though the powerful controls the mechanism of discourse, identity
construction of the individual, the representation of events; and decides
what should be included and excluded, this power can also be challenged
in the discourse.
The Theoretical Underpinnings of Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA)
• CDA deals with language use, and argues that it is ideological.
• CDA analysis makes obvious the discursive or textual manifestation of ideologies
and power structures by analysing their linguistic realization at grammatical and
lexical levels (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997).
• It mediates between linguistic structures as evident in a text and the social,
political, and historical contexts of text production and reception (Schäffner, 2007).
• It considers language as a discourse, and discourse as a social practice. It takes into
account the context of language in use, and reveals the connection among power,
ideology and language use.
• It addresses the social issues, and analyses the opaque structural relationship of
inequality, dominance, power and ideology.
• It makes transparent the reciprocal relationship between discursive structures and
institutional and political action (Wodak, 2001).
• Dijk (2001) views its emergence as a reaction against the uncritical and social
paradigms of the 1960s, and 70s.
• Fairclough & Wodak (1997) claim that CDA has
the following perspectives:
1) discourse works ideologically and power-
relations are discursive
2) discourse constitutes culture and society
3) discourse is historical, and a kind of social action
4) the connection between society and text is
mediated
5) discourse analysis is explanatory
 Main scholars contributing to the development of CDA are
Dijk (1998, 1991,1995,1998); Wodak (1995, 1996, 1999); and
Fairclaugh (1989, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1999).
VAN DIJK
• Dijk is one of the main citied CDA practitioners in a media discourse.
• He applied his theory to analyse the media texts by focusing on the
representations of ethnic groups.
• He analysed media texts not only at the level of linguistic structures
but also analysed their production, reception or comprehension
(Boyd-Barrett, 1994).
• He investigated the structure not at the phonological, morphological,
grammatical or semantic level, but at the higher level properties -
themes, coherence, topics of news stories.
• He analysed ideologies at the three levels: 1) social analysis 2)
cognitive analysis 3) discourse analysis. Dijk’s approach is different
from the other approaches of CDA.
• Firstly, he views power as “abusive”, different from that of Foucault’s
concept who views it productive (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002). It
implicates that powerless is perceived as a passive group, where power
can be exercised on them.
• Secondly, Dijk’s approach is different from the other CDA approaches as
it involved cognitive analysis. According to him, social cognition
mediates between society and discourse. He views social cognition as the
system of social representations. Ideologies are the abstract mental
systems organising socially shared attitudes. These influence the
personal cognition of the group members in the process of the
comprehension of discourse. He calls such mental representations as
mental models. These models control how people act, speak, write or
understand the social practices of other. In addition, the mental
representations are articulated along Us vs. Them dimensions - the
members of one group represent themselves positively and others
negatively. Us vs. Them dimension is the most commonly used in his
writing (1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998).
Wodak
• Wodak has done her research in the various institutional settings
(schools, courts, hospitals), and on a variety of issues (racism,
sexism, anti-Semitism). Her research on anti-Semitism in the 1991
led towards the emergence of the approach what was called by her
as discourse - historical model. The term historical is important in
her work. It is an attempt to “investigate systematically all available
background information in the analysis and interpretation of the
many layers of written or spoken text” (Wodak, 1995; p.209). Her
focus on the context of discourse is an important feature
distinguishing her approach from that of Dijk’s. The concept of
context is central in her approach which she views as historical in
nature, and thus, significant to understand the mechanics of
discourse.
Fairclough
• Fairclough is a central figure in CDA, and his approach to CDA provides
the methodological foundation to the research. His approach gives emphasis
to the role of discourse in the construction of social realities, and
importance of social context in the discursive production.
• Fairclough’s approach is more systematic, and provides explicit guidelines
for the text analysis. Moreover, it is considered now as one of the most
comprehensive frameworks of CDA.
• He called his approach to language and discourse, in his earlier work, as
Critical Language Study (1989). The aim of his approach is to raise a
consciousness of exploitative social relations through focusing upon
language. CDA, he views, brings social science and linguistics together
within a single theoretical and analytical framework, setting up a dialogue
between them.
• The linguistic approach on which CDA is based is referred
to as SFL. Fairclaugh’s approach is also drawn upon some
other critical theorists: 1) Foucault’s concept of the order
of discourse, 2) Gramsci’s concept of hegemony.
• Furthermore, this is closely related to Dijk’s dimension of
ideological analysis: discourse, socio-cognition, social
analysis. Difference comes at the second level. Dijk
perceives that the social cognition mediates between
discourse and social, whereas, Fairclough posits that a
discourse practice - production and consumption - comes
between.
• CDA has developed from Critical Linguistics (CL) which employed Halliday’s
approach.
• Though both terms are used interchangeably, CDA is preferred to CL as the name
of the field.
• CL is described in terms of theory, developed in the 1970s. According to Fowler
(2004), they defined CL as a social application of linguistic analysis of text, mostly
employing the methods and concepts associated with the Halliday's SFL (1978).
• Fowler (1996) maintains that SFL is functional approach as language forms
indicate the purpose of communication. This functional approach has motivated the
critical linguistics “to think about why a language user chooses one sentence
structure rather than an alternative”.
• Fairclough (1992) criticised that though CL had tried to synthesise social theory
and language studies, CL scholars focused on the linguistic analysis and gave a rare
attention to the explanation of social theory and the concept of power and ideology.
In addition, they have given emphasis to the description of a text as a finished
product while giving little attention to the processes of text production and
interpretation.
• There is a close relation between SFL and CDA as Fairclaugh’s CDA is based on
SFL. He has focused on the linguistic analysis in the analysis of text.
• He starts with the linguistic analysis in his three-dimensional model. Linguistic
analysis involves grammatical, lexical and textual properties of a text. According
to him, a sentence is analysed in terms of multifunctional dimensions relabeled
as “representation”, “relations” and “identities”.
• He views that representations of a social practice are linked to the ideational
function, and may carry various ideologies.
• “Relations” are linked to the nature of relationships between writers and readers
(whether they are close or distant, formal or informal).
• These relations assign identities to the speakers or listeners, readers or writers
(Fairclough, 1995).
• Hallidayan SFL (three function of language: ideational, interpersonal,
intertextual) provided basis to the Fairclough three dimensional model
(description, interpretation, explanation).
• Fairclough’s approach takes discourse as constitutive and constituted in nature. He
is interested to investigate the construction of social-relations in the web of
discourse, and analyse the influence of power-relations in the discourse. He posits
that ideologies seem natural, commonsensical assumptions, and thus, gives the
framework to deconstruct them.
• He takes discourse in terms of the three dimensions (text, discourse practice and
socio-cultural practice) corresponding to the three interrelated dimensions of
analysis (description, interpretation, explanation).
• Firstly, he linked text to the first stage (description) of his model. Hallidayan SFL
provides the linguistic basis to his model. analysing the power structures and
hidden ideologies in the discursive construction.
• Secondly, Fairclough linked discourse practice to the second stage of
interpretation. Discourse practice consists of production and consumption of texts.
It comes between text and socio-cultural practice where language is produced and
consumed by the language users.
• Thirdly, socio-cultural practice is linked to the third level of explanation. Socio-
cultural practice is linked to the social situation in which text is constructed and
consumed.