1.

Discourse:

Wodak and Meyer (2009) associate this diversity with three different trends: The German and Central
European tradition, in which the term discourse draws on text linguistics; the Anglo-American
tradition, in which discourse refers to written and oral texts; and the Foucauldian tradition, in which
discourse is an abstract form of knowledge, understood as cognition and emotions (Jäger and Maier
2009). van Dijk (1997) proposes linguistic, cognitive and socio-cultural definitions. He first argues
that discourse is described at the syntactic, semantic, stylistic and rhetorical levels. Secondly, he adds
that it needs to be understood in terms of the interlocutors‟ processes of production, reception and
understanding. And, thirdly, he points to the social dimension of discourse, which he understands as a
sequence of contextualised, controlled and purposeful acts accomplished in society, namely, a form of
social action taking place in a context (
Critical Discourse Analysis, An overview
Encarnacion Hidalgo Tenorio, University of Granada)

1.1 Text
1.2 Context

2. Discourse analysis

Discourse analysis focuses on knowledge about language beyond the word, clause, phrase and
sentence that is needed for successful communication. It looks at patterns of language across texts
and considers the relationship between language and social and cultural contexts in which it is used.
(Brian Patrige, Discourse analysis an introduction)
Discourse analysis is the study of language in use. It is the study of the meanings we give language and the actions we
carry out when we use language in specific contexts. Discourse analysis is also sometimes defined as the study of
language above the level of a sentence, of the ways sentences combine to create meaning, coherence, and accomplish
purposes. However, even a single sentence or utterance can be analyzed as a “communication” or as an “action,” and
not just as a sentence structure whose “literal meaning” flows from the nature of grammar. (James Paul Gee
and Michael Handford)
Some Major Approaches to discourse analysis
3. Critical Discourse Analysis
From its inception, CDA was a discipline designed to question the status quo, by detecting, analysing,
and also resisting and counteracting enactments of power abuse as transmitted in private and public
discourses. For some, to be critical might imply to be judgemental. However, this is not the case here,
because, as Jäger and Maier (2009: 36) state, this kind of critique “does not make claims to absolute
truth”. CDA is understood to be critical in a number of different ways: Its explicit and unapologetic
attitude as far as values and criteria are concerned (van Leeuwen 2006); its commitment to the
analysis of social wrongs such as prejudice, or unequal access to power, privileges, and material and
symbolic resources (Fairclough 2009); its interest in discerning which prevailing hegemonic social
practices have caused such social wrongs, and in developing methods that can be applied to their
study (Bloor and Bloor 2007). Critical Discourse Analysis, An overview
Encarnacion Hidalgo Tenorio, University of Granada)
CDA’s locus of critique is the nexus of language/discourse/speech and social
structure. It is in uncovering ways in which social structure impinges on discourse
patterns, relations, and models (in the form of power relations, ideological
effects, and so forth), and in treating these relations as problematic, that
researchers in CDA situate the critical dimension of their work. It is not enough to
lay bare the social dimensions of language use. These dimensions are the object of
moral and political evaluation and analyzing them should have effects in society:
empowering the powerless, giving voices to the voiceless, exposing power abuse,
and mobilizing people to remedy social wrongs.CDAadvocates interventionism in

the social practices it critically investigates. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Jan Blommaert
Ghent University, Department of African Languages and Cultures, B-9000 Gent,
Belgium; e-mail: Jan.blommaert@rug.ac.be
Chris Bulcaen
Ghent University, Department of English, B-9000 Gent, Belgium;
e-mail: chris.bulcaen@rug.ac.be
Wetherell, Taylor and Yates (2001) also describe CDA as:
the study of talk and texts. It is a set of methods and theories for investigating language in use and language in
social contexts. Discourse research offers routs into the study of meanings, a way of investigating the backand-
forth dialogues which constitute social action, along with the patterns of signification and representation
An Overview of Focal
which constitute culture (Wetherell, Taylor & Yates, 2001, p. i).
Approaches of Critical Discourse Analysis
4. Key concepts in Critical Discourse analysis
4.1. power

4.2. Ideology
4.3. Manipulation
5. What CDA aims at?
4. Major approaches to critical discourse analysis
4.1 Critical linguistics and social semiotics
The foundations for CDA as an established field of linguistic research were to some degree
laid by the ‘critical linguistics’ (CL) which developed in Britain in the 1970s (e.g., Fowler
et al., 1979). This was closely associated with ‘systemic’ linguistic theory (Halliday, 1978),
which accounts for its emphasis upon practical ways of analysing texts, and the attention
it gives to the role of grammar in its ideological analysis. In general terms, CL drew attention
to the ideological potency of certain grammatical forms like passive structures and nominalisations. Such
linguistic forms (and others like certain metaphors, argumentative
fallacies, rhetorical devices, presuppositions, etc.) have subsequently proven to be fruitful
points of entry for a critical semiotic analysis of social inequality or injustice.
Some of the major figures in critical linguistics later developed ‘social semiotics’ (Van
Leeuwen, 2005a; Van Leeuwen and Kress, 2006). This highlights the multi-semiotic and
potentially ideological character of most texts in contemporary society, and explores ways
of analysing the intersection of language, images, design, colour, spatial arrangement and
so forth. Critical Discourse Analysis
N o rma n F a i r c l o u g h , J a n e Mu l d e r r i g , R u t h Wo d a k
4.2 Fairclough’s approach
Fairclough’s work has developed a dialectical theory of discourse and a transdisciplinary
approach to social change (1992; 2003a; 2004; 2005b; 2006). Fairclough’s approach has
explored the discursive aspect of contemporary processes of social transformation. This
commitment to transdisciplinarity – whereby the logic and categories of different disciplines
are brought into dialogue with one another – similarly informs his collaborative
work.2 His recent work examines neoliberalism (in UK Labour politics, 2000a; 2000b; in
relation to New Capitalism, 2004); the notion of ‘community’ in international security
(2005a); and the politically powerful concepts of ‘globalizsation’ (2006) and the ‘knowledge
based economy’ (Jessop, Fairclough and Wodak, 2008). In each case CDA is brought
into a dialogue with other sociological and social scientific research in order to investigate
to what extent and in what ways these changes are changes in discourse, as well as to
explore the socially transformative effects of discursive change. Critical Discourse Analysis
N o rma n F a i r c l o u g h , J a n e Mu l d e r r i g , R u t h Wo d a k

In Fairclough’s (2001a) approach discourse is viewed as “a form of social practice” which shows that it is a
mode of
action (recognized by Austin, 1962; Levinson, 1983). This means that spoken or written utterances constitute
the
performance of speech acts such as promising, asking, asserting, warning, and so forth. Moreover, Fairclough’s
(2001a)
view on discourse considers language as a part of society which highlights that there is a dialectical relationship
between language and society whereby language is a part of society. That is to say, on the one hand “linguistic
phenomena are social” in the sense that interactions are both determined socially and have social effects, and on
the
other hand “social phenomena are linguistic” in the sense that language activity which occurs in social contexts
is part
of social processes and practices rather than merely an expression and reflection of them (ibid.).
Subsequently, Fairclough (2001a) regards language as a social process which means that discourse is the
process of text
production and interpretation. Finally, he considers language as a socially conditioned process. Namely,
discourse
involves social conditions of production and interpretation, which relate to different levels of social
organizations: “the
level of the social situation, or the immediate social environment in which the discourse occurs; the level of the
social
institution which constitutes a wider matrix for the discourse; and the level of the society as a whole”
(Fairclough,
An Overview of Focal Approaches of Critical
2001a, pp. 20-21).
Discourse Analysis
4.3 Socio-cognitive studies
A leading figure in cognitive approaches to critical discourse studies is Teun Van Dijk, whose
work has highlighted the cognitive dimensions of how discourse operates in racism, ideology
and knowledge (e.g. Van Dijk, 1993; 1998). Van Dijk’s (1993) work on the role of the media
and of elite public figures in the reproduction of racism has highlighted the congruence
between (racist) public representations and commonly held ethnic prejudices: immigration
as invasion, immigrants and refugees as spongers, criminals, and the perpetrators of violence.
Further strands to his research programme include a systematic study of the relations
between knowledge and discourse, developing a typology of knowledge and a contextually
grounded definition of knowledge as a shared consensus of beliefs among social groups (Van
Dijk, 2008b). Related to this is a project developing a theory of context as something ongoingly
constructed through the interpretations of the participants (Van Dijk, 2008a; 2008c).
Recent developments combining cognitive perspectives and CDA include Koller’s
(2004b: 2005) work on cognitive metaphor theory, particularly in the area of corporate
discourse. Her (2008b) work also includes analyses of lesbian communities, and the use of
politically resonant metaphors in corporate and public branding (2007; 2008b). Critical Discourse
Analysis
N o rma n F a i r c l o u g h , J a n e Mu l d e r r i g , R u t h Wo d a k

4.4. Discourse-historical approach

This approach was developed by Ruth Wodak and other scholars in Vienna working in the
traditions of Bernsteinian sociolinguistics and the Frankfurt School. The approach is particularly
associated with large programmes of research in interdisciplinary research teams
focusing on sexism, antisemitism and racism. One of the major aims of this kind of critical
research has been its practical application.
The ‘discourse-historical approach’ (DHA) (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001; Reisigl and
Wodak, 2009) was specifically devised for an interdisciplinary study of post-war
antisemitism in Austria (e.g., Wodak et al., 2009). The distinctive feature of this approach
is its attempt to integrate systematically all available background information in the analysis
and interpretation of the many layers of a written or spoken text, specifically taking into
account four layers of context (Wodak, 2001).
Wodak (2001) infers a dialectical relationship between
discursive practices and fields of action (situations, institutional and social structures), in which they are
situated. It
means that:
on the one hand, the situational, institutional and social settings shape and affect discourses, and on the other,
discourses influence discursive as well as non-discursive social and political processes and actions. In other
words, discourses as linguistic social practices can be seen as constituting non-discursive and discursive social
practices and, at the same time, as being constituted by them (Wodak, 2001, p. 66). An Overview of
Focal Approaches of Critical Discourse Analysis
5. Criticism
6. conclusion