Seminar Discourse Analysis
Critical Discourse Analysis
Ahmed Amer Hussein
Contents
Introduction
Historical background
Aims of Critical Discourse Analysis
Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis
Models of Critical Discourse Analysis
Ideology
Different definitions of Ideology
Structure of Ideology and Structure of Meaning
Power and Language
Power and its social cognition
Types of Power
Power , discourse and access
Power and social structure
Analysis in Critical Discourse Analysis
Introduction
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily
studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and
resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. With such dissident research,
critical discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus want to understand, expose, and
ultimately resist social inequality.
According to van Dijk (1998a), Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a field that is concerned
with studying and analyzing written and spoken texts to reveal the discursive sources of
power, dominance, inequality and bias. It examines how these discursive sources are
maintained and reproduced within specific social, political and historical contexts.
In a similar vein, Fairclough (1993) defines CDA as discourse analysis which aims to
systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a)
discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations
and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are
ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and to explore how the
opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power
and hegemony. (p. 135).
CDA, as its name suggests, is a critical device. Although it is not attached to any special
theory and philosophy, it calls itself merely as a method of analyzing the text. It mainly deals
with the questions of inequality and power, power institutes and the relation of language and
power. So, it is natural to conclude that it has a political attitude.
CDA is a scholarly movement specifically interested in theory formation and critical analysis
of the discursive reproduction of power abuse (forms of dominance that result in social
inequality and injustice) and social inequality. The concept of power is a central task of CDA
(Dijk, 2008).
It is important to the stress from the outset that critical discourse analysis (CDA hereafter) is
both a theory of discourse and a method of analyzing it (see Fairclough, 2001; Jorgensen
2002) As a theory of discourse, CDA offers an explanation of what discourse is, how it
works, and what its relationship to language, reality, human interaction, social relations, and
power is. As a method, CDA is one way to apply that theory to actual instances of discourse.
Historical Background:
Some of the tenets of CDA can already be found in the critical theory of the Frankfurt School
before the Second World War (Agger 1992b; Rasmussen 1996). Its current focus on language
and discourse was initiated with the ―critical linguistics‖ that emerged (mostly in the UK and
Australia) at the end of the 1970s (Fowler et al. 1979; see also Mey 1985). CDA has also
counterparts in ―critical‖ developments in sociolinguistics, psychology, and the social
sciences, some already dating back to the early 1970s (Birnbaum 1971; Calhoun 1995; Fay
1987; Fox and Prilleltensky 1997; Hymes 1972; Ibáñez and Iñiguez 1997; Singh 1996;
Thomas 1993; Turkel 1996; Wodak 1996). As is the case in these neighboring disciplines,
CDA may be seen as a reaction against the dominant formal (often ―asocial‖ or ―uncritical‖)
paradigms of the 1960s and 1970s.
It is not difficult to make claims for the academic success of Critical Discourse Analysis.
Chouliarki and Faircloght begin their new book Discourse in Late Modernity with the
statement, 'Critical Discourse Analysis … has established itself internationally over the past
twenty years or so as a field of cross disciplinary teaching and research which has been
widely drawn upon in the social sciences and the humanities (for example, in sociology,
geography, history and media studies), and has inspired critical language teaching at various
levels and in various domains. One sign of this success has seen the establishment of the
term 'Critical Discourse Analysis', together with its abbreviation CDA, to denote a distinct
and substantial body of work.
Much of the success of Critical Discourse Analysis can be traced to the pioneering works of
analysts such as Norman Fairclough, Teun Van Dijk and Ruth Wodak. If one wished to chart
the emergence of the term 'Critical Discourse Analysis', one could point to the work of
Norman Fairclough. In his 1992 book, Discourse and social change,Fairclough did not use
the term as such. In his book, Fairclough outlined 'critical approaches' to discourse analysis.
These critical approaches included 'critical linguistics' and Althisserianapproaches to the
study of ideology. Fairclough was also using other terms such as CriticalLanguage
Awareness which was abbreviated to CLA, and Critical Language Studies or CLS. However,
Fairclough, in his edited book 'critical discourse analysis' without specially abbreviating it to
CDA. In that work, He positioned to 'critical discourse analysis' as a form of CLS. Three
years later, decisive terminological shift was made when Fairclough published his book
Critical Discourse Analysis. The book bore the subtitle The Critical Study of Language. The
use of the definite article in the subtitle was emblematic. It was as if the multiplicity of
'critical approaches', which were outlined in Fairclough, had coalesced into a uniformity
which could be identified as the critical study.
Two Basic concerns are posted by critical discourse analysis. First, contemporarycapitalist
society is characterised by deep-seated processes of marketization, which are leading to the
emergence of a new patterns of discourse. Fairclough has noted the need for critical
discourse analysis to be critical of the marketing discourse that is produced by the institutions
in which they operate. This leads to a second concern: this needs to be reflexivelyself-
critical. As it is noted, CDA like other critical social sciences … needs to be a reflexive and
self-critical about its own institutional position and all that goes with it. This involves
critically examining its own discourse. Therefore the signs of critical discourse analysis itself
must be subjected to critique, and this includes the very symbol 'CDA'.
Aims of Critical Discourse Analysis :
Rahimi and Sahragrd (2008:10-11) believe that the main aim of CDA is to discover to
underlying power that can be exercised, resulted, and reproduced from the use of a given
discourse as well as the underlying ideology of the language users. That is, ambiguous
statements are clarified to expose their influential role in power relation/power structure of
the society. Discourse, or language in use is a social practice which pinpoints the relationship
between language as discourse or text as a product of discourse and the context of its
occurrence. Language affects and is affected by social factors. Thus, discourse is socially
constitutive and socially determined or regulated. This confirms the fact that discourse
constructs some factors of society which are created and shaped by society since social
practices such as discourse and social structures are in constant interaction. As a result, CDA
aims at expounding this complex network of language, society, social relation and power.
A critical discourse analyst's goal is to study the relationships between language form and
function and explain why and how certain patterns are privileged over others. The general
aim of CDA to study discursive power abuse also involves differential access to social power.
It is interested in the critical study of social issues, problems, social inequality, domination
and related phenomena, and the role of discourse, language use or communication in such
phenomena, in particular.
CDA should deal primarily with the discourse dimensions of power abuse and the injustice
and inequality that result from it. Let us spell out some implications of such a lofty overall
aim (see also Mey, 1985; O Barr, 1984: Steiner, 1985).First, the focus on dominance and
inequality implies that, unlike other domains or approaches in discourse analysis, CDA does
not primarily aim to contribute to a specific discipline, paradigm, school or discourse theory.
It is primarily interested and motivated by pressing social issues, which it hopes to better
understand through discourse analysis.
Critical discourse analysts (should) take an explicit sociopolitical stance: they spell out their
point of view, perspective, principles and aims, both within their discipline and within society
at large. Their hope, if occasionally illusory, is change through critical understanding. Their
perspective, if possible, that of those who suffer most from dominance and inequality. Their
critical targets are the power elites that enact, sustain, legitimate, condone or ignore social
inequality and injustice
CDA aims at investigating critically social inequality as it is expressed, constituted,
legitimized, and so on, by language use (or in discourse).
Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis :
Principles of CDA, outlined by CDA practitioners (Fairclough, 1995a; Kress, 1991; Hodge &
Kress, 1993; Van Dijk, 1998a; Wodak, 1996) can be summarised as follows:
1- The approach is interdisciplinary. Problems in our societies are too complex to be studied
from a single perspective. This entails different dimensions of inter-disciplinarily: the
theories draw on neighboring disciplines and try to integrate these theories.
2- The approach is problem-oriented, rather than focused on specific linguistic items. Social
problems are the items of research, such as "racism, identity, social change'', which, of
course, are and could be studied from manifold perspectives. The CDA dimension, discourse
and text analysis, is one of many possible approaches.
3- The theories as well as the methodologies are eclectic; i.e., theories and methods are
integrated which are adequate for an understanding and explanation of the object under
investigation.
4- The study always incorporates fieldwork and ethnography to explore the
object under investigation (study from the inside) as a precondition for
any further analysis and theorizing. This approach makes it possible to
avoid ''fitting the data to illustrate a theory''. Rather, we deal with bottom-up and top-down
approaches at the same time.
5- Multiple genres and multiple public spaces are studied, and inter-textual
and inter discursive relationships are investigated. Re-contextualization is
the most important process in connecting these genres as well as topics
and arguments (topoi). In our postmodern societies, we are dealing with
hybrid and innovative genres, as well as with new notions of ‖time―,
‖identity― and ‖space―. All these notions have undergone significant
change; for example, ‖fragmented ― identities have replaced the notion of
‖holistic identities―.
6- Discourse is historical in the sense that texts acquire their meanings by being situated in
specific social, cultural and ideological contexts, and time and space. Texts acquire their
meanings by the dialectical relationship between texts and the social subjects: writers and the
readers, who always operate with various degrees of choice and access to texts and means of
interpretation.
7- The categories and tools for the analysis are defined in accordance with
all these steps and procedures and also with the specific problem under investigation. This
entails some eclecticism, as well as pragmatism. Different approaches in CDA use different
grammatical theories, although many apply Systemic Functional Linguistics in some way or
other.
8- Practice and application are aimed at. The results should be made available to experts in
different fields and, as a second step, be applied, with the goal of changing certain discursive
and social practices.
9- Discourse/language use as a form of social practice in itself not only represents and
signifies other social practices but it also constitutes other social practices such as the
exercise of power, domination, prejudice, resistance and so forth.
10- CDA does not solely interpret texts, but also explains them.
Models
1- The Sociocognitive Approach (SCA)(Van Dijk): it is on the socio-psychological side of
the CDA field. Hereby, the theory serves as a framework systematizing phenomena of social
reality. The approach is in the tradition of social representation theory. Its focus triad is
constructed between discourse, cognition and society.
Discourse is seen as a communicative event, including conversational interaction, written
test, as well as associated gestures, face work, typographical layout, images and any other
'semiotic' or multi-media dimension of signification.
It is argued that CDA should be based on a sound theory of context. Within this claim, the
theory of social representations plays a main part, social actors involved in discourse do not
only use their individual experiences and strategies, they rely mainly upon collective frames
of perceptions, called social representations. These socially shared perceptions from the link
between the social system and the individual cognitive system, and perform the translation,
homogenization and coordination between external requirements and subjective experience.
What distinguishes van Dijk's (1988) framework for the analyses of news discourse is his call
for a thorough analysis not only of the textual and structural level of media discourse but also
for analysis and explanations at the production and "reception" or comprehension level
(Boyd-Barrett, 1994). By "production processes" van Dijk means journalistic and institutional
practices of news-making and the economic and social practices which not only play
important roles in the creation of media discourse but which can be explicitly related to the
structures of media discourse.
Van Dijk's other dimension of analysis, "reception processes", involves taking into
consideration the comprehension, "memorization and reproduction" of news information.
What van Dijk's analysis of media (1988, 1991, 1993) attempts to demonstrate is the
relationships between the three levels of news text production (structure, production and
comprehension processes) and their relationship with the wider social context they are
embedded within. In order to identify such relationships, van Dijk's analysis takes place at
three levels: microstructure and macrostructure. At the microstructure (local) level, analysis
is focused on the semantic relations between propositions, syntactic, lexical and other
rhetorical elements that provide coherence in the text, and other rhetorical elements such
quotations, direct or indirect reporting that give factuality to the news reports. At the micro-
level, the analyst is concerned with the text's syntax, metaphoric structure and certain
rhetorical devices. The meso-level comprised studying the text's production and
consumption, concentrating on how power relations are enacted. Meso level acts as a bridge
between micro and macro levels and focuses mainly on the context of the text perceived and
how it is initially produced. A critical approach to discourse is trying to discover the links
between the text (micro level) and the masked power structures in society (macro
sociocultural practice level) by means of discursive practices based on which the text was
produced (meso level) (Thompson, 2002). In other words, a text, an account of something
that is taking place in a larger social context abundant with a complex set of power relations,
is interpreted and induced by readers or listeners depending on the rules, norms, and mental
models of the society they live in.
Central to van Dijk's analysis of news reports, however, is the analysis of
macrostructure(global) level since it pertains to the thematic/topic structure of the news
stories and their overall schemata. Themes and topics are realized in the headlines and lead
paragraphs. At the macro-level, the analyst considers intertextual relationships, trying to
understand the broad, societal currents that are influencing the text being studied.
Van Dijk (1995) essentially perceives discourse analysis as ideology analysis, because"
ideologies are typically, though not exclusively, expressed and reproduced in discourse and
communication, including non-verbal semiotic messages, such as pictures, photographs and
movies" (p. 17). His approach for analyzing ideologies has three parts: social analysis,
cognitive analysis, and discourse analysis (1995, p. 30). Whereas the social analysis pertains
to examining the "overall societal structures," (the context), the discourse analysis is
primarily text based (syntax, lexicon, local semantics, topics, schematic structures, etc.).
For van Dijk it is the socio cognition--social cognition and personal cognition—that mediates
between society and discourse. He defines social cognition as "the system of mental
representations and processes of group members" (p. 18). In this sense, for van Dijk,
"ideologies … are the overall, abstract mental systems that organize … socially shared
attitudes" (p. 18). Ideologies, thus, "indirectly influence the personal cognition of group
members" in their act of comprehension of discourse among other actions and interactions (p.
19). According to van Dijk, mental representations "are often articulated along Us versus
Them dimensions, in which speakers of one group will generally tend to present themselves
or their own group in positive terms, and other groups in negative terms" (p. 22). He believes
that one who desires to make transparent such an ideological dichotomy in discourse needs to
analyze discourse in the following way (1998b, pp. 61- 63):
a) Examining the context of the discourse: historical, political or social background of a
conflict and its main participants
b) Analyzing groups, power relations and conflicts involved
c) Identifying positive and negative opinions about Us versus Them
d) Making explicit the presupposed and the implied
e) Examining all formal structure: lexical choice and syntactic structure, in a way that helps to
emphasize polarized group opinions.
2- Social Model (Fairclough 1996): Fairclough's (1989, 1995) model for CDA consists of
three inter-related processes of analysis tied to three inter-related dimensions of discourse.
These three dimensions are:
1. The object of analysis (including verbal, visual or verbal and visual texts).
2- The processes by means of which the object is produced and received (writing/
speaking/designing and reading / listening / viewing) by human subjects.
3- The socio-historical conditions which govern these processes. According to Fairclough
each of these dimensions requires a different kind of analysis.
1- Text analysis (description) (Text production) – deals with the linguistic property of the
text. Analysis of text involves linguistic analysis in terms of vocabulary, grammar, semantics,
the sound system, and cohesion-organization above the sentence level (Fairclough, 1995b, p.
57). Linguistic analysis is applied to text's lexical-grammatical and semantic properties, two
aspects that have mutual impact on each other (pp. 57-58).
2- Processing analysis (interpretation) (Discursive discourse) - deals with the relationship
between the discursive process of production and interpretation and the text. This dimension
has two facets: institutional process (e.g. editorial procedures), and discourse processes
(changes the text go through in production and consumption). For Fairclough, "discourse
practice straddles the division between society and culture on the one hand, and discourse,
language and text on the other" (p. 60)
3- Social analysis (explanation( (Sociocultural practice) - deals with the relationship between
the processes (production and interpretation) and the social conditioning.Analysis in this
dimension pertains to three aspects of the sociocultural context of a communicative event:
economic (i.e. economy of the media), political (i.e. power and ideology of the media), and
cultural (i.e. issues of values). According to Fairclough, one does not have to carry out
analysis at all levels but any level that might "be relevant to understanding the particular
event" (p. 62).
Text Production
Discursive Discourse Sociocultural practice
3- Discourse-Historical Approach(Ruth Wodak).
It explicitly tries to establish a theory of discourse by establishing the connection between
fields of action, genres, discourses and texts. Although DHA is aligned to Critical Theory,
general social theory plays a minor role compared with the discourse model and the emphasis
on historical analysis: context is understood as mainly historical. The DHA concentrates its
efforts in the field of politics, where it tries to develop conceptual frameworks for political
discourse.
Discourse-Historical Approach is one of the directions in CDA associated with Wodak and
her colleagues in Vienna. Wodak has carried out research in various institutional settings
such as courts, schools, and hospitals, and on a variety of social issues such as sexism, racism
and anti-Semitism. Wodak's work on the discourse of anti-Semitism in 1990 led to the
development of an approach she termed the discourse historical method. The term historical
occupies a unique place in this approach. It denotes an attempt on the part of this approach
"to integrate systematically all available background information in the analysis and
interpretation of the many layers of a written or spoken text"
According to Wodak& Ludwig (1999), viewing language this way entails three things at
least. First, discourse "always involves power and ideologies. No interaction exists where
power relations do not prevail and where values and norms do not have a relevant role" (p.
12). Second, "discourse … is always historical, that is, it is connected synchronically and
diachronically with other communicative events which are happening at the same time or
which have happened before" (p. 12). This is similar to Fairclough's notion of intertextuality.
The third feature of Wodak's approach is that of interpretation. According to Wodak&
Ludwig (1999), readers and listeners, depending on their background knowledge and
information and their position, might have different interpretations of the same
communicative event (p. 13).
Ideology:
Theory of ideology
Ideologies are the basic frameworks for organizing the social cognitions shared by members
of social groups, organizations or institutions. In this respect, ideologies are both cognitive
and social. They essentially function as the interface between the cognitive representations
and processes underlying discourse and action, on the one hand, and the societal position and
interests of social groups, on the other hand. This conception of ideology also allows us to
establish the crucial link between macro level analyses of groups, social formations and
social structure, and micro-level studies of situated, individual interaction and discourse.
Different definitions of ideology :
Ideologies are the representation of social cognition and form the basis of the mental objects.
Ideology refers to the system of ideas or how one views the world. It refers to culture,
political ideas, and economic views and to idiosyncratic characterization such as an
individual's self and identity(Rahimi and Sahragard, 2008).
Fairclough in 1992, views ideology as a signification/construction of reality( the physical
world, social relations, social identities) which are constructed into many dimensions of the
forms/meaning of discursive meaning (the ways of producing texts in specific social context),
and also contributed to the production, reproduction or information of power relations and
dominations.
Van dijk (cited in Chilton and Schaffiner, 2002) stated that ideology is a set of beliefs,
knowledge or attitudes that are shared by members of a particular social group. (This is a
positive meaning of ideology). Wodak in 2002 stated that, for critical discourse analysis,
ideology is an important means for establishing and maintaining unequal power relations.
The study of ideology focuses on the ways in which meaning is constructed and conveyed by
different symbolic forms. It also investigates the social context theses symbolic forms are
employed and deployed, and whether such forms establish or sustain power relations and
dominance. (This is a negative meaning of ideology). Ideology must be taken into
consideration in any theory of language that is related to social functions since language is
connected with society by being the primary domain of ideology, and a site of struggle of
power.
Structure of Ideology and Structure of Meaning:
Van dijk in 2012 states that discourse structures usually have two functions: executing the
underlying ideology, and acting as a more or less powerful means of persuasion. However,
ideological discourse pay more attention towards the following:
1- Self-identity description
These descriptions include: whom we are, where we come from, what our properties are.
What our history is, how we are different from others, what we are proud of , who will be
admitted, what the criteria of admission are, etc.
This description is generally positive. It is appropriate for group whose identity is threatened
or insecure such as woman and minorities.
2- Activity descriptions
They include what our tasks are, what we do, what is expected of us, what our social roles
are, etc. ideological activity description would be appropriate for groups who are defined by
their deeds such as professional activities.
3- Goals descriptions
Ideological and social sense are made by activities, but only when these activities have
positive aims, that is, ideological discourse of groups must focus on the good aims of their
activities it should be on the basis of how groups and their members see themselves, or want
to be seen and evaluated.
4- Norms and values descriptions
They are about what we find as good or bad, right or wrong, namely, our actions and aims
should correspond to our achievement. In this type, for example the description of our
enemies should focus on violation of such norms and values.
5- Position and relation descriptions
Groups also define themselves in relation to other groups. For example. Professors with
respect to students, anti-racists with respect to racist and feminists with respect to men. Thus,
the focus in such description should be on group relation, conflict, polarization.
6- Recourses description
Groups can exist and show themselves only when they have privilege(right) access to
recourses. When such access is threatened or restricted, then, ideological discourse must
focus on such recourses. In this case, the description should aim at defining or attacking
privilege access to resources and emphasizing the nature of recourses.
To sum, when these categories (identity, activity, aims, norms, position and resources) of a
group are in conflict with that of others, and the group is challenged, threatened or
dominated, then, it would be necessary that the focus of ideology discourse should pay more
attention to the structure of ideologies and the structure of meaning.
Power and language :
Power is the ability of the powerful person to exact compliance and obedience through the
use of discourse.
Power can also be defined at work in everyday use of language. Politics is concerned with
power in order to put certain political ideas into practice and control people's belief and
attitudes. One's belief and attitude can be changed either by physical coercion, or by indirect
means of coercion, by using language.
Van Dijk in 1993, states that power is concerned with control, the control of one group over
the over. Such control may take different shapes such as action or cognition; a powerful
person may limit the freedom of action of others, or may also affect their minds. In modern
societies, the effective power is mostly cognitive. That is, to practice power for changing the
minds of others by language, either by persuasion, changing their others minds with their
awareness, or by manipulation, changing others minds without their awareness. So, the man
aim of powerful group discourse is to manage the mind of others through the use of written
and spoken language. However, power and dominance are enacted and produced in everyday
communication and it seems a natural practice and appears to be more acceptable.
Wodak in 2002, believes that language is not powerful in its own, it becomes powerful by
the use of its users since power doesn't come from outside, but it is inside people. Power is
concerned with differences and specially with the effects of these differences on social
structures, whether these differences are ethnicity, sex, force or knowledge. Therefore,
language is integrated with social power. Power. Power cannot be extracted from language,
but language can facilitate the use of power, and language users play the main role in
executing the realization of power.
Foucault in1980, believes that the relation between language and power can be seen when
we talk about political issues; by using linguistic elements to exercise power. So, language or
discourse can be seen as knowledge systems that inform social and governmental
technologies, and these technologies constitute power in society.
Power and its social cognition:
Van Dijk in 1993, believes that power has a cognitive dimensions. Modern power is
concerned with management, i.e. it usually determines mind management. Thus, it involves
the influence of knowledge, believes, attitudes, ideology, norms and values.
This management differs from one situation to another and it depends on the control over one
or more of social resources by which groups/ individuals exercise this power.
The process of managing public minds is referred to as "social cognition" which can be
understood in term of groups and relations, mental operations such as interpretation, thinking,
and arguing, inference and learning all of which define social cognition. In addition, social
cognition serves to understand social events, social institutions and power relation.
Types of power:
1- Soft power
In the early 1990s, Joseph Nye (1990) first coined the term ‗soft power‘ to describe a
country‘s ability to co-opt and attract rather than coerce in the process of shaping the
preferences and long-term attitudes of the public in the receiving country in order to facilitate
the missions of the practicing country.
Rozina and Karapetjana in 2009, stated that this type of power compels people in certain
ways, or to make them adopt certain views and attitudes without exerting certain obvious
force on them, i.e to exercise power without physical coercion. This type of power operates
In such social environments as advertising, culture, media and politics. However, in this type
of power people are not subjected to penalties or troubles if they resist such kind of power, i.e
they are free to accept or refuse this exercise of power without any consequences that may
result from this refusal. They called this type of power as influential power.
2- Hard power
According Rozina and Karapetjana in 2009, hard power refers to exercise of power with
certain means of coercion. Such power is forced by the state, by the law and tradition of any
state and by institutions or organizations people work for. Thus, People are subjected to some
kinds of penalties and punishment. Such power operates in business, education, military and
different types of management. They called this type of power as instrumental power. In the
field of politics, for instance, politicians impose laws, taxes and the system of the state, i.e
they use this kind of power to influence people to endorse their policies. In fact, politicians
strive to have the power in order to tell people what to do and how to live. Hard power refers
to strategies of ―military intervention, coercive diplomacy, and economic sanctions to enforce
national interests‖ (Wilson, 2008, p. 114).
Power, Discourse, and Access:
Van Dijk in 1993, stated that the crucial role that power and dominance are based on is the
privilege access to discourse and communication. That is, language user s abilities vary in the
use of special discourse, genres or style, or in the participation in specific communicative
events (social practice) and text. Thus, the analysis of different models of discourse access
shows a parallelism between social power and discourse access.
Singh and Peessei in 2004, argue that language can provide a framework for our thoughts.
Language can be used to produce an ideology which could steer the way people think, i.e. a
way of controlling peoples minds. That is, language is not only used to direct peoples
thoughts, but also to control their thoughts. So, the kind of language people use to present
certain realities can change the way in which it is perceived. Hence, by controlling language,
one can control how another person thinks. This is why politicians have to be professional in
using the effective language since their aim is to control the way people think, they have to
experts in producing and reproducing language in order to reconstruct the way people think
and eventually change their believes and thoughts.
Van Dijk in 1998, points out that human's actions are controlled by their minds, so anyone
who is able to influence peoples minds, knowledge or opinions may also control their action.
In addition, peoples mind can be affected be text and talk. Thus discourse can directly control
peoples actions as is the case of in persuasion which means that the hearer is aware of what is
going on, possesses knowledge and he is convinced of the speaker's view, and manipulation
which means that the hearer is not aware of what the speaker is planning for him/her as well
as he lacks the information to recognize such exploitation. So, as a result, these
group/individuals who control effective discourse are those who have the ability to control
the minds and actions of others. And he further suggested many ways by which power and
dominance are involved in minds control:
1- The hearers are inclined to accept beliefs, attitudes and opinions through discourse from
what they believe as authority, trustworthy or credible sources, unless, if they are opposed
with the speaker's beliefs and experience, people tend to accept views of experts and
professionals.
2- In many institutions people are compelled to accept language as is the case in education
and many job institutions or organization.
3- In many situations people do not have experiences, knowledge, and beliefs that may
provide information to derive alternative beliefs and to challenge the discourses or
information they are exposed to.
Power and social structure:
As for Fairclough in 2003, he pointed out that social agents ( actors) are socially constrained.
They texture texts, set up the relations between elements of text, and there are structural
constrains on this process. language is considered to be the most abstract social structure, it
can define certain possibilities and exclude others. Accordingly, language is seen as an
abstract social structure, and social practices(social event) are the order of discourse (text).
Furthermore, the elements of discourse orders are not things like nouns and sentences, but
discourse, genres, and styles. So, these elements select certain possibilities (events) which
are defined by language and exclude others. That is, orders of discourse can be seen as social
organization and control of linguistic variation.
That is to say, language can and it has the ability to change people's believes, attitudes and
their understanding about the reality of the world.
Analysis in CDA
We can analysis this sentence and reveal the power and ideology by depending on
Fairclought’s model. He believed that the ideology and power can be revealed lexico-
grammatically by depending on the interpretation of the discourse.
1- Revealing Ideology
Imagine yourself reading a newspaper or listening to news and suddenly you read or heard
this news:
Writer 1: Jack was killed by the police.
So, in this sentence, the writer put Jack in the beginning in spite of the fact that "Jack" is the
recipient, and he put police at the end who is the agent Here, the writer emphasized on Jack,
because he wants to give a negative beliefs about Jack and he wants to inform the reader that
John has not killed haphazardly, in that, John has committed a crime or has done something
against the law therefore motivated the police to kill him. The writer successfully gave a clear
image about John and he describes him as a terrorist.
Writer 2:The police killed Jack.
In this sentence, the writer emphasized on police by putting him in the beginning of the
sentence in order to give a negative idea about police and the writer reveals his ideology by
defending Jack. Here, the writer considers Jack as a freedom fighter in contrast to the first
writer and he reveals his ideology as being against the government and authority. So, by this
interpretation the reader will consider or give a clear image that John is innocent.
2- Revealing power
As we have just noticed the example above which is one sentence written in different style ,
and each style carries especial meaning. The people who have power can change the mind of
people by considering the freedom fighter as a terrorist or considering the terrorist as freedom
fighter. So, the group who has power and authority may misuse the power(power abuse) and
lead people to ideologies which are not appropriate to their daily life, for example , when a
powerful person who has authority talks about sectarian issues obviously he will lead people
to practice the idea of sectarianism in their real life. So, the powerful people use language in a
way by which they control people ‘s mind and ideology.
The press men, broadcasters, the powerful people who have the authority can use their power
to change people's mind and behavior by using persuasive and manipulated language.
References
Fairclough, N. & Wodak. R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T.A. van Dijk
(Eds.),Discourse as Social Interaction: Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary
Introduction, vol. 2 (pp. 258-284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2000). ‗Critical Discourse Analysis.‘ Retrieved March 8, 2009, from
http://www.discourse .org.oldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2001). ‗Multidisciplinary CDA: A Plea for Diversity.‘ Methods of
Critical Discourse Analysis. Eds. Ruth Wodak and Micheal Meyer. London: Sage
Publications. pp 95-120.
Wodak, R. (1995). ‗Critical Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis.‘ Handbook
of Pragmatics: Manual. Eds. Verschueren, J. et al. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp
204-210.
Wodak, R. (2001). ‗The Discourse-historical Approach.‘ Methods of critical discourse
analysis. R, Wodak and M. Meyers. Eds. London: Sage. 1 – 13.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1993). ‗Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.‘ Discourse and
Society 4[2], 249-283.
Foucault, M. (1988). ‘The order of discourse‘. In Shapiro, M. (ed.), Language and
Politics. London: Blackwell. Pp 108-138
