User:The JPS/CDA

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse, which views "language as a form of social practice." CDA developed within several disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, such as 'critical linguistics' (exemplified by the seminal book Language and Control by Roger Fowler, Gunther Kress, Bob Hodge and Tony Trew, published in 1979).

CDA uses discourse in both the linguistic sense, refferring to talk and interaction, and also the Foucauldian concern of the connection between language, knowledge and power.

CDA's remit
Critical discourse analysis is founded on the idea that there is unequal access to linguistic and social resources, resources that are controlled institutionally. The patterns of access to discourse and communicative events is one essential element for CDA. This includes consideration of the political, and even the economic, context of language usage and production.

Although CDA is sometimes mistaken to represent a 'method' of discourse analysis, it is generally agreed upon that any explicit method in discourse studies, the humanities and social sciences may be used in CDA research, as long as it is able to adequately and relevantly produce insights into the way discourse reproduces (or resists) social and political inequality, power abuse or domination. That is, CDA does not limit its analysis to specific structures of text or talk, but systematically relate these to structures of the sociopolitical context.

Mass media output is of significant interest to researchers. Norman Fairclough posits three questions about using CDA to analyse media output.


 * 1) How is the world represented?
 * 2) What identities are created (reporters, interviewers/ees, people referred to)?
 * 3) What relationships are created (host-audience, etc.)?

CDA has a conscious remit to expose how power relations/power abuse and domination/inequality are established through language. (Some early work, for example, studied how racism was implied in media discourse.) It intends to create social change, meaning that it should be "accessible." van Dijk points out that: "If students do not understand us, they can neither learn from us, nor criticize us. Complex theorizing and analysis do not require abstruse jargon and profound insights need no arcane formulations".

Development
Critical discourse analysis emerged from 'critical linguisics' (CL) developed at the University of East Anglia in the 1970s, and the terms are now often interchangable. Sociolinguistics was paying little attention to social hierarchy and power.

This political motivated form of discourse analysis developed, along with the publication of several books. In January 1991, several leading researchers attended a symposium in Amsterdam.

Models and methods
CDA uses methods from other approaches to language study (linguistics, pragmatics, etc.). These other approaches, however, "all have major limitations from a critical point of view." Norman Fairclough's criticisms of sociolinguistics and discourse analysis (particulalry conversation analysis) is that they "answer 'what?' questions but not 'how?' and 'why?' questions".

In addition to linguistic theory, the approach draws from social theory &mdash; and contributions from Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Jürgen Habermas, Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu &mdash; in order to examine ideologies and power relations involved in discourse.

Discourse-historical approach
Ruth Wodak emphasizes the importance of a historical dimension in critical discourse studies, as she also has shown in her work on racism and antisemitism.

This perspective was established towards the end of the 1980s. It "adheres to the socio-philosophical orientation of critical theory." She posits three interconnected aspects: the 'text or discourse immanent critique' aims

Sociologically-oriented theory
Fairclough notes "that language connects with the social through being the primary domain of ideology, and through being both a site of, and a stake in, struggles for power" (1989: 15).

His books, Language and Power (1989) and Critical Discourse Analysis (1995), articulate a three-dimensional framework for studying discourse, "where the aim is to map three separate forms of analysis onto one another: analysis of (spoken or written) language texts, analysis of discourse practice (processes of text production, distribution and consumption) and analysis of discursive events as instances of sociocultural practice."

Social-cognitive
Van Dijk (1998) articulates ideology as the basis of the social representations of groups, and more generally advocates a sociocognitive interface between social structures and discourse structures.

"Van Dijk's main motivation for linking media texts to context is to show in detail how social relationships and processes (e.g. the reproduction of racism) are accomplished at a micro-level through routine practices, whereas my [Fairclough] concern is to show how shifting language and discursive practices in the media constitute social and cultural change."

Notable researchers
Notable researchers include Norman Fairclough, Paul Chilton, Teun A. van Dijk, Theo van Leeuwen, Siegfried Jäger, Christina Schäffner, Ruth Wodak, Roger Fowler, Gunther Kress, Mary Talbot, and Robert Hodge.

Criticisms
Some have noted that the scientific approach disguises the researcher's subjectivity. Ian Hutchby, for example, identifies the debate about "the nature of the claims that can legitimately be made about the data we gather." He suggests that CDA uses social theory to disguise preconceptions as 'insights', using (sometimes complex) academic discourse to give claims weight.