Critical Discourse
Analysis
Van Dijk
Instructor: Qismat Ullah Khan.
Student, University of Science and
Technology Bannu.
Definition
• Critical Discourse Analysis studies how language
is used to create and maintain power imbalance,
inequality, and dominance in society.
• CDA as perspective, not a method. It is a way of
analyzing like a language of politics, law, and
media etc.
• It focuses primarily on social problems and
political issues, rather than on current paradigms
and fashions.
Fairclough and Wodak main tenets of CDA.
• Power relations are discursive.
• Discourse constitutes society and culture.
• Discourse is historical.
• Discourse is a form of social action.
• Discourse link between text and society is mediated
(moderate).
Conceptual and Theoretical frameworks.
Conceptual framework
The researcher’s synthesis of key concepts and
their relationships.
Role in CDA
Define core concepts like, hegemony, class,
ideology, and power etc.
Theoretical framework
The established theories or models that guide the
research.
Role in CDA.
It provide strong match lens, like van Dijk Socio-
Cognitive Approach.
Macro vs Micro.
Micro level: Focuses on specifics instances of
language use: like texts, or speeches,
conversations, and language use. Example use of
proverbs in jirga.
Macro level: Deals with broader societal structure:
like power, dominance, and social inequality.
CDA is a bridge between Micro and Macro level
discourse.
Micro and Macro are separate in analysis, in real life
they are connected.
Four ways to bridge these level;
Members-Groups: People in groups act through
their members. So when someone speaks, they are
part of a group, and the group acts through them.
Actions-Process: Individual actions add up to
bigger social processes, like how one person’s
actions in a making law is a part of whole
legislative process.
Context-social structure: Situations where people
talk are bigger social structures. A press conference
is not just a meeting but it is a part of how media
and organization work.
Personal and Social Cognition: People have their
own thoughts and shared groups beliefs. Both
influence how they interact and how groups act
collectively.
Power as control
• The groups have (more or less) power if they are
able to (more or less) control the acts and minds of
members of other groups. Different types of power,
someone use money as power, knowledge, and
information etc. (Luke's 1986, Wrong 1979).
• Relation between power and discourse like political
discourse etc.
• How action is controlled our minds?
• If we are able to influence the people minds, and
then we are indirectly control their actions and
easily manipulate them.
Control of public discourse
The members of more powerful social groups and
institutions, an especially their leaders (the elites),
have more or less exclusive access to and control
over one or more types of public discourse. Thus
professors control scholarly discourse, Politician
control policy and others public discourse etc.
Mind Control
If controlling discourse is a first major form of
power, controlling people’s minds is the other
fundamental way to reproduce dominance and
hegemony.
Below are the ways that power and dominance are
involved in mind control:
First, recipients tend to accept beliefs, knowledge,
and opinions ( unless they are inconsistent with
their personal beliefs and experiences) through
discourse from what they see as authority,
trustworthy, or credible sources, such as scholars
experts etc.
Second, in some situation participants are obliged
to be recipients of discourse, e.g. in education in
many job situation. Lessons, learning materials, job
instructions, and other discourse type in such cases
may need to be attended to, interpreted, and
learned as intended by institutional or
organizational authors (Giroux 1981).
Third, in many situations there are no public
discourses or media that may provide information
from which alternative beliefs may be derived
(Downing 1984).
Example: North Korea state control Media, and
internet are restricted.
Fourth, and closely related to the previous points,
recipients may not have the knowledge and beliefs
needed to challenge the discourses or information
they are exposed to (Wodak 1987).
Research in Critical Discourse Analysis
Gender inequality
Research on gender and language has not been
studies much using (CDA) ( a method to study
power in language)
Feminist research: Many studies on gender have
focused on social inequality and power imbalances,
making them important examples for discourse
analysis.
o Stereotypes beliefs (women consider emotional)
Culture vs power differences:
Some researchers (like Deborah Tannen) focus on
culture differences in communication ( e.g. how
men and women talk differently). While other focus
more on power imbalances, like how language
reinforces dominance in workplaces.
Media discourse
Media’s influence: The Media holds significant
power, studied across fields like linguistics, cultural
studies, and discourse analysis.
Bias in media: Near research found media
spreads stereotypes, racism through text, images,
and language choices.
Us and Them: studies highlighted how media uses
biased words to separate groups (e.g. “communists”
vs “capitalist”.
Stuart Hall, argue that news is not neutral but
shape by politic, economics, and culture. (News sets
the agenda like immigration).
Roger Fowler’s combine linguistics (sentence
structure) with cultural studies to show how media
manipulates reality. like protesters clash with police,
police suppress peaceful protest.
Van Dijk Analysis, focused on racism in news and
how international reporting favors powerful
countries.
Ethnocentrism: Judging other cultures or groups
through the lens of one’s own cultural norms, often
count other as inferior.
Rooted in historical European discourse (e.g.
philosophers, writers) that portrayed non European
cultures as different or inferior.
Shapes public opinion through media, literature, and
political discourse, perpetuating stereotypes.
Antisemitism: Prejudice, hostility(wrath),
discrimination targeting Jewish people, often framed
through conspiracy( collusion) theories or
stereotypes.
Reinforces social hierarchies by portraying Jewish
communities as threats to dominant groups.
