Critical discourse analysis.docx

8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx

1/38

TEUN A. VAN DIJK

0 Introduction: What Is Critical Discourse Analysis?

Critical discourse analysis(CDA) is a type ofdiscourse analytical research

that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and

inequality areenacted,reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the

social and political context. Withsuch dissident research, critical

discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus want tounderstand,expose, andultimatelyresist social inequality.

Some of the tenets of CDA can already be found in the critical theory

oftheFrankfurt 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 insociolinguistics,

psychology,and the socialsciences,somealready dating back to the early

1970s(Birnbaum 1971;Calhoun1995; Fay 1987; Fox andPrilleltensky

1997;Hymes 1972; Ibanez and Iniguez 1997; Singh 1996; Thomas 1993;

Turkel 1996; Wodak1996). As is the case inthese neighboring disciplines,

CDA may be seen as a reaction against the dominant formal (often

"asocial" or "uncritical") paradigms of the 1960sand1970s.

CDA is not so much a direction, school, or specialization next to the many

other "approaches" in discourse studies. Rather, it aims to offer a

different "mode"or"perspective"of theorizing, analysis, and application

throughout the whole field. We may find a more or less critical

perspective in such diverse areas aspragmatics,conversation analysis,

narrative analysis, rhetoric, stylistics, sociolinguistics,ethno- graphy, or

mediaanalysis,among others.

Crucialforcritical discourse analystsis theexplicit awarenessof their

role in society. Continuing a tradition that rejects the possibility of a

"value-free" science, they argue that science, and especially scholarly

discourse, are inherently part ofandinfluenced by socialstructure,and

producedin socialinteraction. Insteadof denying or ignoring such a

relation between scholarship and society, they plead that suchrelations

bestudiedandaccountedfor in theirown right,and those scholarly

practices


2/38


3/38

1 Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks

SinceCDA is not aspecific directionofresearch,it does nothaveaunitary

theoretical framework. Within the aims mentioned above, there are many

types of CDA,andthesemay betheoreticallyandanalytically quite diverse.

Critical analysisof conversation is very different from an analysis of

news reports in the press or of lessons andteachingat school. Yet, given

thecommon perspectiveand the general aims of CDA, we may also find

overall conceptual and theoretical frameworks that arecloselyrelated.

As suggested, most kinds of CDA will ask questions about the way

specific


4/38

354Teun A . van Dijk

discourse structures are deployed in thereproductionof social

dominance, whether they are part of aconversationor a news report or

other genres andcontexts. Thus, thetypical vocabularyof manyscholars

in CDA willfeaturesuchnotionsas "power," "dominance," "hegemony,"

"ideology," "class," "gender," "race,""discrimination,""interests,"

"reproduction," "institutions," "social structure," and "social order," be-

sides the more familiardiscourse analyticalnotions.'

In thissection,Ifocuson anumberof basic concepts themselves,and

thus deviseatheoretical frameworkthatcriticallyrelatesdiscourse,

cognition,and society.

1.1 Macro vs.micro

Languageuse,discourse, verbal interaction,andcommunication belongto

the microlevel of the social order. Power,dominance,andinequality

betweensocial groups are typically terms that belong to a macrolevel of

analysis. This means that CDA has totheoretically bridgethe well-known

"gap" between micro and macro approaches, which is of course a distinction

that is a sociological construct in its own right (Alexander et al. 1987;

Knorr-CetinaandCicourel 1981).Ineveryday interactionand experiencethe macro- and microlevel (and intermediary "mesolevels") form one

unified whole. For instance, a racist speech in parliament is a discourse

at the microlevel of socialinteractionin thespecific situationof adebate,

but at the same time may enact or be aconstituentpart oflegislationor

thereproductionof racism at the macrolevel.

There are several ways to analyze and bridge these levels, and thus to

arrive at aunified criticalanalysis:

1 Members–groups: Language users-engage in discourseas members of

(several)socialgroups, organizations,orinstitutions;andconversely,groupsthus may act "by" their members.

2 A ctions–process: Socialacts ofindividual actorsarethus constituent

parts of group actions and social processes, such as legislation,

newsmaking,or thereproductionof racism.

3 Context–social structure: Situations of discursive interaction are

similarly part or constitutive of social structure; for example, a press

conference may be a typicalpracticeoforganizations and media

institutions. That is,"local"and more "global"contextsareclosely

related,and bothexercise constraintson discourse.

4 ersonal and social cognition:Language users as social actors have bothpersonal and social cognition: personal memories, knowledge and

opinions, as wellasthose shared with members of the group or

culture as a whole. Both typesofcognition influence interaction and

discourse of individual members, whereas shared "social

representations"govern the collective actions of a group.


5/38

1.2Power ascontrol

Acentral notioninmost critical workondiscourseis that ofpower,and

morespecific- ally the social power of groups or institutions.Summarizing

a complex philosophical and socialanalysis, we will define social power in

terms ofcontrol. Thus, groupshave


6/38


7/38

2 How does such discourse control mind and action of (less) powerful

groups, and what are the socialconsequencesof suchcontrol,such as

social inequality?

I address each question below.'

1.2.1 Control of publicdiscourse

We have seen that among many other resources that define the power

base ofagroup or institution,access to orcontrol over publicdiscourse

andcommunicationisanimportant "symbolic" resource,as is the case for

knowledgeand information (van Dijk 1996). Most people have active

control only over everyday talk with family members, friends,or

colleagues,andpassive controlover, e.g.media usage.In many


8/38


situations, ordinary peoplearemoreor lesspassive targetsof text or talk,

e.g. of their bosses orteachers,or of theauthorities,such as police

officers, judges, welfare bur- eaucrats, or tax inspectors, who may simply

tell them what (not) to believe or what to do.On the other hand,membersof morepowerfulsocial groups andinstitutions,and

especiallytheirleaders(theelites),have more or lessexclusive accessto,

and control over, one or more types of public discourse. Thus, professors

control scholarly discourse, teachers educational discourse, journalists

media discourse, lawyers legal discourse, and politicians policy and other

public political discourse. Those whohave more controlovermore — and

more influential — discourse(andmorediscourse properties) are by thatdefinition also more powerful. In other words, we here pro- pose a

discursive definition (as well as a practical diagnostic) of one of the

crucialconstituentsof social power.

These notions ofdiscourseaccess and control are very general, and it is one ofthe

tasks of CDA to spell out these forms of power. Thus, ifdiscourseis

defined in terms of complex communicative events, access and control

may be defined both for thecontext and for the structures o! text and talk

t"emselves.

Context is defined as thementally represented structureof thosepropertiesof

thesocial situation that are relevant for the production or comprehension of

discourse (Duranti and Goodwin 1992; van Dijk 1998b). It consists of

such categories as the overall definition of the situation, setting (time,

place), ongoing actions(includingdiscourses and discourse genres),

participants in variouscommunicative,social, or institutional roles, as

well as their mental representations: goals, knowledge, opinions,

attitudes,andideologies. Controllingcontext involves control over one or

more of these categories, e.g. determining the definition of the

communicative situation, deciding on time and place of the

communicativeevent, or on which particip-ants may or must be

present, and in which roles, or what knowledge oropinionsthey should

(not) have, and which social actions may or must be accomplished by

discourse.

Also crucial in the enactment or exercise of group power is control not onlyover

content, but over thestructuresof text and talk.Relatingtext and context,

thus, we already saw that (members of) powerful groups may decide on

the (possible)dis-course genre#s$ or speec" acts of an occasion. A teacher

or judge may require a direct answer from a student orsuspect,

respectively,and not apersonalstory or an argu- ment (Wodak 1984a,1986). Morecritically, we mayexaminehowpowerfulspeakers may abuse

their power in suchsituations,e.g. when police officers use force to get a

confession from a suspect (Linell and Jonsson 1991), or when male

editors exclude women from writing economic news (van Zoonen 1994).


9/38

Similarly, genres typically have conventional sc"emas consisting of

various categor% ies. Access to some of these may be prohibited or

obligatory,e.g. somegreetingsin a conversation may only be used by

speakers of a specific social group, rank, age, orgender (Irvine1974).

Also vital for alldiscourseandcommunicationis whocontrolsthetopics(semanticmacrostructures) and topic change, as when editors decide

what news topics will be covered (Gans 1979; van Dijk 1988a, 1988b),

professors decide what topics will be dealt with in class, or men control

topics and topic change in conversations with women (Palmer 1989;

Fishman 1983; Leet-Pellegrini 1980; Lindegren-Lerman1983).


10/38

Critical Discourse A nalysis 357

Althoughmostdiscourse controliscontextualorglobal,even localdetailsofmean% ing& !orm& or style may becontrolled,e.g. thedetailsof ananswerinclass or court, or

choice of lexical items or jargon in courtrooms, classrooms or newsrooms

(MartinRojo 1994). In many situations, volume may be controlled and

speakers ordered to "keep their voice down" or to "keep quiet," women may

be "silenced" in many ways (Houston and Kramarae 1991), and in some

cultures one needs to "mumble" as a form of respect (Albert 1972). The

public use of specific words may be bannedassubversivein a

dictatorship,anddiscursive challengestoculturally dominantgroups (e.g.

white, western males) by theirmulticulturalopponents may be ridiculed

in the media as "politically correct" (Williams 1995). And finally, action

andinteractiondimensions of discourse may be controlled by

prescribing or proscribingspecificspeech acts, and by selectively

distributing or interrupting turns (see also Diamond

1996).

In sum, virtuallyall levels andstructuresofcontext,text, and talk can

in principle be more or less controlled by powerful speakers, and such

power may be abused at theexpenseofother participants.Itshould,

however, bestressed that talk andtext do notalwaysanddirectlyenact or

embodytheoverallpowerrelations betweengroups: it is always the context

that may interfere with, reinforce, or otherwise transform such

relationships.

1.2.2 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.' Within a CDA framework, "mind control" involves even more

than just acquiring beliefs about the world through discourse and

communication.Suggested below are ways that power and dominance areinvolved in mind control.

First, recipients tend to accept beliefs, knowledge, and opinions (unless they are

inconsistent withtheir personal beliefsandexperiences) through discourse

from what they see asauthoritative, trustworthy,orcredible sources,such

asscholars,experts,professionals,orreliable media (Nesleret al.1993).

Second,in somesituationsparti- cipants are obliged to be recipients of

discourse, e.g. in education and in many jobsituations. Lessons, learning

materials, jobinstructions,andother discourse typesin such cases may

need to be attended to, interpreted, and learned as intended by

institutionalororganizational authors (Giroux 1981). Third,in manysituationsthere are no pubicdiscoursesor media that may provide

informationfrom which alternat- ive beliefsmay bederived (Downing 1984).

Fourth,andclosely relatedto the previous points, recipients may not have

the knowledge and beliefs needed to challenge thediscoursesor

informationthey areexposedto (Wodak 1987).


11/38

Whereas these conditions of mind control are largelycontextual(they say some-

thing about theparticipantsof acommunicativeevent), otherconditions

arediscurs% ive& that is, a function of the structures and strategies of text

or talk itself. In other words, given a specific context, certain meanings

and forms of discourse have more influence on people's minds than

others, as the very notion of "persuasion" andatraditionof 2000 years of

rhetoric may show.'

Once wehave elementary insightintosomeof thestructuresof themind,

and what itmeanstocontrolit, thecrucial questionishow discourse and

itsstructuresare able


12/38


toexercise such control. Assuggested above, such discursive influencemay

be due to

context as well as to the structures o! text and talk t"emselves.

Contextually based control derives fromthe fact thatpeople understand

and repres- ent not only text and talk, but also the whole communicative

situation. Thus, CDA typically studies how context features (such as the

properties of language users of powerful groups) influence the ways

members of dominated groups define the com-municative situationin

"preferredcontext models" (Martin Rojo and van Dijk 1997).

CDA also focuses on howdiscourse structures influence mental

representations. Atthe global level ofdiscourse,topics mayinfluence what

peoplesee as the most import- antinformationof text or talk, and thus

correspondto the top levels of their mental models. For example,

expressing such a topic in a headline in news may powerfully influence

how an event is defined in terms of a "preferred" mental model (e.g. when

crime committed by minorities is typically topicalized and headlined in

the press:Duinet al.1988; vanDijk 1991). Similarly, argumentation may be

persuasive because of the social opinions that are "hidden" in its implicitpremises and thus taken forgranted by therecipients,e.g.immigration

maythus berestrictedif it is presupposed in a parliamentary debate that

all refugees are "illegal" (see the contributionsin Wodak and van Dijk

2000) Likewise, at thelocal level& in order to understand discourse

meaning and coherence, people may need models featuring beliefs that

remain implicit(presupposed)in discourse. Thus, a typical feature of

manipulationis tocommunicate beliefsimplicitly,that is, without actually

assertingthem, and with lesschancethat they will be challenged.

These fewexamplesshow how various types ofdiscourse structuremay

influence the formation and change of mental models and socialrepresentations.If dominantgroups,andespecially their elites, largely

control public discourseand its structures, theythusalsohave more

controlover themindsof thepublicatlarge. However,suchcontrolhas its

limits. Thecomplexityofcomprehension, andtheformation andchange of

beliefs,are such that onecannot always predict whichfeaturesof aspecific

text or talk will have which effects on the minds of specific recipients.

These briefremarkshaveprovidedus with a verygeneral pictureof how

discourse is involved in dominance (power abuse) and in the production

and reproduction of socialinequality.It is the aim of CDA toexamine

theserelationshipsin more detail. In the nextsection, wereview several

areas of CDAresearchin which these relationships are investigated.'

2 Research in Critical Discourse Analysis


13/38

Although mostdiscoursestudies dealing with any aspect of power,

domination,and socialinequalityhave not beenexplicitly conductedunder

the label of CDA, we shallneverthelessrefer to some of these studies

below.

'.( )ender ine*uality

One vast field of critical research on discourse and language that thus far

has not been carried out within a CDAperspectiveis that of gender. In

many ways, feminist


14/38

Critical Discourse A naly sis 359

work has become paradigmaticfor muchdiscourse analysis, especially

since much of this work explicitly deals with social inequality and

domination. We will not review it here; seeKendalland Tannen,this

volume;also the booksauthoredandedited by, e.g., Cameron (1990,

1992); Kotthoff and Wodak (1997); Seidel (1988); Thorne et al.(1983);

Wodak (1997);fordiscussionandcomparison with anapproachthat

emphas- izescultural differences rather than power differences and

inequality, see, e.g., Tannen(1994a);seealso Tannen (1994)for ananalysis

ofgender differencesat work,in which many of the properties of discursive

dominance are dealt with.

'.' Media discourse

The undeniable power of the media has inspired many critical studies in

many disciplines:linguistics, semiotics, pragmatics,anddiscourse

studies. Traditional,often contentanalytical approachesin critical media

studies have revealed biased, stereotypical, sexist or racist images in

texts, illustrations, and photos. Early studiesofmedia language similarly

focusedoneasily observable surface structures, suchas the biased or

partisan use of words in the description of Us and Them (and Our/Their

actionsandcharacteristics), especiallyalongsociopoliticallines in the

representation of communists. The critical tone was set by a series of

"Bad News" studies bytheGlasgow University Media Group (1976, 1980,

1982, 1985, 1993) on features of TVreporting,such as in thecoverageof

various issues(e.g.industrial disputes(strikes), the Falklands (Malvinas)

war, the media coverage of AIDS.)

Perhaps bestknown outsideofdiscourse studiesis themedia research carriedout

by Stuart Hall and hisassociates within theframeworkof the cultural

studies paradigm. (See, e.g., Hall et al. 1980; for introduction to the

critical work ofculturalstudies,see Agger 1992a;see alsoCollinset al.

1986;forearlier critical approachesto the analysis of media images, see

also Davis and Walton 1983; and for a later CDAapproachto media

studies that is related to the criticalapproachof cultural studies, see

Fairclough 1995b.See alsoCotter,this volume.)

An early collection of work of Roger Fowler and his associates (Fowler et al. 1979)

alsofocusedon themedia. As withmany other Englishand Australian

studiesin this paradigm, the theoretical framework of Halliday's

functional-systemic grammar isusedin astudyof the"transitivity"of

syntactic patternsofsentences(seeMartin,this volume). The point of such

researchis thateventsandactionsmay bedescribed with syntactic

variations that are a function of the underlying involvement of actors (e.g.

their agency,responsibility,and perspective). Thus, in an analysis of the

media ac- counts of the "riots" during a minority festival, the

responsibility of the authorities andespeciallyof the police in such


15/38

violencemay besystematically de-emphasized by defocusing, e.g. by

passive constructions and nominalizations; that is, byleavingagency and

responsibility implicit. Fowler's later critical studies of the media con-

tinue thistradition, but also paytributeto theBritish cultural studies

paradigmthat defines news not as a reflection of reality, but as aproduct shaped bypolitical,economic, and cultural forces (Fowler 1991).

More than in much other critical work on themedia,healso focuseson the

linguistic "tools"forsuchacritical study, suchas the analysis of transitivity

in syntax, lexical structure, modality, and speech acts. Similarly van Dijk

(1988b) applies a theory of news discourse (van Dijk 1988a)in


16/38


critical studiesofinternationalnews,racismin thepress,and thecoverageof squat- ters in Amsterdam.

'.+ olitical discourse

Given the role of political discourse in the enactment,reproduction,and

legitimiza- tion of power anddomination, we may also expect many critical

discoursestudies of political text and talk (see Wilson, this volume). So far

most of this work has beencarriedout bylinguistsanddiscourse analysts,

because political scienceisamongthe few social disciplines in which

discourse analysis has remained virtually unknown, although there is

some influence of "postmodern" approaches to discourse (Derianand

Shapiro 1989;Foxand Miller 1995), and many studiesofpolitical

communication andrhetoric overlap with adiscourse analytical approach

(NimmoandSanders1981). Still closer to discourse analysis is the

current approach to "frames"(conceptualstructuresor sets of beliefsthat

organize political thought, policies,anddiscourse)in theanalysisofpolitical

text and talk(Gamson1992).

In linguistics, pragmatics, and discourse studies, political discourse

has received attention outside the more theoretical mainstream. Seminal

work comes from PaulChilton;see, e.g., hiscollectionon thelanguageof

the nuclear arms debate (Chilton

1985),as well as later workoncontemporary nukespeak (Chilton 1988)andmetaphor

(Chilton 1996; ChiltonandLakoff1995).

Although studies of political discourse in English are internationally

best known because of the hegemony of English, much work has been

done (often earlier, andoften more systematicandexplicit)inGerman,

Spanish,andFrench. This workis too extensive to even begin to review

here beyond naming a few influential studies.

Germanyhas a longtraditionofpolitical discourse analysis, both(then)inthe West (e.g. about Bonn's politicians by Zimmermann 1969), as well as

in the former East(e.g. the semiotic-materialist theoryofKlaus 1971) (see

also the introduction by Bachem

1979). ThistraditioninGermany witnesseda study of thelanguageof war

and peace(Pasierbsky1983) and ofspeechacts inpolitical discourse(Holly

1990). There is also astrong traditionofstudying fascist languageand

discourse(e.g. thelexicon,propa-ganda, media,andlanguage politics;

Ehlich1989).

In France, the study of politicallanguagehas arespectable traditionin

linguistics and discourse analysis, also because the barrier between

(mostly structuralist) linguistic theory and text analysis was never very

pronounced. Discourse studies areoften corpus-basedandtherehas been

astrong tendency toward formal,quantitative, and automatic (content)

analysis of such big datasets, often combined with criticalideological


17/38

analysis (Pecheux 1969, 1982; Guespin 1976). Theemphasison automated

analysisusually implies a focus on (easilyquantifiable)lexicalanalyses

(see Stubbs, this volume).

Critical political discourse studiesinSpainandespeciallyalso inLatin

Americahas been very productive. Famous is the early critical semiotic(anticolonialist) study ofDonald Duck byDorfmanandMattelart (1972)in

Chile. Lavanderaet al.(1986,1987) in Argentinatake aninfluential

sociolinguistic approachtopolitical discourse,e.g. its typology of

authoritarian discourse. Work of this group has been continuedand

organized in a more explicit CDA framework especially by Pardo (see, e.g.,

her work


18/38

Critical Discourse A naly sis

onlegal discourse; Pardo 1996).InMexico,adetailed ethnographic discourse

analysis of local authority anddecision-making was carried out by Sierra

(1992). Among the many other critical studies in Latin America, we

should mention the extensive work of Teresa CarbO on parliamentary

discourse in Mexico, focusing especially on the waydelegates speak about

native Americans (CarbO 1995), with astudyinEnglishoninterruptionsin

these debates (CarbO1992).

2.4Ethnocentrism, antisemitism,nationalism, andracism

The study of the role of discourse in the enactment and reproduction of

ethnic and "racial" inequality has slowly emerged in CDA. Traditionally,

such work focused onethnocentricandracist representationsin themass

media, literature,and film (Dines and Humez 1995; UNESCO 1977; Wilson

and Gutierrez 1985; Hartmann and Hus- band 1974; van Dijk 1991).

Such representations continue centuries-old dominant images of the

Other in the discourses of European travelers, explorers, merchants,

soldiers,philosophers,and historians, among other forms of elite

discourse (Barker

1978; Lauren 1988). Fluctuating between the emphasis on exoticdifference, on the one hand, andsupremacist derogation stressingthe

Other'sintellectual,moral, and biological inferiority,on the other hand,

suchdiscoursesalsoinfluenced publicopin- ion and led to broadly shared

socialrepresentations.It is thecontinuityof this socio- cultural tradition

of negative images about the Other that also partly explains the

persistence ofdominant patterns ofrepresentation in contemporary

discourse,media, and film(ShohatandStam1994).

Later discourse studies have gone beyond the more traditional, content

analyticalanalysisof"images"of the Others, and probed more deeply into

thelinguistic,semiotic, and other discursive properties of text and talk

to and about minorities, immi- grants, and Other peoples (for detailed

review, see Wodak and Reisigl, this volume). Besides the mass media,

advertising, film, and textbooks, which were (and still are) the genres

most commonly studied, this newer work also focuses on politicaldis-

course,scholarly discourse, everyday conversations,serviceencounters,

talk shows, and a host of other genres.

Manystudiesonethnicand racialinequalityreveal aremarkable similarityamong

the stereotypes, prejudices, and other forms of verbal derogation across

discourse types, media, and national boundaries. For example, in a vast

researchprogramcarried out at the University of Amsterdam since theearly 1980s, we examined howSurinamese, Turks,andMoroccans,and

ethnic relations generally,arerepresentedinconversation, everydaystories,

news reports,textbooks, parliamentary debates,cor-porate discourse, and

scholarly text and talk (van Dijk 1984, 1987a, 1987b, 1991,1993).Besides

stereotypical topicsofdifference, deviation,andthreat, story structures,con-


19/38


versational features(such ashesitationsandrepairsinmentioning Others),

semantic moves such as disclaimers ("We have nothing against blacks,

but . . .", etc.), lexical description of Others, and a host of other discourse

features also were studied. The aim of these projects was to show how

discourse expressesandreproducesunderly- ing socialrepresentationsof

Othersin the social andpolitical context. Ter Wal (1997)appliesthis

frameworkin adetailedstudy of the waysItalian politicalandmediadis-

course gradually changed,from anantiracist commitmentand benign

representation


20/38


of the-extracommunitari- (non-Europeans)to a morestereotypicaland

negative por- trayal ofimmigrantsin terms of crime,deviance,and threat.

The major point of our work is that racism (including antisemitism,

xenophobia, and related forms of resentment against "racially" or

ethnically defined Others) is acomplex system of social andpolitical

inequalitythat is alsoreproduced by discourse ingeneral,and by elite

discoursesinparticular(seefurther referencesin Wodakand Reisigl, this

volume).

Instead of further elaborating the complex details of the theoreticalrelationships between discourse and racism, we shall refer to a book

that may be taken asaprototype of conservative elite discourse on "race"

today, namely,T"e nd o! /acism byDinesh D'Souza (1995). This text

embodiesmany of thedominant ideologiesin the USA, especially on the

right, and it specifically targets one minority group intheUSA: African

Americans.Spaceprohibits detailed analysisof this700-page book (but see

van Dijk 1998a). Here we can merely summarize how the CDA of

D'Souza'sT"e nd o! /acism shows what kind of discursive structures,

strategies, and moves are deployed in exercising the power of the

dominant (white, western, male) group, and how readers aremanipulated

to form or confirm the socialrepresentationsthat areconsistent with a

conservative, supremacistideology.

The overall strategy of D'Souza'sT"e nd o! /acism is thecombinedimplementa-

tion, at all levels of the text, of the positive presentation of the in-group

andthenegative presentation of the out-group. In D'Souza's book, the

principal rhetorical means are those of hyperbole and metaphor, viz., the

exaggeratedrepresentationof social problems in terms of illness

("pathologies," "virus"), and the emphasis of the contrast between the

Civilized and the Barbarians. Semantically and lexically, theOthersarethus associatednotsimply withdifference, butrather withdeviance("illeg-

itimacy") and threat (violence, attacks). Argumentative assertions of the

depravityof black culture are combined with denials of white deficiencies

(racism), with rhetorical mitigation and euphemization of its crimes

(colonialism, slavery), and withsemantic reversals of blame (blaming the

victim). Social conflict is thus cognitively represented and enhanced by

polarization, and discursively sustained andrepro-duced by derogating,

demonizing, and excluding the Others from the community of Us, the

Civilized.

2.5 From group dominat ion t o professional and inst it ut

ional pow er

We have reviewed in this section critical studies of the role of discourse

inthe(re)production inequality. Such studies characteristically exemplifythe


21/38

CDA perspective on power abuse and dominance by specific social

groups.' Many other studies, whether under the CDA banner or not, also

critically examine various genres ofinstitutional and professional

discourse,e.g. text and talk in thecourtroom(see Shuy, this volume; Danet

1984; O'Barret al.1978; Bradacet al.1981;Ng andBradac1993;Lakoff1990; Wodak 1984a;Pardo 1996; Shuy1992), bureaucratic discourse

(Burton and Carlen 1979; Radtke 1981), medical discourse (see

Ainsworth-Vaughn and Fleischman, this volume; Davis 1988; Fisher

1995; Fisher and Todd 1986; Mishler

1984; West 1984; Wodak 1996), educationalandscholarly discourse (Aronowitz

1988;


22/38


Apple 1979; Bourdieu 1984, 1989; Bernstein 1975, 1990; Bourdieuet al.

1994; Giroux

1981; Willis 1977; Atkinsonet al.1995; Coulthard 1994; Duszak 1997; Fisher

and Todd

1986; Mercer 1995; Wodak 1996; Bergvall and Remlinger 1996; Ferree and

Hall1996; Jaworski1983;Leimdorfer1992; Osler 1994; Said 1979;Smith

1991; van Dijk 1987,

1993), and corporate discourse (see Linde, this volume; Mumby 1988;Boden 1994;

Drew andHeritage 1992; Ehlich 1995; Mumby 1993; MumbyandClair

1997),among many other sets of genres. In all these cases, power anddominanceareassociated with specific socialdomains (politics,media,

law,education,science, etc.), their pro-fessional elitesandinstitutions,

and therulesandroutinesthatform the background of the everyday

discursivereproductionof power in such domains and institutions. The

victims or targets of such power are usually the public or citizens at large,

the"masses," clients, subjects,theaudience, students, and other groups that

are depend- ent oninstitutionalandorganizationalpower.

3 Conclusion

We have seen in this chapter that critical discourse analyses deal with the

relation- ship between discourse and power. We have also sketched the

complex theoretical framework needed to analyze discourse and power,

and provided a glimpse ofthemany ways in which power and domination

are reproduced by text and talk.

Yet severalmethodologicaland theoretical gaps remain. First, the

cognitive inter- face between discourse structuresand those of the local

and global social context is seldom made explicit, and appears usually

only in terms of the notions of knowledge and ideology (van Dijk 1998). Thus, despite a large number of empirical studies on discourse and

power, the details of the multidisciplinaryt"eory of CDA that shouldrelate

discourseandaction withcognitionandsocietyare still on theagenda.

Second, there is still a gap between more linguistically oriented studies of

text and talk and the various approaches in the social. The first often

ignore concepts and theories in sociology and political science on power

abuse and inequality, whereas the second seldom engage in detailed

discourse analysis. Integration of various approaches is therefore very

important to arrive at a satisfactory form of multidisciplinary CDA.

NOTES


23/38


I amindebtedtoRuth Wodakfor her these and other fundamental

notions.commentson anearlier versionof this Thus, referenceto

the leading scholarschapter, andtoLaura Pardofor further ofthe

Frankfurter School andtoinformation, about CDA researchin Latin

contemporary work byHabermas(for America.

instance, on legitimation and hislast

1Itcomesas nosurprise, then,that "discourse" approachto

normsandCDA research willoften referto the democracy)is

ofcourse commoninleading social philosophers andsocial

critical analysis. Similarly,manyscientistsofour time whentheorizing

critical studies will refertoFoucault


24/38


when dealing with notions suchas the world are acquired

throughpower, domination, and disciplineor discourse.

the more philosophical notionof 4 In order to analyze the

complex"orders ofdiscourse." Morerecently, processes involvedin

howdiscoursethe many studies on language,culture, may control

people's minds, we wouldand society byBourdieu have become

needtospell out the detailedmentalincreasingly influential; forinstance,

representations andcognitive

hisnotionof"habitus." Fromanother operations studiedincognitivescience.

sociological perspective,Giddens's Since even an adequate

summaryisstructuration theoryisnowoccasionally beyond the

scopeofthis chapter, wementioned.Itshould be bornein mind

will only briefly introducea few

that although severalofthesesocial notions that are necessaryto

philosophers and sociologistsmake understand the processesof

discursiveextensive useofthe notionsof mind control (for

details, see,e.g.,language and discourse, theyseldom Graesser and

Bower 1990; van Dijkandengageinexplicit, systematicdiscourse

Kintsch 1983; van Oostendorpandanalysis. Indeed, the last thingcritical

Zwaan 1994; Weaveretal.1995).discourse scholars should dois to

5Note thatthepicture just sketchedisuncritically adopt philosophicalor

very schematic and general. Thesociological ideas about languageand

relations between the social powerofdiscourse that are obviously

uninformed groups and institutions, on theone

by advances in contemporarylinguistics hand, and discourse on the other,as

and discourse analysis. Rather,the wellas between discourseand

work referredtohereis mainly cognition, and cognition and

society,relevantforthe useof fundamental are vastly more

complex. Thereareconcepts about the social orderand many

contradictions. Thereis not

hencefor themetatheoryof CDA. alwaysaclear pictureofone

dominant

2Space limitations prevent discussionof group(orclassor

institution)

athird issue: how dominatedgroups oppressing another one,

controllingalldiscursively challengeorresistthe public

discourse, and suchdiscoursecontrolofpowerfulgroups.

directly controlling the mindof the

3 Note that "mind control" is merely a dominated. There are many

formsofhandy phrasetosummarizea very collusion,

consensus, legitimation,andcomplex process. Cognitivepsychology

even "jointproduction"of forms ofand mass communicationresearch

inequality. Membersof dominant

have shown that influencing themind groups may become dissidents

and


25/38

isnotasstraightforwardaprocessas side with dominated groups,

and vicesimplistic ideas about mindcontrol versa. Opponent

discourses may bemight suggest (Britton andGraesser adopted

bydominant groups, whether

1996; Glasser and Salmon1995; strategicallytoneutralize them,or

Klapper 1960; van Dijk andKintsch simply because dominant power

and

1983). Recipients may varyin their ideologies may change,as

is forinterpretation and usesoftext andtalk, instance quite

obviousinecologicalalsoas afunctionofclass, gender,or

discourse andideology.

culture (Liebes and Katz1990). 6Unfortunately,the study of the

Likewise, recipients seldompassively discursive reproductionof

classaccept the intended opinionsof specific has been rather

neglectedin thisdiscourses. However, weshouldnotperspective;for arelated approach,forget that mostofour beliefsabout

though, see Willis(1977).


26/38


REFERENCES

Agger,B.(1992a).Cultural 1tudies as Bernstein, B. (1990).T"e 1 tructuring o!

Critical T"eory. London: FalmerPress. edagogic Discourse.

London: Agger,B.(1992b).T"e Discourse o! Routledge

and KeganPaul.

Domination. 2rom T"e 2rank! urt 1c"ool Birnbaum, N. (1971).Toward

a Critical to ostmodernism. Evanston,IL: 1ociology. New

York: OxfordNorthwestern UniversityPress. University

Press.

Albert,E.M. (1972). Culturepatterning Boden, D. (1994).T"e 3usiness o! Talk.

ofspeech behaviorinBurundi.In 4rgani5 ations in A ction.

Cambridge: J. J.Gumperz and D. Hymes(eds), Polity. Directions in 1ociolinguistics: T"e Bourdieu, P. (1984). 6omo A cademicus.

t"nograp"y o! Communication Paris:Minuit.

(pp. 72-105). New York:Holt, Bourdieu,P.(1989). 7a noblesse d8etat.

Rhinehart, and Winston. )randes 9ales et esprit de

corps. Paris: Alexander, J. C., Giesen, B., Munch,R., Minuit.

and Smelser, N. J.(eds). (1987).T"e Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J. C. and

Saint- Micro Macro 7ink .Berkeley,CA: Martin, M. (1994). A

cademic Discourse.UniversityofCaliforniaPress. 7inguistic Misunderstanding and

Apple,M. W.(1979). ;deology and ro!essorial ower& Cambridge:Polity

Curriculum. London: Routledgeand Press.

KeganPaul. Bradac, J. J., Hemphill, M. R.,

and Tardy, Aronowitz,S.(1988).1cience as ower: C.H. (1981).

Language style ontrial:

Discourse and ;deology in Modern effects of"powerful"and

"powerless"1ociety.Minneapolis: Universityof speech upon

judgmentsof victimsMinnesotaPress. and

villains.


27/38


(1996). Reproduction, resistanceand Calhoun, C. (1995).Critical 1ocial T"eory.

genderineducational discourse:the Oxford:Blackwell.

roleofcritical discourseanalysis. Cameron,D.(ed.) (1990).T"e 2eminist

Discourse and 1ociety #0$& 453-79. Criti*ue o! 7anguage. A /eader.

Bernstein, B. (1975).Class& Codes and London: Routledge and KeganPaul.

Control. olume +& Towards a T"eory o! Cameron, D. (1992).

2eminism and ducational Transmissions. London: 7inguistic

T"eory. Second edition.Routledge and KeganPaul.

London:Macmillan.


28/38


29/38

Text& 4, 1/3, specialissue. Ehlich,K.(ed.) (1989).1prac"e im

Davis,H.and Walton,P.(eds).(1983). 2asc"ismus. #7anguage under 2ascism$.

7anguage& ;mage& Media. Oxford: Frankfurt:Suhrkamp.

Blackwell. Ehlich,K.(ed.) (1995).T"e Discourseo!

Davis, K. (1988). ower >nder t"e 3usiness ?egotiation. Berlin:

Mouton

Microscope. Toward a )rounded T"eory deGruyter.

o! )ender /elations in Medical Essed, P. J. M. (1991).>nderstanding

ncounters. Dordrecht:Forts. veryday /acism: A n ;nterdisciplinary

Derian, J. D. and Shapiro, M. J.(1989). T"eory. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

;nternationall;ntertextual /elations. Fairclough,N. L.(1992a). Discourseand

Lexington, MA:D. C. Heath. 1ocial C"ange.Cambridge:

Polity

Diamond, J. (1996).1tatus and ower in Press.

erbal ;nteraction. A 1tudy o! Discourse Fairclough,N. L.(ed.)

(1992b).Critical in a Close%knit 1ocial ?etwork.

7anguage A wareness. London: Amsterdam:Benjamin.

Longman.


30/38


Fairclough,N. L.(1995a).Critical Discourse Giroux, H. (1981). ;deology&

Culture& and t"e A nalysis: T"e Critical 1tudy o! rocess o!

1c"ooling. London:Falmer 7anguage. Harlow,UK: Longman.

Press.

Fairclough,N. L.(1995b). Media Discourse. Glasgow University Media

Group. (1976).

London: Edward Arnold. 3ad ?ews. London: Routledgeand

Fairclough,N. L.and Wodak,R. (1997). KeganPaul.

Critical discourse analysis.In Glasgow University Media

Group. (1980). T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse 1tudies. More 3ad ?ews. London:Routledge

A Multidisciplinary ;ntroduction& ol. '. and KeganPaul.

Discourse as 1ocial ;nteraction Glasgow University Media Group.

(1982).(pp. 258-84). London:Sage. /eally 3ad ?ews.

London: WritersandFay, B. (1987).Critical 1ocial 1cience. Readers.

Cambridge:Polity. Glasgow University Media Group.

(1985).Ferree, M. M. and Hall, E. J. (1996).


31/38

Culture& Media&London: Routledge and KeganPaul. 7anguage.

London:Hutchinson.

Fox, C. J.and Miller, H. T. (1995). Hartmann,P.and Husband, C.(1974).

ostmodern ublic A dministration. /acism and t"e Mass Media. London:

Toward Discourse. London, CA:Sage. Davis-Poynter.Fox, D.R.and Prilleltensky,I. (1997). Holly, W.(1990). olitikersprac"e.

Critical syc"ology. A n ;ntroduction. ;ns5enierungen and /ollenkon! likte im

London:Sage. in!ormellen 1prac""andeln eines

Gamson, W. A.(1992).Talking olitics. 3undestagsabgeordneten. #olitician8s

Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity 7anguage. Dramati5ation and /ole

Press. Con! licts in t"e ;n! ormal 1peec" A cts o!

a

Gans, H. (1979). Deciding


32/38


Houston,M.and Kramarae,C. (eds). Lavandera,B.R., Garcia

Negroni,M. M.,(1991). Women speaking fromsilence. Lopez

OcOn, M., Luis,C. R.,

Discourse and 1ociety& '#0$& special Menendez,S.M., Pardo,M. L.,Raiter,issue. A.G., and Zoppi–Fontana, M.(1987).

Hymes,D.(ed.) (1972). /einventing Analisis sociolingiiistico del

discurso A nt"ropology. New York: Vintage politico(II).

Cuadernos del ;nstitute deBooks. 7ingiiistica. Buenos Aires:

InstitutodeIbanez, T.and Iiiiguez,L.(eds).(1997). Linguistica, Universidad deBuenos

Critical social psyc"ology.London: Aires.

Sage. Leet-Pellegrini, H. (1980).

Conversational

Irvine, J. T. (1974). Strategies ofstatus dominanceas afunction

ofgender manipulationinthe Wolofgreeting. and expertise.

In H.Giles, W. P.In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer(eds), Robinson, andP.Smith(eds),

xplorations in t"e t"nograp"y o! 7anguage: 1ocial

syc"ological 1peaking (pp. 167-91).Cambridge: erspectives(pp. 97-104). Oxford:Cambridge UniversityPress.

PergamonPress. Jaworski, A. (1983). Sexism intextbooks. Leimdorfer,F.(1992). Discours

academi*ue

3ritis" =ournal o! 7anguage Teac"ing& et colonisation. T"emes de

rec"erc"e sur

21(2),109-13. l8 A lgerie pendant la periodecoloniale.

Klapper, J. T. (1960).T"e !!ects o! Mass #A cademic Discourse and

Coloni5ation: Communication. New York: Free /esearc" on A

lgeria during t"e ColonialPress. eriod$. Paris:Publisud.Klaus, G. (1971).1prac"e der olitik Liebes, T.and Katz,E.(1990).

T"e xport o! #7anguage o! olitics$. Berlin: VEB Meaning: Cross–

cultural /eadings o!Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften. -Dallas.-

New York: Oxford

Knorr–Cetina,K.and Cicourel, A. V. (eds). UniversityPress.

(1981). A dvances in 1ocial T"eory and Lindegren–Lerman,C.(1983).

Dominant Met"odology . Towards an ;ntegration o! discourse: the

institutional voiceand Micro% and Macrosociologies. London: the

controloftopic.In H.DavisandRoutledge and KeganPauL

P. Walton(eds), 7anguage& ;mage&

Kotthoff,H.and Wodak,R.(eds).(1997). Media (pp. 75-103). Oxford:

Blackwell.

Communicating )ender in Context. Linen, P. and Jonsson, L. (1991).

Suspect

Amsterdam:Benjamins. stories: perspective-setting inan


33/38

Lakoff,R. T.(1990).Talking ower. T"e asymmetrical situation.In

I.Markova olitics o! 7anguage. New York:Basic andK.Foppa

(eds), A symmetries inBooks. Dialogue. T"e Dynamics o! Dialogue

Lauren,P.G. (1988). ower and rejudice. (pp. 75-100). n.d. Barnes

and NobleT"e olitics and Diplomacy o! /acial Books/BowmanandLittlefield Discrimination. Boulder, CO: Westview Publishers:

Harvester Wheatsheaf. Press. Lukes,S.(ed.) (1986). ower.

Oxford:

Lavandera,B.R., Garcia Negroni,M. M., Blackwell.

Lopez OcOn, M., Luis,C. R., Martin Rojo,L.(1994). Jargonof

Menendez,S.M., Pardo,M. L., Raiter, delinquents and the studyof

A.G., and Zoppi–Fontana, M.(1986). conversational dynamics. =ournal o!

Analisis sociolingilistico deldiscurso ragmatics& 21(3),243-89.

politico.Cuadernos del ;nstitute de Martin Rojo,L.and van Dijk, T.

A. (1997). 7ingiiistica& (#($. Buenos Aires: "There wasa

problem, andit wasInstitutodeLingiiistica,Universidad solved!"

Legitimatingtheexpulsionofde Buenos Aires.

"illegal" immigrantsin Spanish


34/38


parliamentary discourse. Discourse and Pardo,M. L.(1996). Derec"o y

lingilistica: 1ociety& B#0$&523-67. Como se ju5ga

con palabras #7aw and

Mercer,N.(1995).T"e )uided Construction 7inguistics: 6ow to =udge

wit" se and A buse o!

7anguage vidence inSage. t"e

Court /oom. Oxford:Blackwell.O'Barr, W.M., Conley, J.M., and Lind, A. Sierra, M. T.(1992). Discurso& cultura y

(1978). The powerof language: poder. l ejercio de la

autoridad en lospresentational styleinthecourtroom. pueblos

"!iet"ii!is del D alle del Me5*uital. Duke 7aw =ournal& 14, 266-79.

#Discourse& Culture and ower. T"e


35/38


36/38

370 Teun A . van Dijk

Smith, D.E.(1991). Writing women's van Dijk, T. A.(1993b).

Principlesofexperience into socialscience. critical

discourse analysis. Discourse 2eminism and syc"ology& (#($& 155-69.

and 1ociety 0#'$& 249-83.

Tannen, D. (1994a).)ender and Discourse. van Dijk, T. A.(1996). Discourse,power

New York: Oxford UniversityPress. and access.InR. C.Caldas-

Coulthard

Tannen, D. (1994b).Talking ! rom E to @. andM.Coulthard (eds),

Texts and 6ow


37/38

/eproduction o! /acism in 1ocial 1cience Williams, J.(ed.) (1995). PC Wars.

olitics Textbooks$. Amsterdam:Socialistische and T"eory in t"e A

cademy. New York:Uitgeverij Amsterdam.

Routledge and KeganPaul.

van Dijk, T. A.(1988a). ?ews as Discourse. Willis,P.(1977). 7earning to 7abour: 6ow

Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.


38/38


Wodak,R.(1985). The interaction between Wodak, R. (1997).)ender and Discourse.

judge and defendant.In T. A. vanDijk London:Sage.

(ed.), 6andbook o! Discourse A nalysis. Wodak,R.and vanDijk, T. A. (eds)

ol. 0. Discourse A nalysis in 1ociety (2000). /acism at t"e Top.

Klagenfurt:(pp. 181-91). London: AcademicPress. Drava Verlag.

Wodak,R.(1987). "And whereis the Wrong,D. H.(1979). ower: ;ts

2orms&Lebanon?" A socio—psycholinguistic 3ases and >ses.

Oxford:Blackwell.investigationofcomprehensionand

Zimmermann,H. D.(1969). Die politisc"eintelligibilityof news.Text& #0$&

377— /ede. Der 1prac"gebrauc" 3onner

410. olitiker. #olitical 1peec". 7anguage

Wodak,R.(1996). Disorders o! Discourse. use o! 3onn8s oliticians$.

Stuttgart:London:Longman. Kohlhammer.

Critical discourse analysis.docx

Documents

Transcript of Critical discourse analysis.docx