NNAMDI AZIKIWE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SEMINAR PRESENTATION ON CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
GROUP 8
COURSE CODE: ENG 333
COURSE TITLE: DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
LECTURER: DR.MICHAEL UYANNE
MARCH, 2023.
GROUP 8
2021024157 Nwafor Faith Onyinye
2021024158 Chukwuemeka Chinaza Favour
2021024159 Ekeh Chioma Favour
2021024160 Ugbaja Francis Nzubechukwu
2021024162 Oforjua Lucy Onyinye
2021024163 Onyenyiri Glory Chikammara
2021024166 Fidelis Chinonye AnnNwachukwu
2021024168 Joseph Kindness Daberechi
2021024171 Julius Prisca Chigozirim
2022024180 Anthony Blessing Ijeoma
2022024211 Ejindu Success Amarachi
2022024201 Onyeagolu Jude Tochukwu
2020024167 Nwokoye Somtochukwu Blessing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• Abstract
• The concept of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
• Key scholars of CDA
• Key concepts in CDA
• How to conduct Critical Discourse Analysis
• Principles of approach to CDA
• How CDA is different from other methods of analysis
• Conclusion
• References.
 ABSTRACT
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a research approach that focuses on examining the
underlying power dynamics, ideologies, and social structures embedded within written or spoken
texts. By combining elements of linguistics, semiotics, and social theory, CDA seeks to uncover
how language is used to shape and reinforce unequal power relations in society. This work is an
attempt to discuss the key concepts, theorists, and methods used in CDA, the basic principles of
approach to the concept.
CONCEPT OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse that
views language as a form of social practice. CDA combines critique of discourse and explanation
of how it figures within and contributes to the existing social reality, as a basis for action to
change that existing reality in particular respects. Scholars working in the tradition of CDA
generally argue that (non-linguistic) social practice and linguistic practice constitute one another
and focus on investigating how societal power relations are established and reinforced through
language use. In this sense, it differs from discourse analysis in that it highlights issues of power
asymmetries, manipulation, exploitation, and structural inequities in domains such as education,
media, and politics. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an analytical approach that focuses
mainly on how power is exercised through language use in social and political contexts.
Critical discourse analysis emerged from 'critical linguistics' developed at the University of East
Anglia by Roger Fowler and fellow scholars in the 1970s, and the terms are now often
interchangeable. Research in the field of sociolinguistics was paying little attention to social
hierarchy and power. CDA was first developed by the Lancaster school of linguists of which
Norman Fairclough was the most prominent figure. Ruth Wodak has also made a major
contribution to this field of study. In addition to linguistic theory, the approach draws from social
theory—and contributions from Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Jürgen Habermas,
Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu—in order to examine ideologies and power relations
involved in discourse. 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. Ideology has been
called the basis of the social representations of groups, and, in psychological versions of CDA
developed by Teun A. van Dijk and Ruth Wodak, there is assumed to be a sociocognitive interface
between social structures and discourse structures. The historical dimension in critical discourse
studies also plays an important role. CDA is an application of discourse analysis; it is generally
agreed that methods from discourse studies, the humanities and social sciences may be used in
CDA research. This is on the condition that it is able to adequately and relevantly produce insights
into the way discourse reproduces (or resists) social and political inequality, power abuse or
domination. Examples of power being used by mainstream media have been identified in the work
of Stephen Teo in Australia where he found numerous examples of racism in crime reports of
Vietnamese youth. He describes the use of headlines used to control the opinions of readers to see
and read about crime using what David Altheide calls fear discourse. CDA does not limit its
analysis to specific structures of text or talk, but systematically relates these to structures of the
sociopolitical context. This was further examined by Pamela D Schulz in her book linking Media
reporting of Courts in Australia and in western democracies. Her book "Courts and Judges on
Trial: Analysing and Managing Discourses of Disapproval" showed a strong connection between
political manipulation of media to encourage "tougher sentencing" while at the same time
refraining from changing legislation to ensure that it happens. CDA has been used to examine
rhetoric in political speech acts, and any forms of speech that may be used to manipulate the
impression given to the audience. However, there have been flaws noted with CDA. For example,
it has been said that it is simultaneously too broad to distinctly identify manipulations within the
rhetoric, yet is also not powerful enough to appropriately find all that researchers set out to
establish.
KEY SCHOLARS OF CDA
There are various scholars who have contributed to the development of CDA. Some of them
include:
Norman Fairclough
Norman Fairclough is a renowned linguist and critical discourse analyst who has made significant
contributions to the field of CDA. His work has been influential in shaping the theoretical
foundations and methodological approaches within CDA. He has proposed a three-dimensional
framework for analyzing discourse, which includes analyzing the textual, discursive practice, and
sociocultural dimensions. His work often focuses on the analysis of political discourse and the
construction of power relations. One of his notable works is "Discourse and Social Change," he
argues that discourse plays a crucial role in shaping and reflecting social change, as it both reflects
and contributes to the construction of social identities, power relations, and social practices.
Fairclough's three-dimensional framework for analyzing discourse, which includes the textual
dimension, the discursive practice dimension, and the sociocultural dimension. Fairclough
emphasizes the importance of analyzing discourse within its broader sociocultural context and
examines how language is used to construct and maintain social inequalities and power structures.
One significant aspect of "Discourse and Social Change" is its focus on the relationship between
discourse and ideology. Fairclough argues that discourse is intertwined with ideologies and that it
plays a role in reproducing or transforming dominant ideologies. He demonstrates how discursive
practices can reinforce or challenge existing power relations, and how social change can be
facilitated through transformative discursive practices.

Teun A. van Dijk

Van Dijk is another influential figure in CDA and has made substantial contributions to the field.
His work emphasizes the role of social cognition in discourse analysis and highlights the ways in
which discourse reflects and reinforces social inequalities. He has analyzed various forms of
discourse, including media discourse, political discourse, and racism. One of his notable works is
"Discourse and Power," where he explores the role of discourse in the reproduction of power
structures. Van Dijk examines various dimensions of power as they manifest in discourse. He
explores how power is exercised through language choices, rhetorical strategies, and discursive
practices. He also investigates how power operates at different levels of discourse, ranging from
micro-level interactions to macro-level social and political structures.He demonstrates how
language is employed to legitimize inequality, reinforce dominant ideologies, and shape public
opinion.

Ruth Wodak
Wodak is known for her research on the discourse of identity, racism, and discrimination. She has
examined how discourses of nationalism, populism, and xenophobia are constructed and
perpetuated. Her work often involves analyzing political speeches, media texts, and public
debates. One of her notable works is "The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses
Mean," where she investigates the discursive strategies used by right-wing populist movements.
She discusses the potential dangers of normalizing and legitimizing exclusionary narratives, as
well as the risks posed to pluralism, human rights, and social cohesion.Wodak's exploration begins
by examining the concept of populism and the rise of right-wing populist movements in various
parts of the world. She highlights the role of language and discourse in the success of these
movements, particularly their ability to tap into the fears and anxieties of the general public.
Wodak argues that fear is a crucial element in the populist discourse, as it helps to construct a
sense of threat, otherness, and crisis, which is then used to mobilize support and create a sense of
unity among followers.

Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak

Fairclough and Wodak collaborated on the development of a method called "Critical Discourse
Analysis and Discourse-Historical Approach." This approach combines the analysis of discourse
with a historical perspective, investigating how discourse changes over time and the role of
historical events and social structures in shaping discourse. They have applied this approach to
various domains, including politics, media, and social movements.
The Critical Discourse Analysis and Discourse-Historical Approach (CDA/DHA) developed by
Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak has several distinguishing characteristics that set it apart
from other methods in the field of discourse analysis.

KEY CONCEPTS OF CDA

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) encompasses various key concepts.
One important concept is the understanding of discourse as a social practice in which language
plays a central role, as emphasized in the post-structuralist paradigm of discourse analysis. CDA
also focuses on revealing social contradictions, conflicts, and fairness, as well as the constructive
role of discourse in the macro-social, cultural, and historical process. Another key concept is the
analysis of discursive structures and processes of revival and change in different fields, such as
religion. CDA also examines the use of power, inequality, and dominance behind words, as seen in
the analysis of linguistic features in texts. CDA can benefit from the theories and concepts of
public relations (PR), which offer analytic tools to interpret the discursive patterns and
management power use in CDA projects . Overall, CDA encompasses concepts related to social
practice, social contradictions, power dynamics, and the analysis of discursive structures and
processes.
Here are some of the key concepts of CDA according to Wodak:
Power and Ideology: CDA examines how discourse reflects and perpetuates power relations and
ideological structures within society. It explores how language is used to exert influence, maintain
dominance, and justify unequal power distributions.
Interdiscursivity: Interdiscursivity refers to the interconnectedness of different discourses within
society. CDA analyzes how discourses from various domains (e.g., politics, media, education)
influence and shape one another, contributing to the construction and dissemination of ideologies.
Historical Context: CDA emphasizes the importance of historical context in understanding
discourse. It examines how language use is shaped by historical events, social structures, and
cultural norms, and how past discourses continue to influence contemporary discourse practices.
Social Practices: Discourse is seen as a form of social practice, embedded within broader social,
cultural, and institutional contexts. CDA examines how discourse is produced, circulated, and
interpreted by individuals and groups within specific social settings.
Critical Reflexivity: CDA encourages critical reflexivity, urging researchers to reflect on their own
positions, biases, and assumptions. It emphasizes the importance of reflexivity in conducting
analyses that are sensitive to power dynamics and social inequalities.
Discursive Strategies: CDA analyzes the discursive strategies employed by individuals and
institutions to achieve specific communicative goals. This includes examining linguistic features
such as lexical choices, rhetorical devices, and framing techniques used to construct and convey
meaning.
Social Change: CDA seeks to contribute to social change by uncovering and challenging dominant
discourses that perpetuate inequality, discrimination, and injustice. It aims to empower
marginalized groups and promote more inclusive and democratic forms of discourse.
These key concepts provide a theoretical foundation for conducting critical analyses of discourse
in diverse social, political, and cultural contexts. They enable researchers to uncover underlying
power structures, ideologies, and social practices that shape the way language is used and
interpreted in society.

HOW TO CONDUCT CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Critical Discourse Analysis is a complex and nuanced methodology. It requires a deep
understanding of social theories, linguistics, and the specific context under investigation. Here is a
general guide on how to conduct Critical Discourse Analysis:
1. Select a Discourse: Choose a specific discourse or text that you want to analyze. It could be a
newspaper article, political speech, advertisement, or any other form of communication.
2. Identify the Research Questions: Determine the research questions you want to explore. These
questions should focus on power relations, ideologies, and social structures embedded in the
discourse. For example, you might ask: How does the discourse construct gender roles? What are
the underlying assumptions about social class?
3. Collect Data: Gather the relevant texts or discourses that you will analyze. Depending on your
research goals, you may need to collect a range of texts that represent different perspectives or
sources of power.
4. Analyze the Texts: Begin by conducting a close reading of the texts. Pay attention to the
linguistic features, such as vocabulary choices, metaphors, and rhetorical devices. Look for
patterns and recurring themes. Identify key discursive strategies employed in the texts.
5. Identify Ideologies and Power Relations: Examine the underlying ideologies and power
relations reflected in the texts. Consider the social, political, and cultural context in which the
discourse is produced. Analyze how the discourse constructs and reinforces power asymmetries.
6. Interpret and Critique: Interpret the findings of your analysis and critically evaluate the
discursive strategies employed. Examine the implications and consequences of the discourse on
social reality, power relations, and marginalized groups. Identify any potential contradictions or
inconsistencies within the discourse.
7. Provide Evidence: Support your analysis and interpretations with specific examples and
evidence from the texts. Quote relevant passages, highlight linguistic features, or refer to specific
discursive strategies that you have identified.
8. Write the Analysis: Structure your analysis in a clear and coherent manner. Provide an
introduction that explains the purpose and significance of the analysis. Present your findings and
interpretations, supported by evidence from the texts. Conclude with a critical evaluation and
reflection on the broader implications of the discourse.
9. Revise and Refine: Review your analysis and ensure that it is well-organized and coherent.
Revise and refine your arguments and interpretations as needed. Seek feedback from colleagues or
experts in the field to improve the quality of your analysis.

PRINCIPLES OF APPROACH TO CDA

There is a range of approaches to CDA. Among them we will outline those of three prominent
scholars. These are Fairclough, Van Dijk, and Wodak.
Fairclough’s Socio-Cultural Approach
Like the functional analysis of Halliday (1994, 2004, 2014), Fairclough‟s system of discourse
analysis
has three dimensions, since discourse is seen simultaneously as: (I) a text (spoken or written,
including visual images), (ii) a discourse practice production, consumption and distribution of the
text, and (iii) a socio cultural practice. Subsequently, Fairclough provides a three-dimensional
framework for the analysis of text and discourse:
(a) the linguistic description of the formal properties of the text;
(b) the interpretation of the relationship between the discursive processes/interaction and the text,
and finally,
(c) the explanation of the relationship between discourse and social and cultural reality.
According to Fairclough, there are some underlying assumptions behind certain selections of
discourse.
These assumptions are never value-free and innocent; rather they are ideologically driven and
motivated. Therefore, discursive practices may have ideological effects since they can produce and
reproduce unequal power relations between social classes, gender groups and ethnic and cultural
majorities and minorities through the ways they represent things and position people.
From this point of view, Fairclough (1989) argues that "the exercise of power, in modern society,
is increasingly achieved through ideology".
Drawing on the discourse-power-ideology relationship, he introduces the concept of hegemony
which he defines as "a way of theorizing change in relation to the evolution of power relations
which allows a particular focus upon discursive change, but at the same time a way of seeing it as
contributing to and being shaped by wider processes of change" (Fairclough, 1993:92 cited in
Jahedi et al, 2014:30). For him, "the political concept of „hegemony‟ can be usefully employed in
analysing orders of discourse" (Fairclough, 2001, p.124). He then states that "an order of discourse
is a network of social practices in its language aspect. The elements of orders of discourse are not
things like nouns and sentences (elements of linguistic structures), but discourses, genres and
styles" (Fairclough, 2003, p.24).
He further contends that orders of discourse are not static, but may change over time. Changing
the power relations in a social interaction determines these changes.
Fairclough then asserts that: How discourses are structured in a given order of discourse, and how
structuring change over time, are determined by changing relationships of power at the level of the
social institution or of the society. Power at these levels includes the capacity to control orders of
discourse; one aspect of such control is ideological-ensuring that orders of discourse are
ideologically harmonized internally or (at the societal level) with each other (Fairclough, 2001,
p.25).
Van Dijk’s Socio-Cognitive Approach
In accordance with Fairclough‟s critical approach, the socio-cognitive approach put forth by Van
Dijk perceives discourse as a form of social practice.
However, it does not focus on discursive practice.
Van Dijk rather concentrates on social cognition as the mediating part between text and society.
He claims that CDA needs to account for the various forms of social cognitions that are shared by
the social collectivity (groups, organizations and institutions) (Van Dijk, 2001).
Social cognitions, he states, are "socially shared representations of societal arrangements, groups
and relations, as well as mental operations such as interpretation, thinking and arguing,
inferencing and learning" (Van Dijk, 1993, p.257).
Van Dijk further identifies two levels of (discourse) analysis: macro vs. micro.
Language use, discourse, verbal interaction and communication determine the micro level of
social order, while the macro level refers to power, dominance and inequality between social
groups (Van Dijk, 2003).
Moreover, the approach of CDA Van Dijk (2000a, cited in Jahedi et al, 2014) adopts is based on
understanding ideological structures and social relations of power embedded in discourse.
He defines “social power” in terms of control (Van Dijk, 2003) and views ideologies as "the
basis of the social representations of groups" (Van Dijk, 2006:131).
He therefore argues that "groups have (more or less) power if they are able to (more or less)
control the acts and minds of (members of) other groups" (Van Dijk, 2003:354-5).
Furthermore, he emphasizes that ideological discourse is generally organized by a general strategy
of positive self-presentation (boasting) and negative other-presentation (derogation)
(ibid).
In sum, Van Dijk claims that CDA should not limit itself to a study of the relationship between
discourse and social structure, but that language use and discourse always presuppose the
intervening mental models, goals and general social representations (knowledge, attitudes,
ideologies, norms, values) of the language users.
In other words, the study of discourse triangulates between society/culture/situation, cognition
and discourse/language. This is the tripartite discourse-cognitive society model of ideology that
backs up Van Dijk‟s socio-cognitive approach.
As is obvious from most of Van Dijk‟s studies, his critical analysis of texts tends to make explicit
the ideological
dimension of “Us” versus “Them” and to demonstrate the discursive structures and
strategies used in exercising the dominant power.
How do we then analyse a discourse?
Transitivity: what patterns of transitivity are found? Who is depicted as Agent (and therefore
empowered), and over whom (the affected)?
What is the degree of nominalization? How does it background the process itself by omitting
information about agents of power? Do passive verbs
also delete agents of power? What is the ideological function?
Mood and Modality: How is mood enacted? Declarative, imperative, or interrogative? Which
values express choices of modality?
Vocabulary: How are words used to show ideology? What aspects of reality are over worded?
How are over wording, synonymy, antonym and hyponymy used to construct ideology? Are there
euphemisms or metaphors? What connotations do they convey?
Interactional control features: Which are the interactional control features of the text? Turn taking?
Control of topics? Topic change? Opening and closing of interactions?
Topicality: Which topics are chosen to fill theme position in the clause (initial position) or which
are foregrounded?
Presuppositions: Are there presuppositions or assumptions made by a speaker or writer which are
not explicitly stated and which the author appears to take for granted?
Vagueness: Which expressions are unclear because they do not give enough information or they
do not say exactly what they mean?
Implication: Which implicit information can be deduced or inferred from discourse on the basis of
pragmatic contexts?

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CDA AND OTHER METHODS OF ANALYSIS

Here are some key ways in which CDA/DHA differs from other approaches:
1. Integration of discourse analysis and historical perspective: CDA/DHA combines the analysis
of discourse with a historical perspective, emphasizing the importance of understanding how
discourse evolves and is shaped by historical events and social structures. This integration allows
for a deeper understanding of the socio-political context and the ways in which discourse both
reflects and influences historical processes.
2. Emphasis on power and ideology: CDA/DHA places a strong emphasis on the analysis of power
relations and ideologies embedded in discourse. It aims to uncover how language is used to
legitimize and reproduce power structures, construct social identities, and perpetuate social
inequalities. This focus on power and ideology sets CDA/DHA apart from approaches that
primarily analyze linguistic structures or stylistic features of discourse.
3. Critical perspective: CDA/DHA is rooted in a critical perspective, aiming to challenge dominant
discourses and uncover hidden forms of power and inequality. It seeks to go beyond surface-level
interpretations of discourse and delve into the underlying social and political structures that shape
it. This critical stance sets CDA/DHA apart from more descriptive or neutral approaches to
discourse analysis.
4. Multimodal analysis: CDA/DHA recognizes the importance of analyzing not only written texts
but also other forms of communication, such as images, gestures, and non-verbal cues. It
acknowledges that meaning is constructed through multiple modes and that these modes interact
in complex ways. This multimodal approach distinguishes CDA/DHA from other Analysis
 CONCLUSION
Critical discourse analysis is a broad and complex field that draws from many disciplines and
approaches. The scholars who have developed this field have done so with the goal of uncovering
the power dynamics and ideologies that are embedded in language. Critical discourse analysis is a
method that can be used to analyze texts and conversations from a variety of sources, including
political speeches, advertising, and academic writing. The basic principles of critical discourse
analysis involve examining the language used to produce and reproduce power relations, as well
as the ways in which language can be used to challenge and resist these power relations. While
there are many similarities between critical discourse analysis and other approache such as critical
theory and discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis is distinct in its focus on language and its
commitment to social change. This approach has the potential to uncover hidden meanings and
power dynamics in a wide range of texts, and can be used to promote social justice and equity. In
the future, it is likely that critical discourse analysis will continue to evolve and expand its scope,
as new technologies and methods are developed and more scholars and activists engage with this
field.

REFERENCES
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Discourse and Power. London: Sage.
Wodak, R. (2017). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse Studies: A
Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 357-373). London: Sage.
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourse-analysis/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_discourse_analysis
International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL) Volum e 6 ,
ISSN 2347 http:// Issue 1, January 2018, PP 1 3126 (Print) & ISSN 234711 8 3134 (Online)
dx.doi.org/10.20431/2347 www.arcjournals.org3134.0601 002