Introduction of critical discourse analysis, key concepts, brief historical background to the field.

1. Introducing CDA
by Ghada M. Ahmad

2. Agenda  Definitions and Key Concepts
 A Brief Hitsorical Background
 Main Approaches to CDA
 Tool-kits for CDA
 Criticism of CDA
2
Critical discourse analysis
in a nutshell

3. Definitions and Concepts
What is critical discourse analysis?
3

4. Definitions
and
Concepts
▪ Critical discourse analysis has its roots in critical linguistics,
which, according to Teo (2000), is a branch of discourse that
goes beyond the description of discourse, explaining how and
why particular discourses are produced.
▪ Wodak (2001) explains that both terms Critical Linguistics (CL)
and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are often used
interchangeably. However, CDA seems to have recently been
preferred to denote the theory that CL used to denote
previously2.
▪ There is no single view of what critical discourse analysis is, so it
is difficult to present a complete, unified view on this3.
4

5. Definitions
and
Concepts
▪ However, the following principles of CDA presented by
Fairclough and Wodak (1997) underlying many studies
done in this area can bring light into understanding
CDA:
• Discourse constructs & reflects social and political issues;
• power relations are negotiated and performed through
discourse;
• social relations are reflected and reproduced in discourse;
• ideologies are produced and reflected in the use of
discourse1.
▪ Therefore, Language is used to convey underlying ideologies, as
a form of social control, i.e. language is manipulative; and it is the
role of critical linguistics to unveil the ideological structures
embodied in text and talk.
5

6. 6
History
Power
Ideology
CDA
Definitions
and
Concepts

7. A Brief Historical Background
How CDA started
7

8. A Brief
Historical
Background
▪ Flowerdew (2008: 195) observes that the movement of
CL was developed in East Anglia during the 1970s by a
number of scholars led by Fowler 1.
▪ The scholars, who included other names such as Kress,
Hodge and Trew, were concerned to develop a social
approach to linguistics which recognized power
relationships as a central theoretical issue and text as its
main unit of analysis (Kress 1989).
▪ According to Wodak (2001: 4), CDA emerged and has
developed since the early 1990s, following a small
symposium in Amsterdam, with the help of the
University of Amsterdam 2.
8

9. A Brief
Historical
Background
▪ A group of CDA scholars including Teun van Dijk,
Norman Fairclough, Gunther Kress, Theo van Leeuwen
and Ruth Wodak exchanged views and discussed
different approaches on CDA for two days.
▪ Each of these pioneers of the field has left his/her mark
on CDA by journals, studies and books, each of which
has introduced new approaches and concepts in CDA
that have contributed to establishing CDA as a
‘paradigm in linguistics’ 1.
9

10. Main Approaches to CDA
Big names in the field & their approaches
10

11. Main
Approaches
These may be identified as the main approaches of CDA 1 :
▪ Critical Linguistics (CL) pioneered by Roger Fowler
(1981);
▪ Sociocultural (connecting people to society) Norman
Fairclough;
▪ Socio cognitive approach led by Teun A. Van Dijk;
▪ Discourse-Historical approach pioneered by Ruth
Wodak.
▪ CL (East Anglia school late 1970s), whose analytic
methodology is based on Halliday’s Systemic Functional
Grammar.
11

12. Tool-kits for CDA
How to do CDA
12

13. Tool-kits for
CDA
▪ Various practitioners have presented ‘toolkits’ for doing
CDA 1.
▪ Although the term does not sound scientific, but it fits its
use and purposes.
▪ Fairclough, Van Dijk et. Al presented examples of these
tool-kits. Of these lists, here is a sample of Van Dijk’s
checklist:
▪ The last three items, turn taking; repairs and hesitation,
are to do with spoken discourse.
13
• Word order
• Lexical style
• Coherence
• Topic choice
• Speech acts
• Rhetorical figures
• Syntactic structures
• Turn takings
• Repairs
• Hesitation.

14. Criticism of CDA
Why are critical linguistics criticised?
14

15. Criticism of
CDA
▪ Discussing which direction CDA might take in the
future, Flowerdew (2008: 203) highlight Toolan’s (2002:
230) claim that “because of too much theory and global
contextualization, CDA practitioners have a tendency to
make their analyses too complex.” 1
▪ Flowerdew clarifies two reasons why CDA could be
seen as difficult: analysis can be too difficult to
comprehend, because it is too complex, or it may focus
on texts which do not require deconstruction, because
they are so obvious in their prejudices.
▪ He suggests developing more systematic frameworks
for analysis, which could take the form of SFL or follows
a model such as Brown and Levinson's model for
politeness.
15

16. Criticism of
CDA
▪ Nevertheless, Flowerdew makes clear, there seems to
be no solution to the division between sophistication as
apposed to simplicity in analysis, unless (as van Dijk
explains), by the use of diverse approaches.1
▪ Another aspect of criticism against CDA is that it
‘critisises’. In response to this, Martin (1999), has
suggested ‘PDA’, or Positive Discourse Analysis, as a
possible development (p.204).
▪ This approach analyses a positive style of discourse
analysis that focuses on hope and change, by
complementing the deconstructive exposé associated
with critical discourse analysis.
16

17. Criticism of
CDA
▪ One danger of proposals such as PDA, Flowerdew
clarifies, would be that of the enterprise turning into a
form of propaganda on behalf of the status quo.
▪ Another argument against PDA is that it sets up a false
opposition with CDA. The term ‘critical’ incorporates
both positive and negative, deconstruction and
construction. One might argue, therefore, that CDA
already incorporates a positive element, in arguing for a
better world.
17

18. Thank you 👍
Remember that to criticise does not mean to be deconstructive. Criticism could be
constructive ONLY if you learn how to make it so by your discourse 😉
18