Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical discourse analysis (often abbrieviated to CDA) provides theories and methods for the empirical study of the relations between discourse and social and cultural developments in different social domains. Confusingly, the label ‘critical discourse analysis’ is used in two different ways: Norman Fairclough (1995a, 1995b) uses it both to describe the approach that he has developed and as the label for a broader movement within discourse analysis of which several approaches, including his own, are part (Fairclough and Wodak 1997).

F I V E C O M M O N F E AT U R E S Among the different approaches to CDA, five common features can be identified. It is these that make it possible to categorize the approaches as belonging to the same movement. In the following account we draw on Fairclough and Wodak’s overview (1997: 271ff.).

1. T h e C h a r a c t e r o f S o c i a l a n d C u l t u r a l P r o c e s s e s a n d S t r u c t u r e s i s P a r t l y L i n g u i s t i c - D i s c u r s i v e 2 . D i s c o u r s e i s B o t h C o n s t i t u t i v e a n d C o n s t i t u t e d 3 . L a n g u a g e u s e s h o u l d b e E m p i r i c a l l y A n a l y s e d w i t h i n i t s S o c i a l C o n t e x t 4 . D i s c o u r s e F u n c t i o n s I d e o l o g i c a l l y

T h e C h a r a c t e r o f S o c i a l a n d C u l t u r a l P r o c e s s e s a n d S t r u c t u r e s i s P a r t l y L i n g u i s t i c - D i s c u r s i v e Discursive practices – through which texts are produced (created) and consumed (received and interpreted) – are viewed as an important form of social practice which contributes to the constitution of the social world including social identities and social relations. It is partly through discursive practices in everyday life (processes of text production and consumption) that social and cultural reproduction and change take place. It follows that some societal phenomena are not of a linguistic discursive character. The aim of critical discourse analysis is to shed light on the linguistic discursive dimension of social and cultural phenomena and processes of change in late modernity.

D i s c o u r s e i s B o t h C o n s t i t u t i v e a n d C o n s t i t u t e d For critical discourse analysts, discourse is a form of social practice which both constitutes the social world and is constituted by other social practices. As social practice, discourse is in a dialectical relationship with other social dimensions. It does not just contribute to the shaping and reshaping of social structures but also reflects them.

Fairclough (1992b) points to the family as an example of how the social structure influences discursive practices. The relationship between parents and children is partly discursively constituted, he says, but, at the same time, the family is an institution with concrete practices, pre-existing relationships and identities. These practices, relationships and identities were originally discursively constituted, but have become sedimented in institutions and non-discursive practices.

3 . L a n g u a g e u s e s h o u l d b e E m p i r i c a l l y A n a l y s e d w i t h i n i t s S o c i a l C o n t e x t Critical discourse analysis engages in concrete, linguistic textual analysis of language use in social interaction. This distinguishes it from both Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory which does not carry out systematic, empirical studies of language use, and from discursive psychology which carries out rhetorical but not linguistic studies of language use (see Figure 1.2). The example presented in the final part of this chapter demonstrates how textual analysis is carried out in critical discourse analysis.

4 . D i s c o u r s e F u n c t i o n s I d e o l o g i c a l l y In critical discourse analysis, it is claimed that discursive practices contribute to the creation and reproduction of unequal power relations between social groups – for example, between social classes, women and men, ethnic minorities and the majority. These effects are understood as ideological effects. Critical discourse analysis is ‘critical’ in the sense that it aims to reveal the role of discursive practice in the maintenance of the social world, including those social relations that involve unequal relations of power.

5 . C r i t i c a l R e s e a r c h Critical discourse analysis does not, therefore, understand itself as politically neutral (as objectivist social science does), but as a critical approach which is politically committed to social change. In the name of emancipation, critical discourse analytical approaches take the side of oppressed social groups. Critique aims to uncover the role of discursive practice in the maintenance of unequal power relations, with the overall goal of harnessing the results of critical discourse analysis to the struggle for radical social change.2 Fairclough’s interest in ‘explanatory critique’ and ‘critical language awareness’, to which we will return, is directed towards the achievement of this goal.

D i f f e r e n c e s B e t w e e n t h e A p p ro a c h e s Beyond the identification of these five common features, however, there are large differences between the critical discourse analytical approaches with respect to their theoretical understanding of discourse, ideology and the historical perspective, and also with respect to their methods for the empirical study of language use in social interaction and its ideological effects.