Critical Discourse Analysis: Wodak and Meyer




Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology1
Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer


CDA – What is it all about? 1 A brief history of the ‘CDA Group’ 3 The common ground: discourse, critique, power and ideology 4 Main research agenda and challenges 11 Differences and similarities – beyond the social dimension 19 Methodology 23 Summary and criticism 32
CDA – What is it all about?
In this chapter, we first provide a brief ‘story’ – how it all began; then we pre- sent an overview of some important research agendas in CDA and discuss new challenges for CDA research. Secondly, we discuss the various theoretical and methodological approaches assembled in this volume from a sociological and epistemological perspective.2 There, we focus mostly on three central and con- stitutive concepts: power, ideology and critique. We also, of course, summarize some of the salient principles which are constitutive of all approaches in CDA. In addition, we mention some important criticism which CDA has been con- fronted with in the past years (see Billig, 2003, 2008; Chilton, 2007; Chilton and Wodak, 2007;Wodak and Cillia, 2006 for an extensive discussion of this issue).
The terms Critical Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are often used interchangeably. In fact, recently, the term CDA seems to have been preferred and is being used to denote the theory formerly identified as CL.Therefore, we will continue to use CDA exclusively here (see Anthonissen, 2001; Chilton and Wodak, 2007 for an extensive discussion of these terms and their history). The manifold roots of CDA lie in Rhetoric, Text linguistics, Anthropology, Philosophy, Socio-Psychology, Cognitive Science, Literary Studies and Sociolinguistics, as well as in Applied Linguistics and Pragmatics.
page1image19672
page1image20376
page1image20648
page1image20920
page1image21192
page1image21464
page1image21736
page1image22008
page1image22280
page1image22552
page1image22824
page1image23096
page1image23368
page1image23640
page1image23912
page1image24184
page1image24456
page1image24728
page1image25000
page1image25272
page1image25544
page1image25816
page1image26088
page1image26360
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 1
page1image27552
page1image27976
page2image1544
page2image1816
page2image2088
page2image2360
page2image2632
page2image2904
2 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Nowadays, some scholars prefer the term Critical Discourse Studies (CDS). For example,Teun van Dijk provides us with a broad overview of the field of (C)DS, where one can identify the following developments: between the mid-1960s and the early 1970s, new, closely related disciplines emerged in the humanities and the social sciences. Despite their different disciplinary backgrounds and a great diver- sity of methods and objects of investigation, some parts of the new fields/paradigms/linguistic sub-disciplines of semiotics, pragmatics, psycho- and sociolinguistics, ethnography of speaking, conversation analysis and discourse studies all deal with discourse and have at least seven dimensions in common (see Van Dijk, 2007a;Wodak, 2008a):
  • an interest in the properties of ‘naturally occurring’ language use by real language users (instead of a study of abstract language systems and invented examples)
  • a focus on larger units than isolated words and sentences and, hence, new basic units of analysis: texts, discourses, conversations, speech acts, or communicative events
  • the extension of linguistics beyond sentence grammar towards a study of action and
    interaction
  • the extension to non-verbal (semiotic, multimodal, visual) aspects of interaction and
    communication: gestures, images, film, the internet, and multimedia
  • a focus on dynamic (socio)-cognitive or interactional moves and strategies
  • the study of the functions of (social, cultural, situative and cognitive) contexts of
    language use
  • an analysis of a vast number of phenomena of text grammar and language use: coher-
    ence, anaphora, topics, macrostructures, speech acts, interactions, turn-taking, signs, politeness, argumentation, rhetoric, mental models, and many other aspects of text and discourse.
    The significant difference between DS and CDS (or CDA) lies in the constitutive problem-oriented, interdisciplinary approach of the latter, apart from endorsing all of the above points. CDA is therefore not interested in investigating a linguistic unit per se but in studying social phenomena which are necessarily complex and thus require a multi- disciplinary and multi-methodical approach. The objects under investigation do not have to be related to negative or exceptionally ‘serious’ social or political expe- riences or events – this is a frequent misunderstanding of the aims and goals of CDA and of the term ‘critical’ which, of course, does not mean ‘negative’ as in common-sense usage (see below).Any social phenomenon lends itself to critical investigation, to be challenged and not taken for granted.We will return to this important point and other common misunderstandings of CDA below.
    We would also like to emphasize right at the beginning of this volume that it is obvious that the notions of text and discourse have been subject to a hugely proliferating number of usages in the social sciences.Almost no paper or arti- cle is to be found which does not revisit these notions, quoting Michel Foucault, Jürgen Habermas, Chantal Mouffe, Ernesto Laclau, Niklas Luhmann, or many others.Thus, discourse means anything from a historical monument, a
page2image28560
page2image29096
page2image29368
page2image29640
page2image29912
page2image30184
page2image30456
page2image30728
page2image31000
page2image31272
page2image31544
page2image31816
page2image32088
page2image32360
page2image32632
page2image32904
page2image33176
page2image33448
page2image33720
page2image33992
page2image34264
page2image34536
page2image34808
page2image35080
page2image35352
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 2
page2image36544
page2image36968
page3image1544
page3image1816
page3image2088
page3image2360
page3image2632
page3image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 3
lieu de mémoire, a policy, a political strategy, narratives in a restricted or broad sense of the term, text, talk, a speech, topic-related conversations, to language per se. We find notions such as racist discourse, gendered discourse, discourses on un/employment, media discourse, populist discourse, discourses of the past, and many more – thus stretching the meaning of discourse from a genre to a register or style, from a building to a political programme.This causes and must cause confusion – which leads to much criticism and more misunderstandings (Blommaert, 2005; Reisigl, 2007; Wodak, 2008a; Wodak and deCillia, 2006). This is why each contributor to this volume was asked to define their use of the term integrated in their specific approach.
A brief history of the ‘CDA Group’
The CDA as a network of scholars emerged in the early 1990s, following a small symposium in Amsterdam, in January 1991.Through the support of the University of Amsterdam,Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Gunther Kress, Theo van Leeuwen and Ruth Wodak spent two days together, and had the wonderful opportunity to discuss theories and methods of Discourse Analysis, specifically CDA.The meeting made it possible to confront with each other the very distinct and different approaches, which have, of course, changed sig- nificantly since 1991 but remain relevant, in many respects. In this process of group formation, the differences and sameness were laid out: differences with regard to other theories and methodologies in Discourse Analysis (see Renkema, 2004;Titscher et al., 2000;Wetherell et al., 2001;Wodak, 2008a) and sameness in a programmatic way, both of which frame the range of theoretical approaches (Wodak, 2004). In the meantime, for example, some of the schol- ars previously aligned with CDA have chosen other theoretical frameworks and have distanced themselves from CDA (such as Gunther Kress and Ron Scollon); on the other hand, new approaches have been created which fre- quently find innovative ways of integrating the more traditional theories or of elaborating them (see below).
In general, CDA as a school or paradigm is characterized by a number of principles: for example, all approaches are problem-oriented, and thus necessar- ily interdisciplinary and eclectic (see below). Moreover, CDA is characterized by the common interests in de-mystifying ideologies and power through the sys- tematic and retroductable investigation of semiotic data (written, spoken or visual). CDA researchers also attempt to make their own positions and inter- ests explicit while retaining their respective scientific methodologies and while remaining self-reflective of their own research process.
The start of the CDA network was marked by the launch ofVan Dijk’s journal Discourse and Society (1990), as well as by several books which were coincidentally (or because of a Zeitgeist) published simultaneously and led by similar research
page3image26424
page3image26960
page3image27232
page3image27504
page3image27776
page3image28048
page3image28320
page3image28592
page3image28864
page3image29136
page3image29408
page3image29680
page3image29952
page3image30224
page3image30496
page3image30768
page3image31040
page3image31312
page3image31584
page3image31856
page3image32128
page3image32400
page3image32672
page3image32944
page3image33216
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 3
page3image34408
page3image34832
page4image1544
page4image1816
page4image2088
page4image2360
page4image2632
page4image2904
4 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
goals.3 The Amsterdam meeting determined an institutional start, an attempt both to constitute an exchange programme (ERASMUS for three years)4, as well as joint projects and collaborations between scholars of different countries, and a special issue of Discourse and Society (1993), which presented the above-mentioned approaches. Since then, new journals have been created, multiple overviews have been written, and nowadays CDA is an established paradigm in Linguistics; cur- rently, we encounter Critical Discourse Studies,The Journal of Language and Politics, Discourse and Communication and Visual Semiotics, among many other journals; we also find several e-journals which publish critical research, such as CADAAD. Book series have been launched (such as Discourse Approaches to Politics, Culture and Society), regular CDA meetings and conferences take place, and handbooks are under way. In sum, CDA (CDS) has become an established discipline, institution- alized across the globe in many departments and curricula.
The common ground: discourse, critique, power and ideology
When deconstructing the label of this research programme – we view CDA basically as a research programme, the reasons for which we will explain below – we necessarily have to define what CDA means when it employs the terms ‘critical’ and ‘discourse’. Michael Billig (2003) has clearly pointed to the fact that CDA has become an established academic discipline with the same rituals and institutional practices as all other academic disciplines. Ironically, he asks the question whether this might mean that CDA has become or might become ‘uncritical’ – or if the use of acronyms such as CDA might serve the same pur- poses as in other traditional, non-critical disciplines; namely to exclude out- siders and to mystify the functions and intentions of the research. Most recently, has Billig reiterated this question under a new umbrella: do scholars who employ CDA write in the same way mainly by using nominalizations extensively, like the many texts which they criticize ((Billig, 2008)?
The problem with talking about the unconscious, repression, mental representations, mirror-stages, etc., is that it is easy to assume that we have solved problems by discover- ing ‘things’.And the more we write about these ‘things’, the more we take their existence for granted. Analysts might have once understood these concepts semi-metaphorically, but soon they write about them literally. In my view, the cognitive psychology of ‘men- tal representations’, or the psychoanalysis of ‘the unconscious’ and ‘repression’, makes psy- chology too easy and too non-materialistic – too prone to accept that non-material entities provide the solution to the puzzles that, in effect, analysts are avoiding. And that is why I advocate that we should be examining nominalizing (not nominalization), rep- resenting (not representations), repressing (not repression) and so on.
Billig (2008) ends his quite provocative argument by stating:
[t]here is no reason for supposing that for academics, writing their academic articles, the active forms are psychologically primary. In my article and in this reply, I have struggled to resist the grammatical forms with which my fingers are so familiar. I have redrafted,
page4image28560
page4image29096
page4image29368
page4image29640
page4image29912
page4image30184
page4image30456
page4image30728
page4image31000
page4image31272
page4image31544
page4image31816
page4image32088
page4image32360
page4image32632
page4image32904
page4image33176
page4image33448
page4image33720
page4image33992
page4image34264
page4image34536
page4image34808
page4image35080
page4image35352
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 4
page4image36544
page4image36968
page5image1544
page5image1816
page5image2088
page5image2360
page5image2632
page5image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 5
often with a struggle, many sentences which spontaneously spilled out in the passive form. I have probably used the first person singular here more times than I have done in all the rest of my publications put together. And so now, I do not want to end by pro- moting a new label. To adapt a very famous phrase, the point is not to categorize lan- guage, but to change it.
We cannot follow Billig’s recommendations in detail or answer his questions in this chapter extensively. However, we believe that he points to potentially very fruitful and necessary debates for CDA. More specifically, Billig points to the danger which can befall any discipline (or school or group) when it becomes established and institutionalized after having been marginalized for a long time. Once established, he argues, one might forget the basic desiderata and become corrupted by the system – in our case, the Knowledge-based Economy (KBE) which influences all our lives in so many ways (Billig, 2003).
At this point, it is important to stress that CDA has never been and has never attempted to be or to provide one single or specific theory. Neither is one spe- cific methodology characteristic of research in CDA. Quite the contrary, stud- ies in CDA are multifarious, derived from quite different theoretical backgrounds, oriented towards different data and methodologies. Researchers in CDA also rely on a variety of grammatical approaches.The definitions of the terms ‘discourse’,‘critical’,‘ideology’,‘power’ and so on are also manifold.Thus, any criticism of CDA should always specify which research or researcher they relate to. Hence, we suggest using the notion of a ‘school’ for CDA, or of a pro- gramme, which many researchers find useful and to which they can relate.This programme or set of principles has, of course, changed over the years (see (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997;Wodak, 1996).
Such a heterogeneous school might be confusing for some; on the other hand, it allows for continuous debates, for changes in the aims and goals, and for innovation. In contrast to ‘total and closed’ theories, such as Chomsky’s Generative Transformational Grammar or Michael Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics, CDA has never had the image of a ‘sect’ and does not want to have such an image.This heterogeneity of methodological and the- oretical approaches that can be found in this field would tend to confirm van Dijk’s point that CDA and CL ‘are at most a shared perspective on doing linguistic, semiotic or discourse analysis’ (Van Dijk, 1993a: 131). Below, we summarize some of these principles, which are adhered to by most researchers.
The notion of discourse
CDA sees ‘language as social practice’ (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997), and con- siders the ‘context of language use’ to be crucial. We quote one definition which has become ‘very popular’ among CDA researchers:
CDA sees discourse – language use in speech and writing – as a form of ‘social practice’. Describing discourse as social practice implies a dialectical relationship between a particu- lar discursive event and the situation(s), institution(s) and social structure(s), which frame it:
page5image29240
page5image29776
page5image30048
page5image30320
page5image30592
page5image30864
page5image31136
page5image31408
page5image31680
page5image31952
page5image32224
page5image32496
page5image32768
page5image33040
page5image33312
page5image33584
page5image33856
page5image34128
page5image34400
page5image34672
page5image34944
page5image35216
page5image35488
page5image35760
page5image36032
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 5
page5image37224
page5image37648
page6image1552
page6image1824
page6image2096
page6image2368
page6image2640
page6image2912
6
METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
The discursive event is shaped by them, but it also shapes them.That is, discourse is socially constitutive as well as socially conditioned – it constitutes situations, objects of knowledge, and the social identities of and relationships between people and groups of people. It is con- stitutive both in the sense that it helps to sustain and reproduce the social status quo, and in the sense that it contributes to transforming it. Since discourse is so socially consequential, it gives rise to important issues of power. Discursive practices may have major ideological effects – that is, they can help produce and reproduce unequal power relations between (for instance) social classes, women and men, and ethnic/cultural majorities and minorities through the ways in which they represent things and position people. (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997: 258)
Thus, CDA understands discourses as relatively stable uses of language serving the organization and structuring of social life. Within this understanding, the term ‘discourse’ is of course used very differently by different researchers and also in different academic cultures (Wodak, 2006a,b). In the German and Central European context, a distinction is made between ‘text’ and ‘discourse’, relating to the tradition in text linguistics as well as to rhetoric (see Brünner and Graefen, 1994;VASS, 1992;Wodak and Koller, 2008 for summaries). In the English speaking world,‘discourse’ is often used both for written and oral texts (see Gee, 2004; Schiffrin, 1994). Other researchers distinguish between differ- ent levels of abstractness: Lemke (1995) defines ‘text’ as the concrete realization of abstract forms of knowledge (‘discourse’), thus adhering to a more Foucauldian approach (see also Jäger in this volume).
The discourse-historical approach elaborates and links to the socio-cognitive theory of Teun van Dijk (1998) and views ‘discourse’ as structured forms of knowledge and the memory of social practices, whereas ‘text’ refers to concrete oral utterances or written documents (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001, in this volume).
The critical impetus
The shared perspective and programme of CDA relate to the term ‘critical’, which in the work of some ‘critical linguists’ can be traced to the influence of the Frankfurt School and Jürgen Habermas (Anthonissen, 2001; Fay, 1987: 203; Thompson, 1988: 71ff ):‘Critical Theory’ in the sense of the Frankfurt School, mainly based on the famous essay of Max Horkheimer in 1937, means that social theory should be oriented towards critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented solely to understanding or explaining it.The core concepts of such an understanding of Critical Theory are:
  • Critical Theory should be directed at the totality of society in its historical specificity
  • Critical Theory should improve the understanding of society by integrating all the major social sciences, including economics, sociology, history, political sci- ence, anthropology and psychology.
page6image27584
page6image28120
page6image28392
page6image28664
page6image28936
page6image29208
page6image29480
page6image29752
page6image30024
page6image30296
page6image30568
page6image30840
page6image31112
page6image31384
page6image31656
page6image31928
page6image32200
page6image32472
page6image32744
page6image33016
page6image33288
page6image33560
page6image33832
page6image34104
page6image34376
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 6
page6image35568
page6image35992
page7image1544
page7image1816
page7image2088
page7image2360
page7image2632
page7image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 7
What is rarely reflected in this understanding of critique is the analyst’s position itself.The social embeddedness of research and science, the fact that the research system itself and thus CDA are also dependent on social structures, and that crit- icism can by no means draw on an outside position but is itself well integrated within social fields has been emphasized by Pierre Bourdieu (1984). Researchers, scientists and philosophers are not outside the societal hierarchy of power and sta- tus but are subject to this structure.They have also frequently occupied and still occupy rather superior positions in society.
In language studies, the term ‘critical’ was first used to characterize an approach that was called Critical Linguistics (Fowler et al., 1979; Kress and Hodge, 1979). Among other ideas, those scholars held that the use of language could lead to a mystification of social events which systematic analysis could elucidate. ‘For example, a missing by-phrase in English passive constructions might be seen as an ideological means for concealing or “mystifying” reference to an agent’ (Chilton, 2008). One of the most significant principles of CDA is the important observation that use of language is a ‘social practice’ which is both determined by social structure and contributes to stabilizing and chang- ing that structure simultaneously.
Nowadays, this concept of critique is conventionally used in a broader sense, denoting, as Krings argues, the practical linking of ‘social and political engage- ment’ with ‘a sociologically informed construction of society’ (Krings et al., 1973; Titscher et al., 2000: 808). Hence, ‘critique’ is essentially making visible the interconnectedness of things (Fairclough, 1995a: 747; see also Connerton, 1976: 11–39). The reference to the contribution of Critical Theory to the understanding of CDA and the notions of ‘critical’ and ‘ideology’ are of partic- ular importance (see Anthonissen, 2001 for an extensive discussion of this issue).
Critical theories, thus also CDA, want to produce and convey critical knowledge that enables human beings to emancipate themselves from forms of domination through self-reflection. So they are aimed at producing ‘enlighten- ment and emancipation’. Such theories seek not only to describe and explain, but also to root out a particular kind of delusion. Even with differing concepts of ideology, Critical Theory seeks to create awareness in agents of their own needs and interests.This was, of course, also taken up by Pierre Bourdieu’s con- cepts of ‘violence symbolique’ and ‘méconnaissance’ (Bourdieu, 1989).
In agreement with its Critical Theory predecessors, CDA emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary work in order to gain a proper understanding of how language functions in constituting and transmitting knowledge, in organizing social institu- tions or in exercising power (see Graham, 2002; Lemke, 2002; Martin and Wodak, 2003). In any case, CDA researchers have to be aware that their own work is dri- ven by social, economic and political motives like any other academic work and that they are not in any superior position. Naming oneself ‘critical’ only implies superior ethical standards: an intention to make their position, research interests and values explicit and their criteria as transparent as possible, without feeling the need to apologize for the critical stance of their work (van Leeuwen, 2006: 293).
page7image29800
page7image30336
page7image30608
page7image30880
page7image31152
page7image31424
page7image31696
page7image31968
page7image32240
page7image32512
page7image32784
page7image33056
page7image33328
page7image33600
page7image33872
page7image34144
page7image34416
page7image34688
page7image34960
page7image35232
page7image35504
page7image35776
page7image36048
page7image36320
page7image36592
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 7
page7image37784
page7image38208
page8image1544
page8image1816
page8image2088
page8image2360
page8image2632
page8image2904
8 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Ideology and power – a kaleidoscopic view
The critical impetus of CDA and other ‘critical’ research programmes is somewhat the legacy of enlightenment (Horkheimer and Adorno, 1969/1991). Critique regularly aims at revealing structures of power and unmasking ideologies. Ideology is then not understood in a positivistic way, i.e. ideologies cannot be subjected to a process of falsification. Nor is it the Marxian type of ideology according to the economic base/superstructure dichotomy that is of interest for CDA.
Political scientists name four central characteristics of ideologies:
1. Power is more important than cognitions
2. Theyarecapableofguidingindividuals’evaluations 3. They provide guidance through action.
4. Theymustbelogicallycoherent.(Mullins,1972)

Although the core definition of ideology as a coherent and relatively stable set of beliefs or values has remained the same in political science over time, the connotations asso- ciated with this concept have undergone many transformations. During the era of fascism, communism and the cold war, totalitarian ideology was confronted with democracy, the evil with the good. If we speak of the ‘ideology of the new capi- talism’ (see van Dijk and Fairclough in this volume), ideology once again has a ‘bad’ connotation. Obviously, it is not easy to capture ideology as a belief system and simultaneously to free the concept from negative connotations (Knight, 2006: 625).
It is, however, not that type of ideology on the surface of culture that inter- ests CDA, it is rather the more hidden and latent type of everyday beliefs, which often appear disguised as conceptual metaphors and analogies, thus attracting linguists’ attention: life is a journey, social organizations are plants, love is war, and so on (Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, 1999). In daily discussion, certain ideas arise more commonly than others. Frequently, people with diverse backgrounds and interests may find themselves thinking alike in startling ways. Dominant ideologies appear as ‘neutral’, holding on to assump- tions that stay largely unchallenged. Organizations that strive for power will try to influence the ideology of a society to become closer to what they want it to be.When most people in a society think alike about certain matters, or even forget that there are alternatives to the status quo, we arrive at the Gramscian concept of hegemony. With regard to this key concept of ideology, van Dijk (1998) sees ideologies as the ‘worldviews’ that constitute ‘social cognition’: ‘schematically organized complexes of representations and attitudes with regard to certain aspects of the social world, e.g. the schema [...] whites have about blacks’ (van Dijk, 1993b: 258).
Furthermore, it is the functioning of ideologies in everyday life that intrigues CDA researchers. Fairclough has a more Marxist view of ideologies and conceives them as constructions of practices from particular perspectives:
page8image26672
page8image27208
page8image27480
page8image27752
page8image28024
page8image28296
page8image28568
page8image28840
page8image29112
page8image29384
page8image29656
page8image29928
page8image30200
page8image30472
page8image30744
page8image31016
page8image31288
page8image31560
page8image31832
page8image32104
page8image32376
page8image32648
page8image32920
page8image33192
page8image33464
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 8
page8image34656
page8image35080
page9image1544
page9image1816
page9image2088
page9image2360
page9image2632
page9image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 9
Ideologies are representations of aspects of the world which contribute to establishing and maintaining relations of power, domination and exploitation. They may be enacted in ways of interaction (and therefore in genres) and inculcated in ways of being identities (and therefore styles).Analysis of texts ... is an important aspect of ideological analysis and critique ... (Fairclough, 2003: 218)
Power is another concept which is central for CDA, as it often analyses the lan- guage use of those in power, who are responsible for the existence of inequalities. Typically, CDA researchers are interested in the way discourse (re)produces social domination, that is, the power abuse of one group over others, and how domi- nated groups may discursively resist such abuse (e.g. van Dijk in this volume).This raises the question of how CDA researchers understand power and what moral standards allow them to differentiate between power use and abuse – a question which has so far had to remain unanswered (Billig, 2008).
There are as many concepts of power as there are social theories.There is almost no sociological or socio-psychological theory which does not provide a distinctive notion of power, with a Weberian definition as the lowest com- mon denominator: power as the chance that an individual in a social relation- ship can achieve his or her own will even against the resistance of others (Weber, 1980: 28).
At least three different approaches to power can be distinguished:
  • power as a result of specific resources of individual actors (e.g. French and Raven, 1959)
  • power as a specific attribute of social exchange in each interaction (e.g. Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1962, 1975)
  • power as a systemic and constitutive element/characteristic of society (e.g. from very different angles, Foucault, 1975 and Giddens, 1984).
    Michel Foucault concentrates on ‘technologies of power’: discipline is a complex bundle of power technologies developed during the 18th and 19th centuries. Power is thus exercised with intention – but it is not individual intention. Foucault focuses on what is accepted knowledge about how to exercise power. One way of doing this is by threatening with violence. However, suggesting how happy people will become if they buy specific consumer products is also an exercise of power; marketing provides us with a large body of knowledge of powerful techniques. Though Foucault also combines the notions of power and domination in a Weberian tradition, he focuses primarily on structure. Foucault recommends an analysis of power with a rather functionalist strategy: in his historical analysis in Surveiller et punir (Foucault, 1975), he always asks and answers questions concern- ing the social functions and effects of different technologies of surveillance and punishment. How do things work at the level of ongoing subjugation, at the level of those continuous and uninterrupted processes which subject our bodies, gov- ern our gestures and dictate our behaviours?
page9image27664
page9image28200
page9image28472
page9image28744
page9image29016
page9image29288
page9image29560
page9image29832
page9image30104
page9image30376
page9image30648
page9image30920
page9image31192
page9image31464
page9image31736
page9image32008
page9image32280
page9image32552
page9image32824
page9image33096
page9image33368
page9image33640
page9image33912
page9image34184
page9image34456
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 9
page9image35648
page9image36072
page10image1544
page10image1816
page10image2088
page10image2360
page10image2632
page10image2904
10 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Within CDA, power is mostly perceived in the third way, not only because Foucault is one of the theoretical ‘godfathers’ of CDA, but also because the text in CDA is often regarded as a manifestation of social action which again is widely determined by social structure. Besides, CDA researchers very rarely work with interactional texts such as dialogues (Chilton, 2004; Lalouschek et al., 1990; Wodak, 2009 as exceptions). Consequently, it is not the individual resources and not the specifics of single-exchange situations that are crucial for CDA analyses, but the overall structural features in social fields or in overall soci- ety. Power is central for understanding the dynamics and specifics of control (of action) in modern societies, but power remains mostly invisible. Linguistic manifestations are under investigation in CDA. This relation between social power and language is a permanent topic not only in CDA (Fairclough, 1989/1991; Wodak, 1989) but also in sociology (Bourdieu, 1991) and sociolinguistics (e.g. Ng & Bradac, 1993;Talbot, 2003;Young and Fitzgerald, 2006).
An important perspective in CDA related to the notion of ‘power’ is that it is very rare that a text is the work of any one person. In texts, discursive dif- ferences are negotiated; they are governed by differences in power that is in part encoded in and determined by discourse and by genre.Therefore, texts are often sites of struggle in that they show traces of differing discourses and ide- ologies contending and struggling for dominance.
Thus, the defining features of CDA are its concern with power as a cen- tral condition in social life, and its efforts to develop a theory of language that incorporates this as a major premise. Closely attended to are not only the notion of struggles for power and control, but also the intertextuality and recontextualization of competing discourses in various public spaces and genres (Iedema, 1997; Iedema and Wodak, 1999; Muntigl et al., 2000). Power is about relations of difference, and particularly about the effects of differences in social structures. The constant unity of language and other social matters ensures that language is entwined in social power in a num- ber of ways: language indexes and expresses power, and is involved where there is contention over and a challenge to power. Power does not neces- sarily derive from language, but language can be used to challenge power, to subvert it, to alter distributions of power in the short and the long term. Language provides a finely articulated vehicle for differences in power in hierarchical social structures.
In sum: CDA can be defined as being fundamentally interested in analysing opaque as well as transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimina- tion, power and control as manifested in language. In other words, CDA aims to investigate critically social inequality as it is expressed, constituted, legitimized, and so on, by language use (or in discourse). Most critical discourse analysts would thus endorse Habermas’s claim that ‘language is also a medium of domi- nation and social force. It serves to legitimize relations of organized power. Insofar as the legitimizations of power relations ... are not articulated, ... language is also ideological’ (Habermas, 1967: 259).
page10image29752
page10image30288
page10image30560
page10image30832
page10image31104
page10image31376
page10image31648
page10image31920
page10image32192
page10image32464
page10image32736
page10image33008
page10image33280
page10image33552
page10image33824
page10image34096
page10image34368
page10image34640
page10image34912
page10image35184
page10image35456
page10image35728
page10image36000
page10image36272
page10image36544
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 10
page10image37736
page10image38160
page11image1544
page11image1816
page11image2088
page11image2360
page11image2632
page11image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 11
Main research agenda and challenges
In this section, we summarize some important research agendas which are currently of interest in CDA.We then also list examples of research linked to these agen- das and challenges. Although we, of course, encounter a vast amount of research and also many methodological and theoretical challenges, we have decided to restrict ourselves to six major areas and related challenges:
  1. Analysing, understanding and explaining the impact of the Knowledge-based Economy on various domains of our societies; related to this, the recontextu- alization of KBE into other parts of the world and other societies (‘transition’).
  2. Integrating approaches from cognitive sciences into CDA; this requires com- plex epistemological considerations and the development of new tools. Moreover, we question in which ways such approaches could be dependent on Western cultural contexts and how, related to these issues, Eurocentric per- spectives could be transcended.
  3. Analysing,understandingandexplainingnewphenomenainourpoliticalsystems, which are due to the impact of (new) media and to new transnational, global and local developments and related institutions. More specifically, phenomena such as ‘depoliticization’ and ‘participation’ need to be investigated in detail.
  4. Analysing, understanding and explaining the impact of new media and new genres which entails developing new multimodal theoretical and methodologi- cal approaches. Our concepts of space and time have changed, and these changes interact in dialectical ways with new modes and genres of communication.
  5. Analysing, understanding and explaining the relationship between complex historical processes, hegemonic narratives and CDA approaches. Identity poli- tics on all levels always entails the integration of past experiences, present events and future visions in many domains of our lives.The concepts of intertextual- ity and recontextualization are inherently tied to interdisciplinary discourse- historical approaches.
  6. Avoiding ‘cherry picking’ (choosing the examples which best fit the assump- tions) by integrating quantitative and qualitative methods and by providing retroductable, self-reflective presentations of past or current research processes.
However, we will refrain from elaborating the theoretical and methodological approaches represented extensively in this volume (of course, the many issues of Discourse and Society, Journal of Language and Politics, Visual Semiotics, and Critical Discourse Studies, to name but a few, have published a huge variety of CDA-oriented research over the past decade which we cannot review in detail.We therefore nec- essarily have to refer readers to the many handbooks and journals in the field).5
Language of the New Capitalism and the Knowledge-based Economy (KBE)
In Jessop et al. (2008), many aspects and dimensions of the impact of KBE on higher education are explored from sociological, educational and CDA
page11image26080
page11image26616
page11image26888
page11image27160
page11image27432
page11image27704
page11image27976
page11image28248
page11image28520
page11image28792
page11image29064
page11image29336
page11image29608
page11image29880
page11image30152
page11image30424
page11image30696
page11image30968
page11image31240
page11image31512
page11image31784
page11image32056
page11image32328
page11image32600
page11image32872
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 11
page11image34064
page11image34488
page12image1544
page12image1816
page12image2088
page12image2360
page12image2632
page12image2904
12 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
perspectives. KBE has penetrated most domains of our Western societies and is also colonizing other parts of the world. Indeed, globalization and competitiveness rhetoric (Muntigl et al., 2000) seem to be ubiquitous, and the quantification and economization of knowledge serve to rank social institu- tions and individuals. Through detailed case studies, the recontextualization of more global policy strategies can be illustrated on the micro level (Falkner et al., 2005). This, of course, requires interdisciplinary research as well as new theories on transition and social change (see Krzyzianowski and Wodak, forthcoming).
Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) explain and elaborate how CDA is use- ful in disclosing the discursive nature of much contemporary social and cul- tural change. Particularly the language of the mass media is scrutinized as a site of power, of struggle and also as a site where language is often apparently trans- parent. Media institutions often purport to be neutral, in that they provide space for public discourse, reflect states of affairs disinterestedly, and give the perceptions and arguments of the newsmakers. Fairclough reveals the fallacy of such assumptions, and illustrates the mediating and constructing role of the media with a variety of examples. He has also been concerned with the ‘Language of New Labour’ (Fairclough, 2000a) which, of course, is part and parcel of KBE ideology.
In this vein, for example, develops a methodology and interdisciplinary the- oretical framework for historically analysing the exercise of governmental power in a specific policy field, thus addressing at least three of the above-mentioned challenges. At the theoretical level, this work employs a thorough-going inter- disciplinary approach to CDA by grounding close textual analysis in both edu- cational sociology and neo-Marxist state theory. It thus contextualizes the linguistic findings in terms of historical developments in the capitalist state over the last four decades.This research also develops novel ways of using corpus tools in CDA, and in particular it demonstrates their heuristic value in direct- ing the analyst’s gaze in unexpected and often fruitful directions (see Mautner in this volume; and Baker et al., 2008). More specifically, the themes explored in this research include the rise of a more personalized form of governmental identity, and the prominent role of the pronoun ‘we’ in legitimizing government action and deflecting its public accountability. A further strand to this research makes a direct link between the verbs used to perform government actions and the increasing social significance of ‘governing at a distance’ or ‘networked gov- ernance’ as described by, among others, the social theorist Nikolas Rose (1999).
Phil Graham also elaborates the problems of New Capitalism while integrating a strong historical perspective (Graham, 2002).The historical investigation of hor- tatory genres, for example, compares the emergence of, and struggles between, the Church,‘divine right’ royalties and secular forces over legitimate uses of the sermon form in Western Europe between the 10th and 14th centuries, with contempo- rary struggles over genres that are used to motivate people on a mass scale.The main focus of Graham’s research is to explore and explain the relationships
page12image28968
page12image29504
page12image29776
page12image30048
page12image30320
page12image30592
page12image30864
page12image31136
page12image31408
page12image31680
page12image31952
page12image32224
page12image32496
page12image32768
page12image33040
page12image33312
page12image33584
page12image33856
page12image34128
page12image34400
page12image34672
page12image34944
page12image35216
page12image35488
page12image35760
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 12
page12image36952
page12image37376
page13image1544
page13image1816
page13image2088
page13image2360
page13image2632
page13image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 13
between new media, new genres, institutions and social change at a macro level. The perspective is primarily historical, political–economic, relational and dynamic. Genres are produced, textured and transformed within institutional contexts over long periods of time. In turn, institutions invest years – in some cases, millennia – in developing, maintaining and adapting generic forms to changing social conditions in order to maintain or gain power. Graham believes that at certain times in history, certain genres become very effective in motivating or manipulating large sections of society. Because genres are devel- oped within institutions, and thus within the realms of vested interests, they display inherent axiological biases.The nature of knowledge and its status as a commodity form immediately become problematic. In the tradition of dialec- tical argumentation, Graham accepts the claims that knowledge can become a dominant commodity form; that a global economy can be built on such forms; and that our new media must, in some fundamental way, underpin the emer- gence of this new form of political economy.The research problem is there- fore formulated as an historical investigation into the relationship between language, new media and social perceptions of value.
Focusing cognition
The seminal book by Teun van Dijk and Walter Kintsch, Strategies of Discourse Comprehension (1983), triggered research in discourse and cognition from inter- disciplinary and critical perspectives. In this book, they considered the rele- vance of discourse to the study of language processing.Their development of a cognitive model of discourse comprehension in individuals gradually devel- oped into cognitive models for explaining the construction of meaning at a societal level. Currently, interest in cognition has grown, and many scholars attempt a combination of new cognitive theories (on conceptual metaphors, for example) with CDA (Charteris-Black, 2006; Musolff, 2004). Some of this research draws on earlier attempts which integrated cognition, sociolinguistics and discourse analysis (such as Lutz and Wodak, 1986; Wodak, 1986a, 1996; Wodak and Schulz, 1986) by proposing new approaches (see below).
Much of the focus in this area has been placed on researching social inclu- sion and exclusion (Wodak, 2008b, 2008c).Teun A. van Dijk, for example, has recently paid special attention to the discursive reproduction of racism in Spain and Latin America (van Dijk, 2005). The study by John Richardson on the ‘(mis)representation of Islam’, and research on the representation of migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees in the British Press, have elaborated research on racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia in intricate ways, by combining quanti- tative and qualitative methods, and by focusing on argumentation as well (see Baker et al., 2008; Delanty et al., 2008; Richardson, 2004).
Moreover, the focus on theorizing context and knowledge is apparent.Van Dijk argues that whereas (critical and other) discourse studies have paid extensive attention in the last few decades to the structures of text and talk, they only
page13image27232
page13image27768
page13image28040
page13image28312
page13image28584
page13image28856
page13image29128
page13image29400
page13image29672
page13image29944
page13image30216
page13image30488
page13image30760
page13image31032
page13image31304
page13image31576
page13image31848
page13image32120
page13image32392
page13image32664
page13image32936
page13image33208
page13image33480
page13image33752
page13image34024
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 13
page13image35216
page13image35640
page14image1544
page14image1816
page14image2088
page14image2360
page14image2632
page14image2904
14 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
paid lip-service to the necessity of developing the relations between text and context (but see Panagl and Wodak, 2004). Most approaches, also in CDA, define the influence of the social context on language variation and discourse in terms of objective social variables such as gender, class, race, ethnicity or age. Van Dijk argues that no such direct influence exists, because social structures and discourse structures cannot be related directly, and need the mediation of an interface. He shows that this interface must be cognitive, in the sense that it is not objective social situations, but the subjective definitions of the relevant prop- erties of communicative situations that influence text and talk. These definitions are then made explicit in terms of a special kind of mental model (see van Dijk, this volume). In sum, van Dijk emphasizes that CDA should also not limit itself to a study of the relationship between discourse and social structure, such as racism and other forms of power abuse, but that language use and dis- course 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.
Paul Chilton, who is a cognitive linguist, has never explicitly applied the term CDA to his own work and has always worked within a cognitive framework, principally on the discourse of politics and the international relations frame- work (cf. Chilton, 1994a, 1994b, 1996a, 1996b, 2004, 2005a, 2005b; Chilton and Lakoff, 1995). His most recent (2004, 2005a) and ongoing work departs from CDA’s tendency to allegedly reify social structures and processes and raises major research questions relating to the relationship between language and social cognition in the evolution of the human species. More particularly, he has drawn on cognitive evolutionary psychology to ask whether there might exist an innate ‘critical instinct’. If this were the case, he argues, then what is the role of critical discourse analysis? Chilton’s argument is that the most fundamental issue is whether societies provide the freedom to enable the ‘critical instinct’ to operate.This position is, of course, vulnerable and has been challenged by other CDA researchers (van Dijk, 2007a; Wodak, 2007) Linked to this approach is a concern with universal aspects of language and the human mind, a concern that is also reflected in his current collaborative work on comparative discourse analysis that crosses linguistic, cultural and political boundaries (Chilton, 2007; Chilton et al., forthcoming). Comparative discourse analysis, he argues, is the most serious challenge facing practitioners of CDA, if CDA is to overcome its Euro-centric drift and respond to a globalized scholarly environment. In terms of descriptive methodology also, Chilton has always differed from many practi- tioners of CDA, such as Fairclough, for example. His analyses do not draw on Hallidayan linguistics, which he regards as inadequate because of its inability to deal with a range of pragmatic and semantic phenomena, such as presupposi- tion, implicature, metaphor and blending.
The emergent blend of CDA, cognitive linguistics and corpus linguistics has obviously become a huge priority that is also recognized by many other scholars
page14image29576
page14image30112
page14image30384
page14image30656
page14image30928
page14image31200
page14image31472
page14image31744
page14image32016
page14image32288
page14image32560
page14image32832
page14image33104
page14image33376
page14image33648
page14image33920
page14image34192
page14image34464
page14image34736
page14image35008
page14image35280
page14image35552
page14image35824
page14image36096
page14image36368
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 14
page14image37560
page14image37984
page15image1544
page15image1816
page15image2088
page15image2360
page15image2632
page15image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 15
(see, for example, Koller and Davidson, 2008). However, what remains unsolved is the apparent contradiction that CDA starts from a complex social problem or phenomenon; cognitive linguistics, however, starts from the individual mind, and corpus linguistics from the largely (but not fully!) decontextualized text. Thus, integration will have to address these epistemological considerations. Both Chilton and Koller (and many other CDA researchers) state that the analysis of powerful, even hegemonic discourse(s) which however do not nec- essarily discriminate against a particular social group has to be enhanced for example, by aspects of corporate self-presentation, as well as the impact of new genres, and so on (Koller, 2008;Wodak, 2008b;Wodak and Koller, 2008).
Multimodality and ‘new’ genres
Recognition of the contribution of all the aspects of the communicative context to text meaning, as well as a growing awareness in media studies in general and in the importance of non-verbal aspects of texts in particular, has turned attention to semiotic devices in discourse other than the linguistic ones. In particular, the theory put forward by Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) provides a useful framework for con- sidering the communicative potential of visual devices in the media. Currently, van Leeuwen is focusing on the semiotics of handwriting and typography and the question of colour, as well as on the constraints imposed by certain software, PowerPoint templates and so on.Thus, it is important for social semiotics to pro- vide models of semiotic practice that are appropriate to the practices they model, and as different semiotic practices are very differently organized, it is not possi- ble to apply a single model to all.Van Leeuwen claims that the role and status of semiotic practices in society are currently undergoing change as a result of the fact that it is increasingly global corporations and semiotic technologies, rather than national institutions, which regulate semiotic production and consumption (see also van Leeuwen, this volume).
Jay Lemke’s recent work has emphasized multimedia semiotics, multiple timescales and hypertexts or traversals.This work emphasizes the implicit value systems and their connections to institutional and personal identity in new multimodal genres.The work on multiple timescales, for example, is an exten- sion of earlier work on ecological–social systems as complex dynamical systems with semiotic cultures. It is very important in considering all aspects of social dynamics to look across multiple timescales, i.e. how processes and practices which take place at relatively faster rates are organized within the framework of more slowly changing features of social institutions and cultures (see the concept of ‘non-simultaneity’ or Ungleichzeitigkeit) (Lemke, 2001, 2002). Lemke’s work has combined both these themes to develop the idea that although we tell our lives as narratives, we experience them as hypertexts. Building on research on the semantic resources of hypertext as a medium, he proposed that postmodern lifestyles are increasingly liberated from particular institutional roles, and that we tend to move, on multiple timescales, from
page15image27760
page15image28296
page15image28568
page15image28840
page15image29112
page15image29384
page15image29656
page15image29928
page15image30200
page15image30472
page15image30744
page15image31016
page15image31288
page15image31560
page15image31832
page15image32104
page15image32376
page15image32648
page15image32920
page15image33192
page15image33464
page15image33736
page15image34008
page15image34280
page15image34552
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 15
page15image35744
page15image36168
page16image1544
page16image1816
page16image2088
page16image2360
page16image2632
page16image2904
16 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
involvement in one institution to another, creating new kinds of meaning, less bound to fixed genres and registers, as we ‘surf’ across channels, websites and lived experiences.This is seen as a new historical development, not supplanting institutions, but building up new sociocultural possibilities on and over them.
Moreover, Lemke – while building on Critical Discourse Analysis and extending the tools from Systemic Linguistics – has increasingly investigated combinations of language, visual media and dynamic–interactive effects. The most advanced part of this work concerns computer games. Here, one has to take into account not only the semiotic and semantic affordances of an inter- active environment, but also the phenomenological experience and particularly the feelings and emotions of the user.This requires developing a number of new tools to think about and analyse categories of feelings, and their combi- nation with other sorts of meanings. In this vein, the semantics of evaluations and judgements is a key link, as is re-thinking feelings, at least in part, as social and distributed, rather than as totally individual and internal. Of course, there are also cultural dimensions to feelings; this point addresses similar issues to those mentioned by Chilton (see above), namely that CDA has to move away from Eurocentric focus.
Another branch of this work is the critical analysis of transmedia.This is the term now for sets of related media (e.g. a book and film, a website and a game, merchandise, stories written by fans of the movie or games, etc.) that either form a commercial franchise (e.g. Harry Potter, Star Wars) or some more loosely connected intertextual set (see remarks on KBE above). In either case, there are economic and material relationships as well as textual and semantic ones (see also research by Graham, above).Thus, these cases are particularly reveal- ing for a study of the political economy of signs. Commercial interests and their ideologies interact with consumer interests and consumer beliefs and desires. Of special importance is the appearance of collectives of consumers who also become producers of parallel or counter media: for instance, readers write their own stories changing the values and practices of famous charac- ters from popular movies, fiction, games, and so on, and these are widely read and distributed on the internet, for example in blogs. Something similar is also happening with art, games and music. Fans edit commercial movies, add a musical soundtrack, and create new montage effects with completely different ideological and narrative meanings from the original works, which illustrate creative and subversive processes of the recontextualization of multiple genres and modes in detail.
Therefore,Theo van Leeuwen (2006: 292) argues that:
[c]ritical discourse analysis has also moved beyond language, taking on board that discourses are often multimodally realized, not only through text and talk, but also through other modes of communication such as images ... Overall, then, critical discourse analysis has moved towards more explicit dialogue between social theory and practice, richer contextu- alization, greater interdisciplinarity and greater attention to the multimodality of discourse.
page16image28736
page16image29272
page16image29544
page16image29816
page16image30088
page16image30360
page16image30632
page16image30904
page16image31176
page16image31448
page16image31720
page16image31992
page16image32264
page16image32536
page16image32808
page16image33080
page16image33352
page16image33624
page16image33896
page16image34168
page16image34440
page16image34712
page16image34984
page16image35256
page16image35528
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 16
page16image36720
page16image37144
page17image1560
page17image1832
page17image2104
page17image2376
page17image2648
page17image2920
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 17
Political discourse
The study of political discourse after the Second World War was triggered in part by the investigation of National Socialist (NS) language (Klemperer, 1975/1947); it was essential to understand and explain the roles and impor- tance of language and communication in totalitarian regimes and their propa- ganda. Utz Maas was the first linguist to subject the everyday linguistic practice of National Socialism to an in-depth analysis: he used NS texts to exemplify his approach of Lesweisenanalyse (Maas, 1984, 1989a, 1989b).
His historical ‘argumentation analysis’, based on the theories of Michel Foucault, demonstrates how discourse is determined by society, i.e. in what may be termed ‘a social practice’. In his analysis of language practices during the National Socialist regime between 1932 and 1938, he showed how the discur- sive practices of society in Germany were impacted by the NS discourse char- acterized by social–revolutionist undertones. Nazi discourse had superseded almost all forms of language (practices), a fact that made it difficult for an indi- vidual who did not want to cherish the tradition of an unworldly Romanticism to use language in a critical–reflective way. Discourse is basically understood as the result of collusion: the conditions of the political, social and linguistic prac- tice impose themselves practically ‘behind the back of the subjects’, while the actors do not understand ‘the game’ (see also Bourdieu’s ‘violence symbolique’). Discourse analysis identifies the rules which make a text into a fascist text. In the same way as grammar characterizes the structure of sentences, discourse rules characterize utterances/texts that are acceptable within a certain practice. The focus is not on National Socialist language per se, but the aim is rather to record and analyse the spectrum of linguistic relations based on a number of texts dealing with various spheres of life.These texts represent a complicated network of similarities, which overlap and intersect.Therefore, it is also impor- tant to do justice to the ‘polyphony’ of texts resulting from the fact that societal contradictions are inscribed into texts (see also the concept of ‘entextualization’ as employed by Blommaert, 2005).Texts from diverse social and political con- texts (cooking recipes, local municipal provisions on agriculture, texts by NS politicians, but also by critics of this ideology, who are ultimately involved in the dominant discourse) are analysed in a sample representative of possible texts of NS discourse (see Wodak and deCilla, 2006 for details and an extensive overview of the field of language and politics).
The study of political institutions and everyday life and decision-making in organizations has become a major new focus of CDA. Krzyzanowski and Oberhuber (2007), for example, have analysed the European Convention in much detail.The focus on discursive dimensions of transnational political organizations also led to the elaboration of discursively constructed visions/conceptions of social and political order in Europe/the EU.Wodak 2009 focuses on the every- day lives of MEPs and other politicians because – as she argues – depoliticiza- tion is linked to ‘the democracy deficit’ and the huge dissatisfaction about the strong
page17image29096
page17image29632
page17image29904
page17image30176
page17image30448
page17image30720
page17image30992
page17image31264
page17image31536
page17image31808
page17image32080
page17image32352
page17image32624
page17image32896
page17image33168
page17image33440
page17image33712
page17image33984
page17image34256
page17image34528
page17image34800
page17image35072
page17image35344
page17image35616
page17image35888
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 17
page17image37080
page17image37504
page18image1544
page18image1816
page18image2088
page18image2360
page18image2632
page18image2904
18 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
ritualization of politics and the snapshots provided by media which condense complex political processes into iconic images (Triandafyllidou et al., 2008). Such studies allow insight into ‘politics as a profession’ and into the complex- ity of political decision-making. If the media, however, allow us to venture backstage, this usually happens in the context of the sex and corruption scan- dals of politicians. (Hence, in the above-mentioned ethnographic studies, access to the ‘backstage’ opens the door to ‘the doing of politics’.)
Much CDA research in the domain of politics centres on rightwing populist rhetoric on many occasions, as rightwing populist rhetoric is becoming more and more hegemonic in many European countries (see ‘Haiderization’ – Krzyz·anowski and Wodak, forthcoming; Pelinka and Wodak, 2002; Richardson and Wodak, 2008; Rydgren, 2005; Wodak and Pelinka, 2002). This research is triggered by the rising dominance and hegemony of this kind of rhetoric and its apt use of indirect strategies to address multiple audiences (see Reisigl and Wodak, this volume).The latter research also develops new methodologies for CDA: the use of ethnography, focus groups and narrative interviews, combined with more traditional data such as newspapers and political speeches (Wodak and Krzyzanowski, 2008).
Research on politics from a historical perspective also co-triggered CDA from the very beginning. The study for which the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) was actually developed, for instance, first attempted to trace in detail the constitution of an anti-Semitic stereotyped image, or Feindbild, as it emerged in public discourse in the 1986 Austrian presidential campaign of Kurt Waldheim (Gruber, 1991; Mitten, 1992;Wodak et al., 1990). In order to be able to study the discourse about the ‘Waldheim Affair’,‘context’ was unravelled into various dimensions.
The DHA has been further elaborated in a number of more recent studies, for example, in a study on racist discrimination against immigrants from Romania and in a study on the discourse about nation and national identity in Austria (Kovàcs and Wodak, 2003;Wodak et al., 1999) and in the European Union (Muntigl et al., 2000;Wodak and van Dijk, 2000).The 1999 study was concerned with the analysis of the relationships between the discursive construction of national sameness and the discursive construction of difference leading to the political and social exclusion of specific out-groups. The findings suggest that discourses about nations and national identities rely on at least four types of discursive macro-strategies.These are:
  • constructive strategies (aiming at the construction of national identities)
  • preservative or justificatory strategies (aiming at the conservation and repro-
    duction of national identities or narratives of identity)
  • transformative strategies (aiming at the change of national identities)
  • destructive strategies (aiming at the dismantling of national identities).
    Depending on the context – that is to say, on the social field or domain in which the ‘discursive events’ related to the topic under investigation take place – one or other of the aspects connected with these strategies is brought into prominence.
page18image28656
page18image29192
page18image29464
page18image29736
page18image30008
page18image30280
page18image30552
page18image30824
page18image31096
page18image31368
page18image31640
page18image31912
page18image32184
page18image32456
page18image32728
page18image33000
page18image33272
page18image33544
page18image33816
page18image34088
page18image34360
page18image34632
page18image34904
page18image35176
page18image35448
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 18
page18image36640
page18image37064
page19image1544
page19image1816
page19image2088
page19image2360
page19image2632
page19image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 19
More recently, much research has focused on commemorative events which manifest hegemonic ways of dealing with traumatic pasts in various societies (Anthonissen and Blommaert, 2007; Blommaert, 2005; de Cillia and Wodak, 2008; Ensink and Sauer, 2003; Heer et al., 2008; Le, 2006; Martin and Wodak, 2003; Reisigl, 2007; Verdoolaege, 2008; Wodak and Cillia, 2007). In most of these studies, media, school books, speeches at national days and the like are analysed to illustrate the myths which are constructed to provide new, ‘sani- tized’ narratives which cover up ruptures, war crimes and conflicts which have occurred in the past. For example, Heer et al. (2008) describe in detail the huge scandal and crisis when the two exhibitions on war crimes by the German Wehrmacht during the Second World War were opened to viewers, in 1995 and 2001.A carefully constructed and protected myth was totally destroyed by these exhibitions – the myth that the Wehrmacht soldiers had been innocent whereas the SS and other units had been the perpetrators.
Differences and similarities – beyond the social dimension
The differences between CDA and other DA, pragmatic and sociolinguistic approaches may be most clearly established with regard to the general princi- ples of CDA. Firstly, the nature of the problems with which CDA is concerned is significantly different than all those approaches which do not explicitly express their interest in advance. In general, CDA asks different research ques- tions, and some CDA scholars play an advocatory role for socially discrimi- nated groups. Looking at the CDA contributions collected in this reader, it also becomes evident that the line drawn between social scientific research which ought to be intelligible and political argumentation sometimes gets blurred.
Specifically, we distinguish between approaches which proceed deductively and as such choose a more inductive perspective. Linked to this distinction is the choice of objects under investigation: more deductively oriented theories which also propose a closed theoretical framework are more likely to illustrate their assumptions with a few examples which seem to fit their claims (e.g. the dialectical–relational approach and socio-cognitive approach in this volume). More inductively oriented approaches usually stay at the ‘meso level’ and select problems which they are ‘curious’ about and where they attempt to discover new insights through in-depth case studies and ample data collection (for example, DHA, social actors approach, corpus linguistics approach, dispositive analysis, in this volume). Of course, all approaches moreover proceed abduc- tively, i.e. oscillate between theory and data analysis in retroductive ways. However, on a continuum, we are able to distinguish obvious priorities in choosing entry points and themes (see Figure 1.1).
Related to the choice of more ‘macro-’ or ‘meso-topics’ (such as ‘globaliza- tion’ or ‘knowledge’ versus ‘un/employment’ or ‘rightwing populism’), we encounter differences in the evaluation of the chosen topics and objects under investigation. Macro-topics are relatively uncontroversial in the respective
page19image27552
page19image28088
page19image28360
page19image28632
page19image28904
page19image29176
page19image29448
page19image29720
page19image29992
page19image30264
page19image30536
page19image30808
page19image31080
page19image31352
page19image31624
page19image31896
page19image32168
page19image32440
page19image32712
page19image32984
page19image33256
page19image33528
page19image33800
page19image34072
page19image34344
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 19
page19image35536
page19image35960
page20image1576
page20image1848
page20image2120
page20image2392
page20image2664
page20image2936
20 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Overall research strategy
Main theoretical attractor
M. Foucault
Critical Theory
K. Marx
S. Moscovici
Symbolic Interactionism
M. K. Halliday
page20image7784 page20image8376
page20image8912
page20image9072
Discourse-Historical Approach (Ruth Wodak and Martin Reisigl)
page20image10616
page20image10776 page20image12208 page20image12800
Corpus-Linguistics Approach (Gerlinde Mautner)
page20image14224
page20image14384 page20image14976
Social Actors Approach (Theo van Leeuwen)
page20image16480
page20image16640 page20image17232
Dispositive Analysis
(Siegfried Jäger and Florentine Maier)
page20image18888
page20image19048 page20image19640
Sociocognitive Approach (Teun van Dijk)
page20image21104
page20image21264
page20image22072
page20image22608
Dialectical–Relational Approach (Norman Fairclough)
page20image23656
page20image24192
page20image24464
page20image24736
page20image25008
page20image25280
page20image25552
page20image25824
page20image26096
page20image26368
page20image26640
FIGURE 1.1 Overall research strategies and theoretical background
national or international academic contexts; some meso-topics, however, can touch on the very core of the respective national community to which the researcher belongs. For example, research on concrete anti-Semitic, xenopho- bic and racist occurrences is much more controversial in certain academic and national contexts and regarded as ‘unpatriotic’ or hostile, than many macro- themes – this explains grave problems which critical scholars have encountered when venturing into such seemingly tabooed fields (see Heer et al., 2008).
In any case, related to the object of investigation, it remains a fact that CDA follows a different and critical approach to problems, since it endeavours to make explicit power relations that are frequently obfuscated and hidden, and then to derive results which are also of practical relevance.
Furthermore, one important characteristic arises from the assumption of some CDA approaches that all discourses are historical and can therefore only be understood with reference to their context.Therefore, these approaches refer to such extralinguistic factors as culture, society and ideology in intricate ways,
page20image36640
page20image36912
page20image37184
page20image37456
page20image37728
page20image38000
page20image38272
page20image38544
page20image38816
page20image39088
page20image39360
page20image39632
page20image39904
page20image40176
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 20
page20image41368
page20image41792
Deductive, general Inductive, detailed perspective case studies
page21image1544
page21image1816
page21image2088
page21image2360
page21image2632
page21image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 21
depending on their concepts of context and their research methodologies and ways of data collection. Hence, the notion of context is crucial for CDA, since this explicitly includes social–psychological, political and ideological compo- nents and thereby postulates an interdisciplinary procedure.
Interdisciplinarity is implemented in many different ways in the CDA approaches assembled in this volume: in some cases, interdisciplinarity is charac- teristic of the theoretical framework (dispositive approach, dialectical–relational approach, socio-cognitive approach); in other cases, interdisciplinarity also applies to team research and to the collection and analysis of data (social actors approach, DHA). Moreover, CDA uses the concepts of intertextuality and interdiscursivity and analyses relationships with other texts; in sum, it may be concluded that CDA is open to the broadest range of factors exerting an influ- ence on texts.
A further difference between CDA and other DA approaches emerges in connection with the assumptions about the relation between language and society. CDA does not take this relationship to be simply deterministic but invokes an idea of mediation. The dialectical–relational approach draws on Halliday’s multifunctional linguistic theory (Halliday, 1985) and the concept of orders of discourse according to Foucault, while the discourse-historical approach and the socio-cognitive approach make use of theories of social cog- nition (e.g. Moscovici, 2000). This reflection on issues of mediation between language and social structure is absent from many other linguistic approaches, for example from conversation analysis.This is somewhat related to the level of social aggregation: though CDA concentrates on social phenomena like ideology or power, scholars focus on different units of analysis – the way in which individuals mentally perceive, or the way social structures determine discourse (see Figure 1.2). In simplified terms, we can distinguish between more cognitive–socio-psychological and more macro-sociological–structural approaches – although, admittedly, this is a rough distinction.
A further characteristic of CDA is that most researchers integrate linguistic categories into its analyses – but to a different extent and with a different focus and intensity. CDA does not necessarily include a broad range of linguistic cat- egories in each single analysis; one might get the impression that only a very few linguistic devices are central to CDA studies. For instance, many CDA scholars consistently use social actor analyses by means of focusing upon pro- nouns, attributes and the verbal mode, time and tense; Halidayan transitivity analysis and the analysis of topoi are also used frequently by other social scien- tists because these concepts seem to be quite easy to apply without very much linguistic background knowledge. Exceptions always prove the generalization: Reisigl and Wodak (this volume) and van Dijk (this volume) illustrate how a broad range of macro and micro linguistic, pragmatic and argumentative fea- tures can be operationalized and integrated in the analysis of texts (Figure 1.2).
In principle, we may assume that categories such as deixis and pronouns can be analysed in any linguistic methodology, but they seem crucial for CDA.
page21image28160
page21image28696
page21image28968
page21image29240
page21image29512
page21image29784
page21image30056
page21image30328
page21image30600
page21image30872
page21image31144
page21image31416
page21image31688
page21image31960
page21image32232
page21image32504
page21image32776
page21image33048
page21image33320
page21image33592
page21image33864
page21image34136
page21image34408
page21image34680
page21image34952
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 21
page21image36144
page21image36568
broad linguistic operationalization
detailed linguistic operationalization
page22image3200
page22image3472
page22image3744
page22image4016
page22image4288
page22image4560
22 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
page22image6000
agency
page22image7152 page22image7744
Social Actors Approach (Theo van Leeuwen)
Sociocognitive Approach (Teun van Dijk)
page22image10232 page22image10824 page22image11416
Dispositive Analysis
(Siegfried Jäger and Florentine Maier)
page22image13128
Corpus-Linguistics Approach (Gerlinde Mautner)
page22image14608 page22image15200
Dialectical–Relational Approach (Norman Fairclough)
Discourse-Historical Approach (Ruth Wodak and Martin Reisigl)
page22image17688
structure
page22image18840 page22image19432
page22image20136
page22image20408
page22image20680
page22image20952
page22image21224
page22image21384
page22image21920
page22image22192
page22image22464
page22image22736
page22image23008
FIGURE 1.2 Linguistic depth of field and level of aggregation
Explicitly or implicitly, CDA distinguishes between the so-called linguistic surface and some kind of deep structure; for instance, the dialectical–relational approach speaks of form and texture at the textual level, the discourse-historical approach of forms of linguistic realization.
As for the methods and procedures used for the analysis of discourse, CDA generally sees them as a hermeneutic process, although this characteristic is not completely evident in the positioning of every author.As an opponent to (causal) explanations of the natural sciences, hermeneutics can be understood as the method of grasping and producing meaning relations.The hermeneutic circle – i.e. the meaning of one part can only be understood in the context of the whole, but this in turn is only accessible from its component parts – indicates the prob- lem of intelligibility of hermeneutic interpretation. Therefore, hermeneutic interpretation especially requires detailed documentation. Actually, the specifics of the hermeneutic interpretation process are not made completely transparent by many CDA-orientated studies.6 If a crude distinction has to be made between
page22image32896
page22image33168
page22image33440
page22image33712
page22image33984
page22image34144
page22image34680
page22image34952
page22image35224
page22image35496
page22image35768
page22image36040
page22image36312
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 22
page22image37504
page22image37928
page23image1544
page23image1816
page23image2088
page23image2360
page23image2632
page23image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 23
‘text-extending’ and ‘text-reducing’ methods of analysis, then CDA, on account of its concentration of very clear formal properties and the associated compression of texts during analysis, may be characterized as ‘text-reducing’. These findings contradict the mainly hermeneutic impetus of most CDA approaches.
Methodology
CDA in all its various forms understands itself to be strongly based in theory. To which theories do the different methods refer? Here we find a wide vari- ety of theories, ranging from theories on society and power in Michel Foucault’s tradition and theories of social cognition and grammar, to indi- vidual concepts that are borrowed from larger theoretical traditions. As a first step, this section aims to systematize these different theoretical influ- ences (see Figure 1.1).
A second step in this section is devoted to the problem of the operational- ization of theoretical concepts. The primary issue here is how the various methods of CDA are able to translate their theoretical claims into instruments and methods of analysis. In particular, the emphasis is on the mediation between ‘grand theories’ as applied to larger society and concrete instances of social interaction which result in texts to be analysed.With regard to method- ology, there are several perspectives within CDA: in addition to what can be described primarily as variations from hermeneutics, one finds interpretative perspectives with differing emphases, among them even quantitative proce- dures (see Mautner, this volume).
Particularly worthy of discussion is the way in which sampling is conducted in CDA. Most studies analyse ‘typical texts’.What is typical in which social sit- uation, and for which aspect of a social problem, remains a matter of argu- ment. The possibilities and limits with regard to the units of analysis chosen will be illuminated within the context of the issue of theoretical sampling. Some authors explicitly refer to the ethnographic tradition of field research (e.g. DHA).
The connection between theory and discourse in CDA can be described in terms of the model for theoretical and methodological research procedures illustrated in Figure 1.3:
Theoretical grounding and objectives
Among the different positions within CDA presented in this book, theoret- ical pieces of very different origins are employed to build their CDA castles. Neither is there any guiding theoretical viewpoint that is used coherently within CDA, nor do the CDA protagonists proceed consistently from the area of theory to the field of discourse and the way back to theory (see Figure 1.1).
page23image24696
page23image25232
page23image25504
page23image25776
page23image26048
page23image26320
page23image26592
page23image26864
page23image27136
page23image27408
page23image27680
page23image27952
page23image28224
page23image28496
page23image28768
page23image29040
page23image29312
page23image29584
page23image29856
page23image30128
page23image30400
page23image30672
page23image30944
page23image31216
page23image31488
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 23
page23image32680
page23image33104
page24image1568
page24image1840
page24image2112
page24image2384
page24image2656
page24image2928
24 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
page24image4352
Theory
page24image5608 page24image6032
Examination of assumptions
Interpretation
Selection of information
Conceptualization: Selection of theoretical concepts and relations, assumptions
Operationalization
Procedures and instruments
page24image9432 page24image9856
page24image10392
page24image10664
page24image10824 page24image11248 page24image11672
Discourse/text
page24image13040
FIGURE 1.3 Empirical research as a circular process
Within the CDA approaches presented here, you can find all the theoretical levels of sociological and socio-psychological theory (the concept of different theoretical levels is in the tradition of Merton, 1967: 39–72):
  • Epistemology, i.e. theories which provide models of the conditions, contin- gencies and limit of human perception in general and scientific perception in particular.
  • General social theories, often called ‘grand theories’, try to conceptualize the relations between social structure and social action and thus link micro- and macro-sociological phenomena.Within this level, one can distinguish between the more structuralist and the more individualist approaches.To put it very sim- ply, the former provide top-down explanations (structure>action), whereas the latter prefer bottom-up explanations (action>structure). Many modern theo- ries try to reconcile these positions and imply some kind of circularity between social action and social structure.
  • Middle-range theories focus either upon specific social phenomena (e.g. conflict, cognition, social networks) or on specific subsystems of society (e.g. economy, politics, religion).
  • Micro-sociological theories try to explain social interaction, for example the resolution of the double contingency problem (Parsons and Shils, 1951: 3–29) or the reconstruction of everyday procedures which members of a society use to create their own social order, which is the objective of ethnomethodology.
  • Socio-psychogical theories concentrate upon the social conditions of emo- tion and cognition and, compared to microsociology, prefer causal explanations to a hermeneutic understanding of meaning.
  • Discourse theories aim at the conceptualization of discourse as a social phe- nomenon and try to explain its genesis and its structure.
page24image27960
page24image28664
page24image28936
page24image29208
page24image29480
page24image29752
page24image30024
page24image30296
page24image30568
page24image30840
page24image31112
page24image31384
page24image31656
page24image31928
page24image32200
page24image32472
page24image32744
page24image33016
page24image33288
page24image33560
page24image33832
page24image34104
page24image34376
page24image34648
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 24
page24image35840
page24image36264
page25image1544
page25image1816
page25image2088
page25image2360
page25image2632
page25image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 25
Linguistic theories, e.g. theories of argumentation, of grammar, of rhetoric, try to describe and explain the pattern specific to language systems and verbal communication.
As all these theoretical levels can be found in CDA, at first glance it seems that the unifying parentheses of CDA are rather the specifics of research questions than the theoretical positioning. In the following, we want give a short outline of the theoretical positions and methodological objectives of CDA approaches.
Among the approaches assembled in this reader, Dispositive Analysis (DA – Siegfried Jäger and Florentine Maier in this volume) is closest to the origin of the notion of discourse, i.e. to Michel Foucault’s structuralist explanations of discur- sive phenomena. However, it detects a blind spot in Foucault’s theory, namely the mediation between subject and object, between discursive and non-discursive practices (activities) on the one hand and manifestations (objects) on the other. Here, DA strategically inserts Aleksej Leontjew’s (e.g. 1982) activity theory: the mediation between these corners of a triangle is performed by work, activity and non-discursive practices. Thus, the social acting subject becomes the link between discourse and reality, a theoretical movement which moderates the stringency of Foucauldian structuralism.The epistemological position is based upon Ernesto Laclau’s social constructivism, which denies any societal reality that is determined outside the discursive. In that way, Dispositive Analysis intro- duces a dualism of discourse and reality.
As all CDA approaches accept that discourse, understood as language use, is but one manifestation of social action (Chilton, 2005b: 20), DA is forced to argue against the Foucauldian notion of discourse which also includes non-linguistic elements. DA therefore applies Jürgen Link’s notion of discourse as ‘an institu- tionalized way of talking that regulates and reinforces action and thereby exerts power’ (Link, 1983: 60). Furthermore, Foucault’s concept of the ‘dispositive’ is introduced as a shell which envelops both discursive and nondiscursive prac- tices and materializations. DA thus explicitly aims at the analysis of discourses and dispositives.
The Sociocognitive Approach (SCA – Teun van Dijk in this volume) is on the socio-psychological side of the CDA field. Hereby, the theory serves as a framework systematizing phenomena of social reality. The approach is in the tradition of social representation theory (e.g. Moscovici, 2000). Its focal triad is construed between discourse, cognition and society. Discourse is seen as a communicative event, including conversational inter- action, written text, as well as associated gestures, facework, typographical layout, images and any other ‘semiotic’ or multi-media dimension of signi- fication. Van Dijk relies on socio-cognitive theory-splints and understands linguistics in a broad ‘structural–functional’ sense. He argues that CDA should be based on a sound theory of context.Within this claim, the theory of social representations plays a main part:
page25image26632
page25image27168
page25image27440
page25image27712
page25image27984
page25image28256
page25image28528
page25image28800
page25image29072
page25image29344
page25image29616
page25image29888
page25image30160
page25image30432
page25image30704
page25image30976
page25image31248
page25image31520
page25image31792
page25image32064
page25image32336
page25image32608
page25image32880
page25image33152
page25image33424
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 25
page25image34616
page25image35040
page26image1544
page26image1816
page26image2088
page26image2360
page26image2632
page26image2904
26 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Social actors involved in discourse do not only use their individual experiences and strategies, they rely mainly upon collective frames of perceptions, called social representations.These socially shared perceptions form the link between the social system and the individual cognitive system, and perform the translation, homog- enization and coordination between external requirements and subjective expe- rience. Thus, the approach somehow points to the link which Chilton (2005a) detects as missing.This assumption is not new: already in the first half of the 19th century, Emile Durkheim (e.g. 1933) pointed out the significance of collective ideas which help societies to consciousness and the reification of social norms. Serge Moscovici (1982) coined the notion of social representations as a bulk of concepts, opinions, attitudes, evaluations, images and explanations which result from daily life and are sustained by communication. Social representations are shared among members of a social group, which was again already stated by Emile Durkheim:‘The ideas of man ... are not personal and are not restricted to me; I share them, to a large degree, with all the men who belong to the same social group that I do. Because they are held in common, concepts are the supreme instrument of all intellectual exchange’ (cited in Bellah, 1973: 52).Thus, they form a core element of the individual’s social identity (Wagner, 1994: 132). Social rep- resentations are bound to specific social groups and do not span society as a whole.They are dynamic constructs and subject to permanent change.Together, they constitute a hierarchical order of mutual dependency (Duveen and Lloyd, 1990). SCA introduces the concept of context models, which are understood as mental representations of the structures of the communicative situation that are discursively relevant for a participant.These context models control the ‘pragmat- ic’ part of discourse, whereas event models do so with the ‘semantic’ part.Three forms of social representations are relevant to understand discourse:
1. knowledge(personal,group,cultural)
2. attitudes (not in the social psychology understanding)
3. ideologies.Discoursestakeplacewithinsociety,andcanonlybeunderstoodin

the interplay of social situation, action, actor and societal structures.
Perhaps the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) is the most linguistically orientated of the approaches selected in this volume (see also Figure 1.2). It explicitly tries to establish a theory of discourse by establishing the connection between fields of action (Girnth, 1996), genres, discourses and texts.Although DHA is aligned to Critical Theory, general social theory plays a minor role compared with the discourse model and the emphasis on historical analysis: context is understood as mainly historical.Thus far, the DHA consistently agrees with Mouzelis’s (1995) pessimistic diagnosis of social research. DHA consequently follows his recommen- dations: not to get lost in theoretical labyrinths, not to invest too much in the oper- ationalization of inoperationalizable ‘grand theories’, yes – but rather to develop conceptual tools relevant for specific social problems.The DHA concentrates its efforts in the field of politics, where it tries to develop conceptual frameworks for
page26image27640
page26image28176
page26image28448
page26image28720
page26image28992
page26image29264
page26image29536
page26image29808
page26image30080
page26image30352
page26image30624
page26image30896
page26image31168
page26image31440
page26image31712
page26image31984
page26image32256
page26image32528
page26image32800
page26image33072
page26image33344
page26image33616
page26image33888
page26image34160
page26image34432
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 26
page26image35624
page26image36048
page27image1544
page27image1816
page27image2088
page27image2360
page27image2632
page27image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 27
political discourse. Reisigl and Wodak try to fit linguistic theories into their model of discourse.They therefore make extensive use of argumentation theory in the example presented in this volume.That does not necessarily mean that the con- cepts resulting from argumentation theory fit well with other research questions.
As the Corpus Linguistics Approach (CLA – Gerlinde Mautner in this volume) is rather a linguistic extension of CDA, it provides additional linguis- tic devices for thorough analysis – and can be applied principally against the backdrop of various CDA approaches.
The Social Actors Approach (SAA – Theo van Leuuwen in this volume) refers to a broad scope of sociological and linguistic theories, especially to those explaining the role of action to establish social structure: representation is ulti- mately based on practice, on that which people do – it is the primacy of practice which constitutes the theoretical core of SAA.Therefore, SAA introduces sources from Malinkowski to Parsons, from Bernstein to Bourdieu.This idea of individ- ual actors permanently constituting and reproducing social structure is linked with a Foucauldian notion of discourse, somewhat similar to DA and DRA.
The Dialectical–Relational Approach (DRA Norman Fairclough in this volume) takes a rather grand-theory-oriented position: Fairclough focuses upon social conflict in the Marxian tradition and tries to detect its linguistic manifestations in discourses, in particular elements of dominance, difference and resistance. According to DRA, every social practice has a semiotic element. Productive activity, the means of production, social relations, social identities, cultural values, consciousness and semiosis are dialectically related elements of social practice. He understands CDA as the analysis of the dialectical relation- ships between semiosis (including language) and other elements of social prac- tices. These semiotic aspects of social practice are responsible for the constitution of genres and styles.The semiotic aspect of social order is called the order of discourse. His approach to CDA oscillates between a focus on structure and a focus on action. Both strategies ought to be problem-based: by all means, CDA should pursue emancipatory objectives, and should be focused upon the problems confronting what can loosely be referred to as the ‘losers’ within par- ticular forms of social life. DRA draws upon a particular linguistic theory – Systemic Functional Linguistics (Halliday, 1985) – which analyses language as shaped (even in its grammar) by the social functions it has come to serve.
Gathering data
We concluded above that CDA does not constitute a well-defined empirical method but rather a bulk of approaches with theoretical similarities and research questions of a specific kind. But there is no CDA way of gathering data, either. Some authors do not even mention data-gathering methods, while other scholars strongly rely on traditions based outside the sociolinguistic field.7 In any case, similar to Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), data collec- tion is not considered to be a specific phase that must be completed before analysis begins: after the first collection exercise, it is a matter of carrying out
page27image28528
page27image29064
page27image29336
page27image29608
page27image29880
page27image30152
page27image30424
page27image30696
page27image30968
page27image31240
page27image31512
page27image31784
page27image32056
page27image32328
page27image32600
page27image32872
page27image33144
page27image33416
page27image33688
page27image33960
page27image34232
page27image34504
page27image34776
page27image35048
page27image35320
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 27
page27image36512
page27image36936
page28image1544
page28image1816
page28image2088
page28image2360
page28image2632
page28image2904
28 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
the first analyses, finding indicators for particular concepts, expanding concepts into categories and, on the basis of these results, collecting further data (theo- retical sampling). In this mode of procedure, data collection is never completely excluded, and new questions always arise which can only be dealt with if new data are collected or earlier data are re-examined (Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1990).
Most of the approaches to CDA do not explicitly explain or recommend data-gathering procedures. Obviously, CLA specifically refers to large corpora of text. DA, SCA, SAA and DRA mainly rely on existing texts, such as mass media communication or organizational documents.This also holds good for DHA, though it additionally postulates that studies should always incorporate fieldwork and ethnography to explore the object under investigation as a pre- condition for any further analysis and theorizing.The concentration on already existing texts implies specific strengths, in particular it provides non-reactive data (Webb et al., 1966), and certain weaknesses concerning the research ques- tions which have to be handled.
Operationalization and analysis
CDA places its methodology in the hermeneutic rather than in the analytical– deductive tradition. In any case, the linguistic character of CDA becomes evident in this section, because in contrast to other approaches of text and dis- course analysis (e.g. Content Analysis, Grounded Theory, Conversation Analysis; see Titscher et al., 2000), CDA strongly relies on linguistic categories. This does not mean that topics and contents play no role at all, but the core operationalizations depend on linguistic concepts such as actors, mode, time, tense, argumentation and so on. Nevertheless, a completed list of linguistic devices relevant for CDA cannot be given, for their selection depends mainly on the specific research questions.
DA distinguishes between a more content-oriented step of (1) structure analysis and a more linguistically oriented step of (2) fine analysis.Within stuc- ture analysis, a characterization of the media and the general themes has to be made.Within the fine analysis, DA focuses upon context, text surface and rhetor- ical means. Exemplary linguistic instruments are figurativeness, vocabulary and argumentation types. DA takes into account both qualitative and quantitative aspects of these features. DA analyses:
  • the kind and form of argumentation
  • certain argumentation strategies
  • the intrinsic logic and composition of texts
  • somehow implicit implications and insinuations
  • the collective symbolism or ‘figurativeness’, symbolism, metaphorism and so on,
    both in language and in graphic contexts (statistics, photographs, pictures, car-
    icatures, etc.)
  • idioms, sayings, clichés, vocabulary and style
page28image26088
page28image26624
page28image26896
page28image27168
page28image27440
page28image27712
page28image27984
page28image28256
page28image28528
page28image28800
page28image29072
page28image29344
page28image29616
page28image29888
page28image30160
page28image30432
page28image30704
page28image30976
page28image31248
page28image31520
page28image31792
page28image32064
page28image32336
page28image32608
page28image32880
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 28
page28image34072
page28image34496
page29image1544
page29image1816
page29image2088
page29image2360
page29image2632
page29image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 29
  • actors (persons, pronominal structure)
  • references, for example, to (the) science(s)
  • the particulars of the sources of knowledge, etc.
    SCA generally argues that a complete discourse analysis of a large corpus of text or talk, as we often have in CDA research, is therefore totally out of the question. If the focus of research is on the ways in which some speakers or writers exercise power in or by their discourse, the focus of study will in practice be on those properties that can vary as a function of social power. SCA therefore suggests con- centrating the analysis upon linguistic markers as follows:
  • stress and intonation
  • word order
  • lexical style
  • coherence
  • local semantic moves such as disclaimers
  • topic choice
  • speech acts
  • schematic organization
  • rhetorical figures
  • syntactic structures
  • propositional structures
  • turn-takings
  • repairs
  • hesitation.
    SCA supposes that most of these are exemplary forms of interaction which are in principle susceptible to speaker control, but in practice mostly not consciously controlled. Other structures, such as the form of words and many structures of sentences, are grammatically obligatory and contextually invariant and hence usu- ally not subject to speaker control and social power. SCA further suggests six steps of analysis:
  1. The analysis of semantic macrostructures: topics and macropropositions.
  2. The analysis of local meanings, where the many forms of implicit or indirect meanings, such as implications, presuppositions, allusions, vagueness, omissions
    and polarizations are especially interesting.
  3. Theanalysisof‘subtle’formalstructures:here,mostofthelinguisticmarkersmen-
    tioned are analysed.
  4. The analysis of global and local discourse forms or formats.
  5. Theanalysisofspecificlinguisticrealizations,e.g.hyperbole,litotes.
  6. The analysis of context.
In the studies on racist and discriminatory discourse, DHA unfolds a four-step strategy of analysis: after (1) having established the specific contents or topics
page29image22840
page29image23376
page29image23648
page29image23920
page29image24192
page29image24464
page29image24736
page29image25008
page29image25280
page29image25552
page29image25824
page29image26096
page29image26368
page29image26640
page29image26912
page29image27184
page29image27456
page29image27728
page29image28000
page29image28272
page29image28544
page29image28816
page29image29088
page29image29360
page29image29632
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 29
page29image30824
page29image31248
page30image1544
page30image1816
page30image2088
page30image2360
page30image2632
page30image2904
30 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
of a specific discourse (e.g. with racist, antisemitic, nationalist or ethnicist ingre- dients), (2) the discursive strategies (including argumentation strategies) are inves- tigated. Then (3), the linguistic means (as types) and the specific, context-dependent linguistic realizations (as tokens) of the discriminatory stereo- types are examined (4).
In these studies, the discourse-historical approach concentrates upon the fol- lowing discursive strategies:
  • Referential strategy or strategy of nomination, where the linguistic devices of inter- est are membership categorization (Sacks, 1992), metaphors and metonymies and synecdoches.
  • Strategies of predication which appear in stereotypical, evaluative attributions of positive or negative traits and implicit or explicit predicates.
  • Strategies of argumentation which are reflected in certain topoi used to justify political inclusion or exclusion.
  • Strategies of perspectivization, framing or discourse representation use means of report- ing, description, narration or quotation of events and utterances.
  • Strategies of intensification and mitigation try to intensify or mitigate the illocu- tionary force of utterances (Ng and Bradac, 1993).
    This methodology aims to be abductive, because the categories of analysis are firstly developed in accordance with the research questions, and a constant move- ment back and forth between theory and empirical data is suggested.The histor- ical context is always analysed and integrated into the interpretation, although there is no stringent procedure for this task.
    CLA adds a quantitative methodology to DHA: large corpora are analysed by means of concordance software, thus providing frequency lists and spe- cific measures of statistical significance. Therefore, CLA applies a rather deductive methodology in selecting specific words which are relevant for analysis, but also offers concordance lines as a basis for further (qualitative) interpretation.
    In a very general sense, SAA describes and explains social practices by iden- tifying seven core elements. Firstly, it tries to identify (1) actions within given texts, then it analyses (2) performance modes and denotes (3) actors which apply (4) specific presentation styles of their actions. Social practices which are constituted by these actions take place in (5) specific times and (6) spaces, and actors require (7) specific resources. Some of these elements of social practice are eligible, while some are deleted, i.e. are not represented in a specific dis- course. Some are substituted; some reactions and motives are added to the rep- resentation of social practices.
    DRA suggests a stepwise procedure in preparation for analysis. Like DHA, it prefers a pragmatic, problem-oriented approach, where the first step is to identify and describe the social problem which should be analysed. DRA propositions are as follows:
page30image26104
page30image26640
page30image26912
page30image27184
page30image27456
page30image27728
page30image28000
page30image28272
page30image28544
page30image28816
page30image29088
page30image29360
page30image29632
page30image29904
page30image30176
page30image30448
page30image30720
page30image30992
page30image31264
page30image31536
page30image31808
page30image32080
page30image32352
page30image32624
page30image32896
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 30
page30image34088
page30image34512
page31image1544
page31image1816
page31image2088
page31image2360
page31image2632
page31image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 31
  1. Focus upon a specific social problem which has a semiotic aspect, go outside the text and describe the problem, and identify its semiotic aspect.
  2. Identify the dominant styles, genres and discourses constituting this semiotic aspect.
  3. Consider the range of difference and diversity in styles, genres and discourses within this aspect.
  4. Identify the resistance against the colonialization processes executed by the dominant styles, genres and discourses.
After these preparatory steps, which also help to select the material, DRA suggests (1) a structural analysis of the context, and then (2) an interactional analysis, which focuses on such linguistic features as:
agents
time
tense
modality syntax
and finally (3) an analysis of interdiscursivity, which tries to compare the dominant and resistant strands of discourse.
Above, we have only been able to give a brief outline of the core procedures applied in the different approaches to CDA. Finally, it should be pointed out that, although there is no consistent CDA methodology, some features are common to most CDA approaches: (1) they are problem-oriented and not focused on specific linguistic items, yet linguistic expertise is obligatory for the selection of the items relevant to specific research objectives; (2) theory as well as methodology is eclectic, both of which are integrated as far as is helpful to understand the social problems under investigation.
Criteria for assessing quality
It seems to be beyond controversy that qualitative social research also needs concepts and criteria to assess the quality of its findings. It is also indisputable that the classical concepts of validity, reliability and objectivity used in quanti- tative research cannot be applied unmodified. ‘The real issue is how our research can be both intellectually challenging and rigorous and critical’ (Silverman, 1993: 144); Silverman also provides a detailed discussion of these concepts and a reformulation for qualitative research.Within CDA, there is lit- tle specific discussion on quality criteria.
DA at least mentions the classical criteria of representativeness, reliability and validity. Beyond it, DA suggests ‘completeness’ as a criterion suited for CDA: the results of a study will be ‘complete’ if new data and the analysis of new lin- guistic devices reveal no new findings. SCA suggests accessibility as a criterion which takes into account the practical targets of CDA: findings should be at least accessible and readable for the social groups under investigation.
page31image24960
page31image25496
page31image25768
page31image26040
page31image26312
page31image26584
page31image26856
page31image27128
page31image27400
page31image27672
page31image27944
page31image28216
page31image28488
page31image28760
page31image29032
page31image29304
page31image29576
page31image29848
page31image30120
page31image30392
page31image30664
page31image30936
page31image31208
page31image31480
page31image31752
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 31
page31image32944
page31image33368
page32image1544
page32image1816
page32image2088
page32image2360
page32image2632
page32image2904
32 METHODS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
DHA suggests triangulation procedures to ensure validity – ‘ ... which is appropriate whatever one’s theoretical orientation or use of quantitative or qualitative data’ (Silverman, 1993: 156).8 DHA’s triangulatory approach is mainly theoretical and based on the concept of context which takes into account four levels: (1) the immediate language- or text-internal co-text; (2) the inter- textual and interdiscursive relationship between utterances, texts, genres and discourses; (3) the extralinguistic (social) level, which is called the ‘context of situation’ and explained by middle-range theories; and (4) the broader sociopo- litical and historical contexts. Permanent switching between these levels and evaluating the findings from these different perspectives should minimize the risk of being biased. Beyond it, DHA suggests methodical triangulation by using multimethodical designs on the basis of a variety of empirical data as well as background information.
Triangulation among different types of data, participants’ definition of sig- nificance and issue-based analysis to establish the significance of the sites of engagement and mediated actions under study, are suited to bring the analyses back to participants to get their reactions and interpretations: to uncover diver- gences and contradictions between one’s own analysis of the mediated actions one is studying and those of participants.
Nevertheless, severe ‘objectivity’ cannot be reached by means of discourse analysis, for each ‘technology’ of research must itself be examined as potentially embedding the beliefs and ideologies of the analysts and therefore prejudicing the analysis towards the analysts’ preconceptions.
Summary and criticism
The goal of this chapter was to provide a summary of CDA approaches, their similarities and differences. One of CDA’s volitional characteristics is its diver- sity. Nevertheless, a few cornerstones can be noticed within this diversity:
  • Concerning its theoretical background, CDA works eclectically in many aspects. The whole range between grand theories and linguistic theories is touched, although each single approach emphasizes different levels.
  • There is no accepted canon of data collection, but many CDA approaches work with existing data, i.e. texts not specifically produced for the respective research projects.
  • Operationalization and analysis are problem-oriented and imply linguistic expertise.
    The most evident similarity is a shared interest in social processes of power, hierarchy-building, exclusion and subordination. In the tradition of Critical Theory, CDA aims to shed light on the discursive aspects of societal disparities and inequalities. CDA frequently detects the linguistic means used by the privileged
page32image24528
page32image25064
page32image25336
page32image25608
page32image25880
page32image26152
page32image26424
page32image26696
page32image26968
page32image27240
page32image27512
page32image27784
page32image28056
page32image28328
page32image28600
page32image28872
page32image29144
page32image29416
page32image29688
page32image29960
page32image30232
page32image30504
page32image30776
page32image31048
page32image31320
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 32
page32image32512
page32image32936
page33image1544
page33image1816
page33image2088
page33image2360
page33image2632
page33image2904
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 33
to stabilize or even to intensify inequities in society.This entails careful systematic analysis, self-reflection at every point of one’s research and distance from the data which are being investigated. Description and interpretation should be kept apart, thus enabling transparency and retroduction of the respective analysis. Of course, not all of these recommendations are consistently followed, and they cannot always be implemented in detail because of time pressures and similar structural constraints.Therefore, some critics will continue to state that CDA constantly sits on the fence between social research and political argumentation (Wodak, 2006a), while others accuse some CDA studies of being too linguistic or not linguistic enough. In our view, such criticism keeps a field alive because it necessarily stim- ulates more self-reflection and encourages new responses and new thoughts.
Notes
  1. 1  This chapter is based on long and extensive discussions with friends, colleagues and co-researchers as well as students. Ruth Wodak would like to mention and thank Teun van Dijk, Paul Chilton, Theo van Leeuwen, John Richardson and Michael Billig as well as all her co-researchers and (former) students. Finally, we would like to thank the many colleagues we have not been able to mention here.
  2. 2  See Anthonissen, 2001; Blommaert and Bulcaen, 2000; Fairclough and Wodak, 1997; Reisigl and Wodak, 2001; Titscher et al., 2000; Weiss et al., 2003; Wodak and Meyer, 2001;Wodak and Pelinka, 2002, etc.
  3. 3  See Language and Power by Norman Fairclough (1989/1991), Language, Power and Ideology by Ruth Wodak (1989) and Prejudice in Discourse by Teun van Dijk (1984).
  4. 4  The Erasmus network consisted of a cooperation between Siegfried Jäger, Duisburg, Per Linell, Linkoeping, Norman Fairclough, Lancaster, Teun van Dijk, Amsterdam, Gunther Kress, London, Theo van Leeuwen, London and Ruth Wodak,Vienna.
  5. 5  Unfortunately, we have to neglect much research here which could certainly also be categorized as critical approaches, such as feminist CDA (see Lazar, 2005), criti- cal ethnographic approaches (see Blommaert, 2005), research situated between soci- olinguistics, literacy research and CDA (see Tricento, 2005), etc. We have to refer readers to the many publications and overview essays in the field.
  6. 6  The question of whether it is possible to make hermeneutic processes transparent and intelligible at all remains undecided, although some authors (Oevermann et al., 1979) developed a hermeneutically orientated method with well-defined proce- dures and rules.
  7. 7  A general survey on sampling and the selection of texts is given by Titscher et al. (2000).
  8. 8  An early proponent of the method of triangulation is Norman Denzin (1970). For further discussion of criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research, see, for example, Altheide and Johnson, 1994; Morse et al., 2002.
page33image26608
page33image27144
page33image27416
page33image27688
page33image27960
page33image28232
page33image28504
page33image28776
page33image29048
page33image29320
page33image29592
page33image29864
page33image30136
page33image30408
page33image30680
page33image30952
page33image31224
page33image31496
page33image31768
page33image32040
page33image32312
page33image32584
page33image32856
page33image33128
page33image33400
Wodak-3795-Ch-01:Wodak-3795-Ch-01.QXP  9/29/2008  4:29 PM  Page 33
page33image34592
page33image35016

Comments