Critical Discourse Analysis: History

and New Developments

ADITI BHATIA

What Is CDA?

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) has often been regarded more as an alternative perspec-
tive to discourse analysis rather than a school or specialization (Van Dijk, 2001). CDA as
a perspective “primarily studies the way social power, abuse, dominance, and inequality
are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by texts and talk in social and political context. With
such dissident research, critical discourse analysts take explicit positions, and thus want
to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality” (Van Dijk, 2001, p. 352). CDA
is defined further by its attempt to demystify, through the analysis of various semiotic
data, the ideological and asymmetrical power structures that inhibit social, political, and
cultural processes. It is in fact possible to define the CDA perspective as

fundamentally concerned with analysing opaque as well as transparent structural rela-

tionships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in language.
In other words, CDA aims to investigate critically social inequality as it is expressed,
signalled, constituted, legitimized and so on by language use (or in discourse) . . . three
concepts figure indispensably in all CDA: the concept of power, the concept of history,
and the concept of ideology. (Wodak, 2001, pp. 2–3)

Origin and History of CDA

CDA’s focus on language and discourse originated from the “critical linguistics” that
emerged (mostly in the UK and Australia) in the late 1970s. The terms “critical linguistics
and “critical discourse analysis” are often used interchangeably, with CDA becoming an
increasingly preferred term, reflecting more accurately its roots, including rhetoric, text
linguistics, sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, and pragmatics (Wodak & Meyer, 2009).
The mid-1960s and early 1970s saw growth in the dimensions common to the related
disciplines that emerged in the humanities and social sciences, where, despite their
“different disciplinary backgrounds and a great diversity of methods and objects of inves-
tigation, some parts of the new fields/paradigms/linguistics 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”
(Wodak and Meyer, 2009, p. 2):

• an interest in the properties of real language by users in natural settings;

• a focus on texts, discourses, conversations, speech acts, or communicative events;
• a study of action and interaction;
• an interest in the nonverbal aspects of communication;
• a focus on the social and cognitive aspect of interaction;
• an investigation of the context of language use; and
• an analysis of the range of semantic-pragmatic-textual language use.

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Edited by Carol A. Chapelle.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0277
2 critical discourse analysis: history & new developments

The network of critical discourse analysts grew from a symposium in Amsterdam in the
early 1990s, which included scholars like Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak,
Theo van Leeuwen, and Gunther Kress. Of course since then scholars have developed,
branched out, or even distanced themselves from the more traditional approach. Since
“studies in CDA are multifarious, derived from quite different theoretical backgrounds,
oriented towards different data and methodologies . . . [relying on] a variety of grammatical
approaches . . . definitions of the terms ‘discourse’, ‘ideology’, ‘power’ and so on are also
manifold” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009, p. 5), which has allowed CDA to remain a flexible
school of thought, rigorous in debate, leading to positive development and growth in the
objectives and agendas of the research that this school generates, thus conveying a more
resilient, less categorical image.

Crucial Components of CDA

There may exist several distinct interpretations of CDA, but some of the basic tenets
common to all address issues of power and language production in society, focusing on
language as social practice and particularly on the context of language use. It is in this
regard that CDA differs so significantly from discourse studies, since in addition to incor-
porating the above-mentioned dimensions in its analysis, it approaches its investigation
in a problem-oriented, multidisciplinary manner; it is “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” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009,
p. 2). It is for this reason that this particular perspective on discourse employs the term
“critical,” which is often wrongly misinterpreted to mean a negative assessment of crucial
social and political issues and events, although in fact the objects of inquiry for CDA are
often common societal processes that can transform into the focus of “critical” inquiry.

The “Critical” in Discourse Analysis

Perhaps what can be regarded as a dominant characteristic of CDA is its belief that
language is social practice (Fairclough, 1989; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997), meaning that
discourse both shapes and is shaped by society. Discursive events share a co-constitutive
relationship with the social, institutional, and professional contexts within which they take
place. They are socially conditioned by the local and macro contexts in which they occur,
but at the same time the discursive events shape the social identities and relationships
of the participants engaged in these events themselves. As Fairclough and Wodak (1997,
p. 258) state,

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 constitutive 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.

The “Discourse” in Critical Analysis

As mentioned earlier, the diversity in the interpretation of CDA often lies in the multi-
farious definitions offered of crucial concepts, including the term “discourse,” which many
 critical discourse analysis: history & new developments 3

scholars and academics have tried to shape in terms of their distinct approaches to CDA.
One dominant definition comes from Foucault (1972, p. 80), who identifies discourse “(1)
sometimes as the general domain of all statements, (2) sometimes as an individualizable
group of statements, and (3) sometimes as a regulated practice that accounts for a number
of statements.” Mills (1997) states that the first of the three definitions that Foucault offers
is perhaps the broadest and most generally applicable at a theoretical level. The second
definition describes discourse as an individualizable group of statements, internally
structured and regulated, having coherence and a force in common. The third definition,
“a regulated practice that accounts for a number of statements,” deals with discourse as
rule-governed, focusing on the conventions that produce statements and texts.
Foucault (1989) in his concept of discourse also emphasizes the importance of context
and history, explaining that discourse is not simply a linguistic practice; it is about the
representation of reality, the practice of it, again illustrating the fundamental view that
CDA has of discourse as social practice. Discourse, for Foucault, is made of statements,
which he considers as atoms of discourse, in the way sentences are atoms of a text. Similarly,
Ricento (2003) in his study states that discourses are not simply in the moment; they are
“sites of action, not static receptacles or artifacts. They represent beliefs based on the
interpretation of events and, in turn, help shape future events. They are windows into the
lifeways of a culture and society” (p. 630).
Fairclough (2003) presents an interpretation of discourse that varies slightly from that
of Foucault, considering it “as ways of representing aspects of the world—the processes,
relations and structures of the material world, the ‘mental world’ of thoughts, feelings,
beliefs and so forth, and the social world” (p. 124). Discourses are different conceptions
of the world, connected to the different relations people have with the world, depending
on their social positions. Fairclough further emphasizes that discourses are “projective,
imaginaries, representing possible worlds, which are different from the actual world, and
tied in to projects to change the world in particular directions” (p. 124).
“Discourse” thus in CDA refers not to a single piece of text, which may very well be no
more than a unit of discourse, but rather to the social process of creating meaning. Discourse,
then, is the end product of the creation and interpretation of semiotic variables.

Crucial Components of CDA

The crux of CDA is formed by the fusion of language, discourse, and social structure,
consisting of eight primary characteristics (McKenna, 2004):

1. Teleology: CDA is committed to unveiling the power structures in society in what can
be seen as its bid to solve problems caused by practical action. It has a “teleological
commitment to justice, democracy, equality, and fairness” (p. 10).
2. Theory of discourse: CDA is distinguished from mere discourse analysis in that it studies
text in an interdiscursive and intertextual manner in the process of meaning making.
3. Materialism: CDA treats language as more than just a random linguistic process; dis-
course is given meaning by social action, and takes place within a complex sociocultural
framework, whereby “social context relates to textual production” (p. 11).
4. Historicity: CDA acknowledges that texts and utterances are a product of our habitus
and thus indicative “of the spatio-temporality of any textual production and {accom-
modating] the diachronicity of discourse” (p. 12).
5. Constructionism and constructivism: CDA investigates how language is both constitutive
of and an expression of social structures.
6. Theories of subject: “Because the concept of subject incorporates issue of agency and
constructedness, it is a crucial aspect of critical discourse studies . . . [leading to the
understanding of] an external and an internal form of subjectivity” (pp. 12–13).
4 critical discourse analysis: history & new developments

7. Ideology: Discursive practices are a reflection of our subjective understanding of the

world, and hence our ideologies. Discourses can be seen as an expression of our
ideologies and yet constitutive of them.
8. Power: Ideologically infused discourses reflect power struggles in society that in turn
categorize and structure society. They put forward subjective versions of reality with
the purpose of information processing, distribution and retention of power, creating
in-group exclusivity, and setting standards for normative behavior.

Fairclough (1989, p. 5) elaborates on the way CDA investigates the relationship between
language, power, and ideology, analyzing “social interactions in a way which focuses upon
their linguistic elements, which sets out to show up their generally hidden determinants
in the system of social relationships, as well as hidden effects they may have upon that
system.” Fowler (1996, p. 3) further points out that CDA is “designed to get at the ideology
coded implicitly behind the overt propositions, to examine it particularly in the context of
social formations.” Power has the capacity to create and maintain a hierarchical demarcation
in social institutions (Fairclough, 1989). CDA, recognizing this capacity of power-generated
hierarchical structures, tends to make these hidden connections obvious to the recipients
of it. As Calsamiglia and Van Dijk (2004, p. 370) write,

popularization discourse needs to be formulated in such a way that non-specialized

readers are able to construct lay versions of specialized knowledge and integrate these
with their existing knowledge. Thus, various strategies of explanation, such as definitions,
examples, or metaphors, among many others, are the semantic means that allow language
users to relate new knowledge to old knowledge.

CDA aids in the process of deciphering the impact of powerful ideologies on discursive
practices; how discourse is popularized, or converted from specialized knowledge into
lay knowledge, and what are the consequences of this sort of recontextualization, where
“discursive practices are cut off from their embeddedness in action and transformed
into discourses which are articulated together in new ways according to the logic of the
recontextualizing practice: and transformed from real to imaginary, and bought into the
space of ideology” (Fairclough, 1999, pp. 70–1). Outcomes of ideological discourses may
include the partial distribution of power and reinforcement of the status quo; the creation
of stereotypes and categories; even the subjective understanding of reality that is conveyed
through media representation and which then determines the reality for a collective
populace.
With a focus on critical language study, Fairclough (1995, p. 28) emphasizes the import-
ance of investigating local microstructures and the more interlaced macro events of society:
“The critical approach has its theoretical underpinnings in views of the relationship between
‘micro’ . . . and ‘macro’ structures which see the latter as both the conditions for and the
products of the former and which therefore reject rigid barriers between the study of the
‘micro’ . . . and the study of the ‘macro’ ” (Fairclough, 1995, p. 28). His dialectical-relational
approach to CDA is based on his three dimensions of discourse, namely text, discourse
practice, and sociocultural practice, and similarly the analysis of discourse integrates descrip-
tion, interpretation, and explanation of data, as represented in Figure 1 (see Fairclough,
1995, p. 59).
For Fairclough (1989), discourse, which bears witness to power and ideology in society,
is an amalgamation of text, interaction, and social context, within which he draws the
distinction of “description of text, interpretation of the relationship between text and
interaction, and explanation of the relationship between interaction and social context”
(p. 109).
 critical discourse analysis: history & new developments 5

Text

Discourse practice

Textual and intertextual

analysis of text
Process of Process of
Interpretation and production interpretation
recontextualization of
text and micro-context

Explanation of text and

macro-context
Sociocultural practice

Dimensions of Dimensions of
discourse discourse analysis

Figure 1 Dialectical-relational approach to CDA (adapted from Fairclough, 1995, p. 59)

In a similar manner, Van Dijk’s (1993) sociocognitive approach to research perceives

CDA as an instrument of analyzing power structures in discourse; as he mentions, “critical
discourse analysis is specifically interested in power abuse, that is in breaches of laws, rules
and principles of democracy, equality and justice by those who wield power” (pp. 254–5).
Van Dijk elaborates further by saying CDA examines the way in which powerful gatekeepers
in society influence social beliefs and values, and shape ideologies, through the standards
they set for what is and is not acceptable. In other words, CDA explores power asymmetry
in discourse. This approach’s

focal triad is construed between discourse, cognition and society. Discourse is seen as
a communicative event, including conversational interaction, written text, as well as
associated gestures, facework, typographical layout, images and any other “semiotic” or
multi-media dimension of signification. 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: 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. (Wodak & Meyer, 2009, pp. 25–6)

Wodak’s (2002) discourse-historical approach expands on the basic principles of CDA

by adding a historical dimension, integrating “a large quantity of available knowledge
about the historical sources and the background of the social and political fields in which
discursive ‘events’ are embedded. Further, it analyses the historical dimension of discursive
6 critical discourse analysis: history & new developments

theoretical basis
Main

M. Foucault Critical theory K. Marx S. Moscovici Symbolic M. K. Halliday

interactionism
research strategy

Discourse-historical Social actors Sociocognitive Dialectical-relational

Overall

approach approach approach approach

(Wodak and Reisigl) (van Leeuwen) (van Dijk) (Fairclough)

Inductive, detailed case studies Deductive, general perspective

Figure 2 Primary research strategies and theoretical approaches in CDA (adapted from Wodak
& Meyer, 2009, p. 20)

actions by exploring the ways in which particular genres of discourse are subject to dia-
chronic change” (Wodak, 2001, p. 65). The discourse-historical approach aims to make explicit
the relations between discourses and the historical and sociopolitical contexts within which
they are embedded. Discourses are multilayered, often connecting with and recontextual-
izing others; as a consequence, they are often filled with paradoxes, contradictions, and
inconsistencies. Exploring, in addition to the facets mentioned above, the historicity of
discourses and discursive events, allows the opportunity to discover possible inconsisten-
cies in discourses and demystify—in other words, bring into focus as much as possible—
the historical dimension and manipulative character of discursive practices (Wodak, 2001).
Figure 2 illustrates some primary research strategies and theoretical approaches in CDA
(see Wodak & Meyer, 2009).

Recent Developments in CDA

There has been a growing trend in CDA toward the integration of cognitive linguistics.
Research approaches of this capacity include Charteris-Black’s (2004, 2005) critical metaphor
analysis (CMA) approach, which attempts to indentify and investigate metaphors convey
the intention, motivations, and ideologies that underlie language use. CMA can be defined
as an “integration of cognitive semantic and pragmatic approaches that is based on corpus
evidence” (Charteris-Black, 2004, p. 13). The approach most usefully takes into consideration
the speaker’s or writer’s intention with regard to the creation and diffusion of metaphor
by blending both cognitive and pragmatic perspectives, recognizing that although metaphor
is not just a linguistic phenomenon, in the language of persuasion writers and speakers
“use metaphor to persuade by combining the cognitive and linguistic resources at their
disposal” (2004, p. 11). Focusing his research largely on political discourse, Charteris-Black
explains that CMA attempts to

identify which metaphors are chosen and to explain why these metaphors are chosen by
illustrating how they create political myths . . . [in addition to indicating] how the meta-
phors of one social or political group may be taken over, exploited and developed by
those of another for competing ideological ends. (2004, pp. 28–9)

Scholars have increasingly emphasized the role and importance of cognitive linguistics
in the critical reflection of discourse, as Hart and Lukes (2007, p. xi) state: “So far, the
application of Cognitive Linguistics in critical discourse analysis has in the main been
 critical discourse analysis: history & new developments 7

restricted to conceptual metaphor theory . . . Whilst we recognise the importance of

conceptual metaphor theory in critical discourse analysis . . . its appropriation is also
challenged.” They continue by mentioning that cognitive linguistics presents a “rich and
varied theoretical world” (p. xi), which needs to be considered for appropriation and
integration, “including conceptual metaphor theory, conceptual blending theory and frame
semantics, as well as developing theories, such as metaphor power theory and discourse
space theory” (p. xi). This is just one development in the ever-growing and dynamic
approach to discourse studies, which is altered, adapted, and molded by researchers in
various disciplines to investigate the thickly layered discourses that are shaped by and in
turn shape an ever-developing society.

SEE ALSO: Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Applied Linguistics; Critical Discourse
Analysis: Overview; “Critical” in Critical Discourse Analysis; Fairclough, Norman; Wodak,
Ruth

References

Calsamiglia, H., & Van Dijk, T. A. (2004). Popularization discourse and knowledge about the
genome. Discourse and Society, 15(4), 369–89.
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Basingstoke, England:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. New York, NY: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London, England: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1999). Democracy and the public sphere in critical research on discourse. In
R. Wodak & C. Ludwig (Eds.), Challenges in a changing world: Issues in critical discourse
analysis (pp. 63–85). Vienna, Austria: Passagen.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London, England:
Routledge.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse
as social interaction (pp. 258–84). London, England: Sage.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge & The discourse on language. London, England:
Tavistock.
Foucault, M. (1989). The archaeology of knowledge. London, England: Routledge.
Fowler, R. (1996). On critical linguistics. In C. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts
and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 481–92). London, England: Routledge.
Hart, C., & Lukes, D. (2007). Introduction: Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis. In
C. Hart & D. Lukes (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis: Application and
theory (pp. ix–xiii). Newcastle, England: Cambridge Scholars Press.
McKenna, B. (2004). Critical discourse studies: Where to from here? Critical Discourse Studies,
1(1), 9–39.
Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. London, England: Routledge.
Ricento, T. (2003). The discursive construction of Americanism. Discourse and Society, 14(5),
611–37.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles in critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 249–83.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer
(Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 95–120). London, England: Sage.
Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and
its developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis
(pp. 1–13). London: Sage.
8 critical discourse analysis: history & new developments

Wodak, R. (2002). The discourse historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods
of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). London, England: Sage.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London, England: Sage.

Suggested Readings

Bhatia, A. (2006). The critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse and
Society, 17(2), 173–203.
Caldas-Coulthard, C., & Coulthard, M. (Eds.). (1996). Texts and practices: Readings in critical
discourse analysis. London, England: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, new language? London, England: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hammersley, M. (1997). On the foundations of critical discourse analysis. Language and
Communication, 17, 237–48.
Toolan, M. (Ed.). (2002). Critical discourse analysis. Critical concepts in linguistics Vol. III.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1985). Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 1: Disciplines of discourse. London,
England: Academic Press.
Wodak, R. (Ed.). (1989). Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse. Amsterdam,
Nethrelands: John Benjamins.