Methods of Critical Discourse

Analysis
By Group 2
Members of the Group:

1. Mas Nopyansa Dewa Nandaku (2201419058)

2. Nissa Andini Intan Salsabila( 2201419043)
3. Geenus Mad-awa (2201419177)
4. Sasadhara Indah Cahyani (2201419007)
 Introduction

Discourse analysis and its extension, dispositive analysis, aim to identify the knowledges
contained in discourses and dispositive, and how these knowledges are firmly connected to power
relations in power/knowledge complexes. All sorts of knowledge can be subjected to analysis.
This, for example, includes everyday knowledge transmitted through everyday communication,
scientific knowledge from the natural as well as the cultural sciences, knowledge transmitted by
the media, by schools and so on.
 FOUNDATIONS OF DISCOURSE THEORY

The Concept of Discourse

According to Link, a discourse can be defined as ‘an institutionalized way of

talking that regulates and reinforces action and thereby exerts power’ (Link,
1983: 60, author’s own translation). This definition can be illustrated by the
image of discourse as a flow of knowledge throughout time. Discourses are not
only mere expressions of social practice, but also serve particular ends, namely
the exercise of power. The concept of power, in the Foucauldian sense, refers to
‘a whole series of particular mechanisms, definable and defined, that seem
capable of inducing behaviors or discourses’ (Foucault, 1996: 394).
Aims of Critical Discourse Analysis
CDA aims to disentangle the giant milling mass of discourse, to chart what is said and
can be said in a given society at a given time with regard to its qualitative spectrum
and to uncover the techniques through which discursive limits are extended or
narrowed down.

Last but not least, and to live up to its name, CDA aims to question and criticize
discourses. CDA does so in two ways :

• Firstly, CDA reveals the contradictions within and between discourses, the limits of
what can be said and done, and the means by which discourse makes particular
statements seem rational and beyond all doubt, even though they are only valid at a
certain time and place.

• Secondly, the critical discourse analyst needs to be clear about the fact that her
critique is not situated outside discourse – as this would contradict the fundamental
assumptions of discourse analysis.
Discourses and Reality

• Discourses do not merely reflect reality. Rather, discourses not only shape but even
enable (social) reality. Without discourses, there would be no (social) reality.
Discourses can thus be understood as material reality sui generis. Discourse is a
material reality of its own. It is neither ‘much ado about nothing’, nor a distortion, nor
a lie about reality.

• Discourses determine reality, though of course always via intervening active subjects
in their social contexts as co-producers and co-agents of discourses. The subjects are
able to do this because they are entangled into discourse and therefore have
knowledge at their disposal.
Discourse and Power

• The power of discourse lies in the fact that discourses delineate a range of ‘positive’
statements, which are sayable. This means that they simultaneously inhibit a range of other
statements, which are not sayable (cf. Link and Link-Heer, 1990). To put it more precisely,
we can distinguish two effects of discourse. Firstly, discourses form individual and mass
consciousness and thereby constitute individual and collective subjects. Secondly, since
consciousness determines action, discourses determine action. This human action creates
materializations. Discourses thus guide the individual and collective creation of reality.

• When analyzing the power effects of discourse, it is important to distinguish between the
effects of a text and the effects of a discourse. A single text has minimal effects, which are
hardly noticeable and almost impossible to prove. In contrast, a discourse, with its
recurring contents, symbols and strategies, leads to the emergence and solidification of
‘knowledge’ and therefore has sustained effects.
• With regard to power over discourse, different individuals and groups have different chances of
influence. However, none of them can simply defy dominant discourse, and none of them alone
has full control over discourse. Discourses are supra-individual. Everybody is co-producing
discourse, but no single individual or group controls discourse or has precisely intended its final
result. Discourses take on a life of their own as they evolve.
 From Discourse to Dispositive

Since knowledge is the basis for acting, we can analyze not only discursive practices, but also
nondiscursive practices and materializations, as well as their relationships with each other. As human
beings, we assign meanings to reality. This is how we bring reality into existence. Of course, this does not
mean that human beings are the creators of the raw matter of material reality. But people shape and use
these raw materials. The assignment of meanings includes very tangible physical acts, such as when a tree
is sawn into boards, or when boards are joined into a table. People moreover learn the conventions of
assigned meanings through language, which helps them to interpret reality in the way it has previously
been interpreted by others. Many of the difficulties in analyzing dispositive stem from an insufficient
conceptualization of discursive practices, nondiscursive practices and materializations (see also Bublitz,
1999: 82–115). Many of these problems can be solved by drawing on Leontjev’s and others’ understanding
of materializations and nondiscursive practices as realizations of discourse, i.e. knowledge (for further
discussion see, for example, Jäger, 2001a). The following section provides some ideas on how discourses
and dispositive can be analyzed systematically.
Methods for Analyzing Discourses and Dispositive

• To recapitulate briefly our initial definition, a discourse can be characterized as ‘an

institutionalized way of talking that regulates and reinforces action and thereby
exerts power’ (Link, 1983: 60, author’s own translation), as illustrated by the image
of a flow of knowledge throughout time (see Jäger, 2004). Together, all discourses
form the giant milling mass of overall societal discourse.

• Methods of CDA also include linguistic concepts (e.g. figurativeness, vocabulary,

pronominal structure, argumentation) which can be used to examine the more subtle
workings of texts. However, these linguistic instruments are not described in detail
here, as good explanations can be found in works on style and grammar. Linguistic
concepts fill only one slot in the ‘toolbox’ of discourse analysis.
Special Discourses Vs. Interdiscourse

A basic distinction can be drawn between special discourses and interdiscourse. Special discourses are
discourses in the sciences, while interdiscourse refers to all non-scientific discourses. Elements of special
discourses continuously feed into interdiscourse.

Discourse strands

In general societal discourse, a great variety of topics arise. Flows of discourse that
centre on a common topic are called discourse strands. The concept of ‘discourse strands’ is similar to the
one of ‘discourses’. The difference is that ‘discourse’ is the more abstract concept, located at the level of
statements. Every discourse strand has a diachronic and a synchronic dimension. A synchronic analysis of
a discourse strand examines the finite spectrum of what is said and sayable at a particular point in time. A
synchronic analysis can cut through a discourse strand at various points in time, for example at particular
discursive events. In a way, a synchronic cut through a discourse strand is always also a diachronic one.
This is because each topic has a genesis, a historical a priori. When analysing a topic, the analyst has to
keep an eye on its history.
Discursive limits and techniques for extending them or narrowing them down

Through the use of certain rhetorical strategies, discursive limits can be extended or
narrowed down. Such strategies for example include direct prescriptions, relativizations,
defamations, allusions and implicatures. Discourse analysis examines these strategies in
their own right, and also uses them as analytic clues to identify discursive limits.

Discourse fragments

Each discourse strand consists of a multitude of elements that are traditionally called
texts. We prefer the term ‘discourse fragment’, because one text may touch on various
topics and thus contain various discourse fragments. A discourse fragment therefore
refers to a text or part of a text that deals with a particular topic.

Entanglements of discourse strands

A statement where several discourses are entangled is called a discursive knot.

For example, in the statement ‘integrating immigrants into our society costs a lot of money’, the
discourse strand of immigration is entangled with the discourse strand of the economy. Two discourse
strands can be entangled more or less intensively.
Collective symbols

An important means of linking up discourse strands is the use of collective symbols. An

important technique for connecting collective symbols is catachresis (also called image fractures).
Catachresis establish connections between statements, link up spheres of experience, bridge
contradictions and increase plausibility. Thereby, catachresis amplify the power of discourse. An
example of a catachresis is the statement ‘the locomotive of progress can be slowed down by
floods of ‘immigrants.’

Discourse planes and sectors

Different discourse strands operate on different discourse planes, such as the sciences, politics,
the media, education, everyday life, business, administration and so forth. These discourse planes
can be characterized as social locations from which speaking takes place. Discourse planes
influence each other and relate to each other. A discourse plane consists of various sectors. For
example, women’s magazines, TV news broadcasts and newspapers are different sectors of the
discourse plane of the media. A discourse plane is tightly interwoven in itself.
Discursive events and discursive context
All events are rooted in discourse. However, an event only counts as a discursive event if it appears
on the discourse planes of politics and the media intensively, extensively and
for a prolonged period of time. A major reason why it is important to identify discursive events is that they
influence the development of discourse. Discourse analysis can examine whether an event becomes a
discursive event or not. If it becomes a discursive event, it influences the further development of
discourse. Another reason why the identification of discursive events is important for the analysis of
discourse strands is that they outline the discursive context that a discourse strand relates to.
 
Discourse positions
A discourse position describes the ideological position from which subjects, including
individuals, groups and institutions, participate in and evaluate discourse. Discourse positions can be
identified through discourse analysis. But a rough outline of discourse positions is also part of people’s
everyday knowledge. The discourse positions of subjects may vary widely. Discourse positions are
homogeneous only in their core and become diffuse with regard to less central issues. Within a dominant
discourse, discourse positions are fairly homogeneous, which itself is already an effect of dominant
discourse.
 
Overall societal discourse and global discourse

All the entangled discourse strands in a society together form the overall societal discourse. A society is
never totally homogeneous but consists of different subcultures. The overall societal discourse of a
society, in turn, is part of global discourse. Overall societal discourse is a very complex network.
Discourse analysis aims to disentangle this net. The usual procedure is to first identify single discourse
strands on single discourse planes (for example, the discourse strand of immigration on the discourse
plane of the media).

The history, present, and future of discourse strands

Discourse strands have a history, a present and a future. In order to identify the changes,
ruptures, ebbing and recurrences of a discourse strand, it is necessary to analyze longer
periods of time. Of course, an analysis of the history, present and future of overall societal or even
global discourse is an enormous endeavor and can only be tackled in the form of many single projects.
Such single projects, however, are extremely helpful because they create reliable knowledge about
certain sub-zones of overall societal discourse.
On the completeness of discourse analyses

A discourse analysis fully captures the qualitative range of what can be said and how it is said
in one or more discourse strands. It is complete if further analysis leads to no further new
findings. While qualitative analysis is the bedrock of discourse analysis, quantitative analyses
can also be interesting. The analyst can examine with what frequency particular statements
occur. In diachronic analysis, frequencies can also be used to identify trends. However, for the
explanatory power of a discourse analysis, the qualitative aspect is of greater importance than
the quantitative.
A little toolbox for discourse analysis

In this section, a brief summary of our toolbox for discourse analysis is presented. This outline (short
handouts like the following as memory aids or checklists when first dealing with materials) deals with
the practical procedures for subjecting empirically obtained materials to discourse analysis. In an
actual project, these elements are supplemented with a clarification of the theoretical foundations and
methodology used.

Choosing a subject matter

The first step in a discourse analysis project is usually to choose a subject matter. In the
project report (usually in the introduction), a rationale for the project and its subject
matter has to be given. It needs to be kept in mind that the relationship between a phenomenon of
interest and particular discourse strands is often not straightforward because a phenomenon may
permeate many discourse strands. To choose a subject matter means to choose a phenomenon of
interest and a discourse strand which will be examined. This discourse strand delineates the scope of
materials for analysis.
Choosing a discourse plane and a sector and characterizing them

When examining a discourse plane, analysis may cover one or several sectors of this plane
(for example, the sector of newspapers). The choice of sector needs to be justified. In some
cases, it may be possible to examine several discourse planes at once. The analysis of
interactions of several discourse planes in the regulation of mass consciousness is extremely
interesting, but also very time-consuming.

Accessing and preparing the materials

As a next step, the concrete corpus for analysis needs to be delineated. Again, these choices
have to be justified. As a preparation for analysis, a general characterization of the
newspaper(s) in question needs to be provided: what is their political orientation, who are
their readers, what is their circulation, and so on? Stem cell research is a topic that continually
crops up in newspapers but is often not treated very extensively. In contrast, a project that
examines the portrayal of women in pop songs could probably rely on a few exemplary songs
(though this would have to be demonstrated in the particular project).
Analysis

The following sequence of steps can be modified and does not have to be adhered to
dogmatically. The steps usually have to be gone through several times. In these cycles of analysis,
connections between different levels of analysis are discovered, interpretations are developed and
weak arguments are discarded. The detailed steps for a structural analysis of a discourse strand are as
follows:

1. A list of all articles of relevance for the discourse strand is compiled.

2. Structural analysis should roughly capture the characteristics of articles on particular aspects of
interest, such as any illustrations, the layout, the use of collective symbols, the argumentation, the
vocabulary and so on, and identify which forms are typical for the newspaper.
3. A discourse strand encompasses various subtopics.
4. The next step is to examine with what frequency particular groups of subtopics appear.
5. If the analysis is diachronic, it will also examine how subtopics are distributed over the course of
time.
6. Discursive entanglements are then identified.

The findings from these steps of analysis are combined and interpreted together. Thereby, a
characterization of the newspaper’s discourse position begins to emerge.
Detailed analysis of typical discourse fragments

• To identify the fine detail within the newspaper’s discourse position and to assess the
effects of this discourse on readers, certain discourse fragments are subjected to detailed
analysis. Discourse fragments that are typical of the particular newspaper are selected for
this purpose.

• To select typical discourse fragments, the researcher can proceed in several steps and
rate the articles according to defined criteria. To ensure that the selection is
intersubjectively plausible, several researchers can engage in this rating. If structural
analysis has shown that the discourse strand is very heterogeneous, and if no single
homogeneous discourse position can be discerned, the researcher can also address several
topicalities.
The detailed analysis of typical discourse fragments should cover the following
aspects:

1. Context

•Why was this article selected? Why is this article typical?

•Who is the author? What is her position and status within the newspaper?
•What are her special areas of coverage, and so on?
•What was the occasion for the article?
•In which section of the newspaper does the article appear?

2. Surface of the text

•What is the layout like? What kinds of pictures or graphs accompany the text?
•What are the headings and subheadings?
•How is the article structured into units of meaning?
•What topics are touched upon in the article? (In other words, what discourse strands is the article a
fragment of?)
•How do these topics relate to each other and overlap (entanglements of discourse strands)?
3. Rhetorical means

•What kind and form of argumentation does the article follow? What argumentation
strategy is used?

• What logic underlies the composition of the article?

• What implications and allusions does the article contain?

• What collective symbolism is used (linguistic and graphic, involving, for example,
statistics, photographs, pictures, caricatures, etc.)?

• What idioms, sayings and clichés are used?

• What are the vocabulary and style?

• What actors are mentioned, and how are they portrayed (persons, pronouns used)?

• What references are made (e.g. references to science, information about the
sources of knowledge used)?
4. Content and ideological statements

• What concept of humankind does the article presuppose and convey?

• What concept of society does the article presuppose and convey?
• What concept of (for example) technology does the article presuppose
and convey?
• What perspective regarding the future does the article give?

5. Other peculiarities of the article.

6. Discourse position and overall message of the article.

In analyzing each of these aspects, the researcher has to ask herself what this peculiarity
of the article means, what it implies. At the end of the detailed analysis, the
interpretations of single aspects are combined into a total interpretation of the article.
Together with the findings from structural analysis, the findings from detailed analysis
form the basis for synoptic analysis.
Synoptic analysis

• In synoptic analysis, a final assessment of the newspaper’s discourse position is made.

For this purpose, the findings from structural analysis and detailed analysis are
interpreted in relation and comparison to each other.

• In conclusion, it needs to be emphasized that CDA is not a rigid formula that can be
followed mechanically to produce results.
Initial thoughts on analyzing dispositive

Discourses do not exist independently; they are elements of dispositive. A dispositive, as outlined
above, is the constantly evolving synthesis of knowledge that is built into language, action and
materializations. The concept of the dispositive can be visualized as a triangle, or rather a
rotating circle, with three transit points:

• discursive practices (language and thought)

• nondiscursive practices (action)
• materializations (which are created through nondiscursive practices).
 The visibility of materializations is upheld through discursive and nondiscursive practices. Though a
dispositive has certain durability, it is also subject to historical changes and is constantly influenced by other
dispositive. In a society, dispositive overlap and are entangled with each other. These entanglements may be
what unifies a society. A dispositive analysis has to include the following steps:
1. Reconstructing the knowledge that is built into discursive practices
2. Reconstructing the knowledge that is built into nondiscursive practices
3. Reconstructing the knowledge that is built into materialization, and the nondiscursive practices that
have created these materializations.
Reconstructing this knowledge usually results in texts. A dispositive analysis thus translates
nondiscursive and materialized knowledge into discursive knowledge. Since the analysis of discursive
elements of a dispositive has already been discussed extensively above, the remainder of this section will
focus on reconstructing the knowledge that is built into nondiscursive practices and materializations.
Knowledge in nondiscursive practices
Nondiscursive practices, i.e. actions, can be observed and described. For example, the
analyst can observe a man who crosses a street and walks into a bakery, where he buys a loaf of
bread. The analyst’s task is now to find out what this man knows and wants. Firstly, the researcher
can of course draw on existing texts. For example, she can consult previous research, but also more
mundane documents such as practitioners’ literature, instruction sheets, or field manuals. Secondly,
the analyst can ask the man what he is doing. As a third option, the researcher can therefore rely on
participant observation to learn about this implicit knowledge and make it explicit in her research.
Knowledge in materializations

When an analyst observes an object, such as a house, a church or a bicycle, obviously he cannot
ask this object about its knowledge directly. However, there are indirect ways of
reconstructing the knowledge built into materializations. Methodological guidelines for
doing so can, for example, be found in multimodal discourse analysis and artefact analysis. To analyze
materializations, the researcher has to rely on his own and his fellow
researchers’ background knowledge. Artefact analysis, one of the first steps in analyzing a
materialization is to deconstruct the materialization by dividing it into its constituent parts and
transcribing it into a field protocol. In some cases, the researcher may even be able to draw on previous
research that has already decrucified the materialization in question. It should be emphasized again that
the meaning of a materialization is not fixed. The knowledge built into a materialization today may be
different from the knowledge it contained in the past. As these initial thoughts on methods for
analyzing dispositive indicate, the task of a dispositive analysis is very complex. It encompasses the
analysis of knowledge in discursive and nondiscursive practices as well as in materializations.
Thank You