Critical Discourse Analysis

BERNHARD FORCHTNER

Critical discourse analysis (CDA, nowadays also referred to as critical discourse studies)
investigates naturally occurring written and spoken language beyond the sentence level,
as well as other forms of meaning making, such as visuals and sounds, seeing them as
irreducible elements in the (re)production of society. However, critical discourse analysis
furthermore aims to demystify the role language plays in the (re)production of unjustified
domination and inequality, and questions the social conditions in which these discourses
are embedded. This has made CDA an increasingly popular, and still evolving, approach
over the last two decades. This entry offers an introductory overview of the core principle,
diverging strands, and controversies in the field.

Starting Points: Discourse and Critical Impetus

CDA, as a label and network of scholars, emerged in the early 1990s in the course of
interdisciplinary attempts to apply linguistic insights to the analysis and theorizing of
social phenomena. Due to different contexts of emergence and the problems faced, CDA
cannot be seen as a homogeneous theory but rather as a heterogeneous perspective informed
by a variety of positions in such diverse fields as pragmatics, rhetoric, sociolinguistics,
sociology, philosophy, social psychology, and text linguistics. Despite its pluralism, at least
two widely shared concepts, discourse and critique, can be considered to constitute the
core of CDA.
First, the concept of discourse is often used multidimensionally, ranging from style
(e.g., “the discourse of academics”) and genre-related understandings (e.g., “the discourse
of editorials”) to communication on a particular topic (e.g., “the discourse on racism”) or
even as producing the respective object, that is, as a network of knowledge. Nevertheless,
a common denominator can be identified in, for example, Fairclough and Wodak’s (1997,
p. 258) characterization of discourse as “a form of ‘social practice’. Describing discourse
as a social practice implies a dialectical relationship between a particular discursive event
and the situation(s), institution(s) and social structure(s), which frame it . . . To put the
same point in a different way, discourse is socially constitutive as well as socially shaped.”
As such, discourse is understood as the social activity of making meaning through language
use or semiosis, that is, meaning making not only through written and spoken language
but also via sound, gestures, and images. Simultaneously, discourse is viewed as a crucial
element in the (re)production of the social relations of a given society. However, discourses
are not seen as free-floating or singular elements in this (re)production but as embedded
in social contexts, referring to each other (interdiscursivity) as well as to material conditions
which enable/constrain discourses.
Second, CDA is not interested in discourses for their own sake but seeks to challenge
the linguistic/semiotic relations through which injustice is obscured and (re)produced.
Hence, CDA claims to be critical when investigating semiosis in contrast to more descrip-
tive forms of discourse analysis. Fairclough (2010, p. 43), for example, rejects approaches
which “describe without explaining” or explain while just taking the immediate micro-
context of the situation into account. Here, CDA echoes Horkheimer’s (1972, pp. 206–7)

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

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0272
2 critical discourse analysis

demarcation of critical and traditional research. While the latter tends to perceive the world
as a sum-total of facts and does not question its genesis, the former “has society itself for
its object . . . [and] is suspicious of the very categories of better, useful, appropriate, pro-
ductive, and valuable, as these are understood in the present order.” CDA too aims to
denaturalize ideological categories which help to (re)produce unjustified power structures
and thereby provides resources for those struggling against linguistic/semiotic aspects of
injustice. Moreover, its proponents put forward a transformative agenda “for emancipation,
self-determination and social recognition . . . [which] is motivated by the perhaps utopian
conviction that unsatisfactory social conditions can, and therefore must, be subject to
methodological transformation towards fewer social dysfunctional and unjustifiable
inequalities” (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, p. 34). CDA’s critique is thus negative, that is,
denaturalizing and demystifying, and positive, that is, providing more inclusive and
egalitarian solutions (Fairclough, 2010, p. 14).

Further Crucial Concepts

Closely related to the notion of discourse are concepts like text, intertextuality, genre, and
recontextualization. These concepts carry roughly similar meanings across the various
approaches in CDA.
For example, Lemke (1995, p. 7) describes the relation between discourses and texts as
follows: “[o]n each occasion when the particular meanings characteristic of these discourses
are being made, a specific text is produced. Discourses, as social actions more or less gov-
erned by social habits, produce texts that will in some ways be alike in their meanings.”
However, by the very nature of being part of a discourse, texts are also, to varying degrees,
“sites of struggles,” as they are rarely absolutely coherent entities but are informed by a
range of positions (Wodak & Meyer, 2009, p. 10). This heterogeneity, that is, intertextuality,
is established through explicit and/or implicit, synchronic and/or diachronic relations to
various other texts and is thus a “source of much of the ambivalence of texts” (Fairclough,
1992, p. 105). At the same time, texts are always situated and, as such, part of distinct
genres. A widely accepted definition is given by Fairclough (1992, p. 126), who character-
izes genre as a “relatively stable set of conventions that is associated with, and partly
enacts, a socially ratified type of activity.” In other words, particular discursive practices,
as other social activities, follow particular sets of rules which are crucial factors in mean-
ing making. Finally, recontextualizing describes the process of decontextualizing a given
text element and transferring it to another one, by which means a (partly) new meaning
is created (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009, p. 90). In addition, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999,
pp. 93–4) point out the role of recontextualization in struggles due to the emancipatory
or regressive consequences that the transfer of an argument into new contexts can have.
These concepts can be illustrated by reference to “God Save the Queen,” an (in)famous
song by the punk rock band the Sex Pistols, released during Queen Elizabeth II’s Silver
Jubilee in 1977. This multimodal text combines lyrics with various kinds of sounds and
belongs to the genre of “song,” more specifically “punk rock song,” which follows a
particular set of conventions and thus raises expectations in those familiar with the genre.
The song is, furthermore, part of a wider discourse on the role of the monarchy in the
United Kingdom and thus several interdiscursive relations exist, for example, to the dis-
course on what constitutes “Britishness.” For many listeners, its meanings derive, for
instance, from an explicit intertextual reference to the similarly entitled national anthem
of the United Kingdom: By decontextualizing phrases from the anthem and recontextual-
izing them in their song, the band sparked a scandal when it released the song. Related
to this example, CDA might raise questions such as “What does this text tell us about the
 critical discourse analysis 3

UK and its inner constitution?” “What was specific about the 1970s that made this song
relatively iconic?” “Why did this particular genre emerge?” “Does this text challenge
unjustified power structures?” and “How does the text realize its aims linguistically, for
instance, who appears as an agent, which metaphors are used, etc.?” This example fur-
thermore indicates the range of text genres that can be analyzed: from punk rock songs
to television programs, from cigarette packets to blogs, from political speeches to news-
paper articles, and so forth.

Varieties of CDA

CDA has never aimed to establish a coherent body of concepts and definitions. Apart from
some shared core assumptions (see above), differences continue to exist. Given the plural-
ity of approaches within CDA, and the limited space available here, the following can only
touch briefly on what are arguably the three most influential approaches in CDA: Norman
Fairclough’s dialectical-relational approach, Teun van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach, and
Ruth Wodak’s discourse-historical approach. This section will address their predominant
research interests, their particular conceptual frames, and, where appropriate, their epi-
stemological foundation. However, several other approaches exist within CDA, such as
critical metaphor analysis (e.g., Charteris-Black, 2004), the so-called Duisburg group which
draws extensively on Foucauldian concepts (Jäger & Maier, 2009), and van Leeuwen’s
(2004) theory of discourse as recontextualizing social practice.

Fairclough’s Dialectical-Relational Approach

Fairclough’s program focuses on discourse in relation to social/cultural change, in
particular the emergence of new forms of capitalism. Here, semiosis is viewed as central:
Social/cultural changes are no longer pushed through simply by means of coercion, but
also through discourse (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999). In other words, discursive change
and social change go hand in hand.
These changes occur not only within the textual dimension of discourse, but also in what
Fairclough (1992, pp. 96–9, 200–24; 2010, pp. 232–3)—building on Foucault—calls “orders
of discourse.” The latter are relatively stable “ordering[s] of relationships among different
ways of making meaning, i.e. different discourses” (Fairclough, 2010, p. 265). For example,
the discourse on property nowadays is characterized by the dominance of a discourse of
private property over other property regimes. However, instead of simply investigating
the textual dimension of discourses, Fairclough (2010, pp. 132–3) proposes to analyze three
dimensions of discourse simultaneously.

• Texts should be described.

• The relationship between these texts and discursive processes should be interpreted.
• The relationship between discursive processes and wider social processes should be
explained.

Analyzing the interplay between abstract structures, concrete events, and mediating
practices of, for example, the existing property regime must consequently also address
the dialectical relationship between linguistic/semiotic and other elements within each
element of the social process (Fairclough, 2010, p. 232). The dialectical-relational approach
is therefore

• relational insofar as it deals with relations between discourses (and nondiscursive

elements) which themselves consist of relations, and
4 critical discourse analysis

• dialectical as it focuses on the mutual relationships between, for example, the discursive
and the material.

Among the three core approaches to CDA, the dialectical-relational approach is most
systematically influenced by critical linguistics (e.g., Fowler, 1996) and draws on the
linguistic theory of systemic functional linguistics (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999,
pp. 139–55). At the same time, Fairclough and his collaborators have related CDA expli-
citly and systematically to social theories such as those of Anthony Giddens, Antonio
Gramsci, Chantal Mouffe, Ernesto Laclau, Jürgen Habermas, Karl Marx, Louis Althusser,
Michel Foucault, and Pierre Bourdieu (e.g., Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999).

Van Dijk’s Sociocognitive Approach

Van Dijk’s work (e.g., 1993) has been concerned with the analysis of racism for many years,
the role of elites in the (re)production of ethnic prejudice, and, thus, unjustified power
relations.
However, van Dijk has pursued his research interests through very specific means.
He has continuously argued for the inclusion of cognitive elements in the theoretical
framework of CDA—what he describes as a sociocognitive approach. In short, van Dijk
is interested in cognitive structures and the way in which these structures, in every instance
and on every level, serve as an interface between social activities (discourse) and the
properties surrounding social situations. This mediation is accomplished by subjective
mental models which are activated through contact with the respective text and, subse-
quently, determine its interpretation (van Dijk, 1998, pp. 78–89; 2008, pp. 57–70). This
proposal has far-reaching consequences for CDA as, for example, the understanding of
context shows. Both the dialectical-relational and the discourse-historical approach tend
to understand context as rather objective, enabling, and construing meaningful social
activity, that is, framing discourses through objectively existing (though alterable) pro-
perties (however, at least in the case of the discourse-historical approach, this builds on
the concept of mental models; see Wodak et al., 1990, pp. 37–9). Van Dijk (2008, p. 71)
defines context as “a special kind of mental model of everyday experience,” that is, in subjective-
cognitive and not objective-external terms. It is only through such contextual models that
people are able to interpret their social environment and (re)act.
According to van Dijk (2008, p. 73), it is through analysis of such context models that
researchers “can describe as well as explain how our discourses are (produced as) situation-
ally appropriate.” A telling example of the significance of the cognitive aspect in van
Dijk’s work is his conceptualization of ideology. While both the dialectical-relational and
the discourse-historical approaches understand ideology roughly in terms of a mystified,
particularistic representation of social relations, van Dijk (1998, p. 8) proposes a neutral
definition of ideologies, seeing them as simply being the “basis of the social representations
shared by a group.” It is the study of this socially shared representation—the interface
between the social and the individual—which enables an understanding of social practices,
that is, discourses (van Dijk, 1998, pp. 88–9).

Wodak’s Discourse-Historical Approach

The discourse-historical approach cannot be understood without some awareness of the
eruption of anti-Semitic and nationalist discourses in Austria at the end of the 1980s (e.g.,
Wodak et al., 1990). Similar to van Dijk’s research, this tradition has focused extensively
on anti-Semitism, racism, nationalism, and xenophobia (e.g., Reisigl & Wodak, 2001; Heer,
Manoschek, Pollak, & Wodak, 2008; Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, & Liebhart, 2009). However,
since 2000, Wodak and her collaborators have also studied other areas, among them
 critical discourse analysis 5

decision-making processes in European Union organizations (e.g., Muntigl et al., 2000).

Central to all these studies is the conviction that understanding discursive events implies
taking their broader sociopolitical and historical contexts into account. Consequently, a
four-dimensional concept of context is at the center of this approach. It includes

• immediate language or text-internal co-text,

• intertextual and interdiscursive relationships,
• the specific context of the situation in which the discursive practice takes place, and
• the broader sociopolitical and historical context (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, p. 41).

Discursive strategies, which are crucial in the construction of positive self and negative
other representations, are a further tool of analysis within the discourse-historical approach.
These more or less intentional strategies are concerned with nomination (“How are persons,
objects, phenomena, etc. linguistically referred to?”), predication (“With what character-
istics are they credited?”), argumentation (“How is this characterization justified?”), per-
spectivation (“From what perspective are these processes conducted?”), and intensification/
mitigation (“Are strategies used which intensify/mitigate the overall force of the respective
argument?”) (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, pp. 44–5; 2009, pp. 93–4; Wodak et al., 2009, pp. 31–5).
Ideally, such analyses triangulate multiple methods and genres such as interview and
focus-group transcripts, political speeches, and so forth (e.g., Wodak et al., 2009). Another
distinct characteristic of the discourse-historical approach is its differentiation of critique
as immanent critique (problematizing text/discourse internal inconsistencies), socio-diagnostic
critique (denaturalizing particular discursive practices), and sociodiagnostic/retrospective
critique (aiming for transformation of the current state of affairs) (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001,
pp. 32–5).
Despite drawing on a variety of social theorists in general, the discourse-historical
approach specifically refers to the Frankfurt School, in particular the critical theory of
Habermas (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, pp. 32–4, 263–71; Forchtner, 2011), and it is mainly
the latter’s language philosophy which validates the discourse-historical approach’s
critical position.

Criticisms of CDA

Since its emergence, CDA has repeatedly provoked heated debates, initiated by scholars
from within the approach as well as from external critics. Two strands of criticism seem
to be of particular importance for the further development of CDA.
First, a number of critics have characterized CDA as lacking systemic analysis and being
politically biased (Stubbs, 1997; Widdowson, 2004). Concerning the apparent lack of rigor
in its analysis, this can be—and has been—dealt with by systematic procedures of data
selection and data downsizing, as well as the incorporation of quantitative methods, such
as corpus linguistic tools. Concerning the criticism of CDA as producing politically biased
research, it has been made explicit many times that CDA takes a stance against unjustified
domination and inequality and its causes. However, this has been done in transparent and
verifiable ways. Given CDA’s aim of translating its critical insights into political action,
that is, real improvements for those in need, methodical rigor, transparency, and verifiability
are in CDA’s own interest.
Second, concerning CDA’s own critical standards, one of its eminent researchers, Michael
Billig (2003), points to the potentially problematic consequences of constructing another’s
research (implicitly) as not being critical by providing nothing more than “rhetoric of
critique.” Billig has sparked further debate on the issue of the “language of critical discourse
analysis” in a recent intervention regarding CDA’s own writing style and extensive use
6 critical discourse analysis

of nominalizations and passivizations, which critical discourse analysts usually criticize

in their own research (Billig, 2008, pp. 783–844).
The subject of critique itself is indeed a pressing concern in CDA as its critical attitude
toward discourses which (re)produce unjustified domination and inequality is not always
theoretically justified. The question is whether such a justification of CDA’s principles is
needed or whether the conventions of this particular research community provide sufficient
foundation. The degree to which CDA is able to clarify this question and integrate social
theories in order to form even more coherent proposals, which (a) acknowledge the import-
ance of discourse in the (re)production of the social, (b) provide concepts to understand
and explain it critically, and (c) are able to coherently validate its own critical standards,
might prove crucial for the further development of CDA.

Conclusions

CDA provides a normative framework for social research, by which means social problems
and/or wrongs can be addressed by providing a space for dialogue between relevant
disciplines. Central to such a critical social science remains the focus on the systematic
analysis of discourses (written, spoken, visual, audible) in relation to the sociopolitical
context. As such, integrating detailed textual analysis with theories and concepts taken
from anthropology, philosophy, sociology, and other disciplines will remain the main task
for critical discourse analysts in years to come.

SEE ALSO: Corpus-Based Linguistic Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis; Critical

Analysis of Multimodal Discourse; Critical Discourse Analysis: History and New Develop-
ments; “Critical” in Critical Discourse Analysis; Fairclough, Norman; van Dijk, Teun A.;
Wodak, Ruth

References

Billig, M. (2003). Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak
(Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 35–46). London, England:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Billig, M. (2008). The language of critical discourse analysis: the case of nominalization. Discourse
& Society, 19(6), 783–800.
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Basingstoke, England:
Palgrave.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse
analysis. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
Discourse & Society. (2008). 19(6). (Special issue).
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, England: Polity.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London, England:
Longman.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse
as social interaction (pp. 258–84). London, England: Sage.
Forchtner, B. (2011). Critique, the discourse-historical approach, and the Frankfurt School. Critical
Discourse Studies, 8(1), 1–14.
Fowler, R. (1996). On critical linguistics. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts
and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 3–14). London, England: Routledge.
Heer, H., Manoschek, W., Pollak, A., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2008). The discursive construction of
history: Remembering the Wehrmacht’s War of Annihilation. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.
 critical discourse analysis 7

Horkheimer, M. (1972). Traditional and critical theory. In M. Horkheimer, Critical theory: Selected
essays (pp. 188–243). New York, NY: Continuum.
Jäger, S., & Maier, F. (2009). Theoretical and methodological aspects in Foucauldian critical
discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of
critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 34–61). London, England: Sage.
Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London, England: Taylor &
Francis.
Muntigl, P., Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2000). European Union discourses on un/employment:
An interdisciplinary approach to employment policy-making and organizational change. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and anti-Semitism.
London, England: Routledge.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer
(Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 87–121). London, England: Sage.
Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf’s children: Critical comments on CDA. In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.),
Evolving models of language (pp. 100–16). Clevedon, England: British Association for Applied
Linguistics.
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Elite discourse and racism. London, England: Sage.
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London, England: Sage.
van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
van Leeuwen, T. (2004). Discourse and practices: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. (2004). Text, context, pretext. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (2009). The discursive construction of national
identity (2nd ed.). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and meth-
odology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.,
pp. 1–33). London, England: Sage.
Wodak, R., Nowak, P., Pelikan, J., Gruber, H., de Cillia, R., & Mitten, R. (1990). “Wir sind alle
unschuldige Täter”: Diskurshistorische Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus. Frankfurt,
Germany: Suhrkamp.

Suggested Readings

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London, England: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London, England: Longman.
Krzyzanowski, M. (2010). The discursive construction of European identities: A multilevel approach
to discourse and identity in the transforming European Union. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Richardson, J. E. (2008): “Our England”: Discourses of “race” and class in party election leaflets.
Social Semiotics, 18(3), 321–33.
van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.
Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of discourse. London, England: Longman.
Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.