critical discourse analysis.docx
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
1/38
TEUN A. VAN DIJK
0 Introduction: What Is Critical Discourse Analysis?
Critical discourse analysis(CDA) is a type ofdiscourse analytical research
that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and
inequality areenacted,reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the
social and political context. Withsuch dissident research, critical
discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus want tounderstand,expose, andultimatelyresist social inequality.
Some of the tenets of CDA can already be found in the critical theory
oftheFrankfurt School before the Second World War (Agger 1992b;
Rasmussen 1996). Its current focus on language and discourse was
initiated with the "critical linguistics" that emerged (mostly in the UK and
Australia) at the end of the 1970s (Fowler et al. 1979; see also Mey 1985).
CDA has also counterparts in "critical" developments insociolinguistics,
psychology,and the socialsciences,somealready dating back to the early
1970s(Birnbaum 1971;Calhoun1995; Fay 1987; Fox andPrilleltensky
1997;Hymes 1972; Ibanez and Iniguez 1997; Singh 1996; Thomas 1993;
Turkel 1996; Wodak1996). As is the case inthese neighboring disciplines,
CDA may be seen as a reaction against the dominant formal (often
"asocial" or "uncritical") paradigms of the 1960sand1970s.
CDA is not so much a direction, school, or specialization next to the many
other "approaches" in discourse studies. Rather, it aims to offer a
different "mode"or"perspective"of theorizing, analysis, and application
throughout the whole field. We may find a more or less critical
perspective in such diverse areas aspragmatics,conversation analysis,
narrative analysis, rhetoric, stylistics, sociolinguistics,ethno- graphy, or
mediaanalysis,among others.
Crucialforcritical discourse analystsis theexplicit awarenessof their
role in society. Continuing a tradition that rejects the possibility of a
"value-free" science, they argue that science, and especially scholarly
discourse, are inherently part ofandinfluenced by socialstructure,and
producedin socialinteraction. Insteadof denying or ignoring such a
relation between scholarship and society, they plead that suchrelations
bestudiedandaccountedfor in theirown right,and those scholarly
practices
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
2/38
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
3/38
1 Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks
SinceCDA is not aspecific directionofresearch,it does nothaveaunitary
theoretical framework. Within the aims mentioned above, there are many
types of CDA,andthesemay betheoreticallyandanalytically quite diverse.
Critical analysisof conversa- tion is very different from an analysis of
news reports in the press or of lessons andteachingat school. Yet, given
thecommon perspectiveand the general aims of CDA, we may also find
overall conceptual and theoretical frameworks that arecloselyrelated.
As suggested, most kinds of CDA will ask questions about the way
specific
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
4/38
354Teun A . van Dijk
discourse structures are deployed in thereproductionof social
dominance, whether they are part of aconversationor a news report or
other genres andcontexts. Thus, thetypical vocabularyof manyscholars
in CDA willfeaturesuchnotionsas "power," "dominance," "hegemony,"
"ideology," "class," "gender," "race,""discrimination,""interests,"
"reproduction," "institutions," "social structure," and "social order," be-
sides the more familiardiscourse analyticalnotions.'
In thissection,Ifocuson anumberof basic concepts themselves,and
thus deviseatheoretical frameworkthatcriticallyrelatesdiscourse,
cognition,and society.
1.1 Macro vs.micro
Languageuse,discourse, verbal interaction,andcommunication belongto
the micro- level of the social order. Power,dominance,andinequality
betweensocial groups are typically terms that belong to a macrolevel of
analysis. This means that CDA has totheoretically bridgethe well-known
"gap" between micro and macro approaches, which is of course a distinction
that is a sociological construct in its own right (Alexander et al. 1987;
Knorr-CetinaandCicourel 1981).Ineveryday interactionand experiencethe macro- and microlevel (and intermediary "mesolevels") form one
unified whole. For instance, a racist speech in parliament is a discourse
at the microlevel of socialinteractionin thespecific situationof adebate,
but at the same time may enact or be aconstituentpart oflegislationor
thereproductionof racism at the macrolevel.
There are several ways to analyze and bridge these levels, and thus to
arrive at aunified criticalanalysis:
1 Members–groups: Language users-engage in discourseas members of
(several)socialgroups, organizations,orinstitutions;andconversely,groupsthus may act "by" their members.
2 A ctions–process: Socialacts ofindividual actorsarethus constituent
parts of group actions and social processes, such as legislation,
newsmaking,or thereproductionof racism.
3 Context–social structure: Situations of discursive interaction are
similarly part or constitutive of social structure; for example, a press
conference may be a typicalpracticeoforganizations and media
institutions. That is,"local"and more "global"contextsareclosely
related,and bothexercise constraintson discourse.
4 ersonal and social cognition:Language users as social actors have bothpersonal and social cognition: personal memories, knowledge and
opinions, as wellasthose shared with members of the group or
culture as a whole. Both typesofcognition influence interaction and
discourse of individual members, whereas shared "social
representations"govern the collective actions of a group.
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
5/38
1.2Power ascontrol
Acentral notioninmost critical workondiscourseis that ofpower,and
morespecific- ally the social power of groups or institutions.Summarizing
a complex philosophical and socialanalysis, we will define social power in
terms ofcontrol. Thus, groupshave
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
6/38
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
7/38
2 How does such discourse control mind and action of (less) powerful
groups, and what are the socialconsequencesof suchcontrol,such as
social inequality?
I address each question below.'
1.2.1 Control of publicdiscourse
We have seen that among many other resources that define the power
base ofagroup or institution,access to orcontrol over publicdiscourse
andcommunicationisanimportant "symbolic" resource,as is the case for
knowledgeand information (van Dijk 1996). Most people have active
control only over everyday talk with family members, friends,or
colleagues,andpassive controlover, e.g.media usage.In many
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
8/38
356Teun A . van Dijk
situations, ordinary peoplearemoreor lesspassive targetsof text or talk,
e.g. of their bosses orteachers,or of theauthorities,such as police
officers, judges, welfare bur- eaucrats, or tax inspectors, who may simply
tell them what (not) to believe or what to do.On the other hand,membersof morepowerfulsocial groups andinstitutions,and
especiallytheirleaders(theelites),have more or lessexclusive accessto,
and control over, one or more types of public discourse. Thus, professors
control scholarly dis- course, teachers educational discourse, journalists
media discourse, lawyers legal discourse, and politicians policy and other
public political discourse. Those whohave more controlovermore — and
more influential — discourse(andmorediscourse properties) are by thatdefinition also more powerful. In other words, we here pro- pose a
discursive definition (as well as a practical diagnostic) of one of the
crucialconstituentsof social power.
These notions ofdiscourseaccess and control are very general, and it is one ofthe
tasks of CDA to spell out these forms of power. Thus, ifdiscourseis
defined in terms of complex communicative events, access and control
may be defined both for thecontext and for the structures o! text and talk
t"emselves.
Context is defined as thementally represented structureof thosepropertiesof
thesocial situation that are relevant for the production or comprehension of
discourse (Duranti and Goodwin 1992; van Dijk 1998b). It consists of
such categories as the overall definition of the situation, setting (time,
place), ongoing actions(includingdiscourses and discourse genres),
participants in variouscommunicative,social, or institutional roles, as
well as their mental representations: goals, knowledge, opin- ions,
attitudes,andideologies. Controllingcontext involves control over one or
more of these categories, e.g. determining the definition of the
communicative situation, deciding on time and place of the
communicativeevent, or on which particip-ants may or must be
present, and in which roles, or what knowledge oropinionsthey should
(not) have, and which social actions may or must be accomplished by
discourse.
Also crucial in the enactment or exercise of group power is control not onlyover
content, but over thestructuresof text and talk.Relatingtext and context,
thus, we already saw that (members of) powerful groups may decide on
the (possible)dis-course genre#s$ or speec" acts of an occasion. A teacher
or judge may require a direct answer from a student orsuspect,
respectively,and not apersonalstory or an argu- ment (Wodak 1984a,1986). Morecritically, we mayexaminehowpowerfulspeakers may abuse
their power in suchsituations,e.g. when police officers use force to get a
confession from a suspect (Linell and Jonsson 1991), or when male
editors exclude women from writing economic news (van Zoonen 1994).
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
9/38
Similarly, genres typically have conventional sc"emas consisting of
various categor% ies. Access to some of these may be prohibited or
obligatory,e.g. somegreetingsin a conversation may only be used by
speakers of a specific social group, rank, age, orgender (Irvine1974).
Also vital for alldiscourseandcommunicationis whocontrolsthetopics(semanticmacrostructures) and topic change, as when editors decide
what news topics will be covered (Gans 1979; van Dijk 1988a, 1988b),
professors decide what topics will be dealt with in class, or men control
topics and topic change in conversations with women (Palmer 1989;
Fishman 1983; Leet-Pellegrini 1980; Lindegren-Lerman1983).
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
10/38
Critical Discourse A nalysis 357
Althoughmostdiscourse controliscontextualorglobal,even localdetailsofmean% ing& !orm& or style may becontrolled,e.g. thedetailsof ananswerinclass or court, or
choice of lexical items or jargon in courtrooms, classrooms or newsrooms
(MartinRojo 1994). In many situations, volume may be controlled and
speakers ordered to "keep their voice down" or to "keep quiet," women may
be "silenced" in many ways (Houston and Kramarae 1991), and in some
cultures one needs to "mumble" as a form of respect (Albert 1972). The
public use of specific words may be bannedassubversivein a
dictatorship,anddiscursive challengestoculturally dominantgroups (e.g.
white, western males) by theirmulticulturalopponents may be ridiculed
in the media as "politically correct" (Williams 1995). And finally, action
andinteractiondimensions of discourse may be controlled by
prescribing or proscribingspecificspeech acts, and by selectively
distributing or interrupting turns (see also Diamond
1996).
In sum, virtuallyall levels andstructuresofcontext,text, and talk can
in principle be more or less controlled by powerful speakers, and such
power may be abused at theexpenseofother participants.Itshould,
however, bestressed that talk andtext do notalwaysanddirectlyenact or
embodytheoverallpowerrelations betweengroups: it is always the context
that may interfere with, reinforce, or otherwise transform such
relationships.
1.2.2 Mind control
If controlling discourse is a first major form of power, controlling people's
minds is the other fundamental way to reproduce dominance and
hegemony.' Within a CDA framework, "mind control" involves even more
than just acquiring beliefs about the world through discourse and
communication.Suggested below are ways that power and dominance areinvolved in mind control.
First, recipients tend to accept beliefs, knowledge, and opinions (unless they are
inconsistent withtheir personal beliefsandexperiences) through discourse
from what they see asauthoritative, trustworthy,orcredible sources,such
asscholars,experts,professionals,orreliable media (Nesleret al.1993).
Second,in somesituationsparti- cipants are obliged to be recipients of
discourse, e.g. in education and in many jobsituations. Lessons, learning
materials, jobinstructions,andother discourse typesin such cases may
need to be attended to, interpreted, and learned as intended by
institutionalororganizational authors (Giroux 1981). Third,in manysituationsthere are no pubicdiscoursesor media that may provide
informationfrom which alternat- ive beliefsmay bederived (Downing 1984).
Fourth,andclosely relatedto the previous points, recipients may not have
the knowledge and beliefs needed to challenge thediscoursesor
informationthey areexposedto (Wodak 1987).
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
11/38
Whereas these conditions of mind control are largelycontextual(they say some-
thing about theparticipantsof acommunicativeevent), otherconditions
arediscurs% ive& that is, a function of the structures and strategies of text
or talk itself. In other words, given a specific context, certain meanings
and forms of discourse have more influence on people's minds than
others, as the very notion of "persuasion" andatraditionof 2000 years of
rhetoric may show.'
Once wehave elementary insightintosomeof thestructuresof themind,
and what itmeanstocontrolit, thecrucial questionishow discourse and
itsstructuresare able
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
12/38
358Teun A . van Dijk
toexercise such control. Assuggested above, such discursive influencemay
be due to
context as well as to the structures o! text and talk t"emselves.
Contextually based control derives fromthe fact thatpeople understand
and repres- ent not only text and talk, but also the whole communicative
situation. Thus, CDA typically studies how context features (such as the
properties of language users of powerful groups) influence the ways
members of dominated groups define the com-municative situationin
"preferredcontext models" (Martin Rojo and van Dijk 1997).
CDA also focuses on howdiscourse structures influence mental
representations. Atthe global level ofdiscourse,topics mayinfluence what
peoplesee as the most import- antinformationof text or talk, and thus
correspondto the top levels of their mental models. For example,
expressing such a topic in a headline in news may powerfully influence
how an event is defined in terms of a "preferred" mental model (e.g. when
crime committed by minorities is typically topicalized and headlined in
the press:Duinet al.1988; vanDijk 1991). Similarly, argumentation may be
persuasive because of the social opinions that are "hidden" in its implicitpremises and thus taken forgranted by therecipients,e.g.immigration
maythus berestrictedif it is presupposed in a parliamentary debate that
all refugees are "illegal" (see the contributionsin Wodak and van Dijk
2000) Likewise, at thelocal level& in order to understand dis- course
meaning and coherence, people may need models featuring beliefs that
re- main implicit(presupposed)in discourse. Thus, a typical feature of
manipulationis tocommunicate beliefsimplicitly,that is, without actually
assertingthem, and with lesschancethat they will be challenged.
These fewexamplesshow how various types ofdiscourse structuremay
influence the formation and change of mental models and socialrepresentations.If dominantgroups,andespecially their elites, largely
control public discourseand its structures, theythusalsohave more
controlover themindsof thepublicatlarge. However,suchcontrolhas its
limits. Thecomplexityofcomprehension, andtheformation andchange of
beliefs,are such that onecannot always predict whichfeaturesof aspecific
text or talk will have which effects on the minds of specific recipients.
These briefremarkshaveprovidedus with a verygeneral pictureof how
discourse is involved in dominance (power abuse) and in the production
and reproduction of socialinequality.It is the aim of CDA toexamine
theserelationshipsin more detail. In the nextsection, wereview several
areas of CDAresearchin which these relation- ships are investigated.'
2 Research in Critical Discourse Analysis
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
13/38
Although mostdiscoursestudies dealing with any aspect of power,
domination,and socialinequalityhave not beenexplicitly conductedunder
the label of CDA, we shallneverthelessrefer to some of these studies
below.
'.( )ender ine*uality
One vast field of critical research on discourse and language that thus far
has not been carried out within a CDAperspectiveis that of gender. In
many ways, feminist
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
14/38
Critical Discourse A naly sis 359
work has become paradigmaticfor muchdiscourse analysis, especially
since much of this work explicitly deals with social inequality and
domination. We will not review it here; seeKendalland Tannen,this
volume;also the booksauthoredandedited by, e.g., Cameron (1990,
1992); Kotthoff and Wodak (1997); Seidel (1988); Thorne et al.(1983);
Wodak (1997);fordiscussionandcomparison with anapproachthat
emphas- izescultural differences rather than power differences and
inequality, see, e.g., Tannen(1994a);seealso Tannen (1994)for ananalysis
ofgender differencesat work,in which many of the properties of discursive
dominance are dealt with.
'.' Media discourse
The undeniable power of the media has inspired many critical studies in
many dis- ciplines:linguistics, semiotics, pragmatics,anddiscourse
studies. Traditional,often contentanalytical approachesin critical media
studies have revealed biased, stereo- typical, sexist or racist images in
texts, illustrations, and photos. Early studiesofmedia language similarly
focusedoneasily observable surface structures, suchas the biased or
partisan use of words in the description of Us and Them (and Our/Their
actionsandcharacteristics), especiallyalongsociopoliticallines in the
representation of communists. The critical tone was set by a series of
"Bad News" studies bytheGlasgow University Media Group (1976, 1980,
1982, 1985, 1993) on features of TVreporting,such as in thecoverageof
various issues(e.g.industrial disputes(strikes), the Falklands (Malvinas)
war, the media coverage of AIDS.)
Perhaps bestknown outsideofdiscourse studiesis themedia research carriedout
by Stuart Hall and hisassociates within theframeworkof the cultural
studies para- digm. (See, e.g., Hall et al. 1980; for introduction to the
critical work ofculturalstudies,see Agger 1992a;see alsoCollinset al.
1986;forearlier critical approachesto the analysis of media images, see
also Davis and Walton 1983; and for a later CDAapproachto media
studies that is related to the criticalapproachof cultural studies, see
Fairclough 1995b.See alsoCotter,this volume.)
An early collection of work of Roger Fowler and his associates (Fowler et al. 1979)
alsofocusedon themedia. As withmany other Englishand Australian
studiesin this paradigm, the theoretical framework of Halliday's
functional-systemic grammar isusedin astudyof the"transitivity"of
syntactic patternsofsentences(seeMartin,this volume). The point of such
researchis thateventsandactionsmay bedescribed with syntactic
variations that are a function of the underlying involvement of actors (e.g.
their agency,responsibility,and perspective). Thus, in an analysis of the
media ac- counts of the "riots" during a minority festival, the
responsibility of the authorities andespeciallyof the police in such
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
15/38
violencemay besystematically de-emphasized by defocusing, e.g. by
passive constructions and nominalizations; that is, byleavingagency and
responsibility implicit. Fowler's later critical studies of the media con-
tinue thistradition, but also paytributeto theBritish cultural studies
paradigmthat defines news not as a reflection of reality, but as aproduct shaped bypolitical,economic, and cultural forces (Fowler 1991).
More than in much other critical work on themedia,healso focuseson the
linguistic "tools"forsuchacritical study, suchas the analysis of transitivity
in syntax, lexical structure, modality, and speech acts. Similarly van Dijk
(1988b) applies a theory of news discourse (van Dijk 1988a)in
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
16/38
360Teun A . van Dijk
critical studiesofinternationalnews,racismin thepress,and thecoverageof squat- ters in Amsterdam.
'.+ olitical discourse
Given the role of political discourse in the enactment,reproduction,and
legitimiza- tion of power anddomination, we may also expect many critical
discoursestudies of political text and talk (see Wilson, this volume). So far
most of this work has beencarriedout bylinguistsanddiscourse analysts,
because political scienceisamongthe few social disciplines in which
discourse analysis has remained virtually unknown, although there is
some influence of "postmodern" approaches to discourse (Derianand
Shapiro 1989;Foxand Miller 1995), and many studiesofpolitical
communication andrhetoric overlap with adiscourse analytical approach
(NimmoandSanders1981). Still closer to discourse analysis is the
current approach to "frames"(conceptualstructuresor sets of beliefsthat
organize political thought, policies,anddiscourse)in theanalysisofpolitical
text and talk(Gamson1992).
In linguistics, pragmatics, and discourse studies, political discourse
has received attention outside the more theoretical mainstream. Seminal
work comes from PaulChilton;see, e.g., hiscollectionon thelanguageof
the nuclear arms debate (Chilton
1985),as well as later workoncontemporary nukespeak (Chilton 1988)andmetaphor
(Chilton 1996; ChiltonandLakoff1995).
Although studies of political discourse in English are internationally
best known because of the hegemony of English, much work has been
done (often earlier, andoften more systematicandexplicit)inGerman,
Spanish,andFrench. This workis too extensive to even begin to review
here beyond naming a few influential studies.
Germanyhas a longtraditionofpolitical discourse analysis, both(then)inthe West (e.g. about Bonn's politicians by Zimmermann 1969), as well as
in the former East(e.g. the semiotic-materialist theoryofKlaus 1971) (see
also the introduction by Bachem
1979). ThistraditioninGermany witnesseda study of thelanguageof war
and peace(Pasierbsky1983) and ofspeechacts inpolitical discourse(Holly
1990). There is also astrong traditionofstudying fascist languageand
discourse(e.g. thelexicon,propa-ganda, media,andlanguage politics;
Ehlich1989).
In France, the study of politicallanguagehas arespectable traditionin
linguistics and discourse analysis, also because the barrier between
(mostly structuralist) lin- guistic theory and text analysis was never very
pronounced. Discourse studies areoften corpus-basedandtherehas been
astrong tendency toward formal,quantitative, and automatic (content)
analysis of such big datasets, often combined with criticalideological
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
17/38
analysis (Pecheux 1969, 1982; Guespin 1976). Theemphasison automated
analysisusually implies a focus on (easilyquantifiable)lexicalanalyses
(see Stubbs, this volume).
Critical political discourse studiesinSpainandespeciallyalso inLatin
Americahas been very productive. Famous is the early critical semiotic(anticolonialist) study ofDonald Duck byDorfmanandMattelart (1972)in
Chile. Lavanderaet al.(1986,1987) in Argentinatake aninfluential
sociolinguistic approachtopolitical discourse,e.g. its typology of
authoritarian discourse. Work of this group has been continuedand
organized in a more explicit CDA framework especially by Pardo (see, e.g.,
her work
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
18/38
Critical Discourse A naly sis
onlegal discourse; Pardo 1996).InMexico,adetailed ethnographic discourse
analysis of local authority anddecision-making was carried out by Sierra
(1992). Among the many other critical studies in Latin America, we
should mention the extensive work of Teresa CarbO on parliamentary
discourse in Mexico, focusing especially on the waydelegates speak about
native Americans (CarbO 1995), with astudyinEnglishoninterruptionsin
these debates (CarbO1992).
2.4Ethnocentrism, antisemitism,nationalism, andracism
The study of the role of discourse in the enactment and reproduction of
ethnic and "racial" inequality has slowly emerged in CDA. Traditionally,
such work focused onethnocentricandracist representationsin themass
media, literature,and film (Dines and Humez 1995; UNESCO 1977; Wilson
and Gutierrez 1985; Hartmann and Hus- band 1974; van Dijk 1991).
Such representations continue centuries-old dominant images of the
Other in the discourses of European travelers, explorers, merchants,
soldiers,philosophers,and historians, among other forms of elite
discourse (Barker
1978; Lauren 1988). Fluctuating between the emphasis on exoticdifference, on the one hand, andsupremacist derogation stressingthe
Other'sintellectual,moral, and biological inferiority,on the other hand,
suchdiscoursesalsoinfluenced publicopin- ion and led to broadly shared
socialrepresentations.It is thecontinuityof this socio- cultural tradition
of negative images about the Other that also partly explains the
persistence ofdominant patterns ofrepresentation in contemporary
discourse,media, and film(ShohatandStam1994).
Later discourse studies have gone beyond the more traditional, content
analyticalanalysisof"images"of the Others, and probed more deeply into
thelinguistic,semi- otic, and other discursive properties of text and talk
to and about minorities, immi- grants, and Other peoples (for detailed
review, see Wodak and Reisigl, this volume). Besides the mass media,
advertising, film, and textbooks, which were (and still are) the genres
most commonly studied, this newer work also focuses on politicaldis-
course,scholarly discourse, everyday conversations,serviceencounters,
talk shows, and a host of other genres.
Manystudiesonethnicand racialinequalityreveal aremarkable similarityamong
the stereotypes, prejudices, and other forms of verbal derogation across
discourse types, media, and national boundaries. For example, in a vast
researchprogramcarried out at the University of Amsterdam since theearly 1980s, we examined howSurinamese, Turks,andMoroccans,and
ethnic relations generally,arerepresentedinconversation, everydaystories,
news reports,textbooks, parliamentary debates,cor-porate discourse, and
scholarly text and talk (van Dijk 1984, 1987a, 1987b, 1991,1993).Besides
stereotypical topicsofdifference, deviation,andthreat, story structures,con-
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
19/38
Critical Discourse A naly sis
versational features(such ashesitationsandrepairsinmentioning Others),
semantic moves such as disclaimers ("We have nothing against blacks,
but . . .", etc.), lexical description of Others, and a host of other discourse
features also were studied. The aim of these projects was to show how
discourse expressesandreproducesunderly- ing socialrepresentationsof
Othersin the social andpolitical context. Ter Wal (1997)appliesthis
frameworkin adetailedstudy of the waysItalian politicalandmediadis-
course gradually changed,from anantiracist commitmentand benign
representation
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
20/38
362Teun A . van Dijk
of the-extracommunitari- (non-Europeans)to a morestereotypicaland
negative por- trayal ofimmigrantsin terms of crime,deviance,and threat.
The major point of our work is that racism (including antisemitism,
xenophobia, and related forms of resentment against "racially" or
ethnically defined Others) is acomplex system of social andpolitical
inequalitythat is alsoreproduced by discourse ingeneral,and by elite
discoursesinparticular(seefurther referencesin Wodakand Reisigl, this
volume).
Instead of further elaborating the complex details of the theoreticalrelationships between discourse and racism, we shall refer to a book
that may be taken asaprototype of conservative elite discourse on "race"
today, namely,T"e nd o! /acism byDinesh D'Souza (1995). This text
embodiesmany of thedominant ideologiesin the USA, especially on the
right, and it specifically targets one minority group intheUSA: African
Americans.Spaceprohibits detailed analysisof this700-page book (but see
van Dijk 1998a). Here we can merely summarize how the CDA of
D'Souza'sT"e nd o! /acism shows what kind of discursive structures,
strategies, and moves are deployed in exercising the power of the
dominant (white, western, male) group, and how readers aremanipulated
to form or confirm the socialrepresentationsthat areconsistent with a
conservative, supremacistideology.
The overall strategy of D'Souza'sT"e nd o! /acism is thecombinedimplementa-
tion, at all levels of the text, of the positive presentation of the in-group
andthenegative presentation of the out-group. In D'Souza's book, the
principal rhetorical means are those of hyperbole and metaphor, viz., the
exaggeratedrepresentationof social problems in terms of illness
("pathologies," "virus"), and the emphasis of the contrast between the
Civilized and the Barbarians. Semantically and lexically, theOthersarethus associatednotsimply withdifference, butrather withdeviance("illeg-
itimacy") and threat (violence, attacks). Argumentative assertions of the
depravityof black culture are combined with denials of white deficiencies
(racism), with rhet- orical mitigation and euphemization of its crimes
(colonialism, slavery), and withsemantic reversals of blame (blaming the
victim). Social conflict is thus cognitively represented and enhanced by
polarization, and discursively sustained andrepro-duced by derogating,
demonizing, and excluding the Others from the community of Us, the
Civilized.
2.5 From group dominat ion t o professional and inst it ut
ional pow er
We have reviewed in this section critical studies of the role of discourse
inthe(re)production inequality. Such studies characteristically exemplifythe
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
21/38
CDA perspect- ive on power abuse and dominance by specific social
groups.' Many other studies, whether under the CDA banner or not, also
critically examine various genres ofinstitutional and professional
discourse,e.g. text and talk in thecourtroom(see Shuy, this volume; Danet
1984; O'Barret al.1978; Bradacet al.1981;Ng andBradac1993;Lakoff1990; Wodak 1984a;Pardo 1996; Shuy1992), bureaucratic discourse
(Burton and Carlen 1979; Radtke 1981), medical discourse (see
Ainsworth-Vaughn and Fleischman, this volume; Davis 1988; Fisher
1995; Fisher and Todd 1986; Mishler
1984; West 1984; Wodak 1996), educationalandscholarly discourse (Aronowitz
1988;
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
22/38
Critical Discourse A naly sis
Apple 1979; Bourdieu 1984, 1989; Bernstein 1975, 1990; Bourdieuet al.
1994; Giroux
1981; Willis 1977; Atkinsonet al.1995; Coulthard 1994; Duszak 1997; Fisher
and Todd
1986; Mercer 1995; Wodak 1996; Bergvall and Remlinger 1996; Ferree and
Hall1996; Jaworski1983;Leimdorfer1992; Osler 1994; Said 1979;Smith
1991; van Dijk 1987,
1993), and corporate discourse (see Linde, this volume; Mumby 1988;Boden 1994;
Drew andHeritage 1992; Ehlich 1995; Mumby 1993; MumbyandClair
1997),among many other sets of genres. In all these cases, power anddominanceareassociated with specific socialdomains (politics,media,
law,education,science, etc.), their pro-fessional elitesandinstitutions,
and therulesandroutinesthatform the background of the everyday
discursivereproductionof power in such domains and institutions. The
victims or targets of such power are usually the public or citizens at large,
the"masses," clients, subjects,theaudience, students, and other groups that
are depend- ent oninstitutionalandorganizationalpower.
3 Conclusion
We have seen in this chapter that critical discourse analyses deal with the
relation- ship between discourse and power. We have also sketched the
complex theoretical framework needed to analyze discourse and power,
and provided a glimpse ofthemany ways in which power and domination
are reproduced by text and talk.
Yet severalmethodologicaland theoretical gaps remain. First, the
cognitive inter- face between discourse structuresand those of the local
and global social context is seldom made explicit, and appears usually
only in terms of the notions of knowledge and ideology (van Dijk 1998). Thus, despite a large number of empirical studies on discourse and
power, the details of the multidisciplinaryt"eory of CDA that shouldrelate
discourseandaction withcognitionandsocietyare still on theagenda.
Second, there is still a gap between more linguistically oriented studies of
text and talk and the various approaches in the social. The first often
ignore concepts and theories in sociology and political science on power
abuse and inequality, whereas the second seldom engage in detailed
discourse analysis. Integration of various approaches is therefore very
important to arrive at a satisfactory form of multidisciplinary CDA.
NOTES
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
23/38
Critical Discourse A naly sis
I amindebtedtoRuth Wodakfor her these and other fundamental
notions.commentson anearlier versionof this Thus, referenceto
the leading scholarschapter, andtoLaura Pardofor further ofthe
Frankfurter School andtoinformation, about CDA researchin Latin
contemporary work byHabermas(for America.
instance, on legitimation and hislast
1Itcomesas nosurprise, then,that "discourse" approachto
normsandCDA research willoften referto the democracy)is
ofcourse commoninleading social philosophers andsocial
critical analysis. Similarly,manyscientistsofour time whentheorizing
critical studies will refertoFoucault
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
24/38
364Teun A . van Dijk
when dealing with notions suchas the world are acquired
throughpower, domination, and disciplineor discourse.
the more philosophical notionof 4 In order to analyze the
complex"orders ofdiscourse." Morerecently, processes involvedin
howdiscoursethe many studies on language,culture, may control
people's minds, we wouldand society byBourdieu have become
needtospell out the detailedmentalincreasingly influential; forinstance,
representations andcognitive
hisnotionof"habitus." Fromanother operations studiedincognitivescience.
sociological perspective,Giddens's Since even an adequate
summaryisstructuration theoryisnowoccasionally beyond the
scopeofthis chapter, wementioned.Itshould be bornein mind
will only briefly introducea few
that although severalofthesesocial notions that are necessaryto
philosophers and sociologistsmake understand the processesof
discursiveextensive useofthe notionsof mind control (for
details, see,e.g.,language and discourse, theyseldom Graesser and
Bower 1990; van Dijkandengageinexplicit, systematicdiscourse
Kintsch 1983; van Oostendorpandanalysis. Indeed, the last thingcritical
Zwaan 1994; Weaveretal.1995).discourse scholars should dois to
5Note thatthepicture just sketchedisuncritically adopt philosophicalor
very schematic and general. Thesociological ideas about languageand
relations between the social powerofdiscourse that are obviously
uninformed groups and institutions, on theone
by advances in contemporarylinguistics hand, and discourse on the other,as
and discourse analysis. Rather,the wellas between discourseand
work referredtohereis mainly cognition, and cognition and
society,relevantforthe useof fundamental are vastly more
complex. Thereareconcepts about the social orderand many
contradictions. Thereis not
hencefor themetatheoryof CDA. alwaysaclear pictureofone
dominant
2Space limitations prevent discussionof group(orclassor
institution)
athird issue: how dominatedgroups oppressing another one,
controllingalldiscursively challengeorresistthe public
discourse, and suchdiscoursecontrolofpowerfulgroups.
directly controlling the mindof the
3 Note that "mind control" is merely a dominated. There are many
formsofhandy phrasetosummarizea very collusion,
consensus, legitimation,andcomplex process. Cognitivepsychology
even "jointproduction"of forms ofand mass communicationresearch
inequality. Membersof dominant
have shown that influencing themind groups may become dissidents
and
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
25/38
isnotasstraightforwardaprocessas side with dominated groups,
and vicesimplistic ideas about mindcontrol versa. Opponent
discourses may bemight suggest (Britton andGraesser adopted
bydominant groups, whether
1996; Glasser and Salmon1995; strategicallytoneutralize them,or
Klapper 1960; van Dijk andKintsch simply because dominant power
and
1983). Recipients may varyin their ideologies may change,as
is forinterpretation and usesoftext andtalk, instance quite
obviousinecologicalalsoas afunctionofclass, gender,or
discourse andideology.
culture (Liebes and Katz1990). 6Unfortunately,the study of the
Likewise, recipients seldompassively discursive reproductionof
classaccept the intended opinionsof specific has been rather
neglectedin thisdiscourses. However, weshouldnotperspective;for arelated approach,forget that mostofour beliefsabout
though, see Willis(1977).
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
26/38
Critical Discourse A naly sis
REFERENCES
Agger,B.(1992a).Cultural 1tudies as Bernstein, B. (1990).T"e 1 tructuring o!
Critical T"eory. London: FalmerPress. edagogic Discourse.
London: Agger,B.(1992b).T"e Discourse o! Routledge
and KeganPaul.
Domination. 2rom T"e 2rank! urt 1c"ool Birnbaum, N. (1971).Toward
a Critical to ostmodernism. Evanston,IL: 1ociology. New
York: OxfordNorthwestern UniversityPress. University
Press.
Albert,E.M. (1972). Culturepatterning Boden, D. (1994).T"e 3usiness o! Talk.
ofspeech behaviorinBurundi.In 4rgani5 ations in A ction.
Cambridge: J. J.Gumperz and D. Hymes(eds), Polity. Directions in 1ociolinguistics: T"e Bourdieu, P. (1984). 6omo A cademicus.
t"nograp"y o! Communication Paris:Minuit.
(pp. 72-105). New York:Holt, Bourdieu,P.(1989). 7a noblesse d8etat.
Rhinehart, and Winston. )randes 9ales et esprit de
corps. Paris: Alexander, J. C., Giesen, B., Munch,R., Minuit.
and Smelser, N. J.(eds). (1987).T"e Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J. C. and
Saint- Micro Macro 7ink .Berkeley,CA: Martin, M. (1994). A
cademic Discourse.UniversityofCaliforniaPress. 7inguistic Misunderstanding and
Apple,M. W.(1979). ;deology and ro!essorial ower& Cambridge:Polity
Curriculum. London: Routledgeand Press.
KeganPaul. Bradac, J. J., Hemphill, M. R.,
and Tardy, Aronowitz,S.(1988).1cience as ower: C.H. (1981).
Language style ontrial:
Discourse and ;deology in Modern effects of"powerful"and
"powerless"1ociety.Minneapolis: Universityof speech upon
judgmentsof victimsMinnesotaPress. and
villains.
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
27/38
Critical Discourse A naly sis
(1996). Reproduction, resistanceand Calhoun, C. (1995).Critical 1ocial T"eory.
genderineducational discourse:the Oxford:Blackwell.
roleofcritical discourseanalysis. Cameron,D.(ed.) (1990).T"e 2eminist
Discourse and 1ociety #0$& 453-79. Criti*ue o! 7anguage. A /eader.
Bernstein, B. (1975).Class& Codes and London: Routledge and KeganPaul.
Control. olume +& Towards a T"eory o! Cameron, D. (1992).
2eminism and ducational Transmissions. London: 7inguistic
T"eory. Second edition.Routledge and KeganPaul.
London:Macmillan.
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
28/38
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
29/38
Text& 4, 1/3, specialissue. Ehlich,K.(ed.) (1989).1prac"e im
Davis,H.and Walton,P.(eds).(1983). 2asc"ismus. #7anguage under 2ascism$.
7anguage& ;mage& Media. Oxford: Frankfurt:Suhrkamp.
Blackwell. Ehlich,K.(ed.) (1995).T"e Discourseo!
Davis, K. (1988). ower >nder t"e 3usiness ?egotiation. Berlin:
Mouton
Microscope. Toward a )rounded T"eory deGruyter.
o! )ender /elations in Medical Essed, P. J. M. (1991).>nderstanding
ncounters. Dordrecht:Forts. veryday /acism: A n ;nterdisciplinary
Derian, J. D. and Shapiro, M. J.(1989). T"eory. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
;nternationall;ntertextual /elations. Fairclough,N. L.(1992a). Discourseand
Lexington, MA:D. C. Heath. 1ocial C"ange.Cambridge:
Polity
Diamond, J. (1996).1tatus and ower in Press.
erbal ;nteraction. A 1tudy o! Discourse Fairclough,N. L.(ed.)
(1992b).Critical in a Close%knit 1ocial ?etwork.
7anguage A wareness. London: Amsterdam:Benjamin.
Longman.
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
30/38
Critical Discourse A naly sis 367
Fairclough,N. L.(1995a).Critical Discourse Giroux, H. (1981). ;deology&
Culture& and t"e A nalysis: T"e Critical 1tudy o! rocess o!
1c"ooling. London:Falmer 7anguage. Harlow,UK: Longman.
Press.
Fairclough,N. L.(1995b). Media Discourse. Glasgow University Media
Group. (1976).
London: Edward Arnold. 3ad ?ews. London: Routledgeand
Fairclough,N. L.and Wodak,R. (1997). KeganPaul.
Critical discourse analysis.In Glasgow University Media
Group. (1980). T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse 1tudies. More 3ad ?ews. London:Routledge
A Multidisciplinary ;ntroduction& ol. '. and KeganPaul.
Discourse as 1ocial ;nteraction Glasgow University Media Group.
(1982).(pp. 258-84). London:Sage. /eally 3ad ?ews.
London: WritersandFay, B. (1987).Critical 1ocial 1cience. Readers.
Cambridge:Polity. Glasgow University Media Group.
(1985).Ferree, M. M. and Hall, E. J. (1996).
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
31/38
Culture& Media&London: Routledge and KeganPaul. 7anguage.
London:Hutchinson.
Fox, C. J.and Miller, H. T. (1995). Hartmann,P.and Husband, C.(1974).
ostmodern ublic A dministration. /acism and t"e Mass Media. London:
Toward Discourse. London, CA:Sage. Davis-Poynter.Fox, D.R.and Prilleltensky,I. (1997). Holly, W.(1990). olitikersprac"e.
Critical syc"ology. A n ;ntroduction. ;ns5enierungen and /ollenkon! likte im
London:Sage. in!ormellen 1prac""andeln eines
Gamson, W. A.(1992).Talking olitics. 3undestagsabgeordneten. #olitician8s
Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity 7anguage. Dramati5ation and /ole
Press. Con! licts in t"e ;n! ormal 1peec" A cts o!
a
Gans, H. (1979). Deciding
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
32/38
368Teun A . van Dijk
Houston,M.and Kramarae,C. (eds). Lavandera,B.R., Garcia
Negroni,M. M.,(1991). Women speaking fromsilence. Lopez
OcOn, M., Luis,C. R.,
Discourse and 1ociety& '#0$& special Menendez,S.M., Pardo,M. L.,Raiter,issue. A.G., and Zoppi–Fontana, M.(1987).
Hymes,D.(ed.) (1972). /einventing Analisis sociolingiiistico del
discurso A nt"ropology. New York: Vintage politico(II).
Cuadernos del ;nstitute deBooks. 7ingiiistica. Buenos Aires:
InstitutodeIbanez, T.and Iiiiguez,L.(eds).(1997). Linguistica, Universidad deBuenos
Critical social psyc"ology.London: Aires.
Sage. Leet-Pellegrini, H. (1980).
Conversational
Irvine, J. T. (1974). Strategies ofstatus dominanceas afunction
ofgender manipulationinthe Wolofgreeting. and expertise.
In H.Giles, W. P.In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer(eds), Robinson, andP.Smith(eds),
xplorations in t"e t"nograp"y o! 7anguage: 1ocial
syc"ological 1peaking (pp. 167-91).Cambridge: erspectives(pp. 97-104). Oxford:Cambridge UniversityPress.
PergamonPress. Jaworski, A. (1983). Sexism intextbooks. Leimdorfer,F.(1992). Discours
academi*ue
3ritis" =ournal o! 7anguage Teac"ing& et colonisation. T"emes de
rec"erc"e sur
21(2),109-13. l8 A lgerie pendant la periodecoloniale.
Klapper, J. T. (1960).T"e !!ects o! Mass #A cademic Discourse and
Coloni5ation: Communication. New York: Free /esearc" on A
lgeria during t"e ColonialPress. eriod$. Paris:Publisud.Klaus, G. (1971).1prac"e der olitik Liebes, T.and Katz,E.(1990).
T"e xport o! #7anguage o! olitics$. Berlin: VEB Meaning: Cross–
cultural /eadings o!Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften. -Dallas.-
New York: Oxford
Knorr–Cetina,K.and Cicourel, A. V. (eds). UniversityPress.
(1981). A dvances in 1ocial T"eory and Lindegren–Lerman,C.(1983).
Dominant Met"odology . Towards an ;ntegration o! discourse: the
institutional voiceand Micro% and Macrosociologies. London: the
controloftopic.In H.DavisandRoutledge and KeganPauL
P. Walton(eds), 7anguage& ;mage&
Kotthoff,H.and Wodak,R.(eds).(1997). Media (pp. 75-103). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Communicating )ender in Context. Linen, P. and Jonsson, L. (1991).
Suspect
Amsterdam:Benjamins. stories: perspective-setting inan
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
33/38
Lakoff,R. T.(1990).Talking ower. T"e asymmetrical situation.In
I.Markova olitics o! 7anguage. New York:Basic andK.Foppa
(eds), A symmetries inBooks. Dialogue. T"e Dynamics o! Dialogue
Lauren,P.G. (1988). ower and rejudice. (pp. 75-100). n.d. Barnes
and NobleT"e olitics and Diplomacy o! /acial Books/BowmanandLittlefield Discrimination. Boulder, CO: Westview Publishers:
Harvester Wheatsheaf. Press. Lukes,S.(ed.) (1986). ower.
Oxford:
Lavandera,B.R., Garcia Negroni,M. M., Blackwell.
Lopez OcOn, M., Luis,C. R., Martin Rojo,L.(1994). Jargonof
Menendez,S.M., Pardo,M. L., Raiter, delinquents and the studyof
A.G., and Zoppi–Fontana, M.(1986). conversational dynamics. =ournal o!
Analisis sociolingilistico deldiscurso ragmatics& 21(3),243-89.
politico.Cuadernos del ;nstitute de Martin Rojo,L.and van Dijk, T.
A. (1997). 7ingiiistica& (#($. Buenos Aires: "There wasa
problem, andit wasInstitutodeLingiiistica,Universidad solved!"
Legitimatingtheexpulsionofde Buenos Aires.
"illegal" immigrantsin Spanish
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
34/38
Critical Discourse A naly sis 369
parliamentary discourse. Discourse and Pardo,M. L.(1996). Derec"o y
lingilistica: 1ociety& B#0$&523-67. Como se ju5ga
con palabras #7aw and
Mercer,N.(1995).T"e )uided Construction 7inguistics: 6ow to =udge
wit" se and A buse o!
7anguage vidence inSage. t"e
Court /oom. Oxford:Blackwell.O'Barr, W.M., Conley, J.M., and Lind, A. Sierra, M. T.(1992). Discurso& cultura y
(1978). The powerof language: poder. l ejercio de la
autoridad en lospresentational styleinthecourtroom. pueblos
"!iet"ii!is del D alle del Me5*uital. Duke 7aw =ournal& 14, 266-79.
#Discourse& Culture and ower. T"e
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
35/38
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
36/38
370 Teun A . van Dijk
Smith, D.E.(1991). Writing women's van Dijk, T. A.(1993b).
Principlesofexperience into socialscience. critical
discourse analysis. Discourse 2eminism and syc"ology& (#($& 155-69.
and 1ociety 0#'$& 249-83.
Tannen, D. (1994a).)ender and Discourse. van Dijk, T. A.(1996). Discourse,power
New York: Oxford UniversityPress. and access.InR. C.Caldas-
Coulthard
Tannen, D. (1994b).Talking ! rom E to @. andM.Coulthard (eds),
Texts and 6ow
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
37/38
/eproduction o! /acism in 1ocial 1cience Williams, J.(ed.) (1995). PC Wars.
olitics Textbooks$. Amsterdam:Socialistische and T"eory in t"e A
cademy. New York:Uitgeverij Amsterdam.
Routledge and KeganPaul.
van Dijk, T. A.(1988a). ?ews as Discourse. Willis,P.(1977). 7earning to 7abour: 6ow
Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
-
8/18/2019 Critical discourse analysis.docx
38/38
Critical Discourse A naly sis 371
Wodak,R.(1985). The interaction between Wodak, R. (1997).)ender and Discourse.
judge and defendant.In T. A. vanDijk London:Sage.
(ed.), 6andbook o! Discourse A nalysis. Wodak,R.and vanDijk, T. A. (eds)
ol. 0. Discourse A nalysis in 1ociety (2000). /acism at t"e Top.
Klagenfurt:(pp. 181-91). London: AcademicPress. Drava Verlag.
Wodak,R.(1987). "And whereis the Wrong,D. H.(1979). ower: ;ts
2orms&Lebanon?" A socio—psycholinguistic 3ases and >ses.
Oxford:Blackwell.investigationofcomprehensionand
Zimmermann,H. D.(1969). Die politisc"eintelligibilityof news.Text& #0$&
377— /ede. Der 1prac"gebrauc" 3onner
410. olitiker. #olitical 1peec". 7anguage
Wodak,R.(1996). Disorders o! Discourse. use o! 3onn8s oliticians$.
Stuttgart:London:Longman. Kohlhammer.