CDS, also known as critical discourse analysis, is a problem-oriented research paradigm which is not defined by research methods, but the researcher’s critical perspective.
Within the paradigm, there are different approaches drawing on different theories and
methods. Major approaches include Fairclough’s dialectical relational approach, Jäger
and Maier’s dispositive analysis, van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach, van Leeuwen’s
social actors approach and Wodak and Reisigl’s discourse-historical approach (see
Wodak and Meyer, 2016). This section will start by introducing the constitutive notions
46 2.2.1. Discourse and discourses
At the heart of CDS is the concept of discourse. In CDS,itis theorised as ‘language use in speech and writing’ (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997, p. 258) and ‘a form of social
practice’ (Fairclough, 2010, p. 95), in which case, it is an uncountable noun and can
take pre-modifier(s) to show the corresponding historical context and social realm, e.g. ‘late capitalist advertising discourse’ (Koller, 2012, p. 21).Discourse can also be used
specifically as a count noun, i.e. a discourse or discourses, meaning ‘ways of
representing aspects of the world’ (Fairclough, 2003, p. 124), in which case, it can be
pre- or post-modified to show the attitude, topic, and the location, producer and channel of distribution, e.g. ‘a nationalist discourse on immigration in British newspapers’
(Koller, 2012, p. 21).
Discourse is representational, which means that discourses do not construe the
world as it is, but represent it from a particular perspective. Van Leeuwen (2008)
emphasises the distinction between ‘doing it’ and ‘talking about it’ (p. 6).
Representation is not a reflectionof a social event, but a recontextualisationof it (ibid,
p. 4-6; Fairclough, 2003, p. 139-141). In other words, the event is talked about in
another context, and it involves intention and aselection of e.g. what to include/exclude,
how to represent, and what to add. In a text, there can be many different representations
of the world, but not all of them are discourses. Only when a particular representation
achieves a certain level of repetition and stability, and is shared by groups of people can
it be seen as a discourse (Fairclough, 2003, p. 125).
What is particularly important to CDS is the constitutive power of discourse.
CDS not only sees discourse as part of society, but also as dialectically related to other social elements, i.e. being ‘socially constitutive as well as socially conditioned’
47
shaped by other social elements, but it also shapes them. Construction is a concept
corresponding to this socially constitutive capacity of discourse, referring to
representations which shape the world in some way. It is such a dialectical relationship
that enables discourse to have the potential to help maintain, (re)produce or challenge
the status quo. This relationship is especially crucial when it comes to ideological
discourses, which potentially (re)produce or resist inequality of power in society.
2.2.2. Taking a critical perspective
Another core notion of CDS is critique, more specially, the researcher’s explicit critical
standpoint in relation to social injustice or power abuse. This is a distinctive feature of
CDS which distinguishes it from other forms of discourse analyses. CDS research
always departs from a social or political problem, and aims at, through the critical examination of semiotic data, ‘making transparent taken-for-granted assumptions,
identifying how relations of power are established, reinforced and subverted by
discourse participants, and contributing to the emancipatory efforts of marginalised groups’ (Koller, 2014b, p. 149). This emancipatory agenda entails two implications.
First, CDS is uninterested in language per se, but how it is used to reproduce, legitimise
and challenge social injustice and inequality, especially by groups with access to public
discourse, e.g. political parties and the media. Therefore, CDS researchers not only
describe discourse structures, but also explain them in relation to the relevant
sociopolitical contexts (see Wodak and Meyer, 2016; van Dijk, 2015). Second, CDS
researchers always take the side of oppressed groups, and make their positions explicit
(Fairclough et al., 2011; van Dijk, 1993). This social and political commitment has led
to criticism of partiality (see e.g. Widdowson, 1995, 2004). However, van Dijk (1993)
48
it comes to social injustice; Fairclough et al. (2011) also argue that CDS scholars’
commitment does not preclude social scientific objectivity, and that ‘standards of
careful, rigorous and systematic analysis apply with equal force to CD[S] as to other approaches.’ (p. 358).
2.2.3. Power and ideology
Also fundamental to CDS are the inextricably linked notions of power and ideology. I
will first briefly describe the notion of power.8 Given its emancipatory agenda
committed to social equality, CDS pays particular attention to social power (see e.g.
van Dijk 1998a, 2000), i.e. power abuse at the level of groups or organisations. As Wodak and Meyer (2016) point out, ‘[p]ower is about relations of difference, and
particularly about the effects of differences in social structures’ (p. 12). Turning to the
notion of ideology, itis defined differently in different CDS approaches. For example, Reisigl and Wodak (2016) see ideology as ‘a worldview and a system composed of
related mental representations, convictions, opinions, attitudes, values and evaluations, which is shared by members of a specific social group’ (p. 25). On the other hand,
Fairclough (2003) takes a Marxist perspective and defines ideology vis-à-vis its
relationship with power and dominance:
Ideologies are representations of aspects of the world which can be shown to
contribute to establishing, maintaining and changing social relations of power, domination and exploitation. This ‘critical’ view of ideology, seeing it as a
modality of power, contrasts with various ‘descriptive’ views of ideology as
positions, attitudes, beliefs, perspectives, etc. of social groups without reference
to relations of power and domination between such groups. (p. 9)
8 See Section 2.3 for a more detailed discussion about the theorisation of power in van Dijk’s
49
Despite the variations in the conceptualisations of ideology, different CDS approaches
share the belief of the important role of ideology in the reproduction of power
asymmetry. According to Wodak and Meyer (2016), CDS is particularly interested in
those more latent and covert type of everyday beliefs, which are often taken for granted
as common sense and which are unchallenged, i.e. the Gramscian concept of ‘hegemony’. It is via such everyday beliefs that inequalities and oppression are
maintained and reproduced.
I will end this section by describing how the above key notions are interwoven
and offering a glimpse of what CDS is about. As touched upon above, some discourses
have ideological effects, and it is mainly, but not necessarily, through discourse that
ideologies are learnt, expressed and reproduced (e.g. van Dijk, 2006, 2011). Since
ideologies organise how we see the world, they may help legitimise inequality of power
or express resistance to such dominance. CDS research takes a critical perspective and
aims to unmask how different forms of social inequalities and domination are sustained
and legitimised via the discursive reproduction of ideologies. Following this general
introduction to CDS, in the next section, I will narrow down my scope and explicate the specific approach that my research draws on, i.e. van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach to
ideology (1998a).