Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis [CDA]

What is (CDA) Critical Discourse Analysis

In general, the phrase Critical Discourse Analysis can be separated into three distinct factors of the study. Through the integrated form of Critical Discourse Analysis functions to analyze the phenomenon in a systematic way the factors included can be discussed analytically in isolation. The word Critical refers to a thought driven towards expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art. Taking the word critical in a simple way is to have curiosity about something or not take something for granted. That means expressing adverse or disapproving comments or judgments reflectively. Similarly, Discourse means a written or written phenomenon which exists in human society as a traditional belief or Myth.

In a broad term, discourse refers to a conversation that must begin by specifying linguistic and socio-cultural knowledge that needs to be shared if it is conversational involvement (Gumpurz,1982) The discussion and communication topics always carry some topic in that sense if it contains the property related to sociopolitical matters having weighted meaning in a certain area are known as discourse. The analysis is the thinking process with different dimensions of self-questioning. Being inquisitive and thinking deeply from multiple dimensions on a particular thing is an analysis.

Integrating all these three terms David Crystal defines CDA as a perspective that studies the relationship between discourse events and sociopolitical and cultural factors, especially the way discourse is ideologically influenced by and can itself influence power relations. (2011, p.123) Based on the definitions the interdisciplinary approaches of CDA consider language as a social practice and are concerned with the systematic investigation of hidden power relations (Rogers, 2004) and ideology embedded in the broader functional use of language. The quality of being reflective, reflexive, questioning, dialogic, and comparative makes a person critical and based on those qualities, a person can analyze any discourse critically.

Principles of CDA

According to Fairclough and Wodak (1997), there are some basic tenets/principles of critical discourse analysis which help CDA to develop it as a separate research paradigm or approach for social science studies. The word critical self holds the notion of inquiry of research as discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory. 

The principles of CDA are as follows;

• The CDA addresses the social problem.
• Power relations are discursive
• Discourse is the constituent of society and vice versa
• Discourse does ideological work
• Discourse is historical and is connected to previous contemporary and subsequent discourses
• Relations between text and society are mediated.
• Discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory
• Discourse is a form of social action

Connection Between Social Formation, Practices and Discourse

In CDA, discourse involves social conditions of production (e.g., text) as well as social conditions of interpretation. It is the linguistic form of social interaction that is either embedded in the social context of a situation or that interprets the social system that constitutes the culture of institutions or society as a whole. It is a product of its environment and it functions in that environment through the process of interaction and semantic choice. Text is the realization of such an environment. CDA treats discourse as a type of social practice including visual images, music, gestures, and the like that represent and endorse it. Texts are produced by socially situated speakers and writers. For participants in discourse, their relations in producing texts are not always equal: there will be a range from complete solidarity to complete inequality. Meanings come about through interaction between readers and receivers and linguistic features come about as a result of social processes, which are never arbitrary. In most interactions, users of language bring with them different dispositions toward language, which are closely related to social status (Fairclough, 1989).

Micro-Level of CDA

The micro-level of critical discourse analysis talks about the use of language in different areas. The language used in ritual works is not similar to the language used in casual conversation. Like the word Water (pani) in casual conversation becomes Jala in ritual work. The study of surface language function can be considered a micro-level of discourse analysis. How people react to written languages and behave accordingly are studied under the micro-level of discourse analysis. The term micro-level of discourse is a part of macro as the integrated term in micro and macro in discourse analysis highlights the power relation of language, ideology (Rogers, 2004), and established belief system in society.

Macro Level of CDA

The macro-level of discourse analysis is connected with the hidden power relation of language and the ideology developed by various factors like language, culture, politics, and human society (Van Dijk, 1993). It is a critical analysis of the complex organization of society in terms of different discrimination, domination, and inequality between social groups. In this context, the CDA has to bridge the well-known gap between micro and macro approaches which is of course a distinction that is a sociological construct in its own right. The research based on the CDA approaches could be focused on gender inequality, media discourse, political discourse, Ethnocentricism, antisemitism, nationalism, and racism

Micro & Macro level of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

Conclusion

Multiple critical discourse analysis (CDA) approaches explicitly or implicitly attempt to make links between micro, meso and macro-scale social phenomena, mapping discourse analyses across these scales correspondingly. Fairclough conceptualized these scales as a three-dimensional model consisting of discursive events (micro), discursive practices (meso), and social structures (macro). Fairclough suggested that CDA research should shift between descriptive, interpretive, and explanatory stages, each bolstered by oscillating between different scales of analysis. At the micro level of discursive events, researchers analyze texts or other forms of discourse to provide a rich description (typically taking account of content, structure, grammar, vocabulary, intertextuality, and rhetorical or literary devices). At the mesolevel of discursive practice, analysts examine the processes underlying discursive production, dissemination, and assimilation, and interpret the discourse concerning this contextual understanding.

The macro level of social structures requires an understanding of the broader social context (including implicit and explicit rules, norms, or more governing discourse and society). Macrolevel analysis likewise necessitates the reintegration of insights gleaned through the micro and mesoscale investigations to explain the relationship between discourse, ideology, and the socio-material world. This analytical process is rarely if ever linear; arguably, the analyst must shift between descriptive, interpretative, and explanatory activities at micro, meso, and macroscales of investigation to produce cohesive, robust explanations of discursive and social phenomena.

References

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies (No. 1). Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (2011). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (Vol. 30). John Wiley & Sons.

Fairclough, Norman 1989, Language and Power, USA, Longman Inc.

Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 31-48). Routledge.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & society, 4(2), 249-283.