A Comparative Study of Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).pdf

1
THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
English Language & Applied Linguistics
M.A. Applied Linguistics Dissertation (2013/2014)
Title: A Comparative Study of Methods of Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA)
By: Olufemi Olumide Ogundayo

2
Abstract
This research is a comparative study of approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) with
the aim of evaluating the possibility of synthesis. Concerning the question of synthesis, the
research posed the following question: Is it actually possible to find synthesis between the very
different and very diverse approaches to CDA research?
The research hypothesis is that given the arguably similar research agenda associated with
CDA, synthesis is plausible even though it is indeed difficult to achieve. Based on a comparison
of the Socio-cognitive approach and the Dialectical-relational approach, the research attempted
to evaluate the possibility of synthesis. The results however, are inconclusive.
The research concludes by reflecting on the issue of ‘analysis’ in Critical Discourse Analysis
by proposing the adoption of ‘study’ to signify a clearer focus.
Keywords: Comparative study, Synthesis, Accessibility, Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical
Discourse Studies, Socio-cognitive approach, Dialectical-relational approach.

3
Acknowledgements
First, I would take this opportunity to express my humble gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Joe
Bennett who guided me through the entire research process by reading my drafts and providing
very useful feedback. His support encouraged me along the way and provided me with the
knowledge necessary successfully complete my research.
I am particularly grateful to my parents – Michael Ademola Ogundayo and Onikepe Ogundayo,
also, my sisters, Titilayo Ogundayo and Adebola Ogundayo.
I would also like to acknowledge my tutors and colleagues from the MA Applied Linguistics
program at the University of Birmingham. I would especially like to thank my classmates and
friends, John Ibarra, Manuel Daza-Martin, Sergei Vassiliev, Bonaventure Muzigirwa, Mustafa
Khalid Saleh and Seth Yoder.
Most importantly, I would like to extend my gratitude to my best friend Comfort Tanimola.

4
Contents
................................................................................................................................................................1
Abstract...................................................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................3
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................5
1.1. Thesis Statement .....................................................................................................................6
1.2. Research Question ..................................................................................................................7
2. Critical Discourse Analysis – Overview............................................................................................8
2.1. Main characteristics of Critical Discourse Analysis ...............................................................9
2.2. Power ....................................................................................................................................10
2.3. Discourse...............................................................................................................................12
2.4. Ideology ................................................................................................................................14
2.5. Context..................................................................................................................................15
2.6. Critique .................................................................................................................................17
2.7. Summary...............................................................................................................................19
3. Research Methodology.................................................................................................................20
3.1. Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis...........................................................................20
4. Comparative Analysis....................................................................................................................24
4.1. The Socio-Cognitive Approach ........................................................................................24
4.1.1. Socio-cognitive Text Analysis......................................................................................26
4.2. The Dialectical-Relational Approach................................................................................31
4.2.1. Dialectical-Relational text analysis...............................................................................34
4.3. Synthesis ...............................................................................................................................37
4.3.1. Potential obstacles to synthesis.....................................................................................37
4.3.2. Possibility of synthesis..................................................................................................38
5. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................41
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................43
APPENDIX..............................................................................................................................................49

5
1. Introduction
Critical language research has existed for over 35 years. It is most notably associated with
Fowler et al. (1979) as well as Kress and Hodge (1979). The emergence of Critical Linguistics
(CL) could be viewed as part of an ideological confrontation with mainstream Language
studies / Linguistics, which was viewed as inadequate due to its focus on language form
(structure) with little attention given to language function1
and social context. According to
Hodge and Kress (1993), the main aim was to make linguistics a more socially responsible and
responsive discipline. Hence, CL emphasised a more systematic and thorough analysis of
language especially the relationship between discourse, ideology and power. The research
eventually metamorphosed into Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) through the contributions
of Fairclough, van Dijk, Wodak, and van Leeuwen among others.
CDA could be described as a ‘reformist movement’. In its current form, it is a union of a wide-
variety of scholars who on the surface appear to share little in common in terms of research
background but generally share an interest in ‘enlightenment’ and ‘emancipation’. They also
hope to enact changes in their respective fields of interest through inter/trans/multidisciplinary
research. (See also Wodak and Meyer, 2009)
A recurrent criticism2
of CDA research is the absence of a unified research framework, which
explicitly defines its method of data collection and analysis. Although CDA research has
increased especially in the last two decades, the eclectic3
nature of research associated with
CDA still poses quite a challenge for a novice especially because CDA does not currently
provide a ready-made, how-to-do approach to its analysis of social issues.
In addition, since CDA aims for ‘enlightenment’ and ‘emancipation’ through ‘critical’ social
research, I would argue that the absence of a unified theoretical framework makes its
emancipatory goal much more difficult to attain simply because more time is expended in
explaining the need for inter/trans/multidisciplinarity as well as defending its eclectic nature
instead of actual ‘enlightenment’ and ‘emancipation’. In other words, it undermines its
professed ambitions to work as a social movement.
1
Although, Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is a notable exception because of its view of language
as a social semiotic system. (Halliday, 1977)
2
Like any novel field of study, CDA has attracted quite a number of criticisms, which peaked in the mid to late
1990s most notably Widdowson (1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2000), Stubbs (1997) & Toolan (1997)
among others.
3
Eclectic refers to selecting what is perceived as most appropriate from a variety of available sources in order
to address a particular research issue.

6
1.1. Thesis Statement
As earlier stated, the eclectic nature of CDA research makes it somewhat inaccessible to
newcomers and arguably undermines its professed social ambitions. For instance, Toolan
(1997) rightly pointed out that ‘anyone who reads extensively in CDA soon runs into that habit
of new approaches jostling for attention.’ Hence, it is hardly surprising that with the
multiplicity of approaches to CDA, a novice researcher is most likely to be confused in the
selection of an approach to doing CDA research.
The main purpose of this research is to highlight the need for existing CDA approaches to be
synthesised or at least provide an entry-level for newcomers to the field. In other words, this
research would argue that CDA could be more accessible if the existing approaches are
synthesised.
Although this research is an ambitious one, the argument is by no means a novel one. For
instance, Fowler (1996: 12) highlighted the ‘danger [of] competing and uncontrolled
methodologies drawn from a scatter of different models in the social sciences.’ This is exactly
the case with CDA approaches and makes it ever confusing as new methods are introduced all
the time without considering the effect of such theoretical messiness on its social ambitions. It
is important to pay more attention to this issue mainly because CDA is primarily a ‘social
movement’ and as Stubbs (1997: 101) rightly pointed out, ‘it is because CDA raises important
social issues, that it is worthwhile trying to strengthen its analyses’.
The guiding idea behind this research is that a synthesis of the current approaches to CDA
research will make it more accessible to prospective researchers so that its professed social
aims of ‘enlightenment’ and ‘emancipation’ will become more attainable. This research is a
comparative study of approaches to CDA and while the task may seem implausible given that,
the issues discussed in CDA research are diverse. For practical reasons, this research will only
compare two existing approaches viz. Socio-cognitive approach (SCA) and Dialectical-
relational approach (DRA), which are arguably two of the most developed frameworks in CDA
research. In addition, because both approaches are deductive, it is assumed that they would be
easier to compare. The selection of two out of the multifarious approaches to CDA research is
obviously not representative. However, I hope that even my selective discussions of the SCA
and DRA would stimulate interest into further research on the issues discussed.

7
The hypothesis is that given the arguably similar research agenda associated with CDA,
synthesis is plausible even though it is indeed difficult to achieve.
1.2. Research Question
Since the main objective of this research is to evaluate the possibility of synthesis of the existing
CDA approaches, there is only one question:
 Is there an actual possibility of synthesis?
First and foremost, the next chapter provides an overview of CDA including a summary of key
concepts associated with all CDA approaches viz. power, discourse, ideology, critique as well
as context. Chapter 3 describes the existing approaches to CDA. Chapter 4 is presents the
analytical frameworks of Socio-Cognitive approach (SCA) and Dialectical-Relational
approach (DRA) and analyses a text using the aforementioned approaches. In addition, it
evaluates the possibility of synthesis of the two approaches in particular and other CDA
approaches in general. The final chapter reflects on the overall objectives of the research as
well as the seemingly problematic term ‘Analysis’.

8
2. Critical Discourse Analysis – Overview
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is inherently a ‘problem-oriented’ and interdisciplinary
form of social research with links to Rhetoric, Philosophy, Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics, Text
Linguistics, Literary Criticism, and Critical Linguistics among others. It generally refers to a
synthesis of a variety of approaches with different theoretical perspectives and from different
academic disciplines. One of the aims of CDA is to highlight cultural and ideological meaning
subtly manifested in forms of dominance, discrimination, power, and control in language1
through an analysis of both opaque and transparent structural relationships in discourse2
.
(Wodak & Meyer, 2009; Wodak & de Cillia, 2006; Fairclough, 2006; O’Halloran, 2003)
According to Wodak and Meyer (2009: 7), the main aim of critical theory in general and
specifically CDA is ‘to produce and convey critical knowledge that enables human beings to
emancipate themselves from forms of domination through self-reflection.’ Many CDA
advocates also claim that the main motivation for CDA research is pressing social as well as
political issues. Hence, a defining characteristic is a commitment to tie linguistic description to
social issues3
such as gender inequality, racism, discrimination among others and political
issues such as ideology, immigration usually with the ultimate goal of enacting significant
changes in any given society.
Another common theme in CDA research is a reference to the reproduction and naturalisation
of ideology in discourse, a view similar to Althusser (1971). CDA places an emphasis on going
beyond the general surface interpretation of discourse(s) in order to reveal the subtle ways in
which it might perpetrate a particular ideology as well as enact unequal power relations.
Through the critique of discourse(s), it aims to reveal such ideologies, which are most likely
to appear as ‘common sense’ assumptions or clichés.
The next section provides a summary of the main characteristics of CDA research.
1
Language can be used in at least three senses: it refers to the communication ability of humans (universal
language); language use (discourse); a language (French, English). In this research, it mainly refers to discourse.
2
Discourse generally refers to speech and writing. In addition, discourse and text are used interchangeably for
the same purpose. (See also Wodak and Meyer, 2009)
3
The explicit socio-political stance of CDA has also attracted numerous criticisms (e.g. Widdowson, 1995a).

9
2.1. Main characteristics of Critical Discourse Analysis
CDA research generally consists of three main stages viz. description (text analysis),
interpretation (processing analysis), and explanation (sociocultural analysis). Interpretation
involves going beyond the surface of texts to explore hidden meanings, which can be used to
manipulate so-called ‘non-critical readers’. Explanation refers to establishing a relationship
between a text and its wider social and cultural context as well as the role such contexts play
in text interpretation. (O’Halloran, 2003)
Although it could be argued that, the interpretation stage has received lesser attention than the
description and explanation stages because of its mostly cognitive nature1
, it still remains an
important characteristic of CDA and is usually treated as ‘hermeneutic’. On the other hand, the
explanation stage with its socio-semiotic nature has arguably received more attention, which is
not surprising given that CDA is inherently a social research. In sum, Contemporary CDA
research has been largely explanatory with little description and even lesser interpretation. (See
also O’Halloran, 2003; Fairclough, 2010)
Perhaps the main characteristic of CDA research is that methods and theories are selected based
on their suitability in the understanding of the particular problem being investigated. In other
word, it is eclectic, which implies that there is no specific theory or paradigm that is distinctly
its own. According to Wodak and Meyer (2009: 23), ‘there is neither any guiding theoretical
viewpoint that is used coherently within CDA, nor do the CDA protagonists proceed
consistently from the area of theory to the field of discourse and text, and back to theory.’.
Even though, this is not necessarily considered as a problem, it is the major reason for the
apparent fragmented nature of CDA research, which would be discussed in more detail in the
next chapter.
Another distinguishing feature of CDA is the term ‘critical’. According to Titscher et. al, (2000:
144) it is ‘critical’ in two senses: one sense is based on the ideas of the Frankfurt School (in
particular the work of Jürgen Habermas) and the other on a shared tradition with so-called
critical linguistics. In addition, ‘the theoretical framework – even when this is not explicitly
stated – is derived from Louis Althusser’s theories of ideology, Mikhail Bakhtin’s genre theory,
1
Although van Dijk’s Socio-Cognitive approach, (2009b) aims to address this issue. However, a more detailed
explanation of the issue is contained in O’Halloran’s (2003) study of mystification in news texts.

10
and the philosophical traditions of Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School [as well as
Michel Foucault].’ (Titscher et. al, 2000: 144)
The general principles of CDA are summarised by Titscher et. al (2000: 146) as follows:
 CDA is concerned with social problems.
 Power-relations have to do with discourse.
 Society and culture are dialectically related to discourse.
 Language use may be ideological.
 Discourses are historical and can only be understood in relation to their context.
 The connection between text and society is not direct
 Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory.
 Discourse is a form of social behaviour.
(See also Fairclough and Wodak, 1997)
These principles highlight the range of key concerns that seem central to any CDA research
viz. power, discourse, ideology, context, as well as critique, whose definitions are manifold
and would be explored in more detail in the following sections. (See also Wodak and Meyer,
2009)
2.2. Power
Power is a vague concept and as earlier stated, it has manifold definitions. The concept of
power is usually associated with asymmetry, hierarchy, as well as inequality among others. In
other words, it ‘is an unequally distributed resource’. In addition, it is generally claimed that
power organises many of the relationships between discourse and society. According to Wodak
and Meyer (2009: 10), ‘the defining features of CDA are its concern with power as a central
condition in social life, and its effort to develop a theory of language that incorporates this as
a major premise.’ Since the main aim of CDA is ‘enlightenment’ and ‘emancipation’, an
understanding of power and power relations is central to its goals as a social movement mainly
because ‘the exercise of power limits the options for action, and thereby the freedom, of others.’
(van Dijk, 1997: 18)
Perhaps the most important characteristic of power is its covert nature. Hence, CDA
emphasizes critique in order to gain a proper understanding of its functions. In addition, CDA
highlights ‘the need for interdisciplinary work in order to gain a proper understanding of how

11
language functions in constituting and transmitting knowledge, in organizing social institutions
or in exercising power.’ (Wodak and Meyer, 2009: 7)
According, to van Dijk (1997: 24), ‘the real ethical problem we need to focus on in critical
discourse research is not power, but the illegitimate exercise of power, that is, power abuse or
domination.’
van Dijk (1997) has a socio-cognitive view of power and highlights some of its characteristics
as follows:
 Control of action and mind
 Persuasion
 Hegemony1
and consensus
 Control of context
 Control of discourse structures
It is also important to emphasise that power does not exist independent of language2
and vice-
versa. In other words, ‘language is not powerful on its own – it is a means to gain and maintain
power by the use ‘powerful’ people make of it’, which implies that there is no expression of
power without language. (Reisigl and Wodak, 2009: 88)
Wodak and Meyer (2009: 10) summarised the relationship between language and power as
follows:
The constant unity of language and other social matters ensures that language is
entwined in social power in a number of ways: language indexes and expresses power,
and is involved where there is contention over and a challenge to power. Power does
not necessarily derive from language, but language can be used to challenge power, to
subvert it, to alter distributions of power in the short and the long term. Language
provides a finely articulated vehicle for establishing differences in power in hierarchical
social structures. Emphasis added.
1
Hegemony is often used to refer to social power that ‘makes people act as if it were natural, normal or simply
a consensus [and usually implies that] No commands, requests or even suggestions are necessary.’ (van Dijk,
1997: 19)
2
Language in this sense refers to language use (or discourse).

12
In addition, Hodge and Kress, (1993: 158) emphasised that ‘power is only an effect of
discourse’ because it is a relation between texts or meanings. Similarly, Jӓger and Maier (2009:
35) claimed that ‘discourses exercise power in a society because they institutionalize and
regulate ways of talking, thinking, and acting.’ In other words, power is internalised in
discourse, which implies a dialectical1
relationship.
The notion of discourse is discussed in more detail in the next section.
2.3. Discourse
In order to define discourse appropriately, it would be best to give a brief summary of Language
because of its importance in discussions of discourse, ideology, and power. According to
Machin and Mayr (2012: 4), ‘what all [CDAs] have in common is the view of language as a
means of social construction: language both shapes and is shaped by society. CDA is not so
much interested in language use itself, but in the linguistic character of social and cultural
processes and structures.’
In CDA, language is viewed as ‘a form of social practice2
’, which implies that it is entwined
with how individuals act, maintain and regulate societal activities. It is also involved in the
promotion and ‘naturalisation’ of particular views of the world and through it, certain kinds of
practices, ideas, values and identities, which are enacted. In other words, language plays a
crucial role in the way societies are built and can even be conceived of as the building block of
societies. This view of language has subsequently been adopted in CDA research. (Hodge and
Kress, 1988)
Language and discourse are inextricably linked, in a sense; language is discourse and vice-
versa, which means that they share many characteristics most especially manifold definitions.
Discourse has varying definitions to different researchers depending on their academic
background and integrated into their specific approach. It can be approached in many different
ways including historical, semiotic, and cognitive. According to Titscher et. al (2000: 25), ‘in
both the popular and the philosophical use of the term, [it] integrates a whole palette of different
meanings that often seem contradictory or mutually exclusive.’ Hence, it is difficult to give a
1 Dialectical in the sense of ‘being different but not ‘discrete’, i.e., not fully separate’. In other words, ‘it
internalises discourse and is internalised by discourse. Hence, not reducible to discourse and vice-versa. (See
also Fairclough, 2010: 231; Harvey, 1996)
2
Social practice simply refers to an established form of social activity – for instance, education, news, etc. that
involves communication between individuals and groups – can also qualify as discourses.

13
specific definition. Accordingly, most researchers focus on more on some aspects than others
do. For instance, van Dijk (1997: 2) advocates for the study of ‘the actual cognitive (mental)
processes of [discourse] production and comprehension by language users.’ This view is in line
with his socio-cognitive approach, which mainly emphasises the cognitive aspects of discourse
processing while paying little attention to other aspects of discourse such as its historical nature
or its semiotic nature.
According to Fairclough (2010) discourse, culture and society share a dialectical relationship.
In other words, discourse constitutes society and culture and vice versa, which means that any
time language is used, society and culture including power relations are transformed because
every instance of language use involves a form of negotiation of meaning between
interlocutors. This particular view of discourse is representative of the dialectical-relational
approach to CDA.
The last two paragraphs clearly highlight the fragmented nature of CDA research and the same
thing can be said of the other approaches in CDA, which would be discussed further in chapter
3.
Discourse1
is generally defined in CDA as:
A form of ‘social practice’ […]. [It] is socially constitutive as well as socially
conditioned […]. It is constitutive both in the sense that it helps to sustain and reproduce
the social status quo, and [also] contributes to transforming it. Since discourse is so
socially consequential, it gives rise to important issues of power. […] [T]hat is, [it] can
help produce and reproduce unequal power relations […] (Fairclough and Wodak,
1997:258)
In addition, Pêcheux (1982) views discourse as the place where language and ideology meet.
Hence, discourse analysis as well as CDA is the analysis of ideological dimensions of language
use, and of the materialization in language of ideology.’ (Cited in Fairclough and Wodak, 1997:
262)
1 A distinction is usually made between discourse (an abstract noun) and discourse(s) as a count noun. The former
means defined as language in use – a form of social practice, while the latter is defined as ways of representing
the world – specific way of signifying experience. The former sense is the one applicable in this research. (See
also Gee, 1999; Gee and Handford, 2012 for more details)

14
The relationship between discourse and ideology is underscored by the assumption that ‘a
‘discourse’, as a particular area of language use, may be identified by the institutions to which
it relates and by the position from which it comes and which it marks out for the speaker.’ In
addition, ‘any discourse concerns itself with certain objects and puts forward certain concepts
at the expense of others.’ (MacDonnell, 1986: 2-3)
The next section discusses Ideology in more detail.
2.4. Ideology
Ideology is a controversial concept with many negative connotations. Machin and Mayr (2012:
48) define it as ‘the set of factual and evaluative beliefs – that is, the knowledge and opinions
– of a group.’ In other words, an idea system or set of assumptions on which discourse is based.
It mainly operates through the ‘classification of reality’. Ideology is opaque and deeply
entrenched in language use (Kress, 1993; Wodak & Meyer, 2009)
According to van Dijk (2011: 283), Ideology is ‘the fundamental, ‘axiomatic’ beliefs shared
by a group, that is, general beliefs that control – and are often originally derived from – more
specific beliefs about concrete events, actions, and situations with which group members may
be confronted.’
Although most definitions of ideology emphasise its negative aspects, Fowler (1996: 11)
present a relatively neutral view as
A society’s implicit theory of what types of object exist in their world (categorisation);
of the way that world works (causation); and of the values to be assigned to objects and
processes (general propositions of paradigms). These implicit beliefs constitute
‘common sense’ which provides a normative base to discourse.
According to Fairclough (1992:87), ‘Ideologies are significations/constructions of reality (the
physical world, social relations, social identities), which are built into various dimensions of
the forms/meanings of discursive practices, and which contribute to the production, re-
production or transformations of relations of domination.’ This is a purely semiotic view of
ideology, again in line with the dialectical-relational approach.

15
On the other hand, van Dijk (1997) views ideologies1
as ‘mental representations’, which form
the basis of ‘social cognition’ – shared knowledge and attitudes of a group (ibid: 29). In other
words, ideologies are socio-cognitive in nature, which entails that they simultaneously co-
ordinate as well as influence thought. In addition, ideology is viewed as the socio-cognitive
counterpart of power (ibid: 35). This view of ideology obviously reflects the socio-cognitive
approach to CDA.
In general2
terms, ideology is viewed as a process, which seeks to establish relations of power
in a society through manufactured consent. It progresses through reproduction and
naturalisation. An ideology can only operate successfully when it becomes naturalised and
becomes a ‘common sense’ assumption and to achieve this, it has to be successfully
‘reproduced’ severally and subtly. The successful reproduction of an ideology usually results
in ‘naturalization’ where a particular ideological representation becomes a cliché, which entails
opacity and makes it more difficult to detect. This, however, does not imply that all common
sense assumptions are ideological. Metaphors and analogies also play an important role in
naturalisation by making an obscure issue seem obvious. A successfully naturalised ideology
ensures that it is unchallenged and usually results in ‘hegemony’. (See also Kress, 1985;
Fairclough, 1989; Fairclough, 1992; Wodak & Meyer, 2009)
There are various ways of detecting Ideology in discourse such as through the lexical choice
(use of euphemisms and metaphors), agency (through nominalisation), modality (use of
evaluative adjectives and adverbials), and point of view (personal narration, impersonal
narration, and authorial voice). (Jackson & Stockwell, 2011:195-199)
2.5. Context
Context has many different connotations and similar to power and discourse, is also vague and
ambiguous. It is generally used in discourse studies to refer to ‘verbal context’ or ‘social
situation’. The former is also referred to as ‘co-text’ – additional information about the text –
while the latter refers to a specific instance of text3
or language use in general. (van Dijk, 2009a:
2)
1
This particular view of ideology is representative of the socio-cognitive approach (SCA). (See also van Dijk, 1997;
1998; 2009b)
2
Although there are many other ways of defining ideology, it is widely accepted in CDA that ideology and power
are intricately linked and since power is largely invisible, the same can be said of ideology.
3
Text is used interchangeably with discourse in many discourse studies. It refers to both speech and writing.

16
The notion of context is important in CDA1
research. Although Weber (2002: 157) claims that
‘context is first and foremost cognitive’ because it is always created for any text, ‘by drawing
inferences based on […] background knowledge, attitudes and emotions.’ It also includes
psychological, social, political, and ideological dimensions among others. In other words,
postulates interdisciplinarity.
According to van Dijk (2009a: 5), ‘a context is what is defined to be relevant in the social
situation by the participant themselves’ even though this view is not shared by all CDA
researchers. The importance of context in CDA is underscored by the underlying assumption
that ‘all discourses are historical and can therefore only be understood with reference to their
context’ (Meyer, 2001: 15) [emphasis added].
Although most CDA approaches recognise the importance of context, it has not received the
same level of attention as power, discourse, and ideology. This is related to the issue mentioned
in section 2.1 about the marginal attention given to ‘interpretation’ in CDA research. The same
applies here because ‘context’ is cognitive. It is therefore no surprise that van Dijk (2008) is
arguably the most comprehensive treatment of context in CDA research.
van Dijk (2009a: 1) claimed that although it is generally agreed that ‘in order to fully
understand discourse we need to understand its ‘context’, it has not been explicitly treated in
CDA despite its overarching influence on discourse interpretation. On the other hand, Weiss
and Wodak (2003: 22) point out that ‘the main challenge facing CDA representatives is to
highlight gaps between theory and empirical research, between discourse and context –gaps
which will in any case be unbridgeable.’ In other words, although the importance of context in
understanding discourse cannot be understated, there is a seemingly unbridgeable gap between
the two mainly because there are no direct relations between them. (See also van Dijk, 2008)
It is important to note that there are things which some approaches have little or nothing to say
about. Hence, it is hardly surprising that the socio-cognitive approach has more to say about
context that others such as the dialectical-relational approach.
The main tenets of the notion of context are summarised as follows:
1 The notion of context is not unique to CDA. However, what differentiates CDA’s approach to context is the
‘critical’ element. According to Kress (1990: 85), ‘by denaturalizing the discursive practices and the texts of a
society […] and by making visible and apparent that which may previously have been invisible and seemingly
natural, they intend to show the imbrication of linguistic-discursive practices with the wider socio-political
structures of power and domination.’

17
 Contexts are subjective participant constructs
 Contexts are unique experiences
 Contexts are mental models
 Contexts are a specific type of experience model
 Contexts models are schematic
 Contexts control discourse production and comprehension
 Contexts are socially based
 Contexts are dynamic
 Contexts are often, and largely, planned
(van Dijk, 2008: 16 – 18)
Since the notion of context is not the fundamental goal of this research, I would not go into
further detail1
.
The next section is a summary of the notion of critique.
2.6. Critique
Critique is a central notion in ‘critical theory’ as well as CDA research. It is mostly used
interchangeably with the term ‘critical’. In its most basic sense, critique can simply refer to an
objective analysis, which considers the positive and negative aspects of a particular issue being
studied at any particular time. In recent years, however, critique has acquired mostly negative
sentiments mainly because most ‘critical2
’ scholars are inclined to negative critique as opposed
to positive critique.
According to Fairclough (1985: 747), ‘critique is essentially making visible the
interconnectedness of things.’ Although being ‘critical’ is often misunderstood as negative, it
is fully in the spirit of academic enquiry as every research at some point requires critical
reasoning abilities.
1
Van Dijk has written extensively on the notion of context. His monographs (2008, 2009a) are a very good
resource for exploring context in more detail.
2
Similarly Wodak and Meyer (2009: 2), argue that ‘the objects under investigation do not have to be related to
negative or exceptionally ‘serious’ social or political experiences or events – this is a frequent misunderstanding
of the aims and goals of CDA and of the term ‘critical’ which, of course, does not mean ‘negative as in common-
sense usage.’

18
In addition, Fairclough (2010: 7) claims that ‘critique brings a normative element into analysis
[by focussing] on what is wrong with a society […] and how ‘wrongs’ might be ‘righted’ or
mitigated, from a particular normative standpoint. Critique is grounded in values, in particular
views of the ‘good society’ and of human well-being and flourishing, on the basis of which it
evaluates existing societies and ways of changing them.’
CDA emphasises critique mainly because of the opacity of the relationship between power,
discourse, and ideology. As earlier stated, ideologies in discourse are most likely naturalised,
which implies a view of ‘common sense’. In addition, ideology and power are abstract notions.
The unravelling of the opacity of discourse and ideologies is crucial because of the covert role
that ideologies play in discourse. Although ideology is implicit in discourse and practice, ‘it
should not be assumed that people are aware of their own practice. Ideologies built into
conventions may be more or less naturalized and automatized, and people may find it difficult
to comprehend that their normal practices could have specific ideological investments’
(Fairclough, 1992:90). In order words, ideologies act unconsciously and are reproduced as such
without notice. Hence, a critical approach is necessary to reveal ideologies in discourse.
(Locke, 2004)
The role of critique is to eliminate distortions by highlighting the ‘interconnectedness of things’
which simply entails a more thorough and systematic analysis as well as offering a historical
perspective on how such distortion happened. In contrast, a non-critical approach is most likely
to present knowledge as objective (neutral), which is obviously not true because knowledge is
usually subjective. Hence, ‘Critical theories, thus also CDA, want to produce and convey
critical knowledge that enables human beings to emancipate themselves from forms of
domination through self-reflection. Thus, they are aimed at producing ‘enlightenment and
emancipation’. Such theories seek to not only describe and explain, but also to root out a
particular kind of delusion. Even with differing concepts of ideology critical theory seeks to
create awareness of their own needs and interests.’ (Wodak and Meyer, 2009: 7)
However, these views beg the question ‘does self-reflection justify the subjective nature of the
analysis? In addition, does the supposedly ‘greater explanatory power’ of the analysis justify
its subjectivity? The point being made is that this view is invariably ideological in itself by
assuming superiority of its own interpretations. This argument unfortunately cannot be
explored in detail in this research for practical reasons. (See also Stubbs, 1997; Toolan, 1997)

19
In addition, van Leeuwen (2006: 293), claims that the term ‘critical’ only implies specific
ethical standards: an intention to make their position, research interests and values explicit and
their criteria as transparent as possible, without feeling the need to apologise for the critical
stance of their work.’ Although the point that there is no need to apologise for taking a critical
stance is well understood, as earlier stated, it is mostly negative. On the other hand, objectivity
usually implies neutrality not negativity.
In sum, although CDA advocates ‘enlightenment’ and ‘emancipation’, its overall negative
focus is most likely to undermine its goals.
The next section presents a summary of the discussions in this chapter.
2.7. Summary
This chapter has highlighted the main characteristics of CDA research as well as its main
research agenda. It has also shown that shown that its key concepts viz. power, discourse,
ideology, and context have manifold definitions and are perhaps the main reason for the
fragmented nature of CDA research.
As earlier stated, the main goal of CDA is to elucidate the opacity of discourse(s). Although
CDA has undoubtedly made significant contributions to social research through its elucidation
of power, discourse and ideology, this research has shown so far that apart from a common
research goal stated as ‘enlightenment’ and ‘emancipation’, CDA research is somewhat
fragmented, which makes it somewhat challenging for novice researchers.
In sum, the main aim of this chapter was to establish the main aim of CDA as well as link it to
the purpose of this research, which is to evaluate the possibility of synthesis. This chapter has
shown so far that the main problem lies in the fragmented nature of CDA research, which is
reflected in the manifold definitions of its key concepts. For instance, the socio-cognitive
approach emphasises cognitive aspects of discourse processing while the dialectical-relational
approach emphasises its semiotic aspects. These different perspectives of the same notions are
most likely to confuse newcomers, hence, denying them access and since the main goal of CDA
is ‘enlightenment’ and ‘emancipation’, it has to be readable and accessible; else, its research
goals will be undermined.
The next chapter will discuss the various approaches to CDA in more detail.

20
3. Research Methodology
This chapter will describe the various approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). As
earlier stated, the research is exploratory; hence, it merely enumerates and succinctly defines
the major approaches to CDA.
3.1. Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis
CDA is generally regarded as a loose combination of approaches, which are very distinct and
different. While it may be argued that CDA does require ‘interdisciplinary1
’ research, it has
always been in danger of ‘competing and uncontrolled methodologies’ jostling for attention
and even though the eclectic nature of CDA research is usually attributed to the complexities
in the relationship between language and society, which is said to be ‘mediated’, hence requires
interdisciplinary research. However, the nature of the mediated relationship itself is still very
much ambiguous in CDA research. (Fowler, 1996: 12; See also Machin and Mayr, 2012;
Wodak, 2001)
Wodak and Meyer, (2009) identified at least six very distinct and very different approaches to
CDA viz.
 Socio-Cognitive Approach (SCA)
 Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA)
 Discourse Historical Approach (DHA)
 Social Actors Approach (SAA)
 Dispositive Analysis (DA)
 Corpus Linguistics Approach (CLA)
1
According to Lakoff (2001), discourse analysis inherently requires interdisciplinary research in language studies.
Lakoff (2001: 199) also argued that ‘originally all scholarship was implicitly multidisciplinary, in the sense that
sharp distinctions were not explicitly recognized among disciplines.’

21
Figure 1. Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis (Adapted from Wodak and Meyer, 2009)
While it is beyond the scope of this research to provide a relatively comprehensive1
discussion
of the aforementioned approaches, nevertheless, I shall offer a very brief summary of their
main characteristics.
A common theme in these different approaches is an emphasis on a particular aspect of
discourse. In other words, it is common to focus on one aspect of discourse while treating other
aspects marginally. For instance, the SCA mainly focusses on the cognitive aspects of discourse
processing, hence is most likely to start from the individual mind similar to cognitive
linguistics2
. On the other hand, the DRA focusses on semiotic aspects of discourse and
explicitly starts from a supposedly ‘complex social problem3
’. While the DHA also integrates
cognitive aspects into its approach, as its name implies, its focus is on the historical aspect of
discourse. The SAA focusses on multimodal aspects of discourse and reflects a blend of
semiotic and cognitive views of discourse. The CLA is perhaps the most flexible of all as it is
1
Wodak and Meyer (2001; 2009) present a comprehensive discussion of methods of critical discourse analysis
(CDA), hence, interested readers are referred to their discussions for a more detailed description.
2
The Socio-cognitive approach (SCA) does not actually associate itself with Cognitive Linguistics or any other
approach for that matter. (See also O’Halloran, 2003; van Dijk, 2008; 2009a)
3
Most CDA approaches explicitly start from such complex social issues. Hence, this feature is not unique to the
Dialectical-relational approach (DRA).
Critical
Discourse
Analysis
Socio-
Cognitive
Approach
Dialectical-
Relational
Approach
Discourse-
Historical
Approach
Social
Actors
Approach
Dispositive
Analysis
Corpus
Lingustics
Approach

22
easily compatible with the others mainly because it does not particularly focus on a specific
aspect of discourse like the others. Rather, it is a toolkit; hence, it pays more attention to
concordance lines, which are largely decontextualized. (Wodak and Meyer, 2009; See also van
Dijk, 2008; van Leeuwen, 2008)
A key method of schematizing CDA is the distinction between ‘deductively-oriented’
approaches, which generally follow a top-down approach and ‘inductively-oriented’
approaches, which generally follow a bottom-up approach (Wodak and Meyer, 2009).
According to Wodak and Meyer (2009: 19), ‘more deductively oriented theories which also
propose a closed theoretical framework are more likely to illustrate their assumptions with a
few examples which seem to fit their claims (e.g. the DRA and SCA). In contrast, ‘inductively
oriented approaches usually stay at the ‘meso level’ and select problems where they attempt to
discover new insights through in-depth case studies and ample data collection ([e.g.], Discourse
Historical approach – DHA, Social Actors approach – SA, Corpus Linguistic approach – CL,
Dispositive Analysis – DA). Accordingly, two approaches viz. SCA and DRA have been
selected for this comparative study, which is obviously a small selection from a rich and diverse
range of approaches to CDA.
As earlier stated, this research is a comparative study of two approaches to Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA). The main aim is to show that although CDA is inherently multidisciplinary
and while it is useful for its advancement, introducing the field to newcomers or outsiders is
problematic. Hence, this research aims to show that synthesis is needed to make the CDA
research more accessible and should be pursued by leading CDA advocates in order to make
their emancipatory and enlightenment goals more attainable. Admittedly, this research is
ambitious given that CDA itself is a synthesis of different paradigms as well as the manifold
definitions of its central concepts. Although the task may seem implausible1
, as most CDA
advocates claim, nevertheless, the largely exploratory nature of this research hopes to highlight
some important considerations.
In order to evaluate the possibility of synthesis, two approaches were selected for this study
viz. Socio-Cognitive approach (SCA) and Dialectical-Relational approach DRA). As earlier
stated, in terms of orientation, SCA and DRA are ‘deductive’. The two approaches were
selected mainly because they are highly influential in CDA research and because they manifest
interesting differences and contrasts between cognition and semiosis as well as differing focus
1
Van Dijk (1997) made this claim. Others have simply emphasised inter/trans/multidisciplinarity.

23
on interpretation vs. explanation stages of CDA research in general. This research will evaluate
the possibility of synthesis of the two approaches – as a model for more sophisticated synthesis
through further research.
The hypothesis is that given the arguably similar research agenda associated with CDA,
synthesis is plausible even though it is indeed difficult to achieve.
What this research hopes to accomplish is to compare two approaches in order to evaluate the
possibility of synthesis. Hence, the main question that this research hopes to answer is as
follows:
 Is there an actual possibility of synthesis?
This research follows a similar pattern to many CDA studies in the sense of selecting a news
text, which is arguably the most important source of data in CDA research.
The approach taken is to analyse the same text using the theoretical frameworks of the Socio-
cognitive and Dialectical-relational, which would be described further in the next sections.
A textual analysis would serve as the basis for comparison. The text in question is a speech
delivered by Tony Blair and reported on the front page of ‘The Independent News’ in the
United Kingdom (UK). The rationale for selecting the text is an interest in one of arguably the
most dominant themes in current world politics, which is ‘Islamic extremism’. Although a
single text is admittedly neither representative nor provides enough evidence for a comparative
study, nevertheless, it is also important to note that a detailed analysis of a single text is enough
to dominate the entire length of an average research.
The main reason for selecting an article from ‘The Independent News’ is its professed
neutrality as its name implies, which of course is not completely true. However, it arguably
presents a more neutral view on political issues than other broadsheet newspapers in the UK.
The next chapter will describe the theoretical perspectives of the Socio-cognitive approach and
Dialectical-Relational approach and perform a text analysis using their analytical frameworks.

24
4. Comparative Analysis
This chapter will describe the socio-cognitive and dialectical-relational approach in more
detail as well as evaluate the possibility of synthesis of the two approaches.
4.1. The Socio-Cognitive Approach
The main proponent of the approach is Teun Van Dijk. According to van Dijk (2009b), the
Socio-cognitive approach (SCA) is ‘problem-oriented’ as opposed to ‘theory-oriented’ in line
with other critical approaches in DS – including CDA. SCA is a form of ‘causal-cognitive’
analysis. It also referred to as ‘sociocognitive discourse analysis’ because of its emphasis on
cognition in ‘the critical analysis of discourse, communication, and interaction’ (ibid: 64). Its
main interest lies in the ‘sociocognitive interface of discourse, that is, ‘the relations between
mind, discursive interaction, and society’ (ibid: 65). In addition, the main supporting argument
for SCA is that a ‘cognitive approach to discourse meaning [will account for] for the
subjectivity of coherence’ because ‘discourses are not coherent in the abstract, but according
to the intentions, interpretations or understandings of language users. (van Dijk, 2009b)
As stated earlier, SCA is ‘deductively-oriented’ and emphasises a relatively closed theoretical
framework. What sets SCA apart from other critical approaches is its emphasis on the cognitive
aspects of discourse processing. Although, the approach is characterised by a ‘cognitive-socio-
psychological1
’ orientation and mainly gives preference to causal explanations, rather than the
typical hermeneutic interpretation associated with other CDA research. Nevertheless, in line
with most critical approaches, it also goes beyond surface interpretations in order to reveal
ideological dimensions in discourse.
Another distinguishing feature of SCA is the notion of ‘context-models’, which are simply
defined as subjective definitions of [a] communicative situation. They [also] control how
discourse is adapted to the communicative situation, and hence define its appropriateness.’ (van
Dijk, 2011: 383)
According to van Dijk (2008), no direct relations exist between social situation and discourse.
In other words, the relationship is mediated. As earlier stated, the nature of the mediated
1
Van Dijk (1998; 2009b: 66) also refer to the discourse-cognition-society triangle. Where society is viewed as a
complex configuration of situational structures and societal structures including ‘cultural variation [and] their
historical specificity and change.

25
relationship itself is still vague. However, the SCA usually emphasises that ‘context-models’
mediate between social situation (society) and discourse (language).
SCA takes the following into consideration as linguistic indicators in its analysis:
 Stress and intonation
 Word order
 Lexical style
 Coherence
 Local semantic moves such as disclaimers
 Topic choice
 Speech acts
 Schematic organization
 Rhetorical figures
 Syntactic structures
 Propositional structures
 Turn-takings
 Repairs
 Hesitation
In addition, analysis of text using SCA proceeds, in the following manner:
 Stage 1: Analysis of semantic macrostructures: topics and macropropositions.
 Stage 2: Analysis of local meanings, where many forms of implicit or indirect
meanings, such as implications, presuppositions, allusions, vagueness, omissions, and
polarizations, are especially interesting.
 Stage 3: Analysis of ‘subtle’ formal structures: here, most of the linguistic markers
mentioned are analysed.
 Stage 4: Analysis of specific linguistic realizations, e.g. hyperboles, litotes.
 Stage 5: Analysis of context.
Wodak and Meyer (2009: 28-29; See also, van Dijk, 2009b)

26
These various stages of socio-cognitive discourse analysis would be explored in more detail
in the next section.
4.1.1. Socio-cognitive Text Analysis
This section will analyse a news text using the socio-cognitive approach. As earlier stated, the
five stages of analysis are as follows:
1. Topics
A topic is generally defined as the focus or the subject matter of a particular discussion.
Topics depend on a reader or listener’s background knowledge. They are the concepts that
stand out in a text and become immediately available to a ‘gist’ reader for comprehension. For
instance, the headline (topic) of the text is ‘Tony Blair urges British intervention against Islamic
extremists around the world; the former PM believes Western 'engagement' needs to go beyond
the political’ which presupposes a general knowledge about ‘religious extremism’. In other
words, it is assumed the issue is of common knowledge to prospective readers and since most
of them will also have ideologically based attitudes about religious extremism, these evaluative
forms of shared meanings will most likely be activated by the headline. (van Dijk, 2009b)
In addition, because of the limited capacity of the short-term (episodic) memory, a listener or
a reader would most likely only remember the stand out expressions in text or talk and then use
his/her background knowledge to ‘get the gist’. For instance, in the first paragraph of the text,
the stand out words are ‘Tony Blair’, ‘Britain’, ‘revolution’, ‘radical Islam’ of which ‘support
of revolution against Islamic extremism’ being the most likely first time interpretation by a
‘gist’ reader or the audience present at the speech event. It is important to point out that the text
in question was a soon-to-be delivered speech by the main participant in ‘Tony Blair’ who
features in almost every paragraph in the text. (van Dijk, 2009b)
According to Van Dijk (2009b: 68), topics have the following characteristics:
 Topics are what discourses are (globally) about
 Topics are mostly intentional and consciously controlled by the speaker
 Topics embody the (subjectively) most important information of a discourse
 Topics express the overall ‘content’ of mental models of events
 Topics represent the meaning or information most readers will memorize best of a
discourse.

27
Topics ‘are usually controlled by powerful speakers, because they influence many other
structures of a discourse … they have the most obvious effects on the (memory and consequent
actions of) recipients and hence on the process of reproduction that underlies social power and
dominance.’ (Van Dijk, 2009b: 68) However, in the text, the author1
is in control of the topic.
For instance, the author describes Mr Blair’s actions as ‘significant and controversial’, a
position that was clarified further in the sixth paragraph, which described ‘his role in the US-
led invasion of Iraq’.
In the SCA, topics are formulated in terms of semantic macrostructures the topics of a text can
be expressed in terms of ‘macropropositions’, which express the general ideological principles
of ‘altruism’ and then apply them to a specific situation in this case the so-called desire to
counter the ‘threat of radical Islam’. (van Dijk, 2009b)
The following Macropropositions can be inferred from the text:
M1: Britain has to show leadership in tackling Islamic Extremism perhaps because of their
status as one of so-called ‘global powers’.
M2: The former PM recognises that the current reluctance by British and other western
government in tackling Islamic extremism could be due to past failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.
M3: Failure to tackle the problem may be era defining. In other words, finding a solution is
imperative.
M4: Europe and America may not likely succeed in tackling the problem if they do not involve
Russia and China. Even though his opinion may not be considered probably due to his previous
role in the Iraq and Afghanistan as former PM of Britain.
M5: Britain should play a covert role rather than being on the frontline
M6: Although Blair is concerned and may have a valid point, his concerns do not carry much
weight anymore due to his role in the Iraq and Afghanistan invasion controversy.
M7: Indirectly suggestive of military intervention
M8: Refers to protection of ‘strategic interests’ by supporting ‘revolution’, which is mostly
used as euphemism for ‘rebellion’.
1
In most cases however, the editor-in-chief has the final say. In other words, holds more power.

28
M9: Criticises those in opposition of ‘greater military intervention in Syria’, which mainly
refers to Russia. Also criticises those that ‘often tolerate the preaching and teachings of radical
Islam’ even though they are supposedly ‘pro-Western’.
M10: Mentions the consequences of ignoring the so-called ‘threat’ of ‘radical Islam’.
Mr Blair’s suggestion for ‘Europe and America to put aside their differences with Russia and
China and "co-operate" to fight what he describes as the "radicalised and politicised view of
Islam" that is threatening their collective interests’ is akin to the rhetoric of maximising (our)
collective interest, which aims to appeal to altruistic intentions (reciprocal altruism?)
What is most apparent from the macropropositions is the way the author presents Tony Blair’s
argument together with the newspaper’s own.
2. Local meanings
According to van Dijk (2009b: 69), ‘local meanings are a function of the selection made by
speakers/writers in their mental models of events or their more general knowledge and
ideologies. Analysis of local meanings is similar to semantic analysis and is usually controlled
by global topics.
The key feature of local meanings is that they influence the opinions and attitudes of recipients
because they are easy to recall and reproduce. For instance, the choice of ‘British intervention’
in the main title of the article as well as ‘engagement’ in the subtitle has implications, which
may express the ideological perspectives of the author or Mr. Blair himself [especially because
‘intervention’ is also related to interference and intrusion and ‘engagement’ is arguably a
euphemism for the same thing.
Local meanings include word meaning, propositions, coherence, implications, and
presuppositions among others. For instance, the text repeatedly associates the words ‘radical’,
‘extremist’, and ‘Islam’ together. This is clearly an example of ‘negative’ other presentation
because the terms ‘radical’ and ‘extremist’ could essentially be euphemism for rebel and
terrorist.

29
Rhetorically, it calls on the feelings of the readers by alerting them about the supposed dangers
of ‘radical Islam’ although without giving much detail. For instance, he warns that ‘the worse
will come’ if the problem is left unchecked, which is vague. Hence, relies on activating
everyday reader knowledge in order to obtain a preferred opinion. The phrase ‘Islamic
extremist’ is enough to activate the reader’s knowledge at various levels including their social
attitudes and personal opinions about Islamic extremism.
Another relevant issue is the use of inclusive ‘we’, which was frequently associated with
‘should’ and ‘have to’. This in turn is suggestive of Mr. Blair’s ‘tough’ stance and largely
operates on presuppositions. It also clearly positions the ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ debate as ‘British’ –
us/we vs. ‘Islamic extremists’ – they/them
The contrast between Us’ vs ‘Them’ is perhaps best explained by the following statement in
the text
"We spend billions of dollars on security arrangements and on defence to protect
ourselves against the consequences of an ideology that is being advocated in the formal
and informal school systems of the very countries with whom we have security and
defence relationships"
The claim above strategically positions the debate to emphasise OUR good things in form of
‘making security arrangements to protect ourselves from THEIR ideology
Mr. Blair is alludes that ‘worse will come’ but is vague about what exactly will happen with
no further clarification.
The term ‘believes’ occurs severally in the article and is used by the author to show … For
instance, the subtitle of the text stated, “The former PM believes Western 'engagement' needs
to go beyond the political.” In other words, the author expresses a somewhat sceptical opinion
about Mr. Blair’s claim.
3. Subtle formal structures – perspective, mood, intention, opinion, interactional concerns.
The main participant in this article is Mr. Blair who seems to be leveraging the position he held
previously as British Prime minister although not as powerful now but placed in active clauses.

30
According to Mr. Blair, "radicalised and politicised view of Islam" that is threatening their
collective interests.” In other words, the author explicitly presents this as his opinion not theirs.
The author also refers to Mr. Blair’s ‘tainted political legacy’, which makes it somewhat
obvious that s/he does not really support Mr. Blair
In addition, explicitly stating that the former PM’s opinion is ‘significant and controversial’ set
the tone for the entire report in expressing the author’s scepticism
4. Specific linguistic realizations, e.g. hyperboles, litotes.
The word ‘risk’ is used in two senses in the text. The first sense is somewhat exaggerated. For
instance, Mr. Blair’s warning “This unwillingness to confront Islamism risks the 21st century
being characterised by "conflict between people of different cultures,” he will warn. Is
obviously exaggerated. On the other hand, the term is also used in a subtle way. For instance,
He also claims, “There is no commitment that doesn't mean taking a risk." Overall, the strategy
is persuasion.
5. Context
Context in this sense is defined in terms of ‘context model’, which refers to a ‘subjective mental
representation, a dynamic online model, of the participants about the for-them-now relative
properties of the communicative situation.’ (van Dijk, 2009b: 66)
The context analysis focusses on Setting (Time, Place), Participants and their properties and
relations, as well as on their Goals, the Knowledge presupposed by the participants, and the
Ideology of the participants.’ (Van Dijk, 2009b: 68)
The text was found on the internet [www.independent.co.uk] and was published by the
Independent News whose very name suggests neutrality especially on political issues. The
objective/unbiased the goal of the organisation is defined as follows: Freedom from political
bias, which also implies that the stories/articles published are not (supposedly) influenced by
the administrators. This is obviously not true because no newspaper can be completely
independent.
The overall societal domain of the text is that of political speech, and the overall actions those
of advocating for more action on the part of ‘western governments’ to tackle ‘Islamic

31
extremism’. The local setting of the communicative event is Britain and the communicative
role of the participant is reporting a political speech for the Independent newspaper.
The text is meaningful for its readers only because it presupposes a vast amount of common
ground and common sense knowledge about the main topic, which is ‘taking more action to
tackle Islamic extremism around the world’.
Similarly relevant is the repeated use of the word ‘will’, which is typically associated with
inclination in this context, suggests that the action (speech) had not occurred yet at the time the
text was published.
The use of ‘we’ could be said to be an attempt to induce the audience to conceptualise group
identity. For instance, Mr. Blair seems to be making the inference that … will occur if ‘we’
(Britain and Western governments) fail to take action in his words ‘engage’. Mr. Blair claims
(explicitly/ implicitly) to be ‘right’ in a cognitive sense as well as moral sense by seeking to
ground his position in moral feelings or intuitions that no one will challenge. For instance,
when he stated that
‘Engagement and commitment are words easy to use. However, they only count when
they come at a cost. There is no engagement that doesn't involve putting yourself out
there. There is no commitment that doesn't mean taking a risk.’
Summary
This section presented the interpretation of a text using the SCA. As earlier stated, a single
short text obviously does not provide the necessary background for a comparative study. In
addition, the interpretation was partial in several ways mainly for practical reasons.
The next section would describe the dialectical-relational approach in more detail.
4.2. The Dialectical-Relational Approach
The Dialectical-Relational approach (DRA) is one of the most influential approaches to CDA
and arguably the most consistent. The approach is mainly associated with Norman Fairclough
and reflects his view of CDA as an ‘analysis of dialectical relations between discourse and
other objects [such as power and ideology], elements or moments, as well as analysis of the
‘internal relations’ of discourse’(2010:4). It was initially based on Bhaksar’s explanatory

32
critique (1986) and has undergone many changes. In ‘critical-theory’, the orientation of the
approach is regarded as ‘macro-sociological-structural’. (See also Fairclough, 2006; Wodak
and Meyer, 2009)
Fairclough (2009: 163), claims that DRA seeks to elucidate the role of semiosis in the
‘establishment, reproduction and change of unequal power relations (domination,
marginalisation, exclusion of some people by others) and in ideological processes, and how in
more general terms it bears upon human ‘well-being’.
According to Fairclough, DRA is a transdisciplinary1
form of research that generally aims to
address the following question:
‘What is the particular significance of semiosis, and of dialectical relations between
semiosis2
and other social elements, in the social processes (issues, problem, changes,
etc.) which are under investigation?’ (2009: 166)
In other words, DRA’s main aim is the description and explanation of the relationship between
semiosis and other social elements. The approach advocates confronting ‘social wrongs’, hence
it proposes four stages of analysis including the sources, causes, resistance to, and an
evaluation of ways of alleviating such ‘wrongs’.
The approach particularly embodies CDA’s dual purpose viz. ‘enlightenment’ and
‘emancipation’ by proceeding from negative critique towards positive critique, which allows it
to highlight ‘social wrongs’ and also propose ways of actually alleviating them. (Fairclough,
2010)
In this approach to CDA, analysis is focussed on two dialectical relations: between structure
(especially social practices as an intermediate level of structuring) and events (or between
structure and action, structure and strategy) and, within each, between semiotic and other
elements.’ (Fairclough, 2010: 232)
In addition, the approach emphasises the notion of ‘orders of discourse’. According to
Fairclough (2003: 74), ‘an order of discourse is a specific configuration of discourses, genres
1
According to Fairclough (2010: 231), it is a transdisciplinary form of research as it combines elements from
three disciplines: ‘a form of economic analysis (the ‘Regulation Approach’), a neo-Gramscian theory of the state,
and a form of CDA (Fairclough, 2006).’
2
In the Dialectical-Relational approach, ‘semiosis is viewed […] as an element of the social process which is
dialectically related to others – hence a ‘dialectical-relational’ approach.’ (Fairclough, 2010: 230)

33
and styles […], which define a distinctive meaning potential, or, […], which constitute
distinctive resources of meaning making in texts.’ In other words, they serve as filtering
mechanisms by selecting certain meaning making possibilities or interpretations and not others.
Similar to the ‘context-models’ described in the socio-cognitive approach, ‘orders of discourse’
constitute social practices and they mediate between social structures and social events. In other
words, between abstract (what is possible such as language of a school) and concrete events
(what is actual such as texts)
Although DRA is also ‘deductively-oriented’, its analytical framework is very different from
the Socio-cognitive approach mainly because it is more oriented to ‘grand-theory’. Another
distinct feature of the approach is that its analytical framework also proposes a method of
selecting materials for analysis.
DRA follows the following procedure in its analysis:
 Stage 1: Focus upon a specific social problem, which has a semiotic aspect, go outside
the text and describe the problem, and identify its semiotic dimension (focus upon a
social wrong in its semiotic aspect).
o Select a research topic which relates to or points to a social wrong
o Construct objects of research for initially identified research topics by theorising
them in a transdisciplinary way:
 Stage 2: Identify the dominant styles, genres and discourses constituting this semiotic
dimension (identify obstacles to addressing the social wrong).
o Analyse dialectical relations between semiosis and other social elements. That
is, between ‘orders of discourse’ and other elements of social practice, between
texts and other elements of social events.
o Select texts
o Analyse text (interdiscursive and linguistic analysis) – premises; implicit
premises; conclusions.
 Stage 3: Consider the range of difference and diversity in styles, genres, and discourses
within this dimension (consider whether the social order ‘needs’ the social wrong).
 Stage 4: Identify the resistance against the colonization processes executed by the
dominant styles, genres and discourses (identify possible ways past the obstacles).
(Wodak and Meyer, 2009: 30; Fairclough, 2010)

34
4.2.1. Dialectical-Relational text analysis
This section is an analysis of a news text using the DRA. Since the dialectical-relational
approach is mostly explanatory, there will only be a general commentary on the text.
 Commentary
In taking a dialectical-relational approach to CDA research, the first stage is to have a specific
‘social problem’ that needs to be addressed. However, it is important to note that the definition
of ‘social wrong’ is debatable. According to Fairclough (2009: 168), ‘social wrongs’ refer to
aspects of the social system, which are perceived to be ‘detrimental’ to human well-being and
could in principle be corrected if not eliminated.
The ‘social wrong’ focussed on in this particular section of the current research could be termed
‘the ideology of western chauvinism and its misrepresentation of Islam’ and is presented as an
argument to highlight that Tony Blair’s speech conveys seemingly altruistic values which
reflects the aforementioned ideology. Mr. Blair evokes his values in the text by appearing
righteous and tough at the same time. For instance, the relatively high frequency of ‘should’
and ‘have to’ are suggestive of Mr. Blair’s ‘tough’ stance, which largely operates on
presuppositions about ‘our’ collective interests.
The text is mainly a call for ‘British intervention against Islamic extremists around the world’.
Although, the text does not explicitly mention ‘military intervention’, it is implied in the overall
theme of the text. In addition, by presenting a particular view of Islam –, it successfully
positions the ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ debate in the text as ‘Britain’ vs. ‘Islamic extremists’. For instance,
in paragraph 16, Mr. Blair refers to protection ‘against the consequences of an ideology’. In
the speech, Mr Blair emphasises the effect of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ but foregrounds his
own ideological position, which as earlier stated could be referred to as the ideological position
of ‘western chauvinism’.
The primary rationale for Mr. Blair’s arguments is supposedly moral and involves the
protection of ‘our’ national interests by promoting ‘our’ values through the support of
‘revolution’. However, it is somewhat obvious that the main aim is to provide a rationale for
intervention (interference) in the internal affairs of sovereign states.
Mr. Blair’s argument that ‘there are indeed people we should support if only that majority were
mobilised, organised and helped’ is arguably centred on the premise that ‘most citizens of
major western nations [including] most journalists – are deeply convinced that their society not

35
only represents the very apex of civilisation, but is also willing to do all it can to help others
reach this stage as soon as possible.’ (Van Ginneken, 1998: 62)
This is a classical ‘Us’ vs. ‘Them’ argument that presents others as ‘ideological’ while ‘we’
are presented as ‘logical’ and ‘reasonable’ with a supposedly genuine interest of ‘helping’
‘Them’.
The table below summarises the discursive strategies used in the text by Mr. Blair
Table 1 Discursive Strategy used in the text (Adapted from Richardson, 2004: 156)
Theme: we need to provide more support for political revolutions in the Middle east.
Because
Warrant: Islamic Extremism is a threat to our collective interests; the successful combination
of politics with religion has serious implications.
Therefore
Implication: Something needs to be done
That is
Conclusion: We need to intervene
because
Presupposition: We are physically able to intervene (military sophistication); we are morally
obliged to intervene (‘just cause’)
According to Richardson (2004: 157), ‘In order to suggest that ‘we should intervene’, it must
first be presupposed that ‘we can intervene’. This presupposed ability takes the form of a
physical ability and a moral ability, which are in turn based on presupposed military

36
sophistication and a just cause.’ In the text, although Mr. Blair does not explicitly state that
there should be military intervention, he does clearly suggest it such as in the paragraph 7 that
‘western engagement needs to go beyond the political’, which inevitably implies ‘military
intervention’.
According to Said (1997: xxi), there is ‘relentless insistence – even if it is put in form of a
debate – that [the Muslim] faith, culture[s] and people[s] are seen as a source of threat’. For
instance, the text constantly presented positions ‘Islam’, ‘extremists’ and ‘radical’ as
collocates.
Similarly Fairclough, (2006: 147) argues that ‘the contemporary emergence of religious
fundamentalism is by no means solely an Islamic phenomenon, as it is often represented.’
Although, this research could fall into Bell’s category of ‘studies [that leap] past the
groundwork to premature conclusions about the significance of poorly describes linguistic
patterns.’ (1991: 215) Nevertheless, the main intention is simply to demonstrate the application
of the approach in terms of explanation, hence, the claims are not meant to be justified.
On the surface, there is no evidence of mystification in the speech represented in the text.
Hence, it could be argued that personal interpretations are deliberately being imposed on the
text. However, a consideration of the wider sociocultural context of the text including its
‘intertextuality’, could arguably justify some of the interpretations. In addition, no matter how
explicit an analysis purports to be, it still depends on a shared knowledge interface between the
producer and the recipient without which meaning cannot be successfully conveyed.
Finally, the text also highlights a closed view of Islam, which assumes that ‘radical Islam’ is
an ideology ‘that combines politics with religion and opposes pluralistic societies’. Hence, it
exhibits the following features of islamophobic discourse as highlighted by Runnymede Trust
(1997) such as:
1. Islam perceived as implacably threatening. ‘chief threat to global peace.’
‘fundamentalism.’ (ibid: 11)
2. Claims that Islam’s adherents use their faith mainly for political or military advantage.
‘use [of] religion for military advantage rather than as a faith and ethical tradition.’
(ibid: 12) Para 6

37
In sum, this section has by no means provided an exhaustive analysis of the text and as earlier
stated, partial interpretation is somewhat unavoidable.
4.3. Synthesis
This section would evaluate the potential obstacles to synthesis and the possibility of synthesis.
4.3.1. Potential obstacles to synthesis
As earlier stated, CDA is characteristically a multidisciplinary research, which also implies that
it is eclectic. Although, its multidisciplinary nature makes its research dynamic, for a novice it
is indeed confusing and problematic mainly because there are many approaches to choose from,
which are very distinct and very different.
According to van Dijk (1997: 21), ‘with scholars from so many disciplines, and with so many
different methods, concepts and approaches, a unified theory may well be an illusion1
’. While
the argument is true to a large extent, if the emancipatory goals of CDA are taken into account,
it is doubtful that they can be achieved without establishing a common ground for research.
Chouliaraki & Fairclough explicitly state that:
‘[they] do not support calls for stabilising a method for CDA [even though they
recognise its institutional benefits as well as pedagogical advantages], [they claim that]
it would compromise the developing capacity of CDA to shed light on the dialectic of
the semiotic and the social in a wide variety of social practices.’ Chouliaraki &
Fairclough, 1999:17).
Although the current validity of the claim is questionable, it emphasises the difficulties
involved in attempting to synthesise CDA approaches.
Considering the claims in the previous paragraphs, this research is admittedly very ambitious.
Nevertheless, in order to make CDA research more accessible to outsiders, it is important to
find convergence between the two. This research recognises the potential difficulties involved
1
Similarly, Wodak and Meyer (2009: 2) point out that ‘studies in CDA are multifarious, derived from quite
different theoretical backgrounds, oriented towards different data and methodologies.’

38
in trying to synthesise the existing approaches to CDA. Hence it is much more in line with
Chouliaraki & Fairclough’s (1999: 185) claim that
The aim is not of course uniformity of practice, but a roughly common agenda – the
establishment of at least some consensus over what are the main theoretical and
methodological issues in the field. The nature of texts and textual analysis should surely
be one significant cluster of issues of common concern.
In other words, even if synthesis is unattainable, it is at least worthwhile to develop a consistent
method across the critical discourse research field most especially in the description,
interpretation as well as the explanation of texts.
The next section would discuss the need for synthesis in more detail as well as evaluate its
possibility.
4.3.2. Possibility of synthesis
As earlier stated, a recurrent criticism of CDA is the apparent absence of a unified research
methodology. It has also already been suggested that the absence of an entry-level, how-to-do
approach makes the professed emancipatory goals of CDA research much more difficult to
attain. Hence, this research aims to find a convergence between the Socio-cognitive approach
and the dialectical-relational approach – in order to suggest a much more collaborative effort
towards synthesis.
Since CDA is characteristically multidisciplinary and eclectic, the provision of a unitary
framework for CDA has not really been attempted. While this research recognises the potential
implausibility of the goal of creating one, it mainly advocates for a common ground specifically
synthesis of the existing approaches in a form of consensus in order to make CDA research
more accessible to newcomers into the field.
In order to evaluate the possibility of synthesis, this research analysed the same news text using
two very distinct and different approaches viz. socio-cognitive approach and dialectical-
relational approach. The results of this study show that both approaches have similar goals
although with different approaches to attainment.

39
In order to evaluate the possibility of synthesis, it is important to highlight their main
differences, which is that the socio-cognitive approach is interpretative while the dialectical-
relational approach is explanatory. In addition, the socio-cognitive approach begins by
attempting to explain the cognitive dimension (that is, what happens in the mind) while the
dialectical-relational approach begins by focussing on a social wrong.
Another contrast between the two approaches is that DRA focusses more on language as a
social phenomenon in line with most CDA approaches. On the other hand, the SCA is
somewhat hybridised in the sense that it combines a view of language as social phenomenon
with that of language as mental phenomenon.
In addition, while most CDA approaches focus on the semiotic and historical aspects of
discourse, the SCA emphasises the importance of cognition in its analysis. A key feature of
SCA that is of interest in this research is the notion of ‘context-models’, which are defined as
subjective mental representations of a communicative interaction. (van Dijk, 2011)
On the other hand, the DRA is purely semiotic in nature and it mainly emphasises the
relationship between semiosis and other social elements, which are described as ‘dialectical’
(Fairclough, 2010). The notion of ‘orders of discourse’ is a key feature of DRA that is of
interest in this research.
A common ground between the socio-cognitive approach and dialectical-relation is the
recognition that the there is no direct relationship between discourse (language) and society.
Hence, a good way to evaluate the possibility of synthesis is to clarify the nature of such
relationship by establishing a link between ‘context-models’ in the socio-cognitive approach
and ‘orders of discourse’ in the dialectical-relational approach.
As earlier stated, ‘context-models’ are subjective mental representations, which control the
adaptation of discourse to a communicative situation and also define its appropriateness. In
other words, they ensure that discourse is adapted to the social environment appropriately,
which invariably implies that they mediate between discourse and social situations. (van Dijk,
2008; See also van Dijk, 2009b)
On the other hand, ‘orders of discourse are defined as specific configurations of discourses,
genres and styles […], which constitute distinctive resources of meaning making in texts.’
(Fairclough, 2003: 74) In other words, they serve as filtering mechanisms by selecting certain
meaning making possibilities or interpretations and not others.

40
Hence the common ground, between ‘context-models’ and ‘orders of discourse’ is that they are
both are interfaces mediating between discourse (language) and society. The main difference
lies in their theoretical background. For instance, ‘context-models’ have a cognitive
background, hence it is theorised as a mental construct. On the other hand, ‘orders of discourse’
have a semiotic background, hence, it is theorised in semiotic terms.
As earlier stated, the socio-cognitive approach and dialectical-relational approach were
selected for this study because they also manifest interesting differences between cognition and
semiosis. Therefore, in order to achieve synthesis, it is important to recognise that cognition
and semiosis are not completely separate mainly because they internalise each other in a form
of symbiotic relationship. Although there is little or no evidence to support the claim, the fact
that both of them arguably contend with the same categories. For instance, the notion ‘context’
would be understood better by simultaneously considering its cognitive and semiotic aspects.
The same can be said of the notions of power, discourse, and ideology. Hence, it could be
argued that cognition and semiosis are two sides of the same coin. In other words, cognition is
abstract while semiosis is concrete and it can be argued that cognitive actions require semiotic
actions to make them visible.
Although at this point, the arguments of this research might seem to be inconsistent, it only
shows that how the research has progressed.
Finally, to answer the research question: ‘is it possible to find synthesis between the different
CDA approaches? The apparent answer is probably not.

41
5. Conclusion
CDA is a very diverse topic and it could be approached in many ways. The topic has not been
explored in an exhaustive way. Rather, two of the arguably most developed approaches were
selected for this study. Two major factors contributed to the choice of the two approaches. The
first is that they are both ‘deductively-oriented’, the second is that the two approaches are
highly influential in CDA research and are arguably the most accessible.
The main thesis of this research is that there should be synthesis among the variety of
approaches in CDA research. The research was an exploratory one and unfortunately does not
have a relevant conclusion. Although CDA research may claim to have succeeded in
‘enlightenment’, the ultimate goal is ‘emancipation’. Hence, this research maintains that in
order for CDA to achieve its emancipatory goals, synthesis is necessary and is indeed possible.
As earlier stated, this research was an ambitious attempt to synthesize different approaches to
CDA and while an attempt to synthesise such very different and very distinct approaches as
those associated with CDA research may seem implausible, it still strongly maintains that it is
possible given more time and support. The point being made is that although this research has
obviously not achieved its objectives, its initial task of synthesis is not as implausible as it may
seem. In addition, given that CDA is a network of scholars, the task of creating a unified
theoretical framework should be a collaborative effort. In sum, the shortcomings of this
research should not deter but motivate further research.
My hope is that, first, even if these views cannot be synthesised, they can at least be mutually
intelligible with each other. By performing a comparative analysis of socio-cognitive and
dialectical-relational approach to CDA research, the intention was to stimulate further research
in pursuit of synthesis. Second, it is hoped that others will take up some of the challenges posed
in this research so that CDA would become teachable and more accessible and in addition avoid
misinterpretations of its goals, which would improve the chances of achieving its emancipatory
goals.

42
In conclusion, an important issue, which has received little or no attention in CDA, is the notion
of ‘Analysis’1
. It could be argued that CDA itself generates controversy mainly because the
term ‘analysis’ presupposes a narrow focus but CDA is more than an analysis as it involves
description, interpretation as well as explanation. Hence, in order to justify its own insistence
on multi/inter/transdisciplinary research, it would be adopt the term ‘study’ instead in other to
broaden its focus and help newcomers in finding an early focus.
Admittedly, this proposition is not free of controversy because a change in terminology is not
the main purpose of this research. However, it is important to point out that if the terminology
in a particular discipline especially its name causes a misunderstanding of its scope and goals,
the proper thing to do is to adopt a new one. Regarding this claim, Toolan (1997: 90) made a
similar assertion that ‘progressive modernists have not merely critiqued extant terms but have
energetically championed changed terms. Reformers have had the audacity to claim that a
revised new vocabulary is actually better than the old tried-and-(allegedly) - true way.
1
Van Dijk (2009b: 62) adopted the term‘Critical Discourse Studies’ (CDS) as opposed to ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’
(CDA) in order to incorporate critical analysis, critical theory and critical applications. In addition, it aims to avoid the ‘
’misconception that a critical approach is a method of discourse analysis.’

43
REFERENCES
 Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and Philosophy, trans. Ben Brewster.
 Althusser, L. (1984). Essays on ideology. Verso Books
 Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravinik, M., Krzyżanowski, M., McEnery, T., &
Wodak, R. (2008). A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse
analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers
in the UK press. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 273-306.
 Bakhtin, M. M. (1935). Discourse in the novel. The Novel: an Anthology of Criticism
and Theory 1900–2000, 481-510.
 Bell, A. (1991). The Language of News Media. Oxford: Blackwell.
 Biber, D. and Conrad, S. (2001) ‘Register Variation: A Corpus Approach. In Schiffrin,
D., Tannen, D., and Hamilton, H.E. (Eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. pp.
175-196. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing Limited.
 Billig, M. (2003) ‘Critical Discourse Analysis and the Rhetoric of Critique’. In Weiss,
G. and Wodak, R. (eds) Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity, 2,
pp. 35-46. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
 Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
 Carvalho, A. (2008) ‘Media (ted) discourse and society: Rethinking the framework of
critical discourse analysis’. Journalism studies, 9(2), 161-177.
 Chilton, P. A. (2004) Analyzing political discourse. London: Routledge.
 Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking
Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh University Press.
 Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Cognition as Semiosis: the Role of Inference. Theory &
Psychology, 8(6), 827-840.
 De Beaugrande, R. (2001). Interpreting the discourse of HG Widdowson: a corpus-
based critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 104-121.
 Fairclough, N. (1992a) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
 Fairclough, N. (1992b) Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman.
 Fairclough, N. (1996) ‘A Reply to Henry Widdowson’s “Discourse Analysis: A Critical
View”’, Language and Literature 5: 49–56.

44
 Fairclough, N. (1999) ‘Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis’.
In Jaworski, A. and Coupland, N. (Eds.) The Discourse Reader. Pp. 183-212. London:
Routledge.
 Fairclough, N. (2000) ‘Dialogue in the Public Sphere’, in S. Sarangi and M. Coulthard
(eds) Discourse and Social Life, pp. 170–84. London: Pearson Education.
 Fairclough, N. (2001) ‘Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific
research’. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.
(6)pp. 121-138. London: Sage.
 Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.
London: Routledge.
 Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and globalization. London: Routledge.
 Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997) ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’, in T. Van Dijk (ed.)
Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction,
Vol. 2, pp. 258–84. London: Sage.
 Fairclough, N. L. (1985). Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis. Journal
of pragmatics, 9(6), 739-763.
 Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). ‘Critical Discourse Analysis. In
Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.) Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, (pp. 357-
378). London: Sage.
 Femia, J. (1975). Hegemony and Consciousness in the thought of Antonio Gramsci*.
Political studies, 23(1), 29-48.
 Fowler, R. (1996). ‘On critical linguistics’. In Toolan, M. (ed.) Critical Discourse
Analysis: critical concepts in Linguistics, vol. 1, 18: pp. 346-357. London: Routledge.
 Fowler, R., Hodge, R, Kress, G and Trew, T. (1979). Language and Control. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
 Ginneken, Jaap van (1998) Understanding Global News: A Critical Introduction.
London: Sage.
 Gouveia, C.A.M. (2003) ‘Critical Discourse Analysis and the Development of the New
Science’. In Weiss, G. and Wodak, R. (eds) Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and
Interdisciplinarity, 3, pp. 47-62. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
 Graesser, A. C., & Millis, K. (2011). ‘Discourse and Cognition’. In Van Dijk, T. A.
(Ed.) Discourse Studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, (pp. 126-142). London:
Sage.

45
 Halliday, M.A.K. (1977) ‘Text as semantic choice in social contexts’. In Webster, J. J.
(Ed.) Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse: Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday
(Vol. 2), pp. 23–81. London: Continuum.
 Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. London:
Blackwell.
 Hockett, C. (1960) ‘The origin of speech’, Scientific American 203 (3): 88-96
 Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1993). Language as Ideology. (2nd
edn.) London: Hutchinson.
 Hodge, R. and Kress, G. (1988) Social Semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
 Jackson, H., & Stockwell, P. (2011). An introduction to the nature and functions of
language. Bloomsbury Publishing.
 Lakoff, R. T. (2001) ‘Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies: The Necessity for
Interdisciplinary Theory and Method in Discourse Analysis’. In Schiffrin, D., Tannen,
D., and Hamilton, H.E. (Eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. pp. 199-214.
Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing Limited.
 Lawrence, E. (1982) ‘Just plain common sense: the ‘roots’ of racism’. In Centre for
Contemporary Cultural Studies (Eds.) The Empire Strikes Back: Race and racism in
70s Britain pp. 47-94. London: Hutchinson.
 Leckie-Tarry, H. (1995). Language and context. Bloomsbury Publishing.
 Locke, T. (2004). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
 Macdonell, D. (1986) Theories of Discourse: An Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Limited.
 Machin, D. and Mayr, A. (2012) How to do Critical Discourse Analysis: A Multimodal
Introduction. London: Sage.
 Meyer, M. (2001) ‘Between theory, method and politics; positioning of the approaches
in CDA’. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.
(2) pp. 14-31. London: Sage.
 Moscovici, S. (2000). Social representations: Explorations in social psychology (Vol.
41). G. Duveen (Ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
 O’Halloran, K. (2003) Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
 Pecheux, M. (1982) Language, semantics and ideology. London: Macmillan.
 Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). Methods
of critical discourse analysis, 2, 87-121.

46
 Richardson, J. (2004). (Mis)representing Islam: The racism and rhetoric of British
broadsheet newspapers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 Runnymede Trust (1997). Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All. London: Runnymede
Trust.
 Sarangi, S. and Coulthard, M. (eds) (2000) Discourse and Social Life. London: Pearson
Education.
 Schegloff, E. (1997). ‘Whose text? Whose context?’ Discourse and Society, 8(2), pp.
165-187.
 Stubbs, M. (1997), ‘Whorf’s children: critical comments on critical discourse analysis’,
in A. Ryan and A. Wray (eds), Evolving Models of Language: British Studies in Applied
Linguistics 12: 100-16
 Thompson, J.B. (1984) Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
 Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of Text and Discourse
Analysis. London: Sage.
 Toolan, M. (1997) ‘What is Critical Discourse Analysis and Why are People Saying
such Terrible Things about it?’ In Bolton, K., & Kachru, B. B. (Eds.). World Englishes:
Critical concepts in linguistics (Vol. 5). Taylor & Francis.
 Van Dijk, T. (2001) ‘Multidisciplinary CDA: a plea for diversity’. In Wodak, R. and
Meyer, M. (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. (5)pp. 95-120. London: Sage.
 Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage.
 Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context. A Sociocognitive Approach.
Cambridge.
 Van Dijk, T. A. (2009a). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and
talk. Cambridge University Press.
 Van Dijk, T. A. (2009b). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach.Methods
of critical discourse analysis, 2, 62-86.
 Van Dijk, T. A. (2011). ‘Discourse and Ideology’. In Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.) Discourse
studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 379-407). London: Sage.
 Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as social interaction (Vol. 2). Sage.
 Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (2011). Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction.
London: Sage.
 Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse
analysis.

A Comparative Study of Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).pdf

A Comparative Study of Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Comparative Study of Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).pdf

Similar to A Comparative Study of Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).pdf (20)

More from Emily Smith

More from Emily Smith (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Comparative Study of Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).pdf