Discourse

Fairclough posits that discourse is “used in general sense for language (as well

as, for instance, visual images) as an element of social life which is dialectically related

to other elements” (2003).

Discourse analysis forges a connection between linguistic analysis and social

analysis. Fairclough sees discourse analysis as “analysis of how texts work within

social practices” (1995). This approach emphasizes detailed linguistic analysis of texts.

Discourse analysis looks at real and often extended instances of social interaction that

take the form of language, completely or partially. CDA involves an analysis of how

discourse relates to and is implicated in the (re) production of social relations,

particularly unequal, hierarchical, and discriminatory power relations (Fairclough,1995).

Critical discourse analysis

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that

focuses on how social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted,

reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in both social and political contexts. The

result of the analysis may be the understanding, exposing and resistance of social

equalities (van Dijk, 2001).

Wodak (2004) asserted that CDA sees discourse such as language used in

speech and writing as a form of “social practice.” Discourse as social practice entails a

dialectical relationship between a particular discursive event and the situation(s),

institution(s) and social structure(s), which frame it: the discursive event is shaped by

them, but it also shapes them.

Fairclough and Wodak (1997) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows:
 1. CDA addresses social problems

2. Power relations are discursive

3. Discourse constitutes society and culture

4. Discourse does ideological work

5. Discourse is historical

6. The link between text and society is mediated

7. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory

8. Discourse is a form of social action.

Critical research on discourse needs to satisfy a number of requirements in

order to effectively realize its aims. Some of them are:

1. It should focus primarily on social problems and political issues, rather than

on current paradigms and fashions;

2. Rather than describing discourse structures, it tries to explain them in terms

of properties of social interaction and especially social structure;

3. Lastly, CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm,

legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of power and dominance in

society.

In analyzing, one must also be familiar with the micro and macro level of text

and talk. Language use, discourse, verbal interaction, and communication belong to

the microlevel of the social order. CDA has to theoretically bridge the well-known “gap”

between micro and macro approaches.

Microstructure points on local meaning of the discourse, by observing

the semantics, syntactic, stylistic and rhetoric aspects. The use of words, proposition,
and certain rhetoric in media is understood by Van Dijk as the part of the writer’s

strategy. The use of certain words, sentences, and stylistic is not only viewed as the

way of communication but also as a method of communication politic to influence

common premise, create the backing, strengthen legitimate, and evacuate the

adversary or the opponent.

On the other hand, power, dominance, and inequality between social groups are

typically terms that belong to a macrolevel of analysis. The meaning of discourse is not

limited to the meaning of its words and sentences. Discourse also has more 'global'

meanings, such as 'topics' or 'themes'. Such topics represent the gist or most important

information of a discourse, and tell us what a discourse 'is about', globally speaking.

A central notion in most critical work on discourse is that of power, and more

specifically the social power of groups or institutions. Groups have (more or less)

power if they are able to (more or less) control the acts and minds of (members of)

other groups. This ability presupposes a power base of privileged access to scarce

social resources, such as force, money, status, fame, knowledge, information,

“culture,” or indeed various forms of public discourse and communication (of the vast

literature on power, see, the more or less persuasive power of parents, professors, or

journalists may be based on knowledge, information, or authority. Note also that power

is seldom absolute. Groups may more or less control other groups, or only control them

in specific situations or social domains. Moreover, dominated groups may more or less

resist, accept, condone, comply with, or legitimate such power, and even find it

“natural.”
 If we are able to influence people’s minds, e.g. their knowledge or opinions, we

indirectly may control (some of) their actions, as we know from persuasion and

manipulation. Closing the discourse–power circle, finally, this means that those groups

who control most influential discourse also have more chances to control the minds

and actions of others.

Simplifying these very intricate relationships even further for this chapter, we

can split up the issue of discursive power into two basic questions for CDA research:

1. How do (more) powerful groups control public discourse?

2. How does such discourse control mind and action of (less) powerful groups,

and

3. What are the social consequences of such control, such as social inequality?

Persuasion, Influence, Manipulation

CDA can be used to see the power of a group or individual to persuade,

influence or manipulate less powerful groups or individuals.

The implications of this approach for the study of the ideological influence of

discourse are the following:

1. Discourse understanding and influence is a complex process that is a function

of both the structures of discourse as well as of the mental processing and

representation of recipients. That is, whether or not, and how, people are

influenced by talk and text also depends on what they already know and

believe.
 2. Discourse understanding not only involves the processing of structures of text

and talk, but also, and very crucially, those of the context as it is subjectively

construed by the recipients in their context models. In my terms this means

that the construction or change of any mental representations of events is a

function of the contents and structures of ongoing context models. One well-

known notion to be explained in such terms is for instance that of 'credibility'.

3. Although the relations between factual beliefs (knowledge) and evaluative

beliefs (opinions, attitudes) are quite complex, it may be generally assumed

that discourses have an influence on evaluative beliefs only when they are at

least marginally understood. In other words, persuasion presupposes

comprehension. On1y in very specific circumstances may people be

persuaded by discourses they do not understand, and, even then, at least

partial understanding is a minimal condition of opinion formation and change.

4. If persuasion is defined as a process in which people change their opinions

as a consequence of discourse, it is crucial to make a distinction between

different kinds of evaluative belief and hence between different kinds of

persuasion. Thus, a distinction has been made between personal opinions

and socially shared opinions. The first are represented in both event models

and context models, stored in episodic (personal) memory.

Besides verbal discourse also other semiotic messages (images, photos, movies,

etc.) as well as other social practices may have ideological 'effects' on social members.

Indeed, many sexist practices as well as ideologies of men may be inspired by

observation, interaction and watching movies, and not just by male ingroup talk and
text about women. Yet, in the test of this book, I shall take such other semiotic and

'practical influences for granted and focus on discourse, with the understanding that the

basic processes of ideological influence involved are very similar.

Ideological communication is also often associated with various forms of

manipulation, with strategies that manage or control the mind of the public at large, and

with attempts to thus manufacture the consent or fabricate a consensus in the interests

of those in power. 1. Indeed, modem power and ideological hegemony are precisely

defined in tercos of effective strategies in the accomplishment of compliance and

consent, so that people will act as desired out of their own free will. In that case, power

and dominance will seem natural, legitimate and commonsensical, and will be taken for

granted without significant opposition.

Formulated in this way, we get a simplified picture of the complex processes at

work in the enactment of dominance and the accomplishment of hegemony. Without a

much more detailed study of the social, cognitive and discursive elements of the

structures, strategies, processes or representations involved in this form of the 'modem'

reproduction of dominance and ideologies, such analyses barely go beyond easy

slogans or superficial social analysis and critique.

Manipulation basically involves forms of mental control of which recipients are

not or barely aware, or of which they cannot easily control the consequences. Models

are constructed of events in a way that has implications for the construction of shared

social representations people have about the world, which in turn influence the

development or change of ideologies. Given the fundamental role of ideologies in the

management of social cognitions and models for discourse and other social practices,
ideological control and compliance are the ultimate goal of hegemony. We have seen

how specific discourse structures and strategies, such as the control of topics, style or

interaction strategies, may have such influences on models and other representations

of the mind. Because of such discursive properties, knowledge about events will he

incomplete or biased in favor of speakers or their ingroup, and this may affect more

general knowledge about the world. Even more crucially, this is the case for the

management of opinions, in such a way that a negative opinion about specific

outgroups seems the most 'natural' or conclusion from the models as persuasively

controlled by discourse.