Discourse Analysis: Method

Discourse analysis

Founded onFoucaults ideas not centered on subject but on discourse community

Interdiciplinary

Concerned with Language Power and Ideology Wodak 89

Some of the tenets of CDA can already be found in the critical theory of the Frankfurt School before the Second World War (Agger 1992b; Rasmussen 1996). Its current focus on language and discourse was initiated with the hat emerged (mostly in the UK and Australia) at the end of the 1970s (Fowler et al. 1979; see also Mey 1985). CDA has also counterparts in "critical" developments in sociolinguistics, psychology, and the social sciences,somealready dating back to the early 1970s (Birnbaum 1971; Calhoun 1995; Fay 1987; Fox and Prilleltensky 1997; Hymes 1972; Ibanez and Iniguez 1997; Singh 1996; Thomas 1993; Turkel 1996; Wodak 1996). As is the case in these neighboring disciplines, CDA may be seen as a reaction against the dominant formal (often "asocial" or "uncritical") paradigms of the 1960s and 1970s. 

Van Djik 

18 Critical Discourse Analysis 

TEUN A. VAN DIJK 

Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271-80) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows: 

CDA addresses social problems , Power relations are discursive ,Discourse constitutes society and culture , Discourse does ideological work, Discourse is historical ,The link between text and society is mediated,  Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory, Discourse is a form of social action. 

Language use, discourse, verbal interaction, and communication belong to the micro- level of the social order. Power, dominance, and inequality between social groups are typically terms that belong to a macrolevel of analysis. This means that CDA has to theoretically bridge the well-known "gap" between micro and macro approaches, which is of course a distinction that is a sociological construct in its own right (Alexander et al. 1987; Knorr-Cetina and Cicourel 1981

There are several ways to analyze and bridge these levels, and thus to arrive at a unified critical analysis Members–groups: Language users-engage in discourse as members of (several) social groups, organizations, or institutions; and conversely, groups thus may act "by" their members. 2 Actions–process: Social acts of individual actors are thus constituent parts of group actions and social processes, such as legislation, newsmaking, or the reproduction of racism. 3 Context–social structure: Situations of discursive interaction are similarly part or constitutive of social structure; for example, a press conference may be a typical practice of organizations and media institutions. That is, "local" and more "global" contexts are closely related, and both exercise constraints on discourse. 4 Personal and social cognition: Language users as social actors have both personal 

and social cognition: personal memories, knowledge and opinions, as well as those shared with members of the group or culture as a whole. Both types of cognition influence interaction and discourse of individual members, whereas shared "social representations" govern the collective actions of a group.

Wodak(2009) offers an up to date comparison of the various methods and their relation to the theoretical positions (p20)

Basically, the following approaches/trends can be distinguished which I 

have summarised extensively in my chapter in SEALE, GIAMPETRO, GUBRIUM and SILVER- 

MAN, 2004 (however, all typologies do not really fit; totally different classification would emerge 

by topics or also by theoretical underpinnings; many scholars are not mentioned here): 

• Functional Systemic Grammar: FAIRCLOUGH, KRESS, GRAHAM, RICHARDSON 

• Lesarten approach: MAAS, JANUSCHEK 

• Duisburg approach: JÄGER, LINK 

• Socio-cognitive approach: VAN DIJK, CHILTON, KOLLER 

• Combining CDA and Corpus Linguistics: MAUTNER, Carmen CALDAS-COULTHARD 

• Social Actors Approach: VAN LEEUWEN 

• Visual Grammar: KRESS, VAN LEEUWEN, LEMKE, SCOLLON and SCOLLON 

• Loughborough approach: BILLIG 

• Vienna School: WODAK, MENZ, GRUBER, REISIGL, KRZYZANOWSKI, DE CILLIA, 

POLLAK [19] 

The various schools differ in their theoretical underpinnings. JÄGER and FAIR- CLOUGH draw heavily on FOUCAULT; the Vienna School more on the Frankfurt School, in their empirical research. FAIRCLOUGH usually tends to illustrate his theory with few selected data, whereas we proceed in a more abductive manner, as does JÄGER. The various schools also differ in the selection of topics for research. Moreover, all of us have developed different methodologies which are compatible in many ways (see WODAK & MEYER, 2001 for an overview). JÄGER focuses heavily on the study of metaphors, FAIRCLOUGH applies functional systematic grammar, and I use argumentation theory and rhetoric when analysing texts and discourses. [23] 

Diagram from  p20 

Methods of critical discourse analysis

FQS 8(2), Art. 29, Ruth Wodak in Conversation With Gavin Kendall: What Is Critical Discourse Analysis? 

 In WEISS and 

WODAK (2003) we define and spell out precise criteria for an interdisciplinarand also discuss the limitations of interdisciplinary research. [36]  implies a dialeticl relationship between the situation, sinstitutions and social structures which frame it