Critical discourse studies: key notions and principles

Although different approaches in CDS conceptualise discourse in slightly divergent ways, there is general agreement that discourse is to be conceived as social practice (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997), in the sense that discourse, far from being a mere ‘reflection’ of reality, is always materialised and has therefore tangible effects upon social structures. Hence, discourse can contribute to social continuity as well as social change. In other words, discourse is conceived of as a set of semiotic practices that are both socially determined and socially constitutive (Fairclough, 2001). This means that there exists a dialectical relationship between discourse and the situations, institutions and social structures in which it is embedded (Wodak & Meyer, 2009). For instance, according to van Leeuwen (2008) discourse is best understood in terms of the recontextualisation of social practices.

Furthermore, discourse is seen as a way of constructing aspects of the world from a particular perspective that can be related to the different positions of social groups within a social structure (Fairclough, 1995, 2009). The underlying assumption is that discourse is inherently dialogical, that is, always oriented towards what others have said or written in other times and places. In order to capture the interplay of different and often opposing discourses, also at the textual level, critical discourse studies have drawn on Bakhtin’s notion of heteroglossia (1981) to develop the concepts of intertextuality and interdiscursivity. Both notions refer to the fact that texts and discourses are interconnected and overlap, as they always relate to other texts or discourses, in the past as well as in the present (Wodak & Weiss, 2005). Strictly connected with these is the notion of entextualisation as “the process by means of which discourses are [...] decontextualised and metadiscursively recontextualised, so that they become a new discourse associated to a new context and accompanied by a particular metadiscourse which provides a sort of ‘preferred reading’ for the discourse” (Blommaert, 2005: p. 47).

Since discourse is the medium in which social structures and practices are not only established, but also constantly negotiated and often contested by social agents, the relationship between discourse and power cannot but occupy a central place in critical discourse studies. Broadly speaking, language and power are inescapably bound together, insofar as language expresses power and is invariably involved whenever

power is challenged or appropriated (Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Thus, discourse is inevitably shaped by power relations, but it may also affect them in various ways (Fairclough, 2001). As Lukes (2005) has argued, power is relational and multi- dimensional, and the high complexity of the nexus between discourse and power is clearly reflected in the variety of ways in which this relationship has been linguistically defined by prominent scholars: Fairclough (2001) has spoken of power in and behind discourse, Wodak (1996, 2011) has examined power in, over and of discourse, Holzscheiter (2011) has focused on power both in and of discourse, while van Dijk (1993, 1996) has foregrounded the power struggle involved in obtaining access to discourse. The overarching idea behind these rather subtle distinctions is that discursive practices, just like material practices, can be instrumental in the creation and reproduction of power relations in society (see also Jäger & Maier, 2009; Lemke, 1995; Wodak, 2011).

In this light, critical discourse analysts are well aware that social actors may engage in discursive practices that contribute to establishing, maintaining or reinforcing unequal and oppressive power relations among individuals and social groups. Discourses, thus, sustain certain ideologies, broadly understood as systems of social domination grounded in particular beliefs, values and attitudes. In critical discourse studies, ideology has been defined in manifold ways (see Wodak, 2013). These range from narrow views of ideology as the systematic process whereby existing unjust power arrangements become seen as natural and commonsensical (Fairclough, 2001) to broader conceptions that conceive of ideologies (in the plural) as coherent and relatively stable sets of values or beliefs (Wodak & Meyer, 2009) or as basic representations of social groups (van Dijk, 2001). In any case, ideology is linked with power and domination in two fundamental ways: first, ideologies always work to favour some and disadvantage others, thus exhibiting directionality (Purvis & Hunt, 1993); second, ideologies can help maintain unequal power relations between social agents by obfuscating or dissimulating the real nature of those relations, particularly in and through discourse.

The commitment of critical discourse scholars to investigate how language is used to reproduce and legitimise forms of power that sustain social inequality, injustice and domination, and how powerless groups and individuals may discursively resist them

(Wodak & Meyer, 2009), is at the core of the discipline’s critical vocation (see Forchtner, 2011). Moreover, it has been argued (Chilton, Tian et al., 2010) that critique involves two additional aspects: firstly, critical discourse analysts are expected to be open about their ethical standpoints and take responsibility for the social impact of their work; secondly, self-reflexivity is greatly encouraged, in the sense that the discourse produced by critical discourse analysts should itself be the object of critical scrutiny. Such a far-reaching conception of critique poses significant challenges to scholarship, and indeed the capacity of critical discourse studies to live up to its own critical commitment has been called into question. For instance, Billig has pointed out cases of intra-discipline inconsistency (2008) and the risk that the growing institutionalisation of critical discourse analysis may result in the emergence of a ‘critical orthodoxy’ (2003). Moreover, Sayer (2006, 2011) has argued that critical discourse studies can hardly be critical unless research focuses on how discourses impute and interpret moral significance, and how this relates to human well-being and flourishing.