Three Dimensional Framework of CDA: Critical – Discourse – Analysis

3.2.1 Critical

The usage of the term critical in CDA operates in a similar fashion to its usage in Critical Theory or Critical Studies in that it designates an orientation towards challenging and changing assumptions about society, as opposed to the traditional social scientific approach, which seek to explain and understand phenomena often without questioning the institutions and frameworks from which such social systems emerge. Ultimately it is concerned with individual emancipation, refusing “to identify freedom with any

institutional arrangement or fixed system of thought” through skepticism towards existing forms of practice and the purposes behind these (Bronner, 2011, p.1). There are other traditional methods that espouse greater academic neutrality towards social problems; however, such approaches do not necessarily seek to find solutions to the problems and for critical scholars, these may in fact, contribute to the perpetuation of the problems by becoming part of the institutionalized rhetoric of a discipline. For example, van Dijk (2012) shows how elite discourses (those discourses that are dominated by politicians, journalists and other experts for example) in the media on immigration issues can reproduce and reinforce a system of racism through the use of language that represents migrants as a problem. Another example occurs when the discourse on one issue, such as the presentation of sex education in the classroom, can use language that is

heteronormative which can inadvertently reinforce a paradigm that presents alternative sexualities as deviant or abnormal. In these ways, traditional methods that do not question the underlying assumptions (and prejudices) present in the mind of the researcher, may be

94

somewhat responsible for the lack of progress in addressing injustices – that is, as far as academic research can be expected to bring to light the true nature of social problems.

The realm of critical linguistics emphasizes that a great deal of social meaning is implicit and not always contained in the language of texts or statements. The movement of critical linguistics is concerned with unveiling how language can conceal or distort, often without the awareness of the speaker (Fowler et al., 1979, p. 196). This critical

aspect is made clear in CDA with the analysts positionality, as well as through the explicit aims of CDA, which for instance are to demystify discourses by unearthing ideologies (Weiss & Wodak, 2003, p. 14); to bring to light structures, strategies and other properties of text that play a role in the reproduction of dominance (van Dijk, 1993, p. 250); to question and criticize discourses and thereby reveal contradictions within and between discourses, highlight the boundaries of what can and cannot be said, and what role discourses play in making particular perspectives seem rational (or natural) (Jager & Maier, 2009, p. 36); and to contribute to the resolution of social problems, especially those where there are victims of unjust domination and illegitimate power relations (van Dijk, 1997b, p. 22; 2009a, pp. 63-64). Despite the diversity of aims and approaches in CDA, the presence of this critical dimension is essential for a study to be considered as a CDA study.

3.2.2 Discourse

The concept of discourse has been defined in many ways across a broad range of disciplines. In linguistics, it is common for ‘discourse’ to refer to extended pieces of either spoken or written language but can also refer to the different types of language

95

used in social situations, such as newspaper discourse, advertising discourse, or classroom discourse (Fairclough, 1992a, p. 3). As mentioned above, even within CDA ‘discourse’ can broadly be defined to incorporate a wide range of meanings. However, in general the CDA concept of ‘discourse’ incorporates a bi-directional influence between society and language, with each constituting the other. In other words, discourses are socially constructed representations of the world as it is perceived or as it could be imagined (Fairclough, 2003, p. 124). These representations become material realities when they manifest as verbal and non-verbal expressions, symbols, texts or actions; in addition, discourse also includes those representations that form the mental maps that we use to finding meaning in, interpret and understand society (Gee, 2011, p. 39; van Dijk, 1995a, p. 21).

In social theory, our understanding of ‘discourse’ has been largely shaped by the work of Michel Foucault and the term generally refers to the ways in which areas of knowledge are structured through social practices. For example, in The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault states that a discourse is a group of statements that belong to the same discursive formation, and a discursive formation exists whenever “between objects, types of statement, concepts, or thematic choices, one can define a regularity (an order, correlations, positions and functionings, transformations)” (1972, p. 38). Examples of such discursive formations include disciplines such as medicine, psychiatry and law (or indeed Library and Information Science, see Frohmann,1992a, 1992b) as well as

conceptualizations such as the discourse of the ‘War on Terror’ which like the disciplines mentioned above, has its own foundational premises of the causes of the war, its own explanations and justifications, or descriptions of enemies and allies, in short, a

96

constructed reality for understanding events such as in the cases of the atrocities committed on September 11th 2001, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the expansion of the surveillance state, or the rise of ISIS for instance. However, the Foucauldian

conceptualization of ‘discourse’ undergoes various incarnations from his earlier work on

archaeology, where the focus was on discursive formations, to his later work on

genealogy, which examines the relationship between knowledge and power (Fairclough, 1992a, p. 39). What is constant though is that discourses are viewed to “exercise power in a society because they institutionalize and regulate ways of talking, thinking and acting.” (Jager & Maier, 2009, 35). It is this perspective that makes Foucault central to CDA and the reason critical scholars are interested in analyzing the power of discourses in shaping material realities.

Although Foucault’s theories aim to illustrate the power relations that are

sustained, perpetuated and reinforced by discourse, his work also offers perspectives on a variety of related aspects such as the nature of truth, objectivity, knowledge, history, individual and mass consciousnesses, individual and group agencies, and social and political relations. Foucault’s oeuvre has influenced CDA on these subjects as well and continues to be highly relevant for scholars across the humanities and social sciences. Another aspect of Foucault’s work that informs the theoretical foundations of CDA in general is what he refers to as genealogy, that is the various historical components and discourses that constitute a discipline. As Jager and Maier (2009, 37) point out “[a] single text has minimal effects, which are hardly noticeable and almost impossible to prove. In contrast, a discourse, with its recurring contents, symbols and strategies, leads to the emergence and solidification of ‘knowledge’ and therefore has sustained effects.” It is an

97

examination of this larger corpus of discourse and its placement in the correct historical context that also inspires the approach to CDA adopted in this study. There are of course different ways within CDA to unearth this larger body of discourse, but all acknowledge the influence of Foucault in setting out to examine the epistemological evolution of discourses beyond the linguistic features of texts, by including an analysis of the socio- cultural and socio-political contexts within which these discourses operate.

Also related to the conceptualization of discourse as a body of socially constructed knowledge, is the importance of truth and reality as socially constructed entities. This is lucidly articulated in the works of Baudrillard (1981/1994, 1991/1995, 2009/2007), who puts forth the idea that signs and images are now substituted for reality itself in a universe of simulacra, a hyperreality that privileges simulation over the real. In other words, it is through language and the ensuing discourse that the real is

overshadowed, indeed, replaced by a constructed reality of signs and symbols. For example, in the case of the first Gulf War (1990-91), Baudrillard questions the reality of the war, as it was a one-sided onslaught against an inferior army unwilling to go into battle: there are no great battles, no engagement with the Iraqi air force, no large number of dead coalition soldiers, no final battles or victory parades; instead, we are spectators, watching carefully selected images of ‘war,’ troops preparing, fighter planes being readied, journalists reporting about the coming battles and dangers, or experts discussing the technological superiority of the coalition forces and so forth. Baudrillard brands such discourse “a masquerade of information” (1991/1995, p. 40) that presents a sanitized informational version of war without displaying any of the true horrors of warfare or its victims. CDA analysts Jager and Maier (2009) also highlight the importance of collective

98

symbols, through which “we interpret reality, and have reality interpreted for us, especially by the media.” (p. 47). CDA seeks to bring to light these kinds of social constructions of reality and specifically, analyze the role of the social, political and ideological dimensions within discourses to help create hegemonic discourses that give meaning to events and appear truthful, rational and natural.

3.2.3 Analysis

There are various social domains of analysis that are of interest to CDA

practitioners such as media language, political discourse, economics, advertising, gender, institutional or work place discourse, and education discourse. Within each domain practitioners have developed analytical methods that are suitable to achieve the overarching CDA aims of unearthing ideology and power at work but are at the same time quite eclectic and dissimilar. One noticeable difference is in the micro and macro level of analysis – where the former places a greater emphasis on the linguistic details of the discourse (such as vocabulary, syntactical structures, metaphors, etc.), and the latter seeks to analyze broader socio-political contexts (e.g. grand narratives, thematic

structures, intertextuality, etc.). The macro-level of analysis is largely Foucauldian in character with emphasis on historical contexts and processes and having a greater social theory emphasis. For example, Foucault’s (1961/1988) study of the history of insanity involve a macro-level analysis with limited attention to linguistics, as he engages with the broader social landscapes and institutional processes that eventually impacted the

development of medicine and psychiatric practice, as well as the formation of the penal system for dealing with transgressors of social norms (madmen). Another example of a

99

macro-level analysis with limited linguistic attention to the analysis is Edward Said’s (1978) study of the concept of Orientalism; through a critical analysis of Western literary cultural products over time he demonstrated that the macro-level discourse of Orientalism permeated and culminated in negative cultural representations of non-Western peoples and places and was deeply colonial in ideological outlook. Thus, in a general sense, macro-level analysis is concerned with structures such as genre, paradigms, and models of understanding that ground knowledge within such frameworks. Within CDA, macro- level approaches can include analysis of semantic macrostructures, thematic analysis, or what van Dijk calls schemata, these are the overall forms of a discourse, its superstructure (1985b, p. 69). In CDA the purpose of a linguistic analysis is to aid the analysis of the overall discourse as a social phenomenon by providing additional material (linguistic structures) to use as units of analysis and evidence in explaining social structures.

In terms of a micro-level discourse analysis, there are varying degrees of emphasis on linguistic features and numerous methods for the analysis of linguistic structures and characteristics upon which the analyst can choose to focus. For example, in political discourse, breaking down the strategies of argumentation used in the text in terms of logos (appeal to reason), pathos (appeal to emotions), ethos (appeal to morality) is concerned with local meaning. The analyst then delves deeper into the semantic and syntactic structures of the text to shed further light on the nature of the discourse. Since CDA is largely descriptive and interpretive in methodological approach, it is essential for the analyst to situate the micro-level (local) meaning or meanings contained within a text in the macro-level (global) structure within which the text is contextualized. In other words, the analysis of the text must be interpreted in terms of its relation to the social

100

structures in which power operates. The combining of “the discursive with the textual, through a conjunction of analysis of both text and its intertextual context” is one of the key methodological strengths of CDA (Chouliaraki, 2000, p. 297).

A central aspect of the analysis in this study is examining the evolution of the dominant newspaper discourses across two endings of the Iraq War, 2003 and 2011. Most studies of representation tend to focus on how a certain event or issue was represented at a specific point in time (synchronic) rather than over a certain period of time

(diachronic). The obvious reasons for this are that conducting a diachronic analysis of the media’s coverage of an issue is laborious and time-intensive. Furthermore, establishing a suitable period to contextualize the issue remains problematic and highly subjective. Indeed, van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach underlines the subjective nature of context; he defines context as “a specific kind of mental model, that is, as subjective participant representations of communicative situations, and not as the communicative situations themselves” (2008b, p. 21). However, in this study context is also understood in the Foucauldian sense outlined above, that is, tracing the ‘genealogy’ of certain discourses over time. This study adopts Carvalho’s (2008) framework for tracing such a genealogy of meanings in media discourses, which incorporates analyzing the sequence of media texts that appear at key moments. The specific procedures for this analysis are explained in Chapter Four.

Another important aspect of discourse analysis that CDA practitioners devote attention to in their examination of texts is the issue of omission. This is sometimes referred to as deletion as well and is concerned with what is left out of a text in order to present someone or something in a particular light to make the speaker or writer’s point

101

of view more persuasive. It is in this regard that a purely linguistics-focused analysis or quantitative content analysis approaches that document frequency and co-location of words for example – that examine only what is ‘there’ in the text – will inevitably miss what is not part of the text. In the context of media discourse analysis, these “informative omissions” (Molina, 2009, p. 187) become critical in revealing strategies of evasiveness, deceit, or manipulation. Also, related to the issue of omission is the issue of implication, or what is implied by a statement; a text does not necessarily have to explicitly state something in order for it to imply something. As Fairclough (1995) points out, “the unsaid, the already said, the presupposed, is of particular importance in ideological analysis, in that ideologies are generally embedded within the implicit meaning of a text rather than being explicit” (p. 108). Presuppositions in texts are an example of textual features that reveal what the producer of the text takes as ‘given’ or to be understood by the reader, for instance the phrase ‘the Iran threat’ presupposes that Iran is a threat and is clearly a value-laden construct.

Foucault’s writings also engage with the topic of silence and the effects it has on ‘truth;’ he elaborates in numerous works how this is achieved discursively through concepts such as ‘regime of discourse,’ ‘regimes of truth,’ ‘orders of discourse’ and

epistome, and these remain largely relevant in CDA. For example, establishing

parameters of operation for a field of enquiry or selecting a specialized vocabulary, by default requires a process whereby what is deemed most relevant is selected and what is deemed less so excluded. Foucault writes:

Silence itself – the things one declines to say, or is forbidden to name… is less the absolute limit of discourse, the other side from which it is

102

separated by a strict boundary, than an element that functions alongside the things said, with them and in relation to them within overall

strategies….There is not one but many silences, and they are an integral part of the strategies that underlie and permeate discourses.” (Foucault, 1978/1990, p. 27).

This understanding of how silences operate within discourses undergirds the CDA emphasis on the necessity of examining the context within which the text ‘speaks.’