University of Nariño
Question
Asked 29 January 2016
How different is critical analysis of discourse (cDA) compared to critical discourse analysis, i.e. CDA?
CDA is often regarded as an approach to the study of discourse rather than a method to analyze data derived-from a discourse based study. I do not feel that the methodology called CDA can appropriate the notion of critical for
discourse analysis, especially when the research is more interested in issues about fairness and equitability than issues about critical agenda such as social power abuse. I'm wondering what you think about doing discourse analysis in a critical manner and whether any differentiation can be made between what is called cDa (as opposed to descriptive discourse analysis) and CDA?
Most recent answer
Yes, Ali, you´re partly right. CDA is more of a politically oriented approach to a discourse analysis where it is considered to be at the centre of social phenomena and particularly regarded as a social practice at the service of groups of power, domination, and ideology.
Popular answers (1)
Well, firstly, I agree with what Linda wrote above. Here's my 2 cents to add to it:
If we agree that there's DA, cDA, and CDA, what needs to be clarified is the difference between the term "critical" in the latter two. The main difference that I can point to is that CDA deals with more issues, such as intertextuality, interdiscursivity, and socio-historical context of formation and interpretations of texts/discourses, while DA in general does not go into such aspects of a given text/discourse. Now, when someone doing DA tries to not only describe the data, but also take into account some of these features, but without trying to make changes in the discourse, and instead, rather just describe and interpret it, we can say he/she is doing cDA.
On the other hand, CDA is political in nature, i.e. it tries to make changes, and reach to a critique and criticism of a discourse.
So, in short, I can put it in the following way:
DA: description
cDA: description, interpretation, critique
CDA: description, interpretation ,critique, criticism.
5 Recommendations
All Answers (13)
Sindh Madressatul Islam University
CDA is not a single method, it is a collection of various methods of interpreting the discourse (speech, style, pictures etc) and describing them as belonging to some underlying ideology. To me, cDA and CDA are one and the same, all you need is to be critical and have a standpoint from where to explain the discourse.
Shahid Ashrafi Isfahani University -Isfahan- Iran
Dear Ali,
Unlike Wafa, I believe that cDA and CDA are not the same. Such a difference is best defined based on the level of analysis. Clearly, when you adopt a micro-level, pragmalinguistic approach, you simply focus on features of texture and surface level elements like discourse markers, diectic elements, thematic progression, and so on. However, on a more esoteric, macro-level involving a sociopragmatic analysis, the analyst tries to use discursive elements as a resource for fathoming out writers'/speakers world of ideation and cognition.
Best regards,
R. Biria
4 Recommendations
Two quick points 1) CDA, as practised by Fairclough (2001), is a process of "...description of text, interpretation of of the relationship between text and interaction, and explanation of the relationship between interaction and the social context" (p.91).
2) Justice and equity are significant aspects of 'the social abuse of power'.
Therefore, I don't see your argument for cDA.
3 Recommendations
Well, firstly, I agree with what Linda wrote above. Here's my 2 cents to add to it:
If we agree that there's DA, cDA, and CDA, what needs to be clarified is the difference between the term "critical" in the latter two. The main difference that I can point to is that CDA deals with more issues, such as intertextuality, interdiscursivity, and socio-historical context of formation and interpretations of texts/discourses, while DA in general does not go into such aspects of a given text/discourse. Now, when someone doing DA tries to not only describe the data, but also take into account some of these features, but without trying to make changes in the discourse, and instead, rather just describe and interpret it, we can say he/she is doing cDA.
On the other hand, CDA is political in nature, i.e. it tries to make changes, and reach to a critique and criticism of a discourse.
So, in short, I can put it in the following way:
DA: description
cDA: description, interpretation, critique
CDA: description, interpretation ,critique, criticism.
5 Recommendations
I agree with Eshan's 'in short' points in all but one respect.
I don't agree that CDA is involved with 'criticism'. I argue that CDA is involved in questioning assumptions. CDA is 'ciritical' in this sense but not in the sense that of 'criticism'.
1 Recommendation
That's exactly what I meant by 'criticism' Linda. In a Foucauldian sense: critique is unravelling the assumptions and ideologies, but criticism is questioning them, or making them difficult!
Here's a quote by Foucault which clarifies my point:
“A critique does not consist in saying that things aren't good the way they are. It consists in seeing on just what type of assumptions, of familiar notions, of established and unexamined ways of thinking the accepted practices are based... To do criticism is to make harder those acts which are now too easy.”
Hi Ehsan,
We do seem to be on the same page, then. Could you give me a reference for Foucault?
Thank you
Hi Linda, great to hear we're on the same page.
Here's the reference:
the Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984, Volume 3 (Power). Page 456, in an interview called: so is it important to think
2 Recommendations
University of Malaya
CDA usually starts off with a preconceived notion for example that there is bias or a power relation in a text, then looks for linguistic evidence. Usually an eclectic approach is used.
cDA analyses the text and describes the meanings captured through the lens of a particular theory. Usually a clause by clause analysis is involved.
2 Recommendations
Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University
Dear Sridevi,
Thank you for your response. It's very concise and helpful for the understanding of the two concepts.
Best.
Similar questions and discussions
CfP: Do you want to contribute to an upcoming book "Linguistic Minutiae as Nationalist Argument"?
I'm inviting all scholars interested in how linguistic data (maps, isoglosses, accents, sound changes, grammatical differences, tree-models etc.) can be used for nationalist purposes, to join us in publishing a standalone book documenting the use of such linguistic data in various societies worldwide.
Full CfP (with contact details and information about abstracts) here: https://networks.h-net.org/group/announcements/20058070/linguistic-minutiae-nationalist-argument-making-linguistic-taxonomies
Deadline for applications is 1 May 2025.
Related Publications
This paper sets out the author's view of discourse analysis and illustrates the approach with an analysis of discursive aspects of marketization of public discourse in contemporary Britain, specifically in higher education. It includes a condensed theoretical account of critical discourse analysis, a framework for analysing discursive events, and a...
The methodology of ‘Ilm al-Tafsir and the methodology of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) highlight the similarities and differences in leveraging the text as research data beyond the level of the text’s structure. Questions on similarities and differences between methodologies are addressed in the present study. This study, therefore, compares th...