Critical Discourse Analysis (Van Djik)

Discourse Analysis

 2.4.1 Discourse and text

Crystal (1992:25) in Nunan (1993:5) discourse is a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit, such as a sermon, argument, joke, or narrative. Discourse refers to the interpretation of the communicative event in context. Context refers to the situation giving rise to the discourse and within which discourse embedded (Nunan (1992:6). Meanwhile, Cook (1989:156) discourse is stretches of language perceived to be meaningful, unified, and purposive.

The term text according to Crystal (1992:72) is a piece of naturally occurring spoken, written, or signed discourse identified for purpose of analysis, and often a language unit with a definable communicative function such as a conversation, a poster. Brown and Yule (1983:6), text is as a technical term, to refer to verbal record of a communicative act. Nunan (1992:5) text refers to any written records of a communicative event. The event maybe involve spoken (e.g. a casual conversation) and written language (e.g. newspaper, novel, advertisement).

Carter, et al (1997), the term of discourse analysis refers to language in action and the patterns which characterize particular types of language in action as he puts it:

Discourse is a term used in linguistics to describe the rules and conventions underlying the use of language in extended stretches of text, spoken and written. (Such an academic study is referred to as discourse analysis). The term is also used as a convenient general term to refer to language in action and the patterns which characterize particular types of language in action.

According to Richards and Schmidt (2002: 161), discourse analysis the study of how sentences in spoken and written language form larger meaningful units such as paragraphs, conversations, interviews, etc. Discourse analysis deals with how the choice of articles, pronouns, and tenses affects the structure of the discourse (address forms, cohesion), the relationship between utterances in a discourse (see adjacency pairs, coherence), the moves made by speakers to introduce a new topic, change the topic, or assert a higher role relationship to the other participants. Analysis of spoken discourse sometimes called conversational analysis. Some linguists use the term text linguistics for the study of written discourse.

According to Schiffrin in Juez (2009:8-7) discourse analysis involves the study of both text and context. One might conclude, then, that text linguistics only studies the text, while discourse Analysis is more complete because it studies both text and context. Furthermore, Schiffrin points out that all approaches within discourse Analysis view text and context as the two kinds of information that contributes to the communicative content of an utterance.

Meanwhile, Fasold (1990: 65), Candlin (1997: ix) in Juez (2009:9), and Nunan (1993:7) states that discourse is the study of language in use. This is in line with Brown & Yule (1983) that puts it:

The analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent of the purposes or functions, which these forms are designed to serve in human affairs (p.1).

Slembrouck  (2005:1) as quoted in Juez (2009:9) points out the ambiguity of the term discourse analysis and provides another broad definition. He writes:

The term discourse analysis is very ambiguous. I will use it in this book to refer mainly to the linguistic analysis of naturally occurring connected speech or written discourse. Roughly speaking, it refers to attempts to study the organization of language above the sentence or above the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges or written texts. It follows that discourse analysis is also concerned with language use in social contexts, and in particular with interaction or dialogue between speakers.

Another important characteristic of discourse analysis is that they are essentially multidisciplinary so they are cross linguistics and therefore it can be said that they cross the linguistics border into different and varied domains as van Dijk (2002:10) stated in the following passage:

……discourse analysis for me is essentially multidisciplinary, and involves linguistics, poetics, semiotics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, and communication research. What I find crucial though is that precisely because of its multi-faceted nature, this multidisciplinary research should be integrated. We should devise theories that are complex and account both for the textual, the cognitive, the social, the political and the historical dimension of discourse. (in Juez, 2009:9)

Based on this viewpoint, van Dijk introduces a model of discourse analysis called critical discourse analysis (CDA). From the viewpoint above a discourse should be viewed from the textual, the cognitive, the social, the political and the historical dimension.

2.5 Critical Discourse Analysis

CDA sees ‘language as social practice’ (Fairclough andWodak, 1997), and considers the ‘context of language use’ to be crucial. CDA sees discourse as language use in speech and writing is also a form of ‘social practice’. Describing discourse as social practice implies a dialectical relationship between a particular discursive event and the situations, institutions and social structures, which frame it (Wodak and Meyer, 2008:5).  Meanwhile, van Djik says that the crucial task of Critical Discourse Analysis is to account for the relationships between discourse and social power. More specifically, an analysis should describe and explain how power abuse is enacted, reproduced or legitimized by the text and talk of dominant groups or institutions.

In critical discourse analysis, power is defined as property of relations between social groups, institutions or organizations. Thus, only social power is considered ,not individual power, Social power is defined in terms of the control exercised by one group or organization (or its ‘members) over the actions and/or the minds of (the members of) another group, thus limiting the freedom of action of the others, or influencing their knowledge, attitudes or ideologies. The power of a specific group or institution may be `distributed', and may be restricted to a specific social domain or scope, such as politics, the media, law and order, education or corporate business, thus resulting in different 'centres' of power and elite groups that control such centres. Dominance is understood as a form of social power abuse that is, as a legally or morally illegitimate exercise of control over others in one's own interests, often resulting in social inequality. Power is based on privileged access to valued social resources, such as wealth, jobs, status, or indeed, a preferential access to public discourse and communication. Social power and dominance are often organized and institutionalized, so as to allow more effective control, and to enable routine forms of power reproduction.

2.5.1 Van Dijk (Socio-cognitive model)

CDA is a special approach in discourse analysis which focuses on the discursive condition, component and consequences of power abuse by the dominant (elite) group and institution. It examines pattern of access and control over context, genre, text, talk, and their properties as well as the discursive mind control. CDA studies discourse and its functions in society and the ways society, especially form of inequality are expressed, represented, legitimated or reproduced in text and talk (van Dijk, 1995: 24)

In addition, Van Dijk (2001) defines CDA as follows:

……..is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. With such dissident research, critical discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus want to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality (p.352)

From the definition above, van Djik stresses that CDA is a discourse analysis to expose the invisible social practices explicitly, but it has effect in social order those are power abuse, dominance, inequality which revealed in certain techniques in text and talk, and supported by social and political context. It means that CDA attempts to expose the use of language that is linked to social factors when the language is produced. 

Furthermore, van Dijk (2001:353) states that critical research on discourse needs to satisfy a number of requirements in order to effectively realize its aims. Those aims are:  first, as is often the case for more marginal research traditions, CDA research has to be better than other research in order to be accepted. Second, it focuses primarily on social problems and political issues, rather than on current paradigms and fashions. Third, empirically adequate critical analysis of social problems is usually multidisciplinary. Fourth, rather than to merely describe discourse structures, it tries to explain them in terms of properties of social interaction and especially social structure. Ultimately, more specifically CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce or challenge relations of power and dominance in society.

There are several CDA principles are stated by Fairclough &Wodak 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. (Faiclough & Wodak in Van Dijk, 1998).

According to van Dijk (in Eryanto, 2001:225), the study of discourse is not sufficient in text based only, since a text is produced from a practical process production that is necessary to be observed. In this case, we have to see how the text is produced so that we have knowledge of why the text it is. Further, this process and approach involve a process called social cognition. This term is actually adopted from social physiology approach, especially to explain the structure and process of forming a text.

Various complex and complicated problems in producing a text is tried to be delineated by van Dijk. Therefore, it is not exclusively on text based analysis, but also how social structure, dominance, group of power in society  and how the cognition and awareness that forms and affects the text. Discourse by Van Djik has three dimensions those are: text, social cognition and social context. The core analysis of van Dijk model is by the combination of the three dimensions of discourse into the unified analysis (Eriyanto, 2001:224; in Hidayat & Kuswanto, 2007). The discourse analysis is primarily text based (syntax, lexicon, local semantics, topics, schematic structures, etc.). The social analysis studies how to examine the overall societal structures (the context). The socio-cognition is social cognition and personal cognition that mediates between society and discourse. In this sense, social cognition is defined as “the system of mental representations and processes of group members" (van Dijk, 1995:18, in Sheyholislami). In social cognition is to learn the process of producing text, which involves the writer’s cognition (e.g. journalist).  Meanwhile, in social context learns about the developing knowledge in society. (Eriyanto, 2001: 225, in Hidayat & Kuswanto, 2007)

Van Dijk’s analysis model can be drawn as follows:

Social Cognition

Text

Social Context

                                   

Figure 1.1 van Dijk’s model analysis

2.5.1.1 Text Analysis

Van Djik views text consists of three structure/levels of analysis those are:

1.      Macrostructure (macro level)

Macro structure refers to the global meaning. It pertains to the thematic/topic structure of the news stories and their overall schemata. Van Dijk (2003) as quoted by Rosidi (2007) notes the following passage:

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.

Thus, a macrostructure is a theoretical reconstruction of intuitive notions such as topic or theme of a discourse. It explains what is most relevant, important, or prominent in the semantic information of the discourse as a whole.

2.      Superstructure (meso level)

Superstructure refers to the schema of discourse. According to van Dijk (1988, 14-16), superstructure schema is structured according to a specific narrative pattern that consists of the following: summary (headline and the lead paragraph), story (situation consisting of episode and backgrounds), and consequences (final comments and conclusions). He states:

“Overall meanings, i.e. topics or macrostructures, may be organized by conventional schemata (superstructures), such as those that define an argument, a conversation or a news report” (van Dijk, 2003 in Rosidi).

3.      Microstructure (Micro level)

The microstructure refers to the meaning of the local (local meaning) of a discourse. At the microstructure level, analysis is focused on the semantic relations between propositions, syntactic, lexical and other rhetorical elements that provide coherence in the text, and other rhetorical elements.

Semantic aspects of a discourse include background, details, intentions, assumptions, and nominalization. For instance, journalist write news always expresses background of event. The choice of background also determines where the people’s view will be directed. Detail is a strategy of journalist to expressing his idea implicitly and while intention is same as detail, but it is expressed explicitly. Assumption is a statement to support the meaning of the text. In addition, semantics also typically focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for.

Syntactic aspects of a discourse with regard to how the phrase or sentence and is prepared to put forward. This includes forms of sentences, coherence, and the selection of a number of pronouns. For instance, the use of plural pronoun ‘we’ implicate to grow solidarity, alliance, and decrease criticism and opposition.  

Aspects stylistic of a discourse is regarding the choice and used of words, style or manner of writing (diction) and air of force used by the perpetrators of discourse. Van Djik (2004) as quoted by Rosidi (2007) writes:

Selection of words falls in between lexicalization is largely automatic given underlying mental models and the lexicon as a basis, but often specific words are chosen deliberately, and depending on genre and context quite well controlled, especially in written communication.

Meanwhile, rhetorical aspects of a discourse refer to the tactics and methods used by perpetrators of discourse to give emphasis on the elements you want highlighted. This includes the appearance of graphics, writing, metaphor, and the expression is used.  

Van Dijk’s discourse elements can be drawn more completely as in the table 2.1 below

Tabel 2.1 Van Dijk’s Discourse Elements

Discourse Structure	Focused Analysis	Elements
Macro-structure	Thematic What are being talked? Topic is being discussed in the discourse.	Topic/theme
Super-structure	Schematic How is the opinion or idea arranged?	Schema
Micro-structure	Semantic The meaning which intend to be stressed in the discourse. For example, by giving the detail in another side or make another side explicitly.	Background, details, intention, assumption.
	Syntactic How is the opinion delivered? It pertains to the form and structure of sentence used.	The structure of sentence, coherence, and pronoun
	Diction The word choice used in discourse	Lexicon
	Rhetoric  How and by what means are the stressing done?	Graphic, Metaphor and expression

2.5.1.2 Socio Cognition Analysis

Social cognition means the beliefs or social representations they share with others of their group or community. Knowledge, attitudes, values, norms and ideologies are different types of social representations. Van (1991:35) notes it in the following passage:

We also saw that such practices presuppose knowledge and beliefs shared by all, most, or many other group members, that is, various types of ‘social cognition’ (Fiske and Taylor, 1984; Wyer and Srull, 1984) or ‘social representation

Socio cognition regards to how a text is produced by individual or group. Social cognition analysis deals with how the text is connected to the social structure and developing knowledge in society toward a discourse.  In van Dijk’s analysis framework need to analyze the social cognition. That is, the mental representation of the journalist who produce the text. It is based on the assumption that the text will not have meaning without the language user give the meaning to the text. 

In analysis social cognition, event is understood depending on the schema or model.  In this case, models represent the interpretations individuals make of other persons, of specific events and actions, and essentially are the cognitive counterpart of situations. When people witness a scene or an action, or read or hear about such events, they construct a unique model of that situation or update an old model. In other word, model is conceptualized as the mental structure which comprises the perspective to other people, social role and events.

Schema reveals how the human use their mental structure to select the coming information from the around environment. Schema assists human to explain and actively construct the complicated social reality. Schema delineates how one uses the stored information in the memory, and how those are integrated with the new information which depicts how the event is understood, interpreted and inserted into the knowledge as the reality. When people witness a scene or an action, or read or hear about such events, they construct a unique model of that situation or update an old model. The understanding of this reality is influenced by the experience and memory (Eriyanto, 2001 in Hidayat & Kuswanto, 2007).

Besides model or schema, memory is also essential element in analyzing social cognition. Schlessinger dan Groves (in Rakhmat, 2004: 62) defines memory as a very structured system causing organisms are able to record the fact of processing information (Hidayat & Kuswanto, 2007). There are two kind of memory such as short term memory and long term memory. Short term memory is utilized to remember short time events.  This kind of memory is very affected by interferential. If the information is successfully maintained, so it comes in to the long term memory. 

Social cognition more considers long term memory. This memory consists of two big parts those are episodic memory and semantic memory. Tulving (in Paivio & Begg, 1981:171) drew a useful distinction between episodic and semantic memory. Episodic memory refers to memories of specific events that occurred in a particular place at particular time. In contrast, semantic memory refers to our general knowledge without specification of the time and place in which it was originally learned.   

2.5.1.3 Social Analysis

Discourse is a part of reality which is occurring in the society. Therefore, to analyze a text needs to be executed in intertextuality with the study of how a discourse about something is produced and reconstructed by society. The main point of social analysis is that how the meaning is comprehended together, social power that is created through practice of legitimation.   According to van Dijk in social analysis, there are two important things need to be concerned those are power and access.

Van Dijk (2001) defines power as control over the act and minds of other group. He notes it as in the following passage:

Summarizing a complex philosophical and social analysis, we'll define social power in terms of control. Thus, groups have (more or less) power if they are able to (more or less) control the acts and minds of (members of) other groups (p.354).

Furthermore, according to van Dijk that type of power is distinguished according to the various resources employed to exercise such power. He gives examples that the coercive power of the military and of violent men will rather be based on force and the rich man will have power because of their money, whereas the more or less persuasive power of parents, professors, or journalists may be based on knowledge, information, or authority. In analysis of the relations between discourse and power, van Dijk explains it as follows:

…….thus, we first find that access to specific forms of discourse, e.g., those of politics, the media or science, is itself a power resource. Secondly, as suggested earlier, action is controlled by our minds. So, if we are able to influence people's minds, e.g., their knowledge or opinions, we indirectly may control (some of) their actions. And, thirdly, since people's minds are typically influenced by text and talk, we find that discourse may at least indirectly control people's actions, as we know from persuasion and manipulation (van Djik, 2001: 355)

Power abuse not only involves the abuse of force. Van Dijk gives example such as in police aggression against black youths, and may result not merely in limiting the freedom of action of a specific group, but also and more crucially may affect the minds of people. Therefore, through special access to, and control over the mean of public discourse and communication, dominant groups or institutions may influence the structures of text and talk.  Consequently, the knowledge, attitudes, norms, values and ideologies of recipients are more or less indirectly affected in the interest of the dominant group.

Furthermore, with regard to access, van Dijk states that access is dominated by the elites group.   The members of more powerful social groups and institutions, and especially their leaders (the elites), have more or less exclusive access to, and control over one or more types of public discourse. For instance, professors control scholarly discourse, teachers control educational discourse, journalists control media discourse, lawyers control legal discourse, and politicians control policy and other public political discourse (van Dijk, 2001:356). Consequently, the more powerful groups have more chance to control the public discourse. The more access also determines the topic and content of discourse which will be discuss in to the public.

 Access may be defined both for the context and control for the structures of text and talk themselves. Context is defined as the mentally represented structure of those properties of the social situation that are relevant for the production or comprehension of discourse (Duranti and Goodwin 1992; van Dijk 1998b; 2001). Context consists of such categories as the overall definition of the situation, setting, ongoing actions (including discourses and discourse genres), participants in various communicative, social, or institutional roles, as well as their mental representations: goals, knowledge, opinions, attitudes, and ideologies, while control not only over content, but over the structures of text and talk. Relating text and context, the powerful groups may decide on the (possible) discourse genre or speech acts of an occasion, for example, a teacher or judge may require a direct answer from a student or suspect.  

In summary, Van Dijk (2001: 354) says there are several ways to analyze and bridge these levels, as to arrive at unified critical analysis. First, member group is as the language user who engages in discourse as members of (several) social groups, organizations, or institutions; and conversely, groups thus may act by their members. Second, actions process is social acts of individual actors are thus constituent parts of group actions and social processes, such as legislation, news making, or the reproduction of racism. Third, Context social structure is 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. Ultimately, it is 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.

.