Class notes

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

CDA is variously defined; definitions range from the highly politicized: “to explain existing
conventions (of discourse) as the outcome of power relations and power struggle”
(Fairclough 1989: 2), to the almost neutral “to answer questions about the relationships
between language and society” (Rogers 2005: 365).

There are many types of CDA, and these may be theoretically and analytically quite diverse.

For the purpose of this class we shall focus on Fairclough’s three-dimensional framework of
CDA.

Some definitions:

However, the general consensus is that CDA “contains two essential elements: A more or less
political concern with the workings of ideology and power in society; and a specific interest
in the way language contributes to, perpetuates and reveals these workings. Thus the more
explicit definitions all emphasise the relationship between language (text, discourse) and
power (political struggle, inequality, dominance).” (see Ruth Reez 2011, Critical Discourse
Analysis and it Critics. Pragmatics, 21:4, 493-525).

“CDA takes a particular interest in the relationship between language and power (...). This
research specifically considers more or less overt relations of struggle and conflict” (Weiss
and Wodak 2002: 12).

“CDA involves a principled and transparent shunting backwards and forth between the
microanalysis of texts using varied tools of linguistic, semiotic and literary analysis, and the
macroanalysis of social formations, institutions and power relations that these texts index and
construct” (Luke 2002: 100).

Van Dijk, in Shiffrin et al (2003) defines CDA as “a type of discourse analytical research that
primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted,
reproduced, and resisted by the text and talk in the social and political context. With such
dissident research, critical discourse analysts take an explicit position and thus want to
understand, expose, and ultimately challenge social inequality. This is also why CDA may be
characterized as a social movement of politically committed discourse analysts.”

“One widespread misunderstanding of CDA is that it is a special method of doing discourse

analysis. There is no such method: in CDA all methods of the cross-discipline of discourse
studies, as well as other relevant methods in the humanities and social sciences, may be used
(Wodak and Meyer 2008; Titscher et al. 2000). To avoid this misunderstanding and to
emphasize that many methods and approaches may be used in the critical study of text and
talk, we now prefer the more general term critical discourse studies (CDS) for the field of
research (van Dijk 2008b). However, since most studies continue to use the well-known
abbreviation CDA, this chapter will also continue to use it.”

How does CDA do that?

1
CDA integrates (combines and draws upon) linguistics and social theory drawing especially
upon Critical Theory, Marxist critiques of capitalism and Michel Foucault’s theories of
discourse and power.

CDA draws particularly upon Systemic Functional Linguistics (M.A.K. Halliday).

It is therefore an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse or a diverse body of

research that is situated at the intersection of linguistics and social theory.

What is social theory?

Social theory refers to “ideas, arguments, hypotheses, thought-experiments, and explanatory

speculations about how and why human societies—or elements or structures of such societies
—come to be formed, change, and develop over time or disappear” (Harrington, 2022).

CDA is concerned with how power is exercised or challenged through language in action. It
approaches language use as a form of social practice and focuses on how language sustains,
legitimizes, or challenges relationships of power, domination, and control.

CDA has established itself as a distinct approach within the social sciences and humanities,
However, it is should not be treated as a unitary or homogeneous framework. Instead, CDA
encompasses a wide range of methodologies and theoretical perspectives that share common
concerns but differ in emphasis, scope, and disciplinary orientation.

It is often argued that there are as many approaches to CDA as there are analysts. The
diversity of CDA is such that each analyst may adopt a unique approach depending on their
positionality and objectives.

CDA is a research program which is both recognizable from the “outside”, as having
common features, and self-aware, in the sense that its representatives (Fairclough, van Dijk,
Wodak, etc.) believe themselves to be working within a “critical” paradigm. However, they
themselves believe there are several identifiable “schools” or groups within CDA.

CDA focuses on how language is used to reproduce relations of domination and control and
how it resists these relations. Its aim is to expose and challenge all forms of oppression and
exploitation that are enacted and sustained through language. It gives a voice to the
oppressed.

What is to be “critical”?
Researchers within CDA have unduly focused on how language is used to sustain power
abuse and dominance.
To be critical can be and should be extended to account for how language is used to empower
individuals and institutions, movements, etc. CDA can be used to identify and celebrate
resistance discourses that challenge and successfully overturn relationships of dominance and
control, thereby influencing public perception and shaping policy.

It can also analyze various emancipatory discourses, uses of language that underly and
motivate equal and positive relationships between individuals, and between individuals and
their institutions, discourses that amplify human dignity in real life as well as in literacy
writings.

2
It can analyze and celebrate the strengths of, for example, indigenous, ecological and
ecofeminist movements and other movements that engage in life preserving and regenerative
practices.

CDA adopts a methodological procedure that enables the analyst to define normative critique
without falling into advocacy, partisanship and militantism (which are the realm of politics),
and without pre-existing agendas and ideological parti-pris (of either left- or right-wing
orientation).

CDA is reflexive: the ability of the analyst to reflect on one’s own discursive practice, and
evaluate it from the point of view of an actor who is engaged in that practice, contributing to
its reproduction, and therefore partly responsible for the outcomes.

In CDA, language is understood as a form of social practice, just as real and impactful as
denying someone access to employment because of their skin color or gender, country of
origin, name, etc.

Language use, like all social practices, is embedded in specific historical and social contexts.
It is one of the many tools through which existing social relations are negotiated, reproduced,
or contested, and through which various interests are served.

Human societies are built upon power relations that are constantly negotiated, created,
enacted, reinforced, challenged, or resisted. As Michel Foucault argues, power is everywhere;
it is diffused and embodied in discourse, knowledge, and what he calls “regimes of truth.”

CDA is not a only a critique of discourses that reproduce forms of discrimination, exclusion,
etc. as you have seen with our CDA analysis of The Guardian text about body positivity. It
goes beyond that to and violates the politically correct or “woke”. It is not interested in
identity politics per se. Instead, it carries it criticism to unveil and denounce how language is
used to normalize exploitation and extract value from the vulnerable by dominant forces. In
this context, the vulnerable is nature, human and more-than-human.
For example, a text that justifies the construction of a dam must be critically deconstructed to
expose its contradictions, its short-term thinking, and its disregard for the living earth and the
populations upstream and downstream. Such a discourse must be exposed and challenged, not
only through analysis but also through ethical outrage. This should be followed by a direct
appeal to decision-makers to reject the project in defense of ecological integrity and
intergenerational justice.

Any text and any knowledge that compromises the living in the short or long run must be
critiqued and condemned. Conversely, any text or knowledge that supports the living in the
short or long run must be critiqued and praised and amplified, celebrated, propagated, etc.

CDA as a vigilant watchdog:

Critical, and uncompromising in its responsibility to expose and call out all kinds of
discourse that legitimize domination, exploitation, exclusion, and all kinds of knowledge that
are conducive to the destruction of the biosphere.
Media narratives, global organizations’ reports, think tank publications, academic
publications, and corporate communication can all mask destructive agendas. CDA should
hold these accountable, shaming them where necessary and resisting their influence through
critical engagement and ethical clarity.

3
Today CDA faces an overwhelming task. The dominant globalized neoliberal economic
model is at war with life on Earth, mobilizing sophisticated weapons of mass extraction,
exploitation, and extermination such as AI, which itself is a gluttonous consumer of energy
and resources and highly destructive of the biosphere.

There appears to be a need for CDA almost everywhere we look around us today in the
modern world. An advertisement of some object as mundane as a chair may draw attention to
the language and other semiotic systems deployed to persuade consumers to purchase the
chair. CDA goes beyond the analysis of the language in the ad to interrogate the object itself,
its social, ecological and cultural implications. Every chair comes at an environmental and a
social cost through resource extraction, production, transportation, consumption, and
disposal.
CDA questions the labor behind the production of the chair. The working conditions of the
workers in the global South. The raw materials are mostly extracted from the global South
Beyond that, scientists agree that chairs have shaped sedentary lifestyles that are detrimental
to human health.
In contrast, in most traditional cultures around the world, backpain was rare. Many
Indigenous people traditionally squat, sit close to the ground, or stand and move throughout
the day, which are behaviors that align more closely with the body’s natural rhythms and
promote well-being. These differences invite us to question how everyday objects and norms
are embedded in broader systems of power, habit, and environmental impact.

All knowledge (all discourses and the power dynamics they engender) that in one or another
compromises life, human or more-than-human, today or in the future, here or there, must be
critically examined, exposed, condemned, rigorously challenged and held to account.

Conversely, knowledge and discourses that nurture, protect, affirm, and uplift all forms of life
are recognized, made visible, through discursive amplification and celebration. CDA
traditionally has not been concerned with emancipatory discourses. It has been criticized for
its overemphasis on the analysis of problems, power abuse, domination.

Wodak defines CDA back then in the 1990s at its beginnings:

“Since the late 1980s, critical discourse analysis (CDA) has become a well-established field
in the social sciences. CDA can be defined as a problem-orientated interdisciplinary
research programme, subsuming a variety of approaches, each with different theoretical
models, research methods, and agendas. What unites all approaches is a shared interest in the
semiotic dimensions of power, injustice, and political-economic, social, or cultural change in
society. The manifold roots of CDA lie in rhetoric, text linguistics, anthropology, philosophy,
sociopsychology, cognitive science, literary studies, and sociolinguistics, as well as in applied
linguistics and pragmatics.”

van Dijk’s CDA focuses on not only how dominant individuals and groups (e.g., racists,
sexists, all sorts of bigots in any domain, including some academia) control text and context
(i.e., discourse and knowledge) abuse of their power to extract value form the vulnerable and
nature, but also on how they control their minds. Van Dijk is concerned with how discourse
affects not only behavior, but also cognition.

4
It should be noted that I have introduced in class two developments regarding the scope of
CDA:

First, the concept of “discourse” is extended to include (and CDA to account for) every other
communicative or semiotic system in the context of discourse, including visuals, gesture,
dress style, spatial arrangements, objects in the context, furniture, architecture, paintings,
colors, etc.

As van Dijk recently confesses: “Critical discourse analysis focuses on the investigation of
the ways in which social-power, dominance and inequality are practiced, reproduced, and
sometimes resisted through the inspection of several forms of communication in relation to
social and political contexts (van Dijk, 2015). Critical discourse analysis is not a particular
method but rather a critical attitude towards the use of discourse practices to maintain the
status quo in power relationships.

Traditionally CDA focuses on the study of language in use.

Second, The main areas of inquiry in CDA have traditionally included Western political,
media and institutional communication where power abuse and domination are evident.
These domains reflect its foundational concern with and bias towards uncovering how
language reproduces power abuse, inequality, and social and ecological injustice.

As Wodak (2017) states above, CDA is a “problem-oriented approach programme.”

In our approach in class we propose to study all kinds of emancipatory discourses in all their
forms. Readers and members of the global or local community should also be exposed to
analyses of discourses that celebrate freedom, democracy, equality, dignity, and which
safeguard our life support systems. We believe that critical engagement should not only
reveal and denounce injustice but also highlight possibilities for justice, sustainability, and
collective flourishing.

This includes discourses that amplify the feminine, foster cooperation, promote commoning,
and celebrate regeneration, discourses that heal, unite, bring joy, and affirm life. Discourses
that rebuild, rewild, restore, etc.

Examples: Indigenous storytelling, oral traditions, and the wisdom embedded in ritual, song,
and community celebration.

Discursive forms that have long carried values of reciprocity (Tawsa), belonging, and
sustainability (Agdal). It should engage with the writings of Indigenous thinkers such as
Carol Black, the insights of ecofeminists like Naomi Klein, and the radical clarity of
decolonial voices such as Amílcar Cabral and Frantz Fanon. It should attend to the
contributions of ecologists, artists, poets, and to cultural expressions that convey resistance
and resilience whether through festivities, spiritual practices, or embodied rituals.

Any discourse that empowers and regenerates life, that upholds the values of dignity,
interdependence, and collective flourishing, should be within the purview of CDA. In doing

5
so, CDA becomes not just a tool of critique, but also a compass for renewal shifting from
exposure of harm to amplification of hope.

Dialectical relationship between discourse and its social context:

Critical discourse studies in general cover term often used to refer to a diverse set of
approaches to discourse which are concerned with social processes (e.g., how a social
relationship of dominance is enacted in language), structures (social hierarchies in different
society or institutions), and change (e.g., the rise of the far right; how the traditional political
“left” has diverted attention away from workers’ preoccupations and embraced identity
politics and “wokism”). In these studies language is considered as the commonest form of
social practice.

Critical discourse studies and Fairclough’s CDA in particular, consider language and social
practices as in a dialectical relationship, with social practices shaping language and
language influencing social practices.” That is, language and social context constitute one
another.

My criticism: The problem here is whether language can be separated from the social context
or social practices, and if so, which of them has more constitutive power than the other,
language or the social practices?
That is, they are mutually constitutive. It is a fundamental principle of CDA, and CDSs more
broadly.

First, can language be separated from its social context?

Does Indigenous wisdom separate the way people talk and the social context of the social
practice or activity at hand?

If they can be separated, how do we determine which has more constitutive power: language
(or discourse!?) or the social practices it is embedded within?

Is not ‘discourse’ always imbued with power relations?

Why not simply study social practices, with language treated as just one component
among many?

This is what sociologists have traditionally done.

However, critical discourse analysists argue that within language in use (texts and talk in
context), there exist layers of meaning that are not always visible on the surface. These
meanings are often subtle, implicit, ideologically charged, and embedded in linguistic choices
that require specialized tools and methodologies (such as micro-analysis) to uncover and
interpret.

Therefore, CDA complements rather than competes with sociology and similar pursuits,
media studies, anthropology, political science, etc.

Racist actions (social practice) can be accomplished by using a language that covers racism.
For example, an employer may send an email to a black woman to decline her job application

6
can include uses of language, vocabulary, types of sentences, layout or formatting, greetings,
even punctuation, etc.) to hide structural racism.

Moreover, if language merely reflects existing social arrangements, does it have any real
transformative agency?

Conversely, if language has the power to shape society, does this not overstate its
independence?

It also assumes that people (recipients of language) are gullible and easily swayed by the use
of language.

Does this not risk neglecting the material conditions (economic mode of production),
institutions (hierarchy), and historical forces, myths, that constrain or orient language use?

Does this not risk falling in discursive determinism?

What is called a “discursive event” is simply a social event where language is used a social
action, which is redundant because language is social action. People do not communicate,
interact, or meet merely to discourse. They meet to carry out transactions and socialize; they
enact what we call society.

It is not the dialectal view that is an issue. It is the focus on the study of language that often
pushes CDA analysists to underplay the role of non-discursive forces (e.g., historical
conditions, ecological systems (geography), bodily experiences, or the affective dimensions
of life) that shape human behavior and meaning-making in ways that language cannot fully
capture.

Maybe the whole enterprise of CDA (and DA) is uncalled-for; it is an academic invention
rather than a necessity.

CDA could have emerged more as a reaction to the dominance of formal, generative
linguistics in the mid-20th century than from an urgent need to understand power and
discourse.

A couple of well-intentioned linguists in the UK and Australia, inspired by Critical Theory,

Foucauldian discourse as power/knowledge, a bit of Marxism, and similar social theory
sought to reclaim relevance by aligning their work with social critique of inequality, injustice
and power abuse. In so doing they managed to carve out a niche within academia that
allowed them secure teaching tenured positions, funding, and justify research projects.

If it is a robust tool for social change, as its proponents often argue, can we measure its
impact after half a century of existence? Has CDA inspired a movement of change? Has any
political leader of the true left (e.g., Jeremy Corbin) ever quoted Norman Fairclough?

Is CDA not a simple discursive performance (another source of carbon emissions) confined
within academic impenetrable walls (esoteric academic jargon; academic journal articles read
only by their peers), far from the struggles it claims to support?

7
Sociologists, social theorists, culture critics, etc. analyze all kinds of social and cultural
phenomena and behaviors, from language use to the symbolic relevance of location, time of
event, physical movement from one place to another, dress, physical force, voice, silence (no
language), inaction.

Discursive practices: how discourse (a text) is produced, disseminated and interpreted.

The power dynamics at paly when some individual or organization produces a texts.
In the extract from The Guardian, several layers of power at play can be identified: the author
of the piece is employed by The Guardian, a mainstream media outlet whose editorial stance
aligns with a moderate, neoliberal version of left politics. Her role as a columnist involves
reproducing this editorial line, which presents social issues and critiques them, such as the
erasure of “inclusivity” in fashion, as the readers’ of the Gurdian are expected to do.

So the role of the journalist is to do the job of the readers, thereby containing any more
radical critique, absolving the readers’ from any guilt of inaction, and absorbing their
possible outrage.
Through her text, the columnist exercises symbolic power: the power of language to shape
perception. By reassuring readers that inclusivity is being defended by The Guardian, she
implicitly discourages deeper questioning or action, offering a sense of resolution that
ultimately reinforces the status quo and thereby tacitly reconciles the readers’ with business
as usual, i.e., capitalist-patriarchal exploitation.

It is a characteristic of the new political left in Britain and throughout the West. It is more
concerned with identity politics and the “woke” politically correct, than with the exploitation
of workers.

How is the text positioned?

The text is on the surface aligned with the short term interests of Ms. Skye Standley. It
sympathizes with and gives a voice to Ms. Skye who has lost her job because of her plus-size
body size. However, the text implicitly is aligned with the interests of the fashion industry. Its
defense of inclusivity and giving a voice to Ms. Skye Standley in modeling amounts to
“woke” tokenism; it is symbolic rather than substantive.
This superficial gesture is used to disguise deeper structural problems. The text ultimately
upholds the values of a moderate, performative liberalism, the new leftist approaches, that
avoid genuine critique of capitalist exploitation or systemic inequality.

Whose interests are served by this positioning?

On the surface and symbolically, the text appears to serve the interest of Ms. Skye Standley.
However, the text’s serves the interests of fashion industry, the author’s; The Guardian’s; and
the interests of the uncritical readership of The Guardian.

Whose interests are negated?

Ms. Sky Standley’s as a woman who needs a fulfilling work to restore her dignity and human
worth.
All people whose livelihood depends on modelling (and other kinds of gig economy);
All women’s;
Gaia or the living earth (which means all of us);
Garment workers in the Global South;
Indigenous communities.

8
What are the consequences of this positioning?
Maintaining the status quo;
Containing the readers’ outrage;
Perpetuating exploitation and ecocide.

---------------------

“Fairclough's (1989, 1995) model for CDA consists of three interrelated processes of analysis
which are tied to three interrelated dimensions of discourse. These three dimensions are:

1. the main object of analysis in CDA is language used in context or discourse;

2. the processes by which the object (i.e., discourse) is produced (constituted) and
received (interpreted) by human subjects;

3. the socio-historical conditions that govern these processes.

According to Fairclough (1999) each of these dimensions requires a different kind of

analysis:

1. Text analysis (description) (Micro-level or Analysis at word level: how words are
used): Analyzing the language used in the text. Analysts are familiar with various branches
of linguistics, especially systemic functional linguistics/grammar (M.A.K. Halliday);
discourse studies, and sociolinguistics and in general. By choosing certain words, we show
our attitudes to the subject. The language we use makes us part of the community, the
institution, and the group. The following examples are from Richardson’s 2007 book
"Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. Particular attention
is paid to word choices and to their denotative and connotative meaning; e.g., “riots” vs
“protests”; “fat” vs “curve”, etc.

Word choice: “sneak attack vs. first attack”. Calling what was presented to us as Japan’s
attack of Pearl Harbor in 1941 as a “sneak attack” or a “surprise” attack makes the U.S.
appear as a victim of treachery, cowardice. But if Japan had been described as making the
“first attack,” the narrative would be less emotionally charged and might open space for
examining why the attack happened. Richardson uses this comparison to show how
journalists and editors frame events through value-laden language (language which carries
recognizable connotations) that aligns readers with a particular perspective (e.g., victim vs.
aggressor), constructs “us” as good and “them” as bad (ideological positioning), and
influences public perception of legitimacy, morality, and blame. Through language choices
such as ‘sneak attack,’ the media plays a crucial role in legitimizing the U.S. retaliatory strike
on Japan and justifying its broader involvement in WWII in the Pacific

This is an instance of ideological loading of signifiers and representation of social actors,

which CDA scholars like Fairclough, van Dijk, and Richardson analyze to uncover how
language sustains dominant ideologies.

CDA practitioners do not view readers, listeners, or interpreters of discourse as gullible or

uncritical. However, they emphasize the importance of developing critical awareness, as

9
language can be used in biased ways to reinforce discrimination and inequality. Power is not
located in one place—it is everywhere, embedded in discourse and everyday interactions.

Naming and reference: how a subject is named. Modality, e.g., “Britain could suffer a
Madrid-like attack” used in a media article to keep terrorism in the discourse as a relevant
topic and an imminent threat.

Presupposition: e.g., “Britain’s asylum system takes new hammering”

Rasinger (2010) analyzes East European migrants in British newspaper headlines and
identified three positions these migrants occupy. They are either actors, beneficiaries or
patients. When migrants are presented as actors, the headlines consistently referred to
negative processes (i.e., portray migrants as responsible for something negative): For
example, “Lithuanian migrants send crime rocketing;” “Migrants put more strain on the
police.”

2. Processing analysis; discursive practice (interpretation): Understanding how a discourse

fits within broader media discourse, or educational discourse, political discourse, etc.
(discursive practice). Analysis at discourse/text level

3. Social analysis (explanation). Examining how discourse reflects and reinforces societal
power dynamics and ideologies (social practice). It is about standards of society or the
organization, in effect, social structures. It is an analysis of what we call the norm.

Discourse helps create change of behavior, not only of thinking. Language is a power tool.
For example, it can do that through legitimation. Van

“What is useful about this approach is that it enables the analyst to focus on the signifiers that
make up the text, the specific linguistic selections, their juxtapositioning, their sequencing,
their layout. However, it also requires that the historical determination of these selections is
recognized in order to understand that these choices are tied to the conditions of possibility.
This is another way of saying that texts are instantiations of socially regulated discourses and
that the processes of production and reception are socially constrained. Why Fairclough's
approach to CDA is so useful is that it provides multiple points of analytic entry. It does not
matter which kind of analysis one begins with, as long as they are all included and are shown
to be mutually explanatory. It is in the interconnections that the analyst finds interesting
patterns and disjunctions that need to be described, interpreted and explained.” (Hilary Janks,
1997. Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural
Politics of Education, 18:3, 329-342.)

The word “signifiers” refers to the words, phrases, and other linguistic or symbolic elements
(such as images) that make up the text. That is, the actual forms or expressions used to
convey meaning (refer to de Saussure’s concept of the sign taken up by semiotics, or the
study of signs. A sign is made up of two parts: The signifier and the signified. While the
signifier refers to the form that the sign takes (e.g., a written word, spoken sound, image, or
symbol), the signified is the concept or meaning that the signifier refers to.)

In the context of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)’s textual analysis, the first dimension,
signifiers are the actual linguistic elements. That is, the words, stylistic choices, and
structures that are used in the text and that carry or point to deeper meanings. For example,

10
the word “riot” instead of the word “protest” is a choice of a signifier with different
connotations. The choice of “curve” instead of fat people suggests body positivity. While
“riot” suggests chaos, violence, and illegitimacy, while “protest” connotes organized
resistance or democratic expression.

Similarly, the term “curve” in place of “fat” is a softer, more marketable signifier; it sells
more because of it sexual appeal. It frames larger body types within the discourse of body
positivity, but also neutralizes or depoliticizes the stigma by making it more pleasant for
mainstream media and consumer markets. This linguistic shift serves both to signal
inclusivity and to absorb dissent into the logic of branding.

Signifier refers also to the way words and phrases are combined and ordered (sequencing), or
which terms are put side by side (juxtapositioning), or the way text is visually laid out. All of
these are signifiers that affect how meaning is constructed.

CDA believes that by analyzing these signifiers, we can uncover the ideological, political, or
cultural work that the text is doing.

Limits of CDA:

For CDA language is a form of social practice; language both reflects reality and actively
shapes it. When people or institutions (e.g., a media organization) use language, they are
participating in and often reinforcing or challenging existing power relations, ideologies, and
social structures. That includes transactional exchanges, negotiations, legitimations of
authority, etc. It is the sum of these transactions that sustains what we call society.

However, not all language use is transactional or interest-driven in the narrow sense. For
example, a mother using language to convince her child to eat may not be extracting value or
trying to negotiate power, but rather offering care, and emotional bonding. Similarly, when a
community uses language in rituals, storytelling, or shared grief, this is not about immediate
transaction, but about connection, meaning-making, and collective identity. Therefore,
language use is not only transactional; it is also relational, emotional, communal, and ethical.

This critique resonates with feminist and Indigenous perspectives on language. Feminist
theorists like Carol Gilligan (1993, 2023) emphasize care, relationality, and voice as key
dimensions of communication, not reducible to dominance or negotiation. CDA seems to care
less about “relationships” as though to care about relationships is feminine. Indigenous
epistemologies often treat language as a form of kinship or relational accountability, language
that connects humans with ancestors, the land, and the non-human world.

Even within CDA, scholars like Norman Fairclough acknowledge that language is
multifunctional: it can describe the world (ideational function), organize social relations
(interpersonal function), and construct text/discourse structures (textual function).

CDA is a powerful tool for analyzing power and ideology. It needs to make some room for
the analysis of the language of unconditional and interest-free love, care, healing, and
solidarity.

11
Many researchers are disappointed by the largely negative nature of the body of work
produced within the field of CDA, and call for critical scholars to pay more attention to
positive or potentially transformative uses of discourse (Martin 2004: 183-4; Luke 2002: 106-
7).

CDA is often practiced out of an honest interest in challenging power structures and
empowering the oppressed. However, most it remains an academic exercise aimed primarily
at career advancement within universities and institutions established and sustained by the
very systems of power CDA analysts criticize.

While CDA presents itself as a means to unveil and contest discourses of domination and
control, in reality, much of its findings are confined to conference proceedings, academic
journals, books and some websites only few people visit. Their work rarely reaches the
people most affected by those structures, namely, the oppressed, the marginalized, or even
policymakers. One rarely, if ever, hears a political leader cite a paper by Norman Fairclough
on the damages of neoliberal discourse in the UK, or by Teun van Dijk on the discursive
mistreatment of immigrants in the Netherlands.

The emancipatory promise of CDA can be honored if: ,

Its findings are put in the service of society, engaging with communities, building alliances
with local and national institutions to empower the disenfranchised.

CDA can achieve that by translating its insights into accessible language and actionable
proposals to political leaders.

CDA should aim to persuade political leaders and decision-makers to take action that
improves the lives of all.

CDA should not just critique power from a distance. It should be a means of empowerment,
solidarity, advocacy, and social transformation.

12