In analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis emphasizes on texts being considered not only regarding what they entail but as well what the texts omit, which are actually other ways of conceptualizing and defining universe. According to Wodak & Meyer (2009) therefore, the role of critical discourse analysts is not merely reading social ideologies and political ideologies on texts but to comprehend the various ways through which the texts might have actually been written in addition to considering what such alternatives imply in the representation of the world and understanding of it.
This is actually crucial since texts are where complexities within social meanings originate. The approach actually makes such texts meaningful for instance by considering how they are produced, disseminated, received and consumed. Besides, it also puts into question social actions determined by such manner of thinking. Overally, Critical Discourse Analysis, as a paradigm, is basically characterized by numerous principles, with one such principle holding that every approach is problem-oriented hence not only inter-disciplinary but also diverse.
Critical Discourse Analysis is additionally characterized by common interests in the demystification of ideologies and influence by way of retroductable (transparent) as well as systematic investigation of the semiotic information, whether visual, written or even spoken (Wodak & Meyer, 2008).This means, for instance, that Critical Discourse Analysis is more focused on demystifying situations as well as perceptions often perceived as natural but have actually been discursively created/constructed over a period by groups or individuals in power attempting to distort social reality as well as institutional arrangements for their own benefit.
Furthermore, Critical Discourse Analysis researchers as well endavour to be explicit in terms of their viewpoints and interests while at the same time maintaining the scientific methodologies and maintaining self-reflection on their individual research process Strengths of the Approach As highlighted by Fairclough & Wodak (1997), strengths of the Critical Discourse Analysis are generally reflected in the making of connections between text properties on one hand and social/cultural structures and process on the other hand.
Critical Discourse Analysis is actually a better way of understanding how particular words form subconscious associations in an individual’s mind with very minimal, if not completely no effort. For instance, the use of motive words such as “terrorist” or “abuser” within any kind of media would presumably rely on the covert bias to make individuals in order to inject the relevant ideologies hence making the audience have a particular viewpoint without making this obvious. One of the major strengths of the Critical Discourse Analysis, as argued by Ng’ambi (2008), is based on the way in which it richly analyzes texts.
Critical Discourse Analysis actually considers texts to be artefacts that are not in isolation whereby contexts such as socio-political and socio-historic, for instance, contribute significantly to the production as well as the interpretation of texts in addition to being important aspects of analysis. Operating on three analysis levels, it engages with texts, discursive practices and the larger socio-historic as well as socio-political context. Ng’ambi (2008), states that discourse practices under which texts are generated and interpreted are actually considered as significant social practice forms significantly contributing to how social world is constituted, including the social identities involved and the social relations therein.
Critical discourse analysis actually begins with an assumption that the use of language is social and discourse not only reflects but also constructs our social world. Therefore critical analysis may explore matters/issues relating to identity, gender and ideology and they are reflected within particular texts.
Read More