Models of CDA

Van Dijk’s Socio-cognitive Theory of Critical Discourse Studies

Van Dijk’s Socio-cognitive Theory of Critical Discourse Studies is a framework within Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA) that aims to connect language, cognition, and society. Developed by Teun
van Dijk, this theory emphasizes how our thoughts and mental frameworks (cognition) act as a bridge
between everyday language use (micro-level) and broader social structures like power, inequality, or
ideologies (macro-level). Unlike approaches that focus solely on language or society, van Dijk argues
that understanding discourse requires examining how people’s minds process and reproduce social
realities. For example, when analyzing a political speech, van Dijk’s method would look not just at the
words used but also at how the speaker’s beliefs and the audience’s interpretations reinforce societal
norms like racism or classism.

Central to this theory is a three-layer model: discourse, cognition, and society. At the micro-level,
discourse includes specific linguistic choices, such as vocabulary or rhetorical strategies. The middle
layer, cognition, involves mental structures like context models—cognitive frameworks that help
individuals interpret situations based on their social knowledge (e.g., stereotypes about certain
groups). These context models explain how people adapt their language to fit social norms. For
instance, a politician might use coded language to appeal to shared biases without explicitly stating
discriminatory views. At the macro-level, societal structures like institutional racism or gender
inequality shape and are shaped by these cognitive and linguistic practices. Van Dijk’s approach shows
how everyday conversations or media texts can subtly reinforce larger systems of power by relying on
shared mental schemas.

A key example of van Dijk’s work is his analysis of elite racism. He studied how influential groups
(politicians, media, academics) use discourse to legitimize racist ideologies. For instance, elites might
frame immigration as a “threat” to national identity, using language that triggers fear or distrust. These
discourses are then internalized by the public through cognitive processes, making racism seem
normal or justified. Van Dijk highlights how cognitive schemas—like stereotypes—act as a “middle
layer” that connects individual language use (e.g., derogatory terms) to systemic oppression (e.g.,
discriminatory policies). His work is influenced by social theorists like Bourdieu, who emphasized
how power operates through cultural and symbolic means, such as language.

One strength of van Dijk’s theory is its ability to explain how societal inequalities are reproduced
through language. By focusing on cognition, he provides a mechanism for linking individual actions
(e.g., a racist joke) to institutional structures (e.g., systemic racism). However, critics argue that his
approach prioritizes the reproduction of power structures over possibilities for resistance or change.
For example, while van Dijk explains how elites maintain dominance, he pays less attention to how
marginalized groups might challenge these discourses. The document also notes that this limitation is
common in CDA, as many frameworks struggle to address transformation. Still, van Dijk’s emphasis
on cognition offers a pathway for future research to explore how shifts in mental models could lead to
social change.

In summary, van Dijk’s Socio-cognitive Theory provides a detailed lens for analyzing the interplay
between language, thought, and society. By emphasizing cognition, it reveals how deeply ingrained
mental frameworks enable power structures to persist through everyday discourse. While it has
limitations in addressing social transformation, its integration of cognitive and social theories makes it
a valuable tool for understanding issues like racism, media bias, or political propaganda in applied
linguistics and beyond.

Wodak’s Discourse-Historical Approach

Wodak’s Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) is a framework within Critical Discourse Analysis

(CDA) developed by Ruth Wodak. Unlike methods that focus only on individual texts, Wodak’s
approach emphasizes studying discourse over time and across multiple contexts to understand how
ideologies and power structures evolve and reinforce each other. For example, if analyzing climate
change debates, DHA would examine political speeches, media reports, and legal documents over
decades to see how arguments, language, and policies interact to shape public opinion. This historical
and intertextual focus helps reveal how ideologies become deeply rooted in society.

Central to DHA are three types of critique:

1. Text-immanent critique: This examines contradictions or inconsistencies within a text. For instance,
if a politician claims to support equality but uses language that stereotypes marginalized groups, DHA
would highlight this hypocrisy.

2. Socio-diagnostic critique: Here, the goal is to uncover hidden power dynamics or manipulation in
discourse by linking it to broader social theories. For example, analyzing how corporate language
about "efficiency" might mask exploitative labor practices.

3. Prospective critique: This looks forward, aiming to improve communication. Wodak might suggest
ways to make public health messages more inclusive or challenge discriminatory language in laws.

Wodak’s methodology involves three key steps:

- Identifying topics and texts: Collecting a wide range of materials (speeches, media, policies) related
to a theme (e.g., immigration).
- Analyzing discursive strategies: Studying how language is used to persuade, legitimize, or
marginalize. For example, politicians might frame immigrants as "threats" using fear-based metaphors.

- Examining linguistic features: Looking at specific words, grammar, or rhetorical devices (e.g.,
passive voice to avoid responsibility: "Mistakes were made").

To guide analysis, Wodak asks five heuristic questions:

1. How are people or events named (e.g., "illegal aliens" vs. "undocumented workers")?

2. What traits are assigned to them (e.g., "lazy" or "hardworking")?

3. What arguments justify these labels (e.g., economic or cultural threats)?

4. Whose perspective is highlighted (e.g., elites vs. marginalized voices)?

5. Are statements explicit or softened (e.g., "Some say..." to distance from claims)?

A strength of DHA is its systematic, accessible procedures, making it useful for linguists. For example,
analyzing far-right propaganda might reveal how repeated phrases like "take back our country"
normalize xenophobia. However, critics argue DHA sometimes focuses too much on language without
fully connecting to social practices (e.g., how policies are enacted). Fairclough’s approach addresses
this by integrating social theory more directly.

In summary, Wodak’s DHA offers a powerful tool to trace how ideologies like racism or nationalism
are built and maintained through language over time. By combining historical analysis, intertextuality,
and clear methodological steps, it exposes the "hidden work" of discourse in shaping power and
inequality. While it has limitations in linking language to broader social structures, its focus on critique
and transformation makes it vital for challenging oppressive systems.

Fairclough’s Dialectical-Relational Approach

Fairclough’s Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA) is a framework within Critical Discourse

Analysis (CDA) developed by Norman Fairclough. Unlike methods that focus only on language or
society, Fairclough’s approach emphasizes how language, social practices, and power structures
interact and shape each other. For example, analyzing a government policy document would involve
looking not just at its wording but also at how it reflects neoliberal ideologies (e.g., promoting
privatization) and how those ideologies influence real-world policies (e.g., cutting public services).

Central to DRA are three interconnected layers:

1. Social structures: Broad systems like capitalism, patriarchy, or neoliberalism. These shape how
societies operate (e.g., corporate dominance in politics).
2. Social practices: Routine actions within these structures (e.g., corporate lobbying, media framing of
news).

3. Discursive events: Specific instances of communication (e.g., a political speech, a tweet, a news
article).

Fairclough argues these layers are dialectical—they constantly influence each other. For instance, a
CEO’s speech (event) might promote “economic efficiency” (practice), reinforcing capitalist structures
that prioritize profit over workers’ rights. Conversely, grassroots protests (events) can challenge these
structures by creating new discourses (e.g., “climate justice”).

To analyze texts, Fairclough combines linguistic tools (e.g., transitivity, modality, genre) with social
theory:

- Transitivity: Examines who does what to whom. For example, a news headline saying “Jobs were
lost” (passive voice) hides who caused the layoffs.

- Modality: Looks at certainty or obligation (e.g., “We must cut taxes” frames neoliberalism as
inevitable).

- Genre: Identifies communication types (e.g., a corporate report vs. a protest slogan) and their
ideological effects.

A key strength of DRA is its ability to bridge micro and macro levels. For example, analyzing a
university’s mission statement (micro) might reveal buzzwords like “innovation” or “global
competitiveness,” which reflect neoliberal ideologies (macro) that treat education as a market
commodity. Fairclough also emphasizes transformation—how discourse can challenge power. For
instance, social movements might reclaim terms like “woke” to resist right-wing stigmatization.

However, critics note DRA’s complex terminology (e.g., “semiosis,” “interdiscursivity”) can be
daunting for beginners. It also requires deep knowledge of both linguistics and social theory, making it
harder to apply than methods like Wodak’s DHA. Yet, its interdisciplinary depth makes it powerful for
exposing hidden power dynamics. For example, Fairclough’s analysis of UK austerity policies showed
how terms like “fiscal responsibility” masked cuts to social programs, naturalizing inequality.

In summary, Fairclough’s DRA provides a robust toolkit for understanding how language both reflects
and shapes societal power. By linking detailed text analysis to broader social critique, it reveals how
ideologies like neoliberalism are embedded in everyday communication. While challenging to master,
its focus on dialectical relationships makes it invaluable for activists, researchers, and educators
aiming to critique—and transform—oppressive systems.