Scarica Critical Discourse Analysis e più Schemi e mappe concettuali in PDF di Linguistica Inglese solo su Docsity!
CDA (inglese) CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis) CDA is a type of discourse analysis that focuses on how language is used to exercise and maintain power and social inequalities. It is not just a neutral theory: those who practice CDA take a stance against social injustices and aim to expose them through the analysis of language. In simple terms, CDA starts with a very important question: how is language used to exert power over people? Those who engage in CDA try to uncover the hidden mechanisms behind phrases, texts, public speeches, conversations, newspaper articles, etc., in order to understand who holds the control, how it is exercised, and who suffers the consequences. It is called "critical" because it is not neutral: practitioners align themselves with those who suffer injustices. It doesn’t just describe how language works, but aims to change reality by fighting racism, sexism, social inequalities, and any form of abuse of power through the study of discourse. Van Dijk explains that language works on both a micro level (e.g., everyday conversations) and a macro level (e.g., social structures like racism or institutional sexism). CDA seeks to connect these two levels, for example, by showing how a racist joke on TV (micro) contributes to maintaining stereotypes on a societal scale (macro). So CDA seeks to link these two levels, showing how small phrases or words can reflect large social inequalities. For example, a newspaper calling an immigrant “illegal” contributes to a social narrative that paints them as a problem. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) seeks to connect these two levels. In other words, it asks: how do small, everyday linguistic actions influence or reflect large social dynamics? SO: Micro level = individual conversations or situations This refers to every time we talk to someone: at home, at school, on TV, in parliament, in a chat... This is the level of words, sentences, and real dialogues, i.e., what happens here and now. Macro level = society as a whole Here we talk about big things: power, racism, inequalities, control, laws. This is the level of social rules and systems that affect everyone’s life.
Van Dijk tells us that these two levels are connected. The language we use in a single situation (micro) can reinforce or challenge the larger systems of power (macro). So CDA shows us that small, everyday uses of language (micro level) are deeply connected to larger systems of power and inequality (macro level). For example, a simple sentence in a news article or in a political speech can reinforce ideas like racism, sexism, or class superiority. This connection between small interactions and big social systems is at the heart of CDA. POWER AS CONTROL How can someone have the power? If they have CONTROL→ the groups have more or less power if they are able to more o less control the acts and minds of members of other groups. To have this power, you need to have access to scarce social resources, such as status, fame, knowledge, information and culture→ so, for example, professors or journalists will have power because of their knowledge, information or authority. THIS POWER IS NOT IMPOSED BY FORCE→ powerful groups keep control by making their ideas seem “normal,” “natural,” or “common sense” to everyone – This is what Gramsci called hegemony ; this general consensus means that power doesn’t always have to be exercised in an obvious or openly abusive way, but can manifest itself in everyday actions that are taken for granted. Hegemony shows how power becomes invisible, but CDA helps us make that invisible power visible again – by analyzing language. SO WHY HAVING CONTROL MEANS HAVING POWER?--> Because, if we are able to control and influence people’s minds, knowledges and opinions, we can CONTROL their actions (for example, it happens with the manipulation).
People usually trust information that comes from what they see as reliable sources: journalists, teachers, scientists, or official institutions. So when these sources repeat certain messages over and over, those messages become accepted as truth , even if they’re biased or misleading.For example, if newspapers always present refugees as “illegal” or “dangerous,” people may start to believe that all refugees are a threat. They may not realize it, but their opinions are being shaped by language , by discourse. And this is very powerful, because when people believe something is “normal” or “common sense,” they are less likely to question it. GENDER INEQUALITY Anche se molte ricerche sul linguaggio e il genere non usano l’etichetta “CDA”, hanno comunque lo stesso spirito critico. In particolare, molti studi femministi analizzano come il linguaggio rifletta o mantenga la disuguaglianza tra uomini e donne. Autrici come Deborah Tannen , Cameron , Wodak e altre hanno mostrato che le donne spesso subiscono un dominio discorsivo (cioè parlano meno, vengono interrotte, ecc.). MEDIA DISCOURSE All of these studies show that the language used in the media is never neutral :
- It can reinforce dominant ideologies
- It can justify power
- It can silence or distort the voices of minorities Ad esempio→ events and actions may be described with syntactic variations that are a function of the underlying involvement of actors→ For example, the media can make the authorities — especially the police — look less responsible for what happened by changing how they write about the events. They can do this by using the passive voice → in this way, they hide who really did the action , and the people in power seem less involved or even invisible.
A direct and clear way (with the subject): "The police attacked the protesters." VS. A way that hides who is responsible (passive voice or nominalization): "Violence broke out during the protest." "There were clashes between protesters and authorities." "Protesters were injured." In these last cases:
- We don’t know who did what
- The role of the police is hidden
- It sounds like the violence just happened on its own POLITICAL DISCOURSE Political discourse (meaning the language used by politicians, parties, media, parliaments...) is a fundamental tool for exercising and maintaining power. CDA studies how politicians use language to dominate, legitimize themselves, and influence society. Politicians don’t describe the world as it is, but present it strategically to influence ideas, emotions, and decisions. A useful concept in this field are the “frames”. Frames are mental structures that help people interpret reality. In politics, framing is used to present issues in a specific way — for example, describing immigration as a “crisis” instead of a humanitarian matter. This influences public opinion without needing to lie In summary, "frames" are cognitive schemas that help us interpret the world, but they can also be influenced and manipulated by discourse—especially that of the media—to construct a perception of reality that may serve certain ideologies or interests. ETHNOCENTRISM, ANTISEMITISM, NATIONALISM AND RACISM Parla del modo in cui il linguaggio costruisce, giustifica e diffonde il
Many of these studies show a surprising similarity in stereotypes and prejudices across different countries and contexts. For example, at the University of Amsterdam, a large research project studied how groups like Surinamese, Turks, and Moroccans were talked about in newspapers, political debates, textbooks, and even casual conversation. Researchers analyzed not just the topics, but also:
- hesitations or corrections when people talk about minorities,
- semantic moves like disclaimers (e.g., “I’m not racist, but…” ),
- word choices and story structures. The goal was to show that discourse helps create and maintain negative social representations of minorities. A study by Ter Wal showed how in Italy, the media and politicians went from a more neutral or respectful tone about non-European immigrants ("extracomunitari") to more stereotypical and negative portrayals , often linking immigrants to crime and danger. So the main argument is that racism is not just a set of individual opinions , but a complex social and political system. And one of the key ways it is maintained is through discourse , especially elite discourse – that is, language used by the media, politicians, academics, and other influential groups. Case study: The End of Racism by Dinesh D’Souza Van Dijk gives an example: the book The End of Racism by Dinesh D’Souza (1995). This is a good example of conservative elite discourse in the US. The book targets African Americans , and uses strategies like:
- positive self-presentation (of white Western society),
- and negative other-presentation (of Black communities). It uses metaphors like “pathologies” or “viruses” to describe social problems, and contrasts “the Civilized” with “the Barbarians.” It also:
- blames Black culture for social problems,
- denies racism in white society,
- minimizes colonialism and slavery ,
- and even blames the victims. So, through polarization , this discourse builds a mental model where "we" are civilized, and "they" are deviant or dangerous. According to Van Dijk, this is how discourse reproduces racist ideologies , not through direct hate speech, but through subtle, strategic language that influences how people think. In conclusion: Critical Discourse Analysis shows that racism is not just about insults or hate speech. It’s also about how everyday and elite language:
- normalizes stereotypes,
- shapes beliefs ,
- and protects power structures. Language doesn’t just reflect racism – it helps create and reproduce it. QUINDI: Language use, discourse, verbal interaction, and communication belong to the micro level of the social order. Power, dominance, and inequality between social groups are typically terms that belong to a macrolevel of analysis. This means that CDA has to theoretically bridge the well-known “gap” between micro and macro approaches → a racist speech in parliament is a discourse at the microleve→ that però can bring to the reproduction of racism at the micro level→ racism is a rooted idea in society that has been influenced by the language use, discorse etc. QUESTO SIGNIFICA CHE il razzismo è un fenomeno di macrolivello , mentre il linguaggio (cioè il discorso concreto) appartiene al microlivello.
CONCLUSIONE
Power and dominance are associated with specific social domains (politics, media, law, education, science, etc.), their pro fessional elites and institutions, and the rules and routines that form the background of the everyday discursive reproduction of power in such domains and institutions. The victims or targets of such power are usually the public or citizens at large, the “masses,” clients, subjects, the audience, students, and other groups that are depend ent on institutional and organizational power
