Research report, "Critical discourse analysis in teaching and learning foreign languages​​" pot

§¹i häc Vinh T¹p chÝ khoa häc, tËp XXXVI, sè 1b-2007


53
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING


PHAN HƯƠNG
(a)


Abstract. Critical Discourse Analysis first emerged in the 1970s as a form of
discourse and text analysis that drew attention to not only formal aspects of language
in texts but also text production and interpretation, and relation of texts to societal
impulses and structures. It has been attracting the attention of many researchers,
both linguists and social researchers. In Vietnam, however, Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA) has not yet been known to linguists, researchers, teachers and
learners of foreign languages until recently. This article aims at providing an
overview of basic issues concerning Critical Discourse Analysis. In this article we will
also briefly discuss the relevance of Critical Discourse Analysis in foreign language
education.

1. Before addressing Critical
Discourse Analysis, let us recall the
terms discourse and discourse analysis.
Cook (1989) distinguishes between two
different kinds of language as potential

objects for language study. The first
kind is sentence – the object for the
study of how the rules of language
work. The second kind of language is
used “to communicate something and is
felt to be coherent” (p. 6). This type of
language is called discourse. It is
agreed upon by many scholars that
discourse is language-in-use as opposed
to formal aspects of language, and
discourse analysis (DA) is the search for
how stretches of language become
meaningful and unified. In the
evolution of linguistics, there have been
two main approaches to language: the
first one is formal approach being
concerned with language out of context,
taking the rules of language as an
isolated object, and the other one is
functional approach dealing with
language in context (Cook, 1989: 12).
Discourse analysis is a branch of the
second approach. Discourse analysis is
carried out by not only linguists but
also by researchers in many other
disciplines such as philosophy,
psychology and psychiatry, sociology
and anthropology, etc. that examine
their object of study through language
(Cook, 1989: 13).

2. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
is a term used to denote a theory
formerly known as Critical Linguistics.
As its name suggests, CDA is a
discourse analysis approach and it is
primarily concerned with studying and
analyzing written and spoken texts. So
how does CDA differs from other DA
approaches? Unlike other approaches to
the study of language, CDA focuses on
not only linguistic issues but also social,
political and historical aspects of texts
to reveal the discursive sources of
power abuse, dominance and
inequality. Thus, Critical Discourse
Analysis can be simply defined as the
analysis of discourse “with an attitude”.
NguyÔn Hoµ (2006: 37-38) points out
that by taking a stance in favour of
those people who are less privileged in
the modern life in which the gap
between the rich and the poor has
become more visible, CDA helps to


NhËn bµi ngµy 29/9/2006. Söa ch÷a xong 17/11/2006.



§¹i häc Vinh T¹p chÝ khoa häc, tËp XXXVI, sè 1b-2007

54
make changes in social life. CDA sees
discourse - language in use in speech
and writing - as “a form of social
practice” and considers the context of
language use to be crucial (Fairclough
& Wodak, 1997: 258). CDA starts from
the perception of discourse (language
and other forms of semiosis) as an
element of social practices, which
constitutes other elements as well as
being shaped by them (Chouliaraki &
Fairclough, 1999: vii). It has been
agreed by many CDA practitioners that
discourse involves power and ideologies.
What follows is a brief account of
history of CDA, fundamental concepts
in CDA, and methodology of CDA.
2.1 In the 1970s, much linguistic
research was merely concerned with
the study of formal aspects of language.
At that time, researchers argued that
these aspects of language constituted
speakers’ linguistic competence and
they studied them separately from
specific instances of language use. Even
in pragmatics, where the relation
between language and context was

taken into account, sentences and
components of sentences were still
considered to be the basic units. In such
a context, Critical Linguistics, or what
is known today as Critical Discourse
Analysis, emerged as “a form of
discourse and text analysis that
recognized the role of language in
structuring power relations in society”
(Wodak, 2001: 5). CDA from its birth
not only brought into consideration
texts as well as the processes of
producing and interpreting texts, it also
paid attention to their relations to
societal impulses and structures. In the
early stage of CDA history, the most
prominently introductory and
explanatory works are those by Kress &
Hodge (1979), Fowler et al. (1979), van
Dijk (1985), Fairclough (1989) and
Wodak (ed.) (1989). These CDA scholars
made a great attempt to introduce this
new approach into the study of
language, explain and illustrate the
main assumptions, principles,
procedures and methodology of CDA
(Wodak, 2001:5).
By the end of the 1980s, CDA was
able to describe its aims, research
interests, chosen perspective and

methods of analysis much more
specifically and rigidly that hitherto.
The most important characteristics of
critical linguistic research are listed,
explained and illustrated in Fairclough
(1989), Wodak (1989). Later Fairclough
(1992, 1995b) and Chouliaraki &
Fairclough (1999) explain and elaborate
some advances in CDA, showing the
development of the analytical
framework for investigating language
in relation to power and ideology and
also clarifying the usefulness of CDA in
disclosing the discursive nature of
much contemporary social and cultural
change (Wodak, 2001: 6).
2.2 The concepts of great importance
in CDA are critical, historical, power,
and ideology (Wodak, 2001: 3-11). For
Wodak, ‘critical’ means “having
distance to the data, embedding the
data in the social, taking a political
stance explicitly”. The notion history
also occupies a significant position in
CDA. According to her, any discourse is
“historically produced and interpreted.
That means every discourse is “situated
in time and space”. There are specific
historical reasons that drive people to
feel, reason, desire and imagine the

way they do. The importance of the
historical contexts of discourse
therefore should be highlighted in the
processes of interpretation and
explanation of discourses. ‘Ideology’ in
CDA is seen as “an important aspect of
establishing and maintaining unequal



§¹i häc Vinh T¹p chÝ khoa häc, tËp XXXVI, sè 1b-2007


55
power relations”. Language mediates
ideology in a variety of social
institutions. According to Thompson
(quoted in Wodak, 2001: 10) the study
of ideology is the study of “the ways in
which meaning is constructed and
conveyed by symbolic forms of various
kinds”. For Eagleton (1994), in studying
ideology one has to take into
consideration the variety of theories
and theorists that have examined the
relation between thought and social
reality (quoted in Wodak, 2001: 10).
‘Power’, according to Wodak, is about
“relations of difference, … particularly
about the effects of differences in social

structures”. Surely language itself is
not powerful, but gains power by the
use powerful people make of it.
2.3 CDA, according to van Dijk, is
not a specific direction of research.
Therefore, it does not have a unitary
theoretical framework. He asserts that
there are many types of CDA (e.g.
critical analysis of conversation, of
lessons and teaching at school, news
reports in the press, etc.), and they can
be theoretically and analytically diverse
(Meyer, 2001: 17-23).
Methodologies in CDA differ greatly.
There can be found in CDA small
qualitative case studies as well as
studies on large data corpora from
fieldwork and ethnography. Each
method focuses on different levels of
analysis. Siegfried Jager distinguishes
two steps of analysis: firstly a more
content oriented step of structure
analysis, and secondly a more language
oriented step of fine analysis within
which he focuses upon context, text
surface and rhetorical means (Meyer,
2001: 25). Ruth Wodak and Martin
Reisigl work out a four-step strategy of
analyzing racist and discriminatory
discourse: establishing the specific

contents or topics of a specific
discourse, investigating the discursive
strategies, studying the linguistic
means, and then examining the
specific, context-dependent linguistic
realizations of the discriminatory
stereotypes (Meyer, 2001: 26-27). Van
Dijk focuses on various levels in the
analysis of ideologies in news discourse:
Social analysis, cognitive analysis and
discourse analysis (van Dijk, 1995: 20).
Similarly, Fairclough develops a three-
dimensional framework for critical
analysis of news discourse: text,
discourse practice and sociocultural
practice (Fairclough, 1995b: 59).
The analysis of text is, for
Fairclough, “form – and – meaning
analysis”, that is, “the analysis of …
interwoven meanings in texts
necessarily comes down to the analysis
of the forms of texts”. He argues that
“form is part of content” and content
cannot be properly analyzed without
form simultaneously being analyzed
because “contents are always
necessarily realized in forms, and
different contents entail different forms
and vice versa” (Fairclough, 1995a: 133-
188). Linguistic forms under analysis

should include vocabulary, grammar,
semantics, the sound system, and
cohesion – organization above the
sentence level (Fairclough, 1995b: 57).
Fairclough also suggests three stages
that CDA runs through: description,
interpretation and explanation (in
NguyÔn Hoµ, 2006: 160). In reality,
different discourse analysts adopting
different CDA approaches employ
various lists of analytical categories.
For example, Jager takes into account
many linguistic aspects such as certain
argumentation strategies,
metaphorism, vocabulary and styles,
actors, references, etc.; van Dijk
concentrates on a great deal of
linguistic markers, some among which



§¹i häc Vinh T¹p chÝ khoa häc, tËp XXXVI, sè 1b-2007


56
are: stress and intonation, word order,
lexical style, topic choice, schematic
organization, etc (Meyer, 2001: 25). The
analysis of discourse practice involves
sociocognitive aspects of text production

and consumption. For Fairclough
(1995a: 134), sociocultural practice may
involve “different levels of social
organization” such as “the context of
situation”, “the institutional context”,
and “the wider societal context” or
“context of culture”. Fairclough (1995b:
62) outlines more specifically three
aspects of the sociocultural context of a
communicative event: economic,
political and cultural. According to him,
when considering a communicative
event, the analyst should take into
consideration not necessarily all levels
but any level that might be relevant to
understanding that particular event.
According to Fairclough, critical
discourse analysis of any
communicative event is the analysis of
relationships between the three above-
mentioned dimensions of that event.
Discourse practice plays the mediating
role between text and sociocultural
practice. The relationship between the
sociocultural and textual facets is an
indirect one and made by way of
discourse practice. That is, properties of
sociocultural practice shape texts, but
indirectly through shaping the nature
of discourse practice, which is realized

in features of texts.
Regarding collecting data, Meyer (2001:
23-25) maintains that in CDA there is
no typical way, and that no clear-cut
boundary between data collection and
data analysis can be made. Data
collection is not regarded as “a specific
phase that must be completed before
analysis begins” and “is never
completely excluded. It can be spelt out
that researchers may begin to analyze
data right after the first collection in
order to find indicators for particular
concepts and expand them into
categories, then collect further data. In
the analyzing process, new questions
may arise, and the answers to these
questions can only be found on the
basis of analysis of new data or re-
examination of earlier data. The
linguistic character of CDA becomes
evident in the analysis of data since
“CDA strongly relies on linguistic
categories”.
CDA has opened a new approach to
the study of language and also the
study of linguistic aspect of social
phenomena. With its view of discourse
(language in use) as social practice and
its methods of analyzing discourse from

an interdisciplinary perspective, CDA
allows us to have a deeper insight into
the relations between language and
society, more precisely between
language use and language users’
opinions and attitudes behind linguistic
features in discourse.
3. Another important issue that
needs to be addressed is the theory
upon which Fairclough (1995a, 1999,
2003) and many other researchers draw
for their analytical framework. This is
Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL),
a linguistic theory particularly
associated with Michael Halliday.
According to Halliday, this theory of
language can help researchers to make
transparent the relationship between
the grammatical system and the social
and personal needs that language is
required to serve. In discussing the role
of SFL in CDA, Fairclough (2003)
points out that SFL is a valuable source
for critical discourse analysis since it is
concerned with the relationship
between language and other elements
and aspects of social life.
It has been the foundation for
Fairclough’s analytical framework of

§¹i häc Vinh T¹p chÝ khoa häc, tËp XXXVI, sè 1b-2007


57
CDA since there is a “complementary
relationship” between SFL and CDA.
Fairclough & Chouliaraki (1999: 140)
state that in SFL lexicogrammar is
“functionally grounded, shaped by the
social functions it serves, and … built
around the intersection of the
‘macrofunctions’ of language”. The
‘macrofunctions’ of language include
the ideational function (language in the
construction and representation of
experience in the world), the
interpersonal function (language in the
enactment of social relations and the
construction of social identities), and
the textual function (language in the
specifically semiotic – textual – form of
productive practice). Corresponding to
these three macrofunctions of language
are three major ‘networks’ of
grammatical system (transitivity, mood
and modality, and information). In the
light of SFL text is not static but is seen
as always located in and participating

in the social process, and language is
seen dialectically as ‘structured’ and
‘structuring’. The relationship between
the semiotic and the social in SFL is
viewed as a dialectical one in the sense
that language “internalize differences
in social membership and relations”,
and the social itself “is constructed as
internalizing language” (p. 142).
Since CDA’s subject of study is
discourse – language in use, which is
“always simultaneously constitutive of
(i) social identities, (ii) social relations
and (iii) system of knowledge and
beliefs” (Chouliaraki & Fairclough,
1999: 131), here is where SFL can make
contributions to CDA. They claim that
CDA analysts “need a theory of
language such as Halliday’s, which
stresses its multifunctionality and sees
any text as simultaneously enacting …
the ‘ideational’, ‘interpersonal’, and
‘textual’ functions of language”. What is
more, since discourses are ideological
and there is no arbitrariness of signs,
SFL can therefore be considered to be
the most important for the text analysis
in order to uncover the ideological
meanings hidden within texts.
To cut it short, all the above-

mentioned information provides proofs
for the claims made by Fairclough &
Chouliaraki (1999: 139) that SFL “has
most in common with CDA and most to
offer CDA”, and that it “theorizes
language in a way which harmonizes
far more with the perspective of critical
social science than other theories of
language”.
4. Let us now proceed to a brief
discussion of the relevance of Critical
Discourse Analysis in foreign language
teaching and learning. Why Critical
Discourse Analysis can contribute to
teaching and learning foreign
languages? We will limit ourselves to
teaching and learning reading
comprehension as a foreign language
skill in universities. Here come some
important questions.
The first question that needs to be
taken into account is how important
discourses and texts are in education.
For van Dijk (van Dijk, 1981),
“discourses play a primary role in
education” as “most of our learning
materials consists of texts”, and the
various uses of texts ‘influence the
process of learning: the acquisition of
knowledge, beliefs, opinions, attitudes,

abilities, and other cognitive and
emotional changes’ (p. 2). Van Dijk also
asserts that reading and
comprehension of the various discourse
materials is ‘one of the most serious
textual problems’ (p. 21). In the case of
foreign language learning, the learner
reads texts not only to study the target
language but also to learn from text
and to learn about the world. Reading



§¹i häc Vinh T¹p chÝ khoa häc, tËp XXXVI, sè 1b-2007


58
materials in a target language for
effective language learning and
profound understanding is, therefore, a
challenging task, especially those
written by foreigners.
The question that follows is why it
is a challenging task. Fairclough
(1995b: 106-107) observes that any text
is a combination of explicit and implicit
meanings. He asserts that the reader of
that text should focus not just on what
is ‘there’ in the text. In other word, it is
of equal importance to be sensitive to

both ‘presences’ (what is ‘there’ in the
text) and ‘absences’ (what might have
been ‘there’, but aren’t). To achieve this,
readers should develop the skill of
reading between the lines, or ‘critical
reading’, the term used by Wallace
(1992: 59), that is, readers need to
become more critical audiences.
Wallace claims that one of the goals of
critical reading is reconstructing the
discourses within the text and ‘Central
to the idea of critical reading is an
awareness of the role that language
plays in conveying not just a
propositional message but an
ideological one’ (p. 68-69).
Then, what can be done to train
students to become critical readers, not
just for the purpose of their foreign
language learning in schools but for the
sake of their life-long reading? What
follow are some implications of CDA to
teaching and learning reading
comprehension. First, reading activity
should always be placed in social and
historical context. Second, students
should be encouraged to look critically
at texts themselves and at the whole
process of reading as dependent on
social context. Third, there is a constant

need for teachers to guide students
(readers) to an awareness of ideological
content as well as propositional
meaning of the reading texts. Last but
not least, teachers and students should
not always accept automatically the
writer’s view of the world which
language tends to impose on the
readers. Rather, they need to question
and if necessary reject the pre-
established view of the world presented
in reading texts.
In short, since discourses and texts
are vital in education in general and
foreign language teaching and learning
in particular, how to use texts is
significant. For an effective use of texts
in teaching and learning reading
comprehension, both teachers and
learners need to develop the skill of
critical reading. CDA is an approach to
language study that can make its
practical contributions to the field of
foreign language education in the sense
that it drives teachers and learners to
be aware of social and historical aspects
of texts as well as the role of both text
producers and text interpreters when
dealing with them.
To make clear the role of CDA in

foreign language teaching and learning,
let us now consider an example of how
CDA can be useful in teaching and
learning reading comprehension. The
text chosen as a possible reading
material for students of English is a
news report on Iraq in a British
newspaper, The Guardian. The title of
the news report is “UN team finds
Iraq has illegal missiles”. This text is
authentic in the sense that it is not
written for pedagogic purpose. The
general aims of the reading tasks are to
encourage reflective critical reading of
the text and to help raise awareness of
the ideology of the text.



§¹i häc Vinh T¹p chÝ khoa häc, tËp XXXVI, sè 1b-2007


59


Typical Ones Possible Critical Ones
Pre-
reading
tasks
- What is your

personal opinion
about the topic?
- What is the topic? (ask the students to scan the
headline, subheading)
- What does the title tell you?
- Why has the topic been selected?
While-
reading
tasks
- Ask all students to
read the whole text
and find the answers
to given questions
- Match the words in
column A with their
definitions in column
B
- Say whether the
following statements
are true or false
- Find a word/phrase
in the text to
complete the
summary paragraph

- Ask each group to read a paragraph and write 5
questions, then exchange the paragraphs and
answer questions about a different paragraph
generated by another group
- Find presupposition-embedded clauses. What

presuppositions are they? Why are they embedded
in the text?
- How does the writer construct the image of Iraq
as possessing illegal missiles? (lexical repetition)
- What is the image of the UN team? What
strategies does the writer use to achieve this?
(lexicalization, voice usage, etc.)
- How does the writer build up the US and
Britain’s determination to take action on Iraq?
- Who is writing to whom?
Post-
reading
tasks
- Write a summary
of the text
- Do you think Iraq
has illegal missiles?
- What message does the writer want to pass on to
the readers?
- Do you think it is a true message? Why/why not?
- In what other ways could the text have been
written? (less hostile toward Iraq)

The above suggested questions help
clarify how CDA can be applied into
teaching and learning English as
foreign language. A reading
comprehension activity from the critical
perspective does not simply require an
understanding of what is present in the

text but also an interpretation of what
is hidden from the text.

Conclusion


With the emergence of critical
discourse analysis, there has been a
new approach to the study of language
that takes into consideration not only
formal aspects of language in texts but
also the role of text producers and
interpreters, and the relation between
texts and social aspects as well. In
other words, CDA provides a theoretical
framework and an effective tool for the
study of language in use and linguistic
aspect of social phenomena. What can
help us achieve a deeper insight into
the relations between language and
society, more precisely between
language use and power and ideology
brought into discourse by language
users, is that CDA sees discourse
(language in use) as social practice and
that CDA attempts at analyzing
discourse from an interdisciplinary
perspective. Beside its significance in
linguistic and social researches, CDA
also plays an active role in language

teaching and learning. The knowledge
of CDA will help raise the awareness of
the importance of (i) processes of text
production and interpretation, (ii)



Đại học Vinh Tạp chí khoa học, tập XXXVI, số 1b-2007


60
discursive practices used in texts, and
(iii) what is present in texts as well as
what is absent from texts. It can help
people become conscious of how
language can be disrespectful,
offensive, excusive, or the opposite
(Janks, H. & Ivanic, R., 1992: 312). This
critical view of discourses and texts will
bring about a better understanding and
use of texts in teaching and learning
foreign languages, particularly reading
comprehension.

References

[1] Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking
Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
[2] Cook, G. (1989) Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[3] Fairclough, N.L. (1995a) Critical Discourse Analysis: The critical study of

language. London: Longman.
[4] Fairclough, N.L. (1995b) Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
[5] Fairclough, N.L. & Wodak, R. (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis, in T.A. van
Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol.2. London:
Sage, pp. 258-284.
[6] Meyer, M. (2001) Between Theory, Method, and Politics: Positioning of the
Approaches to CDA, in Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of
Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications, pp. 15-31.
[7] Nguyễn Hoà (2006) Phân Tích Diễn Ngôn Phê Phán: Lý Luận và Phơng Pháp.
Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản Đại học Quốc gia.
[8] van Dijk, T.A. (1981) Discourse Studies and Education, Applied Linguistics, 2,
pp. 1-26.
[9] Wallace, C. (1992) Critical literacy awareness in the EFL classroom, in N.L.
Fairclough (ed.), Critical Language Awareness. London & New York: Longman,
pp. 59-62.
[10] Wodak, R. (2001) What CDA is about a Summary of Its History, important
Concepts and its Development, in R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of
Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications, pp. 1-13.

TóM TắT

PHN TCH DIễN NGôN PHê PHáN TRONG DạY V HọC NgoạI NGữ

Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán (CDA) kể từ khi bắt đầu xuất hiện vào những năm
70 của thế kỷ trớc đã thu hút sự quan tâm của các học giả kể cả các nhà ngôn ngữ
học và xã hội học. Đờng hớng phân tích diễn ngôn này không chỉ phân tích các
khía cạnh cấu trúc ngôn ngữ trong văn bản mà còn quan tâm tới các quá trình tạo
lập và diễn giải văn bản, đồng thời xem xét mối quan hệ giữa văn bản và các xung
đột cũng nh cấu trúc xã hội. ở Việt Nam phơng pháp phân tích diễn ngôn này
cha đợc nhiều ngời biết đến. Mục tiêu của bài viết này nhằm cung cấp cho độc

giả một cái nhìn toàn cảnh các vấn đề cơ bản liên quan tới CDA đồng thời bớc đầu
bàn luận về vai trò của phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán trong việc dạy và học ngoại
ngữ.
(a)
Department of Foreign Languages, Vinh University