Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán về hệ tư tưởng mỹ trong các bản tin điện tử mỹ về các cuộc xung đột ở biển đông giai đoạn 2014 2015​

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

QUÁCH HẢI YẾN

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF AMERICAN
IDEOLOGIES EMBEDDED IN SOME AMERICAN ONLINE NEWS
ON THE CONFLICTS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA FROM 2014-2015
PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGƠN PHÊ PHÁN VỀ HỆ TƯ TƯỞNG MỸ TRONG CÁC
BẢN TIN ĐIỆN TỬ MỸ VỀ CÁC CUỘC XUNG ĐỘT Ở BIỂN ĐÔNG GIAI ĐOẠN
2014-2015

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8220201.01

HANOI - 2017


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

QUÁCH HẢI YẾN

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF AMERICAN
IDEOLOGIES EMBEDDED IN SOME AMERICAN ONLINE NEWS
ON THE CONFLICTS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA FROM 2014-2015
PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGƠN PHÊ PHÁN VỀ HỆ TƯ TƯỞNG MỸ TRONG CÁC
BẢN TIN ĐIỆN TỬ MỸ VỀ CÁC CUỘC XUNG ĐỘT Ở BIỂN ĐÔNG GIAI ĐOẠN
2014-2015

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8220201.01
Supervisor: Dr. Huỳnh Anh Tuấn

HANOI - 2017


DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the thesis, entitled “A Critical Discourse Analysis of
American ideologies embedded in some American online news on the conflicts in
the South China Sea from 2014-2015” has been carried out in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Master of Art at the University of Languages and
International Studies. This work is original and all the sources that I have used or
quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references.
Hanoi - 2017

Quách Hải Yến

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Huynh
Anh Tuan, for his encouragement and support throughout the process of
studying. I have especially appreciated his gentle manner of giving feedback and
the wealth of ideas I have been introduced to over these years.
I would like to give my very special thanks to my friends and the

members of my family who have been supporting me in various ways.

ii


ABSTRACT
This is a qualitative study that presents the findings of a linguistic analysis
on American online news on the conflicts of the South China Sea from 2014-2015.
The research has applied Fairclough‟s three-dimension framework and Halliday‟s
Systemic functional grammar to identify and explain how American ideologies are
portrayed and represented through language used in the American online news
written by the American reporters. In this research the writer used the descriptive
method to study the problem. There were ten newspapers collected from some wellknown online websites such as CNN, Los Angeles Times, NBC News, New York
Times and Center for Strategic and International Studies. The use of transitivity,
metaphors and negative sentences are analyzed to see how ideologies of the
journalists are embedded in the news. The findings reveal clearly the ideologies of
the American that they are in approval of law-based, equal and anti-hegemonic
policy towards the South China Sea conflicts.

iii


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION..................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATION…………………………………….….………….iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................v
PART A................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1
1. Rationale of the study.......................................................................................1
2. Aim and objectives of the study........................................................................3
3. Research question.............................................................................................3
4. Scope of the study.............................................................................................3
5. Method of the study..........................................................................................3
6. Structure of the study........................................................................................4
PART B.……...…………………………………………………………....…….5
DEVELOPMENT……………………..……………………………….................5
CHAPTER 1........................................................................................................5
LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................5
1.1. Discourse analysis..........................................................................................5
1.2. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)................................................................6
1.2.1. The origin of Critical Discourse Analysis...................................................6
1.2.2. The definition of Critical Discourse Analysis.............................................7
1.2.3. Critiques to CDA........................................................................................9
1.2.4. The relations of CDA to Power and Ideology........................................... 10
1.3. Michael Halliday‟s systemic functional grammar....................................... 12
1.4. Norman Fairclough and CDA...................................................................... 15
1.5. A review of related studies........................................................................... 22
v


CHAPTER 2...................................................................................................... 25
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................ 25
2.1 Research question.......................................................................................... 25

2.2. Research approach....................................................................................... 25
2.3. Research method.......................................................................................... 26
2.4. Framework of data analysis.......................................................................... 27
CHAPTER 3...................................................................................................... 29
FINDINGDS AND DISCUSSIONS................................................................. 29
3.1. Transitivity analysis..................................................................................... 29
3.1.1. Mental process.......................................................................................... 29
3.1.2. Verbal process........................................................................................... 30
3.1.3. Relational process..................................................................................... 32
3.2. Metaphors..................................................................................................... 34
3.3. Negative sentences....................................................................................... 35
PART C.............................................................................................................. 36
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................. 36
1. A summary of findings.............................................................................................................. 38
2. Limitations and recommendation for further studies .................................................. 40
REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 40
APPENDICES.................................................................................................................................... I

vi


PART A
INTRODUCTION
This introductory chapter provides a general description of the research
work. It covers the following: research topic, research purpose, research
questions, theoretical background, research strategy, and finally the outline of the
thesis.
1. Rationale of the study
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), a recent school of discourse analysis,
is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse, which views “language

as a form of social practice” (Fairclough, 1989). In the modern times, the mass
media such as newspapers, magazines, broadcasts, etc. are playing a vital role in
human life. Media discourse, one of the seven fields of CDA, has become the
primary source of information, which can standardize and control social life and
personal values.
In recent years, the South China Sea‟s conflicts has been a matter of
controversy all around the world, especially in some powerful countries such
America, China and other Asian countries. There are thousands of online news
on this issue produced every day and they can be found in numerous websites.
This study is based on the analytic paradigm of Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA) described by Fairclough (1989, 1992, 1995a, 1995b), and
Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) to analyse the data to find out the
American ideologies through the discourse.
O‟Halloran (2003, p.1), views the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as
a branch of linguistics that specifically searches and identifies the traces of
cultural and ideological meaning in spoken and written language; while Parker
(1992, p.5) looks at discourse in general as a system of statements which
constructs an object. A lot of work on discourse analysis has been carried out by
1


a number of experts in the field. The quest for gaining a clear understanding of
the meaning behind some speeches both written and spoken, has given rise to
CDA. Often times, some speeches and news texts are masked in secrecy and
listeners can sometimes struggle to understand the meaning behind the spoken
words. CDA provides a good platform for explaining spoken and written
language.
Moreover, CDA uses a number of techniques to resolve the meaning of
some texts. The 21st century society is now immersed with a lot of information
coming from the news media and coming from different kinds of people equally

serving a variety of purposes. In order to understand the true nature of news
reports, namely the social and power relationship, the hidden ideologies, and the
way they present people and issues, it is necessary to employ CDA.
Tensions between China and Vietnam over the disputed South China Sea
are at their highest levels in years. On May 2, 2014, the state-owned China
National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) placed its deep sea drilling rig HD981 in disputed waters south of the Paracel Islands. Vietnam objected to the
placement, declaring that the rig is located on its continental shelf. China has
since sent approximately 80 ships, including seven military vessels, along with
aircraft to support the rig. In response, Hanoi dispatched 29 ships to attempt to
disrupt the rig‟s placement and operations. The situation escalated dramatically
on May 7, when Vietnam accused Chinese vessels of turning high powered water
cannons on the Vietnamese ships and eventually ramming several vessels. The
implications of these developments are significant. However, few attempts have
so far been made to analyze language use in online news related to this topic.
Therefore, under the light of CDA the writer will attempt to unravel the
American ideologies behind the American online news and what exactly the
writers were trying to say about the conflicts on the South China Sea.

2


2.

Aim and objectives of the study
The study aims to:
Investigate American ideologies embedded in some American online



news on the conflicts in the South China Sea from 2014-2015.

Raise a critical awareness for the language learners and newspaper



readers: to develop the ability of critical thinking when they read a
text.
The following objective is set to accomplish the aim:


Explore the American reporters‟ underlying ideologies through
analyzing the linguistic features of the news reports, which also present
the close link between ideologies and media language.

3. Research question
In accordance with the objectives of the study, the research is conducted
to find out answers to the following research question:
What are American ideologies on the issue of the South China Sea conflicts
hidden in the linguistic expressions?
4. Scope of the study
In this study, the writer would focus on the online news reported on the
South China Sea conflicts from 2014 to 2015. The writer acknowledges that the
more extensive the scope of information accomplished, the more dependable the
study results will be. However, due to the constraint of time and the limited
length of a minor thesis, in this study, only ten online news reports were tested,
which came from CNN, Los Angeles Times, NBC News, New York Times and
Center for Strategic and International Studies. This minor thesis does not express
the writer‟s opinions related to political issues to change the readers‟ thoughts.
In fact, it is entirely served for scholastic goal.
5. Method of the study

The methodological approach is built totally on the foundation of
3


discourse analysis. The research method involves a qualitative content analysis.
Within this area of investigation, the three dimension model given by Fairclough
(2001) will be combined with Halliday‟s Systemic functional grammar to
analyze the news.
6. Structure of the study
The organization of this thesis is presented as follows.
Part A: Introduction
This part presents an overview of the research in which the rationale, the
aims, the research questions, the scope as well as the organization are shortly
expressed.
Part B: Development
Chapter 1: Literature Review (This section provides basic concepts,
theoretical framework and related research of the study).
Chapter 2: Research Methodology (This part presents a detailed
description of methodological choices for the study: data collection procedures
and data analysis procedures.)
Chapter 3: Findings and Discussion (This sector gives the findings and
discussions of the study).
Part C: Conclusion
The last part summaries the study, gives some conclusion points to the
study, and discusses the limitations of the study as well as suggestions for further
research.

4

PART B
DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Discourse analysis
Van Dijk, T.A. (1998) states discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies,
is a general term for a number of approaches to analyze written, vocal, or sign
language use, or any significant semiotic event.
The objects of discourse analysis (discourse, writing, conversation,
communicative event) are variously defined in terms of coherent sequences of
sentences, propositions, speech, or turns-at-talk. Contrary to much of traditional
linguistics, discourse analysts not only study language use 'beyond the sentence
boundary' but also prefer to analyze “naturally occurring” language use, not
invented examples. Text linguistics is a closely related field. The essential
difference between discourse analysis and text linguistics is that discourse
analysis aims at revealing socio-psychological characteristics of a person/persons
rather than text structure.
Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of disciplines in the
humanities and social sciences, including linguistics, education, sociology,
anthropology, social work, cognitive psychology, social psychology, area studies,
cultural studies, international relations, human geography, communication
studies, biblical studies, and translation studies, each of which is subject to its
own assumptions, dimensions of analysis, and methodologies.
Topics of discourse analysis include:


The various levels or dimensions of discourse, such as sounds (intonation,
etc.), gestures, syntax, the lexicon, style, rhetoric, meanings, speech acts,
moves, strategies, turns, and other aspects of interaction
5



Genres of discourse (various types of discourse in politics, the media,
education, science, business, etc.)



The relations between discourse and the emergence of syntactic structure



The relations between text (discourse) and context



The relations between discourse and power



The relations between discourse and interaction



The relations between discourse and cognition and memory

1.2. Critical discourse analysis (CDA)
1.2.1. The origin of Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical Linguistics (CL) arouse in the mid-1970s as a necessity for an

academic branch which would examine the connections between language and
ideology, social structure. CL was theoretically affected by the Critical Theory of
the Frankfurt school and by the Marxist philosophy. Roger Fowler, Tony Trew
and Gunther Kress were the pioneers of CL and their explicit argument was that:
“the world-view comes to language-users from their relation to institutions and
the socio -economic structure of their society. It is facilitated and confirmed for
them by a language use which has society‟s ideological impress. Similarly,
ideology is linguistically mediated […]” (Fowler, Kress 1979: 185).
This argument presented the need for a linguistic analysis which would
not only be formal or neutral, as Fowler and Kress put it, but also critical. “The
need then is for a linguistics which is critical, which is aware of the assumptions
on which it is based and prepared to reflect critically the underlying cause of the
phenomena it studies, and the nature of the society whose language it is. (1979:
186)”
The systemic functionalist linguistics was where CL relied for an
analytical framework. M. A. K. Halliday‟s books Language as Social Semiotic
(1978) and Introduction to Functional Grammar (1985) were central to Critical
Linguistic Analyses. The concepts of these books became important for
6


understanding grammar and interpreting texts, keeping in mind that: “grammar
has to interface with what goes on outside language: with the happenings and
conditions of the world, and with the social processes we engage in” (Halliday
2004: 24)
Halliday's Systemic Functional Linguistics became the groundwork to
establish three basic assumptions for CL: “that language serves a number of
specific functions, and that all linguistic forms and processes express one or all
these functions; 2 that the selections which speakers make from among the total
inventory of forms and processes are principled and systematic; and 3 that the

relation between form and content is not arbitrary or conventional, but that form
signifies content.” (Fowler, Kress 1979: 185)
Moreover Halliday‟s Functionalist Grammar was the foreground of an
analytic method, or the linguistic toolkit to CL, but not only to them. It still
seems to be very important even to do and understand CL descendant: Critical
Discourse Analysis. “In most studies there is reference to Hallidayan systemic
functional grammar. This indicates that an understanding of the basic claims of
Halliday's grammar and his approach to linguistic analysis is essential for a
proper understanding of CDA.” (Wodak and Meyer 2002: 8)
1.2.2. The definition of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
According to Van Dijk, discourse has three main domains: “(a) language
use, (b) the communication of beliefs (cognition), and (c) interaction in the
social situation”. (Van Dijk 1997a:2) The coexistence of these domains urges the
necessity to analyze discourse from a multidisciplinary perspective.
In the beginning of 1990s a new school of thought arose, aiming to
analyze the discourse through a multidisciplinary approach. This school
established a new paradigm in Discourse Analysis, that of Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA).
CDA can be described as „a type of discourse analytical research that
7


primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are
enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political
context‟(O‟Halloran,2003,p.11).

CDA is

historically

interested

in

the

examination of news texts for language manipulation. This has allowed much of
the current research on CDA to also focus on news texts in an effort to find
language manipulation. However, there are a sizeable number of researchers who
use CDA to interpret the meaning of speeches given by modern day politicians
and other interesting personalities. Politicians are notorious for manipulating
language for their own benefit. The ordinary man may be misled by some of the
speeches given by these politicians and CDA endeavours to unravel the hidden
meaning behind some of these speeches (O‟Halloran, 2003, p.3).
Furthermore, CDA is characterised by a number of common elements
namely; its ability to address social problems, the discursive nature of power
relations, the relationship between discourse, society and culture, how discourse
is historical and how it performs ideological work; and how discourse is a form
of social action. All these elements are present in our everyday lives
(O‟Halloran, 2003, p.16).
O‟Halloran (2003) suggests that mystification is embedded within
CDA and suggests a few concepts in mystification analysis. These include
"transitivity; which deals with the grammatical meaning of words in a clause,
ideal passivisation; which can help create a distance impression between the
writer and the reader and ideal normalisation; which refers to the process where a
verb is changed into a noun" (pp. 17-18).
In addition, Wodak et al., (2001, p.2) uses Critical Linguistics and
CDA interchangeably and many other experts in linguistics do the same. They
further advise that the purpose of CDA is to "critically investigate social
inequality as it is expressed, signalled, constituted and legitimised" (Wodak et

al., 2001, p.2). A review of the available literature on CDA largely supports this
8


concept. However, it is not rooted in any one particular theory. It encompasses
theoretical concepts from a variety of researchers (Wodak et al., 2001, p.18). Van
Leeuwen (2008) makes use of a number of modern tools in CDA. Nonetheless,
most of these tools are a combination of theories and frameworks from past work
on discourse analysis.
1.2.3. Critiques to CDA
CDA has continuously been criticized for having theoretical shaky
grounds, for the lack of scientific methods and for the way analyses are
undertaken. Edward Haig makes a remarkable statement regarding the large
number of the critics of CDA, whose activity “threatens to develop into a whole
new academic cottage industry of its own” (2014: 5).
The work of Critical Discourse Analysts is criticized for offering a single
plausible interpretation and for claiming that the more detailed the analysis, the
more convincing the interpretation will be. Henry Widdowson (1998), one of the
faultfinders of CDA argues that the principles of analysis are unclear. To add
Widdowson claims that the analyses is biased and to some extent arbitrary, as it
does not take into account the standpoints of the writers or the readers of the
texts. “The producers and consumers of texts are never consulted. Thus, no
attempt is ever made to establish empirically what writers might have intended
by their texts. Their intentions are vicariously inferred from the analysis itself, by
reference to what the analyst assumes in advance to be the writer's ideological
position. Nor is there any consultation with the readers for whom texts are
designed. Their understanding is assigned to them by proxy, which in effect
means that the analysts use the linguistic features of the text selectively to
confirm their own prejudice” (Widdowson 1998: 143). The matter of a single
plausible interpretation is also related to the levels of adequacy of CDA. While

its faultfinders argue that the discourse analysis can at its best reach an
interpretative adequacy, the critical discourse analysts and theorists disagree.
9


According to them the range 20 of possible interpretations can be narrowed
down by deconstructing the text and discovering the ideologies and power
relations embedded in it. Fairclough and Wodak (1997) emphasize the fact that
CDA can reach an explanatory adequacy: This marks the point where critical
readings differ from reading by an uncritical audience: they differ in their
systematic approach to inherent meanings, they rely on scientific procedures and
they naturally and necessarily require self-reflection of the researchers
themselves. In this point, they differ clearly from pure hermeneutics. We might
say they are explanatory in intent, not just interpretative. We also have to state
that interpretations are never finished and authoritative; they are dynamic and
open, open to new contexts and new information (Fairclough, Wodak 1997: 279).
Besides these objections toward CDA, another central critique is that of analysts
having partial or political stances, which effect their interpretations. Although
this claim accuses CDA researchers for being biased and subjective, they do not
oppose it. Having such a stance does not make CDA less scientific. “Unlike
much other scholarship, CDA does not deny but explicitly defines and defends
its own sociopolitical position. That is, CDA is biased – and proud of it” (Wodak,
Meyer 2001: 96). In conclusion the critique towards CDA has been addressed by
Critical Discourse analysts themselves. In this study the PDA aims to consider
what is more trustworthy from the discipline of CDA, to understand the way
politicians talk. As we are convinced that the linguistic features of the political
discourse cannot be considered simply stylistic expressions or preferences.
Wodak and Meyer (2001) emphasize that CDA analysts do “discourse analysis
with an attitude”, and they are in “solidarity with the oppressed ones” (96).
1.2.4. The relations of CDA to Power and Ideology

The word “critical” is a key theoretical concept in CDA that requires
some explanation here. “Critical” indicates the need for analysts to decode the
10


ideological implications of discourse that have become so naturalized over time
that we begin to treat them as common, acceptable, and natural features of
discourse. That is, ideology has become common belief or even common sense.
Adapting “critical” approach enables us to “elucidate such naturalizations, and
make clear social determinations and effects of discourse which are
characteristically opaque to participants” (Fairclough, 1985, p. 739).
Ideology plays a vital role in CDA. According to Wodak (1996),
“ideologies are particular ways of representing and constructing society which
reproduce unequal relations of power, relations of domination and exploitation”
(p. 18). Fairclough (1992) explains ideology as “an accumulated and naturalized
orientation which is built into norms and conventions, as well as an ongoing
work to naturalize and denaturalize such orientations in discursive events” (p.
89). For Widdowson (1990), “all discourses of theory, including those of
linguistics, are ideologically loaded” (p. 39). Newspapers, which claim to be
politically neutral and ideology free, have to choose their discursive
representations in line with their institutional policies which are ideological
themselves because they are not nameless and neutral but have a history and a
politics (Cameron, 1993, p. 316).
Power in CDA is everywhere and no language in use can ever be 'neutral'
or 'objective' (Fairclough, 1989) and no discourse can ever be free of power and
the exercise of power (Watts, 1992). Power is not derived from language, but
language can be used to challenge power, to provide a finely articulated means
for differences in power in social hierarchical structures. Language is not
powerful on its own, but gains power by the use powerful people make of it as
Deborah Cameron (2001) (in Muralikrishnan 2011, p.23) says, "words can be

powerful: the institutional authority to categorize people is frequently
inseparable from the authority to do things to them”. Following Cameron (2001),
Muralikrishnan (2011) pointed out that a great deal of power and social control
11


in the modern age is exercised not by brute physical force or even by economic
coercion, but by the activities of "experts" who are licensed to define, describe
and classify things and people. Fairclough (1995) argued that power can be
conceptualized both in terms of asymmetries between participants in discourse
events, and in terms of unequal capacity to control how texts are produced,
distributed and consumed in particular social contexts. This type of power
mainly stems from ideology, the knowledge that enables persons or groups to
carry out their will, or to influence others in spite of their resistance (Andersen,
1988; Fairclough, 1989).
1.3. Michael halliday’s systemic functional grammar
Systemic functional grammar (SFG) is an approach to language
developed mainly by Michael Halliday in the U.K. during the 1960s. It is the part
of a broad social semiotic approach to language called systemic functional
linguistics. The term “systemic” means “a network of systems, or interrelated
sets of options for making meaning”. The term “functional” tells us that the
approach focuses on meaning rather than formal grammar.
SFG explains how the language is used. According to Halliday, 1994: xiv,
SFG is a lexico-grammatical theory grounds upon the notion of choice where
language and/or any other semiotic system for that matter, is interpreted as
“networks of interlocking options”. In other words, SFG is concerned primarily
with the choices the grammar makes available to the speakers and writers. These
choices relate speakers‟ and writers‟ intentions to the concrete forms of a
language. Grammar choices are viewed in terms of either the content or the
structure of the language used. In SFG, language is analyzed in three different

strata: semantics, phonology and lexico-grammar. SFG presents a view of
language in terms of both structure (grammar) and words (lexis), and “lexico
grammar” describes this combined approach. In more detail, Halliday's SFG
consists of three metafunctions: textual, interpersonal, and ideational. All three
12


metafunctions contribute to the meaning of what is said but are usually
represented by different parts of the message (Thompson 2004: 30). While the
ideational metafunction embodies the world of experience; the interpersonal
metafuntion sets up language as a medium through which interactional meaning
such as attitudes, judgements and feelings are expressed; and the last one, the
textual metafunction looks at how the information is ordered, organized and
presented.
The ideational metafunction
Transitivity is a key analytic component to examine the ideational
metafunction of language. Transitivity includes six types of process: Material,
Mental, Relational, Behavioral, Verbal and Existential. The table 1 below
presents a summary of these process types:
Summary of process types (adapted from Halliday, 1994: 143)
Process type

1. Material

Action
Event
2. Behavioral


3. Mental

Perception
Affection
Cognition

4. Verbal

5. Relational
Attribution

Identification
Possession
6. Existential

The interpersonal metafunction
The interpersonal metafunction consists of language features aimed at
interacting with others. These features include asking for and providing
information and expressing attitudes (which involve the mood structure of
English (i.e. whether the clause is a declarative or interrogative clause, for
14


example).
In other words, this metafunction relates to a text's aspects of tenor or
interactivity. Like field, tenor comprises three component areas: the
speaker/writer persona, social distance, and relative social status. Social distance
and relative social status are applicable only to spoken texts. The speaker/writer
persona concerns the stance, personalization and standing of the speaker or
writer. This involves looking at whether the writer or speaker has a neutral
attitude, which can be seen through the use of positive or negative language.

Social distance means how close the speakers are, e.g. how the use of nicknames
shows the degree to which they are intimate. Relative social status asks whether
they are equal in terms of power and knowledge on a subject, for example, the
relationship between a mother and child would be considered unequal. Focuses
here are on speech acts (e.g. whether one person tends to ask questions and the
other speaker tends to answer), who chooses the topic, turn management, and
how capable both speakers are of evaluating the subject.
The textual metafunction
The textual metafunction is concerned with the organization of the
message (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 30) and is realized in texts through
features such as cohesion (e.g. ellipsis, substitution, lexical cohesion) and
thematic structure.
In short, CDA and SFL have a common interest in the link between
language and society. CDA uses SFL as a tool to analyze texts and discourses.
SFL is of special interest to CDA, mainly due to its focus on language use, its
informative and social functions. Other linguistic models are also useful to CDA
but they may lack strong attraction to CDA analysts due to their emphasis on
syntactic structure and less on functional aspects of language. SFG is now used
world-wide, particularly in language education, and for purposes of discourse
analysis.
1.4. Norman Fairclough and CDA
15


Within the CDA field, one of the most dominant approaches for analyzing
discourse was developed by Fairclough in the 1980s and it has been revisited in
several publications thereafter. Fairclough's method is based on the formulation
that the way people produce and interpret language is ultimately affected and
controlled by power. Fairclough explains it through the following process: the
way people produce and interpret language is affected by their experiences of the

world, and experiences are affected by social organization, which, in turn, is
affected and controlled by power (1989: 25). To paraphrase, power dictates to a
considerable degree how the world works (e.g. the news is shaped by
commercialism and corporate interests), which, in turn, affects what kinds of
experiences (e.g. the experience of what reading news articles is like), and the
experiences affect aspects of language use (e.g. which point of view of an event
is prominent in everyday discussions). Therefore, in order to analyze texts, one
must analyze "the relationship between texts, processes, and their social
conditions [i.e.] the situational context and institutional and social structures".
This three-layer view of discourse is at the core of Fairclough's threedimensional model. The following quote summarizes the model in the most
concise and explicit manner:
I see discourse as a complex of three elements: social practice,
discoursal practice (text production, distribution and consumption), and text,
and the analysis of a specific discourse calls for analysis in each of these three
dimensions and their interrelations. The hypothesis is that significant
connections exist between features of texts, ways in which texts are put together
and interpreted, and the nature of the social practice.
Fairclough 1995: 74

In other words, Fairclough's model of CDA divides discourse into three
distinct aspects: the physical text (spoken or written), the discourse practice, and
the social practice. Furthermore, Fairclough stresses the importance of analyzing
16


how these three levels affect one another within any given discourse. The model,
therefore, provides a complex framework for analyzing various aspects of
discourse and language use.
Text (Description)
The first level of analysis consists of the text itself. This level concerns,

for example, the grammatical (e.g. modality and transitivity; Fairclough 1995:
134)

and lexical choices of the writer (e.g. metaphors and synonyms; Blommaert

and Bulcaen 2000:448). For Fairclough (1989: 26), "Description is the stage
which is concerned with formal properties of text”. In other words, linguistic
features of the text are to be explored in the descriptive stage. For the purpose
that they can be understood more clearly, he also posts ten key questions together
with more other sub-questions, which mainly involved vocabulary section,
grammar section, and textual structures section (Fairclough, 1989). The section
of vocabulary mainly deals with the choice of different words; grammar is about
the grammatical features, which has a close relation with Halliday's systemicfunctional grammar whereas the textual structures part concerns the whole
structures of the discourse.
Discursive Practice (Interpretation)
Fairclough (1989) says "interpretation is concerned with the relationship
between text and interaction with seeing the text as the product of a process of
production, and as recourse in the process of interpretation" (p.26). In the
interpretation stage, the relationship between the discourse and its production
and its consumption should be interpreted. Besides, discourse is not only
regarded as text but also a discursive practice in this stage, which means apart
from analyzing linguistic features and text structure, attention should be drawn to
other factors such as speech act and intertextuality. These factors link the text to
its context.
This dimension (text as discursive practice) includes two processes. One
17