Critical Discourse Analysis Theory by Van Dijk

The theory proposed by Teun A. Van Dijk is the most interesting and excessively used. He elaborates some elements of discourse so it could be used practically. According to Van Dijk (2004: 352) Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is: a type of discourse analytical research that 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. With such dissident research, critical discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus want to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality.

The kinds of critical discourse analysis that he uses is often called as “Social Cognition”. He explains further that the study of discourse analysis is not adequate based on analysis on text since text is only the result of a production practice which must be perceived. Then, it also refers to see how the text is
produced, so the readers can understand why the products of a text as like that.

For example, there is a text that marginalized women, it is needed a research to see how the production’s process of text, why the text marginalized women.

Discourse Analysis: Macrostructure, Superstructure and Microstructure in Critical Discourse Analysis

According to Teun Van Dijk. There are three elements of critical discourse analysis as follows: macrostructure, superstructure and microstructure. 

Macrostructure
Macrostructure focused on the global meaning that more emphasize on the meaning of discourse theme or topic. It is described by Dijk (2003 in Rosidi paper, 2007: 11) as follows:

“The meaning of discourse is not limited to the meaning of its words and sentences. Discourse also has more 'global' meanings, such as 'topics' or 'themes'. Such topics represent the gist or most important information of a discourse, and tell us what a discourse 'is about', globally speaking. We may render such topics in terms of (complete) propositions such as 'Neighbors attacked Moroccans'. Such propositions typically appear in newspaper headlines.”

Discourse Analysis - Another Theory of Discourse Analysis By Sara Mills

Another theory of discourse has been brought by Sara Mills. She focused on discourse about feminism: how women appeared in a text, either in novel, picture,and photo or in a report. Therefore, what is done by Mills is often called as feminism perspective. The focus of feminism discursive perspective is to show how the text bias in showing women. Women often appeared in text as the wrong side, and marginal. Inequality and nasty delineation of women is being Mills focus.

The same thing about bias in showing women also happened in news report. The reports about rape, sexual insulting is some of reports appeared women as the object of the report. The focus of this discourse analysis is to show how women are marginalized in media and how the form of marginalization is done (Eriyanto 2005: 199).

An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis 2

In the same way as we need a general notion of power, which may also include form of resistance of counterpower, we need a general notion of ideology. Critical discourse analysis may then very well focus especially on the dominant groups and their ideologies. Here, are some theories of critical discourse analysis according to Norman Fairclough, Sara Mills and Teun Van Dijk. Firstly, according to Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 258) “CDA sees language as social practice” Critical Discourse Analysis is not only about the structures of text and talk, but essentially about structures of society, that is, about power, domination, inequality, oppression, marginalization, discrimination, and all other forms of power abuse perpetrated in and by language use, discourse, interaction and communication.

An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (1)

There are three paradigms of discourse analysis; Positivist Discourse Analysis, Interpretive discourse Analysis, and Critical Discourse Analysis. In positivist paradigm, language refers to the bond between human and the object out of him. Related with discourse analysis, the language researchers do not need to see the meaning or subjective value that underlay a statement. Positivist discourse analysis maintains to fulfill a set of syntactic and semantic principle. Semantics validity and syntactic accuracy is the main focus of this paradigm (Hikam in Eriyanto, 1996: 4-7).

Then he explains further, the proponent of interpretive paradigm refuses separation of human as subject with the object. Language can be understood by observing the subject. Human as subject is convinced able to restrain a certain aims in a discourse. And the last is critical discourse analysis; it is not only doing the textual interrogation but also revealing the relationship of the interrogation product with the macro-contextual behind the text. It is more specifically as a study on how the power misused or how the domination and also the inequality put into the community.