You must have stopped yourself at some point and asked: "What the hell is Critical Discourse Analysis anyway?" Everybody does at some point. It's ok, you don't have to be embarrassed. And in any case, you'll have a better idea after you've read this:

Defining Characteristics of Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis came out of Continental Europe in the 1990’s as an approach to dealing with how power relationships are reflected and enacted in discourse. It emerged in reaction to the “uncritical” paradigms of the 1960s and 70s (van Dijk: 2001. 352). CDA is neither method, nor theory, it is simply a perspective which its proponents use to inform their studies. CDA practitioners reject the notion that science can be conducted without bias. To guide this perspective, the founders of CDA have summarized 8 main tenets:

1. CDA addresses social problems
2. Power relations are discursive
3. Discourse constitutes society and culture
4. Discourse does ideological work
5. Discourse is historical
6. Link between text and society is mediated
7. Discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory
8. Discourse is a form of social action

These tenets are a mix on concepts and directives. Using these, CDA practitioners attempt to go beyond merely describing discourse into actually explaining discourse in terms of power, dominance, and social structure.

CDA stresses an interdisciplinary approach. Indeed, CDA is not about studying language for the sake of linguistics, but as a means to learning about power relationships and their effects in society. It uses linguistic data to support (for example) sociological or psychological conclusions.

The CDA approach tends to rule out most normal conversations. Topics of study are chosen specifically for their social import or volatility. It is not, nor was it intended to be an overarching theory of discourse.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Critical Discourse Analysis

CDA provides us with an opportunity to use our knowledge of discourse to identify and address real social problems. Its concentration on interdisciplinary outreach gives us a platform for expanding the linguistic knowledge of others, and for learning analytical techniques from other fields.

At first blush, CDA is very appealing. The notion that linguistics can be more than simply academic, that we could help real people outside of the academic world is enticing. If “discourse is a social action,” then bringing to light the effects of that action is a noble thing indeed.

CDA produces some very interesting results when used to examine political discourse, or media discourse. Being open about the agenda with which one is approaching the data in these situations allows much more leeway in terms of analysis. It provides an easy way to address power and control.

In the end however, the very things that make it appealing, also make it unempirical and unconvincing. CDA is highly interpretive, and much of the work in the area seems to be driven by the perspective rather than the data. Because there is no specific methodology associated with CDA to keep the interpretive process in check, the analyst is free to draw and support almost any conclusion. This places a heavy burden of jurisprudence on the reader.

While CDA is capable of shedding light on some interesting issues, the overall approach is somewhat heavy handed. The anti-power/anti-establishment agenda comes through very strongly in the wording of the articles. There is not even a hint of objectivity. This damages the credibility of even the most interesting work in this area.