Critical Discourse Analysis
Van Dijk (1998a) states that Critical Discourse Analysis, (CDA), is a area that is involved with learning and assessing published and verbal text messages to expose the discursive resources of capability, popularity, inequality and prejudice. It investigates how these discursive resources are managed and duplicated within particular public, governmental and traditional situations. In a similar line of thinking, Fairclough (1993) describes CDA as
discourse analysis which is designed to consistently discover often solid connections of causality and dedication between (a) discursive methods, events and text messages, and (b) broader public and social components, interaction and processes; to look at how such methods, activities and text messages occur out of and are ideologically formed by interaction of capability and battles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these connections between discourse and community is itself a aspect obtaining capability and hegemony. (p. 135)
To put it simply, CDA is designed at making clear the connections between discourse methods, public methods, and public components, connections that might be solid to the layperson.
Fairclough & Chuliaraki (1999) assume that CDA has a appropriate participation to create and declare that, “the previous 20 years or so have been an interval of powerful financial public modification on an international scale” (p. 30). Although these changes are due to particular activities by individuals the changes have been recognized as “part of nature” (p. 4), that is, the developments have been recognized as organic and not due to individuals causal activities. The latest financial and public changes, according to Fairclough & Chuliaraki (1999), “are to a important level . . . changes in the terminology, and discourses” (p. 4), thus, CDA can help by theorizing changes and developing an attention “of what is, how it has come to be, and what it might become, on the reasons for which individuals may be able to create and rebuilding their lives” (p. 4). With such a purpose in thoughts, Chuliaraki and Fairclough (1999) declare that
Critical Discourse Analysis, of relationships places out to demonstrate that the semiotic and terminology functions of the relationships are constantly linked with what is going on culturally, and what is going on culturally is indeed going on partially or definitely semiotically or linguistically. Put in a different way, CDA constantly maps relationships of modification between the representational and non-symbolic, between discussion and the non-discursive. (p. 113)
The first systematic concentrate of Fairclough’s three-part design is written text. Research of text involves language analysis with regards to language, sentence structure, semantics, the sound system, and cohesion-organization above the phrase stage (Fairclough, 1995b: 57).
With in language investigation sementically there are most impotand things lexical investigation of text and sementic investigation as well (Fairclough, 1995b: 57-58). Fairclough also argues that some text having multidimensional meaning. Some texts having also needs investigation at the level of phonetics, that changed by him again.
Language analysis is involved with presences as well as absences in text messages that could consist of “representations, groups of personal, constructions of personal identification or personal relations” (Fairclough, 1995: 58).