Insights into CDA: Socio-cognitive Cultural Approach

The overall purpose of the study is to make visible various aspects of CDA. It presents various approaches to discourse analysis and critical discourse analysis to justify the adoption of certain models over others. A general theoretical account of the various influential approaches to the text will be presented first, followed by a critical approach next to arrive at their range of usefulness as a means to an end. Besides the absence of a general terminological consensus among text linguists, the fact is that there is no one generally accepted theory of discourse analysis that undertakes to provide the complete analysis of texts. While all text analysts acknowledge the fact that a text has structure, coherence, function, organisation, character and development, their approaches differ as to how each of these properties is realised and mutually related to other properties, hence the advantages of the eclectic approach which provides for the necessary step of integrating a variety of compatible systems of discourse analysis whenever these are found useful and adaptable to the requirements of each study. Such an approach, while lessening the problems of indeterminacy and partiality, remains just one model yielding one specific interpretation. However, variation in interpretations is resorvable and can ultimately be made definitive given a text and the same vital background information and approache(s).


Introduction to
of the University of East Anglia comprised a group of literary theorists and linguistics who put in extensive efforts to develop Critical Linguistics (CL).Their work has been inspired by the Halliday's Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL).According to Fowler et al. (1979, p. 188), language is an ideologically driven social act since the "relation between form and content is not arbitrary or conventional, but ... form signifies content".Halliday's view of language as a "social act" is central to many of CDA's practitioners (Fowler et al., 1979;Fairclough, 1989Fairclough, , 1992Fairclough, , 1993Fairclough, , 1995Fairclough, , 1995;;Fowler, 1991;Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999).
In a similar vein like his fellow CL practitioners, Trew (1979) aspires to extend the CL's analytical tools developed by Fowler and his peers based on the SFL.Trew attempted to contemplate the "isolating ideology in discourse" and established ideology and its beliefs as being perceptible mechanisms of linguistic processes and characteristics.The CL practitioners derived their inferences from the work of Halliday, and considered that language performs three simultaneous functions.They categorised these functions as interpersonal, ideational and textual.Fowler (1991) and Fairclough (1995) further refer the ideational function as the interpretation of what speakers would have experienced in the past and been influenced by the world and its happenings while the personal attitudes and assessments of any particular speaker would add an interpersonal dimension to the whole scenario.This insertion by the speaker tends to connect him with the listeners.The textual function is, however, considered to be the most instrumental as the other two functions are dependent upon it to connect with the audience and listeners.The textual function of the linguistics gives authority to the speaker to convey the text understood by the listeners.It is a connecting function that allows the connection between discourse and co-text and context in any particular setting.
Halliday reflects language as a social act and his point of is adopted by several CDA practitioners in their theories, like Chouliaraki, Fairclough, & Fowler et al., and Hodge & Kress who strongly support and establish the language as an essential element of the social factor.Fowler, Hodge, Kress, & Trew (1979) identify that CL, like other sociolinguistics, emphasises the relation that persists between the language and the social factors.The CL upholds that the linguistic structure and the social structure are associated in a pervasive relation.Contrary to the sociolinguistics concepts where language and society are considered as two separate entities and propose to build a link between them, CL considers language to be an essential and inseparable element of the social activities.Fowler et al. (1979) assume that both the CDA and SFL support the fact that speakers make deliberate or unconscious choices to choose grammar and vocabulary in a more systematic and principled manner.Ideological perceptions are the driving force that influences these choices.Fowler et al state that there exists a significant relation between form and content as the form has a logical implication to define the content.To conclude, it can be said that language can be considered as a social tool that is influenced by the pertaining ideological beliefs.
Van Dijk (1998) and Chouliaraki & Fairclough (1999) recognise that the scope of the CL most frequently referred to as CDA has undergone major developments over the years.The progress in recent work identified a few areas of concern in the earlier work done in respect of CL.Recent developments and discourse analysts that highlighted how the audience perceives and interprets the discourse must be acknowledged as a distinguished feature.It has also been proposed to further extend the scope of analysis beyond its traditional inclusion of textual level only and proffered to include the intertextual analysis as equally essential.Fairclough is a strong proponent of both the considerations.He advocates that the earliest works conducted in CL have proved inadequate to deal with the interpretive behaviours of the audiences.He recognises that the CL wrongly maintains the assumption that the interpretation of the audience is similar to that of the analyst.Boyd Barrett (1994) also supports his claim by commenting on Fowler (1991).He asserts that if textual analysis is relied upon solely, than there is great possibility that the false readings might be attributed to the readers and there are more chances of creating fallacy media effects.
Fairclough also raises further concerns regarding the contributions made to CL during the earliest stages.His reasoning is established on the fact that precedent works have focused more on the analysis of the grammatical and lexical aspects while neglecting and overlooking the intertextual analysis altogether.More emphasis was given to the clauses whereas scholars were less attentive to address the higher-level organisation characteristics of the entire text.Although Fairclough (1995) identified and questioned certain limitations concurrent in the critical linguistics he also declared that these confining elements do not mar the significance and achievement of CL, but these are mentioned only to highlight the shifting focuses and recent developments in the theoretical framework over the span of more than two decades.The evolution in the CL has greatly shifted the momentum of the theory but it is not considered the sole creator of the current theoretical framework.Bell & Garret (1998) perceive that CDA adapts and combines approaches from multiple schools of thought and does not represent any particular approach.The same view is supported by van Dijk (1998) who suggests that CDA is not based on any single uniform theoretical framework and hence does not provide any definite research trend.However, as the CDA supports general aims and displays a common perspective, it is more likely to observe a holistic relation between the theoretical and conceptual frameworks that constitute the theory.
There are several profound scholars who have made significant contributions in the development process of CDA.Van Dijk, Wodak and Fairclough are regarded as the most insightful practitioners in this field.

Van Dijk's Socio-cognitive Model
Van Dijk is greatly respected as the most referred and quoted practitioner in the field of media discourse.The broad spectrum of his work has been often cited and mentioned by critical analysts not only in the media discourse-related studies but also implied into researches that do not essentially portray the perspective of the CDA.During the era of the 1980's, van Dijk's focus shifted more towards representing the various minorities and ethnic groups existing in Europe.He was keener to investigate the media texts by applying his discourse analytical theories in the above-mentioned context.He developed his analysis further in 1988 by incorporating his earlier work of general discourse with the more contemporary news in the press.He attempted to carry out his analysis by studying various authentic news reports from national and international sources.Van Dijk's presented a distinguished framework for analysing the news discourse.According to Boyd Barrett (1994), his work is characterised by his belief that textual feature and the structure of the media discourse must be thoroughly assessed along with a need to understand and comprehend how the texts are produced and received.Van Dijk's structural analysis is based on a detailed analysis of the various levels of the description.He not only involves the basic levels of grammar, phonology, morphology and semantics, he also assesses higher level properties, forms and dimensions of the text.Although coherence, topics and themes of recent news and the symbolic and schematic formations of the text are part of his structural analysis, according to him, this analysis is still not sufficient as discourse is a complicated communicative event that involves the social environment, the participants, and how the communication is being produced and received.Van Dijk holds that discourse should not be mistaken as a merely isolated structure of text and dialogue.
Van Dijk describes the production processes as an event that involves news-making practices carried out at the journalistic and institutional level.He says that the economic and social factors not only deeply influence the conception of media discourse; they have a dynamic and explicit relation with its structures.Yet the other parameter of van Dijk's structural analysis deals with the reception processes that assesses how news information is comprehended, memorised and reproduced.The analysis of media was carried out by van Dijk at microstructure and macrostructure levels to categorise the news test production process into three levels as (a) structure, (b) production, and (c) comprehension, and attempts to interrelate the three with each other and with the broader social context.
The elements that give rationality and factuality to the text and authenticate the news report are the basis of analysis at the microstructure level.It is identified that there exists a semantic connection between propositions, arrangement of the sentence (syntactic), vocabulary (lexicon), other rhetorical elements and the practices of quoting and direct or indirect reporting.However, the macrostructure analysis requires central attention as it deals with the holistic schemata and the thematic structure of the news stories and thus acquire an essential status.It is evident that the headlines and the opening paragraphs carry the topics and themes of the news information.Van Dijk very rightly concludes that readers usually memorise and infer more about the news report from the headlines which are responsible for making the discourse more coherent and semantically united.He declares that the information expressed in the lead paragraph and headlines mainly reflect the cognitive model of how a journalist perceives and defines particular news information.According to him, the readers more often believe the important information presented unless they have any other clashing views or knowledge pertaining to the specific subjective media.
Van Dijk (1998) attempts to classify the structure of news schemata based on the specific narrative pattern.This includes the summary in the form of headlines and the lead paragraph, a story that narrates the situation's episode and backgrounds, and at the end the consequences that include the final comments and the conclusion.According to van Dijk, the headlines "define the overall coherence or semantic unity of discourse, and also what information readers memorize best from a news report" (1988, p. 238).The news stories are sequenced such that these sections contain the relevant information as the summary (headline and the lead paragraph) present the general information.Van Dijk says that readers have a higher tendency to memorise and later recall the information that is presented in the summary.Van Dijk (1995) comprehends and ascertains that discourse analysis can be essentially termed as ideology analysis.According to him, "ideologies are typically, though not exclusively, expressed and reproduced in discourse and communication, including non-verbal semiotic messages, such as pictures, photographs and movies" (1995, p. 17).He perceives that ideologies are articulated and expressed in discourse.The verbal, non-verbal and semiotic messages are, to some extent, great communicative mediums that allow ideologies to be reproduced and expressed.He conducted a three-tier analysis to investigate the ideologies and adapted a social, cognitive and discourse analysis approach in this regard.His social analysis deals with examining the various aspects of society while the discourse analysis is focuses on investigating the syntactic, lexical, schematic structures of the text.Van Dijk's framework for media discourse analysis integrates two more conventional and traditional approaches of the media education presented earlier.He incorporated text-based interpretive approach with context-based societal structure for his in-depth analysis.Van Dijk's managed to attain a distinctive edge over other approaches; the cognitive analysis adds yet another dimension to his approach and distinguishes it from the rest.According to his findings, socio-cognition comprising the social and personal context is the mediating factor for bringing society and discourse together.He explains that the behaviours and mental representations of members of a particular group constitute a social cognition system.To summarise van Dijk's assessment, ideologies can be defined as the collective social behaviours that are derived from abstract mental systems.It is thus deduced that ideologies determine the personal cognition of the particular group in an indirect manner and their efforts to comprehend the discourse among other actions and interactions is greatly influenced by the ideological processes.Social actions and interactions are responsible for creating mental representations of individuals which van Dijk labels as models.According to his interpretation, the models determine the individual's behaviour, speech, written communication and the independent interpretation of the activities of the other individual's in the society.However, it gives rise to a crucial situation as the mental representations have a predisposition to build upon an Us versus Them segregation.It is usually observed among the speakers of a particular group that they portray themselves and their group members in a positive manner while presenting the other groups as negative.Van Dijk's research and writing extensively address the contrastive dimension with the objective analysing and make explicit the ideological dichotomy.He provides a framework to be applied if one wishes to analyse the Us versus Them discourse and suggests that: a. Analyse the historical, social background and political nature and the major participants to the conflict in order to comprehend the context of the discourse.b.Inspect the groups, the relations based on phenomenon of power and study the nature of the conflicts involved.e. Investigate the lexicon and syntactic structure in a more formal manner to accentuate or deemphasise the opinions of the group that exhibit partiality.(1998, pp. 61-63)

Wodak's Insight on Discourse Sociolinguistics
Working together with her colleagues, Wodak's (1995) analysis through the Viennay School of Discourse is related to the Discourse Sociolinguistics side of the CDA.Her model is completely galvanised by the Jürgen Habermas' concepts of the Frankfurt School and therefore the linguistics ideas within the Bernsteinian tradition.The whole of her work is aimed at explaining the discourse linguistics.
Discourse Sociolinguistics is linguistics that is not solely and expressly devoted to the reading of the particular text, but also keeps both elements with balanced significance.It has the capacity to distinguish and explain the core processes that can negatively affect the discourse that are inherent during a specific context, no matter if they be within the specific media's structure and performance, or in establishments like a school or a hospital, and have an effect on communication.
Wodak developed an approach on the discourse of anti-Semitism in 1990 and she termed it as discourse historical method.She sought "to integrate systematically all available background information in the analysis and interpretation of the many layers of a written or spoken text" (Wodak, 1995, p. 209).Wodak researched different institutional configurations such as legal courts, educational institutions and medical centres, and various public problems such as racism, adultery as well as anti-Semitism.In 1990, she conducted an extended research to investigate anti-Semitism and contributed to the ideas' development that she referred to as discussion traditional or historical strategy.The word "historical" has a unique place during this strategy.It signifies a part of this strategy that continually incorporates all the market qualifications information within the research and presentation of the several levels of an itemised or verbal text (Wodak, 1995).The outcome of Wodak's work and the research of her colleagues revealed that the perspective of the discussion had a big effect on the framework, performance, and perspective of the anti-Semitic voices.Targeting the traditional contexts of discussion within the method of clarification and presentation may be a function that differentiates this strategy from substitute techniques of CDA, particularly from the one presented by van Dijk.Similar to Fairclough, the discourse historical method approach is driven by the belief that language "manifests social processes and interaction" and "constitutes" those processes as well (Wodak & Ludwig, 1999, p. 12).Observing the languages in this perspective requires at least three factors.Discourse "always involves power and ideologies.No interaction exists where power relations do not prevail and where values and norms do not have a relevant role" (ibid.).Second, "discourse … is always historical, that is, it is connected synchronically and diachronically with other communicative events which are happening at the same time or which have happened before" (Wodak, Ruth, Ludwig, & Christoph, 1999).This is similar to Fairclough's notion of intertextuality.
The third feature of Wodak's approach is that of interpretation.According to Wodak & Ludwig (ibid.,p. 13), discussion always includes ideologies, concepts and force.No connections prevail where energy interactions do not succeed and where principles and standards do not have an appropriate role.The second factor identifies that traditional discourse may display a synchronised or diachronic link with other activities related to communication which are occurring simultaneously or which have occurred before.The third factor of the strategy is that of presentation.Wodak and Ludwig are of the view that the visitors and audience, their qualifications information and their place are the determining factors due to which they might have different understanding of the same communication presented on particular occasion.Hence, they affirm that no accurate presentation ever exists.Therefore, Wodak & Ludwig (1999) assert that "THE RIGHT interpretation does not exist; a hermeneutic approach is necessary.Interpretations can be more or less plausible or adequate, but they cannot be true" (emphasis in original) (ibid., p. 13).Ludwig & Wodak further declare that the interpretations may tend to be more or less possible or sufficient, but they cannot be true.This point was also been brought up by (Fairclough, 1995)  Chuliaraki & Fairclough have hypothesised that CDA is always being developed.They declare that few years at the turn of this century saw an interval of powerful financial community modification on an international scale.They deem that the behaviour of the people determines the changes and these changes are considered to be the part of the natural processes.These transformations and changes are recognised as organic and are not due to people's causal activities.According to Fairclough & Chuliaraki (1999), the latest changes observed in the financial aspects and the community are, to a greater extent, the changes in the discourse and the terminology.It is also conceived that these transformational changes and awareness can be best theorised in the context of CDA.CDA plays an important role in that the occurrence and further development in these changes may eventually be the deriving logic on which people base the building and transformation of their lives.Fairclough & Chuliaraki declare that while a critical analysis of the communicative interaction establishes that semiotic aspect and the linguistic characteristic have a systematic connection with the happenings in the society, these happenings may be either partially or entirely semiotic or linguistic in nature.In other words, CDA also theorise how the changes relate between the representational and non-symbolic, between the non-discursive and discussion.
CDA's approach is to apply analytical focus in three contexts in order to study the communicative interaction.These focuses are text, discussion exercise and sociocultural practice (1995) and they are very similar to van Dijk's three sizes of philosophy analysis: discussion, socio-cognition, and communal structural analysis respectively.What is apparently the real distinction between the strategy of van Dijk & Fairclough is the second sizing, and this is what arbitrates between the other two.While van Dijk thinks community information and psychological designs are the factors that mediate between discussion and the community, his counterpart is of the opinion that this procedure is considered by discussion practices which include how text is manufactured and consumed (1995).Pertaining to this context, these two CDA techniques are absolutely the same in conception (Fairclough, 1995).

Fairclough's Analysing of Communicative Event Approach
Fairclough (1995) applied text as the primary focus while analysing his three-part model.He attempted to analyse the grammar, vocabulary, phonetics, coherence and cohesion, and semantics.The linguistic analysis investigates the semantic properties and the lexical grammar of the text.It is noteworthy that these two elements of text are mutually related and influence each other.

a) Text
Fairclough maintains the stance presented by the SFL, that is, a multifunctional prospective of the text.He proposes that the analysis of the sentences created in the form of text must articulate three functions, namely, relations, identities and representations.It is critical to consider the function that involves the particular ideologies representation.The ideational function is implemented to analyse how social practices are the recontextualised.It is equally important to investigate the process of constructing the identities of the authors and readers.Distinguishing the status and personal aspects of the identity is one area that it deals with.Another aspect of the analysis addresses how the particular relationship is built between the writer and reader as to whether they exhibit formal or informal interactions or they are closely related or are distant from each other.Fairclough (1995) recommends that the inclusions and exclusions in the texts have significant implications in the linguistic analysis.As per his proposition, the presences and absences must be given due consideration as they are responsible for representations, creating the identity of the participants as well as establishing the participant relations.b) Discourse practice Fairclough (1995) classifies this dimension in two aspects: (a) institutional process and (b) the discourse processes.According to him, these modules deal with the editorial processes on the institutional level whilst the changes made to the text during the process of production and consumption is covered under the discourse process modules.He believes that the discourse practices addresses both the society and culture in one instance while simultaneously dealing with the text, discourse and linguistic structures.This is shown in Fairclough (1992, p. 73) as illustrated in figure 5

•
CDA addresses social problems.
• Power relations are discursive.
• Discourse constitutes society and culture, and is constituted by them.
• Discourse does ideological work: representing and constructing society by reproducing unequal relations of power.

•
Discourse is historical and is connected to previous, contemporary and subsequent discourses.

•
Relations between text and society are mediated, and a socio-cognitive approach is needed to understand these links.

•
Discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory and implies a systematic methodology and an investigation of context

•
Discourse is a form of social action.
To sum up, CDA is envisaged as a three-dimensional framework that examines text, discourse practice, and social practice (Fairclough, 1995;Leitch & Davenport, 2005).Discourse practice includes the understanding of how the participants produce and interpret texts that is, they give "attention to processes of text production, distribution and consumption" (Fairclough, 1995, p. 9).

Socio-cultural Scenario
According to Fairclough, any communicative event in a particular socio-cultural setting can be analysed in three contexts, that is, the economic structure of the media, the ideologies and beliefs to which it pertains and lastly, the prevailing cultural ethics.Fairclough further disclose that any particular event may not require analysis at all the above mentioned levels, thus it is advisable to adopt the most appropriate level of research for that event.

Examining Press Discussion-Additional Concerns
Fairclough (1995) states the importance of considering the political and economic aspects of mass media in a communicative event.He further posits that the market scenario and the how the media connects with the state and power groups are a few of the important factors that require great attention.The accessibility of the media and how the texts are produced and consumed by the media must also be given significant consideration.

a) Accessibility to media
The accessibility to media has always been a matter of concern.Fairclough says that not many people are denied equivalent access to the media as they might not be approached to write, speak or broadcast themselves.
Fairclough blames the undue pressure created by the various institutes and other professionals that regulate mass media practices.In other words, only the economically, politically or culturally powerful groups control the media.Van Dijk (1985) identifies the significance of accessibility to the discourse media.He says that very rarely, media can be accessed by the common people as generally the elite are more privileged to exploit media discourse to impact the various contexts and determine the textual forms and style.
b) Economy of the media Fairclough (1995) says that the economic aspect has great influence in determining the practices and construction of text in any organisation.Economics is considered a major determinant and is regarded as a significant property of the media.It is important to note that as media activities involve profit making activities, the economic aspect cannot be neglected.Chomsky (1989) and Fairclough (1995) correctly point out that media have activities are targeted at selling the product for profitable returns.According to the two researchers' assessment, the media sells the intention of the audiences to potential advertising agencies.In this process, the mass media are also exposed to the pressures of commercial activities, as so rightly mentioned by Fairclough.
Folwer's case study indicates that the press also faces the same challenging situation of what news should published and what should be omitted and equally important is the manner in which these news are presented.Chomsky (1989), Hackett (1991), Wintonick, Peter & Mark Achbar, 1994), and Winter (2000) conducted relevant researches and work in this regard and focused primarily on the economic aspects of social media.They identified that economic and advertising practices are pivotal in critical media studies.
Analysis carried out by Chomsky (1989), Hackett (1991), Fairclough (1995) and Winter (2000) proposed the view that the issues of ownership of the mass media, and in particular concentrated ownership, exert greater impact on media discourse.Fairclough also states that in the West, the commercial media is mostly owned by little large cooperation.The work by Winter & Hassanpour (1994) also shows similar results.According to their analysis, the Southam chain and Globe & Mail (Thomson Corporation) are two prominent organisations that own the major share of up to 59% of the Canadian Daily newspaper, and they are corporations with other vested interests.
Fairclough acknowledges that the influence of the concentration of ownership "manifests itself in various ways, including the manner in which media organisations are structured to ensure that the dominant voices are those of the political and social establishment, and in the constraints on access to the media" (Fairclough, 1995, p. 43).
c) The politics of media Fairclough (1996) suggests that if it is desired to conduct media analysis, then it is critical to involve the existing politics in the media.Fishman (1980), Chomsky (1989), Fowler, (1991), Hackett (1991), van Dijk (1991) and Fairclough (1995) have criticised and argued that commercial media is the instrument of those who have the authority.Mainstream media activities are, on the whole directed at promoting the ideological processes of the state or the elites.Fairclough (1995) is a proponent of the fact that media discourses impact social relations and determine how these relations exert dominance and exploitation, although he also recognises that very often the interests of the media may not be in compliance with those of the state and hence conflicts arise at this point.He exemplifies his prepositions by quoting the role that American television played during the time of the Vietnam War.The images of the war shown on the television stirred up the people to be against the atrocities of war.
Chomsky's observation is that the elite, who are a dominant group that aggressively exploits media with the intention of frequently criticising the practices of the state and the big corporations.The apparent objective is to present themselves as the advocates of freedom of speech and as supporters of the interests that benefit the general community.However, while criticisms have been raised, it has also been identified that the role of the state in the West has no obvious impact on the mass media.While no considerable influence of the state over the media activities could be established, it has raised questions about how media could, then, be labelled as the tool of the powerful.
Analysts such as Chomsky (1989) and van Dijk (1998) recognise the powerful role of media in creating or changing the consent of the people.The idea of hegemony was highlighted by Fairclough &Hackett (1991), andGramsci (1985) to describe this particular practice.Chuliaraki & Fairclough (1999) attempted to articulate this concept by examining the impact of hegemony in relations.According to their view, hegemony creates domination in relations, not through coercion or force, but it succeeds by the process of naturalisation and consent.
Hackett is of the opinion that it is not possible for any power to exert its influence while imposing force.His observation is based on the particular scenario that pertains to the democratic political environments in the U.S and Canada.These countries have a large number of literate populations and their history displays more freedom for expression and allows the people the right to elect.In such democratic settings, the consent of the public is the decisive factor.Hence, according to Chomsky (1989), van Dijk (1998), Hackett (1991) and Fowler (1991), the ruling parties adopt a persuasive approach to influence the public in order to establish their domination.Media is also considered as one of the powerful tools in this persuasion of the people for their consent.

d) Media Practices Text Production and Consumption
How texts are produced and consumed are the most significant components in the practices of media.According to Fairclough, (1995), Fowler (1991) and van Dijk, (1993) the routine of gathering and selecting the news and then the process of scripting and editing them are what constitute production, and consumption includes the ways and kinds in which the readers of written text (the press) read and understand the text.
One essential practice of text production is the selection of news reports, since the material exceeds the space available thus making it impossible for all news to reach the newscast.Thus, this very process involves deciding on what news to be published or what should be opted out.Carruthers (2000) recognises that the selection criteria is that newsworthiness is not an inbuilt attribute of endeavours and news matter; it is in fact governed by the institutional practices and construction of the news.Consequently, the mechanism of the press is a partial one which has a reputation of distorting and adjudicating the events and information, and it is believed it is not a real world (Fowler, 1991, p. 11).
As Fairclough (1995) claims, the process of selection by both the media and journalists also involves the choosing of sources of information, such as who gets quoted or heard in the news and who gets interviewed.It is observed that the news production processes are inherently dependent on limited sources for the collection of the information.Most often, the journalists heavily depend on a low faction of officials and have very few lawful mediums, and this reliance is built upon through a careful networking of contacts and processes to acquire and validate the collected facts.
According to Fairclough (1995), ordinary people, unlike officials, are allowed to speak about their personal experiences instead of their opinions on an issue when they are used as a source.Fairclough (1995) and Fowler (1991) stated that in order to maintain their ownership and high profitability, the media has exhibited great tendency to rely on the status quo.Due to this, as said by Fairclough, there is "a predominantly established view of the world, manifested textually in, for instance, ways in which the reporting of speech is treated" (Fairclough, 1995, p. 49).A news article becomes ready to be read and comprehended (i.e., ready for consumption) once it goes through the process of production, but the manner in which it will be received has always been a matter of concern in the analysis of media discourse as proposed by Boyd Barrett (1994), Fairclough (1995), Fowler (1991) and Widdowson (1998).It is the discourse analysts who are behind the assumptions regarding how the audience reads the text and understands it, and very often, they interpret texts on their own.It raises the question of how the discourse analysts presume what the audience will receive and comprehend of the media discourse and what the impacts of this information will be.It can be rightly said that all analysts that including CDA practitioners, agree that the interpretation of different texts varies with the audience.This also is one of the strongest arguments which CDA critics Fairclough (1996) and Widdowson (1995) have against the discourse analysts whose own interpretations are the basis for conclusions in connection with the impact of media discourse on audiences.It was the CDA practitioners who first recognized that the reading of similar texts varied with different readers (Fairclough, 1995, pp. 15-16).Similarly, van Dijk (1993) identified media recipients as active and, up to a point, are independent information users and their interpretations and opinions may be different from the newspaper and news reports.This may also imply that saying how people read a news report and interpret it may not be possible.
However, CDA practitioners do believe otherwise, and there are at least two reasons for that.The first is that readers might not have the skills to read the text critically, as mentioned by Fowler (1991) andvan Dijk (1991).
The second reason is that audiences deduce the texts based on their previous knowledge and the one they already have in relation to that subject (van Dijk, 1993).However, it is rather ironic to know that as stated by van Dijk, "for specific types of social and political events ... the news media are the main source of information and beliefs used to form the interpretation framework for such events" (van Dijk, 1993, p. 242).Fairclough argues against the notion that texts do not have any meaning until they are interpreted by the readers.He acknowledges that although the readings may exhibit variable patterns, it is self-evident that any specific reading is considered as a product of the characters in a text and how the text is interpreted by the reader.He ascertains that there is a relationship between the actual properties of any text and the interpretative practices in order to understand the text.It is also important to note that the nature of the text may tend to delimit or constrain the true potential of how it is interpreted.Fairclough strongly believes that it is critical to involve the actual interpretative response of the audience in the discourse analysis of the text.According to his preposition, including the reception studies greatly facilitate the process of identifying the meanings and impacts of the texts.He also proposes that text analysis is pivotal in media analysis, specifically when the production and consumption analysis is also given its due importance.

Foucault, Bourdieu, and Gramsci
As a conclusion of all Foucault's works on CDA, he maintains the stance that since discourse can be used to construct and regulate social relations and knowledge; it is a non-neutral medium for describing the world.Another related key analytical concept in relation to the same is Bourdieu's notion of "habitus" (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 54) which is said to influence the mental processes.These set of deeply interiorised master-patterns may create an impact in a more indirect manner which is neither obvious nor regulated.The habits allow the individuals to identify and create possibilities which others may not be able to recognize, but it should also be kept in mind that these habits and perceptions in other instances also limit any individual.Bourdieu argues that the dominant groups' power in society is what guarantees the dominance of their habitus over others.He also gives the example that educational practices give an edge to the dominant group to legalise the outcomes which are considered important and same educational processes are adapted to help hypothesise the habitus characteristics of subordinate groups as failure.
Bourdieu's complementary notion of "doxa" has a useful implication for studying the habitus and its behaviour in the settings it is attuned into.This leads to formulation of assumptions which are viewed as normal and natural, and are obviously evident.Doxa functions to distinguish what can be supposed or what falls under the category of simply being unthinkable.This proposes that if certain beliefs and social actions exhibit any tendency to challenge and be in conflict with the existing and more dominant standards of the society, then they may be labelled as absurd and unthinkable (ibid.).
CDA also draws on the neo-Marxist theorisations of controlling and exhibiting power.It concludes that socially constructed language is a manifestation of the indiscrimination that prevails in a society.It is also considered as a major tool applied by the powerful as a means to effectuate significantly what "hegemony" is, as described by Gramsci. Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) is an Italian Marxist activist and political theorist who produced an extensive work during the late 20s and early era of the 1930s.In his seminal Selections from a Prison Notebook (Gramsci, 1971), he outlines his idea of hegemony, which he conceives either as negatively or positively.The negative aspect is an attempt to portray how the power has reigned over and controlled society in the fascist and capitalist contexts, such as in the situation in Italy during that era.The hegemony may likewise also display a more positive alternative to economic and political dominations in a more equitable manner.
The above illustrates that consensus and ideologies are two powerful tools a political system applies to maintain its dominance.They are particularly identified as being less coercive yet are effective alternatives for the state departments, judiciary, army and police (ibid.).Gramsci labels this coercive apparatus the mode of "domination" which allows the dominant classes to maintain their power through force.Equally powerful and influential are the institutions of society, like the church, the education system and the media and political groupings and these ruling groups have frequently exploited these institutions to persuade the public to believe in their ideological beliefs and rule (Buttigieg, 2005).Hegemony derives its consensual character from persuasion and promoting values, ideals and beliefs that are commonly shared and accepted.Gramsci, quoting the examples of Fordism in the USA and Church in Italy, established that these shared beliefs are class-based and are the beliefs of the dominant classes (Gramsci, 1971;Gramsci, 1985).
The intrinsic values of the ideologies and the behaviour over others are what these institutions promoted.While the church emphasised the idea of a divine master plan, loyalty to itself and the legitimised state, and that compensation for the suffering on Earth will be provided in the afterlife, Fordism supported and proposed the practice of work ethic, and also attempted to persuade the workers that the capitalist approach must be validated by economics, and consequently, by the implementation of bourgeois aspirations.Gramsci states that economies which have much larger scale production ensure much higher wages and comparatively lower cost of products.Nevertheless, it has is "relatively easy to rationalize production and labour by a skilful combination of force (destruction of working-class trade unionism on a territorial basis) and persuasion (high wages, various social benefits, extremely subtle ideological and political propaganda) and thus succeed in making the whole life of the nation revolve around production.Hegemony here is born in the factory and requires for its exercise only a minute quantity of professional political and ideological intermediaries" (Gramsci, 1971, p. 285).
Ernesto Laclau & Chantal Mouffe (1985) have influentially contributed to the concept of CDA by reworking on the hegemony idea embedded in Gramscian discourse approach.In this context, hegemonic struggle is perceived as controversy and conflict over particular convictions/visions with an assumedly universal status.For example, the neo-liberal phenomenon from the globalisation point of view.It is one movement which is not commanded by anyone in particular yet it makes liberal efforts to establish social justice, promotes democracy, supports war against terrorism and brings liberalised economic reform.The clashes and convictions of the world are highlighted and presented in a clear discursive manner.

Hyatt: A Framework of Analysis
Hyatt (2003,2005,2007,2010) proposes a set of criteria that allows researchers, learners and teachers to look at elements of the text at a "micro" lexico-grammatical level as well as to consider the impact of such choices at more "macro" semantic and societal levels.This approach is informed by key work in systemic linguistics (Hunston, & Thompson, 2000;Martin, 2000) in the field of CDA (Fairclough, 1995) and Critical Literacy (Luke & Freebody, 1997).
Orientation questions for frame application (Hyatt, 2005) • Is this a typical text of its type?
• Who produced this?
• Who will read it?
• Will everyone understand this text in the same way?
• Why was it produced?

•
In what other ways could it have been written?
• What is missing from this text?
• How does this text reflect the wider society?
• What could we do about this text if we disagree with it?
The frame criteria to be applied to text genres and discourses are outlined in Table (1) (Hyatt, 2003;2005) This allows the mapping of texts onto the concept of language and the extra-linguistic levels of context and ideology.Table 2 (below) illustrates the ways that the above criteria relate to linguistic and extra linguistic elements of (SFL) theory (Hyatt, 2007;Eggins, 1994).The above criteria should be adhered to by the analysts according to the contexts of the text(s) to meet the needs of the research project.Hyatt (2003;2005;2007;2010) contemplated the importance of examining the elements of text at both micro and macro levels.Hyatt's proposed criteria has been effectively adapted by learners, researchers and teachers who study the textual elements at "micro" lexicon-grammatical level while taking into consideration how societal and semantic aspects at the macro level are impacted by these choices.Hunston & Thompson (2000) adopted a similar approach in their key work in systemic linguistics.Fairclough's (1995) research on the CDA, and Luke and Freebody (1997) study also Critical Literacy and their works revolve around the same approach.Hyatt (2005) also adhered to the same in his recent research "Orientation questions for frame application" (Hyatt, 2013).
7. Principles of CDA Kress (1990), Hodge & Kress (1993), Fairclough (1995), Van Dijk (1998) and Wodak (2001) are considered eminent practitioners of CDA.They developed and outlined the principles of CDA and this section intends to conclude their work.The principles of CDA are summarised below: 1) Language is a social tool that allows the expression and representation of the world.
2) Discourse or the language is not only a significant social practice in itself yet it has a considerable contribution to represent abuse of power, partiality, struggle, oppression and domination and other social practices.
3) The text and the social subjects are connected through dialectical association and this relation determines the meanings of the text.The connection between the writer and the reader relies on the availability of the choices, the degree of access to the text and the mode of interpretation.
4) The linguistic characteristics and features have a purposeful representation regardless of the fact whether the choices are made consciously or unconsciously.
5) Discourse is the medium that allows the production, execution and reproduction of power relations.
6) The writers and speakers include and exclude specific discursive activities to acquire their specific aims and interests.
7) Discourse has a historical and cognitive dimension to it as the texts derive their meanings by being embedded in particular social environment, ideology, culture and time span.
8) CDA does not only attempt to interpret the text, it also intends to explain them.

Discussion and Conclusion
CDA has also been challenged and criticised over the years.According to Fowler, Hodge, Kress, & Trew (1979), during the inception stages of CDA, it displayed more tendencies to focus on how texts were produced.However, little or no attention was given to how the audience inferred from these texts.It was observed that the media was regarded as monolithic and thus its diversity could not be fully appropriated and the potential of its institutions, discourse and practices were rather ignored on this account.The ideational function was apparently given more prominence over the interpersonal feature, which consequently rendered the social identity issues more insignificant.The Lexicon-grammar was the focal point and it was considered to be at the very micro level.This tended to marginalise issues pertaining to the disposition, exposition and the intertexuality.Initially, it was literally a text analysis.However, it soon had its critics and its limitations were challenged.It was argued and debated that the intertextual approach should be given more emphasis over the textual analysis.Maley (1994) strongly disapproves of the work presented by the Critical Discourse Analysts.He has criticised the central focus of the work, the struggle against hegemony, which establishes that following the process of naturalisation, the social groups voluntarily and consensually acknowledged their preponderance and their repression.Maley attempts to identify the underlying logical problem, which is that the one who challenges the arguments that are perceived as hegemony, is a victim of false consciousness.Gramsci also has no intentions of determining any sole dominant ideology to establish any supremacy and the same view is shared by Althusser (1971), a neo-Marxists.This has rendered it a failure to address the multiple connections and identities embedded in society.Moreover, it was observed that this approach does not suffice to identify the dynamics and compliant aspect of the powerful.It is illustrated by the fact that capitalism has emerged with new globalised recognition in contrast to the limited classification by Marx.It has gone beyond being merely identified as the industrial mill owners in the more contemporary settings.While attempts are made to understand the critical approaches, it is found that sometimes they play the part of being anti-teacher when presented as the agents of hegemony.This interpretation, however, calls for the teachers to be conceptualised as a homogeneous group, which is disproved in the research literature on the whole.Understanding the actions and perspectives of the teachers is a complex task as these are determined by multiple complex interactions and complicated organisational contexts yet it is not a blanket condemnation of teachers as a group.Gillborn (1998) claims that it is merely an attempt to rectify the problems that emerge from the educational policies and practices reinforcing the hegemonic relationships.As there is a possibility that no action is taken in an apolitical point of view, this consequently results in assumptions that determine the existing inequalities.Widdowson (1995) has a serious criticism against the approach of CDA.He bases his critique on the idea that the arguments of Critical Discourse Analysts are not only partial, they also more often exhibit a reductive nature.He strongly condemns the limitations observed in CDA as, according to him, the analysis rarely acknowledges the fact that different audiences interpret the texts differently.Hence, as per his inferences, it is unjust to validate the single interpretation in a unique way.It must be understood that the ideological belief of the committed critical discourse analysts may influence how the text is interpreted and, as such, could be charged with producing an intellectual and interpretive hegemony as oppressive as the one they seek to challenge.This commitment shown towards particular preferred reading of a text thus denies the fundamental logic that texts do not contain meaning, but that meanings are pragmatically interpreted from texts.Fairclough (1996) negates the assumption that individuals can interpret the texts in a neutral manner.He has counter argues the stance that strictly disproves the social construction of interpretation, implies the neutrality of the social context and the participants, and effectively positions them outside the construction of the discourse.The key concern is not how the texts are interpreted in any specific ideological manner, but it implies the purposes and intentions of texts are themselves questioned.It is the critical questioning of texts and discourses, rather than the arrival at a pre-determined ideological interpretation, that is central here and requires consideration of notions of status and the complex nature of relationship that exist between analysis and interpretation.
The textual analysis is eventually and heavily based on the idea that it is usually more biased and has a political edge to it.The CDA studies based on left-of-centre perspective have a distinctively expressed criticism towards the societal groups that exert power and authority.The reporting of the nuclear arms race by Chilton (1985), the critiques of the discourse of Thatcherism by Fairclough (1989), and the discourse of racism by van Dijk (1991) are a few examples that are based on the similar idea of criticism.In this context, an author is persuaded to not only base the inferences on critical self-scrutiny but must she/he also consider that past experiences greatly influence their present interpretations.It ultimately requires an analyst to establish her/his work within the reflexivity and reflectivity parameters.It is noteworthy that the supporters of CDA are not apprehensive about allegations of partiality put on the theory as they strongly advocate the idea that it is inevitable.They maintain the stance that it is not viable to establish neutrality among the powerful and the ones who do not possess any influential authority.Wodak & Meyer (2009) observe that the critical discourse analysis displays pompous solidarity with the subjugated and condemns those who exert abuse of power and try to legitimate it.The research opposes and registers dissent against the undue establishing of power and dominance.It is evident that CDA does not refuse the charges yet explicitly accepts its socio-political stance and defends its biased approach.
CDA constitutes multidisciplinary approaches which are interrelated.Its broad spectrum engulfs various theories and researches on social cognition and linguistics work developed by Halliday (1994) andvan Dijk (1993), to theories by Gramsci (1971), Foucault (1972) and Bourdieu (1971) that addresses social existence and authority.This concludes that CDA displays varying behaviour and hence it cannot be determined based on any uniform approach and theory.Weiss Gilbert & Wodak (2003) assert that CDA is essentially based on various theories that address various issues of a social, socio-psychological, micro-sociological nature, and linguistic and discourse theories as well as epistemological theories and several middle range theories.
Indeed, CDA advocates are not greatly worried by charges of partiality since they maintain neutrality in the stance between those who possess power and those who are deprived of it.As Wodak and Meyer note: "…critical discourse analysis research combines what perhaps somewhat pompously used to be called "solidarity with the oppressed" with an attitude of opposition and dissent against those who abuse text and talk in order to establish, confirm or legitimate their abuse of power.Unlike much other scholarship, CDA does not deny but explicitly defines and defends its own socio-political position, that is CDA is biased-and proud of it" (Wodak & Meyer, 2001, p. 96).
c. Recognise if Us versus Them is perceived negatively or positively.d.Identify and reveal what is being assumed and what is implied.

Table 1 .
: Critical literacy frame criteria

Table 2 .
Mapping the critical literacy frame to its SFL context