25899333 Wodak Critical Discourse Analysis at the End of the 20th Century

Critical Discourse Analysis at theEnd of the 20th Century

Ruth WodakDepartment of Linguistics

University of Vienna

We live in a fast-moving world where many important characteristicsof societies are changing everyday. Space and time have become unstablethrough technologization and globalization (Harvey, 1996). One couldthink of the world as becoming smaller, with national boundaries havingdissolved or being in the process of dissolving. People have to learn howto cope with supranational identities and totally different political andeconomic organizations.

In this changing world, many new social problems arise that demandunderstanding. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) offers a program forresearch on such socially relevant phenomena. In this short article, I definethe most prominent aspects of CDA and discuss how such a researchprogram enables us to cope with the changes in our societies. I alsoidentify some social problems deserving investigation, illustrating oneproject underway in the recently formed Research Center in Vienna,Austria, on “Discourse, Politics, and Identity.”

Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(1&2), 185–193Copyright © 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Ruth Wodak, Department ofLinguistics, University of Vienna, Berggasse II/l/3, A-1090 Wien, Austria. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2000 All Rights Reserved

CDA

CDA1 is not a homogeneous theory with a set of clear and defined tools;rather, it is a research program with many facets and numerous differenttheoretical and methodological approaches (see Fairclough & Wodak,1997; Wodak 1996a, 1996b). The termcritical has been misunderstoodwidely (see Widdowson, 1998).Critical does not mean detecting only thenegative sides of social interaction and processes and painting a black andwhite picture of societies. Quite to the contrary:Critical means distinguish-ing complexity and denying easy, dichotomous explanations. It meansmaking contradictions transparent. Moreover,critical implies that a re-searcher is self-reflective while doing research about social problems.Researchers choose objects of investigation, define them, and evaluatethem. They do not separate their own values and beliefs from the researchthey are doing; recognizing, as Jürgen Habermas (1967) convincinglyshowed many years ago, that researchers’ own interests and knowledgeunavoidably shape their research. Taking such a position implies thatresearchers must be constantly aware of how they are analyzing andinterpreting. They also need to keep a distance from their topic; otherwise,their research turns into political action (which is, of course, not in itself abad thing) or becomes an attempt to prove what the researcher alreadybelieves. The data need to be allowed to speak for themselves. Thus, CDArequires a constant balancing between theory and empirical phenomena.Analyses should neither be purely inductive nor deductive, but abductive,in which analysts are explicit about what they are actually doing. This meansthat members of a culture (including researchers) will work to understandtheir own culture and, rather than pronouncing truths, propose interpreta-tions and solutions to perceived problems.

Such an approach in Linguistics and Communication Studies alsoentails a certain notion of language: language as social, as meaningful,and as always embedded in a social context and history. Language is notan isolated phenomenon; language is deeply social, intertwined with socialprocesses and interaction (Wodak, 1996a). This view of language leadsus back to Wittgenstein’s (1967) “language game.”

If language is seen as action in a social context, then certain conse-quences follow. First, interaction always involves power and ideologies.No interaction exists in which power relations do not prevail and in whichvalues and norms do not have a relevant role. Second,discourse,used

186 Ruth Wodak


here synonymously withinteraction (see Weiss & Wodak, 1998), isalways historical, connected synchronically and diachronically with othercommunicative events that are happening at the same time or that havehappened before. This phenomenon, known as “intertextuality,” impliescertain research strategies and methodologies (seediscourse-historicalmethodologylater). Another important characteristic of discourse is re-contextualization, the reference and dynamic reformulation of argumentsand topoi from one context to another (Bernstein, 1990; Iedema, 1997).

Third, and related, each communicative event allows numerous in-terpretations, linked to the positions of the readers’, listeners’, or viewers’respective contexts and levels of information. Interpretations that theresearchers put forward also are laden with certain beliefs and knowledge.A “right” interpretation does not exist and a hermeneutic approach isnecessary. Interpretations can be more or less plausible or adequate, butthey cannot be “true.” Moreover, CDA does not stop once it has analyzeda problem. Rather, it attempts to intervene into social processes by pro-posing verbally and in writing possible changes that could be implementedby practitioners. The commitment of CDA to developing solutions re-quires it to be in constant dialogue with practitioners from differentprofessions and fields.

I could go on into more detail about other important aspects of CDA(mediation, language description, etc.), but I would like to emphasize thatthese criteria are by far the most important. A last aspect must bementioned here: Doing research in a problem-oriented way, trying tounderstand and explain social interaction, also implies an interdisciplinaryapproach and framework. Social problems are too complex to be analyzedjust linguistically or historically. Teamwork and multidisciplinary theoriesand methods are necessary in critical research.

THE DISCOURSE-HISTORICAL APPROACH

To study and grasp the complexity of social problems, we havedeveloped the discourse-historical methodology in the first project con-cerned with anti-Semitic discourse during the “Waldheim Affair” inAustria in 1986 (Wodak, 1997a; Wodak et al., 1990; Wodak & Ma-touschek, 1993; Wodak & Reisigl, in press-a). The main aim of the

Critical Discourse Analysis 187


discourse-historical approach is to integrate texts of as many differentgenres as possible, as well as the historical dimension of the subject underinvestigation. The discourse-historical approach relates the content of thedata with the strategies employed and their linguistic realizations.Strate-giesrefer to plans of actions that may vary in their degree of elaboration,may be located at different levels of mental organization, and may rangefrom automatic to highly conscious. Linguistic realizations can be studiedin varying ways. I believe that a functional systemic approach might bevery usefully combined with the strategic analysis (see Straehle, Weiss,Wodak, Muntigl, & Sedlak, 1999; Van Leeuwen & Wodak, in press;Wodak & Iedema, 1999).

In analyzing historical and political topics and texts, the historicaldimension of discursive acts is addressed in two ways in our discourse-historical methodology. First, the discourse-historical approach attemptsto integrate historical background and the original sources in whichdiscursive “events” are embedded. Second, the approach explores theways in which particular types and genres of discourse are subject todiachronic change (Matouschek, Wodak, & Januschek, 1995; Wodak etal., 1990; Wodak, Menz, Mitten, & Stern, 1994).

To explore the interconnectedness of discursive practices and extra-linguistic social structures, we employ the principle of triangulation (Ci-courel, 1974), that is, various interdisciplinary, methodological, andsource-specific approaches are combined to investigate a particular dis-course phenomenon. In exploring the phenomenon of immigration andfamily reunion (Van Leeuwen & Wodak, in press), for example, aninterdisciplinary approach combined historical, sociopolitical, and linguis-tic perspectives.

SOCIAL CHALLENGES AT THE END OFTHE 20TH CENTURY

Among the many relevant possible issues, I am currently investigatingthree social problems that are growing in importance in Europe, as wellas worldwide: unemployment, security policies, and racism. There areoverlaps among these issues as, for example, arguments about unemploy-ment are widely used in racist discourse (interdiscursivity). Due to space

188 Ruth Wodak


limitations, I illustrate our critical research program for only one of thepreviously mentioned areas,2 the project on unemployment in the Euro-pean Union (EU).

At the University of Vienna’s Research Center, “Discourse, Politics,and Identity,”3 we are at the start of a 5-year project analyzing thedecision-making processes of international organizations with regard toemployment polices and practices. Because of its political significancein contemporary Europe, we are focusing on the EU as a research site.We believe developing insight into this complex decision-makingapparatus is critical to democracy. In addition, unemployment demandsattention as one of Europe’s most pressing concerns (18.5 million peoplein the 15 EU member states are unemployed). This research continuesthe center’s tradition of focusing on national identities (Wodak et al.,1998) on the one hand, and on organizational discourse on the other(Wodak, 1996a; Wodak & Iedema, 1999).

Although employment and labor market policy remain the responsibil-ity of the individual member states, at least to a large extent, the EU hasbecome concerned with the issue. The European Council meeting inLuxemburg, November 1997, a summit of heads of state and ministers, wasdedicated to this topic (Muntigl, 1997; Sedlak, 1997; Straehle et al., 1999;Weiss, in press). In a period of initial fieldwork in Brussels and Strasbourg,we collected texts of different genres (interviews, tape recordings ofmeetings, parliamentary debates, draft resolutions, etc.). Then we began ouranalysis, focusing on the November 1997 European Council meeting where,for the first time, the EU was taking a more active role in controlling themember states. As a result of the meeting, every member state had to providea national action plan on unemployment by the end of 1998.

In the past, social and employment policies were guided by theprinciple of subsidiarity, such that fairly vague resolutions were decidedon on the supranational level, with interpretation left to the member states.This is changing as it becomes clear that unemployment is not merely anational problem but instead is a global problem that will need to besolved on a supranational level. If unemployment is as pressing as I haveargued, the legitimacy of the EU as apolitical union will rest in part onits ability to tackle this question. Not addressing it calls the entire processof European integration into question. Our research started out with fourbroad guiding questions:

1. What are the characteristics of the discourses on unemploymentwithin the realm of EU employment policy making, and what,



implicitly, do these characteristics reveal about communication anddiscourse processes, as well as structures in international organiza-tion?

2. What does the fact that EU organizations are multicultural andmultilinguistic mean for decision making, and, in particular, forthe forms of justification and legitimization? How are decisionsand basic arguments communicated and transformed (recontextu-alized) in the various fields of action? What differences can beobserved in the various contexts (official meetings, debates,interviews, written texts)? What does the multicultural settingimply for language use? How do delegates from 15 differentcountries with different languages, cultures, and ideologies arriveat consensus?

3. The problem of arriving at a “new European identity” (the EU’sexplicit aim) is deeply embedded in a field of tensions andcontradictions: northern countries versus southern countries, largeversus small countries, rich versus poor countries, global organi-zation versus national member states, and so forth. Given themultinational and multicultural frame, how and to what extent arenew identities actually created? What are the dominating tensionsin the discourse on unemployment?

4. How does the discourse of unemployment relate to economictheories and economic discourses? What role do economicconcepts like neo-liberalism and Keynesianism play with regardto the arguments, strategies, and legitimization techniques usedin talking about unemployment?

The first pilot studies show that the complexity of decision making issystematically reduced by manifest and latent power structures inside theEU (Weiss & Wodak, 1998). A theoretical and analytical framework thatis itself complex enough to understand the decision-making “labyrinth,”such as a Systemic Hermeneutics, based on the approach by NiklasLuhmann, is needed. In meetings, for example, an impression oftenprevails that nothing is decided on and that there is no visible dynamic.This first impression masks the power structures and the fact that evennot taking a decision at a certain time means taking a decision: the decisionnot to take a decision. The role of the so-called Eurocrats in the Com-mission is important and the actions of member states often serve as anofficial enactment of decisions taken elsewhere. Moreover, the analysis

190 Ruth Wodak


of drafts and the resulting resolutions allow insight into processes ofconsensus making and the role of economic theories and political ideolo-gies. Fights and struggles over words have wide implications, for theyare fights over a wide range of important social meanings. Such fightsare typical of organizations (Iedema, 1999; Menz, 1999).

To conclude, I assume that critical research at the end of the 20thcentury should be concerned with social issues that are at the core of theimminent changes taking place in current societies. Through CDA, weare able to make social interaction transparent and understandable to “the(European) citizens” who have little or no access to the elites involvedin decision making. Such research, in my view, serves basic democraticprinciples. The project that is outlined earlier follows the research programof CDA. In addition, we hope that some results will be useful to practi-tioners in politics and language planning.

NOTES

1 In contrast to some beliefs, CDA does not restrict itself to the analysis of media andpolitical texts. CDA covers a wide range of problems, like organizational discourseor gender as well (Iedema & Wodak, 1999; Kotthoff & Wodak, 1997; Wodak, 1997b),everyday conversation can also be analyzed critically. One of the important challengesto CDA is to put their results to practice: An example would be suggesting guidelinesfor nonsexist language behavior (Kargl, Wetschanow, & Wodak, 1997). CDA doesnot stop at the “diagnosing” stage but goes on to suggest “therapies” (Wodak, 1989,1996a).

2 For consideration of the other two issues, readers are referred to Benke and Wodak(in press); Kargl, Liebhart, and Sondermann (1997); Wodak and Van Dijk (1997);and Wodak and Reisigl (in press-a, in press-b).

3 The research center “Discourse, Politics, and Identity” was founded in 1996 with theWittgenstein Prize awarded to Ruth Wodak. The coresearchers in the 5-year projecton unemployment are Peter Muntigl, Carolyn Straehle, and Gilbert Weiss.

REFERENCES

Benke, G., & Wodak, R. (in press). Discourses on Austrian Presidents. In R. Wodak &C. Ludwig (Eds.),Challenges in a changing world.Vienna: Passagen Verlag.

Bernstein, B. (1990).The structure of pedagogic discourse. Class, codes and control.London: Routledge.



Cicourel, A. (1974).Methode und Messung in der Soziologie[Methods and measurementin sociology]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.),Discourse as social interaction(pp. 258–284). London: Sage.

Habermas, J. (1967).Erkenntnis und Interesse[Knowledge and interest]. Frankfurt amMain: Suhrkamp.

Harvey, D. (1996).Justice, nature and the geography of difference.Oxford, England:Blackwell.

Iedema, R. (1997).Interactional dynamics and social change: Planning as morphogenesis.Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Sydney, Australia.

Iedema, R. (1999). Formalising organizational meaning.Discourse & Society, 10,49–66.

Iedema, R., & Wodak, R. (1999). Introduction: Organizational discourse and practices.Discourse & Society, 10,5–20.

Kargl, M., Liebhart, K., & Sondermann, K. (1997).“Wir Neu.” Diskurse zurÖsterreichischen Neutralitäit[“We new.” Discourses on Austrian neutrality].Unpublished manuscript.

Kargl, M., Wetschanow, K., & Wodak, R. (1997).Kreative Formulieren: Anleitungen zugeschlechtergerechtem. Sprachgebrauch[Creative formulating: Guidelines for non-sexistlanguage behaviors]. Vienna: Schriftenreihe der Bundesministerin für Frauen.

Kotthoff, H., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (1997).Communicating gender.Amsterdam:Benjamins.

Matouschek, B., Wodak, R., & Januschek, F. (1995).Notwendige Maßnahmen gegenFremde?[Necessary measures against foreigners?] Vienna: Passagen Verlag.

Menz, F. (1999). “Who am I gonna do this with?” Self-organisation, ambiguity anddecision-making in a business enterprise.Discourse & Society, 10,101–128.

Muntigl, P. (1997, July).Acting politically in speeches about unemployment.Paperpresented at the Analyzing Political Discourse Conference, Aston University,Birmingham, England.

Sedlak, M. (1997, July).The Question of Agency in European Political Texts. An Analysisof the European Council’s Presidency Conclusions.Paper presented at the AnalyzingPolitical Discourse Conference, Aston University, Birmingham, England.

Straehle, C., Weiss, G., Wodak, R., Muntigl, P., & Sedlak, M. (1999). Struggle as metaphorin EU discourses on unemployment.Discourse & Society, 10,67–100.

Van Leeuwen, T., & Wodak, R. (in press). Legitimizing immigration control: Adiscourse-historical analysis.Discourse Studies.

Weiss, G. (in press). Some remarks on decision making in committees of the EuropeanUnion. In R. Wodak & C. Ludwig (Eds.),Challenges in a changing world.Vienna:Passagen Verlag.

Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (1998, September).Organisation and communication: On therelevance of Niklas Luhman’s systems theory for a discourse-hermeneutic approachto organizations.Occasional paper. International conference on Discourse and SocialResearch, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.

192 Ruth Wodak


Widdowson, H. (1998). The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Reviewarticle. Applied Linguistics, 19,136–152.

Wittgenstein, L. (1967).Philosophische Untersuchungen[Philosophical investigations].Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Wodak, R. (1989). Introduction. In R. Wodak (Ed.),Language, power and ideology(pp.ii–vii). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Wodak, R. (1996a).Disorders in discourse.London: Longman.

Wodak, R. (1996b). The genesis of racist discourse in Austria since 1989. In C. R.Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.),Texts and practices—Readings in criticaldiscourse analysis(pp. 107–128). London: Routledge.

Wodak, R. (1997a): “Das Ausland and anti-semitic discourse: The discursive constructionof the `other.’ In S. H. Riggins (Ed.),The language and politics of exclusion(pp.65–88). London: Sage.

Wodak, R. (Ed.). (1997b).Gender and discourse.London: Sage.

Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Gruber, H., Mitten, R., Nowak, P., & Pelikan, J. (1990).“Wir sindalle unschuldige Täter!” Studien zum antisemitischen Diskurs im Nachkriegsöster-reich [“We are all innocent perpetrators!” Studies on antisemitic discourse in postwarAustria]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., Liebhart, K., Hofstätter, K., & Kargl, M. (1998).Zur diskursiven konstruktion nationaler Identität[The discursive construction ofnational identity]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Wodak, R., & Iedema, R. (Eds.). (1999). Discourse in organizations [Special issue].Discourse & Society, 10(3).

Wodak, R., & Matouschek, B. (1993). We are dealing with people whose origins onecan clearly tell just by looking: Critical discourse analysis and the study of neo-racismin contemporary Austria.Discourse & Society, 4,225–248.

Wodak, R., Menz, F., Mitten, R., & Stern, F. (1994).Die Sprachen der Vergangenheiten:Öffentliches Gedenken in österreichischen und deutschen Medien[Languages of thepast: Public commemoration in Austrian and German media]. Frankfurt am Main:Suhrkamp.

Wodak, R., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1997).Racism at the top.Unpublished manuscript.

Wodak, R., & Reisigl, M. (in press-a).Discourse and discrimination: The rhetorics ofracism and antisemitism.London: Longman.

Wodak, R., & Reisigl, M. (in press-b). Discourse and racism.Annual Review ofAnthropology.



Documents

25899333 Wodak Critical Discourse Analysis at the End of the 20th Century