The Blameless and the Feckless: The Enduring Stereotypes of the Deserving and Undeserving Poor in Britain’s Past and Present

RESISTING THROUGH CITIZEN JOURNALISM: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ON THE BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT ON TWITTER

Critical Policy Discourse Analysis bridges the literature on critical discourse analysis (CDA) and critical policy analysis to provide a practical guide on how to combine these major approaches to critical social science. The volume gives a clear introduction to concepts and analytical procedures for critical policy discourse analysis. Utilising ten international case studies, the authors explain and critically reflect upon the methods and theories that they have used to successfully integrate CDA with critical policy studies across a diverse range of policy issues. Case studies are used to explore issues in economics, health, education, crisis management, the environment, language and energy policy. Analysing these through discursive methodological approaches in the traditions of CDA, social semiotics and discourse theory, this book connects this discursive methodology systematically to the field of critical policy studies. This is an essential read for researchers wishing to practically combine methods of CDA with critical policy studies. It provides key insights for politics scholars looking to gain a more in-depth understanding of the impact and analysis of discourse.

This research aims to investigate the relationship between critical reading abilities and critical discourse analysis (CDA) competencies among future 21st century educators, emphasizing the critical necessity for these educators to possess such skills in today's demanding educational landscape. A sample of 70 prospective teachers was analyzed to determine the interconnection between their abilities in critical reading abilities and CDA, with an exploration into how one skill may influence the other. Additionally, the study examines the role of cognitive style—specifically, field-independent and field-dependent thinking—as a moderating factor in this relationship. Findings indicate a significant positive impact of CDA capabilities on critical reading abilities, suggesting that proficiency in analyzing discourse critically enhances one's ability to read with a critical eye. Furthermore, the study reveals no significant difference in CDA and critical reading abilities between participants categorized as field-independent thinkers versus those identified as field-dependent thinkers. These outcomes highlight the need for further research to explore additional factors that may affect the development of critical reading and discourse analysis skills. The study concludes with a call for educational strategies that integrate both critical reading and CDA competencies, considering the varied cognitive styles of learners.

This paper contributes to the development of a critical realist approach to discourse analysis by combining aspects of ‘critical discourse analysis’ (CDA) and ‘the morphogenetic/morphostatic approach’ (M/M). Unlike poststructuralist discourse theory, CDA insists on the maintenance of two distinctions: (i) between discourse and other aspects of social reality; (ii) between structure and agency. However, CDA lacks clarity on these distinctions. M/M, on the other hand, offers a coherent modelling of these distinctions that can underpin the application of CDA. The paper begins by introducing CDA, M/M and the existing literature on critical realist discourse analysis. It then establishes the M/M model of social change within CDA’s existing social theory by focusing on ‘analytical dualism’ and ‘social practice’. Finally, the paper locates the concept of discourse within M/M’s model of social change by theorizing discourse as one of four objective structures of meaning.

This book is divided into two parts, "Argumentation in Critical Discourse Analysis" and "Questions and Doubts about Visual Argumantation", each part containing two chapters. In the first chapter, "Topoi in Critical Discourse Analysis", I am concerned with how topoi are used (and misused) in the Discourse-Historical Approach. The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), pioneered by Ruth Wodak (see Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, Liebhart 1999; Wodak, van Dijk 2000; Wodak, Chilton 2005; Wodak, Meyer 2006; Wodak 2009), is one of the major branches of critical discourse analysis (CDA). In its own (programmatic) view, it embraces at least three interconnected aspects (Wodak 2006: 65): 1. 'Text or discourse immanent critique' aims at discovering internal or discourse-internal structures. 2. The 'socio-diagnostic critique' is concerned with the demystifying exposure of the possibly persuasive or 'manipulative' character of discursive practices. 3. Prognostic critique contributes to the transformation and improvement of communication. CDA, in Wodak's view, is not concerned with evaluating what is 'right' or 'wrong'. CDA ... should try to make choices at each point in the research itself, and should make these choices transparent.1 It should also justify theoretically why certain interpretations of discursive events seem more valid than others. One of the methodical ways for critical discourse analysts to minimize the risk of being biased is to follow the principle of triangulation. Thus, one of the most salient distinguishing features of the DHA is its endeavour to work with different approaches, multi-methodically and on the basis of a variety of empirical data as well as background information. (Wodak ibid.) One of the approaches DHA is using in its principle of triangulation is argumentation theory, more specifically the theory of topoi. In the first chapter, I am concerned with the following questions: how and in what way are topoi and, consequentially, argumentation theory, used in DHA as one of the most influential schools of CDA? Other approaches (e.g., Fairclough (1995, 2000, 2003) or van Leeuwen (2004, 2008; van Leeuwen, Kress 2006)) do not use topoi at all. Does such a use actually minimize the risk of being biased, and, consequentially, does such a use of topoi in fact implement the principle of triangulation? Judging from the works we analysed in the first chapter, there are no rules or criteria how to use topoi or how to detect topoi in the discourse/text; the only methodological precept seems to be, »anything goes«! If so, why does CDA need triangulation? And what happened to the principle stipulating that CDA »should try to make choices at each point in the research itself, and should make these choices transparent? « We have seen identical and similar bundles of topoi for different purposes or occasions; we have seen different bundles of topoi for identical and similar purposes or occasions; we have seen different bundles of topoi for different occasion; and we have seen pretty exotic bundles of topoi for pretty particular and singular purposes. Which leads us to a key question: can anything be or become a topos within DHA? And, consequentially, what actually, i.e., historically, is a topos? If a topos is supposed to connect an argument with a conclusion, as all the relevant DHA publications claim, one would expect that at least a minimal reconstruction would follow, namely, what is the argument in the quoted fragment? What is the conclusion in the quoted fragment? How is the detected topos connecting the two, and what is the argumentative analysis of the quoted fragment? Unfortunately, all these elements are missing; the definition and the quoted fragment are all that there is of the supposed argumentative analysis. And this is the basic pattern of functioning for most of the DHA works. At the beginning, there would be a list of topoi and a short description foreach of them: first, a conditional paraphrase of a particular topos would be given, followed by a short discourse fragment (usually from the media) illustrating this conditional paraphrase (in Discourse and Discrimination, pp. 75-80), but without any explicit reconstruction of possible arguments, conclusions, or topoi connecting the two in the chosen fragment. After this short "theoretical" introduction, different topoi would just be referred to by names throughout the book, as if everything has already been explained in these few introductory pages. It is quite surprising that none of the quoted DHA works even mention the origins of topoi, their extensive treatment in many works and the main authors of these works, namely Aristotle and Cicero. Even the definition, borrowed from Kienpointner (mostly on a copy-paste basis), does not stem from their work either: it is a hybrid product, with strong input from Stephen Toulmin's work The Uses of Argument, published in 1958. All this is even more surprising because today it is almost a commonplace that for Aristotle a topos is a place to look for arguments (which is true), a heading or department where a number of rhetoric arguments can be easily found (which is true as well), and that those arguments are ready for use – which is a rather big misunderstanding. According to Aristotle, topoi are supposed to be of two kinds: general or common topoi, appropriate for use everywhere and anywhere, regardless of situation, and specific topoi, in their applicability limited mostly to the three genres of oratory (judicial, deliberative, and epideictic). With the Romans, topoi became loci, and Cicero literally defines them as “the home of all proofs” (De or. 2.166.2), “pigeonholes in which arguments are stored” (Part. Or. 5.7-10), or simply “storehouses of arguments” (Part. Or. 109.5-6). Also, their number was reduced from 300 in Topics or 29 in Rhetoric to up to 19 (depending on how we count them). Although Cicero's list correlates pretty much, though not completely, with Aristotle's list from the Rhetoric B 23, there is a difference in use: Cicero's list is considered to be a list of concepts that may trigger an associative process rather than a collection of implicit rules and precepts reducible to rules, as the topoi in Aristotle's Topics are. In other words, Cicero's loci mostly function as subject matter indicators and loci communes. Which brings us a bit closer to how topoi might be used in DHA. In the works analysed in the first chapter, the authors never construct or reconstruct arguments from the discourse fragments they analyse – despite the fact that they are repeatedly defining topoi as warrants connecting arguments with conclusions; they just hint at them with short glosses. And since there is no reconstruction of arguments from concrete discourse fragments under analysis, hinting at certain topoi, referring to them or simply just mentioning them, can only serve the purpose of »putting the audience in a favourable frame of mind. « »Favourable frame of mind« in our case – the use of topoi in DHA – would mean directing a reader's attention to a »commonly known or discussed« topic, without explicitly phrasing or reconstructing possible arguments and conclusions. Thus, the reader can never really know what exactly the author had in mind and what exactly he/she wanted to say (in terms of (possible) arguments and (possible) conclusions). In Traité de l'argumentation – La nouvelle rhétorique, published in 1958 by Ch. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, topoi are characterised by their extreme generality, which makes them usable in every situation. It is the degeneration of rhetoric and the lack of interest for the study of places that has led to these unexpected consequences where »oratory developments«, as Perelman ironically calls them, against fortune, sensuality, laziness, etc., which school exercises were repeating ad nauseam, became qualified as commonplaces (loci, topoi), despite their extremely particular character. By commonplace- es, Perelman claims, we more and more understand what Giambattista Vico called »oratory places«, in order to distinguish them from the places treated in Aristotle's Topics. Nowadays, commonplaces are characterised by banality which does not exclude extreme specificity and particularity. These places are nothing more than Aristotelian commonplaces applied to particular subjects, concludes Perelman. And this is exactly what seems to be happening to the DHA approach to topoi as well. Even more, the works quoted in the first part of the articlegive the impression that DHA is not using the Aristotelian or Ciceronian topoi, but the so-called »literary topoi«, conceptualized by Ernst Robert Curtius in his Europaeische Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter (1990: 62- 105, English translation). What is a literary topos? In a nutshell, oral histories passed down from pre-historic societies contain literary aspects, characters, or settings which appear again and again in stories from ancient civilisations, religious texts, art, and even more modern stories. These recurrent and repetitive motifs or leitmotifs would be then labelled literary topoi. The same year that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca published their New Rhetoric, Stephen Toulmin published his Uses of Argument, probably the most detailed study of how topoi work. Actually, he does not use the terms topos or topoi, but the somewhat judicial term “warrant”. The reason for that seems obvious: he is trying to cover different “fields of argument”, and not all fields of argument, according to him, use topoi as their argumentative principles or bases of their argumentation. According to Toulmin (1958/1995: 94-107), if we have an utterance of the form, “If D then C” – where D stands for data or evidence, and C for claim or conclusion – such a warrant would act as a bridge and authorize the step from D to C. But warrant may have a limited applicability, so Toulmin introduces qualifiers Q, indicating the strength conferr

The article is devoted to formation and development of discourse analysis as an effective method to study functional aspects of political communication in global political space. It reports on main theoretical and methodological approaches to critical analysis of political discourse. Mainly, it deals with theoretical and methodological perspectives of three leading schools of critical discourse analysis: discourse analysis of N. Fairclough, that presents a relational approach to considering social problems in their relation to textual analysis; socio-cognitive theory of T.A. van Dijk, oriented to investigating relations between cognitive structures, discourse and social coordination; discourse analysis of R. Wodak, that uses historical approach to discourse and is aimed at description of powerful language of the elite that helps to maintain dominance in society. The paper characterizes some frameworks of critical analysis of political discourse, including the Duisburg School of Critical Discourse Analysis (S. Jäger, F. Maier), System-Functional and Social-Semiotic Theory (M. Halliday, T. van Leeuwen), and Mediated Discourse Analysis (R. Scollon, S. Scollon). It is stated that within its boundaries critical discourse analysis includes a variety of approaches, analytical tools and methodologies. The author underlines that scientific consideration of critical discourse analysis will demonstrate its potential and prospects for integrating this interdisciplinary qualitative methodology into a set of empirical tools of modern political science.

This study aims to analyse power, dominance, racial discrimination, and power exercise that is narratively established through a subtle network of metaphors in a fiction work, The Kite Runner. The Kite Runner exposes the socioeconomic conditions in the borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan, revealing the differences between power manipulation and the domestic performance of powerful social groups. The work also explores how religious and status dichotomies circumvent the progress of minority groups and align their physical features with their receding power and financial features. An adopted model of critical discourse analysis (CDA) indicates power, economic, and racial dichotomies in the book while revealing the shades of metaphors through conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) in a post-colonial text. Dogmatic ideographs are perpetuated in every public sphere through language and established gradually through unprovoking tools of metaphors. The metaphors are uncovered through CMT, providing a helpful understanding of different conceptual domains. Rhetorically, CDA helped reveal the racial discrimination, human rights violations, and hatred against minorities embedded in the selected metaphors. This investigation is very significant in connection with the current scenario of cross-cultural studies, as it mainly depicts the prevailing social trends regarding two different settings. The study may benefit intelligentsia interested in post-colonial and decolonial discourse and diaspora literature. Keywords: Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis, Metaphor, Power Expansion, Racial Discrimination Agbo, I. I., Kadiri, G. C., & Ijem, B. U. (2018). Critical metaphor analysis of political discourse in Nigeria. English Language Teaching, 11(5), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n5p95 Burke, K. (2017). A rhetoric of motives. In Routledge eBooks (pp. 154–164). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315080925-15 Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh University Press. Fairclough, N. (2000). Discourse, social theory and social research: The case of welfare reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 163–195. Fairclough, N. (2012). Critical discourse analysis. International Advances in Engineering and Technology, 7, 452–487. Foucault, M. (1976). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1). https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/fulllist/special/endsandbeginnings/foucaultrepressiveen278.pdf Foucault, M., & Sheridan, A. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA21964742 Gill, S. (1998). European governance and new constitutionalism: Economic and monetary union and alternatives to disciplinary neoliberalism in Europe. New Political Economy, 3(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563469808406330 Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hosseini, K. (2003). The kite runner. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Jawaid, A., Batool, M., Arshad, W., Kaur, P., & ul Haq, M. I. (2024). English language pronunciation challenges faced by tertiary students. Contemporary Journal of Social Science Review, 2(04), 2104-2111. https://contemporaryjournal.com/index.php/14/article/view/361 Jawaid, A. (2014). Benchmarking in TESOL: A Study of the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 23-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n8p23 Jensen, D. F. N. (2006, April). Metaphors as a bridge to understanding educational and social contexts. International Institute for Qualitative Methodology. https://sites.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/HTML/jensen.htm Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge University Press. Talib, N., & Fitzgerald, R. (2016). Micro–meso–macro movements: A multi-level critical discourse analysis framework to examine metaphors and the value of truth in policy texts. Critical Discourse Studies, 13(5), 531–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2016.1182932 Van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006 Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 249–283. Van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Discourse and racism in Spain and Latin America. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 62–86). London: Sage Publications. Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–13). London: Sage Publications. Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and discourse analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Language and cinema make use of distinctive tools to interpret and reflect external reality. While signs in language consist of signifiers and signified(s), in cinema they are fiction, sound, image, and most importantly, discourses within the screenplay. A discourse is a unit of communication value that, for the most part, includes the social and production conditions of language beyond utterances. Examinations of discourse can be done from a linguistic perspective that engages grammar, sentence structures, and voice, or from a non-linguistic perspective. Critical discourse analysis approaches its object of study from a broad perspective. It aims to critically examine texts and speeches on subjects such as racism, sexism, colonialism, and other forms of social inequality. Critical feminist discourse analysis focuses on the complex structures of hidden power relations and the ideologies that support gender regulations in discourse, though it is separate from critical discourse analysis in various ways. In this study, the film Marriage Story, written and directed by Noah Baumbach, undergoes critical feminist discourse analysis. By constructing the character Nicole, the female protagonist who attempts to exist in a masculine public sphere and, in the process, becomes a liberated individual who makes a series of decisions in line with her desires and needs and self-expression, Baumbach criticizes the dominant ideology of his own cinematic making.

Accessible yet theoretically rich, this landmark text introduces key concepts and issues in critical discourse analysis and situates these within the field of educational research. The book invites readers to consider the theories and methods of three major traditions in critical discourse studies � discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis and multimodal discourse analysis -- through the empirical work of leading scholars in the field.

The main objective of the article is to conduct a critical media discourse analysis as presented in the Polish and international editions of the "Newsweek" magazine in the years 2001-2006 and 2012-2016; the subject of which was climate change. The introduction provides the definitions of the key terms, such as: the greenhouse effect and critical discourse analysis (CDA). The theoretical part presents the most important assumptions of the CDA and presents a characteristic of the weekly. The results of the conducted quantitative and qualitative analysis partially lead to varying conclusions. Based on the CDA, the hypothesis was assumed that more attention was provided to climate change in the international (English) edition of "Newsweek", than in the Polish-language edition. Rejected in turn was the hypothesis, according to which, more importance to climate change and their repercussions was provided in the discourse within the last 5years of publication of the weekly than in the discourse from the years 2001-2006. As a result of comparison of both discourses, the disturbing fact that media discourse did not present and encourage among the readers an active stance in favour of the climate was noticed. It is the task of this influential weekly, the message of which reaches many people, not only to provide knowledge and shape specific values or view, but also to encourage and popularise attitudes in favour of the climate. If man wants to continue to live on earth, then one of their goals is to modify the form of discourse by entities responsible for its form.

Ruth Wodak & Paul Chilton (eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity. Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society, and Culture, 13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005. Pp. xi, 322. Hb $138.00. The title of this book implicitly raises a number of important questions about the relationships among discourse analysis (DA), critical discourse analysis (CDA), and interdisciplinarity: Is CDA one approach to analyzing text and talk, or is it (by implication of the ambiguous parenthetical reference in the book's title) somehow merging with (an increasingly more critical) DA? To what extent does or should (C)DA embrace interdisciplinary approaches to treating language in use? Finally (and perhaps most compelling of all), what is this new agenda, what is wrong with the old agenda, and why is a new agenda needed at this time? Overall, the book does a fair to good job of addressing these questions.

This research aims to identify ageist content concerning older adults within local government physical activity policy. Policies are not passive texts; they can comprise hidden or disputed connotations. To identify ageism, the study utilizes a critical discourse analysis approach to analyze physical activity policy documents (n = 61) from 16 local government areas in Victoria, Australia, and the perceptions of local government employees trusted with developing these policies, which were gathered during semistructured interviews (n = 11). Results from the critical discourse analysis indicate that local government policies are imbued with ageism, leading to the construction and perpetuation of various stereotypes of older adults. The discourse analysis points to potentially ageist descriptions including older adults being vulnerable, incapable, and a financial burden. Nonetheless, older adults were also revealed to be significant contributors to the community including in paid employment, caregiving roles, and volunteering.

There is no doubt that English language textbooks are not just pedagogical tools but powerful ideological artifacts that shape learners’ perceptions and identities through carefully designed multimodal semiotics. In Morocco’s multilingual educational landscape, the Spotlight textbook series (Volumes 1 and 2) occupies a critical space, negotiating local cultural values with global linguistic demands. This study employs Critical Visual Discourse Analysis (CVDA, henceforth), integrating Kress and van Leeuwen’s (2006) visual grammar with Fairclough’s (1992) three-dimensional CDA model, to investigate three core dimensions: (1) the representation of cultural identities, (2) the construction of gender roles, and (3) the framing of learner autonomy. Findings reveal systematic patterns of Western-centric cultural framing, where Moroccan elements are often exoticized, alongside gendered activity distribution that reinforces traditional roles. Additionally, autonomy is predominantly constructed through neoliberal self-governance paradigms, positioning learner agency as compliance rather than critical engagement. The study ultimately argues that these elements converge into a hidden curriculum that privileges certain worldviews while marginalizing local knowledge systems. By bridging visual semiotics and critical discourse analysis, this research contributes to critical applied linguistics and textbook studies, offering insights for culturally responsive and equitable material design in Moroccan EFL education and broader contexts

Recent studies on language and gender that focus on songs and beer drinking sessions within the context of the Bukusu circumcision ceremony have shown that language is gendered and that it espouses male gender. Against this backdrop, in this study we aim to denaturalise this view by focussing on conversations within the circumcision ceremony. By using theoretical and methodological principles from critical discourse and conversation analysis in particular, we argue that, by using linguistic strategies, traditional gender roles are not only discursively highlighted but they are also negotiated and even resisted. This study falls within recent discussions in critical discourse analysis that have shown that language masks asymmetrical power relations on the one hand, and within postcolonial studies that have shown that gender discourses can reflect collisions between differing points of views on the other hand. The data used in this study is four audio recordings of conversations that took place alongside the main ceremony. This data has been analysed at the level of content and prosodic organisation to identify discursive practices that reveal the negotiation and contestation of gender roles. The study contributes to recent discussions in critical discourse analysis by exposing gender asymmetries and contestations that lie behind ‘taken-for-granted’ realities, with specific examples from the postcolonial context of the Bukusu circumcision ceremony.

Critical discourse analysis is a rapidly growing, interdisciplinary field of inquiry that combines linguistic analysis and social theory to address the way power and dominance are enacted and reproduced in text. Critical discourse analysis is primarily concerned with the construction of social phenomena and involves a focus on the wider social, political, and historical contexts in which talk and text occur, exploring the way in which theories of reality and relations of power are encoded and enacted in language. Critical discourse analysis moves beyond considering what the text says to examining what the text does. As an interdisciplinary and eclectic field of inquiry, critical discourse analysis has no unifying theoretical perspective, standard formula, or essential methods. As such, there is much confusion around what critical discourse analysis is, what it is not, and the types of projects for which it can be fruitfully employed. This article seeks to provide clarity on critical discourse analysis as an approach to research and to highlight its relevance to social work scholarship, particularly in relation to its vital role in identifying and analyzing how discursive practices establish, maintain, and promote dominance and inequality.