VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 40, NO.

3 (2024) 172

A SYNOPSIS OF THE THREE MOST INFLUENTIAL

APPROACHES OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Pham Thi Quyen

Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, 69 Chua Lang, Lang Thuong, Dong Da, Hanoi, Vietnam

Received 06 January 2024

Revised 07 May 2024; Accepted 30 May 2024

Abstract: The objective of this paper is to investigate and summarize the primary and most
influential methods used in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The paper provides an overview of
CDA and its core principles then delves into the three major approaches devised by the three
prominent practitioners in the field: Fairclough, Wodak, and Van Dijk. The critical approach by
Fairclough, the discourse-historical approach by Wodak, and the socio-cognitive approach by Van
Dijk are discussed in a sequential manner. The study also explores the strengths and limitations of
each approach and proposes the contexts in which their methodologies might be applied. In
conclusion, the paper suggests that a combination of these three approaches is valuable for conducting
critical analysis of texts.
Keywords: critical discourse analysis, Socio-cognitive approach, Discourse-historical
approach, language and power, power and ideology

1. Introduction
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a multidisciplinary field of study that examines
the intricate relationship between language, power, and society. Rooted in linguistic analysis
but CDA offers a profound exploration of how language both reflects and shapes our social
world. Over the years, a large number of scholars have contributed significantly to the
development of CDA, each offering their unique insights, methodologies, and perspectives on
the analysis of discourse. This paper endeavors to assess and compare the three most
influential CDA approaches of Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, and Teun A. Van Dijk. The
selection of these three approaches is underpinned by their profound influence and
widespread recognition within the field. Their contributions have not only expanded our
understanding of the role of language in constructing social reality but also have paved the
way for critical inquiry into issues of power, ideology, and social change.
Along with uncovering the fundamental principles of the respective approaches, the
research also explores the strengths and limitations of each approach and proposes the
contexts in which their methodologies might be applied. Ultimately, the paper underscores the
value of combining these prominent approaches in the critical analysis of discourse.
2. An Overview of CDA and its Principles
CDA is an interdisciplinary approach to analyzing language and text that emerged in
the late 20th century. It involves the analysis of language as discourse, recognizing that


Corresponding author.
Email address: [email protected]
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 40, NO. 3 (2024) 173

language is interconnected with social processes (Fairclough & Graham, 2002). Its aim is to
uncover the ideological aspects embedded in specific language usage and the underlying
power relations (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). By analyzing real instances of social
interaction, whether fully or partially expressed through language, CDA seeks to bring to light
the ways in which power relations are manifested.
This approach focuses on the linguistic and discursive nature of social power relations,
and how they are employed and discussed in discourse. The analysis of texts using CDA aims
to identify the structures, strategies, or other properties of language, conversation, verbal
interaction, or communicative events that contribute to the production or perpetuation of
unequal power relations (Van Dijk, 1993a).
CDA originated from the field of critical linguistics, which was influenced by
Halliday's systemic functional linguistics and theories of ideologies. Critical linguistics
emphasizes power and ideology and seeks to uncover the social meanings expressed in
discourse by analyzing linguistic structures within their broader social context. (Fowler et al,
1979). Fairclough and Wodak (1997, p. 261) view “ideologies not as a nebulous realm of
‘ideas’ but as tied to material practices embedded in social institutions (how teaching is
organized in classrooms, for instance”. That means ideologies are not merely abstract ideas
but intertwined with material practices embedded in social institutions.
The CDA approach is characterized as critical because it involves maintaining
distance from the data, situating the data within the social context, making explicit political
stances, and engaging in self-reflection as researchers (Martin & Wodak, 2003). Similarly,
Fairclough emphasizes the critical nature of his discourse analysis approach which aims “to
make visible through analysis, and to criticize, connections between properties of texts and
social processes and relations (ideologies, power relations) which are generally not obvious to
people who produce and interpret those texts, and whose effectiveness depends upon this
opacity” (Fairclough, 1995b, p. 97).
The focus of CDA lies in exploring the relationships between discourse and social
power, seeking to describe and explain how power abuse is enacted, reproduced, or
legitimized through the text and speech of dominant groups or institutions (Van Dijk, 1996).
Similarly, CDA aims to uncover unequal power relations and reveal the role of discourse in
perpetuating or challenging socio-political dominance.
The principles of CDA presented by Fairclough and Wodak's (1997) can be
summarized as follows:
CDA extends beyond traditional language analysis to address social issues,
emphasizing the examination of linguistic aspects within social and cultural processes. It
emphasizes the pivotal role of language and discourse in shaping power dynamics,
recognizing the discursive nature of power relations. CDA asserts a dialectical relationship
between discourse, society, and culture, where discourse both shapes and is shaped by these
elements. It contends that discourse serves ideological functions, reflecting and promoting
specific societal representations and often perpetuating unequal power dynamics.
Furthermore, CDA underscores the historical context of discourse, emphasizing the
importance of situational aspects. These principles collectively underpin CDA’s approach,
highlighting its nuanced understanding of language's influence on society and culture.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 40, NO. 3 (2024) 174

3. Three Most Influential Approaches of CDA

3.1. Fairclough’s Critical Approach
Fairclough’s (2001a) theoretical goals have been influenced by linguistics and
sociolinguistics, which examine the relationship between language and its social context, as
well as language and power. However, from a critical perspective, these approaches have
significant weaknesses:
Linguistics primarily focuses on language as a potential system or abstract
competence, rather than describing actual language use. It places more emphasis on langue
(language) rather than parole (speaking). Linguistics assumes that the language of a
community remains largely unchanged over time, treating langue as a static system at a
particular point in time, rather than considering its dynamic historical development.
Fairclough criticizes this viewpoint for failing to recognize that language is socially shaped.
In contrast, sociolinguistics acknowledges that “language use is shaped socially and
not individually” (Fairclough, 1993, p. 63). It explores the systematic relationships between
variations in linguistic form (phonological, morphological, syntactic) and social variables
(such as social relationships between participants, differences in social settings, or topics).
While sociolinguistics is effective at describing variation, Fairclough argues that it falls short
in explaining how these variations are produced by power relations and struggles.
Fairclough's approach views discourse as “a form of social practice”, highlighting that
it is a mode of action (Fairclough, 2001a). In this perspective, spoken or written utterances are
seen as performing speech acts such as promising, asking, asserting, or warning. Furthermore,
Fairclough considers language as an integral part of society, emphasizing the dialectical
relationship between language and society; therefore, discourse involves the production and
interpretation of texts. Furthermore, he sees language as socially conditioned, with discourse
being influenced by various levels of social organization: “the level of the social situation, or
the immediate social environment in which the discourse occurs; the level of the social
institution which constitutes a wider matrix for the discourse and the level of the society as a
whole” (Fairclough, 2001a, pp. 20-21).
Fairclough also highlights the importance of intertextual analysis as a complement to
linguistic analysis. Intertextual analysis focuses on the intersection between “text and
discourse practice” (Fairclough, 1995a, p. 61), serving as a bridge between language and
social contexts or between texts and discourse contexts within Fairclough's three-dimensional
analytical framework (Description, Interpretation and Explanation) (Fairclough, 2003). The
three dimensions of the framework can be summarized as follows:
1. Textual Analysis (Description): This dimension focuses on examining the linguistic
features of the discourse, including grammar, vocabulary, and rhetorical devices. By
analyzing the text, researchers can identify patterns, metaphors, and other linguistic strategies
used to convey specific meanings and ideologies.
2. Discursive Practice (Interpretation): This dimension explores the social practices
and processes surrounding the production, distribution, and consumption of discourse. It
examines the ways in which language is used in different contexts and how power relations
are manifested in these interactions.
3. Social Practice (Explanation): This dimension delves into the broader societal and
institutional factors that influence and are influenced by discourse. It examines how language
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 40, NO. 3 (2024) 175

contributes to shaping and maintaining social structures, ideologies, and power dynamics.
By examining these three dimensions in tandem, the CDA framework seeks to
uncover how language is used to uphold or challenge power structures, reinforce dominant
ideologies, and influence social practices and norms. It provides a comprehensive approach to
understanding the complex relationship between language and society and enables researchers
to critically analyze the role of discourse in shaping social reality.
The relationship between discourse, power, and ideology is also emphasized by
Fairclough (1993), in which he combines the notions of discursive practice inspired by
Bakhtin’s concept of intertextuality (1986) and Gramsci's theory of hegemony (1971).
Fairclough perceives hegemony as a way to theorize change in relation to the evolution of
power relations and as contributing to and being shaped by broader processes of change
(Fairclough, 1993). Hegemony is seen as domination across different societal domains,
including economic, political, and ideological realms, exerted by one economically-defined
class in alliance with other social forces. Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999, p. 24)) define
hegemony as “relations of domination based upon consent rather than coercion, involving the
naturalization of practices and their social relations as well as relations between practices, as
matters of common sense – hence the concept of hegemony emphasizes the importance of
ideology in achieving and maintaining relations of domination”.
The analysis of dominance and hegemony is utilized to examine orders of discourse,
as discussed by Fairclough (2001b). According to him, a social order is constituted by a
network of interconnected social practices, particularly in its linguistic aspect. In the context
of orders of discourse, the elements involved are not linguistic structures like nouns and
sentences, but rather discourses, genres, and styles. These elements select certain linguistic
possibilities while excluding others, thereby regulating linguistic variability in specific areas
of social life. Over time, orders of discourse can undergo changes that are influenced by shifts
in power relations during social interactions.
Fairclough also explores the relationships between orders of discourse, which he terms
“interdiscursivity”. He also notes that the interdiscursivity of a text is a part of its
intertextuality, involving considerations of the genres, discourses, and styles it draws upon
and how it incorporates them into specific articulations.
When evaluating the appropriateness of Fairclough’s approach in different research
contexts, it is necessary to consider the strong points and weak points of this approach.
Fairclough’s approach offers a holistic perspective by examining discourse through three
dimensions: textual analysis, discursive practice, and social practice. This allows for a
comprehensive understanding of how language operates within its socio-political context.
Moreover, the approach draws from linguistics, sociology, and critical theory, making it
interdisciplinary in nature. This enables researchers to integrate insights from various fields,
enriching the analysis. Nevertheless, the approach emphasizes more on linguistic analysis,
which may lead to a narrower focus on language structures and broader socio-political
contexts. Its multi-dimensional framework can also challenge novice researchers.
Considering the mentioned strong points and weak points, researchers can apply
Fairclough's critical approach in research contexts where a comprehensive analysis of
discourse in relation to power and ideology is required. It is particularly suitable for studies
that involve in-depth linguistic analysis and examination of the three dimensions (textual,
discursive, and social practice) of discourse. Researchers who aim to explore how language
contributes to the enactment and reproduction of power relations and ideologies in various
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 40, NO. 3 (2024) 176

socio-political contexts may find Fairclough's approach valuable. However, it is crucial to

consider the research questions, objectives, and available resources when determining the
suitability of this approach.
2. Wodak’s Discourse-Historical Approach
Wodak’s viewpoint in his discourse-historical approach is based on Fairclough’s
critical perspective, which regards discourse as a form of social practice (Fairclough &
Wodak, 1997; Wodak, 2001). Wodak (2001) proposes a dialectical relationship between
discursive practices and fields of action, such as situations, institutions, and social structures,
in which they are situated. In that sense, discourses, as linguistic social practices, both
constitute and are constituted by non-discursive and discursive social practices.
According to Wodak (2001, p. 66), discourse is “a complex combination of
simultaneous and sequential interconnected linguistic acts that manifest themselves within
specific social fields of action, often taking the form of “texts”. The characteristics of
discourse are described by Reisigl and Wodak (2009, p. 89) as follows:
- a cluster of context-dependent semiotic practices that are situated within specific
fields of social action;
- socially constituted and socially constitutive;
- related to a macro-topic;
- linked to the argumentation about validity claims such as truth and normative
validity involving several social actors who have different points of view.
Also hinging upon Fairclough’s viewpoint, Wodak (2001) regards texts as the
outcomes of discourse and defines them as “durable products of linguistic actions” (p. 66).
The discourse-historical approach considers intertextual and interdiscursive relationships
among texts, genres, and discourses, as well as sociological variables and situational
frameworks. Intertextuality in this approach refers to the connections between texts, while
interdiscursivity refers to the connections between discourses. The approach emphasizes
exploring how discourses, genres, and texts change in response to socio-political
transformations.
A triangulation principle that integrates various interdisciplinary approaches is applied
by Wodak to analyze the correlation between discursive and other social practices and
structures. For instance, when examining the discursive construction of collective groups such
as races, nations, and ethnicities, an interdisciplinary approach combines historical, socio-
political, and linguistic perspectives. The principle of triangulation involves using different
data collection methods and analyzing diverse corpora and genres. Wodak's (2001)
triangulatory approach is context-based and four dimensions are examined: (1) the immediate
language or text internal co-text, (2) the intertextual and interdiscursive relationships between
utterances, texts, genres, and discourses, (3) the social and sociological variables and
institutional frames within a specific situational context, and (4) the broader socio-political
and historical context in which the discursive practices are situated and connected.
In analyzing texts related to races, ethnicities, nations, or national identities, Reisigl
and Wodak (2009, p. xiii) propose five questions to guide the examination of discursive
strategies:
- How are persons named and referred to linguistically? (referential strategies)
- What traits, characteristics, qualities, and features are attributed to them?
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 40, NO. 3 (2024) 177

(predicational strategies)
- By means of what arguments and argumentation schemes do specific persons or
social groups try to justify and legitimate the exclusion, discrimination, suppression, and
exploitation of others? (argumentation strategies, including fallacies)
- From what perspective or points of view are these namings, attributions, and
arguments expressed? (perspectivation and framing strategies)
- Are the respective discriminating utterances articulated overtly, are they even
intensified or are they mitigated? (mitigation and intensification strategies)
Furthermore, Wodak et al. (2009) provide an illustration of the discourse-historical
framework through their study on the discursive construction of national identity in Austria.
They analyze interviews, focus-group discussions, and media products, including newspapers,
posters, and politicians' speeches. The analysis involves three levels: content analysis,
strategy analysis, and analysis of means and forms of realization. At the content level, the
authors focus on the linguistic construction of homo Austriacus, a shared culture, a shared
political present and future, a 'national body'. Then the strategies employed to achieve specific
goals, such as political and psychological objectives, are included in the second level of the
analytical framework. Accordingly, four macro-strategies are identified: constructive
strategies that aim to construct and establish a particular national identity by promoting unity,
identification, solidarity, and differentiation; perpetuating strategies that seek to maintain and
reproduce a threatened national identity by preserving, supporting, and protecting it;
transformational strategies that intend to transform an established national identity and its
components into a different conceptualized identity; and destructive strategies that aim to
dismantle or criticize existing parts of a national identity construct (p. 33). The third level of
Wodak’s analytical framework focuses on the linguistic means used in the discursive
construction of national identity, particularly lexical items and syntactic devices that serve to
establish concepts such as unification, unity, sameness, difference, uniqueness, origin,
continuity, and change. The key linguistic means they highlight include personal reference
(generic terms for people, personal pronouns, quantifiers), spatial reference (place names,
adverbs of place, spatial reference through personal reference or prepositional phrases like
'with us' or 'with them') and temporal reference (temporal prepositions, adverbs of time,
temporal conjunctions, temporal references using nouns or prefixes with temporal meaning)
(p. 35).
In addition to the above mentioned, other linguistic and rhetorical devices including
euphemisms, allusions, rhetorical questions, the use of passive or active voice, agency
personification, and others are also examined by the authors.
Wodak et al.’s (2009) study operates on the assumption that national identities are
constructed and perpetuated through discourse. However, the study also acknowledges that
the construction of national identities is not solely reliant on discourse; institutional and
material social structures play a significant role in shaping national identities. The study
emphasizes the importance of intertextual connections, including the literal repetition of
passages from speeches, texts from historians, political scientists, and essayists, and the
transfer of clichéd formulations from politics and the media to semi-public and quasi-private
domains through recontextualization.
Wodak’s discourse-historical approach has its own strengths and weaknesses. The first
advantage of this approach is that it places a strong emphasis on historical and socio-political
contexts. It is particularly applicable for analyzing discursive changes over time, making it
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 40, NO. 3 (2024) 178

effective in examining how discourse is shaped by and shapes historical events and social
developments. Additionally, Wodak’s approach highlights intertextual and interdiscursive
relationships among texts, genres, and discourses, which enables researchers to explore how
discourses are interconnected and how elements from one discourse are recontextualized in
another. Furthermore, researchers can analyze linguistic features, socio-political contexts, and
historical developments, providing a more comprehensive view of the discursive phenomena
under investigation. However, this approach can be complex and time-consuming for
researchers. While its emphasis on history is a strength, it may not be the most appropriate
approach for studying contemporary discourses where historical data may be limited or less
relevant.
Considering these advantages and disadvantages, Wodak’s discourse-historical
approach is most appropriate for studying discourses that are closely tied to historical events
and socio-political transformations. It may be less suitable for contemporary discourses with
limited access to historical data.
3. Van Dijk’s Socio-Cognitive Approach
Van Dijk's socio-cognitive approach, similar to Fairclough's approach, aims to
establish a connection between the micro-structure of language and the macro-structure of
society. However, while Fairclough focuses on discursive practice, Van Dijk emphasizes
social cognition as the intermediary between text and society.
According to Van Dijk (1993a), social cognitions encompass socially shared
representations of societal arrangements, groups, and relations, as well as mental operations
such as interpretation, thinking, arguing, inference, and learning. In distinguishing between
the micro-structure and macro-structure of texts, Van Dijk's work aligns with that of Kintsch
and Van Dijk (1978). The macro-level pertains to power, dominance, and inequality among
social groups, while the micro-level encompasses language use, discourse, verbal interaction,
and communication. Van Dijk posits that societal structures are linked to discourse structures
through the actors involved and their cognitive processes (Van Dijk, 2001b).
Van Dijk has applied his discourse analysis approach to the examination of media
texts, particularly focusing on the role of discourse in the reproduction of inequality in race
and ethnic relations. His studies on discourse and racism have contributed to a comprehensive
theory that identifies discourse as a complex system that perpetuates social and political
inequality. Van Dijk's analysis of news discourse and ethnic minorities in his work “Racism
and the Press” (1991) reveals how the media reinforces racism and unequal power relations
by marginalizing and negatively portraying minority groups.
In his critical discourse analysis, Van Dijk (2000a) explores ideological structures and
the social relations of power inherent in discourse. He argues that news texts are controlled by
dominant powers, and ideologies can shape all aspects of discourse, whether explicitly or
implicitly (Van Dijk, 2000a). Van Dijk (2001, p. 355) distinguishes two main types of power:
“coercive power”, based on force, and “persuasive power”, based on knowledge, information,
or authority.
The author proposes an “ideological square” (4 principles) as a framework for
analyzing ideology, which involves:
1. Emphasize positive things about Us;
2. Emphasize negative things about Them;
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 40, NO. 3 (2024) 179

3. De-emphasize negative things about Us;

4. De-emphasize positive things about Them. (Van Dijk, 2000a, p. 44)
Van Dijk's socio-cognitive approach to discourse focuses on the interplay between
discourse, cognition, and society. Discourse encompasses various forms of communication,
while cognition refers to the mental structures and processes involved in discourse and
interaction. Society encompasses both micro-level interactions and broader societal and
political structures. Van Dijk (2001a) highlights the significance of understanding the
cognitive and social dimensions of discourse in its relevant local and global contexts.
From the above analysis, it can be seen that Van Dijk's socio-cognitive approach
provides a unique perspective by focusing on cognitive processes involved in discourse
comprehension and production. It helps researchers understand how language users interpret,
evaluate, and construct meaning from discourse, shedding light on the role of cognition in
shaping discourse. While emphasizing cognition, Van Dijk's approach does not neglect the
critical examination of power, ideology, and social structures. It offers insights into how
power relations are reflected in cognitive processes, making it suitable for studying how
dominant ideologies are reinforced or challenged through discourse. Therefore, this approach
can be applied to a wide range of discourses, including media discourse, political discourse,
and everyday communication.
Nevertheless, Van Dijk’s approach places less emphasis on historical context
compared to approaches like Wodak’s discourse-historical approach. This limitation may
make it less suitable for studying discourses deeply rooted in historical events.
In summary, critical discourse analysis encompasses multiple theoretical and
methodological approaches. Fairclough's socio-critical approach, Wodak’s discourse-
historical approach, and Van Dijk's socio-cognitive approach are prominent within the field.
Fairclough’s and Wodak’s approaches share a focus on discourse as a form of social practice,
while Wodak’s approach is closely related to Van Dijk's socio-cognitive theory, which views
discourse as a form of knowledge and memory. These approaches all emphasize the
interconnections between language, ideology, and power relations. For experienced
researchers aiming at a more holistic understanding of the discourse, combining these
approaches in critical analysis can enhance the depth and breadth of understanding in various
ways:
First of all, each scholar brings unique insights and perspectives to critical analysis.
Fairclough's framework emphasizes the linguistic aspects of discourse, Wodak’s approach
focuses on the socio-political context and power relations, while Van Dijk's work delves into
cognitive and social aspects of discourse processing. Researchers have the flexibility to
combine two approaches, not necessarily integrating all the three simultaneously, allowing
them to complement each other effectively.
Secondly, integrating different approaches allows researchers to explore how
language, power, ideology interact and influence each other, especially in political discourses.
This integrated perspective can lead to more profound insights into the underlying
mechanisms shaping communication and discourse practices.
Thirdly, each scholar's approach comes with its own set of methods and techniques for
analysis. By combining these approaches, researchers have access to a broader range of
methodological tools. This diversity allows them to triangulate findings, validate
interpretations, and strengthen the overall rigor of their analysis.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 40, NO. 3 (2024) 180

Last but not least, Fairclough, Wodak, and Van Dijk’s approaches are interdisciplinary
in nature, drawing from linguistics, sociology, psychology, and other fields. Combining these
approaches facilitates the integration of insights from different disciplines, enriching the
analysis and offering a more holistic understanding of discourses.
Overall, the combination of Fairclough, Wodak, and Van Dijk’s approaches in critical
analysis brings together diverse perspectives, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
This integration strengthens the analytical process and provides a more comprehensive and
rigorous examination of discourses (especially political ones) and their implications in
society.
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, the examination of the most influential CDA approaches by Fairclough,
Wodak, and Van Dijk illuminates the rich and multifaceted nature of this field. Each of these
scholars has made significant contributions that have deepened our understanding of how
language operates within the socio-political context. By combining these approaches,
experienced researchers can engage in nuanced examinations of language, ideology, and
society, ultimately advancing our grasp of how discourse shapes our world.
Due to the size of the paper, only three approaches of Fairclough, Wodak and Van
Dijk are examined and discussed. To further benefit from CDA, future researches can explore
approaches by other CDA practitioners for more comprehensive insights or more extensive
empirical studies can be conducted to test and validate the methodologies proposed by
Fairclough, Wodak and Van Dijk in various real-world contexts.
References
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. University of Texas Press.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis.
Edinburgh University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1993). Discourse and social change. Blackwell.
Fairclough, N. (1995a). Media discourse. Edward Arnold.
Fairclough, N. (1995b). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2001a). Language and power (2nd ed.). Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2001b). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In R. Wodak, & M.
Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 121-138). Sage.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social
interaction: Discourse studies 2 (A multidisciplinary introduction) (pp. 258-284). Sage.
Fairclough, N., & Graham, P. (2002). Marx as critical discourse analyst: The genesis of a critical method and its
relevance to the critique of global capital. Estdios de Sociolinguistica, 3(1), 185-229.
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. Routledge.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (Q. Hoare, & G. N. Smith,
Trans.). International Publishers.
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production, Psychological
Review, 85, 363-394.
Martin, J. R., & Wodak, R. (2003). Introduction. In J. R. Martin, & R. Wodak (Eds.), Rr/reading the past:
Critical and functional perspective on time and value (pp. 1-18). John Benjamins.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.),
Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 87-121). Sage.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 40, NO. 3 (2024) 181

Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the press. Routledge.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1993a). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & society, 4(2), 249-283.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993b). Elite discourse and racism. Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Discourse, power and access. In C. R. Caldas- Coulthard, & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts
and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 84-104). Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2000a). Ideology and discourse: A multidisciplinary introduction. Pompeu Fabra University,
Barcelona.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2000b). On the analysis of parliamentary debates on immigration. In M. Reisigl, & R. Wodak
(Eds.), The semiotics of racism: Approaches to critical discourse analysis (pp. 85-103). Passagen
Verlag.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The
handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Blackwell.
Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical
discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). Sage.
Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity
(2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.

TÓM TẮT BA PHƯƠNG PHÁP PHÂN TÍCH

DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN CÓ ẢNH HƯỞNG NHẤT

Phạm Thị Quyên

Học viện Ngoại giao Việt Nam,
69 Chùa Láng, Láng Thượng, Đống Đa, Hà Nội, Việt Nam

Tóm tắt: Mục tiêu của bài viết này là nghiên cứu và tóm tắt các phương pháp cơ bản và có
ảnh hưởng nhất trong Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán (CDA). Bài viết giới thiệu tổng quan và các
nguyên tắc cơ bản của Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán, sau đó tìm hiểu ba cách tiếp cận chính được phát
triển bởi ba nhà nghiên cứu nổi bật trong lĩnh vực này là: Fairclough, Wodak và Van Dijk. Cách tiếp
cận phê phán của Fairclough, cách tiếp cận diễn ngôn - lịch sử của Wodak và cách tiếp cận nhận thức
xã hội của Van Dijk lần lượt được thảo luận. Nghiên cứu cũng chỉ ra các ưu điểm và hạn chế của mỗi
phương pháp, đề xuất các ngữ cảnh có thể áp dụng các phương pháp này. Cuối cùng, bài viết gợi ý
rằng việc kết hợp ba cách tiếp cận này rất có giá trị khi tiến hành phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán trong
các văn bản.
Từ khóa: phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán, phương pháp nhận thức xã hội, phương pháp diễn
ngôn - lịch sử, ngôn ngữ và quyền lực, quyền lực và hệ tư tưởng