Republic of Iraq

Ministry of Higher Education

And Scientific Research
University of Kerbala
College of Education for Human Sciences
Department of English

A SOCIOCOGNITIVE STUDY of ELIZABETH’S II

SPEECHES on HER DAUGHTER-IN-LAW
A Thesis Submitted to the Council of the College of Education
for Human Sciences, University of Kerbala in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Master in English
Language and Linguistics

By:
Baneen Adnan Jafar

Supervised by:
Prof. Haider Kadhim Kudair Bairmani (Ph. D)

2024 A.D 1445 A.H

 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
1.0 Preliminary Remark

This introductory chapter underscores the study's background by outlining

several research questions that require answers. Moreover, it presents the questions,
objectives, procedures, limits, and significance of the study.

1.1 Research Background

"The heart of critical discourse analysis is language," according to Locke (2004,

p. 11). Instead of presenting objective information about the world, newspapers
utilize language to express thoughts and opinions that represent values, ideals, and
ideology.

The use of certain linguistic patterns therefore reflects the importance of language
in the creation of ideas in the press. So, although language is a very useful middle
ground, it is not neutral (Fowler, 1991). For example, there's no objective way to
present a single individual; rather, it's about drawing attention to particular aspects
of identification that are connected to particular discourse genres (Machin & Mayr,
2012).

That is, different representations of the same thing arise because of ideological
differences rather than because there are a lot of different ways to state it (Fowler,
1991, p. 4). Regarding the incident that is being looked at, this is accurate.
Sociocognitive Discourse Studies (henceforth, SCDS) uses a sociocognitive
framework to investigate the relationship between discourse structures and social
structures. It looks at how common information, attitudes, and ideologies affect
language use in addition to examining the cognitive components of concepts and
metaphors, such as conversations regarding foreign nationals. A sociocognitive
approach emphasizes the importance of mental representations and demonstrates
how many speech structures are only completely understandable in terms of
cognitive ideas of information, beliefs, and knowledge, such as phonological stress,
grammatical order, and coherence relations. (Van Dijk, 2018).

It is obvious that the Sociocognitive analysis merely represents a more casual

version of a more complex analysis, one that would call for a thorough explanation
of the underlying mental models, attitudes, and ideologies, as well as their structures,
and the specific ways in which these structures influence discourse structures (Van
Dijk, 2018).

Discussing the sociocognitive approach strikes the researcher's attention think of

Queen Elizabeth's speeches toward her daughters-in-law, and these speeches will be
analyzed using van Dijk's sociocognitive model. These speeches, particularly
directed to her daughters-in-law, were chosen due to the Queen's prominence in
recent decades and their ability to expose previously unknown facts. Not only were
these talks aimed at the family, but they additionally impacted and limited the
influence of each one of her daughter-in-law. Women were dominated by other
women, as seen by how the entire country reflected these influences.

1.2 Research Problem

The study focuses on the Queen's speeches. Some of her speeches made to the
royal family members, and these speeches attract the researcher attention to be
studied as they carry a political significant. There is a wealth of literature on
sociocognitive studies by scholars such as Hiebert (2014), Mislevy (2018), Assia
(2017), and others but it is noteworthy that no one has used this model to Queen
Elizabeth's speeches despite the fact that they frequently have a significant
sociocognitive influence. This research attempts to address the following question
in order to fill this gap:
1. What are the speech acts, presupposition, adverbs, opinion and emotions,
metaphor, deictic and indexic, hedges and boosters that are utilized in
Elizabeth speeches?
2. What are the ideologies, attitudes, mental model, victimization that are
utilized?
3. What are the societal situation and action of those speeches?
1.3 objectives

1. Identifying the speech acts, presupposition, adverbs, opinion and

emotions, metaphor, deictic and indexic, hedges and boosters that are
utilized in Elizabeth speeches.
2. Specifying the ideologies, attitudes, mental model, victimization that are
utilized.
3. Finding the societal situation and action of those speeches.

1.4 Procedures

To achieve the aims of the study, the researcher follows the following procedures: 1.
Surveying the relevant literature on critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach and
the concept of sociocognitive as tools to move the discussion that is done in queen’s
words and some other related topics.

2. Adopting an appropriate model for the analysis of the speeches to the women of
the royal family.

3. Selecting the data for the analysis.

4. Analyzing the extracted data qualitatively in terms of the adopted model.

5. Discussing the results, drawing conclusions based on the findings of the analysis,
and giving some recommendations and suggestions for further research.

1.5 Limits

1. The research is limited to speeches of Queen Elizabeth II, especially those

addressed to her four daughters-in-law. The data are obtained from the
website:https://www.vanityfair.com/style/lilibet-diana-prince-harry-meghan-
markle-naming.
2. The selected data are available in the form of YouTube recordings.
3. The current study is limited to critical discourse analysis, the sociocognitive
model of Van Dijk (2013).

1.6 Significance

The current study is of importance for those who are interested in political
critics and political newspapers. Such speeches played a major role in the country's
politics and how power was divided between sons and daughters-in-law. The
sociocognitive approach applies a good explanation of some controversial words and
reveals the implicit meaning of these speeches. Thus linguists can address them in
speech analysis. Moreover, this study works to attract the attention of those
interested in feminist ideologies and expand their understanding of political feminist
movements and their importance in understanding how women manage the country
and their management and forms of imposing control.
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Preliminary Remark

This chapter presents the linguistic issue adopted as a field of study in this thesis: Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA). Some related issues to CDA are tackled, namely: Van Dijk’s Theories
in CDA, the Sociocognitive Approach, the Triangle of Discourse, Cognition, and Society, and
Discourse Components and Structures, along with Ideological Mechanisms in Discourse
Structures, the Cognitive Component, and the Social Component. It then provides a comprehensive
overview of The Life of Queen Elizabeth II, followed by an exploration of Queen Elizabeth II’s
daughters-in-law and their impact and contributions to the royal family. The chapter concludes
with a review of previous studies conducted in relation to the topic of this thesis and introduces
the current study, outlining its scope and significance.

2.1 Critical Discourse Analysis

According to Fairclough (1989, p.24), CDA examines “the whole process of social
interaction of which a text is just a part.” Wodak and Fairclough (1997) further add that language
is a “social practice,” which means any study of discourse must take into account the context of
language use. From Van Dijk’s perspective (2001), CDA is not merely a school or specialism in
discourse studies but rather one of several different “approaches.” Its objective, he argues, is to
provide an alternative “mode” or “perspective” for thinking, analysis, and application throughout
the field. Additionally, he explains that CDA examines “how social power abuse, dominance, and
inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context”
(p.352). Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001, p.4) similarly define discourse as an understanding of
reality that is socially produced within a specific social context and through acceptable social
norms. Although definitions vary, CDA scholars agree on one central idea: CDA seeks to expose
the negative side of discourse.
2.1.1Van Dijk’s Theories in CDA
Van Dijk's CDA theories offer a thorough framework for examining the ways in which
discourse interacts with ideologies, social power, and cognitive processes. His work on the
connection between language, cognition, and social structures has been fundamental to CDA. His
main theories are outlined in detail below.

2.1.1.1. Ideology and Discourse (1998)

Van Dijk's theory of ideology examines the ways in which ideologies impact the creation and
understanding of discourse. According to his theory, ideologies are belief systems that are common
to a group and influence how people and groups interact. Discourse can contain ideologies that
influence what one considers appropriate or normal in a particular context. van Dijk contends that
ideologies serve to legitimize or reinforce inequality in society (Van Dijk, 1998).
2.1.1.2 Elite Discourse and Racism (1993)

Van Dijk examines in elite Discourse and Racism how elites such as media organizations
and political figures use discourse to uphold their control over marginalized populations, especially
when it comes to racism. He looks at how societal injustices can be perpetuated and justified
through the discourse of influential groups. This process is described as a type of symbolic power,
in which existent power structures are reinforced by presenting particular viewpoints or attitudes
with legitimacy (Van Dijk, 1993).

2.1.1.3. Sociocognitive Theory (2008)

Van Dijk describes in the sociocognitive theory how discourse and social systems interact
cognitively. This theory emphasizes how mental models represent cognitive depictions of social
events or circumstances, and then influence the creation and perception of discourse. According
to the notion, discourse is also influenced by the common beliefs and knowledge of social
groupings. Individual cognitive processes act as a mediator between discourse and social
structures, allowing discourse to both produce and be a product of social reality (Van Dijk, 2008).
2.1.1.4 Context Models (2009)

Van Dijk explores how discourse serves as a means for power in his book Discourse and
Power. He clarifies how speech is used by influential groups, such politicians or media elites, to
shape public opinion, manage information, and maintain their authority. According to the theory,
discourse can be used as a tool of social control by legitimizing and reproducing power dynamics
(Van Dijk, 2008).

According to van Dijk's Context Models theory, people comprehend and interpret
discourse in certain contexts by using cognitive representations. Context models are conceptual
frameworks that assist people in understanding the situational context of communication by taking
into account elements such as setting, audience, and cultural norms. The theory emphasizes that
these context models affect listeners' interpretations of speech in addition to how it is created (Van
Dijk, 2009).

2.1.1.5 Discourse as a Social Practice (2001)

According to van Dijk, discourse is a type of social action that simultaneously influences
and reflects social structures. According to this idea, language has the ability to create and reshape
structures of society in addition to reflecting reality. Cultural norms and power dynamics can be
reinforced or challenged through discourse. Van Dijk states that CDA studies how language is
used to either maintain or disrupt power relations and social inequality (Van Dijk, 2001).

2.1.1.7 Critical Discourse Analysis as Social Critique (2009)

Van Dijk uses social critique as the foundation for his CDA approach. He supports the idea
that CDA is a method for identifying and unraveling hidden power and inequality structures in
discourse. CDA is regarded as a technique for uncovering the ways in which language maintains
biases, stereotypes and social inequalities as well as for offering strategies for rejecting prevailing
beliefs (Van Dijk, 2009).
2.2 The Sociocognitive Approach in CDA
The CDA is a type of discourse analysis that focuses on how language and text in social and
political contexts enact, uphold, and challenge domination, inequality, and abuse of social power.
Taking an obvious position in such dissident research, CDA aims to analyze, reveal, and eventually
struggle the injustice of society (van Dijk, 2001). van Dijk's sociocognitive approach, which is part
of the larger framework of critical discourse studies, focuses on the cognitive elements of discourse
production and comprehension (Van Dijk 2014a). While all CDA approaches examine the
connections between discourse and society, a sociocognitive approach asserts that these
connections are mediated by cognition. Social structures and discourse structures are connected
by the shared knowledge, attitudes, and ideologies of society as well as the mental representations
of language users (van Dijk, 2016). Van Dijk has created this approach, arguing that it is a novel
technique that examines discourse structures through a perspective of their social and cognitive
settings, resulting from the integrating of CDA and cognitive linguistics (Attia, 2007).
Additionally, van Dijk contends that discourse structures and social structures do not directly or
linearly correspond, but rather operate through a cognitive interface known as "the mental
representations of language users as individuals and as social members" (Van Dijk 2015a, p. 64).

According to van Dijk (1998), CDA is the study of spoken and written texts with the goal of
identifying the discursive bases of inequality, power, dominance, and bias. It examines how these
discursive elements are maintained and reproduced across various historical, social, and political
contexts. CDA is not a methodology but rather a critical perspective, viewpoint, or belief in the
field of interdisciplinary discourse studies. The acronym CDA thus represents "discourse analysis
with an attitude" (van Dijk, 2001). In recent years, van Dijk and others have used the larger name
"critical discourse studies" (CDS) to underline the field's institutional resemblance to other
multidisciplinary disciplines, including women's studies, cultural studies, and gender studies. This
will be discussed in greater depth in the coming sections.

2.2.1 The Sociocognitive Approach View

According to the sociocognitive approach, learning is the outcome of the interaction between
cognitive and social processes; knowledge is not acquired in an isolated setting, but rather is shaped
through interactions with one's social and cultural environment; knowledge is built through social
structures like media, culture, and social classes, which facilitate knowledge sharing across
members of society; and through these interactions, people learn "social facts" based on collective
understanding that has been formed over time (Van Dijk, 2008). This approach also emphasizes
how people actively contribute to the creation of "social realities" through their interactions with
shared beliefs within their epistemic communities and their own personal experiences, rather than
passively absorbing knowledge. Therefore, knowledge is more than just a collection of knowledge;
it is a socially situated and politically driven process, and the types of knowledge that can be
considered acceptable are frequently determined by power dynamics (Van Dijk, 2011). In this
process, discourse is crucial because it shapes people's perceptions of and their relationships with
the world (Fairclough, 1995).

Individuals inside a culture learn socially constructed realities when they receive what it
means to belong to a specific social class in a specific place and time. In this way, the socio-
cognitive approach grounds the postmodern epistemological framework in more practical, lived
experiences, so complementing it. It is not enough to only comprehend the construction of reality
and acknowledge how people function within a social dialectic; action and change-making are
equally essential. So, even if people are socially situated and do not actively create "the truth,"
they maintain the power to shape the world around them (Fairclough, 1995). Consequently, the
socio-cognitive approach emphasizes the necessity for people to interact with the systems in their
environment, questioning and possibly transforming them (Van Dijk, 2008).

2.2.2 The Triangle of Discourse, Cognition, and Society

The sociocognitive approach to discourse offers a critical framework for investigating the
ways in which society, language, and cognition interact to create social structures and meanings.
In order to comprehend how meanings are created and how they aid in the maintenance of social
structures like dominance and inequality, van Dijk highlights that sociocognitive discourse
analysis combines language, cognition, and social contexts. He theorizes that this method depends
on mental representations that people and communities create, which are linked to intricate
cognitive processes including societal common knowledge, ideologies, and values (Van Dijk,
2008).
 Wodak and Meyer (2016) argue that "integrating cognitive perspectives into discourse
analysis enables the examination of how power, ideologies, and social inequalities are reproduced
through language" (p. 53). This aligns with the sociocognitive approach to discourse, which
contends that social and political "realities" are created by society's members and is a component
of the larger social constructionism idea. In contrast to other social constructionist approaches,
such as discursive psychology, this kind of approach views these "constructions" as mental
representations stored in the brain. These representations and mental processes are important and
need to be thoroughly examined, especially in light of current developments in cognitive research.
Sociocognitive discourse studies (henceforth SCDS) is an interdisciplinary field that connects
discourse structures with social structures by integrating cognitive elements; it is not a method in
and of itself. The field is methodologically broad due to the variety of approaches that the cognitive
component of SCDS can use to analyze discourse and social structures. Accordingly, "socio-
cognitive discourse studies" is a better phrase than SCDS (van Dijk, 2017).

Sociocognitive discourse addresses how social and cognitive dynamics are reflected in
language. The study of sociocognitive discourse investigates the intricate sociocognitive
interaction that connects discourse structures to social structures. This study examines the
cognitive characteristics associated with the use of particular concepts or metaphors in order to
gain an understanding of how discourse participants' mental representations interact with social
structures. This approach is comparable to cognitive linguistics, which studies how language
meanings and mental representations are shaped by the human mind (Van Dijk, 2006). On the
other hand, sociocognitive discourse research focuses on participants' shared social knowledge and
continuous communicative common ground. As modern communicative participants and members
of social groups and communities, it also emphasizes the attitudes and ideologies of language users
(Kaal, Krennmayr, & Kaal, 2014). This approach emphasizes how crucial mental representations
are in forming discourse by showing that several aspects of it can only be completely described in
terms of different cognitive conceptions, especially those pertaining to participants' knowledge,
information, and beliefs. For example, important components in creating meaning in conversation
include syntactic word order, phonological stress, topic and focus, proposition structures, local
coherence links between propositions, pronouns, and co-reference. Furthermore, people organize
their interpretations and comprehensions of discourse through the use of metaphors, frames,
implications, presuppositions, and arguments (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002).
 A Sociocognitive discourse study does this by examining explicit psychological theories
of mental representations, such as particular mental models of language users or journalists, and
how these models function as a mediator between societal structures, shared social cognition
(knowledge, attitudes, and ideologies), and real text and speech. In contrast to other CDS research,
that examines and explains discourse in relation to its political and social settings, by adding a
cognitive bridge between discourse and society, SCDS goes one step further. It contends that social
and political structures may only affect text and speech through language users' thoughts and that
there is no direct connection between different structures, such as discourse and society. This is
made feasible by the fact that social members mentally represent both discourse and social
structures, enabling them to make cognitive connections between them before expressing them by
speech and in text (van Dijk, 2016).

According to van Dijk (2016) CDS examine the social and political aspects of speech and
writing with an emphasis on how media organizations might influence public opinion, especially
with regard to immigration. CDS studies the ways in which media and political elites shape
discourse, which may serve to further xenophobia and racism. Scholars in this field emphasize the
discursive reproduction of power abuse and opposition to it, placing a high priority on social equity
and justice. CDS takes a multidisciplinary, problem-oriented approach and calls for an ethical
framework for evaluating discourse. It frequently criticizes speech that infringes on human rights,
including racist or sexist rhetoric.

In critical discourse studies (henceforth CDS), van Dijk's sociocognitive approach is based
on the interaction of discourse, cognition, and society. The sociocognitive approach highlights the
mediating function of cognition in a unique way, even if other CDS paradigms examine the
reciprocal relationship between speech and society. Despite their underlying differences, discourse
and social structures are linked by language users' cognitive processes, which allow them to
function as both individuals and social group members (Van Dijk, 2008). In order to understand
social interactions and derive meaning from conversation, language users rely on mental models.
In the words of van Dijk (2014), "mental models are the cognitive interface between discourse and
society, allowing individuals to construct meaning from discourse based on their experiences and
knowledge" (p. 68). These mental models, which are influenced by beliefs, attitudes, and
knowledge, serve as a link between individual thought processes and social standards. A public
speech about economic injustice, for example, may have an impact on society views if its themes
are consistent with the listeners' pre-existing mental model of justice and equity. similarly, Wodak
and Meyer (2015) contend that "social cognition is central to understanding how discourses shape
and are shaped by societal structures and individual interpretations" (16). Future discourses may
be influenced by these interpretations, establishing a dynamic feedback loop between social
structures and mental processes. With respect to Chilton (2004), the sociocognitive approach
shows how discourse actively changes society structures in addition to reflecting them. He notes
that how social groupings are portrayed in the media may reinforce power disparities in society by
feeding discrimination. He contends, for instance, that "language functions as a tool of power by
normalizing certain ideologies while marginalizing others" (p. 45). However, changes in public
opinion have the power to subvert prevailing narratives and give rise to fresh discourse styles that
alter our perception of the world. Thus, the opinions of these scholars as a whole highlight how
important discourse is in forming society norms and ideology through the complex interplay
between social structure and individual cognition.

Cognitive mediation is crucial to psychology, but many interactionist discourse approaches

continue to be "anticognitivist," like behaviorism, concentrating only on what is "observable" or
socially "accessible." This ignores the fact that grammatical, semantic, pragmatic, and interactional
structures are cognitive "representations" or "inferences" drawn from actions and conversations
rather than being observable (Van Dijk, 2009).

SCA aims to (1) "identify" and "map" the cognitive tools that are employed to generate
and comprehend discourse, and (2) explain how these tools affect the "structure" and
"interpretation" of discourse in a given situation. According to van Dijk, SCA is an
interdisciplinary framework that uses techniques from cognitive psychology and sociology to
examine the function of knowledge in discourse rather than being a method (Gyollai, 2020).

Van Dijk's work, which focuses on how social cognition, including cognitive "models" and
"schemas," influences news generation and consumption, is a shift from text analysis to discourse
analysis. He illustrates how habitual activities shape micro-level social relationships and processes
by connecting media texts to their context (Fairclough, 1995).

Furthermore, sociocognitive theories emphasize that the relationship between text and
society is mediated by cognitive processes, which aids in the explanation of the discursive
construction of social inequality. These models show how textual structures and social
formation are influenced by social cognition. In keeping with Teun van Dijk (2008), "social
cognition refers to the mental representations and cognitive processes that group members use to
interpret and understand the world, which in turn shapes both texts and social structures" (p. 64).
He contends that social cognition functions as a bridge connecting the macro-level social structures
and the micro-level textual structures. Therefore, examining the relationship between textual
structures and cognitive factors influencing both individuals as well as groups is necessary to
comprehend how texts might have influence on society. The model suggested by the socio-
cognitive approach is diagrammatically represented in Figure 2, where the bidirectional arrows
show the dialectical relationship between textual structure and social structure mediated by social
cognition, and the shaded area denotes the microlevel focus of text analysis (Hart, 2010).

Social Cognition (Cognitive Structure)

Textual Structure Social Structure

Figure (1) Textual-cognitive-social Structure Triangle (Adopted)

Social memory is associated to social cognition, as defined by van Dijk (2002).According

to van Dijk, memory is an abstract mental structure that may be separated into short-term and long-
term memory and it is the basis for cognitive processes and representations. Information stored in
long-term memory compares to information processed in short-term memory. Short-term memory
processes information and compares it with long-term memory stores. Semantic memory and
episodic memory are additional divisions of long-term memory. While episodic memory stores
information based on individual experiences, semantic memory stores more generic, abstract, and
socially shared information, such as our knowledge of the language or the outside world (van Dijk
2002).
 Van Dijk (2002) refers to semantic memory as social memory because of the difference
between the socially shared character of semantic memory and the idiosyncratic nature of episodic
memory. Socially shared mental representations and structures are known as social cognitions.
Even though they are embodied in the cognitive systems of individuals, social cognitions are social
since they are shared and presupposed by group members. Individualism and social
constructivism, both of which are associated with text consumption, are therefore linked by the
sociocognitive model. Social cognitions include, among other things, member resources,
discourses, attitudes, ideologies, beliefs, and biases. Importantly, texts serve as the main medium
for learning, using, and changing these socially situated cognitive structures and representations.
Hart (2010) advocates this process is facilitated by humans' ability to metarepresent. One term for
a representation of a representation is "metarepresentation." Public metarepresentations that "carry
mental representations" and "have, at least by extension, some of the mental representations'
qualities" are called texts. Developing cognitive metarepresentations of the text's linguistic
representations is a necessary step in text interpretation.

The cognitive, social, and discourse components are therefore the three divisions of van
Dijk's sociocognitive theory. These components are discussed in details in the following
sections.

2.2.2.1 Discourse: Components and Structures

Discourse connects language, cognition, and social structures, functioning as a

multidimensional phenomenon of society. The relationship between discourse and society is
mediated by social cognition, which allows dominant groups to maintain power structures through
elite narratives like news reports on ethnic relations (van Dijk, 1992). This procedure entails
common social beliefs that uphold ethnic domination while emphasizing the function of discourse
for forming and acquiring societal cognition (van Dijk, 2009). Critical discourse analysts
frequently integrate social and cognitive aspects in their explanations of how discourse can either
resist or reproduce abuses of power (van Dijk, 2009). Furthermore, discourse creates places for
ideological contestation and transformation by functioning as a mediator between people's mental
models and more broad institutional practices (Fairclough, 2003).
 Gee (2014) elaborates that "Discourse functions not only to mediate societal power but also
as a tool for constructing social identities" (p.45). In addition, Gee (2014) expands that discourse
works as a tool for social identity construction as well as a mediator of societal power. Individuals
negotiate their roles and positions in society through the use of language, which is crucial in
establishing or challenging group identities, power dynamics, and social norms. As a social
practice, discourse both reflects and creates power and dominance dynamics in society. "Elite
discourse, such as media texts, shapes social cognition by reinforcing ideological representations
that influence people's views on social groups, ethnicity, and power relations" (van Dijk, 2009,
p.62).

Discourse
Structure of discourse ideological structures of discourse
Component

In the words of Swales (1990), "discourse communities," which have an impact on how
texts are constructed to satisfy the common objectives and expectations of particular groups,
greatly influence discourse structure. While early approaches focused on structural grammars, later
theories offered a variety of organizational frameworks, such as summaries, orientations, and
resolutions, that were specialized to particular genres. Likewise, Bhatia (2004) highlights that
"genre-specific discourse structures are designed not only to organize information but also to serve
specific communicative purposes, reflecting the strategic intentions of the writer" (p.22). This
demonstrates how these kinds of structures can achieve goals like evaluation, explanation, or
persuasion, improving communication's capacity for effectiveness. Building on these concepts,
van Dijk (2009) emphasizes how discourse structure incorporates phonological, syntactic, and
semantic components in addition to linguistic ones in order to establish coherence through mental
models. Discourse can be tailored to a range of communication objectives thanks to these
structures, from cultural products like television shows to argumentative genres like editorials.
Ultimately, discourse integrates cognitive and structural elements to shape societal power relations and
identity.
 The study of CDA looks at how social inequality and power dynamics are (re)produced via
discourse systems. By exposing how language either supports or undermines power, it reveals the
ideology of dominant groups through patterns such as polarization and pronoun usage (Wodak,
2021). Van Dijk (2005) outlines a number of important ideological discourse structures that
support social inequality and the (re)production of power. The structures in question consist of:

• Polarization: Draws attention to the sharp difference between an ingroup that is shown
positively and an outgroup that is portrayed negatively. This distinction can frequently be
used to justify contrary opinions or behaviors toward others and improve group loyalty.
• Pronouns: While "they" and "them" are used to establish opposition and distance toward
outgroups, terms like "we," "us," and "our" are used to promote harmony and solidarity
within the ingroup. Ideological discourse is frequently characterized by this binary
differences.
• Identification: Represents how members support their organization by using phrases like
"As a feminist, I/we…," which strengthens the group's identity and shared ideals.
• Emphasis on positive self-descriptions and negative other-descriptions: Maintaining
moral superiority, emphasize the good aspects of the ingroup and minimize its flaws
while negatively portraying the outgroup.
• Activities: Groups are frequently recognized by their typical roles or behaviors, which
highlight their acts as essential to their ideology.
• Norms and values: Uses common ideals like equality, justice, and freedom to defend
actions of the ingroup and criticize the outgroup.
• Interests: Reflects the competitiveness inherent in ideological struggles, emphasizing
material or symbolic benefits like as power, position, and access to public discourse.

2.2.2.2 Cognitive Component

The sociocognitive approach highlights how important memory, mental representations,
and cognitive processes are to the creation and understanding of speech. In order to comprehend
the link between discourse and social structures, van Dijk (1995, 2009, 2017) emphasizes the
necessity of connecting text and talk structures with mental frameworks from a sociocognitive
their perspective. In social, economic, and political settings, the conceptual impacts of use of
language are influenced by shared mental representations among group members, which also drive
social actions.

Since cognitive linguistics fills the gap between language and conceptual structures and
their social implications, its inclusion in CDA is appropriate. According to Dabrowska & Divjak
(2015), "cognitive linguistics provides CDA with the 'missing link' it requires explaining the
connection between discursive and social behaviors" (p.90). Although cognitive linguistics aids
CDA in explaining how language influences conceptualization, CDA expands on cognitive
linguistics by tackling social norms that limit behavior and discourse. It is crucial for discourse,
cognition, and ideology to interact because language transmits meanings that may impacts social
beliefs, attitudes, and ideologies. For example, euphemisms and metaphors can impact how people
see social issues such racism (van Dijk, 2008).

Van Dijk (2006) says that, Context models, which reflect participants' subjective
evaluations of communication setting, are essential for bridging the gap between cognition and
societal integration . Language choices and strategies for communication are impacted by these
models, which are shaped by knowledge, beliefs, and intentions. According to Golmohammadi et
al. (2014), cultural and cognitive differences have a big impact on the way that communication is
structured and perceived. Native academics, for instance, may use additional engagement
indicators to connect with readers and offer clear communication, illustrating how social and
cultural settings shape speech.

Van Dijk's multidisciplinary framework adds historical, social, and institutional contexts
to our understanding of cognition, going beyond individual processes. Not only is discourse a
means of communication, but it also reinforces and reshapes reality in society. By emphasizing
the dynamic interaction between discourse, mental models, and social structures, this
comprehensive approach provides a better comprehension of how language shapes and reflects
society (van Dijk, 1992). The Cognitive component is diagrammed as follows:

Discourse processing Knowledge

Cognitive
component
 Attitudes & Ideologies
Figure (3) Cognitive component (Adopted)

2.2.2.2.1 Discourse Processing

Discourse processing includes cognitive functions that are documented in

neuropsychology, such as thinking, perceiving, and interpreting. Long-term memory (LTM) stores
permanent information and beliefs, whereas short-term memory (STM), also known as working
memory (WM), manages current cognitive activities including attention and action. Together,
these systems regulate discourse-related activities, and neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's
disease can disrupt this process (van Dijk, 2016; van Dijk, 2009). Moreover, van Dijk (2016)
emphasizes the complexity of real-time, simultaneous cognitive processes involved in generating
language and processing. In order to maintain coherence, they involve processing sounds, syntax,
and meanings under the influence of overarching themes. Understanding and creating discourse
depend on these processes being coordinated (van Dijk, 2009). Kintsch (1998) further highlights
how cognitive structures influence understanding and highlights the importance of mental models
along with prior knowledge for discourse comprehension.

2.2.2.2.2 Knowledge

Knowledge is described as beliefs that serve as the basis for understanding, interaction, and
cognition and that meeting the epistemic norms of a society. Van Dijk (2009, 2002) makes a
distinction between group-specific information, which may be written off by outsiders as "beliefs"
or "opinions," and generally accepted generic knowledge, which is undeniable and shared
throughout society. Through discourse, knowledge can be acquired and maintained, influencing
individual mental models and passing along cultural values and norms. in this vein, Foucault
(1980) highlights how knowledge systems are intrinsically linked to power structures, with those
in control of knowledge having the ability to shape public opinion, manipulate society ideas, and
uphold prevailing ideologies. In an equivalent manner, Hart (2022) explains that "the interaction
between language, cognition, and power shapes the negotiation of 'truth' in society, where
knowledge is continuously contested and redefined in various social contexts" (p.178). Knowledge
is a social force that controls and guides the discourse in society, rather than merely an intellectual
production.

2.2.2.2.3 The Role of Ideologies on Attitudes

Socially shared ideas, such as attitudes and ideologies, are group-based and evaluative. In contrast,
social knowledge is not universally accepted and differs from these shared ideas (Van Dijk, 2002).
Underlying ideologies influence attitudes, which are schematically constructed beliefs that
encompass views of personal identity, origin, and intergroup connections. Ideologies like racism,
for example, shape attitudes toward immigration, education, and culture by arranging collective
beliefs into a polarizing "Us vs. Them" framework. Power dynamics, ingroup and outgroup
representation in language through themes, arguments, and metaphors are all governed by this
polarization (Van Dijk, 2009).

Van Dijk additionally discusses the manner in which ideologies form mental models that
impact discourse and individual experiences, so serving as the basis for attitudes. Biases in
ideological discourse are shown through polarized interpersonal relationships that are captured in
text structures, vocabulary, and narratives (Van Dijk, 2016). Social actors hold similar opinions
on important societal issues like immigration and terrorism because they are part of movements or
ideological organizations. Ideologies like feminist movements, militarism, or neoliberalism which
structure social cognition around identity, objectives, and resources, influence these common
attitudes. Discourse practices, mental models, and social attitudes all show polarization between
ingroups and outgroups (Van Dijk, 2009, 2016).

2.2.2.3 Social Components

The concept of discourse, according to van Dijk, is a broad communication event that
encompasses written text, gestures, visual pictures, and other semiotic signifiers in addition to
verbal exchanges. It includes mental structures, emotions, values, and beliefs as well as social and
personal cognition. Inequality, dominance, and social hierarchies are examples of broad
macrostructures as well as local microstructures that make up society. Discourse analysis
differentiates micro and macro contexts to account for these social and cognitive elements. While
macro context refers to the historical, political, cultural, and social background of a communicative
event, micro context refers to the current situation and interaction (van Dijk, 2009).

In the opinion of Van Leeuwen (2008), discourse is a social engagement that is intricately
entwined with society institutions and power relations, rather than only being a cognitive process.
He investigates the ways in which hegemonic organizations manipulate public discourse to
maintain social hierarchies. Social cognition plays a major role in this process of regulation since
shared information and ideologies shape how discourse gets generated and perceived. Discourse
analysis, in the author's view, needs to take these cognitive and sociological factors into
consideration in order to properly comprehend how language either supports or challenges
inequality and power.

As well, CDA examines social cognition, which includes the

common attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs of people in groups of people. A sociological view
connects macro-level institutions like governments, political movements, and media enterprises to
micro-level interactions like personal interactions and media consumption. Everyday social
interactions, many of which involve language, help shape and promote these macrostructures at
the micro level (van Dijk, 2009).

Social
Component

Micro and Macro Power and Domination

Micro and Macro Power and Domination Figure (4) Social component (Adopted)

2.2.2.3.1 Micro (local) vs Macro (Global)

Both micro and macro settings influence communication by relating social structures to
individual behaviors. The interaction between the micro and macro levels of society is known as
context. Whereas macro-level contexts cover more broad societal structures like historical,
cultural, and institutional frameworks, micro-level interactions concentrate on the immediate, local
contexts of communication. Because individual behaviors both reflect and have an impact on
broader societal processes, these levels are interrelated. Through roles and affiliations,
communication bridges the micro and macro by combining situational and societal variables with
personal and communal knowledge (van Dijk, 2009).

Users can switch between these levels through cognitive processes, highlighting various
abstractions according to the purposes of interactions. Although they are frequently implicit, macro
settings provide a background for communication and influence the interpretation and producing
of discourse. In formal or explanatory interactions, higher-level contextual elements—such as
social identities and cultural frameworks—become more noticeable under the influence of social
and cognitive structures (van Dijk, 2007). As seen in news reporting, where more general subjects
come before specifics, macrostructures like overarching themes arrange material in a hierarchical
manner and influence how credible a story is perceived (Fairclough, 1995).

In the opinion of Van Dijk (2008, 2009), context models function at many levels of
abstraction, ranging from localized discourse to social structures. A racist comment in parliament,
for example, might serve as a localized interaction that reflects broad issues within society like
inequality in races. Communication helps create and reproduce social realities, such as institutional
norms and power dynamics, by fusing macro-level meanings with micro-level details. In
discourse the micro and macro levels frequently overlap. For instance, language use is a
component of social order at the micro level. Inequality, power, and domination are issues at the
macro level. One sociological framework that fills the conceptual gap between these levels is CDA
(Fairclough, 1995).
The following are important processes that connect these levels:
1. Members and groups: Individuals engage in conversation as part of groups that take
collective action through their members.
2. Actions and processes: Individuals' social actions influence broader society processes like
news production or legislation.
3. Context and social structure: Press conferences and other discursive events are institutional
practices that are ingrained in social institutions.
4. Personal and social cognition: Social actors have shared knowledge and personal memories
that affect discourse.
Macro-level information typically serves as implicit backdrop, supporting discourse
generation and understanding but less commonly taking the focal point. Micro-level interactions
and macro-level frameworks operate together to create meaning and influence social processes
because of this dynamic interplay (Fairclough, 1995; van Dijk, 2009).

2.2.2.3.2 Power and Domination in Social Structures

The terms "power" and "domination" do not refer to qualities of interpersonal, but rather
to the control connections that exist between social groupings or organizations. Power functions
on a social and cognitive level, affecting the mental models, knowledge, attitudes, and ideologies
of dominated groups in addition to controlling their discourses and actions. Discourse has a
significance for controlling other groups' thoughts in order to maintain power (van Dijk, 2009). A
group's ability to influence another's behavior or thoughts by gaining access to valuable resources
like wealth, education, or status is known as social power. This power, which can be persuasive or
coercive, can indirectly govern people by influencing their way of thinking. CDA examines how
dominance or abuse of power helps the powerful group while harming the weaker ones. In
democratic settings, power can be frequently justifiable, but when it is misused, it can cause
inequality (van Dijk, 2009).

Group power is based on both symbolic (knowledge, position) and material (property,
capital) resources. Ethnicity, skin tone, and nationality are examples of symbolic elements that can
be used to exert power in ethnic encounters. Societal (including macro and micro-level structures),
cognitive (individual or societal mental models), and discourse (controlling interaction and
communication) are the three main components of CDA. Dominance leads to inequality in society
since it is the misuse of social power (van Dijk, 2009). Racism is a type of dominance in which a
particular group, typically white people, uses strategies like manipulation and persuasion to control
access to resources. Dominant groups shape political, media, and educational narratives for the
reason they have preferential access to public discourses. They have influence over the time,
location, and subject matter of discourse, while less powerful organizations have limited access.
Unequal access to communication legitimizes dominance and shapes public opinion (van Dijk,
1992).

These ideas were described by Van Dijk (2013) in order to clarify the institutional and
systemic character of power, its function in maintaining domination, and its impact on social
cognition. These presuppositions provide a framework for comprehending the relationships
between power and how they affect social unjust practices:

1. Power is an aspect of connections among groups, not of individuals.

2. Social power is the ability of one group to influence the behavior or attitudes of another.
3. Power is often restricted to particular areas of society, such as the media or politics.
4. Dominance includes the misuse of authority, which results in injustice.
5. Power is a component of having advantaged access to social resources and communication.
6. Dominance and power are institutionalized for consistent reproduction and control.
7. Dominance is frequently disputed, with dominated groups demonstrating counter-power.
Van Dijk (2002) goes on to say that abuse of power influences behavior as well as cognitive
processes, influencing public discourse to shape ideologies, attitudes, and knowledge. Power is
often persuasive rather than coercive in democratic settings, influencing social cognitions and
mental models through discourse strategies. Preferred models and ideologies may be formed via
this manipulation. CDA explores for techniques and cognitive structures that underlying these
activities.
A group's social reproduction is shaped by the social cognitions of its members, which are
shaped by the ideologies that are acquired through socialization and information processing. The
group's identity, conventions, values, and resources are all reflected in its ideology. Ideologies are
made up of these attributes and are often self-serving. White racists, for example, see society as a
struggle between whites and non-whites, and they believe that anybody who challenges their
identity, values, and resources is a threat. This is presented using a "Us vs. Them" perspective, in
which "They" are associated with negative characteristics and "We" with good ones (van Dijk,
2005).

2.2.2.3.3 Ideology

The concept of ideology is fundamental to social theory, CDA, and sociocognitive studies
because it clarifies how social behaviors and human mental processes are influenced by power
dynamics, values, and beliefs. Early definitions of ideology, like the one given by Antoine Destutt
de Tracy, who named it the "science of ideas," concentrated on the nature of ideas (Eagleton,
1991). However, modern interpretations place a strong emphasis on its function in power dynamics
and social control (Gramsci, 1971; Althusser, 1971). Ideology is frequently understood as a set of
values and beliefs that social groups hold in common, influencing how people view the world,
understand interpersonal relationships, and defend hierarchies of power (van Dijk, 1998).

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels provided one of the most significant interpretations of
ideology, contending that ideology promotes a false consciousness among subordinate groups in
order to further the interests of the ruling class (Marx & Engels, 1846). Ideology is positioned as
being inextricably linked to signs, and the material manifestation of signifiers is how
consciousness emerges. As "inner speech," language binds people to a social network of meaning,
shaping awareness (Voloshinov, 1929). Ideology, according to CDA, is discourse that upholds and
maintains social inequalities, frequently favoring one group at the expense of others. In order to
reveal hidden realities, such as inequality between genders that endure in spite of assertions of
equality, it challenges hegemonic language for hiding power dynamics (Eagleton, 2014).

Reality and people's perceptions, which are influenced by ideologies, are not the same.
These ideas alter reality; for example, the notion of gender equality might mask the enduring power
disparities in the workplace and in families. People who experience this disparity develop "false
consciousness," in which they are unable to identify the ideological basis of their experiences. It
is the responsibility of the researcher to criticize ideologies in order to reveal this distortion and
promote a change in reality (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002). Menard identifies two ideologies:
Sociological traditions perceive it as a strict worldview, whereas Marxist principles see it as a false
consciousness that reinforces domination by concealing contradictions. Marx maintained that
ideological frameworks could only be overturned by political action rather than intellectual
criticism, although his position has been criticized for supposing that there are objective ways for
understanding the world (Menard, 2017). The study of CDA focuses on ideologies as systems that
underpin social practices and events and serve to legitimize power dynamics and hierarchies.
Ideologies are viewed as methods that come from particular points of view and resolve disputes in
ways that advance dominating objectives. Ideologies are embodied in behaviors, genres, and
identities, and these practices are influenced by regular social interactions. In addition, different
points of view give rise to ideologies, which can result in conflicts and even domination. Through
the analysis of ideologies as practices and representations, CDA aims to reveal and challenge the
distorted perspectives that uphold dominance (Menard, 2017; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999).

Ideology is shaped by viewpoints that uphold dominance by ignoring differences, and its
objectives are understood through cultural and historical analysis. Even while hegemony depends
on interrelated social structures, it is not complete, which for opposition to arise. Depending on
van Dijk, ideology is a social, cognitive, and sociocognitive construct that provides group members
with a framework for interpretation without being characterized as either true or false. It can range
from simple ideas to intricate systems that are relatively stable while being influenced by context
(Van Dijk, 1995). On the other hand, Kress and Hodge define ideology as a structured collection
of ideas arranged around one particular point of view, making it clear that the Marxist tradition
perceives it as a distorted representation of real world that advances the objectives of dominant
groups (Kress & Hodge, 1979).

Ideology is a sociocultural and cognitive phenomenon that permeates human cognition and
social relationships. Verschueren (2012) asserts that ideologies reflect a particular kind of
intersubjectivity since they are socially located and shared rather than purely individual products.
They be utilized as frameworks that arrange attitudes, values, and social beliefs, affecting group
identity and behavior. Persson and Neto (2018) support a multidisciplinary approach to ideology,
emphasizing its function in forming social norms and power dynamics by seeing it as the interface
between social systems and cognition. According to van Dijk (1998, 2000, 2005), ideologies
structure beliefs, norms, and goals, and act as the fundamental structures for social group identity.
They frequently use polarization strategies, dividing "us" from "them" in order to defend
domination and hierarchies of power. In order to preserve their power, dominant ideologies usually
use aspects of manipulation, distortion, and mystification. However, van Dijk (2001) also points
out that ideologies are not always negative because they can motivate resistance to oppression and
promote social change on a collective level. Ideologies influence words and actions by mediating
between micro-level interpersonal interactions and macro-level societal structures through their
cognitive and social functions.
2.7 The Life of Queen Elizabeth II: A Comprehensive
Overview

Elizabeth II, the first child of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother),
was born in London on April 21, 1926. She wasn't expected to take the kingdom at first because
her father wasn't the heir apparent. However, Elizabeth became the heir to the British throne when
her father succeeded her uncle, King Edward VIII, who abdicated in 1936 (McGreevy, 2022).
During World War II, Elizabeth spent a large portion of her early years in both the countryside
and London. The royal family relocated to Windsor Castle for safety during the war. Four children
were born to her and Prince Philip after their 1947 marriage (Pruitt, 2023).

As mentioned by Coleman and Simpson (2024), Elizabeth became queen in 1952 at the
age of 25, after her father, George VI, passed away. On June 2, 1953, Westminster Abbey hosted
her coronation. A new era of public interaction with the monarchy began with the broadcast
ceremony. As noted by Davies (2024), during her reign, Queen Elizabeth collaborated with 15
British prime ministers and was a significant diplomat in international affairs. Her participation in
crises, such as the 1956 Suez Crisis, and her travels throughout the Commonwealth contributed to
the preservation of Britain's standing in the world.

Queen Elizabeth adopted media technology as part of her adaptation to the modern era.
Since her first Christmas broadcast on television in 1957, she has pushed to increase public access
to the monarchy. Her ongoing development and modernization of her public persona have been
hallmarks of her lengthy reign (The Learning Network, 2022).

A number of personal issues surrounded her family, most notably the unstable marriage
between Princess Diana and her son Charles. These occurrences influenced how the public saw
the royal family, as did the splits of other family members (Davies, 2022). In spite of these
problems, the queen remained calm and came to represent stability for the British people. One of
the longest reigning monarchs in British history is Queen Elizabeth II. Her legacy includes
becoming a strong leader of the Commonwealth, modernizing the monarchy, and representing
Britain throughout turbulent times (The Learning Network, 2022). Her legacy and impact continue
to define British society and the monarchy's place in the world, even beyond her death in 2022.

2.7.1 Queen Elizabeth II's Daughters-in-Law: Their Impact

and Contributions to the Royal Family
Princess Diana, Camilla, Kate Middleton, and Meghan Markle are the four most significant
daughters-in-law of Queen Elizabeth II, and their contributions to the royal family and charity
activities are highlighted in this section.

Princess Diana, the ex-wife of Prince Charles, was one of the most well-known members
of the British royal family. The media prominently reported on her life, presenting her as a
representation of kindness and generosity. Despite her personal struggles, such as her divorce from
Prince Charles, Diana continued to be a well-known person throughout the world. She made a
major contribution to humanitarian causes, especially in the fields of AIDS awareness and
landmine removal (Morton, 1997). Despite her untimely death in 1997, she continued to have a
sizable fan base and emerged as an important figure in public involvement.

One of the most important members of the British royal family today is Kate Middleton,
the Duchess of Cambridge. Following her 2011 marriage to Prince William, she has been the
subject of media attention ever since. Kate is well-known for her wide humanitarian work,
especially in the areas of child welfare and mental health (Morrison, 2012). Her job as a princess
is crucial in parenting her children, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis, and she
exemplifies elegance and composure while being independent.

Prince Harry's wife, Meghan Markle, was born in the US and used to be an actress.
Meghan's 2018 marriage to Prince Harry was a worldwide sensation, and her non-royal origins

and social views garnered a lot of attention. She started advocating for gender equality and human
rights after getting married. After she and her husband chose to leave royal duties in 2020, her
relationship with the royal family worsened despite her advocacy for social justice causes. They
wanted to live a more independent life, which is why they made this choice (Scobie & Durand,
2020).

Prince Charles's second wife is Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. She had difficulties and
public attention throughout her life prior to her marriage to Prince Charles, especially because of
her previous involvement with him during his marriage to Diana. Following their 2005 marriage,
Camilla rose to prominence within the royal family and took part in a wide range of royal and
charitable activities such as campaigns to promote environmental awareness and mental health
(Bower, 2006). Although she has been criticized, she has become a revered member of the royal
family.

Besides Queen Elizabeth's more well-known daughters-in-law, Sophie, Countess of

Wessex, and Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, were also significant members of the royal family.
Sophie, who married Prince Edward, kept a more quiet public image and worked on her
humanitarian activities, whereas Sarah Ferguson, who was married to Prince Andrew, was well-
known for her outspoken style and media presence (The List, 2024; Cheat Sheet, 2019).

2.8 Previous Studies

This section compares the current study to some previous ones in chronological order. All
of the studies are relevant to the current research; however, they are divided into two groups: the
first group discusses previous sociocognitive approach, while the second group focuses on Queen
Elizabeth II.

2.8.1 Previous Studies on Sociocognitive Approach

1.Daniel Gyollai (2020)

The study is entitled "The Sociocognitive Approach in Critical Discourse Studies and the
Phenomenological Sociology of Knowledge: Intersections." This article explores the potential of
phenomenological sociology to provide strong theoretical support to the Sociocognitive Approach
(SCA) in Critical Discourse Studies. The study aims to achieve two main objectives: (a) to
investigate the interconnections between knowledge, discourse, and society in SCA, with a focus
on the role of subjectivity, and (b) to demonstrate how phenomenological sociology’s exploration
of intersubjectivity can complement the insights of SCA.

The data for this article are based on a theoretical analysis of the intersections between
SCA and phenomenological sociology. The article examines key concepts from both fields,
analyzing how personal and socially shared knowledge are related, and how these correlations
influence discourse production and interpretation. Phenomenological sociology’s focus on the
conditions of intersubjective understanding and the relationship between subjective and objective
knowledge is integrated with the concepts from SCA.

The findings suggest that there is considerable overlap between the subject matter of
phenomenological sociology and SCA, with the potential for phenomenological sociology to
enrich the theoretical framework of SCA. This article advocates for greater attention to
phenomenological sociology within the field of Critical Discourse Studies as an underutilized
resource

2.Jasmina Đorđević & Ivana Šorgić )2023)

The study is entitled “Sociocognitive Discourse Structures Presenting Suffering during the
Corona Crisis: Can We Trust the News?” It explores how sociocognitive discourse structures,
based on van Dijk’s Sociocognitive Discourse Studies and Chouliaraki’s theory on the Mediation
of Suffering, are used in news reporting during the Corona crisis to attract readers’ attention and
sell stories, often at the expense of trust and confidence. The research aims to identify
sociocognitive discourse strategies employed in the Canadian daily newspaper "The Globe and
Mail" during the Corona crisis in 2019/2020. The study focuses on how these structures are
utilized to mediate representations of suffering, particularly in headlines, and to address the "out-
of-sight-out-of-mind" phenomenon even when covering economically and politically equal
groups.

The data, drawn from a custom-compiled corpus named “Globe &Mail-Corp,” comprises
news reports on the pandemic, analyzed for sociocognitive structures that frame distant suffering.
 The findings suggest that these discourse structures are primarily used to attract readers
rather than to build trust or foster confidence. They confirm that mediated representations of
suffering can heighten readers’ uncertainty and reflect violations of at least two core principles of
journalism.

3. Ahmed and Faiq (2023)

The study is entitled “A Socio-cognitive Approach to the Analysis of Selected American

Athletes' Celebrity Speeches.” This study explores the discourse of American athlete celebrities,
focusing on how their language reflects their thoughts, ideologies, and the way they influence
public perception. The study aims to achieve two objectives: (a) to investigate the type of language
used by athlete celebrities in their speeches, and (b) to identify the ideologies conveyed and how
these ideologies align with the discourse-cognition-society paradigm.

The data consist of three speeches delivered by prominent American athlete celebrities,
selected for their wide appeal and influence. These speeches are analyzed using van Dijk’s socio-
cognitive approach (1995a, 2016), which emphasizes the interplay between discourse, social
structures, and cognitive processes. Particular attention is given to how athletes present
themselves, instill ideologies, and shape public attitudes through their discourse.

The findings reveal that athlete celebrities act as key influencers by employing language
imbued with inspiration, empowerment, and positive values. Their discourse consistently portrays
them in a favorable light, helping to spread their ideologies and mindsets to a broad audience. This
highlights the significant role they play as spokespersons in society, shaping cultural norms and
public attitudes.

4. Elmy Maswand (2024)

The study is entitled “Interdisciplinary Insights: Sociocognitive Approaches in Malay

Applied Linguistics – A Bibliometric Perspective.” It looks at how Malay Applied Linguistics
(MAL) has changed over time using sociocognitive approaches, applying bibliometric analysis to
uncover interdisciplinary insights. The primary aim of the study is to map research trends within MAL
by analyzing the interplay between language, society, and cognition. The data is obtained for this study by
analyzing scholarly works indexed in the Google Scholar database from 2018 to 2023.
 The dataset includes bibliographic records of articles, conference papers, and book chapters
that discuss sociocognitive approaches in MAL. Advanced bibliometric tools are used to process
this dataset, enabling the identification of research themes, influential contributors, and emerging
concepts within the field.

The findings show that the dynamic interaction between language use, cultural context,
and cognitive processes is emphasized by sociocognitive approaches used in Malay Applied
Linguistics (MAL). They emphasize the field's interdisciplinary character by showing how
sociocognitive theories interact with linguistic and cultural studies to enhance MAL's theoretical
and practical aspects and offer more understanding of its intellectual development.

2.8.2 Previous Studies on Queen Elizabeth

1.Zheyuan Dai and Haitao Liu (2019)

The study is entitled “Quantitative Analysis of Queen Elizabeth II’s and American
Presidents’ Christmas Messages over 50 Years (1967–2018).” This study aims to evaluate the
stylistic features of Christmas messages delivered by Queen Elizabeth II and American Presidents,
focusing on both synchronic and diachronic analyses, especially at the lexical level.

The data for this study are based on Queen Elizabeth II’s and American Presidents’
Christmas messages from over a span of 50 years (1967–2018). These messages are analyzed in
terms of vocabulary richness, thematic concentration, and the use of specific lexical indicators
such as "big words" and "hapax legomena" (words occurring only once in the corpus).

The study concludes that Queen Elizabeth II’s messages demonstrate a higher level of
vocabulary richness and lexical complexity over the five decades. Her vocabulary is more diverse
and intricate compared to the American Presidents’ messages. However, American Presidents
surpass Queen Elizabeth II in thematic concentration, using Christmas messages as opportunities
to publicize political opinions. On the other hand, Queen Elizabeth II focuses on multiple smaller-
scale themes, deliberately avoiding political topics and emphasizing the accuracy of her words.

2. Namarek Beyat (2023)

 The study is entitled “A Critical Discourse Analysis of Queen Elizabeth II Coronation
Speech.” It applies Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to examine Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation
speech, focusing on the powerful behavior and ideology reflected in her discourse.The study aims
to analyze the use of specific lexical and grammatical constructions in the speech, including
modality and pronouns like “I” and “We,” to reveal the underlying power dynamics and
ideological structures. The analysis is conducted using Fairclough’s CDA model, which involves
three stages: text analysis, process evaluation, and social analysis.

The data for the study is the text of Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation speech, which serves
as the basis for identifying linguistic features and their ideological implications. The analysis
highlights how the Queen’s lexical choices portray a strong sense of national patriotism, while her
grammatical constructions emphasize shared responsibility with the parliament.

The findings reveal that: 1) The Queen’s use of specific lexical constructions conveys powerful
behavior and national pride. 2) The use of pronouns such as “I” and “We” demonstrates a balance
between personal accountability and collective responsibility. 3) The modal constructions in the
speech reflect the Queen’s determination and high degree of self-esteem. 4) The discourse
strategically fosters a sense of unity and mutual obligation between the monarchy and the
parliament, reinforcing her role as a committed and determined leader.

2.9 The Current Study

After discussing the aforementioned previous studies, it is necessary to pinpoint the
differences between the current study and the previously mentioned ones.

First, in most of the previous studies, the sociocognitive approach (SCA) has been applied
to analyze various domains such as critical discourse analysis (CDA), news reporting, athlete
celebrity speeches, and Malay applied linguistics. However, the present study, in contrast, adopts
van Dijk's sociocognitive model to investigate the sociocognitive dynamics between Queen
Elizabeth II and her daughters-in-law. This study examines how the interplay between cognition,
discourse, and social structures shapes their interpersonal relationships and how the Queen’s
sociocognitive strategies manifest in the analyzed discourse.
 Second, the data and focus of the current study differ significantly. While the previous
studies analyzed political speeches, media discourse, or bibliometric trends, the current study is
unique in its selection of data, which is a discourse involving Queen Elizabeth II and her daughters-
in-law, a highly specific and underexplored interpersonal context. This study focuses on how
sociocognitive strategies and underlying ideologies are reflected in discourse, providing insight
into both power dynamics and social cognition within a royal family context.

Third, the model used for analysis in the current study builds on van Dijk's SCA but is
adapted to highlight specific discourse strategies used by Queen Elizabeth II. These strategies are
studied not only in terms of power practice but also in terms of power resistance within familial
and hierarchical relationships. This dual focus distinguishes the current study, as it moves beyond
institutional or media discourse to a more nuanced analysis of personal and familial interactions.

Finally, unlike the reviewed studies, which often analyze texts at the lexical or structural
level (e.g., vocabulary richness, stylistic features, or thematic focus), the current study emphasizes
the sociocognitive processes underlying the Queen’s discourse. It integrates concepts like shared
knowledge, ideology, and cognitive framing to explore how discourse is shaped by and shapes
social cognition in the royal family setting.

To conclude, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, this is the first study to apply van
Dijk’s sociocognitive model to investigate Queen Elizabeth II’s discourse with her daughters-in-
law, filling a significant gap in both sociocognitive and discourse studies.
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Preliminary Remarks

3.1 Research Design

Researchers commonly employ three main approaches to their studies: qualitative,

quantitative, and mixed methods. These approaches offer unique perspectives and tools for
exploring research questions, with each method suited to different types of data and analysis.

As defined by Creswell (2009), qualitative research involves exploring and understanding

the importance that individuals or societies focus on a social or human issue. Developing
questions and processes, gathering data in the participants' environment, inductively analyzing
the data, moving from details to broad themes, and coming up with interpretations of the data's
relevance are all steps in the research process. Denzin and Lincoln (1994) add that qualitative
analysis is defined as the study of objects in their natural environments with the objective of
understanding or making sense of phenomena in terms of the meanings people attribute to them.
It usually uses observational evidence, such as interviews, case studies, life stories, interactional
texts, and visual texts. As a consequence, Neuman (2011) highlights that the social context can
often be the most crucial element in qualitative analysis, as it defines the meaning of a social
occurrence, argument, or activity.

Bryman (2012) defines the quantitative method as a research approach that prioritizes
quantification in the gathering and analysis of data. In addition, Williams (2007) explains that
doing quantitative research involves making calculations and obtaining data in a way that allows
it to be measured and statistically processed to support or refute alternative knowledge assertions.
However, quantitative analysis is defined as the use of mathematical techniques based on
numerical observations of particular aspects of phenomena; it draws conclusions from particular
cases in order to evaluate a theoretical hypothesis or find a general explanation; it looks for
calculation and analyses that are easy for other researchers to replicate (King et al., 1994).

Clark et al. (2008) explain that mixed methods analysis, often known as triangulation or
the amalgamation of techniques, refers to the combination of methods for collecting, analyzing,
and presenting data in analytical studies that incorporate both quantitative and qualitative
techniques. Neuman (2011) states that where qualitative and quantitative analysis approaches are
used together, their strengths complement one another, creating a more comprehensive, robust,
and enriched study that provides deeper insights into the research question.

For this study, the researcher used a qualitative analytic approach for several reasons. First,
qualitative techniques provide a deep understanding of how Queen Elizabeth II's speeches about
her daughters-in-law are influenced by sociocognitive factors. Second, the research focuses on
verbal communication in the form of speeches, rather than numerical data, making the qualitative
approach ideal for analyzing the language and discourse used by Queen Elizabeth II when
addressing or referring to her daughters-in-law. Finally, qualitative methods allow for dynamic
exploration, enabling the researcher to examine the nuances of her speeches, follow up on
particular phrases or themes, and uncover the sociocognitive dynamics at play. Although the study
is qualitative in nature, the researcher also employs frequencies and percentages to objectively
support the results and answer key research questions, offering a comprehensive perspective on
the language and its implications. ‫مو اكيد نستخدم نسب مئوية تاكدي من شغل بالمستقبل‬

b. Data Collection and Selection

This section outlines the study's procedures and the criteria used for selecting the data.

3.2.1Procedures

The data collection followed in the current study is internet-based. The researcher looked for data
and discovered roughly 50 speeches delivered by Elizabeth II. She later reduced these speeches to
four key speeches about her daughters-in-law based on the criteria outlined below. Two official
speeches and two personal speeches by Queen Elizabeth II have been selected for analysis. It is
notable that Elizabeth does not always speak publicly but occasionally addresses certain topics in
family meetings or private occasions. All the selected speeches focus on significant events or
milestones related to her daughters-in-law. Additionally, some speeches by her daughters-in-law
will be examined as reactions to these events, providing a broader perspective on the relationships
within the royal family and the surrounding social and political contexts. ‫نقاط لو فقرة تاكدي عدد الحطابات‬
‫يتغير‬

3.2.2 Criteria

The data in this study were intentionally selected based on the following criteria:

1. Since the current study is presented in English, the speeches chosen are in English, ensuring
that they align with the research focus and are accessible for analysis.
2. The study focuses on authentic speeches delivered by Queen Elizabeth II, sourced from
reputable magazines, books, and additional material retrieved from YouTube.
3. To focus specifically on the relationships within the royal family, the analysis centers on
Queen Elizabeth II's speeches related to her daughters-in-law, ensuring that the data reflects
the intended sociocognitive perspective.
4. The selected speeches provide insights into significant events or milestones and include
reflections on family relationships, demonstrating their broader sociocognitive impact.
5. The data prioritizes speeches addressing pivotal family dynamics, particularly those
involving her daughters-in-law. Additionally, the study will explore the reactions of the
daughters-in-law to Queen Elizabeth's speeches, providing a broader perspective on the
family relationships within the royal family.
6. All of the speeches selected highlight significant interactions and key moments involving
Queen Elizabeth II and her daughters-in-law, particularly in relation to major royal events,
significant milestones, or family matters.

3.3 Sample Size and Saturation

 The primary consideration in determining sample size is data saturation, which is "present in
all qualitative research" (Morse, 2015, p. 587). Data saturation is defined as "the phase of
qualitative data analysis in which the researcher has continued sampling and analyzing data until
no new data appear" by Morse (2004, p. 1123, as cited in Aldiabat & Navenec 2018, p. 247). A
crucial aspect of the current study's qualitative component is saturation. The following elements
are necessary for the current study to be saturated:

A. Information Power
As a sample size guideline, Malterud et al. (2016, as referenced in Aldiabat & Navenec,
2018, p. 248) introduced the phrase "information power." It can be defined as the type of power
based on information control to accomplish significant goals (Aldiabat & Navenec, 2018, p. 248).
Based on Malterud et al. (2016), information power is determined by three factors:

a) narrowing the study's objectives,

b) applying a theory, and

c) selecting the sample based on specific criteria.

Accordingly, the current study incorporates all three aspects. It has specific and focused objectives,
as outlined in Chapter One. Furthermore, applying the critical discussion model to the analysis of
Queen Elizabeth II's speeches demonstrates that the theoretical framework is both relevant and
effective, with the data proving to be representative and rich in sociocognitive strategies. Finally,
the selection of speeches is guided by the criteria detailed earlier in this chapter.

B. The Better the Smaller

Malterud et al. (2016, as reported in Aldiabat & Navenec, 2018) represent that information
power increases with decreasing sample size. Likewise, Padgett (1998) confirms that the depth
and richness of analysis can be improved by using a smaller sample size. Mason (2010, para 1)
concurs that larger sample sizes "can be time-consuming and often simply impractical" to analyze,
hence a lower sample size is better. He goes on to say that one instance of a code or a piece of data
is "as useful as many in understanding the process behind a topic" because qualitative research is
about meaning rather than stating broad hypotheses. Therefore, if the same data is presented, no
more data is required (Mason (2010, p.1). Therefore, to achieve the benefits of a smaller sample
size, only three of Queen Elizabeth II's speeches addressing her daughters-in-law are selected. ‫عدد‬
‫المقاالت‬

c. Structure of Context
In order to comprehend and interpret words and expressions, context is essential. Co-text (the
surrounding utterances), "the immediate physical situation," the broader situation (both social and
power relations), and the participants' shared knowledge are the most important aspects of context
(Cruse, 2006, p. 35). The researcher uses Hymes' (1974) SPEAKING model to characterize the
contextual elements of the data under study since it provides a thorough explanation of context.

In his model, Hymes uses sixteen components. He then introduces the acronym
"SPEAKING," where each letter represents a component or a factor that influences the specific
speech occurrence and controls the commutation process (Hymes, 1974, pp. 55-62).
These elements are briefly described as follows:

a. Setting and Scene

The term "setting" describes "the time and place" of a speech event, or its physical
conditions; on the other hand, "scene" refers to the psychological setting'' of the occasion or
participants' knowledge of the type of event taking place (Hymes, 1974, p. 55).

b. Participants
According to Holmes (1974, p. 56), participants embrace the audience, the hearer, and the
speaker.

c. Ends
Ends refer to both the goals, representing the objectives of those involved in the situation,
and the outcomes, signifying the intended purpose of an event or activity (Hymes, pp. 56–57).

d. Act Sequence
It relates to the speech event's message content and message form (Hymes, pp. 54-5).
e. Key
"the tone, manner, or spirit in which an act is done," i.e. whether it is somber, joyous, or
mocking, is explained by the speech event's key (Hymes, p. 57).

f. Instrumentalities
Instrumentalities are the channel or medium of communication, which can be written or spoken
(Hymes, p. 58).

g. Norms
They relate to the socioculturally acceptable behaviors and customs that determine what
people can say, how they can say it, and to whom they can say it. These rules control speech
(ibid., p. 60).

h. Genre
According to Hymes, it stands for "the categories [of communication] such as poem, myth,
tale, proverb, riddle, curse…etc." (p.61) Stated differently, the kind of conversation that is used to
accomplish a speech event.

d. Components of the Model

In the context of a sociocognitive study of Queen Elizabeth II’s speeches about her daughters-
in-law, Van Dijk's sociocognitive model serves as a valuable analytical tool for understanding
both the positive and negative aspects of these speeches. This model focuses on the interplay
between cognition, discourse, and society, making it suitable for exploring not only how the
Queen crafts her messages to reflect royal values but also the challenges and limitations these
speeches may face in achieving their objectives.

As Van Dijk (2008) explains, the sociocognitive model examines how mental models and
shared social knowledge influence the production and interpretation of discourse. In the case of
Queen Elizabeth II, these mental models often guide her approach to addressing complex familial
issues. However, her speeches may sometimes exhibit excessive caution or avoid direct
acknowledgment of contentious matters, which can be interpreted as an attempt to sidestep
conflict rather than address it transparently.

Van Dijk (2015b) emphasizes the importance of mental models in shaping discourse, but these
models may occasionally reflect a conservative royal perspective that diverges from the social
realities of the public. For instance, some speeches focus heavily on traditional values and royal
protocols, potentially creating a gap between the discourse and the public's expectations for more
candid and emotionally resonant messaging.

Additionally, the model highlights the role of discursive strategies in managing social
relationships and reinforcing symbolic authority. However, these strategies can sometimes appear
overly formal and constrained by protocol, diminishing the emotional connection with the
audience. This is evident in speeches that rely on formal language, which may fail to adequately
convey a humanizing dimension, particularly when addressing sensitive familial matters.

Applying Van Dijk's sociocognitive model helps uncover both the strengths and shortcomings
of Queen Elizabeth II’s speeches. On the one hand, these speeches demonstrate an ability to
uphold the image and values of the royal family. On the other hand, they reveal challenges in
effectively engaging a contemporary audience that increasingly expects greater transparency and
a stronger connection to social and familial issues.

Van Dijk proposes the socio-cognitive model of CDA. This method combines cognitive, social,
and discourse evaluations. It is based on the notion that discourse analysis concentrates on different
talk and text patterns, and that cognition acts as a mediator between society and discourse (van
Dijk, 1995). The micro-level analysis in van Dijk's framework examines elements like vocabulary,
syntax, semantics, and schematic structures, while the social analysis focuses on broader societal
systems such as democracy, capitalism, and issues like racism and group relations (van Dijk,
1995). At the macro level, the approach addresses power dynamics, dominance, and inequality
among groups (van Dijk, 2000). Van Dijk's political discourse analysis model highlights
ideological conflict in speech through a strategy of "positive self-representation and negative
other-representation," emphasizing the good qualities of one's group and de-emphasizing its flaws,
while doing the opposite for opposing groups (van Dijk, 2005). These strategies, supported by
micro-structural elements like syntax and lexical choices, reinforce group identities and ideologies
in public perception (van Dijk, 2002, 2005). Consequently, Van Dijk identifies ideological
instances in discourse by analyzing various levels such as syntax, semantics, lexicon, and context.
In his 2005 work, he introduced 25 discursive devices, which he describes as broad techniques for
producing ideological discourse and tools for recognizing and analyzing political discourse
ideologically. According to van Dijk (2005), these 25 discursive devices are:
 Van Dijk's socio-cognitive theory (2005, 2016) was created for media and political
discourses (texts and speeches). Discourse is defined as "a complex communicative event that
also embodies a social context featuring participants and their properties" (Van Dijk, 1988, p. 2).
The framework allows for three levels of analysis: cognitive (the interface between the two),
social (the macro-level), and discourse (the micro-level) (Van Dijk, 2005)." At the macro level,
social analysis looks at how society's inequality of power is represented among its individuals
(Van Dijk, 1995, 2005). The model's unique feature is its "us versus them" component, which is
to say that one presents one's own group in positive terms ("Positive Self-Representation") and
other groups in negative ones ("Negative Other-Representation") (Van Dijk, 1995, p. 22).It
appears that van Dijk's (2005) model for political discourse analysis offers a thorough analytical
method for spotting ideological differences in political discourse. Here is a summary that he
offers.

• Emphasize “Our” good things.

• Emphasize “Their” bad things.

• De-emphasize “Our” bad things.

• De-emphasize “Their” good things

In general, micro-level analysis in CDA looks at the application of syntax, local

semantics, vocabulary, topics and schematic structures.Van Dijk (2005) offers twenty-five
distinct discursive methods for micro-level analysis (Van Dijk, 2005, p. 735-736), which ara :

Actor description (meaning), authority (argumentation), burden (topos), categorization

(meaning), comparison (meaning, argumentation), consensus (political strategy),
counterfactuals (meaning, argumentation), disclaimers (meaning), euphemism (rhetoric,
meaning), evidentiality (meaning, argumentation), example/illustration (argumentation),
generalization (meaning, argumentation), hyperbole (rhetoric), implication (meaning), irony
(meaning), lexicalization (style), metaphor (meaning, rhetoric), national self-glorification
(meaning), norm expression (normalization), number game (rhetoric, argumentation),
polarization: US-Them categorization (meaning), populism (political strategy),
presupposition (meaning), vagueness (meaning), and victimization (meaning).