The concepts of "text" and "discourse" have been widely used in the social sciences and the definitions have been revisited in many studies (Wodak, 2001), despite an all-too-frequent mention , a concrete definition has been elusive. The fact that these attempts to define “text” or “discourse” often cite Michel Foucault, Jürgen Habermas or Louis Althusser makes the task more challenging. According to Wodak (2001) discourse can mean anything from “a historical monument, a lieu de mémoire, a policy, a political strategy, narratives in a narrow or broad sense of the term, a text, a speech, a discourse, conversations relating to a topic, to the language itself". Van Dijk (1997a) complains that, just like concepts such as language, communication, society, culture, etc., “the notion of discourse is essentially confused”. While Van Dijk (2007) refers to discourse as a complex phenomenon that has been studied in virtually all social science disciplines, Widdowson (1995) defines discourse as “a controversial area of ​​inquiry.” Fairclough (1992) states that discourse is a “difficult concept largely because there are so many conflicting and overlapping definitions formulated from various theoretical and disciplinary points of view”. However, numerous scholars belonging to the field of critical linguistics have formulated a rather tangible definition of the term "discourse". Chief among these scholars are Teun A. van Dijk, Ruth Wodak, and Norman Fairclough, among others. In its most basic form, discourse can refer to the use of both spoken and written language, it could also refer to ideas or ideologies propagated through text, discourse can also be understood as interaction in social situations (van Dijk, 2007). In the European academic tradition, a distinction is sometimes recognized between "text" and "discourse"; however, generally the term discourse can be used for both oral and written texts. Discourse can also refer to the process of inferring meaning with the help of language or other symbols in a particular situation or context. Discourse cannot be understood without analyzing its relationship with the text, Chalaby (1996) clarifies this relationship, “discourses are embodied and enacted in a variety of texts, although they exist beyond the individual texts that compose them. Texts can therefore be considered a discursive 'unit' and a material manifestation of discourse”. It is important to note that "texts" are not limited to written words but meaning includes spoken words, images, symbols and artefacts. Although many scholars see some degree of ideational difference between text and speech, it is also used synonymously; for example in Wallace Chafe's masterful Oxford International Encyclopaedia of Linguistics, the author makes no difference between the two: Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The term “discourse” is used in slightly different ways by different scholars, but underlying the differences is a common concern with language beyond the boundaries of isolated sentences. The term TEXT is used in similar ways. Both terms can refer to a linguistic unit larger than the sentence: we can talk about a 'discourse' or a 'text (Chafe, 1992 as cited in Widdowson, 2004) (p.6)Commenting on the relationship between discourse and text Parker (1992, cited in Phillips and Hardy, 2002) writes that discourse can be defined “as an interconnected set of texts and the practices of their production, dissemination and reception, which give life to an object”. Traditionally, that is, before the advent of CDA as an academic discipline, discourse was treated in linguistic terms, both astexts larger than a sentence, and as a language used by people. Critical linguists and scholars in the emerging field of CDA have modified this traditional approach and, as Blommaert (2005) explains, “gradually, old and established concepts and viewpoints of linguistics have been exchanged for more dynamic, flexible concepts and viewpoints. and activity-centered. Van Dijk (1990) comments on this transition: “At first, with some hesitation, linguistics and grammar dared to go beyond the self-imposed barriers of the sentence to discover a rich field of discursive constraints on grammatical rules.” Although there is some overlap between the linguistic and social aspects of discourse, Cobley (2001) clearly outlines the difference: the linguistic approach “focuses on the formal properties of language features above the sentence level”, the social approach is concerned with the 'text' as a material site for socially produced meanings, in short: “Discourse is social; and the text does not need to be linguistic”. The study of discourse has been driven by what Ives (2004) and Poynton and Lee (2000) call a “linguistic turn” that occurred in philosophy and the social sciences in the 20th century. This turn refers to a new and vigorous look at the use of language in society and recognizes how language may not be as passive as it might seem, but continually responds to the social contexts in which it operates. More importantly, in this “linguistic turn” the ability of language to internalize and carry the ideologies that oppress people has come under scrutiny. Lemke (2005) clarifies that “language does not operate in isolation. Meanings are always created in contexts where social expectations and non-linguistic symbols play a role.” It is these non-linguistic contexts and symbols that are the focus of discourse studies; the idea is not to focus on language in isolation but to adopt a more holistic view to better understand the world we live in. Phillips and Hardy (2002) explain the role of discourse in understanding a social phenomenon or problem by citing the example of the refugee problem. The modern world, with its characteristic ethnic conflicts, political violence and civil wars, has produced an unfortunate but constant flow of refugees, but how can the refugee issue be defined or understood from a discourse analytic perspective? First, it is necessary to understand discourses on related issues such as immigration, asylum, demography, etc., and then texts that bring the concept or debate about refugees must be examined, these texts may include documents from United Nations, journalistic debates, editorials, cartoons, etc. Finally, social contexts such as wars, natural disasters, politics, totalitarian leaders, etc. should be brought into focus. These relationships between texts, contexts and discourse will help us provide a discursively analytical interpretation of the problem. Texts, therefore, should not be studied in isolation, as Phillips and Hardy (2002) make clear: we cannot simply focus on a single text, however; rather we must refer to bodies of texts because it is the interrelationships between texts, changes in texts, new textual forms and new systems of distribution of texts that constitute a discourse over time. Likewise, we must also refer to the social context in which the texts are found and the discourses are produced. It is this connection between discourses and the social reality they constitute that makes discourse analysis a powerful method for studying social phenomena. (p.4-5) Blommaert (2005) explains the concept of discourse as a phenomenon by explaining the structure of print media advertising. AAdvertising in a newspaper, for example, is made up of a variety of elements, such as written text, graphics, images, colors, logos, etc. Here the text and the visual cannot be separated, and these components that make up an advertisement are neither arbitrary nor significant in themselves, Blommaert clarifies: “the object that we call here 'discourse' is the entire layout of the advertisement, the total set of features -- in short, it is advertising, not text or images.” Van Dijk (2008) credits Language and Control published in 1979 as the first book in the field of Critical Discourse Studies, Language as Ideology published in the same year is considered a source of inspiration also for scholars of subsequent years. Critical discourse analysis (henceforth CDA) arose after the need for critical research to be socially relevant and to be more problem-focused rather than dwelling on purely academic and theoretical issues, as articulated by van Dijk (1986, cited in Wodak, 2001): Beyond superficial description or application, critical science in every field asks further questions, such as those about responsibility, interests, and ideology. Instead of focusing on purely academic or theoretical problems, it starts from the prevailing social problems, and then chooses the perspective of those who suffer the most and critically analyzes those who hold power, those who are responsible, and those who have the means and opportunity to solve these problems. (p.2) In books and surveys that discuss the origins of CDA, reference is made to the University of East Anglica, where critical linguists devoted themselves to the use of language in social institutions in the 1970s (Blommaert, 2005; Wodak, 1995). Critical linguists have taken on the task of investigating the relationship between language and power and, above all, language and ideology. Wodak (2001) refers to a group of scholars in social linguistics and related fields as a 'CDA group', which arose after a seminar in 1991 in Amsterdam. Wodak further refers to a "CDA network" of scholars that arose after van Dijk launched the seminal journal called Discourse and Society in 1990. In addition to van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, and Ruth Wodak, other scholars who have been strongly associated with the CDA are ; Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen. The concept of ideology used by several scholars in the field of CDA owes its origin directly to Louis Althusser's theories of ideology (Althusser, 1976; Althusser, 1984). It should be noted that ideology can be defined as a protean concept, that is, “It can mean what we wish it to mean; it can be inserted into many theories, many texts, many policies (Lemke, 2005). Ideology according to Althhusser does not simply reside in the realm of ideas but exists in institutions and often manifests itself in the specific practices of these institutions. Althusser's 1970 essay Ideology and State Ideological Apparatuses took on cult status, and his brilliant articulation of the concept of state ideological apparatuses (church, school, trade unions, etc.) or ISA became an ideological source for future scholars in several fields, including critical linguistics. Ferretter (2006) summarizes Althusser's contribution to the controversial field of ideology: For all of us who live in a society that is good above, Althusser shows us how to make sense of the literature and culture we produce and read in that society. It is only on the basis of this kind of understanding, he argues, that we can help change it (p. 2)In listing the ideological state apparatuses, Althusser specifically mentions the press, radio and television as “the ISA of communications”. . Interestingly, the concept of ideology was initially conceived as a theory of ideas (Althusser, 1976), Karl Marx further shaped this generic concept ofideology and labeled it as “a system of ideas and representations that dominate the mind of a man or a social group” (Zizek, 1994). Ruth Wodak, an early proponent of CDA, established a rule for critical linguistics (the terms were often used interchangeably, although CDA is now the preferred usage), since CDA aims to uncover injustice and inequality, it should not remain descriptive and neutral. This should not be interpreted as a clear call to be ideologically biased; Wodak strengthens his thesis by citing Adorno (1976) and the positivist dispute in German sociology. The idea is to “find a balance between commitment and distance from the research object” (Fjørtoft, 2013). Wodak (1989) further specifies the objectives of critical linguistics or CDA “to discover and demystify certain social processes in this and other societies, to make mechanisms of manipulation, description and demagogy explicit and transparent”. Therefore, CDA as a method and as a concept also originates from the intense debate on critical theory supported by a wave of philosophers and social scientists who were later defined as belonging to the Frankfurt School. Donoghue (2018) states that CDA “is rooted in critical social theory, drawing on thinkers such as Foucault, Bourdieu, Gramsci, Althusser and the Frankfurt School”. It is pertinent to note that many prominent contributors in the field of CDA have repeatedly stated the importance of raising people's consciousness which would ultimately lead to empowerment; this would be achieved by revealing the hidden relationship between discourse and power. Paying homage to the classic tenet of critical theory, Fairclough (1989) states that one reason for investigating the relationship between language and power is “to help raise awareness of how language contributes to the domination of some people by others, because consciousness is the first step towards emancipation”. Proponents of critical theory have argued in their writings that this approach should not falter from two of its important goals; human emancipation and liberation, as Bronner (2011) states that not only “critical theory was understood as a general theory of society fueled by the desire for liberation” but “human emancipation became the aim of this approach” . Differentiating between scientific theories and critical theories Geuss (1981) points out that “critical theories aim at emancipation and enlightenment, at making agents aware of hidden coercion, thus freeing them from that coercion and putting them in a position to determine where they stand; real interests lie." Here emancipation and enlightenment refer to a transition from a state of false consciousness brought about by the ideological and material processes that deceive members of a class to an end state: where people recognize self-imposed coercion and free themselves from the shackles of false consciousness. . While critical theory was born in the intellectual cradle of Marxism (hence the semantic reliance on Marxist terms such as false consciousness), the horrors of Stalinist terror, reports of Soviet gulags, and the temporary relationship between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, resulted in the School of Frankfurt freeing itself from the “stale critique of capitalism” (Geuss, 1981). This has resulted in a strong need to look beyond economic superstructures and other Marxist fixations. CDA is certainly not the first discipline to use the critical approach, a myriad of other disciplines such as psychology, anthropology, social policy etc. they developed a critical version of their original disciplines, indeed one of the first uses of an academic approach labeled as critical can be traced back to Emmanuel Kant who wrote The Critique of Pure Reason in 1781 (Billig, 2007).According to Billig (2007), an academic approach can be defined as critical if it is critical of the current social order and is “rooted in the radical critique of social relations”. Explaining the logic and rationale behind the term critical in the Frankfurt School sense, Connerton (1976, as cited in Fowler, 2003) explains: “Criticism”…denotes reflection on a system of constraints, which are distorting pressures produced by man to whom individuals, or a group of individuals, or the entire human race, succumb in their process of self-formation….Criticism…is directed at objects of experience whose “objectivity” is questioned; criticism assumes that there is some degree of inherent deformity masquerading as reality. Try to remove this distortion and thus make it possible to liberate what has been distorted. It is therefore a concept of emancipation. (p. 4) Differentiating between critical and non-critical approaches Fairclough (1992) states that “critical approaches differ from non-critical approaches not only in describing discursive practices, but also in showing how discourse is shaped by power relations and ideologies". Fairclough (2013) also sees the "critical" part of CDA as an ability to make the interconnection of things visible. The CDA draws much of its help from neo-Marxism, which is to say that political economies produce discourses that too often carry hidden interests and ideologies. . Antonio Gramsci's notion of hegemony is directly relevant to the CDA and the idea of ​​hegemony provides a theoretical background to the CDA. Antonio Gramsci was not known outside of communist circles at the time of his death, but his writings cast a long shadow on the works of political theorists and cultural critics. It took decades before his work attracted the attention of scholars and only since the 1980s the growing interest in cultural studies and the fascination with the question of power have attracted scholars from different disciplines to the copious quantity of ideas and concepts that Gramsci left scattered. in his Prison Notebooks (Crehan, 2002). As Buttigieg (1986) explains the legacy left by the prolific author, “the enormous literary corpus that today surrounds and even threatens to overshadow Gramsci's work is proof enough that his legacy has been and continues to be recognized and appreciated ”. Barett (2012) also pays homage to Gramsci: his approach to ideology, his theory of hegemony, his account of the roles of intellectuals, his insistence on the importance of tactics and persuasion, and his detailed attention to the question of everyday culture and politics. culture, have all been enthusiastically welcomed by a generation tired of the moralizing rules and precepts of both the Marxist-Leninist and Labor left. (p. 235) Before Gramsci the idea of ​​hegemony usually referred to the dominance of one nation over others, this being the part of the concept of military domination, hegemony was also understood in terms of cultural prestige. The social democratic intelligentsia of pre-revolutionary Russia added an economic aspect to the definition and soon conceived the concept of class hegemony. Lenin further revolutionized the concept and defined it in more workable and practical terms: he wanted a hegemony of the proletariat not only over tsarist forces but also over other class enemies, mainly bourgeois ones. The Italian philosopher transformed the idea and “hegemony is now used to describe the complexity of power relations in many different fields, from literature, education, cinema and cultural studies to political science, history and international relations (Ives, 2004). More importantly, Gramsci saw hegemony as a toolto form and organize consensus. The reason why Gramsci took the intellectual world of Marxism by storm is that he advanced and refined both the ideas of "ideology" and "hegemony" as held by classical Marxists. It achieved this by ignoring and adding the concepts of ideological epiphenomenalism and class reductionism. Ideological epiphenomenalism in the Marxist sense refers to a direct relationship between ideological superstructure and economic superstructure. Not only did he reject class reductionism but, as Ives (2004) explains, “unlike other Marxists who omitted the importance of culture and non-economic aspects of society, Gramsci provided a much broader social and cultural portrait of modern society ”. Laclau (2005) further distinguishes between Gramsci and classical Marxists: “Gramscianism represents 'a crucial epistemological break' within Marxism because it 'breaks decisively with the essentialist social logic [of traditional Marxism]'. According to Gramsci's predecessors, both the ruling class and the working class would have an ideology but "the ideology was conceived to have a class character and was not considered to play a significant role in social and revolutionary dynamics" (Ramos, 1982). Gramsci attributes a more formal and powerful role to ideology and according to him it is a "practice that produces subjects", it is also a battlefield or a terrain of struggle (Woolcock, 1985). Language has been important to social theory and philosophy since For a long time, not only Gramsci but “some of the most influential social and political theorists of the 20th century have been concerned with language: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Ferdinand de Saussure, Martin Heidegger , Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jürgen Habermas and Noam Chomsky” (Ives, 2004). As mentioned above, a number of scholars took note of Gramsci's concepts, in particular the idea of ​​hegemony became a focal point for cultural theorists. Linguistics scholars also noticed this and soon fell in love with the relationship between language and hegemony, more precisely with the use of language to convey the ideas of the ruling class. Marx and Engels famously postulated that “the ideas of the ruling class are in every age the dominant ideas” (Marx & Engels, 1968), for critical linguists and their successors, language was not just the vehicle through which such ideas were transported , but it was also the instrument through which consensus was created. It is important to note that Gramsci not only studied linguistics during his university studies but was also very interested in the subject, for him power is not only exercised through language but language is also a metaphor through which power works. CDA, therefore, is a dynamic and multidisciplinary approach that draws on a wide range of disciplines, as Van Noppen (2004) highlights, "it is a complex set of practices and approaches at the crossroads of different disciplines", elaborates Fjørtoft (2013), "it is an interdisciplinary approach or research program that draws on a range of theoretical and methodological frameworks from the humanities and social sciences”. It is important to note that the progenitors of the CDA emphasized from the beginning the interdisciplinary character of its research, as it will be researched. a kind of theoretical background that exists in other disciplines and can serve as a beacon for the unsuccessful CDA, but if one tries to define CDA in simpler terms, it can be labeled as a bridge between the social and the linguistic However, the problem is that the sociological and linguistic categories are fundamentally not compatible” (Weiss & Wodak, 2007) and this issue of reconciling two divergent horizons has plagued the discipline of CDA since its inception, this particular issue attracts much criticism. Specifically as a tool, CDA combines theories.