Fairclough postulates that discourse is “used in a general sense for language (as well as, for example, for visual images) as an element of social life that is dialectically related to other elements” (2003). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Discourse analysis creates a connection between linguistic analysis and social analysis. Fairclough sees discourse analysis as “an analysis of how texts function within social practices” (1995). This approach emphasizes detailed linguistic analysis of texts. Discourse analysis examines real and often extensive instances of social interaction that take the form of language, either completely or partially. CDA involves an analysis of how discourse relates to and is implicated in the (re)production of social relations, particularly unequal, hierarchical and discriminatory power relations (Fairclough, 1995). Critical Discourse AnalysisCritical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytic research that focuses on how the abuse of social power, domination and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted by texts and discourses both in social and political contexts. The result of the analysis could be the understanding, exposure and resistance of social inequalities (van Dijk, 2001). Wodak (2004) stated that CDA views discourse as the language used in speech and writing as a form of “social practice”. Discourse as a social practice implies a dialectical relationship between a particular discursive event and the situation(s), institution(s) and social structure(s) that frame it: the discursive event is shaped by them, but it also shapes them. Fairclough and Wodak (1997) summarize the main principles of CDA as follows: CDA addresses social problems Power relations are discursive Discourse constitutes society and culture Discourse does ideological work Discourse is historical The connection between text and society is mediated Discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory Discourse is a form of social action. Critically, discourse research must meet a number of requirements to effectively realize its objectives. Some of them are: It should focus primarily on social problems and political issues, rather than current paradigms and fashions; Rather than describing the structures of discourse, it seeks to explain them in terms of properties of social interaction and in particular social structure; Finally, CDA focuses on the ways in which discourse structures enact, confirm, legitimize, reproduce, or challenge relations of power and domination in society. In analysis, you also need to be familiar with the micro and macro levels of text and discourse. Language use, discourse, verbal interaction and communication belong to the micro level of the social order. CDA must theoretically bridge the well-known "gap" between micro and macro approaches. The microstructure focuses on the local meaning of the speech, observing the semantic, syntactic, stylistic and rhetorical aspects. The use of words, propositions and certain rhetoric in the media is understood by Van Dijk as part of the writer's strategy. The use of certain words, phrases and stylistics is not only seen as a way of communication but also as a method of political communication to influence the common premise, create support, strengthen legitimacy and evacuate the opponent or adversary. On the other hand, power, dominance and inequality between social groups are typically terms that belong to a macro level of analysis. The meaning of speech is not limited to the meaning of its words and sentences. The speechit also has more "global" meanings, such as "topics" or "themes". Such topics represent the essence or most important information of a speech and tell us what a speech is "about", speaking globally. A central notion in most critical work on discourse is that of power, and more specifically the social power of groups or groups. institutions. Groups have (more or less) the power and are able to control (more or less) the acts and minds of (members of) other groups. This capacity presupposes a power base of privileged access to scarce social resources, such as strength, money, status, fame, knowledge, information, “culture”, or even various forms of public discourse and communication ( of the vast literature on power, see , the more or less persuasive power of parents, professors or journalists can be based on knowledge, information or authority. Note also that power is rarely absolute or can control more or less other groups Furthermore, dominated groups may more or less resist, accept, condone, conform to or legitimize such power, and even find it “natural”. If we are able to influence people's minds, for example their knowledge or their opinions , we do it indirectly. They can control (some of) their actions, as we know from persuasion and manipulation. Finally, closing the discourse-power loop means that those groups that control the most influential discourse also have a greater chance of controlling minds. and the actions of others. These very intricate relationships need to be explored further in this chapter, we can divide the issue of discursive power into two fundamental questions for CDA research: How do (more) powerful groups control public discourse? How does such discourse control the minds and actions of (less) powerful groups, and what are the social consequences of such control, such as social inequality? Persuasion, Influence, Manipulation CDA can be used to see the power of a group or individual to persuade, influence, or manipulate less powerful groups or individuals. The implications of this approach for the study of the ideological influence of discourse are as follows: Understanding and influencing discourse is a complex process that is a function of both discourse structures and the mental processing and representation of recipients. That is, whether or not, and how, people are influenced by speech and text also depends on what they already know and believe. Understanding discourse not only involves processing the structures of text and discourse, but also, and very crucially, those of the context as it is subjectively interpreted by recipients in their contextual models. In my terms this means that the construction or change of any mental representation of events is a function of the contents and structures of ongoing context models. A well-known notion that can be explained in these terms is, for example, that of "credibility". Although the relationships between factual beliefs (knowledge) and evaluative beliefs (opinions, attitudes) are quite complex, discourses can generally be assumed to have a significant influence on evaluative beliefs only when these are at least marginally understood. In other words, persuasion presupposes understanding. Only in very specific circumstances can people be persuaded by speech they do not understand, and, even then, at least partial understanding is a minimum condition for forming and changing opinions. If persuasion is defined as a process in which people change their opinions as a consequence of discourse, it is crucial to make a distinction between different types of belief.