Triangulating Critical Discourse Analysis

38 The New English Teacher 9.
TRIANGULATING CRITICAL DISCOURSE

ANALYSIS (CDA)
Marilyn F. Deocampo
Graduate School of English
Assumption University, Thailand
[email protected]
Abstract
To study ideology is to some extent, to study the ways in which
language and meaning are used in everyday forms of social interaction. This
is why a theory of language and a linguistic tradition which concerns itself
with ideology will be much richer than narrow approaches which concern
themselves only with system of signs, fixed meanings or well formed
sentences. A theory of language as a social semiotic and of language and
ideology has to concern itself with language as a form of social interaction, a
meaning potential in and through which subjects and the social are
constructed and reproduced while cultural and human conflict are
negotiated. Such an analysis depends upon an account of relations of power
the potential cultural conflict and the problem of lack of consensus about
systems of ideas or beliefs which characterize social systems and includes an
account of the relations between action, institutions and social structures.
CDA takes particular interest in the relationship between language

and power. It is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies
the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted,
reproduced, and resisted. Critical discourse analysts, then, take explicit
position and want to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social
inequality.
This study attempts to push the boundaries further and to include a

systematic approach to the historical and political, sociological and/or
psychological dimension in the analysis and interpretation of specific texts by
using the principle of triangulating CDA. This involves Gaventa’s Power
Cube, Fairclough’s Three Dimension’s of Discourse and Martin and Rose’
Appraisal System as a conceptual framework of analysis of blogging, as part
of social media discourses.
Triangulating Critical Discourse Analysis 39
Keywords: CDA, language and ideology, social semiotics, power cube, three
dimensions’ of discourse, appraisal system, blogging, social media discourse
Introduction
It is quite difficult to make consistent statements about the theoretical
foundations of CDA. There is no such thing as a uniform, common theory
formation of CDA; in fact there are several approaches (Meyer, 2001).
However, one could argue that the plurality of theory and methodology is
one of its strengths.
CDA brings a variety of theories into dialogue, especially social

theories and linguistic theories, so that its’ theoretical base is more of a
shifting synthesis of theories. What is theorizes is the mediation between the
social and the linguistic-order of discourse, the social structuring of semiotic
hybridity (inter-discursivity). The theoretical constructions of discourses
which CDA tries to operationalize can come from various disciplines and the
concept of ‘operationalization’ entails working in a trans-disciplinary way
where the logic of one discipline (for example, sociology) can be ‘put to
work’ in the development of another, for example, linguistics (Chouliaraki
and Fairclough, 1999).
There is the issue of developing an integrated framework capable of
reconciling different (sociological and linguistic) perspectives without
reducing them to one another. What is needed is the use of conceptual tools
capable of connecting the level of discourse analysis with sociological
positions on institutions, actions and social structures. What is sought is a
continued development of tools and resources designed to help us
understand the world. What Bourdieu (1997: 65) called “The ability to
actively reproduce the best products of the thinkers of the past by applying
the production instruments they left behind is the access requirement of
really productive thinking”.
The most important task of conceptual tools to integrate
sociological and linguistic positions is to mediate between the text and the
institution, between discourse and society. The roots of CDA lie in classical
rhetoric, text-linguistics and sociolinguistics. The notion of ideology, power,
hierarchy, gender and other sociological variables can be seen as relevant for
an interpretation or explanation of text. The methodologies differ on
account of the aims of the research.
40 The New English Teacher 9.1
The centrality of knowing how language is structured in social and

semiotic terms is a crucial because language produces ideology and ideology
produces language. Ideology is seen as operating, not so much as a coherent
system of statements imposed on a population from above (political
ideology), but rather through a complex series of mechanisms whereby
meaning is mobilized in discursive practices of everyday life. Consequently, it
is important to search for ways in which the theory of ideology can be linked
with methods of the analysis of the discursive forms in which ideology is
expressed (Thompson 1984).
Exploring the relationship between social meaning-making practices
and language and ideology means engaging in the kind of research which
involves not only a study of the socio-historical conditions in which subjects
act and interact; an analysis of the conditions in which subjects are
constructed as such in discourse and in which discourse is produced as
received; but also a detailed discursive analysis of the text and an
interpretation of that analysis. Such an analysis can then illustrate how
meanings, systems of ideas and beliefs, ideologies, are constructed in
discourse and function to maintain and transmit existing power relations
(Threadgold et al., 1986).
CDA sees discourse as language use in speech and writing - as forms

of ‘social practice’. Describing discourse as social practice implies a dialectal
relationship between the particular discursive event and the situation(s),
institution (s) and social structure (s) which frame it. The discursive event is
shaped by them, since discourse is so socially consequential; it gives rise to
important issues of power. Discursive practices may have major ideological
effects that can help to produce and reproduce unequal power relation
through the ways in which they represent things and position people (Wodak
and Fairclough, 1997).
For CDA, language is not powerful on its own but rather gains power
by the use people make of it. This is one reason why CDA looks at the
perspective of those who propose and oppose a particular point of view. The
use of power is a central condition in social life and efforts to develop a
theory of language which incorporates this as a major focus is a defining
features of CDA. CDA is fundamentally interested in analyzing the veiled
and transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power
and control as shown in and through language. But in order to avoid an
approach to ‘mediation’ between discourse and society by simply politicizing
instead of accurately analyzing, can be partially solved by using the principle
of ‘triangulation’, to work multi-methodically on the different empirical data

as well as background information (Wodak and Meyer, 2001).
Language and Power
Language is power, but not everyone who uses it has the same degree of
power.
Words can be powerful or not. They can affect reality or
not. Words become powerful because they can be used as tools: like a
hammer or gun, they don’t make changes by themselves, but through
human beings use of them, skillful or clumsy…words don’t change
reality, people change reality…words make it possible for people to
achieve the effects they seek. [Lakoff, R. 1990:15]
One of the contributors to this view is Gaventa who has written that
‘changing patterns of globalization have changed the territorial or spatial
relations of power, meaning that power increasingly must be understood not
only at the local, the national or the global level but also their
interrelationship’ (Gaventa, 2007:205).
Gaventa makes clear that there are various ‘forms’ in which power is
demonstrated such as the visible, hidden and invisible. However, there are
also element of ‘spaces’ which signify the possible ground of opportunities
for people to engage in shaping meanings, decisions or policies including
closed, invited, and claimed spaces. But also there are ‘levels’ which denote the
different level of decision-making and authority, local, national and global.
As the political discussions change direction various intersecting actors,
places (arenas), and networks in which power is exercised through decision
making also changes Taking Lukes (2005) idea concerning the three
dimensions of power (forms), Gaventa (2007) expanded the dimensions, to
the levels/places and spaces where power resides. This explains the
multiplicity of power and not just in a single dimension.
Power therefore is found in different ‘levels’ of society, different
‘spaces’ and within different ‘forms’. Gaventa’s ‘Power Cube’ presents a
graphic understanding of how power can operate.
The Power Cube: the levels, spaces and forms of power
(adapted from Gaventa, 2007)
The Power Cube and the differences in the dimension are

summarized by Gaventa (2007) as three ‘forms of power’, ‘spaces’ and
‘levels/places’.
The forms of power responsible for the dynamic of participation

1. Visible form of power involves interests that are visible in public
spaces or formal decision making bodies. They are normally seen as
political bodies, such as legislatures, local government bodies, local
assemblies and institutions. Those who have this form of power can
normally apply it in the decision making arenas of organization or
social movements through collective action. Their focus is on
conventional understanding of power that is negotiated through
formal rules, institutions and procedures.
2. Hidden form of power are used by vested interests to maintain their

power and privilege by creating barriers to participation, by
excluding key issues from the public arena by controlling politics
‘backstage’. Through hidden forms of power, alternative choices are
limited, less powerful people and their concern are excluded, and the
rule of the game are set to be biased against certain people and
issues. They are the actual controls over decision making, and the
way certain powerful people and institutions maintain their
influence. Such maintenance can often exclude and devalue concerns
and agendas of less powerful groups.
3. Invisible power goes further compare to hidden power. It involves the

ways in which awareness of one’s rights and interests are hidden
through the adoption of dominating ‘ideologies’, values, and forms
of behavior by relatively powerless groups themselves. Sometimes,
this has been referred to as, “internalization of powerlessness”
because it affects the awareness and consciousness of potential issues
and conflicts. This power operates by influencing how individuals
think of their place in society and why some are prevented from
questioning existing power relations.
The different spaces in which a decision making takes place:

1. Provided or closed spaces are basically controlled by elite groups.
2. Invited spaces are produced in an attempt to increase legitimacy.
Some policymakers may create ‘invited’ spaces for outsiders to share
their opinions.
3. Claimed Spaces are provided for the less powerful with a chance to
develop their agendas and create solidarity without control from the
power-holders.
Spaces are areas for discussion where interactions can take place.
These can be virtual (web based discussions) or actual physical places
(constituency, consultation meetings). These are seen as “opportunities,
moments and channels where citizens as social actors can potentially
challenge and change policies, discourses, decisions, and relationships which
affect their life and interests” (Gaventa, 2007: 213).
The different levels and places for engagement (Gaventa, 2007:209-218):

1. The Global level is formal and informal, state and non-state for
participation which is influenced by levels outside the country. This
includes formal institutions and meetings associated with global
agreements and treaties. Globalization creates various political
opportunities at the international level. There is a demand for greater
transparency and accountability and participation in policy
formulation and monitoring. Besides from government bodies
responsible for different decision making, some powerful individuals

can be found in this global ‘invited space’.
2. The National level officially represents its citizen in global
governmental places, which decides whether or not to implement
international treaties that are important for national level’s change.
This can include executive bodies, and national political parties
among others.
3. Local level concerns critical points of leverage for holding and
challenging power. Local actors may use extra-local forums as arenas
for action just as effectively-or more effectively … they can appeal to
institutions of local governance.
The Power Cube helps to make the distinction between different

dimensions of power and move beyond the assumption that the enforcers of
rules are simply dominating through whatever means available to them. The
emphasis is more on understanding the interaction between levels of power
and the places of engagement. In particular the Power Cube helps to
distinguish between the international, national and local levels or ‘places’ (see
Luttrell et al., 2007).
The usefulness of such a framework in CDA is that, it lets people
explore various aspects of power and how they interact with each other. The
Power Cube illustrates that in every level of society different forms of power
exist in different spaces. Power is not linear but multidimensional, some can
be seen publicly and always the subject of criticism; others are hidden and
often regarded as above suspicion. In fact, hidden power can be more
powerful and impact the decision making more than the visible. The Power
Cube therefore allows people to see why some individuals behave the way
they do and allows people to realize that everyone is liable and contributes to
the situation around them. It also allows society to have a broader
dimensional view of those involves in the power struggle as well as the
relationships and forces emerging for mobilization and change.
Integrating the Power Cube can also be useful as it deals with wider
issues that can impact a person’s life discourse. In addition in a cyber world
people often interact in unison, various elements influencing their stances
that can only be easily identified once these dimensions are incorporated
Fairclough’s Approach to CDA

Fairclough’s approach to CDA has become central to CDA over the
past thirty or so years. Fairclough Critical Language Study (1989) described
his approach as ‘a contribution to the general rising of consciousness of
exploitative social relations, through focusing upon language’. CDA “brings
social science and linguistics together within a single theoretical and
analytical framework, setting up a dialogue between them” (Chuliaraki &
Fairclough, 1999:6). The linguistic theory used is that of Systemic
Functional Linguistics (SFL), which has been the foundation for Fairclough’s
analytical framework as it has been for Fowler et al., 1979; Fowler, 1991;
Hodge & Kress, 1979.
Fairclough approach has also drawn on a number of critical social
theorists, such as Foucault (orders of discourse), Gramsci (hegemony), and
Habermas (colonization of discourses) among others, (Sheyholislami,
2001).
Chuliaraki & Fairclough (1999: 30) argued that “the past two
decades or so have been a period of profound economic social
transformation on a global scale”. They believed that although these
transformations were due to particular actions by people they have been
perceived as part of nature, that is such transformations have been thought
of as natural and not due to people’s actions.
For Chuliaraki &Fairclough (1999:4) the recent economic and social

changes are to a significant degree…transformations in the language and
discourse. Therefore, CDA can help by theorizing transformations and
creating an awareness of what is, how it has come to be, and what it might
become, on the basis of which people may be able to make and remake their
lives.
• Adapting Fairclough’s Three Dimension’s of Discourse
• e-Books
• News Articles
• Videos (songs, movies etc.)
• Blogs
• e-Journals and other scholarly works
• Textbooks
• Various media materials
• Multi modal
• Multilingual (e.g. Code-switching & code-
mixing)
• Colloquial languages (e.g. Taglish and Singlish)
• Non-verbal (e.g. emoticons and Netspeak)
• Verbal languages in written forms (e.g.
onomatopoeia, capitalization and elongation of
words etc.)
• Intertextuality
• Heteroglossic in nature
• Different dimensions of power (visible, hidden and

invisible) Ideology/belief is one of the invisible powers
• Different levels /places of engagement (global, national
and local)
• Different spaces of engagement (closed, invited and
created) blogging is one of the created spaces
• Social, political, historical and educational background
In this approach to CDA, there are three analytical focuses in

analyzing any communicative event (interaction). They are text (media, news
reports, emails, blogging), discourse practice (the process of production and
consumption) and sociocultural practice (involving the social, political
educational and cultural practice that give rise to the communicative event)
1. The Textual function involves linguistic analysis in terms of lexis,

syntax, semantics, the sound system and cohesion-organization above
the sentence level. Texts can be found in the internet, such as e-
Books, news articles, videos, blogs, e-journals and other scholarly
works.
Fairclough (1995b) viewed text from a multifunctional perspective:

particular representations and recontextualizations of social practice
(ideational function); particular constructions of writer and reader identities,

status (role aspects of identity), and the particular construction of the
relationship between writer and reader (interpersonal function).
2. Discourse practice, discourse, itself, can be either formal Standard
English or colloquial forms or even non-verbal forms. Verbal language
can also be written language imitating sounds such as the
onomatopoeia, capitalization and elongation this is particularly true in
cyber discourse. Discourse practices have two forms: institutional
process (as for example editorial procedures) and discourse process
(changes that the text goes through in production and consumption).
For Fairclough (1995b:60) “discourse practice straddles the division

between society and culture on the one hand, and discourse, language and
text on the other”.
In his analytical framework, there is both the linguistic analysis at the

text level, and a linguistic analysis at the discourse level that Fairclough calls
intertextual analysis.
Fairclough (1992:84) defines intertextuality as;
[…] basically the property texts have of being full of snatches of
other texts, which may be explicitly demarcated or merged in, and
which text may assimilate, contradict, ironically echo, and so forth”.
For Fairclough (1992:104) there are two types of intertextuality:

“manifest intertextuality” where specific other texts are overtly drawn upon
within a text. This kind of intertextuality is marked by explicit signs such as
quotation marks, indicating the presence of other texts. While the
“constitutive intertextuality” is the constitution of texts out of other
elements of discourse such as an official government report being transposed
and popularized for a newspaper readership giving a particular slant on the
report (quoted in Sheyholislami, 2001).
An example given by Fairclough (1992) was an analysis of an article

published in a British newspaper, The Sun (part of the Murdoch News
Corps), which reported on an official document about drug trafficking.
Fairclough found two main points; the first point was that there were
linguistic forms that did not explicitly represent the official document and
that there were sub-reports supposedly about the issue that were not
represent in the official document at all. The second point was that there
were semantic signs which indicated the merging of the voice of The Sun
with the voice of the official document. It did not merely repeat the official
document but rephrased things and expressed them in its own words and
language. This example of intertextuality showed that The Sun report is
based on a previous text. It responds to expectations of the readers, by
configuring the original text into its own discourse type (Sheyholislami,
2001).
3. Social practices- various elements are found responsible for shaping
discourse in general as well as online/cyber discourse, Fairclough
identified socio-cultural, political and media. There is also a need to
consider these levels and spaces in the different continuums as these
might contribute to how texts are being produced, depending on an
individual’s view of the world.
• Access to the media

One of the main issues is access to the media: who has access to the
media and what implications the answer to this question has regarding the
place of the media in society. Fairclough’s position is that there are many
people who do not have equal access to the media in terms of writing,
speaking or broadcasting. Media output is often under professional and
institutional control and in general it is those who already have other forms
of economic, political or cultural power that have best access to the media
(Sheyholislami, 2001). This is still essentially true but in the cyber world,
with emailing and blogging, this has allowed access to these sources of wider
communication.
• Economy of the media

Another important property of media is “the economics of an
institution which is an important determinant of its practices and its texts”
(Fairclough, 1995b:40).
The media is open to the effects of commercial pressures,

these effects could be important in determining what is selected as
news and in what ways such news is published [Fowler, 1991:20]
This issue of the effects of the economic aspects of media,

particularly advertising practices has been the focus of much discussion in
critical media studies (Achbar, 1994; Hackett 1991).
• The politics of media

Many critics, (Chomsky, 1989; Fairclough, 1995b; Fishman, 1980;
Fowler, 1991; Janks, 2010, Hackett, 1991; van Dijk, 1993), have argued that
the commercial mainstream media works ideologically in the service of those
in power, society’s elite and the state itself. Chomsky believes that criticisms
of the state or major corporations by the media are part of the doctrine of
dominant elite groups to ‘aggressively portray themselves as spokesmen for
free speech and the general community interests (Achbar, 1994: 53). To
explain this, Fairclough and others such as Hackett, following Gramsci, use
the concept of hegemony or as Chomsky (1989) and van Dijk (1998a) say
the power of the media in manufacturing consent.
Hegemony is relations of domination based upon consent
rather than coercion’. In countries with a democratic constitution or
base, the ruling class needs to achieve the public consent through
persuasion in order to maintain domination, and the mass media is
one of the essential elements in manufacturing this consent.
[Chuliaraki & Fairclough [1991:24]
• Practices of media text production and consumption

Production involves a set of institutional routines, such as news
gathering, news selection, writing and editing (Fairclough, 1995b; Fowler,
1991; van Dijk, 1993). Consumption mainly refers to the way in which
readers, in the case of written text, read and comprehend text. Again here the
cyber world is opening up more opportunities for wider consumption and
interpretation to be possible
• Selecting news reports is one of the important practices of text

production
Media nearly always have more material than space and not all news
makes it to the newscast (Fowler, 1991). The criteria for such selection are
not necessarily a characteristic of news items (Carruthers and Halliday, 2000
and Eamen, 1987). It is more often determined by the news production and
institutional practices. Consequently, events become news when transformed
by the news perspective not because of their objective characteristics… news

are consciously created to serve the interests of the ruling class (Eaman,
1987:51). Selection by editors or journalists also involves the sources of
information. An example of this would be who gets interviewed or quoted.
This heavy reliance on officials as sources of information is tied to the
media’s dependence on the status quo to keep their ownership and continue
profitability. Sometimes as recently seen, with Murdoch’s News Corps’
attempted influence on the British government (The Guardian Weekly:
24.02.2012) “to establish a view of the world, manifest textually in the way
in which the reporting is edited and quoted.” The cyber world is changing
this in that although editing and various forms of censorship are still
manifest in various societies around the world more avenues of
communication are opening up.
Consumption of a text (whatever form of text) has been the center
for much debate in the analysis of media discourse (Boyd-Barrett, 1994;
Fairclough, 1995b; Fowler, 1991; Widdowson, 1998). Discourse analysts
naturally make assumptions about the how audiences (both on-line and
elsewhere) read and comprehend texts. CDA practitioners agree in general
that different audiences may interpret texts in different ways. This is one of
the strongest arguments that critics of CDA have made against discourse
analysts who base their conclusions on their own interpretations of texts and
the impact of media discourse. Fairclough, 1995b acknowledges that
different readers might read similar texts differently. Van Dijk (1993: 242)
also states that ‘media recipients [are] active, and up to a point independent
information users’.
CDA practitioners argue that first of all, readers are usually not
trained to be critical readers (Fowler, 1991; van Dijk, 1991) and secondly,
audiences interpret texts against their background knowledge and the
information they already have about the subject (van Dijk, 1993). In
addition, Fairclough rejects the idea that texts have no meaning on their own,
without the interpretation of readers. He writes:
It strikes me as self-evident that although readings may vary,

and reading is a product of an interface between the properties of
the text and the interpretative resources and practices which the
interpreter brings to bear upon the text. The range of potential
interpretations will be constrained and delimited according to the
nature of the text. In other words CDA without a detailed linguistic
examination of the text may end up being simply a commentary
without the evidence to support the commentary. [Fairclough,

1995:16]
This defense by Fairclough of CDA was identified by Halliday in his

first edition of An Introduction to Functional Grammar 1985: xvi-xvii
A discourse analysis that is not based on grammar is not an
analysis at all, but simply a running commentary on a text: either an
appeal has to be made to some set of non – linguistic conventions,
or some linguistic features that are trivial enough to be accessible
without grammar, like the number of words per sentence…A text is
a semantic unit, not a grammatical one. But meanings are realized
through wordings; and without a theory of wordings- that is,
grammar-there is no way of making explicit one’s interpretation of
the meaning of a text.
Critical Discourse Analysis and Systemic Functional Linguistics

Consequently, any description of analysis involving language implies
some theory of how ‘languaging’ works. As previously indicated several
practitioners of CDA have used a model of language in social context that
has been developed within the broad field of systemic functional linguistics
(SFL). SFL researchers have been actively concerned with the semantics of
discourse. Indeed SFL has evolved to manage the complexity of language in
social contexts. The perspectives used in SFL can be summarized as follows:
• Levels of language such as phonology, lexis and-grammar, discourse

and social context (the strata of language).
• The general functions of language in social context are to represent
our experience, to enact our relationships and to organize discourse
as meaningful texts (the metafunctions).
Martin and Rose (2007) explain how speakers of a language share an

equal range of meaning making resources but meanings are unequally
distributed. Thus, CDA brings to light a pattern of meaning encoded in a
language.
CDA employs the tools of linguists to identify the role of
‘wordings’ in passages of text, and employs the tools of the social

theorists to explain why they make the meanings they do. However,
cultures are not just a combination of texts, and likewise texts are
not just a combination of the lexis and grammar. Social activity,
discourse and the lexis and grammar are different kinds of
phenomena, operating at different levels of abstraction. A culture is
more than a text, and the meanings that make up a text are in turn
more abstract than the wordings that express them. The relation
between them is described in SFL as realizations; social contexts are
realized as texts which are realized as sequences of clauses with the
grammatical system.
Martin and Rose (2007:4)
However, a systemic functional linguistic approach can cover an

enormous area of linguistic investigation (Halliday, 1985). It is unlikely that
any one account of language will be appropriate or all purposes. A theory is
a means of approach, and there are many different kinds of approaches that
can be taken involving language. Applications of the range of language
normally might cover research applications of a theoretical nature to quite
practical tasks where problems have to be solved. The test of a theory of
language, in relation to any particular purpose is basically whether it helps to
achieve the purpose of the research or help in solving the problem. SFL has
an orientation to language as social rather than as an individual phenomenon,
thus the development of the theory has tended more to the sociological
rather than the psychological modes of explanation (Halliday, 1985: xxx).
The selection of the linguistic resources to use will depend on the
inter-subjective and ultimately ideological positions being assessed, for
example in CDA. One such approach used by practitioners of CDA is that
of the interpersonal metafunction of language and in particular the theory
of appraisal as this reveals certain hidden meaning beyond discourse (Martin
and Rose, 2007 and White, 2000, 2006).
The Appraisal System

Appraisal is concerned with attitudes that are negotiated in a text, the
strength of feelings involved and the ways in which values are sourced and
the readers aligned. Appraisals are interpersonal kinds of meanings, which
realize variations in the tenor of social interactions enacted in a text (Martin
and Rose, 2007).
We use the resources of appraisal to negotiate social relationships, to

telling our listeners or readers how we feel about things and people. In other
words, what our attitudes are. Attitudes have to do with evaluating things,
people’s character and their feeling. These evaluations can be more or less
intense, more or less amplified. The attitude may be the writer’s own or may
be attributed to some other source.
We can summarize the basic outline of the appraisal system (White,
2000; Martin and Rose 2007) as follows:
Monogloss Projection
Engagement Modality
Heterogloss
Concession
Affect
Appraisal Attitude Judgement
Appreciatio
Force
Graduation
Focus
The grammar of the interpersonal metafunction is more of an

accumulation of meaning or prosody of meanings which are spread
throughout the clauses while evaluation accumulates through a text in a wide
range of lexico-grammatical resources.
Appraisal is concerned with attitudes that are negotiated in a text,
the strength of feelings involved and the ways in which values are sourced
and the readers aligned. Appraisals are interpersonal kinds of meanings,
which realize variations in the tenor of social interactions enacted in a text
(Martin and Rose, 2007). Appraisal, broadly speaking, is concerned with
how speakers and writers express their appreciation of the text. This includes
expressing their attitude towards the content of their messages, engaging with
the messages of the text in various ways and graduation in terms of the force
and focus in our grading of meaning. By these expressions, the speaker or
writer tries to subtly persuade the hearer or reader to adopt the same point
of view, i.e. the same attitude towards the content of the text.
Affect refers to emotional attitude of the speaker or writer towards

the content of their message. It is involved with expressing either positive or
negative feelings (Martin & White, 2005).
Judgement is concerned with how the speaker or writer evaluates
people and their behaviour. Judgment can be evaluated in a positive and
negative way depending on the social and cultural background of a person.
Appreciation expresses aesthetic assessment of objects valued by

society such as works of art. It can also be categorised into three: the
reaction, composition and the valuation.
Engagement refers to how the speakers or writers position themselves
in relation to the content of their message and how they negotiate positions.
Martin and Rose (2007) and Thibault (1997) see engagement of having two
voices, a monoglossic, called ‘bare declarative’ [Shakespeare was the author of
Hamlet] as opposed to the heteroglossic [They say Shakespeare was the
author of Hamlet].
The use of Appraisal to determine different participants’ attitude
towards the issues can help to understand the ‘culture’ of a society and adapt
where necessary. Appraisal as part of the structure of a language allows
breadth and depth in understanding the underlying meanings being conveyed.
The attitudes of the participants can be discerned as part of the overall
prosody that is negative or positive attitude taken up by participants in their
discourse. Such linguistic tools avoid the danger of simply commenting on
what has been written without the required linguistic evidence. A language
filled with emotions can evoke different responses and is often thought
provoking. Knowing how to choose the right words can create positive impact
that might encourage participants to see the value of the functional use of
language and the way it is put together. This is where the Appraisal and the
three Dimensions’ of Discourse are significance in understanding the
meaning making beyond discourse.
An example:
S’pore has to go ‘cold-turkey’ on foreign workers: Tin Pei Ling
Singapore needs to go “cold-turkey” after years of opening its gates wide to large
numbers of foreigners, says Member of Parliament (MP) Tin Pei Ling.
In a note on her Facebook page posted on Sunday evening, Tin, who represents Marine
Parade group representation constituency (GRC), said she held this view even after
meeting a group of local businessmen who were struggling to find workers.
“I believe the current moves to constrain foreign labour force growth is the right long-
term measure, especially so given the limited physical capacity we have,” she wrote.
“In a way, Singapore has to go into ‘cold-turkey’ after years of allowing huge inflows of
foreigners. Politics should be about having the courage to make the best decision at any
given point in time, and act on it,” she added.
Tin also pointed out that the country needs to acknowledge the “painful tradeoffs” it is
making with the government’s new policies on foreign workers in place, referring to the
impact of the policy on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
To do that, she said, Singapore needs to also give more help and time for SMEs and
businessmen here to adjust to “the new circumstances”.
In speaking to them, Tin said they do understand the government’s need to reduce
foreigner inflows, pointing out that “they are Singaporeans too”, although she noted
their belief that the anti-foreigner sentiment tells but one side of the story, pushed
forward by a group of vocal individuals.
The government’s liberal immigration policy has been widely viewed as the reason for
rising cost of living, housing and healthcare, as well as the source of greater competition
for jobs and places in schools here for locals.
The 28-year-old MP was the target of online criticism as a greenhorn in last year’s
general election, where she stood alongside emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong in
the GRC against a National Solidarity Party team that included the election’s youngest
candidate Nicole Seah.
Issues being debated:

• Some Singaporeans doubt the capability of Tin Pei ling (TPL)
• Singaporeans are not happy about how SMEs favored foreign
workers in terms of employment
• Singaporeans are accusing foreigners as the cause of their misery
contributing to unemployment and the increase in the cost of living
• Foreigners are overcrowding the place
The ‘Power Cube’ can be used as a tool in CDA to provide a better

understanding of the social and political background of the different
participants and their perception of the world around them. In addition, it
can indicate how power ‘manifests itself into different forms’, in different
spaces in different levels of society. Such power one way or another can
impact the participants’ judgment about the topic being discussed.
The ‘spaces’ are the three different spaces where power are formed
Types of Space Different spaces where the interaction takes place
(immigration )
Provided/closed • Parliament
spaces • MP for Marine Parade Constituency
Invited spaces • McPherson Community Center the place where
Ten Pie Ling visited to help and talk to some of
the residence
• Yahoo! Singapore
Claimed or created • Facebook page –
spaces • Online forum –
The ‘power’ is the three degrees of visibility found in spaces and places
Type of Different players demonstrate the visibility of power
power influencing the decision making of immigration policy
Visible • Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong former
Singapore Prime Minister
• Ten Pie Ling
• Kurt Wee- vice-president of the Association of Small
and Medium Enterprises (ASME)
• Nicole Seah- National Solidarity Party (NSP) candidate
• Casinos
• Laws and policy
Hidden • SME (Association of Small and Medium Enterprises)
businessmen/investors
• Some politicians
Invisible • Ideology (Meritocracy)
The ‘Places’ are the levels and places where power are employed
Type of Different places where the powerful articulated their power
place
Global • International companies doing business in Singapore

• Different countries responsible of providing workers in
Singapore
• International conglomerates
National • Parliament
• Local media
• SME’s (Association of Medium and Small Business
Enterprises)
Local • Local Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and its
responsible for their constituency
• Local businesses operating locally
• Local individuals
• Foreign workers working in Singapore
• Singaporeans
Integrating the Power Cube is also useful as it deals with wider issues
that can impact a person’s life discourse as in a cyber world people often
interact in unison, various elements influencing their stances that can only be
easily identified once these dimensions are incorporated.
Appraising a text
A textual evaluation is also necessary in order to make a valid
assessment. The texts given below are taken from comments made by the
participants from the ‘Yahoo! news’ article.
It contains different ‘attitudinal items’ when expressing opinions. The

words in bold indicate affect, the underlined word, judgment, and the italic
and underlined word, appreciation.
Striker • Singapore, Singapore • 1 minute 24 seconds ago
What is so complex? Just because local businesses tell you that they can't find
workers makes it complex? If businesses tell you they can't pay tax, paying tax will make
them bankrupt, then taxation is very complex wan huh? Please lah, you totally don't
deserve the $15K. You don't speak from the heart, therefore you will never say the right
thing.
Gicacia • Singapore, Singapore • 10 minutes ago
We don't need so many SME. They were created to support more foreigners,
not Singaporean. If Wee thinks that SME cannot survive because of not enough FT
then ask them to close shop here and move elsewhere. They are here to exploit the
situation and not many Singaporean benefited from them cos they employed mostly
FT/TW or Singaporean.
Cute Guy • Singapore, Singapore • 13 minutes ago
I believe Toby does not know the law at all.....u are innocent unless proven
guilty. She is already a MP and we should respect that. If u do not agree with the
election method of Singapore and cannot live with it, then you can move elsewhere.
There is no point in having this kind of negative comment. Everyone should be given a
chance to prove themselves. I think her view here is good.
Judgment seems to dominate the evaluations and they are mainly

explicit while others are indirectly evoked or ‘implicit’ but the general tone or
prosody is negative. However, the final comment seems to reject this negative
stance for a more balanced view of the situation. Evaluation clearly depends
on the lexical choices made, and often reflective of the social, cultural and
ideological status of the participants.
For example, the comments of a Singapore participant who
identified himself as ‘Rise of the far-right’ addressed foreigners as follows:
‘…we take pity on you because you have a useless
government and are living in a @#$% hole. Your country sucks and
does not have a future for you. Plus, you are here because the
moronic SG government failed to keep you charlatans in check. You
people cheat to study and do business and your degrees are not even
worth to be toilet paper. Dont you dare demand anything from your
host. I am sick of my country taking in trash like you. Do not
mistake kindness as weakness. You low life good imbeciles.
The analysis of the discourse of such on-line blogging, gives some

understanding on how certain groups of people use the ‘cyberspace’ as a
channel to convey their opinions often in quite strong language on issues that
can affect their life style.
By using the Power Cube, the three dimensions of discourse, and

appraisal, to help understand the discourse produced by different individuals
both on-line and in the media in general, we can have a triangulated approach
to critical discourse analysis of texts.
Conclusion
The power of anonymity often produces a feeling of security and
therefore being protected, can give a degree of freedom for people to do
things that might hesitate to do. One of the benefits offered by widening
critical discourse analysis to the cyberworld is being able to ‘voice’ an
opinion regardless of status. This is made possible because people who are
engaged in this cyber ‘community’ have a choice on how they express
themselves and not necessarily suffering the consequences. Cyberworld can
give control over the meaning of ‘the right to freedom of opinion and
expression.’ Anonymity allows people to convey the message to a wider
audience and even the public at large, government and those who are
responsible for running the country. It provides people power to question,
demand and challenge the authorities. However, being anonymous does not
mean ‘a free for all’ in terms of language or over-stepping the bounds of
common sense. What is interesting, is this desire ‘to connect with people’ as
this can be a manifestation of power by establishing different alliances and
forming solidarity as one ‘cyber culture’, something which is not so easily
discernible in some approaches to so-called critical discourse analysis where a
commentary on the text(s) can often be based on individual opinion without
substantial evidence from a textual analysis.
Looking at discourse in the cyberworld offers alternative channels of

communication that helps in the understanding of the stance taken by a
particular cyber community on specific issues. In a world of technology,
power is not gained through direct conflict instead power can be gained
through the accumulation of certain ideologies that are made manifest
through the media and not just by those that have access to the traditional
forms of power in society but also to ‘ordinary people’. The Power Cube,
Fairclough’s three dimensions of discourse and analyzing the discourse using
the tools of a systemic functional approach to language shows that even at
the lowest echelons of this structure, ‘voices’ when in unison have potential to
be a force for change. What on-line discourse can do is to raise the ceiling of
freedom. It blurs the boundaries of what is possible to say and what is not.
In many ways, the use of social media is doing what people have always done
but previously in the privacy of the home. The cyber world is just amplifying
what is being said. Even if ‘Power’ has shifted to those controlling the
internet platforms rather than simply governments, the
enabling/empowering/enlightening effects of the internet may not be quite
what people think, the cyber-world has still the potential for like-minded
people to act as seeds to improve society.
References
Achbar, M. (ed.) 1994. Manufacturing consent: Noam Chomsky and the
media. New York: Black Rose Books.
Bourdieu, P. 1997. Culture and Power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Boyd-Barrett, O. 1994. Language and Media: a question of convergence. In

David Graddol & Oliver Boyd-Barrett (eds.). Media Texts: Authors
and Readers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Pp 22-39
Carruthers, B. & T. Halliday. 2000. Professionals in systemic reform of
bankruptcy law: The 1978 U.S. Bankruptcy Code and the English
Insolvency Act 1986. American Bankruptcy Law Journal, 74, 35–
75.
Chouliaraki, L. and N. Fairclough. 1999. Rethinking Critical Discourse

Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Chomsky, N. 1989. Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic
Societies. London: Pluto Press.
Eamen, R.A. 1987. The Media Society: basic issues and controversies.
London: Butterworths.
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press
Fairclough, N. 1995b. Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Fishman, J.A. 1980. Variance and invariance in language form and content.
Vol,26. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. Berlin
and New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Fowler, R. and B. Hodge. 1979. Critical linguistics. In R. Fowler et al (Eds.).
(Eds.) Language and Control. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the
Press. London: Routledge.
Gaventa, J. 2007. Levels, spaces, and forms of power: analyzing
opportunities for change. In F. Berenskoetter and M.J. Williams
(eds). Power in World Politics. London: Routledge.
Hackett, D.G. 1991. The Rude Hand of Innovation: Religion and Social
Order in Albany. New York: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Spoken and Written Language. Geelong: Deakin
University Press. Republished London: Oxford University Press
1989.
Hodge, R. and G. Kress. 1993. Language and Ideology. (2nd ed.) London:
Routledge.
Janks, H. 2010. Literacy and Power. London : Routledge.
Kress, G. and Hodge, R. 1979. Language as Ideology. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Lakoff, R.T. 1990. Talking Power: The Politics of Language. USA:

BasicBooks.
Lukes, S. 2005. Power: A Radical View (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave
McMillan.
Martin, J.R. and D. Rose. 2007. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond
the Clause. New York: Continuum.
Martin, J.R. & White, P.R.R., 2005, The Language of Evaluation, Appraisal
in English. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Meyer, M. 2001. Between theory, method and politics: positioning of the
approaches to CDA. In: Wodak, R. and Meyer, M (eds.) Methods of
Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Sage Publications

Sheyholislami, J. 2001. Yesterday’s “separatist” are today’s “resistance
fighters”: A critical Discourse Analysis of the representation of Iraqi
Kurds in The Globe and Mail and New York Times. MA Thesis,
Carleton University, Ottowa, Canada. Retrieved October 21, 2011.
http://www.carleton.ca/-jsheyhol/cda.htm
Thompson, J.B. 1984. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity

Press.
Threadgold, T., E.A. Grosz, G. Kress and M.A. K. Halliday (eds.) 1986.
Semiotics, Ideology, Language. Sydney Association for Studies in
Society and Culture: Sydney.
Thibault, P.J. 1997. Rereading Saussure: The Dynamics of Signs in Social
Life. London: Routledge.
van Dijk, T. A. 1993. Elite Discourse and Racism. London: Sage
Publications.
White, P.R.R. 2000. Dialogue and inter-subjectivity: reinterpreting the

semantics of modality and hedging. In M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill and
F. Rock (eds), Working with Dialogue. Tubingen: Neimeyer 67-80.
Widdowson, H.G. 1998. The Theory and Practice of Critical Discourse
Analysis. Applied Linguistics, 19/1:136-151.
Wodak, R and Fairclough, N. 1997. Critical Discourse Analysis. In:

Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage Publications.
Wodak, R and Meyer, M. 2001. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.

London: Sage Publications.

Triangulating Critical Discourse Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Triangulating Critical Discourse Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Triangulating Critical Discourse Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

38 The New English Teacher 9.

TRIANGULATING CRITICAL DISCOURSE

CDA takes particular interest in the relationship between language

This study attempts to push the boundaries further and to include a

CDA brings a variety of theories into dialogue, especially social

The centrality of knowing how language is structured in social and

CDA sees discourse as language use in speech and writing - as forms

of ‘triangulation’, to work multi-methodically on the different empirical data

Language and Power

The Power Cube: the levels, spaces and forms of power

(adapted from Gaventa, 2007)

The Power Cube and the differences in the dimension are

The forms of power responsible for the dynamic of participation

2. Hidden form of power are used by vested interests to maintain their

3. Invisible power goes further compare to hidden power. It involves the

The different spaces in which a decision making takes place:

The different levels and places for engagement (Gaventa, 2007:209-218):

responsible for different decision making, some powerful individuals

The Power Cube helps to make the distinction between different

Fairclough’s Approach to CDA

For Chuliaraki &Fairclough (1999:4) the recent economic and social

• Adapting Fairclough’s Three Dimension’s of Discourse

• Different dimensions of power (visible, hidden and

In this approach to CDA, there are three analytical focuses in

1. The Textual function involves linguistic analysis in terms of lexis,

Fairclough (1995b) viewed text from a multifunctional perspective:

(ideational function); particular constructions of writer and reader identities,

For Fairclough (1995b:60) “discourse practice straddles the division

In his analytical framework, there is both the linguistic analysis at the

For Fairclough (1992:104) there are two types of intertextuality:

An example given by Fairclough (1992) was an analysis of an article

• Access to the media

• Economy of the media

The media is open to the effects of commercial pressures,

This issue of the effects of the economic aspects of media,

• The politics of media

• Practices of media text production and consumption

• Selecting news reports is one of the important practices of text

by the news perspective not because of their objective characteristics… news

It strikes me as self-evident that although readings may vary,

without the evidence to support the commentary. [Fairclough,

This defense by Fairclough of CDA was identified by Halliday in his

Critical Discourse Analysis and Systemic Functional Linguistics

• Levels of language such as phonology, lexis and-grammar, discourse

Martin and Rose (2007) explain how speakers of a language share an

‘wordings’ in passages of text, and employs the tools of the social

However, a systemic functional linguistic approach can cover an

The Appraisal System

We use the resources of appraisal to negotiate social relationships, to

The grammar of the interpersonal metafunction is more of an

Affect refers to emotional attitude of the speaker or writer towards

Appreciation expresses aesthetic assessment of objects valued by

Issues being debated:

The ‘Power Cube’ can be used as a tool in CDA to provide a better

Global • International companies doing business in Singapore

It contains different ‘attitudinal items’ when expressing opinions. The

Gicacia • Singapore, Singapore • 10 minutes ago

Cute Guy • Singapore, Singapore • 13 minutes ago

Judgment seems to dominate the evaluations and they are mainly