ABSTRACT
Discourse analysis has become a popular set of theories and methods used to investigate questions in the social sciences. Indeed, dozens of journals are devoted to discourse studies and an increasing number of conferences and courses have sprung up in the past decade. Because the field is wide and the space for this chapter is short, I focus on only one variety of discourse analysis—those that have been termed critically oriented forms of discourse analysis (Blommaert, 2005; Gee, 2010; Rogers, 2004/2011). Gee (2004/2011) makes the distinction between “critical discourse analysis” and “Critical Discourse Analysis.” The former, cda (with small letters), refers to a variety of approaches that may include action-oriented discourse analysis, narrative analysis, rhetorical analysis, public consultative discourse analysis, ethnographic analyses, nexus analysis, and others whose central concern are issues of power, domination/liberation, and ideology. “CDA” (with capital letters) refers to those who associate their work with the theories and methods of Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, Teun van Dijk, and Theo van Leeuwen. Both are concerned with power and privilege and the relationships between discourse and social structure.
