Critical Discourse Analysis
Abstract
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA; better named critical discourse studies [CDS]) is a movement or perspective of multidisciplinary discourse studies that specifically focuses on the discursive reproduction of power abuse, such as sexism, racism, and other forms of social inequality, as well as the resistance against such domination. CDA/CDS is not a specific method of discourse studies but makes use of all relevant methods of the humanities and social sciences in the study of important social problems. Unlike most other approaches, the CDS framework presented here not only relates discourse structures to social structures but does so through a sociocognitive interface that links mental representations of communicative and other social situations and events with the cognitive structures underlying discourse. Power is conceptualized as control – for example, control of the structures of context, text, or talk, and thus indirectly of people's minds
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A focus group participant explained that the bias identified was not simply a technical bug but a mirror reflecting real-world patterns, since AI learned from news articles and websites that overwhelmingly portray technology CEOs as men, thereby reproducing an existing power structure.
“A focus group participant explained that the bias they identified was not simply a technical bug in the AI system but rather a mirror reflecting real-world patterns, since the AI had learned from news articles and websites that overwhelmingly portray technology CEOs as men, thereby reproducing an existing power structure (Fairclough, 2013;Van Dijk, 2015).”
From Integrating AI Literacy and Critical Discourse Analysis into the 21st-Century University Curriculum (2026) · cites this paper as Van Dijk, 2015
Cites
Selections from the prison notebooks
Gramsci, A. (2020) · The Applied Theatre Reader · doi:10.4324/9780429355363-27 · Cited by 9,750 · see citing works
Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory
Essed, P. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781483345239 · Cited by 2,461 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method
Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002) · doi:10.4135/9781849208871 · Cited by 4,118 · see citing works
Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2016.11.004 · Cited by 296 · see citing works
Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Smith, C. D., & Kniveton, D. (2018) · Ambio · doi:10.1007/s13280-017-1007-6 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Baker, P., & Potts, A. (2013) · Critical Discourse Studies · doi:10.1080/17405904.2012.744320 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
From Bias “In the Text” to “Teacher Talk around the Text”
Sunderland, J., Cowley, M., Abdul Rahim, F., Leontzakou, C., & Shattuck, J. (2000) · Linguistics and Education · doi:10.1016/s0898-5898(00)00034-6 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Communication power struggles on social media: A case study of the 2011–12 Russian protests
Spaiser, V., Chadefaux, T., Donnay, K., Russmann, F., & Helbing, D. (2017) · Journal of Information Technology & Politics · doi:10.1080/19331681.2017.1308288 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
“Our biggest killer”: multimodal discourse representations of dementia in the British press
Brookes, G., Harvey, K., Chadborn, N., & Dening, T. (2018) · Social Semiotics · doi:10.1080/10350330.2017.1345111 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
The Discursive Perspective of Market Categorization: Interaction, Power, and Context
Grodal, S., & Kahl, S. J. (2017) · Research in the Sociology of Organizations · doi:10.1108/s0733-558x20170000051004 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Bertrand, M., Perez, W. Y., & Rogers, J. (2015) · Education Policy Analysis Archives · doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.2068 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Pascoe, S., Brincat, S., & Croucher, A. (2019) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.010 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Reviewing institutional policies for electronic management of assessment
Voce, J. (2015) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9813-2 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“The sisters did her every imaginable injury”: Power and violence in «Cinderella»
Alcantud Díaz, M. (2012) · International Journal of English Studies · doi:10.6018/ijes/2012/2/161751 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Integrating AI Literacy and Critical Discourse Analysis into the 21st-Century University Curriculum
Siame, P. (2026) · International Journal of Multilingualism and Languages for Specific purposes · doi:10.52919/ijmlsp.v8i01.146
- Authors
- Van Dijk, T. A.
- Venue
- The Handbook of Discourse Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-04-17
- Pages
- 466-485
- OpenAlex
- W2161586993
- Cited by
- 5,485
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 255 · 2025: 199 · 2024: 123 · 2023: 102 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 237 · 2020: 297 · 2019: 301 · 2018: 245 · 2017: 264 · 2016: 302 · 2015: 380 · 2014: 347 · 2013: 373 · 2012: 315
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Wiley eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Cultural and political discourse analysis
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Discourse and Social Analysis
- Keywords
- critical discourse analysis, critical discourse studies, abuse of power, sexism, racism, social inequality, resistance to domination, mental representation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
