This document provides an overview and summary of Teun van Dijk's book "Discourse and Power". It discusses that the book defines critical discourse analysis and its aims to analyze how social power, dominance, and inequalities are reproduced through text and talk. It also examines discourse as both a product of social inequalities and as a tool that can legitimize dominance and power abuse. The document reviews key aspects of van Dijk's conceptual framework for analyzing the relationship between discourse and power.

1. An Introductory Lecture on Van Dijk’s Book
DISCOURSE AND POWER
by
Dr. SYED KAZIM SHAH
Associate Prof. in English, Govt. College
University
Faisalabad, Pakistan
kazim.shah@gcuf.edu.pk
Prepared by
Muhammad Ahmad

2. INTRODUCTION
1. This book is very complex
2. Its structure is very difficult to understand
3. There is a repetition/overlapping/extension of
ideas
4. The structure/construction of ideas is
complex
5. My aim is to clear the ambiguities regarding
its structure
6. Book starts with the definition of discourse
and critical discourse analysis

3. CRITICAL DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
1. CDA is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily
studies the way social power abuse, dominance and
inequalities are enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and
talk in social and political contexts. It means;
2. Text and talk represent relationship b/w discourse and power
3. Therefore, discourse and power can be analyzed by analyzing
text and talk
4. For, major focal concern of CDA is power and discourse i.e.
how power is exercised, abused, enacted, and how dominance
is created
5. Thus, CDA aims to analyze social inequalities through text and
talk
6. In this way, discourse works as a product

4. DISCOURSE AS A PRODUCT
1. It’s a product of social inequalities
2. It deals with relations b/w discourse and
power to expose and resist social inequalities
3. Therefore, it analyzes power abuse and
resistance against it

5. DISCOURSE AS A TOOL
1. Discourse focuses on how compound
structures legitimize and reproduce relation
b/w power and dominance in society
2. Here discourse appears as a tool
3. It contributes to the legitimization or
legalization of dominance and power abuse
4. Discourse structure is a tool

6. REVIEW
We discussed 3 points so far;
1. Aim of CDA is to Analyze Discourse as a
Product which is representative of Social
Inequalities
2. Discourse is a Product which resists and
minimizes social inequalities
3. Discourse is a tool

7. DISCOURSE IS SUBJECTIVE
1. Rejects the possibilities of value free science.
For, inequalities are inherently a part of social
structure and are influenced by social
interactions. On this ground, van Dijk REJECTS
VALUE FREE SCIENCE
2. It implies that DISCOURSE is SUBJECTIVE
3. Another reason for it is that social as well as
political structures are NOT VALUE FREE
4. They are IDEOLOGICAL, BELIEF BASED,
OPINION BASED
5. Therefore, van Dijk claims that DISCOURSE is
BIASED/SUBJECTIVE

8. MULTIDISCIPLINARY
APPROACH of CDA
 CDA is not a Direction, School or Specialization
 Rather, it aims to use different modes or
perspectives of theorizing, analyzing and
applications throughout the whole field
 It implies that CDA is not a SEPARATE
DISCIPLINE, not a TOOL, not a THEORY
 Rather, it uses every discipline/field/model
 Thus, CDA is MULTIDISCIPLINAY in nature i.e.
We can use, Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics,
Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, Political
Science, Literary Analysis, etc.

9. CHARACTERISTICS OF CDA
 CDA research needs to satisfy a number of requirements to realize its aim
i.e.
1. It is better than other fields’ researches
2. It employs a wide range of approaches
3. It focuses on bigger social problems and political issues rather than
current petty issues
4. It is multidisciplinary
5. It is not descriptive. Instead, it is explanatory
6. It doesn’t asks ‘how much’. Instead, it asks ‘why’
7. It focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm, legitimate,
reproduce and challenge the relation between power and dominance in
society
8. Thus, the Question of ‘Why’ is directed towards Power and Discourse
Relationship i.e.
9. how such structures are used to maintain power, to exercise power, to
abuse power, to legitimize power etc. are addressed by CDA

10. FIRST-PART REVIEW
 In first part van Dijk explains the nature,
objectives and role of CDA

11. COMPARISON WITH OTHER
WRITERS
(Fairclough, Huckins, Wodak)
 There are certain points of agreement among all CDA
Experts i.e.
1. CDA addresses social problems
2. Power relations are discursive
3. Discourse constitutes society and culture
4. Discourse does ideological work
5. Discourse is historical (Synchronic as well as diachronic)
6. Discourse is analyzed pragmatically as well historically
7. The link b/w text and society is mediated
8. Discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory
9. Discourse is a form of social action
10. Discourse is not passive. Rather, discourse is Active(actor)

12. CONCEPTUAL & THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK of DISCOURSE &
POWER
1. CDA is not a specific direction of research
2. CDA doesn’t have a unitary framework
3. CDA has many forms/types which are
theoretically as well as analytically quite diverse
(e.g. CDA of conversation is different from the
CDA of a News item)
4. Text analysis has a key place in CDA
5. Power, dominance, hegemony, discursive
practices, ideologies, class, gender, race,
discrimination, interest, reproduction, institution,
social structure, social order are commonly used
terms by all CDA Experts

13. MICRO VS MACRO ANALYSIS
 Micro analysis operates at text level (lexical items, discourse
patterns, paragraphs, cohesion etc) whereas,
 Macro analysis operates at social and cognitive levels (power,
dominance, ideology, inequality, exploitation among social
groups)
 CDA is a combination of macro and micro analysis
 A racist speech in parliament is a discourse at the micro level
of social interaction
 Every individual discourse is the part of a bigger discourse
e.g. speech in parliament against blacks is not an individual
discourse
 In above example individual speech is a micro level
discourse, but as a part of bigger discourse, it is a macro
level discourse
 Thus, there is no singular discourse. Instead, every discourse
is the part of a bigger discourse by a group or institution
 There is no personal discourse. (In Fact) every discourse is

14. WAYS to BRIDGE GAP B/W
MICRO & MACRO LEVELS
1. Members’ groups (language users engage in
discourse as the members of several social
groups/organizations/institutions)
2. Action process (Social acts are individual acts
and thus are the constituent part of group action
and social process)
3. So, if there are no individual actions, there are
no social acts
4. All events are social events, all acts are social
acts (bill in parliament is also a social act)
5. As man is a social animal, so his actions are also
social

15. CONTEXT SOCIAL
STRUCTURE
 Situations of discursive social interaction are
the primarily part of social structure e.g. press
conference may be typical organization of
media institution which is global and local
context are closely related and both exercise
constraint on discourse
 “Every context is the part of a social structure”
[Translation]

16. PERSONAL & SOCIAL
COGNITION
1. Language users, as social actors, have both
personal and social cognition (episodic
memory)
2. Personal cognition is micro level cognition
whereas social cognition is macro level
cognition
3. There’s no personal cognition. Everything
has its trace to social cognition

17. CHAPTER REVIEW
 This part discusses;
1. Nature and objectives of CDA
2. Points of agreement among different CDA
Experts
3. Conceptual framework of CDA
4. Relationship b/w Micro & Macro levels

18. POWER IS CONTROL
 van Dijk discusses social power in terms of
control
 Groups are powerful, if they can control the
minds of other groups
 Power can be resisted through power
deterrents e.g. power of knowledge can be
resisted with the power of knowledge
 Powerful groups exploit the less powerful
 CDA explains the causes behind exploitation

19. POWER BASE
 There should be base/resource for power e.g.
teachers’ power base is their knowledge and
status
 Privilege access to scarce social resources
(knowledge, status, etc.)
 “the more the access the more the power”
[Translation]

20. TYPES OF POWER
 Types of power can be distinguished according to a person’s access to
power e.g.
1. Power of knowledge if it’s based on knowledge. Similarly,
2. Power of status
3. Physical power (Coercive, it’s based on threat)
4. Institutional power
5. Ethical power
6. Coercive power
7. Power of money
8. Persuasive (logical) power
9. Emotional power
10. Hegemony
“Powerful groups abuse power”
 To be powerful one has to get access to power resources
 Economic independence is a key to power

21. HEGEMONY
 Sometimes power/control appears to be natural i.e.
1. Power of dominant groups is legalized through laws,
traditions, culture etc. Such state of affairs is known as
Hegemony and such power is called hegemonic power
2. It becomes a part of tradition culture, habits, law
3. Access to resources and then access to different forms of
discourse is also a power
4. So, by accessing different resources of power, combined
with the access to different forms of power, one can become
powerful
5. Action is controlled by the mind. So, a person being able to
control minds, can exercise control over the actions
6. Mind is controlled by text and talk (discourse) and then
actions are controlled with the help of mind
7. Thus, it implies that discourse indirectly controls actions

22. PART SUMMARY
 A group, with an influential discourse, has
more chances to control the minds and actions
of the people
 People, who have control over most influential
discourses (media, religion, education), are
likely to have more control over minds and
actions (here discourse is a tool)

23. FOCUS OF CDA/DONINANCE
 It focuses on the abuse of power in general
and dominance in particular
 Dominance means an illegitimate exercise of
power

24. ACCESS & DISCOURSE
CONTROL
 Power base of a group/institution is also a
source/access to control over public discourse
 Communication is an important symbolic resource in
case of media, knowledge and information
 Access to and control over a discourse is one of the
main power bases
 (if someone contributes to discourse, he’s powerful.
Silent people are mostly powerless)
 Passive people are the target of text and talk
 Some people produce and some receive discourse
 Powerful people are the producers while the
powerless ones are always receivers of discourse

25. CONTROL OVER DISCOURSE
PROPERTIES
 Members of more powerful social groups or
institutions have an exclusive access to more than
one type of discourse e.g.
1. Professor controls scholarly discourse
2. Teacher controls educational discourse
3. Journalist controls media discourse
4. Lawyer controls legal discourse
5. Politician controls policy/political discourse
People with control over more and more
influential discourse properties are by
definition more powerful

26. NOTIONS OF DISCOURSE
ACCESS
 Notions of discourse access and control are very
general
 CDA’s task is to spell out these forms of power
 If discourse is defined in terms of complex
communicative events, access and control may
be defined for both i.e. context and structure of
text and talk e.g.
1. In a seminar, people who are not allowed to
enter, they have no access to context
2. In the same seminar some persons are given
written material to the speakers, they have
textual, contextual and thematic control

27. LEVELS OF ACCESS &
CONTROL
 Micro/Individual/Personal level: It can be
observed in everyday conversation
 Macro Level: e.g. scholarly, journalistic, etc.

28. FORMS OF ACCESS &
CONTROL
1. Context Control: control over communicative events, context, setting,
genre, mental representation, content participation etc.
2. Structure Control: control over genre and structure like editor’s control
over the selection or rejection of news, words, images etc.
a) structure forms from the use of adjectives or metaphor
 In both of these forms two things are common i.e. (1) Positive Self and (2)
Negative Other Representation
 Therefore, there’s always a conflict b/w ‘Us’ VS ‘Them’
 “IDEOLOGY HITS AT THE SUBCONSCIOUS”
 Polarization of Us VS Them which characterizes social representation
and they are underlining ideologies to express and produce level of text
and talk in contrastive topics, local meanings, metaphors, hyperbole,
syntax, lexicalization, collocation images etc.
All levels and structure of context, text and talk can be more or less
controlled by powerful speakers and such power may abused at the
expense of other participants

29. FORMS OF ACCESS &
CONTROL Conti…
3. Mind Control: if controlling discourse is a first
major form of discourse, controlling minds is
another fundamental way to reproduce dominance
and hegemony
 Within a CDA Framework, mind control involves
more than just acquiring beliefs about the world
through discourse and communication
 It is mediated through discourse, especially news
 Knowledge, beliefs, opinions coming through
discourse from reliable/authentic sources tend to
influence/control people’s mind

30. EFFCTIVE MIND CONTROL
 Mind control becomes effective when;
1. Audience behaves as a passive discourse
recipient
2. There is no alternative discourse
3. There is a lack of knowledge about the
discourse people are exposed to
4. There is no resistance

31. HOW TO ANALYZE MIND?
 Like mind control, mind analysis is also equally important
 Mind can be analyzed through distinguishing b/w (1) episodic and (2) social memory as
well as by analyzing (1) Text and (2) Talk
 EPISODIC MEMORY
1. Store of experiences and subjective representations is called mental model a.k.a.
context model
2. Mental models consist of specific knowledge
3. Personal experiences and ongoing situations also form context models (Previous
observation + Current observations)
4. By analyzing context models one can analyze mind
5. Second type of

32. SOCIAL MEMORY
1. It Concerns Social Representation
2. It focuses on General and socio-cultural
norms, knowledge, attitude, etc that people
share in groups
CDA Focuses on how discourse structure
influences Mental Representation
1. At global level of discourse CDA focuses on
topics like schemata, order, prominence, etc.
2. At local level CDA focuses on local semantic
information like students’ information about
their teacher