Critical discourse analysis

Critical discourse analysis was developed by three outstanding linguists such as Fariclough, Van Dijk and Wodak, who offered rather similar approaches towards discourse analysis. Their common point is that CDA should take a critical orientation to discourse and investigate the aspects of ideology and power hidden in the discourse. The salient purpose of CDA which differs from other related approaches is that it tends to explore the implicit underlined ideological and power patterns in the written and spoken discourses. As a whole, CDA tends to uncover the implicit ideological prejudice in the discourse which brings about a dominance, hegemony, inequality and racism, and discrimination. These scholars basically give an ideological perspective to their approaches by the inspiration from Halliday's systematic functional linguistics. Halliday's systematic functional linguistics (SFL) is one of influential frameworks which has been extensively applied for the textual analysis of a number of domains such as critical discourse analysis. This study intends to discover how it is possible to find out the ideological dimension of discourse by exploring the linguistic elements particularly the transitive verbs. It is hoped that it provides insightful guidelines for the CDA researchers to analyze a discourse with its ideological perspective. It concludes that the transitive verbs are most significant in transferring the ideological attitude of writer or speaker. These types of verbs are deliberately used within a textual discourse in which each textual element is interrelated to each other and has an influential impact of the signification of these verbs.

This research explores political and media silence as a strategic communication device in political speeches, media interviews, and online media, using a multi-dimensional research methodology involving discourse analysis, acoustic recordings, and perception surveys. Through discourse analysis of a large dataset including 300 hours of political speeches, 200 media interviews, and 50 hours of online media, the research maps silence as a strong, convincing, and ideological device. Political speeches use longer but less frequent pauses for rhetorical effect while media interviews use shorter but more frequent silences in an attempt to evade uncomfortable questions. Silence in new media is found as a means of algorithmic manipulation. Surveys in six countries show large differences in how silence is understood; American respondents identify it as strategic while Japanese respondents consider it evasive or cheating. Hiding behind conventional linguistic theories assuming silence is a communicative absence, this research posits instead that silence is an active and discourse-dependent discourse device. Implications in media literacy and internet governance are also outlined with a call for greater openness in algorithmic modulations and a rhetorical awareness of silence.