Page 13 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 13
Topoi in critical discourse analysis1
The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), pioneered by Ruth Wodak
(see Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, Liebhart 1999; Wodak, van Dijk 2000;
Wodak, Chilton 2005; Wodak, Meyer 2006; Wodak 2009), is one of the
major branches of critical discourse analysis (CDA). In its own (program-
matic) view, it embraces at least three interconnected aspects:
1. ‘Text or discourse immanent critique’ aims at discovering inter-
nal or discourse-internal structures.
2. The ‘socio-diagnostic critique’ is concerned with the demystify-
ing exposure of the possibly persuasive or ‘manipulative’ charac-
ter of discursive practices.
3. Prognostic critique contributes to the transformation and im-
provement of communication. (Wodak 2006: 65)
CDA, in Wodak's view,
is not concerned with evaluating what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. CDA
[...] should try to make choices at each point in the research itself,
and should make these choices transparent.2 It should also justi-
fy theoretically why certain interpretations of discursive events
seem more valid than others.
1 First version of this chapter was published in Igor Ž. Žagar, ‘Topoi in Critical
Discourse Analysis,’ Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 6, no. 1 (2010): 3–27.
2 All emphases (italics) in the chapter are mine (IŽŽ).
13
The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), pioneered by Ruth Wodak
(see Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, Liebhart 1999; Wodak, van Dijk 2000;
Wodak, Chilton 2005; Wodak, Meyer 2006; Wodak 2009), is one of the
major branches of critical discourse analysis (CDA). In its own (program-
matic) view, it embraces at least three interconnected aspects:
1. ‘Text or discourse immanent critique’ aims at discovering inter-
nal or discourse-internal structures.
2. The ‘socio-diagnostic critique’ is concerned with the demystify-
ing exposure of the possibly persuasive or ‘manipulative’ charac-
ter of discursive practices.
3. Prognostic critique contributes to the transformation and im-
provement of communication. (Wodak 2006: 65)
CDA, in Wodak's view,
is not concerned with evaluating what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. CDA
[...] should try to make choices at each point in the research itself,
and should make these choices transparent.2 It should also justi-
fy theoretically why certain interpretations of discursive events
seem more valid than others.
1 First version of this chapter was published in Igor Ž. Žagar, ‘Topoi in Critical
Discourse Analysis,’ Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 6, no. 1 (2010): 3–27.
2 All emphases (italics) in the chapter are mine (IŽŽ).
13
