The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies

Edited by John Flowerdew and John E. Richardson

Review of the First Chapter

NAME: ABDUL BASIT

SUBJECT: CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

SUBMITTED TO
DR. MUJIB REHMAN

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
QURTUBA UNIVERSITY
OF SCIENCE AND INFORMATION TECHONOLOGY
PESHAWAR
 CDA as Dialectical Reasoning
Norman Fairclough

Review

The first chapter of The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, gives a clear and
thoughtful overview of how Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has developed over the past thirty
years. In this chapter, titled "CDA as Dialectical Reasoning", Fairclough reflects on his own role
in shaping CDA and introduces a version of it that connects closely with social change. He explains
that CDA is not just about studying language and power, but about using that study to help improve
society. The chapter highlights how critique, explanation, and action are linked together. CDA
looks at how discourse reflects social problems, explains why these problems exist, and suggests
ways to change them. Fairclough uses examples like the growing influence of market ideas in
universities to show how language can both reflect and support wider political and economic
systems. He also discusses how CDA works alongside other fields like sociology and political
studies to better understand these connections. Throughout the chapter, he emphasizes that CDA
should aim to make a difference by helping people understand and challenge the unfair systems in
which they live. By doing this, CDA becomes not just a way of studying language, but a tool for
supporting political action and social justice.

Fairclough introduces a new version called "CDA as dialectical reasoning," which goes beyond
just analyzing how language is used in society. Instead, it focuses on how we can move from
understanding and criticizing problems in society to taking action to improve things. According to
Fairclough, CDA should not only point out what’s wrong but also explain why those problems
exist and suggest how they can be fixed. He believes that language and discourse (ways of talking
and writing) are deeply connected to power, ideology, and social structures, and they play an
important role in shaping how people see the world. CDA, therefore, must explore these
connections and provide useful insights for creating positive social change.

Fairclough outlines three main stages in the development of his CDA approach. The first stage,
influenced by the period after World War II, focused on how language supports existing power
structures and ideologies. The second stage, in the 1990s, addressed how language was used in
implementing neoliberal changes, such as turning public services like universities into businesses.
For example, he describes how students started being called “consumers” and how this changed
the way universities were managed. The third stage, developed after the 2007 financial crisis,
added the idea of argumentation and practical reasoning. This stage looks at how political debates
and decisions are made and how discourse influences them. Throughout all stages, Fairclough
insists that CDA must remain critical, must aim to explain the links between language and society,
and must help identify how things can be changed for the better.

He introduces a four-step model for using CDA as dialectical reasoning. The steps are: first,
criticize problematic uses of language; second, explain these problems by looking at deeper social
issues; third, critique those social issues; and fourth, suggest actions that can bring about
improvement. Fairclough argues that we cannot simply criticize language; we must understand the
reasons behind it and the real-world effects it has. For instance, if students are treated like
customers, we need to ask why this is happening and what it means for education. To answer these
questions, CDA must draw knowledge from different fields like sociology, economics, and
politics. It also must look at both how language is used (the surface level) and what powers and
systems are behind that usage (the deeper level).

A major part of the chapter discusses how CDA can support political change. Fairclough uses the
Kilburn Manifesto (KM)—a political text calling for a move beyond neoliberalism—as a case
study. He shows how the manifesto uses discourse (language and ideas) to try to change how
people think and talk about politics. He points out that “terms of debate”—what ideas are included
or excluded in public discussion—shape what kind of political change is possible. If we keep using
the same old ways of talking about problems, we will keep arriving at the same solutions. But if
we change the way we talk, we can open up new ways of thinking and acting. For example, if we
stop talking about economic growth as the only goal and instead focus on fairness or sustainability,
we might choose very different policies.

Fairclough also explains that CDA can play an “educative” role in politics. Drawing from the work
of the Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci, he says that part of politics is about changing people’s
common sense and helping them understand the world differently. This means CDA can help by
teaching people how to analyze arguments, recognize hidden messages, and understand the deeper
causes of social problems. He lists nine key skills people should learn to use CDA effectively, such
as identifying different types of arguments, understanding the goals and values behind them, and
evaluating how strong or weak they are. These skills can help not only researchers and activists
but also ordinary citizens become more informed and active in democracy.

Fairclough emphasizes that although CDA is not political action itself, it can strongly support
political efforts by helping people think more clearly and critically. He explains that CDA
contributes to the early stage of political processes, i.e. discussion and debate, but the actual
decisions and actions belong to politics. However, by shaping how problems are discussed, CDA
can influence what kinds of actions are considered possible or realistic. Changing the language
and assumptions in public debate can help open up new paths for real change. So, CDA as
dialectical reasoning is not just a method for studying language; it is also a powerful tool for
helping people imagine and work toward a better society.

One of the biggest strengths of the chapter is its effort to connect language analysis with real-world
issues. Fairclough argues that CDA should not stop at pointing out problems in society; it should
also explain why those problems exist and suggest ways to fix them. His four-step model—starting
with critique of discourse, followed by explanation, then critique of the wider social reality, and
finally suggesting action—is well-structured and gives a clear method for how CDA can be useful
beyond academia. This makes the chapter not just informative but also practical, especially for
people who want to use research for activism or social reform.

Another strong point of the chapter is the way it brings together ideas from different thinkers and
disciplines. Fairclough uses concepts from Aristotle, Marx, Bhaskar, and Gramsci to show how
language, politics, and society are all linked. His discussion of the Kilburn Manifesto is especially
effective in showing how discourse (ways of speaking and thinking) can either support or
challenge systems like neoliberalism. He explains that the way public debates are framed, shapes
the kinds of change are possible. Changing these “terms of debate,” as Fairclough puts it, can help
open up new ideas and new actions. His call to teach people how to think critically, analyze
arguments, and understand hidden meanings in discourse is also very important. These skills can
help citizens become more engaged, thoughtful, and effective in political life.
However, the chapter does have some weaknesses. Even though Fairclough wants CDA to be used
by a wide range of people, the writing is often very academic and full of complex terms like
“interdiscursivity,” “recontextualization,” or “dialectical relations.” These words may be difficult
for students or new readers to understand. While Fairclough does provide examples—such as how
universities have been shaped by market language—he could have used more everyday or current
examples to make his ideas clearer. For instance, examples from social media, newspapers, or
popular culture could have helped readers see how CDA works in real-life situations. This would
make the chapter more practical and easier to follow, especially for those outside of academic
settings.

Another issue is that the four-step model, while useful, may seem too neat for how social change
happens in real life. In practice, critique, explanation, and action often happen at the same time or
in a different order. Also, even though Fairclough says CDA is not political action itself, he clearly
supports leftist political goals like challenging neoliberalism. Some readers might see this as
biased, especially if they believe that academic research should stay neutral. It may also raise
questions about whether CDA can include a wider range of political views or if it mainly supports
one side of the debate.

Finally, one major gap in the chapter is the lack of attention to digital media and online discourse.
Today, many political arguments and social movements happen on platforms like Twitter,
Facebook, or YouTube, and these platforms shape who gets heard and how ideas spread.
Fairclough’s chapter doesn’t really talk about how CDA can be used to study these modern forms
of communication. Including this would have made the chapter more up-to-date and relevant for
today’s readers.

The first chapter is a powerful and inspiring piece that shows how CDA can be used not only to
study language but also to help improve society. It offers a well-organized method and makes
strong connections between theory and practice. However, it could be improved by using simpler
language, providing more relatable examples, and including discussions about online discourse.
These changes would make the chapter more accessible and useful for students, activists, and
anyone interested in using language to understand and change the world.
 REFERENCES

Chun, W. H. K. (2011). Programmed Visions: Software and Memory. MIT Press.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.

Fairclough, N., & Fairclough, I. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for
Advanced Students. Routledge.

Graham, T., Zook, M., & Boulton, A. (2013). Augmented reality in public
discourse: online news, social media and the digital public sphere. New Media &
Society.

Janks, H. (1997). Critical Language Awareness. English Teaching: Practice and

Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A State–

Luke, A. (2004). Critical Literacy in Australia: A Matter of Context and Standpoint.

Seargeant, P., & Tagg, C. (2014). The Language of Social Media: Identity and
Community on the Internet. Palgrave.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin &

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage.
(Especially on CDA’s social change aims)