employed in some other fields, hermeneutics can be understood as a method of grasping and producing meaning relations by understanding the meaning of one
part in the context of the whole. He further argues that hermeneutic interpretation in particular requires detailed documentation such as an explicit linguistic analysis
of texts. Discourse from the point of view of CDA, then, is a form of social action. The principle aim of CDA is to uncover opaqueness and power relationships.
CDA is a socially committed scientific paradigm. It attempts to bring about change in communicative and socio-political practices Fairclough Wodak,
1997.
b. Van Dijk‟s View of Ideologies, Power, Discourse and Language.
Van Dijk‘s theory of discourse analysis is found to be helpful also to understand the seemingly vague relationship among ideologies, power, discourse
and language. Van Dijk explains that ―discourse is not always ideologically transparent, and discourse analysis does not always allow us to infer what peoples
ideological beliefs are. This always depends on the definition of the communicative situation by the participants, that
is, on context.‖ 2006: 124 In other words, the concept of ideology is non-deterministic. It is not a must for the
members to always express or enact the beliefs of the groups they identify with. Ideological discourse is always personally and contextually variable. However,
this does not mean that ideologies are increasingly less important in a globalized world. Just it is only in some contexts they are not being manifest so that conflicts
can be resolved more easily.
―In group talk, ideological beliefs may be presupposed, and in talk with out-group members ideological beliefs may be censored or modified, e.g. in `politically correct
discourse. In both cases, the relation between ideology and discourse needs special, indirect or other unobtrusive methods to be studied empirically.
‖ Van Dijk, 2006: 124
Van Dijk more or less expresses that ideology is not to be mention directly in texts. Ideology is implied within the interaction of the member of society that is
in the way or what they talk to each other. Ideology is manifested into the real action or materialized in action. Moreover, ideology controls what and how things
are talked or done. Ideology is then absorbed in the social interactions. No interactions may
happen without communicating ideas and this must be run through language. Here, concept of discourse appears in the matter that language is as social practice
determined by social structures. Van Dijk 2006 explains the relation among ideology, language, and discourse as follows:
―We have assumed that ideological discourse structures are organized by the constraints of the context models, but also as a function of the structures of then underlying
ideologies and the social representations and models controlled by them. Thus, if ideologies are organized by well-known ingroup
–outgroup polarization, then we may expect such a polarization also to be `coded in talk and text
.‖ Van Dijk, 2006: 126
Critical Discourse Analysis is a form of discourse analysis that studies the relationship between discourse and ideology a set of beliefs, attitudes and
behaviors that constitute a perspective on the world. It focuses on critiquing social injustice, and has strong links to the study of language and power. Most
critical discourse analysts approach a text with a political goal or agenda of some kind, and are often advocates for social justice and social change, seeking to show
how a text could be biased towards a particular ideology. Van Dijk 1995 emphasizes that CDA specifically focuses on the strategies of manipulation,
legitimation, the manufacture of consent and other discursive ways to influence the minds and indirectly the actions of people in the interest of the powerful.
Van Dijk 1995 adds that CDA is part of wide scope of critical studies in the humanities and the social sciences such as sociology, law, literature, and
political science. CDA also pays attention to all levels and dimension of discourse which can be the grammar, style, rhetoric, text organization, speech acts,
pragmatic strategies, and those interactions among others. CDA therefore addresses broader social issues and attends to the external
factors, including ideology, power, inequality, etc. and draws on social and philosophical theory to analyze and interpret written and spoken texts. The
discourse is there to be structured in language use since language is where words, grammatical, and context are chosen in making meaning for the idea that is need
to be transferred to the society and control the interactions among members in an ideological society. The discourse is to be coded on talk and text and beyond this,
social belief, public interest, and histories are the supporting background in which context is made and to be understood making the members of ideological society
stand on the same perception for the common righteousness.
C. Fairclo ugh‟s Approach of Critical Discourse Analysis
For Fairclough 1989, CDA aims to examine how the ways in which we communicate are constrained by the structures and forces of those social
institutions within which we live and function. Jorgensen tries to explain Fairclough‘s conception by mentioning that CDA is the investigation of change.
Fairclough wants to show that while language in use is based from already
