critical discourse analysis speech

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on August 23, 2019 by Amy Luo . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Critical discourse analysis (or discourse analysis) is a research method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real life situations.

When you conduct discourse analysis, you might focus on:

• The purposes and effects of different types of language
• Cultural rules and conventions in communication
• How values, beliefs and assumptions are communicated
• How language use relates to its social, political and historical context

Discourse analysis is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology and cultural studies.  

Table of contents

What is discourse analysis used for, how is discourse analysis different from other methods, how to conduct discourse analysis, other interesting articles.

Conducting discourse analysis means examining how language functions and how meaning is created in different social contexts. It can be applied to any instance of written or oral language, as well as non-verbal aspects of communication such as tone and gestures.

Materials that are suitable for discourse analysis include:

• Books, newspapers and periodicals
• Marketing material, such as brochures and advertisements
• Business and government documents
• Websites, forums, social media posts and comments
• Interviews and conversations

By analyzing these types of discourse, researchers aim to gain an understanding of social groups and how they communicate.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Unlike linguistic approaches that focus only on the rules of language use, discourse analysis emphasizes the contextual meaning of language.

It focuses on the social aspects of communication and the ways people use language to achieve specific effects (e.g. to build trust, to create doubt, to evoke emotions, or to manage conflict).

Instead of focusing on smaller units of language, such as sounds, words or phrases, discourse analysis is used to study larger chunks of language, such as entire conversations, texts, or collections of texts. The selected sources can be analyzed on multiple levels.

Discourse analysis is a qualitative and interpretive method of analyzing texts (in contrast to more systematic methods like content analysis ). You make interpretations based on both the details of the material itself and on contextual knowledge.

There are many different approaches and techniques you can use to conduct discourse analysis, but the steps below outline the basic structure you need to follow. Following these steps can help you avoid pitfalls of confirmation bias that can cloud your analysis.

Step 1: Define the research question and select the content of analysis

To do discourse analysis, you begin with a clearly defined research question . Once you have developed your question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

Discourse analysis is a method that can be applied both to large volumes of material and to smaller samples, depending on the aims and timescale of your research.

Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context

Next, you must establish the social and historical context in which the material was produced and intended to be received. Gather factual details of when and where the content was created, who the author is, who published it, and whom it was disseminated to.

As well as understanding the real-life context of the discourse, you can also conduct a literature review on the topic and construct a theoretical framework to guide your analysis.

Step 3: Analyze the content for themes and patterns

This step involves closely examining various elements of the material – such as words, sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure – and relating them to attributes, themes, and patterns relevant to your research question.

Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions

Once you have assigned particular attributes to elements of the material, reflect on your results to examine the function and meaning of the language used. Here, you will consider your analysis in relation to the broader context that you established earlier to draw conclusions that answer your research question.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Luo, A. (2023, June 22). Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 11, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourse-analysis/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

What is qualitative research | methods & examples, what is a case study | definition, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Special Issues
• Conferences
• Turkish Journal of Analysis and Number Theory Home
• Current Issue
• Browse Articles
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting and Indexing
• Aims and Scope
• Journal of Linguistics and Literature Home
• Social Science
• Medicine & Healthcare
• Earth & Environmental
• Agriculture & Food Sciences
• Business, Management & Economics
• Biomedical & Life Science
• Mathematics & Physics
• Engineering & Technology
• Materials Science & Metallurgy
• Quick Submission
• Apply for Editorial Position
• Propose a special issue
• Launch a new journal
• Authors & Referees
• Advertisers
• Open Access

• Full-Text PDF
• Full-Text HTML
• Full-Text Epub
• Full-Text XML
• Ibtesam AbdulAziz Bajri, Layla Mohammad Mariesel. Discourse Analysis on Martin Luther King’s Speech ‘I Have a Dream’. Journal of Linguistics and Literature . Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020, pp 40-44. http://pubs.sciepub.com/jll/4/1/4 ">Normal Style
• Bajri, Ibtesam AbdulAziz, and Layla Mohammad Mariesel. 'Discourse Analysis on Martin Luther King’s Speech ‘I Have a Dream’.' Journal of Linguistics and Literature 4.1 (2020): 40-44. ">MLA Style
• Bajri, I. A. , & Mariesel, L. M. (2020). Discourse Analysis on Martin Luther King’s Speech ‘I Have a Dream’. Journal of Linguistics and Literature , 4 (1), 40-44. ">APA Style
• Bajri, Ibtesam AbdulAziz, and Layla Mohammad Mariesel. 'Discourse Analysis on Martin Luther King’s Speech ‘I Have a Dream’.' Journal of Linguistics and Literature 4, no. 1 (2020): 40-44. ">Chicago Style

Discourse Analysis on Martin Luther King’s Speech ‘I Have a Dream’

This paper aims to examine Martin Luther King’s speech “I Have a Dream” using Gee’s [1] building tasks. To specify, the paper will highlight King’s use of language to build and destroy identity, relationship, and politics. Furthermore, analysis shows the ideologies and philosophical dogmas behind the speech, which relates to freedom, equality, and civil rights.

1. Introduction

August 28, 1963, has been a remarkable day for civil rights movement, wherein Martin Luther King has given the most powerful and influential speech entitled “I have a dream”. The premise of the speech is an invitation to peaceful coexistence between the African Americans and the white citizens of America, along with a plea that both parties accept the forthcoming change in a non-violent way.

Jorgensen and Phillips 2 define discourse as the structured language, and define discourse analysis as the analysis of the patterns followed by people in daily utterances in different social life domains (12).

The phenomenal nature of the speech has led to a few attempts at analyzing it, and according to Gee 1 , there are seven building tasks that can help us decode any discourse at hand. The building tasks are as follows: significance, practices, identities, relationships, politics, connections, and sign systems. Moreover, Jorgensen and Phillips 2 highlight the importance of discursive practices and state that they “are viewed as an important form of social practice which contributes to the constitution of the social world including social identities and social relations” (61). With that in mind, and with Gee 1 view on effects of texts “inculcating and sustaining ideologies" (123), it is important not only analyze, but rather critique this speech as it has invoked many identities and ideologies in King's audience.

This paper aims to further investigate King’s speech and interpret it using the aforementioned building tasks techniques. More specifically, this paper will use identities, relationships, and politics to analyze and critique this discourse.

2. Significance of the Study

Martin Luther King’s speech “I Have a Dream” has been analyzed repeatedly. However, building tasks of discourse analysis have not been applied to said speech. Moreover, Sipra and Rashid 3 analyze King’s speech using critical discourse analysis highlighting the social, cultural, and political factors surrounding the speech. However, they use critical discourse analysis on the first part of the speech and recommends further analysis on the rest of it.

Dlugan 4 suggests that a lengthy study is in order of Martin Luther King’s speech after he analyzes it metaphorically. The analysis of the metaphor is quite important to understand the nature of the speech as well as the nature of the speaker. However, the analysis of the metaphors is not as profound as the building tasks in understanding the ideologies and agenda behind the speech.

Damak 5 in his study on the strategic purpose of belonging in King’s speech, suggests that King selects a strategy of identification that rests on cultural conformity. However, Damak focuses in his analysis on metaphors and theoretical approaches, which again is not as practical to examine said cultural conformity. This paper will interpret the speech to examine the cultural compliance using the building tasks of Gee 1 , particularly identity and relationship.

It is evident that understanding the speech needs a thorough look at the historical background of it, which is outside the scope of this paper. However, several historic and social factors will be mentioned in the analysis below using Morris’s 6 book; Origins of the Civil Rights Movement. With that in mind, this paper focuses on the following building tasks; identity, relationship, and politics.

3. Research Objectives

1- This paper aims to study and apply building tasks on Martin Luther King’s speech and analyze it accordingly.

2- This paper will attempt to highlight the social factors that constituted King’s speech, and what social influence does the speech have on the African-American community.

3- Relevantly, this study is carried out to inspect the construction of King’s speech, and the linguistic value it has, by using critical discourse analysis.

This leads to the research questions this paper attempts to answer, which are as follows:

1- What relation does this discourse have to the building task of identity?

2- What relation does this discourse have to the building task of politics?

3- What relation does this discourse have to the building task of relationships?

4- What effect does this discourse carry on the identity and ideology of Americans?

4. Review of Literature

1. Critical Discourse Analysis and Gee’s Building Tasks

Fairclough 7 , suggests that critical discourse analysis has three basic characteristics, one of them is the rationality of it. He states that it is a rational form of research because it focuses primarily on social relations as well as entities and individuals. Furthermore, Fairclough carries on to mention the complexity of social relations and how it is layered due to the fact that they have relations within relations. These relations are a major part of the analysis of King's speech. Additionally, in their book Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method , Jorgensen and Phillips 2 co-wrote a chapter on critical discourse analysis. Drawing on Fairclough and Wodak’s 8 overview, the writers list the five common features of different approaches to critical discourse analysis. The feature we are about to examine in this paper is the feature that links social and cultural construction to linguistic-discursive. Critical Discourse Analysis as a theory is where Gee’s 1 building tasks is elicited from. Gee 1 suggests that language-in-use means saying, doing and being (30). Moreover, it is used along with non-verbal tools to build one of seven areas of reality, which Gee 1 , calls the seven building tasks. Those building tasks include; significance, practices, identities, relationships, politics, connections, and sign systems. Therefore, any analyst can use these seven tools to analyze any discourse at hand.

2. Previous Studies

Damak 5 , conducts a study in on the strategic purpose of belonging in Martin Luther King’s speech, in which he suggests that King selects a strategy of identification that rests on cultural conformity. Damak justifies the need to live in harmony with fellow white-citizens of America, but insists that the issue of belonging will only be solved in favor of the dominant majority group. Equally as important is Sipra and Rashid’s 3 work, in which the analyze King’s speech using critical discourse analysis stressing the social, cultural, and political features of the speech. However, they use critical discourse analysis on the first part of the speech and recommend further analysis on the rest of it. From a different angle, Dlugan 4 analyzes King’s speech in terms of metaphors. He notes that King mentions Mississippi four times during his speech, and suggests that it is not accidental. Dlugan states that “mentioning Mississippi would evoke some of the strongest emotions and images for his audience” (7). Such analysis highlights the ideology and paradigm behind King Speech, which this paper aims to examine more closely.

Bajri and Othman 9 , conduct critical discourse analysis on Martin Luther King’s speech ‘I have a dream’, and compare it to Malcom X’s speech ‘a message to the grassroots’. Bajri and Othman examine the use of lexical items in both speeches, the use of metaphors, and rhetorical devices. They utilize Fairclough’s 3D model to analyze the speeches and come to the conclusion that the influential power of these speeches lies in the strong language used in both. Additionally, they highlight the role of these powerful rhetoric in persuading the audiences as well as the government of the United States.

Another paper by Bajri and Mariesel 10 follows the same method of critical discourse analysis is recently published. The authors highlight the importance of language use in political discourse. They analyze Gamal Abdel Nasser’s 1967 stepping down speech, and conclude that the lexical choices in the speech facilitate his agenda in addition to the rhetorical devices and metaphors. Along with his charisma, language helps Abdel Nasser endorsing his name further more even after the defeat.

3. Discourse Legitimation

Essentially, any discourse analysis needs to answer the question of legitimation proposed by van Leeuwen 11 , in which he asks “Why should we do this in this particular way”. Before answering this question in reference to the current paper, it is important to look into the four categories of legitimation mentioned by van Leeuwen 11 . The first one is Authorizations, which is legitimation in relation to the authority of custom, law, and tradition. This authorization can be vested in persons representing institutions such as policemen or religious men. The second category of legitimation is the value system of a certain society, or what van Leeuwen 11 calls moral evaluation. Third, rationalization, which is legitimation in relation to the social practices that exist in a society. Mythopoesis is the last category, which are the narratives that reward legitimate actions and punishes non-legitimate actions. To answer the previously posited question “why”, this paper investigates King’s speech because of its historic and social importance, and for the impact it had done. To answer “why in this particular way”, it is the seven building tasks of Gee 1 that will give us a precise detailed look into King’s identity in the speech, the identities and relationships in the society that received the speech, and the politics of that time that needed to be built or destroyed by King.

To take a closer and more social look into the speech, the current paper refers to Morris’ 6 work which gives a detailed description of the civil rights movements, in which he mentions the approaches used by Martin Luther King to protest. Morris talks about the effectiveness of King’s ways and his credibility as a former protester. He praises the civil rights movement for its cruciality in the sense that it is the first time that African Americans directly have confronted and disrupted the functions of the institutions responsible for their oppression (5). King mentions these institutions in his speech and talks about police brutality specifically, which will be further discussed in the analysis.

5. Method of Analysis

In the broader sense, this paper utilizes Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis to analyze the speech. A more specified scope is Gee’s 1 Seven Building Tasks, which include: significance, practices, identities, relationships, politics, connections, and sign systems. The paper, however, focuses on identities, relationships, and politics. The reason behind choosing these three tasks is that they reflect the importance of the speech at that particular period of time. Combined together, these three tasks give a richer view of the society and its functions through Martin Luther King’s eyes. They also give an indication of King’s strong persona and leadership skills.

Gee 1 introduces identities as the ability to build roles into the discourse and to be recognized for these roles. The analysis discusses the identities built by King with an attempt to justify the need for these roles in the speech. In terms of the task “relationships”, it looks into the connections between different social or individual classes. Last but not least, politics as defined by Gee 1 is the “social goods” that exist in a society. In this particular task, we use language to build and destroy privileges. In the speech, the discrimination against African-Americans is highlighted in contrast with white privilege.

Data will be obtained from an online source containing the full speech of Martin Luther King. However, only certain parts of the speech will be selected for analysis.

The analysis will be divided into three categories in accordance with Gee’s 1 building tasks; i.e. identities, politics, and relationships. To follow up, selected lines and paragraphs from the speech will go under appropriate categories for analysis.

Language enables one to build an identity and get recognized for that identity or role. In his speech, Martin Luther King builds many identities in order to communicate with his audience and reach out to them.

1. “ So we’ve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition ” para. (2).

Notably, King attempts to build himself as a leader or a spiritual leader to the civil rights movement that has been going on for approximately 16 years during the deliverance of King’s speech.

This line comes after many lines of describing the negros’ sufferance and hardship, in which King does not use “we” to belong to the “negros” or the African Americans. Instead, he describes their suffering from afar, and the first time he uses the word “we” is in the line above, where he urges them to march and change this shameful condition. With that in mind, it seems like King acknowledges the fact that he is a negro, yet refuses to submit to the weakness that comes with the word and to the conditions in which they live.

2. “ We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline ” para. (9).

Preserving the identity of sensibility and rationalism is very important for King since he is an advocate for peace and non-violent change. He presents this identity several times in his speech and urges the African Americans to claim it and commit to it.

3. “ I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream ” para. (18).

The identity of the American is a recurring theme in King's speech. Surely, one of the ways in which he can connect with the white citizens of America is to claim the identity of an American himself. As a result, King’s speech is heavily loaded with what Damak 5 calls: the “Americanity” (214). He repeatedly mentions the American dream and the American citizenship, and that could only be a way to reinforce the ideology of belonging for the African Americans, and the ideology of unity for the white man.

4. “ I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character ” para. (14).

King presents his audience with an identity of his, i.e. a parent. Surely, with hundreds of thousands attending his speech, many of which are parents. By representing himself and selling this father figure image, people can relate to him and will have a higher capacity of compassion for King and the African American community.

1. “ Those who hope that the negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual ” para. (7).

The relationship that King tries to introduce here is a relationship of dominance and power. It is a clear threat in case anything happens to the civil rights movement, or if the white people in power decide to dismiss this movement as a steam that needs to be blown off.

King does not mean a violent threat precisely, but “rude awakening” here gives us the impression that it could indeed develop into a threatening relationship if the demands of the African Americans are jeopardized.

2. “ In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred” para. (9).

King suggests that African Americans should demand their rights with reasonability, and not be dragged into hatred and bitterness with the white man. He seeks to establish a relationship of sensibility between both parties to avoid any violence that could arise.

3. “ The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny ” para. (10).

Another aspect of the relationship between the African Americans and the white citizens of America that King endeavors to establish or indorse is the friendship between the two. King realizes that in their struggle, there are some righteous white men who aspire to achieve justice in America.

The significance of this ethnic alliance lies in the next following lines in King’s speech, in which he mentions that both parties know that they cannot walk alone in their march for freedom. King realizes that the white men that march with the civil rights movement are some sort of validation to the movement, wherein they represent the majority in America. Indeed, if you can get the majority to validate your cause, then it is not just a dream anymore.

4. “ There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?'' We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality ” para. (11).

King highlights the hostile relationship between the African Americans and the police. This animosity is not restricted to the police though, rather to all state devices. He mentions in the following lines that even airports and public schools have these policies of segregation. By listing all the instances in which a black man can be subjected to racism and segregation, King achieves his goal to destroy this relationship by shaming it.

5. “ I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brother­ hood ” para. (16).

It is equally important to connect to the African Americans, as well as to the white citizens of America. This line builds a relationship of friendship and brotherhood between the African Americans and the whites. It is also important for King that both parties remember who they were, and that the African Americans embrace their history. He tries to enable the whole community to access the image of slaves and slave owners, as long as this image will encourage them to build friendships and brotherhoods with those of the other race.

1. “ This note was a promise that all men-yes, black men as well as white men-would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ” para. (3).

Gee 1 states that “we use language to build and destroy social goods” (31), and that is exactly what King aspires to achieve with this speech. Clearly, the white citizens of America at that time have had privilege or what we can call social goods, in contrast to the African American community who has been suffering from discrimination even after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. On another note, King refers indeed to the proclamation several times and intends to stand before Lincoln's statue to further endorse his speech.

Moreover, King tries to resolve existing segregation and discrimination that has been there prior to his time as well as during, by building the social goods for the African Americans and destroying the privilege that the white citizens have over their fellow black citizens.

It is important to note that the ideology of freedom and equality to all is deeply rooted in the idea of "America", but whether it is actually applied or not is another issue. This ideology helps King to reach out to all Americans, even those who do not stand in his audience during this speech. He presents this social good and expects them to follow through and actually grants it to every American, no matter what his race might be.

2. “ We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only" ” para. (13).

Even the children of the African Americans are subjected to the disgusting segregation and prejudice of the whites, to the point where even in schools black kids are taught that they are less by the signs that state “For Whites Only”. This is an issue that King attempts to destroy with his speech. The privilege that those white kids have over their fellow black mates is a social good that King tries to invoke in order to create a social good that fits and satisfies all, that is equality.

3. “ And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last! ” para. (24).

A spectacular way to conclude a speech full of imagery. King presents the ultimate social good that he wants to achieve for every American, i.e. freedom. With his words, King recognizes the struggle of every American and does not exclude anyone. The inclusivity of this paragraph can reach out to all races, religions, and classes. This shared struggle is what makes it easier for the other races and classes to relate to African Americans.

King builds an image of unity amongst the American community and urges all to march in defense of their freedom. He wants to present them with the ultimate social good and the basic human right that is freedom. Naturally, when this privilege is given to all, and when it is truly guaranteed for every citizen, the destruction of segregation and discrimination will shortly follow.

This ideology that King presents to the Americans is essential to the civil rights movement, in which he offers an ideology of unity and freedom as a vital condition to coexist in peace.

6. Conclusion

It is found in the analysis that Martin Luther King’s speech is constructed carefully and not just haphazardly, which agrees with Spira and Rashid’s 3 suggestion that it has been syntactically structured to serve King’s ideologies and purpose.

King builds several identities for himself, a leader, a rational, a parent, and an American, to name a few. The interesting thing about King, in particular, is that he is an honest man in the sense that when he advocates for peace, he does indeed what he says; he urges his people as well as the other party not to be violent or hateful.

In terms of relationships, Spira and Rashid 3 states that “Luther king very impressively and successfully with the help of metaphors and other devices identifies the relationship between the powerful and oppressed” (32), and this is what we conclude from the analysis. We find King capable of building unity and harmony between the Americans by using his words. He builds a relationship of dominance and power between the African Americans and the state devices in case they take their movement for granted. Furthermore, King seeks to establish a relationship of brotherhood and friendship amongst the African Americans and the white citizens of America. Last but not least, King attempts to highlight the relationship between the African Americans and the brutal police in order to speak for the struggles of the black man and destroy this brutal relationship to build a peaceful one instead.

King plays a decent game with politics in his concluding paragraph, in which he includes every spectrum of society and mentions all races, religions, and classes. Destroying every aspect of prejudice and intolerance in the American society, King provides them with social goods that fits all to fill the gap. He tries to present them a new ideology of America, a country where everyone is free, safe, and dignified.

Martin Luther King’s speech is an attempt to push the American society into instant peaceful change, and whether it succeeds or not is a different issue. Moreover, King’s speech is linguistically rich, and the limitation of this paper is that it does not exceed building tasks or critical discourse analysis. It is recommended that a further study is conducted on the speech using all the building tasks of discourse analysis, as well as a study to decode the speech into its basic ideologies and concepts.

Published with license by Science and Education Publishing, Copyright © 2020 Ibtesam AbdulAziz Bajri and Layla Mohammad Mariesel

Cite this article:

Normal style, chicago style.

• Google-plus

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on 5 May 2022 by Amy Luo . Revised on 5 December 2022.

Discourse analysis is a research method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real-life situations.

When you do discourse analysis, you might focus on:

• The purposes and effects of different types of language
• Cultural rules and conventions in communication
• How values, beliefs, and assumptions are communicated
• How language use relates to its social, political, and historical context

Discourse analysis is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and cultural studies. It is also called critical discourse analysis.

Table of contents

What is discourse analysis used for, how is discourse analysis different from other methods, how to conduct discourse analysis.

Conducting discourse analysis means examining how language functions and how meaning is created in different social contexts. It can be applied to any instance of written or oral language, as well as non-verbal aspects of communication, such as tone and gestures.

Materials that are suitable for discourse analysis include:

• Books, newspapers, and periodicals
• Marketing material, such as brochures and advertisements
• Business and government documents
• Websites, forums, social media posts, and comments
• Interviews and conversations

By analysing these types of discourse, researchers aim to gain an understanding of social groups and how they communicate.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Unlike linguistic approaches that focus only on the rules of language use, discourse analysis emphasises the contextual meaning of language.

It focuses on the social aspects of communication and the ways people use language to achieve specific effects (e.g., to build trust, to create doubt, to evoke emotions, or to manage conflict).

Instead of focusing on smaller units of language, such as sounds, words, or phrases, discourse analysis is used to study larger chunks of language, such as entire conversations, texts, or collections of texts. The selected sources can be analysed on multiple levels.

Discourse analysis is a qualitative and interpretive method of analysing texts (in contrast to more systematic methods like content analysis ). You make interpretations based on both the details of the material itself and on contextual knowledge.

There are many different approaches and techniques you can use to conduct discourse analysis, but the steps below outline the basic structure you need to follow.

Step 1: Define the research question and select the content of analysis

To do discourse analysis, you begin with a clearly defined research question . Once you have developed your question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

Discourse analysis is a method that can be applied both to large volumes of material and to smaller samples, depending on the aims and timescale of your research.

Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context

Next, you must establish the social and historical context in which the material was produced and intended to be received. Gather factual details of when and where the content was created, who the author is, who published it, and whom it was disseminated to.

As well as understanding the real-life context of the discourse, you can also conduct a literature review on the topic and construct a theoretical framework to guide your analysis.

Step 3: Analyse the content for themes and patterns

This step involves closely examining various elements of the material – such as words, sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure – and relating them to attributes, themes, and patterns relevant to your research question.

Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions

Once you have assigned particular attributes to elements of the material, reflect on your results to examine the function and meaning of the language used. Here, you will consider your analysis in relation to the broader context that you established earlier to draw conclusions that answer your research question.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Luo, A. (2022, December 05). Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 9 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/discourse-analysis-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

Case study | definition, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | guide & examples, content analysis | a step-by-step guide with examples.

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

How to Do Critical Discourse Analysis A Multimodal Introduction

• David Machin - Cardiff University, UK
• Andrea Mayr - Zayed University, UAE
• Description

Want to use Critical Discourse Analysis, but not sure where to start? This book is the complete toolkit you need.

Each chapter presents distinct concepts and ideas in Critical Discourse Analysis, explaining how to use them in your research – and why. Packed with case studies of news texts, social media content, memes, promotional videos, institutional documents, infographics and webpages, the book shows you how to apply each set of tools to real life examples.

Most importantly, examples, case studies, and revised opening chapters of this second edition show how multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis can help us to understand the role of language in the functioning of society and politics today, shaping our priorities for what to do and how to act.

This book is an inspiring and valuable resource for any undergraduate students and researchers who wish to understand and use Critical Discourse Analysis.

David Machin is Professor of Linguistics at Shanghai International Studies University.

Andrea Mayr is an Associate Professor at Zayed University.

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

It it a fantastic book that can be used in an advance research method module, In depth discussion about CDA and frameworks on how to apply it.

This is a practical, applied text that I consider essential for students pursuing communications studies, including those specialising in the visual arts - where the power of text tends to be ignored in favour of the visual turn.

Preview this book

For instructors, select a purchasing option.

Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), and Beyond

• First Online: 29 September 2020

Cite this chapter

• Theresa Catalano 44 &
• Linda R. Waugh 45  

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ((PEPRPHPS,volume 26))

3679 Accesses

1 Citations

This chapter introduces the volume, and defines Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)/Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) and its aims, along with a brief explanation of our use of the acronym CDA/CDS in the book. In addition, it provides three recent examples of different types of studies published in major journals that accept work in CDA or CDS. These articles illustrate in detail what a CDA/CDS study might look like, in order to provide readers with some idea of the types of scholarship that could be considered under this umbrella and of some issues and topics that have been addressed. Finally, we describe the contents of each chapter as well as how they fit together.

“To draw the consequences for political action from critical theory is the aspiration of those who have serious intentions, and yet there is no general prescription unless it is the necessity for insight into one’s own responsibility.” (Horkheimer quoted in O’Neill, 1979 , from Wodak, 2001: 1)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

See the List of Acronyms and Abbreviations.

See Chap. 4 for a more detailed discussion of neoliberalism and CDA/CDS’s role in resisting it.

Our readers will see in Chaps. 2 , 4 , and elsewhere that we refer to this approach as MCDA or Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis, but as we note in that chapter, some scholars also refer to it as Critical Multimodal Discourse Analysis (e.g., CMDA) as is the case with Veum and Undrum. Nevertheless, both acronyms refer to the same approach, which examines not only language but all elements of communication; in this particular case, the main focus is on image and text (including hashtags, slang and abbreviations).

Babaii, E., & Sheikhi, M. (2018). Traces of neoliberalism in English teaching materials: A critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, 15 (3), 247–264.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bhatia, A., & Jenks, C. J. (2018). Fabricating the American dream in US media portrayals of Syrian refugees: A discourse analytical study. Discourse & Communication, 12 (3), 221–239.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Google Scholar  

Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse . London: Edward Arnold.

Fairclough, N. (2009). General introduction. In Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed., pp. 1–21). Harlow/NY: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (1st ed., Fairclough 1995). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd, updated and expanded edition of Fairclough 1989, 2001). London: Longman.

Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed., pp. 357–378). London: Sage.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (2018). Introduction. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 1–11). London/New York: Routledge.

Forchtner, B. (2011). Critique, the discourse historical approach, and the Frankfurt School. Critical Discourse Studies 8 (1):1–14.

Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar . London: Edward Arnold.

Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kress, G. (1985/1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice . Geelong, VIC: Deakin University Press; (1st edition, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Kress, G., & Hodge, R. (1979). Language as ideology . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. [2nd edition: Hodge and Kress 1993].

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication . London: Arnold.

O’Neill, J. (1979). Kritik und Erinnerung. Studien zur politischen und sinnleichen Emanzipation. [Criticism and memory. Studies on Political and Emotional Emancipation] . Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

van Dijk, T. (Ed.). (1985). Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 4). London: Academic Press.

van Dijk, T. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach . London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. (Ed.). (2007). Discourse studies, Vol. I–V (Vol. I, pp. xvix–xlii). London: Sage Publications. [Sage Benchmarks in Discourse Studies]. University Press.

van Dijk, T. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In Wodak and Meyer (2009). (Ed.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 62–86). London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. (2016). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In Wodak and Meyer (Eds.), Methods in Critical Discourse Studies (3rd ed., pp. 62–85). London: Sage.

Veum, A., & Undrum, L. V. M. (2018). The selfie as a global discourse. Discourse & Society, 29 (1), 86–103.

Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (Eds). Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–13.) London/ Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Wodak, R. (2008). Preface to the first edition: ‘How history is made’—The origins and aims of the project. In H. Heer, W. Manoschek, A. Pollak, & R. Wodak (Eds.), The discursive construction of history: Remembering the Wehrmacht’s war of annihilation (pp. xii–xvi). Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Translation from German original 2003: Wie Geschichte gemacht wird. Czernin Verlag. By Steven Fligelstone).

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009a). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009b). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 1–33). London: Sage.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016a). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016b). Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.pp. 1–22). London: Sage.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

Theresa Catalano

Departments of French, English, Linguistics, Anthropology; Language, Reading and Culture; and Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Linda R. Waugh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Catalano, T., Waugh, L.R. (2020). Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), and Beyond. In: Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies and Beyond. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49379-0_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49379-0_1

Published : 29 September 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-49377-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-49379-0

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Do a Critical Discourse Analysis

Last Updated: April 7, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Christopher Taylor, PhD . Christopher Taylor is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of English at Austin Community College in Texas. He received his PhD in English Literature and Medieval Studies from the University of Texas at Austin in 2014. There are 8 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 88,204 times.

The field of critical discourse analysis (CDA) involves taking a deeper, qualitative look at different types of texts, whether in advertising, literature, or journalism. Analysts try to understand ways in which language connects to social, cultural, and political power structures. As understood by CDA, all forms of language and types of writing or imagery can convey and shape cultural norms and social traditions. While there is no single method that covers all types of critical discourse analyses, there are some grounding steps that you can take to ensure that your CDA is well done. [1] X Research source

Working with a Text

• Texts could include things like Moby Dick , Citizen Kane , a cologne advertisement, a conversation between a doctor and their patient, or a piece of journalism describing an election.

• As a first step, circle all of the adverbs and adjectives in the text. Then, consider what they might suggest about the tone of the piece.
• Look for tone words to help you figure out what the author is trying to convey.
• For example, say you're looking at a piece of political journalism about the president. If the text describes the president as “the goofball in the Oval Office,” the attitude is sarcastic and critical.
• However, if the president is described as “the leader of the free world,” the attitude is respectful and even reverential.
• If the article simply refers to the president as “the president,” its attitude is deliberately neutral, as if the text refuses to “take sides.”

• For example, think about a news report about international immigrants coming to a country. The newscaster can create different types of community by referring to the immigrants as “strangers,” “refugees,” or “aliens.”
• The word “refugees” will prompt sympathy among listeners and will help build a community between citizens and immigrants, while “alien” will help create hostile feelings and will exclude the immigrants from the nation's community.

• For example, an 18th century short story that begins, “The savages attacked the unarmed settlers at dawn,” contains implicit interpretations and biases about indigenous populations.
• Another story that begins, “The natives and settlers made a peaceful arrangement,” has a comparatively benign interpretation of historical events.

Analyzing the Text's Form and Production

• For example, think about the difference between an author who writes a novel for money and one who writes for their own pleasure.
• The first author would want to tap into popular trends ends of the day in order to profit, while the second author would be less concerned with pleasing the public.

• For example, consider the case of a CEO delivering a speech in person to their company. The fact that they're delivering a speech and not sending an open letter shows that openness and transparency are important to the CEO and the company culture.
• If the CEO did not deliver a speech, but only sent an email to board members and top executives, the formal change would imply that the text had a very different audience. The email would make the CEO seem less personal, unconcerned about their own workers, and elitist in who they chose to address.

• For example, say that a contemporary writer opens a poem or story with: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Quoting Charles Dickens at once shows that the author is well-read and also grounds their writing in the English Victorian literary tradition.

Tracing Power in Social Practices

• For example, if a political speakers says, “our forefathers smile upon us today,” they are using patriarchal language.
• The term “culture” should be taken very broadly. Businesses can have cultures, as can communities of all sizes, countries, language groups, racial groups, and even hobbyists can have specific cultures.

• For example, consider 2 different magazine ads for trucks. In the first, a rugged-looking man sits in a truck below the words “The vehicle for men.” In the second, a family sits in a truck and the ad copy reads, “A truck to hold everybody.”
• The first ad seems to rely on stereotypical ideas of masculinity, while the second seems more inclusive.

• For example, imagine a politician whose slogan is “All energy should come from coal!” Because of the extremity of the stance, you may suspect that the candidate represents a fringe party that doesn't share many of the mainstream party's views.
• You could confirm this suspicion by looking at other candidates' speeches to see how they address the fringe candidate. If other candidates critique the fringe candidate, the latter is likely part of a sub-group whose views aren't shared by the main political culture.

• For example, companies like Ikea, Emirate Airlines, and McDonald's have strong cultures and norms that exist internationally.

Expert Q&A

• In an academic setting, CDA isn't tied to 1 single field or discipline. Instead, CDA helps students in a variety of fields understand ways in which the production of texts carries cultural meaning. Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0
• As with any other theoretical field, there are many different ways to perform critical discourse analyses. However, they're largely the same at the core: the models all examine ways in which texts at the smallest (word-based) and the largest (social and cultural) levels have an impact on how communities are formed and what readers believe about the world. Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://www.history.ac.uk/1807commemorated/media/methods/critical.html
• ↑ https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/ed270/Luke/SAHA6.html#4
• ↑ https://study.com/academy/lesson/interpreting-literary-meaning-how-to-use-text-to-guide-your-interpretation.html
• ↑ https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourse-analysis/
• ↑ https://youtu.be/3w_5riFCMGA?t=378
• ↑ https://youtu.be/3w_5riFCMGA?t=669
• ↑ https://www.uv.es/gimenez/Recursos/criticaldiscourse.pdf
• ↑ https://youtu.be/3w_5riFCMGA?t=358

About This Article

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Andrew Boyle

Jul 6, 2020

Did this article help you?

Oct 23, 2020

Aliyu Muhammad

Nov 29, 2022

SK Chakraborty

Apr 16, 2022

Aug 2, 2019

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

MEDIA, POLITICS, AND HATE SPEECH: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

2017, e-Academia Journal

The effects of political activities in developing countries and particularly Nigeria have shown that hate speech has become more vivid in the successive democratic dispensation than the previous ones thereby keeping the citizens more divided. Though, on the issue of hate speech the provisions of Nigeria Constitution, Nigeria Electoral Act and Journalism Ethic Code are clear but the question is where to draw the line between political statement, hate speech and the responsibility of the media. Therefore, this research sought to establish through a Critical Discourse Analysis approach the pervading of hate speech in Nigeria particularly in Nigeria's 2015 general election which has become possible helix of violence. Based on the discourse, it is clear that hate speech was the focal point and the instrument of campaign. Therefore, the parade of hate speeches in several newspapers analyzed showed that media was used by politicians to stoke up hatred and stimulate violence among ethnic and political groups during the electioneering periods as well as in the daily life. Hence, it is recommended that media outfits should always examine politicians' messages and evaluate their words, scrutinize their facts and claims, and judge carefully the intention and likely impact on the society to prevent being an accomplice in hate speech.

Related Papers

The Nigerian Journal of Communication

Tsegyu Santas

The study with the aid of documentary research method sought necessary information to investigate the interrelationship between political communication and national security in a digital age, focusing on the impact of hate speech on Nigeria's democracy. The researchers highlighted the dangers of hate speech in the form of political commentary as amplified by new media platforms. It recommended among others, appropriate steps necessary to navigate through difficult political atmosphere created by sophisticated technology and made even worse with the use of harsh political language/tone.

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research

ngozi osueke

Jurnal Pengajian Media Malaysia

Tordue Targema

Hate speech is among the most significant communication issues that preoccupy the agenda of relevant governmental agencies and media analysts in contemporary Nigeria. It is an unfortunate phenomenon that manifests in the public sphere, and is fast threatening the fragile democracy which the country is struggling to consolidate. Against this backdrop, this study investigates the nature of readers’ comments on online news sites in the country, their place within the context of hate speech rhetoric, and their implication on democratic consolidation in the country. Hinged on the Social Responsibility Theory, the study employs two research methods- Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and content analysis to investigate the manifestation of hate speech in online readers’ comments. Population of the study comprises 2,530 comments, generated from ten stories on prominent online news platforms in the country. From these, a sample of 250 comments (10% of the population) has been selected system...

International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics

Rotimi Taiwo

The study adopts approaches in linguistics and critical discourse analysis to interpret media speeches and public statements of the Biafra secessionist movement leader, Nnamdi Kanu, as hate speech. The study shows that hate speech in discourses produced by the separatist Indigenous People of Biafra appears as language aggression, such as insults and verbal attacks, as well as threats. Discourse structures such as the use of interrogation and metaphor also appear in the hate narratives. Compared with the Rwandan case, the study argues that hate speech could result in similar incitement and violence. While hate speech caused genocide in Rwanda, it did not work in Nigeria, largely because of the division among the Biafra campaigners and the Igbo political elite about the Biafra independence campaign.

Journal of Language Teaching and Research

Sopuruchi Aboh

The study examines the hate speeches used by the Nigerian politicians within the theoretical framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Some of the hate speeches used by the Nigerian politicians are selected and analyzed. The objectives of this study include identifying and investigating the hate speeches using critical discourse analysis. The random sampling is used to elucidate data from Nigerian dailies. The data includes hate speeches used by Nigerian politicians against the opposing parties or individuals. The methodology for this research is the descriptive approach. The study finds out that the hate speeches are seen in this study as the use of accusations and judgments, mockery and degradation, propagation and solving problems using disdain statements and the use of rhetoric by the members of All Progressive Congress (APC) and People Democratic Party (PDP) in Nigeria to show power and dominance over one another.

IJASOS- International E-journal of Advances in Social Sciences

Abiodun Fasakin

Though hate speech has become a global phenomenon with different countries, organisations and individuals find it difficult to come up with a universal definition, detection techniques and classifications. This challenge has created a lacuna which has made legislation against hate speech difficult in many countries, especially Nigeria. In this study, the researcher analyzed and categorized hate speech comments from two Nigerian news websites with a view to describing, categorizing and identifying prevalent hate speech themes. Words with the highest frequency of occurrence in the corpus are identified. Observatory and descriptive methods were used for data collection while both qualitative and quantitative approaches were adopted for analyses. The findings of the study showed that ethnic affiliation is the most common trigger of hate speech comments in Nigeria while the second person pronoun ‘you’ (which is used to emphasize others’ negative (EON)) is the word with the highest frequency.

International Journal of Journalism and Mass Communication

Adamkolo M Ibrahim

Fake news and hate speech are not new to Nigerian democracy. However, since the internet revolution in recent decades, 2015 is seen as the year Nigeria finally woke up to the threat of fake news and hate speech fueled by internet technologies that are subtly used to undermine democracy. Since then, whenever national, state or local council elections approach, Nigeria experiences tense and difficult times-conflicts, media propaganda, hate comments and false information-circumstances that are inimical to the nation's democracy. Despite fake news and hate have become global concepts, peculiarities of nations and cultures democracies imply that context-based tools will be more suitable to provide evidence-based data on their impact on democracies. To provide an understanding of the call-for-research epistemologies being developed in Nigerian academic circles, this paper presents a critical review of a book chapter titled Fake News, Hate Speech and Nigeria's Struggle for Democratic Consolidation: A Conceptual Review written by two Nigerian scholars: Prof. Umaru A. Pate (Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria) and Adamkolo Mohammed Ibrahim (University of Maiduguri, Nigeria) published 2020 by IGI Global. The chapter provides a further understanding on the impacts and processes of fake news and hate speech in Nigeria, especially during political activities.

New Media and Mass Communication

RELATED PAPERS

Revista Brasileira de Educação Médica

Nara Botelho

Taek-Kyun Lee

Oscar E Liburd

muammar hanafiah

Daniel Rios

Jose David Gutierrez Sanchez

Cadernos de Agroecologia

Ana Carolina Lins e Silva

ECS Transactions

Maria Glória Caño De Andrade

Journal of Neurology

Robert Perry

Nataly Garcia

Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Pattern Recognition

Nguyen Phuong Anh

Feminist Political Ecology

Esther Wangari

Tatiana Ferreira Borda

International Journal of Research

suparna dhar

Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Norbert Brattig

Educreator Research Journal (ISSN: 2394-8450)

Rajendra Chavan

Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering

MUHAMMAD IDIRIS Saleh

Media sosial sebagai branding politik

Fajar Ramadhan

Transportation Geotechnics

Brendan C . O'Kelly

The Family Journal

Hugh Crethar

Scientometrics

Vincenzo Cavaliere

hjhjgf frgtg

Revue Francophone de Cicatrisation

Philippe Blanchemaison

Grzegorz Łysik

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Trump’s bizarre, vindictive incoherence has to be heard in full to be believed

Excerpts from his speeches do not do justice to Trump’s smorgasbord of vendettas, non sequiturs and comparisons to famous people

Donald Trump’s speeches on the 2024 campaign trail so far have been focused on a laundry list of complaints, largely personal, and an increasingly menacing tone.

He’s on the campaign trail less these days than he was in previous cycles – and less than you’d expect from a guy with dedicated superfans who brags about the size of his crowds every chance he gets. But when he has held rallies, he speaks in dark, dehumanizing terms about migrants, promising to vanquish people crossing the border. He rails about the legal battles he faces and how they’re a sign he’s winning, actually. He tells lies and invents fictions. He calls his opponent a threat to democracy and claims this election could be the last one.

Trump’s tone, as many have noted, is decidedly more vengeful this time around, as he seeks to reclaim the White House after a bruising loss that he insists was a steal. This alone is a cause for concern, foreshadowing what the Trump presidency redux could look like. But he’s also, quite frequently, rambling and incoherent, running off on tangents that would grab headlines for their oddness should any other candidate say them.

Journalists rightly chose not to broadcast Trump’s entire speeches after 2016, believing that the free coverage helped boost the former president and spread lies unchecked. But now there’s the possibility that stories about his speeches often make his ideas appear more cogent than they are – making the case that, this time around, people should hear the full speeches to understand how Trump would govern again.

Watching a Trump speech in full better shows what it’s like inside his head: a smorgasbord of falsehoods, personal and professional vendettas, frequent comparisons to other famous people, a couple of handfuls of simple policy ideas, and a lot of non sequiturs that veer into barely intelligible stories.

Curiously, Trump tucks the most tangible policy implications in at the end. His speeches often finish with a rundown of what his second term in office could bring, in a meditation-like recitation the New York Times recently compared to a sermon. Since these policies could become reality, here’s a few of those ideas:

Instituting the death penalty for drug dealers.

Creating the “Trump Reciprocal Trade Act”: “If China or any other country makes us pay 100% or 200% tariff, which they do, we will make them pay a reciprocal tariff of 100% or 200%. In other words, you screw us and we’ll screw you.”

Indemnifying all police officers and law enforcement officials.

Rebuilding cities and taking over Washington DC, where, he said in a recent speech, there are “beautiful columns” put together “through force of will” because there were no “Caterpillar tractors” and now those columns have graffiti on them.

Issuing an executive order to cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, transgender and other inappropriate racial, sexual or political content.

Moving to one-day voting with paper ballots and voter ID.

This conclusion is the most straightforward part of a Trump speech and is typically the extent of what a candidate for office would say on the campaign trail, perhaps with some personal storytelling or mild joking added in.

But it’s also often the shortest part.

Trump’s tangents aren’t new, nor is Trump’s penchant for elevating baseless ideas that most other presidential candidates wouldn’t, like his promotion of injecting bleach during the pandemic.

But in a presidential race among two old men that’s often focused on the age of the one who’s slightly older, these campaign trail antics shed light on Trump’s mental acuity, even if people tend to characterize them differently than Joe Biden’s. While Biden’s gaffes elicit serious scrutiny, as writers in the New Yorker and the New York Times recently noted, we’ve seemingly become inured to Trump’s brand of speaking, either skimming over it or giving him leeway because this has always been his shtick.

Trump, like Biden, has confused names of world leaders (but then claims it’s on purpose ). He has also stumbled and slurred his words. But beyond that, Trump’s can take a different turn. Trump has described using an “iron dome” missile defense system as “ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. They’ve only got 17 seconds to figure this whole thing out. Boom. OK. Missile launch. Whoosh. Boom.”

These tangents can be part of a tirade, or they can be what one can only describe as complete nonsense.

During this week’s Wisconsin speech, which was more coherent than usual, Trump pulled out a few frequent refrains: comparing himself, incorrectly , to Al Capone, saying he was indicted more than the notorious gangster; making fun of the Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis’s first name (“It’s spelled fanny like your ass, right? Fanny. But when she became DA, she decided to add a little French, a little fancy”).

He made fun of Biden’s golfing game, miming how Biden golfs, perhaps a ding back at Biden for poking Trump about his golf game. Later, he called Biden a “lost soul” and lamented that he gets to sit at the president’s desk. “Can you imagine him sitting at the Resolute Desk? What a great desk,” Trump said.

One muddled addition in Wisconsin involved squatters’ rights, a hot topic related to immigration now: “If you have illegal aliens invading your home, we will deport you,” presumably meaning the migrant would be deported instead of the homeowner. He wanted to create a federal taskforce to end squatting, he said.

“Sounds like a little bit of a weird topic but it’s not, it’s a very bad thing,” he said.

These half-cocked remarks aren’t new; they are a feature of who Trump is and how he communicates that to the public, and that’s key to understanding how he is as a leader.

The New York Times opinion writer Jamelle Bouie described it as “something akin to the soft bigotry of low expectations”, whereby no one expected him to behave in an orderly fashion or communicate well.

Some of these bizarre asides are best seen in full, like this one about Biden at the beach in Trump’s Georgia response to the State of the Union:

“Somebody said he looks great in a bathing suit, right? And you know, when he was in the sand and he was having a hard time lifting his feet through the sand, because you know sand is heavy, they figured three solid ounces per foot, but sand is a little heavy, and he’s sitting in a bathing suit. Look, at 81, do you remember Cary Grant? How good was Cary Grant, right? I don’t think Cary Grant, he was good. I don’t know what happened to movie stars today. We used to have Cary Grant and Clark Gable and all these people. Today we have, I won’t say names, because I don’t need enemies. I don’t need enemies. I got enough enemies. But Cary Grant was, like – Michael Jackson once told me, ‘The most handsome man, Trump, in the world.’ ‘Who?’ ‘Cary Grant.’ Well, we don’t have that any more, but Cary Grant at 81 or 82, going on 100. This guy, he’s 81, going on 100. Cary Grant wouldn’t look too good in a bathing suit, either. And he was pretty good-looking, right?”

Or another Hollywood-related bop, inspired by a rant about Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade’s romantic relationship:

“It’s a magnificent love story, like Gone With the Wind. You know Gone With the Wind, you’re not allowed to watch it any more. You know that, right? It’s politically incorrect to watch Gone With the Wind. They have a list. What were the greatest movies ever made? Well, Gone With the Wind is usually number one or two or three. And then they have another list you’re not allowed to watch any more, Gone With the Wind. You tell me, is our country screwed up?”

He still claims to have “done more for Black people than any president other than Abraham Lincoln” and also now says he’s being persecuted more than Lincoln and Andrew Jackson:

“ All my life you’ve heard of Andrew Jackson, he was actually a great general and a very good president. They say that he was persecuted as president more than anybody else, second was Abraham Lincoln. This is just what they said. This is in the history books. They were brutal, Andrew Jackson’s wife actually died over it.”

You not only see the truly bizarre nature of Trump’s speeches when viewing them in full, but you see the sheer breadth of his menace and animus toward those who disagree with him.

His comments especially toward migrants have grown more dehumanizing. He has said they are “poisoning the blood” of the US – a nod at Great Replacement Theory, the far-right conspiracy that the left is orchestrating migration to replace white people. Trump claimed the people coming in were “prisoners, murderers, drug dealers, mental patients and terrorists, the worst they have”. He has repeatedly called migrants “animals”.

“Democrats said please don’t call them ‘animals’. I said, no, they’re not humans, they’re animals,” he said during a speech in Michigan this week.

“In some cases they’re not people, in my opinion,” he said during his March appearance in Ohio. “But I’m not allowed to say that because the radical left says that’s a terrible thing to say. “These are animals, OK, and we have to stop it,” he said.

And he has turned more authoritarian in his language, saying he would be a “dictator on day one” but then later said it would only be for a day. He’s called his political enemies “vermin”: “We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country,” he said in New Hampshire in late 2023.

At a speech in March in Ohio about the US auto industry he claimed there would be a “bloodbath” if he lost, which some interpreted as him claiming there would be violence if he loses the election.

Trump’s campaign said later that he meant the comment to be specific to the auto industry, but now the former president has started saying Biden created a “border bloodbath” and the Republican National Committee created a website to that effect as well.

It’s tempting to find a coherent line of attack in Trump speeches to try to distill the meaning of a rambling story. And it’s sometimes hard to even figure out the full context of what he’s saying, either in text or subtext and perhaps by design, like the “bloodbath” comment or him saying there wouldn’t be another election if he doesn’t win this one.

But it’s only in seeing the full breadth of the 2024 Trump speech that one can truly understand what kind of president he could become if he won the election.

“It’s easiest to understand the threat that Trump poses to American democracy most clearly when you see it for yourself,” Susan B Glasser wrote in the New Yorker. “Small clips of his craziness can be too easily dismissed as the background noise of our times.”

If you ask Trump himself, of course, these are just examples that Trump is smart.

“The fake news will say, ‘Oh, he goes from subject to subject.’ No, you have to be very smart to do that. You got to be very smart. You know what it is? It’s called spot-checking. You’re thinking about something when you’re talking about something else, and then you get back to the original. And they go, ‘Holy shit. Did you see what he did?’ It’s called intelligence.”

• Donald Trump
• US elections 2024
• Republicans
• US politics

Most viewed