Three Types Of Critical Discourse Analysis Approach

Persuasive strategies are based upon theories of human psychology. They are used in business issues, political matters, and interpersonal relationships. Three common types of persuasive strategies are cognitive dissonance, negative and positive motivation, and appeals to needs. Cognitive dissonance refers to the mental discomfort which occurs when new information contradicts the current beliefs, ideas, or values. It is not easy to persuade people since they are resistant to change. The next type of persuasive strategies is positive and negative motivation which are used by public speakers, teachers, and parents. Speakers can motivate their audience by relating the content of their speech to their audience’s personal lives. On the contrary,

Several studies have used Fairclough’s framework as a discourse analysis tool (e.g. Majdedin, Taghinezhad, and Nabizadeh,

2014; Hedegaard, Rovio-Johansson, and Siouta, 2014).

Critical discourse analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a kind of discourse research which studies the enactment of dominance, social power abuse, and inequality through text and talk, in the political and social contexts. Critical discourse analysts try to understand and resist social inequality (Van Dijk, 1985). Critical Discourse Analysis is obviously not a homogenous model, nor a school or a paradigm, but at most a shared perspective on doing linguistics, semiotic or discourse analysis. (van Dijk 1993: 131)

CDA objective is to see dialect use as social practice. The clients of dialect don't work in disengagement, however in an arrangement of social, social and mental structures. CDA acknowledges this social setting and studies the associations between text-based structures and considers this social connection and investigates the connections between printed structures and their capacity in communication inside of the general public. Such an investigation is a complex, multi-level one, given the