Critical ideological subjects, over-emphasizing social structure whileCritical ideological subjects, over-emphasizing social structure while

Critical discourse analysis is a, somehow, new field in linguisticstics. Many scholars have worked on developing this new field which is really useful in people’s everyday life.  Critical analysis of media discourse has been worked by Van Dijk (1988). He considered a comprehensive analysis of both the textual and structural level of media discourse and analysis at the production and comprehension level. Wodak (2001, as cited in Shyholislami) and her colleagues have worked on discourse sociolinguistics. They believed that in discourse sociolinguistics, text and context have equal importance and the text is studied in context. Fairclough (2001, as cited in Shyholislami) in his approach to language and discourse which is called critical language study, tries to raise consciousness of exploitative social relations by focusing on language. His model will be explained in details later. There are three important concepts that underpin CDA: dialectical relationship, ideology, and hegemony. Crucial to CDA is the dialectical relationships between discursive practices and social practices (Sunderland, 2004). Critical discourse analysts, holding dialectical relationships, recognize both the delimiting power of social institution and at the same time the shaping power of discourse; thus, it occupies the middle ground in the continuum of discourse’s constructing power of the world. Critical discourse analysts view ideology as “a practice that operates in processes of meaning production in everyday life, whereby meaning is mobilized in order to maintain relations of power” (Jorgensen & Philips, 2002, p. 75). Partially drawing on Althusser’s (1971) theory of ideology, critical discourse analysts admit that ideologies as social practices in social institution have the power to position people as social “subject” in particular way. They reject parts of Althusser’s theory of ideology because it treats people as passive ideological subjects, over-emphasizing social structure while underestimating human agency. CDA argues for a middle ground between social structure and human agency. In Fairclough’s (1992) words, “subjects are ideologically positioned, but they are also capable of acting creatively to make their own connections between the diverse practices and ideologies to which they are exposed and to structure positioning practices and structures” (p.91). The theory of hegemony comes from Antonio Gramsci, who argues that the hegemony of the dominant social class depends on winning the consent of the majority to existing social arrangements. Therefore, hegemonies are products of negotiation of meaning in which all social groups participate (Gramsci, 1991). Since Gramsci’s theory of hegemony ascribes a degree of agency to all social groups in the producing and negotiating of meaning, it provides CDA a theoretical underpinning for arguing people as “agents of discursive and cultural change” (Jorgensen & Philips, 2002, p. 17).Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional Model of Discourse Fairclough (1992) announced five theoretical propositions for CDA (pp. 8- 12): 1) Language use (discourse) shapes and is shaped by society. In other words, discourse and society are in a dialectical relationship. 2) Discourse helps to contribute and change knowledge and its objects, social relations, and social identity. 3) Discourse is invested with ideologies and is shaped by power. 4) The shaping of discourse is a stake in power struggles. 5) Critical language study sets out to show how society and discourse shape each other. These five propositions stem from the assumption that language is both socially constitutive and socially determined. Fairclough’s model of critical discourse analysis is influenced by Halliday’s functional linguistics. Halliday (1978) views every text as having three functions: ideational function, interpersonal function, and textual function. A text has an “ideational” function through its representation of the world, an “interpersonal” function through social interactions between participants in discourse, and a “textual” function through uniting separate components into a meaning whole and combining this with a situational context. Likewise, Fairclough (1992) views any discursive event, or any instance of language use, as having three dimensions: text, interaction, and context. Text here can be expanded to semiosis, which is meaning-making through language, body language, visual images, or any other way of signifying. Text is also “an interaction between people, involving process of producing and interpreting the text, and it is part of a piece of social action—and in some cases virtually the whole of it” (Fairclough, 1992, p. 10). In other words, an interpretation of a text is the individual’s interaction with the text, which is part of social action or context. The context here refers to social conditions of production/interpretation, or order of discourse— “totality of discursive practices of an institution and relationships between them” (Fairclough, 1992, p. 138). Corresponding to the three dimensions of discourse, critical analysis also has three dimensions: description of the text, interpretation of the interaction processes, and explanation of how the interaction process relates to context.Therefore, students’ reflective essays comprised the two dimensions of a discourse in Fairclough’s model: text and discursive practice. The corresponding analytical tools are description for the text and interpretation for the discursive practice. In a critical discourse analysis, students’ discursive practice, that is, the discourses in their reflections were to be explained by the social practice which embodies a given ideology or ideologies, namely, the third dimension of a discourse. To simplify Fairclough’s concepts, the first two dimensions were called “discourse” and the third dimension “society.” The focus of the analysis was therefore on the dialectical relationship between discourse and society.Critical reading was taught to the students through critical discourse analysis to raise their critical language awareness. In order to reach critical thinking, in this study The purpose of using CDA in education is making the learners’ capable of examining and judging the world carefully and to change it, if necessary. This purpose has not yet fulfilled in the realm of foreign language. Van Dijk and Pennycook (2006, as cited in Cots) believed that introducing CDA into language classes does not necessarily require a change in methodology or techniques. Instead, CDA offers a new viewpoint on language which regards that language use is questionable and problematic, reflects social/ideological processes and simultaneously, affects those processes.