10.83078/jal.2024.07061125982

An Analytical Perspective on Critical Discourse Analysis Based on Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics

Show Details XML PDF
  • Mohammad Bagher Aghaei*1,
  1. Department of English Language, Islamic Azad University, Ta.C., Tabriz, Iran

Received: 2024-06-07

Accepted: 2025-07-27

Published in Issue 2025-09-14

How to Cite

Aghaei, M. B. (2025). An Analytical Perspective on Critical Discourse Analysis Based on Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.83078/jal.2024.07061125982
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 13

Abstract

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), as conceptualized by scholars such as Fairclough, Van Dijk, and Wodak, emphasizes the critical examination of language to uncover the underlying ideologies and power structures embedded in discourse. Despite of other related previous approaches for discourse analysis, they share a foundational commitment to analyzing discourse through a critical lens, often drawing on Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) as a theoretical framework. The ideational dimension of discourse, particularly through the lens of transitivity analysis, is primarily to uncover how linguistic choices reflect and reinforce ideological positions in a discourse. Therefore, in this study, Halliday’s SFL is selected as methodology for the exploration of ideational dimension through its three transitive verbs –material, mental, and relational– as main procedure for the detailed analysis of ideological aspects of discourse. The data corpus comprises a selection of a variety of televised and printed interviews with Barack Obama from which three have been selected for the analysis. The findings indicate that Obama’s political discourse heavily relies on relational and mental processes, with material processes used slightly less frequently. This pattern indicates a shift away from purely action-oriented rhetoric toward a more reflective and identity-driven communication style.
PDF

References

  1. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). Continuum.
  2. Fairclough, N. (1985). Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 739–763.
  3. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman.
  4. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
  5. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Longman.
  6. Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies. Taylor and Francis.
  7. Fox News interview: Barack Obama. (n.d.). Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/aa85faa8-d454-11de-990c-00144feabdc0
  8. Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word, 17(3), 242–292.
  9. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.
  10. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.
  11. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
  12. Ledin, P., & Machin, D. (2017). Doing critical discourse studies: A multimodal introduction. SAGE Publications.
  13. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
  14. NBC News. (2009a). President Barack Obama’s interview with Hisham Melhem of Al-Arabiya television network. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna28870724
  15. NBC News. (2009b). Obama warns of ‘double-dip recession’. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34016726
  16. Reuters. (2009). Obama says ‘not going to meddle in GM’s decisions’. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/autos-gm-obama/update-1-obama-says-not-going-to-meddle-in-gms-decisions-idUSN1811254020091118/
  17. Thompson, G. (2014). Introducing functional grammar (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  18. Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Current trends in text linguistics. De Gruyter.
  19. Van Dijk, T. A. (1984). Prejudice in discourse. John Benjamins.
  20. Van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as discourse. Erlbaum.
  21. Van Dijk, T. A. (1990). Social cognition and discourse. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 163–186). John Wiley and Sons.
  22. Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the press. Routledge.
  23. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993a). Elite discourse and racism. Sage.
  24. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993b). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.
  25. Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. Sage Publications.
  26. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage.
  27. Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Blackwell.
  28. Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383.
  29. Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1985). Handbook of discourse analysis (Vols. 1–4). Academic Press.
  30. Wodak, R. (1995). Handbook of pragmatics. John Benjamins.
  31. Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of discourse. Longman.
  32. Wodak, R. (2002). Aspects of critical discourse analysis. ZFAL, 36, 5–31.
  33. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. Sage Publications.