Antonio M. Bañón Hernández

10Critical Discourse Analysis and New Media

Abstract: In this chapter we firstly study the basic concepts related to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and its fundamental lines of research (social-cognitive analysis, discourse-historic analysis, social-ideological analysis and multimodal analysis). Secondly, we reflect upon the influence of CDA on the study of new forms of communication media, paying particular attention to three dimensions thereof: changes in features of speaker and recipient (identity and authorship, wider interlocution and exposed interlocution), timing readjustments, spaces and media (continuity, availability and speed, convergence and multimodality), and the novelties in the manner of structuring the social-cognitive dimension of communication (access and accessibility, fragmentation and accumulation). Thirdly, we underscore, before the conclusions, part of the most relevant research in the Hispanic field about treatment of minorities and migratory processes, health and disease, gender and poverty, in the new media.

Keywords: critical discourse analysis, gender, health, immigration, Internet, poverty, social networks

1Research framework

1.1Basic concepts of Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis (hereafter CDA) aims mainly at studying the social or institutional power linked to uses of the language that, in given contexts, entail the promotion, attenuation or elimination of signs of equality or inequality, of compromise or discrimination. This type of analysis mainly focuses on three processes (cf. van Leeuwen 1993, 193; van Dijk 1996): access to communication, discourse control, and, finally, symbolic representation of the different actors participating in the social debate on issues of special interest (poverty, racism, sexism, discrimination due to age, disease or disability, environmental problems, political and economic corruption, and so forth). It therefore pays interest to both the communicative process and its product (cf. O’Halloran 2011, 455) and it implies researchers assuming certain social responsibility (cf. Verschueren 2001, 59). CDA caters for written and oral texts, and of course, multimodal ones also. The former are more frequent because, initially, they are easier to file, label and analyze.

CDA is not a particular methodological orientation, but a set of diverse theoretical-methodological approaches (cf. van Dijk 1993). Wodak (2011, 50) proposes to speak of “school” or “program” to refer to the common interests that, despite that diversity, have a group of researchers who identify themselves as critical discourse analysts. Van Dijk (2009) prefers to speak of Critical Discourse Studies. In this sense, it is worth mentioning that CDA has a trans-disciplinary (cf. Fairclough 2005) or a multidisciplinary vocation (cf. van Dijk 2003b). CDA has attracted the attention of psychologists, anthropologists, health professionals, politologists, anthropologists or sociologists, which confirms its value for the transversal study of communication in various contexts of daily and professional interaction. We understand, the same as van Dijk (2003b, 146), that whenever we speak about CDA there must be a solid basis of discourse analysis, regardless of the interdisciplinary projection. Meyer (2003, 56) believes that linguistic training is needed in order to select the relevant aspects for specific objects of research. Fairclough (1995, 4) mentions the type of training required to avoid the analysis becoming a mere succession of commentaries.

We find precedents of CDA in proposals of philosophy, of semiotics or of linguistics. We are thinking of Michel Foucault, of the Frankfurt School and Jürgen Habermas, of Pierre Bourdieu and, particularly, Critical Linguistics (CL) with which it has a relation of continuity (cf. Fowler et al. 1979). In fact, some authors make no distinction between the denominations CDA and CL (cf. Wodak 2003a, 17s.). Hidalgo Tenorio (2011, 188s.) summarizes these precedents very well.

Context is one of the essential categories in any critical approach to discourse (cf. Verschueren 2001, 61; Mey 2003, 333); it is frequently mentioned and evoked, but not always well analyzed and described (cf. Akman/Bazzanella 2003). Context control (of time, space, frame, participants, etc.) is one of the most evident signs of power (cf. Alba-Juez 2009, 242). Akman (2000), in fact, refers to context as a social construct, an idea to which we shall return later.

CDA has used the discourses of the social elites as a corpus for analysis: politicians, education agents, NGOs and media, among others. We should not forget the double function of the media, their dual nature (cf. Schäfer 2011, 149): representing other people’s discourse and offering (implicitly or explicitly) a discourse of their own. Both functions are critical for the social conformation of opinions, prejudices, attitudes and evaluations, basically, for the transmission and consolidation of ideological models (cf. van Dijk 1998).

CDS is not only critical, but is (or should be) also constructive (cf. Fairclough 2002, 102), as the identification of discursive malpractice should be accompanied by proposals which facilitate objective information and absence of discrimination, especially of the most disfavored groups. There has also been mention of Critical and Constructive Discourse Analysis (CCDA; cf. Bañón/Fornieles Alcaraz 2011, 38ss.). Constructive discourse is one of the basic social macro-functions we can assign to discourse (cf. Reisigl/Wodak 2000, 40).

CDA treats both macrostructural and microstructural matters in a combined and interrelated manner (cf. Schäfer 2011, 148). Hence it is always a complex approach, as social problems are equally complex. In general, it has to take into account what is present, but also what is absent, not only due to the relevance of the implicit manifestation of power (cf. Lê/Lê 2009, 12), but also because the election of some issues, arguments, words or syntagmata implies rejecting others, and that has a direct repercussion on the representation of social processes, actors or events (cf. Fairclough 1995, 5). The option of expressing information or leaving it implicit is not neutral, according to van Dijk (2003a, 60). On the other hand, “it is not possible to make a final list of linguistic devices that are relevant for CDA, as their selection depends primarily on the particular research matters” (Meyer 2003, 51). Decades of specialization in this area have “brought to light” hundreds, if not thousands, of relevant levels, dimensions, initiatives, types of speech acts and devices, apart from other discourse structures (cf. van Dijk 2003b, 147). From this “toolbox” as Jäger (2003, 87) would say, critical analysis does not need all the details (cf. Fowler 1996, 8); a selection should be made of the structures that are relevant for studying a social matter (cf. van Dijk 2003b, 148). Philo (2007), from research on media developed in Glasgow and with similar objectives to CDA, suggests starting the analyses by identifying the arguments. That identification is related to the search of legitimacy or illegitimacy formulae (mention of authorities, moral evaluation, rationalization, etc.; cf. van Leeuwen 2007, 93).

The critical look at discourse must incorporate intertextuality (cf. Fairclough 1992b), recuperating the tradition from Mikhail Bakhtin and Valentin Voloshinov. It is no coincidence that Menéndez claims the “serie discursiva” as the specific CDA unit (e. g., 2012, 64). Intertextuality, besides, favors a historical approach (cf. Fowler 1996, 9).

Research in CDA has a direct projection on society, and hence necessarily also on education (cf. Rodríguez Núñez 2004; Bañón 2008). That is, teaching to analyze discourse critically is also training students and, in general, citizens to be more critical with respect to situations of injustice or manipulation (cf. Breeze 2011, 499; Fowler 1996, 6; Pennycook 2004, 786).

The main weaknesses of CDA have initially been associated with the selection and representativeness of the texts. In this respect, it is said that the documents are representative because they have called the attention of the analyst, but not because they can necessarily be considered typical or prototypical (cf. Koller/Mautner 2004, 218). The analysis would, therefore, be biased (cf. Santander Molina 2007, 59). Widdowson (2004, 95ss.) also refers to the high level of subjectivity of CDA, which sometimes leads to forcing the possible interpretation of the audience. Moreover, the social or political involvement of the researchers in the analysis, mentioning their preferences, has been another of the most debated issues. According to van Dijk (1993, 252s.), any critical analysis presupposes an ethos applied to reality (ibid.). For Meyer (2003, 36), CDA studies play an active support role for the groups suffering from any sort of social discrimination. Charaudeau (2014, 20), however, has spoken of the lack of credibility of a researcher who tries to denounce an evil in the name of a personal standing. He adds:

“Reivindico, y en voz alta, la posibilidad de que el investigador exprese una palabra de denuncia, de indignación, de combate, es decir, una palabra militante, pero en otros lugares y con otra finalidad” (2014, 20).94

Mention has also been made of the frequency with which CDA researchers are associated with left-wing standings (cf. Hodge 2012, 2). In this line, Fairclough (1995, 15) even referred to the appearance of a very aggressive “new right-wing” as a source of the attacks against CDA and Critical Theory.

Meanwhile, some critical analysts are seen as naïve in their positions, their methodology or their interpretation of the relation between context and the audience (cf. Breeze 2011, 494). The diversity of theoretical-methodological orientations and approaches has also been reputed as a sign of weakness (cf. Fowler 1996, 6; Breeze 2011, 502). Besides, the discourse produced by the critical analyst may be as biased and vulnerable as the discourse under analysis (cf. Toolan 1997; Verschueren 2001, 79; Wodak 2003b, 103). Along the same lines, it has been claimed that, on occasion, the capacity of CDA for interpreting discourses has been over-dimensioned, taking into account the complexity of the context; Hammersley (1997, 245) speaks of “overambition”. On the other hand, critical orientation has been primarily associated with identifying negative discourse models and behaviors, leaving aside the analysis of positive discourse (cf. Martin 2004). Nevertheless, the Glasgow University Media Group has claimed that CDA remains “anchored to the text”; the study of content would require a solid reflection on the production process (speaking, for example, with journalists, if analysis is being undertaken on a journal text) and also on the reception process, not as something incidental or parallel, but inherent to the analysis (cf. Philo 2007).

Finally, reflection has focused, even from within discourse social analysis, on its usefulness, uselessness and its efficiency or inefficiency in transforming reality, in pursuing social justice or, at least, in solving some of the problems it tackles (cf. Bolívar 1999; Chilton 2005, 21). In reality, analyzing may always be a way of helping to build a different and better world (cf. Castells 1997, 30).

Some of these criticisms have been mainly referred to the first publications of CDA. Currently, problems in the selection of texts or in the methodological proposals have softened, for example, by combining CDA with Corpus Linguistics (cf. Mautner 2001; Baker et al. 2008; Bednarek/Caple 2014). Although CDA has had and still has a qualitative orientation, there are more and more voices indicating that the limits between quantitative and qualitative approaches are sometimes unclear and, in any case, may well supplement each other (cf. Baker et al. 2008, 296). The joint work of Corpus Linguistics and CDA developing research projects is a clear proof of the theoretical and methodological profit derived from this dual view of the research object (cf. Baker et al. 2008, 297). As O’Halloran (2010, 563) reminds us, passing from the use of individual texts or a reduced group of texts to larger corpora is an important advantage for CDA.

There are examples of specific analyses showing this profitable link, for instance, with metaphors (cf. Charteris-Black 2004; O’Halloran 2007). In all, it is fair to remember, with van Dijk (2003b, 148), that the complete discourse analysis of a large corpus of texts or conversations is totally inappropriate. And not all the texts are equally relevant. Besides, there are those who believe that for CDA, data recollection is not a phase that should be seen as complete before starting the analysis, but rather may be a permanently operative process (cf. Meyer 2003, 41). In fact, there is no characteristic way of obtaining data from CDA (cf. Meyer 2003, 48). What is unquestionable is that critical research must not only be good, but of the highest quality, if it is to be accepted (cf. van Dijk 2003b, 144).

1.2CDA Lines of Development

1.2.1Social-Cognitive Analysis

From the beginning, the link between CDA and the social component was clear, but the relevance of the cognitive component was not always mentioned (cf. van Dijk 1993, 251; Chilton 2005, 23; Wodak 2006a, 179). And this relative exclusion occurred and continues to occur despite the generalized conviction that mental processes must always be present in order to adequately relate the production and comprehension of the texts in their context (cf. Wodak 2006a, 180). In the words of van Dijk (1993, 251), cognition is the theoretically and empirically necessary interface between discourse and society, including social domination. The most important social battle is the one taking place in the minds of the people (cf. Castells 2007, 238). The construction of fear is a good example in this sense.

Van Dijk starts from a model of three interrelated categories: Discourse, Society and Cognition. He claims that knowledge is the central problem to be tackled by whoever is involved in critical study of linguistic and discursive uses (2011, 29), to such an extent that he suggests speaking about “Critical Epistemic Discourse Analysis”. In this frame, one would study precisely how knowledge is expressed, implied, suppressed, distributed, etc., through discursive structures and strategies present in news and articles, official sources, government statements, parliament debates, textbooks, etc. (2011, 40s.).

Knowledge is what builds the mental models that, according to van Dijk, are subjective fundamental representations of an event or a situation, but that maintain a certain level of objectivity, understanding as such the shared knowledge that is partly responsible for success in communicative interactions, and that is expressed in schemas that include information which is frequently implicit in interaction. The subjective part of the mental model not only affects facts, but also beliefs, opinions and emotions (cf. van Dijk 2008, 60s.). The mental model is also associated with experiences and memory (short- and long-term memory). We structure these experiences into categories such as time (e. g., periods), places (e. g., towns where we have lived or visited), participants (e. g., people we have worked with), causality (causes, conditions, consequences), levels (macroevents or microevents), and relevance (what is more important or more useful; cf. van Dijk 2008, 66s.). The mental models are dynamic; they can be updated or changed during a particular event. The context models are mental models that organize the ways in which our discourse is strategically structured and adapted to the communicative situation, identifying the most relevant thereof (cf. van Dijk 2008, 71s.).

Knowledge is what is taught and learned, rather than something natural. Schools, family and media have a nuclear function in this teaching and learning process. They can transmit knowledge emphasizing some things and hiding others (cf. van Dijk 2011, 34). Thus, we are oriented to prefer some groups instead of others, trying, on one hand, to offer an image of the actual group in which the positive aspects are strengthened and the negative ones are smoothened or hidden, or else transmitting an image of the others emphasizing the negative aspects while playing down or eliminating the positive ones. This is what van Dijk called “ideological square” (1998, 267). This idea has had wide applications, e. g., in the study of peace discourse arising from the cultural approach to CDA (CCDA, Cultural Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis; cf. Gavriely-Nuri 2010).

Van Dijk, in one of his books in Spanish, claims: “El discurso dispone de múltiples procedimientos para poner o quitar énfasis de los significados” (van Dijk 2003a, 58).95 He then exemplifies the expression of the ideological square in the following levels and categories:

At the level of discourse meaning, he refers to the themes, which represent the most important information (2003a, 59), at the level of description details, and identification of inferences and assumptions (2003a, 60). Another important feature of meaning is local coherence; that is, the meanings of the sentences (and their derived assumptions). These must be adequately related to each other; for instance, through the relation of causality among actions, events or situations appearing in a sequence of clauses (2003a, 62). Other categories mentioned by van Dijk at this level are synonymy, paraphrase, contrast or selection of examples and images, as well as the use of occasionally only apparent negations (2003a, 62ss.). At the level of what he calls “estructuras proposicionales” [‘clause structures’], he refers to the actors mentioned in the text (and their roles: agents, patients or beneficiaries of an action, for example), and to modality (need, obligation, possibility) and evidence (proofs that must accompany what is claimed or denied), as well as ambiguity and vagueness (2003a, 67). Finally, he speaks of the topoi as “argumentos preparados” [‘prepared arguments’] (2003a, 68).

In the formal structures, although in a more indirect and subtle manner, the underlying ideologies may be expressed (2003a, 69). We can speak of the form of phrases and sentences, as well as of questions like the order of presentation of a story or the size of the headlines. Discourse has an infinite number of forms (2003a, 69). We have to be alert to identify the ones that are contextually relevant for analysis. He also mentions sentence syntax, rhetorical-stylistic structures and, very particularly, argumentation and identification of fallacies (2003a, 70s.).

1.2.2Historical-discursive Analysis

The historical-discursive approach, linked to Ruth Wodak, focuses on text contextualization, offering a prominent place to the historic dimension, although also incorporating the cognitive dimension to her analysis. Recontextualization is, for Wodak (2011, 54), one of the most important processes in the analysis of gender, topics and argumentative structures. The context must include the cotext, the intertextual and interdiscursive relations, the specific interaction contexts and the social-political and historical more general context in which the discursive practice is framed (cf. Reisigl/Wodak 2000, 41).

This analysis is an interdisciplinary approach that follows an eclectic methodology; the same can be said about theory. Methods and categories need to be useful to understand and explain the investigated object. Wodak believes that the first question as researchers is not “Do we need a great theory?” but “Which conceptual tools are relevant for this or that problem and for this and that context?” (2003b, 102).

It is an abductive approach (there is a constant movement back and forth between theory and empirical data), in which ethnographic and field work must be the prerequisite for analysis, while empathy with the victims of social discrimination and marginalization must combine with the principles of justice and rationality (cf. Reisigl/Wodak 2000, 35).

The historical discourse approach includes three types of criticism:

  1. Text criticism, discovering insolvencies, contradictions and paradoxes in the internal structures of discourse.
  2. Social-diagnosis criticism, beyond the purely internal sphere of the text. Here the analysts use their background and context knowledge of the situation in order to place the predicative structures in a wider frame of social, political and economic relations, etc.
  3. Prospective criticism, that contributes to the transformation and improvement of communication, e. g., elaborating proposals and guidelines applied to problems such as linguistic barriers in hospitals, schools, institutions, etc. (cf. Wodak 2003b, 103).

The historical-discursive approach develops its analysis starting by identifying fields of action (e. g., the political field – later expressed in the legislative sphere –, shaping of public opinion, internal party meetings, or the field of political activity). These fields materialize in genres (e. g., in the case of formation of public opinion, press notes and press conferences). Finally, genres are projected in discourses about various themes and subthemes (Reisigl/Wodak 2000, 38).

From a micro-structural point of view, a historical approach to discourse focuses, according to Wodak (2003b, 114), on the following five discursive strategies:

  1. Referential or nomination strategy, in which the linguistic devices of interest are categorization of pertinence, metaphors, metonymies and synecdoches.
  2. Predication strategies, which appear in the stereotyped and evaluative attributions of the positive and negative features, as well as in implicit or explicit predicates.
  3. Argumentation strategies, that appear in certain topoi used to justify inclusion or exclusion, such as the identification of the conflicts between what is said and what is done (Reisigl/Wodak 2000, 33).
  4. Strategies for putting into perspective, framing or representing discourse: media is used to inform, describe, narrate or quote the events and the statements.
  5. Intensification and mitigation strategies.

The results of the analyses must be available for the experts related to the studied theme, and must be projected and applied to changing certain social and discursive practices (cf. Wodak 2003b, 109s.).

1.2.3Social-Ideological Analysis

Fairclough (1992a, 73) considers discourse as a form of social practice and, for its analysis, he uses a three-dimensional structure comprising “Text”, “Discursive practice” (requiring the study of the production, distribution and reception phases), and “Social-cultural practice” (especially the one referred to the political sphere and the media). Each one of these dimensions, which of course are interrelated, correspond to general methods of analysis:

a)description of the linguistic aspects of the text;

b)interpretation of the relations between discursive processes and the text; and

c)explanation of the connections between discursive and social-cultural processes (cf. Fairclough 22001, 21s.).

CDA must pay special attention to the “opaque” causality relations for determining these three levels (1995, 133). This expression of opacity is not always intentional (22001, 33). The analyst must also be sensitive to the mentalresources” of the “members” of communication who facilitate both the text and context production and interpretation. We speak of language knowledge and representation of the social and natural worlds inhabited by people who interact, including assessments, beliefs, assumptions, etc. (Fairclough 22001, 65). These resources arise from “common sense” legitimized by institutions (laws, religions, education systems, media or family; cf. Fairclough 22001, 27). “Common sense” marks the “interaction routines” and the naturalization of situations, of expressions (assumed to be fixed and transparent), and of roles associated to subjects (22001, 81). Fairclough even claims, in this sense, that: “Naturalization, then, is the most formidable weapon in the armory of power, and therefore a significant focus of struggle” (22001, 87). Thus, he claims that it is an ideological power that sometimes imposes “coercion” and other times “consent” (22001, 28). In this point there is a clear connection with the mental models in the proposals of van Dijk.

According to Fairclough, CDA has overlooked the historical contextualization of data, so he suggests being aware of what he calls “history of the present” (1995, 19), which leads us to Wodak.

The objective is to deconstruct the machinery of power which has been built socially and, therefore, has also been built linguistically (cf. Fairclough 2002, 103). In fact, the work of Halliday and Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL), proposing a social approach to language in which social action is to be interrelated with symbolic organization, offers an interesting frame for critical approaches to discourse (cf. Chilton 2005, 21). These spheres materialize, also, in categories like field (the type of social action), which is linked to the experiential component of communication, tenor (distribution of roles), related to the interpersonal component, and mode (symbolic organization), connected to the textual component (cf. Halliday 1982, 187). For the connections between SFL and CDA, we may refer to the book edited by Young/Harrison (2004).

As for the discursive tools and categories, Fairclough suggests remembering that we always choose between different options when using a word, a grammatical unit or a textual structure. And, in this sense, he advises us to be alert to categories like the following, among others: synonymy, hyponymy, antinomy, euphemism, formality or informality of the expressions, metaphors, active/passive or positive/negative sentences, modes (declarative, interrogative, imperative), nominalization and pronominalization, connectors, use of coordinated or subordinated structures (and their types), selected textual structures, or control over the turn-switching if we are analyzing oral discourses (cf. Fairclough 22001, 92s.).

1.2.4Social Semiotics and Multimodal Analysis

Critical Studies of Multimodal Discourse (CSMD) has been labeled as one of the most promising orientations (cf. Machin 2013). Questions like the representation of women (cf. Chen/Machin 2014) or representation of health and disease have been efficiently tackled with CSMD (cf. Thompson 2012). The origin of this perspective of critical analysis can be identified in the works of Social Semiotics or of Critical Social Semiotics (cf. Caldas-Coulthard/van Leeuwen 2003), with an important basis in the principles of Halliday’s Systemic Theory (cf. O’Halloran 2008) quoted above. Fairclough/Wodak (2000, 375) remind us that some of the most important figures in critical linguistics participated more recently in the development of a “social semiotics”. One of these figures is Kress (1993, 169; 1996, 16), who proposes to revitalize the reader/recipient protagonism in CDA and to look into the role switching between speaker and recipient in a more dynamic manner, as is evidenced, he says, by the rapid exchange of email messages (1996, 20). He also proposes a multimodal approach. In fact, he claims that “all texts have always been multimodal” (Kress 1996, 20). The works of Kress/van Leeuwen (1996; 2001) are considered as referents in multimodal studies. The visual, verbal and auditive modes, among others, are expressed in different categories which must be first analyzed separately and then jointly. In the visual mode, it is important to analyze the gestures or proxemics, as well as the scenes, frames and angles. The semiotic potential of color or music must also be studied. In the verbal mode, for example, one has to observe the lexicon, the keywords and the fixed expressions, as well as the frequency of use (cf. Pardo Abril 2008, 90). Kress and van Leeuwen have since separately or jointly deepened some of these categories; for instance, on color (cf. Kress/van Leeuwen 2002; van Leeuwen 2011) or on music (van Leeuwen 2012).

Cope/Kalantzis (2009) have summarized the modes that should be present in Multimodal Grammar and in multiliteracy in the following manner: written language (handwritten, printed, on screen), oral language (live, recorded, listened to), visual representation (static image, moving image), audio representation (music, background sound, noises, alerts, etc.), tactile representation (kinesis, physical contact, skin sensations, etc.), gesture representation (movement of arms and hands, face expression, gaze, etc.) or space representation (proximity, layout, interpersonal distance, etc.) (cf. Cope/Kalantzis 2009, 362). This grammar has to cater for five basic dimensions:

representational (what the meanings refer to),

social (how the meanings connect people),

organizational (how the meanings fit into one another),

contextual (how the meanings fit into the wider world of meanings), and

ideological (who is interested in the meanings seeming biased) (cf. Cope/Kalantzis 2009, 365).

All the dimensions can have a direct relation with CDA, although the latter shows a more direct link. This can be seen in concrete examples like deception by omission, the use of incongruent images or sounds for the purpose of the discourse, the incorporation of ambiguous visual or sound elements in relation to the principal message, suppression of contextual elements, etc.

The incorporation of computer programs has been an important advance for multimodal study of discourse (cf. O’Halloran et al. 2012), as well as a recognition of the role played by digital communication in the evolution of multimodality and of its study (cf. O’Halloran et al. 2013, 666s.). That importance must transcend the education sphere because it has changed the role of schools and increased the need for thinking about the interactive design of contents and processes (cf. Kress/Selander 2012).

2CDA applied to new media: Basic concepts

According to Landow (1995, 97), hypertext embodies many of the ideas and attitudes proposed by Barthes, Derrida, Foucault and others. It is, no doubt, a way of linking, twenty years earlier, the roots of critical thought with the new media.

Blommaert et al. (2001, 6) ask what role is to be played by the critical approach at a time when the very nature of discourse and its connections with power and inequality are changing so rapidly. In this process of change, we must assign to the Internet and the new media the leading role they deserve. The above twofold nature of media has also been highlighted for the particular case of the Internet, that must be investigated for its capacity to represent discourses and cultures, but also for its identification as a cultural artifact produced by people who have very particular interests and objectives (cf. Gajjala/Birzescu 2010, 73). Besides, in the case of cybercommunication, that twofold nature projects onto the very fact of being, at the same time, a paradigm of freedom and of control (cf. Rodríguez Guerrero/Becerra/Bañón Hernández 2013).

In fact, the Internet, as an object of study, has gradually obtained its own fields of analysis since 1995 (cf. Siles González 2008, 63). Among the denominations proposed for this type of research is Critical Cyberculture Studies (cf. Silver/Massanari 2006). Mautner warned in 2005 that, until then, CDA had hardly paid any attention to the Internet as a source of information and as a specific object of qualitative and also quantitative research. She mentioned that the scarce interest of CDA for the Internet could be due to the difficulty of analyzing the mixture of voices and genders present on the Web (cf. Mautner 2005, 817). In any case, she believed the fact was surprising; even more so considering, on the one hand, that some of the main themes of CDA, like power and inequality, are clearly represented on the Internet, and, on the other hand, the relevance of the Internet in current social life. It is also surprising, indeed, if we consider that it enables us to access more extensive and representative corpora (cf. Mautner 2005, 821–823).

In her work, Mautner (2005, 811s.) added that it is not possible to be interested in how discourse reflects and constitutes a given community, and, at the same time, to leave aside one of the contemporary keys of this reality. Her opinion was based on the analysis of the articles published in Discourse & Society (1998–2004), Journal of Sociolinguistics (2002–2004), Text (2002–2004), Discourse Studies (2002–2004) and Applied Linguistics (2002–2004).

More recently, Herring (2013), in the context of Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis (CMDA), has mentioned CDA as one of the methods of interest for the study of phenomena such as power, social influence, identity or cultural differences and their relation to this type of discourse. Lievrouw (2009), as well as Golumbia (2009), had already quoted the interest of researchers ascribed to Critical and Cultural Studies for the new digital media and the new contexts they generated (cf. Lievrouw 2009, 312).

As mentioned above, contextualization is essential in the process of critical analysis applied to a discourse or a set of discourses. The same applies, naturally, to decontextualization (cf. Cardon 2013, 175) or for recontextualization (cf. Wodak 2009, 54). The Internet and the different forms invented to communicate through computers (CTC) have reconfigured the context of interaction. This is what Bazzanella (2010, 21s.) claims, and she particularly refers to changes in objectives of interaction, in spacetime factors, in the identity of participants, in social-emotive samples and in textual dimensions.

We summarize that reconfiguration in three main points:

a)Changes in features of speaker and recipient;

b)Readjustment of time, space and media; and

c)Novelties in the manner of structuring the social-cognitive dimension of communication.

All these changes entail the need for new categories and new concepts for describing and interpreting the digital discourse (cf. de Aguilera 2014), and this does not mean that, in many cases, it is not possible to find precedents for those new categories and those new concepts (cf. Martínez Fuentes 2011; Herring 2013). Mancera/Pano believe that “el discurso en la Web 2.0 debe abordarse de forma prudente antes de decir que se trata de un fenómeno radicalmente nuevo”96 (2013, 21).

2.1Changes in features of speaker and recipient

2.1.1Identity and authorship

Identity has always been a topic of great interest for critical discourse studies (cf. Ainsworth/Hardy 2004; Caldas-Coulthard/Iedema 2008). Legitimization and delegitimization of people and social groups are based, in many cases, on the manipulated representation of “self identity” or “identity of others”. Also in the study of computer-mediated discourse, the identity issue occupies a central place, especially in the case of discursive exchanges through social networks (cf. Seargeant/Tagg 2014). The identity of digital system users can be established by reference to at least the following features: degree of participation in communication, attitude they take towards the digital content (consumers or producers), intermittence (residents or visitors), or when they were born (digital natives and digital immigrants; cf. Hernández y Hernández/Ramírez-Martinell/Cassany 2014).

Assessment is the key process in the construction of a “digital identity” and the search for affiliations to the same cause (cf. Zappavigna 2011). It is normal to opt for strategies that improve (at least supposedly) one’s own image, starting with the type of photographs selected to introduce oneself on the Internet; it is a “projected identity”, which can also become an “assigned identity” if we consider, first, the amount of personal information stored and the speed with which it is transferred over the Internet (cf. Himma/Tavani 2008, 139s.) and, second, the sometimes confusing privacy policies of companies offering cloud accounts (cf. Bodle 2011, 155). One author has associated the construction of digital identity with “narcisismo comunicativo” [‘communicative narcissism’] (Caro Castaño 2012, 2), and therefore with greater individualism which can lead, in extreme cases, to “electronic autism” (Castells 2007, 247). The subject is at the same time the object; it is a “sobjeto” [‘sobject’] (Verdú 2007, 103). A “false identity” may be generated, one that does not correspond at all with the real one. On the other hand, mention has also been made of “identidad mosaico” [‘mosaic identity’] (Caro Castaño 2012), and “multiple identities” (Turkle 2011) referring to the fragmented formation of a “public identity” that does not always correspond to one’s “private identity”. Probably, in the field of social networks it is hard to talk about the prototypical presence of the public or the private spheres (cf. Burkell et al. 2014). In any case, it is usual to choose one identity instead of others, as shown by Bouvier (2012) applied to 100 students from the Social Actor Representation in Cardiff. Some denominations seem to express a sort of hybrid identity; apart from the “sobject”, we have “intimidad pública” [‘public privacy’] (Arfuch 2005), “extimidad” [‘extimacy’] (Sibilia 2008) or “prosumers”, a mixture of producers and consumers (O’Halloran 2010, 575s.). Wikipedia is a good example of “prosumer” activity (cf. Bartlett 2012). Besides, the concept of “identidad nómada” [‘nomadic identity’] (Muñiz/Ramos 2012) refers to a process of also great interest for critical studies: the frequent mutability of digital identities (cf. Benwell/Stokoe 2006, 243).

The impact of the various forms of identity manipulation (anonymity, pseudonyms, depersonalization, etc.) is evidenced in the attempt to manage the discursive and social responsibilities in a biased manner, and also in the concept of “likelihood”. Cardon (2013, 175) refers to hypertext precisely as a depersonalization device. The absence of visual contextual clues sometimes distances the speaker from what has been said, and favors disinhibition, rudeness and even verbal violence, especially in forums (cf. Montecino Soto 2003; Bañón 2010, Mancera/Pano 2013, 26), and also in Facebook (cf. Mak/Chui 2014). On the other hand, the relationship between the new telephone habits and changes in conversation courtesy and civic responsibility is clear (cf. German/Drushel 2011, 3).

From another point of view, networks have also served to strengthen (or weaken) “collective identities”. We are thinking, for example, of those related to (bad) eating habits (cf. Wolf/Theis/Kordy 2013), religion (cf. van Zoonen/Vis/Mihelj 2010; Pihlaja 2014) and, especially, to membership of a country or culture. More specifically, we can refer to the exchange of messages among people who emphasize this membership within a country (cf. D’Haenens/Koeman/Saeys 2007), and also among others that do so as immigrants (cf. de Fina 2003; Ndangam 2008; Elias/Lemish 2009; Chen/Kay Choi 2011; Khvorostianov/Elias/Nimrod 2011). Immigrants and immigrant organizations are increasingly involved in extensive communication areas, and this naturally includes their Internet presence (cf. Lamb 2013, 338s.). We cannot forget the use of the Internet for generating discriminatory associations, a fact which can occur even in Google through its autocomplete tool for finding information (cf. Baker/Potts 2013). Sometimes the presence of discriminatory discourse on the Internet is explicit (cf. Thiesmeyer 1999; Atton 2006; Daniels 2009).

We can also consider gender identities (cf. Milani 2013; Knapton 2013). Herring (2003, 202) highlighted, for instance, the importance of the Internet for making gender invisible, as a variable of particular importance in interaction, compared to what happens in face-to-face communication, and also in generating groups and communities with the ability to organize themselves socially and politically. However, these advances do not prevent us from seeing the difficulties of access to the Internet or the dominant communication styles of men over women, which are also projected in interactions through computers and mobile devices (cf. Herring 2003, 207). West/Lazar/Kramarae (1997, 138) already spoke about gender inequality in cyberspace and how this inequality is expressed in lower levels of access of women to the Internet, or about the control exercised by men in Internet interactions, as well as harassment towards women in virtual communities. Ebrahimi/Salaverría (2015) have highlighted the value of social networks in the case of Iranian women who use Facebook. They note that in some Muslim countries, women choose how to present themselves on the Internet, especially as regards to the use of dress. This degree of freedom must also be assigned to the manifestations of non-heterosexual gender identity (cf. Potts 2015; Alexander/Losh 2010). In any case, the stereotypes associated with gender (active, dominant and independent men, and attractive and dependent women) are appearing for example in the images on Facebook, according to Rose et al. (2012).

And speaking of identities and digital discourse, we must also mention the “age” variable. The usual connection between “digital gap” (cf. Pinto Arboleda 2014) and “generation gap” seen, for instance, in school interaction (cf. Bañón 2013) or in the criteria used by the parents of children belonging to Latino families who have immigrated to the United States in allowing their children access to the Internet (cf. Tripp 2010) must also be taken into account.

With respect to authorship, there is generally a loss of exclusivity by the one who prepares the message that we can call “original” (cf. Landow 1995, 246). Adami (2014), for example, has analyzed this process in oral and visual reactions in YouTube from a given video. There are different replicas in which there is clear coherence and cohesion with respect to the content of the original video, but there are also various forms of distancing based on parody or inferences from that first audiovisual document. A final degree of distance is seen when reactions that have nothing to do with the content source are identified. That source, according to Adami (2014, 239ss.), is seen as conducive to transformation and recontextualization. Fundamentally, this is a concept close to multi-authorship (cf. Herring/Androutsopoulos 22015, 131) and to multiplicity of voices, with the difficulty that this entails, of course, for identifying authorities (cf. Mancera/Pano 2013, 24) and categorizing sources (cf. Mautner 2005). But it also involves the enrichment derived from the generation of collaborative texts, with an important presence in online discourse, prototypically expressed in Wikipedia (cf. Ferreira 2013). The notion of participation is particularly important in the new claims and new narratives on the Web 2.0 (cf. Fuchs 2011, 257).

2.1.2Expanded Interlocution and Exposed Interlocution

Albaladejo (2012) uses the term polyacroasis to refer to the diversity of actual or potential recipients of a discourse. For digital communication, he proposes to speak of a “polyacroasis enlargement”. Discursive strategies such as retweeting are connected with this expansion of the audience and the establishment of new types of reception, for instance in politics (cf. Crawford 2009; Mancera/Pano 2013, 189). We can speak, for example, of an “active audience” on Twitter, capable of obliging a national newspaper to eliminate an article considered inadequate (cf. Doval Avendaño/Martínez Rodríguez 2012). But access to large audiences also implies undergoing “greater risks of public exposure” and therefore a greater likelihood of being “discredited” (Fairclough/Wodak 2000, 369). Caro Castaño (2012, 3), meanwhile, brings to mind that identity in online social networks involves the coexistence of an intended audience with another unforeseen one (invisible, at times). It is a “multi-directional communication” (Tang/Yang 2011, 675). Sometimes Twitter users use personal interaction labels to transmit the image of closeness, thus supposedly avoiding that group receptor image which is impossible to imagine (cf. Pérez Béjar 2014, 495). This is more common with individual users than with group representatives or group users.

The fact that many people (increasingly more) can access the Internet and become visible does not mean, contrary to what seems to be assumed, that they will manage to get their voices heard (read or seen), and even less will be able to reach the much desired “viral” standard (cf. de Aguilera 2014). To identify the gap between what is intended and what is achieved, we could evoke the term proposed by Castells (2007, 239): Mass self-communication. In fact, the vast majority of Internet users are unable to actually become visible and their concerns and comments receive very little attention (cf. Tang/Yang 2011, 676). The same can be said of the elaborate cultural products for appearing on the Internet, which claim to have a significant reach (cf. Herring 2013). Those users fail to reach “poder simbólico digital” [‘digital symbolic power’], “ser tenidos en cuenta” [‘to be taken into account’]; Pérez Béjar 2014, 492). The Internet offers people who do not belong to the elite the possibility of reaching that power, and that is a great achievement, but mere presence on the Internet does not imply reaching that power (cf. Tang/Yang 2011, 677). There is a great competition to become visible, as Cardon (2013, 173) reminds us, which sometimes entails more and more spectacular messages, discourses which increasingly incite interactivity, reaching extremely positive or negative assessment (cf. Yus 2014, 410ss.). The “battle for originality” shows preference for exaggeration and intensification (cf. Pérez Béjar 2014, 492). The discursive representation of marginalized groups may suffer from that shift over to spectacularization. In any case, it is not easy to become visible in certain social-political contexts, as happens in China with the control exercised by the authorities over content posted on the Web (cf. Tang/Yang 2011, 678). As two of the objects of study of CDA are free access to public discourse and the ability to freely offer content over the Internet, it seems clear that, as noted by Rolf (2009, 131) using China as an example, control and censorship on the Internet must be a priority for researchers dealing with critical analysis of symbolic power.

In relation to more or less formality in the discursive tone, Fairclough (1995, 25), meanwhile, talks about the trend towards “conversationalization” of public discourse, including that of politicians or the media. Discussion forums associated with traditional media clearly show this process (cf. Amossy 2009). Speaking of Spanish political discourse on Twitter, Mancera/Pano (2013, 130ss.) also refer precisely to that conversationalization, which does not prevent the continuous appearance of signs of ambiguity, evasion and double discourse. Choosing a closer or more distant register with citizens in tweets of different political leaders is connected to the different ways of conceiving the conversationalization and with equally diverse political and ideological options (cf. Mancera/Pano 2013, 175). In this sense, we appreciate the communicative accommodation that scientists and scholars have undertaken with respect to society, by using, for example, blogs where people write in a more understandable way (cf. Mewburn/Thomson 2013).

2.2Readjustments of time, space and media

2.2.1Continuity, availability and speed

Some theorists believe that perception, experience and time management are new to the electronic discourse (cf. Muñiz/Ramos 2012). Castells (1997, 408) states that the new communication system radically transforms space and time, the fundamental dimensions of human life. Managing these new features, he adds, is not easy and can lead to difficulties in clearly establishing the boundaries between work and leisure, or between family and company (cf. Castells 1997, 394). This mark of space continuity is related to managing permanent availability (‘always on’), a sometimes-difficult challenge to address (cf. Muñiz/Ramos 2012). Nowadays, mobile phones and virtual social networks reinforce the sensation of the communication channel being constantly open and immediacy in the exchange of messages, a fact that not only forces the counterpart to be online, but also to respond immediately (cf. Mancera/Pano 2013, 17). Geolocation through smartphones increases the feeling of being always available, although information is not always accurate (cf. Graham/Hale/Gaffney 2014). Speed, therefore, is also a key factor in communication through social networks. Brevity of messages facilitates an increase in the possible number of communication exchanges and the swift transfer of concerns, claims and information, but can also increase the risk of superficiality, evanescence and thoughtlessness of forms and contents. Sometimes, for example, texts are retweeted without having been read, even though they are no more than 140 characters long.

Globalization is inevitably associated with advances in the Internet and communication technologies. For Wodak, “globalization should definitely be considered as a central and most relevant factor in our everyday lives” (2006b, 3). But globalization can be a process built from a neoliberal perspective; at least that is what Fairclough (22001, 207) claims. Spaces have fuzzy boundaries and new concepts appear expressing apparently contradictory features; “Glocal” (mixture of “global” and “local”, cf. Gallardo Camacho/Jorge Alonso 2012) is one of them (cf. Gajjala/Birzescu 2010, 74).

2.2.2Convergence and multimodality

Technological advances have always fascinated human beings. Idolatry often involves lack of criticism and that is what, for instance, Golumbia (2013, 252) refers to. The technological dream of modernity raises technique to the level of myth (cf. Aguado 2007, 67). Computer-mediated discourse has led to a hybridization of communicative modes; in fact, there is extensive literature about the reflection of orality on electronic texts (e. g., López Quero 2004). Apart from that hybridization, we can also speak of a true convergence of ways and means that has consolidated the fascination for technology and for the Internet (cf. Herring 2013, 4ss.) with the invaluable support of mobile phone devices (cf. Benítez Eyzaguirre 2013). As stated by German/Drushel (2011, 3s.), the phone has changed the way people see themselves and also the way they relate to others. But it is necessary to accompany this change with critical questions: Does this technology reflect our values? Does it modify our priorities in any way? (cf. German/Drushel 2011, 4). Castells (1997, 397) defined the fusion of computer mass media as “herramienta de poder y símbolo de hipermodernidad” [‘power tool and symbol of hyper-modernity’]. However, this convergence has also led to the spreading of dissident discourses, as with the implementation of small alternative radio stations that broadcast over the Internet (cf. Coopman 2011).

In the opinion of Herring, “Discourse 2.0 offers a rich field of investigation for discourse analysis. Especially urgently needed in future research is integrated multimodal analysis” (2013, 21). O’Halloran and Smith (2012), meanwhile, refer to the analysis of multimodal discourse present on Internet sites and hypermedia as a line of research that may present an additional degree of difficulty. It is thus presented as a challenge; a challenge that we undoubtedly have to face. It would also be worth talking about “hypermodal discourse” (Wodak 2006b, 3). In any case, multimodality or hypermodality have, in their very nature, an enhancing function of the message and of the communication process itself (cf. Tannen 2012, 149). Websites are already a clear example of multimodal discourse and how through it one can build a particular academic identity (cf. Caldas-Coulthard 2005). The same is true of academic weblogs (cf. Luzón 2012). These pages have changed their content and images with the passage of time, adjusting to new ways of approaching key issues, such as health. Thompson (2012), from a multimodal CDA perspective, has observed the transition from biomedical discourse to the discourse focused on disease and people with mental disease, on a particular website, HealthyPlace.com.

Now that convergence and multimodality are part of journalistic routines, we must recognize that professionals have increased their workload by becoming “periodistas multimodales” [‘multimodal journalists’], holding interviews, attending press conferences, recording video and taking photos, all at once (cf. Salaverría/García Avilés 2008). This increase has reduced their time available for training and specialization, as well as for maturing what is published, said or written, in sensitive issues such as immigration, health, environment and corruption (cf. Magnoni/Garrido 2015). However, for these same journalists, Facebook, Twitter or YouTube have become essential everyday information sources (cf. Paulussen/Harder 2014) and a way to establish consistent links with political representatives (cf. Verweij 2012).

2.3Novelties in the manner of structuring the social-cognitive dimension of communication

2.3.1Access and accessibility

The conception of discourse as a social practice allows for the study of the entire communication process, starting with access (cf. van Dijk 1993, 254). In this sense, there are many who highlight the importance of the Internet to improve access to information on health issues, although there is still significant room for improvement, especially for the most vulnerable groups (cf. Neuhauser/Kreps 2010). Social and citizen movements in general have increased their presence in public debates over the Internet, through websites (cf. Stein 2009), email lists (cf. Wall 2007), Facebook (cf. Harlow 2011), blogs (cf. Tipaldo/Pisciotta 2014) or YouTube (cf. Meek 2011). Mention has been made of “technologization of democracy” or “democratization of technology” (Chouliaraki 2010), of “democratización del hipertexto” [‘democratization of hypertext’] (Landow 1995, 37) and also a “post-bureaucratization of democracy” (Tatarchevskiy 2011). It is clear that social movements were not born with technology and the new media, but it is evident that, in most cases, they have taken good advantage of that technology and the media. The Internet offers them a great platform to act politically (cf. van Laer/van Aelst 2010). It is possible, however, that NGOs ought to pay more attention so that their Internet messages are more concerned with the understanding of their content and citizenship education than with effectiveness in raising resources (cf. Arroyo Almaraz/Martín Nieto 2011, 245).

How quickly one reacts to social-political events using mobile phones and the Internet infrastructure challenges the attempts of the elites to hide or manipulate information; this is the opinion of Castells (2007, 249ss.), who adds that it is very likely that women and other oppressed groups in society will express themselves more openly counting on the protection of electronic means. According to Castells (2007, 254), there is a close link between networks and social criticism, and citizens have achieved greater power of political participation through the Internet, a fact which can be considered perhaps the most revolutionary of this new media environment (2007, 256). De Aguilera (2014) refers to “empoderamiento comunicacional de los ciudadanos” [‘communicative empowerment of citizens’]. And Philo (2007) mentions the potential for ordinary citizens to develop their own communication systems thanks to new technologies and the Internet. The higher the level of participation, the greater is the power (cf. Carpentier 2012, 170). In any case, the Internet has changed the very concept of “citizen” associated with the borders of a nation (cf. van Zoonen/Vis/Mihelj 2010, 259) and the very political debate, which has also transcended these geographical boundaries (cf. Chiluwa 2012, 218).

And this is so, among other things, because the “entry barriers” have been smoothened (cf. Castells 1997, 407). Anyway, we should not fall overboard into excessive optimism (cf. Sánchez Carballido 2008, 72); we must “moderate euphoria” and investigate the implications of emerging voices in relation to power structures (cf. Gajjala/Birzescu 2010, 74). Perhaps, at least for the moment, it is difficult to speak of computer interaction as a chance to reverse traditional power plays in the communication process (cf. Castells 1997, 393). And Schäfer (2011, 145) refers to her personal experience stating that she got to know the social-political reality of Malaysia thanks to online information (newspapers, magazines and blogs), because traditional print media were clearly determined by censorship. That censorship, on the other hand, obliges people to “read between the lines”, a process of special interest for CDA (cf. Schäfer 2011, 148). According to Schäfer (2011, 151), such censorship leads us to the use of other means, such as the digital ones, and also to the Chinese example. Neither should we forget the power of “hacktivism” and “cyberactivism” to generate counter-discourses (cf. Rolf 2009, 133; Rovira Sancho 2013; Burgos Pino 2014/2015). Another area of increased use of computer communication is the political field (cf. Castells 1997, 394). The Zapatista movement was a pioneer in using the Internet to transmit its messages and claims (cf. Castells 1997, 395), and was the inspiration for the mobilization in other parts of the world (cf. Rovira Sancho 2014). In times of conflict, the new media and social networks (especially Twitter) have shown great power of diffusion for dissident discourses (cf. Christensen 2011).

The economic factor has been essential in the simplest access to social debates and the greater presence on the Web of underprivileged groups. Creating and sharing text and videos is inexpensive (cf. Herring 2013, 16). A very different thing would be to know whether these alleged economic facilities (including gratuity) lead to a convenient valuation of the product, authorship and intellectual property.

Increased access leads to greater communication possibilities and, in a sense, we can say that virtual social networks “enfatizan la sociabilidad” [‘emphasize sociability’] (Mancera/Pano 2013, 41). We cannot forget the relationship between access and accessibility; technological progress has improved the “social presence” of the discourses of the disabled, for instance. On the other hand, there are more and more advocates for more adequately managing the design of digital tools and social networks with the intention of facilitating the access of the aged (cf. Huei Chou/Lai/Liu 2013). Indeed, some believe that this is in fact a fictional sociability replacing real social life, particularly in reference to youth communication habits. Possibly, young people use social networks as an extension of their social life and not as a substitute (cf. Martínez Pacheco 2012, 8), while establishing new forms of “joint action” with new models of participation of which political leaders should certainly be vigilant (cf. Loader 2014, 3).

2.3.2Fragmentation and accumulation

We have seen in previous sections that cognition is a nuclear dimension for almost all approaches in CDA. So is its educational projection. Indeed, Pindado (2010) has spoken of the “mente puzle” [‘puzzle mind’] to refer to the cognitive fragmentation which can be observed in the discursive behavior of our youth, for example. He says that the generations born and raised in the screen culture reproduce its schemes and discursive style in an in a noticeable manner (cf. Pindado 2010, 36). Cognitive fragmentation is one of its consequences. He later mentions that teenagers have taken “corta y pega” [‘cut and paste’] as a tool for learning, working or reworking texts (e. g., with abstracts; cf. Pindado 2010, 37s.). If so, this can lead us to think of the existence of people or groups of people who can, in principle, be less critical for their way of interpreting (and developing) discourses, and therefore easier to manipulate. In the words of Caro Castaño (2012, 6), we could speak of the disappearance of tools that enable individuals to develop complex thought, that is, to be able to identify the labyrinth of biased discourses converging in the symbolic construction of everyday life. We must encourage critical competence and digital literacy (cf. Pindado 2010). Or, as Gutiérrez Martín (2008, 101) says, “alfabetización digital crítica y reflexiva” [‘critical and reflective digital literacy’]. Having “capacidad crítica digital” [‘digital critical capacity’] means appreciating the argumentative orientation of the information and using it unequivocally: To identify social-political interests and ideological trends, using quality scores and reference criteria, etc. (cf. Cassany 2004, 12). Landow (2006, 279) also speaks about the importance of fostering in students, by using hypertext, critical thinking that can enable them to find the various causes that affect a single phenomenon or event, and then assess their relative weight. He further requests teachers not to be afraid of the potential of hypertext for active students who become responsible and express disagreement (cf. Landow 2006, 313).

Moreover, it is not possible to question the remarkable progress in the accumulation of discourses and texts thanks to the technological progress resulting from the development of the Internet. According to Aguado (2007, 73s.), we can speak of “tecnologías de la memoria” [‘memory technologies’] in relation to the possibility of accumulation of experience. This technology, coupled with instantaneous technology as seen in modern electronic media, lays the foundation for a new condition of experience. In the words of Albaladejo (2010, 22), the digital technology has enabled new ways of offering the discursive heritage to society; and also to researchers, as part of that society (cf. O’Halloran 2010, 563). YouTube, for example, is an ally for locating political debates originally offered on radio or television (cf. Garcia da Silva/Ramalho 2012, 24). In that regard, mention must be made of the existence of corpora with large amounts of accumulated data. Boyd/Crawford (2012, 662) wonder whether the Big Data will transform the way we study human communication and culture.

Accumulation is also valuable in that it enables us to find out more about more things, including those related to the diversity of minority discourses (cf. Aguilar Pinto 2010; Johnson/Callahan 2013; Cru 2015); also those related to areas or cultures with less economic weight in the world (cf. Fürsich/Robins 2002; Tynes 2007; Sheyholislami 2011; Aouragh 2011). But it is equally possible to find more repetitive, echoic information (cf. Bañón/Fornieles/Alcaraz 2011, 20s.).

A side consequence of this accumulation may be the discourse and information saturation (cf. Winocur 2012, 82s.). How to make well-targeted searches in so vast and sometimes so saturated an information world, as well as offering advice on the selection of more relevant texts and the swiftness for contrasting points of view, considering ways of excluding some voices and prioritizing others, are certainly essential points for studying the new media (cf. Todd 2006, 115s.). The excess of information and discourses can also lead to a certain level of desensitization, to a “compassion fatigue” (Moeller 1999). Probably the “gamification” (Pérez 2012) of digital communication, especially in virtual social networks, is an element to consider in the process of distancing from socially relevant problems.

3Socially relevant issues: Research perspectives in the Hispanic world

Hispanic field researchers have paid particular attention to CDA proposals. Fowler (1996, 5) mentioned Spain among the European countries that had shown greatest interest for Linguistic Criticism. In fact, CDA in Spanish has grown significantly (cf. Carbó 1999). Clearly, the presence of one of the most important international specialists in Spain, such as van Dijk at the University Pompeu Fabra of Barcelona, and his production in Spanish, has been instrumental in increasing interest for CDA in Spanish-speaking countries. In some curricula for university degrees, CDA in Spanish even appears as a compulsory subject (e. g., in the Degree in Hispanic Studies of the University of Almería). The progress in the (non-critical) discourse analysis of processes and strategies present in the new media and social networks has also been useful for this increased interest; for instance, the study of coherence in polylogues developed in YouTube (cf. Bou-Franch/Lorenzo-Dus/Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2012).

The scarcity of scientific literature framed in critical analysis of discourses present on the Internet to which, as we saw, Mautner (2005) was referring, was also visible in the Hispanic world, of course. Indeed, CDA growth has not been parallel to the growth of the Internet. And this is even truer of discourse analysis on the so-called “Web 2.0”. This has been identified by Mancera/Pano (2013, 22) in relation, for example, to Facebook, Flickr or Twitter. But interest had already appeared in the late 20th century. Between 1999 and 2003, the journal Oralia. Análisis del discurso oral included a permanent section entitled “Direcciones de Internet útiles para el análisis del discurso oral” [‘Useful websites for the analysis of oral discourse’] (Bañón 1999–2003). Some of these sites were included precisely because of their links with CDA. Also in 1999, Bañón published the paper entitled “Hipertexto e Internet. Notas sobre su aprovechamiento en los estudios lingüísticos” [‘Hypertext and the Internet. Notes on its use in linguistic studies’]. Section 5 of that work was entitled “Internet y Análisis crítico del discurso” [‘The Internet and critical discourse analysis’], including the good and bad things about increased accessibility, extension or permissiveness. Following the notion of hypertext, a new one was proposed called hypergenre to refer to the social debate as a framework for critical analysis of the links and relationships among actors, arguments and types of discourse related to socially relevant issues. CDA must accept the challenge of complexity (cf. Hodge 2012, 1) and the “public debate” hypergenre is a way of doing this. Fairclough (2003, 185) states that “el ACD se halla inevitablemente atrapado en la controversia y en el debate social” [‘CDA is inevitably caught up in the controversy and social debate’]. The term “public debate” is therefore naturally linked to CDA but, generally, it is used intuitively, without elaborating on it.

In this social debate, the role of new technologies is evident (cf. Bañón 2002, 23ss.); and also that of political discourse. This role can be seen very clearly in the political uses of blogs, e. g., in the Cuban context (cf. Vicari 2014); of Twitter, for instance in the political debate in Spain (cf. Mancera/Pano 2013; Pano/Mancera 2014a) or in Argentina (cf. Flax 2012 and 2013; Navarro 2012); and of web pages designed during elections, such as those developed for the 2008 campaign in Spain (cf. Martín Jiménez/Screti 2009). But ‘political’ must also be understood in a broad sense, incorporating the discourse of citizen and social movements, which has arisen in recent years. This incorporation sometimes occurs with citizens who, individually, join online forums about significant social events, as happened during the arrest of Augusto Pinochet in London on October 16, 1998 (cf. Tanner 2001). Other times they are collective movements: the case of the Chilean student movement (cf. Cárdenas Neira 2014), the resistance groups of African migrants in Argentina (cf. Morales 2014/2015), or the 15M movement in Spain (cf. Giraldo Luque/Martínez Cerdá/Paredes Sánchez 2013; García-Jiménez/Zamora-Medina/Martínez-Fernández 2014). Socially, Internet involvement often incorporates a high level of multimodal creativity, based, for example, on the recontextualizing power of metaphor (cf. Romano 2015). Metaphors are certainly part of the very nature of the Internet (cf. Sal Paz 2009). The use of humor on the Web is sometimes a sign of creativity typical of counter-discourses, and protest and resistance discourses (cf. González Goyeneche/Reales Moreno 2011; Sierra Infante 2012). The Internet has also used fake identities with accounts in which they parody, among others, Spanish politicians (@Naniano_Rajoy and @Señor_Rubalcaba; cf. Pano/Mancera 2014b). In fact, the same happens in other movements not associated with the Hispanic world. Consider the use of memes in the context of the Occupy Wall Street Movement (cf. Milner 2013). Memes are images or texts, often with humorous content, that are virally shared in social networks during a short time. Creativity not only affects linguistic items or those with multimodal value (such as Twitter tags referred to 15M; cf. Menna 2012), but also the development of horizontal communication formulas designed to facilitate collaboration and participation (cf. Fernández Toledo/Oliveira Ferreira 2009).

Among the most important social debates, we have to include those that speak about minorities, migration processes and racism, health and disease, gender and poverty discrimination. We discuss these issues below in the context of research in Spanish.

3.1The discourse on minorities, migration processes and racism in the new media

The social debate on immigration includes various types of discourse depending on the involvement (or not) of those who speak in the cause of the discriminated group and their belonging (or not) to that group. In this sense, one can speak of eight basic concepts related to eight types of discourse: commitment, protest, discrimination, self-discrimination, condescension, resignation, prevention and segregation. In order to analyze each of these concepts and discursive types, it is necessary to observe the documents that appear on the Internet; Bañón did so for the social debate on immigration, for the protest discourse (2002, 143ss.), for the committed discourse (2002, 206ss.) and for discriminatory discourse (2002, 252s.). The main sources mentioned at that time were from static Internet pages, such as “Africans sans papiers” (<http://www.bok.net/pajol/index.en.html>).

Immigrants have generally found Internet to be an excellent ally for proposing their own media production (cf. Lario Bastida 2008) or for generating platforms that enable them to offer alternative discourses (cf. del-Teso-Craviotto 2008a and 2009). Hernández Flores (2014) has analyzed the image of Colombian women through life stories narrated by an association of Latin American artists and journalists in Madrid. In her work, she manages to provide an alternative discourse to the biased one that associates these women to sexuality as a means of survival. And a different image is offered of development agents instead of patient or passive actors. In any case, it is still a fabricated identity.

The Internet has also been a good ally for those who accessed digital versions of traditional media with the intention of analyzing the representation of immigrants. Gómez Sánchez/Guerra Salas (2012, 83), for example, studied immigrant representation in the comments sent in response to information on this subject included in the digital versions of ABC, El País, ADN and 20 Minutos (first fortnight of March 2010), in total, 155 comments. Most participants showed a negative view of immigrants, and those who sent messages of solidarity received immediate replies, which were not always polite. Comments from readers of the digital press are very valuable for Discourse Analysis, and also have a critical projection, as the commenters also present themselves ideologically (cf. Fuentes Rodríguez 2013, 215). Ruiz et al., on the other hand, studied six Catalan online newspapers (Lavanguardia.es, Elperiodico. com, Avui.cat, Elpunt.cat, Segre.cat, Diaridegirona.cat and Diaridetarragona.com). The objectives of the study included knowing how comments were handled, whether the writers included the arguments of the others, and also whether other sources were mentioned in the discussion process. The authors state:

“Pero a pesar de la prohibición expresa de difundir contenidos antidemocráticos, racistas, xenófobos y contrarios a los derechos humanos, las conversaciones digitales los contienen” (Ruiz et al. 2010, 37).97

The study of López Ireta/González Arias (2013) on comments sent to two Chilean online newspapers (Elmostrador.cl and Elmercurio.com) indicates widespread use of aggressive language.

We mentioned above that the identity and migration processes are closely linked elements of interest for CDA. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich/Bou-Franch/Lorenzo-Dus (2013) analyzed the Latino identity in the United States through 500 consecutive messages that appeared on YouTube in response to the “Obama Reggaeton”. Most of these messages were written in Spanish. In a later work, Garcés-Conejos Blitvich/Bou-Franch re-used messages on YouTube to analyze the racialization of Latinos in the United States (2014). Del-Teso-Craviotto, meanwhile, has studied the identity discourse of Argentinian immigrants in Spain from the concept of “posicionamiento” [‘positioning’] (2008a), and the racist and xenophobic discourse against immigrants, and also the alternative discourse proposed by the immigrants themselves (2009). Both studies used the Internet forum message exchanges as corpus. For del-Teso-Craviotto (2008a, 696), the unmediated presence of immigrants on the Internet, for example, ensures not only an existence, a voice, but also the opportunity to build an alternative immigrant identity to identities broadcasted in public discourses. The difficulty of access to public debate, therefore, leads to lack of knowledge (and even ignorance) of what immigrants themselves think about what is said about them or about the migration process itself. Hence, according to this author, there are very few studies that focus on the discursive practices of immigrants themselves (cf. del-Teso-Craviotto 2009, 576). She uses for her research a corpus of messages that appear on the Forum page PatriaMadre.com targeting Argentinians who have migrated to Spain or plan to do so. In any case, Spaniards also participate in the exchange of arguments and counterarguments.

The Internet forum is also the genre chosen by Montecino Soto to analyze the exclusion of immigrants. It is a forum linked to a 2002 Chilean television program in which the following question was being debated: “Should we restrict foreign workers?” (<www.eltermometro.cl/foros>). Montecino Soto (2005, 274) observes, first, that the Internet is very uneven, and that most people, both in Chile and in Latin America, are not participating in the “virtual spaces”. From his analysis of the representation of Peruvians in this forum, it follows that a discriminatory image is projected in their description (invaders, ignorant or foreign animals, usurpers of Chilean bread, etc.), and in the use of argumentative fallacies (poverty in Chile is due to the presence of immigrants), where the intensity of the claims, without considering the consequences, could also be related to concealing one’s identity. However, the negative representation of the Other is also sometimes supplemented, in these messages, with the negative representation of Myself or Us (e. g., low self-esteem; cf. Montecino Soto 2005, 286). Arriaga Arango (2013), meanwhile, analyzes the comments that appeared on social networks (Facebook, Twitter and forums) in relation to a photo published by the journal Hola in Colombia. Arriaga Arango believes that digital technologies reproduce models of racist discourse.

3.2Health and disease discourse in the new media

Much has been said in recent years about a transformation in the doctor-patient relationship. It is said, as noted above, that an interaction based on a biomedical model is (slowly) giving way to a patient-centered interaction. The Internet has been crucial in this transition, offering better training and information, and empowering patients in health issues. The Internet has also been instrumental for the creation of quite a number of virtual specific communities on rare diseases, for implementing initiatives for financing research projects, and for better understanding the stories posted by patients and families about their illnesses and their lives. The formation of identities is one of the essential functions of this type of narrative.

The relationship between the Internet and rare diseases has become prominent in recent years for those who are interested in spreading information about health and disease, and in the activity of associations of patients and even individual patients (cf. Aymé/Schmidtke 2007; Akrich/Méadel 2002 and 2009; Legros 2009). The Internet has also helped in the development of platforms with exemplary information in the health field, such as Orphanet. Its value is greater when we consider the problems for accumulation, structuring and dissemination of information on these diseases (cf. Dagiral/Peerbaye 2010).

In recent years, critical analysis researchers have been interested in rare or uncommon diseases, including treatment in the digital sphere. We would like to emphasize, in this regard, three research areas associated with three projects. One project, ALCERES (Linguistic and communicative analysis of rare diseases in Spain), funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation (FFI2008-03938) and developed at the University of Almería, generated numerous research papers. Another one treated the Internet verbal violence in relation to rare diseases. More specifically, it analyzed the exchange of messages in a forum linked to Antena 3 TV about a disease called Hallenvorden-Spatz. Although a solidarity discourse towards those who suffer serious illness is presumed, the fact is that, as seen in this forum, anonymity can generate cases of rudeness and lack of solidarity also in these contexts (cf. Bañón 2010; Prestigiacomo 2014).

The Center for Biomedical Online Research on Rare Diseases (CIBERER) funded the research project named Desafíos y estrategias comunicativas de las enfermedades raras: La investigación médica como referente (Communication challenges and strategies for rare diseases: Medical research as reference). Under this project, a book was published with the same title studying a two-year corpus of Spanish printed and digital newspapers from a quantitative and also a qualitative perspective (cf. Bañón et al. 2011). The aim of the study was to account for what the press “says” about these diseases, about those affected and their families, about the people who are doing research on them, the institutions that manage the resources devoted to them, etc.; but also to explain the importance of actual journalistic production routines. A body of research consisting of 2,445 news items was built. In this sample, analysis was undertaken, among other things, of news values, topics, themes, framings, information hierarchy, and reader participation. The project addressed, with a perspective closer to CDA, the discursive representation of Rare Diseases and those affected (their designations, functions and concepts), together with the study of political discourse and discursive treatment of research and researchers related to these pathologies. Offering ways to improve the transmission of news was another equally crucial issue in the field of CDA.

..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
18.222.41.52