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:

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:

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:

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 mental “resources” 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:

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).

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).

2.2.1Continuity, 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).

2.3.1Access 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.