Critical Discourse Analysis is issue or problem oriented nor paradigm or theroy oriented because only with the critical view of the world, theories can be developed...If we take that theories are made out of concept... For example:- Friedriech Nietzsche was cynical, he doubted in the existence of GOD so the nihilism came into being. With the focus on humans will. Nietzsche developed "Will to power". With this exampe we can say that viewing critically is necessary, after which issues should be meditated. "May be Rejection of an idea leads to other ideas. "

Let me put the four concepts together in what I think can be said about CDA. CDA is definitely a theory (I will come back to this below to modalize this) that takes issue with phenomena such as ideology, power (abuse), and (social) injustice by problematizing their use and maintanenace through means ranging from education to the media, and this is done in the four prevailing paradigms of CDA represented by van Dijk, Fiarclough, Wodak, and Gee. 

To go back to theory, van Dijk in many publications denied the theory status of CDA, preferring to call the different approaches within CDA "methodologies". As to whether what CDA is and what its theoretical underpinnings are, I think that it is an extension from critical linguistics whose agenda has been set off by Fowler and Fowler and Kress to also extend Halliday's systemic linguistics to discourse analysis. So I cannot thnk that CDA's academic status is undermined by any of this, unless you want to talk about the fact that CDA exclusively addresses negativity in human communities, which has been sometimes defended by proponernts and attacked by detractors.

thanks for your fascinating  explanation , professor Zouheir.

I don't see why. To start from a real-world problem and develop a theory from attempts to solve it seems acceptable to me. cf. Newton 'theorizing' gravity to explain why an apple falls to earth. Where CDA has had its detractors (e.g. Prof. Widdowson) in the past has been because of the tendency of its practitioners to start from a problem close to their hearts and, because of that emotional involvement, compromise their ideal academic 'scientific' neutrality, skewing their interpretations for political/ideological reasons. In science, to be emotionally involved in an outcome is usually bad. Much as I like CDA, especially the earlier stuff, I'm not sure how satisfactorily they have answered this objection...

Much as I have my own answer which is similar to Maalej's above, I would suggest that this question be directed to van Dijk, Wodak, Fairclough, van Leeuwen or Paul Gee. CDA is both theory and methodology, and draws on several theoretical approaches in the social science that address human problems especially those that deal with ideology and (political/religious/social) power abuse. I also think that Systemic Functional Linguistics is a strong theoretical base for CDA for disciplines in language studies.

Thanks for your explanation,  Chiluwa, appeal to authorities is not the way CDA researchers  tackle a philosophical existential  problem nonetheless. We will be trapped in the vicious circle of a fallacious argument then.

CDA has a very strong and obvious connection to neo-marxist social theory.  Whether CDA is a theory or not depends, in my view, on the extent to which CDA draws on bodies of literature which are unique to it i.e. when you do CDA, do you draw on CDA literature/theory as a theory of language or do you draw on general social theorists.  My feeling is that most CDA done within a LINGUISTIC framework tends to draw on bodies of theory and literature that are fairly distinct from other social theory.  E.g. drawing of Fairclough, Wodak, Van Dijk etc for a theory of Language.  And this leads me to think that CDA is a theory.  

On the other hand, it seems to me there is a body of "CDA" research that is non-linguistic in nature.  What I mean (in a fairly vague sense) is that there is a difference in the way a linguist would do CDA and the way in which a political scientist might go about it.  They both adopt critical approaches, they both use discourse to investigate (but who doesn't?) but the linguist is more likely to look at how language is used to achieve an end, whereas the political scientist is more likely to focus on the end using language as the medium.  And it seems to me that the theory that a political scientist might draw on might be different too e.g. Foucault but probably not Fairclough to the same extent.  

But these are just impressionistic thoughts.

Mark

Here's a link to an excellent article which outlines the origins of CDA and the currents withiin it.  Thanks to Ruth Breeze http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ruth_Breeze/publication/259484653_CRITICAL_DISCOURSE_ANALYSIS_AND_ITS_CRITICS/links/0046352c2a0f1e1dbd000000.pdf.

Article Critical Discourse Analysis and Its Critics

The question of whether Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), being "issue or problem-oriented," undermines its academic viability is both pertinent and intellectually stimulating. CDA's primary concern with real-world issues such as social inequalities, power dynamics, and ideologies in discourse sets it apart from more theory-centric methodologies. Some critics contend that this focus on addressing specific social problems rather than adhering to a singular theoretical paradigm may lead to a perception of methodological laxity or incoherence. Nevertheless, many scholars within the field argue that this very adaptability is CDA's strength, as it allows the researcher to engage critically with diverse power structures across a range of discursive contexts.

At the heart of CDA's approach lies its focus on pressing societal issues, which ensures its continued relevance in academic inquiry. By examining language use in various domains—media, politics, education, and beyond—CDA uncovers the ways in which discourse both mirrors and perpetuates power asymmetries. The problem-centered orientation facilitates a practical application of theory, which equips CDA to tackle real-world challenges with immediacy. While this flexibility may be perceived by some as an academic weakness, insofar as it lacks the rigid adherence to a single theoretical framework, others argue that CDA's orientation towards social critique ensures that it remains sharply focused on its principal objective: exposing and challenging inequalities.

A further point of contention in the discussion surrounding CDA is its theoretical pluralism. CDA is not anchored to a single theory; rather, it draws on a constellation of intellectual traditions, including sociolinguistics, critical theory, and social semiotics. Key figures in the field—such as Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, and Teun A. van Dijk—each bring distinct theoretical approaches to their work, often blending methodologies from various academic disciplines to suit their research questions. This theoretical fluidity affords CDA a high degree of flexibility, enabling it to address a multitude of social phenomena. However, it also opens CDA to criticism, particularly from those who argue that its lack of a unified theoretical foundation creates inconsistency and makes it difficult to establish a clear methodological standard.

A central aspect of CDA’s intellectual project is the problematization of seemingly neutral discourses, particularly as they relate to the reproduction of social hierarchies. By interrogating how language functions to sustain and legitimize power relations, CDA challenges commonsense understandings of social realities. This process of "denaturalization" is central to CDA’s critical ethos and contributes significantly to its broader academic impact, particularly in fields concerned with social justice and equity. However, this focus on problematization, in the absence of a fixed theoretical grounding, has led some critics to question whether CDA runs the risk of being overly subjective or ideologically driven. Without a cohesive theoretical framework, CDA may, in the eyes of its detractors, lean too heavily on the analyst’s interpretation of power and ideology, which could undermine its claims to academic objectivity.

In sum, while CDA's emphasis on social issues and its eclectic theoretical base may present certain challenges, they do not necessarily detract from its academic viability. Indeed, its capacity to respond to real-world concerns with theoretical flexibility allows it to maintain a unique position in the academic landscape, particularly in disciplines concerned with power, language, and society. The criticisms levied against CDA for its perceived lack of theoretical coherence may be valid in certain respects, but they overlook the rigorous analytical tools CDA provides for examining how discourse shapes and is shaped by broader social forces. Ultimately, CDA’s academic credibility lies not in its adherence to a fixed theoretical model but in its ability to engage critically and reflexively with discourses that structure power relations in society.