# data[].attributes.body
Critical Discourse Studies and the Discourse-Historical Approach

The Discourse-historical approach (DHA) is a part of the field of critical discourse study (CDS), and also critical discourse analysis (CDA) (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, 2009; Wodak, 2011, 2013).  While CDA investigates language use beyond words—delves deeper into broader context of history and social context, CDS explores language use beyond  the sentence level, as well as other forms of meaning-making such as visuals and sounds, seeing them as irreducible elements in the (re)production of society via semiosis. The first case of DHA was developed analyzed the constitution of anti Semitic stereotyped images as they emerged in public discourses in the 1986 Austrian presidential campaign of former UN General Secretary Kurt Waldheim, who for a long time had kept secret his national–socialist past (Wodak et al., 1990). The project analysis indicates the existence of four salient characteristics of the DHA: interdisciplinary and particularly problem-oriented interests; teamwork; triangulation as a fundamental and constitutive methodological principle; and orientation toward application. Which means that this interdisciplinary study combined linguistic analysis with historical and sociological, theoretical and methodological approaches.

# data[].attributes.body
The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) is a critical discourse analysis method that emphasizes interdisciplinary, problem-oriented, and triangulation approaches. It focuses on the constitutive elements of discourse, the fluid boundaries of discourse, the distinction between discourse and text, the role of genres in texts, intertextuality, and the analysis of discourses, genres, and texts in relation to sociopolitical change. DHA is oriented towards all four dimensions of context, in a recursive manner, and is interdisciplinary, problem-oriented, and interdisciplinary. The DHA is three-dimensional, examining (1) the specific contents or topics of a specific discourse, (2) discursive strategies, and (3) linguistic means. A thorough discourse-historical analysis ideally follows an eight-stage program, which includes literature review, data collection and preparation, specification of research questions and assumptions, qualitative pilot analysis, detailed case studies, formulation of critique, and application of analytical results.

# data[].attributes.headline
Some tools of analysis and principles of DHA

# data[].attributes.subject
Some tools of analysis and principles of DHA

# data[].attributes.body
The DHA is three-dimensional: after (1) having identified the specific contents or topics of a specific discourse, (2) discursive strategies are investigated. Then (3) linguistic means are examined as types, and the specific, context-dependent linguistic realizations are examined as tokens.

# data[].attributes.headline
Approaching the analysis of “discourses about x”: The DHA in Eight Steps

# data[].attributes.subject
Approaching the analysis of “discourses about x”: The DHA in Eight Steps

# data[].attributes.body
A thorough discourse-historical analysis ideally follows an eight-stage program. Typi-

cally, the eight steps are implemented recursively:

1 literature review, activation of theoretical knowledge (i.e., recollection, reading, and

discussion of previous research);

2 systematic collection of data and context information (depending on the research

questions, various discourses, genres, and texts are focused on);

3 selection and preparation of data for specific analyses (selection and downsizing of

data according to relevant criteria, transcription of tape recordings, etc.);

4 specification of the research questions and formulation of assumptions (on the basis

of a literature review and a first skimming of the data);

5 qualitative pilot analysis (this allows for testing categories and first assumptions as

well as for the further specification of assumptions);

6 detailed case studies (of a whole range of data, primarily qualitatively, but in part

also quantitatively);

7 formulation of critique (interpretation of results, taking into account the relevant

context knowledge and referring to the three dimensions of critique);

8 application of the detailed analytical results (if possible, the results might be applied

or proposed for application).

# data[].attributes.body
The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) is problem-oriented, emphasizing interdisciplinary and triangulation. It involves considering multiple empirical observations, theories, and methods, as well as background information.

The DHA focuses on four levels of context:

1)    immediate, language or text-internal cotext;

2) intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between utterances, texts, genres, and discourses;

3)  extralinguistic social variables and institutional frames of a specific "context of situation";

4). and broader socio political and historical context.

The DHA also considers the power and ideology of language, and how power is implemented through language and other semiotic practices. The DHA is oriented towards all four dimensions of context, in a recursive manner, and is interdisciplinary, problem-oriented, and interdisciplinary.

the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) focusing on the constitutive elements of discourse, the fluid boundaries of discourse, the distinction between discourse and text, the role of genres in texts, intertextuality, and the analysis of discourses, genres, and texts in relation to sociopolitical change. It emphasizes the importance of context, power, ideology, and critique within discourses

# data[].attributes.body
Important Principles of DHA:

1. The approach is interdisciplinary.

2. The approach is problem-oriented.

3. Various theories and methods are combined wherever integration leads to an adequate understanding and explanation of the research object.

4. The research incorporates fieldwork and ethnography (study from “inside”).

5. The research necessarily moves recursively between theory and empirical data.

6. Numerous genres and public spaces as well as intertextual and interdiscursive rela-

tionships are studied.

7. The historical context is taken into account in interpreting texts and discourses.

8. Categories and tools are not fixed once and for all.

9. “Grand theories” often serve as a foundation.

10. The application of results is an important target.

One of the main principles of the DHA is that of triangulation, which enables the

researchers to minimize any risk of being too subjective. This is due to its endeavor

to work on a basis of a variety of different data, methods, theories, and background

information (Wodak, 2011, p. 65).

# data[].attributes.body
The DHA adheres to the socio philosophical orientation of critical theory. This is why it follows a concept of social critique that integrates three related aspects (for extended discussions, see Reisigl & Wodak, 2009):

1 Text or discourse-immanent critique aims at discovering inconsistencies, (self-) contradictions, paradoxes, and dilemmas in the text-internal or discourse-internal structures.

2 Sociodiagnostic critique is concerned with demystifying the-manifest or latent — persuasive or "manipulative" character of discursive practices.

3 Future-related prospective critique seeks to contribute to the improvement of communication

This passage delves into the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), a method for analyzing how language reflects and reinforces power dynamics. It emphasizes the importance of transparency: researchers using DHA must reveal their own biases and explain why their interpretations hold weight.

The approach draws on Habermas' concept of an ideal public sphere, where participation and debate are unrestricted. DHA views ideologies as one-sided perspectives shared within social groups, used to maintain power imbalances through discourse.

The core of DHA lies in examining how language and other communication methods (semiotics) act as tools to create and perpetuate these ideologies. A key objective is to "demystify" dominant discourses by uncovering the underlying ideologies that fuel them.

Language, according to DHA, doesn't hold inherent power. It's the way powerful people wield language that grants them influence. Power itself is defined as the ability to impose one's will within a social dynamic, often through various means like force, control, authority, or technical advantages.

Discourse plays a crucial role in legitimizing or challenging power structures. Texts become battlegrounds for conflicting ideologies vying for dominance. DHA meticulously analyzes language use within texts to unveil these power struggles manifested through specific expressions and manipulations. Power can be exerted not just through grammar but also through genre choices, control over communication settings, and access to public platforms.

In essence, DHA offers a framework for critically examining how language shapes and reflects power dynamics within society.