The concepts of “text” and “discourse” have been widely used in the social sciences and the definitions have been revisited in many studies (Wodak, 2001), despite mention too common, a concrete definition remains elusive. The fact that these attempts to define “text” or “discourse” often cite Michel Foucault, Jürgen Habermas or Louis Althusser makes the task more difficult. According to Wodak (2001), discourse can mean anything: “a historical monument, a place of memory, a policy, a political strategy, stories in the narrow or broad sense of the term, a text, a discussion, a speech , conversations related to a subject”. , to language in itself. Van Dijk (1997a) laments that, just like concepts such as language, communication, society, culture, etc., “the notion of discourse is essentially vague”. While Van Dijk (2007) characterizes discourse as a complex phenomenon studied in virtually all social science disciplines, Widdowson (1995) characterizes discourse as a “controversial area of ​​inquiry.” Fairclough (1992) states that discourse is a "difficult concept largely because there are many conflicting and overlapping definitions formulated from various theoretical and disciplinary perspectives." However, several researchers belonging to the field of critical linguistics have formulated a somewhat tangible definition of the term “discourse”. These researchers include Teun A. van Dijk, Ruth Wodak and Norman Fairclough. In its most basic form, discourse can refer to the use of spoken or written language, it can also refer to ideas or ideologies propagated through text, discourse can also be understood as interaction in social situations (van Dijk, 2007). In the European academic tradition, a distinction is sometimes recognized between “text” and “discourse”; however, the term speech can generally be used for oral and written texts. Discourse can also refer to the process of inferring meanings using language or other symbols in a particular situation or context. Discourse cannot be understood without analyzing its relationship with text, Chalaby (1996) clarifies this relationship: "discourses are embodied and staged in a variety of texts, although they exist beyond the individual texts that compose. Texts can thus be considered as a discursive “unity” and a material manifestation of discourse.” It is important to note that “texts” are not limited to written words but their meaning encompasses spoken words, images, symbols and artifacts. Although many scholars see some degree of ideological difference between text and speech, the term is also used synonymously; for example, in Wallace Chafe's magisterial Oxford International Encyclopaedia of Linguistics, the author makes no distinction between the two: Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay The term “discourse” is used somewhat differently by different scholars, but underlying the differences lies a common concern for language beyond the boundaries of isolated sentences. The term TEXT is used in a similar way. Both terms can designate a unit of language larger than the sentence: we can speak of “discourse” or “text” (Chafe, 1992 cited in Widdowson, 2004) (p.6)Commenting on the relationship between discourse and text Parker (1992, cited in Phillips and Hardy, 2002) writes that discourse can be defined “as an interdependent set of texts andpractices of production, dissemination and reception which give birth to an object”. Traditionally, that is, before the advent of CDA as an academic discipline, discourse was treated in linguistic terms, either as texts longer than a sentence or as language used by people. Critical linguists and researchers in the emerging field of CDA have modified this traditional approach and, as Blommaert (2005) explains, "little by little, old and well-established concepts and views of linguistics have been exchanged for more dynamic, flexible and activity-centered concepts and viewpoints. Van Dijk (1990) comments on this transition: “With some hesitation at the beginning, linguistics and grammars dared to go beyond the barriers they had imposed on themselves in the sentence in order to discover a rich field of discursive constraints on grammatical rules” . Although there is some overlap between linguistic and social aspects of discourse, Cobley (2001) clearly delineates the difference: the linguistic approach "focuses on the formal properties of parts of language above the sentence level" , the social approach is concerned with “the text” as the material site of socially produced meanings, in short: “Discourse is social; and the text need not be linguistic.” The study of discourse has been guided by what Ives (2004) and Poynton and Lee (2000) call a “linguistic turn” that occurred in philosophy and the social sciences in the 20th century. This shift reflects a new and vigorous look at the use of language in society, and it recognizes that language may not be as passive as it seems, but that it continually responds to social contexts in which he operates. Most importantly, as part of this “linguistic turn,” the ability of language to internalize and convey ideologies that oppress people has come under intense scrutiny. Lemke (2005) explains that “language does not function in isolation. Meanings are always created in contexts where social expectations and non-linguistic symbols play a role.” It is these non-linguistic contexts and symbols that are central to discourse studies; the idea is not to focus on language in isolation but to take a more holistic view in order to better understand the world in which we live. Phillips and Hardy (2002) explain the role of discourse in understanding a social phenomenon or problem by citing the example of the refugee problem. The modern world, with its characteristic ethnic conflicts, political violence, and civil wars, has produced an unfortunate but constant flow of refugees, but how can we define or understand the refugee question from a discourse analytical perspective? First, one must understand discourses on related issues such as immigration, asylum, demography, etc., and then texts that relate to the concept or debate of refugees must be examined. These texts may include United Nations documents, current affairs debates, editorials, cartoons, etc. Finally, social contexts such as wars, natural disasters, politics, totalitarian leaders, etc. should be highlighted. These relationships between texts, contexts and discourses will help us provide a discourse-analytic interpretation of the problem. Texts should therefore not be studied in isolation, as Phillips and Hardy (2002) point out: We cannot, however, simply focus on an individual text; rather we must refer to corpora of texts because these are the interrelations between texts, changes in texts, new textual forms and newsystems of distribution of texts that constitute discourse over time. Likewise, reference must also be made to the social context in which the texts are found and the discourses are produced. It is this link between discourses and the social reality they constitute that makes discourse analysis a powerful method for studying social phenomena. (p.4-5)Blommaert (2005) explains the concept of discourse as a phenomenon by explaining the structure of advertisements in print media. A newspaper advertisement, for example, is made up of a variety of elements, such as written text, graphics, images, colors, logos, etc. Here, the textual and the visual cannot be separated, and these elements that make up an advertisement are neither arbitrary. nor significant in itself, specifies Blommaert: "the object that we call here 'discourse' is the total layout of the advertisement, the total set of its characteristics -- in short, it is the advertisement, not the text or images. » Van Dijk (2008) credits Language and Control published in 1979 as the first book in the field of critical discourse studies, Language as Ideology published in the same year is also considered a source of inspiration for scholars in subsequent years. Critical discourse analysis (henceforth CDA) arose out of the need for critical research to be socially relevant and more problem-oriented rather than dwelling on purely academic and theoretical issues, as explained van Dijk (1986, cited in Wodak, 2001): Beyond superficial description or application, critical science in every field poses other questions, such as those of responsibility, interests and ideology. Instead of focusing on purely academic or theoretical problems, it starts from dominant social problems and thus chooses the perspective of these. who suffer the most, and critically analyzes those in power, those who are responsible, and those who have the means and opportunity to resolve these problems. (p.2) In books and surveys dealing with the origins of CDA, reference is made to the University of East Anglica, where in the 1970s critical linguists turned to the use of language in social institutions (Blommaert, 2005; Wodak, 1995). Critical linguists have taken it upon themselves to study the relationship between language and power and, more importantly, language and ideology. Wodak (2001) refers to a group of researchers in the field of sociolinguistics and related fields as a “CDA group,” which emerged after a 1991 seminar in Amsterdam. Wodak further refers to a "network of CDA scholars" that emerged after van Dijk launched the crucial journal Discourse and Society in 1990. In addition to van Dijk, Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak, others researchers strongly associated with the ADC are; Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen. The concept of ideology as employed by various researchers in the field of CDA owes its origin directly to Louis Althusser's theories of ideology (Althusser, 1976; Althusser, 1984). It should be noted that ideology can be characterized as a protean concept, that is: “It can mean what we want it to mean; it can be inserted into numerous theories, numerous texts, numerous policies (Lemke, 2005). Ideology according to Althhusser does not reside only in the realm of ideas but exists in institutions and often manifests itself in the practices specific to these institutions. Althusser's 1970 essay, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, acquired cult status and his brilliant articulation of the concept of ideological state apparatuses (church, school, unions, etc.) or ISA became a ideological source for the futureresearchers from various fields, including critical linguistics. Ferretter (2006) summarizes Althusser's contribution to the contested field of ideology: For all of us who live in a society where good is at the top, Althusser shows us how to make sense of the literature and culture in which we produce and read. this company. Only on the basis of this kind of understanding, he argues, can we help change it (p. 2). In listing the ideological state apparatuses, Althusser specifically mentions the press, radio, and television as "the ISA of communications." . It is interesting to note that the concept of ideology was initially envisaged as a theory of ideas (Althusser, 1976), Karl Marx later coined this generic concept of ideology and called it a "system of ideas and representations that dominate a person's mind. a man or a social group” (Zizek, 1994). Ruth Wodak, an early proponent of CDA, established a rule for critical linguistics (the terms were often used interchangeably, although CDA is now the preferred usage), since CDA aims to discover the injustice and inequality, it must not remain descriptive and neutral. This should not be interpreted as an appeal to ideological partisanship; Wodak supports his argument by citing Adorno (1976) and the positivist controversy in German sociology. The idea is to “find a balance between engagement and distance from the research object” (Fjørtoft, 2013). Wodak (1989) further specifies the objectives of critical linguistics or CDA “to discover and demystify certain social processes in this and other societies, to make explicit and transparent the mechanisms of manipulation, description and demagoguery”. Thus, CDA, as a method and as a concept, also has its origins in the intense debate around critical theory adopted by a wave of philosophers and social scientists who were later characterized as belonging to the Frankfurt School. Donoghue (2018) asserts that CDA “is rooted in critical social theory, drawing inspiration from thinkers such as Foucault, Bourdieu, Gramsci, Althusser, and the Frankfurt School.” It is pertinent to note that many important contributors in the field of CDA have repeatedly asserted the importance of raising people's consciousness, which would ultimately lead to emancipation; this would be achieved by revealing the hidden relationship between discourse and power. Paying homage to the classic principle of critical theory, Fairclough (1989) asserts that one of the reasons for studying the relationship between language and power is "to help increase awareness of the ways in which language contributes to the domination of certain people by others, because consciousness is the first step towards emancipation.” Proponents of critical theory argued in their writings that this approach should not deviate from two of its important goals:; human emancipation and liberation, because Bronner (2011) asserts that not only “critical theory was conceived as a general theory of society fueled by the desire for liberation” but that “human emancipation became the goal of this approach ". Differentiation between scientific theories and critical theories Geuss (1981) emphasizes that “critical theories aim at emancipation and enlightenment, at making agents aware of hidden coercion, thus freeing them from this coercion and putting them in a position to determine where is their ; real interests lie.” Here, emancipation and enlightenment refer to a transition from a state of false consciousness brought about by ideological and material processes that misleads members of a class to aend state: where people recognize their self-imposed coercion and free themselves from the chains of false consciousness. . While critical theory was born in the intellectual cradle of Marxism (hence the semantic reliance on Marxist terms such as false consciousness), the horrors of Stalinist terror, reporting on Soviet gulags and temporary relations between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany resulted in the Frankfurt School, freeing itself from the “outdated critique of capitalism” (Geuss, 1981). This led to an intense urge to look beyond economic superstructures and other Marxist fixations. CDA is certainly not the first discipline to deploy the critical approach, a host of other disciplines such as psychology, anthropology, social policy, etc. developed a critical version of their original disciplines, in fact one of the first uses of an academic approach called as criticism can be attributed to Immanuel Kant who wrote The Critique of Pure Reason in 1781 (Billig, 2007) . According to Billig (2007), an academic approach can be called critical if it critiques the current social order and if it is “rooted in a radical critique of social relations.” Explaining the reasoning and logic behind the term critical in the Frankfurt School sense, Connerton (1976, cited in Fowler, 2003) explains: “Critical”… designates a reflection on a system of constraints, which are distorting pressures produced by man to which individuals, or a group of individuals, or the human race as a whole, succumbs in its process of self-formation… Criticism… is addressed to objects of experience whose “objectivity” is called into question; criticism assumes that there is some degree of intrinsic deformity masquerading as reality. He seeks to remove this distortion and thus make possible the liberation of that which has been distorted. This therefore implies a conception of emancipation. (p. 4) Differentiation between critical and non-critical approaches Fairclough (1992) states that “critical approaches differ from non-critical approaches not only in describing discursive practices, but also in showing how discourse is shaped by power relations and ideologies. Fairclough (2013) further considers the “critical” part of CDA as an ability to make visible the interdependence of things. The CDA draws much of its support from neo-Marxism, namely that political economies produce discourses that too often convey hidden interests and ideologies. . Antonio Gramsci's notion of hegemony is directly relevant to CDA and the idea of ​​hegemony provides a theoretical foundation for CDA. Antonio Gramsci, at the time of his death, was not known outside communist circles, but his writings cast a shadow over the works of political theorists and cultural critics. It took decades before his work attracted scholarly attention, and it was not until the 1980s that growing interest in cultural studies and fascination with the question of power attracted scholars from different backgrounds. disciplines towards the vast quantity of ideas and concepts that Gramsci had left scattered. in his Prison Notebooks (Créhan, 2002). As Buttigieg (1986) explains the legacy left by the prolific author, "the enormous body of literature that today surrounds and even threatens to obscure Gramsci's work is sufficient proof that his legacy has been and continues to be 'to be recognized and appreciated'. Barett (2012) also pays tribute to Gramsci: his approach to ideology, his theory of hegemony, his vision of the role of intellectuals, his insistence on the importance of tactics and persuasion and his attentiondetailed to the question of culture and everyday politics. culture, have all been taken up with enthusiasm by a generation tired of the rules and moralizing precepts of the Marxist-Leninist and Labor lefts. (p. 235) Before Gramsci, the idea of ​​hegemony generally referred to the predominance of one nation over others, this being military domination which is part of the concept, hegemony was also understood in terms of cultural prestige . The social democratic intelligentsia of the decades before the Russian Revolution added an economic aspect to the definition and quickly proposed the concept of class hegemony. Lenin further revolutionized the concept and defined it in more concrete and practical terms: he wanted hegemony of the proletariat not only over the tsarist forces but also over other class enemies, mainly the bourgeoisie. The Italian philosopher transformed the idea and "hegemony is now used to describe the intricacies of power relations in many different fields, from literature, education, film and cultural studies to political science, history and international relations (Ives, 2004). Most importantly, Gramsci saw hegemony as a tool for forming and organizing consent. The reason Gramsci took the intellectual world of Marxism by storm is because he advanced and refined both the ideas of “ideology” and “hegemony” espoused by classical Marxists. He achieved this by replacing and adding the concept of ideological epiphenomenalism and class reductionism. Ideological epiphenomenalism in the Marxist sense refers to a direct relationship between the ideological superstructure and the economic superstructure. Not only did he reject class reductionism, but as Ives (2004) explains, "unlike other Marxists who omitted the importance of culture and non-economic aspects of society, Gramsci provided a representation much broader social and cultural aspect of modern society. Laclau (2005) further distinguishes between Gramsci and classical Marxists: “Gramscianism represents “a crucial epistemological break” within Marxism because it “breaks decisively with the essentialist social logic [of traditional Marxism].” According to Gramsci's predecessors, both the ruling class and the working class would have an ideology, but "the ideology was designed to have a class character and was seen as playing no significant role in social and revolutionary dynamics" ( Ramos, 1982). Gramsci grants a more formal and more powerful role to ideology and according to him, it is a “practice which produces subjects”, it is also a battlefield or a ground of struggle (Woolcock, 1985). Language has been important to social theory and philosophy for a long time, not only Gramsci but "some of the most influential social and political theorists of the 20th century have been interested in language: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Ferdinand de Saussure, Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida , Michel Foucault, Jürgen Habermas and Noam Chomsky”. (Ives, 2004). As mentioned previously, many scholars have taken notice of Gramscian concepts, notably the idea of ​​hegemony which has become a focal point for cultural theorists. Linguistics scholars also noticed this and were quickly seduced by the relationship between language and hegemony, more precisely by the use of language to convey the ideas of the ruling class. Marx and Engels posited that “the ideas of the ruling class are the dominant ideas in every age” (Marx and Engels, 1968). For critical linguists and their successors, language was not only the vehicle to.