• Mohammad Esmaeil Sheykhani
  • Ebrahim Fayaz
  • Ahmad Naderi



Abstract. Few studies examine the relationship between critical discourse, linguistics, and cinema; applying
micro- and macro-linguistic analysis as a method leading to defamiliarization of the natural discourse of a film. This study aims to analyze the nature of critical discourse and linguistics’ attitude toward cinema, based on which it can be concluded that in cinema, signs in form of critical discourse analysis have significant positions and are defined in relation to other signs of that individual discourse. Signs, which are considered to be central points, are defined differently by other discourses after they are recognized for the first time. Therefore, it is possible to find out the competitions occur in determining the meaning. These competitions are detected through methods of rival discourses, which fixed contents into floating signifiers. Considering the critical comparisons in rival discourses, it can be concluded that each group, based on its specific approach, tries to define the central points and breaksdown the structures of those signs in the rival discourses.
Keywords: Discourse, Cinema, Central Signifier, Sign.


Afrashi, A. (2005).StructuralAnalysis of Semiotic Layers of Spiritual Cinema. Tehran: Binab Magazine, No. 9


Arnheim, R. (1997). Film Essays and Criticism. University of Wisconsin Press.

Berger, A. A. (2000).Media Analysis Techniques. (P. Ejlali, Trans.).Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance,

Publication Center.

Elsaesser, T. (2004).A Review of Linguistic SemiologicalStudies of Cinema. (F. Sasani, Trans.). Tehran: SooreMehr.

Fairclough, N. (2000). Critical Discourse Analysis. (Motarjeman Group, Trans.). Tehran: Media Research Institute.

Foucault, M. L'Archéologie du Savoir [The Archeology of Knowledge] (A. Sheridan, Trans. 117.

Hawarth, D. R. Discourse Theory, and Political Analysis. (Soltani., Trans.). Political Science 2, 155.

Homayounpour, S. (2004).The Representation of Women in Iranian Cinema before and after Revolution (1979)

(Master’s Thesis). Faculty of Art, Alzahra University.

Hosseini Zadeh, M. A. Discourse Theory, and Political Analysis. Political Science 28, 182.

Jorgensen, M., Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. (H. Jalili., Trans.).

Laclau, E. and Chantal, M. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.

London: Verso.

Manouchehri, A. (2008). Approach and Method in Political Science. 1 st ed. Tehran: SAMT.

Marsh, D., Stoker, G. Theory and Methods in Political Science. (A. M. Haji Yousefi., Trans.), 207.

Moghadami, M. T. (2011). Laclau and Mouffe's Discourse Analysis Theory and Its Criticism. Marefatefarhangi,


Stam, R. (2004). Film Theory: An Introduction. (Motarjeman Group, Trans.). Tehran: SooreMehr.

Tajik, M. R. Text; Simulacrum and Discourse analysis. Gofteman, 1(1).

Van Dijik, T. (2001).Multidisciplinary CDA: A Plea for Diversity.In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer, eds., Methods of

Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.