A Critical Discourse Analysis of a Selected Non-Governmental Organizations’ Report on Violence against Women in Iraq

Abstract

Violence against women stands as one of the most dominant human rights violations. There are no social, economic, or national boundaries when it comes to violence against women. It is estimated that one in three women in the world will experience physical or sexual abuse at some point in their lives. Several non-governmental organizations’ reports have addressed the problem of violence against women in Iraq. Thus; the current study provides a critical analysis of the discursive techniques that are employed in the non-governmental organizations’ reports to show how Iraqi women are abused and subject to violence. Consequently; this study focuses on the linguistic and ideological underpinnings of a selected text on violence against women in Iraq. It attempts to show how language produces and maintains domination and abuse of power, engendering injustice, inequality, and ideological viewpoints. To answer this, the researchers draw upon van Dijk’s (2011) socio-cognitive approach and (2000) ideological analysis. The findings of the study have revealed that the non-governmental organizations’ report attempts to reflect the ideological position of the non-governmental organizations towards the Iraqi government, which declared its rejection of violence against women through its constitution and Panel Code. Despite this, the researchers have found that there is no actual adoption of these provisions in reality in its social context. Accordingly; the report has depended heavily on authority and evidentiality to show power relations and through the construction of reality based on societal perspectives. Using the linguistic and discoursal strategies employed in the analysis; the researchers have found that the report has materialized a negative attitude towards the government and society by referring to the power dominance which is exercised by social groups