From D.A. to C.D.A. – what’s the difference?
Fairclough is critical of D.A. because:
it ignores social/political aspects of questions (and it isn’t
really trying to explain the cause)
conversation among equals is a concept that is rarely, if
ever, true
background knowledge can hide ideological issues (and we
can observe that shared knowledge is highly excluding)
there is an obsession with goals (theory of the subject)
in general there is a neglect of power relations, and yet these
are almost ever-present
texts actually require micro-analysis (i.e. mainly linguistic)
and macro-social analysis (and each should inform the other)
For Fairclough, we cannot forget ideology –
“meaning in the service of power”
this is often located in the unsaid (silently reaffirmed)
the norms of interaction can be ideological (e.g. turn-taking)
power can order discourse and re-create dominance
meanings in texts can gain stability through social practices
(Bourdieu) – this is important for us as linguists
recontextualisation: the forming, production, reproduction
and transformation of social power relations
