New Developments in Discourse Analysis:

Discourse äs Social Practice

Luisa Martin Rojo

Abstract
This paper presents a reflection on current approaches to discourse. As a
starting point, I consider the emergence and transformation of this field, äs a
result of and also äs a contribution to two consecutive and linked movements in
western thinking: the 'linguistic turn', and 'social reflexivity'. Among their
implications, I study the emergence of a three-dimensional concept of dis-
course, shared by current trends in DA, in particular, by Ethnomethodological
Conversation Analysis, Sociolinguistic Ethnography and Interactional Socio-
linguistics, Discursive Social Psychology, and Critical Discourse Analysis. For
all these trends, this new complex view of discourse always encompasses the
conceptualisation of discourse äs a social practice. However, some differences
can be detected among them; these are related to: i) the context they consider
relevant for the analysis; ii) the kind of relations they claim between the
discursive practices and other social practices, and iii), finally, the role they
attribute to discourse in the production of knowledge and in the exercise of
power.
At the end of the paper, I consider how, in critical discourse analyses (CDA,
including CL), the view of discourse äs social practice has led to a redeflnition
of the analytical task, deliberately turning the analysis itself into a social
practice. As a result of this, the analysis has two aims: to explore the social
effects of discourses, in the performance but also in the representation of social
practices; and to intervene in the present socio-discursive order — that is to
intervene in the production, circulation, and reception of discourses. I present
this both äs related to the reflexive turn, and also to the positions adopted in the
debates previously analysed.

FoliaLinguisticaXXXV/1-2 0165-4004/01/35-41 52.-

(C) Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin — Societas Linguistica
Brought to youEuropaea
by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
1. Introduction
This paper reflects upon some developments I consider most significant in the
current approaches to discourse. This account focuses on the development of
particular concepts, objects, theoretical models, and techniques; that is on the
emergence of particular 'discursive formations', on the notion of discourse, and
on the raising of several theoretical problems and questions in this field. As
Foucault's concept of 'conditions of possibility' has shown, the relations be-
tween institutions, economic and social processes and behavioural patterns,
enable a particular object of study to appear, at a given time and place, and to
situate and define it in relation to other objects.1 It is, precisely, these relations
which are the focus of this paper: how discourse could emerge äs the object of
a field of knowledge, and äs the object of its discourses, and how within these
discursive formations, several related objects and their relations are shaped.
In this paper I consider the emergence and transformation of the field of
Discourse Analysis, äs a result, but also äs a contribution to two consecutive
and linked movements in Western thinking during the last decades of the XXth
Century: the 'linguistic turn' (understood äs the transformation of discourse and
language äs the main and determinant referent of the whole mental, repre-
sentative, and cognitive field); and the different presentations of 'reflexivity'.2
Thus, I try to show how both phenomena have played a significant role in the
development of particular views on discourse, in which social practices and
discursive practices appear äs inextricably linked.
Only an approach like this allows us to describe and explain the on-going
changes in this field. However, äs this is a too ambitious aim for a essay like
this, I am going to focus on the emergence of a particular concept of discourse,
discourse äs social practice. However, äs this particular view is shared by dif-
ferent new approaches, in the last part of this paper I focus mainly on one of the
more lively and controversial current trends, Critical Discourse Analysis. The
reason for this choice lies in the importance of the 'reflexive turn' here, given
that the view of discourse äs social practice has involved a redefinition of the
analytical task, deliberately turning the analysis itselfinto a social practice.
Thus, firstly, in this paper I examine the implications of the 'linguistic turn'
and reflexivity (section 2), and how both phenomena have contributed to the
emergence of new conceptions of discourse (see section 3). In section 4, I
examine the different current trends that share this view on discourse, showing
their similarities and divergences. And finally, in section 5,1 focus on how this
new view of discourse underlies and explains some of the most important
features of current research. In particular, the concern about the social and
political consequences of discourse analysis, and the increasing involvement of
analysts in some kind of 'discursive Intervention', by means of the development
of an 'interventional' social and political analysis. Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date
2. The emergence and transformation of the field
The 'linguistic turn' seems to have been, at the same time, part and condition of
the emergence of the new and interdisciplinary field of discourse analysis. In
this sense, the same epistemological steps which have contributed to place
language äs the main and determinant referent of the whole mental, represen-
tative, and cognitive fields, have contributed to make possible the study of
discourse. Among these contributions, there are two which stand out: the
rejection of the view of language äs a 'mirror of mind', and the correlative view
of mind äs a 'mirror of nature ('reality')', which accurately reflects the relations
in the objective world, and in which concepts are merely considered internal
reflections of external realities. Only by rejecting the idea that 'speaking is
uttering ideas' ('prononcer des idees'3), can language be understood äs a System
and äs a structure of representation, which has its own units, whose meaning is
established by their Opposition inside this structure and not by the relationships
with a non-linguistic reality.4
The rejection of the view of language äs a mirror of nature opens modern
thinking (it is considered by Foucault: seuil du classicisme ä la moderntte',
1966: 315), and necessarily entails the involvement and consideration of the
5
Speaker and her/his point of view. The view of discourse äs mediated repre-
sentation cannot be separated from the study of subjectivity: the agent of the
representation becomes part of the picture.6 And it is, precisely, by means of the
reflection on the interdependence between things and representations (discourses),
that the relations between discourse and the production of knowledge arise, and
the final consequences of this incorporation of the subject into discourse are
drawn (Foucault, 1969; see, also Martin Rojo & Gabilondo Pujol, 2002).
A second finding which plays a key role in 'linguistic turn', and at the same
time in the formation of DA field, is the fact that the interest in language
becomes mainly focused on the intersection between saying (or signifying) and
doing, offering a novel conception of praxis.7 In this sense, the 'game meta-
phor', which shapes Wittgenstein's new conceptualisation of language and of its
role in human life, expresses and leads to the understanding of language and its
description äs a social practice. Certainly, signification is placed in the context
of social practices: the activity in which participants are engaged is linguistic
communication, and — äs the game analogy shows — communication is a
matter of the players' response to each other's moves in accordance with the
rules of the game. In relation to this, the role of Ethnomethodology has also to
be highlighted, due to its understanding of casual exchanges in everyday
conversations äs social practices, that is, äs socially situated, and äs a recursive
and recurrent (re)construction and reproduction of social strucrures, and social
Organisation. As a consequence, conversations are also considered äs the basis
of still more elaborated and formalised uses of language.
Brought to you by | University
Authen
Download Date |
 This view of discourse is also deeply rooted in ethnographic approaches.
Thus, äs Duranti (1988) notices, speaking is considered a human labour, and
one of the most powerful forms of cooperative behaviour. The goal of the
research is, then, to study discourse within the interactional, institutional, and
the socio-cultural and cognitive context (this entails the study of how discourse
is produced and structured, not only linguistically, but also socially, and the
relationship between both these dimensions).
As a consequence, some clear links between these new assumptions about
language and discourse, and some features of the current field of DA, can be
established. Certainly, the fact that discourse becomes an object of study in
Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology, explains the proliferation of different ap-
proaches. At the same time, all these approaches have produced knowledge
about discourse, allowing interdisciplinarity within this field.8 Secondly, new
understandings of discourse are part of the 'linguistic turn', and at the same
time give place to present definitions of discourse in current approaches (see
section 3). Finally, the knowledge produced about discourse and, in particular,
the rejection of the view of discourse äs a mirror of mind, and the adoption of
the view of discourse äs a social practice, are clearly linked and explain the
emergence of some objects of study, and the raising of particular theoretical
Problems in the field. In particular, the understanding of discourse äs a social
practice raised for debate the definition of what should be considered the rele-
vant context of the analysis, and also the constitutive role of discourse and its
relationships with other social practices. However, the referred view of dis-
course äs a mediated representation gave rise to the pervasive discussion about
the role of discourse in the production of knowledge and in the exercise of
power (see section 4).
Besides the linguistic turn, I also want to emphasise the role played by
reflexivity in the configuration of this field. Certainly, there are different
understanding of reflexivity (see Garcia Seigas, 1999). Thus, I am not trying to
cover all of the possible meanings of this term, or to examine the different
proposals. I am just trying to show up some significant links: (i) between the
fact that we live in societies which more and more reflexively monitor their
discursive practices, and some developments in DA; and (ii) the links between
reflexivity and some theoretical and methodological problems in DA.
It is certainly true that current developments in DA rely on reflexivity in
many different ways. Firstly, due to the fact that, through analysts' discourses,
and by means of a reflexive and meta-discursive process, discourse becomes the
object of a field of study. Secondly, because a form of constitutive reflexivity
(in the sense pointed by Woolgar, 1988:19-23) is present in DA approaches.
This form entails that it is understood that, in any act of representation, there is
an intimate interdependence between the representation and the object repre-
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date
sented or studied. However, in this paper I am going to limit myself to the link
I observe between the fact that social actors reflexively monitor what they do/
say, and some developments in Discourse Analysis.
In fact, Speakers observe and act on their own discourses and commu-
nicative practices, guided by the knowledge produced by the observation, that is
through the Schemas of (ethno)social science. Thus, we can say that Speakers
not only reflexively monitor what they do/say, but that this is an intrinsic part of
what it is that they do/say (see Giddens, 1987: 215, for the implications of these
concepts). Nowadays, it is possible to find many examples of how subjects of
observation seem to be aware of the process of observation carried out by
linguists and discourse analysts, and also how they use the knowledge produced
through it in the observation of their own communicative practices.9 Thus,
discourse analysis, which, in principle, studies and reflects discourses produced
in society, also influences and modifies them, and even constitutes them.
Discourse analysts' awareness of this process, called 'social reflexivity\
explains their concern for the consequences of the analysis, and also gives rise
to critical and engaged approaches in this field (this is evident in the rigorous
theoretical grounding of CDA, carried out by Chouliaraki and Fairclough,
1999).
Furthermore, äs discourse analysts, we also find that informants notice,
during the research process, that they are being observed, and they are interested
in participating and even in intervening in the results of the research. As a
result, the consequences of research are taken into account, not only by (the)
observers but also by their informants (see Lamo de Espinosa, 1990: 57; and
especially Callejo Gallego, 1999, and Woolgar, 1988: 14-35). I will refer to this
special instance of social reflexivity äs 'empiricalreflexivity'ifollöwing Callejo
Gallego, 1999: 3). As a result, there is a continuous interplay between the
observer and the observed, and an interaction of knowledge. Discourse Analysis
seems to experience what can be understood äs a 'reflexive turn' (äs Sociology
has done before), and that entails not only the consideration of observation äs a
reflexive act but also the description of Speech communities which are in-
creasingly reflexive.
Many examples of this reflexive turn can be provided. In fact, this was the
case, for example, in my research on Parliamentary discourses about im-
migration in Spain, in which after analysing several debates the results have
been read and found useful by some of the politicians observed. As a
consequence of this reading, Speakers have modified some of their linguistic
preferences and discursive strategies (see Martin Rojo, 2000). Apparently, they
have not introduced new practices, but reinforced, now reflexively, some lexical
choices already present in their discourse, such äs the rejection of terms, like
1
inmigrante\ and the preference for the name, ipersona>. As one of these
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
Speakers said, she is now aware to what extent this term responds to the kind of
policies she is defending in the Spanish parliament (social policies instead of
control ones). In consequence, in my current observation of Parliamentary
discourses, I have to face new linguistic choices and strategies, which are not
casual, but, at least in pari, the result of the Speakers' increasing awareness of
discourse implications and of their reflection produced by previous research.
Examples of empirical reflexivity also appear frequently, in our interdis-
ciplinary research on models of management and gender. In this case, in-
formants' involvement in gender controversies increases their participation, and
explains some attempts to get their views and interests represented. In par-
ticular, we find that in order to build a positive image of their companies, and
in consequence, of themselves, sexism in selection and promotion, and in the
culture of the Organisation, is always denied (see Martin Rojo/Gomez 2001;
Gomez, Callejo & Martin Rojo, 2000, and Gonzalez, Solagaistua and Perez-
Montero, 2000). As a result, a continual feedback between the analyst and the
informants takes place. Thus, äs Callejo points out, reflexivity simultaneously
involves social processes, research fields and projects, and also research
techniques (Callejo Gallego, 1999: 1). And in relation to DA, I consider it to be
an important Stimulus for the emergence and the consolidation of the field.
This reflexive turn seems also to be connected with the proliferation of the
attempts to guide and intervene in the way social actors act on their own
discourses. In fact, in women's magazines, in linguistic guide-lines, and even in
academic texts, we often find not only the assumption that Speakers are
interested in monitoring their discourses and communicative practices, but also
the assumption that they need to be provided with some lines and recom-
mendations for that.10 Hence, the observation of how social actors monitor the
production of discourses seems both to explain and give rise to an 'inter-
ventional goaP. These attempts are often attested in the last decades, especially
in codifications of linguistic practices, guidelines, and linguistic policies for
affirmative action, non-discriminatory language, and against linguistic ex-
clusion both in the political domain and in curricula. Institutions, social
movements, political organisations, scholars are the agents of these discursive
interventions. As Deborah Cameron (1995) shows, Verbal Hygiene plays a key
role in current societies. However, what makes possible and encourages
interventions in discourse production, circulation, and reception is, precisely,
the fact that social actors reflexively monitor what they say and do; otherwise
this kind of attempt would be completely inapplicable and irrelevant.
Frequently, scholars have been involved in these actions: firstly, socio-
linguists intervening in the discursive order through some recommendations to
avoid sexism and androcentrism, and later, discourse analysts. It is certainly
true that, in the case of Interactional Sociolinguisitcs (particularly, Gumperz),
Brought to you by | University
Authen
Download Date |
critical approaches (such äs Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), including
Critical Linguistics;11 but also in the French tradition), researchers' concern
about the social consequences of research, and particularly the interventional
goal, has played a really significant role in the configuration of the field. It is
precisely in CDA where the awareness of social reflexivity becomes a sig-
nificant Stimulus for research. In fact, when researchers deal with everyday and
dominant discourses, it is not only due to a theoretical or political position. We
recognise a theoretical purpose, for example, in the study of what Speakers
really say and what they really do through discourse. Such a political stance
could be related to the will to participate in social and correlative linguistic
conflicts, such äs in actions against sexism (which is an acknowledged goal in
Sociolinguistics). However, in this case, the aim is also to increase Speakers'
awareness and concern about the social and personal consequences of dis-
courses and of the social representations they convey, that is to increase social
reflexivity. Furthermore, the goal is also to provide tools for self-analysis or
Instruments to guide Speakers if they want to monitor their discourses. This is
explicitly pointed out in the previous Statement of Fowler et al.'s inaugural book,
Language and Control: "we believe that the apparatus (of discourse analysis
presented in the book) is simple and consistent enough to be applied by non-
linguists in a 'do-it-yourself' critical linguistics of texts which interest them
professionally or personally" (1979: 5). Here the assumption that social actors
can reflect and act on their own discursive practices, guided by the knowledge
produced about these practices by Discourse Analysis, encourages and defines
the work of the analyst.
The underlying assumption is, äs we have already seen, that these analyses
can help to change attitudes and values, and to spread new views and repre-
sentations.12 The analysis then becomes a social practice in itself. However, in
that case, the reception of the analysis outside academic circles becomes
indispensable. And in fact, we see how more and more observers are aware of
and search for the attention of the subject under investigation. In the following
section I will focus on this question, because the present trends in DA differ in
the divergent stances taken in relation to that possible 'Intervention'.
Thus, the 'reflexive turn' reinforces the conceptualisation of discourse äs a
social practice, socially situated and with social implications (see section 3). It
is possible to consider, äs Giddens (1984) does, that if social agents reflect and
act on their discursive practices it is because they are recursive and recurrent
practices, socially regulated, but not mechanically reproduced, äs we will see in
the next section. However, what is more significant is the fact that 'social re-
flexivity' is now perceived by discourse analysts äs being important. This
awareness increases the analysts' concern about the effects of their research,
and opens the way to different attempts to produce a particular impact, to
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
modify or intervene in discursive practices. Because of this consideration of the
effects, a particular understanding of the relationship between discourse,
knowledge, and power becomes reinforced (see 4), and specific aims and tools
for the analysis are developed (see section 5).

3. Discourse äs a social practice

One of the reasons for my interest in the conceptualisation of discourse äs a
social practice is that it could be considered äs one of the last Steps in a 'process
of objectivization'. By means of this process, complex and three-dimensional
definitions of discourse have emerged (van Dijk, 1997: 1-37; Fairclough
1992a). And, also äs a result of this complexity, discourse has become the object
of a field of knowledge, which cannot be easily located within linguistics,
psychology or sociology. This is a clear example of how new emerging research
fields cannot be located within one traditional academic discipline; in fact, the
strict divisions imposed by these are harmful for research.
In a previous paper (Martin Rojo, 2001), I tried to sketch the development
of the different notions of discourse, focusing on a process of defmition of this
concept, by means of which we are moving forward from a fuzzy notion of
discourse to a complex and multidimensional view which demands a new cross-
discipline. In that paper I examined the contribution of consecutive views on
the concept of discourse, and also on the common-sense notion of 'discourse',
äs an enrichment of this concept.13 This review has involved the observation of
the gap between the use of the term in everyday language and some of the
current uses in academic disciplines, but also the study of the gap in several
uses in the academic field, following Hodge's analysis of the different and
embracing meanings developed by this term (1984).
As a result of this process of objectivisation of discourse, a multi-
dimensional concept has been developed, which brings together at least three
analytical traditions: discourse äs textualpractice; äs a discursive practice; and
äs a social practice. The term ''practice' refers to a set of rules that are imma-
nent in a practice, and define it in its specificity: (i) äs a text, that is, äs a
semantic and informational unit; (ii) äs a discursive practice, that is, äs a
process of discursive production and consumption, shaped by the nature of the
social activity of which it forms pari, linking both action and context; (iii) and,
finally, äs a social practice, that is, äs a mode of action, shaped by social
structures, which has also significant social implications. This means that it is
socially valued and regulated (in its production, reception and circulation).
In this paper, I focus on this last view, discourse äs a social practice,
which is shared by the more dynamic current trends in Discourse Analysis. In
spite of this shared definition, current trends focus on different aspects, and do
not consider all of them equally relevant. Thus, many divergences
Broughtand to
different
you by | University
Authen
Download Date |
points of view are revealed: while ACD predominately focuses on how social
structures shape discourse, and on social implications (the relationship between
discourse and knowledge, and discourse power), Interactional Sociolinguistics,
but particularly the AC, focus on the nature of the action and on the internal
dynamics of the interaction. The study of these divergences seems to be
particularly interesting and elucidating to fix the theoretical questions, which
still remain controversial and open to further developments. We will explore
their implications later on (see section 4).
In order to assess the real dimension of this question, we have to examine
the theoretical implications of the view of discourse äs a social practice. Firstly,
the understanding of discourse äs a social practice presupposes the implicit/
explicit presence of an agent (speaker) who performs these practices; and,
secondly, it places social practices äs the main focus of interest for DA. In this
respect, the role of Ethnomethodology has to be highlighted because of its
consideration of the rational account of conversational practices to be highly
significant for an understanding of social conduct, but also due to the pro-
cedures, methods and techniques appropriately performed by social agents (the
same view äs skilful procedures appropriately performed, can be found, but
extended to all social practices, in Giddens, 1984: 20.-22).
However, in current developments in DA — particularly, in CDA, but also
in Ethnographie and Interactional Sociolinguistics —, the influence of posterior
reconceptualisations of social practices operated by contemporary trends in
Sociology could also be found in Giddens' and Bourdieu's proposals. Both
authors understand social practices äs a recursive and recurrent recreation and
reproduction of society (social Systems, structures, institutions, collective social
agents, and individuals). And, in consequence, social practices become a
primary locus to observe the inseparable link between social actions and struc-
tures and the main object of social analysis. This reconceptualisation allows the
overcoming of the dualism between actions and structures. As Chouliaraki and
Fairclough (1999: Ch.2) remark, positions like these allow the transcending of
the Opposition between 'interpretativist' and 'structuralist' social science, and
open a way of seeing and researching social life äs both constrained by social
structures, and an active process of production which transforms social
structures. Thus, this view also allows to overcome the Opposition between
social determinism (social structures constraining social/discursive practices)
and socio-constructivism (social/discursive practices äs active processes of
production, reproduction and transformation of social structures). 'Con-
structivist structuralism' (see Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992) is, precisely, the
dominant position in CDA.
The simultaneous acknowledgement of both dimensions, the reproductive
dimension (social/discoursive practices constrained by social structures), and
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date
the constructive dimension (social/discoursive practices äs an active process of
production and reproduction of social structures), äs stressed by Giddens, is
framed in bis theory of the duality of structure: "...to enquire into the
structuration of social practices is to seek to explain how it comes about that
structures are constituted through action, and reciprocally how action is
constituted structurally" (1987: 164). In Bourdieu, the concepts ofhabitus and
ßeld explain this reproductive and creative capacity. The habitus is a set of
dispositions, which compel agents to act and react in certain ways. Thus
dispositions generate practices (perceptions and attitudes), which reproduce
social structures, but not mechanically (Bourdieu, 1991: 159). Bourdieu pro-
poses that the social world exists not only in symbolic Systems, but also in
objective structures which are independent from the agents' conscience and
will, and which also Orient' and 'constrain' their actions and representations.
At the same time, bis proposals are based on a constructivism which presumes
a social genesis of habitus, structures, fields and social groups — social
classes —; however, this genesis appears äs supported by a pre-existent socially
constructed reality (see Gomez, 1996; and also Garcia Seigas, 1994).
The simultaneous acknowledgement of both dimensions also gives rise to
the analysis of the social implications of discourses. What seems to be at stake
is to what extent discourse is constrained and determined by social structures,
but at the same time, to what extent discourse can contribute to build up,
reproduce, maintain, reinforce, but also to question and challenge, a particular
Status quo, social order, or social relationships.
Finally, this conceptualisation of discourse means the insertion of the agent,
äs producer/producing these practices. This insertion could be related to
reflexivity, and it is, precisely, Giddens, who more clearly highlights this re-
lationship, attributing to social practices two basic characteristics, recursivity
and reflexivity. Recursivity implies, according to Giddens, that social practices
are continuously recreated by social agents; by the same means they usually
express themselves äs social actors (1984: 3). This recreation is understood äs
a routine, but not äs a mere mechanical reproduction, and it appears in Giddens
theory äs being closely linked to agents' competence and to reflexivity.
Reflexivity is understood äs a linguistic and conceptual capacity that "in turn is
possible only because of the continuity of practices that makes them dis-
tinctively 'the same' across space and time", and which allows human beings to
monitor the ongoing flow of social life" (1984: 3; see also 1987: 77).14
Considering agents' competence and reflexivity, new developments in
discourse analysis appear. However, while some of them are interested in
discovering the 'mutual knowledge' shared by agents or, like Conversational
Analysis, others, like Interactional Sociolinguistics, Discursive Psychology and
CDA, taking into account social reflexivity, are interested in showing the
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
creative and reproductive power of discursive practices. In this case, the analysis
focusses on how discourse can contribute to build up, reproduce, maintain, and
reinforce social representations, ideologies, and social identities. Finally, critical
approaches are also interested in increasing social reflexivity. Thus, it is easier
to understand how and why Discourse Analysis in itself becomes a social
practice (see section 5). These divergent positions imply the assumption of dif-
ferent positions in relation to different theoretical problems.

4. Current trends in Discourse analysis

In this section, I am going to limit myself to those trends, which are directly
involved in the development of the concept of discourse äs a social practice,
that is: Conversation Analysis (particularly, Schegloff's approach), Critical
Discourse Analysis (including diiferent views and developments), and finally
Discursive Social Psychology (in the line of Wetherell, Potter, and Billig —
authors who also adopt the term 'critical' to refer to their approach). And, äs a
necessary complement, I am going to refer on several occasions to Inter-
actional Sociolinguistics and Sociolinguistic Ethnography.15 With respect to
this approach, however, in this paper I will only make reference when necessary
without going in details. At the moment, many authors are in the process of
clarifying points of agreement and disagreement between this perspective and
CDA, and äs a consequences it is not possible for me to have a clear picture
(see, for instance, Blommaert et al. 2001). Besides this, in my work I have
always combined the two perspectives, which means I find it very difficult to
see them in Isolation.
In this section I focus also on the issues in which these approaches differ. In
particular, I take into account divergences in relation to: i) the context they
consider relevant for the analysis; ii) the kind of relations they claim between
the discursive practices and other social practices; iii) the role they attribute to
discourse in the production of knowledge; and iv) in the exercise of power (for
an overview of the several theoretical debates and exchanges among these
approaches, see, for instance, Discourse & Society, 8; 9(3); 9(4), and Critique
of Anthropology 21(2)). Unfortunately, it is difficult to establish these dif-
ferences without some simplifications. Certainly, inside each approach, every
author differs from others. For instance, inside CDA, we find many differences
between a cognitive approach, äs in van Dijk's work, or a more sociological one,
äs in Fairclough's, while in Discursive Psychology, Potter seems to be closer to
AC than to CDA. We have to bear in mind that today the dominant tendency is
to combine and enrich different approaches, and in consequence it is difficult to
find pure CDA analysis or pure CA. From now on, I focus on the theoretical
problems that underlie divergences such äs these.
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date
 The relevant contextfor the analysis
In relation to this question, different positions can be outlined. In fact, this is
one of the most controversial points in the debate held in Discourse & Society
(8:165-187; 9 (3): 413-417; 9(4): 558-571; 577-582) by Emanuel Schegloff,
Margaret Wetherell and Michael Billig, and it also plays a key role in the
criticisms of critical approaches. This is summarised in the title of Schegloff 's
first paper in this debate: "Whose text? whose context?".
The view of discourse äs a social practice, situated in a given time and
place, immediately raises this theoretical problem. As Goodwin and Duranti
(1992: 3) show, the consideration of context äs a frame that surrounds the event
being examined and which provides resources for its appropriate Interpretation
(Goffinan, 1974), raises a number of questions involved in the determination of
what can be considered the 'relevant context'. Thus, every approach in DA
considers that context shapes discursive practices. What is at stake is how to
determine the aspects, which have to be evoked in the analysis in order to
explain and Interpret discursive practices. Using Bateson's metaphor of the
blind person who walks across the city and finally sits down to eat his/her lunch
(1972: 459), these authors show that what analysts seek to describe in this case
is not the map of the city through which this person is navigating but his/her
perception of space and how s/he organises the events and the Situation s/he
faces.
In relation to this, conversation analysis from an ethnomethodological
perspective would regard äs essential to capture the procedures by which
participants conduct their social life solely from the behaviour of the parti-
cipants in these circumstances. Thus, the analysis has been developed äs a
naturalist program of research on interactions, "naturally occurring and un-
contaminated by the Intervention from the researchers" (Heritage, 1987: 258).
The ethnomethodological principle that the perspective of the participants
should be the point of departure for the analysis is generally shared by all the
current trends in DA. However, we can observe differences in its understanding.
We have to bear in mind that the context within which something has occurred
is multiple, äs it includes endogenous and exogenous factors which overlap and
which are mutually shaped. This multiplicity and complexity is not always
evoked nor considered by participants during a specific interactional event. In
fact, several aspects are taken for granted, not explicitly mentioned and
considered in a particular conversational moment or even interaction but, in
spite ofthat, they are still influential. And, äs Bourdieu and other authors note,
social agents in their participation in conversations assume points of view and
interest, which are determined by their social position in a world that they want
to transform or maybe to maintain, and where they have often to face unwanted
consequences (Bourdieu, 1988: 129, 133).
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
 Consequently, current trends focus on different aspects, and do not consider
all of them equally relevant. Thus, the first point of disagreement among the
different perspectives is the selection of the contextual elements that should be
considered relevant. Hence, relevant context is shaped by the specific activities
being performed at that moment. Furthermore, the socio-historical knowledge
employed by participants to act within these actions and institutions has to be
described if the analysis wants to provide an adequate account of the context
(walking in the city requires social and cultural knowledge: public and privates
areas, cars and pedestrians areas).
Schegloff disagrees with these inclusive moves, and Claims that it is
precisely and exclusively the perspective of the participants whose behaviour is
being analysed which should be taken not only äs the point of departure but äs
the only scope of the analysis. And, for this author, the breaking down of this
principle is precisely the main negative aspect of CDA. Furthermore, it is
denounced äs a kind of 'theoretical imperialism', or 'a kind of hegemony of the
intellectuals' (1997: 167), reconstructing, establishing or stipulating the terms
by reference by which the world is to be understood by participants. An example
of such imperialism would be the attempt to explain a particular discursive
feature, like students' lack of assertiveness in their requests for the marking of
their examinations to be revised, äs a feature of a powerless style, related to
their Status and to their position within the academic System. (See the analysis
presented in Whittaker and Martin Rojo, 1998). This kind of analysis, and the
reconstruction of the underlying representation of the Academic System, and
the ideologies involved, would be illegitimate for Schegloff, and would entail
the consideration of endogenous factors, that is, äs an effect of the predis-
position of critical analysts to relate everything to ideology and domination. In
order to show the consequences this position has in the development of a
particular kind of discourse analysis, I include an illustrative example in note
16, extracted from Schegloff (1997).16 (For other examples from Discursive
Psychology analysis, Interactional Sociolinguistics, and Pragmatics, see also
notes 17 and 21, respectively).
It is precisely the narrowed Interpretation made by some contributors in CA
of 'the Speakers' perspectives' and its commitment to it that is seen äs a
limitation by other approaches. However, some authors, like Michael Billig,
even question such commitment. Billig considers that in particular Schegloff's
CA, in order to find general structures of orderliness (like the orientation to
turn-taking), ignores other aspects which seem to be the main concern for
participants, like the topics discussed by them. The idea of a set of dispositions,
which compel agents to act and react in certain ways, reproducing social
structures and differences, but not mechanically (habitus), is not implied in this
case. In this sense, CA analysts not only impose their own terms, but also show
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
a clear preference for ordinary conversation and for analysing the turn-taking
System. As a result of these preferences and the correlative use of conventions
like A, B, C, to identify Speakers, the sociological categorisation of Speakers is
avoided — that is by their social Status, social class, or gender. However, this
procedure gives the impression that all participants are equal, but we can
immediately see that this procedure is also far frorn being ideologically neutral.
In the ordinary interaction the equality of opportunity is far from being common
(Billig, 1999; see also next section).
As a result, and äs Diaz (2000) notes, even by taking äs relevant phenomena
only those aspects considered relevant by the participants themselves, the
contradiction between academic discourse and everyday discourse is not
overcome. The analysis of criteria and procedures, and the analytical language
produced in an academic setting show that they would not be understandable by
participants.
In relation to this controversy, it is difficult to outline the position of
Discursive Psychology. Analysts like Wetherell have bitterly critized Schegloff's
position. In the previous example of students' requests for the revision of marks,
Wetherell would study the construction of subjectivity and intersubjectivity in
discourse. She would focus on variability, inconsistencies and contradictions,
placing these various positions within broader interpretative repertories
(habitual lines of argument comprised of themes, common places, tropes — see
the example by Wetherell, 1998: 399). (Note, that, like in the case of Schegloff,
an illustrative example of analysis is offered in note 17)17. These repertories are
like a black-cloth for the realisation of locally managed positions in actual
interactions, allowing Speakers to make sense in a particular context. Thus,
Speakers are oriented to them from the moment they talk about something, even
if arguments are not spelled out in detail. These repertories reveal the positions
adopted by Speakers, and make conversation possible. At the same time they
also reveal what positions, knowledge and views are available to social actors in
a particular time and place (in this sense, this concept of repertories is close to
Foucauldian 'discursive formations').
However, the emphasis on the interest in the conditions of these repertories
becomes sometimes relegated. Potter's central axiom is that all discourses admit
an essential variability of readings, both in the Interpretation of discourses, and
in the production of discourses and representations. He also Claims that alterna-
tive versions are always possible, and that a particular Version arises in the light
of specific reading practices (Potter, 1988). This position dismisses the specific
links between sets of reading and particular social structures, time and places.
The socio-cultural and historical context is considered in a very limited way.
Often, in consequence, Discursive Social Psychology is mainly concerned with
the formation of subject positions, and the analysis focuses on "the formation
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
and negotiation of identities and interactional and intersubjective events"
through discourse (Wetherell, 1998: 405), and often through ordinary con-
versation (Potter, 1996).
In its turn, CD Analysis is the trend that places more emphasis on the socio-
cultural, and historical context, that is on aspects like social structure and social
relationships, focusing mainly on social identities, social group membership,
on gender and social class differences, and thus also on power differences
among participants. CDA approaches are based on theorising a concept of
"context" which takes into account four levels; the first one is linguistic, based
on the choice of a specific grammar, while the other three levels are part of our
social theories about context. As Wodak (2000) summarises them, these four
levels are: "(1) the immediate, language or text internal co-text, (2) the
intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between utterances, texts, genres
and discourses (discourse representation and allusions or evocations), (3) the
extra linguistic social/sociological variables and institutional frames of a
specific 'context of Situation' (Middle Range Theories) and (4) the broader
socio-political and historical context which the discursive practices are em-
bedded in and related to; that is to say, the fields of action and the history of the
discursive event äs well äs the history to which the discourse topics are related
(Grand Theories)" (see also Cicourel, 1992; Wodak, 1996).
We have to keep in mind that the delimitation of the relevant context made
by CA is consistent with its interest in revealing mutual knowledge, and social
routines, while CDA is interested in showing the creative and reproductive
power of discourses, and demands a broader context. CDA emphasises socio-
historical knowledge and the ideologies and values, which explain the
representations built within discourses. However, in this case, the emphasis on
how these representations are built up explains why the 'institutional' frame is
often relegated in CDA, and, äs a result, why a more ethnographic and
interactional approach is not attempted, äs I discuss in the next section.
Lastly, it seems that the necessary attention to the context should be
complemented with the understanding of interaction äs a dynamic process, and
the way in which this context is negotiated and built through interaction.
Gumperz calls this process 'contextualization', and it involves the use of 'con-
textualization cues' (verbal or non-verbal signs) to relate what is said in a given
Situation to the knowledge acquired, in order to guide and accomplish the
Interpretation. In this way, contextualization cues, which enter into the inferential
process18, serve to convey what the expectations of the interlocutor are, with
respect to what is being accomplished through communication; that is, to bring
cultural and other background knowledge into the interpretative process.
Van Leeuwen (1997) has also shown the multiplicity and shifting character
of the context and the concept through interaction. His concept of 'recontextua-
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
lization' confers the same dynamism on the construction of an interpretative
context through interaction. In this case, some knowledge is also evoked in
order to guide the understanding of the actions to which the discourse refers,
and the evaluation of them. Linguistic devices, like metaphors, allow this shift
of context. For instance, medical Jargon and metaphors in describing actions of
war contribute to present these actions äs curative (Martinez Vizcarrondo,
1999).

Discourse analysis in relation to other social practices

The relationship between discursive practices and other social practices has
been raised in the previous section due to some criticisms of current discourse
analysis. In this case, the trends we examine also have different positions in
relation to it. The understanding of discourse äs a privileged modality of social
conduct is shared by all these trends. However, clear disagreement emerges in
relation to the correlation between discursive practices and other social prac-
tices which have to be realised through discourses. Thus, for instance, if we
consider some current changes in court practices like the introduction of the
Jury in Spain, we will see immediately how this entails the production of new
discourses. (For instance, Professionals have to explain the whole process to the
Jury — see, particularly, Casanovas, 1998). Thus, these discourses are not only
a constitutive element of judicial interaction, but they also produce repre-
sentations of the Institution, their participants, their task, the Law and the
System in itself. As a result, these discourses are not only needed in order to
participate in institutional practices, but they could legitimise or question the
new System (for instance if citizens are not treated äs genuine and unques-
tionable participants). The question is then to determine to what extent dis-
course is a self-sufficient modality, and to what extent organisations are
reducible to discourses.
In the case of the CA, the analysis of discourses not ostensibly embedded in
any practical or institutional activity is often regarded äs the necessary Option
(with relevant exceptions, such a Drew's research in institutional context). This
opinion is derived from the consideration of everyday interaction äs 'the
primordial locus for sociability', and related to the limited phenomena and
context which are considered relevant for the analysis. In fact, the preference
for mundane, ordinary interaction rather than, for instance, an 'institutionalised'
one, is based on the idea that it represents a primary and primordial form of
interaction, but also an 'unmarked' form, sustained by peers (see Heritage,
1987: 258). Thus, äs Billig notices, this preference is supported by a misleading
assumption that institutional talk is marked by asymmetries of rights, while
ordinary interactions are equal and participatory (an often alleged counter-
example is, for instance, the interaction between men and women in the 'private
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date
sphere'). This assumption means the production of an egalitarian image of
everyday conversation, which in turn means taking a highly ideological step
(Billig, 1999: 553-554).
It seems that CDA has a more balanced position in relation to this. As
Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) note, discourse figures in two ways within
practices: "practices are partly discursive (talking, and writing, is a way of
action), but they are also discursively represented" (1999: 37). Such represen-
tations help sustain relations of domination within the practices, and then they
are ideological. Furthermore practices are articulated within networks of prac-
tices, and the particular relations they establish within can be conceptualised in
terms of the concept of hegemony: that is, äs struggles for closure, which always
give rise to resistance. In consequence, focusing on these practices "is a way of
mediating between abstract structures and concrete events, combining the
perspectives of structures and agency" (Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999: 38).
Thus, the analysis focuses on 'conjunctures' (cross-institutional assemblies of
practices around specific projects). As a result, CDA analysis does not pay less
attention to the description of concrete events (particularly, to the analysis of
the Institution), while efforts seem to be concentrated on incorporating relevant
aspects from the abstract structures in the understanding of texts.
As Fairclough and Wodak notice, from this trend, the understanding of
discourse äs a social practice "implies a dialectical relationship between a
particular discursive event and the situation(s), institution(s) and social struc-
ture(s) which frame it. As a dialectical relationship is a two-way relationship:
the discursive event is shaped by situations, institutions, and social structures,
but it also shapes them" (1997: 258). However, in spite of the balanced position
claimed in CDA, it is also true that the microanalysis of interaction is often not
accompanied by a detailed analysis of the practical activity in which the
production of discourse is embedded, that is by the micro-analysis of the
institutions and their performance. As a result, the analysis focuses on the
production of particular representations, and on their social implications. Thus,
CDA analysis shows a preference not only for a micro-analysis of how social
representation are built through discourse, but also for the analysis of the
broader socio-political and historical context which the discursive practices are
embedded in and related to. The institutional frames, on the other hand, are
often left out of the picture, and the analysis of the specific dynamic by which
discourse is produced through the tasks performed by participants is not always
assessed. It is precisely here, that ethnographic and interactional approaches
find a weak point in CDA — in Verschueren's words (2001), 'a gap between
analyses and conclusions'.
This Separation of discourse from object-oriented productivity, has been
criticised both in CA and in CDA, by ethnographic approaches. I found
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
particularly interesting Engeström's criticisms and proposals (1999), from a
cultural-historical activity theory, based on Leont'ev's concept of activity
System (1979, 198l).19 Certainly, an activity System analysis directs attention to
the intertwining of the instrumental-productive and influence-power aspects of
the production, circulation, and reception of discourse in organisations and
institutions. Thus, organisations are understood äs a "social collective, pro-
duced, reproduced and transformed through the ongoing, interdependent, and
goal-oriented comrmmication practices of its members" (Mumby & Clair,
1997). Among these practices, discursive practices are an expression of orga-
nisational structure, but also of the means by which Organisation members
create this structure and give coherence to everyday reality and practices.
One of the reasons why these aspects are not always taken into account is
that often it is impossible to cover all levels and aspects, and to show how they
interact. In the case of sociolinguistic, ethnographic and interactionist ap-
proaches, the analysis of the institutions and interactional practices is not always
accompanied by a better understanding of the ideological, political and
economic dimensions in which these discursive practices emerge. From a CDA
perspective, the study of discourse should not only give access to the study of
institutions and social practices, but also to the study of the social repre-
sentations which are produced through these practices, and to their social
implications. In order to do this, the analysis should focus on the interaction of
both dimensions. But, the result of this kind of analysis could entail dis-
regarding the institutional dimension. That could be the case, for example, in
our critical analysis of Speeches about Immigration in the Spanish Parliament,
in which we studied, on the one hand, how different ideologies, political
positions, Immigration policies, and even socio-economic transformations
shape these discourses, and, on the other, how these discourses either reinforce
or question particular views of this subject. Often, this analysis is only partially
situated within the context of parliamentary functions and regulations, and it is
not framed in an ethnographic analysis of the Institution and the communicative
patterns we find in it (Martin Rojo & van Dijk, 1997).
Thus, we adopted an 'etic perspective'. We analysed the representation of
migrants conveyed by these discourses within the framework of the social
practice. (For instance, the fact that Spain has only recently become a country
that receives immigrants, the fact that in the Spanish Parliament there are extre-
me right wing parties supporting explicitly and unmistakably racist positions,
etc.). But we paid less attention to interactional frames. However, only the
understanding of the political arena äs a fleld of struggle, where different views
of events and society confront each other, but also in which disagreements and
dialectical confrontations do not form a risk for the parliamentary System,
would be able to explain interactional dynamics and some of the particular
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date
features of these discourses. These features are related not only to the persuasive
aim but also to the essentially performative nature of parliamentary discourse:
the representation of the Situation of migrants and of the government policy in
an urgent inquiry is the basis and the justification required to present a motion
in the following session (Martin Rojo, 2000).
The evident criticism that "organisations are not reducible to fragments of
discourse" explains why attempts to merge an ethnographic and critical
perspectives are proliferating. In consequence, research, such äs Heller's (2000)
study of the creation of local school councils äs part of the Implementation of
neoliberal school reforms in Ontario, shows how both perspectives allow an
exploration of the relations between sites of discursive production and the
construction of ideological orientations in concrete socio-historical circum-
stances. (For similar remarks and research, see Wodak, 2000; Tuson &
Unamuno, 1999; Martin Rojo, 2001). All these proposals are, in fact, incor-
porating an emic perspective.
In fact, inside CDA, some proposals have been made in this direction,
aiming to have access to the performance of institutions during periods of socio-
political and ideological change, and to observe the interrelated changes
produced (for some outstanding examples of the analysis focused on insti-
tutional and discursive changes, see also Fairclough 1993 — in relation to the
'marketisation' of discourse in educational institutions —, and Martinez Viz-
carrondo's 1997 study of the new economy of discourse by State agencies and
media during the Gulf war). In relation to this, Ruth Wodak's discourse-
historical approach seems to be especially interesting. Her proposal of the
analyses of the historical dimension of discursive actions, exploring the ways in
which particular genres of discourse are subject to diachronic change (Wodak et
al., 1990; Wodak et al., 1994; Wodak, 1996), attempts to integrate much
available knowledge about the historical sources and the background of the
social and political fields in which discursive "events" are embedded. (For a
methodological reflection, see Wodak, 2000).
Discursive Social Psychology analysis seems to be more detached from the
institutional and socio-political context, especially in the more radical dis-
cursive approach, in which the relativist-constructionist perspective is strenger,
and the generative power of discourse is highlighted. When Potter Claims that
the world is more or less äs people represent it (Potter, 1996: 98), it is logically
expected that the analysis will focus on those representations. Variability is one
of the main features of those representations, and the socio-cultural context
seems to be understood just äs the frame which restricts and shapes these
variations, by allowing the configuration of some repertories and argumentative
lines. However, this approach can also be enriched by a more ethnographic
approach, like the Meeuwis (1997) study of the Zairian Community in Antwerp.
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
Discourse and knowledge
In connection with the relationship between discourse and knowledge, we have
already noticed that the view of discourse äs a social practice allows to over-
come the Opposition between social determinism (social structures constrain
the production, reception and circulation of discourses) and socio-construc-
tivism (discourses constitute active processes of production, reproduction and
transformation of social structures). In spite of this, the trends we are examining
often place the emphasis on one of the two sides of the process, and äs a result
diiferent positions and differences in the analyses arise.
In Discursive Social Psychology the dominant position is 'relativist con-
structionism' (the world is more or less äs people represent it, Potter, 1996:
98). This perspective emphasises the active process of the production of
discourses and their potential of production and transformation of social
realities, while dismissing the deterministic role of social structures. As a result,
the study focuses on the formation of interpretative repertories and Speakers'
ideological dilemmas. These repertories and dilemmas play a significant role in
the formation and negotiation of identities, äs well äs of interactional and
intersubjective events, through the situated flow of discourse. These inter-
pretative repertories are defined äs culturally familiär and habitual lines of
recognisable themes, common places and tropes (Potter & Wetherell, 1987;
Wetherell and Potter, 1988; 1992; Wetherell et al. 1987). Underlying this
concept, we find the generative power conferred on discourse by Foucault —
they are members' methods for making sense and managing the Speaker's
position in a particular interaction. And at the same time, we also perceive
Foucault's concept of conditions of possibilities — some repertories and some
constituents of these repertories become possible in a particular time and place.
In CA, however, the dominant position only seems to recognise the con-
structive potential of discourses in social routines. This potential is not studied
in the symbolic dimension, that is, social representations. In consequence, the
interest in discourse in terms of knowledge — that is in relation to how
discourse produces and displays knowledge —, seems to be limited to a
technical knowledge (know-how) of Speakers about how to develop social life
through conversation. The use of the term 'limited' could seem paradoxical
when we are, in fact, referring to this social competence, which explains how
actions are performed, and how agents could make sense of what others say and
do.20 However, we have to bear in mind that in CA this knowledge often seems
to be reduced to a technical conversational knowledge of how to interact in
ordinary situations (patterns of sequential Organisation, turn taking), without
taking into account other aspects, which are part of the socio-cultural, cognitive
and ideological context. This position is clearly linked to a view of social
reflexivity based on recursivity and agents' competence (mutual knowledge).
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date
 In the case of CA, the main interest is to reveal and study social agents' mutual
knowledge, which is manifested in recurrent discursive practices, and by means of
which agents make what they and others say and do intelligible. In CDA (and in
some approaches from critical discursive psychology), however, the relationship
between discourse and knowledge is seen from the power of construction and
reproduction of social structure and social order attributed to discourse.
Finally, in CDA a relatively balanced position seems to be dominant. This is
'constructivist structuralism' (see Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992; Chouliaraki
and Fairclough, 1999: Ch 2), which can be summarised in the following
sentences: "one cannot speak of anything at any time" (Foucault 1971: 44), and
discourses do things rather than merely represent things and events (also present
in Foucault's work). In consequence, the analysis focuses on the production of
discourses and knowledge, in relation to social structures and social effects. As
a result, the analysis not only explores the role of discursive practices within
social practices (discourse äs a way of acting in a particular context), but also
(even mainly) focuses on how discourses represent social practices, and what
the social consequences of such representation entail. With regard to know-
ledge, the question is to determine the representations which emerged, and to
explore the conditions of possibility, that is what makes possible a particular
understanding and Interpretation in a particular social Situation. Thus, changes
in the social position of women — for example, their presence in public life,
and their increasing independence and desire for change — have allowed the
emergence of particular discourses and repertories, denouncing, for example,
the prevalent androcentrism in the workplace. It is also considered that the
production and legitimation of these discourses have social implications. In
order to deal with all these aspects the analysis of discourses has to be extended
to the study of the social order of discourse: every discourse has a generative
power; however, from a social point of view not every discourse is equally
relevant (dominant discourse vs. minority). If the generative power of dis-
courses is socially monitored and controlled, the production and circulation of
these discourses would be also socially regulated and äs a result, some
discourses become silenced and some constantly reproduced.
For example, from a CDA perspective, in the case of doctor-patient inter-
action, the main concern of the analysis is not only to show how participants
know the rules and the aim of this kind of interaction. And it is not even to
show, äs Interactional Sociolinguistics does, how the relationships of power äs
well äs social distance are factors which are modulated, in the perception of the
subject, by social values, and turn to be negotiated through the interaction (for
example, see footnote 2l).21 The aim is also, in this case, to analyse the repre-
sentations of health and illness, which emerged through this interaction, and
how these representations are linked to the different social positions of the
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date
participants, and are rooted in a specific social structure and ideological con-
text. And, finally, this kind of analysis aims to study the extent to which the
maintenance and legitimisation of particular representation promotes or
questions the correlative maintenance of the Status quo. Thus, the question of
knowledge leads to the question of power.

Discourse and power

As we have already seen, several aspects of CA do not contribute to the
introduction of power asymmetries and domination process äs relevant phe-
nomena for the analysis (there are, äs always, exceptions). We have already
referred to the limitations in the definition of what is considered the relevant
context of the analysis, and also some analytical procedure already mentioned,
like the notation of participants äs equals, but not by mentioning their role in
the communicative event. As has been often noticed, even the choice of ordinary
and symmetrical conversations contributes to the dismissal of the signiflcance
of conflict and domination in everyday exchanges. It could, precisely, be the
opposite interest for these aspects showed by critical approaches that makes
Schegloif consider them äs ideologically biased.
Certainly, in CDA, the question of power is presented äs inseparable from
the question of knowledge, and even äs the main focus of interest of the
analysis. Through discourse, different views of the social world are built up,
they become Consolidated, and they are persuasively transmirted, although not
every discourse is equally socially influential. The social order of discourse
becomes extremely relevant, because some discourses can be neutralised, or
hushed up, while others become dominant, legitimated, or even imposed, ending
up äs a very efficient mechanism of domination. However, äs CDA shows, the
question of power not only entails the regulation and control of discourses, but
also how the control over individuals, social groups, and classes is exercised
through them (e.g. by the projection of negative and biased representation of
them, or by their exclusion or rejection). In fact, the goal of the analysis in
many critical analyses has been to explore how both the subjection of dis-
courses, and the subjection of individuals and social groups, interact. This is the
case with the studies of the informative policies during the Gulf war, and the
representations of the conflicts which emerged from it (see, for example,
Martinez Vizcarrondo,1997). However, in order to understand how dominant
and legitimate discourses operate at an individual and personal level, we have to
pay attention to the internalisation of these discourses. Only when individuals
incorporate either partially or completely the knowledge they convey does this
knowledge become essential in building up a particular view of the social world,
and in defining their identities; that is, in determining who the individuals are,
what they are like, and in what sort of world they are living.
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
 This dimension has not been studied very much by CDA (see Martin Rojo,
1997b and 1998, for the understanding of certain strategies for domination —
especially discursive strategies — and their consequences on individuals, and,
in this particular case, on women). However, following the Foucauldian
Statement that the subject is constituted by relations of power, this kind of
analysis could show how power relationships permeate subjectivity (Foucault,
1981, 1986).
Certainly, authors often approach this generative power through its relation
to ideology, and ideological manipulation. This is, for instance, the case of van
Dijk's discursive approach to social cognition. However, it is this subjective
dimension which is particularly related to discursive psychology, and to the
interpretative repertories studied by Wetherell. However, in this case, the
analysis is not focused on how dominant and disciplining discourses are
internalised by individuals, but looks for variability in accounts and formu-
lations. "Tracking the emergence of different and often contradictory or incon-
sistent versions of people, their characters, motives, states of mind and events in
the world — and asking why this (different) formulation at this point in the strip
of talk?" (Wetherell, 1998: 395). The emphasis on this variability has several
effects: while it captures the dynamic, kaleidoscopic and argumentative nature
of identity and ideological stances, at the same time it blurs the interaction
between both phenomena and the social position and circumstances.

5. Discourse analysis äs a social practice

Apart from the new aims of discourse analysis in various approaches and apart
from bringing together different analytical tools (created by different ap-
proaches), the analytical practice has been reconsidered at the same time. In
this sense, analysts' concern with the impact of research, and, mainly, their
awareness of social reflexivity lead to a new understanding of the analytical
task, far from a mere description or contemplation of an object, but something
requiring the involvement of the analyst. This is particularly explicit in the case
of CDA, and it has been bitterly criticised. In some cases, the emphasis on the
critical nature, äs a distinctive feature, has been understood äs an unfair attempt
to monopolise the goal of developing a 'responsible and responsive' approach
(äs Kress calls it). More frequently, criticisms rely on theoretical and methodo-
logical aspects. Some of these criticisms are related to the incompatibility
between the view of discourse äs a social practice, and the theory of language
given in main stream linguistics. In this domain, Kress (1995) considers
eclecticism, and the lack of Separation between meaning and linguistic form, äs
two of the main contradictions. Other aspects, äs the explicit Opposition against
the autonomy of linguistics, and the autonomy of language, can also be alleged.
However, in other cases, criticisms come from trends, which share
Brought theseby
to you views,
| Universit
Authen
Download Date |
and are also involved in the goal of building up a new theory of language. Those
arguments, which are more relevant for this paper, are related to the Inter-
pretation and questioning of the two main aims of the analysis, which result
frorn the analysts' engagement: to explore the effects of discourses and to take
part in the present discursive order. Both aims seem to be controversial. (See,
for instance, Alonso & Callejo, 1999; and Stubbs, 1997; even if many of these
criticisms are rather impressionistic, and, at least, not always justified, see
Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999, for a more balanced view of the theoretical
and methodological position of CDA, and on the aims of the analysis.)
It is precisely this interventional aim that is specific of critical approaches
(CDA, critical discursive psychology, in Wetherell's terms, critical socio-
linguistic ethnography, in Heller's terms). However, while political 'engage-
ment' and the emphasis on the social consequences of discourses has been often
highlighted (see, for instance, Bolivar, 1997), the interventional aim has not
been stated clearly and explicitly either by practitioners or by their critics.
Furthermore, a confusing and often impressionistic use of the term 'to reveal'
used to describe the aims of critical analysis has produced very stimulating
criticisms. Some analysts declare that the aim of CDA is to reveal: the role of
discourse in domination processes; and how discourse is used in order to
promote some representations of the Status quo and some ideologies; and also
the oppressive consequences of some ideologies which are transmitted through
discourse in a covert way; and even to reveal the ideologies and assumptions
behind Speakers' linguistic choices (like in the case of Galasinski's paper 1997,
discussed by Blommaert 1997). Only in a few cases, behind these Statements,
do we explicitly find the claim (simplification) that only certain social groups
exercise domination, that only certain social groups use discourses to produce
social representations, and that this use is essentially manipulative, or the idea
that through the analysis 'real' or "true' representations, vs. false and manipu-
lative ones, are going to emerge. However, it is certainly true that all these
questions have to be carefully reconsidered, given their significance for the
analysis.
This is why Potter's criticism is particularly interesting. In Potter's view,
when CDA analysts show how a particular representation emerges through
discourse — which is derived from a specific social position and which can
serve some competitive interests —, analysts are not only using a different
representation, but also considering it äs the 'real' one, or at least considering
that there is one that could be considered the real one. Thus, Potter finds that
behind Hodge & Kress's concept of transformation (1992) (for instance, from
an active to a passive structure), what we really find is the Opposition 'real' vs.
'deformed', 'correct' vs. 'deceitful' representation. From Potter's relativist-
constructivist perspective, focused on variability, what emerges from discourse
Brought to you by | University
Authen
Download Date |
analysis is a concrete reading of the events and subjects, which constitutes just
one more version, and which is also tied to a given ideological position, and a
given context. A similar criticism is found in Blommaert's discussion of
Galasinski's critical analysis (1997), in which Blommaert tries to show how the
analysis of texts can be biased by the choice of a given background of facts
related to the text/discourse (Blommaert, 1997: 70). This choice could be to
some extent acritical, and at the same time it gives place to a particular reading
of events. Certainly, interdisciplinarity has to be reinforced in the analysis,
encompassing a broader and systematic historical and social analysis in order to
avoid a reductionist view of 'manipulation'.
In relation to this criticism, reflexivity has to be self-regarding, and related
to the methods äs an integral part of research. Often this criticism recognises a
power of deconstruction of conventional, dominant, and legitimised views,
ideologies and representations, äs Potter does. As a result, these analyses not
only generate 'different representations', but create the conditions of possibility
for 'an alternative one'. As Shi-Xu notices, critical discourse analysis is in-
structive not by "deconstructing covert unequal relations and effects, but also
by attempting to construct alternative, more healthy discourse strategies" (Shi-
Xu, 1997: 218). In fact, by this production, researchers intervene in the
achieving and transforming ideologies through the production of discourses in
their critical analysis.
These criticisms are considering that the 'deconstruction' of dominant
representation is one of the main aims of the analysis (also, some CDA analysts
consider their tasks äs a deconstructing and revealing process). However, frorn
my point of view, what underlies critical perspectives is not a question of
deconstruction, in order to create new and subsequent consecrations. 'Critical'
means to problematize concepts and representations, to bring into question
evidence and postulates, to break habits and ways of acting and thinking, to
dissipate the familiär and accepted, to retrieve the measure of rules and
institutions, to show the techniques of production of knowledge, and the
techniques of domination, and also the techniques of control of discourse. In
Foucault's terms, starting from this (re)problematization it is possible for
citizens to take part in the formation of a political will (see Foucault, 1994, vol.
IV: 676-677).
In some ways, all these criticisms come near to what I consider is the
problem in the theoretical basis of CDA. The reason why CDA analysts appear
to be claiming they get nearer to the 'truth' or the 'correct' (vs. 'deceitful')
representations is that the perspective adopted is often an etic perspective. As a
result, the analysis is not always framed in the institutional context, and analysts
often do not consider internal reasons, and internal views. As a consequence,
our analysis could be seen äs an imposition, and not äs a revelation.
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date
 The second aim of the analysis, the attempts to intervene in the social order
of discourses, can be recognised in several socio-political aims, like the will to
increase Speakers' reflexivity and critical linguistic awareness. In fact, the
analysis of the construction of a representation through discourse does not end
with the study of the discursive procedures and the linguistic resources
involved. By spreading these results, analysts can contribute to making Speakers
aware of the social implications of their discursive behaviour and promote
changes in the boundaries of tolerance or acceptability in a social Situation, and
enrich the climate of public debate surrounding notions of linguistic correctness
and Standards (cf. Cameron, 1995; see also Fairclough, 1992b:l; Durant, 1998.)
Once research reveals how discourse is regulated in a specific society or in
specific domains (discursive regions), it is possible to introduce some changes
in the social order of discourses. In this sense, DA can become engaged in
specific, discourse-focused struggles, in particular, in relation to social ex-
clusion and the control of discursive production.
The fact that these struggles concern the circulation of particular social
representations or kinds of representation is the main reason why discourse
analysis should be considered a social practice. The analysis itself creates the
conditions of possibilities for some new discourses; this means that it makes
possible new discourses, knowledge and representations. For instance, by
showing the implications of the use of terrns, like 'illegal immigrants', it is
possible to create the conditions for a diiferent way of understanding migrations
and cultural diversity.
As a result of the increasing reflexive monitoring on discursive practices by
Speakers, we find that critical analysis of texts is socially requested: for
example, participation in awareness training against social exclusion and
cultural and linguistic imposition (for instance, by the production of learning
units for the prevention of racism in schools).
In this respect, the assumption that changes in discourse are capable of
opening up new social possibilities has been denounced äs a process of
simplification, and a narrowed and deterministic view of the discursive and the
socio-political order. However, it is precisely in relation to these criticisms that
divergences in the assumptions attributed to attempts like the 'political
correctness movement' and discourse analysis assumptions can be clearer
detected. (For a broader theoretical grounding of the questions involved, see
Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999.)
In fact, we can only see a process of simplification, if the assumption that
language has a significant and immediate effect on perception, and even on
social Organisation, is attested. In this respect, discourse analysts generally
agree that lexical and discursive changes could create the conditions of
possibility for new social representations, understandings and views; that
Brought to you by | University
Authen
Download Date |
through discourse some beliefs and assumptions, which otherwise are presented
äs 'natural' (for instance, an androcentric view of the labour world) can be
questioned. However, they would hardly accept that this effect on perception
could take place other than in conjunction with another social transformation
(women's empowerment).
Thus, if we consider this process more carefully, we realise that the
questions involved are certainly not trivial. In fact, what seems to be at stake is
the role of natural evolution and of cultural Intervention in linguistic and
discursive changes; and the pervasive debate between different kinds of
universalism and relativism. What also seems to be at stake is how to face, for
the first time in linguists' experience, the recognition of the interventional
power of research, a phenomenon that sociologists, particularly, institutional
studies, know very well.

6. Concluding remarks
In this paper, I have explored the emergence of discourse äs a new object of
knowledge, and the correlative development of particular concepts of discourse,
and of new analytical practices, aims, and tools. As a result of these changes,
DA is now a rieh, complex, and expanding field of knowledge. These features
are related to the linguistic and the reflexive turns, which contribute to the
understanding of discourse äs a social practice. Both phenomena play a role in
the rejection of the view of discourse äs a mirror of mind, and the appearance
of the concept of discourse äs social practice. In this way, we can explain the
emergence of some new objects of study, and the raising of certain theoretical
Problems in the field. In particular, the understanding of discourse äs a social
practice raises the question of what should be considered the relevant context of
the analysis; it also makes us aware of the constitutive role of discourse in the
Performance and in the representation of social practices. The view of discourse
äs mediated representation gives rise to a pervasive discussion about the role of
discourse in the production of knowledge and in the exercise of power.
Furthermore, the fact that discourse analysts are currently aware of 'social
reflexivity', increases their concern about the eifects of their research, and
opens the door to different attempts to produce a particular impact, or to modify
or intervene in discursive practices. Realising such eifects imply a concrete
understanding of the relationship between discourse, knowledge, and power. As
a result, specific aims and tools for the analysis have been developed.
This view of discourse äs a social practice has significant theoretical
implications: firstly, the understanding of discourse äs a social practice pre-
supposes the implicit/explicit presence of an agent (Speaker) who performs
these practices; and, secondly, it places social practices äs the main focus of
interest for DA. This view is shared by the more dynamic current trends in
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date
Discourse Analysis. In spite of this, many divergences and different points of
view are revealed. The study of these divergences seems to be particularly
interesting and elucidating in order to answer the theoretical questions, which
still remain controversial and open to further developments. Some of these
approaches are interested in discovering the 'mutual knowledge' shared by
agents conducting their social life, like those of Conversational Analysis.
Others, like those of Discursive Psychology and CDA are interested in ex-
ploring the creative and reproductive power of discursive practices in the
Performance, but also in the representation of social practices. However in Inter-
actional Sociolinguistics and Sociolinguistic Ethnography the study of the
discursive construction of social representation has not been often raised (see
new developments, particularly Heller and Tuson & Unamuno).
In order to study discursive representations, the analysis will be focused on
how discourse can contribute to build up, reproduce, maintain, and reinforce
social representations, ideologies, and social identities. In this respect, Dis-
cursive Psychology adopts a relativist-constructionist perspective, while CDA
adopts a 'constructivist structuralist' stance. Finally, the analysts' concern with
the impact of research, and, especially, awareness of social reflexivity, could
lead to a new understanding of the analytical task, requiring the involvement of
the analyst. This is particularly clear in the case of CDA. As a result, the aim of
analysis is to explore the social eifects of discourses, but also to intervene in the
present discursive order. Discourse Analysis in itself becomes a social practice.
Certainly, this aim is what distinguishes critical and non-critical approaches,
and its increasing significance in promoting the eclectic and synthetic stances,
which are now emerging.
Such emergence seems to be part of a wider process of production of a new
global theory of language, in which different trends and disciplines are in-
volved. I fully agree with Kress that critical developments — and ethnographic
research —, have been a necessary step in this process of change, given the fact
that "dominant paradigms were not just uncritical, but theoretically constituted
in a way that make them incapable of critique". In this context, it is very
important to look across the plurality of disciplines, perspectives, and ap-
proaches, and to be able to find out the connections between several sifts which
are taking place in the comprehension of language.

Notes
* This paper has benefited from discussions with or comments from Lupicinio Iniguez,
Javier Callejo, Fernando Garcia Seigas, Monica Heller, Jef Verschueren, Rachel Whittaker,
Ruth Wodak, and Shi-Xu.
l Adopting Foucault's distinction among primary, secondary, and discursive relations, we
are dealing with the latter. These relations are neither internal to discourse (like those
which connect words) nor external (äs those which impose to state certain things in a
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
particular Situation), but they are at the limit of discourse: "they offer it objects of which
it can speak, or rather (...) they determine the group of relations that discourse must
establish in order to speak of this or that object, in order to deal with them, name them,
analyse them, classify them, explain them, etc. These relations characterise not the lan-
guage (langue) used by discourse, nor the circumstances in which it is deployed, but
discourse itself äs a practice" (1969/1972: 46).
I cannot in this paper embrace either the complexity of this phenomena, or the extension
of this concept, considering the different versions, from Giddens's "double hermeneutics",
to Luhmann's autopoiesis or Atlanthe's auto-organised Systems (see, for a relevant
exposition, Garcia Seigas, 1999).
This idea, äs Foucault shows, was very rooted in the XVIII* Century, even if the different
nature of thinking, and discourse was noted: "Si le esprit avait pouvoir de prononcer les
idees 'comme il les aper?oit', il ne fait aucun doute qu' il 'les prononcerait toutes ä la fois'
(Condillac, Grammaire, Ouvres, t.v., p. 336). Mais d'est justement qui n'est pas posible,
car, si 'la pensee est une Operation simple', 'son enonciation est une Operation successive'
(Abate Sciard, Elements de grammaire generale, 3a ed., Paris, 1808, t.n., p. 113). La reside
le propre du langage, ce qui le distingue ä la fois de la representation (dont il n'est pourtant
ä son tour que la representation), et des signes" (Foucault, 1966: 96-97). See also Ducrot
(1968), for a similar reflection on the changes in the view of language, in relation to
representation, accomplished by structuralism.
"A partir du XIXe siecle, le langage se replie sur soi, acquiert son epaisseur propre, deplois
une histoire, des lois et une objectivite qui n'appartiennenet qu' ä lui. II est devenue un objet
de la connaisssance parmi tant d'autres (...) Connaitre le langage n'est plus s'approcher au
plus pres de la connaissance elle-meme, c'est appliquer seulemment les methodes du savoir
en general ä un domaine singulier de l'objectivite" (Foucault, 1966: 309).
"Dans la pensee classique, celui pour qui la representation existe, et qui se represente lui-
meme en eile, s'y reconnaissant pour image ou reflect, celui qui noue tous les fiels
entrecroises de la 'representation en tableau', celui-lä ne s'y trouve jamais present lui-
meme" (Foucault, 1966: 319).
In fact, this relation is particularly clear in Benveniste's development of Saussure's theory,
and in Ducrot's argumentation and polyphony theories. And outside grammar, this
observation also gives place to the relativist-constructivist perspective, and also to the
significance of reflexivity in modern thinking: the observation (representation) of the
observer (the agent of the representation) is itself being observed (Woolgar 1988: 15-17).
It is precisely in this context that current developments in Discourse Analysis, but
precedent proposals, can be understood.
Giddens' view on the 'linguistic turn' emphasises this aspects; see Giddens (1984: xxii;
1987: 119-120 and 1990).
In this sense, it is certainly true, äs van Dijk notes, that, recently, discourse analysis may
be stiffening into a whole ränge of mutually exclusive approaches, and that this tendency
is undermining interdisciplinarity (1995: 459-460). In this sense, interdisciplinarity has to
be rediscovered, äs Hansen, Novak, Salskov-Iversen, and Werther (1996: 447-448) defend.
I agree with their view that: "The real challenge is whether a discourse analysis will be
considered a welcome contribution to a discussion of social changes in either a social
science context or an inter- or multidisciplinary context outside the discourse analysis
preserve". For these authors, if this interest became a benchmark for academic success,
discourse analysts would feel compelled to cooperate among themselves. In fact, this
interest could contribute to the development of multidisciplinary groups of research, and
stop some parodies of interdisciplinarity. For instance, linguists could make an impres-
sionist use of concepts developed in other research traditions, like "ideology", "identity",
Broughtway,
"social image", "social class", etc., or resort, in a very superficial to to
you by | Universit
sociological,
Authen
Download Date |
 philosophical, or psychological assumptions and theories. (This impressionistic view has
been criticised in Sociolinguistics, by Williams, for instance, but not in DA.) However,
this multidisciplinary approach also entails some risk, in particular that of making
discourse analysis an instrumental field, and relegating their own goals, research objects,
and theoretical development, like, for example, reaching a better understanding of dis-
cursive procedures and strategies.
9 We have here the observation of the observation of the observer, like in the picture
described by Woolgar (1988: 15-17), in which Malinowsky at work is the focus of
observation of some Trobrianders, and in which some of the natives are looking directly
at the camera, observing the observation of the observer-at-work.
10 Knowledge about language and communication emerges through these attempts to
intervene in discourse, carried out by magazines, institutions, and guide-lines. However
this dissemination could entail a correlative process of transformation and trivialising. In
fact, these remarks and recipes seem to be marked by a behaviourist view of communi-
cation, and a simplified and deterministic version of relativism (see our research on this
phenomenon in Feliu et al. 1999).
11 I consider CDA äs a development of Critical Linguistics, and for me the limits and the
theoretical and methodological differences have always been quite blurred, although I am
aware that they have been established (see Kress, 1995: 626). However, äs CDA is now
expanded, I use this term äs the more inclusive and always including CL.
12 Consider, for example, Deborah Tannen's books popularity which shows how the observed
or the Speakers studied are interested and even consume the knowledge produced by the
analysts.
13 The view of discourse äs text is present in formal approaches, while discourse äs use, or
a human work underlies sociolinguistic and ethnographic approaches, which have
developed different concepts, objects and analytical tools (see Duranti, 1988).
14 In Giddens' words: "setting of action and interaction, distributed across time-space and
reproduced in the 'reversible time' of day-to-day activities, are integral to the structured
form which both social life and language possess" (1987: 215).
15 I consider this term, proposed by Heller, useful and comprehensive. It refers to current
developments of the tradition of the ethnography of communication, and the ethnography
of speaking, which closely observe language practices in specific settings.
16 ducken Dinner 1: 18-29
1 Shane: [hehh huh 'hhh Most wishful thinkin
2 -» hey hand me some a'dat fuckin budder will you?
3 (0.8)
4 ^Shane: "Ohxyeah00
5 (1.1)
6 Nancy: -> C'n I have some t[oo
7 Michael: [mm-hm[hm:
8 Nancy [hm-hm-Ah[m [Ahe-ha-]ha'hehh]
8 Vivian: -* [Ye[h [I wa]nt ]some too.]
10 Shane: [N[o:. ] [ -
l Shane: No.
12 (0.2)
13 Shane: -» Ladies la:st.
Schegloff's analysis of this exchange focuses on: (i) the elements that mark the Start of
new sequences (like 'hey', in line 2); (ii) body behaviour preceding Shane's talk (his gaze
shift toward the butter, for instance); (iii) how Shane's request is produced and how it is
understood by Michael, that is: how they become deliverers and recipient respectively in
Brought
a collaborative enterprise. In lines 6 and 9, we see how while Shane's request is to
stillyou
beingby
| Universit
Authen
Download Date
articulated, Nancy and Vivian produce their requests. Shane's response is an ironic
rejection (lines 10 and 11). Roles have changed here, and they are now the requesters and
he is the request recipient, and the request rejector. Line 13 shows, in Schegloff's words,
that these requests confront Shane "with competing proprieties of action, ones embodied
in various adages concerning Orders of Service: on the one hand 'first come, first served',
on the other hand 'ladies first'. (..) 'Ladies last' is a reformulation of the rule which he is
not observing, a reformulation which would be in accord with the course of actions he
adopts, and is offered äs (an ironic) account of it" (Schegloff, 1997: 182). In this case,
taking gender into account in the analysis is justified, because Shane's utterance displays
an orientation on his part to gender identities. Thus, the aim is to provide a detailed
analytical rendering of exchanges, establishing a version of what is going on in it,
explicitly, for the participants. However, to understand current exchanges in gender terms,
äs displayed through Interruption and overlapping talk, when Speakers do not refer to
them, is understood by Schegloff äs the projection of analysts' views.
Extract Nine
116 Nigel: Right (.) okay (0.2) what do you think Paul?
117 (0.3)
118 Paul:Didyou=
117 Phil: =Are you aptrmlled? ]
118 Paul: [When you].hh no (.)s [when you went out]
119 Nigel: [Not appalled? ]
120 Paul: I just Fll teil you in a minute when you went out
121 Nigel: hh[hh]
122 Unknown: [hhh]
123 Paul: When you went out on that Friday (.) evening you were
124 out on the pull yeah?=
125 Aaron: =No
126 Paul: This (.) you were not?=
127 Aaron: =Just out [äs a group]
128 Phil: [Just out ] äs a group of friends
129 Paul: On the Saturday you were out on the pull?
130 Phil: No
131 Aaron: .hh [not really]
132 Phil: [He was ] drunk=
133 Aaron: =1 wasn't drunk [unconscious] (.) I was very merry I
134 [ ((inaudible))]
135 was like (.) all erm (.) all like social guards were down
136 Paul: Yeah (0.2) and (0.3) whe::n (.) so and (0.4) when you
137 got off with the first on [did you ]
138 Aaron: [hhhhhhh hhh]
139 Phil: Who was first? Can you remember?
140 Paul: On the Friday
141 Aaron: Er:::m on the Friday that that was Janesy
142 Paul: Did you have any sort of like Intonation ((sie)) of
143 carrying the relationship further?
144 Aaron: No
145 Phil: ((inaudible — sounds like one night))
146 Paul: So so you basically went for äs many pullings off äs you could get in a
weekend?
147 Phil: No
148 Aaron: I didn't go for it is just Brought to you by | University
Authen
Download Date |
 149 (.)
150 Paul: It just happened?
151 Aaron: Well yeah (.) it's not so much I thought right ((hits
152 the desk)) this weekend (.) keep your pecker up lad
153 you're away [it's ] not like that it's just that I
154 Phil: [hhh]
155 (.)
156 Paul: With any of them [did you feel
157 Aaron: [I get lucky very ((inaudible))]
158 Paul: that they'd be like a follow on?
159 Phil: He didn't know who half of them were do you . hh hh
160 like a right gitty thing to do it was like the other
161 half knew äs well that it wasn't gonna be
162 (0.4)
:163 Phil: Mm
164 Aaron: Erm (0.2) no it's it's you're getting it all wrong it's
165 it's (0.2) it wasn't (0.4) err Aaron come up with the
166 phrase you want to say (.) it wasn't alright this kid's
167 gonna get off with me then we're not gonna go out oh no
168 we're not gonna go out what a git it was (0.2) Fm
169 gonna get off with this lad and that's alright
170 Phil: Fancied a bit rough you know
171 Aaron: Fancied a bit of rough
172 Phil: As and it was mutual I imagine
Wetherell's analysis focuses on the "multiple and potential inconsistent subject positions
which are in play in this Stretch of discourse for Aaron: he is drunk, lucky, on the pull,
having a good month, on the moral low ground, engaged in consensual sexual play with
young women who fancied a bit of rough, not intentionally going for it, his conduct is
impressive, and so on — indeed, this list does not exhaust all the positions evident in the
complete discussion in the interview. The flow of interaction variously troubles and
untroubles these positions. As we have seen, one formulation leads to a counter-
formulation which is in turn resisted. In fact the question of how to evaluate Aaron's
actions, äs often happens in social life, remains unresolved and ambiguous, and these
various threads and Aaron's 'portfolio' of positions remain available to be carried forward
to the other context and conversation making up the 'long conversation' which is the sixth
form common room culture" (Wetherell, 1998: 410).
However, in my view, at least in this example, subject positions could be less multiple,
and less inconsistent than Wetherell Claims. In fact, all these positions conspire to mitigate
Aaron's responsibility, and to highlight women's participation in the affair. Thus, these
positions detach him from a traditional and Chauvinist position in which women are seen
äs sexual objects, ready for men's pleasure. Several discursive strategies show the avoid-
ance of overt sexist expressions: ignorance and evasion tactics, denials, mitigation, the
toning down of negative actions, justifications. Thus, all these positions and discursive
strategies could be in fact articulated by speaker's internalisation of the current rejection
of traditional models of sexual exchange, and gender relationships. This rejection seems
to have a significant role in facework.
18 This process is understood in an extensive way, and at several degrees of generality, from
a limited perceptual plane at which communicative Signals are received and categorised,
to a second level in which implicatures are considered, to a mode global level of framing,
in which what is expected in the interaction at any one stage is signalled (see Gumperz:
1992: 232-233). Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
19 In Engeström's words: "Thus between the artificially-isolated fragment of discourse and
the ambiguously-global argumentative social fabric, there is the middle ground of the
situated activity System" (1999: 173).
20 This knowledge constitutes what Giddens called 'mutual knowledge' (vs. common sense):
knowledge of 'how to go on' in forms of life, shared by lay actors and sociological
observers; the necessary condition of gaining access to valid description of social activity
(Giddens, 1984: 375).
21 Thus, in my early analysis of the conversational dynamics in exchanges between Speakers
ofdelinquents'Jargon and Speakers who do not belong to that group (1994), I studied how
the presence of specific values among Jargon Speakers explain some features of those
interactions, like the increase of social distance and of the possibilities of control between
the police and delinquents, the solidity of group bonds and the necessity of identifying
those who are outside the group. The analysis of these conversations seems to support the
view that the dynamic process of conversation is the result of the interaction of four
different factors: power relationships, social distance and social space, äs well äs the
attitudes with which Speakers approach every communicative Situation. See the example
from Martin Rojo (1994):
Fragment 3
# A and B are discussing the changes which have occurred in the delinquent world, where
nowadays there is no longer any perfectionist pride taken in the work #
D: esto si lo puedo *grabar, no?
/ can record this, can 't I?
A: si/ me comprendes, o sea,que, ...=
Yes...Do you understand me? I mean, ...
B: = antes un topero *iba, *miraba un trabajo, no?, iba, miraba los candaos, /iba por la
noche,=
before, the topero (some kind of burglar) would look over the Job, right? He 'd go there,
he 'd look at the padlocks,/he 'd go at night....
D: =los candaos son los marrajos?==
The padlocks are the marrajos ('sarks')?
B: ==los marrajos/ los cortaba los *marrajos, con unas (? ) =
The marrajos. He 'd cut them, the marrajos. with a pair of (?)

Apairof...?
==alicates asi de grandes/ cortaba, ya miraba el *modelo, iba a la ferreteria, compraba el
mismo modelo, quitaba *aquellos y *ponia los suyos/ eso lo hacia el *sabado por la noche
y el *domingo por la manana, a las 3 o las 4 de la manana, {[ac]iba con sus llaves,
levantaba el cierre y volvia a cerrar/ el que se quedaba en la calle, volvia a poner los
marrajos, el hacia toi (todo el) trabajo, preparaba todo el genero, ya le pasaba una *sema
por abajo, y el otro *abria, cargaban y , ... estos trabajos ahora ya no,
Ofpliers, this big. He 'd cut them and then look at the model, he 'd go to the Hardware shop,
he 'd buy the same padlocks, cut theßrst ones and put back the new ones. He'ddo that on
Saturday night and Sunday morning, at three orfour in the morning, he 'd go with his keys,
he'd open up the lock and then dose it again. The guy who stayed outside would put the
padlocks back on, he 'd do all the work, prepare all the loot and give him a sema underneath,
and the other guy would open up, Start loading and...But these daysjobs aren 't..
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
 Throughout the interactions, some changes take place: distance between Speakers widens
or narrows, differences of power are marked or not exercised, attitudes are modified. Such
changes are reflected in speech by the variable use of different resources and conver-
sational processes (such äs the construction and Interpretation of meaning, the presen-
tation of a public self-image, and the management of Information, the expression of
relationships of power and solidarity, the management of conversational space). However,
when I analysed these discourses I did not pay enough attention to social representa-
tions — of the whole society, and of the in-group and the out-groups —, which shaped
these discourses. And I did not analyse systematically to what extent these discourses
reproduce or challenge those dominant and legitimised discourses which condemn the
Jargon Speakers' social group and their way of life and talk. In spite of this, I already
understood Jargon äs a reaction against the devastating action of legitimised discourse,
and express alternative values: focusing on social hypocrisy, emphasising the social
inequality and discrimination. In this sense, a deeper comparative analysis could be done,
observing the differences which exist in prison between the words used by wardens and
prisoners. Whereas the former try to bureaucratise their work — they call themselves
funcionarios ('civil servants'), and speak of the institucion ('Institution') and the internos
('inmates') —, the prisoners bring out, by means of their lexical creation, the horror and
desolation of prison life. This reinforces the idea of punishment — the time se paga ('is
served') — and the names they use for the prison emphasise the idea of confinement, of
oppression, of a sinking of the human spirit.

Addressof the Alithor:

Luisa Martin Rojo
Department of Linguistics
Universidad Autonoma de Madrid
Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco
E-28049 Madrid
E-mail: luisa.rojo@uam.es

References
Alonso, L.E. & Callejo, J. (1999) "El anälisis del discurso: del postmodernismo a las razones
präcticas". Revista Espanola de Investigaciones Sociologicas 88: 37-73.
Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Billig, M. (1999) '"Whose terms? Whose ordinariness?' Rhetoric and ideology in conversation
analysis", Discourse & Society 10(4): 543-558.
Blommaert, J. (1997) "Whose background? Comments on a discourse-analytic reconstruction
of the Warsaw Uprising", Pragmatics 7(1): 69-82.
Blommaert, J. et al. (2001) Discourse and Critique, Critique of Anthropology 21(2) (special
issue).
Bolivar, A. (1997) "El anälisis critico del discurso: teoria y compromisos", Episteme ns 17(1-3):
23-45.
Bourdieu, P. (1988) Cosas dichas. Buenos Aires: Gedisa.
Bourdieu, P. (1991) El sentido präctico. Madrid: Taurus.
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Caldas-Coulthard, C. & Martin Rojo, L. (eds.) (1999) "Entre nosotras. El papel de las revistas
femeninas en la construccion de la feminidad." Discurso y Sociedad (special issue) 1(3).
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date
Callejo Gallego, J. (1999) "La reflexividad empirica: notas para un proyecto." In: R. Ramos &
F. Garcia Seigas (eds.), Globalizacion, riesgo, reflexividad. Tres temas de la teoria social
contemporänea, Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociologicas. 373-408.
Cameron, D. (1995) Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.
Casanovas, P. (1998) "Algunos elementos para el anälisis pragmätico de los discursos juridi-
cos." In: J. Anon, R. Bergalli, M. Calvo, P. Casanovas (eds.), Derecho y Sociedad, Valen-
cia: Tirant lo Blanch. 319-345.
Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity. Rethinking Critical
Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Cicourel, A. (1992) "The Interpretation of communicative contexts: examples from medical
encounters." In: C. Goodwin & A. Duranti, (1992), 291-310.
Diaz, F. (2000) "La critica del anälisis de la conversacion." Discurso y Sociedad 2(3): 3-8.
Ducrot, O. (1968) "L'estructuralisme en linguistique." In: O. Ducrot et al. Qu'est ce que c'est
l'estructuralisme?, Paris: Le Seuil. 15-95.
Durant, A. (1998) "Aspectos problemäticos del significado: anälisis critico del discurso y
compromiso social." In: L. Martin Rojo & R. Whittaker, Poder-Decir o El poder de los
discursos. Madrid: Arrecife.
Duranti, A. (1988) "Ethnography of speaking: toward a linguistics of the praxis." In: F. New-
meyer (ed.) Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. 4: Language: The Socio-cultural
Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 210-228.
Edwards, D. (1997) Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.
Engeström, Y. (1999) "Communication, Discourse and Activity", The Communication Review
3(1-2): 165-185.
Engeström, Y. & Middleton, D. (eds.) (1996) Cognition and Communication at Work. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992a) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (ed.) (1992b) Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1993) "Critical discourse analysis and the marketisation of public discourse in
universities", Discourse & Society 4(2): 1333-1168.
Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997) "Critical Discourse Analysis", in T. van Dijk (ed.) (1997):
258-284.
Feliu, E. et al. (1999) "Decälogos comunicativos para la nueva mujer: El papel de las revistas
femeninas en la construccion de la feminidad." In: C. Caldas-Coulthard & L. Martin Rojo,
Entre nosotras: las revistas femeninas y la construccion de la feminidad, Discurso y
Sociedad, 1999, 1(3): 15-50.
Foucault, M. (1966) Les mots et les choses. Une archeologie des sciences humaines. Paris:
Gallimard.
Foucault, M. (1969) L'Archeologie du Savoir. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, M. (1971) L'ordre du discourse. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, M. (1981) The History of Sexuality, vol. I: An Introduction. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1986) "Pourquoi etudier le puvoir: la question du sujet." In: H. Dreyfus and
P. Rabinow, Michel Foucault. Un parcours philosophique. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, M. (1994) "Le souci de la verite." In: Defert, D. & Ewald, F. (eds.) Dits et ecrits,
Paris: Gallimard, vol. IV, 668-678.
Fowler, R., et al., (1979) Language and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Galasinski, D. (1997) "Background and discourse analysis: A response to Jan Blommaert",
Pragmatics 7(1): 83-88.
Garcia Seigas, F. (1994) Teoria social y metateoria hoy. El caso de Anthony Guiddens. Madrid:
Centro de Investigaciones Sociologicas.
Brought to you by | University
Authen
Download Date |
Garcia Seigas, F. (1999) "La reflexividad y el supuesto-sujeto." In: R. Ramos & F Garcia
Seigas (eds.), Globalizacion, riesgo, reflexividad. Tres temas de la teoria social contempo-
ränea, Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociologicas. 373-408.
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
Giddens, A. (1976) New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretative
Sociologies. London: Hutchinson.
Giddens, A. (1977) Studies in Social and Political Theory. London: Hutchinson.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cam-
bridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1987) "Structuralism, post-structuralism and the production of culture." In: A.
Giddens & J. Tuner. 195-223.
Giddens, A.(1991) Modernity and Self-identity. Seif and Society in the Late Modern Age.
London: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. & Tuner, J. (1987) Social Theory Today. London: Polity Press.
Goffinan, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organisation of the Experience. New
York: Harper and Row.
Gomez Esteban, C. (1996) El Objeto de Estudio de la Sociologia. Manuscript.
Gomez Esteban, C., Callejo Gallego, J, & Martin Rojo, L. (2000) Modelos y präcticas de
mando: El papel de la mujer en los puestos de direccion. Research Report. Programa I+D
(MEC)/Women's Institute.
Gonzalez, B., Solagaistua, K., Perez-Montero, V (2000) "Conversational Inferences". Poster
presented at the European Worldwide Narratives Conference. EURESCO.
Goodwin, Ch. & Duranti, A. (1992) (eds.) Rethinking Context: Language äs an Interactive
Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. (1992) "Contextualization and understanding." In: Ch. Goodwin & A. Duranti
(eds.) Rethinking Context: Language äs an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Hansen, H.K., Novak, L., Salskov-Iversen, D., Wether, Ch. (1996) "Interdisciplinarity: the
need for coming füll circle", Discourse & Society (forum) 7(3): 447-448.
Heller, M. (2000) "La ideologia neoliberal en la escuela: la construccion institucional y
discursiva de los consejos escolares en Ontario", Discurso y Sociedad 2(3): 85-122.
Heritage, J. (1987) "Ethnomethodology." In: A. Giddens & J. Tuner. 224-272.
Hodge, R. (1984) "Historical semantics and the meaning of discourse", Australian Cultural
Studies 2(2): 124-130.
Hodge, R., & G. Kress (1992) Language äs Ideology (2.ed). London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (1995) "Moving beyond a critical paradigm: on the requirements of a social theory
of language", Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire 73(3): 621-634.
Lamo de Espinosa, E.(1990) La Sociedad Reflexiva. Sujeto y Objeto del Conocimiento
Sociologico. Madrid: Siglo XXI.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1979) "The problem of activity in Psychology." In: J.V. Wewrtsch (ed.) The
Concept of Activity in Soviel Psychology, New York: Armonk. 37-71.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981) Problems of the Development of the Mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Martin Rojo, L. (1994) "Jargon of delinquents and the study of conversational dynamics",
Journal of Pragmatics; 1994a; 21(3): 243-289.
Martin Rojo, L. (1997a) "El orden social de los discursos", Discurso 21-22: 1-37.
Martin Rojo, L. (1997b) "The politics of gender: agency and self-reference in women's dis-
course." In: J. Blommaert & Ch. Bulcaen (eds.) Political Linguistics, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. 231-254.
Martin Rojo, L. (1998) "Intertextuality and the construction of a new female identity." In: M.
Bengoechea & R. Solä Buil (eds.) Intertextuality /Intertextualidad, Alcalä de Henares:
Universidad de Alcalä de Henares. 81-98. Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
Martin Rojo, L. (2000) "Spain, Outer Wall of the European Fortress: Analysis of Parliamentary
Debates on Immigration Policy in Spain", in R. Wodak & T. van Dijk (eds.) Racism at the
Top. Parliamentary Discourse on Ethnic Issues in Six European States, Ch. 6. Vienna:
Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
Martin Rojo, L. (2001) "Discourses analysis äs a social practice". Manuscript.
Martin Rojo and Gomez (2001) "Narratives at work: when women take on the role of
managers." In: R. Wodak, & G. Weiss, Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Inter-
disciplinarity. London: Palgrave (in press).
Martin Rojo, L. & van Dijk, T. (1997) "There was a problem and it was solved. Legitimating
the expulsion of illegal immigrants in Spanish Parliament." Discourse & Society 8(4):
563-606.
Martin Rojo, L. & Gabilondo Pujol, A. (2002) "Michel Foucault." In: J. Verschueren, J-O.
Östman, J. Blommaert, Ch. Bulcaen (eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, vol. 4 (in press).
Martinez Vizcarrondo, D. (1997) El discurso periodistico en torno a la Guerra del Golfo.
PhD. diss. Madrid: Universidad Autonoma.
Martinez Vizcarrondo, D. (1999) "La recontextualizacion y la legitimacion periodistica de un
acontecimiento y los procedimientos discursivos que entrana: El discurso cientifico en la
cobertura noticiosa del periodico Puertorriqueno el nuevo dia sobre la guerra en el Golfo
Persico", Discurso y Sociedad 1(2): 7-44.
Meeuwis, M. (1997) Constructing Sociolinguistic Consensus: A Linguistic Ethnography of the
Zairian Community in Antwerp, Belgium. Duisburg: LICCAP (Languages in Contact and
Conflict in Africa Papers).
Mumby, D. & Clair R. P. (1997) "Organizational Discourse", in T. van Dijk, Discourse Studies
2: Discourse äs a Social Interaction, London: Sage. 181-205.
Potter, J. (1988) "What is reflexive about Discourse Analysis? The case of reading readings."
In: S. Woolgar (ed.) 37-54.
Potter, J. (1996) Representing Reality. London: Sage.
Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage.
Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1994) "Analyzing Discourse." In: A. Brymna & R.G. Burgess (eds.)
Analyzing Quantitative Data. London: Routledge.
Schegloff, E. (1997) "Whose text? Whose context?", Discourse & Society 8(2): 165-187.
Schegloff, E. (1999) '"Schegloff's text äs Billig's data': A critical reply", Discourse & Society
10(4): 558-572.
Schegloff, E. (1999) "Naivete vs. sophistication or discipline vs. self-indulgence: A rejoindre
to Billig", Discourse & Society 10(4): 577-582.
Shi-Xu (1997) "Discursive ideologies: Rationalizing cultural violence." In: J. Blommaert &
Ch. Bulcaen (eds.) Political Linguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 217-230.
Stubbs, M. (1997) "Whorf's children: critical comments on Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA)." In: A. Ryan & A. Wray (eds.) Evolving Models of Language: Papers from the
Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, 1996. Clevedon: Bri-
tish Association for Applied Linguistics in association with Multilingual Matters.
Tuson, A. & Unamuno, V. (1999) "^.De que estamos hablando? El malentendido en el discurso
escolar", Discurso y Sociedad n° 1(1).
van Dijk, T. A. (1985) "Introduction: discourse äs a new cross-discipline." In: T. A. van Dijk
(ed.) Handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 1: Disciplines of Discourse, New York: Acade-
mic Press. 1-10.
van Dijk, T. A. (1995) Editorial. Interdisciplinarity. Discourse & Society 6(3): 459-460.
van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) (1997) Discourse äs Social Interaction. London: Sage,
van Leeuwen, T. (1997) "Recontextualization". Manuscript.
Brought to you by | Universit
Authen
Download Date |
Verschueren, J. (2001) "Predicaments of criticism." In: J Blommaert at al. Discourse and
Critique. Critique of Anthropology 21(2) (special issue). Manuscript.
Wetherell, M. (1998) "Positioning and interpretative repertories: Conversation analysis and
post-structuralism in dialogue", Discourse & Society 9 (3): 387-412.
Wetherell, M. & Potter, J. (1988) "Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretative
repertories." In: C. Antaki (ed.) Analysing Everyday Explanation. London: Sage.
Wetherell, M. & Potter, J. (1992) Mapping the language of racism: discourse and the
legitimation of exploitation. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Wetherell, M. et al. (1987) "Unequal egalitarianism: A preliminary study of discourse
concerning gender and employment opportunities". British Journal of Social Psychology
26: 59-71.
Whittaker, R. & Martin Rojo, L. (1998) "A dialogue with bureaucracy: register, genre and
Information management äs constraints on interchangeability." Journal of Pragmatics 31:
149-189.
Wodak, R (1996) Disorders of Discourse. London/New York: Logman.
Wodak, R. (2000) "La sociolingüistica necesita una teoria social? Nuevas perspectivas en el
Anälisis Critico del Discurso." Discurso y Sociedad 2(3): 123-147.
Wodak, R., Menz, F., Mitten, R. & Stern, F. (1994) Die Sprachen der Vergangenheiten: öffent-
liches Gedenken in österreichischen und deutschen Medien, Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp .
Wodak, R., Pelikan, J., Nowak, P., Gruber, H., de Cillia, R., Mitten, R. (1990) „Wir sind alle
unschuldige Täter!" Diskurshistorische Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus, Frank-
furt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Woolgar, S. (1988) "Reflexivity is the ethnographer of the text." In: S. Woolgar, (ed.) 15-36.
Woolgar, S. (ed.) (1988) Knowledge and Reflexivity. New Frontiers in the Sociology of
Knowledge. London: Sage.

Brought to you by | Universit

Authen
Download Date