This is part of a series of summaries to help make sense of ongoing research: 

Background to the topic

This summary is based on a short chapter written by Norman Fairclough in Wodak and Meyer (2016), which was actually first published in 2001 and has still remained unchanged since then.

I wrote in a previous post (here) a brief introduction to Fairclough’s version of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), so I will try to build on that here while focusing on the specificity of the Dialectical-Relational Approach (henceforth DRA).

I have to admit that the terminology used on this topic is rather overwhelming on first sight, a fact which even Fairclough admits in the introduction to the latest edition of Language and Power (Fairclough 2015). In fact, he encourages readers to take their time to absorb the contents of the book before diving into the introduction itself which summarises how the approach evolved over time from its first version in 1989 over 26 years.

From what I have read on CDA so far, I have observed not only its intellectual density but also its breadth and diversity in approaches. DRA is only one of a wide spectrum of ways of addressing the common aims of CDA, the main ones which have been usefully summarised in the first chapter of Wodak and Meyer (2016).

Explaining the approach – theory, concepts

Before anything else, the meaning of discourse is clarified as “meaning-making as an element of the social process”. Fairclough then goes a step further to say he prefers using ‘semiosis’ for this discussion instead of discourse.

The dialectical-relational approach is about the elements being analysed; the point being that the elements are different from one another but not completely separate. This allows the linguist to address both the semiotic elements, which represent parts of different social processes, as well as the relations between the semiotic and other separate (non-semiotic) social processes. To be more specific, examples of these social processes are “social relations, power, institutions, beliefs and cultural values”.

The approach is therefore necessarily transdisciplinary either through engaging with researchers from other disciplines, or by engaging with research done in other disciplines, in order to cover the non-semiotic aspects.

But let us return to CDA’s original aims, which are to analyse and explain (in fact to uncover) the “establishment, reproduction and change of unequal power relations”, “in ideological processes” and how this affects “human ‘well-being'”, and then ultimately to identify ways to address these inequalities.

In case it is not already clear, Fairclough’s approach to CDA assumes a constant endeavour to rectify social inequalities. In fact, he believes that change is possible, unlike others who adopt a more realist approach which accepts the inevitable inequality of social life and seeks to find a way to adapt accordingly.

Fairclough goes on to posit three “levels of social reality” which are the background of “social process”, notably, “social structures, practices and events”. According to the work of Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992), social fields, institutions and organisations are made up of networks of social practices, which in turn ‘mediate’ between the structures and events. The semiotic part of these social practices is known as “orders of discourse”, whereas the “semiotic dimension of events is texts” (texts are meant in the broadest sense including both written, spoken and ‘multimodal’ forms).

This brings us to the two dialectical relations important for the work of CDA: the relation 1) between structures and events and 2) between the semiotic and other aspects. There are three ways in which the latter materialises (i.e. how “semiosis relates to other elements of social practices and of social events”):

1. As part of an action (genre)
2. In the way in which parts of the world are represented (discourse)
3. How identities are formed (style)

The reality of discourses as understood in this approach is that they can be recontextualised in other fields or institutions. This results in further mutation of the form of the particular discourse, inevitably taking on new characteristics.

Fairclough also mentions that discourses can be operationalised according to certain conditions, being “enacted as new ways of (inter)acting, […] inculcated as new ways of being (identities) […] and physically materialized“.

He summarises the focus of CDA as concentrating mainly on two aspects, on “structures” (specifically “the structuring of social practices”) and on the “strategies of social agents”. This can be deduced by observing the “shifting relations between genres, between discourses and between styles”. This ongoing process of change is known as interdiscursivity, which is part of intertextuality – for more information on this aspect, see Fairclough (2013, 94-95) which explains the focus of CDA not only on the text itself, but on its origins in other texts.

Explaining the methodology

Fairclough is explicit in insisting on calling this part a methodology (rather than a method), because according to him, the way in which methods are selected depends on the constitution of the ‘object of research’.

There are four main stages (reproduced here), which are further broken down into steps, based on the ‘explanatory critique’ of Bhaskar (1986):

Stage 1:      Focus on a social wrong, in its semiotic aspects.

Stage 2:      Identify obstacles to addressing the social wrong.

Stage 3:      Consider whether the social order ‘needs’ the social wrong.

Stage 4:      Identify possible ways past the obstacles.

Where to use this approach

Fairclough clarifies the Dialectical-Relational Approach can be used to analyse any particular area (field or text).

Response to criticism

Fairclough admits that in his work he has not necessarily spent enough time, not for lack of will, on the ‘workings of power’, preferring to concentrate on “the workings of reception, reaction and resistance to power”. Another shortcoming claimed by others has been more focus on ‘depoliticisation’ rather than ‘politicisation’ which he puts down to his political leanings and background.

He also admits that he does not deal with the psychological and cognitive aspects of CDA, but visibly prefers to leave this aspect to other researchers who have prioritised this aspect (notably Teun van Dijk). He responds to critics by saying that his lack of focus on these neither negates his own approach nor negatively affects his own work. Fairclough’s defence of this aspect is based on the nature of ideology, the very nature of which makes it difficult to consciously discern. He dismisses claims that the conscious understanding of speakers or researchers of the cognitive aspect of discourse somehow negates the need to carry out critical discourse analysis.

My critical analysis of this approach

Firstly, I want to stress that DRA is part of Fairclough’s broader CDA work. The latter makes a number of the other links to sociology clearer than can be explained in this short chapter.

On first sight, the complexity of the language used makes it quite hard reading for the uninitiated person. however, reading the included practical analysis helps make better sense of the theory. In addition, any over-simplistic theory would be less credible given the multifaceted and intricate nature of society and social issues.

On the plus side, I admire his introspective tone and response to criticism dealt with in the closing summary. This deals with possible misunderstandings of his work.

Moreover, it is heartening to see how Fairclough stands up for linguists’ work in the field of social studies. He stresses on numerous occasions his impression that the semiotic aspect of social practices is often rather neglected in social studies research.

What is most interesting about this approach is that it intentionally seeks out a social wrong before choosing a text. Another way would be to choose some text(s), carry out linguistic analysis and then try to extrapolate what the results seem to show in terms of social wrongs. The advantage of DRA (the former) is that it seeks to address social inequality head on.

A final comment is to complement what I said earlier in this piece, notably that DRA is only one part of the theoretical process of CDA put forward by Fairclough. Therefore, researchers will need to continue their exploratory search by further reading in order to be able to make practical use of the displayed methodology. Otherwise what is missing is more detail about how to undertake the textual analysis. In this respect, I would direct readers to Fairclough (2003) a both more extensive and practical work to use.

References