Dialectical Approach Fairclough

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.

Dialectical Approach Fairclough

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dialectical Approach Fairclough

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dialectical Approach Fairclough

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Explaining the approach – theory, concepts

Before anything else, the meaning of discourse is clarified as “meaning-making as an

The approach is therefore necessarily transdisciplinary either through engaging with

1. As part of an action (genre)

Fairclough also mentions that discourses can be operationalised according to certain

He summarises the focus of CDA as concentrating mainly on two aspects, on

Explaining the methodology

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

Stage 2: Identify obstacles to addressing the social wrong.

Stage 4: Identify possible ways past the obstacles.

Where to use this approach

My critical analysis of this approach

You might also like