FPDA — A Supplementary Form of Discourse Analysis?

Abstract

In this and following chapters, I intend to connect the principles of feminist post-structuralism to the field of discourse analysis in order to explore what constitutes FPDA. In this chapter, I shall consider the relationship of FPDA with two more widely recognised approaches to spoken discourse analysis, conversation analysis (CA) and critical discourse analysis (CDA). Clearly, I recognise that proponents of CA and CDA, such as those mentioned in this chapter, would not necessarily wish to label or limit themselves to one specific ‘school’ of analysis, or characterise these paradigms as internally unified or mutually exclusive. In addition, there are many other varieties of discourse analysis, such as pragmatics, the ethnography of speaking and interactional sociolinguistics (see Cameron, 2001, for an overview), each with their own distinctive contributions to the field. I have selected CA and CDA for comparative focus for two reasons. First, it seems to be the case that CA and CDA are gaining increasing popularity as approaches chosen for conducting discourse analysis, notably in the field of language and gender. Secondly, there are a number of ways in which I consider the FPDA approach to be intertextually linked with, and supplementary to, the methodologies of CA and CDA. The term ‘supplementarity’ (Derrida, 1976: 27–73) is used periodically within this chapter to convey the built-in dependencies and oppositions of any one theoretical paradigm with any other.

Post-structuralist theorists, with their more global view, rarely have their noses pressed up against the exigencies of talk-in-interaction. Rarely are they called on to explain how their perspective might apply to what is happening right now, on the ground in this very conversation.

(Wethereil, 1998: 395)