Abstract
This article responds to Billig's (2000) call for new forms of writing that might challenge the `linguistic orthodoxies' of the critical paradigm. It also responds to Van Dijk's appeal in this journal for more examination of the differences between Conversational Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis. It argues that Post-structuralist Discourse Analysis (PDA) 1 offers an alternative account of spoken interactions to those of CA and CDA, in that it explores how fluctuating power relations between speakers are continuously reconstructed through competing discourses. This approach is exemplified by a comparative analysis of girls' and boys' talk in a secondary English class, which was being assessed for its effectiveness in public contexts. The study reveals a link between the more powerful discursive positioning of boys, and the extent to which they were adjudged more `effective' than girls as public speakers. However, a post-structuralist analysis shows that because girls are multiply located in discourse and not constituted as victims, they can be taught to resist certain dominant classroom practices.