ance of these stages is that the original idea is, in all likeliness, prone to a certain extent of damage and distortion while it passes through them.
The second of the three stages is all the more important because it has a lot to do with one’s spontaneity and judgement which ultimately become the major deciding factors in making the communication successful and effective. That is how the world draws the line of distinction between ‘great orators / authors’ and the mediocre and the bad.
The choice of words, however, is a function of one’s instincts, emotions and needs. The desire to dominate, to control, to feel powerful is a universal instinct that defies the boundaries of time and space. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that this basic instinct, or rather a base instinct, successfully manages to creep into all human transactions and manifests itself, more noticeably in the process of verbal communication.
But, at the same time, the need to ‘get things done’ is also a matter of uppermost concern, and its importance cannot be understated. It is this factor that has the power to suppress the urge to dominate; it makes one willing to subordinate himself in a transaction. In any given instance, it is either the urge to dominate or the need to subordinate that finally stays, and it is decided by the prevailing equation of power in the given context. It boils down to the conclusion that “our words are never neutral; they carry the power that reflects the interests of those who speak or write.” (John Fiske, 1994; Fowler, et. al., 1979)
An interesting quality of dominant discourse is that it usually represents and reinforces the interests of the elite section of the society. Professor Sue L. T. McGregor, in Critical Discourse Analysis – A Primer, says, “One of the central attributes of dominant discourse is its power to interpret conditions, issues and events in favour of the elite.”
To take an example, in the Indian subcontinent,