This paper evaluates Emmanuel Schegloff's (1997) comments on critical discourse analysis and compares them with a post-structuralist perspective, using a segment of a group discussion about one of the participants' sexual experiences. The analysis examines the contextualization of the event and the positioning of the young man involved, drawing on concepts from interpretative repertoires and ideological dilemmas. The paper critiques Schegloff's concept of subject positions and his methodological prescriptions for critical discourse analysis, advocating for a more synthetic approach that integrates conversation analysis and post-structuralism. It emphasizes the situated and occasioned nature of subject positions and the importance of institutionalized intelligibility in understanding social interactions. The paper also discusses the limitations of Schegloff's approach, particularly in capturing the broader context and argumentative threads of social life.This paper evaluates Emmanuel Schegloff's (1997) comments on critical discourse analysis and compares them with a post-structuralist perspective, using a segment of a group discussion about one of the participants' sexual experiences. The analysis examines the contextualization of the event and the positioning of the young man involved, drawing on concepts from interpretative repertoires and ideological dilemmas. The paper critiques Schegloff's concept of subject positions and his methodological prescriptions for critical discourse analysis, advocating for a more synthetic approach that integrates conversation analysis and post-structuralism. It emphasizes the situated and occasioned nature of subject positions and the importance of institutionalized intelligibility in understanding social interactions. The paper also discusses the limitations of Schegloff's approach, particularly in capturing the broader context and argumentative threads of social life.