批评性话语分析

~teun/cda.htmCRITICALDISCOURSEANALYSISTeunA.vanDijkSeconddraft,January1998CommentswelcomeToappearinDeborahTannen,DeborahSchiffrin&HeidiHamilton(Eds.),HandbookofDiscourseAnalysis(inpreparation).WhatisCriticalDiscourseAnalysis?CriticalDiscourseAnalysisisatypeofdiscourseanalyticalresearchthatprimarilystudiesthewaysocialpowerabuse,dominanceandinequalityareenacted,reproducedandresistedbytextandtalkinthesocialandpoliticalcontext.Withsuchdissidentresearch,criticaldiscourseanalyststakeexplicitposition,andthuswanttounderstand,exposeandultimatelytoresistsocialinequality.SomeofthetenetsofCriticalDiscourseAnalysiscanalreadybefoundintheCriticalTheoryoftheFrankfurtSchoolbeforetheSecondWorldWar(Rasmussen,1996).Itscurrentfocusonlanguageanddiscoursewasinitiatedwiththe'criticallinguistics'thatemerged(mostlyintheUKandAustralia)attheendofthe1970s(Fowler,Hodge,Kress&Trew,1979;seealsoMey,1985).CDA,asitiscommonlyabbreviated,hascounterpartsin'critical'developmentsinsociolinguistics,psychologyandthesocialsciences,somealreadydatingbacktotheearly1970s(Birnbaum,1971;Calhoun,1995;Fay,1987;Fox&Prilleltensky,1997;Hymes,1972;Ibañez&Iñiguez,1997;Singh,1996;Thomas,1993;Turkel,1996;Wodak,1996).Asisthecaseintheseneigboringdisciplines,CDAmaybeseenasareactionagainstthedominantformal(often'asocial'or'uncritical')paradigmsofthe1960sand1970s.CDAisnotsomuchadirection,schoolorspecialization--nexttothemanyother'approaches'indiscoursestudies.Rather,itaimstoofferadifferent'mode'or'perspective'oftheorizing,analysisandapplicationthroughoutthewholefield.Wemayfindamoreorlesscriticalperspectiveinsuchdiverseareasaspragmatics,conversationanalysis,narrativeanalysis,rhetoric,stylistics,sociolinguistics,ethnography,ormediaanalysis,amongothers.DiscourseanalysisandsocietyCrucialforcriticaldiscourseanalystsistheexplicitawarenessoftheirroleinsociety.Continuingatraditionthatrejectsthepossibilityofa'value-free'science,theyarguethatscience,andespeciallyscholarlydiscourse,areinherentlypartof,andinfluencedbysocialstructure,andproducedinsocialinteraction.Insteadofdenyingorignoringsucharelationbetweenscholarshipandsociety,theypleadthatsuchrelationsbestudiedandaccountedforintheirownright,andthatscholarlypracticesshouldbebasedonsuchinsights.Theoryformation,descriptionandexplanation,alsoindiscourseanalysis,aresocio-politically'situated',whetherwelikeitornot.Reflectiontheonroleofscholarsinsocietyandthepolitythusbecomesinherentpartofthediscourseanalyticalenterprise.Thismaymean,amongotherthings,thatdiscourseanalystsconductresearchinsolidarityandcooperationwithdominatedgroups.Criticalresearchondiscourseneedstosatisfyanumberofrequirementsinordertoeffectivelyrealizeitsaims:-Asisoftenthecaseformoremarginalresearchtraditions,CDAresearchhastobe'better'thanotherresearchinordertobeaccepted.-Itfocusesprimarilyonsocialproblemsandpoliticalissues,ratherthanoncurrentparadigmsandfashions.-Empiricallyadequatecriticalanalysisofsocialproblemsisusuallymultidisciplinary.-Ratherthantomerelydescribediscoursestructures,ittriestoexplainthemintermsofpropertiesofsocialinteractionandespeciallysocialstructure.-MorespecificallyCDAfocusesonthewaysdiscoursestructuresenact,confirm,legitimate,reproduceorchallengerelationsofpoweranddominanceinsociety.Fairclough&Wodak(1997:271-280)summarizethemaintenetsofCDAasfollows:1.CDAaddressessocialproblems2.Powerrelationsarediscursive3.DiscourseConstitutesSocietyandCulture4.Discoursedoesideologicalwork5.Discourseishistorical6.Thelinkbetweentextandsocietyismediated7.Discourseanalysisisinterpretativeandexplanatory8.Discourseisaformofsocialaction.Whereassomeofthesetenetshavealsobeendiscussedabove,othersneedamoresystematictheoreticalanalysis,ofwhichweshallpresentsomefragmentshereasamoreorlessgeneralbasisforthemainprinciplesofCDA(fordetailsabouttheseaimsofcriticaldiscourseandlanguagestudies,see,e.g.,Caldas-Coulthard&Coulthard,1996;Fairclough,1995;Fairclough&Wodak,1997;Fowler,Hodge,Kress&Trew,1979;VanDijk,1993b).ConceptualandTheoreticalframeworksSinceCDAisnotaspecificdirectionofresearch,itdoesnothaveaunitarytheoreticalframework.Withintheaimsmentionedabove,therearemanytypesofCDA,andthesemaybetheoreticallyandanalyticallyquitediverse.Criticalanalysisofconversationisverydifferentfromananalysisofnewsreportsinthepressoroflessonsandteachingatschool.Yet,giventhecommonperspectiveandthegeneralaimsofCDA,wemayalsofindoverallconceptualandtheoreticalframeworksthatarecloselyrelated.Assuggested,mostkindsofCDAwillaskquestionsaboutthewayspecificdiscoursestructuresaredeployedinthereproductionofsocialdominance,whethertheyarepartofaconversationoranewsreportorothergenresandcontexts.Thus,thetypicalvocabularyofmanyscholarsinCDAwillfeaturesuchnotionsas'power','dominance','hegemony','ideology','class','gender','race','discrimination','interests','reproduction','institutions','socialstructure'or'socialorder',besidesthemorefamiliardiscourseanalyticalnotions.ItcomesasnosurprisethatalsoCDAresearchwilloftenrefertotheleadingsocialphilosophersandsocialscientistsofourtimewhentheorizingthese