《Critical+Discourse+Analysis_Van+Dijk+批判性话语分析》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Critical+Discourse+Analysis_Van+Dijk+批判性话语分析（20页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、18 Critical Discourse An alysisTEUN A. VAN DIJK0 Introduction: What Is Critical Discourse Analysis?Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text a
2、nd talk in the social and political context. With such dissident research, critical discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus want to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality.Some of the tenets of CDA can already be found in the critical theory of the Frankfurt School be
3、fore the Second World War (Agger 1992b; Rasmussen 1996). Its current focus on language and discourse was initiated with the critical linguistics that emerged (mostly in the UK and Australia) at the end of the 1970s (Fowler et al. 1979; see also Mey 1985). CDA has also counterparts in critical develo
4、pments in sociolinguistics, psychology, and the social sciences, some already dating back to the early 1970s (Birnbaum 1971; Calhoun 1995; Fay 1987; Fox and Prilleltensky 1997; Hymes 1972; Ibanez and Iniguez 1997; Singh 1996; Thomas 1993; Turkel 1996; Wodak 1996). As is the case in these neighboring
5、 disciplines, CDA may be seen as a reaction against the dominant formal (often asocial or uncritical) paradigms of the 1960s and 1970s.CDA is not so much a direction, school, or specialization next to the many other approaches in discourse studies. Rather, it aims to offer a different mode or perspe
6、ctive of theorizing, analysis, and application throughout the whole field. We may find a more or less critical perspective in such diverse areas as pragmatics, conversation analysis, narrative analysis, rhetoric, stylistics, sociolinguistics, ethnography, or media analysis, among others.Crucial for
7、critical discourse analysts is the explicit awareness of their role in society. Continuing a tradition that rejects the possibility of a value-free science, they argue that science, and especially scholarly discourse, are inherently part of and influenced by social structure, and produced in social
8、interaction. Instead of denying or ignoring such a relation between scholarship and society, they plead that such relations be studied and accounted for in their own right, and that scholarly practices Critical Discourse Analysis#be based on such insights. Theory formation, description, and explanat
9、ion, also in discourse analysis, are sociopolitically situated, whether we like it or not. Reflection on the role of scholars in society and the polity thus becomes an inherent part of the discourse analytical enterprise. This may mean, among other things, that discourse analysts conduct research in
10、 solidarity and cooperation with dominated groups.Critical research on discourse needs to satisfy a number of requirements in order to effectively realize its aims:? As is often the case for more marginal research traditions, CDA research has to be better than other research in order to be accepted.
11、? It focuses primarily on social problems and political issues, rather than on current paradigms and fashions.? Empirically adequate critical analysis of social problems is usuallymultidisciplinary.? Rather than merely describe discourse structures, it tries to explain them in terms of properties of
12、 social interaction and especially social structure.? More specifically, CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm,legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations ofpower and dominance in society.Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271-80) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows:1. CDA a
13、ddresses social problems2. Power relations are discursive3. Discourse constitutes society and culture4. Discourse does ideological work5. Discourse is historical6. The link between text and society is mediated7. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory8. Discourse is a form of social act
14、ion.Whereas some of these tenets have also been discussed above, others need a more systematic theoretical analysis, of which we shall present some fragments here as a more or less general basis for the main principles of CDA (for details about these aims of critical discourse and language studies,
15、see, e.g., Caldas-Coulthard and Coulthard 1996; Fairclough 1992a, 1995a; Fairclough and Wodak 1997; Fowler et al. 1979; van Dijk 1993b).1 Con ceptual and Theoretical FrameworksSince CDA is not a specific direction of research, it does not have a unitary theoretical framework. Within the aims mention
16、ed above, there are many types of CDA, and these may be theoretically and analytically quite diverse. Critical analysis of conversation is very different from an analysis of news reports in the press or of lessons and teaching at school. Yet, given the common perspective and the general aims of CDA, we may also find overall conceptual and theoretical frameworks that are closely related. As suggested, most kinds of CDA
