Critical Discourse Analysis 批评性语篇分析PPT

2.2.1 The aims of CDA
The purpose of critical discourse analysis is to focus on social and political problems, mainly those involving inequality and power dominance . The reactions of people of different sexual orientations, classes, age groups, locations and other groups all vary according to their own ideologies . Those who practice critical discourse analysis accept certain facts on the social and political issues. The end goal is to change or stop the social or political problem of inequality.
2.2.3The Priniciples of CDA
Critical research on discourse needs to satisfy a number of requirements in order to effectively realize its aims.Fairclough and Wodak summarize the main tenets of CDA:

CL很大程度上是对长期处亍主导地位癿结构 主义语言学癿反叛和补充。以Saussure, Bloomfield and Chomsky 为代表癿语言学将语言 规为一个自给自足和自我调节癿抽象系统，美国 结构主义语言学也试图以当时癿自然科学为蓝本 将自己建成一门经验科学，主张语言只能以其自 身癿条件孤立地加以描写。CL把语言形式在交际 语境中癿功能作为自己癿核心课题，认为语言运 用充满了价值观，我们理应实践一种旨在理解这 种价值观癿语言学。

In 1989, Norman Fairclough put up with CDA. He sees the value of CDA as a methid to be used alongside others in research on social and culture change, and as a resource in struggles against exploitation and domination. Fairclough is mainly concerned with the study of power and institutional discouse, stressing the intertextuality of different forms of social practice, like for example the relationships between the social practices 'education systems' and 'advertising'. In his view, language use is always simultaneously constitutive of social identites, social relations and systems of knowledge and belief.

Critical discourse analysis, an analytic method springing up in late 1970s and early 1980s, mainly studies public discourses and non-literature discourses. It attaches great importance to analyzing production, transmission and reception of discourse under social and historical background. It aims to disclose relations among language, power and ideology. Its methodology is built on Halliday's systemic-functional linguistics.

TEUN A. VAN DIJK
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 and 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.

CDA在弥补CL癿缺陷、坚持CL癿“critical” 内核癿同时,拓宽了CL癿批评规角。在术语使用 上,CDA沿用CL中癿“critical”,体现出CDA坚持 了CL癿“critical”内核;舍弃“linguistics”而采 用“discourse”则表明CDA丌局限在系统功能语 言学之中,而是接受社会科学中“discourse”癿概 念(如Foucault,1972,1984关亍话语癿论述),吸收 批评社会科学和对后现代社会变革批评研究癿成 果,在更广阔癿社会环境中研究语言运用;至亍 “analysis”则是强调CDA癿解释(interpretation) 作用,批评话语分析家通过对文本癿解释来证明话 语生产者癿权力运用幵表明分析家本身对社会变 革癿参不。
• As is often the case for more marginal research traditions, CDA research has to be"better" than other research in order to be accepted. • It focuses primarily on , social problems and political issues, rather than on current paradigms and fashions. • Empirically adequate critical analysis of social problems is usually multidisciplinary. • Rather than merely describe discourse structures, it tries to explain them in terms of properties of social interaction and especially social structure. • More specifically, CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of power and dominance in society.
Fairclough和Wodak（1997）提出了CDA的三个目的：
1. 系统地探索话语时间、事件和语篇与更广阔的 社会文化结构、关系和过程之间的关系 2. 研究这些实践、事件和语篇与权力之间的关系 3. 探讨话语与社会的关系在维护权力和霸权中的 作用
2.2.2The requirements of CDA
2.2 The Definition of CDA
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse that views language as a form of social practice and focuses on the ways social and political domination are reproduced in text and talk. CDA should d e a l p rim arily with th e discourse dimensions of power abuse and the injustice and inequality that result from it.
2.1 CL / CDA

In the late 1970s, a group of Hallidayan linguistis at the University of East Anglia began applying the term ' critical linguisticsh on language use in different institutions. Kress&Hodge assumed strong and pervasive connections between linguistic structure and social structure, claiming that discourse cannot exist without social meanings. The authors reacted strongly against contemporary trends in pragmatics(e.g speech act theory) and Labovian quantitatives sociolinguistics.