critical discourse analysis.docx

critical discourse analysis.docx

《critical discourse analysis.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《critical discourse analysis.docx（18页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

criticaldiscourseanalysis

Criticaldiscourseanalysis

NormanFairclough

‘Criticaldiscourseanalysis’（henceforthCDA）subsumesavarietyofapproachestowardsthesocialanalysisofdiscourse（Fairclough&Wodak1997,PêcheuxM1982,Wodak&Meyer2001）whichdifferintheory,methodology,andthetypeofresearchissuestowhichtheytendtogiveprominence.MyownworkinthisareahasalsochangedtosomeextentintheserespectsbetweenthepublicationofLanguageandPower（Longman1989）andthepublicationofAnalysingDiscourse:

TextualAnalysisforSocialResearch（2003）.Mycurrentresearchisonprocessesofsocialchangeintheirdiscourseaspect（Fairclough1992isanearlyformulationofaversionofCDAspecializedforthistheme）.Morespecifically,Iamconcernedwithrecentandcontemporaryprocessesofsocialtransformationwhicharevariouslyidentifiedbysuchtermsas‘neo-liberalism’,‘globalisation’,‘transition’,‘informationsociety’,‘knowledge-basedeconomy’and‘learningsociety’.IshallfocushereontheversionofCDAIhavebeenusinginmorerecent（partlycollaborative）work（Chiapello&Fairclough2002,Chouliaraki&Fairclough1999,Fairclough2000a,2000b,2003,2004,Fairclough,Jessop&Sayer2004）.

Methodologically,thisapproachentailsworkingina‘transdisciplinary’waythroughdialoguewithotherdisciplinesandtheorieswhichareaddressingcontemporaryprocessesofsocialchange.‘Transdisciplinary’（asopposedtomerely‘interdisciplinary’,orindeed‘postdisciplinary’,Sum&Jessop2001）impliesthatthetheoreticalandmethodologicaldevelopment（thelatterincludingdevelopmentofmethodsofanalysis）ofCDAandthedisciplines/theoriesitisindialoguewithisinformedthroughthatdialogue,amatterofworkingwith（thoughnotatallsimplyappropriating）the‘logic’andcategoriesoftheotherindevelopingone’sowntheoryandmethodology（Faircloughforthcominga）.Theoverridingobjectiveistogiveaccounts–andmorepreciseaccountsthanonetendstofindinsocialresearchonchange-ofthewaysinwhichandextenttowhichsocialchangesarechangesindiscourse,andtherelationsbetweenchangesindiscourseandchangesinother,non-discoursal,elementsor‘moments’ofsociallife（includingthereforethequestionofthesensesandwaysinwhichdiscourse‘（re）constructs’sociallifeinprocessesofsocialchange）.Theaimisalsotoidentifythroughanalysistheparticularlinguistic,semioticand‘interdiscursive’（seebelow）featuresof‘texts’（inabroadsense–seebelow）whichareapartofprocessesofsocialchange,butinwayswhichfacilitatetheproductiveintegrationoftextualanalysisintomulti-disciplinaryresearchonchange.

Theoretically,thisapproachischaracterizedbyarealistsocialontology（whichregardsbothabstractsocialstructuresandconcretesocialeventsaspartsofsocialreality）,adialecticalviewoftherelationshipbetweenstructureandagency,andoftherelationshipbetweendiscourseandotherelementsor‘moments’ofsocialpracticesandsocialevents（discourseisdifferentfrom–notreducibleto–butnotdiscretefrom–‘internalizes’andis‘internalized’by（Harvey1996）–othersocialelements）.

Ishallproceedasfollows.Insection1IshallgivesummarisemaintheoreticalfeaturesofthisversionofCDA.InSection2Ishalldiscusstheviewofmethodology,includingmethodsofdatacollectionandanalysis,referringspecificallytoanaspectof‘transition’（and‘globalisation’）incentralandeasternEuropeandmoreparticularlyinRomania:

theprojectofdeveloping‘informationsocieties’and‘knowledge-basedeconomies’.IshalldevelopthisexampleinSection3,discussingtherecontextualizationofdiscoursesofthe‘informationsociety’and‘knowledge-basedeconomy’inaRomanianpolicydocument.

1.Theoreticalissues

Theterm‘discourse’isusedinvariouswayswithinthebroadfieldofdiscourseanalysis.Twoareofparticularrelevancehere.First,‘discourse’inanabstractsenseasacategorywhichdesignatesthebroadlysemioticelements（asopposedtoandinrelationtoother,non-semiotic,elements）ofsociallife（language,butalsovisualsemiosis,‘bodylanguage’etc）.Iprefertousetheterm‘semiosis’（Fairclough,Jessop&Sayer2004）toavoidthecommonconfusionofthissenseof‘discourse’withthesecond,whichIretain:

‘discourse’asacountnoun,asacategoryfordesignatingparticularwaysofrepresentingparticularaspectsofsociallife（egitiscommontodistinguishdifferentpoliticaldiscourses,whichrepresentforexampleproblemsofinequality,disadvantage,poverty,‘socialexclusion’,indifferentways）.Thecategoryof‘discourse’inthissecondsenseisdefinedthroughitsrelationtoanddifferencefromtwoothercategories,‘genre’and‘style’（seebelow）.

Therealistsocialontologyadoptedheretreatssocialstructuresaswellassocialeventsaspartsofsocialreality.Likeanumbersocialtheorists,suchasBourdieuandBhaskar（Bourdieu&Wacquant1992,Bhaskar1986）,Iassumethatcoherentaccountsoftherelationshipbetweensocialstructuresandsocialeventsdependuponmediatingcategories,forwhichIshallusetheterm‘socialpractices’,meaningmoreorlessstableanddurableformsofsocialactivity,whicharearticulatedtogethertoconstitutesocialfields,institutions,andorganizations.Thereisasemioticdimensionateachoftheselevels.Languages（aswellasothersemioticsystems）areaparticulartypeofsocialstructure.Iusetheterm‘orderofdiscourse’（thetermisFoucault’s,butitisrecontextualizedwithinthisversionofCDAinadistinctiveway,seeFoucault1984,Fairclough1992,2003）forthesemioticdimensionofarticulatednetworksofsocialpractices（forinstance,thepoliticalfieldispartlyconstitutedasaparticularorderofdiscourse,sotooarespecificgovernmental,educationalorbusinessorganizations）.Iusetheterm‘text’inanextendedwayforthesemioticdimensionofsocialevents–thewrittendocumentsandwebsitesofgovernmentare‘texts’inthissense,asalsoareinterviewsandmeetingsingovernmentorbusinessorganisations（Fairclough2003）.Theterm‘text’isnotreallyfelicitoususedinthisway,becauseonecannotshakeoffitsprimaryassociationwithwrittentexts,butitisdifficulttofindapreferablegeneralterm.

Socialpracticesand,ataconcretelevel,socialevents,arearticulationsofdiversesocialelements,includingsemiosis.Onemightforinstanceseesocialpracticesasincludingthefollowingelements（thoughthereisclearlyroomforargumentaboutwhattheelementsare）:

Activities

Socialrelations

Objectsandinstruments

Timeandplace

Socialsubjects,withbeliefs,knowledge,valuesetc

Semiosis

Theseelementsaredialecticallyrelated（Harvey1996）.Thatistosay,theyaredifferentelements,butnotdiscrete,fullyseparate,elements.Thereisasenseinwhicheach‘internalizes’theotherswithoutbeingreducibletothem.Soforinstancesocialrelationsinorganizationsclearlyhaveapartlysemioticcharacter,butthatdoesnotmeanthatwesimplytheorizeandresearchsocialrelationsinthesamewaythatwetheorizeandresearchlanguage.Theyhavedistinctproperties,andresearchingthemgivesrisetodistinctdisciplines.Conversely,textsaresomassively‘overdetermined’（Althusser&Balibar1970,Fairclough,Jessop&Sayer2004）byothersocialelementsthatlinguisticanalysisoftextsquicklyfindsitselfaddressingquestionsaboutsocialrelations,socialidentities,institutions,andsoforth,butthisdoesnotmeanthatlinguisticanalysisoftextsisreducibletoformsofsocialanalysis.Nevertheless,thedialecticalcharacterofrelationsbetweenelementsunderscoresthevalueandimportanceofworkingacrossdisciplinesina‘transdisciplinary’way.

Semiosisfiguresinbroadlythreewaysinsocialpractices（andthearticulationsofpracticeswhichconstitutesocialfields,institutions,organizations）andsocialevents.First,itfiguresasapartofthesocialactivity,partoftheaction（andinteraction）.Forinstance,partofdoingajob（forinstance,beingashopassistant）isusinglanguageinaparticularway;sotooispartofgoverningacountry.Second,semiosisfiguresinrepresentations.Socialactorsactingwithinanyfieldororganizationproducerepresentationsofotherpractices,aswellas（‘reflexive’）representationsoftheirownpractices,inthecourseoftheiractivity,anddifferentsocialactorswillrepresentthemdifferentlyaccordingtohowtheyarepositionedwithinfieldsororganizations.Third,semiosisfiguresinwaysofbeing,intheconstitutionofidentities–forinstancetheidentityofapoliticalleadersuchasTonyBlairintheUKispartlyasemioticallyconstitutedwayofbeing（Fairclough2000b）.

Semiosisaspartofsocialactivityconstitutes‘genres’.Genresarediversewaysof（inter）actingintheirspecificallysemioticaspect.Examplesare:

meetingsinvarioustypesoforganisation,politicalandotherformsofinterview,newsarticlesinthepress,andbookreviews.Semiosisintherepresentationandself-representationofsocialpracticesconstitutes‘discourses’.Discoursesarediverserepresentationsofsociallife.Forinstance,thelivesofpooranddisadvantagedpeoplearerepresentedthroughdifferentdiscoursesinthesocialpracticesofgovernment,politics,medicine,andsocialscience,aswellasthroughdifferentdiscourseswithineachofthesepracticescorrespondingtodifferentpositionsofsocialactors.Finally,semiosisaspartofwaysofbeingconstitutes‘styles’–forinstancethestylesofbusinessmanagers,orpoliticalleaders.

Thesemioticaspectofasocialfieldorinstitutionororganization（ieofaspecificartic