对Ruth Wodak 关于话语批判分析的重要观点的总结.doc

批判话语分析课程论文学院：温州大学外国语学院专业：英语语言文学姓名：陈小翠学号：10106822118 2011年6月25日Ruth Wodak and Her Main Idea of CDA1 IntroductionThis essay is mainly a summary of Ruth Wodaks background information and her general idea of CDA, which her notion of the Discourse Historical Approach（DHA） in CDA will be paid much more attention to in this essay. DHA, as she elaborates, is interdisciplinary, problem-oriented, and analyzes the change of discursive practices over time and in various genres. This essay is composed of four parts, along with introduction part and conclusion part, chapter two introduces the background information of Ruth Wodak. Chapter three is about Ruth Wodaks general idea of CDA, within this chapter, Discourse Historical Approach is mainly dealt with. 2 Background Information of Ruth WodakThis very beginning chapter is going to introduce the background information of the famous scholar Ruth Wodak with the help of the information from the internet, for the purpose of a better understanding of all the aspects of her position, her prizes, her researches and so on.Ruth Wodak is Distinguished Professor and Chair in Discourse Studies at Lancaster University. She moved from Vienna, Austria, where she was full professor of Applied Linguistics since 1991. She has stayed co-director of the Austrian National Focal Point (NFP) of the European Monitoring Centre for Racism, Xenophobia and Anti Semitism. She is member of the editorial board of a range of linguistic journals, co-editor of the journal Discourse and Society and editor of Critical Discourse Studies (with Norman Fairclough, Phil Graham and Jay Lemke) and of the Journal of Language and Politics (with Paul Chilton). Together with Greg Myers, she edits the book series DAPSAC (Benjamins). She was also section editor of Language and Politics for the Second Edition of the Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Besides various other prizes, she was awarded the Wittgenstein-Prizes in 1996 for Elite Researchers in 1996 which made six years of continuous interdisciplinary team research possible. Her main projects focuses on Discourses on Un/employment in EU organizations; Debates on NATO and Neutrality in Austria and Hungary; The Discursive Construction of European Identities; Attitudes towards EU-Enlargement; Racism at the Top. Parliamentary Debates on Immigration in Six EU countries; The Discursive Construction of the Past - Individual and Collective Memories of the German Wehrmacht and the Second World War. In October 2006, she was awarded the Womans Prize of the City of Vienna. Ruth chaired the Humanities and Social Sciences Panel for the EURYI award, in the European Science Foundation, 2006 - 2008. She has held visiting professorships in Uppsala, Stanford University, University of Minnesota and Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. In the spring 2004, she had a Leverhulme Visiting Professorship at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. Recently, she was awarded the Kerstin Hesselgren Chair of the Swedish Parliament and stayed at University of rebro, Sweden, from March to June 2008. She has co-authored works with Teun A. van Dijk.Her research is mainly located in Discourse Studies (DS) and in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Together with her former colleagues and Ph.D students in Vienna (Rudolf de Cillia, Gertraud Benke, Helmut Gruber, Florian Menz, Martin Reisigl, Usama Suleiman, Christine Anthonissen), she elaborated the Discourse Historical Approach in CDA (DHA) which is interdisciplinary, problem-oriented, and analyzes the change of discursive practices over time and in various genres. Her main research agenda focuses the development of theoretical approaches in discourse studies (combining ethnography, argumentation theory, rhetoric and functional systemic linguistics); gender studies; language and/in politics; prejudice and discrimination.Currently, Ruth is studying “everyday politics” in the European Parliament and communicative decision making procedures while contrasting these - on the one hand - withresearch in Political Sciences, on the other hand - with TV series, such as The West Wing and Im Kanzleramt (book in preparation: Politics as Usual: The Discursive Construction and Representation of Politics in Action, Palgrave). Moreover, four edited books are in press: The Construction of History. Remembering the War of Annilihation (with H. Heer, W. Manoschek, A. Pollak; Palgrave); Migration, Identity, and Belonging (with G. Delanty, P. Jones; Liverpool Univ. Press); Qualitative Discourse Analysis for the Social Sciences (with M. Krzyzanowski; Palgrave);vCommunication in the Public Sphere. Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 4v(with V. Koller; De Gruyter). Michal Krzyzanowski and Ruth Wodak are also finalizing the book manuscript on Institutional and Every day Discrimination - The Austrian Case (Transaction Press) which summarizes findings of the EU project XENOPHOB (5th framework), for Austria. These books are quite valuable for the study of CDA. She has also published many other books and articles, thus is a very prolific scholar in the research area of DS and CDA.3 Ruth Wodaks General Idea of CDAAfter a general schema of her career and research area and other related information, this essay moves to the main focus of her idea about the CDA. This chapter is also divided into several parts, which all emphasizes her tenets of CDA.3.1 The Kernel of CDA and her contribution to CDAIn Ruth Wodaks mind, “Critical” means not taking things for granted, opening up complexity, challenging reductionism, dogmatism and dichotomies, being self-reflective in research, and through these processes, making opaque structures of power relations and ideologies manifest. “Critical”, thus, does not imply the common sense meaning of “being negative”rather “skeptical”. Proposing alternatives is also part of being “critical” (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001). Wodak conveyed that there is no one CDA approach. All CDA approaches have their own theoretical position combined with a specific methodology and methods (Wodak & Meyer, 2001; Wodak, 2004). She emphases that, every theoretical approach in CDA is inherently interdisciplinary because it aims at investigating complex social phenomena which are inherently inter- or transdisciplinary and certainly not to be studied by linguistics alone. “Critical” (as mentioned above) is not to be understood in the common sense of the word, i.e. criticizing, or being negative. Thus, “positive” is in no way to be understood as the counterpart of critical research as recently proposed by Jim Martin in his version of “Positive Discourse Analysis” The notion of critic stems from the Frankfurt School, for example, but also from other philosophical and epistemological backgrounds, and means not taking anything for granted, opening up alternative readings (justifiable through cues in the texts); self-reflection of the research process; making ideological positions manifested in the respective text transparent, etc. In Reisigl and Wodak (2001), they distinguish between three dimensions of critique: textimmanent critique, socio-diagnostic critique, and prospective (retrospective) critique. These dimensions also imply integrating the many layers of context into the in-depth analysis (where they have presented very clear steps in the methodology which are implemented in a recursive manner: from text to context to text, etc.). Critical self-reflection must accompany the research process continuously: from the choice of the object under investigation to the choice of methods (categories) of analysis, the sampling, the construction of a theoretical framework designed for the object under investigation (middle range theories), to the interpretation of the results and possible recommendations for practice following the study. When involved in teamwork, this process can also be institutionalized through joint reflective team sessions at various points of the respective research project. In some cases, it has also been very useful to ask outside experts to comment on such reflection processes (for example, they had an international advisory board for her research centre “Discourse, Politics, Identity” at the University of Vienna 1996-2003, which fulfilled this function). For Wodak, Discourse Studies is a separate field; of course, many other disciplines (such as history, sociology, psychology, etc.) study texts, but not in detailed, systematic and retroductable ways; moreover, discourse analysis is not only to be perceived as a “method” or “methodology” but also as theories about text production, and text reception. Moreover, social processes are inherently and dialectically linked to language (text and discourse). In this way, discourse analysis is both a theoretical and empirical enterprise. “Retroductable” means that such analyses should be transparent so that any reader can trace and understand the detailed in-depth textual analysis. In any case, all criteria which are usually applied to social science research apply to CDA as well.Her specific contribution is most probably the focus on interdisciplinary and implementing interdisciplinarity; this is also one of the most important characteristics of the Discourse-Historical Approach in CDA. Moreover, in contrast to other CDA scholars (and probably because she was trained as a sociolinguist), she combine theoretical research strongly with empirical research, the analysis of large data corpora and ethnography. She has also been very influenced by the teamwork with historians and sociologists. She learnt a lot from such collaborations and by taking their contributions seriously and attempting integrative approaches. This fed into to her theory of context (Wodak, 2000). Another important characteristic of her work is the primary focus on text analysis, argumentation theory and rhetoric, more than on Functional Systemic Linguistics (FSL) and other grammar theories (however, she has also collaborated very fruitfully with Theo Van Leeuwen and other scholars in FSL, for example). She has recently become very interested in the function of social fields and genres in various social fields, while applying Bourdieo (and Luhmann) as macro approaches to much interdisciplinary research primarily to the political field (Muntigl, Weiss & Wodak, 2000; Reisigl & Wodak, 2001). She thinks that it is very important for herself not to stay in the ivory towerin Austria, she was perceived somewhat as a public intellectual and positioned herself explicitly with her research on anti-Semitism and racism, as well as on right-wing populist rhetoric. She applied some of her research in guidelines and seminars with teachers, doctors, lawyers, and so forth.3.2 Ruth Wodaks Discourse Historical ApproachWhen we mention Wodaks main idea and perspectives of CDA, her Discourse Historical Approach is worth being pay much attention to. Discourse Historical Approach interprets the relationship between discourse and social structure from the perspective of cognition and also combines with the research method of human culturology. The theoretical framework of DHA put forward by Wodak is divided into two dimensions: textual production and textual interpretation. As for textual production, Wodak holds that, other than speech act, nonlinguistic elements such as the situation of utterance, the position of addresser, the time, space of speech, and all social variants like the socialization of discourse organizers age, occupation, together with some psychologically determined factors like experience, custom, etc, play a very important role in the process of textual production. The process of text production, they are cognitive dimension, social psychological dimension and linguistic dimension. Among them, cognitive dimension is also called intellectual and experimental dimension, which includes peoples cognition, frame, schema, script and so on. Social psychological dimension contains primary conditions like culture, gender, class member, speech situation, individuality, etc. Peoples frame and schema of concept and structure the reality all come into being in such primary conditions. Linguistic dimension is the final linguistic form of text. As for textual interpretation, Wodak points out that it is manipulated by social psychological elements as well. Addressees and readers should classify the text at the very beginning, then apply all kinds of strategies to the comprehension of the original text, the next step, according to Wodak, is to explain the text in order to construct “textual basis” and finally interpret the text. The process of textual production and textual interpretation is circulated and interlinked. In these processes, peoples mental model of epistemology and long-term memory gets constant feedbacks of knowledge and experience and also updates frequently. And the process of updating is completed within the systemic, conscious and unconscious strategies.The analytical model of Discourse Historical Approach can also be divided into three steps: content, discourse strategy and linguistic form of text. Content dimension can be defined as the concrete content or topics of certain discourse determined to be studied. Discourse strategy studies all kinds of strategies (include argumentation method) used in the text. It is the intermediary of the intention and realization of different communicators in different communicating degrees. And the linguistic form of text is spread upon each layer in discourses, sentences and lexicons in order to discuss the “prototypical” realization of linguistics and the measure of language.4 ConclusionThis essay mainly generates the background information and the main thought of CDA of Ruth Wodak. This main help us follow a whole image of this famous scholar. As for her contributions to CDA, this paper mainly introduces her representative approach, that is, Discourse Historical Approach. As far as we concerned, Discourse Historical Approach has its unparalleled advantage in Critique Discourse Analysis. The most outstanding features of it are th