对Ruth Wodak 关于话语批判分析的重要观点的总结

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：

1

201 1

年

6

月

25

日

Ruth Wodak and Her Main Idea of CDA

1 Introduction

This essay is mainly a summary of Ruth

Wodak

’

s 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 Wodak

’

s general

idea of CDA, within this chapter, Discourse Historical Approach is mainly dealt with.

2

Background Information of Ruth Wodak

This 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

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

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.

the

Woman's

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);v

Communication

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 Wodak

’

s General Idea of CDA

After

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 CDA

In Ruth Wodak

’

s 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.

“

Cr itical

”

, thus, does not imply the common

sense meaning of

“

being negative

”—

rather

“

skeptical

”

. Proposing alternatives is also

part of being

“

critical

”< /p>

(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