1. Critical discourse analysis explains in detail the social science fields it involves, including sociology, politics, communication, management, education, etc. , has a strong practical guiding role. Critical linguistics is different from traditional linguistics in discourse analysis. Traditional linguistics ignores the social attribute of discourse, while critical linguistics holds that language is a social practice and an intervening force in social processes. Language not only reflects society, but also directly participates in the formation of social things and social relations. It not only studies what language is, but also studies why language is like this; Not only interested in the meaning of the text itself, but also interested in how the text produces this meaning.
In foreign countries, critical discourse analysis has developed rapidly, the research and practice team is growing, the related monographs are increasing, and international publications and regional cooperation projects are constantly appearing. Relatively speaking, critical discourse analysis started late in China, but it has begun to attract linguists' attention. In recent years, critical linguistics has attracted the attention of linguists at home and abroad. The number of researchers is gradually increasing, and research results are constantly emerging. In order to help people know more about the latest trends and research prospects of critical linguistics, so as to better carry out targeted research, this paper intends to comment on critical discourse analysis.
Second, an overview of critical discourse analysis Critical discourse analysis is a linguistic trend of thought developed from the late 1970s to the early 1980s, and its source is critical linguistics. The representative figures are mainly several counter-mainstream linguists and social linguists from Britain, France and Germany, such as M. Foucault, N. Fairclough, G. Crixus and R. Fowler. The main reason for its formation is "criticism of western mainstream linguistics and early sociolinguistics" (Tian Hailong, 2003:40). It is a social-oriented discourse analysis method based on Halliday's Systemic Functional Linguistics (Xin Bin, 1996). The philosophical basis of critical linguistics can be traced back to Neo-Marxism in 1930s and Frankfurt School's social criticism theory. They regard society as an organic whole, and all its components are the reflection of some kind of power. Roger Fowler and gunther Chris were also influenced by michel foucault.
Foucault's traditional concept of "knowledge is pure" reveals the inseparability of knowledge and power. On the one hand, all knowledge is the result of a special power system. On the other hand, various forms of knowledge constitute the social reality they describe and analyze: "power and knowledge directly contain each other ... there is no power relationship that is not composed of related knowledge fields, and there is no knowledge that does not contain and constitute power relations at the same time." Through various discourses, the function of power-knowledge complex is repositioned: "Power and knowledge are combined in discourse." The linguistic basis of Fowler's and Chris's theories is Sapir-Wolf's linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity, and Halliday's "social semiotic theory of language" in his functional grammar theory.
As a branch of linguistics or a discourse analysis method, the linguistic analysis foundation of critical discourse analysis is mainly based on various theories of modern linguistics, especially Systemic Functional Grammar headed by Halliday. Halliday absorbed the functionalist linguistic viewpoint of Prague School, the systematic thought of J.R.Firth of London School, the contextual thought of anthropologist B.Mali-nowiski and the code thought of sociologist B.Bernstein, and thought that language is not a system composed of rules, but a source of meaning, which is a potential system for people to choose, and it emphasizes language and society.
Contemporary critical discourse analysis draws more nutrition from critical science than linguistics, although it also needs the support of language and symbolic analysis theory. Contemporary critical discourse analysts believe that discourse is a symbolic element of social practice, and rethinking discourse lays the foundation for studying discourse from a brand-new perspective.
Thirdly, it is concluded that critical discourse analysis, as an important aspect of discourse analysis, will be closely related to linguistics, cognition and society. The continuous development of linguistic research promotes the theoretical construction of critical discourse analysis. In fact, it highlights the power relationship and ideological process that people turn a blind eye to in language. Compared with mainstream linguistics and mainstream discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis pays more attention to the deeper level of social system and social composition in order to seek to explain the reasons of discourse. More importantly, while emphasizing the influence of society on discourse, it also pays attention to studying the reaction of discourse to society, and fully realizes the great role of discourse in social and cultural changes and reproduction in modern and post-modern society. At present, there are still many problems in the study of China. There are few research monographs and master's and doctoral dissertations, but they are very common abroad, and the content also involves many aspects. Secondly, the research results of critical discourse analysis in China are mostly summary papers, and there are not enough in-depth research results. In addition, the research content is not rich enough. Domestic linguists have made a critical analysis of modern Chinese texts, but there are few achievements in critical pragmatics and critical applied linguistics. Although critical discourse analysis is not a new school of language research, although there are still many defects and even contradictions, it represents a new perspective of language research. With the deepening of research, researchers constantly revise and improve these theories in order to better provide a more complete theoretical framework for discourse critical analysis.
Article analysis from the network Author: unknown