从“批判话语分析(CDA)”到“传播民族志”(EoC)——话语、传播实践与“钟情妄想症”的分析示例

From Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to Ethnography of Communication (EoC) :Discourse,Communicative Practice and a Case Analysis of “Erotomanic Type of Delusion Disorder”

近年来,话语分析和民族志的方法都成为传播学关注的焦点。由费尔克拉夫(Fairclough)和范迪克(Van Dijk)等人推动的批判话语分析(CDA)是连接语言文本与其所在社会文化的语境的分析桥梁。然而从语言和文本本身出发的研究无法将言语行为看作在具体传播情境下社会互动的产物。与批判话语分析不同,"传播民族志"从传播实践出发,将话语放置在特定的"言语共同体"和具体的"传播实践"场景之中加以考察。利用民族志的方法,"传播民族志"(Ethnography of Communication,简称Eo C)旨在说明不同的言语主体,如何通过调用内在或外在于该"言语共同体"的话语和传播资源建构自己的"传播资质",从而建构权力秩序。利用"传播民族志"的框架,通过分析在一个特定的互动场景中(晚饭聚餐),研究者与数位精神科护士讨论"何为钟情妄想症"的"传播实践",说明,在特定情境下,话语的特定意义是不同言语主体言语行为互动和实践的结果。与批判话语分析相补充,"传播民族志"帮助研究者更好理解话语是如何通过日常的"传播实践"建构自身的合法性,以及在一个多重话语并置甚或冲突的情境下,作为"传播资源"的话语,如何对不同"言语主体"施加权力并形塑特定话语的意义。

Recently,discourse analysis and ethnographic methodology have been increasingly addressed by communication research. Promoted by Fairclough and van Dijk,Critical Discourse Analysis( CDA) serves as an analytic tool that bridges text and the socio-cultural context. However,taking language and text as the point of departure,CDA is hardly capable of viewing speech acts as the products of social interaction within a particular communicative context. Differing from CDA,Ethnography of Communication( EoC) departs from communicative practice,which correspond-ingly positions discourse in a 'speech community'and cast it within the context where the practices take place. EoC aims to explicate how different speaking subjects mobilize a variety of discursive and communicative resources inside or outside the community and thus construct their 'communicative competence'. Finally,this article analyzes a communicative practice. The researcher was discussing with several psychiatric nurses on the connotation of erotomanic type of delusion disorder during dinner. This case illustrates that the meaning of a discourse is the consequence of speech interaction and practice among different speaking subjects within a context. Supplementary to CDA,EoC assists researchers to better comprehend how discourses are legitimized through everyday communicative practice,and also as communicative resources,how various discourses exert power on different 'speaking subjects'and hence shape the meaning of the discourse in a context where multiple discourse are juxtaposed or even be at odds.