Issues in Critical DiscourseAnalysis：An Interview with Professor Paul Chilton*

◎武建國　華南理工大學(xué)外國語學(xué)院

◎鐘　紅　廣東外語外貿(mào)大學(xué)英文學(xué)院

訪談

Issues in Critical DiscourseAnalysis：An Interview with Professor Paul Chilton*

◎武建國華南理工大學(xué)外國語學(xué)院

◎鐘紅廣東外語外貿(mào)大學(xué)英文學(xué)院

This article presents an interview with Dr.Paul Chilton,Emeritus Professor in linguistics at the University of Lancaster,UK.His main research interests include cognitive linguistics and the socially engaged analysis of discourse(especially Critical Discourse Analysis,CDA for short).In this interview,Professor Chilton enlightens us on the issues of CDA,including its basic tenets,historical origin,theoretical bases,research methods,future directions,and so on.

critical discourse analysis(CDA),Paul Chilton,interview

Question 1

Wu:Paul,it is universally acknowledged that you are a leading scholar in the field of cognitive linguistics and critical discourse analysis.I’m really interested in your academic path from cognitive linguistics to CDA.What motivated you to do interdisciplinary research on cognitive linguistics with CDA?

Chilton:Thank you for your question and your kind remarks.I would like to say a few things in response.First,I am not really a leading scholar in the field of cognitive linguistics.But it is true that I use cognitive linguistics or certain parts of it because it is a fairly diverse field.I have used cognitive linguistics,particularly conceptual metaphor theory,in studying discourse.I’m still hoping to make a research contribution to cognitive linguistics.And I’m currently finishing a book to be published by Cambridge University Press,hopefully by the end of next year.It is an innovative theory based on cognitive linguistics but using principles drawn from geometrical reasoning.And the justification for that is,basically,that one of the insights of cognitive linguistics is that language draws on areas of cognitive functioning that are not specifically dedicated to language itself.And one of the most fundamental of these cognitive functions is the ability of the brain to navigate around space.So,spatial cognition is crucial.We know from metaphor theory that many metaphors draw on concepts of space and movement in space.So it seems to me logical to develop the formalism of geometry which is precisely about space.So I am using the simple ideas from geometry,but treating them in a metaphorical way.I believe this will give us some insights into some of the crucial aspects of language.So that’s just a little bit about my current cognitive research.But I don’t consider myself in anyway a leader in cognitive linguistics,except possibly in the application,but not in the development.I am not making much contribution to the development of theory and metaphor theory,or so far in cognitive grammar,for example,but I think maybe my new book will be an original contribution.

So,turning to the second part of your question,you refer to my academic path from cognitive linguistics to CDA.I think my personal academic story is a bit different from that.The starting point of my path is really an interest in foreign languages and foreign literature within Europe.I studied French,German,and literature.My PhD was studying a particular set of poems in French from an earlier period,from the 16th century,a very important turning point in European culture,by the way.My methods of approach at that time were,I suppose,what I would describe as stylistics,because I was concerned with how the poetry I was studying was constructed and how it produced the mental and emotional responses I think people experience when they read it.When I was doing that research,I became interested in metaphor and the theory of metaphor which was then available,and this was just a little bit before cognitive linguistics was developed.So I studied metaphor at a quite early point,as well as other aspects of linguistics and linguistically based stylistics.Later,I explored,and applied,conceptual metaphor theory within cognitive linguistics.I realized my earlier analysis of metaphor in poetry was very similar in some aspects.It just happened to be similar.Ok,so Ifocused on language,the use of language in literature,and I was interested in the relationship between the structure of language in literary text and the relation of non-literary text to the historical situation in which it was produced.

In some respects,there are similarities with the work in CDA which I went on to develop later.There are two elements really from the literary stylistics which were focused on the details of linguistic structure—the working of texts on the mind,and the relationship of texts to the social and political environment.I just became tired of studying literature and turned my attention to various events taking place in European and international politics,and started to ask myself what role language,or rather the use of language,was playing in these events.I am talking about the later period of the Cold War,from around 1980.At the same time I became interested in two different strands of theory—one was linguistic theory,particularly cognitive linguistics,which fitted well with my earlier work on metaphor,and the other was the study of social discourse and political discourse as developed in the social sciences.I have two different paths,if you like.One is as a linguistic theorist;the other is as a committed citizen,trying to make sense of what is going on in the world,by analyzing the language people are using.And here is the connection with CDA.In late 1970s,several linguists,particularly a group in the University of East Anglia,had begun to talk about the need for linguists to have a social commitment.I think nowadays I prefer to use the term ethical commitment as I described in my talk yesterday.So that’s the academic path I followed.It starts with studying literature in the past and ends up looking at theoretical issues on the one hand,and their applications to social and political discourse on the other.

Zhong:What attracts you to switch to that area?Social discourse or public discourse?

Chilton:I suppose it was a set of events in Europe in the early 1980s.There was a crisis about the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe.Along with other people on the left of politics in Europe and in the UK,I was apposed to the positioning of nuclear weapons by the Americans in Europe.My perspective was not just on the UK,but Europe as a whole.And I worked together with similar activists in demonstrations,protests,writing articles,journalism,and so forth.This is the way I really became involved in critical discourse analysis.The question was how it was possible that people could accept this imposition and proliferation of destructive nuclear power.

Question 2

Wu:What would you say is your particular contribution to critical discourse analysis?

Chilton:My particular contribution to critical discourse analysis?That’s difficult to say.The first point I want to make is that I actually never used the label“critical discourse analysis”to describe my own work.I always tended to be a little bit distant from that group,because I don’t like labels.And I don’t like schools of thought.There is a risk that scholars who follow a line simply repeat the same ideas.So I always felt that I wanted to be an independent individual,original scholar.I also felt that there is something slightly strange about being involved in an activity which was motivated by social and ethical concerns and then building a career on it.I wasn’t comfortable with that combination.And I felt I should have purely professional intellectual concerns and act at the same time as a responsible citizen.I think everybody has that responsibility actually,and I do think that academics can play a very important role,but that’s not the whole purpose of being an intellectual.The purpose of being an intellectual is to think and explore new ideas and test them.

Zhong:I noticed your entry to the encyclopedia about the view of CDA.I think you built up some links between previous people and the problems at the moment when you wrote that entry for the encyclopedia.…In the year 2010 you emailed me that entry,which would go into the encyclopedia.The title of that entry was“critical discourse analysis.”You reviewed the previous work in this area,CDA.So,that means you have done some contribution to critical discourse analysis.To me,your contribution is that you are ready to identify the gaps between A and B and C…

Chilton:I suppose I take a fairly critical perspective in regard to critical discourse analysis.I am not the only person who has done that.And the key leaders in critical discourse analysis also do their self-criticism.I know that leading scholars in CDA like my friends Ruth Wodak,Teun van Dijk,and Norman Fairclough,they change their own theories in the development of their ideas about CDA.So,I am not doing anything special.I suppose if I made any contribution to CDA,one perhaps is in terms of the sorts of topics that I focus on,the kind of things about which I do critique.And these have been predominantly to do with international relations.So,my 1996 book,Security Metaphors,focused on the Cold War,international relations theory,and the confrontation between the Soviet Union and the western world.That’s a kind of topic that’s not central in mainstream CDA,where the concerns areoften more domestic,particularly with racism,and for very good reasons that have to do in large part with the history of Europe,and what happened to the Jews in central Europe,in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.A number of scholars,especially someone like Ruth Wodak,are very strongly motivated by this history,and for all of us in the immediate post-war generation,we hoped to ensure that anti-Semitism never happened again in Europe.I do my own studies on racist discourse,too,but my focus was always a bit more international,to do with east-west relations.Of course,in the Cold War period we thought of east-west relations in terms of Soviet Union and the United States.Now we think of east-western relations in a much broader way.So if I have a contribution that’s distinctive in my critical discourse work,it is has to do,at least I hope so with the international scope of the topics and the problem of international conflict.There is perhaps one other way in which my work is possibly distinctive,and this may be one of the things you are thinking about—the kind of linguistics that I have applied.I have always had a cognitive perspective.I always use cognitive linguistics.And others often use different theories or no theory at all.

Question 3

Wu:While talking about the analytical frameworks of CDA,Blommaert(2005:21)said,“The leading scholars are usually seen as the quartet of Norman Fairclough,Ruth Wodak,Teun van Dijk,and Paul Chilton.”I know that there are quite a few scholars doing CDA from the cognitive perspective,e.g.van Dijk developed his social cognitive model.Would you please illustrate the theoretical and methodological differences between your research and van Dijk’s research?

Chilton:I will try to say something about it.Really we should have Teun van Dijk here also.Let me say first of all,of those four people,we all cooperate,work together.It is true that van Dijk always adopted a cognitive perspective in his earlier works on the processing of discourse.He draws on various early researchers in the cognitive area.He uses the idea of cognitive frames to study some aspects of discourse,based on early work in cognitive science and computer science.He uses also a standard psychological model of memory—long-term memory,short-term memory,and so forth.He has in recent years developed his own concept of“context models.”So he’s using some standard machinery from psychology and cognitive science,taking them further,and applying them to social discourse.But I think Teun would say that he does not draw extensively on the work that was done in cognitive linguistics fromthe 1980s onwards.I am thinking of the work on conceptual metaphor theory in particular,for example George Lakoff and Mark Johnson.He doesn’t use that,at least not in detail.If Teun receives an article about metaphor for his journal,he often sends it to me… ha-ha…that indicates one of the differences.Also he doesn’t draw on cognitive grammar,specifically work by scholars like Charles Fillmore,Ron Langacker and many others,all of whose publications have very detailed cognitive content.Teun is doing something different.He doesn’t draw on the more detailed models of human language as such,and he doesn’t use these for analyzing the use of language at the micro level.There is a difference in focus.But the overall methodological perspectives are indeed broadly cognitive in van Dijk and myself.

Question 4

Wu:In your point of view,what are the most important developments in CDA?

Chilton:That’s another difficult question.I just think that the first important thing for us is that CDA is not a single unified field.Most of us who work in CDA would emphasize,what we always tell students,is that CDA isn’t just one single theory.We often have PhD students coming to say“I want to do a study using the CDA method.”We have to say there is no CDA method.It is very diverse.That’s why it is quite difficult to say there is one important development here,there is another important development there.There are different approaches that appear in different times and it’s a very broad field rather than a linear development.So I wouldn’t like to say there is any one particular theory.But I would add one thought on that,and it’s the same as what I said yesterday.The most important development for CDA is the new global environment for communication,where totally different problems of critical analysis have emerged and are continuing to emerge.

Wu:Very good answer.

Chilton:And one important development for me personally,I think extremely important,is the emergence of a considerable body of scholars in China who are now interested in critical discourse analysis.And we see that in other regions of the world also,I mean I am not talking about Australia,and other English speaking parts of the world,or French and perhaps German speaking parts of the world for that matter.But I am talking about places like Iran.Now,what does this term mean for people in Iran?What does it mean for scholars in China?Since we are only beginning to see this happening,the process only emerges in development.So,what CDA must do is not be over-concerned with its own internal theories and so forth.It needs torespond to the development of discourse analysis in the global context and to scholars outside the old imperial European sphere of influence.

Question 5

Wu:Many scholars,especially scholars in China,believe that Halliday’s systemic-functional linguistics is the theoretical basis of CDA.But I think CDA has a very broad theoretical basis,including not only Halliday’s SFL,but also many social and philosophical theories.What’s your opinion about this issue?

Chilton:Well,I suppose I could say quite a lot about this.It might take too long.But I do think there is a question about the theories of language which are used in discourse analysis.There are historical reasons why SFG is popular in China,I believe,and why it is popular within English language teaching circles also.And it is certainly true that it was advocated quite strongly by Norman Fairclough.It is a quite complicated story,actually,as to how it happened.It’s partly to do with Chomsky.Most people in discourse analysis,and most people in critical discourse analysis,like to say rude things about Chomsky.I am not one of them.I don’t think Chomsky’s latest version of Generative Grammar is actually going in the right direction,but let’s not forget it is a kind of cognitive approach.The problem is that it is a very restrictive version,restricted to syntax.Meaning is treated as something separate.

Now,I think,what we are concerned with is discourse and its meaning,and how meaning is communicated.Chomsky’s extremely influential theory cannot give us any instruments for looking at meaning closely,and,specifically,in practical contexts.This was understood relatively early,but in fact the early critical linguistic school did draw heavily on Chomsky’s technical idea of transformations,working from early versions of Chomsky’s theory.Then they abandoned the generative Chomskyan framework,and they decided to work with systemic-functional grammar because it claimed to be more related to the communication of social meanings and contexts.

I think that SFG can be a very useful tool.However,I do think there are serious limitations actually,as far as I understand currently the large body of SFG.Again,I acknowledge that SFG itself is developing and that within it there are strands that make a claim to being cognitively plausible.So,I might be out of date on this.But as I mentioned in the lecture yesterday,one major problem for me with SFG is that it tries to classify a huge number of separate meanings and label them.I don’t think meaning can be classified in thatkind of way.A second problem is that it also has no elaborated theory of pragmatics.It doesn’t tell us how communication happens,how this extraordinary process occurring between human beings,human minds,actually works.And a third limitation is that SFG doesn’t have a theory of conceptual metaphor.It has a theory of something that is called“grammatical metaphor”.But it seems to me surprising that SFG hasn’t related its writing about metaphor to the development of theory about metaphor within cognitive science.I think that’s a serious limitation of SFG.

Those are three particular limitations,at least in my view,but the most fundamental difficulty is that SFG tries to classify meanings in systemic networks.It doesn’t have an explanation for implied meaning.And what is absolutely clear,I think is that,contrary to popular belief,words do not explicitly encode all available meanings.They are not packets that contain meanings.In themselves words are just little hints,little cues.Most of our understanding of meaning and communication is done unconsciously by bringing in lots of background knowledge—that’s why I think the cognitive approach is more relevant.CDA has always been interested in the manipulation of meaning,the communication of hidden or semi-hidden meaning,meaning that is not on the surface structure of words,but is implied.To understand the range of meanings we can communicate by using language,you need all the theories from linguistics.I think the main one,for CDA,is probably pragmatics,especially the theory of speech acts.SFG does not have a theory as such of speech acts.

I don’t deny,however,that SFG is extremely helpful,with some types of description,for example with what is called“transitivity,”but it cannot give us the whole story.There are other things too in CDA,not from linguistics at all.People will mention Foucault,the French philosopher,who gives us a broad notion of the relationship between discourse and power.But the problem is Foucault uses very large generalizations,I mean he doesn’t analyze specific language,only social aspects.I think we have to include other social theories as well in CDA.Somehow,we need to try to relate them in a more detailed fashion to our knowledge,scientific knowledge about language.Foucault has been enormously influential in CDA’s ideas about power,but also I think very important,always mentioned in CDA,is Habermas.Within his ideas,there is the possibility of developing some kind of interface between linguistic structure and ethical commitments,ethical values.

Wu:And also some theories from many other theorists,such as Bernstein,Harvey,Giddens,Bakhtin,Bourdieu,and so on.I think the theoretical basis of CDA is very broad,including both linguistic(especially SFL)and social/philosophical.So,I quite agree with you.

Question 6

Wu:Many scholars mix up CDA with CL.But it seems to me CDA is different from CL in the aspects of their birth time,theoretical bases,and analytical procedures.Specifically,CL was originated in the late 1970s and CDA was originated in the late 1980s;CL is directly based on Systemic Functional Linguistics,but CDA draws upon a lot of theories other than linguistics,for example,social theories and philosophy;For Critical Linguists,they just analyze the linguistic pieces by focusing on clauses and then jump to the conclusion,but for Critical Discourse Analysts,they have three dimensions:linguistic analysis,the intermediate level,and social analysis.Here the linguistic dimension and the social dimension are usually linked up by the intermediate level,e.g.interdiscursivity,social cognition,or evolutionary psychology,etc.So,I think it’s not proper to mix up CDA with CL.What’s your opinion?

Chilton:Yeah,it is interesting to hear your perception of this.Some scholars think CL and CDA have been very different.I never thought this myself actually.I think it’s just,I really think it’s a change of label,or a change of name.And it happens that CL came in first.CDA is not a reaction or,you know,not some kind of revolution against CL.I think it’s simply a natural development,and I think the label changed simply because many more theories about meaning and communication were being brought in,whereas the initial impulse,the critical approach,was to draw on linguistics,and quite narrow linguistics.To some extent,I think you are right.The shift actually started with modifying Chomsky’s idea of transformations,but very quickly critical linguistics moved to Hallidayan linguistics.Then I think the next stage was,more and more theories came in,Marx is always present actually,Foucault,Bernstein as you mentioned,and Habermas.The whole field became more diverse really.And another thing one should remember,of course,is that,the whole field began to include not only linguistic communication,but visual communication,and multi-modal communication.

Wu:Yeah,as discussed in the works by van Leeuwen.

Chilton:That’s right.So,there was a move,a change from critical linguistics,from linguistics to discourse,where discourse is a much broader term.We began to look at semiosis.And if you look at semiosis in general,I mean signifying systems besides language,it simply became clear that how society as constituted involves not just language,but also parallel andinteracting semiotic systems.

Wu:Yeah,very illuminating answer!You mean semiotic turn?

Chilton:Yes,I think it’s a semiotic turn,if you like,in the sense that attention was given to different ways of communicating meaning,and the ways in which language itself interacts with systems that are non-linguistic.

Question 7

Wu:It seems that CDA doesn’t have its own methodology,but integrates linguistic method with a critical social standpoint.This is really an undesirable situation.Could you please give us some suggestions on making improvements in this regard?

Chilton:Ha-ha,right,that’s an interesting kind of question.I am interested that you say it’s undesirable,to have um… what did you call it… um… yeah… lack of central methodology perhaps… Well,as I said earlier,I’m a little bit suspicious of centralized anything.So,I am not sure it is a disadvantage…I am not sure it is undesirable that CDA lacks a single monolithic coherent theory and methodology,you know,I always thought of CDA not so much as a scientific theory.I don’t think it is a scientific theory.I think it’s more like a social movement.

Wu:Yeah,it’s a kind of perspective.

Chilton:It is certainly a perspective.I think that if there is a unified element,it’s the idea of critical perspective,the idea of standing back from society,from language as used in society,and rather than just accepting it as something natural,you stand back and observe and analyze,and then your natural critical evaluative powers may come into play to decide whether you really think the way language is being used in the society or the way the society is,is the way you want it.It may be good or it may be bad.Um…So,that is a unifying thing,the critical eye,or if you like,the critical stance.And I think the fact that over the years CDA scholars have drawn on diverse theories is actually a positive thing,because it gives a range of different tools in a toolbox.

Wu:Yes,I think this is a good thing because we can borrow theories from different origins,and have a kind of combination.Probably this is pluralism.That’s good for the healthy development of academic research.

Chilton:Yes.Yes.It sometimes makes it difficult within academia,within the academic world,to explain CDA,because it’s not always recognized as a discipline.Actually,I am notvery happy with the term“discipline,”because of what it means literally.I do not want it be disciplined.I want it actually be developed by its own means.

Wu:Actually van Dijk also didn’t like this word,discipline.He said that CDA is,kind of,a field of study,or a domain of study,a perspective on the social issues rather than a discipline or a theoretical framework or something like that.So you have the common idea.

Chilton:Yeah.I think it…that means it is actually quite difficult for,for instance,PhD students to understand what is going on.They often have an intuitive feeling that they want to do CDA,but that’s a kind of slippery thing.But I think what has to be done when starting research in CDA is to focus on some urgent issues in society,or some aspects of society about which the researcher has strong feelings.What happens very often is that it is necessary to develop a methodology to deal with a particular discourse phenomenon which emerges in the society,maybe some new genre such as blogs on the Internet,or,more importantly,some political crisis,or some conflict,or oppressive tendency.New phenomena may need new discourse analysis tools.This is the way the theories develop as well,the way methodology develops within CDA.And it’s a response to the new world.

Question 8

Wu:As far as I know,Fairclough said that discourse analysis is,in some sense,a kind of interpretative art rather than a science.It depends very much upon the analysts’judgment and experience.Consequently,we cannot achieve absolute objectiveness.What’s your opinion? Any suggestions on how to solve this problem?

Chilton:Um…interesting.I agree broadly with what Norman Fairclough said but the question is,um…I mean let’s just do a bit critical discourse analysis,ok?...on the way the question is raised.

There is a binary opposition in your question,between interpretive art and objective science,and behind that there are some assumptions about what science is.The popular notion of science is that it is“objective,”but we can ask philosophical questions about objectivity.Let’s be careful.Physicists,for example,say that“objectivity”is not a simple matter.Yet the popular view of science is rather rigid—that you just look at“facts,”whatever they may be,and arrive at a conclusion.Things are not so simple.The act of observation of phenomena itself has an effect on those phenomena…I agree in general that when dealing with real live language,discourse in other words,interpretation has a slightly different status and is crucial.Imean,language is produced by human minds,human beings,and we have to make sense of the words we hear,and communication itself is an interpretive process…I have to make sure that I understand your questions on interpreting,for example.

When we are doing critical discourse analysis,I think,yeah,there are some difficulties.I wouldn’t say the problems can’t be resolved.I think one lives with the problems,if they are problems—maybe the so called problems are in fact part of the process.What is often criticized,for instance,by scholars like Henry Widdowson,is the bias and selection of the types of discourse that are studied by critical discourse analysts,and then also the biased selection of features within the selected discourse that are chosen for analysis.I think this is a problem only in a limited sense.It is connected to the fact that CDA is grounded in value judgments about what is good and what is bad.CDA has always wanted to improve society in some way,and to do that,you have to have an assumption about what needs to be improved,and to have such an assumption,you need to have some ethical presuppositions about what is right and what is wrong.So,it is inherent,and you might call it subjective,but in a sense it is not subjective because everybody has some sort of position,often unconscious,and with variations,about right and wrong.This exists in human beings and in human interactions.

CDA is in fact itself part of the ongoing interactions,disagreements and negotiations among individuals and parts of society—it’s not just a descriptive methodology that stands back and describes things“factually.”So,CDA tends to proceed by selecting certain areas of the social discourse that swirls around us,and within us.Because analysts themselves are part of society,they have to select part of society to focus on,and some issues that strike them.That is because of underlying value judgments.For example,there has been a lot of interest in racist discourse in CDA,especially in the west.Why?You know,it is because there is a strong feeling that racial discrimination is wrong.Why?That has to do probably with historical experience,but it also has to do with a universal principle,I think.As I have said,CDA has not been very good at explaining its underlying moral judgments.In response to critics who have said“you are not objective,you’re selecting issues subjectively,”many CDA practitioners have often said something like“well,we know that,but what we do is make our position explicit,we are not trying to hide our bias.”Personally,I think CDA is under an obligation to do more.One reason is that subjectivism is not enough—it is not enough just to state one’s political or ethical position,one has to give reasons also.Another is that the environment has changed—at one time CDA scholars were addressing other liberal-minded Europeans andcould take their ethical presuppositions for granted.In a global environment and in their own shifting multicultural environments,they also need more than ever to give reasons for why they think certain issues demand attention and why they judge them the way they do—what their underlying ethical presuppositions actually are.

All this is related to the way I see CDA—as a participant in society as well as a describer of it.This is not the same for linguistics,where we are trying to build scientific theories about the nature of human language,how it works,and how human communication works.These are scientific questions—for example,what is the morphological structure of a particular language? What is the distribution of particular types of linguistic structure in the world’s languages? These are empirical questions,capable of answers that are true or false,and in some cases quantifiable.

Question 9

Wu:Actually,the most critical question.Unluckily,CDA has received a lot of criticisms during these years.For instance,many scholars think that the unilinear understanding of the power relations in CDA is rather partial.And Widdowson(1998)has claimed that CDA should include discussions with the producers and consumers of texts,and not just rest upon the analyst’s view of what a text might mean alone.Similar criticisms can also be found in Pennycook(1994),Toolan(1997),Stubbs(1998),and Widdowson(1995a,1995b,1996,2000a,2000b).What do you say in this regard?Or could you please tell us how to solve these problems?

Chilton:Yes,the concept of power is very important in traditional CDA,and the critical element has to do with judgments about the abuse of power.That is stated as the main motivation by some of the leading scholars,notably,again,Fairclough,Wodak,and van Dijk.But what is power?There are a lot of ways of understanding the term“power.”Perhaps CDA needs to investigate it on a more philosophical level,bringing in more philosophy and more political science,where notions of power are discussed in depth.

The second part of your question has to do with the criticism that CDA research has been one-sided,in the sense that we focus too much on texts themselves,independently of the consuming texts.Well,the proposal that it would be interesting to analyze the consumer side,to talk to consumers of texts.That’s a perfectly reasonable idea.I think perhaps CDA should try those kinds of research approaches.I don’t think that would be contrary to the mainmotivation of CDA in any way.There is one point,however,I would make to justify analysis of examples of discourse itself,or rather texts themselves extracted from discourse,and that is simply that analysts themselves are also consumers of texts,they are also part of the world,as citizens and as ordinary human beings who consume texts.So,when an analyst reads a text,he or she is only doing something that is basically similar to what other consumers of texts do—though to be more honest about it,CDA analysts are paid to spend time,more time on it and analyze it in more detail.I think the judgments that analysts make about texts are not going to be a million miles distant from those made by various kinds of text consumers,because they are all in the society together.

So,how to solve these problems?I don’t think there’s a solution to this kind of problem,if indeed,I repeat,it is a problem,rather than just an intrinsic part of the kind of thing CDA does.But one key thing is to be aware of this possibility of bias,to be conscious of it,for analysts,and to state it explicitly—and,as I’ve stressed,give reasons and justify your underlying ethical assumptions.So,you need to state why you are selecting a particular text,what your value judgment about it is.That has always been the principle in CDA.It’s not a solution,but it’s a kind of answer.The starting point is that critical discourse analysts are inevitably part of a social process themselves.Their readings and understandings of particular communications are important,but they can certainly,and should,be supplemented by attempts to find out what other kinds of consumers make of the same texts,readers or hearers with other kinds of purposes and interests.

Question 10

Wu:What do you think are the future research directions or perspectives in CDA?

Chilton:Um…Good question!Yeah,it’s not for me to decide,it’s not for any of those old people who have being working in CDA for years,it’s for you and your colleagues in the new generation to decide which direction CDA is going in.There are two things I would say.One is the increasing exploration of new methods of analysis.We have seen this,to some extent,among younger scholars who are starting to use cognitive linguistics,which is a relatively new approach that has been developed over the past 30 years or so,ha-ha,sounds not that new!People are now starting to apply cognitive linguistics to get increasingly more insights into the minds of humans and their interactions.And the second,but the really crucial thing that I have touched on earlier in the interview is:the new direction of CDA is driven bythe changing nature of international society,the emergence of countries like China,and other countries.I mean the things that are happening in the world that we have to be,that we are necessarily and inevitably involved in,for example,what happened in the Middle East this spring 2011,and what will happen in the future there and in other parts of the world.And the new direction,I think,must be more cooperation,more dialogue between scholars such as yourselves in China,and scholars in different parts of the world.I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that western scholars should be leading the direction now.We are after all,we are all in the same global situation despite all the historical differences in culture.Human beings have more similarities than differences,so we need to drive forward in new directions in collaboration together.

Wu:Ok,very good.Thank you very much.

Chilton:Thank you very much indeed.It’s very interesting to talk about these things with you.

注釋：

We are very grateful to Professor Paul Chilton for his careful revision of this paper.

本文系國家社會科學(xué)研究青年基金項目“中國當(dāng)代大眾語篇中的篇際互文性研究”（13CYY089）及中央高?；究蒲袠I(yè)務(wù)費培育項目“中國新話語秩序中的篇際互文性研究”（x2wyD2117910）的階段性成果。

Blommaert,J.2005.Discourse:A Critical Introduction.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Pennycook,A.1994.Incommensurable discourses?.Applied Linguistics,(15):115-137.

Stubbs,M.W.1998.Whorf’s children:critical comments on critical discourse analysis.In A.Ryan&A.Wray(eds.).Evolving Models of Language.Clevedon:BAAL/Multilingual Matters.100-116.

Toolan,M.1997.What is critical discourse analysis and why are people saying such terrible things about it?.Language and Literature,(6):83-103.

Widdowson,H.G.1995a.Discourse analysis:a critical view.Language and Literature,(4): 157-172.

Widdowson,H.G.1995b.Review of Fairclough:Discourse and Social Change.AppliedLinguistics,16(4):157-16.

Widdowson,H.G.1996.Reply to Fairclough:discourse and interpretation:conjectures and refutations.Language and Literature,(5):57-69.

Widdowson,H.G.1998.The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis.Applied Linguistics,(19):136-151.

Widdowson,H.G.2000a.On the limitations of linguistics applied.Applied Linguistics,(21): 3-25.

Widdowson,H.G.2000b.Critical practices:On representation and the interpretation of text.In S.Sarangi&M.Coulthard(eds.).Discourse and Social Life.London:Pearson Education Limited.155-169.

this article presents an interview with Dr.Paul Chilton,Emertus Professor in linguistics at the University of Lancaster,UK,His main research interests include cognitive linguistics and the socially engaged analysis of discourse(especially Critical Discourse Analysis,CDA for short).In this interview,Professor Chilton enlightens us on the issues of CDA,including its basic tenets,historical origin,theoretical bases,research methods,future directions,and so on.

critical discourse analysis(CDA),Paul Chilton,interview

武建國，華南理工大學(xué)外國語學(xué)院教授，博士，碩士生導(dǎo)師。研究方向：話語分析、文體學(xué)、語用學(xué)。

鐘虹，廣東外語外貿(mào)大學(xué)英文學(xué)院副教授，博士生。研究方向：批評性話語分析、二語寫作。

《話語研究論叢》第一輯

2015年

第103-107頁

南開大學(xué)出版社

武建國

Issues in Critical DiscourseAnalysis:An Interview with Professor Paul Chilton

Wu Jianguo,South China University of Technology
Zhong Hong,Guangdong University of Foreign Languages and Foreign Trade

聯(lián)系地址：廣東省廣州市（510641）天河區(qū)五山路381號，華南理工大學(xué)外國語學(xué)院

電子郵件：fljgwu@scut.edu.cn。