揭露文本的沉默性：以批判論述分析方法應用於「曹小妹事件調查報告」為例

Making the Production of a Text Visible: Analyzing the Investigatory Report on ＂The Tragic Death of Girl Tsao＂ to Explore the Methodology of Critical Discourse Analysis

10.6171/ntuswr.201906_(39).0002

鄭怡世(Yi-Shih Cheng)

批判論述分析 ； 方法論 ； 社會工作研究 ； 兒童保護 ； critical discourse analysis ； methodology ； social work research ； child protection

臺大社會工作學刊

39期（2019 / 06 / 01）

57 - 103

繁體中文

本文分為三個部分來梳理批判論述分析的知識理路與方法論處置。首先，討論批判論述分析作為一個分析的概念，其如何思考及關注語言的社會性、論述與權力，以及論述與意識型態之間的關係。再者，釐清批判論述分析作為一個揭露文本中社會文化脈絡、權力、意識型態之間複雜連結的研究取徑，其在方法論上的幾個議題，包括為什麼文本中會蘊含著這樣複雜的連結、文本的選擇，以及如何進行文本的分析。最後，以分析監察院所公布的〈曹小妹母攜女燒炭自殺事件調查報告〉為示例，來討論如何運用此方法進行文本的分析，以達到此方法所欲獲致的目的。希望藉此可以讓臺灣的社工社群更深入地了解與掌握此方法，並用以進行社會工作研究及知識生產，擴充社會工作知識與行動的多元性。

This p aper aims to examine the rationality and methodology of critical discourse analysis (CDA), in seeking to extend its theory and applications for social work research and practice. It is divided into three parts. The first part discusses CDA as an analytical concept founded on phenomenological linguistics claiming the sociality of language; post-structuralism declared speech as a power process, and critical theory asserted the ideology in language, pursuing to understand the relationship between language and social process. The second part examines CDA as a research orientation: how to use phenomenology, hermeneutics and post-structuralism to disclose the meaning-making network and the role of power in texts; how to choose text; and how to analyze the text. In the third part, the investigatory report on the ＂The Tragic Death of Young Girl Tsao＂ from the Control Yuan is text used to carry out the steps of CDA analysis obtained above. It also demonstrates how the core-concern of CDA: ＂how does language figure (this article is a child protection discourse) as an element in the social process (this article consolidates the child protection system in Taiwan)＂. This paper aims at proposing an alternative perspective regarding knowledge production and research methodology for social work, and enhancing understanding of CDA with greater confidence.

1. 王孝勇, H.-Y.(2012)。Mikhail Bakhtin 的對話主義及其對批判論述分析的再延伸：以白玫瑰運動為例。政治與社會哲學評論，40，149-202。
   連結：
2. 呂又慧, Y.-H.,梁瓊宜, C.-I.(2016)。從病人到人：專業關係再建構？精障會所工作者之主體性生成歷程。臺大社會工作學刊，33，129-170。
   連結：
3. 李維倫, W.-L.,賴憶嫺, Y.-H.(2009)。現象學方法論：存在行動的投入。中華輔導與諮商學報，25，275-321。
   連結：
4. 倪炎元, Y.-Y.(2011)。批判論述分析的脈絡建構策略：Teun A. van Dijk 與 Norman Fairclough 的比較。傳播研究與實踐，1(2)，83-97。
   連結：
5. 倪炎元, Y.-Y.(2013)。從語言中搜尋意識型態：van Dijk 的分析策略及其在傳播研究上的定位。新聞學研究，114，41-78。
   連結：
6. 游美惠, M.-H.(2000)。內容分析、文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用。調查研究：方法與運用，8，5-42。
   連結：
7. Althusser, L.(1971).Lenin and philosophy and other essays by Louis Althusser.New York, NY:Monthly Review Press.
8. Bakhtin, M. M.(1993).Toward a philosophy of the act.Austin, TX:University of Texas Press.
9. Bakhtin, M. M.(1986).Marxism and the philosophy of language.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
10. Chambon, A. S.(Ed.),Irving, A.(Ed.),Epstein, L.(Ed.)(1999).Reading Foucault for social work.New York, NY:Columbia University Press.
11. Dreyfus, H. L.,Rabinow, P.(1983).Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics.Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
12. Emerson, C.(Ed.),Holquist, M.(Ed.)(1986).Speech genres and other late essays.Austin, TX:University of Texas Press.
13. Fairclough, N.(2003).Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research.London, England:Routledge.
14. Fairclough, N.(1992).Discourse and social change.Cambridge, England:Polity Press.
15. Fairclough, N.(1995).Critical discourse analysis.London, England:Longman.
16. Gibbs, J.(2009).Changing the cultural story in child protection: Learning from the insider's story.Child and Family Social Work,14(3),289-299.
17. Gibert, N.(Ed.)(1997).Combating child abuse: International perspectives and trends.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
18. Gibert, N.(Ed.),Parton, N.(Ed.),Skivenes, M.(Ed.)(2011).Child protection systems: International trends and orientations.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
19. Harris, J.(1998).Scientific management, bureau-professionalism, new managerialism: The labour process of state social work.British Journal of Social Work,28(6),839-862.
20. Heidegger, M.(1962).Being and time.New York, NY:Harper and Row.
21. Hendrick, H.(2003).Child welfare: Historical dimensions, contemporary debate.Bristol, England:The Policy Press.
22. Holquist, M.(Ed.)(1981).The dialogic imagination: Four essays.Austin, TX:University of Texas Press.
23. Howe, D.(1992).Child abuse and the bureaucratization.The Sociological Review,40(3),491-508.
24. Lonne, B.,Harries, M.,Lantz, S.(2013).Workforce development: A pathway to reforming child protection systems in Australia.British Journal of Social Work,43(8),1630-1648.
25. Lonne, B.,Parton, N.,Thomson, J.,Harries, M.(2009).Reforming child protection.London, England:Routledge.
26. Lymer, G.,Lindwall, O.,Ivarsson, J.(2011).Space and discourse interleaved: Intertextuality and interpretation in the education of architects.Social Semiotics,21(2),197-217.
27. Palmer, R. E.(1969).Hermeneutics: Interpretation theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer.Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press.
28. Parton, N.(2014).Social work, child protection and politics: Some critical and constructive reflections.British Journal of Social Work,44(7),2042-2056.
29. Parton, N.(2014).The politics of child protection: Contemporary developments and future directions.Basingstoke, England:Palgrave Macmillan.
30. Ricoeur, P.(1991).From text to action.Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press.
31. Schiffrin, D.(Ed.),Tannen, D.(Ed.),Hamilton, H. E.(Ed.)(2005).The handbook of discourse analysis.Malden, MA:Blackwell.
32. Smith, J. A.(Ed.)(2003).Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods.London:Sage.
33. van Dijk, T. A.(1987).Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
34. van Dijk, T. A.(2008).Discourse and power.Hampshire, England:Palrrave.
35. van Dijk, T. A.(2008).Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
36. van Dijk, T. A.(1977).Text and context: Exploration in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse.London, England:Longman.
37. van Dijk, T. A.(Ed.)(2011).Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction.London, England:Sage.
38. van Dijk, T. A.(Ed.)(2011).Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction.London, England:Sage.
39. Weiss, G.(Ed.),Wodak, R.(Ed.)(2003).Critical discourse analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity.London, England:Sage.
40. Wetherell, M.(Ed.),Taylor, S.(Ed.),Yates, S. J.(Ed.)(2001).Discourse as data: A guide for analysis.London, England:The Open University.
41. Wodak, R.(Ed.),Meyer, M.(Ed.)(2009).Methods of critical discourse analysis.London, England:Sage.
42. Wodak, R.(Ed.),Meyer, M.(Ed.)(2009).Methods of critical discourse analysis.London, England:Sage.
43. Young, R.(Ed.)(1981).Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader.Boston, MA:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
44. 王增勇（譯）, F. T. Y.(trans.)(2005).傅柯與社會工作.臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological Publication.
45. 王增勇, F. T. Y.(2011)。管理作為社工異化的機制：我們如何可能戒除對權力的成癮？。承諾與失落：當代台灣社會工作省思學術研討會，南投= Puli, Nantou:
46. 王德威（譯）, D. D. W.(trans.),Foucault, M.(1993).知識的考掘.臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:桂冠=Rye Field Publications.
47. 李維倫（譯）, W.-L.(trans.),Sokolowski, R(2004).現象學十四講.臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:心靈工坊=PsyGarden.
48. 沈美真, M.-Z.,趙榮耀, R.-Y.,尹祚芊, T.-C.,洪德旋, T.-H.(2010)。沈美真、趙榮耀、尹祚芊、洪德旋（2010）。《監察院調查報告》（字號：099 內調 0084）。臺北：監察院。【Shen, M.-Z., Chao, R.-Y., Yin, T.-C., & Hung, T.-H. (2010). The investigatory report on child protection practices (Committee on Domestic and Minority Affairs No. 099). Taipei, Taiwan: The Control Yuan.】。
49. 汪淑媛, S.-Y.(2010)。讓社會創傷轉化為正向的反思與實踐力量：從曹母攜女自殺事件談起。社區發展季刊，131，354-367。
50. 尚衡（譯）, H.(trans.),Foucault, M.(1992).性意識史第一卷：導讀.臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:桂冠=Lauréat.
51. 馮朝霖（譯）, T.-L.(trans.),Kokemohr, R.(2001)。質性研究中的參照推論分析：傳記研究中之案例分析。應用心理研究，12，25-48。
52. 趙容萱、黃寅（2010）。〈撕破臉尋短見？母女求見和生父大吵一架〉，《聯合報》，4 月 19 日，A5 版。【Chao, J.-H., & Huang, Y. (2010). Had a major fight and then committed su-icide? Mother and illegitimate daughter asked for a meeting and had a violent quarrel with father. United Daily News, 19 April, p. A5.】
53. 瞿海源（編）, H.-Y.(ed.)、畢恆達（編）、劉長萱（編）、楊國樞（編）(2012).社會及行為科學研究法：質性研究法.臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:東華=Tung Hua Book.

1. 馮垂華,周洳萱(2022)。馬來西亞媒體如何報導中國的新冠疫情：《星洲日報》與《星報》之比較。東亞研究，53(2)，99-153。
2. 邱婕歆,吳連賞(2020)。國民中學新課綱地理課程之批判論述分析。嘉大教育研究學刊，44，89-110。
3. (2021)。一個藝人，各自表述：1983年侯德健潛赴中國的媒體論述策略。中華傳播學刊，39，195-230。