Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Policy Studies
批判性話語分析和批判性政策研究

Norman Fairclough, Emeritus Professor, Lancaster University.
Norman Fairclough，蘭卡斯特大學名譽教授。

At the time of writing (autumn 2012), the two most widely read papers in Critical Policy Studies were Howarth (2009) and Jessop (2009), which present approaches to policy studies from the perspectives of poststructuralist discourse theory (PDA) and cultural political economy (CPE) respectively. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) shares common ground with both: CDA and PDA are approaches to the study and analysis of discourse each of which has drawn from the other (Fairclough 2003, Howarth & Griggs 2012), CPE incorporates a version of CDA and there has been collaboration especially between Jessop and myself over a number of years (e.g. Fairclough, Jessop & Sayer 2004). All three proceed from a recognition of the discursive (or semiotic, or linguistic) character of policy, policy-making and policy-analysis which broadly aligns them with anti-positivist and interpretative positions within policy studies. But there are also important differences: CDA and CPE incline to critical realism rather than poststructuralism and focus analysis on (dialectical) relations between discursive and material elements of social life rather than just discourse, while CDA is distinct from both of the other positions in the standing which it gives to language analysis – analysis of ‘texts’ in a comprehensive sense – within discourse analysis. Presenting the contribution that CDA can make to critical policy studies through comparison and contrast with the contributions of the other two approaches, as set out by Howarth and Jessop, seems therefore a useful thing to do. I shall also refer to Sum (2009), which is another view of the contribution of CPE to critical policy studies, with somewhat different emphases than Jessop’s, which has appeared in the journal. Howarth & Griggs (2012) is a more recent paper on the contribution that PDA can make to critical policy analysis, and I shall mainly refer to this rather than Howarth (2009). Another important connection is between the ‘argumentative turn’ in policy studies (Fischer & Forester 1993, Fischer 2003, Fischer & Gottweis 2012) and the incorporation of argumentation theory and analysis into the version of CDA developed by Fairclough & Fairclough (2012a) which I draw upon in this paper¹.
在撰寫本文時（2012 年秋季），批判政策研究領域最廣泛閱讀的兩篇論文是 Howarth （2009） 和 Jessop （2009），它們分別從後結構主義話語理論 （PDA） 和文化政治經濟學 （CPE） 的角度提出了政策研究的方法。批判性話語分析（CDA）與兩者有著共同之處：CDA和PDA是研究和分析話語的方法，每一種都借鑒了彼此（Fairclough 2003，Howarth&Griggs 2012，CPE融合了CDA的一個版本，並且多年來一直有特別是Jessop和我之間的合作（例如Fairclough， Jessop & Sayer 2004）。這三者都源於對政策、政策制定和政策分析的話語（或符號學或語言學）特徵的認識，這使它們與政策研究中的反實證主義和解釋性立場大致一致。但也有重要的區別：CDA 和 CPE 傾向於批判現實主義而不是後結構主義，將分析重點放在社會生活的話語和物質元素之間的（辯證）關係上，而不僅僅是話語，而 CDA 在話語分析中對語言分析——綜合意義上的“文本”分析——的地位與其他兩個立場不同。因此，通過與 Howarth 和 Jessop 提出的其他兩種方法的貢獻進行比較和對比，來呈現 CDA 對關鍵政策研究的貢獻，似乎是一件有用的事情。我還要提到 Sum （2009），這是關於 CPE 對關鍵政策研究貢獻的另一種觀點，與出現在該雜誌上的 Jessop 的側重點略有不同。 Howarth & Griggs （2012）是一篇關於PDA可以對關鍵政策分析做出貢獻的最新論文，我將主要提到這個而不是Howarth （2009）。另一個重要的聯繫是政策研究中的“論證轉向”（Fischer & Forester 1993，Fischer 2003，Fischer & Gottweis 2012）與將論證理論和分析納入Fairclough & Fairclough （2012a）開發的CDA版本之間的聯繫，我在這篇論文中借鑒了這個版本1。

CDA, CPE and PDA are not however academic endeavours of the same order: CPE and PDA are political-economic and political theories respectively, whereas CDA is a theory of and a methodology for the analysis of discourse understood as an element or moment of the political, political-economic and more generally social which is dialectically related to other elements/moments. Both CPE and PDA have found it necessary draw upon and to an extent (especially in CPE) incorporate CDA (or other approaches with analytical purchase - Howarth & Griggs also refer to Finlayson’s (1997) ‘rhetorical political analysis’ and Skinner’s (2002) analysis of ‘rhetorical redescription’) in theorizing and analyzing discourse. CDA on the other hand has recognized that its place is within transdisciplinary critical social research, and has sought to collaborate with a number of social theories, not least with CPE. So my aim in comparing CDA with CPE and PDA in this paper is not to present CDA as an alternative to either CPE or PDA, in general terms or in terms of critical policy analysis, it is the more limited aim of using the comparison to highlight what I think are significant issues and differences in theorizing and analysing discourse within areas of transdisciplinary research such as policy studies. Given my own past collaboration with CPE, I see the paper as a possible contribution to it, bearing in mind that as Jessop (2009: 337) points out different authors within CPE give more weight at different times to different issues, but I hope that colleagues in both CPE and PDA will find this of some interest.
然而，CDA、CPE 和 PDA 並不是同一順序的學術努力：CPE 和 PDA 分別是政治經濟理論和政治理論，而 CDA 是一種理論和方法，用於分析被理解為政治、政治經濟和更普遍的社會的元素或時刻，與其他元素/時刻辯證相關。CPE和PDA都發現有必要借鑒並在一定程度上（特別是在CPE中）結合CDA（或其他具有分析購買力的方法 - Howarth&Griggs也參考了Finlayson的（1997）的“修辭政治分析”和Skinner（2002“的”修辭再描述“分析）來理論化和分析話語。另一方面，CDA 已經認識到它在跨學科批判性社會研究中的地位，並尋求與許多社會理論合作，尤其是與 CPE 合作。因此，在本文中，我將 CDA 與 CPE 和 PDA 進行比較的目的不是將 CDA 作為 CPE 或 PDA 的替代品，無論是一般術語還是從批判性政策分析的角度來看，它是使用比較來突出我認為在跨學科研究領域（如政策研究）內理論化和分析話語中的重大問題和差異 。鑒於我自己過去與 CPE 的合作，我認為這篇論文可能對它做出了貢獻，請記住，正如 Jessop （2009： 337） 指出的那樣，CPE 內部的不同作者在不同的時間對不同的問題給予了更多的權重，但我希望 CPE 和 PDA 的同事會對此感興趣。

I shall firstly outline the particular version of CDA which I have developed and used in my more recent work, and which is the basis which we built upon in developing the version in Fairclough & Fairclough (2012a)². I shall secondly discuss significant differences between CDA, CPE and PDA in their view of the semiotic or discursive ‘turn’ which they all regard as necessary in political, political-economic and more generally social theory and analysis. I shall thirdly discuss these differences with regard to policy analysis, suggesting ways in which the version of CDA in Fairclough & Fairclough (2012a) might add to the contributions which CPE and PDA might make to policy analysis. In the Conclusion, I shall address the tendency of those who advocate critical approaches to political, political-economic and policy analysis to reject analysis of argumentation on the assumption that it commits those who use it to the ‘deliberative democracy’ associated especially with Habermas and Rawls. Drawing upon Morera’s account of Gramsci’s historicism (Morera 1990), I shall argue that argumentation analysis is not only consistent with but also necessary for Gramscian perspectives such as those of both CPE and PDA which accentuate struggle to produce and contest hegemony.
我將首先概述我在最近的工作中開發和使用的CDA的特定版本，這是我們在Fairclough & Fairclough （2012a）²中開發版本的基礎。其次，我將討論 CDA、CPE 和 PDA 在符號學或話語“轉向”方面的巨大差異，他們都認為這在政治、政治經濟和更普遍的社會理論和分析中是必要的。我將第三次討論這些關於政策分析的差異，建議Fairclough & Fairclough （2012a）中的CDA版本可能會增加CPE和PDA可能對政策分析的貢獻。 在結論中，我將討論那些宣導對政治、政治經濟和政策分析進行批判性方法的人拒絕論證分析的傾向，因為他們認為它使那些使用它的人不得不接受“協商民主”，特別是與哈貝馬斯和羅爾斯相關的。借鑒莫雷拉對葛蘭西歷史主義的描述（Morera 1990），我將論證分析不僅與葛蘭西的觀點一致，而且對於葛蘭西的觀點也是必要的，例如 CPE 和 PDA 的觀點，這些觀點強調生產和爭奪霸權的鬥爭。

Critical discourse analysis
批判性話語分析

CDA brings the critical tradition in social analysis into language studies, and contributes to critical social analysis a particular focus on discourse, and on relations between discourse and other social elements (power relations, ideologies, institutions, social identities, and so forth). Critical social analysis subsumes normative and explanatory critique. It is normative critique in that it does not simply describe existing realities but also evaluates them, assesses the extent to which they match up to various values which are taken (more or less contentiously) to be fundamental for just or decent societies (e.g. certain requisites for human well-being). It is explanatory critique in that it does not simply describe existing realities but seeks to explain them, for instance by showing them to be effects of structures or mechanisms or forces which the analyst postulates and whose reality s/he seeks to test out (e.g. inequalities in wealth, income and access to various social goods might be explained as an effect of mechanisms and forces associated with capitalism or particular varieties of capitalism).
CDA 將社會分析的批判傳統帶入語言研究，並有助於批判性社會分析特別關注話語以及話語與其他社會元素（權力關係、意識形態、制度、社會身份等）之間的關係。批判性社會分析包括規範性和解釋性批評。它是規範性的批判，因為它 不僅描述了現有的現實，而且還評估了它們與各種價值觀的匹配程度，這些價值觀（或多或少有爭議地）被認為是公正或體面社會的基礎（例如，人類福祉的某些必要條件）。它是解釋性的批判，因為它不是簡單地描述現有的現實，而是試圖解釋它們，例如，通過將它們展示為結構、機制或力量的影響，分析者假設這些結構或機制或力量，並且他/她試圖測試其現實（例如，財富、收入和獲得各種社會產品的不平等可以解釋為與資本主義或資本主義的特定變體相關的機制和力量的結果）。

There is a long tradition within critical social analysis, evident for instance in Marx (Marsden 1999, Fairclough & Graham 2002), of viewing social reality as ‘conceptually mediated’ as we might put it – meaning that there are no social events or practices without representations, construals, conceptualizations or theories of these events and practices; or to put it in different terms, that social realities have a reflexive character, i.e. how people see and represent and interpret and conceptualize them is a part of these realities. So the ‘objects’ of critical social analysis are, we might say, ‘material-semiotic’ (Jessop 2004), i.e. simultaneously material and semiotic in character, and a central concern is with relations between the material and the semiotic (or ‘discourse’), which I would see as dialectical relations (Fairclough 2001, 2006). A consequence is that critical social analysis has an interdisciplinary character, since the nature of its ‘objects’ requires it to bring together disciplines whose primary concern is with material facets of social realities and disciplines whose primary concern is with semiotic facets. I will argue that it has, more specifically, a ‘trans-disciplinary’ character, in that dialogue across different disciplines is seen as the source for the theoretical and methodological development of each of them (see Jessop & Sum 2001 on ‘post-disciplinary or ‘trans-disciplinary’ research as, in a sense, a return to the ‘pre-disciplinary’ positions of for instance Karl Marx or Adam Smith). In these terms, CDA contributes a semiotic emphasis and ‘point of entry’ into trans-disciplinary critical social analysis (Fairclough 2009b).
在批判性社會分析中有一個悠久的傳統，例如在馬克思（Marsden 1999，Fairclough & Graham 2002）中，我們將社會現實視為我們可以說的“概念仲介”——這意味著沒有表徵、解釋就沒有社會事件或實踐。、這些事件和實踐的概念化或理論;或者換一種說法，社會現實具有反身性，即人們如何看待、代表、解釋和概念化它們是這些現實的一部分。因此，我們可以說，批判性社會分析的“物件”是 “物質-符號學”（Jessop 2004），即同時具有物質和符號學的性質，而一個核心關注點是物質和符號學（或“話語”）之間的關係，我認為這是辯證關係（Fairclough2001,2006）。其結果是，批判性社會分析具有跨學科的性質，因為其“物件”的性質要求它將主要關注社會現實的物質方面的學科和主要關注符號學方面的學科結合在一起。我將論證，更具體地說，它具有“跨學科”的特性，因為不同學科之間的對話被視為他們各自理論和方法發展的源泉（參見Jessop & Sum 2001關於'後學科或'跨學科'研究的文章，在某種意義上，回歸到卡爾·馬克思或亞當·斯密等人的'前學科'立場）。 從這些方面來看，CDA 為跨學科批判性社會分析貢獻了符號學的重點和“切入點”（Fairclough 2009b）。

One version of CDA
CDA 的一個版本

This section gives a schematic overview of the main categories and relations in the version of CDA I have more recently worked with.
本節概述了我最近使用的 CDA 版本中的主要類別和關係。

Discourse is used in various senses including (a) meaning-making as an element of the social process, (b) the language associated with a particular social field or practice (e.g. ‘political discourse’), (c) a way of construing aspects of the world associated with a particular social perspective (e.g. a ‘neo-liberal discourse of globalization’). It is easy to confuse them, so I prefer to use semiosis for the first, most abstract and general sense (Fairclough, Jessop & Sayer 2004), which has the further advantage of suggesting that discourse analysis is concerned with various ‘semiotic modalities’ of which language is only one (others are visual images and ‘body language’).
話語有多種含義，包括 （a） 作為社會過程的一個要素的意義建構，（b） 與特定社會領域或實踐相關的語言 （e.g. '政治話語'），（c） 一種解釋與特定社會觀點相關的世界方面的方式 （e.g. 全球化的新自由主義話語“）。很容易混淆他們，所以我更喜歡用符號學來表示第一，最抽象和一般的意義（Fairclough， Jessop & Sayer 2004），這進一步的優勢是表明話語分析關注的是各種『符號學模式』，而語言只是其中一種（其他是視覺圖像和『身體語言』）。

Semiosis is viewed here as an element of the social process which is dialectically related to others. Relations between elements are dialectical in the sense of being different but not ‘discrete’, i.e. not fully separate; each ‘internalizes’ the others without being reducible to them (Harvey 1996). So social relations, power, institutions, beliefs and cultural values are in part semiotic, i.e. they internalize semiosis without being reducible to it. This means for example that although we should analyse political institutions or business organizations as partly semiotic objects, it would be a mistake to treat them as purely semiotic, and it is important to ask the key question: what is the relationship between semiotic and other elements? CDA focuses not just upon semiosis as such, but on relations between semiotic and other social elements. The nature of this relationship varies between institutions and organizations, and according to time and place, and it needs to be established through analysis.
符號學在這裡被視為社會過程的一個元素，它與其他元素辯證相關。元素之間的關係是辯證的，因為不同但不「離散」，即不完全分離;每個元素都“內化”了其他元素，但又不被簡化為它們（Harvey 1996）。因此，社會關係、權力、制度、信仰和文化價值觀在一定程度上是符號學的，即它們將符號學內化，但又不能被簡化為符號學。這意味著，例如，儘管我們應該將政治機構或商業組織部分地分析為符號學物件，但將它們視為純粹的符號學是錯誤的，因此提出一個關鍵問題很重要：符號學和其他元素之間的關係是什麼？CDA 不僅關注符號學本身，還關注符號學和其他社會元素之間的關係。 這種關係的性質因機構和組織而異，並因時間和地點而異，需要通過分析來建立。

The social process can be seen as the interplay between three levels of social reality: social structures, practices, and events (Chouliaraki & Fairclough 1999). Social practices ‘mediate’ the relationship between general and abstract social structures and particular and concrete social events; social fields, institutions and organizations are constituted as networks of social practices. In this approach to CDA, analysis is focused on two dialectical relations: between structures (especially social practices as a more concrete level of structuring) and events (or: structure and action, structure and strategy); and, within each, between semiotic and other elements. There are three major ways in which semiosis relates to other elements of social practices and of social events - as a facet of action; in the construal (representation) of aspects of the world; and in the constitution of identities. And there are three semiotic (discourse-analytical) categories corresponding to these: genre, discourse, and style.
社會過程可以被看作是社會現實的三個層次之間的相互作用：社會結構、實踐和事件（Chouliaraki & Fairclough 1999）。社會實踐「調解」一般和抽象的社會結構與特定和具體的社會事件之間的關係;社會領域、機構和組織構成了社會實踐的網路。在這種 CDA 方法中，分析集中在兩個辯證關係上：結構s（特別是作為更具體結構層次的社會實踐）和事件（或：結構和行動、結構和策略）之間;以及，在每一個元素中，符號學和其他元素之間。符號學與社會實踐和社會事件的其他元素有三種主要關係——作為行動的一個方面;在世界各個方面的解釋（表徵）;以及在身份的構成中。與此相對應的是三個符號學（話語-分析）類別：體裁、話語和風格。

Genres are semiotic ways of acting and interacting such as news or job interviews, reports or editorials in newspapers, or advertisements on TV or the internet. Part of doing a job, or running a country, is interacting semiotically or communicatively in certain ways, and such activities have distinctive sets of genres associated with them. Discourses are semiotic ways of construing aspects of the world (physical, social or mental) which can generally be identified with different positions or perspectives of different groups of social actors. For instance, the lives of poor people are not only construed through different discourses associated with different social practices (in politics, medicine, social welfare, academic sociology) but through different discourses in each which correspond to differences of position and perspective. I use ‘construe’ in preference to ‘represent’ to emphasize an active and often difficult process of ‘grasping’ the world from a particular perspective (Fairclough 2009a). Styles are identities, or ‘ways of being’, in their semiotic aspect – for instance, being a ‘manager’ in a currently fashionable way in business or in universities is partly a matter of developing the right semiotic style.
體裁是符號學的行為和互動方式，例如新聞或工作面試、報紙上的報導或社論，或者電視或互聯網上的廣告。做一份工作或管理一個國家的一部分，就是以某種方式進行符號學或交流的互動，而這些活動有一系列與之相關的獨特類型。話語是解釋世界各個方面（物理、社會或精神）的符號學方式，通常可以用不同社會行為者群體的不同立場或觀點來識別。例如，窮人的生活不僅通過與不同社會實踐（政治、醫學、社會福利、學術社會學）相關的不同話語來解釋，而且通過與立場和觀點差異相對應的不同話語來解釋。我更喜歡使用“理解”而不是“代表”來強調從特定角度“把握”世界的積極且通常困難的過程（Fairclough 2009a）。風格是符號學方面的身份或“存在方式”——例如，在商業或大學中以當前流行的方式成為“管理者”，在一定程度上是發展正確的符號學風格的問題。

The semiotic dimension of (networks of) social practices which constitute social fields, institutions, organizations etc. is orders of discourse (Fairclough 1992); the semiotic dimension of events is texts. Orders of discourse are particular configurations of different genres, different discourses, and different styles. An order of discourse is a social structuring of semiotic difference, a particular social ordering of relationships between different ways of making meaning – different genres, discourses and styles. So for example the network of social practices which constitutes the field of education, or a particular educational organization such as a university, is constituted semiotically as an order of discourse. Texts are to be understood in an inclusive sense, not only written texts but also e.g. conversations and interviews, as well as the ‘multi-modal’ texts (mixing language, visual images and sound) of television and the internet. Some events consist almost entirely of texts (e.g. a lecture or an interview), in others texts have a relatively small part (e.g. a game of football).
構成社會領域、機構、組織等的社會實踐（網路）的符號學維度是話語的秩序（Fairclough 1992）;事件的符號學維度是文本。話語順序是不同體裁、不同話語和不同風格的特定配置。話語秩序是符號學差異的社會結構，是不同意義創造方式（不同的體裁、話語和風格）之間關係的特定社會秩序。因此，例如，構成教育領域的社會實踐網路，或特定的教育組織，如大學，在符號學上被構成為一種話語秩序。文本應從包容性的意義上理解，不僅包括書面文本，還包括對話和採訪，以及電視和互聯網的“多移動”文本（混合語言、視覺圖像和聲音）。有些事件幾乎完全由文本組成（例如講座或採訪），而在其他事件中，文本的比例相對較小（例如足球比賽）。

Discourses which originate in some particular social field or institution (e.g. neo-liberal economic discourse, which originated within academic economics and business) may be recontextualized in other others (e.g. in the political field or the field of education). Recontextualization has an ambivalent character (Chouliaraki & Fairclough 1999): it can be seen as ‘colonization’ of one field or institution by another, but also as ‘appropriation’ of ‘external’ discourses, often incorporation of discourses into strategies pursued by particular groups of social agents within the recontextualizing field.
起源於某些特定社會領域或機構的話語（例如，起源於學術經濟學和商業的新自由主義經濟話語）可能會在其他領域或機構中被重新語境化（例如，在政治領域或教育領域）。再語境化具有矛盾的特性（Chouliaraki & Fairclough 1999）：它可以被看作是一個領域或機構被另一個領域或機構所'殖民化'，但也可以被看作是對'外部'話語的'挪用'，通常將話語納入到特定社會主體群體在再語境化領域內所追求的策略中。

Discourses may under certain conditions be operationalized, ‘put into practice’, a dialectical process with three aspects: they may be enacted as new ways of (inter)acting, they may be inculcated as new ways of being (identities), they may be physically materialized e.g. as new ways of organizing space, for example in architecture. Enactment and inculcation may themselves take semiotic forms: a new management discourse (e.g. the discourse of marketized ‘new public management’ which has invaded public sector fields like education and health) may be enacted as management procedures which include new genres of interaction between managers and workers, or it may be inculcated as identities which semiotically include the styles of the new type of managers. The modality is important: I have formulated these processes of operationalization as possibilities (‘may’), because they are not necessary but contingent processes, which may or may not take place depending upon a range of factors and conditions, both material and semiotic (Fairclough, Jessop & Sayer 2004).
話語在一定條件下可以被操作化，“付諸實踐”，這是一個具有三個方面的辯證過程：它們可以被 制定為新的（互動）行為方式，它們可能被灌輸為新的存在方式（身份），它們可能被物理物化，例如作為組織空間的新方式，例如在建築中。頒布和灌輸本身可以採取符號學的形式：一種新的管理話語（例如， 已經侵入教育和衛生等公共部門領域的市場化“新公共管理”話語）可以作為管理程式制定，其中包括管理者和工人之間互動的新類型，或者它可能被灌輸為符號學上的身份包括新類型的managers的樣式。模式很重要：我將這些操作化過程表述為可能性（“可能”），因為它們不是必要的，而是偶然的過程，可能會也可能不會發生，這取決於一系列因素和條件，包括物質和符號學（Fairclough， Jessop & Sayer 2004）。

CDA oscillates between a focus on structures (especially the more concrete level of structuring of social practices) and a focus on strategies, a focus on shifts in the structuring of semiotic difference (orders of discourse) and a focus on strategies of social agents which manifest themselves in texts. In both perspectives, a central concern is with shifting relations between genres, between discourses, between styles, and between genres, discourses and styles: change in social structuring of relations between them which achieves relative permanence and stability in orders of discourse, and the ongoing working of relations between them in texts. The term interdiscursivity is reserved for the latter: the interdiscursivity of a text is a part of its intertextuality (Fairclough 1992), a question of which genres, discourses and styles it draws upon, and how it works them into particular articulations. Textual analysis also includes linguistic analysis, and analysis where appropriate of visual images and ‘body language’, and these features of texts can be seem as realizing their interdiscursive features.
CDA 在關注結構（尤其是社會實踐的更具體層次的構建）和關注策略之間搖擺不定，關注符號學差異（話語順序）結構的轉變，以及關注在文本中表現出來的社會主體的策略。在這兩個觀點中，一個核心關注點是體裁之間、話語之間、風格之間以及體裁、話語和風格之間關係的轉變：它們之間關係的社會結構的變化，實現了話語秩序的相對持久性和穩定性，以及它們之間的關係在文本中的持續運作。“interdiscursivity”（跨話語）一詞是為後者保留的：文本的interdiscursivity（文本的跨話語性）是其互文性的一部分（Fairclough 1992），這是一個關於它借鑒了哪些體裁、話語和風格，以及它如何將它們轉化為特定表達的問題。文本分析還包括語言分析，以及在適當的情況下對視覺圖像和「肢體語言」的分析，文本的這些特徵可以看起來像是實現了它們的話語間特徵。

CDA, CPE and PDA
CDA、CPE 和 PDA

CDA, CPE and PDA have a great deal in common, as I indicated earlier. They all take the view that political, political-economic and more generally social events, processes and changes involve semiosis (language) in combination or articulation with objects, actions, agents, practices and structures, and that study and analysis of social processes and changes therefore requires a semiotic or discursive ‘turn’ in political, political-economic and more generally social theory and analysis. However, there are also significant differences between them. From the perspective of CDA in particular, the ways in which the discursive ‘turn’ is taken in CPE and PDA are in various and different respects open to question.
正如我之前指出的，CDA、CPE 和 PDA 有很多共同點。他們都認為，政治、政治經濟以及更普遍的社會事件、過程和變化涉及 與對象、行動、代理人、實踐和結構的結合或表達，因此，對社會過程和變化的研究和分析需要在政治、政治經濟以及更普遍的社會理論和分析中進行符號學或話語的“轉向”。但是，它們之間也存在顯著差異。特別是從 CDA 的角度來看，CPE 和 PDA 中話語「轉向」的方式在各種不同的方面都有待商榷。

CDA, CPE and PDA differ in their understanding of what a discourse is, and consequently in their view of and analytical treatment of the relationship between semiotic and extra-semiotic elements. The major divide here is between PDA on the one hand, and CDA and CPE on the other. For PDA, ‘language, actions and objects are intertwined’ in a discourse; the ‘scope of discourse theory’ is extended ‘beyond the analysis of “text and talk in contexts” to social actions and political practices, so that all objects and social practices are objects and practices of discourse’ (Howarth & Griggs 2012: 308). For CDA (and CPE) by contrast, a discourse is just the language, or semiotic, element. CDA is like PDA (and CPE) concerned with articulations of language, actions and objects, but it sees them as articulated in ‘practices’: it uses ‘practices’ broadly in the way that PDA uses ‘discourses’. This may seem to be merely a terminological difference, but in fact there is more at stake. Howarth & Griggs (2012: 307) cite Gottweis’s observation (2002:249) that ‘social, political or natural phenomena and, inseparately from them, their meanings, are constantly moving, changing and shifting in various directions’. I would only accept this with the proviso that movement of phenomena and movement of meaning are separate though interconnected. It is crucial to be able to analyse shifting relations between semiotic and extra-semiotic (material) elements of practices such as new public management (one of Howarth & Griggs’ examples), the bringing of semiotic and extra-semiotic elements into shifting articulations. In CDA this is done by analysing relations between discourses (as well as genres and styles) and non-semiotic elements of practices, but it is not clear how this could be done in PDA. The difference on this issue between PDA on the one hand and CDA and CPE on the other is part of the difference between the poststructuralism of the former and the critical realism of the latter (Fairclough, Jessop & Sayer 2004).
CDA、CPE 和 PDA 在對話語的理解上有所不同，因此他們對符號學和符號學外元素之間關係的看法和分析處理也不同。這裡的主要分歧是 PDA 與 CDA 和 CPE 之間的分歧。對於 PDA 來說，「語言、動作和物件在話語中交織在一起」;“話語理論的範圍”擴展到“背景中的文本和談話”分析到社會行動和政治實踐，因此所有對象和社會實踐都是話語的物件和實踐“（Howarth & Griggs 2012：308）。相比之下，對於 CDA（和 CPE）來說，話語只是語言或符號學元素。CDA 就像 PDA（和 CPE）一樣，關注語言、動作和對象的表達，但它將它們視為在“實踐”中表達出來的：它以 PDA 使用“話語”的方式廣泛地使用“實踐”。這似乎只是一個術語上的差異，但實際上還有更多的風險。Howarth&Griggs（2012：307）引用了Gottweis的觀察（2002：249）認為“社會、政治或自然現象，以及它們的意義，都在不斷地向各種方向移動、變化和轉變”。我只接受這一點，但附帶條件是現象的運動和意義的運動是分開的，儘管是相互關聯的。能夠分析符號學和符號學外（物質）實踐元素之間的變化關係是至關重要的，例如新的公共管理（Howarth & Griggs的例子之一），將符號學和符號學外元素帶入不斷變化的表達中。 在 CDA 中，這是通過分析話語（以及流派和風格）與實踐的非符號學元素之間的關係來實現的，但目前尚不清楚如何在 PDA 中做到這一點。 在這個問題上，PDA與CDA和CPE之間的差異是前者的後結構主義和後者的批判現實主義之間的差異的一部分（Fairclough， Jessop & Sayer 2004）。

For example, a widespread response to the current crisis by government (from e.g. the USA to Britain and France) has been to advocate policies to increase the ‘competitiveness’ of these countries (the same applies to the EU). The discourse of ‘competitiveness’ in this case has been criticized for illegitimately extending the microeconomic concept of the competiveness of, for instance, products or companies to whole nations or multinational entities. Krugman (1994), for instance, asserts that ‘it is simply not the case that the world's leading nations are to any important degree in economic competition with each other, or that any of their major economic problems can be attributed to failures to compete on world markets’ (he also takes up the issue for the current period in Krugman 2011), and his critique focuses on several aspects of the relationship between the discourse and the policy actions and objects it is articulated with. For instance, he notes that ‘many sensible people have imagined that they can appropriate the rhetoric of competitiveness on behalf of desirable economic policies. Suppose that you believe that the United States needs to raise its savings rate and improve its educational system in order to raise its productivity. Even if you know that the benefits of higher productivity have nothing to do with international competition, why not describe this as a policy to enhance competitiveness if you think that it can widen your audience?’ He also notes the dangers that can follow from embracing ‘competitiveness’ as (my terms, not his) a policy discourse and imaginary: ‘First, it could result in the wasteful spending of government money supposedly to enhance ... competitiveness. Second, it could lead to protectionism and trade wars. Finally, and most important, it could result in bad public policy on a spectrum of important issues’. An example of the latter would be allowing the commitment to ‘competitiveness’ to colour formation of policy on an apparently unrelated issue such as health care reform; Krugman notes that health care experts were virtually absent from the task force set up to deal with this reform under the Clinton administration. These examples indicate the importance of being able to analyse relations between semiotic and extra-semiotic elements.
例如，政府（例如從美國到英國和法國）對當前危機的廣泛反應是宣導提高這些國家“競爭力”的政策（這同樣適用於歐盟）。在這種情況下，「競爭力」的話語被批評為非法地將產品或公司競爭力的微觀經濟學概念擴展到 整個國家或跨國實體。 例如，克魯格曼（1994）斷言，“世界領先國家之間在任何重要程度上都不存在經濟競爭，或者他們的任何主要經濟問題都可以歸因於未能在世界市場上競爭”（他還在克魯格曼中討論了當前時期的問題2011年），他的批評集中在話語與政策行動和與之表達的對象之間關係的幾個方面。例如，他指出，「許多明智的人都認為他們可以挪用競爭力的花言巧語來代表理想的經濟政策。假設您認為美國需要提高儲蓄率並改善其教育系統以提高其生產力。即使你知道更高生產力的好處與國際競爭無關，如果你認為它可以擴大你的受眾，為什麼不將其描述為一項提高競爭力的政策呢？“他還指出了將'競爭力'視為（我的術語，不是他的術語）政策話語和想像可能帶來的危險：”首先，它可能導致浪費政府資金，這些資金本應用於增強......競爭力。其次，它可能導致保護主義和貿易戰。最後，也是最重要的一點，它可能導致在一系列重要問題上出現糟糕的公共政策。後者的一個例子是允許對「競爭力」的承諾為在明顯不相關的問題（如醫療保健改革）上的政策形成著色;克魯格曼指出，在柯林頓政府時期為處理這項改革而成立的工作組中，醫療保健專家實際上缺席了。這些例子表明了能夠分析符號學和符號學外元素之間關係的重要性。

CDA, CPE and PDA also differ in their understanding of the character of semiosis, specifically over whether semiosis is regarded as having a multifaceted or ‘multifunctional’ character. Here the major division is between CDA and the other two. Discourse analysis within the social sciences commonly reduces ‘discourse’ – what I am calling ‘semiosis’ - to discourses and thus to representations, and it is mainly discourse analysts with backgrounds in Linguistics that view semiosis as having multiple facets or dimensions, as I have above: action and identity as well as representations, genres and styles as well as discourses³. This is an important distinction between (this version of) CDA and other approaches to discourse analysis⁴. It has consequences for what is seen as semiotic and what is seen as extra-semiotic, and therefore for one’s view of the relationship between semiotic and extra-semiotic elements of social processes, and one’s view of the nature of discourse analysis and of its relationship to other forms of social analysis. In particular, taking action (and social interaction) to have a semiotic character entails a view of the semiotic as text and of discourse analysis as analysis of texts in their syntagmatic as well paradigmatic aspect, as ‘chain’ as well as ‘choice’, a form of analysis which articulates choices between different discourses with the chain relations associated with particular genres. Social action and interaction are seen as articulating semiotic and extra-semiotic elements, and rather than limiting discourse analysis to an identification of choices amongst available discourses in abstraction from concrete (inter)actional events, such choices are seen as part of such events and as made in the course of particular actions and interactions and in pursuit of purposes associated with them. One consequence is a view of semiosis which sees action as primary and representation as subsumed within it, and correspondingly sees genres as primary and discourses (as well as styles) as subsumed within them.
CDA、CPE 和 PDA 對符號學特徵的理解也不同，特別是在符號學是否被視為具有多方面或“多功能”特徵方面。這裡的主要分歧是 CDA 和其他兩個。社會科學中的話語分析通常將「話語」——我稱之為「符號學」——簡化為話語，從而簡化為表徵，主要是具有語言學背景的話語分析者認為符號學具有多個方面或維度，正如我上面所說的：行動和身份，以及表徵、流派和風格以及話語³.這是（這個版本的）CDA 與其他話語分析方法之間的一個重要區別⁴. 它對被視為符號學和被視為符號學外的東西都有影響，因此也影響一個人對社會過程中符號學和符號學外元素之間關係的看法，以及一個人對話語分析的性質及其與其他形式的社會分析的關係的看法。特別是，採取行動（和社會互動）以具有符號學特徵，需要將符號學視為文本，將話語分析視為對文本的句法和範式方面的分析，作為“鏈”和“選擇”，這是一種分析形式，通過與特定體裁相關的鏈關係闡明不同話語之間的選擇。 社會行動和互動被視為符號學和符號學外元素的表達，而不是將話語分析局限於從具體的（互動）事件中抽象出的可用話語中識別選擇，而是將這些選擇視為此類事件的一部分，並在特定行動和互動的過程中做出，並追求與之相關的目的。一個結果是符號學的觀點，它把動作看作是主要的，表現是包含在其中的，相應地把流派看作是主要的，話語（以及風格）是被歸入其中的。

A related difference between CDA and CPE is over the understanding of dialectical relations between semiosis and extra-semiotic elements. Jessop (2009: 338) differentiates ‘two forms of complexity reduction’ which ‘work to transform meaningless and unstructured complexity into meaningful and structured complexity’, semiosis and structuration, which are respectively ‘semiotic and structural aspects of complexity reduction’, and which are ‘dialectically related’. CDA also sees the relation between semiosis and structures as dialectical, but conceives the relation in a different way which is inconsistent with a simple differentiation between semiosis and structuration. The structuration of social interactions is not for CDA simply ‘extra-semiotic’, it is partly semiotic. This relates to the CDA category of ‘operationalization’ which I discussed above. Discourses can – contingently – be operationalized: they can be enacted as ways of (inter)acting (social practices) and inculcated as ways of being (identities) as well as materialized (eg as ways of organizing space, in architectural forms). Crucially, enactment and inculcation may themselves take semiotic forms: a new management discourse (e.g. the discourse of marketized ‘new public management’ which has invaded public sector fields like education and health) may be enacted as management procedures which include new genres of interaction between managers and workers, or it may be inculcated as identities which semiotically include the styles of the new type of managers. Moreover, technologies in the CPE understanding, which are social practices of a particular sort (Jessop 2009: 339), are like structuration partly semiotic in character⁵. The particularly important point here is that the emergence of genres and the selection, institutionalization and normalization of particular genres as the dominant and conventional ones is itself a significant part of the structuration of social interaction.
CDA 和 CPE 之間的一個相關區別是關於對符號學和符號學外元素之間辯證關係的理解。Jessop （2009： 338） 區分了“兩種形式的複雜性降低”，它們“致力於將無意義和非結構化的複雜性轉化為有意義和結構化的複雜性”，符號學和結構學，它們分別是“複雜性降低的符號學和結構方面”，以及“辯證相關”。CDA 也認為符號學和結構之間的關係是辯證的，但以不同的方式構想這種關係，這與符號學和結構學之間的簡單區分不一致。 對 CDA 來說，社會互動的結構不僅僅是「符號學外的」，它部分是符號學的。這與我上面討論的 CDA 類別的「操作化」有關。話語可以——持續地——被操作化：它們可以被制定為（互動）行為的方式（社會實踐），被灌輸為存在的方式（身份）以及物化的方式（例如，作為組織空間的方式，以建築形式）。至關重要的是，頒布和灌輸本身可以採取符號學形式：一種新的管理話語（例如 市場化的“新公共管理”話語已經侵入了教育和衛生等公共部門領域）可以作為管理程式制定，其中包括管理者和工人之間互動的新類型，也可以被灌輸為身份，在符號學上包括新型管理者的風格。此外，CPE 理解中的技術，即一種特定類型的社會實踐（Jessop 2009：339），就像結構一樣，部分具有符號學特徵⁵。這裡特別重要的一點是，流派的出現以及特定流派作為主導和傳統流派的選擇、制度化和正常化，本身就是 社會互動結構的重要組成部分。

Policy-making is widely recognized as having a ‘problem-solution’ character which can be seen as addressed by CDA, CPE and PDA though in different ways and with different emphases. One notable contrast between the papers by Jessop and by
政策制定被廣泛認為具有「問題-解決」的特點，可以看作是通過 CDA、CPE 和 PDA 來解決的，儘管方式不同，側重點也不同。Jessop 和 byHowarth (as well as Howarth & Griggs 2012)
Howarth （以及Howarth & Griggs 2012）which have appeared in the journal is that while the former focuses upon ‘imaginaries’ (which we can see as CPE’s distinctive take on solutions) the latter focuses upon ‘
》中發表的文章是，前者側重於“想像”（我們可以將其視為 CPE 對解決方案的獨特看法），而後者則側重於”problematization
問題化’ (s
' （see also for instance
ee 也例如Bacchi
巴奇 2012). While both do in different ways recognize the pairing of problems and solutions (particular imaginaries are associated with particular interpretations and narratives of crisis, particular
).雖然兩者都以不同的方式認識到問題和解決方案的配對（特定的想像與對危機的特定解釋和敘述相關聯，特別是problematizations
問題化 favour certain solutions and preclude others), the
支援某些解決方案並排除其他解決方案），則relationship
關係 between problem and solution is not a focal concern in either. Yet there would seem to be good grounds for claiming that this is a focal relationship in policy-making
問題與解決方案之間都不是焦點。然而，似乎有充分的理由聲稱這是政策制定中的焦點關係 and policy debate
和政策辯論, and for developing models for analysing
，以及開發用於分析的模型them
他們 that accentuate this relationship. Taking this point together with the claim above that discourse analysis centres upon
這突出了這種關係。將這一點與上述主張一起，話語分析集中在syntagmatic
語法 relations in texts and the associated category of genre, an approach to policy analysis which incorporates critical analysis of policy discourse should focus upon generic features of policy discourse which appertain to the relationship between problems and solutions. In line with the ‘argumentative turn’ in policy analysis (Fischer & Forester 1993, Fischer &
文本中的關係和相關的體裁類別，一種包含對政策話語進行批判性分析的政策分析方法應側重於政策話語的一般特徵，這些特徵與問題和解決方案之間的關係有關。與政策分析中的“論證轉向”相符（Fischer & Forester 1993， Fischer &Gottweis
戈特維斯 2012), I would suggest that this entails focusing upon forms of argumentation, and specifically those which have a problem-solution character, a position that is developed in
2012年），我認為這需要關注論證的形式，特別是那些具有問題解決特徵的論證形式，這一立場是在Fairclough
費爾克勞 & Fairclough
費爾克勞 (2012a) where CDA is integrated with the analysis of ‘practical argumentation’
其中 CDA 與“實踐論證”的分析相結合⁶. Moreover, I would suggest that this move is indicated by the CPE emphasis on the interdependency between
此外，我認為這一舉措是由 CPE 強調semiosis
符號學 and
和structuration
結構: genres of practical argumentation are part of the
： 實踐論證的體裁是structuration
結構 of social interaction, and part of the ‘the conditions
的社交互動，以及「條件」的一部分that make
這使得 semiosis
符號學 possible and secure its
可能並確保其 effectivity
有效性’ (Jessop 2009:338). Note that f
' （傑索普 2009：338）。請注意，from a CDA perspective
rom a CDA 透檢視 what
什麼Jessop
傑索普refers to here as the
此處稱為effectivity
有效性 of ‘
的 'semiosis
符號學’ is specifically
具體來說 the
這effectivity
有效性 of discourses/
論述/construals
解釋.

Focusing on practical argumentation has the advantage of bringing
專注於實踐論證的好處在於帶來 to bear upon policy analysis a coherent
為了對政策分析產生連貫的 approach to problem-solution relations which accommodates relevant aspects of both the CPE and PDA approaches in a way
問題-解決方案關係的方法，在某種程度上容納了 CPE 和 PDA 方法的相關方面that may enhance
這可能會增強 their analytical force. In the account of the structure of practical arguments in
他們的分析力。在對Fairclough
費爾克勞 & Fairclough
費爾克勞 (2012a), they include the following elements: a Value premise, a Goal premise, a
），它們包括以下元素：Value 前提、Goal 前提、Circumstantial
間接 premise, a Means-Goal premise, and a Claim (or conclusion). Existing states of affairs are represented, and
前提、均值-目標前提和索賠（或結論）。表示了現有的事態，並且problematized
問題化 in particular ways, in the
特別是，在Circumstantial
間接 premise. Possible and desirable alternative future states of affairs are construed in the Goal premise, in accordance with how existing states of affairs are represented in the
前提。可能和可取的替代未來事態在目標前提下被解釋，根據現有事態在Circumstantial
間接 premise and with underlying values and concerns (Value premise). The Means-Goal premise has a conditional form (if a course of action A is pursued, it will or is likely to take us from the existing problematic state of affairs C to the desirable future state of affairs G in accordance with values V). The Claim advocates pursuing a particular course of action. Problems (
前提下，並具有潛在的價值觀和關注點 （Value premise）。均值-目標前提具有條件形式（如果追求行動方案 A，它將或可能會根據價值 V 將我們從現有的有問題的事態 C 帶到理想的未來事態 G）。該主張主張追求特定的行動方案。問題 （problematizations
問題化) are associated with the
） 與Circumstantial
間接 premise. The treatment of solutions is more complex. The goals associated with the Goal premise are advanced as solutions in the sense of changed future states of affairs which can and should replace existing
前提。溶液的處理更為複雜。與目標前提相關的目標被推進為解決方案，即改變的未來事態可以而且應該取代現有的problematized
問題化 states of affairs. But notice that goals are advanced not only in the light of particular
事態。但請注意，目標的推進不僅取決於特定的problematizations
問題化 of existing states of affairs but also in the light
對現有事態的瞭解，但也在光明中of particular
特別是 sets of values and concerns – the view that, once a particular
值和關注點集 – 一旦特定的problematization
問題化 is accepted, a range of compatible solutions and the exclusion of in
被接受，一系列相容的解決方案和排除 incompatible ones simply follows
相容的只是跟隨, is unacceptable in ignoring the significance of values and concerns not only for how circumstances are
，忽視了價值觀的重要性和關注，不僅對環境是怎樣的problematized
問題化 but also for what solutions are advocated. But solutions are layered: the means are also part of the solution in that they may serve the achievement of the goal, but agents often pursue complex series of goals in which the achievement of one goal is a means of achieving further goals and in which achieved goals become parts of the circumstances in further practical arguments. We argue in
但也為所倡導的解決方案。但解決方案是分層的：手段也是解決方案的一部分，因為它們可能服務於目標的實現，但代理人經常追求一系列複雜的目標，其中實現一個目標是實現進一步目標的手段，其中實現的目標成為進一步實際論證中環境的一部分。我們在Fairclough
費爾克勞 & Fairclough
費爾克勞 2012a) that integration of CPE categories into a schema for practical argumentation can give them an analytical force which is otherwise missing: a ‘strategy’ is on our account a plan of action for achieving a goal through potentially highly complex chains of means-goals-circumstances relations; ‘imaginaries’ are goals associated with the Goal premises of practical arguments
）將 CPE 類別整合到實際論證的模式中可以賦予它們一種分析力量，而這在原本是缺失的：「策略」對我們來說是通過可能高度複雜的手段-目標-環境關係鏈來實現目標的行動計劃;“imaginaries”是與實際論證的 Goal 前提相關的 Goal⁷.

There are differences between CDA, CPE and PDA over the object and scope of analysis and the nature of analysis. Jessop (2009) contrasts the tendency of discourse analysis to ‘focus on specific texts in particular contexts’ with the need for CPE analysis to address the relationship between semiotic and extra-semiotic factors in the variation, selection and retention of imaginaries and associated material practices. But this conflates two issues: the need for CPE to deal with the relationship between semiotic and extra-semiotic processes as against the tendency in some discourse analysis to focus exclusively on the former; and the need for analysis to go beyond a focus on ‘specific texts in particular contexts’ . The version of CDA which I am discussing here has always accepted the CPE view that semiotic processes need to be analysed in tandem with extra-semiotic processes, though it has needed to turn to external resources (notably CPE itself) to specify how this might be done. The second issue has not been satisfactorily addressed either in CDA or in CPE and remains problematic. It is true that analysis in CDA tends to centre upon specific texts and bodies of text in particular contexts and related contexts (and in particular organizations, institutions, fields etc). CPE analysis on the other hand tends to amount to summation of longer-term trends in the co-evolution of semiotic and extra-semiotic processes which generalize over many social interactions of
CDA、CPE 和 PDA 在分析的物件和範圍以及分析的性質上存在差異。Jessop （2009） 將話語分析傾向於“關注特定語境中的特定文本”與需要 CPE 分析進行對比，以解決符號學和符號學外因素在想像和相關物質實踐的變化、選擇和保留之間的關係。但這混淆了兩個問題：CPE 需要處理符號學和符號學外過程之間的關係，而不是某些話語分析中只關注前者的傾向;以及分析需要超越對「特定背景下的特定文本」 的關注。我在這裡討論的 CDA 版本一直接受 CPE 的觀點，即符號學過程需要與符號學外過程一起分析，儘管它需要求助於外部資源（特別是 CPE 本身）來指定如何做到這一點。第二個問題在 CDA 或 CPE 中都沒有得到令人滿意的解決，並且仍然存在問題。誠然，CDA 中的分析傾向於以特定文本和特定上下文和相關上下文（特別是組織、機構、領域等）的文本正文為中心。另一方面，CPE 分析往往相當於符號學和符號學外過程共同進化的長期趨勢的總結，這些趨勢概括於許多社會互動diverse sorts (there are examples in both Jessop 2009 and Sum 2009). If CDA is faced with the problem of how extrapolate from its analysis of various particular events and interactions (and focally texts as their semiotic moment) to analysis of the production, reproduction, transformation and contestation of hegemonies, CPE is faced with the problem that its generalizations are generalizations about concrete realities which however themselves are not analysed
不同的種類（Jessop 2009 和 Sum 2009 中都有示例）。如果說 CDA 面臨的問題是如何從對各種特定事件和互動的分析（以及作為其符號學時刻的焦點文本）推斷到對霸權的生產、再生產、轉換和爭奪的分析，那麼 CPE 面臨的問題是，它的概括是對具體現實的概括，然而它們本身並沒有被分析⁸. It is quite legitimate for both CDA and CPE to limit their own analytical focus and concern, but both are committed to
.CDA 和 CPE 限制自己的分析重點和關注點是完全合理的，但兩者都致力於transdisciplinary
跨學科 research, and within
研究，並在transdisciplinary
跨學科 research they would seem to be dependent on each other: CDA analysis needs to be framed by CPE analysis (or some other analysis similar in scope), CPE analysis needs to be grounded in CDA analysis (or some similar type of analysis) of particular social events and interactions. CDA recognized from early on (
研究它們似乎是相互依賴的：CDA 分析需要以 CPE 分析（或其他範圍相似的分析）為基礎，CPE 分析需要以特定社會事件和互動的 CDA 分析（或一些類似類型的分析）為基礎。CDA 從早期就得到認可 （Fairclough
費爾克勞 1992) that there is a need to integrate analysis of concrete interactional realities with analysis of underlying trends, arguing that the analytical focus needs to oscillate between (changing) features of particular bodies of texts and changes in orders of discourse which the former may cumulatively bring about. But this is a schematic response to the problems of integration, and more attention is needed to the methodological problem of how to design research projects to build in this duality of focus. In broad terms, this would seem to require ways of selecting representative bodies of text and interaction for detailed analysis, possibly techniques for analysing large bodies of texts in less detailed ways (using e.g. corpus linguistics, though in my view this is of more limited value than it is generally thought to be), but also ways of identifying texts and interactions which are particularly significant and influential with respect to innovation and change.
）認為有必要將對具體互動現實的分析與對潛在趨勢的分析結合起來，認為分析重點需要在特定文本主體的（變化的）特徵和前者可能累積帶來的話語順序的變化之間搖擺不定。但這是對整合問題的示意性回應，需要更多地關注如何設計研究專案以建立這種雙重焦點的方法論問題。從廣義上講，這似乎需要選擇具有代表性的文本主體和交互進行詳細分析的方法，可能需要以不太詳細的方式分析大量文本的技術（例如使用語料庫語言學，儘管在我看來，這比通常認為的價值要有限），還需要識別在創新和變革方面特別重要和有影響力的文本和交互的方法。

Sum (2009 186, 198-99) provides two overlapping lists of questions for exploring how ‘the discursive features of capitalist social relations ... are mutually implicated with structural features in the production of hegemony’. Here is the first of the two: ‘(1) where do particular policy ideas and their related discursive networks originate; (2) which actors, individual and collective, get involved in the policy discursive networks that construct objects of economic governance; (3) what ideas (or knowledge brands) are selected and drawn upon to recontextualize the referents of these objects; (4) how do these ideas enter policy discourses and everyday practices; (5) how do these modes of thought discipline and/or governmentalize the organization of spaces, policies and diverse populations; (6) how do they become part of the hegemonic logics and challenge by diverse social forces; (7) how are they challenged and negotiated to maintain unstable equilibria of compromise?’ These questions point to a rich programme of research, and I shall briefly discuss the forms of analysis needed to pursue them.
Sum （2009， 186， 198-99） 提供了兩個重疊的問題清單，以探索「資本主義社會關係的話語特徵......與霸權生產的結構特徵相互牽連」。這是兩個問題中的第一個：“（1） 特定的政策理念及其相關的話語網路起源於何處;（2） 哪些行為者，無論是個人還是集體，都參與了構建經濟治理物件的政策話語網路;（3） 選擇和借鑒了哪些想法（或知識品牌）來重新語境化這些物件的所指物件;（4） 這些想法如何進入政策話語和日常實踐;（5） 這些思維模式如何對空間、政策和多樣化人口的組織進行紀律和/或政府化;（6） 它們如何成為霸權邏輯的一部分並受到不同社會力量的挑戰;（7） 他們如何受到挑戰和談判以維持不穩定 的妥協平衡？這些問題指向一個豐富的研究計劃，我將簡要討論追求這些問題所需的分析形式。

We can differentiate four main focuses of attention in these questions. First, the origin of policy ideas and discursive networks. Second, the selection and recontexualization of particular ideas and associated objects of economic governance, and the emergence of a semiotic order (or in my terms an order of discourse) as part of the emergence of hegemonic logics. Third, its disciplining and/or governmentalizing effects. Fourth, the action of particular actors, individual and collective, in constructing and in challenging these modes of thought and objects of economic governance. In part, these questions appertain to the emergence and character of a semiotic structure or order as part of a hegemonic order; in part, they appertain to the actions which go towards constructing, challenging and negotiating this structure or order. In terms of the four ‘interrelated aspects’ distinguished by Jessop (see note 5), they are focused in part on structuration and in part on agency.
在這些問題中，我們可以區分出四個主要的關注點。 首先，政策思想和話語網路的起源。 其次， 特定思想和經濟治理相關對象的選擇和重新組合化，以及符號學秩序（或用我的話說是話語秩序）的出現，作為霸權邏輯出現的一部分。第三，它的紀律和/或政府化效果。第四，特定行為者，個人和集體，在構建和挑戰這些思維模式和經濟治理物件方面的行動。在某種程度上，這些問題與作為霸權秩序一部分的符號學結構或秩序的出現和特徵有關;在某種程度上，它們與構建、挑戰和協商這種結構或秩序的行動有關。就 Jessop 區分的四個「相互關聯的方面」而言（見注 5），它們部分集中在結構上，部分集中在能動性上。

In order to pursue the programme of research indicated by these questions, it would be necessary to analyse the involvement of actors in actions in policy discursive networks that are directed to the construction of objects of economic governance (Sum’s question 2) and the involvement of actors in actions that are directed to challenging and negotiating modes of thought and objects of economic governance (question 7). A prerequisite for doing so would be a method for analysing semiotic action, yet as I have indicated above CPE has not so far worked with such a method.
為了追求這些問題所表明的研究計劃，有必要分析行為者對政策話語網路行動的參與，這些行動者是針對經濟治理目標構建的行動（Sum 的問題 2），以及行為者參與的是針對挑戰和談判經濟治理的思維模式和目標的行動（問題 7）。這樣做的先決條件是分析符號學行為的方法，但正如我上面所指出的，CPE 到目前為止還沒有使用過這種方法。

Critical Policy Analysis
關鍵政策分析

Like Howarth & Griggs (2012: 323 ff), CDA takes discourse analysis to be a ‘problem-driven approach’ based upon an ‘an internal relation between explanation, critique and normative evaluation’ (see the version of explanatory critique based upon that of Bhaskar in Chouliaraki & Fairclough 1999, and see Fairclough & Fairclough 2012a), but it has a different view of the nature of such an approach. Howarth & Griggs formulate the ‘first analytical task’ as ‘to problematize the various problematizations of the issue under consideration, so that we can construct a viable object of research’ (2012: 325). This is helpful at two levels. First, in suggesting that critique focuses upon the ‘problems’ that people are faced with, for instance in the context of the current crisis; its initial starting point is what various groups of people take to be problems and how they problematize them, though these cannot be taken at face value: critique engages with the question of what the problems really are with regard to some issue, and it does so through evaluation of the various problematizations of that issue that currently exist, and through explanations of how and why that issue is problematized in the various ways that it is by various groups of people, rather than in other ways. This would seem to be a productive approach specifically for critical policy analysis. Second, and more generally, in suggesting that critique is structured in a way that is analogous to the structuring of practical engagement with the problems of social life – it ‘problematizes problematizations’ in their formulation, though I shall suggest that this view of the analogy is too narrow.
就像Howarth & Griggs（2012：323 ff）一樣，CDA將話語分析視為一種基於“解釋、批判和規範評價之間的內部關係”的“問題驅動方法”（參見基於Bhaskar在Chouliaraki & Fairclough 1999中的解釋性批判版本，並參見Fairclough & Fairclough 2012a），但它對這種方法的性質有不同的看法。Howarth&Griggs將“第一個分析任務”表述為“將正在考慮的問題的各種問題化問題化，以便我們可以構建一個可行的研究物件'（2012：325）。這在兩個層面上都有説明。首先，建議批判側重於人們面臨的「問題」，例如在當前危機的背景下;它的出發點是不同群體認為什麼是問題，以及他們如何使這些問題成為問題，儘管這些不能只看表面價值：批判涉及關於某個問題的真正問題是什麼的問題，它通過評估當前存在的該問題的各種問題化來實現這一點。 以及通過解釋這個問題如何以及為什麼被不同的人群以各種方式而不是以其他方式提出問題。這似乎是一種專門用於關鍵政策分析的有效方法。 其次，更廣泛地說，在提出批判的結構類似於對社會生活問題的實際參與的結構時——它在表述中“問題化了問題化”，儘管我要指出這種類比的觀點太狹隘了。

But CDA like CPE is committed to (critical) realism (Fairclough, Jessop & Sayer 2004), which takes a different view of problematization than poststructuralism, based upon a ‘moderate constructivism’ (Sayer 2000). Poststructuralist accounts of problematization draw extensively on Foucault, but there is one account by Foucault which is consistent with our position (Foucault 1984): while problems are a product of problematization in thought, and are not defined by situations or contexts, problematizations are applications of thought to ‘difficulties’ which are defined by situations or contexts (and exist whether or not thought is applied to them). While problems are constructed in thought, the ‘difficulties’ which they problematize are produced by material processes. An important consequence which distinguishes realist from poststructuralist positions (e.g. Bacchi 2012 as well as Howarth &Griggs 2012) is that some problematizations capture these difficulties better than others, and can be evaluated in these terms, and indeed are so evaluated in normal social practice as well as in critique. Moreover, problematization posits problems as causes of ‘difficulties’, and problematization is partial explanation (a move in the direction of a fuller explanation) as well as evaluation, which evaluates posited causes as ‘problems’ because they produce negative effects or consequences (the ‘difficulties’). In a critical perspective, problematization links negative critique to positive critique: in positing a cause of difficulties as a problem and explaining these difficulties as negative effects of this problem, one is identifying (in accordance, as Howarth & Griggs note, with demands and grievances) what needs to be changed, what needs a solution. A problem is simultaneously what explains difficulties and what demands solution⁹.
但是，像CPE這樣的CDA致力於（批判性的）現實主義（Fairclough， Jessop & Sayer 2004），它對問題化的看法與後結構主義不同，基於一種基於『溫和的建構主義』（Sayer2000）。後結構主義對問題化的描述廣泛借鑒了福柯，但福柯的一個解釋與我們的立場相吻合（Foucault 1984）：雖然問題是思想問題化的產物，並且不由情境或語境定義，但問題化是思想對由情境或語境定義的“困難”的應用（無論思想是否應用於他們，並且都存在）。雖然問題是在思想中構建的，但它們所引發的困難是由物質過程產生的。區分現實主義和後結構主義清單立場（例如Bacchi 2012以及Howarth & Griggs 2012）的一個重要結果是，一些問題化比其他問題化更好地捕捉到了這些困難，並且可以用這些術語來評估，事實上，在正常的社會實踐和批判中都是如此評估的。 此外，問題化將問題視為困難的原因，而問題化是部分解釋（朝著更全面解釋的方向前進）和評估，它將假設的原因評估為“問題”，因為它們產生了負面影響或後果（“困難”）。 從批判的角度來看，問題化將消極的批評與積極的批評聯繫起來：在將困難的原因視為問題並將這些困難解釋為這個問題的負面影響時，人們正在確定（如Howarth和Griggs所指出的，與需求和不滿相符）需要改變什麼，需要解決什麼.問題同時是解釋困難和需要解決⁹ 的東西。

We also need a clearer view than that provided in Howarth & Griggs’ paper of the various points and levels at which issues are problematized, and the categories and types of social actor involved. I suggest that the main distinctions are the following: participants’ problematizations as part of the normal processes of social interaction and social practice; social scientists’ problematizations in their theorization and analysis of aspects of social life; the problematizations of social actors in politics, management and governance who seek to regulate, govern and change aspects of existing social life in particular, different and contested ways; the problematizations of critical social scientists, who like the latter seek to change aspects of social life, based in Howarth & Griggs’ terms on problematizing the problematizations at the other three levels.
我們還 需要比Howarth&Griggs的論文更清晰的視角，瞭解問題被問題化的各個點和層次，以及涉及的社會行為者的類別和類型。我認為主要區別如下：參與者的問題化作為社會互動和社會實踐的正常過程的一部分;社會科學家 在對社會生活的各個方面的理論化和分析中的問題化;政治、管理和治理中尋求調節、管理和改變現有社會生活各個方面的社會行為者的問題化， 不同和有爭議的方式; 批判性社會科學家的問題化，他們像後者一樣尋求改變社會生活的各個方面，基於Howarth和Griggs關於在其他 三個層面上問題化的術語。

With regard to participants’
關於參與者的problematizations
問題化, it is important that we recognize that normative evaluation is an inherent (if often neglected) part of normal processes of social interaction and practice (see
，重要的是我們要認識到規範性評價是社會互動和實踐正常過程中固有的（如果經常被忽視的）部分（見Sayer
塞爾 2011 on ‘lay
在 『Lay 上normativity
規範性’), and that part of normative evaluation is identifying aspects of life and of the actions, beliefs,
'），而規範性評價的這一部分是識別生活的各個方面以及行為、信念、arguments etc
參數等 of social actors as problems,
將社會行為者視為問題，problematizing
問題化 them in particular ways.
他們以特定的方式。Problematization
問題化 is thus on one level
因此處於一個水準a mundane, banal feature of social life. With regard to social scientists’
社會生活的一個平凡、平庸的特徵。關於社會科學家的problematizations
問題化, this version of CDA seeks to incorporate the insight in Marx’s critique of political economy as simultaneously a critique of actual political economies and a critique of the political economists, that the critique of any aspect of social life is simultaneously a critique of that aspect in its actuality and of the theorizing and analysis of it by social scientists and others, with the proviso that actualities include lay
，這個版本的CDA試圖將馬克思對政治經濟學的批判中的洞察力納入其中，同時是對實際政治經濟學的批判和對政治經濟學家的批判，即對社會生活任何方面的批判同時也是對該方面在其現實中的批判，以及對社會科學家和其他人對它的理論化和分析的批判。 附帶條件是現實包括 LAYnormativity
規範性 as I have just indicated. But formulating these as social scientists’
正如我剛才所指出的。但是，將這些表述為社會科學家的problematizations
問題化 is too narrow: we include here the
太窄：我們在此處包括problematizations
問題化 of various types of commentators, experts etc, which can to some extent be subsumed under ‘applied social science’, and more generally involve many types of
各種類型的評論員、專家等，在某種程度上可以歸入“應用社會科學”，更普遍地涉及許多類型的recontextualization
重新語境化 of social science. With regard to the
社會科學。關於problematizations
問題化 of social actors in politics and governance,
政治和治理中的社會參與者，problematization
問題化 can be seen as practical critique oriented to changing existing social life in certain ways (and linked as Howarth & Griggs suggest to grievances and demands, though these would seem to be
可以被視為以某種方式改變現有社會生活的實際批評（並像Howarth和Griggs所暗示的那樣與不滿和要求相關聯，儘管這些似乎是associated with
關聯problematization
問題化 at the political level, not as Howarth & Griggs seem to suggest with
在政治層面上，並不像Howarth和Griggs似乎暗示的那樣problematization
問題化 as such). Critique in the sense of critical social theory and analysis finds the basis for its own transformative agendas in those of certain practical critics of existing social life within politics (those who, in obviously contentious terms, seek progressive social change) but it includes the
因此）。批判性社會理論和分析意義上的批判在政治中對現有社會生活的某些實際批評者（那些顯然有爭議的術語中尋求進步的社會變革的人）的議程中找到了其自身變革議程的基礎，但它包括problematizations
問題化 of the latter within the scope of its explanatory critique:
後者在其解釋性批評的範圍內：it
它problematizes
問題化 them, and potentially arrives at different
他們，並可能得出不同的problematizations
問題化.

But we also need to clarify the form in which the problematizations which are problematized in critical social science present themselves to it, as part of the specification of what its own particular activity of problematization consists in (i.e. what critique consists in). Lay participants, social scientists (and commentators, experts etc) and practical critics do not simply problematize, they do not problematize just for the sake of doing so, people problematize to some end, they problematize aspects of social life which present difficulties of various sorts because they wish to resolve them. We therefore need to change Howarth & Griggs’ formulation of the first task of critique as problematizing problematizations: its first task is not critical analysis (problematization) of problematizations as such, but of the purposeful activities in the course and the service of which and as part of which problematizations occur. In discourse analytical terms, this means critical analysis of practical argumentation: argumentation in favour or against particular courses of action on the basis of particular problematizations of existing states of affairs (and also, as I pointed out above, on the basis of particular goals and values). We should note that practical argumentation on the account of Fairclough & Fairclough (2012a) includes normative evaluation of argumentation on the part of those who participate in it, as well as on the part of those who critically analyse it, which is conceived as sets of critical questions that are directed at all the elements of practical arguments (their various premises, their conclusions, and the relations between them).
但是，我們也需要澄清在批判社會科學中被問題化的問題化以何種形式呈現給它，作為其自身特定的問題化活動所包含的內容（即批判所包含的內容）的一部分。非專業參與者、社會科學家（以及評論員、專家等）和實踐批評家並不簡單地問題化，他們不會 僅僅為了問題而問題化，人們為了某種目的而問題化，他們為社會生活帶來各種困難的方面化問題化，因為他們希望解決這些困難。因此，我們需要改變Howarth&Griggs將批判的第一個任務表述為問題化問題化：它的首要任務不是對問題化本身的批判性分析（問題化）， 而是對過程中有目的的活動以及其中的問題化發生的服務以及作為其中一部分的活動進行批判性分析。在話語分析術語中，這意味著對實踐論證的批判性分析：基於對現有事態的特定問題化（以及，正如我上面指出的，基於特定目標和價值觀）支援或反對特定行動方案的論證。 我們應該注意到，根據Fairclough & Fairclough （2012a）的實踐論證包括參與論證的人以及批判性分析者的論證的規範性評估，這被認為是一系列針對實際論證要素的關鍵問題（他們的各種前提， 他們的結論，以及他們之間的關係）。

But it is also useful to think of critique itself as structured on the model of practical argumentation. Critique advocates courses of action to transform in some particular direction whatever part of social life is in focus, on the basis of reasons which are drawn from its description, evaluation and explanation of that part of social life. A common view of critique is that it has ‘positive’ as well as ‘negative’ aspects, and that the former are built upon the latter; Howarth & Griggs (2012: 338) in fact end their paper with an observation about how ‘to move beyond “negative critique” to the generation of positive alternatives for social and political organization’. Seeing critique as a form of extended practical argumentation provides a more explicit and coherent view of the relationship between negative and positive critique than one generally finds: negative critique is incorporated into the representation of the existing state of affairs in the Circumstantial premise, positive critique is incorporated into the selection of a goal (or goals) ‘imagining’ a possible and desirable new state of affairs in the Goal premise, on the basis on both the (negative critique) of the existing state of affairs (Circumstantial premise) and the values and concerns which inform and motivate the critique (Value premise), and means for achieving the goal(s) are the advocated line of action in the Claim. Critique has for CPE and PDA as well as CDA both a normative and an explanatory character, and modelling it on practical argumentation helps to clarify the relationship between the two. Practical argumentation as I have said includes normative evaluation through sets of critical questions, which can be taken as a model for the structuring of the normative dimension of critique. One aspect of the normative evaluation of practical argumentation relates to the
但是，將批評本身視為以實踐論證的模式構建也是有用的。批判提倡採取行動，根據其對社會生活那部分的描述、評估和解釋所得出的原因，將社會生活的任何部分轉向某個特定的方向。對批評的一個常見觀點是，它有「積極」和「消極」的一面，前者是建立在後者之上的;Howarth&Griggs（2012：338）實際上在他們的論文結尾處觀察到了如何“超越”負面批評“，為社會和政治組織創造積極的替代方案”。將批評視為一種擴展的實踐論證形式，為消極和積極批評之間的關係提供了比通常發現的更明確和連貫的觀點：消極批評被納入環境前提下對現有事態的表徵中，積極批評被納入一個目標（或多個目標）的選擇中，在目標前提下「想像」一種可能的和可取的新事態， 基於對現有事態的（消極批評）（環境前提）和告知和激勵批評的價值觀和關注點（價值前提），以及實現目標的手段是主張中倡導的行動路線。對於CPE和PDA以及CDA，批判既具有規範性又具有解釋性，將其建模於實際論證有助於澄清兩者之間的關係。正如我所說，實踐論證包括通過一系列批判性問題進行規範性評估，這可以被視為構建批判規範性維度的模型。實踐論證的規範性評估的一個方面與explanations given for and in support of particular representations, interpretations, narratives and
為支援特定陳述、解釋、敘述而提供的解釋，以及problematizations
問題化 of existing states of affairs (in Circumstantial premises), questioning the adequacy of explanations (and in some cases the absence of explanations), but also in the course of doing so advancing alternative explanations (drawing upon critical explanatory models in political economy and other areas) which may lead to different
對現有事態（在環境前提下），質疑解釋的充分性（在某些情況下缺乏解釋），而且在這樣做的過程中也提出了替代性解釋（利用政治經濟學和其他領域的批判性解釋模型），這可能會導致不同的problematizations
問題化 (negative critique) and different proposed solutions (different goals and means – positive critique). Critique can fruitfully be modelled not just on practical argumentation but also on deliberation, as an extended dialogue with lay participants, social scientists (experts, commentators etc) and social actors in politics and governance, in which their
（消極批評）和不同的建議解決方案（不同的目標和手段 - 積極批評）。批判不僅可以以實際論證為模型，而且以深思熟慮為模型，作為與非專業參與者、社會科學家（專家、評論員等）以及政治和治理中的社會行為者進行的廣泛對話，其中他們的problematizations
問題化 are critically questioned as part of the critical questioning of their argumentation overall, and responded to with different arguments including different
作為對他們整體論證的批判性質疑的一部分而受到批判性質疑，並以不同的論點回應，包括不同的problematizations
問題化. I should add that these representations of critique are in part descriptive of what happens but mainly normative: critique does not always go beyond negative to positive critique,
.我應該補充一點，這些批評的表現部分是描述發生的事情，但主要是規範性的：批評並不總是超越消極的批評到積極的批評。 but I argue that it should, nor
但我認為它應該，也不是 does it always engage effectively in dialogue with various categories of social actor (or vice-versa), but I argue that this is what it should aim for.
它是否總是有效地與各種類型的社會行為者進行對話（反之亦然），但我認為這就是它應該追求的目標。

There might be an objection, especially from a CPE perspective, that this reduces critique to argumentation about argumentation, and therefore makes it purely semiotic, excluding the dialectic between the semiotic and extra-semiotic (material) which is a central concern in CPE, but also for (my version of) CDA . My response to this objection takes up the issue, discussed above, of the character of the dialectic between the semiotic and the extra-semiotic: the dialectical character of the relation between the semiotic and the extra-semiotic is such that the relation between them is itself
可能會有人反對，特別是從 CPE 的角度來看，這將批評減少為關於論證的論證，因此使其成為純粹的符號學，排除了符號學和外符號學（材料）之間的辯證法，這是 CPE 的核心關注點，也是（我的版本）CDA 的核心關注點。我對這一反對意見的回應涉及了上面討論的符號學和符號學外符號學之間的辯證法特徵的問題：符號學和符號學外符號學之間關係的辯證特徵是這樣的，它們之間的關係本身就是semioticized
符號化, as we might put it. In more concrete terms: agency, strategy and action play a part in the selection and retention of particular interpretations of states of affairs and associated policy solutions and imaginaries, and it is part of that role that social actors think about, anticipate and deliberate over (either in their own heads or in dialogue) relations between semiotic and extra-semiotic factors that are germane to selection and retention. This is implicit for example in a formulation
，正如我們可能說的那樣。更具體地說：能動性、戰略和行動在選擇和保留對事態和相關政策解決方案和想像的特定解釋中發揮著作用，而社會行動者思考、預測和審議（無論是在他們自己的頭腦中還是在對話中）與選擇和保留密切相關的符號學和符號學外因素之間的關係也是這種作用的一部分。例如，這在公式中是隱含的 in Sum (2004
總和 （2004: 3): ‘forces seeking to establish successful hegemonic
： 3）：『尋求建立成功霸權的力量projects should analyze the strategic contexts for their actions, engage in a stepwise transformation of the structural
專案應分析其行動的戰略背景，參與結構的逐步轉型selectivities
選擇性 that may obstruct and/or facilitate the realization of the project, and promote individual and collective learning on the part of potential hegemonic subjects and subaltern forces so that they will share its values and objectives’. This implies that social actors pursuing particular strategies must analyze existing states of affairs, anticipate possible obstacles to the successful pursuit of such strategies (structural
這可能會阻礙和/或促進項目的實現，並促進潛在霸權主體和底層力量的個人和集體學習，以便他們分享其價值觀和目標“。這意味著追求特定策略的社會行為者必須分析現有的事態，預測成功追求這些策略的可能障礙（結構性selectivities
選擇性, but also agentive
，但也是代理selectivities
選擇性 in the sense of dispositions of agents towards one strategy or other, and likely consequences of certain lines of action), and act on the basis of such factors in ways which seek to pre-empt such obstacles and produce effects which facilitate the pursuit of their strategies. They must produce arguments (for themselves if not for others, but generally for both) in favour of or against particular lines of action on the basis of an assessment and weighing of such factors, but they must also critically evaluate and in some cases oppose the arguments of other actors pursuing other strategies, which entails a process of deliberation in the sense of critical comparison and assessment of different arguments for different courses of action. Semiotic factors and extra-semiotic factors and the relations between them must be brought into this process of deliberation
從代理人對一種或另一種策略的傾向以及某些行動路線的可能後果的意義上），並根據這些因素以尋求先發制人的方式採取行動，併產生有助於追求其策略的效果。他們必須在評估和權衡這些因素的基礎上提出支援或反對特定行動路線的論點（如果不是為了他們自己，但通常是為了他們自己），但他們也必須批判性地評估並在某些情況下反對其他行為者追求其他策略的論點，這需要一個審議過程，即批判性地比較和評估不同行動方案的不同論點。符號學因素和符號學外因素以及它們之間的關係必須被帶入這個深思熟慮的過程¹⁰.

Of course, given that such matters are essentially uncertain, actors will in some cases be wrong about structural selectivities, agentive selectivities, consequences of lines of action and ways to change or pre-empt them. Clearly the scope of analysis must include what actually happens in practice (e.g. what the actual consequences of some action are) as well as actors’ anticipations, and CDA therefore only contributes to transdisciplinary analysis within which an approach such as CPE is essential. But we must also recognize that this semiotic process of deliberation over extra-semiotic as well as semiotic factors and their relations may, as Sum’s formulation implies, lead to action which transforms extra-semiotic as well as semiotic factors germane to the successful pursuit of strategies. It is in practical argumentation and deliberation (including evaluation of argumentation) that lines of action are advocated (as well as rejected) on the basis a weighing of extra-semiotic as well semiotic factors and their relations, and it would seem that analysis of variation, selection and retention and of the production and contestation of hegemony needs to give attention to the deliberation which we would argue, in an Aristotelian vein, is the necessary basis for decision and action (Fairclough & Fairclough 2012a).
當然，鑒於這些問題本質上是不確定的，在某些情況下，行為者在結構選擇性、能動性選擇性、行動路線的後果以及改變或先發制人的方法方面會出錯。顯然，分析的範圍必須包括實踐中實際發生的事情（例如， 某些行動的實際後果是什麼）以及參與者的預期，因此 CDA 只有助於跨學科分析，其中 CPE 等方法是必不可少的。但我們也必須認識到，正如蘇姆的表述所暗示的那樣，這種對符號學外因素和符號學因素及其關係的思考過程，可能會導致改變與成功追求策略密切相關的符號學外因素的行動。正是在實際的論證和審議（包括對論證的評估）中，在權衡符號學外因素及其關係的基礎上，宣導（以及拒絕）行動路線，似乎對變異、選擇和保留以及霸權的生產和爭論的分析需要注意我們將要論證的審議。 在亞里士多德的脈絡中，是決策和行動的必要基礎（Fairclough & Fairclough 2012a）。

I shall now seek to make these issues more concrete through a discussion of policy responses to the financial crisis, which are the focus of both Fairclough & Fairclough (2012a) and Jessop (2009). Both of these accounts address these responses in terms of the relationship between problem and solution, and this relationship is also in focus in Howarth & Griggs (2009), though neither Fairclough & Fairclough nor Jessop use the term ‘problematizations’: Jessop refers to ‘interpretations’ and Fairclough & Fairclough to ‘representations’, but both are concerned with how the crisis is problematized, and how such problematizations relate to solutions (conceived as ‘imaginaries’ and policy responses by Jessop, and ‘goals’ and advocated lines of action as ‘means’ by Fairclough & Fairclough). Jessop’s main concern is with how certain interpretations but not others, and consequently certain policy responses but not others, have been selected in diverse capitalist regimes (and how selections between them might be made on a wider scale), and with the semiotic and extra-semiotic conditions affecting selection and retention. The central contribution of CPE is theorisation, description and analysis of how struggles to produce and contest hegemony (can) unfold, but it is also committed to critique of ideology and critique of domination. It involves a form of political intervention that ‘goes beyond Ideologiekritik’ by exploring ‘the semiotic and extra-semiotic mechanisms involved in selecting and consolidating the dominance and/or hegemony of some meaning systems and ideologies over others’, offering ‘more solid foundations to understand the nature of different forms of social domination, to develop Herrschaftskritik (critique of domination), and to contribute thereby to critical policy studies’ (Jessop 2009: 343-344).
我現在將通過討論金融危機的政策反應來尋求使這些問題更加具體，這是Fairclough和Fairclough （2012a）和Jessop （2009）的重點。這兩篇敘述都以問題和解決方案之間的關係來處理這些反應，這種關係在Howarth和Griggs（2009）中也得到了關注，儘管Fairclough & Fairclough和Jessop都沒有使用『問題化』這個術語：Jessop指的是『解釋』，而Fairclough & Fairclough到“表徵”，但兩者都關心危機是如何被問題化的，以及這種問題化如何與解決方案相關（傑索普認為是'想像'和政策反應，而'目標'和倡導的行動路線被Fairclough和Fairclough視為'手段'。).傑索普主要關注的是，在不同的資本主義政權中，某些解釋而不是其他解釋，以及因此某些政策反應而不是其他解釋是如何被選擇的（以及它們之間的選擇是如何在更廣泛的範圍內進行的），以及影響選擇和保留的符號學和符號學外條件。CPE 的核心貢獻是對生產和爭奪霸權的鬥爭如何展開的理論化、描述和分析，但它也致力於對意識形態的批判和對統治的批判。 它涉及一種政治干預形式，通過探索“選擇和鞏固某些意義體系和意識形態對其他意義體系和意識形態的支配和/或霸權所涉及的符號學和符號學外機制”，提供“更堅實的基礎來理解不同形式的社會統治的本質，以發展 Herrschaftskritik（對統治的批評），從而為批判性政策研究做出貢獻“（Jessop 2009：343-344）。

Thus (on Jessop’s account) in leading neo-liberal capitalist regimes executives were initially given power to implement exceptional measures (financial stimulus, recapitalization of banks etc) to solve the crisis and restore ‘business as usual’ on the basis of an interpretation of the crisis as a crisis in finance-led accumulation (rather than of finance-led accumulation, or of neo-liberalism, or indeed of capitalism itself), which entailed a concentration of political power in the hands of economic and political elites which (with broad agreement among leading political parties) limited the space for democratic debate and narrowed the scope of debate to a limited set of policy choices (over stimulus, recapitalization, tighter regulation, limited reform of a still neoliberal international economic regime), diverting attention from the basic social relations that produced the crisis and continue to reproduce crisis tendencies (Jessop 2009: 348-9). Jessop says that the idea that the crisis can be solved simply by correct policy choices and the associated veiling of crisis-inducing social relations are matters for ideology critique, and his account incorporates a critique (Herrschaftskritik) of the mechanisms through which the domination of a particular meaning system (the right policy choices will correct problems in finance-led accumulation and restore ‘business as usual’) and particular ideologies has been secured. He sees the return to ‘business as usual’ as no more than a short- to medium term option, and discusses ‘what sort of economic imaginary is likely to shape a meaningful “post-finance led” or “post-neoliberal” macroeconomic order’ in the longer term: The Green New Deal has been ‘selected as the basis for concerted action in the late 2000s’, what is at stake is the likelihood and form of its retention and of its translation into ‘accumulation strategies, state projects, and hegemonic visions’. He expects that it will acquire a ‘strong neo-liberal inflection in the leading national economies’¹¹.
因此（根據 Jessop 的說法）在領先的新自由主義資本主義政權中，高管們最初被賦予了實施特殊措施（金融刺激、銀行資本重組等）的權力來解決危機並恢復「一切照舊」，其基礎是將危機解釋為 金融主導的積累危機（而不是 金融主導的積累，或新自由主義，或者實際上是資本主義本身），這需要政治權力集中在經濟和政治精英手中，這（主要政黨之間達成了廣泛共識）限制了民主辯論的空間，並將辯論範圍縮小到一組有限的政策選擇（刺激、資本重組、更嚴格的監管、 對仍然新自由主義的國際經濟制度進行有限改革），將注意力從產生危機並繼續複製危機趨勢的基本社會關係上轉移開來（Jessop 2009：348-9）。傑索普說，危機可以通過正確的政策選擇和與之相關的引發危機的社會關係的面紗來解決的想法是意識形態批判的問題，他的敘述包含了對特定意義系統（正確的政策選擇將糾正金融主導的積累中的問題並恢復“一切照舊”）和特定意識形態的主導機制的批判 （Herrschaftskritik）。 他認為回歸「一切照舊」只不過是一種短期到中期的選擇，並討論了「什麼樣的經濟想像可能會塑造一個有意義的」後金融主導『或』後新自由主義『巨集觀經濟秩序」從長遠來看：綠色新政已被「選為 2000 年代後期協調行動的基礎」， 關鍵在於它被保留以及轉化為「積累戰略、國家專案和霸權願景」的可能性和形式。他預計，它將“在主要國家經濟體中產生強烈的新自由主義轉折”¹¹。

CPE, PDA and CDA all develop forms of explanatory critique which can be applied in critical policy analysis, though there are significant differences between the forms. Jessop’s view of
CPE、PDA 和 CDA 都發展了解釋性批評的形式，可以應用於批判性政策分析，儘管這些形式之間存在顯著差異。傑索普對Herrschaftskritik explains social and political domination in processes of policy formation in terms of the semiotic and extra-semiotic mechanisms that lead to particular inclusions and exclusions: the selection and retention of certain interpretations, policy solutions and imaginaries and the exclusion of others. Howarth & Griggs (2012) view ‘the challenge for critical policy studies’ as ‘to evaluate the extent of inclusion and exclusion within policy processes and the forms of antagonism that structure patterns of inclusion and exclusion’. Although they do not discuss policy responses to the crisis in the paper, one can see how their approach could be applied to this case. It would entail seeking to (
從導致特定包含和排除的符號學和符號學外機制的角度解釋了政策形成過程中的社會和政治統治：某些解釋、政策解決方案和想像的選擇和保留，以及對其他解釋的排斥。Howarth & Griggs（2012）認為“關鍵政策研究的挑戰”是“評估政策過程中的包容和排斥程度，以及構成包容和排斥模式的對立形式”。儘管他們在論文中沒有討論對危機的政策應對措施，但人們可以看到他們的方法可以應用於這種情況。這將需要尋求 （retroductively
逆向) explain what they would presumably view as the ‘
） 解釋他們可能認為是 'problematized
問題化 phenome
表型組non
上¹²’ which Jessop identifies (the selection of the interpretation of the crisis as a crisis in finance-led accumulation and of the restoration of ‘business as usual’ as the solution, to the exclusion of other interpretations and solutions) in terms of the operation of ‘political and
“，傑索普認為（選擇將危機解釋為金融主導的積累危機，並選擇恢復”一切照舊“作為解決方案，排除其他解釋和解決方案）在”政治和fantasmatic
幻想 logics’, where political logics (logics of equivalence and difference) account for the form of antagonism that structures such inclusions and exclusions, while
logics“，其中政治邏輯（等價和差異的邏輯）解釋了構建此類包含和排除的對立形式，而fantasmatic
幻想 logics
邏輯¹³ ‘explain the way subjects are gripped’ by such discourses and ideologically ‘rendered complicit in ... naturalizing’ such relations of domination (one thinks for example of how the extension of the commonsensical precept ‘you have to live within your means’ to national states helps to secure public attachment to the policies of austerity). The ‘logic of a discourse captures the rules that govern a meaningful practice, as well as the conditions that make the operation of such rules possible (Howarth & Griggs 2012: 329). There is a correspondence between the two forms critique distinguished by Jessop and the two types of logic: political logics are the focus
“解釋主體是如何被這些話語所束縛的”，並在意識形態上“成為......歸化“這種統治關係（例如，人們可以考慮將”你必須量入為出“這一常識性戒律擴展到民族國家如何有助於確保公眾對緊縮政策的依戀）。“話語的邏輯”捕捉到了管理有意義實踐的規則，以及使這些規則的運作成為可能的條件（Howarth & Griggs 2012：329）。以 Jessop 為特色的兩種形式批評和兩種類型的邏輯之間存在對應關係：政治邏輯是重點of critique of domination,
對統治的批判，fantasmatic
幻想 logics are the focus of critique of ideology.
邏輯是 Critique of Ideology 的重點。

As I have already said, both CPE and PDA see CDA as contributing to their projects, including their application in policy analysis, but I would suggest that they both underestimate the contribution that CDA can make. I have already touched upon this issue with respect to CPE above. In the case of PDA, Howarth & Griggs (2012: 332) view CDA as contributing ideological analysis of texts and linguistic interactions, viewing ideology as ‘discursive naturalization of contingently constructed meanings and identities’, though also ‘looking for unrealized possibilities for transforming the way social life is currently organized’. I shall now consider, with reference to policy responses to the crisis, what greater contribution CDA can make, especially in the articulation with argumentation theory and analysis proposed in Fairclough & Fairclough (2012a), how it can accommodate important features of both CPE and PDA in ways which may add to their value for critical policy analysis.
正如我已經說過的，CPE 和 PDA 都認為 CDA 對他們的項目有貢獻，包括它們在政策分析中的應用，但我建議他們都低估了 CDA 可以做出的貢獻。我已經在上面談到了關於 CPE 的這個問題。在PDA的情況下，Howarth和Griggs（2012：332）將CDA視為對文本和語言互動的意識形態分析做出貢獻，將意識形態視為“對持續構建的意義和身份的話語自然化”，儘管也在尋找未實現的可能性來改變當前的社會生活組織方式“。我現在將考慮，參考對危機的政策反應，CDA可以做出什麼更大的貢獻，特別是在與Fairclough & Fairclough （2012a）提出的論證理論和分析的銜接方面，它如何能夠適應CPE和PDA的重要特徵，這可能會增加它們對關鍵政策分析的價值。

The analysis of British political responses to the crisis in Fairclough & Fairclough (2012a) covers some of the same ground as Jessop’s analysis though at a different level: in analysis of a range of specific political texts. Our approach to analysis and evaluation of practical argumentation and deliberation allows us to identify extra-semiotic as well as semiotic aspects of the pairing of problems and solutions in the texts we discuss, so that we also go beyond, in Jessop’s terms (ours are different) ‘the narrative resonance, argumentative force, or scientific merit’ of the argumentation to include elements of the extra-semiotic ‘selectivities’ (structural, agential, technological). The central issue here is the character of our model of evaluation and of the critical questions it allows us (as well as participants in the public debates) to direct at argumentation. Our analysis and evaluation of Chancellor George Osborne’s June 2010 Budget speech and October 2010 Spending Review statement in chapter 4 of Fairclough & Fairclough (2012a: 135-173) provides one example which I shall broadly draw upon below (though without going into the details of the analysis). See also Fairclough & Fairclough (2011).
Fairclough & Fairclough （2012a） 對英國政治對危機的反應的分析與 Jessop 的分析涵蓋了一些相同的領域，儘管處於不同的層面：在分析一系列特定的政治文本方面。我們對實踐論證和審議的分析和評估方法使我們能夠識別我們討論的文本中問題和解決方案配對的符號學和符號學方面，因此我們也超越了傑索普的術語（我們的是不同的）論證的“敘事共鳴、論證力量或科學價值”，包括符號學外的“選擇性”的元素' （結構、代理、技術）。這裡的核心問題是我們的評估模型的特點，以及它允許我們（以及公共辯論的參與者）在論證中指導的關鍵問題。我們對財政大臣喬治·奧斯本2010年6月的預算演講和2010年10月的支出審查聲明的分析和評估在Fairclough & Fairclough的第4章（2012a： 135-173）提供了一個示例，我將在下面大致引用（儘管沒有深入分析的細節）。 另見Fairclough & Fairclough （2011）。

Our approach to Osborne’s speeches and more generally to the government’s arguments for action is based upon the principle that a practical argument is only reasonable in so far as it has stood up or can stand up to the processes of critical questioning which occur within the generic format of deliberation (e.g. in parliamentary debate or public debate in the media). Analysis and evaluation in chapter 4 is applied not only to Osborne’s speeches but also a range of contributions to the public debate on the government’s austerity strategy in which the government’s (and Osborne’s) arguments are critically evaluated. We distinguish three ways in which practical arguments can be criticized: (a) criticism of the conclusion of the practical argument which seeks to reject it by arguing that pursuing the line of action advocated will have consequences which will undermine the goals or values advanced in the argument, or other goals which cannot be compromised; (b) criticism of the validity of the argument on the grounds that there are other (better) means than those advocated for achieving the goals, or indeed other goals, and that if they are added to premises the argument will no longer hold; (c) criticism of the rational acceptability (or truth) of premises, e.g. of the way in which the existing state of affairs is represented, interpreted and problematized. These ways of criticizing practical argumentation appear to an extent in the government’s own argumentation, in the argumentation of critics of the government’s strategy and argumentation, and in critique, which includes both within its scope.
我們對奧斯本的演講，更廣泛地說，對政府的行動論點的處理方式，是基於這樣一個原則，即實際的論點只有在它經得起或能夠經得起在一般審議形式中發生的批判性質疑過程（例如，在議會辯論或媒體的公開辯論中）時，才是合理的。第 4 章中的分析和評估不僅適用於奧斯本的演講，也適用於對政府緊縮策略的公開辯論的一系列貢獻，其中政府（和奧斯本）的論點得到了批判性評估。我們區分了三種可以批評實際論點的方式：（a） 對實際論證結論的批評，該結論試圖通過論證來拒絕它，認為追求所倡導的行動路線將產生破壞論證中推進的目標或價值觀的後果，或其他不能妥協的goals;（b） 批評該論點的有效性，理由是除了那些實現目標或其他目標的手段之外，還有其他（更好的）手段，如果這些手段被添加到前提中，該論點將不再成立;（c） 對前提的理性可接受性（或真理）的批評，例如對現有事態的表示、解釋和問題化的方式。這些批評實踐論證的方式在一定程度上出現在政府自己的論證中，出現在批評政府戰略和論證者的論證中，以及在批判中，兩者都包括在其範圍內。

In criticizing courses of action advocated in conclusions, on the grounds that they are likely to have consequences which would undermine goals and values, participants in deliberation are in effect arguing over the relationship between (the conclusions of) practical arguments and ‘structural selectivities’ in CPE terms. For example, in a debate on the policy of austerity hosted by the Financial Times in July 2010, defenders of austerity pointed to the likely catastrophic consequences of failing to deal with the debt (loss of business confidence, a downgrade of Britain’s credit rating, higher interest rates which would increase the existing debt), while opponents of austerity pointed to likely catastrophic consequences of premature fiscal tightening (e.g. massive unemployment, leading to more welfare spending, requiring more borrowing which would increase the existing debt). The argument between them is over the effect of extra-semiotic factors on the possible retention of the strategy of austerity (once selected), and the extra-semiotic factors in contention are structural tendencies (hence structural selectivities).
在批評結論中倡導的行動方案時，以它們可能產生破壞目標和價值觀的後果為由，審議參與者實際上是在爭論實際論點（結論）與 CPE 術語中的“結構選擇性”之間的關係。例如，在 2010年7月英國《金融時報》主辦的一場關於緊縮政策的辯論中，緊縮政策的捍衛者指出了未能處理債務可能帶來的災難性後果（商業信心喪失、英國信用評級下調、利率上升將增加現有債務），而緊縮政策的反對者則指出過早收緊財政政策可能帶來的災難性後果（例如大規模失業、 導致更多的福利支出，需要更多的借款，這將增加現有債務）。他們之間的爭論是關於符號學外因素對可能保留緊縮策略的影響（一旦被選中），而爭論中的符號學外因素是結構性傾向（因此是結構選擇性）。

In criticizing the validity of an argument on the grounds that there are other means or other goals than those advocated, participants in deliberation are in some cases arguing that while the advocated means of austerity may be necessary to achieve the goals, including the goal of long-term growth, they are not sufficient, that for instance structural reforms to promote growth are also necessary. This again boils down to an argument over structural tendencies. In other cases, the argument is that the advocated means are neither necessary nor sufficient, for instance that austerity understood as primarily cuts in expenditure is not necessary because the alternative means of increasing taxation and tackling tax evasion and avoidance is available, or that a programme of public sector investment is an alternative and superior means to austerity. In yet other cases, the argument is that the government is pursuing a strategy of austerity for ‘ideological’ reasons, and that its stated goals are not its real goals, that the latter include the
在以存在與所宣導的手段或其他目標不同的其他手段或其他目標為由批評論點的有效性時，審議參與者在某些情況下會爭辯說，雖然所宣導的緊縮手段對於實現包括長期增長目標在內的目標可能是必要的，但它們還不夠，例如促進增長的結構性改革也是必要的。這再次歸結為關於結構趨勢的爭論。在其他情況下，爭論點是所宣導的手段既不必要也不充分，例如，被理解為主要削減支出的緊縮政策是不必要的，因為有增加稅收和解決逃稅和避稅的替代手段，或者公共部門投資計劃是緊縮的替代和優越手段。在其他情況下，爭論點是政府出於“意識形態”原因而追求緊縮策略，其既定目標並不是其真正目標，後者包括Thatcherite
撒切爾派 ideological goal of ‘rolling back the state’. This would, the argument sometimes goes, explain why the government persists with austerity in the face of evidence that this strategy is not achieving the goals it has set itself, and in the face of the weight of expert opinion which says that the sort of growth regime it claims to be creating the conditions for (back to ‘business as usual’) is not sustainable. In some cases, the argument centres upon the relationship be
回滾國家“的意識形態目標。有時，這種觀點可以解釋為什麼政府在面對這一戰略沒有實現其設定的目標的證據時堅持緊縮政策，面對專家意見的分量，專家意見認為它聲稱為之創造條件的那種增長制度（回到“一切照舊”）是不可持續的。在某些情況下，爭論集中在關係 be 上tween goa
補間果阿ls, means and values,
ls、means 和 values，upon
後whether the stated goals and the means advocated for achieving them are compatible with the stated values. There is a controversy over whether the government’s austerity strategy is ‘fair’, as they claim it is, whether the distribution of pain between rich and poor in the government
既定目標和實現這些目標的手段是否與既定的價值觀相一致。關於政府的緊縮策略是否如他們所聲稱的那樣“公平”，以及政府中貧富之間的痛苦分配是否存在爭議’s cuts and taxation policies is fair, whether the strategy and policies are merely rationalized as fair whereas the motivation for them is quite different. In the latter two cases, analysis and evaluation of the government’s argumentation and the argumentation in the public debate touches upon
的削減和稅收政策是公平的，無論戰略和政策是否僅僅被合理化為公平，而它們的動機卻大不相同。在後兩種情況下，對政府的論證和公共辯論中的論證的分析和評估涉及Herrschaftskritik in Jessop’s sense,
在 Jessop 的意義上，and upon agentive
和 on agentiveselectivities
選擇性: the government has been able to continue repeating its arguments while largely ignoring extensive criticisms of them and counter-arguments, and ignoring deeper issues of crisis-inducing
政府能夠繼續重複其論點，同時在很大程度上無視對它們的廣泛批評和反駁，並忽視了更深層次的危機誘發問題social relations, and continuing to receive a sufficient measure of support or acquiescence not only in parliament but also in the public debate to be able to push ahead with its policies.
社會關係，並且不僅在議會中，而且在公共辯論中繼續獲得足夠的支援或默許，以便能夠推進其政策。Criticism of the government’s argumentation raises questions about, in Jessop’s terms
用 Jessop 的話來說，對政府論點的批評引發了關於, the semiotic and extra-semiotic mechanisms which may allow dominant social actors to secure the selection of a particular meaning-system. So as in the case of structural
符號學和符號學外的機制可能允許佔主導地位的社會行為者確保對特定意義系統的選擇。因此，在結構selectivities
選擇性, agentive
、代理selectivities
選擇性 are brought into critical evaluation of arguments within deliberation.
在審議中被納入對論點的批判性評估。

Criticism of the rational acceptability of premises includes for instance the rational acceptability of the representation, interpretation and problematization of the existing state of affairs, the context of action (Circumstantial premise). In interpreting and problematizing the crisis as the state of public finance, of public deficit and debt, and explaining it as the result of the recklessness of the previous Labour government, rather than the parlous state of finance capitalism (or even neoliberalism, or capitalism) which resulted from failures of the financial system, the government (and Osborne) is effectively reducing the scale and scope of the crisis to that of, in Jessop’s terms, a crisis in finance-led accumulation¹⁴. This interpretation and problematization of the crisis has been consistently repeated despite criticisms in the public debate. We can say that the government draws upon a particular discourse which preselects a particular way of interpreting and problematizing the crisis, whose persuasiveness depends upon in CPE terms its ‘resonance’ – for instance, its representation of the crisis as ‘living beyond our means’ finds a powerful echo and response in public common sense language. In Howarth & Griggs’ terms, this is a matter of the ‘fantasmatic logic’ associated with the discourse which explains the way ‘subjects are gripped’ by it and its ideological character (the commonsensical extrapolation of ‘living beyond our means’ from the household to the state arguably contributes to naturalizing relations of domination), whereas the privileging of the antagonistic relation between Labour and Conservative is a matter of its ‘political logic’.
對前提的理性可接受性的批評，包括例如對現有事態、行動背景的表示、解釋和問題的理性可接受性（環境前提）。通過解釋和問題化危機為公共財政、公共赤字和債務的狀態，並將其解釋為前工黨政府魯莽的結果，而不是金融體系失敗導致的金融資本主義（甚至新自由主義或資本主義）的困境，政府（和奧斯本）實際上是將危機的規模和範圍縮小到： 用 Jessop 的話來說，金融 主導的積累危機 ¹⁴.儘管在公共辯論中受到批評，但這種對危機的解釋和問題化一直在重複。我們可以說，政府借鑒了一種特定的話語，這種話語預先選擇了一種特定的方式來解釋和問題化危機，其說服力取決於 CPE 術語中的“共鳴”——例如，它將危機描述為“入不敷出”，在公共常識性語言中找到了強有力的呼應和回應。 用Howarth和Griggs的術語來說，這是一個與話語相關的“幻想邏輯”的問題，它解釋了“主體被它及其意識形態特徵所吸引”的方式（通常將“超出我們能力範圍”的“從家庭推斷為國家，可以說有助於自然化統治關係），而工黨和保守黨之間的對立關係的特權化是其”政治邏輯“的問題。

What then can these three ways of criticizing practical arguments contribute to CPE and PDA that goes beyond their current view of CDA’s potential contribution and could possibly add to their value for critical policy analysis?
那麼，這三種批評實際論點的方式對 CPE 和 PDA 有什麼貢獻，超出了他們目前對 CDA 潛在貢獻的看法，並可能增加它們在批判性政策分析中的價值？

First, CDA contributes a more satisfactory account of how discourses may have effects of social change and the production and contestation of hegemonies than is currently provided by either CPE or PDA. It does so by treating discourses (and therefore representations and interpretations) as providing premises in practical arguments and therefore as elements in the actions of social actors, rather than analyzing them in isolation from action¹⁵. Discourses, as we argue in Fairclough & Fairclough (2012a: 241), provide external reasons for action. If a particular discourse is drawn upon in representing, interpreting and problematizing the context of action in the Circumstantial premise, such as the discourse which I have suggested the UK government has drawn upon, it provides an external reason (which pre-exists and exists outside of a particular argument) for pursuing one line of action (or one of a narrowed set of options) rather than others. In so far as the argument prevails over others in deliberation and informs decision-making and action, social actors seek to act upon the world as it is construed in this representation/interpretation/ problematization of the context of action, and their construal of the world may, thereby contingently come to have constructive effects upon it. Unless we thus incorporate the question of the effectivity of semiosis (and specifically of discourses, of ‘construals’) in an account of agency and action, we cannot adequately account for how discourses can have such effects.
首先，CDA 對話語如何產生社會變革以及霸權的產生和爭奪的影響，比目前 CPE 或 PDA 提供的更令人滿意。它通過將話語（以及表徵和互認）視為為實際論證提供前提，因此將其視為社會行動者行動的要素，而不是孤立地分析它們¹⁵。正如我們在Fairclough & Fairclough （2012a： 241）中所論述的那樣，話語為行動提供了外部理由。如果在環境前提下代表、解釋和問題化行動的語境時借鑒了特定的話語，例如我建議英國政府借鑒的話語，它提供了一個外部理由（它預先存在並存在於特定論點之外）來追求一條行動路線（或一組狹窄的選項之一）而不是其他行動路線。只要這個論點在爭論中勝過其他論點，併為決策和行動提供資訊，社會行為者就會尋求按照對行動背景的這種表徵/解釋/問題化的方式對世界採取行動，他們對世界的解釋可能會 因此對世界產生建設性的影響。 除非我們因此將 符號學（特別是話語、“解釋”）的有效性問題納入對能動性和行動的描述中，否則我們無法充分解釋話語如何產生這種影響。

Second, CDA makes more explicit than CPE how extra-semiotic as well as semiotic factors bear upon the selection and retention of strategies and imaginaries and the production and contestation of hegemonies. I have suggested that in evaluating and criticizing practical argumentation, be it their own or that of others, and in developing strategies to move step-wise towards a goal (an imaginary), social actors anticipate the likely consequences of particular courses of action in terms of the likely effects of extra-semiotic (as well as semiotic) factors associated with structural and agentive selectivities. Thus relations between semiotic and extra-semiotic factors which affect the selection and retention of certain strategies and imaginaries but not others are anticipated in action by social agents which is designed to achieve the selection of particular strategies and imaginaries and prevent the selection of others. Such action is one of the factors that determine selection and retention. While structural and agentive selectivities are ontologically distinct from agency, they are dialectically enfolded within the actions of social agents, and in being anticipated in action their effects may potentially be forestalled or offset.
其次，CDA 比 CPE 更清楚地說明了符號學和符號學因素如何影響策略和想像的選擇和保留以及霸權的產生和爭奪。 我曾建議，在評估和批評實際論證時，無論是他們自己的還是他人的，以及在制定逐步朝著目標（想像）邁進的策略時，社會行動者會根據與結構和能動性選擇相關的符號學（以及符號學）因素的可能影響來預測特定行動方案的可能後果。 因此，符號學和符號學外因素之間的關係影響了某些策略和想像的選擇和保留，而不是其他策略和想像的選擇，這些因素被社會能動者預見到，其目的是實現對特定策略和想像的選擇，並防止其他策略和想像的選擇。這種行動是決定選擇和保留的因素之一。雖然結構和能動性在本體論上與能動性不同，但它們辯證地被包裹在社會能動者的行動中，並且在行動中被預期時，它們的影響可能會被預防或抵消。

Third, CDA clarifies the possible effects of problematizations on social change and the production and contestation of hegemony. This overlaps with the first point, in that difficulties are problematized in terms of particular discourses, so it is necessary to consider problematizations not in isolation, but as providing premises in practical arguments and therefore as elements of actions. In addition, problematizations are taken to be elements of problem-solution structures in practical arguments, and both states of affairs and arguments (including the problematizations which they incorporate) are problematized. Moreover, problematization is seen as a normal part of the practical argumentation of ‘lay’ social actors, social scientists (experts, commentators), social actors in politics and governance, as well critical analysts. This approach views evaluation of arguments as critical questioning within deliberation, and problematization as a part of evaluation¹⁶. On this account, in problematizing states of affairs, social actors at each of these levels are also ‘problematizing the problematizations’ (in Howarth & Griggs’ formulation) or critically questioning the argumentation (in ours) of others, including potentially those of social actors at other levels. This applies of course to policy-making: in problematizing states of affairs, social actors involved in policy debates are typically problematizing the problematizations of lay and social scientific social actors as well as those of others involved in policy debates.
第三，CDA 闡明瞭問題化對社會變革以及霸權的產生和爭奪的可能影響。這與第一點重疊，因為困難是根據特定的話語來問題的，因此有必要不是孤立地考慮問題化，而是作為實際論證的前提，因此作為行動的要素。此外，在實際論證中，問題化被認為是問題解決結構的要素，事態和論證（包括 它們所包含的問題化）都被問題化了。此外，問題化被視為「外行」社會行為者、社會科學家（專家、評論員）、政治和治理中的社會行為者以及批判性分析家的實際論證的正常部分。這種方法將論點的評估視為審議中的批判性質疑，而問題化是評估的一部分¹⁶。 因此，在問題化事態的過程中，每個層次的社會行為者也在『問題化問題化』（在Howarth&Griggs的表述中）或者批判性地質疑其他人的論證（在我們的論證中，包括可能的其他層次的社會行為者的論證。 這當然適用於政策制定：在將事態問題化時， 參與政策辯論的社會行為者通常是在對非專業和社會科學社會行為者以及參與政策辯論的其他行為者的問題化提出問題。

Fourth, in seeing critique as a form of practical argumentation which in Howarth & Griggs’ formulation
第四，將批評視為一種實際論證的形式，這在Howarth和Griggs的表述中‘problematizes
問題化 problematizations
問題化’ as part of the critical questioning and evaluation of practical arguments, our approach clarifies the ‘internal connection between explanation, critique and normative evaluation’ which is posited by Howarth & Griggs (2012: 335) and the character of explanatory critique. Normative evaluation is on our account an inherent part of practical argumentation which critique shares with lay, social scientific and political/governmental argumentation,
作為對實際論點的批判性提問和評估的一部分，我們的方法闡明瞭Howarth和Griggs（2012：335）提出的“解釋、批判和規範性評估之間的內在聯繫”以及解釋性批判的特徵。對我們來說，規範性評價是實踐論證的固有部分，它與非專業、社會科學和政治/政府論證相同。which includes ‘
其中包括 'the
這problematization
問題化 of
之problematizations
問題化’ (or in more general terms the evaluation of evaluations
或者更一般地說，評估的評估). One observation we made in
.我們在Fairclough
費爾克勞 & Fairclough
費爾克勞 (2012a) about the public debate over the crisis and responses to it was that the critical questions included in our (‘analyst’s’) model for critical evaluation were largely posed by participants in the public debate, including lay participants in for instance readers’ comments in response to reports and commentaries in the press
）關於關於這場危機的公開辯論和對危機的回應的討論是，我們（“分析師”）的批判性評估模型中包含的關鍵問題主要是由公共辯論的參與者提出的，包括非專業參與者，例如讀者對新聞報導和評論的回應¹⁷. Critique differs from the other levels of (
.批次不同於 （problematization
問題化 and) practical argumentation in systematically developing the explanatory character of evaluation: in critically evaluating (‘
以及）系統地發展評價的解釋性特徵的實踐論證：在批判性評價 （'problematizing
問題化’) for instance
'）problematizations
問題化 of existing states of affairs, it seeks not only to show how they are
它不僅試圖展示它們是如何的problematized
問題化, but also explain why particular social actors (and social agencies)
，但也解釋了為什麼特定的社會行為者（和社會機構）problematize
問題化 them in the way they do, drawing upon critical explanatory models (of for instance
他們以自己的方式，利用關鍵的解釋模型（例如neoliberalism
新自由主義) such as that of Harvey (2010)
），例如 Harvey （2010）¹⁸. The explanatory character of evaluation is to a degree evident in evaluation at other levels, but its systematic development is the distinctive feature of critique. Through such explanatory evaluation, critique on this account is able to clarify the political
.評價的解釋性特徵在其他層次的評價中是顯而易見的，但其系統性發展是批判的顯著特徵。通過這種解釋性評估，對這一觀點的批評能夠澄清政治and ideological character of particular
和意識形態特徵特別problematizations
問題化 and practical argumentation, including especially dominant ones, as Howarth & Griggs (2012: 335-337) argue that it must, but it is also able to show, which their approach does not, how in their terms political and
以及實際的論證，包括特別是佔主導地位的論證，正如Howarth和Griggs（2012：335-337）認為它必須，但它也能夠展示，他們的方法沒有展示，在他們的術語中，政治和政治的論證是如何的。fantasmatic
幻想 logics may contingently have constructive effects, by treating them as elements of practical arguments and deliberation which are a part of action by social agents which may contingently result in changes in social reality.
邏輯可以通過將它們視為實際論證和審議的要素來產生建設性的效果，這些要素是社會主體行動的一部分，可能會不斷導致社會現實的變化。

Conclusion
結論

There is a tendency on the part of those who advocate critical approaches to political, political-economic and policy analysis to reject analysis of argumentation as an element of their analytical methods on the assumption that it commits those who employ it to the ‘deliberative democracy’ associated especially with Habermas and Rawls, with its view of democratic politics and policy- making as directed to the achievement of consensus through purely rational means. While it is true that advocacy of an ‘argumentative turn’ in political and policy analysis has in some cases gone along with such a commitment to deliberative democracy (in Fischer 2003 for example), it is not true that employing analysis of argumentation necessarily means a commitment to deliberative democracy¹⁹. The starting point of Fairclough & Fairclough (2012) for example is the empirical linguistic observation that the primary genre of political discourse is argumentative, and specifically practical argumentation. What social actors engaged in political activity and in policy making and policy debate above all do discursively is argue practically, and if one is concerned (as both CPE and PDA are) to analyse political, political-economic and policy-making processes in a way which includes the contribution of the agency of social and political actors to shaping the character and outcomes of these processes one must surely find ways of analysing their practical argumentation. What I have sought to show in this paper is that analysis of practical argumentation is not only a possible but also a necessary element of the critical policy analysis envisaged by CPE and PDA, and what this indicates is that this form of analysis is consistent with their Gramscian positions and in no way exclusively committed to Habermasian or Rawlsian positions²⁰.
那些宣導對政治、政治經濟和政策分析採取批判性方法的人有一種傾向，他們拒絕將論證分析作為其分析方法的一個要素，因為他們認為它使那些使用它的人不得不接受“協商民主”，特別是與哈貝馬斯相關的以及羅爾斯，其觀點認為民主政治和政策制定旨在通過純粹理性的手段達成共識。雖然在某些情況下，在政治和政策分析中宣導「論證轉向」確實與對協商民主的承諾相輔相成（例如，在 Fischer 2003 中），但採用論證分析並不一定意味著對協商民主的承諾¹⁹。例如，Fairclough & Fairclough （2012）的出發點是經驗語言學觀察，即政治話語的主要類型是論證性的，特別是實踐性的論證。參與政治活動、政策制定和政策辯論的社會行為者首先以話語方式進行實踐論證，如果一個人關心（就像 CPE 和 PDA 一樣）以一種包括社會和政治行為者的能動性對塑造這些過程的性質和結果的貢獻的方式分析政治、政治經濟和政策制定過程，那麼肯定必須找到分析其實際論證的方法。 我在本文中試圖表明的是，對實踐論證的分析不僅是 CPE 和 PDA 設想的批判性政策分析的一種可能，而且是必要的元素，這表明這種形式的分析與他們的葛蘭西立場是一致的，絕不完全致力於哈貝馬斯或羅爾斯的立場²⁰。

Howarth & Griggs (2012: 317-318) differentiate two aspects of hegemony: a type of rule, and a practice of politics (i.e. hegemonic struggle). Both Howarth & Griggs on the one hand and Jessop and Sum on the other offer approaches to critical policy studies in the perspective of hegemonic struggle, the production and challenging of hegemony. In his account of Gramsci’s historicism, Morera (1990: 76-77) claims that one of its ‘crucial aspects’ is that ‘an historical phenomenon is not fully known until its effects can be described’. For Gramsci, philosophy of praxis (Marxism) ‘is not only interested in understanding the world, but also in changing it’, and the political activity of those committed to changing the world (hence engaging in hegemonic struggle) ‘must be based on true descriptions and evaluations, for their attitude towards a progressive force must be very different from that towards a regressive force’. But ‘the evaluation of the degree of progressiveness of a ruler or an institution must be based on the results of his or her actions or its consequences. It is the effects of the situation ... that will indicate what kind of situation it is. And this is not a question of value, but a description of effects, a causal judgement.’ This implies that political activity necessarily has a semiotic moment – it must be based on ‘true descriptions’ and (consequence-based) ‘evaluation’.
Howarth & Griggs（2012：317-318）區分了霸權的兩個方面：一種統治類型和一種政治實踐（即霸權鬥爭）。Howarth和Griggs以及Jessop和Sum都從霸權鬥爭、霸權的生產和挑戰的角度提供了批判性政策研究的方法。在他對葛蘭西歷史主義的描述中，莫雷拉（1990：76-77）聲稱，它的關鍵方面之一是 “在可以描述其影響之前，歷史現象是不完全已知的”。對葛蘭西來說，實踐哲學（馬克思主義）“不僅對理解世界感興趣，而且對改變世界感興趣”，而那些致力於改變世界的人（因此參與霸權鬥爭）的政治活動“必須基於他們的態度 走向進步的力量必須與走向倒退的力量截然不同」。但是，「對統治者或機構的進步程度的評估必須基於他或她的行為的結果或其後果。這是情況的影響......這將表明這是什麼樣的情況。這不是一個價值問題，而是一個對效果的描述，一個因果判斷。 這意味著政治活動必然有一個符號學時刻——它必須基於「真實的描述」和（基於結果的）」評估」。

But consequence-based evaluation would seem to be doubly present in political activity: existing states of affairs are evaluated (in Morera’s terms as progressive or regressive, and if the latter as problematic and in need of change), but so too are imaginaries for possible future states of affairs which are advocated as goals, and the strategies associated with them, and both are evaluated in terms of their (actual, possible or likely) effects or consequences (the actual effects of an existing situation, the possible or likely effects of an imagined situation). This is consistent with the account of political discourse as the semiotic moment of political activity in Fairclough & Fairclough (2012a): political actors advance practical arguments in favour of or against particular courses of action which include as reasons descriptions and evaluations of existing states of affairs (Circumstantial premises), and problematizations which posit ‘difficulties’ as effects or consequences of ‘problems’; and political actors in the course of deliberating over what should be done critically question practical arguments that have been advanced (by themselves and others) in ways which include evaluation of advocated courses of action in terms of their possible or likely effects or consequences. Moreover, this account shows how the consequence-based evaluations of political actors are integrated with their advocacy of and struggles over goals and imaginaries for social change as ways of solving problems which are posited in the course of evaluation, and it also indicates how this argumentative and deliberative process is itself integrated with political decisions and action.
但是，基於結果的評估似乎在政治活動中具有雙重存在：現有的事態被評估（用莫雷拉的話來說，是進步的或倒退的，如果後者是有問題的，需要改變的），但被宣導為目標的可能的未來事態的想像，以及與之相關的策略也是如此。 兩者都根據它們的（實際的、可能的或可能的）影響或後果（現有情況的實際影響、想像情況的可能或可能的影響）進行評估。 這與 Fairclough & Fairclough （2012a）中將政治話語描述為政治活動的符號學時刻一致：政治行動者提出支援或反對特定行動方案的實際論點，這些行動包括作為理由對現有事態的描述和評估（環境前提），以及 將「困難」視為「問題」的效果或後果的問題化;而政治行為者在審議應該做什麼的過程中，批判性地質疑已經提出的實際論點（由他們自己和其他人），包括根據其可能或可能的影響或後果來評估所倡導的行動方案。 此外，這一敘述展示了對政治行為者的基於結果的評估如何與他們對社會變革目標和想像的宣導和鬥爭相結合，作為解決評估過程中提出的問題的方法，它還表明瞭這種論證和審議過程本身如何與政治決策和行動相結合。

This suggests that the semiotic moment which Morera indicates as a necessary part of political activity in his account of Gramsci’s historicism is best conceived in a way that gives primacy to practical argumentation and deliberation, and that hegemonic struggle should therefore be conceived and analyzed in a way that includes this conception.
這表明，莫雷拉在他對葛蘭西歷史主義的描述中指出的政治活動的必要組成部分的符號時刻，最好以一種將實際論證和審議放在首位的方式進行構想 ，因此，霸權鬥爭應該 以一種包含這一概念的方式進行構想和分析。

References
引用

Bacchi, C. (2012) Why Study Problematizations? Making Politics Visible Open Journal of Political Science 2012. Vol.2, No.1, 1-8 Published Online April 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojps) DOI:10.4236/ojps.2012.21001
Bacchi， C. （2012） 為什麼要研究問題化？讓政治可見，開放政治學雜誌，2012 年。Vol.2， No.1， 1-8 2012 年 4 月在線發表於 SciRes （http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojps） DOI：10.4236/ojps.2012.21001

Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Chouliaraki， L. & Fairclough， N. （1999） 《晚期現代性話語》，愛丁堡：愛丁堡大學出版社。

Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power London: Longman. (Revised second edition 2001.)
費爾克勞，N.（1989）Language and Power London： Longman. （2001 年修訂第二版。

Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough， N. （1992） 話語與社會變革 劍橋：政治出版社。

Fairclough, N. (2001) The dialectics of discourse Textus XIV.2, 231-242.
Fairclough， N. （2001） 話語的辯證法 Textus XIV.2， 231-242。

Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research London: Routledge.
Fairclough， N. （2003） 分析話語：社會研究的文本分析，倫敦：勞特利奇。

Fairclough, N. (2006) Language and Globalization London: Routledge.
Fairclough， N. （2006） Language and Globalization London： Routledge（語言與全球化），倫敦：勞特利奇。

Fairclough, N. (2009a) Language, reality and power, in J. Culpeper et al eds English Language: Description, Variation and Context, Palgrave Macmillan 2009.
Fairclough， N. （2009a） 語言、現實和權力，載於 J. Culpeper 等人編輯的英語語言：描述、變化和上下文，Palgrave Macmillan 2009 年。

Fairclough, N. (2009b) A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research, in Meyer & Wodak.
Fairclough， N. （2009b） A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research， in Meyer & Wodak.

Fairclough, N. (2010) Critical Discourse Analysis 2^nd edition London: Routledge.
Fairclough， N. （2010） 批判性話語分析第 2 版倫敦：勞特利奇。

Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N. (2011) Practical reasoning in political discourse: the UK government’s response to the economic crisis in the 2008 Pre-Budget Report’, Discourse & Society 22(3): 243-268.
Fairclough， I. & Fairclough， N. （2011） 政治話語中的實用推理：英國政府在2008年預算前報告中對經濟危機的回應'，話語與社會22（3）：243-268。

Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N. (2012a) Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students London: Routledge.
Fairclough， I. & Fairclough， N. （2012a） 政治話語分析：高級學生的方法 倫敦：勞特利奇。

Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N. (2012b) Analyse et évaluation de l’argumentation dans l’analyse critique du discours (CDA): délibération et dialectique des Lumières Argumentation et analyse du discours 9 (electronic journal of the ADARR Group).
費爾克勞，I. & Fairclough， N. （2012b） Analyse et évaluation de l'argumentation dans l'analyse critique du discours （CDA）： délibération et dialectique des LumièresArgumentation et analyse du discours 9 （electronic journal of the ADARR Group）.

Fairclough, N. & Graham, P. (2002) Marx as critical discourse analyst: the genesis of a critical method and its relevance to the critique of global capital Estudios de Sociolinguistica 3.1, 185 – 229.
費爾克勞，N. & Graham， P. （2002） 馬克思作為批判話語分析者：批判方法的起源及其與全球資本批判的相關性 社會語言學研究 3.1， 185 – 229.

Fairclough, N., Jessop, R. & Sayer, A. (2004) Critical realism and semiosis, in J.M. Roberts and J. Joseph, eds., Realism, Discourse and Deconstruction London: Routledge 23-42.
Fairclough， N.， Jessop， R. & Sayer， A. （2004） 批判現實主義和符號學，載於J.M. Roberts和J. Joseph編輯的《現實主義、話語和解構》倫敦：勞特利奇23-42。

Finlayson, A. (1997) From beliefs to arguments: interpretative methodology and rhetorical political analysis British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9.4 545-63.
芬利森 （1997） 從信仰到論點：解釋方法和修辭政治分析，英國政治與國際關係雜誌 9.4 545-63。

Fischer, F. (2003) Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer， F. （2003） 重構公共政策：話語政治和審議實踐 牛津：牛津大學出版社。

Fischer, F. (2007) Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: integrating empirical and normative arguments, in F. Fischer, G. J. Miller & M.S. Sidney (eds.) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis CRC Press 223-236.
Fischer， F. （2007） 作為實踐理性的審慎政策分析：整合實證和規範論證，載於 F. Fischer， G. J. Miller & M.S. Sidney （eds.） 公共政策分析手冊 CRC 出版社 223-236.

Fischer, F. & Forester, J. (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis Durham: Duke University Press.
Fischer， F. & Forester， J. （1993） 政策分析中的論證轉向 達勒姆：杜克大學出版社。

Fischer, F. & Gottweis, H. (2012) eds. The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice Durham & London: Duke University Press.
菲舍爾 F. & Gottweis， H. （2012） 編輯。 重新審視論證轉向：公共政策作為溝通實踐達勒姆和倫敦：杜克大學出版社。

Foucault, M. (1984) Polemics, politics and problematizations: an interview with Michel Foucault, in P. Rabinow (ed.) The Foucault Reader London: Penguin Books 381-390.
Foucault， M. （1984） 論戰、政治和問題化：對米歇爾·福柯的採訪，載於 P. Rabinow （ed.） The Foucault Reader London： Penguin Books 381-390。

Gottweis, H. (2003) Theoretical strategies of poststructuralist policy analysis: towards an analytics of government, in M. Hajer & H. Wagenaar eds. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 247-265.
Gottweis， H. （2003） 後結構主義政策分析的理論策略：邁向政府分析，M. 哈耶爾 & H. Wagenaar 編輯。 審議性政策分析：了解網路中的治理 社會和劍橋：劍橋大學出版社 247-265。

Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference, Oxford: Blackwell.
Harvey， D. （1996） 正義、自然和差異地理學，牛津：布萊克威爾。

Harvey, D. (2010) The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism London: Profile Books.
Harvey， D. （2010） 《資本之謎與資本主義危機》，倫敦：簡介書籍。

Howarth, D. (2009) Power, discourse, and policy: articulating a hegemony approach to critical policy studies Critical Policy Studies 3.3-4 309-335.
Howarth， D. （2009） 權力、話語和政策：闡明批判性政策研究的霸權方法 批判性政策研究 3.3-4 309-335。

Howarth, D. & Griggs, S. (2012) Poststructuralist Policy Analysis: Discourse, Hegemony and Critical Explanation, in Fischer & Gottweis 2012 305-342.
Howarth， D. & Griggs， S. （2012） 後結構主義政策分析：話語、霸權和批判性解釋，載於Fischer & Gottweis 2012 305-342。

Jessop, B. (2004) Critical semiotic analysis and cultural political economy Critical Discourse Studies 1.2 159-174.
Jessop， B. （2004） 批判符號學分析和文化政治經濟學 批判話語研究 1.2,159-174。

Jessop, B. (2009) Cultural political economy and critical policy studies Critical Policy Studies 3.3-4 336-356.
Jessop， B. （2009） 文化、政治經濟學和批判性政策研究 批判性政策研究 3.3-4,336-356。

Jessop, B. & Sum, N-L. (2001) Pre-disciplinary and post-disciplinary perspectives in political economy, New Political Economy 6 89 – 101.
Jessop， B. & Sum， N-L.（2001） 政治經濟學中的學科前和學科後視角，新政治經濟學 6 89 – 101。

Krugman, P. (1994) Competitiveness: a dangerous obsession Foreign Affairs 73.2 28-44.
Krugman， P. （1994） 競爭力：一種危險的癡迷 外交事務 73.2 28-44。

Krugman, P. (2011) The competition myth New York Times 23 January 2011.
Krugman， P. （2011） 競爭神話，紐約時報，2011 年 1 月 23 日。

Marsden, R. (1999) The Nature of Capital: Marx after Foucault London: Routledge.
Marsden， R. （1999） 《資本的本質：福柯之後的馬克思》 倫敦：勞特利奇。

Morera, E. (1990) Gramsci’s Historicism: a Realist Interpretation London: Routledge.
Morera， E. （1990） 葛蘭西的歷史主義：現實主義解讀 倫敦：勞特利奇。

Sayer, A. (2000) Realism and Social Science London: Sage.
Sayer， A. （2000） 現實主義與社會科學 倫敦：Sage。

Sayer, A. (2011) Why things Matter to People: Social Science, Values and Ethical Life Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sayer， A. （2011） 為什麼事情對人很重要：社會科學、價值觀和道德生活 劍橋：劍橋大學出版社。

Skinner, Q. (2002) Visions of Politics v. 1 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
斯金納，Q. （2002）Visions of Politics v. 1 劍橋：劍橋大學出版社。

Sum, N-L. (2004) Towards a cultural political economy: discourses, material power and (counter-)hegemony EU Framework 6 Demologos Spot Paper (available from: http://demologos.ncl.ac.uk/wp/wp1/disc.php).
總和，NL。（2004） 邁向文化政治經濟學：話語、物質權力和（反）霸權歐盟框架 6 Demologos Spot Paper（可從：http://demologos.ncl.ac.uk/wp/wp1/disc.php 獲得）。

Sum, N-L. (2009) The production of hegemonic policy discourses: ‘competitiveness’ as a knowledge brand and its (re)contextualizations Critical Policy Studies 3.2 184-203.
總和，NL。 （2009） 霸權政策話語的產生：「競爭力」作為知識品牌及其（再）情境化，批判政策研究 3.2,184-203。