20142 1 51-75

Willig
Gee

Ricoeur
Willig
Gee

5 2.5

80

1 discourse

2004

Jaworski Coupland

speech act theory

pragmatics
conversation
analysis
critical
discourse analysis, CDA2004

102 6 22 101

Emailshl.being@gmail.com
1
Discourse

52

20142 1

Foucault

Foucault, 1969/1993

discoursive formation

Foucault, 2001/2010

Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1983/1992

Dreyfus & Rabinow,

1983/1992

2004

Dreyfus & Rabinow,

1983/1992

Foucault, 2001/2010

Willig
Willig, 2003/2006
Carabine,
2001

2000McLeod, 2001/2006Willig, 2003/2006

Foucauldian discourse analysis, FDA

Willig FDA Gee

FDA

20142 1

53

FDA
FDA
FDA

Willig, 2008/2013

FDA
Willig, 2008/2013

Rogers2004 Fairclough2002Rogers2004

self-reflexive

Fairclough, 2002; Gee, 2005/2011

Fairclough
description

20062004
Chouliaraki Fairclough

2010

FDA Parker 1992

20 Kendall Wickham 1999 Willig,
2003/2006
Carabine2001 11 Willig 2003

Willig 2003

Willig FDA
subject positions

Harr & van Langenhove, 1999

positioned by discourses

Willig
FDA

Willig FDA Rogers

54

20142 1

1999 13 2002

20022002

Rogers
(
)(
)

2007
20062008201020042007
Burr
200420132005
2007 FDA
2008200820092005
2012
2011

2010 Fairclough 1992

2002
2010

Rogers2004
Willig

Rogers
Fairclough
2000McLeod, 2001/2006
Willig, 2003/2006
FDA

Ricoeur FDA

Willig FDA
Gee

Fairclough Leeuwen
2004
representation
Foucault, 1969/1993

Foucault, 1969/1993

Ricoeur

Ricoeur sensereference
Ricoeur, 1981/2011

2000

20142 1

55

detour methodologique

explanationcritiqueunderstanding
2000
2002Ricoeu, 1981/2011

2000

Ricoeur
Ricoeur
Ricoeur, 1981/2011

Gee
Gee

Gee, 2005/2011

Gee Willig FDA

1.Gee
Gee

Gee, 2005/2011
McLeod Gee Labov
McLeod,
2000/2006

2.Gee
Gee

Gee, 2005/2011

?
//
///

Gee, 2005/2011

Foucault, 1969/1993
Gee
Gee, 2005/2011

Gee FDA
Gee
Gee, 2005/2011
Gee
connection-building activities
d discourse/

D Discourse

1./significance
/situation

1
2
3
4
5/

56

20142 1

2.activities

1
2
3
3./identities

2
3/
//
4.relationships

1
2
3/
4/

5.politics ; the distribution of social goods

2
6.connections

1
2
3

412
7.sign systems and forms of knowledge

3
4

20142 1

57

diachronicity

synchronicity
Sunderland, 2006

Gee

Willig

Gee Willig

Willig

Gee Willig Willig

Gee
Willig
Willig Gee

Gee
Gee

Gee
Gee Willig
1

Gee Willig

Gee Willig

Ricoeur

2000

58

20142 1

performance
Foucault, 1975/1992; Foucault, 1976/1990

Goffman

dramaturgy modelGoffman

selves

self-presentation
Goffman,
1959/1992
/

Ricoeur

Gee
Gee, 2005/2011

Rogers

Rogers, 1957

1. 2.

N44
20 N
N

20142 1

59

10

60

20142 1

? 28
32

/
Gee
Ricoeur

2000

/
2

Gee
/
Gee

/ N

20142 1

61

N
2-1-3-1

1./

1-1-1-1

1-1-2-1

1-1-3-1

1-1-2-2
2
Gee
/

1
9

2
0

-
-
/

//
/

*
/

*
/

2.

1N

62

20142 1

2-1-1-1

2-1-1-2
2

2-1-2-1

2-1-3-1

3.

1
N
3-1-1-12N
3-1-1-2
3
N

3-1-3-1

3-1-2-1
4.
N

1 N

/
4-1-1-1
2N
N
4-1-1-2

4-1-2-1

3
4-1-2-1
4-1-3-1

5.

1
5-1-1-1
2
5-1-3-1
5-1-2-1
3

5-1-3-2
5-1-4-1
Gee
N

6.

12-1-1-2
3-1-1-2
5-1-1-1
2
2-1-2-2
3-1-1-1
4-1-1-2
4-1-2-1
3

2-1-3-13-1-1-2
3-1-2-1

3-1-3-1

1
2-1-1-1

3-1-1-1
4-1-1-1
2
4-1-2-1
4-1-3-1
N

4-1-1-1

4-1-1-2

4-1-2-1

4-1-2-1

20142 1

63

7.
Gee
N

FDA
Gee
FDA
1 FDA
1.
Gee

Gee

//

2
N

2.

Gee
Gee

64

20142 1

////

N N
N /
3

2013
3.

Gee
Willig Gee N
N
/

4.
Foucault,
1969/1993Willig

WilligGee

N
N

20142 1

65

5.

?
?
WilligGee

//
//

6.
N

Willig

Willig, 2008/2013
Gee

Gee/

N?

N
?

GeeWilligFDA
N
N
N

N
2N

66

20142 1

/
1.2.

Gee Willig FDA N

Chow & Chan, 2006

2 Willig FDA

Tsui, 2001

Willig

Davis Harre 1999

Willig, 2008/2013

N
N
N

20142 1

67

2013
19

2013
1999

Association for Victims

Support N

N
N

2004

N 3N N

Goffman
Goffman, 1959/1992

?
2004Foucault,
2001/2010

Willig, 2008/2013
Rogers2004

Rogers

68

20142 1

FDA

Gee FDA
Rogers Fairclough
Rogers
Fairclough Gee
convergence
linguistic details
agreement
coverage
Gee, 2005/2011
Gee

FDA
Gee
2

Ricoeur

Gee FDA
Rogers Fairclough

FDA Gee

20142 1

69

Rogers Fairclough Gee

1
3 4
6-10

N
N N

Willig
Rogers Fairclough

Willig FDA

Willig
2
N
2

3
N
N
/
3 2 N
N
N N

70

20142 1

2
N N 3

Lincoln, 1997

Alvesson, 2003

Denzin & Lincoln, 2005

1.

2013

N
N

2.
N
2 2

N
N
N
2N

20142 1

71

FDA

FDA
FDA

N N

N N
N

/////N /
////

FDA

FDA

2006
C. Willig

J. A. Smith

2003
2011
P. Ricoeur

1981

2010

099NCUE5464001

72

20142 1

1993
M. Foucault

1969
2008

097CPU05102023
2010
1981-1982 M. Foucault

2001
2006
Foucault
2517-36
2007
096THU00099001
2000

2010
///

/ 1-56

1990
M. Foucault

1976
2008

096NTNU5332033
2004
161117-150
2013

01SHU05739003
2011
64
83-103
2013
1492-153
2002

2008

96NTNU5332015
1999
131-162
2002
16
119-156
2002

13147-197
1992

E. Goffman

1959
2009
Foucault

097NTNU5261003

2006

J. McLeod

2000

2013

C. Willig

2008
2005

60 111-144
2004

092SCU00208015
2000
85-42
2004

171-45
2007

351-407

20142 1

73

2004
311

41-50

2011
J. P. Gee

2005
2005

7183-226
2006
Norman Fairclough

2487-92
2013 9 28

http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E8%87%AA%E7%94%B1%E4%B8%BB%E4%B9%89

1992
M. Foucault

1975
2002
1343-44
2010

098NTPTC611010
2007

095NHU05208006
1992

H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow

1983
2012
Foucault

100CCU00611004
2004

201-222

Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to

interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28, 13-33.
Carabine, J. (2001). Unmarried Motherhood 1830-1990: A Genealogical Analysis. In M.
Wetherell & S. Taylor (Eds.), Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis (pp. 267-310).
London: Sage.
Chow, A. Y. M. & Chan, C. L. W. (2006). Bereavement care in Hong Kong: Past, present,
and future. In C. L. W. Chan & A. Y. M., Chow (Eds.), Death, dying and bereavement:
A Hong Kong Chinese experience (pp. 253260). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press.
Denzin, K. D. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.).
London: Sage.
Fairclough, N. (2002). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In
R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Harr, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harr & L. van
Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 14-31).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1997). Self, subject, audience, text: Living at the edge, writing in the margins.
In W. G. Tierney & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Representation and the text: Re-framing the
narrative voice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Rogers, C. (1957). Necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95-103.
Rogers, R.(2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sunderland, J. (2006). Language and gender: An advanced resource book. London, UK:
Routledge.
Tsui, Y. K. Y. (2001, September). Other-focused grief. Paper presented at the 8th Hong Kong
International Cancer Congress. Hong Kong, China.

74

20142 1

2013 5 18
2013 7 8
2013 11 13
2013 11 13

75

20142 1

Refined Version of Willigs Foucauldian Discourse

AnalysisGees Discourse Analysis and Theatre
Images as Two New Wings
Ya-Feng Hung

Su-Chin Tsai

Department of
Counseling &
Applied Psychology,
National Taichung
University of
Education

Center for General

Education, National
Chung Hsing
University

Hao-Cheng Lo

Shu-Hui Liu**

Department of
Department of
Childhood Education
Guidance &
and Nursery,
Counseling, National
Chianan University
Changhwa
of Pharmacy &
University of
Science
Education

Abstract
With the rise in postmodern thoughts, there has been an increased in attention to different
approaches of qualitative research. This study proposed a text analysis method for Foucaults
subjectivity, the way an individual fight with dominant social discourses.

Willig proposed a

six-stage method of Foucault-type discourse analysis. Through this analysis, researchers

highlighted the subjectivity progressively. This study employed Ricoeurs perspective within
which a detour through linguistics is adopted to achieve Foucaults understanding of
subjectivity. More specifically, we integrated Gees micro discourse analysis and Willigs
Foucauldian discourse analysis to illustrate the circuitous paths between linguistics and social
performance analysis. We then supplemented this with theatre imagination to facilitate
reflection. The goal of this methodology was to describe the discourse hidden in the text, the
power relationship, and the individual subjectivity within the discourse, as a way to achieve
key validity for critical theory and to inspire social changes. We also presented an example
about a bereaved mother suffering from the violent death of her daughter to illustrate the steps
in this analysis. Finally, we examined the quality of this method and suggested its application.

Keywords: text analysis, discourse analysis, Foucault, theater images