hum-discourse

asgard-ai-platform ｜ 寫作與文件 ｜ 原文 ｜ MIT

用論述分析看文本怎麼框架議題、藏了什麼假設和權力關係

---
name: "hum-discourse"
description: "運用論述分析，檢視語言如何在文本與溝通中建構意義、權力關係與社會現實。當使用者需要分析某段文本如何框架一個議題、揭露語言中隱藏的假設、檢視溝通中的權力動態，或解構媒體/企業/政治訊息時使用，即使他們說的是「這裡面真正在說什麼」「這是怎麼框架這個議題的」「分析這份文件的用語」也適用。"
metadata:
  category: "WP-19 文學院/人文"
  tags: ["humanities", "discourse-analysis", "critical-analysis", "language"]
---

# 論述分析

## 概述

論述分析檢視語言如何「塑造」（而不只是反映）現實。它揭露文本如何透過用字、框架，以及沒說出口的部分，來建構身分、權力關係與社會規範。對於分析媒體、企業溝通、政策文件與政治演說特別有價值。

## 框架

```
鐵律：語言建構現實，而不只是描述現實

用字從來都不是中立的。「組織調整」vs「裁員」、
「強化審訊」vs「酷刑」、「無證工人」vs
「非法移民」，同樣的事件，建構出不同的現實。

論述分析檢視的是語言「做了什麼」，不只是它說了什麼。
```

### 主要的分析面向

1. **框架**：議題是怎麼被定義的？用了哪些隱喻？納入/排除了什麼？
2. **主體位置**：誰被擺在施動者（主動做事的人）的位置，誰被擺在受動者（被動承受的人）的位置？
3. **預設**：有哪些東西沒說出口就被當作理所當然？
4. **互文性**：它參照或借用了哪些其他文本/論述？
5. **權力關係**：誰的聲音被放大？誰的被消音？

### 分析步驟

1. **選定文本**：你要分析的是哪一則具體的溝通？
2. **脈絡**：誰產出的？給誰看？在什麼場合？目的是什麼？
3. **詞彙分析**：哪些用字值得注意？當時有哪些替代選項？
4. **結構分析**：文本是怎麼組織的？什麼放在最前面？強調了什麼？
5. **缺席的東西**：什麼「沒有」說？誰「沒有」被代表？
6. **權力描繪**：誰從這個特定的框架中得益？

## 輸出格式

```markdown
# 論述分析：{文本/文件}

## 脈絡
- 產出者：{誰創作了這份文本}
- 受眾：{預期的接收者}
- 目的：{明說與沒說的目標}
- 文類：{新聞稿 / 政策文件 / 演說 / 廣告}

## 框架分析
| 要素 | 文本中的呈現 | 替代的框架 | 效果 |
|---------|------------|-------------------|--------|
| {關鍵用語} | 「{實際用語}」 | 「{原本可以怎麼說}」 | {這如何塑造認知} |

## 主體位置
- 施動者（主動）：{誰在做事}
- 受動者（被動）：{誰被別人做了什麼}
- 缺席者：{誰沒被提到}

## 預設
- {文本沒明說就假設的東西}

## 權力分析
- 這個框架有利於：{誰}
- 這個框架不利於：{誰}

## 主要發現
{論述分析揭露了哪些表面閱讀會漏掉的東西}
```

## 範例

### 正確的應用
**情境：** 分析一家科技公司的裁員公告

**文本**：「我們做出艱難的決定，將組織規模調整到適當大小，以便為長期成長做更好的定位。」

| 要素 | 文本 | 替代說法 | 效果 |
|---------|------|-------------|--------|
| 「規模調整到適當大小」 | 暗示目前的規模是錯的 | 「裁掉 500 名員工」 | 委婉語掩蓋了對人的衝擊 |
| 「我們的組織」 | 把公司當作抽象的實體 | 「我們的同事」 | 切斷了與受影響者的個人連結 |
| 「艱難的決定」 | 把管理層擺在受苦的位置 | 「將使 500 個家庭流離失所的決定」 | 把同情轉向決策者 |
| 「長期成長」 | 向前看的理由 | 沒有提到是什麼造成過度招聘 | 跳過了對現況的究責 |

**主體位置**：管理層 = 做出「艱難決定」的施動者（博取同情）。員工 = 完全不作為主體出現。 ✓

### 不正確的應用
- 「這則新聞稿有偏見」 → 太模糊了。是哪些字？什麼框架？偏向什麼？論述分析需要具體的文本證據。違反鐵律：要分析語言「做了什麼」。

## 常見陷阱

- **所有語言都是「被建構」的：** 論述分析不代表文本在「說謊」。就算是誠實的溝通，也會做框架上的選擇。問題是這些選擇揭露了什麼、又遮掩了什麼。
- **分析者自己的論述：** 你的分析本身也是一種論述，有它自己的框架與假設。對自己的立場要有反身性。
- **脈絡就是一切：** 同樣的字在不同脈絡下意思不同。「我們必須快」在新創公司和在醫院，意涵差很多。
- **不要過度解讀：** 不是每個用字都是策略性的。有時候「規模調整到適當大小」只是寫的人學到的企業行話，不是刻意的框架策略。要考慮意圖性。
- **論述分析不是查核事實：** 它檢視的是意義如何被建構，不是主張是否為真。要搭配以證據為基礎的分析，才是完整的圖像。

## 參考資料

- Fairclough 的批判論述分析框架，見 `references/cda-framework.md`

---
name: "hum-discourse"
description: "Apply discourse analysis to examine how language constructs meaning, power relationships, and social reality in texts and communications. Use this skill when the user needs to analyze how a text frames an issue, uncover hidden assumptions in language, examine power dynamics in communication, or deconstruct media/corporate/political messaging — even if they say 'what's really being said here', 'how is this framing the issue', or 'analyze the language in this document'."
metadata:
  category: "WP-19 文學院/人文"
  tags: ["humanities", "discourse-analysis", "critical-analysis", "language"]
---

# Discourse Analysis

## Overview

Discourse analysis examines how language shapes (not just reflects) reality. It reveals how texts construct identities, power relationships, and social norms through word choice, framing, and what is left unsaid. Especially valuable for analyzing media, corporate communications, policy documents, and political speech.

## Framework

```
IRON LAW: Language Constructs Reality, Not Just Describes It

The choice of words is never neutral. "Restructuring" vs "layoffs",
"enhanced interrogation" vs "torture", "undocumented workers" vs
"illegal aliens" — same events, different realities constructed.

Discourse analysis examines WHAT language does, not just what it says.
```

### Key Analytical Dimensions

1. **Framing**: How is the issue defined? What metaphors are used? What's included/excluded?
2. **Subject positions**: Who is positioned as agent (active doer) vs patient (passive receiver)?
3. **Presupposition**: What is taken for granted without being stated?
4. **Intertextuality**: What other texts/discourses does this reference or draw upon?
5. **Power relations**: Whose voice is amplified? Whose is silenced?

### Analysis Steps

1. **Select the text**: What specific communication are you analyzing?
2. **Context**: Who produced it? For whom? In what setting? What's the purpose?
3. **Lexical analysis**: What word choices are notable? What alternatives were available?
4. **Structural analysis**: How is the text organized? What comes first? What's emphasized?
5. **What's absent**: What is NOT said? Who is NOT represented?
6. **Power mapping**: Who benefits from this particular framing?

## Output Format

```markdown
# Discourse Analysis: {Text/Document}

## Context
- Producer: {who created this text}
- Audience: {intended recipients}
- Purpose: {stated and unstated goals}
- Genre: {press release / policy doc / speech / ad}

## Framing Analysis
| Element | In the Text | Alternative Framing | Effect |
|---------|------------|-------------------|--------|
| {key term} | "{actual language}" | "{what could have been said}" | {how this shapes perception} |

## Subject Positions
- Agent (active): {who does things}
- Patient (passive): {who has things done to them}
- Absent: {who is not mentioned}

## Presuppositions
- {what the text assumes without stating}

## Power Analysis
- This framing benefits: {who}
- This framing disadvantages: {who}

## Key Findings
{What the discourse analysis reveals that a surface reading misses}
```

## Examples

### Correct Application
**Scenario:** Analyzing a tech company's layoff announcement

**Text**: "We are making the difficult decision to right-size our organization to better position ourselves for long-term growth."

| Element | Text | Alternative | Effect |
|---------|------|-------------|--------|
| "right-size" | Implies current size is wrong | "lay off 500 employees" | Euphemism hides human impact |
| "our organization" | Company as abstract entity | "our colleagues" | Removes personal connection to affected people |
| "difficult decision" | Positions management as suffering | "decision that will displace 500 families" | Redirects sympathy toward decision-makers |
| "long-term growth" | Forward-looking justification | No mention of what caused over-hiring | Skips accountability for the situation |

**Subject positions**: Management = agents making "difficult decisions" (sympathetic). Employees = completely absent as subjects. ✓

### Incorrect Application
- "This press release is biased" → Too vague. Which words? What framing? Bias toward what? Discourse analysis requires specific textual evidence. Violates Iron Law: analyze what language DOES.

## Gotchas

- **All language is "constructed"**: Discourse analysis doesn't mean the text is "lying." Even honest communication makes framing choices. The question is what those choices reveal and conceal.
- **Analyst's own discourse**: Your analysis is also a discourse with its own framing and assumptions. Be reflexive about your own position.
- **Context is everything**: The same words mean different things in different contexts. "We need to move fast" in a startup vs in a hospital has very different implications.
- **Don't over-read**: Not every word choice is strategic. Sometimes "right-size" is just corporate jargon the writer learned, not a deliberate framing strategy. Consider intentionality.
- **Discourse analysis is not fact-checking**: It examines how meaning is constructed, not whether claims are true. Pair with evidence-based analysis for a complete picture.

## References

- For Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis framework, see `references/cda-framework.md`