李立峯教授對於求真的嚴謹態度，與之前劉智鵬亂噏的所謂報告，兩者真的高下立見。
亂世之中，學習和閱讀真的非常重要。
其實 content analysis, discourse analysis 我都有讀過，現在很想多讀一些社科的書，學習怎樣在大時代中自處。
discourse analysis 在 Facebook 的最佳解答
同時也有1部Youtube影片，追蹤數超過71萬的網紅風傳媒 The Storm Media，也在其Youtube影片中提到，有一句話，叫做「親中、仇中、反中，都不如知中」。此話有道理，但是我們應該再往下挖一層 - 「知中不如知共」。 「中國」這概念太模糊、太龐大。即使精通中國歷史、文化者，未必能了解1949年以後的中華人民共和國（PRC）。要了解PRC, 你知不知中不要緊，但是你必須「知共」。 知共，就是得了解中共及...
discourse analysis 在 千錯萬錯，柯神不會有錯！爹親娘親，不如小英主席親！ Facebook 的最佳解答
Eli Clifton 挖挖挖。
錢是台灣人民納稅，怎麼用卻不被揭露。美國智庫是拿錢辦事，還是以金援為名收受獻金為實？
-----
以下中文新聞內容轉自 旺報：
https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20200619000151-260309?chdtv
華府智庫昆西治安研究所（Quincy Institute）民主外交政策計畫執行人克里夫頓（Eli Clifton）於17日發表《台灣金援智庫：無所不在但很少揭露》（Taiwan funding of think tanks: Omnipresent and rarely disclosed）一文指出，台灣金援了美國五大智庫，促使這些智庫向美國執政者建言，做出有利於台灣綠營執政政府的美國政策。該文發出後，台北經濟文化代表處政治組組長趙怡翔緊急在推特上指出，該文有錯失之處，且並未向台北經濟文化代表處查證置評。
文章稱，台灣金援的五個華府智庫包括布魯金斯學會、美國進步中心（CAP）、新美國安全中心（CNAS）、戰略與國際研究中心（CSIS）以及哈德遜研究所，都有來自於台北經濟文化代表處的資金，但都將其深埋在其年度報告中。這五個華盛頓最著名、看似公正的的智庫一直在發表政策文件，敦促美國與台灣建立更緊密的關係，擴大美國與台灣的武器銷售和貿易協定，卻沒有廣泛披露其背後來自台北經濟文化代表處（TECRO）的高額資金。
支持台有助民主自由
文章詳列台北經濟文化代表處對五大智庫的贊助金額，及這些智庫收到贊助後為台灣做了什麼。文章稱，布魯金斯學會學者於2019年12月為《台北時報》撰文，指出美國兩黨支持在台灣和美國的重要性；美國進步中心研究員在今年3月分《華盛頓月刊》上發表專欄文章稱，加強美台關係將有助民主自由，並在2019年9月發表《如何支持亞洲的民主與人權》報告時，直接向美國決策者「為如何穩固支持台灣」提供直接建議。
而新美國安全中心向華盛頓提供有關2020年《中國崛起的挑戰》報告時，敦促美國決策者優先考慮與台灣的雙邊投資和貿易協定；CSIS在5月發表前美國駐港澳總領事唐偉康（Kurt Tong）的文章，其中主張美台達成貿易協定，將能加強美國在亞洲領導地位。
倡售台集束炸彈抗中
哈德遜研究所則於5月向美國決策者提出售台「集束炸彈」，以便台灣可以威脅對中共具有重大政治價值的非軍事目標及領導人，並建議鼓勵台灣有效威脅中國的非軍事目標。還鼓勵美國決策者「做出直接有利於台灣綠營執政黨的政策」，敦促美國決策者承認「一個自治或獨立的台灣」。
原文請見：
Taiwan funding of think tanks: Omnipresent and rarely disclosed
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/06/17/taiwan-funding-of-think-tanks-omnipresent-and-rarely-disclosed/
[節錄]
Why not disclose?
Hudson may be the most extreme in its policy proposals, but the consistent behavior from the five think tanks is unmistakable: General support funding from Taiwan’s government is never disclosed when experts, whose salaries may well be partially funded by TECRO dollars, offer policy recommendations regarding U.S.-Taiwan relations.
“My philosophy is that if you’re producing any report, you should put right up front in an acknowledgment section that lists the specific funders, including general-support funders, that helped make this report possible and list any potential conflict of interest with the funders,” said Freeman of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative. “Let the reader judge for themself whether there’s a conflict of interest.”
Though the appearance or possibility of a conflict of interest does not mean that the funding flows from Taiwan influenced the work products produced by the think tanks, the decision not to prominently disclose the funding may undermine otherwise valuable analysis and policy proposals.
“It seems like because they hid it, they have something to hide,” said Freeman. “When the public trust in government is at all-time lows and people think D.C. is so corrupt, it’s even more important for think tanks and think tank scholars to put this information out there and try and restore the trust of the American public.”
Indeed, as acceptance of a cold war posture toward China becomes ever more accepted as a foregone conclusion by Washington influencers, one of them actually highlighted the danger of foreign funding going largely undisclosed.
CNAS’s 2020 report that advocated for a U.S.-Taiwan trade agreement warned of think tanks receiving “substantial funding from Beijing that is often targeted at shaping views and discourse on China.” CNAS recommended “higher degrees of transparency” to help “ensure that this funding is not generating hidden forms of foreign lobbying, self-censorship, or other activities that undermine core U.S. democratic principles.”
That self-awareness about the potential influence of foreign funding, and the ethical arguments for greater transparency, does not appear to extend to the omnipresent funding stream from Taipei to think tanks across the Beltway.
discourse analysis 在 潘小濤 Facebook 的精選貼文
請傳給你認識的外國朋友
（繼續發酵！英文翻譯上線！幫手推！）🔥 有外媒相繼報道了關於袁國勇、龍振邦兩位教授疑似因壓力而撤回《明報》專欄文章一事，有手足更花了時間，把文章譯作英文。西方社會是需要知道真相的，請廣傳給在外國的朋友：
[On Mar 18 2020, Professor David Lung at the University of Hong Kong and his colleague Professor Yuen Kwok-yung, a world-renowned expert in microbiology and infectious diseases, withdrew their op-ed in the Chinese-language newspaper Ming Pao, in which they elucidated the origin and naming of the Wuhan Coronavirus, and criticized "inferior Chinese culture" for being the origin of the present pandemic. This led to allegations that the Chinese and Hong Kong governments are covering up the truth and suppressing academic freedom. Below is an English translation of this op-ed. Please spread the word and expose the truth!]
Outbreak in Wuhan shows that lessons from seventeen years ago are forgotten - David Lung and Yuen Kwok-yung, University of Hong Kong [translated from Chinese]
The novel coronavirus outbreak began in Wuhan in Winter 2019, and engulfed the entire province of Hubei by Spring 2020; the number of cases in China grew to over 80,000, with at least 3,000 deaths. The outbreak in China slowed down only after a month-long lockdown, which has failed to curtail the spread of the disease overseas by March 2020. The World Health Organization (WHO) was sluggish in response and failed to declare this a pandemic in a timely fashion. Shortage of relevant measures and protective gear around the world contributed to the global outbreak. Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, and the Republic of China have so far been spared of the pandemic, though cases linked to overseas travel have yet to cease.
This pandemic is caused by a coronavirus, thus named because of its shape. From 2015 onwards, the WHO has ceased to name diseases using monikers for people, places, animals, food, culture, or occupations. As such, they labeled the disease using the year of the outbreak; thus the designation COVID-19. The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) used viral genome sequencing as the sole criterion for the naming of viruses; because the similarity between the genetic sequences of the SARS coronavirus and the present novel coronavirus, which therefore is not truly "novel", the ICTV designated the novel coronavirus as "SARS-CoV-2.0". Media organizations and the public call this the Wuhan Coronavirus or the Wuhan Pneumonia; this is perfectly fine because of its simplicity.
There has been heated debate over the naming of the pandemic. As a matter of fact, the disease is named by the WHO and the virus is named by the ICTV; the common name is purely a customary matter and suffices to serves it purpose as long as it is simple and clear. The official names of COVID-19 for the disease, or SARS-CoV-2 for the virus, must be used in scientific and academic discourse. However, the simplicity of the popular designations "Wuhan Coronavirus" and "Wuhan Pneumonia" are far more conducive to daily communication and conversations in the media.
The 2020 pandemic originated in Wuhan
Roughly 75% of novel diseases can be traced to wild animals; the ancestral virus from which several mammalian coronaviruses descend can be traced to bats or birds, both of which can fly over a distance of several thousands of kilometers to the location of first discovery of the virus. As such, the nomenclature of viruses may utilize the name of the location of discovery. The most accurate and objective means to identify the origin of the virus is to isolate the virus from the animal host. However, the Huanan Seafood Market had been cleared, and live wild animals vacated, by the time researchers had arrived for live samples. Consequently, the identity of the natural and intermediate hosts of the coronavirus is unclear. According to local personnel, the wild games in the Huanan Seafood Market are shipped and smuggled from various locations in China, Southeast Asia, and Africa; it remains impossible to identify the ancestry of the Wuhan Coronavirus.
Viral genome sequencing shows a 96% similarity between the Wuhan Coronavirus and the viral strain RaTG13 found in bats, lending credence to the belief that the RaTG13 strain is the ancestral virus for the Wuhan Coronavirus. This viral strain can be isolated from the bat species Rhinolophus sinicus found in Yunnan, China; thus bats are believed to be the natural host to the Wuhan Coronavirus. Epidemiological studies show definitively that the Huanan Seafood Market was the amplification epicenter, where the transmission of the virus from the natural host to the intermediate host likely occurred, before a mutation to a form that can adapt to the human body, followed by human-to-human transmission.
The identity of the intermediate host remains unclear; viral genome sequencing, however, reveals a 90% similarity between the spike receptor-binding domain of the Wuhan Coronavirus and of the coronavirus strain found in pangolins. While uncertainties remain for us to unambiguously identify the pangolin as the intermediate host, it is extremely likely that the pangolin coronavirus strain donated the spike receptor-binding domain genetic sequence, or even the entire gene section, to the bat coronavirus strain, culminating in the novel coronavirus upon DNA shuffling.
Wild animal market: the origin of numerous viruses
The SARS outbreak in 2003 can be traced to Heyuan prior to engulfing Guangdong and ravaging Hong Kong. The SARS Coronavirus was found in the masked palm civet; China has subsequently outlawed the sales of live wild animals. Seventeen years later, wild animal markets have instead grown unabashed, in flagrant violation of the law. The Chinese people have forgotten the lessons of SARS in their entirety. The glaring appearance of live wild animal markets in city centers, and the egregious acts of selling, cooking, and eating these wild animals, constitute a stunning and blatant disregard for the laws. The feces of these wild animals carry large concentrations of bacteria and viruses; the crowded set-up, the poor hygiene, and the proximity of different animal species are extremely conducive to DNA shuffling and genetic mutations. As such, these markets need to be banned outright.
Remodeling of markets is key to the prevention of epidemics. The Chinese and Hong Kong governments must promptly improve the set-up of markets by enhancing ventilation and getting rid of rats and pests. Before the elimination of all live poultry markets becomes a reality, animal feces found in these markets must be handled properly to lower the chances of genetic shuffling between viruses.
Internet conspiracies of an U.S. origin of the virus is not supported by facts, and only serves to mislead the public. The dissemination of conspiracy theories needs to stop. Transparency is first and foremost in the fight against an epidemic; we need cool heads and rational analysis in place of hearsay and falsehood. The failure to close all live wild animal markets post-SARS was a colossal mistake; to win the battle over the pandemic, we must face reality, and not repeat the same mistakes while leaving the blame upon others. The Wuhan Coronavirus is a product of inferior Chinese culture -\-\ the culture of recklessly catching and eating wild animals, and treating animals inhumanely, with an utter disrespect and disregard of lives. This inferior culture of the Chinese people -\-\ specifically the consumption of wild animals to satiate themselves -\-\ is the true origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus. If these habits and attitudes remain in place, SARS 3.0 will certainly happen in a matter of a decade or so.
以上翻譯來自：
一個窮科學家移民美國的夢幻故事
外媒報道：
https://www.nytimes.com/…/19reuters-health-coronavirus-hong…
https://www.nasdaq.com/…/adviser-to-hong-kong-on-coronaviru…
discourse analysis 在 風傳媒 The Storm Media Youtube 的最佳貼文
有一句話，叫做「親中、仇中、反中，都不如知中」。此話有道理，但是我們應該再往下挖一層 - 「知中不如知共」。
「中國」這概念太模糊、太龐大。即使精通中國歷史、文化者，未必能了解1949年以後的中華人民共和國（PRC）。要了解PRC, 你知不知中不要緊，但是你必須「知共」。
知共，就是得了解中共及其統治場域的本質 – 權本主義。
對「資本主義」沒概念的人，你很難使他搞懂2008年發生在美國的金融危機；同樣的，抓不到「權本主義」精髓的人，很難理解當下發生在中國的政治、經濟和社會危機。
七年前我新創了一個詞，「權本主義」，用來捕捉中國的一切政治、經濟、社會現象的本質；因為找不到相對應的英文字，也同時創造了「Powerism」這個字。常用的西方政治學概念，諸如「威權社會」、「獨裁社會」、「專制社會」，雖然經常被人用來形容中國，然而，這些概念或多或少都沒抓到要點；有些缺了一點什麼，有些又過於誇大了一點什麼。
【腦力犯中】系列，每週三在風傳媒播出，帶你認識卸妝後的真實中國。
范疇 Kenneth C. Fan
跨界思考者。終身創業者。小政府信奉者。平民精神推行者。「無印良國」倡議者。
1.抓不到「權本主義」，任何中國分析都是白搭
If you don't catch the Powerism, any China analysis will be useless. Discourse by Kenneth Fan. Powered by Joey Kuo 2018 @ Sum-Coo.com
腦力犯中精彩回顧：
與習近平聊天是雞同鴨講? 從被綁架的兩岸看見強國的自傲｜腦力犯中#5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Ac6FnFVlk
牛皮吹大?人民幣一路狂洩 中國虛幻經濟正在破滅?｜腦力犯中#4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTGRYQZ_SNU&t=242s
「沒有市場，只有黨場」從馬雲、李嘉誠大逃亡 看見的中國噩夢竟是？｜腦力犯中#3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYDBLONbdFU&t=2s
✓ 點我加入《風傳媒》Line 好友（ID：@dyp8323m） http://bit.ly/2hETgWE
✓ 點我訂閱《風傳媒》YouTube 頻道 http://bit.ly/2grkAJ6
【Facebook粉絲團】
風傳媒►► https://www.facebook.com/stormmedia
風生活►► https://www.facebook.com/SMediaLife
discourse analysis 在 Discourse Analysis—What Speakers Do in Conversation 的相關結果
Discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language 'beyond the sentence'. This contrasts with types of analysis more typical of modern ... ... <看更多>
discourse analysis 在 discourse analysis - 言談分析 - 國家教育研究院雙語詞彙 的相關結果
名詞解釋: 言談分析（discourse analysis）的意涵並不明確，必須與其相應的研究領域一併探討，方能有較一致的看法。言談分析廣泛使用於語言學、自然語言處理、社會學、 ... ... <看更多>
discourse analysis 在 篇章分析- 維基百科，自由的百科全書 的相關結果
言談分析（discourse analysis，簡稱DA）是一套廣泛應用於語言學、社會學、認知心理學、口語傳播等學科的分析方式，講求在語境中分析口語、書面語言、手語、肢體語言等 ... ... <看更多>