Reviewed by:

• Critical Times in Greece: Anthropological Engagements with the Crisis ed. by Dimitris Dalakoglou and Georgios Agelopoulos, and: Living under Austerity: Greek Society in Crisis ed. by Evdoxios Doxiadis and Aimee Placas, and: Greece in Crisis: Combining Critical Discourse and Corpus Linguistic Perspectives ed. by Ourania Hatzidaki and Dionysis Goutsos, and: Greece in Crisis: The Cultural Politics of Austerity ed. by Dimitris Tziovas
• Soo-Young Kim (bio)

What was the Greek crisis? Readers may reasonably expect a recent spate of edited collections about this crisis to provide insight into this question. Between these readers and any straightforward answer, however, lies a more elementary question to contend with—what does it even mean to produce scholarship about crisis? All but the least reflective writing about crisis grapples with a tension between the concept's capacity for lucidity on the one hand and exclusion on the other—between what is gained by evoking and delimiting a crisis versus what gets lost or rendered unthinkable through these very same efforts. As a result, scholarship is necessarily about the crisis in two distinct senses—it teaches us about crisis as an object of analysis and it reveals to us how crisis operates as a frame through which to analyze.

The editors of these four collections are certainly cognizant of this dual role of crisis as both an analytic object and an analytic frame. Each collection focuses on a distinct aspect of the Greek experience of crisis: Dalakoglou and Agelopoulos' volume on social change and everyday life, Doxiadis and Placas' on austerity, Hatzidaki and Goutsos' on discourse, and Tziovas' on culture. The resulting collections are revelatory of how crisis becomes a shared frame—not [End Page 563] only for authors and editors, but also for their subjects and their readers—that shapes the scholarship produced and received through it. So what do we learn about crisis by approaching it through the lens of each collection's particular focus? And what do we learn about each field of focus by studying it though the frame of crisis?

Before reading too much into the crisis framing, it is worth acknowledging the academic and publishing conditions that insist that scholarship about Greece is most legible when presented through the figure of crisis. This is especially the case when it comes to presumed audiences outside of Greece, for which all four of these volumes in English are presumably intended by their publishers. From this perspective, the flowering of scholarship seemingly about the Greek crisis may disclose more about academic imagination than about empirical realities in Greece or inherent qualities of crisis as a concept or phenomenon. Nonetheless, there are surely consequences, many of which have yet to be revealed, to the fact that scholarship of the past decade in Greece is largely compelled to present itself in the figure of scholarship about crisis.

Greece in Crisis: Combining Critical Discourse and Corpus Linguistic Perspectives, edited by Ourania Hatzidaki and Dionysis Goutsos, asks how the Greek crisis is "discursively materialized," that is, how "actors connected with the crisis in Greece talk and write about it" (4). What this focus on discourse facilitates, the editors hope, is "an insider's view" of the crisis that enables the volume "to get the, mainly, Greek voices heard" (4). The collection is also motivated by a particular methodological objective whose potential disciplinary contribution extends beyond the volume's topical focus—namely, integrating corpus linguistics and discourse analysis methods in order to draw on both the former...

审核人：

• 希腊的关键时期：与危机的人类学互动ed。Dimitris Dalakoglou和Georgios Agelopoulos撰写，以及：《紧缩生活：危机中的希腊社会》。由Evdoxios Doxiadis和Aimee Placas撰写，以及：《危机中的希腊：批判性话语和语料库语言学观点的结合》 ed。由Ourania Hatzidaki和Dionysis Goutsos撰写，以及：《危机中的希腊：紧缩的文化政治》 ed。迪米特里斯·齐齐瓦斯（Dimitris Tziovas）
• 金秀英（生物）

什么是希腊危机？读者可能会合理地期望最近有大量关于此次危机的编辑过的藏书可以提供对该问题的见解。然而，在这些读者和任何直接的答案之间，存在着一个更基本的问题需要解决—产生有关危机的学术知识甚至意味着什么？除了最缺乏反思性的有关危机的文章，一方面在概念的清醒能力与排斥之间存在张力，另一方面又在通过引发和界定危机而获得的收获与通过这些相同的努力而失去或变得不可思议的收获之间存在着紧张关系。 。结果，奖学金必然与危机有两种截然不同的含义-它教会我们有关危机作为分析对象的知识，它向我们揭示了危机是如何作为分析框架的。

这四个集合的编辑者当然意识到危机作为分析对象和分析框架的双重作用。每个系列都侧重于希腊危机经历的一个方面：Dalakoglou和Agelopoulos的著作涉及社会变化和日常生活，Doxiadis和Placas的著作涉及紧缩政策，Hatzidaki和Goutsos的论述涉及文化，Tziovas的论述文化。由此产生的集合揭示了危机如何变成一个共享的框架，不仅对作者和编辑，而且对他们的学科和读者而言，也没有成为[End Page 563]，它决定了通过该框架产生和获得的奖学金。那么，我们如何通过每个系列的视角来了解危机，从而从中学到什么呢？特别关注？通过危机的框架来研究每个重点领域，我们能学到什么？

在深入了解危机框架之前，值得承认学术和出版条件，这些条件和观点坚持认为，通过危机的形象来介绍希腊的奖学金是最易读的。当涉及希腊以外的假定受众时，尤其是这种情况，所有这四本英文出版物都可能是其发行商所为。从这个角度来看，奖学金的兴起似乎与与希腊的经验现实或危机作为概念或现象的内在品质相比，希腊危机可能更多地揭示了学术上的想象力。尽管如此，对于过去十年在希腊的奖学金在很大程度上被迫以关于危机的奖学金的形式展示这一事实，肯定会有一些后果，其中许多尚未被揭露。

危机中的希腊：将批评性话语和语料库语言学观点相结合，由Ourania Hatzidaki和Dionysis Goutsos编辑，提出了希腊危机如何“以决定性的方式实现”，即，“与希腊危机有关的参与者如何谈论并写下来”（ 4）。编辑们希望，这种集中于话语的便利是对危机的“内部人士观点”，该危机使该卷“能够获得主要是希腊人的声音”（4）。该馆藏还受到特定方法论目标的推动，该方法论的潜在学科贡献超出了本书的主题重点，即整合语料库语言学和话语分析方法，以吸取前者...