美国两任总统获胜演说的意识形态比较
|
摘要
本文主要采取Fairclough的三维分析框架和Halliday的系统功能语言学对布什和奥巴马的总统获胜演说进行如下分析:(1)从及物性、语气、情态、人称代词角度描述相关的语言特点;(2)围绕“语篇中发生了什么?”,“语篇参与者是谁,他们之间的关系如何?”以及“语言在语篇生成过程中起到了什么作用?”三个问题进行讨论,阐释获胜演讲与话语的具体运用之间的相互关系;(3)从社会历史语境和语篇的权势关系角度解释语篇与社会因素的相互关系。主要发现有:(1)布什和奥巴马大量使用物质过程来回顾艰难的选举历程,表达对家庭成员、支持者等的谢意,阐述未来在政治、经济、国家安全等方面的政策,呼吁不同政党和全国人民团结合作共建美国;使用关系过程一方面建立演说者与听众之间的人际关系,另一方面构建美国人民的信心来重温“美国梦”。(2)在演说过程中,他们使用陈述句,使得演讲显得更加的客观、真实,更具有说服力;他们使用祈使句不仅便于是向听众进行直接的呼吁,激起他们的热情让听众执行演讲人的意图,而且也体现了交际双方的人际关系,表现讲话者的身份和地位。(3)will和can作为程度较高的情态词,在布什和奥巴马的总统获胜演说中,具有以下作用:向听众宣传在政治、经济、国家安全等方面的政策;呼吁听众与演说者站在同一立场;重塑美国人民的信心与能力去变革美国等。(4)第一人称复数具有很强的包容性,它使演讲者和听众站在同一个立场,有共同的目标,任务和利益。它的使用大大缩短了演讲者与听众之间的距离,听起来语气亲切;第一人称单数用来表明演说者自己的身份,观点和态度。
本项研究的贡献体现在如下方面:(1)本文所采取的分析框架在研究总统获胜演说的隐含的意识形态和权势关系时具有一定的可行性;(2)为了揭示总统获胜演说中隐含的意识形态和权势关系,这需要一种跨学科的研究。本文在这一方面进行了尝试:不仅描述了相关的语言学特征,还探讨政治语篇所处的社会历史背景,这充分体现出批评性语篇分析的跨学科特征。
This research mainly applies Fairclough’s Three-dimensional Model and Halliday’s Systematic-Functional Linguistics to compare and analyze Bush’s and Obama’s presidential victory speeches. It first describes the relevant linguistic features in the light of transitivity, mood structure, modality, and personal pronouns. Then, by answering three questions:“what is going on”,“who is involved and in what relations”and“what is the role of language reflected in what is going on”, the research interprets the relationship between the speeches and interaction. Finally, it explains the relationship between discourse and social factors in the light of social-historical context and power relations in discourse. The main findings are: (1) Bush and Obama choose material processes to review the tough presidential election; to express their sincere thanks to the family members, supporters; to interpret the policies on politics, economy and national security; to appeal to different parties and the American people to construct America. They choose relational processes to establish interpersonal relationship between the speaker and the hearers on the one hand, to construct the American people’s confidence to review“American Dream”on the other hand. (2) In the course of speech, Bush and Obama use declarative clauses so as to sound more real, objective and convincing; they use imperative clauses to appeal to the hearers directly and arouse their interests and passion to understand their purposes on the one hand, they establish and embody close relationship between them and the hearers, express their identities and statuses on the other hand. (3) Bush and Obama use the high degree modalities“will”and“can”to clarify the future policies on politics, economy, national security, to appeal to the American people to stand with him, and to rebuild the American people’s confidence and ability to make change. (4) The use of inclusive“we”makes the speakers stand with the hearers, who have the same goals, mission and interests. The use of inclusive“we”can shorten the distance between the speakers and the hearers, which sound intimate. In addition, the use of“I”shows the identities, thoughts and attitudes of Bush and Obama.
The contribution of this research can be outlined in two perspectives: (1) The integrated framework testifies the feasibility of exploring the hidden ideologies and power relations in Bush’s and Obama’s presidential victory speeches. (2) In order to investigate the hidden ideologies and power relations, it needs an interdisciplinary study. This research makes an attempt to describe the linguistic features and to explore the social-historical context of political discourse, which can reflect the interdisciplinarity in CDA.
本项研究的贡献体现在如下方面:(1)本文所采取的分析框架在研究总统获胜演说的隐含的意识形态和权势关系时具有一定的可行性;(2)为了揭示总统获胜演说中隐含的意识形态和权势关系,这需要一种跨学科的研究。本文在这一方面进行了尝试:不仅描述了相关的语言学特征,还探讨政治语篇所处的社会历史背景,这充分体现出批评性语篇分析的跨学科特征。
This research mainly applies Fairclough’s Three-dimensional Model and Halliday’s Systematic-Functional Linguistics to compare and analyze Bush’s and Obama’s presidential victory speeches. It first describes the relevant linguistic features in the light of transitivity, mood structure, modality, and personal pronouns. Then, by answering three questions:“what is going on”,“who is involved and in what relations”and“what is the role of language reflected in what is going on”, the research interprets the relationship between the speeches and interaction. Finally, it explains the relationship between discourse and social factors in the light of social-historical context and power relations in discourse. The main findings are: (1) Bush and Obama choose material processes to review the tough presidential election; to express their sincere thanks to the family members, supporters; to interpret the policies on politics, economy and national security; to appeal to different parties and the American people to construct America. They choose relational processes to establish interpersonal relationship between the speaker and the hearers on the one hand, to construct the American people’s confidence to review“American Dream”on the other hand. (2) In the course of speech, Bush and Obama use declarative clauses so as to sound more real, objective and convincing; they use imperative clauses to appeal to the hearers directly and arouse their interests and passion to understand their purposes on the one hand, they establish and embody close relationship between them and the hearers, express their identities and statuses on the other hand. (3) Bush and Obama use the high degree modalities“will”and“can”to clarify the future policies on politics, economy, national security, to appeal to the American people to stand with him, and to rebuild the American people’s confidence and ability to make change. (4) The use of inclusive“we”makes the speakers stand with the hearers, who have the same goals, mission and interests. The use of inclusive“we”can shorten the distance between the speakers and the hearers, which sound intimate. In addition, the use of“I”shows the identities, thoughts and attitudes of Bush and Obama.
The contribution of this research can be outlined in two perspectives: (1) The integrated framework testifies the feasibility of exploring the hidden ideologies and power relations in Bush’s and Obama’s presidential victory speeches. (2) In order to investigate the hidden ideologies and power relations, it needs an interdisciplinary study. This research makes an attempt to describe the linguistic features and to explore the social-historical context of political discourse, which can reflect the interdisciplinarity in CDA.
引文
Austin, J. 1962/2002. How to Do things with Words. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press and Oxford University Press.
Beard, A. 2000. The Language of Politics. London: Routledge.
Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. London: Polity Press.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge.
Chilton, P. and Schaffner, C. 1997. Discourse and Politics. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage Publications. 206-230.
Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. 1999. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking CDA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London and New York: Longman.
Fairclough, N. 1992a. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. 1992b. Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London and New York: Longman.
Fairclough, N. 2001a. Critical Discourse Analysis as a Method in Social Scientific Research. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.). Methods of Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications. 121-138.
Fairclough, N. 2001b. The Discourse of New Labour: Critical Discourse Analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. Yates (eds.). Discourse as Data. London: Sage in association with The Open University. 229-266.
Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Disourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London and New York: Routledge.
Foucault, M. 1984. The Order of Discourse. In M. J. Shapiro (ed.). Language and Politics.Oxford: Blackwell. 108-138.
Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.
Fowler, R. 1996. On Critical Discourse Analysis. In C. Coulthard and M. Coulthard (eds.). Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. 3-14.
Grice, G. 1995. Mastering Public Speaking. Allyn: A Simon and Schuster Company. Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Hodge, R. and Kress, G. 1990. Language and Ideology. London and New York: Routledge. Johnstone, B. 2002. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lazuka, A. 2006. Communicative Intention in George W. Bush’s Presidential Speeches and Statements from 11 September 2001 to 11 September 2003, Discourse and Society 17(3): 299-330.
Leezenberg, M. 2002. Power in Communication: Implications for the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface, Journal of Pragmatics 34: 893-908.
Locke, T. 2004. Critical Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Continuum. Lyons, J. 1977. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination. London and New York: Routledge.
Schiffrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Siflanou, M. 1992. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Stephan, G. 1992. A Survey of Modern English. New York: Routledge. Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thomas, J. 1985. The Language of Power, Journal of Pragmatics 9: 765-783. Thompson, J. B. 1984. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Thompson, J. B. 1987. Language and Ideology: A Framework for Analysis, The SociologicalReview 35 (3): 516-536.
Thompson, G. 1996/2000. Introducing Functional Grammar (2nd Edition). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press and Edward Arnold.
Tian, H. 2006. Review of Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice, Language in Society 35(2): 303-306.
Tian, H. 2008a. SARS Case Report as Genre: How It Figures in Anti-SARS Social Practice. In D. Wu (ed.). Discourse of Cultural China in a Globalizing Age. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. 71-96.
Tian, H. 2008b. SARS Discourse as Anti-SARS Ideology: The Case in Beijing. In J. Powers and X. Xiao (eds.). Social Construction of SARS. Armsterdam: John Benjamins. 125-142.
van Dijk, T. A. 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press.
van Dijk. T. A. 1993a. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis, Discourse and Society 4(2): 249-283.
van Dijk, T. A. 1993b. Editor’s Forward to Critical Discourse Analysis, Discourse and Society 4(2): 131-132.
van Dijk, T. A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage Publications. van Dijk, T. A. 2001a. Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. Hamilton (eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. 352-371.
van Dijk, T. A. 2001b. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. J. Yates (eds.). Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader. London: Sage Publications. 300-323.
Wales, K. 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weiss, G. and Wodak, R. 2003. Introduction: Theory, Interdisciplinarity and Critical Discourse Analysis. In G. Weiss and R. Wodak (eds.). Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 1-32.
Wilson, J. 1990. Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis Political Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wodak, R. (ed.). 1989. Language, Power and Ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Wodak, R. 2001. What CDA Is About—A Summary of Its History, Important Concepts and Its Developments. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications. 1-13.
Wodak, R. 2007. Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry, Pragmatics and Cognition 15(1): 203-225.
成文田海龙,2006,多模式话语的社会实践性,《南京社会科学》,第8期,135-141页。
董宏乐顾萍,2000,英语中掩饰动因的手段,《外语教学》,第4期,21-25页。
管淑红,2005,政治演讲语篇的人际意义,《内蒙古农业大学学报》,第5期,205-207页。
管淑红王雅丽罗玲娟,2006,政治演讲语篇的评价视角,《华东交通大学学报》,第6期, 74-78页。
胡壮麟,2000,《功能主义纵横谈》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
胡壮麟,2002,语境研究的多元化,《外语教学与研究》,第3期,161-167页。
胡壮麟朱永生张德禄李战子,2005,《系统功能语言学概论》,北京:北京大学出版社。
江晓红,2003,批评话语分析的有效工具,《学术交流》,第7期,132-135页。
李杰,2005,情态的表达与意识形态的体现,《语言学刊》,第4期,49-55页。
李元授邹昆山,2003,《演讲学》,武汉:华中科技大学出版社。
李战子,2005,从语气、情态到评价,《外语研究》,第6期,14-19页。
李战子高一虹,2002,功能语法与批评性话语分析的结合点——第28届国际系统功能语法大会述评,《外语研究》,第3期,78-79页。
施光,2007,批评话语分析研究综述,《学术论坛》,第4期,202-205页。
田海龙,2001,“我”、“我们”的使用与个人性格,《语言教学与研究》,第4期,75-80页。
田海龙,2002,政治语言研究:评述与思考,《外语教学》,第1期,23-29页。
田海龙,2004,病例报告:抗击非典的话语实践,《中国社会语言学》,第1期,113-124页。
田海龙,2009,《语篇研究:范畴、视角、方法》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
田海龙张迈曾,2006,话语权力的不平等关系:语用学与社会学研究,《外语学刊》,第2期,7-13页。
王保令刘新玲,2009,从当选演讲看奥巴马演说的文体风格,《洛阳理工学院学报》,第3期,14-16页。
王晋军,2002,CDA与SFL关系分析,《山东外语教学》,第6期,101-103页。
项蕴华,2006,政治语篇中权力不对称性的批评性分析,《外语学刊》,第2期,25-28页。
项蕴华张迈曾,2005,下岗女工身份构建的叙事分析,《吉林大学社会科学学报》,第3期,154-158页。
辛斌,1996,语言、权力与意识形态:批评语言学,《现代外语》,第1期,21-26页。
辛斌,2003,语言语篇权力,《外语学刊》,第4期,1-7页。
辛斌,2005,《批评语言学:理论与应用》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
徐涛张迈曾,2004,高等教育话语的新变迁——机构身份再构建的跨学科研究,《河北大学学报(哲社版)》,第3期,107-109页。
严世清赵霞,2009,政治语篇中的情态表达及其批评性话语分析,《苏州大学学报》,第2期,117-120页。
尤泽顺陈建平,2008,政治话语的批判性分析研究及其对中国的启示,《解放军外国语学院学报》,第5期,1-6页。
苑春鸣田海龙,2001,英汉政治语篇的对比分析与批判分析,《天津商学院学报》,第5期,51-54页。
曾文武,2008,从批评性话语分析看政治语篇中修辞手法的运用,《湖北第二师范学院学报》,第6期,30-33页。
曾亚平,2009,从批评性话语分析角度解读奥巴马的总统选举获胜演讲,《外语与外语教学》,第2期,19-21页。
曾亚平黄振定,2009,论奥巴马总统获胜演讲的文体风格,《湖南大学学报》,第3期,88-91页。
张蕾,2005,用语篇分析解读布什的演讲,《西安外国语学院学报》,第1期,23-25页。
张美伦张清,2009,奥巴马竞选总统演说辞的语言艺术分析,《常州工学院学报》,第3期,76-79页。
张宵田海龙,2009,从批评性语篇分析的理论渊源看其跨学科特征,《天津商业大学学报》,第4期, 64-67页。
支永碧,2007,批评话语分析研究新动态,《外语与外语教学》,第3期,27-32页。
朱蕾田海龙,话语与当今中国社会变革,《南京社会科学》,第2期,124-128页。
Beard, A. 2000. The Language of Politics. London: Routledge.
Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. London: Polity Press.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge.
Chilton, P. and Schaffner, C. 1997. Discourse and Politics. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage Publications. 206-230.
Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. 1999. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking CDA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London and New York: Longman.
Fairclough, N. 1992a. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. 1992b. Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London and New York: Longman.
Fairclough, N. 2001a. Critical Discourse Analysis as a Method in Social Scientific Research. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.). Methods of Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications. 121-138.
Fairclough, N. 2001b. The Discourse of New Labour: Critical Discourse Analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. Yates (eds.). Discourse as Data. London: Sage in association with The Open University. 229-266.
Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Disourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London and New York: Routledge.
Foucault, M. 1984. The Order of Discourse. In M. J. Shapiro (ed.). Language and Politics.Oxford: Blackwell. 108-138.
Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.
Fowler, R. 1996. On Critical Discourse Analysis. In C. Coulthard and M. Coulthard (eds.). Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. 3-14.
Grice, G. 1995. Mastering Public Speaking. Allyn: A Simon and Schuster Company. Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Hodge, R. and Kress, G. 1990. Language and Ideology. London and New York: Routledge. Johnstone, B. 2002. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lazuka, A. 2006. Communicative Intention in George W. Bush’s Presidential Speeches and Statements from 11 September 2001 to 11 September 2003, Discourse and Society 17(3): 299-330.
Leezenberg, M. 2002. Power in Communication: Implications for the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface, Journal of Pragmatics 34: 893-908.
Locke, T. 2004. Critical Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Continuum. Lyons, J. 1977. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination. London and New York: Routledge.
Schiffrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Siflanou, M. 1992. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Stephan, G. 1992. A Survey of Modern English. New York: Routledge. Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thomas, J. 1985. The Language of Power, Journal of Pragmatics 9: 765-783. Thompson, J. B. 1984. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Thompson, J. B. 1987. Language and Ideology: A Framework for Analysis, The SociologicalReview 35 (3): 516-536.
Thompson, G. 1996/2000. Introducing Functional Grammar (2nd Edition). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press and Edward Arnold.
Tian, H. 2006. Review of Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice, Language in Society 35(2): 303-306.
Tian, H. 2008a. SARS Case Report as Genre: How It Figures in Anti-SARS Social Practice. In D. Wu (ed.). Discourse of Cultural China in a Globalizing Age. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. 71-96.
Tian, H. 2008b. SARS Discourse as Anti-SARS Ideology: The Case in Beijing. In J. Powers and X. Xiao (eds.). Social Construction of SARS. Armsterdam: John Benjamins. 125-142.
van Dijk, T. A. 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press.
van Dijk. T. A. 1993a. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis, Discourse and Society 4(2): 249-283.
van Dijk, T. A. 1993b. Editor’s Forward to Critical Discourse Analysis, Discourse and Society 4(2): 131-132.
van Dijk, T. A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage Publications. van Dijk, T. A. 2001a. Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. Hamilton (eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. 352-371.
van Dijk, T. A. 2001b. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. J. Yates (eds.). Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader. London: Sage Publications. 300-323.
Wales, K. 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weiss, G. and Wodak, R. 2003. Introduction: Theory, Interdisciplinarity and Critical Discourse Analysis. In G. Weiss and R. Wodak (eds.). Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 1-32.
Wilson, J. 1990. Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis Political Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wodak, R. (ed.). 1989. Language, Power and Ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Wodak, R. 2001. What CDA Is About—A Summary of Its History, Important Concepts and Its Developments. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications. 1-13.
Wodak, R. 2007. Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry, Pragmatics and Cognition 15(1): 203-225.
成文田海龙,2006,多模式话语的社会实践性,《南京社会科学》,第8期,135-141页。
董宏乐顾萍,2000,英语中掩饰动因的手段,《外语教学》,第4期,21-25页。
管淑红,2005,政治演讲语篇的人际意义,《内蒙古农业大学学报》,第5期,205-207页。
管淑红王雅丽罗玲娟,2006,政治演讲语篇的评价视角,《华东交通大学学报》,第6期, 74-78页。
胡壮麟,2000,《功能主义纵横谈》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
胡壮麟,2002,语境研究的多元化,《外语教学与研究》,第3期,161-167页。
胡壮麟朱永生张德禄李战子,2005,《系统功能语言学概论》,北京:北京大学出版社。
江晓红,2003,批评话语分析的有效工具,《学术交流》,第7期,132-135页。
李杰,2005,情态的表达与意识形态的体现,《语言学刊》,第4期,49-55页。
李元授邹昆山,2003,《演讲学》,武汉:华中科技大学出版社。
李战子,2005,从语气、情态到评价,《外语研究》,第6期,14-19页。
李战子高一虹,2002,功能语法与批评性话语分析的结合点——第28届国际系统功能语法大会述评,《外语研究》,第3期,78-79页。
施光,2007,批评话语分析研究综述,《学术论坛》,第4期,202-205页。
田海龙,2001,“我”、“我们”的使用与个人性格,《语言教学与研究》,第4期,75-80页。
田海龙,2002,政治语言研究:评述与思考,《外语教学》,第1期,23-29页。
田海龙,2004,病例报告:抗击非典的话语实践,《中国社会语言学》,第1期,113-124页。
田海龙,2009,《语篇研究:范畴、视角、方法》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
田海龙张迈曾,2006,话语权力的不平等关系:语用学与社会学研究,《外语学刊》,第2期,7-13页。
王保令刘新玲,2009,从当选演讲看奥巴马演说的文体风格,《洛阳理工学院学报》,第3期,14-16页。
王晋军,2002,CDA与SFL关系分析,《山东外语教学》,第6期,101-103页。
项蕴华,2006,政治语篇中权力不对称性的批评性分析,《外语学刊》,第2期,25-28页。
项蕴华张迈曾,2005,下岗女工身份构建的叙事分析,《吉林大学社会科学学报》,第3期,154-158页。
辛斌,1996,语言、权力与意识形态:批评语言学,《现代外语》,第1期,21-26页。
辛斌,2003,语言语篇权力,《外语学刊》,第4期,1-7页。
辛斌,2005,《批评语言学:理论与应用》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
徐涛张迈曾,2004,高等教育话语的新变迁——机构身份再构建的跨学科研究,《河北大学学报(哲社版)》,第3期,107-109页。
严世清赵霞,2009,政治语篇中的情态表达及其批评性话语分析,《苏州大学学报》,第2期,117-120页。
尤泽顺陈建平,2008,政治话语的批判性分析研究及其对中国的启示,《解放军外国语学院学报》,第5期,1-6页。
苑春鸣田海龙,2001,英汉政治语篇的对比分析与批判分析,《天津商学院学报》,第5期,51-54页。
曾文武,2008,从批评性话语分析看政治语篇中修辞手法的运用,《湖北第二师范学院学报》,第6期,30-33页。
曾亚平,2009,从批评性话语分析角度解读奥巴马的总统选举获胜演讲,《外语与外语教学》,第2期,19-21页。
曾亚平黄振定,2009,论奥巴马总统获胜演讲的文体风格,《湖南大学学报》,第3期,88-91页。
张蕾,2005,用语篇分析解读布什的演讲,《西安外国语学院学报》,第1期,23-25页。
张美伦张清,2009,奥巴马竞选总统演说辞的语言艺术分析,《常州工学院学报》,第3期,76-79页。
张宵田海龙,2009,从批评性语篇分析的理论渊源看其跨学科特征,《天津商业大学学报》,第4期, 64-67页。
支永碧,2007,批评话语分析研究新动态,《外语与外语教学》,第3期,27-32页。
朱蕾田海龙,话语与当今中国社会变革,《南京社会科学》,第2期,124-128页。