（英语语言文学专业论文）报刊经济社论话语的批评性分析.pdf

ma thesis of ningbo university i 报刊经济社论话语的批评性分析报刊经济社论话语的批评性分析 摘 要 批评话语分析（cda）是二十世纪七十年代在英国兴起的有关话语分析方 法的学科。它旨在透过话语表面的语言形式，从语言学、社会学、心理学和传 播学角度解释意识形态是如何对话语产生影响，话语对意识形态的反作用以及 两者是如何源于社会结构和权利关系又是如何为之服务的。 本文选取 20 篇纽约时报2005 年 3 月至 12 月间有关“减税”事件的社 论，从批评话语分析角度予以深入分析和阐释。全文分为四章： 第一章阐述了 cda 的基本内涵、理论渊源、分析工具及关注的三个核心问 题并简要回顾了 cda 的发展历史；第二章介绍了报刊社论及其重要性并从语 域、语旨和语式角度界定了报刊经济社论话语（need），回顾了 cda 与新闻 英语研究结合的状况，指出本研究的理论及现实价值；第三章是本文的主体部 分。结合 need 语料，从 cda 角度深入分析并探讨了 need 的及物性、转换、 分类、情态及互文性特征；第四章描述并阐释了 need 中体现的意识形态、权 利、社会和话语之间的相互关系及产生这种关系的原因，然后论述了民主中的 话语的重要性，最后指出本论文的研究成果对语言教学的启示。 在对 20 篇语料深入分析和阐释的基础上，本文认为：意识形态和权利关系 广泛存在于 need 中并呈现出罕见的斗争和妥协并存的现象以及由此产生的一 种新型风格的话语民主中的话语，这是因为：一方面，作为资产阶级利益的 代言人，纽约时报必须为政府及相关利益集团服务；另一方面，作为一家 私营报业集团，它又必须考虑到自身的生存和发展，因此必须适当满足广大民 众的需求。该报运用民主中的话语，成功地让对立的双方“和谐”地融入话语 实践中。有理由相信，在社会民主化和批评语言意识的双重推动下，民主中的 话语必将越来越普及，民主的内涵将更加丰富全面，人类的生活也将更美好。 关键词：关键词：批评话语分析， 报刊经济社论话语， 意识形态， 权力， 民主中的话 语 ma thesis of ningbo university ii a critical analysis of newspaper economic editorial discourse abstract critical discourse analysis (cda) is a newly developed discipline about the approach to discourse analysis in 1970s. through the superficial form of language and from the perspectives of linguistics, sociology, psychology and mass media, cda aims to expounding the influence of ideology on discourse and the counteractive influence of discourse on ideology and how the two originates from social structure and power relations and serves them in return. the paper selects 20 samples from the new york times (tnyt) and carries out an in-depth analysis and elaboration from the angle of cda. it mainly falls into four chapters: chapter one is the introduction part, dealing with the definition, theoretical foundation, analytical tool, fundamental concerns and brief history of cda. chapter two discusses newspaper editorial and its importance, followed by a definition of newspaper economic editorial discourse (need) in terms of field, tenor and mode. by reviewing the previous study of news english discourse from a critical perspective, the paper points out the theoretical and realistic value of the present research. chapter three is the body and core of the present paper. marrying theories related to cda with need samples from tnyt, the paper carries out a detailed, critical and in-depth analysis of the samples, focusing on its features such as transitivity, transformation, classification, modality and intertextuality. the last chapter discusses the relationship reflected in need between ideology, power, society and discourse and the underlying reason for the relationship. with much thought on the importance of democratizing discourse (dd), the paper points out the implication of the present research for language teaching and learning. based on the above-mentioned analysis and elaboration, the paper draws the following conclusion: ideology and power relations are pervasive in need. a rare phenomenon of struggles and compromise in regard to the distribution of discursive power and say which has given rise to a new genre of discourse called dd is immediately observed. this could be ascribed to two reasons: on the one hand, being the spokesperson of the bourgeoisie, tnyt has to cater to the interest of the government and related interest groups; on the other hand, as a private news group, it must face up to its own survival and development which lie in the public consumption of its product. tnyt ma thesis of ningbo university iii satisfies the needs and concerns of the two and makes possible a delicate balance which optimizes its own interest by employing and bringing into full play dd. it is all the more safe to argue that under the influence of social democratization and critical language awareness, dd will weave more into the various aspects of peoples life and the connotation of democracy will be richer and more complete. a better life is looming in the near distance. key words：critical discourse analysis, newspaper economic editorial discourse, ideology, power, democratizing discourse 独独 创创 性性 声声 明明 本人郑重声明：所呈交的论文是我个人在导师指导下进行的研究工 作及取得研究成果。尽我所知，除了文中特别加以标注和致谢的地方 外，论文中不包含其他人已经发表或撰写的研究成果，也不包含为获得 宁波大学或其他教育机构的学位或证书所使用过的材料。与我一同工作 的同志对本研究所做的任何贡献均已在论文中做了明确的说明并表示了 谢意。 签名：_ 日期：_ 关于论文使用授权的声明关于论文使用授权的声明 本人完全了解宁波大学有关保留、使用学位论文的规定，即：学校 有权保留送交论文的复印件，允许论文被查阅和借阅；学校可以公布论 文的全部或部分内容，可以采用影印、缩印或其他复制手段保存论文。 （保密的论文在解密后应遵循此规定）（保密的论文在解密后应遵循此规定） 签名：_ 导师签名：_ 日期：_ ma thesis of ningbo university - 1 - 1 general introduction to critical discourse analysis (cda) 1.1 definition of cda and its theoretical foundation critical discourse analysis, also known as “critical linguistics”, first appeared as an instrumental linguistics in language and control by fowler, kress, hodge and trew in 1979 in britain. compared with other branches of modern linguistic research, cda is a real newly-born discipline with a history of no more than three decades. nevertheless, it has vigorously weathered through the times and advanced forward replete with scores of monographs and a large number of research papers, and more importantly, close attention from numerous scholars. this has been made possible by the methodology and approach that cda has taken, i.e., having to itself the cream of the achievements made in various disciplines ranging from linguistics to sociology, from psychology to mass media, from ethnography to politics, and so forth. all these contribute to the growth of cda on a rather high footing and with abundant potentiality. giving an appropriate definition of cda is by no means an easy task as even some words within the term “cda” itself invite much discussion. a proper definition cannot be possible as long as “critical” and “discourse” are not well handled. as a matter of fact, the two words, especially the former, are essential to cda on the ground that they draw a distinction not only between cda and da, but also cda and other related linguistic disciplines. in cda, neither does “critical” essentially carry a derogatory, distorted or false meaning, nor does it claim negative connotations of complaint or fault-finding implication as in its popular usage. instead, “critical” in cda is incarnated in the sense of “comment”, “appraisal”, and “evaluation” (fowler, 1991a: 9092). as far as “discourse” is concerned, hardly has consensus been reached upon the form it takes, i.e., spoken or written. it must be made clear that in this paper, “discourse” refers to both written and spoken discourses. with the two key words made clear, the surface meaning of cda is looming in sight, that is to say, it is a sort of analysis, carried out with comment, appraisal, assessment or examination, of both spoken and written discourses. then comes the question, what is cda in essence? much research has been done in this aspect and some is worth mentioning. cda is the critical interpretation of texts: recovering the social meanings expressed in discourse by analyzing the linguistic structures in the light of their interactional and wider social contexts (fowler et al, 1979: 195196). a few years later, fowler (1991b: 5), in a discussion of the different goals and procedures of different branches of linguistics, describes cda as “an enquiry into the relations between signs, meanings and the social and historical conditions which govern the semiotic structure of discourse”. van dijk (1988) argues that cda is concerned with studying and analyzing written texts and spoken words to reveal the discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality, and bias and how these sources are initiated, maintained, reproduced, and transformed ma thesis of ningbo university - 2 - within specific social, economic, political, and historical contexts. later on, with further study into cda, van dijk (2001) puts forward that cda is a type of discourse analytical research and primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. as for fairclough (1989), another influential linguist in the field of cda, cda is to uncover the ideological assumptions that are hidden in the words of our written text or oral speech in order to resist and overcome various forms of power over or to gain an appreciation that we are exercising “power over,” unbeknownst to us. with more research into cda, fairclough (1993) brings forward the concept that “cda aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships between discursive practices, texts, and events and wider social and cultural structures, relations, and processes. it strives to explore how these non-transparent relationships are a factor in securing power and hegemony, and it draws attention to power imbalance, social inequities, non-democratic practices, and other injustices in hopes of spurring people to corrective actions.” cda sees itself as politically involved research with an emancipatory requirement: it seeks to have an effect on social practice and social relationships (titscher et al, 2000: 147). the above-mentioned definitions vary to a certain extent, laying stress on different aspects on the one hand; on the other hand, they share some points in common: a) the central concern of cda is with social conditions rather than discursive action. it attaches more importance to the historical and social aspects of discourse than its linguistic one. b) the aim of cda is more to denaturalize and expose the taken-for-granted ideological messages within the discourse than its linguistic characteristics. in conclusion, cda is a critical approach to discourse analysis that seeks, by means of penetrating into the linguistic form that discourse takes, firstly, to bring a system of excessive inequality of power into question and uncover the hidden ideological workings and power relations within discourse; secondly, to discuss the dialectical relationship between discourse and society, ideology and power control, in an effort to materialize emancipation of the depressed and the powerless by arousing in the general public the awareness of critical thinking and reading. cda claims its philosophical foundation in the western marxism represented by the frankford school with scholars like adorno and habermas. it criticizes the effect of american behavourism and poppers positivism on social science, and points out that pure positivism could merely describe the fact, but ignore the role of human beings in the presentation of the events. therefore, it advocates “the theory of critical sociology” and opposes all forms of ideology, which in their viewpoint, is the very material that establishes, maintains and reproduces social relationship. moreover, it holds that ideology plays an overwhelming role in social life by dominating our psychology, impeding the development of society and its citizens. this is achieved as a consequence of the dominant ideological messages constantly transmitted by mass media represented by newspapers, television, official documents and so forth. these popular media are so ma thesis of ningbo university - 3 - widespread in peoples daily life that nobody could get away from its radiating influence. worse still, the voices from these media serve the interest of the upper and ruling class and the advantageous group, who manipulate not only in economic and political field, but also in cultural and ideological one. consequently, they brazenly paint a beautiful picture of the virtually ugly society to befool the ruled and impose false ideas and thinking way upon peoples mind. thus, any science devoted to language analysis should not limit itself to the so-called “objective” analysis which is absolutely impossible. this is because science and scientific work is carried out by scientists with opinions, interests and ideologies of their own. it is based on this that habermas (1973; 1976; 1981) proposes a scientific theoretical framework within which one can pursue critical social sciences and hence critical linguistics. much inspired by “the theory of critical sociology”, critical discourse analysts argue that discourse, which transmits ideological message by way of newspaper, tv or the internet, should be analyzed and evaluated critically from both linguistic and social aspect. 1.2 the relationship between cda and discourse analysis a comprehensive understanding of discourse analysis (da) is indispensable to clarify the relationship, especially the distinction between cda and da. the term “da” was put forward by zellig harris in his paper discourse analysis in 1952. the essential concern of da is the analysis of language in use (brown fg as its primary analytical tool; ideology, power and control from politics as its fundamental constituents. therefore, cda does not intend to take the place of da, but complements and transcends da by endeavoring to unite and determine the relationship between three levels of analysis, i.e., the actual text, the discursive practices and the social context. though there are noticeable points shared by cda and da, conspicuous distinctions exist between the two approaches to the study on discourse. firstly, cda does not simply stay on the facet of linguistic analysis of discourse. instead, it goes deep into discourse and attaches more importance to the social aspect of discourse. in light of cda, discourse is social and mirrors the intricate relationship within the social network. thus, the analysis of discourse should also be sociality-oriented. while for da, discourse means no more than meaningful linguistic units which call for much research into its syntax, lexicology, semantic relations and the like. in other words, da simply focuses on the linguistic aspect of discourse other than its social one. ma thesis of ningbo university - 4 - secondly, cda is critical and da is non-critical. as for cda, discourse, or the use of language, is by no means neutral. it is virtually a product of mixture of the individual and the social circumstances, such as the individuals educational background, economic status, religious belief and social status quo. therefore, discourse is multi-dimensional and multi-layered and hence should be analyzed critically and its deep-seated meaning be probed and scrutinized. thirdly, cda shoulders a social, or to some extent, political agenda. one of the ultimate goals of cda is to cultivate and arouse the awareness of critical reading and help the ruled and the exploited to emancipate themselves mentally. da, whose main contribution to society is an isolated study on the meaning of the linguistic units, does not bear these traits. 1.3 three fundamental concerns of cda cda challenges us to move from regarding discourse as an abstract linguistic system to viewing it as a meaning system in a particular social, economic and political context. the meaning conveyed through discourse is modified by the immediate social, political and other conditions. discourses are systematically-organized sets of statements which give expression to the meanings and values of an institution; beyond that, they define, describe and delimit what is possible to say and not possible to say with respect to the area of concern of that institution, whether marginally or centrally (kress, 1985). so it is safe to conclude that discourse is a mirror of society and social life. three fundamental concerns of cda are worthy of attention, they are discourse and ideology, discourse and power, discourse and society respectively. 1.3.1 discourse and ideology the notion of idologie was invented by destutt de tracy as the science of ideas. since its birth about two centuries ago, debate on its connotations has plagued social sciences. the argument has been recently extended to the field of cda which treats language from a social perspective. ideologies are closely linked to discourse, because discursive practice is the commonest form of social behavior which depends largely on common-sense assumptions. in the last three decades, much research has been done in this aspect. to chilton (1991: 10), ideology is pervasive which goes that “anything that is said or written about the world is articulated from a particular ideological point”. a central component of the critical linguistic creed is the conviction that language reproduces ideology (simpson, 1993: 5). to carry out further research into the relationship between discourse and ideology, the word “ideology” needs a full interpretation. by referring to dictionaries, two versions of explanation are available: ideology is “a set of ideas that form the basis of an economic or political theory or that are held by particular group or person” (oxford advanced learners dictionary, 1997: 734); ideology is a set of ideas on which a political or economic system is based” (longman dictionary of contemporary english, 1995: 706). both ma thesis of ningbo university - 5 - definitions highlight the point that ideology is “idea” in some way and the economic and political implications of ideology. as a matter of fact, in the daily life, as soon as ideology is mentioned, an unpleasant image would surface in peoples mind. in their eyes, ideology could be as worse as manipulative, evil, conspiratory, derogatory or anything that is often used to accuse a community of holding false or distorted theories of reality. however, in the field of cda, these perceptions cannot be too far-away from the point. critical discourse analysts hold strong opposition to this sort of unexamined, uncritical understanding of ideology. they define “ideology” in a more neutral way as “mans general standpoint and opinion when understanding the world and sorting out, summing up ones experience” (hodge, kress by examining ideology, we could peep into the social, economic, political and other aspects of life of a person or a group. so far we have gained an insi