本文選題：批評(píng)話語(yǔ)分析　切入點(diǎn)：意識(shí)形態(tài)　出處：《福州大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：批評(píng)話語(yǔ)分析是一種把語(yǔ)言的社會(huì)性作為分析目的的跨學(xué)科研究話語(yǔ)的方式,它將語(yǔ)言看作一種社會(huì)實(shí)踐,旨在揭示書(shū)面或口頭文本中所隱含的意識(shí)形態(tài)和權(quán)利關(guān)系。本文選取中美主流媒體代表《中國(guó)日?qǐng)?bào)》和《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》有關(guān)“光伏雙反案”的新聞報(bào)道作為語(yǔ)料,采用費(fèi)爾克勞夫的三維話語(yǔ)分析模型,對(duì)比雙方相關(guān)報(bào)道采用的話語(yǔ)策略,分析這些策略產(chǎn)生的效果,旨在揭示其中隱含的意識(shí)形態(tài)和權(quán)利關(guān)系。本研究依次從描述、闡釋和解釋三個(gè)層次對(duì)所選語(yǔ)料進(jìn)行了批評(píng)性話語(yǔ)分析。描述階段的語(yǔ)言學(xué)分析內(nèi)容包括委婉語(yǔ)、隱喻、名詞化、預(yù)設(shè)、情態(tài)和文本結(jié)構(gòu)等。闡釋階段,從話語(yǔ)表層要素、話語(yǔ)意義、局部連貫以及文本結(jié)構(gòu)所忽略的組成部分四個(gè)方面對(duì)話語(yǔ)實(shí)踐展開(kāi)研究。在解釋階段,將文本與社會(huì)實(shí)踐相聯(lián)系,分析了引起文本形式特征和話語(yǔ)實(shí)踐差異的根本原因,即社會(huì)文化實(shí)踐方面的差異,揭示了雙方報(bào)道中蘊(yùn)含的不同意識(shí)形態(tài)和權(quán)利關(guān)系。研究結(jié)果顯示,為了達(dá)到各自的目的,雙方報(bào)道采用了不同的話語(yǔ)策略�！吨袊�(guó)日?qǐng)?bào)》相關(guān)報(bào)道的話語(yǔ)策略呈現(xiàn)了中方在爭(zhēng)議中的理性和冷靜的語(yǔ)氣,凸顯關(guān)稅反對(duì)者的聲音,使民眾聽(tīng)到有利于本國(guó)的言論,將摩擦歸咎于對(duì)方的不公平“貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義”政策,提升己方言論的可信度和說(shuō)服力,盡量避免和減少雙方權(quán)利關(guān)系中于己不利的因素以維護(hù)合作關(guān)系和貿(mào)易大局。同時(shí),也通過(guò)使用負(fù)面性的評(píng)價(jià)詞語(yǔ),明確地表示了對(duì)不公平關(guān)稅的抗議�！都~約時(shí)報(bào)》相關(guān)報(bào)道的話語(yǔ)策略旨在凸顯事件的對(duì)抗性,將摩擦歸咎于對(duì)方的“非法補(bǔ)貼”政策,隱匿關(guān)稅的發(fā)起者和施加者,盡量突出雙方權(quán)利關(guān)系中己方受到的損失和采取補(bǔ)救措施的必要性,誘導(dǎo)民眾支持關(guān)稅。同時(shí),也通過(guò)傳遞中美雙方的聲音,試圖顯示言論的中立性。雙方報(bào)道中采用的話語(yǔ)策略彰顯的是各自在這一事件上的思想意識(shí)形態(tài),即維護(hù)各自的政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)利益�！吨袊�(guó)日?qǐng)?bào)》的話語(yǔ)策略對(duì)內(nèi)試圖引導(dǎo)民眾的觀點(diǎn)和態(tài)度,對(duì)外既表達(dá)了維護(hù)國(guó)家利益的立場(chǎng),又顯示出和平解決爭(zhēng)端、實(shí)現(xiàn)合作共贏的愿望。《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的話語(yǔ)策略對(duì)內(nèi)試圖緩和國(guó)內(nèi)利益矛盾,對(duì)外顯示強(qiáng)硬立場(chǎng),表達(dá)堅(jiān)決采取貿(mào)易制裁措施維護(hù)國(guó)家利益的決心。
[Abstract]:Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary way to study discourse, which regards the sociality of language as the purpose of analysis. It regards language as a kind of social practice. The purpose of this paper is to reveal the relationship between ideology and rights implied in written or oral texts. In this paper, the main media representatives of China and the United States, China Daily and the New York Times, are selected as data. By using Faircroft's three-dimensional discourse analysis model, we compare the discourse strategies adopted by both parties and analyze the effects of these strategies in order to reveal the relationship between ideology and power. At the three levels of interpretation and interpretation, critical discourse analysis is carried out on the selected corpus. The linguistic analysis in the descriptive stage includes euphemism, metaphor, nominalization, presupposition, modality and text structure. Discourse practice is studied in four aspects: discourse meaning, local coherence and the components neglected by text structure. In the stage of interpretation, the text is connected with social practice. This paper analyzes the fundamental causes of the differences in text form and discourse practice, that is, the differences in social and cultural practice, and reveals the different ideologies and rights relations contained in the reports between the two sides. The results show that, in order to achieve their respective goals, The two sides have adopted different discourse strategies. The discourse strategies in the relevant reports of the "China Daily" show the rational and calm tone of the Chinese side in the controversy, highlight the voice of the tariff opponents, and make the public hear statements in favor of their own country. To blame the friction on the other party's unfair "trade protectionism" policy, enhance the credibility and persuasion of their own statements, and try to avoid and reduce the negative factors in the bilateral rights relationship in order to safeguard the cooperative relationship and the overall situation of trade. Through the use of negative evaluation terms, the protest against unfair tariffs was clearly expressed. The New York Times report's discourse strategy was aimed at highlighting the antagonism of events, blaming friction on the other side's "illegal subsidy" policy. The initiators and enforcers of the concealment tariff will try to highlight the losses suffered by themselves and the need to take remedial measures in the bilateral relations of rights, so as to induce the public to support the tariff. At the same time, by passing on the voice of both China and the United States, Trying to show the neutrality of the speech. The discourse strategies used by both sides of the report highlight their respective ideologies on the matter. That is, to safeguard their respective political and economic interests. The discourse strategy of the "China Daily" tried to guide the people's views and attitudes internally, expressing not only the stand of safeguarding the national interests, but also showing the peaceful settlement of disputes. The discourse strategy of the New York Times tries to ease the contradictions of domestic interests, show a tough stand and express the determination to take trade sanctions to safeguard the national interests.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：福州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：H136;H313

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 ;雙反運(yùn)動(dòng)在沈陽(yáng)分行開(kāi)花結(jié)果[J];中國(guó)金融;1958年10期

2 王}，

本文編號(hào)：1668777