批评性语篇分析修辞视角研究
|
摘要
20世纪80年代西方人文社会科学的修辞学转向引发了对科学主义的批判以及对真理、现实、主客体关系等的再认识。这种批判较之哲学和社会科学研究中的语言学转向所引发的批判更系统、更深入、更具有冲击力。修辞学转向旨在解释社会人如何在特定社会空间并在受制于特定权力关系网络的情况下去构建社会现实、进行社会认知。批评性语篇分析(CDA)的兴起在很大程度上正是对这一转向的积极回应。通过对作为构成社会结构的社会实践?语篇?的解构,CDA探索语篇和社会文化形态之间隐藏的权势关系,从而揭露语篇中的不平等、意识形态,歧视和偏见等。CDA建立的前提是语言学分析能够为现有的社会批判方法提供独特的视角。经过过去二三十年的发展,CDA逐渐确立了自身学科的社会参与度和关联性,从而提高了自身的学术地位。
尽管CDA的理论和方法在逐步完善,但是CDA仍然面临着一些亟待解决的问题,而这些问题不得到很好的解决将会在很大程度上阻碍其进一步发展:第一,尽管CDA赋予批评以新的内涵以示自身同以往的自我冠名的批评方法的区别,批判的修辞始终伴随着漫长的学术发展史。不容忽视的是,学术研究的开展是离不开充斥着权力关系的社会环境的,CDA必须提高对其自身的语言学权威的警惕性,这就要求CDA的研究方法必须突破业已确立的范式。第二,虽然CDA的倡导者认为语篇和社会结构之间的关系是辩证的,然而在具体的分析中却深受西方马克思主义批判理论的影响,强调社会结构对语篇的决定性作用,忽视语篇作为一种行为所能促成的积极影响。对否定性解构的过分强调在一定程度上削弱了其对现实的指导作用。第三,认知隐喻理论虽然被应用到CDA中并已经被证实可以揭示语篇中的权力关系,然而对概念隐喻理论同CDA的不相容性未能引起足够的重视。在认识到隐喻作为一种普遍的思维方式的同时,我们不能过分夸大语言的隐喻性,必须将隐喻理论同博克的动机修辞学结合起来,才能更有效地对其意识形态作用作出解释。
鉴于以上对CDA的总结和反思,我们认为有必要建立一个修辞学视角下的批评性语篇分析。因为修辞学作为批评分析的公认形式,考察人们为了达到某种效果而建构话语的方式,它的特殊兴趣在于将话语实践作为权力形态和行事方式加以把握。作为致力于理解、掌握、开发和应用言语力量的一门学科,修辞学为我们理解权力和意识形态的运作提供了一个很好的切入点。修辞学视角下的研究在一定程度上可以消解对CDA的批评,推动修辞学与批评性语篇分析的建设性对话从而丰富我们对权力和意识形态运作方式的理解。
本研究的理论基础是将意识形态看作是传播和权力的概念联系,从而确立意识形态与意义的社会建构之间的内在联系:一方面我们引入Hall的意识形态理论,因为该理论建构了语篇与意识形态之间的辩证关系;另一方面,受Bygrave对修辞与意识形态关系阐述的启发,我们将Burke的语言作为象征性行为与主体性概念联系起来以克服CDA的解构主义取向。通过对修辞认知性的问题化,我们指出权力是意义建构的一个重要维度。对修辞、权力和意识形态之间关系的深刻洞察构成本研究的前提。通过对古典修辞学和当代修辞学中散见的对修辞“自我韬晦”的论述,我们明确了权力的修辞逻辑。在对Thompson的意识形态运作方式进行分析的基础之上,我们提出修辞既是意识形态的载体又是揭露意识形态的工具。通过对修辞人格的解构,我们试图确立古典修辞学同批评性语篇分析的内在联系。
不可否认,修辞学的批评转向使其与CDA有着共同的研究兴趣。我们对催生这一转向的新修辞代表人物肯尼斯·博克的修辞思想对CDA的重要启示作用进行了初步探索。一方面我们明确了批评性语篇分析与博克相似的语言观,突出博克对人类象征行为的片面性和潜在邪恶有着解构式的洞察力;另一方面我们指出博克毕生的信念—象征具有改变社会现实使其朝好的方向发展的巨大力量—为CDA指明了超越解构的发展方向。博克将人界定为象征体系的制造者同时象征体系又反过来制造人,从而使其修辞学理论呈现更开放的体系,具备更流动的形式。他的“动机语法”可以更清楚地揭示语言背后所隐藏的动机,揭示占主导地位的社会群体是如何将权力隐藏并合法化,同时他的“动机修辞学”又是对CDA无限解构的超越。博克的“批评之批评”要求CDA对自身的修辞性保持清醒的认识,进行不断自我反思以确保其批判的力度。
博克的隐喻性语言观与其对隐喻的探讨密切相关,博克的隐喻观成为我们思考隐喻建构、维护和颠覆权力关系的出发点。我们认为修辞学视角下的隐喻研究可以平衡目前隐喻研究对体验基础的过分强调,提出要理解隐喻的意识形态负载必须对其之于修辞发明、论辩和评价的重要作用有着深刻的认识。
在确立了博克的相关修辞思想对本研究的启发之后,我们试图将博克的戏剧五位法和隐喻分别应用于9/11后政治语篇的分析中,从而揭示新保守主义意识形态如何建构其“现实”,指出意识形态作为一种“术语视角”以特定方式引导我们对现实的理解。意识形态是对现实的简化,而要对抗主导意识形态,就要诉诸不同的“术语视角”和隐喻,通过不断的修辞干预,我们就有希望改变社会现实。
本研究采用定性的、阐释性的批评分析方法,通过汲取古典修辞学理论、美国新修辞学、传播研究和文化研究等相关学科的学术智慧,对修辞学视角对CDA的补充和完善进行了尝试性探讨。
The rhetorical turn of western humanistic and social science in the 1980s triggered the critique of traditional scientism and a new conception of truth, reality and relations between subjectivity and objectivity. Compared with the critique triggered by the linguistic turn in philosophy and social science, the critique prompted by rhetorical turn is more systematic and overwhelming. The rhetorical turn attempts to explain how social subject within particular social space and constrained by particular networks of power relations, constructs social reality and acquires social cognition. The rise of CDA is, to a large extent, a positive response to this rhetorical turn. Through deconstructing discourse, the social practice that constitutes social structure, CDA endeavors to inquire into the hidden relationship between discourse and social cultural formation in order to expose inequality, ideology, bias and prejudice hidden in discourse. Founded on the premise that linguistic analysis could add an additional perspective to existing approaches to social critique, CDA enhances its academic status through socially engaged explanation.
Though CDA is on its way to maturity, problems remain to be solved. Failure to provide a solution to these problems may in one way or another hinder its further development. Firstly, the rhetoric of critique is concomitant with the long history of academics. Though CDA has infused new connotations into the term“critical”to differentiate itself from other self-labeled critical approaches, there are persistent calls for CDA to be aware of its own linguistic orthodox and to transcend the established paradigm. Secondly, CDA assumes there is a dialectical relationship between discourse and social structure. However, its analysis often tends to be heavily influenced by critical theory of western Marxism, emphasizing the determining effect of social structure on discourse while failing to see discourse as action to bring positive outcomes. This overemphasis on deconstruction has to some extent undermined its intervening force in social reality. Thirdly, Conceptual Metaphor Theory has been applied in CDA and proved to have some explanatory adequacy, but the incompatibility of CMT with CDA has not received due attention.
In view of the aforementioned reflections on CDA, we deem it necessary to infuse a rhetorical perspective into CDA to offset the criticism leveled against it and to build constructive dialogue between the two academic studies, since rhetoric is the recognized form of criticism that investigates ways of building discourse to achieve particular effect and its special interest lies in the discursive practice as the modus operandi of power. As a discipline devoted to the understanding, acquiring, developing and applying the power of words, rhetoric offers us penetrating insight into the working mechanism of power and ideology.
The theoretical foundation of the present research rests on ideology as the conceptual link between communication and power so as to establish the inherent link between ideology and the social construction of meaning. On the one hand, we introduced Stuart Hall’s theory of ideology as it recognizes a more dialectical relationship between discourse and social structure; On the other hand, informed by Steven Bygrave’s illustration of the relationship between ideology and rhetoric, we associate Kenneth Burke’s view of“language as symbolic action”with the concept of agency to transcend the deconstructive orientation of CDA. Our problematization of“rhetoric as epistemic”casts light on the power dimension of meaning construction. A deep insight into the relationship between rhetoric, power and ideology serves as the premise of the present research. Through a cursory view of sporadic reference to the self-effacement nature of rhetoric in classical and contemporary rhetoric, we define the rhetorical logic of power. On the basis of analyzing Thompson’s internal modes of operation of ideology, we define rhetoric as carrier and demystifer of ideology. Through deconstructing the classical rhetorical concept of etho, the inherent link between classical rhetoric and CDA is established in our study.
There is no denying that the critical turn of rhetoric contributes to the shared concern between the discipline of rhetoric and CDA. We thus probe into the implications of Kenneth Burke on CDA as his theory has triggered this critical turn. On the one hand, we demonstrate how CDA shares a similar view of language with Burke, highlighting Burke’s deconstructing insight into the partiality of human symbolic act and its potential evil. On the other hand, we point out Burke’s lifelong conviction?symbols possess the power of transforming and ameliorating social realities?has indicated the possibility of transcending the deconstructive orientation of CDA. His definition of man as the creator of the symbolic system which again creates man makes his rhetorical theory more expansive and fluid. His grammar of motives clearly unveils the underlying motive behind language use and thus offers a way to uncover how the dominant social groups mask and legitimate their power. His rhetoric of motives is a transcendence of the endless deconstruction. His“criticism of criticism”requires critical discourse analysts to be mindful of its own rhetoricality and to be engaged in constant self-reflection in order to keep the critical thrust of CDA.
Burke’s metaphorical view of language is closely related to his elaboration on metaphor and it accordingly becomes the starting point of our discussion of the role of metaphor in creating, maintaining and subverting power relations. We seek to demonstrate how metaphor research from a rhetorical perspective could offset the overemphasis on the experiential basis of metaphor and argue that to understand the ideological loading of metaphors it is necessary to have a deeper understanding of metaphor’s significance to rhetorical invention, argument, evaluation and myth.
After establishing the pertinence of Burke’s rhetorical theory to our research, we apply the pentad and metaphor analysis to post 9/11 political discourse to disclose how the American new conservative ideology constructs its version of“reality”and how ideology as“terministic screen”orients us toward a particular understanding of reality. To fight against ideology, which is“a reduction of reality”, we have to resort to alternative“terministic screen”and“alternative metaphor”to be incessantly engaged in rhetorical intervention to bring about possible change to social reality.
The present research adopts a qualitative, interpretative critical methodology. By drawing on the intellectual wisdom of classical rhetoric, American New Rhetoric, communication theory and cultural studies, it makes a tentative exploration on how a rhetorical perspective might complement CDA.
尽管CDA的理论和方法在逐步完善,但是CDA仍然面临着一些亟待解决的问题,而这些问题不得到很好的解决将会在很大程度上阻碍其进一步发展:第一,尽管CDA赋予批评以新的内涵以示自身同以往的自我冠名的批评方法的区别,批判的修辞始终伴随着漫长的学术发展史。不容忽视的是,学术研究的开展是离不开充斥着权力关系的社会环境的,CDA必须提高对其自身的语言学权威的警惕性,这就要求CDA的研究方法必须突破业已确立的范式。第二,虽然CDA的倡导者认为语篇和社会结构之间的关系是辩证的,然而在具体的分析中却深受西方马克思主义批判理论的影响,强调社会结构对语篇的决定性作用,忽视语篇作为一种行为所能促成的积极影响。对否定性解构的过分强调在一定程度上削弱了其对现实的指导作用。第三,认知隐喻理论虽然被应用到CDA中并已经被证实可以揭示语篇中的权力关系,然而对概念隐喻理论同CDA的不相容性未能引起足够的重视。在认识到隐喻作为一种普遍的思维方式的同时,我们不能过分夸大语言的隐喻性,必须将隐喻理论同博克的动机修辞学结合起来,才能更有效地对其意识形态作用作出解释。
鉴于以上对CDA的总结和反思,我们认为有必要建立一个修辞学视角下的批评性语篇分析。因为修辞学作为批评分析的公认形式,考察人们为了达到某种效果而建构话语的方式,它的特殊兴趣在于将话语实践作为权力形态和行事方式加以把握。作为致力于理解、掌握、开发和应用言语力量的一门学科,修辞学为我们理解权力和意识形态的运作提供了一个很好的切入点。修辞学视角下的研究在一定程度上可以消解对CDA的批评,推动修辞学与批评性语篇分析的建设性对话从而丰富我们对权力和意识形态运作方式的理解。
本研究的理论基础是将意识形态看作是传播和权力的概念联系,从而确立意识形态与意义的社会建构之间的内在联系:一方面我们引入Hall的意识形态理论,因为该理论建构了语篇与意识形态之间的辩证关系;另一方面,受Bygrave对修辞与意识形态关系阐述的启发,我们将Burke的语言作为象征性行为与主体性概念联系起来以克服CDA的解构主义取向。通过对修辞认知性的问题化,我们指出权力是意义建构的一个重要维度。对修辞、权力和意识形态之间关系的深刻洞察构成本研究的前提。通过对古典修辞学和当代修辞学中散见的对修辞“自我韬晦”的论述,我们明确了权力的修辞逻辑。在对Thompson的意识形态运作方式进行分析的基础之上,我们提出修辞既是意识形态的载体又是揭露意识形态的工具。通过对修辞人格的解构,我们试图确立古典修辞学同批评性语篇分析的内在联系。
不可否认,修辞学的批评转向使其与CDA有着共同的研究兴趣。我们对催生这一转向的新修辞代表人物肯尼斯·博克的修辞思想对CDA的重要启示作用进行了初步探索。一方面我们明确了批评性语篇分析与博克相似的语言观,突出博克对人类象征行为的片面性和潜在邪恶有着解构式的洞察力;另一方面我们指出博克毕生的信念—象征具有改变社会现实使其朝好的方向发展的巨大力量—为CDA指明了超越解构的发展方向。博克将人界定为象征体系的制造者同时象征体系又反过来制造人,从而使其修辞学理论呈现更开放的体系,具备更流动的形式。他的“动机语法”可以更清楚地揭示语言背后所隐藏的动机,揭示占主导地位的社会群体是如何将权力隐藏并合法化,同时他的“动机修辞学”又是对CDA无限解构的超越。博克的“批评之批评”要求CDA对自身的修辞性保持清醒的认识,进行不断自我反思以确保其批判的力度。
博克的隐喻性语言观与其对隐喻的探讨密切相关,博克的隐喻观成为我们思考隐喻建构、维护和颠覆权力关系的出发点。我们认为修辞学视角下的隐喻研究可以平衡目前隐喻研究对体验基础的过分强调,提出要理解隐喻的意识形态负载必须对其之于修辞发明、论辩和评价的重要作用有着深刻的认识。
在确立了博克的相关修辞思想对本研究的启发之后,我们试图将博克的戏剧五位法和隐喻分别应用于9/11后政治语篇的分析中,从而揭示新保守主义意识形态如何建构其“现实”,指出意识形态作为一种“术语视角”以特定方式引导我们对现实的理解。意识形态是对现实的简化,而要对抗主导意识形态,就要诉诸不同的“术语视角”和隐喻,通过不断的修辞干预,我们就有希望改变社会现实。
本研究采用定性的、阐释性的批评分析方法,通过汲取古典修辞学理论、美国新修辞学、传播研究和文化研究等相关学科的学术智慧,对修辞学视角对CDA的补充和完善进行了尝试性探讨。
The rhetorical turn of western humanistic and social science in the 1980s triggered the critique of traditional scientism and a new conception of truth, reality and relations between subjectivity and objectivity. Compared with the critique triggered by the linguistic turn in philosophy and social science, the critique prompted by rhetorical turn is more systematic and overwhelming. The rhetorical turn attempts to explain how social subject within particular social space and constrained by particular networks of power relations, constructs social reality and acquires social cognition. The rise of CDA is, to a large extent, a positive response to this rhetorical turn. Through deconstructing discourse, the social practice that constitutes social structure, CDA endeavors to inquire into the hidden relationship between discourse and social cultural formation in order to expose inequality, ideology, bias and prejudice hidden in discourse. Founded on the premise that linguistic analysis could add an additional perspective to existing approaches to social critique, CDA enhances its academic status through socially engaged explanation.
Though CDA is on its way to maturity, problems remain to be solved. Failure to provide a solution to these problems may in one way or another hinder its further development. Firstly, the rhetoric of critique is concomitant with the long history of academics. Though CDA has infused new connotations into the term“critical”to differentiate itself from other self-labeled critical approaches, there are persistent calls for CDA to be aware of its own linguistic orthodox and to transcend the established paradigm. Secondly, CDA assumes there is a dialectical relationship between discourse and social structure. However, its analysis often tends to be heavily influenced by critical theory of western Marxism, emphasizing the determining effect of social structure on discourse while failing to see discourse as action to bring positive outcomes. This overemphasis on deconstruction has to some extent undermined its intervening force in social reality. Thirdly, Conceptual Metaphor Theory has been applied in CDA and proved to have some explanatory adequacy, but the incompatibility of CMT with CDA has not received due attention.
In view of the aforementioned reflections on CDA, we deem it necessary to infuse a rhetorical perspective into CDA to offset the criticism leveled against it and to build constructive dialogue between the two academic studies, since rhetoric is the recognized form of criticism that investigates ways of building discourse to achieve particular effect and its special interest lies in the discursive practice as the modus operandi of power. As a discipline devoted to the understanding, acquiring, developing and applying the power of words, rhetoric offers us penetrating insight into the working mechanism of power and ideology.
The theoretical foundation of the present research rests on ideology as the conceptual link between communication and power so as to establish the inherent link between ideology and the social construction of meaning. On the one hand, we introduced Stuart Hall’s theory of ideology as it recognizes a more dialectical relationship between discourse and social structure; On the other hand, informed by Steven Bygrave’s illustration of the relationship between ideology and rhetoric, we associate Kenneth Burke’s view of“language as symbolic action”with the concept of agency to transcend the deconstructive orientation of CDA. Our problematization of“rhetoric as epistemic”casts light on the power dimension of meaning construction. A deep insight into the relationship between rhetoric, power and ideology serves as the premise of the present research. Through a cursory view of sporadic reference to the self-effacement nature of rhetoric in classical and contemporary rhetoric, we define the rhetorical logic of power. On the basis of analyzing Thompson’s internal modes of operation of ideology, we define rhetoric as carrier and demystifer of ideology. Through deconstructing the classical rhetorical concept of etho, the inherent link between classical rhetoric and CDA is established in our study.
There is no denying that the critical turn of rhetoric contributes to the shared concern between the discipline of rhetoric and CDA. We thus probe into the implications of Kenneth Burke on CDA as his theory has triggered this critical turn. On the one hand, we demonstrate how CDA shares a similar view of language with Burke, highlighting Burke’s deconstructing insight into the partiality of human symbolic act and its potential evil. On the other hand, we point out Burke’s lifelong conviction?symbols possess the power of transforming and ameliorating social realities?has indicated the possibility of transcending the deconstructive orientation of CDA. His definition of man as the creator of the symbolic system which again creates man makes his rhetorical theory more expansive and fluid. His grammar of motives clearly unveils the underlying motive behind language use and thus offers a way to uncover how the dominant social groups mask and legitimate their power. His rhetoric of motives is a transcendence of the endless deconstruction. His“criticism of criticism”requires critical discourse analysts to be mindful of its own rhetoricality and to be engaged in constant self-reflection in order to keep the critical thrust of CDA.
Burke’s metaphorical view of language is closely related to his elaboration on metaphor and it accordingly becomes the starting point of our discussion of the role of metaphor in creating, maintaining and subverting power relations. We seek to demonstrate how metaphor research from a rhetorical perspective could offset the overemphasis on the experiential basis of metaphor and argue that to understand the ideological loading of metaphors it is necessary to have a deeper understanding of metaphor’s significance to rhetorical invention, argument, evaluation and myth.
After establishing the pertinence of Burke’s rhetorical theory to our research, we apply the pentad and metaphor analysis to post 9/11 political discourse to disclose how the American new conservative ideology constructs its version of“reality”and how ideology as“terministic screen”orients us toward a particular understanding of reality. To fight against ideology, which is“a reduction of reality”, we have to resort to alternative“terministic screen”and“alternative metaphor”to be incessantly engaged in rhetorical intervention to bring about possible change to social reality.
The present research adopts a qualitative, interpretative critical methodology. By drawing on the intellectual wisdom of classical rhetoric, American New Rhetoric, communication theory and cultural studies, it makes a tentative exploration on how a rhetorical perspective might complement CDA.
引文
Althusser, L. For Marx. London: Allen Lane.1969.
Ana, Santa Otto. Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin, TX: University of Austin Press, 2002.
Aristotle. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Trans. George Kennedy. New York: Oxford UP, 1991.
Arnhart, Larry. Aristotle on Political Reasoning: A Comment on the‘Rhetoric’.”Dekalb: Northern Illinois U of P, 1981.
Aune, James Arnt.“Beyond Deconstruction: The Symbol and Social Reality.”Southern Speech Communication 48 (1983): 255 - 268.
Bakhtin, Mikhail.“The Problem of Speech Genres.”Speech Genres and Other Later Essays. Trans. McGee, V.W. Austin: U of Texas. 60-101.
Balkin, J. M. Cultural Soft Power:A Theory of Ideology. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998.
Beach, Josh M.“Ideology, Reality, and Rhetoric: Kenneth Burke’s Dramatism.”Thesis. Oregon U. 2002.
Beaugrande, Robert de.“Critical Discourse Analysis from the Perspective of Ecologism: the Discourse of the‘New Patriotism’for the‘New Secrecy’.”Critical Discourse Studies 1.1(2004):113-45.
Beer, Francis A., and Christ’l De Landtsheer, eds. Metaphorical World Politics. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State UP, 2004.
Biesecker, Barbara. Addressing Postmodernity: Kenneth Burke, Rhetoric, and A Theory of Change. Tuscaloosa, AL: U of Alabama P, 1997.
Billig, Michael. Arguing and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987.
---.“A Critique of the‘Critical.’”Discourse & Society 11/3(2000): 291-292.
---.“Critical Discourse Analysis and the Rhetoric of Critique.”Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. Ed. Gilbert Weiss and Ruth Wodak. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. 35-46.
---.“Staking the Cards of Ideology: the History of the Sun Souvenir Royal Album.”Discourse & Society 1(1990):17-38.
Bitzer, Lloyd F.“The Rhetorical Situation.”Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968):1-12.
---.“Aristotle’s Enthymeme Revisited.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 45(1959): 399-408.
Bizzell, Patricia.“The Prospect of Rhetorical Agency.”Making and Unmaking the Prospects for Rhetoric. Ed. Theresa Enos, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1997. 37-42.
Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg, eds. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s P. 2001.
Blakesley, David. The Elements of Dramatism. New York: Longman, 2001.
Black, Max. Models and Metaphor. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 1962.
Blommaert, Jan., and Chris Bulcaen.“Critical Discourse Analysis.”Annual Review of Anthropology 29(2000):447-466.
Bolinger, Dwight. Language-the Loaded Weapon: the Use and Abuse of Language Today. London and New York: Longman, 1980.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Language and Symbolic Power. London: Polity Press, 1990.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and L?ic J.D. Wacquant. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1992.
Brock, Bernard L. et al. Making Sense of Political Ideology: the Power of Language in Democracy.Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2005.
Brummett, Barry.“Some Implications of the‘Process’or‘Intersubjectivity: Postmodern Rhetoric.”Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. Ed. J. L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit and S.Caudill. New York: the Guilford Press, 1999. 441-463.
Burke, Kenneth. Counter-Statement. New York: Harcout, Bruce, 1931.
---. Attitudes Towards History.3rd ed. Berkeley: U of California P, 1984.
---. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley: U of California P, 1966.
---. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.
---. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley:U of California P, 1969.
---. Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose. 3rd ed. Berkeley: U of California P, 1984.
---. On Symbols and Society. Ed. Joseph Gusfield. Chicago:Univ. of Chicago Press, 1989.
---. The Philosophy of Literary Form.3rd ed. Berkeley: U of California P, 1970.
---.“The Rhetoric of Hitler’s‘Battle.’”On Symbols and Society. Ed. Joseph R. Gusfield. Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 1989. 211-231.
Bygrave, Stephen. Kenneth Burke: Rhetoric and Ideology. London: Routledge, 1993.
Campbell, George. The Philosophy of Rhetoric.1776. Ed. Lloyd F.Bitzer. Carbondale, IL: University of Southern Illinois Press, 1963.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs, and Thomas R. Burkholder. Critiques of Contemporary Rhetoric. Belmont:Wadsworth Publishing Company. 1997
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
---. Politicians and Rhetoric: the Persuasive Power of Metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Cheney, George.“Arguing about the Place of Values and Ethics in Market-Oriented Discourses of Today.”New Approaches to Rhetoric. Ed. Patricia A. Sullivan and Steven R. Goldzwig. London: Sage Publications, 2004. 61-88.
Chilton, Paul. Security Metaphor: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter Lang, 1996.
---. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2004.
Chilton, P. and G. Lakoff.“Foreign Policy by Metaphor.”Language and Peace. Ed. C. Schaffner and A.I. Wenden. Aldershot: Ashgate.1995. 37-60.
Chilton, P. and Christina Schaffner.“Discourse and Politics.”Discourse as Social Interaction. Ed. van Dijk. London: Sage Publications. 1997. 206-230.
Chouliaraki, Lilie, and Norman Fairclough. Discourse in Late Modernity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.
Coe, Richard M.“Beyond Diction: Using Burke to Empower Words, and Wordlings.”Rhetoric Review 1.2(1993):368-77.
Corbin, C. Rhetoric in Postmodern America: Conversations with Michael Calvin Mcgee. New York: the Guilford Press, 1998.
Cyphert, Dale.“Ideology, Knowledge, and Text: Pulling at the Knot in Ariadne’s Thread.”Quarterly Journal of Speech (87)2001: 378-395.
Derrida, Jacques. Margins of Philosophy. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1984.
---.“The White Mythology: Metaphor in the Text of Philosophy.”New Literary History 6(1974): 5-74.
Desmet, Christy.“From Literature to Literacy: Teaching Writing with Cognitive Metaphor.”23 Sept. 2007.
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: an Introduction. Minneapolis: U of Minnesotan P,1983.
---. The 1981 Walter Benjamin, or Towards a Revolutionary Criticism. London: New Left Books, 1981.
Edelman, Murray. Politics as Symbolic Action: Mass Arousal and Quiescence. Chicago: Markham, 1971.
Eubanks, Philip. A War of Words in the Discourse of Trade: The Rhetorical Constitution of Metaphor. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2000.
Fahnestock, Jeanne, and Marie Secor.“Rhetorical Analysis.”Discourse Studies in Composition. Ed. Barton Ellen and Gail Stygall. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc. 2002.177-199.
Fairclough, Norman. Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for Social Research. London and New York: Taylor& Francis, 2003.
---. Language and Power. London and New York: Longman, 1989.
---. Language and Social Change. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Polity Press and Blackwell, 1992.
---. Critical Discourse Analysis: the Critical Study of Language. London: Longman, 1995.
Flood, Christoph. Political Myth: A Theoretical Introduction. London: Routledge, 1996.
Foss, Sonia K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice. Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc, 2004.
Foss, Sonia K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp, eds. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. Illinois: Waveland Press Inc, 1985.
Foucault, Michel. The Foucault Reader Ed. P. Rabinow. New York: Pantheon, 1984.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1. New York: Vintage Book, 1980.
Foucault, M. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Ed. Colin Gordon. London: Harvester Press, 1980.
Fowler, Rogers. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge, 1991.
---.“On Critical Linguistics.”Text and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. Ed. Caldas-Coulthard & Coulthard. 1996. 3-14.
Fowler, Roger, Gunther Kress, and T. Trew, eds. Language and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979.
Fox, Catherine.‘Beyond the‘Tyranny of the Real’: Revisiting Burke’s Pentad as Research Method for Professional Communication.”Technical Communication Quarterly 11.4(2002): 365-88.
Gee, James Paul. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research P. 2000.
Geiss, M.L. The Language of Politics. New York: Spring Verlag, 1987.
Goatly, Andrew. Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007.
Hall, Stuart.“Ideology and Communication Theory.”Rethinking Communication. Vol 1. Ed. Dervin, B., et al. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989.40-52.
---.“Signification, Representation, Ideology: Althusser and the Post-Structural -ist Debates. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 2(1985):91 -114.
---.“The Problem of Ideology-Marxism without Guarantees.”Journal of Communication Inquiry, 10(1986): 28-43.
Halliday, M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Arnold, 1978.
Hammersley, M.“The Foundations of Critical Discourse Analysis.”Language and Communication 17.3 (1997):237-48.
Hart, Roderick P. Political Keywords: Using Language that Uses Us. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005.
Hart, Roderick P., and Suzanne M. Daughton. Modern Rhetorical Criticism.3rd ed. Boston: Pearson Eduacation, Inc. 2005.
Hausser, G. A.“Vernacular Dialogue and the Rhetoricality of Public Opinion.”Communication Monographs 65(1998):83-107.
Hawkes, Terence. Metaphor. New York: Matheune & Co. Ltd, 1980.
Heath, Robert L. Realism and Relativism: A Perspective on Kenneth Burke. Mercer UP, 1986.
Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric. Boston: Pearson Education,Inc.1997.
Holloway, Rachel L. In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric, and Self-Defense. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1993.
Huckin, Thomas.“Critical Discourse Analysis.”Discourse Studies in Composition. Ed. Barton Ellen and Gail Stygall. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc. 2002. 154-76.
Hunston, Suzan, and Geoff Thompson, eds. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.
Ivie, Robert L.“Cold War Motives and the Rhetorical Metaphor: A Framework of Criticism.”Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology. Ed. Martin J. Medhurst, et al. East Lansing: Michigan State UP, 1997.71-79.
--.“Productive Criticism Then and Now.”15. Dec.2007< http://acjournal.org/ Holodings/vol4/issue3/special/ivie.html>.
---.“The Prospect of Cold War Criticism.”Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology. Ed. Martin J. Medhurst, et al. East Lansing: Michigan State UP, 1997.203-208.
Jamieson, K. H. Communication and Persuasion. London: Croom Helm, 1985.
Jasinski, James L. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.
Jaworski, Adam, and Nikolas Coupland. The Discourse Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.
Jebb, Richard Cloverhouse, trans.,“Aristotle: The Rhetoric.”Readings in Classical Rhetoric. Ed. Thomas W. Benson and Michael H.Prosser. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1969.
Ji, Yunhua. Critical Discourse Analysis in Intercultural Communication Research and Education. Xiamen: Xiamen UP, 2007.
Johnstone, Barbara.“Discourse Analysis as a Methodology for Rhetorical Study.”12Oct.2007.
Johnstone Jr., Henry W., and Mari Lee.“Wedge and Bridge: A Note on Rhetoric as Distinction and as Identification.”Rhetoric Society Quarterly 29.2(1999): 75-78
Johnson, Mark. Philosophical Perspective on Metaphor. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1981.
Johnson, Nan.“Ethos and the Aims of Rhetoric.”Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Ed. Robert J. Connors, Lisa S.Ede, and Andrea A. Lunsford. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UP, 1984. 99-112.
Jorgensen, Marianne and Louise Phillips. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage Publications, 2002.
Jowett, G., and V. O’Donnell. Propaganda and Persuasion.2nd ed. London and Newbury: Sage, 1992.
Ju, Yumei.“Communication as Action: Discourse Analysis from the Perspective of Burkean New Rhetoric.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies U, 2004.
Koller, Veronica. Metaphor Clusters, Metaphor Chain: Analysing the Multifunctionality of Metaphor in Text. Metaphorik.de 05/2003:115-133.
Krebs, Ronald R., and Patrick Thaddeus Jackson.“Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric.”European Journals of International Relations 13(1) 2007:35-66.
Kress, Gunther.“Against Arbitrariness: the Social Production of the Sign”, Discourse & Society (4)1993:169-91.
---.“Design and Transformation: New Theories of Meaning.”Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. Ed. Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. London: Routledge, 2000. 153–61.
---. Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989.
---.“Representational Resources and the Production of Subjectivity: Questions for the Theoretical Development of Critical Discourse Analysis in a Multicultural Society.”Text and Practice: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. Ed. Caldas-Coulthard & Coulthard. London: Routledge, 1996. 15-31.
Kress, G., and Hodge, B. Language as Ideology. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979.
Kneupper, Charles W.“The Relaton of Agency to Act in Dramatism: A Comment on ‘Burke’s Act’.”College English 47/3 (1985): 305-308.
Lakoff, George. Five Years after 9/11:Drop the War Metaphor.10, Sept.2007.
---.“The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf.”Journal of Urban and Cultural Studies 2/1(1991):59-72.
---. Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don’t. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980.
Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman, 1983.
Lee, David. Competing Discourse: Perspective and Ideology in Language. London: Longman, 1992.
Lee, Ronald.“Ideographic Criticism.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed.Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Allan and Bacon, 2004.305-44.
Leff, Michael.“Occidental Rhetoric.”Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium of China Rhetorical Society, November 6-9, 2007.Tianjing Normal University.
Lentricchia, Frank. Criticism and Social Change. Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 1983.
Liu, Yameng.“Invention and Inventiveness: A Postmodern Redaction.”Perspectives on Rhetorical Invention. Ed. Janet M. Atwill and Janice M. Lauer. Knoxville: U of Tennessee P, 2002. 53-63.
Luke, Allan.“Beyond Science and Ideology critique: Developments in Critical Discourse Analysis.”Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22 (2002): 96–110.
Lye, J. Ideology: A Brief Guide.. Ma, Jingxiu.“Toward a Systemic-Functional Rhetoric of Semogenesis in and through News Discourse.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies U, 2006.
Martin, Judith N., and Thomas Nakayama. Intercultural Communication in Contexts. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 2000.
McCarthy, Michael, and Ronald Carter. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. Beijing: Beijing UP, 2004.
McGee, Michael C.“In Search of‘the People’: A Rhetorical Alternative.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 61.3 (1977): 235-49.
---.“A Materialist’s Conception of Rhetoric.”Explorations in Rhetoric: Studies in Honorof Douglas Ehninger. Ed. Ray E. Mckerrow. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1982.23-48.
---.“The‘Ideograph,’A Link between Rhetoric and Ideology.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 66 (1980):1-16.
McKerrow, Raymie.“Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis.”Communication Monographs 56 (1989): 91-111.
Moran, Michael G. and Michael Ballif. Twentieth-Century Rhetoric and Rhetoricians. London: Greenwood Press, 2000.
Musolff, Andreas. Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. New York: Palgrave, Macmillian, 2004.
Ng, Sik Hung, and James J. Bradac. Power in Language: Verbal Communication and Social Influence. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1993.
Nietzsche, Friedrich.“On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense”23 Sept.2007.
Ono, K. A. & Sloop, J. M.“Commitment to Telos-A Sustained Critical Rhetoric.”Communication Monographs 59 (1992): 48-60.
Oravec, Christine, and Michael Salvador.“The Duality of Rhetoric: Theory as Discursive Practice.”Rethinking the History of Rhetoric. Ed. Takis Poulakos. Colorado: Westview Press. 1993. 173-192.
Ostman, Jan-Ola.“Persuasion as Implicit Anchoring.”Persuasion Across Genre: A Linguistic Approach. Ed. Helena Halmari and Tuijia Virtanen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005.183-212.
Perelman, Chaim. The Realm of Rhetoric. Trans.William Kluback. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982.
Prus, Robert. Beyond the Power Mystique: Power as Intersubjective Accomplishment. NY: State University of New York P. 1999.
Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London: Oxford UP, 1936.
Ricoeur, Paul. The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Study of Creation of Meaning in Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Pual, 1978.
Rogers, Rebecca.“An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education.”An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. Ed. Rebecca Rogers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.2004.1-18.
Rorty, Richard., ed. The Linguistic Turn: Recent Essays in Philosophical Method. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1967.
---. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989.
Rufo, Kenneth.“Rhetoric and Power.”Argumentation and Advocacy 40(Fall, 2003):65-84.
Ryan, Michael. Marxism and Deconstruction. Baltimore: The John Hopkins UP, 1984
Sapir, J.David, and J.Christopher Crocker. The Social Use of Metaphor: Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania UP, 1977.
Scott, Roberet L.“On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic.”Central States Speech Journal 18 (1967): 9-16.
Shi, Xu. A Cultural Approach to Discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Simon, Jeffrey D. The Terrorist Trap: America’s Experience with Terrorism, 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001.
Simons, H. W., ed. The Rhetorical Turn: Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry. Chicago: U of Chicago P,1990.
Sontag, Suzan. Aids and Metaphor. London: Allen Lane, 1990.
Stillar, Glenn F. Analysing Everyday Texts. California: Sage Publications, Inc. 1998.
Stockwell, Peter.“Toward a Critical Cognitive Linguistic?”20, Sept.2007< http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/23/0/CRITCOG.PDF>.
Stubbs, Michael.“Whorf’s Children: Critical Comments on Critical Discourse Analysis.”Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. Ed. Michael Toolan. vol.3. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. 202-18.
---. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
Tang, Liping. Appraisal Research: An Intersubjective Model of Critical Intercultural Literacy. Beijing: Beijing UP, 2006.
Thompson, John. Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Oxford: Polity Press, 1990.
---. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
Toolan, Michael.“What is Critical Discourse Analysis and Why Are People Saying Such Terrible Things about It?”Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. Ed. Michael Toolan. vol.iii. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. 219-241.
Toulmin, Stephen. The Use of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1958.
Tracy, Karen.“Discourse Analysis in Communication.”The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Ed. Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.735-49.
van Dijk, T.A. ed. Handbook of Discourse Analysis.4 vols. New York: Academic Press, 1985.
---.“Discourse Analysis as Ideology Analysis.”Language and Peace. Ed. Christina Shaffner and Anita L.Wenden. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishin, 1995.17-33.
---. Ideology: a Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage, 1998.
---.“Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.”Discourse and Society 4.2 (1993): 249-283.
Van Dijk, T., JoAnne Neff-van Aertselaer, and Martin Putz.“Introduction: Language, Discourse and Ideology.”Communicating Ideology. Ed.Martin Putz, et al. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2004.xii-xxxi.
Virtanen, Tuija and Helena Halmari. Introduction. Persuasion across Genres. Ed. Halmari, Helena and Tuija Virtanen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005.3-24.
Volosinov, V.N. Marxism and the philosophy of language Trans. L. Matejka & I.R. Titunik. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Wallace, Catherine.“Critical Language Awareness: Key Principles for A Course in Critical Readingg.”Language Awareness 8/2 (1999):98-110.
Wander, Phillip.“The Ideological Turn in Modern Criticism.”Central States Speech Journal 34(1983):1-18.
Wartenburg, Thomas E. The Forms of Power: From Domination to Transformation. Philadelphial: Temple UP, 1990.
Weber, Marx. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Free Press, 1964.
Whitson, Steve, and John. Poulakos.“Nietzsche and the Aesthetics of Rhetoric.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 79.2 (1993):131-45.
Widdowson, H. G.“Reply to Fairclough: Discourse and Interpretation: Conjectures and Refutations.”Language and Literature 5.1 (1996):57-69.
---.“Review of Fairclough: Discourse and Social Change.”Applied Linguistics 16.4 (1995):157-72.
---.“The Theory and Practive of Critical Discourse Analysis.”Applied Linguistics 19.1 (1998):136-151.
Wodak, Ruth.“What CDA is about—a Summary of Its History, Important Concepts and Its Developments.”Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications, 2001. 1-13.
---.“Critical Discourse Analysis at the end of the 20th Century.”Research on Language and Social Interaction 32 (1999):185-193.
Woffitt, Robin. Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction. London: Sage Publications, 2005.
Wolin, Ross. The Rhetorical Imagination of Kenneth Burke. South Carolina: U of South Carolina P, 2001.
Wood, Tahir.“Ideology:The Power of Prior Discourse.”Communicating Ideologies: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Language, Discourse and Social Practice. Ed.
Matin Putz, JoAnne Neff-van Aertselaer and Teun A.van Dijk. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2002.
Zarefsky, David, Carol Miller-Tutzauer, and Frank E. Tutzauer.“Reagan’s Safety Net for the Truly Needy: the Rhetorical Uses of Definition.”Central State Speech Journal 35 (1984):113-29.
陈忠华(Chen, Zhonghua),杨春苑(Yan, Chunyuan),赵明炜(Zhao, Mingwei).批评性话语分析述评.外语学刊, 2002(1):82-86.
陈中竺(Chen, Zhongzhu).批评语言学述评.外语教学与研究, 1995(1):21-27.
刘亚猛(Liu Yameng).追求象征的力量:关于西方修辞思想的思考.北京:三联书店, 2004.
从莱庭(Cong, Laiting),徐鲁亚(Xu, Luya)编著.西方修辞学.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2007.
邓丽君(Deng, Lijun),荣晶(Rong, Jing).批判语言学中的隐喻.云南师范大学学报, 2004 (5):60-63.
丁建新(Ding, Jianxin),廖益清(Liao, Yiqing).批评性话语分析述评.当代语言学,2001 (4):305-310.
戴炜华(Dai, Weihua),陈宇昀(Cheng, Yuyun).批评语篇分析的理论和方法.外语研究, 2004 (4):12-16.
洪艳青(Hong, Yanqing),张辉(Zhang, Hui).认知语言学与意识形态研究.外语与外语教学, 2002 ( 2): 5-9。
李素玲(Li, Suling).批评性语篇分析:发展状况及应用前景.山东外语教学, 2004 (5):45-48.
李丽生(Li, Lisheng)从阅读理论的发展看培养学生批评阅读能力的重要性四川外语学院学报, 2003 (1):147-149.
梁远冰(Liang, Yuanbing),韦汉(Wei, Han).隐喻投射的批评性研究.暨南大学华文学院学报, 2006(3): 60-66.
[美]乔治索罗斯(Soros, George).美国的霸权泡沫-纠正对美国权力的滥用.燕清等译北京:商务印书馆,2004.
曲卫国(Qu, Weiguo).人文科学的修辞转向和修辞学的批判性转向.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007 (1):113-122.
任芳(Ren, Fang).新闻语篇句势模型的批评性分析.解放军外国语学院学报, 2005(5):19-23.
施卫华(Shi, Weihua).社会的话语动态的视角-批评性话语研究创刊述评.外语研究, 2005 (1): 76-78.
田海龙(Tian, Hailong).语篇研究的批评视角:从批评语言学到批评性语篇分析.山东外语教学, 2006 (2): 40-47.
吴建刚( Wu, Jiangang)论批评话语分析.华中师范大学学报(人文社科学版), 2002 (2): 15-21.
项蕴华(Xiang, Yunhua).简述Fairclough的语篇分析观.山东外语教学, 2004(5):19-22.
辛斌(Xin, Bin).批评语言学:理论与应用.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
-.批评性语篇分析方法论.外国语, 2002 (6): 34-41.
-.批评性语篇分析:问题与讨论.外国语, 2004 (5): 64-69.
徐涛(Xu, Tao).机构话语的“越界.”外语教学, 2006(3): 28-31.
叶起昌(Ye, Qichang).批评话语分析与批评实在论.外国语言文学, 2004, (1):20-24.
苑春明(Yuan, Chunming),田海龙(Tian, Hailong).英汉政治语篇的对比分析与批判分析.天津商学院学报, 2001(5): 51-60.
Ana, Santa Otto. Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin, TX: University of Austin Press, 2002.
Aristotle. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Trans. George Kennedy. New York: Oxford UP, 1991.
Arnhart, Larry. Aristotle on Political Reasoning: A Comment on the‘Rhetoric’.”Dekalb: Northern Illinois U of P, 1981.
Aune, James Arnt.“Beyond Deconstruction: The Symbol and Social Reality.”Southern Speech Communication 48 (1983): 255 - 268.
Bakhtin, Mikhail.“The Problem of Speech Genres.”Speech Genres and Other Later Essays. Trans. McGee, V.W. Austin: U of Texas. 60-101.
Balkin, J. M. Cultural Soft Power:A Theory of Ideology. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998.
Beach, Josh M.“Ideology, Reality, and Rhetoric: Kenneth Burke’s Dramatism.”Thesis. Oregon U. 2002.
Beaugrande, Robert de.“Critical Discourse Analysis from the Perspective of Ecologism: the Discourse of the‘New Patriotism’for the‘New Secrecy’.”Critical Discourse Studies 1.1(2004):113-45.
Beer, Francis A., and Christ’l De Landtsheer, eds. Metaphorical World Politics. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State UP, 2004.
Biesecker, Barbara. Addressing Postmodernity: Kenneth Burke, Rhetoric, and A Theory of Change. Tuscaloosa, AL: U of Alabama P, 1997.
Billig, Michael. Arguing and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987.
---.“A Critique of the‘Critical.’”Discourse & Society 11/3(2000): 291-292.
---.“Critical Discourse Analysis and the Rhetoric of Critique.”Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. Ed. Gilbert Weiss and Ruth Wodak. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. 35-46.
---.“Staking the Cards of Ideology: the History of the Sun Souvenir Royal Album.”Discourse & Society 1(1990):17-38.
Bitzer, Lloyd F.“The Rhetorical Situation.”Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968):1-12.
---.“Aristotle’s Enthymeme Revisited.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 45(1959): 399-408.
Bizzell, Patricia.“The Prospect of Rhetorical Agency.”Making and Unmaking the Prospects for Rhetoric. Ed. Theresa Enos, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1997. 37-42.
Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg, eds. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s P. 2001.
Blakesley, David. The Elements of Dramatism. New York: Longman, 2001.
Black, Max. Models and Metaphor. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 1962.
Blommaert, Jan., and Chris Bulcaen.“Critical Discourse Analysis.”Annual Review of Anthropology 29(2000):447-466.
Bolinger, Dwight. Language-the Loaded Weapon: the Use and Abuse of Language Today. London and New York: Longman, 1980.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Language and Symbolic Power. London: Polity Press, 1990.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and L?ic J.D. Wacquant. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1992.
Brock, Bernard L. et al. Making Sense of Political Ideology: the Power of Language in Democracy.Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2005.
Brummett, Barry.“Some Implications of the‘Process’or‘Intersubjectivity: Postmodern Rhetoric.”Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. Ed. J. L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit and S.Caudill. New York: the Guilford Press, 1999. 441-463.
Burke, Kenneth. Counter-Statement. New York: Harcout, Bruce, 1931.
---. Attitudes Towards History.3rd ed. Berkeley: U of California P, 1984.
---. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley: U of California P, 1966.
---. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.
---. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley:U of California P, 1969.
---. Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose. 3rd ed. Berkeley: U of California P, 1984.
---. On Symbols and Society. Ed. Joseph Gusfield. Chicago:Univ. of Chicago Press, 1989.
---. The Philosophy of Literary Form.3rd ed. Berkeley: U of California P, 1970.
---.“The Rhetoric of Hitler’s‘Battle.’”On Symbols and Society. Ed. Joseph R. Gusfield. Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 1989. 211-231.
Bygrave, Stephen. Kenneth Burke: Rhetoric and Ideology. London: Routledge, 1993.
Campbell, George. The Philosophy of Rhetoric.1776. Ed. Lloyd F.Bitzer. Carbondale, IL: University of Southern Illinois Press, 1963.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs, and Thomas R. Burkholder. Critiques of Contemporary Rhetoric. Belmont:Wadsworth Publishing Company. 1997
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
---. Politicians and Rhetoric: the Persuasive Power of Metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Cheney, George.“Arguing about the Place of Values and Ethics in Market-Oriented Discourses of Today.”New Approaches to Rhetoric. Ed. Patricia A. Sullivan and Steven R. Goldzwig. London: Sage Publications, 2004. 61-88.
Chilton, Paul. Security Metaphor: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter Lang, 1996.
---. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2004.
Chilton, P. and G. Lakoff.“Foreign Policy by Metaphor.”Language and Peace. Ed. C. Schaffner and A.I. Wenden. Aldershot: Ashgate.1995. 37-60.
Chilton, P. and Christina Schaffner.“Discourse and Politics.”Discourse as Social Interaction. Ed. van Dijk. London: Sage Publications. 1997. 206-230.
Chouliaraki, Lilie, and Norman Fairclough. Discourse in Late Modernity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.
Coe, Richard M.“Beyond Diction: Using Burke to Empower Words, and Wordlings.”Rhetoric Review 1.2(1993):368-77.
Corbin, C. Rhetoric in Postmodern America: Conversations with Michael Calvin Mcgee. New York: the Guilford Press, 1998.
Cyphert, Dale.“Ideology, Knowledge, and Text: Pulling at the Knot in Ariadne’s Thread.”Quarterly Journal of Speech (87)2001: 378-395.
Derrida, Jacques. Margins of Philosophy. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1984.
---.“The White Mythology: Metaphor in the Text of Philosophy.”New Literary History 6(1974): 5-74.
Desmet, Christy.“From Literature to Literacy: Teaching Writing with Cognitive Metaphor.”23 Sept. 2007
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: an Introduction. Minneapolis: U of Minnesotan P,1983.
---. The 1981 Walter Benjamin, or Towards a Revolutionary Criticism. London: New Left Books, 1981.
Edelman, Murray. Politics as Symbolic Action: Mass Arousal and Quiescence. Chicago: Markham, 1971.
Eubanks, Philip. A War of Words in the Discourse of Trade: The Rhetorical Constitution of Metaphor. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2000.
Fahnestock, Jeanne, and Marie Secor.“Rhetorical Analysis.”Discourse Studies in Composition. Ed. Barton Ellen and Gail Stygall. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc. 2002.177-199.
Fairclough, Norman. Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for Social Research. London and New York: Taylor& Francis, 2003.
---. Language and Power. London and New York: Longman, 1989.
---. Language and Social Change. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Polity Press and Blackwell, 1992.
---. Critical Discourse Analysis: the Critical Study of Language. London: Longman, 1995.
Flood, Christoph. Political Myth: A Theoretical Introduction. London: Routledge, 1996.
Foss, Sonia K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice. Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc, 2004.
Foss, Sonia K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp, eds. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. Illinois: Waveland Press Inc, 1985.
Foucault, Michel. The Foucault Reader Ed. P. Rabinow. New York: Pantheon, 1984.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1. New York: Vintage Book, 1980.
Foucault, M. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Ed. Colin Gordon. London: Harvester Press, 1980.
Fowler, Rogers. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge, 1991.
---.“On Critical Linguistics.”Text and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. Ed. Caldas-Coulthard & Coulthard. 1996. 3-14.
Fowler, Roger, Gunther Kress, and T. Trew, eds. Language and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979.
Fox, Catherine.‘Beyond the‘Tyranny of the Real’: Revisiting Burke’s Pentad as Research Method for Professional Communication.”Technical Communication Quarterly 11.4(2002): 365-88.
Gee, James Paul. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research P. 2000.
Geiss, M.L. The Language of Politics. New York: Spring Verlag, 1987.
Goatly, Andrew. Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007.
Hall, Stuart.“Ideology and Communication Theory.”Rethinking Communication. Vol 1. Ed. Dervin, B., et al. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989.40-52.
---.“Signification, Representation, Ideology: Althusser and the Post-Structural -ist Debates. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 2(1985):91 -114.
---.“The Problem of Ideology-Marxism without Guarantees.”Journal of Communication Inquiry, 10(1986): 28-43.
Halliday, M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Arnold, 1978.
Hammersley, M.“The Foundations of Critical Discourse Analysis.”Language and Communication 17.3 (1997):237-48.
Hart, Roderick P. Political Keywords: Using Language that Uses Us. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005.
Hart, Roderick P., and Suzanne M. Daughton. Modern Rhetorical Criticism.3rd ed. Boston: Pearson Eduacation, Inc. 2005.
Hausser, G. A.“Vernacular Dialogue and the Rhetoricality of Public Opinion.”Communication Monographs 65(1998):83-107.
Hawkes, Terence. Metaphor. New York: Matheune & Co. Ltd, 1980.
Heath, Robert L. Realism and Relativism: A Perspective on Kenneth Burke. Mercer UP, 1986.
Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric. Boston: Pearson Education,Inc.1997.
Holloway, Rachel L. In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric, and Self-Defense. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1993.
Huckin, Thomas.“Critical Discourse Analysis.”Discourse Studies in Composition. Ed. Barton Ellen and Gail Stygall. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc. 2002. 154-76.
Hunston, Suzan, and Geoff Thompson, eds. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.
Ivie, Robert L.“Cold War Motives and the Rhetorical Metaphor: A Framework of Criticism.”Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology. Ed. Martin J. Medhurst, et al. East Lansing: Michigan State UP, 1997.71-79.
--.“Productive Criticism Then and Now.”15. Dec.2007< http://acjournal.org/ Holodings/vol4/issue3/special/ivie.html>.
---.“The Prospect of Cold War Criticism.”Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology. Ed. Martin J. Medhurst, et al. East Lansing: Michigan State UP, 1997.203-208.
Jamieson, K. H. Communication and Persuasion. London: Croom Helm, 1985.
Jasinski, James L. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.
Jaworski, Adam, and Nikolas Coupland. The Discourse Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.
Jebb, Richard Cloverhouse, trans.,“Aristotle: The Rhetoric.”Readings in Classical Rhetoric. Ed. Thomas W. Benson and Michael H.Prosser. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1969.
Ji, Yunhua. Critical Discourse Analysis in Intercultural Communication Research and Education. Xiamen: Xiamen UP, 2007.
Johnstone, Barbara.“Discourse Analysis as a Methodology for Rhetorical Study.”12Oct.2007
Johnstone Jr., Henry W., and Mari Lee.“Wedge and Bridge: A Note on Rhetoric as Distinction and as Identification.”Rhetoric Society Quarterly 29.2(1999): 75-78
Johnson, Mark. Philosophical Perspective on Metaphor. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1981.
Johnson, Nan.“Ethos and the Aims of Rhetoric.”Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Ed. Robert J. Connors, Lisa S.Ede, and Andrea A. Lunsford. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UP, 1984. 99-112.
Jorgensen, Marianne and Louise Phillips. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage Publications, 2002.
Jowett, G., and V. O’Donnell. Propaganda and Persuasion.2nd ed. London and Newbury: Sage, 1992.
Ju, Yumei.“Communication as Action: Discourse Analysis from the Perspective of Burkean New Rhetoric.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies U, 2004.
Koller, Veronica. Metaphor Clusters, Metaphor Chain: Analysing the Multifunctionality of Metaphor in Text. Metaphorik.de 05/2003:115-133.
Krebs, Ronald R., and Patrick Thaddeus Jackson.“Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric.”European Journals of International Relations 13(1) 2007:35-66.
Kress, Gunther.“Against Arbitrariness: the Social Production of the Sign”, Discourse & Society (4)1993:169-91.
---.“Design and Transformation: New Theories of Meaning.”Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. Ed. Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. London: Routledge, 2000. 153–61.
---. Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989.
---.“Representational Resources and the Production of Subjectivity: Questions for the Theoretical Development of Critical Discourse Analysis in a Multicultural Society.”Text and Practice: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. Ed. Caldas-Coulthard & Coulthard. London: Routledge, 1996. 15-31.
Kress, G., and Hodge, B. Language as Ideology. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979.
Kneupper, Charles W.“The Relaton of Agency to Act in Dramatism: A Comment on ‘Burke’s Act’.”College English 47/3 (1985): 305-308.
Lakoff, George. Five Years after 9/11:Drop the War Metaphor.10, Sept.2007
---.“The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf.”Journal of Urban and Cultural Studies 2/1(1991):59-72.
---. Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don’t. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980.
Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman, 1983.
Lee, David. Competing Discourse: Perspective and Ideology in Language. London: Longman, 1992.
Lee, Ronald.“Ideographic Criticism.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed.Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Allan and Bacon, 2004.305-44.
Leff, Michael.“Occidental Rhetoric.”Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium of China Rhetorical Society, November 6-9, 2007.Tianjing Normal University.
Lentricchia, Frank. Criticism and Social Change. Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 1983.
Liu, Yameng.“Invention and Inventiveness: A Postmodern Redaction.”Perspectives on Rhetorical Invention. Ed. Janet M. Atwill and Janice M. Lauer. Knoxville: U of Tennessee P, 2002. 53-63.
Luke, Allan.“Beyond Science and Ideology critique: Developments in Critical Discourse Analysis.”Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22 (2002): 96–110.
Lye, J. Ideology: A Brief Guide.
Martin, Judith N., and Thomas Nakayama. Intercultural Communication in Contexts. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 2000.
McCarthy, Michael, and Ronald Carter. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. Beijing: Beijing UP, 2004.
McGee, Michael C.“In Search of‘the People’: A Rhetorical Alternative.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 61.3 (1977): 235-49.
---.“A Materialist’s Conception of Rhetoric.”Explorations in Rhetoric: Studies in Honorof Douglas Ehninger. Ed. Ray E. Mckerrow. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1982.23-48.
---.“The‘Ideograph,’A Link between Rhetoric and Ideology.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 66 (1980):1-16.
McKerrow, Raymie.“Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis.”Communication Monographs 56 (1989): 91-111.
Moran, Michael G. and Michael Ballif. Twentieth-Century Rhetoric and Rhetoricians. London: Greenwood Press, 2000.
Musolff, Andreas. Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. New York: Palgrave, Macmillian, 2004.
Ng, Sik Hung, and James J. Bradac. Power in Language: Verbal Communication and Social Influence. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1993.
Nietzsche, Friedrich.“On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense”23 Sept.2007
Ono, K. A. & Sloop, J. M.“Commitment to Telos-A Sustained Critical Rhetoric.”Communication Monographs 59 (1992): 48-60.
Oravec, Christine, and Michael Salvador.“The Duality of Rhetoric: Theory as Discursive Practice.”Rethinking the History of Rhetoric. Ed. Takis Poulakos. Colorado: Westview Press. 1993. 173-192.
Ostman, Jan-Ola.“Persuasion as Implicit Anchoring.”Persuasion Across Genre: A Linguistic Approach. Ed. Helena Halmari and Tuijia Virtanen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005.183-212.
Perelman, Chaim. The Realm of Rhetoric. Trans.William Kluback. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982.
Prus, Robert. Beyond the Power Mystique: Power as Intersubjective Accomplishment. NY: State University of New York P. 1999.
Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London: Oxford UP, 1936.
Ricoeur, Paul. The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Study of Creation of Meaning in Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Pual, 1978.
Rogers, Rebecca.“An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education.”An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. Ed. Rebecca Rogers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.2004.1-18.
Rorty, Richard., ed. The Linguistic Turn: Recent Essays in Philosophical Method. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1967.
---. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989.
Rufo, Kenneth.“Rhetoric and Power.”Argumentation and Advocacy 40(Fall, 2003):65-84.
Ryan, Michael. Marxism and Deconstruction. Baltimore: The John Hopkins UP, 1984
Sapir, J.David, and J.Christopher Crocker. The Social Use of Metaphor: Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania UP, 1977.
Scott, Roberet L.“On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic.”Central States Speech Journal 18 (1967): 9-16.
Shi, Xu. A Cultural Approach to Discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Simon, Jeffrey D. The Terrorist Trap: America’s Experience with Terrorism, 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001.
Simons, H. W., ed. The Rhetorical Turn: Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry. Chicago: U of Chicago P,1990.
Sontag, Suzan. Aids and Metaphor. London: Allen Lane, 1990.
Stillar, Glenn F. Analysing Everyday Texts. California: Sage Publications, Inc. 1998.
Stockwell, Peter.“Toward a Critical Cognitive Linguistic?”20, Sept.2007< http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/23/0/CRITCOG.PDF>.
Stubbs, Michael.“Whorf’s Children: Critical Comments on Critical Discourse Analysis.”Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. Ed. Michael Toolan. vol.3. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. 202-18.
---. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
Tang, Liping. Appraisal Research: An Intersubjective Model of Critical Intercultural Literacy. Beijing: Beijing UP, 2006.
Thompson, John. Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Oxford: Polity Press, 1990.
---. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
Toolan, Michael.“What is Critical Discourse Analysis and Why Are People Saying Such Terrible Things about It?”Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. Ed. Michael Toolan. vol.iii. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. 219-241.
Toulmin, Stephen. The Use of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1958.
Tracy, Karen.“Discourse Analysis in Communication.”The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Ed. Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.735-49.
van Dijk, T.A. ed. Handbook of Discourse Analysis.4 vols. New York: Academic Press, 1985.
---.“Discourse Analysis as Ideology Analysis.”Language and Peace. Ed. Christina Shaffner and Anita L.Wenden. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishin, 1995.17-33.
---. Ideology: a Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage, 1998.
---.“Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.”Discourse and Society 4.2 (1993): 249-283.
Van Dijk, T., JoAnne Neff-van Aertselaer, and Martin Putz.“Introduction: Language, Discourse and Ideology.”Communicating Ideology. Ed.Martin Putz, et al. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2004.xii-xxxi.
Virtanen, Tuija and Helena Halmari. Introduction. Persuasion across Genres. Ed. Halmari, Helena and Tuija Virtanen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005.3-24.
Volosinov, V.N. Marxism and the philosophy of language Trans. L. Matejka & I.R. Titunik. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Wallace, Catherine.“Critical Language Awareness: Key Principles for A Course in Critical Readingg.”Language Awareness 8/2 (1999):98-110.
Wander, Phillip.“The Ideological Turn in Modern Criticism.”Central States Speech Journal 34(1983):1-18.
Wartenburg, Thomas E. The Forms of Power: From Domination to Transformation. Philadelphial: Temple UP, 1990.
Weber, Marx. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Free Press, 1964.
Whitson, Steve, and John. Poulakos.“Nietzsche and the Aesthetics of Rhetoric.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 79.2 (1993):131-45.
Widdowson, H. G.“Reply to Fairclough: Discourse and Interpretation: Conjectures and Refutations.”Language and Literature 5.1 (1996):57-69.
---.“Review of Fairclough: Discourse and Social Change.”Applied Linguistics 16.4 (1995):157-72.
---.“The Theory and Practive of Critical Discourse Analysis.”Applied Linguistics 19.1 (1998):136-151.
Wodak, Ruth.“What CDA is about—a Summary of Its History, Important Concepts and Its Developments.”Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications, 2001. 1-13.
---.“Critical Discourse Analysis at the end of the 20th Century.”Research on Language and Social Interaction 32 (1999):185-193.
Woffitt, Robin. Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction. London: Sage Publications, 2005.
Wolin, Ross. The Rhetorical Imagination of Kenneth Burke. South Carolina: U of South Carolina P, 2001.
Wood, Tahir.“Ideology:The Power of Prior Discourse.”Communicating Ideologies: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Language, Discourse and Social Practice. Ed.
Matin Putz, JoAnne Neff-van Aertselaer and Teun A.van Dijk. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2002.
Zarefsky, David, Carol Miller-Tutzauer, and Frank E. Tutzauer.“Reagan’s Safety Net for the Truly Needy: the Rhetorical Uses of Definition.”Central State Speech Journal 35 (1984):113-29.
陈忠华(Chen, Zhonghua),杨春苑(Yan, Chunyuan),赵明炜(Zhao, Mingwei).批评性话语分析述评.外语学刊, 2002(1):82-86.
陈中竺(Chen, Zhongzhu).批评语言学述评.外语教学与研究, 1995(1):21-27.
刘亚猛(Liu Yameng).追求象征的力量:关于西方修辞思想的思考.北京:三联书店, 2004.
从莱庭(Cong, Laiting),徐鲁亚(Xu, Luya)编著.西方修辞学.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2007.
邓丽君(Deng, Lijun),荣晶(Rong, Jing).批判语言学中的隐喻.云南师范大学学报, 2004 (5):60-63.
丁建新(Ding, Jianxin),廖益清(Liao, Yiqing).批评性话语分析述评.当代语言学,2001 (4):305-310.
戴炜华(Dai, Weihua),陈宇昀(Cheng, Yuyun).批评语篇分析的理论和方法.外语研究, 2004 (4):12-16.
洪艳青(Hong, Yanqing),张辉(Zhang, Hui).认知语言学与意识形态研究.外语与外语教学, 2002 ( 2): 5-9。
李素玲(Li, Suling).批评性语篇分析:发展状况及应用前景.山东外语教学, 2004 (5):45-48.
李丽生(Li, Lisheng)从阅读理论的发展看培养学生批评阅读能力的重要性四川外语学院学报, 2003 (1):147-149.
梁远冰(Liang, Yuanbing),韦汉(Wei, Han).隐喻投射的批评性研究.暨南大学华文学院学报, 2006(3): 60-66.
[美]乔治索罗斯(Soros, George).美国的霸权泡沫-纠正对美国权力的滥用.燕清等译北京:商务印书馆,2004.
曲卫国(Qu, Weiguo).人文科学的修辞转向和修辞学的批判性转向.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007 (1):113-122.
任芳(Ren, Fang).新闻语篇句势模型的批评性分析.解放军外国语学院学报, 2005(5):19-23.
施卫华(Shi, Weihua).社会的话语动态的视角-批评性话语研究创刊述评.外语研究, 2005 (1): 76-78.
田海龙(Tian, Hailong).语篇研究的批评视角:从批评语言学到批评性语篇分析.山东外语教学, 2006 (2): 40-47.
吴建刚( Wu, Jiangang)论批评话语分析.华中师范大学学报(人文社科学版), 2002 (2): 15-21.
项蕴华(Xiang, Yunhua).简述Fairclough的语篇分析观.山东外语教学, 2004(5):19-22.
辛斌(Xin, Bin).批评语言学:理论与应用.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
-.批评性语篇分析方法论.外国语, 2002 (6): 34-41.
-.批评性语篇分析:问题与讨论.外国语, 2004 (5): 64-69.
徐涛(Xu, Tao).机构话语的“越界.”外语教学, 2006(3): 28-31.
叶起昌(Ye, Qichang).批评话语分析与批评实在论.外国语言文学, 2004, (1):20-24.
苑春明(Yuan, Chunming),田海龙(Tian, Hailong).英汉政治语篇的对比分析与批判分析.天津商学院学报, 2001(5): 51-60.