“反恐”话语意识形态分析：社会建构主义视角下的描写与阐释
|
摘要
“9·11事件”后，世界话语转向了“反恐”叙事。学者们从不同视角解读“9·11事件”、“反恐”斗争及“反恐”话语。十年后的今天，虽然“基地组织”的“精神领袖”及恐怖袭击的策划者本·拉登被击毙，然而，他的死亡并未意味着反恐斗争的结束。对“9·11事件”、“反恐”斗争的本质及“反恐”话语的意识形态研究仍是全球范围内社会科学领域的热议话题。本文从批评性话语分析（CDA）视角，尤其是从社会建构主义视角探讨“反恐”话语的意识形态，旨在揭示“反恐”话语中话语、权势及意识形态之关系，话语如何在意识形态介入下建构社会现实、社会身份及知识信仰体系。
批评性话语分析自英国语言学家R. Fowler于1979年在《语言与控制》一书中首次提出，至今业已形成该领域研究阵营中多学科多角度的研究模式，如，批评性语言学（CL）、Van Dijk的社会认知法（SCA）、Ruth Wodak的语篇历史分析法（DHA）、Van Leeuwen的社会角色表达法（SAA）、Norman Fairclough的辨证关系法（DRA）。尽管方法不同，但其主旨都是研究语言、权力及意识形态之间的关系。Fairclough（1989,1992,1995）指出话语是社会实践，作为意识形态介入和权力斗争的场所，话语组成并建构社会现实、主体地位、自我、知识和信仰，参与并促进社会变迁。Fairclough认为CDA不仅要揭示语言、权力及意识形态之关系，还要说明话语在当代社会与文化变迁中的作用。Fairclough的理论主张使他成为Lancaster社会变迁学派的代表人物。Fairclough的理论及分析框架被学者们广泛应用于分析政治语篇的意识形态。
本文在Fairclough的建构主义话语观启示下，提出从社会建构主义视角探讨“反恐”话语的必要性和可行性。指出“恐怖主义”、“9·11事件”、“美国权势地位”等社会现实是意识形态话语建构的结果。本文对美国前总统乔治·布什和奥巴马总统最具代表性的“反恐”话语的动态性社会实践进行多视角批评性分析，揭示美国总统“反恐”话语的使用策略及意识形态之建构功能。意识形态介入到话语的各个层面参与社会实践(Faircough,1992a:48)。本文从词汇层、语法层、语篇层、语用层等多视角描写及阐释“反恐”话语使用策略及意识形态建构过程。在词汇层面，探讨语词、再次词汇化、隐喻、过度词汇化；在语法层面，探讨及物性系统、情态、语气；在语篇层面，探讨衔接；在语用层面，探讨言语行为、(不)礼貌、互文性（包括话语描述、预设及互为话语性）。
本研究的主要发现：
1.理论方面，本文在对CDA及Fairclough理论作出细致研究基础上指出该理论的特点及存在的不足。其一，CDA将语言学与社会学相结合，拓宽了语言研究视野。由于CDA是社会取向的语言研究，具有交叉学科的特征，因此在研究方法上缺乏一贯统一的研究模式。其二，CDA揭示话语隐藏的意识形态及权力不平等、权力滥用等现象，忽视了话语动态性社会建构的实质性内涵研究。其三，CDA代表人物Fairclough多次重申建构主义话语观，但其并未充分体现在他的三维话语阐释及分析框架中。至此其建构主义话语观未得到充分理解与诠释。本文提出意识形态话语模型及分析框架，突出话语、意识形态及权力等概念动态性交互作用关系，并在此基础上尝试性分析“反恐”话语意识形态之建构功能。
2.语料分析发现如下：
（1）从词汇层面看，“反恐”话语通过词汇策略，如，语词、再次词汇化、过度词汇化表达，建构“我们/他们”冲突对立框架，其中包括“价值观冲突”、“文明冲突”、“9·11前/后不同世界”(“我们”指美国及美联盟，“他们”指拉登及恐怖组织等)，等。建构美国“世界警察”及“法律之上”的社会身份及权势地位。在隐喻表达方面，建构“战争框架”，通过概念映射，二战和冷战做为源域，映射到目的域“9·11事件”，法西斯等作为源域，映射到目的域“9·11事件”袭击者，将“9·11事件”建构为“9·11战争”。
（2）从语法层面看，语法策略，如，目的驱使结构与手段驱使结构的选择具有意识形态意义。目的驱使结构的使用建构美国反恐行动“报复”目的及“强权势力”；手段驱使结构建构恐怖分子“低权势”地位。及物性转换发挥至关重要作用，其中名物化表达“威胁”、“袭击”，建构“恐怖”意识形态。被动化结构建构美国在“9·11事件”中“受害者”身份。情态意义及语气建构美国“自信”和“权势”。
（3）从语篇层面看，语篇衔接手段凸显美国在“反恐”斗争中的实力和“团结”的价值观。
（4）从语用层面看，“反恐”话语利用多种言语行为为美国“权势地位”的建构及反恐意识形态动机的实现提供理据。如低情态陈述类言语行为建构客观事实，增强说服力；表达类言语行为建构与“我们”友善关系，谋求反恐战争支持，等。建构美国“强权势力”、“知识信仰体系”还通过以下话语实践策略实现：（不）礼貌言语行为、话语引述及预设策略。最后，话语秩序研究表明“反恐”话语是表层叙事风格与深层辩论及对话等多重语类交织的结果，新的话语秩序是意识形态建构的产物。
研究结果表明，布什及奥巴马总统的话语使用策略和在“反恐”问题上的意识形态保持一致。意识形态作用下的美国总统“反恐”话语建构“我们/他们”之间的冲突世界为美国反恐战争行为提供理据。“反恐”话语在建构世界和推动社会变迁中发挥重要的作用。
本研究具有一定的理论与实践意义。理论方面，对现有批评性话语分析研究方法进行评价性回顾的基础上，指出前期相关研究方法及概念阐释上的不足，进而提出社会建构主义视角下的话语模型及分析框架，并尝试性从多视角描写与阐释“反恐”话语动态性意识形态建构功能，丰富并深化该领域的研究。实践方面，本文从社会建构主义视角分析“反恐”话语意识形态，为“反恐”实质性内涵提供不同解读视角。本研究还为政治语篇的语言结构和社会功能研究提供一定参考价值。
In the aftermath of the events of “9/11”, public discourse across the world turned tothe “war on terror” narration. Scholars interpret the events of “9/11”, the “war on terror”and the “war on terror” discourse from different perspectives. Nowadays, although BinLaden, al Qaeda’s spiritual leader, has been killed, his death does not mark the end of the“war on terror”. The studies of the nature of the ‘war on terror’ are still the focus of theresearch in social science. This dissertation provides a comprehensive treatment of the“war on terror” discourse from the perspective of critical discourse analysis (CDA), asocio-constructivist perspective in particular, trying to reveal the interactions between the“war on terror” discourse, power and ideology, and how the discourse functionsideologically in the construction of social reality, social power identity and, system ofknowledge and belief.
CDA first appeared in the book Language and Control published by R. Fowler in1979. With several decades of development, it is becoming more important in socialscientific research. CDA, as an umbrella term, is used for a variety of overlappingmethodologies associated with somewhat different approaches to discourse, such asCritical Linguistics (CL), Van Dijk’s Socio-Cognitive Approach (SCA), Ruth Wodak’sDiscourse-Historical Approach (DHA), Van Leeuwen’s Social Actors’Approach (SAA),and Norman Fairclough’s Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA), etc. Although CDAdoes not constitute a well-defined empirical methodology, it is characterized by thecommon interests in investigating the relationships between language, power andideology. Fairclough (1989,1992,1995) argues that discourse is social practice. As a siteof ideological struggle and investment, discourse contributes to “the constructions ofsocial identities,‘subject positions’, the types of ‘self’, systems of knowledge and belief”(Fairclough,1992a:64), and contributes to wider process of social change. Faircloughasserts that the aim of CDA is to not only study the relationships between language,power and ideology, but also investigate the functions of language in the social andcultural change. Fairclough’s “socio-cultural change theory” makes him therepresentative of Lancaster School. Fairlcough’s three-dimensional concept of discourse and analytical framework is widely applied in analyzing political discourses.
With the inspiration from Faircough’s constructivist view of discourse, the presentstudy proposes the necessity and possibility of the research of the “war on terror”discourse from a socio-constructivist perspective. We assume that “terror”,“the events of9/11” and “American social power identity”, etc. are not independent from discourse,they are constructed ideologically through discourse. This dissertation makes an analysisof the dynamic social practice of the most representative data from the speeches ofex-Present George W. Bush and President Obama on the “war on terror”, trying toexplore how the “war on terror” discourses are used to construct ideology. The study iscarried out from multidimensional perspectives, in the light of the assertion fromFairclough that “ideology invests language in various ways at various levels”(Faircough,1992a:48). On the lexical level, wording, re-wording, metaphor and over-wording areexamined; on the grammatical level, transitivity, modality and mood are explored; on thetextual level, lexical cohesion is discussed; and on the pragmatic level, speech acts,im/politeness and intertextuality (including discourse representation, presupposition,interdiscursivity) are investigated.
The main findings of this dissertation are as follows:
1. Based on a critical appraisal of the previous theories and research methods ofCDA and Fairclough, we may find their features and limitations. Firstly, CDA, associally-oriented study of language, has made contributions to a range of academic fieldsdue to its multidisciplinary approach. However, within CDA, there is no any guidingtheoretical viewpoint that is used coherently and consistently. Secondly, CDA tries todemystify the hidden ideology, social inequality and power abuses in different socialgroups, paying less attention to the study of dynamic constructive properties of discourse.Thirdly, Fairclough’s constructivist view of discourse has not been explicitly shown inhis three-dimensional model although it has been illustrated theoretically in his books.Thereof, the study of the social constructive functions of discourse has not been drawnmore attention from scholars. The present study proposes a socio-constructivist approachto the “war on terror” discourse, and sets up a socio-constructivist model of ideologicaldiscourse and an analytical framework in which the dynamic, interactional relationshipsbetween discourse, ideology and power are demonstrated. The study analyzes the ideological constructive functions of the ‘war on terror’ discourse by applying the newmodel.
2. The findings of the practical data analysis are as follows:
(1) On the lexical level, the discursive construction of “Us/Them” polarizationssuch as “value conflict”,“civilization conflict” and “pre-/post9/11world” divide, etc. areachieved through wording, rewording and over-wording (in the speeches,“Us” are thosewho are allies or share the same values and commitments with America or at leastcooperate with it,“Them” are terrorists including al Qaeda, bin Laden, the Talibangovernment). The “war frame” is discursively constructed by the use of metaphor in thePresidents’ characterization of the9/11. In addition, the metaphorical mappings takeplace from the source domains: World War II and the Cold War onto the target domain:the9/11, and from fascism, etc. onto the9/11attackers. The “9/11attacks” areconstructed as the “9/11war”. The America identity and social position, such as “globalpoliceman” and “above the law” are also discursively constructed by deliberate choicesof words.
(2) On the grammatical level, the choices of goal-orientated process andmeans-orientated process are ideologically significant. While “Our” actions are presentedmostly with goal-orientated ones, indicating “We” as Actor acts upon the goal showing“Our” power.“Their” actions are presented with means-orientated ones, constructingpowerless identities. Transformations are of great importance in the ‘war on terror’discourse. The nominalizations of “attack” and “threat” serve as “the strategy of fear” forthe legitimacy of the “war on terror”. In passivizations, American identities areconstructed as being “victims” in the attacks. Modality and mood are also used todiscursively construct the social power identity of America.
(3) On the textual level, lexical cohesions help to construct American strengthand unity in the struggle against terrorism.
(4) On the pragmatic level, the strategic choices of speech acts to enforce thepositive/negative image of “Us/Them” help to justify the military actions of the “war onterror”. In performing representatives, for instance, the informative and assertive modesof speaking with low modality help to construct objectivity of social facts. Expressivesare used to establish rapport with “Us”, trying to get support against terrorism. The constructions of “American social power identity”,“system of knowledge and belief” arealso ideologically achieved by the following pragmatic strategies: im/politenessstrategies, discourse representation and presupposition. Finally, the study ofinterdiscursivity has demonstrated that the speeches are the mixture of overt narrative,covert argumentative and conversational styles. The new order of discourse of thespeeches helps to create particular interests and ideologies in a particular society.
The findings show that both President G. W. Bush and Obama use the samediscursive strategies and hold the same ideology on the issue of the “war on terror”. Theirspeeches construct a world of conflict between “Us” and “Them”, which helps tolegitimate the military actions of the “war on terror”. The presidential speeches playimportant roles in the construction and transformation of the world.
The present study is significant both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, thepresent study conducts a critical appraisal of existing research, points out the limitationsof CDA in its methodology and the explanations of some concepts, and further constructsa multi-perspective and dynamic CDA model for analyzing the “war on terror” discourse.Hopefully, the study serves as a supplementary attempt to further develop CDA theories.Practically, the tentative description and interpretation of ideology of the “war on terror”discourse from a socio-constructivist perspective enriches the explanations of the ‘war onterror’ discourse, and will be of help for the study of the structures and social functions ofpolitical discourses.
批评性话语分析自英国语言学家R. Fowler于1979年在《语言与控制》一书中首次提出，至今业已形成该领域研究阵营中多学科多角度的研究模式，如，批评性语言学（CL）、Van Dijk的社会认知法（SCA）、Ruth Wodak的语篇历史分析法（DHA）、Van Leeuwen的社会角色表达法（SAA）、Norman Fairclough的辨证关系法（DRA）。尽管方法不同，但其主旨都是研究语言、权力及意识形态之间的关系。Fairclough（1989,1992,1995）指出话语是社会实践，作为意识形态介入和权力斗争的场所，话语组成并建构社会现实、主体地位、自我、知识和信仰，参与并促进社会变迁。Fairclough认为CDA不仅要揭示语言、权力及意识形态之关系，还要说明话语在当代社会与文化变迁中的作用。Fairclough的理论主张使他成为Lancaster社会变迁学派的代表人物。Fairclough的理论及分析框架被学者们广泛应用于分析政治语篇的意识形态。
本文在Fairclough的建构主义话语观启示下，提出从社会建构主义视角探讨“反恐”话语的必要性和可行性。指出“恐怖主义”、“9·11事件”、“美国权势地位”等社会现实是意识形态话语建构的结果。本文对美国前总统乔治·布什和奥巴马总统最具代表性的“反恐”话语的动态性社会实践进行多视角批评性分析，揭示美国总统“反恐”话语的使用策略及意识形态之建构功能。意识形态介入到话语的各个层面参与社会实践(Faircough,1992a:48)。本文从词汇层、语法层、语篇层、语用层等多视角描写及阐释“反恐”话语使用策略及意识形态建构过程。在词汇层面，探讨语词、再次词汇化、隐喻、过度词汇化；在语法层面，探讨及物性系统、情态、语气；在语篇层面，探讨衔接；在语用层面，探讨言语行为、(不)礼貌、互文性（包括话语描述、预设及互为话语性）。
本研究的主要发现：
1.理论方面，本文在对CDA及Fairclough理论作出细致研究基础上指出该理论的特点及存在的不足。其一，CDA将语言学与社会学相结合，拓宽了语言研究视野。由于CDA是社会取向的语言研究，具有交叉学科的特征，因此在研究方法上缺乏一贯统一的研究模式。其二，CDA揭示话语隐藏的意识形态及权力不平等、权力滥用等现象，忽视了话语动态性社会建构的实质性内涵研究。其三，CDA代表人物Fairclough多次重申建构主义话语观，但其并未充分体现在他的三维话语阐释及分析框架中。至此其建构主义话语观未得到充分理解与诠释。本文提出意识形态话语模型及分析框架，突出话语、意识形态及权力等概念动态性交互作用关系，并在此基础上尝试性分析“反恐”话语意识形态之建构功能。
2.语料分析发现如下：
（1）从词汇层面看，“反恐”话语通过词汇策略，如，语词、再次词汇化、过度词汇化表达，建构“我们/他们”冲突对立框架，其中包括“价值观冲突”、“文明冲突”、“9·11前/后不同世界”(“我们”指美国及美联盟，“他们”指拉登及恐怖组织等)，等。建构美国“世界警察”及“法律之上”的社会身份及权势地位。在隐喻表达方面，建构“战争框架”，通过概念映射，二战和冷战做为源域，映射到目的域“9·11事件”，法西斯等作为源域，映射到目的域“9·11事件”袭击者，将“9·11事件”建构为“9·11战争”。
（2）从语法层面看，语法策略，如，目的驱使结构与手段驱使结构的选择具有意识形态意义。目的驱使结构的使用建构美国反恐行动“报复”目的及“强权势力”；手段驱使结构建构恐怖分子“低权势”地位。及物性转换发挥至关重要作用，其中名物化表达“威胁”、“袭击”，建构“恐怖”意识形态。被动化结构建构美国在“9·11事件”中“受害者”身份。情态意义及语气建构美国“自信”和“权势”。
（3）从语篇层面看，语篇衔接手段凸显美国在“反恐”斗争中的实力和“团结”的价值观。
（4）从语用层面看，“反恐”话语利用多种言语行为为美国“权势地位”的建构及反恐意识形态动机的实现提供理据。如低情态陈述类言语行为建构客观事实，增强说服力；表达类言语行为建构与“我们”友善关系，谋求反恐战争支持，等。建构美国“强权势力”、“知识信仰体系”还通过以下话语实践策略实现：（不）礼貌言语行为、话语引述及预设策略。最后，话语秩序研究表明“反恐”话语是表层叙事风格与深层辩论及对话等多重语类交织的结果，新的话语秩序是意识形态建构的产物。
研究结果表明，布什及奥巴马总统的话语使用策略和在“反恐”问题上的意识形态保持一致。意识形态作用下的美国总统“反恐”话语建构“我们/他们”之间的冲突世界为美国反恐战争行为提供理据。“反恐”话语在建构世界和推动社会变迁中发挥重要的作用。
本研究具有一定的理论与实践意义。理论方面，对现有批评性话语分析研究方法进行评价性回顾的基础上，指出前期相关研究方法及概念阐释上的不足，进而提出社会建构主义视角下的话语模型及分析框架，并尝试性从多视角描写与阐释“反恐”话语动态性意识形态建构功能，丰富并深化该领域的研究。实践方面，本文从社会建构主义视角分析“反恐”话语意识形态，为“反恐”实质性内涵提供不同解读视角。本研究还为政治语篇的语言结构和社会功能研究提供一定参考价值。
In the aftermath of the events of “9/11”, public discourse across the world turned tothe “war on terror” narration. Scholars interpret the events of “9/11”, the “war on terror”and the “war on terror” discourse from different perspectives. Nowadays, although BinLaden, al Qaeda’s spiritual leader, has been killed, his death does not mark the end of the“war on terror”. The studies of the nature of the ‘war on terror’ are still the focus of theresearch in social science. This dissertation provides a comprehensive treatment of the“war on terror” discourse from the perspective of critical discourse analysis (CDA), asocio-constructivist perspective in particular, trying to reveal the interactions between the“war on terror” discourse, power and ideology, and how the discourse functionsideologically in the construction of social reality, social power identity and, system ofknowledge and belief.
CDA first appeared in the book Language and Control published by R. Fowler in1979. With several decades of development, it is becoming more important in socialscientific research. CDA, as an umbrella term, is used for a variety of overlappingmethodologies associated with somewhat different approaches to discourse, such asCritical Linguistics (CL), Van Dijk’s Socio-Cognitive Approach (SCA), Ruth Wodak’sDiscourse-Historical Approach (DHA), Van Leeuwen’s Social Actors’Approach (SAA),and Norman Fairclough’s Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA), etc. Although CDAdoes not constitute a well-defined empirical methodology, it is characterized by thecommon interests in investigating the relationships between language, power andideology. Fairclough (1989,1992,1995) argues that discourse is social practice. As a siteof ideological struggle and investment, discourse contributes to “the constructions ofsocial identities,‘subject positions’, the types of ‘self’, systems of knowledge and belief”(Fairclough,1992a:64), and contributes to wider process of social change. Faircloughasserts that the aim of CDA is to not only study the relationships between language,power and ideology, but also investigate the functions of language in the social andcultural change. Fairclough’s “socio-cultural change theory” makes him therepresentative of Lancaster School. Fairlcough’s three-dimensional concept of discourse and analytical framework is widely applied in analyzing political discourses.
With the inspiration from Faircough’s constructivist view of discourse, the presentstudy proposes the necessity and possibility of the research of the “war on terror”discourse from a socio-constructivist perspective. We assume that “terror”,“the events of9/11” and “American social power identity”, etc. are not independent from discourse,they are constructed ideologically through discourse. This dissertation makes an analysisof the dynamic social practice of the most representative data from the speeches ofex-Present George W. Bush and President Obama on the “war on terror”, trying toexplore how the “war on terror” discourses are used to construct ideology. The study iscarried out from multidimensional perspectives, in the light of the assertion fromFairclough that “ideology invests language in various ways at various levels”(Faircough,1992a:48). On the lexical level, wording, re-wording, metaphor and over-wording areexamined; on the grammatical level, transitivity, modality and mood are explored; on thetextual level, lexical cohesion is discussed; and on the pragmatic level, speech acts,im/politeness and intertextuality (including discourse representation, presupposition,interdiscursivity) are investigated.
The main findings of this dissertation are as follows:
1. Based on a critical appraisal of the previous theories and research methods ofCDA and Fairclough, we may find their features and limitations. Firstly, CDA, associally-oriented study of language, has made contributions to a range of academic fieldsdue to its multidisciplinary approach. However, within CDA, there is no any guidingtheoretical viewpoint that is used coherently and consistently. Secondly, CDA tries todemystify the hidden ideology, social inequality and power abuses in different socialgroups, paying less attention to the study of dynamic constructive properties of discourse.Thirdly, Fairclough’s constructivist view of discourse has not been explicitly shown inhis three-dimensional model although it has been illustrated theoretically in his books.Thereof, the study of the social constructive functions of discourse has not been drawnmore attention from scholars. The present study proposes a socio-constructivist approachto the “war on terror” discourse, and sets up a socio-constructivist model of ideologicaldiscourse and an analytical framework in which the dynamic, interactional relationshipsbetween discourse, ideology and power are demonstrated. The study analyzes the ideological constructive functions of the ‘war on terror’ discourse by applying the newmodel.
2. The findings of the practical data analysis are as follows:
(1) On the lexical level, the discursive construction of “Us/Them” polarizationssuch as “value conflict”,“civilization conflict” and “pre-/post9/11world” divide, etc. areachieved through wording, rewording and over-wording (in the speeches,“Us” are thosewho are allies or share the same values and commitments with America or at leastcooperate with it,“Them” are terrorists including al Qaeda, bin Laden, the Talibangovernment). The “war frame” is discursively constructed by the use of metaphor in thePresidents’ characterization of the9/11. In addition, the metaphorical mappings takeplace from the source domains: World War II and the Cold War onto the target domain:the9/11, and from fascism, etc. onto the9/11attackers. The “9/11attacks” areconstructed as the “9/11war”. The America identity and social position, such as “globalpoliceman” and “above the law” are also discursively constructed by deliberate choicesof words.
(2) On the grammatical level, the choices of goal-orientated process andmeans-orientated process are ideologically significant. While “Our” actions are presentedmostly with goal-orientated ones, indicating “We” as Actor acts upon the goal showing“Our” power.“Their” actions are presented with means-orientated ones, constructingpowerless identities. Transformations are of great importance in the ‘war on terror’discourse. The nominalizations of “attack” and “threat” serve as “the strategy of fear” forthe legitimacy of the “war on terror”. In passivizations, American identities areconstructed as being “victims” in the attacks. Modality and mood are also used todiscursively construct the social power identity of America.
(3) On the textual level, lexical cohesions help to construct American strengthand unity in the struggle against terrorism.
(4) On the pragmatic level, the strategic choices of speech acts to enforce thepositive/negative image of “Us/Them” help to justify the military actions of the “war onterror”. In performing representatives, for instance, the informative and assertive modesof speaking with low modality help to construct objectivity of social facts. Expressivesare used to establish rapport with “Us”, trying to get support against terrorism. The constructions of “American social power identity”,“system of knowledge and belief” arealso ideologically achieved by the following pragmatic strategies: im/politenessstrategies, discourse representation and presupposition. Finally, the study ofinterdiscursivity has demonstrated that the speeches are the mixture of overt narrative,covert argumentative and conversational styles. The new order of discourse of thespeeches helps to create particular interests and ideologies in a particular society.
The findings show that both President G. W. Bush and Obama use the samediscursive strategies and hold the same ideology on the issue of the “war on terror”. Theirspeeches construct a world of conflict between “Us” and “Them”, which helps tolegitimate the military actions of the “war on terror”. The presidential speeches playimportant roles in the construction and transformation of the world.
The present study is significant both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, thepresent study conducts a critical appraisal of existing research, points out the limitationsof CDA in its methodology and the explanations of some concepts, and further constructsa multi-perspective and dynamic CDA model for analyzing the “war on terror” discourse.Hopefully, the study serves as a supplementary attempt to further develop CDA theories.Practically, the tentative description and interpretation of ideology of the “war on terror”discourse from a socio-constructivist perspective enriches the explanations of the ‘war onterror’ discourse, and will be of help for the study of the structures and social functions ofpolitical discourses.
引文
Althusser, L. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: New Left Books,1971.
Anker, E. Villains, victims and heroes: Melodrama, media and September11. Journal ofCommunication,55,22-37,2005.
Austin, J.L., How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.1962
Austin, P. Politeness revisited-the dark side. In: Bell, Allen, Holmes, Janet (eds.), NewZealand ways of Speaking English (Multilingual matters65). Multilingual matters,Philadelphia,277-293.1990.
Bakhtin, M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited and translated by CarylEmerson and Minneapolis Holquist. London: University of Texas Press.1981.
Bakhtin, M. Speech genres and Other Late Essays, ed. C. Emerson and M Holquist,trans. V.W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press.1986.
Barker, C. and Galasinski, B. Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis: A Dialogue onLanguage and Identity. London: Gage publications,2001.
Barthes, R. Mythologies, extracts in A. Easthope&K. MacGowan(eds.),1992.
Barthes, R.The Pleasure of the Text, extracts in A. Easthope&K. MacGowan(eds.),1992.
Baxter, J. Positioning Gender in Discourse: A Feminist Methodology. New York:Palgrave MacMillan.2003.
Beebe, Leslie M. Polite fictions: instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In:Linguistics and Education of Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguisticsand Sociolinguistic Aspects. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages andLinguistics. Georgetown University Press, Georgetown,154-168,1995.
Berger, P. L. Invitation to Sociology. Harmondsworth. England: Penguin.1966.
Billig, M. The Language of critical discourse analysis: the case of nominalization.Discourse&Society.2008(19):783-800.2008.
Birch, D. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1987.
Blommartert, J. Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2005.
Bloor, T.&Bloor, M., The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach.Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
Bostdorff, D. George W. Bush’s post-September11rhetoric of convenant renewal:Upholding the faith of the greatest generation. Quarterly Journal of Speech.89,293-391.2003.
Bourdieu, P. and Thompson, J.B. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity, inassociation with Basil Blackwell.1991.
Bousfield, D. Impoliteness in Interaction. John Benjamins Publishing Co. Amsterdam:The Netherlands.2008.
Brown, R. and Gilman, A.“The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity”, in P. Giglioli(ed.),Language and Social Context, Harmondsworth: Penguin.1972.
Brown, P.&Levinson, S.C. Politeness: Some universals in language use.Cambridge:CUP.1987[1978].
Brown, G.&Yule, G., Discourse Analysis. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press,2000.
Butt, D. G., Lukin, A. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. Grammar: the First Covert Operationof War. Discourse&Society15(2-3):267-290.2004.
Caldas-Coulthare, C.R. and Coulthard, M.(eds) Text and Practice: readings in criticaldiscourse analysis. London: Routledge,1996.
Cameron, A and Palan, R. The Imagined Economies of Globalization. London: Sage.2004.
Chilton, P. and Lakoff, G.“Foreign policy by metaphor.” In language and Peace, C.Schaffner and A. Wenden (eds.),37-60. Aldershot: Dartmouth.1995.
Chernus, Ira. Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin.Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.2006.
Chouliaraki, L.(ed.) Special Issue: The Soft Power of War: Legitimacy and Communityin Iraq War Discourse. Journal of Language and Politics4(1).2005.
Chomsky, N. Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Romance. New York:Metropolitan Books.2003.
Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking CriticalDiscourse Analysis. Edinburgh University Press,1999.
Claire, K., Language and Culture. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language EducationPress,2000.
Clark, H. Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes.25,567-98.1997.
Coulthard, M. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman,1977.
Coulthard, M.(ed.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London/New York:Routledge,1992.
Cousins, M.&Hussain, A. Michel Foucault. Houndmills: Macmillan,1984.
Culler, J. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralsim. Ithaca,1982.
Culpeper, J. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics.25(3),349-367.1996.
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D. and Wichmann, A. Impoliteness revisited: with specialreference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics35(10-11),1545-1579.2003.
Culpeper, J. Impoliteness and the Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research.1(1),35-72.2005.
Dedaic, M. N. and Nelson, D.N.(eds.) At War With Words. New York: Mouton deGruyter.2003.
Derrida, J.“Difference”, in A. Easthope&K. McGowan(eds.),1992.
Doran, M.S.‘Somebody else’s civil war’. In How Did This Happen” Terrorism and theNew War. J, Odge and G. Rose (eds.)31-52. Oxford: Public Affairs.2001.
Dressler, W. U.(ed.), Current Trends in Textlinguistics. Berlin/New York: Walter deGruyter,1977.
Dunmire, P. Preempting the future: rhetorical and ideology of the future in politicaldiscourse. Discourse&Society London: Sage P481-513.2005.
Ewards, G. C. The presidency: Has it really changed? in American government in achanged world: The effects of September11,2001. New York: Longman PearsonEducation,2003.
Fairclough, N. Language and Power, London/New York: Longman,1989.
Fairclough, N. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity,1992a.
Fairclough, N. Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman,1992b.
Fairclough, N. Critical Discourse Analysis: the Critical Study of Language. London:Longman,1995a.
Fairclough, N. Media Discourse. London: Longman,1995b.
Fairclough, N and Wodak, R.‘Critical discourse analysis’, in van Dijk, T.A.(ed.)Discourse as Social Interaction, London: Sage,258-284.1997.
Fairclough, N. and Chouliaraki, L. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking CriticalDiscourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.1999.
Fairclough, N. New Labor New Language? London: Routledge,2000.
Fairclough, N. Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London:Routledge.2003.
Fairclough, N. Language and Globalization. London:Routledge,2006.
Fillmore, C.“Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm,111-137. Seoul,South Korea: Hanshin Publishing.1982.
Fillmore, C.“Frames and the Semantics of Understanding.” Quaderni di Semantica,6(2):222-254.1985.
Foucault, M. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York:Harper,1972.
Foucault, M. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Allen Lane.1977.
Foucault, M. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings,1972-1977,(ed.)C. Gordon, trans, C. Gordon et al. New York: Pantheon,1980.
Fowler, R. Linguistics and the novel London: Methuen,1977.
Fowler, R. Hodge, B., Kress, G. and Trew, T. Language and Social Control. London:Routledge.1979.
Fowler, R. Literature as social discourse London: Batsford,1981.
Fowler, R.“Power” in T.A. van Dijk (ed.),1985.
Fowler, R. Linguistics Criticism. Oxford/New York: OUP,1986.
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G..&Trew, T., Language and Control. London: Routledge,1979.
Fowler, R., Language in the New: Discourse and Ideology in the Press, London:Routledge,1991.
Gee. J. P., An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, London:Routledge.2005.
Geignan, A. Conceptual Metaphor Theory Theories of Metaphor in Discourse:Contemporary Theories of Metaphor. Retrieved20thOctober,2008, from http:creet.open.ac.uk/projects/metaphor-analysis/theories.cfm?paper=cmt,2007.
Givon, T. Mind, Code, Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.1989.
Givon, T. Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In Gernsbacher, M.A. and Givon,T.(eds.), Coherence in Spontaneous Text.59-115. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company,1995.
Goffman, E. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face behavior. New York: pantheonBooks.1967.
Goffman, E. International ritual: essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: AnchorBooks.1967.
Goffman, E. Frame analysis. New York: Harper&Row,1975.
Gramsci, A., Hoare, Q.&Smith, G. N.(eds). Selections from the prison notebooks,London: Lawrence&Wishart,1978.
Goglioli, P.P.(ed.), Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth: Penguin,1972.
Graham, P., Keenan, T. and Dowd, A. A Call to Arms at the End of History: ADiscourse-Historical Analysis of George W. Bush’s Declaration of War on Terror’,Discourse&Society,15(2-3):199-221.2004.
Grice, P. Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole et al.(eds.) Syntax and Semantics (Vol.3)41-58). New York: Academic Press.1975.
Grundy, P. Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold.1995.
Hall, S. The Work of Representation. In Representation: Cultural Representations andSignifying Practices, Stuart Hall (ed.),13-74. London: Sage.1997.
Halliday, M.A.K.,“Language structure and language function”, in J. Lyons(ed.), NewHorizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin,1970.
Halliday, M. A. K., Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold,1973.
Halliday, M. A. K., An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press,2000.
Halliday, M.A.K., Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Languageand Meaning, London: Edward Arnold,1978.
Halliday, M.A.K.&Hasan, R., Cohesion in English. London: Edward Arnold,1976.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Function Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.1985.
Halliday, M.A.K.&Hasan, R., Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of language in asocio-semiotic perspective. London: Oxford University Press,1989.
Halliday, M.A.K.&Martin, J.R. Writing Science: Literacy and discursive power. London:Falmer Press.1993.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London:Hodder Education.2004.
Harris, S.“Pragmatics and Power”. Journal of Pragmatics,23.1995.
Hart, C. Analyzing political discourse: Toward a cognitive approach. Critical DiscourseStudies,2(2),1-9. Retrieved October20,2008fromhttps://uhra.herts.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2299/1071/1/901161.pdf.2005.
Harvey, D. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2003.
Hodge, R.&Kress, G., Language as Ideology. London: Routledge,1993.
Hodge, R.&Kress, G., Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.1988.
Hodges, A.&Nilep, C. Discourse, War and Terroirsm. Armsterdam:John. BenjaminsPublishing Company.2007.
Hodge, J. and Rose, G.(eds.) How Did This Happen? Terrorism and the New War.Oxford: Public Affairs.2001.
Holzscheiter, A.‘Power of Discourse and Power in Discourse. An Investigation ofTransformation and Exclusion in the Global Discourse of Children’, unpublishedPhD thesis, FU Berlin.2005.
Huddy, L., Khatib, N. and Capelos, T.‘The Polls-trends: Reactions to the TerroristAttacks of September11.2001’, Public Opinions Quarterly66(3):418-50.2002.
Hudson, R. A. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: CUP.1980.
Huckin, T. Social Approaches: Critical Discourse Analysis. Retrieved March20,2008,fromhttp://exchanges, state..gov/education/engteaching/pubs/BR/functionalistsec3_6.htm.
Jackson, R. Writing the War on Terrorism. Language, Politics and Counter-terrorism.Manchester: Manchester University Press.2005.
Jefferson, A.“Structuralism and Post-structuralism”, in A. Jefferson&D. Robey(ed.),Modern Literary Theory: A Comparative Introduction. Totowa: Barnes andNoble.1982.
Johnstone, B. Discourse Analysis. London: Blackwell.2008.
Kadmon, N. Formal Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.2001.
Kellner, D. Globalization, Terrorism, and Democracy:9/11and its Aftermath. Availableat: http://gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner.
Kenneth J. G., An Invitation to Social Construction. London: Sage Publication,1999.
Kienpointer, M. Varieties of rudeness: types and functions of impolite utterances.Functions of Language4(2),251-287.1997.
Kress, G. Linguistics Prosesses in Sociocultural Practice. Oxford: OUP.1985.
Kress, G.&Hodge, R. Language as Ideology. London: Routledge&Kegan Paul,1979.
Krings, H.et al. Handbuch philosophischer Grundbegriffe. Munich:Kosel,1973.
Kristeva, J. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Oxford:Blackwell,1980.
Kristeva, J. The Kristerva Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.1986.
Kuo, S. From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular pronounin Chinese political discourse. Text,22(1),29-55. Retrieved September10,2008from http://www.Hss.nthu.edu.tw/~fl/faculty/shkuo/Second-person%20singular%20pronoun.pdf2002.
Kurzweil, E. The Age of Structuralism: Levi-Strauss to Foucault. New York: ColumbiaUniversal Press,1980.
Labov, W. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,1972.
Lachenicht, L.G. Aggravating language: a study of abusive and insulting language.International Journal of Human Communication13(4),607-687.1980.
Laclau, E. Politics and Ideology in Marxist theory. London:New Left Books,1977.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso,1985.
Lakoff, G.&Johnson, M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago/Lodon: The University ofChicago Press.1980.
Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1987.
Lakoff, G. Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf.Peace Research,23,25-32.1991.
Lakoff, G. The Contemporary theory of metaphor, In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor andThought (2ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.1993.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and itsChallenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.1999.
Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1989.
Lakoff, G.“Metaphors of Terror”, In The Days After. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. Available: http: www. press.uchicago.edu/News/911lakoff.html.2001.
Lakoff, R. T. The limits of politeness: therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua8(2&3),101-129.1989.
Lakoff, R.T. Talking Power. The Politics of Language. New York: Harper Colline.1990.
Lyons, J. Semantics (vols1and2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1977.
Lyons, J. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.1995.
Leech, G. English in Adverting. London: Longman.1966.
Leech, G. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.1983.
Levinson, S.C., Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.1983.
Low, G. On Teaching Metaphor. Applied Linguistics,9,125-147,1988.
Locher, Mariam A. and Richard J. Watts. Politeness Theory and Relational Work.Journal of Politeness Research1(1),9-33.2005.
Luke, A. Introduction: Theory and Practice in Critical Discourse Analysis. RetrievedOctober14,2008from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/Luke/SAHA6.html
Lukes, S. Power: A Radical View,2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.2005.
Macey, D. Critical Theory—the Penguin Dictionary. London: Penguin Books.2000.
Martin, J.R.“Analyzing genre: Functional parameters’. In Genre and Institutions: SocialProcess in the Workplace and School. F. Christie and J.R. Martin (eds.),3-39.London: Cassell.1997.
Martin, J.R. Mourning: How We Get Aligned, Discourse&Society (15(2-3):321-344,2004.
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. London:Continuum.2003.
Martin, J.R.&White, P. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London:Palgrave.2005.
Martin, J.R.&White, P. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London:Palgrave.2005.
Martin, J.R.&Edwards, J.(eds.) Special Issue: Interpreting Tragedy: The Language of11September2001. Discourses and Society15(2-3).2004.
Martin, J.R.&Wodak, R.(eds.) Re/reading the Past. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.2003.
Michael, T., Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. London:Routledge,2002.
Montgomery, M. The Discourse of War after9/11. Language and Literature14(2):149-80.2005.
Morley, D. Texts, readers, subjects. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A.Lowe and P. Willis(eds),Culture, Media, Language. London: Huthinson,1980.
Muffe, C. On the Politics. London: Rutledge.2005.
Mumby, D.K.‘Discourse, Power and Ideology:Unpacking the Critical Approach’, in D.Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick and L.L. Putnam(eds) The SAGE Handbook ofOrganizational Discourse, pp.237-57. London: Sage.2004.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States.2004. ExecutiveSummary of the9/11Commission Report. Available athttp://www. gpoaccess.gov/9/11/pdf/execsummary.pdf.
NC–see National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States.
Norrick, N.R.‘Discourse and Semantics’, in Schiffrin D., Tannen, D., and Hamilton, H.E.(eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.2001.
Nunberg, G. Going Nucular: Language, politics and culture in confrontational times.New York: Public Affairs.2005.
Pêcheux, M. Language, Semantics and Ideology. trans. H. Nagpal. London: Macmillan,1982.
Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R.‘The Discourse-Historical Approach’ in R. Wodak and M.Meyer(eds) Methods of CDA,2ndrev.edn. pp.77-121. London: Sage.2009.
Pillar, P.R. Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy. Washington, DD: Brookings InstitutionPress,2001.
Renkema, J. Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.1993.
Rogers, R. An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.2004.
Sacks, S. Fiction and the Shape of Belief. Berkeley: University of Californiz press,1964.
Said, E. W.“Interiew”, Diacritics1974.3(6).1974.
Salama, A. Ideological Collocation and the Recontextualization of Wahhabi-Saudi Islampost-9/11: A Synery of Corpus Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis.Discourse&Society.22(3):315-42.2011.
Sayer, A. Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.2000.
Schegloff, E.G and Sacks, H. Opening up closings. Semiotica,8,289-327,1973.
Searl, J. R., Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Beijing: ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press,2001.
Searl, J. R., Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
Sinclair, J. M. and Coulthard, M. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. London: OxfordUniversity Press,1975.
Scollon, R. Mediated Discourse as Social Interaction: A Study of News Discourse. NewYork: Longman,1998.
Searle, J. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.1969.
Searle, J. A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language and Society.(5)1-23.1975.
Sherman, D. J. and Nardin, T.(eds.) Terror, Culture, Politics: Rethinking9/11.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.2006.
Silverstein, M.“Axes of Evals: Token versus Type Interdiscursivity”. Journal ofLinguistic Anthropology15(1):6-22.2005.
Steger, M. Globalization: Market Ideology meets Terrorism. Lanham: Rowman andLittlefield.2005.
Sykes, M. From:Rights” to “Needs”: Official Discourse and the “Welfarization” of Race.In G. Smitherman0Donaldson&T. van Dijk (eds.) Discourse and Discrimination.Detroit. MI: Wayne State University Press.1985.
Taylor, S. Locating and Conducting Discourse Analysis Research. London: SagePublications.2001.
Teo, P. Racism in the News: A Critical Discourse Analysis of News Reporting in TwoAustralian Newspapers. Discourse&Society11(1):7-49.2000.
Thao Le, Quynh Le and Megan S. Critical Discourse Analysis: An InterdisciplinaryPerspective. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.2009.
Thompson, G., Introducing Functional Grammar, Beijing: Foreign Language Teachingand Research Press,2000.
Thompon, J.B. Ideology and Modern Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press,1990.
Thomas, J. A. Meaning in Interaction. London: Longman.1995.
Toolan, M. Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics London:Rutledge.2002.
Trew, T. Theory and Ideology at Work, in R. Fowler et al(eds.), Language and Control.London. Boston&Henley: Rutledge&Kegan Paul.1979.
Trudgill, P. Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. Harmondsworth:Penguin Books,1983.
Tuomela, R. Philosophy of social practices: A Collective acceptance view. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.2002.
Van Dijk, T.A. Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. IV, London: Academic Press,1985a.
Van Dijk, T.A.“Semantic Discourse Analysis.” Handbook of Discourse Analysis:
Dimensions of Discourse. Ed. Teun A. van Dijk. Vol.2. New York: Academic Press,1985b.
Van Dijk, T.A. Text and Context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics ofdiscourse. London: Longman,1977.
Van Dijk, T.A. Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures indiscourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, N.J. awrence Erlbaum,1980a.
Van Dijk, T. A. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures inDiscourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Hillsdale: Laurence Erlbaum Associates,1980b.
Van Dijk, T.A. Communicating Racism: Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk.Newbury park: Sage.1987.
Van Dijk, T.A. News as Discourse. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1988.
Van Dijk, T.A. Racism and the Press. London:Routledge.1991.
Van Dijk, T.A. Elite Discourse and Racism. London: Sage.1993.
Van Dijk, T.A Discourse Semantics and Ideology. Discourse&Society5(2),243-289.1995.
Van Dijk, T.A. Raciam in the Press. London: Arnorld,1996.
Van Dijk, T.A. Discourse as Structure and Process. London: SAG publications Ltd.1997a.
Van Dijk, T.A. Discourse as Interaction in Society. In T.Van Dijk (ed.), Discourse asSocial Interaction. pp.1-37. LA:Sage Publications.1997b.
Van Dijk, T.A. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage Publications,1998.
Van Dijk, T.A. Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity in R. Wodak and M. Meyer(eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.2001.
Van Dijk, T.A.“Multidisciplinary CDA: a plea for diversity” in R. Wodak and M.Meyer(eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London, Thousand Oaks, Delhi: SagePublications,95-120.2002.
Van Dijk, T.A. Aertse;aer. K. N.&Pitz. Introduction: Language, Discourse and Ideology.in Putz, et al (eds.) Communicating Ideologies: Multidisciplinary Perspectives onLanguage, Discouse and Social Practice. Frankfurk: Peter Lang GmbH.2004a.
Van Dijk, T.A. From Text Grammar to Critical Discourse Analysis (a brief academicautobiography). Retrieved October10,2008fromhttp://www.discourse.org/cv/From%20text%20grammar%20critical%20analysis.pdf.2004b.
Van Dijk, T.A.‘Discourse and Manipulation’, Discourse&Society17(2):359-83.2006.
Van Dijk, T.A. Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,2008.
Van Leeuwen, T. Representation of Social Actors in English Language. In R.C.Caldas-Coulthard&M. Coulthard (eds.). Texts and Practice Readings in CriticalDiscourse Analysis. London:Rougtledge.1996.
Van Leeuwen, T.‘Legitimation in Discourse and Communication’, Discourse&Communication1(1):91-112.2007.
Van Leeuwen, T. Discourse and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2008.
Viehweger, D. Coherence–Interaction of modules in Heydrich, W,. Neubauer, F., Petofi,J. and Sozer, E.(eds.), Connexity and Coherence–Analysis of Text andDiscourse.256-274Berlin: Walte de Gruyter,1989.
Volosinov, V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York: Seminar Press,1973.
Vygotsky, Lev S.“Thinking and Speech:. In The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky,Robert W. Rieber and Aaron S. Carton (eds.), Norris Minick (trans.).39-285. NewYork: Plenum Press.1987.
Watts, R. J. Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich.(eds). Politeness in language. Berlin andNew York: Mouton de Gruyter.1992.
Widdowson, H. G. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.1978.
Widdowson, H. G.“Discourse analysis: A critical View”. Oxford: OUP.1995a.
Widdowson, H.G.“Norman Fairclough: Discourse and Social Change” AppliedLinguistics, V.16, N.4.1995b.
Widdowson, H. G.“Reply to Fairclough: Discourse and interpretation: conjectures andrefutations”, Language and Literature,1996.
Widdowson, H. Text, context, pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis. Melbourne:Blackwell.2004.
Williams, R. Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana/CroomHelm.1976.
Wilson, J. Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford:Balckwell.1990.
Wodak, R.(ed.), Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse.Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1989.
Wodak, R. Disorders of Discourse. London: Longman.1996.
Wodak, R. and Reisigl, M. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorical of Racism andAntisemitism. London: Routledge.1999.
Wodak, R. What CDA is about—a summary of its history, important concepts and itsdevelopment. In R. Wodak&M. Mayer(Eds), Methods of critical discourse analysis(pp.1-13). London: Sage Publication.2002.
Wodak, R. and Meye, M. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SagePublication,2009.
Worton, M. and J. Still, eds. Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Manchester:Manchester UP.1990.
Xin Bin, Intertextuality from a Critical Perspective. Su Zhou University,2000.
Zinken, Jog. Ideological Imagination: Intertextual and Correlational Metaphors in
Political Discourse. Discourse&Society14(4):507-523.2003.
陈丽江.《文化语境与政治话语:政府新闻发布会的话语分析》［Ｍ］.北京:中国广播电视出版社,2007.
陈忠华、杨春苑、赵明炜.批评性话语分析述评［Ｊ］《.外语学刊》,2002(1)：82-86.
陈中竺.批评语言学述评［Ｊ］.《外语教学与研究》,1995a(1)：21-27.
陈中竺.语篇与意识形态：批评性语篇分析［Ｊ］.《外国语》,1995b (3)：21-27.
戴炜华、陈宇韵.批评语篇分析的理论和方法［Ｊ］.《外语研究》,2004(4)：12-16
戴炜华、高军.批评语篇分析：理论述评与实例分析［Ｊ］.《外国语》,2002(6)：42-48.
丁建新、廖益清.批评话语分析述评［Ｊ］.《当代语言学》,2001(4)：305-310.
丁建新.《叙事的批评话语分析：社会符号学模式》［Ｍ］.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2007.
韩仲谦、左进.言语行为理论的再解读：从指称到建构［Ｊ］.《安徽工业大学学报》,2007（1）：91-92.
何兆熊.汉英文化中的礼貌研究［Ｊ］.《外国语》,1995(5)：2-8.
何兆熊.《新编语用学概要》［Ｍ］.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
何兆熊.《语用学》［Ｍ］.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2011.
胡壮麟.《功能主义纵横谈》［Ｍ］.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2000.
纪玉华.批评性话语分析：理论与方法［Ｊ］.《厦门大学学报》,2001(3)149-155.
李桔元.《广告语篇中的意识形态批评话语分析》［Ｍ］.上海：上海交通大学出版社，2009.
李素玲.批评性语篇分析：发展概况与应用前景［Ｊ］.《山东外语教学》,2004(5).
吕万英.英语新闻标题批评性分析［Ｊ］.《广东外语外贸大学学报》,2005(2)：49-52.
曲卫国、陈流芳.礼貌称呼的语用学解释.［Ｊ］.《华东师范大学学报》,1999（6）：118-124.
索振羽.《语用学教程》［Ｍ］.北京:北京大学出版社,2000.
田海龙.政治语言研究：述评与思考［Ｊ］.《外国教学》,2002(1)：23-29.
田海龙病例报告：抗击非典的话语实践［Ｊ］.《中国社会语言学》,2004(1)：113-124.
田海龙.语篇研究的批评视角：从批评语言学到批评话语分析［Ｊ］.《山东外语
教学》,2006(2)：40-48.
田海龙.《语篇研究：范畴、视角、方法》［Ｍ］.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2009
王晋军. CDA与SFL关系分析［Ｊ］.《山东外语教学》,2002(6)：10-13.
王振华.评价系统及其运作—系统功能语言学的新发展［Ｊ］.《外国语》,2001(6)：13-20.
项蕴华.简述Fairclough的语篇分析观［Ｊ］.《山东外语教学》,2004(5)：19-22.
项蕴华.政治语篇中权力不对称性的批评性分析［Ｊ］《.外语学刊》,2006(2)：25-28.
项蕴华.《语篇分析视角的再思考》［Ｍ］.长春:吉林大学出版社,2009.
谢立中.《走向多元话语分析:后现代思潮的社会学意涵》［Ｍ］.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.
辛斌.语言、权力与意识形态：批评语言学［Ｊ］.《现代外语》,1996(1).
辛斌.英语语篇的批评分析刍议［Ｊ］.《四川外语学院学报》,1997(4)：43-49.
辛斌、陈腾澜.语篇的对话分析初探［Ｊ］.《外国语》,1999(5)：8-13.
辛斌.批评语言学与英语新闻语篇的批评性分析［Ｊ］.《外语教学》,2000(4)：44-47.
辛斌.体裁互文性与主体位置的语用分析［Ｊ］《.外语教学与研究》,2001(5)：348-352.
辛斌.批评性语言分析方法论［Ｊ］.《外国语》,2002(6)：34-41.
辛斌.批评性语篇分析：问题与讨论［Ｊ］.《外国语》,2004(5)：64-69..
辛斌.《批评语言学：理论与应用》［Ｍ］.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005.
辛斌.福柯的权力论与批评话语分析［Ｊ］.《外语学刊》,2006(2)：1-6.
俞东明.《文体学研究：回顾、现状与展望》［Ｍ］.上海:上海外语教育出版社，2010.
俞东明.《什么是语用学》［Ｍ］.上海:上海外语教育出版社，2011.
张发祥.《话语分析:理论与案例》［Ｍ］.北京:科学出版社,2009.
朱永生、严世清.《功能语言学导论》［Ｍ］.上海:上外语教育出版社,2004.
Anker, E. Villains, victims and heroes: Melodrama, media and September11. Journal ofCommunication,55,22-37,2005.
Austin, J.L., How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.1962
Austin, P. Politeness revisited-the dark side. In: Bell, Allen, Holmes, Janet (eds.), NewZealand ways of Speaking English (Multilingual matters65). Multilingual matters,Philadelphia,277-293.1990.
Bakhtin, M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited and translated by CarylEmerson and Minneapolis Holquist. London: University of Texas Press.1981.
Bakhtin, M. Speech genres and Other Late Essays, ed. C. Emerson and M Holquist,trans. V.W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press.1986.
Barker, C. and Galasinski, B. Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis: A Dialogue onLanguage and Identity. London: Gage publications,2001.
Barthes, R. Mythologies, extracts in A. Easthope&K. MacGowan(eds.),1992.
Barthes, R.The Pleasure of the Text, extracts in A. Easthope&K. MacGowan(eds.),1992.
Baxter, J. Positioning Gender in Discourse: A Feminist Methodology. New York:Palgrave MacMillan.2003.
Beebe, Leslie M. Polite fictions: instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In:Linguistics and Education of Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguisticsand Sociolinguistic Aspects. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages andLinguistics. Georgetown University Press, Georgetown,154-168,1995.
Berger, P. L. Invitation to Sociology. Harmondsworth. England: Penguin.1966.
Billig, M. The Language of critical discourse analysis: the case of nominalization.Discourse&Society.2008(19):783-800.2008.
Birch, D. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1987.
Blommartert, J. Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2005.
Bloor, T.&Bloor, M., The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach.Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
Bostdorff, D. George W. Bush’s post-September11rhetoric of convenant renewal:Upholding the faith of the greatest generation. Quarterly Journal of Speech.89,293-391.2003.
Bourdieu, P. and Thompson, J.B. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity, inassociation with Basil Blackwell.1991.
Bousfield, D. Impoliteness in Interaction. John Benjamins Publishing Co. Amsterdam:The Netherlands.2008.
Brown, R. and Gilman, A.“The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity”, in P. Giglioli(ed.),Language and Social Context, Harmondsworth: Penguin.1972.
Brown, P.&Levinson, S.C. Politeness: Some universals in language use.Cambridge:CUP.1987[1978].
Brown, G.&Yule, G., Discourse Analysis. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press,2000.
Butt, D. G., Lukin, A. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. Grammar: the First Covert Operationof War. Discourse&Society15(2-3):267-290.2004.
Caldas-Coulthare, C.R. and Coulthard, M.(eds) Text and Practice: readings in criticaldiscourse analysis. London: Routledge,1996.
Cameron, A and Palan, R. The Imagined Economies of Globalization. London: Sage.2004.
Chilton, P. and Lakoff, G.“Foreign policy by metaphor.” In language and Peace, C.Schaffner and A. Wenden (eds.),37-60. Aldershot: Dartmouth.1995.
Chernus, Ira. Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin.Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.2006.
Chouliaraki, L.(ed.) Special Issue: The Soft Power of War: Legitimacy and Communityin Iraq War Discourse. Journal of Language and Politics4(1).2005.
Chomsky, N. Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Romance. New York:Metropolitan Books.2003.
Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking CriticalDiscourse Analysis. Edinburgh University Press,1999.
Claire, K., Language and Culture. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language EducationPress,2000.
Clark, H. Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes.25,567-98.1997.
Coulthard, M. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman,1977.
Coulthard, M.(ed.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London/New York:Routledge,1992.
Cousins, M.&Hussain, A. Michel Foucault. Houndmills: Macmillan,1984.
Culler, J. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralsim. Ithaca,1982.
Culpeper, J. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics.25(3),349-367.1996.
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D. and Wichmann, A. Impoliteness revisited: with specialreference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics35(10-11),1545-1579.2003.
Culpeper, J. Impoliteness and the Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research.1(1),35-72.2005.
Dedaic, M. N. and Nelson, D.N.(eds.) At War With Words. New York: Mouton deGruyter.2003.
Derrida, J.“Difference”, in A. Easthope&K. McGowan(eds.),1992.
Doran, M.S.‘Somebody else’s civil war’. In How Did This Happen” Terrorism and theNew War. J, Odge and G. Rose (eds.)31-52. Oxford: Public Affairs.2001.
Dressler, W. U.(ed.), Current Trends in Textlinguistics. Berlin/New York: Walter deGruyter,1977.
Dunmire, P. Preempting the future: rhetorical and ideology of the future in politicaldiscourse. Discourse&Society London: Sage P481-513.2005.
Ewards, G. C. The presidency: Has it really changed? in American government in achanged world: The effects of September11,2001. New York: Longman PearsonEducation,2003.
Fairclough, N. Language and Power, London/New York: Longman,1989.
Fairclough, N. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity,1992a.
Fairclough, N. Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman,1992b.
Fairclough, N. Critical Discourse Analysis: the Critical Study of Language. London:Longman,1995a.
Fairclough, N. Media Discourse. London: Longman,1995b.
Fairclough, N and Wodak, R.‘Critical discourse analysis’, in van Dijk, T.A.(ed.)Discourse as Social Interaction, London: Sage,258-284.1997.
Fairclough, N. and Chouliaraki, L. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking CriticalDiscourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.1999.
Fairclough, N. New Labor New Language? London: Routledge,2000.
Fairclough, N. Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London:Routledge.2003.
Fairclough, N. Language and Globalization. London:Routledge,2006.
Fillmore, C.“Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm,111-137. Seoul,South Korea: Hanshin Publishing.1982.
Fillmore, C.“Frames and the Semantics of Understanding.” Quaderni di Semantica,6(2):222-254.1985.
Foucault, M. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York:Harper,1972.
Foucault, M. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Allen Lane.1977.
Foucault, M. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings,1972-1977,(ed.)C. Gordon, trans, C. Gordon et al. New York: Pantheon,1980.
Fowler, R. Linguistics and the novel London: Methuen,1977.
Fowler, R. Hodge, B., Kress, G. and Trew, T. Language and Social Control. London:Routledge.1979.
Fowler, R. Literature as social discourse London: Batsford,1981.
Fowler, R.“Power” in T.A. van Dijk (ed.),1985.
Fowler, R. Linguistics Criticism. Oxford/New York: OUP,1986.
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G..&Trew, T., Language and Control. London: Routledge,1979.
Fowler, R., Language in the New: Discourse and Ideology in the Press, London:Routledge,1991.
Gee. J. P., An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, London:Routledge.2005.
Geignan, A. Conceptual Metaphor Theory Theories of Metaphor in Discourse:Contemporary Theories of Metaphor. Retrieved20thOctober,2008, from http:creet.open.ac.uk/projects/metaphor-analysis/theories.cfm?paper=cmt,2007.
Givon, T. Mind, Code, Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.1989.
Givon, T. Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In Gernsbacher, M.A. and Givon,T.(eds.), Coherence in Spontaneous Text.59-115. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company,1995.
Goffman, E. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face behavior. New York: pantheonBooks.1967.
Goffman, E. International ritual: essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: AnchorBooks.1967.
Goffman, E. Frame analysis. New York: Harper&Row,1975.
Gramsci, A., Hoare, Q.&Smith, G. N.(eds). Selections from the prison notebooks,London: Lawrence&Wishart,1978.
Goglioli, P.P.(ed.), Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth: Penguin,1972.
Graham, P., Keenan, T. and Dowd, A. A Call to Arms at the End of History: ADiscourse-Historical Analysis of George W. Bush’s Declaration of War on Terror’,Discourse&Society,15(2-3):199-221.2004.
Grice, P. Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole et al.(eds.) Syntax and Semantics (Vol.3)41-58). New York: Academic Press.1975.
Grundy, P. Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold.1995.
Hall, S. The Work of Representation. In Representation: Cultural Representations andSignifying Practices, Stuart Hall (ed.),13-74. London: Sage.1997.
Halliday, M.A.K.,“Language structure and language function”, in J. Lyons(ed.), NewHorizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin,1970.
Halliday, M. A. K., Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold,1973.
Halliday, M. A. K., An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press,2000.
Halliday, M.A.K., Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Languageand Meaning, London: Edward Arnold,1978.
Halliday, M.A.K.&Hasan, R., Cohesion in English. London: Edward Arnold,1976.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Function Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.1985.
Halliday, M.A.K.&Hasan, R., Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of language in asocio-semiotic perspective. London: Oxford University Press,1989.
Halliday, M.A.K.&Martin, J.R. Writing Science: Literacy and discursive power. London:Falmer Press.1993.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London:Hodder Education.2004.
Harris, S.“Pragmatics and Power”. Journal of Pragmatics,23.1995.
Hart, C. Analyzing political discourse: Toward a cognitive approach. Critical DiscourseStudies,2(2),1-9. Retrieved October20,2008fromhttps://uhra.herts.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2299/1071/1/901161.pdf.2005.
Harvey, D. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2003.
Hodge, R.&Kress, G., Language as Ideology. London: Routledge,1993.
Hodge, R.&Kress, G., Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.1988.
Hodges, A.&Nilep, C. Discourse, War and Terroirsm. Armsterdam:John. BenjaminsPublishing Company.2007.
Hodge, J. and Rose, G.(eds.) How Did This Happen? Terrorism and the New War.Oxford: Public Affairs.2001.
Holzscheiter, A.‘Power of Discourse and Power in Discourse. An Investigation ofTransformation and Exclusion in the Global Discourse of Children’, unpublishedPhD thesis, FU Berlin.2005.
Huddy, L., Khatib, N. and Capelos, T.‘The Polls-trends: Reactions to the TerroristAttacks of September11.2001’, Public Opinions Quarterly66(3):418-50.2002.
Hudson, R. A. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: CUP.1980.
Huckin, T. Social Approaches: Critical Discourse Analysis. Retrieved March20,2008,fromhttp://exchanges, state..gov/education/engteaching/pubs/BR/functionalistsec3_6.htm.
Jackson, R. Writing the War on Terrorism. Language, Politics and Counter-terrorism.Manchester: Manchester University Press.2005.
Jefferson, A.“Structuralism and Post-structuralism”, in A. Jefferson&D. Robey(ed.),Modern Literary Theory: A Comparative Introduction. Totowa: Barnes andNoble.1982.
Johnstone, B. Discourse Analysis. London: Blackwell.2008.
Kadmon, N. Formal Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.2001.
Kellner, D. Globalization, Terrorism, and Democracy:9/11and its Aftermath. Availableat: http://gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner.
Kenneth J. G., An Invitation to Social Construction. London: Sage Publication,1999.
Kienpointer, M. Varieties of rudeness: types and functions of impolite utterances.Functions of Language4(2),251-287.1997.
Kress, G. Linguistics Prosesses in Sociocultural Practice. Oxford: OUP.1985.
Kress, G.&Hodge, R. Language as Ideology. London: Routledge&Kegan Paul,1979.
Krings, H.et al. Handbuch philosophischer Grundbegriffe. Munich:Kosel,1973.
Kristeva, J. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Oxford:Blackwell,1980.
Kristeva, J. The Kristerva Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.1986.
Kuo, S. From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular pronounin Chinese political discourse. Text,22(1),29-55. Retrieved September10,2008from http://www.Hss.nthu.edu.tw/~fl/faculty/shkuo/Second-person%20singular%20pronoun.pdf2002.
Kurzweil, E. The Age of Structuralism: Levi-Strauss to Foucault. New York: ColumbiaUniversal Press,1980.
Labov, W. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,1972.
Lachenicht, L.G. Aggravating language: a study of abusive and insulting language.International Journal of Human Communication13(4),607-687.1980.
Laclau, E. Politics and Ideology in Marxist theory. London:New Left Books,1977.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso,1985.
Lakoff, G.&Johnson, M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago/Lodon: The University ofChicago Press.1980.
Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1987.
Lakoff, G. Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf.Peace Research,23,25-32.1991.
Lakoff, G. The Contemporary theory of metaphor, In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor andThought (2ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.1993.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and itsChallenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.1999.
Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1989.
Lakoff, G.“Metaphors of Terror”, In The Days After. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. Available: http: www. press.uchicago.edu/News/911lakoff.html.2001.
Lakoff, R. T. The limits of politeness: therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua8(2&3),101-129.1989.
Lakoff, R.T. Talking Power. The Politics of Language. New York: Harper Colline.1990.
Lyons, J. Semantics (vols1and2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1977.
Lyons, J. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.1995.
Leech, G. English in Adverting. London: Longman.1966.
Leech, G. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.1983.
Levinson, S.C., Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.1983.
Low, G. On Teaching Metaphor. Applied Linguistics,9,125-147,1988.
Locher, Mariam A. and Richard J. Watts. Politeness Theory and Relational Work.Journal of Politeness Research1(1),9-33.2005.
Luke, A. Introduction: Theory and Practice in Critical Discourse Analysis. RetrievedOctober14,2008from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/Luke/SAHA6.html
Lukes, S. Power: A Radical View,2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.2005.
Macey, D. Critical Theory—the Penguin Dictionary. London: Penguin Books.2000.
Martin, J.R.“Analyzing genre: Functional parameters’. In Genre and Institutions: SocialProcess in the Workplace and School. F. Christie and J.R. Martin (eds.),3-39.London: Cassell.1997.
Martin, J.R. Mourning: How We Get Aligned, Discourse&Society (15(2-3):321-344,2004.
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. London:Continuum.2003.
Martin, J.R.&White, P. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London:Palgrave.2005.
Martin, J.R.&White, P. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London:Palgrave.2005.
Martin, J.R.&Edwards, J.(eds.) Special Issue: Interpreting Tragedy: The Language of11September2001. Discourses and Society15(2-3).2004.
Martin, J.R.&Wodak, R.(eds.) Re/reading the Past. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.2003.
Michael, T., Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. London:Routledge,2002.
Montgomery, M. The Discourse of War after9/11. Language and Literature14(2):149-80.2005.
Morley, D. Texts, readers, subjects. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A.Lowe and P. Willis(eds),Culture, Media, Language. London: Huthinson,1980.
Muffe, C. On the Politics. London: Rutledge.2005.
Mumby, D.K.‘Discourse, Power and Ideology:Unpacking the Critical Approach’, in D.Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick and L.L. Putnam(eds) The SAGE Handbook ofOrganizational Discourse, pp.237-57. London: Sage.2004.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States.2004. ExecutiveSummary of the9/11Commission Report. Available athttp://www. gpoaccess.gov/9/11/pdf/execsummary.pdf.
NC–see National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States.
Norrick, N.R.‘Discourse and Semantics’, in Schiffrin D., Tannen, D., and Hamilton, H.E.(eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.2001.
Nunberg, G. Going Nucular: Language, politics and culture in confrontational times.New York: Public Affairs.2005.
Pêcheux, M. Language, Semantics and Ideology. trans. H. Nagpal. London: Macmillan,1982.
Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R.‘The Discourse-Historical Approach’ in R. Wodak and M.Meyer(eds) Methods of CDA,2ndrev.edn. pp.77-121. London: Sage.2009.
Pillar, P.R. Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy. Washington, DD: Brookings InstitutionPress,2001.
Renkema, J. Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.1993.
Rogers, R. An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.2004.
Sacks, S. Fiction and the Shape of Belief. Berkeley: University of Californiz press,1964.
Said, E. W.“Interiew”, Diacritics1974.3(6).1974.
Salama, A. Ideological Collocation and the Recontextualization of Wahhabi-Saudi Islampost-9/11: A Synery of Corpus Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis.Discourse&Society.22(3):315-42.2011.
Sayer, A. Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.2000.
Schegloff, E.G and Sacks, H. Opening up closings. Semiotica,8,289-327,1973.
Searl, J. R., Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Beijing: ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press,2001.
Searl, J. R., Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
Sinclair, J. M. and Coulthard, M. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. London: OxfordUniversity Press,1975.
Scollon, R. Mediated Discourse as Social Interaction: A Study of News Discourse. NewYork: Longman,1998.
Searle, J. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.1969.
Searle, J. A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language and Society.(5)1-23.1975.
Sherman, D. J. and Nardin, T.(eds.) Terror, Culture, Politics: Rethinking9/11.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.2006.
Silverstein, M.“Axes of Evals: Token versus Type Interdiscursivity”. Journal ofLinguistic Anthropology15(1):6-22.2005.
Steger, M. Globalization: Market Ideology meets Terrorism. Lanham: Rowman andLittlefield.2005.
Sykes, M. From:Rights” to “Needs”: Official Discourse and the “Welfarization” of Race.In G. Smitherman0Donaldson&T. van Dijk (eds.) Discourse and Discrimination.Detroit. MI: Wayne State University Press.1985.
Taylor, S. Locating and Conducting Discourse Analysis Research. London: SagePublications.2001.
Teo, P. Racism in the News: A Critical Discourse Analysis of News Reporting in TwoAustralian Newspapers. Discourse&Society11(1):7-49.2000.
Thao Le, Quynh Le and Megan S. Critical Discourse Analysis: An InterdisciplinaryPerspective. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.2009.
Thompson, G., Introducing Functional Grammar, Beijing: Foreign Language Teachingand Research Press,2000.
Thompon, J.B. Ideology and Modern Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press,1990.
Thomas, J. A. Meaning in Interaction. London: Longman.1995.
Toolan, M. Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics London:Rutledge.2002.
Trew, T. Theory and Ideology at Work, in R. Fowler et al(eds.), Language and Control.London. Boston&Henley: Rutledge&Kegan Paul.1979.
Trudgill, P. Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. Harmondsworth:Penguin Books,1983.
Tuomela, R. Philosophy of social practices: A Collective acceptance view. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.2002.
Van Dijk, T.A. Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. IV, London: Academic Press,1985a.
Van Dijk, T.A.“Semantic Discourse Analysis.” Handbook of Discourse Analysis:
Dimensions of Discourse. Ed. Teun A. van Dijk. Vol.2. New York: Academic Press,1985b.
Van Dijk, T.A. Text and Context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics ofdiscourse. London: Longman,1977.
Van Dijk, T.A. Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures indiscourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, N.J. awrence Erlbaum,1980a.
Van Dijk, T. A. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures inDiscourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Hillsdale: Laurence Erlbaum Associates,1980b.
Van Dijk, T.A. Communicating Racism: Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk.Newbury park: Sage.1987.
Van Dijk, T.A. News as Discourse. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1988.
Van Dijk, T.A. Racism and the Press. London:Routledge.1991.
Van Dijk, T.A. Elite Discourse and Racism. London: Sage.1993.
Van Dijk, T.A Discourse Semantics and Ideology. Discourse&Society5(2),243-289.1995.
Van Dijk, T.A. Raciam in the Press. London: Arnorld,1996.
Van Dijk, T.A. Discourse as Structure and Process. London: SAG publications Ltd.1997a.
Van Dijk, T.A. Discourse as Interaction in Society. In T.Van Dijk (ed.), Discourse asSocial Interaction. pp.1-37. LA:Sage Publications.1997b.
Van Dijk, T.A. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage Publications,1998.
Van Dijk, T.A. Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity in R. Wodak and M. Meyer(eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.2001.
Van Dijk, T.A.“Multidisciplinary CDA: a plea for diversity” in R. Wodak and M.Meyer(eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London, Thousand Oaks, Delhi: SagePublications,95-120.2002.
Van Dijk, T.A. Aertse;aer. K. N.&Pitz. Introduction: Language, Discourse and Ideology.in Putz, et al (eds.) Communicating Ideologies: Multidisciplinary Perspectives onLanguage, Discouse and Social Practice. Frankfurk: Peter Lang GmbH.2004a.
Van Dijk, T.A. From Text Grammar to Critical Discourse Analysis (a brief academicautobiography). Retrieved October10,2008fromhttp://www.discourse.org/cv/From%20text%20grammar%20critical%20analysis.pdf.2004b.
Van Dijk, T.A.‘Discourse and Manipulation’, Discourse&Society17(2):359-83.2006.
Van Dijk, T.A. Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,2008.
Van Leeuwen, T. Representation of Social Actors in English Language. In R.C.Caldas-Coulthard&M. Coulthard (eds.). Texts and Practice Readings in CriticalDiscourse Analysis. London:Rougtledge.1996.
Van Leeuwen, T.‘Legitimation in Discourse and Communication’, Discourse&Communication1(1):91-112.2007.
Van Leeuwen, T. Discourse and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2008.
Viehweger, D. Coherence–Interaction of modules in Heydrich, W,. Neubauer, F., Petofi,J. and Sozer, E.(eds.), Connexity and Coherence–Analysis of Text andDiscourse.256-274Berlin: Walte de Gruyter,1989.
Volosinov, V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York: Seminar Press,1973.
Vygotsky, Lev S.“Thinking and Speech:. In The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky,Robert W. Rieber and Aaron S. Carton (eds.), Norris Minick (trans.).39-285. NewYork: Plenum Press.1987.
Watts, R. J. Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich.(eds). Politeness in language. Berlin andNew York: Mouton de Gruyter.1992.
Widdowson, H. G. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.1978.
Widdowson, H. G.“Discourse analysis: A critical View”. Oxford: OUP.1995a.
Widdowson, H.G.“Norman Fairclough: Discourse and Social Change” AppliedLinguistics, V.16, N.4.1995b.
Widdowson, H. G.“Reply to Fairclough: Discourse and interpretation: conjectures andrefutations”, Language and Literature,1996.
Widdowson, H. Text, context, pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis. Melbourne:Blackwell.2004.
Williams, R. Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana/CroomHelm.1976.
Wilson, J. Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford:Balckwell.1990.
Wodak, R.(ed.), Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse.Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1989.
Wodak, R. Disorders of Discourse. London: Longman.1996.
Wodak, R. and Reisigl, M. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorical of Racism andAntisemitism. London: Routledge.1999.
Wodak, R. What CDA is about—a summary of its history, important concepts and itsdevelopment. In R. Wodak&M. Mayer(Eds), Methods of critical discourse analysis(pp.1-13). London: Sage Publication.2002.
Wodak, R. and Meye, M. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SagePublication,2009.
Worton, M. and J. Still, eds. Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Manchester:Manchester UP.1990.
Xin Bin, Intertextuality from a Critical Perspective. Su Zhou University,2000.
Zinken, Jog. Ideological Imagination: Intertextual and Correlational Metaphors in
Political Discourse. Discourse&Society14(4):507-523.2003.
陈丽江.《文化语境与政治话语:政府新闻发布会的话语分析》［Ｍ］.北京:中国广播电视出版社,2007.
陈忠华、杨春苑、赵明炜.批评性话语分析述评［Ｊ］《.外语学刊》,2002(1)：82-86.
陈中竺.批评语言学述评［Ｊ］.《外语教学与研究》,1995a(1)：21-27.
陈中竺.语篇与意识形态：批评性语篇分析［Ｊ］.《外国语》,1995b (3)：21-27.
戴炜华、陈宇韵.批评语篇分析的理论和方法［Ｊ］.《外语研究》,2004(4)：12-16
戴炜华、高军.批评语篇分析：理论述评与实例分析［Ｊ］.《外国语》,2002(6)：42-48.
丁建新、廖益清.批评话语分析述评［Ｊ］.《当代语言学》,2001(4)：305-310.
丁建新.《叙事的批评话语分析：社会符号学模式》［Ｍ］.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2007.
韩仲谦、左进.言语行为理论的再解读：从指称到建构［Ｊ］.《安徽工业大学学报》,2007（1）：91-92.
何兆熊.汉英文化中的礼貌研究［Ｊ］.《外国语》,1995(5)：2-8.
何兆熊.《新编语用学概要》［Ｍ］.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
何兆熊.《语用学》［Ｍ］.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2011.
胡壮麟.《功能主义纵横谈》［Ｍ］.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2000.
纪玉华.批评性话语分析：理论与方法［Ｊ］.《厦门大学学报》,2001(3)149-155.
李桔元.《广告语篇中的意识形态批评话语分析》［Ｍ］.上海：上海交通大学出版社，2009.
李素玲.批评性语篇分析：发展概况与应用前景［Ｊ］.《山东外语教学》,2004(5).
吕万英.英语新闻标题批评性分析［Ｊ］.《广东外语外贸大学学报》,2005(2)：49-52.
曲卫国、陈流芳.礼貌称呼的语用学解释.［Ｊ］.《华东师范大学学报》,1999（6）：118-124.
索振羽.《语用学教程》［Ｍ］.北京:北京大学出版社,2000.
田海龙.政治语言研究：述评与思考［Ｊ］.《外国教学》,2002(1)：23-29.
田海龙病例报告：抗击非典的话语实践［Ｊ］.《中国社会语言学》,2004(1)：113-124.
田海龙.语篇研究的批评视角：从批评语言学到批评话语分析［Ｊ］.《山东外语
教学》,2006(2)：40-48.
田海龙.《语篇研究：范畴、视角、方法》［Ｍ］.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2009
王晋军. CDA与SFL关系分析［Ｊ］.《山东外语教学》,2002(6)：10-13.
王振华.评价系统及其运作—系统功能语言学的新发展［Ｊ］.《外国语》,2001(6)：13-20.
项蕴华.简述Fairclough的语篇分析观［Ｊ］.《山东外语教学》,2004(5)：19-22.
项蕴华.政治语篇中权力不对称性的批评性分析［Ｊ］《.外语学刊》,2006(2)：25-28.
项蕴华.《语篇分析视角的再思考》［Ｍ］.长春:吉林大学出版社,2009.
谢立中.《走向多元话语分析:后现代思潮的社会学意涵》［Ｍ］.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.
辛斌.语言、权力与意识形态：批评语言学［Ｊ］.《现代外语》,1996(1).
辛斌.英语语篇的批评分析刍议［Ｊ］.《四川外语学院学报》,1997(4)：43-49.
辛斌、陈腾澜.语篇的对话分析初探［Ｊ］.《外国语》,1999(5)：8-13.
辛斌.批评语言学与英语新闻语篇的批评性分析［Ｊ］.《外语教学》,2000(4)：44-47.
辛斌.体裁互文性与主体位置的语用分析［Ｊ］《.外语教学与研究》,2001(5)：348-352.
辛斌.批评性语言分析方法论［Ｊ］.《外国语》,2002(6)：34-41.
辛斌.批评性语篇分析：问题与讨论［Ｊ］.《外国语》,2004(5)：64-69..
辛斌.《批评语言学：理论与应用》［Ｍ］.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005.
辛斌.福柯的权力论与批评话语分析［Ｊ］.《外语学刊》,2006(2)：1-6.
俞东明.《文体学研究：回顾、现状与展望》［Ｍ］.上海:上海外语教育出版社，2010.
俞东明.《什么是语用学》［Ｍ］.上海:上海外语教育出版社，2011.
张发祥.《话语分析:理论与案例》［Ｍ］.北京:科学出版社,2009.
朱永生、严世清.《功能语言学导论》［Ｍ］.上海:上外语教育出版社,2004.