摘要
官方话语具有表达政治观点、宣传政治理念、形成舆论导向、建构民众心理的重要作用。在外交事务中,官方话语是表达国家立场、改善国际关系的重要工具。正确有效地解读别国的官方话语,是避免信息误读、误解和误判的前提,正确有效地使用本国的官方话语,是表达好国家意见或意志的前提。
美国是世界上最大的发达国家,中国是世界上最大的发展中国家。处理好中美关系不仅关系到中美两国利益,而且关系到世界和平与稳定。影响和决定两国关系的因素当然首先是国家利益,以及其他重要因素,比如意识形态、国际责任等等。但是消除误解、积极而有效的沟通对促进两国关系也非常重要,有时甚至可能举足轻重。话语是交际工具,话语的使用直接反应双边关系的敏感神经。在中美两国的跨文化官方交往的文献中,记载了许多因忽视对方文化背景、未能准确使用话语而造成误解甚至严重后果的例子。
长期以来,中美问题的相关研究多数是外交学、国际政治学、新闻传播学等领域的专属,很少有语言学研究者的介入。可喜的是,近年来不少学者开始关注研究政治话语、媒体话语与意识形态的关系,出现了运用批判话语分析研究政治话语的新潮。据文献查阅,国内语言学界在语篇批判话语分析方面出现了很多研究成果。目前研究政治话语的学者主要来自两个领域:语言学和传播学。语言学者的研究往往局限于话语字词句的研究,对话语衍生意义的解释不足;传播学者的研究则过于强调传播的技巧和方式,忽视了话语本身。对中美官方话语的文化意义的比较和实证研究非常匮乏。《国家社会科学基金课题指南》(2006)在语言类中指出:“从整体上看,相当一部分论文是转述性的,原创性不够;讨论翻译问题的所占比重过大,较少进行语言对比研究。今后应加强理论和语言事实两方面的研究,在语言比较研究,外语教学理论和实践的研究方面投入更多的力量。……‘十一五’期间,我国语言学界要密切关注国内外语言学研究的新进展和社会语言生活的新动向,在充分发掘和利用本国语言资源的基础上加强学科理论建设;要有效整合研究力量,开展跨学科的综合研究,大力提倡学科融合和交叉学科研究。”本论文“中美官方话语的比较研究”就是根据这一指南精神,力图根据基本理论研究与应用研究相结合、理论为实践服务的原则,利用中美国官方话语资源,进行多维度的综合比较研究,希望通过这种综合性跨学科的研究,为拓展学术视野,弥补跨文化官方话语比较实证研究的不足,提高我国对外官方话语的效能起到推进作用。
所谓官方话语,是指国家领导人、官方文献或官方发言人发表的正式观点,代表政府和国家的立场,表达国家的意愿和意志。也就是说,官方话语是官方机构或官方人物在官方场合使用表达官方意愿的语言,是一种包含具体目的的、受制于一定政治文化的语言的具体使用。官方话语的英语翻译为governmental discourse。官方话语涉及面广泛,涉及到政治、经济、军事、外交话语等不同领域。
话语和权力之间具有相互建构的关系,权力制造话语,反过来,话语巩固并再造权力。争夺话语方面的支配权是国家对外及安全政策实践的重要内容。进行这一研究的理论意义在于,深入把握话语内在的文化意义,正确地理解他国官方话语的深层含义,成功地运用话语策略,促进国际交流,增强文化软实力。进行这一研究的实践意义在于,通过官方话语的跨文化比较研究,有助于更迅速准确地理解双方的官方话语、避免误解、加强沟通的有效性,提高沟通策略运用水平。在全球化日益深入、国际环境日益复杂的形势下,深刻把握官方话语的文化内涵并成功地运用话语策略,恰当地使用话语工具,可以起到政治和军事力量起不到的作用。我国的对外传播还远远跟不上快速崛起的大国形象,中国的官方话语急需加强宣传力度和提高有效性。深入官方话语效能研究,巧妙运用话语策略,对提高我国官方话语在国际事务中的主导性和影响力,对提高我国官方话语的有效性和感染力,都具有重要意义。
官方话语是官方机构或官方人物在官方场合用来表达官方意愿的语言,所以在分析官方话语时不仅要考虑抽象的语言系统,而且要把重点转向实际运用的环境——语境。本研究的分析框架是从文本的词汇、句法、语用、语篇等语言表面层面到语域、语境、意识形态等政治、社会、文化深层层面。学者们对语境的定义和种类有很多阐述,其中系统功能语言学的创始人M.A.K. Halliday (1976)把情景语境与语言特征有机地联系起来,提出情景语境(context of situation)由语场(field)、语式(mode)和语旨(tenor)组成,认为与这三者的特定值(particular value)相联系的语言特征可以构成一个语域(register)。“语域对应语篇语料不再具有语义上的对应性,而只是在语篇的题材、风格、使用场合、使用对象等方面具有某种一致性。”(苑春鸣,田海龙2001)从该意义上说,官方话语语篇便是语域或篇章类型的研究语料。英汉官方语篇所表达的具体意义不同,但在语篇的体裁方面具有一致性,如政治家的演讲、答记者问,政党的宣言、标语口号及宣传材料等,从而使得这两种语言之间的比较研究成为可能,也就是说,官方话语语篇之间存有极强的可比性。
论文研究表明,中美官方话语既有共性也有差异,本研究的重点是比较两者的差异。基于文献研究成果和观察,该论文的假设是:中美官方话语的差异会在语言各个层面得到反映,尤其是在词汇、语用和语篇层面。话语的不同表达方式潜移默化地构建不同的思想观念。中美官方话语在语言层面上的差异背后反映出的是不同的意识形态和文化差异。而且,中美官方为了达到各自的目的都会使用一些不同的话语语用策略,这同样也必定深受各自不同的传统文化和思维方式的影响。中美官方话语及其策略差异必定以服务于各自的国家利益为前提;如果国家利益与价值观发生冲突时,价值观也将服从于国家利益。
作者通过中美官方话语文本的比较分析力图回答以下问题:中美官方话语有哪些特征及其异同?中美官方话语在词汇、语义、语用和语篇方面表现出哪些语言差异?这些语言表面差异的背后反映出哪些文化和意识形态的差异?中美官方是如何运用话语策略建构观念并为其国家利益服务的?不同的话语策略是否也受各自传统文化和思维方式的影响?从中美官方话语的比较分析中我们可以得出什么启示以提高我国话语策略的有效性?
本论文以中美官方话语为研究对象,研究主题涉及到政治、经济、军事、外交等问题。论文研究的语料来源于国家政府首脑、高级官员、政府发言人或国会议员等在各类正式场合发表的讲话、声明、言论、签署的重要文件,两国政府各自或共同发表的文件、报告、公告、声明等。收集渠道包括政府文献、报刊、杂志、电台、电视、网络、专题数据库等。所有语料均为公开发表的口头和书面文字资料、公开发布的声像资料。对语料进行比较分析时,以语域对应、语篇体裁一致性为原则,如国家首脑的演讲、发言人答记者问,官方文献、白皮书、政党的宣言、标语口号及宣传材料等。可见,中美官方话语所涉及的主题非常广泛,表现形式和渠道多种多样,本论文只能选择其中有代表性的题材和体裁进行比较分析。从语言交际学的角度看,本研究限定在语言上的交流(verbal communication)之内,不包括非语言的交流(non-verbal communication)。
论文结构由七章组成。论文的第一章为绪论,介绍研究背景,说明中美官方话语文化比较及话语策略研究是如何提出的,界定相关概念,阐述该研究的对象、内容及研究方法,提出研究目的和意义,最后说明该论文章节结构。第二章通过文献综述阐述本研究的理论依据。由于中美官方话语比较研究的特征决定了本研究的跨学科性质,所以作者以社会建构主义为认识论基础,以批判话语分析为方法论基础,注重比较研究和基于语料库的定量分析,将主要从建构主义的语言观、批判话语分析、比较语言学等方面综述相关的理论。第三、四、五章为本论文的主体,分别对中美官方三种主要体裁的话语进行比较分析,即最高领导人演讲话语、官方发言人话语、国家白皮书文件话语。每章比较分析的语料选择了具有代表性的适合分析的语料,根据不同体裁的文本特点侧重从词汇、语义、语用、篇章或修辞等的某些方面具体分析中美官方话语的差异,以及这些异同反映的文化特征差异。第三章选择了中美最高领导人的重要讲话作为分析语料,此语体严肃、正式、庄重、规范,基本上都是事先精心准备好的正式文本。本章节的比较分析侧重从词汇的运用、引语的运用和句法语篇等方面进行,并从语言层面的差异挖掘领导人话语如何构建各方的政治理念和价值观。第四章的分析语料是官方发言人在答记者问题时的话语,对话性较强,分析重点放在语用层面,比较两国发言人在运用闪避策略、模糊限制语、委婉语等语用策略上的差异及其社会文化原因。第五章的中美官方文件话语分析选择了中美国防白皮书和人权白皮书,运用系统功能语法的框架分析这些文本在主题词运用、分类描述以及语篇结构等方面的话语特征及其背后反映的意识形态。基于以上中美官方话语的比较分析,作者把关注点转向中国官方话语的对外宣传上,其中一个重要的关键环节是翻译问题。所以,第六章探讨官方话语翻译的有效性问题,从官方话语的特征对翻译的要求以及翻译的目的论出发阐述官方话语翻译要以翻译的有效性为最终目的,通过有关中国官方口号有效性的一项实证研究具体讨论中国官方话语对外翻译中妨碍有效性的因素,再以词汇翻译的文化内涵性为例说明文化因素在体现官方话语翻译的有效性中起着关键作用,并对提高中国官方话语对外翻译有效性的策略问题提出个人建议。第七章总结研究结论、启发及建议,提出要从关系国家形象和软实力建设的高度重视官方话语的策略研究与运用,以提高我国官方话语的主导性和影响力。最后指出论文的局限以及今后进一步进行这项研究的前景。本研究的比较分析结果基本上验证了作者的假设,证明中美官方话语无论是国家领导人和发言人的口头话语还是国家文件的书面话语,也不论是涉及政治、经济、军事、外交等领域的不同话题内容,都表现出两国官方话语的一些特征和运用差异,都反映了中美官方话语一些从语言表面差异到隐藏在语言背后的深层观念的差异。
官方话语具有以下主要特征:官方话语具有很强的政治目的性和意识形态性;官方话语具有丰富的文化内涵性;官方话语具有严谨的规范性;话语策略的运用也是官方话语的显著特征。中美两国由于各自国际利益、不同的意识形态和文化传统,中美官方话语的差异揭示出以下几点结论:
第一,官方话语构建国家身份。官方话语是一个国家身份的象征。如中国人权白皮书与美国总统的人权宣言体现了两国在国家角色、思维习惯和地位上的明显差异。美国在人权问题的表述上体现出美国历史上的“美国超越论”,是“美国梦”理想主义在外交政策上的延伸,也是美国作为“世界领导者”国家角色的体现。而中国在人权问题上的看法,体现出中国传统的反对外国入侵的历史观,也是中国作为第三世界中负责任大国反对霸权主义国家角色的集中体现。再如,通过对中美两国国防白皮书的文本分析和话语实践分析,我们清楚地看到,国防白皮书是构建国家身份、对外宣传的一条重要渠道,其政治功能在于建立、维护和改变与其他国家的权势关系,并构建自己的国家身份。研究结果表明:中国努力构建热爱和平、促进共同发展的国家形象和身份,美国则将自己塑造成一个具有全球战略利益的霸权国家。
第二,官方话语体现意识形态。官方话语具有鲜明的意识形态性,这是由官方话语的性质所决定的。政治即是权力(power)的反映。语言行为一旦表示权力,即成为潜在的政治行为,自然成为意识形态的工具。本研究表明,中美政治文化无论是来源还是基本要素都有着非常显著的差异,这些差异导致双方持有许多不同的意识形态和价值观,这些差异自然也反映在中美两国的官方话语系统中。中美两国的官方话语都非常重视对本国文化的宣传和渗透。论文比较分析了中美领导人国际演讲中互文性现象的异同,研究结果发现两国领导人演讲中的互文引述从引语内容到引语来源都存在明显不同的倾向性,旨在为不同的政治目的服务。就引文的功能和目的而言,除特殊的几次演讲外,中美两国领导人在其国际演讲中均更倾向于引述演讲者所代表国家人士(知名人士或普通百姓)的话语;在内容上,美国领导人侧重宣传“美国梦”思想,比如自由,平等,民主等等;而中国领导人的演讲中频繁引用代表中国传统文化的思想,比如民为贵,民为本,和为贵,和而不同等等。研究表明,在政治家国际演讲中的引文已全然不是单纯的引语,引语的选择是国家领导人传播本国思想意识的一种有效工具,他们利用互文来表达其所代表国家的文化价值观和意识形态,旨在向世界宣传本国的核心思想。
第三、官方话语服从于国家利益。意识形态是政治文化的核心内容,但意识形态的适用也是有条件、有选择的。“双重标准”、“两种话语”就是这种选择性的表现。意识形态与国家利益不一致的时候,意识形态就要服从国家利益。作者通过比较分析中美政府发言人的闪避策略的不同风格也发现,其主要原因是中美两国各自的国家利益和国际关系。中国和美国一直是朝鲜核问题的利害相关国,在朝鲜半岛上有着共同的安全利益考虑。但由于在地理位置、历史渊源上的重大差别,中美两国在朝鲜半岛的利益考虑既有重合之处,也有对立的方面。中国最关注的是保持朝鲜的稳定,不赞成美国通过武力威胁迫朝弃核的建议。所以中国政府发言人在回答记者问题时,尽量避免不必要的直接冲突,从而更多地采用闪避回答方式。美国在朝核问题上却是希望彻底根除朝鲜的核存在,并且希望无事生非,不惜使用武力。所以他们在回答记者提问时也明显采取的是直接的挑战性的回答方式。总之,在国家意识形态的整个链条中,始终存在着一个核心或终极归宿点,即国家利益。国家利益既是国家政治意识形态的当然内容,也是外交政策制定、实施和修正的逻辑原点,自然反映在官方话语中。
第四、官方话语深受传统文化的影响。影响官方话语的因素是多方面的,不仅包括各国的地理环境和自然资源等物质因素,而且还包括各国的政治制度、政治理念、宗教信仰以及政治文化等观念因素。在上述观念因素中,传统文化因素对官方话语的影响深厚。通过对中国国家主席胡锦涛和美国总统布什演讲的比较分析发现,中美两国领导人的演讲在语旨的正式程度、避免直接称呼程度和可理解程度方面均存在较大差异。汉语语篇以正式程度、避免直接称呼程度高、可理解程度低为特征,而英语语篇则以正式程度、避免直接称呼程度高、可理解程度低为特征。这些不同层面上的差异反映了中美两国不同的文化价值观和思维方式。如在避免直接称呼上的明显差距体现了集体主义和个人主义的不同文化。中美两国的传统文化和价值观直接影响着两国的对外政策和官方话语。
第五、话语策略的运用是提高官方话语有效性的重要手段。中美两方为了实现特定的交际意图,都十分注重语用策略,往往有意采用各种语用策略来达到自己的交际目的,尽管在采取的策略方式上有些差异,但总体而言,本研究中的官方语言在很多情况下都表现为了达到特定目的而采用语用策略的政治修辞。官方语言常用的语用策略包括闪避回答问题、使用模糊限制语、使用模糊词语、采用隐喻、委婉语等修辞手段。中美官方话语在这些语用策略上都反映出不同程度的差异。
第六、可接受性是提高官方话语翻译效能的重要条件。笔者利用在剑桥大学访学一年的机会,以中国官方口号翻译的有效性为例所做的一项实证调查研究说明,中国官方官方话语翻译的有效性直接影响到中国在世界上的形象与在世界各国得到认可的程度。作者认为,官方话语翻译要考虑的特征,以能否用一种目的语读者可接受的方式有效地实现原文作者意识形态意义的传达为衡量翻译质量的一个重要标准。官方话语的翻译要以其翻译的有效性为目的,掌握官方话语的文化内涵意义是提高翻译效能的重要条件,以异化为主的翻译策略是提高翻译效能的重要手段。
当前中国的经济总量已跃居世界第二,随着世界多极化和经济全球化趋势不断加快,中国面临着如何重新向世界表述自己的挑战,对外宣传的重要性也日益凸现。重视官方话语的策略运用,绝不仅仅是语言问题或礼貌问题,而且具有重要的战略意义。研究我国官方话语的效果,构建恰当、得体而准确的官方话语,是一个关乎中国如何跟世界共处,中国在崛起之后如何和平应对新的世界形式的重大课题,要从关系国家形象和软实力建设的高度重视官方话语的策略运用,向世界展示一个“和平”、“发展”、“合作”、“和谐”的中国国家形象。近年来,中国在世界上的国家形象研究在我国日益受到重视,加强官方话语的对外传播也已被提升到国家战略的层面,但这方面的研究仍然相对滞后,跟不上国家对外宣传总体战略发展的需要。为此,本文提出如下几条原则:
一要整体谋划,顶层设计。
官方话语反映一个国家的意识形态、文化传统和观念态度的变化,反映一个国家的对外政策和参与国际事务的姿态。官方话语的运用要和国家的大政方针和内外政策结合起来考虑。国际话语权其实是综合国力的一个重要组成部分,谁拥有了国际话语权谁就能抢占国际舆论制高点,从而最大程度地保护本国利益。作为当今发展中大国,中国应掌握在国际舞台上多一些的话语权,发出更大的中国官方声音,让世界更多地了解和理解真实的中国。我们要从整体上谋划,从顶层上设计,加强“我要说”的意识,提高“怎么说”的策略。
我们需要研究话语中的身份以及相关政治行为的表象,关注话语意义缺失和理解差异问题。在定义自己身份的过程中,尤其是对一些存在争议的历史问题的阐述或是对新理念的解释等,决策者需要充分考虑自己和其他国家间的语言和文化差异。在必要时我们需要对这些意义缺失或理解差异做一些必要的补充,使相关的表象更加完整。而对于国家间的相互表象,国家首脑、外交部、涉外媒体等官方语言的表述就显得尤为重要。
我国在领导人讲话、官方文件、官方报告的起草和发布方面是非常认真、非常严谨的,国外也是非常关注的。在国际化进程不断推进的今天,我们如何使用国际具有共识的价值观和容易理解的话语表达我们的主张和思想,有很多工作要做,有很大的空间。
二要系统协调,形成机制。
我国领导人讲话、官方文件、官方报告的起草和发布有很完毕的系统,但在运用于国际交往、国际宣传方面,统一协调、整合资源方面显然有很多可以改善和加强对地方。
我国官方话语在对外发布、对外宣传时,怎样组织、怎样翻译、怎样反馈、怎样改进,现在有不少部门关心,但系统整合、专门研究的部门不明确,责任不清晰。如对外大众传媒上的外文翻译虽然有中外专家审核,但经常出现不同的说法或表达不准确的地方,容易引起读者的迷惑。国家对官方话语翻译的有效性缺乏跟踪调查、不断论证改进的机制,虽然近年来国家各级社科研究中加大了对国外报道与国家形象以及对外宣传研究的资助,也出现了一些研究成果,但对相关成果的技术转化与应用、统筹整合与深化等,显然存在需系统协调、形成机制的问题。为此,应建立专门的研究部门,把官方话语的运用作为一个专门研究领域予以加强;建立专门的协调部门,负责统筹考虑官方话语研究、使用、改进工作,负责行政、媒体、内外的协调;建立专门的信息反馈渠道,定期、定点、定对象了解国外受众对我国官方话语的认知和态度,提供系统改进建议。
三要关注细节,巧用策略。
在交往过程中语言策略的运用与交往的成功有很大关系,官方话语尤其如此。为了实现特定的政治意图,政治家和新闻发言人都会很注意语言策略的运用。成功的话语策略对增强政治说服力、心理感染力和情绪煽动性会起到很大作用。而不注意话语策略则会降低宣传效果,甚至产生负面的后果。本研究中的官方语言在很多情况下都表现为为达到特定目的而采用语用策略的政治修辞。官方语言常用的语用策略除了本研究讨论的闪避回答问题;使用模糊限制语;使用模糊词语;采用委婉语、隐喻以外,还常出现操纵代词,采用矛盾说法;采用修辞性问句;采用反语、同义反复等修辞手段;采用预设;使用谚语以及避免提及所指对象等。为了提高我国官方话语翻译的有效性,需要注意三个要点:把握本质、顾及全面、注意修饰。即翻译有效性的前提是准确地把握官方话语的本质,力争使官方话语的翻译在不同的文化语境中都能真实地传递我们想要表达的信息;在把握本质的前提下,考虑到译文读者所欠缺的语境知识,有时需要提供官方话语的隐含内容;为了更全面准确地传递官方话语的涵义,还应该注意目语的表达习惯和逻辑思维特点,选词要精确。这些语用策略和翻译策略都有助于提高中国官方话语的有效性、主导性和影响力。
本研究研究成果已经产生了一定的学术影响。论文的部分研究内容先后在《外语教学与研究》、《外国语》、《中国翻译》、《华东师范大学学报》等核心期刊上公开发表,其中《对美国总统就职演说的话语分析》被《新华文摘》2009年第19期全文转载。作者多次在国内外相关研讨会上宣讲本研究的部分成果,如:德国柏林洪堡大学、俄罗斯莫斯科管理大学、香港理工大学等举办的国际跨文化交际研讨会,国内会议如浙江大学和天津南开大学以及天津商学院召开的多次当代中国话语研讨会、全国跨文化交际研讨会、全国传播学研讨会等,笔者的大会发言得到了国内外学者的普遍好评。最近清华大学为百年校庆由传媒学院召开的跨文化传播在京圆桌会议上,本研究得到外文局对外传播研究中心的高度关注和认可,认为笔者从官方话语传播策略的角度研究当前对外传播的问题非常符合当前我国政府高度重视和激励提倡的研究导向,很有针对性,其研究成果对决策也很有作用。并多次诚恳邀请笔者能参与该中心国家社科基金重大招标项目《新形势下提升国际传播能力战略研究》(2010-2012),并担任子课题《政治话语及传播效果的案例分析》的研究,还建议将现阶段性成果以《成果要报》或《外宣研究与参考》等形式报中央有关领导和部门。这些都是笔者现正在做的本研究的延续课题。
1. Research Subject
This research focuses on the analysis of governmental discourse, which is defined as formally expressed viewpoints of national leaders, official spokespersons or documents that are officially delivered and published. As a class of genres defined by a social domain, namely that of people who govern, governmental discourse is a form of institutional discourse produced by the speaker in her professional role of a government official and in an institutional setting.
A government's discourse plays a crucial role in expressing political opinions, promoting political philosophy, influencing public opinion and building public mentality. It should therefore be not only accurately and clearly expressed but also understood correctly and as fully as possible. The author believes that any errors in the transmitting and understanding of a government's discourse can lead to far more serious consequences than those of common people's discourse. Consequently, governmental discourse deserves our special attention and significantly more research than it has hitherto received.
As the largest developing country and the largest developed country in the world, respectively, the People's Republic of China and the United States of America are regarded by many other nations and also by their own citizens as two world powers. From the recent visit of our Chairman Hu Jintao to the United States, we have seen that eyes in virtually every corner of the world are upon these two nations, their top political leaders and their discourses. The two nations formally established diplomatic relations on January 1, 1979, and the thirty-two subsequent years have witnessed cycles of ebb and flow in their official relationship. It has become the most important bilateral one in the world. That fact is the principal reason underlying the choice of Chinese and American governmental discourses as the research subject of this thesis.
There are both similarities in and differences between Chinese and American governmental discourses, but the present study is aimed at exploring their differences with the main focus on how their discourses are organized and words are chosen to reflect ideological values and political interest. As the record of Sino-US relation contains numerous examples of miscommunication and misunderstanding, the author has compiled a wealth of evidence to make the following hypothesis: The linguistic differences between Chinese and American governmental discourses reflect their cultural differences and different prevailing ideologies, and the discourse strategies they adopt to achieve their own goals are strongly influenced by their cultural traditions. Their discourses and strategies must first of all serve their national interests. Furthermore, when their ideologies conflict with their national interests, the former usually yields to the latter.
Based on the above hypotheses, the present study intends to analyze both the linguistic differences and the deep cultural and ideological causes behind the words between Chinese and American governmental discourse. Specifically, it attempts to answer the following questions: What special features does governmental discourse have in general and what differences are there in the features between Chinese and American governmental discourse? What linguistic differences exist in their discourses at such levels as those of lexicon, syntax, pragmatics and discourse, and what cultural and ideological differences are reflected behind them? What discourse strategies are adopted in their governmental discourses to serve their own national interests, and how? Are the different strategies also influenced by their different cultural traditions and ways of thinking? What insights can be drawn from the comparative analysis of the two governmental discourses so as to improve the effectiveness of our governmental discourse strategies?
As was pointed out in "A Guide to the National Social Science Foundation of China" (2006)
“On the whole, a large number of studies are simply reports of Western scholarly literature and lack originality. There is much more research on translation, but relatively little on language comparison. In the future, we should enhance the study on both theory and practice, laying more emphasis on comparative study of languages as well as on theoretical and practical research on foreign language teaching.…On the basis of fully exploring Chinese language resources, we should strengthen the establishment of disciplines, integrating research strength, and greatly promoting synergy of disciplines and interdisciplinary research."
The present research is an attempt in following this guide by combining theory with practice, making use of our own language resources and comparing Chinese and American governmental discourses from a multidimensional and interdisciplinary perspective. By incorporating approaches of political science, international relations and linguistics, new insights can be gained.
2. Research Significance
Currently, cultural discourse analysis in the academic world encompasses mainly ideological discourse analysis, historical analysis, psychological analysis, pragmatic analysis, and cross-cultural communication analysis. However, nearly all forms of discourse analysis center around "meaning", with the goal of extracting from the discourse its signified meaning. Among them, critical discourse analysis (CDA) has proven to be a very useful tool for analyzing political discourse, with the main focus on how discourse arises from ideology and how inequalities in political power are generated.
While studies related to Sino-America bilateral relation have long been carried out mainly by scholars in the fields of diplomacy, international politics, journalism and mass communications, linguistic scholars have not got involved in them seriously enough. While political discourse analysis has developed rapidly in recent years in several parts of the world, studies within China are still in their infancy, having yielded relatively few articles published in various academic journals. The present author has concluded from an investigation of the Chinese scholarly literature on linguistic research related to the present one that its inadequacy can be attributed to three general categories of shortcomings: First, in terms of their research backgrounds, most studies have been based on a single country's culture rather than cross-cultural comparisons. Secondly, with regard to research subjects, the majority of studies have focused on mass media discourse, while relatively few studies of official and political discourse have been undertaken. Moreover, many have dealt with discourse itself, while too few study language users; many studies are of domestic discourse, but very few are of international discourse. Finally, when one turns to research methodology, one discovers that studies have often been based on single texts, but few have employed corpuses. Critical discourse studies are many, but non-critical discourse studies. are few. Similarly, qualitative analyses are numerous, but few have combined qualitative studies with quantitative ones.
Redressing aspects of these imbalances in existing research, the present investigation is a comparative study of governmental discourse in the People's Republic of China and the United States of America. It tries to combine theoretical and applied research, conventional and new approaches, and qualitative and quantitative analysis. Consequently, this study has theoretical significance. In practical terms, an understanding of the cultural meaning behind the words investigated will not only help to identify the nature of a country's governmental discourse but can also benefit the successful use of discourse strategies to promote international exchanges and enhance soft power. It is hoped that this research will help people to reach accurate understandings of both the Chinese and American governments' discourse, reduce misunderstandings, enhance the effectiveness of communication, and improve the application of communication strategies.
3. Research Methodology
The very subject of this comparative governmental discourse study has determined the nature of its interdisciplinary, multi-angled and integrated research methods. It deals with political cognition, with discourse structures and with the socio-political context in which such cognitions and discourses have their meanings and functions. Therefore, this study takes social constructivism as its cognitive basis, critical discourse analysis as its methodological basis, and English-Chinese comparison and corpus-based research as its intersect research perspectives. It tries to combine these different strands of research by emphasizing cross-language and cross-cultural comparative studies on the one hand and highlighting governmental discourse, international discourse, idiosyncrasies of participants in politics, and social background factors on the other hand.
The proposition is that political behavior is a universal human attribute. All governmental discourse manifests power and control, irrespective of culture or ideological differences. Governmental discourse takes place within a system. Fundamental structures are who talks (is allowed to talk), to whom, about what, when and where. Therefore, there are some grounds for thinking that governmental discourse can be compared across cultures, or at least that there are grounds for making the attempt.
The data for research comes from important lectures, announcements, speeches, and documents given formally or released publicly by governmental institutions, high-level political leaders, or government speakers in both oral and written forms. The data for comparison are consistent in register and genre, such as speeches given by Chinese Chairman and American president on important occasions, Chinese and American spokespersons’answers to journalist’s questions at the same conferences, and Chinese and American white papers about similar topics. The sources from which the data are collected include government documents, newspaper and magazines, the Internet and special databases.
Chinese and American governmental discourses cover a wide range of themes and involve politics, economics, military affairs and diplomacy. The topics vary from human rights, counter-terrorism and the Tibet issue to questions concerning the market economy, trade conflicts, monetary policy, environmental protection, and exchanges of military personnel. This frame is so wide and complex that the present thesis can only address some of these themes with the focus of current issues of more importance to both sides.
Figure 1 illustrates structure of governmental discourse, which includes the research theme, source and form.
Having limited governmental discourse to the institutionally bound documents and speeches of people who govern, our next task is to describe the genres that belong to that domain. "Register" is important in Halliday's systemic linguistics because it is seen as the linguistic consequences of interacting aspects of context. A series of linguistic features related to language use constitutes a certain "register", which includes field, mode and tenor. "Field" refers to the topics and actions which language is used to express. "Tenor" denotes the language users, their relationships to each other, and their purposes. "Mode" refers to the channel through which communication is carried out (Thompson, 1984: 94). Martin (1992: 496) further developed Halliday's theory by adding two more contextual variables, namely genre and ideology (see Fig. 2).
From the above figure, we can understand that the outer rings generally influence overall interpretation more than the inner ones. So ideology takes the leading position in governmental discourse analysis. The generic description of governmental discourse should not only take place at the levels of text, but also at the level of context. A study of topics, lexical styles, pragmatic and rhetorical features of a governmental discourse reveal many social and especially political functions of such discourse. Therefore, in the present study, both text levels such as lexicon, semantics, syntax, pragmatics, discourse and rhetoric and context levels such as politics, society and culture are analyzed.
4. Structure of the Thesis
The structure of the present thesis follows a conventional pattern. Its seven chapters are systematically arranged in four parts. They are the introduction (Chapter 1), the review of previous scholarly literature (Chapter 2), the textual analysis
(Chapter 3 to 5), and the conclusion and implication(Chapter 6 and 7). Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction to the motivation for and the purpose of conducting this study. It also includes definitions of the key terms and concepts, describes the research subjects and methodology, indicates the potential significance of this study and outlines the structural arrangement of the thesis.
Chapter 2 is devoted to a review of previous research related to the present multi-dimensional study of governmental discourse, social constructivism, critical discourse analysis, English-Chinese comparison and corpus-based research, which collectively provides both the theoretical and methodological base for the present study. This chapter reviews these related theories in terms of their backgrounds, basic assumptions, and current state of arts both home and abroad,as well as its relevance to the present study.
Social constructionism is epistemologically oriented. While it emphasizes social construction and social process in knowledge creating, it also puts constructive function of language and discourse in a paramount position. Discourse in social constructionism is considered as one moment of social practice and the product of social interaction. Constructivism explores foreign policy by linking norms and identity changes at both the national and international levels. This paradigm shift provides us with a new framework which sheds light on an understanding of governmental discourse analysis.
Critical discourse analysis (CDA), according to Ruth Wodak (1989:12) is“an interdisciplinary approach to language study with a critical point of view for the purpose of studying language behavior in natural speech situations of social relevance”The underlying presupposition of CDA was that linguistic choices relate to ideological positioning (Bayley, 2004:28). It starts from“the perception of discourse as an element of social practices”(Fairclough, 2003:3), which constitutes other elements as well as being shaped by them. CDA highlights the linguistic and discursive nature of social relations of power in contemporary societies. Discourse, ideology and power are three cornerstones of CDA (Weiss and Wodak, 2003:11). The subjects or topics under discussion differ for the variety of researchers who apply CDA in their studies. Among them, gender issues, racism issues, identity issues, media discourse, political discourse, organizational discourse are becoming prominent. “Studies in CDA are multifarious, derived from quite different theoretical backgrounds and are oriented towards very different data and methodologies”(Weiss & Wodak, 2003:12). Also, such terms as“discourse”,“ideology”and“power”are used very differently by different researchers and in different academic cultures.
From the above brief review, the author finds that CDA is a most appropriate approach to governmental discourse analysis and it will be enriched by comparative methods and corpus linguistics. Comparative study helps to reveal the cultural differences between Chinese and American governmental discourses, while corpus linguistics with the use of Oxford WordSmith Tools can help reduce the researcher’s bias. Both qualitative study of specific discourses and quantitative study based on the discourse corpora are adopted in the following chapters.
Chapter 3, 4 and 5 constitute the most important parts of this thesis, as they deal with comparison and detailed analysis of the three important types of governmental discourse between the two states, namely top leaders’speeches, spokespersons’answers to journalists’questions, and state white papers. The data in each chapter are chosen as representative and analyzed from different linguistic perspectives according to their features and styles, such as lexicon, semantics, cyntax, pragmatics, discourse and rhetoric, etc. in a hope to find out their cultural and ideological differences behind their linguistic differences.
Chapter 3 is a comparative analysis of top leaders’speeches from the perspective of word choices, quotations, syntaxical and discourse structures. It includes three comparative analyses: The first is a corpus-based keyword analysis to examine both consistency and changes in American and Chinese politics as reflected in common and unique most-used words in American presidential inaugural addresses and reports delivered by Chinese top leaders at the National Congress of the Communist Party of China. The second explores the similarities and differences in their use of quotations in Chinese and American top leaders’speeches in intercultural contexts. The third is a comparative analysis of speeches delivered by U.S. president George W. Bush and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao at similar occasions. These analyses all focus on linguistic realization of different cultural values and ideologies in top leaders’ speeches.
Chapter 4 investigates various pragmatic strategies employed by both Chinese and American spokespersons in their routine press conferences held by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China and the United States Department of State. Among various strategies that are usually adopted to sidestep challenging questions from journalists,. this chapter compares their similarities and differences in the use of evasion, euphemisms, metaphors, pronouns, and indirect speech acts. Considering the conversational styles of the data, some pragmatic theories and principles are used in the comparison and analysis of the pragmatic strategies adopted by both Chinese and American spokespersons.
Chapter 5 turns to government documents which are more serious and formal with certain fixed formats. Chinese and American state white papers on human rights and national defense are mainly chosen for the samples. They are analyzed under the frames of Fairclough's three dimensions (text, discursive practice and social practice) in the former and Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar (ideational function, interpersonal function and textual function) in the latter.
The above analysis of the three types of Chinese and American governmental discourse also shows the importance of foreign publicity for a government to achieve its goals. Proper translation of governmental discourse is of vital importance to foreign publicity of the People's Republic of China. Therefore, Chapter 6 turns to the discussion of translation efficiency of Chinese governmental discourse. First, in the light of Skopostheorie, which redefines the concept of translation as a purpose-guiding activity, the author explains why translation efficiency should be the final goal and evaluation of governmental discourse translation. Then the author reports her survey of the efficiency of existing translations of Chinese official slogans through questionnaires circulated among and follow-up interviews of English native speakers. Finally, culturally loaded meanings of words and foreignization translation devices are emphasized in the discussion of translation strategies, and suggestions for improving the efficiency in translating Chinese governmental discourse are raised.
Chapter 7 concludes this thesis with a summary of the findings and their contribution to knowledge, a discussion of possible implications and comments on appropriate directions in which future research might proceed in order to extend further the frontier of scholarly knowledge about the topic.
5. Research findings and implications
The result of the comparative study on Chinese and American governmental discourse, whether of oral or written, and dealing with various topics in the fields of politics, economics, military or diplomacy, have all supported the author’s hypothesis that the linguistic differences between Chinese and American governmental discourses reflect their cultural differences and different prevailing ideologies, and the discourse strategies they adopt to serve their own national interests are strongly influenced by their cultural traditions.
The analysis of the top leaders’speeches, spokespersons’discourse and state white papers has clearly shown that governmental discourse has the following features in general: Governmental discourse has strong political purposes, embodies rich cultural connotations, adopts serious and formal formats, and contains various pragmatic strategies.
The present comparative study of Chinese and American governmental discourse has yielded the following general findings:
First, governmental discourse constructs national identity. Discourse represents a person’s image, and the same is true with governmental discourse. The research shows that significantly different cultural characteristics, national role positioning and mindsets reflected in Chinese and American governmental discourse. For example, the American formulations of human rights embody the ideals of historical“American Exceptionalism”, the expansion of the“American Dream”in diplomatic policies and the national role as“the Leader of the World”. By contrast, Chinese views of human rights reflect the historical view of the Chinese defending themselves against foreign invasions and the position of China as a responsible great nation in the Third World standing against hegemonism.
Second, governmental discourse unquestionably embodies ideology. Discourse analysis cannot be carried much further if it denies the existence of ideology. Language constructs the rules, the rules shape the context, the context decides the meaning and meaning constraints the behavior. Language plays an important role in this process.By studying how language mediates and represents the world from different view points, CDA has demonstrated that all linguistic usage denotes ideological positions. Ideology is understood here as a value-neutral concept, referring to any system of norms, values, and beliefs. It is closely related to identity as mentioned above, just as Fairclough and Wodak (1997:276) point out:“It is useful to think of ideology as a process which articulates together particular representations of reality, and particular constructions of identity, especially of the collective identities of groups and communities.”The present study clearly reveals that both Chinese and American governmental discourses are determined by the nature of their respective governments and have strong ideological components. For example, it has been found from the comparative study of intertextuality in speeches of US-Sino top leaders that they differ greatly with regard to original creators and content of intertextuality. The intertextuality in the Chinese political speeches are more balanced in their employment of Chinese and foreign intertextuality and large number of references to traditional culture is employed, demonstrating a culturally big nation image, while intertextuality on the American side is more of US political origin, and there exists negative employment, indicating a political superpower image.
Third, governmental discourse represents national interest. However, the interaction between national interest and ideology of political leaders is always accumulative. It may sometimes be the case that basic principles of professional ideologies clash with national interests. In such instances, national interests usually take first place in governmental discourse. The author employed a corpus-based keyword analysis to examine ten representative American presidents' inaugural addresses. The study reveals that the United States has evinced an extraordinary and unrivaled ability to maintain its political tradition and stability over 44 presidencies for more than 200 years. At the same time, the evolution of their political ideas and policies in response to shifting challenges of the times is also revealed. The same is true in the case of the eleven reports delivered by Chinese top leaders at the National Congress of the Communist Party of China since 1945. The result based on the corpus-based keyword analysis clearly shows the development of Chinese government and the ability to maintain its political stance and adapting to the changing society. Such words as“development”and“reform”remain among the most frequent keywords ever since their first appearance in the reports in the 80’s. The emphases on these words in both governments’discourses are fitst of all from the perspective of their own national interests.
Fourth, governmental discourse is deeply influenced by traditional cultural values. Many deeply rooted factors affect the Chinese and American discourse in question. They include not only national, geographical, environmental and national resources, but also the two countries' political systems, political concepts, religious beliefs and practices, political culture, and so on. Among all of those elements, traditional cultural values have an especially strong influence on the governmental discourse of both countries. Through analyzing speeches delivered by US president George W. Bush and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao on similar topics or occasions, it was found that the sentences in the Chinese president’s speeches show the tendency for bamboo-like topic-oriented structure while the sentences in the US president’s speeches show the tendency for tree-like subject-oriented structure. The Chinese president’s speeches are characterized by formality of language, inductive rhetorical pattern and face politeness strategy of independence, while the US president’s speeches are characterized by informality of language, deductive rhetorical pattern and face politeness strategy of involvement. In terms of emotive devices, they share some similarities with both utilizing the devices of classification and complexity of syntax, but also differences, with the Chinese ones utilizing abundant use of adjectives and English ones utilizing passivization. Chinese culture is characterized by strict hierarchy, high power distance index and Chinese people are more likely to think in an inductive way. By contrast, American culture is characterized by loose hierarchy and low power distance index, and American people are more likely to think deductively.
Fifth, strategies utilization is an important tool to enhance the effectiveness of governmental discourse. Governmental discourse in question embodies in most cases political rhetoric. Rhetoric is the study of effective thinking, writing and speaking strategies (Leech, 1983:52). Rhetorical strategy is a focused thinking strategy which can help writers or speakers to develop their ideas and organize them coherently. Both China and America adopt various pragmatic strategies in their discourses to achieve their communicative goals. Among the often used rhetorical devices are evasive strategies, hedges, vague words, metaphors, and euphemism, etc. Many differences of the strategic utilization have been found from the present comparative study between Chinese and American discourse. In addition to the differences in evasive strategies mentioned earlier, spokespersons for both countries often use various other rhetorical strategies differently at their routine press conferences, such as hedges and vague words. The author investigated evasion strategies employed by both Chinese and American spokespersons in their routine press conferences held by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China and the United States Department of State to sidestep challenging questions from journalists regarding the North Korean Nuclear Issue during a four month period in 2006. The findings indicated that American spokespersons used an overt evasion strategy more often, while Chinese spokespersons adopted a covert evasion strategy more frequently. The differences in evasion strategies used by Chinese and American spokespersons were found to lie in their different verbal styles typical of their respective national characteristics in protecting different national interests.
Last but not least, acceptability is an important condition to increase the effectiveness of translation of governmental discourse. Proper translation of Chinese governmental discourse is of vital importance to the foreign publicity of the People's Republic of China. A survey of the efficiency of existing translations of Chinese official slogans was conducted by the author during her one-year stay at the University of Cambridge as a visiting scholar in 2007 and 2008. Through questionnaires circulated among and follow-up interviews of English native speakers, it was found that although a majority of the slogans made sense to them, certain misunderstandings still existed due to ideological, cultural and linguistic differences. It is of great significance to have a thorough understanding of culturally loaded meanings of government discourses and to translate them appropriately into foreign languages. Through analyses and comparisons of the culturally loaded meanings of some typical political words in English and Chinese, the author has explored the phenomenon, types and reasons for misunderstanding, mistranslation and misleading of their implications. Thus the author points out that the final goal of translation and translation efficiency serve as the criteria for evaluation of governmental discourse translation. The author also proposes that foreignization is a most effective means to achieve efficiency and among various translation strategies, free translation and literal translation are the most effective ones which make a relatively high coverage and acceptance of translated expressions. Publicity translation of Chinese governmental discourse should also follow“three principles”, that is, to be close to the development of contemporary China, close to the information demand for China of target readers, close to mind habits of target readers. (Huang, 2004:27)
Through analysis, it has been established that the strategic utilization of governmental discourse is not only a problem of language or courtesy, but also one that has important strategic significance. Detailed exploration of governmental discourse and skilled application of discourse strategies can improve the leadership and influence of our national governmental discourse in international affairs, thereby promoting the efficiency and appeal of governmental discourse.
Therefore, the author proposes that strategic application of governmental discourse from the perspective of national image and soft power construction be emphasized. It is proposed that vigorous efforts be undertaken to strengthen the efficiency of governmental discourse and enhance the leadership and influence of national discourse. Specific suggestions include employing carefully integrated, top-level planning, establishing coordination mechanisms, paying meticulous attention to details, and wisely using such strategies as default strategy, rhetorical strategy and foreign language translation strategy.
Expansion of China’s right to international discourse is a reasonable demand in response to the current international system dominated by Western countries. In constructing China’s identity as a“responsible power”, China needs to resolve certain issues. One is how to determine the right to international discourse. Another is how to employ effective channels to win the initiative in competition for the right to international discourse. China must actively participate in international affairs, let the world understand Chinese natural rights and concerns, and enjoy the right to international discourse corresponding to her role as a responsible power. This is where China’s national interest lies.
6. Contribution and limitations
The extensive research on which this thesis is based has yielded several articles published in indexed academic journals both in China and abroad, such as Foreign Language Teaching and Research, Tra
引文
1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.
2. Baker, P. & McEnery, A. (2005). A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Language and Politics, 4(2),197-226.
3. Baker, P., Gabrielatos C., KhosraviNik, M., Krzyzanowski, M., McEnery, T. & Wodak, R. 2008. A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse and Society 19(3), 273-305.Barthes,R. (1981). Theory of the text. In R. Young & I. Mcleodtrans (Ed.). Untying the text: A Post-structuralist reader. London: Routledge.
4. Bavelas, J. B., Black, A. Bryson, L. et al. (1988). Political equivocation: a situational explanation. Journal of language and social psychology, 7(2), 137-145.
5. Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N. & Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc Publications Inc.
6. Bayley, P. (1999). Lexis in British parliamentary debate: Collocation patterns. In J.Verschuren(Ed.). Language and ideology: Selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference (pp.43-55). Antwerp: International Pragamtics Association.
7. Bayley, P. (Ed.) (2004). Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
8. Beard, A. (2000). The Language of politics. London:Routledge.
9. Benedict, A. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflection on the origins and spread of nationalism. London/New York: Verso.
10. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin.
11. Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Birch, D. (1985). Style, structure and criticism. London/New York: Printer Publishers.
13. Birch, D. (1989). Language, literature and critical practice. London/New York: Printer Publishers.
14. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A Critical Introduction. London: Cambridge University Press.
15. Bradac, J., Friedman, E. & Giles, H. (1986). A social approach to propositional communication: speakers lie to hearers. In G. McGregor (Eds.). Language for hearers (pp. 127-151). London: Oxford Pergamon.
16. Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Bull, P. & Mayer, K. (1993). How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political psychology, 14, 651-666.
20. Bull, P. (2003). The microanalysis of political communication. London: Routledge.
21. Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
22. Caldas-Coulthard, C.R. (1993). From discourse analysis to critical discourse analysis: The differential re-presentation of women and men speaking in written News. In J.M. Sinclair, M. Hoey and G. Fox (Eds.). Techniques of description. spoken and written discourse (pp. 196-208). Festschrift for Malcolm Coulthard. London/New York: Routledge.
23. Candlin, C. N. (1989). Language, culture and curriculum. In C.N. Candlin & T. McManara (Eds.). Language Learning and Curriculum. Sydney, NSW.: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
24. Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation: an essay on applied linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
25. Channel, J. (1994). Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
27. Chesterman, A. (1998). Causes, translations, effects. Target, 10(2), 201-230.
28. Chilton, P, & Schaffner, C. (1997). Discourse and politics. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.). Discourse as Social Interaction. (pp. 206-230). London: Sage Publications Inc Publications Ltd.
29. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London and New York: Routledge.
30. Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
31. Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999). Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
32. Chu-Carroll, J., Sproat, R., Samuelsson, C. & Carpenter, B. (2008). Computational Linguistics. In M. Aronoff and J. Rees-Miller (Eds.). Handbook of Linguistics (pp. 608-636). London: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
33. Clark, H. (1997). The Politics of Writing. London: Tavistock.
34. Clayman, S. E. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language in Society, 30(3), 403-442.
35. Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Corcoran, P. E. (1979). Political language and rhetoric. Texas: University of Texas Press.
37. Corcoran, P. E. (1979). Politics and ambiguity. Austin: University of Texas Press.
38. Derrida, J. (1981). Positions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Dijk, T.A.V. (1997). Discourse as interaction in society. In T.A.V. Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interacation (pp. 1-37). London: Sage Publications Inc.
40. Dillon, J.T. (1990). The practice of questioning. London: Routledge.
41. Drury, S. (1999). Leo Strauss and the American Right. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
42. Ellis, J. (1966). Towards a general comparative linguistics. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter Inc.
43. Ellwood, C.A. (1927). Cultural evolution. New York: Century Corporation.
44. Enrigh, D.J. (1985). Fair of Speech—The Uses of Euphemism. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
45. Eschholz, P., Rosa, A., & Clark, V. (Eds.). (1982). Language Awareness. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
46. Fairclough, N. (1985). Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 739-763.
47. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power (2nd Ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
48. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
49. Fairclough, N. (Eds.). (1992a). Critical Language Awareness. London /New York: Longman.
50. Fairclough, N. (1992b). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
51. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London and New York: Longman.
52. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London/New York: Edward Arnold.
53. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Eds.). Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (Vol. 2, pp. 258-284). London: Sage Publications Inc.
54. Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, New Language? London: Routledge.
55. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London/New York: Routledge.
56. Flowerdew, J. Bhatia, V. K. & Jones R.H. (2008) Advances in Discourse Studies. London: Routledge.
57. Foucault, Michel (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction (Vol. 1). (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.
58. Fowler, H.W.(1965). A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. London: Oxford University Press.
59. Fowler, R. & Kress, G. (1979). Critical Linguistics. In R. Fowler, R. Hodge, G. Kress & T. Trew (Eds.). Language and Control (pp. 185-213). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
60. Fowler, R. (1986). Linguistic Criticism. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
61. Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News: Discourse and ideology in the Press. London/New York: Routledge.
62. Fowler, R., & Kress, G. (1979). Critical linguistics. In Fowler et al (Eds.). Language and control (pp. 185-213). London: Routledge.
63. Galasinski, D. & Marley, C. (1998). Agency in foreign news: A linguistic complement of a content analytical study. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 565–587.
64. Galasinski, D. (2000). The Language of deception: A discourse analytical study. California: Sage Publications Inc.
65. Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern sociology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266-275.
66. Gergen, K. (2001). Social construction in context. London: Sage Publications Inc.
67. Gergen, K.J. (1994a). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68. Goodman, N. (1984). Of mind and other matters. Cambridge: Mass Harvard University Press.
69. Graber, D.A. (1981). Media Agenda-Setting in a Presidential Election: Issues, Images, and Interest. New York: Praeger.
70. Graham, P. W., Keenan, T & Dowd, A. (2004). A call to arms at the end of history: A discourse-historical analysis of George W. Bush’s declaration of war on terror. Discourse and Society,15(2-3), 199-221. from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/7267/)
71. Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.). Syntax and Semantics (Vol.3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
72. Habermas, J. (1967). Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
73. Hall, E. T. (1977). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Doubleday.
74. Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language structure and language function J. Lyons. New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
75. Halliday, M.A.K. (1971). New Horzons in English. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
76. Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as Social Semiotic, London: Edward Arnold.
77. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985, 1994). Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
78. Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C. M.I.M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. (3rd Ed.), London: Arnold.
79. Halliday, M.A.K. et al. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Langman.
80. Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a socio-semiotic perspective. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
81. Halliday, M. A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward
82. Hammersley, M.(1997). On the foundations of critical discourse analysis. In T. Michael (Ed.). Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (Vol. 3, pp.242-257). London: Routledge.
83. Harris, S. (1991). Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In P. Scannell (Ed.). Broadcast talk (pp.76-99). London: Sage Publications Inc.
84. Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse & Society, 12(4), 451-472.
85. Harris, Z. S. (1952). Discourse Analysis. Language, 28, 1-30.
86. Harrison, C. & Young, L. (2004). Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
87. Hartmann, R.R.K. (1980). Contrastive textology: Comparative discourse analysis in applied linguistics. Heidelberg: Groos.
88. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social Semiotics. New York: Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
89. Hofstede, G. (2001).Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
90. Hopper, R., & Bell, R.A. (1984). Broadening the deception construct. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 288-302.
91. Hulbert, M. (1982). Interlock: The untold story of American banks, oil interests, the Shah's money, debts, and the astounding connections between them (1st Ed.). New York: Richardson & Snyder.
92. James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. London: Longman Publishing Group.
93. Jiang, Xiangying (2006). Cross-cultural pragmatic differences in US and Chinese press conferences: The case of the North Korea nuclear crisis. Discourse & society, 17(2), 237-257.
94. Jucker, J. (1986). News Interviews: A pragmalinguistic analysis. Amsterdam: Gieben.
95. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1-20.
96. Kirsten, M. (Eds.). (1991). Linguistics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge.
97. Kransch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. London: Oxford University Press.
98. Kress, Gunther R. (1979) Language as ideology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
99. Krishnamurthy, R. (1996). Ethnic, racial and tribal: The language of racism?.In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.). Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 129–149). London: Routledge.
100. Kristeva, Julia. (1989). Language-the unknown: An initiation into linguistics. Tran. Anna M. Menke. New York: Columbia University Press.
101. Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In P. Peranteau, J. Levi, & G. Phares (Eds.). Papers from the Eighth regional meeting (pp. 183-228). Chicargo: Chicargo Linguistic Society.
102. Lakoff, G. (2001). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
103. Lakoff, R.H. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language in our lives. NewYork: Basic Books.
104. Lavob, W. (1977). Therapentic discourse. New York: Academic Press.
105. Lee, D. (1992). Competing discourses: perspective and ideology in language. London: Longman.
106. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
107. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
108. Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity type and language. In P. Drew, & J. Heritage. (Eds), Talk at Work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp.46-91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
109. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
110. Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.). Text and Technology (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
111. Maitland, K. & Wilson, J. (1987). Pronominal selection and ideological conflict. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 495-512.
112. Martin, J. R. & White, P.R.R. (2005). The Language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
113. Martin, J.R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
114. Martin, J.R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
115. Mattern, J.B. (2004). Ordering of international politics: Identity, crisis, andrepresentational force. London: Routledge.
116. McEnery, T., & A. Wilson, (Eds.). (2001). Corpus Linguistics. (2nd. Ed.) Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
117. McDougall, W.A. (1997). The promised land, crusader state: The American encounter with the world since 1776. Boston. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
118. McNair, B. (1994). An introduction to political communication. London: Routledge.
119. Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In. R.Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Routledge.
120. Michael, S. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language (language in society, 4). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
121. Mills, S. (2003). Caught between sexism, anti sexism and "political correctness", feminist negotiations with naming practices. Discourse and Society, 14 (1), 87-110.
122. Moulton, J. & Robinson, G.M. (1981). The organization of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
123. Mumby, D. K. & Clair, R. P. (1997). Organizational discourse. In T.A. V. Dijk (Ed.). Discourse as Social Interaction (pp.181-205). London: Sage Publications Inc.
124. Ng, S.H. & Bradac, J.J. (1993). Power in language. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
125. Nida, E.A. (1984). Signs Sense Translation. Bellville: Bible Society of South Africa
126. Norton, A. (2004). Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press.
127. Onuf, N.G.(1989). World of our making:Rules and rule in the social theory and international relations. Columbia: University of South Caro-lina Press.
128. Orr, C.J. & Burkins, K.E. (1976). The endorsement of evasive leaders: An exploratory study. Central States Speech Journal, 62, 230-239.
129. Pearce,W.B. (1994). Interpersonal Communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
130. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T., & Hardy,C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of management review, 29(4), 635-652.
131. Prince, E. F., Frader, J. and Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In R. J. Pietro (Ed.). Linguistics and the professions. (pp. 83-97). Ablex, Norwood: New Jersey. Queensland Press.
132. Qian, Y. (2010). Discursive Constructions around Terrorism in the People’s Daily (China) and The Sun (UK) before and after 9.11. Oxford: Peter Lang.
133. Rampton, S. & Stauber, J. (2003). Weapons of mass deception: The uses of propaganda in Bush’s war on Iraq. Los Angeles: Tarcher / Penguin.
134. Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination. London: Routledge.
135. Reiss, K (1981/2003). Type, kind and individuality of text: decision making in translation. Translated by S. Kitron, in L. Venuti (Ed.). The translation studies reader (pp. 160-171). London: Routledge.
136. Robins, R. (1980).General Linguistics: An Introductory Survey. London: Longman Publishing Group.
137. Rosati, J. A. & Scott, J. M. (2007). The Politics of United States Foreign Policy (4th Ed.). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
138. Samovar, L. A. & R. E. Porter. (2004). Communication between Cultures. Beijing: Peking University Press.
139. Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and company.
140. Saussure, F.de, (1916/1983). Course of General Linguistics. (R.Harris, Trans.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
141. Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
142. Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning–studies in the theory of speech acts. New York: Cambridge University Press.
143. Searle, J.R. (1975). Indirect speech acts In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.). Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts. (pp.59-82). New York: Academic Press.
144. Shi-xu. (2005). A Cultural Approach to Discourse. Houndmills, England/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
145. Simpson, P. (1993). Language, Ideology and Point of View. London/New York: Routledge.
146. Sinclair, J. McH. 1991. Corpus, Concordance and Collocation. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
147. Stam, H.J. (1998). Personal construct theory and social constructionism: Difference and dialogue. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 11, 187-203.
148. Steiner, E. H. & Veltmen, R. (1988). Pragmatics. Discourse and TextSome Systemically Inspired Approaches. Lodon: Pinters.
149. Strauss, L. (1991). On tyranny. New York: Free Press.
150. Stuart, H. (1996). The question of cultural identity. In H. Stuart, H. David, H. Don, & K. Kenneth (Eds.). Modernity: An introduction to modern societies (pp. 595-629). London: Cambridge, Mass, and Oxford.
151. Stubbs, M. & Gerbig, A. (1993). Human and inhuman geography: On the computer-Assisted analysis of long texts. In M. Hoey (Ed.). Data, description, discourse. Papers on the English language in honour of John McH Sinclair on his sixtieth birthday. London: Harper Collins.
152. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
153. Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and Corpus analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
154. Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf’s Children: Critical Comments on CDA. In M.Toolan, (Ed.). (2002). Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (Vol. 3, pp.202-218). London & New York: Routlege.
155. Thomas, F. (1995). The Illusion of Life. New York: Hyperion.
156. Thompon, G. (1996, 2000). Introducing functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching & Reasearch Press.
157. Thompson, J. (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
158. Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture: Critical theory in the era of mass communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.
159. Van Dijk, T.A. (1977). Text and context. London: Longman
160. Van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Principles of CDA. Discourse and society, 4(2), 249-283.
161. Van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Elite discourse and racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
162. Van Dijk, T.A. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
163. Van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
164. Van Dijk, T.A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In Wodak & Meyer (Eds.). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage Publications Inc.
165. Van Dijk, T.A. (2002). Political discourse and Ideology. In C.U. Lorda & M. Ribas (Eds.). Anàlisi del discurs polític. (pp. 15-34). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
166. Vermeer, H. J. (1987). What does it mean to translation? Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2),25-33.
167. Whorf , B.L.(1941). Language and logic. Technology Review, 43, 250-272.
168. Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics (1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
169. Widdowson, H.G. (2004). Text, context, pretext. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.
170. Wilson, J. (1990). Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
171. Wilson, K. G. (2001). Some notes on theoretical constructs: Types and validation from a contextual-behavioral perspective. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 1, 205-215. 246
172. Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2001) Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage Publications Inc..
173. Wodak, R. & Weiss, G. (2003). Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
174. Wodak, R. (1997). I know, we won’t revolutionize the world with it, but…: Styles of female leadership in institutions. In H. Kotthoff & R. Wodak (Eds.). Communicating gender in context (pp.335). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
175. Wodak, R. (2000, April). Dose sociolinguistics need social theory? New perspectives on critical discourse analysis. Keynote speech at SS 2000, Bristol. Shortened and published in Discourse & Society, 2 (3), 123-147.
176. Wodak, R. (Ed.). (1989). Language, power and ideology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
177. Zadeh, L.A. (1972). A fuzzy-set– theoretic interpretation of linguistic hedges. Journal of Cybernetics, 2 (2), 4-34.
178. Zupnik, Y.J. (1994). A Pragmatic analysis of the use of person deixis in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 339-383.
1.包惠南.(2001).《文化语境与语言翻译》.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
2.蔡基刚.(2008).英汉隐喻词构成与比例比较研究.《外语教学与研究》(2):3-4.
3.陈建民.(1999).《中国语言和中国社会》.广州:广东教育出版社.
4.陈丽江.(2007).《文化语境与政治话语——政府新闻发布会的话语研究》.北京:中国广播电视出版社出版.
5.陈松岑.(1999).《语言变异研究》.广州:广东教育出版社.
6.陈意德.(2000).及物性理论与新闻语篇的批评分析.《常德师范学院学报》(25):2.
7.陈永国.(2003).互文性.《外国文学》(1):75-81.
8.陈原.(1980).《语言与社会生活》(第1版).北京:三联书店.
9.陈中竺.(1995a).批评语言学述评.《外语教学与研究》(1):21-27.
10.陈中竺.(1995b).语篇与意识形态:批评性语篇分析——对两条罢工新闻的分析.《外国语》(3):42-45.
11.成小光.(2005).《社会建构主义哲学基础》.长春:东北师范大学.
12.戴炜华、陈宇昀.(2004).批评语篇分析的理论和方法.《外语研究》(4):12-16.
13.戴炜华、高军.(2002).批评语篇分析:理论述评和实例分析.《外国语》(6):42-48.
14.邓炎昌、刘润清.(1989).《语言与文化——英汉语言文化对比》.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
15.丁建新等人.(2001).批评话语分析述评.《当代语言学》(4):305-310.
16.董娜.(2003).模糊限制语的界定及分类.《北京第二外国语学院学报》(4):28-34.
17.方梦之.(1983).加强对比语言学的研究.《语言教学与研究》(4):4-10.
18.冯天俞(.2007).泛化“封建”观有悖马克思的封建论《.新华文摘》(9):56-58. 248
19.傅雷.(1984).《傅雷家书》.上海:三联出版社.
20.顾曰国.(1992).礼貌、语用与文化.《外语教学与研究》(4):10-17.
21.关世杰.(2007).《世界文化的东亚视角:全球化进程中的东方文明》.北京:北京大学出版社.
22.郭鸿.(1992).英语作为外交语言的文体特征.《外语研究》(4):22-27.
23.郭立秋、王红利.(2002).外交语言的精确性与模糊性.《外交学院学报》(4):80-84.
24.郭雯、陈羔.(2010).“不折腾”的“文化语境”与“文化空缺”——从“不折腾”的英译浅析文化空缺词的翻译策略.《苏州科技学院学报》(2):86-89.
25.郭秀梅.(1984).《实用英语修辞学》.南京:江苏人民出版社.
26.韩玲、周平.(2003).中国学生英语写作中的照应偏误分析.《外语研究》(2):70-73.
27.何兆熊(主编).(2000).《新编语用学概要》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
28.何自然.(1985).模糊限制语和言语交际.《外国语》(5):27-31.
29.胡东平、易来宾.(2009).话语分析:反思与建构.《外语学刊》(1):95-97.
30.胡改平、赵鹏.(2007).从CDA角度看布什对伊拉克增兵的演讲.《科技信息(科学教研)》(13):249-250.
31.胡锦涛.(2007).高举中国特色社会主义伟大旗帜为夺取全面建设小康社会新胜利而奋斗——在中国共产党第十七次全国代表大会上的报告.《求是》(21):3-22.
32.胡曙中.(2002).《英语修辞学》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
33.胡文仲.(1995).《英美文化词典》.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
34.胡壮麟.(1988).《系统功能语法概论》.长沙:湖南教育出版社.
35.胡壮麟.(1994).《语篇的衔接与连贯》.上海:上海教育出版社.
36.胡壮麟(主编).(1990).《语言系统与功能》.北京;北京大学出版社.
37.胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄、李战子.(2005).《系统功能语言学概论》.北京:北京大学出版社.
38.黄国文.(1988).《语篇分析概要》.长沙:湖南教育出版社.
39.黄国文.(1999).《英语语言问题研究》.广州:中山大学出版社.
40.黄念然.(1999).当代西方文论中的互文性理论.《外国文学研究》(1):15-21.
41.黄友义.(2004).坚持“外宣三贴近”原则,处理好外宣翻译中的难点问题.《中国翻译》(6):27-28.
42.纪玉华.(2007).《跨文化交际研究和教育中的批评性话语分析》.厦门:厦门大学出版社.
43.金桂华.(2003).杂谈外交语言.《外交学院学报》(1):78-82.
44.蓝希君、汪远琦.(2010).近5年国内批评话语分析研究现状分析——对11种语言类核心期刊论文的统计分析.《西南农业大学学报》(1):121-123.
45.李瑞华.(1996).《英汉语言文化对比研究》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
46.李世武.(2008).《废都》话语分析.《楚雄师范学院学报》(6):27-33.
47.李迎春、解琳.(2008).目的原则下的“了不起的盖茨比”之话语分析.《柳州职业技术学院学报》(4):108-112.
48.李战子.(2002).《话语的人际意义研究》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
49.连淑能.(1993).《英汉对比研究》.北京:高等教育出版社.
50.廖益清.(1999).《批评视野中的语言研究》(第2版).山东外语教学.
51.林国荣、赵晓力.(2001).布什总统的修辞和意图——对布什911重要演讲的评注.《战略与管理》(5):98-106.
52.林忠、王凤.(2009).英汉语篇对比研究的回顾与展望.《四川文理学院学报》(3):90-92.
53.刘阿明、姚晓玫(.2007).朝鲜核问题与中美利益博弈《.国际观察》(2):73-79.
54.刘立华. (2008).批评话语分析概览.《外语学刊》(3).
55.刘立华. (2009).社会建构主义视角下的话语分析《西安外国语大学学报》.(6): 51-53.
56.刘艳房、屈瑞铎.(2007).论政治文化对当代中国外交的影响.《河北学刊》(4):50-53.
57.刘永涛.(2002).话语、权力与“中国威胁”建构.《美国问题研究》(2002年):342-357.
58.刘永涛.(2004).语言、社会建构和国际关系.《现代国际关系》(11):56-61.
59.罗会钧.(2003).《美国对发展中国家的人权外交》.长沙:中南大学出版社.
60.罗天法.(1999).标语文本汉译英转换中语言和文化差异的处理.《山东外语教学》(2):57-60.
61.吕叔湘.(1942).《中国文法要略》.北京:商务印书馆.
62.吕叔湘.(1984).《汉语语法论文集.(增订本)》.北京:商务印书馆.
63.吕叔湘.(1992).通过对比研究语法.《语言教学与研究》(2):4-18.
64.马博森.(2009).语料库及基于语料库的话语研究.《外国语》(3):28-35.
65.马建忠.(1898).《马氏文通.汉语语法丛书》.北京:商务印书馆.
66.马正义.(2008).试析外交语言的模糊性.《番禺技术学院学报》(7):35-38.
67.毛东辉.(2004).从政治时事术语的翻译看中国英语.《宁波广播电视大学学报》(3):23-25.
68.门洪华.(2001).美国外交中的文化价值观因素.《国际问题研究》(5):53-54.
69.门洪华.(2005).《霸权之翼:美国国际制度战略》.北京:北京大学出版社.
70.倪世雄、刘永涛(主编).(2002).《美国问题研究》(第2版).北京:时事出版社.
71.欧阳旭.(2006).“委婉语”的批评性话语分析.《云梦学刊》(5):139-141.
72.潘文国、谭慧敏.(2006).《对比语言学:历史与哲学思考》.上海:上海教育出版社.
73.庞建荣(.2007).模糊限制语研究的渊源、嬗变及发展方向《.中国外语》(2):29-33.
74.庞建荣、周流溪.(2005).政治修辞中的闪避回答.《外语教学与研究》(2):119-123.
75.彭汉良.(1999).外台英语广播之批评语言学分析.《武汉教育学院学报》(1):37-41.
76.戚雨村.(1992).语言对比和文化对比.《外国语》(5):3-9.
77.戚雨村.(1992).语言?文化?对比.《外语研究》(2):3-10.
78.钱冠连.(2002).《汉语文化语用学》.北京:清华大学出版社.
79.钱皓、钱晓明.(2003).大众话语中的美国形象与中美关系.《国际经济评论》(2):44-49.
80.钱毓芳.(2010).语料库与批判话语分析.《外语教学与研究》(3): 198-203.
81.乔姆斯基.(2005).《语言、政治与美国对外政策研究》.北京:世界知识出版社.
82.乔纳特·波特.(2006) .《话语与社会心理学:超越态度和行为》.肖文明等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社。
83.秦秀白.(2002).《英语语体和文体要略》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
84.秦亚青(译).(2000).《国际政治的社会理论》.(原作者:亚历山大·温特).上海:上海人民出版社.
85.冉永平.(1996).英语新闻报道中语言模糊性初探.《福建外语》(1):8-12.
86.沈春华、刘警修.(2000).标语英译浅谈.《武汉工业学院学报》(1):81-83.
87.沈苏儒. (2004).《对外传播的理论和实践》(增订版).北京:五洲传播出版社.
88.施旭.(2006).媒体话语中的文化制衡:中国理论与实证分析.《新闻与传播研究》(3):53-60.
89.司显柱.(2008).《功能语言学与翻译研究——翻译质量评估模式构建》.北京:北京大学出版社.
90.孙吉胜.(2007).国际关系的语言转向与建构主义理论发展研究:以语言游戏为例.《外交评论》(1):37-45.
91.孙吉胜.(2008).语言、身份与国际秩序:后建构主义理论研究.《世界经济与政治》(5):26-36.
92.孙吉胜.(2009).国际关系理论中的语言研究:回顾与展望.《外交评论》(1):70-84.
93.谭丽君(.2009).赵本山经典小品的幽默话语分析《.咸宁学院学报》(S1):82-84.
94.田海龙.(2001).语用学与语篇研究的互动关系.《外语教学》(2):3-8.
95.田海龙.(2002).政治语言研究:评述与思考.《外语教学》(1):23-29.
96.田海龙.(2009).《语篇研究:范畴、视角、方法》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
97.田海龙、张迈曾.(2006).话语权力的不平等关系:语用学与社会学研究.《外语学刊》(2):7-13.
98.涂宇明(.2006).德国功能派翻译理论概述《.湛江师范学院学报》(1):121-124.
99.汪敬钦.(2002).纵横捭阖,千古鸿儒藏一卷条分缕析,当代宗师汇长轴——读《当代西方翻译理论探索》.《中国翻译》(1):69-71.
100.汪民安.(2002).《福柯的界线》.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
101.王恩铭(主编).(1997).《当代美国社会与文化》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
102.王福祥、白春仁.(1989).《话语语言学论文集》.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
103.王福祥.(1994).《话语语言学概论》.北京:外语教学与研究.
104.王菊泉、郑立信.(2004).《英汉语言文化对比研究》(1995-2003).上海:上海外语教育出版社.
105.王菊泉.(1982).关于英汉语法比较的几个问题——评最近出版的几本英汉对比语法著作.《外语教学与研究》(4):1-9.
106.王磊(2010).《权力的修辞——美国外交话语解析》.北京:北京出版集团公司北京出版社.
107.王利众.(2005).《俄汉科学语言句法对比研究》.哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学出版社.
108.王岐山.(2008).在第五次中美战略经济对话开幕式上的致辞. 2008年12月4日,取自http://www.chinanews.com/cj/gncj/news/2008/12-04/ 1473674.shtml.
109.王晓德.(2000).《美国文化与外交》.北京:世界知识出版社.
110.王彦力.(2009).论归化与异化及其文化延伸.《现代商贸工业》(1):297-298.
111.王振华. (2001).评价系统及其运作——系统功能语言学的新发展.《外国语》(6):13-20.
112.王治河.(1999).《福柯》.长沙:湖南教育出版社.
113.王子昌.(2003).解构美国话语霸权——对“中国威胁论”的话语分析.《东南亚研究》(4):46-50.
114.王宗炎.(1983).《回春楼谈英语》.西安:陕西人民出版社.
115.魏在江.(2006).从外交语言看语用含糊.《外语学刊》(2):45-51.
116.吴建刚.(2002).论批评话语分析.《华中师范大学学报》(3):42-48.
117.吴猛.(2004).福柯话语理论探要.取自于国家图书馆博士论文文库.
118.吴伟雄.(1998).中文标语英译浅谈.《中国翻译》(1):35-38.
119.吴勇.(2003).论外交辞令中的模糊策略.《山东外语教学》(3):68-71.
120.伍铁平.(1984).论语言的类型对比.《外语学刊》(4):1-9.
121.伍铁平.(1999).《模糊语言学》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
122.武军等(译).(2005).《美国总统就职演说》.长春:时代文艺出版社.
123.夏旭东、王书中.(1996).《走向21世界的中美关系》.北京:东方出版社.
124.夏征农(主编).(2001).《辞海》(第1版).上海:上海辞书出版社.
125.项蕴华.(2006).政治语篇中权力不对称性的批评性分析.《外语学刊》(2):25-28.
126.辛斌.(1996).语言、权力与意识形态:批评语言学.《现代外语》(1):21-26.
127.辛斌.(1998).新闻语篇转述引语的批评性分析.《外语教学与研究》(2):
11-16.
128.辛斌、陈腾澜.(1999).语篇的对话性分析初探.《外国语》(5):8-13.
129.辛斌.(2000).批评语言学与英语新闻语篇的批评性分析.《外语教学》(4):44-48.
130.辛斌.(2000).语篇互文性的语用分析.《外语研究》(3):14-16.
131.辛斌.(2002a).批评性语篇分析方法论.《外国语》(6):34-41.
132.辛斌.(2002b).体裁互文性的社会语用学分析.《外语学刊》(2):15-21.
133.辛斌.(2005).《批评语言学:理论与应用》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
134.辛斌.(2006).福柯的权力论与批评性语篇分析.《外语学刊》(2):1-6.
135.邢福义.(2000).《文化语言学》(增订本).湖北:湖北教育出版社.
136.熊德米.(2010).司法话语分析——核定语言、彰显正义.《外国语文》(1):64-69.
137.熊万胜.(2007).双向视角及其盲点:中国政治语言研究述评.《华东理工大学学报》(社会科学版)(1):74-80.
138.张咏华. (1992).《大众传播学》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
139.张月英(.2008).英语口语课堂话语分析及其启示《.江西蓝天学院学报》(4):122-123.
140.徐珺.(2009).21世纪全球化语境中的汉文化经典外译策略探索.外语教学,(2):88-95.
141.徐涛.(2006).机构话语的“越界”.《外语教学》(3):28-32.
142.许放明.(2006).社会建构主义:渊源、理论与意义.上海交通大学学报,14.(49),35-39.
143.许力生.(2004).语篇跨文化对比的问题分析.《浙江大学学报》(4):118-124.
144.许余龙.(1988).论语言基础对比的类型.《外国语》(3):28-33.
145.许余龙.(2009).《对比语言学》(第2版).上海:上海外语教育出版社.
146.严明.(2009).话语分析的基础:话语共同体.《外语学刊》(4):100-102.
147.杨明星.(2008).论外交语言翻译的“政治等效”——以邓小平外交理念“韬光养晦”的译法为例.《解放军外国语学院学报》(5):90-94.
148.杨晓荣.(2004).翻译层次说评述兼谈翻译研究的方法论问题.《外国语言文学》(2):53-57.
149.杨玉圣、胡玉坤.(1990).《中国美国学论文总目》(1979-1989).沈阳:辽宁大学出版社.
150.杨原(.2006).关于有中国特色的政治经济词汇的英译《.邵阳学院学报》(4):103-105.
151.杨自俭.(2004).《英汉语比较与翻译》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
152.杨自俭、李瑞华(主编).(1990).《英汉对比研究论文集》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
153.杨自俭、王菊泉.(2003).《结构·解构·建构:翻译理论研究》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
154.杨自俭.(2003).语篇和语境——《衔接与连贯理论的发展及应用》序.《解放军外国语学院学报》(2):1-5.
155.于歌.(2006).《美国的本质》.当代中国出版社.
156.余承法(.2002).异化——翻译的必然趋势《.武汉工业学院学报》(3):113-116.
157.余承法.(2002).中文标语的变译策略——从“新北京新奥运”谈起.《沙洋师范高等专科学校学报》(4):51-54.
158.余赞.(2006).布什伊拉克问题演讲的批评性话语分析.华东师范大学硕士论文.
159.俞新天(主编).(2005).《国际关系中的文化:类型、作用与命运》.上海:上海社会科学院出版社.
160.苑春鸣、田海龙.(2001).英汉政治语篇的对比分析与批判分析.《天津商学院学报》(5):51-53.
161.詹全旺.话语分析的哲学基础——建构主义认识论[J].外语学刊, 2006, (2)
162.张德禄.(1987).语域理论简介.《现代外语》(4):11-14.
163.张德禄.(1990).语域变异理论与外语教学.《山东外语教学》(1):9-13.
164.张德禄.(2006).批评话语分析与词汇语法.当代中国新话语国际学术会议论文.
165.张宏毅.(1993).《美国人权与人权外交》.上海:人民出版社.
166.张骥.(1997).论中美关系中的人权问题分歧与斗争.《科学社会主义》(1):60-63.
167.张蕾(.2005).用批评语篇分析解读布什的演讲《.西安外国语学院学报》(1):23-25.
168.张琳.(2010).大学英语口语课堂中的多模态话语分析.《重庆科技学院学报》(13):202-204.
169.张敏(.2002).论英语面试语境与批评话语意识《.西安外国语学院学报》(3):31-34.
170.张乔.(1998).《模糊语义学》.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
171.张曙光.(2003).《美国对华战略考虑与决策1949-1972》.上海:上海外语教学研究出版社.
172.刘志谟、张亚非(.1989).Stylistic Equivalence in Translation《.外语研究》(3):38-46.
173.张延续.(1998).批评语言学与大众语篇——对美国新闻周刊的批评性分析.《解放军外语学院学报》(6):26-29.
174.张月英.(2009).英语口语课堂话语分析及其启示.《学理论》(4):122-123.
175.张长明.(2006).英汉模糊限制语的对比分析研究:类型和功能.《江西师范大学学报》(1):125-128.
176.赵世开.(1985)英汉对比中微观和宏观的研究.《外国语文教学》(1):34-41.
177.赵彦春.(2003).关联理论与翻译的本质——对翻译缺省问题的关联论解释.《四川外语学院学报》(3):117-121.
178.赵元任.(1933).A Preliminary Study of English Intonation and Its Chinese Equivalents.《蔡元培先生六十五岁庆祝论文集》.北京:国立中央研究院历史语言研究所.
179.郑东升、刘晓杰.(2008).福柯的话语观.《内蒙古大学学报》(3):83-86.
180.周流溪.(2001).指称词语的语用学地位及其使用准则.《语言研究与语言教学》.香港:华人出版社.
181.周琪.(2001).《美国人权外交政策》.上海:人民出版社.
182.周琪等人(译)(.1998).文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建(.原作者:塞缪尔·亨廷顿).北京:新华出版社.
183.周晓虹.(2005).《中国中产阶级调查》.北京:社会科学文献出版社.
184.周小燕.(2010).《政府对外传播》.北京:中国大百科全书出版社。
185.周耀东.(2003).公开讲话话语中的权力.《福建省外国语文学会2003年年会论文集》.
186.朱刚.(2000).Return还是Revert——当代“翻译学”的一个个案分析.《外语与外语教学》(1):54-57.
187.朱穆之.(2005).谈谈对外宣传与报道.刘洪潮(主编).《怎样做对外宣传报道》.北京:中国传媒大学出版社.
188.朱艳卿.(2006).标语英译文可接受性问题探讨.《华南师范大学学报》(6):60-66.
189.朱永生.(1990).主位与信息分布.《外语教学与研究》(4):17–21.
190.祝畹瑾.(1985).《社会语言学译文集》.北京:北京大学出版社.
191.庄庆芳(.2007).福柯后现代话语与中国话语分析《.外语学刊》(5):94-96.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/新华网
http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/中国政府网
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/中国外交部网
http://www.chinanews.com.cn/中新网
http://www.china. com. cn/中国网
http://www.people.com.cn/人民网
http://www.huanqiu.com/环球网
http://www.chinadialy.com.cn/hqzx中国日报——环球在线
http://www.ifeng.com/凤凰网
http://www.china-embassy.org/中国驻美大使馆网站
http://www.humanrights.cn/中国人权网
http://www.state.gov/美国国务院网
http://www.whitehouse.gov/美国白宫网
http://www.congress.org/美国国会网站
http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/弗吉尼亚大学米
勒公共事务研究中心
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/加利福利亚大学美国总统任期网站
http://www.history.com/presidents美国历史网站
http://en.wikipedia.org/维基百科网站
http://www.infoplease.com/信息收索网站
http://www.nytimes.com/纽约时报网站
http://www.washingtonobserver.org/华盛顿观察网
http://www.washingtonpost.com/华盛顿邮报网站