摘要
本研究旨在探寻相互冲突的意识形态如何体现在女性杂志中的女性身份建构中。具体地说,就是分析女性杂志中权力结构与女性身份话语建构的相互关系。本研究是基于Cosmopolitan的个案研究。这里的权力关系结构指建构在社会行为者之问的权力关系。Cosmopolitan中的社会行为者指女性读者、女明星、男性、Cosmo和专家。这种权力关系结构主要是通过分析概念和人际两个功能来实现的：即通过分析实现他们的语言‘手段来进行。更进一步说,通过分析比较社会行为者的不同社会行为表征方式,以及社会行为者的不同表征方式来进行。本研究中Cosmopolitan所建构的女性性别身份与女性主义和消费主义相关,所以比较分析不能只限于女性和男性之间,还应包括其他相关的社会行为者如专家以及Cosmo等。
之前的女性性别身份的话语建构研究主要是通过比较男性与女性之间不同的言语行为进行的。对于女性杂志话语中的女性性别身份建构缺乏系统、全面的语言研究。正是在这种背景下,本研究以关注解释文化、社会和语言使用之间关系的系统功能语言学为主要理论基础框架,并引入了以女性主义为立场研究语言的女性文体学。本研究中的话语分析工具包括社会行为表征方式分析和社会行为者表征方式分析。本研究采用了UAM统计软件并辅以Concapp分析数据库样本。UAM主要用来标注文本,并为定性分析提供描述数据。Concapp则用来找寻定位索引和计算关键词出现的频率。
本研究数据库中的四十八篇文本分别选自Cosmopolitan中的明星访谈、男女关系、时尚和目录四个部分。时间跨度为一年,即从2009年4月到2010年4月。因为这些文本均采自杂志中的常规栏目,所以他们能从一定程度上代表杂志的总体内容。
社会行为表征方式分析显示,一方面女性读者在所有社会行为者中权力最小,另一方面同样作为女性的明星拥有的权力要大得多。扮演的角色不同,Cosmopolitan建构他们的方式也就不同。女明星在物质、心理和话语过程中出现的频率几乎相等,而关系过程的频率最低。作为模板,明星更多地是通过外部特点来表征。Cosmopolitan杂志多方位地建构女明星,用他们的所做、所想以及所说使它所推广的意识形态合法化。女明星的权力主要表现在话语和关系过程中,而在物质和心理过程中表现较弱。这种建构看似冲突,实际原因是明星不仅是模板,而且也是女性,所以身份建构中既要表现权力又要显现与女性的亲密关系。与之形成对比的是女性读者。她所参与的过程中物质过程占了绝大多数。她绝对活跃,但她的行为所能影响的范围很小,仅限于是服饰和她自己的身体。而女性的心理过程则表现为情感化,在话语过程保持沉默。而在两性关系部分,像‘say’、'explain'这一类的言语动词被用在物质过程中。所以可以说女性尽管很活跃,但权力最少。
男性的社会行为主要表现在心理和话语过程中。男性在心理过程中的表现为绝对的情感化,他的情感一般针对女性,他的心理过程也与女性相关。他的话语过程和心理过程对文本提到的事物如服饰和建议起到一种推荐的作用。而专家则被建构成具有绝对的权威,他们绝大多数的社会行为都是话语过程,而且是直接引用的形式。Cosmo的社会行为在绝大数情况下表现为物质和心理过程,她的身份建构同时体现了权威性和亲密性,因为Cosmo作为女性杂志要与读者建立亲密关系,而作为消费杂志又要对读者表现出权威性。
在社会行为者的表征方式方面,Cosmopolitan通过使用不同的人称代词将社会行为者分为US和THEM两组。权力建构在距离之上,通过比较各社会行为者与女性间的距离,发现男性距离女性最远,所以相对女性拥有最大权力。因此可以说Cosmo、专家以及女明星是帮助女性得到男性的‘工具’。对社会行为者表征方式的分析进一步支持了对社会行为表征的分析,更进一步明确了社会行为者之间的权力关系。
当前的研究验证了为研究女性性别身份所构建的理论系统和分析工具的有效性。本研究可以为其他的媒体话语女性性别身份建构研究提供理论和方法的支持。
This study is aimed to explore how the conflicting ideologies are encoded in the way women's magazines construct gender identity. More specifically, it deals with the discursive construction of gender identity in relation to the power structure in women's magazines, with special reference to Cosmopolitan. The power structure here refers to the relationship constructed by Cosmopolitan among the social actors, namely, the female reader, the star, the male, Cosmo and the experts, and it can be illustrated by analyzing the ideational and interpersonal meanings, or by analyzing how they are realized through specific linguistic choices. Comparisons are made among the different social actions attributed to different social actors, and the different ways to represent social actors. Since the identity constructed here is associated with both feminism and consumerism, the comparisons can not be confined to the ones between the female and the male, and they have to be extended to the other relevant social actors such as the experts and Cosmo.
The previous research of the discursive construction of female identity is mainly done by comparing different speech behaviours between the female and the male. Against the background of the lack of systematic and comprehensive linguistic studies of the construction of gender identity in the discourse of women's magazines, the present study is intended to explore this issue, primarily on the basis of systemic functional linguistics (SFL). SFL is chosen for its dedication to expounding the relationship between culture, society and language use. However, SFL for the study of gender identity remains inadequate. Feminist stylistics is included for it takes feminism as its stance in studying language. An integrated theoretical framework is established on the basis of SFL and feminist stylistics with representation of social actions and representation of social actors as its analytical tools. In addition, the study adopts UAM, a linguistic corpus tool, with the assistance of Concapp for corpus analysis. UAM is employed to code the texts and present descriptive statistics, serving as the basis for qualitative analysis. Meanwhile, Concapp is used to locate the concordance and calculate the frequency of key words.
The corpus for this study is made up of 48 texts from 12 issues of Cosmopolitan which span from the April 2009 to the April 2010. The texts are chosen from the regular sections, namely, Interview, Cross-sex relationship, Fashion and Contents, and thus are supposed to be indicative of the'aboutness'of the magazine.
The social action analysis shows that the female reader in Cosmopolitan, on the one hand, is least powerful, and the stars, on the other hand, being female as well, are much more powerful. Acting different roles, the stars and the reader are constructed in different ways. The stars are attributed almost equally to the material processes, the mental processes and the verbal processes, and the least in the relational processes. This suggests as role models, the stars are represented more by the external features than by the internal features. Acting as role models for the reader, the stars are constructed by multi-dimensions, and what they do, what they say, and how they react are hired to legitimize the ideology of Cosmopolitan. Moreover, the stars are constructed as powerful in the verbal, and the relational processes while as less powerful in the material and the mental processes. The reason for the seemingly conflicting construction is that the stars are not only role models, but also females, and they tend to show some connection with the reader. Hence, the stars are constructed both as powerful and intimate. By contrast, the female is attributed dominantly to the material processes. She is overwhelmingly active, but what is under her control in most of the cases is the trivial things such as the dresses and her own body which make up the most part of her world. Moreover, she is represented as affective in the mental processes, and as mute in the verbal processes. In the section of Cross-sex relationship, the reporting verbs such as'say'or'explain'are used in the material processes. Although the female is more active compared with other actors, she is least powerful.
The male is mainly attributed to the mental processes and the verbal processes. In the mental processes, he is constructed as overwhelmingly affective, and his affections are directed to the female. In the verbal processes, the resources associated with him are related to the female. Both his verbal processes and mental processes work as recommendation of the realis in the texts. As far as the experts are concerned, in most of the cases, they are attributed to the verbal processes, namely in the form of quote. They are constructed with absolute authority. Cosmo is involved dominantly in the material processes and in the mental processes. She is constructed both with authority and intimacy by the two processes. As a women's magazine, she has to construct connection with the reader and, as a consumer magazine, she has to construct authority over the reader.
As regards the representation of social actors, Cosmopolitan uses different personal pronouns to indicate the distance among the social actors. Thus, the actors are divided into two groups:US-and THEM groups. The power is constructed on the basis of distance. The comparisons of the distances among the social actors demonstrate that the male is farthest from the female. With regards to this respect, the male is most powerful actor for the female, and Cosmo, the experts and the stars are the'tools'to help the female win the man over. The actor analysis is supportive of the action analysis, and further clarifies the power structure among all the social actors.
The results of the present study attest the validity of the theoretical framework and analytical tools established in revealing the discursive construction of female identity in women's magazines. The results can provide theoretical and methodological support for other related studies of female identity construction in media discourse.
引文
Achugar, M. (2004). The events and actors of 11 September 2001 as seen from Urugray:Analysis of daily newspaper editorials. Discourse & Society,15 (2), 291-320.
Adams, C. (1990). The sexual politics of meat:a feminist-vegetarian critical theory. New York:Continuum.
Ainsworth-Vaughn, N. (1992). Topic transitions in physician-patient interviews:Power, gender, and discourse change. Language in Society,21,409-426.
Alabarta, P. (2005). Euphemisms and ambiguity in women's magazines:The example of Cosmopolitan. In J. Santaemilia (Ed.), The language of sex:Saying and not saying (pp.88-100).Valencia:Universitat de Valencia.
Alsop, R., Fitzimons, A.& Lennon, K. (2002). Theorizing gender. Cambridge:Polity.
Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays. Trans. Brewster, B. London:New Left Books.
Althusser, L. (1984). Essays on ideology. London:Verso.
Antaki, C.& Widdicombe, S. (Eds). (1998). Identities in talk. London:Sage.
Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Our master's voices:The language and body language of politics. London:Methuen.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Awonusi, V. O. (1996). Politics and Politicians for Sale:An Examination of Advertising English in Nigeria's Political Transition Program. International Review of English Studies,1,20-35.
Baider, F.& Gesuato, S. (2005). Masculinist metaphors, feminist research. http://www.metayhorik.de/05/baidergesuato.htm.
Baker, C. D. (2000). Locating culture in action:Membership categorization in texts and talk. In A. Lee & C. Poynton (Eds), Culture and text:Discourse and methodology in social research and cultural studies (pp.99-113). London: Routledge.
Baker, P. (2004). "Unnatural acts":Discourses of homosexuality within the House of Lords debates on gay male law reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics,8 (1),88-106.
Baker, R. (1981). "Pricks" and "Chicks":A plea for "persons". In R. Baker & F. Elliston (Eds.), Philosophy and sex (pp.45-64). New York:Prometheus Books.
Baker, R.& Elliston, F. (Eds.). (1981). Philosophy and sex. New York:Prometheus Books.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination:four essays. Trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin:University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin:University of Texas Press.
Ballaster, R., Beethan, M., Frazer, E.& Hebron, S. (1991). Women s worlds:Ideology, femininity and the women s magazine. London:Macmillan.
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2003). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads:A cognitive perspective. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference. London:Penguin.
Barrett, R. (1995).'Supermodels of the world, united!'Political economy and the language of performance among African-American drag queens. In W. Leap (Ed.), Beyong the Lavender lexicon:Authenticity, imagination and appropriation in gay and lesbian languages (pp.207-226). Buffalo:NY:Gordon and Breach.
Bateson, G. (1973). Steps towards an ecology of mind. New York:Granada.
Baxter, J. (2002). Competing discourses in the classroom:A poststructuralist discourse analysis of girl's and boy's speech in public contexts. Discourse & Society,13 (6), 827-842.
Baxter, J. (2003). Positioning gender in discourse:A feminist methodology. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Beach, W. A. (2000). Inviting collaborations in stories about a woman. Language in Society,29,379-407.
Beaugrande, R. D. (1999). Linguistics, sociolinguistics, and corpus linguistics:Ideal language versus real language. Journal of Sociolinguistics,3(1),128-139.
Beauvoir, S. (1949). Le Deuxieme Sexe. Paris:Gallimard.
Bell, A. (1991). The language of news media. London:Blackwell.
Bell, C.& Roberts, H. (Eds). (1984). Social researching:politics, problems, practice. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bell, V. (1999). On speech, race and melancholia:An interview with Judith Butler's Theory. Culture & Society,16 (2),163-74.
Benhabib, S., Butler, J., Cornell, D.& Fraser, N. (Eds). (1995). Feminist contentions:A philosophical exchange. London:Routledge.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control. Vol.Ⅰ:Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control. Vol.Ⅲ:Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, B. (1987). Social class, codes and communication. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar & K. J. Mattheier (Eds), Sociolinguistics:An international handbook of the science of society Vol. I. (pp.563-79). Berlin:de Gruyter.
Bernstein, B. (1990). The structure of pedagogic discourse:Class, codes and control, Vol.Ⅵ. London:Routledge.
Bernstein, B. (1994). Edwards and his language codes:response to A.D. Edward's "Language codes and classroom practice". Oxford Review of Education, 20(2),173-182.
Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity:Theory, research, critique. London:Taylor & Francis.
Bettelheim, B. (1976). The uses of enchantment:The meaning and importance of fairy tales. London:Thames and Hudson.
Bhaskar, R. (1989). Reclaiming reality:A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy. London:Verso.
Billig, M. (1989). The argumentative nature of holding strong views:A case study. European Journal of Social Psychology,19,203-223.
Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and opinions:Studies in rhetorical psychology. London: Sage.
Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking:A rhetorical approach to social psychology (2nd edn).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Billig, M. (1999a). Conversation analysis and the claims of naivety. Discourse & Society, 10(4),572-576.
Billig, M. (1999b). Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse & Society,10 (4),543-558.
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D.& Radley, A. (1988). Ideological dilemmas:A social psychology of everyday thinking. London:Sage.
Bing, J.& Bergvall, V. L. (1998). The question of questions:Beyond binary thinking. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and gender:A reader (pp.495-510). Oxford: Blackwell.
Black, M.& Coward, R. (1998). Linguistic, social and sexual relations:A review of Dale Spender's Man Made Language. In D. Cameron (Ed.), The feminist critique of language:A reader (2nd edn, pp.100-118). London:Routledge.
Blix, J. (1992). A place to visit:reevaluating women's magazines. Journal of Communication Inquiry,16 (1),56-71.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse:a critical introduction. Cambridge:Cambridge University.
Boden, D.& Zimmerman, D. H. (Eds). (1991). Talk and social structure:Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge:Polity.
Bodine, A. (1975). Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar:Singular "they", sex indefinite "he", and "he or she". Language in Society,4,129-146.
Bohan, J. (1993). Regarding gender:Essentialism, constructionism, and feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly,17,5-21.
Bolinger, D. (1980). Language:the loaded weapon. New York:Longman.
Bologh, R.W. (1992). The promise and failure of ethnomethodology from a feminist perspective:Comment on Rogers. Gender & Society,6 (2),199-206.
Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the fiction film. London:Methuen.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic Power. Cambridge:Polity.
Bourdieu, P.& Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity.
Braun, V. (1999). Breaking a taboo? Talking (and laughing) about the vagina. Feminism & Psychology,9 (3),367-372.
Brennan, W. (2005). Female objects of semantic dehumanization and violence. http://www.fnsa.org/vln3/brennanl.html.
Brown, R.& Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style and language (pp.243-276). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Brown, G.& Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P.& Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language use:Politeness phenomenon. In Goody, E. N. (Ed.), Questions of politeness:strategies in social interaction (pp.256-289). London:CUP.
Bucholtz, M. (1999).'Why be normal?' Language an identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language & Society,28,203-223.
Bucholtz, M. (1999a). Bad examples:Transgression and progress in language and gender studies. In M. Bucholtz, A. C. Liang,& L. A. Sutton (Eds), Reinventing identities:The gendered self in discourse (pp.3-24). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bucholtz, M. (1999b). Series foreword. In M. Bucholtz, A.C. Liang,& L.A. Sutton (Eds), Reinventing identities:The gendered self in discourse (pp. ⅶ-ⅴⅲ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bucholtz, M. (2000a). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatic,32, 1439-1465.
Bucholtz, M. (2000b).'Thanks for stopping by':gender and virtual community in American shop-by-television discourse. In M. Andres & M. Talbot (Eds.), "All the world and her Husband ":Women in twentieth century consumer culture (pp. 45-67). London:Cassell.
Bucholtz, M. (2001). The whiteness of nerds:Superstandard English and racial markedness. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,11,84-100.
Bucholtz, M. (2003). Theories of discourse as theories of gender:Discourse analysis in language and gender studies. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp.43-68). Oxford:Blackwell.
Bucholtz, M. (2004). Changing places:Language and woman's place in context. In R. Lakoff, Language and woman s place:text and commentaries (revised and expanded edn, ed. Bucholtz, M.) (pp.121-128). New York and Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bucholtz, M., Liang, A.C.& Sutton, L.A. (Eds.). (1999). Reinventing identities:The gendered self in discourse. New York:Oxford University Press.
Burkitt, I. (1999). Between the dark and the light:Power and the material contexts of social relations. In D.J. Nightingale & J. Cromby (Eds.), Social constructionist psychology:A critical analysis of theory and practice (pp.69-82). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Burton, D. (1982). Through glass darkly:through dark glasses. In R. Carter (Ed.), Language and literature:an introductory reader in stylistics (pp.67-89). London: Geogre Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Butler, J. (1990a). Gender trouble:Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:Routledge.
Butler, J. (1990b). Performative acts and gender constitution:An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. In S. Case (Ed.), Performing feminisms: Feminist critical theory and theatre (pp.270-282). Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter:On the discursive limits of 'sex'. London: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1994). Against proper objects. Differences,6 (2-3),1-26.
Butler, J. (1995). Burning acts:Injurious speech. In A. Parker & E. K. Sedgwick (Eds.), Performativity and performance (pp.197-227). London:Routledge.
Butler, J. (1997a). Excitable speech:a politics of the performative. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1997b). The psychic life of power:theories in subjection. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble:feminism and the subversion of identity (10th Anniversary Edition). London:Routledge.
Butler, S. C. (1985). Systemic linguistics:theory and applications. London:Batsford Academic and Educational.
Buttny, R. (1993). Social accountability in communication. London:Sage.
Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. (1996). "Women who pay for sex, and enjoy it":transgression versus morality in women's magazines. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices:readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 250-270). London:Routledge.
Cameron, D. (1992). Feminism and linguistic theory (2nd edn.). London:Macmillan.
Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London:Routledge.
Cameron, D. (1997a). Performing gender identity:Young men's talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. In S. Johnson & U. H. Meinhof (Eds.), Language and masculinity (pp.47-64). Oxford:Blackwell.
Cameron, D. (1997b). Theoretical debates in feminist linguistics:Questions of sex and gender. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse (pp.21-36). London:Sage.
Cameron, D. (1998a). Gender, language, and discourse:A review essay. Signs,23, 945-973.
Cameron, D. (1998b). Lost in translation:Non-sexist language. In D. Cameron (Ed.), The feminist critique of language:A reader (2nd edn.) (pp.155-163). London: Routledge.
Cameron, D. (Ed.). (1998c). The feminist critique of language:A reader (2nd edn). London:Routledge.
Cameron, D. (1998d). Is there any ketchup Vera? Gender, power and pragmatics. Discourse & Society,9 (4),437-455.
Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London:Sage.
Cameron, D. (2005). Language, gender, and sexualtiy:Current issues and new directions. Applied Linguistics,26 (4),482-502.
Cameron, D.& Kulick, D. (2003). Language and sexuality. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, D., McAlinden, F.& O'Leary, K. (1989). Lakoff in context:The social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In J. Coates & D. Cameron (Eds.), Women in their speech communities (pp.74-93). London:Longman.
Cameron, L.& Low, G. (Eds.). (1999). Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, R.& Salem, D. A. (1999). Concept mapping as a feminist research method: Examining the community response to rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 65-89.
Carrigan, T., Connell, R.& Lee, J. (1985). Towards a new sociology of masculinity. Theory & Society,14,551-604.
Carter, R. A. (1997). Working with texts. London and New York:Routledge.
Carter, R. A.& Simpson, P. (Eds.). (1989). Language, discourse and literature:an introductory reader in discourse stylistics. London:Unwin Hyman.
Chandler, D. (2002). Semiotics:the basics. London:Routledge.
Chen, L. (2005). Transitivity in media texts:negative verbal processes sub-functions and narrator bias. IRAL,43,333-351.
Chilton, P. (1996). The meaning of security. In F. A. Beer & R. Hariman (Eds), Post-realism:The rhetorical turn in international relations (pp.193-216). East Lansing, MI:Michigan State University Press.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse:Theory and practice. New York: Routledge.
Chilton, P. (2005). Vectors, viewpoint and viewpoint shift. Annual Review of Cognitive linguistics,3 (1),78-116.
Chilton, P.& Lakoff, G. (1995). Foreign policy by metaphor. In C. Schaffiner & A. L Wenden (Eds.), Language and peace (pp.37-59). Amsterdam:Harwood Academic Publishers.
Chilton, P.& Schaffner, C. (1997). Discourse and politics. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction:A multidisciplinary introduction (pp.206-230). London:Sage.
Chomsky, N. (1977). Essays on form and interpretation. New York:North-Holland.
Chouliaraki, L.& Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity:rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Coates, J. (1986). Women, men and language. London:Longman.
Coates, J. (1996). Women talk:conversation between women friends. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coates, J. (1997). Competing discourses of femininity. In H. Kotthoff & R. Wodak (Eds), Communicating gender in context (pp.285-314). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Coates, J. (1999). Changing femininities:The talk of teenage girls. In M. Bucholtz, A. C. Liang & L.A. Sutton (Eds.), Reinventing identities:the gendered self in discourse (pp.123-44). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Coates, J. (2003). Men talk:Stories in the Making of Masculinities. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coates, J.& Thornborrow, J. (1999). Myths, lies and audiotapes:Some thoughts on data transcripts. Discourse & Society,10 (4),594-597.
Coffin, C. (1997). Constructing and giving value to the past:An investigation into secondary school history. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school. London:Cassell.
Coffin, C. (2000). History as discourse:Construals of time, cause and appraisal. Unpbulished Ph.D. dissertation, University of New South Wales.
Coffin, C. (2001). Theoretical approaches to written language-A TESOL perspective. In A. Burns & C. Coffin (Eds.), Analyzing English in a global context:A reader (pp.93-122). London/New York:Routledge.
Cornell, R.W. (1987). Gender and power. Cambridge:Polity with Blackwell.
Connell, R.W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge:Polity.
Cook, G. (1992). The discourse of advertising. London:Routledge.
Cook, G. (2001). The discourse of advertising (2nd edition). London:Routledge.
Coppieters, R. (1982). Descriptions and attitudes:The problem of reference to individuals. Studies in Language,6,1-22.
Cornell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Cambridge:Polity with Blackwell.
Coulter, J. (1979). The Social construction of mind:Studies in ethnomethodology and Linguistic Philosophy. London:Macmillan.
Coulter, J. (1989). Mind in action. Cambridge:Polity.
Coupland, J.& Gwyn, R. (Eds.). (2003). Discourse, the body and identity. London: Palgrave.
Crawford, M. (1995). Talking difference:On gender and language. London:Sage.
Crawford, M. (2000a). Editor's introduction:How to make sex and do gender. Feminism & Psychology,10 (1),7-10.
Crawford, M. (Ed.). (2000b). A reappraisal of Gender:An ethnomethodological approach. Feminism & Psychology (special feature),10 (1),7-72.
Cummings, M.& Simmons, R. (1983). The language of literature:A stylistic introduction to the study of literature. Oxford:Pergamon Press.
Curran, J.& Gurevitch, M. (Eds). (1991). Mass media and society. London:Edward.
Currie, D. H. (1999). Girl talk:adolescent magazines and their readers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Danesi, M. (1994). Messages and meanings:An introduction to semiotics. Canadian Scholars Press:Toronto.
Davis, K. (1988). Paternalism under the microscope. In A. D. Todd & S. Fisher (Eds.), Gender and discourse:The power of talk (pp.19-54). Norwood NJ:Ablex.
De Beaugrande, R. (1997). New foundations for a science of text and discourse. Norwood, New Jersey:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
De Francisco, V. L. (1991). The sounds of silence:How men silence women in marital relations. Discourse & Society,2 (4),413-423.
Deignan, A. (2003). Metaphorical expressions and culture:An indirect link. Metaphor & Symbol,18,255-271.
Denny, D. (2000). Rachel and me:A commentary on Gender:An Ethno-methodological Approach. Feminism & Psychology,10 (1),62-65.
Denzin, N. K. (1990). Harold and Agnes:A feminist narrative undoing. Sociological Theory,8(2),198-216.
Denzin, N. K. (1991). Back to Harold and Agnes. Sociological Theory,9 (2),280-285.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of Grammatology. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.
De Oliveira, R. P. (2001). Language and ideology:An interview with George Lakoff. In R. Driven, B. Hawkins & E. Sadikcioglu (Eds.), Language and ideology (Volume 1) (pp.23-47). Amsterdam, Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing House.
Dirven, R., Frank, R. M.& Putz, M. (2003). Cognitive models in language and thoughts:ideology, metaphor and meanings. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R.& Porings, R, (Eds.). (2002). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R., Frank, R. M.& Putz, M. (2003). Introduction:Categories, cognitive models and ideologies. In R. Dirven, R. M. Frank & M. Putz (Eds.), Cognitive models in language and thought:ideology, metaphors and meanings (pp.1-25). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory & Society,22,643-657.
Donald, M. (2005). Media discourse. Berkshire:McGraw-Hill Education.
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger:An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Drew, P.& Holt, E. (1998). Figures of Speech:figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society,27 (4), 495-523.
Durham, G. (1996). The taming of the shrew:women's magazines and the regulation of desire. Journal of Communication Inquiry.20 (1),19-31.
Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology:An introduction. London:Verso.
Eble, C. (1996). Slang and sociability:in-group language among college students. Berkeley:Berkeley UP.
Eckert, P. (1989). The whole woman:sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation & Change,3,245-267.
Eckert, P. (1994). Entering the heterosexual marketplace:Identities of subordination as a developmental imperative. Working papers on learning and identity,2. Palo Alto, CA:Institute for Research on Learning.
Eckert, P. (2000). Gender and linguistic variation. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and gender:A reader (pp.64-75). Oxford:Blackwell.
Eckert, P. (2003). Language and gender in adolescence. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp.381-400). Oxford: Black Kwell.
Eckert, P.& McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally:Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology,21, 461-490.
Eckert, P.& McConnell-Ginet, S. (1999). New generalizations and explanations in language and gender research. Language in Society,28,185-201.
Eckert, P.& McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, A. D. (1987). Language codes and classroom practice. Oxford Review of Education,13 (3),237-47.
Edwards, D. (1999). Emotion discourse. Culture & Psychology,5 (3),271-291.
Edwards, D. (2000). Extreme case formulations:Softeners, investment, and doing non-literal. Research on Language and Social Interaction,33 (4),347-373.
Ehrlich, S.& King, R. (1992). Gender-based language reform and the social construction of meaning. Discourse & Society,3,151-166.
Ehrlich, S.& King, R. (1994). Feminist meanings and the (de)politicization of the lexicon. Language in Society,23,59-76.
Eggins, S.& Iedema, R. (1997). Difference without diversity:semantic orientation and ideology in competing women's magazines. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse (pp.165-196). London:Sage.
Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London:Pinter.
Eggins, S.& Slade, D. (1997). Analyzing casual conversation. London:Cassell.
Emanatian, M. (1995). Metaphor and the expression of emotion:The value of cross-cultural perspectives. Metaphor & Symbolic activity,10,163-182.
Erbring, L.& Shabedoth, E. (1993). Measuring editorial style in women's magazines. Paper presented to the ESOMAR Seminar on Competition in Publishing:The Necessity for Research, London.
Gumperz, J. (1982a). Discourse strategies. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. (Ed.). (1982b). Language and social identity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London and New York:Longman.
Fairclough, N. (ed.) (1992a). Critical language awareness. Harlow:Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992b). Discourse and social change. London:Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995a). Critical discourse analysis:The critical study of language. London and New York:Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995b). Media discourse. London:Edward Arnold.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse:Textual analysis for social research. London and New York:Routledge.
Fairclough, N.& Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies:A multidisciplinary introduction (Vol.2) (pp.258-284). London:Sage.
Fasold, R. (1990). Sociolinguistics of language. Cambridge (Massachusetts)/Oxford: Blackwell.
Fasold, R. (2000). The sociolinguistics of society. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Featherstone, M. (1991). Consumer culture and postmodernism. London:Sage.
Featherstone, M.& Lash, S. (1995). Globalization, Modernity and the Spatialisation of Social Theory:An Introduction. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash & R. R. Robertson (Eds), Global modernities. London:Sage.
Ferguson, M. (1983). Forever feminine:Women s magazines and the cult of femininity. London:Sage.
Ferguson, J. H., Kreshel, P. J.& Tinkham, S. F. (1990). In the pages of Ms:Sex role portrayals of women in advertising. Journal of Advertising,19,40-51.
Fernandez, F. A.& Catalan, R. M. J. (2003). Semantic derogation in animal metaphor:a contrastive-cognitive analysis of two male/female examples in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics,35 (5),771-797.
Fernando, C. (1996). Idioms and idiomaticity. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Fish, S. (1994). There's no such thing as free speech... And it's a good thing too. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fisher, S. (1986). In the Patient's Best Interest:Women and the Politics of Medical Decisions. New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press.
Fishman, P. (1977). Interactional shitwork. Heresies,2,99-101.
Fishman, P. (1978). Interaction:The work women do. Social Problems,25,397-406.
Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of discourse:An archaeology of human sciences. London:Tavistock.
Foucualt, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London:Tavistock.
Foucault, M. (1973). The orders of things:An archaeology of the human sciences. New York:Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1979). The History of sexuality (Vol. 1). Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text:A poststructuralist reader (pp.142-170). London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Fowler, R. (1985). Power. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis: Discourse analysis in society (vol.4). London:Academic Press.
Fowler, R. (1986). Linguistic criticism. Oxford, New York, Toronto:OUP.
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news:Discourse and ideology in the press. London:Routledge.
Fowler, R. (1996). On critical discourse analysis. In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices:Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp.3-14). London:Routledge.
Fowler, R., Hodge, R., Kress, G.& Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Franzwa, H. (1974). Working women in fact and fiction. Journal of Communication, 24(2),104-109.
Freeden, M. (1996). Ideologies and political theory:A conceptual analysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Frieden, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. Harmonds worth:Penguin.
Friedan, B. (2001). The feminine mystique. New York:W.W. Norton.
Garfinkel, A. D. (1978). A Sociolinguistic analysis of the language of advertising. Georgetown University.
Gauntlett, D. (2002). Media, gender and identity. London:Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis:Theory and method. London: Routledge.
Geis, M. L. (1982). The language of television advertising. New York:Academic Press.
Geoffrey, L. (1991). Swearing:A social history of foul language, oaths and profanity in English. Oxford (UK)/Cambridge (USA):Blackwell.
Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern social psychology. American Psychologist,40 (3),266-275.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind:figurative thought, language and unders-tanding. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Researching metaphor. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp.29-47). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. et al. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics,36,1189-1210.
Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway world:How globalisation is reshaping our lives. London:Profile.
Gilbert, P.& Taylor, S. (1991). Fashioning the feminine:Girls, popular culture and schooling. Sydney Allen & Unwin.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language:The graded salience Hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistic,8 (3),183-206.
Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings:studies of literal and figurative Language. Journal of Pragmatics,31,919-929.
Gitlin, T. (2003). The whole world is watching. California:California University Press.
Glazer, N. (1980). Overworking the working women:the double day in a mass magazine. Women's Studies International Quarterly,3(1),79-93.
Goddard, A. (1998). The language of advertising. London:Routledge.
Goddard, A.& Patterson, L. M. (2000). Language and gender. London:Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1977). The arrangement between the sexes. Theory & Society,4 (3), 301-331.
Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements:Studies in the anthropology of visual communication. New York:Harper and Row.
Goldman, R. (1988). Reading ads socially. London, Routledge.
Gough-Yates, A. (2003). Understanding women s magazines:publishing, markets and readerships. London:Routledge.
Grady, J.& Johnson, G (2002). Converging evidence for the notions of subscene and primary scene. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.533-554). Berlin:Mounton de Gruyter,
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from prison notebooks. Ed. and trans. Q. Hoare & G. Nowell Smith. London:Lawrence and Wishart.
Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of the communicative action.Vol 2. London:Macmillan.
Hall, K. (1995). Lip service on the fantasy lines. In K. Hall & M. Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender articulated:Language and the socially constructed self (pp.228-256). London:Routledge.
Hall, K.& Bucholtz, M. (Eds.). (1995). Gender articulated:language and the socially constructed self. New York:Routledge.
Hallliday, M. A. K. (1971). Linguistic function and literary style:An enquiry into the Language of William Golding's the Inheritors. In M. A. K. Halliday (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean:explorations in the development of language. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.& Hasan, R. (1976a). Cohesion in English. London:Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1976b). System and function in language. London:Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic:The social interpretation of language meaning. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985a). An introduction to functional grammar. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985b). Dimensions of discourse analysis:grammar. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis Vol.2:Dimensions of discourse (pp. 29-56). London:Academic Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edition). London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1995). Language and the theory of codes. In A. Sadovnik (Ed.), Knowledge and Pedagogy:the sociology of Basil Bernstein (pp.127-43). Norwood Nl:Ablex.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition.). London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.& Hasan, R. (1985). Language, Context and Text:Aspects of Language is a Social Semiotic Perspective. Gee long:Deakin UniversityPress.
Hasan, R. (1989). Semantic variation and sociolinguistics, Australian Journal of Linguistics,9,221-275.
Halliday, M. A. K.& Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning. London and New York:Continuum.
Halupka-Resetar, S. (2003). Animal names used in addressing people in Serbian. Journal of Pragmatics,35,1891-1902.
Harris, Z. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language,28,1-30.
Hatim, B. (2001). Communication across cultures:Translation theory and contrastive text linguistics. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hawthorn, J. (1992). A concise glossary of contemporary literary theory. London: Edward Arnold.
Hayakawa, S.I. (1964). Language in thought and action. New York:Harcourt.
Hebron, S. (1983). Jackie and woman's own:Ideological work and the social construction of gender identity. Unpublished BA dissertation (Hones), Department of Communication Studies:Sheffield City Polytechnic.
Hermes, J. (1995). Reading women's magazines. Cambridge:Polity.
Hines, C. (1999a). Foxy chicks and Playboy bunnies:A case study in metaphorical lexicalization. In M. Hiraga et al. (Eds.), Cultural, typological and psychological perspectives on cognitive linguistics (pp.9-23). Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Hines, C. (1999b). Rebaking the pie:The WOMAN AS DESSERT metaphor. In M. Bucholtz, A. C. Liang & L. A. Sutton (Eds.), Reinventing identities:The gendered self in discourse (pp.145-62). New York/Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hiraga, M. et al. (Eds.). (1999). Cultural, typological and psychological perspectives on cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Hodge, R.& Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge:Polity Press.
Hodge, R.& Kress, G. (1990). Language and ideology. London and New York: Routledge.
Hodge, R.& Kress, G. (1993). Language and ideology (2nd edition). London and New York:Routlege.
Holmes, J. (1984). Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence:Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo,27,47-62.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London:Longman.
Holmes, J. (Ed.), (1999). Communities of practice in language and gender research. Language in Society (special issue),28 (2),171-320.
Holmes, J.& Meyerhoff, M. (2003a). Different voices, different views:An introduction to current research in language and gender. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp.1-17). Oxford:Blackwell.
Holmes, J.& Meyerhoff, M. (Eds.). (2003b). The handbook of language and gender. Oxford:Blackwell Hughes.
Huddleston, R. D. (1984). Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Illouz, E. (1991). Reason within passion:love in women's magazines. Critical Studies in Mass Communication,8 (3),231-248.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity:The discourse construction of identity in academic writing. Armsterdam:John Benjamins.
Jespersen, O. (1909). A modern English grammar, Vol.7. London:George Allen.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind:the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, S. (1997). Theorizing language and masculinity:A feminist perspective. In S. Johnson & U. H. Meinhof (Eds.), Language and masculinity (pp.8-26). Oxford: Blackwell.
Johnson, S.& Meinhof, U. H. (Eds.). (1997). Language and Masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jorgensen, M.& Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London & New Delhi:SAGE.
Kenney, W. (1988). How to read and write about fiction (2nd edition). New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc..
Keith, A.& Burridge, K. (1991). Euphemism and dysphemism. Language used as shield and weapon. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Kiesling, S. (1997). Power and the language of men. In S. Johnson & U. Meinhof (Eds.), Language and masculinity. Oxford:Blackwell.
Kim, J. A. et al. (2004). Pleasure reading:associations between young women's sexual attitudes and their reading of contemporary women's magazines. Psychology of Women Quarterly,28 (1),48-58.
Kitagawa, C.& Lehrer, A. (1990). Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics,14,739-759.
Kittay, E. F. (1989). Metaphor:Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Koller, V.& Mauntner, G. (2004). Computer applications in critical discourse analysis. In C. Coffin, A. Hewings & K. O'Halloran, (Eds.), Applying English grammar (pp.216-228). London:Arnold.
Kovecses, Z. (1988). The language of love:The semantics of passion in conversational English. Cranbury (NJ):Associated University Presses.
Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor:A practical introduction. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Kovecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture, universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kress, G. R. (Ed.). (1976). Halliday:System and function in language. London: Oxford University Press.
Kress, G.& Hodge, R. (1979). Language as ideology. London:Routledge.
Kress, G.& Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images:The grammar of visual design. London:Routledge.
Kress, G.& Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multi-Modal discourse:The modes and media of contemporary communication. London:Arnold.
Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language:A semiotic approach to literature and art. New York:Columbia University Press.
Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader (pp.34-61). Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Laberge, S.& Sankoff, G. (1979). Anything you can do. In Givon, T. (Ed.), Discourse and syntax (pp.419-440). New York:Academic Press.
Labov, W. (1966). Hypercorrection by the lower middle class as a factor in linguistic change. In W. Labov (1991) (Ed.), Sociolinguistic patterns (pp.122-143). Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (1973). New sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lakoff, G (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago/London:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago/London:Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G.& Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York:Basic Books.
Lakoff, G.& Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason:a field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society,2,45-79.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman s place. New York:Harper and Row.
Lakoff, R. (1990). Talking Power. New York:Basic Books.
Lakoff, R. (1995). Cries and whispers:The shattering of the silence. In K. Hall & M. Bucholt (Eds.), Gender articulated:Language and the socially constructed self (pp.25-50). New York:Routledge.
Lakoff, R. (2000). The Language war. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.
Lakoff, R. (2003). Language, gender, and politics:Putting "women" and "power" in the same sentence. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp.161-178). Oxford:Blackwell.
Lakoff, R. (2004). Language and woman s place:Text and commentaries (revised and expanded edn, ed. M.Bucholtz). New York and Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Lather, P. (1988). Feminist perspectives on empowering research methodologies. Women s Studies International Forum,11 (6),569-581.
Lea, S.& Auburn, T. (2001). The social construction of rape in the talk of a convicted rapist. Feminism & Psychology,11,11-33.
Leach, E. (1964). Anthropological aspects of language:animal categories and verbal abuse. In E. Lenneberg (Ed.), New directions in the study of language (pp. 23-63). Cambridge, Massachusetts:MIT Press.
Leech, G. N. (1966). English in advertising. London:Longman.
Leech, G. N.& Short, M. H. (1981). Style in fiction. London:Longman.
Lemke, J. L. (1985). Ideology, intertextuality and the notion of register. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse, Vol.1., (pp. 275-294). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Lemke, J. L. (1992). Intertextuality and education discourse. Linguistics and Education (4),257-267.
Lemke, J. L. (1995). Text politics:Discourse and social dynamics. London:Taylor and Francis.
Lenneberb, E. (Ed.). (1964). New directions in the study of language. Cambridge & Massachusetts:MIT Press.
Lerman, C.L. (1983). Dominant discourse:the institutional voice and control of topic. In H. Davis and P. Walton (Eds.), Language, image and the media (pp.75-103). Oxford:Blackwell.
Leman, J. (1980). The advice of a real friend:Codes of intimacy and oppression in women's magazines 1937-1955. Women's Studies International Quarterly,3 (1), 63-78.
Levision, S. C. (1983). Pragatics. London:Longman.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1978b). Mythologiques:Introduction to a Science of Mythology. London:Cape.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1978a). Myth and meaning. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Liao, Y. Q. (2008). Judgment and appreciation constructing Gender Identities:A critical analysis of fashion discourse. Foreign Language Research,145 (6), 71-75.
Lillian, D. L. (2001). Canadian neo-conservative discourse:A critical discourse analysis. Toronto. Ontanrio:York University.
Linell, P. (1998). Discourse across boundaries:On recontextualizations and the blending of voices in professional discourse. Text,18 (2),143-157.
Low, G. (1988). On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics,9 (2),125-147.
Lury, C. (1996). Consumer culture. New Brunswick:Rutgers University Press.
Maalej, Z. (2004). Figurative language in anger expressions in Tunisian Arabic:an extended view of embodiment. Metaphor & Symbol,19 (1),51-75.
MacArthur, F. (2005). The competent horseman in a horseless world:observations on a conventional metaphor in Spanish and English. Metaphor & Symbol,20 (1), 71-94.
Macdonnnell, D. (1986). Theories of discourse. Oxford:Blackwell.
Macdonald, M. (1995). Representing women:Myths of femininity in the popular media. London:Edward Arnold.
Machin, D.& van Leewen, T. (2003). Global schemas and local discourses in Cosmopolitan. Journal of Sociolinguistics,7 (4),493-512.
Machin, D. (2005). Language style and lifestyle:The case of a global magazine. Media, Culture & Society,27 (4),577-600.
Machin, D.& van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Language style and lifestyle:the case of a global magazine Media. Culture & Society,27 (4),577-600.
Machin, D.& Thornborrow, J. (2006). Lifestyle and the depoliticisation of agency: Sex as power in women's magazines. Social Semiotics,16 (1),173-188.
Maitland, K.& Wilson, J. (1987). Pronominal selection and ideological conflict. Journal of Pragmatics,11,495-512.
Makkonen, A. (1991). Does intertextuality have any limits? In Viikari, A. (Ed.), Intertextuatity---perspectives and applications (pp.9-30). Helsinki:SKS.
Maltz, D. N.& Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social Identities (pp. 196-216). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text:System and structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing House.
Martin, J. R. (1997). Analyzing genre:Functional parameters. In F. Chrisie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school (pp.3-39). London:Cassell.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Close reading:Functional linguistics as a tool for critical discourse analysis. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities:Functional linguistic perspectives (pp.275-302). London:Cassell.
Martin, J. R.& Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse:meaning beyond the clause. London and New York:Continuum.
Martin, J. R.& Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2003). Re/reading the past:critical and functional perspectives on time and value. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Martin, J. R.& White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation:Appraisal in English. London:Continuum
Martin-Barbero, J. (1993). Communication, culture and hegemony:From the media to mediations Trans. Elizabeth Fox & Robert A. White. London:Sage.
Martsa, S. (2003). Conceptual mappings in the ethnobiological categorization of ani-mals. Massachusetts:MIT Press.
Matosian, G. (1999). Intertextuality, affect and ideology in legal discourse. Text,19 (1).73-109.
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1988). Language and gender. In F. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, Volume Ⅳ, The sociocultural context (pp.75-99). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1989). The sexual (re)production of meaning:A discourse based theory. In F. W. Frank & P. A. Treichler (Eds.), Language, gender and professional writing (pp.35-50). New York:Modern Language Association.
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1998). The sexual (re)production of meaning:A discourse based theory. In D. Cameron (Ed.), The feminist critique of language:A reader (2nd edn, pp.198-210). London:Routledge.
McCracken, E. (1993). Decoding women's magazines:from Mademoiselle to Ms. London:Macmillan.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago:Chicago University Press
Miao, X. W. (1999). The explanatory power of relevance theory to discourse coherence. Foreign Language Teaching and Research,3,9-14.
Miao, X. W. (2001). A dynamic approach to discourse reference. Foreign Language Education,6,17-21.
Miao, X. W. (2004). Review of the development of the theory of text coherence and cohesion and its application?. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching,2,58-59.
Miao, X. W. (2004). Discourse analysis at the times of discursive turn. Journal of Ocean University of China,6,65-71.
Miao, X. W. (2006). Discourse analysis:The development and frontier. Foreign Language Research,129 (1),44-47.
Miao, X. W. (Ed.). (2009). Linguistics:An elementary course book. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Miao, X. W. (2010). Studies in English and Chinese discourse pragmatics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Mills, S. (1995). Feminist stylistics. London:Routledge.
Mills, S. (Ed.). (1995). Language and gender:Interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Longman.
Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. London:Routledge.
Mills, S. (2004). Discourse. London and New York:Routledge.
Milroy, J.& Milroy, L. (1978). Belfast:Change and variation in an urban vernacular. In Trudgill, P. (Ed.), Sociolinguistic patterns in British English (pp:19-36). London:Arnold.
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English:a corpus-based approach. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Moragas, S. M.& Lopez, B. (2000). Decentralisation process and 'proximate Television' in Europe in the new communications landscape:Demystifying media globalisation. London:Routledge.
Mumby, D. K.& Clair, R. P. (1997). Organizational discourse. In Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp.181-205). London:Routledge.
Murphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition,60,173-204.
Nakamura, M. (2004). "Let's dress a little girlishly" or "Conquer short parts". In S. Okamoto & S. Smith (Eds.), Japanese language, gender, and ideology:Cultural models and real people. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Nevarez, L. (2000). The Coexistence of the Mind and the Mall:Tension in Contemporary Humour Columns in American Vogue. Media History,6,161-75.
O'Barr, W.& Atkins, B. (1980).'Women's Language'or'powerless language'? In McConnell-Ginet et al. (Eds.), Women and languages in Literature and Society (pp.93-110). New York:Praeger.
Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Pearce, M. (2004). The marketization of discourse about education in UK general election manifestos. Text,23 (2),245-265.
Pecheux, M. (1982). Language, semantics and ideology. Trans. H. Nagpal. London: Macmillan.
Pochhacker, R. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London:Routledge.
Poynton, C. (1985). Language and gender:making the difference. Geelong:Deakin University; New York:Oxford University Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaun, S., Leech, G.& Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive grammar of the English language. London:Longman.
Rapp, R. (1988). Is the legacy of second wave feminism postfeminism. Social Review, 98 (1),32-44.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J.& Platt, H. (2000). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Robinson, D., Buck, E.& Cuthbert, M. (1991) Music at the margins:Popular music and global cultural diversity. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
Rodriguez, I. L. (2007). The representation of women in teenage and women's magazines:recurring metaphors in English. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense,15 (4),15-42.
Ryder, M. E. (1999). Smoke and Mirrors:Event Patterns in the Discourse Structure of a Romance Novel. Journal of Pragmatics,31,1067-80.
Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication. An introduction (3rd edition). Oxford:Blackwell.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford & Cambridge:Blackwell.
Schiller, H. (1971). Mass communication and the American empire. Boston:Beacon Press.
Shotter, J.& Gergen, K. (1989). Texts of identity. London:Sage Publications.
Shotter, J. (1993). Cultural politics of everyday life:Social constructionism rhetoric and knowing of the third kind. Buckingham:Open University Press.
Shotter, J.& Gergen, K. (Eds.). (1989). Texts of identity. London:Sage.
Sidnell, J. (2003). Constructing and managing male exclusivity in talk-in-interaction. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 327-352). Oxford:Blackwell.
Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology and point of view. London:Routledge.
Sinclair, J.& Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse:The English used by pupils and teachers. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Speer, S. A.& Potter, J. (2000). The management of heterosexist talk:Conversational resources and prejudiced claims. Discourse & Society,11,543-572.
Speer, S. A.& Potter, J. (2002). From performatives to practices:Judith Butler, discursive psychology, and the management of heterosexist talk'. In P. Mcllvenny (Ed.), Talking gender and sexuality (pp.151-80). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Speer, S. (2005). Gender talk:Feminism, discourse, and conversation analysis. New York:Routledge.
Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Spender, D. (1989). The writing or the sex. New York:Pergamon Press.
Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the net:Women, power and cyberspace. Melbourne, Vic.:Spinifex.
Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining culture:a naturalistic approach. Oxford:Blackwell.
Stanley, L.& Wise, S. (1993). Breaking out Again:Feminist Ontology and Epistemology. London:Routledge.
Steiner, E. (1985). The Concept of context and the theory of action. In P. Chilton (Ed.), Language and the nuclear arms debate:Nukespeak today (pp.215-239). London:France Pinter.
Steiner, L. (1991). Oppositional decoding as an act of resistance. In Avery and Eason, 1991.
Stephan, G.& Patzold, K. (1992). A survey of modern English. New York:Routledge.
Stokoe, E. (1998). Talking about gender:The conversational construction of gender categories in academic discourse. Discourse & Society,9,217-40.
Stokoe, E. (2000). Toward a conversation analytic approach to gender and discourse. Feminism & Psychology,10 (4),552-63.
Stokoe, E. (2003). Mothers, single women and sluts:Gender, morality and membership categorization in neighbour disputes. Feminism & Psychology,13 (3),317-44.
Stokoe, E. (2004). Gender and discourse, gender and categorization:Current developments in language and gender research. Qualitative Research in Psychology,1 (2),107-129.
Stokoe, E. (2005). Analysing gender and language. Journal of Sociolinguistics,9 (1), 118-133.
Stokoe, E.& Edwards, D. (2005). Mundane morality and gender in familial neighbour disputes. In J. Cromdal & M. Tholander (Eds), Children, morality and interaction. Hauppague, NY:Nova Science.
Stokoe, E.& Smithson, J. (2001). Making gender relevant:Conversation analysis and gender categories in interaction. Discourse & Society,12 (2),217-244.
Stokoe, E.& Smithson, J. (2002). Gender and sexuality in talk-in-interaction: Considering conversation analytic perspectives. In P. Mcllvenny (Ed.), Talking gender and sexuality (pp.79-109). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Stoll, D.& Pamela, C. (1998). Text as conversation:an interpretive investigation of utterances in a women's magazines. Journal of Pragmatics,29 (5),545-570.
Straubhaar, J. (1991). Beyond media imperialism:Asymmetrical interdependence and cultural proximity. Critical Studies in Mass Communications,8,39-59.
Street, J. (1997). Across the universe:The limits of global popular culture. In A. Scott (ed.), The limits of globalization. London:Routledge.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Sunderland, J.& Litosseliti, L. (2002). Gender identity and discourse analysis theoretical and empirical considerations. In J. Sunderlanga & L. Litosseliti (Eds), Gender identity and discourse analysis (pp.1-39). Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Talbot, M. (1995). A synthetic sisterhood:False friends in a teenage magazine. In K. Hall & M. Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender articulated:language and the socially constructed self(pp.143-165). New York:Routledge.
Talbot, M. (1992). "I wish you'd stop interrupting me!" Interruptions and asymmetries in speaker rights in equal encounters. Journal of Pragmatics,16,451-466.
Talbot, M. (1997). "Randy fish boss branded a stinker":Coherence and the construction of masculinities in a British tabloid newspaper. In S. Johnson & U. H. Meinhof (Eds), Language and masculinity (pp.173-87). Oxford:Blackwell.
Talbot, M. (1998). Language and gender:An introduction. Cambridge:Polity.
Talbot, M. (2000). "It's good to talk?" The undermining of feminism in a British Telecom advertisement. Journal of Sociolinguistics,4(1),108-119.
Talbot, M. (2003). Gender stereotypes:Reproduction and challenge. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp.468-486). Oxford: Blackwell.
Talebinejad, M. R.& Dastjerdi, H. V. (2005). A cross-cultural study of animal meta-phors:When owls are not wise! Metaphor & Symbol,20,133-150.
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices:Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand! Women and men in conversation. London: Virago.
Tannen, D. (1994a). Interpreting interruption in conversation. In D. Tannen, Gender and discourse (pp.53-83). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. (1994b). Talking from 9 to 5. New York:William Morrow.
Tannen, D. (1994c). The relativity of linguistic strategies:Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In D. Tannen, Gender and discourse (pp. 19-52). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. (1997). Women and men talking:An interactional sociolinguistic approach. In M. R. Walsh (Ed.), Women, men and gender (pp.82-90). New Haven, CT and London:Yale University Press.
Tannen, D. (1999). The display of (gendered) identities in talk at work. In M. Bucholtz, A. C. Liang & L. A. Sutton (Eds.), Reinventing identities:The gendered self in discourse (pp.221-240). New York:Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. (2003). Gender and family interaction. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds), The handbook of language and gender (pp.179-201). Oxford:Blackwell.
Tannen, D.& Saville-Troike, M. (Eds). (1985). Perspectives on silence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing functional grammar. London:Edward Arnold.
Thopmson, G. (2000). Introducing functional grammar. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Thompson, J. B. (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Thompson, J. B. (1987). Language and ideology:a framework for analysis. The Sociological Review,35 (3),516-536.
Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Thompson, J.B. (1991). Editor's Introduction. In P. Bourdieu (Ed.), Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Tillyard, E. M. W. (1959). The Elizabethan world picture. New York:Vintage Books.
Todd, A. D. (1989). Intimate adversaries:Cultural conflict between doctors and women patients. Philadelphia, PA:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Tomlinson, J. (1997). Cultural Globalization and Cultural Imperialism. In A. Mohammadi (Ed.), International Communication and Globalization:A Critical Introduction (pp.170-190). London:Sage.
Trudgill, P. (1978). Accent, dialect and the school. London:Arnold.
Trudgill, P. (1984). Applied sociolinguistics. London & Orlando:Academic Press.
Tsai, Y. (2000). Cultural identity in an Era of globalization - The structure and content of Taiwanese soap operas. In G. Wang & J. Servaes (Eds), The new communications landscape:Demystifying media globalization. London: Routledge.
Tuchman, G. (1979). Women's depiction by the mass media. Signs,4 (3),528-542.
Tunstall, J. (1977). The media are American:Anglo-American media in the world. London:Constable.
Tunstall, J.& Machin, D. (1999). The Anglo-American Media Connection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turner, M. (1996). The literary mind. New York/Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context:Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London:Longman.
Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1985). Handbook of discourse analysis (4 vols.). London: Academic Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1990). Discourse and society:A New Journal for a New Research Focus. Discourse & Society,1 (1),5-16.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Editor's forward to critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society,4 (2),131-132.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993b). Elite discourse and racism. London:Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1995a). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In C. Schaffner & A. Wenden (Eds.), Language and peace (pp.17-33). Aldershot:Dartmouth.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1995b). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society,6 (2),243-289.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as interaction in society. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp.1-37). London:Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology:A multidisciplinary approach. London:Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001a). Multidisciplinary CDA:A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp.95-120). London: SAGE Publications.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001b). Critical discourse analysis. In D. schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.352-371). Oxford: Blackwell.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001c). Principles of critical discourse analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice:A reader (pp. 300-323). London:Sage Publications.
Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds), Texts and practices-Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp.32-70). London:Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice:New tools for critical discourse analysis. New York:Oxford University Press.
Vetterling-Braggin, M. (1981). Sexist language. A modern philosophical analysis. Lehigh University:Adams & Co..
Volosinov, V. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Trans. L. Matejke & T. Titunik. New York:Seminar Press.
Wales, K. (1989). Dictionary of stylistics. Harlow:Longman.
Wales, K. (1996). Personal pronouns in Present-day English. London:CUP.
Wales, K. (1997). Dictionary of stylistics. London:Longman.
Walker, S. (1994). Hate speech:The history of an American controversy. London: University of Nebraska Press.
Wang, G.& Servaes, J. (2000). The new communications landscape:Demystifying media globalisation. London:Routledge.
Watson, G. (1994). A comparison of social constructionist and ethnomethodological descriptions of how a judge distinguished between the erotic and the obscene. Philosophy of the Social Sciences,24 (4),405-425.
Weatherall, A. (2000). Gender relevance in talk-in-interaction and discourse. Discourse & Society,11 (2),286-288.
Weatherall, A. (2002a). Gender, language and discourse. London:Routledge.
Weatherall, A. (2002b). Towards understanding gender and talk-in-interaction. Discourse & Society,13(6),767-781.
Weatherall, A., Gavey, N.& Potts, A. (2002). So whose words are they anyway? Feminism & Psychology,12 (4),531-539.
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.
Wells, L. (2000). Photography:A critical introduction. London:Routledge.
West, C. (1979). Against our will:Male interruptions of females in cross-sex conversation. Language, Sex,& Gender (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences),327,81-97.
West, C. (1992). Rethinking "sex differences" in conversational topics. Advances in Group Processes,9,131-162.
West, C. (1995). Women's competence in conversation. Discourse & Society,6 (1), 107-131.
West, C. (1998). Not just doctor's orders:Directive-response sequences in patients'visits to women and men physicians. In J. Cheshire & P. Trudgill (Eds), The sociolinguistics reader:Gender & discourse (pp.99-126). London:Arnold.
West, C.& Fenstermaker, S. (2002a). Accountability and affirmative action:The accomplishment of gender, race and class in a University of California Board of Regents meeting. In S. Fenstermaker & C. West (Eds), Doing gender, doing difference:Inequality, power, and institutional change (pp.141-68). New York: Routledge.
West, C.& Fenstermaker, S. (2002b). Accountability in action:The accomplishment of gender, race and class in a University of California Board of Regents. Discourse & Society,13(4),537-563.
West, C.& Garcia, A. (1988). Conversational shift work:A study of topical transitions between women and men. Social Problems,35,551-575.
West, C.& Zimmerman, D. (1983). Small insults:A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender and society (pp.102-117). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
West, C.& Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society,1,125-151.
West, C.& Zimmerman, D. (1991). Doing gender. In J. Lorber & S. Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp.13-37). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
West, C., Lazar, M.& Kramarae, C. (1997). Gender in discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.) Discourse as social interaction. Discourse studies:A multidisciplinary introduction, Volume 2 (pp.119-43). London:Sage.
Wetherell, M. (1995). Romantic discourse and feminist analysis:Interrogating investment, power and desire. In S. Wilkinson & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Feminism and discourse:Psychologica perspectives (pp.128-44). London:Sage.
Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires:Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society,9 (3),387-412.
Whitehorne, O. (1997).'Cosmo woman':The world of women's magazines. Kent: Crescent Moon.
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics:primes and primitives. New York:Oxford University Press.
Winship, J. (1987). Inside women s magazines. London and New York:Pandora.
Wodak, R. (1989). Language, power and ideology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Wodak, R. (1997). Introduction:some important issues in the research of gender and discourse. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse (pp.1-20). London:Sage
Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about-a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp.1-12). London:SAGE Publications.
Wodak, R., de Cilla, R., Reisigl, M.& Liebhart, K. (1999). The discursive construction of national identity. Trans. A. Hirsh & R. Mitten. Edinburgh: Edinburgrh University Press
Yule, G. (1982). Interpreting anaphora without identifying reference. Journal of Semantics,1,315-322.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York:OUP.
Zhang, D. L. (2005). The function and style of language. Beijing:High Education Press.
Zhu, Y. S., Yan, S. Q.& Miao, X. W. (2004). An introduction to functional linguistics. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.