Critical Discourse Analysis1资料
批评话语分析
《太阳报》: Robber’s son, five, killed in his bed. (抢劫犯之子, 5岁，在床上被杀。)
批评话语分析的研究现状和趋势
国外批评话语分析领域 目前已形成了Fowler、VanDijk、Fairclough、 Martin、Wodak、PaulChilton、RonScollon、 SiegfriedJager、EricJohn-son、Wetherell等人 为代表的各大学派及其分析模式。
批评话语分析的主要方法
系统功能语法分析 语篇体裁交织性分析 话语历史背景分析
系统功能语法分析
Halliday将语言所能完成的具有无限可能性 的功能抽象概括为三大语言元功能,即概念 功能(ideational function)、人际功能(interpersonal function)和语篇功能(textual function）
Wodak代表维也纳学派,她从历史角度出发,把 话语放在历史语境(社会与政治)中,用话语—— 历史模式展开分析;
PaulChilton认知话语分析法基于认知科学、发 展心理学。除此之外,还有RonScollon的媒介话 语 分 析 学 说, Eric Johnso n 的 批 评 隐 喻 分 析 法,Wet herell 拉夫堡学派的话语心理学。
批评话语分析
批评话语分析
1 批评话语分析的发展 2 批评话语分析的原则 3 批评话语分析的主要方法 4 国内外的研究现状和趋势
批评话语分析的发展
➢批评话语分析(CriticalDiscourseAnalysis,以下简称CDA) 是当代语言学研究的一个新兴分支。
critical discourse analysis
The Principles of CDA
❖ Fairclough and Wodak summarize the main tenets of CDA:
❖ CDA addresses social problems; ❖ Power relations are discursive; ❖ Discourse constitutes society and culture; ❖ Discourse does ideological work;
社会符号学 社会认知法
精品PPT
Methodology
❖ First, we need to know that there is no certain ways that can be applied to all discourse analysis. (for various types of discourse, different ways are used) Critical discourse analysis mainly has three ways, which are
精品PPT
Systemic Functional Grammar Analysis
❖ Systemic-functional linguistics is the major methodological resource of critical discourse which sees discourse as a social practice hence pays special attention to the study of the social and ideological factors in its production, distribution and interpretation. Its aim of analysis is mainly to identify and analyze those ideological assumptions that hidden in a context that largely have been taken for granted and bring them to the surface for inspection.
CDA三种方法
Critical Discourse AnalysisAn introduction to major approachesMoslem AhmadvandUniversity of Zanjan- Abstract -Meaning is not a monolithic construct; it is a multidimensional and slippery concept with amazing complexity. Understanding the silent meaning of a text, be it spoken or written is a highly-needed skill in the modern era, for the exposure to information and media is so vast that one can never be sure of the validity of the surrounding information. Critical Discourse Analysis along with other related disciplines attempts to reveal hidden meanings, that is, the ideological loads of the discourse. This paper tries to review the origins of CDA and introduces some of the influential theoretical schools on it. Although these approaches differ in terms of the theoretical foundations and analytic tools, they share three concepts of critique, power, and ideology. This article emphasizes two major points. One is the dialectic relation between society, culture, politics, and language that this complex relation requires multidisciplinary research. The other is the fact that CDA cannot be taken as theory due to its tendency to adopt an eclectic approach in the analysis of the data.Keywords: Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Linguistics, Ideology, Text, Power.1.IntroductionEffective discriminative reading is of paramount momentousness in the modern era due to the prevalence of media and enormous exposure to information. Ironically, people and even scholars have turned a blind eye to the intricacies and nuances of discourse production and comprehension. This is due to the fact that language users often do not develop a full competence in the semantic component of the language. Invariably, people are heedless to and unenlightened about the implications of the shades of meanings whilst they are producing discourse or are exposed to it.The concepts of discourse, genre, and style are intimately connected with each other. They are dealing with the macro and micro levels of sociological and linguistic studies. There is a dialectic relationship between social actors or individuals (micro structure) and the social practices and values (macro structure). In this background, a multiplicity of texts is in close interaction with social parameters to bring about different ideological, identities and power structures. In this respect, the voice given to the macro structures, i.e. government and institutions or the micro structures i.e. individuals is immensely affected by the theorists’ ideological orientations.Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth CDA) “is the uncovering of implicit ideologies in texts. It unveils the underlying ideological prejudices and therefore the exercise of power in texts” (Widdoson, 2000). This research enterprise attempts to critically analyze the relationship between language, ideology, and society. As Teun Van Dijk (1993) puts it, “critical discourse analysts want to understand, expose, and resist social inequality.”The roots of CDA are in critical theory which is inextricably tied up with Frankfurt School of Social Research. “Critical theory is defined as a research perspective, which has basically a critical attitude towards society” (Langer, 1998, p.3). More specifically, it is used to refer to “any theory concerned with critique of ideology and the effects of domination” (Fairclough, 1995, p.20). In the 1970s a group of linguists and literary theorists at the University of East Anglia developed the idea of critical linguistics. Their approach was based on M.A.K Halliday’s Systemic functional linguistics (SFL). This branch of grammar stresses the importance of social context (the context of culture and context of situation) in the production and development of language. In addition, functional linguistics, unlike many branches of linguistics, has always been concerned not only with words and sentences, but also with longer texts and collection of texts (corpora) above the level of the sentence. The foundations of CDA have been laid by critical linguists and theorist, and since the 1980s –thanks to the works of the British sociolinguist Norman Fairclough – has gained a lot of attention. Fairclough (1995) defines CDA as follows:By critical discourse analysis I mean discourse analysis which aims tosystematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determinationbetween (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social andcultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices,events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of powerand struggles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these relationshipsbetween discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony.(pp. 132-3)In recent years professionals from a variety of backgrounds have become interested in discourse issues. Historians, business institutions, lawyers, politicians and medical professionals to name but a few, have used discourse analysis to investigate social problems relating to their work. Van Dijk (1993), who prefers the term Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) for this reason, described it as “a new cross-discipline that comprises the analysis of the text and talk in virtually all disciplines of the humanities and social sciences.”This paper will introduce different approaches and schools to CDA and will discuss their similarities and differences. These approaches differ in terms of theoretical foundations and the tools they use to analyze discourse, but the concepts of ideology, critique, and power are present in all of them. In addition, it will accentuate the interdisciplinary nature of CDA and showing the dialectic relationship between language, culture, society, and politics.2.Approaches to CDAIn spite of the fact that all the approaches to CDA have the notions of ideology, Critique, and power in common, they could be classified into three major ones with respect to the differences in their theoretical foundations and analyzing tools.2.1.Norman Fairclough: Discourse as Social PracticeThe British sociolinguist, Norman Fairclough is one of the key figures in the realm of CDA. In his vantage-point CDA is a method for examining social and cultural modifications that could be employed in protesting against the power and control of an elite group on other people. Fairclough believes that our language, which shapes our social identities andinteractions, knowledge systems, and beliefs, is also shaped by them in turn. Like Kress and Van Leeuwen, he bases his analyses on Halliday’s systemic-functional grammar. In Language and Power (1989), he calls his approach Critical Language Study, and considers the first aim of his approach as helping to correct the vast negligence in relation to the significance of language in creating, maintaining and changing the social relations of power. This first goal tends to be the theoretical part of Fairclough’s approach. The second one which is helping to raise awareness to the question that how language can influence the dominance of one group of people over the others could be considered as the practical aspect of his approach. He believes that awareness is the first step towards emancipation. To reach the latter goal Fairclough has put a great emphasis on raising the level of people’s consciousness, for he assumes that in discourse, the subjects do not, strictly speaking, know what they are doing, and they are unaware of the potential social impact of what they do or utter.2.1.1.Text and DiscourseFairclough considers language as a form of social practice. This way of thinking implies some other notions. First, language is a part of the society and not somehow external to it. Second, language is a social process. Third, language is a socially conditioned process, conditioned that is by other (non-linguistic) parts of society (Fairclough, 1989, 22). The remarkable point in Fairclough’s view is that all linguistic phenomena are social, but it is not true the other way round. For instance, when we are talking about the political words such as democracy, imperialism, or terrorism we use linguistic elements, but this is only part of the whole politics. Therefore the relationship between language and society does not observe a one to one correspondence; rather, the society is the whole and language is a part of it.The second implied notion – i.e. language is a social process – is meaningful only when we take discourse as different from text, like Fairclough. Fairclough’s notion of text is exactly the same as Halliday’s, and this term covers both written discourse and spoken discourse. For him text is a product, not a process. Fairclough employs the term discourse to refer to the complete process of social interaction. Text is merely a sector of this process, because he considers three elements for discourse, namely text, interaction, and social context. In addition to text itself, the process of social interaction involves the process of text production and text interpretation. Hence, text analysis is a part of discourse analysis.Figure 1. Discourse as text, interaction and context. (Fairclough 1989, P. 25)In comparison to the three aspects of discourse (shown in figure 1.), Fairclough (1989, pp. 26-27) identifies three dimensions for CDA:•Description is the stage which is concerned with formal properties of the text.•Interpretation is concerned with the relationship between text and interaction by seeing the text as the product of the process of production and as a resource in theprocess of interpretation.•Explanation is concerned with the relationship between interaction and social context, with the social determination of the process of production and interpretation, and their social effects.In all these stages we are concerned with analysis, but the nature of it is different in each stage. Analysis in the first stage limits its boundaries to labeling the formal properties if the text and regards text as an object. In the second phase, CDA goes through the analysis of the cognitive process of the participants and their interactions. Finally in the third stage, the aim is to explain the relationship between social events and social structures that affect these events and also are affected by them.2.1.2.Ideology and PowerThe roots of the first goal of Fairclough’s critical language study can be traced to his expertise and background in sociolinguistics. Fairclough believes that in sociolinguistics – the study of language in the social context – one can propound ideas about language and power;for instance, in the discussions of standard and non-standard dialects, there is clear-cut evidence that the dialect of the powerful group will gain the reputation of the standard one. By the same token, there are studies that pay attention to the ways in which power is exercised in the people’s conversations. All of these studies are concerned with the description of power distribution in terms of sociolinguistic conventions; however, they cannot explain these conventions. Explaining how the relations of power are shaped and the struggle on how power is shaped, does not fall in the realm of sociolinguistics. In his approach, Fairclough endeavors to explain these conventions; conventions which are the upshots of the relations of power and the struggles on them. He accentuates the presuppositions of a common sense present in the interlocutions among people that they are usually blind to their existence. These presuppositions are the very ideology that has a close relationship with power; for these ideological presuppositions exist in the social conventions and the nature of the conventions depend on the power relations that cover them.The relationship between common sense and ideology was introduced by the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci. He refers to “‘a form of practical activity’ in which ‘a philosophy is contained as an implicit theoretical premiss’ and ‘a conception of the world that is implicitly manifest in art, in law, in economic activity and in all manifestations of individuals and collective life’” (Antonio Gramsci, 1971, cited in Fairclough, 1989, p.84). This form of practical activity is the ideology which exists in the background and is usually taken for granted. Fairclough assumes an ideological nature for the common sense, to some extent, and believes that this is the common sense which is ideological in order to be at the disposal of the survival of the unequal relations of power and to be a justification for it.Fairclough takes a rather traditional approach towards power, and does not agree with Foucault. From Fairclough’s (1995, p.17) point of view, Foucault considers power as a pervasive force and symmetrical relations that is dominant over the whole society and is not in the hands of one special group or another; whereas in Fairclough’s thinking, the relations of power are asymmetrical, unequal, and empowering that belong to a special class or group.2.1.3.Naturalization and Neutralization in DiscourseIf a type of discourse is dominant over an institution in such a way that other types of discourse are totally oppressed or become a part of that discourse, this issue will not make the discourse seem an autocratic one; rather it will cease to be seen as natural and legitimate. Fairclough, like other critical discourse analysts, calls this phenomenon naturalization. Naturalization has a relation with the ideological common sense, in the sense that by thenaturalization of the discourse, its ideology will change into the ideological common sense. In the process of naturalization and creation of the common sense, the type of discourse appears to lose its ideological character and tends to become merely the discourse of the institution itself instead of looking as the discourse of a special class or group within that institution. In this way, the struggle on power seems to be neutral, and being neutral means being out of ideology, that is to say, having no ideological load. The fact that discourse loses its ideological load, paradoxically, will make a fundamental ideological effect: “Ideology works through disguising its nature, pretending to be what it is not” (Fairclough, 1989, p.92). Now, as long as linguists insist only on the formal aspects of language, they foster the development of this ideological effect. Thus, naturalization occurs in this way and people can hardly, if ever, understand that their routine and usual behaviors makes ideological effects on the society.2.2.Teun Van Dijk: A Socio-cognitive ModelTeun Van Dijk is one of the leading figures and pioneers of study and research in domain of CDA. Most of his critical works are concerned with prejudice and racism in discourse. In his early works, he has considered the problem that how Netherlander and Californian Caucasians talk about ethnic minorities, and what role do these conversations play in the reproduction of ideology. In fact, analysis of the topics that people talk about represents the things that exist in their minds. In Van Dijk’s viewpoint, those things are mental and personal tenets about ethnic events. He believes that the major premise in talking about others includes positive self-representation and negative other-representation.In doing CDA, Van Dijk offers some practical principles and guidelines and asserts that he has no special school or approach. He does not consider CDA as a branch of discourse analysis, like conversation analysis or psycho-discourse analysis; for this reason he suggests researchers to look at the CDA as an interdisciplinary, and take an eclectic approach towards it using the findings of other cultures, countries, and other humanities disciplines. On the basis of his interdisciplinary attitude towards the field he labels his methodology as socio-cognitive discourse analysis and states that despite his reluctance to labeling, this label shows to what extent studying cognition is significant in CDA, communication, and interaction. However, this does not mean that CDA should confine its limits to cognitive and social analysis; rather, due to the real world problems, its complexities and people’s needs CDA should have historical, cultural, socio-economical, philosophical, logical, and neurological approaches as well.2.2.1.Discourse, Cognition, and SocietyVan Dijk believes that there is not direct relationship between social structures and discourse structures and almost always they are connected to each other through personal and social cognition. This cognition is the lost segment of many critical linguistic studies and critical discourse analysis; therefore he offers the triangle of society, cognition, and discourse. Though Van Dijk puts a great emphasis on cognition, he believes that since the nature of discourse is lingual, CDA needs merely linguistic foundations as well as cognitive foundations.In Van Dijk’s triangle, in a broad sense, discourse is a communicative event that includes oral interactions, written text, body movements, pictures, and other semiotic signifiers. Cognition here refers to personal and social cognition, beliefs, goals, values, emotions, and other mental structures. Society includes both local micro structures and political, social and universal macro structures which are defined in terms of groups and their relationships such as dominance and inequality. In defining the context of discourse in this triangle social and cognitive dimensions are deemed. In fact, context is of two types, micro and macro. Macro context refers to historical, cultural, political, and social structure in which a communicative event occurs, whereas micro context shows the features of the immediate situation and interaction in which a communicative event occurs.Van Dijk defines micro context based on the concept of cognition and considers it as a form of a mental model of a communicative situation and calls it a context model. Context models are mental representations that control many of the features of text production and comprehension such as genre, choice of topic, and cohesion on one hand, and speech act, style, and imagery on the other. These models exist in people’s long term memory; the part of memory in which people save their knowledge and view about the events they experience. In fact, there is no direct relationship between society and discourse and these models explain how discourse indicates the social and personal features in itself, and how in a certain social situation discourse could be different. In other words, devoid of these mental models, it cannot be explained and described that how social structures affect discourse, and get affected in turn.2.2.2.The notion of critiqueFrom Van Dijk’s viewpoint, in contrary to other discourse analysts, critical discourse analysts must have a clear socio-political position; they ought to explain their viewpoints, principles, and goals. Of course, in all the stages of shaping the theory and the analysis, theirwork is political and their criticisms of discourse will involve political criticism of those who are responsible for the reproduction of ascendency and social inequalities; elite groups who are in power; those who ordain social inequalities and injustice, continue and legitimize them. The ultimate goal of critical discourse analysts is to help the deprived part of the society, the issues that threaten these people’s lives, not small issues relating to discourse structures. Critical discourse analysts’ criticisms should not be temporary or personal. In other words, CDA goes beyond here and now, and attempts to study the roots of fundamental social problems. CDA’s criteria, as acknowledged by Fairclough, too, is not merely observational, descriptive or even explanatory, rather CDA’s prosperity is evaluated in terms of the influence that it has on the macro structure of the society and the role that it plays in the line of changing, amending, and removing social inequalities. Van Dijk believes that CDA does not reject having a special direction, and specifies its social and political direction clearly and articulately and is proud of having such a direction.2.3.Ruth Wodak: Sociological and historical approach to CDARuth Wodak and his colleagues at Vienna University have chosen to work within the sociological model for their CDA studies. This model is based upon Bernstein’s tradition in sociolinguistics and Frankfurt School, especially Jurgen Habermas. Based on this model, Wodak has had some studies on the institutional relations and discourse barriers in courtrooms, school, and hospitals. Recently he has started to work on sexism, anti-Semitism, and racism. In fact, the major goal of him and his colleagues is to put research into practice. They have offered guidelines to avoid using sexist language and some other guidelines for appropriate patient-doctor communication. Anti-Semitism studies after the Second World War, made Wodak and his colleagues to chose “historical approach” to CDA. The distinctive feature of this approach is that it attempts to use all the background information in analyzing different layers of a spoken or written text.Wodak (2001b: PP. 69-70) has put forward some features for the historical approach to CDA as follows:1.This approach is interdisciplinary. Like other critical linguists, Wodakacknowledges the intricacy of the relationship between language and society. As aresult he believes that CDA is interdisciplinary in nature.2.This interdisciplinary nature could be seen both in theory and practice. Hecombines argumentation theory and rhetoric with Halliday’s FunctionalLinguistics.3.This approach is problem-oriented rather than emphasizing some special languageissues.4.Methodology and theory are chosen through eclecticism.5.In this approach the analyst is always on the move between theory and empiricaldate.6.Historical context will go under investigation and will be incorporated into theanalysis of discourse and texts.2.3.1.Discourse and TextWodak believes that historical approach to discourse considers written and spoken language as form of social behavior. Like Fairclough, Wodak acknowledges the dialectic relationship between discourse acts and special areas of action (situations, institutional frameworks, and social structures). In other words, discourse as a social act creates discourse and non-discourse behaviors and in turn is created by them. Wodak distinguishes between discourse and text. He considers discourse as a complex set of synchronic and coherent linguistic acts that emanate in genre and text. Consequently text is seen as the production of these linguistic acts.3.ConclusionOne could say that in spite of the differences which exist in major approaches to CDA, all of these approaches pursue one common goal that is representing the dialectic relationship between language, power, ideology, and the influential role that language plays in emanation of power and legitimizing social inequalities. For as it was shown the dominant ideology, as a result of excessive use, will be presupposed and it becomes natural and neutral. Therefore, critical discourse analysts are giving a serious effort to clarify and denaturalize the hidden power relations, ideological processes that exist in linguistic text. They attempt to awaken the unconscious of those people who contribute to the establishment and legitimization of ideology through their ignorance.From CDA vantage-point, language does not possess power per se. It takes its power from the powerful people who make use of it. This is the very reason that why, in a majority of cases, critical linguists pick the view of deprived people and set out to analyze languageCritical Discourse Analysis11 critically, because those who are in power are responsible of the social inequalities. Power does not derive from language; rather language is used to fight against power.ReferencesFairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. London: Polity Press.Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.Van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4, 249-283.Van Dijk, T. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society, 17, 359-383. Wodak, R. (2001a). What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important concepts, and its development. In Methods of CDA. (ed.) by R. Wodak and M. Meyers. London: Sage Publication, 1-13.Wodak, R. (2001b). The discourse of historical approach. In Methods of CDA. (ed.) by R. Wodak and M. Meyers. London: Sage Publication, 63-94.This is a term paper for Advanced Writing course, instructed by Dr. R. Khosravi (PhD in English Literature) at the University of Zanjan during the academic year of 2008-2009.AcknowledgmentsA few words of acknowledgment are due here. I would like to extend my words of appreciation to Dr. R. Khosravi of Zanjan University who read the drafts diligently time and again and made invaluable comments.Bio DataMoslem Ahmadvand is Master’s student of Applied Linguistics at the University of Zanjan, Iran. He holds a BA in English Literature from the University of Semnan, Iran. His major areas of research are minimalist syntax and optimality phonology. He has been teaching English and Applied Linguistics for five years.Correspondence concerning this paper may be directly submitted to the author via e-mail at: ahmadvand@znu.ac.ir。
浅析批评性话语分析
浅析批评性话语分析摘要：话语是社会和文化的构成要素，与其相互影响，相互包含。
话语分析，既是其三者相互作用影响下的产物。
批评性话语分析是其中最有影响的一个分析。
本文从四个方面阐释了批评性话语分析，既概念、理论渊源、分析原则及主要方法。
其中主要方法包括：系统功能语法分析、语篇体裁交织性分析和话语历史背景分析。
这三种方法各有侧重,互为补充,它们使批评性话语分析成为传统的社会和文化分析的重要补充,使其变为一种社会行动,促进人类社会的进步。
关键词：批评性话语分析；分析原则；方法1.引言1.1什么是批评性话语分析批评性话语分析(critical discourse analysis)，简称CDA，也叫做批评语言学( critical linguist ics)，旨在通过分析语言特征及其生成的社会文化背景挖掘隐含于语言中的意识形态, 进而揭露语言、权势和意识形态之间的复杂关系。
批评性话语分析诞生于20世纪70 年代，英国语言学家Fowler 等在《语言和控制》(Language and Control)一书中首次提出批评语言学这一概念, 揭开了批评性话语分析研究的序幕。
批评性话语分析被认为是批评语言学最有影响的一个分析，它通过分析大众语篇揭示意识形态对语篇的影响和语篇对意识形态的反作用。
不同学者对批评话语分析的诠释不尽相同。
Van Dijk认为批评话语分析的研究动力和兴趣来自于紧迫的社会问题，他希望通过分析更好地理解这些问题。
批评话语分析不仅关注社会不公正、不平等、权势，更意在揭露在这些不公正、不平等和权势的构建和维护过程中话语所起的微妙作用。
Fairclough 认为“批评”的意思就是要揭示人们所不清楚的某些关系，比如语言、权势和意识形态之间的关系。
Lazar 把批评话语分析理解为对已经“自然化”的事物“去神秘化”的过程。
Cameron指出这种自然化往往是服务于特定利益而违背了他人的利益。
批评性话语分析家认为话语是影响人们思想和实践的强有力方式, 因而有必要通过详细分析揭示其中的权势关系。
CDA批判性话语分析和翻译学习
CDA can be defined as being fundamentally interested in analysing opaque非明面的 as well as transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in language. In other words, CDA aims to investigate critically social inequality as it is expressed, constituted, legitimized, and so on, by language use (or in discourse).
•Contents
•1.Critical Discourse Analysis(CDA) •2.Norman Fairclough and His Theory •3.CDA and TS •4.Cases •5.Summary
• 1.批评性话语分析是由20 世纪70 年代末开创的批判语言学发展而来的, 旨在通过对大众语篇的分析来揭示意识形态对语篇的影响以及语篇对意识 形态的反作用。
•5.One of the most influential and visible branches of discourse analysis.
•6.Draw from linguistic theory and social theory in order to examine ideologies and power relations involved in discourse.
• 2.批评性话语分析将意识形态视为人们“理解世界, 整理归纳经验时所持 有的总的观点和看法”,并试图通过对语言层面的深入分析来揭示社会生 活中为大众所忽视而又无处不在的权力关系和意识形态。
大学英语教材语篇的批评话语分析
大学英语教材语篇的批评话语分析发布时间：2023-01-27T08:43:15.477Z 来源：《教育学文摘》2022年18期9月作者：陈姗姗[导读] 大学英语教材蕴含丰富的外来文化，对于高校学生的意识形态和价值取向具有巨大的陈姗姗（长春理工大学吉林长春 130000）摘要：大学英语教材蕴含丰富的外来文化，对于高校学生的意识形态和价值取向具有巨大的影响力，是实现大学英语立德树人目标的重要载体。
本文选取《全新版大学进阶英语综合教程》中以文化差异为主题的相关课文进行批评话语分析。
研究发现教材语篇能够向学生展示丰富的多元文化和文化差异，但部分语言的使用会在一定层面上影响学生的文化观念和价值观念。
对大学英语教材语篇的批评话语分析有助于增强学生的语言意识和文化意识，提升学生的文化自信，同时也有利于丰富批评话语分析这一理论在教材研究方面的广泛应用。
关键词：大学英语教材；批评话语分析；文化差异一、引言大学英语教材是教师教学的主要资源，也是高校学生学习的重要内容。
然而，由于英语国家在文化传统、意识形态等方面与我国文化存在诸多不一致，导致大学生在提高自身英语能力的同时，也会进行文化比较、价值比较。
因此，对大学英语教材的语篇进行正确的评价与研究，不仅有利于学生正确认识教材内容，也对教师充分利用教材做好英语教学以及立德树人工作有一定的帮助。
本文运用批评性话语分析对大学英语教材中的语篇进行案例分析，不仅可以为教材使用者提供开放的视角来把握作者的观点，审视其语言背后的价值观念，也为英语教材的编写和解读提供一个新视角，具有一定现实意义。
二、批评话语分析批评话语分析（Critical Discourse Analysis, 简称为 CDA) 源于批评语言学，是西方学术界在对话语的研究经历了形式主义和功能主义话语观后从批评的视角对话语进行研究的一种分析方法。
CDA以韩礼德的系统功能语言学为主要的语言分析工具，通过分析话语形式来研究语言、权力及意识形态之间关系，揭示语篇如何源于社会结构和权力关系，又如何为之服务。
CDM方法学和额外性分析
CDM方法学和额外性分析CDM（Critical Discourse Analysis，批判性言论分析）方法学是一种对社会文本进行批判性分析的方法。
该方法将语言视为社会实践的重要组成部分，并揭示了文本背后的权力关系和意识形态。
与此相关的是额外性分析，它关注的是社会实践中语言材料的隐含含义和象征意义。
CDM方法学的核心观点是，语言不仅是表达思想的工具，也是权力的工具。
通过语言分析，可以揭示出话语中的权力关系和意识形态，并分析其对社会现象的构建和再现的影响。
额外性分析则关注的是文本中的隐含含义和象征意义，通过对语言材料的深入分析，揭示出文本中可能存在的隐含信息和象征符号。
CDM方法学的分析过程包括以下几个方面：首先，研究者需要对社会现象和话语进行田野调查，并收集相关的语料。
然后，通过对语料进行深入分析，研究者可以辨别出文本中的权力关系、意识形态和社会身份等因素。
在这个过程中，研究者还需要关注文本中可能存在的隐含信息和象征符号，并进行额外性分析。
最后，研究者还可以将不同的语言材料进行比较，以了解其中的差异和共同点。
额外性分析是CDM方法学中的重要组成部分。
通过对文本中的隐含信息和象征符号进行分析，研究者可以揭示出文本的深层含义。
例如，篇文章描述了一场抗议活动，而实际上这场抗议活动是由政府组织的。
通过额外性分析，研究者可以揭示出这个文本背后的政府意识形态和控制力量。
综上所述，CDM方法学和额外性分析对于理解社会文本的权力关系、意识形态和隐含含义具有重要意义。
通过这些分析方法，研究者可以深入剖析社会实践中的语言材料，并揭示出社会现象的结构和运作。
这对于社会科学研究和社会变革具有重要的启示意义。
批评语篇分析的社会和认知取向
批评语篇分析的社会和认知取向一、本文概述批评语篇分析（Critical Discourse Analysis, CDA）是一种语言学研究方法，旨在揭示语言使用与社会、政治、文化等因素的交互关系。
它关注语言如何构建现实，如何反映和塑造社会不平等和权力关系，以及如何影响人们的认知和行为。
本文将对批评语篇分析的社会和认知取向进行概述，探讨其理论背景、研究方法和应用领域，以期深化对语言与社会、认知关系的理解。
在社会取向方面，批评语篇分析关注语言在社会结构中的作用。
它认为，语言是社会现实的建构工具，不同群体通过语言来表达和维护自身利益。
批评语篇分析旨在揭示语言背后的社会不平等和权力关系，分析语言如何被用来合法化不平等、压制异议、维护特定利益。
通过对社会现象的语言分析，批评语篇分析能够揭示出隐藏在语言背后的社会问题和矛盾。
在认知取向方面，批评语篇分析关注语言如何影响人们的认知过程。
它认为，语言不仅仅是交流工具，还是塑造人们思维和观念的重要因素。
批评语篇分析关注语言如何构建现实、影响人们的认知框架和思维方式，以及如何通过语言来引导和控制人们的注意力、记忆和判断。
通过对语言与认知关系的分析，批评语篇分析能够揭示出语言如何影响人们的思维和行为，进而揭示出语言与认知之间的复杂关系。
本文将对批评语篇分析的社会和认知取向进行详细介绍，包括其理论背景、研究方法和应用领域。
通过本文的阐述，读者将能够更深入地了解批评语篇分析的基本概念和理论框架，以及其在社会、政治、文化等领域的应用价值。
本文还将探讨批评语篇分析所面临的挑战和未来发展方向，以期推动该领域的深入研究和应用。
二、批评语篇分析的社会取向批评语篇分析的社会取向着重于语言与社会结构、权力关系以及意识形态的紧密联系。
在这一取向中，语言被视为一种社会实践，通过话语的构建和传播，反映并塑造着社会的各种关系和权力结构。
批评语篇分析的社会取向强调了话语的社会功能和影响，特别是话语如何参与塑造社会不平等、歧视和压迫等问题。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Your company slogan
八大原则
1
CDA 处理的是社会问题
2
3
语篇构成社会和文化
4
语篇是意识形态的工具
Your company slogan
5
6
7 8
Your company slgan
《语言和控制》一书提出批评语言学的语篇分析方法，旨在通过对 大众语篇的分析来揭示意识形态对语篇的影响和语篇对意识形态的 反作用。
Critical Discourse Analysis
定义
理论来源
理论框架
研究方法
八项原则
Your company slogan
定义
批评话语分析是通过对语篇形式的分析研究话语，权力，
意识形态之间的关系的一种话语分析形式 20 世纪70年代 批评语言学 80-90 年代 1989年 初期形成 1979年 folwer 等 <语言与控制>
Your company slogan
社会
社会结构决定语篇特性，语篇又反过来影响社会结构
CDA把语言分析和社会分析融为一体，主张语篇本身是 社会行为的一种形式，尽管它们之间的联系是间接的。
Your company slogan
认知 语言使用者作为社会角色必然涉及认知。 认知： 个人认知、社会认知。 认知可以看成是个人和社会之间的至关重要的界面，也 是个人语篇和社会结构之间的结合部分。 CDA的认知系统： 权势、心理控制、语境控制
语篇体裁交织分析是对作者如何选择性地利用语篇体裁
所作的分析。 不同的体裁体现不同的意义潜势,代表着不同人或群体的 利益和意识形态。
Your company slogan
话语历史背景分析
Utz Maas：“话语是与社会实践紧密相关的语言形
式”，他提倡以历史背景为重心的话语分析。
该方法系统地综合各种历史资料,对话语的不同层面进行 剖析和阐释。 历史背景分析必然包含语篇交织性分析
成熟期 《语言与权力》
fairclough
Your company slogan
CDA
反映 语言形式 社会功能
Your company slogan
CDA 的 理 论 框 架
话语
社会
认知
Your company slogan
话语 Fairclough 任何话语都是一种三维概念, 话语：语篇、话语实践、社会文化实践 语篇分析：三维的。 以语言为主体，对语篇作出语言学上的描写，对话语和 语篇的生成过程的相互关系作出解释，并对话语过程与 社会过程之间的相互关系作出解释
意识形态指人们“理解世界，整理，归纳经验时所持有的总的观点和 看法
”
Your company slogan
系统功能语法分析法
概念功能反映人类各种经历，而及物系统又是表达概念功能的一个
语义系统，包括物质过程、心理过程、关系过程、言语过程、行为
过程和存在过程。 人际功能表达语篇作者的身份、地位、态度等，通过语气和情态体
现出来。
语篇功能包括说话人或作者组织自己思想先后顺序的主位结构和表 达说话人或作者对信息中心成分处理的信息结构。 CDA主要运用及物系统、语气、情态、转换、词语选择、代词化等 分析工具
Your company slogan
语篇体裁交织性分析法
Bakhtin语篇体裁理论强调话语实践的多产性和创造性, 即语篇的异质性、语篇交织性。任何语篇都是以现存语 篇为基础并在诸多语篇体裁中选择的结果。
Your company slogan