中美政府国防白皮书中国家身份的构建及其蕴含的社会文化价值观之比较 ——从批评话语分析的角度

论文摘要

近几十年来,批评话语分析将语言视为意识形态的载体而非抽象和客观的体系来进行研究,成果颇丰。自20世纪70年代批评话语分析诞生以来,批评语言学家便一直致力于揭示语篇中蕴含的意识形态因素及权力关系。新闻语篇和政治语篇是批评语言学家重点研究的两个方面。本文主要研究中美政府国防白皮书中的意识形态和权力关系,更具体来说,研究中美两国政府如何在国防白皮书中构建自己的国家身份,构建的国家身份分别是什么,这两种不同的国家身份背后的社会文化因素。批评话语分析对于如何分析话语并没有统一和一成不变的方法,而是可以根据研究问题等因素选择有利于研究进行的方法,社会学、传播学、政治科学、社会心理学等学科的理论都可以加以利用。这也构成了批评话语分析跨学科的特性,在一定程度上,也可说成是“拿来主义”。本文采取的分析框架是费尔克劳的批评话语分析三维框架,即文本分析,话语实践分析,和社会文化分析,这与本文所要回答的研究问题比较契合。本文所选取的语料主要是2006年中国的国防白皮书和2005年美国的年度国防报告,辅以中美两国此前发表的一系列国防报告和中美高层领导关于国防问题的讲话节选和记者招待会答问等语料。在文本分析部分,作者采取了质化和量化的方法,对两个白皮书中的选词、分类和情态化进行比较分析。话语实践分析部分,作者分析了中美高层领导关于国防问题的讲话节选和记者招待会答问和中美国防白皮书的互文性联系。在社会文化分析部分,作者借用了文化和历史学理论来解释中美构建不同国家身份背后的社会文化原因。由于之前的批评话语分析主要集中于新闻语篇、记者招待会、议会辩论和采访等,本文对政府白皮书的批评话语分析填补了这一批评话语分析研究范围的空白。当然,白皮书本身就可以达到几万字,因此在文本分析部分难免会不够全面。

论文目录

• 中文摘要
• Abstract
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• 1.1 Purpose of the Research
• 1.2 Significance of the Research
• 1.3 Research Questions
• 1.4 Structure of the Thesis
• Chapter 2 Literature Review
• 2.1 Critical Discourse Analysis
• 2.1.1 Theoretical Basis
• 2.1.2 Major Concepts of CDA
• 2.1.2.1 Language and Ideology
• 2.1.2.2 Language and Power
• 2.1.3 History and Development of CDA
• 2.1.4 Diverse Approaches in the Field of CDA
• 2.2 CDA and Systemic-functional Grammar
• 2.3 National Identity
• 2.3.1 Concepts of Nations
• 2.3.2 The Nation as an Imagined Community
• 2.3.3 The Nation as a System of Cultural Representation
• 2.3.4 National Identity and its Discursive Construction
• 2.4 Summary of Literature Review
• Chapter 3 Methodology and Research Framework
• 3.1 Analytic Tools of Critical Discourse Analysis
• 3.1.1 Lexical Choice
• 3.1.2 Classification
• 3.1.3 Modality
• 3.2 Research Framework
• 3.2.1 Fairclough’s Three-dimensional Model
• 3.2.2 Research Methods to Conduct the Present Study
• 3.3 Data Collection
• 3.3.1 White Paper on National Defense
• 3.3.2 Process of data Collection and Data Introduction
• 3.4 Summary of Research Framework and Methods
• Chapter 4 Comparative Analysis of China’s and U.S. National Defense White Paper
• 4.1 Micro-linguistic Analysis of Two Texts
• 4.1.1 Lexical Choice Analysis
• 4.1.1.1 Lexical Choice in China’s 2006 Defense White Paper
• 4.1.1.2 Lexical Choice in U.S. 2005 Annual Defense Report
• 4.1.1.3 Summary of the Lexical Choice Analysis in Two Texts
• 4.1.2 Classification Analysis of Two Texts
• 4.1.2.1 Classification Analysis in Chinese 2006 Text
• 4.1.2.2 Classification in U.S. 2005 Annual Defense Report
• 4.1.2.3 Summary of Classification Analysis in these two texts
• 4.1.3 Modality Analysis in the two Texts
• 4.1.3.1 Modality Analysis in the Chinese Text
• 4.1.3.2 Modality Analysis in the American Text
• 4.1.3.3 Summary of the Modality Analysis in the two Texts
• 4.2 Discursive Practice Analysis
• 4.2.1 Policy on China’s Defense White Paper
• 4.2.2 Policy on U.S. Annual Defense Report
• 4.2.3 Intertextuality Analysis of the Chinese Text
• 4.2.4 Intertextuality Analysis of the American Text
• 4.3 Macro Social Cultural Analysis
• 4.3.1 Social Cultural Analysis of the Chinese Text
• 4.3.1.1 Harmony and Cooperation Culture
• 4.3.1.2 Ancient China’s Agricultural Civilization
• 4.3.1.3 Inter-state Relation Ethics of the Confucius Thought
• 4.3.1.3.1 Relationship between Morality and Interest
• 4.3.1.3.2 War and Peace Question
• 4.3.1.3.3 The Golden Mean Thought
• 4.3.2 Social Cultural Analysis of the American Text
• 4.3.2.1 The Myth of American Mission
• 4.3.2.2 American Exceptionalism and Racial Superiority
• 4.3.2.3 American Individualism
• 4.3.2.4 Strong and Pronounced Business Mentality
• 4.3.3 Summary of the Social Cultural Analysis
• Chapter 5 Conclusions
• 5.1 Summary of the Present Study
• 5.2 Research Limitations
• Bibliography