从批评语言学角度对比分析布什总统的演说

论文摘要

批评话语分析旨在通过语言分析来展示语言与社会的关系,尤其是语言和意识形态之间的关系。它的目的就是要通过语言分析使潜藏在语言中的意识形态显现出来。大众语篇是批评话语分析特别关注的一个领域,它包括新闻报道、政治演说、官方文件的语篇等。本文选择的文本是布什总统就伊拉克战争发表的三篇政治演说,试图通过对这几篇演说的对比分析,揭示这些演说中体现的意识形态,同时探求布什对伊拉克战争的态度在不同社会背景下的差异和变化。本文使用的分析方法是费尔克拉夫批评语言学的理论和韩理德的系统功能语法。首先简要介绍伊拉克战争,然后分别介绍了这三篇演说的特定社会背景,接下来从词汇分类、及物性、转换、情态、主位结构几个方面来分析这几篇文章的语言形式特点。词汇分类方面,多数褒义词用来形容美军,构建了美军光辉的形象;用来修饰萨达姆的词大多带有令人恐惧和厌恶的内涵,而多数贬义词则用来描写伊拉克的混乱局面。及物性方面,物质过程大多用来刻画美军的勇猛善战,多数关系过程则把许多恶劣的行为特点与萨达姆联系在一起。转换方面包括对被动化和名词化的分析。被动化能削弱施动者和过程之间的关系以及句中的因果关系。名词化将偶然的过程和动作变成一种普遍的状态,将具体的行为变为抽象的概念。情态方面,不同的情态动词反映了说话者的态度,或坚决肯定或迟疑犹豫。主位的选择反映了说话者的立场和出发点,许多句子都把美军作为非标记性主位,有利于突出美军的正义和勇气;为了满足表达需要,时间、地点等句子成分被选择为标记性主位进行陈述。研究表明,布什对伊拉克战争的态度由最初的充满信心、无限乐观变为迟疑和困惑,最后变成了失望和担忧。

论文目录

• Abstract
• 摘要
• Chapter One Introduction
• 1.1 Background of the study
• 1.2 The purpose of the thesis
• 1.3 The organization of the thesis
• Chapter Two A General Survey of Critical Discourse Analysis
• 2.1 Research of CDA abroad
• 2.2 Research of CDA at home
• 2.3 Language and Ideology
• 2.3.1 Language as a social practice
• 2.3.2 The concept of Ideology
• 2.3.3 The relationship between language and ideology
• Chapter Three Analytic Method
• 3.1 Analytic method of CDA
• 3.1.1 Procedure for critical analysis by Fairclough
• 3.1.2 Halliday's Systemic-Functional Grammar
• 3.2 Analytic methods of the present study
• 3.2.1 Lexical classification
• 3.2.2 Transitivity
• 3.2.3 Syntactic transformation
• 3.2.3.1 Passive voice
• 3.2.3.2 Nominalization
• 3.2.4 Modality
• 3.2.5 Thematic choice
• Chapter Four Comparative study of President Bush's Speeches on Iraqi War
• 4.1 A brief introduction to the Iraqi War
• 4.2 Social background and main contents of the speeches
• 4.2.1 Social background and content of Speech One
• 4.2.2 Social background and content of Speech Two
• 4.2.3 Social background and content of Speech Three
• 4.3 Lexical classification of the three speeches
• 4.3.1 Lexical classification in Speech One
• 4.3.2 Lexical classification in Speech Two
• 4.3.3 Lexical classification in Speech Three
• 4.3.4 Summary
• 4.4 Comparative study of transitivity
• 4.4.1 Material process
• 4.4.2 Relational process
• 4.4.3 Mental process
• 4.5 Comparative study of syntactic transformation
• 4.5.1 Comparative study of passive voice
• 4.5.1.1 Passive voice in Speech One
• 4.5.1.2 Passive voice in Speech Two
• 4.5.1.3 Passive voice in Speech Three
• 4.5.2 Comparative study of nominalization
• 4.5.2.1 Typical examples of nominalization in Speech One
• 4.5.2.2 Typical examples of nominalization in Speech Two
• 4.5.2.3 Typical examples of nominalization in Speech Three
• 4.6 Comparative study of modality
• 4.6.1 Modality in Speech One
• 4.6.2 Modality in Speech Two
• 4.6.3 Modality in Speech Three
• 4.7 Comparative study of thematic choice
• 4.7.1 Comparative study of unmarked themes
• 4.7.2 Comparative study of marked themes
• 4.7.2.1 Marked themes in Speech One
• 4.7.2.2 Marked themes in Speech Two
• 4.7.2.3 Marked themes in Speech Three
• Chapter Five Conclusions
• 5.1 Summary of major finding
• 5.2 Pedagogical implications
• Bibliography
• Appendix
• Acknowledgements