论文部分内容阅读
（天津外國语大学，天津 300204）
There’s a great debate about the relationship between language and society， being whether language determines society or society determines language. For critical discourse analysis， it views a dialectal relationship between language and society： Discourse is socially constitutive as well as socially shaped. [1]But it more focuses on how discourse reflects social factors and how it sustains and transforms society， that is， the constitutive role of discourse in society. CDA practitioners have the motivation to enlighten people as to the ideology and the relations of power which underlie the discourse. With the development of society， the importance of language is highlighted， especially in service industries and political area. Politicians more stressed the use of language to articulate their political ideas. There are 8 principles of method within CDA， to name some：1. CDA addresses social problems；2.Power relations are discursive. The first one means that CDA is the analysis of the linguistic and semiotic aspects of social processes. The second one means that CDA highlights the substantively linguistic and discursive nature of social relations of power in contemporary societies.[1]Questions of power in discourse and power over discourse are both considered. The discursive aspects of power relations are not fixed， but dynamic. I’m particularly interested in the second principle.
There are questions of power in discourse and power over discourse within it. Power in discourse concerns the power relations between media and politics. The other dimension of power relations in discourse is rhetorical power. Besides the question of power in discourse， there is the power over discourse. For access to media， it means more powerful groups have more access to media.
The relationship between media and politics is one of the issues in power in discourse. On the one hand， the media can control politics. For instance， in the Thatcher interview， the interviewer tries to control the way in which the interview begin and end. We may also see the role of media over politics in China. Nowadays， weibo plays a role in the course of a political event. For example， the ‘Yang Dacai event’. The political event ends with the public sentencing of Yang. On the other， politicians can make use of media. Politicians do not always comply with interviewers’ attempts to control interviews. The other dimension of power relations in discourse is rhetorical power. For instance， Thatcher’s rhetorical power is realized in the large-scale linguistic devices. Similarly， we could find such linguistic structures in the speeches of President Xi Jinping. For instance， in an international meeting， he addressed， ‘Shall we continue to lead the world in creating a bright future， or shall we slow down only to be outperformed by others？…？’[5]There is also power over discourse. It’s partly a matter of access. In conclusion， the discursive aspects of power relations are not fixed but dynamic. There are always struggles between different power groups within discourse events.
References
[1]Fairclough， N. and Wodak， R. （1997） Critical Discourse Analysis. In Teun. A.van Dijk（ed.）， Discourse as Social Interaction. London： Sage. pp. 258-284.
[2]Fairclough， N. （1992a） Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge： Polity Press
[3]Tian， H. and Zhao， P. （eds.）. 2012. Critical Discourse Analysis： Essential Readings.Tianjin： Nankai University Press.
[4]Duranti， A. and Goodwin， C.（eds） （1992） Rethinking Context ： Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press
[5]2014，http：//www.chinadaily.com.cn Nom 11，2014.
There’s a great debate about the relationship between language and society， being whether language determines society or society determines language. For critical discourse analysis， it views a dialectal relationship between language and society： Discourse is socially constitutive as well as socially shaped. [1]But it more focuses on how discourse reflects social factors and how it sustains and transforms society， that is， the constitutive role of discourse in society. CDA practitioners have the motivation to enlighten people as to the ideology and the relations of power which underlie the discourse. With the development of society， the importance of language is highlighted， especially in service industries and political area. Politicians more stressed the use of language to articulate their political ideas. There are 8 principles of method within CDA， to name some：1. CDA addresses social problems；2.Power relations are discursive. The first one means that CDA is the analysis of the linguistic and semiotic aspects of social processes. The second one means that CDA highlights the substantively linguistic and discursive nature of social relations of power in contemporary societies.[1]Questions of power in discourse and power over discourse are both considered. The discursive aspects of power relations are not fixed， but dynamic. I’m particularly interested in the second principle.
There are questions of power in discourse and power over discourse within it. Power in discourse concerns the power relations between media and politics. The other dimension of power relations in discourse is rhetorical power. Besides the question of power in discourse， there is the power over discourse. For access to media， it means more powerful groups have more access to media.
The relationship between media and politics is one of the issues in power in discourse. On the one hand， the media can control politics. For instance， in the Thatcher interview， the interviewer tries to control the way in which the interview begin and end. We may also see the role of media over politics in China. Nowadays， weibo plays a role in the course of a political event. For example， the ‘Yang Dacai event’. The political event ends with the public sentencing of Yang. On the other， politicians can make use of media. Politicians do not always comply with interviewers’ attempts to control interviews. The other dimension of power relations in discourse is rhetorical power. For instance， Thatcher’s rhetorical power is realized in the large-scale linguistic devices. Similarly， we could find such linguistic structures in the speeches of President Xi Jinping. For instance， in an international meeting， he addressed， ‘Shall we continue to lead the world in creating a bright future， or shall we slow down only to be outperformed by others？…？’[5]There is also power over discourse. It’s partly a matter of access. In conclusion， the discursive aspects of power relations are not fixed but dynamic. There are always struggles between different power groups within discourse events.
References
[1]Fairclough， N. and Wodak， R. （1997） Critical Discourse Analysis. In Teun. A.van Dijk（ed.）， Discourse as Social Interaction. London： Sage. pp. 258-284.
[2]Fairclough， N. （1992a） Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge： Polity Press
[3]Tian， H. and Zhao， P. （eds.）. 2012. Critical Discourse Analysis： Essential Readings.Tianjin： Nankai University Press.
[4]Duranti， A. and Goodwin， C.（eds） （1992） Rethinking Context ： Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press
[5]2014，http：//www.chinadaily.com.cn Nom 11，2014.