批评话语分析的趋近化研究：以 2016 年美国总统选举电视辩论的评论文为例

摘要 (iii)

LIST OF TABLES (vii)

LIST OF DIAGRAMS (viii)

Chapter One Introduction (1)

1.1 Research Background (1)

1.2 Significance of the Research (2)

1.3 Research Goals and Questions (3)

1.4 Layouts of the Research (3)

Chapter Two Literature Review (5)

2.1 Researches on Critical Discourse Analysis (5)

2.1.1 Tenets of Critical Discourse Analysis (5)

2.1.2 Critical Discourse Analysis abroad (7)

2.1.3 Critical Discourse Analysis at home (8)

2.1.4 Researches on political discourses (10)

2.2 Cognitive-Linguistics-oriented Critical Discourse Analysis (10)

2.2.1 General Discussion of Cognitive Linguistics (11)

2.2.2 Cognitive Turn within CDA (11)

2.3 Discourse Space Theory by Paul Chilton (14)

2.3.1 Introduction of Discourse Space Theory (14)

2.3.2 Framework Explanation and Applications (15)

Chapter Three Proximisation Theory (18)

3.1 Previous Researches on Proximity and Proximisation (18)

3.2 Introduction of Proximisation Theory (19)

3.2.1 Concepts of the theory (19)

3.2.2 Brief Literature Review of PT (20)

3.2.3 The Spatial-Temporal-Axiological model (20)

Chapter Four an Proximisation Analysis (23)

4.1 Materials collection and background information (23)

4.1.1 Why Economist? (23)

4.1.2 American’s Presidential Election Debate (24)

4.2 Description of proximisation distributions respectively (25)

4.2.1 General description of these three articles (25)

4.2.2 STA Proximisations in the articles (27)

4.2.2.1 Spatial Proximisations and discussion (27)

4.2.2.2 Temporal Proximisations and discussion (30)

4.2.2.3 Axiological Proximisations and discussion (33)

4.3 Reproduction of the STA proximising construals (37)

4.3.1 Creation of the Discourse-Space based STA model (37)

4.3.2 Legitimisation effect from proximising construals in context (38)

Chapter Five Conclusion (41)

5.1 Summary of the research findings (41)

5.2 Limitations of the research (42)

5.3 Implications for further studies (43)

Appendices (54)

Acknowledgements (61)

LIST OF TABLES

1.Table One: Distribution numbers of proximising sentences.

2. Table Two: Distribution of numbers of words in proximising sentences.

3. Table Three: Spatial Proximising Sentences

4. Table Four: Temporal Proximising Sentences

5. Table Five: Axiological Proximising Sentences

LIST OF DIAGRAMS

1. Diagram One: Discourse-Cognitive-Society triangle

2. Diagram Two: Basic Version of Discourse Space Model

3. Diagram Three: Process of ODCs Threatening IDCs

4. Diagram Four: Process of Temporal Proximising

5. Diagram Five: Axiological Interaction in Discourse Space

6. Diagram Six: A Spatial-Temporal-Axiological Representation of Proximising Construals

Chapter One Introduction

1.1 Research Background

Around the decade of 1970, Cognitive Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis (Studies) came into being. The publication of Language and Control (Fowler et al., 1979) and Language as Ideology (Kress, G. & Hodge, R, 1979), is taken as the start of Critical Linguistics, later also seen as the origin of Critical Discourse Analysis. Language and Power by Norman Fairclough (1989) marked the official start of critical discourse analysis. In the book, Fairclough developed the Three-Dimensional Framework. The seminar held in Berkeley of University of California in 1975 introduced four fundamental theses which set the start of the cognitive linguistics (Shu, 2011). These are: study on colour words by Paul Kay, study on basic categories by Eleanor Roach, study on expressions of space relations across various language society by Leonard Talmy and Frame semantics by Charles Fillmore. Since then, plenty of researchers have worked on this field and have contributed to the development and robustness of critical discourse analysis. And till this day, both still have fundamental influence across the field of linguistics.

Critical discourse analysis tries to unveil the phenomenon and process in which ideology, identity and inequality are represented via the manipulated discourse labelled with specific topics (Fairclough, 1989). To help with that goal, traditional approach adopts Halliday’s systemic-functional grammar, which is productive. SFG usually discusses specific language features’ social functions. For a quite significant lengthy period, researchers carried out a lot under the guidance of systemic-functional grammar. And the prosperous development from critical discourse analysis in turn help improve the systemic-functional grammar.

Language is used by human beings. Different people have different habits in using their language. The experiences from the outside world give people the basic source of conceptualising the objective world (Piaget, 1972), a process of embodiment. People