| 2,746 | 118 | 12 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
政治话语在把政治愿望转化为社会行动的过程中发挥着重要作用。鉴此,本文基于Cap(2006, 2008, 2014, 2017)的趋近化理论与van Dijk(2001, 2006a, 2006b)的社会认知模型,以特朗普的移民政策为例,分析了移民话语的语篇特征和其采取的合法化策略,即空间趋近化、时间趋近化和价值趋近化,以及合法化策略得以达成预期语用效果的背后原因。研究表明:移民话语表现为两极分化,即强调"我们"(美国人)好的事情和"他们"(外国人)坏的事情,并且运用趋近化策略将"他们"坏的事情向"我们"趋近,形成强烈的冲突;而"我们"基于自身所处的社会及其形成的社会认知对移民话语的主观阐释是使得移民政策合法化的深层原因。希望本文能为政治话语合法化分析提供一个新的视角,以帮助我们更好地理解和完善趋近化理论。
Abstract：Political discourse plays a crucial role in transforming political wishes into social actions. In view of this,the present paper,based on Cap’s(2006, 2008, 2014, 2017) proximization theory and van Dijk’s(2001,2006 a,2006 b) social cognitive model, takes Trump’s immigration policy as an example, and explores the textual features of immigration discourse and the involved legitimization strategies,namely, spacial proximization,temporal proximization, and axiological proximization, as well as the underlying reasons for successfully achieving expected pragmatic effects. It is found that the immigration discourse shows polarization by emphasizing "our"(Americans’)good things and "their"(Foreigners’)bad things, and proximizes "their" bad things to us through proximization strategies so as to construct conflicts. However,the underlying reason for achieving legitimization is "our" subjective understanding of immigration discourse based on American society and its social cognition. It is hoped that this paper can offer a new perspective for the legitimization analysis of political discourse so as to help us to better understand and thereby improve proximization theory.
[1]Cap, P. Legitimization in Political Discourse:A Cross-disciplinaryPerspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric[M]. Newcastle:Cambridge Scholars Press, 2006.
[2]Cap, P. Towards the proximization model of the analysis of legitimization in political discourse[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2008(40):17-41.
[3]Cap,P. Axiological aspects of proximization[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2010(42):392-407.
[4]Cap, P. Proximization:The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 2013.
[5]Cap, P. Applying cognitive pragmatics to critical discourse studies:A proximization analysis of three public space discourses[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2014(70):16-30.
[6]Cap, P. Follow-ups in the US antiterrorist discourse:Proposal for a macro-discursive approach to monologic follow-up sequences[J].Discourse & Society, 2015(26):543-561.
[7]Cap, P. Studying ideological worldviews in political discourse space:Critical-cognitive advances in the analysis of conflict and coercion[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2017(108):17-27.
[8]Chilton, P. Analysing Political Discourse:Theory and Practice[M]. London:Routledge, 2004.
[9]Chilton,P. Discourse space theory:Geometry, brain and shifting viewpoints[J]. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2005(3):78-116.
[10]Habermas, J. Legitimation Crisis[M]. London:Heinemann, 1976.
[11]Hart, C. Legitimizing assertions and the logico-rhetorical module:Evidence and epistemic vigilance in media discourse on immigration[J].Discourse Studies, 2011(6):751-814.
[12]van Dijk, T. A. Ideology:A Multidisciplinary Approach[M].London:Sage Publication, 1998.
[13]van Dijk, T. A. Multidisciplinary CDA:A plea for diversity[A]. In Wodak, R. & Meyer, M.(eds).Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis[C]. London:Sage Publication, 2001:95-120.
[14]van Dijk, T. A. Ideology and discourse analysis[J]. Journal of Political Ideologies, 2006a(2):115-140.
[15]van Dijk, T. A. Discourse and manipulation[J]. Discourse & Society, 2006b(2):359-383.
[16]van Dijk, T. A. Society and Discourse:How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2008.
[17]van Leeuwen, T. Legitimation in discourse and communication[J].Discourse & Communication, 2007(1):91-112.
[18]Weber, M. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization[M]. New York:The Free Press, 1947.
[19]Wodak, R. Critical Discourse Analysis[M]. London:Sage Publication, 2012.
[20]Wodak, R. & van Leeuwen, T.Legitimizing immigration control:A discourse-historical analysis[J].Discourse Studies, 1999(1):83-118.
[21]Wu,J. G., Huang, S. S. & Zheng,R. Recontextualization and transformation in media discourse[J]. Discourse & Society, 2016(4):441-466.
[22]黄珊珊,武建国.媒体话语中的重新语境化与改适转换——以“彭宇案”为例[J].华南理工大学学报(社会科学版),2012(4):74-81.
[23]武建国,林金容,栗艺.批评性话语分析的新方法——趋近化理论[J].外国语,2016(5):75-82.
基本信息:
DOI：10.13564/j.cnki.issn.1672-9382.2018.06.007
中图分类号:H315
引用信息:
[1]武建国,牛振俊.趋近化理论视域下的政治话语合法化分析——以特朗普的移民政策为例[J].中国外语,2018,15(06):48-53.DOI:10.13564/j.cnki.issn.1672-9382.2018.06.007.
基金信息:
国家社科基金项目“中国当代大众语篇中的篇际互文性研究”(13CYY089);; 中央高校基本科研业务费重大项目“新时代中华文化走出去的语境重构策略研究”(X2WYC2180070)的阶段性成果