Effects of event frames on constructing common ground in news discourse from the perspective of proximization新闻话语中事件框架对趋近化共识的影响研究文献综述

 2023-04-20 14:50:24

文献综述

1.IntroductionThis chapter introduces the research background firstly and then it shows the need of the study and research purposes.1.1Research backgroundThe study of news discourse has important academic value and practical significance because people can understand the intricate political, economic, and cultural connections through news discourse. News discourse reflects the contrast between power and weakness, which plays a significant role in building mainstream consciousness, and at the same time helps researchers to understand power relations and ideologies. At the macro level, news discourse focuses on interpersonal dialogue, while at the micro level, news discourse exists in specific pieces of reporting, also known as texts. Texts are composed in a variety of ways, either by specific words, phrases, and sentences, or by theme, rhetoric, and style, or by overview, background, facts, consequences, and commentary (He Zhao Dong, 2021), while foreign scholars also believe that news discourse is not only a linguistic analysis tool, but also contains certain trade-offs of interests, values, and intellectual contexts. Critical discourse analysis is an interdisciplinary approach to discourse analysis, which focuses on the relationship between language and society, the social symbolic function realized by text structure and talk structure, and the critique of social relations through the discourse establishment. Thus, critical discourse analysis is essentially a shared perspective of language, symbolic and discourse analysis. Therefore, critical discourse analysis can be an effective tool for analyzing news discourse.Since the 1970s, critical discourse analysis has gradually formed three tendencies on the basis of the original sociological theory and systemic functional theory, drawing on the research methods and findings of cognitive science, psychology, pragmatics and other disciplines. The critical discourse analysts represented by Fowler and others follow the tradition of linguistic and stylistic analysis, take Han Liddells systemic functional linguistics as their theoretical framework, and pay attention to the analytical depiction of linguistic components in discourse. The critical discourse analysts, represented by Fairclough and others, take systemic functional linguistics as the theoretical basis and incorporate more sociological and ideological critical theories, advocate interdisciplinary and multi-perspective discourse studies, and emphasize the analysis of the intertextuality of discourse. The critical discourse analysts, represented by van Dijk and others, suggest that there is no direct connection between language and society, but the intermediate link between them is cognition. van Dijk (2001) proposes socio-cognitive discourse analysis and believes that in discourse analysis, cognition and society are indispensable, and only by combining discourse, cognition and social processes and social behavior can discourse be analyzed. The only way to conduct a proper analysis is to combine discourse, cognition and social processes and social behavior.Proximization (Cap, 2008) is a strategy oriented towards legitimation. Proximization is a symbolic constructive operation that conceptualizes the external entity of the discursive space as an appropriation of the center of the discursive space. The essence of legitimizing discourse and proximization is the input of proximization in keeping legitimation intact in the face of geopolitical changes and developments. Any aspect of legitimation is possible in discourse and can therefore be potentially enhanced by proximization performed by lexico-grammatical forms (Cap, 2013). Cap (2006) examines the interplay of assertional behavior and instances of conversational meaning and builds on this by looking at a third underlying variable, namely common ground. Common ground refers to the specific ideas, including goals and values, shared by the speaker and the listener. The elements of common ground are inclusiveness and exclusivity for the speaker at different levels of clarity (Anna, 2008), and Cap (2005) shows that common ground is based on the construction of a mental framework shared by the speaker and the listener, i.e., a way to integrate the speakers and the listeners perspectives. Xin (2012) suggests that common ground is an important concept in defining the social nature of knowledge. The construction of common ground from the perspective of news discourse (Hu whether and how changing the order of information affects the common ground of proximization under one-side event frame for the same event; and whether and how changing the order of information about the same event affects the common ground of proximization under two-side event frame. Because common ground is an abstract concept, this study intends to reflect the change of it through the subjects choice of responsibility judgment and degree of responsibility for both sides of the event in the news report. The majority of the subjects in this study were English majors at Njtech University. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect and quantify the data for this selection. In addition to general information, the subjects were asked to read the text and answer three questions based on their impressions, all four of which were based on the U.S. News amp; World Report news The War Against New Jersey (and Other Blue States). The four texts were divided into two categories: one side and two-side event frames, and the questions were about the judgment of responsibility of both sides of the event and the choice of the degree of responsibility of both sides of the event. Each of the three questions uses a five-point scale and a seven-point scale. The scales ranged from zero to complete in order of degree from left to right. After data collection was completed, SPSS software was used to conduct relevant data analysis, such as reliability analysis of the data and validity analysis among relevant variables. There are three research expectations for this study. One, the same event has a tendency of responsibility judgment and responsibility choice in the unilateral framework, and tends to be neutral in the bilateral framework. Second, the same event affects responsibility judgment and responsibility choice in the one-side event frame by changing the order of information. Third, the same event changing the order of information influences responsibility judgment and responsibility choice in the two-side event frame.2.Literature reviewThis chapter gives a detailed explanation of what previous work have done, including the definition of key terms, experimentations having been done and research gap.2.1 Definitions This part introduces the definition of several key terms which is presented in the writing to help to understand the writiing better.2.1.1 Proximization Chilton (2004) originally proposed the concept of proximization to explain situations in which a speaker seeks to legitimize behavior by alerting the addressee to a proximizating phenomenon that may pose a threat to him or her, and thereby determining whether an immediate response is required or not. Chilton argues that proximizatin has an inherent spatial character, namely the physical distance between the conceptualized source of information at the center of the event and the addressee. Cap (2006) proposes a sophisticated theory of proximization based on the original spatial characterization: in addition to being able to robustly explain various legitimation-related phenomena, two other dimensions must be involved, namely temporal and axiological. Spatial proximization understands events triggered by outside-the-deictic-center entities (ODCs) as a physical threat to inside-the-deictic-center entities (IDCs); temporal proximization shows the importance and historic of events by demonstrating indicates the centrality to both ODC and IDC entities; value proximization indicates the conflict between different value systems of ODC and IDC entities.2.1.2 Common ground Clark the temporal often carries a time span, i.e., converging what happened in the past to what may happen now or in the future, thus realizing the proximization of the TDCs common ground; the axiological pushes the TDCs to its approved side through the ideological conflict between different entities.2.1.4 Event frames Talmy (2000) defines an event frame as a set of conceptual elements and interrelations that are evoked or evoke each other together, in order to achieve organization and logic for the scene and to distinguish it from other types of scenes. Thus, the event frame represents a specific interaction between the two sides of the event. Different lexico-grammatical structures constitute different sides, where the conceptual elements that constitute the event frame correspond to the semantic roles specified by the verbs argument structure (Hart, 2018). Different event frames conceptualize the same situation in different ways. For example, regular transactive verbs and reciprocal verbs form structures that refer to the one-sided and two-sided event frames, respectively (Hart, 2013).In the one-sided action event frame, energy moves from the 'upstream' Agent (A) to the 'downstream' Patient (P). In the two-sided action event frame, there is a two-way flow of energy between the two actors. The event frames can also be interpreted from a specific point of view (PoV), i.e., a shift from three dimensions: Anchor, Angle, and Distance (Hart, 2015). The distinction between active and passive voice in the regular transactive structure, as well as the order of information in the reciprocal structure, can be described in terms of the shift of PoV from the anchor point. The PoV of the active voice in the regular transacctive structure is aligned with the perspective of Agent, and the PoV of the passive voice is aligned with the perspective of the Patient. The PoV of the reciprocal verbs is perpendicular to the energy flow so that it can be triangulated with the actors in the event frame.2.2Triangulation, cognition, and experimentation in CDA Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is, at its most fundamental, a theory that produces different social implications from different lexico-grammatical choices in a text (Fowler, 1991). CDA is thus an interpretation of ideological or socio-sensory functions in the context of particular linguistic structures and thus reveals or resists the ideology and persuasiveness of discursive practices that are perceived as dominant (van Dijk, 1993). But CDA has also been challenged by the personal subjectivity in data selection and interpretation, so CDA combines triangulation and others to circumvent these problems.Triangulation is the use of multiple survey methods to validate results by converging lines of evidence. In CDA, triangulation is often used to circumvent the issue of subjectivity and thus validate analytical explanations. A widely used triangulation tool in CDA today is the corpus linguistic technique (Gabrielatos amp; Baker, 2008). The corpus linguistic approach enables the analysis of recurring patterns in large, representative data, thus allowing the dominance of particular discourses to be validated and thus justifying the analysts research. Corpus linguistic methods can also be used in CDA to examine the interpretation of specific structures (OHalloran, 2007). A recent triangulation found in CDA is the testing of inter-analyst agreement (Baker amp; Levon, 2015).CDA has also been combined with cognitive methods because cognition can mediate the causal relationships between language and society. van Dijk (2014) refers to this as the discourse-cognition-society triangle. Various forms of cognitive structures and cognitive processes are used in language use and social action (van Dijk, 2008). For example, the cognitive linguistic approach in CDA is a detailed semantic description of lexical, syntactic, and textual structures. Cognitive linguistic CDA (CL-CDA) models conceptual structures in language use and considers the potential ideological functions or implications of these conceptual structures (Hart, 2014). Because the analysis is based on a plausibly psychological model of language processing, CDA in conjunction with it is somewhat informative. However, cognitive linguistic text analysis does not constitute triangulation by itself, so the relevant analyses need to be validated.Experimental study can also be combined with triangulation, but this is less common, perhaps because experimental methods are misunderstood as simplifying social processes to something that can be studied in the laboratory (Hart, 2018). Although experimental study inevitably involves decontextualization, it has some value for CDA. While the social effects of texts cannot be directly observed, the cognitive effects of language use can. Since the cognitive linguistic approach in CDA directly predicts the cognitive nature of language use (Hart, 2018), the cognitive linguistic approach of CDA is well suited to be extended to experimental study.2.3 Overview of the previous study Hart (2017) researched the legitimating framing effects of the metaphor CIVIL DISORDER IS FIRE found in media discourses of social unrest. Research participants were 152 and 145 people recruited by Amazons Mechanical Turk, whose HIT Approval Rates were 98% and above. Independent variables were four reports with a fire image, fire metaphors and dependent variables were the acceptance of a framing effect in legitimating police use of water cannon. Statistical methods consisted of two questionnaires and data analysis. The research found that images of fire and fire metaphors both achieved framing effects in legitimating police use of water cannon, which suggested that media representations could influence public opinion on matters of policing. Hart (2018) researched how regular transactive and reciprocal verbs affected peoples cognition about blame assignment and perception of aggression in discourse on political protests in 2016. Research participants were 152 people recruited by Reddits r/SampleSize. Independent variables were four versions of a report about a political protest under the influence of one-sided action event-frame, two-sided action event-frame, and dependent variables were different judgement about the blame assignment and perception of aggression. Statistical methods consisted of a questionnaire and data analysis. The research found that participants given the regular transactive condition were more likely to see the protesters as either fully or mainly to blame. Conversely, in the reciprocal condition, participants were much more likely to apportion equal blame to actors. Moreover, information sequence influenced the blame assignment and perception of aggression. Fouli and Hart (2018) researched what the trust-building strategy would bring about when the company was facing allegations. Research participants were 297 people recruited from several universities in Sweden and the United Kingdom. Independent variables were the trust-building strategies (exposure vs no exposure) and strength of evidence against the company (strong vs weak) and dependent variables were the perceived benevolence and integrity and the credibility of the companys denial. Statistical methods consisted of a questionnaire and SEM, a kind of data analysis. The research found that participants in the strong evidence condition rated evidence against Avita as significantly stronger than participants in the weak evidence condition and the participants correctly identified the companys response to the allegations. The two trust-building strategies have an indirect positive effect on credibility assessments when it comes to a companys denial of wrongdoing.Hart and Fouli (2020) researched the effectiveness of objectification strategies and subjectification strategies in military interventionist discourse. Research participants were 279. Independent variables were politicians credibility (high versus low) and subjectifications versus averrals in the context of a proposed military intervention and dependent variables were levels of support for military intervention. Statistical methods consisted of a questionnaire and data analysis. The research found that the objectification strategy was more persuasive than the subjectification strategy regardless of the politicians credibility. The more supportive participants were generally of war as a solution to international conflicts, the more inclined they were to also support the proposed military intervention in the specific experimental scenario.2.3Research gap Common ground from the perspective of proximization in news discourse is a newly proposed concept, and there are not many studies on it at home and abroad, so this study is an expansion of this new concept, and also provides a new perspective for news discourse analysis and proximization. In CDA, although triangulation has been combined with corpus linguistics and et al., there are not many examples of combining with experimental studies, so this study enriches the examples of combining triangulation with experimental studies.ReferencesBaider, F. (2019). Double speech act: Negotiating inter-cultural beliefs and intra-cultural hate speech, Journal of pragmatics, 151, 155-166.Baker, P., 236.Cap, P. (2005). Language and legitimization: Developments on the proximization model of political discourse analysis, Lodz papers in pragmatics I, 7-36.Cap, P. (2006). Legitimization in political discourse: A cross-disciplinary perspective on the modern US war rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.Cap, P. (2007). Towards the proximization model of the analysis of legitimization in political discourse, Journal pf pragmatics, 40, 17-41.Cap, P. (2010). Legitimization in political discourse: A cross- disciplinary perspective on the modern US war rhetoric (2nd ed.). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Cap, P. (2013). Proximization: The pragmatics of symbolic distance crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse theory and practice. London: Routledge.Clark, H. H., 38.Hart, C. (2013). Constructing contexts through grammar: Cognitive models and conceptualisation in British Newspaper reports of political protests (pp. 159-184). In Flowerdew, J. (ed.). London: Continuum.Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, grammar and ideology: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.Hart, C. (2015). Viewpoint in linguistic discourse: Space and evaluation in news reports of political protests, Critical Discourse Studies, 12, 238-260.Hart, C. (2017). Riots engulfed the city: An experimental study investigating the legitimating effects of fire metaphors in discourses of disorder, Discourse amp; society, 29, 1-20.Hart, C. (2018). Event-frames affect blame assignment and perception of aggression in discourse on political protests: An experimental case study in critical discourse analysis. Applied linguistics, 39, 400-421.Hart, C., amp; Fouli, M. (2020). Objectification strategies outperform subjectification strategies in military interventionist discourse, Journal of pragmatics, 162, 17-28.Wieczorek, A. E. (2008). Proximisation, common ground, and assertion-based patterns for legitimisation in political discourse, Critical approaches to discourse analysis across disciplines, 2, 31-48.OHalloran, K. (2007). Critical discourse analysis and the corpus-informed interpretation of metaphor at the register level, Applied linguistics, 28, 1-24.Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis, Discourse and society, 4, 243-289.van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Multidisipinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In Wodak, R., ＆ Meyer, M. (eds.). London: SAGE.van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: CUP.van Dijk, T. A. (2014). Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: CUP.董典（2021），新时代新闻话语的多维度生态话语分析，《外语电化教学》，43（1）：92-97 15。

和曼、白树亮（2016），《媒介叙事：lt;环球人物gt;和lt;时代gt;周刊新闻话语研究》。

北京：人民出版社。

胡元江、陈洁雯（2021），新闻语篇的趋近化共识建构以《华尔街日报》中美贸易摩擦话语为例，《外语研究》，38（5）：12-17。

李贵鑫（2018），东亚文化特征下的一带一路新闻话语分析，《外语学刊》，41（6）：17-22。

辛斌（2012），批评话语分析中的认知话语分析，《外语与外语教学》，29（4）：1-5。

赵小晶、张斌（2019），转述言语与新闻话语动态分析框架建构，《外语学刊》，42（5）：37-42。

资料编号：[577873]

剩余内容已隐藏，您需要先支付 10元 才能查看该篇文章全部内容！立即支付

以上是文献综述，课题毕业论文、任务书、外文翻译、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。

您可能感兴趣的文章