一则新闻报道的批评话语分析

Critical Discourse Analysis of a News Report

【摘要】　批评性话语分析主要是通过分析大众语篇，来揭示语篇中隐含的意识形态，其方法论主要建立在Halliday的系统功能语言学基础上。本文旨在讨论批评性话语分析的概念、方法及其理论框架，并运用该理论框架,即从分类、转换、情态和消息来源四个方面分析了一则关于以色列对哈马斯袭击事件的新闻报导,揭示了英语大众语篇中某些形式和结构可能具有的意识形态意义。

【关键词】　批评性话语分析；系统功能语言学；意识形态

Abstract: Critical discourse analysis is based on the systemic-functional linguistics. It aims to uncover the ideology hidden in the mass media discourse on the basis of Halliday’s Systemic-functional linguistics. This paper takes a report from New York Time as an example to analyze the ideology by employing transitivity, modality and transformation.

Key words: Critical discourse analysis; Systemic-functional linguistics; Ideology.

一、引言

批评语言学(critical linguistics)始于20世纪70年代末80年代初,此概念首先由英国语言学家Roger Fowler和Gunther Kress提出， 至今已有20年的发展历程了。批评性话语分析(Critical Discourse Analysis ,以下简称CDA)被认为是批评语言学最有影响的一个分析,它通过分析大众语篇揭示意识形态对语篇的影响和语篇对意识形态的反作用。^[1]

CDA坚持以语言学为主体,利用系统功能语言学中把语言看做是社会符号的观点,集中分析语篇中语言是如何反映权力关系,分析语篇是如何被人为地用来产生和维持社会不平等关系,揭示语篇中隐藏的意识形态,增强人们“批评语言意识”(Critical language awareness),提高人们对语言运用的鉴赏和批评能力,帮助人们对自己作为语篇生产者和接收者而介入的实践有更多意识,以便更好地应付语言对当今社会生活越来越广泛的介入。^[2]

二、理论基础

批评语言学的产生和发展不过20几年,还不能说它已经形成了自己完整的方法论。它在语篇分析的方法主要采取“拿来主义”,无论哪一个理论,只要能用于分析语言、权力和意识形态并得出令人满意的结论,它都拿来使用。但其最主要的理论基础和方法来源是韩礼德(Halliday)的系统功能语法(systematic-functional grammar)。

韩礼德对语言所持的是一种“功能观(functional)”和“社会符号观(sociosemiotic)”，认为语言的本质与我们对它的需要和它所应具备的功能有着密切的联系。他认为语言必须满足使用者三方面的需要，即表述主客观世界的经验、反映人与人之间的关系、遣词造句和组织语篇，即众所周知的语言三大“纯理功能”：“概念功能（ideational function）”、“人际功能 (interpersonal function) ”和“语篇功能 (textual function)”。

三、研究方法

1．分类

语篇的分类系统指对人物和事件的命名和描述，主要通过词汇的选择来实现。韩礼德提出的“词汇分类组织”的概念，意思是在组织词汇时将概念进行详细的分类。通过词汇来给事物分类是大众传媒惯用的手法，也是创造或产生歧视的主要途径。分析语篇的分类系统时，有两种现象应该特别注意：“重新词化”和“过分词化”。前者指创造新的表达方式取代旧的表达方式或与之形成对立。后者指用大量不同的词语来描述或指称同一事物。它对批评语言学的重要性在于表明说话者极其所属的群体或阶层尤为关注的经验和价值领域，从而有助于语篇分析者发现或确认该群体的意识形态特征.^[6]

2．及物性

及物性在系统功能语言学中与小句中表现概念功能，其作用是“把经验世界分成易操作的一组过程”。Halliday认为及物性是人们用语言描述现实的基石。它把人们的所作所为、所见所闻描述成各种不同的过程，并指明各种过程的参与者（participant）和环境成分（circumstantial element）。过程主要分为6种：物质过程、心理过程、关系过程、行为过程、言语过程和存在过程。^[5]

3．情态

情态系统表达人际功能。情态所标记的是说话人对命题的态度：认知性态度、评价性态度。认知性态度指真实、信念、可能性和确定性等。评价性态度指合意性、偏好、意图和操纵等。在新闻语篇中，说话者常常利用情态手段传递其隐含的意识形态和政治意图。考察情态系统的目的就是弄清说话者的态度，揭示其真正的意图。在英语中，除情态动词、时态、人称代词外，情态形容词、情态副词、实意动词、直接引语和间接引语都可以表达情态意义。

4．转换

英语语篇中的转换主要指名物化（Nominalization）和被动化（Passivization）的运用。它们在特定场合具有物化社会历史现象作用，即把事物短暂的历史状态表述为永久的自然状态。名物化是Halliday所指出的概念隐喻中的一种，它指的是把句子中的动词和形容词转换为名词和名词词组，从而使名词和名词词组获得动词或形容词的意义而具有名词的语法功能。动词的名物化能有效削弱语篇的动作感，同时隐瞒动作的执行者，也没显示出时态和情态，从而模糊了受众对于该动作发生的因果关系的考虑，突出表达了文本中的权威化和非人际化的倾向。

四、实例分析

下面以20##年12月27日美国New York Times (《纽约时报》)刊登的一篇题为“Israeli Attack Kills Scores Across Gaza”的新闻报道为例子，具体运用批评性语篇分析，从分类、情态、转化及系统消息来源等方面剖析作者对语言形式的选择和使用，发现其潜在的意识形态，以及在其支配下所维护的权力集团利益。

从20##年12 月27号空袭开始，以色列对加沙地带哈马斯的军事行动已经持续了十多天，从20##年1月4日起，以军进入加沙地带，开始了地面进攻，战事升级。这是1967年中东战争以来，以色列对加沙地带发动的最大规模的军事行动，迄今已经造成1000多人伤亡，巴以局势有进一步恶化的迹象。对这次冲突的原因，以巴双方说辞不一、且差距很大，世界各国的反映也千差万别，究其原因是与巴以双方背后所支持的西方各国之间复杂的政治、经济与军事原因分不开的。以色列方面认为，以色列军事行动的目标是打击哈马斯军事武装势力，而不是针对巴勒斯坦人民，它的唯一目标就是针对哈马斯。而巴勒斯坦方面认为是以色列封锁加沙导致巴以矛盾激化。20##年6月19日，以色列与哈马斯在埃及的斡旋下签署了停火协议，双方都向埃及保证要停火。6月19号以后，确实双方都停火了，但是按照这个协议，以色列应该放开对加沙地带的所有封锁，然而以色列变来变去，对加沙的封锁越来越严重，对加沙老百姓在食品、燃料、煤气、药品等方面的影响都特别大。封锁本身是一种战争，一种侵略。作者就此事，对对立的以色列和巴勒斯坦作了报道。

1．分类

分类是指用语言赋予外部世界以秩序，它是人类最重要的认知手段。语篇的分类系统指语篇对人物和事件的命名和描述，主要通过词汇的选择来实现。^[4] 语篇的分类体系可以反映出说话人的世界观，因而具有意识形态意义。认真考察语篇中对主要过程和核心人物的描述能帮我们清楚了解说话人对相关事件的态度和立场。下面是语篇在描述可哈马斯、以色列和以色列军方的攻击时所用的词语：

语篇中将Israel描绘为“Israeli military”，而把Hamas则说成是“targets”和“ militant groups”。从词典中对这些词的释义来看，military 有军方、武装部队的意思；而target有批评的对象或目标的意思，militant group有好战的团体的意思。言下之意是指Hamas是非正规化的、未被承认的或非法的军事组织。还有一点值得注意的是语篇中将Israeli Attack 描绘成,“ this operation”和“retaliation”，而把Hamas的回击说成“terrorist activities”。也就是说，哈马斯给加沙带来的只是恐怖活动，以及对以色列南部人民的不断威胁、挑衅和轰炸，因此以色列对哈马斯发动的袭击只是一个军事行动，是希望给加沙带来和平的正义的行动。

2．转换

接着再来看看“转换”。在分析语篇中句法转换的表义作用时，重点应该注意“名物化”和“被动化”的运用。名物化是指说话人选择了名词性成分替代原本可以使用动词结构或句子，就是使动作或过程“物化”，它通过删除情态成分、模糊时间概念和掩盖参加者等创造一种“非人格化的”效果，大量使用名词性成分能够有效地削弱整个语篇的动作感。例如：“……in retaliation for the recent heavy rocket fire from the area”，“The reaction to the punishing attacks……”，“…..days of warnings by Israeli officials……”，“……a six-month lull……”，“Expecting some kind of Israeli response…”，“…the Israeli military aggression on the Gaza Strip……”。

“被动化”一般是为了隐瞒动作的发出者，即“施事”而采用句法转换方式。使用被动语态同样可以实施意识形态的控制。被动语态的动机多种多样，除了隐瞒动作的发出者，同时也有强调动作受事者所遭受的迫害，以突出动作发出者行为的恶劣和残暴的作用。属于前一种情况的如：“Most of the fatalities were among members of the security forces of Hamas, the Islamic group that controls Gaza, but a few civilians were also among the dead, including children. Scores more Palestinians were wounded.”这里描述的是以色列对加沙地带空袭后所造成的伤亡，但是因为采用的被动语态，隐瞒或模糊了施事者—以色列军方，弱化了以色列一方应负的主要罪责。

语篇中属于后一种情况的如“On Wednesday alone, more than 60 rockets and mortars were fired, some reaching further than previously. While the rockets are meant to be deadly, and several houses and a factory were hit, sowing widespread panic, no Israelis were killed or seriously injured in the recent attacks.”这里是哈马斯对以色列南部地区袭击后描述，为了强化动作受事者所遭受的迫害，以突出动作发出者行为的恶劣和残暴，在这里采用了被动语态。被动化是主题化的一种，它把表示受事的宾语成分移到句首，充当有标记主位以突出成分所表达的信息。报道中记者把以色列地区的房屋，工厂和居民作为受事者，将其放在句首充当主位，能够引起人民的同情，同时也突出了哈马斯的无情和残酷。

3．情态

考察语篇的情态功能主要有两个目的：①弄清说话者对话语命题真实性所承担责任的程度和对未来行为做出的承诺和承担的义务；②了解说话者对听话者和情景成分的态度，说话者与听话者之间的社会距离和权力关系等。在英语里，除了情态动词，情态形容词和情态副词之外，人称代词、实义动词、时态、直接引语、间接引语都可表达情态意义。^[5]

在这里我将以该则新闻报道为例，着重分析直接引语和间接引语在新闻报道中的特殊意义。戴炜华指出：“直接引语是新闻报道的重要组成部分，记者通常引用当事人或者权威人士的话表达自己的立场和观点，从而影响对新闻事件的看法。”^[1] 该报道中的直接引语有来自以色列军方和国防部长的原话。如“We face a period that will be neither easy nor short, and will require determination and perseverance until the necessary change is achieved in the situation in the south”，这些委婉但坚定的用词表示出，以方对哈马斯的袭击是被迫切的无奈之取，只是为了保护本国人民安全的自卫行为，强调了以方军事行动的合理性。

此外记者还引用了白宫发言人Gordon Johndroe的评论，“Hamas must end its terrorist activities if it wishes to play a role in the future of the Palestinian people. The United States urges Israel to avoid civilian casualties as it targets Hamas in Gaza.”在这里我们可以看出，白宫发言人将哈马斯的行动明确定义为“恐怖行动”，并且还使用了情态动词“must”，要求哈马斯必须终止或结束其恐怖行动。言下之意，哈马斯就是恐怖组织，以色列是为了世界和平和正义才对哈马斯发动的攻击，所以不管怎样，哈马斯都是该被攻击的对象。这其中掩盖了作为哈马斯一方的难处，即由于以色列和埃及对加沙的封锁所导致的加沙百姓在食品和生活等方面的极大影响，因此哈马斯想方设法要打破这种以色列对加沙地区的封锁。后一句从字面上可以理解为美国催促以色列军方避免加沙地区居民的伤亡，而实际上美国是站在以色列一方的，美方只是要求以方避免对加沙地区居民的伤亡，却并没有要求让以色列军方停战，停止对加沙的袭击。这也可以表明，以色列也是依赖着美国势力所以才这样张狂。

与直接引语相比间接引语在更大程度上允许转述者介入他人的话语，因此间接引语往往是两种声音的混合交融，有时读者也很难分辨二者，因此会很容易让读者认为那是原说话者的声音。报道者这样做的原因可能是表示该部分特别重要、或者想与它保持距离、表示自己不一定赞成它所表达的意思。经过这样的处理，从而让受话人无法确定哪些形式和内容是原话哪些不是。例如，记者在第一段引用了以色列军方和目击者对以方发动袭击的描述为仅仅是“hitting mostly security headquarters, training compounds and weapons storage facilities”，给人一种印象，以方只是袭击了恐怖组织，并没有要伤害无辜的加沙居民。这实际是在为自发动战争打借口，找托词，企图逃避来自己社会公共的反战舆论。

4．消息来源

所谓消息来源是指报道者引述的话语的发出者。在英语新闻语篇中，报道者在引述别人的言论、观点或意见时通常要交代它们的来历，主要有三种方式：具体确切的消息来源，含蓄不露的消息来源，似真非真的消息来源。^[3] 像后两种这样不点明消息来源的报道方式有时候会影响报道效果，使新闻的重要性和可信度大打折扣。埃德曼则认为，在许多情况下报道者出于某种目的会故意隐瞒消息来源，因此，一些强大的势力集团会经常采用这种方式宣传和强化其意识形态和意图。

例如，在整篇语篇中一共有16处引语，其中有确切消息来源的为8处，含蓄不露的为8处。而且从分布上看，8处不确定的消息在文中出现得较早，都在各国声明之前。就是说，这篇新闻报道对消息来源的交代表现出含糊不清到具体明确的倾向。说明报道者有意利用读者对消息来源模糊性的容忍度来表达自己或是所代表的势力集团的政治立场和意识形态。

五、结束语

通过对这篇新闻报道的分析,我们明确了意识形态是如何影响语言运用,语言运用又是如何来传播和强化特定意识形态的。语言和语篇中的意识形态意义可以分为“显性的”和“隐性的”。前者较易识别,因为它们主要体现在词汇的概念意义和句子的命题意义中。但隐性的意识形态意义却不容易被察觉,它们往往具有相当的隐蔽性。批评语性话语分析的主要目的之一就是通过语言分析使这种隐性的意识形态意义凸显出来,以便人们对其进行重新审视。批评性话语分析能够通过对大众语篇的分析,揭开某些语言过程和社会过程的神秘面纱,从而暴露那此用以操纵、控制、歧视和蛊惑的语言。随着当今世界一体化,经济全球化趋势的不断发展,我国读者接触西方新闻报道的机会将越来越多。为避免某些“隐性的”不良文化,以及反动价值观的渗透,我们应该积极培养一种综合性的批评性话语分析意识,以正确的态度对待西方新闻报道,从而确保我国社会生活健康安全的发展。

参考文献：

[1]  戴炜华,高军. 批评语篇分析: 理论评述和实例分析[J]. 外国语, 20## (6)

[2]  李素玲. 批评性语篇分析:发展概况及应用前景[J]. 山东外语教学, 20## (5)

[3]  辛斌. 语言、权利与意识形态:批评语言学[J]. 现代外语, 1996 (1)

[4]  辛斌.批评语言学: 理论与应用 [M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2005

[5]  Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1985

[6]  Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., Trew, T. Language and Control [M]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1979

附新闻原稿:

Israeli Attack Kills Scores Across Gaza

By TAGHREED EL-KHODARY and ISABEL KERSHNER

Published: December 27, 2008   New York Times

GAZA CITY — The Israeli Air Force on Saturday launched a massive attack on Hamas targets throughout Gaza in retaliation for the recent heavy rocket fire from the area, hitting mostly security headquarters, training compounds and weapons storage facilities, the Israeli military and witnesses said.

Dr. Muawiya Hassanein, the head of emergency services at the Gaza Ministry of Health, said that at least 195 Palestinians were killed in the Israeli air strikes.

Most of the fatalities were among members of the security forces of Hamas, the Islamic group that controls Gaza, but a few civilians were also among the dead, including children. Scores more Palestinians were wounded.

The reaction to the punishing attacks was swift and varied. A spokesman for President Bush called on Israel to avoid inflicting civilian casualties, although he did not call for a halt to the attacks on Hamas. Egypt condemned the raid and opened its border crossing so that the wounded could be treated, and a spokesman for Javier Solana, the foreign policy chief of the European Union, condemned Israel’s action and called for an immediate halt to the strikes.

For its part, Israel said the strikes would not only continue, but that they would be intensified.

The air attack came after days of warnings by Israeli officials that Israel would retaliate for intense rocket and mortar fire against Israeli towns and villages by Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza.

On Wednesday alone, more than 60 rockets and mortars were fired, some reaching further than previously. While the rockets are meant to be deadly, and several houses and a factory were hit, sowing widespread panic, no Israelis were killed or seriously injured in the recent attacks.A shaky Egyptian-brokered truce between Israel and Hamas started to break down in early November. Hamas had originally agreed to a six-month lull, and declared it officially over when the six-month period expired on Dec. 19.

Though Israel had been threatening to end its policy of restraint that saw only limited strikes against rocket launchers and squads in recent days, the timing of the raid came as a surprise to Gazans. It came in mid-morning, when official buildings and security compounds were filled with personnel and children were at school, and not, as many had anticipated, at night.

Expecting some kind of Israeli response, the Hamas leaders in Gaza had already been in hiding for two days.

In a statement issued immediately after the raid, the Israeli military warned that “This operation will be continued, expanded and intensified as much as will be required.”

“We face a period that will be neither easy nor short, and will require determination and perseverance until the necessary change is achieved in the situation in the south,” Ehud Barak, the Israeli defense minister, said.

In Waco, Tex., where President Bush is vacationing, a White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, said: “Hamas must end its terrorist activities if it wishes to play a role in the future of the Palestinian people. The United States urges Israel to avoid civilian casualties as it targets Hamas in Gaza.”

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, who was sharply critical of the Israeli attack, said in a statement, “Egypt condemns the Israeli military aggression on the Gaza Strip and blames Israel, as an occupying force, for the victims and the wounded.”

The spokesman for Mr. Solana said the European Union, “condemns the disproportionate use of force.”

At Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, scores of dead bodies were laid out in front of the morgue waiting for family members to identify them. Many were dismembered.

Inside the hospital, relatives carried a five-month old baby who had suffered a serious head wound from shrapnel. Overwhelmed, the hospital staff seemed unable to offer help.

At the Gaza City police station, at least 15 traffic police who had been training in a courtyard were killed on the spot.

Tamer Kahrouf, 24, a civilian who had been working on a construction site in Jabaliya, north of Gaza City, said he saw his two brothers and uncle killed before his eyes when the Israeli planes bombed a security post nearby. Mr. Kharouf was wounded and bleeding from the head.

Women were wailing as they searched for their relatives among the dead. Sawsan Al-Ajab, 50, was looking for two sons, aged 32 and 24, who both worked at the Gaza police station.

The Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appealed to the Gazans to reject Hamas and the rocket launchers in an interview with the Al Arabiya Arabic satellite television station on Thursday.

But Ms. Ajab’s anger was not initially directed against Hamas.

“Egypt, the United States and Israel have agreed together to destroy Hamas,” she said.

In Israel, the authorities seemed braced for yet more rocket fire from Hamas. The Home Front Command declared a “special situation” in all communities up to 12 miles from the Gaza border, Israel Radio said. Bomb shelters in all those communities have been opened, and residents have been asked not to congregate out of doors and to remain in protected areas, the radio said.

Taghreed El-Khodary reported from Gaza City and Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem.