A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS RESEARCH IN THE SINO-MONGOLIAN CONTEXT: THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN THEORETICAL APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGICAL PRACTICES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22353/MJFLC2025204Keywords:
Sino-Mongolian Discourse Studies; Comparative Analysis; Critical Discourse Analysis; Cognitive Linguistics; Theoretical ApproachesAbstract
In recent years, as linguistic research paradigms evolve and socio-realistic contexts undergo significant transformations, academic communities in both China and Mongolia have demonstrated distinct, empirical, and localized approaches in the development of discourse studies. Building on recent research, this paper offers a comprehensive review and comparative analysis of discourse research within the Chinese and Mongolian contexts, emphasizing three key dimensions: research scope, theoretical frameworks, and methodological approaches. Research findings: In terms of research scope, Chinese discourse studies have increasingly focused on pragmatic discourse practices, including national discourse construction, social governance, and digital politics. Mongolian research has placed greater emphasis on stylistic comparisons and cross-linguistic cognitive features, reflecting a dual approach of "local construction" and "cross-cultural comparison." On the theoretical front, Chinese scholars have advanced integration within three classic paradigms of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), gradually fostering an intra-paradigmatic synergy. In contrast, Mongolian scholarship initially concentrated on linguistic rhetoric and discourse studies but has since shifted towards a "cross-theoretical integration" path, centered around cognitive linguistics and extending into areas such as eco-translatology and cultural pragmatics. Regarding methodological approaches, Chinese researchers have commonly employed corpus technologies, statistical modeling, and multimodal analysis to facilitate empirically-driven transformations. Meanwhile, Mongolian studies have developed an interdisciplinary methodological framework known as "linguistic-mathematical-cognitive integration." This paper argues that despite their differing theoretical perspectives and inquiry mechanisms, discourse studies in China and Mongolia both highlight the multidimensional roles of language as a tool for social construction. The respective approaches from each country provide valuable empirical resources and theoretical foundations for discourse analysis in non-Western contexts.
References
陈新仁. (2023). 语料库与人际修辞研究：以“说”的人际修辞用法为例. 当代修辞学, (2): 43–50.
邓若岚，孙小孟. (2022). 从背景到意图：多模态话语中语境要素的功能转向. 外国语文，38（6）：94-101.
鞠玉梅. (2023). 科技新闻建构国家身份认同研究：基于“科技冬奥”中外媒体新闻报道的个案分析. 当代修辞学, (5): 57–67.
李俊义，苏炎奎. (2022). 多模态话语互动路径下的区域形象构建研究—以福建形象宣传片为例. 外国语言文学，39（4）：41-52，134.
刘立华. (2023). 后基础主义视角下的话语建构研究. 外语学刊, (5): 52–57.
刘璇. (2023). 2023年国内批评话语分析研究综述. 话语研究论丛, 140–158.
刘也夫, 阎立峰. (2022). 批评话语分析的否思：外域方法与本土创新. 新闻界, (4): 66–75.
聂思陶，王泽蓉，刘立华. (2022). 中美媒体话语互动研究—以美军撤离阿富汗相关报道为例. 话语研究论丛，11：76-99.
汪少华. (2022). Lakoff 架构理论的本土化与中国话语架构体系的创建. 中国外语, 19(1): 30–36.
王磊. (2021). 2021年国内批评话语分析研究综述. 话语研究论丛, 133–146.
王文斌. (2021). 关于“十三五”期间的外国语言学及外语教育教学研究. 外语学刊（2）：1-15.
王正，张辉. (2022). 三角互证视域下中西媒体中国扶贫话语的批评认知语言学研究. 外语教学，43（6）：15-21.
辛斌. (2021). 批评话语研究中的互文性分析. 外语与外语教学（3）：1-12，147.
辛斌. (2023). 后现代语境下的批评话语分析. 话语研究论丛, 13: 1–13.
施旭. (2021). 文化视野下的话语研究. 浙江外国语学院学报（1）：38-44
石春煦. (2022). 身份研究：积极话语分析和批评话语分析的互补性. 外语学刊, (3): 48–54.
田海龙. (2016). 话语研究的语言学范式：从批评话语分析到批评话语研究. 山东外语教学, (6): 3–9.
田海龙. (2021). 话语互动—批评话语研究新课题的多维思考. 外语与外语教学, (3): 13–22.
杨明星. (2021). 新文科时代外交话语学科构建与外语学科转型发展. 中国外语，18（4）：1，8-11.
原蓉. (2022). 2022年国内批评话语分析研究综述. 话语研究论丛, 155–171.
张德禄. (2023). 多模态话语建构中的模态融合模式研究. 现代外语, (4): 439–451.
张德禄, 张珂. (2022). 多模态批评（积极）话语分析综合框架探索. 外语教学, 43(1): 1–8.
张辉. (2023). 批评认知语言学与主体间性. 北京第二外国语学院学报, (1): 30–49.
张辉, 唐颖. (2023). 批评认知语言学与社会本体论. 解放军外国语学院学报, (2): 59–67,161.
张现荣, 夏玲玲. (2023). 新闻语篇态度合法化话语建构研究. 苏州科技大学学报（社会科学版）, (5): 74–82.
赵芃. (2021). 从“再情景化”到“指向秩序”—批评话语研究概念性工具的新发展. 外语与外语教学（3）：23-30.
Ганчимэг, З. (2003). Шинжлэх ухааны хялбаршуулсан дискурсыг кoгнитив хэл шинжлэлийн үүднээс зэрэгцүүлэн судлах нь: Монгол, англи, орос хэлний хэрэглэгдэхүүн дээр. Улаанбаатар.
Мөнхчимэг, О. (2022). Улс төрийн бичвэрийг танин мэдэхүйн хэл шинжлэлийн үүднээс судлах нь. Улаанбаатар.
Дагиймаа, Б. (2004). Улс төрийн дискурсыг когнитив хэл шинжлэлийн үүднээс зэрэгцүүлэн судлах нь. Улаанбаатар.
Сэрчмаа, Ш. (2007). Рекламны уриа үг хэллэгийг дискурс үүднээс монгол, англи хэлэнд зэрэгцүүлэн судлах нь. Улаанбаатар.
Оюунчимэг, С. (2013). Халдварт өвчний дискурс дэх монгол, англи метафорыг когнитив хэл шинжлэлийн үүднээс судалсан нь. Улаанбаатар.
Хонгорзул, Д. (2004). Сонины мэдээллийн дискурсийн үгийн санг регистрын үүднээс судлах нь. Улаанбаатар.
Төмөрхуяг, Б. (2011). Улс төрийн дискурс дэх метафорыг когнитив хэл шинжлэлийн үүднээс судалсан нь (Монгол, Орос, Англи хэлний жишээн дээр). Улаанбаатар.
Bao.Hongling. (2023). A comparative study on traditional Mongolian and English translation of political text from the perspective of eco-translatology. Улаанбаатар.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Chang. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Macgilchrist, F. (2016). Fissures in the discourse-scape: Critique, rationality and validity in post-foundational approaches to CDS. Discourse & Society, 27(3): 262-277.
Van Dijk, A T.(1988). News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wodak, R, Meyer, M. (2009). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity//WODAK R, MEYER M. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE: 1-35.
