新闻报道理应客观的对事件进行报道，但事实上,新闻媒体中呈现的语言特征往往是经过处理的，是特定社会和政治背景下选择和转变的产物，最终目的是传播意识形态。因此，为了理解中国和英国主流媒体关于“中国空气污染”报道的语言特征和背后隐藏的意识形态，并探究其社会原因。本研究以费尔克劳夫的三维模型为框架，并借鉴韩礼德的系统功能语法作为分析工具，从批评性的视角，对摘自《中国日报》和《卫报》中关于“中国空气污染”的 60 篇新闻报道中的话语进行对比分析。研究基于费尔克劳夫三维框架中话语的三个维度，并结合语料库软件 UAM corpus tool 6.2，主要分成三个阶段进行分析：在描述阶段，从及物性的主要过程和情态两方面对两家 媒体报道的具体语言特征及隐含的意识形态进行了对比分析；在阐释阶段，从互文性的报道模式和报道动词两个方面对两家媒体报道话语在生成过程的语言表征及其隐含的意识形态进行了对比分析；在解释阶段，采用定性的方法，从社会文化实践的角度，包括情景背景、制度背景和社会背景，对《中国日报》和《卫报》的语言表征和意识形态的原因及合理性进行了比较和分析。

根据研究，得出以下结论:(1)在描述阶段，从及物性系统的主要过程来看，发现 《中国日报》和《卫报》关于空气污染的报道中，物质过程、关系过程和言语过程是使用频率最高的过程。《中国日报》倾向于使用更多的物质过程，通过行为主体“行动者”和“目标”来表达中国当局致力于采取积极的措施来治理空气污染。而《卫报》倾向于使用较多的关系过程，通过使用“属性”和“识别”两个参与者，强调了中国的空气污染给各方面造成的不利影响，塑造了中国当局不负责任的负面形象。在言语过程中，两家媒体通过使用“说者”和“措辞”两个主要参与者，将他们的判断和评价与引用的话语相结合，表达了对中国空气污染的不同看法。从情态系统来看，发现两家媒体对中低价值的情态动词使用的频率更高，且《中国日报》报道中使用的高值情态动词的数量和频率多于《卫报》(2)在阐述阶段，从互文性的报道模式来看，发现两家媒体间接话语的频率普遍高于直接话语和预先直接话语；从互文性的报道动词来看，发现两家媒体中性的报道动词出现的频率更高，《中国日报》使用的正面报道动词的频率高于《卫报》。（3）在解释阶段，发现《中国日报》和《卫报》关于“中国空气污染”报道的话语生产不可避免地会受到媒体属性、制度和社会经济、文化因素的影响，极大影响媒体的话语生产使本应客观中立的报道成为形式化的产物。

本研究基于费尔克劳夫三维框架，对中国和英国主流媒体关于“中国空气污染” 新闻报道的话语进行了对比研究，旨在拓宽费尔克劳夫三维模型的适用性，丰富空气污染新闻报道领域的研究。其次，本研究有助于读者在阅读中国空气污染的新闻时更好地理解报道中潜在的意识形态，更加理性地看待所报道的内容。

News reporting should objectively report on events, but in fact, the language features presented in news media are often processed products that are selected and transformed under specific social and political backgrounds, with the ultimate goal of disseminating ideologies. Therefore, to understand the linguistic representations and underlying ideologies of mainstream media reports on “air pollution in China” in China and the UK, and to explore its social factors. This research takes Fairclough’s three-dimensional model as the framework and employs Halliday’s systemic functional grammar as an analytical tool. From a critical perspective, it conducts a contrastive analysis of the discourse extracted from 60 news reports on “air pollution in China” in China Daily and The Guardian. The study is based on the three dimensions of discourse in Fairclough’s three-dimensional framework, and combines with the corpus software UAM corpus tool 6.2, and is divided into three stages for analysis: at the description stage, a contrastive analysis is conducted on the specific linguistic representations and implicit ideologies of the two media reports from two aspects: the main process of transitivity and modality; at the interpretation stage, a contrastive analysis is conducted on the linguistic representations and underlying ideologies of these two types of media reporting discourse in their generation process from two aspects: the reporting modes and reporting verbs of intertextuality; at the explanation stage, a qualitative approach is used to compare and explain the reasons and rationality of the linguistic representations and ideologies of China Daily and The Guardian from the perspective of sociocultural practices, including situational context, institutional context, and social context.

Based on the research, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) At the description stage, from the main processes of transitivity systems found that material processes, relational processes, and verbal processes are the most commonly used processes in the reports on air pollution in China Daily and The Guardian. China Daily tends to utilize more material processes to convey the Chinese authorities’ efforts to control air pollution through the behavioral subject “actor” and “goal”. On the contrary, The Guardian employs a greater number of relational processes, portraying the detrimental impact of air pollution in China on diverse facets by utilizing the participants of “attribute” and “identifier”. This approach served to construct a negative depiction of the Chinese authorities as being irresponsible. In verbal processes, the two media combined their judgments and evaluations with the quoted discourse by using the two main participants of “Sayer” and “Verbiage”, expressing different views on air pollution in China. In terms of modality systems, it is found that both media used low-value modal verbs more frequently, and China Daily used high-value modal verbs more frequently than The Guardian. (2) At the interpretation stage, the analysis of intertextual reporting patterns revealed that indirect speech are more commonly used than direct speech and preset direct speech. Moreover, neutral reporting verbs are more prevalent in both media outlets, while China Daily tends to use positive reporting verbs more frequently than The Guardian. (3) At the explanation stage, it is discovered that the media’s discourse production on “air pollution in China” is inevitably influenced by various factors, including the media's attributes, institutions, economic conditions, and cultural factors. These factors greatly impact the media's discourse production, leading to objective and neutral reports being transformed into formalized products.

Based on Fairclough’s three-dimensional model, this study conducts a contrastive analysis of the discourse in news reports on “air pollution in China” from mainstream media in China and the UK In an attempt to broaden the applicability of Fairclough’s three-dimensional model and enrich the research field of news reports on air pollution. Secondly, this study is hoped to be beneficial for readers to better understand the underlying ideologies in news reports on air pollution in China and to approach the content of the reports in a more rational manner.

[1]BAKER P, GABRIELATO C, MCENERY T. Discourse analysis and media attitudes [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013.
[2]BELL A. The language of news media [M]. Blackwell Oxford, 1991.
[3]BIN X. Critical linguistics: Theory and application [J]. Shanghai Foreign Language Education, 2005, 23(6): 204-210.
[4]BLOOR T, BLOOR M. The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayan approach [M]. Routledge, 2013.
[5]CATALANO T, WAUGH L R. Critical discourse analysis, critical discourse studies and beyond [M]. Springer, 2020.
[6]CHEN Y-H, BAKER P. Investigating criterial discourse features across second language development: Lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1 [J]. Applied Linguistics, 2016, 37(6): 849-80.
[7]CHILTON P, WODAK R. A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis [J]. A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis, 2005: 1-338.
[8]EGGINS S. Introduction to systemic functional linguistics [M]. A&C Black, 2004.
[9]FAIRCLOUGH N. Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research [M]. Psychology Press, 2003.
[10]FAIRCLOUGH N. Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities [J]. Discourse & society, 1993, 4(2): 133-68.
[11]FAIRCLOUGH N. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language [M]. Routledge, 2013.
[12]FAIRCLOUGH N. Discourse and contemporary social change [M]. Peter Lang, 2007.
[13]FAIRCLOUGH N. Language and power [M]. Pearson Education, 2001.
[14]FAIRCLOUGH N. Media discourse [J]. London: Edward Arnold, 1995.
[15]FOWLER R. Handbook of discourse analysis. En van Dijk, TA [J]. Power, 1985: 61-82.
[16]FOWLER R. Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press [M]. Routledge, 2013.
[17]GEIS M L, GEIS M L. Identification of context in news reporting [J]. The Language of Politics, 1987: 98-120.
[18]GEIS M L. The language of politics [M]. New York: Springer, 1987.
[19]HALLIDAY M. An introduction to function grammar [M]. London: Arnold Press. 1994.
[20]HALLIDAY M, MATTHIESSEN C. An introduction to functional grammar 3rd edition London: Edward Arnold [J]. 2004.
[21]HARDING R. 2006. Historical representation of aboriginal people in the Canadian news media[J]. Discourse & Society, 17(2), 205-233.
[22]HASAN R. Systematic functional linguistics: holiday and the evolution of a social semiotic [M]. In J. Wester. (ed.). The Bloomsbury Companion to MAK. London: Bloomsbury, 2015.
[23]JENKINS J. English as a lingua franca: interpretations and attitudes [J]. World Englishers, 2009, 28(2), 200-207.
[24]KNIGHT K. Transformations of the concept of ideology in the twentieth century [J]. American Political Science Review, 2006, 100(4): 619-26.
[25]KRESS G. Introduction. In G. Kress. (ed). Halliday: system and function in language [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.
[26]LEECH G N, SHORT M. Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose [M]. Pearson Education, 2007.
[27]VAN DIJK T A, WODAK R, MEYER M. Methods of critical discourse analysis [J]. R Wodak & M Meyer, introducing qualitative methods: Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2001: 95-120.
[28]VAN DIJK T A. Critical discourse analysis [J]. The handbook of discourse analysis, 2015: 466-85.
[29]VAN DIJK T A. Discourse analysis as ideology analysis [M]. Language & peace. Routledge. 2005: 41-58.
[30]VAN DIJK T A. Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach [M]. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
[31]VAN DIJK T A. Opinions and ideologies in the press [J]. Approaches to media discourse, 1998, 21(63).
[32]VAN DIJK T A. Principles of critical discourse analysis [J]. Discourse & society, 1993, 4(2): 249-83.
[33]VAN DIJK T A. Racism and the press [M]. Routledge, 2015.
[34]VOLOSHINOV V N, BACHTIN M M. Marxism and the philosophy of language [M]. Harvard University Press, 1986.
[35]WODAK R, MEYER M. Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology [J]. Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2009, 2: 1-33.
[36]WODAK R, MEYER M. Methods of critical discourse analysis [M]. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2009.
[37]XIN B. Critical linguistics and critical analysis of English news discourse [J]. Foreign Language Education, 2000, 4: 44-8.
[38]陈令君, 赵闯. 新闻语篇中的“中国梦”——评价理论态度视域下的话语分析 [J]. 天津外国语大学学报, 2016, 23(04): 34-9+81.
[39]陈中竺. 批评语言学述评 [J]. 外语教学与研究, 1995, (01): 21-7+80.
[40]陈中竺. 语篇与意识形态：批评性语将分析——对两条罢工新闻的分析 [J]. 外国语(上海外国语大学学报), 1995, (03): 42-5.
[41]程道才. 基于语料库的批评语篇分析语言学方法 [J]. 2013: 1353-1360.
[42]代尊峰. 英语新闻语篇的分类批评分析 [J]. 外语教学, 2013, 34(05): 28-31.
[43]丁建新, 廖益清. 批评话语分析述评 [J]. 当代语言学, 2001, 3(4): 305-10.
[44]丁建新, 秦勇. 社会认知批评话语分析中的非政治化和突生结构——以龙卷风Sandy新闻报道为例 [J]. 外语研究, 2013, 138(02): 8-13.
[45]费尔克拉夫. 话语与社会变迁 [M]. 殷晓蓉, 译. 话语与社会变迁, 2003.
[46]高小丽. 汉英报纸新闻语篇中转述言语的比较研究 [D]. 南京: 南京师范大学, 2013.
[47]胡壮麟, 朱永生, 张德禄, 等. 系统功能语言学概论 [M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2017: 3.
[48]康俊英, 李风琴. 政治新闻语篇中转述动词的批评性分析——以《纽约时报》南海争端报道为例 [J]. 外语研究, 2018, 35(03): 25-30.
[49]李桔元, 李鸿雁. 批评话语分析研究最新进展及相关问题再思考 [J]. 外国语(上海外国语大学学报), 2014, 37(04): 88-96.
[50]刘鼎甲. 新冠肺炎疫情中美国媒体涉华报道的语料库历时分析 [J]. 外国语(上海外国语大学学报), 2021, 44(06): 52-64.
[51]刘风光, 刘诗宇. 政治话语分析的认知批评语用融合路径重塑 [J]. 外国语文, 2021, 37(05): 80-8.
[52]刘润清，封宗信. 《语言学理论与流派》[M]. 南京: 南京师范大学出版社, 2004.
[53]刘宇娇. 批评话语分析视角下《中国日报》和《福克斯新闻》关于美国退出WHO报道的及物性对比分析 [J]. 外文研究, 2021, 9(01): 24-30+106.
[54]苗兴伟, 赵云. 批评话语分析的议程设置与路径演进 [J]. 解放军外国语学院学报, 2019, 42(05): 1-10+159.
[55]潘艳艳. 美国媒体话语霸权下的中国海上力量构建——基于2013-2014年美国“战略之页”网站有关中国海军新闻报道的批评话语分析 [J]. 外语研究, 2015, 150(02): 7-12.
[56]杉申江.《新闻语篇批评语篇分析》[J]. 外语研究, 2011, 163(6): 78-81.
[57]孙秀丽. 基于语料库的能源企业身份建构的批评话语分析 [J]. 山东外语教学, 2021, 42(5): 21-30.
[58]田海龙. 批评话语分析精髓之再认识——从与批评话语分析相关的三个问题谈起 [J]. 外语与外语教学, 2016, 287(02): 1-9+144.
[59]田海龙. 趋于质的研究的批评话语分析 [J]. 外语与外语教学, 2013, 271(04): 6-10.
[60]田海龙. 知识的交汇与融合——批评话语分析、社会符号学以及新修辞学发展轨迹引发的思考 [J]. 当代修辞学, 2019, 211(01): 55-64.
[61]田绪军, 李晓倩. 基于语料库的中国外交话语主题词演变研究 [J]. 中国外语, 2020, 17(02): 16-25.
[62]涂洁, 陈风华. 批评话语分析视角下英语新闻语言研究综述 [J]. 当代外语教育, 2022, (00): 72-81.
[63]韦忠生. 英语新闻语篇的解读与翻译策略——基于中国南海冲突新闻报道的批评性话语分析 [J]. 重庆理工大学学报(社会科学), 2014, 28(12): 127-33.
[64]辛斌, 高小丽. 批评话语分析:目标、方法与动态 [J]. 外语与外语教学, 2013, 271(04): 1-5+16.
[65]辛斌，高小丽. 批评话语分析：目标、方法与动态 [J]. 外语与外语教学，2013(4): 1-5+16.
[66]辛斌. 《中国日报》和《纽约时报》中转述方式和消息来源的比较分析 [J]. 外语与外语教学, 2006, (03): 1-4.
[67]辛斌. 批评话语分析:批评与反思 [J]. 外语学刊, 2008, 145(06): 63-70.
[68]辛斌. 批评语言学与英语新闻语篇的批评性分析 [J]. 外语教学, 2000, (04): 44-8.
[69]辛斌. 批评语言学与英语新闻语篇的批评性分析 [J]. 外语教学，2000(4): 44-48.
[70]辛斌. 语篇研究中的互文性分析 [J]. 外语与外语教学, 2008, 226(01): 6-10.
[71]辛斌. 语言, 权力与意识形态: 批评语言学 [J]. 现代外语, 1996, (1): 21-6.
[72]辛斌. 语言、权力与意识形态:批评语言学 [J]. 现代外语, 1996, (01): 21-6+72.
[73]辛斌.《批判性视角下的互文性》. 苏州: 苏州大学出版社. 2000b.
[74]辛斌.语言、权力与意识形态:批评语言学 [J]. 现代外语, 1996 (1): 21-26.
[75]熊伟, 舒艾. 翻译研究的批评性话语分析视角：回顾与展望 [J]. 外语学刊, 2020, 216(05): 93-100.
[76]张德禄, 刘秀丽. 批评话语分析中的词汇语法 [J]. 中国海洋大学学报(社会科学版), 2011, 112(02): 101-6.
[77]张健. 新闻英语文体与范文评析 [M]. 新闻英语文体与范文评析, 1994.
[78]支永碧. 批评话语分析研究新动态 [J]. 外语与外语教学, 2007, 216(03): 27-32.