1949年後，國民黨退駐台灣，兩岸關係主要呈現對立狀態。中國大陸推行改革開放後，台灣企業投資增加，雙邊關係曾有所緩和。儘管1992年達成“九二共識”，但民進黨掌權導致關係動盪，成為當前全球極其複雜的政治狀況之一。本研究利用批判性話語分析（CDA），比較2001年至2020年五位兩岸領導人的元旦講話，探討其語言策略與政治意識形態的差異和共性。分析聚焦五個層面：高頻詞、及物性、情態動詞、包含性的“我們”用語及主位-述位結構。兩岸領導人迥異的政治立場由語言應用得以揭示。研究顯示，大陸方面重點被置於“發展”、“民族復興”和“一個中國”，經濟進展與統一被突顯。台灣方面則傾向“台灣”、“民主”與“安全”。馬英九強調了“九二共識”，蔡英文則提及國際合作。經濟成就在大陸講話中主要由物質過程展現，台灣領導人更常使用心理過程以爭取民眾認同。中值情態動詞廣泛被使用，但蔡英文話語中高值情態動詞增多，對立立場因而被顯露。同時，兩岸均藉由“我們”建構群體認同感。然而，大陸領導人側重中國身份，台灣領導人則強調台灣民眾及全球民主陣營的歸屬。大陸講話主位常環繞“中國”展開，台灣則常聚焦“台灣”和“台灣人民”。此研究深化了兩岸話語策略的比較，理解兩岸政治話語中意識形態運作的工具被提供，未來政策調整的理論參照也被建立。

Cross-strait relations have primarily been characterized by conflict since the Kuomintang's relocation to Taiwan in 1949. A period of relative peace emerged in the 1980s following China's adoption of reform and opening-up policies, facilitated by increased investment from Taiwanese businesspeople. The 1992 Consensus established a foundation for stability, yet cross-strait relations have been rendered volatile by the rotating administrations of the DPP and KMT. This volatility contributes to the current status of the Taiwan Strait as among the world's most intricate and tense geopolitical contexts.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) was employed in this study to compare the New Year addresses delivered from 2001 to 2020 by five leaders from both sides (Chen Shui-bian, Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen, Hu Jintao, Xi Jinping). The research examines variations and commonalities in linguistic methods and political ideology. Five analytical dimensions—frequent terms, transitivity, modality, the inclusive pronoun "we," and theme-rheme structure—were focused on to demonstrate how differing political positions are mirrored in language.
Distinct thematic priorities were identified. Chinese leaders placed stress on "development," "national rejuvenation," and "One China," underlining economic advancement and reunification. Taiwanese leaders prioritized "Taiwan," "democracy," and "security." Specific distinctions were noted: the "1992 Consensus" and "mutual trust" were highlighted by Ma Ying-jeou, while greater emphasis on international solidarity and security was expressed by Tsai Ing-wen amidst perceived threats from China.
Divergent linguistic choices were also observed. Emphasis on socio-economic accomplishments was frequently conveyed by Chinese leaders through material processes. Taiwanese leaders tended toward mental processes to forge emotional connections with their audience. Median-value modality was commonly utilized by leaders on both sides. However, a higher frequency of high-value modality was used by Tsai Ing-wen, indicating a more confrontational attitude.
The inclusive "we" was strategically employed by all speakers to build collective identity. Yet, its referent differed significantly. Within Chinese discourse, "we" was anchored to a Chinese identity, with Taiwanese individuals included as "compatriots across the Taiwan Strait." Conversely, "we" was defined as either "Taiwanese people" or extended to "democratic countries worldwide" by Taiwanese leaders. Thematic subjects further reflected this divide. The speeches of Chinese leaders were typically themed around "China" and the "Chinese people," spotlighting national accomplishments and aspirations. "Taiwan" and the "Taiwanese people" formed the primary thematic focus in Taiwanese addresses, strengthening in-group cohesion.
This investigation progresses comparative analysis of cross-strait political language strategies. It furnishes tools for critically deconstructing ideological influences within political texts, such as how "One China" and "mutual non-subordination" are naturalized. Potential pathways for adjusting conflict communication are suggested, and a theoretical foundation for future cross-strait policy modifications is established.

Acknowledgements………	i
Chinese Abstract	ii
English Abstract	iii
List of Tables	viii
List of Figures	ix
List of Abbreviations	…x

Chapter One Introduction	1
1.1 Origin and Rationale for the Present Study	1
1.2 Objectives of the Present Research	5
1.3 Significance of the Present Research	7
1.4 Organization of the Study	8
Chapter Two  Literature Review	10
2.1 The Theories Contributing to Critical Discourse Analysis	10
2.1.1 Foucault’s Social Theory	10
2.1.2 Systemic Functional Linguistics	13
2.1.3 Critical Linguistics	15
2.2 The Meanings in Critical Discourse Analysis	18
2.2.1 Critical	18
2.2.2 Discourse	20
2.2.3 Discourse Analysis	21
2.3 Other Important Terms in CDA	23
2.3.1 Power	23
2.3.2 Ideology	25
2.3.3 The Dialectical Relationship Among Discourse, Ideology, and Power	28
2.4 The Approaches to CDA	29
2.5 Political Discourse and Presidential Speech	31
2.6 Summary	34
Chapter Three Theoretical Framework	37
3.1 Different Meanings of Context	37
3.1.1 Situational Context	37
3.1.2 Social Context	39
3.2 Context and Discourse Analysis	41
3.2.1 Situational Context and Discourse Analysis	41
3.2.2 Social Context and Discourse Analysis	41
3.2.3 Three-Dimensional Model of Critical Discourse Analysis	44
3.3 Research Questions	45
Chapter Four Methodology	47
4.1 Analytical Approach	47
4.1.1 Data Collection	47
4.1.2 Analytic Procedure	49
4.2 Summary	53
Chapter Five Results and Discussion	55
5.1 High Frequency Words in the Speeches	55
5.1.1 Similarity and Difference of High Frequency Words in the Speeches by Taiwan Leaders	55
5.1.2 Similarities and Differences of High Frequency Words in the Speeches by Main China Leaders	62
5.1.3 Comparative Analysis of Choosing High Frequency Words by Two Sides	65
5.2 Transitivity	66
5.2.1 Material Process	70
5.2.2 Relational Process	88
5.2.3 Mental Process	101
5.3 Modality	117
5.3.1 Modality in Chen Shui-bian’s Speeches	121
5.3.2 Modality in Ma Ying-jeou’s Speeches	124
5.3.3 Modality in Tsai Ingwen's Speeches	127
5.3.4 Modality in Hu Jintao’s Speeches	128
5.3.5 Modality in Xi Jinping's Speeches	130
5.3.6 Comparison of Use of Modality Between Leaders	130
5.4 Inclusive and Exclusive We	134
5.4.1 The Use of We in Chen Shui-bian’s Speeches	135
5.4.2 The Use of We in Ma Ying-jeou’s Speeches	138
5.4.3 The Use of We in Tsai Ingwen's Speeches	141
5.4.4 The Use of We in Hu Jintao’s Speeches	144
5.4.5 The Use of We in Xi Jinping's Speeches	146
5.4.6 Comparison and Analysis	148
5.5 Information Structure: Theme and Rheme	150
5.5.1 Theme-Rheme	150
5.5.2 Theme and Rheme in Chen Shui-bian’s Speeches	152
5.5.3 Theme and Rheme in Ma Ying-jeou’s Speeches	155
5.5.4 Theme and Rheme in Tsai Ingwen's Speeches	158
5.5.5 Theme and Rheme in Hu Jintao's Speeches	163
5.5.6 Theme and Rheme in Xi Jinping’s Speeches	168
5.5.7 Comparison and Analysis	171
5.6 Summary	172
Chapter Six Conclusion	176
References	181

References
Adebomi, O. (2025). “The land of your fathers lieth in ruins”: A multimodal critical discourse analysis of Nigeria’s 2023 preelection crisesrelated internet memes. Discourse & Society, 36(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926524125299
Berardi, L. (2001). Globalization and poverty in Chile. Discourse & Society, 12(1), 47–58.
Biria, R., & Mohammadi, A. (2012). The social pragmatic functions of inaugural speech: A critical discourse analysis approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1290–1320.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Cap, P. (2014). Applying cognitive pragmatics to critical discourse studies: A proximization analysis of three public space discourses. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 16–30.
Capone, A. (2010). Barack Obama’s South Carolina speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2964–2977.
Chen, N. (2018). A comparative study of American presidential campaign speeches of Hillary and Trump: CDA approach [Unpublished master’s thesis, Neimenggu Normal University]. Retrieved from http://kns.cnki.net/


Cheng, M. (2006). Constructing a new political spectacle: Tactics of Chen Shuibian
’s 2000 and 2004 inaugural speeches. Discourse & Society, 17(5), 583–608.
Chi, X. N. (2008). CDA of discoursal characteristics of Chinese Taipei’s leaders [Unpublished master’s thesis, Ningbo University].
Destutt de Tracy, A. (1803). Éléments d’idéologie. Paris: Courcier.
Dou, W. L. (2011). A comparative study of government discourse between the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America (Doctoral dissertation, Shanghai International Studies University). Retrieved from http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=CDMD
Duranti, A. (2006). Narrating the political self. Language in Society, 35(4), 467–497. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060244
Eshbaugh-Soha, M. (2010). The politics of presidential rhetoric. Congress & the Presidency, 37(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343460903390679
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). London: Sage.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992a). Critical language awareness. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992b). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2001a). Language and power (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Fairclough, N. (2001b). The discourse of New Labour: Critical discourse analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 229–266). London: Sage in association with the Open University.
Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Fasold, R. (1990). The sociolinguistics of language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Blackwell.
Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). London: Tavistock Publications.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.; C. Gordon et al., Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.
Fowler, R. (1991). Critical linguistics. In K. Malmkjær (Ed.), The linguistics encyclopedia (pp. 185–213). London: Routledge.
Fowler, R., & Kress, G. (1979). Critical linguistics. In R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress, & T. Trew (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 198–213). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge.
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London: Longman.
Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Graber, D. A. (1981). Political language. In D. D. Nimmo & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 62–87). Beverly Hills, CA & London: Sage.
Graham, P., Keenan, T., & Dowd, A.-M. (2004). A call to arms at the end of history: A discourse-historical analysis of George W. Bush’s declaration of war on terror. Discourse & Society, 15(2–3), 199–221.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. NowellSmith, Eds. & Trans.). London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Gramsci, A. (1991). Selections from cultural writings (D. Forgacs & G. NowellSmith, Eds.; W. Boelhower, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Guan, E. D. (2012). A critical discourse analysis of news reports on Japan earthquake in China Daily and the New York Times (Master’s thesis, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China). Retrieved from http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=CDMD
Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word, 17(3), 241–292. Reprinted in On Grammar: Volume 1 of the collected works of M. A. K. Halliday. London & New York: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1976). System and function in language. London: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2000). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). Introduction: How big is a language? On the power of language. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), The Language of Science: Volume 5 in the collected works of M. A. K. Halliday (p. xi). London & New York: Continuum.
Harris, Z. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language, 28, 1–30.
Hewings, A., & Hewings, M. (2005). Grammar and context. London & New York: Routledge.
International Monetary Fund. (2018, August 7). This is what China’s economy looks like in 2018—in 6 charts. World Economic Forum. Retrieved May 7, 2019, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/china-s-economic-outlook-in-sixchats
Jager, S., & Maier, F. (2014). Theoretical and methodological aspects of Foucauldian Critical Discourse Analysis and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 34–61). Beijing: Peking University Press.
Ji, Y. H. (2006). Critical discourse analysis in intercultural communication and education: Case studies of remarks by US/UK and Chinese leaders in intercultural context (Doctoral dissertation, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China). Retrieved from http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=CDMD
Johnstone, B. (2004). Discourse analysis. London: Blackwell Publishing.
Kamalova, A. (2024). You’re a murderer: Critical discourse analysis of conversations around abortions in the Russian talk show. Discourse & Society, 35(2), 194–222. https://doiorg.ezproxy.lib.tku.edu.tw/10.1177/09579265231198142
Kirvalidze, N. (2016). Political discourse as a subject of interdisciplinary studies. Journal of Teaching and Education, 5(1), 161–170.
Kress, G., & Hodge, R. (1979). Language as ideology. London: Routledge.
Labov, W. (1972). The social stratification of (r) in New York department stores. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook (pp. 168–178). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.
Leudar, I., & Marsland, V. (2004). On membership categorization: “Us”, “them” and “doing violence” in political discourse. Discourse & Society, 15(2–3), 243–266.
Liang, M. Y., Pan, S. P., & Tsai, I. T. (2023). “I’m not blue or green. I’m black”: The participatory textualization of translingual memes and metapragmatic comments in transnational sociopolitical discourse. Discourse & Society, 34(4), 3–22. https://doiorg.ezproxy.lib.tku.edu.tw/10.1177/09579265221141321
Lilleker, D. G. (2014). Political communication and cognition. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lou, E. W. (2015). A comparative study of Chinese, American and Russian presidents’ speeches from the perspective of CDA (Master’s thesis, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, China). Retrieved from http:// kns.cnki.net/ kns/brief/ result. aspx?dbprefix=CDMD
Lu, M. Y. A. (2016). Comparative study on national images of China and USA in the perspective of Cultural Discourse Study: Both presidents’ 2017 New Year’s messages as examples. Journal of Contemporary Chinese Discourse Studies, 1, 53–64.
Maalej, Z. A. (2012). The “Jasmine revolt” has made the “Arab Spring”: A critical discourse analysis of the last three political speeches of the ousted president of Tunisia. Discourse & Society, 23(6), 679–700.
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning (pp. 293–336). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Marx, K. (2003). German ideologies since 1945: Studies in political thought and culture of the Bonn Republic. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mayr, A. (2008). Language and power: An introduction to institutional discourse. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
McNair, B. (1999). An introduction to political communication. London: Routledge.
MerklDavies, D. M., & Koller, V. (2012). “Metaphoring” people out of this world: A critical discourse analysis of a chairman’s statement of a UK defense firm. Accounting Forum, 36, 178–193.
Noth, W. (1990). Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Oktar, L. (2001). The ideological organization of presentational processes in the presentation of Us and Them. Discourse & Society, 12(3), 313–346.
Pecheux, M. (1982). Language, semantics and ideology. London: Macmillan.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Popitz, H. (1992). Phänomene der Macht. Tübingen: Mohr.
Potter, L. (2016). Ideological representations and theme–rheme analysis in English and Arabic news reports: A systemic functional approach. Functional Linguistics, 3(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-016-0028-y
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2014). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 87–121). Beijing: Peking University Press.
Reyes, A. (2011). Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions. Discourse & Society, 22(6), 781–807.
Saussure, F. de. (1916/1983). Course in general linguistics (R. Harris, Trans.). London: Duckworth.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Seidel, G. (1985). Political discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse (Vol. 4, pp. 43–60). London: Academic Press.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Su, D. (2006). Comparative studies of the construction of national identity in China’s and U.S. defense white papers and relevant social values (Master’s thesis, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China). Retrieved from http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=CDMD


Sun, N. (2019, January 24). China to surpass US as world’s biggest consumer market this year. Asian Review. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/China-to-surpass-US-as-world-s-biggest-consumer-market-this-year
Tang, C. Y. (2013). On reporting verbs in Chinese and English news discourse: A case study of newspaper reports on Chicago teachers’ strike (Master’s thesis, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China). Retrieved from http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=CDMD
Taylor, S. (2013). What is discourse analysis? London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Thompson, G. (2000). Introducing functional grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998a). Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage Publications.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998b). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Oxford: Blackwell.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2004). Introduction: Language, discourse and ideology. In M. Putz et al. (Eds.), Communicating ideologies: Multidisciplinary perspectives on language, discourse and social practice. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2014). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 62–86). Beijing: Peking University Press.
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, W. F., & Zhang, J. Y. (2018). A review on Systemic Functional Linguistics: A course book. Journal of University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, 40(1), 36–39, 56.
Wang, Z. X. (2009). Analyzing ideology of English news texts: Description and interpretation from a socio-functional perspective (Doctoral dissertation, Northeast Normal University, Jilin, China). Retrieved from http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=CDMD
Weber, M. (1980). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (5th ed.). Tübingen: Mohr.
Widdowson, H. G. (1995). Discourse analysis: A critical review. In M. Toolan (Ed.), Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (Vol. 3, pp. 131–147). London & New York: Routledge.
Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, context, pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wilson, J. (2001). Political discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 398–415). Oxford: Blackwell.
Wodak, R. (1999). Critical discourse analysis at the end of the 20th century. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(1–2), 185–193.
Wodak, R. (2012). Critical discourse analysis (Vol. 4). London: Sage.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2014). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 1–33). Beijing: Peking University Press.
Wodak, R., de Cilla, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (1999). The discourse construction of national identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Xu, R. (2010). Multicultural prospect and choice of television discourse: A comparative study about TV texts of the Beijing Olympic Opening Ceremony (Doctoral dissertation, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China). Retrieved from http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=CDMD
Xu, Y. (2015). A comparative critical discourse analysis of China smogrelated news in China Daily and the New York Times (Master’s thesis, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China). Retrieved from http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=CDMD
Yang, P. L. (2013). A critical discourse analysis of Taiwan’s national debate on economic ties with China. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 11(2), 88–104.
Young, L., & Fitzgerald, B. (2014). The power of language: How discourse influences society. Beijing: Beijing World Publishing Corporation.
Zhang, H. (2010). A critical discourse analysis of news reports focusing on Chinese and American news analysis (Master’s thesis, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China). Retrieved from http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbpre
fix=CDMD
Zhou, H. (2013). A critical discourse analysis of Chinese news and English news reporting (Master’s thesis, Chongqing Normal University, Chongqing, China). Retrieved from http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=CDMD
郭珍珍（2023）。台灣語言雜志，11 (2). 83-104。
曹雪菲（2010）。中國共產黨執政以來對臺政策變化分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。內蒙古大學，呼和浩特。
陳建平、尤澤順（2017）。《社會、文化、身份與話語建構：中國社會語言學新探索》。北京：人民出版社。
陳周琴（2014）。Fairclough三維分析模型下的新聞話語分析：以CNN和馬航官閘道於馬航失聯飛機的新聞報導為例。《寧波教育學學報》，16（5），48–52。
戴煒華、高軍（2002）。批評語篇分析：理論評述和實例分析。《外國語》，14（2），42–48。
窦卫霖（2011）。中美官方話語的比較研究〔未出版之博士論文〕。上海外國語大學，上海。取自 http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=CDMD
樊友猛、謝彥君、王志文（2016）。地方旅遊發展決策中的權力呈現：對上九山村新聞報導的批評話語分析。《旅遊學刊》，31（1），22–35。
付海燕（2016）。中國博物館機構身份的話語建構。《天津大學外國語學報》，23（6），35–39。
高小麗（2013）。漢英報紙新聞語篇中轉述言語的比較研究〔未出版之博士論文〕。南京師範大學，南京。取自 http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix
=CDMD
郭珍珍（2023）。語言權力與媒體再現：台灣主流報紙對兩岸關係的話語建構分析。《台灣語言雜誌》，11（2），83–104。
胡壯麟（2001）。語篇的銜接和連貫。上海：上海教育出版社。
胡壯麟、朱永生、張德祿（1989）。《系統功能語法概論》。長沙：湖南教育出版社。
李娜娜（2016）。國內主流媒體暴恐報導的差異分析——基於“3.1”昆明事件與“11.13”巴黎事件〔未出版之碩士論文〕。南京大學，南京。取自 http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=CDMD
李偉（2016）。一種基於評價理論和話語歷史分析融合的文本解讀方法研究：以內賈德聯大演講為例。《外國語文》，32（6），94–101。
李藝（2016）。《語言權勢與社會和諧：中國轉型期機構話語社會效應研究》。天津：南開大學出版社。
李正修（2016）。臺灣經濟困境主因在政治。取自 https://www.npf.org.tw/1/13052
劉性仁（2012）。馬英九總統兩岸政策之探討與展望。《展望與探索》，10（12）。
劉國深、梁穎（2015）。政治認同轉型與台灣政黨政治重組：歷史背景與未來發展。《台灣研究集刊》，（4），1–10。
樓毅（2015）。基於Fairclough三維框架對蜜雪兒·奧巴馬身份建構的研究：以蜜雪兒·奧巴馬2012年民主黨大會演講為例。《長春大學學報》，25（1），50–53。
羅瓊（2020）。新中國成立70年中國共產黨對臺政策歷史演變與經驗啟示。《可持續發展》，10（5），703–712。
倪炎元（2013）。從語言中搜尋意識形態：van Dijk的分析策略及其在傳播研究上的定位。《新聞學研究》，114（1），41–78。
倪永傑（2011）。蔡英文兩岸論述解析。《北京聯合大學學報（人文社會科學版）》，9（4），81–85。
潘豔豔（2015）。美國媒體話語霸權下的中國海上力量構建：基於2013–2014年美國“戰略之頁”網站有關中國海軍新聞報導的批評話語分析。《外語研究》，（2），7–12。
田海龍（2006）。語篇研究的批評視角：從批評語言學到批評話語分析。《山東外語教學》，（2），40–47。
田海龍（2009）。《語篇研究：範疇、視角、方法》。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
王典奇、車英麟（2016）。評蔡英文“5.20”就職演說。《統一論壇》。https://doi.org/10.13503/j.cnki.reunification.forum
王鴻志（2011）。從馬英九三次元旦講話看當局兩岸政策。《兩岸關係》，（1），29–30。
王宇戈、孫鑫（2017）。《中國日報》和《紐約時報》就脫歐事件新聞報導的批評語篇分析。《語言教育》，5（2），16–21。
王澤霞（2009）。英語語篇的意識形態分析：社會功能視角的描寫與闡釋〔未出版之博士論文〕。東北師範大學，長春。
王澤霞、楊忠（2008）。英語新聞話語意識形態分析模式研究。《東北師範大學學報（哲學社會科學版）》，（3），138–142。
吳海燕、張俊（2017）。英語新聞報導中“中國夢”話語的批評研究。《教育教學論壇》，（5），60–61。
謝娜（2017）。批評話語分析理論視域下中美政治話語的對比。《宿州學院學報》，32（11），58–61。
熊武政（2008）。馬英九“5.20”就職演說評析。《理論參考》，（6），8–9。
顔瑞宏（2021）。中共建政70周年閱兵活動的官方論述策略。《傳播研究與實踐》，11（1），141–176。
楊紅（2008）。及物性與語篇分析——以語篇“If It Comes Back”為例。《牡丹江師範學院學報（哲學社會科學版）》，（5），94–96。
楊開煌（2016）。對蔡英文“5.20講演”之詮釋與未來兩岸關係之分析。《臺灣研究》，（4），1–9。
曾亞平（2009）。從批評性話語分析角度解讀奧巴馬的總統獲勝講演。《外語與外語教學》，239（2），19–21。
張晉山（2012a）。兩岸政策的話語比較及創新路徑初探：以“一個中國”話語為例。《臺灣研究集刊》，（5），42–48。
張晉山（2012b）。兩岸政治定位話語譜系下的“一國兩區”考辨。《臺灣研究集刊》，（3），32–39。
張晉山、王輝輝、胡燕（2018）。權力的維度：兩岸政治話語的現狀與未來構建。《廣西師範大學學報（哲學社會科學版）》，54（6），67–73。