新旧人教版高中英语教材生态话语对比研究

A Comparative Study of Ecological Discourse in the Old and New Editions of PEP Senior High School English Textbooks

摘要: 在全球生态危机加剧、我国生态文明建设成为国家战略的背景下，英语教材承担着培养学生生态世界观的重要使命。本研究以“多元和谐，交互共生”为生态哲学观，基于何伟对及物性、态度、主位系统的生态化扩展，对2007版和2019版人教版高中英语教材中“人与自然”主题文本进行对比生态话语分析。研究发现：两版教材“人与自然”语篇占比仅约21%。2019版教材的生态有益性话语比例从58.5%升至68.9%，其中高度有益性话语从13.9%升至22.3%。及物性上，2007版多将自然现象和普通个体作为动作发出者，2019版则更多赋予国家机构与技术主体施事地位，自然由此被建构为被治理的客体；态度上，2007版侧重学生对自然的情感反应与个人道德判断，2019版则更强调对社会治理效能的肯定；主位上，2007版常以自然或个体为话语起点，2019版则更倾向于以国家行为体及其成果为话语起点。总体而言，2019版教材生态话语与国家生态文明战略趋势一致。然而，基于文本分析推测，这一转向在强化制度自信的同时，也可能存在将复杂生态议题技术化、进而压缩学生批判反思空间的风险。

Abstract: Against the backdrop of intensifying global ecological crises and the elevation of ecological civilization as a national strategy in China, English textbooks bear the important mission of cultivating students’ ecological worldview. Guided by the ecosophy of “Diversity and Harmony, Interaction and Co-existence,” and based on He Wei’s ecological extensions of the transitivity, attitude, and theme systems, this study conducts a comparative ecological discourse analysis of the “Man and Nature” themed texts in the 2007 and 2019 editions of PEP senior high school English textbooks. The findings reveal that “Man and Nature” texts account for only about 21% in both editions. The proportion of Eco-beneficial discourse in the 2019 edition increased from 58.5% to 68.9%, with Strong Beneficial discourse rising from 13.9% to 22.3%. In terms of transitivity, the 2007 edition tends to construct natural phenomena and ordinary individuals as Agents, whereas the 2019 edition more frequently assigns Agency to state institutions and technological actors, positioning nature as an object to be governed. In terms of attitude, the 2007 edition emphasizes students’ emotional responses to nature and personal moral judgments, while the 2019 edition places greater emphasis on affirming social governance efficacy. In terms of theme, the 2007 edition often takes nature or individuals as the point of departure, whereas the 2019 edition prefers to foreground state actors and their achievements as thematic starting points. Overall, the ecological discourse in the 2019 edition tends to align with China’s national strategy for ecological civilization. However, based on textual analysis, it is speculated that while this shift reinforces institutional confidence, it may also carry the risk of technologizing complex ecological issues and thereby potentially narrowing students’ space for critical reflection.