《华尔街日报》中美贸易摩擦话语合法化策略研究Legitimation Strategies of Sino-U.S. Trade Friction Discourse in the Wall Street Journal文献综述

 2021-10-22 21:44:11

毕业论文课题相关文献综述

In todays era, the mass media has the fastest speed and the widest coverage, which can affect the publics cognition and attitude to trade frictions to a great extent. In the Sino-U.S. trade frictions, both countries have used newspapers, TV, radio, Internet and other mass media to comment on the causes, nature, development and positions of both sides. The Wall Street Journal, founded in 1889, has become the largest paid circulation financial newspaper in the United States with more than 2 million circulation. The analysis of the Wall Street Journal's news reports on Sino-U.S. trade frictions can help people better understand the attitude of the mainstream media towards Sino-U.S. trade frictions.When it comes to critical discourse analysis, legitmation has always been an important research topic. The critical discourse analysis of legitimation is helpful for us to investigate the ideology hidden in the discourse, and reveal how the speaker skillfully uses the discourse strategy to give the unfair and immoral things legitimate status ( Fairclough ＆Fairclough，2012). Therefore, based on van Leeuwens (2008) legitimation strategies, this paper aims to determine legitimation strategies of discourse in the Wall Street Journals news reports on Sino-U.S. trade frictions, and to explore how the speakers can skillfully use the legitimation strategies to express their views. In addition, based on van Dijks legitimation theory (2005), this study aims to reveal the Wall Street Journals depiction of the image of China and the United States, in particular, Chinese image is positive or negative.1.Literature Review This chapter mainly reviews previous research on legitimation. First, it gives the definitions of legitimacy and legitimation. In addition, the relation and distinctive features between legitimacy and legitimation is introduced. Second, this chapter presents different discursive legitimation strategies put forward by different scholars. Third, it introduces the theoretical frameworks of this thesis, van Leeuvans (2008) legitimation strategies. Four categories of discursive legitimation strategies are introduced. Fourth, it reviews relevant studies on legitimation and Sino-U.S. trade frictions. Finally, it points out the research gap. 1.1Definitions of legitimation When it comes to legitimation, legitimacy is often involved because of the close relation between the two. This section introduces legitimacy in the first stage so that legitimation can be better understood.1.1.1 Legitimacy and legitimationLegitimacy has been concerned by researchers for a long time. The earliest research can be traced back to Webers (1947) sociological analysis of legitimacy. It is believed to be related to the concepts of authority, power and ideology (e.g. Giddens, 1984; Habermas, 1975). The concept of legitimacy itself has many research perspectives. Suchman (1995:574) defined legitimacy as the behavior of an entity is considered proper, suitable and needed by people in a system constructed by rules, values, beliefs and definitions. In short, legitimacy usually refers to the government or a system, which has the right and proper reason to implement the power.Legitimation is the a generalized perception on the appropriateness of social phenomena in a social construction system (Suchman:1995), which involves a process through which an entity is evaluated as a natural assumption (Zucker:1977).Rivivoi (2008:1) pointed out that the emergence of legitimacy is a process of determining the extent to which leaders, organizations, groups or governments are regarded by their members as reasonably obtaining and using their power. In a word, legitimation is the practice of using discourse strategy to entrust things with legitimacy.1.1.2 Differences between legitimacy and legitimationLegitimation is different from legitimacy. It is a dynamic process, a process of obtaining legitimacy and improving the level of legitimacy. Internally, it is a process of seeking consensus and generating legitimacy. Externally, it is a process of obtaining and maintaining the legitimacy of actors in the international community. The process of legitimation is full of competition and coordination among different norms, and the legitimacy itself will be constantly adjusted and changed in the evolution of the international community. The object of legitimation can be either a specific power position or a specific behavior. The former emphasizes the process in which the actor has the legitimacy of a particular status, while the latter emphasizes the process in which the actor makes a particular act have the legitimacy. Generally speaking, the object of legitimation is connected with each other, that is, it is difficult to separate specific status and specific behavior.1.2Theoretical frameworks This part introduces two theoretical bases. One is van Leeuwens (2008) discursive legitimation strategies and the other is van Dijks (1998, 2005) legitimation theory. It elaborates on the four major discursive legitimation strategies and the usual properties of presenting positive self-image and negative other-image. 1.2.1 van Leeuwens legitimation strategiesAccording to van Leeuwen (2008), language is the core means to achieve legitimation, and any angle of legitimation can be achieved through specific language resources and forms. Based on this, he divides the legitimation discourse strategies into four categories: authorization strategy, moralization strategy, rationalization strategy, and mythopoesis strategy. Each kind of strategy includes several specific means. Table 2.2 Categories and means of legitimation strategies (van Leeuwen, 2008)legitimation strategies specific meansauthorization custom authority recommendationmoralization evaluation abstraction comparisonrationalization instrumental rationalization theoretical rationalizationmythopoesis moral tale cautionary tale1.2.2 van Dijks legitimation theoryVan Dijk (1998) believed that the legitimation strategy is a social political behavior, which defends the criticized behavior by using reasonable reasons and acceptable motives. He put forward the well-known global semantic strategies of positive self-image of Us and negative other-image of Them. By referring to the good images of Us and bad images of Them, legitimation of our actions is gradually constructed , on the contrary, their actions are delegitimized. Van Dijk (2005) made a further research regarding two different memberships, positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation to reveal how leaders manage the legitimation of controversial policies. By presenting the good image of our group and bad image of other group, our group, therefore, has the right to do some actions to prevent other group from wrong behaviors.1.3 Overview of previous studies The definition of legitimation varies with different academic fields. Mackay(2015) studies political discourse and believes that legitimation is a process in which a person, group or political institution exercises power over others. Most of the legitimation behaviors are textual and need detailed discourse analysis. It is limited to talk about legitimation without considering the characteristics of language, discourse, communication or interaction. Liang Xiaobo et al.(2016) believed that legitimation means making trouble under a certain pretext, being reasonable, and conforming to international law and axiom from the perspective of military discourse. Van Leeuwen (2007) from the perspective of discourse and communication, the final answer to legitimation is the question why?, why do we do this, Why do we do it in this way? To answer these questions, we need to pay attention to the argumentation structure. The process of legitimation is essentially a argumentation process. In general, the purpose of legitimation is to persuade the audience that an action or view is reasonable, acceptable and recognized.1.4 Research gap Although previous research has made great progress in legitimation, there are still some issues to be settled. The following part reports research gap of this thesis.The study of legitimation critical discourse mainly focuses on controversial social issues, such as immigration, war, business competition, etc. The existing studies of legitimation mostly adopt the perspective of Discourse-Historical Approach advocated by the Vienna School of critical discourse analysis (see Wodak Meyer, 2009), focusing on the social, cultural and political context of legitimized speech acts, and paying less attention to the linguistic characteristics of legitimation discourse strategies, such as Discourse-Historical Approach analysis of legitimation strategies of van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999), Zhu and Mckennal (2012). In addition, most of the studies focus on the legitimation of war and immigration. For example, Martin-Rojo (1995), in his critical analysis of the Gulf war discourse, summed up the discourse strategies of us and them of media legalization; van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999) used Systemic Functional Grammar to examine the legitimation discourse strategies used by Austrian government officials in the immigration refusal letters. Finally, Most of the studies focus on text cases, and the corpus used is relatively limited.ReferencesOddo, J. (2011). War legitimation discourse: Representing us and them in four US presidential addresses. Discourse ckstrm, A., Ahmadi, N. (2019). From fighting the bad to protecting the good: Legitimation strategies in WADAs athlete guides. Performance Enhancement rn, M. (2019). The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: Introduction and framework. The Review of International Organizations, Vol.14 (4), 581-606.Vaara, E. (2014). Struggles over legitimacy in the Eurozone crisis: Discursive legitimation strategies and their ideological underpinnings. Discourse society, 25 (4), 500-518.Vaara, E. Tienari, J. (2002). Justification, legitimization and naturalization of mergers and acquisitions: A critical discourse analysis of media texts. Organization, 9 (2), 275-304.Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Laurila, J. (2006). Pulp and paper fiction: On the discursive legitimation of global industrial restructuring. Organization studies, 27(6), 789-810.Van, D.T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and society, 2, 249-283.Van, D.T., (2005). War rhetoric of a little ally: Political implicatures and Aznars legitimatization of the war in Iraq. Journal of language and politics, (4), 65-91.Van, L.T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Van, L.T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse and communication, 1, 91-112.Van, L.T., The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Free Press.Zhu, Y., 以《国别反恐报告》为例，《外国语言与文化》，1（2）：147-156。

贺之杲（2016），欧盟的合法性及其合法化策略，《世界经济与政治》，2：89-103，158-159。

胡元江（2019），中美政府年度工作报告词族搭配特征的政治语言学研究以develop为例，《外语研究》，5：14-19。

胡元江、陈晓雨（2018），基于语料库的美国总统演讲语篇外壳名词研究以特朗普就职前后演讲为例，《外国语文》，4：81-86。

胡元江，钱露（2019），趋同论视角下政治语篇的合法化研究以白宫发言人涉朝话语为例，《外语学刊》，210（5）：18-23。

李占芳、彭梦莹（2019），美国主流新闻媒体对中美贸易战中双方形象的刻画以《华盛顿邮报》为例，《华北电力大学学报( 社会科学版)》，5：107-114。

庞超伟（2013），伊拉克战争合法性的话语重建一项基于布什伊战演讲语料库的评价研究，《外语研究》，4：41-48。

邵明月（2019），新闻话语的合法化建构，硕士学位论文。

南京：南京工业大学。

武建国、牛振俊（2018），趋近化理论视域下的政治话语合法化分析以特朗普的移民政策为例，《中国外语》，15(6)：48-53。

剩余内容已隐藏，您需要先支付 10元 才能查看该篇文章全部内容！立即支付

以上是毕业论文文献综述，课题毕业论文、任务书、外文翻译、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。

您可能感兴趣的文章