白宫发言人叙利亚战争合法化建构的话语A Study on the Discourse Strategy of White House Spokesperson’s Legitimation of the Syrian War文献综述

 2021-11-04 20:59:20

毕业论文课题相关文献综述

Legitimation, as one of the most important and extensively discussed topics in politics , is always used when power tries to manipulate the peoples ideology through language. Critical discourse analysis (CAD) originated from "critical linguistics" in the 1970s. It aims to reveal the relationship between language, power, and ideology, and explore how power uses language to persuade listeners to believe and accept their ideology. When power tries to manipulate the minds of the public, language is an important tool to achieve this.War legitimation means that the construction of a disputed war is a fair, reasonable and widely supported legitimation. Van Dijk proposed that critical discourse analysis reveals a wealth of rich discourse in the discourse of war. The Syrian war has undoubtedly caused great concern. The Syrian government's struggle for the right to use a large number of biological and chemical weapons has injured more than 1,000 innocent citizens and caused strong condemnation by the international community. So the US take action against Syria.Specifically, This thesis is based on van Leeuwens legitimation strategies, and aims to study the White House spokesperson's speech on the Syrian war and find out how the United States cleverly uses these strategies to construct the legitimation of participating in the war.1.Literature review1.1 Definition of legitmationLegitimation was one of the most important and widespread issues in the field of political science. Weber (1947) considered Legitimation to be an obedience to the political order and a process by which the authority system attempted to cultivate its citizens' recognition of their governing rights. However, van Dijk (1998) proposed a different perspective for research, and he believed that legitimation research should enhance dialogue research. In his discourse theory system, he used the discourse analysis framework to define legitimation as a right of discourse and to defend his actions through language. Oddo (2001) further defined legitimation as a discourse that can explained and justified social activities. But the above definitions are macro-level, and van Leeuwen (2008) then made a clear definition, that is, the answer to the question "why", "why should we do this" or "why should we do this in this way?" and proposed four specific legitimation strategies, namely authorization, moral evaluation, rationalization and mythopoesis, According to previous research on legitimation (weber 1947, van Dijk 1998, van Leeuwen 2008), more scholars gave the definition of legitimation . Mackay (2015) believed that legitimation was a process in which one person, group or political institution exercised power over others, which required a detailed discourse structure to analyze. Liang (2016) believed that legalization was a national act consistent with international law and axioms.1.2 van Leeuwens legitimation strategiesUnlike previous research on legitimation , van Leeuwen (2008) gave a specific definition of legitimation , which can answer Why should we do this? or Why should we do this in this way? From the perspective of critical discourse analysis , the study of legitimation has been further deepened. van Leeuwen (2008) divided legitimation into four parts,namely Authorization, Moral evaluation, Rationalization and Mythopoesis.1.2.1 AuthorizationAuthorization consists of four parts, namely conformity, tradition, personal and impersonal. Conformity means that when asked why I do it, I can answer it, because everyone does it, so I do it, and my approach is uncontroversial. Tradition means that my approach has always been that of everyone, and my approach has a certain inheritance, so my behavior was completely legal. I am a representative of authority. Even though my approach is subjective personal behavior, my approach is also influential, such as the speeches of heads of state and authoritative persons in various fields. Impersonal often means that my actions are in compliance with laws and conventions, therefore have legitimation.1.2.2 Moral evaluationMoral evaluation is not simply to impose subjective will on others based on some authority, but to evaluate whether a certain practice is ethical, usually using the words "good" and "bad" to determine whether the behavior is legitimate. It uses evaluation、abstraction and comparisons to assess whether a behavior is legitimate. When it is mentioned whether an action has legitimation, it can be evaluated by direct words, such as "good" and "bad", "justice and "evil ". Sometimes the wording of a discourse is not such a direct word , but some obscure words. For example, "level" and "normal". Comparison is evaluated by comparing two behaviors. The comparison result may be negative or positive, but the ultimate purpose is to give behavior Legitimation.1.2.3 RationalizationRationalization mainly reflects the inherent logic of things and the natural development of things outside. It is mainly divided into goal orientation, means orientation, effect orientation, definition, explanation and prediction. Goal orientation emphasizes the purpose of the person to do this, means orientation emphasizes the means by which things are done, and effect orientation emphasizes the final results of things. Definition, explanation and prediction refer to the natural order of things for legitimation.1.2.4 MythopoesisMythopoesis are legalized primarily through moral and cautionary stories. Moral stories show positive results, which are rewarded for meeting or re-compliance with social norms. The cautionary story is that it does not meet social norms and brings bad results and even devastating blows.1.3 Overview of previous studiesvan Leeuwen's method of socio-semiotic analysis has made important research on legitimation strategies. van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999) used a systematic functional grammar to study how Austrian officials have subtly rationalized their use of immigration rejection. Peled-Elhanan (2010) used critical discourse analysis, social semiotics, etc. to study the legitimation of Israel's historical books on massacres. Later, scholars conducted further research on legitimation and began to explore how to build the identity of different forces to achieve the goal of legalization. Oddo (2011) explored the construction of us and them identities and legalized intertextual analysis. In recent years, war has become a focus of critical discourse analysis and legitimation research. Pang (2013) studied the discourse of the Bush-Iraq war within the framework of critical theory and explored how Bush re-established the legitimation of the war after the war. Khosravi Nik (2014) examined the discourse strategies used in the Iranian nuclear program represented by Iran's influential daily Kayhan and explained how to treat newspaper texts in Iran's socio-political context. Lin (2016) analyzed the distribution, implementation and operation mechanism of legal discourse strategy in the US President's Afghanistan war. Shao (2019) focused on the use of legitimation strategies and the construction of team members in North Korea-related White House nuclear news.1.4 Research gapThere have been many previous studies on legitimation, but most of them started from the concept of "legitimation". Although it has deepened people's understanding of the concept of legitimation, there is no in-depth study of the theoretical framework of legitimation. So it is difficult to have a specific image of legitimation. In addition, on the subject of research on legitimation, the Syrian war was originally an internal turmoil in Syria. The United States participated in the war in the Middle East with so-called "humanitarian" relief. This is not only reminiscent of the turmoil that erupted in Hong Kong some time ago, but also instigated by some so-called "unknown Americans", which shows that the essence of the United States is the same. Therefore, this article has some cautionary significance for China, and it is worth studying. This article uses the classic theory proposed by van Leeuwen (2008) as the analytical framework, focusing on the language characteristics of the legitimation strategy, and exploring how the United States fabricated a so-called legitimate excuse for its participation in the Syrian war.ReferencesFairclough, I. N. Fairclough. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis : A Method for Advanced Students[M]. Ox-on:Routledge.Khosravi Nik, M. (2014).Macro and micro legitimation in discourse on Irans nuclear programme: the case of Iranian national newspaper [J]. Discourse Society, (1), 52-73.Mackay, R. (2015). Multimodal legitimation: selling Scottish independence [J]. Discourse Society ，(3), 287-314.Martin-Rojo, L. T . van Dijk. (1997). There was a problem, and it was solved! : Legitmating the expulsion of illegal migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse[J] . Discourse and Society , (4), 523-566.Oddo, J. (2011). War legitimation discourse: Representing Us and Them in four US presidential addresses. Discourse Society, 22(3), 287-314.Peled-Elhanan, N. (2010). Legitimation of massacres in Israeli school history books［J］. Discourse and Society, (4), 377-404．van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: SAGE.van Dijk, T. A. (2005). War rhetoric of a little ally: Political implicatures and Aznar's legitimatization of the war in Iraq. Journal of language and politics, (4), 65-91.van Dijk, T.A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse Society, 17(3), 359-383.van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse Communication, 1(1),91-112.van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: OUP.van Leeuwen, T. Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical perspective. Discourse Studies,（1),83118.Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization [M]. New York : Oxford University Press.Wodak, R. 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》（5）：18-23。

梁晓波，曾广，谭桔玲 (2016)，军事话语国内外研究概,《解放军外国语学院学报》 ，（6）：36-44。

林予婷、苗兴伟（2016），战争合法化的话语策略美国总统阿富汗战争演讲的批评话语分析，《外语与外语教学》，（5）：59-68。

梅风娟（2018），叙利亚危机以来美国的叙利亚政策研究，硕士学位论文。

上海：上海外国语大学。

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。

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