Home “We should…” versus “We will…”: How do the governments report their work in “One Country Two Systems”? A corpus-driven critical discourse analysis of government work reports in Greater China
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

“We should…” versus “We will…”: How do the governments report their work in “One Country Two Systems”? A corpus-driven critical discourse analysis of government work reports in Greater China

  • Cheng Meng

    Cheng Meng is a doctoral candidate in the Faculty of Humanities at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and is Lecturer in the School of Foreign Language Studies at Zhejiang University Ningbo Institute of Technology. His research interests include corpus linguistics, discourse analysis, and formal semantics. Currently his research focuses on the methodological synergy between corpus linguistics and political discourse analysis.

    and Yao Yu

    Yao Yu is Lecturer in the School of Foreign Language Studies at Zhejiang University Ningbo Institute of Technology. Her MA thesis analyzes pragmatic failure in cross-cultural communication, and her current research interests include intercultural communication, second language acquisition, and pragmatics.

    EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: April 1, 2016

Abstract

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) in conjunction with a corpus-driven analytical methodology has evolved into a powerful qualitative and quantitative tool for deconstructing and studying political discourse. This study utilizes a corpus-driven CDA approach to examine the dynamics of power distance and the ideological stance in the context of Greater China, as conveyed in the 2013 Report on the Work of the Government of Mainland China and the Policy Address in Hong Kong. Concordancing software was used to generate frequency lists, co-selection patterns, and concgrams for detailed analysis. In particular, study examines differences in usage of the first-person plural pronoun we collocated with modal verbs and related lexical items. Concgrams in discourse analysis offer insights into the discursive practice of political actors in this unique political discourse genre. The findings show that the distribution and utilization of first-person plural pronoun we, and its interplay with other modal verbs and lexical items, comprising a specific “concgram,” have provided textual and intertextual evidence for the analytical results of conventional critical discourse analysis. The discussions support that a methodological synergy between corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis can serve as a powerful tool to deconstruct and analyze political discourses.

About the authors

Cheng Meng

Cheng Meng is a doctoral candidate in the Faculty of Humanities at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and is Lecturer in the School of Foreign Language Studies at Zhejiang University Ningbo Institute of Technology. His research interests include corpus linguistics, discourse analysis, and formal semantics. Currently his research focuses on the methodological synergy between corpus linguistics and political discourse analysis.

Yao Yu

Yao Yu is Lecturer in the School of Foreign Language Studies at Zhejiang University Ningbo Institute of Technology. Her MA thesis analyzes pragmatic failure in cross-cultural communication, and her current research interests include intercultural communication, second language acquisition, and pragmatics.

References

Augoustinos, Martha, Brianne Hastie & Monique Wright. 2011. Apologizing for historical injustice: emotion, truth and identity in political discourse. Discourse & Society 22(2). 507–531.10.1177/0957926511405573Search in Google Scholar

Baker, Paul. 2006. Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.10.5040/9781350933996Search in Google Scholar

Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid Khosravinik, Michael Krzyzanowski, Tony Mcenery & Ruth Wodak. 2008. A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society 19(3). 273–306.10.1177/0957926508088962Search in Google Scholar

Bhatia, Aditi. 2006. Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse & Society 17(2). 173–203.10.1177/0957926506058057Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2006. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(2). 97–116.10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001Search in Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. 1979. Pronouns in discourse. In Thomas Givon (ed.), Syntax and semantics, 289–309. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Winnie. 2006. Describing the extended meanings of lexical cohesion in a corpus of SARS spoken discourse. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(3). 325–344.10.1075/bct.17.05cheSearch in Google Scholar

Cheng, Winnie, Chris Greaves, John McHardy Sinclair & Martin Warren. 2009. Uncovering the extent of the phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of concgrams. Applied Linguistics 30(2). 236–252.10.1093/applin/amn039Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Winnie & Phoenix W.Y. Lam. 2010. Media discourses in Hong Kong change in representation of human rights. Text & Talk 30(5). 507–527.10.1515/text.2010.025Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Winnie & Phoenix W.Y. Lam. 2012. Western perceptions of Hong Kong ten years on: A corpus-driven critical discourse study. Applied Linguistics 34. 1–19.10.1093/applin/ams038Search in Google Scholar

Chilton, Paul & Christina Schäffner. 2002. Politics as text and talk: analytic approaches to political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.4Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman, Guiseppina Cortese & Patrizia Ardizzone. 2007. Discourse and contemporary social change. Bern: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-0351-0351-9Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman & Ruth Wodak. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In Teun van Dijk (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. 12. Discourse as social interaction, 258–284. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, Isabela & Norman Fairclough. 2012. Political discourse analysis. Florence, KY: Routledge.10.4324/9780203137888Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 2001. Language and power, 2nd edn. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 2000. New labour, new language?. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Feldman, Ofer & Christ’l de Landtsheer. 1998. Politically speaking: A worldwide examination of language used in the public sphere. Westport, CT: Praeger.Search in Google Scholar

Flowerdew, John. 2004. Identity politics and Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty: analyzing the discourse of Hong Kong’s first chief executive. Journal of Pragmatics 36(9). 1551–1578.10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.002Search in Google Scholar

Flowerdew, Lynne. 2012. Corpus-based discourse analysis. In James Paul Gee & Michael Handford (eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis, 174–187. Abingdon: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Greaves, Chris. 2009. ConcGram 1.0: A phraseological search engine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cls.1Search in Google Scholar

Greaves, Chris & Martin Warren. 2007. Concgramming: A computer driven approach to learning the phraseology of English. ReCALL 19(3). 287–306.10.1017/S0958344007000432Search in Google Scholar

Hoey, Michael. 2005. Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Ilie, Cornelia. 2010. Analytical perspectives on parliamentary and extra-parliamentary discourses. Journal of Pragmatics 42(4). 879–884.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.015Search in Google Scholar

Lee, David Y. W. 2008. Corpora and discourse analysis: New ways of doing old things. In Vijay Bhatia, John Flowerdew & Rodney Jones (eds.), Advances in discourse studies, 86–99. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Leung, Chun-ying. Policy address. http://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/2013/eng/ pdf/PA2013.pdf (accessed 4 May 2013).Search in Google Scholar

Millar, Neil. 2009. Modal verbs in TIME frequency changes 1923–2006. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(2). 191–220.10.1075/ijcl.14.2.03milSearch in Google Scholar

Pang, Jixian. 2013. Discourse and socio-political transformations in contemporary China. Journal of Second Language Writing 22(4). 478–480.10.1016/j.jslw.2013.06.002Search in Google Scholar

Partington, Alan. 2003. The linguistics of political argument: The spin-doctor and the wolf-pack at the White House. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203218259Search in Google Scholar

Proctor, Katarzyna & Lily I. -Wen Su. 2011. The 1st person plural in political discourse – American politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics 43(13). 3251–3266.10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1995. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781444328301Search in Google Scholar

Scott, M. 2009. WordSmith Tools, 2nd edn. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software Ltd.Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John McHardy. 2007. Collocation reviewed (manuscript). Tuscan Word Centre, Italy.Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John McHardy. 1998. The lexical item. In Edda Weigand (ed.), Contrastive lexical semantics, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.171.02sinSearch in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John McHardy. 2004. Trust the text: language, corpus and discourse. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203594070Search in Google Scholar

Tabakowska, Elzbieta. 2002. The regime of the other: ‘us’ and ‘them’ in translation. In Anna Duszak (ed.), Us and others: Social identities across languages discourses and cultures, 449–462. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/pbns.98.27tabSearch in Google Scholar

Titscher, Stefan, Michael Meyer, Ruth Wodak & Eva Vetter. 2000. Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar

Van Dijk, Teun A. 1997. What is political discourse analysis? In Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Political linguistics, 11–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/bjl.11.03dijSearch in Google Scholar

Wen, Jiabao. Report on the work of the government. http://online.wsj.com/public/ resources/documents/WenWorkReport_Eng_2013.pdf (accessed May 4, 2013).Search in Google Scholar

Widdowson, Henry. 2004. Text, context, pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470758427Search in Google Scholar

Widdowson, Henry. 1995. Discourse analysis: A critical view. Language and Literature 4(3). 157–172.10.1177/096394709500400301Search in Google Scholar

Wodak, Ruth. 1989. Language, power, and ideology: Studies in political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ct.7Search in Google Scholar

You, Zeshun, Jianping Chen & Hong Zhong. 2012. Discursive construction of Chinese foreign policy: A diachronic analysis of the Chinese government’s annual work report to the NPC. In Paul Chilton, Hailong Tian & Ruth Wodak (eds.), Discourse and socio-political transformations in contemporary China, 105–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.42.07youSearch in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-4-1
Published in Print: 2016-3-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Downloaded on 27.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/text-2016-0008/html
Scroll to top button