The construction of relational frame model in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s foreign visit speeches
-
Le Cheng
Le Cheng, Wei Shaoxiang Chair Professor, is a concurrent professor of legal discourse and translation, and professor of law at Zhejiang University. He also serves as the Director of Institute of Cross-cultural and Regional Studies, of Center for Legal Discourse and Translation, and of Center for Contemporary Chinese Studies at Zhejiang University. He is Editor-in-Chief of
International Journal of Legal Discourse (De Gruyter), and Editor ofInternational Journal for the Semiotics of Law (Springer). His research interests and publications are in the areas of discourse studies, semiotics, terminology and legal translation. Address for correspondence: School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China. Email: chengle163@hotmail.com
and
Cheng Chen
Cheng Chen is a PhD candidate in Zhejiang University. Her research lies in political discourse analysis and corpus-based analysis. She is the leader of Zhejiang Provincial Social Science Planning Project and Hangzhou Municipal Social Science Planning Project on political discourse and diplomatic discourse research. Address for correspondence: School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China. Email: chencheng_shania@163.com
Abstract
This study analyzes the relational frames constructed in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s foreign visit speeches at three levels – the metaphorical surface frame; the non-metaphorical surface frame; and the deep frame – with the help of corpus-based mechanisms, e.g. semantic annotation and classification, semantic network retrieval, etc. In analyzing 11 foreign visit speeches between 2012 and 2017 (amounting to 20,213 words), the study reports three major findings. First, the metaphorical relational surface frames were constructed by intimate interpersonal concepts, war concepts and physical concepts, which are commonly shared by human beings. Second, the non-metaphorical relational surface frames were constructed by highlighting audiences’ beneficiary positions. Third, the deep frames were constructed by underscoring common benefits, cultural communication, people to people communication and the concerns about war and peace. The relational frames identified are compared with the cognition of the international audiences and it shows that the two conform significantly, which improves the acceptability of the speeches. Three strategies can be summarized for diplomatic speech design. First, the presentations based on universally shared experiences and knowledge can minimize perceptive difficulties in audiences. Second, presentations highlighting the audiences’ benefits are more easily accepted. Third, the cognition conceived in the presentations should conform to the audiences’ needs and preferences. The general communication features of Xi’s foreign visit speeches illustrated in the present study may offer a discourse model for diplomatic speeches.
About the authors
Le Cheng, Wei Shaoxiang Chair Professor, is a concurrent professor of legal discourse and translation, and professor of law at Zhejiang University. He also serves as the Director of Institute of Cross-cultural and Regional Studies, of Center for Legal Discourse and Translation, and of Center for Contemporary Chinese Studies at Zhejiang University. He is Editor-in-Chief of International Journal of Legal Discourse (De Gruyter), and Editor of International Journal for the Semiotics of Law (Springer). His research interests and publications are in the areas of discourse studies, semiotics, terminology and legal translation. Address for correspondence: School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China. Email: chengle163@hotmail.com
Cheng Chen is a PhD candidate in Zhejiang University. Her research lies in political discourse analysis and corpus-based analysis. She is the leader of Zhejiang Provincial Social Science Planning Project and Hangzhou Municipal Social Science Planning Project on political discourse and diplomatic discourse research. Address for correspondence: School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China. Email: chencheng_shania@163.com
Acknowledgements
This research was supported through funding of the 2015 Project of Zhejiang Provincial Social Science Planning Office (No. 15NDJC157YB).
References
Anderson, Jennifer, Yi Zhu, Jie Zhuang, Joshua C. Nelson, Mary I. Bresnahan & Xiaodi Yan. 2017. Metaphors that communicate weight-based stigma in political news: A case study of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. European Review of Applied Psychology 67(3). 139–146.10.1016/j.erap.2016.12.007Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid Khosravinik, Michal Krzyżanowski, 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. 273–306.10.1177/0957926508088962Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar
Cengage Learning. 2014. Collins cobuild advanced dictionary. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Search in Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2005. Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230501706Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le. 2010. A semiotic interpretation of genre: Judgments as an example. Semiotica 2010(182). 89–113.10.1515/semi.2010.053Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le, Winnie Cheng & Li. Jian. 2016. Defamation case law in Hong Kong: A corpus-based study. Semiotica 2016(208). 203–222.10.1515/sem-2015-0114Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le & King Kui Sin. 2008. Terminological equivalence in legal translation: A semiotic approach. Semiotica 2008(172). 33–45.10.1515/SEMI.2008.088Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le, King Kui Sin & Winnie Cheng. 2014. Legal translation: A sociosemiotic approach. Semiotica 2014(201). 17–33.10.1515/sem-2014-0019Search in Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas, Srikant Sarangi & Christopher N. Candlin. 2001. Sociolinguistics and social theory. London: Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd.Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1995 Media discourse. New York: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.). Linguistics in the morning calm, Soeul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, David. 2016. Isolate or engage: Adversarial states, US foreign policy and public diplomacy. In Geoffrey Wiseman (ed.), International affairs, Vol. 92(3). 760–762. London: Oxford University Press.10.1111/1468-2346.12641Search in Google Scholar
Gärtner, Christian & Günther Ortmann. 2016. Recursiveness: Relations between bodies, metaphors, organizations and institutions. In Elke Weik & Peter Walgenbach (eds.), Institutions Inc, 94–123. Switzerland: Springer Nature.10.1057/9781137481498_5Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2011. Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse & Processes 48(8). 529–562.10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interactional ritual: Essays on face to face behaviour. New York: Doubleday and Company.Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1986. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Search in Google Scholar
He, Mengyi. 2011. Cognition and interpretation of the relation between conceptual metaphors and politics. Foreign Language and Literature 3. 48–52.Search in Google Scholar
Krenn, Michael L. 2017. The history of United States cultural diplomacy:1770 to the present day. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2004. Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. Hartford: Chelsea Green Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2006. Whose freedom? The battle over America’s most important idea. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2008a. The political mind: Why you can’t understand twenty-first century politics with an eighteenth century brain. New York: Viking Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2008b. The neural theory of metaphor. In R.W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 17–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.003Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Book.Search in Google Scholar
Liao, Meizhen. 2009. Metaphor as a textual strategy in English. Text & Talk 19(2). 227–252.10.1515/text.1.1999.19.2.227Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Lihua & Shuo Xu. 2016. Case study of President Xi Jinping’s “one belt, one road” discourses. Journal of Beijing International Studies University 3. 19–30.Search in Google Scholar
McArthur, Tom. 1981. Longman lexicon of contemporary English. Hong Kong: Longman Group Ltd.Search in Google Scholar
Mikolov, Tomas, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado & Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. Computer Science 10. 1–12.Search in Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2016. Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. New York: Continuum Publishing Corporation.Search in Google Scholar
Neagu, Maria-lonela. 2013. Decoding political discourse: Conceptual metaphors and argumentation. Switzerland: Springer. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/978113730990710.1057/9781137309907Search in Google Scholar
Ouyang, Xi. 2018. Legal cooperation in “one belt, one road”. Seeker 1(6). 47–55.10.1007/978-3-319-75435-2_4Search in Google Scholar
Peters, Micheal A. 2017. Metaphor. In Micheal A. Peters (ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory, 39–67. Singapore: Springer.10.1007/978-981-287-588-4Search in Google Scholar
Piata, Anna. 2016. When metaphor becomes a joke: Metaphor journeys from political ads to internet memes. Journal of Pragmatics 106. 39–56.10.1016/j.pragma.2016.10.003Search in Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1). 1–39.10.1080/10926480709336752Search in Google Scholar
Rayson, Paul. 2008. From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4). 519–549.10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06raySearch in Google Scholar
Rayson, Paul, Dawn Archer, Scott Piao & McEnery Tony. 2004. The UCREL semantic analysis system. In proceedings of the workshop on Beyond Named Entity Recognition Semantic labelling for NLP tasks in association with 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004), 7–12. Portugal: Lisbon.Search in Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant & Malcolm Coulthard. 2017. Discourse and social life. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant & Stefan Slembrouck. 2014. Language, bureaucracy and social control. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315844978Search in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Gries. 2006. Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199895Search in Google Scholar
Tay, Dennis. 2018. Metaphors of movement in psychotherapy talk. Journal of Pragmatics 125. 1–12.10.1016/j.pragma.2017.12.009Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Tianqi & Xiaoshu Cao. 2018. Soft power construction of “one belt, one road”. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 1. 49–54.Search in Google Scholar
Wu, Di & Aimei Yang. 2017. China’s public diplomatic networks on the Ebola issue in West Africa: Issues management in a network society. Public Relations Review 43(2). 345–357.10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.013Search in Google Scholar
Yu, Ning. 2009. From body to meaning in culture. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.10.1075/z.149Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Hui & Weichao Di. 2016. Making intelligence more transparent: A critical cognitive analysis of US strategic analysis reports on Sino-US relation. Foreign Languages 15(1). 63–93.10.1075/jlp.15.1.04zhaSearch in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Editorial
- Articles
- The construction of relational frame model in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s foreign visit speeches
- “The helm is lost!”: Reframing psychological matters in non-routine technologically mediated interaction in a maritime context
- An earthquake or a category 4 financial storm? A corpus study of disaster metaphors in the media framing of the 2008 financial crisis
- ‘Showing one’s card’: Negotiating disclosure through game play in juvenile probation
- Legitimation strategies and theistic worldview in sociopolitical discourse: A systemic functional critical discourse analysis of Pakistani social media discussions
- Genre shifts in Israeli campaign advertisements: Strategies and rhetorical functions
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Editorial
- Articles
- The construction of relational frame model in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s foreign visit speeches
- “The helm is lost!”: Reframing psychological matters in non-routine technologically mediated interaction in a maritime context
- An earthquake or a category 4 financial storm? A corpus study of disaster metaphors in the media framing of the 2008 financial crisis
- ‘Showing one’s card’: Negotiating disclosure through game play in juvenile probation
- Legitimation strategies and theistic worldview in sociopolitical discourse: A systemic functional critical discourse analysis of Pakistani social media discussions
- Genre shifts in Israeli campaign advertisements: Strategies and rhetorical functions
