Alignment, ‘politeness’ and implicitness in Chinese political discourse
A case study of the 2018 vaccine scandal
Dániel Z. Kádár | Dalian University of Foreign Languages | Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Sen Zhang | Dalian University of Foreign Languages
This paper aims to examine the ways in which official Chinese written monologues implicitly trigger alignment with the public in the wake of national social crises. Our understanding of alignment encompasses the attitude of creating an authoritative line of discourse, which in turn triggers the responsive alignment of the receivers with the decision makers. We believe that alignment is a fundamental concept to understand how linguistic politeness operates in political monologues such as gong’gao. Such texts are rich in forms of deference such as honorifics and other ritual phrases used towards Chinese politicians. The reason why such forms of politeness deserve special attention in language and politics is that they are not interpersonal, and their use correlates with implicit communication.
2007 “Cross-cultural pragmatic analysis of evasion strategy at Chinese and American regular press conferences – with special reference to the North Korean nuclear issue.” Caligrama (São Paulo. Online) 3(2).
2009 “Where cooperation meets politeness: Revisiting politeness models in view of the Gricean framework.” Brno Studies in English 35(1): 23–43.
2001A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome.
1999 “Face in cross-cultural political discourse.” Text 19(1): 3–23.
1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press.
1990 “Politeness phenomenon in modern Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics 141: 237–257.
1991 “Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews.” In Broadcast Talk, ed. by Peter Scannell, 76–79. London: Sage.
Harris, Sandra, Karen Grainger, and Louise Mullany
2006 “The pragmatics of political apologies.” Discourse & Society 17(6): 717–736.
2017Politeness strategies in foreign students’ written requests. MA dissertation retrieved from: [URL]
2005 “The production and perception of implicit performatives.” Journal of pragmatics 37(12): 2024–2043.
2006 “Cross-cultural pragmatic differences in US and Chinese press conferences: The case of the North Korea Nuclear crisis.” Discourse & Society 17(2): 237–257.
2017bPoliteness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Sen Zhang
2019 forthcoming. “(Im)politeness and alignment: A case study of public political monologues.” Acta Linguistica Academica 66(2).
2005 “Urban administrative restructuring, changing scale relations and local economic development in China.” Political Geography 24(4): 477–497.
1994 “Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed.” Journal of Pragmatics 211: 451–486.
1997 “Language and politics: Indirectness in political discourse.” Discourse & Society 8(1): 49–83.
Pan, Yuling, and Dániel Z. Kádár
2011Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese. London: Bloomsbury.
1964 “Ritual, language, power: An essay on the apparent political meanings of ancient Chinese philosophy.” Political Sciences 16(1): 3–31.
Roche, Jennifer, Rick Dale, and Gina Caucci
2010 “Doubling up on double meaning: Pragmatic alignment.” Language and Cognitive Processes 27(1): 1–24.
ed.2000Culturally Speaking. London: Continuum.
2005 “(Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 95–119.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, and Vladimir Žegerac
2017 “Power, solidarity and (im)politeness.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness, ed. by Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 119–141. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Sun, Yuhua, Wenzhao Peng, and Hong Liu
2015 “ ‘Yuyan de zhengzhi vs. zhengzhi de yuyan’ – zhengzhi yuyanxue de lilun yu fangfa (‘The politics of language vs. the language of politics’: The theory and practice of political linguistics).” Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 2801: 1–7.
2017 “Facework and (im)politeness in political exchanges.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness, ed. by Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 739–757. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
2017 “Iconicity and viewpoint: Antonym order in Chinese four-character patterns.” Language Sciences 591: 117–134.
1997 “Mass media and transnational subjectivity in Shanghai: Notes on (re)cosmopolitanism in a Chinese metropolis”. In Ungrounded Empires: The Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese Transnationalism, ed. by Aihwa Ong, and Donald Nonini, 287–321. New York: Routledge.
2004 “Explicitness for requests is a politer strategy than implicitness in Korean.” Discourse and Cognition 11(1): 173–194.
2022. Hedging in interpreted and spontaneous speeches: a comparative study of Chinese and American political press briefings. Text & Talk 42:2 ► pp. 153 ff.
Kádár, Dániel Z., Fengguang Liu & Juliane House
2020. (Im)Politeness and Chinese political discourse – An introduction. Discourse, Context & Media 35 ► pp. 100384 ff.
Kádár, Dániel Z., Fengguang Liu, Juliane House & Wenrui Shi
2020. Reporting ritual political advice in the Chinese state media: A study of the National People’s Congress. Discourse, Context & Media 35 ► pp. 100388 ff.
Mao, Yansheng & Xin Zhao
2020. A discursive approach to disagreements expressed by Chinese spokespersons during press conferences. Discourse, Context & Media 37 ► pp. 100428 ff.
2020. Book Review. Discourse, Context & Media 35 ► pp. 100385 ff.
2020. Moral stance taking as a device of covert aggression in Chinese political language use. Discourse, Context & Media 36 ► pp. 100415 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.