Cover not available
Article published In:
Discourse and Socio-Political Transformations in Contemporary China
Edited by Paul Chilton, Hailong Tian and Ruth Wodak
[Journal of Language and Politics 9:4] 2010
► pp. 593–614

Discursive construction of Chinese foreign policy

A diachronic analysis of the Chinese government’s Annual Work Report to the NPC

| Fujian Normal University and Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
The article carries out a diachronic analysis of the topics and schemata of foreign policy sections (FPSs) in the Chinese government’s Annual Work Report (AWR, 1993–2007) to the National People’s Congress (NPC). The analysis shows that: (1) all the reports are constructed with similar topics and schemata decided by the general rules set in the FPS of the report in 1986, which work as “orders of discourse”; (2) topical selection and schematic structure, as two sides of a mental model for the production and understanding of the discourse, are ideological mechanisms for the government to manipulate power control over policy construction and implementation; (3) the discourse is actually the final product of the struggle and interaction between new discourse and “orders of discourse”; (4) the discourse is a reflection of social changes and works as a catalyst to shape people’s view toward social reality and to mold China’s foreign policy practice.
Keywords: CDA, foreign policy, diachronic analysis, Annual Work Report, discursive strategies
Published online: 7 January 2011
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.9.4.07you
References (42)
References
Berkenkotter, Carol. & Huckin, Thomas N. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul (ed.). 1985a. Language and the Nuclear Arms Debate. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 1985b. Words, discourse and metaphors: The meanings of deter, deterrent and deterrence. In: Paul Chilton (ed.). Language and the Nuclear Arms Debate. London: Pinter, 103–127.Google Scholar
1990. Politeness and Politics. Discourse & Society 1(2), 201–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2003. Deixis and distance: President Clinton’s justification of intervention in Kosovo. In: Mirjana N. Dedaic & Daniel N. Nelson (eds). At War with Words. NY: Mouton de Gruyter, 95–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul. & Lakoff, George. 1995. Foreign policy by metaphor. In: C. Schäffner and A. Wenden (eds). Language and Peace. Asdershot: Dartmouth, 37–59.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul. & Schäffner, Christina (eds). Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo
Crowley, D. & Mitchell, D. (eds). 1993. Communication Theory Today. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Dedaic, Mirjana N. & Nelson, Daniel N. (eds). 2003. At War with Words. NY: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ding, Jianxin & Liao Yiqing. 2006. Lingusitic Research from Critical Perspective. Guangzhou: Sun Yet-sen University Press. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman & Wodak, Ruth. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In: T. van Dijk (ed.). Discourse as Social Interaction (Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol.2). London: Sage Publications, 259–584.Google Scholar
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., and Trew, T. 1979. Language and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Geis, M. 1987. The Language of Politics. NY: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hu, Chunyang. 2006. Discourse Analysis: A New Approach to Communication Studies. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Press. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
Ji, Yuhua. 2007. Critical Discourse Analysis in Intercultural Communication Research and Education. Xiamen: Xiamen University Press.Google Scholar
Kratochvíl, P., Cibulková, P., and Beneš, V. 2006. Foreign policy, rhetorical action and the idea of otherness: The Czech Republic and Russia. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 391, 497–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1990. Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Lives. USA: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
Pan, Guang. 2006a. On the basis and potential for China-Arab relations to develop in the new century. In: Dunxin Xu (ed.). International Situation and China’s Peaceful Development. Beijing: World Knowledge Press, 160–166. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
2006b. The role of “Shanghai Cooperation Organization” in China’s peaceful development. In: Dunxin Xu (ed.). International Situation and China’s Peaceful Development. Beijing: World Knowledge Press, 194–208. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
Peng, Qing. 2005. On China’s multilateral foreign policy: Viewed from reports on the work of the government: 1986–2005. Foreign Affairs Review (China) 41, 50–56. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
Pu, Xingzu (ed.). 2002. Political System of People’s Republic of China. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
Qin, Yaqing. 2000. Foreword to Chinese version of Social Theory of International Politics. In: Alexander Wendt. Social theory of International Politics (Chinese Version). Yaqing Qin Trans. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House. [in Chinese].Google Scholar
Ruan, Zhongze. 2006. “To establish a harmonious world” — A projection of Chinese foreign policy shift. In: Dunxin, Xu (ed.). International Situation and China’s Peaceful Development. Beijing: World Knowledge Press, 89–92. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
Schäffner C. and Wenden, A. (eds). 1995. Language and Peace. Asdershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Steiner, E. 1985. The concept of context and the theory of action. In: Paul Chilton (ed.). Language and the Nuclear Arms Debate. London: Pinter, 213–217.Google Scholar
Sun, Jisheng. 2007. The linguistic turn of international relations and its influence on constructivism: Language games as an example. Foreign Affairs Review (China), 37–45. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
Swales, John. 2003. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
Tian, Hailong. 2009. Discourse Studies: Categories, Perspectives and Methodologies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. 1981. Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. Netherlands: Mouton Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. Discourse and cognition in society. In: D. Crowley & D. Mitchell (eds). Communication Theory Today. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 107–126.Google Scholar
(ed.). 1997. Discourse as Social Interaction (Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol.2). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
2002. Political discourse and political cognition. In: Paul Chilton & Christina Schäffner (eds). Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 204–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef & Östman, JanOla (eds). 2006. Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 2000. Social Theory of International Politics (Chinese Version). Yaqing Qin Trans. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House. [in Chinese].Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2006. Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In: Jef Verschueren & JanOla Östman (eds). Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xin, Bin. 2005. Critical Linguistics: Theory and Practice. Shanghai: Foreign Language Education Press. [In Chinese]Google Scholar
Xu, Dunxin (ed.). 2006. International Situation and China’s Peaceful Development. Beijing: World Knowledge Press. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
Zheng, Hua. 2005. Discourse analysis and international relations: The influence of Foucauldian “discourse” upon postmodern international theory. Journal of Modern International Relations (China) (41), 56–62. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
2006. An interpretation of Bush’s China trip in 2005: A discourse analysis of three news conferences hosted by the US. International Forum (China) 8(2), 26–32. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Mokry, Sabine
2024. China’s foreign policy rhetoric between orchestration and cacophony. The Pacific Review 37:2 ► pp. 360 ff. DOI logo
Li, Chien-pin
2015. New Leaders with Old Lenses? China’s Conflict Frames Toward Taiwan, 2003–2013. Journal of Chinese Political Science 20:1 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.