科技新闻话语合法化建构的话语历史分析---“中美芯片之争”新闻报道的对比研究

A Study of Legitimizing Technological News Discourses from the Perspectives of Discourse-Historical Approach - A Comparative Study of News Reports on the "Sino-US Chip Conflict"

摘要

以科技新闻话语为研究对象,在话语历史分析理论指导下探讨中美媒体就中美芯片之争合法化建构的异同.结果表明:在主题方面,美方聚焦争端对自身产业的冲击,中方则全面审视其对全球芯片产业和经济的影响;在合法化实现方式方面,命名策略上,双方媒体将芯片之争定义为“restriction”;述谓策略上,两国媒体对芯片争端持否定态度,同时中方还积极展示科技自强的决心;辩论策略上,中美双方均运用危险和威胁辩题,美方还使用数字辩题构建对华制裁的合法性,中方则使用法律辩题构建美国行为的去合法性;视角化策略上,中方重视消息来源的准确性,美方倾向于模糊被引者身份.在塑造彼此形象方面,美国塑造中国的威胁形象,中国倾向于展现美国的霸权主义.

Abstract

The study centers on the discourse of technological news, employing the theoretical framework of discourse-historical approach to investigate Chinese and American media's legitimizing narratives surrounding the US-China chip rivalry. Results show that in terms of themes, American media concentrate on the ramifications of the dispute for domestic industries, whereas Chinese media provide a holistic assessment of its repercussions on the global chip industry and economic landscape. Regarding nomination strategies, both media entities label the chip conflict as "restriction." Regarding predication strategies, both US and Chinese media exhibit a negative stance towards the chip conflict, with the Chinese media also highlighting a resolve for technological self-reliance and strength. The American media constructs an image of China as a threat, while the Chinese media often depict American hegemony; Regarding argumentation strategies, both parties employ the topoi of danger and threat, with the American media additionally leveraging numerical arguments to legitimize sanctions, in contrast to China's use of the topoi of law to challenge the legitimacy of US actions. Regarding perspectivization strategies, Chinese media prioritize the veracity of information sources, whereas American media frequently obscure the identities of those referenced.

关键词

话语历史分析法 / 合法化 / 中美芯片之争

Key words

discourse-historical approach / legitimation / Sino-US chip conflict

参考文献

[1] VAN DIJK T A. What is political discourse analysis[J]. Belgian journal of linguistics, 1997, 11(01): 11-52.

[2] 杨敏, 符小丽. 基于语料库的“历史语篇分析”(DHA)的过程与价值:以美国主流媒体对希拉里邮件门的话语建构为例[J]. 外国语(上海外国语大学学报), 2018, 41(02): 77-85.

[3] ROJO L M, VAN DIJK T A. “There was a problem, and it was solved!”: Legitimating the Expulsion of ‘Illegal’ migrants in spanish parliamentary discourse[J]. Discourse & Society, 1997, 8(04): 523-566.

[4] BERGER P, LUCKMANN T. The social construction of reality[M]. London: Routledge, 2016: 110-122.

[5] VAN LEEUWEN T. Legitimation in discourse and communication[J]. Discourse & communication, 2007, 1(01): 91-112.

[6] REYES A. Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions[J]. Discourse & society, 2011, 22(06): 781-807.

[7] WODAK R, MEYER M. Methods of critical discourse studies[M]. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2015.

[8] WODAK R, MEYER M. Methods of critical discourse analysis[M]. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2001.

[9] DEMATA M. Discourses of borders and the nation in the USA: a discourse-historical analysis[M]. London: Routledge, 2022.

[10] 胡元江, 李艳. 媒体话语合法化建构的历史语篇分析:中美主流媒体贸易摩擦报道的对比研究[J]. 外国语文, 2023, 39(04): 92-101.

[11] 鞠玉梅. 科技新闻建构国家身份认同研究:基于“科技冬奥”中外媒体新闻报道的个案分析[J]. 当代修辞学, 2023,(05): 57-67.

[12] 杨敏, 侍怡君. 中美贸易战中美方“合法化”话语建构:基于语料库的话语-历史分析[J]. 外语研究, 2021, 38(03): 7-13.

[13] REISIGL M, WODAK R, MEYER M. Methods of critical discourse analysis[M]. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2011.

[14] 辛斌. 英文新闻标题中的合法化话语策略分析:以《华盛顿邮报》和《纽约时报》有关南海争端报道为例[J]. 外语学刊, 2020(04): 24-32.

[15] FAIRCLOUGH N. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language[M]. London: Routledge, 2013.

基金资助

湖北省教育厅哲学社会科学研究项目(23Y018)