论文部分内容阅读
Abstract：Discourse is constitutive and socially constituted. The existence of national discrimination is the result of discourses. Luo Gang Event sharply reflects the contradiction between Japanese and Chinese, to which the discourse-historical approach is applied to analyze its intertextuality of discourses with other field of discourses and the formation of the “othering”, therefore the discursive national discrimination come into being
Key words：discourses historical
intertextuality “othering” discursive national discrimination
Ⅰ. Introduction
As the development of discourse analysis and other linguistic areas, the trend of interdisciplinary appears more and more obvious. The melt of linguistic fields and social theories is the mainstream in recent discourse research approach. Thereupon, the new branch of discourse analysis Critical Discourse Analysis appears subsequently. It is difficult to give a single definition of Critical Discourse Analysis as a research method. Indeed, rather than providing a particular method, Critical Discourse Analysis can be characterized as a way of approaching and thinking about a problem. In this sense, CDA is neither a qualitative nor a quantitative research method, but a manner of questioning the basic assumptions of quantitative and qualitative research methods. CDA will enable to reveal the hidden motivations behind a text or behind the choice of a particular method of research to interpret that text, and it will, thus, not provide absolute answers to a specific problem, but enable us to understand the conditions behind a specific “problem” and make us realize that the essence of that “problem”, and its resolution, which lies in its assumptions; the very assumptions that enable the existence of that “problem”. CDA can be applied to any text, that is, to any problem or situation. There are no specific guidelines to follow. One could, however, make use of the theories of Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, or Fredric Jameson. The key point is the term “critical”. In Fairclough’s words “that, in human matters, interconnections and chains of cause and effect may be distorted out of vision. Hence, ”critique“ is essentially making visible the interconnectedness of things” (Fairclough, 1993). “Discourse” can thus be understood as a complex bundle of simultaneous and sequential interrelated linguistic acts, which manifest themselves within and across the social fields of action as thematically interrelated semiotic, oral or written tokens, very often as “texts”, that belong to specific semiotic types, that is genres (Wodak, 2001:66).
Struggles and contradictions characterized our modern world and human societies. Any kinds of field can’t exist independently. The more clear is the boundary of everything, the harder is the communication among people. Truth and reason are mantled by the hypercritical superficial gloss. Any kind of seemed fact is constructed and constituted in the high hilarious discourses. Society is shaped by discourses. Discourses include not only written and spoken languages, but also non-discursive languages, both of which are seen as forms of social practice. A discourse is a way of signifying a particular domain of social practice from a particular perspective (Fairclough, 1993:14). On one hand, social actions and context shape and affect discourses, and on the other, discourses influence discursive as well as non-discursive social and political processes and actions. In other words, discourses are socially shaped, but it is also socially shaping, or constitutive.
This paper based on the theories of CDA is to explore the “problem” of discrimination, especially the Sino-Japan nationalt discrimination. The example data here is a dialogue between a Japanese overseas students and a radio host named Luo Gang. Through the analysis of their remarks and other subsidiary materials, we can gain a profound understanding of the phenomena of national discrimination, and see how discourses devotes to the growth of such a problem in the worldwide society.
Ⅱ. Analysis of the discursive discriminatory discourse in a Discourse-historical approach
Nation and race categories are the product of generations of political struggle and ideological contestation. As the close relation between race and nation, they are always been putting together, when we talk about one of them. Once a nation is founded, the difference of knowledge and identity has been classified. The development of capitalism, imperialism and the emergence of racial and national discrimination depend fundamentally on the labor of one nation seeing their economic and military dominance as evidence of their racial, national and cultural superiority. This superiority comes to be interpreted as the result of inherent and biologically determined national and racial differences between the dominated and the dominant rather than as a consequence of particular historical circumstances. The difference of nation and the belief of superiority are transplanted deeply in people’s minds. The nation can be described as an “imagined community”, the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion (Wodak, 2001). The ability of nationalism to construct a sense of borders-both physical and symbolic-acts as a powerful indicator of inclusion. Those borders act to exclude and marginalize those who do not fir within the imagined community both within and outside the nation.
The divergence between Japan and China has a long history. From the Tang Dynasty, since Japan learned from the technically advanced China, it has been developing continuously, although it had been plastered badly during the World War II in which Japanese invaded China as its way to expand its interests into the world. The impression of falling China has inscribed in Japanese minds. The idea of superiority of Japanese nation to Chinese nation has been passed generations to generations. Japan is always trying to establish an image of a political strong country to redefine its position in the world. Although it has changed the hostile relationship with China after its refreshment after WWII, it still follows its nationalism to discriminate Chinese people. But the assumptions they have of the nation and race are the results of intertextuality of discourses. The strong beliefs and so-called spirits embedded in their minds are power-controlled. Both the discriminatory discourse and other mentality discriminatory reflections are the fictitious phenomena constituted by many discourses. And once this power-controlled knowledge has been rooted and advocated increasingly, many institutions and practices are carried out to keep on the continuity of the essence knowledge. Therefore, we can see that no matter political discourses and other field of discourses all help to maintain this knowledge.
This data cited here is a dialogue between a Japanese overseas student and a famous Chinese radio host. In this short dialogue, the two different nations pointed to each other sharply. Due to the hatred between the Chinese and the Japanese, the talk between the two nationalities in this dialogue fills with discrimination and prejudices. In this talk, the political discourses, media discourses and educational discourses are melted in it. Firstly, the action of the Japanese government takes the Chinese people as the enemies, especially, since the World War II, the great ambition of enlarging their nation areas dominated. The discourses that insulted the same race but a different nation took advantage in the stage of politics. The propagation of the superiority of their nation to the Chinese nation dominates in Japan. Subsequently, the media discourses and the educational discourses which followed the political directions help to consolidate the foundation of the national discrimination. From what the Japanese student has said in this dialogue, the education from childhood is obviously pointing to the Chinese people. He said:
“我是一個日本人，从小，在书本上，在爸爸妈妈嘴中我就知道支那是一个很低劣的民族”.
The enlightenment of the parents and the formal education in the school all transplant the notion of discrimination against China into the minds of each Japanese children, which make the stereotype of the Chinese people as the poor inferior nation. And also, some provoking actions and discourse are broadcast publicly and intensely in radio or on TV. The Japanese has said:
“是的，在我们的国家电台可以任由国民议论我们的国家……”,
which can be clearly known that the public media is helping to construct the impression of the interior image of China. No wonder the outrageously arrogant deed of revising the history textbook of the Japanese government to change their invasion to China to emancipate the Chinese people takes place in the development of Japanese educational discourses. Similarly, the Chinese government is focusing on the great crime that the Japanese did in the war between the two countries. And the media discourses as well as the educational discourses both contributing to the discursive national discrimination integrate here. Luo Gang said:
“你们的国家？你们的国家连一个中国人在地上写两个字也会被捕，还谈什么民主！！”
“你不要告诉我中国人民八年抗战，南京大屠杀三十万人的死难，无数中国军民的牺牲都是假的！！”
“你这个日本鬼子，小日本！”
The remarks and the actions of Luo Gang reflect the interdiscursive influence of the discourses to the habitual way of thinking and getting the knowledge. The intertexuality of political, media and educational discourses are expressed in this short dialogue. Because of the hostile hatred of the two incompatible nations, though they have the similar cultural and biological ancestors to some extend, the accumulated rancor from the long-termed fights and wars has been accelerated and transformed into the deep conscious of the people, adding to the important roles of the public discourses of the political government and the media propaganda to the mass, the insulting discourses of the Japanese students and the habitual responses of the host are understandable in such a situation. As the rebut, the contemptuous words “小日本鬼子”which is used to express the indignant resent for their crimes committed in the war is kept on and accepted as the spiritual compensation for the Chinese people. As the notion of country appears, the classification of national difference brings the national habits of viewing other nations. And we also know that nationalist attitudes and stereotypes articulated in discourses accompany and also influence political decision-making, and the growing number of nationalist acts of discrimination demonstrates the hybridity of the discriminative discourses.
The concept of “Othering” is frequently used in contemporary literature, but often without being properly defined. Here, the understanding of the term “Othering” in this paper means a mental distance which is created between ‘us’ and ‘them’. The less othering, the more identification with the Others and the more similarity is perceived. The more othering, the larger is the rapproachment and the more important do the differences between ‘us’ and ‘them’ appear. “Othering” is unavoidable in different countries and nations: probably it is part of the human condition to categorize themsleves and to find and ponder over differences between people. But when the “Othering” is made too clearly and obviously, the contrast between “us” and “them” is more and more frequent and evident. As in different nations, the people surely view other other nations different. And it is certain that people take their standards and measurements as criteria, especially the ones in the nation which has a strong conscience of difference. The difference of national discourses and powers inevitably causes the appearance of national discrimination. The Japanese student said:
“知道我为什么叫你们支那人而不是中国人吗？因为你们不配，在我们眼中，只有唐朝人才能叫中国人，而你们，只是支那人”,“在我们国家，认为没受过初中教育的支那人都只能称为支那*，中国只有7％的人有大专学历……”.
As the strong and fast economic development after WWII in Japan promotes their national identity, which become arrogant and self-important in face of the other country. They only recognize the difference strictly. Here, “支那人” is a strong othering way of making difference between the Japanese and the Chinese. This word is conventionalized and continually used in Japanese. It is not formed unexpectedly but a fixed one to address the Chinese people. Less flexibility in the categorization means that the difference between “us” and “them” is more emphasized. The word set up by the Japanese is biased and unreasonable. They think many Chinese have not reached the highly educated level, who are categorized to “支那”. This word is an insult and contains the derogative meaning.
III. Conclusion
This paper analyzes the discourse of a discriminatory discourses-fiilled dialogue. The way of discourse-historical approach and the intercontextual analysis of this typical dialogue between the Japanese and the Chinese help to understand the development of the discursive national discrimination, therefore gain us a totally new perspetive to explore the “problem” of national discrimination.
References：
［1］Fairclough, N. Discourse and Social Change［M］. Cambridge: Polity Press. 1993.
［2］Fairclogh, N. “ Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourses: the universities ”, Discourse
Key words：discourses historical
intertextuality “othering” discursive national discrimination
Ⅰ. Introduction
As the development of discourse analysis and other linguistic areas, the trend of interdisciplinary appears more and more obvious. The melt of linguistic fields and social theories is the mainstream in recent discourse research approach. Thereupon, the new branch of discourse analysis Critical Discourse Analysis appears subsequently. It is difficult to give a single definition of Critical Discourse Analysis as a research method. Indeed, rather than providing a particular method, Critical Discourse Analysis can be characterized as a way of approaching and thinking about a problem. In this sense, CDA is neither a qualitative nor a quantitative research method, but a manner of questioning the basic assumptions of quantitative and qualitative research methods. CDA will enable to reveal the hidden motivations behind a text or behind the choice of a particular method of research to interpret that text, and it will, thus, not provide absolute answers to a specific problem, but enable us to understand the conditions behind a specific “problem” and make us realize that the essence of that “problem”, and its resolution, which lies in its assumptions; the very assumptions that enable the existence of that “problem”. CDA can be applied to any text, that is, to any problem or situation. There are no specific guidelines to follow. One could, however, make use of the theories of Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, or Fredric Jameson. The key point is the term “critical”. In Fairclough’s words “that, in human matters, interconnections and chains of cause and effect may be distorted out of vision. Hence, ”critique“ is essentially making visible the interconnectedness of things” (Fairclough, 1993). “Discourse” can thus be understood as a complex bundle of simultaneous and sequential interrelated linguistic acts, which manifest themselves within and across the social fields of action as thematically interrelated semiotic, oral or written tokens, very often as “texts”, that belong to specific semiotic types, that is genres (Wodak, 2001:66).
Struggles and contradictions characterized our modern world and human societies. Any kinds of field can’t exist independently. The more clear is the boundary of everything, the harder is the communication among people. Truth and reason are mantled by the hypercritical superficial gloss. Any kind of seemed fact is constructed and constituted in the high hilarious discourses. Society is shaped by discourses. Discourses include not only written and spoken languages, but also non-discursive languages, both of which are seen as forms of social practice. A discourse is a way of signifying a particular domain of social practice from a particular perspective (Fairclough, 1993:14). On one hand, social actions and context shape and affect discourses, and on the other, discourses influence discursive as well as non-discursive social and political processes and actions. In other words, discourses are socially shaped, but it is also socially shaping, or constitutive.
This paper based on the theories of CDA is to explore the “problem” of discrimination, especially the Sino-Japan nationalt discrimination. The example data here is a dialogue between a Japanese overseas students and a radio host named Luo Gang. Through the analysis of their remarks and other subsidiary materials, we can gain a profound understanding of the phenomena of national discrimination, and see how discourses devotes to the growth of such a problem in the worldwide society.
Ⅱ. Analysis of the discursive discriminatory discourse in a Discourse-historical approach
Nation and race categories are the product of generations of political struggle and ideological contestation. As the close relation between race and nation, they are always been putting together, when we talk about one of them. Once a nation is founded, the difference of knowledge and identity has been classified. The development of capitalism, imperialism and the emergence of racial and national discrimination depend fundamentally on the labor of one nation seeing their economic and military dominance as evidence of their racial, national and cultural superiority. This superiority comes to be interpreted as the result of inherent and biologically determined national and racial differences between the dominated and the dominant rather than as a consequence of particular historical circumstances. The difference of nation and the belief of superiority are transplanted deeply in people’s minds. The nation can be described as an “imagined community”, the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion (Wodak, 2001). The ability of nationalism to construct a sense of borders-both physical and symbolic-acts as a powerful indicator of inclusion. Those borders act to exclude and marginalize those who do not fir within the imagined community both within and outside the nation.
The divergence between Japan and China has a long history. From the Tang Dynasty, since Japan learned from the technically advanced China, it has been developing continuously, although it had been plastered badly during the World War II in which Japanese invaded China as its way to expand its interests into the world. The impression of falling China has inscribed in Japanese minds. The idea of superiority of Japanese nation to Chinese nation has been passed generations to generations. Japan is always trying to establish an image of a political strong country to redefine its position in the world. Although it has changed the hostile relationship with China after its refreshment after WWII, it still follows its nationalism to discriminate Chinese people. But the assumptions they have of the nation and race are the results of intertextuality of discourses. The strong beliefs and so-called spirits embedded in their minds are power-controlled. Both the discriminatory discourse and other mentality discriminatory reflections are the fictitious phenomena constituted by many discourses. And once this power-controlled knowledge has been rooted and advocated increasingly, many institutions and practices are carried out to keep on the continuity of the essence knowledge. Therefore, we can see that no matter political discourses and other field of discourses all help to maintain this knowledge.
This data cited here is a dialogue between a Japanese overseas student and a famous Chinese radio host. In this short dialogue, the two different nations pointed to each other sharply. Due to the hatred between the Chinese and the Japanese, the talk between the two nationalities in this dialogue fills with discrimination and prejudices. In this talk, the political discourses, media discourses and educational discourses are melted in it. Firstly, the action of the Japanese government takes the Chinese people as the enemies, especially, since the World War II, the great ambition of enlarging their nation areas dominated. The discourses that insulted the same race but a different nation took advantage in the stage of politics. The propagation of the superiority of their nation to the Chinese nation dominates in Japan. Subsequently, the media discourses and the educational discourses which followed the political directions help to consolidate the foundation of the national discrimination. From what the Japanese student has said in this dialogue, the education from childhood is obviously pointing to the Chinese people. He said:
“我是一個日本人，从小，在书本上，在爸爸妈妈嘴中我就知道支那是一个很低劣的民族”.
The enlightenment of the parents and the formal education in the school all transplant the notion of discrimination against China into the minds of each Japanese children, which make the stereotype of the Chinese people as the poor inferior nation. And also, some provoking actions and discourse are broadcast publicly and intensely in radio or on TV. The Japanese has said:
“是的，在我们的国家电台可以任由国民议论我们的国家……”,
which can be clearly known that the public media is helping to construct the impression of the interior image of China. No wonder the outrageously arrogant deed of revising the history textbook of the Japanese government to change their invasion to China to emancipate the Chinese people takes place in the development of Japanese educational discourses. Similarly, the Chinese government is focusing on the great crime that the Japanese did in the war between the two countries. And the media discourses as well as the educational discourses both contributing to the discursive national discrimination integrate here. Luo Gang said:
“你们的国家？你们的国家连一个中国人在地上写两个字也会被捕，还谈什么民主！！”
“你不要告诉我中国人民八年抗战，南京大屠杀三十万人的死难，无数中国军民的牺牲都是假的！！”
“你这个日本鬼子，小日本！”
The remarks and the actions of Luo Gang reflect the interdiscursive influence of the discourses to the habitual way of thinking and getting the knowledge. The intertexuality of political, media and educational discourses are expressed in this short dialogue. Because of the hostile hatred of the two incompatible nations, though they have the similar cultural and biological ancestors to some extend, the accumulated rancor from the long-termed fights and wars has been accelerated and transformed into the deep conscious of the people, adding to the important roles of the public discourses of the political government and the media propaganda to the mass, the insulting discourses of the Japanese students and the habitual responses of the host are understandable in such a situation. As the rebut, the contemptuous words “小日本鬼子”which is used to express the indignant resent for their crimes committed in the war is kept on and accepted as the spiritual compensation for the Chinese people. As the notion of country appears, the classification of national difference brings the national habits of viewing other nations. And we also know that nationalist attitudes and stereotypes articulated in discourses accompany and also influence political decision-making, and the growing number of nationalist acts of discrimination demonstrates the hybridity of the discriminative discourses.
The concept of “Othering” is frequently used in contemporary literature, but often without being properly defined. Here, the understanding of the term “Othering” in this paper means a mental distance which is created between ‘us’ and ‘them’. The less othering, the more identification with the Others and the more similarity is perceived. The more othering, the larger is the rapproachment and the more important do the differences between ‘us’ and ‘them’ appear. “Othering” is unavoidable in different countries and nations: probably it is part of the human condition to categorize themsleves and to find and ponder over differences between people. But when the “Othering” is made too clearly and obviously, the contrast between “us” and “them” is more and more frequent and evident. As in different nations, the people surely view other other nations different. And it is certain that people take their standards and measurements as criteria, especially the ones in the nation which has a strong conscience of difference. The difference of national discourses and powers inevitably causes the appearance of national discrimination. The Japanese student said:
“知道我为什么叫你们支那人而不是中国人吗？因为你们不配，在我们眼中，只有唐朝人才能叫中国人，而你们，只是支那人”,“在我们国家，认为没受过初中教育的支那人都只能称为支那*，中国只有7％的人有大专学历……”.
As the strong and fast economic development after WWII in Japan promotes their national identity, which become arrogant and self-important in face of the other country. They only recognize the difference strictly. Here, “支那人” is a strong othering way of making difference between the Japanese and the Chinese. This word is conventionalized and continually used in Japanese. It is not formed unexpectedly but a fixed one to address the Chinese people. Less flexibility in the categorization means that the difference between “us” and “them” is more emphasized. The word set up by the Japanese is biased and unreasonable. They think many Chinese have not reached the highly educated level, who are categorized to “支那”. This word is an insult and contains the derogative meaning.
III. Conclusion
This paper analyzes the discourse of a discriminatory discourses-fiilled dialogue. The way of discourse-historical approach and the intercontextual analysis of this typical dialogue between the Japanese and the Chinese help to understand the development of the discursive national discrimination, therefore gain us a totally new perspetive to explore the “problem” of national discrimination.
References：
［1］Fairclough, N. Discourse and Social Change［M］. Cambridge: Polity Press. 1993.
［2］Fairclogh, N. “ Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourses: the universities ”, Discourse