A Contrastive Study Of Chinese And American National Identity Constructed By National Discourse

The Korean peninsula nuclear issue is the most complex and uncertain factor in the security situation in Northeast Asia and a hot issue of great concern to the international community.Since 2006,the Korean peninsula nuclear issue has become an important issue in the UN Security Council.With the development and evolution of this issue,the Security Council has held many consultations and adopted a number of resolutions on it in recent years.The situation on the Korean Peninsula deteriorated sharply in 201 7.In just one year,the Security Council held as many as 12 meetings on the Korean peninsula nuclear issue,passed six resolutions related to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,and imposed unprecedented sanctions on the DPRK.Chinese and American diplomats used the Security Council as an institutional platform to fully explain their principled positions and governance plans on the Korean peninsula nuclear issue.The relevant speeches of Chinese and American diplomats in the Security Council are a typical form of national discourse,to be specific,the diplomatic discourse.National identity constructed by national discourse influences the country’s foreign policy and behavior.This study examines the features and differences of national identities in the two countries constructed by their national discourse through an in-depth analysis of the speeches made by Chinese and American diplomats on the Korean peninsula nuclear issue in the Security Council.The research questions include:(1)What discourse resources do Chinese and American diplomats use in the Security Council to construct national identities?What are the similarities and differences in the discourse resources used?(2)What national identities have Chinese and American diplomats constructed in the Security Council?What are the similarities and differences between the national identities of China and the United States?In order to answer the above questions,this study draws on Wodak et al.’s(2009)discourse construction framework of national identity,the theory of membership categorization analysis,the theory of legitimization and the theory of Systemic Functional Linguistics to construct a theoretical model of the composition of national identity-discourse strategy-language means,and uses a combination of qualitative and corpus-assisted methods to conduct an in-depth analysis of the speeches made by Chinese and American diplomats on the Korean peninsula nuclear issue in the Security Council since 2006,so as to clarify the distribution characteristics and differences of discourse strategies,i.e.,strategies of moralization,strategies of legitimization and strategies of categorization,as well as their language means for Chinese and US construction of national identity,and to clarify the basic characteristics of the three types of national identities,i.e.,moral identities,legal identities and institutional identities,constructed by national discourse.The main findings of this study include:(1)With regard to moral identities constructed by strategies of moralization,during the evolution of the Korean peninsula nuclear issue.China’s moral identity constructed through strategies of moralization is a "loyal practitioner of ’international morality’".The United States’ moral identity constructed through strategies of moralization is the "realistic chooser of ’international morality and alliance morality’".China used more value markers,especially "peace"markers like the nominal group complex "peace and stability" and the noun "peace".than the United States with an extremely significant difference.China used more"peaceful-type" and "political-type" manner adjuncts than the United States with an extremely significant difference while the United States used more explicit transitivity security clauses than China with an extremely significant difference.(2)With regard to legal identities constructed by strategies of legitimization.during the evolution of the Korean peninsula nuclear issue.China ’s use of strategies of legitimization has constructed China as a role model in adhering to the principles of the UN Charter;The United States’ use of strategies of legitimization has constructed the United States as the pragmatic supremacist in the practice of the principles of the UN Charter.Both China and the United States used thematic structure.polarity system and others references to realize strategies of legitimization,express their respective adherence to or practice of the three principles of the Charter of the United Nations.and construct their legal identities.China’s use of thematic structure shows that China actively practices and promotes relevant parties to abide by the "principle of fulfilling its Charter obligations in good faith" and advocates "fulfilling its Charter obligations in an equal and cooperative manner".The United States’ use of thematic structure shows that the United States selectively "fulfills its Charter obligations" and advocates"fulfilling its Charter obligations through coercion and pressure".China used more cases of polarity system than the United States with an extremely significant difference.which shows that China has consistently adhered to the "principle of refraining from the threat or use of force".China used more formal others references than the United States with an extremely significant difference,which demonstrates that China has consistently respected the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s sovereignty and firmly adhered to the "principle of the sovereign equality".The United States used more biased informal others references or negative others references showing its no recognition of the legitimacy of the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,which reflects the United States’ discrimination or violation of the sovereignty of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and reveals that the United States undermines or seriously undermines the "principle of sovereign equality".(3)With regard to institutional identities constructed by strategies of categorization,during the evolution of the Korean peninsula nuclear issue.China’s use of strategies of categorization has constructed China as a "permanent member of the Security Council who ’excellently fulfills its special responsibility for maintaining peace and security on the peninsula’".The United States’ use of strategies of categorization has shown that the United States is a "permanent member of the Security Council who ’selectively fulfils its special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security’".Both China and the United States used ergative system,modal system and self references to realize strategies of categorization and construct institutional identities.China used more effective clauses in ergative system than the United States with an extremely significant difference,but neither China nor America used many middle clauses.China’s use of the effective clauses shows that China,as a permanent member of the Security Council,has gone through the process of moving from exemplary fulfillment,promoting joint fulfillment,to active and goodfaith fulfillment of the special responsibilities of the Security Council.The United States’ use of the effective clauses shows that the United States,as a permanent member of the Security Council,selectively fulfills its special responsibilities,and fulfills its special responsibilities through accountability and pressure,and its use of the middle clause reveals that it evades its own responsibility or forces other countries to assume more responsibility.In terms of modal system,China used more should,one finite modal operator of median modulations of the type obligation than the United States,with an extremely significant difference,while the United States used more must,one finite modal operator of high modalizations than China,with a significant difference;China’s use of the median modal verb should shows China’s elegant diplomatic style whereas the U.S.use of high-value modal verb must reflects America’s tough diplomatic style.China used fewer self references,especially exclusive self references and inclusive self references1,than the United States to realize strategies of categorization,with an extremely significant difference.Moreover,the Unites States used some inclusive self references2 and extremely few inclusive self references3.China’s use of self references shows that China firmly cooperates with the United Nations to jointly promote peace on the peninsula.The United States’ use of self references reveals that the United States chooses cooperation with the Security Council,allies,or engagement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,and"flexibly" chooses pressure and cooperation to safeguard U.S.interests to the greatest extent in dealing with the Korean peninsula nuclear issue.The contribution of the present study is reflected in two aspects:(1)Theoretically,this study bases itself on Wodak et al.’s(2009)framework of national identity discourse construction,absorbs the beneficial elements of other linguistic theories,combines many rounds of data analysis,constructs a theoretical model of national identity discourse construction used to compare and analyze the mode of how Chinese and American national identities are constructed by their national discourse,and enriches the national identity discourse construction theory.(2)Practically,this study focuses on the construction of national identities by national discourse,making up for the lack of past studies which focus more on the construction of national identity by media discourse,political speeches and governmental discourse.The research findings will help promote the analysis of Chinese and foreign discourse concerning the issues on the agenda of the Security Council,and enable Chinese diplomatic department to optimize the mediation plan on the Korean peninsula nuclear issue.