Hu Feng 's Discourse And His Way Of Speech In The 1940s

Since Hu Feng’s current study achievements, there has not been much attempt to analyze Hu Feng’s work from the perspective of discourse. The reason why I chose to analyze Hu Feng 1940 s discourse is that language is closely related to modern Chinese people’s culture survival problem. The May 4th new culture movement started the first language reform in the modern and contemporary Chinese literature history, while in the 1940 s Mao Ze Dong led the reform of literary language which caused the second language reform. These reforms clearly demanded intellectuals language should be easy for the mass to understand. Hu Feng’s literature theory system matured during this cultural and social transformation, and his discourse uses westernized colloquial language. His discourse highlights the importance of “subjective fighting spirit”,”people’s spiritual trauma” and admitted to some extent literature has the same effect as politics, which was totally different from left-wing discourse, the mass discourse and political discourse. I think by using discourse as manner, we can not only get to know Hu Feng’s discourse but also distinguish the differences between Hu Feng’s discourse, the mass discourse and political discourse, to make Hu Feng’s discourse boundary feature more clear. In my paper, I have defined discourse mode into three levels: discourse grammar feature analysis, the analysis of how to speak, the feature of his discourse. In the introduction, I define discourse and discourse mode conceptions, meanwhile I summarize the important study achievement in Hu Feng’s study. The first chapter, I analyze 1940 s discourse background, in order to put Hu Feng’s discourse into its special historical cultural context. The 1940 s were a special period for China. Our culture was facing the transformation from May 4th thinking to Mao Ze Dong’s utilitarian thinking. The “national form debate” could be deemed as a symptom. At that time, political discourse, intellectual discourse and the mass discourse were in competition. The second chapter, I analyze Hu Feng’s literature discourse, including He Feng’s discourse source, his literature theory’s words “spiritual enslavement injury” and “subjective fighting spirit ”, and the difference between Hu Feng’s discourse and Zhao Shu Li’s style of mass discourse. In the last chapter, I analyze Hu Feng’s westernized colloquial language from vocabulary and structure. I think his westernized colloquial language is embodied in his absorption of foreign words and the invention of new words. In his structure, he liked to use the complex structure of modifiers and intensive structures. Furthermore, Hu Feng liked to use a “double negative structure” and a “debate structure”. Apart from his westernized colloquial language features, Hu Feng’s way of speaking has another feature which reflects on narrative and irony. Hu Feng’s discourse narrative reflects his concentration on literary problems and social issues, and he places himself as a narrative object. The last two parts are related to his identity as a poet, his dialogues with his friends and confrontations of bad phenomena in literature, which all support the fact that he spotlighted the importance of subject. ”Realistic discourse”is another keyword of his discourse. I analyze Hu feng emphasis on the practicality of realistic discourse and the power of changing the society and his war thinking.