International, Chinese And Local

Over the past ten years, research on discourse and identity has been receiving unprecedented attention in academic field, holding the view that identity is a dynamic process of being constructed. Whilst people gradually realize that language or discourse is not merely the passing of a message between interlocutors but can construct people’s personal identity at the same time. Based on this, the central position of discourse in the study of identity has been confirmed.In1997, Hong Kong was returned to People’s Republic of China (PRC) after being under British colonial rule for almost100years. After the transition, although the sovereignty belongs to PRC, Hong Kong’s specific identity with multiple layers is hard to be defined, especially when these layers don’t coincide. In order to address the question, a deep and comprehensive study on Hong Kong identity is in great need.Within the theoretical framework of Critical Discourse Analysis, the present study investigates the discursive construction of Hong Kong identity after the transfer of sovereignty to Chinese government based on a critical analysis of the personal reference of "we" in the introduction of annual Policy Addresses of HKSAR government during the period of1997to2011. In order to have a full comprehension about the complexity of Hong Kong identity, an analysis of the social reality and internal and external factors is provided serving as background knowledge.The analytical framework in the present study consists of macro dimension and micro dimension. The macro dimension deals with topic analysis and tries to reveal what specific relations between Hong Kong and mainland China are addressed from economic perspective at specific times in the introduction of Policy Addresses. And the micro dimension concerns the analysis of the first personal pronoun of "we" and attempts to unveil how HKSAR government constructs Hong Kong identity through the strategic uses of "we"(according to the different scopes of reference and specific referents of "we", the researcher labels the uses of "we" as we1, we2and we3). The result shows that different uses of "we" can align with or alienate one group from another and construct the communal identity."We" can be used as a discursive strategy in the construction of identity. The strategic use of we3in the introduction of PAs in the period of1997to1999and that of2007-2011contains three subjects, namely, mainland or Chinese government, HKSAR government as well as Hong Kong people. It helps to place mainland into Hong Kong’s in-group emphasizing the importance of Chinese values and identification with China, and to construct Hong Kong’s identity as a city leeching on to mainland as well as a platform to link China and the rest of the world; whereas during the period of2000to2006, the use of we3in the introduction of Policy Addresses disappears. With the uses of we1and we2which respectively include HKSAR government and HKSAR government as well as Hong Kong people. They help to place other parts into Hong Kong’out-group only stressing Hong Kong’s international potential and its own uniqueness, and to construct Hong Kong’s identity as an international metropolitan and a special region with its own characteristics.The significance of the present research lies in two main aspects. Theoretically, it proposes a new analytical model for analysis of the discursively constructed identity and proves that the first personal plural pronoun "we" can be applied as a linguistic strategy in that study; practically, it enriches the study on Hong Kong’ identity after its return to motherland, and the major findings may provide some references for further research.