A Critical Discourse Analysis Of Reports On "Chinese Solar Panel Case"

Critical discourse analysis is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse, which views language as a form of social practice and aims to uncover the ideology and power relation hidden in both written and spoken texts. Based on the Faircloughian three-dimensional framework of critical discourse analysis, this thesis tries to make an analysis of the reports from China Daily and The New York Times on the trade dispute called "Chinese Solar Panel Case", aiming to reveal the ideologies and power relations in the selected reports by investigating the discursive strategies employed in the reports and the effects achieved by these strategies.This study conducts a critical discourse analysis from three dimensions: Description, Interpretation and Explanation, In the dimension of Description, the analysis focuses on linguistic features such as euphemism and metaphor, nominalization, presupposition and modality, and the textual routine of the reports. In the dimension of Interpretation, the elements and the meaning of utterance, local coherence, and the omitted componential elements of textual structure are analyzed so as to fulfill the task of discourse practice. In the dimension of Explanation, the texts are associated with social reality, thus to disclose the different ideologies hidden in the reports.The probe into the data indicates that the two sides have employed different discursive strategies to achieve effects and purposes of their own.The discursive strategies employed in China Daily present a calm and reasonable tone in the dispute and highlight a voice strongly against the tariffs in order to win public opinions in favor of China and public disapproval of American’s unfair "protectionism", and to enhance the trustworthiness and persuasiveness of the reports In doing so, unfavorable factors on the part of China could be reduced and the bilateral trade could be protected as far as power relation between the two countries are concerned.While the discursive strategies employed in The New York Times highlight the antagonism in the dispute and present a voice that imputes the responsibility for dispute to the "illegal subsidies" of China and complains of the Americans’ being unfairly treated in the power relation between the two countries, with a demand for compensation for the loss. In doing so, they mean to gain the public support for the tariffs. In the mean time, in order to show its being "neutral and objective", The New York Times also renders opinions from both China and the U.S. which express disapproval of both sides.In the trade dispute in question, the discursive strategies employed in the two media manifest the ideologies and power relations of their own, namely, the political and economical interests of the countries have priority. Domestically, China Daily tries to exert influence on the opinion and attitude of the public; The New York Times tries to abate the conflict in interests within the Americans. Internationally, China Daily shows the resolution to maintaining the national interests as well as the goodwill to solve the dispute peacefully and to achieve win-win development; The New York Times shows the tough image of the U.S. and expresses the determination to take punitive measures against the competitor in order to maintain the interests of the country.