哈囉

論文名稱	從總統演說看變動中的認同與變動中的語言
研討會開始日期	2016-11-26
研討會結束日期	2016-11-26
所有作者	魏美瑤、段人鳯
作者順序	第二作者
通訊作者	否
研討會名稱	2016年大數據時代的語言學研究論壇暨台灣語言學學會第九屆第二次會員大會
是否具有對外公開徵稿及審稿制度	是
研討會舉行之國家	NATTWN-中華民國
研討會舉行之城市	台北
發表年份	2016
所屬計劃案	無
可公開文檔
可公開文檔
可公開文檔

[摘要] :
In this presentation, I will analyze the contesting meanings of Chinese/Taiwanese identity through the language/words of the national leaders in Taiwan during its authoritarian period (from the 1940s to 2000), and compare it with that of the current situation, as the socio-political contexts experienced by the Taiwanese people make an interesting case to study the contested/contesting meaning of a collective identity. I will adopt Positionality Theory (Harre & van Langenhove, 1991, 1999), indexicality (Silverstein 1976, 1985,
2003), and socio-cognitive approach to collective identity (Koller 2012) as the theoretical frameworks to test out how the national leaders in Taiwan then and now positioned themselves with regard to the legitimacy and sovereignty of modem China after the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC), created alignments with the U.S. during and after the Cold War period, and constructed authoritative personas through keywords, metaphorical expressions, and storylines.


I have three objectives: first, to identify keywords and metaphorical usage regarding the legitimacy of the Taiwan government; secondly, to explicate the construction of local moral orders in connection with different elements of positioning, and thirdly, to examine the positions and positioning from the national leaders-Chiang Kai-shek (1955-1975), Chiang Ching-kuo (1978-1988), and Lee Teng-hui (1989-2000), as well as to Tsai Ing­ wen in the current period, in connection with the changing Mandarin Chinese. To achieve these goals, I will use the archives of presidential speeches in Taiwan (available at Academic Sinica) to study the language of these national leaders as they envisioned, enacted, and positioned the island during the authoritarian period (from the 1940s to 2000) and the current period. By analyzing these texts, I hope to uncover the voices and visions of what they believed the island should be, as well as the issues of legitimacy and sovereignty as the KMT and CCP (Chinese Communist Party) hold conflicting ideologies to what "One China" means as well as their connection with the meaning of Mandarin Chinese.

[英文摘要] :
In this presentation, I will analyze the contesting meanings of Chinese/Taiwanese identity through the language/words of the national leaders in Taiwan during its authoritarian period (from the 1940s to 2000), and compare it with that of the current situation, as the socio-political contexts experienced by the Taiwanese people make an interesting case to study the contested/contesting meaning of a collective identity. I will adopt Positionality Theory (Harre & van Langenhove, 1991, 1999), indexicality (Silverstein 1976, 1985,
2003), and socio-cognitive approach to collective identity (Koller 2012) as the theoretical frameworks to test out how the national leaders in Taiwan then and now positioned themselves with regard to the legitimacy and sovereignty of modem China after the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC), created alignments with the U.S. during and after the Cold War period, and constructed authoritative personas through keywords, metaphorical expressions, and storylines.


I have three objectives: first, to identify keywords and metaphorical usage regarding the legitimacy of the Taiwan government; secondly, to explicate the construction of local moral orders in connection with different elements of positioning, and thirdly, to examine the positions and positioning from the national leaders-Chiang Kai-shek (1955-1975), Chiang Ching-kuo (1978-1988), and Lee Teng-hui (1989-2000), as well as to Tsai Ing­ wen in the current period, in connection with the changing Mandarin Chinese. To achieve these goals, I will use the archives of presidential speeches in Taiwan (available at Academic Sinica) to study the language of these national leaders as they envisioned, enacted, and positioned the island during the authoritarian period (from the 1940s to 2000) and the current period. By analyzing these texts, I hope to uncover the voices and visions of what they believed the island should be, as well as the issues of legitimacy and sovereignty as the KMT and CCP (Chinese Communist Party) hold conflicting ideologies to what "One China" means as well as their connection with the meaning of Mandarin Chinese.

[參考文獻] :
References
Ahrens, K. (2011). Examining conceptual metaphor models through lexical frequency patterns: A case study of U.S. presidential speeches. In S. Handl and H-J. Schmid (eds.) Windows to the Mind: Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Blending, pp. 167-184. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Windows, Macintosh OS X, and Linux). Build 3.4.3. Downloaded August 10, 2014 from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html
Chang, H-c. and Holt, R. 2007. Symbols in conflict: Taiwan and Zhongguo (China) in Taiwan’s identity politics. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 13:129–165.
Chang, H-c. and Holt, R. 2009. “New Taiwanese” Evolution of an identity project in the narratives of United Daily News. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 19(2): 259–288.
Chang, H-c. and Holt, R. 2011. Naming China: Taiwan’s National Day speeches as identity politics. Journal of Language and Politics 10(3): 396–415.
Chang, H-c. and Holt, R. 2015. Language, Politics and Identity in Taiwan: Naming China. New York: Routledge.
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Charteris-Black, J. (2006). Communication of Leadership: Leadership and Metaphor Beyond the West. New York: Routledge.
Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor, 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chiang, W-y. and Duann, R-f. (2007) Conceptual metaphors for SARS: “War” between whom? Discourse and Society 18(5): 579-602.
Clifford, L. (2000) Tyrannosaurus Rx. Fortune 30 October: 84-93.
Deignan, A. (2000). Persuasive uses of metaphor in discourse about business and economy. In C. Heffer and H. Sauntson (eds.) Words in Context: A Tribute to John Sinclair on His Retirement, pp. 156-68. Birmingham: English Language Research Discourse Analysis Monograph.
Duann, R-f. (2015) When Embodiment Meets Generative Lexicon: The Human body Part Metaphors in Taiwan Presidential Speeches. Ph.D. dissertation, National Taiwan University.
Dupré, J-F. 2014. The mother tongues as second languages: Nationalism, democracy and multilingual education in Taiwan. Current Issues in Language Planning 15(4): 393-408.
Fairclough, N. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Longman.
Fine, M. (1998) Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.) The Landscape of Qualitative Research, pp. 130–55. London: SAGE.
Hall, S. (2001) The spectacle of the other. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S.J. Yates (eds.) Discourse Theory and Practice, pp. 324–44. London: SAGE.
Huang, C-R. and Ahrens, K. (2008). Taiwan Presidential Corpus. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Johnson, C. (1999) Constructional Grounding: The Role of Interpretational Overlap in Lexical and Constructional Acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University of California Berkeley.
Koller, V. 2005. Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: Evidence from business media discourse. Discourse and Society 16(2): 199-224.
Koller, V. 2012. How to analyze collective identity in discourse – Textual and contextual parameters. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 2(5): 19-38.
Koller, V. and Baker, P. 2011. The feminists turned into streetwise babes: A diachronic corpus study of “feminism” in American and British English. Presentation at the 3rd Aston Corpus Linguistics Summer School August 2011.
Koller, V. and Semino, E. (2009). Metaphor, politics and gender: a case study from Germany. In Kathleen A. (ed.) Politics, Gender, and Conceptual Metaphors, pp. 9-35. Palgrave-MacMillan.
Lakoff, G. (1991). Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf. Journal of Urban and Cultural Studies 2(1):59-72.
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Landis, J. R. (1995) Sociology: Concepts and Characteristics, 9th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lu, L. W-l. and Ahrens, K. (2008). Ideological influence on BUILDING metaphors in Taiwanese presidential speeches. Discourse and Society 19(3): 383-408.
Mio, J. S. (1997). Metaphor and politics. Metaphor and Symbol 12(2):113-133.
O’Connell, P. (ed.) (2002) Mating for survival. Business Week 26 December. Available [accessed 15 September 2003]: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/ dec2002/tc20021226_8564.htm
Pennycook, A. (1998) English and the Discourse of Colonialism. London: Routledge.
Pretzlik, C. (2000) Talent War. Financial Times 30 June. Available [accessed 21 August 2002]: http://search.ft.com/search/article.html?id=000630000367
Reed, S. and Matlack, C. (2000) The big grab. Business Week 14 January. Available [accessed 27 August 2003]: http://www.businessweek.com/@@G6VTxocQ4LBxkwcA/ 2000/00_04/b3665092.htm
Reisigl, M. 2008. Rhetoric of political speeches. In R. Wodak and V. Koller (eds.) Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, pp. 243-267. Berlin: Mouton de Guyer.
Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. 2001. Discourse and discrimination : Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. New York: Routledge.
Scott, M. and Tiun, H-K. 2007. Mandarin only to Mandarin plus. Language Policy 6:53-72.
Semino, E. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sullivan, J. and Sapir, E. 2012. Ma Ying-Jeou’s presidential discourse. Journal of Chinese Affairs 3(2012):33-68.
Van Dijk, T. 1995. Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse and Society 5(2): 243-289.