A contrastive ecological discourse analysis of the General Debate statements by the US and China at the United Nations General Assembly (2017–2020)

Chengming Ma, W. He
{"title":"A contrastive ecological discourse analysis of the General Debate statements by the US and China at the United Nations General Assembly (2017–2020)","authors":"Chengming Ma, W. He","doi":"10.1515/jwl-2022-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article adopts an ecolinguistic approach to study the thematic choices in the General Debate statements by the US and China at the United Nations General Assembly (2017–2020) to reveal the eco-characteristics of the two countries’ thematic choices and their impacts on the constructions of international relations. Findings suggest that, from the perspective of ecosophy, a significant proportion of the US’s thematic choices are destructive to international relations, while China’s thematic choices are mostly beneficial and ambivalent. The US’s thematic choices are frequently used to portray “us versus them” and “America first”, which displays a message of egocentrism instead of ecocentrism. China’s thematic choices are typically used to show China’s willingness to undertake global responsibility and to jointly work with other stakeholders to safeguard our planet, echoing China’s global vision of “building a shared future for mankind”.","PeriodicalId":93793,"journal":{"name":"Journal of world languages","volume":"38 1","pages":"207 - 230"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of world languages","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2022-0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract This article adopts an ecolinguistic approach to study the thematic choices in the General Debate statements by the US and China at the United Nations General Assembly (2017–2020) to reveal the eco-characteristics of the two countries’ thematic choices and their impacts on the constructions of international relations. Findings suggest that, from the perspective of ecosophy, a significant proportion of the US’s thematic choices are destructive to international relations, while China’s thematic choices are mostly beneficial and ambivalent. The US’s thematic choices are frequently used to portray “us versus them” and “America first”, which displays a message of egocentrism instead of ecocentrism. China’s thematic choices are typically used to show China’s willingness to undertake global responsibility and to jointly work with other stakeholders to safeguard our planet, echoing China’s global vision of “building a shared future for mankind”.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中美在联合国大会一般性辩论发言的生态话语对比分析(2017-2020)
摘要本文采用生态语言学的方法,对中美两国在2017-2020年联合国大会一般性辩论发言中的主题选择进行研究,揭示两国主题选择的生态特征及其对国际关系构建的影响。研究结果表明,从生态学的角度来看,美国的主题选择对国际关系有很大一部分是破坏性的,而中国的主题选择大多是有益的和矛盾的。美国的主题选择经常被用来描绘“我们对他们”和“美国优先”,这是一种自我中心主义的信息,而不是生态中心主义。中国的主题选择通常是用来表明中国愿意承担全球责任,并与其他利益攸关方共同保护我们的地球,呼应中国“构建人类命运共同体”的全球愿景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova, Alice Henderson & Jonás Fouz-González (eds.). 2021. English pronunciation instruction: Research-based insights. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. xix+388 pp. ISBN: 978-90-272-0935-1(hbk) J. R. Martin, Beatriz Quiroz & Pin Wang. 2023. Systemic functional grammar: A text-based description of English, Spanish and Chinese Arran Stibbe. 2024. Econarrative: Ethics, ecology, and the search for new narratives to live by. London: Bloomsbury, x+278pp. ISBN: 978-1-3502-6312-3 (hbk) Positive discourse analysis of Aotearoa New Zealand Foreign Minister’s speeches: an ecolinguistic perspective “Spoken and monologic”: modelling oratory, past and present, through the framework of systemic functional linguistics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1