Systemic Functional Political Discourse Analysis

A Text-based Study

Eden Sum-hung Li, Percy Luen-tim Lui, Andy Ka-chun Fung

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429782305
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Rhetoric
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Systemic Functional Political Discourse Analysis: A Text-based Study is the first book which takes a comprehensive systemic functional perspective on political discourse to provide a complete, integrated, exhaustive, systemic and functional description and analysis. Based on the political discourses of the Umbrella Movement – the largest public protest in the history of Hong Kong, which occupies a unique political situation in the world: a post-colonial society like many other Asian societies and yet unlike the others, it is a Special Administrative Region of China. Though it enjoys a high degree of autonomy under the principle of 'One Country, Two Systems', it is still confined to being part of the 'One Country'. The book demonstrates how a systemic functional approach can provide a comprehensive, thorough, and insightful analysis of the political discourse from four co-related and complementary approaches: contextual, discourse semantic, lexicogrammatical and historical. Apart from a thorough discussion of various systemic functional conceptions, it provides examples of various analyses from a SF perspective, including contextual parameters, registerial analysis, semantic discourse analysis, appraisal analysis, and discusses important issues in political discourse, including negotiation of self-identity, association of language, power and institutional role, and expression of 'evidentiality' and 'subjectivity'. It is written not only for those who are interested in Hong Kong politics in general and political discourse in Hong Kong in particular, but also for those who work on political discourse analysis, and those who apply SFL to various other discourses such as mass media discourse, medical discourse, teaching discourse, etc. Last but not least, this book is also intended to provide a theoretical framework in discourse analysis from the systemic functional perspective for those who work in Cantonese and in other languages.

1
Analyzing political discourse from a systemic functional perspective

An overview

1.1 Introduction

This book is a text-based study on the political discourse in Hong Kong. It intends not only to analyze political discourse via the systemic functional theoretical framework but also to approach political discourse analysis (PDA) from the systemic functional perspective. Due to the nature of PDA, the subject matter of this book is interdisciplinary in the sense that it draws upon methods, theoretical frameworks and contents of both the disciplines of linguistics and political sciences (Dunmire, 2012; Okulska & Cap, 2010; Wodak, 2011; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). On the linguistics front, as mentioned, this book will adopt the theoretical perspectives of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) developed by Halliday and his colleagues (Halliday, 1994; Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Matthiessen, Teruya, & Lam, 2010 and many others). The decision is based on the consideration that: firstly, the emphasis of SFL on the relation between context and meaning production will enable not only a detailed analysis of the political discourses, but also the theorization of political discourses as political acts to achieve political agendas in political events. Doing so is in stark contrast with the structural or formal approach in which the grammaticality of the structures is the main focus (Kyrala, 2010, p. 76). Secondly, SFL has long been applied for the description of written and spoken English (e.g., Halliday, 1994; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Martin, 1992; Matthiessen, 1995 etc.) and Chinese (e.g., Halliday; Hu, 1984; Li, 2007; McDonald, 1998; Zhu, 1996 etc.), the two languages of the political discourses under analysis. Thirdly, it has also long been adopted in critical discourse analysis (CDA) and recently in PDA (e.g., Burton, 1978; Butler, 1982; Coulthard & Brazil, 1979; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975); and lastly, it is a theory of grammar (technically known as grammatics) which can be used to analyze other semiotic data such as figures, graphs and symbols among the political discourse being analyzed (e.g., Bell, 1999; McDonald, 1999; O’Halloran, 1999). On the political science front, discourses in real-world politics may adopt strategies for advancing the political actor’s power, social and institutional role, stance and/or agenda. Which political strategies to be adopted depends largely on several factors, including who initiates the discourse; the complexity of the political issue and political event, and the proximity of the impacts that the issue may have on the other political actors as well as the public; and also the resources possessed by different political actors in the event in which the discourse evolved. The three mentioned factors are well embedded in the register analysis of the SFL. The first chapter of the book will introduce the most basic notions, linguistic theories and disciplines, and analytical approaches upon which this book is based and evolved.

1.2 Understanding political discourse

In this section, we start to examine the meaning of ‘politics’ from the perspective of social sciences and how it is related with another important notion, ‘power’. We will then explore the concept of ‘discourse’ in the discipline of linguistics and the practice of ‘discourse analysis’ (DA) from a social semiotic point of view. Finally, we focus on the key issues of this book, ‘political discourse’ and PDA, before discussing the previous studies on the political discourse of Hong Kong society in the following section.

1.2.1 Politics and power

In the study of political science, politics is, generally speaking, about the governance of a society or nation. It is the process and practice wherein the public determines issues of public concern such as the increment of tax rate and the reformation of governance. The title of Harold Lasswell’s 1936 classic, Politics: Who Gets What, When, How, provides an apt definition of politics. Politics largely concerns whether individuals/groups (who) receive (gets) benefits and/or possess influence (what) at what time (when) and through what means (how). In other words, the main focus of politics is on whether individuals/groups get what they want at the time that they want it and through the means that they are accustomed to. The notion of ‘politics’ is closely related to the notion of ‘power’, as who gets what; when and how is dependent on who possesses the power and knows how to exercise it at the right time. If one possesses the power knows how to exercise it at the right moment, then one would get what he or she wants, such as removing a regulation that would increase operational costs of one’s company or passing a regulation that would protect the environment from air pollution. In other words, the crux of politics is the possession and the exercise of power, which in turn are closely related to discourse. For instance, more often than not, the possession of (relative) power may go through a process of negotiation among opposing parties in an event, and this process of negotiation, as well as the execution of power, is usually, if not always, through the use of language.

Though power is a basic concept in social science (especially for the disciplines of political science and sociology), it has no commonly agreed-on definition. Instead, it is used differently by different scholars in different contexts. In the broadest sense and roughly in line with the use of the term in many everyday contexts, power can be generally described as the capacity to bring about certain effects (Saar, 2010). Dahl, in contrast, puts forward a more specific conceptualization of power in social action by stating that: ‘An actor has power over another to the extent that he (or she) can get her (or him) to do something that she (or he) would not otherwise do’ (quoted in Saar, p. 1099). This conceptualization of power is used among some sociolinguists in their discussion of language and power (e.g., Li & Mahboob, 2012; Li, 2015). We will come back to this in a later section. The concept of power applies not just to the notion of action but also the networks of intersubjective and institutional relationships that crucially determine which actions can be taken by individual actors (ibid). Put differently, power is the factor that determines what can be done (or cannot be done), said (or cannot be said), in what context, and how individuals/institutions should relate and respond to one another’s action. Moreover, some analysts see power according to one set of agents’ power over others (or the power of structure over people); others see that form of power as a subset of power that is descriptive of what people can achieve. Thus, ‘power over’ versus ‘power to’ is a theme running through many debates (Dowding, 2011, p. xxiv) in the social sciences. As Pansardi (2011, p. 521) notes, the various usages of power have a common thread in interpreting it as a relation between actors, specifically as a relation of social causation. Power is to be considered the specific kind of social causation resulting from the intentions of the power wielder. ‘Power to’ is also explicated by causation. However, the difference lies in the fact that while ‘power over’ means causing behaviour on the part of others, ‘power to’ refers to the ability to cause certain outcomes or states of affairs. Lastly, whereas ‘power to’ is commonly interpreted as a property of individuals or of groups, ‘power over’ has been attributed, by different approaches, to individuals, collectivities, institutions and social structures. Both the notions of ‘power over’ and ‘power to’ are apparent in the live political discourse between government officials and student representatives (on 21 October 2014) that aimed at ending the Occupy Central Movement peacefully. Details of the meeting between the government officials and the student representatives will be presented later in the book. Suffice it to say here that the government’s decision to hold a live meeting with the student representatives reflects the notion of ‘power over’ – to make the meeting possible. Likewise, the government’s shaping of the format and the topics to be discussed in the meeting reflect the notion of ‘power to’ – that is, to cause the outcomes of the meeting by shaping the order of the discourse.

When one applies the concept of power to language, one’s main concern is about the relationship between power and language in general and the domain of political discourse in particular. In general, as Ng (2011, p. 371) asserts, power is both cause and effect of language. This bidirectional relationship can be summed up in two concepts: the power behind language and the power of language. Power behind language refers to a language’s symbolic roles in signifying or reflecting the already existent power relationships. In these passive roles, language serves as a conduit of power but otherwise has no power of its own (ibid.). The power of language refers to the generative roles of language in creating power for influence and control. In these active roles language is power (ibid.). The power of language has many sources. It can be based on the very power that lies behind language and is later transmitted to users of the language. Alternatively, it can be derived from the language itself, because of the ability of language to influence thinking and behaviour (ibid, pp. 371–372). To put it simply, and as Freeden (2011, p. 493) argues, we can affect human conduct and social processes through language, and we can express power in our written and oral discourses.

When it comes to discourse in the political context, the focus is on who has the power to initiate the discourse, set its agenda and determine the parameters within which the discourse should be taking place. As for language use in discourse, the study of power in discourse focuses on the manner in which the forms of power are produced, organized and focused. As a matter of fact, all texts are expressions of power, and in that sense they are political, to the extent that they endeavour to influence the audience and may change, or reinforce, the views, arguments and ideological configurations of their potential audience. Fairclough (2015, p. 73) notes two major aspects of the relationship between language and power: power in discourse, and power behind discourse. The former is concerned with ‘discourse as a place where relations of power are actually exercised and enacted’ while the latter focuses on ‘how order of discourse, as dimensions of the social orders of social institutions or societies, are themselves shaped and constituted by relations of power’. In fact, these two major aspects of the relationship between language and power correspond to what we have previously discussed: power over versus power to. Power in discourse is related to ‘power over’ as both refer to the actual exercising of power, which in turn would affect relations between actors in the discourse, and subsequently, the result of that discourse. Power behind discourse is related to ‘power to’ as both refer to the ability to cause certain outcomes, such as what the order of discourse should look like.

1.2.2 Discourse and discourse analysis

The meaning of ‘discourse’ can be very broad; its meanings are beset by its concreteness and yet abstractness about the homonym of ‘discourse’ used in various disciplines and fronts of investigations (see Gee & Handford, 2012; Hyland, 2013; Hyland & Paltridge, 2011). While most linguists would agree that discourse, in the most general sense, means language in use, it seems to us that such a taken-for-granted view alone brings us too far to understand what DA means. Indeed, the meanings of ‘discourse’ vary across traditions and schools. Traditionally, linguists see discourse as language-internal object in that it is the fundamental descriptum on which the study of language is based. Applied linguists, for example, would view language in use as the language patterns manifested in both oral and written text (e.g., Brown & Yule, 1983). Conservationists, in contrast, take a restrictive view on the uses of language, treating only the oral text (qua talk or talk in interaction) as the object of enquiry (e.g., Sacks, 1972a, 1972b, 1992).

The meaning of ‘discourse’ also goes beyond the language patterns in language studies but as a kind of contextualized language behaviour. Pragmatists, for example, perceive language in use contextually, focusing on the context-specific meanings of the sentence or above the clause (e.g., Austin, 1962; Grice, 1975; Searle, 1965, 1969). Genre analysts, like pragmatists, view the contextualized language in use under the notion of genre or text type, with a particular focus on the genre-specific uses of language (e.g., Bhatia, 1993, 2004, 2008; Swales, 1990).

Some linguists push the meaning of ‘discourse’ further by relating it to some associated ideas and notions, thereby bringing us a more sophisticated conceptualization of what language in use is. Critical discourse analysts, for example, uphold the intrinsic relations among discourse, power and control, viewing the use of language as discursive practices in which language users represent their ideology in society (e.g., Foucault, 1972; Fairclough, 1989, 1992). Others extend the descriptions of language in use in terms of discourse, space and time, viewing it as ‘a web of trajectories constructed by human actors’ movements over space and time in the course of their daily routine activities’ (e.g., Gu, 2009a, 2009b, 2012; Keating, 2015).

In this book, we see ‘discourse’ from a social semiotic theory, followi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Analyzing political discourse from a systemic functional perspective: an overview
• PART I Approaching political discourse from above (contextual parameters)
• PART II Approaching political discourse from around (discourse semantic parameters)
• PART III Approaching political discourse from below (lexicogrammatical parameters)
• References
• Index