CHIẾN LƯỢC THỂ HIỆN VAI XÃ HỘI: MỘT NGHIÊN CỨU TRƯỜNG HỢP
Nội dung chính của bài viết
Tóm tắt
Bài viết là một nghiên cứu về chiến lược thể hiện (representation) vai xã hội (social
actor) trong bài diễn văn của Tổng thống Mỹ Obama tại Đại hội Toàn quốc của Đảng Dân chủ năm
2016. Nghiên cứu áp dụng khung kết hợp dựa trên lý thuyết thể hiện vai xã hội của van Leeuwen (2008),
chuyển tác của Halliday (2004), và “khung tư tưởng - ideological square” của van Dijk (1998). Kết quả
cho thấy người nói đã lựa chọn chiến lược thể hiện vai xã hội theo mục đích, tư tưởng, nhận thức của
mình. Khung tư tưởng cho thấy tính tương phản giữa “Ta” và “Họ” là một chiến lược tạo ra sự “chấp
thuận” hay tính “chính danh” cho các vai xã hội. Nghiên cứu cho thấy sự hiện hữu của tính thiên vị,
không khách quan trong thể hiện vai xã hội. Kết quả cũng cho thấy các tập quán/hành động xã hội dường
như có vai trò to lớn hơn diễn ngôn để tạo ra hiệu ứng hay thay đổi xã hội. Một số hàm ý và gợi ý nghiên
cứu hữu ích được đưa ra dựa trên kết quả của nghiên cứu này.
Chi tiết bài viết
Từ khóa
thể hiện/tái hiện, vai xã hội, chuyển tác, khung tư tưởng, chính danh/chấp thuận
Tài liệu tham khảo
OUP.
Ahlstrand, J. L. (2020). Strategies of ideological
polarization in the online news media: A
social actor analysis of Megawati
Soekarnoputri. Discourse and Society,
32(1), 64-80.
https://doi.org/10.1177/095792650961634
Alias, A. B., & Nasir, N. M. (2019). Social actor
representation of the missing Malaysia
Airlines flight MH370 in the Malaysian and
foreign news reports: A critical discourse
analysis. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics & English Literature, 6(1), 84.
https://doi.org/10.5296ijl.6i1.4892
Bernard, T. (2018). The discursive representation of
social actors in the corporate social
responsibility (CSA) and integrated annual
(IA) reports of two South African mining
companies. Critical Approaches to
Discourse Analysis across Disciplines,
10(1), 81-97.
https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/journals/cadaa
d/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/05-Bernard.pdf
Bernstein, B. (1981). Codes, modalities and the
process of cultural reproduction: A model.
Language and Society, 19, 327-363.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical
introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Calhoun, C. (1995). Critical social theory: Culture,
history, and the challenge of difference.
Blackwell Publishing.
Charles, Q. D. (2019). Black teachers of English in
South Korea: Constructing identities as a
native English speaker and English language
teaching professional. TESOL Journal,
10(4), Article e478.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.478
Clinton, H. R. (2017). What happened. Simon &
Schuster.
Conti, B. (2016). Islam as a new social actor in Italian
cities: Mosque controversies as sites of
inclusion and separation. Religion, State and
Society, 44(3), 238-257.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2016.122
0770
Danziger, R. (2021). The democratic king: The role
of ritualized flattery in political discourse.
Discourse and Society, 32(6), 645-665.
https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265211023224
Dunmire, P. L. (2012). Political discourse analysis:
Exploring the language of politics and the
politics of language. Language and
Linguistics Compass, 6(12), 735-751.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change.
Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power. Pearson
Education Limited.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical
discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse as social interaction: Discourse
studies: A multidisciplinary introduction
(pp. 258-284). Sage.
Fowler, R., Hodge, R., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979).
Language and control. Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Gal, S. (1989). Language and political economy.
Annual Review of Anthropology, 18(1), 345-
367.
Garcia, D. (2019, August 14). Presidential traits in
American society. Vida Aventura.
https://vidaaventura.net/commonpresidential-leadership-qualities/
Goffman E. (1959). The presentation of self in
everyday life. Penguin Books.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from prison
notebooks. Lawrence and Wishart.
Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis. Beacon
Press.
Hall, D. (2003). The work of representation. In S.
Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural
representations and signifying practices
(pp. 15-30). Sage.
https://culturetechnologypolitics.files.word
press.com/2015/09/stuart-hall-onrepresentation-1.pdf
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social
semiotic: The social interpretation of
language and meaning. Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
(2004). An introduction to functional
grammar. Edward Arnold.
Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, grammar and ideology:
Functional and cognitive perspectives.
Bloombury Academic.
Holborow, M. (2015). Neoliberalism and language.
Routledge.
Irwin, J. W. (1996). Empowering ourselves and
transforming schools: Educators making a
difference. SUNY Press.
Jorgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse
analysis as theory and method. Sage.
Keating, J. (2021). Populist discourse and active
metaphors in the 2016 US presidential
elections. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4),
499-531. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2021-4004
KhosraviNik, M. (2010). Actor descriptions, action
attributions, and argumentation: Towards a
systematization of CDA analytical
categories in the representation of social
groups. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(1), 55-72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900903453948
Koller, V. (2008). CEOs and “working gals”: The
textual representation and cognitive
conceptualization of businesswomen in
different discourse communities. In K.
Harrington, L. Litoselliti, H. Sauntson &
J. Sunderland (Eds.), Gender and language
research methodologies (pp. 211-226).
Palgrave.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live
by. The University of Chicago Press.
Lin, A. (2014). Critical discourse analysis in applied
linguistics: A methodological review.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34,
213–232.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000087
Lin, U., Chen, M., & Flowerdew, J. (2021). ‘Same,
same but different’: Representations of
Chinese mainland and Hong Kong people in
the press in post-1997 Hong Kong. Critical
Discourse Studies.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2021.190
5015
Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical
discourse analysis. Sage.
Mohamad Jamil, S. N. (2020). ‘Malaysia belongs to
the Malays’ (Malaysia ni Melayu Punya!):
Categorising ‘us’ and ‘them’ in Malaysia’s
mainstream Malay-language newspapers.
Critical Discourse Studies, 18(6), 671-687.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.183
4419
Morgan, M. (2020). Why meaning-making matters:
The case of the UK Government’s COVID-
19 response. American Journal of Cultural
Sociology, 8, 270-323.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-020-00121-y
Obama, B. (2016). President Obama’s DNC speech
[Speech transcript]. Politico.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dn
c-2016-obama-prepared-remarks-226345
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality. Sage.
Power, K., Rak, l., & Kim, M. (2020). Women in
business media: A critical discourse analysis
of representations of women in Forbes,
Fortune and Bloomberg Business Week,
2015-2017. Critical Approaches to
Discourse Analysis across Disciplines,
11(2), 1-26.
https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/journals/ca
daad/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Vol11.2-
1-Power-Rak-Kim.pdf
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1972). A grammar of contemporary
English. Longman.
Rampton, B. (1995). Politics and change in research
in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics,
16(2), 233-54.
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths based
leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why
people follow. Gallup Press.
Silaški, N., & Đurović, T. (2019). The Great Wall of
Europe: Verbal and
multimodal potrayals of Europe’s migrant
crisis in Serbian media discourse.
In L. Viola & A. Musolff (Eds.), Migration
and media: Discourses about
identities in crisis (pp. 83-202). John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Teo, P. (2000). Racism in the news: A critical
discourse analysis of news reporting in two
Australian newspapers. Discourse and
Society, 11(1), 7-49.
Tussyadiah, I. P. (2014). Social actor attribution to
mobile phones: The case of
tourists. Information Technology &
Tourism, 14(1), 21-47.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-013-0002-4
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology and discourse. Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A
plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer
(Eds.), Methods of discourse analysis
(pp. 95-120). Sage.
van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social
actors. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M.
Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices:
Readings in critical discourse analysis
(pp. 32-71). Routledge.
van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice:
New tools for discourse analysis. Oxford
University Press.
Voloshinov, V. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy
of language. Harvard University Press.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods of
critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
Woodffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and
discourse analysis: A comparative and
critical introduction. Sage.