RT info:eu-repo/semantics/contributionToPeriodical
T1 A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Chinese Government’s Argumentation: A Case of ‘Comment on Country Report of Human Rights Practice by the U.S. Department of State’
A1 Ruhua, Jin
K1 Derecho
K1 Política
K1 Pragmática
K1 Dialéctica
K1 Derechos humanos
K1 Argumentación
AB 本研究采用语用论辩学分析中国政府回应美国政府批评中国人权状况的论辩话语，旨在探讨中方如何通过论证来反对美方的霸权。本研究以中国国务院新闻办公室（“国新办”）在 1995 到 1997 年间发布的三篇官方文件“评美国国务院《人权报告》”为研究文本，通过分析其中的论证结论（立场）、论证内容（理由）、论证结构和论证图式发现国新办在上述四个方面的论证策略。通过分析，研究者发现：1）在立场上，国新办并不同意美方《人权报告》中一些部分所说的中国存在人权违规的观点；2）在论证内容上，国新办主要提供了四类理由，分别是：美方的人权报告存在歪曲中国人权的情况；美方忽略了中国政府在人权上取得进步的事实；也无视其自身严重的人权违规现象；美方对中国人权的指责是其霸权本质的体现。3）在论证结构上，就人权事宜，中方属于非混合的复杂论辩类型，其内部的复合、并列和嵌入型类别又相互结合；4）在论证图式上，国新办的人权话语主要以征兆型论证为主。本研究从论辩的视角对发展中国家对外人权话语的改进提供实践价值。中一些部分所说的中国存在人权违规的观点；2）在论证内容上，国新办主要提供了四类理由，分别是：美方的人权报告存在歪曲中国人权的情况；美方忽略了中国政府在人权上取得进步的事实；也无视其自身严重的人权违规现象；美方对中国人权的指责是其霸权本质的体现。3）在论证结构上，就人权事宜，中方属于非混合的复杂论辩类型，其内部的复合、并列和嵌入型类别又相互结合；4）在论证图式上，国新办的人权话语主要以征兆型论证为主。本研究从论辩的视角对发展中国家对外人权话语的改进提供实践价值。This paper, adopting pragma-dialectical approach, analyses the Chinese government’s argumentative discourse in response to the accusation of its human rights practices by American government, in order to explore the former’s argumentation in resistance to America’s hegemony. It takes “Comment on Country Report of Human Rights Practices by the U.S. Department of State”, three pieces of official documents issued by Information Office of State Council of China (“IOSC”) from 1995 to 1997, as the research texts. It analyses the claim (standpoint), argument (reason), argument structure and scheme to find out the argumentative strategies of IOSC in these four aspects. It was found that: 1) in terms of standpoint, IOSC denied the view of U.S. side that China had human rights abuses in some parts of its Country Report; 2) in terms of argument, IOSC mainly provided four types ofreasons: the U.S. counterpart distorted China’s domestic human rights practices in some cases, neglected the progress of human rights the Chinese government had made, took a blind eye to America’s own severe human rights violations, and American government’s accusation through Country Report was the embodiment of hegemony; 3) As to the argument structure, theChinese government adopted non-mixed complex argumentation with their various types of multiple, coordinate and subordinate structure in combination on human rights issue; 4) in terms of argument scheme, IOSC mainly adopted symptomatic scheme in its discourse. The study provides practical values for the improvement of a development country’s international human rights discourse in the argumentative lens.
PB Universidad de León: Instituto Confucio
SN 2444-832X
LK http://hdl.handle.net/10612/13933
UL http://hdl.handle.net/10612/13933
DS BULERIA. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de León
RD 16-abr-2024