1887
Volume 23, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This paper discusses how the first person pronouns ‘I and ‘We’ and the two proper nouns ‘the Education Bureau [EDB]’ and ‘the Government’ were used strategically by government officials in an attempt to delineate the level of involvement and commitment of the officials themselves, the EDB and the Hong Kong Government in the course of implementing and fine-tuning the medium-of-instruction policy in Hong Kong’s secondary schools. The data comprises the speeches delivered at various formal educational occasions and the documents issued and distributed to various stakeholders of the secondary education in Hong Kong. The clauses having these pronouns and proper nouns as either the Agent or Beneficiary were identified and examined in order to find out: (1) the level of commitment of the officials/administrative entities with reference to the process types used; (2) the level of commitment of these officials/administrative entities with reference to the modality level chosen; (3) the power status of the officials/administrative entities; and (4) the specific role, if any, played by the officials/administrative entities. Systemic functional grammar was the framework being drawn upon in undertaking the analysis.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23.1.03ho
2013-01-01
2019-09-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bolivar, Adriana
    (1999) The linguistic pragmatics of political pronouns in Venezuelan Spanish. In J. Verschueren (ed.), Selected Papers (Vol. 1) From the 6th International Pragmatics Conference. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, pp. 56-69.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bull, Peter , and Anita Fetzer
    (2006) Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews. Text & Talk26.1: 3-37. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.002 [Google Scholar]
  3. van Dijk, Teun
    (2006) Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society17.2: 359-383. doi: 10.1177/0957926506060250
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250 [Google Scholar]
  4. Education Commission
    (2005) Report on Review of Medium of Instruction for Secondary Schools and Secondary School Places Allocation. Hong Kong: Printing Department.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Education Bureau, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government
    (2009) Education Bureau Circular No. 6/(2009) Fine-tuning the medium of instruction for secondary schools.
  6. Education Commission, Hong Kong Government
    (1990) Report No. 4: The Curriculum and Behavioral Problems in Schools. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Education Department
    (1997) Medium of Instruction: Guidance for Secondary Schools. Hong Kong: Printing Department.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fairclough, Norman
    (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1993) Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse and Society 4.2: 133-168. doi: 10.1177/0957926593004002002
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fetzer, Anita , and Peter Bull
    (2008) “I don’t mean you personally, forgive me, I mean generally”. The strategic use of pronouns in political interviews’. Journal of Language and Politics7.2: 271-285. doi: 10.1075/jlp.7.2.05fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.7.2.05fet [Google Scholar]
  11. Givón, Talmy
    (1976) Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In C. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 149-188.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Goffman, Ervin
    (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Halliday, Michael , and Christian Matthiessen
    (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ho, Victor
    (2010a) Constructing identities in the workplace through request e-mail discourse – how does one benefit from it? GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies10.2: 3 – 18.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2010b) Constructing identities through request e-mail discourse. Journal of Pragmatics42: 2253 – 2261. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.002
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hodge, Robert , and Gunther Kress
    (1988) Social Semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hong Kong Government
    (1965) Education Policy. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Inigo-Mora, Isabel
    (2004) On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language and Politics 3.1: 27-52. doi: 10.1075/jlp.3.1.05ini
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.1.05ini [Google Scholar]
  19. Kamio, Akio
    (1994) The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics21: 67-100. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90047‑7
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90047-7 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2001) English generic we, you and they: An analysis in terms of territory of information. Journal of Pragmatics33: 1111-1124. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00052‑7
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00052-7 [Google Scholar]
  21. Marsch, R , and J. Sampson
    (1963) Report of Education Commission. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Pennycook, Alastair
    (1994) The politics of pronouns. ELTJ 48.2: 173–178. doi: 10.1093/elt/48.2.173
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/48.2.173 [Google Scholar]
  23. Proctor, Katarzyna , and Lily Su
    (2011) The 1st person plural in political discourse - American politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics43: 3251-3266. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  24. Pyykkő, Riitta
    (2002) Who is ‘us’ in Russian political discourse. In A. Duszak (ed.), Us and others: Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 233-238. doi: 10.1075/pbns.98.14pyy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.98.14pyy [Google Scholar]
  25. Reyes-Rodríguez, Antonio
    (2008) Discursive strategies in Chavez's political discourse: Voicing, distancing, and shifting. Critical Discourse Studies 5.2: 133-152. doi: 10.1080/17405900801990074
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900801990074 [Google Scholar]
  26. Teo, Peter
    (2004) “Clean and green - That’s the way we like it”: Greening a country, building a nation. Journal of Language and Politics 3.3: 485-505. doi: 10.1075/jlp.3.3.07teo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.3.07teo [Google Scholar]
  27. Wilson, John
    (1990) Politically Speaking. Oxford: Blackwells.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Wilson, Andrew , and David Zeitlyn
    (1995) The distribution of person-referring expressions in natural conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction28.1: 61–92. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2801_2
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2801_2 [Google Scholar]
  29. Zupnik, Yael
    (1994) A pragmatic analysis of the use of person deixis in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics21: 339–383. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90010‑8
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90010-8 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23.1.03ho
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Agent , Beneficiary , Medium of instruction , Modality and Process type
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error