Systemic Functional Political Discourse Analysis: A Text-based Study 9781138359710

Table of contents :
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)
2 Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics
3 Registerial analysis of political discourse
Part II: Approaching political discourse from around (discourse semantic parameters)
4 Semantic discourse analysis of political discourse
5 Appraisal analysis of political discourse
Part III: Approaching political discourse from below (lexicogrammatical parameters)
6 Self-identity and personal references in political discourse
7 Power, institutional role and interpersonal elements in political discourse
8 Evidentiality, subjectivity and mental process in political discourse
References
Index

Citation preview

Systemic Functional Political Discourse Analysis 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. The book is 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, as 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 and appraisal analysis, and discusses important issues in political discourse, including negotiation of self-identity, association of language, power and institutional roles 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. Eden Sum-hung Li is Assistant Professor in Linguistics and Programme Leader in the School of Arts and Social Sciences at the Open University of Hong Kong. He has taught at Macquarie University and the University of Hong Kong. He is the author of A Systemic Functional Grammar of Chinese and Language, Society and Culture in Hong Kong, and is the first author of English Today: Forms, Functions and Uses and the co-author of Analysing and Applying English Grammar. Apart from these four books, Li has also published more than 60 book chapters, international journal articles, proceedings and conference papers. Percy Luen-tim Lui is Assistant Professor in Public Administration and Programme Leader in the School of Arts and Social Sciences at the Open University of Hong Kong. He is the co-editor of Contemporary Hong Kong Politics: Governance in the Post-1997 Era and Contemporary Hong Kong Governance and Politics. Apart from these two edited books, Lui has also published several book chapters and international journal articles. Andy Ka-chun Fung has a PhD in Linguistics. As a member of the PolySystemic Research Group, he has situated himself mostly within Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), and specialized in functional semantics in the area of political discourse, healthcare communication and multimodal analysis. He has various research collaborations with scholars around the world, engaging in number of international conference presentations and contributing book chapters on semantic networks.

Routledge Studies in Linguistics

Conceptual Conflicts in Metaphors and Figurative Language Michele Prandi The Language of Pop Culture Edited by Valentin Werner Perspectives from Systemic Functional Linguistics Edited by Akila Sellami-Baklouti and Lise Fontaine Time Series Analysis of Discourse Method and Case Studies Dennis Tay Heart- and Soul-Like Constructs across Languages, Cultures, and Epochs Edited by Bert Peeters Systemic Functional Political Discourse Analysis A Text-based Study Eden Sum-hung Li, Percy Luen-tim Lui and Andy Ka-chun Fung Systemic Functional Language Description Making Meaning Matter Edited by J.R. Martin and Y.J. Doran Rarely Used Structures and Lesser-Studied Languages Insights from the Margins Emily Manetta Externalization Phonological Interpretations of Syntactic Objects Yoshihito Dobashi For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge. com/Routledge-Studies-in-Linguistics/book-series/SE0719

Systemic Functional Political Discourse Analysis A Text-based Study

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

First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Eden Sum-hung Li, Percy Luen-tim Lui and Andy Ka-chun Fung The right of Eden Sum-hung Li, Percy Luen-tim Lui and Andy Ka-chun Fung to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-35971-0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-43354-2 (ebk) Typeset in Galliard by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

List of figures List of tables Acknowledgements 1 Analyzing political discourse from a systemic functional perspective: an overview

vii ix xi

1

PART I

Approaching political discourse from above (contextual parameters)

25

2 Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics

27

3 Registerial analysis of political discourse

66

PART II

Approaching political discourse from around (discourse semantic parameters)

91

4 Semantic discourse analysis of political discourse

93

5 Appraisal analysis of political discourse

124

PART III

Approaching political discourse from below (lexicogrammatical parameters)

169

6 Self-identity and personal references in political discourse171

vi Contents

7 Power, institutional role and interpersonal elements in political discourse

198

8 Evidentiality, subjectivity and mental process in political discourse

219

References Index

243 253

Figures

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7

Hierarchy of systems in phenomenal realms of the world 9 Stratification of language in SFL 11 Genre, register and metafunction  13 Cline of instantiation 14 The trinocularity approach in undertaking discourse analysis 21 Locating semiotic context within systemic order and global semiotic dimensions 30 Partial stratification/instantiation matrix of political context 33 The interrelation of political events from a contextual perspective44 Contextual environment of the meeting between the government officials and student representatives as a political event 53 Partial stratification/instantiation matrix of political discourse semantic  67 The description of field of activity  69 Registerial landscape of political text-in-context 78 Profiling the socio-semiotic processes of the meeting 82 Cline of political moves 95 The realization of political moves in Nathan Law’s discourse 113 Appraisal systems  125 System network of ATTITUDE in the two political events 139 System network of ENGAGEMENT 150 System network of GRADUATION 165 The inclusiveness of ‘we’ in English 173 The referential space of ngo5dei6 ‘我哋’ by the government officials177 The referential space of ngo5dei6 ‘我哋’ by the student representatives178 The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Carrie Lam’s discourse 190 The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Rimsky Yuen’s discourse 191 The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Raymond Tam’s discourse 192 The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Alex Chow’s discourse 194

viii Figures 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11

The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Lester Shum’s discourse The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Yvonne Leung’s discourse The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Nathan Law’s discourse The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Eason Chung’s discourse

195 195 196 196

Tables

1.1 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 6.1 7.1 7.2 7.3

Instantiation/stratification matrix Political issue, event, institutions, actors and moves of the meeting A comprehensive table of political issues, event, institutions, actors and moves of the meeting Field, tenor and mode parameters and types of political discourse Primary and secondary fields of activity Range of political discourses in terms of socio-semiotic process Characterization of FIELD of the HKSAR-HKFS meeting Characterization of TENOR of the HKFS-HKSAR meeting Alex Chow’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Lester Shum’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Yvonne Leung’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Nathan Law’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Eason Chung’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Carrie Lam’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Rimsky Yuen’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Raymond Tam’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Political move, act and agenda Political acts and their linguistic realizations The use of attitude resources – AFFECT – in two political events The use of attitude resources – JUDGEMENT – in two political events The use of attitude resources – APPRECIATION – in two political events The use of engagement resources in two political events Carrie Lam’s engagement strategies Carrie Lam’s linguistic choice in FOCUS Carrie Lam’s linguistic choice in FORCE The frequency of ‘we’ per clause in the meeting A quantitative profile of the participants’ contribution in the political event Speech functions in an interactive event The choice of speech function

15 49 65 68 70 79 80 83 84 85 85 86 87 88 89 90 96 111 130 134 137 141 151 159 166 172 200 202 203

x Tables 7.4 7.5 7.6 8.1

The choice of polarity The choice of modality among government officials and student representatives The choice of value in the use of modality among government officials and student representatives Occurrence and frequency of mental processes in the meeting

210 216 217 220

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude and appreciation to the following parties which make the publication of the present book possible. First of all, we would like to thank the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong because this book is one of the outcomes of a research project entitled “Political discourse in Hong Kong: A systemic functional perspective” supported by a grant from the Council (UGC/FDS16/H04/15) from January 2016 to June 2018. Second, we would also like to thank our colleagues and research team who have contributed to the completion of both the research and book projects. Without them, this book would never have been in its present shape. Our gratitude and appreciation also go to Katie Peace (the Editor), Samantha Phua (Senior Editorial Assistant) and Jennifer Bonnar (the Project Manager) and their production team; their efficiency and patience are impressive. Last but not least, we are deeply indebted to our families for their love, patience and unwavering support throughout the research and book projects.

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

2  Analyzing political discourse 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

Analyzing political discourse  3 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

4  Analyzing political discourse 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,

Analyzing political discourse  5 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, following M.A.K. Halliday and his colleagues’ SFL. Important in this theory is that discourse is neither a mere language in use nor beyond language in use, but, in essence, it is ‘social’ and ‘semiotic’ (Halliday, 1994; Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Halliday & Webster, 2014; Hasan, 2005). The former entails an implication that discourse is in itself a product, and this discourse-as-product has focally to do with social reality. Throughout our everyday life, we, being social beings, encounter a flow of discourses in our daily social routines (cf. discourse diary in McCarthy, Matthiessen, & Slade, 2010). We can ask, of course, how many types of discourse one might encounter in a day. The answer is probably countless, depending on the number and natures of social activities one engages in. The totality of discourses thus serves as the fundamental building blocks of our community, constituting what we perceive to be our society. With regard to the latter, it indicates that discourse is in itself semogenic. That is to say, discourse is in itself a process, and this discourse-as-process has focally to do with language users in which the meaningfulness has to be brought to existence through these semiotic agents who enact meaning-making acts in the course of meaning exchanges within society. Let’s illustrate the preceding argument by turning to a short vignette written by John Flowerdew, a linguist who visited one of the protest sites during the Umbrella Movement. As the extract goes: As I exited the Mongkok Mass Transit Railway (MTR) station onto Nathan Road early in the afternoon, the scene was quite quiet, with only relatively small numbers of people manning the barricades and the TV cameramen

6  Analyzing political discourse and press photographers taking it easy. In spite of this, as I walked down the street I observed some (rather old) anti-Occupiers haranguing a group of Occupiers. A crowd of onlookers was observing this performance and participating by applauding and voicing their support when the Occupiers answered back. As I moved further down the street, I observed a student Occupier giving a speech, with a couple of dozen people listening. (Flowerdew, 2017, p. 462) If we keep track of the activities, there are four discourses unfolding in this short vignette: 1 2 3 4 5

news report produced by TV cameraman news report produced by press photographers harangue given by anti-Occupiers towards a group of Occupiers responses made by the group of Occupiers speech given by a student Occupier

In a general sense, these four discourse activities do not readily relate to one another (except 3 and 4); they are discoursally independent in that they interact with one another neither interdiscursively nor intertextually (Bhatia, 2010). More specifically, each of them constitutes its own situational context, with its respective ongoing activities, participants involved and modes of representation. Yet, they are all the same in that they belong to the same discourse family, political discourse. That is to say, these various instances of political discourse shape our socio-political reality, contributing not only to the representation of the social issue at the time the vignette was written, the Umbrella Movement, but also the socio-political culture of Hong Kong. In other words, discourse is a social semiotic construct in which the acts of meaning embodies, construe and shape the social reality that social agents are situated in. Granted that society and language are closely associated (Hasan, 2005), it appears that the study of discourse is to study the language behaviours of semiotic ‘meaners’ in the discourse community. DA, from a social semiotic point of view, is thus a linguistics analysis grounded in systemic functional theory in which the analysis of discourses enables discourse analysts to understand discourse-as-product, i.e., ‘the nature of the relationship between language and society’ and discourse-as-process, i.e., ‘why and how language works’ (Hasan, 2005, p. 56).

1.2.3 Political discourse and political discourse analysis Kamp (2015, p. 3) defines political discourse as ‘talk and text produced in regard to concrete political issues (language in politics) or through the actual language use of institutional political actors, even in discussion of non-political issues (language of politicians)’. Based on this definition, there are two types of political discourse: First, discourse, including both written and spoken, concerning concrete political topics disregards the speaker, whether he/she is a

Analyzing political discourse  7 politician, journalist, professional or layperson, and the context in which the discourse is produced, whether it is in formal or informal contexts; and second, the actual (natural, institutional, or mediated) uses of text and talk by politicians. For the former, Burkhardt (1996, p. 78) further points out that political discourse encompasses ‘all types of public, institutional and private talk on political issues, all types of texts typical of politics as well as the lexical and stylistic linguistic instruments characterizing talk about political contexts’. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics, language, both spoken and written, is one but not the sole semiotic resource; there are other semiotic resources such as graphics and gestures, as long as they can communicate meaning. Political discourses thus include both language and other semiotic resources as long as they concern political issues and/or are produced by actors in political events. It should be noted that due to the limitation of space, this book focuses on spoken and written language, like most of the works on PDA do. PDA investigates the connection between linguistic forms/language use and political action/interaction and explores how political ideologies are embedded in political discourse. From the linguistic perspective, PDA is a critical approach to the discourse analysis of political texts, speeches and other semiotic resources as political acts, and is closely related to CDA in the discipline of linguistics, which in turn is associated with Halliday’s (1978, 1994, 2004) social semiotic and SFL framework. Kyrala (2010, p. 74) adopts this theoretical framework to analyze the experiential, interpersonal and textual modes of meaning of the speeches delivered by John McCain and Barack Obama, and concludes that their speeches ‘provide clear indications of ideology’ through the manipulation of these three modes of meaning. Some authors, such as Reyes-Rodríguez (2011a, 2011b), have expressed the feasibility of approaching the analysis of political discourse directly from the systemic functional perspective; however, they do not illustrate how they use this approach to analyze any political speeches in their works. Due to its nature, the study of PDA is usually 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, this book will use the theoretical perspectives of SFL developed by Halliday and his colleagues (Halliday, 1994; Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Matthiessen et al., 2010; and many others). This 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 functions in political contexts, which is in stark contrast to 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, 2014; Martin, 1992; Matthiessen, 1995) and Chinese (e.g., Halliday & McDonald, 2004; Hu, 1984; Li, 2007; McDonald, 1998; Zhu, 1996). Thirdly, SFL has also long been used in CDA and recently in PDA

8  Analyzing political discourse (e.g., Burton, 1978; Butler, 1982; Coulthard & Brazil, 1979; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). Last but not least, SFL is a theory of grammar (technically known as grammatics) which can be used to analyze other semiotic systems, as written data in this project may involve figures, graphs and symbols, and spoken data may involve body language, gesture, pause and silence (e.g., Bell, 1999; McDonald, 1999; O’Halloran, 1999).

1.3 Previous studies of political discourse of Hong Kong society The complex political background in Hong Kong, not surprisingly, has attracted a large degree of scholarly attention. Previous studies on Hong Kong political discourses focused on political voices (e.g., Cheng & Ho, 2014; Lin, 2008; Tsang & Wong, 2004), political image (e.g., Lee, 2004), politics of self-censorship (e.g., Chan & Lee, 2012; Lee & Lin, 2006), identity politics (e.g., Flowerdew, 2004, 2012a; Lam, 2012; Zhang, 2010) and discourse of colonial withdrawal (Flowerdew, 1997b, 2002a, 2002b), to name but a few. Cheng and Lam (2012), in contrast, focus on Western perceptions of Hong Kong a decade after the handover. With the escalating tension about the debate on the pace of Hong Kong’s democratization process, the research focus has gradually shifted from the peripheral political issues to the central political agenda of Hong Kong, universal suffrage. The recent years have witnessed a few political discourse studies taking a specific focus on the political actions in the course of the development of universal suffrage (e.g., Eagleton, 2012; Hallberg, 2014; Wai & Yap, 2012, 2013a, 2013b). Eagleton (2012) studies the political discourse of post-handover Hong Kong, examining how the print media (e.g., newspapers, government documents and websites) discursively mediate the discourse of universal suffrage. As evident in her critical metaphor analysis and the discourse historical method of CDA, Eagleton concludes that the repetition, relexicalization or explication of metaphors is the critical mechanism enabling ideology and meaning making in the political discourse in Hong Kong. In a recent study, Hallberg (2014) explores how the civil disobedience movement known as Umbrella Movement, fighting for genuine universal suffrage, is represented in the South China Morning Post. Drawing on CDA, Hallberg demonstrates that this social movement and the political dissidents involved are misrepresented in news texts. Such misrepresentations, in Hallberg’s view, are the result of the conservative political ideologies upheld by the press. Wai and Yap (2012, 2013a, 2013b) study the ‘damage control’ strategies employed by politicians concerning the 2012 Chief Executive (CE) election in Hong Kong. Taking a discourse-pragmatic approach, they examine how the CE candidates employ ellipsis, silence, first-person pronouns and evasion strategies in public speeches and political interviews so as to evade aggressive questioning. Wai and Yap further claim that frequent use of these discourse strategies by the candidates are the product of face management as well as the ‘highly confrontational culture in political discourse’ of Hong Kong in recent years.

Analyzing political discourse  9 Illuminating as these studies are, the study of political discourse of Hong Kong, or more specifically, universal suffrage, is still in a nascent stage. The limited scope of text types, spectrum of political actors, coverage of important issues, and the lack of longitudinal examination of the interactions among these elements at different stages toward universal suffrage all contribute to the slow progress. Furthermore, little attention has been paid to the systemic functional perspective, which has been suggested as a feasible, comprehensive and valuable approach to the analysis of political discourse (e.g., Reyes-Rodríguez, 2011a, 2011b). To better our understanding of the political discourse of Hong Kong in general, and the political discourse on universal suffrage in particular, a largerscale longitudinal study covering a full spectrum of political parties and registers from a systemic functional perspective is needed.

1.4 An introductory note on Systemic Functional  Linguistics In this book, we will locate the context of PDA from a systemic functional perspective. To do so, firstly, we introduce Halliday and Matthiessen’s (1999) hierarchy of systems in phenomenal realms in the world and argue that human language is a kind of semiotic system; and secondly, we need to introduce some basic concepts: stratification and realization, modes of meaning, potential and instance and rank in SFL. Once we have explained these key concepts, we will explore the characteristics of ‘doing politics’ from a socio-semiotic perspective in the following section.

1.4.1 Human language as a semiotic system Phenomenal realms in the world can be organized into four orders of systems with increasing complexity: physical systems, biological systems, social systems and semiotic systems (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999). This hierarchy of systems can be depicted as in Figure 1.1.

Semiotic systems [ + meaning] Social systems [ + value] Biological systems [+ life] Physical systems

Figure 1.1  Hierarchy of systems in phenomenal realms of the world Source: Adopted from Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999

10  Analyzing political discourse Firstly, physical systems are first-order systems. They range in size from subatomic particles to the entire universe. All physical systems are subject to the laws of physics. Secondly, biological systems are second-order systems. They are ‘second’ in the sense that they are basically physical systems with an additional property of ‘life’. In other words, biological systems are not only subject to the laws of physics like physical systems but also self-replicating, i.e., growing and expanding. Thirdly, social systems are systems of the third order. They are ‘third’ in a sense that they are physical systems with additional properties of ‘life’ and ‘value’. Put simply, they are biological systems with an additional property of ‘value’. Social systems are subject to the laws of physics and are self-replicating, and the processes evolving in them are attributed with social value. For instance, social systems can be organized as social groups according to some form of division of labour, which may be used as the criteria of differentiating social values adhering to each group. Finally, semiotic systems are of the fourth (or the highest) order; they are social systems with an additional property of ‘meaning’. As such, every semiotic system simultaneously embodies properties from all four orders in the hierarchy of systems, i.e., subject to the laws of physics, self-replicating, attributed with social value and embodying meaning. Language is a semiotic system: it is a physical system, studied in the field of acoustic phonetics; a biological system, studied in the fields of neurolinguistics and articulatory/auditory phonetics; and a social system, studied in the field of sociolinguistics (Matthiessen, 2001). SFL is grammatics, a theory of grammar. In fact, it is a general theory of semiotic systems, among which language is one type of semiotic system with the highest order of complexity (Halliday, 1994).

1.4.2 Stratification and realization From a systemic functional perspective, language-in-use (including both discourse-as-product and discourse-as-process) is constructed as a four-level abstraction: context, meaning, wording and sound/writing. Within this abstraction, language (as a semiotic resource) is construed as a tristratal construct; i.e., it can be understood at three levels: meaning (represented by the semantic systems), wording (represented by the lexicogrammatical systems) and sound/ writing (represented by the phonological/orthographic systems). The relation between any two adjacent strata is one of realization; meaning is realized as wording which, in turn, is realized as sounding/writing. In this way, language is perceived as a multiple coding system. Firstly, language production is a coding process in which meaning is encoded in wording and wording is encoded in sound/writing; and secondly, language comprehension is a decoding process in which sound/writing is decoded as wording and wording is decoded as meaning.

Analyzing political discourse  11 Above the level of meaning, there is the level of social context. There are two types of context, the context of culture and the context of situation, the latter located inside the former. This stratum is beyond the domain of language; however, the use of language takes place within these two contexts and is affected by them. These can be represented by Figure 1.2. Context of situation concerns the social factors in the ongoing activities in the world in which the text is created. These social factors lie beyond the domain of language, i.e., the mentioned tristratal construct of meaning, wordings and sound, but they affect the use of language in the text and thus create the extralinguistic features of it. These social factors are grouped into three dimensions, field, tenor and mode (Halliday, 1975). Firstly, the field of discourse refers to ‘what is going on’, concerning the nature of the social process, as institutionalized in the culture. Specifically, it concerns the social activity taking place in the process of text creation, the topic being negotiated in the text, the particular way that the issue is dealt with in the text, and the angle from which the matter is presented. Secondly, the tenor of discourse concerns ‘who is taking part’, specifying the role and status relationships of the interactants taking part in the social process. Specifically, it concerns the institutional role of the participants involved in this social activity, their social status and relative power,

N

T

E

O semantics

C CONTENT

EXPRESSION

lexicogrammar phonology phonetics

Figure 1.2  Stratification of language in SFL Source: Adapted from Hasan, 2014, p. 275

X T

12  Analyzing political discourse their social distance and their socio-metric roles, i.e., their persona and stances, towards each other. Finally, the mode of discourse identifies ‘what the text is doing’, referring to the rhetorical functions and channels assigned to language in the situation in which the social activity is taking place. Specifically, it concerns the mode (spoken or written), channel and medium, the interactivity and spontaneity of the language used, the communicative distance between the text and the events discussed in time and space, and the division of semiotic labour of language as the text unfolds (Li & Mahboob, 2012). These three domains are patterned into situation type (known as register). A situation type is characterized by a complex of features of field, tenor and mode, which sets it apart from other situation types (see Martin, 1999; Coffin, Donohue, & North, 2009 for further explanation of these notions). In the context of culture, the notion ‘genre’ is set up to account for relations among social processes in more holistic terms, with a special focus on the stages through which the text unfolds. From the SF perspective, genre refers to a form of discourse with a distinctive goal, such as narrative, i.e., the construction of a pattern of events with a problematic and/or unexpected outcome to entertain the audience, and recount, i.e., the documentation of a sequence of events with an evaluation of their significance in some way. When texts have the same general purpose in a culture, they belong to the same genre and are expected to have the same obligatory and optional structural elements in each of them. In simple terms, genres can be defined as staged, goal-oriented social processes. According to Martin (1985), genres have the following characteristics: • • • • •

They They They They They

are staged; are goal-oriented; are purposeful social activities; are engaged in a specific culture; and reach their goal through language (language in use).

1.4.3 Modes of meaning Being a higher-order semiotic system, language is able to create more than one mode of meaning (technically known as metafunction in SFL) simultaneously. The modes are ideational metafunction (both experiential and logical metafunctions), interpersonal metafunction and textual metafunction (Halliday, 1994, 2004; Matthiessen & Halliday, 1997). Experiential metafunction construes our experiences of the physical world, and the logical metafunction concerns the logico-semantic relations of these experiences expressed in the language used. The interpersonal metafunction enacts our social roles and relations as meaning. Specifically, it concerns how we use language to interact with each other, to get things done and to express our attitude and assessment towards some issues in the language. The ideational and interpersonal metafunctions thus orient themselves towards the material world and the social world respectively. While both ideational and interpersonal metafunctions concern phenomena that are

Analyzing political discourse  13

Genre – stage ʌ stage ʌ stage Register – field, tenor and mode field

mode

ideational textual

tenor

interpersonal

Figure 1.3  Genre, register and metafunction

non-linguistic in nature, the textual metafunction enables the presentation of ideational and interpersonal meanings as a flow of information that can be interpreted by the audience. It concerns the creation of text, the flow of meaning and the phenomena that are linguistic in nature. These three metafunctions are simultaneously realized in any major clause in the unfolding of text (Halliday, 1994; Matthiessen & Halliday, 1997). It is noted that the ideational meanings of a situation relate closely to the social dimension of field, its interpersonal meanings to tenor and its textual meanings to mode. Hence, we can combine the notions of context and metafunction and visualize it in Figure 1.3.

1.4.4 Potential and instance From the SF perspective, a particular language such as English is seen as a ‘potential’ for creating meaning, i.e., what language users of this particular language can mean, whereas a particular written text or spoken discourse in the language is an ‘actual’ act of meaning, i.e., what a language user means in a given instance. The relationship between language and text (or discourse) is one of instantiation (or actualization). In other words, a text in a particular context of situation instantiates (or actualizes) the linguistic system in its context of culture. This relationship is analogous to the relation between the

14  Analyzing political discourse

subpotential

potential

instance instance type

Figure 1.4  Cline of instantiation Source: Adapted from Halliday & Matthiessen, 1997

climate and the weather of an area in that language is an accumulation of instances of text, just as climate is an accumulation of instances of weather (Matthiessen & Halliday, 1997). Like climatologists observing the weather of a particular area over a period of time and generalizing their findings by a weather pattern, we can analyze a great number of texts and identify various text patterns. This can be depicted as a cline of instantiation as shown in Figure 1.4. The cline can be approached from either end. From the end of the language as a potential towards the text as an instance, there is inbetween the observed pattern as subpotential. From the end of the text as an instance towards the language as a potential, there is the observed pattern as instance type. For the relationship between language and text, Li (2007, p. 13) notes, language, being a social semiotic potential, meaning potential and wording potential, is represented systemically in the form of a network of options (choices), i.e. alternative possibilities. In this way a text as an instance is meaningful because it represents certain choices in contrast with alternative possibilities. Hence, each instance keeps the potential alive, reinforcing it, challenging it and/or changing it. As for the subpotential and instance type, Halliday and Matthiessen (2014, p. 63) point out that ‘[a]s the text unfolds, patterns emerge, some of which acquire added value through resonating with other patterns in the text or in the context of situation’. The text itself is an instance; the resonance is possible because the potential indicates the total possibilities allowed in the language. As a result, the choices made by the speaker or writer can be interpreted by listeners and readers. We refer to this ongoing creation of meaning in the unfolding of text as logogenesis (Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999, p. 18; cf. also Matthiessen, 2009b). Combining the notion of stratification with the notion of instantiation, we can construct an instantiation/stratification matrix as shown in Table 1.1. This matrix shows the total systems of language in context distributed along the hierarchy of stratification and extended along the cline of instantiation.

Context of culture: ‘the culture’ as social semiotic system: networks of social semiotic features constituting the systems-and-processes of the culture; defined as potential clusters of values of field, tenor, mode

Semantic system: meaning as potential; networks of different modes of meaning

Lexicogrammatical system: wording potential; networks of wording realizing different modes of meaning

Context

Semantics

Lexicogrammar

Situation: instantial values of field, tenor and modes; particular social semiotic situation events, with their organization

[Text as] meaning: semantic selection expressions (features from passes through semantic networks), and their representation as meanings particular texts, with their organization [Text as] wording: lexicogrammatical selection expressions (features from passes through grammatical networks), and their manifestation as wordings in particular texts, spoken or written, with their organization

Situation type: set of like situations forming a situation type

Text type: a set of like texts (meanings) forming a text type

[Text type]: a set of like texts (meanings) forming a text type

Subculture/institution: networks of regions of social semiotic space

Register: networks of typological regions of semantic space

[Register]: networks of typological regions of semantic space

Instance

→ Instance type

→ Subpotential (subsystem)

Source: Adapted from Halliday & Matthiessen, 1997, p. 48; Matthiessen, 2001, p. 48

Phonology/ graphology/sign

INSTANTIATION potential (system)

STRATI­ FICATION

Table 1.1  Instantiation/stratification matrix

16  Analyzing political discourse 1.4.5 Rank While language is stratified into the strata of meaning, wording and sound, each stratum is organized internally through a series of contextualization, resulting in a hierarchy of units. While the relation between any two adjacent strata is one of realization, the units of each stratum are related through the relation of constituency, i.e., a part-whole relation, technically known as rank. Each higherranking unit consists of units of the rank immediately below, which in turn consist of units of the next rank below, and so on. The rank scale at the lexicogrammatical stratum is clause – group/phrase – word (– morpheme). That means a clause consists of groups/phrases, a group/phrase consists of words, and a word consists of morphemes. In contrast, the rank scale at the semantic stratum depends on the metafunctions. Li (2007, p. 14) suggests that the rank scale for the experiential metafunction is text – episode pattern – sequence – figure – element; the rank scale for the interpersonal metafunction is text – exchange patterns – move – (act); and the rank scale for the textual metafunction is text – information flow pattern – (chain) – message – information chunk. It should be noted that the rank scale of the three metafunctions at the semantic stratum has yet to be fully explored.

1.5 Towards a socio-semiotic perspective of ‘doing politics’ In Section 1.2, we defined the concept of ‘politics’ from the perspective of political science and related it to the concept of ‘power’. However, it is noted that politics is a large word, its complexity apparent in its academic traditions, theoretical foundations and research methodologies. In this section, we intend to revisit the concept from the linguistic perspective in general, and from the systemic function perspective in particular. To understands how and why politics works is a central inquiry in social sciences such as political science; it is also an inquiry encountered by various practitioners in the field of PDA, sociolinguistics etc., all of which have been devoting their academic momentum to demystifying the intrinsic relations between ‘context’, ‘politics’, ‘language’, ‘power’, ‘ideology’, to name but a few (see Dunmire, 2012 for his review). Some disciplines have offered holistic research programmes and approaches in ‘doing politics’. One notable example is politolinguistics, a branch of study integrating linguistics and political science, which emphasizes ‘three Ps’: Politics (the power sphere, and seen as the capacity to influence political decisions), Polity (the definition of identity and the boundaries of the political community) and Policy (the political programmes and the process of decision making). In contrast to these approaches, our motif here is purely ‘functional’. As systemists, we see ‘politics’ as a functional construct and ‘doing politics’ is a mediation of context and politics through language systems, which encompasses theoretical, descriptive and analytical perspectives. Simply put, we suggest that the central motif of ‘doing politics’ is purely functional, and we revisit and uphold Halliday’s model

Analyzing political discourse  17 of SFL through ‘doing politics’, with an emphasis on its theoretical power in describing the meaning potential across strata as shown next (see Lukin, Moore, Herke, Wegener, & Wu, 2011 for their argument): a

Politics is critical. It concerns social values and communal problems among our community, visualizing the invisible social injustices, dynamics and tension (re)produced by community members. Doing politics is thus ‘problemsolving’ and ‘consumer-oriented’ (Halliday, 2006, p. 19). A functional study of doing politics is thus a front of investigation of Halliday’s notion, ‘appliable linguistics’ (Halliday, 2003). b Politics is universal. It is a linguistic universal phenomenon, which can be approached from the language typological perspective (Caffarel, Martin, & Matthiessen, 2004a). A general theory of language capable of capturing language in specificity of politics is particularly relevant to doing politics. c Politics is a higher-order semiotics system. Its full-fledged communicative functionality is manifested only in post-infancy human language (cf. protolanguage in Halliday & Greaves, 2008, p. 62). d Politics is theoretical. It is a social phenomenon theorized as a linguistic object of inquiry and studied from the perspective of social semiotic theory. In so doing, politics is not a mere instance of sociological behaviour (Halliday, 1973) but a socio-semiotic one in the sense that politics is organized systemically and theoretically as communal meaning potential through which systemic choices are selected in the service of the political exchanges. e Politics interfaces LANGUAGE and SOCIETY. It is Janus-faced in that it is a domain of enquiry concerning the dialectic relation between context system and language system so that language is always in society and society is always in language (Bowcher & Liang, 2016). f Politics is case-specific. It concerns a particular set of cultural values and ideological stances of a given social community in a given context of culture within a particular time frame. Doing politics is always sociologically sensitive, culturally relevant and historically specific (see Regisigl & Wodak, 2009). g Politics is social. It focuses on the dynamics and tensions between sociopolitically dominant members and the less dominate ones in communal resource control as in social power (social class as in gender, race, ethnicity) and semiotic power (freedom of speech). h Politics is semogenic. Its meaning-making power resides in our daily social activities in human society, which brings social processes (march, demonstration, rally) and semiotic processes (exchange of meanings by community members) together. i Politics is meaning-in-context. It is a multilevel contextual phenomenon in the sense that political meaning is brought into existence materially and immaterially as a four-order context model (see Figure 1.1), among which, particular relevance is attached to social context [+value] and

18  Analyzing political discourse semiotic context [+meaning] (see Section 1.4.1 Human language as a semiotic system and Section 3.3 A field-based view of political registers: field of activity). j Politics is a cross-stratal construct. Political meaning is a product of crossstratal calibration of context, semantics and lexicogrammar. Doing politics is thus an exploration of meanings across strata, moving from the highest order of abstraction to the lowest and vice versa. From above, it semanticizes the higher-order contextual phenomena including cultural values, ideological stances and relevant context of discourse (field, tenor and mode) as semantic patterns and grammaticalizes these semantic clusters as lexicogrammatical structures of a language (Hasan, 2014). In other words, the exploration demystifies the realizational relations across strata within the metaredundant language system (Lemeke, 1984). k Politics is multisemiotic. It extends its contact to both semantic and material realms (see Hasan, 2014, p. 429). In terms of semantic contract, politics is manifested through linguistic signs: the association of signifier and signified (Saussure, 1959). Political meaning thus extends beyond language, such as gesture, kinetics, dress code, colours, etc., though language remains the primary mode of communication in doing politics. In material contact, doing politics in today’s world is always represented as multimodal artefacts in which its semiotic production is always mediated through technology. l Politics is language-in-use. It concerns meaningful discursive practices enacted by socio-political relevant ‘meaners’ in the community. In other words, doing politics is always pragmatics – ‘a science of language as seen in relation to its users’ – in that it involves linguistic predictability, or more specifically, the process of meaning interpretation of listeners/addressees (Mey, 1993, p. 5, cited in Hasan, 2012, p. 252). In other words, doing politics is always relevant to language users: not only do they take on the role as social agents or semiotic meaners in context but also actively participate in the meaning-interpretation process, or in Hasan’s (2012, p. 257) words, ‘using language is using the mind’. It should be noted that the debates on whether pragmatics and SFL are mutually exclusive is beyond the discussion here. m Politics is a communicative functionality. It is manifested through three modes of meanings organized as metafunction in human communication. Of these, particular importance is given to ideational metafunction (the construal of political identity, self-representation and argumentation) and interpersonal metafunction (the enactment of solidarity, stance and alignment) (Martin & White, 2005; Hasan, 2009). n Politics is always text-in-context. Politically meaningful discursive practices are always contextualized and linguistically encapsulated as ‘text-in-context’. Text, in SFL, is always a descriptum in that it is the analytical locus of register, texture, structure, social function, etc. (see Hasan, 2014, p. 4 for her holistic and comprehensive discussion). Doing politics thus pertains to

Analyzing political discourse  19 the branch of text linguistics so that doing politics is to make sense of that ‘text is [authors: political] meaning, and [authors: political] meaning is choice’ (Halliday, 1978; see also Halliday & Webster, 2014). In short, a systemic functional view of ‘doing politics’ is both multidimensional and multi-perspective. Notably, it is one of the ongoing linguistic enterprises in functional traditions, a front of investigation subsumed under PDA, CDS and appliable linguistics, offering us not only solutions regarding the political and linguistic issues at stake but also critical perspectives regarding hidden political problems. Functionally, politics is conceptualized as a semiotic object of enquiry – be that language, gestures, facial expressions, etc. – embedded in context through which analysts can understand how and why politics work by accounting for the meanings at risk in political texts.

1.6 An overview of the book 1.6.1 The major sources of data The data of this book based on our own corpus: The Corpus of Political Discourse in Hong Kong. In mode, the corpus consists of both written and spoken Chinese and English discourses. In genre, the written data include news reports, commentaries, editorials, press releases, blogs, letters to the editor and advertisements. The spoken data include interviews, media sessions, speeches, news reports, personal commentary programmes and televised political events. Apart from the journalists and general public, the data include political discourses from Chinese government officials, foreign government officials, Hong Kong SAR government officials and politicians of the proestablishment and pan-democratic political parties and interest groups, such as the Liberal Party, New People’s Party, Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, Democratic Party, Civic Party, Hong Kong Federation of Students and Demosisto ¯. Furthermore, this book focuses on the political discourse in the Umbrella Movement, including 1,278 and 416 English and Chinese written texts respectively of approximately 1.4 million words, and 16 and 37 English and Chinese videos of approximately 118,000 words, consisting of interviews, media sessions, speeches, news reports, personal commentary programmes and political events. The two-hour televised meeting between five government officials and five student representatives consists of 53 turns, 620 sentences, 2,389 clauses and 35,723 words. The videos have been transcribed and analyzed, including glossing. Chinese discourse is translated into English after analysis. The political discourse of this meeting came from some important political actors. They are known not only in Hong Kong but overseas. The five government officials of this meeting are Mrs. Carrie Lam (Chief Secretary for Administration), Mr. Raymond Tam (Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs), Mr. Rimsky Yuen (Secretary for Justice), Mr. Lau Kong-wah (then-Under

20  Analyzing political discourse Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs) and Mr. Edward Yau (Director of the Chief Executive’s office of Hong Kong). The five student representatives are Mr. Alex Chow (Secretary General of Hong Kong Federation of Students, HKFS), Mr. Lester Shum (Deputy Secretary General of HKFS), Ms. Yvonne Leung (President of Hong Kong University Student Union), Mr. Eason Chung (Former President of Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union) and Mr. Nathan Law (Acting President of Lingnan University Student Union). It should be noted that Mrs. Carrie Lam is the current Chief Executive of Hong Kong SAR; one of the student representatives, Mr. Nathan Law, was elected to the Legislative Councillor in 2016; Mr. Law, Mr. Alex Chow and Mr. Wong Tsz Fung were nominated for the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize on 1 February 2018 by a bipartisan group of US lawmakers. The Umbrella Movement is significant not only within the context of Hong Kong. Although the movement is considered the most important democratic movement of Hong Kong, it is also significant in the democratic movement of the People’s Republic of China, which saw its first major democratic movement in 1989. The Umbrella Movement can be considered the second major democratic movement to have taken place inside China. And in fact, this movement was triggered by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s (NPCSC) 31 August 2014 Decision on the Election of Chief Executive in 2017 in Hong Kong. Furthermore, the Chinese government considered the nature of this movement akin to movements seen in the Middle East and Africa (commonly known as the Arab Spring) in the early 2010s. And this meeting was considered a ‘critical moment’ both politically and linguistically. Apart from the political discourse of the meeting, the data focus on the political events leading up to the meeting: the open letter to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government by the Hong Kong Federation of Students, the government press release as a response to the letter and the political events following the meeting: the press releases by the government officials and by student representatives, and the government report to the Chinese government on the recent Hong Kong situation.

1.6.2 The major approaches From the systemic functional perspective, there are three approaches for political discourse analysis, from above, from roundabout and from below. These three approaches to analyzing political discourse are technically known as the trinocularity approach in SFL. This book in general is organized from this approach. In addition, it uses a historical approach to political events from a contextual perspective in SFL.

1.6.2.1 Trinocularity approach Approaching political discourse from above is in fact a top-down approach; we start the analysis of the contextual parameters, including the genre and the

Analyzing political discourse  21

from above [top-down] contextual parameters tenor mode

context

from roundabout semantic parameters from below [bottom-up] lexicogrammatical parameters

situation field

Approaches to text typology

text [= language functioning in context]

semantics

clause

lexicogrammar

Figure 1.5  The trinocularity approach in undertaking discourse analysis

register, of a political event and then extend the analysis towards the semantic and lexicogrammatical strata. Approaching political discourse from roundabout, we analyze the semantic parameters of the text, focusing on the political moves taken by the political actors in this political event, and the political acts they implemented to achieve their moves. Approaching political discourse from below is a bottom-up approach; we can analyze the lexical and grammatical choices to realize the political acts. These three approaches to analyzing political discourse are shown in Figure 1.5. In addition, adopting the notion of logogenesis, the ongoing creation of meaning in the unfolding of text, we can argue that the meaning of a political discourse should be interpreted under the light of the previous political discourses leading up to it – a historical approach to political discourse.

22  Analyzing political discourse 1.6.2.2 A discourse historical approach to political events Within the front of investigation of PDA, one notable research approach is discourse historical approach (DHA) (see Flowerdew & Richardson, 2017). Pioneered by Ruth Wodak and her research fellows, DHA is a multidimensional research approach which incorporates ‘theory, methods, methodology and empirically based research practices that yield concrete social applications’ (Reisigl, 2017, p. 80). Like most approaches in political and/or critical discourse studies, DHA sees any political event as descriptum in political discourses, serving as the point of departure in exploring a variety of socio-political problems such as social control, hegemony, discrimination and inequalities to name a few (see Reisigl, 2017 for a recent view). While DHA reserves the exploration of political events as social and linguistic consequentials, what is most significant here is its ‘historical alignment’ in that every political event is conceptualized as ‘intertextual dimension of discursive actions’ (Wodak, 2013, p. 198), of which analysis and interpretation are viewed through the historical context where the socio-political events are situated through the notion of ‘change’ (Reisigl, 2017, p. 55). As systemists, we see that such a ‘historical’ research approach towards political discourse analysis is well adapted, interpreted and complemented through Hallidayan Systemic Functional Linguistics in its (i) context-language model and (ii) semogenesis (phylogenesis, ontogenesis and logogenesis). We will further elaborate this approach in Chapter 2 Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics.

1.6.3 The organization of the book Chapter 1 Analyzing political discourse from a systemic functional perspective: an overview, being the first chapter, serves as an introduction to the whole book, focusing on the most basic notions, linguistic theories and disciplines, and analytical approaches as well as the sources of data upon which this book is based. The rest of this book is organized in three parts. In Part I, we approach political discourse from above, focusing on the contextual parameters surrounding political events and illustrating how SFL can contribute to political discourse analysis by contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics and registerial analysis of political discourse (in Chapter 2 Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics and Chapter 3 Registerial analysis of political discourse respectively). In Part II, we approach political discourse from around, focusing on the discourse semantic parameters of political discourse of political events and illustrating how SFL can contribute to political discourse analysis by semantic discourse analysis and appraisal analysis of political discourse (in Chapter 4 Semantic discourse analysis of political discourse and Chapter 5 Appraisal analysis of political discourse respectively). In Part III, we approach political discourse from below, focusing on the lexicogrammatical parameters of political discourses: exploring self-identity in the context of political discourse realized by the textual element of personal references (in Chapter 6 Self-identity and personal references in political discourse),

Analyzing political discourse  23 investigating how ‘power’ and ‘institutional role’ are related with the linguistic choices of speech function, polarity and modality (in Chapter 7 Power, institutional role and interpersonal elements in political discourse), and finally, examining the realization of evidentiality and subjectivity in the representational mental process (in Chapter 8 Evidentiality, subjectivity and mental process in political discourse).

Part I

Approaching political discourse from above (contextual parameters)

2

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics

2.1 Introduction As mentioned in Section 1.6 An overview of the book, this book takes a historical approach to political events from a contextual perspective in SFL and is organized from the trinocularity approach for political discourse analysis from above, from roundabout and from below. This chapter first examines the contemporary development of democracy in Hong Kong, which started in the 1980s when Hong Kong was a British colony. This quest for democratization did not end with the handover of Hong Kong from the British government to the Chinese government on 1 July 1997. The demand for faster democratic reform reached a peak in September 2014, when tens of thousands of people occupied Admiralty and Mong Kok, two of the busiest areas of Hong Kong, for 79 days. This was the largest public protest in the history of Hong Kong since the unrest in 1966 and 1967 and the protests to support China’s student movement in Tiananmen Square in 1989. It is commonly known as the Umbrella Movement (also known as Occupy Central Movement in Hong Kong). This chapter reviews the causes and timeline of the Umbrella Movement, which constitute the contextual parameters of a political event from an SFL perspective. These parameters, in turn, provide evidential support in the analysis of agendas and strategies of the two political parties, five government officials of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and five student representatives of the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) involved in a televised meeting during the Umbrella Movement.

2.2 The nature of context in politics Having grounded ‘politics’ within the SFL model, the most pressing question appears to be: In what ways does SFL contribute to the understanding of politics linguistically? As a powerful metalinguistics with a wealth of descriptive resources, SFL has always fascinated linguists and discourse analysts in that it offers multidimensional and multi-perspective views in describing language in context. Given that context is significant in SFL, it appears natural that context serves as a vantage point in understanding politics. Context, as we see it, both defines and makes politics.

28  Approaching political discourse from above 2.2.1 Context defining politics: the orders of political contexts Context is a complex notion in its (i) order of manifestation (the various phenomenal realms that context is manifested in), (ii) models of theorization (in what ways the notion context is theorized within the scientific study of phenomenon) and (iii) modes of representation (how context is described by language users). In the previous chapter, we introduced the concept of a hierarchy of systems in phenomenal realms of the world in Section 1.4.1 Human language as a semiotic system and the concept of stratification in Section 1.4.2 Stratification and realization. In this section we will further elaborate these two concepts in our discussion of the nature of context in politics. In SFL, context, like other higher-order semiotic systems, is organized hierarchically as systemic orders, representing the various phenomenal realms in our universe. Viewed in Halliday’s ordered typology of systems, context is organized in four hierarchic systemic orders: first physical context – second biological context – third social context – fourth semiotic context (Halliday, 1996, 2005; Matthiessen & Kashyap, 2014): • Material context: material realm [world or matter]: • First-order context: physical context [= the material settings in which physical entities reside in or socio-semiotic processes take place] • Second-order context: biological context (= physical context + life [the settings which biological species or organisms inhabit]) • Immaterial context: immaterial realm [world of meaning]: • Third-order context: social context (= biological context [+ value], the social settings in which social agents control communal resources according to their members’ social positioning such as class, race, ethnicity, gender) • Fourth-order context: semiotic context (= social context [+ meaning], the semiotic environment in which semiotic meaners exchange meaning through various semiotic resources such as language, gesture or kinetics in accordance with their defined semiotic roles in communicative events) If we consider doing politics through systemic orders of context, it appears that context defines politics in that we, as Aristotle points out, are essentially ‘political animals’: we are a ‘creature whose nature is to live in a polis’ (Chilton & Schäffner, 2002: 1). In this sense, politics cannot exist without context; it is through the phenomenon realm – both material and immaterial – that context is manifested. Generally speaking, politics is primarily immaterial and of particular relevance in the third social context [+value] and fourth semiotic context [+meaning], although first physical context is frequently addressed in literature regarding the entities in material situational settings such as seating plan, dress code and colour. Doing politics in the immaterial context is thus a recognition of social and semiotic changes – the former concerns how social changes are brought by social agents through political socializations, including political

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  29 policies, elections and war – a front of investigation under political sciences, sociology and critical discourse studies (CDS), whereas the latter focuses on the semiotic changes promoted by semiotic ‘meaners’ through exchange of political meanings, an academic enquiry relevant to PDA, CDS and SFL.

2.2.2 Context making politics: context of discourse As systemists, the primary concern here is semiotic context: the highest-order semiotic system. In other words, doing politics in a semiotic context is thus a research activity in accounting how context makes politics, or in SFL terms, how the semiotic context construes, enacts and endangers political meaning in context. In SFL, semiotic context, or the context of discourse to be precise, is theorized within the interlocking global semiotic dimensions of language, which include hierarchy of stratification, cline of instantiation and metafunction (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, see also Matthiessen, 1993): • In terms of hierarchy of stratification, context of discourse is theorized as the highest stratum within the stratification model in SFL (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). It is language-external in the sense that it illustrates the extralinguistic universals in which language is functioning. Doing politics is thus a contextualized activity, construing politically relevant meaning in discourse. • In terms of cline of instantiation, context of discourse extends along the cline, moving from the potential pole to the subpotential and subsequently to the instance pole. Specifically, context located at the potential pole is technically known as ‘context of culture’, or simply ‘political culture’, referring to the totality of contextual options available in one particular political environment; whereas that at the instance pole is known as ‘context of situation’, or simply ‘political situation’, denoting the particular set of contextual options made in a given situation. Within these two poles is the intermediate region known as ‘cultural domain/situation type’, or simply ‘political institution’, illustrating the specific contextual options associated with political register/text type (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Matthiessen, 2015a, 2015b). • In terms of metafunction, context of discourse, like language, undergoes functional diversification, yielding three metafunctionally regulated contextual parameters as in field (what is happening), tenor (who is taking part) and mode (what part the language is playing), each of which entails a reservoir of variables upon which the higher level of contextual phenomenon including social control, social structure, social positioning, ideological stances and principles for interaction act (Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Hasan, 2014). Important in this tripartite contextual construct is that context and political language stand in a ‘context-metafunction resonance hypothesis (CMR)’ so that field typically resonates with ideational metafunction of language, tenor with interpersonal metafunction and mode with textual metafunction (see Caffarel, Martin, & Matthiessen, 2004b; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014).

30  Approaching political discourse from above Semiotic context concerns the system of meaning available among semiotic meaners. CONTEXTUAL DIVERSIFICATION

SYSTEMIC ORDER mode 4th order semiotic context

tenor field

immaterial realm

SOCIETY

LANGUAGE 3rd order social context

2nd order biological context

CLINE OF INSTANTIATION system CONTEXT OF CULTURE

LANGUAGE AS SYSTEM

sub-system/instance type

instance

cultural domain/ situation type

CONTEXT OF SITUATION

register/text type

LANGUAGE AS INSTANCE

Social context concerns all social agents in biological contexts.

Biological context concerns all biological species in habitat.

material realm

= [ + life] 1st order physical context

Figure 2.1 Locating semiotic context within systemic order and global semiotic dimensions

Figure 2.1 diagrammatically locates the notion of context within the multidimensional semiotic space of language. That context defines and makes politics in the theoretical foundation in SFL offers analytical flexibility in studying political text, or political meaning-in-context. For example, one could start with the instance of language (text-in-context) and relate it to its context of situation/political situation, which instantiates the context of culture/political culture. By the same token, one could start with the context of culture/political culture and analyze the registerial features through its instantiating situation type. In either case, the study of politics in this model is always dialectic: political context serves as the window into the language system and language serves as the point of departure in making sense of political context. The systemic descriptions offered by the Hallidayian model thus encompass a

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  31 dual perspective so that ‘politics is always in context; context is always in politics’ (cf. Bowcher & Liang, 2016). In the following sections, we will further elaborate our discussion and apply it to the politics of Hong Kong.

2.3 Political context in the matrix of instantiationstratification As mentioned, the cline of instantiation can be approached either from the end of ‘potential’ or the end of ‘instance’. Starting with the potential pole, there is ‘context of culture’ at the contextual stratum, and in between, there is ‘subculture/institution’. Starting with the instance pole, there is ‘situation’, and in between, there is situation type. Applying this concept to the analysis of politics and thus political discourse, lying at the ‘potential’ end, there is the ‘political culture’. In the discipline of social sciences, each nation imparts its norms and values to its people, who pick up distinct notions about how the political system is supposed to work and about what the government may do to them and for them. These beliefs, symbols and values about the political system are the political culture of a nation – and it varies considerably from one nation to another. It takes a long time for political culture to develop, and it is shared by people and transmitted from generation to generation (see Roskin, Cord, Medeiros, & Jones, 2017). In general, there are three major types of political culture identified by Almond and Verba (1963): participant, subject and parochial. Briefly, in a ‘participant culture’, people are more knowledgeable in, and attentive to, public affairs. They feel their action can influence public policy. They show a high degree of political competence and political efficacy, and they are likely to vote in elections. In a ‘parochial culture’, people’s concerns are overwhelmingly with the immediate locality. They may not even identify themselves with the nation. They have no interest, nor do they have the ability to participate, in politics. People in the ‘subject culture’ are somewhere between the participant and parochial cultures. They still understand that they are citizens and pay attention to politics, but they do so more passively. Their sense of political competence and efficacy is lower; some feel powerless (cited in Roskin et al., 2017, p. 126). From the systemic functional perspective, ‘the culture’ of a society is presented as a social semiotic system, i.e., networks of social semiotic features which constitute the systems and processes of the culture. They are defined as potential clusters of values in the dimensions of field, tenor and mode. ‘Political culture’ in this book thus represents the accumulation of political events occurring in the history of the society. Each political event is a goal-oriented activity, involving a number of political actors together with the populace. Hence, it is a social semiotic event with its particular situation, with its organization and distinctive values of field, tenor and mode. Moving towards the end of instance, there is in between ‘political institution’. In the discipline of political science, the notion ‘political institutions’ is the working structures of government, such as the legislature and the executive

32  Approaching political discourse from above departments (see Roskin et al., 2017). Obviously, it is rather restrictive to understand political institutions as only the working structures of government. A broader view is to include some other institutions that would be involved in the governing of a country, such as the political parties and different civil societies. Malinowski (1944, p. 50) defines an institution in a more abstract way as: a group of people united for the pursuit of simple or complex activity; always in possession of a material endowment and a technical outfit; organized on a defined legal or customary charter, linguistically formulated in myth, legend, rule, and maxim; and trained or prepared for the carry out of its task. As March and Olsen (1989) observe, political institutions are sources of order and stability in an interactive world that might otherwise appear quite chaotic. In this book, the notion ‘political institution’ refers not only to the legislative and executive bodies or legal institutions in a society but also to established political parties, public and private institutions, interest groups with well-defined membership or ad hoc groupings with individuals participating in political events. Lying at the ‘instance’ end, there are political events. A political event is a goal-oriented activity, involving a number of political actors together with the populace. Hence, it is a social semiotic event with its particular situation, with its organization and distinctive values of field, tenor and mode. Moving towards the end of potential, there are in-between political issues. A particular political issue usually involves a number of sequentially unfolding political events. For instance, being a political issue, the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong involved the unfolding of a number of political events such as class boycotts, students being arrested, an HKFS open letter to the HKSAR government, the CE’s response to the letter, and a meeting between the government officials of HKSAR and student representative of HKFS. It should be noted that the relation between political issue and political event is a rather loose concept in the sense that which/how political events constitute a particular political issue are not well defined. This can be represented in Figure 2.2. In the following sections, we will explore the political culture, political institution, political issue and political event. It serves as background information of the political discourse analysis from the systemic functional perspective that we will discuss in the rest of the book.

2.3.1 Political culture in Hong Kong Hong Kong’s political culture, in the conceptualization of Almond and Verba (1963), has been gradually changed from a parochial and subject culture before the 1980s to a participant culture in the 2010s. Unlike the parochial and subject political culture, people in a participant culture are more knowledgeable in, and attentive to, public affairs. They feel their action can influence public policy. They show a high degree of political competence and political efficacy, and they

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  33 Cline of Instantiation Instance

Potential Context of Culture

Cultural Institutions

Situation Type

Situation

Political culture

Political institution

Political issue

[accumulation of

[political parties,

[asequential, interrelated [a goal-oriented social

political events]

public and private

political events]

institutions, interest groups etc.]

Political event semiotic activity with distinctive values of field, tenor and mode]

Figure 2.2  Partial stratification/instantiation matrix of political context Source: Adapted from Matthiessen, 2013, p. 445

are more likely to vote in elections. This change in the political culture was mainly triggered by the Hong Kong people’s debate on the pace and ways to democratize Hong Kong’s political system since the 1980s. Before the 1 July handover, the most heated debate in Hong Kong politics was the timetable to introduce direct elections to the Legislative Council (LegCo), Hong Kong’s legislature. After the handover, the most heated debate in Hong Kong politics is the question ‘when will all the seats of the LegCo and the Chief Executive of the HKSAR be returned by direct election?’ In this section, we will first examine the political context in Hong Kong, then analyze the development of democracy in Hong Kong, both before and after the establishment of the HKSAR.

2.3.1.1 Political context in Hong Kong The principle of executive-led government, a defining feature of the HKSAR’s political context, was well developed before the handover. To paraphrase Cheung (2002), during the colonial era, the principle of executive-led government was manifested in the following practices: (i) the governor and his government had supreme authority; (ii) LegCo was not on an equal footing with the executive branch; (iii) all public policies, legislation and public finances were initiated and controlled by the executive branch; and (iv) through a network of consultative and advisory committees, the colonial rulers were able to co-opt elite groups into an administrative decision-making body, thus achieving some level of elite integration (p. 45). This version of executive-led system was later written into the Basic Law, the constitutional document of the HKSAR.

34  Approaching political discourse from above However, this version of an executive-led government was facing serious challenges from LegCo ever since the mid-1980s. LegCo has become more assertive and aggressive since the introduction of indirect elections in 1985 and direct elections in 1991. Before 1985, LegCo was composed of official members (senior civil servants) and nonofficial members appointed by the Governor. The Governor was also the president of LegCo until 1993. LegCo then was happy to play whatever roles the government assigned to it. However, with elected legislators, LegCo was no longer willing to play a submissive role in the governance process. For example, on 25 November 1991, a motion objecting to an agreement reached between Britain and China on the composition of the Court of Final Appeal was passed by 34 votes to 11. This was the first time in LegCo’s 150-year history that the government had been defeated in LegCo (Miners, 1998, p. 145). As the pre-handover mode of the executive-led government was preserved after the handover, tensions between the executive and the legislature not only continue but are heightened. In short, though LegCo does not enjoy the right to initiate public policy or projects that would incur public expenditure, it does enjoy the authority to veto the government’s policy and/ or funding proposals. This is especially the case if the policy proposal is a major one like the political reform proposals. This is what we have seen when LegCo rejected the HKSAR government’s political reform proposal tabled in LegCo after the Umbrella Movement (which took place from September to December 2014; more details in the latter part of this chapter). Before we examine the Umbrella Movement in detail, an overview of democratic development in Hong Kong is in order. Such an examination will provide us the contextual background against which the Umbrella Movement took place.

2.3.1.2 Democratic development in Hong Kong In 1984, the Hong Kong government issued a Green Paper (a policy consultation document) and later a White Paper (a policy document reflecting what the government has decided to do after getting the public’s feedback to the Green Paper) on the development of a representative government in Hong Kong. The aim of the review was to develop a system of government that is able to represent the views of and be more directly accountable to the Hong Kong people. In the White Paper (issued in November 1984), the government proposed to increase the number of elected seats to LegCo from 12 to 24. An electoral college (all members of the District Boards, the Urban Council and the Regional Council) and functional constituency (nine functional constituencies of selected professions and business/industry sectors such as education and commercial) would each return 12 members to LegCo in 1985. The colonial government carried out another round of review of developments in representative government in 1987. However, unlike the 1984 review, this time China, the future sovereign power of Hong Kong, played an active role in the process. China insisted that any changes in Hong Kong’s political system must wait until the drafting of the Basic Law was completed. The British

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  35 government gave in and agreed with the Chinese government that the principle of convergence (with the Basic Law stipulations) would be the one that it would follow in reforming Hong Kong’s political system. As a result, the Hong Kong government toned down its progressive and optimistic attitude toward the development of a representative government in its 1987 constitutional review. Not surprisingly, in the 1987 Green Paper, the government did not recommend direct elections as the option in preference to other options. As such, no direct election was introduced in 1988. In the 1988 LegCo election, the Hong Kong people only saw a small increase in the number of members elected by functional constituencies from 12 to 14. At the same time, the drafting of the Basic Law was in full swing. The Hong Kong people, and the Hong Kong, British and Chinese governments were also debating on the political system for the future HKSAR government. The key contentions in the debate were about the formation of the HKSAR LegCo and the methods for the election of the CE. Despite all the heated debates, the final say on Hong Kong’s political development was in the hands of the British and Chinese governments. The two governments agreed that the number of directly elected seats would increase gradually after the establishment of the HKSAR (from 20 in 1995 to 30 in 2003). According to this agreement between the two governments, the LegCo formed in 1995 would be recognized after the establishment of the HKSAR. This arrangement is known as the ‘through train’ arrangement. In 1992, British Prime Minister John Major replaced Governor David Wilson with Chris Patten. Patten was regarded as a political heavyweight and gifted politician who could help Hong Kong get through its last phase of transition. Patten believed that the Sino-British agreement on Hong Kong’s political development did not say how the nine new functional constituencies should be defined and how the Election Committee should be formed. These were the grey areas from which Patten drew his package of political reforms for Hong Kong. Patten stressed that the overall objective of his reforms was to ‘extend democracy while working within the Basic Law’ (Patten, 1992, p. 3). Patten’s package of political reforms consisted of several proposals. The government decided to raise the number of directly elected seats from 18 to 20 (the number stipulated in the Basic Law for the first HKSAR legislature) in 1995. The voting age would be reduced from 21 to 18. As for the electoral system, the multiple-seats, multiple-votes system for the geographical constituencies’ elections would be changed into a single-seat, single-vote system. Moreover, for the existing 21 functional constituencies, all forms of corporate voting would be replaced by individual voting. In addition, nine new functional constituencies, encompassing all occupations, would be created to cover people who did not belong to existing functional constituencies. Every worker in the nine new functional constituencies would have a vote. This was, in practice, an introduction of universal suffrage but without saying so. Furthermore, all appointed members on District Boards and Urban and Regional Councils would be replaced by directly elected members from 1994 onwards.

36  Approaching political discourse from above Though the reform package was well received by the general public, it was strongly opposed by the Chinese government on the ground that it contravened the series of agreements, understandings and consensus already reached between the two governments. Britain called for talks and agreed that ‘talks would be held on the basis of the Joint Declaration, the principle of convergence with the Basic Law and the agreements and understandings previously reached’ (Representative Government in Hong Kong, 1994). But the subsequent 17 rounds of talks from April to November of 1993 in Beijing failed to resolve the differences between the British and Chinese governments. Subsequently, the Chinese government decided to set up the ‘second stove’, which was a new set of political institutions to be set up on 1 July 1997, as the old ones under British rule would not be in conformity with the Basic Law and would have to be dismantled. Immediately after the handover, the HKSAR was left with a Provisional Legislative Council (PLC). Its members were selected by a 400-member Selection Committee in December 1996. PLC passed a new electoral law under which the 20 seats returned by direct elections would follow a proportional representation (PR) system. As mentioned, the debate on Hong Kong’s democratic reform also focused on the election method of the CE. The main thrust of the debate was over when the CE should be elected through universal suffrage. In brief, the pandemocratic camp wanted to start electing the CE by direct election from the second term (in 2002) onward, while the pro-establishment camp argued that changes in the election method should follow the timetable stipulated in the Basic Law. The first CE of HKSAR, C. H. Tung, announced in his 2004 Policy Address that a Task Force on Constitutional Development would be set up in January to study how Hong Kong should proceed with its next plan of democratization. While Hong Kong people were debating on the pace of Hong Kong’s democratization, on 6 April 2004, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) offered its own interpretation of Article 7 of Annex I and Article 3 of Annex II of the Basic Law, ‘clarifying’ the proper procedures to start constitutional changes in Hong Kong. Later, the NPCSC issued a Decision on 26 April stipulating that (i) there would not be universal suffrage in 2007 (Chief Executive election) or 2008 (LegCo elections); (ii) the ratio of the number of geographical and functional constituencies of LegCo should be 50:50; and (iii) procedures for voting on bills and motions in LegCo should remain unchanged. The Task Force’s proposals were made within the parameters created by the NPCSC, which were strongly opposed by the pan-democratic camp. On 21 December 2005, 24 legislators from the pan-democratic camp voted against the government’s proposal. As the government’s proposal did not secure a two-thirds vote of the 60-member LegCo, it was rejected by LegCo. As Lam (2015, p. 101) notes, the hopes of adopting universal suffrage in the election of the CE and the whole LegCo came to light again on 29 December 2007, when NPCSC decided that the election of the CE in 2017 may be implemented by the method of universal suffrage and then all members of LegCo

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  37 may also be returned by universal suffrage. In November 2009, the HKSAR government proposed a new package of reforms to the Hong Kong people. After a series of negotiations among the HKSAR government, the pan-democratic camp (mainly the Democratic Party) and the Central People’s government, the government’s proposal was passed by LegCo in June 2010 (Sing & Tang, 2012). The passing of the government’s political reform proposals was seen by many as a step forward in Hong Kong’s democratic development. Later, in December 2013, the HKSAR government issued a consultation document on the methods of selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 and the formation of LegCo in 2016. In July 2014, the HKSAR government released a report on the public consultation, and the CE also submitted a report to the NPCSC. In the CE’s report, the government concluded that there was no need to change the election methods for the 2016 LegCo elections. The most controversial part of the CE’s report, however, was with regard to the methods of electing the CE in 2017. To many pro-democratic political parties and activists, the CE’s report did not truly reflect the majority view of the Hong Kong people. The crux of the problem was who would be eligible to stand for the CE election. Many polls showed that a majority of the Hong Kong people supported a liberal and open nomination process of the candidates for the CE election. The decision issued by the NPCSC on 31 August 2014 (hereafter August 31 Decision) was opposed by many Hong Kong people. Not surprisingly, the pandemocratic legislators vowed to veto any reform proposals that the HKSAR government tables in LegCo, as they claimed that the CE election framework derived from the August 31 Decision was too restrictive. The pro-establishment legislators claimed that the framework offered Hong Kong a precious chance to take a major leap in reforming its political system. While many Hong Kong people expressed their demand for a quicker pace of democratization, the NPCSC and the HKSAR government stood firm on their position. The HKSAR government launched the second round of consultations (on the actual methods of selecting the CE in 2017) later in 2015 and tabled its constitutional reform legislation on LegCo in June 2015. As expected, the pan-democratic legislators vetoed the government’s proposal.

2.3.2 Political institutions in Hong Kong It is beyond the scope of this book to introduce all the political institutions in Hong Kong here. A list of the major ones which contribute to the political discourse in the corpus of political discourse of Hong Kong, reporting and discussing the political issue of the Umbrella Movement, suffice. One can further divide political institutions found in the political discourse during the Umbrella Movement into three groupings: (i) HKSAR government officials (mainly the CE, the Chief Secretary, Secretary for Justice and Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs); (ii) politicians of the pro-establishment political parties and groups (such as the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong, the

38  Approaching political discourse from above Liberal Party and the New People’s Party); and (iii) pan-democratic political parties and groups (like the Democratic Party, the Civic Party, the Hong Kong Federation of Students and the Demosistō).

2.3.3 Political issue: Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong One may say that the Umbrella Movement was sparked by an op-ed written by Benny Tai in January 2013. Inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement, Tai advocated the launching of the local version of the Occupy movement, the Occupy Central with Love and Peace (OCLP), to exert the greatest degree of pressure on the Hong Kong and Chinese governments to allow Hong Kong people to select all members of LegCo and the CE through direct elections in 2016 and 2017 respectively. Tai argued that as the Central District is the heart of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong and Chinese governments would not want it to be paralyzed by a huge group of occupiers. According to Tai, as OCLP would be a destructive act with great disruptions to the normal life of the Hong Kong people, and it should not be used unless all hopes of democratic reform were lost. The August 31 Decision was widely seen by supporters of the OCLP and student organizations as an act by the Chinese government to extinguish the hope of democratic reforms in Hong Kong in 2016 and 2017. As a result, the launching of the OCLP became inevitable. Let us now turn to the details of the August 31 Decision, which was adopted by the NPCSC on 31 August 2014. The August 31 Decision concerned two issues: the methods of forming LegCo in 2016 and the selection of the CE in 2017. For the formation of LegCo, the NPCSC decided that the existing formation method and voting procedures for LegCo as prescribed in Annex II to the Hong Kong Basic Law would not be amended in 2016. The NPCSC asserted that such a decision was consistent with the principle of gradual and orderly progress in developing a democratic system in Hong Kong. It would also help the various sectors of the Hong Kong community to focus their efforts on addressing the issues concerning universal suffrage for selecting the CE first, thus creating the conditions for attaining the aim of electing all the members of LegCo by universal suffrage in 2020. For the selection of the CE, NPCSC decided that: (i) starting from 2017, the CE of the HKSAR could be elected by universal suffrage; (ii) when the Chief Executive of the HKSAR was elected by universal suffrage, (a) a broadly representative nominating committee should be formed. The provisions for the number of members, composition and formation method of the nominating committee are made in accordance with the number of members, composition and formation method of the Election Committee for the Fourth Chief Executive, and (b) the nominating committee should nominate two or three candidates for the office of CE in accordance with democratic procedures. Each candidate must have the endorsement of more than half of all the members of the nominating committee, (c) all eligible electors of the HKSAR have the right to vote in the election of the CE and elect one of the candidates

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  39 for the office of CE in accordance with law, and (d) the CE-elect, after being selected through universal suffrage, must be appointed by the Central People’s Government. Of the listed points, the most contentious were points (a) and (b). Point (a) was found unacceptable to the pan-democratic camp and many activists. As Chan (2014, p. 572) observes, the Election Committee is comprised largely of representatives of different functional groups, with a relatively small number of constituents and a strong bias in favour of the business and pro-China factions. Point (b) practically ruled out the possibility of making nominations by other means like civic (public) nomination and political party nomination. The chance for any individuals from the pan-democratic camp to stand for the CE elections was very slim. In addition, this 50% threshold was much higher than the existing system, which only required candidates to obtain the endorsement of 12.5% of the members of the Election Committee. There was worry that the effect of point (b) meant the Chinese government would have the final say on who would be allowed to stand for the CE election, and the Hong Kong people would only be able to vote for candidates that were approved by the Chinese government. Naturally, the August 31 Decision was fiercely objected to by the pandemocratic camp, student organizations and activists who had long been striving for a faster pace of democratic reform in Hong Kong. In response to the August 31 Decision, Hong Kong student organizations, the HKFS (formed by university students) and Scholarism (formed by secondary school students), launched a boycott of classes on 22 September and protested outside Government Headquarters. On the night of 26 September, a group of student protesters climbed over the iron fences of Government Headquarters and attempted to ‘recapture’ the Civic Square (officially known as the East Wing Forecourt of the Central Government Office, which was originally opened to the public but was closed after students launched an anti-national education movement there in 2012). They were expeditiously arrested by the police. The next day, thousands of members of the general public demonstrated outside Government Headquarters to demand the release of the arrested students. When the police fired 87 cans of tear gas to disperse people gathered outside Government Headquarters on 28 September, the leaders of the OCLP decided to launch the movement on that day instead of the originally proposed 1 October, the National Day of China. The movement, led by student groups and the OCLP leaders (including Benny Tai, an associate professor of law at the University of Hong Kong; Chan Kin Man, an associate professor of sociology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong; and Reverend Chu Yiu Ming), quickly evolved into the largest and longest public protest in the history of the HKSAR. Instead of occupying the Central District for a few days, as the OCLP had planned to do, the movement became a 79-day occupation of key sites of the HKSAR, including Admiralty (next to Central) and Causeway Bay (a popular tourist district) on Hong Kong Island, and Mong Kok, an extremely busy district in Kowloon.

40  Approaching political discourse from above 2.3.4 Political event: timeline of Umbrella Movement Each political issue, as mentioned, involves a number of political events. It should be noted that the relation between political issue and political event is a rather loose concept in the sense that which/how political events constitute a particular political issue is not well defined. In this section, we provide a brief timeline of political events of the Umbrella Movement in which only the key events are included: 31 August, 2014 August 31 Decision on the 2016 LegCo and 2017 Chief Executive elections The NPCSC sets terms for the 2016 LegCo elections (which would follow the same methods used in the 2012 LegCo elections) and the 2017 Chief Executive election. 22 September 2014 Class boycotts Two student organizations, HKFS and Scholarism, begin a class boycott. They demand the withdrawal of the August 31 Decision, to restart the consultation process and to allow civic nomination. 26 September 2014 Students and student leaders arrested The police arrest students who tried to recapture the Civic Square. 27 September 2014 Protest escalates Thousands of protesters from the general public march to Government Headquarters to demand the release of the students arrested on 26 September. Police use pepper spray against the protesters. 28 September 2014 Occupy Central with Love and Peace begins Benny Tai announces the beginning of the OCLP at Government Headquarters. Tensions rise between police and protesters. Police fire tear gas at protesters. In response, tens of thousands of ordinary citizens begin to join the Umbrella Movement. 2 October 2014 HKFS’s open letter to the government The HKFS issues an open letter to the HKSAR government demanding to have a meeting with the Chief Secretary, Mrs. Carrie Lam, to talk about constitutional reforms in Hong Kong and the resolving of the Umbrella Movement.

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  41 3 October 2014 CE’s response to the open letter and counter-protest The Chief Executive, CY Leung, appoints the Chief Secretary, Mrs. Carrie Lam, to represent the HKSAR government to meet with the student representatives of HKFS. 4 October 2014 Hong Kong Chief Executive issues a warning Chief Executive CY Leung issues a warning, demanding the demonstrators remove blockades in order to permit government employees to return to work on Monday, 6 October at their main office complex. 5 October 2014 University leaders and politicians urge the protesters to leave University leaders and politicians urge the protesters to leave the streets for their own safety. On the other hand, university leaders also release a statement urging the government to listen to protesters’ demands. 9 October 2014 Government cancels talks The HKSAR government cancels talks scheduled for 10 October with student leaders. Mrs. Carrie Lam says that the students’ calls to step up protests if they fail to win concessions at the talks had ‘damaged trust’. Lam calls for a halt first to the protesters’ ‘illegal occupation’ of city streets. 16 October 2014 CE offers to hold talks In a press conference, CE CY Leung offers to hold the talks cancelled. 21 October 2014 Meeting between the HKSAR government officials and the HKFS student representatives Five government officials (led by Carrie Lam) and five student representatives of HKFS meet for the first time for 85 minutes. The government agrees to submit a report to the Chinese government to accurately reflect the views of the Hong Kong people after the announcement of the August 31 Decision; to study ways to maximize the representation of the nomination committee in the next round of consultation; and to continue the dialogue with the students and pro-democracy activists.

42  Approaching political discourse from above 9 December 2014 Court orders to clear out A Hong Kong court orders the removal of barricades, tents and other obstructions from the protesters’ main camp in Admiralty District in response to an injunction sought by a bus company. 11 December 2014 Arrests as police clear sites The police finally clear all the occupation sites. Around 7,000 police move in to clear the protesters from Admiralty, arresting 247 people. A handful of protesters remain encamped outside LegCo in a bid to keep up the pressure on the government. This date signals the official ending of the 79-day long Umbrella Movement. 18 June 2015 Hong Kong’s pan-democrats veto the government’s electoral reform bill The pan-democratic legislators reject the government’s electoral reform bill plan by 28 votes to eight. As a result, there are no changes to the electoral system of the CE in the 2017 CE election.

2.4 The interrelation of political events from a contextual perspective As mentioned in Chapter 1, in addition to the trinocularity approach to the analysis of political discourse, this book takes a historical approach to political events from a contextual perspective in SFL. One of the reasons is that political events are usually interrelated with each other both simultaneously and sequentially in the unfolding of a political issue. We will discuss the interrelation of political events in this section.

2.4.1 Situating political events in the functional model of context and language Every political event is a goal-oriented social activity; it is socio- and functionaloriented. In other words, a socio-political event is conceptualized as a functional construct. It is a cross-stratal meaning calibration in an SFL model so that political events per se are interpreted as two interrelated levels: (i) political event-as-context construct and (ii) political event-as-linguistic construct. A dual functional interpretation of socio-political events thus offers an in-depth understanding of social issues by (de)construction of discursive practices as political moves, acts and its linguistic realizations and dynamic socio-political situations.

2.4.1.1 Political event as context construct Contextually, socio-political events in a sphere of action are viewed both locally and glocally. Viewed locally, the political events – both material and semiotic activities – unfold continuous analogues to those ongoing meaning creations

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  43 in the unfolding of text (cf. logogenesis in Halliday & Matthiessen, 1999; Matthiessen, 1995). That is to say, the ‘contextual meaning’ of a given political event is brought to existence through contextual dependency, or more precisely, the ongoing reclassification of context of socio-political issues (Hasan, 1999, 2005). For instance, the dialogue between the government officials of HKSAR and the student representatives of HKFS on constitutional development is a localized event involving a series of preparation meetings, the official meeting and the follow-up press conferences, as shown in the timeline of the Umbrella Movement in Section 2.3.4 Political event: timeline of Umbrella Movement: 1 HKFS’s open letter to the government (2 October 2014) ^2 CE’s response to the open letter and counter-protest (3 October 2014) ^3 Hong Kong Chief Executive issues a warning (4 October 2014) ^4 University leaders and politicians urge the protesters to leave (5 October 2014) ^5 Government cancels talks (9 October 2014) ^6 CE offers to hold talks (16 October 2014) ^7 Meeting between HKSAR government officials and the HKFS student representatives (21 October 2014) ^8 Press release by government officials (right after the meeting) ^9 Press release by student representatives (after the meeting) Viewed glocally, each localized political event is organized cohesively by political topics and relations: the former denotes the ‘relatedness’ of political subject matter in experiential metafunction, whereas the latter concerns the relations analogues to those of LOGICAL SEMANTIC RELATION in logical metafunction, whether that is additive, causal or temporal (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). By ‘temporal’, political events are linked both retrospectively (realis) (a candlelight vigil or memorial to a past event) and prospectively (irrealis) (the August 31 Decision). These multi-relational political events constitute a ‘web’ of political events, or what we term a ‘glocal political event’, in that it represents the general social, political and historical knowledge in which relevant political issues are situated. Figure 2.3 diagrammatically illustrates the interrelation of political events from a contextual perspective.

2.4.1.2 Political event as linguistic construct From an SFL point of view, socio-political events are semogenetic. They do not exist in a vacuum but are only brought into existence through text – the instances of language-in-use (see Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). In other words, political events enter language systems as part of languaging activities in both internal and external fashion; the former denotes the negotiations of meaning as discursive practices in a text, whereas the latter concerns the inter-discursive relations among text, discourse and register. With regard to the former, political events are represented as a continuous negotiation of meanings in ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions.

context-as-linguistic construct

Figure 2.3  The interrelation of political events from a contextual perspective

the immediate, language internal co-text and co-discourse

TEXT

social factors and institutional frames of a specific situational context

(iii) intertextuality and interdiscursivity

(iv) broader sociopolitical and historical context

context-as-historical construct

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  45 One particular case in point is the negotiation of interpersonal meanings through political acts – the minimal strategic political unit in semantics in achieving political agenda. A detailed discussion is in Chapter 4. With regard to the latter, political events are explored according to interrelations as in intertextuality and interdiscursivity. In intertextuality, the discursive events of a given political issue might not be realized by one single text but in a ‘network’ of texts so that a text depends on one and another. By ‘dependence’, it should be emphasized that textual linkage among texts is mutual but is not limited to the ‘preceding’ one. The ‘intertextual relations’ exhibited among political texts thus constitute the textual flow of political events. An example is the response by the HKSAR government to the statement issued by HKFS regarding constitutional development. Unlike the political event-as-contextual construct, the two political events are linked linguistically in that the linguistic devices in the co-text of government response are referenced to the HKFS statement intertextually. In other words, it is this textual dependence, or technically, the underlying intertextual relation, which leads up to political events. An investigation of this web of political texts thus enables us to identify the critical political and communicative moment of a socio-political issue within a specific time frame. In terms of interdiscursivity, the political event-as-linguistic construct extends towards the level of discourse and registers. With regard to the former, various political discourses are interdiscursively related through experiential domain discoursal topics, discourse flow and directionality, in that the object of focus lies in experiential domains of political discourse while the linguistics is relevant to respective discourse. The latter, in contrast, includes the flow of discoursal topic and choice of registers and registerial hybridity (see Matthiessen & Teruya, 2016).

2.4.1.3 Changes of political event as linguistic construct From the SF perspective, the meaning-creating process occurs within different time frames: phylogenesis (the time frame of evolution in the species or a social group), ontogenesis (the time frame of development in the individual) and logogenesis (the time frame of the unfolding of a text). Under this premise, context is crucially a historical construct. Discourse in the DHA model is thus a form of knowledge and memory situated in time and space. A DHA approach to discourse is thus an interpretation and analysis of historically produced texts, focusing not only the discursive events but also intertextuality, interdiscursivity and (re)contextualization informed by the general historical background that leads up to the discursive events at stake. This is inherited historical-oriented tradition. This historical engagement yields a modelling of context as a fourdimensional construct where particular emphasis is placed on ‘the notion of changes’ in terms of discourse, space and time (cf. historiographical approach in Flowerdew, 2012a).

46  Approaching political discourse from above Now we are ready to analyze the contextual environment (parameters) of a political event in Hong Kong, an important televised meeting between the government officials of the HKSAR and the student representatives of HKFS during the Umbrella Movement.

2.4.2 Contextual environment of a political event: a case in Hong Kong Amid the high noon of the Umbrella Movement, five representatives of HKFS meet with five representatives of the HKSAR government on 21 October 2014. This televised meeting is clearly a political event. The meeting is a social activity. There are two major groups of political actors representing two major political institutions involved in it. The first political institution is the government of the HKSAR. It is represented by five political actors: Chief Secretary for Administration Mrs. Carrie Lam, Secretary for Justice Mr. Rimsky Yuen, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Mr. Raymond Tam, Secretary of Home Affairs Mr. Lau Kong-wah and Director of the Chief Executive’s Office of Hong Kong Mr. Edward Yau. The second political institution is HKFS. It is also represented by five political actors: Secretary General of HKFS Mr. Alex Chow, Deputy Secretary General of HKFS Mr. Lester Shum, President of HKU Student Union Ms. Yvonne Leung, Former President of CUHK Student Union Mr. Eason Chung and Acting President of Lingnan University Student Union Mr. Nathan Law. Apart from these ten political actors, there is the mediator, Prof. Leonard Cheng Kwok-hon (the Heads of Universities Committee). A mediator is supposed to be a neutral party; however, he or she can also be considered a political actor, representing another political institution – the Heads of Universities Committee – in this political issue, with his own political goal, as shown in Chapter 3. His political stance, in fact, is shown in a previous political event from the timeline, University leaders and politicians urge the protesters to leave on 5 October 2014. Further, as it is a televised meeting, the populace becomes an important audience, apart from the mentioned political actors. All these form the tenor parameter of context, i.e., the social and semiotic roles of the political actors taking part in these activities and the organization of these into ordered role of networks. The meeting is a goal-oriented activity. Through the meeting, these political actors have their own political agendas, which are the direct outcomes of their political ideology and at the same time reflect their ideology. To achieve the goal of the event and/or their own political agenda, these political actors have certain roles to play in the event. These roles confine how they should act and what they can say and are reflected in how they perform and what they say or do not say. We will analyze the agenda of the political institutions in the following section.

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  47 Furthermore, applying the conception of instantiation, the meeting being a political event lies on the end of instance on the cline of instantiation. At the same time, it is one of the interrelated political events situated within a political issue, the Umbrella Movement, which in turn is located in (an episode of) the democratic development in Hong Kong since 1984. In other words, the meeting can be interpreted as an episode in a sequence of episodes – the open letter to the government, the government press release, the meeting between the government officials and student representatives, the press release after the meeting and finally the aftermath of the meeting – of the Umbrella Movement. All these form the field parameters of context, referring to the social and semiotic activities unfolding in context. The contextual environments of the meeting between the government officials and student representatives are explicated in Figure 2.4.

2.5 Constructing the political agendas: a case in Hong Kong As we have argued, political events are interrelated as a context construct and as a linguistic construct. This conception helps us to analyze the intended p ­ urposes – political agenda – of the political institutions/actors in a political event. The starting point of the meeting was the open letter to the HKSAR government demanding to have the meeting on 2 October 2014. In the letter, HKFS stated that their purposes were (i) to demand the government publicly clarify/ explain the governmental resolution for public scrutiny; and (ii) to forge a road to a better tomorrow with the HKSAR government. They formed the explicit agenda of HKFS in this political event. In other words, we expect that the student representatives of HKFS attending this meeting will make two major political moves, demanding and forging. On 3 October, the government responded to the open letter in a government press release. It explicated that the government’s intended purpose for this meeting was to resolve the differences between the two sides on Hong Kong’s constitutional development. Again, in the Report on the Recent Community and Political Situation in Hong Kong, the HKSAR government stated that there were two purposes of the meeting: firstly, to explain the constitutional basis and legal requirements of the method of selecting the CE by universal suffrage, as well as the position of the HKSAR government towards HKFS, and most importantly, the general public; and secondly, to persuade the protesters to leave the protest site. In other words, we can expect that the officials will use this political event (i) to legitimize the proposed method of the CE selection in 2007 and (ii) to persuade the protesters to leave the protest site. In other words, we expect that the government officials attending this meeting will make two major political moves, legitimizing and persuading.

48  Approaching political discourse from above In addition to the HKSAR officials and HKFS, there was a third party involved in this meeting, the mediator. He was supposed to be neutral. However, he had his own intended purposes, which were reflected in his introductory statements shown in Example [2.1]: [2.1] 八 大 校長 會 歡 – 歡迎 有 今日 呢 Baat3 daai6 haau6zoeng2 wui5 fun1-fun1jing4 jau5 gam1jat6 ni1 Eight university presidents will wel-welcome EXIST today DEM

個 嘅 機會 可以 為 解決 目前 香港 go3 ge3 gei1wui6 ho2ji5 wai6 gaai2kyut3 muk6cin4 Hoeng1Gong2 CL GEN chance can for solve current Hong-Kong





政治 困局 出 一 分 力， 並且 委任 我 zing3zi6 kwan3guk6 ceot1 jat1 fan1 lik6, bing6ce2 wai2jam6 ngo5 political predicament pay one CL effort also appoint 1SG



為 對話 嘅 主持人。 主持人 嘅 角色 主要 wai4 deoi3waa6 ge3 zyu2ci4jan4. Zyu2ci4jan4 ge3 gok3sik1 zyu2jiu3 as dialogue GEN host host GEN role mainly



喺 令 對話 有序 同 有效哋 進行， 確保 hai6 ling6 deoi3waa6 jau5zeoi6 tung4 jau5haau6dei6 zeon3hang4 kok3bou2 COP make dialogue in-order and effectively proceed ensure



每 個 人 都 遵照 我哋 對話 嘅 守則。 mui5 go3 jan4 dou1 zeon1ziu3 ngo5dei6 deoi3waa6 ge3 sau2zak1. every CL person all comply 1PL dialogue GEN regulation. (The Heads of Universities Committee (HUCOM) welcome today’s opportunity which can make an effort to solve the current political predicament of Hong Kong, and I am appointed to be the host. The role of the host is mainly to enable the orderly and effective process of the dialogue and to ensure that everyone complies with the regulations of our dialogue.)

[2.2] 今日 對話 嘅 內容 主要 喺 政制 發展， Gam1jat6 deoi3waa6 ge3 noi6jung4 zyu2jiu3 hai6 zing3zai3 faat3zin2 today dialogue GEN content mainly COP political development

有關 特首 普選 嘅 問題， 場 外 jau5gwaan1 dak6sau2 pou2syun2 ge3 man6tai4 Coeng4 ngoi6 regarding Chief-Executive universal-suffrage GEN question Scene outside



喺 電視機 旁邊 嘅 廣大 市民， 希望 對話 hai2 din6si6gei1 pong4bin1 ge3 gwong2daai6 si5man4 hei1mong6 deoi3waa6 at television next GEN general citizen hope dialogue

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  49

喺 有 進展， 可以 早日 結束 佔領運動， hai6 jau5 zeon3zin2 ho2ji5 zou2jat6 git3cuk1 Zim3Ling5Wan6Dung6 COP EXIST progress MOD early end Occupy-Movement

(The subject matter of today’s dialogue focuses mainly on the political development, the issue of the universal suffrage for the Chief Executive. The public outside, next to the television, hope that the dialogue does make progress and can put an end to the Occupy Movement soon.) He did hope that, through this meeting, the political problem that Hong Kong was facing could be solved and the Occupy Central Movement could end. In fact, as mentioned, he was representing a political institution – the Heads of Universities Committee (HUCOM) –their political stance toward the Umbrella Movement was clearly expressed in a previous political event, University leaders and politicians urge the protesters to leave. The political issue, political institutions, political actors and their moves to achieve their agendas can be summarized in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1  Political issue, event, institutions, actors and moves of the meeting Political issue

Umbrella Movement

Political event

Meeting between HKSAR & HKFS during the Occupy Central Movement

Political institutions

HKSAR

HKFS

HUCOM

Political actors

Mrs. Carrie Lam (the Chief Secretary for Administration); Mr. Rimsky Yuen (the Secretary for Justice); Mr. Raymond Tam (the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs); Mr. Lau Kong-wah (the Secretary of Home Affairs); and Mr. Edward Yau (the Director of the Chief Executive’s Office of Hong Kong)

Mr. Alex Chow (the Secretary General); Mr. Lester Shum (the Deputy Secretary General); Ms. Yvonne Leung (the President of HKU Student Union); Mr. Eason Chung (the Former President of CUHK Student Union); and Mr. Nathan Law (the Acting President of Lingnan University Student Union)

Prof. Leonard Cheng Kwokhon (the mediator of the meeting)

(Continued )

50  Approaching political discourse from above Table 2.1 (Continued) Political issue

Umbrella Movement

Political event

Meeting between HKSAR & HKFS during the Occupy Central Movement

Political institutions

HKSAR

HKFS

HUCOM

Political moves

Legitimizing (the proposed method of CE selection in 2007)

Demanding (the government to publicly clarify its resolution for public scrutiny)

Solving (the political problem that HK is facing)

Persuading (the protesters to leave the protest site)

Forging (a road to a better tomorrow with the HKSAR government)

Ending (the Occupy Central Movement)

However, apart from their explicitly expressed agenda, the political actors participating in a political event may have their hidden agendas, ones that are not previously explicitly expressed about the political event concerned. We have thus two questions to explore: first, do the political actors perform appropriate moves to achieve their expressed agenda in the event? And second, do they perform any other intended moves through which their hidden agendas are shown? We can approach these questions from around, through analyzing their (political) discourse in the meeting. We can also approach them from above, through the genre analysis of the meeting. With regards to the expressed agenda, we mentioned that the political moves of the HKSAR government officials were to legitimize the proposed method of CE selection in 2007 and to persuade the protesters to leave the protest site. To achieve these political moves, the government officials wanted to ensure that this political event was a discussion rather than a debate. This intention is reflected in the opening statement [2.3] of Mrs. Carrie Lam (Chief Secretary for Administration): [2.3] 我

同 特區 嘅 其他 幾 位 同事 今日 呢 Ngo5 tung4 Dak6Keoi1 ge3 kei4taa1 gei2 wai2 tung4si6 gam1jat6 le1 1SG with SAR GEN other few CL colleague today SFP



喺 帶 住 誠意 同 各 位 同學 會面。 今日 hai6 daai3 zyu6 sing4ji3 tung4 gok3 wai2 tung4hok6 wui6min6. Gam1jat6 COP bring IMPERF sincerity with every CL student meet today

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  51

唔 喺 一 個 辯論 比賽， 所以 應該 喺 無 m4 hai6 jat1 go3 bin6leon6 bei2coi3, so2ji5 jing1goi1 hai6 mou4 NEG COP one CL debate competition therefore MOD COP NEG-have



所謂 輸 或者 贏 嘅。 so2wai6 syu1 waak6ze2 jeng4 ge3. so-called loss or victory SFP



我 希望 大家 能夠 把握 跟住 落 嚟 呢 Ngo5 hei1mong6 daai6gaa1 nang4gau3 baa2aak1 gan1zyu6 lok6 lai4 li1 1SG hope everybody MOD grasp following down come DEM



兩 個 小時， 就 香港 嘅 政制 發展 進行 loeng5 go3 siu2si4, zau6 Hoeng1Gong2 ge3 zing3zai3 faat3zin2 zeon3hang4 two CL hour based Hong-Kong GEN political development progress



一 個 坦誠 同埋 有 意義 嘅 討論。 jat1 go3 taan2sing4 tung4maai4 jau5 ji3ji6 ge3 tou2leon6. one CL honest as-well-as have meaning GEN discussion

(With our sincerity, several other colleagues from the SAR and I have a meeting with all students today. We are not having a debate competition today, so there should not be any so-called loss or victory. I hope all of us can make good use of the following two hours to have a frank and meaningful discussion in respect of the political development of Hong Kong.) This, the student representatives of HKFS cannot disagree. However, HKFS seemed to have two other hidden political moves: to criticize the proposed method of CE selection in 2007 and to demand a government response. This political event is thus not purely a discussion but a debate. It is also reflected in the choice of words ‘政制爭議 zing3zai3 zang1ji3’ (constitutional controversy) in the opening statement [2.4] of Mr. Alex Chow (Secretary General of HKSF): [2.4] 咁

我 喺 周永康 啦， 咁 我 相信 今日 Gam2 ngo5 hai6 Zau1Wing5Hong1 laa1, Gam2 ngo5 soeng1seon3 gam1jat6 Then 1SG COP Chow-Yong-Kang SFP Then 1SG believe today



好 多 香港人 呢， 香港 市民 其實 對於 hou2 do1 Hoeng1Gong2-jan4 ne1, Hoeng1Gong2 si5man4 kei4sat6 deoi3jyu1 very many Hong-Kong-person SFP Hong-Kong citizen actually towards



可以 同， 啫喺 幾 位 官員 去 公開 討論 嘅 宜家 ho2ji5 tung4, ze1-hai6 gei2 wai2 gun1jyun4 heoi3 gung1hoi1 tou2leon6 ge3 ji4gaa1 MOD with that-is few CL official go public discuss GEN current

52  Approaching political discourse from above

政制 爭議 呢， 我 相信 唔 少 市民 喺 zing3zai3 zang1ji3 ne1, ngo5 soeng1seon3 m4 siu2 si5man4 hai6 political controversy SFP 1SG believe NEG less citizen COP



引頸待盼 咗 好 多 日 㗎 嘑。 jan5-geng2-doi6paan3 zo2 hou2 do1 jat6 gaa3 laa3. long-awaited PERF very many day SFP SFP

(I am Alex CHOW Yong-kang. I believe that today Hongkongers can discuss the current constitutional controversy with several officials in public, which is actually long awaited for many of them.) We will examine the political moves and political acts in detail in Chapter 4. In the following section, we will approach the questions from above.

2.6 Genre analysis In this section, we analyze the genre, especially the stages and turn-taking, of this political event. Particular attention is paid to the ways that the political moves affect the discourse of the actors, as well as their hidden agenda. Since genre is a staged goal-oriented social activity, we focus on the generic structure, especially the stages and the negotiation of turn-taking, of this meeting. The generic structure of the meeting is shown in Figure 2.4. The meeting is highly structured, with Leonard Cheng Kwok-hon as the mediator. HKSAR and HKFS representatives take turns contributing while the mediator appoints the speaker. The following summarizes the turn-taking of the meeting: Part 1: opening statement 5-minute-long opening statement by the HKSAR 5-minute-long statement by HKFS 1LC ^ 2Carrie Lam (CL) ^ 3LC ^ 4Alex Chow (AC) Part 2: 85-minute discussion between the two parties 5LC ^ 6CL ^ 7LC ^ 8[RT] ^ 9Yvonne Leung (YL) ^ 10Nathan Law (NL) ^ 11LC ^ 12Raymond Tam (RT) ^ 13LC ^ 14YL ^ 15Eason Chung (EC) ^ 16LC ^ 17RT ^ 18LC ^ 19Lester Shum (LS) ^ 20LC ^ 21Nathan Law (NL) ^ 22LC ^ 23AC ^ 24LC ^ 25CL ^ 26LC ^ 27RT ^ 28LC ^ 29[AC] ^ 30Rimsy Yuen (RY) ^ 31LC ^ 32YL ^ 33LC ^ 34YL ^ 35LC ^ 36AC ^ 37LC ^ 38RT ^ 39LC ^ 40CL ^ 41LC ^ 42RY Part 3: concluding statement 10-minute-long concluding statement by HKFS 10-minute-long concluding statement by the HKSAR 43LC ^ 44NL ^ 45LC ^ 46EC ^ 47LC ^ 48LS ^ 49LC ^ 50AC ^ 51LC ^ 52CL ^ 53LC

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  53

Cline of Instantiation Potential

Instance

Culture

Cultural Institutions

Political environment of Hong Kong

Political actors in terms of political parties

Individual political actors as member of political parties

Situation Type

Situation

Political issues

Political events

Open letter to the government

Chinese Government Hong Kong Government Development of democracy

Carrie Lam Raymond Tam Rimsky Yuen Edward Yau Lau Kong-wah

Occupy Central Movement

Meeting between government officials and student representatives

Pro-establishment camp

Press release after the meeting

Pro-democratic camp

Aftermaths

Other poltical interest groups Hong Kong Federation of Students Heads of Universities Committee (HUCOM)

Alex Chow Yong-Kang Lester Shum Yvonne Leung Nethan Law Eason Chung Leonard Cheung

Figure 2.4 Contextual environment of the meeting between the government officials and student representatives as a political event

The event has three stages. Stage 1 is the opening statement in which the HKSAR government officials present a 5-minute-long opening statement, followed by the student representatives of HKFS. Stage 2 is an 85-minute discussion between the two parties. Finally, Stage 3 is the concluding statement in which the student representatives of HKFS present a 10-minute-long concluding statement, followed by the HKSAR government officials’ closing statement. The overall generic structure reflects that the meeting is a debate, which is intended to function as a discussion. The crucial part to the success of the discussion is Stage 2. We thus focus on what occurred in this stage in the following section. To facilitate the process, the mediator, Leonard Cheng Kwok-hon, lays down some guidelines for turn-taking in this meeting. There are two major ones: firstly, the HKSAR government officials and the student representatives have to take alternative turns in their presentation; and secondly, they have to wait until the mediator calls their name before they speak.

54  Approaching political discourse from above [2.5] 關於 時間 分配， 首先

由 政府 用 五 分鐘 Gwaan1jyu1 si4gaan3 fan1pui3 sau2sin1 jau4 zing3fu2 jung6 ng5 fan1zung1 regarding time allocation first by Government use five minute



介紹 自己 嘅 代表、 立場、 主要 觀點 等等， gaai3siu6 zi6gei2 ge3 doi6biu2, lap6coeng4, zyu2jiu3 gun1dim2 dang2dang2, introduce self GEN representative stance main viewpoint etc.



跟住 由 學聯 用 五 分鐘 作 同樣 嘅 gan1zyu6 jau4 Hok6Lyun4 jung6 ng5 fan1zung1 zok3 tung4jeong2 ge3 then by HKFS use five minute make same GEN



介紹， 之後 發言 最 好 喺 梅花間竹， 有來有往。 gaai3siu6, zi1hau6 faat3jin4 zeoi3 hou2 hai6 mui4faa1-gaan3zuk1, jau5loi4jau5wong5. introduction then speech most good COP interlocking back-and-forth



(In respect of time allocation, firstly the government officials are to spend 5 minutes introducing their representatives, stance, viewpoints, etc. After that HKFS are to spend 5 minutes introducing the same. Then it will be better for the speeches to be interlocking and carried on back and forth.) [2.6] 喺 大約 八十五 分鐘 嘅 自由 對話 Hai2 daai6joek3 baat3sap6ng5 fan1zung1 ge3 zi6jau4 deoi3waa6 at approximately eighty-five minute GEN free dialogue

期間， 請 想 發言 代表 呢 就 向 我 kei4gaan1, cing2 soeng2 faat3jin4 doi6biu2 ne1 zau6 heong3 ngo5 duration please want speech representative SFP then towards 1SG



示意， 我 叫 出 名字， 方便 電視 觀眾 可以 si6ji6 ngo5 giu3 ceot1 ming4zi6 fong1bin6 din6si6 gun1zung3 ho2ji5 indicate 1SG call out name convenient television audience MOD



清楚 知道， 講 緊 嘢 喺 邊 位 代表。 cing1co2 zi1dou6 gong2 gan2 je5 hai6 bin1 wai2 doi6biu2. clear know say IMPER thing COP which CL representative (During the 85-minute free dialogue, would the representative going to make a speech please send me a signal. I will speak out the name so that the viewing audience can clearly know who the speaking representative is.)

The turn-taking in Stage 2 is summed up as follows. We focus on how and why the two rules were broken in this stage.

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  55   [5] Mediator (LC) ^ [6] Carrie Lam (CL) ^   [7] LC ^ [8] [Raymond Tam (RT)] ^ [9] Yvonne Leung (YL) ^ [10] Nathan Law (NL) ^ [11] LC ^ [12] RT ^ [13] LC ^ [14] YL ^ [15] Eason Chung (EC) ^ [16] LC ^ [17] RT ^ [18] LC ^ [19] Lester Shum (LS) ^ [20] LC ^ [21] NL ^ [22] LC ^ [23] Alex Chow (AC) ^ [24] LC ^ [25] CL ^ [26] LC ^ [27] RT ^ [28] LC ^ [29] [AC] ^ [30] Rimsky Yuen (RY) ^ [31] LC ^ [32] YL ^ [33] LC ^ [34] YL ^ [35] LC ^ [36] AC ^ [37] LC ^ [38] RT ^ [39] LC ^ [40] CL ^ [41] LC ^ [42] RY As mentioned, Rule 1 states that the two parties have to take alternative turns in their presentation. Since Mrs. Carrie Lam, the Chief Secretary for Administration, took Turn 6, the next turn is supposed to be given to the student representative. However, the mediator intends to give the floor to another government official, Mr. Raymond Tam, the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, who interrupts and reminds the mediator of the rule. [Turn 6] CL:

. . .

[Turn 7a] LC: 好。 多謝 司長， 頭先 你 話 有 一， Hou2. Do1ze6 Si1Zoeng2, tau4sin1 nei5 waa6 jau5 jat1, Fine thank Secretary just 2SG say EXIST one

兩 位 同事 想 補充 嗎？ loeng5 wai2 tung4si6 soeng2 bou2cung1 maa3? two CL colleague MOD supplement SFP (All right. Thank you, Mrs. Secretary. Just now you said there are one or two colleagues who would like to add something?)

[Turn 8] RT: 唔 知 會 唔 會 喺 一 來 一 回. . . M4 zi1 wui5 m4 wui5 hai6 jat1 loi4 jat1 wui4 . . . NEG know will NEG will at one come one go (I don’t know whether it will take alternative turns. . . .)

56  Approaching political discourse from above [Turn 7b] LC: Okay’ 咁

啫喺 補充 等 一 等 啦， 咁 OK gam2 ze1-hai6 bou2cung1 dang2 jat1 dang2 laa1, gam2 OK as-such that-is supplement wait one wait SFP then



我哋 請 呢 個 學聯 嘅 代表 發言。 ngo5dei6 cing2 ni1 go3 Hok6Lyun4 ge3 doi6biu2 faat3jin4. 1PL invite DEM CL HKFS GEN representative make-speech

Okay’ 唔該 呀 梁麗幗 同學。 OK m4goi1 aa3 Loeng4-Lai6-Gwok3 tung4hok6. Okay please PRT Leung-Lai-kwok student

(Okay, that means the supplementary has to wait for a while. Would the HKFS representative make a speech please? Okay, Yvonne LEUNG Laikwok please.) [Turn 9] YL: 咁







好 多謝 司長 對於 頭先 啫喺 周永康 Gam2 hou2 do1ze6 Si1Zoeng2 deoi3jyu1 tau4sin1 ze1-hai6 Zau1Wing5Hong1 Then very thank Secretary as-to just that-is Chow-Yong-Kang 同學 提 出 嚟 嘅 一 啲 意見， 啫喺 作出 tung4hok6 tai4 ceot1 lai4 ge3 jat1 di1 ji3gin3, ze1-hai6 zok3ceot1 student propose out come GEN one CL opinion that-is make 咗 一 啲 嘅 反響 嘅。. . . 我 諗 哩 一 樣 zo2 jat1 di1 ge3 faan2hoeng2 ge3 . . . Ngo5 lam2 ni1 jat1 joeng6 PERF one CL GEN response SFP 1SG think DEM one CL 嘢 我 希望 跟住 落 嚟 嘅 對話 入面, je5 ngo5 hei1mong6 gan1zyu6 lok6 lai ge3 deoi3waa6 jap6bin6, thing 1SG hope follow down come GEN dialogue inside



呢， 咁 多 位 嘅 官員 喺 可以 唔 好 ne1, gam3 do1 wai2 ge3 gun1jyun4 hai6 ho2ji5 m4 hou2 SFP such many CL GEN official COP MOD NEG MOD



濛糊化 哩 一 點， 令 到 香港 嘅 市民 mung4wu4faa3 ni1 jat1 dim2, ling6 dou3 Hoeng1Gong2 ge3 si5man4 blur DEM one point make arrive Hong-Kong GEN citizen



呢， 都 覺得 八三一 哩 個 決定 呢 就 ne1, dou1 gok3dak1 baat3-saam1-jat1 ni1 go3 kyut3ding6 ne1 zau6 SFP all think 31-August DEM CL decision SFP EMPH



等如 一切 嘅。 咁 跟住 我 就 會 交 畀 dang2jyu4 jat1cai3 ge3. Gam2 gan1zyu6 ngo5 zau6 wui5 gaau1 bei2 equal everything SFP as-such follow-up 1SG then will pass give





Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  57



羅冠聰 同學 去 啫喺 作出 另 一 Lo4Gun3Cung1 tung4hok6 heoi3 ze1hai6 zok3ceot1 ling4 jat1 Law-Kwung-Chung student go that-is make other one 方面 嘅 一啲 嘅 質詢。 fong1ming6 ge3 jat1di ge3 zi1seon1. aspect GEN one CL GEN enquiry

(Thank you Mrs. Secretary very much for sending back some echoes regarding some opinions put forward by Alex CHOW Yong-kang just now. . . . In the coming dialogue, I hope all of the officials will not blur this point to make Hong Kong citizens think that the decision on 31 August meant everything. Then I will pass the floor to Nathan LAW Kwun-chung to raise some queries in another aspect.) [Turn 10] NL: 喺。 好

高興 司長， 同埋 佢 同事 呢 就 Hai6, hou2 gou1hing3 Si1Zoeng2, tung4maai4 keoi5 tung4si6 ne1 zau6 COP very happy Secretary as-well-as 3SG colleague SFP FILL



講 過， 我哋 坐低 都 喺 想 市民 大眾 gong2 gwo3, ngo5dei6 co5-dai1 dou1 hai6 soeng2 si5man4 daai6zung3 say EXP 1PL sit-down all COP MOD citizen public



呢， 嘅 福祉 呢， 喺 得 到 重視， 同埋 ne1, ge3 fuk1zi2 ne1, hai6 dak1 dou3 zung6si6, tung4maai4 SFP GEN welfare SFP COP receive arrive respect as-well-as



增進 佢哋 嘅 福祉 嘅。 但 喺 亦都 希望， zang1zeon3 keoi5dei6 ge3 fuk1zi2 ge3. Daan6 hai6 jik6dou1 hei1mong6, increase 3PL GEN welfare SFP but COP also hope



各 位 司長 或者 各 位 政府 嘅 朋友 gok3 wai2 Si1Zoeng2 waak6ze2 gok3 wai2 zing3fu2 ge3 pang4jau5 every CL Secretary or every CL government GEN friend



呢， 唔 好 濛糊 焦點。 ne1, m4 hou2 mung4wu4 ziu1dim2. SFP NEG MOD blur focus

(Yes. It is very pleasant that Mrs. Secretary and her colleagues have mentioned that we are sitting here because we hope that importance is attached to the welfare of general public and we hope to further their welfare. But we also hope that Secretaries and government officials will not blur the focus.) At the end of her turn, Ms. Yvonne Leung violates the two rules by taking the role of the mediator and passing the floor to another student representative,

58  Approaching political discourse from above Mr. Nathan Law. This act seems to be preplanned as Nathan takes the floor and continues Yvonne’s refutation of the government officials’ blurring the focus. This reflects their hidden political move of reproaching the proposed method of CE selection in 2007. This happens again at Turn 14 as shown below. [Turn 14] YL: . . . 咁

跟住 落 嚟 呢， 其實 我哋 嘅 . . . Gam2 gan1zyu6 lok6 lai4 ne1, kei4sat6 ngo5dei6 ge3 . . . As-such following descend come SFP actually 1PL GEN



討論 都 唔 應該 剩 喺 聚焦 喺 到底 tou2leon6 dou1 m4 jing1goi1 zing6 hai6 zeoi6ziu1 hai2 dou3dai2 discussion all NEG MOD only COP focus at after-all



人大 哩 個 決議 上面 喺 咪 能夠 Jan4Daai6 lei1 go3 kyut3ji5 soeng6min6 hai6 mai6 nang4gau3 NPC DEM CL decision upon COP NEG MOD



憾動， 因為 國家 憲法 已經 講 得 ham2dung6, jan1wai6 gwok3gaa1 hin3faat3 ji5ging1 gong2 dak1 shake because nation constitutional-law already say MOD



好 清楚 喺 一 個 能夠 憾動 嘅 決定。 hou2 cing1co2 hai6 jat1 go3 nang4gau3 ham2dung6 ge3 kyut3ding6. very clear COP one CL MOD shake GEN decision



所以 我 都 交 返 由 Eason 呢， 去 講 下 So2ji5 ngo5 dou1 gaau1 faan1 jau4 Eason ne1, heoi3 gong2 haa5 therefore 1SG also pass return by Eason SFP go say DEL



到底 眼 前 嘅 政治 問題， 香港 政府 dou3dai2 ngaan5 cin4 ge3 zing3zi6 man6tai4, Hoeng1Gong2 zing3fu2 after-all eye in-front GEN political problem Hong-Kong government



想 點樣 解決？ soeng2 dim2joeng2 gaai2kyut3? MOD how solve.

(Then next, in fact our discussion should not only focus on whether or not the NPC’s resolution can be shaken, since the national constitution has already clearly stated that this is a resolution which can be shaken. Therefore, I will pass the floor to Eason to mention what measures the Hong Kong government wants to adopt to solve the political problem right now.)

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  59 [Turn 15] EC: 無 錯。 咁 多謝 咁 多 位 司局長 啦， Mou5 co3. Gam2 do1ze6 gam3 do1 wai2 Si1-Guk6-Zoeng2 laa1. not-have wrong as-such thank such many CL Secretary SFP

咁 啱啱， 啫喺 總括 咁 多 位 嘅 發言 Gam2 ngaam1ngaam1, ze1-hai6 zung2kut3 gam3 do1 wai2 ge3 faat3jin4 as-such just that-is summarize such many CL GEN speech



呢， 講 過 一 個 叫 民主 嘅 態度， 我 好 ne1, gong2 gwo3 jat1 go3 giu3 man4zyu2 ge3 taai3dou6, ngo5 hou2 SFP say EXP one CL call democracy GEN attitude 1SG very



認同 㗎， 民主 喺 一 種 態度。 咁 但喺 jing6tung4 gaa3, man4zyu2 hai6 jat1 zung2 taai3dou6. Gam2 daan6hai6 agree SFP democracy COP one CL attitude As-such but



我哋 可以 睇 返 個 個 政府 所 做 嘅 ngo5dei6 ho2ji5 tai2 faan1 go2 go3 zing3fu2 so2 zou6 ge3 1PL MOD see return DEM CL government PRT do GEN



諮詢 報告 呢’ 如果 政府 覺得 個 個 zi1seon1 bou3gou3 ne1, jyu4gwo2 zing3fu gok3dak1 go2 go3 consultation report SFP if government think DEM CL



諮詢 報告 喺 全面， 喺 客觀 嘅 話， zi1seon1 bou3gou3 hai6 cyun4min6, hai6 haak3gun1 ge3 waa6, consultation report COP all-round COP objective GEN say



我 覺得 司長 局長 大 可以 走 去 街 ngo5 gok3dak1 Si1Zoeng2 Guk6Zoeng2 daai6 ho2ji5 zau2 heoi3 gaai1 1SG think Secretary Secretary really MOD run go street



上面， 二十萬 人 走 去 公民 抗命， soeng6min6, ji6sap6maan6 jan4 zau2 heoi3 gung1man4 kong3ming6, upon 200,000 person run go citizen disobedience



你 可以 問 一 問 佢哋， 佢哋 正正 喺 nei5 ho2ji5 man6 jat1 man6 keoi5dei6, keoi5dei6 zing3zing3 hai6 2SG MOD ask one ask 3PL 3PL exactly COP



覺得 喺 之前 嘅 諮詢 報告 裡面， 佢哋 gok3dak1 hai2 zi1cin4 ge3 zi1seon1 bou3gou3 jap6min6, keoi5dei6 think at previous GEN consultation report inside 3PL

60  Approaching political discourse from above

嘅 意見 喺 完全 不 被 重視， 所以 ge3 ji3gin3 hai6 jyun4cyun4 bat1 bei6 zung6si6, so2ji5 GEN opinion COP completely NEG PASS concern therefore



佢哋 先 會 覺得 好 憤怒， 所以 keoi5dei6 sin1 wui5 gok3dak1 hou2 fan5nou6, so2ji5 3PL EMPH MOD think very angry therefore



先至 今次 走 出 嚟 街頭 上面。 sin1zi3 gam1ci3 zau2 ceot1 lai4 gaai1tau4 soeng6bin6. EMPH this-time run out come street upon

(Right. We thank all of the secretaries. Concluding what all of us have said, we have spoken of an attitude called democracy just now. I agree very much that democracy is a kind of attitude. But we can have a look back on the consultation report done by the government. If the government thinks the consultation report was comprehensive and objective, I think you secretaries can simply go onto the streets where 200,000 people are undertaking civil disobedience. You can ask them, and it is their very thought that in the previous the consultation report, their opinions were completely ignored. That’s why they feel very angry and that’s why they will go onto the streets this time.) At the end of her turn, Ms. Yvonne Leung once again violates the two rules by taking the role of the mediator and handing the floor to another student representative, Mr. Eason Chung; this is also preplanned, as Yvonne not only hands the floor to Eason but also describes Eason’s talking points, demanding the government officials explicitly put forward a solution to solve the current problem. Once again, Yvonne violates the two rules in order to achieve the hidden political moves, criticizing the proposed method of CE selection in 2007, and demanding a government response. We mentioned that based on their open letter to the Chief Secretary for Administration, the student representatives of HKFS stated that they intended to ‘forge a road to a better tomorrow with the HKSAR government’. Their discourse indicates that either they had no intention to do so or they were not ready to do so. This is revealed in Turns 32 to 36 as shown below: [Turn 32] YL: . . . 其實 哩 幾 點， 我 相信 都 必需 要 . . . Kei4sat6 lei1 gei2 dim2, ngo5 soeng1seon3 dou1 bit1seoi1 jiu3 . . . Actually DEM few point 1SG believe also necessary MOD

一陣間 政府 官員 喺 作出 一 個 jat1zan6gaan1 zing3fu2 gun1jyun4 hai6 zok3ceot1 jat1 go3 later government official COP make one CL

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  61

詳細 嘅 回應。 coeng4sai3 ge3 wui4jing3. detailed GEN response

(In fact, I believe it is necessary for the government officials to give a detailed response on these points later.) [Turn 33] LC: 我 想 請 呀 周永康 同學， 發言 ngo5 soeng2 cing2 aa3 Zau1Wing5Hong1 tung4hok6, faat3jin4 1SG MOD invite PRT Chow-Yong-Kang student speak

之前， 我 想 跟進 一下， 頭先 你 講 個 zi1cin4, ngo5 soeng2 gan1zeon3 jat1-haa5, tau4sin1 nei5 gong2 go2 before 1SG MOD follow-up once just 2SG speak DEM



個 二 至 三 呢， 你 覺得 喺 啫係 唔 合理 go3 ji6 zi3 saam1 ne1, nei5 gok3dak1 hai6, ze1-hai6 m4 hap6lei5 CL two to three SFP 2SG think COP that-is NEG reasonable



啦。 咁 我哋 同學 嘅 意見 (your opinion) 喺 要 laa1. Gam2 ngo5dei6 tung4hok6 ge3 ji3gin3 hai6 jiu3 SFP as-such 1PL student GEN opinion COP MOD



加 到 三 到 四 喺 咪， 你 就 覺得 gaa1 dou3 saam1 dou3 sei3 hai6 mai6 nei5 zau6 gok3dak1 add arrive three to four COP NEG 2SG then feel



滿意 呢？ 定 喺 你 覺得 應該 完全 無 mun5ji3 ne1? Ding6 hai6 nei5 gok3dak1 jing1goi1 jyun4cyun4 mou5 satisfied SFP or COP 2SG think MOD completely not-have



上限 嘅？ 我 想 聽聽 哩 方面 大家 soeng5-haan6 ge3? Ngo5 soeng2 teng1-teng1 lei1 fong1min6 daai6gaa1 upper-limit SFP 1SG MOD listen-listen DEM aspect everybody

意見。 ji3gin3. opinion

(I would like to follow up a bit before I invite Alex CHOW Yong-kang to make a speech. For the two to three you mentioned just now, that means you think it is unreasonable. Then is it the thought of our student that you will not be satisfied until it is added up to three to four? Or do you think there should be no maximum at all? I would like to listen to your view in this regard.)

62  Approaching political discourse from above [Turn 34] YL: 頭先

剛才 嘅 發言 呢， 其實 喺 一 個 Tau4sin1 gong1coi4 ge3 faat3jin4 ne1, kei4sat6 hai6 jat1 go3 Just just GEN speech SFP actually COP one CL



非常之 重要 嘅 地方 就 喺， 政改 嘅 fei1soeng4zi1 zung4jiu3 ge3 dei6fong1 zau6 hai6, zing3-goi2 ge3 very important GEN place EMPH COP political-reform GEN



諮詢 報告 無 如實 反映 到 市民 嘅 zi1seon1 bou3gou3 mou5 jyu4-sat6 faan2jing2 dou2 si5man4 ge3 consultation report not-have as-fact reflect arrive citizen GEN



意願， 哩 一 個 就 喺 我 剛才 提 ji3-jyun6, lei1 jat1 go3 zau6 hai6 ngo5 gong1coi4 tai4 opinion-hope DEM one CL EMPH COP 1SG just mention



到 哩 一 個 民意 調查 嘅 一 個 dou3 lei1 jat1 go3 man4ji3 tiu4caa4 ge3 jat1 go3 arrive DEM one CL citizen-opinion survey GEN one CL



主 因。 咁 我 希望， 啫喺 政府 官員 zyu2 jan1. Gam2 ngo5 hei1mong6, ze1-hai6 zing3fu2 gun1jyun4 main reason as-such 1SG hope that-is government official



可以 喺 哩 一 點 上面 去 清楚 回應， ho2ji5 hai2 lei1 jat1 dim2 soeng6min6 heoi3 cing1co2 wui4jing3, MOD at DEM one point upon go clear respond



到底 佢 點樣 切實 咁樣， 多元 dou3dai2 keoi5 dim2joeng2 cit3sat6 gam2joeng2, do1-jyun4 after-all 3SG how practically such diversifying



反映 緊 民意。[Strategy: evasion] faan2jing2 gan2 man4ji3. reflect IMPERF citizen-opinion

(In fact, there is a very important point in the speech made just now. The point is that the government’s consultation report did not truly reflect the will of the people. This is exactly the main cause for the poll I mentioned just now. Then I hope the government officials can give a clear response on this point – after all, how it reflects public opinion in a realistic and diversified way.) [Turn 35] LC: 我 都 想 再 跟進， 喺 咪 學聯 (HKFS) Ngo5 dou1 soeng2 zoi3 gan1zeon3, hai6 mai6 Hok6Lyun4 1SG also MOD again follow-up COP NEG HKFS

Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics  63

喺 哩 個 人 數 方面 無 一 個 hai2 lei1 go3 jan4 sou3 fong1min6 mou5 jat1 go3 at DEM CL person count aspect not-have one CL



立場 呢？ 定 喺 你 有 立場， 但 lap6coeng4 ne1? Ding6 hai6 nei5 jau5 lap6coeng4, daan6 stance SFP or COP 2SG EXIST stance but

喺 未 講 出 嚟？ hai6 mei6 gong2 ceot1 lai4? COP not-yet speak out come (Still I would like to follow up again. Is it a fact that HKFS do not have a stance on the number of people? Or you do have a stance, but you just haven’t clarified it?) [Turn 36] AC: 校長，

我 建議 哩 個 答案 呢， 就 Haau6zoeng2, ngo5 gin3ji5 lei1 go3 daap3on3 ne1, zau6 Principal 1SG suggest DEM CL answer SFP EMPH



畀 返 官員 去 回答， 因為 民調 bei2 faan1 gun1jyun4 heoi3 wui4daap3, jan1wai6 man4-diu6 give return official go answer because citizen-opinion-survey



嗰 方面 啦， 除咗 話 啫喺 話 一 啲 go2 fong1min6 laa1, ceoi4zo2 waa6 ze1-hai6 waa6 jat1 di1 DEM aspect SFP except say that-is say one CL



港大 嘅 民意研究中心， 或者 喺 Gong2Daai6 ge3 Man4-Ji3-Jin4Gau-Zung1Sam1, waak6ze2 hai6 HKU GEN Public-Opinion-Research-Centre or COP



一 啲 建制 派 嘅 政黨 其實 佢哋 jat1 di1 gin3-zai3 paai3 ge3 zing3-dong2 kei4sat6 keoi5dei6 one CL pro-establishment camp GEN political-party actually 3PL



做 嘅 一 啲 民調 嘅 時候， 其實 個 zou6 ge3 jat1 di1 man4diu6 ge3 si4hau6, kei4sat6 go2 do GEN one CL citizen-opinion-survey GEN time actually DEM



個 候選人 都 唔 喺 二 至 三 名 go3 hau6syun2-jan4 dou1 m4 hai6 ji6 zi3 saam1 ming4 CL candidate also NEG COP two to three CL



咁 少 嘅。 [Strategy: evasion] gam3 siu2 ge3. such little SFP

64  Approaching political discourse from above (Principal, I advise the officials to answer this question. This is because in respect of the polls, except for the ones carried out by the HKU Public Opinion Research Centre or some pro-establishment political parties, in fact every candidate does not consist of two or three members as such.) At Turn 33, the mediator intends to ask Yvonne Leung her preferred number of candidates in the 2017 Chief Executive election; however, Yvonne fails to provide an answer by adopting an evasive strategy. Then at Turn 35, the mediator once again asks the Secretary General of HKFS, Alex Chow, the same question, and Alex fails to provide an answer by adopting an evasive strategy. In short, the student representatives planned to achieve their hidden moves but either neglect or are not ready for the ones explicated in their open letter. The genre analysis, as well as their discourse in the meeting, indicates that the student representatives of HKFS intended to take this occasion to rebut the position of the HKSAR government and to urge a proper response to the political problems the government had created through the performance of two major political moves, reproaching and demanding. In other words, they would take this political event as a chance to criticize the proposed method of CE selection in 2007, and at the same time demand a government response to the current crisis. With the additional information, we can reconstruct Table 2.1 in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 A comprehensive table of political issues, event, institutions, actors and moves of the meeting Political issue

Umbrella Movement

Political event

Meeting between HKSAR and HKFS during the Occupy Central Movement

Political institutions

HKSAR

HKFS

HUCOM

Political actors

Mrs. Carrie Lam (the Chief Secretary for Administration); Mr. Rimsky Yuen (the Secretary for Justice); Mr. Raymond Tam (the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs); Mr. Lau Kong-wah (the Secretary of Home Affairs); and Mr. Edward Yau (the Director of the Chief Executive’s Office of Hong Kong)

Mr. Alex Chow (the Secretary General); Mr. Lester Shum (the Deputy Secretary General); Ms. Yvonne Leung (the President of HKU Student Union); Mr. Eason Chung (the Former President of CUHK Student Union); and Mr. Nathan Law (the Acting President of Lingnan University Student Union)

Prof. Leonard Cheng Kwok-hon (the mediator of the meeting)

Political agendas

Explicitly expressed

Explicitly expressed

Implicitly hidden

Explicitly expressed

Political moves

Legitimizing (the proposed method of CE selection in 2007)

Demanding (the government to publicly clarify its resolution for public scrutiny)

Reproaching (the proposed method of CE selection in 2007)

Solving (the political problem that HK is facing)

Persuading (the protesters to leave the protest site)

Demanding Forging (a government (a road to response) a better tomorrow with the HKSAR government)

Ending (the Occupy Central Movement)

3

Registerial analysis of political discourse

3.1 Introduction In SFL, a language is modelled as a tristratal construction: phonetics/phonology, lexicogrammar and discourse semantics. On top of these three strata is a nonlinguistic stratum called social context, which affects the speaker’s linguistic choices in a communicative event and affects the interpretation of the discourse in such events. Both Chapter 2 Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics and this chapter approach political discourse analysis at the contextual level. Chapter 2 contextualized ‘politics’ and ‘context’ – both defining and making – within socio-semiotic theory, or more precisely, the systemic functional framework, while Chapter 3 will start to relate ‘politics’ to the conception of ‘text’ before extending it on the cline of instantiation to the conception of ‘register’ – a context-based approach towards text types. Adopting Matthiessen’s model of registerial cartography, this chapter will conduct a registerial analysis of the political discourse of the Umbrella Movement in general and the televised meeting during the movement in particular.

3.2 From text to register From the systemic functional perspective, we see TEXT as the unit of meaning; as Hasan (2014, p. 4) asserts, it is a ‘reliable source of insight into the power of the language system’. ‘Doing politics’ is thus a systemic enterprise in measuring to what extent language-in-text is able to achieve its political agendas, functions and motifs in various contextual environments. Given the importance of ‘text’ (or ‘political discourse’) in politics, a systemic classification of political texts (or political discourses) grounded in this functional model appears necessary. Hence, this section introduces Matthiessen’s (2015a, 2015b) approach in modelling context and analyzing register: a context-based approach towards text types (or types of political discourse in the context of this book). It is technically known as registerial cartography. At the outset, we should note that text and register are regarded as descriptum, denoting the general meaning as text type. Our motif is purely functional. It foregrounds the semiotic relations between text and register, and it avoids confusion

Registerial analysis of political discourse  67 associated with the various senses of discourse, especially in the fields of PDA and CDS. Matthiessen’s registerial cartography is ‘functional’, modelling texts according to Halliday, McIntosh, and Stevens’ (1964[2007]) register: the ‘functional varieties of language’. As illustrated in Figure 1.4 and further combined with the concept of hierarchic systemic order with increasing complexity in Figure 2.2, a language system operates along the cline of instantiation, extending from the potential pole (language-as-system/meaning potential) to intermediate region (register/text type) and to instance pole (language-as-text). Taking into consideration that text is an instantiation of register and register is an aggregation of text-in-context, the shift from TEXT to REGISTER thus serves as a handy but theoretically significant point of departure in language descriptions. It can shunt along the cline of instantiation inductively from text to language system via register/text type, or deductively from language system to text via register/text type, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. By the same token, it can also shunt along the hierarchy of stratification so that register and context are realizationally related with respect to the embedded ‘situation type’, or more specifically, the contextual configuration (CC) of ‘field’, ‘tenor’ and ‘mode’ (see Table 3.1). The promotion of cartographic descriptum from text to register thus exhibits a practical means in operationalizing register studies, which, in this case, not only contributes to the identification and classification on political registers but also to descriptions of registerially relevant political languages pertaining to a given political in a given political domain. We will illustrate this point later in detail (see also Fung, Li, Lui, & Li, 2016).

Cline of Instantiation Potential

Instance

Context of Culture Cultural Institutions

Situation Type

Political Culture

Political Issue

Political Institution

deductive move Meaning [as potential]

Register

inductive Text Type

[as sub-meaning-potential] [as meaning]

Situation Political Event move Text [as meaning]

Figure 3.1  Partial stratification/instantiation matrix of political discourse semantic

Gloss

what’s going on

who’s taking part

what role language is playing

Contextual parameter

Field

Tenor

Mode

types of political discourse according to whether it plays a minor or major role in the context it operates in – a minor role facilitating a non-linguistic, social activity (e.g., political discourse during an operation in the Occupy Central Movement) or a major role constituting the activity of the context (e.g., political discourse in an interview during the same movement) types of political discourse according to whether it is primarily oriented towards field (e.g., political discourse in the discussion of a political ideology or policy) or towards tenor (e.g., political discourse in the construction of rapport or empathy between political actors)

orientation

types of political discourse according to the affective relationship among the interactants (e.g., the degree of empathy enacted by political actors in a meeting)

socio-metric role (affect)

division of labour

types of political discourse according to how well the interactants know each other (e.g., a LegCo member of a particular political party interacting with another LegCo member of a different party versus with an Executive Council member of the same party)

contact (familiarity)

types of political discourse according to the medium and the channel, e.g., written political discourse on an open letter, propaganda in posters, in pamphlets or on websites, spoken face-to-face discourse in a political event (accompanied by other semiotic systems expressed though the body)

types of political discourse according to status role, in terms of power based on expertise, institutional hierarchy and so on (e.g., asymmetry in government official-student representative discourse)

power (status) role

medium/channel

types of political discourse according to institutional role: the political discourse of different kinds of political actors and role combinations (e.g., government official-student representative discourse, interviewer-government official)

types of political discourse according to ‘subject matter’, e.g., in terms of political activities

experiential domain

institutional role

types of political discourse according to nature of activity – explaining (an ideology or a policy), debating (an ideology or a policy), recording (a political activity), persuading (the audience a political agenda), and so on

Examples

socio-semiotic process

Variables

Table 3.1  Field, tenor and mode parameters and types of political discourse

Registerial analysis of political discourse  69

3.3 A field-based view of political registers: field of activity As mentioned, registerial cartography operationalizes register identification/ classification as a configuration of field, tenor and mode, as shown in Table 3.1. Typologically, it is represented as a ‘radial diagram’, or in Matthiessen’s figurative expression, a ‘wheel of fortune’ by taking FIELDS OF ACTIVITY (as opposed to field of experience) as the point of departure, considering it is a ‘more important source of generalisation’ (Matthiessen, 2006, p. 45). In some of his writings, Matthiessen terms these eight activities social semiotic processes, highlighting that the fact that the nature of activity is primarily social (a process of interactive behaviour as in doing) or primarily semiotic (a process of exchanging meaning as in expounding, reporting, re-creating, sharing, enabling, recommending and exploring). Briefly, the eight primary types of FIELDS OF ACTIVITY in Matthiessen’s account are conceptualized as follows: a b c d e f g h

‘expounding’ (general classes of phenomena); ‘reporting’ (particular instances of phenomena, typically chronicling events); ‘re-creating’ (some aspect of experience, imaginatively); ‘sharing’ (personal values and experiences); ‘doing’ (collaborating in, or directing, social behaviour); ‘enabling’ (typically some course of action – some form of doing); ‘recommending’ (some course of action or some commodity); and ‘exploring’ (assigning public value to commodities or arguing about ideas).

As shown in Figure 3.2, each primary type of field of activity can be further divided into two secondary fields of activity along the line of delicacy. The details are summed up in Table 3.2.

of activit y field explaining

categorizing inventorying

arguing

surveying

expounding

reviewing

chronicling reporting

exploring promoting

narrating recreating

recommending

dramatizing

advising enabling instructing

sharing sharing experience

doing sharing values

regulating directing

collaborating

Figure 3.2  The description of field of activity Source: Adapted from Matthiessen, 2013

Table 3.2  Primary and secondary fields of activity Primary type

Nature of activity

Secondary type

expounding

our experience of classes of phenomena according to a general theory (ranging from commonsense folk theories to uncommonsense scientific theories)

either by categorizing (or “documenting”) these phenomena (typically entities) or by explaining them (typically events or the outcomes of events)

reporting

on our experience of particular phenomena (instances of classes of phenomena), documenting them according to the principle of organization most salient to them (e.g., as a verbal timeline, a verbal map or simply as a list)

chronicling the flow of particular events (as in historical recounts or news reports), surveying particular places (as in guidebooks) or inventorying particular entities (as in catalogues)

re-creating

narration and/or dramatization our experience of the world imaginatively, that is, creating imaginary worlds having some direct or tenuous relation to the world of our daily lives – recreating the world imaginatively

sharing

our personal lives, prototypically in private, thereby establishing, maintaining and negotiation personal relationships in face-to-face interaction but increasing also through social media channels (thus blurring the distinction between private and public) [sharing is a field of activity oriented towards tenor (relationships) so tenor distinctions play a significant role]

sharing our personal experiences, as in reminiscences, anecdotes and/or sharing our personal values, as in gossip

doing

social activities, prototypically engaging in interactive social behaviour, thereby collectively achieving some task

either by members of one group collaborating with one another or by one person directing the other members of a group

enabling

people to undertake some activity, thus very likely foreshadowing a ‘doing’ context

either by instructing them in how to undertake the activity, as in ‘how-to’ manuals, or by regulating their behaviour (controlling, constraining and restricting it), as in legislation, contracts, licensing agreements

Registerial analysis of political discourse  71 Primary type

Nature of activity

Secondary type

recommending people to undertake some activity, thus very likely foreshadowing a ‘doing’ context

either by advising them (recommendation for the benefit of the addressee, as in professional consultations) or inducing them (promotion: recommendation for the benefit of the speaker, as in advertisements)

exploring

either by reviewing a commodity (goods and services), as in book reviews, or by arguing about positions and ideas, as in expositions, editorials and debates

our communal values and positions, prototypically in public (through media channels) [exploring is a field of activity oriented towards tenor (relationships and values) so tenor distinctions play a significant role]

Source: Adapted from Matthiessen, 2013

3.4 Registerial landscape of political registers: Umbrella Movement In this section, we will apply Matthiessen’s registerial cartography to political registers, surveying its ‘registerial landscape’. In an ideal sense, a comprehensive typology of political text types should be multidimensional and based on all three of the contextual parameters set out in Table 3.1, accompanied with a detailed registerial analysis. However, for illustration, the following sections will only be concerned with two contextual parameters, FIELD (FIELD OF ACTIVITY; and FIELD OF EXPERIENCE: Umbrella Movement) and MODE (CHANNEL/MEDIUM as in [written] vs. [spoken] vs. [written-for-spoken] vs. [written-for-sing-along] and [monologue] vs. [dialogue]). By taking the Umbrella Movement as a point of departure, the following section aims to semiotically recontextualize the movement by surveying the registerial landscape of political registers identified within and beyond the occupied sites. It should be noted that, as Matthiessen notes, a full account of registerial landscape is an immense academic enterprise. The account here is by no means exhaustive; it is more or less a ‘survey’ of the registerial scenarios in the political domain from the view of context.

3.4.1 Political texts in ‘expounding’ contexts Expounding contexts are a field-oriented semiotic activity, concerning (i) expounding general classes of phenomena, both commonsensical folk theory

72  Approaching political discourse from above and scientific theory, (ii) taxonomizing them synoptically as entities or (iii) explaining them dynamically as sequence of explanation (Matthiessen et al., 2010, p. 106). Political registers falling within expounding contexts thus concern the dissemination of politically relevant knowledge, by explaining, categorizing or documenting them. Typical political registers of expounding contexts during the Umbrella Movement include leaflets, flyers ([MODE: written; monologue]), and more specifically, ‘civic lectures’ ([MODE: spoken; dialogue]) in various occupied sites where groups of professors and university lecturers gave face-toface seminars in educating citizens regarding general political knowledge. Like other political registers, expounding context seldom exists independently but hybrids with other contexts as a form of registerial hybridity (see Matthiessen & Teruya, 2016). Text 1 is the first paragraph of OCLP, Manual of Disobedience on the web. It presents a glossary regarding the notion ‘civil disobedience’, a central political motif upheld by attendees during the Umbrella Movement. Registerially, it is an instance of macro-register in that it is a hybrid of expounding, recommending and enabling with its centre of gravity residing in expounding context. Text 2 presents a lexical entry extracted from the online glossary of civil movement in Hong Kong, with a blend of expounding and reporting contexts. Text 1: OCLP, Manual of Disobedience [expounding; written: monologue] Civil disobedience refers to acts of opposing injustice through the refusal to comply with a law, decree or order. The participants will not resort to violence. Rather, they will proactively accept the due legal consequences. The acts have to display not only civility but also a disobedient attitude in refusing to cooperate with the unjust authorities, and to strive for societal changes through continuous protest. Genuine pacifism does not mean not to resist against evil, but to fight against evil squarely with non-violent means. Text 2: A lexical entry of ‘Fluid Occupiers’ [expounding; written: monologue] Fluid occupiers It is one of the ideas to support Occupy Central suggested by netizens. In practice, mobile occupation means blocking traffic in Central in the form of flash mob or ‘accidents’ achieving the de facto occupy movement.

3.4.2 Political text in ‘reporting’ contexts Reporting contexts are a field-oriented semiotic activity, concerning (i) chronicling a sequence of events, (ii) inventorying entities as records of item lists and entry records or (iii) surveying entities synoptically as topographic reports (Matthiessen et al., 2010, pp. 183–184). Typical political registers falling within

Registerial analysis of political discourse  73 reporting contexts include newspaper articles, media interviews and consultation reports. One notable example is newspaper articles (FIELD OF ACTIVITY: [reporting]; MODE: [written: monologue]) in that it undergoes recontextualization – to use Bernstein’s (1990) term – so that the particular political events are linguistically recontextualized from the speech event (e.g., occupied site) to a reconstructed context of discourse (e.g., newspaper reporting). Important in this process of recontextualization is the factuality (realis) in that journalists re-create political contexts, and more precisely, the sequence of political events through journalistic techniques of news reporters (cf. re-creating in Section 3.4.3). With technological affordance, the re-creation and recontextualization go beyond not only field and tenor but mode: it transforms the monomodal political registers to multimodal artefact, thereby enriching the political meaning potential in context. Text 3 presents an excerpt of an onsite reportage of Occupy Central Movement by the South China Morning Post regarding the rally in the occupied site in Admiralty. Text 3: Newspaper article [reporting: chronicling; written: monologue] 8 am: Thousands are still occupying roads in Admiralty, Mong Kok, Wan Chai and Causeway Bay. As traffic gets heavier delays are increasingly likely.   More than 200 bus services have been suspended or re-routed around the hotspots.   Mr. Ngai, an office worker living in the Southern District, said he had set off from home half an hour earlier than usual because the bus he usually took was re-routed. But he had no complaints about the traffic disruption caused by the protest. ‘It is understandable’, he said.   HKEx’s securities and derivatives markers will continue to operate as normal. It was announced this morning. 7:40 am: Police ‘negotiators’ flanked by officers from media liaison groups use a loudspeaker and ask protesters to leave Harcourt Road.   ‘You can help other people get to work. This would be a great step to help many citizens. Many people will be able to get to work and they will be very grateful’. Another example is item lists (FIELD OF ACTIVITY: [inventorying]; MODE: [written: monologue]). During the movement, and within the occupied sites in particular, item lists inventorying necessities as food, water, tents and goggles to protect against tear gas were commonly identified in response to the needs of Occupy Central attendees. Text 4 is an inventory list produced by HKFS in the early days of the movement. Text 4: Item lists [reporting inventorying; written: monologue] Yet, the recontextualizing activities here are typically imaginative in that writers or authors re-create fictional political contexts via dramatizing/narrative techniques. Political registers falling within re-creating contexts are thus a form

74  Approaching political discourse from above

of verbal art – to use Hasan’s (1984) term – and in this case, concerning the dramatization of the events during the Umbrella Movement. The importance here lies in that recontextualization is politically oriented, with a particular emphasis on the higher-order contextual phenomenon such as cultural background, socio-political structure, political ideology as well as re-creation of political meanings as both interpersonal prosody (attitudinal recontextualization) and experiential sequence (a flow of political events). Typical political registers of re-creating contexts include folk music, lyrics, poems and drama. With technological affordance, the re-creation and recontextualization go beyond not only field and tenor but mode: it transforms the monomodal political registers to multimodal artefact, thereby enriching the political meaning potential in context. Similar to reporting contexts, recreating contexts entail recontextualization (cf. Bernstein, 1990).

3.4.3 Political text in ‘re-creating’ contexts [recreating; written-for-sing-along: monologue] Re-creating contexts is concerned with the re-creation of human life experience of the world – both around and inside people – via other fields of activity, such as sharing, doing and recommending (Matthiessen et al., 2010, p. 176). Similar to reporting contexts, recreating contexts entails recontextualization (cf. Bernstein, 1990). Yet, the recontextualizing activities here are typically imaginative (irrealis) in that writers or authors re-create fictional political contexts via dramatizing/narrative techniques (cf. reporting in Section 3.4.2). Political registers falling within recreating contexts are thus a form of verbal art, to use Hasan’s (1984) term, and in this case, concerning the dramatization of the events during Occupy Central. Important in it is that the recontextualization is politically oriented, with a particular emphasis on the higher-order contextual phenomenon such as cultural background, socio-political structure, political ideology

Registerial analysis of political discourse  75 as well as re-creation of political meanings as both interpersonal prosody (attitudinal recontextualization) and experiential sequence (a flow of political events). Typical political registers of recreating contexts include folk music, lyrics, poems and drama. With technological affordance, the re-creation and recontextualization go beyond not only field and tenor but mode in that it transforms the monomodal political registers to multimodal artefact, thereby enriching the political meaning potential in context. Text 5 is the first paragraph of the theme song ‘Umbrella in the Night’ of the Umbrella Movement, written in late September 2014. Text 5: An extract of lyrics of ‘Umbrellas in the Night’ [recreating; written-for-sing-along: monologue] We ask ourselves, not unafraid ‘What is to come if we stay our way?’ But in this life, at such a moment We fear the silence even more.

3.4.4 Political texts in ‘sharing’ context Sharing contexts are a tenor-oriented semiotic activity, concerning the sharing of ‘personal values and experiences’ with the intended outcome of ‘calibrating interpersonal relationships’ among interactants (Matthiessen et al., 2010, pp. 200–201). Political registers falling within sharing contexts thus concern the construal of the experiences by interactants during the Umbrella Movement, as well as the enactment of epistemic stances towards it. Unlike exploring contexts, political registers of sharing contexts are typically personal, concerning interactants’ personal political values – whether they support or disapprove of the movement, expressing their attitudes, judgements and evaluations. Interactants of political registers in sharing contexts are typically of close socio-metric roles and of high familiarity, and the negotiation of political values is typically faceto-face interactions. Typical political registers of sharing contexts include casual conversations, gossip or opinions occurring in occupied sites. With technological advancement, the negotiation of personal political values has expanded from private to public through social media such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Text 6 is a short excerpt from a Facebook post during the movement. Text 6: A Facebook post during the Occupy Central Movement [sharing; written: dialogue] Today, we’ve turned a new page in law enforcement – why bother with hired thugs when cops can do the job themselves? So let’s just drag a handcuffed protester into a dark alley and beat him silly. Or shoot highpower pepper spray directly at a student’s eyeballs because his hands were in the air as a show of peace.

76  Approaching political discourse from above 3.4.5 Political texts in ‘doing’ context Doing contexts are a tenor-oriented social activity, concerning ‘contexts where people are engaged in a joint social activity, using language to facilitate the performance of this activity’ (Matthiessen & Kashyap, 2014, p. 9). Political registers falling within doing contexts thus concern the invitation by one political party to collaborate with another. Text 7 is an excerpt of an open letter of HKFS, issued to the HKSAR government demanding to have a meeting with Chief Secretary for Administration Mrs. Carrie Lam, to talk about the constitutional reforms in Hong Kong and the resolving of the Umbrella Movement on 2 October 2014. The text also concerns the issuing of a ‘warning’, directing the others not to act. For instance, then-Chief Executive Mr. Leung Chung Ying demanded that demonstrators remove blockades in order to permit government employees to return to work on Monday (6 October 2014) at their main office complex. He warned that if they failed to do this, the government would take ‘all necessary actions’. Text 7: An open letter to Mrs. Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, Chief Secretary for Administration, from HKFS [doing; written: monologue] Dear Mrs. Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, We note that Mrs. Lam intends to invite students to discuss the matter of a people’s call for a political reform that brings true democracy. We have the following reply: Hong Kongers resorting to the streets is the inevitable consequence of being failed or cheated repeatedly in the past thirty years. The only way for us to reclaim our own future begins with occupation. In response to citizens’ unfailing determination to fight for democracy, what the government did was to order a violent crackdown on peaceful protesters and even reporters. We are left with no alternatives but to step onto the streets, disobey injustice and dissolve the illegitimate authority.

3.4.6 Political texts in ‘recommending’ contexts Recommending contexts refers to ‘contexts where a course of action is advised for the benefit of the addressee’ (Matthiessen & Kashyap, 2014, p. 9). Political registers falling within recommending contexts thus concern recommending people to undertake some activity either by advising them (recommendation for the benefit of the addressee, as in consultations) or inducing them (promotion: recommendation for the benefit of the speaker, as in advertisements). The former includes the consultation of student representatives of HKFS with the legal professionals of the pro-democratic party the night before the meeting with the government officials of HKSAR on 20 October 2014. The latter

Registerial analysis of political discourse  77 includes the recommendation to the student representatives to end the protest during the meeting, for the benefit of the general public of Hong Kong.

3.4.7 Political text in ‘enabling’ contexts Like recommending contexts, enabling contexts are a semiotic process which leads to social process (see Matthiessen & Teruya, 2015, p. 252). Enabling contexts, as the name suggests, concern the controls of behaviour, or more precisely, the ability and obligation for ‘somebody to undertake some form of activity’ (Matthiessen et al., 2010, p. 87). Unlike sharing contexts, enabling contexts are a field-oriented semiotic activity in the sense that it orients us towards the interactants’ actions, either empowering or constraining them (see also Matthiessen & Teruya, 2015b, p. 253). Political registers falling within enabling contexts in the Occupy Central Movement thus aim to enable instructing attendees in how to carry out non-violent protest or by regulating them by what they should and should not do in the movement. Typical enabling registers in political discourses include laws, legal ordinances and constitutional documents which regulate interactants’ behaviour both formally and informally. Text 8 is a good example of text in enabling context, detailing the regulations for non-violent protests during the Occupy Central Movement. Text 8: Rules for non-violent protest [enabling; written: monologue] Rules for non-violent protest 1 Insist on the use of non-violence means. In the face of law enforcers and anti-Occupy Central demonstrators, never hurt anyone physically or mentally, or damage any property. 2 Be brave in facing the authorities and accept the responsibilities of civil disobedience. Do not use masks to cover your face. 3 Insist on the use of non-violence means.

3.4.8 Political discourse in ‘exploring’ contexts Political discourse of sharing contexts and exploring contexts are of high indeterminacy. Like sharing contexts, exploring contexts are tenor-oriented semiotic activity, focusing on the negotiation of epistemic stances and values. The major distinction between these socio-semiotic processes lies in the nature of values being negotiated and the interpersonal relations between interactants. Exploring contexts differ from sharing contexts in the sense that it is particularly oriented towards the exploration of ‘societal values in public’ (Matthiessen et al., 2010, p. 92). Whereas registers in sharing contexts are typically carried by interactants with intimate relations, interactants in exploring contexts involve ‘one person and some general segment the general public’. Political registers falling within exploring contexts thus concern the exploration of societal values towards political events, where speakers/writers review, argue and debate the political views

78  Approaching political discourse from above that they are in favour of, assigning the movement values on a scale of evaluation (see also Matthiessen & Teruya, 2015b, p. 252). An apt example of this is the civic lecture in which attendants explored the societal values of universal suffrage in public, contextually encapsulated as TENOR: SOCIAL ROLE: professor – Umbrella Movement attendants/general citizen dyad. Prototypical political registers of exploring contexts include letters to the editor, public speeches, civic lectures, expositions and commentaries. Before we wrap up the discussion in this section, we have to highlight the fact that political registers are usually, if not always, hybrid in nature. Through registerial hybridity, political registers of exploring contexts go beyond pure exploring to recommending one. That is to say, speakers/writers promote their political visions to other communal members through exploring process, thereby getting them to align with their political views and resolving contradictions and struggles in the Umbrella Movement. Surveying political discourses through Matthiessen’s registerial cartography enables us to fully understand how various political registers are accommodated together during the Umbrella Movement. Figure 3.3 diagrammatically represents the registerial landscape of political text-in-context. Table 3.3 summarizes the range of political discourses by socio-semiotic process.

political textbook

poltical journal article

monologue written newspaper article

commentary

interview question[newspaper] answer letter to the seminars plenary session electoral editor reform formal report meeting interview response political editorial [media] lectures public forum press online release radio forum statement phone-in speech expounding constitutional debate document reporting political exploring TV ordinance dramas Field: socioopen enabling recreating semiotic subsidiary letter processes legislation recommending rules of procedure

doing

political advert

political novel

sharing gossip

blogs [government officials]

casual conversations

leaflet committee meeting

electoral reform proposal poster

demonstration

blogs [personal] online posts/tweets [social media]

Figure 3.3  Registerial landscape of political text-in-context

dialogue spoken monologue

Table 3.3  Range of political discourses in terms of socio-semiotic process CONTEXT: SOCIOSEMIOTIC PROCESS

Discourse used to

Examples

Primary types

Sub-types

expounding general knowledge about the world

explaining, categorizing, documenting

create and disseminate general political knowledge

political journal articles, political textbooks, political lectures

reporting on particular phenomena

chronicling, inventorying, surveying

record information about particular cases, recount the experiences of particular political event

newspaper articles, media interviews, consultation report

re-creating aspects of (human) life, typically imaginatively

dramatizing, narrating

dramatize or in other ways create fictional versions of political contexts

political TV dramas, stories

sharing personal experiences and values

reminiscing, emoting

exchange personal experiences and values relating to political ideologies or policies

casual conversations about the daily activities in the occupy site, posts/tweets in social media, blogs

doing some social process

directing, coordinating

facilitate political procedures

discourses during a political operation, e.g., occupying Government Headquarters during the Occupy Central Movement

enabling some course of action

instructing

instruct practitioners (in training) [or members of the public] in procedures

procedures and demonstrations of protesting

regulating

controlling practices relating to political event

regulations to follow in the occupy sites

advising

advise political event

consultation paper, electoral reform proposal

promoting

promote political policy, ideology and/ or functions

political advertisements, posters, political leaflets

arguing, debating

debate political policy

editorials, opinion pieces about Occupy Central Movement

recommending some course of action

exploring public views, values, ideas

80  Approaching political discourse from above

3.5 Analyzing political discourse through registerial cartography: HKSAR-HKFS meeting This field-based view of register enables us to investigate the indeterminacy among socio-semiotic processes in a given register, a notion known as ‘registerial hybridity’ (Matthiessen and Teruya, 2015). Like other institutional discourses, political discourses are always multi-functional so that they can achieve more than one political agenda each time. Viewed from this perspective, political registers are, in essence, a product of registerial hybridity and it is this hybridity which enables political registers to perform more than one political goal. Given that registerial hybridity is frequent in political discourse, the ways that we identify these sub-texts become crucial. Matthiessen’s registerial cartography serves as a reliable method in discriminating the registers and more precisely, reflecting the hidden political orientations agendas. Let us illustrate the point in the televised meeting between the government officials and the student representatives in the middle of the Umbrella Movement. Officially known as the ‘Dialogue between HKSAR government and HK Federation of Students on constitutional development’, this sole meeting is regarded as the critical political event in the Movement. As stated by both parties, this meeting is conducted as a ‘dialogue’, aiming to ‘forge a road to a better tomorrow’. In Matthiessen’s generalized view of socio-semiotic processes, the register of ‘meeting’, in a macro-perspective, can be categorized as [exploring] context in the sense that participants are exchanging and negotiating the ‘societal values in public’. However, as indicated in our registerial analysis, the so-called ‘dialogue’ is more or less a ‘one-sided dialogue’. That is to say, rather than co-constructing the dialogue as one single register together, both parties construe the meeting in its own right. Throughout the meeting, the HKSAR representatives tend to preselect both [expounding] and [recommending] contexts, whereas the HKFS representatives tend to preselect the [exploring] context. Table 3.4 summarizes the contextual variables Table 3.4  Characterization of FIELD of the HKSAR-HKFS meeting HKSAR GENERAL SYSTEM [1] first-order (“social”)

[primary sociosemiotic processes:]

HKFS

exploring: exploring: (a) defending the CPG’s (a) criticizing the CPG’s and the government’s and the government’s position from a position; constitutional (b) rebutting the perspective, and CPG’s and the more importantly, to government’s rebut constitutional position from a arguments put constitutional forward by the perspective students

Registerial analysis of political discourse  81 HKSAR [secondary recommending: socio(a) persuading semiotic protesters to leave processes:] the occupied sites; (b) promoting the political values of the August 31 Decision

HKFS recommending: (a) requesting government to take initiative to solve the crisis; (b) promoting the Occupy Central Movement by gaining the public’s support

[2] second-order [subject matter:] Umbrella Movement (“semiotic”)

and Figure 3.4 illustrates the socio-semiotic profiles of each turn in the meeting.

3.6 Tenor and division of labour in a political event The contextual parameter of ‘tenor’ concerns ‘who is/are taking part in the activity’. It concerns the social relationship between the political actors involved in the political event: speaker and audience (or the writer and the readers) and usually the public. There are four variables: 1

institutional role, responding to the question ‘What is the institutional role of the political actors involved in this political event, including their social responsibility in performing the task and their authority?’ 2 power (status) role, responding to the question ‘What is their social status and relative power, including their level of expertise and possession of knowledge of the topic?’ 3 contact (familiarity), responding to the question ‘What is their social distance, i.e., the level of familiarity between the political actors?’ 4 socio-metric role (affect), responding to the question ‘What are their persona, including their general stance towards, alignment with, agreement with and valuation of each other?’ The combination of these four variables in the political actors of each political institution in a political event determines their division of labour in it. The major features of tenor in the televised meeting have been characterized in Table 3.5. In the following section, we briefly analyze the tenor and division of labour among the student representatives of HKFS and the government officials of the HKSAR in the meeting during the Umbrella Movement.

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

LC

Med LC

AC

LC

EC

NL

AC

YL

YL

AC

AC

NL

LS

YL EC

YL NL

AC

Speaker HKFS

CL

RY

CL

RT

RY

RT

CL

RT

RY

RT

CL

CL

HKSAR

Expounding

Reporting

Recreating

Figure 3.4  Profiling the socio-semiotic processes of the meeting

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Turn Socio-semiotic processes Sharing Doing Recommending

Enabling

Exploring

Registerial analysis of political discourse  83 Table 3.5  Characterization of TENOR of the HKFS-HKSAR meeting HKFS – HKSAR

HKFS – protesters

HKSAR – protesters

[institutional role:]

HKFS – HKSAR representatives

HKSAR – the Umbrella Movement supporters

HKFS – the Umbrella Movement supporters

[power:]

HKSAR representatives are of high power, with the legal role in implementing the political reform and the authority

High power; students leaders represent protesters to negotiate with HKSAR representatives

HKSAR representatives are of high power, with the legal role in implementing the political reform and the authority

[expertise:]

novice – expert

novice – novice

novice – expert

[familiarity:]

maximum social distance; both parties are not closed to each other; HKFS is not a political party in Hong Kong

medium social distance

maximum social distance

[affect:]

both parties are not closed to each other; HKFS is not a political party in Hong Kong

the HKFS representatives intend to align themselves with the Umbrella Movement supporters so as to continue the campaign

the HKSAR representatives intend to align themselves with protesters so as to end the campaign

3.6.1 Tenor and division of labour of the student representatives There are five student representatives of HKFS at the meeting. They are Mr. Alex Chow (the Secretary General), Mr. Lester Shum (the Deputy Secretary General), Ms. Yvonne Leung (the President of Hong Kong University Student Union), Mr. Nathan Law (the Acting President of Lingnan University Student Union) and Mr. Eason Chung (former President of Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union).

3.6.1.1 Alex Chow: HKFS Secretary General He was a student at the University of Hong Kong, majoring in comparative literature and sociology. As the leader of the group, he expressed the students’ and the public’s demands and criticized the Central People’s Government (CPG) and the HKSAR government’s position on constitutional reform. He was also

84  Approaching political discourse from above the person to respond to arguments that government officials put forward during the meeting. Being the group leader, he spoke five times in the meeting: Turn 4, Turn 24, Turn 30, Turn 37 and Turn 51. Table 3.6 summarizes his purposes in each turn.

Table 3.6  Alex Chow’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Turn 4 1 Expressing the students’ and the public’s demands (Clauses 77–83, 116–121, esp. 125 in the transcription of the meeting): a the August 31 Decision is unacceptable because it ‘kills’ Hong Kong people’s quest for democracy (84–94) b the problems of an undemocratic CE electoral method (95–101) 2 Criticizing the CPG’s and the government’s position: a the problems of the August 31 Decision (102–105) b questioning the commitment of the HKSAR officials (106–110) c argue that the HKSAR government has misled the CPG (111–115) Turn 24 1 To repeat an earlier argument put forward by the students – the current problem is a political problem (321) 2 To argue that the HKSAR government has a constitutional duty to fight for the HKSAR and to truthfully reflect the latest HKSAR condition to the CPG (322–327) 3 To respond to Raymond Tam’s argument (328–333) 4 To argue that the key to end the Occupy Movement is in the hands of the HKSAR government (334–337) Turn 30 1 Asking Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung of HKSAR to be the next speaker (402) Turn 37 1 Responding to arguments put forward by government officials during the meeting a asking the government about the real purpose of submitting a new report to the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office (HKMAO) (445–446) 2 Expressing the students’ and the public’s demand a if the Basic Law is not protecting people’s rights, why couldn’t we amend it (447–449) b demanding the government to clearly tell what it would do next – giving the HK people a timetable or a road route of HK’s political development (451–454, esp. 451) Turn 51 1 Expressing the students’ and the public’s position a they want true democratic reform (550–551), and why democracy is important (560–561) b demanding a timetable and road map (555) c demanding the government officials to show their commitment to HKSAR (564–568)

Registerial analysis of political discourse  85 3.6.1.2 Lester Shum: HKFS Deputy Secretary General He was a third-year student in the Department of Government and Public Administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His role during the meeting was to discuss why the CPG’s and the government’s position was unacceptable from the perspective that everyone should enjoy equal political rights, be it the right to be nominated or the right to cast a vote. Unlike Alex Chow, Lester Shum contributed only two turns in the meeting: Turn 20 and Turn 49. Table 3.7 summarizes his purposes in each turn.

3.6.1.3 Yvonne Leung: President of HKU She was a student at the University of Hong Kong and president of its student union. She was a third-year social sciences student there, pursuing a degree in Government and Laws. Her role was to rebut the CPG’s and the government’s position from a constitutional perspective. She contributed three turns in the meeting: Turn 10, Turn 33 and Turn 35. Table 3.8 summarizes her purposes in each turn. Table 3.7  Lester Shum’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Turn 20 1  To express the students’ and the public’s demands (284–285, esp. 295, 302) 2 To criticize the government for not really listening and responding to the public’s demand (286–288) 3  To repeat an earlier argument – the current problem is a political problem (300–301) Turn 49 1  Repeating the students’ position a  August 31 Decision is not acceptable (534) b the government should demonstrate its commitment to resolve the problem of political development, which is a political problem rather than a constitutional problem (535, 544–546) c  what the students really want the government to do (540–542) Table 3.8  Yvonne Leung’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Turn 10 1 Rebutting the CPG’s and the government’s position from a constitutional perspective (166–173, esp. 167, 171) 2  Asking Nathan Law Kwun-chung of HKFS to be the next speaker (175) Turn 33 1 Repeating an argument that the students’ made earlier – the government has submitted a biased report to the CPG (425–427) 2 Demanding the government to explain why civil nomination is not a possible option to be considered in the CE electoral method and why HK still need to follow the old method to select the members of the nomination committee (428–435) 3  Demanding the government to explain the reason Turn 35 1 Repeat an argument that the students’ made earlier – the government has submitted a biased report to the CPG (440–441)

86  Approaching political discourse from above 3.6.1.4 Nathan Law: Acting President of Lingnan University Student Union He was a student at Lingnan University. His role was to establish the argument that many problems that Hong Kong currently faced were rooted in its undemocratic political system, and to support the demands of the students and the general public by referring to different opinion polls. Like Yvonne Leung, Nathan Law contributed three turns in the meeting: Turn 11, Turn 22 and Turn 45. Table 3.9 summarizes his purposes in each turn.

3.6.1.5 Eason Chung: Former President of the Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union He was a student at the Chinese University of Hong Kong majoring in government and public administration. His role was to discuss what the government should do to solve the political problem triggered by the NPCSC’s August 31 Decision. Like Lester Shum, Eason Chung only contributed two turns in the meeting: Turn 16 and Turn 57. Table 3.10 summarizes his purposes in each turn.

3.6.2  Tenor and division of labour of the government officials Though there were five government officials, Carrie Lam (Chief Secretary for Administration), Raymond Tam (Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs), Rimsky Yuen (Secretary for Justice), Edward Yau (Director of the Chief

Table 3.9  Nathan Law’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Turn 11 1 To establish the argument that the current problem is not just a constitutional or legal problem but a political problem. More importantly, to argue that many problems that Hong Kong currently facing rooted in its undemocratic political system (178–188) 2 To argue that the HKSAR government misled the CPG, and to support the demands of the students and the general public by referring to different opinion polls (189–197) Turn 22 1  To respond to arguments raised by the officials during the meeting (307–311) 2 To argue that it is the constitutional duty for the HKSAR government to fight for a more democratic system for the HKSAR (312–315) Turn 45 1 Expressing the students’ and the public’s demands (and responding to the government officials’ arguments) a the government should propose a timetable for HK’s democratic development (514) b  amending the Basic Law is a practical option (515)

Registerial analysis of political discourse  87 Table 3.10  Eason Chung’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Turn 16 1  To respond to the HKSAR government officials’ comments (235–239) 2 To discuss political problem triggered by the NPCSC’s August 31 Decision (240–243) 3  To express the students’ and the public’s demand (245) 4 To respond to the government’s argument that the Occupy Movement has undermined rule of law in HK (246–247) Turn 47 1  Responding to the government’s position a any proposal on the basis of the August 31 Decision would be vetoed by the LegCo (520–523) b  the government is not listening to the people’s opinion (524–528, 530) c the government should clearly tell the HK people how it would resolve the current problem (529)

Executive’s Office of Hong Kong) and Lau Kong-Wah (then-Under Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs), Edward Yau and Lau Kong-Wah did not participate in the discussion. Our discussion will focus on the other three officials.

3.6.2.1 Carrie Lam: Chief Secretary for Administration Lam was also the head of the Task Force on Constitutional Development. She represented the HKSAR government and headed the team of government officials who attended the meeting. Though she sounded conciliatory, she was firm on issues that the government had officially declared its position on. To gain public support, and to show that the government was willing to solve the problems with all Hong Kong people, if possible, she would make offers that did not violate the government’s official position on the matter under discussion. In sum, her role was to repeat the government’s position, to rebut any arguments against the government and to make gestures showing that the government sincerely hoped to take a step forward in Hong Kong’s democratization process. As she headed the team, she contributed most turns and time in the meeting. Table 3.11 summarizes her purposes in each turn.

3.6.2.2 Rimsky Yuen: Secretary for Justice He was also a member of the three-member Task Force. As the ‘legal advisor’ of the HKSAR government, Yuen’s role was to defend the CPG’s and the government’s position from a constitutional perspective and more importantly, to rebut constitutional arguments put forward by the students. He contributed three turns in the meeting: Turn 13, Turn 31 and Turn 43. Table 3.12 summarizes his purposes in each turn.

Table 3.11  Carrie Lam’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Turn 2 1  Conciliative gesture (Clauses 24–35, 65–66) 2  Repeating the government’s position a  any protesting act must be legal and respecting different views (36, 43–46) b  the costs of the Occupy Movement (37–38) c  the Occupy Movement must stop as soon as possible (39–40) d  repeating the government’s position (41–42) i  one must realize the political reality that HKSAR is encountering (47–51) ii getting the most out of the August 31 Decision is what HK should do in the next round (51–55, 63) iii the August 31 Decision is not the finalized plan; future improvements are still possible (56–61) Turn 6 1  Repeating the government’s position a any protesting act must be legal and respecting different views (131–132, 158–159) b  repeating the government’s position i one must realize the political reality that HKSAR is encountering (133–146, esp. 137 about the CPG’s role, and 142–145, about the principles that HKSAR must follow in democratizing its system) ii responding to Alex Chow’s comment – the HKSAR government did not mislead the CPG (147–151) iii getting the most out of the August 31 Decision is what HK should do in the next round (152–55) iv responding to Alex Chow’s comment – the HKSAR government (police) is handling the Occupy Movement with a great degree of tolerance (154–157) v the August 31 Decision is not the finalized plan; future improvements are still possible (56–61) Turn 26 1  Repeating the government’s position a the public’s position on the issue is divided – the students and their supporters are just one of the many opinions on the issue (339–342, esp. 340) b the HKSAR government did not mislead the CPG (343–351, esp. 343, 350) and thus did not need to submit a new report to the CPG to ask NPCSC to amend its August 31 Decision 2 Gaining the public’s support by making new offers, i.e., submitting a new report to the HKMAO (353–358) Turn 41 1 Repeating the government’s position (and responding to the students’ comments) a  the government did not submit a biased report (471–475) b  the public is indeed supporting the government’s position (476–479, esp. 476) c why civil nomination is not a feasible option to be considered in the CE electoral method (481–485) 2  To argue that amending the Basic Law is not a practical option (487–488) 3 To respond to the student’s question – the purpose of the new report (489–490, 493) 4 Repeating the government’s position – the August 31 Decision is not the finalized plan, future improvements are still possible (491–492) 5 Gaining the public’s support by making new offers, i.e., creating a multi-aspect platform (494–496)

Registerial analysis of political discourse  89 Turn 53 1  Repeating the government’s position a one must realize the political reality that HKSAR is encountering (574, esp. 575, 590–593) b  August 31 Decision is a step forward in HK’s democratization process (576–579) 2 Defending the way the government (esp. the police) are handling the Occupy Movement (580–583) 3  Conciliative gesture (586–588) 4  Emphasizes the problems caused by the Occupy Movement (594–598) 5  Summarizing the government’s position a the August 31 Decision does not set a finalized plan for HK’s political development (601–607) b  demanding the HKFS end the Occupy Movement (608–611)

Table 3.12  Rimsky Yuen’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Turn 13 1 To defend the CPG’s and the government’s position from a constitutional perspective, and more importantly, to rebut constitutional arguments put forward by the students (205–217) Turn 31 1 Repeating the government’s position – a majority of the HK people would like to move a step forward with the framework stipulated in the August 31 Decision (405–408) 2 Repeating the government’s position – the essence of democracy is to respect opinions different from oneself (416–420) Turn 43 1  Responding to students’ comments and demands a the true meaning of ‘democratic procedure’ – responding to Yvonne Leung’s comment (502) b  amending the Basic Law is not a practical option (503–506)

3.6.2.3 Raymond Tam: Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs He was also a member of the three-member Task Force. As constitutional development was one of his major policy portfolios, his role in the meeting was twofold: first, defending the CPG’s and the government’s position by highlighting what could be done/should be done in Hong Kong’s constitutional development within the parameters set by the Basic Law and the NPCSC’s decisions, and by presenting himself as an ordinary Hong Kong person who had long held the position of selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. He contributed four turns in the meeting: Turn 8, Turn 18, Turn 28 and Turn 39. Table 3.13 summarizes his purposes in each turn.

90  Approaching political discourse from above Table 3.13  Raymond Tam’s purposes of each turn in the meeting Turn 8 1  Seeking for confirmation (162) Turn 18 1  Defending the CPG’s and the government’s position a the August 31 Decision and a political reform proposal based on it would be welcomed by many HK people (257–264) b the August 31 Decision would not suppress people’s political rights but enhanced them, and also provide a better political system for HKSAR (265–272) 2 Responding to the students’ challenge to the officials’ commitment to better HKSAR’s political situation (276–279) Turn 8 1 Responding to the students’ arguments – asserting that HKSAR’s CE electoral method did not prohibit people from running the CE office on the basis of one’s political position (364–381) 2 Repeating the government’s position – why the August 31 Decision is ok and why civil nomination is not permissible under the Basic Law (384–393) 3 Repeating the government’s position – what HKSAR should do in the next stage (394–396) Turn 39 1 Repeating the government’s position: what HK should do in the second round of consultation exercise (it is also a response to Yvonne Leung’s earlier argument about the undemocratic nature of the Nomination Committee) (459–465)

3.6.2.4 Edward Yau: Director of the Chief Executive’s office It is strange why he was at the meeting, as officials from the Task Force would report to the Chief Executive on what issues were being discussed in the meeting, and since the meeting was broadcast on television, the Chief Executive certainly would have access to it even if he was not there. Mr. Yau remained silent throughout the meeting.

3.6.2.5 Lau Kong-wah: Under Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Again, it was strange why he was there, as his superior, Raymond Tam, was also attending the meeting. Like Mr. Yau, he remained silent throughout the meeting.

Part II

Approaching political discourse from around (discourse semantic parameters)

4

Semantic discourse analysis of political discourse

4.1 Introduction A political event is a goal-oriented social activity in which the participating political actors, representing different political institutions, make use of different political strategies to achieve their political agendas. These political agendas, both explicitly expressed and hidden ones, can be deduced from the political discourses in other political events leading up to it, the generic structure making up the discourse itself, the political strategies adopted by the political actors in it, and the political instances following it (Angouri & Mondala, 2017). Chapter 2 Contextual analysis of Hong Kong politics illustrated the point by examining the political discourses of (i) the HKFS open letter to the HKSAR government, (ii) the government press release, (iii) the government Report on the Recent Community and Political Situation in Hong Kong, (iv) the political event University leaders and politicians urge the protesters to leave and (v) the introductory statement of the mediator of the meeting to construct the explicated expressed political agendas of the government officials of HKSAR and the student representatives of HKFS in a televised meeting during the Umbrella Movement. It then examined the generic structure and the turn-taking of the meeting to argue the existence of the hidden agenda. This chapter, on the other hand, will relate political agendas, political strategies, political moves and political acts, and illustrate their relationship by examining the televised meeting. It first builds the cline of political moves and discusses how the political actors in the meeting make use of various linguistic choices to realize twelve political acts – claiming personal experience, issuing ones’ belief, claiming membership, differentiating ‘otherness’, critical or adversarial questioning, being evasive, suggesting a hypothetical future, introducing the voice of expertise, showing rationality, making comparisons, claiming common interest, and showing altruism – to achieve their political agendas.

4.2 Constructing the political moves in the meeting Political activities are mainly discursive in nature. According to van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999, p. 92), discursive acts are socially constitutive: to the genesis, production and construction of certain social conditions; to restore or justify a

94  Approaching political discourse from around certain social status quo; to perpetuate and reproduce the status quo; and to transform or even to destroy the status quo. Based on these sociological (macro) functions, van Leeuwen and Wodak propose four types of macro-strategies: constructive strategies, strategies of perpetuation and justification, strategies of transformation and destructive strategies. Political strategies, according to Wodak (1999, p. 92), refer to ‘plans of action with varies degrees of elaborateness, the realization of which can range from automatic to conscious and which are located in different levels of our mental organization’. Hence, being a goaloriented social event, a political event can be interpreted as a political function, which concerns a particular political issue. The political actors involved in the political event represent different political institutions with their own agendas towards the political issue. To achieve their agendas, political actors carefully plan their strategies, and to carry out these strategies, they perform various acts. Hence, one can regard the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong as a political issue that concerned the pace of Hong Kong’s democratization, especially the methods of electing the CE in 2017. The political actors involved represented both the formal and informal political institutions (such as the Chinese and Hong Kong governments and their officials versus political parties like the Democratic Party and the Civic Party and student organizations such as HKFS) pursuing their own agendas (establishing and legitimizing versus destructing and abolishing the new government’s policy on the 2017 CE election). Furthermore, the televised meeting between the government officials and the student representatives was one of the political events that made up the issue. Later in the chapter, we will examine in detail the ‘political moves’ that these political actors used to achieve their respective political agendas in the meeting. In this study of political discourse, we use the term ‘political move’ to refer to the discursive means intended to achieve a political agenda. A political move may encompass a single political act or sequence of acts which serve to perform a political function. Based on van Leeuwen and Wodak’s notion of macrostrategy, we can differentiate six types of political moves: (i) move of perpetuation, (ii) move of reformation, (iii) move of abolition, (iv) move of legitimization, (v) move of modification and (vi) move of destruction. The relationship of these six political moves can be explicated in Figure 4.1. First of all, the first three political moves – move of perpetuation, move of reformation and move of abolition – concern the well-established social status quo or government policy. A political perpetuating move encompasses those political discursive acts which attempt to support and thus maintain the existing well-established social status quo or government policy. A reforming move, in contrast, encompasses those acts which attempt to change or transform the existing social status quo or government policy. Finally, an abolishing move encompasses those acts which serve to demolish the existing status quo or government policy. In contrast, the last three political moves – move of legitimization, move of modification and move of destruction – concern the newly established social status quo or government policy. They represent the counterparts of the move

Semantic discourse analysis  95 Well-established social status quo/government’s policy Perpetuation

Reformation

Abolition

Legitimization

Modification

Destruction

Newly-established social status quo/government’s policy

Figure 4.1  Cline of political moves

of perpetuation, move of reformation and move of abolition respectively. A legitimizing move encompasses those political discursive acts which intend to support, promote and more importantly, legitimize the newly established social status quo or government policy. A modifying move, in contrast, encompasses those acts which attempt to change, fine-tune or refine the newly established social status quo or government policy. Finally, a destructing move encompasses those acts which serve to criticize and undermine and ultimately demolish the newly established social status quo or government policy. Applying the preceding framework to the trigger of the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong, we can say that the methods of electing the CE in Hong Kong right before the movement represented the well-established social status quo and government policy in Hong Kong at that time. However, the pro-democratic political institutions, including political parties such as the Democratic Party, student groups such as HKFS and Scholarism, and members of the general public targeted universal suffrage for the CE election in 2017. The NPCSC’s August 31 Decision on the CE election framework can be considered a newly established social status quo or government policy at that time. Hence, as we have discussed, the agendas of the five government officials of HKSAR in the televised meeting during the Umbrella Movement were legitimizing (the proposed method of CE election in 2017) and persuading (the protesters in the movement to leave the protest sites), whereas the (hidden) agendas of the five student representatives of HKFS were reproaching (the proposed method of CE election in 2017), demanding (a government response to the development of democracy in general and the method of CE election in particular) and abolishing the August 31 Decision (which is the basis for the newly established government’s CE election policy). Furthermore, we should expect that the government officials would adopt the political moves of legitimization/promotion, modification and perpetuation/consolidation while the student representatives would adopt the political moves of destruction, demolition and transformation. In the following section, we will investigate how these political moves were realized through various political acts in the political discourse of the meeting between government officials

96  Approaching political discourse from around and the representatives of HKFS. These political acts are not based on any preexisting theoretical framework nor are meant to be exhaustive. They are derived from the discourse; thus, a text-based approach.

4.3 Analyzing the political acts in the meeting As expected, we find that both the government officials and the student representatives employed different political moves in order to achieve the agendas of legitimizing and persuading and the agendas of reproaching and demanding, respectively. In addition, we find that the government officials employed six major political acts while the student representatives employed seven, as shown in Table 4.1. However, they employed the moves and acts with different gravity in frequency. In the following paragraphs, we will discuss them one by one. Table 4.1  Political move, act and agenda Event

Meeting between HKSAR and HKFS during the Occupy Central Movement

Actors

HKFS

HKSAR

Agendas

Reproaching (the proposed method of CE selection in 2007)

Legitimizing (the proposed method of CE selection in 2007)

Demanding (a government response)

Persuading (the protesters to leave the protest site)

Destruction

Legitimization/promotion

Demolition

Modification

Transformation

Perpetuation/consolidation

Moves/ macro-strategies (modified from Wodak 1997) Acts/ micro strategies

Through personal experience Through issuing one’s belief Through claiming membership Through hypothetical future Through voice of expertise Through claiming common interest Through differentiating ‘otherness’ Through critical/ adversarial questioning Through evasion Through rationality Through comparison Through altruism

Semantic discourse analysis  97 4.3.1 Through personal experience Providing evidence is a strategy to support one’s assertion. In political discourse, an important way to provide evidence is often grounded in personal experiences with the logic: ‘I know because I was there. And I was there, so I saw . . .’ as shown in Example 4.1 from Nathan Law (Turn 11). [4.1] 我哋

見 到 一百萬 人 喺 生活 喺 貧窮 Ngo5dei6 gin3 dou2 jat1-baak3-maan6 jan4 hai6 sang1wut6 hai2 pan4kung4 1PL see arrive one-million person COP live at poverty

線 以下， 亦都 見 到 老人家 而家 可能 喺 sin3 ji5haa6, jik6dou1 gin3 dou2 lou5jan4gaa1 ji4gaa1 ho2nang4 hai6 line below also see arrive elderly now MOD COP 拎 緊 二千幾 蚊 生果金， 要 落 ling1 gan2 ji6-cin1gei2 man1 saang1gwo2-gam1, jiu3 lok6 get IMPERF two-thousand-something dollar Fruit-Money MOD descend 街 執 紙皮 去 維持 生計， 亦都 見 到 呢， gaai1 zap1 zi2pei4 heoi3 wai4ci4 sang1gai3, jik6dou1 gin3 dou2 ne1, street collect paperboard go maintain living also see arrive SFP 有 好 多 高官 貪污 嘅 醜聞， 甚至 喺 jau5 hou2 do1 gou1gun1 taam1wu1 ge3 cau2man4, sam6zi3 hai6 EXIST very many senior-official corrupt GEN scandal even COP 見 到 警方 呢， 喺 出動 催淚彈 去 驅趕 gin3 dou2 ging2fong1 ne1, hai6 ceot1dung6 ceoi1leoi6daan2 heoi3 keoi1gon2 see arrive police SFP COP release tear-gas go expel 示威者。 si6wai1ze2. rprotester

(We have seen 1 million people living below the poverty line. We have also seen the elderly possibly relying on Fruit Money (Old Age Allowance) of around $2,000 dollars, and they have to maintain their living by collecting cardboard on the streets. We have also seen many scandals about corrupt senior officials and have even seen the police resorting to tear gas to expel the demonstrators.) [4.2] 而 哩

一 啲 嘅 問題 呢， 其實 源 自 就 Ji4 li1 jat1 di1 ge3 man6tai4 ne1, kei4sat6 jyun4 zi6 zau6 and DEM one CL GEN problem SFP actually originate from EMPH

98  Approaching political discourse from around 係 一 個 不 民主 嘅 政制。 hai6 jat1 go3 bat1 man4zyu2 ge3 zing3zai3 COP one CL NEG democratic GEN political-system

(And these problems in fact originate from an undemocratic political system.) In this example, the reasoning of Example 4.2 is that we know because we saw and thus we conclude. The conclusion is expressed in Example 4.2. In this clause, the information focus, which is the cause of the speaker’s observed problem, is an undemocratic political constitution.

4.3.2 Through issuing one’s belief While providing evidence is a strategy to support one’s assertion, issuing one’s belief can also be considered a personal commitment. Berlin (2008, p. 373) notes that there are three kinds of commitment: (i) commitment to a course of action; a speaker commits himself to achieving a particular end (see also Lyons, 1977); (ii) commitment to an assertion; a speaker claims or insists forcefully the truth of something; and (iii) commitment to truth value; a speaker commits his own faith in what is being said (Berlin, 2008, p. 373). This strategy is adopted by both the government officials and the student representatives but the latter, especially Alex Chow, uses it most frequently. In Turn 4, there are 55 clauses. In this turn, Alex employs this strategy 14 times as shown in Example 4.3. [4.3] 咁

我 相信 今日 好 多 香港人 呢， Gam2 ngo5 soeng1seon3 gam1jat6 hou2 do1 Hoeng1Gong2-jan4 ne1, Then 1SG believe today very many Hong-Kong-person SFP 香港 市民 其實 對於 可以 同， 啫喺 幾 位 官員 Hoeng1Gong2 si5man4 kei4sat6 deoi3jyu1 ho2ji5 tung4, ze1-hai6 gei2 wai2 gun1jyun4 Hong-Kong citizen actually towards MOD with that-is few CL official 去 公開 討論 嘅 宜家 政制 爭議 呢， 我 相信 heoi3 gung1hoi1 tou2leon6 ge3 ji4gaa1 zing3zai3 zang1ji3 ne1, ngo5 soeng1seon3 go public discuss GEN current political controversy SFP 1SG believe 唔 少 市民 喺 引頸待盼 咗 好 多 日 㗎 嘑。 m4 siu2 si5man4 hai6 jan5-geng2-doi6paan3 zo2 hou2 do1 jat6 gaa3 laa3. NEG less citizen COP long-awaited PERF very many day SFP SFP

(I believe that today Hongkongers can discuss the current political controversy with several officials in public, which is actually long awaited for many of them.)

Semantic discourse analysis  99 4.3.3 Through claiming membership The political act of claiming membership usually, but not always, accompanies the act of differentiating ‘otherness’. Political actors accomplish these linguistically through ‘constructive strategies’, i.e., ‘utterances which constitute a “we” group and a “they” group through particular acts of reference’ (van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999, p. 92). Through claiming membership with the hearer(s), the speaker expects the hearer(s) to share and support his or her stance. Let us illustrate with the following example. The speaker is Alex Chow. It occurs in Stage 8 of Turn 4. Here, Alex mentions that some of the government officials in the meeting are graduates of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) in Example 4.4 so they should understand the university motto. He notes that he is also an HKU student in Example 4.6, and now he is acting according to the motto in Example 4.7. He thus expects them to understand him. [4.4] 在 座 幾 位 官員， 有 好 多 位 都 喺 Zoi6 zo 6 gei 2 wai2 gun1jyun4, jau5 hou2 do 1 wai 2 dou1 hai6 At seat few CL official EXIST very many CL all COP 港大 嘅 畢業生。 Gong2Daai6 ge3 bat1jip6sang1. HKU GEN graduate (Many of the officials sitting here are graduates from HKU.)

[4.5] 我哋 當年， 各 位 官員 都 明白 過 Ngo5dei6 dong1-nin4, gok3 wai2 gun1jyun4 dou1 ming4baak6 gwo3 1PL that-year every CL official all understand EXP 明德格物 喺 我哋 嘅 校訓。 ming4-dak1-gaak3-mat6 hai6 ngo5dei6 ge3 haau6fan3. Sapientia-et-Virtus COP 1PL GEN school-motto (During the years all officials understood that ‘Sapientia et Virtus’ is our motto.)

[4.6] 我 都 喺 宜家 就讀 喺 港大 嘅 一 位 學生。 Ngo5 dou1 hai6 ji4gaa1 zau6duk6 hai2 Gong2Daai6 ge3 jat1 wai2 hok6saang1. 1SG also COP now study at HKU GEN one CL student (I am also a student studying at HKU now.)

100  Approaching political discourse from around [4.7] 我

相信 明德格物 都 喺 話 我哋 要 求 Ngo5 soeng1seon3 ming4-dak1-gaak3-mat6 dou1 hai6 waa6 ngo5dei6 jiu3 kau4 1SG believe Sapientia-et-Virtus also COP say 1PL MOD pursue 真， 要 為咗 真理 捍衛 佢， 要 發出 我哋 對於 zan1, jiu3 wai6zo2 zan1lei5 hon5wai6 keoi5, jiu3 faat3-ceot1 ngo5dei6 deoi3jyu1 truth MOD for truth defend 3SG MOD issue 1PL regarding 真相 嘅 渴求 . . . zan1soeng3 ge3 hot3kau4 . . . truth GEN eagerness

(I believe ‘Sapientia et Virtus’ means we have to pursue the truth, to uphold it for truth, and to speak out our eagerness for truth . . .)

4.3.4 Through differentiating ‘otherness’ While both strategies of claiming membership and differentiating ‘otherness’ concern the issue of identity of the speaker, the former concerns the issue of ‘who we are’ while the latter concerns the issue of ‘who the others are’. From the structural point of view, identity formation is a twin process of understanding ‘who we are’ and at the same time ‘who the others are’. These two political acts usually accompany each other. Differentiating ‘otherness’ refers to the strategy through which to create mentally that a particular political actor or party is ‘not one of us’. It is a way to demarcate ‘we’ and ‘they’, allies and enemies, usually in ideology or conflict of interests. Reyes-Rodríguez (2011b, p. 785) mentions that ‘the negative representation of social actors and the attribution of negative qualities to their personalities or their actions allow speakers to create two sides of a given story/event, in which speaker and audience are in the “us-group” and the social actors depicted negatively constitute the “them-group”’. The following example is the continuation of Nathan Law’s extract. [4.8] 咁

我 想 問 司長 或者 政府 嘅 官員， Gam2 ngo5 soeng2 man6 Si1Zoeng2 waak6ze2 zing3fu2 ge3 gun1jyun4, As-such 1SG MOD ask Secretary or government GEN official 各 位， 你哋 有 咩 方法， 可以 彌補 到 你哋 gok3 wai2, nei5dei6 jau5 me1 fong1faat3, ho2ji5 lei4bou2 dou2 nei5dei6 every CL 2PL EXIST what method MOD compensate arrive 2PL 哩 次 嘅 失誤， 可以 令 到 往後 嘅 一 啲 嘅 li1 ci3 ge3 sat1ng6, ho2ji5 ling6 dou3 wong5hau6 ge3 jat1 di1 ge3 DEM CL GEN mistake MOD make arrive afterward GEN one CL GEN

Semantic discourse analysis  101 日子， 市民 可以 對 你哋 嘅 政制 發展 jat6zi2, si5man4 ho2ji5 deoi3 nei5dei6 ge3 zing3-zai3 faat3zin days citizen MOD as-to 2PL GEN political-system development 重 拾 信心， 畀 到 市民 一 個 真正 嘅 cung4 sap6 seon3sam1, bei2 dou2 si5man4 jat1 go3 zan1zing3 ge3 again pick-up confidence give arrive citizen one CL real GEN 真 普選？ zan1 pou2syun2? real universal-suffrage

(Then I would like to ask the secretaries and government officials what measures you have, so that you can redeem your fault this time, during the forthcoming days make people restore their confidence in your political development, and really give people real universal suffrage.) After establishing the membership of ‘we’ in the previous clauses, i.e., the student representatives together with general public, Nathan differentiates ‘you’, i.e., the government officials, as an opposing group who are responsible for the wrongdoing which created the current problem which made the ‘we’ group lost their trust in ‘you’. In this clause, Nathan first puts the government officials as the opposite party. As he and the government officials do not belong to the same group, he has the right to demand them some information from them. Note that the employment of the indefinite pronoun and the second person pronoun 各位，你哋 gok3 wai2, nei5dei6 (Everyone, you: plural), which directly follows 司長或者喺政 府嘅官員 Si1Zoeng2 waak6ze2 zing3fu2 ge3 gun1jyun4, (Secretary or Government Officials) further strengthens the sense of ‘otherness’. Note also that the use of terms which carry negative connotations such as 彌補 lei4bou2 (remedy – correcting something undesirable), 失誤 sat1ng (mistake – the wrongdoing), 重拾信心 cung4 sap6 seon3sam1 (regain our trust – we have lost it).

4.3.5 Through critical or adversarial questioning The term ‘adversarial questioning’ came from the growing trend in adversarial journalism in the 1950s (Harris, 1991; Greatbatch, 1988; Clayman & Heritage, 2002). Asking critical, aggressive and adversarial questions, however, is also a common strategy among political actors in political events such as debate and forum. It is a political move to discredit the opponents. In this meeting, the student representatives employ this political move to criticize the HKSAR government. The force of criticism becomes particularly strong when it is realized by a negative yes/no question. Let us illustrate the point with the discourse of Alex Chow in Examples 4.9–4.12:

102  Approaching political discourse from around [4.9]

好 多 時候 香港 人 都 會 覺得， 宜家 我哋 Hou2 do1 si4hau6 Hoeng1Gong2 jan4 dou1 wui5 gok3dak1, ji4gaa1 ngo5dei6 Very many time Hong-Kong person all will feel now 1PL 嘅 民主 路 窄。 政府 佢 就 會 不斷 話 呢 ge3 man4zyu2 lou6 zaak3. Zing3fu2 keoi5 zau6 wui5 bat1dyun6 waa6 ni1 GEN democracy path narrow government 3SG then will non-stop say DEM 個 原因， 喺 因為 人大 SET 左 一 個 好 嚴謹 go3 jyun4jan1, hai6 jan1wai6 Jan4Daai6 SET zo2 jat1 go3 hou2 jim4gan2 CL reason COP because NPC set PERF one CL very strict 嘅 框架， 我哋 有 好 多 法律 限制。 ge3 kwaang1gaa2, ngo5dei6 jau5 hou2 do1 faat3leot6 haan6zai3. GEN frame 1PL EXIST very many law restriction 所以 我哋 無 辦法 推行 其他 嘅 發展 方式。 So2ji5 ngo5dei6 mou5 baan6faat3 teoi1hang4 kei4taa1 ge3 faat3zin2 fong1sik1. so 1PL NEG method launch other GEN development method

(Very often Hong Kong people will think that our present way of democracy is narrow. The government will keep saying this is because the NPC has set a very strict framework. We have a lot of legal limitations so we have no way to launch other ways of development.)

[4.10] 咁

但 喺 第一 輪 諮詢 階段 報告， 唔 喺 Gam2 daan6 hai6 dai6-jat1 leon4 zi1seon1 gaai1dyun6 bou3gou3, m4 hai6 as-such but COP first CL consultation stage report NEG COP 香港 政府 撰寫 嘅 咩， 唔 喺 香港 Hoeng1Gong2 zing3fu2 zaan3se2 ge3 me1, m4 hai6 Hoeng1Gong2 Hong-Kong government write SFP SFP NEG COP Hong-Kong

政府 呈交 咩? zing3fu2 cing4gaau1 me1? government submit SFP

(Then wasn’t the consultation report of the first round written and submitted by the Hong Kong government?)

[4.11] 人大

佢 落 決議 嘅 時候 嘅 原因 唔 喺 Jan4Daai6 keoi5 lok6 kyut3ji3 ge3 si4hau6 ge3 jyun4jan1 m4 hai6 NPC 3SG descend decision GEN time GEN reason NEG COP

Semantic discourse analysis  103 都 喺 根 基於 香港 政府 所 撰寫 嘅 報告? dou1 hai6 gan1 gei1jyu1 Hoeng1Gong2 zing3fu2 so2 zaan3se2 ge3 bou3gou3? also COP root based-on Hong-Kong government PRT write GEN report

(Wasn’t the reason for the NPC to make the resolution based on the report written by the Hong Kong government?)

[4.12] 但

喺 點解 今日 香港 政府 好似 完全 Daan6 hai6 dim2gaai2 gam1jat6 Hoeng1Gong2 zing3fu2 hou2ci5 jyun4cyun4 but COP why today Hong-Kong government seemingly completely 可以 推卸 哂 所有 teoi1se3 saai3 so2jau5 ho2ji5 MOD shift completely all

嘅 責任? ge3 zaak3jam6? GEN responsibility

(Yet why is it likely that today’s Hong Kong government can completely shift all the responsibility?) Then he uses three critical/adversarial questions to criticize the Hong Kong government as the responsible party that drafted and submitted the controversial consultative report and that caused the NPC to make the controversial resolution, but that acted as if it took no responsibility for the issue.

4.3.6 Through evasion This political move, to a certain extent, can be considered a direct result of the previous political move, i.e., through critical or adversarial questioning. Providing required information is supposed to be a basic moral obligation for a politician (Raymond, 1998). However, politicians are increasingly being posed critical or adversarial questions to which all possible replies may have potentially negative consequences (Bull, 2008). Hence they need to use ‘damage control’ to reap the benefits of not answering while at the same time minimizing the costs associated with this risky action (Clayman, 2001). Strategies of ‘damage control’ include smiling, being silent, and evading the question. Let us illustrate the point with Example 4.13. [4.13] LC: 我

都 想 再 跟進， 喺 咪 學聯 喺 哩 Ngo5 dou1 soeng2 zoi3 gan1zeon3, hai6 mai6 Hok6Lyun4 hai2 lei1 1SG also MOD again follow-up COP NEG HKFS at DEM 個 人 數 方面 無 一 個 立場 呢？ go3 jan4 sou3 fong1min6 mou5 jat1 go3 lap6coeng4 ne1? CL person count aspect not-have one CL stance SFP

104  Approaching political discourse from around 定 喺 你 有 立場， 但 喺 未 講 Ding6 hai6 nei5 jau5 lap6coeng4, daan6 hai6 mei6 gong2 or COP 2SG EXIST stance but COP not-yet speak 出 嚟？ ceot1 lai4? out come

(Still I would like to follow up again. Is it a fact that HKFS do not have a stance on the number of people? Or you do have a stance but you just haven’t clarified it?) [4.14] AC: 校長， 我 建議

哩 個 答案 呢， 就 畀 返 Haau6zoeng2, ngo5 gin3ji5 lei1 go3 daap3on3 ne1, zau6 bei2 faan1 Principal 1SG suggest DEM CL answer SFP EMPH give return

官員 去 回答， 因為 民調 嗰 方面 gun1jyun4 heoi3 wui4daap3, jan1wai6 man4-diu6 go2 fong1min6 official go answer because citizen-opinion-survey DEM aspect 啦， 除咗 話 啫喺 話 一 啲 港大 嘅 laa1, ceoi4zo2 waa6 ze1-hai6 waa6 jat1 di1 Gong2Daai6 ge3 SFP except say that-is say one CL HKU GEN 民意研究中心， 或者 喺 一 啲 建制 Man4-Ji3-Jin4Gau-Zung1Sam1, waak6ze2 hai6 jat1 di1 gin3-zai3 Public-Opinion-Research-Centre or COP one CL pro-establishment 派 嘅 政黨 其實 佢哋 做 嘅 一 啲 paai3 ge3 zing3-dong2 kei4sat6 keoi5dei6 zou6 ge3 jat1 di1 camp GEN political-party actually 3PL do GEN one CL 民調 嘅 時候， 其實 個 個 候選人 man4diu6 ge3 si4hau6, kei4sat6 go2 go3 hau6syun2-jan4 citizen-opinion-survey GEN time actually DEM CL candidate 都 唔 喺 二 至 三 名 咁 少 嘅。 dou1 m4 hai6 ji6 zi3 saam1 ming4 gam3 siu2 ge3. also NEG COP two to three CL such little SFP

(Principal, I suggest that this question should be answered by the government officials. As for the survey results, most of the surveys, except those of the Public Opinion Programme from the University of Hong Kong and those conducted by pro-establishment parties, suggest that the number of candidates should not be set to only two or three.)

Semantic discourse analysis  105 Here, instead of giving his own opinion, Alex Chow suggests the answer be given by HKSAR (Example 4.14). The political act of evasion is linguistically realized at the discourse level. The expected response to a question is an answer. However, the political actor, adopting this strategy, chooses to take a ‘discretionary alternative, a disclaimer’ (Halliday, 1994, p. 69).

4.3.7 Through a hypothetical future Posing a threat in the future that requires our imminent action in the present is another common political move in political discourse (Dunmire, 2012; ReyesRodríguez, 2011b). Let us illustrate the point with Alex Chow’s discourse (Example 4.15) in the meeting. [4.15] 如果

我哋 嘅 政制 改革 繼續 朝 住 jyu4gwo2 ngo5dei6 ge3 zing3zai3 goi2gaak3 gai3zuk6 ciu4 zyu6 if 1PL GEN political-system reform continue toward IMPERF

一千二百 人 去 行 嘅 話， 佢 未來 喺 可以 jat1cin1ji6baak3 jan4 heoi3 haang4 ge3 waa6 keoi5 mei6loi4 hai6 ho2ji5 1,200 person go walk GEN say 3SG future COP MOD 再 欽點 梁振英 作為 特首， 或者 否定 zoi3 jam1dim2 Loeng4Zan3Jing1 zok3wai4 Dak6Sau2, waak6ze2 fau2ding6 again appoint CY-Leung as Chief-Executive or negate 其他 香港 人 心 屬 嘅 候選人。 呢 個 kei4taa1 Hoeng1Gong2 jan4 sam1 suk6 ge3 hau6syun2jan4. Ni1 go3 other Hong-Kong person heart belong GEN candidate DEM CL 喺 唔 喺 一 個 正常 嘅 社會 發展， 或者 hai6 m4 hai6 jat1 go3 zing3soeng4 ge3 se5wui2 faat3zin2, waak6ze2 COP NEG COP one CL normal GEN society development or 正常 嘅 政治 制度 呢？ 我 對 此 都 zing3soeng4 ge3 zing3zi6 zai3dou6 ne1? Ngo5 deoi3 ci2 dou1 normal GEN political system SFP 1SG regarding DEM also 有 好 大 嘅 保留。 jau5 hou2 daai6 ge3 bou2lau4. EXIST very big GEN reservation

(If our political reform still aims at the 1,200-member Election Committee, it is possible that in our future they would appoint Mr. CY Leung as Chief Executive, or reject other candidates who are favoured by the Hong Kong

106  Approaching political discourse from around people. Would that be a normal social development, if not a normal political policy? To this I have much reservation.) The conditional clause in the example expresses a situation which according to Alex can bring forwards an undesirable future, i.e., the 1,200-member Election Committee would appoint Mr. CY Leung as CE or reject other candidates who are favoured by the Hong Kong people. It is noted that apart from the conditional clause, Alex also employs terms with negative implications such as 欽點 jam1dim2 (appointed). This term originally meant an appointment by the emperor. The implication here refers to the situation that the CE would be appointed by the Central Government of the People’s Republic of China. And the beneficiary of this appointment process is 梁振英 Loeng4Zan3Jing1 (Leung Chun Ying), the current CE of HKSAR, while the goal is 特首 dak6Sau2 (the Chief Executive). Here the speaker, Alex Chow, obviously makes use of the anti-CY Leung feeling. Furthermore, the speaker makes a contrast between Leung and 其他香港人心屬嘅候選人 kei4taa1 Hoeng1Gong2 jan4 sam1 suk6 ge3 hau6syun2jan4 (other candidates wanted by the Hong Kong people). Directly following this hypothetical future, the speaker raises: 呢個喺唔喺一個正常嘅社 會發展，或者正常嘅政治制度呢? Ni1 go3 hai6 m4 hai6 jat1 go3 zing3soeng4 ge3 se5wui2 faat3zin2, waak6ze2 zing3soeng4 ge3 zing3zi6 zai3dou6 ne1? (Would that be a normal social development, if not a normal political policy?). Then he comes up with his own conclusion: 我對此都有好大嘅保留 Ngo5 deoi3 ci2 dou1 jau5 hou2 daai6 ge3 bou2lau4 (To this I have much reservation).

4.3.8 Through voice of expertise This strategy is used to show the audience that ‘experts in a specific field are backing the politician’s proposal with their knowledgeable statements’ (ReyesRodríguez, 2011b, p. 786). The speaker can be enacted through voices from authoritative figures evoked by the speaker or by the institutional position represented by the speaker. Let’s illustrate with an extract from Nathan Law (Example 4.16): [4.16] 根據

中大 亞太研究所 喺 二零一四 年 Gan1geoi3 Zung1Daai6 Ngaa3Taai3Jin4Gau3So2 hai2 ji6-ling4-jat1-sei3 nin4 according CUHK Institute-of-Asia-Pacific-Studies at 2014 year

三月 十一日 至到 二十日 嘅 調查， 有 saam1-jyut6 sap6-jat1-jat6 zi3dou3 ji6-sap6-jat6 ge3 diu6caa4, jau5 March 11th-day to 20th-day GEN investigation EXIST 七十六點二 個 PERCENT 嘅 受訪者 喺 唔 接受， ge3 sau6fong2ze2 hai6 m4 zip3sau6, cat1-sap6-luk6-dim2-ji6 go3 percent 76.2 CL percent GEN interviewee COP NEG accept

Semantic discourse analysis  107 只 有 建制派 嘅 人士 包括 親中 人士， zi2 jau5 Gin3Zai3Paai1 ge3 jan4si6 baau1kut3 Can1Zung1 jan4si6, only EXIST pro-establishment-camp GEN person including Pro-Beijing person 政府 官員 等 先至 可以 成為 特首 嘅 zing3fu2 gun1jyun4 dang2 sin1zi3 ho2ji5 sing4wai4 Dak6Sau2 ge3 government official etcetera EMPH MOD become Chief-Executive GEN 候選人。 hau6syun2jan4. Candidate

(According to the survey conducted by Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies from 11 to 20 March, 76.2% of the respondents did not accept that only members from the pro-establishment camp, including the proBeijing camp and government officials, could be nominated as Chief Executive candidates.) Here, the speaker, Nathan Law, intends to bring in the voice of a survey conducted by the Centre of Asian Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong to strengthen his argument that the majority of Hong Kong people do not accept the idea that only the pro-establishment camp, including the proBeijing camp and the government officials, could be nominated as candidates in the election of Chief Executive.

4.3.9 Through rationality This legitimization is enacted when political actors present the legitimization process as a process where decisions have been made after a heeded, evaluated and thoughtful procedure. Van Leeuwen (2007) refers to this rationalization as ‘theoretical rationalization’. In the meeting, rationality is a major political act employed by the government official as shown in the following extract (Examples 4.17–4.18) from Carrie Lam: [4.17] 喺

1990 年 頒布 嘅 基本法 Hai2 1990 nin4 baan1bou3 ge3 Gei1Bun2Faat3 In 1990 year issue GEN Basic-Law

喺 經歷 咗 hai6 ging1lik6 zo2 COP experience PERF

四 年 八 個 月 嘅 廣泛 諮詢 同埋 蘊釀。 sei3 nin4 baat3 go3 jyut6 ge3 gwong2faan3 zi1seon1 tung4maai4 wan5joeng6. four year eight CL month GEN general consultation as-well-as brewing

(The promulgation of the Basic Law in 1990 went through an extensive public consultation for 4 years and 8 months.)

108  Approaching political discourse from around [4.18] 基本法

對於 行政長官， 由 一 個 提名 Gei1bun2faat3 deoi3jyu1 Hang4Zing3-Zoeng2Gun1, jau4 jat1 go3 tai4ming4 Basic-law regarding Chief-Executive by one CL nominate 委員會 提名 後， 普選 產生， 由 中央 wai2jyun4wui2 tai4ming4 hou6, pou2syun2 caan2sang1, jau4 Zung1Joeng1 Committee nominate after universal-suffrage generate by Central

人民 政府 任命， 已經 有 好 清晰 嘅 規定， Jan4Man4 zing3fu2 jam6ming6, ji5ging1 jau5 hou2 cing1sik1 ge3 kwai1ding6, People government appoint already EXIST very clear GEN regulation 唔 喺 一 個 新 生 嘅 事物。 m4 hai6 jat1 go3 san1 sang1 ge3 si6mat6. NEG COP one CL new generate GEN object

(Regarding the method of selecting Chief Executive, that is, it starts with the nominating committee and then universal suffrage and subsequently the appointment by the Central People’s Government, Basic Law has offered a clear definition and explanation. It is not a novelty.) In her discourse, Carrie Lam intends to persuade the student representatives that the construction of the Basic Law has been a lengthy process and under a broad consultation in Example 4.17, and the proposed system of the 2017 CE election method is stipulated clearly in the Basic Law and it is not a novelty (in Example 4.18) in order to legitimize the proposed system.

4.3.10 Through making comparison The political move of comparison also intends to tell the audience that the policy is legitimized because it represents a move forward and will bring a better future in comparison with the current well-established policy. Let us illustrate the point with Carrie Lam’s discourse in the meeting. In Example 4.19, Carrie Lam invites the student representatives to think/imagine that the governmentproposed method represents a step forward in the progress of democratization through comparison. [4.19] 大家

試 諗 下， 由 全 港 五百萬 Daai6gaa1 si3 lam2 haa5, jau4 cyun4 Gong2 ng5baak3maan6 Everybody try think ASP by whole Hong-Kong five-million 合 資格 選民 一 人 一 票 直接 選 呢 位 syun2man4 jat1 jan4 jat1 piu3 zik6zip3 syun2 ni1 wai2 hap6 zi1gaak3 meet qualification voter one person one vote direct vote DEM CL

Semantic discourse analysis  109 行政長官， Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1, Chief-Executive 比 bei2 compare

無論 從 邊個 角度 睇 都 喺 mou4leon6 cung4 bin1go3 gok3dou6 tai2 dou1 hai6 no-matter from which perspective see all COP

只 喺 一 個 一千二百 zi2 hai6 jat1 go3 jat1cin1ji6baak3 only COP one CL 1,200

人 嘅 選舉 jan4 ge3 syun2geoi2 person GEN election

委員會 去 選 個 行政長官 呢， 喺 要 民主， wai2jyun4wui2 heoi3 syun2 go3 Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1 ne1, hai6 jiu3 man4zyu2, committee go vote CL Chief-Executive SFP COP MOD democracy 喺 要 進步 得 多 㗎， 亦都 喺 香港 政制 hai6 jiu3 zeon3bou6 dak1 do1 gaa3, jik6dou1 hai6 Hoeng1Gong2 zing3zai3 COP MOD improve PRT many SFP also COP Hong-Kong political 向 hoeng3 towards

前 cin4 front

邁進 maai6zeon3 leap

嘅 ge3 GEN

重要 zung6jiu3 important

一 jat1 one

步。 bou6. step

(Let’s think about this. A Chief Executive elected by 5 million eligible voters through ‘one person, one vote’ is far more democratic and advanced than that by an election committee with 1,200 voters in whatever aspect. This is also a big step forward in our constitutional development.)

4.3.11 Through claiming common interest Politicians accomplish this linguistically through explicating that they have some common interest with another party, especially the public, as a way of alignment in order to justify their policy. To put it in another way, the newly established policy is of the common interest to the political actors and the audience, especially the public. Let’s examine the following example (Example 4.20) in Carrie Lam’s discourse in the meeting. [4.20] 我

深 信 廣大 嘅 市民 呢 同 特區 Ngo5 sam1 seon3 gwong2daai6 ge3 si5man4 ne1 tung4 Dak6Keoi1 1SG deep believe general GEN citizen SFP with SAR

政府 一樣， 都 喺 希望 可以 依法 如期 jat1joeng6, dou1 hai6 hei1mong6 ho2ji5 ji1faat3 jyu4kei4 zing3fu2 government same all COP hope MOD according-to-law on-schedule 落實 二零一七 年 普選 行政長官 㗎， 等 lok6sat6 ji6ling4jat1cat1 nin4 pou2syun2 Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1 gaa3. dang2 realize 2017 year universal-suffrage Chief-Executive SFP wait

110  Approaching political discourse from around 到 我 剛才 講 嘅 五百萬 ng5baak3maan6 dou3 ngo5 gong1coi4 gong2 ge3 arrive 1SG just say GEN five-million

嘅 合 資格 ge3 hap6 zi1gaak3 GEN meet qualification

選民 可以 行使 佢哋 享有 嘅 普及 同埋 pou2kap6 tung4maai4 syun2man4 ho2ji5 hang4sai2 keoi5dei6 hoeng2jau5 ge3 voter MOD exercise 3PL enjoy GEN general as-well-as 平等 嘅 投票 權， 用 佢哋 手 中 嘅 選票 呢 tau4piu3 kyun4, jung6 keoi5dei6 sau2 zung1 ge3 syun2piu3 ne1 ping4dang2 ge3 equal GEN vote right use 3PL hand inside GEN vote SFP 去 heoi3 go

選 syun2 vote

出 ceot1 out

呢 ni1 DEM

一 jat1 one

位 wai2 CL

行政長官。 Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1. Chief-Executive

(I strongly believe that the majority of citizens and the government share the same thought, hoping that universal suffrage for 2017 Chief Executive election could be implemented as scheduled and in accordance with the law, so that the 5 million eligible voters could enjoy and exercise their universal and equal right to elect their Chief Executive.) Here, Carrie Lam states explicitly that the general public is sharing the same expectation with the HKSAR government that Hong Kong people could select the CE in 2017. This is a common interest of the government and the Hong Kong general public.

4.3.12 Through altruism Rojo and van Dijk (1997, p. 528) note that ‘institutional actions and policies are typically described as beneficial for the group or society as a whole’. Through altruism, the political actor makes sure that his or her proposals do not appear driven only by personal interest. The actor presents him or herself as serving the voters, and therefore legitimizes his or her proposals as common good that will improve the conditions of a particular community (Reyes-Rodríguez, 2011b, p. 787). In Example 4.21, Carrie Lam intends to justify her call for the student representatives to lead the protesters to leave the protest site, not for the benefit of the HKSAR government, but for the sake of the general public so that their daily life and social order can be returned to normal and so that the strained situation can be mitigated. [4.21] 我

希望 同學 能夠 顧全大局， 以 Ngo5 hei1mong6 tung4hok6 nang4gau3 gu3-cyun4-daai6-guk6, ji5 1SG hope student MOD consider-thoroughly-big-situation take

Semantic discourse analysis  111 市民 si5man4 citizen

大眾 daai6zung3 public

嘅 福祉 ge3 fuk1zi2 GEN benefit

為 依歸， wai4 ji1gwai1, as basis

帶 daai3 lead

頭 呼籲 tau4 fu1jyu6 head appeal

佔領者 呢 喺 盡快 徹離， 等 到 市民 嘅 zim3ling5-ze2 ne1 hai6 zeon6faai3 cit3lei4, dang2 dou3 si5man4 ge3 occupy-person SFP COP as-soon-as-possible retreat wait arrive citizen GEN 生活 同埋 社會 嘅 秩序 呢 可以 早 日 回復 sang1wut6 tung4maai4 se5wui2 ge3 dit6zeoi6 ne1 ho2ji5 zou2 jat6 wui4fuk6 living as-well-as society GEN order SFP MOD early day return 正常， 等 到 緊張 嘅 關係 呢 喺 得以 緩和。 gwaan1hai6 ne1 hai6 dak1ji5 wun6wo4. zing3soeng4, dang2 dou3 gan2zoeng1 ge3 normal wait arrive tense GEN relationship SFP COP MOD ease

(I hope that our students can take account of the overall situation and look after the public interests, and take the lead by appealing to the protesters to withdraw as soon as possible so that the daily life of our Hong Kong citizens and social order can be restored, and the tension in our society can be eased.) In short, the political discourse in the meeting shows that the government officials and the student representatives implement most of the political moves, though they have different preferences due to their stated and hidden agendas. These political acts are realized by the semiotic resources of the three metafunctions at the lexicogrammatical stratum as well as the resources at the discourse semantic stratum as tabulated in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2  Political acts and their linguistic realizations Political acts

Linguistic realizations

1 Through personal Experiential resource: mental process of perception experience Sensor: the speaker Process: mental; perception: see and hear; hearsay Phenomenon: macro-thing 2 Through one’s belief

Experiential resource: mental process of cognition (reported) Sensor: the speaker Process: mental; cognition: think Phenomenon: macro-thing (Continued)

Table 4.2 (Continued) Political acts

Linguistic realizations

3 Through claiming Textual resource: reference membership First personal plural pronoun ‘we’ (inclusive) implying that the hearers are member of the ‘we’ group; or First personal plural pronoun ‘we’ implying that the ‘we’ group has the membership of another group, usually the general public 4 Through differentiating ‘otherness’

Textual resource: reference Second person pronoun ‘you’ plus something ‘negative’ associates with the ‘you’ group; or First personal plural pronoun ‘we’ (exclusive) highlighting the fact that the hearers are not a member of the ‘we’ group

5 Through critical/ adversarial questioning

Interpersonal resource: interrogative Subject: the opponent party To strengthen the force of criticism: negative yes/no interrogative with negative polarity; Neutral open-ended interrogative with negative implication on the subject

6 Through evasion

Discourse: Turn; (initiation) ^ discretionary alterative: disclaimer

7 Through suggesting a hypothetical future

Logical resource: hypothetical clause Conditional clause following by a main clause which stipulates the undesirable future if the condition specifies in the conditional clause is fulfilled

8 Through voice of expertise

Textual resource: marked Theme (circumstantial: angle) ^ existential clause Theme names the expertise; existential clause expresses the content Experiential resource: existential process Existential clause names the expertise; dependent clause expresses the content

9 Through rationality

Experiential resources: verb process such as ‘explore’ and ‘consult’ Note: The verb process such as ‘explore’ and ‘consult’ are nominalized and be embedded in a Circumstance Textual resource: the Circumstance can be thematized to become a marked Theme of Circumstance such as ‘after much consideration’

10 Through making Logical resources: clause complex; comparative comparisons 11 Through claiming Textual resources: marked Theme (circumstantial: common interest accompaniment) ^ topical Theme: the audience Experiential resource: relative: attributive (like; alike) 12 Through showing Experience resources: material transitive process altruism Goal or beneficiary (the general public)

Semantic discourse analysis  113

4.4 Sequence of political acts towards political moves It is noted that the preceding political acts may not work by themselves; they are used in combination to achieve certain political purposes. In this section, we will illustrate this point by examining how a student representative of HKFS, Nathan Law, combines several acts to achieve two political moves, reproaching the proposed method of CE election in 2007 and demanding a government response, as shown in Figure 4.2. Let’s examine Nathan’s Turn 11 Examples 4.22–4.37). This turn is located in Stage 2 (85-minute discussion between the two parties) of the meeting. In his opening remark, the mediator, Prof. Leonard Cheng Kwok-hon, had highlighted the rule that the representative who would like to make a speech had to send him a signal and wait until he called the name. In Chapter 2, we mentioned in our analysis that a student representative, Ms. Yvonne Leung, had broken the rule two times so that the other student representatives could continue to rebut the government officials. Nathan’s turn here was the first time that Leung violated the rule by passing the floor directly to Nathan after her own contribution. In terms of mode, Nathan’s discourse was a well-planned instead of spontaneous language-in-use.

4.4.1 Political act 1: through claiming personal experience In his discourse, Nathan first adopts the political move of ‘personal experience’ by expressing what the student representatives saw – a million people living below the poverty line; the elderly possibly relying on Old Age Allowance and Political Move 1: Reproaching the proposed method of CE selection in 2007 Political Act 1: Through personal experience Clauses 183–184 Political Act 2: Through claiming of membership Clauses 185–186, 189 and 192 Political Act 3: Through voice of expertise Clauses 190–191, 196–197 Political Act 4: Differentiating ‘Otherness’ Clause 198 Political Move 2: Demanding a government response Political Act 5: Critical/adversarial questioning Clause 198

Figure 4.2  The realization of political moves in Nathan Law’s discourse

114  Approaching political discourse from around having to maintain their living by collecting cardboard on the streets; many scandals about corrupt senior officials; and police resorting to tear gas to expel the demonstrators, in Example 4.22. He then points out that these problems originated from an undemocratic political system in Example 4.23. In this example, information focus, the cause of the speaker’s observed problem, is an undemocratic political constitution. [4.22] 我哋

見 到 有 一， 有 一百萬 人 係 Ngo5dei6 gin3 dou2 jau5 jat1 jau5 jat1-baak3-maan6 jan4 hai6 1PL see arrive EXIST one EXIST one-million person COP

生活 sang1wut6 live

喺 貧窮 hai2 pan4kung4 at poverty

線 以下， sin3 ji5haa6, line below

亦都 jik6dou1 also

見 到 老人家 gin3 dou2 lou5jan4gaa1 see arrive elderly

而家 可能 係 拎 緊 二千幾 蚊 生果金， ji6-cin1-gei2 man1 saang1gwo2-gam1, ji4gaa1 ho2nang4 hai6 ling1 gan2 now MOD COP get IMPERF two-thousand-something dollar Fruit-Money 要 落 街 執 紙皮 jiu3 lok6 gaai1 zap1 zi2pei4 MOD descend street collect paperboard

去 維持 生計， 亦都 heoi3 wai4ci4 sang1gai3, jik6dou1 go maintain living also

見 到 呢， 有 好 多 高官 貪污 嘅 醜聞， hou2 do1 gou1gun1 taam1wu1 ge3 cau2man4, gin3 dou2 ne1, jau5 see arrive SFP EXIST very many senior-official corrupt GEN scandal 甚至 係 見 到 警方 sam6zi3 hai6 gin3 dou2 ging2fong1 even COP see arrive police

呢， 係 出動 ne1, hai6 ceot1dung6 SFP COP release

催淚彈 ceoi1leoi6daan2 tear-gas

驅趕 示威者。 去 heoi3 keoi1gon2 si6wai1-ze2. go expel protester

(We have seen 1 million people living below the poverty line. We have also seen the elderly possibly relying on Fruit Money (Old Age Allowance) of around $2,000, and they have to maintain their living by collecting cardboard on the streets. We have also seen many scandals about corrupt senior officials and have even seen the police resorting to tear gas to expel the demonstrators.)

[4.23] 而 哩 一 啲 嘅 問題 呢， 其實 源 自 就 Ji4 li1 jat1 di1 ge3 man6tai4 ne1, kei4sat6 jyun4 zi6 zau6 and DEM one CL GEN problem SFP actually originate from EMPH

Semantic discourse analysis  115 係 一 個 不 民主 嘅 政制。 hai6 jat1 go3 bat1 man4zyu2 ge3 zing3zai3. COP one CL NEG democratic GEN political-system (And these problems in fact originate from an undemocratic political system.)

4.4.2 Political act 2: through claiming membership In Example 4.22, the first plural personal reference 我哋Ngo5dei6 (we) refers to the student representatives. It is thus an experience of a single political institution, HKFS. In Example 4.24, Nathan Law expanded this experience from the student representatives to Hong Kong people and everyone by claiming that 香港人見到 Hoeng1Gong2 gin3 dou2 (Hong Kong people . . . saw) and then 大 家見到 daai6gaa1 gin3 dou2 (everyone saw). Toward the end of Example 4.24 and from Example 4.25 onwards, the referent of 我哋 Ngo5dei6 (we) included Hong Kong people, everyone and the student representative. The intention was to claim the membership that they and other Hong Kong people belonged to the same group that had to confront the current problem. In such discourse, they meant not only that they belonged to the same group but also that they belonged to the same group because they had higher moral ground. In Example 4.25, the repetition of 民生同埋良心嘅問題，已經逼使到我哋立即要出嚟正視 哩個問題 man4sang1 tung4maai4 loeng4sam1 ge3 man6tai4 ji5ging1 bik1si2 dou3 ngo5 dei6 lap6zik1 jiu3 ceot1 lai4 zing3si6 li1 jat1 go3 man6tai4 (the problems of democracy and conscience have already forced us to step out to face the matter squarely at once) emphasized that they belonged to the same group because they believed in democracy and that they had a conscience and this belief in democracy and conscience forced them to face the current political problem immediately. It is also noted that the mental process of perception 我哋見到 Ngo5dei6 gin3 dou2 (we saw) has been extended toward the mental process of cognition. We will further discuss this transformation in Chapter 8 Evidentiality, subjectivity and mental process in political discourse. Here, we note the consolidation of membership from the sharing of experience to the sharing of stance toward the government report to the Chinese Central Government in Example 4.28 and the framework on 31 August of the 2017 Chief Executive Election candidateship. [4.24] 哩

啲 政制 呢， 雖然 香港 人 係 一直 Lei1 di1 zing3zai3 ne1, seoi1jin4 Hoeng1Gong2 jan4 hai6 jat1zik6 DEM CL political-system SFP although Hong-Kong person COP as-always

都 好 渴求 但 係 見 到 咁 大 規模 嘅 申怨。 dou1 hou2 hot3kau4, daan6 hai6 gin3 dou2 gam3 daai6 kwai1mou4 ge3 san1jyun3. all very long-for but COP see arrive such large scale GEN complaint

(Hongkongers have been longing for these political systems all the time, but we have been observing large-scale grumbles up to this moment.)

116  Approaching political discourse from around [4.25] 申訴

直到 呢 刻， 就 係 因為 大家 見 到 San1sou3 zik6dou3 ni1 hak1, zau6 hai6 jan1wai6 daai6gaa1 gin3 dou2 complaint until DEM moment EMPH COP because everybody see arrive

民生 同埋 民， 民生 同埋 良心 嘅 問題， man4sang1 tung4maai4 man4 man4sang1 tung4maai4 loeng4sam1 ge3 man6tai4, people-living as-well-as people people-living as-well-as conscience GEN problem 已經 逼使 到 我哋 立即 要 出 嚟 正視 哩 ji5ging1 bik1si2 dou3 ngo5dei6 lap6zik1 jiu3 ceot1 lai4 zing3si6 li1 already force arrive 1PL immediately MOD out come confront DEM 個 問題。 一 jat1 go3 man6tai4. one CL problem

(They grumble up to this moment because we all have seen that the problems of people’s life and conscience have already forced us to step out to face the matter squarely at once.)

[4.26] 咁

我哋 亦都 係 好 誠懇 咁樣 坐 低， 其實 Gam2 ngo5dei6 jik6dou1 hai6 hou2 sing4han2 gam2joeng2 co5 dai1, kei4sat6 as-such 1PL also COP very sincere as-such sit down actually 就 係 想 同 政府 hai6 soeng2 tung4 zing3fu2 zau6 EMPH COP MOD with government

去 解決 heoi3 gaai2kyut3 go solve

哩 一 個 li1 jat1 go3 DEM one CL

政治 問題， 解決 宜家 市民 兩極化， 或者 政治 zing3zi6 man6tai4, gaai2kyut3 ji4gaa1 si5man4 loeng5-gik6-faa3, waak6ze2 zing3zi6 political problem solve now citizen polarize or political 嚴重 嘅 問題。 分爭 fan1zang1 jim4zung6 ge3 man6tai4. conflict serious GEN problem

(We are sitting down very sincerely because we actually want to solve this political problem, to solve the current polarization between the people and government, or the serious problem of political disagreement with the government.)

[4.27] 但

係 我哋 亦都 必需 要 認 清， 哩 啲 嘅 Daan6 hai6 ngo5dei6 jik6dou1 bit1seoi1 jiu3 jing6 cing1, li1 di1 ge3 But COP 1PL also necessarily MOD recognize clearly DEM CL GEN

Semantic discourse analysis  117 問題， 政治 問題， 起點 係 源 自 八三一 hai6 jyun4 zi6 baat3-saam1-jat1 man6tai4, zing3zi6 man6tai4, hei2dim2 problem political problem start-point COP originate from August-31st 人大 決定， 而 再 退 遲 一 步， 就 係 源 ci4 jat1 bou6, zau6 hai6 jyun4 Jan4Daai6 kyut3ding6, ji4 zoi3 tun3 NPCSC decision and again backward late one step EMPH COP originate 自 政府 第一 個 諮詢 階段 提交 嘅 哩 zing3fu2 dai6-jat1 go3 zi1seon1 gaai1dyun6 tai4gaau1 ge3 lei1 zi6 from government first CL consultation stage submit GEN DEM 份 報告。 一 jat1 fan6 bou3gou3. one CL report

(Yet we have to recognize clearly that these political problems originate from the NPC’s 8/31 decision. Moving one more step backwards, this is due to the report that the government submitted during the first stage of consultation.)

[4.28] 而 我哋

亦都 見 到 哩 份 報告， 未 必 係 Ji4 ngo5dei6 jik6dou1 gin3 dou2 li1 fan6 bou3gou3, mei6 bit1 hai6 and 1PL also see arrive DEM CL report NEG necessarily COP

好似 完全 就 係 好似 阿 司長 咁 講， hou2ci5 jyun4cyun4 zau6 hai6 hou2ci5 aa3 Si1Zoeng2 gam2 gong2, assemble completely EMPH COP assemble PRT Secretary such say 係 hai6 COP

一 jat1 one

份 fan6 CL

客觀 haak3gun1 objective

而 ji4 and

全面 cyun4min6 all-round

嘅 ge3 GEN

報告 bou3gou3. report

(And we have also seen that this report might not necessarily be an objective and a comprehensive report as what Mrs. Secretary has said.)

4.4.3 Political act 3: through voice of expertise In Examples 4.29–4.30, Nathan Law intended to bring in the voice of a survey conducted by the Centre of Asian Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong to strengthen his argument that the majority of Hong Kong people did not accept the idea that only the pro-establishment camp, including the proBeijing camp and the government officials, could be nominated as candidates in the election of the CE. Similarly, in Examples 4.35–4.36, he brought in

118  Approaching political discourse from around another survey by the Public Opinion Programme Centre of the University of Hong Kong to support his point of view. [4.29] 根據

中大 亞太研究所 喺 二零一四 Gan1geoi3 Zung1Daai6 Ngaa3Taai3Jin4Gau3So2 hai2 ji6-ling4-jat1-sei3 according CUHK Institute-of-Asia-Pacific-Studies at 2014

年 三月 十一日 至到 二十日 嘅 調查， 有 diu6caa4, jau5 nin4 saam1-jyut6 sap6-jat1-jat6 zi3dou3 ji6-sap6-jat6 ge3 year March 11th-day to 20th-day GEN investigation EXIST 七十六點二 個 PERCENT 嘅 受訪者 係 唔 接受， ge3 sau6fong2ze2 hai6 m4 zip3sau6, cat1-sap6-luk6-dim2-ji6 go3 percent 76.2 CL percent GEN interviewee COP NEG accept 只 有 建制派 嘅 人士 包括 親中 人士， Gin3Zai3Paai1 ge3 jan4si6 baau1kut3 Can1Zung1 jan4si6, zi2 jau5 only EXIST pro-establishment-camp GEN person including Pro-Beijing person 政府 官員 等 先至 可以 成為 特首 嘅 gun1jyun4 dang2 sin1zi3 ho2ji5 sing4wai4 Dak6Sau2 ge3 zing3fu2 government official etcetera EMPH MOD become Chief-Executive GEN 候選人。 hau6syun2jan4. candidate

(According to the survey conducted by Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies from 11 to 20 March, 76.2% of the respondents did not accept that only members from the pro-establishment camp, including the proBeijing camp and government officials, could be nominated as Chief Executive candidates.)

[4.30] 而 喺 諮詢 報告 裡面 呢， 哩 一 點 Ji4 hai2 zi1seon1 bou3gou3 leoi5min6 ne1, li1 jat1 dim2 and at consultation report inside SFP DEM one point 係 從未 被 引述 過。 hai6 cung4mei6 bei6 jan5seot6 gwo3. COP never PASS quote EXP (However, this point has never been quoted in the consultation report.)

Semantic discourse analysis  119 [4.31] 而 我哋

見 到 八三一 嘅 框架 出 咗 Ji4 ngo5dei6 gin3 dou2 baat3-saam1-jat1 ge3 kwaang1gaa2 ceot1 zo2 and 1PL see arrive August-31st GEN frame out PERF 嚟 lai4 come

之後 zi1hau6 after

呢， ne1, SFP

亦都 jik6dou1 also

只 zi2 only

係 hai6 COP

得 dak1 only

建制派 Gin3Zai3Paai3 pro-establishment-camp

人士 先至 可以 被 提名 成為 特首 嘅 候選人。 ge3 hau6syun2jan4. jan4si6 sin1zi3 ho2ji5 bei6 tai4ming4 sing4wai4 Dak6Sau2 person EMPH MOD PASS nominate become Chief-Executive GEN candidate

(And we have also seen that after the framework on 31 August was released, only the pro-establishment camp members can be nominated to be the Chief Executive candidates.) [4.32] 喺

整 個 諮詢 期 裡面 呢， 政府 從未 Hai2 zing2 go3 zi1seon1 kei4 leoi5min6 ne1, zing3fu2 cung4mei6 at entire CL consultation period inside SFP government never

為 愛國愛港 作出 任何 清晰 嘅 定義。 oi3-gwok3-oi3-Gong2 zok3ceot1 jam6ho4 cing1sik1 ge3 wai6 ding6ji6. for-the-sake-of love-country-love-Hong-Kong make any clear GEN definition

(During the entire consultation period, the government has never attempted to give a clear definition of ‘loving the country and Hong Kong’.) [4.33] 而 大家

亦都 必須 要 知道 任何 限制 人權， Ji4 daai6gaa1 jik6dou1 bit1seoi1 jiu3 zi1dou6 jam6ho4 haan6zai3 jan4kyun4, and everybody also necessarily MOD know any restrict human-right 嘅 一 啲 限制 jat1 di1 haan6zai3 ge3 GEN one CL limitation

定義， ding6ji6, definition

佢 keoi5 3SG

呢， 係 必須 ne1, hai6 bit1seoi1 SFP COP necessarily

先至 sin1zi3 EMPH

係 hai6 COP

要 有 清晰 嘅 jiu3 jau5 cing1sik1 ge3 MOD EXIST clear GEN

可以 ho2ji5 MOD

生效 sang1haau6 effective

㗎。 gaa3. SFP

(And everyone must also know that any limitations on human rights cannot be effective until they must bear clear definitions.)

120  Approaching political discourse from around [4.34] 而 哩

一 個 愛國愛港 嘅 限制 呢， Ji4 li1 jat1 go3 oi3-gwok3-ngoi3-Gong2 ge3 aan6zai3 ne1, and DEM one CL love-country-love-Hong-Kong GEN restriction SFP

其實 就 係 限制 咗 某 一 啲 人 嘅 被選權， kei4sat6 zau6 hai6 haan6zai3 zo2 mau5 jat1 di1 jan4 ge3 bei6-syun2-kyun4, actually EMPH COP limit PERF some one CL person GEN PASS-vote-right 所以 呢， 哩 個 主流 ne1, li1 go3 zyu2lau4 so2ji5 therefore SFP DEM CL main-stream 報告 bou3gou3 report

講 gong2 say

嘅 主流 ge3 zyu2lau4 GEN main-stream

意見 政府 ji3gin3 zing3fu2 opinion government 意見 ji3gin3 opinion

呢， 其實 ne1, kei4sat6 SFP actually

喺 諮詢 hai2 zi1seon1 at consultation 係 認同 hai6 jing6tung4 COP agree

基本法 下， 行政長官 須 愛國愛港 嘅 Gei1Bun2Faat3 haa6, Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1 seoi1 oi3-gwok3-oi3-gong2 ge3 Basic-Law beneath Chief-Executive MOD love-country-love-Hong-Kong GEN 定論 ding6leon6 conclusion

呢， 係 完全 ne1, hai6 jyun4cyun4 SFP COP completely

冇 mou5 NEG-have

一 個 事實 嘅 根據。 jat1 go3 si6sat6 ge3 gan1geoi3. one CL fact GEN ground

(The limitation of loving the country and Hong Kong is that the right to be elected of certain people is limited. Therefore, the mainstream opinion the government mentioned in the consultation report was in fact the one which agrees the following: under the Basic Law; there is completely no factual evidence for the conclusion that the Chief Executive has to love the country and Hong Kong.) [4.35] 根據

港大 民意研究中心 所 做 嘅 Gan1geoi3 Gong2Daai6 Man4Ji3Jin4Gau3Zung1Sam1 so2 zou6 ge3 according-to HKU Public-Opinion-Programme-Centre PRT do GEN

多 輪 調查， leon4 diu6caa4, do1 many round investigation

亦都 jik6dou1 also

縮減 功能組別 suk1gaam2 Gung1Nang4Zou2Bit6 shrink Functional-Constituencies

發現 faat3jin6 discover

呢， 支持 ne1, zi1ci4 SFP support

廢除， fai3ceoi4, abolish

或者 waak6ze2 or

嘅 人， 同埋 支持 取消 ge3 jan4, tung4maai4 zi1ci4 ceoi2siu1 GEN person as-well-as support cancel

分 組 點 票 嘅 人 呢， 係 比 反對 嘅 多 出 faan2deoi3 ge3 do1 ceot1 fan1 zou2 dim2 piu3 ge3 jan4 ne1, hai6 bei2 divide group count vote GEN person SFP COP compare disagree GEN more out

Semantic discourse analysis  121 一倍， 但 係 諮詢 jat1pui5, daan6 hai6 zi1seon1 double but COP consultation

報告 居然 可以 作出 社會 bou3gou3 geoi1jin4 ho2ji5 zok3ceot1 se5wui2 report surprisingly MOD make society

大眾 普遍 認同 無 須 對 基本法 daai6zung3 pou2pin3 jing6tung4 mou4 seoi1 deoi3 Gei1Bun2Faat3 public commonly agree NEG necessary towards Basic-Law

附件 fu6gin2 Annex

二 作出 修改 嘅 呢 個 結論。 ji6 zok3ceot1 sau1goi2 ge3 ni1 go3 git3leon6. two make modify GEN DEM CL conclusion

(According to the repeated rounds of research that the HKU Public Opinion Programme Centre has carried out, it has also been discovered that people in support of the abolishment or reduction of functional constituencies and people in support of the cancellation of abolishing the split voting system outnumbered the ones opposing by two to one. However, to our surprise, the consultation can draw the conclusion that the general public in society normally agree that there is no need to make any amendments to Annex II of the Basic Law.)

[4.36] 由

上述 幾 點 都 可以 睇 到 呢， 其實 Jau4 soeng5-seot6 gei2 dim2 dou1 ho2ji5 tai2 dou2 ne1, kei4sat6 From above-mentioned few point all MOD see arrive SFP actually 哩 li1 DEM

一 份 jat1 fan6 one CL

嘅 ge3 GEN

諮詢 zi1seon1 consultation

報告 bou3gou3 report

呢， ne1, SFP

同 tung4 with

民情 man4cing4 public-opinion

係 出現 好 嚴重 嘅 落差， 亦都 可以 好 正常 lok6caa1, jik6dou1 ho2ji5 hou2 zing3soeng4 hai6 ceot1jin6 hou2 jim4zung6 ge3 COP exist very serious GEN difference also MOD very normal 咁 推斷 到 呢， 全國人大常委會 gam2 teoi1dyun6 dou2 ne1, Cyun4Gwok3Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2Wui2 such deduce arrive SFP NPCSC

作出 嘅 zok3ceot1 ge3 make GEN

錯誤 判斷 呢， 係 有 可能 建 呢 一 係- 基於 ho2nang4 gin3 hai6 gei1jyu1 li1 jat1 co3ng6 pun3tyun5 ne1, hai6 jau5 wrong judgement SFP COP EXIST possibility build COP based-upon DEM one 份 嘅 諮詢 zi1seon1 fan6 ge3 CL GEN consultation

報告 裡面， 所 撰寫 嘅 內容 係 bou3gou3 leoi5min6, so2 zaan3se2 ge3 noi6jung4 hai6 report inside PRT write GEN content COP

122  Approaching political discourse from around 同 事實 不 符。 tung4 si6sat6 bat1 fu4. with fact NEG compatible

(From the several points mentioned previously it can be observed that there is a very serious difference between what is mentioned in the consultation report and the domestic situation. It can also be inferred normally that the misjudgement of the NPCSC was probably based on a mismatch between the written contents in this consultation report and the facts.)

4.4.4 Political act 4: differentiating ‘otherness’ After establishing the membership of ‘we’, i.e., student representatives and the general public, Nathan Law differentiates ‘you’, i.e., the government officials, as an opposing group who are responsible for the wrongdoing that created the current problem, which makes the ‘we’ group lose their trust in ‘you’. In Example 4.37, Nathan first puts the government officials as the opposite party. As he and the government official do not belong to the same group, he has the right to demand that the other party provide some information. In addition, the employment of the indefinite pronoun and the second person pronoun 各位，你哋 gok3 wai2, nei5dei6 (Everyone, you: plural), which directly followed 司長或者喺政府嘅官員 Si1Zoeng2 waak6ze2 zing3fu2 ge3 gun1jyun4 (Secretary or Government Officials) further strengthenes the otherness. Furthermore, he associats the government officials with terms that carry negative connotations such as 彌補 lei4bou2 (remedy – correcting something undesirable), 失誤 sat1ng6 (mistake – the wrongdoing) and 重拾信心 cung4 sap6 seon3sam1 (regain our trust – we have lost it).

4.4.5 Political act 5: critical/adversarial questioning As mentioned in Section 4.3.5, asking critical, aggressive and adversarial questions is a common strategy employed by political actors in political events. In Example 4.37, after establishing membership with the populace of Hong Kong (the ‘usgroup’) and differentiating the HKSAR government as the opposing party (the ‘them-group’), and associating the ‘them-group’ with negative appraisal, Nathan Law addresses the government representatives with critical, aggressive and adversarial questions on measures 方法 fong1faat3 that they (the ‘them-group’) will undertake so that they can redeem their fault and make people (the ‘us-group’) restore their confidence in the political development, and say whether they really intended to give people real universal suffrage 真普選 zan1pou2syun2. [4.37] 咁

我 想 問 司長 或者 政府 嘅 官員’ Gam2 ngo5 soeng2 man6 Si1Zoeng2 waak6ze2 zing3fu2 ge3 gun1jyun4, As-such 1SG MOD ask Secretary or government GEN official

Semantic discourse analysis  123 各 位， 你哋 有 咩 方法， 可以 彌補 me1 fong1faat3, ho2ji5 lei4bou2 gok3 wai2, nei5dei6 jau5 every CL 2PL EXIST what method MOD compensate 哩 次 嘅 失誤， 可以 令 到 往後 ci3 ge3 sat1ng6, ho2ji5 ling6 dou3 wong5hau6 li1 DEM CL GEN mistake MOD make arrive afterward

日子， 市民 可以 對

你哋 嘅

政制

到 你哋 dou2 nei5dei6 arrive 2PL

嘅 一 啲 嘅 ge3 jat1 di1 ge3 GEN one CL GEN

發展

重

拾

jat6zi2, si5man4 ho2ji5 deoi3 nei5dei6 ge3 zing3-zai3 faat3zin2 cung4 sap6 days citizen MOD as-to 2PL GEN political-system development again pick-up 信心， 畀 到 市民 一 個 真正 嘅 真 普選。 zan1 pou2syun2. seon3sam1, bei2 dou2 si5man4 jat1 go3 zan1zing3 ge3 confidence give arrive citizen one CL real GEN real universal-suffrage

(Then I would like to ask the secretaries and government officials what measures you have, so that you can redeem your fault this time, during the forthcoming days, make people restore their confidence in your political development, and really give people real universal suffrage.) In the preceding analysis, we have illustrated how a political actor with particular political agendas in a political event makes use of a sequence of political acts in order to achieve certain political moves.

5

Appraisal analysis of political discourse

5.1 Introduction Political strategies are basically built of and around words. While Chapter 4 Semantic discourse analysis of political discourse has established the relationship between the political agendas, political moves and political acts of the political parties in a political event, this chapter, adopting the theoretical framework of appraisal theory, will offer a detailed account of the activated semantic selections by the government officials and the student representatives, and discusses four issues: first, the ways that these political actors express their emotional dispositions, ethical judgement and evaluation to construct their identities and their relationships with each other as well as with the general public watching the televised meeting; second, the ways that these political actors negotiate the arguability of their propositions and proposals in relation to their roles; third, the linguistic means that they use to modulate the intensity of their assessments in their discourse; and finally, the ways that these activated selections in appraisal theory contribute to the (re)alignment of the general public. Overall, this chapter discusses how appraisal resources are used in political discourse with respect to the speaker’s identity, role and agenda.

5.2 Appraisal theory The development of appraisal theory can be traced to the late 1980s, when James R. Martin and his research team were working on the language of evaluation in story genres. Recognizing that the early work on evaluative meaning in SFL was scattered across systems, thus failing to relate the lexicogrammaticalizations to one another, Martin and his colleagues offered a new account of interpersonal semantic resources: APPRAISAL (see Martin, 1992, 2000, 2014; Martin & White, 2005; Martin & Rose, 2007; and many others). The term ‘appraisal’, as defined in Martin (2000, p. 145), refers to the ‘semantic resources used to negotiate emotions, judgments and valuation, alongside resources for amplifying and engaging with these evaluations’. The theoretical framework is further developed and subsequently included in Martin’s conception of interpersonal ‘discourse semantics’, complementing the systems of NEGOTIATON and INVOLVEMENT (see Martin, 2000, 2014 for a detailed account on the development of appraisal theory). According to Martin and White (2005), APPRAISAL entails three simultaneous systems: ATTITUDE, ENGAGEMENT and GRADUATION. Each of them serves as the point of entry of further delicate sub-systems. Briefly, ATTITUDE covers

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  125 what is traditionally perceived as emotion, ethics and aesthetics, concerning the construal of ‘emotional reactions, judgements of behavior and evaluation of things’ (p. 35). ENGAGEMENT is concerned with the source of attitudes and the play of voices in discourse. GRADUATION focuses on the grading of attitude. According to Martin and White (2005, p. 35), ATTITUDE entails three emotive dimensions, AFFECT, JUDGEMENT and APPRECIATION, each of which constitutes its own sub-systems. AFFECT is concerned with ‘registering positive and negative feelings’ (p. 42). JUDGEMENT is associated with the expressions of ‘attitudes towards behavior’ (p. 42). APPRECIATION is particularly concerned with the construal of ‘evaluation of things’ (p. 56). More specifically, this emotive dimension concerns the ‘evaluations of semiotic and natural phe­ nomena according to the ways that they are valued or not in a given field’ (p. 43). ENGAGEMENT is the system concerned with the positioning of authorial voice and how it is related to the other voices in the current communicative context. Drawing on Bakhtin (1981), ENGAGEMENT is conceptualized as a distinction between MONOGLOSSIC and HETEROGLOSSIC. The former refers to a single voice in the communicative context, whereas the latter denotes an overt referencing of other voices or recognition of alternative position (Martin & White, 2005, p. 112). Finally, GRADUATION concerns gradeability, i.e., to scale up or scale down the degree of the attitudinal meanings specified in ATTITUDE and ENGAGEMENT. GRADUATION operates in two axes of scalability, entailing the subsystems of FOCUS and FORCE. With regard to FOCUS, the gradeability is typically concerned with the non-scalable, clear-bounded categories where their monogloss ENGAGEMENT heterogloss

AFFECT

ATTITUDE

APPRAISAL

JUDGEMENT

APPRECIATION raise FORCE lower GRADUATION sharpen FOCUS soften

Figure 5.1  Appraisal systems Source: Adapted from Martin, 2014, p. 18

126  Approaching political discourse from around ‘prototypicality and the preciseness by which category boundaries’ are indicated and scaled along the cline of prototypicality. In FORCE, the gradeability is associated with the ‘intensity and amount’ (Martin & White, 2005, p. 137). An outline of appraisal resources is illustrated in Figure 5.1. Each of the preceding sub-systems constitutes various sub-categories.

5.3 The use of attitude resources in political discourse To explore the appraisal analysis of political discourse, we will apply the theoretical framework of APPRAISAL to analyze political discourse of two televised political events, the meeting during the Umbrella Movement and the debate of the Chief Executive Election 2017. Due to the consideration of comparability and the limitation of scale, we will only focus on the discourse of one political actor, former Chief Secretary for Administration Mrs. Carrie Lam, who was the only person who participated in both events. ATTITUDE focuses on three domains of feeling, moving from AFFECT (the domain of emotions; reacting to behaviour, text/process, phenomena) to JUDGEMENT (the domain of ethics; evaluating behaviour), and then into APPRECIATION (the domain of aesthetics; evaluating text/process, natural phenomena). The ATTITUDE system has some defining features: explicit attitudinal wording is inherently gradable (they can be intensified and compared); and they are biased in their loading, primarily either positive or negative.

5.3.1 Affect The system of AFFECT allows speakers to talk about different kinds of emotions, i.e., un/happiness, in/security, dis/satisfaction and dis/inclination. All of them are realized as positive and negative instantiations in a range of lexicogrammatical structures.

5.3.1.1 Inclination (irrealis affect) INCLINATION is the emotions of desire or non-desire (volition) that relate to prospective events and include feelings like wishing and hoping, longing for, or rejecting a person or phenomenon. It is worth noting that of the four kinds of emotions, only the INCLINATION emotion concerns ‘irrealis affect’, i.e., nonrealistic, whereas the other three are all realistic. In other words, speakers can express their emotions on something which is not yet a fact as shown in Example 5.1 and Example 5.2. In Example 5.1, the desire of Carrie Lam can be rephrased as ‘I am also inclined to think that . . .’, while her fear expressed in Example 5.2 is subject to a non-factual condition. As such, clauses expressing similar thoughts (including ‘I think’, ‘I believe’, etc.) mainly fall into this category.

(inclination) [5.1] 我 亦都 希望 能夠 藉 呢 次 嘅   對話 Ngo5 jik6dou1 hei1mong6 nang4gau3 zik6 li1 ci3 ge3  deoi3waa6 1SG also hope MOD borrow DEM CL GEN  dialogue

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  127

呢， 能夠 稍為 緩和 而家 社會 上 喺 le1 nang4gau3 saau2wai4 wun6wo4 ji4gaa1 se5wui2 soeng6 hai6 SFP MOD slightly ease now society above COP



比較 緊張 嘅 氣氛。 bei2gaau3 gan2zoeng1 ge3 hei3fan1. comparatively tense GEN atmosphere (Through this dialogue, I also hope that we can ease the atmosphere which is rather tense in our society now.)

(disinclination) [5.2] 因為 法治 喺 香港 嘅 核心 價值， 如果 Jan1wai6 faat3zi6 hai6 Hoeng1Gong2 ge3 hat6sam1 gaa3zik6, jyu4gwo2 Because rule-of-law COP Hong-Kong GEN core value if

法治 都 不 保 嘅 時候 呢， 我 恐怕 我哋 faat3zi6 dou1 bat1 bou2 ge3 si4hau6 ne1, ngo5 hung2paa3 ngo5dei6 rule-of-law also NEG preserve GEN time SFP 1SG fear 1PL



跟住 落 去， 對於 香港 嘅 前途 呢， 亦都 gan1zyu6 lok6 heoi3, deoi3jyu1 Hoeng1Gong2 ge3 cin4tou4 ne1,  jik6dou1 follow down go regarding Hong-Kong GEN future SFP also



喺 hai6 COP

會 wui5 will

危害 咗 ngai4hoi6 zo2 harm PERF

嘅。 ge3. SFP

(This is because rule of law is a core value of Hong Kong. If it isn’t upheld, I am afraid that we will put Hong Kong’s future at risk if we follow suit.)

5.3.1.2 Happiness HAPPINESS is the emotion to do with ‘affairs of the heart’, e.g., sadness, anger, happiness, love. Different from INCLINATION, HAPPINESS is based on something which has already happened, i.e., factual. Theoretically, HAPPINESS can have both positive (happiness) and negative (unhappiness) values. However, only positive instantiations of HAPPINESS are found in Carrie Lam’s utterances in the meeting as in Example 5.3.

(happiness) [5.3] 我 亦都 好  高興 呢，你哋 亦都  喺 以 一 個 Ngo5 jik6dou1 hou2 gou1hing1 ne1, nei5dei2 jik6dou1 hai6 ji5 jat1 go3 1SG also  very glad SFP 2PL also COP take one CL   幾  耐心， 咁  聆聽  我哋 對於 你 提 出 gei2 noi6sam1, gam3  ling4ting3  ngo5dei2  deoi3jyu1 nei5 tai4 ceot1 quite patient such listen 1PL  towards 2SG propose out

128  Approaching political discourse from around

議題 ji5tai4 issue

嘅 ge3 GEN

一 jat1 one

啲 di1 CL

嘅 ge3 GEN

解說。 gaai2syut3. explanation

(I am also very glad that you have also patiently listened to some of our explanations on the issues that you put forward.)

5.3.1.3 Security SECURITY is the emotion of well-being, e.g., anxiety, fear, confidence, trust. Both positive and negative instantiations of SECURITY are found in Carrie Lam’s utterances as shown in Examples 5.4–5.5.

(security) [5.4] 但 喺 我 必需 要 重申 呢， 好似 我 剛才 Daan6 hai6 ngo5 bit1seoi1 jiu3 cung4san1 ne1, hou2ci5 ngo5    gong1coi4 But COP 1SG necessarily MOD reiterate SFP similar-to 1SG   just

講， 香港 喺 國家 嘅 一 個 特別 行政 gong2,  Hoeng1Gong2 hai6 gwok3gaa1 ge3 jat1 go3  dak6bit6 hang4zing3 say Hong Kong COP country GEN one CL  special administrative



區，  中央 喺 香港    嘅  政治  體制  個 方面 keoi1, Zung1Joeng1  hai2 Hoeng1Gong2  ge3 zing3zi6  tai2zai3 go3 fong1min6 region  Central at Hong Kong  GEN  political system CL aspect



呢， 喺  有   憲責 上 嘅 權  同埋 責 嘅。 ne1, hai6 jau5     hin3zaak3  soeng5 ge3 kyun4   tung4maai4 zaak3 ge3. SFP COP EXIST constitution upon GEN power as-well-as responsibility SFP (However, it is necessary for me to reiterate. As I have just said, Hong Kong is an SAR of a country and the Central Government is constitutionally powerful and responsible for Hong Kong’s political system.)

(insecurity) [5.5] 最近，  我哋 聽 到 好 多 朋友  同 我 講，  就 Zeoi3gan6, ngo5dei2 ting2 dou3 hou2 do1 pang4jau5 tung4 ngo5 gong2, zau6 Recent 1PL  hear arrive  very many friend with 1SG say EMPH

話 佢哋 好      擔心   香港    而家 個 現  況。 waa6 keoi5dei6 hou2  daam1sam1 Hoeng1Gong2 ji4gaa1 go3  jin6 fong3. say 3PL  very  worry  Hong Kong now CL present situation (Recently, I have heard many people telling me that they are very worried about the present situation of Hong Kong.)

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  129 5.3.1.4 Satisfaction SATISFACTION is the emotion to do with the pursuit of goals. This includes curiosity, respect, etc., and the feelings conveyed are not as strong as those realized by HAPPINESS. The emotions of SATISFICATION are realized in both positive and negative senses in Carrie Lam’s utterances (Examples 5.6–5.7).

(satisfaction) [5.6] 大家 亦都 喺 心平氣和，  都 無 出 過 任何 Daai6gaa1 jik6dou1 hai6 sam1ping4hei3wo4, dou1 mou5 ceot1 gwo3 jam6ho4 Everybody also COP even-tempered also NEG-have out EXP any

火花， 需要 校長 嚟 到 去 介入，  嚟 到 去 fo2faa1, seoi1jiu3 haau6zoeng2 lai4 dou3  heoi3 gaai3jap6, lai4 dou3 heoi3 spark need principal come arrive go intervene come arrive go



調停 嘑。 tiu4ting4 laa3. mediate SFP (All of us have been even-tempered. No one has been impetuous. There is no need for the Principal to intervene and mediate.)

(dissatisfaction) [5.7] 所以 我， 雖然 大家  好似 對 我 So2ji5 ngo5, seoi1jin4 daai6gaa1 hou2ci5 deoi3 ngo5 Therefore 1SG  although everybody seemingly regarding 1SG

今日 gam1jat6 today

嘅 ge3 GEN

回應 wui4jing3 response

喺 hai6 COP

有 啲 jau5 di1 EXIST a-bit

失望 . . . sat1mong6 . . . disappoint

(Even though everyone seems to be a bit disappointed at my response today . . .) Table 5.1 tabulates Carrie Lam’s choice of the various linguistic strategies in the interpersonal semantic resources system network of AFFECT. In general, Carrie Lam expressed more positive emotion than negative in both political events; however, comparatively, she expressed more positive emotion in the meeting (89.9%) than in the debate (77.9%). Of the four choices of emotion, happiness, security, satisfaction and inclination, she expressed more emotions of inclination, i.e., desire that relates to prospective events and phenomenon, 65.7% and 54.7% in the meeting and in the debate respectively.

130  Approaching political discourse from around Table 5.1  The use of attitude resources – AFFECT – in two political events ATTITUDE HAPPINESS SECURITY AFFECT

SATISFACTION INCLINATION Total

Meeting

Debate

positive

  2 (1.90%)

  5 (5.26%)

negative

  0 (0.00%)

  1 (1.05%)

positive

  8 (7.62%)

  3 (3.16%)

negative

  4 (3.81%)

  7 (7.37%)

positive

  16 (15.24%)

14 (14.74%)

negative

  4 (3.81%)

  8 (8.42%)

positive

  69 (65.71%)

52 (54.74%)

negative

  2 (1.90%)

  5 (5.26%)

105 (100%)

95 (100%)

5.3.2 Judgement In general, the system of JUDGEMENT is a set of social norms and stereotypes reflecting how someone is supposed to behave. It is associated with how speakers, or appraisers, judge someone’s behaviour, i.e., whether the person behaves well or not. The system is further divided into SOCIAL ESTEEM and SOCIAL SANCTION.

5.3.2.1 Social esteem Sub-categories of SOCIAL ESTEEM include NORMALITY, CAPACITY and TENACITY. Each of them addresses different questions. NORMALITY concerns how special someone is. It provides an answer to whether the person’s behaviour is usual, special, customary, etc. It can be either positive or negative as in Example 5.8. In Example 5.8, Carrie Lam judges the behaviours of the voters and Chief Executive positively. If the political proposal is passed, the voters could vote for their preferred candidate directly. If elected by 5 million qualified voters, this Chief Executive and his or her government will be more democratic and progressive.

(normality) [5.8] 大家

試 諗 下， 由 全 港 五百萬 合 資格 Daai6gaa1 si3 lam2 haa5, jau4 cyun4 Gong2 ng5baak3maan6 hap6 zi1gaak3 Everybody try think ASP by  whole Hong-Kong five-million meet qualification



選民 一  人     一   票 直接 選 呢 個 行政長官， syun2man4 jat1  jan4 jat1 piu3 zik6zip3 syun2 ni1  wai2 Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1, voter one person one vote direct vote DEM CL  Chief-Executive

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  131



無論 從 邊個 角度 睇 都 喺 比 只 喺 mou4leon6 cung4 bin1go3 gok3dou6  tai2 dou1 hai6 bei2 zi2 hai6 no-matter from which perspective see all COP compare only COP



一 個 一千二百 人 嘅 選舉 委員會 去 選 個 jat1 go3 jat1cin1ji6baak3 jan4 ge3 syun2geoi2 wai2jyun4wui2 heoi3 syun2 go3 one CL  1,200 person GEN election committee go vote CL



行政長官 呢，喺 要 民主， 喺 要 進步 得 Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1 ne1,  hai6 jiu3 man4zyu2, hai6 jiu3 zeon3bou6 dak1 Chief-Executive SFP COP  MOD democracy COP MOD improve PRT



多 do1 many

嘅 . . . ge3 . . . SFP

(Let’s think about this. A Chief Executive elected by 5 million eligible voters through ‘one person, one vote’ is far more democratic and progressive than that by an election committee with 1,200 voters in whichever aspects.) CAPACITY addresses whether the person is capable of doing something or not. The appraiser will also consider if the person is competent and if he or she has the ability to do something. In Carrie Lam’s utterances, most of the capacity judgements are oriented to the positive side, as in Example 5.9. In Example 5.9, Carrie Lam agrees partially that the students in the movement were able to behave themselves in a peaceful, orderly and civilized manner.

(capacity) [5.9] 但

當然， 同學 自己 能夠 好 和平， 好 有   秩序， Daan6 dong1jin4,  tung4hok6 zi6gei1 nang4gau3 hou2 wo4ping4, hou2 jau5 dit6zeoi6, but certainly student self MOD very peace  very EXIST order



有   公民 意識 咁  去 做 呢 個 嘅 示威 jau5 gung1man4 ji3sik1 gam2 heoi3 zou6 ni1 go3 ge3 si6wai1 EXIST  citizen awareness such go do DEM CL GEN demonstration



呢， 我哋 ne1, ngo5dei6 SFP 1PL



都 稍為 肯定 . . . dou1 saau2wai4  hang2ding6 . . . all  relatively sure

(Yet of course we are rather sure that the students themselves can join the protest with peacefulness, good order and civil awareness.) Tenacity concerns whether the person is dependable or not. A person of tenacity is also determined and resolute. As with CAPACITY, most TENACITY

132  Approaching political discourse from around judgements by Carrie Lam are quite positive as in Example 5.10. In Carrie Lam’s point of view, the police always behaved courageously and patiently, with a high degree of tolerance.

(tenacity) [5.10] 其實

過去 廿幾  日， 香港 市民  睇  到  呢， Kei4sat6 gwo3heoi3 jaa6-gei2 jat6, Hoeng1Gong2 si5man4 tai2 dou2 ne1, actually pass twenty-something day Hong-Kong citizen see  arrive SFP



喺  我哋 嘅 執法 嘅 警隊 呢， 喺 以 hai6 ngo5dei6 ge3 zap1-faat3 ge3 ging2-deoi2 ne1, hai6 ji5 COP 1PL GEN  execute-law GEN police-force SFP COP PRT



最大  嘅 容忍，  最大   嘅  克制 嘅  態度  呢， zeoi3-daai6 ge3 jung4jan5, zeoi3-daai6 ge3 hak1zai3 ge3 taai3dou6 ne1, most-big GEN tolerance most-big GEN restraint GEN attitude SFP



嚟 到 維持 社會 嘅 秩序。 lai4  dou3 wai4ci4 se5wui2 ge3 dit6zeoi6. come arrive maintain society GEN  order

(In fact, over the past 20 days or more, Hong Kong citizens have seen that our police force who execute the law have been maintaining social order in a manner with maximum tolerance and restraint.)

5.3.2.2 Social sanction Sub-categories of SOCIAL SANCTION include VERACITY and PROPRIETY. Likewise, they provide different standards by which to judge a person. VERACITY concerns whether someone is truthful and honest. It also addresses how frank a person is, as shown in Example 5.11.

(veracity) [5.11] 喺

我哋 提交 嘅 報告， 包括  行政長官 嘅 Hai2 ngo5dei6 tai4gaau1 ge3 bou3gou3, baau1kut3 Hang4Zing3-Zoeng2Gun1 ge3 at 1PL submit GEN report include Chief-Executive GEN

報告 裡面  呢， 我哋 並 無， 喺 完全 無 去 bou3gou3 leoi5bin6 ne1, ngo5dei6 bing6 mou5, hai6 jyun4cyun4 mou5 heoi3 report inside SFP 1PL EMPH not-have COP completely not-have go 隱瞞 哩 啲 嘅 不 同 嘅 意見， 反之， 我哋 jan2mun4 lei1 di1 ge3  bat1 tung4 ge3 ji3gin3, faan2zi1, ngo5dei6 hide DEM CL GEN NEG same GEN opinion contrastively 1PL

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  133

喺 將 所有 收 到 嘅 意見， 包括  公民提名， hai6 zoeng1 so2jau5 sau1 dou2 ge3  ji3gin3, baau1kut3 gung1man4-tai4ming4, COP PRT all receive arrive GEN opinion include public-nomination



三軌提名 呢， 悉數 都 喺 擺 喺 saam1-gwai2-tai4ming4  ne1, sik1sou3 dou1 hai6 baai2 hai2 three-track-nomination SFP entire-amount all COP put at



全國人大常委會 嘅 報告， 交  畀 Cyun4Gwok3Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2Wui2 ge3 bou3gou3,  gaau1 bei2 NPCSC GEN report submit give

全國人大常委會  嘅 報告 裡面。 Cyun4Gwok3Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2Wui2 ge3 bou3gou3 leoi5bin6. NPCSC GEN report Inside

(In the report we have submitted, including the report from the Chief Executive, we did not, and absolutely we did not conceal any different opinions. Instead, we have put all the opinions we have received, including civil nomination and three-track nomination, in full detail in the report which we have submitted to the NPCSC.) PROPRIETY includes a set of ethical standards, allowing the appraiser to tell whether someone is beyond reproach by judging whether he or she is moral, law abiding, fair, etc. Both positive and negative instantiations of PROPRIETY are found in Carrie Lam’s utterances. In Example 5.12, Carrie Lam states how the general public is supposed to behave, so that they will not be condemned.

(propriety) [5.12] 我 希望 喺 日後 嘅 日子 呢， 大家 都 應該 Ngo5 hei1mong6 hai2 jat6hau6 ge3 jat6zi2 ne1, daai6gaa1 dou1 jing3goi1 1SG  hope at future GEN day   SFP everybody all MOD



以 一 個 公道 啲  嘅 態度 呢，嚟 到 去 啫喺 ji5 jat1 go3 gung1dou6 di1 ge3  taai3dou6 ne1, lai4 dou3 heoi3 ze1hai6 take one CL fair a-bit GEN attitude SFP come arrive go that-is

處理 你哋 同 警察 嗰 個  嘅 關係 嘑。 cyu3lei5 nei5dei2 tung4 ging2caat3  go2 go3 ge3 gwaan1hai6 laa3. handle 2PL with police DEM CL GEN relation SFP (I hope everyone should handle their relationship with the police officers in a more reasonable manner in the future.) Table 5.2 tabulates Carrie Lam’s choice of the various linguistic strategies in the interpersonal semantic resources system network of JUDGEMENT.

134  Approaching political discourse from around Table 5.2  The use of attitude resources – JUDGEMENT – in two political events ATTITUDE

JUDGEMENT

SOCIAL ESTEEM

SOCIAL SANCTION

Total

Meeting

Debate

NORMALITY

positive

  40 (30.77%)

  35 (27.13%)

negative

  7 (5.38%)

  32 (24.81%)

CAPACITY

positive

  20 (15.38%)

  17 (13.18%)

negative

  0 (0.00%)

  9 (6.98%)

TENACITY

positive

  15 (11.54%)

  9 (6.98%)

negative

  2 (1.54%)

  1 (0.78%)

VERACITY

positive

  18 (13.85%)

  3 (2.33%)

negative

  1 (0.77%)

  2 (1.55%)

PROPRIETY

positive

  23 (17.69%)

  18 (13.95%)

negative

  4 (3.08%)

  3 (2.33%)

130 (100%)

129 (100%)

In general, Carrie Lam expressed more positive judgement than negative in both political events; however, comparatively, she expressed much more positive judgement in the meeting (94.24%) than in the debate (63.57%). In fact, Lam tended to consider that the government was willing to listen, that the Chief Executive elected by ‘one person, one vote’ would be more convincing, that the police were restrained, that the citizens should work hand in hand with the government, etc. The unlawful behaviour of the student representatives and citizens was not very overtly criticized in Carrie Lam’s speech in the meeting. On the contrary, as one of the candidates, she became quite critical of the other two candidates in the Chief Executive Election 2017 debate. Of the various types of judgement, she focused more on NORMALITY. That meant she was concerned more about whether the behaviour of the other political actors was usual, special, customary, etc. In fact, she issued negative judgement in NORMALITY towards the other two candidates much more often in the debate than towards the student representatives in the meeting, 24.81% and 5.39% respectively.

5.3.3 Appreciation Different from JUDGEMENT, the system of APPRECIATION is a resource to construe evaluations of human-made productions, performances, natural phenomena, non-living things, etc., which are basically everything other than human beings. In other words, with JUDGEMENT, an appraiser evaluates ‘someone’; with APPRECIATION, an appraiser evaluates ‘something’. There are three sub-categories under APPRECIATION: REACTION, COMPOSITION and VALUATION.

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  135 5.3.3.1 Reaction This is associated with the impacts that things have on human beings, i.e., whether they grab someone’s attention, whether someone likes them, whether someone is influenced by them. In short, the appraiser evaluates whether he or she has an impact on someone and whether the impact is positive or negative, and the reaction of individuals is expected. In Example 5.13, if voters have a universal and fair rights to elect their preferred candidate, this rights will surely have an impact on the majority of people.

(reaction) [5.13] 我哋

對於 呢 一  種 嘅 論調   呢 喺 絕對 唔 Ngo5dei6 deoi3jyu1 ni1 jat1 zung2 ge3 leon6diu6  ne1 hai6 zyut6deoi3 m4 3PL according DEM one CL GEN argument SFP COP absolutely NEG



能夠 認同 嘅，喺 基本法  同埋 提名    程序 nang4gau3 jing6tung4 ge3,  hai2 Gei1Bun2Faat3  tung4maai4 tai4ming4 cing4zeoi6 MOD  agree  SFP at  Basic-Law  as-well-as  nomination process

框架 下， 喺  可以 落實 普及  同埋   平等 kwaang1gaa2 haa6, hai6 ho2ji5 lok6sat6 pou2kap6 tung4maai4 ping4dang2 frame below  COP  MOD  implement general   as-well-as fair



嘅 選舉     權 。 ge3 syun2geoi2  kyun4. GEN election rights

(We absolutely cannot agree with this kind of argument. Under the Basic Law and procedural framework of nomination, it is possible to realize the right of election which is universal and fair.)

5.3.3.2 Composition Composition focuses on the components of things. The appraiser evaluates them in relation to their balance and complexity, considering whether they hang together and are hard to follow. In Example 5.14, Carrie Lam appraises that the boundaries were very clear.

(composition) [5.14] 基本法

對於  行政長官， 由 一 個 提名 Gei1bun2faat3 deoi3jyu1  Hang4Zing3-Zoeng2Gun1, jau4 jat1 go3 tai4ming4 Basic-law regarding Chief-Executive by one CL nominate

委員會  提名 後，普選  產生，  由  中央 wai2jyun4wui2 tai4ming4 hou6, pou2syun2 caan2sang1, jau4 Zung1Joeng1 Committee nominate after universal-suffrage generate by Central

136  Approaching political discourse from around

人民  政府  任命，  已經  有 好 清晰 嘅    規定， Jan4Man4 zing3fu2  jam6ming6, ji5ging1 jau5 hou2 cing1sik1 ge3 kwai1ding6, People  government appoint already  EXIST very clear GEN regulation

唔 係  一 個 新 生 嘅  事物。 m4 hai6  jat1 go3 san1 sang1 ge3 si6mat6. NEG COP one CL new generate GEN object

(As for the Chief Executive, the one who is nominated by a nomination committee, generated from universal suffrage and appointed by the CP government, the Basic Law has already set clear boundaries. This is not something newly born.)

5.3.3.3 Valuation VALUATION allows the appraiser to evaluate whether things are of particular value and whether they are meaningful, unique and worthwhile for someone. Example 5.15 is a rhetorical question in which Carrie Lam states that the progress is important and democratic – it means a lot to Hong Kong society.

(valuation) [5.15] 我 完全  唔 明白 點解 大家 覺得，  呢 Ngo5  jyun4cyun4 m4 ming4baak6 dim2gaai2 daai6gaa1 gok3dak1, ni1 1SG completely NEG understand why everybody think DEM

個 唔  喺  一  個 重要   嘅   民主 嘅  進程 咩？ go3 m4 hai6  jat1 go3  zung6jiu3 ge3 man4zyu2 ge3 zeon3cing4 me1? CL NEG COP one CL important GEN democracy GEN progress SFP (I totally do not understand why everyone thinks that this is not an important democratic milestone.)

Table 5.3 tabulates Carrie Lam’s choice of the various linguistic strategies in the interpersonal semantic resources system network of APPRECIATION. In general, Carrie Lam expressed more positive appreciation than negative in both of the political events, 63.86% in the meeting and 58.33% in the debate. However, in contrast with her choices on AFFECT and JUDGEMENT, her coding on APPRECIATION could be negative from time to time. Of the three sub-categories of APPRECIATION, Lam issued the most negative choices on REACTION, 20.00% in the meeting and 21.88% in the debate. In the meeting, she talked about how the general public suffered in the Umbrella Movement. That means Carrie Lam appeared to condemn the occupants by stating the impacts which the movement had brought about. For example, she mentioned that the movement had torn apart many families, and it had led to a series of

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  137 Table 5.3  The use of attitude resources – APPRECIATION – in two political events

APPRECIATION

ATTITUDE

Meeting

Debate

VALUATION

positive

  20 (15.38%)

13 (13.54%)

negative

  4 (3.08%)

  4 (4.17%)

COMPOSITION

positive

  32 (24.62%)

20 (20.83%)

negative

  17 (13.08%)

15 (15.63%)

positive

  31 (23.85%)

23 (23.96%)

  26 (20.00%)

21 (21.88%)

130 (100%)

96 (100%)

REACTION

negative Total

violent incidents. Then it points to another question: whom Carrie Lam blamed for triggering these consequences. More directly, the question should be asked this way: according to Carrie Lam, was it the NPCSC or the student leaders and occupants who brought about the movement? Chronologically, the NPCSC handed out the Decision on 31 August, and the movement commenced on 28 September, nearly a month afterwards. However, the answer can be found in how Carrie Lam evaluated the people and things involved in the issue. Although she did not evaluate much on the student representatives and street occupants, her evaluations of the political reform package, constitutions, governments, police force, etc. were generally rather positive. Again, she tried to defend these groups by employing more explicit attitudinal wording. It is also worth noting that some clauses may bear no coding at all.

5.3.4 Inscribed attitude versus invoked attitude A further feature of ATTITUDE that needs to be considered is the mode of attitudinal activation. As indicated, evaluative language in SFL is a complex phenomenon in which evaluation is realized across a diverse range of grammatical categories. This inherited complexity enables us to further sub-classify the ATTITUDE into two main types, INSCRIBE or INVOKE (Martin & White, 2005, p. 67). Inscribed attitude refers to the direct and explicit expression of attitude. In other words, an inscribed attitude inherently bears wording which can be intensified and compared, either positive or negative. The data show that in general a large number of clauses in Lam’s discourse in the televised meeting between the government officials and the student representatives during the Umbrella Movement conveyed an inscribed attitude. Invoked attitude, in contrast, is still attitudinal, but the attitude can only be implicitly identified from the context or co-text, instead of being reflected through direct evaluative terms. On the surface, evaluative wording can rarely be found in Example 5.16. In the Hong Kong context, however, it is to most people’s knowledge that the pan-democrats usually hold a contradicting point of view from the

138  Approaching political discourse from around pro-establishment camp or the government. Commenting on the sentence subjects, i.e., ‘the Chief Executive’ and ‘we’, Carrie Lam tries to express the idea that the government had done something good by exclusively listening to the opinion of the pan-democratic lawmakers. In other words, even though the sentences may be semantically objective, they are likely to be pragmatically subjective. [5.16] 呢

個 包括 喺 四月份 呢，就 行政長官 Ni1 go3 baau1kut3 hai6 sei3-jyut6fan6 ne1, zau6 Hang4Zing3-Zoeng2Gun1 DEM CL  include   COP April   SFP EMPH  Chief-Executive

安排

咗 on1paai4 zo2 arrange PERF

所有 議員 so2jau5 ji5jyun4 all councillor

去 上海 heoi3 Soeng5Hoi2 go Shanghai

見 哩 啲 gin3 lei1 di1 meet DEM CL

高級 嘅 官員， 裡面 仲 特別 有  一 節 呢， gou1kap1 ge3 gun1jyun4, leoi5bin6 zung6 dak6bit6 jau5  jat1 zit3 ne1, senior GEN official inside still special EXIST one section SFP 喺 畀 泛民 嘅  議員 呢， 同 哩  啲 官員 hai6 bei2 faan3-man4 ge3 ji5jyun4 ne1, tung4 lei1   di1 gun1jyun4 COP give pan-democracy GEN official   SFP  as-well-as DEM CL official 呢， 喺  會面。 亦都 包括 喺 香港 ne1, hai6  wui6min6. Jik6dou1  baau1kut3 hai2 Hoeng1Gong2 SFP COP meet also include at Hong-Kong

呢，   我哋 ne1, ngo5dei6 SFP 1PL

亦都 安排 咗， 中聯辦 嘅  張曉明   主任 呢， jik6dou1 on1paai4 zo2, Zung1Lyun4Baan6 ge3  Zoeng1Hiu2Ming4  zyu2jam6 ne1, also   arrange PERF Liaison-Office GEN Zhang-Xiaoming director   SFP 喺  同 泛民 嘅 議員 嘅 會面， 亦都 喺 包括 hai6  tung4 faan3-man4 ge3 ji5jyun4 ge3  wui6min6, jik6dou1 hai6 baau1kut3 COP with   pro-democracy GEN official  GEN meeting also COP include 喺 深圳， 由 全國人大常委會 副秘書長 hai2 Sam1Zan3, jau4 Cyun4Gwok3Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2Wui2 Fu3-Bei3Syu1Zoeng2 at Shen-Zhen by NPCSC Deputy-Secretary-General 李飛 先生 呢， 亦都 喺 同 我哋 香港 Lei5Fei1 sin1saang1   ne1, jik6dou1 hai6   tung4 ngo5dei6 Hoeng1Gong2 Li-Fei   sir   SFP also COP with  1PL Hong-Kong 立法會 Lap6Faat3-Wui2 Legislative-Council

議員  去 ji5jyun4 heoi3 councillor  go

見面， 而 其中  亦都  喺 gin3min6, ji4 kei4zung1 jik6dou1 hai6 meet   and within also COP

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  139 有

jau5 EXIST

 一 節   呢， 喺 單單 同 泛民 議員 jat1 zit3 ne1,   hai6 daan1daan1 tung4 faan3-man4   ji5jyun4 one section SFP   COP only with  pro-democracy official

嘅 會面。 ge3   wui6min6. GEN meeting

(These include the senior officials whom the Chief Executive arranged all councillors to meet in Shanghai in April. In the meeting, there was particularly a section for the pan-democracy councillors and officials. We arranged a meeting for Zhang Xiaoming, the Director of Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government, and the pan-democracy councillors. For Mr. Li Fei, the Deputy Secretary General of the NPCSC, and our Hong Kong Legislative Councillors, we also included a meeting, in which there was a section particularly for the pan-democracy councillors.) The mentioned system network of ATTITUDE explicated in Lam’s political discourses in the two political events can be illustrated by Figure 5.2. happiness AFFECT

security satisfaction inclination normality social esteem

capacity tenacity

JUDGEMENT

veracity social sanction propriety ATTITUDE

valuation APPRECIATION

composition reaction

positive negative inscribe invoke

Figure 5.2  System network of ATTITUDE in the two political events

140  Approaching political discourse from around

5.4 The use of engagement resources in political discourse ENGAGEMENT concerns the positioning of the speaker’s voice as well as how it is related to the other voices in the communicative event. Within the appraisal system of ENGAGEMENT, the main distinction is between MONOGLOSSIC ENGAGEMENT and HETEROGLOSSIC ENGAGEMENT. The former refers to the exclusion of alternative position, and the latter refers to the recognition of alternative positions.

5.4.1 Monoglossic engagement In MONOGLOSSIC ENGAGEMENT, the speaker is very certain about what he or she is saying and makes no references to other voices. Monoglossic utterances are presented as bare assertions, without any hedging or modality resources. The utterance can be characterized as neutral, objective or even ‘factual’. In addition to bare assertions, the ‘statement’ parts of questioning turns should be interpreted as MONOGLOSSIC. A monoglossic utterance is intended to be regarded as something generally agreed and accepted. As a result, the other political parties cannot challenge the proposition expressed in it as shown in Example 5.17. [5.17] 喺 1990 年 頒布  嘅 基本法 係 經歷  咗 Hai2 1990  nin4 baan1bou3 ge3 Gei1Bun2Faat3 hai6 ging1lik6  zo2 In 1990 year issue GEN Basic-Law COP experience PERF 四 年 八 個 月 嘅 廣泛 諮詢 同埋 sei3  nin4 baat3 go3 jyut6 ge3 gwong2faan3 zi1seon1 tung4maai4 Four year  eight CL month GEN general  consultation as-well-as 蘊釀。 wan5joeng6. Brewing (The promulgation of the Basic Law in 1990 had undergone 4-year-and8-month extensive consultation and reviewing.) The preceding instances show that Carrie Lam presented the propositions as objective assertions, without acknowledging the voices to anyone. Therefore, they are regarded as something generally agreed and accepted. No one can ever challenge these facts. However, it is found that monoglossic utterances are rarely found in Carrie Lam’s speeches in the meeting.

5.4.2 Heteroglossic engagement In contrast to monoglossic engagement, HETEROGLOSSIC ENGAGEMENT refers to the recognition of alternative positions. Making use of heteroglossic

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  141 Table 5.4  The use of engagement resources in two political events

ENGAGEMENT

Debate

  88 (13.0%)

  51 (12.3%)

contract

262 (38.7%)

127 (30.5%)

expand

327 (48.3%)

238 (57.2%)

677 (100%)

416 (100%)

MONOGLOSS HETEROGLOSS

Total

Meeting

utterances, the author acknowledges the communicative backdrop, or the intertextual property, of the text. Based on this nature, the author can then present his or her own viewpoints and assume that there may or may not be space for dialogistic alternatives. The distinction thus pertains to whether it instead acts to close down alternative positions (dialogical contraction), or whether the locution makes room for dialogically alternative positions (dialogical expansion). Table 5.4 tabulates the occurrences and the frequencies of Carrie Lam’s three linguistic choices – MONOGLOSS, HETEROGLOSS (contract) and HETEROGLOSS (expand) – in the meeting between the government officials and the student representatives during the Occupy Central meeting and in the 2017 Chief Executive election debate. The occurrences of monoglossic expression were rarely found in Carrie Lam’s speeches in the meeting and in the debate. When they occurred, the topics were mainly concerning some important issue such as the publication of the Basic Law, the real meaning of democracy, the intention of the HKSAR government and the preparation for the meeting. With regard to whether the heteroglossic expressions are contracted or expanded, Carrie Lam seemed to behave differently when she talked about different stakeholders in the meeting. For instance, she would disallow any opposing opinion when she mentioned the authorial powers and standards. In other words, she didn’t let anyone challenge law and order and was trying to defend the local and central governments by turning down any dialogistic alternatives. It was difficult for other parties to have any say concerning the decided matters. However, if the conversation topics related to the student representatives, public opinions, government performance, etc., she appeared to be overtly more talkative to establish an open-minded, welcoming and friendly image for the officials. She expressed her hope and beliefs in the meeting, which was also a means or device to expect feedback from other participants involved in the issue. However, in comparison with the meeting, the occurrences of heterogloss expanded relatively more frequently in the debate. In other words, Carrie Lam chose the various linguistic strategies that left more space for dialogic colloquy for the possibility of alternative positions. This is the nature of a Chief Executive election debate in which the candidates tended to partially or totally include other voices.

142  Approaching political discourse from around 5.4.2.1 Dialogical contraction In dialogical contraction, generally speaking, the speaker leaves less or no space in the dialogic colloquy for the possibility of alternative positions. In other words, the speaker partially or totally excludes other voices by using linguistic resources. There are two dialogical contraction sub-systems: DISCLAIMS and PROCLAIMS. A PROCLAIM

According to Martin and White (2005, p. 98), PROCLAIM is used to stress the validity of the speaker’s position. In PROCLAIMS, the speaker indirectly suppresses alternative positions by endorsing them (PROCLAIM: endorse), overtly pronouncing the truth or warrantability of a position (PROCLAIM: pronounce), or concurring with other dialogic voices (PROCLAIM: concur). In ‘endorse’, the speaker acts to suppress the diagnostic positionings by explicitly introducing external sources into the text. Through overt reference and endorsement, the propositions are construed by the authorial voice as ‘as correct, valid, undeniable or otherwise maximally warrantable’ (Martin & White, 2005, p. 126). In Examples 5.18–5.19, Carrie Lam makes reference to what is mentioned by the Basic Law and the NPCSC. She seems to endorse the constitution and authority and disallow any opinions contrary to this.

(proclaim: endorse) [5.18–5.19] 基本法

對於 行政長官， 由 Gei1bun2faat3 deoi3jyu1 Hang4Zing3-Zoeng2Gun1, Basic-law regarding Chief-Executive 委員會

提名

wai jyun wui Committee 2

4

2

後，

tai ming nominate 4

4

一

普選 2

提名

產生，

hou , pou syun after universal-suffrage 6

個

jau4 jat1 go3 tai4ming4 by one CL nominate

2

由

caan sang , generate 2

1

jau4 by

中央 人民 政府 任命， 已經 有 好 清晰 Zung1Joeng1 Jan4Man4 zing3fu2 jam6ming6, ji5ging1 jau5 hou2 cing1sik1 Central People government appoint already EXIST very clear 嘅

規定，

kwai1ding6, ge3 GEN regulation

唔

係

一

個

新

生

m4 hai6 jat1 go3 san1 sang1 NEG COP one CL new generate

全國人大常委會 Cyun4Gwok3Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2wui2 NPCSC 日 通過 嘅 決定， kyut3ding6, jat6 tung1gwo3 ge3 day pass GEN decision

嘅

事物。

ge3 si6mat6. GEN object

喺 今年 八月 三十一 hai2 gam1-nin2 baat3-jyut6 saam1sap6jat1 at this-year August thirty-one 已經 確定 咗 ji5ging1 kok3ding6 zo2 already confirm PERF

香港 Hoeng1Gong2 Hong-Kong

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  143 可以 從 二零一七 年 開始 呢 就 實行 一 人 ho2ji5 cung4 ji6ling4jat1cat1 nin4 hoi1ci2 ne1 zau6 sat6hang4 jat1 jan4 MOD from 2017 year start SFP then implement one person 一 jat1 one

票 piu3 vote

普選 pou2syun2 universal-suffrage

行政長官， Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1, Chief-Executive

二零一七 年 普選 ji6ling4jat1cat1 nin4 pou2syun2 2017 year universal-suffrage 具體 geoi6tai2 detail

方案 fong1on3 scheme

訂定 ding3ding6 set-up

同時 tung4si4 meanwhile

行政長官 Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1 Chief-Executive

咗 zo2 PERF

一 jat1 one

個 go3 CL

為 wai6 for

呢， 嘅 ne1, ge3 SFP GEN

框架。 kwaang1gaa2. frame

(As for the Chief Executive, the one who is nominated by a nomination committee, generated from universal suffrage and appointed by the CP government, the Basic Law already has clear boundaries. This is not something newly born. The decision passed on 31 August this year by the NPCSC has confirmed that from 2017 onwards the Chief Executive in Hong Kong can start being elected through implementing one-person-one-vote. It has also stipulated a framework for the 2017 universal suffrage for the Chief Executive.) By ‘pronounce’, the speaker asserts or emphasizes the value of the proposition through ‘authorial emphasis or explicit authorial interventions or interpolations’ (Martin & White, 2005, p. 127). Semantically, the overt intervention increases the interpersonal cost of rejecting or doubting the authorial voice of the proposition, thereby reducing the alternative space of any contrary positions in challenging the author’s dialogic position (pp. 127–128). In Examples 5.20–5.21, on behalf of the Hong Kong government, Lam pronounces and reiterates what the government said concerning the decision on 31 August, making the proposition more explicit.

(proclaim: pronounce) [5.20–5.21] 我

想

喺

呢度

Ngo5 soeng2 hai2 ni1dou6 1GS want at here

作出

一

個

嘅

表明，

zok3ceot1 jat1 go3 ge3 biu2ming4, make one CL GEN statement

其實 kei4sat6 actually

就住 八月 三十一 日 嘅 決定， 裡邊 雖然 kyut3ding6, leoi5bin6 seoi1jin4 zau6zyu6 baat3jyut6 saam1sap6jat1 jat6 ge3 based-on August thirty-first day GEN decision inside although 係 設 左 一 啲 嘅 限制， 但 係 呢 啲 zo2 jat1 di1 ge3 haan6zai3, daan6 hai6 ni1 di1 hai6 cit3 COP set-up PERF one CL GEN limitation but COP DEM CL

144  Approaching political discourse from around 限制 唔 會 係 永遠 適用 㗎。 特區 haan6zai3 m4 wui5 hai6 wing5jyun5 sik1jung6 gaa3. Dak6keoi1 limitation NEG MOD COP forever applicable SFP SAR 政府 都 唔 止 一 次 講 咗 嘑。 呢 個 dou1 m4 zi2 jat1 ci3 gong2 zo2 laa3. Ni1 go3 zing3fu2 government already NEG only one CL speak PERF SFP DEM CL 理解， 換 句 話 說 係 永遠 適用， wun6 geoi3 waa6 syut3 hai6 wing5jyun5 sik1jung6, lei5gaai2, understanding change CL utterance speak COP forever applicable 呢 ni1 DEM

個 go3 CL

理解 lei5gaai2 understanding

呢， ne1, SFP

係 hai6 COP

錯誤 co3ng6 wrong

㗎。 gaa3. SFP

(I would like to state clearly here although some limitations are set in the 8/31 decision, those limitations are not permanently applicable. The SAR government has not said for only the first time that understanding, that is their permanent applicability in other words, is wrong.) Under ‘PROCLAIM: concur’, the speaker acts to suppress the alternative positioning through ‘authorial emphasis or explicit authorial interventions or interpolations’ (Martin & White, 2005, p. 127). Semantically, overt intervention increases the interpersonal cost of rejecting or doubting the authorial voice of the proposition, thereby closing up the alternative space of any contrary positions (pp. 127–128). In Examples 5.22–5.23, by virtue of the voice of Secretary Yuen, Lam concurs with the common knowledge and the opinion of the general public that they would like to have their CE elected through ‘one person, one vote’. According to her, the government has listened to the majority of people well, and thus any other different opinions will just account for a small portion.

(proclaim: concur) [5.22–5.23] 頭先

阿

袁

司長

都

講

咗

嘑， 就

係

laa3, zau6 hai6 Tau4sin1 aa3 Jyun4 Si1Zoeng2 dou1 gong2 zo2 Just PRT Yuen Secretary also speak PERF SFP EMPH COP 市民 普遍 真係 好 希望 喺 二零一七 年 si5man4 pou2pin3 zan1hai6 hou2 hei1mong6 hai2 ji6-ling4-jat1-cat1 nin4 citizen common really very hope at 2017 year 呢， 能夠 做 到 一 人 一 票 去 選 特首。 jat1 piu3 heoi3 syun2 Dak6Sau2. ne1, nang4gau3 zou6 dou3 jat1 jan4 SFP MOD do arrive one person one vote go elect Chief-Executive 市民 亦都 認同 呢， 喺 做 普選 行政長官 Si5man4 jik6dou1 jing6tung4 ne1, hai2 zou6 pou2syun2 Hang4Zing3-Zoeng2Gun1 Citizen also agree SFP at do universal-suffrageChief-Executive

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  145 嘅 時候， 要 按 住 基本法， 同埋 ge3 si4hau6, jiu3 on3 zyu6 Gei1Bun2Faat3, tung4maai4 GEN time MOD according-to IMPERF Basic-Law as-well-as 全國人大常委會 Cyun4Gwok3Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2Wui2 NPCSC

相關 soeng1gwaan1 related

嘅 ge3 GEN

解釋 gaai2sik1 explanation

呢 幾 個 正正 同埋 決定 嚟 到 做。 . . . 咁 tung4maai4 kyut3ding6 lai4 dou3 zou6. . . . Gam2 ni1 gei2 go3 zing3-zing3 as-well-as decision come arrive do . . . as-such DEM few CL exactly 呢 就 係 反映 絕 大 部份 市民 嘅 意見。 hai6 faan2jing2 zyut6 daai6 bou6fan6 si5man4 ge3 ne1 zau6 ji3gin3. SFP EMPH COP reflect extreme big part Citizen GEN opinion

(Just now Secretary YUEN has also said that in general, citizens hope very much that it is possible to realize the election for Chief Executive through one person one vote. Citizens also agree that universal suffrage for Chief Executive has to be conducted according to the Basic Law and the relevant interpretations and decisions of the NPCSC. . . . These exactly reflect the opinions of the vast majority of citizens.) B DISCLAIM

Whereas PROCLAIM can be seen as reinforcement or confirmation, DISCLAIM is associated with various forms of negation and contrast. In DISCLAIM, the textual voice positions itself as at odds with, or rejecting, some contrary position. The speaker invokes little alternative position by virtue of denying or countering it and thus directly suppressing it. The speaker directly suppresses an alternative position by denying (DISCLAIM: deny) or countering it (DISCLAIM: counter) as shown in Examples 5.24–5.25 and Examples 5.26–5.27 respectively.

(disclaim: deny) [5.24–5.25] 我

同

特區

嘅

其他

幾

位

同事

今日

kei4taa1 gei2 wai2 tung4si6 Ngo5 tung4 Dak6Keoi1 ge3 1SG with SAR GEN other few CL colleague 係 帶 住 hai6 daai3 zyu6 COP bring IMPERF

呢

gam1jat6 le1 today SFP

誠意， 同 各 位 同學 會面。 sing4ji3 tung4 gok3 wai2 tung4hok6 wui6min6. sincerity with every CL student meet

今日 唔 係 一 個 辯論 比賽， 所以 應該 hai6 jat1 go3 bin6leon6 bei2coi3, so2ji5 jing1goi1 Gam1jat6 m4 today NEG COP one CL debate competition therefore MOD 係 hai6 COP

冇 mou4 NEG-have

所謂 so2wai6 so-called

輸 syu1 loss

或者 waak6ze2 or

贏 jeng4 victory

㗎。 gaa3. SFP

146  Approaching political discourse from around (With our sincerity, several other colleagues from the SAR and I have a meeting with all students today. We are not having a debate competition today, so there should not be anything that is a so-called loss or victory.)

(disclaim: counter) [5.26–5.27] 我

想

喺

呢度

作出

一

個 嘅

表明，

其實

biu2ming4, kei4sat6 Ngo5 soeng2 hai2 ni1dou6 zok3ceot1 jat1 go3 ge3 1GS want at here make one CL GEN statement actually 雖然 就住 八月 三十一 日 嘅 決定， 裡邊 zau6zyu6 baat3jyut6 saam1sap6jat1 jat6 ge3 kyut3ding6, leoi5bin6 seoi1jin4 based-on August thirty-first day GEN decision inside although 係 設 左 一 啲 嘅 限制， 但 係 呢 啲 zo2 jat1 di1 ge3 haan6zai3, daan6 hai6 ni1 di1 hai6 cit3 COP set-up PERF one CL GEN limitation but COP DEM CL 限制 唔 會 係 永遠 適用 㗎。 特區 wui5 hai6 wing5jyun5 sik1jung6 gaa3. Dak6keoi1 haan6zai3 m4 limitation NEG MOD COP forever applicable SFP SAR 咗 嘑。 呢 個 政府 都 唔 止 一 次 講 dou1 m4 zi2 jat1 ci3 gong2 zo2 laa3. Ni1 go3 zing3fu2 government already NEG only one CL speak PERF SFP DEM CL 理解， 換 句 話 說 係 永遠 適用， wun6 geoi3 waa6 syut3 hai6 wing5jyun5 sik1jung6, lei5gaai2, understanding change CL utterance speak COP forever applicable 呢 i1 DEM

個 go3 CL

理解 lei5gaai2 understanding

呢， ne1, SFP

係 hai6 COP

錯誤 co3ng6 wrong

㗎。 gaa3. SFP

(I would like to state clearly here although some limitations are set in the 8/31 decision, those limitations are not permanently applicable. The SAR government has not said for only the first time that understanding, that is their permanent applicability in other words, is wrong.)

5.4.3.2 Dialogical expansion Conversely, the speaker can expand the utterance by entertaining and attributing the proposition to allow dialogistic alternatives. A ENTERTAIN

ENTERTAIN means ‘wording by which the authorial voice indicates that its position is but one of a number of possible positions and thereby, to greater

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  147 or lesser degrees, makes dialogic space for those possibilities’ (Martin & White, 2005, p. 104). As highlighted in Martin and White (p. 104), ENTERTAIN concerns the dialogistic expansiveness of both modality as in Example 5.28 and evidentiality as in Example 5.29. This will be further discussed in Chapter 8 Evidentiality, subjectivity and mental process in political discourse. In Example 5.29, Carrie Lam grounds the position by entertaining it to show that it is contingent and associated with an individualized point of view. The word ‘listen’ suggests that there is an external source for the embedded clauses. The use of modal verbs also represents her uncertainty and therefore there may be other possibilities. The locutions allow more room for dialogistic alternatives, because Lam is then going to express her own opinion with regard to this utterance.

(entertain: modality) [5.28] 除咗

回應 學聯 嘅 要求 之外 呢， 我 認為 今日 Ceoi4zo2 wui4jing3 Hok6Lyun4 ge3 jiu1kau4 zi1ngoi6 le1, ngo5 jing6wai4 gam1jat6 except respond HKFS GEN request apart SFP 1SG think today 嘅 對話 deoi3waa6 ge3 GEN dialogue

呢， 都 符合 社會 le1, dou1 fu4hap6 se5wui2 SFP also meet society

大眾 daai6zung3 public

嘅 期望。 ge3 kei4mong6. GEN expectation

(Apart from responding to the request from HKFS, I think today’s dialogue also fulfils the public’s expectation.)

(entertain: evidentiality) [5.29] 我哋

聽

到

幾 位

同學

講

呢， 佢哋

嘅

論據

Ngo5dei6 teng1 dou2 gei2 wai2 tung4hok6 gong2 ne1, keoi5dei6 ge3 leon6geoi3 1PL listen arrive few CL student say SFP 3PL GEN argument

都

似乎

dou1 ci5fu4 all seemingly

係

建

基於

話， 啫係

而家

hai6 gin3 gei1jyu1 waa6, ze1-hai6 ji4gaa1 COP build based say that-is current

你哋

代表

nei5dei6 doi6biu2 2PL represent

嘅

意見

呢， 就

係

香港

社會

走

ge3 GEN

ji3gin3 opinion

ne1, SFP

hai6 COP

Hoeng1Gong2 Hong-Kong

se5wui2 society

zau2 zyu6 go IMPER

zau6 EMPH

政改

嘅

意見。

zing3-goi2 political-reform

ge3 GEN

ji3gin3. opinion

住

(We have listened to what several student representatives have said. It seems that their argument is based on the opinion about Hong Kong’s constitutional development.)

148  Approaching political discourse from around B ATTRIBUTE

ATTRIBUTE adds external voices that may be quoted either directly or indirectly. In attributions, the speaker can choose either to simply acknowledge (and implicitly agree with) the external voice or to distance him or herself from it. In Examples 5.30–5.31, Carrie Lam acknowledges that opinions can be diversified. Other opinions concerning the political issue are also possible. She also states how the government handles these opinions. Comparatively speaking, in Example 5.32, Carrie Lam distances herself from the source by disagreeing with it afterwards. Her disagreement expands the space for the dialogue.

(attribute: acknowledge) [5.30–5.31] 事實

上

喺

行政長官

嘅

Si6sat6 soeng6 hai2 Hang4Zing3-Zoeng2Gun1 Fact upon at Chief-Executive 我哋

嘅

公眾

gung1zung3 ngo5dei6 ge3 1PL GEN public 我哋

嘅

講法

行政長官 Hang4Zing3-Zoeng2Gun1 Chief-Executive

同埋

諮詢

嘅

ge3 bou3gou3 leoi5bin6 ne1, GEN report inside SFP

係

話，

報告

tung4maai4 as-well-as

zi1seon1 consultation 就

gong2-faat3 ngo5dei6 ge3 1PL GEN way-of-saying

報告，

ge3 bou3gou3, GEN report

裡便

因應

呢，

過去

zau6 hai6 waa6, jan1jing3 EMPH COP say according-to

gwo3heoi3 past

選舉 候選人 數目 大致 都 syun2geoi2 hau6-syun2-jan4 sou3muk6 daai6zi3 dou1 election candidate number approximately all

係 二 至 三 人 左右， 有 些 意見 提議 可以 將 zo2jau2, jau5 se1 ji3gin3 tai4ji5 ho2ji5 zoeng1 hai6 ji6 zi3 saam1 jan4 COP two to three person around EXIST CL opinion suggest MOD PRT 候選人 嘅 數目 訂 為 兩 至 三 人， 但 亦 sou3muk6 ding6 wai4 loeng5 zi3 saam1 jan4, daan6 jik6 hau6-syun2-jan4 ge3 candidate GEN number set as two to three person but also 有

部份

意見

呢

係

提

出

其他

嘅

數目。

jau5 bou6fan6 ji3gin3 ne1 hai6 tai4 ceot1 kei4taa1 ge3 sou3muk6. EXIST part opinion SFP COP propose out other GEN number 咁 所以 嗰 個 處理 嘅 哩 啲 民意 收集 go2 go3 cyu3lei5 ge3 lei1 di1 man4-ji3 sau1zaap6 Gam2 so2ji5 Such therefore DEM CL handle GEN DEM CL citizen-opinion collect

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  149 咗 嘅 方法 呢， 仍然 係 將 大 部份 嘅 zo2 ge3 fong1faat3 ne1, jing4jin4 hai6 zoeng1 daai6 bou6fan6 ge3 PERF GEN method SFP still COP PRT large proportion GEN 都 係 如 實 咁 寫 出 嚟， 最 重要 意見 呢， 我哋 ji3gin3 ne1, ngo5dei6 dou1 hai6 jyu4 sat6 gam2 se2 ceot1 lai4, zeoi3 zung6jiu3 opinion SFP 1PL all COP as fact such write out come most important 呢， 我哋 都 係 將 所有 嘅 意見書 ji3gin3-syu1 ne1, ngo5dei6 dou1 hai6 zoeng1 so2jau5 ge3 SFP 1PL all COP PRT all GEN opinion-book

呢， 亦都 ne1, jik6dou1 SFP also

係 悉數， 原本 咁 交 畀 全國人大常委會 㗎。 hai6 sik1sou3, jyun4bun2 gam2 gaau1 bei2 Cyun4Gwok3Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2Wui2 gaa3. COP entire original such submit give NPCSC SFP

(In fact in the Chief Executive’s report and our public consultation report, what we have said is that since the number of candidates in the previous Chief Executive elections has been around two or three, some opinions have suggested that the number of candidates can be set to two or three. Yet there are still some opinions suggesting other ways. Therefore, the way of handling the collection of these public opinions is still that we write most of the opinions factually. Most importantly, we have also submitted all copies of the opinions to the NPCSC in their original manuscript in full detail.)

(attribute: distance) [5.32] 第二

個 問題 就 係 有 人 認為 由於 Dai6-ji6 go3 man6tai4 zau6 hai6 jau5 jan4 jing6wai4 jau4jyu1 Second CL question EMPH COP EXIST person think because 全國人大常委會 Cyun4Gwok3Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2Wui2 NPCSC

嘅 決定 設 下 咗 ge3 kyut3ding6 cit3 haa6 zo2 GEN decision set down PERF

好 多 嘅 限制， 咁 到 再 談 嗰 個 具體 hou2 do1 ge3 haan6zai3, gam2 dou3 zoi3 taam4 go2 go3 geoi6tai2 very many GEN limitation then arrive again discuss DEM CL detailed 方案 都 冇 乜 大 意思， 甚至 認為 喺 現時 fong1on3 dou1 mou5 mat1 daai6 ji3si1, sam6zi3 jing6wai4 hai2 jin6si4 solution all NEG what big meaning even think at current 框架 下 嘅 行政長官 選舉 呢， 只 會 kwaang1gaa2 haa6 ge3 Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1 syun2geoi2 ne1, zi2 wui5 frame below GEN Chief-Executive election SFP only will

150  Approaching political discourse from around 係 一 個 徒 具 選舉 形式 嘅 半 欽點 嘅 制度。 hai6 jat1 go3 tou4 geoi6 syun2geoi2 jing4sik1 ge3 bun3 jam1dim2 ge3 zai3dou6. COP one CL barely equip election format GEN half appoint GEN system

(The second question is that some people think since the NPCSC’s decision has laid a lot of limitations, it is not so meaningful to discuss any concrete measures then. They even think that the Chief Executive election under the current framework will be a semi-appointed system that only exists in the form of an election.) The mentioned system network of ENGAGEMENT explicated in Lam’s political discourses in the two political events can be illustrated by Figure 5.3. With respect to her ENGAGEMENT strategies, Carrie Lam chose different strategies to align herself to NPCSC, and HKFS and the support of the Umbrella Movement. Her engagement strategies can be summarized in Table 5.5. First, to align herself with NPSCS, Carrie Lam made frequent semantic choice of [PROCLAIM: endorse], referencing ‘some authoritative or otherwise convincing external source’ such as the Basic Law, its Annex I and NPCSC across the meeting as shown in Example 5.33.

deny disclaim counter affirm concur

contract

concede proclaim

pronounce

heterogloss endorse entertain ENGAGEMENT

expand

acknowledge attribute distance

monogloss

Figure 5.3  System network of ENGAGEMENT

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  151 Table 5.5  Carrie Lam’s engagement strategies Strategies Engagement with NPCSC 1  Aligning herself to NPCSC

[PROCLAIM: endorse]

Engagement with HKFS and supporters of the Umbrella Movement 2 Aligning herself to HKFS and Occupy Central supporters

[PROCLAIM: concur: concede]

3 Disaligning herself from HKFS’s counter notion [DISCLAIM: deny] [ATTRIBUTE: distance] 4 Aligning HKFS to government viewpoint of constitutional reform

[PROCLAIM: pronounce] [PROCLAIM: concur: affirm]

嘅 基本法 裡面 呢， (條文) 係 [5.33] 喺 我哋 Gei1Bun2Faat3 leoi5bin6 ne1, (tiu4man4) hai6 Hai2 ngo5dei6 ge At 1PL GEN Basic-Law inside SFP (terms-and-articles) COP 規定 咗 對於 香港 嘅 政治 體制 應該 1 6 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 6 deoi jyu Hoeng Gong ge zing zi tai2zai3 jing1goi1 kwai ding zo stipulate PERF regarding Hong-Kong GEN political system MOD 喺 點樣 發展 嘅。 而 呢 套 政治 體制 嘅 hai6 dim2joeng2 faat3zin2 ge3. Ji4 ni1 tou3 zing3zi6 tai2zai3 ge3 COP how develop SFP as-for DEM CL political system GEN 發展 呢， 正 如 我 剛才 開場白 講 呢， 3 2 1 3 4 5 1 4 1 4 6 2 faat zin ne , zing jyu ngo gong coi hoi coeng baak gong ne1, dev’t SFP just as 1SG just opening-remark say SFP 唔 m4 NEG

喺 hai6 COP

一 jat1 one

個 go3 CL

新 san1 new

生 sang1 born

嘅 ge3 GEN

事物. . . si6mat6 object

(In our Basic Law, it is stipulated how Hong Kong’s political system should be developed. This political system development, as I have just said in the opening remarks, is not something newly born.) In a heteroglossic sense, the endorsement strategy enacted by Carrie Lam enabled her to align herself with authoritative sources, positioning her textual voice regarding the constitutional reform and NPCSC’s decision as compelling and well founded. Such an alignment thus is bound to align the HKFS student representatives, supporters of the Umbrella Movement and the general public into this authoritative ruling.

152  Approaching political discourse from around Lam employed a variety of engagement strategies in aligning/disaligning HKFS and supporters of the Umbrella Movement through her choice of [PROCLAIM: concur: concede] as shown in Example 5.34 and Example 5.35. [5.34] 但

當然， 同學 自己 能夠 好 和平， 好 有 Daan6 dong1jin4, tung4hok6 zi6gei1 nang4gau3 hou2 wo4ping4, hou2 jau5 but certainly student self MOD very peace very EXIST

秩序， 有 公民 意識 咁 去 做 呢 個 嘅 dit6zeoi6, jau5 gung1man4 ji3sik1 gam2 heoi3 zou6 ni1 go3 ge3 order EXIST citizen awareness such go do DEM CL GEN 示威 呢， 我哋 都 稍為 肯定， 但 畢竟 呢， 6 1 1 5 6 1 2 4 2 6 6 1 2 si wai ne , ngo dei dou saau wai hang ding , daan bat ging ne1, demonstration SFP 1PL all relatively sure but after-all SFP 哩 ni1 DEM

啲 di1 CL

都 dou1 all

喺 hai6 COP

一 jat1 one

個 go3 CL

違 wai4 break

法 faat3 law

嘅 ge3 GEN

行為。 hang4wai4. behaviour

(Yet of course we are rather sure that the students themselves can join the protest with peacefulness, good order and civil awareness. Yet after all such behaviour is against the law.) [5.35]

但

喺

Daan But

6

我

不

須

不

hai ngo bat seoi COP 1SG NEG necessary 6

5

1

1

承認，

喺

bat sing jing , NEG admit 1

個 月， 先 由 各 位， 啫喺， sin1 jau4 gok3 wai2, ze1-hai6, go3 jyut6, CL month first by every CL that-is

4

6

過去

哩

hai gwo heoi at past

發起 faat3-hei2 launch

2

3

3

一

lei jat1 DEM one 1

嘅 罷課， ge3 baa6fo3, GEN strike

以至 ji5zi3 as-to

到 佔領 嘅 行動 呢， 喺 發生 咗 件 大 事。 hang4dung6 ne1, hai6 faat3saang1 zo2 gin6 daai6 si6. dou3 zim3ling5 ge3 arrive occupation GEN action SFP COP happen PERF CL big issue

(Yet I cannot deny that it was a remarkable incident from the students’ strike that all of you have engaged in the occupation movement over the past month.) In the preceding examples, she positioned the textual voices as an overt agreement with the HKFS and the general public with respect to the Umbrella Movement. Semantically, her selection of concurrence not only minimized the interpersonal distance between HKFS representatives and HKSAR representatives – the two opposing parties in the meeting – but also

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  153 contributed to a reconciliation of HKSAR representatives, HKFS representatives, supporters of the movement and the general public, thereby establishing a sense of solidarity in this movement. In responding to the political argument postulated by HKFS representatives and supporters of the movement, it was found that Carrie Lam chose to disalign herself from them by disclaiming HKFS’s challenges and distancing herself from the countering notions such as ‘civic nomination’, ‘real universal suffrage’ and ‘right to vote’. She disaligned herself from HKFS’s counter notion through [DISCLAIM: deny] as in Examples 5.36–5.37. Apart from [DISCLAIM: deny], she made frequent selection of [ATTRIBUTE: distance] as in Example 5.38 and Example 5.39. [5.36–5.37]

至於 公民 提名， 我哋 有 咩 回應 呢？ 哩 Zi3jyu1 gung1man4 tai4ming4, ngo5 dei6 jau5 me1 wui4jing3 ne1? Lei1 as-for citizen nomination 1PL EXIST what response SFP DEM 個 要 睇 循 個 個 法律， 同埋 政治 上 呢， go2 go3 faat3leot6, tung4maai4 zing3zi6 soeng6 ne1, go3 jiu3 tai2 ceon4 CL MOD see following DEM CL law as-well-as politics upon SFP 都

係

不

可行

嘅。

dou1 all

hai6 COP

bat1 NEG

ho2-hang4 feasible

ge3. SFP

(Then what response do we have regarding the civil nomination? It is not feasible from both the legal and the political point of view.) As the preceding example shows, Carrie Lam’s denial is ‘maximally contractive’ in which she positioned her textual voice as an opposition to HKFS’s political notion. Heteroglossically, her denial indicates a disaligment with HKFS’s political arguments and at the same time suggests an alignment with those addressees who share the same constitutional arguments. [5.38] 等如

剛才

Dang2jyu4 Equal 期

gong1coi4 just

之後，

呀 ALEX 提 aa3 ALEX tai4 PRT Alex mention

冇

zi1hau6, mou5 kei4 period after not-have

錯，

喺

有

到，

有

喺

諮詢

dou3, jau5 hai2 zi1seon1 arrive EXIST at consultation 一

個 六月

co3, hai6 jau5 jat1 go3 luk6-jyut6 wrong COP EXIST one CL June

二十二 ji6-sap6-ji6 22nd

號 嘅 所謂 嘅 公投， 但 冇 幾 耐 之後 呢， gung1-tau4, daan6 mou5 gei2 noi6 zi1hau6 ne1, hou6 ge3 so2wai6 ge3 day GEN so-called GEN public-election but not-have how long after SFP

154  Approaching political discourse from around 亦都 有 一 個 以 百萬 jik6dou1 jau5 jat1 go3 ji5 baak3-maan6 also EXIST one CL PRT 1,000,000 運動， wan6dung6, campaign

提 tai4 propose

出 ceot1 out

另 ling6 other

計 人 簽名 gai3 jan4 cim1meng2 count person sign

一 jat1 one

種 zung2 CL

嘅 ge3 GEN

嘅 ge3 GEN

睇法。 tai2faat3. perspective

(Similarly, as Alex has mentioned just now, there was exactly so-called public voting on 22 June after the consultation period. Yet very soon there was also a movement in which millions of people signed and suggested another point of view.) [5.39]

至於

所謂

嘅

Zi3jyu1 so2wai6 As-for so-called

平等

嘅

ge3 ping4dang2 GEN equal

選舉

權，

ge3 syun2geoi2 GEN election

聽 錯 咗， 行政長官 Nathan 可能 Nathan ho2nang4 ting3 co3 zo2, Hang4Zing3-Zoeng2Gun1 Nathan MOD listen wrong PERF Chief-Executive 個

我

諗

呀

kyun4, ngo5 lam2 aa3 right 1SG think PRT

話

收入

少於

某

一

waa6 say

sau1jap6 income

siu2jyu1 less-than

mau5 some

jat1 go3 ngan4maa5 one CL amount

銀碼

喺

無

hai6 mou5 COP NEG-have

嘅

人

呢，

ge3 GEN

jan4 person

ne1, SFP

唔 應該 有 選舉 權。 所以 喺 今次 做 到 喺 hai6 m4 jing3goi1 jau5 syun2geoi2 kyun4. So2ji5 hai2 gam1-ci3 zou6 dou3 COP NEG MOD EXIST election right therefore at this-time do arrive 普選

行政長官

呢， 五百萬

合

pou2syun2 universal-suffrage

Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1 Chief-Executive

ne1, ng5baak3maan6 SFP five-million

hap6 zi1gaak3 meet qualification

嘅

人

呢， 就

ge3 jan4 ne1, GEN person SFP 權

呢， 係

係

一

人

一

票， 哩

資格

個 選舉

zau6 hai6 jat1 jan4 jat1 piu3, lei1 go3 syun2geoi2 EMPH COP one person one vote DEM CL election

普及

同埋

平等

嘅， 哩

個 亦都

係

go3 jik6dou1 hai6 kyun4 ne1, hai6 pou2kap6 tung4maai4 ping4dang2 ge3, lei1 right SFP COP general as-well-as equal SFP DEN CL also COP 好

多

人

時常

掛喺口邊

hou2 do1 jan4 si4soeng4 gwaa3-hai2-hau2-bin1 very many person often hang-at-mouth-side

嘅

國際

嘅

標準。

ge3 gwok3zai3 ge3 biu1zeon2. GEN international GEN standard

(Regarding the so-called equal right of election, I think Nathan may have misheard. The Chief Executive did not say that people with an income

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  155 below a certain amount should not have the right of election. Therefore, the realization of the right of election that the 5 million eligible people can universally elect the Chief Executive by one person one vote this time is universal and equal. It is also the international standard that many people often keep mentioning.) Through acknowledging/sourcing the proposition of ‘right to vote’ and ‘nomination’ with unspecified external sources and a framing device, Carrie Lam presented her authorial voice as an explicit distancing from these notions. Heteroglossically, her distancing not only opened up rhetorical space for those who shared the alternative views of ‘right-to-vote’ and ‘civic nomination’, but also disaligned herself from these notions, which indirectly aligned the general public towards her particular authorial voice/value position regarding the 2017 CE election. In aligning the HKFS representatives and Occupy Central supporters, it was found that Carrie Lam, across the meeting, chose to align HKFS and Occupy Central supporters with the government viewpoint through two distinctive strategies: [PROCLAIM: pronounce] as in Examples 5.40–5.41 and [PROCLAIM: concur: affirm]. Across the meeting, it was found that Carrie Lam made frequent selection of [PROCLAIM: pronounce] to align HKFS with the government viewpoint of constitutional reform as in Examples 5.40–5.41. Here, she maximizes her authorial investment towards the government constitutional reform through overt interpolation as in ‘我想喺呢度作出一個嘅表明 . . .’. Ngo5 soeng2 hai2 ni1dou6 zok3ceot1 jat1 go3 ge3 biu2ming (I would like to state clearly here) which, in a semantic sense, represents her textual voice regarding the government constitutional reform as highly warrantable. In a heteroglossic point of view, such an explicit authorial emphasis and interpolation closes up the rhetorical space of HKFS and their supporters to postulate their alternative positioning, thereby aligning them with Carrie Lam’s authorial voice. [5.40–5.41] 我

想 喺 呢度 作出 一 個 嘅 表明， 其實 2 2 1 6 3 1 1 3 3 2 4 Ngo soeng hai ni dou zok ceot jat go ge biu ming , kei4sat6 1GS want at here make one CL GEN statement actually 5

就住 八月 三十一 日 嘅 決定， 裡邊 雖然 zau6zyu6 baat3jyut6 saam1sap6jat1 jat6 ge3 kyut3ding6, leoi5bin6 seoi1jin4 based-on August thirty-first day GEN decision inside although 係 設 左 一 啲 嘅 限制， 但 係 呢 啲 zo2 jat1 di1 ge3 haan6zai3, daan6 hai6 ni1 di1 hai6 cit3 COP set-up PERF one CL GEN limitation but COP DEM CL 限制 唔 會 係 永遠 適用 㗎。 特區 6 3 4 5 6 5 5 1 6 haan zai m wui hai wing jyun sik jung gaa3. Dak6keoi1 limitation NEG MOD COP forever applicable SFP SAR

156  Approaching political discourse from around 政府 都 唔 止 一 次 講 咗 嘑。 呢 個 m4 zi2 jat1 ci3 gong2 zo2 laa3. Ni1 go3 zing3fu2 dou1 gov’t already NEG only one CL speak PERF SFP DEM CL 理解， 換 句 話 說 係 永遠 適用， lei5gaai2, wun6 geoi3 waa6 syut3 hai6 wing5jyun5 sik1jung6, understanding change CL utterance speak COP forever applicable 呢 ni1 DEM

個 go3 CL

理解 lei5gaai2 understanding

呢， ne1, SFP

係 hai6 COP

錯誤 co3ng6 wrong

㗎。 gaa3. SFP

(I would like to state clearly here although some limitations are set in the 8/31 decision, those limitations are not permanently applicable. The SAR government has not said for only the first time that understanding, that is their permanent applicability in other words, is wrong.) It was also found that Carrie Lam made a deliberate selection of [PROCLAIM: concur: affirm] to align HKFS with the government viewpoint of constitutional reform as shown in Example 5.42, which is lexicogrammatically realized by an affirmation formulation as in 大家都知道嘑 Daai6gaa1 dou1 zi1dou6 laa3 (We all know that . . . /obviously) or rhetorical question 哩個唔喺一大 步嘅民主進程咩 lei1 go3 m4 hai2 jat1 daai6 bou6 ge3 man4 zyu2 zeon3 cing4 me1 (Isn’t it a big leap forward in democracy?). The semantic enactment by Carrie Lam suggests that her authorial voice regarding constitutional reform is compelling, commonsensical and taken for granted. Heteroglossically speaking, it minimizes the rhetorical space for dialogistic positioning, thereby aligning HKFS representatives and the general public with the government viewpoint of constitutional reform. 都 知道 嘑， 基本法 頒布 咗 [5.42] 大家 zo2 Daai6gaa1 dou1 zi1dou6 laa3, Gei1Bun2Faat3 baan1bou3 everybody all know SFP Basic-Law promulgate PERF 超過 廿四 年， 喺 回歸 之後 都 行 咗 十七 ciu1gwo3 jaa6-sei3 nin4, hai2 wui4gwai1 zi1hau6 dou1 hang4 zo2 sap6-cat1 over 24 year at handover after also walk PERF 17 年， 喺 保障 咗 我哋 享有 我哋 各 種 嘅 nin4, hai6 bou2zoeng3 zo2 ngo5dei6 hoeng2jau5 ngo5dei6 gok3 zung2 ge3 year COP protect PERF 1PL enjoy 1PL each CL GEN 權利， 亦都 保障 咗 香港 呢 可以 繼續 kyun4lei6, jik6dou1 bou2zoeng3 zo2 Hoeng1Gong2 ne1 ho2ji5 gai3zuk6 rights also protect PERF Hong-Kong SFP MOD continue

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  157 繁榮 faan4wing4 prosperous

穩定。 wan2ding6. stable

(Everyone knows that the Basic Law has been in effect for over 24 years. It has been in effect for 17 years since the handover. It has guaranteed that we enjoy all kinds of rights and has guaranteed that Hong Kong can remain prosperous and stable.)

5.5 The use of graduation resources in political discourse GRADUATION is the system for a speaker/writer to intensify or weaken the strength of the opinions he or she expresses. It concerns gradeability, that is, to scale up or scale down the degree of the attitudinal meanings specified in ATTITUDE and ENGAGEMENT. GRADUATION operates in two axes of scalability, entailing the sub-systems of FOCUS and FORCE.

5.5.1 Up-scaling and down-scaling UP-SCALING of the graduated attitude acts to construe the appraiser as maximally committed to the value position being advanced. By contrast, DOWNSCALING frequently has the opposite effect of construing the appraiser as having only a partial or an attenuated affiliation with the value position being referenced. In other words, the notions of UP-SCALING and DOWNSCALING are associated with how strongly committed the appraiser is to the proposition. Whereas UP-SCALING has a sharpening effect on the appraiser’s tone, DOWN-SCALING acts to soften it.

5.5.2 Focus FOCUS involves GRADUATION according to prototypicality, that is, ‘by reference to the degree to which they [the entities concerned] match some supposed core or exemplary instance of a semantic category’ (Martin & White, 2005, p. 137). When something or someone is prototypical, that entity is a typical example of a type of person or thing, and it is hard to find another entity to compare with it. The gradeability is concerned with the either-or, non-scalable and clear-bounded categories where their prototypicality and preciseness are indicated and scaled along the cline of prototypicality. The upscaling of prototypicality is termed SHARPEN as in Example 5.43, whereas the down-scaling is SOFTEN as in Example 5.44. In Example 5.43, the modifier ‘唯一嘅’ wai4jat1 ge3 (sole) suggests an either-or extreme: either to discuss the political reform or to cancel the conversation. Through this, Carrie Lam up-scales or sharpens the ‘discussion topic’, making it so typical that there are no other possibilities and it is almost impossible to find other options to

158  Approaching political discourse from around compare with this irreplaceable topic. Conversely, in Example 5.44, the entity ‘輸或者贏’ syu1 waak6ze2 jeng4 (wins or losses) does not suggest any attitudinal components. However, Carrie Lam appears to soften the tone by employing the modifier ‘所謂嘅’ so2wai6 ge3 (so-called), making the consequences less typical.

(focus: sharpen/up-scale) [5.43]

學聯 嘅 同學 呢 喺 十月 二號 傍晚 嘅 tung4hok6 le1 hai2 sap6-jyut6 ji6-hou6 pong4maan5 ge3 Hok6Lyun4 ge3 HKFS GEN student SFP at October 2nd-day evening GEN 時候 發 出 咗 一 封 嘅 公開信， 畀 我 嘅， 4 6 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 si hau faat ceot zo jat fung ge gung hoi soen , bei2 ngo5 ge3, time issue out PERF one CL GEN open-letter give 1SG SFP 要求 呢 同 我 進行 對話， 提議 喺 以 政改 jiu1kau4 le1 tung4 ngo5 zeon3hang4 deoi3waa6, tai4ji5 hai6 ji5 zing3goi2 request SFP with 1SG progress dialogue propose COP as political-reform 為 wai4 COP

唯一 wai4jat1 only

嘅 ge3 GEN

議題。 ji5tai4. discussion-topic

(In the evening on 2 October, students from HKFS issued me an open letter, requesting a dialogue with me and proposing constitutional development as the only issue for discussion.)

(focus: soften/down-scale) 唔 喺 一 個 辯論 比賽， 所以 應該 [5.44] 今日 Gam1jat6 m4 hai6 jat1 go3 bin6leon6 bei2coi3, so2ji5 jing1goi1 today NEG COP one CL debate competition therefore MOD 喺 hai6 COP

無 mou4 NEG-have

所謂 so2wai6 so-called

輸 syu1 loss

或者 waak6ze2 or

贏 jeng4 victory

嘅。 ge3. SFP

(We are not having a debate competition today, so there should not be anything that is a so-called loss or victory.) Table 5.6 tabulates Carrie Lam’s linguistic choice in FOCUS. It is obvious that Lam resorted to an up-scale strategy, indicating that she intended to show that she was strongly committed to her propositions in the meeting, comparatively stronger than in the debate. Her down-scaled evaluation in discourse revealed her uncertainties in the debate in comparison with her discourse in the meeting.

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  159 Table 5.6  Carrie Lam’s linguistic choice in FOCUS GRADUATION FOCUS

Meeting

Debate

UP-SCALE

302 (95.57%)

329 (89.40%)

DOWN-SCALE

  14 (4.43%)

  39 (10.60%)

316 (100%)

368 (100%)

Total

5.5.3 Force FORCE helps the appraisers modulate the impact of what they say and adjust how strong or weak the feeling is. The realizations of the FORCE resources are generally gradable and scalable. In other words, the FORCE of the entity is able to operate within a continuous scale, a continuum. It interacts with ATTITUDE to either increase or decrease the ‘volume’ of that attitude. FORCE is further divided into INTENSIFICATION and QUANTIFICATION. At the same time, both further entail a selection between the modes of ISOLATION and INFUSION. INTENSIFICATION is particularly concerned with the assessment of degree of intensity, and the intensity is gradable and scalable. The grading applies to a QUALITY (e.g., slightly sad) or to a PROCESS (e.g., greatly disturbed me). Some linguistic realizations of INTENSIFICATION (both QUALITY and PROCESS) may include adverbs of degree such as ‘a bit’, ‘somewhat’, ‘relatively’, ‘rather’, ‘very’, ‘extremely’ and ‘utterly’; reflexive pronouns when their use is optional; and comparative and superlative forms or constructions with adjectives.

5.5.3.1 Intensification: isolating and infusing ISOLATION denotes that the scaling is realized by an isolated, individual item which merely performs the function of gradeability. The isolated modifiers collocate with another ‘head’ that they are grading or intensifying. In other words, the meaning of the words chosen together is different from their independent original meanings when they coexist with other words. The combination of two lexemes forms a third meaning, which may be further sharpened or softened. The sharpening or softening forces are realized twice in the same event. Hence, the forces can be very explicit because of the compounding of two or more sharpening and softening lexemes together, and the realizations are usually the marked ones.

(intensification: process: isolating: up-scaled) [5.45]

咁

所以

Gam2 so2ji5 as-such therefore

我哋

喺

好

難

ngo5dei6 hai6 hou2 naan4 1PL COP very difficult

接受

各

位

對

zip3sau6 gok3 wai2 deoi3 accept every CL towards

160  Approaching political discourse from around 我哋 ngo5dei6 1PL

嘅 ge3 GEN

指控， zi2hung3, accusation

行政長官 Hang4Zing3-Zoeng2Gun1 Chief-Executive

話 waa6 say

喺 hai6 COP

因為 jan1wai6 because

我哋 ngo5dei6 1PL

同 tung4 as-well-as

呢， 喺 交 咗 一 個 片面， 或者 ne1, hai6 gaau1 zo2 jat1 go3 pin3min6, waak6ze2 SFP COP submit PERF one CL one-side or

喺 誤導 嘅 報告 而 令 到 全國人大常委會 bou3gou3, ji4 ling6 dou3 Cyun4Gwok3Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2Wui2 hai6 ng6dou6 ge3 COP mislead GEN report thus make arrive NPCSC 呢， ne1, SFP

喺 hai6 COP

作出 zok3ceot1 make

咗 zo2 PERF

哩 lei1 DEM

一 jat1 one

個 go3 CL

決定。 kyut3ding6. decision

(Therefore, it is very difficult for us to accept the charge that you filed against us, saying that we have submitted a one-sided or a misleading report with the Chief Executive to make the NPCSC come to this decision.)

(intensification: process: isolating: down-scaled) [5.46] 我

亦都

希望

能夠

藉

呢

次 嘅

對話

呢， 能夠

li1 ci3 ge3 deoi3waa6 le1 nang4gau3 Ngo5 jik6dou1 hei1mong6 nang4gau3 zik6 1SG also hope MOD borrow DEM CL GEN dialogue SFP MOD 稍為 緩和 而家 社會 上 喺 比較 緊張 嘅 gan2zoeng1 ge3 saau2wai4 wun6wo4 ji4gaa1 se5wui2 soeng6 hai6 bei2gaau3 slightly ease now society above COP comparatively tense GEN



氣氛。 hei3fan1. atmosphere

(Through this dialogue, I also hope that we can ease the atmosphere which is rather tense in our society now.)

(intensification: quality: isolating: up-scaled) [5.47] 我哋

大家

都

喺

熱愛 香港

嘅， 對

香港

呢

個

go3 Ngo dei daai gaa dou hai jit oi Hoeng Gong ge , deoi Hoeng Gong ni 1PL everybody all COP love Hong-Kong SFP to Hong-Kong DEM CL 5

家

6

嘅

6

1

未來

1

6

6

發展

mei6loi4 faat3zin2 gaa1 ge3 home GEN future development

3

喺

1

充滿

2

3

3

熱誠，

1

當然

2

1

希望

hai6 cung1mun5 jit6sing4, dong1jin4 hei1mong6 COP fill-full sincerity certainly hope

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  161 香港 Hoeng1Gong2 Hong-Kong 嘅 ge3 GEN

成為 sing4wai4 become

一 個 更加 jat1 go3 gang3gaa1 one CL more

民主， man4zyu2, democratic

更加 gang3gaa1 more

進步 zeon3bou6 improved

地方 . . . dei6fong1 . . . place

(We all cherish Hong Kong indeed. We are full of passion for the future development of our home Hong Kong. We certainly hope that Hong Kong will become a more democratic and progressive place.)

(intensification: quality: isolating: down-scaled) 所以 某 程度 上， 你 可以 話 呢， 我哋 [5.48] 咁 2 2 5 5 4 6 Gam so ji mau cing dou soeng6, nei5 ho2ji5 waa6 ne1, ngo5dei6 As-such therefore some extent upon 2SG MOD say SFP 1PL 亦都 喺 認為， 佢 對於 日後 嘅 香港 嘅 jik6dou1 hai6 jing6wai4, keoi5 deoi3jyu1 jat6hau6 ge3 Hoeng1Gong2 ge3 also COP consider 3SG towards future GEN Hong-Kong GEN 政制 嘅 發展 呢， 喺 有 一 個 啫喺 幾 zing3zai3 ge3 faat3zin2 ne1, hai6 jau5 jat1 go3 ze1-hai6 gei2 political GEN development SFP COP EXIST one CL that-is quite 好 嘅 參考 嘅 價值。 hou2 ge3 cam1haau2 ge3 gaa3zik6. good GEN reference GEN value (Therefore, to a certain extent, you can say that we also think it has a rather good referential value for Hong Kong’s constitutional development in the future.) The previous isolating resources suggest a double realization of the sharpening/softening effect. For example, in Example 5.45, the word ‘難’ naan4 (difficult) already conveys a sharpening force. The pre-modifying adverb ‘好’ hou2 (very) further strengthens the force. The verb phrase in Example 5.46 simply suggests a weakening force. Even though the verb ‘緩和’ wun6wo4 (lessen) points to a softening end, the modifier ‘稍為’ saau2wai4 (slightly) acts to adjust the degree of lessening. The combination of the two words creates another sense in addition to their inherent meanings. Instances in Example 5.47 and Example 5.48 concern the qualities of the entities. In Example 5.47, the quality of the place is depicted through two comparatives that are already comparable or gradable when used as adjectives themselves. The adverb ‘幾’ gei2 (rather, quite)

162  Approaching political discourse from around in Example 5.48 appears to turn down the degree of the adjective ‘好’ hou2 (good) it modifies. INFUSION refers to the realization that the scaling is ‘infused with a meaning which serves some other semantic functions’ (Martin & White, 2005, p. 141). The resources can be realized at two levels. Firstly, there is no need for the ‘infuser’ to co-occur with other attitudinal lexemes, and the ‘infuser’ itself already tells whether the scaling is sharpened or softened. The realization of infusing resources is the single use of an attitudinal term and does not carry any gradable pre-modifiers. Secondly, it is also possible that the infusing resource is used solely as a sharpening/softening pre-modifier of its following ‘head’. Hence, the force being conveyed may not be as explicit as that of isolating, because the realizations are sometimes unmarked.

(intensification: quality: infusing: up-scaled) [5.49] 今日

能夠

喺

哩度

同

學聯

進行，

就嚟

兩

小時

Gam jat nang gau hai lei dou tung Hok Lyun zeon hang , zau lai loeng siu2si4 Today MOD at here with HKFS progress almost two hour 1

6

4

3

2

1

6

4

3

4

3

4

6

4

5

嘅 交流 嘅 對話 呢， 我 覺得， 對 我哋 嚟 講， gaau1lau4 ge3 deoi3waa6 ne1, ngo5 gok3dak1, deoi3 ngo5dei6 lai4 gong2, ge3 GEN exchange GEN dialogue SFP 1SG think to 1PL come say 我 希望 各 位 同學 都 會 有 啲 感覺 呢， di1 gam2gok3 ne1, ngo5 hei1mong6 gok3 wai2 tung4hok6 dou1 wui5 jau5 1SG hope every CL student all MOD EXIST CL feeling SFP 都 係 一 個 有 jat1 go3 jau5 dou1 hai6 all COP one CL EXIST

建設性， gin3cit3sing3, constructiveness

有 jau5 EXIST

意義 ji3ji6 meaningful

嘅。 ge3. SFP

(Today we can have a dialogue of almost two hours with the HKFS representatives here. I think, for us, in my opinion, I hope all students will have some feeling that it has been a constructive and meaningful one.)

(intensification: process: infusing: up-scaled) 同 特區 嘅 其他 幾 位 同事 今日 呢 [5.50] 我 Ngo5 tung4 Dak6Keoi1 ge3 kei4taa1 gei2 wai2 tung4si6 gam1jat6 le1 1SG with SAR GEN other few CL colleague today SFP 係 帶 住 誠意， 同 各 位 同學 會面。 hai6 daai3 zyu6 sing4ji3 tung4 gok3 wai2 tung4hok6 wui6min6. COP bring IMPERF sincerity with every CL student meet (With our sincerity, several other colleagues from the SAR and I have a meeting with all students today.)

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  163

(intensification: process: infusing: down-scaled) 位 學聯 嘅 同學， 我 先 或者 介紹 [5.51] 各 Gok3 wai2 Hok6lyun4 ge3 tung4hok6 ngo5 sin1 waak6ze2 gaai3siu6 Each CL HKFS GEN student 1SG first maybe introduce 我哋 今日 出席 嘅 同事 . . . 5 6 1 6 1 6 ngo dei gam jat ceot zik ge3 tung4si6 . . . 1PL today attend GEN colleague (Students from HKFS, perhaps I first introduce our colleagues who have attended today . . .) To discuss, the qualities embedded in Example 5.49 already suggest some sharpening forces through their inherent word meanings. They do not function as pre-modifiers of any words, nor are they modified by any preceding words. Examples 5.50 and 5.51 realize the intensification in another manner, in which the central verb phrases ‘同各位同學會面’ tung4 gok3 wai2 tung4hok6 wui6min6 (have a meeting with all students) and ‘介紹’ gaai3siu6 (introduce) are supposed to be neutral. Whether the force is sharpened or softened is conveyed by the antecedents ‘帶住誠意’ daai3 zyu6 sing4ji3 (with sincerity) and ‘或者’ waak6ze2 (perhaps) respectively. The forces are infused accordingly; however, while the former phrase bears an up-scaling force, the latter bears a down-scaling one.

5.5.3.2 Quantification: isolating and infusing QUANTIFICATION involves the assessments of amounts that apply to entities. The assessments provide the imprecise measuring of number (e.g., a few miles, many miles) as well as the imprecise measuring of size, weight, distribution or proximity. The concepts of ISOLATING and INFUSING in QUANTIFICATION are slightly different from those in INTENSIFICATION. QUANTIFICATION, according to Martin and White, is typically via an ISOLATED term acting as a modifier of the graduated entity. In other words, graduations in QUANTIFICATION are mostly realized by ISOLATED resources, which include common quantifying determiners, such as ‘many’ and ‘few’. In contrast, INFUSED quantifiers are less common and are generally realized by head nouns, such as ‘a crowd of party-goers’ or ‘a throng of people’.

(quantification: isolating: up-scaled) [5.52] 最近，

好 多 朋友 同 我 講， 就 我哋 聽 到 Zeoi3gan6, ngo5dei2 ting2 dou3 hou2 do1 pang4jau5 tung4 ngo5 gong2, zau6 Recent 1PL hear arrive very many friend with 1SG say EMPH 佢哋 話 好 擔心 waa6 keoi5dei6 hou2 daam1sam1 say 3PL very worry

香港 Hoeng1Gong2 Hong Kong

而家 個 現 況。 ji4gaa1 go3 jin6 fong3. now CL present situation

164  Approaching political discourse from around (Recently, I have heard many people telling me that they are very worried about the present situation of Hong Kong.)

(quantification: isolating: down-scaled) [5.53]

第一

呢 就

喺， 我哋

明白

八月

三十一

日 嘅，

hai6, ngo5dei6 ming4baak6 baat3jyut6 saam1sap6jat1 jat6 ge3, Dai6-jat1 ne1 zau6 First SFP EMPH COP 1PL understand August thirty-one day GEN 全國人大常委會 訂 出 嘅 框架， 可能 同 kwaang1gaa2, ho2nang4 tung4 Cyun4Gwok3Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2Wui2 deng6 ceot1 ge3 NPCSC set out GEN framework MOD with 某 啲 人士 佢 心目 中 嘅 普選 嘅 理想 呢， mau5 di1 jan4si6 keoi5 sam1muk6 zung1 ge3 pou2syun2 ge3 lei5soeng2 ne1, some CL person 3SG mind inside GEN universal-suffrage GEN aspiration SFP 喺 hai6 COP

有 jau5 EXIST

一 jat1 one

段 dyun6 CL

距離。 keoi5lei4. distance

(Firstly, we understand that for some people, the framework the NPCSC set on 31 August may be a bit far from the ideal universal suffrage in their mind.)

(quantification: infusing: up-scaled) [5.54] 大家

試

諗

下，

由

全

港

五百萬

合

ng5baak3maan6 hap6 Daai6gaa1 si3 lam2 haa5, jau4 cyun4 Gong2 Everybody try think ASP by whole Hong-Kong five-million meet 資格 zi1gaak3 qualification

選民 syun2man4 voter

一 人 一 票 直接 jat1 jan4 jat1 piu3 zik6zip3 one person one vote direct

選 呢 個 syun2 ni1 go3 vote DEM CL

行政長官， 無論 從 邊個 角度 睇 都 喺 tai2 dou1 hai6 Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1, mou4leon6 cung4 bin1go3 gok3dou6 Chief-Executive no-matter from which perspective see all COP 比 只 喺 一 個 一千二百 人 嘅 選舉 委員會 bei2 zi2 hai6 jat1 go3 jat1cin1ji6baak3 jan4 ge3 syun2geoi2 wai2jyun4wui2 compare only COP one CL 1,200 person GEN election committee 去 選 個 行政長官 呢， 喺 要 民主， 喺 要 man4zyu2, hai6 jiu3 heoi3 syun2 go3 Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1 ne1, hai6 jiu3 go vote CL Chief-Executive SFP COP MOD democracy COP MOD 進步 zeon3bou6 improve

得 dak1 PRT

多 do1 many

嘅 . . . ge3 . . . SFP

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  165 (Let’s think about this. A Chief Executive elected by 5 million eligible voters through ‘one person, one vote’ is far more democratic and progressive than that by an election committee with 1,200 voters in whichever aspects.) The preceding three instances all concern numbers, yet they are realized differently. In Example 5.52, the quantity is introduced by a traditional quantifying determiner ‘好多’ hou2 do1 (many). In Example 5.53, the determiner ‘某啲’ mau5 di1 (certain, some) is also an isolated quantifier, but it reveals another effect. Carrie Lam does not explicitly say that the number was small. Instead of saying ‘少數人士’ siu2 sou3 jan4 si6 (a few people), she softens the force by making the quantity vague. Expressions such as ‘有人認為’ jau5 jan4 jing6 wai4 (some people think) convey the same effect. In Example 5.54, whether the number is big or small is depicted by noun phrases. Carrie Lam spells out the exact number of people: 5 million means a large group while 1,200 only suggests a small number. The system network of GRADUATION can be summarized as shown in Figure 5.4. Table 5.7 tabulates Carrie Lam’s linguistic choice in FORCE. Similar to her choice in FOCUS, Lam resorted to an up-scale strategy comparatively more often in the meeting (79.23%) than in the debate (70.70%). In other words, during the meeting with HKFS representatives, most of the time she was very confident and certain about what she was saying, without much hesitation.

QUANTIFICATION

quality FORCE

INTENSIFICATION

process isolating infusing FOCUS up-scale down-scale

Figure 5.4  System network of GRADUATION

166  Approaching political discourse from around Table 5.7  Carrie Lam’s linguistic choice in FORCE GRADUATION

Meeting

Debate

FORCE

QUANTIFI­ ISOLATING up-scale   62 (14.98%)   42 (10.17%) CATION down-scale   31 (7.49%)   31 (7.51%) INFUSING

up-scale

  14 (3.38%)

  8 (1.94%)

down-scale   0 (0.00%)

  3 (0.73%)

INTENSIFI­ ISOLATING up-scale   66 (15.94%)   63 (15.25%) CATION down-scale   5 (1.21%)   14 (3.39%) INFUSING

up-scale

186 (44.93%) 179 (43.34%)

down-scale   50 (12.08%)   73 (17.68%) Total

414 (100%)

413 (100%)

Facing the accusations, criticisms and challenges from the students, still she was able to maintain her self-confidence in front of them. In contrast, she revealed her uncertainties in the debate. In the APPRAISAL theory, the systems of GRADUATION and ATTITUDE are in fact very closely related to each other. This is because whereas ATTITUDE addresses whether the evaluations are positive or negative, GRADUATION further answers the question of how positive/negative these evaluations are, i.e., how they are up-scaled or down-scaled. Under GRADUATION, a positive evaluation can be further up-scaled or down-scaled; so can a negative one. An up-scaled focus even has an emphasizing effect, allowing the appraiser to refer to a particular group of entities. Conversely, a down-scaled focus tends to achieve the opposite effect to make the entity less specific. A major pattern which can be observed throughout the speech transcript is that Carrie Lam up-scaled her evaluations much more often. This was unanimous regardless of whether she was evaluating the quantity, quality, process or prototypicality of the entities. An up-scaled evaluation means that the appraiser is strongly committed to his or her propositions, whereas a down-scaled evaluation in discourse may reveal the speaker/writer’s uncertainties. To conclude, being the Chief Secretary for Administration of the HKSAR government and the head of the three members of the Task Force on Constitutional Development, Carrie Lam had to defend the 31 August political framework and the position of the HKSAR government. As mentioned in Chapter 2, her political agenda in this televised meeting with the student representatives of the Umbrella Movement was to legitimize (the proposed method of CE selection in 2017) and to persuade (the protesters to leave the protest sites). It is a matter of linguistic choices. To legitimize (the proposed method of CE selection in 2017), Carrie Lam chose to encode her support in the linguistic resources of JUDGEMENT. To persuade (the protesters to leave the protest sites), she avoided being overtly critical of the student representatives and street occupants, but she chose to encode her criticism in the linguistic resources of

Appraisal analysis of political discourse  167 APPRECIATION. In addition, to persuade (the protesters to leave the protest sites), her monoglossic expressions were limited to important issues such as the publication of the Basic Law, the real meaning of democracy, the intention of the HKSAR government, the preparation for this meeting, etc. Instead, she preferred heteroglossic expressions. However, being the Chief Secretary for Administration of the HKSAR government, she chose ‘HETEROGLOSSIC: contract’ to disallow any opposing opinion on the topics of the authorial powers and standards such as ‘law and order’ and ‘decisions of the central government’. However, if the topics were related to the student representatives, public opinions, government performance, etc., she intended to appear to be more talkative to establish an open-minded, welcoming and friendly image for the officials by the choice of ‘HETEROGLOSSIC: expand’. As for her own image, through her linguistic choice of GRADUATION, she intended to build a strong image of being very confident and certain on her assertions. In a nutshell, Carrie Lam intended to achieve her political agenda and to build her political image through a series of choices among the linguistic resources of APPRAISAL.

Part III

Approaching political discourse from below (lexicogrammatical parameters)

6

Self-identity and personal references in political discourse

6.1 Introduction Political activity is mainly built of and around words, and it is essentially an effort to both express and defend identity (Parker, 1994). Identity-based political activity, in contrast, aims for social recognition and inclusion, and social divisions and exclusion (Yunespour, 2011). In other words, political discourse is self-regarding – the construction and presentation of individual self and/or collective self, and by the same process, the differentiation and exclusion of the other or other’s self. From a poststructuralist perspective in social sciences, identity can be defined as ‘who we are’. The process of self-identification is, in fact, a dual process of defining the ‘one who is’ by finding the ‘sameness’ of individuals through the membership of a particular community, and by differentiating the ‘one who is not’, i.e., the ‘we’ group versus the ‘you’ group. Chapter 4 Semantic discourse analysis of political discourse examined the association of political moves and political acts in the political discourse between the government officials of HKSAR and the student representatives of HKFS in a televised meeting during the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong. In the political acts, claiming membership and differentiating ‘otherness’ were realized by the textual references of first personal plural pronoun ‘we’ and second person pronoun ‘you’ respectively. In addition, it also explored how a political actor in the televised meeting – a student representative of HKFS, Nathan Law – combined several political acts, which include ‘claiming of membership’ and ‘differentiating otherness’, to realize the political move of ‘reproaching the proposed method of CE election in 2017’. From the post-modernist perspective in social sciences, one’s identity can be fragmented, incoherent and even contradictory. There can be many facets; Kiesling (2006, p. 263) describes identity as ‘about conveying to one another what kind of people we are; which geographical, ethnic, social communities we belong to; where we stand in relation to ethical and moral questions; or where our loyalties are in political terms’. Since the televised meeting was a complicated political event in which both groups consisted of five political actors, each political actor had his or her own institutional role; and being a televised event, there was the audience, which included the Hong Kong populace as well as the

172  Approaching political discourse from below pro-democratic parties and pro-establishment parties, the Hong Kong and Chinese government officials. This chapter will specifically explore how the individual government officials and student representatives expressed their collective self through the semiotic scope of referents when they employed the first person pronoun ‘we’ in their discourse and how it was used to achieve various political functions.

6.2 A quantitative profile of the use of ‘we’ Pronouns have two principal functions in texts: that of indexing speaking roles and that of reference (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). In the speech role, the referent of the first personal singular pronoun refers to the speaker in both Chinese and English. However, the first personal plural pronoun ‘we’ can refer to either ‘speaker plus listener’, i.e., the inclusive ‘you and I together’, or ‘speaker plus other’, i.e., the exclusive ‘our group excluding you’ (Li, 1997, 2003, 2007). At the discourse level, the fuzziness of the range of referents of the personal reference ‘we’ in English is well observed (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). It has been exploited as a means to build co-operative involvement in meetings (Johnson, 1994), to manipulate texts and disguise agency (Wilson, 1990), to indicate distance or to create solidarity (Flowerdew, 1997a) and to distance oneself from responsibility (Lakoff, 1990). In Cantonese, the counterpart of ‘we’ is ngo5dei6 ‘我哋’. The number of ngo5dei6 ‘我哋’ (we) used by the individual government officials and student representatives and their frequency in number of occurrences divided by the number of clauses contributed by each individual actor in the meeting is tabulated in Table 6.1. There are at least three observations that stand out: first, of the three government officials, Carrie Lam employed the greatest number of ‘we’ while Alex Table 6.1  The frequency of ‘we’ per clause in the meeting No. of clauses Government officials

‘we’ per clause

Carrie Lam

678

113

16.67%

Rimsky Yuen

269

41

15.24%

Raymond Tam

315

47

14.92%

1,262

201

15.93%

Alex Chow

489

54

11.04%

Yvonne Leung

151

19

12.58%

Nathan Law

177

17

7.91%

Eason Chung

124

15

12.10%

Sub-total Student representatives

No. of ‘we’

159

40

25.16%

Sub-total

Lester Shum

1,100

145

13.18%

Total

2,362

346

14.65%

Self-identity and personal references  173 Chow employed the most of the five student representatives. Second, the three government officials employed more ‘we’ than did the five student representatives, 201 (15.93%) and 145 (13.18%) respectively. Third, the three government officials employed similar frequency, ranging only from 14.92% to 16.67%. In contrast, the five student representatives employed a wide range of frequency, ranging from 7.91% to 25.16%. The first observation is the result of their role in the meeting. Carrie Lam is Chief Secretary for Administration in the HKSAR government. She is also the head of the Task Force on Constitutional Development and represents the HKSAR government and heads the team of government officials who attended the meeting. Alex Chow is the Secretary General of HKFS. He is thus the leader of the student representatives. Both Carrie Lam and Alex Chow made the most contributions in the discourse by the number of clauses. Both the second and the third observations lead to our investigation to the function of ‘we’ in political discourse, which in turns leads to the exploration of the semiotic scope of referents in their use of ‘we’ as well as the role of each political actor in the two parties and their political agendas in the meeting.

6.3 The inclusive use of ‘we’ In Ward’s (2004, p. 282) study, he differentiates the speaker’s use of ‘we’ on a cline of listener inclusion from the most inclusive (speaker plus listener) to the most exclusive (speaker plus other-than-listener) as shown in Figure 6.1. From the right of the cline, we is the most inclusive, representing ‘speaker plus listener’. We infers inclusiveness but is vague. From the left, we is most exclusive, representing ‘speaker plus other’ but not the listener. We infers the exclusive we but invokes inclusiveness.

6.3.1 To form a bond and collaboration It is widely observed that the inclusive ‘we’, i.e., speaker + hearer(s), can be used as a political act to construct an ‘intimate’ tone which helps the formation of a bond between the speaker and the hearers (Wales, 1996). It can also be used to construct the hearers’ involvement because the reference ‘we’ implies that the proposition is being constructed by the collaboration of the speaker and the hearers (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik, 1985). In the following example, one of the government officials, Raymond Tam, uses ngo5dei6 我哋 ‘we’ to involve the student representatives to reach the same answer to his question. Most inclusive ==================================== Least inclusive we

we

we we

Figure 6.1  The inclusiveness of ‘we’ in English

174  Approaching political discourse from below [6.1]

咁



Gam2 gang3gaa1 jau5 daai6koi3 luk6-sing4-gei2 ge3 si5man4 ne1,



As-such even

EXIST approximate 60-something-percent GEN citizen SFP



嘅

認為，



ge3 sau6-fong2-ze2 jing6wai4, jyu4gwo2 dou3si4 hai2 ji6-ling4-jat1-cat1 nin4 jau5



GEN respondent



一 個 普選



jat1 go3 pou2syun2 ne1, keoi5dei6 dou1 wui5 syun2zaak6 heoi3 tau4piu3 gam2.



one CL universal-suffrage SFP 3PL

更加

有

受訪者

大概

think

六成幾

如果

嘅

到時

if

二零一七

喺

that-time at

呢， 佢哋

都

會

市民

年

2017

選擇

有

year EXIST 去

also will choose

呢，

go

投票

咁。

vote

such

(In addition, there are around 60% of more of the citizens or interviewees who think that if there is universal suffrage in 2017, they will also choose to vote.) [6.2] 咁

呢 個 係 一 個 首先 客觀 嘅 存在。 Gam2 ni1 go3 hai6 jat1 go3 sau2sin1 haak3gun1 ge3 cyun4zoi6. As-such DEM CL COP one CL first objective GEN existence



(Then first of all this is an objective existence.) [6.3]

所以



So2ji5 jyu4gwo2 ngo5dei6, heoi3 tou2leon6 lei1 go3 man6tai4 ge3 si4hau6,



Therefore if



講話



gong2waa6 man4-ji3, hai6 m4 hai6 deoi3 Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2 ge3 kyut3ding6,



say



係



hai6 m4 hai6 jat1-min6-dou2 ge3 zip3sau6 waak6ze2 m4 zip3sau6 ne1?



COP NEG COP one-side-tilted GEN accept or

如果

民意，

我哋， 1PL 係

去 go 唔

討論 discuss 係

對

哩

個

問題

係

一面倒

嘅

時候，

DEM CL question GEN time 人大常委

嘅

citizen-opinion COP NEG COP towards NPCSC 唔

嘅

接受

或者

決定，

GEN decision 唔

接受

呢?

NEG accept SFP

(Hence we discuss this issue and the public opinions; should we focus on whether it is a one-sided acceptance or non-acceptance of the NPCSC’s decision?)

6.3.2 To speak on behalf of the hearers ‘We’ can also be used to transmit the message that the proposition is accepted by the hearers so that the speaker can speak on behalf of the hearers (Wales, 1980). Let’s illustrate with the following example. Here, the Chief Secretary, Carrie Lam, argues that the 31 August Decision was a step forward in the democratization process in Hong Kong and uses ngo5dei6 ‘我哋’ ‘we’ as if the student representatives have accepted the decision.

Self-identity and personal references  175 [6.4] 馬上

要

面對

呢，就係

二零二零

年

嘅

立法會’



Maa5soeng6 jiu3 min6deoi3 ne1 ’zau6hai6 ji6-ling4-ji6-ling4 nin4 ge3 Lap6Faat3Wui2 ’



Immediately MOD face



全體



按住



on3zyu6 Hoeng1Gong2 sat6zai3 ge3 cing4fong3, se5wui2 ge3 man4-cing4,



according-to Hong-Kong actual GEN situation



民意，



man4-ji3, gok3 wai2 ge3 sou3kau4, ngo5dei6 jik6dou1 ho2ji5 zoi3ci3 taam3tou2



citizen-opinion every CL GEN appeal 1PL



二零二二



ji6-ling4-ji6-ji6 nin4 ge3 Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1 syun2geoi2 ge3 fong1faat3



2022



應該



jing1goi1 hai6 dim2 joeng2.

議員

SFP that-is

都

要

由

2020

普選

year GEN Legislative-Council 產生，

跟住

如果

cyun4tai2 ji5jyun4 dou1 jiu3 jau4 pou2syun2 caan2saang1 gan1zyu6 jyu4gwo2 entire

councillor all MOD from universal-suffrage produce

MOD

香港

各

年

實際

位

嘅

嘅

嘅

訴求，

情況，

我哋

行政長官

year GEN Chief-Executive 係

社會

嘅

then

if

民情，

society GEN citizen-situation 亦都 also

可以

再次

探討

MOD again explore

選舉 election

嘅

方法

GEN method

點樣。

COP how

(What we have to face instantly is the Legislative Council in 2020 in which all the councillors have to be generated through universal suffrage. After that, we can also discuss again what methods should be adopted for the Chief Executive election in 2022, according to Hong Kong’s real situation, the domestic situation and public opinion in society, and the appeals of everyone.) To both government officials and student representatives, the inclusive use of ‘we’ can function as a political strategy to achieve their explicated agendas respectively, i.e., to make use of this meeting to solve the problem at stake and as the open letter of HKFS claimed ‘to forge a road to a better tomorrow with the HKSAR government’. However, it must be also noted that the inclusive use of ‘we’ was not as often as the exclusive use of ‘we’ in the meeting.

6.4 The exclusive use of ‘we’ Johnson (1994, pp. 207–213) has noted that ‘[s]peakers use deixis to build co-operative involvement in meetings, and this is complex when more than one “community” is involved’. As mentioned, the political event in the present study is extremely complex because of its nature. Apart from the mediator,

176  Approaching political discourse from below there were two political groups, and each consisted of five political actors, five government officials of the HKSAR and five student representatives of HKFS. Furthermore, this political event was televised. In other words, the Hong Kong public, the pro-democratic parties, the pro-establishment parties, the Hong Kong government officials and the Chinese government officials all became third parties of this event. And the public is always the targeted audience in any political event. On this occasion, what is the political agenda of the government officials to exploit this opportunity to legitimize the proposed method of the CE election in 2017 and to persuade the protesters, who were also watching the televised meeting, to leave the protest sites. However, the student representatives intended to exploit this opportunity to publicly reproach the proposed election method and to demand a government response. In short, the discourses of both parties were not only targeting the other party in the meeting but also the various groups of audience. As a result, the inclusive use of ‘we’ was rather limited in comparison to the exclusive use of ‘we’. In the speeches of the government officials, there were only five inclusive uses of ‘we’ (2.49%) out of a total of 201 occurrences of ‘we’. In the speeches of the student representatives, there were 13 occurrences (8.97%) out of a total of 145 occurrences. It is obvious that the exclusive use of ‘we’ dominated the use of ‘we’ in the meeting. This is because the whole process of the meeting was televised, and as a result, each party had its own (hidden) agenda which led them to target the various audience groups more than the other party in the meeting. Ultimately, the original (or stated) purpose of the meeting as an occasion for discussion, as mentioned by Carrie Lam in her introductory remarks, had become a debate between the two parties. This is reflected in their exclusive use of ‘we’. This leads us to the examination of the exclusive use of ‘we’ in semiotic scope. It should be noted that the referents of ‘we’ employed by the government officials in the meeting are somewhat different from those of the student representatives. The semiotic scopes of referents of ngo5dei6 ‘我哋’ ‘we’ by the government officials and the student representatives are depicted in Figures 6.2 and 6.3 respectively. In both figures, the cline of inclusiveness of ‘we’ is shown in the horizontal arrows. The figure below the referents indicates the actual number of occurrences in the discourse, while the percentage inside the brackets indicates the percentage of a particular referent by the total number of occurrences. In each figure, apart from the cline of inclusiveness, there are some extended referents which can be considered the exclusive use of ‘we’, i.e., inclusion of the audience groups. For the government officials, the referents are extended in two directions. First, Hong Kong being a city of mainland China, the referents of ‘we’ by the government officials range from the Chinese government as in Example 6.5 by Carrie Lam, to the Chinese officials responsible for constitutional reform in Hong Kong, the HKSAR government as in Example 6.6, LegCo members, and finally the five government officials as in Example 6.8.

The speaker + particular student representatives 1(0.3%) Most inclusive (speaker + hearers) Student representatives

The five officials + the five student representatives 4(1.2%)

LegCo member 1(0.3%)

Figure 6.2  The referential space of ngo5dei6 ‘我哋’ by the government officials

HK people (in general) 33(9.9%) Most extended ‘we’ (Hong Kong society)

HK people (including student representatives + HKFS + public) 7(2.1%)

HKFS 0(0.0%)

The five officials + student representatives + public 4(1.2%) HK people (including student representatives + HKFS + protesters) 27(8.1%)

The three officials responsible for the constitutional reform 1(0.3%) Most exclusive (speaker plus) Government officials

The five officials 31(9.3%)

HK Govt 27(8.1%)

Most extended ‘we’ Hong Kong Government

The five officials + HK Govt 60(18.1%)

Chinese officials responsible for constitutional reform [13] 2(0.6%)

Chinese Government 2(0.6%)

HKFS 1(0.9%)

HK people (including HKFS and protesters) 1(0.9%)

HKFS + other protesters 2(1.7%)

Speaker + HKFS + protesters 8(6.8%)

The five student representatives + HKFS 15(12.8%)

The five student representatives 1(0.9%) Most exclusive (speaker plus) Student representatives

HKFS + protesters 2(1.7%)

Figure 6.3  The referential space of ngo5dei6 ‘我哋’ by the student representatives

HK people (in general) 44(37.6%) Most extended ‘we’ (Hong Kong society)

HK people (including five officials) 2(1.7%)

Speaker + the officials who are HKU graduates 9(7.7%) Most inclusive (speaker + hearers) Government officials

LegCo member 0(0.0%)

HKFS + protesters + public 35(29.9%)

Most extended ‘we’ (Hong Kong Government) 3(2.6%)

The five student representatives + the five officials 4(3.4%)

Chinese Government 0(0.0%)

Self-identity and personal references  179 [6.5]

而



Ji4 ngo5dei6 baat3-jyut6 saam1-sap6-jat1 hou6 ni1 go3 kyut3ding6 ne1, jik6dou1 hai6



And 1PL

August



行

民主



haang4 zo2 man4zyu2 ge3 jat1 daai6 bou6, ngo5dei6 ji4gaa1 ji5ging1 jau5 jat1 go3



walk



法定



faat3-ding6 ge3 kwaang1gaa2, zi2jiu3 ngo5dei6 hai2 lai4 gan2 ge3 dai6-ji6 leon4



in-law



嘅



ge3 gung1zung3 zi1seon1 leoi5bin6 ne1, zoeng1 go2 di1 geoi6tai2 ge3 noi6jung4,



GEN public



經過



ging1gwo3 tung4 se5wui2 ge3 tou2leon6 baai2 jap6 heoi3 ne1, hai2 ji6-ling4-jat1-cat1 nin4,



pass



我哋



ngo5dei6 zau6 ho2ji5 bei2 ng5-baak3-maan6 ge3 hap6 zi1gaak3 syun2man4 ne1,



1PL



一



jat1 jan4 jat1 piu3 heoi3 syun2 ni1 wai2 Hang4Zing3-Zoeng2Gun1.



one person one vote go vote DEM CL Chief-Executive

八月

我哋

咗

三十一

號

thirty-first 嘅

框架，

一 大

步， 我哋

公眾

我哋

裡面

社會

嘅

SFP PRT

討論

擺

入

with society GEN discussion put 就

可以 畀

in

五百萬

嘅

EMPH MOD give 5-million 人

一

票

去

嚟

at

呢， 將

consultation inside

同

呢， 亦都

喺

SFP also

已經

now

喺

as-long-as 1PL

諮詢

宜家

step 1PL

只要

GEN frame

個 決定

day DEM CL decision

PERF democracy GEN one big 嘅

呢

COP

有

一

個

already EXIST one CL

緊

嘅

第二 輪

come IMPERF GEN second round 個

具體

啲

DEM CL detail 去

內容，

嘅

GEN content

呢，喺 二零一七

年，

go SFP at 2017

year

合

呢，

資格

選民

GEN meet qualification voter

普

呢

位

SFP

行政長官。

(Our decision on 31 August is also a great step forward to democracy. We have a statutory framework now. As long as we include the concrete matter after having discussed with our society during the coming second round of public consultations, in 2017 we can let the 5 million eligible voters elect the Chief Executive in the one-person-one-vote universal suffrage.)

[6.6]

我



Ngo5 jau5 siu2-siu2 wui4jing3 ze1. Zau6 jan1wai6 aa3 Yvonne tung4maai4 aa3 Alex



1SG EXIST little



都



dou1 tai4 dou3, ze1-hai6 waa6 hai2 go3 zi1seon1 bou3gou3 ge3 leoi5bin6 ne1,



all mention arrive that-is say



我哋



ngo5dei6 hou2ci5 hai6 jau5 jan5dou6-sing3 gam2, waa6 bei2



1PL

有

提

少少

回應

因為

respond SFP FILL because

到， 啫喺

好似

啫。 就

喺

話

喺 at 有

個

呀 Yvonne 同埋

呀 Alex

PRT Yvonne as-well-as

諮詢

報告

CL consultation report 引導性

seemingly COP EXIST leading

咁，

嘅

PRT Alex

裡面

呢，

GEN inside 話

such say

SFP 畀 give

180  Approaching political discourse from below

全國人大常委會



Cyun4Ggwok3Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2Wui2 teng1 ne1, go3 zyu2-lau4 ge3 ji3gin3 ne1



NPCSC

聽

呢， 個 主流

嘅

意見

呢

listen SFP CL main-stream GEN opinion SFP

係 行政長官 嘅 候選人 呢， 喺 兩 至 三 人。 hau6-syun2-jan4 ne1, hai6 loeng5 zi3 saam1 jan4. hai6 Hang4Zing3-Zoeng2Gun1 ge3 COP Chief-Executive GEN candidate SFP COP two to three person 咁 哩度 必需 lei1dou6 bit1seoi1 Gam2 As-such here necessarily

要 澄清 jiu3 cing4cing1 MOD clarify

嘅。 至於 公民 ge3. Zi3jyu1 gung1man4 SFP As-for citizen

我哋 ngo5dei6

有 jau5

咩 me1

回應 wui4jing3

呢？ ne1?

1PL

EXIST

what

response

SFP

提名， tai4ming4, nomination

(I respond a bit, since both Yvonne and Alex have mentioned that in the consultation report we seem to be leading, telling the NPCSC that mainstream idea regarding the number of Chief Executive candidates is two or three. It is necessary for this to be clarified. . . . Then what response do we have regarding the civil nomination?) [6.7]

各

位

學聯

嘅

同學，

我

先

或者

介紹

我哋

今日

Gok3 wai2 Hok6lyun4 ge3 tung4hok6 ngo5 sin1 waak6ze2 gaai3siu6 ngo5dei6 gam1jat6 Each CL HKFS GEN student 1SG first maybe introduce 1PL today 出席 嘅 同事， 包括 政改諮詢專責小組， 所謂 tung4si6, baau1kut3 Zing3Goi2Zi1Seon1Zyun1Zaak3Siu2Zou2, so2wai6 ceot1zik6 ge3 attend GEN colleague include the-Task-Force-on-Constitutional-Development so-called 三 人 小組， 我 自己 啦、 袁國強 律政司司長 siu2zou2, ngo5 zi6gei2 laa1, Jyun4Gwok3Koeng4 Leoi6Zing3Si1-Si1Zoeng2 saam1 jan4 three person task-force 1SG self SFP Yuen-Kwok-Keung the Secretary-for-Justice 同埋 tung4maai4 and

譚志源 Taam4Zi3Jyun4 Tam-Chi-Yuen

政制及內地事務局局長， Zing3Zai3Kap6Noi6Dei6Si6Mou6Guk2-Guk6Zoeng2, the-Secretary-for-Constitutional-and-Mainland-Affairs

另外 ling6ngoi6 other

喺 政制及內地事務局局長 兩 位 呢 就 . . . 副局長 hai6 Zing3Zai3Kap6Noi6Dei6Si6Mou6Guk2-Guk6Zoeng2 Fu3Guk6Zoeng2 loeng5 wai2 le1 zau6 two CL SFP EMPH COP Constitutional-and-Mainland-Affairs-Secretary . . . Vice-Secretary 劉江華 Lau4Gong1Waa4 Lau-Kong-Wah

同埋 tung4maai4 as-well-as

特首辦 Dak6Sau2Baan6 Chief-Executive’s-Office

主任 Zyu2Jam6 Director

邱騰華。 Jau1Tang4Waa4. Yau-Tang-Wah

(Students from HKFS, perhaps I will first introduce our colleagues who have attended today. They include the Task Force on Constitutional

Self-identity and personal references  181 Development, the so-called three-person Task Force, namely, I myself, the Secretary for Justice YUEN Kwok-keung, and the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs TAM Chi-yuen. The other two are the Under Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs LAU Kong-wah and the Director of Chief Executive’s Office YAU Tang-wah.) Second, they also include the five government officials plus the five student representatives as in Example 6.8 with Hong Kong people (including the student representatives, HKFS and the protesters), Hong Kong people (including the student representatives, HKFS and the public) and the Hong Kong people in general as in Example 6.9. In other words, we can group the type of referents into 14 groups as shown in Figure 6.2. [6.8]

我

亦都

希望

能夠

再

有

機會

呢， 同

各

位

同學

gei1wui2 ne1, tung4 gok3 wai2 tung4hok6 Ngo5 jik6dou1 hei1mong6 nang4gau3 zoi3 jau5 1SG also hope MOD again EXIST chance SFP with every CL student 作

好似

今日，

好

理性，

好

平和

嘅

對話。

zok3 make

hou2ci5 resemble

gam1jat6, today

hou2 very

lei5sing3, rational

hou2 very

ping4wo4 peaceful

ge3 GEN

deoi3waa6. dialogue

(We also hope that we can have an opportunity to have a very rational and peaceful dialogue with all students again like what we have today.) [6.9]

最後

我

再次

多謝

呀

鄭國漢

校長，

今晚

抽

zeoi3hau6 ngo5 zoi3ci3 do1ze6 aa3 Zeng6Gwok3Hon3 haau6zoeng2, gam1maan5 cau1 finally 1SG again thank PRT Cheng-Kwok-Hon principal tonight take-out 我哋 咗 作 哩 個 主持人。 多謝 校長。 時間 呢， 為 si4gaan3 ne1, wai4 ngo5dei6 zok3 lei1 go3 zyu2ci4jan4. Do1ze6 haau6zoeng2. zo2 PERF time SFP for 1PL do DEM CL host thank principal

(Lastly I would like to thank Principal Mr. CHENG Kwok-hon once again for having made some time to be the host for us tonight. Thank you, Mr. Principal.) [6.10]

大家

都

知道

嘑， 基本法

頒布

咗

超過

廿四

年’

zo2 ciu1gwo3 jaa6-sei3 nin4, Daai6gaa1 dou1 zi1dou6 laa3, Gei1Bun2Faat3 baan1bou3 Everybody all know SFP Basic-Law promulgate PERF over 24 year 喺 回歸 咗 咗 我哋 之後 都 行 十七 年， 喺 保障 hai2 wui4gwai1 zi1hau6 dou1 hang4 zo2 sap6-cat1 nin4, hai6 bou2zoeng3 zo2 ngo5dei6 at handover after also walk PERF 17 year COP protect PERF 1PL 哋 各 享有 我 種 嘅 權利， 亦都 保障 咗 香港呢 kyun4lei6, jik6dou1 bou2zoeng3 zo2 Hoeng1Gong2 ne1 hoeng2jau5 ngo5dei6 gok3 zung2 ge3 enjoy 1PL each CL GEN rights also protect PERF Hong-Kong SFP

182  Approaching political discourse from below 可以 繼續 繁榮 穩定， 哩 個 咁 嚴肅 嘅 憲制性 嘅 go3 gam3 jim4suk1 ge3 hin3zai3-sing3 ge3 ho2ji5 gai3zuk6 faan4wing4 wan2ding6, lei1 MOD continue prosperous stable DEM CL such serious GEN constitutional GEN 喺 文件 呢， 喺 唔 可以 隨便 講 修訂。 同樣哋， 亦都 ho2ji5 ceoi4ji3 gong2 sau1ding6. Tung4joeng6-dei6, jik6dou1 hai2 man4gin2 ne1, hai6 m4 document SFP COP NEG MOD randomly speak amend similarly also at 憲制， 法律， 政治 上 呢， 我 覺得 任何 而家 去 提 faat3leot6, zing3zi6 soeng6 ne1, ngo5 gok3dak1 jam6ho4 ji4gaa1 heoi3 tai4 hin3zai3, constitution law politics upon SFP 1SG think any now go propose 修訂 嘅 基本法 呢，根本 解決 唔 到 現在 嘅 問題 Gei1Bun2Faat3 ne1, gan1bun2 gaai2kyut3 m4 dou2 jin6zoi6 ge3 sau1ding6 ge3 man6tai4. amend GEN Basic-Law SFP totally solve NEG arrive now GEN problem

(Everyone knows that the Basic Law has been in effect for over 24 years. It has been in effect for 17 years since the handover. It has guaranteed that we enjoy all kinds of rights and has guaranteed that Hong Kong can remain prosperous and stable. Such a serious constitutional document cannot be amended so easily. Similarly, regarding the constitution, law and politics, I think that any suggestions to amend the Basic Law now will not solve the present problem at all.) The five student representatives were representatives of HKFS, which took part in the Umbrella Movement. By cline of inclusiveness, the most exclusive 我哋 ngo5dei6 ‘we’ included speaker plus the other four student representatives in the meeting as in Example 6.11 by Lester Shum. The most inclusive 我哋 ngo5dei6 ‘we’ would begin from the speaker plus particular government official(s), and extend to the five student representatives plus the five government officials as in Example 6.11 by Nathan Law. By extended referents, apart from the HKSAR government, they include the five student representatives plus HKFS as in Example 6.12 by Lester Shum, the five student representatives plus HKFS and the protesters, the speaker plus HKFS and the protesters, the five student representatives plus HKFS, the protesters and the public, HKFS and other protesters (the inclusion of the speaker is not clear), Hong Kong people (including HKFS and the protesters, but the inclusion of the speaker is not clear), Hong Kong people (including the five government officials) and the Hong Kong people in general. This is depicted in Figure 6.3. [6.11] 但

喺

得

到

政府

嘅

回應’

咁

多

日’ 咁

多

日

Daan6 hai6 dak1 dou3 zing3fu2 ge3 wui4jing3, gam3 do1 jat6, gam3 do1 jat6 But COP obtain arrive government GEN response such many day such many day 喺 以嚟 得 到 政府 第一 個 回應 就 依然 希望 ji5lai4 dak1 dou3 zing3fu2 dai6-jat1 go3 wui4jing3 zau6 hai6 ji1jin4 hei1mong6 come obtain arrive government first CL response EMPH COP still hope

Self-identity and personal references  183 我哋 ngo5dei6 1PL

袋 doi6 pocket

住 zyu6 IMPERF

先，依然 sin1, ji1jin4 first still

現 有 框架， jau5 kwaang1gaa2, jin6 current EXIST framework 我 哋 ngo5dei6 1PL

嘅 ge3 GEN

希望 hei1mong6 hope

接受 現實’ zip3sau6 jin6sat6, accept reality

我哋 ngo5dei6 1PL

就 zau6 EMPH

喺 接受 hai6 zip3sau6 COP accept

嘢 執 返 繼續 屋企’ zap1 je5 faan1 uk1kei5, gai3zuk6 pack thing return home continue

生活。 saang1 wut6 living

(However, after so many days, the immediate response that we get from the government is still that they still wish us to take it on board first and still want us to accept the existing framework, to accept the reality, to pack things up and return home to continue with our life.) [6.12]

哩

一

個’ 我

相信

喺

除咗

我哋

Lei1 jat1 go3, ngo5 soeng1seon3 hai6 ceoi4zo2 DEM one CL 1SG believe COP except

哩度

五

個

人’

ngo5dei6 lei1dou6 ng5 go3 jan4, 1PL here five CL person

喺 亦都 好 多 年青 整整 一 個 世代 嘅 人’ 人’ nin4cing1 jan4, zing2-zing2 jat1 go3 sai3doi6 ge3 jan4, jik6dou1 hai6 hou2 do1 also COP very many young person entire one CL generation GEN person 整整 一 個 世代 被 被 八月 三十一 號 催淚彈’ bei6 ceoi1leoi6-daan2, bei6 baat3-jyut6 saam1-sap6-jat1 hou6 zing2-zing2 jat1 go3 sai3doi6 entire one CL generation PASS tear-gas PASS August 31st day 人大 決議 喚醒 嘅 一 個 世代’ 不 能夠 接受 嘅 jat1 go3 sai3doi6, bat1 nang4gau3 zip3sau6 ge3 Jan4Daai6 kyut3ji5 wun6sing2 ge3 NPC decision waken GEN one CL generation NEG MOD accept GEN 東西。 dung1sai1. thing

(I believe this is something that apart from the five of us here, many people, including young people, an entire generation who have been awakened by the tear gas and the NPC’s decision on August 31, cannot accept either.) [6.13]

我哋

第一’

都

喺度

希望

喺

政府

Dai -jat , ngo dei hai dou dou hai hei mong First 1PL here all COP hope 6

1

5

6

2

6

1

6

1

6

給

喺

出

一

個

zing fu hai kap ceot jat go3 government COP give out one CL 3

2

6

1

1

1

喺 因為 而家 見 到 政府 嘅 管治 危機 就 時間表’ ge3 gun2zi6 ngai4gei1 zau6 hai6 si4gaan3-biu2, jan1wai6 ji4gaa1 gin3 dou2 zing3fu2 time-table because now see arrive government GEN ruling crisis EMPH COP

184  Approaching political discourse from below 喺 因為 政府 嘅 管治 威信 受挫 並且 呢’ 喺 ge3 gun2zi6 wai1seon3 ne1, hai6 sau6-co3 bing6ce2 hai6 jan1wai6 zing3fu2 because government GEN ruling prestige SFP COP obtain-defeat also COP 喺 今日 好 多 市民 係 唔 信任 政府， 再 加 上 si5man4 hai6 m4 seon3jam6 zing3fu2, zoi3 gaa1 soeng5 hai2 gam1jat6 hou2 do1 very many citizen COP NEG trust government again add up at today 佢 梁振英 特首 keoi5 Loeng4Zan3Jing1 Dak6Sau2 CY-Leung Chief-Executive 3SG

就 講 過 一 個 令 人 zau6 gong2 gwo3 jat1 go3 ling6 jan4 EMPH say EXP one CL make person

幾 gei2 quite

就 zau6 EMPH

匪夷所思 fei2-ji4-so2-si1 unbelievable

所 ge3 GEN

說話， syut3waa6, saying

喺 hai6 COP

話 waa6 say

唔 m4 NEG

應該 jing1goi1 MOD

畀 bei2 give

一點四萬 月入 以下 人士 有 平等 選舉 權 ji5haa6 jan4si6 jau5 ping4dang2 syun2geoi2 kyun4 jat1-dim2-sei3-maan6 jyut6jap6 14 thousand monthly-income beneath person EXIST equal election right 嘢 哩 樣 呢， 其實 就 已經 對 政府 嘅 管治 joeng6 je5 ne1, kei4sat6 zau6 ji5ging1 deoi3 zing3fu2 ge3 gun2zi6 lei1 DEM CL thing SFP actually EMPH already towards government GEN ruling 威信 呢 受 到 好 大 嘅 質疑 嘑。 咁 所以 呢， dou3 hou2 daai6 ge3 zat1ji4 laa3. Gam2 so2ji5 ne1, wai1seon3 ne1 sau6 prestige SFP obtain arrive very big GEN doubt SFP as-such therefore SFP 喺 哩 我哋 喺 個 點 呢， 亦都 想 政府， 坐 低 都 go3 dim2 ne1, jik6dou1 soeng2 zing3fu2, ngo5dei6 co5 dai1 dou1 hai6 hai2 lei1 at DEM CL point SFP also MOD government 1PL sit down also COP 喺 想 解決 問題， 咁 大家 呢， 亦都 給 出 一 個 daai6gaa1 ne1, jik6dou1 hai6 kap1 ceot1 jat1 go3 soeng2 gaai2kyut3 man6tai4, gam2 MOD solve problem as-such everybody SFP also COP give out one CL 我哋 一齊 去 解決 而家 哩 個 明確 嘅 時間表， si4gaan3-biu2, ngo5dei6 jat1cai4 heoi3 gaai2kyut3 ji4gaa1 lei1 go3 ming4kok3 ge3 clear GEN time-table 1PL together go solve now DEM CL 政治 危機。 zing3zi6 ngai4gei1. political crisis

(Firstly, we are here to hope that the government can offer a schedule, since it is now observed that the administrative crisis of the government is due to the decline of the government’s credibility and the mistrust towards the government by many citizens. In addition, Chief Executive CY Leung

Self-identity and personal references  185 has said something bizarre today that people with a monthly salary below $14,000 should not be given an equal right of election. In fact, this has already cast doubt on the government’s credibility. Therefore, regarding this point, we are sitting down hoping to solve the problem with the government. Everyone also offers a clear-cut schedule and we solve the present political crisis together.) [6.14] 好

多

人

都

同

我哋

講話，

jan dou tung ngo dei Hou do Very many person all with 1PL 2

1

4

1

4

5

6

我哋 6

5

被

喺

gong waa , ngo dei say 1PL 2

6

時代

hai bei si4doi6 COP PASS time 6

6

喺 咗 咗 被 時代 選 中 嘅 選 中 嘅 細路， 我哋 syun2 zung3 zo2 ge3 sai3lou6, ngo5dei6 hai6 bei6 si4doi6 syun2 zung3 zo2 ge3 select get PERF GEN kid 1PL COP PASS time select get PERF GEN 喺 喺 學生， 但 我哋 相信， 同樣 嘅 依然 說話 syut3waa6 hai6 ji1jin4 hok6saang1, daan6 hai6 ngo5dei6 soeng1seon3, tung4joeng6 ge3 student but COP 1PL believe same GEN saying COP still 適用 於 幾 位 特區 政府 嘅 官員， 你哋 先至 喺 sik1jung6 jyu1 gei2 wai2 Dak6Keoi1 zing3fu2 ge3 gun1jyun4, nei5dei6 sin1zi3 hai6 applicable at few CL SAR government GEN official 2PL EMPH COP 被 bei6 PASS

時代 si4doi6 time

選 syun2 select

中 zung3 get

咗 zo2 PERF

嘅 ge3 GEN

官員。 gun1jyun4. official

(Many people have told us that we are the children chosen by the age and we are the students chosen by the age. Yet we believe that the same saying is applicable to the several SAR government officials. You are the officials chosen by the age indeed.) The semiotic scope of ‘we’ by the government officials and that by the student representatives are clearly different from each other. The semiotic scope of ‘we’ by the government officials includes the following referents: the speaker himself/ herself, the three government officials responsible for constitutional reform, the five government officials attending the meeting, the HKSAR government, the members of LegCo, the Chinese officials responsible for the HKSAR constitutional reform, the Chinese government, the five student representatives, HKFS, the protesters in the three occupied locations and the Hong Kong public. These referents have the following combinations in the government officials’ use of ‘we’:   1 the Chinese government   2 the Chinese officials responsible for HKSAR constitutional reform   3 the LegCo members

186  Approaching political discourse from below   4   5   6   7   8   9 10 11

the the the the the the the the the 12 the the 13 the

HKSAR government five officials attending the meeting plus the HKSAR government five government officials attending the meeting three government officials responsible for constitutional reform five officials plus the five student representatives speaker plus particular student representatives five officials plus student representatives and the Hong Kong public Hong Kong people (including the student representatives, HKFS and protesters) Hong Kong people (including the student representatives, HKFS and public) Hong Kong people in general

The semiotic scope of ‘we’ by the student representatives includes some referents which are the same as those of the government officials: the speaker himself/ herself, the five government officials attending the meeting, the HKSAR government, the five student representatives, HKFS, the protesters in the three occupied locations and the Hong Kong public. They did not include the following referents: the three government officials responsible for constitutional reform, the members of LegCo, the Chinese officials responsible for the HKSAR constitutional reform and the Chinese government. These referents have somewhat different combinations in the student representatives’ use of ‘we’:   1 the HKSAR government   2 the five student representatives attending the meeting   3 the five student representatives plus the five government officials attending the meeting  4 the speaker plus the government officials attending the meeting who are HKU graduates   5 the five student representatives plus HKFS   6 the five student representatives plus HKFS and the protesters in the three occupied locations  7 the speaker plus HKFS and the protesters in the three occupying locations   8 HKFS plus other protesters in the three occupied locations  9 HKFS 10 the five student representatives plus HKFS, the protesters and the Hong Kong public 11 the Hong Kong people (including HKFS and the protesters in the three occupied locations) 12 the Hong Kong people (including the five government officials attending the meeting) 13 the Hong Kong people in general

Self-identity and personal references  187

6.5 Collective self of the government officials A political event is a goal-oriented activity; the goal is normally explicitly stated as the functional theme of the event. However, the political actors participating in the event may have their own political agendas that reflect the political ideologies or stances on a political issue of the political parties they represent. In short, a political event can be taken as an occasion to show their collective self: who they are; which geographical, ethnic, social communities, political parties and/or institutions they belong to; where they stand on the political issues being discussed; and where their loyalties are. In this section, we only focus on the semiotic space of their use of ‘we’ in their discourse.

6.5.1 Chief Secretary for Administration: Carrie Lam In addition to being the Chief Secretary for Administration, Lam was the head of the Task Force on Constitutional Development. She represented the HKSAR government and headed the team of government officials who attended the meeting. It should be noted that the exclusive ‘we’ is often used to indicate the membership of the speaker or to align the speaker with an institutional point of view by showing his or her commitment to a political position (cf. Goffman, 1981). This can be illustrated in the following example, which is extracted from Carrie Lam’s discourse in the meeting. [6.15]

所以

我， 雖然

大家

好似

對

我

今日

嘅

回應

ngo5, seoi1jin4 daai6gaa1 hou2ci5 deoi3 ngo5 gam1jat6 ge3 wui4jing3 So2ji5 Therefore 1SG although everybody seemingly regarding 1SG today GEN response 我哋 喺 啲 失望， 作為 負責任 嘅 官員 呢， 有 但 di1 sat1mong6, daan6 ngo5dei6 zok3wai4 fu6zaak3jam6 ge3 gun1jyun4 ne1, hai6 jau5 COP EXIST a-bit disappoint but 1PL as responsible GEN official SFP 係 要 按照 住 基本法 係 必須 要 指 出， 我哋 jiu3 zi2 ceot1, ngo5dei6 hai6 jiu3 on3ziu3 zyu6 Gei1Bun2Faat3 hai6 bit1seoi1 COP necessarily MOD point out 1PL COP MOD according-to IMPERF Basic-Law 嘅 規定 嚟 到 去 做 哩 個 嘅 工作。 否則 呢， kwai1ding6 lai4 dou3 heoi3 zou6 lei1 go3 ge3 gung1zok3. Fau2zak1 ne1, ge3 GEN stipulation come arrive go do DEM CL GEN work otherwise SFP 咗 只 會 走 冤枉 嘅 路， 浪費 時間， 或者 最後 呢， lou6, long6fai3 zo2 si4gaan3, waak6ze2 zeoi3hau6 ne1, zi2 wui5 zau2 jyun1wong2 ge3 only will run wrong GEN road waste PERF time or finally SFP



喺



hai6 jyun4-dei6-daap6-bou6 ge3.



COP original-place-stomp-step

原地踏步

嘅。 SFP

188  Approaching political discourse from below (Even though everyone seems to be a bit disappointed at my response today, as responsible officials, we must point out that we have to conduct the work based on the stipulations of the Basic Law. Otherwise, we will only put ourselves in the wrong way, wasting time. Perhaps at last we will remain at the same spot.) Being the Chief Secretary for Administration of HKSAR, which is a part of the People’s Republic of China, Carrie Lam was the only participant who used ‘we’ to refer the Chinese government (1.8%) and the Chinese officials who were responsible for constitutional reform in Hong Kong (1.8%). She was also the only one who used ‘we’ to refer to the LegCo member (0.9%). It is also noted that political actors employ the exclusive ‘we’ to promote their positive face when reporting their achievement with group efforts in times of harsh criticism from the media and rival political parties (cf. López, 2006). Since Lam headed the team of government officials who attended the meeting which represented the Hong Kong government in general, she mostly used ‘we’ to refer to the Hong Kong government (17.7%) and the five government officials participating in the meeting plus the Hong Kong government (24.8%). This is much higher than the number of times Rimsky Yuen and Raymond Tam used it, as well as the five student representatives. Following is an example from Carrie Lam’s discourse. [6.16] 咁

所以

我哋

不

但止

無

去

隱瞞

哩

啲 嘅

so ji ngo dei bat daan zi mou heoi jan mun lei di1 ge3 Gam As-such therefore 1PL NEG only not-have go hide DEM CL GEN 3

2

5

5

6

1

6

2

5

3

2

4

1

喺 咗 不 同 嘅 意見， 我哋 反之 製造 唔 少 嘅 bat1 tung4 ge3 ji3gin3, ngo5dei6 faan2zi1 hai6 zai3zou6 zo2 m4 siu2 ge3 NEG same GEN opinion 1PL contrastively COP produce PERF NEG little GEN 喺 國家 負責， 呢 個， 政改 嘅 機會 畀 我哋 gei1wui6 hai6 bei2 ngo5dei6 gwok3gaa1 fu6zaak3, ni1 go3, zing3-goi2 ge3 chance COP give 1PL country responsible DEM CL political-reform GEN 啲 嘅 官員 呢， 能夠 親自 去 聽 到 哩 意見。 gun1jyun4 ne1, nang4gau3 can1zi6 heoi3 teng1 dou2 lei1 di1 ge3 ji3gin3. official SFP MOD on-one’s-own go listen arrive DEM CL GEN opinion

(Hence we did not conceal any varying opinions. In addition, we did offer a lot of opportunities so that the national officials in charge of constitutional development can listen to these opinions themselves.) The exclusive ‘we’ is also used for reporting the activities that the speaker and his or her party have accomplished or future plans that the party has

Self-identity and personal references  189 proposed (cf. Wai & Yap, 2013b). The following example is also extracted from Carrie Lam’s discourse. [6.17]

我哋

正

喺

積極

考慮

點樣

喺

五部曲

Ngo5dei6 zing3 hai6 zik1gik6 haau2leoi6 dim2joeng2 hai2 ng5-bou6-kuk1 1PL now COP actively consider how at five-steps 憲制 hin3zai3 constitutional

哩

個

lei1 go3 DEM CL

程序 嘅 以外， 以 一 個 合適 嘅 方法 cing4zeoi6 ge3 ji5ngoi6, ji5 jat1 go3 hap6sik1 ge3 fong1faat3 procedure GEN outside take one CL appropriate GEN method

同埋 渠道 呢， 向 國務院 港澳辦， tung4maai4 keoi4dou6 ne1, hoeng3 Gwok3Mou6Jyun2 Gong2Ou3Baan6, as-well-as channel SFP to State-Council Hong-Kong-and-Macau-Affairs-Office 提交 一 份 報告， 交待 自 今年 八月 底 以嚟， gam1-nin4 baat3-jyut6 dai2 ji5lai4, tai4gaau1 jat1 fan6 bou3gou3, gaau1doi6 zi6 submit one CL report account since this-year August bottom come 社會 各 界， 包括 學界 呢， 對於 政改 所 提出 so2 tai4ceot1 se5wui2 gok3 gaai3, baau1kut3 hok6gaai3 ne1, deoi3jyu1 zing3goi2 society every sector include academia SFP regarding political-reform PRT propose 嘅 ge3 GEN

意見 ji3gin3 opinion

嘅。 ge3. SFP

(We are now actively considering how to submit a report to the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the State Council, in an appropriate way and channel other than the five-stage constitutional procedures, to account for the opinions that all sectors in the society, including academia, have suggested regarding constitutional development.) The semiotic scope of her use of ‘we’ in her discourse is summarized in Figure 6.4.

6.5.2 Secretary for Justice: Rimsky Yuen Yuen was also a member of the three-member Task Force. His use of ‘we’ with the referent of the government officials and the HKSAR government was the highest of all the participants (80.5%): HKSAR government in general (9.8%), the five government officials participating in the meeting plus the HKSAR government (68.3%) and the three government officials responsible for constitutional reform (2.4%). The semiotic scope of his use of ‘we’ in his discourse is summarized in Figure 6.5.

Most inclusive (speaker + hearers) Student representatives

The five officials + the five student representatives 4(3.5%)

LegCo member 1(0.9%)

HK people (in general) 20(17.7%) Most extended ‘we’ (Hong Kong society)

The five officials + student representatives + public 4(3.5%) HK people (including student representatives + HKFS + protesters) 12(10.6%)

Figure 6.4  The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Carrie Lam’s discourse

Most exclusive (speaker plus) Government officials

The five officials 1(0.9%)

HK Govt 20(17.7%)

Most extended ‘we’ Hong Kong Government

The five officials + HK Govt 28(24.8%)

Chinese officials responsible for constitutional reform 2(1.8%)

Chinese Government 2(0.6%)

Carrie Lam’s use of ‘we’ in the meeting

Self-identity and personal references  191 Rimsky Yuen’s use of ‘we’ in the meeting Most extended ‘we’ Hong Kong Government HK Govt 4(9.8%) The five officials + HK Govt 28(68.3%)

The three officials responsible for the constitutional reform Most inclusive Most exclusive 1(2.4%) (speaker + hearers) (speaker plus) Government officials Student representatives

HK people (including student representatives + HKFS + protesters) 2(4.9%)

HK people (in general) 8(19.5%) Most extended ‘we’ (Hong Kong society)

Figure 6.5  The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Rimsky Yuen’s discourse

6.5.3 Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs: Raymond Tam Tam was also a member of the three-member Task Force. As constitutional development was one of his major policy portfolios, his role in the meeting was twofold: first, defending the CPG’s and the government’s position by highlighting what could be done/should be done in Hong Kong’s constitutional development within the parameters set by the Basic Law and the NPCSC’s decisions, and presenting himself as an ordinary Hong Kong person who has long aspired to select the CE by universal suffrage. His second role led him to use ‘we’ to establish membership with the Hong Kong people in general. As a result, his use of ‘we’ to refer to Hong Kong people is the highest of the three government officials (52.3%), compared with that of Carrie Lam (28.3%) and Rimsky Yuen (24.4%). The semiotic scope of his use of ‘we’ in his discourse is summarized in Figure 6.6.

192  Approaching political discourse from below Raymond Tam’s use of ‘we’ in the meeting Hong Kong Government HK Govt 3(6.4%) The five officials + HK Govt 6(12.8%) The five officials 11(23.4%) Most exclusive (speaker plus) Government officials

The speaker + particular student representatives 2(4.3%) Most inclusive

(speaker + hearers) Student representatives

HK people (including student representatives + HKFS + protesters) 13(27.7%) HK people (including student representatives + HKFS + public) 7(14.9%) HK people (in general) 5(10.6%) Most extended ‘we’ (Hong Kong society)

Figure 6.6  The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Raymond Tam’s discourse

6.6 Collective self of the student representatives 6.6.1 HKFS Secretary General: Alex Chow Chow was a student at the University of Hong Kong. He majored in comparative literature and sociology. As the Secretary General of HKFS, the student organization that initiated the Umbrella Movement, he was the one who used ‘we’ mostly to refer to Hong Kong people in general (48.2%) of the five student representatives in the meeting. Being a student of the University of Hong Kong, and as many of the government officials were graduates of HKU, Alex Chow was the only student representative who used ‘we’ to include the alumni government officials in the meeting. Alex used this as a political strategy both to create membership with the officials and to challenge their stance as against the

Self-identity and personal references  193 motto of HKU. As the leader of the student representatives in the meeting, he was also one of the two student representatives who use ‘we’ in the most exclusive sense, i.e., referring to the five student representatives alone. The semiotic scope of his use of ‘we’ in his discourse is summarized in Figure 6.7.

6.6.2 HKFS Deputy Secretary General: Lester Shum Shum was a third-year student at the Department of Government and Public Administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His use of ‘we’ mainly referred to himself as the speaker of HKFS and the five student representatives, including HKFS and the protesters (76.8%). The semiotic scope of his use of ‘we’ in his discourse is summarized in Figure 6.8.

6.6.3 The President of the Student Union of HKU: Yvonne Leung In addition to being the speaker of HKFS, Leung was a student at the University of Hong Kong and president of its student union. She was a third-year social sciences student there, pursuing a degree in government and law. She was one of the two student representatives who use ‘we’ inclusively to refer to the five student representatives and the five government officials (5.3%). Yvonne was also the only student representative who used ‘we’ to refer to Hong Kong people, which was explicitly including the five government officials (10.5%). The semiotic scope of her use of ‘we’ in her discourse is summarized in Figure 6.9.

6.6.4 Acting President of the Student Union of Lingnan University: Nathan Law Law was a student at Lingnan University, where he was also the acting president of the student union. Like Alex Chow, Nathan intended to use the political act of claiming membership with the five government officials and the HKSAR government by using ‘we’ to include the five government officials in the meeting (17.7%) as well as the HKSAR government (5.9%). The semiotic scope of his use of ‘we’ in his discourse is summarized in Figure 6.10.

6.6.5 Former President of the Student Union of CUHK: Eason Chung Chung was a student at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, where he previously served as student union president. He majored in government and public administration. In the meeting, he discussed what the government should do to solve the political problem triggered by the NPCSC’s August 31 Decision. As a result, the government officials and the HKSAR government was the ‘you’ group, who has the responsibility to solve the current political problem,

HK people (in general) 26(48.2%) Most extended ‘we’ (Hong Kong society)

+ HKFS 5(9.3%)

HK people (including HKFS and protesters) 1(1.9%)

Speaker + HKFS + protester 1(1.9%)

HKFS + protesters 1(1.9%)

The five student representatives

Most exclusive (speaker plus) Student representatives

The five student representatives 1(1.9%)

HKFS + protester + public 7(13.0%)

Figure 6.7  The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Alex Chow’s discourse

Most inclusive (speaker + hearers) Government officials

Speaker + the officials who are HKU graduates 9(16.7%)

Most extended ‘we’ Hong Kong Government 2(3.7%)

Alex Chow’s use of ‘we’ in the meeting

Lester Shum’s use of ‘we’ in the meeting

The five student representatives 1(3.0%) Most exclusive

Most inclusive (speaker + hearers) Government officials

(speaker plus) Student representatives

The five student representatives + HKFS 5(15.2%) HKFS + protesters 3(9.1%) HKFS + protesters + public 9(27.3%)

Speaker + HKFS + protesters 5(15.2%)

HK people (in general) 9(2.3%) Most extended ‘we’ (Hong Kong society)

Figure 6.8  The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Lester Shum’s discourse

Yvonne Leung’s use of ‘we’ in the meeting

The five student representatives + the five officials 1(5.3%) Most inclusive (speaker + hearers) Government officials

Most exclusive (speaker plus) Student representatives The five student representatives + HKFS 1(5.3%)

HK people (including five officials) 2(10.5%)

HKFS + protesters + public 8(42.1%) HK people (in general) 7(36.8%) Most extended ‘we’ (Hong Kong society)

Figure 6.9  The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Yvonne Leung’s discourse

Nathan Law’s use of ‘we’ in the meeting Most extended ‘we’ (Hong Kong Government) 1(5.9%)

The five student representatives + the five officials 3(17.7%)

Most exclusive (speaker plus) Student representatives

Most inclusive (speaker + hearers) Government officials

The five student representatives + HKFS 1(5.9%)

HKFS + protesters + public 7(41.2%) HK people (in general) 5(29.4%) Most extended ‘we’ (Hong Kong society)

Figure 6.10  The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Nathan Law’s discourse

Eason Chung’s use of ‘we’ in the meeting

Most inclusive (speaker + hearers) Government officials

Most exclusive (speaker plus) Student representatives The five student representatives + HKFS 3(20.0%)

HKFS + protesters + public 4(26.7%) HK people (in general) 7(46.7%) Most extended ‘we’ (Hong Kong society)

HKFS 1(6.7%)

Figure 6.11  The semiotic scope of 我哋 ‘we’ in Eason Chung’s discourse

Self-identity and personal references  197 while he was representing the public, the student unions and the protesters. His use of ‘we’ thus totally excluded the government officials and the HKSAR government. The semiotic scope of his use of ‘we’ in his discourse is summarized in Figure 6.11. In the preceding discussion, it is noted that the fuzziness of ‘we’ has been manipulated in the political event under study. The two parties – the five government officials and the five student representatives – as well as the individual political actors inside each party, used the first person pronoun 我哋 ngo5dei6 ‘we’ with different semiotic scopes, which, generally speaking, reflected their collective self.

7

Power, institutional role and interpersonal elements in political discourse

7.1 Introduction The relationship between language and power has drawn much attention from discourse analysis in general and critical discourse studies in particular (see Fairclough, 1989, 2015). It is also a very popular topic in PDA. Power is always relative. The relative power can be relatively static, such as the type associated with the actors’ institutional roles, and at the same time, it can be quite dynamic, depending on their knowledge of a particular issue being discussed. And sometimes, the actors even need to negotiate their relative power among themselves in the event. This dynamic nature of power becomes an interesting topic in PDA. This chapter will investigate the issue of language and power, reflecting on the discourse through the political actors’ choice of interpersonal linguistic elements in general and their choices of modality in particular. It will examine the power relationships not only between the two opposing political parties – the government officials and the student representatives – but also the individual actors within each party, that is, among the five government officials and among the five student representatives themselves. It intends to explain how their discursive roles in turn influence their linguistic choices of the interpersonal linguistic elements.

7.2 The ‘power’ distribution in the meeting In Chapter 1, we introduced the concepts of ‘politics’ and ‘power’ as well as the relationship between language and power. In Chapter 3, we discussed the contextual configuration of ‘field’, ‘tenor’ and ‘mode’. We have mentioned that the dimension of tenor concerns ‘who is taking part in the activity’. It concerns the social relationship between the participants involved in the social activity: speaker and hearer (or the writer and the readers), and sometimes a third party. We mentioned that there are four variables in the domain of ‘tenor’: power, institutional role, contact and socio-metric role, responding to the following questions: 1 2

What is the institutional role of the participants involved in the social activity, including their social responsibility in performing the task and their authority? What is their social status and relative power, including their level of expertise, and possession of knowledge of the topic?

Power and institutional role  199 3 What is their social distance, i.e., the level of familiarity between the participants? 4 What is their persona (technically known as socio-metric roles), i.e., their general stance towards, alignment with, agreement with and valuation of each other? Hence, tenor is closely associated with the interpersonal metafunction in the theory of Systemic Functional Linguistics. To explore the relationship between the political actors’ power and institutional role, and their linguistic choices of the interpersonal resources in political discourse in the televised meeting between the government officials and the student representatives, this section will first discuss the ‘power’ distribution in the meeting. At first sight, the meeting between the government officials and the student representatives seemed to be an ‘unequal encounter’, in which the two parties were unequal in the sense that the former had a higher social status and political authority and thus had the power to make binding decisions. Moreover, they possessed a higher level of expertise and knowledge of the topic: the democratic development of Hong Kong in general and the proposed framework of the Chief Executive election of 2017 in particular. However, the latter, the representatives of HKFS as well as the protesters of the Umbrella Movement who were occupying parts of Admiralty, Mongkok and Causeway, had been empowered (that is, they represented the power of the ‘masses’), and the government had every reason to persuade them to end the protest. As a result, the student representatives had a certain level of bargaining power. In previous studies, it has been widely observed that firstly, power in discourse is to do with the party with more relative power ‘controlling and constraining the contributions’ of the party with less power in content, i.e., what is said or done, relations, i.e., the social relations people enter into in discourse, and subjects, i.e., the ‘subject positions’ people can occupy (Fairclough, 2015, pp. 75–76). Secondly, interruption in discourse is a feature of ‘unequal encounter’, in which the party with more relative power interrupts the other party with less power. Thirdly, in an ‘unequal encounter’, the party with higher relative power typically makes more contributions. Generally speaking, all of this did not occur in the televised meeting, as there were rules agreed upon by both parties, and these rules were guided by the mediator in the meeting in their contribution, their turn-taking and, to a certain extent, the topics being discussed. In this chapter, apart from the comparison of the two political groups, we will further examine the individual actors’ interpersonal linguistic choices and their association with their relative power and institutional role in the meeting.

7.3 Contribution, institutional roles and division of labour It has been widely observed that the contribution of individual participants in a discourse reflects their relative power and, if applicable, their social institutional

200  Approaching political discourse from below role. In the televised meeting during the Umbrella Movement, since there were five representatives from the two political groups – the Hong Kong government and HKFS – in addition to their relative power and institutional roles, these political actors had to consider their division of labour so that they were working as a team to achieve their political agenda through various political moves realized by various political acts, as discussed in the previous chapters. Here, we will explore how their relative power, institutional role and division of labour were reflected quantitatively in their choice of interpersonal resources. First of all, it is noted that the contribution of each individual political actor by number of turns and number of characters was not the same in the televised meeting. By number of turns, the five student representatives contributed 18.6% more than did the three government officials; however, by number of characters, the government officials contributed 6.4% more than did the student representatives. In other words, the government officials in general took longer turns than did the student representatives, because of the five government officials, only the three who were directly involved in the proposed method of the election of the Chief Executive in 2017 took part in the discussion; the other two did not. In contrast, all five student representatives did. Even though the government officials seemed to have higher relative power and social status, both parties took a similar amount of time in the discussion, because of the rules agreed upon by both parties before the meeting. In other words, the representatives of both parties played the game according to the rules in general, though the student representatives violated the rules of assigning the next speaker in order to achieve their hidden agenda, as discussed in the genre analysis in Chapter 2. Table 7.1 tabulates the contribution of individual actors according to turns and characters in the meeting.

Table 7.1  A quantitative profile of the participants’ contribution in the political event Parties

Actors

No. of turns

No. of characters

Government officials

Carrie Lam

5 (18.5%)

10,631 (32.9%)

Raymond Tam

4 (14.8%)

4,385 (13.6%)

Rimsky Yuen Student representatives

2 (7.4%)

2,208 (6.8%)

Sub-total

11 (40.7%)

17,224 (53.2%)

Alex Chow

5 (18.5%)

6,356 (19.6%)

Lester Shum

2 (7.4%)

2,132 (6.6%)

Yvonne Leung

4 (14.8%)

2,454 (7.6%)

Nathan Law

3 (11.1%)

2,563 (7.9%)

Eason Chung Sub-total Total

2 (7.4%)

1,628 (5.0%)

16 (59.3%)

15,133 (46.8%)

27 (100%)

32,357 (100%)

Power and institutional role  201 7.3.1 The overall contribution of individual actors among the government officials Of the government officials, Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie Lam contributed the most in the meeting by number of turns and number of characters, followed by Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam, and then Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen. Firstly, the Chief Secretary for Administration, Carrie Lam, was also the head of the Task Force on Constitutional Development. She represented the HKSAR government and headed the team of government officials who attended the meeting. She represented the government officials to be the speaker in Stage 1 of the meeting and gave the concluding speech in Stage 3. Though she sounded conciliatory, she was firm on issues that the government had officially declared its position on. To get public support, and to show that the government was willing to solve the problem with all of the Hong Kong people, if possible, she would make offers that did not violate the government’s official position on the matter under discussion. In sum, her role was to repeat the government’s position, to rebut any arguments against the government, and to show a gesture that the government sincerely hoped to move a step forward in Hong Kong’s democratization process. With her status and relative power among the three government officials, she contributed most in the meeting, as expected. Secondly, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam was also a member of the three-member Task Force. As constitutional development was one of his major policy portfolios, his role in the meeting was to defend the CPG and the government’s position by highlighting what could and should be done in Hong Kong’s constitutional development within the parameters set by the Basic Law and the NPCSC’s decisions, and by presenting himself as an ordinary Hong Kong person who had long aspired to select the CE by universal suffrage. Hence, his contribution was second of the government officials in the meeting. Thirdly, Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen was also a member of the threemember Task Force. As the legal advisor of the HKSAR government, Yuen’s role was to defend the CPG and the government’s position from a constitutional perspective and, more importantly, to rebut any constitutional arguments put forward by the students. His contribution thus came third.

7.3.2 The overall contribution of individual actors of the student representatives Of the five student representatives of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, the Secretary General of HKFS (Alex Chow), Deputy Secretary General of HKFS (Lester Shum), the President of HKU Student Union (Yvonne Leung), Former President of CUHK Student Union (Eason Chung) and Acting President of Lingnan University Student Union (Nathan Law), Alex Chow contributed most number of turns and number of characters, followed by Yvonne Leung, Nathan Law, Lester Shum and lastly Eason Chung.

202  Approaching political discourse from below Firstly, Alex Chow was the General Secretary of HKFS. As the leader of the group, he represented the student representatives to be the speaker in Stage 1 of the meeting. His role was to express the students’ and the public’s demands; to criticize the CPG and the HKSAR government’s position on constitutional reform; and to respond to arguments that government officials put forward during the meeting. His contribution was thus the most of the student representatives. Secondly, Lester Shum, though he was the Deputy Secretary General of HKFS, had a lesser contribution than expected. This might be due to the fact that his role during the meeting was confined to discussing why the CPG’s position was unacceptable from the perspective that everyone should enjoy equal political rights, be it the right to be nominated or the right to cast a vote. Thirdly, HKFS spokesperson Yvonne Leung’s relative power might be considered less than that of Lester Shum within HKFS, but she had a higher status because of being the president of the student union of HKU – the oldest university in Hong Kong and the most prestigious, in the view of most Hong Kong people, as well as the university from which many government officials had graduated. Her role was to rebut the CPG’s position from a constitutional perspective and to organize other student representatives to do the rebuttal, as shown in Turn 9 and Turn 14. Her contribution in the meeting thus came in second. Fourthly, Nathan Law’s role in the meeting was to establish the argument that many problems that Hong Kong currently faced were rooted in its undemocratic political system, and to support the demands of the students and the general public by referring to different opinion polls. His contribution thus exceeded that of Lester Shum. Lastly, Eason Chung did not carry any current role in the student union nor in HKFS. His role was confined to discussing what the government should do to solve the political problem triggered by the NPCSC’s August 31 Decision. Hence, his contribution came in last of all the student representatives.

7.4 Speech function, relative power, institutional role and division of labour From the SF perspective, the speakers are either giving out or demanding something from the hearers in the discourse. In technical terms, there are two basic orientations of the speaker: that of giving and that of demanding. The ‘something’ (or commodity) that is given or demanded is either linguistic in nature (e.g., information or opinion) or non-linguistic (e.g., command to act). The interplay of these two dimensions – orientation and commodity – gives four basic speech functions: statement, question, offer and command, as depicted in Table 7.2. Table 7.2  Speech functions in an interactive event Commodity orientation

[information]

[goods and services]

[giving]

Statement

offer

[demanding]

Question

command

Power and institutional role  203 Of the four speech functions, offer and command usually show inequality in relative power and social status in daily communicative events. However, both offer and command are infrequent in political discourse, because this inequality is too obvious for any political actor to dare show in modern society. In the televised meeting, though it might be considered an ‘inequality encounter’ in institutional and social status and relative power between the government officials and student representatives, there are no instances of command and very few instances of offer in their discourse. Hence, this section focuses on the use of statements and questions only. The distribution of speech functions of the government officials and student representatives is tabulated in Table 7.3. In a political event, according to Fairclough (2015, p. 76), the party with more relative power is supposed to have the right to ask questions. However, in the televised meeting, the student representatives asked many more questions (82%) than did the government officials (18%). This reflects the result of the political agenda of the student representatives in this meeting. In Chapter 4, we established that the student representatives had the hidden agendas of reproaching the proposed method of the CE election in 2017 and demanding a government response. To achieve these agendas, they used the political moves of destruction, demolition and transformation. To achieve these political moves, one of the political acts that they employed was ‘critical/adversarial questions’, which was a political strategy to discredit the opponents. Since it was a televised meeting, the audience included the Hong Kong populace. Hence, the student representatives employed this political move to criticize the HKSAR government in order to gain the support of the Hong Kong people for the Umbrella Movement, especially

Table 7.3  The choice of speech function Speech function

Statement

Question Yes/No

Government officials

Wh-

Carrie Lam

669 (98.7%)

5 (0.7%)

4 (0.6%)

678 (100%)

Raymond Tam

307 (97.2%)

5 (1.6%)

4 (1.3%)

316 (100%)

258 (99.2%)

1 (0.4%)

1 (0.4%)

260 (100%)

Rimsky Yuen Sub-total Student Alex Chow representatives Lester Shum

1,234 (98.4%) 11 (0.9%)

9 (0.7%) 1,254 (100%)

433 (88.5%) 37 (7.6%) 19 (3.9%)

489 (100%)

145 (91.2%)

159 (100%)

1 (0.6%) 13 (8.2%)

Yvonne Leung

137 (90.7%)

7 (4.6%)

7 (4.6%)

151 (100%)

Nathan Law

172 (97.2%)

3 (1.7%)

2 (1.1%)

177 (100%)

127 (98.4%)

0 (0.0%)

2 (1.6%)

129 (100%)

Eason Chun Sub-total Total

Total

1,014 (91.8%) 48 (4.3%) 43 (3.9%) 1,105 (100%) 2,248 (95.3%) 59 (2.5%) 52 (2.2%) 2,359 (100%)

204  Approaching political discourse from below when the protests caused so much inconvenience to the daily life of Hong Kong people. The force of criticism became particularly strong when it was realized by a negative yes/no question, as shown in Examples 7.1–7.4 by the student representative Alex Chow. [7.1]

好 多 時候 香港 人 都 會 覺得， 宜家 Hou2 do1 si4hau6 Hoeng1Gong2 jan4 dou1 wui5 gok3dak1, ji4gaa1 Very many time Hong-Kong person all will feel now 我哋 嘅 民主 路 窄。 政府 佢 就 會 ngo5dei6 ge3 man4zyu2 lou6 zaak3. Zing3fu2 keoi5 zau6 wui5 1PL GEN democracy path narrow government 3SG then will 不斷 話 呢 個 原因， 喺 因為 人大 SET bat1dyun6 waa6 ni1 go3 jyun4jan1, hai6 jan1wai6 Jan4Daai6 SET non-stop say DEM CL reason COP because NPC set 左 一 個 好 嚴謹 嘅 框架， 我哋 有 好 zo2 jat1 go3 hou2 jim4gan2 ge3 kwaang1gaa2, ngo5dei6 jau5 hou2 PERF one CL very strict GEN frame 1PL EXIST very 多 法律 限制。 所以 我哋 無 辦法 推行 do1 faat3leot6 haan6zai3. So2ji5 ngo5dei6 mou5 baan6faat3 teoi1hang4 many law restriction so 1PL NEG method launch 其他 嘅 發展 方式。 kei4taa1 ge3 faat3zin2 fong1sik1. other GEN development method

(Very often Hong Kong people will think that our present way to democracy is narrow. The government will keep saying this is because the NPC has set a very strict framework. We have a lot of legal limitations so we have no way to launch other ways of development.) [7.2]

咁 但 喺 第一 輪 諮詢 階段 報告， Gam2 daan6 hai6 dai6-jat1 leon4 zi1seon1 gaai1dyun6 bou3gou3, as-such but COP first CL consultation stage report 唔 喺 香港 政府 撰寫 嘅 咩, 唔 喺 m4 hai6 Hoeng1Gong2 zing3fu2 zaan3se2 ge3 me1, m4 hai6 NEG COP Hong-Kong government write SFP SFP NEG COP 香港 政府 呈交 咩? Hoeng1Gong2 zing3fu2 cing4gaau1 me1? Hong-Kong government submit SFP

Power and institutional role  205 (Then wasn’t the consultation report of the first round written and submitted by the Hong Kong government?) [7.3]

人大 佢 落 決議 嘅 時候 嘅 原因 唔 喺 都 喺 Jan4Daai6 keoi5 lok6 kyut3ji3 ge3 si4hau6 ge3 jyun4jan1 m4 hai6 dou1 hai6 NPC 3SG descend decision GEN time GEN reason NEG COP also COP 根 基於 gan1 gei1jyu1 root based-on

香港 Hoeng1Gong2 Hong-Kong

政府 zing3fu2 government

所 撰寫 so2 zaan3se2 PRT write

嘅 ge3 GEN

報告? bou3gou3? report

(Wasn’t the reason for the NPC to make the resolution based on the report written by the Hong Kong government?) [7.4]

但 係 點解 今日 香港 政府 好似 完全 Daan6 hai6 dim2gaai2 gam1jat6 Hoeng1Gong2 zing3fu2 hou2ci5 jyun4cyun4 but COP why today Hong-Kong government seemingly completely 可以 ho2ji5 MOD

推卸 teoi1se3 shift

哂 saai3 completely

所有 so2jau5 all

嘅 ge3 GEN

責任? zaak3jam6? responsibility

(Yet why is it likely that today’s Hong Kong government can completely shift all the responsibilities?) In these examples, Alex used three critical/adversarial questions to criticize the Hong Kong government as the responsible party that drafted and submitted the controversial consultative report to the government officials of the PRC, which caused the NPCSC to make the controversial August 31 Decision of the framework of the CE election in 2017. His adoption of such a strategy can also be considered as part of the unequal power relationship between HKFS and the HKSAR government. As the nature of power is relative, and how much power political actors possess depends very much on whether the political actors are respected by their opponents, Chow’s strategy can be regarded as a move to narrow down the unequal power distribution between the two parties in the meeting. By asking the government officials questions on issues that the public in general regarded the government had wrongly handled, he would put the government officials in a disadvantaged position. Forcing the government into a defensive position in areas that the public had made their decision about against the government would further discredit the government officials’ credibility and thus undermine their relative power in the meeting.

7.4.1 The choice of speech function of government officials Of the government officials, Raymond Tam asked more questions than did Carrie Lam and Rimsky Yuen. It is probable that Raymond Tam was playing a role

206  Approaching political discourse from below rather different from that of the other two officials. Being Chief Secretary for Administration, Lam was representing the Hong Kong government and thus had to maintain a rather official position and would not ask too many questions of a personal nature. Being Secretary of Justice, Yuen performed the role of a constitutional expert and thus would confine his questions to this arena. In contrast, being Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, Tam had the consultative role between the CPG of the PRC government, the Hong Kong government, the pro-establishment political parties, the pro-democracy political parties and the Hong Kong populace in the process of constitutional development. In fact, it was one of his major policy portfolios. In the meeting, Tam intended to play the role of ‘an ordinary citizen’ like anyone else in Hong Kong. As an ordinary citizen, he could be a fellow HKU student of the student representatives Alex Chow and Yvonne Leung. As such, he was in the position to ask questions that had no direct relation to his official capacity. For example, he could ask questions like many Hong Kong people did: Why did the HKFS oppose the NPCSC decision against many Hong Kong people’s preference? Why did they not like to see a step forward in Hong Kong’s democratic reform, even if that step was just a very little step? Let us illustrate the point with the following example, in which Tam started to establish membership with Alex and Yvonne as alumni of HKU, before he asked them questions in Examples 7.6 and 7.9. [7.5]

就 首先 呢 我 都， 要 好 多謝 呀 Alex 同 呀 Yvonne, hou2 do1ze6 aa3 Alex tung4 aa3 Yvonne, Zau6 sau2sin1 ne1 ngo5 dou1, jiu3 Then first SFP 1SG also MOD very thank PRT Alex and PRT Yvonne 因為 大家 都 係 香港大學 嘅 校友 咁樣。 jan1wai6 daai6gaa1 dou1 hai6 Hoeng1Gong2-Daai6Hok6 ge3 haau6jau5 gam2joeng2. because everybody all COP Hong-Kong-University GEN alumni such

(First of all I have to thank Alex and Yvonne very much for we are all HKU alumni.) [7.6]

頭先

呢， 應該

係

呀

Nathan

提

到，

係

唔

係

Tau4sin1

ne1,

jing1goi1

hai6

aa3

Nathan

tai4

dou3,

hai6

m4

hai6

Just

SFP

MOD

COP PRT Nathan

mention

arrive COP NEG COP

中大

有

個 調查

Zung1Daai6

jau5

go3 tiu4caa4 waa6 baak3-fan6-zi1-cat1-sap6-gei2

Chinese-University-of-Hong-Kong EXIST CL survey

話

百分之七十幾

say

同埋

70-something-percent

係

唔接受

呢

只

有

親中

hai6

m4-zip3sau6

le1

zi2

jau5

can1-Zung1 tung4maai4 hai6

COP NEG-accept SFP only EXIST Pro-Beijing as-well-as

係

建制

派，

gin3-zai3

paai3,

COP pro-establishment camp

Power and institutional role  207 係

嘛，

先至

係

可以

選

特首。

hai6

maa3,

sin1zi3

hai6

ho2ji5

syun2

Dak6Sau2.

right

SFP

then

COP

MOD

elect

Chief-Executive

(It should be Nathan who has talked just now about a survey from CUHK. It said that over 70% of respondents did not accept that only the pro-Beijing camp and pro-establishment camp officials could. Is it true?) [7.7]

我 相信 我 都 係 哩 百分之七啊幾 嘅 其中 baak3-fan1-zi1-cat1-aa6-gei2 ge3 kei4zung1 Ngo5 soeng1seon3 ngo5 dou1 hai6 lei1 1SG believe 1SG also COP DEM 70-something-percent GEN within 一 jat1 one

個 go3 CL

人 jan2 person

㗎 . . . gaa3 . . . SFP

嚟 lai4 SFP

(I believe I am also one of the 70% of them . . .) [7.8]  嗱

故此， 我哋 如果 係 原地踏步 嘅 話 呢， Naa4 gu3ci2, ngo5dei6 jyu4gwo2 hai6 jyun4-dei6-daap6-bou6 ge3 waa6 ne1, PRT therefore 1PL if COP original-place-stomp-step GEN say SFP

哩 一 啲 政治 生態 嘅 改變 係 冇 辦法 係 lei1 jat1 di1 zing3zi6 saang1taai3 ge3 goi2bin3 hai6 mou5 baan6faat3 hai6 DEM one CL political environment GEN change COP not-have method COP 可以 ho2ji5 MOD

成立 sing4lap6 establish

到， 亦都 dou2, jik6dou1 arrive also

無 mou5 not-have

辦法 baan6faat3 method

可以 ho2ji5 MOD

開始 到。 hoi1ci2 dou2. start arrive

(As such, if we remain at the same spot, there is no way to change the present political environment. There is no way to start it either.) [7.9]

點解

我哋

唔

Dim2gaai2 ngo5dei6 m4 Why

1PL

將，

哩

zoeng1, lei1

NEG take

一

個 嘅

jat1 go3 ge3

二零一七

年

作

ji6-ling4-jat1-cat1 nin4 zok3

DEM one CL GEN 2017

為 wai4

year make as

哩

個

政治

生態

改變

嘅

開始

呢

咁？

lei1

go3

zing3zi6

saang1taai3

goi2bin3

ge3

hoi1ci2

ne1

gam2?

DEM

CL

political

ecology

change

GEN

start

SFP

such

(Why don’t we view 2017 as the start of the change of the political environment?)

208  Approaching political discourse from below 7.4.2 The choice of speech function of student representatives Of the student representatives, Alex Chow comparatively asked more questions, especially yes/no questions, than did the other student representatives. It is probably that being the Secretary General of HKFS, he was the leader of the student representatives, and his role was similar to that of the captain of a debate team, who was responsible for opening and closing the debate. As such, he would have more times to express the comments and ask questions on behalf of the whole team of HKSF representatives. He asked more yes/no question in areas that the public generally regarded the government had not done well in. This was a strategy to put the government in a disadvantaged position. Following are some of the questions that he asked in Turn 4, the opening turn of the meeting: [7.10]

點解

咁

多

人

佢哋

都

Dim2gaai2

gam3

do1

jan4

keoi5dei6

dou1 wui5 gok3dak1

gam3

fan5nou6,

Why

such

many

person

3PL

all

will

such

angry

去

話

或者

願意

用

街頭

嘅

時間

waak6ze2 jyun6ji3 jung6 gaai1tau4 ge3 street

會

覺得 think 畀

咁

香港

憤怒，

政府

si4gaan3 heoi3 waa6 bei2 Hoeng1Gong2 zing3fu2

or

willing use

GEN time

go

tell

give Hong-Kong government

聽，

佢哋

希望

有

更加

好

嘅

社會。

teng1,

keoi5dei6

hei1mong6

jau5

gang3gaa1

hou2

ge3

se5wui2

listen

3PL

hope

EXIST

more

good

GEN

society

(Why will many people feel so angry or why are they willing to spend their time on the streets telling the government they wish to have a better society?) [7.11] 咁

係 咪 政府 係 期望 呢 個 提委會， Gam2 hai6 mai6 zing3fu2 hai6 kei4mong6 ni1 go3 tai4wai2-wui2, Then COP NEG government COP expect DEM CL nomination-committee

選 出 嚟 嘅 特首 候選人 係 繼續 為 財閥 syun2 ceot1 lai4 ge3 Dak6Sau2 hau6syun2jan4 hai6 gai3zuk6 wai6 coi4fat6 elect out come GEN Chief-Executive candidate COP continue for plutocrat 或者 waak6ze2 or

大商家 daai6soeng1gaa1 businessman

去 heoi3 go

把 baa2 defend

關 gwaan1 juncture

呢? ne1? SFP

(Then is it true that the government hopes the Chief Executive candidate elected by this nomination committee will still defend the plutocrat or entrepreneurs?)

Power and institutional role  209 [7.12]

一

個

唔

平等

Jat1

go3

m4

ping4dang2 ge3

嘅

One CL NEG equal

提委會

導向

一

導向

tai4wai2-wui2

dou6hoeng3

jat1

dou6hoeng3

GEN nomination-committee lead-direction one lead-direction

嘅

社會

係

一

個

平等

嘅

社會

吖， 定

係

一

個

ge3

se5wui2

hai6

jat1

go3

ping4dang2

ge3

se5wui2

aa1,

ding6

hai6

jat1

go3

GEN

society

COP

one CL equal

GEN

society

SFP

or

COP

one CL

更加

不

平等

嘅

社會?

貧富懸殊

係

會

gang3gaa1

bat1

ping4dang2

ge3

se5wui2?

pan4fu3-jyun4syu4

hai6

wui5

even

NEG

equal

GEN

society

poverty-wealth-far-disparity

COP

will

更加

嚴重

呢?

gang3gaa1

jim4zung6

ne1?

even

serious

SFP

(Is a society directed by an unfair nomination committee a fair society? Or is it even a more unfair society whose wealth gap will be more serious?) [7.13]

人大

佢

落

決議

Jan4Daai6 keoi5 lok6 NPC

嘅

kyut3ji3 ge3

時候

嘅

原因

si4hau6 ge3

3SG descend decision GEN time

唔

jyun4jan1 m4

GEN reason

喺

都

hai6

dou1 hai6

喺

NEG COP also COP

根

基於

香港

政府

所

撰寫

嘅

報告?

gan1

gei1jyu1

Hoeng1Gong2

zing3fu2

so2

zaan3se2

ge3

bou3gou3?

root

based-on

Hong-Kong

government

PRT

write

GEN

report

(Wasn’t the reason for the NPC to make the resolution based on the report written by the Hong Kong government?) [7.14] 但

係 點解 今日 香港 政府 好似 完全 Daan6 hai6 dim2gaai2 gam1jat6 Hoeng1Gong2 zing3fu2 hou2ci5 jyun4cyun4 but COP why today Hong-Kong government seemingly completely

可以 ho2ji5 MOD

推卸 teoi1se3 shift

哂 saai3 completely

所有 so2jau5 all

嘅 ge3 GEN

責任? zaak3jam6? responsibility

(Yet why is it likely that today’s Hong Kong government can completely shift all the responsibility?)

7.5 Polarity, relative power, institutional role and division of labour All mood types can be either positive or negative. The data are tabulated in Table 7.4.

210  Approaching political discourse from below Table 7.4  The choice of polarity Polarity Government officials

Positive 634 (93.5%)

44 (6.5%)

678 (100%)

Raymond Tam

277 (87.7%)

39 (12.3%)

316 (100%)

Rimsky Yuen

230 (88.5%)

30 (11.5%)

260 (100%)

1,141 (91.0%)

113 (9.0%)

1,254 (100%)

Alex Chow

455 (93.0%)

34 (7.0%)

489 (100%)

Lester Shum

148 (93.1%)

11 (6.9%)

159 (100%)

Yvonne Leung

135 (89.4%)

16 (10.6%)

151 (100%)

Nathan Law

163 (92.1%)

14 (7.9%)

177 (100%)

Eason Chun

113 (87.6%)

16 (12.4%)

129 (100%)

Sub-total Total

Total

Carrie Lam

Sub-total Student representatives

Negative

1,014 (91.8%)

91 (8.2%)

1,105 (100%)

2,155 (91.4%)

204 (8.6%)

2,359 (100%)

In this meeting, the number of negative statements and questions in the dialogues of the government officials is slightly higher than that of the student representatives, 9.0% compared with 8.2% respectively. The difference doesn’t seem large, but it is considered significant because this was supposed to be a meeting in which both political parties intended to solve political problems and to forge a road for improvement instead of a political debate. If we compare the figures here with the ones in the debate about the CE election in 2017, we will see the differences. In this meeting, the overall frequency of negative statements and questions was 9.1%, and the overall frequency of negative statements and questions in the debate about the CE election 2017 was 10.3%. As Carrie Lam was the only political actor participating in this meeting and in the CE election debate, let us compare her choice of negatives in both events. It is noted that as the Chief Secretary for Administration and leader of government representatives in this televised meeting, Lam issued only 6.5% negatives; in contrast, as one of the three candidates in the CE election in 2017, she issued 10.1% negatives in the televised debate. As it was the stance of the HKSAR government to see the Umbrella Movement as an illegal public assembly and that the normal way of life of the Hong Kong people was seriously disrupted, and that the society was highly divided between those supporting the government and those opposing the NPCSC’s decision and the HKSAR government, the government officials thus expressed a higher percentage of negative statements and questions than did the students. However, as the head of the team of government officials and the principal representative of the HKSAR government, Lam issued many fewer negatives than Tam and Yuen did, to establish a buffer zone when the meeting turned sour. Moreover, the HKSAR government wanted to persuade the protesters to end the Umbrella Movement; thus, the whole team of government officials had

Power and institutional role  211 taken a conciliatory approach, which was mainly executed by Lam, the principal representative of the government. This left Tam and Yuen to take a tougher stand to show that the government disapproved of illegal demonstrations like the Umbrella Movement. Similarly, it is noted that as the leader of the student representatives in the meeting, Alex Chow issued fewer negative statements and questions of any student representative of HKFS. In contrast, Yvonne Leung and Eason Chung issued more negatives. As HKFS believed that the NPCSC’s decision was unconstitutional and should be overturned by the National People’s Congress, Yvonne’s role in the meeting was to rebut the CPG and the government’s position from a constitutional perspective. Her questions and comments were thus more negatives than were those of other student representatives. Likewise, Eason Chung focused on the inequality in Hong Kong people’s political rights that the present political system created, and that the NPCSC decision would create in the future, in order to fulfil his role of discussing what the government should do to solve the political problem triggered by the NPCSC’s August 31 Decision. Hence, his questions were more negatives than were those of other student representatives.

7.6 Modality, relative power, institutional role and division of labour From the systemic functional perspective, MODALITY is one of the interpersonal semiotic resources which language users use to signal their modal commitment, including the degree to which they commit themselves to the validity of their propositions or to the responsibility of their proposals (Halliday, 1994; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Martin, 1992; Matthiessen, 1995, to name just a few). There are two major sub-categories: modulation and modalization. The former concerns the validity of the proposition expressed in the statement, and the latter concerns the willingness or responsibility of the proposal. It is noted that modalization can be expressed congruently or figuratively. We will examine the figurative one in Chapter 8.

7.6.1 The choice of modalization Modalization refers to the speaker’s assessment of the truthfulness of the proposition encoded in the utterance. It is also known as ‘propositional modality’. There are two choices of modalization, probability and usuality. The choice of probability is known as the ‘epistemic modality’ in other linguistic traditions, subsuming the speaker’s speculation and deduction of the possibility or necessity of the proposition content (also known as ‘judgemental’) (see Palmer, 2001). In other words, for a proposition congruently realized by an indicative clause, the speaker may signal how probable and/or how usual it is for something to happen in his or her belief. In Example 7.15, one of the government officials, Rimsky Yuen, in the televised meeting used hou2 hang2ding6 好肯定 (very sure) to express his certainty of the validity of the proposition expressed in the statement. In Example 7.16,

212  Approaching political discourse from below another government official, Carrie Lam, used si4soeng4 時常 (often) to express how often the expressed action or event would occur. [7.15] 當年，

無 Dong1-nin4, mou5

提出 過， 人大常委會， 無 權力 tai4ceot1 gwo3, Jan4Daai6Soeng4 mou5 kyun4lik6 Wai2Wui2, NEG-have person mention EXP NPCSC NEG-have power

that-year

人 jan4

就 喺 話， 做 哩 一 樣 嘢， 亦都 呢， 好 肯定 zou6 li1 jat1 joeng6 je5, jik6dou1 ne1, hou2 hang2ding6 zau6 hai6 waa6, do DEM one CL thing also SFP very sure EMPH COP say 當 dong1 when

解釋 gaai2sik1 explain

嘅 ge3 GEN

時候， si4hau6, time

响 hoeng2 on

喺 hai6 COP

四月 sei3-jyut6 April

六號 luk6-hou6 6th-day

決定 kyut3ding6 decision

喺 四月 二十六號， 相隔 大約 喺 二十 日， hai6 sei3-jyut6 ji6-sap6-luk6-hou6, soeng1gaak3 daai6joek3 hai6 ji6-sap6 jat6, COP April 26th-day distant approximately COP 20 day 我 唔 相信， ngo5 m4 soeng1seon3, 1SG NEG believe

就 zau6 EMPH

喺 當其時 hai6 dong1-kei4-si4 COP that-time

同 一 批 嘅 tung4 jat1 pai1 ge3 same one CL GEN

人大常委會 嘅 成員 唔 知道 自己 做 緊 咩 嘢。 Jan4Daai6Soeng4 ge3 sing4jyun4 m4 zi1dou6 zi6gei2 zou6 gan2 mat1 je5. Wai2Wui2 NPCSC GEN member NEG know self do IMPERF what thing

(During that year, nobody had ever suggested that the NPSCS had no power to do that. Very certainly as well, I do not believe during the interpretation on 6 April and the decision on 26 April, after a 20-day interval, the NPCSC members did not know what they were doing.) [7.16]

至於

所謂

Zi3jyu1 so2wai6

嘅

平等

ge3

ping4dang2 ge3

嘅

As-for so-called GEN equal 可能

聽

ho2nang4 ting3

選舉

權，

我

諗

呀

syun2geoi2 kyun4, ngo5 lam2 aa3

GEN election

right

Nathan Nathan

1SG think PRT Nathan

錯

咗，

行政長官

喺

無

話

co3

zo2,

Hang4Zing3-

hai6

mou5

waa6 sau1jap6

收入

Zoeng2Gun1 MOD

listen wrong PERF Chief-Executive

少於

某

siu2jyu1

mau5 jat1 go3

一

個

銀碼

嘅

ngan4maa5 ge3

less-than some one CL amount

COP NEG-have

say

income

人

呢， 喺

唔

應該

jan4

ne1,

m4

jing3goi1

GEN person SFP

hai6

COP NEG MOD

Power and institutional role  213 有

選舉

權。

jau5

syun2geoi2

kyun4. So2ji5

hai2 gam1-ci3

right

at

EXIST election 行政長官

所以 therefore

今次

喺

Chief-Executive

合

ng5baak3maan6 hap6

SFP five-million

就

係

一

zau6

hai6

jat1 jan4

人

一

到

普選

zou6 dou3

this-time do

呢， 五百萬

Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1 ne1,

做

pou2syun2

arrive universal-suffrage

資格

嘅

人

呢，

zi1gaak3

ge3

jan4

ne1,

meet qualification GEN person SFP

票， 哩

個 選舉

jat1 piu3, lei1

權

呢， 係

go3 syun2geoi2 kyun4 ne1,

EMPH COP one person one vote DEM CL election 同埋

平等

嘅， 哩

個

tung4maai4

ping4dang2

ge3,

lei1

go3 jik6dou1 hai6

亦都

係

as-well-as

equal

SFP

DEN CL also

hai6

普及 pou2kap6

right SFP COP general 好

多

hou2 do1

人

時常

jan4

si4soeng4

COP very many person often

掛喺口邊

嘅

國際

嘅

標準。

gwaa3-hai2-hau2-bin1

ge3

gwok3zai3

ge3

biu1zeon2.

hang-at-mouth-side

GEN

international

GEN

standard

(Regarding the so-called equal right of election, I think Nathan may have misheard. The Chief Executive did not say that people with an income below a certain amount should not have the right of election. Therefore, the realization of the right of election that the 5 million eligible people can universally elect the Chief Executive by one person, one vote this time is universal and equal. It is also the international standard that many people keep mentioning.)

7.6.2 The choice of modulation In very broad sense, modulation refers to the speaker’s assessment of the obligation and willingness (including capacity) of the proposal encoded in the utterance. It is also known as ‘event modality’. The choice of obligation includes both permission and obligation, also known as ‘deontic modality’, whereas the latter includes both volition and capacity, also known as ‘dynamic modality’ in other linguistic traditions. In other words, modulation concerns the degree of inclination and the degrees of obligation of a proposal. In Example 7.17, a government official, Carrie Lam, in the televised meeting used jiu3 要 (have to) to express how definite the speaker believed to be the obligation of the subject to act. In Example 7.18, a student representative, Nathan Law, used jiu3 要 (have to) to express how inclined the speaker is to act. [7.17] 咁

所以 行政長官， 由於 佢 嘅 憲制 地位 Gam2 so2ji5 Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1, jau4jyu1 keoi5 ge3 hin3zai3 dei6wai2 As-such therefore Chief-Executive because 3SG GEN constitutional status

214  Approaching political discourse from below 喺 咁 特殊 呢， 佢 既 要 向 特區 負責， hai6 gam3 dak6syu4 ne1, keoi5 gei3 jiu3 hoeng3 Dak6Keoi1 fu6zaak3, COP such special SFP 3SG also MOD towards SAR accountable 亦都 要 向 中央 政府 嚟 到 去 負責。 jik6dou1 jiu3 hoeng3 Zung1Joeng1 zing3fu2 lai4 dou3 heoi3 fu6zaak3. also MOD towards Central government come arrive go accountable 咁 所以 去 普選 哩 位 行政長官 呢， heoi3 pou2syun2 lei1 wai2 Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1 ne1, Gam2 so2ji5 As-such therefore go universal-suffrage DEM CL Chief-Executive SFP 整 套 嘅 程序 一定 要 喺 非常之 審慎 咁 zing2 tou3 ge3 cing4zeoi6 jat1ding6 jiu3 hai6 fei1soeng4zi1 sam2san6 gam2 entire CL GEN procedure MOD MOD COP very careful such 嚟 lai4 come

到 dou3 arrive

喺 hai6 COP

進行。 zeon3hang4. conduct

(As such, since the Chief Executive has such a special constitutional status that he has to be accountable to both the SAR and the Central Government. The whole set of procedures with regard to the universal suffrage for Chief Executive must be conducted very carefully.) [7.18] 雖然 Seoi1jin4 Although

香港 Hoeng1Gong2 Hong-Kong

人 jan4 person

喺 hai6 COP

一直 jat1zik6 as-always

都 dou1 all

好 hou2 very

渴求’ hot3kau4, long-for

但 喺 見 到 咁 大 規模 嘅 申怨， 申訴 直到 daan6 hai6 gin3 dou2 gam3 daai6 kwai1mou4 ge3 san1jyun3, san1sou3 zik6dou3 but COP see arrive such large scale GEN complaint complaint until 呢 刻， 就 喺 因為 大家 見 到 民生 同埋 ni1 hak1, zau6 hai6 jan1wai6 daai6gaa1 gin3 dou2 man4sang1 tung4maai4 DEM moment EMPH COP because everybody see arrive people-living as-well-as 良心 嘅 問題， 已經 逼使 到 我哋 立即 要 出 嚟 loeng4sam1 ge3 man6tai4, ji5ging1 bik1si2 dou3 ngo5dei6 lap6zik1 jiu3 ceot1 lai4 conscience GEN problem already force arrive 1PL immediately MOD out come 正視 zing3si6 confront

哩 li1 DEM

個 go3 CL

問題。 man6tai4. problem

Power and institutional role  215 (Hongkongers have been longing for this, but we have been observing largescale grumbling up to this moment. They have grumbled up to this moment because we all have seen that the problems of people’s life and conscience have forced us to step out to face the matter squarely at once.)

7.6.3 A quantitative profile of the choice of modality in political discourse In this section, we will examine the choice of modality among the government officials and the student representatives in the televised meeting. Table 7.5 summarizes the choice of modality and Table 7.6 the value between the two political parties – the HKSAR government and HKFS – as well as the individual political actors in the televised meeting. From the systemic functional perspective, MODALITY is the grey area between the two polarities: ‘yes’ and ‘no’, and ‘do’ and ‘not do’. Furthermore, a simultaneous system of MODALITY is the system of VALUE, which indicates the speaker’s degree of commitment as ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’ to the proposition or the proposal expressed in the statement. In other words, it is a linguistic way to protect the speaker from a bold statement. In the televised meeting, the government officials, generally speaking, employed approximately more modality (347 times) than the student representatives (290 times). In addition, the government officials clearly preferred the ‘low’ value: 36.1% of the government officials compared to 28.0% of the student representatives. In other words, the government officials, though they were in a position of higher relative power and social status, were more cautious in claiming their proposition and issuing their proposal through the use of modality. As a matter of fact, the government officials intended to close the gap between themselves and the student representatives by using English names to address the student representatives as shown in the following example by Carrie Lam addressing Alex Chow. [7.19]

好

呀， 或者

我

回應

幾 句，

Hou2 aa3, waak6ze2 ngo5 wui4jing3 gei2 geoi3, good SFP or 亦

可以

jik6 ho2ji5

1SG reply

然後

請

我

啲 同事

jin4hau6 ceng2 ngo5 di1 tung4si6

few sentence then

呢 ne1

invite 1SG CL colleague SFP

就住

呀

ALEX 講

嘅

呢

作

一

zau6zyu6

aa3

ALEX gong2 ge3

ne1

zok3

jat1 go3 wui4jing3.

also MOD according-to

PRT Alex

個

回應。

speak GEN SFP make one CL reply

(Alright. Perhaps I’ll respond in a few words. Afterwards I will invite my colleagues. They can also give a response with regard to what Alex has said.) Secondly, by order, the choice of modality is approximately the same for both parties in the meeting: probability (53.1) ^ inclination (15.1) ^ obligation (27.3) ^ usuality (4.5). It is also noted that the same order occurred in the televised debate for the CE election in 2017, with the following frequencies:

Total

Student representatives

Government officials

MODALITY

21 (58.3%) 22 (43.1%) 23 (32.9%) 23 (79.3%) 156 (53.8%)

Lester Shum

Yvonne Leung

Nathan Law

Eason Chun

Sub-total 346 (54.0%)

67 (64.4%)

Alex Chow

188 (54.2%)

41 (56.2%)

Sub-total

39 (46.4%)

Rimsky Yuen

108 (56.8%)

Raymond Tam

Carrie Lam

probability

26 (4.1%)

12 (4.1%)

0 (0.0%)

4 (5.7%)

1 (2.0%)

3 (8.3%)

4 (3.8%)

14 (4.0%)

1 (1.4%)

9 (10.7%)

4 (2.1%)

usuality

Modalization

172 (27.0%)

72 (24.8%)

4 (13.8%)

28 (40.0%)

6 (11.8%)

8 (22.2%)

26 (25.0%)

100 (28.8%)

19 (26.0%)

28 (33.3%)

53 (27.9%)

95 (14.9%)

50 (17.2%)

2 (6.9%)

15 (21.4%)

22 (43.1%)

4 (11.1%)

7 (6.7%)

45 (13.0%)

12 (16.4%)

8 (9.5%)

25 (13.2%)

obligation

Modulation inclination

Table 7.5  The choice of modality among government officials and student representatives

637 (100%)

290 (100%)

29 (100%)

70 (100%)

51 (100%)

36 (100%)

104 (100%)

347 (100%)

73 (100%)

84 (100%)

190 (100%)

Total

Power and institutional role  217 Table 7.6 The choice of value in the use of modality among government officials and student representatives Value High Median

Government officials

Student representatives

70 (21.6%)

77 (30.0%)

137 (42.3%)

108 (42.0%)

Low

117 (36.1%)

Total

324 (100.0%)

72 (28.0%) 257 (100.0%)

probability (72.1%) ^ obligation (16.5%) ^ inclination (10.4%) ^ usuality (1.0%). In both the political events in Hong Kong – the televised meeting between the government officials and the student representative during the Umbrella Movement concerning the democratic development of Hong Kong, and a televised debate between the three candidates intended to stand for the Chief Executive election in 2017 – the major concerns were the validity of the proposition in the discussion, followed by the obligation of duties, then the inclination of doing something and finally the usuality of some situations to occur. By frequency, the government officials employed more modality in ‘probability’ and ‘obligation’ and less ‘inclination’ than did the student representatives. In other words, in the televised meeting, the government officials expressed their modal assessment more on the probability of the validity of their own and the student representatives’ propositions in the discussion, and the obligation of their responsibilities to their political policy, whereas the student representatives expressed the modal assessments more on the inclination of the HKSAR to improve democratic development in Hong Kong. Such a difference in emphasis of the two groups may also be explained by the unequal power relationship between the two. Though the government officials had formal authority, their hands were tied by the Chinese government. Thus, they tended to defend the government’s position by using more obligation (explaining why the government does something) and making as few offers as possible (using less inclination). In contrast, as the student representatives were not in a position to make any political changes, they simply expressed their wishes for the government to change its position and thus tended to use more inclination than obligation. Focusing on the division of labour, it is noted that Raymond Tam of the three government officials and Nathan Law of the five student representatives employed more modal assessments of inclination than their team members did. As the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs and a member of the three-member Task Force, Tam’s role in the meeting was to defend the CPG and the government’s position and to argue what could and should be done in Hong Kong’s constitutional development, but within the parameters set by the Basic Law and the NPCSC’s decisions. He thus employed more modality of inclination in his discourse. As for Law, one of his roles in the meeting was to support the demands of the students and the general public by referring to different opinion

218  Approaching political discourse from below polls and thus questioning the commitment of the HKSAR government to democratic development in general and the adoption of universal suffrage in the CE election 2017 in particular. Finally, it is also noted that Rimsky Yuen of the government officials and Yvonne Leung of the student representatives employed more modal assessments of obligation than did their team members. As the Secretary for Justice, Yuen had the role in the meeting to defend the CPG and the government’s position from a constitutional perspective and more importantly to rebut any constitutional arguments put forward by the students. As for Leung, her role was to rebut the CPG and the government’s position from a constitutional perspective. Hence, both of them employed more modality of obligation in their discourses than did their team members.

8

Evidentiality, subjectivity and mental process in political discourse

8.1 Introduction Subjectivity and evidentiality are two closely related, but different, linguistic phenomena. Subjectivity refers to a phenomenon which concerns the expression of self and the representation of a speaker’s perspective or point of view in discourse (Finegan, 1995). Evidentiality refers to a phenomenon which concerns how languages encode ‘how the speaker has come to the proposition expressed by utterance’ (Fox, 2001, p. 167). In other words, it concerns how grammatical markers are employed to encode a speaker’s source/type of information (Aikhenvald, 2004). Both notions are important in the study of political discourse because in a political event, political actors pursue certain goals and interests, and they use various persuasion and argumentation strategies to win the audience over to their side. These political strategies are basically built of and around words. The political actor’s expression of self, presentation of perspective or viewpoint, and indication of the source of proposition in the utterance alter his or her social distance with the audience, open up or close down the discourse space of negotiation, and enhance or diminish the reliability of the proposition in his or her discourse respectively. It is closely associated with the political act of ‘through personal experience’ that we briefly discussed in Chapter 4 Semantic discourse analysis of political discourse. Subjectivity is expressed in the linguistic resources of ‘modality’, which are grammaticalized in the grammar of Chinese, the language of the political discourse that this book analyzes; however, evidentiality is not. Hence, perception verbs – those verbs that denote sight, sound, touch, smell and taste – are deemed to extend their semantic scopes from ‘perception’ to ‘cognitive reasoning’ and then ‘marker of evidentiality’, indicating the subjective assessment or value judgement made by the perceiver rather than just denoting an act of objective perception.

8.2 ‘Evidentiality’ and perceptive verbs Evidentiality, as mentioned, refers to a phenomenon which concerns how grammatical markers are employed to encode a speaker’s source/type of information (Aikhenvald, 2004). In some languages, such as Wintu, the use of evidential markers is obligatory: however, it is not the case in Chinese. Still, Chinese has

220  Approaching political discourse from below Table 8.1  Occurrence and frequency of mental processes in the meeting Mental processes

Total

perception

cognition

affection

Government officials

48 (15.74%)

231 (75.74%)

26 (8.52%)

305 (100%)

Student representatives

49 (15.61%)

245 (78.03%)

20 (6.37%)

314 (100%)

Total

97 (100%)

476 (100%)

46 (100%)

619 (100%)

means to encode the source and mode of evidence for the factual status of claimed information stated in the proposition of an utterance. First, perception verbs – those that denote sight, sound, touch, smell and taste – are deemed to extend their semantic scopes from ‘perception’ to ‘cognitive reasoning’ and then ‘marker of evidentiality’, indicating the subjective assessment or value judgement made by the perceiver rather than just denoting an act of objective perception (Chor, 2012). Second, some adverbs, though not spelling out the information source or the evidence receiver, presuppose the speaker as the one making the evidential assessment (Hsieh, 2008, p. 208). From a systemic functional perspective, there are three major process types which construe our experience in the physical world: material processes, mental processes and relational processes. Between the three major processes, there are three minor processes: verbal processes, behavioural processes and existential processes. There are three sub-categories of mental processes: perception, affection and cognition. In the televised meeting between the government officials and the student representatives during the Umbrella Movement, the number of occurrences and relative frequency in percentage are summarized in Table 8.1. Both political groups – the government officials and the student r­ epresentatives – were quite consistent in their use of mental processes in the meeting. By number of occurrences and relative frequency, the descending order is cognition, perception and affection. Perception is realized by verbs which denote sight, sound, touch, smell and taste. Perceptive verbs seem to be a key means to express (inter)subjective and evidential meanings cross-linguistically (Whitt, 2009, 2011; among others). In the meeting, the political actors used the verbs of ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’ as the source of evidence to support their argument. The speaker of the following example was student representative Eason Chung. [8.1]

我哋 見 得 到 大部份 嘅 市民 喺 街 上面， Ngo5dei6 gin3 dak1 dou2 daai6-bou6fan6 ge3 si5man4 hai2 gaai1 soeng6bin6, 1PL see MOD arrive majority GEN citizen at street upon

Evidentiality and subjectivity  221 點解 dim2gaai2 why

政府 zing3fu2 government

唔 m4 NEG

去 heoi3 go

回應 wui4jing3 respond

呢？ ne1? SFP

(We can see that most of the citizens are on the streets. Why is the government not responding to them?) In this example, the complement clause 大部份嘅市民喺街上面 daai6-bou6fan6 ge3 si5man4 hai2 gaai1 soeng6bin6 (most of the citizens are on the streets) expresses a phenomenon in the physical world that can be perceived by the mental perceptive verb (or Givón’s (2001) perception-cognition-utterance verb). That is, the ‘seeing’ is used to convey the speaker’s physical sensation or condition. However, though 我哋 ngo5dei6 ‘we’ is the subject and 見得 gin3 dak ‘see’ is the main verb, the speaker’s intended message is not concerned about what she or he saw. In fact, the main argument in this utterance is construed in the projected clause (also known as complement clause); that is, 大部份嘅市民喺街上面，點解政府唔去回應呢 daai6bou6fan6 ge3 si5man4 hai2 gaai1 soeng6bin6 dim2gaai2 zing3fu2 m4 heoi3 wui4jing3 ne1 ‘there are so many citizens (protesting) on the streets. Why doesn’t the government go to give them some response?’ The main clause (or matrix clause) in fact functions as an evidential marker – the source of the evidence. It is an important strategy in political discourse, a strategy to support one’s assertion. In political discourse, an important way to provide evidence is often grounded in personal experience with the logic: ‘I know because I was there. And I was there, so I saw . . .’.

8.2.1 From direct to indirect experience In fact, it is noted in our corpus of Hong Kong political discourse that personal experience is so important that even though the government officials did not participate in the Umbrella Movement, they tried to use their indirect experience to support their argument. In the following example, a government official, Carrie Lam, intended to use a picture that she saw to support her argument. [8.2]

我

曾經

睇 過

一

幅

相，

喺

Ngo5 cang4ging1 tai2 gwo3 jat1 fuk1 soeng2, hai6 1SG once 警務人員，

兩

loeng5 wai2 hai2 Gam1Zung1 ge3

位

see EXP one CL photo COP EXIST two 當值

嘅， 就

ging2mou6jan4jyun4, dong1zik6 ge3, police-officer

有 jau5

zau6

同

兩

on-duty SFP EMPH with two

呢

喺度

傾偈。

ne1

hai2dou6

king1gai2.

SFP

there

talk

位

喺

tung4 loeng5 wai2 hai6 CL

喺

CL

at

示威

金鐘

嘅

Admiralty 嘅

si6wai1 ge3

GEN

女孩子 neoi5haai4zi2

COP protest GEN girl

(I once saw a photograph in which there are two police officers on duty in Admiralty talking with two girls who are protesting on the street.)

222  Approaching political discourse from below [8.3]

其實

哩

Kei4sat6 lei1

啲 喺

我哋

di1 hai6

ngo5dei2 ging2deoi2

警隊

Actually DEM CL COP 1PL 最大

嘅

zeoi3daai6 ge3

包容

先

用

Police-Force use 能夠

可以

baau1jung4 sin1 nang4gau3 ho2ji5

maximum GEN pardon

then MOD

最大

咗

jung6 zo2

嘅

容忍

zeoi3daai6 ge3

度，

jung4jan2 dou6,

PERF maximum GEN tolerance degree

砌

出

cai3

ceot1 lei1

哩

啲 咁

嘅

di1 gam3 ge3

場面。 coeng4min6.

MOD create out DEM CL such GEN scene

(In fact, these scenes can only be created by the maximum degree of tolerance and pardon of our police force.)

8.2.2 From perception to cognition Using perceptive verbs as evidentials can be very productive, as the nature of phenomenon expressed in the complement clause can extend from some physical entities that we can ‘see’ to something more abstract. The following example is found in Carrie Lam’s discourse in the televised meeting. In this example, the base of the proposition ‘democratic systems are all originated and stipulated by constitutions’ is ‘around the world’, which is the object of the perceptive verb phrase 睇返 tai2 faan1 ‘looked’. The common practice around the world is used as a rational base for her argument expressed in the following clause. [8.4]

我哋 睇 返 世界 各 地， 民主 嘅 制度 呢 Ngo5dei6 tai2 faan1 sai3gaai3 gok3 dei6, man4zyu2 ge3 zai3dou6 ne1 1PL see return world every place democracy GEN system SFP 都 喺 從 個 憲制 嘅 層面 作出 規定 嘅。 dou1 hai6 cung4 go3 hin3zai3 ge3 cang4min2 zok3-ceot1 kwai1ding6 ge3. all COP from CL constitution GEN level make regulation SFP

(We looked around the world, (and we can see that) democratic systems are all originated and stipulated by constitutions.) It is noted that the complement clause 世界各地，民主嘅制度 sai3gaai3 gok3 dei6, man4zyu2 ge3 zai3dou6 (the democratic systems around the world) expresses a phenomenon in the world of cognition that cannot be perceived by the mental perceptive verb but cognition verb, i.e., ‘I think/I regard’ (or Yap and Chor’s ‘psych verb’; Givón’s perception-cognition-utterance verb). That is, the ‘seeing’ is used to convey the speaker’s psycho-logical condition. [8.5]

香港

喺

國家

嘅

一

個

特別

行政

區，

Hoeng1Gong2

hai6

gwok3gaa1

ge3

jat1

go3

dak6bit6

hang4zing3

keoi1,

Hong-Kong

COP

country

GEN

one

CL

special

administration

region

香港

民主

Hoeng1Gong2 man4zyu2 Hong-Kong

制度

嘅

建立

同埋

zai3dou6

ge3

gin3lap6

tung4maai4 faat3zin2

democracy system

GEN establishment as-well-as

發展

呢 ne1

development SFP

Evidentiality and subjectivity  223 亦都

要

需要

jik6dou1 jiu3 also

從

憲制

seoi1jiu3 cung4 hin3zai3

MOD MOD

嘅

層面

ge3

cang4min2 lai4

嚟

from constitution GEN level

到

規定，

dou3

kwai1ding6,

come arrive regulate

亦

即喺

話

國家

嘅

憲法

同埋

jik6

zik hai6

waa6

gwok3gaa1

ge3

hin3faat3

tung4maai4

基本法。 Gei1Bun2Faat3.

also

that-is

say

country

GEN

constitution

as-well-as

Basic-Law

(Hong Kong is a special administrative region of our country. The construction and development of its democratic system have to be originated in constitutions as well, which are the constitutions of our country and the Basic Law.)

8.2.3 From present to future In the preceding examples, the phenomena occurred in the past. However, this strategy can be extended to a phenomenon in the future. In other words, speakers can express a phenomenon which is not yet a fact. In this case, it is through a logical-deduction process as shown in the discourse of a student representative, Nathan Law. In this case, the function of the matrix clause as an evidentiality marker becomes more obvious. [8.6]

而

我哋

Ji4

ngo5dei6 gin3 dou2

And 1PL 亦都

只

jik6dou1 zi2 also

見

到

八三一

嘅

baat3-saam1-jat1 ge3

see arrive August-31st 喺

得

hai6

dak1 Gin3Zai3Paai1

建制派

框架

出

咗

kwaang1gaa2 ceot1 zo2

GEN frame

嚟

之後

lai4

zi1hau6 ne1,

out PERF come after

呢， SFP

人士

先至

可以

被

提名

jan4si6

sin1zi3

ho2ji5

bei6

tai4ming4

only COP only pro-establishment-camp person EMPH MOD PASS nominate

成為

特首

嘅

候選人。

sing4wai4

Dak6Sau2

ge3

hau6syun2jan4.

become

Chief-Executive

GEN

candidate

(And we have also seen that after the framework on 31 August was released, only the pro-establishment camp members can be nominated to be Chief Executive candidates.) It is noted that the complement clause ‘八三一嘅框架出咗嚟之後呢，亦都只 喺得建制派人士先 至可 以被提名成為特首候選人’ baat3-saam1-jat1 ge3 kwaang1 gaa2 ceot1 zo2 lai4 zi1hau6 ne1, jik6dou1 zi2 hai6 dak1 Gin3Zai3Paai1 jan4si6 sin1zi3 ho2ji5 bei6 tai4ming4 sing4wai4 Dak6Sau2 ge3 hau6syun2jan4 (after the framework on 31 August was released, only the pro-establishment camp members can be nominated to be Chief Executive candidates) expresses a phenomenon in the future world, a phenomenon that is imagined through logical-deduction. The ‘seeing’

224  Approaching political discourse from below here is somewhat closer to ‘I deduce’. That is, the ‘seeing’ is used to convey the speaker’s psycho-logical condition. In all of the previous examples, one thing is common: the matrix clause, through the use of perception verb, functions as an evidentiality marker instead of the major proposition of the message.

8.2.4 From ‘seeing’ to ‘hearing’ After surveying a diverse range of the world’s languages, Viberg (1983) in his cross-linguistic study of perception verbs proposed a perception verb hierarchy: sight > hearing > touch > smell > taste. In Viberg’s own words: a verb having a basic meaning belonging to a sense modality higher (to the left) in the hierarchy can get an extended meaning that covers some (or all) of the sense modalities lower in the hierarchy. (pp. 136–137) Hence, we should expect that verbs of seeing have a greater degree of polysemy. In fact, research on perception verbs has mostly focused on the verbs of visual perception. It is observed that many examples in Australian languages shift from ‘sight’ to ‘hearing’, and some examples to ‘touch’/‘smell’ (Evans & Wilkins, 2000, p. 557). In the discourse of the televised meeting, it is found that of the mental process of perception, ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’ are the most frequent verbs used for both government officials and student representatives, 61 (62.89%) verbs of ‘seeing’ and 21 (21.65%) verbs of ‘hearing’ out of a total of 97. Let’s examine the following discourse of a government official, Carrie Lam. Her major argument was that Hong Kong was in a ‘worrying’ situation due to the Umbrella Movement. However, she started with what she heard: many friends said that they were worried about the situation in Hong Kong. However, her intention was to make use of ‘hearing’ as an evidentiality marker while the main phenomenon to be discussed was construed in the complement clause (projected clause). She then used a question as a transition to her main argument: the Hong Kong spirit of ‘rule of law’ and civil attitude was being weakened due to the protests. [8.7]

最近， Zeoi3gan6, Recent 就 zau6

我哋 ngo5dei2 1PL

聽 ting2 hear

到 dou3 arrive

好 hou2 very

多 do1 many

朋友 pang4jau5 friend

同 tung4 with

話 佢哋 好 擔心 香港 而家 個 現 waa6 keoi5dei6 hou2 daam1sam1 Hoeng1Gong2 ji4gaa1 go3 jin6

EMPH say

3PL

very worry

Hong Kong now

我 ngo5 1SG

講’ gong2, say

況 fong3.

CL present situation

(Recently, I have heard many people telling me that they are very worried about the present situation of Hong Kong.)

Evidentiality and subjectivity  225 [8.8]

點解 咁 講 呢? Dim2gaai2 gam3 gong2 ne1? Why such say SFP

(Why do they say so?) [8.9]

因為

香港

一向

好

重視

嘅

Jan1wai4 Hoeng1Gong2 jat1hoeng3 hou2 zung6si6 ge3 Because Hong-Kong always 好似

係

受

hou2ci5

hai6

sau6 dou3

到

一

香港

人

嘅

精神

faat3zi6

ge3

zing1san4 ne1,

呢’

very concern GEN rule-of-law GEN spirit 個 嚴重

嘅

衝擊。

jat1 go3 jim4zung6 ge3

seemingly COP get arrive one CL serious

Hoeng1Gong2 jan4

法治

應

有

jing1

jau5 ge3

嘅

香港

SFP

一向’

cung1gik1. Hoeng1Gong2 jat1hoeng3,

GEN attack

公民

態度，

Hong-Kong always 好似

係

互相

gung1man4 taai3dou6, hou2ci5 hai6

Hong-Kong person MOD have GEN civil

attitude

wu6soeng1

such-as COP mutual

尊重

呀，

求同存異

呀，

理性

務實’

zyun1zung6

aa3,

kau4tung4cyun4ji6

aa3,

lei5sing3

mou6sat6,

respect

PRT

seek-sameness-reserve-difference

PRT

rationality

practicality

亦都

好似

係

不知不覺

咁

被

淡化

咗。

jik6dou1

hou2ci5

hai6

bat1zi1bat1gok3

gam2

bei6

daam6faa3

zo2.

also

seemingly

COP

unknowingly

such

PASS

weaken

PERF

(This is because the rule of law spirit to which Hong Kong has always attached great importance seems to be heavily attacked. The civil attitude that Hong Kong people are always supposed to have, such as mutual respect, seeking common ground while reserving differences, and rationality and practicality, also seems to be weakened unknowingly.)

8.2.5 Perceptive-cognitive verb evidentials as a means of political strategy In Chapter 5, ‘evidentiality’ in appraisal analysis is seen as one of the semantic resources of ENGAGEMENT [engagement: heterogloss: expansion: entertain: evidentiality]. In Martin and White’s (2005, p. 104) own words, ‘entertain’ comprises ‘wordings by which the authorial voice indicates that its position is but one of a number of possible position and thereby, to greater or less degrees, makes dialogic space for those possibilities’. In other words, it is a way to open up the space for the other political actors to discuss the proposition expressed in the complement clause, as shown in Carrie Lam’s discourse in Example 8.10.

226  Approaching political discourse from below [8.10]

咁

喺

Gam2

hai2 lei1dou6 waak6ze2 dou1 do1

哩度

As-such at 聽

或者

here

都

maybe

到， 啫喺

社會

多

講

咁

複雜,

咁

上

有

ne1,

人

提出，

jan4

tai4ceot1, zau6

多

gam3 do1

嘅

階段,

ge3

gaai1dyun6, hou2ci5

好似

爭議，

與其

jyu5kei4 heoi3 dou3

而家

咁

zang1ji5,

gam3 daai6 ge3

大

controversy such big 嘅

平台，

ge3

ping4toi4, lai4

嚟

咁

去

呢， 嚟

ji4gaa1 gam2 ne1,

resemble now

爭議，

嘅

既然

lai4

go

分爭，

咪

喺

GEN quarrel

political-reform 好

關鍵

arrive one CL very critical

可以

mai6 ho2ji5

有

咁

大

嘅

gam3 daai6 ge3

EXIST such big

構建

一

個 多

GEN 方

kau3gin3 jat1` go3 do1

fong1

COP NEG MOD construct one CL many aspect

到

去

dou3

heoi3 dang2 daai6gaa1

等 wait

大家

花

多

啲

嘅

時間，

faa1

do1

di1

ge3

si4gaan3,

everybody spend many CL GEN time

盡量

可以

收窄

zeon6loeng6

ho2ji5

sau1zaak3 fan1kei4,

come arrive as-far-as-possible MOD narrow

consensus

個

heoi3 jau5

到

GEN

一

去

dou3

共識。

政改

jat1 go3 hou2 gwaan1gin6

dou3

lai4

gung6sik1.

到

到

嚟

ge3

亦都

gei3jin4 zing3-goi2

such SFP come arrive go

fan1zang1, hai6

come arrive go

嘅

我

gan6jat6 ngo5 jik6dou1

就

zang1ji5,

such complicated such many controversy rather

GEN platform

呢， 近日

society upon EXIST person propose EMPH since

gam3 fuk1zaap6,

GEN stage

點

also more speak one point SFP recently 1SG also

teng1 dou2, ze1-hai6 se5wui2 soeng6 jau5 hear arrive that-is

一

gong2 jat1 dim2

分歧，

建立

一

個

好

gin3lap6 jat1 go3 hou2

啲 di1

divergence establish one CL good more

(Perhaps I’ll talk about one more point here. Recently I have also heard that in society there are some people suggesting that since constitutional development is so complicated and controversial, rather than having such a huge controversy and dispute at a very critical stage as what is seen now, is it possible to construct a multi-aspect platform for everyone to spend more time and more patience to try to narrow down the divergence and build a better consensus as much as possible?)

8.3 ‘Evidentiality’ and (prepositional) coverb Evidentiality can be either ‘sensory’ as in Example 8.11 by Alex Chow, or ‘reportative’ as in Example 8.12 by Yvonne Leung. It is realized by (prepositional) coverb for ‘sensory’ in Chinese (Halliday & McDonald, 2004; Li, 2007). For

Evidentiality and subjectivity  227 reportative, the coverb is followed by a nominal group to form a coverbal phrase (prepositional phrase in English). The coverbal phrase is usually thematized so that it functions as a ‘marked’ circumstantial phrase. [8.11]

因為

其中

有

一

Jan1wai6 kei4zung1 jau5 Because within

個

問題

就喺，

EXIST one CL problem that-is

提委會，

我哋

tai4-wai2wui2,

ngo5dei6 ho2nang4 jiu3

可能

nomination-committee 1PL 我

諗

兩

ngo5 lam2

當

年

要

possibly

前

嘅

loeng5 nin4 cin4 ge3

1SG think two

大家

話

提

到

jat1 go3 man6tai4 zau6-hai6, dong1 daai6gaa1 waa6 tai4 when everybody say

均衡

mention arrive

參與

gwan1hang4 cam1jyu5

MOD balance

dou3

嘅

時候，

ge3

si4hau6,

participate GEN moment

梁振英

選舉，

Loeng4Zan3Jing1

syun2geoi2, Tong4-jing4 tung4

唐營

year ago GEN Leung-Chun-Ying election 見

同

Tang-camp as-well-as

梁營

嘅

相爭

大家

都

香港

人

Loeng4-jing4

ge3

soeng1zang1

daai6gaa1

dou1 gin3 dou2,

到，

Hoeng1Gong2

jan4

Leung-camp

GEN

competition

everybody

all

Hong-Kong

person

see

arrive

完全

喺

局外人

嘅

身份，

局外人，

我

相信

jyun4cyun4

hai6

guk6-ngoi6-jan4

ge3

san1fan2,

guk6-ngoi6-jan4,

ngo5

soeng1seon3

completely

COP

outsider

GEN

identity

outsider

1SG

believe

林鄭月娥

司長

近

哩

個

零

月

體會

都

Lam4Zeng6Jyut6Ngo4

Si1Zoeng2

gan6

lei1

go3

leng4

jyut6

tai2wui6

dou1

Lam-Cheng-Yuet-ngor

Secretary

recent

DEM

CL few

month

experience

also

非常之

深，

當

其時

嘅香港

人，

就

好似

今日

fei1soeng4zi1

sam1,

dong1-kei4-si4

ge3

Hoeng1Gong2

jan4,

zau6

hou2ci5

gam1jat6

very

deep

when that-time

GEN Hong-Kong

person EMPH

resemble today

司長

你

一樣，

完全

喺

插手

唔

到

喺

Si1Zoeng2

nei5

jat1joeng6,

jyun4cyun4

hai6

caap3sau2

m4

dou2

hai2 sing4

secretary

2SG same

completely

COP participate

NEG arrive at

特首

嘅

選舉

過程

裡面。

Dak6Sau2

ge3

syun2geoi2

gwo3cing4

leoi5bin6.

Chief-Executive

GEN

election

process

inside

成 entire

個 go3 CL

(This is because of a problem inside. When everyone says that we may have to balance the participation regarding the nomination committee, I think everyone has seen that during the competition between the Tang camp and Leung camp in the Chief Executive election two years ago, the identity of the

228  Approaching political discourse from below role of the Hong Kong people was completely outsiders. I believe Secretary LAM CHENG Yuet-ngor has had a very deep feeling over the past month or more. The then Hong Kong people completely had no participation at all in the whole process of Chief Executive election, as what you Mrs. Madam Secretary are doing today.) [8.12]

而

根據

Ji4

gan1geoi3 zyu6

住

呢， 我哋 ne1,

中國

And according IMPERF SFP 1PL 第十一

款，

入面

dai6-sap6-jat1 fun2, 11th 哩

嘅

時候

decision

GEN time

改變，

呢。 其實

change

得

dak1 hou2 cing1co2, kei4sat6 dong1 Jan4Daai6

清楚， 其實

決定

喺

kyut3ding6 hai6

佢

喺

當

人大

actually when NPC

一

個 唔

適當

jat1 go3 m4

呢

個

有

權

zyut6deoi3 jau5

決定，

呢

個

baat3-saam1-jat1 ni1

咁

go3 kyut3ding6, gam2

cancel DEM CL decision 決定

落

go3 kyut3ding6 lok6

DEM CL decision

嘅

sik1dong3 ge3

COP one CL NEG suitable GEN

絕對

Kei4sat6 keoi5 hai6

撤銷

or

31-August

好

section

去

推翻，

kyun4 heoi3 teoi1faan1,

SFP actually 3SG COP absolutely EXIST right go

或者

八三一

條

GEN constitution 62th

GEN decision

heoi3 goi2bin3, waak6ze2 cit3siu1 ni1 go

dai6-luk6-sap6-ji6 tiu4

se2

嘅

si4hau6 ne1.

第六十二

hin3faat3,

already write PRT very clear

DEM CL NPCSC

決定

憲法，

寫

go3 Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2 ge3

kyut3ding6 ge3

去

都

個 人大常委

zi1dou3 ni1 know

China

jap6bin6 dou1

subsection inside

知道

嘅

ngo5dei6 Zung1Gwok3 ge3

overthrow

所以

到底

so2ji5

dou3dai2 gam1jat6

今日

as-such therefore after-all today

咗

落

嚟

之後， 喺

咪

zo2

lok6

lai4

zi1hau6, hai6

mai6

descend PERF down come after

真

喺

咁

不

能夠

憾動。

zan1

hai6

gam3

bat1

nang4gau3

ham2dung6.

really

COP

such

NEG

MOD

crush-move

COP NEG

(And according to our constitution in China, in Article 62, Section 11, it is written clearly that when the NPC knows that the NPCSC’s decision is an inappropriate one, in fact it absolutely has the power to overthrow, to change, or to quash this decision. Hence, after today’s 8/31 decision has reached Hong Kong, is it really true that it cannot be shaken?) A perceptive verb and a prepositional coverb phrase can co-occur to provide evidence, as shown the following example by Nathan Law. [8.13]

由

上述

幾

Jau4

soeng5-seot6

gei2 dim2 dou1 ho2ji5

點

都

From above-mentioned few point all

可以

睇

到

tai2 dou2

呢， 其實 ne1,

哩

kei4sat6 li1

一

份

jat1 fan6

MOD see arrive SFP actually DEM one CL

Evidentiality and subjectivity  229 嘅

諮詢

報告

ge3

zi1seon1

bou3gou3 ne1, tung4 man4cing4

呢， 同

GEN consultation report

民情

喺

出現

hai6

ceot1jin6 hou2 jim4zung6 ge3

好

SFP with public-opinion COP exist

嚴重

嘅

very serious

GEN

落差，

亦都

可以

好

正常

咁

推斷

到

呢，

lok6caa1,

jik6dou1

ho2ji5

hou2

zing3soeng4

gam2

teoi1dyun6

dou2

ne1,

difference

also

MOD

very

normal

such

deduce

arrive

SFP

全國人大常委會

作出

嘅

錯誤

判斷

呢，

Cyun4Gwok3Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2Wui2

zok3ceot1

ge3

co3ng6

pun3dyun6

ne1,

NPCSC

make

GEN

wrong

judgement

SFP

喺

有

可能

hai6 jau5

建

係

基於

ho2nang4 gin3- hai6 gei1jyu1

呢 一 個 嘅

諮詢

報告

li1

zi1seon1

bou3gou3 leoi5min6,

jat1 fan6 ge3

裡面，

COP EXIST possibility build COP based-upon EM one CL GEN consultation report

inside

所

撰寫

嘅

內容

喺

同

事實

不

乎。

so2

zaan3se2

ge3

noi6jung4

hai6

tung4

si6sat6

bat1

fu4.

PRT

write

GEN

content

COP

with

fact

NEG

compatible

(From the several points mentioned previously it can be observed that there is a very serious difference between what is mentioned in the consultation report and the domestic situation. It can also be inferred normally that the misjudgement of the NPCSC was probably based on a mismatch between the written contents in this consultation report and the facts.)

8.3.1 Coverbal evidentials as a means of political strategy In political discourse, it is a strategy to show the audience that ‘experts in a specific field are backing the politician’s proposal with their knowledgeable statements’ (Reyes-Rodríguez, 2011a, p. 786). The speaker can be enacted through voices from authoritative figures evoked by the speaker or by the institutional position represented by the speaker. The prepositional phrase is usually thematized to become a marked circumstantial theme in the statement. This can be illustrated with an extract from Nathan Law, as shown in Example 8.14. [8.14]

根據

中大

Gan1geoi3

Zung1Daai6 Ngaa3Taai3Jin4Gau3So2

亞太研究所

According CUHK

二零一四

喺

年

三月

hai2 ji6-ling4-jat1-sei3 nin4 saam1-jyut6

Institute-of-Asia-Pacific-Studies at

2014

year March

十一日

至到

二十日

嘅

調查，

有

七十六點二

個

sap6-jat1-jat6

zi3dou3

ji6-sap6-jat6

ge3

diu6caa4,

jau5

cat1-sap6-luk6-dim2-ji6

go3

11th-day

to

20th-day

GEN investigation

EXIST

76.2

CL

PERCENT 嘅

受訪者

percent

ge3

sau6fong2ze2 hai6

percent

GEN interviewee COP NEG accept

喺

唔

接受， 只

有

建制派

嘅

m4

zip3sau6, zi2

jau5

Gin3Zai3Paai1

ge3

only EXIST pro-establishment-camp GEN

230  Approaching political discourse from below 人士

包括

親中

人士，

政府

官員

等

先至

可以

jan4si6

baau1kut3

Can1Zung1

jan4si6,

zing3fu2

gun1jyun4

dang2

sin1zi3

ho2ji5

person

including

Pro-Beijing

person

government

official

etcetera

EMPH

MOD

成為

特首

嘅

候選人。

sing4wai4

Dak6Sau2

ge3

hau6syun2jan4.

become

Chief-Executive

GEN

candidate

(According to the survey conducted by Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies from 11 to 20 March, 76.2% of the respondents did not accept that only members from the pro-establishment camp, including the pro-Beijing camp and government officials, could be nominated as Chief Executive candidates.) Here, the speaker, Nathan Law, intended to bring in the voice of a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong to strengthen his argument that the majority of Hong Kong people did not accept the idea that only the pro-establishment camp, including the pro-Beijing camp and government officials, could be nominated as candidates in the election of Chief Executive.

8.4 ‘Subjectivity’ and cognitive verbs Subjectivity refers to a phenomenon which concerns the expression of self and the representation of a speaker’s perspective or point of view in discourse (Finegan, 1995). In general, subjectivity is expressed in the linguistic resources of appraisal and modality. We have discussed the use of modality and appraisal in political discourse in Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 respectively. From the systemic functional perspective, apart from modal auxiliaries, modal adverbs and modal verbs within the clause, the political actor’s assessment can be expressed metaphorically in a projecting clause in a hypotactic clause (cf. Halliday, 1994, p. 357). Halliday regards this as an interpersonal metaphorical variant. In this section, we will explore this variant [subjective: explicit] and its functions in the political discourse of the televised meeting during the Umbrella Movement in further detail. In the meeting, there are a number of cognitive verbs. Some express the speaker’s wish, such as 希望 hei1 mong6, 期望 kei4 mong6 ‘hope/wish’ and 期待 kei4 doi6 ‘expect/waiting for’; or the speaker’s intention, such as 想 soeng2 ‘would like/I want’; 嘗試 soeng4 si3 ‘try to’; or willingness, such as 願意 jyun6 jii3 ‘willing to’. Some express an explicit assessment on the truth of the proposition, such as 相信 soeng1 seon3, 深信 sam1 seon3 ‘believe/think’, 認為 jing6 wai4, 以為 ji5 wai4, ‘believe/think’, 諗 lam2 ‘think’, and gu2 估 (I estimate/I expect). That leaves 覺得 gok3dak1 ‘feel/think’ by itself. In Cantonese, 想 soeng2 expresses the speaker’s wish, as in Example 8.15; 諗 lam2 expresses the speaker’s assessment on the truth of the proposition in the complement clause, as in Example 8.16 by Raymond Tam. [8.15]

咁

就

Gam2 zau6

阿

Alex 佢

aa3

Alex keoi5 tau4sin1 tai4

頭先

Such EMPH PRT Alex 3SG just

提

到

明德格物

dou3

Ming4-Dak1-Gaak3-Mat6 ne1,

mention arrive Sapientia-et-Virtus

呢， SFP

Evidentiality and subjectivity  231 咁

我

係

想

借題發揮

少

少。

gam2

ngo5

hai6

soeng2

ze3-tai4-faat3-fai1

siu2

siu2.

as-such

1SG

COP

MOD

elaborate

little

little

(Just now Alex has mentioned ‘Sapientia et Virtus’. I would like to elaborate on it a bit.) [8.16]

格物以至知

呢, 我

諗

大家

都

需要

返

返

Gaak3-mat6-ji5-zi3-zi1 Investigate-thing-as-toacquire-knowledge

ne1,

ngo5

lam2

daai6gaa1

dou1

seoi1jiu3

faan2

SFP

1SG

think

everybody

all

need

return

事實

嚟

去

基本

嘅

客觀

heoi3 gei1bun2 ge3 go

basic

嘅

haak3gun1 ge3

GEN objective

si6sat6 lai4

GEN fact

到

去

dou3

heoi3 jin4gau3

come arrive go

今日

要

處理

嘅

問題。

gam1jat6

jiu3

cyu5lei5

ge3

man6tai4.

today

MOD

handle

GEN

problem

研究

我哋 ngo5dei6

investigate 1PL

(Regarding acquiring knowledge by investigating the nature of things, I think every one of us has to go back to the basic and objective facts to investigate the problem we need to handle today.)

8.4.1  ngo5 lam2 我諗 as a subjective modalization Being a cognitive verb, 諗 lam2 ‘think’ can project, and the projection is realized by a complement clause. The matrix clause 我諗 ngo5 lam2 ‘I think’ in fact is easily detached from the complement clause to be reanalyzed as a marker of the speaker’s subject stance. In the following example by Yvonne Leung, 我諗哩一點 喺非常之清楚。而唔應該喺將哩一個責任擺哂喺人大常委。Ngo5 lam2 lei1 jat1 dim2 hai6 fei1soeng4zi1 cing1co2. Ji4 m4 jing1goi1 hai6 zoeng1 lei1 jat1 go3 zaak3jam6 baai2 saai3 hai2 Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2 (‘I think this point is very clear and the responsibility should not be completely shifted to the NPCSC’), the utterance can be reinterpreted as ‘Probably, this point is very clear and the responsibility should not be completely shifted to the NPCSC’. [8.17]

我

諗

哩

一

Ngo5 lam2 lei1

點

喺

jat1 dim2 hai6

清楚。 而

唔

應該

fei1soeng4zi1 cing1co2. Ji4

非常之

m4

jing1goi1 hai6

1SG think DEM one point COP very

clear

But NEG MOD

喺

將 zoeng1

COP PRT

哩

一

個

責任

擺

哂

喺

人大常委。

lei1

jat1

go3

zaak3jam6

baai2

saai3

hai2

Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2.

DEM

one

CL

responsibility

put

all

at

NPCSC

(I think this point is very clear and the responsibility should not be completely shifted to the NPCSC.)

232  Approaching political discourse from below 8.4.2 From perception to cognition As a lexical verb, 覺得 gok3dak1 (feel/think) is a composite of the perceptual verb 覺 gok3 ‘feel/think’ and a resultative verb complement 得 dak1. Only approximately half (55.9%) of the subjects of 覺得 gok3dak1 ‘think’ is the first person pronoun 我 ngo5 ‘I’ or 我哋 ngo5dei2 ‘we’. It can be used to introduce the state that one feels, as shown in the following example by Nathan Law: [8.18]

而 亦都 希望 Ji4 jik6dou1 hei1mong6 And also hope 唔 喺 因為 hai6 jan1wai6 m4 NEG COP because

政府 zing3fu2 government 困難 kwan3naan4 difficult

喺 有 政治 嘅 魄力， hai6 jau5 zing3zi6 ge3 paak3lik6, COP EXIST political GEN vigour, 就 唔 去 做， 因為 zau6 m4 heoi3 zou6, jan1wai6 then NEG go do because

我哋 ngo5dei6 1PL

由 細 到 大 都 畀 人 教 就 喺， 有 困難 gaau3 zau6 hai6, jau5 kwan3naan4 jau4 sai3 dou3 daai6 dou1 bei2 jan4 from small to big all give person teach EMPH COP EXIST difficulty 覺得 正確， 覺得 有 逼切性 嘅， 就 要 迎難而上， zau6 jiu jing4-naan4-ji4-soeng5, gok3dak1 zing3kok3, gok3dak1 jau5 bik1cit3-sing3 ge3, then MOD accept-difficulty-and- think correct think EXIST urgency GEN go-up 就 zau6 then

要 jiu3 MOD

去 heoi3 go

做。 zou6. do

(It is also hoped that the government possesses political vigour and does not refuse to do so because of difficulty. This is because since we were children, we have been taught that we have to push on whenever there are difficulties. We have to do it when we think it is right and urgent.) In political discourse, it is more often that 覺得 gok3dak1 ‘feel/think’ is used to introduce a complement clause that expresses one’s feeling or thought. In the following example, Carrie Lam uses it to express her evaluation of the twohour dialogue between the government officials and the student representatives. In such a case, the matrix clause becomes a subjective modality marker like ‘I think’ in English. The main proposition in the argument, in fact, expresses in the complement clause. It is also noted that the matrix clause 我覺得 ngo5gok3dak1 ‘feel/think’ is often embedded in the middle of the sentence, which enhances the interpretation that it is indeed a clause-medial stance marker in Cantonese (Yap & Chor, 2014).

Evidentiality and subjectivity  233 [8.19]

今日

能夠

哩度

喺

同

學聯

進行，

就嚟

兩

小時

Gam1jat6 nang4gau3 hai2 lei1dou6 tung4 Hok3Lyun4 zeon3hang4, zau6lai4 loeng5 siu2si4 Today

MOD

at

嘅

交流

ge3

gaau1lau4 ge3

here

嘅

with HKFS

對話

呢, 我 覺得, 對

deoi3waa6 ne1,

GEN exchange GEN dialogue

SFP

我

希望

各

位

ngo5

hei1mong6

gok3

wai2 tung4hok6

1SG hope

progress

同學

every CL

student

我

almost

two

哋

嚟

講，

ngo5

gok3dak1, deoi3 ngo5dei6 lai4

1SG

think

都

會

to

1PL

hour

gong2,

come say

有

啲

感覺

呢，

dou1 wui5

jau5

di1

gam2gok3

ne1,

all

EXIST

CL feeling

SFP

MOD

都

係

一

個

有

建設性，

有

意義

嘅。

dou1

hai6

jat1

go3

jau5

gin3cit3sing3,

jau5

ji3ji6

ge3.

all

COP

one

CL

EXIST

constructiveness

EXIST

meaning

SFP

(Today we can have a dialogue of almost two hours with the HKFS representatives here. I think, for us, in my opinion, I hope all students will have some feeling that it has been a constructive and meaningful one.) The speaker’s assessment can extend to a hypothetical condition, issue or event, as shown in Example 8.20 by Raymond Tam. The speaker’s assessment can also extend from his or her own assessment on a certain issue to his or her assessment of others’ assessment to a certain issue or event, as shown in Example 8.21 by Yvonne Leung. [8.20]

我

相信

我

都

喺

Ngo5 soeng1seon3 ngo5 dou1 hai6

哩

百分之七十幾

嘅

其中

lei1

baak3-fan1-zi1-cat1-aa6-gei2

ge3

kei4zung1

1SG believe

1SG also COP DEM 70-something-percent

一

嚟

嘅, 因為 我

lai4

ge3,

個

人

jat1 go3 jan2

one CL person SFP SFP

覺得 如果

GEN within

我哋

根據

gok3dak1 jyu4gwo2 ngo5dei6 gan1geoi3

because

think

1SG

if

基本法，

我哋

以事論事

嘅

話

ngo5dei6

ji5-si6-leon6-si6

ge3

waa6 ne1, cam1-syun2-jan4

Basic-Law

1PL

discuss-matter

GEN say

嘅

唯

ge3

wai4 jat1 ge3

participate-election-right

GEN only one GEN qualification

基本法

hai6

Gei1Bun2Faat3 ge3

EMPH COP Basic-Law

嘅

第四十四

GEN

資格

嘅

限制

呢，

zi1gaak3

ge3

haan6zai3

ne1,

GEN limitation

SFP

條

dai6-sei3-aap6-sei3 tiu4

GEN 44th

嘅 ge3

SFP election-candidate

參選權

喺

嘅

according

參選人

cam1-syun2-kyun4

就

一

呢,

1PL

Gei1Bun2Faat3,

zau6

根據

jan1wai6 ngo5

裡面，

即

leoi5min6, zik1

article inside

喺

話

hai6

waa6

EMPH COP say

234  Approaching political discourse from below 在座

五

同學，

可能

都

要

再

等

一

陣，

zoi6zo6

ng5 wai2

tung4hok6,

ho2nang4

dou1

jiu3

zoi3

dang2

jat1

zan6,

seated

five CL

student

MOD

all

MOD

again

wait

one while

等

位

大家

wait

歲

四十

夠

dang2 daai6gaa1 gau3

以上

呢， 先至

sei3-sap6 seoi3 ji5soeng6 ne1,

everybody enough forty

咁

所以

凡

gam2

so2ji5

faan4 hai6

age above

乎合

喺

as-such therefore all

SFP

基本法 Basic-Law

第四十四

條

嘅

tiu4

ge3

44th

article GEN

永久性

居民

呢， 都

Hoeng1Gong2

wing5gau2-sing3

geoi1man4

ne1,

dou1 ho2ji5

Hong-Kong

permanent

citizen

SFP

all

呢， 第時

zang1ceoi2 ne1, dai6-si4 struggle

可以

提名

委員會

wai2jyun4-wui2 ge3

嘅

SFP that-time nomination committee

出

嚟，

ceot1 lai4,

MOD out

tai4ming4

參選，

ho2ji5

dai6-sei3-sap6-sei3

香港

爭取

可以

cam1-syun2, COP MOD participateelection

then

fu4hap6 Gei1Bun2Faat3

COP fulfil

喺

sin1zi3 hai6

喺

去

hai6

heoi3

come COP go

提名，

去

tai4ming4,

heoi3 zang1ceoi2

GEN nomination go

爭取 struggle

五百幾萬

選民

嘅

投票，

去

爭取

ng5-baak3-gei2-maan6

syun2man4

ge3

tau4piu3,

heoi3

zang1ceoi2

呢， ne1,

5-million-something

voter

GEN

vote

go

struggle

SFP

中央

嚟

到

去

委任

佢

嘅。

Zung1Joeng1

lai4

dou3

heoi3

wai2jam6

keoi5

ge3.

Central-government

come

arrive

go

appoint

3SG

SFP

(I believe I am also one of the 70% of them. Since I think if we rely on the Basic Law and take the matter on its merits, the only limitation on the qualification of the candidates’ rights to be elected is that they have to be over 40, listed in Article 44 in the Basic Law. That means five of you sitting here may have to still wait a moment until you can be elected. Hence, all Hong Kong permanent residents whose age is compatible with that stated in Article 44 of the Basic Law can come out to strive to be nominated by the future nomination committee, so as to contend for the votes of over 5 million voters and for being appointed by the Central People’s Government.) [8.21]

我

覺得

喺

一

個

講法

上面

呢，

其實，

Ngo5

gok3dak1

hai2 lei1

jat1

go3

gong2-faat3

soeng6min6

ne1,

kei4sat6,

1SG

think

at

one

CL

way-of-saying

upon

SFP

actually

電視機

旁邊

哩 DEM 睇

din6si6gei1 pong4bin1 tai2 television side

緊

直播

嘅

一

gan2

zik6bo3

ge3

jat1 di1 Hoeng1Gong2 si5man4,

啲 香港

市民，

watch IMPERF live-broadcast GEN one CL Hong-Kong citizen

Evidentiality and subjectivity  235 應該

都

會

非常之

jing1goi1 dou1 wui5 MOD

憤怒，

also MOD very

喺

由

jau4 Hoeng1Gong2 zing3fu2

底下，

香港

angry

hai6

COP by

因為

政府

哩

一

個

樣

自己 去

放棄

呢，

嘢

jat1 joeng6 je5

because DEM one CL 緊

ne1,

thing SFP

一國兩制

zi6gei2 heoi3 fong3hei3 gan2

Hong-Kong government self

dai2haa6, lei1

哩

fei1soeng4zi1 fan5nou6, jan1wai6 lei1

jat1-gwok3-loeng5-zai3 give-up IMPERF one-country-twosystem

go

釋法

嘅

五

go3 sik1-faat3

ge3

ng5 bou6 kuk1. Jan1wai6 ne1,

部

曲。 因為

呢， 其實 kei4sat6

beneath

DEM CL explanation-of-law GEN five CL step because SFP actually

剛才

亦都

提

gong1coi4 jik6dou1 tai4

得

好

dak1

hou2 cing1co2 zau6

清楚

就

mention MOD very clear

喺， 李飛

just

also

個

個 所謂

嘅

說明，

go2

go3 so2wai6

ge3

syut3ming4, kei4sat6 bun2san1

其實

先生

嘅

hai6, Lei5Fei1 sin1saang1 ge3

EMPH COP Li-Fei 本身

sir

GEN

就

喺

一

zau6

hai6

jat1 go3 mou5

個 無

DEM CL so-called GEN expository actually in-essence EMPH COP one CL not-have 法律

約束力

嘅

一

樣

東西

嚟

嘅。

faat3leot6

joek3cuk1-lik6

ge3

jat1

joeng6

dung1sai1

lai4

ge3.

legal

restriction-power

GEN

one

CL

thing

SFP

SFP

(I think regarding this idea in fact some Hong Kong citizens next to the television watching the live broadcast should be very angry because this makes the Hong Kong government give up the one country, two systems and the five stages of interpretation itself. This is because actually it has been mentioned very clearly just now that the so-called elaboration by Mr. Li Fei is in nature something which bears no legal restrictions.)

8.4.3 From desiration to reasoning Unlike 覺得 gok3dak1 (feel/think), of which only a little more than half of the subject of it is the first person pronoun 我 ngo5 ‘I’ or 我哋 ngo5dei2 ‘we’, the majority (81.8%) of the subject of 想 soeng2, 諗 lam2 (think) is the first person pronoun 我 ngo5 ‘I’ or 我哋 ngo5dei2 ‘we’. Furthermore, perceptive verbs and cognitive verbs can co-occur in political discourse, as shown in Example 8.22 by Carrie Lam. [8.22]

但

事實

Daan6 si6sat6 But 我

上，

actually upon 聽

大

部份

嘅

市民，

soeng5, daai6 bou6fan6 ge3

到，

我

big 睇

part 到

ngo5 ting3 dou3, ngo5 tai2 dou3 1SG hear arrive 1SG see

GEN citizen 一

啲

起碼

我

接觸

到，

si5man4, hei2maa5 ngo5 zip3zuk1 dou3,

嘅

jat1 di1 ge3

at-least

1SG contact arrive

意見

嘅

表達

ji3gin3

ge3

biu2daat6 ne1,

arrive one CL GEN opinion GEN express

呢， SFP

236  Approaching political discourse from below 都

覺得

喺

dou1 hai6 all

今次

COP think

我哋

嘅

ngo5dei6 ge3 1PL

嘅

ngo5dei6 ge3

this-time 1PL

執法

部門，

主要

zap1faat3

bou6mun4,

zyu2jiu3 hai6

GEN law-enforcement department mainly COP

警隊

呢， 喺

非常之

ne1,

fei1soeng4zi1 hak1zai3, keoi5dei6 hak1zai3 ge3

hai6

克制，

GEN police-force SFP COP very

原因

亦都

jik6dou1 hai6

reason

also 希望

喺

以

hope

克制

佢哋

restrain

3PL

嘅

restrain GEN

出於

對於

學生

嘅

關懷，

ceot1jyu1

deoi3jyu1

hok6saang1

ge3

gwaan1waai4,

regarding

student

GEN care

COP because-of 一

keoi5dei6 hei1mong6 ji5 3PL

喺

ging2deoi6

jyun4jan1

佢哋

我哋

gok3dak1 gam1ci3

個 和平

嘅

手法

jat1 go3 wo4ping4 ge3

呢， 喺

可以

sau2faat3 ne1, hai2 ho2ji5

學生 hok6saang1

take one CL peaceful GEN manner SFP COP MOD student

自己

撤離，

而

唔

需要

採用

最

低

武力

呢

zi6gei2

cit3lei4,

ji4

m4

seoi1jiu3

coi2jung6

zeoi3

dai1 ge3

mou5lik6

ne1

self

retreat

and NEG

need

adopt

most

low

force

SFP

嚟

到

去

lai4

dou3

heoi3 cyu3lei5 gam1ci3, kei4sat6 hai6

come arrive go

處理

今次，

其實

一

喺

嘅 GEN

個 違法，

喺

jat1 go3 wai4faat3, hai6

handle this-time actually COP one CL illegal

一

個

jat1 go3

COP one CL 行為 . . .

實實在在，

徹底

嘅

違法

嘅

sat6-sat6-zoi6-zoi6,

cit3dai2

ge3

wai4faat3

ge3

hang4wai4 . . .

indeed

completely

GEN

illegal

GEN

action

(However, actually, most of the citizens, at least those I have contacted, heard and seen, have thought that our law enforcement departments, mainly the Police Force, have been very restrained. The reason for their restraint comes from their care for the students. They hope the students can retreat on their own in a peaceful manner and they need to handle the illegal action, a completely illegal action in fact, with the minimum degree of force this time.)

8.4.4 Subjective modalization as a means of political strategy As a cognitive verb, 諗 lam2 ‘think’ can project, and the projection is realized by a complement clause. The matrix clause 我諗 ngo5lam2 ‘I think’ in fact is easily detached from the complement clause to be reanalyzed as a marker of the speaker’s subject stance. In the following example by Carrie Lam, 至於所謂嘅平等嘅選舉 權, 我諗呀 Nathan 可能聽錯咗 Zi3jyu1 so2wai6 ge3 ping4dang2 ge3 syun2geoi2 kyun4, ngo5 lam2 aa3 Nathan ho2nang4 ting3 co3 zo2 (‘Regarding the so-called equal right

Evidentiality and subjectivity  237 of election, I think Nathan may have misheard’), the utterance can be reinterpreted as ‘Regarding the so-called equal right of election, Nathan may probably have misheard’. [8.23] 至於

所謂 嘅 平等 嘅 選舉 權， 我 諗 呀 Nathan Zi3jyu1 so2wai6 ge3 ping4dang2 ge3 syun2geoi2 kyun4, ngo5 lam2 aa3 Nathan As-for so-called GEN equal GEN election right 1SG think PRT Nathan 可能 聽 錯 咗， 行政長官 喺 無 話 收入 ho2nang4 ting3 co3 zo2, Hang4Zing3-Zoeng2Gun1 hai6 mou5 waa6 sau1jap6 MOD listen wrong PERF Chief-Executive COP NEG-have say income 少於 某 一 個 銀碼 siu2jyu1 mau5 jat1 go3 ngan4maa5 less-than some one CL amount

嘅 人 呢， 喺 唔 應該 ge3 jan4 ne1, hai6 m4 jing3goi1 GEN person SFP COP NEG MOD

有 選舉 權。 所以 喺 今次 做 到 普選 jau5 syun2geoi2 kyun4. So2ji5 hai2 gam1-ci3 zou6 dou3 pou2syun2 EXIST election right therefore at this-time do arrive universal-suffrage 行政長官 呢， 五百萬 合 資格 嘅 人 呢， Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1 ne1, ng5baak3maan6 hap6 zi1gaak3 ge3 jan4 ne1, Chief-Executive SFP five-million meet qualification GEN person SFP 就 係 一 人 一 票， 哩 個 選舉 權 呢， 係 普及 zau6 hai6 jat1 jan4 jat1 piu3, lei1 go3 syun2geoi2 kyun4 ne1, hai6 pou2kap6 EMPH COP one person one vote DEM CL election right SFP COP general 同埋 平等 嘅， 哩 個 亦都 係 好 多 人 時常 tung4maai4 ping4dang2 ge3, lei1 go3 jik6dou1 hai6 hou2 do1 jan4 si4soeng4 as-well-as equal SFP DEN CL also COP very many person often 掛喺口邊 gwaa3-hai2-hau2-bin1 hang-at-mouth-side

嘅 ge3 GEN

國際 gwok3zai3 international

嘅 ge3 GEN

標準。 biu1zeon2. standard

(Regarding the so-called equal right of election, I think Nathan may have misheard. The Chief Executive did not say that people with an income below a certain amount should not have the right of election. Therefore, the realization of the right of election that the 5 million eligible people can universally elect the Chief Executive by one person, one vote this time is universal and equal. It is also the international standard that many people keep mentioning.)

238  Approaching political discourse from below 8.4.4.1 To remain vague Evasion is a popular political strategy in facing aggressive questions in a political interview or debate (Wai & Yap, 2013b). It is a way to escape one’s commitment to the truthfulness of the proposition of one’s statement. In English, the expression ‘I think’ is analyzed as an interpersonal metaphor of modality (Halliday, 1994, 2004). When it is used as a subjective modalization, the expression indicates the speaker’s assessment of the truthfulness of the proposition expressed in the dependent clause, and it carries a low degree of force. The counterpart of ‘I think’ is 我相信 ngo5soeng1seon3 ‘I think’ in Cantonese. In his turn, one of the student representatives, Alex Chow, intended to describe the reasons for the protests in the Occupy Central Movement. In this example, he used the expression 我相信 ngo5soeng1seon3 ‘I think’ to introduce his assessment of what Hong Kong people think, feel and hope. In doing so, the speaker did not totally commit himself to the truth of his claim, and as a result, he could not be accused of having lied or of having been mistaken if the claim was found to be in contrast with facts. Hence, it is a way for political actor to remain vague (Wai & Yap, 2013b). [8.24]

點解

咁

多

人

佢哋

Dim2gaai2

gam3

do1

jan4

keoi5dei6 dou1

Why

such

many

person 3PL 嘅

或者

願意

用

街頭

waak6ze2 jyun6ji3 jung6 gaai1tau4 ge3 or

willing use

street

都

會

覺得

wui5

gok3dak1 gam3

fan5nou6,

all

will

think

angry

去

話

時間

畀

咁

憤怒，

such

香港

政府

si4gaan3 heoi3 waa6 bei2 Hoeng1Gong2 zing3fu2

GEN time

go

tell

give Hong-Kong government

聽，

佢哋

希望

有

更加

好

嘅

社會。

teng1,

keoi5dei6

hei1mong6

jau5

gang3gaa1

hou2

ge3

se5wui2

listen

3PL

hope

EXIST

more

good

GEN

society

(Why will many people feel so angry or why are they willing to spend their time on the streets telling the government they wish to have a better society?) [8.25]

我

相信

就

Ngo5 soeng1seon3 zau6 1SG believe

佢

宜家

在座， 好

zoi6zo6, hou2 do1

EMPH COP seat

喺

唔

keoi5 ji4gaa1 hai2 m4 3SG now

係 hai6,

at

同

嘅

tung4 ge3

多

香港

人

無論

Hoeng1Gong2 jan4

mou4leon6

very many Hong Kong person no-matter

佔領區，

或者

zim3ling5keoi1,

waak6ze2 tai2-zyu6

NEG same GEN occupation-area or

對於

din6si

watch-IMPERF television

直播

嘅

人，

佢哋

ge3

jan4,

keoi5dei6 dou1 wui5 deoi3jyu1 baat3jyut6 saam1sap6jat1 hou6, all

會

電視

zik6bo3

live-broadcast GEN person 3PL

都

睇住

will as-to

八月 August

三十一 thirty-first

號， day

Evidentiality and subjectivity  239 人大

決議，

係

不

滿，

甚至

係

不

認同，

Jan4Daai6

kyut3ji5,

hai6

bat1

mun5,

sam6zi3

hai6

bat1

jing6tung4,

NPCSC

decide

COP

NEG

satisfied

even

COP

NEG

agree

認為

係

jing6wai4 hai6 think

要

予以

jiu3

jyu5-ji5 keoi5zyut6.

拒絕。

COP MOD give

reject

(I think everyone sitting here, many people now in different occupied areas in Hong Kong, or the ones watching the live broadcast on television are unsatisfied or they even disagree with the NPCSC’s decision on 31 August. They think it should be turned down instead.) [8.26]

因為

香港

人

Jan1wai6, Hoeng1-Gong2 jan4 Because

Hong-Kong

民主，

爭取

話

畀

tell

聽，

year NPCSC

你哋

嘅

listen 2PL

咗

佢。 keoi5.

嘅

爭取

daai6gaa1

start

年， 人大

ngo5dei6 teng1, nei5dei6 ge3

jim2got3 zo2

開始， 大家

zang1ceoi2

everybody fight-for

決議

saam1sap6 nin4, Jan4Daai6 ge3

PERF thirty

give 1PL

閹割

baat3sap6-nin4doi6 hoi1ci2,

三十

咗

我哋

waa6 bei2

八十年代

jau4

person from 80s

man4zyu2, zang1ceoi2 zo2 democracy fight-for

由

就

kyut3ji5 zau6

好似 hou2ci5

GEN decision EMPH seemingly

民主

路， 我

man4zyu2

lou6,

今日

就

ngo5 gam1jat6 zau6

GEN democracy path 1SG today

then

castrate PERF 3SG

(This is because Hong Kong people have been struggling for democracy for 30 years since the 1980s. The NPCSC’s decision seems to tell us that today we have cut off your way to democracy.) [8.27]

我

相信

呢

Ngo5 soeng1seon3 ni1 1SG believe 一

個

jat1 go3

感覺

個 係

好

go3 hai6

hou2 do1

香港

嚟

人

Hoeng1-Gong2 jan4

DEM CL COP very many Hong-Kong

gam2gok3 lai4

one CL feeling

多

期時

嘅

dong1kei4si4 ge3

person that-time

GEN

嘅。 ge3.

SFP SFP

(I think this is a feeling of many Hong Kong people at that time.)

8.4.4.2 To focus on the value judgement regarding the action to be taken In the previous example, the interpersonal metaphor of modality 我相信 ngo5 soeng1seon3 ‘I think/I believe’ is used as a subjective modalization to express

240  Approaching political discourse from below the speaker’s assessment of the truthfulness of the proposition expressed in the dependent clause. The expression is used as a subject modulation when the dependent clause expresses a proposal to focus on the speaker’s value judgement of the action being taken in a political interview (Simon-Vandenbergen, 2000). In the following example, one of the government officials, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam, intended to argue against public doubts about the government decision. It is noted that the expression 我認為 ngo5jan6wai4 ‘I think’ is clearly used as a strong assertion. [8.28] 第二

個 go3 CL

Dai6-ji6 Second

問題 man6tai4 question

就 zau6 EMPH

係 hai6 COP

有 jau5 EXIST

人 jan4 person

認為 jing6wai4 think

由於 jau4jyu1 because

全國人大常委會 嘅 決定 設 下 咗 好 多 Cyun4Gwok3Jan4Daai6Soeng4Wai2Wui2 ge3 kyut3ding6 cit3 haa6 zo2 hou2 do1 NPCSC GEN decision set down PERF very many 嘅 ge3

限制，

咁

到

再

談

個 具體

嗰

方案

都

冇

haan6zai3, gam2 dou3 zoi3 taam4 go2 go3 geoi6tai2 fong1on3 dou1 mou5 GEN limitation then arrive again discuss DEM CL detailed solution all NEG 乜 大 意思， 甚至 認為 喺 現時 框架 下 嘅 mat1 daai6 ji3si1, sam6zi3 jing6wai4 hai2 jin6si4 kwaang1gaa2 haa6 ge3 what big meaning even think at current frame below GEN 行政長官 Hang4Zing3Zoeng2Gun1 Chief-Executive

選舉

呢， 只

會

係

一

個

徒

具

syun2geoi2 ne1, zi2 wui5 hai6 jat1 go3 tou4 geoi6 election SFP only will COP one CL barely equip

選舉

形式

嘅

半

欽點

嘅

制度。

syun2geoi2

jing4sik1 format

ge3 GEN

bun3 half

jam1dim2 appoint

ge3 GEN

zai3dou6. system

election

(The second question is that some people think since the NPCSC’s decision has laid a lot of limitations, it is not meaningful to discuss any concrete measures. They even think that the Chief Executive election under the current framework will be a semi-appointed system that only exists in the form of an election.) [8.29]

我哋

對於

Ngo5dei6 deoi3jyu1 1PL 認同

一

jat1 zung2 ge3

種

according DEM one CL 嘅， 喺

jing6tung4 ge3, agree

呢 ni1

基本法

嘅

論調

呢

係

絕對

leon6diu6

ne1

hai6

zyut6deoi3 m4

Basic-Law

能夠 nang4gau3

GEN argument SFP COP absolutely NEG MOD 同埋

提名

hai2 Gei1Bun2Faat3 tung4maai4 tai4ming4

SFP at

唔

as-well-as

程序

框架

下

cing4zeoi6 kwaang1gaa2 haa6,

nomination process

frame

below

Evidentiality and subjectivity  241 係

可以

落實

普及

同埋

平等

嘅

選舉

權。

hai6

ho2ji5

lok6sat6

pou2kap6

tung4maai4

ping4dang2

ge3

syun2geoi2

kyun4.

COP

MOD

implement

general

as-well-as

fair

GEN

election

right

(We absolutely cannot agree with this kind of argument. Under the Basic Law and procedural framework of nomination, it is possible to realize the right of election which is universal and fair.) [8.30] 對於

有 人 認為 提名 程序 過 緊， Deoi3jyu1 jau5 jan4 jing6wai4 tai4ming4 cing4zeoi6 gwo3 gan2, Regarding EXIST person think nomination process over tight 可 ho2 MOD

謂 wai6 say

係 hai6 COP

見人見智。 gin3-jan4-gin3-zi3. depending-person-depending-thought

(As there are some who think that the nomination procedures are too tight, this may vary among different people.) [8.31]

而且

我哋

Ji4ce2

ngo5dei6 jing6wai4 jyu4gwo2 hai2 ni1

認為

Beside 3PL

如果

think

呢

喺

if

at

一

方面

有

任何

jat1 fong1min6 jau5

DEM one aspect

疑慮

jam6ho4 ji4leoi6

EXIST any

doubt

嘅

話

呢，

與其

係

採取

一

個

消極

ge3

waa6

ne1,

jyu5kei4

hai6

coi2ceoi2

jat1

go3

siu1gik6

dai2zai3,

GEN

say

SFP

rather

COP

adopt

one

CL

pessimistic

boycott

唔

發揮

吓

faat3fai1

haa5 cong3ji3,

甚至乎

放棄

嘅

態度，

sam6zi3fu4 fong3hei3 ge3

點解

大家

taai3dou6, dim2gaai2 daai6gaa1 m4

創意，

even

give-up GEN attitude

思考

點樣

可以

喺

同埋

選舉

程序

si1haau2

dim2joeng2

ho2ji5

hai2 tai4ming4

tung4maai4

syun2geoi2

cing4zeoi6

consider

how

MOD

at

as-well-as

election

process

各

個

步驟

嘅

具體

gok3

go3 bou6zaau6

ge3

geoi6tai2 cit3gai3 leoi5bin6, zik1gik6

each CL step

why

抵制，

GEN detailed

everybody NEG bring-out ASP creativity

提名 nomination 設計

裡面，

design

inside

積極

去

positively

提

heoi3 tai4 go

高 gou1

raise high

選舉

制度

整體

嘅

民主

成份

呢，

syun2geoi2

zai3dou6

zing2tai2

ge3

man4zyu2

sing4fan6

ne1,

election

system

entire

GEN

democracy

component

SFP

佢

嘅

透明度

呢，

同埋

佢

嘅

keoi5

ge3

tau3ming4dou6

ne1,

tung4maai4

keoi5

ge3

競爭性。 ging3zang1sing3

3SG

GEN

transparency

SFP

as-well-as

3SG

GEN

competitiveness

242  Approaching political discourse from below (Also we think that if there are any uncertainties regarding this, instead of adopting passive resistance, or even an abandoning attitude, why not we make use of our creativity to consider how we can actively enrich the democratic components, its transparency and its competitiveness for the whole electoral system when concretely designing all the steps for the nomination and electoral procedures?) Whereas the first person pronoun, both singular and plural, can serve as a political strategy in a political event when it precedes a parenthetical verb, the first personal plural pronoun can function as a political strategy by itself due to its inclusiveness feature, i.e., the referents of ‘we’ can include or exclude the hearer(s).

References

Aikhenvald, A. K. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civil culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Angouri, J., & Mondala, Li. (2017). Meeting. In R. Wodak & B. Forchtner (Eds.), Handbook of language and politics (pp. 468–487). London: Routledge. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bell, M. A. (1999). Teaching the language of graphs and statistics to learners of factual writing: Functional grammar gives us the tools. Paper presented at the 26th International Systemic Functional Institute & Congress, National University of Singapore, Singapore. Berlin, L. N. (2008). “I think, therefore . . .”: Commitment in political testimony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27(4), 372–383. Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control: Volume 4 – The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman. Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum. Bhatia, V. K. (2008). Genre analysis, ESP and professional practice. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 161–174. Bhatia, V. K. (2010). Interdiscursivity in professional communication. Discourse and Communication, 21, 32–50. Bowcher, W. L., & Liang, J. (Eds.). (2016). Society in language, language in society: Essays in honour of Ruqaiya Hasan. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bull, P. (2008). “Slipperiness, evasion, and ambiguity”: Equivocation and facework in noncommittal political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27(4), 333–344. Burkhardt, A. (1996). Politolinguistik: Versuch einer Orsbestimmung [Political linguistics: Attempted localization]. In J. Klein & H. Diekmannshenke (Eds.), Sprachstrategien und Dialogblockaden: Linguistische und politikwissenschaftische Studien zur politischen Kommunikation [Language strategies and blocks to

244 References dialogue: Linguistic and political scientific studies on political communication] (pp. 75–100). Berlin: de Gruyter. Burton, D. (1978). Towards an analysis of casual conversation. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 7(2), 131–164. Butler, C. (1982). The directive function of the English modals. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham. Caffarel, A., Martin, J. R., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004a). Introduction: Systemic functional typology. In A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin, & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (Eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective (pp. 1–76). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Caffarel, A., Martin, J. R., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (Eds.). (2004b). Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Chan, J. M. (2014). Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement. The Round Table, 103(6), 571–580. Chan, J. M., & Lee, L. F. (2012). Mass media and public opinion. In W. M. Lam, L. T. Lui, & W. Wong (Eds.), Contemporary Hong Kong government and politics (expanded 2nd ed., pp. 223–246). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Cheng, W., & Ho, J. (2014). Brainwashing or nurturing positive values: Competing voices in Hong Kong’s national education debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 1–14. Cheng, W., & Lam, P. W. Y. (2012). Western perceptions of Hong Kong ten years on: A corpus-driven critical discourse study. Applied Linguistics, 34(2), 173–190. Cheung, A. B. L. (2002). The changing political system: Executive-led government or “disabled” governance? In S. K. Lau (Ed.), The first Tung Chee-hwa administration: The first five years of the Hong Kong special administrative region (pp. 41–68). Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C. (2002). Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis analysis of political discourse. In P. Chilton & C. Schaffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 1–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Chor, W. (2012). Expressing stance in Cantonese: The interaction between the evidential perception verb tai2 “see” and directional particles: Seminar workshop of the school of arts and social sciences. Hong Kong: The Open University of Hong Kong. Clayman, S. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language in Society, 30(3), 403–442. Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (2002). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coffin, C., Donohue, J., & North, S. (2009). Exploring English grammar: From formal to functional. London: Routledge. Coulthard, M., & Brazil, D. (1979). Exchange structure, discourse analysis: Monograph No. 5. Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham. Dowding, K. (Ed.). (2011). Encyclopedia of power. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Dunmire, P. (2012). Political discourse analysis: Exploring the language of politics and the politics of language. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 735–751. Eagleton, J. (2012). The “Ultimate Aim”: Discourse of future democratization in post-handover Hong Kong. Doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University, Sydney. Evans, N., & Wilkins, D. (2000). In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language, 76(3), 546.

References  245 Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Finegan, E. (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: An introduction. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flowerdew, J. (1997a). Competing public discourses in transitional Hong Kong. In R. Scollon & J. Flowerdew (Eds.), Journal of pragmatics, special issue on language and discourse issues in Hong Kong’s change of sovereignty (Vol. 28, pp. 533–554). Flowerdew, J. (2002a). Globalization discourse: A view from the East. Discourse and Society, 13, 209–225. Flowerdew, J. (2002b). Rhetorical strategies and identity politics in the discourse of colonial withdrawal. Journal of Language and Politics, 1(1), 149–180. Flowerdew, J. (2004). Identity politics and Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty: Analysing the discourse of Hong Kong’s first chief executive. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1551–1578. Flowerdew, J. (2012a). Critical discourse analysis in historiography: The case of Hong Kong’s evolving political identity. Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan. Flowerdew, J. (2012b). Critical analysis of political discourse. In The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. New Jersey, NJ: Wiley. Flowerdew, J. (2017). Understanding the Hong Kong Umbrella movement: A critical discourse historiographical approach. Discourse & Society, 28(5), 453–472. Flowerdew, J., Li., D., & Tran, S. (2002). Discriminatory news discourse: Some Hong Kong data. Discourse and Society, 13, 319–345. Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (2017). The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (S. Smith, Trans.). London: Tavistock. Fox, B. A. (2001). Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11(2), 167–192. doi:10.1525/ jlin.2001.11.2.167 Freeden, M. (2011). Political thinking as power. In K. Dowding (Ed.), Encyclopedia of power (pp. 492–496). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Fung, A., Li, E. S. H., Lui, P., & Li, J. (2016). Registerial cartography of political discourse. The 9th Malaysia International Conference on Languages, Literature and Cultures, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia, 16–18 August, 2016. Gee, J. P., & Handford, M. (2012). The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. Abingdon and New York, NY: Routledge. Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction (Vol. 1, pp. 1984). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk (pp. 124–159). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Greatbatch, D. (1988). A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society, 17(3), 401–430. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, Speech Acts, pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press. Gu, Y. (2009a). Four-borne discourses: Towards language as a multi-dimensional city of history. In L. I. Wei & V. Cook (Eds.), Linguistics in the real world (pp. 92–121). London: Continuum.

246 References Gu, Y. (2009b). An institutional anniversary ceremony as systemic behavior in Chinese context. In K. Tuner & B. Fraser (Eds.), Language in life, and a life in language: Jacob Mey – A festchrift (pp. 121–129). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Gu, Y. (2012). Discourse geography. In The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 541–557). Abingdon and New York, NY: Routledge. Haßler, G. (2015). Evidentiality and the expression of speaker’s stance in romance languages and German. Discourse Studies, 17(2), 182–209. doi:10.1177/ 1461445614564522 Hallberg, A. (2014). “‘Occupy’ has been hijacked by radicals”: Critical discourse analysis of the representation of political dissidents in the South China morning post. MA thesis, Örebro University, Sydney. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Towards a sociological semantics. In M. A. K. Halliday (Ed.), Explorations in the functions of language (pp. 72–102). London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1996). On grammar and grammatics. In R. Hasan, D. G. Butt, & C. Cloran (Eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory in practice. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Halliday, M. A. K. (2003). Introduction: On the “architecture” of human language. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), The collected works of M. A. K Halliday (Vol. 3, On language and linguistics, pp. 1–29). London and New York, NY: Continuum. Halliday, M. A. K. (revised by C. M. I. M Matthiessen). (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (2005). On matter and meaning: The two realms of human experience. In Linguistics and the human sciences (Vol. 1, p. 1). Sheffield: Equinox. Halliday, M. A. K. (2006). Working with meaning: Towards an appliable linguistics. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Meaning in context: Implementing intelligent applications of language studies (pp. 7–23). London and New York, NY: Continuum. Halliday, M. A. K., & Greaves, W. (2008). Intonation in the grammar of English. London: Equinox. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1997). Systemic functional grammar: A first step into the theory. Sydney: Macquarie University. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London and New York, NY: Cassell. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Halliday, M. A. K., & McDonald, E. (2004). Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Chinese. In A. Caffarel-Cayon, J. R. Martin, & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (Eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective (pp. 305–396). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

References  247 Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, A., & Stevens, P. (1964 [2007]). The users and uses of language. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Collected works of M. A. K. Halliday (Vol. 10, Language and society, pp. 5–37). London and New York, NY: Continuum. Halliday, M. A. K., & Webster, J. J. (2014). Text linguistics: The how and why of meaning. London: Equinox. Harris, S. (1991). Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. London: Sage Publications, Inc. Hasan, R. (1984). Coherence and cohesion harmony. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension. Delaware, DE: International Reading Association. Hasan, R. (1999). The disempowerment game: Bourdieu and language in literacy. Linguistics and Education, 10(1), 25–87. Hasan, R. (2005). Language in society in a systemic functional perspective. In R. Hasan, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen, & J. J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective (Vol. 1, pp. 55–80). London: Equinox. Hasan, R. (2009). The collected works of Ruqaiya Hasan. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Semantic variation: Meaning in society and in sociolinguistics (Vol. 2). London: Equinox. Hasan, R. (2012). A view of pragmatics in a social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 5(3), 251–279. Hasan, R. (2014). Towards a paradigmatic description of context: Systems, metafunctions, and semantics. Functional Linguistics, 2(9), 1–54. Hu, Z. L. (1984). Yŭ piān de xián jiē yū lián guàn [Discourse cohesion and coherence]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press. Hyland, K. (2013). Discourse studies reader: Essential excerpts. London and New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic. Hyland, K., & Paltridge, B. (Eds.). (2011). Continuum companion to discourse analysis. London: Continuum. Johnson, D. M. (1994). Who is we: Constructing communities in US-Mexico border discourse. Discourse and Society, 5(2), 207–231. Joseph, J. E. (2006). Language and politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kamp, Z. (2015). Political discourse analysis. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Keating, E. (2015). Discourse, space and place. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 244–261). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Kiesling, S. F. (2006). Hegemonic identity making in narrative. In A. De Fina, D. Schiffrin, & M. Bamberg (Eds.), Discourse and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kyrala, C. (2010). Systemic linguistic analysis of samples from economic speeches by Barack Obama and John McCain. Journal of Language and Politics, 9(1), 74–95. Lakoff, R. T. (1990). The politics of language in our lives. New York, NY: Basic Book. Lam, J. T. M. (2015). Political decay in Hong Kong after the Occupy Central Movement. Asian Affairs: An American Review, 42(2), 99–121. Lam, W. M. (2012). Political identity, culture, and participation. In W. M. Lam, L. T. Lui, & W. Wong (Eds.), Contemporary Hong Kong government and politics (expanded 2nd ed., pp. 199–221). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Lee, F. L. F. (2004). Constructing perfect women: The portrayal of female officials in Hong Kong newspapers. Media, Culture & Society, 26(2), 207–225.

248 References Lee, F. L. F., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2006). Newspaper editorial discourse and the politics of self-censorship in Hong Kong. Discourse and Society, 17(3), 331–358. Lemke, J. L. (1984). Action, context and meaning. In J. L. Lemke (Ed.), Semiotics and education. Toronto: Victoria University (Toronto Semiotic Circle Monographs, Working Papers and Prepublications). Li, E. S. H. (1997). Reference as a cohesive device in English and Chinese. MA thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Li, E. S. H. (2003). A text-based study of the grammar of Chinese from a systemic functional approach. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Li, E. S. H. (2007). A systemic functional grammar of Chinese. London: Continuum. Li, E. S. H. (2015). Language, culture and society in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The Open University Press. Li, E. S. H., & Mahboob, A. (2012). English today: Forms, functions, and uses. Hong Kong: Pearson. Lin, A. M. Y. (2008). “Respect for da Chopstick hip hop”: The politics, poetics, and pedagogy of Cantonese verbal art in Hong Kong. In H. S. Alim, A. M. Ibrahim, & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Global linguistic flows: Hip hop cultures, identities, and the politics of language (pp. 159–177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. López, T. S. (2006). John Kerry’s political rehetoric: An account of the main rhetorical features of his oral delivery. In Fòrum de Recerca 10. X Jornades de Forment de la Investigació. Castelló: Universitat Jaume I. Lukin, A., Moore, A. R., Herke, M., Wegener, R., & Wu, C. (2011). Halliday’s model of register revisited and explored. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 4(2), 187–213. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malinowski, B. (1944). A scientific theory of culture and other essays. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York, NY: The Free Press. Martin, J. R. (1985). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia, PA and Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Martin, J. R. (1999). Linguistics and the consumer: Theory in practice. Linguistics and Education, 9(3), 409–446. Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martin, J. R. (2014). Evolving systemic functional linguistics: Beyond the clause. Functional Linguistics, 1(3), 1–24. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. New York, NY: Bloomburg. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1993). Register in the round: Diversity in a unified theory of register analysis. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice (pp. 221–291). London: Pinter. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1995). Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.

References  249 Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2001). The environment of translation. In E. Steiner & C. Yallop (Eds.), Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2006). The multimodal page: A systemic functional exploration. In W. Bowcher & T. Royce (Eds.), New directions in multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 1–62). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2009b). Meaning in the making: Meaning potential emerging from acts of meaning. In Anniversary Issue of Language Learning 59 (Suppl. 1, pp. 211–235). Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2013). Applying systemic functional linguistics in healthcare contexts. Talk & Text, 33(4–5), 437–467. doi:10.1515/text-2013-0021 Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2015a). Modeling context and register: The long-term project of registerial cartography. Letras, 50, 15–90. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2015b). Register in the round: Registerial cartography. Functional Linguistics, 2(9), 1–48. doi:10.1186/s40554-015-0015-8 Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & Halliday, M. A. K. (1997). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London and New York, NY: Cassell. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & Kashyap, A. K. (2014). The construal of space in different registers: An exploratory study. Language Sciences, 45, 1–27. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & Teruya, K. (2015). Grammatical realizations of rhethorical relations in different registers. Word, 61(3), 231–281. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & Teruya, K. (2016). Registerial hybridity: Indeterminacy among fields of activity. In D. Miller & P. Bayley (Eds.), Hybridity in systemic functional linguistics: Grammar, text and discursive context (pp. 205–239). Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Ltd. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., Teruya, K., & Lam, M. (2010). Key terms in systemic functional linguistics. London and New York, NY: Continuum. McCarthy, M., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & Slade, D. (2010). Discourse analysis. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 53–69). London: Hodder Education. McDonald, E. (1998). Clause and verbal group systems in Chinese: A text-based functional approach. Doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University, Sydney. McDonald, E. (1999). Ideational meaning in music and language. Paper presented at the 26th International Systemic Functional Institute & Congress, National University of Singapore, Singapore. Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Miners, N. J. (1998). Executive-legislative relations. In I. Scott (Ed.), Institutional change and the political transition in Hong Kong (pp. 139–157). Houndmills: Macmillan Press Ltd. Ng, S. H. (2011). Language and power. In K. Dowding (Ed.), Encyclopedia of power (pp. 371–372). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. O’Halloran, K. (1999). Educational implications of the multisemiotic nature of mathematics. Paper presented at the 26th International Systemic Functional Institute & Congress, National University of Singapore, Singapore. Okulska, U., & Cap, P. (2010). Analysis of political discourse: Handmarks, challenges, and prospects. In U. Okulska & P. Cap (Eds.), Perspectives in politics and discourse (pp. 3–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

250 References Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pansardi, P. (2011). Power to and power over. In K. Dowding (Ed.), Encyclopedia of power (pp. 521–524). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Parker, R. D. (1994). Here, the people rule: A constitutional populist manifesto. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Patten, C. (1992). Our next five years: The agenda for Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The Government Printer. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive grammar of English language. Harlow: Longman. Raymond, G. (1998). The structure of responding: Conforming and nonconforming responses to yes/no type interrogatives. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association, New York, November 1998. Reisigl, M. (2017). The discoruse-historical approach. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 44–59). London: Routledge. Representative Government in Hong Kong (1994, February). Hong Kong: The Government Printing Department, p. 11. Reyes-Rodríguez, A. (2011a). Voice in political discourse. London: Continuum. Reyes-Rodríguez, A. (2011b). Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions. Discourse and Society, 22(6), 781–807. Rojo, L. M., & van Dijk, T. A. (1997). “There was a problem, and it was solved!”: Legitimating the expulsion of “illegal” migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society, 8(4), 523–566. Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2017). Political science: An introduction (14th ed., Global, Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Saar, M. (2010). Power. In M. Bevir (Ed.), Encyclopedia of political theory (pp. 1098– 1101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Sacks, H. (1972a). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31–74). New York, NY: Free Press. Sacks, H. (1972b). On the analysability of stories by children. In J. H. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 31–74). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1 and II). Oxford: Blackwell. Saussure, F. de (1959). Course in general linguistics (C. Bailey & A. Reidlinger, Eds., W. Baskin, Trans.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Searle, J. R. (1965). What is a speech act? In A. P. Martinich (Ed.), The philosophy of language (pp. 130–140). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press. Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2000). The functions of I think in political discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 41–63. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sing, M., & Tang, Y. S. (2012). Mobilization and conflicts over Hong Kong’s democratic reform. In W. M. Lam, L. T. Lui, & W. Wong (Eds.), Contemporary Hong Kong government and politics (expanded 2nd ed., pp. 137–158). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References  251 Tsang, W. K., & Wong, M. (2004). Constructing a shared “Hong Kong identity” in comic discourses. Discourse and Society, 15(6), 767–785. van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication, 1(1). van Leeuwen, T., & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse historical analysis. Discourse Studies, 1, 83–118. Viberg, A. (1983). The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 21(1), 123–162. Wai, B., & Yap, F. H. (2012). “Better left unsaid”: On the use of elliptical constructions in political discourse in Hong Kong. Paper presented at the 2012 Annual Research Forum of the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Wai, B., & Yap, F. H. (2013a). Evasion strategies in Hong Kong political discourse. Paper presented at the IACL-21: The 21st Annual Conference of the International Association of Chinese Linguistics, Taipei, Taiwan. Wai, B., & Yap, F. H. (2013b). Use of the first person pronoun ngo5dei6 and evasion in political discourse in Hong Kong. Paper presented at the 2013 Annual Research Forum of the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Wales, K. (1996). Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wales, K. (1980). Exophora re-examined: The uses of we in present-day English. UEA Papers in Linguistics, 12, 21–44. Ward, M. (2004). We have the power – Or do we: Pronouns of power in a union context. In L. Young & C. Harrison (Eds.), Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis: Studies in social change (pp. 280–295). London: Continuum. Whitt, R. C. (2009). Auditory evidentiality in English and German: The case of perception verbs. Lingua, 119(7), 1083–1095. Whitt, R. J. (2011). (Inter)Subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 347–360. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010. 07.015 Wilson, J. (1990). Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford: Blackwell. Wodak, R. (1999). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wodak, R. (2011). Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In J. Zienkowski, J. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Discursive pragmatics (pp. 50–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wodak, R. (2013). Analyzing meetings in political and business contexts: Different genres, similar strategies. In P. Cap & O. Okulsa (Eds.), Analyzing genres in political communication (DAPSAC Series, pp. 187–221). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Myers (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Yap, F. H., & Chor, W. O.-W. (2014). Epistemic, evidential and attitudinal markers in clause-medial position in Cantonese. In E. Leiss & W. Abraham (Eds.), Modes of modality: Modality, typology and universal grammar (pp. 219–260). Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Yunespour, A. R. (2011). Identity politics: A case study of Afghanistan. PhD thesis, Department of Government and International Relation. The University of Sydney, Sydney.

252 References Zhang, M. M. (2010). Constructing Hong Kong identity: Political contestations and press mediations. Doctoral dissertation, Loughborough University, Leicestershire. Zhu, Y. S. (1996). Modality and modulation in Chinese. In M. Berry, C. Butler, R. Fawcett, & G. Huang (Eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations. (Vol. LVII in the Series Advances in Discourse Processes). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Index

actualization 13 APPRAISAL 124–126, 166–167; ATTITUDE 124–126, 130, 137, 139, 157, 159, 166 (AFFECT 125–126, 129–130, 136, 139; APPRECIATION 125–126, 134, 136–137, 139, 167; JUDGEMENT 125–126, 130, 133–134, 136, 139, 166); ENGAGEMENT 124–125, 140–141, 150, 157, 225 (HETEROGLOSS 125, 141, 150, 225; MONOGLOSS 125, 141, 150); GRADUATION 124–125, 157, 159, 165–167 (FOCUS 125, 157–159, 165; FORCE 125–126, 157–159, 165–166) appraisal analysis 22, 124–166, 225 appraisal theory 124, 166 biological context 28, 30 biological systems 9–10 cartographic descriptum 67 channel 12, 68, 71, 189 cline of instantiation 13–15, 29–33, 47, 53, 66–67 coding process 10 collective self 171–172, 187, 192, 197 communicative distance 12 COMPOSITION 134–135, 137, 139 constructive strategies 94, 99 contact 18, 68, 81, 198, 235 context 10–12, 27–30; of culture 11–25, 17, 29, 30–33, 53, 67; of situation 11, 13–14, 29, 30 context-based approach 66 context-metafunction resonance hypothesis 29 contextual 17–22, 27–31, 34, 42–47, 53, 66–68, 71, 74, 80–81, 93, 198;

analysis 27–52; configuration 67, 198; dependency 43; environment 46–47, 53, 66; meaning 43; parameters 20–22, 27, 29, 68, 71, 81 contextualization 16, 45 coverb 226–228 coverbal evidentials 229 critical discourse analysis (CDA) 5, 7–8 critical metaphor analysis 8 cross-stratal construct 18 decoding process 10 dependence 45 demystify 18 dialogical contraction 141–142 dialogical expansion 141, 146 DISCLAIMS 142, 145–146, 150–153; disclaim (counter) 145–146; disclaim (deny) 145, 151, 153 discoursal topic 45 discourse analysis (DA) 2 discourse historical approach (DHA) 22 discourse-pragmatic approach 8 discourses 1–7; discourse-as-process 5, 10; discourse-as-product 5–6, 10 discourse semantic parameter 22 discourse semantics 66, 124 division of labour 10, 68, 81, 83, 86, 199–200, 202, 209, 211, 217 doing politics 9, 16–19, 28, 29, 66 DOWN-SCALING 157, 163 evidentiality 23, 115, 147, 219, 220, 223–226 exclusive use of ‘we’ 175–176 EXTERTAIN 146–147; entertain (evidentiality) 147, 225; entertain (modality) 147 extralinguistic features 11

254 Index FIELD OF ACTIVITY 69–78 FIELD OF EXPERIENCE 69–71 first-order systems 10 four-level abstraction 10 generic structure 52–53, 93 genre 5, 12–13, 19–20, 50, 52, 64, 124, 200 genre analysis 50, 52–64, 200 goal-oriented activity 31–32, 46, 187 HAPPINESS/UNHAPPINESS 127–128 hierarchy of systems 9–10, 28 higher-order semiotic system 12, 28 identity 8, 16, 18, 22, 100, 124, 171, 227 identity politics 8 immaterial context 28 INCLINATION/DISINCLINATION 126–127 inclusive use of ‘we’ 173–176 inequality encounter 203 INFUSION 159, 162 INSCRIBED ATTITUDE 137–139 instance 2, 6, 9–10, 13–17, 29–32, 43, 47, 53, 67–72, 76, 93, 140–141, 157, 161, 165, 203 instance type 14–15, 30 instantiation 13 instantiation/stratification matrix 14–15 institutional role 1, 11, 23, 68, 81, 83, 171, 198–202, 209, 211 INTENSIFICATION 159–166 interactivity 12 interdiscursivity 44–45 interpersonal semantic resources 124, 129, 133, 136 intertextuality 44–45 intertextual relations 45 INVOKED ATTITUDE 137–139 INVOLVEMENT 124 irrealis 43, 74, 126 ISOLATION 159 language-as-system 67 language-as-text 67 language-in-text 66 language-in-use 10, 18, 43, 113 language production 10 lexicogrammar 11, 15, 18, 21, 66 lexicogrammatical systems 10 logico-semantic relations 12 logogenesis 14, 21–22, 43–45

macro-register 72 material context 28 meaners 6, 18, 28–30 meaning-creating process 45 meaning-in-context 17, 30 meaning potential 14, 17, 67, 73–75 medium 12, 68, 71, 83, 215 metafunctions 12–13, 16–18, 29, 43, 111, 199; experiential 12, 16, 43; ideational 12, 18, 29; interpersonal 12, 16, 18, 29, 199; logical 12, 43; textual 12–13, 16, 29, 43 metalinguistics 27 metaredundant language system 18 modality 23, 140, 147, 198, 211–219, 224, 230, 232, 238–239; deontic 213; dynamic 213; epistemic 211; event 213; propositional 211 MODALITY 211–216; MODALIZATION (modalization) 211–213; MODULATION (modulation) 211–213, 216, 240 mode of meaning 12 multiple coding system 10 multisemiotic 18 NEGOTIATON 124 obligation 77, 103, 213, 215–218 ontogenesis 22, 45 order of manifestation 28 orthographic systems 10 participant culture 31, 32 phylogenesis 22, 45 physical context 28, 30 physical systems 9–10 polarity 23, 112, 209–210 political actors 1–2, 6, 9, 19, 21, 31–32, 46, 49, 50, 53, 65, 68, 81, 93–94, 99–101, 105–107, 109–110, 122– 126, 134, 171–173, 176, 187–188, 197–205, 210, 215, 219–220, 225, 230, 238 political acts 1, 7, 21, 45, 52, 93–100, 105–107, 111–117, 122–124, 171–173, 193, 200, 203; altruism 93, 96, 110, 112; claiming common interest 93, 96, 109, 112; claiming membership 93, 96, 99–112, 115, 171, 193; critical/adversarial questioning 96, 112–113, 122; differentiating ‘otherness’ 93, 96, 99–113, 122, 171; evasion 8, 62–63,

Index  255 96, 103–105, 112, 238; hypothetical future 93, 96, 105–106, 112; making comparisons 93, 108, 112; personal experiences 70, 79, 93, 96–97, 111–113, 219, 221; rationality 93, 96, 107, 112, 225; voice of expertise 93, 96, 106, 112–113, 117 political agendas 1, 8, 45–47, 65–68, 80, 93, 94, 123–124, 166–167, 173, 176, 187, 200, 203 political competence 31–32 political culture 6, 29, 30, 31–33, 67 political discourse analysis (PDA) 1, 6–8 political efficacy 31–32 political events 2, 7, 19–22, 27, 31–33, 40–53, 64–68, 73–81, 93–94, 101, 122–126, 129–130, 134, 137–139, 141, 150, 171, 175–176, 187, 197, 200, 203, 217–219, 242; political event-as-context construct 42; political event-as-linguistic construct 42, 45 political ideology 46, 68, 74 political image 8, 167 political institutions 29, 31–33, 36–37, 46–50, 65, 67, 81, 93–95, 115 political issues 7–8, 32–33, 37–50, 53, 65, 67, 94, 148, 187 political moves 21, 42, 47, 50–52, 58, 60, 64–65, 93–96, 101, 103, 105, 108, 111, 113, 123–124, 171, 200, 203; of abolition 94–95; of destruction 94–95; of legitimization/ promotion 94–95; of modification 94–95; of perpetuation/consolidation 94–95; of reformation 94–95 political party 39, 63, 68, 76, 83, 104 political registers 18, 29, 67, 69, 71–80 political strategy 103–104, 175, 192, 203, 225, 229, 236, 238, 242 political system 31–37, 86, 90, 98, 101, 105, 114–115, 123, 128, 151, 202, 211 political voices 8 politics 1–2, 6–9, 16–19, 22, 27–33, 66, 93, 153, 182, 198 politolinguistics 16 polity 16–18 potential 4, 9, 13–17, 29–33, 53, 67, 73–75, 103 power 1–5, 11, 16–17, 23–24, 66–68, 81–83, 128, 135, 141, 167, 198–205, 209–217, 228, 235 power over 3

power to 3–4, 135, 199, 212, 228 primary fields of activity 69 probability 211, 215–217 process types 220; behavioural processes 220; existential processes 112, 220; material processes 220; mental processes 23, 111, 115, 147, 220, 224; relational processes 220; verbal processes 220 PROCLAIMS 142–145, 150–152, 155–156; proclaim (concur) 142, 144, 151–152, 155–156; proclaim (endorse) 142, 150–151; proclaim (pronounce) 142–143, 151, 155 QUANTIFICATION 159, 163–166 radial diagram 69 rank 9, 16 REACTION 134, 135, 137, 139 realizations 9–10, 16, 23, 28, 42, 94, 111–113, 155, 159, 161–162, 213, 237 REGISTER (registers) 2, 9, 12–15, 18, 21, 29, 30, 43, 45, 66–69, 71–80; FIELDS (fields) 10–21, 29–33, 47, 67–80, 106, 125, 198, 229; MODE (modes) 6, 7, 9, 11–21, 28–34, 67–69, 71–75, 113, 137, 159, 198, 220; TENOR (tenor) 11–15, 18, 21, 29–33, 46, 67–68, 81, 83, 86, 198–199 registerial analysis 22, 66–90 registerial cartography 66–67, 69, 71, 78, 80 registerial hybridity 45, 72, 78, 80 relative power 2, 11, 81, 198–205, 209, 211, 215 rhetorical functions 12 SATISFACTION/DISSATISFACTION 129–130 secondary fields of activity 69, 70 second-order systems 10 SECURITY/INSECURITY 128 self-identification 171 semantic discourse analysis 22, 93–124, 171, 219 semanticize 18 semiotic context 18, 28–30 semiotic resources 7, 10, 28, 111, 211 semiotic scope of ‘we’ 185–186 semiotic systems 8–12, 15, 18, 28–31, 68 semogenesis 22

256 Index semogenetic 43 semogenic 5, 17 signified 18 signifier 18 situation type 12, 15, 29, 30–33, 53, 67 social activity 11–12, 42, 46, 52, 68, 76, 93, 198 social context 11, 17, 28, 30, 66 social distance 12, 81, 83, 199, 219 SOCIAL ESTEEM 130, 134, 139; CAPACITY 130–131, 134, 139, 206, 213; NORMALITY 130, 134, 139; TENACITY 130–134, 139 SOCIAL SANCTION 130–134, 139; PROPRIETY 132–134, 139; VERACITY 132–134, 139 social semiotic 2, 5–7, 14–17, 31–33, 69 social semiotic processes 69–82; doing 69–71, 74, 76–79; enabling 69–70, 72, 77–79; exploring 69, 71, 75, 77–82; expounding 69–72, 78–82; recommending 69–72, 74, 76–82; recreating 69–70, 74–75, 78, 82; reporting 69–74, 78–79, 82; sharing 69–70, 74–79, 82 social semiotic potential 14 social status 11, 81, 94–95, 198–200, 203, 215 social systems 9–10 socio-metric roles 12, 68, 75, 81, 198–199 socio-political issues 43, 45

socio-semiotic theory 66 speech functions 23, 202–205, 208 spontaneity 12 stratification 9–11, 14–15, 28–33, 67 subjectivity 23, 115, 147, 219, 230 subpotential 14–15, 29 Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) 1 text 30, 43–45, 66–67, 71–78, 96, 126, 137, 141–142, 172 text-in-context 18, 30, 67, 78 text patterns 14 text types 5, 9, 15, 29–30, 66–67, 71 third-order systems 9 topographic reports 72 trinocularity approach (TA) 20, 21, 27, 42 UP-SCALING 157, 163 usuality 211, 215–217 VALUATION 81, 124, 134–139, 199 VALUES 9, 10, 14–18, 28, 31–33, 69–71, 75–81, 98, 127, 136, 143, 155–157, 161, 215–219, 220, 239–240 ‘we’ group 99, 101, 112, 122, 171 willingness 211–213, 230 wordings 10–11, 14–16, 126, 137, 146, 225 ‘you’ group 1, 12, 171, 193