Article published In: Discourse and Socio-Political Transformations in Contemporary China
Edited by Paul Chilton, Hailong Tian and Ruth Wodak
[Journal of Language and Politics 9:4] 2010
► pp. 528–545
Institutional language as power in contemporary China
Interaction between officials and visitors in government service offices
Published online: 7 January 2011
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.9.4.04li
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.9.4.04li
Against the backdrop of an increasingly divided society and the government’s determined pledge to build social cohesion in China, this paper examines how social institutions, through their discursive practices, participate in the construction of the still evolving social relations in contemporary China, using data collected from interactions between citizens and officials at two governmental agencies. It finds that discourse is an important way of reflecting and realizing the institutional power possessed by institutional officials and that institutional power is exercised and reinforced through a variety of discursive practices ranging from fixed procedures of questioning to speech acts of interrupting and blaming. Based on these findings, this paper argues that for government agencies to act as a force of social cohesion in contemporary China as they have always claimed, their linguistic forms of interaction with society, as well as the ideologies and practices associated with it, all need to be dramatically transformed.
Keywords: officer, institutions, politeness, visitor, power relations, social cohesion, interaction
References (16)
Algeo, John. 1988. The tag question in British English: it’s different, I’n’it? English World-wide 9: 2 171–191.
Brown, Penelope. & Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, Deborah., McAlinder, Fiona., & O’Leary, Kathy. (1988) Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In: Jennifer Coates and Deborah Cameron (ed.). Women in Their Speech Communities. London: Longman 75–93.
Foucault, Michel. 1990. ‘Method.’ In: Robert Hurley (Translator) The History of Sexuality Vol.11: Introduction. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Pp. 92–102.
Frank, Jane. 1990. You call that a rhetorical question? Forms and functions of rhetorical questions in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 14(5), 723–738.
Harris, Sandra. 2003. Politeness and power: Making and responding to ‘requests’ in institutional settings. Text 23(1), 27–52.
Han, Chung-hye. 2002. Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical question. In: Lingua 112 (3), 201–229.
Blankenship, Kevin L. & Craig, Traci Y. 2006. Rhetorical question use and resistance to persuasion: Attitude strength analysis. Journal of language and social psychology. Vol. 25, No. 2, 111–128
Sacks, Harvey; Schegloff, Emanuel. A. & Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turning-taking for conversation. Language Vol.50, No. 4. 696–735
Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.
Thornborrow, Jaonna. 2002. Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse. London: Longman.
陆学艺 (Lu, Xueyi). 2002.
当代中国社会阶层研究报告 北京：社会科学文献出版社 中华 人民共和国国务院 国务院信访条例 (Regulations on Letters and Visits) [URL]
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Li, Tao & Kaibao Hu
Zhang, Wei
2015. The shifting representation of common people in China’s news media. Journal of Language and Politics 14:2 ► pp. 285 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.