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. 574–592
Discursive production of teaching quality assessment report
A Critical Discourse Analysis
Published online: 7 January 2011
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.9.4.06tia
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.9.4.06tia
To produce a teaching quality assessment (TQA) report in the TQA practice launched by the Chinese Ministry of Education the assessing group is naturally in an authoritative position, but the assessed university does not remain absolutely passive and dominated. To investigate this struggle of power over each other in producing the TQA report, the present research examines the discourse aspect of the TQA practice by observing the discursive strategies each party deployed. It is found that both parties resort to institutional power in their discourse practice, and that the assessed university incorporates promotional genres into its self-assessment discourse while the assessing group recontextualises the promotional statement in its authoritative TQA report. It is concluded, based on this case study, that the assessing group’s authoritative TQA report is largely influenced by the self-assessment of the assessed university.
References (15)
Chouliaraki, Lilie and Fairclough, Norman. 1999. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Eggins, Suzanne and Martin, Jim. 1997. Genres and registers of discourse. In: Teun A. van Dijk (ed.). Discourse as Structure and Process. London: Sage, 230–256.
Fairclough, Norman. 2001. The discourse of new Labour: Critical discourse analysis. In: Margaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor, and Simeon J. Yates (eds.). Discourse as Data. London: Sage in association with The Open University, 229–266.
Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London and New York: Routledge.
Fairclough, Norman and Wodak, Ruth. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In: Teun A. van Dijk (ed.). Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage, 258–284.
Reisigl, Martin and Wodak, Ruth. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination. London and New York: Routledge.
2009. Discourse-historical approach. In: Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd edition). London: Sage, 87–121.
Tian, Hailong. 2009. Discourse Studies: Categories, Perspectives and Methodologies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1993. Principles of critical discourse analysis. In: Michael Toolan (ed.). Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (vol.II1). London and New York: Routledge, 104–141.
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 1993. Genre and field in critical discourse analysis: A synopsis. In: Michael Toolan (ed.). Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (vol.II1). London and New York: Routledge, 166–199.
Wodak, Ruth. 2007. Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics and Cognition, 15(1): 203–225.
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
Shahnaz, Ambreen & Nazia Suleman
Fawunmi, Mayowa Owolabi, Ajibola Samuel Ogundare & Tolulope Deborah Iredele
Shahnaz, Ambreen, M. Abid & N. Kanwal
Ho, Victor
Xiong, Tao
Wodak, Ruth
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.