俄乌克里米亚危机中的认同话语分析

发布时间：2018-05-08 22:04

本文选题：身份认同 + 话语权　；参考：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：本论文主要研究的对象是克里米亚危机中的各方话语。以各方拥有的政治话语权为前提,从历史渊源和现代因素的角度,探究了俄罗斯和乌克兰对各自民族身份认同的发展。本论文着眼于克里米亚公投合法化的斗争,以及国家间的话语较量。本篇论文的目的是:探究克里米亚危机中,各方所掌握的话语在乌克兰和俄罗斯两个国家身份认同塑造中的作用。这次研究尝试解构并系统化由特定一方运用的话语工具。乌克兰革命之后,克里米亚事件从一开始就一直是各方面进行不同解读的焦点。与以往的许多革命一样,这次革命也同样不是仅发生在乌克兰一国国内的孤立事件,乌克兰革命几乎演变成为改变世界秩序的突破点。至于这个世界是会由零和的军事主导的现实主义对峙塑造,还是由一种新的对现实世界的解读塑造,还有待考察。这篇论文主要研究的问题是:克里米亚危机中的话语在乌克兰国家身份认同塑造中起到了什么样的作用。基于历史背景以及相关理论,我提出以下假设:克里米亚危机中的话语有助于乌克兰国家身份认同的转型。A.乌克兰和俄罗斯政治领导人的话语集中在民族团结、国家能力和民族个性等方面。B.外交机构的话语服务于共同的历史和合作的需要。话语与身份认同是紧密联系的,这在克里米亚危机中每一方不同的话语中得以体现。欧盟很难去平衡各成员国间的意见,作为拥有强大话语的美国有时也很难实现国内的统一认同。而与之不同的是,将强硬原则作为其行动准则的俄罗斯则拥有着更高的身份入同和话语权,乌克兰则诉诸于国际法和情感号召。在话语斗争中,政治角色通常会尝试去描述他们国家的未来以达到利益的平衡的目的。研究过程中运用了批判性话语分析的方法。本项研究是根植于米歇尔·福柯的"话语理论",即社会中的权力关系是通过话语和实践表达出来的。批判性话语分析是进行话语权研究的跨学科研究方法,其主要观点是:话语是社会实践的一种形式。传统的批判性话语分析工作者一般认为无话语的社会实践和有话语的社会实践是相互促进形成的,而他们的关注重点是如何利用话语权,建设或加强社会权力关系。对任何危机冲突的研究都是需要相关知识和历史文化背景的。而对克里米亚危机的案例的分析则需要依靠媒体和官方的相关报告。这些报告都是有关复杂的克里米亚和俄罗斯历史、话语权问题研究、由前苏联宣传系统利用的特定语言代码、乌克兰的民族电影、新意识形态支持下的战争修辞,以及一些专业的讲话。我们见证了太多的信息战;而话语对于一个国家的角色认定和身份认同的建立或重建,以及重新书写历史是具有直接意义的。本文的资料有以下几个基本来源。政府官方话语主要包括首相、总统或其他政府官员的演说、声明和采访。虽然我们要始终记得"新闻是具有偏向性的"这一句话,但不可否认在采访和新闻发布会中,覆盖面广泛的媒体确实提供了主要信息来源。本篇论文共包含五章。第一章是有关这一研究的导论:第二章将重点放在了乌克兰与俄罗斯关系的历史话语权背景;第三章讲述了话语和身份建设的理论背景;第四章致力于对所收集数据的分析研究,这些数据是从政要的演说和采访、官方渠道以及俄罗斯和乌克兰媒体收集来的:而在论文的末章,对本篇论文进行了总结,并且阐述了长远研究的方向和目标。本篇论文开始于一个假设:代表一国的政治领袖的话语权大小取决于民族团结、国家能力以及民族个性。通过对乌克兰和俄罗斯争议领土的关注,俄罗斯总统的话语超出了国家领土边界的设置。他利用俄、乌共同的政治历史,以及共同的文化,促进了跨国民族团结和本国国家能力的提高。类似这样的话语建设手段也被其他国家广泛采用。乌克兰总理对于话语的建设更多关注于国内政治环境和个人政治权力地位的合法性。考虑到受"Maidan"组织影响的爱国主义,他利用乌克兰反抗俄罗斯的历史来维护民族团结。然而,与俄罗斯总统话语建设相比,乌克兰总统的做法单一且脆弱,缺乏大国建设的目标。因此,本文验证了假设一的合理性:民族团结、国家能力以及民族个性会影响一个国家的身份认同,影响政治领袖的话语。虽然官方外交手段通常设法在一个固定对话框架下,传达出一个清楚的信息,但不得不说官方外交的话语依旧受制于固定的体制和其他特殊需求。我们可以清楚地看出,俄罗斯外交机构的话语有很明显的强权政治特征。乌克兰外交机构的话语权在很大程度上有很深的特殊限制,并且没有什么明显特征。因此可以看出假设二是有误的:外交机构的话语权并不是由共同的历史和合作的需求决定的。从长远来看,本文应该继续更加扩大话语权研究分析范围,比如对主流媒体和边缘媒体、政府反对派,甚至包括社会媒体的话语权研究。如果欧洲的权力重组、俄罗斯文明复苏甚至世界秩序的重建等趋势成为现实的话,我们就要时刻警醒克里米亚这个被地缘政治所毒害的半岛。
[Abstract]:The main object of this thesis is the discourse of the parties in the Crimea crisis. Based on the political discourse power of the parties, the development of the identity of their respective nationalities is explored from the perspective of historical origin and modern factors. This thesis focuses on the struggle for the legalization of the referendum in Crimea and the discourse between the States. The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of the discourse in the identity of two countries in Ukraine and Russia during the Crimea crisis. This study attempts to deconstruct and systematize the utterance tools used by a particular party. After the Ukraine revolution, the Crimea incident has been in all aspects from the beginning. The focus of different interpretations. Like many previous revolutions, the revolution was also not only an isolated incident in one country in Ukraine, and the Ukraine revolution has almost evolved into a breakthrough in changing the world order. As for the world, it will be shaped by a zero sum military dominated realism or a new one. The main issue of this paper is: what role does the discourse in the Crimea crisis play in the shaping of Ukraine national identity. Based on the historical background and related theories, I put forward the following hypothesis: the discourse in the Crimea crisis helps Ukraine national identity. The discourse of the political leaders of the.A. Ukraine and Russia concentrates on the national unity, the national capacity and the national personality of the.B. diplomatic agencies to serve the needs of the common history and cooperation. The discourse and identity are closely linked, which can be reflected in the different words of each party in the crisis of Crimea. It is difficult to balance the views between the members of the member states. As an American with a strong discourse, it is sometimes difficult to realize the unified identity of the country. Unlike it, Russia has a higher identity and the right to speak, and Ukraine appeals to international law and emotional appeal. The political role usually tries to describe the future of their country in order to achieve a balance of interests. In the course of the study, the method of critical discourse analysis is used. This study is rooted in Michel Volker's "discourse theory", that is, the power relations in society are expressed through speech and Practice. Critical discourse analysis is a method of discourse analysis. The main point of the study of discourse right is that discourse is a form of social practice. The traditional critical discourse analysis workers generally believe that the social practice without discourse and the social practice of discourse are mutually promoted, and their focus is how to use the right of discourse to build or strengthen society. Power relations. The study of any crisis conflict needs relevant knowledge and historical and cultural background. The analysis of the case of the Crimea crisis needs to rely on the media and official related reports. These reports are related to the complex history of Crimea and Russia, the study of the right of discourse, and the use of the former Soviet propaganda system. The specific language code, the national film in Ukraine, the war rhetoric supported by the new ideology, and some professional speeches. We have witnessed too much information warfare; the discourse is of direct significance to the establishment or reconstruction of a country's role and identity, as well as the history of rewriting. The information of this article is the following Government discourse mainly includes the speeches, statements and interviews of the prime minister, the president or other government officials. Although we must always remember the phrase "the news is biased", it is undeniable that the media with wide coverage do provide the main source of information in interviews and press conferences. It contains five chapters. The first chapter is an introduction to this study: the second chapter focuses on the historical context of the relations between Ukraine and Russia; the third chapter describes the theoretical background of the construction of discourse and identity; the fourth chapter is devoted to the analysis of the collected data, which are political speeches and interviews, official channels and In the final chapter of the Russian and Ukraine media, the final chapter of the paper is summed up and the direction and goal of the long-term study is expounded. This paper begins with a hypothesis that the power of discourse on behalf of a country's political leaders depends on national unity, national ability and national character. Through the Ukraine and Russia The Russian President's discourse exceeded the national territorial boundaries. He used Russia, the Ukrainian political history, and the common culture to promote national unity and the improvement of national capacity. Similar discourse construction is also widely adopted by his country. The Prime Minister of Ukraine Building more attention to the legitimacy of the domestic political environment and the status of the political power of the individual. Considering the patriotism affected by the "Maidan" organization, he used Ukraine to resist the Russian history to maintain national unity. However, compared with the Russian President's discourse construction, the practice of the president of Ukraine is single and fragile and lacks the goal of building a big country. Therefore, this article verifies the reasonableness of the assumption that national unity, national capacity, and national personality affect the identity of a country and influence the discourse of political leaders. Although official diplomacy usually tries to convey a clear message under a fixed Dialogue framework, it has to be said that official diplomacy is still subject to the words. In a fixed system and other special needs, we can clearly see that the discourse of the Russian diplomatic agency has a distinct power political feature. The discourse power of the Ukraine diplomatic agency has very deep special limitations and has no obvious characteristics. Therefore, it can be seen that the assumption that two is wrong: the diplomatic agency The right of discourse is not determined by the needs of common history and cooperation. In the long run, this article should continue to expand the scope of the research and analysis of the discourse power, such as the study of the discourse power of the mainstream media and the marginal media, the government opposition, and even the social media. If the European power is reorganized, the Russian civilization is revive even the world rank. We should always wake up the Crimea peninsula which is poisoned by geopolitics.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D851.13;D851.2

【相似文献】