从“九评”到“新九评”:大国论争下党报批评性话语的历史变迁

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (4)

Download: PDF (825 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract The media often engages in the construction of the relations between big powers whether they are united or divided. Taking the “nine commentaries on the Soviet union” published by People’s Daily in the 1960s and the “nine commentaries on US” published by People’s Daily in May 2019 as samples, this paper studies the development and changes of the critical discourse of CPC party newspapers over half a century. The two “nine commentaries” show that the political commentaries in People’s Daily have become less ideological and shorter, and contain fewer confrontational language. The overwhelming tirade of the “nine commentaries on Soviet Union” has been completely abandoned, and has given way to shorter, balanced and normal texts. “New nine commentaries” are de-ideological de-political with titles and bodies, reflecting the commentaries of the CPC party newspaper, after 40 years of reform and opening up, have gradually formed a new, more pragmatic style with more characteristics of the new era. The “new nine commentaries” have far less impact than the “nine commentaries on Soviet Union”, but they reach the biggest audience and have the widest influence in the communication context of digital transformation and integrated development, and make the topics of the CPC party newspaper shift from official position to public opinion, which the “nine commentaries on Soviet Union” also failed to do.

Key words： People’s Daily nine commentaries new nine commentaries Sino-Soviet relations Sino-US relations trade war between China and US

Received: 10 September 2019

PACS:

G206

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	GU Xiao-jing

Cite this article:

GU Xiao-jing. From “Nine Commentaries” to “New Nine Commentaries”: Changes in the Critical Discourse of the CPC Party Newspaper in the Fight between Big Powers[J]. , 2020, 37(1): 89-98.

URL:

https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/ OR https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/Y2020/V37/I1/89

[1] 吴长生、王恬谈如何对外宣传中国声音[EB/OL].http://www.people.com.cn/GB/32306/54155/57487/8763339.html.
[2] (英)诺曼·费尔克拉夫.话语与社会变迁[M].殷晓红译.北京:华夏出版社,2003.
[3] (荷)托伊恩·A.梵·迪克.作为话语的新闻[M].曾庆香译.北京:华夏出版社,2003.1.
[4] 文旭. 政治话语与政治隐喻[J].当代外语研究,2014,(9):13.
[5] 施惠玲,杜欣.政治传播内容中政治信息与政治话语的区分及其意义[J].南京社会科学,2016,(3):116.
[6] 陈月明. 使命与主体:《人民日报》社论(1949-2008)的话语呈现[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2013.178-252.
[7] 李玉,詹全旺.中国政治话语的概念隐喻分析[J].江淮论坛,2013,(5).
[8] 熊美娟,李凤欣.阶级话语的发展与变迁——基于《人民日报》社论(1978-2016)的分析[J].广州大学学报,2018.(7):60-68.
[9] 沈志华. 中苏同盟破裂的原因和结果[J].中共党史研究,2007,(2):29-42.
[10] 沈志华,李丹慧.结构失衡:中苏同盟破裂的深层原因[J].探索与争鸣,2012,(10):3-11.
[11] 崔奇.我所亲历的中苏论争[EB/OL].人民网文史频道,2010-10-22.
[12] 沈志华. 中苏在1958年的关系为何降到冰点[J].文史天地,2013,(7):17-22.
[13] 1963年6月17日《人民日报》刊载中共中央给苏共中央的复信[EB/OL].人民网.http://cpc.peop-le.com.cn/GB/64162/64165/65861/4454754.html.2018-06-17.
[14] 回应1000亿！商务部:中方将奉陪到底,不惜付出任何代价[EB/OL].环球网.http://world.huanqiu.com/exclusive/2018-04/11786421.html?agt=15438.2018-04-06.
[15] In a U.S.-China trade war, who has more to lose?[EB/OL]. www.washingtonpost.com.2018-04-05.
[16] How a US-China trade war could hurt (help) others?[EB/OL]. money.cnn.com.2019-04-10.
[17] Chines Tech Giant on Brink of Collapse in New U.S. Cold War [EB/OL]. www.nytimes.com.2018-05-09.
[18] 董天策,梁辰曦,夏侯命波.试论《人民日报》官方微博新闻评论的话语方式[J].国际新闻界,2013,(9):81-91.
[19] 李瑗. 试述《九评》与中苏论战[J].理论学刊,2008,(4):22-27.
[20] 钟声.不要陶醉于自欺欺人的“胜利”——“加征关税有利论”可以休矣[N].人民日报,2019-05-15(004).