本文選題：身份認同 + 話語權(quán)��； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：本論文主要研究的對象是克里米亞危機中的各方話語。以各方擁有的政治話語權(quán)為前提,從歷史淵源和現(xiàn)代因素的角度,探究了俄羅斯和烏克蘭對各自民族身份認同的發(fā)展。本論文著眼于克里米亞公投合法化的斗爭,以及國家間的話語較量。本篇論文的目的是:探究克里米亞危機中,各方所掌握的話語在烏克蘭和俄羅斯兩個國家身份認同塑造中的作用。這次研究嘗試解構(gòu)并系統(tǒng)化由特定一方運用的話語工具。烏克蘭革命之后,克里米亞事件從一開始就一直是各方面進行不同解讀的焦點。與以往的許多革命一樣,這次革命也同樣不是僅發(fā)生在烏克蘭一國國內(nèi)的孤立事件,烏克蘭革命幾乎演變成為改變世界秩序的突破點。至于這個世界是會由零和的軍事主導(dǎo)的現(xiàn)實主義對峙塑造,還是由一種新的對現(xiàn)實世界的解讀塑造,還有待考察。這篇論文主要研究的問題是:克里米亞危機中的話語在烏克蘭國家身份認同塑造中起到了什么樣的作用。基于歷史背景以及相關(guān)理論,我提出以下假設(shè):克里米亞危機中的話語有助于烏克蘭國家身份認同的轉(zhuǎn)型。A.烏克蘭和俄羅斯政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的話語集中在民族團結(jié)、國家能力和民族個性等方面。B.外交機構(gòu)的話語服務(wù)于共同的歷史和合作的需要。話語與身份認同是緊密聯(lián)系的,這在克里米亞危機中每一方不同的話語中得以體現(xiàn)。歐盟很難去平衡各成員國間的意見,作為擁有強大話語的美國有時也很難實現(xiàn)國內(nèi)的統(tǒng)一認同。而與之不同的是,將強硬原則作為其行動準(zhǔn)則的俄羅斯則擁有著更高的身份入同和話語權(quán),烏克蘭則訴諸于國際法和情感號召。在話語斗爭中,政治角色通常會嘗試去描述他們國家的未來以達到利益的平衡的目的。研究過程中運用了批判性話語分析的方法。本項研究是根植于米歇爾·福柯的"話語理論",即社會中的權(quán)力關(guān)系是通過話語和實踐表達出來的。批判性話語分析是進行話語權(quán)研究的跨學(xué)科研究方法,其主要觀點是:話語是社會實踐的一種形式。傳統(tǒng)的批判性話語分析工作者一般認為無話語的社會實踐和有話語的社會實踐是相互促進形成的,而他們的關(guān)注重點是如何利用話語權(quán),建設(shè)或加強社會權(quán)力關(guān)系。對任何危機沖突的研究都是需要相關(guān)知識和歷史文化背景的。而對克里米亞危機的案例的分析則需要依靠媒體和官方的相關(guān)報告。這些報告都是有關(guān)復(fù)雜的克里米亞和俄羅斯歷史、話語權(quán)問題研究、由前蘇聯(lián)宣傳系統(tǒng)利用的特定語言代碼、烏克蘭的民族電影、新意識形態(tài)支持下的戰(zhàn)爭修辭,以及一些專業(yè)的講話。我們見證了太多的信息戰(zhàn);而話語對于一個國家的角色認定和身份認同的建立或重建,以及重新書寫歷史是具有直接意義的。本文的資料有以下幾個基本來源。政府官方話語主要包括首相、總統(tǒng)或其他政府官員的演說、聲明和采訪。雖然我們要始終記得"新聞是具有偏向性的"這一句話,但不可否認在采訪和新聞發(fā)布會中,覆蓋面廣泛的媒體確實提供了主要信息來源。本篇論文共包含五章。第一章是有關(guān)這一研究的導(dǎo)論:第二章將重點放在了烏克蘭與俄羅斯關(guān)系的歷史話語權(quán)背景;第三章講述了話語和身份建設(shè)的理論背景;第四章致力于對所收集數(shù)據(jù)的分析研究,這些數(shù)據(jù)是從政要的演說和采訪、官方渠道以及俄羅斯和烏克蘭媒體收集來的:而在論文的末章,對本篇論文進行了總結(jié),并且闡述了長遠研究的方向和目標(biāo)。本篇論文開始于一個假設(shè):代表一國的政治領(lǐng)袖的話語權(quán)大小取決于民族團結(jié)、國家能力以及民族個性。通過對烏克蘭和俄羅斯?fàn)幾h領(lǐng)土的關(guān)注,俄羅斯總統(tǒng)的話語超出了國家領(lǐng)土邊界的設(shè)置。他利用俄、烏共同的政治歷史,以及共同的文化,促進了跨國民族團結(jié)和本國國家能力的提高。類似這樣的話語建設(shè)手段也被其他國家廣泛采用。烏克蘭總理對于話語的建設(shè)更多關(guān)注于國內(nèi)政治環(huán)境和個人政治權(quán)力地位的合法性�？紤]到受"Maidan"組織影響的愛國主義,他利用烏克蘭反抗俄羅斯的歷史來維護民族團結(jié)。然而,與俄羅斯總統(tǒng)話語建設(shè)相比,烏克蘭總統(tǒng)的做法單一且脆弱,缺乏大國建設(shè)的目標(biāo)。因此,本文驗證了假設(shè)一的合理性:民族團結(jié)、國家能力以及民族個性會影響一個國家的身份認同,影響政治領(lǐng)袖的話語。雖然官方外交手段通常設(shè)法在一個固定對話框架下,傳達出一個清楚的信息,但不得不說官方外交的話語依舊受制于固定的體制和其他特殊需求。我們可以清楚地看出,俄羅斯外交機構(gòu)的話語有很明顯的強權(quán)政治特征。烏克蘭外交機構(gòu)的話語權(quán)在很大程度上有很深的特殊限制,并且沒有什么明顯特征。因此可以看出假設(shè)二是有誤的:外交機構(gòu)的話語權(quán)并不是由共同的歷史和合作的需求決定的。從長遠來看,本文應(yīng)該繼續(xù)更加擴大話語權(quán)研究分析范圍,比如對主流媒體和邊緣媒體、政府反對派,甚至包括社會媒體的話語權(quán)研究。如果歐洲的權(quán)力重組、俄羅斯文明復(fù)蘇甚至世界秩序的重建等趨勢成為現(xiàn)實的話,我們就要時刻警醒克里米亞這個被地緣政治所毒害的半島。
[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.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D851.13;D851.2

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 葛軍;克里米亞之爭[J];世界知識;1992年09期

2 顧志紅;克里米亞大選[J];東歐中亞研究;1994年04期

3 長弓;克里米亞風(fēng)波又起[J];國際展望;1995年08期

4 孔寒冰;;政治之島——克里米亞[J];世界知識;2010年02期

5 沈法良;俄羅斯與烏克蘭的克里米亞歸屬之爭[J];w蕓，

本文編號：1863258