《现代汉语与语言学概论 (139)》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《现代汉语与语言学概论 (139)（133页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、1第四届第四届“当代中国话语研究当代中国话语研究”学术会议学术会议议程议程指南指南主办主办 浙江大学浙江大学 杭州师范大学杭州师范大学日日 期期活动活动时间时间地点地点注册报到10:00-20:00华北饭店一楼会议大厅4月月 22 日日西湖观光游13:00-17:00集合地点：华北饭店一楼大厅(13:00) 游览路线：岳庙曲院风荷苏堤跨虹桥西泠桥省博物馆 白堤锦带桥断桥（自由活动/返回酒店）日日 期期活动活动主持人主持人时间时间发言人及题目发言人及题目地点地点开幕式李岩9:00-9:20代表发言： 刘蕾：东莞理工学院 辛斌：南京师范大学 李艺：南开大学 开幕辞：施旭：浙江大学华北饭店 一楼大会
2、 厅休息9:20-9:309:30-9:50陈汝东: 论国家话语能力9:50-10:10丁建新: 台湾的忧郁“边缘话语与社会”系列研究之二10:10-10:30高玉: 中国现代学术话语的历史过程及其当下建构徐亮10:30-11:00提问与讨论11:00-11:10茶点休息11:10-11:30马明奎: 多民族叙事话语中的意象研究11:30-11:50潘章仙: 接触文学话语的多元文化认同11:50-12:10施旭: 话语研究的中国化：构建中国的理论、方法和问 题意识4 月月 23 日日 上上 午午论文宣读刘正光12:10-12:40提问与讨论华北饭店 一楼大会 厅中中 午午中餐、午间休息12:4
3、0-14:00华北饭店214:00-14:20谭学纯: 中国文学话语研究三种模式:跨学科观察与思考 14:20-14:40田海龙,陈洁: 征求意见中的话语策略一则“征求意 见稿”批评话语分析的启示 14:40-15:00王振华: 领导讲话缘何高调与空洞？语言评价视角15:00-15:20Wu, Doreen D. egwchengpolyu.edu.hkHuman rights issues are often in the news headlines, especially in countries where major political changes have occurred (
4、Cheng it is simply regarded as the power language endowed with a high status and privilege (Tsou, 1996). The language symbolic of Hong Kongs cultural identity is Chinese because it embodies the traditional values of the majority of the population and because of their close ties with Mainland China,
5、Taiwan, and other overseas Chinese communities (e.g. Bacon-Shone Fan, 1974; Luo Yang 2003; also see 2006 Population By-census). The Official Language Ordinance (Cap 5) was passed on 13 February 1974. The only major change effected by the Ordinance was to allow the use of Chinese in the communication
6、 between the public and the government. Internal operation of the government continued to be conducted solely in English and Chinese-speaking civil 12servants did not have the right to opt for Chinese as their working language except when they are dealing with the public. The effects of the Ordinanc
7、e on legislation and court proceedings were minimal. Legislation was still required to be enacted and published solely in English. The Sino-British Joint Declaration was promulgated on 26 September 1984; however, the status of Chinese had not been clarified until the promulgation of the Draft Basic
8、Law in February 1989. Only then was the official status of English secured after 1997 in all three aspects, namely, in administrative, legislative and judicial settings. Being aware that “it must be accepted that all legislation enacted in Hong Kong after 1997 will have to be in Chinese” (Attorney G
9、enerals Chambers, 1986, p.6), the Hong Kong Government launched the “Bilingual Laws Project” in 1986, the primary objective of which was to translate all existing ordinances into Chinese and draft current legislation in both official languages. In 1987, amendments were made to two ordinances which m
10、arked the end of the monopoly of English in law and inception of Hong Kongs bilingual legislative system. As a result, Chinese acquired an additional statue, i.e., the status of legislative language. As can be noted, however, bilingual legislation, in a strict sense, is limited to Ordinances, and to
11、 the subsidiary legislation so directed by the Chief Executive in Council. Nevertheless, the use of Chinese was still confined to the lower courts and court records were still kept entirely in English. In 1987, the ex-Chief Justice, Sir Denys Roberts appointed a working party to study the possibilit
12、y of a greater use of Chinese in court proceedings. Not much had been done to improve the situation until August 1992 when the Chief Justice appointed another working party to “consider the means by which the use of Chinese language may be further promoted in court proceedings at all levels where ap
13、propriate, and generally the greater use of Chinese in the law.” (see Legislative Council Brief, 1995, p.3). Both working parties recommended that the existing restriction on the use of higher courts be removed. Consequently, in September 1994 the Chief Justice appointed a Steering Committee to expl
14、ore and advise him on how this should be implemented. In our study, we found four worth-noting points. First, while the use of Chinese has been in principle allowed at all levels of courts under the amended Ordinance, and in this sense fully recognized as a court language alongside English, Chinese
15、is still confined to the lower courts because of technical problems. Second, the official languages are allowed to switch from one to another or to be mixed with each other during court proceedings. This is to provide greater flexibility to parties who may have difficulty in using either of the offi
16、cial languages for a particular purpose. A most likely situation arises when the counsel finds it necessary to cite authorities in English because the Chinese translation of the case law is not available. Third, nowhere in the amended Ordinance does it provide for the language(s) of court proceedings. Tape recording equipment has been installed in a number of courtrooms to allow recording o
