The Munich Pact is a product of the Appeasement Policy, which seemingly functions to maintain regional peace of England and France but in nature is a product of imbalanced social statuses and nation strengths. It reveals such kind of power relation that the more powerful countries (England, France, Germany and Italy) control or even suppress the less powerful country (Czechoslovakia). From the Systemic Functional Perspective, the theory of three Meta functions is utilized, attempting to analyze how The Munich Pact reflects such unbalanced power relation on the level of lexico grammar. To be specific, ideationally, the process types and voice of the discourse are analyzed. Interpersonally, speech function of modality and mood metaphor are analyzed. Textually, theme type is analyzed. Language and power are closely related. Language is perhaps the primary medium of social power. Language is power, which functions as a tool for some people to dominate others. By analyzing the language of a certain discourse, especially a forensic discourse, the power relations of the participants can be effectually revealed through the language characteristics. Thus by analyzing language of The Munich Pact, power relations of the four countries (England, France, Germany and Italy) and Czechoslovakia can be profoundly revealed. It is believed that analysis based on Systemic Functional Linguistics offers an effective way to analyze the hidden social relations and ideology of The Munich Pact.
BAO Liuya
. Power Relations of The Munich Pact from the Systemic Functional Perspective[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015
, 15(06)
: 12
-16
.
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2015.06.003
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power [M]. London: Longman.
Fowler, R. 1996. Linguistic Criticism [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fung, S. & B. A. Watson. 1994. The Template: A Guide for the Analysis of Complex Legislation. Institutes of Advanced Legal Studies [M]. London: London University. Press
Givon, T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar [M]. New York: Academic Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction of Functional Grammar (1st ed.) [M]. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994/2000. An Introduction of Functional Grammar [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Kress, G. & B. Hodge. 1979. Language as Ideology [M]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Martin, J. R. 2000. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English [A]. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds.). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 142-75.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1996. Tense in English [A]. In M. Berry, C. Butler, R. Fawcett & G. Huang (eds.). Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional interpretations [C]. New Jersey: Ablex. 431-98.
Parker, R. A. 1995. Chamberlain and appeasement: British policy and the coming of the Second World War [J]. Canadian Journal of History 30(2): 289-321.
Steven, E. L. 2007. The second face of security: Britain’s “Smart” appeasement policy towards Japan and Germany [J]. International Relations of the Asia Pacific 7(1): 73.
洪聚堂.1988.慕尼黑协定产生的根本原因及其后果[J].西北师大学报(4):79-83.
胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄、李战子.2008.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
黄国文.2010.语篇分析与系统功能语言学理论的建构[J].外语与外语教学(5):1-4.
黄永平.2004.法律英语文体学[M].沈阳:辽宁少数民族出版社.
齐世荣.1979.慕尼黑危机的真相不容歪曲[J].世界历史(1):34-45.
王振华.2001.评价系统及其运作[J].外国语(6):13-20.
王振华.2004a.法庭交叉质询中的人际关系[J].外语学刊(3):51-59.
王振华.2004b.“物质过程”的评价价值——以分析小说人物形象为例[J].外国语(5):41-47.
周尊南.1981.慕尼黑悲剧的历史教训[J].史学月刊(4):83-91.
