Discursive construction in multilingual crisis risk communication: An analysis of ‘A letter to foreign nationals’ messages in China’s COVID-19 fight

Abstract

This article examines the discursive construction of a specific letter-style multilingual crisis message released by local governmental institutions during China’s battle against the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on a sociocognitive analysis of a collection of 33 English-language messages, the analysis revealed the structural features of the message and the discursive strategies in constructing and negotiating the identities of the message’s addresser and the addressee. It was found that the discursive relationship between the addresser and the addressee was established on an ingroup-outgroup distinction mediated by neutralising strategies to reduce authoritative imposition and image-enhancing strategies to promote a responsible government. The findings suggest that multilingual crisis communication is a multivocal, complex social practice shaped by genre, textual, media and contextual factors. These findings will provide insights into the crisis discourse as an emerging topic of interest and help inform multilingual communication strategies in and beyond the context of a public health emergency.

Keywords

China COVID-19 crisis discourse multilingual communication public health emergency risk communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aspriadis

(2021) Managing COVID-19 pandemic crisis: The case of Greece. Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research 4(2): 387–412.

Burke

(2020) The dangers of misinformation and neglecting linguistic minorities during a pandemic. 16 April 2020. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/dangers-misinformation-and-neglecting-linguistic-minorities-during-pandemic (accessed 12 July 2020)

Burki

(2020) China’s successful control of COVID-19. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 20(11): 1240–1241.

Coombs

Holladay

(2010) The Handbook of Crisis Communication. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Federici

(2020) Translation in contexts of crisis. In: Bielsa

Kapsaskis

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Globalization. New York: Routledge, pp.176–189.

Frandsen

Johansen

(2010) Crisis communication, complexity, and the cartoon affair: A case study. In: Coombs

Holladay

(eds) The Handbook of Crisis Communication. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.425–448.

Frandsen

Johansen

(2016) Organizational Crisis Communication: A Multivocal Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glascock

(2004) The Jasper dragging death: Crisis communication and the community newspaper. Communication Studies 55(1): 29–47.

Glik

(2007) Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annual Review of Public Health 28: 33–54.

10.

Halliday

MAK

Matthiessen

(2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.

11.

Hansson

(2015) Discursive strategies of blame avoidance in government: A framework for analysis. Discourse & Society 26(3): 297–322.

12.

Hansson

(2017) Anticipative strategies of blame avoidance in government: The case of communication guidelines. Journal of Language and Politics 16(2): 219–241.

13.

Hansson

(2018) Analysing opposition–government blame games: Argument models and strategic maneuvering. Critical Discourse Studies 15(3): 228–246.

14.

Shi

Liu

(2020) Crisis governance, Chinese style: Distinctive features of China’s response to the covid-19 pandemic. Policy Design and Practice 3(3): 242–258.

15.

Huang

Zhang

(2013) “Seeing” the social roles of brands: How physical positioning influences brand evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology 23(4): 509–514.

16.

Xie

, et al. (2020a) Multilingual communication experiences of international students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Multilingua 39(5): 529–539.

17.

Rao

Zhang

, et al. (2020b) Conceptualizing national emergency language competence. Multilingua 39(5): 617–623.

18.

Luo

Xin

Wang

, et al. (2021) Behavioural intention of receiving COVID-19 vaccination, social media exposures and peer discussions in China. Epidemiology and Infection 149(e158): e158–e159.

19.

Martin

Bergmann

(2021) (Im)mobility in the age of COVID-19. International Migration Review 55(3): 660–687.

20.

Monaco

Tang

Cheng

Liu

Pan

(2021) Actions across government and COVID-19: The experience of Mainland China, Macao and Hong Kong. In: Zhao

Wong

Lowe

Monaco

Corbett

(eds) COVID-19 Pandemic, Crisis Responses and the Changing World. Singapore: Springer, pp.57–82.

21.

Morgan

(2002) Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Murphy

De Felice

(2019) Routine politeness in American and British English requests: Use and non-use of please. Journal of Politeness Research 15(1): 77–100.

23.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2020) COVID-19 and minority rights: Overview and promising practices. 4 June. Available at https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Minorities/OHCHRGuidance_COVID19_MinoritiesRights.pdf (accessed 31 August 2020).

24.

Peng

Liu

(2021) The discursive strategy of legitimacy management: A comparative case study of Google and Apple’s crisis communication statements. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 38(2): 519–545.

25.

Piller

Zhang

(2020) Linguistic diversity in a time of crisis: Language challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Multilingua 39(5): 503–515.

26.

Reynolds

Seeger

(2005) Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. Journal of Health Communication 10(1): 43–55.

27.

Schwartz

Shieh

(eds) (2009) State and Society Responses to Social Welfare Needs in China: Serving the People. New York: Routledge.

28.

Sellnow

, et al. (2009) Effective Risk Communication: A Message-Centered Approach. New York: Springer.

29.

The State Council Information Office (2020) Fighting COVID-19: China in action. Available at: http://english.scio.gov.cn/whitepapers/2020-06/07/content_76135269_4.htm

30.

Van Dijk

(1983) Cognitive and conversational strategies in the expression of ethnic prejudice. Text 3(4): 375–404.

31.

Van Dijk

(2008) Discourse and Context. A Sociocognitive Approach. New York, UK: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Van Dijk

(2014) Discourse and Knowledge. A Sociocognitive Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Van Dijk

(2017) Socio-cognitive discourse studies. In: Flowerdew

Richardson

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. New York: Routledge, pp.26–43.

34.

(2017) Working together to build a community of shared future for humankind. Speech at the United Nations Office at Geneva. 18 January. Available at http://en.qstheory.Cn/2021-01/05/c_579937.htm (accessed 7 July 2020).

35.

Yan

(2016) The argumentation in governments’ public crisis communication: A case of a NIMBY facility in City Z of mainland China. Sinología Hispánica. China Studies Review 3(2): 115–126.

36.

Zhang

Pan

(2015) Institutional power in and behind discourse: A case study of SARS notices and their translations used in Macao. Target 27(3): 387–405.