Inclusivity and Belonging in Chinese Discourse

Inclusivity and Belonging in Chinese Discourse explores how recent language change in the third person pronoun system of Mandarin Chinese is harnessed by netizens to construct spaces of (non-) belonging along a fluid continuum in the context of pro and anti LGBTQ discourses.

Kerry Sluchinski is a pragmatics and deixis-based East Asian linguist and discourse analyst whose general body of research focuses on the (de/re/co-) construction of identity and the use of referential forms on the Internet in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese.

List of Figures List of Tables Preface and Acknowledgements PART 1: From Deviation to Conventionalization: A Genealogy of ta and (Chinese) Gender Identities 1. Introduction 1.1 From Classical to Modern: Third-Person Pronoun Syntactic Behaviour and Orthography up to 2003 and Beyond 1.1.1 Third-Person Pronoun Development 1.1.2 Syntactic Behaviour of the Third-Person Pronoun in Written Chinese 1.2 Early Beginnings: A Sample of Syntactic Structures of the ta Phenomenon in CMC 1.2.1 A Quantitative Look at Conventionalization: Syntactic Constructions of ta 1.2.2 A Quantitative Look at Conventionalization: Sentence Types 1.3 Modern Investigations: Discursive and Psycholinguistic Evidence Towards Conventionalization 2. Deviant or Conventional? Constructing Gender Identities in China and at Large 2.1 Homosociality vs Homosexuality 2.2 Tongzhi: The Genderless Comrades of Communism and Sexuality 2.3 X- and --: ta's Less Ubiquitous Counterpart and Most Recent Contender 2.4 Pronouns and Pragmatics: The Problem 2.4.1 Constructing Identity: Speaker, Addressee ...Other? 2.4.2 Constructing Identity: Third-Person Pronoun and Referential Form Use by the Other 2.4.3 Constructing Identity: Third-Person Pronoun and Third-Person Noun Phrase Use for the Other 2.5 Research Questions PART 2: Analytical Framework, Data, and Classification 3. Theoretical Underpinnings 3.1 Theories 3.1.1 A Framing, Positioning, and Stance Theories Framework 3.1.2 Adapted Appraisal Theory and Co-Reference Chains 3.1.3 Membership Categorization and Indexicality 3.2 Corpus 3.2.1 Data Origin and Software 3.2.2 Data Collection Procedure and Categorization 3.2.3 Discourse Types and Texts 4. Who is ta? A comparison of Pro- and Anti-LGBTQ Community Usage 4.1 Ta Categorization Schema - Methodology and Layers 1-2 4.2 Layer 3 - Quantitative Referent Categorization 4.2.1 Ta Categorization Schema in the Context of the Entire Corpus 4.2.2 Ta Categorization Schema Community by Community 4.3 Layer 3 - Qualitative Presentation of Quantitative Lexical Referents 4.4 Interim Summary PART 3: Othering 5. Political Non-Belonging: 'Othering' and 'Vagueness' of ta in Anti- and Pro-LGBTQ Communities 5.1 Negative Stance and Non-Belonging 5.2 Explicit Othering: Analysis and Discussion 5.2.1 Refusing to Recognize an LGBTQ Individual's Self-Ascribed Identity 5.2.2 Dehumanizing an LGBTQ Member 5.2.3 Downgrading Social Integrity 5.2.4 Co-Constructing 'Other' Identity 5.3 Implicit Othering: Analysis and Discussion 5.3.1 Implicit Othering: Pro-Community Usage 5.3.2 Implicit Othering: Anti-Community Usage 5.4 Explicit and Implicit Othering: Interim Conclusion PART 4: (A-)Political Belonging 6. (A-)Political Belonging: What makes ta's Belonging (A-)Political? 6.1 Neutral/Positive vs. Negative Stance and (A-)Political Belonging 6.2 Data Set Compositions 6.3 ta Usage for LGBTQ Pronoun 6.3.1 Apolitical Usage 6.3.2 Political Usage 6.4 ta Usage for Comprehensive Group Inclusion 6.4.1 Apolitical Usage 6.4.2 Political Usage 6.5 Interim Summary 7. Apolitical Belonging: When ta's Third-Person Attributes Don't Matter 7.1 Neutral/Positive Stance and Apolitical Belonging 7.2 Data Set Compositions 7.3 ta Usage for Unknown Circumstances via Information Seeking Discourse 7.4 ta usage for General 3PP via Opinion Discourse 7.5 ta Usage for Unknown Circumstances and General 3PP 7.5.1 Guidebook/Advice Discourse 7.5.2 Partner Advertisement Discourse 7.6 Interim Summary PART 5: Political Belonging 8. Political Belonging: How ta Belongs in Relation to 'You' 8.1 Positive Stance and Political Belonging 8.2 Data Set Composition 8.3 ta Usage for Open in Relation to 'You' 8.3.1 Essay Discourse 8.3.2 Information Seeking Discourse 8.3.3 Guidebook/Advice Discourse 8.4 ta Usage for Self- and Third-Person Identity Construction 8.4.1 Narrative Discourse 8.5 ta Usage for 'You' and Identity via Opinion Discourse 8.6 Interim Summary 9. Getting Back with ta, Your (Homosexual) Partner - Chain Post Discourse Discussion 9.1 Positive Stance and Political Belonging 9.2 Data Composition and Features 9.3 Example 1: ta Usage for LGBT Pronoun and Identity Construction for Any 'Homosexual' 9.4 Example 2: ta Usage for LGBTQ Pronoun and Identity Construction for 'Female Homosexual' 9.5 Example 3: ta Usage for LGBTQ Pronoun and Identity Construction for 'Male Homosexual' 9.6 Summary and Implications for Corpus PART 6: Conclusion 10. Synthesis and Conclusion 10.1 Synthesis 10.1.1 Discourse Distribution within Usage Type 10.1.2 Usage Type Distribution within Community 10.2 Implications for Readers and Further Research References Appendix A: List of Omitted Categorizations Included in Ta Categorization Schema Appendix B: Table of Third-Person Singular Pronouns (Brief ta-Focused Historical Summary) Index