Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (2) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Diskursanalyse (2) (entfernen)
Institut
In the context of accelerated global socio-environmental change, the Water-Energy-Food Nexus has received increasing attention within science and international politics by promoting integrated resource governance. This study explores the scientific nexus debates from a discourse analytical perspective to reveal knowledge and power relations as well as geographical settings of nexus research. We also investigate approaches to socio-nature relations that influence nexus research and subsequent political implications. Our findings suggest that the leading nexus discourse is dominated by natural scientific perspectives and a neo-Malthusian framing of environmental challenges. Accordingly, the promoted cross-sectoral nexus approach to resource governance emphasizes efficiency, security, future sustainability, and poverty reduction. Water, energy, and food are conceived as global trade goods that require close monitoring, management and control, to be achieved via quantitative assessments and technological interventions. Within the less visible discourse, social scientific perspectives engage with the social, political, and normative elements of the Water-Energy-Food Nexus. These perspectives criticize the dominant nexus representation for itsmanagerial, neoliberal, and utilitarian approach to resource governance. The managerial framing is critiqued for masking power relations and social inequalities, while alternative framings acknowledge the political nature of resource governance and socio-nature relations. The spatial dimensions of the nexus debate are also discussed. Notably, the nexus is largely shaped by western knowledge, yet applied mainly in specific regions of the Global South. In order for the nexus to achieve integrative solutions for sustainability, the debate needs to overcome its current discursive and spatial separations. To this end, we need to engage more closely with alternative nexus discourses, embrace epistemic pluralism and encourage multi-perspective debates about the socio-nature relations we actually intend to promote.
This socio-pragmatic study investigates organisational conflict talk between superiors and subordinates in three medical dramas from China, Germany and the United States. It explores what types of sociolinguistic realities the medical dramas construct by ascribing linguistic behaviour to different status groups. The study adopts an enhanced analytical framework based on John Gumperz’ discourse strategies and Spencer-Oatey’s rapport management theory. This framework detaches directness from politeness, defines directness based on preference and polarity and explains the use of direct and indirect opposition strategies in context.
The findings reveal that the three hospital series draw on 21 opposition strategies which can be categorised into mitigating, intermediate and intensifying strategies. While the status identity of superiors is commonly characterised by a higher frequency of direct strategies than that of subordinates, both status groups manage conflict in a primarily direct manner across all three hospital shows. The high percentage of direct conflict management is related to the medical context, which is characterised by a focus on transactional goals, complex role obligations and potentially severe consequences of medical mistakes and delays. While the results reveal unexpected similarities between the three series with regard to the linguistic directness level, cross-cultural differences between the Chinese and the two Western series are obvious from particular sociopragmatic conventions. These conventions particularly include the use of humour, imperatives, vulgar language and incorporated verbal and para-verbal/multimodal opposition. Noteworthy differences also appear in the underlying patterns of strategy use. They show that the Chinese series promotes a greater tolerance of hierarchical structures and a partially closer social distance in asymmetrical professional relationships. These disparities are related to different perceptions of power distance, role relationships, face and harmony.
The findings challenge existing stereotypes of Chinese, US American and German conflict management styles and emphasise the context-specific nature of verbal conflict management in every culture. Although cinematic aspects affect the conflict management in the fictional data, the results largely comply with recent research on conflict talk in real-life workplaces. As such, the study contributes to intercultural trainings in medical contexts and provides an enhanced analytical framework for further cross-cultural studies on linguistic strategies.