【作者】 涂家金；

【导师】 胡曙中；

【作者基本信息】 上海外国语大学 ， 外国语言学及应用语言学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 当代西方论辩研究具有与西方修辞研究相似或相同的理论旨趣并已取得丰硕的成果。与修辞学家一样,论辩理论家们也从古典修辞思想汲取理论灵感,以反拨逻辑实证主义和科学主义为己任。论辩理论也强调以或然意见而非绝对真理作为话语生发的基础和出发点,并且同样注重话语实践的情境性和追求语效,与修辞难分难解。同时,论辩理论不同的理论偏好特别是其对言辞策略不同的归类和系统阐说有助于我们从新的视角审视修辞实践。然而,这些完全可以视为修辞学术遗产不可或缺的组成部分的论辩资源由于种种原因并未受到(西方)修辞批评界的重视、开发和充分利用。修辞批评是系统地探究话语实践,理解修辞运作,展现修辞理论与实践关联进而反哺理论的修辞研究或修辞实践,在国内仍属起步阶段。国内学界尚未充分认识到论辩理论丰厚的资源潜势,进而探索将论辩与修辞批评相结合的可能性。对论辩理论与批评实践的关联性和成效性的相关研究几近空白。具体表现为对不同的论辩思想、论辩与修辞的理论渊源和内在联系少有探讨;对论辩理论家们丰富的论辩策略研究的梳理、讨论、比较还极为不够,而这些策略体系将极大充实修辞发明的内涵;论辩理论家与Burke等新修辞学家之间的对话也极为欠缺;论辩理论如何介入阐释、评估话语实践也尚待进一步的研究。这些问题对于深化我们对西方修辞与论辩理论以及二者间的关系的认识、对于更好地理解现实话语实践和符号权力运作都是极其必要的。同时,本研究对于国内修辞界在修辞研究或“修辞转向”过程中在研究方法方面尚存在缺少或不熟悉介入具体的修辞实践所必需的可操作性强的工具范畴问题也将提供助益。本研究首先从结果取向的非形式逻辑研究、程序-规则取向的语用辩证研究和过程-受众取向的修辞研究三个方面梳理探讨当代西方论辩理论研究的成果,表明论辩研究与当代西方修辞研究具有共同的理论旨趣和历史渊源,论辩理论是修辞资源不可或缺的组成部分。对修辞、论辩、论辩策略、修辞批评等主要术语的辨析进一步表明修辞批评对论辩理论吸纳的可行性和必要性,并展示了论辩丰富的内涵,揭示了意义与价值的论辩性,进而纠正人们对论辩和修辞的一些偏狭认识。在此基础之上,我们从论辩的角度探讨修辞批评宏观的情境层面及其本体基础,以期为论辩与修辞批评的整合和修辞批评实践铺平学理之路。通过对修辞情境既有理论的梳理、批判,我们指出论辩理论特别是论辩策略体系可以极大地弥补修辞学者对修辞发明讨论的不足,极大地充实情境的修辞发明维度。同时,我们以论辩理论为参照,结合Burke等的新修辞思想,对空间情境、广为忽视的论辩情境、论辩主体、论辩受众、论辩目的与手段进行深入的探讨。在对福柯话语人、布迪厄习性人和哈贝马斯的交往行为人进行批判分析的基础上,我们阐明了论辩或修辞行动人的合理性,进而为修辞发明和修辞批评提供了本体基础。对论辩受众观的阐说既表明受众在修辞发明中的核心地位,也对不同的论辩理论进行批评反思。同时,论辩与修辞的共融共通性也在Perelman为代表的论辩理论家与Burke为代表的修辞学家的理论对话中展现。作为论辩理论最为独特的理论资源之一,论辩策略体系充分体现了论辩资源对于修辞特别是修辞发明和修辞批评的建设性作用。我们以论辩惯性原则作为话语策略的使能基础,通过整合Perelman、PDA和Walton等的论辩思想和Burke的修辞思想,特别是他们有关策略机制的洞见,区分形成联结策略,剥离策略和情感策略三大类的论辩技术体系,阐明论辩理论介入修辞批评所具备的最重要的工具基础。虽然越来越多的学者认识到修辞涵盖非语言符号现象,但是有关视觉修辞的研究仍较为零散。许多论辩理论家也仅以语言现象为关注。我们因此还结合符号学理论特别是Kress&Leeuwen的视觉语法理论,尝试从视觉修辞这一新兴的修辞研究范式出发,讨论非语言视像符号的修辞论辩性,拓展修辞、修辞批评和论辩理论的适用疆域,以期人们能够对之有新的认识,并进一步表明论辩与修辞批评的关联性。最后,我们以论辩修辞情境和所讨论的论辩理论资源为基础,对生发于具体的修辞情境中的话语实践进行了批评解析,不仅表明论辩之于修辞批评的适用性和成效性,也展示了论辩的非典型表征。更为重要的是,这些案例批评也证明了修辞批评对于论辩和修辞理论的反哺功用,阐明诸如论辩与机构权力的共生性、危机修辞中机构人格的修复机制、科学争议中的受众的规范作用和举证责任分配功能以及科学争议本身的展示修辞功能等理论问题。本研究采用定性的阐释分析方法,致力于探索论辩理论与修辞批评的关联,力图改变修辞(批评)领域对论辩理论总体上的盲视状况,并进一步揭示修辞和论辩所蕴含的人道精神,纠正人们对二者的一些误解误识,以期对论辩和修辞有更全面的认识。更多还原

【Abstract】 Informed by the same roots of classical rhetorical thoughts, and taking as their central task the reaction against logical empiricism and scientism as rhetoricians do, contemporary Western argumentation theorists have theoretical concerns and scholarly interests similar to those of Western rhetorical studies, and have yielded a bonanza of profound theoretical achievements. Argumentation and rhetoric are inevitably entwined since both endorse the probable and contingent opinion instead of absolute truth as the foundation and starting point of discursive production, and both emphasize the situational nature and discursive effects of any discursive practice. On the other hand, the unique theoretical bents of argumentation theories, particularly the systematic categorization and conceptualization of discursive techniques thus proffered, can contribute to a new understanding of rhetorical practice.However, due to various reasons, the argumentative resources which are part and parcel of rhetorical legacies have not yet been fully engaged, tapped, and assimilated by scholars working in the field of rhetorical criticism(RC) which as a qualitative study or itself a rhetorical practice is designed for the systematic investigation and explanation of symbolic actions, and serves to enact a communion of rhetorical theory and discursive practice and eventually, to enrich our understanding of both. Particularly, research about RC is still in its budding stage in China. And domestic Chinese scholars in the rhetorical tradition have paid only scant attention to the critical potentials of argumentation theories, leaving the possibility of intersection between argumentation and RC far from being explored. This lack of probe into the pertinence of argumentation and critical study more specifically manifests in that few studies if any about the interrelations of different argumentation theories, and of argumentation and rhetoric, are carried out, that more thorough exploration into the rich typology of argumentative techniques which will unveil the scope and depth of rhetorical invention remains to be done, that the constructive dialogue between argumentation theorists and rhetoricians such as Perelman and Burke is wanting, and that how argumentation insights may allow us to interpret and evaluate discursive practice remains untapped. These issues are essential in coping with the exigence of a fuller understanding of rhetoric, argumentation and their relations. And tackling them is imperative as gaining a richer experience of the discursive practice and symbolic power is an urgent and widely sanctioned academic enterprise. Moreover, our study will make a valuable contribution to confronting the tension which exists between the exigence of a“rhetorical turn”and lack of or unfamiliarity with necessary methods or toolkit to enact the turn in domestic rhetorical studies(or xiuci studies). Our accumulated efforts eventually reveal the essentially humane ethos embodied in rhetoric and argumentation.Our study starts with the intellectual climate of and the theoretical achievements made by the three perspectives of studies into argumentation. The shared intellectual interests and historical roots of argumentation studies and rhetorical studies are pinpointed. Then the definitions and correlations of the important concepts in the study are provided and the argumentativeness of meaning and value is explored, demonstrating further the feasibility and necessity of RC’s assimilation of argumentation resources and the richness of the notion of argumentation, and rectifying the parochial or incorrect conceptualizations about it. Predicated on the conceptual framework, we then delve into the macro-level situational stratum and ontological premise of RC in an attempt to infuse argumentative insights with rhetorical (situation) theories for a RC friendly synthesis. A critical rereading of rhetorical situation theories reveals that argumentative insights particularly those about argumentative strategies can greatly refine the less developed inventional dimension of rhetorical situation. Inspired by the argumentation resources and rhetorical thoughts of Burke and other great thinkers, the neglected but important situational elements such as the rhetorical space, argumentative context, argumentative agent, argumentative audience and agency are elaborated. Through a juxtaposed reading of Foucault’s discursive subject, Bourdieu’s habitus agent and Habermas’s communicative agent, we argue for the reasonableness of argumentative or rhetorical agent as an ontological rationalization for rhetorical invention and RC. A detailed discussion of argumentative audience is aimed to show the centrality of audience in the discursive invention on the one hand, and to serve as a platform for a reflection on different argumentation theories on the other. The commensurability of argumentation and rhetoric is concomitantly unveiled in the constructive dialogues between Perelman and Burke.As one of most unique resources contributed by argumentation theories, the system of argumentative techniques expressly demonstrates the possibilities and potentials the argumentation insights can have in rhetorical invention and RC. With the principle of inertia as the fundamental enabler of discourse strategy, we synthesize the argumentative insights offered by Perelman, PDA and Walton, and propose a typology of argumentative techniques which is divided into associative techniques, dissociative techniques and pathetic techniques. These sets of techniques constitute the most important instrumental avenue to conduct argumentative RC.While more and more scholars have come to realize that rhetoric claims a legitimate province over the non-verbal symbolic actions, theorizations and critiques about the visual rhetorics are still sporadic and unsystematic in the rhetorical studies. Many argumentation theorists also tend to delimit the areas of argumentation studies solely in verbal artifacts. Responding to this unfortunate inadequacy and armed additionally with the visual grammar developed by Kress&Leeuwen, we attempt to expand the scope of argumentation, rhetorical invention and RC by situating them in the emerging paradigm of visual rhetoric in a hope to reveal a new facet of the three. And it is also the continued endeavor to establish the relevance of argumentation to RC.As the last efforts of our study, we carry out some rhetorical anatomies of the actual discursive practices by mobilizing our argumentative concepts of rhetorical situation and the system of argumentative techniques. These case studies not only prove the pertinence of argumentation to RC and fruitfulness of its critical applications, but also show how argumentation finds its expression in some argumentatively atypical discursive engagements. More importantly, the critical analyses demonstrate how RC may contribute to the theoretical buildings of rhetoric and argumentation, and how it may allow us to gain deeper insight into such theoretical issues as the symbiosis of argumentation and institutional power, the argumentative dynamics of institutional ethos (re)building in crisis rhetoric, and the normative role played by the audience and its function in mediating burden of proof in scientific controversy, as well as the epideictic function of scientific controversy.The study, adopting a methodology of qualitative and interpretative analysis, attempts to explore the relevance of argumentation to RC so as to rectify the general neglect of argumentation insights within the discipline of rhetorical (criticism) studies. It also highlights the humane ethos embodied in argumentation and rhetoric which is always aimed at peaceful and critical alternatives, and as such, corrects certain rarefied conceptualizations about them and provides a fuller understanding of both.更多还原