【作者】 李艳芳；

【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， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 20世纪80年代西方人文社会科学的修辞学转向引发了对科学主义的批判以及对真理、现实、主客体关系等的再认识。这种批判较之哲学和社会科学研究中的语言学转向所引发的批判更系统、更深入、更具有冲击力。修辞学转向旨在解释社会人如何在特定社会空间并在受制于特定权力关系网络的情况下去构建社会现实、进行社会认知。批评性语篇分析(CDA)的兴起在很大程度上正是对这一转向的积极回应。通过对作为构成社会结构的社会实践?语篇?的解构,CDA探索语篇和社会文化形态之间隐藏的权势关系,从而揭露语篇中的不平等、意识形态,歧视和偏见等。CDA建立的前提是语言学分析能够为现有的社会批判方法提供独特的视角。经过过去二三十年的发展,CDA逐渐确立了自身学科的社会参与度和关联性,从而提高了自身的学术地位。尽管CDA的理论和方法在逐步完善,但是CDA仍然面临着一些亟待解决的问题,而这些问题不得到很好的解决将会在很大程度上阻碍其进一步发展:第一,尽管CDA赋予批评以新的内涵以示自身同以往的自我冠名的批评方法的区别,批判的修辞始终伴随着漫长的学术发展史。不容忽视的是,学术研究的开展是离不开充斥着权力关系的社会环境的,CDA必须提高对其自身的语言学权威的警惕性,这就要求CDA的研究方法必须突破业已确立的范式。第二,虽然CDA的倡导者认为语篇和社会结构之间的关系是辩证的,然而在具体的分析中却深受西方马克思主义批判理论的影响,强调社会结构对语篇的决定性作用,忽视语篇作为一种行为所能促成的积极影响。对否定性解构的过分强调在一定程度上削弱了其对现实的指导作用。第三,认知隐喻理论虽然被应用到CDA中并已经被证实可以揭示语篇中的权力关系,然而对概念隐喻理论同CDA的不相容性未能引起足够的重视。在认识到隐喻作为一种普遍的思维方式的同时,我们不能过分夸大语言的隐喻性,必须将隐喻理论同博克的动机修辞学结合起来,才能更有效地对其意识形态作用作出解释。鉴于以上对CDA的总结和反思,我们认为有必要建立一个修辞学视角下的批评性语篇分析。因为修辞学作为批评分析的公认形式,考察人们为了达到某种效果而建构话语的方式,它的特殊兴趣在于将话语实践作为权力形态和行事方式加以把握。作为致力于理解、掌握、开发和应用言语力量的一门学科,修辞学为我们理解权力和意识形态的运作提供了一个很好的切入点。修辞学视角下的研究在一定程度上可以消解对CDA的批评,推动修辞学与批评性语篇分析的建设性对话从而丰富我们对权力和意识形态运作方式的理解。本研究的理论基础是将意识形态看作是传播和权力的概念联系,从而确立意识形态与意义的社会建构之间的内在联系:一方面我们引入Hall的意识形态理论,因为该理论建构了语篇与意识形态之间的辩证关系;另一方面,受Bygrave对修辞与意识形态关系阐述的启发,我们将Burke的语言作为象征性行为与主体性概念联系起来以克服CDA的解构主义取向。通过对修辞认知性的问题化,我们指出权力是意义建构的一个重要维度。对修辞、权力和意识形态之间关系的深刻洞察构成本研究的前提。通过对古典修辞学和当代修辞学中散见的对修辞“自我韬晦”的论述,我们明确了权力的修辞逻辑。在对Thompson的意识形态运作方式进行分析的基础之上,我们提出修辞既是意识形态的载体又是揭露意识形态的工具。通过对修辞人格的解构,我们试图确立古典修辞学同批评性语篇分析的内在联系。不可否认,修辞学的批评转向使其与CDA有着共同的研究兴趣。我们对催生这一转向的新修辞代表人物肯尼斯·博克的修辞思想对CDA的重要启示作用进行了初步探索。一方面我们明确了批评性语篇分析与博克相似的语言观,突出博克对人类象征行为的片面性和潜在邪恶有着解构式的洞察力;另一方面我们指出博克毕生的信念—象征具有改变社会现实使其朝好的方向发展的巨大力量—为CDA指明了超越解构的发展方向。博克将人界定为象征体系的制造者同时象征体系又反过来制造人,从而使其修辞学理论呈现更开放的体系,具备更流动的形式。他的“动机语法”可以更清楚地揭示语言背后所隐藏的动机,揭示占主导地位的社会群体是如何将权力隐藏并合法化,同时他的“动机修辞学”又是对CDA无限解构的超越。博克的“批评之批评”要求CDA对自身的修辞性保持清醒的认识,进行不断自我反思以确保其批判的力度。博克的隐喻性语言观与其对隐喻的探讨密切相关,博克的隐喻观成为我们思考隐喻建构、维护和颠覆权力关系的出发点。我们认为修辞学视角下的隐喻研究可以平衡目前隐喻研究对体验基础的过分强调,提出要理解隐喻的意识形态负载必须对其之于修辞发明、论辩和评价的重要作用有着深刻的认识。在确立了博克的相关修辞思想对本研究的启发之后,我们试图将博克的戏剧五位法和隐喻分别应用于9/11后政治语篇的分析中,从而揭示新保守主义意识形态如何建构其“现实”,指出意识形态作为一种“术语视角”以特定方式引导我们对现实的理解。意识形态是对现实的简化,而要对抗主导意识形态,就要诉诸不同的“术语视角”和隐喻,通过不断的修辞干预,我们就有希望改变社会现实。本研究采用定性的、阐释性的批评分析方法,通过汲取古典修辞学理论、美国新修辞学、传播研究和文化研究等相关学科的学术智慧,对修辞学视角对CDA的补充和完善进行了尝试性探讨。更多还原

【Abstract】 The rhetorical turn of western humanistic and social science in the 1980s triggered the critique of traditional scientism and a new conception of truth, reality and relations between subjectivity and objectivity. Compared with the critique triggered by the linguistic turn in philosophy and social science, the critique prompted by rhetorical turn is more systematic and overwhelming. The rhetorical turn attempts to explain how social subject within particular social space and constrained by particular networks of power relations, constructs social reality and acquires social cognition. The rise of CDA is, to a large extent, a positive response to this rhetorical turn. Through deconstructing discourse, the social practice that constitutes social structure, CDA endeavors to inquire into the hidden relationship between discourse and social cultural formation in order to expose inequality, ideology, bias and prejudice hidden in discourse. Founded on the premise that linguistic analysis could add an additional perspective to existing approaches to social critique, CDA enhances its academic status through socially engaged explanation.Though CDA is on its way to maturity, problems remain to be solved. Failure to provide a solution to these problems may in one way or another hinder its further development. Firstly, the rhetoric of critique is concomitant with the long history of academics. Though CDA has infused new connotations into the term“critical”to differentiate itself from other self-labeled critical approaches, there are persistent calls for CDA to be aware of its own linguistic orthodox and to transcend the established paradigm. Secondly, CDA assumes there is a dialectical relationship between discourse and social structure. However, its analysis often tends to be heavily influenced by critical theory of western Marxism, emphasizing the determining effect of social structure on discourse while failing to see discourse as action to bring positive outcomes. This overemphasis on deconstruction has to some extent undermined its intervening force in social reality. Thirdly, Conceptual Metaphor Theory has been applied in CDA and proved to have some explanatory adequacy, but the incompatibility of CMT with CDA has not received due attention.In view of the aforementioned reflections on CDA, we deem it necessary to infuse a rhetorical perspective into CDA to offset the criticism leveled against it and to build constructive dialogue between the two academic studies, since rhetoric is the recognized form of criticism that investigates ways of building discourse to achieve particular effect and its special interest lies in the discursive practice as the modus operandi of power. As a discipline devoted to the understanding, acquiring, developing and applying the power of words, rhetoric offers us penetrating insight into the working mechanism of power and ideology.The theoretical foundation of the present research rests on ideology as the conceptual link between communication and power so as to establish the inherent link between ideology and the social construction of meaning. On the one hand, we introduced Stuart Hall’s theory of ideology as it recognizes a more dialectical relationship between discourse and social structure; On the other hand, informed by Steven Bygrave’s illustration of the relationship between ideology and rhetoric, we associate Kenneth Burke’s view of“language as symbolic action”with the concept of agency to transcend the deconstructive orientation of CDA. Our problematization of“rhetoric as epistemic”casts light on the power dimension of meaning construction. A deep insight into the relationship between rhetoric, power and ideology serves as the premise of the present research. Through a cursory view of sporadic reference to the self-effacement nature of rhetoric in classical and contemporary rhetoric, we define the rhetorical logic of power. On the basis of analyzing Thompson’s internal modes of operation of ideology, we define rhetoric as carrier and demystifer of ideology. Through deconstructing the classical rhetorical concept of etho, the inherent link between classical rhetoric and CDA is established in our study.There is no denying that the critical turn of rhetoric contributes to the shared concern between the discipline of rhetoric and CDA. We thus probe into the implications of Kenneth Burke on CDA as his theory has triggered this critical turn. On the one hand, we demonstrate how CDA shares a similar view of language with Burke, highlighting Burke’s deconstructing insight into the partiality of human symbolic act and its potential evil. On the other hand, we point out Burke’s lifelong conviction?symbols possess the power of transforming and ameliorating social realities?has indicated the possibility of transcending the deconstructive orientation of CDA. His definition of man as the creator of the symbolic system which again creates man makes his rhetorical theory more expansive and fluid. His grammar of motives clearly unveils the underlying motive behind language use and thus offers a way to uncover how the dominant social groups mask and legitimate their power. His rhetoric of motives is a transcendence of the endless deconstruction. His“criticism of criticism”requires critical discourse analysts to be mindful of its own rhetoricality and to be engaged in constant self-reflection in order to keep the critical thrust of CDA.Burke’s metaphorical view of language is closely related to his elaboration on metaphor and it accordingly becomes the starting point of our discussion of the role of metaphor in creating, maintaining and subverting power relations. We seek to demonstrate how metaphor research from a rhetorical perspective could offset the overemphasis on the experiential basis of metaphor and argue that to understand the ideological loading of metaphors it is necessary to have a deeper understanding of metaphor’s significance to rhetorical invention, argument, evaluation and myth.After establishing the pertinence of Burke’s rhetorical theory to our research, we apply the pentad and metaphor analysis to post 9/11 political discourse to disclose how the American new conservative ideology constructs its version of“reality”and how ideology as“terministic screen”orients us toward a particular understanding of reality. To fight against ideology, which is“a reduction of reality”, we have to resort to alternative“terministic screen”and“alternative metaphor”to be incessantly engaged in rhetorical intervention to bring about possible change to social reality.The present research adopts a qualitative, interpretative critical methodology. By drawing on the intellectual wisdom of classical rhetoric, American New Rhetoric, communication theory and cultural studies, it makes a tentative exploration on how a rhetorical perspective might complement CDA.更多还原