卡梅伦政治话语的修辞学研究—三种诉诸作为话语策略在论辩中的运用
|
摘要
首相电视辩论作为一种重要的西方政治文体和传播手段,在政治生活中的作用不可忽视。英国也不例外,其首次引进电视辩论形式成为首相竞选的一个焦点。
作为政治活动的参与者,首相候选人通过精心设计的富有修辞色彩的论辩话语与受众交流,打动和说服受众,最终达到劝说的目的和赢得支持。目前已经有少数几位学者从语言学和修辞学的视角对电视辩论进行研究,其研究结果对从多种视角来理解辩论有很大帮助,但仍有继续深入研究的空间。
本文以劳埃德·比彻尔的修辞情境作为理论基础,亚里士多德的三种诉诸作为话语策略,采用定性和定量相结合的方法,选取2010年英国第一场电视辩论中大卫·卡梅伦的论辩话语文本作为分析语料,旨在研究该竞选的修辞情境和卡梅伦对三种诉诸的成功运用。这三种诉诸作为话语策略在很多情况下都是共同起作用的,本文把它们分开论述只是出于方便分析的考虑。
通过系统的分析,作者发现：1、论辩者对时政背景知识的掌握是政治论辩话语的基础,也是论辩成功与否的关键。论辩者对修辞情境的强调旨在了解论辩过程中应该说什么,怎么说。2、卡梅伦在政治论辩话语中运用亚里士多德的三种诉诸作为修辞策略。在逻辑诉诸中,他运用了三段论、事例和数据来吸引受众；在情感诉诸中,运用了否定、反问、愤怒、恐惧、希望和爱国来激发受众的情感认同；在人格诉诸中,运用了美德和智慧来获得受众的认同。3、在三种诉诸的分析中,情感诉诸在卡梅伦论辩话语中的运用最多,主要是为了适应英国人所面临的修辞情境的需求。
The televised prime ministerial debates, as an important part of the western political genre, play a significant role in the political life and become one of the major popular means of political communication. It is no exception to the United Kingdom. The first time for the UK to introduce the form of TV debate becomes a focal point of the prime ministerial campaigns.
As the participants of political activities, candidates communicate with the audience through their rhetorical construction of argumentative discourse to achieve persuasive goals, namely, convince the audience to vote for them as the next prime minister of the United Kingdom. Despite the importance of televised debates, there are only a few scholars who have conducted researches on them from the perspective of linguistic and rhetoric, which are helpful to understand the debates from various aspects. However, there still remains some space to be further studied.
With Lloyd Bitzer's rhetorical situation as the theoretical foundation, Aristotle's analytical tool of three appeals as the discourse strategy and the quantitative and qualitative methods as the theoretical framework, this thesis chooses the text of David Cameron's argumentative discourse in the first 2010 UK televised debate as a research subject and aims to investigate the rhetorical situation and show how three types of appeals are used by Cameron. Three Appeals of logos, pathos and ethos can be employed solely or as a combination at the same time, however, the author separates them from one another in this paper just for the convenience of analysis.
Through the carefully-conducted analysis, the author gets some major findings as follows. Firstly, it is found that the political background information is the foundation of the political argumentative discourse and it is the key to the success of debate only when the debaters can grasp every chance to express themselves well according to the fitted rhetorical situation. The purpose of emphasizing on the specific rhetorical situation is to help debaters know what and how they should do in the debate. Secondly, three appeals, according to Aristotle's rhetoric, are used as rhetorical strategies. These three persuasive means (logos, pathos and ethos) are realized and managed in David Cameron's political argumentative discourse successfully. To achieve logos, Cameron utilized enthymeme, facts and statistics to appeal to the mind of audience. For pathos, he skillfully used negation, rhetorical questions and evoked the audience's emotions like anger, fear, hope and patriotism by appealing to the common values of the British people. To establish his ethos, he successfully identified himself with the audience by showing his virtue and intelligence. Thirdly, of the three appeals, it is found that the persuasive means of pathos is most generally presented and used more frequently than another two appeals throughout the analysis of David Cameron's discourse, mainly for its adaptation to the rhetorical situation of the campaign that British people were confronted with.
作为政治活动的参与者,首相候选人通过精心设计的富有修辞色彩的论辩话语与受众交流,打动和说服受众,最终达到劝说的目的和赢得支持。目前已经有少数几位学者从语言学和修辞学的视角对电视辩论进行研究,其研究结果对从多种视角来理解辩论有很大帮助,但仍有继续深入研究的空间。
本文以劳埃德·比彻尔的修辞情境作为理论基础,亚里士多德的三种诉诸作为话语策略,采用定性和定量相结合的方法,选取2010年英国第一场电视辩论中大卫·卡梅伦的论辩话语文本作为分析语料,旨在研究该竞选的修辞情境和卡梅伦对三种诉诸的成功运用。这三种诉诸作为话语策略在很多情况下都是共同起作用的,本文把它们分开论述只是出于方便分析的考虑。
通过系统的分析,作者发现：1、论辩者对时政背景知识的掌握是政治论辩话语的基础,也是论辩成功与否的关键。论辩者对修辞情境的强调旨在了解论辩过程中应该说什么,怎么说。2、卡梅伦在政治论辩话语中运用亚里士多德的三种诉诸作为修辞策略。在逻辑诉诸中,他运用了三段论、事例和数据来吸引受众；在情感诉诸中,运用了否定、反问、愤怒、恐惧、希望和爱国来激发受众的情感认同；在人格诉诸中,运用了美德和智慧来获得受众的认同。3、在三种诉诸的分析中,情感诉诸在卡梅伦论辩话语中的运用最多,主要是为了适应英国人所面临的修辞情境的需求。
The televised prime ministerial debates, as an important part of the western political genre, play a significant role in the political life and become one of the major popular means of political communication. It is no exception to the United Kingdom. The first time for the UK to introduce the form of TV debate becomes a focal point of the prime ministerial campaigns.
As the participants of political activities, candidates communicate with the audience through their rhetorical construction of argumentative discourse to achieve persuasive goals, namely, convince the audience to vote for them as the next prime minister of the United Kingdom. Despite the importance of televised debates, there are only a few scholars who have conducted researches on them from the perspective of linguistic and rhetoric, which are helpful to understand the debates from various aspects. However, there still remains some space to be further studied.
With Lloyd Bitzer's rhetorical situation as the theoretical foundation, Aristotle's analytical tool of three appeals as the discourse strategy and the quantitative and qualitative methods as the theoretical framework, this thesis chooses the text of David Cameron's argumentative discourse in the first 2010 UK televised debate as a research subject and aims to investigate the rhetorical situation and show how three types of appeals are used by Cameron. Three Appeals of logos, pathos and ethos can be employed solely or as a combination at the same time, however, the author separates them from one another in this paper just for the convenience of analysis.
Through the carefully-conducted analysis, the author gets some major findings as follows. Firstly, it is found that the political background information is the foundation of the political argumentative discourse and it is the key to the success of debate only when the debaters can grasp every chance to express themselves well according to the fitted rhetorical situation. The purpose of emphasizing on the specific rhetorical situation is to help debaters know what and how they should do in the debate. Secondly, three appeals, according to Aristotle's rhetoric, are used as rhetorical strategies. These three persuasive means (logos, pathos and ethos) are realized and managed in David Cameron's political argumentative discourse successfully. To achieve logos, Cameron utilized enthymeme, facts and statistics to appeal to the mind of audience. For pathos, he skillfully used negation, rhetorical questions and evoked the audience's emotions like anger, fear, hope and patriotism by appealing to the common values of the British people. To establish his ethos, he successfully identified himself with the audience by showing his virtue and intelligence. Thirdly, of the three appeals, it is found that the persuasive means of pathos is most generally presented and used more frequently than another two appeals throughout the analysis of David Cameron's discourse, mainly for its adaptation to the rhetorical situation of the campaign that British people were confronted with.
引文
[1]Aristotle. On Rhetoric. Trans. George Kennedy. New York:Oxford University Press. 1991.
[2]Aristotle. Rhetoric. trans.W.Rhys Robents, New York:Modern Library.1954:105-106.
[3]Aristotle. The Art of Rhetoric (H.C. Lawson-Tancred, Trans.). London:Penguin Books. 1991.
[4]Beard, A. The language of Politics. Florence:Routledge.2000:37.
[5]Bell, A. Language and the Media. Cambridge:CUP.1995:24.
[6]Benoit, W.,& Smythe, M. J. Rhetorical theory as message reception:A cognitive response approach to rhetorical theory and criticism (Abstract). Communication Studies, 54(1),96. Retrieved March 4,2009, from Proquest Research Library Database.2003.
[7]Biter, Lloyd. F. Political Rhetoric. In D.D. Nimmo,& K R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.1981:224-248
[8]Bitzer, Lloyd. F. The Rhetorical Situation [A]. Ed. Johannesen, Richard L.Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric:Selected Readings [C]. New York:Harper & Row.1971:386.
[9]Bitzer, Lloyd. F. The Rhetorical Situation. [J] Philosophy and Rhetoric.1968:1-14; 304-305.
[10]Blommaert, Jan.& Verschueren, Jdf. The pragmatics of intercultural and international communication. Amsterdam/Philadephia:John Benjamins B. V.1991:1-12.
[11]Brown, P.& Levinson, S. Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1987.
[12]Burgoon, M., Denning, V.,& Roberts, L. Language Expectancy Theory. In J. Dillard & M. P. fau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook:Developments in theory and practice.2002: 117-136.
[13]Burke, K. A rhetorical of Motives. [M]. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press. 1969b:55
[14]Chilton, P.& Schaffner, C. Discourse as Social Interaction. London:SAGE Publications Ltd.1997.
[15]Chilton, P. A. Words, Discourse and Metaphors. In Chilton, P. A. (Ed.), Language and the Nuuclear Arms Debate. London:Pinter.1985.
[16]Cockcroft, R.& Cockcroft, S. Persuading People:An Introduction to Rhetoric. London: Macmillan.1992.
[17]Condor, S.,& Antaki, C. Social cognition and discourse:in Van Dijk, T. (ed.), Discourse as structure and process, London, Sage,1997:320-347.
[18]Corbett, E. P. J. Classical rhetoric for the modern student (3rd ed.) New York:Oxford UP:1990.
[19]Covino, William A.& David, A. Jolliffe. Rhetoric:Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries. Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon.1995:17
[20]Cameron, D. Working with Spoken Discourse. London:SAGE Publication Ltd.2001.
[21]Edelman, M. Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. 1988.
[22]Edwards, D.,& Potter, J. Discursive Psychology. London:Sage.1992:2.
[23]Eggins, S.& Slade, D. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London:Continuum Intl Pub Group.1997:43.
[24]Fairclough, N. Language and Power. London:Routledge,1989.
[25]Fowler, R. Language in the News:Discourse and Ideology in the British Press. London: Routledge,1991.
[26]Freely, Austin J. Argumentation and Debate-Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making. Belmont:Wadsworth Publishing Company.1981.
[27]Turner, G. W. Stylistics. Penguin Books Ltd.1973.
[28]Guth, H. P. Words and Ideas,3rd Ed. Beltimont, California:Wadsworth Publishing Company.1969:246.
[29]Kennedy, George. A. Aristotle on Rhetoric:A Theory of Civic Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.1991:38.
[30]Kress, G. Critical Discourse Analysis [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,1990 (11).
[31]Lakoff, G & Turner, M. More than cool reason:a field guide to poetic metaphor. University of Chicago Press.1989.
[32]Partington, A. The linguistics of political argument. London:Routledge.2003.
[33]Perelman, C.& Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. The new rhetoric:A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame. University of Notre Dame Press.2000:323.
[34]Pirkko Nuolijarvia & Liisa Tiittulab. Irony in political television debates[J]. Journal of Pragmatics.2011(43):572-587.
[35]Schiffrin, D. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.1994:233
[36]Van Dijk, T. A. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis [A]. In M. Wethell, S. Taylor & S. J. Taylor (eds.), London:Sage.2001.
[37]Van Dijk, T. A. Elite discourse and racism. Paper Utrecht Summer School on Critical Theory. June 10-15,1985. in Zavala I., Van Dijk, T.A.,& Diocaretz, M.D.(Eds.), Approaches to discourse, poetics and psychiatry.(81-122). Amsterdam:Benjamins.1987.
[38]Van Eemeren, F. H.& Grootendorst, Rob. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation:The Pragma-Dialectical Approach [M]. London:Cambridge University Press.2004.
[39]Fortenbaugh, William W. Aristotle on emotion:A contribution to philosophical psychology, rhetoric, poetics, politics, and ethics. England:Duckworth.1975:17-18.
[40]Wilson, D & Sperber, D. On Grice's theory of conversation. In Werth P. (Ed.), Conversation and Discourse. London:Croom Helm.1981.
[41]Wood, L. A.& Kroger, R. O. Doing Discourse Analysis:Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.2000:18.
[42]陈汝东.社会心理修辞学导论.北京：北京大学出版社,1999.
[43]陈中竺.语篇与意识形态：批评性语篇分析--对两条罢工新闻的分析[J].外国语,1995(3)：42-45.
[44]邓志勇.修辞三段论及其修辞运作模式[J].外国语言文学,2003(1)：36
[45]冯翠华.英语修辞大全.外语教学与研究出版社,2005.
[46]胡曙中.美国新修辞学研究.上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999.
[47]胡曙中.现代英语修辞学.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[48]胡曙中.英语修辞学.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2002：30.
[49]胡亚云.论政治修辞与政治传播[J].河南社会科学,2001(5).
[50]黄任.英语修辞学概论.上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999.
[51]季清芬.从修辞情境评析Beijing Review之Forum栏目传播效果[J].宜宾学院学报,2009(4)：40-42.
[52]李元授,李鹏.论辩学.武昌：华中科技大学出版社,2004.
[53]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量.北京：新知三联书店.2004：62；165.
[54]裴振霞.奥巴马获胜演讲的功能文体分析[C].福建省外国语文学会.2008年年会论文集：1-5.
[55]覃先美.英语修辞学概论.长沙：湖南师范大学出版社,2006.
[56]王佐良An Introduction to English Stylistics [J]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research.1987 (7):12-15.
[57]辛斌.批评语言学方法论[J].外国语,2002(5).
[58]辛斌.语言、权力与意识形态：批评语言学[J].现代外语,1996(1).
[59]徐有志.公众演讲英语[J].外语教学与研究,1994(2)：19-24.
[60]徐振忠.英语演说辞文体刍议[J].外国语,1990(5)：28；32.
[61]姚伟红.“政坛杰作文坛稀珍——剖析《我有一个梦》的文学修辞”[J].外国文学研究. 1997(3)：118-119.
[62]袁周敏.克林顿总统就职演说中的身份建构研究[J].南京邮电大学学报(社会科学版)2009(2)：62-68
[63]曾亚平,黄振定.论奥巴马总统竞选获胜演讲的文体风格[J].湖南大学学报(社会科学版)2009.(3)：88-91.
[2]Aristotle. Rhetoric. trans.W.Rhys Robents, New York:Modern Library.1954:105-106.
[3]Aristotle. The Art of Rhetoric (H.C. Lawson-Tancred, Trans.). London:Penguin Books. 1991.
[4]Beard, A. The language of Politics. Florence:Routledge.2000:37.
[5]Bell, A. Language and the Media. Cambridge:CUP.1995:24.
[6]Benoit, W.,& Smythe, M. J. Rhetorical theory as message reception:A cognitive response approach to rhetorical theory and criticism (Abstract). Communication Studies, 54(1),96. Retrieved March 4,2009, from Proquest Research Library Database.2003.
[7]Biter, Lloyd. F. Political Rhetoric. In D.D. Nimmo,& K R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.1981:224-248
[8]Bitzer, Lloyd. F. The Rhetorical Situation [A]. Ed. Johannesen, Richard L.Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric:Selected Readings [C]. New York:Harper & Row.1971:386.
[9]Bitzer, Lloyd. F. The Rhetorical Situation. [J] Philosophy and Rhetoric.1968:1-14; 304-305.
[10]Blommaert, Jan.& Verschueren, Jdf. The pragmatics of intercultural and international communication. Amsterdam/Philadephia:John Benjamins B. V.1991:1-12.
[11]Brown, P.& Levinson, S. Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1987.
[12]Burgoon, M., Denning, V.,& Roberts, L. Language Expectancy Theory. In J. Dillard & M. P. fau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook:Developments in theory and practice.2002: 117-136.
[13]Burke, K. A rhetorical of Motives. [M]. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press. 1969b:55
[14]Chilton, P.& Schaffner, C. Discourse as Social Interaction. London:SAGE Publications Ltd.1997.
[15]Chilton, P. A. Words, Discourse and Metaphors. In Chilton, P. A. (Ed.), Language and the Nuuclear Arms Debate. London:Pinter.1985.
[16]Cockcroft, R.& Cockcroft, S. Persuading People:An Introduction to Rhetoric. London: Macmillan.1992.
[17]Condor, S.,& Antaki, C. Social cognition and discourse:in Van Dijk, T. (ed.), Discourse as structure and process, London, Sage,1997:320-347.
[18]Corbett, E. P. J. Classical rhetoric for the modern student (3rd ed.) New York:Oxford UP:1990.
[19]Covino, William A.& David, A. Jolliffe. Rhetoric:Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries. Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon.1995:17
[20]Cameron, D. Working with Spoken Discourse. London:SAGE Publication Ltd.2001.
[21]Edelman, M. Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. 1988.
[22]Edwards, D.,& Potter, J. Discursive Psychology. London:Sage.1992:2.
[23]Eggins, S.& Slade, D. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London:Continuum Intl Pub Group.1997:43.
[24]Fairclough, N. Language and Power. London:Routledge,1989.
[25]Fowler, R. Language in the News:Discourse and Ideology in the British Press. London: Routledge,1991.
[26]Freely, Austin J. Argumentation and Debate-Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making. Belmont:Wadsworth Publishing Company.1981.
[27]Turner, G. W. Stylistics. Penguin Books Ltd.1973.
[28]Guth, H. P. Words and Ideas,3rd Ed. Beltimont, California:Wadsworth Publishing Company.1969:246.
[29]Kennedy, George. A. Aristotle on Rhetoric:A Theory of Civic Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.1991:38.
[30]Kress, G. Critical Discourse Analysis [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,1990 (11).
[31]Lakoff, G & Turner, M. More than cool reason:a field guide to poetic metaphor. University of Chicago Press.1989.
[32]Partington, A. The linguistics of political argument. London:Routledge.2003.
[33]Perelman, C.& Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. The new rhetoric:A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame. University of Notre Dame Press.2000:323.
[34]Pirkko Nuolijarvia & Liisa Tiittulab. Irony in political television debates[J]. Journal of Pragmatics.2011(43):572-587.
[35]Schiffrin, D. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.1994:233
[36]Van Dijk, T. A. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis [A]. In M. Wethell, S. Taylor & S. J. Taylor (eds.), London:Sage.2001.
[37]Van Dijk, T. A. Elite discourse and racism. Paper Utrecht Summer School on Critical Theory. June 10-15,1985. in Zavala I., Van Dijk, T.A.,& Diocaretz, M.D.(Eds.), Approaches to discourse, poetics and psychiatry.(81-122). Amsterdam:Benjamins.1987.
[38]Van Eemeren, F. H.& Grootendorst, Rob. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation:The Pragma-Dialectical Approach [M]. London:Cambridge University Press.2004.
[39]Fortenbaugh, William W. Aristotle on emotion:A contribution to philosophical psychology, rhetoric, poetics, politics, and ethics. England:Duckworth.1975:17-18.
[40]Wilson, D & Sperber, D. On Grice's theory of conversation. In Werth P. (Ed.), Conversation and Discourse. London:Croom Helm.1981.
[41]Wood, L. A.& Kroger, R. O. Doing Discourse Analysis:Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.2000:18.
[42]陈汝东.社会心理修辞学导论.北京：北京大学出版社,1999.
[43]陈中竺.语篇与意识形态：批评性语篇分析--对两条罢工新闻的分析[J].外国语,1995(3)：42-45.
[44]邓志勇.修辞三段论及其修辞运作模式[J].外国语言文学,2003(1)：36
[45]冯翠华.英语修辞大全.外语教学与研究出版社,2005.
[46]胡曙中.美国新修辞学研究.上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999.
[47]胡曙中.现代英语修辞学.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[48]胡曙中.英语修辞学.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2002：30.
[49]胡亚云.论政治修辞与政治传播[J].河南社会科学,2001(5).
[50]黄任.英语修辞学概论.上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999.
[51]季清芬.从修辞情境评析Beijing Review之Forum栏目传播效果[J].宜宾学院学报,2009(4)：40-42.
[52]李元授,李鹏.论辩学.武昌：华中科技大学出版社,2004.
[53]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量.北京：新知三联书店.2004：62；165.
[54]裴振霞.奥巴马获胜演讲的功能文体分析[C].福建省外国语文学会.2008年年会论文集：1-5.
[55]覃先美.英语修辞学概论.长沙：湖南师范大学出版社,2006.
[56]王佐良An Introduction to English Stylistics [J]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research.1987 (7):12-15.
[57]辛斌.批评语言学方法论[J].外国语,2002(5).
[58]辛斌.语言、权力与意识形态：批评语言学[J].现代外语,1996(1).
[59]徐有志.公众演讲英语[J].外语教学与研究,1994(2)：19-24.
[60]徐振忠.英语演说辞文体刍议[J].外国语,1990(5)：28；32.
[61]姚伟红.“政坛杰作文坛稀珍——剖析《我有一个梦》的文学修辞”[J].外国文学研究. 1997(3)：118-119.
[62]袁周敏.克林顿总统就职演说中的身份建构研究[J].南京邮电大学学报(社会科学版)2009(2)：62-68
[63]曾亚平,黄振定.论奥巴马总统竞选获胜演讲的文体风格[J].湖南大学学报(社会科学版)2009.(3)：88-91.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |