演讲话语象征性互动研究
2009-11
吉林大学出版社
张玉芳
182
学习外语十几年，我对语言的认识经历了三个阶段：中学时认为它是一种交流工具，为我们的生活和工作服务；大学时接受了英语专业的系统教育和训练将它看作是人类文明的载体，为了解使用相关语言人民的社会、文化和历史服务；研究生时修读了语言学、语言哲学、应用语言学、外语教学法、话语分析、文学批评、符号学、西方修辞学及修辞批评等相关课程与专著，意识到在某种程度上它是人类社会的创造者，指导人类在交流中不断发展。认识的不断深化使我不仅关注各种语言现象，而且关注现象背后的原因，进而探索它引导人们通过交流创造社会的途径与规律。正是这种思想引发我思考生活中广泛存在的一类话语（例如演讲、广告、新闻报道与社论等）：作为交际事件，这些话语中的交际双方是如何进行交流、沟通并最终就某一议题或事件取得一致意见、达成临时协议的？回答了这个问题将有助于我们揭示人们为引导议题（正是不断解决各类议题才推动社会向前发展的）朝某一期望的方向发展而进行交流的某些内在规律，这有利于提高互动双方的交际能力，从而取得良好的交际效果，并最终促进社会发展。经观察发现这类话语与修辞学研究的传统的公众演说是一脉相承的，有着内在的共性，即交际双方通过多维度、多层面的象征性互动来取得相互认同、达成暂时性的统一，并最终实现各自的交际目的。据此，为了方便研究这类话语，本书借用旧的命名法“演讲”来统指它们，但赋予它新的内涵，将它重新界定为：由各式各样象征性互动组成的特殊话语，它通过人们在特定情景中就面临的争议性问题进行相互致辞、互动来取得对相关议题的临时性意见一致。
本书是笔者在上海外国语大学攻读博士学位期间所做研究的成果。书中揭示了演讲的象征性互动本质以及修辞的双程认同性本质，探索了演讲者与受众之间的象征性权力关系，并在此基础上建立了一个系统的、可执行的、综合了修辞学与语言学的三维框架从象征性互动的视角来解读演讲话语。
张玉芳，现就职于上海理工大学外语学院，福建省福州市人。2005年获得福建师范大学英语语言文学专业硕士学位，2008年获得上海外国语大学外国语言学及应用语言学专业西方修辞学研究方向的博士学位。研究方向为：修辞学理论、修辞批评、篇章语言学、文体学及其在外语教学中的应用。
Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 The Trigger of the Present Study: the Incongruity between Speech Practice and Speech Criticism 1.1.1 The Wax of Speech Practice 1.1.2 The Wane of Speech Criticism 1.2 The General Purpose of the Present Research 1.3 Terminology, Theoretical Resources, and Methodology in This Study 1.3.1 The Terminology in the Study 1.3.2 The Theoretical Resources for This Study 1.3.3 The Methodology in This Study 1.4 The Organization of the DissertationChapter Two: Literature Review: Critical Study of the Rhe-torical Criticism and Discourse Analysis of Speech 2.1 Rhetorical Criticism of Speech 2.1.1 Speaker-centered Criticism 2.1.2 Ideology-or-motive-fascinated Criticism 2.1.3 Effect-driven Criticism 2.1.4 Context-oriented Criticism 2.1.5 Critic-determined Criticism 2.1.6 General Summary of Rhetorical Criticism of Speech 2.2 Discourse Analysis of Speech 2.2.1 Intra-textual Micro-linguistic Analysis 2.2.2 Extra-textual Macro-linguistic Analysis 2.2.3 Combination of Intra-textual with Extra-textual Analyses : Critical Linguistic Analysis (CLA) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) 2.2.4 General Summary of Discourse Analysis of Speech 2.3 SummaryChapter Three: The Theoretical Justification for the Present Study 3.1 Why Can We Understand Speech through Symbolic Interaction? 3.1.1 Symbolic Interaction Represented in the Constituents of Speech 3.1.2 Symbolic Interaction Demonstrated in the Functions of Speech 3.2 The Theoretical Justification for Rhetorical Perspective 3.2.1 The Relationship between Speech and Rhetoric 3.2.2 The Study of Symbolic Interactions in Rhetoric 3.3 The Theoretical Justification for Linguistic Perspective 3.3.1 The Relationship between Speech and Linguistics 3.3.2 The Study of Symbolic Interactions in Linguistics 3.4 SummaryChapter Four: Symbolic Interaction from Rhetorical Perspective 4.1 Interaction by Means of Identification 4.2 Interaction on Account of Universal Audience and Universal Value 4.3 Interaction as a Result of "Rhetoric of Assent" and Rhetorology 4.3.1 Booth's Ethical View on Rhetoric 4.3.2 Rhetoric of Assent 4.3.3 Listening Rhetoric (LR) and Rhetorology 4.3.4 Inspiration for Speech Understanding 4.4 Interaction by Virtue of Argument 4.5 SummaryChapter Five: Symbolic Interaction from Linguistic Perspective 5.1 Intra-textual Interaction 5.1.1 Interaction in the Intentionality 5.1.2 Interaction in the Acceptability 5.1.3 General Summary 5.2 Extra-textual Interaction 5.2.1 Interaction in the Intertextuality 5.2.2 Interaction in the Inter-contextuality 5.2.3 General Summary 5.3 SummaryChapter Six: The Integrative Framework of Rhetoric and Linguistics for Understanding Speech as Symbolic Interaction 6.1 The Relationship between Rhetoric and Linguistics in Speech Criticism 6.2 An Integrative Three-dimensional Framework for Speech Understanding 6.2.1 Recovering the Context 6.2.2 Uncovering the Symbolic Power Relations between Speaker and Audience 6.2.3 Deconstructing the Speech-text 6.3 SummaryChapter Seven: Conclusion 7.1 Major Findings 7.1.1 Four Key Pairs of Relation 7.1.2 The Nature of Rhetorical Art: A Dual-process Identifying 7.1.3 Symbolic Power Relations between Speaker and Audience 7.1.4 Coined Terms : "Superspeaker," "Pre-text" and "Posttext," " Inter-contextuality," " Discursivity," and " CON- TEXT" 7.2 Theoretical and Practical Contributions 7.2.1 Theoretical Contribution: The Integrative Three-dimensional Framework of Rhetoric and Linguistics for Understanding Speech as Symbolic Interaction 7.2.2 Practical Contributions : Speech Criticism, Audience Awareness, and Pedagogy 7.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further ResearchWorks CitedList of Tables and Figures
According to Kenneth Burke, terminology directs our attention anddefines our observation （Language as Symbolic Action 44-52 ）, and thusdetermines our interpretation of this world. Therefore, in order to direct theattention to this ongoing research field and to some channels rather than toothers, it is worthwhile making clear relevant terms, which will just" themethod and conclusion of this research.1.3.1.1 SpeechFirst and foremost, it is our research object-speech. In this study, it refersto a special kind of discourse that consists of various symbolic interactions,through human beings in a given context,who address to and interact with eachother in order to achieve temporary agreement on the issue under consideration.This working definition needs some clarifications.In this definition, " discourse" refers to any communicative act or itsartifact, concerning process as well as product. The concept " symbolicinteraction" means interacting with symbols. But, what is symbol？ Although inthe field of semiotics there is no consensus about the concept of symbol, fromlinguistics-based Saussure to philosophy-based Peirce, from anthropology-oriented L~vi-Strauss to culture-oriented Barthes, from psychology-drivenFreud and Lacan to philosophy-driven Cassirer, all of these prominentsemioticians have drawn similar conclusion about the characteristics ofsymbol: first, it is the medium between our interior spiritual world and theexterior physical world, through which our invisible and implicit feelings cancome to light; second, the relation between these two worlds, that is, itsmeaning, depends on convention and will be activated by psychologicalanalysis（ Li Youzheng 485-87,514-15,521 -23,525-30）.
《演讲话语象征性互动研究》：演讲话语是由一系列象征性互动构成的，所以恰当而有效的解读方式应该是综合考虑其生产与消费，注重演讲者与受众之间的双向互动。
