热点聚焦 | 语用论辩研究

语用论辩学简述

简单地说，“论辩”指的是说话人为证明己方立场或反驳对方立场而展开的一种话语互动形式，这种互动可能是显性的（如发言人与记者之间的问答互动），也可能是隐性的（如学术论文作者与潜在读者之间的观点商榷），其目标是以理性的方式（或者看似理性的方式）消除双方已经存在或者可能存在的意见分歧。由于论辩在我们日常生活中的不可或缺性，两千余年以来对论辩现象的研究一直未曾真正断过线。二十世纪七十年代，有感于当时形式逻辑学和修辞学在解释日常论辩现象方面的诸多无力，受古典论辩术、当代形式论辩学（Informal Dialectics）和语用学（特别是其中的言语行为理论和会话含义理论）的启发，荷兰阿姆斯特丹大学的Frans van Eemeren 和 Rob Grootendorst提出了语用论辩学（Pragma-Dialectics）。该学说认为，论辩首先是特定语境下正反双方之间的言语交际和互动，其特征和功能可以在专事言语交际的学科——语用学中得以描述和解释。其次，与其他言语互动不同，论辩的根本目标是消除意见分歧，何为消除、怎样消除等问题必须诉诸一种合乎理性的评判标准。基于上述理解，语用论辩学主张从语用学的角度将论辩中的每一步都看成正反双方为消除意见分歧而采取的言语行为，同时从论辩学的角度将论辩视作一种批判性讨论，主张借助一套讨论规则来评析正反双方论辩话语的合理性。

与逻辑路向和修辞路向的论辩理论不同，语用论辩学认为论辩话语研究必须遵从四个基本理论出发点，即功能化、社会化、外显化和论辩化。功能化指的是不把论辩视作结构化、静态的逻辑推演，而是要明确语言或者其他符号系统在论辩中实现了哪些特定的交际和互动功能；社会化指的是将论辩视作正反双方两个或两个以上主体之间的显性或隐性对话；外显化指的是仅仅阐释正反双方通过言语行为而作出的承诺（“接受”立场或者“不同意”立场）及其对论辩过程的影响，而不关心其内在认知或心理状态（因为这些认知和心理状态无法得以确认）；论辩化指的是将论辩话语视作一种受理性标准约束、旨在解决意见分歧的批判性对话，即对论辩话语采取一种“客位”而非“主位”的分析立场。

语用理想状态下，作为批判性讨论的论辩由冲突、开始、论辩和结论四个阶段组成：（1）冲突阶段——论辩双方明确可能存在的意见分歧以及意见分歧的类型（单一混合型、单一非混合型、多重混合型或多重非混合型）；（2）开始阶段——论辩双方定位正、反两方，并就程序性和实质性出发点达成一致意见；（3）论辩阶段——正方为自己的观点辩护，尽力消除反方的异议或疑惑。与此同时，反方可能会针对正方的观点和论证提出异议；（4）结论阶段——论辩双方确定意见分歧是否被消除，或在多大程度被消除。一般说来，大多数批判性讨论都要经历这四个阶段，但顺序上可能会出现跨越或反复，某个阶段也可能表现得并不明显，甚至连意见分歧、双方立场等重要元素看起来都是缺失的。这就需要以上述四个阶段为模板对批判性讨论进行重构，方法包括“删除”冗余信息、“增添”潜藏信息、“重排”论辩顺序和“替换”模糊表达等。重构批判性讨论的直接目标是形成完整清晰的“分析框架”（analytical overview），其中包含可供研究者进一步审视和评析的六个关键性要素，即意见分歧、双方立场、出发点、论辩结构、论辩图式和论辩结果。

批判性讨论规则是评价论辩话语合理性的基础，也是辨别谬误的重要依据。语用论辩学为四个阶段的批判性讨论设定了十五条“行为准则”。虽然遵守这些准则并不意味着双方的意见分歧就一定能够解决，但违反这些准则就会使论辩偏离合理性轨道，甚至产生谬误。为使谬误的辨别更为简便，上述准则被浓缩为了通俗易懂的“十条诫律”。这些诫律包括自由规则、举证责任规则、立场规则、相关规则、未表达前提规则、出发点规则、有效性规则、论证图式规则、结束规则和用法规则等。违反其中的每一条都会激发不同类型的谬误。

批判性讨论理想模型关注的是论辩的合理性问题，但在现实论辩话语中，论辩者还关切受众是否能接受他们所提出的立场。为此，论辩者通常需要综合运用各种修辞手段。由此出发，语用论辩学者提出了“策略操控”（strategic maneuvering）概念。所谓策略操控，指的是论辩者为了实现论辩合理性和修辞有效性的微妙平衡而付出的持续性努力。语用论辩学认为，论辩者在每个批判性讨论阶段作出的每个话步实际上都是策略操控的结果，都体现了论辩者在“话题选择”（topical potential）、“受众迎合”（audience demand）和“表达形式”（presentational devices）三方面的运筹帷幄。策略操控概念的提出丰富了语用论辩学对谬误的理解：如果每个论辩话步都是论辩者在合理性和有效性两个方面策略操控后的结果，那么谬误实际上就是论辩者试图最大化有效性而蓄意牺牲合理性的结果，即“偏轨”（derailed）的策略操控。

以策略操控概念体系为核心的语用论辩学拓展理论打通了当代论辩学与修辞学之间长期存在的人为隔阂，推动了论辩理论的多学科全面发展。与此同时，策略操控概念及其语境分析理念也使语用论辩学从“理想模型”进一步走向了论辩实际，应用空间更为开阔。目前，以策略操控为核心议题的相关研究主要集中于政治、外交、法律和医患互动四种交际活动领域，主要研究目标大致有四个：（1）揭示这些交际活动领域中的交际惯例及其对策略操控的机构性制约；（2）探讨这些交际领域中常用于论证某类立场的各种论辩图式以及由这些论辩图式组成的论辩模式（argumentative pattern）；（3）探索不同交际领域中论辩者策略操控每个论辩话步之后整体呈现的论辩风格（argumentative style）；（4）为不同交际领域的论辩现象提供语境化的合理性评判标准和改善建议。

参考文献

吴鹏、熊明辉，2015，策略操控：语用论辩学之修辞拓展，《福建师范大学学报(人文社科版)》（3）：64-69。

A Pragma-dialectical Approach to Governmental Crisis Communication

Since the 1980s, research on crisis communication has been developed into diversified micro-, meso- and macro-theoretical frameworks (Coombs 2010; Wu 2014) and carried out mostly from managerial and rhetorical perspectives (Shi 2008, p. 24). However, as Olsson (2014, p. 113) concludes, traditional crisis communication research has focused on private organizations and put their efforts in sustaining and restoring image and trust. What’s more, they have submerged themselves too deeply into crisis response strategies while standing in the shoes of the organizations alone and for the sole purpose of repairing the suffered organizational image and reputation. As a result, the other side of crisis communication messages — the recipients have mostly been ignored, and the interactive nature of argumentative messages has also been neglected. In short, among the discourse studies on governmental crisis communication, most have noticed how to utilize effective discursive strategies to persuade audiences into accepting the claims of the governments, but have disregarded the fact that rational audiences can only be convinced with not just rhetorically effective discourse but also argumentatively reasonable arguments.

Pragma-dialectics manages to integrate not just rhetorical effectiveness but also argumentative reasonableness in the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. The selected data in this paper is an official statement issued online by a local government in the mainland of China over a widely disputed chemical project. By applying the pragma-dialectical framework to the analysis and evaluation of the governmental crisis communication discourse here, we are trying to answer three questions: Which contextual factors may have laid certain constraints for governmental crisis communication in the mainland of China? Which strategic endeavors are embedded in the local Chinese government’s crisis discourse? How might the evaluation of these strategic endeavors imply to the future governmental crisis communication research and practices? It is hoped that such an attempt will shed some light on governmental crisis communication research as well as practices from the perspective of argumentation.

Argumentative discourse is generally produced to serve certain purposes under specific institutional contexts. According to the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, strategic maneuvering employed at all stages of a critical discussion is believed to be “in some respects determined by the institutional preconditions prevailing in the communicative practice concerned” (van Eemeren 2010, p. 129). Since the original purpose of governmental crisis communication is to communicate the crisis-related doubts and inquiries with other stakeholders in the crisis concerned, governmental crisis communication falls into the domain of political communication. Such communication is also subject to corresponding with institutional preconditions within which it prevails. Three kinds of governmental policies and one governing rule are believed to be functioning as institutional preconditions for governmental crisis communication in the mainland of China. They are: (1) The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Response to Emergencies, Order No. 69, which, passed on Aug. 30, 2007 at the 29th Session of the Tenth National People's Congress Standing Committee and having been put into force since Nov. 1, 2007, stipulates the fundamentals about emergencies, including “emergency” the concept, precaution and preparation, monitoring and early warning, emergency disposal and rescue, post-emergency recovery and restoration as well as legal accountability; (2) The Regulation of the People's Republic of China on the Disclosure of Government Information, according to which, passed on Jan. 17, 2007 and applicable since May 1, 2008, “impartiality, justice and bringing convenience to the people” are the principles that an administrative organ shall follow when disclosing governmental information; (3) the governing guideline of consultative democracy, which, first expressed out on Nov. 8, 2012 in The Report to the Eighteenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China, declares that “socialist consultative democracy is an important form of people’s democracy in China” and that “extensive consultations should be carried out on major issues relating to economic and social development as well as specific problems involving the people’s immediate interests” through various channels. In addition, there is the governing rule in Chinese governments – “serving the people whole-heartedly”. This rule highlights the interest of average people and makes such interest outweigh anything else in the governance.

With the above institutional preconditions in mind, under the theoretical framework of pragma-dialectics, an analytical reconstruction and strategic maneuvering analysis and evaluation are conducted on the official statement issued online by a local government in the mainland of China over a widely disputed chemical project. The case study indicates that whether the governmental crisis management can convince the other stakeholders of accepting its standpoint lies not just in appropriate strategic arrangements of argumentative factors by means of effective discursive strategies, but also in simultaneous satisfaction of the requirements for dialectical reasonableness in such arrangements. In addition, as the two-way symmetrical interaction model is based on two-way communication, which synchronizes the goals of the crisis management and other stakeholders and can thus eliminate interruptions in settling a crisis and even shifting a crisis into an opportunity, it is believed to be the most ideal interaction model up to now (Zhao 2009; Wu 2014). Therefore, future research should embrace the voices of the antagonist involved in the government crisis communication, especially the immediate feedback like questionings and oppositions against the protagonist’s standpoint(s) made by the antagonist. It is hoped that a paradigm can be established of governmental crisis discourse study based on two-way symmetric communication between the government crisis management and the other stakeholders of a crisis event concerned. The new paradigm is supposed for the government to undertake better crisis management by enhancing its discursive convincingness through two-way communication with other crisis-related stakeholders and then to improve the government’s credibility and governing capacity by virtue of the preceding successful crisis management (Coombs 2010, p. 39). 

摘自：Yan, L. 2017. A pragma-dialectical approach to governmental crisis communication: The case of disputes over a proposed chemical project in the mainland of China. Journal of Argumentation in Context 6 (3): 315-343.

美国国务院发言人应答话语中“诉诸同情”论证的语用论辩研究

美国国务院例行记者会是美国政府释放外交信息，阐明国家立场，维护其国际形象的重要渠道。作为一种典型的媒体外交话语，美国国务院发言人应答的根本目标是通过精心设计的一组（个）论证使本国立场合理化，试图以理性的方式劝服国际受众接受美国政府的官方立场，其本质是一种论辩性话语。对发言人答记者问的深入研究可以帮助我们理解美国的外交话语策略和外交政策变化轨迹。

不同于传统逻辑学将“诉诸同情”视为一种“不相干谬误”，语用论辩学认为，“诉诸同情”论证的本质是发言人向其主要受众——国际一般公众施加道德压力，进而阻止其质疑或反对的一种策略操控形式。鉴于此，本研究以2015年11月1日至2017年1月19日之间美国国务院例行记者会官方转录文本（共261场，合计159万余词）为主要研究语料，在语用论辩学（Pragma-Dialectics）的研究框架下，对美国国务院发言人应答中频繁出现的“诉诸同情”论证（appeal to pity）模式进行系统分析和阐释，以此开拓美国国务院发言人应答（也包括其他类型外交发言人应答）的论辩研究视角，为深入探究政府发言人应答论辩说服机制奠定理论和方法基础。

研究显示，2015年11月1日至2017年1月19日之间，美国国务院发言人累积使用“诉诸同情”论证共计63次。所有类型的“诉诸同情”均为证明“质疑或反对美国政府的A立场在道德层面上是不应当的”。根据前提内容类型的不同，具体论证方式可以分为以下两种模式：模式1：“A可以消除/缓解P的苦难”。在这类“诉诸同情”论证模式中，为维护“质疑或反对美国政府的A立场是不应当的”，发言人通常提供两大支撑性前提/理由：第一个或明示或隐含的前提/理由是“A立场可以消除或者缓解P遭受的苦难”；第二个通常隐含的前提/理由是“让P继续受苦并不道德”，为此，发言人通常会直陈P的“遭遇、痛苦处境或尴尬境地”S，突出其令人同情的诸多特征和细节；模式二：“质疑/反对A无助于消除/缓解P的苦难”在这类“诉诸同情”论证中，为论证“质疑或反对美国政府的A立场在道德层面上是不应当的”，发言人通常同样会提供两大支撑性前提/理由：第一个通常明示的前提或理由是“质疑/反对A无助于消除/缓解P的苦难”，另外一个或明示或隐含的前提/理由是“道德上应该主要关注如何消除/缓解P的苦难”。为佐证第二个前提/理由，论辩者通常会描述P的各种痛苦处境S，以此形成道德前提“让P继续受苦并不道德”。

从语用论辩学的角度来看，在“诉诸同情”论证中，道德压力的大小取决于发言人在多大程度上能够通过对“潜在话题”和“表达手段”的运筹设计，迎合国际一般公众对“苦难”和“被同情者”的认知，合理且有效地构建、加深他们对特定群体的同情。本研究分析的个案显示，仅从逻辑推理的角度来审视“诉诸同情”论证，可以看到该论证的推理过程，并能大致判断其合理与否，但却无法还原该论证在论辩所处的批判性讨论中发挥的具体作用，也很难将该论证的真实语境（特别是机构语境）纳入考察范围；仅从修辞角度审视“诉诸同情”论证，可以看到论辩者在设计该论证时对语境和潜在受众的迎合，还能初步判断该论证的劝服力，但却很难考察该论证的推理过程与合理性问题。兼具论辩合理性和修辞有效性双重视角的语用论辩学不但可以较好地还原“诉诸同情”论证在批判性讨论中所处的位置、推理结构及其发挥的论辩功能，还能帮助我们从潜在话题、受众需求和表达手段三个方面深入阐释该论证在具体机构语境中的“论辩-修辞”说服机制。更重要的是，语用论辩学提出的谬误识别标准为我们在语境中鉴别“诉诸同情”的合理性提供了更切实际的理论依据。

点击阅读原文，查看更多“热点聚焦”话题