首页> 外文期刊>Argumentation >Can Perelman’s NR be Viewed as an Ethics of Discourse?
【24h】

Can Perelman’s NR be Viewed as an Ethics of Discourse?

机译:佩雷尔曼的自然语言能被视为话语伦理吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The purpose of this paper is to defend and justify the hypothesis that Perelman’s New Rhetoric can enable the French school of Discourse Analysis to readjust its theoretical positions concerning the ethics of discourse. While it is no longer necessary, in the wake of linguists such as Benveniste and Kerbrat-Orecchioni, to point out the founding role of the inscription of subjectivity in language, it is, paradoxically, still necessary to justify the legitimacy of choosing the axiological dimension of discourse and its ethical issues as a scientific object. Indeed, very few linguists view Perelman’s New Rhetoric as a logic and a “pragmatics” of values; most of them prefer to view it as a technical reservoir of types of arguments (Cf. concerning the critical enumeration and classification of references to the NR, raised in approximately forty linguistic works, Koren 2002: 197–228). So far, the notions of “guarantee” and “commitment” are integrated in pragmatic linguistic theories; but these notions have mostly to do with a “commitment” vis-à-vis a referential truth. Truth is still considered as the ultimate value, as the normative reference to every questioning on discursive rectitude. We are thus left with an epistemological lacuna, namely the integration of the responsibility for value judgments in linguistic theories, that could be partially answered for by the New Rhetoric. An editorial from Le Monde will be analyzed to illustrate this point of view.
机译:本文的目的是捍卫和证明佩雷尔曼的《新修辞学》可以使法国话语分析学派重新调整其关于话语伦理学的理论立场这一假设并证明其合理性。尽管不再需要,在诸如Benveniste和Kerbrat-Orecchioni之类的语言学家的支持下,指出主观题词在语言中的基础作用,矛盾的是,仍然有必要证明选择价值论维度的合法性是合理的话语及其伦理问题作为科学对象。实际上,很少有语言学家将佩雷尔曼的《新修辞学》视为价值的逻辑和“实用主义”。他们中的大多数人倾向于将其视为论点类型的技术库(参见有关自然语言参考的关键列举和分类,在大约四十种语言学著作中提出,Koren 2002:197-228)。到目前为止,“保证”和“承诺”的概念已经整合到了实用的语言理论中。但是这些概念在很大程度上与针对参照真理的“承诺”有关。真理仍然被认为是终极价值,是对话语正直性每一个质疑的规范性参考。因此,我们留下了认识论上的空白,即将价值判断责任整合到语言理论中,这可以由新修辞学来部分解决。将分析《世界报》的社论,以阐明这一观点。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号