普遍语用学和语用-辨证理论的学理渊源及观念误植  

Critiquing universal pragmatics and pragma-dialectics: Shared theoretical underpinning and conceptual misappropriation

作　　者：秦亚勋[1] 陈新仁[2] QIN Yaxun;CHEN Xinren(School of Foreign Studies,Chang'an University,Xi'an 710064,China;School of Foreign Studies,Nanjing University,Nanjing 210093,China)

机构地区：[1]长安大学外国语学院,陕西省西安市710064 [2]南京大学外国语学院,江苏省南京市210093

出　　处：《外语教学与研究》2022年第6期841-851,958,959,共13页Foreign Language Teaching and Research

基　　金：中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金项目“修辞人格理论观照下的语用身份研究”(300102130642)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：普遍语用学和语用-辨证理论是当代语用学和西方修辞学共同认领的两个重要理论范式。在继承言语行为理论施为性内核的基础上,前者重构了言语行为的普遍规范,后者则聚焦作为言语行为复合体的论辩,形成了各自的理论特色。然而,二者皆因未能摆脱现代主义观念的束缚而存在核心观念的误植。这体现在它们一方面选取无法排除现实变量干预的“论辩”这一人文主义修辞路径,另一方面却不约而同地以科学主义色彩的“信服”作为言语行为取效的根本遵循。本文尝试借鉴当代人文主义话语思想,基于“说服”对“信服”的理论收编,纠偏两大范式,认为二者应摒弃纯粹理性的信服程序,转向关注突显情感协同效应的“合理性说服”这一言后效力。Universal pragmatics and pragma-dialectics are two influential theories of discourse endorsed by pragmatics and rhetoric alike. Grounding themselves in performativity inspired by the speech act theory, they are characterized by reconstructing universal norms for speech acts and specializing in argumentation qua speech act complex, respectively. Both, however, are handicapped by a conceptual misappropriation as a result of modernist influence. Specifically, while designating argumentation — a humanist rhetorical approach featuring contextualized intervention—as the necessary procedure, they contradict themselves in evaluating the perlocutionary effect by adopting scientistic convincing as the sole yardstick. Having justified the theoretical incorporation of convincing by persuading, the study proposes a humanist refashioning of the two theories, i.e., relinquishing the impersonal, rational procedure to convince in favor of the perlocutionary effect of reasonable persuasion with emotion as a synergistic contributor.

关 键 词：普遍语用学 语用-辨证理论 信服 说服 合理性 

分 类 号：H030[语言文字—语言学]