本文選題：外交部發(fā)言人　切入點：實用型論證　出處：《江蘇大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：外交部記者招待會是中國政府傳播內政外交信息的重要平臺之一。在記者招待會上,針對記者提出的問題,特別是其中的敏感性問題,外交部發(fā)言人通常在充分考慮過所有受眾可能存在的質疑或反對意見后,才對問題做出解釋或反駁。從這點上看,外交部發(fā)言人的應答話語是一種典型的論辯話語。遺憾的是,當前學界關注的主要是發(fā)言人應答話語中體現出來的語用和修辭技巧,忽略了發(fā)言人應答話語的論辯性。鑒于此,本研究將借助語用論辯學的理論框架,以2013年到2016年間中國外交部發(fā)言人的真實應答話語為研究語料,從論辯話語的角度對發(fā)言人應答話語中頻繁出現的“實用型論證”進行分析和合理性評價。圍繞這一研究目的,本研究試圖回答以下幾個研究問題:(1)外交部發(fā)言人應答話語受到哪些機構語境的制約?這些機構語境對其使用實用型論證有何影響?(2)在外交部新聞發(fā)布會機構語境的制約下,外交部發(fā)言人應答話語中通常會涉及到哪些類型的實用型論證?(3)實用型論證應滿足哪些一般性標準和語境性標準?(4)依據上述標準,外交部發(fā)言人應答話語中使用的實用型論證主要存在哪些謬誤?根據國務院新聞辦公室發(fā)布用于規(guī)范政府發(fā)言人的工作手冊,本文簡要概括出限制外交部新聞發(fā)言人應答話語的七個機構性先決條件,包括記者提問的條件和內容,發(fā)言人應答的技巧和禮儀以及雙方相互制約平衡的規(guī)則等。這些機構性先決條件界定了實用型論證中策略操控可開展的空間。研究發(fā)現,外交部發(fā)言人應答話語中典型的實用型論證可以被概括為:某個政治議題不應該被支持(立場),因為該議題會帶來某種/些危害(前提1),且造成類似危害的這類政治議題都不應該被支持(前提2)。為了讓該實用型論證在具體語境中具有更強的說服力和可靠性,根據受眾對實用型論證的需求性、根屬性、解決力和損益比等四個方面可能提出的批判性問題,外交部發(fā)言人應答話語中的實用型論證主要存在四種相應變形。其中,需求性實用型論證意在證明發(fā)言人提出的主張是當務之急;跟屬性實用型論證意在證明發(fā)言人的主張是對癥下藥;解決力實用型論證旨在證明發(fā)言人提出的主張是有效果的;損益對比型實用型論證則是通過比較實施主張后帶來的益處和害處,證明利大于弊從而確定該主張應該被實施。依據語用論辯學的論證評價方法,本研究主要從兩個方面對外交部發(fā)言人應答話語中的實用型論證進行合理性評價:普遍性評價和基于語境的評價。研究發(fā)現,根據普遍性評價標準來看,外交部發(fā)言人在論證中犯了“人身攻擊”謬誤,對個別因果型論證的使用也不夠準確。再結合具體批判性問題來看,發(fā)言人在論證立場的跟屬性和解決力方面也都存在欠缺。本研究在理論和實踐方面都有一定的意義。在理論層面,本研究:(1)從論辯話語研究的角度拓展了中國外交部新聞發(fā)布會的研究視角;(2)豐富了語用論辯學框架下的論辯語境研究,同時豐富了語用論辯學視角下的實用型論證的研究。而在實踐層面,本研究:(1)為中國外交部發(fā)言人反思其應答話語提供了啟示;(2)為中國外交部發(fā)言人合理使用實用型論證應對記者提問提供了具體建議。
[Abstract]:The Foreign Ministry press conference is one of the important platform for domestic and foreign government information dissemination China. At the press conference, in response to a reporter's questions, especially the sensitivity of the spokesman of the Ministry of foreign affairs usually in full consideration of all the audience possible questions or objections, to explain or refute the problem from. This point of view, the response of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman discourse is a typical argumentation. Unfortunately, the current academic focus is mainly reflected in the discourse and pragmatic response for rhetorical skills, ignoring the deliberativity of speaker response discourse. In view of this, this study will use the pragmatic theory framework of argumentation in 2013, the true response to discourse Chinese spokesman of the Ministry of foreign affairs 2016 years as research material, "practical type frequent spokesman for the argumentative discourse response from the angle of theory Analysis and evaluation of rationality ". According to this purpose, this study attempts to answer the following research questions: (1) Foreign Ministry spokesman discourse restricted response which institutions in the context of these institutions? What is the impact on the context of practical demonstration? (2) in which Foreign Ministry press conference organization context, a Foreign Ministry spokesman in response to discourse usually involves the practical demonstration of what types of? (3) practical demonstration should meet the general criteria and context of what standards? (4) according to the practical standard, demonstrated the use of a foreign ministry spokesman in response in the discourse of what are the main error? According to the Information Office of the State Council issued the standard for government spokesman this paper briefly summarizes the work manual, seven institutions limit the spokesman of the Ministry of foreign affairs response discourse prerequisites, including questions and conditions Let, spokesman response skills and etiquette as well as mutual restrict and balance the rules. These institutional prerequisites defines the strategy control practical argument can be carried out in space. The study found that foreign ministry spokesman discourse in practical demonstration of typical response can be summarized as follows: a political issue should not be supported (position) because, this issue will bring a lot of harm / (premise 1), and the cause of this kind of political issues like harm should not be supported (premise 2). In order to make the practical demonstration in the specific context is more persuasive and reliability, according to the needs of the audience, for practical demonstration of the root attribute. To solve the problem of critical force and the loss ratio of four may put forward practical demonstration, spokesman of the Ministry of foreign affairs responses in the discourse are four kinds of corresponding deformation. The demand of practical type argument is intended to prove that A spokesman for the claim is a pressing matter of the moment; with the attribute of practical argument intended to prove the proposition is spokesman for solving force of practical demonstration of an antidote against the disease; to prove that the spokesman propositions are effective; and contrast practical demonstration has advantages and disadvantages brought by comparing the implementation after the claim, that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages so as to determine the claim should be implemented. On the basis of pragmatic theory to prove the scientific evaluation method, this paper evaluate the rationality and practical demonstration of the foreign ministry spokesman responses in discourse from two aspects: general evaluation and evaluation based on context. The study found that according to the universal evaluation standard, the foreign ministry spokesman made a "personal attacks" fallacy in the argument. The use of individual causal reasoning is not accurate enough. Then combined with the specific critical problems in the argument position, spokesman with the attribute Solving force there are also lacking. This study has certain significance in theory and practice. In theory, this study: (1) from the perspective of argumentation to expand research perspective China press conference of the Ministry of foreign affairs; (2) the rich pragmatic research argument argumentation context under the framework of at the same time, enrich the research of pragmatics from the perspective of practical demonstration of science. But in practice, this study: (1) to provide some enlightenment for the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman reflect the response of discourse; (2) for questions provided suggestions China Foreign Ministry spokesman, the rational use of practical demonstration to deal with journalists.

【學位授予單位】：江蘇大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：H136

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 吳鵬;朱密;;外交部發(fā)言人應答話語的語用論辯研究:以劉為民就中美稀土貿易摩擦答記者問為例[J];國際新聞界;2015年09期

2 楊躍珍;;中日撞船事件新聞發(fā)布會的敘事修辭研究[J];中州大學學報;2015年02期

3 藍純;胡毅;;外交部新聞發(fā)言人閃避回答的語用分析[J];中國外語;2014年06期

4 官科;;基于西方新修辭學的新聞發(fā)言人話語建構[J];湖南科技大學學報(社會科學版);2013年04期

5 羅峰;;美國總統(tǒng)的政治修辭——對布什關于伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭修辭的考察[J];國際政治研究;2012年03期

6 洪崗;陳乾峰;;中美新聞發(fā)言人拒絕策略對比研究[J];外語教學與研究;2011年02期

7 官科;;中美外交部門發(fā)言人的語用含糊策略研究[J];湖南科技大學學報(社會科學版);2010年02期

8 姚喜雙;;新聞發(fā)言人語言的風格——在“新聞發(fā)言人語言學術研討會”上的發(fā)言[J];北華大學學報(社會科學版);2010年01期

9 張洋;;試論新聞發(fā)言人語言風格[J];北華大學學報(社會科學版);2009年06期

10 涂光晉;宮賀;;中美官方西藏主題新聞發(fā)布的政治修辭分析[J];國際新聞界;2009年08期

相關碩士學位論文 前2條

1 陳歡;中國外交部新聞發(fā)言人在例行記者會上答記者問的模糊修辭策略分析[D];貴州大學;2009年

2 孫慧娜;官方新聞發(fā)布的模糊修辭現象研究[D];暨南大學;2007年

，

本文編號：1697330