英语修辞与写作·2.2　关于修辞学传统

2.2A　传统修辞学的两项基本内容

1） Patricia Bizzell和Bruce Herzberg在他们合编的《修辞学传统》（The Rhetorical Tradition）中指出，传统修辞学包含两大部分：一为“非艺术”性（Inartistic proofs），二为“艺术”性（Artistic proofs）。

2） 所谓“非艺术”性，并不是否认语言艺术，而是强调这一方面的修辞技巧直接表现在结构形式上，例如通过对比结构达到突出某事物或其某项特征的目的。“非艺术”性有三项主要内容，包括事实（Facts）、实例（Examples）和证词（Testimony）。（参见黄任2012:13.1）

3） “艺术”性主要归结为逻辑（Logos）、情感（Ethos）和人格（Pathos），其中“逻辑”用于突出所述论点的合理性；“情感”指如何根据不同对象调动他们的感情，使他们在情绪上倾向于接受所述的论点；而“人格”则是通过说话人或写作人的自我表白使听众或读者产生一种信任感，并由于信任而较容易地接受他们的论点。用18世纪苏格兰修辞学家George Campbell的话说，就是“促进理解，引起想象，调动感情，或者说影响人们的意志”（to enlighten the understanding, to please the imagination, to move the passion, or to influence the will）。

2.2B　写作中的三要素

1）在Dorothy Margaret Guinn和Daniel Marder合著的《修辞学要略》中作者概述了英语写作中的“事实、道理和感情”（fact, reason and feeling）等三个要素，它们同上面讲到的修辞学传统中艺术性的三个方面相呼应，存在于任何一个写作篇章之中。例如，一篇科技论文必须以实际的调查、实验与数据为基础，同时一定要有正确的推理，也会带着作者的感情色彩；相比之下，在写给亲人或好友的信中，无疑感情的分量更重，但也需建立在道理与事实的基础之上。

2）然而在实际生活中，这三者之间的关系往往得不到恰当处理，有时甚至被人为扭曲。例如，在新闻报道中，不同记者根据公认的要素去写，应该基本上一致，但实际上往往大相径庭，甚至连基本事实也完全相反。之所以如此，主要有几个方面的原因：

一是由于写作者的经历不同，了解的情况不一样，因而得出不同的结论；

二是由于写作者的立场和思想观念不同，对同样的情况做出了不同的解释，并得出不同的结论；

三是由于受到政府和主管部门的规定和态度的影响或限制，写作者不得不说违心话。一些西方记者标榜他们的“新闻自由”，实际上只不过是宣传而已。例如在“9·11”事件后在报道中批评了时任总统布什的专栏作家汤姆·卡廷和记者丹尼斯·马克先后丢了饭碗的事实，说明那里并没有真正的“新闻自由”。

2.2C　修辞学传统的现实意义

1） 美国一些大学里使用了两部观点截然相反的修辞学著作：一是Edward P. J. Corbett的《为现代学生讲古典修辞学》（Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Students），二是C. H. Knoblauch和Lil Brannon合著的《修辞传统和写作教学》（Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing）。这两部书分别被一些大学用作英语修辞学教材。

2） C. H. Knoblauch和Lil Brannon在《修辞传统和写作教学》中高举“现代修辞学”（Modern Rhetoric）的大旗，认为不论从思维活动、话语进程或知识的本质上看，现代修辞学均占有绝对优势，它能够在理论上把形式和内容更好地结合起来。他们指出，现代修辞学注重写作内容，不用传统的写作套路束缚学生的思想，鼓励学生创造性地自由表达，提倡教师与学生并肩坐在一起平等讨论，等等。笔者认为，这些都有道理，也确有新意，但这部著作的问题是把传统修辞与现代修辞完全对立起来了，认为古典修辞学的观点都是“虚假”的，“具有欺骗性”的，有关修辞与写作的教科书只能起到“束缚学生思想”的作用，甚至认为教师站在讲台上讲课也没有必要。这种全盘否定传统、全盘否定别人和“唯我正确”的态度是不可取的。

3） 相反，Corbett在其著述的前言中明确指出：“古典修辞学的某些原则和实践在我们今天的社会生活中仍然在起作用。”

作者扼要介绍了修辞艺术的3个要素：

从理性角度看，说话人或写作人要善于通过逻辑推理引导听众或读者理解自己的观点，并举例说明两种基本的推理形式：演绎法（Deduction）和归纳法（Induction）。今天我们若善于运用唯物辩证法去阐明道理，当会更有效果。

就感情而言，说话人或写作人要研究听众或读者的心理，善于从感情上打动他们。亚里士多德在《修辞》第二卷中用主要篇幅分析了人们的几种常见感情，并研究怎样去影响人们的感情，这就是人类心理学研究的开端。

人格的力量来自说话人/写作人的本身。例如一位演说者一开头就能给听众一种良好的印象，其演说就往往成功。我们今天常常看到，主要演说者开始时通常有一种自我介绍式的开场白，甚至会议主持人事先就要介绍一通。同样，出版物的开头常有知名人士写的“序”，这也是提高该著述“人格”力度的一种方式，同时一篇好的序言又有助于指导读者有效地阅读。

此外，作者还系统地介绍了各种修辞技巧，并在书的开头就通过一篇广告分析了一些修辞手法怎样在今天的实际生活中仍然具有使用价值。

4） 由Thomas S. Kane教授撰写的The Oxford Guide to Writing: A Rhetoric and Handbook for College Students为我们进行英语修辞与写作教学提供了示范。该书共分9个部分，计54章，还有若干附录和一份使用手册，从分析人们有关写作的几种看法开始，系统介绍了写作过程、文章结构、段落类型、句式、词语选用与辞格、语法及标点符号等，内容全面。在书的开头“To the Student”和“To the Teacher”中，作者针对一些人提出的“写作可学而不可教”的观点，一方面强调写作是以语言为工具的复杂脑力劳动过程，不像结毛线或骑自行车那样容易教和容易学；另一方面，又肯定了写作课、指导教师和教科书等的价值，它们对学习写作具有帮助和指导作用。关于写作中的一些规则，也可叫做人们长期以来形成的“惯例”，包括标点符号的用法，既不应孤立地去死扣，又不可漠然置之，因为好的文章作者仍然遵循它们。对于学习写作者来说，要大胆开拓思路，做到笔下言之有物，同时应有步骤地在词语选择、句式变化、段落展开和文章结构上下功夫，不断提高修辞与写作技巧，提高交际的有效性。

练习二　（Exercise Two）

I. Preview Questions:

1. Do you agree with the point that rhetoric is associated with the whole process from choice of words and sentence patterns, use of figures of speech to the organization of paragraphs and the whole piece of writing?

2. If you find that your teacher has written in your composition something like “arch（aic）” or “approp（riateness）”, do you know what you should do?

3. “Formal”, “informal” and “slang” are different register labels, aren't they?

4. In which chapters are figures of speech discussed in this book?

5. Have you read Aesop's Fables? Why is it said the book is a book of figures of speech?

6. Do the three devices of “unity”, “coherence” and “emphasis” apply to paragraphs and whole pieces of writing as well?

7. Can you tell the four basic models of writing?

8. What three aspects does the concept of “artistic proofs” and “inartistic proofs” respectively refer to?

9. What do you think of the “modern rhetoric” put forward by C. H.Knoblauch and Lil Brannon?

10. Do you agree with the idea “writing is something to learn but not to be taught”?

II. Read the following paragraphs and then decide whether the statements are true （T） or false （F）:

Whenever language is simple, plain, direct, whenever it employs words to mean what they conventionally mean, we say that it is literal. Literal comes from the Latin litera, “letter”; what is literal is according to the letter. Literal meanings are those recorded in a dictionary. Consider, for example, this literal statement:“A writer's style should be purposive, not merely decorative.” The words are direct and straightforward: they mean exactly what they say.

Figuratively, on the other hand, the same idea has been expressed like this: “Style is the feather in the arrow, not the feather in the cap.” Figurative indicates that the meaning of a word is stretched to accommodate a larger or even a very different sense than it usually carries. The writer can make the stretch because of some likeness（or other relationship） between two different things that the context makes apparent. Thus the literal meaning of “feather in the arrow” is the stabilizer that keeps the arrow on target; the figurative meaning is that style makes communication fly to the target and hit it.

A writer's task is to provide clues so that attentive readers will understand the special sense carried by a figurative word. In speech we signal such meanings by gestures, facial expressions, pronunciation, or tone of voice （think of the intonation we give to the word generous in order to twist its sense to “stingy” when we say sarcastically of a cheap acquaintance, “He's a generous guy!”）. In writing, it is primarily the context the other words in the sentence, paragraph, or even the total composition that controls a figurative word, pointing its meaning in a special direction.

The effective use of figurative language depends upon total diction, upon all of the words you choose. You cannot improve a composition by sticking in occasional similes and metaphors. You must weave them into the fabric of your composition.

When woven in, figurative language adds enormously to the richness of prose. Consider once again the comparison of style to the feathers on an arrow. For one thing, the figure clarifies a relatively unfamiliar and abstract idea （style） by expressing it in a striking image that readers can visualize and understand. For another, it emphasizes and enlarges the idea of style, giving it the functions we associate with the feather in an arrow （providing stability and guidance, directing the shaft swiftly and surely to its target）, and denying it the qualities we associate with a feather in a cap （pretentious, pointless decoration, an expression of vanity）. For a third, it implies a personal judgment which influences our feelings about the subject: we approve of style in the functional, directive sense and disapprove of it in the self-glorifying sense. Finally, the figure entertains. We take pleasure in the cleverness and succinctness with which a complicated idea is expressed in the images of the two feathers.

Thus figures clarify, they expand, they express feelings and judgments, and they are a source of delight. Among all the common figures of speech, the most frequent and most useful are similes and metaphors. Similes first.

Statements:

1. The most frequent and most useful figures of speech are similes and metaphors, the former in particular.

2. Appropriate use of figurative language can add enormously to the richness of a prose, which is demonstrated by four aspects in the 5th paragraph.

3. The saying “Style is the feather in the arrow” means that style plays an important role in making communication effective.

4. The word “context” in writing refers to the other words in the sentence, paragraph, or even the total composition, which signals the special sense carried by a figurative word.

5. If one weaves figures of speech into the fabric of his / her writing, he / she will fail to use the language effectively.

6. “Literal” comes from the Latin litera, which means that the words are direct and straightforward and that they mean exactly what they say.

III. Fill in each blank with the appropriate form of the word given in brackets.

Today, more than 2000 years after the emergence of rhetoric and rhetorical （1）____________（think）, scholars are still grappling with the intricate issues of its definition. Since rhetorical inquiry concerns human agents, symbol communication systems, and audiences, there are overlaps with （2）____________（relate） scholarly disciplines, such as linguistic pragmatics, argumentation theory, anthropology, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics, to name but a few.

It seems justifiable to agree with Scott （1972） that “any definition of rhetoric that is （3）____________（take） as once-and-for-all is apt to be gravely （4）____________（mislead）,” since any definition will only partly cover its wide range of uses. He suggests that any definition of “rhetoric” will be, itself, a rhetorical use of language.

Although rhetoric in Greece and Rome was primarily （5）____________（teach） as an art of persuasive speaking or writing, it was widely recognized that rhetorical techniques were also employed in imaginative compositions not explicitly intended to persuade an audience to adopt some action or belief, but （6）____________（aim） at an aesthetic effect, to give enjoyment to an audience or to demonstrate the imaginative and linguistic skills of the speaker or writer. Accordingly, the definition of rhetoric as the “art of persuasion” might easily be extended to the “art of effective expression”.

（Excerpts from Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 2nd ed.）

参考答案
Ⅱ. 1. T　2. F　3. T　4. T　5. F　6. T
Ⅲ. 1. thinking　2. related　3. taken　4. misleading　5. taught　6. aimed