自由万岁!

Pub Date : 2022-03-08 DOI:10.1075/jaic.21019.kie
Manfred Kienpointner
{"title":"自由万岁!","authors":"Manfred Kienpointner","doi":"10.1075/jaic.21019.kie","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Few of the central concepts of political discourse are as controversial as “freedom”/“liberty”. However, although\n “freedom” definitely belongs to the so-called “essentially contested concepts”, even “a contested concept has an uncontested core”\n (Lakoff 2006: 23–24). This uncontested core can be described as the core meaning of\n language-specific lexemes such as English freedom, liberty, German Freiheit, French\n liberté or Italian libertà. The core meaning can be established as the common ground\n underlying all more specific controversial uses and definitions.\n Within political discourse, the context-specific uses of these lexemes can be described as persuasive definitions,\n that is, as instances of strategic maneuvering (cf. van Eemeren 2010), which try to\n establish one’s own use of these words as the politically dominant one and the one most widespread in the media.\n With this theoretical background in mind, I would like to provide an overview of how libertà is\n persuasively defined and strategically used within contemporary Italian political discourse. In order to do this, I have compiled\n a small corpus of party programs, political speeches, interviews, newspaper editorials and posts. From this empirical basis a list\n of argumentative strategies concerning explicit and implicit definitions of libertà will be compiled and\n critically evaluated.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Viva la libertà!\",\"authors\":\"Manfred Kienpointner\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/jaic.21019.kie\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Few of the central concepts of political discourse are as controversial as “freedom”/“liberty”. However, although\\n “freedom” definitely belongs to the so-called “essentially contested concepts”, even “a contested concept has an uncontested core”\\n (Lakoff 2006: 23–24). This uncontested core can be described as the core meaning of\\n language-specific lexemes such as English freedom, liberty, German Freiheit, French\\n liberté or Italian libertà. The core meaning can be established as the common ground\\n underlying all more specific controversial uses and definitions.\\n Within political discourse, the context-specific uses of these lexemes can be described as persuasive definitions,\\n that is, as instances of strategic maneuvering (cf. van Eemeren 2010), which try to\\n establish one’s own use of these words as the politically dominant one and the one most widespread in the media.\\n With this theoretical background in mind, I would like to provide an overview of how libertà is\\n persuasively defined and strategically used within contemporary Italian political discourse. In order to do this, I have compiled\\n a small corpus of party programs, political speeches, interviews, newspaper editorials and posts. From this empirical basis a list\\n of argumentative strategies concerning explicit and implicit definitions of libertà will be compiled and\\n critically evaluated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21019.kie\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21019.kie","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

政治话语的核心概念很少像“自由”/“自由”那样具有争议性。然而,尽管“自由”肯定属于所谓的“本质上有争议的概念”,但即使是“有争议的观念也有无争议的核心”(Lakoff 2006: 23–24)。这种无争议的核心可以被描述为特定语言词汇的核心含义,如英语自由、自由、德语自由、法语自由或意大利语自由。核心含义可以被确立为所有更具体的有争议的用途和定义的共同基础。在政治话语中,这些词汇的特定语境使用可以被描述为有说服力的定义,也就是说,作为战略策略的例子(参见van Eemeren 2010),试图将自己对这些词的使用确立为政治主导词和媒体中最广泛的词。考虑到这一理论背景,我想概述一下自由主义是如何在当代意大利政治话语中得到令人信服的定义和战略使用的。为了做到这一点,我整理了一小部分政党节目、政治演讲、采访、报纸社论和帖子。根据这一经验基础,将编制一份关于自由的显性和隐性定义的辩论策略清单,并对其进行批判性评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
Viva la libertà!
Few of the central concepts of political discourse are as controversial as “freedom”/“liberty”. However, although “freedom” definitely belongs to the so-called “essentially contested concepts”, even “a contested concept has an uncontested core” (Lakoff 2006: 23–24). This uncontested core can be described as the core meaning of language-specific lexemes such as English freedom, liberty, German Freiheit, French liberté or Italian libertà. The core meaning can be established as the common ground underlying all more specific controversial uses and definitions. Within political discourse, the context-specific uses of these lexemes can be described as persuasive definitions, that is, as instances of strategic maneuvering (cf. van Eemeren 2010), which try to establish one’s own use of these words as the politically dominant one and the one most widespread in the media. With this theoretical background in mind, I would like to provide an overview of how libertà is persuasively defined and strategically used within contemporary Italian political discourse. In order to do this, I have compiled a small corpus of party programs, political speeches, interviews, newspaper editorials and posts. From this empirical basis a list of argumentative strategies concerning explicit and implicit definitions of libertà will be compiled and critically evaluated.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信