INVOLVEMENT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF RHETORICAL CRITICISM
Abstract
This article describes the category of involvement from the perspective of rhetorical criticism as a version of critical discourse analysis. Considering the importance of involving discoursive, cognitive and social phenomenon, the authors draw attention to such an interaction in which one of the sides realizes its power, and the other is forced to subordinate. A demonstrative example of involvement with originally intended unequal sides is represented by the discourse of a terrorist organization. The development of the involvement frame model peculiar to this organization helped to organize the description of the phenomenon on the levels (slots) of social and cultural context, realization of involvement phases, and the discourse structure. In its turn, specification of the discourse structure parameters has allowed to establish the set of slots, with which the laws of descoursive realization of power can be described. The article focuses on such discourse parameters as «Vocabulary» and «Local values». In particular, the usage of Arabism «ziyarat», which is subjected to the semantic transposition when it enters the speech of an illegal community, serves as an example that helps to establish and interpret the marks of interpersonal asymmetry of involving discourse. These marks are: the usage of Arabism as a slang expression (argotism), its semantic result, usage of argotisms in phrases and sentences, as well as its appearance in the prescribing and explanatory passages.
About the Authors
P. A. Katyshev
Kemerovo State University
Russian Federation
Pavel A. Katyshev – Doctor of Philology, Professor at the Department of Stylistics and Rhetoric
Russian Federation
Pavel A. Katyshev – Doctor of Philology, Professor at the Department of Stylistics and Rhetoric
B. E. Kildibekova
Innovative University of Eurasia, Pavlodar
Kazakhstan
Bibigul E. Kildibekova – assistant lecturer at the Department of Journalism and Philology
Kazakhstan
Bibigul E. Kildibekova – assistant lecturer at the Department of Journalism and Philology
References
1. Антипов А. Г., Араева Л. А., Артёмова Т. В., Арышева А. Ю., Валишина Д. А., Катышев П. А., Лисова О. О., Оленёв С. В., Паули Ю. С., Соснина Ю. А., Стрыгина О. В., Татаринова А. В. Риторика: учебное пособие. Кемерово, 2011. 338 с.
2. Гофман Э. Отчуждение от взаимодействия // Ритуал взаимодействия: Очерки поведения лицом к лицу. М.: Смысл, 2009. С. 138 – 164.
3. Дейк Т. А. ван. Дискурс и власть: Репрезентация доминирования в языке и коммуникации. М.: ЛИБРОКОМ, 2013. 344 с.
4. Ислам: энциклопедический словарь. М.: Наука, 1991. 315 с.
5. Катышев П. А., Оленев С. В. Влияние синтактики языка на языковую личность как проблема риторической критики // Сибирский филологический журнал. 2010. № 4. С. 191 – 199.
6. Медведева С. Ю. Риторика и риторическая критика в США // Неориторика: Генезис, проблемы, перспективы. М., 1987. С. 91 – 13.
7. Паршин П. Б. Речевое воздействие // Энциклопедия Кругосвет. Режим доступа: http://www.krugosvet.ru/enc/gumanitarnye_nauki/lingvistika/RECHEVOE_VOZDESTVIE.html?page (дата обращения: 13.08.2015).
8. Смолененкова В. В. Риторическая критика как филологический анализ публичной аргументации: дис. … канд. филол. наук. М., 2005. 248 c.
9. Araeva L. A., Artemova T. V., Katyshev P. A., Olenev S. V., Pauli Ju. S., Sokolova S. K. Word-building mechanism of functioning of drug addicts’ jargon (a case study of regional sociolinguistic research and data of substandard lexicography) // Life Science Journal. 2014. 11(12). P. 400 – 404. Режим доступа: http://www.lifesciencesite.com. (дата обращения: 13.08.2015).
10. Besnier N. Involvement // R. E. Asher et al., eds. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 4. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1994. P. 1770 – 1772.
11. Besnier N. Involvement in linguistic practice: An ethnographic appraisal // Journal of Prugmatics. 22 (1994). P. 279 – 299.
12. Chafe W. L. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature // Deborah Tannen, ed. Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood: NJ: Ablex, 1982. P. 35 – 53.
13. Chafe W. L. Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing // David R. Olson, Nancy Torrance and Angela Hildyard, eds. Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 1985. P. 105 – 123.
14. Chafe W. L., Danielewicz J. Properties of spoken and written language / Rosalind Horowitz and S. J. Samuels, eds. Comprehending oral and written language. New York: Academic Press, 1987. P. 83 – 113.
15. Gumperz J. J. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. 240 p.
16. Haugerud A., Njogu K. State voices in the countryside: Politics and the Kenyanbaraza // orking Papers in African Studies, 159. Boston: African Studies Center, Boston University, 1991. 46 p.
17. Tannen D. Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse // David R. Olson, Nancy Torrance, Angela Hildyard. Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. P. 124 – 147.
Review
For citations:
Katyshev P.A., Kildibekova B.E. INVOLVEMENT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF RHETORICAL CRITICISM. SibScript. 2015;(4-4):89-96. (In Russ.)
Views:
417
Email this article 