La rappresentazione in linguaggio della GIUSTIZIA come FIABA. Modelli argomentativi della discriminazione nella cultura digitale francese e italiana


Abstract


Abstract - People think in terms of mental models. Johnson-Laird says that the limits of our models are the limits of our world (1988, p. 470). One of the central models in our life is that of fairy-tales. In most everyday situations, at work, at home, in public or private spaces, there is a persecutor, a victim and a rescuer (as described by Karpman 1968 and later works). This fairy-tale structure can be applied to other fields as well. In contemporary Italian and French digital culture one of the most frequent uses of the fairy-tales dynamic can be verified in web-forums where users speak out against immigration to justify the right of an innocent Victim (position assumed the arguing speaker) to defend oneself against the Persecutor (the immigrants) or to ask the Rescuer for help. The ‘story of self-defense’ and the ‘story of rescue’ are the two narrative structures found in all classical fairy-tales. In this paper we are going to show that the speech-acts used in web-based arguments against immigration and those used in classical fairy-tales are the same, and that the performance of the argumentation is corresponding to the narrative features of the specific natural language used in the fairy-tale (here Italian and French). We will try to show that the (im)moral grounds of discrimination speech depend on a cultural mental model which is related to the specific natural language framing it.

DOI Code: 10.1285/i22390359v17p155

Keywords: Linguistics; Argumentation theory; Metaphors; Discrimination; Fairy tale

References


Amossy R. 2002, Pragmatique et analyse des textes, Presses de l’université de Tel-Aviv, Tel-Aviv.

Binazzi A. 2008, Modelli Mentali: Un’analisi epistemologica, in “Humana.Mente” 5, Aprile 2008, pp. 65-102, Firenze. http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/paper_binazzi_Modelli.pdf (6.11.2015).

Basile G. 2001, Le parole nella mente: relazioni semantiche e struttura del lessico, Franco Angeli Editore, Milano.

Beck G. 1980, Sprechakte und Sprachfunktionen. Untersuchungen zur Handlungsstruktur der Sprache und ihren Grenzen, Niemeyer, Tübingen.

Becker M. 2012, Metaphern im politischen Diskurs der französische Präsidentschaftswahlkampf 2012. Sprachverwendung und persuasive Strategien des FN und der UMP zum Thema Immigration. Magisterarbeit an der Freien Universität und der Technischen Universität Berlin, Berlin.

Borges J.L. 1985, Il libro di sabbia, “Tutte le opere: 1”, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, Milano.

Calastri S. 2014, “Non sono razzista, ma…”, www.tink.ch/ti-neu/article/2014/12/16/non-sono-razzista-ma (6.11.2015).

Charaudeau P. 2005, Le discourse politique. Les masques du pouvoir, Vuibert, Paris.

Charaudeau P. 2009, Identité sociale et identité discursive. Un jeu de miroir fondateur de l’activité langagière, Charaudeau P. (ed.) 2010, “Identités sociales et discursives du sujet parlant”, L’Harmattan, Paris.

Conesa P. 2011, La fabrication de l’ennemi. Ou comment tuer avec sa conscience pour soi, Laffont, Paris.

Çurum Duman D. 2012, L’identité et ses représentations: Ethos et Pathos. “Synergies Turquie” 5/2012, pp. 187-200. http://gerflint.fr/Base/Turquie5/duman.pdf (6.11.2015).

Ducrot O. 1972, Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de sémantique linguistique. Hermann, Paris.

Ducrot O. 1973, La Preuve et le dire. Langage et Logique. Maison Mame, Paris.

Ducrot O. 2004, Argumentation rhétorique et argumentation linguistique, “L’argumentation aujourd’hui. Positions théoriques en confrontation.”, p. 17-34, Presses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris.

Ducrot O., Anscombre J.C. 1983, L'Argumentation dans la langue, Mardaga, Coll. “Philosophie et langage”, 184 pp., Bruxelles.

Eco U. 2003, Alcuni dei miei migliori amici, in “La Bustina di Minerva”, L’Espresso 21.08.2003.

Fenoglio B. 1968, Il partigiano Johnny, Einaudi, Torino.

Ferrari F. 2013, Non solo metafore. (De)costruzione della strategia persuasiva di G.W. Bush Jr., libreriauniversitaria.it edizioni, Padova.

Forrest L. 2008, The Three Faces of Victim, Chattanooga, TN, The Conscious Living Media. http://www.lynneforrest.com/articles/2008/06/the-faces-of-victim/ (6.11.2015).

Giustiniano, Corpus Iuris Civilis, digitalizzazione completa. Lion, Hugues de la Porte, 1558-1560. http://droitromain.upmf-grenoble.fr/Corpus/d-43.htm#16 (6.11.2015).

Goffman E. 1955, On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction, in “Psychiatry: Journal of Interpersonal Relations” 18 [3], pp. 213-231 [rpt. in: Interaction Ritual, pp. 5-46]

Goffman E. 1967, Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, (New York:

Doubleday Anchor, 1967) (London: Allen Lane, 1972).

Grice P. 1975, Logic and Conversation, “Syntax and Semantics”, tomo 3, pp. 41-58, Academic Press, New York.

Habermas J. 1976a: Universalpragmatische Hinweise auf das System der Ich-Abgrenzung, in Auwärter M., Kirsch E., Schröter M. (ed.), Kommunikation. Interaktion. Identität, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 332-347.

Habermas 1976b, Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.

Hundsnurscher F. 1994, Lügen – auch eine Form sprachlichen Handelns, “Sprache, Onomatopöie, Rhetorik, Namen, Idiomatik, Grammatik. Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Karl Sornig zum 66. Geburtstag.”, pp. 97-113, Grazer Linguistische Monographien 11, Graz.

Johnson-Laird P. N. 1989 Mental models, in Posner M.L. (ed.), Foundations of Cognitive Science, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 469-499.

Karpman S. 1968, Fairy tales and script drama analysis, in “Transactional Analysis Bulletin” 7 [26], pp. 39-43. http://www.karpmandramatriangle.com/pdf/Drama (6.11.2015).

Karpman S. 2014, A Game free Life. The definitive book on the Drama Triangle and Compassion Triangle by the originator and author, Drama Triangle publications, San Francisco, CA.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni C. 1986, L’implicite, A. Colin, Paris.

Ivaldi A. 2004, Il triangolo drammatico. Da strumento descrittivo a strumento terapeutico, in “Cognitivismo clinico” 1 [2], pp. 108-123. http://www.apc.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ivaldi.pdf (6.11.2015).

Lakoff G. 1991, Una figura del pensiero, in Cacciari C. (ed.), Teoria della metafora. L’acquisizione, la comprensione e l’uso del linguaggio figurato, Raffaello Cortina editore, Milano, pp. 215-228.

Lakoff G. 2004, Don’t Think Of An Elephant! How Democrats And Progressives Can Win: Know Your Values And Frame The Debate: The Essential Guide For Progressives, Chelsea Green Publishing, Hartford. (trad. it. 2006 Non pensare all’elefante!, Fusi orari).

Lakoff G., Wehling E. 2014, Auf leisen Sohlen ins Gehirn. Politische Sprache und ihre heimliche Macht, Carl-Auer Verlag, Heidelberg.

Lo Cascio V. 1991, Grammatica dell’argomentare: strategie e strutture, La Nuova Italia, Venezia.

Manzoni A. 1843/1988, I promessi sposi, a cura di E. Raimondi e L. Bottoni, Principato, Milano.

Marty F. 2007, La possibilité du mensonge appartient à la structure des langues humaines, in Castillo M. (ed.), Éthique du rapport au langage, L’Harmattan, Paris, pp. 111-126.

Meibauer J. 2013 (ed.), Hassrede/Hate Speech. Interdiszplinäre Beiträge zu einer aktuellen Diskussion, Gießener elektronische Bibliothek, Gießen.

Moeschler J., Schelling M., Zenone A. (1982) Structure de l'intervention, connecteurs pragmatiques et argumentation, in “Cahiers de Linguistique Française” 4, pp. 165-187.

Moeschler J. 1989, Topoi and inferences, in “Communication and Cognition. Artificial Intelligence” 6 [4], pp. 249-264.

Moeschler J. 1991, Les aspects pragmatiques de la négation linguistique: acte de langage, argumentation et inférence pragmatique, in “Travaux du Centre de Recherche Sémiologique” 59, pp. 103-138.

Moeschler J. 1992, Une, deux ou trois négations?, in “Langue Française” 94, pp. 8-25.

Moeschler J. 1993, Lexique et pragmatique, in “Cahiers de Linguistique Française” 14, pp. 7-35.

Nølke H. 1992, Semantic constraintson argumentation: from polyphonic micro-structure to argumentative macro-structure, in “Argumentation Illuminated”, pp. 189-200, Sicsat, Amsterdam.

Paveau M-A., 2013, Langage et morale. Une éthique des vertus discursives, Lambert-Lucas, Limoges.

Perelman C., Olbrechts-Tyteca L. 1958, Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris 1958 (trad. it. Trattato dell’argomentazione. La nuova retorica, Einaudi “Reprints”, Torino 1976/1966).

Pinker S. 2007, The stuff of thought. Language as a window into human nature. Viking, New York. (trad. it. 2009, Fatti di parole. La natura umana svelata dal linguaggio. Mondadori, Milano.)

Pirazzini D. 2002, Ist Persuasion das Ziel der Argumentation?, in “Textsorten im romanischen Sprachvergleich”, pp. 137-152, Stauffenburg Verlag, Tübingen.

Pötters W. 1992, Negierte Implikation im Italienischen. Theorie und Beschreibung des sprachlichen Ausdrucks der Konzessivität auf der Grundlage der Prosasprache des Decameron, Niemeyer (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, Band 239), Tübingen.

Righetti F. et al. 2008, La Menzogna a cura di Maria Grazia Profeti Vol. I, Alinea Editrice, Firenze.

Schwarz-Friesel M. 2010, „Ich habe gar nichts gegen Juden!“ Der „legitime“ Antisemitismus der Mitte, Schwarz-Friesel, Friesel, Reinharz (eds.) 2010, pp. 27-50.

Schwarz-Friesel M., Friesel E., Reinharz J. (eds.) 2010, Aktueller Antisemitismus – ein Phänomen der Mitte, De Gruyter, Berlin.

Schwarz-Friesel M., Reinharz J. 2013, Die Sprache der Judenfeindschaft im 21. Jahrhundert, De Gruyter, Berlin.

Shakespeare W. 1600, The Merchant of Venice. http://shakespeare.mit.edu/merchant/index.html (6.11.2015).

Sontag S. (1978), Illness as Metaphor, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York (trad. it 1979, Malattia come metafora: il cancro e la sua mitologia, Einaudi, Torino).

Strömsdörfer D. 2009, Lüge und Linguistik: Pragmalinguistische Untersuchungen am Beispiel von Politikeraussagen, Diplomica Verlag GmbH, Hamburg.

Timm U. 2003, Am Beispiel meines Bruder, Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln.

Van Dijk T. 1984, Prejudice in Discourse: An Analysis of Ethnic Prejudice in Cognition and Conversation, J. Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

Van Eeemeren F.H. 2010, Strategic Maneuvering In Argumentative Discourse: extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation, J. Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam.

Van Eemeren F.H., Garssen B. et. al. 2013, Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.

Van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R. 1984, Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion, Floris Publications, Dordrecht.

Van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R. 1992, Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R. 1995, The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies, in “Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings”, The Pennsylvania State University Press, Pennsylvania.

Van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R. 2004, A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Weinrich H. 1976, Sprache in Texten, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart.

Weinrich H. 1976, Linguistica della menzogna, in Weinrich H. (ed), Metafora e menzogna. La serenità dell’Arte, Il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 133-191.

Wengeler M., Ziem A. 2013, Sprachliche Konstruktionen von Krisen. Interdisziplinäre Perspektive auf ein fortwährend aktuelles Phänomen, Hempen Verlag, Bremen.

Wengeler M., Ziem A. 2014, Wie über Krisen geredet wird. Einige Ergebnisse eines diskursgeschichtlichen Forschungsprojekts, in “Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik” 173, pp. 52-75, Siegen.

Wittgenstein L. 1984, Über Gewissheit, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. (trad. It. 1999 Della certezza, Einaudi, Torino)


Full Text: pdf

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
کاغذ a4

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia License.