O topos da “precaução” no discurso alemão sobre a assistência à Ucrânia
reprodução icônica por meio da linguística e da pragmática
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.31.3.1272-1302Palavras-chave:
arbustos, cerca, escudos, atos de fala, estratégias discursivas, discurso políticoResumo
O estudo da mitigação no discurso político merece a maior atenção, pois diz respeito à dimensão manipuladora da política na modelagem da consciência pública. A pesquisa visa identificar mitigadores linguísticos e pragmáticos associados ao topos da Precaução e suas estratégias de manifestação no discurso da assistência à Ucrânia. O estudo chegou à principal conclusão sobre a correlação dos mitigadores com a implementação de estratégias discursivas mediadas pela influência de arbustos, sebes e escudos na ilocução dos atos de fala. Como a ilocução é influenciada não apenas pelo critério de cerca (hedges), mas também por outros tipos de mitigadores, introduzimos, além das coordenadas proposicionais, ilocucionárias e dêiticas do enunciado, um critério adicional para a distribuição dos mitigadores – sua correlação com as estratégias discursivas. Os arbustos implementam a estratégia de reduzir a responsabilidade do locutor pelos fatos afirmados, promessas – comissivas indiretas e recomendações – diretivas implícitas, acionando implicaturas convencionais que implicam as condições para a viabilidade desses atos. Os escudos transferem, generalizam ou despersonalizam a responsabilidade do locutor por fatos assertivos, promessas implícitas e recomendações indiretas, “embaçando” a dêixis para uma situação denotativa. Cerca (hedges) em assertivas transferem a responsabilidade para a esfera da modalidade epistêmica subjetiva com probabilidade crescente em vez da certeza sobre o que está sendo afirmado. Nas diretivas, os cerca (hedges) generalizam/despersonalizam a responsabilidade do locutor, cruzando-se com o escopo funcional dos shields. Os mitigadores polifuncionais implementam várias estratégias discursivas. O artigo especifica cada grupo de mitigadores em termos de seus dispositivos linguísticos constituintes.
Referências
BACH, K. Saying, meaning, and implicating. In: Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K.M. (eds.). The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. p. 23-45. Available from: <https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.379.735&rep=rep1&type=pdf>. Access on: 10 Mar. 2018.
BACHMANN, К. Über das Verhältnis, das wir zu Russland nicht haben werden. Berliner Zeitung, 08 January 2023. Available from: <https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/ueber-das-verhaeltnis-das-wir-zu-russland-nicht-haben-werden-li.304827>. Access on: 20 Feb. 2023.
BRAUN, D. Implicating Questions. Mind and Language, Hoboken, v. 26, n. 5, p. 574-595, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01431.x
CAFFI, C. On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 31, n. 7, p. 881-909, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8
CAFFI, C. Mitigation. In: K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier, 2006. p. 171–175.
DEMIR, C. Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, Konya, v. 14, n. 4, p. 74-92, 2018. Available from: <https://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/812/422>. Access on: 20 Feb. 2023.
DER SPIEGEL. There Cannot Be a Nuclear War. Interview with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, conducted by Melanie Amann and Martine Knobbe, 22 April 2022. Available from: <https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/interview-with-german-chancellor-olaf-scholz-there-cannot-be-a-nuclear-war-a-d9705006-23c9-4ecc-9268-ded40edf90f9>. Access on: 25 Apr. 2022.
FAIRCLOUGH, N. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman, 1995. Available from: <https://www.felsemiotica.com/descargas/Fairclough-Norman-Critical-Discourse-Analysis.-The-Critical-Study-of-Language.pdf>. Access on: 15 Jun. 2021.
FILLMORE, Ch. J. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis 1971. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1975. Available from: <http://websites.umich.edu/~jlawler/FillmoreDeixisLectures.pdf>. Access on: 15 Jun. 2021.
FRASER, B. Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, Amsterdam, v. 4, n. 4, p. 341-350, 1980. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6
FUNTOWICZ, S. O., RAVETZ, J. R. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Theory and Decision. Library Series A: Philosophy and Methodology of the Social Sciences, v. 15. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0621-1
GIORA, R., FEIN, O., GANZI, J., LEVI, N. A., & SABAH, H. On negation as mitigation: The case of negative irony. Discourse Processes, Oxford, v. 39, n. 1, p. 81-100, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3901_3
GRATCH, J., MARSELLA, S., MARTINOVSKI, B. Mitigation Theory: An Integrated Approach. Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, v. 27, 2005. University of Southern California. Available from: <https://escholarship.org/uc/item/15r5s96s>. Access on: 10 Sept. 2022.
GRICE, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J. L. (eds.). Syntax and Semantics, v. 3, Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press, 1975. p. 41-58, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003
HART, Ch., CAP, P. Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London/New York: Bloomsbury, 2014.
HAVERKATE, H. Deictic categories as mitigating devices. Pragmatics, Antwerpen, v. 2, n.4, p. 505-522, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.2.4.03hav
HEIM, I. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of semantics, Oxford, v. 9, p. 183-222, 1992. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.3.183.
HEMICKER, L. Mehrheit der Deutschen fürchtet russischen Atomschlag. Frankfurter Allgemeine, Frankfurt, 17 October 2022. Available from: <https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/umfrage-grosse-mehrheit-fuerchtet-russischen-atomschlag-18393402.html>. Access on: 15 Jan. 2023.
HINKEL, E. Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, Monterey, v. 15, n. 1, 2, p. 29-53, 2005. Available from: <https://www.dliflc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Applied-Language-Learning_Vol15_Pt1-2.pdf>. Access on: 15 Jan. 2023.
HOLMES, J. Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, Amsterdam, v.8, n. 3, p. 345-365, 1984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6.
KAISER, M. Uncertainty and Precaution 2: The Precautionary Principle and its relevance to science. Global Bioethics, Oxford, v. 17, n. 1, p. 81-92, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2004.10800845.
KINZIG, A., STARRETT, D., ARROW, K., ANIYAR, S. et al. Coping With Uncertainty: A Call for a New Science-Policy Forum. Ambio, Stockholm, v. 32, n. 5, p. 330-335, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1639/0044-7447(2003)032[0330:CWUACF]2.0.CO;2.
KIENPOINTNER, M. Alltagslogik. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-holzboog, 1992. Available from: <http://www.gbv.de/dms/hebis-darmstadt/toc/20038798.pdf>. Access on: 15 Sept. 2022.
KINKARTZ, S. Why Germany hesitates on sending battle tanks to Ukraine, FOCUS, Kyiv, 23 January 2023. Available from: <https://www.dw.com/en/why-german-chancellor-olaf-scholz-is-hesitant-about-delivering-battle-tanks-to-ukraine/a-64493249>. Access on: 5 Feb. 2023.
KRASTEV, I., MARK, L. Peace versus Justice: The coming European split over the war in Ukraine, The European Council on Foreign Relations, Berlin, 15 June 2022. Available from: <https://ecfr.eu/publication/peace-versus-justice-the-coming-european-split-over-the-war-in-ukraine/>. Access on: 15 Sept. 2022.
KRAVCHENKO, N., PROKOPCHUK, M., POZHAR, A., ROZHKOV, Y., & KOZYAREVYCH-ZOZULYA, L. Illocutionary Pragmatic Adaptation Challenge: Ukrainian Translations of English-language Soft Law Texts. Amazonia Investiga, Florencia, v. 11, n. 49, p. 267-276, 2022a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.49.01.29.
KRAVCHENKO, N., CHAIKA, O., KRYKNITSKA, I., LETUNOVSKA, I., YUDENKO, O. Commissive Modality of International Legal Discourse: An Implicit Mitigation of the Bindingness. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, London, v. 12, n. 6, p. 1039-1047, 2022b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1206.03.
KRAVCHENKO, N., PASTERNAK, T., KOROTKA, S. Deontic modality in epideictic discourse: Speech acts facet (based on COVID-associated texts). Cogito. Multidisciplinary research journal, Bucharest, v. 13, n.2, p. 167–184, 2021. Available from: <https://cogito.ucdc.ro/cogito_nr_2_2021.pdf >. Access on: 15 Sept. 2022.
KRAVCHENKO, N. Illocution of direct speech acts via conventional implicature and semantic presupposition. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow, Trnava, v. II, n. 1, p. 128-168, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lart-2017-0004.
KURENKOVA, O. “Leopards” for ZSU – torment for Sholtz. Why is Germany so cautious in supporting Ukraine? Ukrainian Pravda, Kyiv, 28 January 2023. Available from: <https://www.pravda.com.ua/podcasts/63c2e4ae29c3f/2023/01/28/7386956/>. Access on: 1 Feb. 2023.
OXFORD Learner’s Dictionaries. Available from: <https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/precaution>. Access on: 10 Sep. 2022.
PERELMAN, C., OLBRECHTS-TYTECA, L. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dam: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.
POTTS, C. Presupposition and implicature. In: Lappin, S., Fox, Ch. Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Contemporary Semantics. 2 ed., Hoboken: Shalom Lappin, Backwell, 2014. Available from: <https://web.stanford.edu/~cgpotts/manuscripts/potts-blackwellsemantics.pdf>. Access on: 20 Sept. 2022.
POTTS, C. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
PRINCE, E. F., FRADER, J., & BOSK, C. On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In: DiPietro, R. J. (ed.) Linguistics and the professions. 9 ed., 1982. Hillsdale: Ablex, p. 83-97.
REISIGL, M. The Discourse-Historical Approach. In: Flowerdew, J., Richardson, J. E. (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, Oxford: Routledge, 2017. p.44-59.
REISIGL, M., WODAK, R. The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA). In: Wodak, R.; Meyer, M. (eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2. ed. India Pvt Ltd New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 2008. p. 87-121. Available from: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251636976_The_Discourse-Historical_Approach_DHA>. Access on: 20 Sept. 2022.
RICHARDSON, J. E. (Mis)Representing Islam: the racism and rhetoric of British Broadsheet newspapers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004.
SBISA, M. Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics, Amsterdam, v. 33, n. 12, p. 1791–1814, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00060-6.
SCHOLZ, O. KanzlerKompakt, 24 February 2023. Available from: <https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/mediathek/kanzler-kompakt>. Access on: 26 Feb. 2023.
SEARLE, J. R. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press, 1995. Available from:<https://epistemh.pbworks.com/f/6.+The+Construction+of+Social+Reality+(SCAN).pdfAccess on: 15 Sept. 2022.
SEARLE, J. R. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173452.
SEARLE, J. R. A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society, Cambridge, v. 5, n. 1, p. 1-23, 1976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837.
SEARLE, J. Speech acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
SKOVGAARD-OLSEN, N., KELLEN, D., KRAHL, H., KLAUER, K., Ch. Relevance differently affects the truth, acceptability, and probability evaluations of “and”, “but”, “therefore”, and “if–then”. Thinking and Reasoning, Oxford, v. 23, n. 4, p. 449-482, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1374306.
SPECTOR, B., SUDO, Y. Presupposed ignorance and exhaustification: how scalar implicatures and presuppositions interact. Linguistics and Philosophy, Dordrecht, v. 40, n. 5, p. 473-517, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-017-9208-9.
SUKHAREVICH, A. Why Germany is so reluctant to support Ukraine in the war, News of a Healthy Person, Kyiv, 19 February 2023. Available from: <https://nzl.theukrainians.org/chomu-nimechchyna-tak-nerishuche-pidtrymuye-ukrayinu-u-vijni.html>. Access on: 22 Feb. 2023.
SWEETSER, E., & FAUCONNIER, G. Cognitive links and domains: Basic aspects of mental space theory. In: Fauconnier, G. & Sweetser E. (eds.). Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996. p. 1-28.
THALER, V. Mitigation as modification of illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, Amsterdam, v. 44, n. 6–7, p. 907-919, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.001.
WITWICKI, А. Przekażą Ukrainie Leopardy, ale to nic nie zmienia. „Nie oznacza to zwrotu w polityce niemieckiego rządu. Niezalezna, Warszawa, 29 January 2023. Available from: <https://niezalezna.pl/473122-przekaza-ukrainie-leopardy-ale-to-nic-nie-zmienia-nie-oznacza-to-zwrotu-w-polityce-niemieckiego-rzadu?fbclid=IwAR26tR4mQEmBfeeHQ-Tt1FAGjup7m1vM>. Access on: 1 Feb. 2023.
WODAK, R. The Discourse of Politics in Action. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
