新聞報導如何呈現事實？語言層面的探討－再現觀念之比較分析：民族誌、歷史敘述與新聞

(1)

1

再現觀念之比較研究：民族誌、歷史敘事、與新聞

計畫編號：NSC 87-2412-H-004-019-K8 執行期限：86 年 8 月 1 日至 87 年 7 月 31 日主持人：方孝謙政治大學國際關係研究中心第四所一、中文摘要為厘清現階段歐美學界對再現及其相關範疇的討論，俾供參加國科會整合計畫之傳播學者參考，本文從定義再現為聯繫實在與意義兩個層面的象徵系統出發，就哲學、史學、民族誌討論、與傳播社會學中學者引人爭議的著作，以實在、再現、與意義之基本範疇加以組織與評析。哲學者帶給我們對再現的新認識，一方面是符號元素，或者透過彼此交換傳送相似或相反的意義；或者組合其他符號形成更高一層的意義之結構原則。另一方面是語句透過關涉說話者及其經驗世界而彰顯主觀意義的指涉原則。史學者與民族誌學者則帶給我們視雙重敘事為主要再現系統的重要性。敘事的雙重性，首先依指涉原則，牽引歷史敘事或民族誌的讀者認同所讀之物勾勒的實相；其次又依結構原則，帶領讀者進入作者與其共享的想像世界。而共享的基礎，則在不同文化獨擅之不同的喻格意識（有隱喻、轉隃、提喻、及諷喻的差別）。在澄清敘事雙重性如何具現實在、再現、與意義之間的關係之後，我們以敘事框架解讀一位傳播社會學者的詮釋民族誌－－製造新聞。我們發現，作者「資本主義社會現狀的維持，有賴新聞工作與專業精神的運作」之主旨，乃是建立在「網」的隱喻及以部分喻示全體的提喻之上。關鍵字：聚合，組合，再現，指涉，喻格 Abstr act

To help clarify the meaning and theories of representation for the

communication scholars who have joined an integrated project of National Science Council, ROC, we begin by defining the word as a symbolic system connecting both reality and meaning. We then use reality, representation, and meaning as basic categories by means of which we organize and critique relevant recent discussions from western philosophy, history, forum on ethnography, and sociology of communication.

Philosophers bring to us, on the one hand, the structural principle that words create objective meaning by the nature of both their similarity and proximity, and on the other, the reference principle that by referring internally to a speaker and externally to the speaker’s world,

sentences convey her subjective meaning. Based on the two principles, historians and ethnographers further highlight the importance of a dual narrative as a system of representation. Narrative’s duality manifests first in referring its readers to the empirical world that its

(2)

2 author describes according to the

reference principle and second in sharing the readers with the imaginary world that the author creates according to the structural principle. Here, in Hayden Whilte’s view, the shared imaginary world is based on one of the four overarching tropic consciousnesses (metaphoric, metonymic, synecdochic, and ironic) that capture the essence of a specific culture. After clarifying how the dual narrative concretizes the complex relationships among reality,

representation, and meaning, we apply the narrative framework to the reading of an interpretive ethnography, sociologist Gaye Tuchman’s Making News. We find that her thesis, that newswork and press professionalism legitimatize the status quo, is actually born out by two tropes, a metaphor of “net,” as in her use of the news net and the web of facticity, and a synecdoche that constitutes her

ethnography as a representation of “the American press’ point of view.”

Keywor ds: Paradigm, Representation,

Reference, Syntagm, Trope.

二、緣由與目的把「再現」初步理解為聯繫真實（reality）與意義兩層面的符號系統，本研究旨在為國科會整合計畫－－新聞如何再現事實：語言層面的探討，透過跨人文學科的相關討論，厘清再現這個核心觀念的意涵。我們把焦點放在「再現－－實在」與「再現－－意義」這二軸，用這兩軸來組織哲學、史學、人類學、與傳播社會學各學門近來有關再現的討論。從定義「再現」為聯繫實在與意義兩個層面的象徵系統出發，隨著分析的步伐，我們會逐漸擴大這個核心觀念的意涵。最重要的是，我們要從各學門中引進字面意義（sense）的觀念與上述指涉關係對照；引進敘事（narrative）作為最核心的象徵系統，一方面討論系統與實在的「對應」（correspondence），並在系統內討論結構主義語言學的聚合、組合原則，及此二原則與雄辯家所稱四大喻格－－隱喻、轉喻、提喻、諷喻－－的可能關係。最終，我們將得到如下對再現的了解：再現是符號語句等象徵的集合體。它透過內外指涉對應使用它的人及其世界之外鑠意義，並以象徵本身的相似性與接近性創造其內涵意義，或云另類的實在。三、結果與討論上述從「再現－－實在」與「再現－－意義」兩軸引出的定義，與其說是要提供傳播研究者精確、可運作化的概念，無寧說是以若干學門產生的較引人注目的著作為對象，嘗試畫定討論再現的範圍；也就是企圖對再現現象的再現。儘管，我們還會試著把我們的再現架構「用」於分析傳播現象的再現，本研究真正的期望，卻在能夠清楚的呈現再現的範圍及其相關範疇，以供後來者的對照與批判。四、計畫成果自評本研究刻正處於撰寫階段，擬定名

(3)

3 為再現之比較研究：實在、再現、與意 義。以文章名稱對照本計畫原名再現觀 念之比較研究：民族誌、歷史敘事、與 新聞可知：（1）經研究，我們發現實在、再現、與意義是能夠組織不同人文社會學門討論再現的重要範疇，也是支撐起撰寫中論文的骨架；（2）我們原先認為民族誌、歷史敘事、與新聞分屬不同的文類，有其不同的再現規則，經研究我們知錯。所謂三種文類究其實只有一種，就是說故事，或云敘事（narrative）。對敘事的追蹤研究，讓我們了解到它的雙重原則：以說故事這種捕捉人類經驗的再現系統做出發點，故事的語句，對外是聯接說故事人及她的世界之客觀存在物（指涉原則）。敘事語句之內，有人認為語句透過組合與聚合的原則，創造內在的意義（結構原則）。而對敘事的結構原則，又有人提出「表異實同」的構思：敘事語句內在指向的普同基礎，就是隨著文化演進而循環的隱喻、轉喻、提喻、諷喻等四大喻格。即這四大喻格作為符號最終乃是根據聚合（隱喻、諷喻）與組合（轉喻、提喻）原則的應用而得出。那麼，從再現系統的指涉原則與結構原則來看，任何討論再現的理論，似乎是無法擺脫「二元對立」（binary opposition）的形式思考。這裡的發現就是說，從索緒爾的結構主義以降，俗稱為「後學」者－－後結構主義、後殖民主義、後現代主義、女性主義等等，凡涉及再現的討論，都不免傾向於「二元對立」的思考。二元對立乃貫穿後學這一龐雜文獻的重要鑰匙。 再現之比較研究：實在、再現、與 意義文章寫就，將投稿於學術期刊。 五、參考文獻 [1]卡勒，喬納森（Jonathan Culler）著；張景智譯 1993（1984）索緒爾。台北：桂冠。朱元鴻 1997 背叛/洩密/出賣：論民族誌的冥界，台北：台灣社會研究季刊 26:29-65。艾坡比，喬伊絲等（Joyce Appleby et al.）著；薛絢譯 1996（1994）歷史的真相。台北：正中。詹京斯，凱斯（Keith Jenkins）著；賈士蘅譯 1996（1991）歷史的再思考。台北：麥田。臧國仁 1998 新聞報導與真實建構：新聞框架理論的觀點。宣讀於「中華傳播學會九八年年會」，台北：深坑世新會館，1998 年 6 月 30 日。

Atkinson, Paul 1990 The Ethnographic Imagination: Textual Constructions of Reality. London: Routledge

Clifford, James 1988 The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press.

Clifford, James and George E. Marcus eds. 1986 Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley:

University of California Press. Crapanzano, Vincent 1986 “Herme’s Dilemma: The Masking of Subversion in Ethnographic Description,” in James Clifford and George E. Marcus eds.,

Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, 51-76. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Fairclough, Norman 1992 Discourse and Social Change. London: Routledge.

(4)

4 Flexner, Stuart Berg ed. 1986 The

Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd

ed. New York: Random House.

Foucault, Michel 1972 (1969) The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. A. M. Sheridan

Smith tr., New York: Pantheon. Levi-Strauss, Claude 1979 Myth and Meaning. New York: Schocken Books.

Marcuse, Herbert 1964 One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of

Advanced Industrial Soceity. Boston:

Beacon Press.

James, Allison et al. eds. 1997 After Writing Culture：Epistemology and Praxis in Contemporary Anthropology.

London: Routledge.

Jameson, Fredric 1986 “Forward,” in Algirdas Julien Greimas On Meaning: Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory,

vi-xxii. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Rabinow, Paul 1986 “Representations Are Social Facts: Modernity and Post-Modernity in Anthropology,” in James Clifford and George E. Marcus eds.,

Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, 234-261. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Reinharz, Shulamit 1995 “The Chicago School of Sociology and the Foundation of the Brandeis University Graduate Program in Sociology: A Case Study in Cultural Diffusion,” in Gary Alan Fine ed., A Second School? The Development

of a Postwar American Sociology,

273-321. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Ricoeur, Paul 1976 Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning.

Fort Worth: The Texas Christian University Press.

Rosaldo, Renato 1986 “From the Door of His Tent: The Fieldworker and the Inquisitor,” in James Clifford and George E. Marcus eds, Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography,

77-97. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Searle, John R. 1995 The Construction of Social Reality. London: Penguin Books.

Silverman, Kaja 1983 The Subject of Semiotics. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Smith, Philip 1994 “The Semiotic Foundations of Media Narratives: Saddam and Nasser in the American Mass Media,”Journal of Narrative and Life History 4(1 & 2):89-118.

Tuchman, Gaye 1976 Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New

York: Free Press.

Van Maanen, John ed. 1995

Representation in Ethnography.Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

White, Hayden 1972 “The Structure of Historical Narrative,”Cleo 1(2):5-20.

－－1987 The Content of the Form:

Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore: The Johns