Neutralité neutrosophique et expressivité dans le style journalistique

Abstract

This study is inspired by Neutrosophy theory (Smarandache 1995, 1998), a new concept of states treatment with a generous applicability to logic, communication theory and applied linguistics, among other sciences.
Neutrosophy considers a proposition, theory, concept, event A in relation to its opposite Anti-A which is not A, Non-A on that which is neither A nor Anti-A, denoted by “Neut Aâ€. Together, A, Anti-A and Neut-A combined two
by two and also all three of them form the NeutroSynthesis. The classical reasoning development about evidences –the triad thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis- known as dialectics is extended in the Neutrosophy by the tetrad thesis-anti thesis-neutro-thesis-neutro-synthesis, which carries on the unification on synthesis regarding the opposites and their neutrals. Neutrosophic logic also makes a distinction between a ‘relative truth’ and an ‘absolute truth’,
while fuzzy logic (Zadeh 1965) does not. Our aim is to analyze a series of Romanian printed press chronicles reflecting the same event of the political stage but each in a different view and positioning (fromneutrality to polemic attitude). Methods for text examination are speech acts and modality analysis, exploring how the author is discursively positioned in the sample text material. The study tries to argue that the paradox of journalistic communication lies in the double constraint the authors of news articles have to face: to be convincing (i.e. argumentative) while keeping their credibility. They have to be neutral about the facts presented and the political agents implied, unless they are accused of taking sides. There is no credibility without neutrality, but, on the other hand, without a definite position on the part of journalists, they will not succeed in passing their messages along to the public.