中美听证会论辩话语的修辞比较研究

《中美听证会论辩话语的修辞比较研究》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在学术论文-天天文库。

1、ARhetoricalComparisonoftheArgumentativeDiscourseof‘mdChineseHearingAmericananhineseHearingsABSTRACTPublichearingwasintroducedintoChinaovertenyearsago，butithasnotbeenadiustedtotheconditionshere(Tang，2010)．OneofthemostimportantreasonsistheweaknessofargumentationinChinesehearingdiscour

2、ses．ThisthesisemploysVancil’Sargumentativemodelforpolicy-questioncontroversies，Toulmin’SargumentativemodelandAristotle’Sappeals(1090s，ethosandpathos)toconstructananalyticalframeworkofhearings，forthepurposeofmakingarhetoricalcomparisonofargumentativediscourseofAmericarlandChinesehear

3、ings．Thethesistakesspeakers’statementsoffourAmericanandChinesehearingsfromofficialwebsitesasdata，displayshearings’argumentativeprocessesbyToulmin’Sargumentativelayout，observesthetypeandfrequencyofargumentativeelements，andtheninvestigatesthesimilaritiesanddifferencesofAmericanandC．hi

4、nesehearingsdiscourses．DataanalysisdemonstratesthatbothAmericanandChinesespeakersemploythebasicDWCargumentationschema,thesimilartypesofData，andmostlythenegativerhetoric．Thedifferencesare"(1)Themacro-schemaofAmericanhearings’argumentischainpattem，whileChineseonedotpattern．(2)Comprehe

5、nsiveClaimsaremoreinAmericanhearings，whileMotiveClaimsaresalientinChineseones．(3)Americanhearingspeakersemploymoreabstractreasoning，appealmoretothereputationofathirdpersonandarousemulti．emotionsinaudience．AndChinesespeakersprefertheconcretereasoning,showgoodmoralcharactersandappealm

6、oretomercy．DegradingathirdpersononlyappearsinAmericanhearings．(4)MoreRebuttalsareusedbyAmericanspeakersthanChinesespeakers．Similaritiesareduetothecommonargumentativecharactersofhuman’Snatureandthehearings’argumentativenature．Differencesaremainlyduetotheirdifferentdominantcultures，th

7、inkingpatternsanddemocraticpolitics．Chinesespeakerscanstrengthentheirawarenessofargument，speakerandaudience．KEYWORDS：AmericanandChinesehearing；rhetoricalcomparison；argumentativediscourse中美听证会论辩话语的修辞比较研究摘要听证会漂洋过海，落户中国已十余年，但水土不服症状日显(Tang，2010)。其中听证会话语论辫性不足是最重要的原因之一。本研究结合Vancil针对政策性问题的

8、论辩理论、Toulmin的论辩模式和A