中美聽證會論辯話語的修辭比較研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-27 09:04
【摘要】：聽證會漂洋過海,落戶中國已十余年,但水土不服癥狀日顯(Tang,2010)。其中聽證會話語論辯性不足是最重要的原因之一。本研究結合Vancil針對政策性問題的論辯理論、Toulmin的論辯模式和Aristotle的訴求(理性訴求、人品訴求和感性訴求)理論,構建聽證會論辯話語分析的理論框架,以此發(fā)現(xiàn)中美聽證會論辯話語的異同。 本研究以中美官方網(wǎng)站上的各四場聽證會中各位發(fā)言者的陳述為語料,通過Toulmin的理論將話語充分展開,觀察各論辯成分的類型和頻率,總結出中美聽證會論辯話語的相同點和不同點。 數(shù)據(jù)分析表明,中美聽證會發(fā)言者都運用了相同的DWC論辯模式(即事實-理由-主張模式)和事實(Data);種類,且大部分使用消極修辭。中美聽證會論辯話語的不同點為：(1)美國聽證會的宏觀論辯模式為鏈式模式,中國聽證會為點式模式。(2)美國聽證會傾向使用綜合的主張(Claim),中國聽證會更多使用動機主張(Motive Claim)。(3)美國聽證會發(fā)言者更多采用抽象推理、更訴諸于第三者信譽以及激發(fā)聽眾的多種情感；而中國發(fā)言者更傾向于形象推理、展現(xiàn)本人良好品德和訴諸憐憫。貶低第三者信譽論辯只出現(xiàn)于美國聽證會。(4)美國發(fā)言者更多使用反駁(Rebuttal),而中國聽證會對反駁的運用較少�；诒狙芯�,作者發(fā)現(xiàn)中美聽證會存在相同點的原因是關于人的論辯本性和聽證會論辯性質的共性。不同點主要來自其主流文化、思維方式和民主政治的差異。本研究還提出中國聽證會發(fā)言者可以更多加強論辯意識、發(fā)言者意識和聽眾意識。
[Abstract]:Hearing across the sea, settled in China for more than a decade, but not adapt to symptoms of the day (Tang,2010). One of the most important reasons is the lack of argumentation. This study combines Vancil's theory of debate on policy issues and Aristotle's theory of argument (rational appeal, personality appeal and perceptual appeal) to construct the theoretical framework of the discourse analysis of the hearing debate. In this way, we can find the similarities and differences of the debate discourse of the hearing between China and the United States. In this study, the statements of the speakers in each of the four hearings on the official website of China and the United States were used as the corpus to fully expand the discourse through Toulmin's theory, and to observe the types and frequency of the various elements of debate. Summing up the similarities and differences of the debate discourse of the hearing between China and the United States. The data analysis shows that the speakers of the hearings in China and the United States use the same DWC debate model (that is, the fact-reason-advocate model) and the (Data); category of facts, and most of them use negative rhetoric. The differences of debate discourse between China and the United States are as follows: (1) the macro debate mode of American hearings is chain mode. (2) the United States hearings tend to use comprehensive arguments (Claim), China hearings more use motivation to advocate (Motive Claim). (3) American hearing speakers more use abstract reasoning. Chinese speakers are more inclined to reason figuratively, show their good character and appeal to compassion. (4) American speakers use refutation (Rebuttal), more frequently, while Chinese hearings make less use of refutation. Based on this study, the author finds that the reason for the similarities between Chinese and American hearings is the commonness of the nature of human argumentation and the nature of hearings. The difference mainly comes from its mainstream culture, mode of thinking and democratic politics. The study also suggests that speakers in Chinese hearings can strengthen their debate awareness, speaker awareness and audience awareness.
【學位授予單位】：浙江工商大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：H313;H136;H05
[Abstract]:Hearing across the sea, settled in China for more than a decade, but not adapt to symptoms of the day (Tang,2010). One of the most important reasons is the lack of argumentation. This study combines Vancil's theory of debate on policy issues and Aristotle's theory of argument (rational appeal, personality appeal and perceptual appeal) to construct the theoretical framework of the discourse analysis of the hearing debate. In this way, we can find the similarities and differences of the debate discourse of the hearing between China and the United States. In this study, the statements of the speakers in each of the four hearings on the official website of China and the United States were used as the corpus to fully expand the discourse through Toulmin's theory, and to observe the types and frequency of the various elements of debate. Summing up the similarities and differences of the debate discourse of the hearing between China and the United States. The data analysis shows that the speakers of the hearings in China and the United States use the same DWC debate model (that is, the fact-reason-advocate model) and the (Data); category of facts, and most of them use negative rhetoric. The differences of debate discourse between China and the United States are as follows: (1) the macro debate mode of American hearings is chain mode. (2) the United States hearings tend to use comprehensive arguments (Claim), China hearings more use motivation to advocate (Motive Claim). (3) American hearing speakers more use abstract reasoning. Chinese speakers are more inclined to reason figuratively, show their good character and appeal to compassion. (4) American speakers use refutation (Rebuttal), more frequently, while Chinese hearings make less use of refutation. Based on this study, the author finds that the reason for the similarities between Chinese and American hearings is the commonness of the nature of human argumentation and the nature of hearings. The difference mainly comes from its mainstream culture, mode of thinking and democratic politics. The study also suggests that speakers in Chinese hearings can strengthen their debate awareness, speaker awareness and audience awareness.
【學位授予單位】：浙江工商大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：H313;H136;H05
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前6條
1 何志武;;媒體在聽證會中扮演的角色[J];當代傳播;2006年05期
2 嚴怡寧;;媒體對公共政策的作用——從公共政策聽證會的直播建議談起[J];電視研究;2009年01期
3 湯耀國;;拿什么拯救聽證會[J];w，
本文編號：2206769
本文鏈接：http://www.lk138.cn/wenyilunwen/yuyanxuelw/2206769.html
