中美听证会论辩话语的修辞比较研究
发布时间：2018-08-27 09:04
【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)。其中听证会话语论辩性不足是最重要的原因之一。本研究结合Vancil针对政策性问题的论辩理论、Toulmin的论辩模式和Aristotle的诉求(理性诉求、人品诉求和感性诉求)理论,构建听证会论辩话语分析的理论框架,以此发现中美听证会论辩话语的异同。 本研究以中美官方网站上的各四场听证会中各位发言者的陈述为语料,通过Toulmin的理论将话语充分展开,观察各论辩成分的类型和频率,总结出中美听证会论辩话语的相同点和不同点。 数据分析表明,中美听证会发言者都运用了相同的DWC论辩模式(即事实-理由-主张模式)和事实(Data);种类,且大部分使用消极修辞。中美听证会论辩话语的不同点为：(1)美国听证会的宏观论辩模式为链式模式,中国听证会为点式模式。(2)美国听证会倾向使用综合的主张(Claim),中国听证会更多使用动机主张(Motive Claim)。(3)美国听证会发言者更多采用抽象推理、更诉诸于第三者信誉以及激发听众的多种情感；而中国发言者更倾向于形象推理、展现本人良好品德和诉诸怜悯。贬低第三者信誉论辩只出现于美国听证会。(4)美国发言者更多使用反驳(Rebuttal),而中国听证会对反驳的运用较少。基于本研究,作者发现中美听证会存在相同点的原因是关于人的论辩本性和听证会论辩性质的共性。不同点主要来自其主流文化、思维方式和民主政治的差异。本研究还提出中国听证会发言者可以更多加强论辩意识、发言者意识和听众意识。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：浙江工商大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：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.
【学位授予单位】：浙江工商大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：H313;H136;H05
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前6条
1 何志武;;媒体在听证会中扮演的角色[J];当代传播;2006年05期
2 严怡宁;;媒体对公共政策的作用——从公共政策听证会的直播建议谈起[J];电视研究;2009年01期
3 汤耀国;;拿什么拯救听证会[J];w，
本文编号：2206769
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/wenyilunwen/yuyanxuelw/2206769.html
