【摘要】：聽(tīng)證會(huì)漂洋過(guò)海,落戶中國(guó)已十余年,但水土不服癥狀日顯(Tang,2010)。其中聽(tīng)證會(huì)話語(yǔ)論辯性不足是最重要的原因之一。本研究結(jié)合Vancil針對(duì)政策性問(wèn)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(gòu)建聽(tīng)證會(huì)論辯話語(yǔ)分析的理論框架,以此發(fā)現(xiàn)中美聽(tīng)證會(huì)論辯話語(yǔ)的異同。 本研究以中美官方網(wǎng)站上的各四場(chǎng)聽(tīng)證會(huì)中各位發(fā)言者的陳述為語(yǔ)料,通過(guò)Toulmin的理論將話語(yǔ)充分展開(kāi),觀察各論辯成分的類型和頻率,總結(jié)出中美聽(tīng)證會(huì)論辯話語(yǔ)的相同點(diǎn)和不同點(diǎn)。 數(shù)據(jù)分析表明,中美聽(tīng)證會(huì)發(fā)言者都運(yùn)用了相同的DWC論辯模式(即事實(shí)-理由-主張模式)和事實(shí)(Data);種類,且大部分使用消極修辭。中美聽(tīng)證會(huì)論辯話語(yǔ)的不同點(diǎn)為：(1)美國(guó)聽(tīng)證會(huì)的宏觀論辯模式為鏈?zhǔn)侥Ｊ?中國(guó)聽(tīng)證會(huì)為點(diǎn)式模式。(2)美國(guó)聽(tīng)證會(huì)傾向使用綜合的主張(Claim),中國(guó)聽(tīng)證會(huì)更多使用動(dòng)機(jī)主張(Motive Claim)。(3)美國(guó)聽(tīng)證會(huì)發(fā)言者更多采用抽象推理、更訴諸于第三者信譽(yù)以及激發(fā)聽(tīng)眾的多種情感；而中國(guó)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(yù)論辯只出現(xiàn)于美國(guó)聽(tīng)證會(huì)。(4)美國(guó)發(fā)言者更多使用反駁(Rebuttal),而中國(guó)聽(tīng)證會(huì)對(duì)反駁的運(yùn)用較少。基于本研究,作者發(fā)現(xiàn)中美聽(tīng)證會(huì)存在相同點(diǎn)的原因是關(guān)于人的論辯本性和聽(tīng)證會(huì)論辯性質(zhì)的共性。不同點(diǎn)主要來(lái)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(guó)聽(tīng)證會(huì)發(fā)言者可以更多加強(qiáng)論辯意識(shí)、發(fā)言者意識(shí)和聽(tīng)眾意識(shí)。
[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(xué)位授予單位】：浙江工商大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：H313;H136;H05

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 何志武;;媒體在聽(tīng)證會(huì)中扮演的角色[J];當(dāng)代傳播;2006年05期

2 嚴(yán)怡寧;;媒體對(duì)公共政策的作用——從公共政策聽(tīng)證會(huì)的直播建議談起[J];電視研究;2009年01期

3 湯耀國(guó);;拿什么拯救聽(tīng)證會(huì)[J];w，

本文編號(hào)：2206769