西方修辭論辨理論與應(yīng)用研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2021-01-15 06:53
論辯是一項(xiàng)極為普遍的實(shí)踐活動(dòng),人們?cè)谌粘Ｉ钪须S時(shí)隨處都在使用。但是相對(duì)于其它學(xué)科領(lǐng)域來(lái)說(shuō),論辯理論與應(yīng)用研究卻是個(gè)較新的領(lǐng)域。論辯研究源于20世紀(jì)50年代,直至20世紀(jì)末它才基本成型,成為一個(gè)足以定義的相對(duì)獨(dú)立的研究領(lǐng)域。它實(shí)際上是在舊的基礎(chǔ)上發(fā)展起來(lái)的一片新領(lǐng)域。自亞里士多德時(shí)期開(kāi)始,對(duì)于論辯的研究采用的途徑有兩個(gè):一個(gè)是形式邏輯,另一個(gè)是修辭學(xué)。本研究致力于以古典修辭學(xué)為重要背景對(duì)西方修辭論辯理論與應(yīng)用進(jìn)行研究。迄今為止,對(duì)于西方論辯理論的研究,學(xué)界還未有一個(gè)統(tǒng)一接受的理論。這就意味著在此領(lǐng)域內(nèi)還有很大空間和許多內(nèi)容尚待拓展和挖掘。在西方,論辯研究也逐漸從邏輯學(xué)和修辭學(xué)的邊緣發(fā)展成為一個(gè)跨領(lǐng)域的獨(dú)立學(xué)科,而這門(mén)學(xué)科還不能用一個(gè)主流理論來(lái)解釋,它的特征是多種方法并存,但這些方法在使用的概念、研究的范圍及理論發(fā)展上存在相當(dāng)大的差異。在國(guó)內(nèi),當(dāng)今對(duì)西方論辯理論的研究幾乎是一片空白,論辯理論的研究亟待引起學(xué)界關(guān)注,因?yàn)樗鼘?duì)培養(yǎng)人類(lèi)的批判性思維及價(jià)值判斷起到極關(guān)重要的作用。本論文研究主要采用定性、跨學(xué)科和綜合性的研究方法,以語(yǔ)言為主附加文字圖表的描述性分析為研究手段,同時(shí)將解釋說(shuō)明和個(gè)案分...
【文章來(lái)源】：上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)上海市 211工程院校 教育部直屬院校
【文章頁(yè)數(shù)】：208 頁(yè)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【文章目錄】：
Acknowledgements
Abstract
摘要
List of Tables and Figures
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Trigger of the Present Study
1.1.1 Importance of Argumentation
1.1.2 Absence of Universally Accepted Theory
1.1.3 Insufficiency of Studies in China
1.1.4 Need of Argumentation Teaching
1.2 Purpose of the Present Study.
1.3 Methodology and Scope of the Present Study
1.4 Originality of the Present Study
1.5 Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter Two: Literature Review
2.1 Historical Background of Modern Argumentation Theory
2.2 Studies in Argumentation Theory Abroad
2.2.1 Rhetorical Approach
2.2.1.1 On The New Rhetoric
○n Audience Theory
○n Typology.
○n Fallacies
○n Legal Argumentation
○n More Topics.
2.2.1.2 On The Uses of Argument
○n Application of the Model.
○n Field-dependency
○n Informal Logic.
○n More Topics.
2.2.2 Pragma-dialectical Approach
2.2.3 Informal Logic Approach
2.2.4 Philosophical Approach
2.2.5 Linguistic Approach
2.3 Studies in Argumentation Theory in China
2.4 Summary
2.4.1 Confusion of Definitions and Argumentation Schemes
2.4.2 Isolation from Context and Cultural Situation
2.4.3 Less Attention to the Refinement of Toulmin’s Schema
Chapter Three: Argumentation: Definition & Related Disciplines
3.1 Definition of Argumentation
3.1.1 Different Views of Definitions
3.1.2 Analysis of Different Definitions
3.1.3 The Present Study’s Definition
3.2 Logos, Ethos and Pathos
3.2.1 Logos
3.2.2 Ethos
3.2.3 Pathos
3.3 Basic Concepts of Argumentation
3.3.1 Agents Involved in Argumentation
3.3.2 Information Involved in Argumentation
3.3.3 Two Forms of Argumentation.
3.4 Related Disciplines
3.4.1 Logic
3.4.2 Rhetoric
3.4.2.1 Five Components
3.4.2.2 Persuasion
3.4.3 Informal Logic
3.4.3.1 Definition and Research Issues of Informal Logic.
3.4.3.2 Characteristics of Informal Logic
3.4.3.3 Informal logic and Critical Thinking.
3.5 Summary
Chapter Four: Argumentation Rhetorical Proof—Enthymeme
4.1 The Importance of Enthymeme
4.2 The Definition of Enthymeme
4.2.1 Conceptions of the Enthymeme
4.2.1.1 Baldwin’s Conception
4.2.1.2 Lane Cooper’s Conception.
4.2.1.3 MaBurney’s & Madden’s Conception
4.2.1.4 Bitzer’s Conception.
4.2.1.5 Bumyeat’s & Copi and Cohen’s Conception
4.2.1.6 Other Definitions
4.2.2 The Present Study’s Definition
4.2.2.1 The Definition of Enthymeme
4.2.2.2 Normal Syllogism
4.2.2.3 Minimal Requirement of Enthymemes
4.2.2.4 Illustration of Enthymeme
4.3 The Characteristics of Enthymeme
4.3.1 The Bases of Enthymemes
4.3.2 As Deductive Rhetorical Argument
4.3.3 Truncation
4.3.4 Probability.
4.3.5 Logical, Ethical and Emotional Appeals
4.3.6 Audience Involvement
4.4 Case Study -- David Duke’s Enthymeme.
4.4.1 Background of David Duke
4.4.2 The Content of Duke’s Speech
4.4.3 The Three-Step Enthymeme Construction
4.4.4 The Illustration of Duke’s Enthymeme
4.4.5 The Success of Duke’s Enthymeme
4.5 Summary
Chapter Five: Argumentation Scheme.
5.1 The Traditional Theories of Argumentation Schemes.
5.1.1 The Origin of Topics
5.1.2 Topics in Ancient Greece.
5.1.3 Topics in the Renaissance and 17th Century
5.2 The Modern Theories of Argumentation Schemes
5.2.1 Perelman on the Topics
5.2.2 Van Eemeren and Kruiger’s Topics
5.3 The Present Study’s Topics.
5.3.1 Topics of Reasoning: Logos Argumentation
5.3.2 Topics of Speaker: Ethos argumentation
5.3.3 Topics of Audience: Pathos Argumentation
5.4 Case Study 1-- Rhetorical Argumentation in Obama’s Shanghai Speech
5.4.1 Brief Introduction of Obama’s Shanghai Speech.
5.4.2 Construction of Rhetorical Argumentation
5.4.2.1 Logos Argumentation
Argumentation Based on Induction
Argumentation Based on Comparison
Argumentation Based on Causal Reasoning
Argumentation Based on Examples
5.4.2.2 Ethos Argumentation
Argumentation by Appealing to the Reputation of Oneself
Argumentation by Appealing to the Reputation a Third Person.
5.4.2.3 Pathos Argumentation
Argumentation by Appealing to Popularity and Mercy
5.5 Case study 2-- Rhetorical Argumentation in Obama’s Inaugural Address
5.5.1 Brief Introduction of Obama’s Inaugural Address
5.5.2 The Long-Neglected Rhetorical Argumentation
5.5.2.1 Ethos argumentation.
Argumentation by Appealing to the Reputation of Oneself
Argumentation by Appealing to the Reputation of a Third Person
Argumentation by Degrading the Reputation of a Third Person
5.5.2.2 Pathos Argumentation
Argumentation Based on Motives
Argumentation Based on Mercy
5.6 Summary
Chapter Six: Audience Perspective of Argumentation
6.1 Perelman’s Argumentation Theory.
6.1.1 Perelmanian Philosophy
6.1.2 The Framework of the New Rhetoric
6.1.2.1 Perelman’s Universal Audience
6.1.2.2 The Starting Points of Argumentation
6.1.2.3 Argument Techniques
6.1.3 Responses to Perelman and The New Rhetoric
6.2 Analysis of Perelman’s Argumentation Theory.
6.2.1 Analysis of Universal Audience
6.2.1.1 Rhetorical Element of Universal Audience
6.2.1.2 Epistemic Element of Universal Audience
6.2.1.3 Confusion of Universal audience
6.3 Construction of Aim-situation-oriented Audience of Argument
6.3.1 Category of Aim-oriented Audience
6.3.1.1 Aim of Argument
A.A rguing to Inquire
B.A rguing to Negotiate
C.A rguing to Persuade.
D.A rguing to Convince
6.3.2 Category of Situation-oriented Audience
6.3.2.1 The Rhetorical Situation.
A.A udience
B.E xigence
C.C onstraints
6.3.2.2 Contexts of Argument
A.P ersonal
B.111 terpersonal
C.P rofessional
D.P ublic.
6.4 Summary
Chapter Seven: Conclusion
7.1 Major Research Contributions
7.1.1 New Definition of Argumentation
7.1.2 The Three Key Pairs of Relation.
7.1.3 The Function of Argumentation Rhetorical Proof—Enthymeme
7.1.4 A New Category of Argumentation Schemes—Rhetorical Schemes
7.1.5 The New Argumentation Category of Aim-situation-oriented Audience
7.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
Appendix 1: Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address
Appendix 2: Barack Obama’s Shanghai Speech
Bibliography
【參考文獻(xiàn)】：
期刊論文
[1]從新修辭學(xué)論辯理論看英專(zhuān)學(xué)生邏輯思維特點(diǎn)[J]. 柴改英. 浙江工商大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào). 2009(02)
[2]英漢論辯語(yǔ)篇宏觀結(jié)構(gòu)及信息展開(kāi)模式對(duì)比修辭研究[J]. 夏莉. 鄭州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版). 2007(01)
[3]英漢論辯語(yǔ)篇信息闡釋責(zé)任及引用度對(duì)比研究[J]. 夏莉. 平原大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào). 2006(06)
[4]《翻譯質(zhì)量評(píng)估:論辯理論模式》評(píng)介[J]. 武光軍. 外語(yǔ)研究. 2006(04)
[5]英語(yǔ)閱讀教學(xué)中論辯類(lèi)篇章的篇章模式分析[J]. 洪明. 浙江師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào). 2005(03)
[6]修辭論辯與非形式邏輯[J]. 樊明明. 解放軍外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào). 2005(03)
[7]論辯理論在俄羅斯的研究現(xiàn)狀及評(píng)述[J]. 樊明明. 解放軍外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào). 2003(06)
[8]修辭三段論及其修辭運(yùn)作模式[J]. 鄧志勇. 外國(guó)語(yǔ)言文學(xué). 2003(01)
[9]論辯話(huà)語(yǔ)研究——Frans van Eemeren和Rob Grootendorst的理論簡(jiǎn)介[J]. 施旭. 外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究. 1992(03)
博士論文
[1]修辭批評(píng)新模式構(gòu)建研究[D]. 袁影.上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué) 2008
本文編號(hào)：2978452
【文章來(lái)源】：上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)上海市 211工程院校 教育部直屬院校
【文章頁(yè)數(shù)】：208 頁(yè)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【文章目錄】：
Acknowledgements
Abstract
摘要
List of Tables and Figures
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Trigger of the Present Study
1.1.1 Importance of Argumentation
1.1.2 Absence of Universally Accepted Theory
1.1.3 Insufficiency of Studies in China
1.1.4 Need of Argumentation Teaching
1.2 Purpose of the Present Study.
1.3 Methodology and Scope of the Present Study
1.4 Originality of the Present Study
1.5 Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter Two: Literature Review
2.1 Historical Background of Modern Argumentation Theory
2.2 Studies in Argumentation Theory Abroad
2.2.1 Rhetorical Approach
2.2.1.1 On The New Rhetoric
○n Audience Theory
○n Typology.
○n Fallacies
○n Legal Argumentation
○n More Topics.
2.2.1.2 On The Uses of Argument
○n Application of the Model.
○n Field-dependency
○n Informal Logic.
○n More Topics.
2.2.2 Pragma-dialectical Approach
2.2.3 Informal Logic Approach
2.2.4 Philosophical Approach
2.2.5 Linguistic Approach
2.3 Studies in Argumentation Theory in China
2.4 Summary
2.4.1 Confusion of Definitions and Argumentation Schemes
2.4.2 Isolation from Context and Cultural Situation
2.4.3 Less Attention to the Refinement of Toulmin’s Schema
Chapter Three: Argumentation: Definition & Related Disciplines
3.1 Definition of Argumentation
3.1.1 Different Views of Definitions
3.1.2 Analysis of Different Definitions
3.1.3 The Present Study’s Definition
3.2 Logos, Ethos and Pathos
3.2.1 Logos
3.2.2 Ethos
3.2.3 Pathos
3.3 Basic Concepts of Argumentation
3.3.1 Agents Involved in Argumentation
3.3.2 Information Involved in Argumentation
3.3.3 Two Forms of Argumentation.
3.4 Related Disciplines
3.4.1 Logic
3.4.2 Rhetoric
3.4.2.1 Five Components
3.4.2.2 Persuasion
3.4.3 Informal Logic
3.4.3.1 Definition and Research Issues of Informal Logic.
3.4.3.2 Characteristics of Informal Logic
3.4.3.3 Informal logic and Critical Thinking.
3.5 Summary
Chapter Four: Argumentation Rhetorical Proof—Enthymeme
4.1 The Importance of Enthymeme
4.2 The Definition of Enthymeme
4.2.1 Conceptions of the Enthymeme
4.2.1.1 Baldwin’s Conception
4.2.1.2 Lane Cooper’s Conception.
4.2.1.3 MaBurney’s & Madden’s Conception
4.2.1.4 Bitzer’s Conception.
4.2.1.5 Bumyeat’s & Copi and Cohen’s Conception
4.2.1.6 Other Definitions
4.2.2 The Present Study’s Definition
4.2.2.1 The Definition of Enthymeme
4.2.2.2 Normal Syllogism
4.2.2.3 Minimal Requirement of Enthymemes
4.2.2.4 Illustration of Enthymeme
4.3 The Characteristics of Enthymeme
4.3.1 The Bases of Enthymemes
4.3.2 As Deductive Rhetorical Argument
4.3.3 Truncation
4.3.4 Probability.
4.3.5 Logical, Ethical and Emotional Appeals
4.3.6 Audience Involvement
4.4 Case Study -- David Duke’s Enthymeme.
4.4.1 Background of David Duke
4.4.2 The Content of Duke’s Speech
4.4.3 The Three-Step Enthymeme Construction
4.4.4 The Illustration of Duke’s Enthymeme
4.4.5 The Success of Duke’s Enthymeme
4.5 Summary
Chapter Five: Argumentation Scheme.
5.1 The Traditional Theories of Argumentation Schemes.
5.1.1 The Origin of Topics
5.1.2 Topics in Ancient Greece.
5.1.3 Topics in the Renaissance and 17th Century
5.2 The Modern Theories of Argumentation Schemes
5.2.1 Perelman on the Topics
5.2.2 Van Eemeren and Kruiger’s Topics
5.3 The Present Study’s Topics.
5.3.1 Topics of Reasoning: Logos Argumentation
5.3.2 Topics of Speaker: Ethos argumentation
5.3.3 Topics of Audience: Pathos Argumentation
5.4 Case Study 1-- Rhetorical Argumentation in Obama’s Shanghai Speech
5.4.1 Brief Introduction of Obama’s Shanghai Speech.
5.4.2 Construction of Rhetorical Argumentation
5.4.2.1 Logos Argumentation
Argumentation Based on Induction
Argumentation Based on Comparison
Argumentation Based on Causal Reasoning
Argumentation Based on Examples
5.4.2.2 Ethos Argumentation
Argumentation by Appealing to the Reputation of Oneself
Argumentation by Appealing to the Reputation a Third Person.
5.4.2.3 Pathos Argumentation
Argumentation by Appealing to Popularity and Mercy
5.5 Case study 2-- Rhetorical Argumentation in Obama’s Inaugural Address
5.5.1 Brief Introduction of Obama’s Inaugural Address
5.5.2 The Long-Neglected Rhetorical Argumentation
5.5.2.1 Ethos argumentation.
Argumentation by Appealing to the Reputation of Oneself
Argumentation by Appealing to the Reputation of a Third Person
Argumentation by Degrading the Reputation of a Third Person
5.5.2.2 Pathos Argumentation
Argumentation Based on Motives
Argumentation Based on Mercy
5.6 Summary
Chapter Six: Audience Perspective of Argumentation
6.1 Perelman’s Argumentation Theory.
6.1.1 Perelmanian Philosophy
6.1.2 The Framework of the New Rhetoric
6.1.2.1 Perelman’s Universal Audience
6.1.2.2 The Starting Points of Argumentation
6.1.2.3 Argument Techniques
6.1.3 Responses to Perelman and The New Rhetoric
6.2 Analysis of Perelman’s Argumentation Theory.
6.2.1 Analysis of Universal Audience
6.2.1.1 Rhetorical Element of Universal Audience
6.2.1.2 Epistemic Element of Universal Audience
6.2.1.3 Confusion of Universal audience
6.3 Construction of Aim-situation-oriented Audience of Argument
6.3.1 Category of Aim-oriented Audience
6.3.1.1 Aim of Argument
A.A rguing to Inquire
B.A rguing to Negotiate
C.A rguing to Persuade.
D.A rguing to Convince
6.3.2 Category of Situation-oriented Audience
6.3.2.1 The Rhetorical Situation.
A.A udience
B.E xigence
C.C onstraints
6.3.2.2 Contexts of Argument
A.P ersonal
B.111 terpersonal
C.P rofessional
D.P ublic.
6.4 Summary
Chapter Seven: Conclusion
7.1 Major Research Contributions
7.1.1 New Definition of Argumentation
7.1.2 The Three Key Pairs of Relation.
7.1.3 The Function of Argumentation Rhetorical Proof—Enthymeme
7.1.4 A New Category of Argumentation Schemes—Rhetorical Schemes
7.1.5 The New Argumentation Category of Aim-situation-oriented Audience
7.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
Appendix 1: Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address
Appendix 2: Barack Obama’s Shanghai Speech
Bibliography
【參考文獻(xiàn)】：
期刊論文
[1]從新修辭學(xué)論辯理論看英專(zhuān)學(xué)生邏輯思維特點(diǎn)[J]. 柴改英. 浙江工商大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào). 2009(02)
[2]英漢論辯語(yǔ)篇宏觀結(jié)構(gòu)及信息展開(kāi)模式對(duì)比修辭研究[J]. 夏莉. 鄭州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版). 2007(01)
[3]英漢論辯語(yǔ)篇信息闡釋責(zé)任及引用度對(duì)比研究[J]. 夏莉. 平原大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào). 2006(06)
[4]《翻譯質(zhì)量評(píng)估:論辯理論模式》評(píng)介[J]. 武光軍. 外語(yǔ)研究. 2006(04)
[5]英語(yǔ)閱讀教學(xué)中論辯類(lèi)篇章的篇章模式分析[J]. 洪明. 浙江師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào). 2005(03)
[6]修辭論辯與非形式邏輯[J]. 樊明明. 解放軍外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào). 2005(03)
[7]論辯理論在俄羅斯的研究現(xiàn)狀及評(píng)述[J]. 樊明明. 解放軍外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào). 2003(06)
[8]修辭三段論及其修辭運(yùn)作模式[J]. 鄧志勇. 外國(guó)語(yǔ)言文學(xué). 2003(01)
[9]論辯話(huà)語(yǔ)研究——Frans van Eemeren和Rob Grootendorst的理論簡(jiǎn)介[J]. 施旭. 外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究. 1992(03)
博士論文
[1]修辭批評(píng)新模式構(gòu)建研究[D]. 袁影.上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué) 2008
本文編號(hào)：2978452
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/wenyilunwen/yuyanxuelw/2978452.html
最近更新
教材專(zhuān)著
