修辞批评新模式构建研究
|
摘要
现代修辞批评自维切恩斯《演讲的文学批评》(1925)发表以来,在西方修辞学界广受重视,取得了引人注目的成果,已成为当代修辞学研究领域里的一大中心。目前我国在这一方向上的著述还十分稀少并且明显滞后,还未出现对修辞批评所作的系统性研究。而西方修辞批评研究中有相当一些批评模式或存在修辞本位不清,或范畴笼统、所指不明,或适用范围小等情况。鉴于国内外在这一领域的研究现状,本文通过聚焦于修辞批评的模式研究对修辞批评进行系统探索,以推进其本位性、可操作性以及适用性,并努力构建一个符合此三种条件、适于分析多种语篇类型的修辞批评新模式。
本项研究重点参考质的研究方法,研究手段采用以语言为主附加文字图表的描述性分析,通过层层论证,以严谨的逻辑性获取效度。修辞批评新模式的应用分析依据质的研究中目的性抽样原则下的具体策略,从五种语体中分别选取两个代表性语篇来验证所构模式的可操作性和适用性。此外,本研究还吸收了哲学(尤其是逻辑学)、语言学(语法学、语义学及语用学)、心理学(社会心理学)等学科中的相关原理和方法。而对修辞理论的借鉴,本课题始终以西方古典修辞学为基石,以当代修辞学研究为走向,以中国修辞学相关成果为参照,各项论证倚重一手资料,在吸收与反驳、继承与创新并举中不断推进研究的深入。
在构建和应用修辞批评新模式的过程中,本研究在以下几个方面作出了有意义的推进:1)合理界定了关键术语“修辞批评”;2)明确了修辞批评的本位功能;3)首次对五个具有代表性的西方修辞批评模式进行了多维度的综合对比研究,揭示了各自存在的主要问题;4)在严实论证的基础上构建了一个范畴围绕策略(本位鲜明)、范畴间关系明确、范畴内部层层细化(操作性强)的修辞批评新模式;5)通过对广告、新闻、演讲、公文及科学五种语体中的十个语篇的详尽分析和评价验证了修辞批评新模式的广泛适用性、可操作性和解释力。此外,本研究对颇具争议的修辞批评对象、修辞批评的过程步骤,以及对“修辞发明”、“争议点”、“修辞推论”等概念的辨析,在比较和论证的基础上都提出了自己具有一定创新意义的观点。本项研究最主要的创新体现在通过重新界定和分层细化两大途径丰富和发展了修辞学研究中一些不可或缺的核心概念,使其由原先的模糊笼统而变得清晰具体,如对“修辞批评”和“修辞情景”所作的合理化新界定以及对所创模式中“修辞发明”、“文体”和“修辞情景”三个范畴的多层细化。在应用分析中本文将“修辞发明”下的争议点和修辞推论相结合,并将“文体”与此两要素相联系来评断其得体性与清晰性,突破了已有修辞批评分析中的单一维度或隔离状况。
该项系统研究将有助于确立修辞批评在我国语篇分析众多方法中不可或缺的地位,展现其独特的解释力和理论价值。围绕模式的本位性、可操作性和适用性所作的探索可为已有修辞批评模式的改进和新模式的构建提供理论参照。本研究还将为语篇分析和写作教学提供直接可行的方法,对演讲、广告设计等实践性领域也具有启发和指导作用。
Rhetorical criticism (RC) has become the central activity in contemporary Western rhetoric since Herbert Wichelns published in 1925“The Literary Criticism of Oratory”. In the last few decades, an increasing number of articles and works have appeared, probing RC theoretically or applying its various models to the areas of politics, religion, science, etc. However, according to the survey of the major models, there exist the problems of rhetorical distinction, of easy operation, of wide applicability. As to the case in China, the term of“rhetorical criticism”still sounds exotic to the majority of researchers, and lacks a systematic study. This project, therefore, will conduct a systematic inquiry into RC by focusing on its model, with the aim of promoting rhetoricity, operativity, and applicability, by proposing a new RC model which satisfies all three qualities.
This investigation primarily adopts a qualitative research method, progressing logically with verbal description assisted by tables and diagrams where necessary; its principle of criterion sampling has been employed in selecting representative texts from different genres for the application of the new model. In addition, this study takes in related theories from philosophy (logic, esp.), linguistics (syntax, semantics, pragmatics) and psychology (social psychology) as its methodological tools. As to the rhetorical theory itself, the exploration is based upon classical Western rhetoric, supported by its contemporary research, and related Chinese works; the discussions mainly rely on first-hand sources to guarantee validity; and the whole project progresses, soundly, in the process of digestion and creation.
The present research makes contributions to the following aspects: 1) redefining properly the key term of“rhetorical criticism”; 2) clarifying the essential function of RC; 3) systematically contrasting five major RC models and revealing their respective limitations; 4) justifying a new RC model with distinct rhetoricity, easy operativity and wide applicability; 5) applying successfully the new RC model to the interpretation and evaluation of ten discourses from advertisement, news reporting, speech, business letter and academic writing. Moreover, upon comparison and demonstration, answers to the controvertial object of RC and procedure steps of RC have been suggested; and new light has been thrown on comprehending conceptions of“invention”,“stasis”,“enthymeme”, etc. The originality of this inquiry lies chiefly in redefining the crucial concepts, such as“rhetorical criticism”,“rhetorical situation”, and in extracting convincingly elements and subelements from the categories of“invention”,“style”and“rhetorical situation”(which constitute the new RC model), so that those former vague terms turn out to be clear, concrete and applicable. Also manifest is the originality in the analysis of the discourses with the new RC model. Here, not only is stasis combined with enthymeme in interpreting“invention”strategy, but propriety and clarity of“style”are judged upon stasis or enthymeme, overcoming the former single dimension or category isolated criticism.
With the newly constructed RC model and its application, this study shows RC’s unique interpretation which may help establish, in China, RC’s indispensable position in discourse analysis. It is envisaged that the exploration of RC’s rhetoricity, operativity and applicability may provide theoretical reference for the improvement of existing RC models and for the construction of further new RC models. The findings will also serve as feasible methods in both discourse analysis and composition teaching, and may offer instructions for other applied areas such as speech making and advertisement designing.
本项研究重点参考质的研究方法,研究手段采用以语言为主附加文字图表的描述性分析,通过层层论证,以严谨的逻辑性获取效度。修辞批评新模式的应用分析依据质的研究中目的性抽样原则下的具体策略,从五种语体中分别选取两个代表性语篇来验证所构模式的可操作性和适用性。此外,本研究还吸收了哲学(尤其是逻辑学)、语言学(语法学、语义学及语用学)、心理学(社会心理学)等学科中的相关原理和方法。而对修辞理论的借鉴,本课题始终以西方古典修辞学为基石,以当代修辞学研究为走向,以中国修辞学相关成果为参照,各项论证倚重一手资料,在吸收与反驳、继承与创新并举中不断推进研究的深入。
在构建和应用修辞批评新模式的过程中,本研究在以下几个方面作出了有意义的推进:1)合理界定了关键术语“修辞批评”;2)明确了修辞批评的本位功能;3)首次对五个具有代表性的西方修辞批评模式进行了多维度的综合对比研究,揭示了各自存在的主要问题;4)在严实论证的基础上构建了一个范畴围绕策略(本位鲜明)、范畴间关系明确、范畴内部层层细化(操作性强)的修辞批评新模式;5)通过对广告、新闻、演讲、公文及科学五种语体中的十个语篇的详尽分析和评价验证了修辞批评新模式的广泛适用性、可操作性和解释力。此外,本研究对颇具争议的修辞批评对象、修辞批评的过程步骤,以及对“修辞发明”、“争议点”、“修辞推论”等概念的辨析,在比较和论证的基础上都提出了自己具有一定创新意义的观点。本项研究最主要的创新体现在通过重新界定和分层细化两大途径丰富和发展了修辞学研究中一些不可或缺的核心概念,使其由原先的模糊笼统而变得清晰具体,如对“修辞批评”和“修辞情景”所作的合理化新界定以及对所创模式中“修辞发明”、“文体”和“修辞情景”三个范畴的多层细化。在应用分析中本文将“修辞发明”下的争议点和修辞推论相结合,并将“文体”与此两要素相联系来评断其得体性与清晰性,突破了已有修辞批评分析中的单一维度或隔离状况。
该项系统研究将有助于确立修辞批评在我国语篇分析众多方法中不可或缺的地位,展现其独特的解释力和理论价值。围绕模式的本位性、可操作性和适用性所作的探索可为已有修辞批评模式的改进和新模式的构建提供理论参照。本研究还将为语篇分析和写作教学提供直接可行的方法,对演讲、广告设计等实践性领域也具有启发和指导作用。
Rhetorical criticism (RC) has become the central activity in contemporary Western rhetoric since Herbert Wichelns published in 1925“The Literary Criticism of Oratory”. In the last few decades, an increasing number of articles and works have appeared, probing RC theoretically or applying its various models to the areas of politics, religion, science, etc. However, according to the survey of the major models, there exist the problems of rhetorical distinction, of easy operation, of wide applicability. As to the case in China, the term of“rhetorical criticism”still sounds exotic to the majority of researchers, and lacks a systematic study. This project, therefore, will conduct a systematic inquiry into RC by focusing on its model, with the aim of promoting rhetoricity, operativity, and applicability, by proposing a new RC model which satisfies all three qualities.
This investigation primarily adopts a qualitative research method, progressing logically with verbal description assisted by tables and diagrams where necessary; its principle of criterion sampling has been employed in selecting representative texts from different genres for the application of the new model. In addition, this study takes in related theories from philosophy (logic, esp.), linguistics (syntax, semantics, pragmatics) and psychology (social psychology) as its methodological tools. As to the rhetorical theory itself, the exploration is based upon classical Western rhetoric, supported by its contemporary research, and related Chinese works; the discussions mainly rely on first-hand sources to guarantee validity; and the whole project progresses, soundly, in the process of digestion and creation.
The present research makes contributions to the following aspects: 1) redefining properly the key term of“rhetorical criticism”; 2) clarifying the essential function of RC; 3) systematically contrasting five major RC models and revealing their respective limitations; 4) justifying a new RC model with distinct rhetoricity, easy operativity and wide applicability; 5) applying successfully the new RC model to the interpretation and evaluation of ten discourses from advertisement, news reporting, speech, business letter and academic writing. Moreover, upon comparison and demonstration, answers to the controvertial object of RC and procedure steps of RC have been suggested; and new light has been thrown on comprehending conceptions of“invention”,“stasis”,“enthymeme”, etc. The originality of this inquiry lies chiefly in redefining the crucial concepts, such as“rhetorical criticism”,“rhetorical situation”, and in extracting convincingly elements and subelements from the categories of“invention”,“style”and“rhetorical situation”(which constitute the new RC model), so that those former vague terms turn out to be clear, concrete and applicable. Also manifest is the originality in the analysis of the discourses with the new RC model. Here, not only is stasis combined with enthymeme in interpreting“invention”strategy, but propriety and clarity of“style”are judged upon stasis or enthymeme, overcoming the former single dimension or category isolated criticism.
With the newly constructed RC model and its application, this study shows RC’s unique interpretation which may help establish, in China, RC’s indispensable position in discourse analysis. It is envisaged that the exploration of RC’s rhetoricity, operativity and applicability may provide theoretical reference for the improvement of existing RC models and for the construction of further new RC models. The findings will also serve as feasible methods in both discourse analysis and composition teaching, and may offer instructions for other applied areas such as speech making and advertisement designing.
引文
①参见《爱因斯坦文集》,许良英等编译,商务印书馆,1976-1979年版。此处引自周昌忠《西方科学方法论史》,1986: 233。
①关于西塞罗、昆提利安与修辞批评的关系受启于温科学《20世纪西方修辞学理论研究》2006: 106-107。
①根据书封底上Angela G. Ray(Northwestern University)的评价。原文为:”It is the best and most comprehensive collection of the major essays in rhetorical criticism currently available.”
②根据2004版本书末上其出版社Waveland Press, Inc.的介绍。
③此信息来自2007年末莱夫教授与本文作者的通信及寄来的他所开设的修辞批评课程说明。
④Murphy, James选编的这个查寻手册收集了1979年以前有关修辞学及修辞批评的博士论文共443篇。
①常昌富原译为布拉克《修辞学批评:方法之研究》,本文认为不够准确,故对人名及书名的翻译作了修改。原名为:Black, Edwin. Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method (1978)。
①胡曙中先生据多种定义概括,出自其《英语语篇语言学研究》,2005年第5页。
①《斐德若篇》中多处提到定义的重要性及功能,见朱光潜译柏拉图《文艺对话集》(1963),第106, 152, 173页。
②定义的方法,在Robinson(1954)及Harris & Hutton(2007)中提到八种:1.同义词定义法(Synonymous def.),2.分析定义法(Analytic def.),3.综合定义法(Synthetic def.),4.描述定义法(Descriptive def.),5.含义定义法(Implicative def.),6.外延定义法(Denotative def.),7.实
①《斐德若篇》中多处提到定义的重要性及功能,见朱光潜译柏拉图《文艺对话集》(1963),第106, 152, 173页。
②定义的方法,在Robinson(1954)及Harris & Hutton(2007)中提到八种:1.同义词定义法(Synonymous def.),2.分析定义法(Analytic def.),3.综合定义法(Synthetic def.),4.描述定义法(Descriptive def.),5.含义定义法(Implicative def.),6.外延定义法(Denotative def.),7.实
①原文:That art or talent by which the discourse is adapted to its end;自坎贝尔The Philosophy of Rhetoric,1969,P.1。
①原文:the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols, P. 43。
②原文:the process by which symbols and systems of symbols have influence upon beliefs, values, attitudes, and actions;本文作者未有The Prospect of Rhetoric一书,感谢刘亚猛教授提供原文。而所用译文取自其《当代西方修辞学科建设:迷惘与希望》(2004)一文。
①对应的英文:the strategy applying process by which systems of symbols have influence upon beliefs, attitudes, actions, etc.
①原文:the systematic process of illuminating and evaluating products of human activity, P. 4.
①原文:the analysis and appreciation of the orator’s method of imparting his ideas to his hearers,出自Benson, Thomas编Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism(1993: 26)。
②原文:the act of rendering analytical, interpretive and evaluative judgments about specific instances of informative and persuasive discourse—spoken and written,(1968: iii)。
③原文:Rhetorical criticism is the description, analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of persuasive uses of language,取自胡曙中教授英文版《英语修辞学》,(2002: 330)。
④原文:Rhetorical criticism examines imaginative works as“strategic”and“stylized”answers to“questions posed by the situation in which it arose”,来自Colleran, Jeanne Marie,1988年的博士论文“The Dissenting Writer in South Africa: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Drama of Athol Fugard and the Short Fiction of Nadine Gordimer”。
①原文为:a qualitative research method that is designed for the systematic investigation and explanation of symbolic acts and artifacts for the purpose of understanding rhetorical processes,2004,第6页。
①此处综合了从莱庭,徐鲁亚主编《西方修辞学》(2007)中的相关介绍以及常昌富《导论:当代修辞学批评模式概述》(1998)文中的译介。
①在下一章建构的新模式中style译为“文体”,并作了说明;此处及此章其余处用“风格”主要是为了与《当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评》中傅玢玢的原译保持一致。
②参见温科学《二十世纪美国修辞批评体系》一文,《修辞学习》1999, (5)。
③参见肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富、顾宝桐译《当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评》一书中常昌富所写《导论:20世纪修辞学概述》第14页。
①参见福斯《修辞批评:探索与实践》(2004),158页。
①参见卡尔?波普尔《客观知识》,上海译文出版社,1987;及袁影《论语言哲学知识的猜测与反驳》,《山东外语教学》2006,(6)。
①受启发于王德春,陈汝东文“话语角色认知的修辞价值”,《扬州大学学报》,1998,(4)。
①“觅材(取材)”译名出现于胡曙中、邓志勇、陈汝东等的著述中,“修辞发明”出现于刘亚猛的《追求象征的力量》(2004),“构思”出现于常昌富《导论:当代修辞学批评模式概述》(1998)及顾宝桐译Donald Bryant《修辞学:功能与范围》(1998),而“创作”译名则出现于蓝王海霞“古典儒学与西方修辞学”(2006)一文。
②英文为:Invention is the discovery of valid or seemingly valid arguments to render one’s cause plausible.出自H. M. Hubbell英译本,1949:19。
①原文为:Invention is the art of discovering new arguments and uncovering new things by argument….[It] extends from the construction of formal arguments to all modes of enlarging experience by reason as manifested in awareness, emotion, interest, and appreciation.(Jasinski 2001: 327)。
②刘亚猛教授曾在美国近二十年,专门研究西方修辞学,因此他对这一概念的理解也具有重要的参考价值。
①参见威弗最著名的论文“语言是说教的”(”Language Is Sermonic”),Bizzell and Herzberg 1990: 1044-1054。
②此第四版为科贝特与考纳斯(Connors, Robert J.)联合修定。
③原文为:an amorphous and unwieldy concept,“Rhetorical Theory in Speech Communication”(1985),间接引自Jasinski, Sourcebook on Rhetoric, 2001: 327。
④参见黑格尔《小逻辑》1980: 334, 331和《法哲学原理》1961: 39。此处引用为周昌忠著《西方科学方法论史》1986第213、212页上的概述。
①亚氏在第二卷最后一章中有此论断,原文为:By‘an element of enthymeme’I mean the same thing as‘a line of enthymematic argument’, 1954: 163。其中后一个单引号中的部分指的就是部目,另可参见第一卷第二章,30-31页。
②或然式证明的核心为逻辑论证,而逻辑论证之核心为修辞推论,参见5.3.4.1。
①前一种界定出自Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, Speech Criticism (New York, 1948), p.93;后一种界定出自Harry Caplan, translator, Rhetorica ad Herennium (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), p.18, note。文中译自Benson and Prosser, Readings in Classical Rhetoric, Hermagoras Press, 1988: 143。
②“争议点”译名作者最初是从刘亚猛教授《追求象征的力量》(2004)中看到的,参见该书第61页。顾宝桐博士在唐纳德?布赖恩特(Donald Bryant)《修辞学:功能与范围》一文中将之译为“核心原理”,见《当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评》1998: 106,两译名比较,本文认为“争议点”更切合,故取刘译。
①英文为:Metaphor, moreover, gives style clearness, charm, and distinction as nothing else can,Aristotle 1954: 168。
②英文为:(It must also be)appropriate, avoiding both meanness and undue elevation。出自Roberts英译本1954年,第167页。译文中“平凡”一词取自罗念生汉译本1991年第150页。
①混合语体受启发于韩荔华在中国修辞学会2007年国际学术研讨会上的发言。
②此分类综合参考了胡曙中2005、王德春等2000、王佐良等1987书中的语体分类。
①据Patton, M. Q.《质的评估和研究方法》1990:169,转引自陈向明,2000:103。
①原文:a figure of speech, in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of the contrary,徐鹏1996: 545。
①参见宗廷虎主编高万云著《20世纪中国修辞学》(下卷),2008:636。
Aden, Roger C.“The Enthymeme as Postmodern Argument Form: Condensed, Mediated Argument Then and Now”[J]. Argumentation and Advocacy 31. 2 (1994): 54-63.
Andrews, James R. The Practice of Rhetorical Criticism[M]. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1983.
Aristotle. Rhetoric[M]. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. New York: Random House, 1954.
Ball-Stahl, Kelly C.“Environmental Values in American Popular-Culture Narratives”[D]. Diss. U of Minnesota, 2005.
Benoit, William.“Generic Rhetorical Criticism”[A]. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism[C]. Ed. Kuypers, Jim A. Boston: Pearson Education, 2005. 85-106.
Bensel-Meyers, L. Rhetoric for Academic Reasoning[M]. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992.
Benson, Thomas W., ed. Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism[C]. California: Hermagoras Press, 1993.
Benson, Thomas W., and Michael H. Prosser, eds. Readings in Classical Rhetoric[C]. California: Hermagoras Press, 1988.
Berkowitz, Sandra.“Originality, Conversation and Reviewing Rhetorical Criticism”[J]. Communication Studies 54. 3 (2003): 359-363.
Biesecker, Barbara A.“Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation from Within the Thematic of Differance”[J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric 22. 2 (1989): 110-130.
Bitzer, Lloyd.“The Rhetorical Situation”[A]. Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric: Selected Readings[C]. Ed. Johannesen, Richard L. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. 381-393.
Bitzer, Lloyd.“Functional Communication: A Situational Perspective”[A]. Rhetoric in Transition: Studies in the Nature and Uses of Rhetoric[C]. Ed. White, E. State College, PN: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1980. 21-38.
Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg, eds. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present[C]. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press, 1990.
Black, Edwin.“On Objectivity and Politics in Criticism”[A]. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism[C]. Ed. Kuypers, Jim A. Boston: Pearson Education, 2005. 28-32.
Black, Edwin. Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method[M]. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978.
Blankenship, Jane, and Hermann G. Stelzner, eds. Rhetoric and Communication: Studies in the University of Illinois Tradition[C]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976.
Brock, Bernard L., Robert L. Scott, and James W. Chesebro, eds. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-century Perspective[C]. 3d ed. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990.
Brockriede, Wayne.“Rhetorical Criticism as Argument”[J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech 60. 2 (1974): 165-174.
Browne, Stephen H.“Rhetorical Criticism and the Challenges of Bilateral Argument”[J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric 40. 1 (2007): 108-118.
Brugidou, Mathieu.“Argumentation and Values: An Analysis of Ordinary Political Competence via an Open-ended Question”[J]. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 15.4 (2003): 413-430.
Burgchardt, Carl R., ed. Readings in Rhetorical Criticism[C]. State College, Penn: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2005.
Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
Campbell, George. The Philosophy of Rhetoric[M]. London : Feffer and Simons, 1969.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs.“Stanton’s‘The Solitude of Self’: A Rationale for Feminism”[A]. Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism[C]. Ed. Benson, Thomas W. California: Hermagoras Press, 1993. 189-199.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson.“Introduction to Form and Genre”[A]. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-century Perspective[C]. Ed. Brock, Bernard L., Robert L. Scott, and James W. Chesebro. 3d ed. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990. 331-342.
Carter, Judith L.“The Rhetoric of Persuasion in Selected Works of Mary Austin”[D]. Diss. Texas Woman's U, 2001.
Ceccarelli, Leah.“Rhetorical Criticism and the Rhetoric of Science”[J]. Western Journal of Communication 65. 3 (2001): 314-329.
Cicero. De Inventione, De Optimo Genere Oratorum, Topica[M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1949.
Cockcroft, Robert, and Susan M. Cockcroft. Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric[M]. London: The Macmillan Press, 1992.
Coe, Richard, Lorelei Lingard, and Tatiana Teslenko, eds. The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change[C]. Cresskill: Hampton Press, 2002.
Colleran, Jeanne Marie.“The Dissenting Writer in South Africa: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Drama of Athol Fugard and the Short Fiction of Nadine Gordimer”[D]. Diss. The Ohio State U, 1988.
Conley, Thomas M. Rhetoric in the European Tradition[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990.
Connor, Ulla. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language Writing[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Connors, Robert J., Lisa S. Ede, and Andrea A. Lunsford, eds. Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse[C]. Southern Illinois: Southern Illinois University, 1984.
Corbett, Edward. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students[M]. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.
D’Angelo, Frank J. A Conceptual Theory of Rhetoric[M]. Cambridge: Winthrop Publishers, 1975.
D’Angelo, Frank J.“The Evolution of the Analytic Topoi: A Speculative Inquiry”[A]. Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse[C]. Ed. Connors, Robert J., Lisa S. Ede, and Andrea A. Lunsford. Southern Illinois: Southern Illinois University, 1984. 50-68.
D’Angelo, Frank J.“Paradigms as Structural Counterparts of Topoi”[A]. Linguistics, Stylistics, and the Teaching of Composition[C]. Ed. Mcquade, Donald. Akron: University of Akron, 1979. 41-51.
Dearin, Ray D.“The Fourth Stasis in Greek Rhetoric”[A]. Rhetoric and Communication: Studies in the University of Illinois Tradition[C]. Ed. Blankenship, Jane, and Hermann G. Stelzner. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976. 3-16.
Dyck, Ed.“Topos and Enthymeme”[J]. Rhetorica 20. 2 (2002): 105-117.
Finnegan, Cara A.“The Naturalistic Enthymeme and Visual Argument: Photographic Representation in the‘Skull Controversy’”[J]. Argumentation and Advocacy 37.3 (2001): 133-149.
Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric[M]. Illinois: Waveland Press, 1985.
Foss, Sonja K.“Rhetorical Criticism as the Asking of Questions”[J]. Communication Education 38. 3 (1989): 191.
Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice[C]. Long Grove: Waveland Press, 2004.
Green, Lawrence D.“Aristotle’s Enthymeme and the Imperfect Syllogism”[A]. Rhetoric and Pedagogy: Its History, Philosophy and Practice[C]. Ed. Horner, Winifred Bryan, and Michael Leff. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1995. 19-42.
Gregory, Michael, and Susanne Carroll. Language and Situation: Language Varieties and Their Social Contexts[M]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1978.
Grice, H. P.“Logic and Conversation”[A]. Selected Readings for Pragmatics[C]. Ed. He, Zhaoxiong(何兆熊). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2003. 365-388.
Guralnik, David B., ed. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language[Z]. Cleveland: William Collins Publishers, Inc., 1980.
Gustainis, J. Justin.“The Generic Criticism of Social Movement Rhetoric”[J]. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 12. 4 (1982): 251-260.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Harris, Roy, and Christopher Hutton. Definition in Theory and Practice[M]. London: Continuum, 2007. Hart, Roderick P., and Suzanne M. Daughton. Modern Rhetorical Criticism[M]. Boston: Pearson Education, 2005 (Third Edition).
Hartwell, P., and H. Bentley. Open to Language: A New College Rhetoric[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Hauser, Gerard A. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory[M]. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1986.
Heath, Malcolm. Manander: A Rhetor in Context[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Hendrix, J. A. and Jerome B. Polisky, eds. Rhetorical Criticism: Methods and Models[C]. Iowa: WM. C. Brown Book Company, 1968.
Henry, David.“Forum: Text, Theory, and the Rhetorical Critic--Text and Theory in Critical Practice”[J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech 78. 2 (1992): 219-222.
Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction[M]. Boston: Pearson Education, 2005.
Hill, Forbes.“Conventional Wisdom--Traditional Form--The President’s Message of November 3, 1969”[A]. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice[C]. Ed. Foss, Sonja K. Long Grove:Waveland Press, 2004. 35-48.
Hohmann, H.“The Dynamics of Stasis: Classical Rhetorical Theory and Modern Legal Argumentation”[J]. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 34 (1989): 171-197.
Holloway, Paul A.“The Enthymeme as an Element of Style in Paul”[J]. Journal of Biblical Literature, 120. 2 (2001): 329-339.
Hunt, Steven B.“An Essay on Publishing Standards for Rhetorical Criticism”[J]. Communication Studies 54. 3 (2003): 378-384.
Hunter, Lynette. Rhetorical Stance in Modern Literature[M]. London: The Macmillan Press LTD, 1984. Hurley, Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic[M]. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1985.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, Erika Falk, and Susan Sherr.“The Enthymeme Gap in the 1996 Presidential Campaign”[J]. Political Science & Politics. 32.1(1999): 12-17.
Jasinski, James.“The Status of Theory and Method in Rhetorical Criticism”[J]. Western Journal of Communication 65. 3 (2001): 249-270.
Jasinski, James. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies[Z]. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2001.
Kant, Immanuel. Lectures on Logic[M]. Trans. and ed. J. Michael Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Kennedy, George. The Art of Persuasion in Greece[M]. Princeton: Princeton University press, 1963. Kennedy, George. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World[M]. Princeton: Princeton University press, 1972.
Kent, Thomas. Paralogic Rhetoric: A Theory of Communicative Interaction[M]. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1993.
Kolln, Martha. Rhetorical Grammar[M]. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.
Kuypers, Jim A., ed. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism[C]. Boston: Pearson Education, 2005.
Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987.
Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar vol. II: Descriptive Application[M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991.
Layman, C. Stephen. The Power of Logic[M]. Boston: The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002.
Lauer, Janice M.“Issues in Rhetorical Invention”[A]. Essays on Classical Rhetoric and ModernDiscourse[C]. Ed. Connors, Robert J., Lisa S. Ede, and Andrea A. Lunsford. Southern Illinois: Southern Illinois University, 1984. 127-139.
Leroux, Neil R.“Perceiving Rhetorical Style: Toward a Framework for Criticism”[J]. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 22. 4 (1992): 49-64.
Mcquade, Donald, ed. Linguistics, Stylistics, and the Teaching of Composition[C]. Akron: University of Akron, 1979.
Mitchell, Innes W. R.“Margaret Thatcher's America: Cultural Rhetorical Criticism”[D]. Diss. U of Kansas, 1997.
Moran, Michael G. and Michelle Ballif, eds. Twentieth-century Rhetorics and Rhetoricians[C]. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2000.
Nudd, Donna M. and Kristina L. Schriver.“Feminist Analysis”[A]. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism[C]. Ed. Kuypers, Jim A. Boston: Pearson Education, 2005. 270-304.
Palczewski, Catherine H.“What Is‘Good Criticism’? A Conversation in Progress”[J]. Communication Studies 54. 3 (2003): 385-391.
Perelman, CH. The Realm of Rhetoric[M]. trans. by William Kluback. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982.
Perelman, CH. The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications[M]. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1979.
Perelman, CH. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation[M]. trans. by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.
Pierce, Dann L. Rhetorical Criticism and Theory in Practice[M]. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 2003.
Prelli, Lawrence J. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse[M]. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1989.
Raymond, James C.“Enthymemes, Examples, and Rhetorical Method”[A]. Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse[C]. Ed. Connors, Robert J., Lisa S. Ede, and Andrea A. Lunsford. Southern Illinois: Southern Illinois University, 1984. 140-151.
Robinson, R. Definition[M]. Oxford: Clarendon, 1954.
Rosenfield, Lawrence W.“The Anatomy of Critical Discourse”[J]. Speech Monographs 35. 1 (1968): 50-69.
Rybacki, Karyn and Donald Rybacki. Communication Criticism: Approaches and Genres[M]. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1991.
Scott, Robert L.“Focusing Rhetorical Criticism”[J]. Communication Education 33. 2 (1984): 89-96.
Sillars, Malcolm O.“Persistent Problems in Rhetorical Criticism”[A]. Rhetoric and Communication: Studies in the University of Illinois Tradition[C]. Ed. Blankenship, Jane, and Hermann G. Stelzner. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976. 69-89.
Simpson, J. A. and E. S. C. Weiner. The Oxford English Dictionary[Z]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. Smith, Craig R. and Scott Lybarger.“Bitzer’s Model Reconstructed”[J]. Communication Quarterly 44. 2 (1996): 197-213.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Sullivan, Patricia and Steven Goldzwig, eds. New Approaches to Rhetoric[C]. Boston: Sage Publications, 2004.
Swales, John M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Ueding, Gert. Historisches W?rterbuch der Rhetorik[Z]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1998.
Vatz, Richard E.“The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation”[J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric 6. 3 (1973): 154-161.
Verschueren, Jef. Understanding Pragmatics[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Walker, Jeffrey.“The Body of Persuasion: A Theory of the Enthymeme”[J]. College English 56. 1 (1994): 46-65.
Walton, D. and C. A. Reed.“Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes”[J]. Synthese 145. 3 (2005): 339-370.
Weaver, Richard. The Ethics of Rhetoric[M]. Indiana: Regnery/Gateway, Inc., 1953.
Wichelns, Herbert A.“The Literary Criticism of Oratory”[A]. Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism[C]. Ed. Benson, Thomas W. California: Hermagoras Press, 1993. 1-32.
Williams, Joseph M. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace[M]. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc., 2003.
Williams, Mark A. E.“Arguing with Style: How Persuasion and the Enthymeme Work together in On Invention, Book 3”[J]. The Southern Communication Journal 68. 2 (2003): 136-151.
Winterowd, W. Ross, ed. Contemporary Rhetoric: A Conceptual Background with Readings[C]. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975.
Young, Richard E., Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change[M]. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970.
柏拉图.朱光潜译.文艺对话集[M].北京:人民文学出版社, 1963.
曹京渊,王淑芹.从女权主义批评看修辞理论的重建[J].复旦学报, 2002, (1): 132-137.
柴改英.英语广告语篇的同一修辞研究[D].博士论文,上海外国语大学, 2004.
常昌富.导论:当代修辞学批评模式概述[A].大卫?宁等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学: 批评模式与方法[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海:上海世纪出版集团, 2001.
陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京:教育科学出版社, 2000.
陈汝东.社会心理修辞学导论[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 1999.
陈龙.当代文化批评的修辞策略[J].江海学刊, 2001, (2): 170-175.
陈宗明.汉字符号学:一种特殊的文字编码[M].南京:江苏教育出版社, 2001.
程雨民.英语语体学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
从莱庭,徐鲁亚.西方修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2007.
辞海编辑委员会.辞海(哲学分册)[Z].上海:上海辞书出版社, 1980.
大卫?宁等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
大卫?宁.关于爱德华?肯尼迪议员于1969年7月25日对麻省人民演说的五要素分析[A].大卫?宁
等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
代晓丽,戴竹青.爱与真的诉求——《押沙龙,押沙龙!》叙事风格的修辞批评[J].思想战线, 2007, (1): 127-131.
邓志勇,武艳.社会运动修辞批评略论[J].山东外语教学, 2008, (1): 26-31.
邓志勇,杨永春.美国修辞批评:范式与理论[J].天津外国语学院学报, 2007, (3): 24-30.
邓志勇.修辞批评的戏剧主义范式略论[J].修辞学习, 2007, (2): 36-40.
邓志勇.修辞三段论及其修辞运作模式[J].外国语言文学, 2003, (1): 13-19.
邓志勇.英语写作教学的社会认知模式[J].现代外语, 2002, (4): 408-417.
邓志勇.广告中的类比[J].外语与外语教学, 2000, (2): 38-42.
丁尔苏.符号学研究——世界与中国[J].中国比较文学, 1994, (2): 13-22.
丁金国.语体构成成分研究[J].修辞学习, 2007, (6): 8-14.
樊明明.修辞论辩与非形式逻辑[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 2005, (3): 31-34.
冯翠华.英语修辞大全[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1995.
高万云,鹿晓燕.关于修辞学理论与方法的再思考[J].福建师范大学学报, 2007, (6): 73-78.
高万云.文学的修辞批评之中西比较[J].湖北师范学院学报, 2005, (1): 54-60.
高万云.中国文学的修辞批评[J].福建师范大学学报, 2004, (5): 13-19.
高万云.中国修辞理论与批评[M].济南:山东人民出版社, 2004.
耿占春.象征的衰落:修辞批评与社会批评[J].郑州大学学报, 2006, (5): 128-132.
何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
赫伯特?维切恩斯.演讲的文学批评[A].肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
泓峻.文学修辞批评与中国当代文学批评的学术品格[J].四川大学学报, 2003, (5): 63-67.
胡曙中.英语修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2002.
胡曙中.现代英语修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
胡曙中.英语语篇语言学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
胡曙中.美国新修辞学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1999.
胡壮麟.理论文体学[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2000.
华尔特?菲希尔.文体:修辞批评中的概念与应用[A].大卫?宁等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
黄国文.语篇分析的理论与实践——广告语篇研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
加利?布朗.萨达姆?侯赛因的战争修辞[A].大卫?宁等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
姜亚军.英语变体研究与比较修辞学的接口[D].博士论文,上海外国语大学, 2004.
蒋严.论语用推理的逻辑属性——形式语用学初探[J].外国语, 2002, (3): 18-29.
鞠玉梅.语篇分析的伯克新修辞模式[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社, 2005.
康泽民,樊明明.论古典修辞学与新修辞学的”部目”观[J].山东外语教学, 2005, (1): 13-16.
肯尼斯?博克.修辞情景[A].肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
赖勤芳.保罗?德曼修辞批评理论简论[J].兰州学刊, 2006, (10): 88-90.
蓝王海霞.古典儒学与西方修辞学[A].王德春,李月松主编.修辞学论文集(第十集)[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2006.
李匡武译.亚里士多德逻辑论文集:工具论[C].广州:广东人民出版社, 1984.
李国南.辞格与词汇[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
李军.话语修辞理论与实践[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2008.
李秀明.元话语标记与语体特征分析[J].修辞学习, 2007, (2): 20-24.
李雯,邓志勇.幻想主题修辞批评略论[J].时代文学, 2007, (6): 57-58.
李小博,郭贵春.科学修辞学的方法论意义[J].科学技术与辩证法, 2004, (1): 47-52.
理查德?什尔维兹.修辞的“认知性”:对“新修辞”运动认知论的淡化[A].肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
林熹等.亚里士多德形式逻辑言论选编[C].长沙:湖南人民出版社, 1984.
林静伶.语艺批评:理论与实践[M].台北:五南, 2000.
刘亚猛.追求象征的力量[M].北京:三联书店, 2004.
刘亚猛.当代西方修辞学科建设:迷惘与希望[J].福建师范大学学报, 2004, (6): 1-7.
刘亚猛.修辞与当代西方史学论争[J].修辞学习, 2007, (4): 7-12.
刘雪梅.现代广告中的两性隐性修辞批评[J].文艺天地, 2002, (5): 77.
刘雪梅.对意识形态的修辞批评——“沙漠安慰行动”解读及其在现实文本中的运用[J].声屏世界, 2002, (6): 17-19.
卢卡西维茨.李真,李先焜译.亚里士多德的三段论[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1981.
陆庆和.重读苏秦与张仪——新亚里斯多德主义修辞批评之尝试[J].修辞学习, 2001, (5): 10-11.
罗伯特?司各特.论修辞的〃认知性〃:十年之后[A].肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
莫里斯?内坦森.修辞的范围[A].肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
任超.女权主义修辞批评[D].硕士论文,福建师范大学, 2005.
束光辉.新编商务英语写作教程[Z].北京:清华大学出版社, 2007.
索尼娅?福斯,安?吉尔.米歇尔?福柯的修辞认知理论[A].大卫?宁等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
谭学纯,林大津.修辞学大视野[C].福州:海峡文艺出版社, 2007.
谭学纯,朱玲.修辞研究:走出技巧论[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社, 2000.
谭学纯,唐跃,朱玲.接受修辞学[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社, 2004.
唐纳德?布赖恩特.修辞学:功能与范围[A].肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
托伊恩?梵?迪克.曾庆香译.作为话语的新闻[M].北京:华夏出版社, 2003.
王德春,陈汝东.话语角色认知的修辞价值[J].扬州大学学报, 1998, (4): 17-22.
王德春,陈瑞端.语体学[M].南宁:广西教育出版社, 2000.
王德春,陈晨.现代修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
王希杰.修辞学通论[M].南京:南京大学出版社, 1996.
王寅.认知语法概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2006.
王佐良,丁往道.英语文体学引论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1987.
王文宇,王立非.二语写作研究:十年回顾与展望[J].外语界, 2004, (3): 51-58.
温科学.二十世纪美国修辞批评体系[J].修辞学习, 1999, (5): 47-49.
温科学. 20世纪西方修辞学理论研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2006.
武宏志,刘春杰.修辞式推论探析——从逻辑的观点看《修辞学》[J].青海师范大学学报, 1994, (3): 87-92.
武宏志,丁煌.假冒的修辞式推论——亚里士多德《修辞学》的谬误论[J].延安大学学报, 1994, (3): 19-23.
吴潜龙.英美报刊文章阅读[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
小亨利?约翰斯顿.修辞、相交面及他者[A].肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
辛斌.批评语言学:理论与应用[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
徐鹏.英语辞格[Z].北京:商务饭印书馆, 1996.
徐鹏等.修辞和语用:汉英修辞手段语用对比研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2007.
徐盛桓.含意与合情推理[J].外语教学与研究, 2005, (3): 163-169.
徐书墨.中西古典修辞理论中的逻辑论证功能[J].理论界, 2006, (1): 80-81.
亚理斯多德.罗念生译.修辞学[M].北京:三联书店, 1991.
亚理斯多德.颜一等译.修辞术?亚历山大修辞学?论诗[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2003.
姚喜明.阅读的修辞性研究[M].上海:上海大学出版社, 2006.
姚喜明.政治与修辞学的兴衰[J].四川外语学院学报, 2002, (1): 132-135.
游梓翔.领袖的声音:两岸领导人政治语艺批评(1906-2006)[M].台北:五南, 2006.
袁晖.语体、文体、风格辨[A].郑頣寿,袁晖主编.修辞学研究(第九辑)[C].华星出版社, 2002.
袁影.西方现当代修辞认识观探研[J].修辞学习, 2005, (2): 5-9.
袁影.解析“修辞推论”——亚里斯多德《修辞学》核心概念[J].修辞学习, 2006, (5): 23-26.
袁影.“或然式证明”:亚里士多德《修辞学》之核心——兼评罗念生译本及颜一译本[A].王德春,
李月松主编.修辞学论文集(第十集)[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2006.
袁影.当代西方修辞批评研究:格局与走向[J].修辞学习, 2007, (4): 40-43.
袁影.论语言哲学知识的猜测与反驳[J].山东外语教学, 2006, (6): 22-25.
袁影.论标点符号的修辞作用——实证分析分号、破折号的逻辑与情感功能[J].四川外语学院学报, 2003, (2): 115-118.
张春泉.白马非马:修辞式推论[J].修辞学习, 2001, (1): 24-25.
张玉芳.演讲语篇中的修辞互动:演讲者与受众之间的权力关系[J].西安外国语大学学报, 2007, (1): 32-35.
张玉芳.演讲者与受众之间的权力关系——跨文化修辞互动[D].硕士论文,福建师范大学, 2005.
张宗正.理论修辞学——宏观视野下的大修辞[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2004.
张健.新闻英语文体与范文评析[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
张滟.新修辞学中话语语境框架的建构[J].外语学刊, 2005, (2): 137-140.
周昌忠.西方科学方法论史[M].上海:上海人民出版社, 1986.
朱永生.话语分析五十年:回顾与展望[J].外国语, 2003, (3): 43-50.
朱永生.语境动态研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2005.
朱晓姝.公众在意识形态领域的被控制——从”沙漠安慰行动”到麦当劳[J].四川理工学院学报, 2004, (3): 76-78.
宗廷虎. 20世纪中国修辞学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2008.
1. Reader’s Digest. December 2006.
2. Time. January 22, 2007.
3. Time. January 22, 2007.
4. The Sydney Morning Herald. December 5, 2007.
5.陈冠商.英语背诵文选.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1983.
6. Jaffe, Clella. Public Speaking: Concepts and Skills for a Diverse Society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998.
7.束光辉.新编商务英语函电.北京:清华大学出版社, 2007.
8.束光辉.新编商务英语函电.北京:清华大学出版社, 2007.
9.Hunt, Steven B.“An Essay on Publishing Standards for Rhetorical Criticism”. Communication Studies 54. 3 (2003).
10.Wilferth, Joe.“Generative Essays from Wichelns to Postmodernity”. The Review of Communication 3.1 (January 2003).
①关于西塞罗、昆提利安与修辞批评的关系受启于温科学《20世纪西方修辞学理论研究》2006: 106-107。
①根据书封底上Angela G. Ray(Northwestern University)的评价。原文为:”It is the best and most comprehensive collection of the major essays in rhetorical criticism currently available.”
②根据2004版本书末上其出版社Waveland Press, Inc.的介绍。
③此信息来自2007年末莱夫教授与本文作者的通信及寄来的他所开设的修辞批评课程说明。
④Murphy, James选编的这个查寻手册收集了1979年以前有关修辞学及修辞批评的博士论文共443篇。
①常昌富原译为布拉克《修辞学批评:方法之研究》,本文认为不够准确,故对人名及书名的翻译作了修改。原名为:Black, Edwin. Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method (1978)。
①胡曙中先生据多种定义概括,出自其《英语语篇语言学研究》,2005年第5页。
①《斐德若篇》中多处提到定义的重要性及功能,见朱光潜译柏拉图《文艺对话集》(1963),第106, 152, 173页。
②定义的方法,在Robinson(1954)及Harris & Hutton(2007)中提到八种:1.同义词定义法(Synonymous def.),2.分析定义法(Analytic def.),3.综合定义法(Synthetic def.),4.描述定义法(Descriptive def.),5.含义定义法(Implicative def.),6.外延定义法(Denotative def.),7.实
①《斐德若篇》中多处提到定义的重要性及功能,见朱光潜译柏拉图《文艺对话集》(1963),第106, 152, 173页。
②定义的方法,在Robinson(1954)及Harris & Hutton(2007)中提到八种:1.同义词定义法(Synonymous def.),2.分析定义法(Analytic def.),3.综合定义法(Synthetic def.),4.描述定义法(Descriptive def.),5.含义定义法(Implicative def.),6.外延定义法(Denotative def.),7.实
①原文:That art or talent by which the discourse is adapted to its end;自坎贝尔The Philosophy of Rhetoric,1969,P.1。
①原文:the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols, P. 43。
②原文:the process by which symbols and systems of symbols have influence upon beliefs, values, attitudes, and actions;本文作者未有The Prospect of Rhetoric一书,感谢刘亚猛教授提供原文。而所用译文取自其《当代西方修辞学科建设:迷惘与希望》(2004)一文。
①对应的英文:the strategy applying process by which systems of symbols have influence upon beliefs, attitudes, actions, etc.
①原文:the systematic process of illuminating and evaluating products of human activity, P. 4.
①原文:the analysis and appreciation of the orator’s method of imparting his ideas to his hearers,出自Benson, Thomas编Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism(1993: 26)。
②原文:the act of rendering analytical, interpretive and evaluative judgments about specific instances of informative and persuasive discourse—spoken and written,(1968: iii)。
③原文:Rhetorical criticism is the description, analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of persuasive uses of language,取自胡曙中教授英文版《英语修辞学》,(2002: 330)。
④原文:Rhetorical criticism examines imaginative works as“strategic”and“stylized”answers to“questions posed by the situation in which it arose”,来自Colleran, Jeanne Marie,1988年的博士论文“The Dissenting Writer in South Africa: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Drama of Athol Fugard and the Short Fiction of Nadine Gordimer”。
①原文为:a qualitative research method that is designed for the systematic investigation and explanation of symbolic acts and artifacts for the purpose of understanding rhetorical processes,2004,第6页。
①此处综合了从莱庭,徐鲁亚主编《西方修辞学》(2007)中的相关介绍以及常昌富《导论:当代修辞学批评模式概述》(1998)文中的译介。
①在下一章建构的新模式中style译为“文体”,并作了说明;此处及此章其余处用“风格”主要是为了与《当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评》中傅玢玢的原译保持一致。
②参见温科学《二十世纪美国修辞批评体系》一文,《修辞学习》1999, (5)。
③参见肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富、顾宝桐译《当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评》一书中常昌富所写《导论:20世纪修辞学概述》第14页。
①参见福斯《修辞批评:探索与实践》(2004),158页。
①参见卡尔?波普尔《客观知识》,上海译文出版社,1987;及袁影《论语言哲学知识的猜测与反驳》,《山东外语教学》2006,(6)。
①受启发于王德春,陈汝东文“话语角色认知的修辞价值”,《扬州大学学报》,1998,(4)。
①“觅材(取材)”译名出现于胡曙中、邓志勇、陈汝东等的著述中,“修辞发明”出现于刘亚猛的《追求象征的力量》(2004),“构思”出现于常昌富《导论:当代修辞学批评模式概述》(1998)及顾宝桐译Donald Bryant《修辞学:功能与范围》(1998),而“创作”译名则出现于蓝王海霞“古典儒学与西方修辞学”(2006)一文。
②英文为:Invention is the discovery of valid or seemingly valid arguments to render one’s cause plausible.出自H. M. Hubbell英译本,1949:19。
①原文为:Invention is the art of discovering new arguments and uncovering new things by argument….[It] extends from the construction of formal arguments to all modes of enlarging experience by reason as manifested in awareness, emotion, interest, and appreciation.(Jasinski 2001: 327)。
②刘亚猛教授曾在美国近二十年,专门研究西方修辞学,因此他对这一概念的理解也具有重要的参考价值。
①参见威弗最著名的论文“语言是说教的”(”Language Is Sermonic”),Bizzell and Herzberg 1990: 1044-1054。
②此第四版为科贝特与考纳斯(Connors, Robert J.)联合修定。
③原文为:an amorphous and unwieldy concept,“Rhetorical Theory in Speech Communication”(1985),间接引自Jasinski, Sourcebook on Rhetoric, 2001: 327。
④参见黑格尔《小逻辑》1980: 334, 331和《法哲学原理》1961: 39。此处引用为周昌忠著《西方科学方法论史》1986第213、212页上的概述。
①亚氏在第二卷最后一章中有此论断,原文为:By‘an element of enthymeme’I mean the same thing as‘a line of enthymematic argument’, 1954: 163。其中后一个单引号中的部分指的就是部目,另可参见第一卷第二章,30-31页。
②或然式证明的核心为逻辑论证,而逻辑论证之核心为修辞推论,参见5.3.4.1。
①前一种界定出自Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, Speech Criticism (New York, 1948), p.93;后一种界定出自Harry Caplan, translator, Rhetorica ad Herennium (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), p.18, note。文中译自Benson and Prosser, Readings in Classical Rhetoric, Hermagoras Press, 1988: 143。
②“争议点”译名作者最初是从刘亚猛教授《追求象征的力量》(2004)中看到的,参见该书第61页。顾宝桐博士在唐纳德?布赖恩特(Donald Bryant)《修辞学:功能与范围》一文中将之译为“核心原理”,见《当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评》1998: 106,两译名比较,本文认为“争议点”更切合,故取刘译。
①英文为:Metaphor, moreover, gives style clearness, charm, and distinction as nothing else can,Aristotle 1954: 168。
②英文为:(It must also be)appropriate, avoiding both meanness and undue elevation。出自Roberts英译本1954年,第167页。译文中“平凡”一词取自罗念生汉译本1991年第150页。
①混合语体受启发于韩荔华在中国修辞学会2007年国际学术研讨会上的发言。
②此分类综合参考了胡曙中2005、王德春等2000、王佐良等1987书中的语体分类。
①据Patton, M. Q.《质的评估和研究方法》1990:169,转引自陈向明,2000:103。
①原文:a figure of speech, in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of the contrary,徐鹏1996: 545。
①参见宗廷虎主编高万云著《20世纪中国修辞学》(下卷),2008:636。
Aden, Roger C.“The Enthymeme as Postmodern Argument Form: Condensed, Mediated Argument Then and Now”[J]. Argumentation and Advocacy 31. 2 (1994): 54-63.
Andrews, James R. The Practice of Rhetorical Criticism[M]. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1983.
Aristotle. Rhetoric[M]. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. New York: Random House, 1954.
Ball-Stahl, Kelly C.“Environmental Values in American Popular-Culture Narratives”[D]. Diss. U of Minnesota, 2005.
Benoit, William.“Generic Rhetorical Criticism”[A]. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism[C]. Ed. Kuypers, Jim A. Boston: Pearson Education, 2005. 85-106.
Bensel-Meyers, L. Rhetoric for Academic Reasoning[M]. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992.
Benson, Thomas W., ed. Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism[C]. California: Hermagoras Press, 1993.
Benson, Thomas W., and Michael H. Prosser, eds. Readings in Classical Rhetoric[C]. California: Hermagoras Press, 1988.
Berkowitz, Sandra.“Originality, Conversation and Reviewing Rhetorical Criticism”[J]. Communication Studies 54. 3 (2003): 359-363.
Biesecker, Barbara A.“Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation from Within the Thematic of Differance”[J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric 22. 2 (1989): 110-130.
Bitzer, Lloyd.“The Rhetorical Situation”[A]. Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric: Selected Readings[C]. Ed. Johannesen, Richard L. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. 381-393.
Bitzer, Lloyd.“Functional Communication: A Situational Perspective”[A]. Rhetoric in Transition: Studies in the Nature and Uses of Rhetoric[C]. Ed. White, E. State College, PN: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1980. 21-38.
Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg, eds. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present[C]. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press, 1990.
Black, Edwin.“On Objectivity and Politics in Criticism”[A]. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism[C]. Ed. Kuypers, Jim A. Boston: Pearson Education, 2005. 28-32.
Black, Edwin. Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method[M]. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978.
Blankenship, Jane, and Hermann G. Stelzner, eds. Rhetoric and Communication: Studies in the University of Illinois Tradition[C]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976.
Brock, Bernard L., Robert L. Scott, and James W. Chesebro, eds. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-century Perspective[C]. 3d ed. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990.
Brockriede, Wayne.“Rhetorical Criticism as Argument”[J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech 60. 2 (1974): 165-174.
Browne, Stephen H.“Rhetorical Criticism and the Challenges of Bilateral Argument”[J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric 40. 1 (2007): 108-118.
Brugidou, Mathieu.“Argumentation and Values: An Analysis of Ordinary Political Competence via an Open-ended Question”[J]. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 15.4 (2003): 413-430.
Burgchardt, Carl R., ed. Readings in Rhetorical Criticism[C]. State College, Penn: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2005.
Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
Campbell, George. The Philosophy of Rhetoric[M]. London : Feffer and Simons, 1969.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs.“Stanton’s‘The Solitude of Self’: A Rationale for Feminism”[A]. Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism[C]. Ed. Benson, Thomas W. California: Hermagoras Press, 1993. 189-199.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson.“Introduction to Form and Genre”[A]. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-century Perspective[C]. Ed. Brock, Bernard L., Robert L. Scott, and James W. Chesebro. 3d ed. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990. 331-342.
Carter, Judith L.“The Rhetoric of Persuasion in Selected Works of Mary Austin”[D]. Diss. Texas Woman's U, 2001.
Ceccarelli, Leah.“Rhetorical Criticism and the Rhetoric of Science”[J]. Western Journal of Communication 65. 3 (2001): 314-329.
Cicero. De Inventione, De Optimo Genere Oratorum, Topica[M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1949.
Cockcroft, Robert, and Susan M. Cockcroft. Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric[M]. London: The Macmillan Press, 1992.
Coe, Richard, Lorelei Lingard, and Tatiana Teslenko, eds. The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change[C]. Cresskill: Hampton Press, 2002.
Colleran, Jeanne Marie.“The Dissenting Writer in South Africa: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Drama of Athol Fugard and the Short Fiction of Nadine Gordimer”[D]. Diss. The Ohio State U, 1988.
Conley, Thomas M. Rhetoric in the European Tradition[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990.
Connor, Ulla. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language Writing[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Connors, Robert J., Lisa S. Ede, and Andrea A. Lunsford, eds. Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse[C]. Southern Illinois: Southern Illinois University, 1984.
Corbett, Edward. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students[M]. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.
D’Angelo, Frank J. A Conceptual Theory of Rhetoric[M]. Cambridge: Winthrop Publishers, 1975.
D’Angelo, Frank J.“The Evolution of the Analytic Topoi: A Speculative Inquiry”[A]. Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse[C]. Ed. Connors, Robert J., Lisa S. Ede, and Andrea A. Lunsford. Southern Illinois: Southern Illinois University, 1984. 50-68.
D’Angelo, Frank J.“Paradigms as Structural Counterparts of Topoi”[A]. Linguistics, Stylistics, and the Teaching of Composition[C]. Ed. Mcquade, Donald. Akron: University of Akron, 1979. 41-51.
Dearin, Ray D.“The Fourth Stasis in Greek Rhetoric”[A]. Rhetoric and Communication: Studies in the University of Illinois Tradition[C]. Ed. Blankenship, Jane, and Hermann G. Stelzner. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976. 3-16.
Dyck, Ed.“Topos and Enthymeme”[J]. Rhetorica 20. 2 (2002): 105-117.
Finnegan, Cara A.“The Naturalistic Enthymeme and Visual Argument: Photographic Representation in the‘Skull Controversy’”[J]. Argumentation and Advocacy 37.3 (2001): 133-149.
Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric[M]. Illinois: Waveland Press, 1985.
Foss, Sonja K.“Rhetorical Criticism as the Asking of Questions”[J]. Communication Education 38. 3 (1989): 191.
Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice[C]. Long Grove: Waveland Press, 2004.
Green, Lawrence D.“Aristotle’s Enthymeme and the Imperfect Syllogism”[A]. Rhetoric and Pedagogy: Its History, Philosophy and Practice[C]. Ed. Horner, Winifred Bryan, and Michael Leff. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1995. 19-42.
Gregory, Michael, and Susanne Carroll. Language and Situation: Language Varieties and Their Social Contexts[M]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1978.
Grice, H. P.“Logic and Conversation”[A]. Selected Readings for Pragmatics[C]. Ed. He, Zhaoxiong(何兆熊). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2003. 365-388.
Guralnik, David B., ed. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language[Z]. Cleveland: William Collins Publishers, Inc., 1980.
Gustainis, J. Justin.“The Generic Criticism of Social Movement Rhetoric”[J]. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 12. 4 (1982): 251-260.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Harris, Roy, and Christopher Hutton. Definition in Theory and Practice[M]. London: Continuum, 2007. Hart, Roderick P., and Suzanne M. Daughton. Modern Rhetorical Criticism[M]. Boston: Pearson Education, 2005 (Third Edition).
Hartwell, P., and H. Bentley. Open to Language: A New College Rhetoric[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Hauser, Gerard A. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory[M]. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1986.
Heath, Malcolm. Manander: A Rhetor in Context[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Hendrix, J. A. and Jerome B. Polisky, eds. Rhetorical Criticism: Methods and Models[C]. Iowa: WM. C. Brown Book Company, 1968.
Henry, David.“Forum: Text, Theory, and the Rhetorical Critic--Text and Theory in Critical Practice”[J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech 78. 2 (1992): 219-222.
Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction[M]. Boston: Pearson Education, 2005.
Hill, Forbes.“Conventional Wisdom--Traditional Form--The President’s Message of November 3, 1969”[A]. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice[C]. Ed. Foss, Sonja K. Long Grove:Waveland Press, 2004. 35-48.
Hohmann, H.“The Dynamics of Stasis: Classical Rhetorical Theory and Modern Legal Argumentation”[J]. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 34 (1989): 171-197.
Holloway, Paul A.“The Enthymeme as an Element of Style in Paul”[J]. Journal of Biblical Literature, 120. 2 (2001): 329-339.
Hunt, Steven B.“An Essay on Publishing Standards for Rhetorical Criticism”[J]. Communication Studies 54. 3 (2003): 378-384.
Hunter, Lynette. Rhetorical Stance in Modern Literature[M]. London: The Macmillan Press LTD, 1984. Hurley, Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic[M]. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1985.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, Erika Falk, and Susan Sherr.“The Enthymeme Gap in the 1996 Presidential Campaign”[J]. Political Science & Politics. 32.1(1999): 12-17.
Jasinski, James.“The Status of Theory and Method in Rhetorical Criticism”[J]. Western Journal of Communication 65. 3 (2001): 249-270.
Jasinski, James. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies[Z]. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2001.
Kant, Immanuel. Lectures on Logic[M]. Trans. and ed. J. Michael Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Kennedy, George. The Art of Persuasion in Greece[M]. Princeton: Princeton University press, 1963. Kennedy, George. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World[M]. Princeton: Princeton University press, 1972.
Kent, Thomas. Paralogic Rhetoric: A Theory of Communicative Interaction[M]. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1993.
Kolln, Martha. Rhetorical Grammar[M]. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.
Kuypers, Jim A., ed. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism[C]. Boston: Pearson Education, 2005.
Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987.
Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar vol. II: Descriptive Application[M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991.
Layman, C. Stephen. The Power of Logic[M]. Boston: The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002.
Lauer, Janice M.“Issues in Rhetorical Invention”[A]. Essays on Classical Rhetoric and ModernDiscourse[C]. Ed. Connors, Robert J., Lisa S. Ede, and Andrea A. Lunsford. Southern Illinois: Southern Illinois University, 1984. 127-139.
Leroux, Neil R.“Perceiving Rhetorical Style: Toward a Framework for Criticism”[J]. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 22. 4 (1992): 49-64.
Mcquade, Donald, ed. Linguistics, Stylistics, and the Teaching of Composition[C]. Akron: University of Akron, 1979.
Mitchell, Innes W. R.“Margaret Thatcher's America: Cultural Rhetorical Criticism”[D]. Diss. U of Kansas, 1997.
Moran, Michael G. and Michelle Ballif, eds. Twentieth-century Rhetorics and Rhetoricians[C]. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2000.
Nudd, Donna M. and Kristina L. Schriver.“Feminist Analysis”[A]. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism[C]. Ed. Kuypers, Jim A. Boston: Pearson Education, 2005. 270-304.
Palczewski, Catherine H.“What Is‘Good Criticism’? A Conversation in Progress”[J]. Communication Studies 54. 3 (2003): 385-391.
Perelman, CH. The Realm of Rhetoric[M]. trans. by William Kluback. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982.
Perelman, CH. The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications[M]. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1979.
Perelman, CH. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation[M]. trans. by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.
Pierce, Dann L. Rhetorical Criticism and Theory in Practice[M]. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 2003.
Prelli, Lawrence J. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse[M]. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1989.
Raymond, James C.“Enthymemes, Examples, and Rhetorical Method”[A]. Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse[C]. Ed. Connors, Robert J., Lisa S. Ede, and Andrea A. Lunsford. Southern Illinois: Southern Illinois University, 1984. 140-151.
Robinson, R. Definition[M]. Oxford: Clarendon, 1954.
Rosenfield, Lawrence W.“The Anatomy of Critical Discourse”[J]. Speech Monographs 35. 1 (1968): 50-69.
Rybacki, Karyn and Donald Rybacki. Communication Criticism: Approaches and Genres[M]. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1991.
Scott, Robert L.“Focusing Rhetorical Criticism”[J]. Communication Education 33. 2 (1984): 89-96.
Sillars, Malcolm O.“Persistent Problems in Rhetorical Criticism”[A]. Rhetoric and Communication: Studies in the University of Illinois Tradition[C]. Ed. Blankenship, Jane, and Hermann G. Stelzner. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976. 69-89.
Simpson, J. A. and E. S. C. Weiner. The Oxford English Dictionary[Z]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. Smith, Craig R. and Scott Lybarger.“Bitzer’s Model Reconstructed”[J]. Communication Quarterly 44. 2 (1996): 197-213.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Sullivan, Patricia and Steven Goldzwig, eds. New Approaches to Rhetoric[C]. Boston: Sage Publications, 2004.
Swales, John M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Ueding, Gert. Historisches W?rterbuch der Rhetorik[Z]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1998.
Vatz, Richard E.“The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation”[J]. Philosophy and Rhetoric 6. 3 (1973): 154-161.
Verschueren, Jef. Understanding Pragmatics[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Walker, Jeffrey.“The Body of Persuasion: A Theory of the Enthymeme”[J]. College English 56. 1 (1994): 46-65.
Walton, D. and C. A. Reed.“Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes”[J]. Synthese 145. 3 (2005): 339-370.
Weaver, Richard. The Ethics of Rhetoric[M]. Indiana: Regnery/Gateway, Inc., 1953.
Wichelns, Herbert A.“The Literary Criticism of Oratory”[A]. Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism[C]. Ed. Benson, Thomas W. California: Hermagoras Press, 1993. 1-32.
Williams, Joseph M. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace[M]. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc., 2003.
Williams, Mark A. E.“Arguing with Style: How Persuasion and the Enthymeme Work together in On Invention, Book 3”[J]. The Southern Communication Journal 68. 2 (2003): 136-151.
Winterowd, W. Ross, ed. Contemporary Rhetoric: A Conceptual Background with Readings[C]. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975.
Young, Richard E., Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change[M]. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970.
柏拉图.朱光潜译.文艺对话集[M].北京:人民文学出版社, 1963.
曹京渊,王淑芹.从女权主义批评看修辞理论的重建[J].复旦学报, 2002, (1): 132-137.
柴改英.英语广告语篇的同一修辞研究[D].博士论文,上海外国语大学, 2004.
常昌富.导论:当代修辞学批评模式概述[A].大卫?宁等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学: 批评模式与方法[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海:上海世纪出版集团, 2001.
陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京:教育科学出版社, 2000.
陈汝东.社会心理修辞学导论[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 1999.
陈龙.当代文化批评的修辞策略[J].江海学刊, 2001, (2): 170-175.
陈宗明.汉字符号学:一种特殊的文字编码[M].南京:江苏教育出版社, 2001.
程雨民.英语语体学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
从莱庭,徐鲁亚.西方修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2007.
辞海编辑委员会.辞海(哲学分册)[Z].上海:上海辞书出版社, 1980.
大卫?宁等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
大卫?宁.关于爱德华?肯尼迪议员于1969年7月25日对麻省人民演说的五要素分析[A].大卫?宁
等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
代晓丽,戴竹青.爱与真的诉求——《押沙龙,押沙龙!》叙事风格的修辞批评[J].思想战线, 2007, (1): 127-131.
邓志勇,武艳.社会运动修辞批评略论[J].山东外语教学, 2008, (1): 26-31.
邓志勇,杨永春.美国修辞批评:范式与理论[J].天津外国语学院学报, 2007, (3): 24-30.
邓志勇.修辞批评的戏剧主义范式略论[J].修辞学习, 2007, (2): 36-40.
邓志勇.修辞三段论及其修辞运作模式[J].外国语言文学, 2003, (1): 13-19.
邓志勇.英语写作教学的社会认知模式[J].现代外语, 2002, (4): 408-417.
邓志勇.广告中的类比[J].外语与外语教学, 2000, (2): 38-42.
丁尔苏.符号学研究——世界与中国[J].中国比较文学, 1994, (2): 13-22.
丁金国.语体构成成分研究[J].修辞学习, 2007, (6): 8-14.
樊明明.修辞论辩与非形式逻辑[J].解放军外国语学院学报, 2005, (3): 31-34.
冯翠华.英语修辞大全[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1995.
高万云,鹿晓燕.关于修辞学理论与方法的再思考[J].福建师范大学学报, 2007, (6): 73-78.
高万云.文学的修辞批评之中西比较[J].湖北师范学院学报, 2005, (1): 54-60.
高万云.中国文学的修辞批评[J].福建师范大学学报, 2004, (5): 13-19.
高万云.中国修辞理论与批评[M].济南:山东人民出版社, 2004.
耿占春.象征的衰落:修辞批评与社会批评[J].郑州大学学报, 2006, (5): 128-132.
何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
赫伯特?维切恩斯.演讲的文学批评[A].肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
泓峻.文学修辞批评与中国当代文学批评的学术品格[J].四川大学学报, 2003, (5): 63-67.
胡曙中.英语修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2002.
胡曙中.现代英语修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
胡曙中.英语语篇语言学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
胡曙中.美国新修辞学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1999.
胡壮麟.理论文体学[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2000.
华尔特?菲希尔.文体:修辞批评中的概念与应用[A].大卫?宁等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
黄国文.语篇分析的理论与实践——广告语篇研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
加利?布朗.萨达姆?侯赛因的战争修辞[A].大卫?宁等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
姜亚军.英语变体研究与比较修辞学的接口[D].博士论文,上海外国语大学, 2004.
蒋严.论语用推理的逻辑属性——形式语用学初探[J].外国语, 2002, (3): 18-29.
鞠玉梅.语篇分析的伯克新修辞模式[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社, 2005.
康泽民,樊明明.论古典修辞学与新修辞学的”部目”观[J].山东外语教学, 2005, (1): 13-16.
肯尼斯?博克.修辞情景[A].肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
赖勤芳.保罗?德曼修辞批评理论简论[J].兰州学刊, 2006, (10): 88-90.
蓝王海霞.古典儒学与西方修辞学[A].王德春,李月松主编.修辞学论文集(第十集)[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2006.
李匡武译.亚里士多德逻辑论文集:工具论[C].广州:广东人民出版社, 1984.
李国南.辞格与词汇[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
李军.话语修辞理论与实践[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2008.
李秀明.元话语标记与语体特征分析[J].修辞学习, 2007, (2): 20-24.
李雯,邓志勇.幻想主题修辞批评略论[J].时代文学, 2007, (6): 57-58.
李小博,郭贵春.科学修辞学的方法论意义[J].科学技术与辩证法, 2004, (1): 47-52.
理查德?什尔维兹.修辞的“认知性”:对“新修辞”运动认知论的淡化[A].肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
林熹等.亚里士多德形式逻辑言论选编[C].长沙:湖南人民出版社, 1984.
林静伶.语艺批评:理论与实践[M].台北:五南, 2000.
刘亚猛.追求象征的力量[M].北京:三联书店, 2004.
刘亚猛.当代西方修辞学科建设:迷惘与希望[J].福建师范大学学报, 2004, (6): 1-7.
刘亚猛.修辞与当代西方史学论争[J].修辞学习, 2007, (4): 7-12.
刘雪梅.现代广告中的两性隐性修辞批评[J].文艺天地, 2002, (5): 77.
刘雪梅.对意识形态的修辞批评——“沙漠安慰行动”解读及其在现实文本中的运用[J].声屏世界, 2002, (6): 17-19.
卢卡西维茨.李真,李先焜译.亚里士多德的三段论[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1981.
陆庆和.重读苏秦与张仪——新亚里斯多德主义修辞批评之尝试[J].修辞学习, 2001, (5): 10-11.
罗伯特?司各特.论修辞的〃认知性〃:十年之后[A].肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
莫里斯?内坦森.修辞的范围[A].肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
任超.女权主义修辞批评[D].硕士论文,福建师范大学, 2005.
束光辉.新编商务英语写作教程[Z].北京:清华大学出版社, 2007.
索尼娅?福斯,安?吉尔.米歇尔?福柯的修辞认知理论[A].大卫?宁等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
谭学纯,林大津.修辞学大视野[C].福州:海峡文艺出版社, 2007.
谭学纯,朱玲.修辞研究:走出技巧论[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社, 2000.
谭学纯,唐跃,朱玲.接受修辞学[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社, 2004.
唐纳德?布赖恩特.修辞学:功能与范围[A].肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
托伊恩?梵?迪克.曾庆香译.作为话语的新闻[M].北京:华夏出版社, 2003.
王德春,陈汝东.话语角色认知的修辞价值[J].扬州大学学报, 1998, (4): 17-22.
王德春,陈瑞端.语体学[M].南宁:广西教育出版社, 2000.
王德春,陈晨.现代修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
王希杰.修辞学通论[M].南京:南京大学出版社, 1996.
王寅.认知语法概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2006.
王佐良,丁往道.英语文体学引论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 1987.
王文宇,王立非.二语写作研究:十年回顾与展望[J].外语界, 2004, (3): 51-58.
温科学.二十世纪美国修辞批评体系[J].修辞学习, 1999, (5): 47-49.
温科学. 20世纪西方修辞学理论研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2006.
武宏志,刘春杰.修辞式推论探析——从逻辑的观点看《修辞学》[J].青海师范大学学报, 1994, (3): 87-92.
武宏志,丁煌.假冒的修辞式推论——亚里士多德《修辞学》的谬误论[J].延安大学学报, 1994, (3): 19-23.
吴潜龙.英美报刊文章阅读[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
小亨利?约翰斯顿.修辞、相交面及他者[A].肯尼斯?博克等.常昌富,顾宝桐译.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评[C].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1998.
辛斌.批评语言学:理论与应用[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
徐鹏.英语辞格[Z].北京:商务饭印书馆, 1996.
徐鹏等.修辞和语用:汉英修辞手段语用对比研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2007.
徐盛桓.含意与合情推理[J].外语教学与研究, 2005, (3): 163-169.
徐书墨.中西古典修辞理论中的逻辑论证功能[J].理论界, 2006, (1): 80-81.
亚理斯多德.罗念生译.修辞学[M].北京:三联书店, 1991.
亚理斯多德.颜一等译.修辞术?亚历山大修辞学?论诗[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2003.
姚喜明.阅读的修辞性研究[M].上海:上海大学出版社, 2006.
姚喜明.政治与修辞学的兴衰[J].四川外语学院学报, 2002, (1): 132-135.
游梓翔.领袖的声音:两岸领导人政治语艺批评(1906-2006)[M].台北:五南, 2006.
袁晖.语体、文体、风格辨[A].郑頣寿,袁晖主编.修辞学研究(第九辑)[C].华星出版社, 2002.
袁影.西方现当代修辞认识观探研[J].修辞学习, 2005, (2): 5-9.
袁影.解析“修辞推论”——亚里斯多德《修辞学》核心概念[J].修辞学习, 2006, (5): 23-26.
袁影.“或然式证明”:亚里士多德《修辞学》之核心——兼评罗念生译本及颜一译本[A].王德春,
李月松主编.修辞学论文集(第十集)[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2006.
袁影.当代西方修辞批评研究:格局与走向[J].修辞学习, 2007, (4): 40-43.
袁影.论语言哲学知识的猜测与反驳[J].山东外语教学, 2006, (6): 22-25.
袁影.论标点符号的修辞作用——实证分析分号、破折号的逻辑与情感功能[J].四川外语学院学报, 2003, (2): 115-118.
张春泉.白马非马:修辞式推论[J].修辞学习, 2001, (1): 24-25.
张玉芳.演讲语篇中的修辞互动:演讲者与受众之间的权力关系[J].西安外国语大学学报, 2007, (1): 32-35.
张玉芳.演讲者与受众之间的权力关系——跨文化修辞互动[D].硕士论文,福建师范大学, 2005.
张宗正.理论修辞学——宏观视野下的大修辞[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2004.
张健.新闻英语文体与范文评析[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
张滟.新修辞学中话语语境框架的建构[J].外语学刊, 2005, (2): 137-140.
周昌忠.西方科学方法论史[M].上海:上海人民出版社, 1986.
朱永生.话语分析五十年:回顾与展望[J].外国语, 2003, (3): 43-50.
朱永生.语境动态研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2005.
朱晓姝.公众在意识形态领域的被控制——从”沙漠安慰行动”到麦当劳[J].四川理工学院学报, 2004, (3): 76-78.
宗廷虎. 20世纪中国修辞学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2008.
1. Reader’s Digest. December 2006.
2. Time. January 22, 2007.
3. Time. January 22, 2007.
4. The Sydney Morning Herald. December 5, 2007.
5.陈冠商.英语背诵文选.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1983.
6. Jaffe, Clella. Public Speaking: Concepts and Skills for a Diverse Society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998.
7.束光辉.新编商务英语函电.北京:清华大学出版社, 2007.
8.束光辉.新编商务英语函电.北京:清华大学出版社, 2007.
9.Hunt, Steven B.“An Essay on Publishing Standards for Rhetorical Criticism”. Communication Studies 54. 3 (2003).
10.Wilferth, Joe.“Generative Essays from Wichelns to Postmodernity”. The Review of Communication 3.1 (January 2003).