英语论辩修辞研究
|
摘要
当代西方论辩研究具有与西方修辞研究相似或相同的理论旨趣并已取得丰硕的成果。与修辞学家一样,论辩理论家们也从古典修辞思想汲取理论灵感,以反拨逻辑实证主义和科学主义为己任。论辩理论也强调以或然意见而非绝对真理作为话语生发的基础和出发点,并且同样注重话语实践的情境性和追求语效,与修辞难分难解。同时,论辩理论不同的理论偏好特别是其对言辞策略不同的归类和系统阐说有助于我们从新的视角审视修辞实践。
然而,这些完全可以视为修辞学术遗产不可或缺的组成部分的论辩资源由于种种原因并未受到(西方)修辞批评界的重视、开发和充分利用。修辞批评是系统地探究话语实践,理解修辞运作,展现修辞理论与实践关联进而反哺理论的修辞研究或修辞实践,在国内仍属起步阶段。国内学界尚未充分认识到论辩理论丰厚的资源潜势,进而探索将论辩与修辞批评相结合的可能性。对论辩理论与批评实践的关联性和成效性的相关研究几近空白。具体表现为对不同的论辩思想、论辩与修辞的理论渊源和内在联系少有探讨;对论辩理论家们丰富的论辩策略研究的梳理、讨论、比较还极为不够,而这些策略体系将极大充实修辞发明的内涵;论辩理论家与Burke等新修辞学家之间的对话也极为欠缺;论辩理论如何介入阐释、评估话语实践也尚待进一步的研究。这些问题对于深化我们对西方修辞与论辩理论以及二者间的关系的认识、对于更好地理解现实话语实践和符号权力运作都是极其必要的。同时,本研究对于国内修辞界在修辞研究或“修辞转向”过程中在研究方法方面尚存在缺少或不熟悉介入具体的修辞实践所必需的可操作性强的工具范畴问题也将提供助益。
本研究首先从结果取向的非形式逻辑研究、程序-规则取向的语用辩证研究和过程-受众取向的修辞研究三个方面梳理探讨当代西方论辩理论研究的成果,表明论辩研究与当代西方修辞研究具有共同的理论旨趣和历史渊源,论辩理论是修辞资源不可或缺的组成部分。
对修辞、论辩、论辩策略、修辞批评等主要术语的辨析进一步表明修辞批评对论辩理论吸纳的可行性和必要性,并展示了论辩丰富的内涵,揭示了意义与价值的论辩性,进而纠正人们对论辩和修辞的一些偏狭认识。在此基础之上,我们从论辩的角度探讨修辞批评宏观的情境层面及其本体基础,以期为论辩与修辞批评的整合和修辞批评实践铺平学理之路。通过对修辞情境既有理论的梳理、批判,我们指出论辩理论特别是论辩策略体系可以极大地弥补修辞学者对修辞发明讨论的不足,极大地充实情境的修辞发明维度。同时,我们以论辩理论为参照,结合Burke等的新修辞思想,对空间情境、广为忽视的论辩情境、论辩主体、论辩受众、论辩目的与手段进行深入的探讨。在对福柯话语人、布迪厄习性人和哈贝马斯的交往行为人进行批判分析的基础上,我们阐明了论辩或修辞行动人的合理性,进而为修辞发明和修辞批评提供了本体基础。对论辩受众观的阐说既表明受众在修辞发明中的核心地位,也对不同的论辩理论进行批评反思。同时,论辩与修辞的共融共通性也在Perelman为代表的论辩理论家与Burke为代表的修辞学家的理论对话中展现。
作为论辩理论最为独特的理论资源之一,论辩策略体系充分体现了论辩资源对于修辞特别是修辞发明和修辞批评的建设性作用。我们以论辩惯性原则作为话语策略的使能基础,通过整合Perelman、PDA和Walton等的论辩思想和Burke的修辞思想,特别是他们有关策略机制的洞见,区分形成联结策略,剥离策略和情感策略三大类的论辩技术体系,阐明论辩理论介入修辞批评所具备的最重要的工具基础。
虽然越来越多的学者认识到修辞涵盖非语言符号现象,但是有关视觉修辞的研究仍较为零散。许多论辩理论家也仅以语言现象为关注。我们因此还结合符号学理论特别是Kress&Leeuwen的视觉语法理论,尝试从视觉修辞这一新兴的修辞研究范式出发,讨论非语言视像符号的修辞论辩性,拓展修辞、修辞批评和论辩理论的适用疆域,以期人们能够对之有新的认识,并进一步表明论辩与修辞批评的关联性。
最后,我们以论辩修辞情境和所讨论的论辩理论资源为基础,对生发于具体的修辞情境中的话语实践进行了批评解析,不仅表明论辩之于修辞批评的适用性和成效性,也展示了论辩的非典型表征。更为重要的是,这些案例批评也证明了修辞批评对于论辩和修辞理论的反哺功用,阐明诸如论辩与机构权力的共生性、危机修辞中机构人格的修复机制、科学争议中的受众的规范作用和举证责任分配功能以及科学争议本身的展示修辞功能等理论问题。
本研究采用定性的阐释分析方法,致力于探索论辩理论与修辞批评的关联,力图改变修辞(批评)领域对论辩理论总体上的盲视状况,并进一步揭示修辞和论辩所蕴含的人道精神,纠正人们对二者的一些误解误识,以期对论辩和修辞有更全面的认识。
Informed by the same roots of classical rhetorical thoughts, and taking as their central task the reaction against logical empiricism and scientism as rhetoricians do, contemporary Western argumentation theorists have theoretical concerns and scholarly interests similar to those of Western rhetorical studies, and have yielded a bonanza of profound theoretical achievements. Argumentation and rhetoric are inevitably entwined since both endorse the probable and contingent opinion instead of absolute truth as the foundation and starting point of discursive production, and both emphasize the situational nature and discursive effects of any discursive practice. On the other hand, the unique theoretical bents of argumentation theories, particularly the systematic categorization and conceptualization of discursive techniques thus proffered, can contribute to a new understanding of rhetorical practice.
However, due to various reasons, the argumentative resources which are part and parcel of rhetorical legacies have not yet been fully engaged, tapped, and assimilated by scholars working in the field of rhetorical criticism(RC) which as a qualitative study or itself a rhetorical practice is designed for the systematic investigation and explanation of symbolic actions, and serves to enact a communion of rhetorical theory and discursive practice and eventually, to enrich our understanding of both. Particularly, research about RC is still in its budding stage in China. And domestic Chinese scholars in the rhetorical tradition have paid only scant attention to the critical potentials of argumentation theories, leaving the possibility of intersection between argumentation and RC far from being explored. This lack of probe into the pertinence of argumentation and critical study more specifically manifests in that few studies if any about the interrelations of different argumentation theories, and of argumentation and rhetoric, are carried out, that more thorough exploration into the rich typology of argumentative techniques which will unveil the scope and depth of rhetorical invention remains to be done, that the constructive dialogue between argumentation theorists and rhetoricians such as Perelman and Burke is wanting, and that how argumentation insights may allow us to interpret and evaluate discursive practice remains untapped. These issues are essential in coping with the exigence of a fuller understanding of rhetoric, argumentation and their relations. And tackling them is imperative as gaining a richer experience of the discursive practice and symbolic power is an urgent and widely sanctioned academic enterprise. Moreover, our study will make a valuable contribution to confronting the tension which exists between the exigence of a“rhetorical turn”and lack of or unfamiliarity with necessary methods or toolkit to enact the turn in domestic rhetorical studies(or xiuci studies). Our accumulated efforts eventually reveal the essentially humane ethos embodied in rhetoric and argumentation.
Our study starts with the intellectual climate of and the theoretical achievements made by the three perspectives of studies into argumentation. The shared intellectual interests and historical roots of argumentation studies and rhetorical studies are pinpointed. Then the definitions and correlations of the important concepts in the study are provided and the argumentativeness of meaning and value is explored, demonstrating further the feasibility and necessity of RC’s assimilation of argumentation resources and the richness of the notion of argumentation, and rectifying the parochial or incorrect conceptualizations about it. Predicated on the conceptual framework, we then delve into the macro-level situational stratum and ontological premise of RC in an attempt to infuse argumentative insights with rhetorical (situation) theories for a RC friendly synthesis. A critical rereading of rhetorical situation theories reveals that argumentative insights particularly those about argumentative strategies can greatly refine the less developed inventional dimension of rhetorical situation. Inspired by the argumentation resources and rhetorical thoughts of Burke and other great thinkers, the neglected but important situational elements such as the rhetorical space, argumentative context, argumentative agent, argumentative audience and agency are elaborated. Through a juxtaposed reading of Foucault’s discursive subject, Bourdieu’s habitus agent and Habermas’s communicative agent, we argue for the reasonableness of argumentative or rhetorical agent as an ontological rationalization for rhetorical invention and RC. A detailed discussion of argumentative audience is aimed to show the centrality of audience in the discursive invention on the one hand, and to serve as a platform for a reflection on different argumentation theories on the other. The commensurability of argumentation and rhetoric is concomitantly unveiled in the constructive dialogues between Perelman and Burke.
As one of most unique resources contributed by argumentation theories, the system of argumentative techniques expressly demonstrates the possibilities and potentials the argumentation insights can have in rhetorical invention and RC. With the principle of inertia as the fundamental enabler of discourse strategy, we synthesize the argumentative insights offered by Perelman, PDA and Walton, and propose a typology of argumentative techniques which is divided into associative techniques, dissociative techniques and pathetic techniques. These sets of techniques constitute the most important instrumental avenue to conduct argumentative RC.
While more and more scholars have come to realize that rhetoric claims a legitimate province over the non-verbal symbolic actions, theorizations and critiques about the visual rhetorics are still sporadic and unsystematic in the rhetorical studies. Many argumentation theorists also tend to delimit the areas of argumentation studies solely in verbal artifacts. Responding to this unfortunate inadequacy and armed additionally with the visual grammar developed by Kress&Leeuwen, we attempt to expand the scope of argumentation, rhetorical invention and RC by situating them in the emerging paradigm of visual rhetoric in a hope to reveal a new facet of the three. And it is also the continued endeavor to establish the relevance of argumentation to RC.
As the last efforts of our study, we carry out some rhetorical anatomies of the actual discursive practices by mobilizing our argumentative concepts of rhetorical situation and the system of argumentative techniques. These case studies not only prove the pertinence of argumentation to RC and fruitfulness of its critical applications, but also show how argumentation finds its expression in some argumentatively atypical discursive engagements. More importantly, the critical analyses demonstrate how RC may contribute to the theoretical buildings of rhetoric and argumentation, and how it may allow us to gain deeper insight into such theoretical issues as the symbiosis of argumentation and institutional power, the argumentative dynamics of institutional ethos (re)building in crisis rhetoric, and the normative role played by the audience and its function in mediating burden of proof in scientific controversy, as well as the epideictic function of scientific controversy.
The study, adopting a methodology of qualitative and interpretative analysis, attempts to explore the relevance of argumentation to RC so as to rectify the general neglect of argumentation insights within the discipline of rhetorical (criticism) studies. It also highlights the humane ethos embodied in argumentation and rhetoric which is always aimed at peaceful and critical alternatives, and as such, corrects certain rarefied conceptualizations about them and provides a fuller understanding of both.
然而,这些完全可以视为修辞学术遗产不可或缺的组成部分的论辩资源由于种种原因并未受到(西方)修辞批评界的重视、开发和充分利用。修辞批评是系统地探究话语实践,理解修辞运作,展现修辞理论与实践关联进而反哺理论的修辞研究或修辞实践,在国内仍属起步阶段。国内学界尚未充分认识到论辩理论丰厚的资源潜势,进而探索将论辩与修辞批评相结合的可能性。对论辩理论与批评实践的关联性和成效性的相关研究几近空白。具体表现为对不同的论辩思想、论辩与修辞的理论渊源和内在联系少有探讨;对论辩理论家们丰富的论辩策略研究的梳理、讨论、比较还极为不够,而这些策略体系将极大充实修辞发明的内涵;论辩理论家与Burke等新修辞学家之间的对话也极为欠缺;论辩理论如何介入阐释、评估话语实践也尚待进一步的研究。这些问题对于深化我们对西方修辞与论辩理论以及二者间的关系的认识、对于更好地理解现实话语实践和符号权力运作都是极其必要的。同时,本研究对于国内修辞界在修辞研究或“修辞转向”过程中在研究方法方面尚存在缺少或不熟悉介入具体的修辞实践所必需的可操作性强的工具范畴问题也将提供助益。
本研究首先从结果取向的非形式逻辑研究、程序-规则取向的语用辩证研究和过程-受众取向的修辞研究三个方面梳理探讨当代西方论辩理论研究的成果,表明论辩研究与当代西方修辞研究具有共同的理论旨趣和历史渊源,论辩理论是修辞资源不可或缺的组成部分。
对修辞、论辩、论辩策略、修辞批评等主要术语的辨析进一步表明修辞批评对论辩理论吸纳的可行性和必要性,并展示了论辩丰富的内涵,揭示了意义与价值的论辩性,进而纠正人们对论辩和修辞的一些偏狭认识。在此基础之上,我们从论辩的角度探讨修辞批评宏观的情境层面及其本体基础,以期为论辩与修辞批评的整合和修辞批评实践铺平学理之路。通过对修辞情境既有理论的梳理、批判,我们指出论辩理论特别是论辩策略体系可以极大地弥补修辞学者对修辞发明讨论的不足,极大地充实情境的修辞发明维度。同时,我们以论辩理论为参照,结合Burke等的新修辞思想,对空间情境、广为忽视的论辩情境、论辩主体、论辩受众、论辩目的与手段进行深入的探讨。在对福柯话语人、布迪厄习性人和哈贝马斯的交往行为人进行批判分析的基础上,我们阐明了论辩或修辞行动人的合理性,进而为修辞发明和修辞批评提供了本体基础。对论辩受众观的阐说既表明受众在修辞发明中的核心地位,也对不同的论辩理论进行批评反思。同时,论辩与修辞的共融共通性也在Perelman为代表的论辩理论家与Burke为代表的修辞学家的理论对话中展现。
作为论辩理论最为独特的理论资源之一,论辩策略体系充分体现了论辩资源对于修辞特别是修辞发明和修辞批评的建设性作用。我们以论辩惯性原则作为话语策略的使能基础,通过整合Perelman、PDA和Walton等的论辩思想和Burke的修辞思想,特别是他们有关策略机制的洞见,区分形成联结策略,剥离策略和情感策略三大类的论辩技术体系,阐明论辩理论介入修辞批评所具备的最重要的工具基础。
虽然越来越多的学者认识到修辞涵盖非语言符号现象,但是有关视觉修辞的研究仍较为零散。许多论辩理论家也仅以语言现象为关注。我们因此还结合符号学理论特别是Kress&Leeuwen的视觉语法理论,尝试从视觉修辞这一新兴的修辞研究范式出发,讨论非语言视像符号的修辞论辩性,拓展修辞、修辞批评和论辩理论的适用疆域,以期人们能够对之有新的认识,并进一步表明论辩与修辞批评的关联性。
最后,我们以论辩修辞情境和所讨论的论辩理论资源为基础,对生发于具体的修辞情境中的话语实践进行了批评解析,不仅表明论辩之于修辞批评的适用性和成效性,也展示了论辩的非典型表征。更为重要的是,这些案例批评也证明了修辞批评对于论辩和修辞理论的反哺功用,阐明诸如论辩与机构权力的共生性、危机修辞中机构人格的修复机制、科学争议中的受众的规范作用和举证责任分配功能以及科学争议本身的展示修辞功能等理论问题。
本研究采用定性的阐释分析方法,致力于探索论辩理论与修辞批评的关联,力图改变修辞(批评)领域对论辩理论总体上的盲视状况,并进一步揭示修辞和论辩所蕴含的人道精神,纠正人们对二者的一些误解误识,以期对论辩和修辞有更全面的认识。
Informed by the same roots of classical rhetorical thoughts, and taking as their central task the reaction against logical empiricism and scientism as rhetoricians do, contemporary Western argumentation theorists have theoretical concerns and scholarly interests similar to those of Western rhetorical studies, and have yielded a bonanza of profound theoretical achievements. Argumentation and rhetoric are inevitably entwined since both endorse the probable and contingent opinion instead of absolute truth as the foundation and starting point of discursive production, and both emphasize the situational nature and discursive effects of any discursive practice. On the other hand, the unique theoretical bents of argumentation theories, particularly the systematic categorization and conceptualization of discursive techniques thus proffered, can contribute to a new understanding of rhetorical practice.
However, due to various reasons, the argumentative resources which are part and parcel of rhetorical legacies have not yet been fully engaged, tapped, and assimilated by scholars working in the field of rhetorical criticism(RC) which as a qualitative study or itself a rhetorical practice is designed for the systematic investigation and explanation of symbolic actions, and serves to enact a communion of rhetorical theory and discursive practice and eventually, to enrich our understanding of both. Particularly, research about RC is still in its budding stage in China. And domestic Chinese scholars in the rhetorical tradition have paid only scant attention to the critical potentials of argumentation theories, leaving the possibility of intersection between argumentation and RC far from being explored. This lack of probe into the pertinence of argumentation and critical study more specifically manifests in that few studies if any about the interrelations of different argumentation theories, and of argumentation and rhetoric, are carried out, that more thorough exploration into the rich typology of argumentative techniques which will unveil the scope and depth of rhetorical invention remains to be done, that the constructive dialogue between argumentation theorists and rhetoricians such as Perelman and Burke is wanting, and that how argumentation insights may allow us to interpret and evaluate discursive practice remains untapped. These issues are essential in coping with the exigence of a fuller understanding of rhetoric, argumentation and their relations. And tackling them is imperative as gaining a richer experience of the discursive practice and symbolic power is an urgent and widely sanctioned academic enterprise. Moreover, our study will make a valuable contribution to confronting the tension which exists between the exigence of a“rhetorical turn”and lack of or unfamiliarity with necessary methods or toolkit to enact the turn in domestic rhetorical studies(or xiuci studies). Our accumulated efforts eventually reveal the essentially humane ethos embodied in rhetoric and argumentation.
Our study starts with the intellectual climate of and the theoretical achievements made by the three perspectives of studies into argumentation. The shared intellectual interests and historical roots of argumentation studies and rhetorical studies are pinpointed. Then the definitions and correlations of the important concepts in the study are provided and the argumentativeness of meaning and value is explored, demonstrating further the feasibility and necessity of RC’s assimilation of argumentation resources and the richness of the notion of argumentation, and rectifying the parochial or incorrect conceptualizations about it. Predicated on the conceptual framework, we then delve into the macro-level situational stratum and ontological premise of RC in an attempt to infuse argumentative insights with rhetorical (situation) theories for a RC friendly synthesis. A critical rereading of rhetorical situation theories reveals that argumentative insights particularly those about argumentative strategies can greatly refine the less developed inventional dimension of rhetorical situation. Inspired by the argumentation resources and rhetorical thoughts of Burke and other great thinkers, the neglected but important situational elements such as the rhetorical space, argumentative context, argumentative agent, argumentative audience and agency are elaborated. Through a juxtaposed reading of Foucault’s discursive subject, Bourdieu’s habitus agent and Habermas’s communicative agent, we argue for the reasonableness of argumentative or rhetorical agent as an ontological rationalization for rhetorical invention and RC. A detailed discussion of argumentative audience is aimed to show the centrality of audience in the discursive invention on the one hand, and to serve as a platform for a reflection on different argumentation theories on the other. The commensurability of argumentation and rhetoric is concomitantly unveiled in the constructive dialogues between Perelman and Burke.
As one of most unique resources contributed by argumentation theories, the system of argumentative techniques expressly demonstrates the possibilities and potentials the argumentation insights can have in rhetorical invention and RC. With the principle of inertia as the fundamental enabler of discourse strategy, we synthesize the argumentative insights offered by Perelman, PDA and Walton, and propose a typology of argumentative techniques which is divided into associative techniques, dissociative techniques and pathetic techniques. These sets of techniques constitute the most important instrumental avenue to conduct argumentative RC.
While more and more scholars have come to realize that rhetoric claims a legitimate province over the non-verbal symbolic actions, theorizations and critiques about the visual rhetorics are still sporadic and unsystematic in the rhetorical studies. Many argumentation theorists also tend to delimit the areas of argumentation studies solely in verbal artifacts. Responding to this unfortunate inadequacy and armed additionally with the visual grammar developed by Kress&Leeuwen, we attempt to expand the scope of argumentation, rhetorical invention and RC by situating them in the emerging paradigm of visual rhetoric in a hope to reveal a new facet of the three. And it is also the continued endeavor to establish the relevance of argumentation to RC.
As the last efforts of our study, we carry out some rhetorical anatomies of the actual discursive practices by mobilizing our argumentative concepts of rhetorical situation and the system of argumentative techniques. These case studies not only prove the pertinence of argumentation to RC and fruitfulness of its critical applications, but also show how argumentation finds its expression in some argumentatively atypical discursive engagements. More importantly, the critical analyses demonstrate how RC may contribute to the theoretical buildings of rhetoric and argumentation, and how it may allow us to gain deeper insight into such theoretical issues as the symbiosis of argumentation and institutional power, the argumentative dynamics of institutional ethos (re)building in crisis rhetoric, and the normative role played by the audience and its function in mediating burden of proof in scientific controversy, as well as the epideictic function of scientific controversy.
The study, adopting a methodology of qualitative and interpretative analysis, attempts to explore the relevance of argumentation to RC so as to rectify the general neglect of argumentation insights within the discipline of rhetorical (criticism) studies. It also highlights the humane ethos embodied in argumentation and rhetoric which is always aimed at peaceful and critical alternatives, and as such, corrects certain rarefied conceptualizations about them and provides a fuller understanding of both.
引文
①See Eemeren et al(Fundamentals 171) for a fuller review.
①See, for example, Fairclough(1989,1992), Chouliaraki&Fairclough(1999), and Wodak&Meyer (2001).
①see Hu Shuzhong’s Studies in English Textlinguistics (5).
①See, for example, Hart&Daughton(2005), MeKerrow(1989), Wodak&Meyer (2001).
②see Qu Weiguo(2007) and Li Yanfang(2008).
Allen, Nancy.“Ethics and Visual Rhetorics: Seeing’s Not Believing Anymore.”Technical Communication Quarterly 5.1(1996):87-105.
Anderson, Dana.“Questioning the Motives of Habituated Action.”Philosophy& Rhetoric 37.3(2004):255-274.
Andrews, James R. The Practice of Rhetorical Criticism. NY: Macmillan Publishing Inc, 1983.
Andrews, James R., et al. Reading Rhetorical Texts: An Introduction to Criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998.
Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. W. R. Roberts. New York : Modern Library, 1954.
——Topics. Trans. W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. Dec. 20,2008.
< http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8t/index.html >.
——Sophistical Refutation. Trans. W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. May 20, 2009.
Arnold, Carrol C.“Perelman’s New Rhetoric.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 56.1(1970):87-92.
——“Implications of Perelman’s Theory of Argumentation for Theory of Persuasion.”Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs: Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman. Ed. James L.Golden and Joseph J. Pilotta. Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1986.37-52.
——“Oral Rhetoric, Rhetoric, and Literature.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 1.2(1968):191-210.
Ausmus,William.“A Pragmatic Uses of Metaphor: Models and Metaphor in the Nuclear Winter Scenario.”Communication Monographs 65.1(1998):67-83.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. Speech Genres and Other Later Essays. Trans. V.W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas,1986.
——The Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed.&Trans. Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
Barth,Else M.,and Erik C.W.Krabbe. From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. NY:Walter de Gruyter,1982.
Barthes, Roland. Image,Music,Text. NY: Hill&Wang,1977.
Beard, David E.“Douglas Walton, Informal Logic, and the Uses of the New Dialectic for the Rhetoric of Inquiry.”Diss. University of Minnesota, 2002.
Biesecker, Barbara.“Michel Foucault and the Question of Rhetoric.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 25.4(1992):351-364.
——“Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation from within the Thematic of Difference.”Philosophy& Rhetoric 22.2(1989):110-130.
Billig, Michael. Arguing and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987. Birdsell, David S., and Leo Groarke.“Toward a Theory of Visual Argument.”Argumentation&Advocacy 33.1(1996): 1-10.
Bitzer, Lloyd F.“The Rhetorical Situation.”Philosophy & Rhetoric 1.1 (1968): 1-14. Black, Edwin. Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978.
Blair,John.A.“The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Argument.”Argumentation&Advocacy 33.1(1996): 23-39.
Blakesley, David.“Defining Film Rhetoric: The Case of Hitchcock’s Vertigo.”Defining Visual Rhetorics. Ed. Charles A.Hill and Marguerite Helmers. NJ: University of Wisconsin Oshkosh,2004. 111-134.
Bohman, James.“Practical Reason and Cultural Constraint: Agency in Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice.”Bourdieu: A Critical Reader. Ed. Richard Shusterman. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1999. 129-152.
Booth, Wayne C. Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Language and Symbolic Power. Ed. John B. Thompson. London: Polity Press, 1990.
——Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge UP,1977.
——Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP,1984.
Brock, Bernard L., Robert L. Scott, and James W. Chesebro,eds. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism:A Twentieth-Century Perspective. 3rd ed. Detroit: Wayne State UniversityPress,1990.
Brockriede, Wayne.“Rhetorical Criticism as Argument.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 60.2 (1974): 165-74.
Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. Discourse Analysis. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching &Research Press, 2000.
Brummet, Barray.“Rhetorical Theory as Heuristic and Moral: A Pedagogical Justification.”Rhetoric: Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries. Ed. William A.Covino and David A. Jolliffe. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.651-663.
Bryant, Donald C. Rhetorical Dimensions in Criticism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP, 1973.
Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966.
——A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
——A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
——The Philosophy of Literary Form.3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.
——Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose. Los Altos: Hermes Publications,1954.
——Counter-Statement. 2nd ed. Los Altos: Hermes Publications,1953.
——“(Nonsymbolic) Motion/(Symbolic) Action.”Critical Inquiry 4(1978):809–38. Campbell, George. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UP, 1963.
Carozza, Linda.“Traditional Argumentation Broadened.”Diss. University of Windsor,Canada, 2002.
Cassirer, Ernst. An Essay on Man. NY: Yale University Press, 1962.
Chai, Gaiying.“English Advertising: A Rhetoric of Identification.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies University,2004.
Cheong, Yin Yuen.“The Construal of Ideational Meaning in Print Advertisements.”Multimodal Discourse Analysis. Ed. Kay L. O’Halloran. London: Continuum,2004.163-195.
Chouliaraki, Lilie, and Norman Fairclough. Discourse in Late Modernity: RethinkingCritical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1999.
Cloud, Dana L.“‘To Veil the Threat of Terror’: Afghan Women and the in the Imagery of the U.S. War on Terrorism.”Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture. Ed. Lester C.Olson, Cara A. Finnegan, and Diane S. Hope. Los Angeles : Sage, 2008.393-412.
Conley, Thomas M. Rhetoric in the European Tradition. New York: Longman, 1990. Connor, Ulla. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language Writing. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Education Press, 2001.
Consigny, Scott.“Rhetoric and Its Situations.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 7.3 (1974): 175-86.
Cook, Guy. The Discourse of Advertising. London: Routledge, 2001.
Covino, William A., and David A. Jolliffe.“Invention.”Rhetoric: Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries. Ed. William A.Covino and David A. Jolliffe. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.60-61.
——“Rhetoric and Literary Criticism.”Rhetoric: Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries. Ed. William A.Covino and David A. Jolliffe. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1995. 497-499.
Crable, R. E. Argumentation as Communication: Reasoning with Receivers. Columbus,OH: Charles E. Merill,1976.
Crosswhite,James.“Is There an Audience for This Argument? Fallacies,Theories, and Relativisms.”Philosophy & Rhetoric 28.2 (1995):134-145.
——“Universality in Rhetoric: Perelman’s Universal Audience.”Philosophy & Rhetoric 22.3(1989):157-173.
Cummings, Louise. Pragmatics: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2007.
Dearin,Ray D.“The Philosophical Basis of Chaim Perelman’s Theory of Rhetoric.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 55.3(1969):213-224.
Dillon, George L. Contending Rhetorics: Writing in Academic Disciplines. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1991.
Dyck, Ed.“Topos and Enthymeme.”Rhetorica 20.2(2002):105-117.
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesotan Press,1983.
Edwards,Janis L.,and Carol K.Winkler.“Representative Form and the Visual Ideograph: The Iwo Jima Image in Editorial Cartoon.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 83.3(1997):289-310.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach.London: Cambridge University Press,2004.
——“Perelman and the Fallacies.”Philosophy & Rhetoric 28.2(1995):122-135.
——Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Floris Publications,1984.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, et al. Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum, 2002.
——Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum, 1996.
Ehninger,Douglas,and Wayne Brockriede. Decision by Debate. NY: Dodd, Mead,1963.
Erickson, KeithV.“Presidential Rhetoric’s Visual Turn: Performance Fragments and the Politics of Illusionism.”Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture. Ed. Lester C.Olson, Cara A. Finnegan, and Diane S. Hope. Los Angeles : Sage, 2008. 357-374.
Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power. London: Longman Group, 1989.
——Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
——Language and Globalization. London: Routledge,2006.
Farral, Thomas.“Reason and Rhetorical Practice: The Inventional Agenda of Chaim Perelman.”Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs. Ed. James L.Golden and Joseph J. Pilotta. Dordrecht:Reidel,1986.259-286.
——Norms of Rhetorical Culture. New Haven:Yale University Press,1995.
Flax, Jane. Disputed Subjects: Essays on Psychoanalysis, Politics and Philosophy. New York and London: Routledge, 1993.
Fleming, Don.“Can Pictures Be Arguments?”Argumentation&Advocacy 33.1(1996): 11-22.
Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice. 3rd ed. Prospect Heights,IL: Waveland Press,2004.
——“Framing the Study of Visual Rhetoric.”Defining Visual Rhetorics. Ed. Charles A.Hill and Marguerite Helmers. NJ: University of Wisconsin Oshkosh,2004.303-314.
——“Ambiguity as Persuasion: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial.”Communication Quarterly 34.3(1986):326-40.
Foss, Sonja K., et al. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. 3nd ed. Prospect Height: Waveland Press,2002.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. NY: Random House, 1979.
——Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Ed. Colin Gordon. London: Harvester Press, 1980.
——The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1. New York: Vintage Book, 1980.
Freeborn, Dennis. Style: Text Analysis and Linguistic Criticism. 2nd ed. London: Houndmills Macmillan Press, 1996.
Freeley, Austin J.,and David L. Steinberg. Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making. 10th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2000.
Frank, David A.“A Traumatic Reading of Twentieth-Century Rhetorical Theory:The Belgian Holocaust, Malines, Perelman, and de Man.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 97.3(2007):308-343.
Gaonkar,Dillip P.“Rhetoric and Its Double.”Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. Ed. John L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit,and S.Caudill. New York: the Guilford Press, 1999. 202-245.
Gee, Paul. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching&Research Press,2000.
Gilbert, Michael. Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1997.
Godden, David M.“On Common Knowledge and Ad Populum: Acceptance as Grounds for Acceptability.”Philosophy & Rhetoric 41.2(2008):101-129.
Golden, James L., and Joseph J. Pilotta, eds. Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs:Studies in Honor of Chaim Perellman. Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co.,1986.
Goodwin,Jean.“Perelman, Adhering, and Conviction.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 28.3(1995):215-233.
Gorrell, Donna.“The Rhetorical Situation Again: Linked Components in a Venn Diagram.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 30.4(1997):395-412.
Gregg, Richard B.“Review of Symbol,Myth and Culture:Essays and Lectures of Ernst Cassirer.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 15.1(1982):61-5.
Gross,Allan.“A Theory of the Rhetorical Audience: Reflections on Chaim Perelman.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 85.2(1999):203-211.
——“Presence as a Consequence of Verbal-Visual Interaction.”Rhetoric Review 28.3(2009):265-284.
Gross, Allan, and Ray D. Dearin. Chaim Perelman. NY: State University of New York Press, 2003.
Guo, Libo.“Multimodality in a Biology Textbook.”Multimodal Discourse Analysis. Ed. Kay L. O’Halloran. London: Continuum,2004. 196-219.
Habermas, Jurgen. Communication&the Evolution of Society. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston : Beacon Press, 1979.
Hall, Stuart.“Encoding/Decoding.”Culture,Media,Language. Ed. Stuart Hall, et al. London: Unwin Hyman,1980. 128-138.
Hamblin, Charles.L. Fallacies. London: Methuen. 1970.
Hariman, Robert, and John L. Lucaites.“Public Identity and Collective Memory in U.S. Iconic Photography.”Critical Studies in Media Communication 20.1(2003): 35-66.
Hart, Roderick P., and Suzanne M. Daughton. Modern Rhetorical Criticism. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson
Eduacation, Inc. 2005.
Herrick, James. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn&Bacon, 2005.
Hill, Charles A., and Marguerite Helmers, eds. Defining Visual Rhetorics. NJ: University of Wisconsin Oshkosh,2004.
Hill, Forbes I.“The Rhetoric of Aristotle.”A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric. Ed. James.J. Murphy. Davis: Hermagoras Press,1983. 19-76.
Hiraga, Masako K. Metaphor and Iconicity: A Cognitive Approach to Analysing Text. NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Hohmann, Hanns.“Rhetoric and Dialectic: Some Historical and Legal Perspectives.”Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Ed. Frans
H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. 41-52.
Hu, Shuzhong. English Rhetoric. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2002.
Ivie, Robert L.“The Social Relevance of Rhetorical Scholarship,”Quarterly Journal of Speech 81.2 (1994):81.
Jackson, Brian.“Jonathan Edwards Goes to Hell (House): Fear Appeals in American Evangelism.”Rhetoric Review 26.1(2007):42-59.
Jasinski, James.“The Status of Theory and Method in Rhetorical Criticism,”Western Journal of Communication 65.3 (2001): 249-270.
Jones, Danial D.“A Critique of the Epistemology of Chaim Perelman’s New Rhetoric.”Diss. Eastern Michigan University,1993.
Kahane, Howard. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. Belmont,Cal.: Wadsworth Publishing Co.,1976.
Kaplan,Stuart.“Visual Metaphors in Print Advertising for Fashion Products.”Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media. Ed. Ken Smith, et al. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,2005.167-178.
——“Visual Metaphors in the Representation of Communication Technology.”Critical Studies in Media Communication 7.1(1990): 37-47.
Kennedy, Keith.“Representation Theory.”Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media. Ed. Ken Smith, et al. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,2005. 99-116.
Klinger, Geoffrey D.“Jurisprudence Recovered: Philosophical and Rhetorical Traditions in the Theory of Law.”Diss. The University of Iowa,1998.
Kostelnick, Charles,and David D.Roberts. Designing Visual Language: Strategies for Professional Communicators. Boston: Allyn& Bacon, 1998.
Krabbe, Erick C.W.“Meeting in the House of Callias: An Historical Perspective onRhetoric and Dialectic.”Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Ed. Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. 29-40.
Kress,Gunther, and T. van Leeuwen. Reading Image: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge,1996.
Kress,Gunther, et al. Multimodal Teaching and Learning: The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. London: Continuum,2001.
Kuypers, Jim A., eds. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Boston: Pearson Education,2005.
——“Rhetorical Criticism as Art.”Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Lanham,MD: Lexington Books, 2009.13-28.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Leff, Michael.“In Search of Ariadne’s Thread: A Review of the Recent Literature on Rhetorical Theory.”Central States Speech Journal 29.1(1978):73-91.
——“Interpretation and the Art of the Rhetorical Critic.”Western Journal of Speech Communication 44.3(1980): 337-349.
Lewan, Lindsay.“Practical Reasoning as Pedagogy: Chaim Perelman and the Reasonable Practice of Argumentation in the Composition Classroom.”Diss. The University of New Mexico,2002.
Li, Yanfang.“Studies in the Rhetorical Perspective on Critical Discourse Analysis.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies University, 2008.
Long, Jinshun.“A Semiotic Study of English Composition-Rhetoric: A New Pespective on ESL/EFL Writing.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies University,2010.
Loreau, Max.“Rhetoric as the Logic of the Behavioral Sciences.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 51.4(1965):455-460.
Maneli, Mieczys?aw. Perelman’s New Rhetoric as Philosophy and Methodology for the Next Century. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.
McCarthy, Thomas. The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge: MIT Press,1985.
McKerrow, Raymie.“Critical Rheotic:Theory and Practice.”Communication Monographs 56.1(1989):91-111.
Messaris,Paul. Visual“Literacy”: Image, Mind, and Reality. Boulder,CO: Westview Press,1994.
Mills, Sara. Discourse. 2nd ed. London&NY: Routledge, 2004. ——Michel Foucault. London&NY: Routledge, 2003.
Mitchell, Gordon R.“Team B Intelligence Coups.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 92.2(2006): 144-173.
Mitchell, W.J.T. Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1994.
Nilsen, Thomas R.“Interpretive Function of the Critic,”Western Speech 21.2 (1957):64-78.
Noe,Mark.“The Real and the Preferable: Perelman’s Structures of Reality in Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair.”Rhetoric Review 24.4(2005):421-37.
O’Keefe, D.J.“The Concepts of Argument and Arguing.”Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research. Ed. J. Robert Cox and Charles A.Willard. Carbondale,IL: Southern Illlinois UP, 1982. 154-183.
——“Two Concepts of Argument.”Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13.2(1977): 121-128.
Olson, Lester C.“Benjamin Franklin’s Pictorial Representations of the British Colonies in America: A Study in Rhetorical Iconology.”Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture. Ed. Lester C.Olson, Cara A. Finnegan, and Diane S. Hope. Los Angeles : Sage, 2008.333-356.
Olson, Lester C., Cara A. Finnegan, and Diane S. Hope.“Visual Rhetoric in Communication: Continuing Questions and Contemporary Issues.”Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture. Ed. Lester C.Olson, Cara A. Finnegan,and Diane S. Hope. Los Angeles : Sage, 2008.1-14.
——“Performing and Seeing.”Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture. Ed. Lester C.Olson, Cara A. Finnegan,and Diane S. Hope. Los Angeles : Sage, 2008. 15-20.
Ott, Brian L.,and Greg Dickinson.“Visual Rhetoric and/as Critical Pedagogy.”The Sage Handbook of Communication Studies. Ed. Andrea A. Lunford, Kirt H. Wilson,and Rosa A. Elberly. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd, 2009.391-406.
Overington,Michael A.“The Scientific Community as Audience:Toward a Rhetorical Analysis of Science.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 10.2(1977):143-164.
Perelman,Chaim. The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,1982.
——The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and Its Applications. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1979.
——Justice. NY: Random House, 1967.
——The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument. Trans. John Petrie. NY: Humanities Press, 1963.
——“Reply to Henry W. Johnstone,Jr.”Philosophy, Rhetoric and Argumentation. Ed. Natason,Maurie.&Henry Johnstone. PA:The Pennsylvania State UP,1965.135-7.
——“Rhetoric and Philosophy.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 1.1(1968):15-24.
——“Rhetoric and Politics.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 16.2(1984):129-134.
——“The New Rhetoric and the Rhetoricians.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 70.2(1984):188-196.
Perelman, Chaim,and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.
Prelli, Lawrence J. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press,1989.
Ray,John W.“Perelman’s Universal Audience.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 64.4(1978):361-75.
Reisigl,Martin,and Routh Wodak. Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge,2001.
Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. NY: Oxford UP, 1936.
Rieke, Richard R.,and Malcolm O. Sillars. Argumentation and Critical Decision Making. 5th ed. NY: Longman,2001.
Rorty, Richard. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989.
Scollon,Ron,and Suzie W. Scollon. Discourse in Place: Language in the Material World. London: Routledge,2003.
Scriven, Michael. Reasoning. NY: McGraw-Hill Inc,1976.
Shen, Dan. Recent Development in Western Stylistics. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press,2007.
Shiappa, Edward.“The Rhetoric of Nukespeak.”Communication Monographs 56.3(1989):253-273.
Thomas, Stephen. Practical Reasoning in Natural Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Thompson, John B.“Editor’s Introduction.”Language and Symbolic Power. Pierre Bourdieu. Ed. John B. Thompson. London: Polity Press, 1990. 1-31.
Tindale, Christopher W. Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. NY: State University of NY, 1999.
Toulmin, Stephen. The Use of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Toulmin,Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik. An Introduction to Reasoning. 2nd ed. NY:Macmillan,1984.
Tracy, Karen.“Discourse Analysis in Communication.”The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Ed. Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.735-49.
Twigg,Reginald.“The Performative Dimension of Surveillance: Jacob Riis’How the Other Half Lives.”Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture. Ed. Lester C.Olson, Cara A. Finnegan,and Diane S. Hope. Los Angeles: Sage, 2008.21-40.
Tufte, Edward R. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. 2nd ed. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press,2001.
Vatz, Richard E.“The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 6.3 (1973):154-61.
Velasco, Antonio R.“Rethinking Perelman’s Universal Audience: Political Dimensions of a Controversial Concept.”Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35.2(2005):47-65.
Virtanen,Tuija.“Issues of Text Typology: Narrative--A‘Basic’Type of Text?”Text 12.2(1992):293-310.
Volosinov, V.N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Trans. L. Matejka and I.R. Titunik. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1973.
Waddell, Craig.“The Role of Pathos in Decision-making Process.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 76.3(1990):381-400.
Wales, Katie. A Dictionary of Stylistics. London: Longman, 1989.
Walton,Douglas. Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,2008.
——Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation. Amsterdam:John Benjamns Publishing Co.,2007.
——Appeal to Popular Opinion. PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999.
——Ad Hominem Arguments.Tuscaloosa,AL: University of Alabama Press,1998.
——Appeal to Pity: Argumentum Ad Misericordiam. Albany,NY:State University of New York Press,1997.
——“Enthymemes, Common Knowledge, and Plausible Inference.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 24.1(2001): 93–112.
Walzer,Arthur, Marie Secor,and Allan Gross.“The Uses and Limits of Rhetorical Theory:Campbell, Whately, and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca on the Earl of Spencer’s Address to Diana.”Rhetoric Society Quarterly 29.4(1999):53-7.
Widdowson, H.G. Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigation. 3rd ed. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,1958.
Wodak, Routh.“What is CDA About—a Summary of Its History, Important Concepts and Its Developments.”Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Ed. Routh Wodak and Michael Meyer. London: Sage,2001. 1-13.
Wodak, Routh,and Michael Meyer, eds. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage,2001.
Xia, Li.“Intercultural Rhetorical Studies in Argumentative Discourse: English vs Chinese.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies University, 2005.
Young, Richard, Alton. L. Becker, and Keenth L. Pike. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. Harcourt, Brace&World, Inc., 1970.
Yun, Hong.“Argumentation: Theories and Applications.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies University, 2010.
Zarefsky, David.“Making the Case for War: Colin Powell at the United Nations.”Rhetoric & Public Affairs 10.2(2007): 275-302.
Zepernick, Janet S.“Debating Health Care: Rhetorical Theory and the Discourse of Public Policy-making.”Diss. The Pennsylvania State University,1997.
Zhao, Donglin.“Exploring Text-Type-Based Translation Equivalence.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies University, 2004.
[美]奥斯丁?J?弗里莱(Freeley, Austin J.).辩论与论辩.李建强等译.保定:河北大学出版社,1996.
崔淑珍(Cui, Shuzhen).西方英语写作学的元学科研究.博士论文,上海外国语大学,2009.
[美]大卫?宁等(Ling,D. et al).当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法.常昌富(Chang,Changfu),顾宝桐(Gu, Baotong)译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
邓志勇(Deng, Zhiyong).伯克修辞学思想研究述评.修辞学习,2008,(6):15-23.
——戏剧主义修辞批评略论.修辞学习,2007,(2):36-40.
——英语修辞学与写作研究:一种修辞模式.长春:吉林人民出版社,2002.
邓志勇(Deng, Zhiyong),武艳(Wu,Yan).社会运动修辞批评略论.山东外语教学,2008, (1):26-31.
邓志勇(Deng, Zhiyong),王懋康(Wang,Maokang).修辞批评的女性主义范式:理论与操作.外语与外语教学, 2008,(8):8-12.
樊明明(Fan, Mingming).修辞论辩与非形式逻辑.解放军外国语学院学报,2005,(3):31-4.
侯学勇(Hou, Xueyong).佩雷尔曼修辞论证理论研究.法律方法,2005,(2):496-518.
胡曙中(Hu, Shuzhong).英汉修辞比较研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,1993.
——美国新修辞研究.上海:上海外语教育出版,1999.
——现代英语修辞学.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
——英语语篇语言学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
——西方新修辞学概要.长沙:湘潭大学出版社,2009.
李元授(Li, Yuanshou),李鹏(Li, Peng).辩论学.武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2004.
李战子(Li, Zhanzi).多模式话语的社会符号学分析.外语研究,2003,(5):1-8.
刘旺洪(Liu,Wanghong).佩雷尔曼的法律思想述论.法制现代化研究,2001,(3):676-96.
刘亚猛(Liu, Yameng).追求象征的力量:关于西方修辞思想的思考.北京:三联书店, 2004.
——西方修辞学史.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.
曲卫国(Qu, Weiguo).人文学科的修辞转向和修辞学的批判性转向.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007,(1):113-22.
——英语高级写作:论说文入门.北京:高等教育出版社,2005.
施旭(Shi, Xu).论辩话语研究——Frans van Eemeren和Rob Grootendorst的理论简介.外语教学与研究,1992,(3): 45-48.
田海龙(Tian, Hailong).语篇研究:范畴、视角、方法.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2009.
涂家金(Tu, Jiajin).基于语用论辩理论的修辞批评.语言教学与研究,2011,(1): 105-112.
王国龙(Wang,Guolong).佩雷尔曼新修辞学与法律论辩思想.法律方法与法律思维,2008,(5):135-157.
温科学(Wen, Kexue). 20世纪西方修辞学理论研究.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006.
武光军(Wu,Guangjun).《翻译质量评估:论辩理论模式》评介.外语研究,2006, (4):72-4.
武宏志(Wu,Hongzhi).关于批评性论辩文献翻译的若干问题.佳木斯大学社会科学学报,2004,(2):114-116.
武宏志(Wu,Hongzhi),张志敏(Zhang, Zhimin).非形式逻辑或论证逻辑:论证型式. 榆林学院学报,2008, (1):1-9,19.
吴景荣(Wu, Jingrong),程镇球(Chen,Zhenqiu).新时代汉英大词典.北京:商务印书馆, 2000.
夏莉(Xia, Li).英汉论辩语篇说理策略、论辩有效性及诉求手段对比修辞研究.四川外语学院学报,2007,(3):75-8.
杨贝(Yang,Bei).论佩雷尔曼新修辞学法哲学及其论证理论.硕士论文,中国政治大学,2005.
姚喜明(Yao, Ximing)编著.西方修辞学简史.上海:上海大学出版社,2009. 熊明辉(Xiong,Minghui).语用论辩术——一种批判性思维视角.湖南科技大学学报(社会科学版),2006, (1):41-46.
——非形式逻辑的对象及其发展趋势.中山大学学报(社会科学版), 2006,(2):71-75.
胥国红(Xu,Guohong),曲航(Qu, Hang).多模态语篇分析——信息时代的新视角.山东外语教学, 2009,(2):3-7.
许力生(Xu,Lisheng),李广才(Li,Guangcai).汉英论说文语篇的修辞模式对比.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002,(5):56-64.
袁影(Yuan, Ying).修辞批评新模式构建研究.博士论文,上海外国语大学,2008.
张玉芳(Zhang, Yufang).演讲话语象征性互动研究.长春:吉林大学出版社,2009.
①See, for example, Fairclough(1989,1992), Chouliaraki&Fairclough(1999), and Wodak&Meyer (2001).
①see Hu Shuzhong’s Studies in English Textlinguistics (5).
①See, for example, Hart&Daughton(2005), MeKerrow(1989), Wodak&Meyer (2001).
②see Qu Weiguo(2007) and Li Yanfang(2008).
Allen, Nancy.“Ethics and Visual Rhetorics: Seeing’s Not Believing Anymore.”Technical Communication Quarterly 5.1(1996):87-105.
Anderson, Dana.“Questioning the Motives of Habituated Action.”Philosophy& Rhetoric 37.3(2004):255-274.
Andrews, James R. The Practice of Rhetorical Criticism. NY: Macmillan Publishing Inc, 1983.
Andrews, James R., et al. Reading Rhetorical Texts: An Introduction to Criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998.
Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. W. R. Roberts. New York : Modern Library, 1954.
——Topics. Trans. W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. Dec. 20,2008.
< http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8t/index.html >.
——Sophistical Refutation. Trans. W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. May 20, 2009.
Arnold, Carrol C.“Perelman’s New Rhetoric.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 56.1(1970):87-92.
——“Implications of Perelman’s Theory of Argumentation for Theory of Persuasion.”Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs: Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman. Ed. James L.Golden and Joseph J. Pilotta. Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1986.37-52.
——“Oral Rhetoric, Rhetoric, and Literature.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 1.2(1968):191-210.
Ausmus,William.“A Pragmatic Uses of Metaphor: Models and Metaphor in the Nuclear Winter Scenario.”Communication Monographs 65.1(1998):67-83.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. Speech Genres and Other Later Essays. Trans. V.W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas,1986.
——The Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed.&Trans. Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
Barth,Else M.,and Erik C.W.Krabbe. From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. NY:Walter de Gruyter,1982.
Barthes, Roland. Image,Music,Text. NY: Hill&Wang,1977.
Beard, David E.“Douglas Walton, Informal Logic, and the Uses of the New Dialectic for the Rhetoric of Inquiry.”Diss. University of Minnesota, 2002.
Biesecker, Barbara.“Michel Foucault and the Question of Rhetoric.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 25.4(1992):351-364.
——“Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation from within the Thematic of Difference.”Philosophy& Rhetoric 22.2(1989):110-130.
Billig, Michael. Arguing and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987. Birdsell, David S., and Leo Groarke.“Toward a Theory of Visual Argument.”Argumentation&Advocacy 33.1(1996): 1-10.
Bitzer, Lloyd F.“The Rhetorical Situation.”Philosophy & Rhetoric 1.1 (1968): 1-14. Black, Edwin. Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978.
Blair,John.A.“The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Argument.”Argumentation&Advocacy 33.1(1996): 23-39.
Blakesley, David.“Defining Film Rhetoric: The Case of Hitchcock’s Vertigo.”Defining Visual Rhetorics. Ed. Charles A.Hill and Marguerite Helmers. NJ: University of Wisconsin Oshkosh,2004. 111-134.
Bohman, James.“Practical Reason and Cultural Constraint: Agency in Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice.”Bourdieu: A Critical Reader. Ed. Richard Shusterman. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1999. 129-152.
Booth, Wayne C. Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Language and Symbolic Power. Ed. John B. Thompson. London: Polity Press, 1990.
——Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge UP,1977.
——Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP,1984.
Brock, Bernard L., Robert L. Scott, and James W. Chesebro,eds. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism:A Twentieth-Century Perspective. 3rd ed. Detroit: Wayne State UniversityPress,1990.
Brockriede, Wayne.“Rhetorical Criticism as Argument.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 60.2 (1974): 165-74.
Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. Discourse Analysis. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching &Research Press, 2000.
Brummet, Barray.“Rhetorical Theory as Heuristic and Moral: A Pedagogical Justification.”Rhetoric: Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries. Ed. William A.Covino and David A. Jolliffe. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.651-663.
Bryant, Donald C. Rhetorical Dimensions in Criticism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP, 1973.
Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966.
——A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
——A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
——The Philosophy of Literary Form.3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.
——Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose. Los Altos: Hermes Publications,1954.
——Counter-Statement. 2nd ed. Los Altos: Hermes Publications,1953.
——“(Nonsymbolic) Motion/(Symbolic) Action.”Critical Inquiry 4(1978):809–38. Campbell, George. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UP, 1963.
Carozza, Linda.“Traditional Argumentation Broadened.”Diss. University of Windsor,Canada, 2002.
Cassirer, Ernst. An Essay on Man. NY: Yale University Press, 1962.
Chai, Gaiying.“English Advertising: A Rhetoric of Identification.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies University,2004.
Cheong, Yin Yuen.“The Construal of Ideational Meaning in Print Advertisements.”Multimodal Discourse Analysis. Ed. Kay L. O’Halloran. London: Continuum,2004.163-195.
Chouliaraki, Lilie, and Norman Fairclough. Discourse in Late Modernity: RethinkingCritical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1999.
Cloud, Dana L.“‘To Veil the Threat of Terror’: Afghan Women and the
Conley, Thomas M. Rhetoric in the European Tradition. New York: Longman, 1990. Connor, Ulla. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language Writing. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Education Press, 2001.
Consigny, Scott.“Rhetoric and Its Situations.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 7.3 (1974): 175-86.
Cook, Guy. The Discourse of Advertising. London: Routledge, 2001.
Covino, William A., and David A. Jolliffe.“Invention.”Rhetoric: Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries. Ed. William A.Covino and David A. Jolliffe. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.60-61.
——“Rhetoric and Literary Criticism.”Rhetoric: Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries. Ed. William A.Covino and David A. Jolliffe. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1995. 497-499.
Crable, R. E. Argumentation as Communication: Reasoning with Receivers. Columbus,OH: Charles E. Merill,1976.
Crosswhite,James.“Is There an Audience for This Argument? Fallacies,Theories, and Relativisms.”Philosophy & Rhetoric 28.2 (1995):134-145.
——“Universality in Rhetoric: Perelman’s Universal Audience.”Philosophy & Rhetoric 22.3(1989):157-173.
Cummings, Louise. Pragmatics: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2007.
Dearin,Ray D.“The Philosophical Basis of Chaim Perelman’s Theory of Rhetoric.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 55.3(1969):213-224.
Dillon, George L. Contending Rhetorics: Writing in Academic Disciplines. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1991.
Dyck, Ed.“Topos and Enthymeme.”Rhetorica 20.2(2002):105-117.
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesotan Press,1983.
Edwards,Janis L.,and Carol K.Winkler.“Representative Form and the Visual Ideograph: The Iwo Jima Image in Editorial Cartoon.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 83.3(1997):289-310.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach.London: Cambridge University Press,2004.
——“Perelman and the Fallacies.”Philosophy & Rhetoric 28.2(1995):122-135.
——Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Floris Publications,1984.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, et al. Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum, 2002.
——Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum, 1996.
Ehninger,Douglas,and Wayne Brockriede. Decision by Debate. NY: Dodd, Mead,1963.
Erickson, KeithV.“Presidential Rhetoric’s Visual Turn: Performance Fragments and the Politics of Illusionism.”Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture. Ed. Lester C.Olson, Cara A. Finnegan, and Diane S. Hope. Los Angeles : Sage, 2008. 357-374.
Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power. London: Longman Group, 1989.
——Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
——Language and Globalization. London: Routledge,2006.
Farral, Thomas.“Reason and Rhetorical Practice: The Inventional Agenda of Chaim Perelman.”Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs. Ed. James L.Golden and Joseph J. Pilotta. Dordrecht:Reidel,1986.259-286.
——Norms of Rhetorical Culture. New Haven:Yale University Press,1995.
Flax, Jane. Disputed Subjects: Essays on Psychoanalysis, Politics and Philosophy. New York and London: Routledge, 1993.
Fleming, Don.“Can Pictures Be Arguments?”Argumentation&Advocacy 33.1(1996): 11-22.
Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice. 3rd ed. Prospect Heights,IL: Waveland Press,2004.
——“Framing the Study of Visual Rhetoric.”Defining Visual Rhetorics. Ed. Charles A.Hill and Marguerite Helmers. NJ: University of Wisconsin Oshkosh,2004.303-314.
——“Ambiguity as Persuasion: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial.”Communication Quarterly 34.3(1986):326-40.
Foss, Sonja K., et al. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. 3nd ed. Prospect Height: Waveland Press,2002.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. NY: Random House, 1979.
——Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Ed. Colin Gordon. London: Harvester Press, 1980.
——The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1. New York: Vintage Book, 1980.
Freeborn, Dennis. Style: Text Analysis and Linguistic Criticism. 2nd ed. London: Houndmills Macmillan Press, 1996.
Freeley, Austin J.,and David L. Steinberg. Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making. 10th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2000.
Frank, David A.“A Traumatic Reading of Twentieth-Century Rhetorical Theory:The Belgian Holocaust, Malines, Perelman, and de Man.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 97.3(2007):308-343.
Gaonkar,Dillip P.“Rhetoric and Its Double.”Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. Ed. John L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit,and S.Caudill. New York: the Guilford Press, 1999. 202-245.
Gee, Paul. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching&Research Press,2000.
Gilbert, Michael. Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1997.
Godden, David M.“On Common Knowledge and Ad Populum: Acceptance as Grounds for Acceptability.”Philosophy & Rhetoric 41.2(2008):101-129.
Golden, James L., and Joseph J. Pilotta, eds. Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs:Studies in Honor of Chaim Perellman. Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co.,1986.
Goodwin,Jean.“Perelman, Adhering, and Conviction.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 28.3(1995):215-233.
Gorrell, Donna.“The Rhetorical Situation Again: Linked Components in a Venn Diagram.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 30.4(1997):395-412.
Gregg, Richard B.“Review of Symbol,Myth and Culture:Essays and Lectures of Ernst Cassirer.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 15.1(1982):61-5.
Gross,Allan.“A Theory of the Rhetorical Audience: Reflections on Chaim Perelman.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 85.2(1999):203-211.
——“Presence as a Consequence of Verbal-Visual Interaction.”Rhetoric Review 28.3(2009):265-284.
Gross, Allan, and Ray D. Dearin. Chaim Perelman. NY: State University of New York Press, 2003.
Guo, Libo.“Multimodality in a Biology Textbook.”Multimodal Discourse Analysis. Ed. Kay L. O’Halloran. London: Continuum,2004. 196-219.
Habermas, Jurgen. Communication&the Evolution of Society. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston : Beacon Press, 1979.
Hall, Stuart.“Encoding/Decoding.”Culture,Media,Language. Ed. Stuart Hall, et al. London: Unwin Hyman,1980. 128-138.
Hamblin, Charles.L. Fallacies. London: Methuen. 1970.
Hariman, Robert, and John L. Lucaites.“Public Identity and Collective Memory in U.S. Iconic Photography.”Critical Studies in Media Communication 20.1(2003): 35-66.
Hart, Roderick P., and Suzanne M. Daughton. Modern Rhetorical Criticism. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson
Eduacation, Inc. 2005.
Herrick, James. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn&Bacon, 2005.
Hill, Charles A., and Marguerite Helmers, eds. Defining Visual Rhetorics. NJ: University of Wisconsin Oshkosh,2004.
Hill, Forbes I.“The Rhetoric of Aristotle.”A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric. Ed. James.J. Murphy. Davis: Hermagoras Press,1983. 19-76.
Hiraga, Masako K. Metaphor and Iconicity: A Cognitive Approach to Analysing Text. NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Hohmann, Hanns.“Rhetoric and Dialectic: Some Historical and Legal Perspectives.”Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Ed. Frans
H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. 41-52.
Hu, Shuzhong. English Rhetoric. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2002.
Ivie, Robert L.“The Social Relevance of Rhetorical Scholarship,”Quarterly Journal of Speech 81.2 (1994):81.
Jackson, Brian.“Jonathan Edwards Goes to Hell (House): Fear Appeals in American Evangelism.”Rhetoric Review 26.1(2007):42-59.
Jasinski, James.“The Status of Theory and Method in Rhetorical Criticism,”Western Journal of Communication 65.3 (2001): 249-270.
Jones, Danial D.“A Critique of the Epistemology of Chaim Perelman’s New Rhetoric.”Diss. Eastern Michigan University,1993.
Kahane, Howard. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. Belmont,Cal.: Wadsworth Publishing Co.,1976.
Kaplan,Stuart.“Visual Metaphors in Print Advertising for Fashion Products.”Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media. Ed. Ken Smith, et al. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,2005.167-178.
——“Visual Metaphors in the Representation of Communication Technology.”Critical Studies in Media Communication 7.1(1990): 37-47.
Kennedy, Keith.“Representation Theory.”Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media. Ed. Ken Smith, et al. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,2005. 99-116.
Klinger, Geoffrey D.“Jurisprudence Recovered: Philosophical and Rhetorical Traditions in the Theory of Law.”Diss. The University of Iowa,1998.
Kostelnick, Charles,and David D.Roberts. Designing Visual Language: Strategies for Professional Communicators. Boston: Allyn& Bacon, 1998.
Krabbe, Erick C.W.“Meeting in the House of Callias: An Historical Perspective onRhetoric and Dialectic.”Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Ed. Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. 29-40.
Kress,Gunther, and T. van Leeuwen. Reading Image: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge,1996.
Kress,Gunther, et al. Multimodal Teaching and Learning: The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. London: Continuum,2001.
Kuypers, Jim A., eds. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Boston: Pearson Education,2005.
——“Rhetorical Criticism as Art.”Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Lanham,MD: Lexington Books, 2009.13-28.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Leff, Michael.“In Search of Ariadne’s Thread: A Review of the Recent Literature on Rhetorical Theory.”Central States Speech Journal 29.1(1978):73-91.
——“Interpretation and the Art of the Rhetorical Critic.”Western Journal of Speech Communication 44.3(1980): 337-349.
Lewan, Lindsay.“Practical Reasoning as Pedagogy: Chaim Perelman and the Reasonable Practice of Argumentation in the Composition Classroom.”Diss. The University of New Mexico,2002.
Li, Yanfang.“Studies in the Rhetorical Perspective on Critical Discourse Analysis.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies University, 2008.
Long, Jinshun.“A Semiotic Study of English Composition-Rhetoric: A New Pespective on ESL/EFL Writing.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies University,2010.
Loreau, Max.“Rhetoric as the Logic of the Behavioral Sciences.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 51.4(1965):455-460.
Maneli, Mieczys?aw. Perelman’s New Rhetoric as Philosophy and Methodology for the Next Century. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.
McCarthy, Thomas. The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge: MIT Press,1985.
McKerrow, Raymie.“Critical Rheotic:Theory and Practice.”Communication Monographs 56.1(1989):91-111.
Messaris,Paul. Visual“Literacy”: Image, Mind, and Reality. Boulder,CO: Westview Press,1994.
Mills, Sara. Discourse. 2nd ed. London&NY: Routledge, 2004. ——Michel Foucault. London&NY: Routledge, 2003.
Mitchell, Gordon R.“Team B Intelligence Coups.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 92.2(2006): 144-173.
Mitchell, W.J.T. Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1994.
Nilsen, Thomas R.“Interpretive Function of the Critic,”Western Speech 21.2 (1957):64-78.
Noe,Mark.“The Real and the Preferable: Perelman’s Structures of Reality in Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair.”Rhetoric Review 24.4(2005):421-37.
O’Keefe, D.J.“The Concepts of Argument and Arguing.”Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research. Ed. J. Robert Cox and Charles A.Willard. Carbondale,IL: Southern Illlinois UP, 1982. 154-183.
——“Two Concepts of Argument.”Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13.2(1977): 121-128.
Olson, Lester C.“Benjamin Franklin’s Pictorial Representations of the British Colonies in America: A Study in Rhetorical Iconology.”Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture. Ed. Lester C.Olson, Cara A. Finnegan, and Diane S. Hope. Los Angeles : Sage, 2008.333-356.
Olson, Lester C., Cara A. Finnegan, and Diane S. Hope.“Visual Rhetoric in Communication: Continuing Questions and Contemporary Issues.”Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture. Ed. Lester C.Olson, Cara A. Finnegan,and Diane S. Hope. Los Angeles : Sage, 2008.1-14.
——“Performing and Seeing.”Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture. Ed. Lester C.Olson, Cara A. Finnegan,and Diane S. Hope. Los Angeles : Sage, 2008. 15-20.
Ott, Brian L.,and Greg Dickinson.“Visual Rhetoric and/as Critical Pedagogy.”The Sage Handbook of Communication Studies. Ed. Andrea A. Lunford, Kirt H. Wilson,and Rosa A. Elberly. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd, 2009.391-406.
Overington,Michael A.“The Scientific Community as Audience:Toward a Rhetorical Analysis of Science.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 10.2(1977):143-164.
Perelman,Chaim. The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,1982.
——The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and Its Applications. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1979.
——Justice. NY: Random House, 1967.
——The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument. Trans. John Petrie. NY: Humanities Press, 1963.
——“Reply to Henry W. Johnstone,Jr.”Philosophy, Rhetoric and Argumentation. Ed. Natason,Maurie.&Henry Johnstone. PA:The Pennsylvania State UP,1965.135-7.
——“Rhetoric and Philosophy.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 1.1(1968):15-24.
——“Rhetoric and Politics.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 16.2(1984):129-134.
——“The New Rhetoric and the Rhetoricians.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 70.2(1984):188-196.
Perelman, Chaim,and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.
Prelli, Lawrence J. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press,1989.
Ray,John W.“Perelman’s Universal Audience.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 64.4(1978):361-75.
Reisigl,Martin,and Routh Wodak. Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge,2001.
Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. NY: Oxford UP, 1936.
Rieke, Richard R.,and Malcolm O. Sillars. Argumentation and Critical Decision Making. 5th ed. NY: Longman,2001.
Rorty, Richard. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989.
Scollon,Ron,and Suzie W. Scollon. Discourse in Place: Language in the Material World. London: Routledge,2003.
Scriven, Michael. Reasoning. NY: McGraw-Hill Inc,1976.
Shen, Dan. Recent Development in Western Stylistics. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press,2007.
Shiappa, Edward.“The Rhetoric of Nukespeak.”Communication Monographs 56.3(1989):253-273.
Thomas, Stephen. Practical Reasoning in Natural Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Thompson, John B.“Editor’s Introduction.”Language and Symbolic Power. Pierre Bourdieu. Ed. John B. Thompson. London: Polity Press, 1990. 1-31.
Tindale, Christopher W. Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. NY: State University of NY, 1999.
Toulmin, Stephen. The Use of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Toulmin,Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik. An Introduction to Reasoning. 2nd ed. NY:Macmillan,1984.
Tracy, Karen.“Discourse Analysis in Communication.”The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Ed. Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.735-49.
Twigg,Reginald.“The Performative Dimension of Surveillance: Jacob Riis’How the Other Half Lives.”Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture. Ed. Lester C.Olson, Cara A. Finnegan,and Diane S. Hope. Los Angeles: Sage, 2008.21-40.
Tufte, Edward R. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. 2nd ed. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press,2001.
Vatz, Richard E.“The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 6.3 (1973):154-61.
Velasco, Antonio R.“Rethinking Perelman’s Universal Audience: Political Dimensions of a Controversial Concept.”Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35.2(2005):47-65.
Virtanen,Tuija.“Issues of Text Typology: Narrative--A‘Basic’Type of Text?”Text 12.2(1992):293-310.
Volosinov, V.N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Trans. L. Matejka and I.R. Titunik. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1973.
Waddell, Craig.“The Role of Pathos in Decision-making Process.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 76.3(1990):381-400.
Wales, Katie. A Dictionary of Stylistics. London: Longman, 1989.
Walton,Douglas. Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,2008.
——Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation. Amsterdam:John Benjamns Publishing Co.,2007.
——Appeal to Popular Opinion. PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999.
——Ad Hominem Arguments.Tuscaloosa,AL: University of Alabama Press,1998.
——Appeal to Pity: Argumentum Ad Misericordiam. Albany,NY:State University of New York Press,1997.
——“Enthymemes, Common Knowledge, and Plausible Inference.”Philosophy&Rhetoric 24.1(2001): 93–112.
Walzer,Arthur, Marie Secor,and Allan Gross.“The Uses and Limits of Rhetorical Theory:Campbell, Whately, and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca on the Earl of Spencer’s Address to Diana.”Rhetoric Society Quarterly 29.4(1999):53-7.
Widdowson, H.G. Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigation. 3rd ed. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,1958.
Wodak, Routh.“What is CDA About—a Summary of Its History, Important Concepts and Its Developments.”Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Ed. Routh Wodak and Michael Meyer. London: Sage,2001. 1-13.
Wodak, Routh,and Michael Meyer, eds. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage,2001.
Xia, Li.“Intercultural Rhetorical Studies in Argumentative Discourse: English vs Chinese.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies University, 2005.
Young, Richard, Alton. L. Becker, and Keenth L. Pike. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. Harcourt, Brace&World, Inc., 1970.
Yun, Hong.“Argumentation: Theories and Applications.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies University, 2010.
Zarefsky, David.“Making the Case for War: Colin Powell at the United Nations.”Rhetoric & Public Affairs 10.2(2007): 275-302.
Zepernick, Janet S.“Debating Health Care: Rhetorical Theory and the Discourse of Public Policy-making.”Diss. The Pennsylvania State University,1997.
Zhao, Donglin.“Exploring Text-Type-Based Translation Equivalence.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies University, 2004.
[美]奥斯丁?J?弗里莱(Freeley, Austin J.).辩论与论辩.李建强等译.保定:河北大学出版社,1996.
崔淑珍(Cui, Shuzhen).西方英语写作学的元学科研究.博士论文,上海外国语大学,2009.
[美]大卫?宁等(Ling,D. et al).当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法.常昌富(Chang,Changfu),顾宝桐(Gu, Baotong)译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
邓志勇(Deng, Zhiyong).伯克修辞学思想研究述评.修辞学习,2008,(6):15-23.
——戏剧主义修辞批评略论.修辞学习,2007,(2):36-40.
——英语修辞学与写作研究:一种修辞模式.长春:吉林人民出版社,2002.
邓志勇(Deng, Zhiyong),武艳(Wu,Yan).社会运动修辞批评略论.山东外语教学,2008, (1):26-31.
邓志勇(Deng, Zhiyong),王懋康(Wang,Maokang).修辞批评的女性主义范式:理论与操作.外语与外语教学, 2008,(8):8-12.
樊明明(Fan, Mingming).修辞论辩与非形式逻辑.解放军外国语学院学报,2005,(3):31-4.
侯学勇(Hou, Xueyong).佩雷尔曼修辞论证理论研究.法律方法,2005,(2):496-518.
胡曙中(Hu, Shuzhong).英汉修辞比较研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,1993.
——美国新修辞研究.上海:上海外语教育出版,1999.
——现代英语修辞学.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
——英语语篇语言学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
——西方新修辞学概要.长沙:湘潭大学出版社,2009.
李元授(Li, Yuanshou),李鹏(Li, Peng).辩论学.武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2004.
李战子(Li, Zhanzi).多模式话语的社会符号学分析.外语研究,2003,(5):1-8.
刘旺洪(Liu,Wanghong).佩雷尔曼的法律思想述论.法制现代化研究,2001,(3):676-96.
刘亚猛(Liu, Yameng).追求象征的力量:关于西方修辞思想的思考.北京:三联书店, 2004.
——西方修辞学史.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.
曲卫国(Qu, Weiguo).人文学科的修辞转向和修辞学的批判性转向.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007,(1):113-22.
——英语高级写作:论说文入门.北京:高等教育出版社,2005.
施旭(Shi, Xu).论辩话语研究——Frans van Eemeren和Rob Grootendorst的理论简介.外语教学与研究,1992,(3): 45-48.
田海龙(Tian, Hailong).语篇研究:范畴、视角、方法.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2009.
涂家金(Tu, Jiajin).基于语用论辩理论的修辞批评.语言教学与研究,2011,(1): 105-112.
王国龙(Wang,Guolong).佩雷尔曼新修辞学与法律论辩思想.法律方法与法律思维,2008,(5):135-157.
温科学(Wen, Kexue). 20世纪西方修辞学理论研究.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2006.
武光军(Wu,Guangjun).《翻译质量评估:论辩理论模式》评介.外语研究,2006, (4):72-4.
武宏志(Wu,Hongzhi).关于批评性论辩文献翻译的若干问题.佳木斯大学社会科学学报,2004,(2):114-116.
武宏志(Wu,Hongzhi),张志敏(Zhang, Zhimin).非形式逻辑或论证逻辑:论证型式. 榆林学院学报,2008, (1):1-9,19.
吴景荣(Wu, Jingrong),程镇球(Chen,Zhenqiu).新时代汉英大词典.北京:商务印书馆, 2000.
夏莉(Xia, Li).英汉论辩语篇说理策略、论辩有效性及诉求手段对比修辞研究.四川外语学院学报,2007,(3):75-8.
杨贝(Yang,Bei).论佩雷尔曼新修辞学法哲学及其论证理论.硕士论文,中国政治大学,2005.
姚喜明(Yao, Ximing)编著.西方修辞学简史.上海:上海大学出版社,2009. 熊明辉(Xiong,Minghui).语用论辩术——一种批判性思维视角.湖南科技大学学报(社会科学版),2006, (1):41-46.
——非形式逻辑的对象及其发展趋势.中山大学学报(社会科学版), 2006,(2):71-75.
胥国红(Xu,Guohong),曲航(Qu, Hang).多模态语篇分析——信息时代的新视角.山东外语教学, 2009,(2):3-7.
许力生(Xu,Lisheng),李广才(Li,Guangcai).汉英论说文语篇的修辞模式对比.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002,(5):56-64.
袁影(Yuan, Ying).修辞批评新模式构建研究.博士论文,上海外国语大学,2008.
张玉芳(Zhang, Yufang).演讲话语象征性互动研究.长春:吉林大学出版社,2009.