演讲话语象征性互动研究
|
摘要
生活中广泛存在的演讲、广告、新闻报道与社论等话语引发我们思考:作为交际事件,这些话语中的交际双方是如何进行交流、沟通并最终就某一问题或事件取得一致意见、达成临时协议的?经观察我们发现它们与修辞学研究的传统的公众演说是一脉相承的,有着内在的共性,即交际双方通过多维度、多层面的象征性互动来取得相互认同、达成暂时性的统一,并最终实现各自的交际目的。据此,为了方便研究这些话语,我们借用旧的命名法“演讲”来统指它们,但赋予它新的内涵,将它重新界定为:由各式各样象征性互动组成的特殊话语,它通过人们在特定情景中就面临的争议性问题进行相互致辞、互动来取得对相关问题的临时性意见一致。这样,本研究就是致力于探索从演讲者与受众双方的象征性互动入手来分析这些演讲话语的恰当且有效的方法,从而取得更好的解读效果。
查阅相关文献发现已有的演讲批评解读研究主要有两大领域:一个是修辞批评;另一个是话语分析。但是,它们的方法都没能满足从多维度、多层面象征性互动的视角对演讲话语进行有效解读的需要。在修辞批评方面,从现有的二十种方法中,本研究依据它们与象征性互动的关系归纳总结成五大类演讲修辞批评:“演讲者为中心型”,“意识形态或动机着迷型”,“效果驱动型”,“语境导向型”以及“批评者决定型”。在话语分析方面,本研究依据语言因素与非语言变量之间的关系概括了三类演讲话语分析的趋势:语篇内部的微观语言因素分析,语篇外部的宏观语境研究,以及两者相结合来研究语篇与社会语境的互动关系。虽然这些研究方法从不同角度为演讲话语的解读提供参考与指导意见,但是它们各自存在的倾向与不同程度的缺陷妨碍它们将注意力投向演讲者与受众的象征性互动上来。本研究正是为弥补这些缺陷、探索演讲中各个层面的多维互动而设置的。
对演讲要素与作用的剖析证实了本研究的假设:演讲话语是由一系列的象征性互动构成的,所以恰当而有效的解读方式应该是综合考虑其生产与消费,注重演讲者与受众之间的双向互动。进一步考察演讲与修辞学和语言学在理论与实践上的关系,发现演讲与修辞是相互依存的,而语言则是演讲话语生产与解读不可或缺的重要因素,并且修辞学与语言学在演讲话语的解读与批评中的作用是互补性的。因此,在吸收前人研究成果的精华的基础上,本研究尝试着融合并发展修辞学与语言学的相关理论与方法从象征性互动的角度来解读演讲话语。
从修辞学中,本研究吸收并发展了古希腊Sophists的“辩证法”和Aristotle的三种“或然式论据”,古罗马Hermagoras与Cicero的“争议点理论”,以及现当代Lloyd Bitzer的修辞情景、Kenneth Burke的认同理论、Cha?m Perelman和Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca的“普世受众”与“普世价值”、Wayne C. Booth的“求同修辞”与“理想的修辞”以及Stephen Toulmin的“论辩模式”。之所以选择这些理论与主张是因为其中蕴含了丰富的象征性互动的思想、方法与策略,代表了“演讲者主导型”与“受众加权型”的互动思想,同时也展现了语篇内部的互动关系。此外,分析还表明现当代修辞学家Burke,Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca,Booth及Toulmin的思想是一脉相承的,共同揭示了修辞作为交际艺术其本质是一种由两个互为因果关系的认同过程组成的认同性互动。因此,他们的理论主张能从不同角度为人们提供解读演讲话语互动的方法。
从语言学中,本研究借鉴了Beaugrande和Dressler的四个语篇性并依据演讲话语的特点将它们发展成“话语性”,分别是目的性、可接受性、互文性及互语境性。目的性和可接受性有助于人们考察基于语篇的篇内互动,反映了在语篇建构中演讲者的目的及受众的期望与语境的象征性谈判与妥协;而互文性和互语境性则展现了基于语境的篇外互动,体现了演讲者与受众围绕语境展开的各种互动,包括语篇类型、语篇典故、前语境和后语境的选择与建构,以及这些语境因素与语篇建构的相互影响等等。
融合修辞学的理论与语言学的原理,即依据语言学的“话语性”提供的线索,运用修辞的理论与策略,本研究对演讲话语进行了多层面的探索,建立了三维框架为从象征性互动的视角批评解读演讲话语提供意识与方向指导。一,重建语境。这反映了演讲者与受众如何依据各自的目的,通过与相对自然的宏观语境的互动来共同建构演讲话语的特定语境,其中包含了三个层面的互动:语境与演讲者、语境与受众以及语境与演讲语篇。二,揭示受众与演讲者之间的象征性权力关系。一方面受众是演讲成败的决定者,因而能够“迫使”演讲者在各层面的互动中迎合他们,顺应他们的特点及各种制约性变量;另一方面演讲者却有权决定受众的资格以及参加演讲互动的身份,是预期的理想受众、还是虚受众、亦或是非受众。演讲者的这种权力源于他/她诉诸修辞策略的能力,其中重塑并投射有利的修辞人格就是有效的手段之一。三,解构演讲语篇。利用Toulmin的论辩模式,从论辩的视角观察语篇中的各种互动关系。为展现这个框架在演讲批评中的具体运用,本研究分析了一些演讲话语,例如政策宣传、公众演说、报道、社论、声明、公告以及广告等等。
在探索批评解读演讲话语新途径的过程中,本研究发现了一系列的关系,涉及到演讲与修辞学、演讲与语言学以及修辞学与语言学,揭示了演讲的象征性互动本质以及修辞的双程认同性本质,探索了演讲者与受众之间的象征性权力关系,并在此基础上建立了一个系统的、可执行的、综合了修辞学与语言学的三维框架从象征性互动的视角来解读演讲话语。这些必将为今后演讲话语的创造性批评解读指明方向,为演讲话语的有效生产实践提供参考,为其它交际研究提供借鉴,也为写作与话语分析的教学提供指导。
当然,鉴于我们知识与能力的局限性,本研究不可避免地存在一些不足和缺陷,无论是在深度上还是广度上都有待进一步改进与完善。
Fascinated by the omnipresence of such discourses as speech, advertisement, news report and editorial, we wonder how both sides of the participants in these discourses, as communicative events, communicate with each other so as to achieve temporary agreement on a given issue or event. After careful examination, we notice that they are consistent with the traditional public address that is the object of rhetorical study and share with it the commonality that both sides of participants usually interact with each other in a multi-dimensional and poly-level way so as to identify with each other, come to a temporary agreement on the issue under consideration and finally fulfill their own aims. Accordingly, for the convenience’s sake, we borrow the old nomenclature of speech to denote the above discourses but endow it with new connotation by redefining it as a special kind of discourse that consists of various symbolic interactions, through human beings in a given context, who address and interact with each other in order to achieve temporary agreement on the issue under consideration. In this case, this research attempts to detect the appropriate, effective, and efficient way to understand speech discourse from the perspective of symbolic interaction between speaker and audience.
The survey of the literature of speech study indicates that there are two fields that have devoted themselves to speech criticism: one is rhetorical criticism; the other is discourse analysis. However, neither of them can satisfy the purpose of understanding speech effectively and efficiently from the perspective of multi-dimensional and poly-level symbolic interactions. From the existing twenty approaches of rhetorical criticism, according to their relations with symbolic interaction, this research generalizes five types of rhetorical speech criticism (RCS):“speaker-centered,”“ideology-or-motive-fascinated,”“effect-driven,”“context-oriented,”and“critic-determined.”In the field of discourse analysis, based on the relations between linguistic factors and non-linguistic variables, this study classifies it into three trends of discourse analysis of speech (DAS): intra-textual micro-linguistic analysis, extra-textual macro-linguistic analysis, and the investigation of the interaction between speech-text and social context as the hybrid of the previous two. Although the existing approaches of both RCS and DAS do provide us with extensive insights for and make their own specific contribution to speech understanding, their penchants and limitations prevent them, to some extent or other, from viewing speech as symbolic interaction between speaker and audience. It is to complement this inadequacy and explore the multi-dimensional and poly-level interactions in speech that the present study is designed.
The anatomy of the constituents and functions of speech justifies the hypothesis of this research that speech discourse is composed of a series of symbolic interactions so that the appropriate way of its understanding is to consider both its production and consumption in terms of the bilateral interactions between speaker and audience. And with the examination of both theoretical and practical relationships between speech and rhetoric, speech and linguistics, this research reveals that speech and rhetoric are interdependent and language is indispensable for producing and understanding speech. And what’s more, rhetoric and linguistics are complementary in speech criticism. In this case, based on the achievements made by the previous studies on speech, the present research attempts to integrate and develop relevant rhetorical and linguistic theories and approaches so as to understand speech from the perspective of symbolic interaction.
From rhetoric, this study assimilates and develops the Sophists’s dialectic and contradictory arguments and Aristotle’s artistic proofs in ancient Greece, the stasis theory of Hermagoras’and Cicero’s invention in Rome, and Lloyd Bitzer’s rhetorical situation, Kenneth Burke’s“identification,”Cha?m Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s“universal audience”and“universal value,”Wayne C. Booth’s“rhetoric of assent”and“rhetorology,”and Stephen Toulmin’s“model of argument”in modern and contemporary times. These rhetorical theories and principles contain abundant ideas, methods, and strategies of symbolic interaction, represent the“speaker-initiated”and“audience-empowered”interactions and also demonstrate the interactions within text. Besides, Burke, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Booth, and Toulmin are consistent in that their rhetorical thinking reveals that the nature of rhetoric, as a communicative art, is a two-process identifying. Therefore, their rhetorical theories can provide people with the appropriate methods to understand interactions in speech from various angles.
From linguistics, this study absorbs Beaugrande and Dressler’s four textualities and then develops them into discursivities according to the characteristics of speech discourse. They are intentionality, acceptability, intertextuality, and inter-contextuality. The first two help to detect the intra-textual interactions in the process of constructing speech-text, which record the symbolic negotiation and compromise between context and speaker’s intention and audience’s expectation. The last two offer people the clues to probe into the extra-textual interactions on the level of context, which demonstrate how speaker and audience interact in the selection and reconstruction of the text-type, text allusion, pre-text, and post-text and how these contextual factors and the construction of speech-text influence each other, and so on.
By means of integrating rhetorical theories with linguistic principles, that is, uncovering the underlying rhetorical power relations and interactions through examining the surface linguistic phenomena, this research investigates speech discourse on different levels and establishes a systematic and feasible three-dimensional framework to offer people the necessary awareness and orientation for understanding speech from the perspective of symbolic interaction. The first dimension is recovering the context. This demonstrates how speaker and audience interact with the CONTEXT, in accordance with their own intention, so as to co-construct the specific context for speech, and involves three levels of interactions between context and speaker, context and audience, and context and speech-text. The second dimension is uncovering the symbolic power relations between speaker and audience. On the one hand, the audience, as the determiner of a speech, can“coerce”the speaker to adapt to them on the poly-level interactions, accommodate to their characteristics and constraining variables. On the other hand, the speaker possesses the symbolic power to grant the qualification of audience and define the identity of the audience as intended audience, pseudo-audience, or non-audience in speech interactions. The speaker derives this power from his or her capability to resort to the rhetorical strategies, of which re-establishing favorable ethos is one of the most effective means. The third dimension is deconstructing the speech-text, which examines the interactions within speech-text, in light of Toulmin’s model of argument. In order to illustrate how the framework functions in speech understanding, this study analyzes such speech discourses as political propaganda and public address, report and editorial, announcement and advertisement, and so on.
In the process of probing into the new way to understand speech discourse, this research finds a series of relations namely speech and rhetoric, speech and linguistics, and rhetoric and linguistics, reveals the nature of speech as symbolic interaction and that of rhetoric as two-process identifying, detects the symbolic power relations between speaker and audience, and accordingly establishes a systematic and feasible three-dimensional framework by integrating rhetoric and linguistics to understand speech from the perspective of symbolic interaction. All of these will provide people with some awareness and orientation for creative criticism of speech as well as effective production of speech, with salutary reference to other communication studies, and with pedagogical guidance to writing and discourse analysis.
Of course, due to the limitations of our knowledge and competence, this study inevitably has some shortcomings and inadequacies, which need to be improved in both depth and breadth.
查阅相关文献发现已有的演讲批评解读研究主要有两大领域:一个是修辞批评;另一个是话语分析。但是,它们的方法都没能满足从多维度、多层面象征性互动的视角对演讲话语进行有效解读的需要。在修辞批评方面,从现有的二十种方法中,本研究依据它们与象征性互动的关系归纳总结成五大类演讲修辞批评:“演讲者为中心型”,“意识形态或动机着迷型”,“效果驱动型”,“语境导向型”以及“批评者决定型”。在话语分析方面,本研究依据语言因素与非语言变量之间的关系概括了三类演讲话语分析的趋势:语篇内部的微观语言因素分析,语篇外部的宏观语境研究,以及两者相结合来研究语篇与社会语境的互动关系。虽然这些研究方法从不同角度为演讲话语的解读提供参考与指导意见,但是它们各自存在的倾向与不同程度的缺陷妨碍它们将注意力投向演讲者与受众的象征性互动上来。本研究正是为弥补这些缺陷、探索演讲中各个层面的多维互动而设置的。
对演讲要素与作用的剖析证实了本研究的假设:演讲话语是由一系列的象征性互动构成的,所以恰当而有效的解读方式应该是综合考虑其生产与消费,注重演讲者与受众之间的双向互动。进一步考察演讲与修辞学和语言学在理论与实践上的关系,发现演讲与修辞是相互依存的,而语言则是演讲话语生产与解读不可或缺的重要因素,并且修辞学与语言学在演讲话语的解读与批评中的作用是互补性的。因此,在吸收前人研究成果的精华的基础上,本研究尝试着融合并发展修辞学与语言学的相关理论与方法从象征性互动的角度来解读演讲话语。
从修辞学中,本研究吸收并发展了古希腊Sophists的“辩证法”和Aristotle的三种“或然式论据”,古罗马Hermagoras与Cicero的“争议点理论”,以及现当代Lloyd Bitzer的修辞情景、Kenneth Burke的认同理论、Cha?m Perelman和Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca的“普世受众”与“普世价值”、Wayne C. Booth的“求同修辞”与“理想的修辞”以及Stephen Toulmin的“论辩模式”。之所以选择这些理论与主张是因为其中蕴含了丰富的象征性互动的思想、方法与策略,代表了“演讲者主导型”与“受众加权型”的互动思想,同时也展现了语篇内部的互动关系。此外,分析还表明现当代修辞学家Burke,Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca,Booth及Toulmin的思想是一脉相承的,共同揭示了修辞作为交际艺术其本质是一种由两个互为因果关系的认同过程组成的认同性互动。因此,他们的理论主张能从不同角度为人们提供解读演讲话语互动的方法。
从语言学中,本研究借鉴了Beaugrande和Dressler的四个语篇性并依据演讲话语的特点将它们发展成“话语性”,分别是目的性、可接受性、互文性及互语境性。目的性和可接受性有助于人们考察基于语篇的篇内互动,反映了在语篇建构中演讲者的目的及受众的期望与语境的象征性谈判与妥协;而互文性和互语境性则展现了基于语境的篇外互动,体现了演讲者与受众围绕语境展开的各种互动,包括语篇类型、语篇典故、前语境和后语境的选择与建构,以及这些语境因素与语篇建构的相互影响等等。
融合修辞学的理论与语言学的原理,即依据语言学的“话语性”提供的线索,运用修辞的理论与策略,本研究对演讲话语进行了多层面的探索,建立了三维框架为从象征性互动的视角批评解读演讲话语提供意识与方向指导。一,重建语境。这反映了演讲者与受众如何依据各自的目的,通过与相对自然的宏观语境的互动来共同建构演讲话语的特定语境,其中包含了三个层面的互动:语境与演讲者、语境与受众以及语境与演讲语篇。二,揭示受众与演讲者之间的象征性权力关系。一方面受众是演讲成败的决定者,因而能够“迫使”演讲者在各层面的互动中迎合他们,顺应他们的特点及各种制约性变量;另一方面演讲者却有权决定受众的资格以及参加演讲互动的身份,是预期的理想受众、还是虚受众、亦或是非受众。演讲者的这种权力源于他/她诉诸修辞策略的能力,其中重塑并投射有利的修辞人格就是有效的手段之一。三,解构演讲语篇。利用Toulmin的论辩模式,从论辩的视角观察语篇中的各种互动关系。为展现这个框架在演讲批评中的具体运用,本研究分析了一些演讲话语,例如政策宣传、公众演说、报道、社论、声明、公告以及广告等等。
在探索批评解读演讲话语新途径的过程中,本研究发现了一系列的关系,涉及到演讲与修辞学、演讲与语言学以及修辞学与语言学,揭示了演讲的象征性互动本质以及修辞的双程认同性本质,探索了演讲者与受众之间的象征性权力关系,并在此基础上建立了一个系统的、可执行的、综合了修辞学与语言学的三维框架从象征性互动的视角来解读演讲话语。这些必将为今后演讲话语的创造性批评解读指明方向,为演讲话语的有效生产实践提供参考,为其它交际研究提供借鉴,也为写作与话语分析的教学提供指导。
当然,鉴于我们知识与能力的局限性,本研究不可避免地存在一些不足和缺陷,无论是在深度上还是广度上都有待进一步改进与完善。
Fascinated by the omnipresence of such discourses as speech, advertisement, news report and editorial, we wonder how both sides of the participants in these discourses, as communicative events, communicate with each other so as to achieve temporary agreement on a given issue or event. After careful examination, we notice that they are consistent with the traditional public address that is the object of rhetorical study and share with it the commonality that both sides of participants usually interact with each other in a multi-dimensional and poly-level way so as to identify with each other, come to a temporary agreement on the issue under consideration and finally fulfill their own aims. Accordingly, for the convenience’s sake, we borrow the old nomenclature of speech to denote the above discourses but endow it with new connotation by redefining it as a special kind of discourse that consists of various symbolic interactions, through human beings in a given context, who address and interact with each other in order to achieve temporary agreement on the issue under consideration. In this case, this research attempts to detect the appropriate, effective, and efficient way to understand speech discourse from the perspective of symbolic interaction between speaker and audience.
The survey of the literature of speech study indicates that there are two fields that have devoted themselves to speech criticism: one is rhetorical criticism; the other is discourse analysis. However, neither of them can satisfy the purpose of understanding speech effectively and efficiently from the perspective of multi-dimensional and poly-level symbolic interactions. From the existing twenty approaches of rhetorical criticism, according to their relations with symbolic interaction, this research generalizes five types of rhetorical speech criticism (RCS):“speaker-centered,”“ideology-or-motive-fascinated,”“effect-driven,”“context-oriented,”and“critic-determined.”In the field of discourse analysis, based on the relations between linguistic factors and non-linguistic variables, this study classifies it into three trends of discourse analysis of speech (DAS): intra-textual micro-linguistic analysis, extra-textual macro-linguistic analysis, and the investigation of the interaction between speech-text and social context as the hybrid of the previous two. Although the existing approaches of both RCS and DAS do provide us with extensive insights for and make their own specific contribution to speech understanding, their penchants and limitations prevent them, to some extent or other, from viewing speech as symbolic interaction between speaker and audience. It is to complement this inadequacy and explore the multi-dimensional and poly-level interactions in speech that the present study is designed.
The anatomy of the constituents and functions of speech justifies the hypothesis of this research that speech discourse is composed of a series of symbolic interactions so that the appropriate way of its understanding is to consider both its production and consumption in terms of the bilateral interactions between speaker and audience. And with the examination of both theoretical and practical relationships between speech and rhetoric, speech and linguistics, this research reveals that speech and rhetoric are interdependent and language is indispensable for producing and understanding speech. And what’s more, rhetoric and linguistics are complementary in speech criticism. In this case, based on the achievements made by the previous studies on speech, the present research attempts to integrate and develop relevant rhetorical and linguistic theories and approaches so as to understand speech from the perspective of symbolic interaction.
From rhetoric, this study assimilates and develops the Sophists’s dialectic and contradictory arguments and Aristotle’s artistic proofs in ancient Greece, the stasis theory of Hermagoras’and Cicero’s invention in Rome, and Lloyd Bitzer’s rhetorical situation, Kenneth Burke’s“identification,”Cha?m Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s“universal audience”and“universal value,”Wayne C. Booth’s“rhetoric of assent”and“rhetorology,”and Stephen Toulmin’s“model of argument”in modern and contemporary times. These rhetorical theories and principles contain abundant ideas, methods, and strategies of symbolic interaction, represent the“speaker-initiated”and“audience-empowered”interactions and also demonstrate the interactions within text. Besides, Burke, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Booth, and Toulmin are consistent in that their rhetorical thinking reveals that the nature of rhetoric, as a communicative art, is a two-process identifying. Therefore, their rhetorical theories can provide people with the appropriate methods to understand interactions in speech from various angles.
From linguistics, this study absorbs Beaugrande and Dressler’s four textualities and then develops them into discursivities according to the characteristics of speech discourse. They are intentionality, acceptability, intertextuality, and inter-contextuality. The first two help to detect the intra-textual interactions in the process of constructing speech-text, which record the symbolic negotiation and compromise between context and speaker’s intention and audience’s expectation. The last two offer people the clues to probe into the extra-textual interactions on the level of context, which demonstrate how speaker and audience interact in the selection and reconstruction of the text-type, text allusion, pre-text, and post-text and how these contextual factors and the construction of speech-text influence each other, and so on.
By means of integrating rhetorical theories with linguistic principles, that is, uncovering the underlying rhetorical power relations and interactions through examining the surface linguistic phenomena, this research investigates speech discourse on different levels and establishes a systematic and feasible three-dimensional framework to offer people the necessary awareness and orientation for understanding speech from the perspective of symbolic interaction. The first dimension is recovering the context. This demonstrates how speaker and audience interact with the CONTEXT, in accordance with their own intention, so as to co-construct the specific context for speech, and involves three levels of interactions between context and speaker, context and audience, and context and speech-text. The second dimension is uncovering the symbolic power relations between speaker and audience. On the one hand, the audience, as the determiner of a speech, can“coerce”the speaker to adapt to them on the poly-level interactions, accommodate to their characteristics and constraining variables. On the other hand, the speaker possesses the symbolic power to grant the qualification of audience and define the identity of the audience as intended audience, pseudo-audience, or non-audience in speech interactions. The speaker derives this power from his or her capability to resort to the rhetorical strategies, of which re-establishing favorable ethos is one of the most effective means. The third dimension is deconstructing the speech-text, which examines the interactions within speech-text, in light of Toulmin’s model of argument. In order to illustrate how the framework functions in speech understanding, this study analyzes such speech discourses as political propaganda and public address, report and editorial, announcement and advertisement, and so on.
In the process of probing into the new way to understand speech discourse, this research finds a series of relations namely speech and rhetoric, speech and linguistics, and rhetoric and linguistics, reveals the nature of speech as symbolic interaction and that of rhetoric as two-process identifying, detects the symbolic power relations between speaker and audience, and accordingly establishes a systematic and feasible three-dimensional framework by integrating rhetoric and linguistics to understand speech from the perspective of symbolic interaction. All of these will provide people with some awareness and orientation for creative criticism of speech as well as effective production of speech, with salutary reference to other communication studies, and with pedagogical guidance to writing and discourse analysis.
Of course, due to the limitations of our knowledge and competence, this study inevitably has some shortcomings and inadequacies, which need to be improved in both depth and breadth.
引文
Anderson, Floyd Douglas, Andrew King, and Kevin R. Mcclure.“Kenneth Burke’s Dramatic Form Criticism.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 162-85.
Andrews, James R.“Reflections on the National Character in American Rhetoric.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 57.3 (1971): 316-24.
Andrews, James R., Michael C. Leff, and Robert Terrill. Reading Rhetorical Texts: An Introduction to Criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998.
Antoine, Thomas J. St., Matthew T. Althouse, and Moya A. Ball.“Fantasy-theme Analysis.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 212-40.
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
Bakhtin, M. M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Ed. Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981.
Beaugrande, Robert de, and Wolfgang U. Dressler. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman, 1981.
Benoit, William.“Generic Rhetorical Criticism.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 85-106.
Benson, Thomas W., ed. Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism. Davis: Hermagoras Press, 1993.
Bineham, Jeffery L.“Pedagogical Justification for a Theory-Method Distinction in Rhetorical Criticism.”Communication Education 39.1(1990): 30-45.
Bitzer, Lloyd F.“The Rhetorical Situation.”Philosophy & Rhetoric 1.1 (1968): 1-14.
---.“Rhetoric and Public Knowledge.”Rhetoric, Philosophy, and Literature: An Exploration. Ed. Don M. Burks. West Lafayette: Purdue UP, 1978. 67-94.
Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg, eds. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2001.
Booth, Wayne C. Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent. Chicago: The U of Chicago P, 1974.
---. The Rhetoric of RHETORIC: The Quest for Effective Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004.
Booth, Wayne C., G. G. Colomb, and J. M. Williams. The Craft of Research. Chicago: The U of Chicago P, 1995.
Bormann, Ernest G.“Fantasy and Rhetorical Vision: the Rhetorical Criticism of Social Reality.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 58.4 (1972): 396-407.
---.“The Symbolic Convergence Theory of Communication: Applications and Implications for Teachers and Consultants.”Journal of Applied Communication Research 10.1 (1982): 50-61.
---.“Fantasy and Rhetorical Vision: Ten Years Later.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 68.3 (1982): 288-305.
Bormann, Ernest G., John F. Cragan, and Donald C. Shields.“Defending Symbolic Convergence Theory from an Imaginary Gunn.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 89.4 (2003): 366-72.
Bowers, John Waite, and Michael M. Osborn.“Attitudinal Effects of Selected Types of Concluding Metaphors in Persuasive Speeches.”Speech Monographs 33.2 (1966): 147-55.
Brock, Bernard L., Robert L. Scott, and James W. Chesebro, eds. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-century Perspective. 3rd ed. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1990.
Brockriede, Wayne.“Rhetorical Criticism as Argument.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 60.2 (1974): 165-74.
Brockriede, Wayne E., and Douglas Ehninger.“Toulmin on Argument: An Interpretation and Application.”Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric: Selected Readings. Ed. Richard L. Johannesen. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1971. 241-55.
Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. Discourse Analysis. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Bryant, Donald C. Rhetorical Dimensions in Criticism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP, 1973.
Burke, Kenneth. Permanence & Change: An Anatomy of Purpose. Los Altos: Hermes Publications, 1954.
---. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature and Method. Berkeley: U ofCalifornia P, 1966.
---. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.
---. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.
Campbell, George. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UP, 1963.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs.“The Rhetoric of Women’s Liberation: An Oxymoron.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 59.1 (1973): 74-86.
Cathcart, Robert S.“New Approaches to the Study of Movements: Defining Movements Rhetorically.”Western Speech 36.2 (1972): 82-88.
Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics: The Basics. London: Routledge, 2002.
Chouliaraki, Lilie, and Norman Fairclough. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1999.
Conley, Thomas M. Rhetoric in the European Tradition. New York: Longman, 1990.
Consigny, Scott.“Rhetoric and Its Situations.”Philosophy and Rhetoric 7.3 (1974): 175-86.
Corbett, Edward P. J. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 1971.
Covino, William A., and David A. Jolliffe. Rhetoric: Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.
Crandell, Judson.“The Beginning of a Methodology for Social Control Studies in Public Address.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 33.1 (1947): 36-39.
Crosswhite, James.“Universality in Rhetoric: Perelman’s Universal Audience.”Philosophy and Rhetoric 22.3 (1989): 157-73.
de Velasco, Antonio Raul.“Rethinking Perelman’s Universal Audience: Political Dimensions of a Controversial Concept.”Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35.2 (2005): 47-64.
Derrida, Jacque. Writing and Difference. London: Rouledge & Kegan Paul, 1978.
Edmondson, Aimee.“Tools of Empowerment: The Rhetorical Vision of Title Nine.”Conference Paper. International Communication Association, Annual Meeting, 2007.
Eggins, Suzanne. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. Continuum Publishing Co., 2003.
Eubanks, Ralph T., and Virgil Baker.“Toward an Axiology of Rhetoric.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 48.2 (1961): 157-68.
Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power. London: Longman, 1989.
---. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
---. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge, 2003.
Farrell, Kathleen, and Marilyn J. Young.“The Situational Perspective.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 33-55.
Fauconnier, Gilles. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.
Fisher, Walter R.“Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument.”Communication Monographs 51.1 (1984): 1-22.
---.“The Narrative Paradigm: An Elaboration.”Communication Monographs 52.4 (1985): 347-67.
Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 2004.
Foss, Sonja K., and Cindy L. Griffin.“Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric.”Communication Monographs 62.1 (1995): 2-18.
Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. 3rd ed. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, Inc., 2002.
Fowler, Roger, et al. Language and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1979.
Frentz, Thomas S., and Thomas B. Farrell.“Language-Action: A Paradigm for Communication.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 62.4 (1976): 333-49.
Griffin, Em. A First Look at Communication Theory. 5th ed. New York: McGrwa-Hill, 2003.
Griffin, Leland M.“The Rhetoric of Historical Movements.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 38.2 (1952): 184-88.
---.“The Rhetorical Structure of the‘New Left’Movement: Part I.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 50.2 (1964): 113-35.
Gronbeck, Bruce E.“Rhetorical History and Rhetorical Criticism: A Distinction.”Speech Teacher 24.4 (1975): 309-20.
---.“Dramaturgical Theory and Criticism: The State of the Art (or Science?).”Western Journal of Speech Communication 44.4 (1980): 315-30.
Guillemette, Lucie, and Josiane Cossette.“Deconstruction and Difference.”, 2006.
Gunn, Joshua.“Refiguring Fantasy: Imagination and Its Decline in U.S. Rhetorical Studies.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 89.1 (2003): 41-59.
---.“Response.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 89.4 (2003): 373.
Hahn, Dan F., and Ruth M. Gonchar.“Studying Social Movements: A Rhetorical Methodology.”Speech Teacher 20.1 (1971): 44-52.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
---. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold, 1973.
Halonen, Jane S., and John W. Santrock. Psychology: Contexts & Applications. 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill College, 1999.
Hart, Roderick P., and Suzanne M. Daughton. Modern Rhetorical Criticism. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005.
Hendrix, J. A., and Jerome B. Polisky, eds. Rhetorical Criticism: Methods and Models. Dubuque: WM. C. Brown Book Company, 1968.
Herrick, James A. The History of Rhetoric: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2001.
Hill, Forbes I.“The‘Traditional’Perspective.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 56-84.
Hillbruner, Anthony.“Creativity and Contemporary Criticism.”Western Journal of Speech Communication 24.1 (1960): 5-11.
Hoey, Michael. Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.
Howarth, David. Discourse. Buckingham: Open UP, 2000.
Hymes, Dell.“Toward Ethnographies of Communication: the Analysis of Communicative Events.”Language and Social Context. Ed. Pier Paolo Giglioli. New York: Penguin Books, 1972. 21-43.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall.“Generic Constraints and the Rhetorical Situation.”Philosophyand Rhetoric 6.3 (1973): 162-70.
---.“Interpretation of Natural Law in the Conflict over Humanae Vitae.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 60.2 (1974): 201-11.
---.“Antecedent Genre as Rhetorical Constraint.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 61.4 (1975): 406-15.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell.“Rhetorical Hybrids: Fusions of Generic Elements.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 68.2 (1982): 146-57.
J?rgensen, Marianne, and Louise Phillips. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE Publications, 2002.
Kennedy, George A. Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. New York: Oxford UP, 1991.
---. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1963.
Kuypers, Jim A., ed. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005.
Kristeva, Julia. The Kristeva Reader. Ed. Toril Moi. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The U of Chicago P, 1980.
Lee, Ronald.“Ideographic Criticism.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 305-44.
Liu Jinming.“A Text Linguistic Approach to Intertextuality.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies U, 2006.
Lucaites, John Louis, and Celeste Michelle Condit.“Re-constructing Narrative Theory: A Functional Perspective.”Journal of Communication 35.4 (1985): 90-108.
Marshman, J. T.“The Use of Narrative in Speaking.”Southern Speech Bulletin 4.1 (1938): 1-6.
McEdwards, Mary G.“American Values: Circa 1920-1970.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 57.2 (1971): 173-80.
Medhurst, Martin J.“The First Amendment vs. Human Rights: A Case Study in Community Sentiment and Argument from Definition.”Western Journal of Speech Communication 46.1 (1982): 1-19.
Mohrmann, G. P.“An Essay on Fantasy Theme Criticism.”Quarterly Journal of Speech68.2 (1982): 109-32.
---.“Fantasy Theme Criticism: A Peroration.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 68.3 (1982): 306-13.
Moran, Michael G., and Michelle Ballif, eds. Twentieth-century Rhetorics and Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2000.
Myers, David G. Exploring Social Psychology. 2nd ed. Boston: Mc-GrawHill Education, 2000.
Nilsen, Thomas R.“Criticism and Social Consequences.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 42.2 (1956): 173-78.
Nudd, Donna M., and Kristina L. Schriver.“Feminist Analysis.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 270-304.
Osborn, Michael M.“Archetypal Metaphor in Rhetoric: The Light-Dark Family.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 53.2 (1967): 115-26.
---.“The Evolution of the Theory of Metaphor in Rhetoric.”Western Speech 31.2 (1967): 121-31.
---.“The Evolution of the Archetypal Sea in Rhetoric and Poetic.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 63.4 (1977): 347-63.
Osborn, Michael M., and Dougla Ehninger.“The Metaphor in Public Address.”Speech Monograph 29.3 (1962): 223-34.
Perelman, Ch. The Realm of Rhetoric. Trans. William Kluback. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 1982.
Perelman, Ch., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: An Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 1969.
Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford UP, 1936.
Rowland, Robert C.“Narrative: Mode of Discourse or Paradigm.”Communication Monographs 54.3 (1987): 264-75.
---.“The Narrative Perspective.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 131-61.
Rushing, Janice Hocker, and Thomas S. Frentz.“The Mythic Perspective.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 241-69.
Schiffrin, Deborah. Approaches to Discourse Analysis. Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1994.
Scott, Robert L.“On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic.”Central States Speech Journal 18.1 (1967): 9-17.
---.“On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic: Ten Years Later.”Method of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-century Perspective. Ed. Bernard L. Brock, Robert L. Scott, and James W. Chesebro. 3rd ed. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1990. 134-42.
Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Simons, Herbert W.“Requirements, Problems, and Strategies: A Theory of Persuasion for Social Movements.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 56.1 (1970): 1-11.
Sinclair, J. McH, and M. Coulthard. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1975.
Smith, Craig R., and Howard Streifford.“An Axiological Adjunct to Rhetorical Criticism.”Central States Speech Journal 27.1 (1976): 15-21.
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1986.
Steele, Edward D.“Social Values, the Enthymeme, and Speech Criticism.”Western Journal of Speech Communication 26.2 (1962): 70-75.
Steele, Edward D., and W. Charles Redding.“The American Value System: Premises for Persuasion.”Western Journal of Speech Communication 26.2 (1962): 83-91.
Stewart, Charles J.“Historical Survey of Rhetorical Criticism in Twentieth Century America.”Explorations in Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Gerald P. Mohrmann, et al.. University Park: Pennsylvanian State UP, 1973. 1-31.
Stone, John F.“Using Symbolic Convergence Theory to Discern and Segment Motives for Enrolling in Professional Master’s Degree Programs.”Communication Quarterly 50.2 (2002): 227-43.
Thompson, Geoff. Introducing Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Thonssen, Lester, and A. Craig Baird. Speech Criticism: The Development of Standards for Rhetorical Appraisal. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1948.
Vanderveken, Daniel, and Susumu Kubo, eds. Essays in Speech Act Theory. Amsterdam: J.Benjamins Pub. Co., 2001.
Vatz, Richard E.“The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation.”Philosophy and Rhetoric 6.3 (1973):154-61.
Verschueren, Jef. Understanding Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Warnick, Barbara.“The Narrative Paradigm: Another Story.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 73.2 (1987):172-82.
Way, John W.“Perelman’s Universal Audience.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 64.4 (1978): 361-75.
Weiss, Gilbert, and Ruth Wodak. Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinary. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd., 2003.
Wichelns, Herbert A.“The Literary Criticism of Oratory.”Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Thomas W. Benson. Davis: Hermagoras Press, 1993.
Widdowson, H. G. Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004.
Wolin, Ross. The Rhetorical Imagination of Kenneth Burke. Columbia: U of South Carolina P, 2001.
Worton, Michael, and Judith Still. Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Manchester: Manchester UP 1990.
Zhang Yufang.“Power Relations between Speaker and Audience: Cross-cultural Rhetorical Interaction.”Thesis. Fujian Normal University, 2005.
何兆熊(He,Zhaoxiong).新编语用学概要.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
胡曙中(Hu, Shuzhong).美国新修辞学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
——.英语语篇语言学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
鞠玉梅(Ju, Yumei).语篇分析的伯克新修辞模式.长沙:湖南人民出版社,2005.
[美]肯尼斯·博克(Burke, Kenneth).修辞情景.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评.
常昌富(Chang, Changfu),顾宝桐(Gu, Baotong)译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998: 155-68.
[美]肯尼斯·博克等著(Burke, Kenneth et al.).当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评.
常昌富(Chang, Changfu),顾宝桐(Gu, Baotong)译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
李幼蒸(Li, Youzheng).理论符号学导论.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
李元授,邹昆山(Li Yuanshou and Zou Kunshan).演讲学.武汉:华中科技大学出版社, 1997.
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:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2004.
[法]雅克·德里达(Derrida, Jacque)著.论文字学.汪堂家(Wang Tangjia)译.上海:上海译文出版社,1999.
张玉芳(Zhang, Yufang).演讲语篇中的修辞互动:演讲者与受众之间的权力关系.西安外国语大学学报,2007, (1): 32-35.
——.基于西方修辞学的外交演讲解读之研究.修辞学习,2007, (4): 34-39.
赵一凡(Zhao, Yifan).从胡塞尔到德理达——西方文论讲稿.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007.
Andrews, James R.“Reflections on the National Character in American Rhetoric.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 57.3 (1971): 316-24.
Andrews, James R., Michael C. Leff, and Robert Terrill. Reading Rhetorical Texts: An Introduction to Criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998.
Antoine, Thomas J. St., Matthew T. Althouse, and Moya A. Ball.“Fantasy-theme Analysis.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 212-40.
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
Bakhtin, M. M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Ed. Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981.
Beaugrande, Robert de, and Wolfgang U. Dressler. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman, 1981.
Benoit, William.“Generic Rhetorical Criticism.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 85-106.
Benson, Thomas W., ed. Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism. Davis: Hermagoras Press, 1993.
Bineham, Jeffery L.“Pedagogical Justification for a Theory-Method Distinction in Rhetorical Criticism.”Communication Education 39.1(1990): 30-45.
Bitzer, Lloyd F.“The Rhetorical Situation.”Philosophy & Rhetoric 1.1 (1968): 1-14.
---.“Rhetoric and Public Knowledge.”Rhetoric, Philosophy, and Literature: An Exploration. Ed. Don M. Burks. West Lafayette: Purdue UP, 1978. 67-94.
Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg, eds. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2001.
Booth, Wayne C. Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent. Chicago: The U of Chicago P, 1974.
---. The Rhetoric of RHETORIC: The Quest for Effective Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004.
Booth, Wayne C., G. G. Colomb, and J. M. Williams. The Craft of Research. Chicago: The U of Chicago P, 1995.
Bormann, Ernest G.“Fantasy and Rhetorical Vision: the Rhetorical Criticism of Social Reality.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 58.4 (1972): 396-407.
---.“The Symbolic Convergence Theory of Communication: Applications and Implications for Teachers and Consultants.”Journal of Applied Communication Research 10.1 (1982): 50-61.
---.“Fantasy and Rhetorical Vision: Ten Years Later.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 68.3 (1982): 288-305.
Bormann, Ernest G., John F. Cragan, and Donald C. Shields.“Defending Symbolic Convergence Theory from an Imaginary Gunn.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 89.4 (2003): 366-72.
Bowers, John Waite, and Michael M. Osborn.“Attitudinal Effects of Selected Types of Concluding Metaphors in Persuasive Speeches.”Speech Monographs 33.2 (1966): 147-55.
Brock, Bernard L., Robert L. Scott, and James W. Chesebro, eds. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-century Perspective. 3rd ed. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1990.
Brockriede, Wayne.“Rhetorical Criticism as Argument.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 60.2 (1974): 165-74.
Brockriede, Wayne E., and Douglas Ehninger.“Toulmin on Argument: An Interpretation and Application.”Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric: Selected Readings. Ed. Richard L. Johannesen. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1971. 241-55.
Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. Discourse Analysis. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Bryant, Donald C. Rhetorical Dimensions in Criticism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP, 1973.
Burke, Kenneth. Permanence & Change: An Anatomy of Purpose. Los Altos: Hermes Publications, 1954.
---. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature and Method. Berkeley: U ofCalifornia P, 1966.
---. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.
---. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.
Campbell, George. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UP, 1963.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs.“The Rhetoric of Women’s Liberation: An Oxymoron.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 59.1 (1973): 74-86.
Cathcart, Robert S.“New Approaches to the Study of Movements: Defining Movements Rhetorically.”Western Speech 36.2 (1972): 82-88.
Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics: The Basics. London: Routledge, 2002.
Chouliaraki, Lilie, and Norman Fairclough. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1999.
Conley, Thomas M. Rhetoric in the European Tradition. New York: Longman, 1990.
Consigny, Scott.“Rhetoric and Its Situations.”Philosophy and Rhetoric 7.3 (1974): 175-86.
Corbett, Edward P. J. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 1971.
Covino, William A., and David A. Jolliffe. Rhetoric: Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.
Crandell, Judson.“The Beginning of a Methodology for Social Control Studies in Public Address.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 33.1 (1947): 36-39.
Crosswhite, James.“Universality in Rhetoric: Perelman’s Universal Audience.”Philosophy and Rhetoric 22.3 (1989): 157-73.
de Velasco, Antonio Raul.“Rethinking Perelman’s Universal Audience: Political Dimensions of a Controversial Concept.”Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35.2 (2005): 47-64.
Derrida, Jacque. Writing and Difference. London: Rouledge & Kegan Paul, 1978.
Edmondson, Aimee.“Tools of Empowerment: The Rhetorical Vision of Title Nine.”Conference Paper. International Communication Association, Annual Meeting, 2007.
Eggins, Suzanne. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. Continuum Publishing Co., 2003.
Eubanks, Ralph T., and Virgil Baker.“Toward an Axiology of Rhetoric.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 48.2 (1961): 157-68.
Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power. London: Longman, 1989.
---. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
---. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge, 2003.
Farrell, Kathleen, and Marilyn J. Young.“The Situational Perspective.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 33-55.
Fauconnier, Gilles. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.
Fisher, Walter R.“Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument.”Communication Monographs 51.1 (1984): 1-22.
---.“The Narrative Paradigm: An Elaboration.”Communication Monographs 52.4 (1985): 347-67.
Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration & Practice. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 2004.
Foss, Sonja K., and Cindy L. Griffin.“Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric.”Communication Monographs 62.1 (1995): 2-18.
Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. 3rd ed. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, Inc., 2002.
Fowler, Roger, et al. Language and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1979.
Frentz, Thomas S., and Thomas B. Farrell.“Language-Action: A Paradigm for Communication.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 62.4 (1976): 333-49.
Griffin, Em. A First Look at Communication Theory. 5th ed. New York: McGrwa-Hill, 2003.
Griffin, Leland M.“The Rhetoric of Historical Movements.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 38.2 (1952): 184-88.
---.“The Rhetorical Structure of the‘New Left’Movement: Part I.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 50.2 (1964): 113-35.
Gronbeck, Bruce E.“Rhetorical History and Rhetorical Criticism: A Distinction.”Speech Teacher 24.4 (1975): 309-20.
---.“Dramaturgical Theory and Criticism: The State of the Art (or Science?).”Western Journal of Speech Communication 44.4 (1980): 315-30.
Guillemette, Lucie, and Josiane Cossette.“Deconstruction and Difference.”
Gunn, Joshua.“Refiguring Fantasy: Imagination and Its Decline in U.S. Rhetorical Studies.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 89.1 (2003): 41-59.
---.“Response.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 89.4 (2003): 373.
Hahn, Dan F., and Ruth M. Gonchar.“Studying Social Movements: A Rhetorical Methodology.”Speech Teacher 20.1 (1971): 44-52.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
---. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold, 1973.
Halonen, Jane S., and John W. Santrock. Psychology: Contexts & Applications. 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill College, 1999.
Hart, Roderick P., and Suzanne M. Daughton. Modern Rhetorical Criticism. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005.
Hendrix, J. A., and Jerome B. Polisky, eds. Rhetorical Criticism: Methods and Models. Dubuque: WM. C. Brown Book Company, 1968.
Herrick, James A. The History of Rhetoric: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2001.
Hill, Forbes I.“The‘Traditional’Perspective.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 56-84.
Hillbruner, Anthony.“Creativity and Contemporary Criticism.”Western Journal of Speech Communication 24.1 (1960): 5-11.
Hoey, Michael. Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.
Howarth, David. Discourse. Buckingham: Open UP, 2000.
Hymes, Dell.“Toward Ethnographies of Communication: the Analysis of Communicative Events.”Language and Social Context. Ed. Pier Paolo Giglioli. New York: Penguin Books, 1972. 21-43.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall.“Generic Constraints and the Rhetorical Situation.”Philosophyand Rhetoric 6.3 (1973): 162-70.
---.“Interpretation of Natural Law in the Conflict over Humanae Vitae.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 60.2 (1974): 201-11.
---.“Antecedent Genre as Rhetorical Constraint.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 61.4 (1975): 406-15.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell.“Rhetorical Hybrids: Fusions of Generic Elements.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 68.2 (1982): 146-57.
J?rgensen, Marianne, and Louise Phillips. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE Publications, 2002.
Kennedy, George A. Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. New York: Oxford UP, 1991.
---. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1963.
Kuypers, Jim A., ed. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005.
Kristeva, Julia. The Kristeva Reader. Ed. Toril Moi. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The U of Chicago P, 1980.
Lee, Ronald.“Ideographic Criticism.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 305-44.
Liu Jinming.“A Text Linguistic Approach to Intertextuality.”Diss. Shanghai International Studies U, 2006.
Lucaites, John Louis, and Celeste Michelle Condit.“Re-constructing Narrative Theory: A Functional Perspective.”Journal of Communication 35.4 (1985): 90-108.
Marshman, J. T.“The Use of Narrative in Speaking.”Southern Speech Bulletin 4.1 (1938): 1-6.
McEdwards, Mary G.“American Values: Circa 1920-1970.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 57.2 (1971): 173-80.
Medhurst, Martin J.“The First Amendment vs. Human Rights: A Case Study in Community Sentiment and Argument from Definition.”Western Journal of Speech Communication 46.1 (1982): 1-19.
Mohrmann, G. P.“An Essay on Fantasy Theme Criticism.”Quarterly Journal of Speech68.2 (1982): 109-32.
---.“Fantasy Theme Criticism: A Peroration.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 68.3 (1982): 306-13.
Moran, Michael G., and Michelle Ballif, eds. Twentieth-century Rhetorics and Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2000.
Myers, David G. Exploring Social Psychology. 2nd ed. Boston: Mc-GrawHill Education, 2000.
Nilsen, Thomas R.“Criticism and Social Consequences.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 42.2 (1956): 173-78.
Nudd, Donna M., and Kristina L. Schriver.“Feminist Analysis.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 270-304.
Osborn, Michael M.“Archetypal Metaphor in Rhetoric: The Light-Dark Family.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 53.2 (1967): 115-26.
---.“The Evolution of the Theory of Metaphor in Rhetoric.”Western Speech 31.2 (1967): 121-31.
---.“The Evolution of the Archetypal Sea in Rhetoric and Poetic.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 63.4 (1977): 347-63.
Osborn, Michael M., and Dougla Ehninger.“The Metaphor in Public Address.”Speech Monograph 29.3 (1962): 223-34.
Perelman, Ch. The Realm of Rhetoric. Trans. William Kluback. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 1982.
Perelman, Ch., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: An Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 1969.
Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford UP, 1936.
Rowland, Robert C.“Narrative: Mode of Discourse or Paradigm.”Communication Monographs 54.3 (1987): 264-75.
---.“The Narrative Perspective.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 131-61.
Rushing, Janice Hocker, and Thomas S. Frentz.“The Mythic Perspective.”The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Jim A. Kuypers. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 241-69.
Schiffrin, Deborah. Approaches to Discourse Analysis. Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1994.
Scott, Robert L.“On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic.”Central States Speech Journal 18.1 (1967): 9-17.
---.“On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic: Ten Years Later.”Method of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-century Perspective. Ed. Bernard L. Brock, Robert L. Scott, and James W. Chesebro. 3rd ed. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1990. 134-42.
Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Simons, Herbert W.“Requirements, Problems, and Strategies: A Theory of Persuasion for Social Movements.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 56.1 (1970): 1-11.
Sinclair, J. McH, and M. Coulthard. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1975.
Smith, Craig R., and Howard Streifford.“An Axiological Adjunct to Rhetorical Criticism.”Central States Speech Journal 27.1 (1976): 15-21.
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1986.
Steele, Edward D.“Social Values, the Enthymeme, and Speech Criticism.”Western Journal of Speech Communication 26.2 (1962): 70-75.
Steele, Edward D., and W. Charles Redding.“The American Value System: Premises for Persuasion.”Western Journal of Speech Communication 26.2 (1962): 83-91.
Stewart, Charles J.“Historical Survey of Rhetorical Criticism in Twentieth Century America.”Explorations in Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Gerald P. Mohrmann, et al.. University Park: Pennsylvanian State UP, 1973. 1-31.
Stone, John F.“Using Symbolic Convergence Theory to Discern and Segment Motives for Enrolling in Professional Master’s Degree Programs.”Communication Quarterly 50.2 (2002): 227-43.
Thompson, Geoff. Introducing Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Thonssen, Lester, and A. Craig Baird. Speech Criticism: The Development of Standards for Rhetorical Appraisal. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1948.
Vanderveken, Daniel, and Susumu Kubo, eds. Essays in Speech Act Theory. Amsterdam: J.Benjamins Pub. Co., 2001.
Vatz, Richard E.“The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation.”Philosophy and Rhetoric 6.3 (1973):154-61.
Verschueren, Jef. Understanding Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Warnick, Barbara.“The Narrative Paradigm: Another Story.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 73.2 (1987):172-82.
Way, John W.“Perelman’s Universal Audience.”Quarterly Journal of Speech 64.4 (1978): 361-75.
Weiss, Gilbert, and Ruth Wodak. Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinary. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd., 2003.
Wichelns, Herbert A.“The Literary Criticism of Oratory.”Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Thomas W. Benson. Davis: Hermagoras Press, 1993.
Widdowson, H. G. Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004.
Wolin, Ross. The Rhetorical Imagination of Kenneth Burke. Columbia: U of South Carolina P, 2001.
Worton, Michael, and Judith Still. Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Manchester: Manchester UP 1990.
Zhang Yufang.“Power Relations between Speaker and Audience: Cross-cultural Rhetorical Interaction.”Thesis. Fujian Normal University, 2005.
何兆熊(He,Zhaoxiong).新编语用学概要.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
胡曙中(Hu, Shuzhong).美国新修辞学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
——.英语语篇语言学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
鞠玉梅(Ju, Yumei).语篇分析的伯克新修辞模式.长沙:湖南人民出版社,2005.
[美]肯尼斯·博克(Burke, Kenneth).修辞情景.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评.
常昌富(Chang, Changfu),顾宝桐(Gu, Baotong)译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998: 155-68.
[美]肯尼斯·博克等著(Burke, Kenneth et al.).当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评.
常昌富(Chang, Changfu),顾宝桐(Gu, Baotong)译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
李幼蒸(Li, Youzheng).理论符号学导论.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
李元授,邹昆山(Li Yuanshou and Zou Kunshan).演讲学.武汉:华中科技大学出版社, 1997.
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:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2004.
[法]雅克·德里达(Derrida, Jacque)著.论文字学.汪堂家(Wang Tangjia)译.上海:上海译文出版社,1999.
张玉芳(Zhang, Yufang).演讲语篇中的修辞互动:演讲者与受众之间的权力关系.西安外国语大学学报,2007, (1): 32-35.
——.基于西方修辞学的外交演讲解读之研究.修辞学习,2007, (4): 34-39.
赵一凡(Zhao, Yifan).从胡塞尔到德理达——西方文论讲稿.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007.