學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 華語說服論述文步分析與其教學啟示─以語料庫為本之空殼名詞分析為例
Shell Nouns in Mandarin Persuasive Discourse: A Corpus-based Move Analysis and the Pedagogical Implications作者 楊惟婷
Yang, Wei-Ting貢獻者 鍾曉芳<br>謝承諭
Chung, Siaw-Fong<br>Hsieh, Chen-Yu
楊惟婷
Yang, Wei-Ting關鍵詞 網路提案
說服論述
SPSE 模式
文步
空殼名詞
需求模板
Join platform
Persuasive discourse
SPSE
Shell noun
template
move日期 2022 上傳時間 2-Sep-2022 15:03:55 (UTC+8) 摘要 網路提案是現代社會中常見的公民參與，也可成為華語教師在課堂上使用的真實語料。因此，更全面地掌握提案文類的本質、語言使用有其必要性。然而，由於提案為新興文類，因此有關這項文類的語言使用、寫作架構仍缺乏系統性的研究成果。為了更全面地掌握提案文類的本質，本論文以 Join 平台提案文章為研究對象，透過「問題-解方」文步分析（SPSE模式）和語料庫研究方法，探索說服論述的文類結構與其中所包含的空殼名詞。除了釐清此文類的本質和文步分佈，也更深一層討論文步中的詞彙使用。由於過去的文獻中，較少有研究關注文步中的空殼名詞。因此本研究觀察文步與空殼名詞之間的關係，歸納提案文類中空殼名詞的使用與結構【修飾語-N】、【這/那/-量詞-N】、【N-是/為】、【這/那/-量詞-N】、【N-上】、【什麼-N】。最後，針對研究成果提出需求模板。研究結果顯示「評價」是提案文類中必選文步，也是詞數最多的文步。意味著提案者在寫作時傾在這部分詳加描述，以達到說服的效果。而其餘皆屬於非必要文步。另外，各文步內的子文步也會根據溝通功能而產生不同的排序。如：評價文步中「重述問題」子文步佔比最多，再次點出正在發生問題或是困難，希望藉此提高讀者對問題的意識。本研究也發現此文類中空殼名詞共有1,059個，並且平均地分佈在四大文步之中，不會隨著詞數多寡而產生大幅度地改變。各類語意屬性的空殼名詞也分佈地相當平均。其中，「問題」這個事件詞彙，不僅出現在每一個文步當中，頻率也都排在第一，是此文類中最主要的空殼名詞。最後，從語料的統計結果可得知【修飾語-N】這項空殼名詞結構遠遠高於其他的結構，此結構經常與心理詞彙及事實詞彙搭配，凸顯出作者對事件的認知狀態、展現個人立場，具有聚焦的篇章功能。最後，本研究應用上述的研究成果，製作出說服論述之需求模板，回應過去的相關研究，並將此模板提供給有需求的華語寫作者，期待他們能掌握說服論述的寫作策略。
With the rapid development of information technology, proposing online petition has been a regular way for citizens to participate in public affairs. The Public Policy Network Participation Platform (Join Platform) enables citizens to discuss and give advice on policy issues during the drafting and implementation stages. This kind of online proposal is a novel persuasive genre, which therefore deserves further investigation in writing structure and linguistic features.The aim of this study is to apply the methods of discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to investigate the text structure and shell nouns in the online petition genre. In total, 72 online petition texts were collected from the website and compiled into a corpus using the AntConc application. The collected texts were then annotated with reference to the 4 moves of the SPSE textual pattern (Situation, Problem, Solution, and Evaluation) and steps in each move. As for shell nouns in the moves, they were recognized with reference to the 4 structures [N-Cl], [N-beV-Cl], [Th-N], [Th-beV-N] proposed by Schmid (2000) and 2 Mandarin speaking structures [shenme-N], [N-shi] proposed by Hsieh (2012).The results showed that the distribution of the moves and steps varied across articles and that 55.56% of the articles were written with 4 moves. Especially, Evaluation was the essential move containing maximum words count. The findings of text structure implicated the significance of Evaluation in the online petition genre. Furthermore, 1059 shell nouns were found and evenly distributed in each move, and Went? (problem) was the most frequent shell noun in this genre. Besides, compared to other patterns, [Th-N] was the most commonly used structure which helped to present personal stance in the petition.The findings of this research were arranged to a writing Based on the findings of the research, writing templates of online petition and persuasive discourse were formulated to provide writing guidelines for advanced learners of Chinese as a Foreign Language.參考文獻 一、中文文獻方資閩（2021）。中文求職信之語步與後設論述分析及寫作教學應用。臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所學位論文。台北市。李家豪（2011）。華語說服語言語意、語用、語篇分析研究。臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所學位論文。台北市。林彥君（2018）。拒絕的邏輯：公共政策網路參與平台政府回覆內容的論證分析。政治大學行政管理碩士學程學位論文。台北市。陳坤毅（2019）。影響政府回應的提案因素－以公共政策網路參與平臺為例。臺灣大學公共事務研究所學位論文。台北市。陳坤毅、黃心怡（2020）。民眾電子連署內容與政府回應方式：以提點子平臺為例。民主與治理，7（2），1-40。楊惟婷、謝承諭、鍾曉芳。已接受 （2022）。應用文步分析探究言語行為—以公共政策網路參與平臺提案文類為例。中文計算語言學期刊。溫偉群、游梓翔（2008）。2008年台灣總統大選電視辯論的功能分析研究。選舉評論，（5），15-31。鄭縈（2000）。從語料庫看漢語助動詞的語法特點。2000 Proceedings of Research on Computational Linguistics Conference XIII（ROCLING XIII），157-170。台北市。羅駿逸（2018）。中英政治演講之語步及互動標記對比分析。臺灣師範大學華語文教學系學位論文。台北市。二、英文文獻Aktas, R. N., & Cortes, V. (2008). Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 3-14.Ali, A. M. (2013). Combining problem-solution categories and communicative acts: An analysis of Malaysian and British business journalistic texts. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21, 174-185.Belmonte, I. A. (2009). Positioning the reader: A study on the use of interactive textual patterns in English written newspaper editorials and articles of opinion. English Text Construction, 2, 48-69.Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysis Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. A&C Black.Biq, Y. O. (2004). People, things and stuff: General nouns in spoken Mandarin. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 30(1), 41-64.Brammer, C. (2006). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. Language, 82(3), 674-675.Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Charles, M. (2007). Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the Noun that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 203-218.Charles, M. (2011). Adverbials of result: Phraseology and functions in the Problem–Solution pattern. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 47-60.Cooper, S., & Patton, R. (1997). Writing logically, thinking critically, Pearson Longman, 55-93.El Baff, R., Wachsmuth, H., Al Khatib, K., & Stein, B. (2020). Analyzing the persuasive effect of style in news editorial argumentation. Association for Computational Linguistics.El-Falaky, M. S. (2015). Vote for Me! A corpus linguistic analysis of American presidential debates using functional grammar. Arts and Social Science Journal, 6(4).Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signalling nouns in discourse. English for specific purposes, 22(4), 329-346.Flowerdew, L. (2000). Using a genre-based framework to teach organizational structure in academic writing. ELT Journal, 54(4), 369-378.Flowerdew, L. (2003). A Combined Corpus and Systemic?Functional Analysis of the Problem?Solution Pattern in a Student and Professional Corpus of Technical Writing. Tesol Quarterly, 37(3), 489-511.Flowerdew, L. (2008). Corpus-based analyses of the problem-solution pattern: A phraseological approach. John Benjamins.Francis, G. (1986). Anaphoric Nouns. Discourse Analysis Monographs 11. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Printing Section.Francis, G. (1994). Labelling discourse: an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. Advances in Written Text Analysis, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard, 83-101. London: Routledge.Hallida, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London/New York: Longman.Hasan, R. (1996). Ways of saying: ways of meaning. London: Cassell.Heffernan, K., & Teufel, S. (2018). Identifying problems and solutions in scientific text. Scientometrics, 116(2), 1367-1382.Hoey, M. (1983). On the Surface of Discourse. London: Allen and Unwin.Hoey, M. (2001). Textual Interaction. London: Routledge.Hsieh, C-Y. C. (2012). Interactional Functions of Chinese Shell-Noun Expressions: A Study on Wentishi, Shishishang, Zheyang(zi) and Shemeysi. (Master`s thesis). National Taiwan University.Hsieh, C-Y. C. (2017). From receipt of information to management of interaction: The use of zheyangzi as a response token in Chinese conversation. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 43(2), 87-118.Hsieh, C-Y. C. (2018). From turn-taking to stance-taking: Wenti-shi ‘the thing is’ as a projector construction and an epistemic marker in Mandarin conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 127, 107-124Hsieh, C-Y. C. (2020). Meaning in Repair: The Abstract Noun Yisi `meaning/ Intention` in the Management of Intersubjectivity in Mandarin Conversation. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 18(2).Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC Journal, 21(1), 66-78.Ivani?, R. (1991). Nouns in search of a context: A study of nouns with both open-and closed-system characteristics. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 93-114.Hagen, L., Harrison, T. M., Uzuner, ?., May, W., Fake, T., & Katragadda, S. (2016). E-petition popularity: Do linguistic and semantic factors matter? Government Information Quarterly, 33 (4), 783-795.Nendauni, L., & Sadiki, M. F. (2019). Persuasion in the Mirror Newspaper: A Linguistic Approach to Vuwani Demarcation Discourses. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 2(5), 151-167.Ratanakul, S. (2017). A study of problem-solution discourse: Examining TED talks through the lens of move analysis. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 10(2), 25-46.Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse processes, 32(2-3), 155-175.Schmid, H. J. (2000). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Stab, C., & Gurevych, I. (2014). Identifying argumentative discourse structures in persuasive essays. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 46-56.Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford University Press, 1-27.Van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2013). Argumentative patterns in discourse. OSSA Conference Archive. 42.Weiss, D. M., & Sachs, J. (1991). Persuasive strategies used by preschool children. Discourse Processes, 14(1), 55-72.Yip, P. C., & Rimmington, D. (2016). Chinese: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge, 17-23. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩博士學位學程
109161007資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109161007 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 鍾曉芳<br>謝承諭 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Chung, Siaw-Fong<br>Hsieh, Chen-Yu en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 楊惟婷 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Yang, Wei-Ting en_US dc.creator (作者) 楊惟婷 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Yang, Wei-Ting en_US dc.date (日期) 2022 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Sep-2022 15:03:55 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Sep-2022 15:03:55 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Sep-2022 15:03:55 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109161007 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141634 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 華語文教學碩博士學位學程 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 109161007 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 網路提案是現代社會中常見的公民參與，也可成為華語教師在課堂上使用的真實語料。因此，更全面地掌握提案文類的本質、語言使用有其必要性。然而，由於提案為新興文類，因此有關這項文類的語言使用、寫作架構仍缺乏系統性的研究成果。為了更全面地掌握提案文類的本質，本論文以 Join 平台提案文章為研究對象，透過「問題-解方」文步分析（SPSE模式）和語料庫研究方法，探索說服論述的文類結構與其中所包含的空殼名詞。除了釐清此文類的本質和文步分佈，也更深一層討論文步中的詞彙使用。由於過去的文獻中，較少有研究關注文步中的空殼名詞。因此本研究觀察文步與空殼名詞之間的關係，歸納提案文類中空殼名詞的使用與結構【修飾語-N】、【這/那/-量詞-N】、【N-是/為】、【這/那/-量詞-N】、【N-上】、【什麼-N】。最後，針對研究成果提出需求模板。研究結果顯示「評價」是提案文類中必選文步，也是詞數最多的文步。意味著提案者在寫作時傾在這部分詳加描述，以達到說服的效果。而其餘皆屬於非必要文步。另外，各文步內的子文步也會根據溝通功能而產生不同的排序。如：評價文步中「重述問題」子文步佔比最多，再次點出正在發生問題或是困難，希望藉此提高讀者對問題的意識。本研究也發現此文類中空殼名詞共有1,059個，並且平均地分佈在四大文步之中，不會隨著詞數多寡而產生大幅度地改變。各類語意屬性的空殼名詞也分佈地相當平均。其中，「問題」這個事件詞彙，不僅出現在每一個文步當中，頻率也都排在第一，是此文類中最主要的空殼名詞。最後，從語料的統計結果可得知【修飾語-N】這項空殼名詞結構遠遠高於其他的結構，此結構經常與心理詞彙及事實詞彙搭配，凸顯出作者對事件的認知狀態、展現個人立場，具有聚焦的篇章功能。最後，本研究應用上述的研究成果，製作出說服論述之需求模板，回應過去的相關研究，並將此模板提供給有需求的華語寫作者，期待他們能掌握說服論述的寫作策略。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) With the rapid development of information technology, proposing online petition has been a regular way for citizens to participate in public affairs. The Public Policy Network Participation Platform (Join Platform) enables citizens to discuss and give advice on policy issues during the drafting and implementation stages. This kind of online proposal is a novel persuasive genre, which therefore deserves further investigation in writing structure and linguistic features.The aim of this study is to apply the methods of discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to investigate the text structure and shell nouns in the online petition genre. In total, 72 online petition texts were collected from the website and compiled into a corpus using the AntConc application. The collected texts were then annotated with reference to the 4 moves of the SPSE textual pattern (Situation, Problem, Solution, and Evaluation) and steps in each move. As for shell nouns in the moves, they were recognized with reference to the 4 structures [N-Cl], [N-beV-Cl], [Th-N], [Th-beV-N] proposed by Schmid (2000) and 2 Mandarin speaking structures [shenme-N], [N-shi] proposed by Hsieh (2012).The results showed that the distribution of the moves and steps varied across articles and that 55.56% of the articles were written with 4 moves. Especially, Evaluation was the essential move containing maximum words count. The findings of text structure implicated the significance of Evaluation in the online petition genre. Furthermore, 1059 shell nouns were found and evenly distributed in each move, and Went? (problem) was the most frequent shell noun in this genre. Besides, compared to other patterns, [Th-N] was the most commonly used structure which helped to present personal stance in the petition.The findings of this research were arranged to a writing Based on the findings of the research, writing templates of online petition and persuasive discourse were formulated to provide writing guidelines for advanced learners of Chinese as a Foreign Language. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 11.1 研究背景11.2 研究動機與目的 41.3 研究問題 61.4 論文架構 6第二章 文獻探討72.1 說服論述相關研究 72.1.1 網路提案文章相關研究 102.1.2 台灣公共政策網路參與平台提案文章相關研究 122.2 文步分析相關研究 132.2.1 文步分析理論框架 132.2.2 華語文步分析與應用 182.3 空殼名詞相關研究 272.3.1 空殼名詞與構式 312.3.2 空殼名詞的功能 342.3.2.1 語意功能 352.3.2.2 認知功能 362.3.2.3 篇章功能 372.4 小結 38第三章 研究方法 393.1 研究範圍 403.2 文步與子文步標記 433.3 研究工具:ANTCONC 軟體 473.4 辨別空殼名詞和語料分析 483.5 小結 54第四章 語料分析554.1 文步分析 554.1.1 文步組合分析 594.1.2 子文步分析 614.1.2.1 「情況」子文步分析 614.1.2.2 「問題」子文步分析 634.1.2.3 「解方」子文步分析 654.1.2.4 「評價」子文步分析 684.2 文步中的空殼名詞 714.2.1 空殼名詞的語意屬性與功能 724.2.2 各文步中高頻空殼名詞的分佈 784.2.3 空殼名詞的結構與篇章功能 804.3 小結 85第五章 說服論述之需求模板 865.1 情況文步模板 875.2 問題文步模板 895.3 解方文步模板 935.4 評價文步模板 965.5 小結 98第六章 研究結論與建議1006.1 研究結果綜述 1006.2 教學啟示 1056.3 研究限制與未來發展 106參考文獻 107 zh_TW dc.format.extent 8841995 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109161007 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 網路提案 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 說服論述 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) SPSE 模式 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 文步 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 空殼名詞 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 需求模板 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Join platform en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Persuasive discourse en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) SPSE en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Shell noun en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) template en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) move en_US dc.title (題名) 華語說服論述文步分析與其教學啟示─以語料庫為本之空殼名詞分析為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Shell Nouns in Mandarin Persuasive Discourse: A Corpus-based Move Analysis and the Pedagogical Implications en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文文獻方資閩（2021）。中文求職信之語步與後設論述分析及寫作教學應用。臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所學位論文。台北市。李家豪（2011）。華語說服語言語意、語用、語篇分析研究。臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所學位論文。台北市。林彥君（2018）。拒絕的邏輯：公共政策網路參與平台政府回覆內容的論證分析。政治大學行政管理碩士學程學位論文。台北市。陳坤毅（2019）。影響政府回應的提案因素－以公共政策網路參與平臺為例。臺灣大學公共事務研究所學位論文。台北市。陳坤毅、黃心怡（2020）。民眾電子連署內容與政府回應方式：以提點子平臺為例。民主與治理，7（2），1-40。楊惟婷、謝承諭、鍾曉芳。已接受 （2022）。應用文步分析探究言語行為—以公共政策網路參與平臺提案文類為例。中文計算語言學期刊。溫偉群、游梓翔（2008）。2008年台灣總統大選電視辯論的功能分析研究。選舉評論，（5），15-31。鄭縈（2000）。從語料庫看漢語助動詞的語法特點。2000 Proceedings of Research on Computational Linguistics Conference XIII（ROCLING XIII），157-170。台北市。羅駿逸（2018）。中英政治演講之語步及互動標記對比分析。臺灣師範大學華語文教學系學位論文。台北市。二、英文文獻Aktas, R. N., & Cortes, V. (2008). Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 3-14.Ali, A. M. (2013). Combining problem-solution categories and communicative acts: An analysis of Malaysian and British business journalistic texts. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21, 174-185.Belmonte, I. A. (2009). Positioning the reader: A study on the use of interactive textual patterns in English written newspaper editorials and articles of opinion. English Text Construction, 2, 48-69.Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysis Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. A&C Black.Biq, Y. O. (2004). People, things and stuff: General nouns in spoken Mandarin. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 30(1), 41-64.Brammer, C. (2006). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. Language, 82(3), 674-675.Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Charles, M. (2007). Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the Noun that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 203-218.Charles, M. (2011). Adverbials of result: Phraseology and functions in the Problem–Solution pattern. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 47-60.Cooper, S., & Patton, R. (1997). Writing logically, thinking critically, Pearson Longman, 55-93.El Baff, R., Wachsmuth, H., Al Khatib, K., & Stein, B. (2020). Analyzing the persuasive effect of style in news editorial argumentation. Association for Computational Linguistics.El-Falaky, M. S. (2015). Vote for Me! A corpus linguistic analysis of American presidential debates using functional grammar. Arts and Social Science Journal, 6(4).Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signalling nouns in discourse. English for specific purposes, 22(4), 329-346.Flowerdew, L. (2000). Using a genre-based framework to teach organizational structure in academic writing. ELT Journal, 54(4), 369-378.Flowerdew, L. (2003). A Combined Corpus and Systemic?Functional Analysis of the Problem?Solution Pattern in a Student and Professional Corpus of Technical Writing. Tesol Quarterly, 37(3), 489-511.Flowerdew, L. (2008). Corpus-based analyses of the problem-solution pattern: A phraseological approach. John Benjamins.Francis, G. (1986). Anaphoric Nouns. Discourse Analysis Monographs 11. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Printing Section.Francis, G. (1994). Labelling discourse: an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. Advances in Written Text Analysis, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard, 83-101. London: Routledge.Hallida, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London/New York: Longman.Hasan, R. (1996). Ways of saying: ways of meaning. London: Cassell.Heffernan, K., & Teufel, S. (2018). Identifying problems and solutions in scientific text. Scientometrics, 116(2), 1367-1382.Hoey, M. (1983). On the Surface of Discourse. London: Allen and Unwin.Hoey, M. (2001). Textual Interaction. London: Routledge.Hsieh, C-Y. C. (2012). Interactional Functions of Chinese Shell-Noun Expressions: A Study on Wentishi, Shishishang, Zheyang(zi) and Shemeysi. (Master`s thesis). National Taiwan University.Hsieh, C-Y. C. (2017). From receipt of information to management of interaction: The use of zheyangzi as a response token in Chinese conversation. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 43(2), 87-118.Hsieh, C-Y. C. (2018). From turn-taking to stance-taking: Wenti-shi ‘the thing is’ as a projector construction and an epistemic marker in Mandarin conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 127, 107-124Hsieh, C-Y. C. (2020). Meaning in Repair: The Abstract Noun Yisi `meaning/ Intention` in the Management of Intersubjectivity in Mandarin Conversation. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 18(2).Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC Journal, 21(1), 66-78.Ivani?, R. (1991). Nouns in search of a context: A study of nouns with both open-and closed-system characteristics. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 93-114.Hagen, L., Harrison, T. M., Uzuner, ?., May, W., Fake, T., & Katragadda, S. (2016). E-petition popularity: Do linguistic and semantic factors matter? Government Information Quarterly, 33 (4), 783-795.Nendauni, L., & Sadiki, M. F. (2019). Persuasion in the Mirror Newspaper: A Linguistic Approach to Vuwani Demarcation Discourses. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 2(5), 151-167.Ratanakul, S. (2017). A study of problem-solution discourse: Examining TED talks through the lens of move analysis. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 10(2), 25-46.Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse processes, 32(2-3), 155-175.Schmid, H. J. (2000). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Stab, C., & Gurevych, I. (2014). Identifying argumentative discourse structures in persuasive essays. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 46-56.Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford University Press, 1-27.Van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2013). Argumentative patterns in discourse. OSSA Conference Archive. 42.Weiss, D. M., & Sachs, J. (1991). Persuasive strategies used by preschool children. Discourse Processes, 14(1), 55-72.Yip, P. C., & Rimmington, D. (2016). Chinese: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge, 17-23. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202201244 en_US
