Argumentation Appeals and Strategies– A Critical Discourse Analysis of

Anti-Prostitution Debate in Tiger Talk英英英英英英英英 英英 英英英 英英 英英英英 英英英英英 英英 （）：

Abstract: In the light of concepts in Critical Discourse Analysis byNorman Fairclough and Argumentation Strategies by Douglas Walton, thisthesis adopts the pragmatic framework of Speech Activity Type to analyze themain speech strategies used in a new kind of argumentative discourse –televised public debate, in one of the debate “Whether the crackdown of thesex trade in Dongguan can purge sex trade” held in a famous television forumcalled “Tiger Talk”, participated by representatives of differentprofessions.

The findings include a descriptive analysis of how logical appeal,ethical appeal and emotional appeal are used as main speech strategies inthis public debate discourse. Ethical appeal is mostly used by therepresentatives who imply hegemony of Male chauvinism in their speech,whereas logical appeal is applied by other representatives to defense suchoppression with scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

Two special features are also found in such discourse: the informativecharacter defined by the forum’s purpose, which is presenting the most-advanced knowledge and opinions to the public through inviting topprofessionals to talk; and the elite character, caused by speakers’ highsocial status and their commonly used speech strategies.

Keywords: public debate discourse, Critical Discourse Analysis,Argumentation Strategies, speech activity type, logical appeal, emotionalappeal, ethical appeal

摘 摘：英英英英 Fairclough 英英英英英英英英英英 Walton 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英“ 英 英英”英英英“英英英英英英英英英英”英英 英英传统体一 一一

英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英 英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英 英英英英英英英 英 英英英英英 英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英，。体一，一，，一 。 女

英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英。一。，，。一。，。

摘摘摘：英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英

1 Introduction1.1 Why Debate

The reason why I choose debate dialogues as the analytic object lies in

1

two aspects. Initially, the debate discourse is a new and developing kind of discourse

which worth people’s attention. The debate dialogue here refers to thepublic debate held in big modern cities or developed regions, e.g. HongKong, Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Taipei, in which civilians enjoy a relativelymore democratic social mode. Having such public debates is becoming apopular way in these areas to collect different opinions on somecontroversial issues from people doing different jobs, having differentincome and representing different groups of interest. And it also helps topresent these opinions to the public. It functions as a stage to make acomplicated vague event easier for the public to digest through exposing thedetails of things in organized discussions among experts and representativesfrom various groups of people and interest. Nowadays, since social networkservices, e.g. Weibo, Twitter, Weixin, BBS developed, people joined muchactively into diverse kinds of the public discussion. And public debate isone of such kind.

On the other hand, I believe the analysis of public debate discoursereveals how participants in public debate deal with other participants andthe relation amount them. In other words, how a group of people one speakerrepresents treat the other voices. What attitude and intention is hiddenunder their speech act? In classical Critical Discourse Analysis research,Fairclough regards discourse as an important form of social activities. Hebelieves that social practice is a way of producing. And the material usedfor producing is not limited in physical materials, e.g. mineral. Speech, asa symbolic material can also be used for production (Fairclough, Languageand Globalization, 2006). He analyzed discourse as a kind of socialpractice, studying how speech functions in social life and social revolutionfrom the beginning of 1990s (Fairclough, 1992) (Fairclough, 1995)(Fairclough, 2003) (Fairclough, 2006). The speech act participants made indebate might also be a reflection of hidden hegemony, meaning one partycontrolling another party. Van Dijk regards that there is a cognitivecontrol whenever a more powerful party is influencing another party’s modeof thinking. And he believes that nowadays seldom does one execute his/herpower through direct control. As a result, language becomes a very powerfultool nowadays to achieve cognitive control indirectly, since it’s morecommon that people use speech strategies, e.g. persuasive argumentation, toachieve manipulation through influencing or changing someone’s thought(Dijk, Racism and the Press, 1991) (Dijk, 1993). So based on Fairclough andVan Dijk’s ideas, I believe the analysis of the argumentation appeals andstrategies in public debate discourse is essential for it can help revealwhether the public debate we have now is on the basis of equality, whetherits speech acts benefit the development of public speech space, as well as

any possible hegemony.

2

1.2 The Organization of the ThesisIn this thesis, I intend to describe three categories of speech

strategies and two special features in public debate discourse by analyzingthe discourse in “Tiger Talk”, in a pragmatic framework called speechactivity type.

The paper includes six chapters. The first chapter is the explanation forwhy picking public debate discourse as the analytic object and theintroduction of the whole thesis. The second chapter is a literature reviewof the previous theories and classical researches done in argumentativediscourse, methodology in discourse analysis, and debate. The third chapterprovides a detailed description of the methodology I chose for analyzing thepublic debate discourse – Speech Activity Type. Then in the fourth chapter,I give a comprehensive illustration of the corpus used in this thesis,making clear the purpose, the organization, the identity of the participantsand the history of the public debates in “Tiger Talk. I also put forward thethree research questions which would be examined in the later part of thethesis, the fifth chapter – descriptive analysis of public debate discourse.In the fifth chapter, I use examples to illustrate the three speechstrategies I concluded from the whole discourse and proposed two specialfeatures in public debates which are different from that of traditionaldebates. The sixth chapter serves as a combination of a general conclusionand a further discussion.

2 Literature Review2.1Introduction

In this chapter, two previous studies that related closely to the publicdebate discourse and three analytic methodologies would be introduced andexplained how they related to this thesis. 2.2Debate as an Argumentative Discourse

There are two previous studies related closely to my study of the publicdebate discourse. One is Walton’s categorizing of the general argumentativediscourses, stating clearly that debate is one of its kinds and its uniquecharacteristics, which narrow down what kind of discourse debate is. A wholeintroduction of Walton’s idea is given to cover any possible feature publicdebates might show or any method public debaters might adopt that isdifferent from that of traditional debate, e.g. methods in quarrels, methodsin negotiation. The other is Van Eemerent’s study of what main strategiesare used in argumentative discourse. The three classical strategies itsuggested provide a general guidance on how to conclude argumentativestrategy in a specific discourse, the public debate discourse in thisthesis.

2.2.1 Forms of Argumentative DialoguesDebate refers to a structured oral argumentative dialogue between several

participants on a specific topic.

3

Different from formal static arguments, like research articles or textsin books, argumentative dialogues are dynamic.

There are many forms of argumentative dialogues as Walton mentioned in

1989, such as quarrels, debates, negotiations and inquiries, etc.

(N.Walton, 1989)

Quarrels as the lowest kind of dialogues employ extreme aggressivepersonal attack, high emotion and strong will to win the opponent at allcost. The purpose of quarrel is to attack the other speaker withoutconsidering using much logic and facts to support his/her point.

As for debate, it has a more regulated procedure for both parties wouldspeak by turn in limited time and a judge would organize the whole process.And since the outcome of a debate is decided by a third party, the judge orthe audience, debates are more of logical reasoning than simply personalattack for both the parties not only have to argue with the other side butalso convince the audience with logic and evidences. The debate is one stepabove quarrel for the reason that it appeal to facts, scientific evidencesand a third party as the judge. Van Eemerent and Grootendorst suggested in1984 that participants would adopt an intersubjective testing procedure indialogue to agree on how they will determine what is acceptable as evidencein a debate.

An idea brought out quite clearly in the model of dialogue analyzed byHintikka in 1981 that usually there are two obligations for participants inpersuasive dialogue. The first is to prove one’s thesis from the otherparticipant’s concession. The second is to cooperate with the otherparticipant’s attempt to prove his/her thesis also exists. The obligationsare operated by giving honest and helpful replies to the other participantso that he/she can consider these replies as premises for further arguments.

4

However, in inquiries, another type of dialogue, premises can only bereliable knowledge that all parties accept.

The negotiation, as a bargaining dialogue, put less importance in usinglogic proof. And it aims at making trade-offs to reach both parties’benefits in condition of “perceived or actual scarcity”. The negotiationdialogue is called interest-based conflict by Moore in 1984. He considered it as“competitive cooperation” where “the disputants are collaborating to competefor the same set of goal or benefits”. (Moore, 1986)

In abundant cases, argumentative dialogue can be regarded as a processto find out more than one justification of a conclusion. Ideally, the goalof argumentative dialogue is for participants to arrive at a jointconclusion by mutually accepted inferences. Among each kind of argumentativedialogues, their differences lay in their argumentative goals and the methodthey applied so as to pursuit such goals. As every dialogue required atleast two participants, one has to fulfill the obligation to cooperate andnegotiate with the other under certain rules so as to reach his/her goal ofargumentation. “The basic reason that any argument can be criticized as abad argument always comes down to a failure to meet one of these basicobligations.” said Walton in 1989. Debate, as one of the stereotypedargumentative discourse, also serves for its goal to argue for his/her ownstatement, beat the opponent and gain audience’s agreement. However, in thecase of public debates, the conditions differ slightly from traditional onesfor public debates have much more audience, televised nationwide; have moreinfluential debaters, who are usually representatives in each profession;and have another goal, which is to spread the most up-to-date information tothe public by inviting famous people to talk. In results, the strongestargumentative methods would be adopted by public debaters so as to appeal tothe majority of the audience. And according to the special identities of thespeakers and the other goal of speech, their linguistic habits might alsodiffer from that of debaters in traditional sense.

2.2.2 Strategies in Argumentative DiscourseIn debate, debaters adopt various strategies to achieve their goal of

beating down the con side. And the strategies can be inferred from the wayWalton divided argumentative discourses. They were divided into three types:logic, dialectic and rhetoric.

In logic argumentations, participants tend to use evidence as proof andlogic to make a deductive argumentation combined with propositions.

Dialectic argumentation represents the ideal form of argumentativediscourse as scholars said “Dialectic argumentation is best understood asthe art of inquiry through critical discussion. Dialectic is the way ofputting ideas to critical test by attempting to expose and eliminatecontradictions in a position”. (Van Eemerent, 1999)

Van also gave a classical definition of what is the rhetoric type: “Ithas to do with effective persuasion, emphasizing the production of effective

5

argumentation for an audience.” Or it can be defined as “when someone, whobelieves some statements, presents reasons which aim at persuading theothers to adopt the same point of view” (Thomson, 1996).

However, rhetoric argumentative discourses differ from the former twotypes in that it adds more weights in persuading. It relies on using factsto support an idea but operates through valid forms of argumentativediscourses, appropriating them in order to add persuasive weight in certainproposition expressed in “opinion”. In this way, argument represents opinionstatements embedded in argumentation that makes them more or lessdefensible, reasonable, justifiable and legitimate as conclusions (DiJk,1996)

There is clear difference between arguments and persuasions, asHirschberg outlined for us, “Whereas arguments presents reasons and evidenceto gain audience’s intellectual agreement with the validity of aproposition, persuasion also includes appeals to the emotional needs andvalues of an audience to move them to approve an action or to take an actionthat the writer recommends.” (Hirschberg, 1990) However, he also suggestedthat real world arguments should be the blend of two.

As a result, the focus of doing discourse analysis of argumentativediscourse should not only lies in its content, form and argument but alsoshould pay attention to its function, speaker’s intention and theinteractions within it by putting it back to the setting where it happened

as well as its application and effect. 2.3Previous research on dialogue analysis

So in order to analyze what specific argumentative strategies publicdebaters in “Tiger’s Talk” will use in their speech, what are these publicdebaters’ linguistic habits and how these habits would influence the debate,I decided to combined the methodologies in Conversation Analysis by HarveySacks and Emanuel, Pragmatic-Dialectic Theory of Argumentation by VanEemerent and Peter Houtlosser as well as the Speech Act Theory.

2.3.1 Conversational Analysis

Usually, it’s a classical way to analyze dialogue with ConversationAnalysis designed by Harvey Sacks and Emanuel Schegloff in 1960s. They wereinspired by their teacher Erving Goffman, who developed a specialmethodology in doing sociologic research that pays more attention to humaninteraction. Harvey and Emanuel combined several social science subjectsincluding linguistics, anthropology, and psychology and createdConversational Analysis as a new way to look into human interaction throughusing language.

At the beginning, their focus was building up the structures used indoing conversational analysis, which included the structure of organization

6

in a dialogue, e.g. the beginning, the ending of a conversation, thestructure of interaction, e.g. turn-taking, the structure of system, e.g.adjacency pair. Then during 1970s to 1980s, they switched to studyconversations in daily life more, so as to find some common points betweenthese two different kinds of conversations. Recently, researchers find itmore interesting to jump out of the old study in analyzing conversationitself and try to expand their analysis into the applications of theconversation.

In 1997, Pomerantz & Fehr had provided some methodologies in doingconversational analysis which give people some insight of what exactlyconversational analysis is looking into. (Pomerantz, 1997)

Firstly they suggested researchers pick up a sequence, aconversational dialogue in other words, without having any prescriptiveassumption.

Secondly they suggested to describe the features of the speechactivities in this sequence by answering the questions in every turn of theconversation – What did each participant do in this turn?

Thirdly they proposed researchers to observe how the participantspackaging these speech activities, meaning how did they choose the referenceitems and seduce the listeners to understand their speech in the speaker’swill.

Then researchers should observe how TRP (transition-relevance place)influence speech activities and participants’ understanding of the topic.This is also called the analysis of getting, maintaining, and allocating thefloor in CA.

Finally researchers should study the various ways participantsemployed to make speech activities. And how they would use these strategiesto hint the other participants their identities, characters and the relationbetween them (e.g. teacher & student; doctor & patient; mom & child).

However, the conversation analysis only provides me with a generalguideline to analyze the feature of speech activities and the attemptsspeakers tend to employ during conversations.

In the public debate, an argumentative discourse where speakers all holdstrong opinions and use special rhetoric strategies to argue and persuadethe audience, limited insight can this methodology gives me about the truemeaning of each specific action in debate. That is because in the case ofpublic debates, the goal and conditions differ greatly from that of commonconversations. Public debates have a large number of audience, televisednationwide; have the most influential debaters, who are usuallyrepresentatives in each profession; and have its goals of both holding adebate and spreading the most up-to-date information to the public byinviting famous people to talk. In results, the strongest argumentativemethods would be adopted by public debaters so as to appeal to the majorityof the audience. And according to the special identities of the speakers and

7

the purposes of debate, their linguistic habits might also differ from thatof ordinary conversations and that of debates in traditional sense.

So I used the traditional methodologies in Conversation Analysis totranscribe the “Tiger’s Talk” video into textual form, but decided to useanother method to do the pragmatic analysis. I found Pragma-dialectic theoryof argumentation and speech activity type more suitable to analyze debatediscourse.

2.3.2 Pragma-Dialectical Theory of ArgumentationThe reason why I found Pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation useful

in analyzing public debate discourse is that it focuses on thereasonableness of the speech and the speech acts’ functions in argumentativediscourse, which I believe are the two critical elements in public debatediscourse. So I have absolved the concept of looking into discourse withboth dialectical angle and pragmatic angle, and adopted the way Van Eemerentand Peter Houtlosser specify different stages in argumentative discoursewhen I transcribed the “Tiger’s Talk” video.

Van Eemerent and Peter Houtlosser proposed a theoretical framework in1999, called Pragma-Dialectic Theory of Argumentation, which aim atconcluding the rhetoric argumentation. It “views argumentative discourse asan exchange of verbal moves ideally intended to resolve the difference ofopinions”. (Van Eemerent, 1999) It suggested two specific angles to observeand analyze argumentative discourse: dialectical angle and pragmatic angle.“The dialectical angle of the theory is manifested in the maintenance ofcritical standards of reasonableness, the pragmatic angle in the definitionof all argumentative moves as speech acts functioning in the context ofdisagreement.” (Van Eemerent, 1999). In this pragma-dialectic theory thereis a crucial model call “critical discussion”, which provides a procedurefor establishing systematically whether “the standpoint advanced by theprotagonist of a view point is defensible against doubt or criticism of anantagonist” (Van Eemerent, 1999) It presents us a description of what anargumentative discourse would be like if it solely operates for solvingproblems and disagreement.

The solution process, the stages and different speech acts functioning ineach stage in argumentative discourse were specified by van Eemeran andPeter Houtlosser. They defined four stages to describe each section in anargumentative dialogue: the ‘confrontation’ stage, where the difference ofopinion is defined; the ‘opening’ stage, where the starting point of thediscussion is established; the ‘argumentation’ stage, where the argumentsand critical reactions are exchanged; and the ‘concluding’ stage, where theresult of the discussion is determined. However, in each stage obstaclescould arise to the solution of the difference of opinion. At this moment,the pragma-dialectic rules, which provide a definition of how to make aconstructive argumentative discourse, would help to clear these obstacles.(Van Eemerent, 1999)

8

2.3.3 Speech Activity TypeThe concept of speech activity type was first suggested as a pragmatic

theoretical framework by Levinson in 1979. He defined an activity type as: afuzzy category whose focal members are goal-defined, socially constituted,bounded, events with constraints on participants, settings and so on. Butabove all, it should be on the kinds of allowable contributions. Paradigmsexamples can be teaching, a football game, a task in a workshop, a dinnerparty and so on (Levinson, 1979). He sees the individual’s use of languageas shaping the event and tries to show how the speakers change their speechsituation.

The concept was later expanded as an initial description of speechactivity type by Thomas, J (1995) and later developed by Yu Dongming (1999),which completed a relatively comprehensive version of speech activity typeframework:

The goals of the participants: This refers to goals of individual indiscourse instead of goals of the event. Each one’s goal varies and canchange in the middle of the dialogue.

Allowable contributions: There are some social or legal constraintson certain people about what they can say. However, they can still expresstheir opinion through flexible pragmatic way.

The degree to which Gricean maxims are adhered to or are suspended:The Gricean maxims refer to expectation of the speaker telling the true. Andthe observation of how people run such maxims should be handled carefullysince it varies according to the difference in culture and custom. And thetype of speech activity should also be taken into consideration. Because insome speech activity types, the expectation of people telling the truth iscomparatively low, e.g. interview on television, celebrity’s public speechor press conference. Whereas in some other occasions, the expectation wouldbe high, for instance in court or confession room where the participant hasthe obligation to tell to whole truth.

The degree to which interpersonal maxims (the Polite Principle) areadhered to or suspended: Similar to that of the Gricean maxims, theobservation of the interpersonal maxims would also be found varies fromculture to culture and from speech activity type to speech activity type. Toillustrate the point, in dialogues between teacher and student, doctor andpatient or between boss and his employee, those parties whose socialhierarchy is comparatively lower would try their best to maximize theirpoliteness during the conversation. However, in argumentative discourse likedebate, sign of politeness is shown less or present in some other way.

Turn-taking and topic control: Researchers should observe to whatdegree one uses turn-taking norm so as to control a conversation andestablish his own point of view. Speakers might adopt various strategies totake turns and dominate the topic in order to switch the conversation to theway they want, the way which is easier for them to argue about their point.

9

The manipulation of pragmatic parameters: There are three politeprinciples in speech proposed by Lakoff: no pushing; providing the otherspeaker enough right to refuse; make the other speaker feel that they havebeen treated friendly (Lakoff, 1973). And people should be aware of notmaking “face threatening acts” in conversations. “Face” here refers to“public self-image” (Stephen Levinson & Brown, 1987). If in some occasions,face threatening acts are unavoidable, one might take power, distance andrating of imposition into consideration (Thomas, 1995) and decide using whatstrategy to be polite (Stephen Levinson & Brown, 1987). Here, researchersobserve the fact that to what degree can a speaker use language to changethe power, social distance, rights and obligations and size of imposition;and to what extent can one change the formality of an occasion.

The discourse role and the switching in interaction: Differentdiscourses serve for different purposes so the role of discourse isidentified in interaction by J. Thomas in 1991: speaker, author, reporter,spokesperson, mouthpiece and so on. And each of these discourse roles enjoysunique function and obligation. As a result, participants in speech wouldmanipulate different role so as to achieve his goal of the speech.

Pragmatic ambivalence and its constraining functions: According to J.Thomas, pragmatic ambivalence refers to the phenomenon in which the intendedforce of an utterance may be deliberately indeterminate to the hearer, wherethe relative rights and obligations of participant, or the role ofrelationship between them, are unclear. It might be in the interest of bothspeakers that the force of utterance be negotiable (Thomas, 1995).Sometimes, using such ambivalence instead of putting forward a directrequest, one could decrease or avoid the confrontation with another party orembarrassing moments.

I believe the theory of speech activity type has provided a detailedpragmatic framework which helps to analyze features, characteristics andeach speech activity type in debate discourse, a special genre inargumentative discourses. So in my analysis, several of the above-mentionedelements would be used as assessments to evaluate debaters’ intention,purpose and the results of their speech acts.

3 Methodology3.1 Methodology for the Present Research

After studying three previous methodologies for doing public debatediscourse analysis, which are Conversation Analysis by Harvey Sacks andEmanuel, Pragmatic-Dialectic Theory of Argumentation by Van Eemerent andPeter Houtlosser as well as the Speech Act Theory, I decided to combine themtogether.

I have used methodologies in Conversation Analysis to transcribe thedebates in “Tiger’s Talk” from video to textual, which made it easier toanalyze. To be specific, pieces of dialogues in the public debates were

10

first dictated without any prescriptive assumption, and then labeled withdiscourse markers, e.g. “…”, “:” (Appendix 2). In turns of what the debatersdo in each sentence, I apply the methodology in Pragma-Dialectic Theory ofArgumentation, which observes both the reasonableness and the pragmaticfunctions in each statement. And the results would be used as evidences inmy further analysis under the framework of Speech Activity Type. Forinstance, allowable contribution or topic control, as evaluation elements inspeech activity type theory, could be clearly shown and proved by the actualfunction of the debaters’ speech acts.

The further analysis is consisted of two sections. One is the conclusionof three highly-used strategies in public debate discourse, inspired byWalton’s categorizing of strategies used in argumentative discourse andsupported by examples analysis in “Tiger’s Talk”. The other is the findingof the two special features in public debates in “Tiger’s Talk”, also

supported by conversation analysis examples.

4 Corpus and Research Aims

4.1 Date SourceThe corpus used for this research is collected from my transcription of

the debate discourse from a famous television program of public debatingproduced by Phoenix Satellite Television in China, called “Tiger Talk”. Thereasons why I choose the debate in this program as analytic object arelisted below:

“Tiger Talk” is one of the very first public debate program held andbroadcasted in mainland China. It provides a public discourse space to thesociety which increased common people’s awareness of their right of speechand the importance of listening to and valuing individual’s voice.

Even though it is not a strictly organized debate, it involved allthe necessary procedure in debate, including chairman’s introduction,opening arguments, attack defense, free debate and conclusion. Organizedfree debate would be an appropriate term to define the program. In this waycan debaters save the time introducing and concluding, and enjoy more timeon arguing and persuading.

All the debaters this program invited are people who are mostrepresentative in their own aspect, e.g. professors, experts, celebrities,public intellectuals and government officials. Each speaker gives the factthey know and the professional observation and insight they own on onecontroversial topic. What worth mentioning is that most of the debaters inthis program have not received professional training on debate, so thespeech activity type of their speech are more obvious and easier to define.

The debaters are also chosen for having representative opinion, inother words, either strongly approve of or strongly against with an issue.

11

Seldom did one holds neutral position be invited. In this way, the mostpowerful and persuasive arguments and fierce conflict among opinions wouldbe presented to the public.

6-year experience guarantees this program’s being mature.

I picked some episodes, whose topics are most controversial and thearguing dialogues are most intense, dictated the dialogues and transcribed

them in the way of classical conversation analysis. 4.2 Research Aim

Since the public debate in “Tiger Talk” is a new form of debatediscourse, I would like to put my aim into investigating the features of thestrategies used in such argumentative discourse by asking three researchquestions listed as below:

Question 1: What kind of strategies do participants in this program applyin public debate in the framework of speech activity type? How are thesestrategies presented?

Different from that of the traditional debates, the purpose of publicdebates shown in this program is not simply limited in winning the debate.It also aims at achieving a rational public discussion on certaincontroversial issues. As a result, on one hand, the argumentative discoursein such public debate follows the traditional strict rules established ingeneral debates, which involved using a standardized language, speaking in astructured turn-taking system, adopting evidence and logic to illustratetheir point and persuade the con side and the audience. Besides, theirspeech act implies the competitive nature of debate, in which participantknow exactly that their main concern is to win and language becomes theironly tool to construct thesis and attack the opponent. In this way, debatersutilize every possible communicative source for argumentation. On the otherhand, for the purpose of achieving a rational public discussion, there aresome other strategies in daily communication might be adopt besidesstrategies used in argumentative discourse. So it can be inferred that thepublic debate discourse serves for a mixed goal of communication. There ishigh possibility that strategies used for debate and strategies used fordiscussion would be applied combined.

Therefore, I would put forward my hypothesis to the question that severalappeals, e.g. logical appeal, emotional appeal, ethical appeal and authorityappeal, might be frequently applied as argue strategies in the discourse.And there might be a phenomenon in public debate that speakers bring theirdaily speech strategies into the debate speech.

And this leads to the second question.Question 2: Does the habit of using certain strategies in debate

discourse related to the occupation or identity of the participants? Inother words, is there a relation between each specific speech act and the

12

person who use it, or to specify, participant’s job or profession? As foreach strategy observed in the public debate discourse, who would frequentlyuse? And why?

According to the allowable contribution I mentioned in the introductionof speech activity type, some interactions are characterized by social orlegal constraints, which means that factors like one’s occupation, socialstatus, reputation and responsible duties control or have influence onhis/her use of speech strategies. For instance, a government official inChina would not be allowed to give his/her personal opinion about thingslike political policies or the condition of his/her country in the public; alawyer would not be permitted to express personal emotion to or make ajudgment on a case in the court. But what’s interesting is that people wouldwork around these restriction through pragmatic strategies and find a way toexpress their opinions anyway. A recent scene can best describe thesituation: in the press conference of the Chinese People’s PoliticalConsultative Conference, Chinese press release Mr. Lv Xinhua adopted apopular internet term “Nidongde”, meaning “You know what I mean”, toresponse to journalist’s question about the realness of the gossip of Mr.Zhou Yongkang, a member of the standing committee of the political bureau,is being investigated by the country.

Based on this theory, I propose my hypothesis to the second question thatusing which strategy in public debate discourse does have relation withspeaker’s social status, occupation or any other social or legalconstraints.

Question 3: Comparing to traditional debate, is there any new feature orspecial speech strategy in this kind of public debate discourse, based onthe unique goal of both holding a public debate and achieving a publicdiscussion, as well as the social status of the invited speakers?

Since the purpose of this television program is more of presenting athorough analysis of certain heated topics or controversial issues thansolely a debate, the speakers who got invited are basically professionals inthis area and they are invited not just for arguing for their point but alsofor providing the cutting edge to the audience and the public throughout theprocess. The speaker group is consisted of famous professors in topuniversities, CEO of big companies, senior government officials and publicintellectuals. So I suggest that the new features in public debate discourseare related to the speakers’ roles, playing both debaters and communicatorsof the most forward knowledge and information.

And because these participants are all top elites in the society,respectful specialists in their aspects, there is a concern that whetherthey could transfer their identities from tops in daily lives to debaters inthe program and adapt to the principles and speech activity type applied indebate discourse. If not, how much would they bring the habitual speechstrategies to the debate?

13

When people speaks as different roles, the speech strategy they employedand their speech activity they performed might vary greatly concerning thegoal of the participant, the application of the Polite Principle, thediscourse role and turn-taking. Take the application of the Polite Principleas example, it is usually minimized or even ignored in cases when a boss istalking to his/her employees, or when a senior government official is givingorder to the subordinate.

So I assume that the speech strategies these participants, who are mostlyhigh authorities in their aspects, use in daily life would be shown in theirdebate and the discussion. And this phenomenon would be more obvious whenthey come up to direct confrontation or other’s doubt or questioning, since

they are seldom putted in such situation in real life.

5 Descriptive Analysis of Public Debating Discourse

To address the three research questions mentioned above, I would give adescriptive analysis of the strategies I observed in this television programthat are being frequently used in their public debate discourse in thepragmatic framework of speech activity type theory. I would also give adetailed description of how these strategies are being applied and who arethe people that are using them. In the end, I would present two specialfeatures that I observed in public debate discourse which are seldom shownin traditional debate discourse. 5.1 Three Kind of Appeals Highly Used in Public Debate Discourse

Enlightened by the concept of several strategies used in argumentativediscourse introduced by Walton (1989), which included criticism forirrelevance, emotional appeal, personal attack in argumentation, appeal toauthority and valid arguments, I have concluded three main strategies usedin the public debate discourse from the debating dialogues. As the publicdebates in “Tiger’s Talk” are televised to thousands of audience, thedebaters suffer greater pressure than in usual debates. So they would applythe most effective argumentative strategies to reach their goal ofconvincing the audience. They are the use of logical appeal, emotionalappeal and ethical appeal. Each of these strategies can be used for eitherdefending one’s opinion or attacking the opponent, alone or together withthe other ones.

5.1.1 Logical Appeal:The necessity for the use of logical appeal is originally highlighted in

the principle in general debate. And it is also a main feature in publicdebate discourse. In public debates, there are usually lots of vague andunreasonable prescriptive assumptions hidden in representative opinions thatcan be manipulated to affect the audience. So the appeal to logic isfrequently used to pinpoint such unreasonableness and fight back the

14

manipulation.

1) (Background information: Topic: “Whether the Porn-Purging Campaigncan root out the whole pornography in Dongguan”, in which two parties hadalready stated their position and came to the ‘argumentation stage’ forexchanging arguments and critical reaction (Van Eemerent, 1999), one of thedebater in the con side was making his argument.)

host：What do people in HK think of this time’s Porn-Purging campaign?

Mr. Tao Jie（assistant professor of School of Communication in CUHK）：Most people in Hong Kong hold a resentful feeling against this time’s

Porn-Purging Campaign for three reasons ： first of all people in the twocities connect closely to each other英lots of the bachelors 英such as truckdrivers 英 or lower class people who could’t find a wife 英 they all go toDongguan for emotional communication. Besides, such communication betweentwo areas has been harmonious for the past twenty years, if the governmentconsiders it illegal, why did you do in the past twenty years, otherwise ifsuch thing is reasonable and can turn a blind eye to, why suddenly thecampaign?

……As for the most prostitutes in Dongguan英as long as they are not forced

into this industry, as long as she willing to do the business, what’s wrongwith their migration from poor provinces in mainland such as Hunan, Sichuanto Dongguan for earning some money so that they can build a house back intheir hometown? And in that case, why does the government use this kind ofmethod to drive them into a corner. This is the point that people in HongKong don’t understand

(……)Analysis:The participant Tao first answered the anchorman’s question directly with

an opposing attitude as his thesis statement. And then he putted forward hisdoubt to the real purpose of this big action of rooting out pornographyindustry in Dongguan by pointing out some facts and contrasting the presentwith the past.

It is a well-known fact in China that in the 1980s, the flourishing ofprostitution businesses were specially visible in the Special Economic Zonesand other eastern, coastal cities (Wong, 1992) (Jeffreys, 2004). Since themiddle of 1980s, lots of Hong Kong businessmen, office men and truck men,who travel frequently between Hong Kong and mainland China, buy women andhave concubines in Shenzhen. It has already become a common phenomenon inShenzhen that some of the districts such as Futian have become a compactcommunity where these women live. This confirms the realness of Tao’spointing out the first fact “…lots of the bachelors英such as truck drivers英or

15

lower class people who couldn’t find a wife 英 they all go to Dongguan foremotional communication.”

Then he questioned why suddenly the tension in Dongguan, why suddenly thebig movement of wiping out pornography in the city, based on government’sinaction in the former 20 years. “…as prostitution did not exist as theobject of serious government concern for almost three decades.” said Min Liuin his PhD dissertation (Liu, 2010).

There is another example of using the appeal to logic in public debates.Yingying, as one of the debaters who believe the Purging-Porn Campaign inDongguan is just campaign style law enforcement, argued that there’s nodifference between this time’s action and the previous purging-porn actionsin 2009 and 2010.

2) (Background information: Topic: “Whether the Porn-Purging Campaigncan root out the whole pornography in Dongguan”, in which two parties hadalready stated their position and came to the ‘argumentation stage’ forexchanging arguments and critical reaction (Van Eemerent, 1999), Yingying,the con side, was making her argument.)

Host: Yingying, do you think this time’s action is campaign style lawenforcement?

Yingying: Yes, I do believe it is campaign style law enforcement. But Ican say that this time’s action last longer. And in this period, this ispossible that the law execution efficiency is enhanced. However, I doubtwhether this time’s action can remain effective in the upcoming future.Because the purging-porn campaigns in 2009 and 2010 that I’ve witnessed wereall quiet high-scale. Many people might have heard of “Man’s world inheaven” (a famous sporting house in Beijing). Did we spend less effort inthe previous anti porn actions? That one was quiet severe, last about two tothree years. So what? Look at this time’s armed police force, over 6,000policemen. It is quiet frightening. But you can look at the number of peoplethey have arrested (162 people), the ratio.

(……)This is a logic type of argumentative discourse according to Walton that

the participant tends to use evidence as proof and logic to make a deductiveargumentation combined with propositions. And this kind of logical appeal is

found quiet frequently used in the debates that I recorded. 5.1.2 Emotional AppealThe emotional appeal refers to a logical fallacy which uses manipulation

of the listener’s emotion or feeling rather than valid arguments. It usesthe emotion as the basis of an argument without any factual evidence ordeductive logic support. Conclusively, the appeal to emotion fallacy

16

presents a perspective intended to be superior to reasons. Solely on thebasis that the statement may induce emotional stimulation suck as fear, pityand joy (Kimball, 2004) (Wheater, 2004).

3) (Background information: Topic: “Whether the Porn-Purging Campaigncan root out the whole pornography in Dongguan”, in which two parties are inthe ‘argumentation stage’ for exchanging arguments and critical reaction(Van Eemerent, 1999), two debaters were exchanging arguments and there wasoverlapping in the dialogue.)

Yangchun (researcher in sex safety): First of all, why do we alwaysattach a stigma to sex? =

Yangchun: =First weYongxiong: I disagree, sex:: itself doesn’t have any stigma, sex

combining commerciality becomes, becomes: a really cheap:: thing, becauseyou use sex to exchange (for financial benefits), the fifty or sixty yearold grannies you just mentioned, are the minorities. Most of the, what youcall sex professionals, look, their bags are definitely not affordable withtheir low payment in factories. Louis Vuitton, some international brands,what exactly do they work for? I just putted forwards the key problem calledcorruption in moral, materialism.

(……)Analysis: It can be inferred from the dialogue that debater Yongxiong is appeal to

the emotion, disgust, when the con-side debater is going to define herunderstanding of sex and point out there is a misunderstanding about sexamong common people in China. Concerning the application of theinterpersonal maxims, Yongxiong’s is not quiet polite to the first speakeras there is an overlapping between their speech, in which Yongxiong took theturn of Yangchun before there was any transition-relevance place. Headdressed to the emotion, disgust, by using strong derogatory terms like“really cheap” and “corruption in moral and materialism”; He also hided abias presumption in his speech that the only reason girls being prostitutesis that they are vain and materialistic, ignoring the fact that there mightbe many other reasons why women are doing this business. And he presumedthat using luxury bags is the best sign of such vain psychology. In thisway, he manipulated common people’s disgust for materialism and vainpersonality for supporting his point of view.

5.1.3 Ethical AppealUsing ethical appeal means trying to convince people with ethical canons

that something is a right thing to do.The use of this appeal can be found in almost every debate but most

frequently in those whose topics are based on or related to human behavior,such as sex in debate “Whether the Porn-Purging Campaign can root out the

17

whole pornography in Dongguan?”, humanity in debate “Is Fan Paopao guilty?”,gap between the rich and the poor in debate “Whether civil workers’ salaryshould be increased under the anti-corruption campaign?”, as well as theirinterests. In contrast, such appeal is used less in cases that concern moreabout the facts, for instance in debate “Whether rural reform can increasefarmers income rapidly?”

Man who use ethical canons to support his/her point is somehow playingthe role of judge him/herself. When someone is applying such appeal, he usesthe moral standard of himself to judge the others, setting up a negativesituation for the opponent.

4) (Background knowledge: Topic: “Whether the Porn-Purging Campaign canroot out the whole pornography in Dongguan?” in which the debate was stillin ‘argumentation stage’, and two of the debaters were having fierceconflicting argument.

Host: there is an opinion held by many economists that the campaign wouldresults in high unemployment in the city, approximately 200,000 prostituteswould not be able the find a job, which might probably influence the mainindustry in Dongguan’s economy. Is economy that we shall concern, Yongxiong?

Yongxiong: The reason for such problem is that there are abundantfactories in Dongguan, just for the Taiwanese enterprises, there are over3000 of them, and in each manufactory factory there are hundreds andthousands of workers. However there are some: amount the female workers, whocannot bear: the factory: this kind of work: she can’t bear doing such awork, so she turned to this industry. Nowadays this 200,000 people, they arenot losing the capability to do the normal job. Frankly speaking: this is:corruption in moral, materialism! This is the most serious problem.

……

Host: =Ok, this is Yongxiong’s opinion. Now, Yingying, what do you think?

Yingying: It is me who is earning money for raising my family. I work fora better life. Does this bother anyone? =

Yongxiong: =Now you talk about this, your words will make all thefemales, let me put it in this way: let me put it in this way=

Yongxiong: …Yingying: = You have greatly underestimated women’s thinking=Yongxiong: = IYingying: =Do you consider that if I say so, everybody would want to

be a prostitute? That is impossible. =Yingying: =There are lots of options in life. =Yongxiong: … Hey!

18

Yingying: =Options in life, have their patterns. =Yongxiong: =But, but, that kind of work, a work like this, is suitable

for advertising then? I would like to ask a question, is there anyone herecan tell me that you agree your sister, your daughter to do that kind ofprofession!

Yingying: Mr. Jiang, we are not advertising(……)Analysis:In this dialogue, not only a high involvement of both parties is shown by

constant overlapping, but also obvious manipulations of pragmatic parametersare presented. The manipulations of pragmatic parameters are presented inthe way of debaters shortening the distance between the topic discussed andthemselves, as well as shortening the distance between the object discussed,being a prostitute, and the audience’s families.

Debater Yongxiong in the dialogue, made use of the other debaterYingying’s sentence “It is me who is earning money for raising my family. Iwork for a better life. Does this bother anyone?” in which she shortened herdistance with prostitutes based on both being women, so as to present theinnocent image of prostitutes. He ignored the origin intention of Yingyingdeliberately and made an assumption which Yingying later denied that she wasconducting propaganda, encouraging women to do this job. In this case,Yongxiong appealed to the ethical canon that it is evil for a woman to sellher body and it is worse if anyone is defending it.

Then in the sentence “is there anyone here can tell me that you agreeyour sister, your daughter to do that kind of profession!” Yongxiongstrengthened the effect of such appeal by shortening the distance betweenthe discussed object and the audience.

This is another example of using ethical appeal in the same debate:

5) Host: So Chongzheng regards that Porn-Purging shouldn’t berevolutionary , instead it should be regular and institutionalized.

Yongxiong: Frankly speaking, if: we: are even discussing aboutlegalizing this industry, protecting these people, then it would be awhole corruption of China’s morals! =

Fuzhou: =I think that what Mr. Jiang is talking about, his words, isa sign of his moral principle setting too high, higher than those of thecommon people in this society: this: this thing, you means that, that ifsomeone can earn his living by working, by working hard, how can theychoose to be a sex worker. However, no matter being a pro:stitute,selling sex, or buying sex, in my eye, they are not the lowest people inthis society, in this whole human society. Those who kill people, set

19

fires, corrupt civilians’ money, those are the lowest ones. 5.2 Two Special Features in Public Debate Discourse

5.2.1 Informative Speech One unique feature in public debates in “Tiger’s Talk” is the informative

character of the speakers’ speeches. Participants tend to be quiet eager toshare their personal observation or experiences on the issue whenever theyseize a turn to speak.

Informative markers are collected as:“I’m telling you.”; “Listen.”; “The truth is…”; “You have to know…”I found explanations to this informative feature from different angles in

the speech activity type framework. Concerning the goal & role of the participants: the speakers, who are

basically professionals in their area, are invited not just for arguing fortheir point but also for providing the cutting edge to the audience and thepublic throughout the process. Because the purpose of this televisionprogram is more of presenting a thorough analysis of certain heated topicsor controversial issues than solely a debate. The speakers can be famousprofessors in top universities, CEO of big companies, senior governmentofficials and public intellectuals. And they are playing both the role ofdebater and communicator of the most forward knowledge and information. Thisexplains the informative feature in public debate discourse in one way.

Concerning the allowable attribution: debaters are chosen as the representatives of the groups they belong, usually defined by occupations. So when they are having an argumentative conversation, few instant mutual understanding can be achieved among them, based on the varying social or legal constraints. As a result, they no choice but providing more facts in

their aspect for better illustrating the point. 5.2.2 Elites’ Speech Another feature found in the public debate discourse in “Tiger’s Talk” is

a general ‘upper-class’ character, based on Basil Bernstein’s theory oflanguage and social class (Bernstein, 1975). Scholars suggest thatBernstein’s theory shows how the language people used in daily conversationreflects the assumptions of a certain social group. For instance, peoplereceived higher education would use more nouns in their speech. Bernsteinused to analysis the influence social class made in pedagogic discourse. Andhis thesis was that there are significant differences in the social-classassumptions in visible and invisible pedagogy. Public debate discourse, as Ibelieve, is another situation where social class assumptions can be shown.And the “Elite character” I found in public debate discourse in “Tiger’sTalk”, to be specific, refers to a group of speech acts which all suggestupper-class assumptions. The feature can be presented in following ways:

Easily jump to conclusion

20

6)Host: If the government did not make such a prompt decision at the

right moment, how would this time’s high-handed anti-porn campaign be,Yingying?

Yingying: This is too naïve (considering the timing matter). Do youthink that without CCTV’s report, no one would be informed of the anti-porn action?

Reluctant to give further explanation7)

Yingying: …Executing such large-scale anti-porn enforcement, usingover 6,000 policemen, whose money you are using. You are wasting taxpayers’ money.

Congzheng: They are two entirely different things. They are differentthings. They are different. Public authority’s nonfeasance and whetherwe should take severe measures against porn industry as well as theoutcome of it are different things.

Irritable when facing doubtSuch performance differs greatly from that of traditional debates, as in

traditional ones debaters are always fighting for the chance to give furtherexplanation and present more reasoning. So as far as I am concerned thesespeech acts connect closely to the speech acts they make outside the debate,and are driven by their upper-class identities and occupations in real life.

As I mentioned above, the identities of the speakers in this publicdebate can be professors in university, CEO in big companies, seniorgovernment officials or social intellectuals. And their identities shape theway they talk according to ‘allowable attribution’ and the interpersonalmaxims in the framework of speech activity type.

Take professors as example, the most frequent dialogue in their work isteacher-student dialogue. Cazden (1979) points out that, teachers, by thenature of their professional role, are continually posing threats tostudents’ faces. These threats take the form of constraints on students’freedom of action, evaluation of their actions and utterances, andinterruptions of students’ work and talk. So they might bring the habitualspeech acts, driven by their professional role, to the other occasions,unconsciously.

Same in the boss-employee dialogue, in which CEOs of big companies haveaccustomed to the way of giving orders, instructions or evaluations to theirsubordinates. And usually there is not much need for them to take up the twoobligations Hintikka suggested for participants in persuasive dialogues: 1)to prove one’s thesis from the other participant’s concession, 2) tocooperate with the other participant’s attempt to prove his thesis alsoexists.

Therefore, I would like to define this group of speech acts, including

21

easily jumping to conclusion, being judgmental, having no patient to theother participants’ speech, reluctant to give further explanation andirritable when facing doubts, as a performance of an Elite attitude based onthe analysis of their identities, social status and the common speechstrategies they applied in real life.

6 Conclusion and evaluation

6.1 Summary To conclude, I have observed and concluded three main strategies, or to

say three appeals, frequently used in public debates in “Tiger’s Talk” inthe framework of speech activity type which was first proposed by Levinson,and then expanded by Thomas, J. (1995) and Yu Dongming (1999). It was alsoenlightened by how Walton categorized critical argumentations (1989). Theyare consisted of logical appeal, emotional appeal and ethical appeal.

The logical appeal is found highly used in public debate discourse asparticipants use evidence as proof and logic to make a deductiveargumentation combined with propositions. Illustrations are offered in mydiscourse analysis to show how a debater argued for his point. The appealmeets Walton’s definition of debate as one form of argumentative discourses.He suggested that debates are more of logical reasoning than simply personalattack for both the parties not only have to argue with the other side butalso convince the audience with logic and evidences.

The emotional appeal refers to a logical fallacy which uses manipulationof the listener’s emotion or feeling rather than valid arguments. It can beshown in the way of suspending the interpersonal maxims, e.g. aggressivelyfight for the turn to speak; or hiding bias presumptions which intend tomisguide audience’s judgment.

The ethical appeal means that using ethical canons as support for one’sargument. “It attempts to build two conceptual bridges. The first is abridge between what people value and what they feel ought to happen to theforest (between values and ethics). The second is a bridge between whatought to happen and written agreements to that effect (between ethics andlaws)”, said Duncan Macqueen (2005). And it is measured in the analysis thatit can be achieved by manipulation of the pragmatic parameters, e.g.shortening the distance between the discussed object and the audience.

Two special features are also observed and analyzed in the public debatediscourse I recorded which I believe are different from the characteristicsin traditional debates and haven’t been studied by classical researchesconcerning argumentative discourses. They are:

Informative feature 英 which is presented by participants’ eagerness toshare their personal knowledge, observation or experiences on the issuewhenever they seize a turn to speak. I suggest that such feature is drivenby the goal of public debates, e.g. “Tiger’s Talk” 英 which is more of

22

presenting a thorough analysis of certain heated topics or controversialissues to the public than solely a debate; and the goal of the speakers,since they are invited not just for arguing for their point but also forproviding the cutting edge to the audience and the public throughout theprocess.

Elite feature refers to a group of speech acts made in the public debate,which suggests a top-down, self-centered attitude of the debaters. Thesespeech acts include easily jumping to conclusion, being judgmental, havingno patient to the other participants’ speech, reluctant to give furtherexplanation and irritable when facing doubts, etc. Through examining it with‘allowable attribution’ and ‘Interpersonal maxims’, I suggested that suchperformance related closely to the debaters’ upper-class identities, socialstatus and the common speech strategies they applied in real life. 6.2 Discussion

Public debates arise as a popular way in big modern cities or developedregions, in which civilians enjoy a relatively more democratic social mode,of collecting different opinions on controversial issues and presenting themto the public.

It helps to make a complicated vague event easier for the public todigest through exposing its details in organized discussions among expertsand representatives from various groups. It assists people to realize theimportance of executing their right of speech and significance of publicdiscussions.

It might even trigger revolutionary change in public discourse space asFairclough (2006) hold the opinion that lots of the happening socialrevolutions are prompted and driven by changes in discourse.

In the meantime, public debate discourse becomes valuable material for usto analyze the organization of our society based on the analytic frameworkof critical discourse analysis (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999) (Fairclough,2000), as discourse connects closely to the other forms of social practiceand helps to construct and transform them (Fairclough N. , 1995).

However, in such high-standard public debates, where all the participantsare the top professionals in the country, we still find some speechacts/speech strategies that are harmful to the people’s right of speech andthe promotion of public discourse space, e.g. personal attack, ethicalappeal, manipulation of audience’s feelings, reluctance to give furtherexplanation, etc. These speech acts go against the basic principles, or tosay, the work ethic for argumentation proposed in Carl Roger’s theory:

Respect for others’ view Esteem for the other party Relativity of the strength of an argument Relying on support Acknowledging our debt (Rogers, 1961) (Rogers, 1951)As far as I am concerned, such performance is not brought to the public

23

debate on purpose, but is driven by the long-existed inequality that lies inparticipants’ daily conversation, as the speakers invited are alwayssuperiors in their real life. As a result, I suggested the participants inpublic debates pay attention to their habitual speech strategies and try toavoid having the top-down attitude in such argumentative discourse.

ReferenceBernsteinBasil. (1975). Social class, language and socialization. 英英

BernsteinBasil, Class, Codes and Control. New York: Schocken Books.CazdenBC. (1979). Language in Eduaction: Variation in the Teacher-Talk

Register in Language in Public Life: Georgetown University Round Table onLanguages and Linguistics 1979. Washington D.C.: Georgetown UniversityPress.

Chouliaraki, & Fairclough. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking CriticalDiscourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Dijk, v. (1991). Racism and the Press. London: Loueledge.Dijk, v. (1993). Discourse and Elite Racism. London: Sage Publication.DiJk, V. (1996). Discourse: opinions and ideologies. Clevedon: Multingual

Matters Ltm.Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and Globalization. London and New York:

Routledge.FaircloughN. (2000). Discourse, Social Theory and Social Research: The

Discourse of Welfare Reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics, p 163-195.FaircloughN. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social

Research. London and New York: Routledge.HirschbergS. (1990). Strategies of Argument. New York: Macmillan.JeffreysElaine. (2004). China, Sex and Prostitution. London and New

York: LoutledgeCurzon.KimballH.Robert. (2004). A Plea for Pity. Philosophy and Rhetoric

Vol.37, Issue 4. p301-316.LakoffR. (1973). The Logic of Politeness, or Minding Your P's and Q's.

Paper from the Ninth Reginal Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society,英 292-305.

Levinson, S. (1979). Activity Types and Language. Linguistics, pp. 365-399.

LiuMin. (2010). Migration, Prostitution and Human Trafficking ChineseMigrant Women in Shenzhen. New Jersy: University of New Jersy.

MacqueenDuncan. (2005 英 March 英). Ethical Appeal. 英英英英: Policy PowerTool:http://www.policy-powertools.org/Tools/Engaging/docs/ethical_appeal_tool_english.pdf

MooreC.W. (1986). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for

24

Solving Conflicts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.N.Walton, D. (1989). Informal Logic, a Hand Book for Critical Dialogue. The Press

Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Pomerantz, A. B. (1997). Conversation Analysis: An Approach to the Study of Social

Action as Sense Making Action. London: Sage.Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy, its current practice, implications, and theory.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.RogersCarl. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton.Stephen Levinson & BrownP. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in

Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.ThomasJ. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to

Pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Limited.ThomsonD. (1996). Discouse: Opinions and Ideologies. Clevedon:

Multingual Matters Ltm.Van EemerentHoutlosserPeter. (1999). Strategic manoeuvring in

argumentative discourse. London: Sage Publication.WheaterIsabella. (2004). "Philosophy" Vol.79, Issue 308, 英 215–245.WongJ. (1992). Prostitution Flourishing in China's Capitalist Enclave.

San Fransisco: Chronicle.Yu Dongming. (1999). Huihuahuodongleixing de yuyongyanjiu ji

kuawenhuajiaoji. (Cross-culture Pragmatic Study of Speech Activity Type).Waiguoyu.(Foreign Languages). vol.3

AppendixOriginal Discourses

（1）

英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英：？英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英 英（）：

英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英 英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英 英英英 英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英 英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英 英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英一：一，、， ， ， 。 ， ， ， ， 一 一 ， 一 ？

、、、、、、

英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英 英英英英英英 英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英，，，一，，。

英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英。。

、、、、、、

（2） 英英英 英英英 英英英英英 英英英英英英英： ， 一 ？

英英 英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英 英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英 英英英英英 英英英英英英英 英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英 英英： 一 。 ， ，一 ， ， 。 一 一 。2010 英英2009 英英英英英英英英英英英 “英英英英”英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英。 ，？

英英 英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英，。？ 6000 英英英 英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英， 。 （162 英英英英 英英英英英），。

（3） 英英 英英英英英英英英 英 英英英英英英英英英英 英英 英英英英英英英 英（）：西一西？ =英英：=英英英英英英 英英英英 英 英英英英英英英 英英英英英英 英 英英英 英英 英英英英 英英英英英 英 英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英 英英英英 英英英英英英英 英英英 英英英英英英英英英： ，：：。，：一：西（ ） ， 。 ， 。 ， ，，，一。LV 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英，，（，）。一，。

、、、、、、

（4）

25

英英英 英英英英 英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英： 一 ， ， 。 。

英英英英英 英英英英英英英 英英英（），？

英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英： ， 。3000 英英英英英英英 英 英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英 英 英 英英 英英 英英 英 英英英英英 英英英英英英 英英英英英 英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英 英 英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英 英英英英 英英英英英 英英英英，一，。，一，一：，：，，。，。， 。 ： ： ， 女!英英英英英英英英英。英英英：=英 英英英英英英英英 英英 英英英英英， 。 ， 。

英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英 ： ， ， 。 =英英 ： =英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英 英英英 英英英 英英英英 英英英英， ， ：女 =英英 ：英英 ： =英英英英 英英英英英英英女 =英英 英：

英英 ： =英英英英英英英,英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英。。 =英英：=英英英英英英英 英英英=英英 英： ！

英英：=英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英。英英：=英 英英 英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英 英英英英英英 英英英英英 英英英英 英英英英英 英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英，，，，，一，一，！

英英 英英英英 英英英英英英英英英：，

、、、、、、

（5） 英英英 英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英： ， 一 ， 。

英英 英英英英英英英 英英英 英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英 英英英英 英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英： ， ： ： ， ， （ ） ！=英英英：=英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英 英英英英 英 英英英英 英英英英： ， ： ， ： ： 西。 ，

英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英 英英 英 英英英英英英 英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英 ，。：：，，，，。

英英英 英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英，，，。

（6） 英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英：，，？

英英 英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英：。，？

（7） 英英 英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英：，，。。

英英 英英英英英英 英英英英英英 英英英英英英 英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英英：。。。。

Transcription Conventions

(……) the transcriber’s omission

…… the speaker’s omission

(:) lengthened vowel or character

[ overlap between two turns

AcknowledgementI’d like to send my gratitude to my tutor Dr. Feng Wei for her guidance

on how to write the dissertation and her assistance that helped me narrowdown the topic of this paper. I also thank Prof. Ouyang Huhua for his

26

suggestion of using Critical Discourse Analysis as the guiding theory in myresearch.

Thanks also go to Prof. Yu Shengming, who introduced me to the theoriesand practices in discourse analysis, as well as Prof. Huo Yongshou, whoinspired me to analyze a discourse with pragmatic methodology. His bookMitigation and Pragmatics as Linguistic Regulation Theory: The Case of TCM Clinical Interviews gaveme a good example of doing pragmatic research.

This work also benefited from discussions with my classmates including Guo Weiling, Li Ying, Chen Qishu and Wang Jing.

摘摘摘摘：

This is an empirical study of the argumentation strategies adopted by the

debaters about the anti-prostitution campaign presently in China in a most

popular Chinese TV forum ‘Tiger forum’ of Pheonix TV. Critical discourse

analysis framework is well used to analyze and interpret the various

strategies and their appeals adopted by the debaters. Various distinctive

social identities were found behind the patterns of argumentation strategies

and their appeals, resulting in an insightful understanding of the

ideologies and social groupings at stake. The study has had a very specific

focus, used well integrated literature, and exercised an excellent analysis

of the data. The case is well made, and expressed in a coherent and fluent

academic English writing. Overall, this is an outstanding work clearly

indicative of the author’s great potential of making a good researcher in

social sciences.

27