ABSTRACT

Public hearing is introduced to China in recent years. But in foreign countries, hearing system has a long history. It is a formal and primary method of collecting and analyzing data of public views in the step of preliminary of making legislative policy. 

-Many studies of public hearings, both domestic and abroad, focus on hearing system itself, or on the perspective of political science and journalism. These aspects are all from external of the hearing quality. Seldom do they pay attention to the use of the language of hearing text. 

In the USITC hearings, we can easily find the speakers use pragmatic argumentation frequently in their expression of arguments to strengthen their standpoints. Because of that, this research will aim to identify, analyze and evaluate pragmatic argumentation in hearing content by reconstructing USITC hearings as corpus. Three argument schemes in hearings of United States International Trade Commission will be involved to support the pragmatic argumentation in this paper. Also, the function and criteria of pragmatic argumentation will be covered from the perspective of Pragma-Dialectics. 

Key words: Hearing; United States International Trade Commission; Pragmatic argumentation, Argument scheme

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

摘要

Chapter One INTRODUCTION-1

1.1 Research Background-1

1.2 Aim and Significance-2

1.3 Organization of the Thesis-2

Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW-4

2.1 Studies on public hearing-4

2.1.1 Political Approach to Public Hearing-4

2.1.2 Journalistic Approach to Public Hearing-4

2.1.3 Rhetorical Approach to Public Hearing-5

2.2 Studies on Pragmatic Argumentation-5

2.3 Summary-6

Chapter Three RESEARCH DESIGN-7

3.1 Theoretical Assumptions-7

3.1.1 Basic Rules in Public Hearing System-7

3.1.2 Hearing as Argumentative Discourse-8

3.1.3 Different Types of Pragmatic Argumentation-8

3.2 Research Questions-10

3.3 Data Collection-10

Chapter Four RESULTS AND DISCUSSION-11

4.1 Pragmatic Argumentation Based on Causality-11

4.1.1 Analysis of Pragmatic Argumentation Based on Causality-11

4.1.2 Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation Based on Causality-13

4.2 Pragmatic Argumentation Based on Analogy-14

4.2.1 Analysis of Argumentation Based on Analogy-14

4.2.2 Evaluation of Argumentation Based on Analogy-15

4.3 Pragmatic Argumentation Based Symptom-16

4.3.1 Analysis of Argumentation Based on Symptom-16

4.3.2 Evaluation of Argumentation Based on Symptom-17

Chapter Five CONCLUSIONS-19

5.1 Major Findings-19

5.2 Implication-19

5.3 Limitations-20

5.4 Future Research-20

REFERENCES-21