演講是講者為達成特定的溝通目標，面對觀眾公開發表見解或感受的一種溝通活動。這種溝通活動構成獨特語體，在語篇結構方面具有異於其他語體的特徵。目前文獻已歸納英語演講普遍採用的訊息組織模式，結論對英語演講教學亦產生實質助益。相較之下，華語這方面的研究及其教學應用相對匱乏，因此，本文以臺灣教育部2011年至2015年舉辦的《全國語文競賽》為研究樣本，選取高中組演說獲獎作品共30則，採用語步分析為主、後設論述分析為輔的研究模式，分析講者如何選用及組織訊息，構成具說服力的演講，最後根據研究結果設計華語演講教學的教材範例。
分析結果顯示，華語演講的典型結構是由五個語步組成，語步一是導言，語步二至四是比重均等的三面向申論，語步五是結論。導言與結論各有六種可用策略，且一般皆由兩項策略組成。導言最常見的組合是以講述名人的故事開場，後接用以承上啟下的策略，這個組合能幫助講者引起觀眾的興趣，並順暢地開啟申論。結論則偏好引用名言佳句或重述前文故事，再總結全篇主旨，藉此重申講者立場，強化演講對觀眾的影響力。而申論的語步共有九種可用策略，平均使用三種策略，出現率最高的組合是先分述該項論點，接著講述名人或個人故事，最後總結該項重點。由此可見，一篇受到肯定的華語演講通常先破題，接著採用相似的結構，從三個不同的角度分別論證中心思想，最後呼應導言，完成首尾連貫。而在後設論述分析方面，分析結果顯示策略的溝通目標與標記的溝通功能存在對應關係，亦即各種策略展現對特定標記的使用偏好。
以上結果表明華語演講在篇章組織上形成相似且可辨識的文本群體，驗證具有相同溝通目標的語篇群體展現出類似的修辭手段，然而，本研究亦發現不同於英語文獻的結論。演講是發生於真實時間的口語獨白，因此文獻一般認為這類語體在修辭結構上展露靈活性，難以歸納典型架構，但即席演說的結構卻相當工整固定，這個差異可能源自於準備時間的長短。本文最後應用結果於華語演講教學，為華語學生歸納演講語篇在語篇結構及語言形式的表達定式，並據此設計教學材料與方法的實作範例，以提升研究結果在語言研究與教學的價值。

Public speaking is a kind of communicative event in which a speaker communicates information to a group of listeners in order to achieve specific purposes. Previous researchers investigating English speech have regarded public speaking as a unique genre of spoken discourse and described several distinct features of its rhetorical structure. The results of these previous studies indicate that English speakers organize the structure of information to fulfill their communicative purposes and these and other findings have contributed to the teaching of English public speaking. However, up until this point Chinese public speaking has received little attention by researchers. Thus, the present study, a close inspection of Chinese public speech through move analysis, has aimed to: 1) examine the types of moves used in Chinese impromptu speeches; 2) uncover linguistic realizations of moves and strategies; and 3) generalize their typical structural features.
Thirty (30) prize-winning speeches given at the 2011 to 2015 National Language Contest held by the Taiwan Ministry of Education were collected for analysis. The typical structure of Chinese public speeches was uncovered comprising of five obligatory moves including Introduction (Move 1), Body 1 (Move 2), Body 2 (Move 3), Body 3 (Move 4) and Conclusion (Move 5). Although it was revealed that speakers had six strategies at their disposal for both the Introduction and Conclusion, speakers generally only applied two of the six. The most frequently used strategy combination for the Introduction was found to be the telling of stories about famous people prior to forming a connecting link between the preceding and the following discourse. This strategy sequence can function to arouse audience interest and transition to the Body of the speech. In the Conclusion, speakers preferred quoting a well-known saying and then reaffirming the thesis of the speech. This combination of strategies help speakers reinforce their stance and strengthen its influence on the audience. In Body 1 to Body 3, nine strategies were identified of which only three were generally applied. The most frequent combination of strategies used was first the rephrasing of the thesis followed by providing supporting details through the retelling of a well-known story or a personal anecdote and finally stating the conclusion.
The above findings suggest that the structural features of Chinese speech are regular and recognizable, which lends credibility to the claim that texts with similar communicative purposes share similarities in terms of their rhetorical characteristics. However, public speaking occurs in real time and at times can result in sequencing of moves allowing for a great amount of flexibility. The present study presents different accounts. This dissertation research results can be applied to the teaching of Chinese public speaking by providing instruction on how to organize a speech according to the conventional rhetorical structure(s) written using commonly occurring sentence patterns. The study hopes to provide insights into the analysis of Chinese public speeches and the teaching of Chinese public speaking.

1. Abdi, R., Manoochehr, T. R., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1669-1679.
2. Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288-297.
3. Aho, J. A. (1985). Rhetoric and the invention of double entry bookkeeping. Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 3(1), 21-43.
4. Alba-Juez, L. (2009). Perspectives on discourse analysis: Theory and practice. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.
5. Barton, E. L. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55(7), 745-769.
6. Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and masters dissertations in language teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 241-251.
7. Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in Dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134-144.
8. Beauvais, P. J. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 6(1), 11-30.
9. Beebe, S. A., & Beebe, S. J. (2008). Public speaking: An audience-centered approach (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
10. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London, England: Longman.
12. Bhatia, V. K. (2008). Towards critical genre analysis. In V. K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Advances in discourse analysis (pp. 166-177). London, England: Routledge.
13. Bhatia, V. K., Flowerdew, J., & Jones, R. H. (2008). Approaches to discourse analysis. In V. K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Advances in discourse analysis (pp. 1-17). London, England: Routledge.
14. Biber, D. (1989). A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27, 3-43.
15. Biber, D., Conner, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse analysis and corpus linguistics. In D. Biber, U. Conner & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (pp. 1-20). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
16. Bovée, C. L. (2003). Contemporary public speaking (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Collegiate Press.
17. Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47-59.
18. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19. Bryant, D. C. (1953). Rhetoric: Its function and scope. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 39, 401-424.
20. Brydon, S., & Scott, M. (2010). Between one and many: The art and science of public speaking (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
21. Bu, J. (2014). Towards a pragmatic analysis of metadiscourse in academic lectures: From relevance to adaptation. Discourse Studies, 16(4), 449-472.
22. Burns, A., Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on speaking. Sydney, Australia: NCELTR.
23. Candlin, C. N. (1997). General editor’s preface. In B.-L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell & B. Nordberg (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (pp. ix-xiv). London, England: Longman.
24. Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp.27-55). New York, NY: Academic Press.
25. Chang, Y.-Y. (2012). The use of question by professors in lectures given in English: Influences of disciplinary cultures. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 103-116.
26. Cheng, S. W. (2012). “That’s it for today”: Academic lecture closings and the impact of class size. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 234-248.
27. Christie, F. (1999). Genre Theory and ESL Teaching: A Systemic Functional Perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 33(4), 759-763.
28. Conboy, M. (2007). The language of the news. Abingdon: Routledge.
29. Connor, U., Upton, T. A., & Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Introduction to move analysis. In D. Biber, U. Conner & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (pp. 23-41). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
30. Cotos, E., Huffman, S., & Link, S. (2015). Furthering and applying move/step constructs: Technology-driven marshalling of Swalesian genre theory for EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 52-72.
31. Crawford, J. C. (1984). Toward standardized extemporaneous speech competition: Tournament design and speech training. National Forensic Journal, 2, 41-55.
32. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
33. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71.
34. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
35. Del Saz-Rubio, M. M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258-271.
36. Deroey, K. L. B. (2012). What they highlight is…: The discourse functions of basic wh-clefts in lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 112-124.
37. Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other languages. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
38. DeVito, J. A. (2014). The essential elements of public speaking (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
39. Duke, N., Purcell-Gates, V. (2003). Genres at home and at school: Bridging the known the the new. The Reading Teacher, 57(1), 30-37.
40. Dunn, C. D. (2010). Information structure and discourse stance in a monologic “public speaking” register of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(7), 1890-1911.
41. Eggins, S., & Martin, J. R. (1997). Genre and registers of discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (pp. 230-256). London, England: SAGE.
42. Eniko, C. (2000). Academic lecture: An interface of an oral and literate continuum. Novelty-British Council Hungary, 7(3), 30-47.
43. Fasold, R. (1990). Sociolinguistics of language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
44. Fernández-Polo, F. J. (2014). The role of I mean in conference presentations by ELF speakers. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 58-67.
45. Flowerdew, J. (2002). Genre in the classroom: A linguistic approach. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 91-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (Eds.). (1979). Language and control. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
47. Fu, X. (2012). The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies. 14(4), 399-417.
48. German, K. M., Gronbeck, B. E., & Ehninger, D. (2012). Principles of public speaking (18th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
49. Gill, A. M., & Whedbee, K. (1997). Rhetoric. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (pp. 157-184). London, England: SAGE.
50. Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139.
51. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
52. Gosden, H. (1992). Discourse functions of marked theme in scientific research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 11(3). 207-224.
53. Grice, G. L., & Skinner, J. F. (2012). Mastering public speaking (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
54. Halleck, G. B., & Connor, U. M. (2006). Rhetorical moves in TESOL conference proposals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 70-86.
55. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, England: Edward Arnold.
56. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, England: Longman.
57. Han, D. (2011). Utterance production and interpretation: A discourse-pragmatic study on pragmatic markers in English public speeches. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2776-2794.
58. Hansen, C. (1994). Topic identification in lecture discourse. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspective (pp. 131-145). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Universal Press
59. Hartelius, E. J., & Browning, L. (2008). The application of rhetorical theory in managerial research: A literature review. Management Communication Quarterly, 22, 13-39.
60. Hempel, S., & Degand, L. (2008). Sequencers in different text genres: Academic writing, journalese and fiction. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 676-693.
61. Higgins, C., & Walker, R. (2012). Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum, 36, 194-208.
62. Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321-337.
63. Holt, R., Macpherson, A. (2010). Sensemaking, rhetoric and the socially competent entrepreneur. International Small Business Journal, 28(1), 20-42.
64. Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113-121.
65. Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809.
66. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
67. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
68. Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York, NY: Continuum.
69. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
70. Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 148-164.
71. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
72. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123-139.
73. Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693-722.
74. Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1325-1353.
75. Jaffe, C. (2007). Public speaking: Concepts and skills for a diverse society (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
76. Jensen, A. (2009). Discourse strategies in professional e-mail negotiation: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 4-18.
77. Johns, A. M. (2002). Introduction: Genre in the classroom. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
78. Joseph, R., Lim, J. M. H., & Nor, N. A. M. (2014). Communicative moves in Forestry research introductions: Implications for the design of learning materials. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 134, 53-69.
79. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles. In D. Biber, U. Conner & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (pp. 73-119). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
80. Kelly, E. (1979). Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. Journal of Pragmatics, 3(3-4), 219-238.
81. Khedri, M., Chan, S. H., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319-331.
82. Kim, L.-C., & Lim, J. M.-H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse studies, 15(2), 129-146.
83. Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
84. Kwan, B. S. C. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral thesis of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 30-55.
85. Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2011). A longitudinal experimental study on the interaction effects of persuasion quality, user training, and first-hand use on user perceptions of newinformation technology. Information & Management, 48(7), 288-295.
86. Lee, J. J. (2009). Size matters: An exploratory comparison of small- and large-class university lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 42-57.
87. Lee, J. J., & Casal, J. E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46, 39-54.
88. Lee, J. J., & Subtirelu, N. C. (2015). Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 52-62.
89. Li, L.-J., & Ge, G.-G. (2009). Genre analysis: Structural and linguistic evolution of the English-medium medical research article (1985-2004). English for Specific Purposes, 28, 93-104.
90. Li, T., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 345-356.
91. Lin, C.-Y. (2010). ‘…that’s actually sort of you know trying to get consultants in…’: Functions and multifunctionality of modifiers in academic lectures. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1173-1183.
92. Lin, C.-Y. (2015). Seminars and interactive lectures as a community of knowledge co-construction: The use of modifiers. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 99-108.
93. Liu, F. (2012). Genre analysis of American presidential inaugural speech. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2407-2411.
94. Loi, C. K., & Lim, J. M.-H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146.
95. Loi, C. K., Evans, M. S. (2010). Cultural differences in the organization of research article introductions from the field of educational psychology: English and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2814-2825.
96. Lucas, S. E. (2005). The art of public speaking (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
97. Mao, L. R. (1993). I conclude not: Toward a pragmatic account of metadiscourse. Rhetoric Review, 11(2), 265-289.
98. Martin, J. R. (1994). Macro-genres: The ecology of the page. Network, 21, 29-52.
99. Martín, P., & León Pérez, I. K. (2014). Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic text. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 1-13.
100. Maswana, S., Kanamaru, T., & Tajino, A. (2015). Move analysis of research articles across five engineering fields: What they share and what they do not. Ampersand, 2, 1-11.
101. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
102. McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. New York, NY: Longman.
103. Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
104. Mur Dueñas, P. (2007). ‘I/we focus on…’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 143-162.
105. Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138.
106. O’Boyle, A. (2014). ‘You’ and ‘I’ in university seminars and spoken learner discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 40-56.
107. Othman, Z. (2010). The use of okay, right and yeah in academic lectures by native speaker lecturers: Their ‘anticipated’ and ‘real’ meanings. Discourse Studies, 12(5), 665-681.
108. Ozdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141(25), 59-63.
109. Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organisation of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 25-38.
110. Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
111. Paltridge, B. (2002). Genre, text type, and the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classroom. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 73-90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
112. Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse Analysis: An introduction. New York, NY: Continuum.
113. Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 139-160.
114. Rahman, M. (2004). Aiding the reader: The use of metalinguistic devices in scientific discourse. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 18, 29-48.
115. Recski, L. (2005). Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: A functional account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 5-23.
116. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
117. Sellnow, D. D. (2004). Confident public speaking (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
118. Soler-Monreal, C. (2015). Announcing one’s work in PhD theses in computer science: A comparison of Move 3 in literature reviews written in English L1, English L2 and Spanish L1. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 40, 27-41.
119. Steinberg, S. (2000). Persuasive communication skills (Introduction to communication). Cape Town, South Africa: Juta.
120. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
121. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
122. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
123. Tessuto, G. (2015). Generic structure and rhetorical moves in English-language empirical law research articles: Sites of interdisciplinary and interdiscursive cross-over. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 13-26.
124. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
125. Thompson, S. (1994). Frameworks and contexts: A genre-based approach to analyzing lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 171-186.
126. Thompson, S. E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 5-20.
127. Tseng, F. P. (2011). Analysis of move structure and verb tense of research article abstracts in applied linguistics journals. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 27-39.
128. Tuman, J. S., & Fraleigh, D. M. (2002). The St. Martin’s guide to public speaking (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
129. Upton, T. A., & Conner, U. (2007). Identifying and analyzing rhetorical moves in philanthropic discourse. In D. Biber, U. Conner & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (pp. 43-72). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
130. Upton, T. A., & Connor, U. (2001). Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 313-329.
131. Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse and Society, 6, 243-289.
132. Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). The study of discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discouse as structure and process (pp. 1-34). London, England: Sage.
133. Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
134. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
135. Verderber, R. F. (1991). Essentials of persuasive spaking: Theory and Contexts. New York, NY: Wadsworth Publishing.
136. Verderber, R. F. (1997). The challenge of effective speaking (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wadsworth Publishing.
137. Verderber, R. F., Sellnow, D. D., & Verderber, K. S. (2015). The chanllenge of effective speaking in a digital age. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
138. Wallace, S. (2009). How to present confidently in English in 18 weeks: A textbook for Taiwanese presentation students (2nd ed.). Hsinchu, Taiwan: Wallace Academic Publishing.
139. Walter, O. M. (1982). Speaking to inform and persuade (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
140. Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
141. Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
142. Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Contrastive sociolinguistics and the theory of “cultural scripts”: Chinese vs English. In M. Hellinger & U. Ammon (Eds.), Contrastive sociolinguistics (pp. 313-344). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
143. Wilson, J. F., Arnold, C. C., & Wertheimer, M. M. (1990). Public speaking as a liberal art (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
144. Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63-94). London, England: Sage.
145. Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365-385.
146. Young, K. S., & Travis, H. P. (2011). Oral communication: Skills, choices, and consequences (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
147. Young, L. (1990). Language as behaviour, language as code: A study of academic English. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
148. Young, L. (1994). University lectures: Macro-structure and micro-features. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 159-176). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
149. Zarefsky, D. (2008). Public speaking: Strategies for success (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
150. Zareva, A. (2013). Self-mention and the projection of multiple identity roles in TESOL graduate student presentations: The influence of the written academic genres. English for Specific Purposes, 32, 72-83.
151. Zhan, L. (2012). Understanding genre in use. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 38(2), 211-235.
152. 元秀（2001）。謀略與口才：演講不難。內蒙古：內蒙古人民出版社。
153. 方瑾（2006）。領導講話的藝術。北京：企業管理出版社。
154. 何自然、冉永平（2009）。新編語用學概論。北京：北京大學出版社。
155. 宋立強（主編）。2007。演講口才：展現個人魅力與才華。北京：中國城市出版社。
156. 李志敏（2005）。跟卡耐基學當眾講話。北京：中國商業出版社。
157. 李秀明（2006）。漢語元話語標記研究。博士論文。上海：復旦大學中國語言文學系。
158. 姚堯（2008）。演講規範與技巧。廣西：廣西人民出版設。
159. 胡壯麟、朱永生、張德祿、李戰子（2009）。系統功能語言學概論．修訂版。北京：北京大學出版社。
160. 張浩（2005）。新編當眾講話藝術與訓練。北京：藍天出版社。
161. 陳朗（2010）。公眾英語演講課程內容、活動及評估規劃—英語專業教學改革新課型探索。外語研究。6（總第124期），56-62。
162. 楊國良（2005）。大學生演講與口才。南京：江蘇教育出版社。
163. 葛紅明（2004）。跟演講大師學口才。北京：中國盲文出版社。
164. 劉德強（1996）。現代演講學。上海：上海社會科學院出版社。
165. 薛建華（主編）（2007）。演講辭寫作指要。內蒙古：內蒙古大學出版社。
166. 謝佳玲、吳欣儒（2017）。漢語學術語體之後設論述語用分析。未出版。
167. 羅青松（2002）。對外漢語寫作教學研究。北京：中國社會科學出版社。