綜觀二語教學相關研究，辯論是常見的口語課堂活動，尤其可應用於中高級以及高級學習者的二語口語課堂中，以訓練學生成段表達能力。而華語辯論結構中又以陳詞階段的發言最具重要性，然而目前文獻仍未說明華語辯論者在陳詞階段普遍使用哪些語言形式建構內容，以及如何組織這些成分。因此本研究欲透過語步分析方法探究網路節目「奇葩說」中辯論者進行陳詞階段時訊息結構的組成與分布情形。具體方式為參照Biber et al.（2007）及Nwogu（1997）之語步分析指引，同時蒐集網路節目「奇葩說」中24則陳詞階段語料，探討陳詞階段內容之組成成分。
研究結果顯示，陳詞階段涵蓋14種語步及37種策略。將陳詞階段分成緒論、申論一、申論二、申論三、結論等五個段落並觀察語步數量後，本研究發現作為開頭的緒論平均使用1至2個語步，而申論一、申論二、申論三的論述內容平均各使用5至6個語步，最後的結論則使用1至2個語步。此現象可以呼應賽場辯論的特性，即賽場辯論具時間限制，辯論者首要任務為發展申論主體段落內容，故辯論者在語步數量的配置上會精簡緒論段落之語步，避免過度鋪陳；在申論主體段落則會詳細說明論述內容，運用語步多於緒論及結論段落；在結論段落，辯論者欲聚焦整體發言重點，敘述傾向精簡有力，語步數量亦偏少。此外，為了給予學習者更明確的指引，本研究進一步分析語步及策略的必要性，分別列出各階段必選或可選的語步及策略項目，同時陳列出各項實現特定溝通目標之語步及其下屬策略的句構樣式，有助於學習者理解並加以應用。最後，本文將研究結果運用於華語辯論教學設計中，研擬活動設計及具體實例，以期充實華語辯論的內容。

In general, debate is a common classroom activity in speaking lessons, especially for intermediate and advanced learners in order to develop students' segmental expression skills. However, it is still unclear from the constructure what rhetorical moves are commonly used by Chinese debaters to construct content and how they are organized in the construction stage of debates. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the composition and distribution of the debaters' message structures during the construction stage of the Internet program "U Can U Bibi" by means of rhetorical move analysis. Specifically, the study was based on Biber et al.s' (2007) and Nwogu's (1997) guideline of rhetorical move analysis, and this study collect 24 speech stages from the Internet program "U Can U Bibi" to examine the components of the content of the speech stages.
The results of the study showed that the construction stage covered 14 steps and 37 strategies. After dividing the speech stage into five paragraphs, namely, Introduction, Body 1, Body 2, Body 3, and Conclusion, and observing the number of rhetorical moves, the study found that the Introduction paragraph, which is the beginning of the speech, used one to two rhetorical moves on average, while the paragraph of Body 1, Body 2, and Body 3 each used five to six rhetorical moves on average, and the Conclusion paragraph used one to two steps on average. This phenomenon prove the characteristics of debate contest, i.e., debate contests have time limit, and the debaters' primary goal is to develop the content of the main body of the argument, so the debaters will streamline the number of moves in the Introduction paragraph to avoid over-exposition; in the main body of the argument, they will explain the content of the argument in detail, and will use more moves than in the introduction and conclusion paragraphs; in the Conclusion paragraph, the debaters tended to focus on the overall speeches and tended to be more concise and forceful, with fewer utterances. In addition, in order to provide learners with clearer guidelines, this study analysed the necessity of moves and strategies, listed the necessary or optional language moves and strategies at each stage, and presented the sentence structures of the language moves and their subordinate strategies to achieve specific communication goals, which were helpful for learners' understanding and application.Lastly, this study applies the findings of the study to the design of teaching Chinese language debates, and examines the design of activities and specific examples to enrich the content of Chinese debates.

中文文獻
中國社會科學院語言研究所詞典編輯室（2002）。現代漢語詞典（第3版）。商務印書館。
王建芳（2016）。基于論辯的論證結構研究——弗里曼模型與圖爾敏模型的比較。邏輯學研究，9（3），42-56。
王國健（2021）。「辯論」教學設計。小學語文教學，13，68-70。
王淑紅（2008）。發展漢語（上冊）。北京語言大學出版社。
何靜（2014）。基于俄漢語料的論辯性對話的語用分析（未出版之博士論文）。北京外國語大學。
吳欣儒（2017）。華語演講的語步分析及其教學應用(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。
吳昭穎（2021）。中英知識型與指導型YouTube影片之語用策略對比分析與教學應用(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。
李元授、李鵬（2004）。辯論學（第2版）。華中科技大學出版社。
李祿興（2008）。發展漢語（下冊）。北京語言大學出版社。
周可沁（2022）。華語與法語TEDx演講之語步對比分析(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。
周禮全（1994）。邏輯——正確思維和有效交際的理論。人民出版社。
林慈玟（2018）。華語演講評審的語用策略和技巧與語步分析——以《我是演說家》為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學。
姜燕（2005）。實用論辯藝術。山東教育出版社。
宮輝（2002）。辯論階梯。西苑出版社。
栗原祐美（2016）。華語口語中反對意見表達之語步分析：母語者與日籍學習者之比較(未出版之博士論文)。國立政治大學。
屠棠、鄭國雄、范毓民（2011）。辯論口語（第1版）。北京語言大學出版社。
常紹如、吳美貞（2014）。辯論不應在臺灣高中英語教育中缺席：論未來高中英語辯論教學之宗旨目標、面向內涵、推動管道及預期效益。中等教育，65（4），53-78。
游梓翔、溫偉羣（1988）。批判、思考、辯。業強出版社。
馮雙（2003）。辯論學。廣東高等教育出版社。
楊路平（2006）。儀式性辯論中的禮貌策略研究(未出版之碩士論文)。暨南大學。
楊鶴瀾（2011）。談留學生中級口語教學的三種教學方式。現代語文（語言研究版），6，132-134。
鄒申、楊任明（2000）。簡明英語測試教程。高等教育出版社。
翟汛（2007）。對外漢語口語教學的幾點思考。長江學術，2，96-100。
趙藝（2015）。演講語類與辯論語類對比研究——以「第四屆中國軍校大學生電視演講大賽」為例。現代語文（語言研究版），8，128-131。
劉泓廷（2018）。對外漢語主題辯論式教學方法的運用研究。才智期刊，24，139-140。
劉柏奎（1999）。辯論學。語文出版社。
劉紅英（2019）。淺析留學生高級辯論口語教學。浙江工商職業技術學院學報，18（03），73-74。
劉益光（2017）。基于語料庫的辯論和演講語類的計量研究。齊齊哈爾大學學報（哲學社會科學版），10，142-146。
劉榮、劉婭莉（2009）。辯論教學模式在中高級漢語口語課中的運用。暨南大學華文學院學報，03，14-19。
劉曉雨（2001）。對外漢語口語教學研究綜述。語言教學與研究，2，27-33。
劉艷春、胡鳳國、趙藝（2016）。辯論與演講語類多維度、多特徵對比研究。語言教學與研究，6，103-112。
蔡云凌（2005）。準高級漢語口語。北京大學出版社。
鄭敏（2019）。網絡娛樂脫口秀節目「奇葩說」幽默語言研究(未出版之碩士論文)。浙江師範大學。
羅駿逸（2018）。中英政治演講之語步及互動標記對比分析(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。
 
英文文獻
Aristotle (2007). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (2nd ed.) (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
Asghar, S. A., Asghar, Z. M., & Mahmood, M. A. (2015). A genre analysis of preface sections of textbook. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(7), 58-63.
Azar, A. S. (2012). The self-promotion of academic textbooks in the preface section: A genre analysis. Atlantis, 34(2), 147-166.
Bailey, K. M., & Savage, L. (1994). New ways in teaching speaking. TESOL.
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.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (1996). Methodological issues in genre analysis. Hermes, 16, 39-60.
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 studies (pp. 11-28). Routledge.
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). John Benjamins.
Brown, N. A. (2009). Argumentation and debate in foreign language instruction: a case for the traditional classroom facilitating advanced-level language uptake. The Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 534-549.
Burns, A., & Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on Speaking. ERIC.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Chang, S.-J. (2022). English debate and argumentation made easy for Chinese EFL learners. Crane Publishing.
Christie, F. (1987). Genres as choice. In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 22-34). Deakin University Press.
Coe, R. M. (2002). The new rhetoric of genre: Writing political briefs. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom (pp. 195-205). Erlbaum.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric. Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U., Davis, K. W., & De Rycker, T. (1995). Correctness and clarity in applying for overseas jobs: A cross-cultural analysis of US and Flemish applications. Text & Talk, 15(4), 457-476.
Gao, S., & Pramoolsook, I. (2023). A cross-cultural move analysis of electronic engineering research article introductions: The case of Chinese, Thai, and native English scholarly writers. Ampersand, 10, 100-106.
Goh, C. C. M., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking. Cambridge University Press.
Graves, H., Moghaddasi, S., & Hashim, A. (2014). “Let G=(V, E) be a graph”: Turning the abstract into the tangible in introductions in mathematics research articles. English For Specific Purposes, 36, 1-11.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Arnold.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (2001). A narrow-angled corpus analysis of moves and strategies of the genre:‘Letter of application’. English For Specific Purposes, 20(2), 153-167.
Hirano, E. (2009). Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English For Specific Purposes, 28(4), 240-250.
Huang, L.-S. (2002). Debate as a pathway to academic discussion. TESOL Journal, 11(4), 30-31.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17-29.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693-722.
Inoue, N. (2009). Let’s practice debating in english with advanced exercises from euthanasia debates. Kyusyu University Press.
Iverson, J. & Hoerer, J. (2001). Debate as a whole language tool for migrant students. Rostrum, 75(5), 24-25.
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge University Press.
Johns, A. M. (2003). Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 195-217). Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, G. (1994). The logic & language of English debate. Bookman.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Writing scientific research articles in Thai and English: Similarities and differences. Silpakorn University International Journal, 7, 172-203.
Kassem, H. M. (2021). Training EFL learners on debating: Effects on their oral and written. MEXTESOL Journal, 45(4), 1-17.
Kuhi, D. (2008). An analysis of the move structure of textbook prefaces. Asian ESP Journal, 7, 63-78.
Lee, J. J. (2016). “There's intentionality behind it…”: A genre analysis of EAP classroom lessons. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 99-112.
Li, L.-J., & Ge, G.-C. (2009). Genre analysis: Structural and linguistic evolution of the English-medium medical research article (1985–2004). English For Specific Purposes, 28(2), 93-104.
Liu, F. (2012). Genre analysis of American presidential inaugural speech. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2407-2411.
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1992). Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. John Benjamins Publishing.
Martín, P., & Pérez, I. K. L. (2014). Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts. English For Specific Purposes, 34, 1-13.
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.
Moghaddasi, S., & Graves, H. A. (2017). “Since Hadwiger's conjection… is still open”: Establishing a niche for research in discrete mathematics research article introductions. English For Specific Purposes, 45, 69-85.
Nodoushan, M. (2012). A structural move analysis of discussion sub-genre in applied linguistics. International Conference on Languages, E-Learning and Romanian Studies, 6, 199-212.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English For Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138.
Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organisation of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English For Specific Purposes, 26(1), 25-38.
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. University of Michigan Press.
Park, J. (2020). How to debate in English. Red Ants.
Park, S., Jeon, J., & Shim, E. (2021). Exploring request emails in English for business purposes: A move analysis. English For Specific Purposes, 63, 137-150.
Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English For Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139-160.
Sahril, M., Aziz, C. N., & Kamilah, A. (2020). Enhancing speaking skills of EFL students through debate. Tarling: Journal of Language Education, 4(1), 1-18.
Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English For Specific Purposes, 21(1), 1-17.
Shehzad, W. (2012). Introduction of computer science research paper: Divergence from CARS. Kashmir Journal of Language Research, 15(2), 19-39.
Soler-Monreal, C., Carbonell-Olivares, M., & Gil-Salom, L. (2011). A contrastive study of the rhetorical organisation of English and Spanish PhD thesis introductions. English For Specific Purposes, 30(1), 4-17.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge university press.
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.
Thompson, S. (1994). Frameworks and contexts: A genre-based approach to analysing lecture introductions. English For Specific Purposes, 13(2), 171-186.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
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). John Benjamins.
Van Eemeren, F. H. (2018). Argumentation theory. Springer International Publishing.
Walton, D. N. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
Wang, C. (2016). A comparative genre analysis of schematic structures in public speeches of native and nonnative English speakers. Linguistics and Literature studies, 4(5), 320-330.
Wang, H. (2005). A pragmatic genre analysis of job application letters. Sino-US English Teaching, 2(12), 76-81.
Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English For Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385.
Zhan, L.-L. (2012). Understanding genre in use. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 38(2), 211-235.
Zhu, Y., Ma, L., & Jiang, R. (2019). A cross-cultural study of English and Chinese online platform reviews: A genre-based view. Discourse & Communication, 13(3), 342-365.