本研究目的在於分析並比較中文與英文政治演講的語步結構（move structure）以及互動標記（interactional markers），試圖為中文為第二語言教學者和學習者擬訂一個正式中文演講的語步與互動標記模組，並與正式英文演講比較，探討兩種語言在使用正式口說語言時的幾種語用特徵以及相異之處。本研究的語料來自過去6年聯合國大會一般性辯論裡中國及美國代表所發表的演說，一共超過6個小時的演講內容。
在語步方面，筆者先將每篇演講分為5個語步（緒論、內文一、二、三、結論），接著分析每個語步下的各種策略，發現中英文演講中總使用17種不同策略，包括中文政治演講的4種必選策略以及另外9種可選策略，相對英文演講中的5種必選策略以及12種可選策略。英文演講中策略出現的數量比中文多，而中英文演講中使用最多不同策略的語步都是緒論及結論。
在互動標記方面，筆者分析演講中的5種互動式標記，包括「模糊標記」、「強調標記」、「示證標記」、「態度標記」與「參與標記」，發現中英文演講使用標記的方式也不同。英文演講中最常出現的標記為「評論標記」，而中文演講中最常出現的為「態度標記」。本文擬訂一份中英文標記用詞對照表，以呈現中英文之間對應的互動式標記。本文也將語步資料與互動標記資料結合進行交叉分析，分析中英文演講語料中6種常見的策略的互動標記分佈。這6種策略包含「呼籲行動」、「國際議題闡述」、「強調國家的貢獻」、「呼籲普世價值觀」、「一般性問題談論」以及「問候」 。於「呼籲行動」、「國際議題闡述」、「呼籲普世價值觀」及「一般性問題談論」策略中，中文演講最常使用的標記為「態度標記」。反而在「問候」策略中，中文演講最常使用的標記為「參與標記」；於「強調國家的貢獻」策略中，「強調標記」、「態度標記」與「參與標記」都用的相對均衡。相對的，英文無論哪種策略，語料中最常使用的標記為「參與標記」。接著，中文演講大部分策略中的「強調標記」用得比「模糊標記」多；英文大部分策略反而用得相對均衡。只有「呼籲行動」為例外－不管中文或英文，「模糊標記」都用得比「強調標記」多兩倍。
本文的研究結果在某些方面與過去文獻的研究結果大約相同，例如演講內容分段為5個語步，以及互動式標記一般在中英文演講中的分布。另外方面，本文提供的研究結果也包含幾個相對獨特的貢獻，尤其其歸納的17種不同政治演講策略，以及每種互動式標記於這些策略中的分布。
最後，筆者將上述的研究結果運用來做成一份教學範例，並提出教學重點以及教學流程建議。筆者希望本論文能對日後的語用學研究有所幫助，也希望在教學方面能夠幫助教學者和學習者瞭解中文與英文演講的重要語用差別。

This thesis analyzes move structure and utilization of interactional markers in Chinese and English-language political speech, with the goal of providing a comparative Chinese-English move and interactional strategy models for use by Chinese as a Second Language learners and educators. The study uses a series of speeches given by Chinese and American representatives at the United Nations General Assembly General Debate between 2012 and 2017 as its target of analysis, which the author uses to discuss similarities and differences in formal spoken language conventions for the two languages.
In the move analysis section, the author first separates each speech into 5 moves, including the introduction, body 1, 2, 3, and conclusion, further breaking each move down into different strategies. By this method, the author deduces 17 different strategies, including 4 required and 9 optional strategies in the Chinese speeches, and 5 required and 12 optional strategies in the English speeches. Strategy variety occurs at a higher rate in the English speeches, with the majority of unique strategies appearing in the introduction and conclusion moves of speeches in both languages.
In the interactional markers section, the author is concerned with 5 interactive metadiscourse markers, including hedges, boosters, attributors, attitude markers, and commentary markers. In English speeches, the most commonly used marker is the commentary markers, while in Chinese it is the attitude marker. The author includes also in this section a vocabulary chart presenting common interactive markers for Chinese and English.
Finally, the author conducts a cross-analysis using data from the move and interactional strategies sections, looking at interactive marker distribution in 6 strategies commonly appearing across the Chinese and English speeches, including Call to Arms, Emphasizing Nation’s Contributions, Discussion of General Issues, Exposition on International Issues, and Revisiting of a Historical Event, and Greeting. In general, the most common markers in Chinese speech regardless of strategy are Attitudinal markers, while in English it is Commentary markers, with the exception of the Greeting strategy, for which Chinese also uses Commentary markers at the greatest rate, and Emphasis on Nation’s Contributions, in which Chinese speeches use Boosters, Attitudinal markers, and Commentary markers at approximately the same rate. Furthermore, strategies in Chinese speeches tend to employ significantly more boosters than hedges, while English speeches lean towards a balance of the two, with the exception of the Call to Arms strategy, in which both Chinese and English speeches employ hedges at at least double the number of boosters.
The results of this research are similar in certain ways to previous research, for example in the separation of speeches into 5 moves and in the general distribution of interactional markers in Chinese and English speeches. However, the results also include several unique points, notably the identification of strategies in political speech, as well as the distribution of interactional markers within these strategies.
The thesis finishes with a pedagogical application of the research results, including an example lesson plan with explanation of important points and suggested teaching order. The author hopes that this thesis may be of assistance to later research on Chinese and English pragmatics, as well as provide for a better understanding of the differences between Chinese and English political speech for students and teachers of the two languages.

吳欣儒（2017）。華語演講的語步分析及其教學應用。博士論文。台北：國立台灣師範大學。
何宇茵、張煒煒（2011）。英文科技教科書序言體裁分析的研究。中國ESP研究，1，28-40。
周啟葶（2006）英語演講教學效能影響因素之研究。彰化師大教育學報，10，67-96。
周真安（2016）。中英學術引言之後設論述策略分析與教學應用。博士論文。台北：國立台灣師範大學。
胡春華（2016）。學術講座中元話語的語用學研究。中國社會科學出版社。
陳彧（2014）。英漢演講語篇中互動元話語對比研究。湖北工業大學學報，6，92-96。
彭登龍（2013）。高效的英文閱讀力。五南文化事業。
趙月（2011）。從元話語的角度分析英語政治演講的勸說功能。碩士論文。長春：長春理工大學。
蔡依玲、董大暉（2010）。譯者翻譯倫理認知之比較：以專業譯者和學習者譯者為例。翻譯學研究集刊，13，191-217。
龐繼賢（1993）。語篇體裁分析理論評析，浙江大學學報，2。
Aguilar Pérez, M., & Arnó Macià, E. (2002). Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension: does it really help foreign language learners? Atlantis, 24(1), 7-21.
Al-Faki, I. M. (2014). Political speeches of some African leaders from a linguistic perspective (1981-2013). International journal of humanities and social science, 4(3) 180-198.
Al-Saaidi, S. (2015). A genre analysis of political speeches. Proceedings of the sixth international language learning conference, (pp. 167-181) Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Amnuai, W. & Wannaruk, A. (2013). Investigating move structures of English applied linguistics research article discussions published in international and Thai journals. English Language Teaching, 6, 1-13.
Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
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.
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (2008). Genre analysis, ESP and professional practice. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 161-74.
Biber, D. (2007). Representativeness in corpus design. In T. Fontenelle (Ed.), Practical Lexicography: A reader (pp. 63-88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T.A. (2007). Discourse on the move: using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the result sections of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47-56.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer.
Bunton, D. (1998). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S41-S56.
Caballero, R. (2007). Manner-of-motion verbs in wine description. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 2095-2114.
Cap, P. & Okulska, U. (2013). Analyzing genres in political communication: theory and practice. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Chang, C., & Kuo, C. (2011). A corpus-based approach to online materials development for writing research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 222-234.
Chilton, P. and Schaffer, C. (1997). Discourse and politics. In T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction, 2, 206-31. London: Sage.
Connor, U., Upton, T., & Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Introduction to move analysis. In B. Biber, U. Connor, & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse on the move, 17-30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Crookes, G. (1986). Task classification: A cross-disciplinary review. Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Social Science Research Institute, Center for Second Language Classroom Research.
D'Andrade, R. (1984). Cultural meaning systems in culture theory: essays on mind. In Shweder, R., & LeVine, R. (Eds.), Self and emotion (pp. 88-119) New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.
Dedaic, M. N. (2006). Political speeches and persuasive argumentation. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 9, 700-707. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Dudley-Evans, A. (1994). Genre analysis: an approach for text analysis for ESP. In Coulthard, M. (ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219-28). London: Routledge.
Fazilatfar, A. M., & Naseri, Z. (2014). Rhetorical moves in applied linguistics articles and their corresponding Iranian writer identity. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 489-499.
Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method. London: Routledge.
Gholami, J., Nejad, S. R., & Pour, J. L. (2014). Metadiscourse markers misuses: a study of EFL learners’ argumentative essays. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 580-589.
Gholami, M., Tajalli, G. & Shokrpour, N. (2014). An investigation of metadiscourse markers in English medical texts and their Persian translation based on Hyland’s model. European Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 1-41.
Halliday, M. (1970b). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of mood and modality in English. Foundations of language, 6(3), 189-213.
Hasan, R. (1996). Ways of saying: ways of meaning. London & New York: Cassell.
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.
Hopkins, D. (1985). A teacher’s guide to classroom research. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hsu, C. (2014). A study of discourse markers in Chinese and French online news and its pedagogical application (Unpublished master's thesis). Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: a comparative study of English- and Chinese. Medium journals, 5(3), 234-246.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. Longman, London.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2002). Activity and evaluation: reporting practices in academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse, 67, (pp.115-130). London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(2), 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K., & Bondi, M. (Eds.). (2006). Academic discourse across disciplines. Frankfort: Peter Lang.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Hyland, K. (2007). Metadiscourse. Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272.
Irimiea, S. A. (2010). Rhetorical and comparative study of the victory speeches of Barack Obama and Mircea Geoana. Cluj-Napoca: Babes Bolyai University.
Ismail, H. M. (2012) Discourse markers in political speeches: forms and functions. Journal of College of Education for Women, 23(4).
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. (ed.), Style in Language (pp.350-377). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Johnson, J. (2000). Why respect culture? American journal of political science (Pp. 405-418) Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
Joseph, R., Lim, J., & Nor, N. (2014). Communicative moves in forestry research introductions: Implications for the design of learning materials. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 134, 53-69.
Katchen, J. E.  (1987). Coordination in the EFL curriculum: Writing and public speaking. Papers from the Fourth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 275-289). Taipei: Crane.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 269-292.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Writing scientific research articles in Thai and English: similarities and difficulties. Silpakorn University International Journal, 7, 172-203.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1-20.
Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146.
Kwan, B.S.C. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 30-55.
Li, J. (2011). Collision of language in news discourse: A functional-cognitive perspective on transitivity. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(3), 203-219.
Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(4), 282-309.
Liu, F. (2012). Genre analysis of American presidential inaugural speech. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2407-2411.
Loi, C. K., & Evans, M. S. (2010). Cultural differences in organization of research articles introduction form the field of educational psychology: English and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 2814-2825.
Lyons, John. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mai, H. (2016). An intercultural analysis of meta-discourse markers as persuasive power in Chinese and American political speeches. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 4(6), 207-219.
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), 1-11.
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nwogu, K. (1991). Structure of science popularisations: A genre-analysis approach to the schema of popularised medical texts. English for Specific Purposes, 10, 111-123.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138.
Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30, 479-497.
Peacock, M. (2011). The structure of the methods section in research articles across eight disciplines. Asian ESP Journal, 7(2), 97-124.
Perez, M.A. & Macia, I.A. (2002). Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension: Does It really help foreign language learners? Atlantis, 14(2), 3-21.
Pindi, Makaya. (1988). Schematic structure and the modulation of propositions in economics forecasting texts. Unpublished PhD thesis. Aston University, Birmingham.
Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139-160.
Reisigl, M. (2008). Analyzing political rhetoric. In Wodak, R. & Krzyżanowski, M. (eds.), Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences (pp.96-120). Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education.
Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in various disciplines: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 1-17.
Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 141-156.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organisational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction, 50, 199-236.
Schiffrin, Deborah. (2001a). Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.54-75). Oxford: Blackwell.
Strauss, C., & D'Andrade, R. (Eds.). (1992). Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stoller, F. L., & Robinson, M. S. (2013). Chemistry journal articles: An interdisciplinary approach to move analysis with pedagogical aims. English for Specific Purposes, 32(1), 45-57.
Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, England: Language Studies Unit, University of Aston.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tang, R. & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first-person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 23-39.
Upton, T. A. & Cohen, M. A. (2009). An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as example. Discourse Studies, 11, 585-605.
Van Dijk, T.A., Ting-Toomey, S., Smitherman, G. & Troutman, D. (1997). Discourse, ethnicity and racism. In Van Dijk, T.A. (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction (pp. 144-180). London: Sage.
Wang, W. (2016). The 45 Years’ Evolution of a Genre: Commodification of the University Textbook Prefaces in China. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Discipline, 8(1), 1-22.
Willliams, I. (1999). Results sections of medical research articles: analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 347-366.
Willis, J. 1996. A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.
Xie, J. (2017). Evaluation in moves: an integrated analysis of Chinese MA thesis literature reviews. English Language Teaching, 10(3).
Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 23-36.
Zhan, L. (2012). Understanding genre in use. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 38(2), 211-235.
Zhang, M. (2016). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies, 18(2), 204-222.
Zhu, Y. X. (2000). Structural moves reflected in English and Chinese sales letters. Discourse Studies, 2(4), 473-496.