溝通為人類使用語言的目的。而語言的功能不僅為傳遞訊息，亦是表達個人態度與立場的重要途徑。說服即是建立於傳訊與表態語言作用的溝通理論，且前人豐富文獻已由各學門觀點探究說服訊息的來源、媒介、組成、結構等要素，唯華語說服語言的研究仍顯不足。說服訊息的語言使用牽涉說服者文化的社會規約，亦受到情境中說服對象之固有訊息量與意願強弱度等變因影響，華語學習者更可能因其語言能力或文化感知的差異，遭遇表述或理解華語說服訊息的困境。
為增補文獻缺乏，本研究採用語篇補全測試蒐集華語母語者與華語學習者的說服訊息，以前人語意情態、語用策略、語篇後設等理論架構分析華語說服訊息中的類別、組成、情態、策略與銜接標記。研究除歸納華語說服訊息中的語言現象與通則之外，亦將統計結果對比說服對象持有態度變因，探討母語者依循情境差異而調整的說服訊息與學習者說服語言表現特徵。
研究結果揭示，華語說服者依序以認知、義務、動力、評價情態作為表態說服立場的手段，可見情態語意法則的確信度、主客觀、必要性、條件與對比皆左右情態的使用與分布。說服立論程序可歸納為指示行為、證據知識、理論闡釋、辯證對比與情感訴求及數項次類。其中建議與勸告、論說與損益、反駁與掩飾等皆為常用以提供指導、支援、推論與反證之說服策略，而情感訴求的究責或施壓，則以修辭手段達成說服目的。後設論述機制中的互動類連接與架構標記得以引導對方理解說服思維，但訊息精簡而少有參照、示證與註解標記。各類交互後設論述的高頻運用為說服者顧及對方觀感的佐證。
說服對象固有訊息與意願偏好區辨不同說服目的且須搭配不同情態、策略與後設論述的組合。此外，學習者語言能力為箝制其訊息構成的關鍵因素，初中級或中高級者說服與表現迥異且均可能遭遇學習難點。因此，融入說服語用概念與互動分組活動的華語說服協商教學可設置於教學提案之中。

Language conveys information and implies speakers’ attitudes, thereby enabling them to influence others. Linguistic acts of persuasion have received considerable attention from various disciplines. However, there has not yet been much research in Mandarin Chinese persuasive messages. This study investigates the semantic, pramgatic and discourse elements of persuasive language, contrasts its contextual variables and observes interlanguages of Mandarin learners, then concludes with a description of pedagogical implication.
The results of discourse completion tasks suggest that Mandarin persuaders apply epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality with attempts of expressing certainty, subjectivity, responsibility and evaluation in proposition. In addition, persuasive argumentations can be divided into direction, information, illustration, contradiction, affective appeal and several subcategories. Strategies such as suggesting/advising, dissertating/judging, and refuting/questioning are tactics of providing directives, support, inference and counterargument. Activation of commitment and pressure accomplish convincing in a rhetoric way. In metadiscourse, transition and frame markers are frequently used for facilitating cohesion and organization. Attitude and engagement markers indicate persuaders’ judgment and offer guidance of an action.
Learned message and the preferences of interlocutors differentiate persuasion acts, and each purpose requires collocation of modality, strategies and metadiscourse. Additionally, language competence is crucial factor which affects learners’ ability to create persuasive messages in Mandarin. Pragmatic concepts and interactivities for persuasion can be included in language instruction.

中文書目：
呂淑湘主編，2006，《現代漢語八百詞（增訂本）》，北京：商務印書館。
唐淑媛，1987，說服的巧妙秘訣》，台北：文國出版。
唐霞，2007，《中美勸說言語行為的對比研究》，碩士論文，桂林市：廣西師範大學。
唐霞，2009，〈「勸說」語言行為的語用分析〉《長沙大學學報》，23(3)：73-75。
許彩雲，2002a，〈漢語勸服類言語行為話語結構分析〉《南通職業大學學報》，16:4: 38-41。
許彩雲，2002b，〈漢語勸服類言語行為話語結構變式探析之二〉《皖西學院學報》，18:5: 65-68。
陳俊光，2008，《對比分析與教學應用（增訂版）》，台北：文鶴出版。
湯廷池，2000，〈漢語的情態副詞：語意內涵與句法功能〉，《中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊》，71(1)：199-219。
葉德明主編，2001，《遠東生活華語（第一冊）（第二冊）》，台北：遠東出版社。
雷佩珍，1992，《說服策略 : 如何影響別人》，台北：麥田出版。
靳洪剛，2006，〈分組活動的互動性及教學形式探索〉，載於姚道中等（主編）《中文教材與教學研究》，北京：北京語言大學出版社。
潘也霖，2009，《漢語規勸言語行為及策略研究—以臺灣地區為例》，碩士論文。台北市：台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所。
謝佳玲，2002，《漢語的情態動詞》，博士論文。新竹：國立清華大學語言學研究所。
謝佳玲，2006a，〈漢語情態詞的語意界定：語料庫為本的研究〉《中國語文研究》，21: 45-63。
謝佳玲，2006b，〈華語廣義與狹義情態詞的分析〉《華語文教學研究》，3(1)：1-25。

英文書目：
Aristotle. 400s BC. On Rhetoric. (G. A. Kennedy, Trans. 1991). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Babrow, A. 1995. Communication and problematic integration: Milan Kundera’s “Lost Letter” in “The Book of Laughter and Forgetting.” Communication Monographs, 62: 283-300.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen and Griffin, Robert. 2005. L2 pragmatic awareness: evidence from the ESL classroom. System. 33: 401-415.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen and Hartford, Beverly S. 1993. Refining the DCT: comparing open questionnaires and dialogue completion tasks. Pragmatics and Language Learning Monographic Series, 4: 143-165.
Beebe, L. M. and Cumming, M. C. 1996. Natural speech data versus written questionnaire data: how data collection method affect speech act performance, in S. M. Gass and J. Neu (Eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Benoit, L. William and Benoit, J. Pamela. 2008. Persuasive Messages: The Process of Influence. Oxford: Blackwell.
Billmyer, Kristine and Varghese, Manka. 2000. Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21 (4): 517-552.
Bloch, J. and Chi, L. 1995. A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher and G. Braine (Eds), Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1982. Learning to say what you mean in a second language: a study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3 (1): 29-59.
Borchers, T. A. 2005. Persuasion in the Media Age. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Bunton, D. 1999. The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18: S41-S56.
Burke, Kenneth. 1969. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Canale, M. 1983. From communicative competence to language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication, p. 297-307. London: Longman.
Cheng, X. and Steffensen, M. 1996. Metadiscourse: a technique for improving student writing. Reasearch in the Teaching of English, 30(2): 149-81.
Coates, J. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
Cohen, A. D. & Ishihara, Noriko. 2005. A Web-Based Approach to Strategic Learning of Speech Acts. University of Mineesota: Center of Advanced Research on Language Acquisition/CARLA. 2011年5月1日，取自http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/apanese%20Speech%20Act%20Report%20Rev.%20June05.pdf
Crismore, A. and Farnsworth, R. 1990. Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (ed.), The Writing Scholor: Studies in an Academic Discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 118-36.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. and Steffensen, M. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1): 39-71.
Dafouz-Milne, Emma. 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: 95-113.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Standford: Standford University Press.
Fuertes-Olivera, A. Pedro et al. 2001. Persuasion and advertising English: metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 1291-1307.
German, K., Gronbeck, B., Ehninger, D., and Monroe, A. H. 2000. Principles of Public Speaking. (14th edn). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Grabe, W. and Kaplan, K. 1986. Heory and Proctice of Writing. Harlow: Longman.
Greenwald, A. G. 1968. Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A.G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, and T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, 147-170. New York: Academic Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edn). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. and Matthiessen, M. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.
Hovland, C. L., Lumsdaine, A., and Sheffield. 1949. Experiments on Mass Communication. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hyland, Ken. 1998a. Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 437-455.
Hyland, Ken. 1998b. Exploring corporate rhetoric: metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2): 224-45.
Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13: 133-51.
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London & New York: Continuum.
Ifantidou, Elly. 2005. The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37: 1325-1353.
Intaraprawat, P. and Steffensen, M. 1995. The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3): 253-72.
Janis, I. L. & Hovland, C. I. 1959. An overview of persuasability research. In C. I. Hovland and I. L. Janis (Eds.), Personality and Persuasability, pp.1-26. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Johns, A. M. 1997. Text, Role and Context: Developing Academic Literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kecskés, Istvan. 2000. A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics. 32: 605-625.
Kennedy, G. 1963. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Langer, S. K. 1960. The origins of speech and its communicative functions. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 46: 121-134.
Lautamatti, L. 1978. Observation on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In V. Kohonen and N. E. Enkvist (Eds), Text Linguistics, Cognitive Learning, and Language Teaching. Turku: University of Turku Publications. 71-104.
Li, Eden Sum-hung. 2010. Making suggestion: a contrastive study of young Hong Kong and Australian students. Journal of Pragmatics, 42: 598-616.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marwell, Gerald and Schmitt, David R. 1967. Dimensions of compliance-gaining behavior: an empirical analysis. Sociometry, 30(4): 350-364.
Mauranen, A. 1993. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Meyer, B. 1975. The Organization of Prose and its Effect on Memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Milne, E. D. 2003. Metadiscourse revisited: a contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses De Lo Universidad Complutense, 11:29-52.
Moreno, A. 1997. Genre constraints across language: causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs’. English for Specific Purposes, 16(3): 161-79.
Nash, W. 1992. An Uncommon Tongue. London: Routledge.
Niezgoda, K. and Röver, C. 2001. Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: a function of the learning environment. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragamtics in Language Teaching, 63-79. Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press.
Norrick, N. R. 2001. Discourse markers in oral narratives. Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 849-878.
O’Keefe, J. Daniel. 1987. The persuasion effect of delaying identification of high- and low- credibility communicators. A meta-analytic review. Central States Speech Journal, 38: 63-72.
O’Keefe, J. Daniel. 2002. Persuasion: Theory & Research, (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications.
Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A. 1923. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ong, W. 1983. Foreword. In W. B. Horner (Eds.). The Present State of Scholarship in Historical and Contemporary Rhetoric. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1-9.
Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals, (2nd edn.). New York: Longman.
Perkins, Michael R. 1983. Modal Expressions in English. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX.
Perloff, R. M., and Brock, T. C. 1980. “…And thinking makes it so”: cognitive responses to persuasion. In M. E. Roloff and G. R. Miller (Eds.), Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research, 67-99. Beverly Hills: Sage
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer.
Pulverness, Alan. 2003. Materials for Cultural Awareness. In Developing Materials for Language Teaching. Tomlinson, Brian (Eds.), 426-438, London: Continuum.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.
Rescher, N. 1968. Topics in Philosophical Logic. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Rogers, W. 2007. Persuasion: Messages, Receivers, and Contexts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Rose R. K and Kasper, G. 2001. Pragamtics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press.
Saeed, John I. 2009. Semantics. (3rd ed). Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Schiffrin, D. 1980. Metatalk: organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction, 50: 199-236.
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Act: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press.
Takimoto, Masahiro. 2009. Exploring the effects of input-based treatment and test on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Journal of Pragmatics. 41: 1029-1046.
Toulmin, Stephen. 2003. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press.
Trosborg, Anna. 1994. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Request, Complaints, and Apologies. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vande Kopple, W. 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36: 82-93.
Warnick, Barbara and Inch, Edward. 2006. Critical Thinking and Communication: the Use of Reason in Argument. (5th ed). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Williams, J. 1981. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Boston: Scott Foresman. 

網路資源：
中國消費網‧中國消費者報，2011，〈網上淘衣，消費者煩惱還不少〉，2011年1月10日，取自http://www.hellotw.com/xflx/xfxz/201102/t20110211_637752.htm。
中國漢語水平考試，考試簡介，網址：http://www.hsk.org.cn
美國大學理事會網站（College Board），網址：http://sat.collegeboard.org/home
美國外語教學協會（American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages/ACTFL），網址：http://www.actfl.org
國家華語測驗推動工作委員會，網址：http://www.sc-top.org.tw
資策會市場情報中心，2008，〈台灣網路購物規模持續成長〉，2011年1月10日，取自http://buysky.e-jama.com/news/html/?15.html。
YAHOO奇摩新聞，2010，〈2010 TOP 100年度十大網路暢銷商品〉，2011年1月10日，取自http://tw.yearinreview.yahoo.com/2010/tw_bid#1easy-shop%e6%a9%9f% e8% 3%bd%e5%85%a7%e8%a1%a3。