| Acknowledgements | 第4-5页 |
| Abstract | 第5页 |
| 摘要 | 第6-10页 |
| Chapter One Introduction | 第10-14页 |
| 1.1 Research Background | 第10-11页 |
| 1.2 Purpose of the Study | 第11-12页 |
| 1.3 Significance of the Study | 第12页 |
| 1.4 Structure of the Thesis | 第12-14页 |
| Chapter Two Appraisal Theory and Literature Review | 第14-30页 |
| 2.1 Appraisal Theory | 第14-19页 |
| 2.1.1 An Overview | 第14-15页 |
| 2.1.2 The Attitude System | 第15-16页 |
| 2.1.3 The Judgment Subsystem | 第16-17页 |
| 2.1.4 Relationship Between Judgment and Modality | 第17-19页 |
| 2.2 Theoretical Studies on Appraisal Theory | 第19-20页 |
| 2.3 Applications of Appraisal Theory in Discourse Analysis | 第20-26页 |
| 2.3.1 Discourse Analysis of Literary Works | 第21页 |
| 2.3.2 Discourse Analysis of Political Speeches | 第21-22页 |
| 2.3.3 Discourse Analysis of News and TV Interviews | 第22-23页 |
| 2.3.4 Discourse Analysis of Legal Language | 第23-24页 |
| 2.3.5 Discourse Analysis of Scientific and Academic Writings | 第24-26页 |
| 2.4 Critical Comments on Previous Studies | 第26-27页 |
| 2.4.1 Critics on Theoretical Analysis of Appraisal Theory | 第26页 |
| 2.4.2 Critics on Applications of Appraisal Theory in Discourse Analysis | 第26-27页 |
| 2.4.3 Critics on Methodology of Study on Appraisal Theory | 第27页 |
| 2.5 Summary | 第27-30页 |
| Chapter Three Research Methodology | 第30-38页 |
| 3.1 Oral Argument Corpus | 第30-31页 |
| 3.2 Classification of Modality Types and Values | 第31-32页 |
| 3.3 Research Instruments and Coding | 第32-34页 |
| 3.4 Statistical Tests | 第34-35页 |
| 3.5 Research Procedure of Qualitative Analysis | 第35页 |
| 3.6 Summary | 第35-38页 |
| Chapter Four Quantitative Analysis and Results | 第38-60页 |
| 4.1 Analysis of General Features of Judgment | 第38-44页 |
| 4.1.1 Judges’ and Lawyers’ Usage of Judgment Types | 第38-41页 |
| 4.1.2 Judges’ and Lawyers’ Usage of Modal Values | 第41-44页 |
| 4.2 Discussion on the Five Types of Judgment | 第44-59页 |
| 4.2.1 Judges’ and Lawyers’ Usage of Normality | 第44-47页 |
| 4.2.2 Judges’ and Lawyers’ Usage of Tenacity | 第47-51页 |
| 4.2.3 Judges’ and Lawyers’ Usage of Veracity | 第51-53页 |
| 4.2.4 Judges’ and Lawyers’ Usage of Capacity | 第53-56页 |
| 4.2.5 Judges’ and Lawyers’ Usage of Propriety | 第56-59页 |
| 4.3 Summary | 第59-60页 |
| Chapter Five Qualitative Analysis: A Case Study | 第60-72页 |
| 5.1 Selection of Case No.13-1175 | 第60-61页 |
| 5.2 Introduction to Case No.13-1175 | 第61-63页 |
| 5.3 Analysis of Modality Expressions as Judgments | 第63-70页 |
| 5.3.1 Argument Between Petitioner and Judges | 第63-68页 |
| 5.3.2 Argument Between Respondent and Judges | 第68-70页 |
| 5.4 Summary | 第70-72页 |
| Chapter Six Conclusions | 第72-78页 |
| 6.1 Findings of the Study | 第72-73页 |
| 6.2 Implications of the Study | 第73-75页 |
| 6.3 Limitations and Suggestions | 第75-78页 |
| References | 第78-82页 |
| Appendices | 第82-117页 |
| Appendix 1: List of Figures | 第82-83页 |
| Appendix 2: List of Tables | 第83-84页 |
| Appendix 3: Information of Oral Arguments Corpus | 第84-86页 |
| Appendix 4: Classification and Examples of Modality | 第86-88页 |
| Appendix 5: A list of Modal Expressions | 第88-89页 |
| Appendix 6: Transcripts of Oral Argument about Case 13-1175 | 第89-116页 |
| Appendix 7: Publications and Projects | 第116-117页 |
