| ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 第6-7页 |
| ABSTRACT | 第7-8页 |
| 摘要 | 第9-14页 |
| LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS | 第14-16页 |
| Chapter One INTRODUCTION | 第16-21页 |
| 1.1 Research Background | 第16-18页 |
| 1.2 Research Aims and Significance | 第18-19页 |
| 1.3 Structure of the Study | 第19-21页 |
| Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW | 第21-30页 |
| 2.1 Studies on News Commentaries | 第21-24页 |
| 2.1.1 The journalistic approach | 第21-22页 |
| 2.1.2 The linguistic approach | 第22-23页 |
| 2.1.3 The logic approach | 第23页 |
| 2.1.4 The rhetoric approach | 第23-24页 |
| 2.2 Studies on Pragmatic Argumentation | 第24-28页 |
| 2.2.1 Practical reasoning and pragmatic argumentation | 第24-26页 |
| 2.2.2 Theoretical research on practical reasoning and pragmaticargumentation | 第26-27页 |
| 2.2.3 Empirical research on practical reasoning and pragmaticargumentation | 第27-28页 |
| 2.3 Summary | 第28-30页 |
| Chapter Three RESEARCH DESIGN | 第30-40页 |
| 3.1 Theoretical Assumptions | 第30-36页 |
| 3.1.1 The definition of argumentation | 第30-31页 |
| 3.1.2 Ideal model of a critical discussion and rules for critical discussion | 第31-33页 |
| 3.1.3 Strategic maneuvering and communicative activity type | 第33-35页 |
| 3.1.4 Pragmatic argumentation | 第35-36页 |
| 3.2 Research Questions | 第36-37页 |
| 3.3 Data Collection | 第37页 |
| 3.4 Research Methods | 第37-40页 |
| 3.4.1 Reconstructing argumentative discourse | 第37-38页 |
| 3.4.2 Analyzing pragmatic argumentation used in news commentaries | 第38-39页 |
| 3.4.3 Evaluating pragmatic argumentation used in news commentaries | 第39-40页 |
| Chapter Four RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | 第40-69页 |
| 4.1 Argumentative Characterization of News Commentaries | 第40-48页 |
| 4.1.1 The institutional points of news commentaries | 第40-41页 |
| 4.1.2 News commentaries as an argumentative activity type | 第41-45页 |
| 4.1.3 Institutional constraints of news commentaries | 第45-46页 |
| 4.1.4 Institutional preconditions on news commentaries | 第46-48页 |
| 4.2 Prototypical Argument Schemes of Pragmatic Argumentation in Editorials in the Washington Post | 第48-50页 |
| 4.3 Extensions of Prototypical Pragmatic Argumentation in Editorials in the Washington Post | 第50-59页 |
| 4.3.1 Support for the causal premise | 第52-56页 |
| 4.3.2 Support for the evaluative premise | 第56-58页 |
| 4.3.3 Support for the connecting premise | 第58-59页 |
| 4.4 Strategic Functions of Prototypical Pragmatic Argumentation and Its Extensions in Editorials in the Washington Post | 第59-62页 |
| 4.4.1 Strategic functions of prototypical pragmatic argumentation | 第60-61页 |
| 4.4.2 Strategic functions of extensions of pragmatic argumentation | 第61-62页 |
| 4.5 Evaluation of Prototypical Pragmatic Argumentation and its Extensionsin Editorials in the Washington Post | 第62-69页 |
| 4.5.1 Soundness criteria for prototypical pragmatic argumentation | 第62-64页 |
| 4.5.2 Soundness criteria for argumentation by analogy | 第64-65页 |
| 4.5.3 Soundness criteria for argumentation from authority | 第65-66页 |
| 4.5.4 Soundness criteria for argumentation from opposites | 第66-67页 |
| 4.5.5 Soundness criteria for symptomatic argumentation | 第67页 |
| 4.5.6 Soundness criteria for argumentation by example | 第67-69页 |
| Chapter Five CONCLUSION | 第69-74页 |
| 5.1 Major Findings | 第69-71页 |
| 5.2 Implications | 第71-72页 |
| 5.3 Limitations and Further Research | 第72-74页 |
| REFERENCES | 第74-78页 |
| APPENDIXⅠ | 第78-86页 |
| APPENDIXⅡ | 第86页 |
