Analysis Of Argumentation Structure In Literary Reviews Of The Good Earth

Argumentation,aimed at persuasion,is regarded as one of the most important modes used by rhetoricians,and exists in each field of human social lives.Recently,with the rapid development and widespread application of argumentation theories,argumentative discourse has been a central issue of researches.Aristotle,who was the pioneer of argumentation,put forward classical syllogism and enthymeme in ancient Greece.Contemporary rhetorical argumentation theories have overcome the disadvantages of formal logic inference such as monotony of objects and absoluteness of conclusions,among which Stephen Toulmin's argumentation model has a far-reaching and comprehensive influence on the development of rhetorical argumentation due to its extensibility and humanity.Toulmin held the view that argumentation is a process starting from data to claims by the backing of reasons.The first traid,including data,warrant and claim,is the most important foundation.In addition to this,there is another traid,consisting of backing,qualifier and rebuttal,which is applied to embelish the previous three elements.This argumentation model provides the clear argumentation process for readers,helping the audience better understand how arguers utilize argumentation to successfully persuade them into accepting the standpoints.This thesis tries to utilize argumentation theories to study literary reviews.As the critics' awareness and appreciation of the aesthetic value of literary works,literary review is a kind of commentary genre,with a certain color of argumentation.If it is effective to clarify the argumentation structure in literary reviews,readers can be assisted with understanding critics' reviews and suggestions correctly.Meanwhile,it is also dramatically meaningful for critics to master the valid literary reviews to write down convincing and understandable commentary articles.Therefore,the analytic materials of this research are western and oriental literary reviews of the classical literary work,The Good Earth.The research attempts to utilize Aristotle's syllogism and enthymeme and Toulmin's argumentation model to analyze the reasonableness of arguments and argumentative ways used in literary reviews,further exploring whetherthe argumentation structure accords with the corresponding argumentation theory on the purpose of judging the reasonableness of literary reviews.The research results are as follows: firstly,the attempt to study literary reviews of The Good Earth based on argumentation theories like Aristotle's and Toulmin's argumentation model is indeed valid.Secondly,Aristotle's and Toulmin's argumentation model are helpful for judging whether the argumentation structure accords with argumentation theories so as to judge whether literary reviews of The Good Earth are reasonable by means of examining the validity and reasonableness of arguments and argumentative ways used in literary reviews of The Good Earth.At last,exploring argumentative ways used in literary reviews of The Good Earth plays an essential role in examining the argumentation structure of those literary reviews.In addition,the argumentation structure in rational and valid literary reviews mainly appeals to logos with the assistance of ethos and pathos appeal while the argumentation structure in irrational ones solely appeals to pathos or ethos.What further researches should do are to make efforts on studying literary reviews by applying expanded argumentation theories in order to guide literary critics to make more rational,objective and reasonable comments on literary reviews.