在辯論中，辯論者使用語言策略達成防禦攻擊的目的。過去有關的文獻著重於特定語言特徵(如 Lin, 2013)及策略的使用(如Jin, 2000; Metsämäki, 2012)。這些研究未能考量辯論過程中辯論者發言策略的動態互動。本研究檢視變數如辯論角色、性別、勝負雙方隊伍、辯論階段對於發言策略使用的影響及辯論者互動過程中，如何使用巨策略及微策略達致防禦攻擊的目的。語料來自發布於YouTube平台上六場在台灣舉辦的大專辯論比賽; 本研究聚焦於交叉質詢階段以瞭解辯論者的互動型式。參與者包含男女各二十人，為來自台灣十所大學的學生。語料藉由本研究所建立的防禦攻擊策略及區分辯論階段的標準進行量化及質化分析。防禦攻擊策略包含五大巨策略：知識建構、管理、說服、主導及挑戰。辯論階段包含次要(分為起始及結語)及主要階段。結果包含以下兩個層面。
變數的分析如辯論角色、性別、勝負雙方隊伍及辯論階段的對於巨策略使用有不同層面的影響。在微策略的使用上，相較於性別，辯論角色於勝負隊伍及主要階段對於辯論者策略使用上較具影響力。不同階段禮貌層級的轉移用以解釋策略使用的差異。
辯論者於互動中使用巨策略及微策略上，極少數微策略專屬於質詢者使用。大多數策略可由質詢者及答辯者、不同性別的辯論者運用以達致防禦攻擊的目的。次要階段，辯論者主要使用管理策略開始辯論及結束辯論程序。主要階段，辯論者致力於達成共識，了解雙方的論點和立場及防禦攻擊的目的。不同的性別及辯論角色使用巨策略及微策略的偏好顯示溝通形式的差異。除知識建構策略外，較高頻率使用的策略可用以區分辨論者的溝通風格。辯論者使用風格可由個人習慣話語傾向，人格特質及環境因素影響來解釋。就辯論者插話現象的使用，相較於 Lin (2013)，本研究辯識插話現象所使用的巨策略及微策略以較能清楚描繪辯論中插話現象的複雜性。
研究結果助益於未來辯論話語研究及辯論者的訓練。辯論辯論中及一般互動中相異的衝突管理凸顯辯論的本質。不同性別及辯論角色的辯論者瞭解互動中如何策略性的使用防禦攻擊策略。防禦攻擊策略可應用於學習作為學習者及辯論者策略使用的參考架構、應用於教學作為教學者設計策略使用訓練課程的參考架構。

In debate, the debaters use different strategies to achieve defense and attack goals. Previous studies focused on specific linguistic features as in Lin (2014), and strategy use as in Jin (2000) and Metsämäki (2012). These studies did not consider the dynamic interaction of strategies in the debate process. The current study scrutinizes the influences of variables, including debating roles, genders, winning or losing a debate, and debating stages, on strategy uses, as well as how the debaters use the macro- and micro-strategies in the debating process. The data were collected from six major college-level debate contests in Taiwan broadcasted on YouTube. The participants were 20 male and 20 female college students from 10 universities in Taiwan. The data were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed in terms of the defense attack strategy repertoire and the classification of debating stages. Defense attack strategy repertoire includes five macro-strategies: knowledge construction, management, persuasion, dominance, and challenge. The debating stages include the peripheral stages (divided into initiation and closure) and the main stage. The findings are summarized in terms of variable analysis and strategy use in interactions.
Analyses on the variables of debating roles, gender, debating stages, and the winning and defeated groups show different levels of influence on the debaters’ macro-strategy uses. In terms of micro-strategy uses, the debating roles play a more powerful factor than the gender in both the winning and defeated groups and the debating stages. The shift of politeness level in the debating stages may explain the differences in the debaters’ strategy uses.
In the aspect of the debaters’ strategy uses in interactions, only rare micro-strategies were exclusively used by the questioners. The debaters chiefly used the management strategy to begin and terminate the procedure in the peripheral stages. In the main stage, most of the strategies were utilized by the debaters by both the questioner and rebutter groups, and in both genders to achieve consensus, mutual understanding and defense attack purposes. Preferences of strategy use are displayed by gender and roles to reveal the debaters’ communication styles. Except for knowledge construction, which occurred highly frequently across all variables, the frequency of the strategies can be used as the criteria to classify the debaters’ communication styles. The debaters’ communication styles may be explained by individual habitual tendency of speaking, personalities, and contexts. The participants’ uses of interruption, compared to Lin’s classification (2013), indicate that the macro- and micro- defense attack strategies can better describe the complexities of interruption in a debate contest.
The findings have contributions to future discourse research on debate and the training of young debaters. Distinct conflict management in debate and everyday conversation highlight the nature of the debate. The debaters in different roles and genders understand how to strategically use the defense attack strategies in process. The defense attack strategy can be applied in constructing a guideline of strategy uses for young debaters, and for debate instructors in designing a training program.

Alba-Juez, L. (2009). Perspectives on discourse analysis: Theory and practice. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Aristotle. (1926). The art of rhetoric. (J. H. Freese, Trans.). Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann.
Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W.T. (1996). Candidate in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
Boxer, D. (1996). Ethnographic interviewing as a research tool in speech act analysis: The case of complaints. In S. M. Gass and J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in second language (pp. 217-299). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by priciples: An interactive approach to language teaching. New York: Person Educations.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge Univisity Press.
Coates, J. (1994). No gap, lots of overlap: turn-taking patterns in the talk of women friends. In G., David, M., Janet, & B. Stierer (Eds.), Researching language and literacy in social context (pp.177-192). Clevedon: Multulingual Matters.
Coates, J. (2004). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language. Harlow: Peason education.
Cockcroft R. and Cockcroft, S. (2005). Persuading people: An introduction to rhetoric. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Forster, P., Tonkyn, A. & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375.
Freeley, A. J. (2009). Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision making. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage learning.
Freeley, A. J., &Steinberg, D. L. (2013). Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision making. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage learning.
Geis, M. L. and Harlow, L. (1995). Politeness strategies in French and English: Implications for second language acquisition. In S. M. Gass and J. Neu, (Ed.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language. (pp.129-153). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row.
Goldberg, J. A. (1990). Interrupting the discourse on interruptions: An analysis in terms of relationally neutral, power- and rappoort-oriented acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(6), 883-903.
Gunnarsson, B. L. (1997). Women and men in the academic discourse community. In K. H. Kotthoff &R. Wodak. (Eds), Communicating gender in context (pp. 219-248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Holmes, J. (1999). Women, men and politeness. New York: Longman.
Holmes, J. (2008). Gendered talk at work: Constructing social identity through workplace interaction. Malden: Blackwell. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ book/ 10.1002/ 978047 0754863
Holmes, J. & Stubbe, M. (2003). Feminine workplaces: Stereotypes and reality. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of language and gender (pp. 574-576) Oxford: Blackwell, 574-576 Retrieved from http://is.muni.cz/el/1423/podzim 20 12/SAN230/um /the_handbook_of_language_and_gender.pdf
Jin, J. K. (2000). Persuasive attack in political debates: A study of the 1998 Taipei mayoral debates. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Jaworski, A., & Galasiński, D. (2000).Vocative address forms and ideological legitimization in political debates. Discourse Studies, 2(1), 35-53.
Koczogh, H.V. (2012). The effect of gender and social distance on the expression of verbal disagreement employed by Hungarian undergraduate students. Doctoral dissertation. University of Debrecen, Hungary.
Kosetzi, K. (2008). Harnessing a critical discourse analysis of gender and fictional television. In K. Harrington, L. Litosseliti, H.Sauntson, & J. Sunderland, (Eds.), Gender and language research methodologies (pp. 227-239). Basingstoke, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Lin, P. C. (2013). A case study on speech fluency and interruption in debate discourse. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Locher, M. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Metsämäki, M. (2012). Persuasive discourse in EFL debate theory and practice in debate. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(2), 205-213.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mullany, L. (2007). Gender discourse in the professional workplace. Basingstoke, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ogiermann, E. (2009). On apologising in negative and positive politeness cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1087-1111.
Salazar Campillo, P. (2007). Examining mitigation in requests: A focus on transcripts in ELT coursebooks. In E. Alcón Soler, & M. P. Safont (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 207-222). The Netherlands: Springer.
Scott, S. (2002). Linguistic feature variation within disagreement: An empirical investigation. Text, 22(2), 301-328.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, compliments and apologies. Belin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wang, V. X. (2011). Making requests by Chinese EFL learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Wu, H. C. (2002). A development study of Chinese children’s conversational overlapping. Unpublished master’s thesis. Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan, Taiwan.
Chinese References
The Minister of Eduction (教育部). 2011中文譯音使用原則 (The guidebook of Mandarin phonetic transcription project). Retrieved from May 1, 2013, from http://crptransfer. moe.gov.tw/files/pinyinshouce_4828.pdf
Wen, W. C. (溫偉群). (2007). 總統電視辯論: 語藝策略與類型評析 (Televised presidential debate: A general criticism of rhetorical strategies). 五南:台北.
Yu, T. H. (游梓翔). (2003). 認識辯論 (Debating principles and practice of Academic debate).雙葉書廊:台北.
Zhu, C. M. (諸承明). (1999). 縱橫辯論:奧瑞岡式辯論剖析. 桂冠:台北.