會議對於組織或是團體運作，扮演非常重要的角色，是訊息傳遞與達成共識的交流平台。而影響會議是否成功的關鍵，在於「言談」的選擇，選擇不同的論述方式，會影響言談是否具有影響力、渲染力及說服力，這牽動著會議的進行與領導力的展現。談起潤色語詞的方法及說話的藝術，就必須提到隱含說服與勸說手段的「修辭學」。修辭學包含倫理、情感與人格的說服，非常適合用於增強說服力與渲染力上。綜上所述，本研究建立於「修辭學」的類別框架，藉由科技部與政府公開之會議資料及日常經驗作為分析對象，歸納出最適合運用於會議中的修辭學，並統整一套邏輯給予未來參與會議的講者，如何潤色言詞以提升表達能力與說服力的建議。

Meetings play an important role in organizations and groups to deliver information and shape consensus. Meeting is a kind of communication platform and people choose different discourse style in it, which is one of success factor and influences meeting agreements. To talk influentially, infectiously and persuasively can show our leadership and make meetings come off well. Rhetoric is famous for its persuasion, so it is suitable for using in our talk. The purpose of this paper is to address how to talk persuasively in meetings, using rhetoric. Based on a data set of Ministry of Science and Technology and government meeting observations, the paper examines how rhetoric used in meetings and provides some suggestions for speakers to follow.

論文摘要 I
Abstract II
目錄 III
圖目錄 IV
表目錄 V
第一章 導論 1
第二章 文獻回顧 4
第一節 會議中的言談 4
第二節 修辭學 6
第三節 IBM與雷明頓蘭德公司論述策略的不同 9
第三章 在會議中如何使用「設問」 13
第四章 在會議中如何使用「引用」 17
第五章 在會議中如何使用「譬喻」 21
第六章 在會議中如何使用「映襯」 25
第七章 討論與結論 29
參考文獻 34

1. 邵婉卿，2009，引用動機之研究，圖書與資訊學刊，第70期：61-75。
2. 胡全威，2012，從亞里斯多德《修辭術》中的三種說服論證解讀《利維坦》，政治與社會哲學評論，第40期：55-93。
3. 胡適，2014，差不多先生傳：胡適散文經典，江西，中國：二十一世紀出版社。
4. 徐志摩，2015，再別康橋，四川，中國：四川文藝出版社。
5. 張曉風，2017，張曉風散文自選集，武漢，中國：長江文藝出版社。
6. 陳之藩，2006，陳之藩文集2：在春風裡、劍河倒影、一星如月，台北，台灣：天下文化出版公司。
7. 陳冠學，2007，田園之秋，台北，台灣：前衛出版社。
8. 陳穎相與廖晨惠，2015，中文句型特徵與教學之探究，特殊教育與輔助科技半年刊，13卷：46-51。
9. 琦君，2002，紅紗燈，台北，台灣：三民書局股份有限公司。
10.黃慶萱，2015，修辭學，台北，台灣：三民書局股份有限公司。
11.楊喚，2016，楊喚詩選，台北，中國：好讀出版有限公司
12.楊裕貿，2012，引用修辭在文章寫作的教學策略，國文天地，第327期： 119-129。
13.溫洪隆，2010，新譯樂府詩選，台北，台灣：三民書局股份有限公司。
14.蔡昱宇，2010，修辭在國文作文教學上的活用設計─以修辭格「映襯」為範例，全人教育學報，第7期：157-177。
15.鄭子瑜，1996，中國修辭學的變遷，台北，台灣：書林出版有限公司。
16.豐子愷，2013，豐子愷散文精選，武漢，中國：長江文藝出版社。
17.羅家倫，2003，新人生觀，新北，台灣：名田文化有限公司。
18.Ahluwalia, R., and Burnkrant, R. E. 2004. Answering questions about questions: A persuasion knowledge perspective for understanding the effects of rhetorical questions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1): 26-42.
19.Alvesson, M. 1993. Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge‐intensive firms and the struggle with ambiguity. Journal of Management studies, 30(6): 997-1015.
20.Angouri, J., and Marra, M. 2012. OK one last thing for today then: Constructing identities in corporate meeting talk. Constructing Identities at Work, 85-100.
21.Asmuss, B., and Svennevig, J. 2009. Meeting talk. Journal of Business Communication, 46: 3-22.
22.Balogun, J., Jacobs, C., Jarzabkowski, P., Mantere, S., and Vaara, E. 2014. Placing strategy discourse in context: Sociomateriality, sensemaking, and power. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2): 175-201.
23.Bilbow, G. T. 2002. Commissive speech act use in intercultural meetings. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40: 287–308.
24.Blankenship, K. L., and Craig, T. Y. 2006. Rhetorical question use and resistance to persuasion: An attitude strength analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25(2): 111-128.
25.Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Conrad, C., and Lair, D. J. 2004. Corporate rhetoric as organizational discourse. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse, 79-103.
26.Christiansen, J. K., and Varnes, C. J. 2007. Making decisions on innovation meetings or networks? Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(3): 282–298.
27.Christoph Haug. 2013. Organizing Spaces: Meeting arenas as a social movement infrastructure between organization, network, and institution. Organization Studies, 34(5-6): 705-732.
28.Clifton, J. 2009. Beyond taxonomies of influence: “Doing” influence and making decisions in management team meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 46(1): 57–79.
29.De Haan, C. B., Chabré, G., Lapique, F., Regev, G., and Wegmann, A. 1999. Oxymoron, a non-distance knowledge sharing tool for social science students and researchers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the international ACM Siggroup Conference, Phoenix, Arizona.
30.Duska, R. F. 2014. Why business ethics needs rhetoric: An Aristotelian perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(01): 119-134.
31.Fox, S. W., and Loquasto, W. S. 2010. The art of persuasion through legal citations. The Florida Bar Journal, 84(4): 49-55.
32.Green, S. E. 2004. A rhetorical theory of diffusion. Academy of management review, 29(4): 653-669.
33.Heit, E. 2000. Properties of inductive reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7(4): 569-592.
34.Adams, B. 2004. Public meetings and the democratic process. Public Administration Review, 64(1): 43–54.
35.Henderson, R. M., and Clark, K. B. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9-30.
36.Hoffman, M. F., and Ford, D. J. 2009. Organizational rhetoric: Situations and strategies. New York, New York State: Sage Publications.
37.Holmes, J. and Marra, M. 2004. Leadership and managing conflict in meetings. Pragmatics, 14(4): 439-462.
38.Ian Clarke, Winston Kwon and Ruth Wodak. 2012. A context-sensitive approach to analysing talk in strategy meetings. British Journal of Management, 23:455-473.
39.Jarzabkowski, P., and Seidl, D. 2008. The Role of Meetings in the Social Practice of Strategy. Organization Studies, 29(11): 1391–1426.
40.Klauer, K. J., and Phye, G. D. 2008. Inductive reasoning: A training approach. Review of Educational Research, 78(1): 85-123.
41.Kwon, W., Clarke, I., and Wodak, R. 2014. Micro‐level discursive strategies for constructing shared views around strategic issues in team meetings. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2): 265-290.
42.Livingstone, D. N., and Harrison, R. T. 1981. Meaning through metaphor: analogy as epistemology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 71(1): 95-107.
43.Musson, G., and Tietze, S. 2004. Places and spaces: The role of metonymy in organizational talk. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8): 1301-1323.
44.Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., and Grant, D. 2002. Metaphor and analogical reasoning in organization theory: Beyond orthodoxy. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 294-303.
45.Romano, N. C., and Nunamaker, J. F. 2001. Meeting analysis: Findings from research and practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Hawaii International Conference, Maui, Hawaii.
46.Sopory, P., and Dillard, J. P. 2002. The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta‐analysis. Human Communication Research, 28(3): 382-419.
47.Steven J. Kahl, and Stine Grodal. 2016. Discursive strategies and radical technological change: multilevel discourse analysis of the early computer. Strategic Management Journal, 37(1): 149-166.
48.Touré-Tillery, M., and McGill, A. L. 2015. Who or what to believe: Trust and the differential persuasiveness of human and anthropomorphized messengers. Journal of Marketing, 79(4): 94-110.
49.van Vree, W. 2011. Meetings: the frontline of civilization. The Sociological Review, 59(s1): 241-262.
50.Wodak, R., W. Kwon and I. Clarke. 2011. Getting people on board: Discursive leadership for consensus building in team meetings, Discourse and Society, 22(5): 592-644.
51.Friestad, M., and Wright, P. 1994. The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of consumer research, 21(1): 1-31.
52.Pellegrino, J. W., and Glaser, R. 1984. Analyzing Aptitudes for Learning: Inductive Reasoning, Advances in Instructional Psychology, 2(5): 269-349.
53.Yuan, J., Shih, C., and Kochanski, G. P. 2002. Comparison of declarative and interrogative intonation in Chinese. Paper presented in the Speech Prosody of the International Conference, Aix-en-Provence, France.
54.Han, C. H. 2002. Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions. Lingua, 112(3): 201-229.
55.Frank, J. 1990. You call that a rhetorical question?: Forms and functions of rhetorical questions in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(5): 723-738.
56.Swasy, J. L., and Munch, J. M. 1985. Examining the target of receiver elaborations: Rhetorical question effects on source processing and persuasion. Journal of consumer research, 11(4): 877-886.
57.Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., and Boronat, C. 2001. Metaphor is like analogy. In Centner, D., Holyoak, K.J., and Kokinov, B.N, The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science: 199-253. Cambridge MA, MIT Press.