Advertisement

Logic in Ancient Chinese Texts

  • Chunlan JinEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Over the five thousand years’ civilization, scholarship on Chinese views on ancient logic and texts attends to focus on the contribution of early Mohism, which paved the way for all debates and argumentation in the textual patterns. In the Mohism logical insights at exploring the semantics of the terms of language (ming “名,” or “names”), there is a clear formal logic like the Western inference. However, the informal logic in ancient China still exercise an invisible and formative development over the long periods after the formal logic diminished due to the political and social factors.

References

  1. Charaudeau, P., & Maingueneau, D. (2004). Dicionário de análise do discurso. São Paulo: Contexto.Google Scholar
  2. Cua, A. S. (1985). Ethical argumentation: A study in Hsun Tzu’s epistemology. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
  3. De Francis, J. (1984). The Chinese language: Fact and Fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
  4. Freeman, J. B. (2011) Argument structure: representation and theory. Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Fuller, M. (1999). An introduction to literary Chinese, harvard East Asian monographs 176. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Garrett, M. M. (1991). Asian challenge. In S. Foss, K. Foss, & R. Trapp (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric (2nd ed., pp. 295–314). Prospect Heights IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
  7. Graham, A. C. (1987). Disputers of the Tao. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  8. Hansen, C. (1992). A daoist theory of Chinese thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Harbsmeier, C. (1998). Language and logic. 7th volume of “Science and Civilization in China”. Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  10. Huang, B. (2002). A Comparison of Greek and Chinese Rhetoric and their Influence on Later Rhetoric, Ph.D., Texas Tech University.Google Scholar
  11. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem solving learning outcomes. Educational Technological Resources Developement., 45, 656–694.Google Scholar
  12. Kaplan, B. R. (1966). Cultural thought patters in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karlgren, B. (1962). Sound and symbol in Chinese. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kitchner, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26, 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kong, K. (1998). Are simple business request letters really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business request letters. Text, 18, 103–141.Google Scholar
  16. Lanham, R. A. (1991). A handlist of rhetorical terms (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Meacham, J. A., & Emont, N. C. (1989). The interpersonal basis of everyday problem-solving. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications (pp. 7–23). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  18. Oliver, R. T. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient India and China. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Schechter, J. B. (2011). Juxtaposition: a new way to combine logics. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 4(4), 560–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1997). Point of view and citation: fourteen Chinese and English versions of the “same” news story. Text, 17, 83–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Traverso, V. (2005). Cristallisation des désaccords et mise en place de négociations dans l’interaction: des variations situationnelles. In M. Grosjean & L. Mondada (Eds.), La négociation au travail (pp. 43–69). PUL: Lyon.Google Scholar
  22. Toulmin, S. (1999). The uses of argument [M] (pp. 97–107). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Voss, J. F., & Post, T. A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In M. T. H. Chi, et al. (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 261–285). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale.Google Scholar
  24. Waley, A. (1956). The analects of confucius. London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  25. Wenzel, J. W. (1979). Jürgen habermas and the dialectical perspective on argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 16, 44–45.Google Scholar
  26. Zhu, Y. (1997). An analysis of structural moves in Chinese sales letters. Text, 17, 543–566. Ed. By Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and re-search settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.East China University of Science and TechnologyShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations