(3.235.11.178) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/02/26 04:34
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:魏慈華
研究生(外文):Tzu-Hua Wei
論文名稱:說服藝術:誘惑語言之言談分析
論文名稱(外文):Masters of Persuasion: An Investigation of Temptation Language Discourse
指導教授:蔡恪恕蔡恪恕引用關係
指導教授(外文):Josef Szakos
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:靜宜大學
系所名稱:英國語文學系研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2003
畢業學年度:91
語文別:英文
論文頁數:193
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:717
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:91
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
誘惑語言的研究是一種結合了語言學與心理學的研究。人類心理的需求藉由語言可窺其大略。誘惑語言在日常生活中到處可見並且與我們自身息息相關。 本研究試圖從語言學的角度探討誘惑語言的結構與性質。藉著誘惑言談的分析可以了解人類內心的需求與語言表達的關係。
本研究以語料庫為本分析誘惑言談。語料來源為報紙、小說、相關書籍、電影 (錄影帶、DVD、VCD) 等有聲及無聲之語料。本論文所採用的研究方法包括:(1) 相關文獻收集與回顧,(2 ) 語料分析 ,(3) 相關軟體之應用與比較(如以聖經為語料庫分析與比較誘惑語言的應用)。
本論文研究結果如下:
一、 誘惑語、說服語與試探語三者有其重疊和相似之處,而最大的差別在於說話者的動機。我們可以由動機來作界定。
二、 語言是誘發聽者需求的重要工具,但不是唯一的方式,真正決定誘惑事件成敗的因素是聽者的人格特質,如判斷力、喜好、道德標準…等。
三、 誘惑語言與說服語言各自代表了不同的社會力量,相對於說服語的正面意義,誘惑語代表了社會中的負面力量,社會常因此而付出極大的社會成本。
四、 人類的動機需求常有欲藉語言表現出來的傾向。說者亦以語言為主要的工具誘發聽者採取實際行動。
誘惑語提供了人類內心需求藉語言表達的豐富的研究素材。藉由誘惑語的研究,我們可以更了解人類心理與語言的關係。
Temptation language (TL) is a form of language that combines linguistic competence and psychology. The human desires or needs can be presented through language performance. TL is widely spread throughout our daily life and has close relationship with each individual. This study attempts to explore the structure and nature of TL from the viewpoint of linguistics. By analyzing TL we understand the relationship between human desires (or needs) and language presentation.
This study is based on a corpus to analyze TL discourse. Our data sources include newspapers, novels, books, movie (tape, DVD, VCD), etc. The methods used in this study include: (1) related literature collecting and review, (2) corpus analysis, (3) the application of related software in comparing corpus.
The results of the thesis show:
1. Temptation, persuasion, and test show an overlap in their performance. The significant difference among them is the motive of a speaker. We can draw a line between them using the motive of the speaker.
2. Language is an important instrument that brings out the desires or needs of a hearer; however, it is not the only method to accomplish this. The real factor that facilitates a temptation success is the personality of the temptee, for example, the judgment, affection, or the standard of moral of an individual.
3. Both temptation and persuasion language present social power in our living community. While persuasion language (PL) acts as a positive social power in our society, temptation on the other hand works as a negative power and much social capital must be paid due to this negative social power.
4. Human desires or needs usually have the intention to be presented by means of language performance. The tempter or persuader also uses language as a main tool to motivate the temptee or persuadee to take action.
TL offers rich sources which allow the research of human inner desires and needs expressed through language. Through TL study we are able to better understand the relationship between human psychology and language.
Table of Content

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….….iv
English abstract…………………………………….…………………………………v
Chinese abstract………………………………………………………………..…….vii
List of figures and tables……………………………………………………….….…ix
1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………….1
1.1 Background………………………………………………………...……….…..1
1.2 Motivation……………………………………………………………...……….3
1.3 Hypothesis and research questions……………………………………………..4
1.4 The data information……………………………………………………………5
1.5 Methodology……………………………………………………………………6
1.5.1 Literature evaluation………………………………………………..8
1.5.2 Research steps…………………………………………………..…..9

2 Literature Review…………………………………………………………………..12
2.1 What is a “temptation”?……………………………………………………….13
2.1.1 The definition of “temptation”……………………………………..13
2.1.2 “Temptation” in biblical usage …………………………………….14
2.1.2.1 The general nature of “tempting”……….……………..14
or “temptation” in the Bible…………………………..14
2.1.2.2 The nature of the biblical text………………………….15
2.1.2.3 “Temptation” in the Bible…………………...…………15
2.1.3 The ambiguous meaning of “temptation” in Chinese…………….…18
2.2 The relationship of linguistics and temptation language………………………20
2.2.1 A special kind of communication………………………………….20
2.2.1.1 Strongly active motivation in a TL……………………20
2.2.1.2 Highly coherence in a TL……………………………..22
2.3 The relevant psychology theories in TL……………………………………….25
2.3.1 Motive……………………………………………………………..26
2.3.2 Empathy…………………………………………………………...26
2.3.3 Rationalization…………………………………………………….28
2.3.4 Wish fulfillment…………………………………………………...28
2.3.5 Personality…………………………………………………………29
2.4 Discourse analysis……………………………………………………………..30
2.4.1 The rules approach to communication…………………………….30
2.4.1.1 Rule-following approach……………………………...31
2.4.1.2 Rule-governed approach……………………………....31
2.4.1.3 Rule-using approach……………………………….32 2.4.2 The relative speech act theory……………………………………..33
2.4.2.1 The importance of a speech act……………………...33
2.4.2.2 The relative speech act theory……………………….33
3 TL case study………………………………………………………………………37
3.1 Temptation distribution styles………………………………………………....37
3.2 The basic structure of temptation language……………………………………40
3.3 The process of a TL……………………………………………………………43
3.4 The baits in a TL…………………………………………………………….....53
3.5 The strategies in a TL………………………………………………………….57
3.6 Absolute element in a TL……………………………………………………...64

4 Temptation, persuasion and test……………………………………………………67
4.1 The relationship among temptation, persuasion, and test……………………..67
4.1.1 Test in TL and PL…………………………………………………...69
4.1.2 What is a persuasion?……………………………………………….70
4.1.2.1 Why study persuasion?………………………………..71
4.1.2.2 Function of persuasion………………………………..71
4.2 The similarity between PL and TL…………………………………………….75
4.2.1 Similarity in process……………………………………………….75
4.2.2 the compliance gaining…………………………………………….84
4.2.3 compliance gaining message selection…………………………….86
4.3 The differences between temptation and persuasion…………………………..89
4.4 Summary………………………………………………………………………91
5.Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….93
5.1 Summary………………………………………………………………………93
5.2 Language Bias…………………………………………………………………93
5.2.1 Language using bias……………………………………………….94
5.2.2 Language description bias…………………………………………95
5.2.2.1 Standpoint bias………………………………………..95
5.2.2.2 Affection bias…………………………………………98
5.3 Relation of psychology and temptation language………………………….….98
5.3.1 Motives and TL……………………………………………………99
5.3.2 The tempter and TL………………………………………………102
5.3.3 The temptee and TL…………………………………………...…102
5.4 Social influence and TL……………………………………………………...106
5.5 Limitation…………………………………………………………………….108
5.5.1 Missing impossible---Daily corpus establishing…………………108
5.5.2 The insufficiencies in our present study…………………………109
5.6 Suggestions for further study………………………………………………...110
5.6.1 Linguistic psychology……………………………………………110
5.6.2 Linguistic analysis…………………………………………….….112
5.7 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………113

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………..…….115
Appendix I…………………………………………………………………………..124
Appendix II…………………………………………………………………………126
Appendix III……………………………………………………………………...…132
Appendix IV………………………………………………………………………...140
Appendix V…………………………………………………………………………143
Appendix V I………………………………………………………………………..144
Appendix VII………………………………………………………………………..148
Appendix VIII………………………………………………………………………150
Appendix IX………………………………………………………………………...161
Appendix X…………………………………………………………………………169
Appendix XI………………………………………………………………………...176
Appendix XII………………………………………………………………………..179
Appendix XIII….…………………...………………………………………………185
Appendix XIV………………………………………………………………………188
Appendix XV……………………………………………………………………….192
Bibliography
English
Adler, M.K. 1978. Naming and Addressing: A sociolinguistic Study. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
Alker, H. A. 1972. Is personality situationally specific or intrapsychically constant? Journal of Personality, 40, 1-16. In Cook 1993: 51.
Al-Khatib, M.A. 1994. A sociolinguistic view of the language of persuasion in Jordanian society. Language, culture and curriculum, vol. 7, No. 2. 161-174.
Almega Bible Tools Library. 1998. Chinese Union Version with New Punctuation. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Bible Society.
Aune, R Kelly. 1993. Effects of Language Intensity Similarity on Perceptions of Credibility, and Persuasion. Journal of language and Social Psychology, 12: 224-238.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words? In Miller and Eimas (eds.) 1995: 372.
Austin, J. L. 1975. How to do things with words? New York: Oxford university press.
Bach, Alice. 1997. Women, seduction, and betrayal in biblical narrative. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bach, K., & Harnish, R.M. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bettinghaus, E.P., & Cody, M.J. 1994. Persuasive communication, (6thed.). Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Block, J. 1971. Lives through time. In Cook 1993: 30.
Boster, F. J., Stiff, J. B., & Reynolds, R. A. 1985. Do persons respond differently to inductively-derived and deductively-derived lists of compliance gaining messages?: A reply to Wiseman and Schenck-Hamlin. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49, 177-187. In Stiff 1994: 203.
Burgoon, M. and Miller, G., 1985, An expectancy interpretation of language and persuasion. In H. Giles and R. St. Clair (eds.) Recent Advances in Language, Communication, and Social Psychology (PP. 199-299). London: Lawrence Erelbaum. In Al-Khatib 1994.
Cassirer, E. 1944. An essay on man. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. In Gass et al. 1999:7
Cattell, R. B.1965. The Scientific Study of Personality. InCook 1993:
Clark, Herbert. H. & Bly, Bridget (eds.). 1995. Pragmatics and Discourse. In Miller Joanne L. & Eimas Peter D. (eds.) Speech, Language, and Communication, p372-374. San Diego: Academic.
Cohen, M.R. 1949. Studies in philosophy and science. New York: Holt
Cole, P., & Morgan, J. L. (eds.). 1975. Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.
Cook, Mark. 1993. Levels of Personality 2ed. New York: Cassell
Dillard, J. P. 1988. Compliance gaining message selection: What is our dependent variable? Communication Monographs, 55, 162-183. In Stiff 1994: 198.
Deissmann, A. 1928. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Dise Graeco-Roman World. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing House.
Diab Mona, Olsen Mari Broman and Resnik Philop. 1999. Computers and the Humanities 33: 129-153. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Easterly, R. Lane. 1974. Great Bible Stories for Children. New York: Regency Publishing House
Fallk, Erika. 1996. Why sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense. Women and language, 19: 36-43.
Fasold, Ralph W. 1994. Sociolinguistics of language Volume II. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers
Flexner, Stuart Berg. 1993. Random House Unabridged Dictionary. New York: Random House.
French, J. P. R., & Raven, B. 1960. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (eds.), Group dynamics, pp. 607-623. New York: Harper & Row.
Gass, Robert H. & Seiter, John S. 1999. Persuasion, Social Influence, And Compliance Gaining. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Grice H. Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Heimir Geirsson and Michael Losonsky (eds.) Readings in Language and Mind, pp.123-127. Cambridge, Massachusertts: Blackwell Press.
Guthrie, E. R.. 1944. Personality in terms of associative learning. In Cook 1993.
Harvey, Keith & Shalom Celia (eit.). 1997. Language and Desire. London: Routledge
Helson, R. and Moane, G. 1987. Personality change in women from college to midlife. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 176-86. In Cook 1993: 30.
Holtgraves, Thomas. 1999. Linguistic Power and Persuasion. Journal of Lnaguistic and Social Psychology, 18: 196-205.
Hovland, C. et al. 1958. The Order of Presentation in Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. In Al-Khatib 1994.
Hyland, ken. 1998. Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of
Academic Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 437-455.
Janis, I.L. 1955. Anxiety indices related to susceptibility to persuasion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51, 663-67. In Al-Khatib 1994.
Kelly, E.L. 1955. Consistency of Adult personality. American Psychologist, 10, 59-81. In Cook 1993: 30.
Kerlinger, F. N. 1973. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winstion.
Littlejohn, Stephen W. 1992. Theories of Human Communication. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
MacCrimmon, J.M. 1973. Writing with a Purpose. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Mackowiak, P. A., Wasserman, S. S., & Levine, M.M. (1992). A critical appraisal of 98.6 Degrees F, the upper limit of the normal body temperature and other legacies of Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich. Journal of the American Medical Association, 268, 1578-1580.
Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. 1967. Dimensions of compliance-gaining behavior: An empirical analysis. Sociometry, 30, 350-364. In Stiff’s 1994:199.
McGuire, W. J. 1973. Persuasion. In G. Miller (ed.). Communication, Language, and Meaning. PP. 242-55. New York: Basic Books.
Miller, G.. R. 1977. On the pervasiveness and marvelous complexity of human communication. Human Communication Research 4, 164-78. In Al-Khatib 1994.
Miller, G. R., Boster, F. J., Roloff, M., & Seibold, D. 1977. Compliance-gaining message strategies: A typology and some findings concerning effects of situational differences. Communication Monographs, 44, 37-51. In Stiff 1994: 200.
------- 1981. Communication, Language, and Meaning. Taipei: The crane publishing co. LTD
--------1983. On various ways of skinning symbolic cats: Recent research on persuasivemessage strategies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2, 123-40. In Al-Khatib 1994.
--------1987. Persuasion. In C. Berger and S. Chaffee (eds.). Handbook of Communication Science, pp. 446-83. Clifornia: Sage Publications.
Miller Joanne L. & Eimas Peter D. (eds.). 1995. Speech, Language, and Communication. San Diego, California: Academic Press.
Morris Charles G. 1993. Psychology: an introduction, 428. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Morris Charles G. 1990. Psychology: an introduction, seventh edition, 428. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Ottati Victor, Rhoads Susan & Graesser Arthur C. 1999. The Effect of Metaphor on Processing Style in a Persuasion Task: A Motivational Resonance Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77, No. 4, 688-697.
Owen, John. 2001. On Temptation. Calvin College: Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Parke, R. D., & Asher, S. R. 1983. Social and personality development. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 465-509. In Morris Charles G. 1993: 464.
Pennington, Donald C. 2002. The Social Psychology of Behavior in Small Groups. New York: Taylor & Francis, Inc.
Phares, E. J. 1984. To personality. In Morris 1993:472.
Reinsch, N. L. 1971. An investigation of the effects of the metaphor and simile in persuasive discourse. Speech Monographs 38, 142-155. In Al-Khatib 1994.
Sandell, R. 1977. Linguistic Style and Persuasion. London: Academic Press.
Schuerger, J.M., Zarrella,K.L. and Hotz, A.S. 1989. Factors that influence the
temporal stability of personality by questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 777-83. In Cook 1993: 30.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R. 1975a. Indi Introduction rect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3. Speech acts, pp. 59-82. New York: Seminar Press.
Seibold, D. R., Cantrill, J. G., & Meyers, R. A. 1985. Communication and interpersonal influence. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (eds.), handbook of interpersonal communication, pp. 551-611. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Shimanoff, Susan B. 1980. Communication Rules: Theory and Research. In Littlejohn 1992: 86-87.
Simons, H.W. 1986. Persuasion: Understanding , practice, analysis, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Sparks, John R. 1998. An Investigation of the Effects of Language Style and Communication Modality on Persuasion. Communication Monographs, 65:108-125.
Stiff, James B. 1994. Persuasive Communication. New York: The Guilford Press.
Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand. New York: Ballantine Book.
Wiseman, R. L., & Schenck-Hamlin, W. 1981. A multidimensional scaling validation of an inductively-derived set of compliance-gaining strategies. Communication Monographs, 48, 251-270. In Stiff’s 1994.
Chinese
李 維。1998。《人格的層次》。台北:桂冠
沈秀濤。1998。《經典說服大師》。台北:藝賞圖書出版有限公司
吳豐山。2001。《輾轉紅蓮》。台北:財團法人公共電視文化事業基金會
周正舒。1995。《欺騙術》。三重:新雨出版社
黃朱倫。1999。《語言學與釋經》。台北:校園書房出版社
高島幸廣(黃曉波譯)。1998。《說服高手變身鐵則》。台北市:非庸媒體集團圖
書出版部
張雨樓。1985。《白話史記》。台北:陽明書局
張春興。1989。《張氏心理學辭典》。台北:台灣東華書局
富田隆。1992。《誘惑心理的突破》。台北:智慧大學出版社
廖奎熒。2001。《中國時報》6月21日17版。
潘 宗。1987。《欲望世界》。台北:茗溪出版。
鍾佳宜。1998。《你為甚麼會被騙》。台北:海鴿文化出版
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關論文
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔