跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.220.44.148) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/06/14 12:07
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:紀晴文
研究生(外文):Chi,Chingwen
論文名稱:電視購物頻道中的語言技巧及其影響力
論文名稱(外文):The Linguistic Devices on TV Shopping Channels and Their Effects
指導教授:許洪坤 博士
指導教授(外文):Dr. Joseph H. Hsu
口試委員:詹惠珍 教授劉小梅 教授
口試委員(外文):Professor Zhan Hui-ZhenProfessor Liu Xiao-Mei
口試日期:2011-05-25
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:輔仁大學
系所名稱:語言學研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:語言學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2011
畢業學年度:99
語文別:英文
論文頁數:122
中文關鍵詞:語言技巧電視購物頻道軟化詞強化詞
外文關鍵詞:linguistic devicesTV shopping channelshedgesboosters
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:745
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:223
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
有關於電視購物頻道的研究,大部分都是從消費者行為或市場行銷的觀點切入。關於電視購物頻道的語言的研究,雖然被討論過(Chen, 2008),但是本研究者認為這個議題仍然有討論的價值。本研究主要探討電視購物頻道中的兩個語言技巧(linguistic devices) ─ 軟化詞(hedges)與強化詞(boosters) ─ 所發揮的功能與影響力。本文主要目的有:(一)整理電視購物頻道中最常使用的中文軟化詞與強化詞;(二)以語用學或社會語言學的觀點,解釋軟化詞與強化詞在電視購物頻道裡的功能,以及解釋說話者(即:購物頻道的主持人,廠商代表或特別來賓)使用這兩種技巧的理由;(三)透過問卷來檢視軟化詞與強化詞所產生的影響力。
因為發放問卷前,沒有將偏男性主題的情境和偏女性主題的情境分開,這可能導致男性對於偏女性主題的情境沒有太大的感覺,反之亦然。因此,問卷被分為兩部分:問卷1(在18種情境下,男性和女性將四種語言技巧進行次序排列,從“最具有說服力的説辭”到“最不具有說服力的說辭”);問卷2-1 (在10種偏男性主題的情境下 ,男性將四種語言技巧進行次序排列,從“最具有說服力的説辭”到“最不具有說服力的說辭”)與2-2(在10種偏女性主題的情境下 ,女性將四種語言技巧進行次序排列,從“最具有說服力的説辭”到“最不具有說服力的說辭”)。
經由獨立樣本單因子變異數分析(one-way ANOVA),在問卷1或是問卷2-1與2-2,結果都發現不同的語言技巧確實有著不同的影響力(p<.05);而事後比較(post hoc comparison)顯示,「軟化詞 + 強化詞」(a hedge + a booster)的語言技巧比「僅有軟化詞」(hedge alone)和「零修飾詞」(zero modifier)有影響力。此外,雖然「性別」不是本研究強調的主要變項,但是為了知道性別有沒有產生差異,本研究使用獨立樣本t檢定試驗(t-test)來檢驗四個語言技巧的影響力有沒有性別的差異。結果顯示,四個語言技巧的影響力沒有性別上的差異。
針對以上結果,本研究者提供語用學和社會語言學上的解釋。廣告心理學指出雖然消費者不太相信廣告所言,但卻又同時仰賴廣告進行購物決定。當說話者採取「軟化詞 + 強化詞」的技巧,一方面,軟化詞讓他/她得以遵守了禮貌性原則,如此廣告內容不會絕對到消費者沒有歧見的可能性。另一方面,強化詞讓他/她得以發揮合作性原則,幫助消費者解決購物時會面對的買與不買的窘境。「僅有軟化詞」比較沒有影響力的原因,或許是因為它隱含著不確定性,這對消費者的吸引力並不大。至於「零修飾詞」之所以沒有影響力,是因為單單陳述事實的廣告內容,對於消費者沒有吸引力。本研究的假設之一認為,對於消費者而言,「僅有軟化詞」和「僅有強化詞」的影響力會大於「零修飾詞」,儘管最後的結果發現「僅有軟化詞」的影響力沒有大於「零修飾詞」,軟化詞的力量卻不能因此被否定。如果軟化詞不具有說服力,「軟化詞 + 強化詞」不會是最有影響力的。當「軟化詞 + 強化詞」時,本研究者認為軟化詞似乎發揮了強化(to reinforce)的功能,而非軟化(to mitigate)或者帶有不確定性(to introduce doubt)的功能。因此,我們可以知道,廣告想達到說服的目的,軟化詞與強化詞必須一起使用,缺一不可。
Most studies on TV shopping channels are about consumer behaviors or marketing strategies. Although Chen (2008) has probed into the language used on TV shopping channels, there is still much room to discuss different aspects of the language employed on the channels. Therefore, this study will investigate two linguistic devices of Mandarin Chinese ─ hedges and boosters ─ and their effectiveness. The major objectives of this study are: (1) to sort out the hedges and boosters employed frequently on TV shopping channels (2) to offer the possible pragmatic or sociolinguistic explanations as to the functions of these hedges and boosters utilized on TV shopping channels, and also as to the reasons why speakers use them (3) to examine the effectiveness of hedges and boosters through use of a questionnaire. For the first objective, the hedges are: hui ‘can’ (會), neng ‘can’ (能), juede ‘feel’ (覺得), qishi ‘in fact’ (其實) and budao ‘less than’ (不到). The boosters are: dou ‘even, all/any/every, always’ (都), jiu ‘only/just, then’ (就), cai ‘only…then, only, just, really’ (才), shi…(de)…‘it is…that…’ (是…(的)) and zui ‘most’ (最). For the second objective, the functions of hedges are: to reinforce, to mitigate or to introduce doubt to the messages, and to give consumers freedom to act (Fuertes-Olivera et al., 2001). The function of boosters is to heighten messages that speakers modify (Fuertes-Olivera et al., 2001). Furthermore, Politeness Theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987) offers an explanation as to why speakers use hedges, and Co-operative Principles (Grice, 1989) offer explanations as to why speakers employ boosters. For the third objective, one-way ANOVA is applied to see the significance of the effectiveness.

I did not separate the male-tendency situations from female-tendency situations before distributing the questionnaires, men might not have any strong feelings toward female-tendency situations and vice versa. Consequently, the questionnaire was divided into two parts. One was the questionnaire 1, including the 18 situations. The other was the questionnaire 2-1 (i.e. male-tendency situations) and 2-2 (i.e. female-tendency situations), including the 10 situations respectively. The 10 situations in 2-1 and 2-2 were all chosen from the 18 situations.
Questionnaire 1, 2-1 and 2-2 show that it is “a hedge with a booster” to be the most effective linguistic device for both men and women. However, there is a difference in the least effective linguistic device among the three questionnaires. In 1, “hedge alone” is not effective for either men or women. In 2-1, it is also “hedge alone” that is not effective. However, in 2-2, not only “hedge alone” but also “zero modifier” is not effective. Through one-way ANOVA, for men and women, the difference of effectiveness among the four linguistic devices was proved statistically significant (p<.05) in all three questionnaires. Further, a post hoc comparison showed that the significant difference is between “a hedge with a booster” and “hedge alone”, and “a hedge with a booster” and “zero modifier.” However, between “hedge alone” and “zero modifier” or “booster alone” and “zero modifier”, there is no significant difference as anticipated in this study.
In addition, although gender is not a main factor in this study, in case of gender difference, an independent samples t-test was used to examine whether there is a significant difference in gender tendencies toward the effectiveness of the four linguistic devices. The results showed that the differences of frequencies of “hedge + booster”, “hedge alone” “booster alone” and “zero modifier” between men and women were statistically proved to be not significant (p<.05).
The statistic results imply that advertisers can use “a hedge with a booster” as a strategy because it has the most effective impact on consumers. As stated by Wells et al. (1992), consumers do not trust what advertisements claim, but at the same time they rely on advertisements to make decisions. In order to help consumers make decisions, advertisers have to adopt certain metadiscourse strategies, and “a hedge with a booster” is one of them. On the one hand, through a hedging device, speakers withhold complete commitment to their utterances, and listeners are allowed to have their own voices and viewpoints simultaneously. On the other hand, through a boostering device, speakers can reinforce what they say without imposing too much burden on listeners. The second choice favored by is “booster alone”. According to Fuertes-Olivera et al. (2001), all of the research about market trends or consumer behaviors shows that most consumers should be given information to overcome dilemma when acquiring products and services they might not need. Since boosters satisfy this need, they are the second choice. The third choice is “zero modifier.” According to Dyer (1982), when advertisers aim at getting people’s attention, it is not effective for them to simply convey facts. In contrast, advertisers have to add a bit of emphasis to their messages to satisfy people. The last one is “hedge alone.” According to Fuertes-Olivera et al. (2001), a hedging device introduces a degree of doubt to speakers’ speech. As stated by Parker (1960), consumers will not be motivated to buy when advertisers’ remarks sound suspicious.
Although “hedge alone” is not as convincing as anticipated, the strength of hedges can not be denied. If the hedge is not convincing at all, the device of “a hedge with a booster” can not be the number one choice to consumers. In “a hedge with a booster”, it seems that the hedge plays the function of “reinforcing”. Therefore, we might learn that it is neither the booster nor the hedge that is sufficiently convincing. Rather, in order to be persuading, these two devices have to be used at the same time.
中文摘要 i
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Motivation 1
1.2 Hypotheses 2
1.3 Objectives 2
1.4 Outline of Thesis 3
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1 A Brief Introduction of TV Shopping Channels 4
2.2 The Relationship Between Language
and TV Shopping Channels 5
2.3 Metadiscourse 8
2.4 Hedges 12
2.4.1 Definition of Hedges 12
2.4.2 Hedges in Advertising 14
2.4.3 Mandarin Chinese Hedges 18
2.4.3.1 Modal Auxiliary:
hui ‘can’ (會); neng ‘can’ (能) (Chen, 2007) 18
2.4.3.2 Epistemic Verbs: juede ‘feel’ (覺得) (Chen, 2007) 19
2.4.3.3 Adverbs:
qishi ‘actually’ (其實)
budao ‘less than’ (不到) (Chen, 2007) 20
2.4.4 A Short Conclusion 21
2.5 Boosters 21
2.5.1 Definition of Boosters 21
2.5.2 Boosters in Advertising 23
2.5.3 Mandarin Chinese Boosters 27
2.5.3.1 dou ‘even, all/any/every, always’ (都) (Li, 2005) 27
2.5.3.2 jiu (就) ‘only/just; then’ (Biq, 1987) 29
2.5.3.3 cai ‘only…then; only; just; really’ (才) (Biq, 1987) 32
2.5.3.4 shi…(de)… ‘it is…that…’ (是…(的)) (Lee, 2005) 34
2.5.3.5 zui ‘most’ (最) 37
2.5.4 A Short Conclusion 37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 38
3.1 Lexical Categorization 38
3.1.1 Lexical Hedges 38
3.1.2 Lexical Boosters 41
3.2 Questionnaire Design 41
3.3 Data Source 43
3.4 Subjects 44
3.5 Procedure 45


CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 46
4.1 Analysis of Hedges and Boosters
on TV Shopping Channels 46
4.1.1 Hedges 46
4.1.1.1 Modal Auxiliaries: hui ‘can’ (會); neng ‘can’ (能) 49
4.1.1.2 Epistemic Verb: juede ‘feel’ (覺得) 50
4.1.1.3 Adverbs: qishi ‘actually’ (其實)
budao ‘less than’ (不到) 51
4.1.2 Boosters 53
4.1.2.1 Adverb: dou (都) 53
4.1.2.2 Adverb: jiu (就) 56
4.1.2.3 Adverb: cai (才) 58
4.1.2.4 Adverb: shi…(de) ‘it is…that…’(是…(的)) 59
4.1.2.5 Adverb: zui ‘most’ (最) 60
4.2 Analysis of Statistic Results 61
4.2.1 Analysis of Questionnaire 1 61
4.2.2 Analysis of Questionnaire 2-1 and 2-2 69
4.3 Discussion 77
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 80
5.1 Summary of Research Questions and Hypotheses 80
5.2 Suggestions for the Further Studies 81



REFERENCES 83
APPENDICER
APPENDIX I 87
APPENDIX II 95
APPENDIX III 103

Babbie, E. (2004). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont: Wadsworth
Publishing.

Biq, Y.-O. (1987). The Semantics and Pragmatics of CAI and JIU in Mandarin
Chinese. Taipei: Crane Publishing.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage.Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing.
Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, eds. by Wallace Chafe
& Johanna Nicholos, 261-272. Norwood. New Jersey: Ablex.

Chang, J.-W. et al. (2006). A Study on the Speech Act of Hosts/Hostesses in TV
Shopping Channel. Taipei: Crane publishing.

Chang, S.-A. (2005). A Study of Consumer Decision Making Process on the TV Home
Shopping Channel. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Xinzhu: National Chiao Tung
University.

Chen, J.-W. (2008). A Pragmatic Study on Advertising Language: A Case Study of
Eastern TV Home Shopping Channels. Unpublished MA thesis. Taizheng:
Providence University.

Chen, Y.-R. (2006). A Study on the Effects of the Promotional Strategies of TV
Home Shopping Channels. Unpublished MA thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan
University.

Chen, Y.-T. (2007). A Corpus-based Study of Hedges in Mandarin Spoken Discourse.
Unpublished MA thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan University.

Dyer, G. (1982). Advertising as Communication. London: Routledge.

Fauconnier, G. (1975). Pragmatic Scales and Logical Structure. Linguistic
Inquiry. Volume VI, 353-375.

Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., Velasco-Sacristán, M., Arribas-Baño, A., and Samaniego-
Fernández E.. (2001) Persuasion and advertising English: metadiscourse in
slogan and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol.33, 1291-1307.

Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New
York: Academic Press.

Geis, M. L. (1982). The Language of Television Advertising. New York: Academic
Press.

Goffman, E. (1972). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior. London: Allen Lane the Penguin Press.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward
Arnold.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. New York: Continuum.

Ignacio, V. O., and Diana, G. (2009). Writing with conviction: the use of boosters in
modeling persuasion in academic discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios
Ingleses. No.22, pp. 219-237.

Jiang, H.-S. (1995). Consumer Decision-Making Model for Cable TV Shopping
Channels. Unpublished MA thesis. Xinzhu: National ChiaoTung University.

Leathers, D. G. (1938). Successful Nonverbal Communication: Principles and Applications. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Lee, H.-C. (2005). On Chinese Focus and Cleft Constructions. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation. Xinzhu: National TsingHua University.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London, New York: Longman.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Li, Z.-X. (2005). The Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis of Dou: An Event-Based
Approach. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation. Xinzhu: National TsingHua University.

Lin, H.-H. (2005). Contextualizing Linguistic Politeness in Chinese-A
Socio-pragmatic Approach with Examples from Persuasive Sales Talk in Taiwan Mandarin. Unpublished BA. MA. Thesis. Columbus: The Ohio State University.

Lyons, J. (1982). Deixis and Subjectivity: Loquor, Ergo Sum? Speech, Place, and
Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, eds. By Robert J. Jarvella &
Wolfgang Klein, 101-124. New York: Wiley

Parker, P. (1960). Develop Your Powers of Persuasion. London: New English Library
co.

Pei, P.-I. (2004). The Study of Purchase Motivations in TV Shopping Channels.
Unpublished MA thesis. Xinzhu: National ChiaoTung Univeristy.

Saeed, J. I. (1997). Semantics. Malden: Blackwell Pub.

Schiffman, L. G., and Kanuk, L. L. (2001). Consumer Behavior. Prentice Hall.

Schiffrin, D., Tannen D. and Hamilton H. E. (2003). The Handbook of Discourse
Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing ltd.

Schmidt, R., and Kess J. F. (1985). Persuasive language in the television
medium-contrasting advertising and televangelism. Journal of Pragmatics,
Vol.9, 287-308.

Thomas, J. (1948). Meaning in interaction: an introduction to pragmatics. London;
New York: Longman.

Traugott, E. C. (2003). From Subjectification to intersubjectification. Motives for
Language Change, ed. By Raymond Hicky, 124-139. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Tserdanelis, G., and Wong W.-Y. (2004). Language Files: Materials for an Introduction
to Language and Linguistics. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.

Varttala, T. A. (2001). Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring
Variation According to Discipline and Intended Audience. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation. Finland: University of Tampereen Yliopisto.

Wells, W., Burnett J. and Moriarty, S. (1992). Advertising: Principles and Practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

呂叔湘 (Lü)。1980。現代漢語八百詞。北京:商務印書館。

張誼生 (Zhang)。2004。現代漢語副詞探索。上海:學林出版社。

劉美琪 (Liu)。2004。行銷傳播概論。臺北:雙葉書廊有限公司。

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關論文
 
1. 胡藹若:〈從資源動員理論的觀點論臺灣婦女體制外的政治參與〉,《復興崗學報》,83期(2005年6月),頁281-306。
2. 鄺芷人:〈公民社會與民主政治〉,《東海哲學研究集刊》,6輯(1999年6月),頁189-225。
3. 何明修:〈公民社會的限制─台灣環境政治中的結社藝術〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,4卷2期(2007年6月),頁33-65。
4. 朴允哲:〈韓國社會運動的動員模式與政治社會性格:以新興社會運動為分析對象〉,《亞太研究論壇》,22期(2003年9月),頁1-16。
5. 林御翔:〈台灣農業金融改革與社會運動:以「一一二三與農共生」運動為例〉,《行政暨政策學報》,40期(2005年6月),頁99-136。
6. 謝懷慧:〈台灣民主轉型中的市民社會-以1987~1994的台灣社會運動為例〉,《臺灣史料研究》16期(2002年),頁55-72。
7. 蕭新煌:〈民間社會的「反支配」性格─社會運動本質的界定〉,《中國論壇》,331期(1989年7月),頁60-64。
8. 官有垣、杜承嶸:〈台灣民間社會團體的組織特質、自主性、創導與影響力研究〉,《行政暨政策學報》,49期(2009年12月),頁1-38。
9. 蕭新煌:〈台灣的非政府組織、民主轉型與民主治理〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,1卷1期(2004年3月),頁65-84。
10. 蕭揚基:〈我國公民社會的形成發展與建立〉,《研究與動態》,8期(2003年6月),頁75-96。
11. 蕭全政:〈台灣民主化對政府經濟和社會職能的挑戰與因應〉,《理論與政策》,13卷3期(1999年9月),頁1-18。
12. 黃茜如:〈國家自主性與民間社會:相關理論與研究的介紹〉,《中國論壇》,331期(1989年7月),頁72-79。
13. 張茂桂:〈民間社會、資源動員與新社會運動:台灣社會運動研究的理論志向〉,《香港社會科學學報》,4期(1994年秋季),頁33-66。
14. 李碧涵:〈台灣地區後工業轉型之國家與社會〉,《國立台灣大學中山學術論叢》,12期,1994年,頁245-282。
15. 李酉潭:〈台灣民主化經驗與中國民主的未來:以杭亭頓的理論架構分析之〉,《遠景基金會季刊》,8卷4期(2007年10月),頁1-47。