本文旨在討論國民黨及民進黨對現任總統馬先生的稱謂語使用與分析。透過在國會質詢與討論中，立法委員可以自己的屬性及立場選擇如何稱呼總統。研究發現政黨與稱謂語相關性實有相當的關連：國民黨常使用姓加上職稱(總統)來稱呼馬先生，然民進黨則是用直呼全名來稱呼馬先生；國民黨會用馬總統來稱呼馬先生藉以形塑他的總統地位及凸顯本身執政黨的事實，而民進黨較常使用全名來稱呼馬先生其目的則是要降低馬先生的總統身分，民進黨甚至用五花八門的稱謂語來謔稱馬先生（如文中所述），然而這些不同形式的稱謂語主要是用來區分政黨立場及降低執政者的身份及影響性；再者，通常用名諱稱呼他人時意味著與該人有較親密的關係，然而深入研究後發現民進黨諸委員用名諱直呼馬先生的用法卻是極富諷刺的意味。因此，民進黨用各種不同的稱謂語來稱呼馬先生就更加證明了政黨關係與稱謂語的相關性確實有相當大的連結。

The present study aims to find out how terms of reference to current President Ma Ying-jeou are used by the two major political parties in Taiwan, the ruling party (KMT) and the opposition party (DPP). Parliamentary interpellations between legislators and governmental officials give opportunities for legislators in deciding a reference form to the president. The results show that there is a correlation between choices of reference form and the two political parties. While the KMT legislators use the unmarked form of ‘Last name + title’ most frequently to refer to Ma, the marked form of ‘Full name’ are used most frequently by the DPP legislators. KMT’s unmarked reference form to Ma signals the recognition of Ma’s status as president, while DPP’s marked choices are to denigrate Ma’s presidency. Moreover, the DPP legislators use more diverse ways in referring to Ma, and these different forms of usage express particular functions, including to express ingroup/outgroup membership and to denigrate Ma’s presidency. Also, reference form like ‘First name’ usually signals solidarity but the study finds such usage by the DPP legislators carries the connotation of sarcasm. Hence, the various reference form usage by the DPP legislators validates a relationship between political parties and the choice of reference terms.

Chinese Abstract .................................................................................................. i
English Abstract .................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................iii
List of Tables ......................................................................................................... iv
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................. v

Chapter One Introduction ................................................................................... 1
1.1 Motivation ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research background .................................................................................... 1
1.3 Historical development of KMT ..................................................................... 3
1.4 Historical development of DPP ...................................................................... 5
1.5 Research questions ........................................................................................ 7
1.6 Organization of the thesis .............................................................................. 7

Chapter Two Literature Review ........................................................................... 8
2.1 Definition and importance of address forms and reference terms ............... 8
2.2 Previous studies on important address and reference forms ........................ 9
2.2.1 Brown and Gilman’s (1960) pronominal usage study ………………………… 9
2.2.2 Brown and Ford’s (1961) address form study ............................................10
2.2.3 Oyetade’s (1995) Yoruba address form study ............................................11
2.2.4 Allerton’s (1996) reference term study ......................................................11
2.2.5 Dickey’s (1997) study on forms of address and terms of reference ......... 12
2.2.6 Nevala’s (2004) study of forms of address and terms of reference .......... 13
2.3 Previous studies on Chinese address forms and reference forms ..................14
2.3.1 Chao’s (1956) study .................................................................................. 14
2.3.2 Fang and Heng’s (1983) study .................................................................. 15
2.3.3 Scotton and Zhu’s (1983) study ................................................................ 16
2.3.4 Wong’s (1994) study ................................................................................ 17
2.3.5 Shih’s (1986) study .................................................................................. 18
2.3.6 Kuo’s (2003) study ................................................................................... 19
2.4 Politeness theory ........................................................................................ 23
2.4.1 Brown & Levinson (1987) ......................................................................... 23
2.4.2 Gu (1990) ................................................................................................. 25
2.5 Summary ..................................................................................................... 27

Chapter Three Methodology ............................................................................ 29
3.1 Data source and participants ...................................................................... 29
3.2 Data collection and analysis ........................................................................ 32

Chapter Four Findings and Discussion .............................................................. 37
4.1 Terms of reference in the two parties ......................................................... 37
4.2 Terms of reference used by the KMT legislators ………………………………… 38
4.3 Terms of reference used by the DPP legislators .......................................... 45
4.4 Relationship between political party and reference term choice ................ 63
4.5 A comparison of reference form usage and functions between KMT and DPP ................... 66
4.5.1 ‘LN + official title’, ‘LN + title’, ‘LN + general title’ and ‘Full name’ ........... 66
4.5.2 ‘Possessive + LN + official title’ ................................................................ 67
4.5.3 ‘Possessive + LN + general title’ ............................................................... 68
4.5.4 ‘Possessive + title’ and ‘Last name’ .......................................................... 69
4.5.5 ‘First name’ and ‘First name + tongzhi’ ...................................... 70

Chapter Five Conclusion .................................................................................... 71
5.1 Summary of the findings ............................................................................ 71
5.2 Significance of the study ............................................................................. 72
5.3 Limitations of the study and suggestions for further research .................... 72

中文參考書目 ...................................................................................................... 74
References ..............................................................................................................75

中文參考書目
蔣永敬 (2003)。國民黨興衰史。台北: 台灣商務印書館。
楊開煌 (1994)。中國國民黨的大陸政策。載於中國國民黨中央文化工作會編，中國國民黨與中華民國（154-157頁）。台北: 中央文物供應社。

References
Allerton, D. J. (1996). Proper names and definite descriptions with the same reference: A pragmatic choice for language users. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 621-633.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Universals of Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R. & Ford, M. (1961). Address in American English. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 454-462.
Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronoun of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253-276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chao, Y. R. (1956). Chinese terms of address. Language, 32(1), 217-241.
Comrie, B. (1976). Linguistic politeness axes: speaker-addressee, speaker-referent,
speaker-bystander. Pragmatics Microfiche, 1.7, A3. Department of Linguistics, University of Cambridge.
Dickey, E. (1997). Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics, 33, 255-274.
Democratic Progressive Party (2009). The history of the political party. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from http://www.dpp.org.tw/index_en/
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1972). Sociolinguistic rules of address. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 225-240). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Fasold, R. (1990). Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fang, H. & Heng, J. H. (1983). Social changes and changing address norms in China. Language in Society, 12, 495-507.
Giles, H., Coupland, J. & Coupland, N. (1991). Accommodation theory: communication, context and consequence. In Giles, H., Coupland, J. & Coupland, N. (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp.1-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). On face work. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Interactional ritual (pp. 5-46). New York: Anchor Books.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.
Hogg, M. A. & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behavior, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 325-340.
Holmes, J. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. New York: Longman.
Kuo, S. H. (2003). The use of address forms in Chinese political discourse: analyzing the 1998 Taipei Mayoral debates. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 33(1), 153-172.
Kuomintang News Network, (2009). Kuomintang’s history. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from http://www.kmt.org.tw/english/page.aspx?type=para&mnum=108
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Lo, Ching-lin. (2010). “What are their intentions?”: A case study of code-switching among politicians in Taiwan. Unpublished MA thesis, Providence University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Nevala, M. (2004). Accessing politeness axes: forms of address and terms of reference in early English correspondence. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 2125-2160.
Oyetade, S. O. (1995). A Sociolinguistic analysis of address forms in Yoruba. Language in Society, 24, 515-535.
Obeng, S. G. (1997). Language and politics: Indirectness in political discourse. Discourse & Society, 8(1), 49-83.
Scollon, R. & Scollon S. (1981). Narrative, literacy, and face in interethnic communication. London: Longman.
Scotton, C. M. & Zhu, W. J. (1983). Tongzhi in China: language change and its conversational consequences. Language in Society, 12, 477-494.
Shih, Y. H. (1986). Conversational politeness & foreign language teaching. Taipei: Crane.
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tannen, D. (1986). That’s not what I meant! How conversation style makes or breaks your relations with others. New York: William Morrow.
The Liberty Times (2008). Ma: using one China principle to solve the problem of unification between Taiwan and Mainland China. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2008/new/jan/3/today-fo1.htm
Tien, H. M. (1972). Government and politics in Guomintang China, 1927-1937. CA: Stanford University Press.
Turner, J. C., Oakes. P. J., Haslam S. A. & McGarty C. (1994). Selfand collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 454-463.
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics (pp. 95-188). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Wong, S. M. L. (1994). Address forms in modern China: changing ideologies and shifting semantics. Linguistics, 32, 299-324.