(3.238.173.209) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/09 16:55
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:楊佩綺
研究生(外文):Pei-Chi Yang
論文名稱:從認知社會語言學的角度探討台灣的商標侵權案件
論文名稱(外文):A Cognitive Sociolinguistic Study of Trademark Infringement in Taiwan
指導教授:何德華何德華引用關係
指導教授(外文):Victoria Rau
口試委員:曾玉村姚信安
口試委員(外文):Yu-Cun ZengHisn-An Yao
口試日期:2014-05-12
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中正大學
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:2014
畢業學年度:102
語文別:英文
論文頁數:82
中文關鍵詞:商標侵權混淆法律語言學認知社會語言學
外文關鍵詞:trademark infringementconfusionforensic linguisticscognitive sociolinguistics
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:660
  • 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:92
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
此篇研究是從認知社會語言學的角度探討台灣近兩年來(2011-2003)的商標侵權案件。本文針對三個議題做深入的探討:(1)台美商標引起爭議的議題為何?(2)何種因素容易造成消費者混淆?(3)消費者和政府是否對產生混淆的因素具有共識?研究中所用的商標爭議案件是從新聞知識網及LexisNexis Academic語料庫中集結而成。其中包含35件在台灣發生的商標爭議案件,以及21筆在美國發生與商標爭議相關的案件。藉由邀請172受試者填寫問卷調查,來檢視商標容易造成受試者產生混淆的因素,並進一步針對法律判決結果和消費者意見做比較。問卷結果使用變異數分析來找出最容易造成商標混淆的語言因素。結果顯示(1)台灣與美國的商標在命名上有明顯的不同,台灣商標大多可從名稱知道其商品。相較而言,美國商標較少直接將販售商品直接標記於商標上。(2)在商標爭議的案件中可找到構詞、字形、語音、語意、形象標語等造成混淆的五種語言因素。其中,受試者對不同的構詞組合有不同的混淆程度;以構詞具爭議的商標來說,受試者和政府的判決基本上持相同的態度;但是,以字形具爭議的商標來說,受試者意見和政府判決結果則有較大的出入。
This study investigated the cases of trademark infringement in Taiwan from 2011 to 2013 within the framework of cognitive sociolinguistics. Three issues were addressed in this study: (1) the issues of trademark disputes in Taiwan and the United States during the same period of time, (2) the confusing factors of trademark infringement and (3) the comparison of attitudes towards these cases between the general population and the government. Thirty-five cases in Taiwan and twenty-one cases in the United States were collected from the Newspapers in Taiwan and the LexisNexis Academic database. A questionnaire was also distributed to 172 participants to elicit their judgments on the similarity between trademarks. The data were tested statistically to determine which linguistic factors might influence people’s perceptions of trademark confusion. The results showed that the trademarks in Taiwan were explicit, while the trademarks in the United States were implicit. Besides this, five linguistic factors identified from the trademark infringement court cases involved the perceptions of morphosyntactic, graphemic, phonetic, semantic, and image/slogan similarities and differences. Moreover, the particular combinations of trademarks were found to affect participants’ perceptions of trademark confusion. Finally, the general population’s attitudes matched the government’s judgments on the morphosyntactic differences, but not on those involving the graphemic differences.
Chapter One: Introduction 1
1. 1 Background 1
1. 2 Definition of the Terms 5
1. 2. 1 What is “Cognitive Sociolinguistics”? 5
1. 2. 2 What is “Trademark Infringement”? 5
1. 3 Research Question 6
1. 4 Theoretical Framework 6
1. 5 Significance and Purpose of the Study 8
1. 6 Organization of the Thesis 9

Chapter Two: Literature Review 10
2. 1 Trademarks and Forensic Linguistics 10
2. 1. 1 Trademark Categories 11
2. 1. 1. 1 Generic marks 12
2. 1. 1. 2 Descriptive marks 12
2. 1. 1. 3 Suggestive marks 12
2. 1. 1. 4 Arbitrary and fanciful marks 13
2. 1. 2 Recognition, Memory, Perception 13
2. 2 Trademark and Cognitive Sociolinguistics 15
2. 2. 1 Trademark and Categorization 15
2. 2. 2 Trademark and Confusion 17
2. 3 Trademark and Social Psychology 17

Chapter Three: Methods 19
3. 1 Data Collection: Newspapers Database 19
3. 2 Data Collection: Questionnaire 21
3. 2. 1 Participants 21
3. 2. 2 Pilot Test 22
3. 2. 3 Design of the Questionnaire 23
3. 2. 4 Statistical Procedure 24
3. 3 Data Analysis 25

Chapter Four: Trademark Infringement in Taiwan and the United States 27
4. 1 The Data for Trademark Disputes in Taiwan and the United States 27
4. 2 The Categorization of Trademarks 34
4. 3 Cross-Cultural Comparison of Trademarks 39
4. 3. 1 Trademark Patterns 39
4. 3. 2 Generic or Not, That Is the Question! 42

Chapter Five: Linguistic Disputes in Trademark Infringement 45
5. 1 Morphosyntactics 45
5. 2 Graphemics 50
5. 3 Phonetics 53
5. 4 Semantics 55
5. 5 Slogan and Image 58
5. 6 The Confusing Factors 59

Chapter Six: Attitude towards Trademark Infringement 62
6. 1 Comparison of the Attitudes 62
6. 2 Bridging the Gap between the People and the Law 66

Chapter Seven: Conclusion 68
7. 1 Summary of the Major Findings 68
7. 2 The Contributions of this Study 69
7. 3 Limitations of this Study 69
7. 4 Suggestions for Future Research 70

References: 71
Appendix 1: Questionnaire of Trademark Cases 76
Appendix 2 : Strategies of Naming Trademarks 80

Bachstaller, I. (2010). Social Stereotypes, Personality Traits and Regional Perception Displace: Attitudes towards the New Quotatives un the UK. In M. Meyerhoff, and E. Scheef (Eds.), The Routlegde Sociolinguistics Reader. (pp. 168-182). Routledge.
Berthele, R. (2008). A Nation is a Territory with One Culture and One Language: The Role of Metaphorical Folk Models in Language Policy Debates. In G. Kristiansen and R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. (pp. 301-331). Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin. New York.
Conley, J. M. and O’Barr, W. M. (2005). Just Words: Law, Language and Power. (2nd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
Cotterill, J. (2004). Collocation, Connotation, and Courtroom Semantics: Lawyer’s Control of witness Testimony through Lexical Negotiation. Applied Linguistics, 25, 513-537.
Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (2007). Order in Court. In An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. (pp. 95-117). Routledge.
Chung, R. F. (2009). Contrastive Analysis and Teaching Chinese as a Second Language. Taipei: Cheng Chung Bookstore.
Cutler, A. (1982). The Reliability of Speech Error Data. In A. Cutler (Ed.), Slips of the Tongue and Language Production. (pp. 561-582). Mouton.
Damian M. F., Bowers, J. S. (2003). Effects of Orthography on Speech Production in a Form-Preparation Paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language. 49, 119-132.
Danet, B. (1980). Language in the Legal Process. Law and Society Review. 14 (3), 445-564.
Dirickson, L. R. (2004). The Trademark Dilution Secret Is Out: The FTDA and the Supreme Court Leave Victoria’s Secret and Future Plaintiffs without a Legal or Equitable Remedy. Tulsa Law Review, 40 (1), 155-186.
Feldman, L. B. (1991). The Contribution of Morphology to Word Recognition. Psychological Research. 53, 33-41.
Fiksdal, S. (2008). Metaphorically Speaking: Gender and Classroom Discourse. In G. Kristiansen and R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. (pp. 419-448). Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin. New York.
Geeraerts, D. (2005). Lectal Variation and Empirical Data in Cognitive Linguistics. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and M. S. P. Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. (pp. 163-198). Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin. New York.
Geeraerts, D. (2006). Introduction: A Rough Guide to Cognitive Linguistics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. (pp. 1-28). Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., and Peirsman, Y. (2010). Introduction Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, and Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advanced in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. (pp. 1-19). De Gruyter Mouton.
Gibbons, J. (2007). Forensic Linguistics. In M. Hellinger and A. Pauwels (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Communication: Diversity and Change. (pp. 429-457). Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin. New York.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In R. J. Stainton (Ed.), Perceptive in Philosopher of Language. (pp. 305-515). Broadview Press.
Haworth, K. (2013). Audience Design in the Police Interview: The Interactional and Judicial Consequences of Audience orientation. Language in Society, 42, 45-69.
Heylen, K., Tummers, J. and Geeraerts, D. (2008). Methodological Issues in Corpus-Based Cognitive Linguistics. In G. Kristiansen and R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. (pp. 91-128). Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin. New York.
Hotta, S. and Fujita, M. (2012) The Psycholinguistic Basis of Distinctiveness in Trademark Law. In P. M. Tiersma and L. M. Solan (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. (pp. 479-486). Oxford University Press.
Hu, P. C. (2009). When Vagueness Meets Precision: An Analysis of the Language Used in the Criminal Law. PhD. In National Chengchi University, Taiwan.
Huang, M. H. (2007). Semantics of Laws of the Republic of China. MA. Thesis. In Chung Cheng University, Taiwan.
Janicki, K. (2008). How Cognitive Linguists Can Help to Solve Political Problems. In G. Kristiansen and R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. (pp. 517-543). Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin. New York.
Kristiansen, G., Dirven, R. (2008). Introduction Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Rationale, Methods, and Scope. In G. Kristiansen and R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. (pp. 1-17). Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin. New York.
Labov, W. (1972a). The Social Stratification of (r) in New York City Department Stores. In Sociolinguistic Patterns. (pp. 43-69). University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (1972b). The Relation of Social Process in Linguistic Structures. In Sociolinguistic Patterns. (pp. 110-121). University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (1988). The Judicial Testing of Linguistic Theory. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in Context : Connecting Observation and Understanding. (pp. 159-182). Praeger.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Culture. University of Michigan Press.
Lambet, W. E. (1967). A Social Psychology of Bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 91-109.
Lentine, G., Shuy, R. W. (1990). Mc-: Meaning in the Marketplace. American Speech, 65(4), 349-366.
Levi, J. N. (1990). The Study of Language in the Judicial Process. In J. N. Levi and A. G. Walker (Eds.), Language in the Judicial Process. (pp. 3-35). Plenum Press.
Liao, M. Z. (2012). Courtroom Discourse in China. In P. M. Tiersma and L. M. Solan (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. (pp. 395-407). Oxford University Press.
Loftus, E. F. (1997). Language and Memories in the Judicial System. In D. D. Oaks (Ed.), Linguistics at Work: A Reader of Application. (pp. 3-12). Cengage Learning.
Manson, M. (2008). A Linguistic and Cognitive View of Interpreter-Induced Errors. Courtroom Interpreting. (pp. 19-40). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Miaoulis, G. and D’Amato, N. (1978). Consumer Confusion & Trademark Infringement. Journal of Marketing, 42(2), pp. 48-55.
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and Social Networks. Blackwell: Oxford.
Murphy, G. L. (2002). Typicality and the Classical View of Categories. In The Big Book of Concepts. (pp. 11-40). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Preston, D. R. (1985). The Li’l Abmer Syndrome: Written Representations of Speech. American Speech. 60, 328-336.
Preston, D. R. (2003). Language with an Attitude. In J. K Chamber, P. Trudgill and N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. (pp. 40-66). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ramirez, N. (2002). Will the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Create More Problems than It Solves? Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 8 (1), 395-418.
Rivers, W. M. (1968). Contrastive Linguistics in Textbook and Classroom. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics. (pp. 151-158). Georgetown University Press.
Robison, J. (2010). Awesome Insights into Semantic Variation. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, and Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advanced in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. (pp. 85-109). De Gruyter Mouton.
Sharon, S., Smith, M. S., and Shuy, R. S. (2004) Forensic Psycholinguistics: Using Language Analysis for Identifying and Assessing Offenders. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, pp. 16-21.
Shuy, R. (1987). Linguistic Analysis of Real Estate Commission Agreements in a Civil Law Suit. Language Topics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Shuy, R. (2002). Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes. Palgrave Macmillan.
Shuy, R. (2012). Using Linguistic in Trademark Cases. In P. M. Tiersma and L. M. Solan (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. (pp. 449-462). Oxford University Press.
Solan, L. M. (1993). The Language of Judges. The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London.
Stygall, G. (2012). Discourse in the US Courtroom. In P. M. Tiersma and L. M. Solan (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. (pp. 369-380). Oxford University Press.
Tsai, S. I. (2005). Legal Language Used in Laws of the Republic of China. PhD. Dissertation. In National Tsuing Hua University, Taiwan.
Wu, Weiping (1995). Chinese Evidence versus the Institutionalized power of English. Forensic Linguistics, 2 (2), 154-167.
Wu, Weiping (2002). Language and the Law: Linguistic Research in the Legal Field.《語言與法律—司法領域的語言學》Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

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