跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.22.242) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/01 13:43
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:陳人慈
論文名稱:以性別為本探究台灣電視政論節目之異議語研究
論文名稱(外文):A Gender-Based Study of Disagreement in Taiwan Panel News Discussions
指導教授:王萸芳王萸芳引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
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:2015
畢業學年度:103
語文別:英文
論文頁數:78
中文關鍵詞:異議語電視政論性別
外文關鍵詞:disagreementTV panel discussiongender
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:137
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本文主要以性別為本,觀察並分析台灣電視政論節目異議語的分布情形。 本篇的異議語主要分成四項策略:直接行為、積極禮貌行為、間接行為、私下而非公開。
研究結果顯示,直接行為的異議語類型,是使用最頻繁的策略,且佔超過一半的比例。男主持人、女主持人、和男來賓的異議語策略分布情形大致上相同,其異議語策略使用頻率由高至低之順序為:1.直接行為,2.間接行為,3.私下而非公開,4.積極禮貌行為。不同於男主持人、女主持人、和男來賓的異議語依比例多寡可分成四個名次,女來賓的異議語分布情形依照其比例分成三個排名,排名第一及第二分別為間接行為和直接行為,而積極禮貌行為和私下而非公開則因佔相同比例而並列為女來賓最少使用之異議語策略。
在性別差異上,在直接而無補償行為的策略中,男性使用的比例高於女性。而在消極禮貌行為和私下而非公開兩種策略的使用情形,女性的佔比皆高於男性。然而在使用積極禮貌行為的比例裡,男性則是比女性來的高。

This study aims to look at the distribution of disagreements by the hosts/hostesses and male and female participants in Taiwan Panel News Discussions. Disagreements in the study are classified into four main pragmatic strategies: direct disagreement, positive markers, indirect disagreement, and off-record. The four disagreement pragmatic strategies are based on the categorization of disagreements in Brown and Levinson (1987) and Yang et al (2013).
In the present study, the results show that direct disagreement is the most frequently used strategy, which accounts for more than fifty percent among all of the disagreement tokens. The rankings of the disagreement strategies in the hosts’, hostesses’ and male guests’ disagreement expressions show similarities. The frequently used disagreement strategy is direct disagreement and the second frequently employed strategy is indirect disagreement. The third highest used strategy is off-record disagreement and positive marker is the least used disagreement strategy. Different from the hosts’, hostesses’ and male guests’ similar ranking of performances, the female guests’ production of four disagreement strategies are divided into three rankings. In the female guests’ disagreements, indirect disagreement is the highest and direct disagreement is the second highest. The other two strategies, positive marker disagreement and off-record disagreement, are both in the third rank for accounting the same percentage.
From the perspective of gender difference, the males got higher percentage than the females in the direct disagreement strategy. While in the indirect and off-record disagreement strategies, the females got higher percentage than the males. However, in the strategy of positive marker, the males got higher percentage than the females.

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction…………….…….....................1
1.1 Background and motivation………………………....1
1.2 Purpose of the study.........................4
1.3 Organization of the Thesis …………..…………. 7

Chapter 2 Theoretical Backgrounds and
Literature Review….…......................... 8
2.1 Theoretical backgrounds…………..………………… 8
2.1.1 Speech Act Theory……………………………………….8
2.1.2 Cooperative Principle……………………………...10
2.1.3 Principle of Politeness….………………………..11
2.1.4 Politeness Theory……………………….…………….13
2.2 Previous studies of disagreements ………………16
2.2.1 Holtgraves (1997)…………….……………………….16
2.2.2 Miller (1999)………………………………..………….18
2.2.3 Weng (2008)………………………………….…………..20
2.2.4 Yang et al. (2013)…………….……………………..22
2.2.5 Yang (2013)……………………………………………...23
2.3 Gender differences in disagreements……….…..24
2.4 The context of TV discussions………………..……25
2.5 Summary………………………………………………...……25

Chapter 3 Methodology ………………………………………………….28
3.1 Data collection…………………………………………………28
3.2 Source of corpus……………………………………….…….29
3.3 Data classification………………………………………………..30

Chapter 4 Results and Discussions…………………………………47
4.1 Disagreements in panel news discussions……..47
4.2 The subjects’ distribution of pragmatic
strategies..................................49
4.2.1 The pragmatic strategies used by the
hosts……………..............................50
4.2.2 The pragmatic strategies used by the
hostesses…..…………………………..............51
4.2.3 The pragmatic strategies used by the male
guests……………………………...................52
4.2.4 The pragmatic strategies used by the female
guests……………………...…....................52
4.3 The disagreement subcategories used by the
participants………………..……..…..................54
4.3.1 The disagreement subcategories used by the
hosts…………………………......................56
4.3.2 The disagreement subcategories used by the
hostesses………………………....................60
4.3.3 The disagreement subcategories used by the male
guests…………………….........................63
4.3.4 The disagreement subcategories used by the
female guests…………………...................64
4.4 Gender differences in the distribution of
disagreements in the data………...…….............66
4.5 TV panel news discussions in Taiwan………………………………………..70

Chapter 5 Conclusion
5.1 Frequently expressed disagreement in Taiwan TV panel news discussions………..71
5.2 The hosts’, hostesses’, male guests’, and female guests’ expressions
of disagreements…............................72
5.3 Gender differences in disagreements……………………………………………….73
5.4 Limitations of the study and suggestions for further research……………………...74

References ……………………………………………………………………………..…….75

Table 2.1 Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) (Brown and Levinson 1987: 69)……..…...14
Table 2.2 The classification of pragmatic and linguistic features
(taken from Weng 2008: 61)……………………………………………….21
Table 2.3 Pragmatic strategies employed in the previous studies……………………26
Table 3.1 The Types of Disagreement in the Data…………………………………...30
Table 4.1 The distribution of disagreement pragmatic strategies…………………….47
Table 4.2 The distribution of males’ and females’ disagreements
pragmatic strategies………………………………………………………..48
Table 4.3 The distribution of pragmatic strategies expressed by the
hosts/hostesses and the male and female guests…………………………...49
Table 4.4 The distribution of disagreement subcategories expressed
by the hosts/hostesses and male and female guests………………………..55
Table 4.5 The distribution of disagreements expressed by the male and
female participants in the data……………………………………………..67

Figure 2.1 Possible strategies for doing FTAs
(taken from Brown and Levinson 1987:69)……………………………...16
Figure 2.2 Rees-Miller’s types of disagreement and types of linguistic marker
(taken from Rees-Miller 2000: 1095)…………………………………….20



Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

Chen, M. T. 2006. An Interlanguage Study of the Speech Act of Disagreement Made by Chinese EFL Speakers in Taiwan. MA Thesis. National Sun Yat-sen University.

Clayman, Steven and John, Heritage. 2002. The News Interviews: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cruttenden, Alan. 1989. Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Emmertsen, Sofie. 2007. Interviewers’ Challenging Questions in British Debate Interviews, Journal of Pragmatics 39:570-591.

Frank, Francine and Frank Anshen. 1983. Language and the Sexes. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Freed, Alice F. and Alice Greenwood. 1996. Women, men and type of talk: What makes the differences? Language in Society, 25:1-26.

Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. 2001. Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreement in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33:1881-1900.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.

Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Greatbatch, David. 1988. A Turn-taking System for the British News Interview, Language in Society 17 (3):401-430.

Greatbatch, David. 1992. The management of disagreement between news interviewees. In: Drew, P., Heritage, J. (eds.), Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 268-301.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 305-315). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Gullillot, Marie-Noëlle. 2008. Freedoms and constraints in semi-institutional television discussions: The case of mixed format panel discussions. Journal of Pragmatics 40:179-204.

Heritage, John C. and D. L. Greatbatch. 1991. On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and Social Structure (pp. 93-137). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Heritage, John C. and Andrew L. Roth. 1995. Grammar and institution: Questions and Questioning in the broadcast news interviews. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(1):1-60.

Holtgraves, Thomas. 1997. YES, BUT… Positive Politeness in Conversation Arguments, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16(2): 222-239.

Jaffe, A. 2009. Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In A. Jaffe (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Kakava, Christina. 2002. Opposition in modern Greek discourse: Cultural and contextual constraints. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1537-1568.

Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.

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

Leet-Pellegrini, Helena M. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In Howard Giles, W. P. Robinson and Philip M. Smith (Eds.) Language: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 97-104). New York: Pergamon Press.

Levinson, Stephen. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In: Drew, P., Wooton, A. (Eds.), Erving Goffman. Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


Muntigl, P., and Turnbull, W. 1998. Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225-256.

Pomerantz, A. 1975. Second Assessments: A Study of Some Features of Agreements/disagreements. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine.

Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. Structures of Social Action, J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Cambridge University Press.

Rees-Miller, J. 2000. Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1087-1111.

Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50:696-735.

Sacks, Harvey. 1987. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. Talk and Social Organization. G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds.), p.p. 54-69. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Shih. Y. W. 1986. Conversational Politeness and Foreign Language Teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., LTD.

Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You just don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine.

Tannen, Deborah. 1994. Talking from 9 to 5: How Women’s and Men’s Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Work. New York: William Morrow.

Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics, (4)2, 91-112.

Weng, M. T. 2008, A Study of the Speech Act of Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese. MA Thesis. Nation Tsing Hua University.


Yang, Ya-Ting, Wang, Yu-Fang, Lin, Huifen, and Treanor, David 2013. How to Express Disagreement: A Cross-cultural Study. Analyzing Language and Discourse as Intercultural and Intracultural Mediation. The Centor for the Humanities, National Sun Yat-sen University. pp.1-34.

Yang, Y. 2013. Gender Differences in Pragmatic Strategies of Disagreement in Chinese. International Academic Workshop on Social Science (IAW-SC 2013), 929-934.


連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 高淑珍(2012)。以知識分享為中介變數探討學習動機、學習互動以及學習平台對協同學習滿意度的影響。商管科技季刊,13(1),75-98。
2. 曾聖文、洪采玟(2011) 學習動機與型態對苗栗縣社區教育滿意度之影響:以人格特質為干擾變項。東亞論壇季刊,474,19-38。
3. 吳歆嬫、陳桂容(2011)。進修部學生學習動機與學習滿意之相關研究-以南台灣某科技大學為例。中州管理與人文科學叢刊1 (1),123-140。
4. 張美瑤、張景棠、李佩勳(2011) 觀光休閒相關科系進修部學生學習動機、學習滿意度之相關研究-以高雄地區大學院校在職專班為例。運動健康與休閒學刊,19,85-98。
5. 程炳林、林清山(2001)。中學生自我調整學習量表之建構及其信效度研究。測驗年刊,48,1-41。
6. 陳瑾茵(2007)。進修英語專班學生學習動機與學習滿意度之問卷研究:以美和進修專校與進修學院應用外語系為例。美和技術學院學報,26(2),139-160。
7. 陳文銓、楊明利(2012) 。高屏地區休閒系學生班級氣氛對學習滿意度之影響。嘉大體育健康休閒期刊,11(3),144-152。
8. 何光明、楊玲惠(2011)。餐飲技職教育學生學習滿意度與生涯自我效能對職涯選擇影響之研究-以大同技術學院餐飲管理系為例。運動休閒餐旅研究,6 (2),80-107。
9. 葉炳煙(2013)。學習動機定義與相關理論之研究。屏東教大體育,16,285-293。
10. 鄭增財、鄭靖國(2013)。中華科技大學100學年通識教育全校必修核心課程學生學習滿意度及其相關因素分析。中華科技大學學報,54 ,135-1680。
11. 蔡喬育(2010) 增強成人華語學習的動機:Wlodkowski動機的時間連續模式的應用。華語文教學研究7 (1),81-96。
12. 劉敏元、錢昭萍、梁麗珍(2014) 。多媒體融入歷史課程對不同學院學生的學習之影響。嶺東學報,35 ,1-20。
13. 劉彩宜、劉玉玲(2014) 。中高齡者圖書館學習動機與使用滿意度關係之研究-以南投縣政府文化局圖書館為例。健康與照顧科學學刊2 (2),85-98。
14. 魏惠娟(2005)。方案規劃在成人教育體系中的定位問題:角色、矛盾與超越。高師大學報,19,43-59。
15. 陳世敏(1992)。候選人形象與選民投票行為。《新聞學研究》,46,149-168。
 
無相關點閱論文