臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

關於跨⽂化研究(cross-cultural comparison)⾔語與非⾔語之表達⾏為包含多項議題，例如地區、關係、性別等等之比較。然⽽，過去對於跨⽂化比較，較少聚焦在不同地區廚藝相關類型的影片比較。本論⽂旨在對台灣和英國地區之烹飪節目進⾏跨⽂化比較，並且著重於電視節目中⽂化價值的體現。先前的學者提出了「⽂化維度」來解釋與⽂化相關的問題(Hall，1977; Hofstede, 1984)，⽽本研究分析了多模態的電視節目(multimodal television show)以了解⽂化維度(cultural dimensions)之概念是否仍然適用於現代跨⽂化比較。
此研究以分別由台灣和英國團隊所製作的烹飪節目作為題材，藉此提取其中的內容做分類並分析。研究的主要研究框架為「民族學⽅法論和會話分析」(Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis)，此類分析⽅式從可觀察和可報告(observable and reportable)的角度作為主要特徵來進⾏⾔語與非⾔語表達分析，⽽不是以先前提出的理論假設為主。以烹飪節目為例，其表現不全都自發性產⽣，⽽是由所謂的半腳本(semi-scripted)資料為特定目的⽽產⽣，因此對話模式反映了說話者和製作⼈⼼目中的理想狀態，此特性之分析⽅式使電視節目適用於民族學⽅法論和會話分析。在台灣和英國的烹飪節目中，發現了不同的語⾔特徵，例如代名詞(pronoun)和話語標記(discourse marker)。此外，這兩種語⾔在溝通⽅式上也表現出不同對話⽅式的偏好，包括暫停(pause)和重疊(overlap)。非⾔語表達在跨⽂化比較中也展示出不同處，例如拍攝技巧和字幕用法反映出⽂化獨特的表達形式。
台灣和英國所收集到的背景數據中，⾔語和非⾔語表達揭示了特定⽂化的取向。台灣的說話風格（例如使用第⼀/第⼆⼈稱複數代名詞、⼈際關係話語標記和重疊）顯示集體主義的⽂化傾向。另⼀⽅面，對第⼀⼈稱單數代名詞和⽂本話語標記的著重表現，再加上避免重疊的說話⽅式，則更偏向於個⼈主義的社會導向。本研究在最後還提出了字幕的使用與否為尚待討論的差異，⽽這些不同的模式對於風格呈現確實有其影響，並也表現出對於跨⽂化比較之貢獻。

This thesis aims to draw a cross-cultural comparison in the Taiwanese and the British cooking shows, with a special focus on the manifestation of cultural values in TV programs. Previous scholars proposed several cultural dimensions to account for cultural-related issues (Hall, 1977; Hofstede, 1984), and the current study analyzes multimodal TV programs to see whether Hofstede’s (1984) cultural dimension is still applicable to modern crosslinguistic comparisons.
Six Taiwanese and British cooking shows were extracted, annotated, and analyzed. Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (EMCA) was adopted as the main research framework, which relies on the feature of observable and reportable, instead of a priori theoretical assumptions, for data analysis. Cooking shows, which are not spontaneous production of language, are the so-called semi-scripted type of data which are produced for specific purposes, and they therefore reflect the idealized conversation in the mind of the chefs as well as the producers. This feature makes TV programs appropriate data for EMCA analysis. Different ways of using pronouns and discourse markers are found in Taiwanese and British cooking shows. These two languages, Mandarin and English also show different preference in communication styles, including pauses and overlaps. Non-verbal clues such as filming techniques and usage of subtitles also reflect distinctive tastes.
Verbal and non-verbal expressions in the collected data in the Taiwanese and the British backgrounds reveal cultural-specific orientations. Taiwanese styles such as the use of first/second person plural pronoun, interpersonal discourse markers, and collaborative overlapping, indicate a cultural view of Collectivism. On the other hand, a preference for first person singular pronoun and textual discourse markers, coupled with the avoidance of overlapping, is prone to Individualism. Many other differences, which are not readily explainable by cultural dimensions, are also discussed with their implications for cross-cultural communication.

論文審定書 i
Acknowledgments ii
摘要 iii
Abstract v
Table of Contents vii
List of Figures x
List of Tables xi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research background and motivation 1
1.2. Purpose and research questions of the study 3
1.3. The organization of the study 6
Chapter 2 Literature review 7
2.1. Studies on cross-culture diversity 7
2.2 Cultural dimensions 10
2.3. Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (EMCA) 13
2.4 The narrative style of cooking shows in cross-cultural communication 20
2.5 An integrated view of EMCA and multimodality 23
2.6 Summary 26
Chapter 3 Methodology 27
3.1. Data sources 27
3.2. Data annotation 30
3.3. Segmentation of the cooking shows 32
3.3.1. Abstract 33
3.3.2. Orientation 33
3.3.3. Complicating action 35
3.3.4. Evaluation 36
3.3.5. Resolution 37
3.3.6. Coda 38
Chapter 4 Results 40
4.1. Linguistic features 40
4.1.1. The use of discourse markers in cooking shows 41
4.1.2. The use of pronouns in cooking shows 53
4.1.3. The use of adjectives in cooking shows 59
4.1.4. The use of metaphors in cooking shows 66
4.2. Conversational styles 70
4.2.1. Sequence: Pauses with different types of time manifestation 71
4.2.2 Sequence: Overlaps 75
4.3. Scenery settings 79
4.3.1. Filming techniques in cooking shows 79
4.3.2. Subtitles in cooking shows 81
4.4. Summary 82
Chapter 5 Discussion 83
5.1. The manifestations of intersubjectivity 83
5.1.1. Intersubjectivity in discourse markers 84
5.1.2. Intersubjectivity manifested in personal pronouns 88
5.2. Conversation styles and cultural values 92
5.2.1. The conversation style: Pauses 93
5.2.2. The conversation style: Overlaps 94
5.3. The cultural style of filming: Filming techniques and subtitles 97
5.3.1. The cultural style of filming techniques 98
5.3.2. The cultural style of subtitles 99
5.4. Summary 102
Chapter 6 Conclusion 103
6.1. Concluding remarks 103
6.2. Limitation and suggestion for further study 104
References 106
Appendix of transcript symbols 112

Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Arminen, I. (2013). Ethnomethodology in the analysis of discourse and interaction", In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 2051–2056). Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
Bolden, G. B. (2014). Negotiating understanding in “intercultural moments” in immigrant family interactions. Communication Monographs, 81(2), 208 – 238.
Boyland, J. T. (2009). Usage-based Models of Language. In D. Eddington (Ed.), “Experimental and Quantitative Linguistics” (pp. 351-419). Munich, Germany: Lincom.
Brandt, A., & Mortensen, K. (2016). Conversation analysis for intercultural communication. In H. Zhu (Ed.), Research Methods in Intercultural Communication: A Practical Guide. London, UK: Wiley.
Brown P, Levinson S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bubel, C.M., & Spitz, A. (2006). One of the last vestiges of gender bias: The characterization of women through the telling of dirty jokes in Ally McBeal. Humor, 19 (1), 71 – 104.
Chepinchikj, N., & Thompson, C. (2016). Analysing cinematic discourse using conversation analysis. Discourse, Context and Media, 14, 40 – 53.
Chiaro, D. (2013). Passionate about food. In C. Gerhardt., M. Frobenius., & S. Ley (Eds), Culinary linguistics: The chef’s special. (1st ed., pp. 83 – 102). Amsterdam/PA: John Benjamins.
Chui, K-W. (2004). Overlapping speech in Chinese conversation. Journal of Chinese Language and Computing, 14(2), 139 – 156.
Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R., & Tao, H-G. (1996). The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 355 – 387.
Cook, S. W., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (2009). Embodied communication: Speakers’ gestures affect listeners’ actions. Cognition, 113, 98 – 104.
De Mooij, M. (1998). Global marketing and advertising: Understanding cultural paradoxes, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Drew, P. (2013). Turn design. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 131-149). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Du bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Cumming, Susanna, Paolino, Danac. (1993). Outline of discourse transcription. In talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Jane A. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert (Eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Due, B.L., Lange, S.B., Nielsen, M.F., and Jaslskov, C. (2019). Mimicable embodied demonstration in a decomposed sequence: Two aspects of recipient design in professionals'' video-mediated encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 152, 13 – 27.
Eriksson, G. (2016). The ‘ordinary-ization’ of televised cooking expertise: A historical study of cooking instruction programmes on Swedish television. Discourse, Context and Media, 13, 29 – 39.
Forceville, C. (2016). Pictorial and multimodal metaphor. In N-M, Klug, Stöckl, H (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache im multimodalen Kontext. (pp. 241 – 260). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931 – 952.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Giannetti, L. (2014) Understanding Movies (13th ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gillespie, A., & Cornish, F. (2009). Intersubjectivity: Towards a Dialogical Analysis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(1), 19 – 46.
Hall, E.T. (1977). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Heritage, J. (2009). Conversation analysis as social theory. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), “The new blackwell companion to social theory” (pp. 300 – 320). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Higgins, J. (2016). ‘Developing Conversation Analysis by Using Video Clips in the English Language Classrooms’. The European Conference on Language Learning 2016: Official Conference Proceedings. The Jurys Inn Brighton Waterfront, Brighton, UK. September 9th, 2016, 181 – 189.
Hoey, E.M & Kendrick, K.H. (2017) Conversation analysis. In A.M.B. de Groot & P. Hagoort (Eds.), “Research Methods in Psycholinguistics: A Practical Guide” (pp. 151–173). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences, international differences in work-related values. Vol. 5. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations software of the mind. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2008). Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 495 – 514.
Kashima, Y., & Kashima, E. (1998). Culture and language: The case of cultural dimensions and personal pronoun use. JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, 29, 461 – 486.
Kashima, Y., & Kashima, E. (2003). Individualism, GNP, climate and pronoun drop: Is individualism determined by affluence and climate, or does language use play a role? JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, 34(1), 125 – 134.
Kiesling,S. F. (2015). Cross-cultural and intercultural communication and discourse analysis. In D. Tannen,H. E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), Thehandbook of discourse analysis (pp. 620 – 638). Chichester, UK, and Malden, Massachussets: Wiley Blackwell.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.
Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed), “Essays on the verbal and visual arts” (pp. 12 – 44). Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. “Language in the inner city” (pp. 354 – 405). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lapakko, D. (2007). Communication is 93% nonverbal: An urban legend proliferates. Communication and Theater Association of Minnesota Journal, 34, 7 – 13.
Li, I. C. (2002). Minimization, conversational inference, and grammaticalization in Taiwanese Southern Min. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 28(2), 117 – 148.
Lin, C. A. (1993). Cultural differences in message strategies: A comparison between American and Japanese TV commercials. Journal of ADVERTSING RESEARCH, 40 – 48.
Linstead, S. (2006). Ethnomethodology and sociology: An introduction. The sociological review, 54(3), 399 – 404.
Lundholm Fors, K. (2015). Production and Perception of Pauses in Speech. Doctoral dissertation: University of University of Gothenburg.
Lyons, A. (2016). Multimodality. In Zhu Hua (Ed.) “Research Methods in Intercultural Communication: A practical guide” (pp.268 – 280). Oxford: Wiley.
Matsumoto, D. (1996). Culture and Psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Matsumoto, D. (2000). Cross-cultural communication. In Kazdin, A. E. (Ed). Encyclopedia of psychology, 2. American Psychology Association. 357 – 359.
Matwick, K. & Matwick, K. (2017). Cooking at home: A multimodal narrative analysis of the Food Network. Discourse, Context & Media, 17, 20 – 29.
Matwick, K. & Matwick, K. (2019). Food discourse of celebrity chefs of Food Network. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Maynard, D., & Clayman, S. (1991). The diversity of ethnomethodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 385 – 418.
Maynard, D., & Clayman, S. (2003). Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. In L. Reynolds, N. Herman-Kinney (Eds.), “Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism” (pp. 173-202). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Mittelberg, I. (2018). Gestures as image schemas and force gestalts: A dynamic systems approach augmented with motion-capture data analyses. Cognitive Semiotics, 1 – 21.
Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47 – 62.
Mori, J., & Hayashi, M. (2006). The achievement of intersubjectivity through embodied completions: A study of interactions between first and second language speaker. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 195 – 219.
Murata, K. (2014). An empirical cross-cultural study of humour in business meetings in New Zealand and Japan. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 251 – 265.
Poon, J.P.H. & Cheong, P.H. (2009). Objectivity, subjectivity and intersubjectivity in critical geography: Evidence from Internet and the blogosphere. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(3), 590 – 603.
Raymond, C. W. (2013). Gender and sexuality in animated television sitcom interaction. Discourse & Communication, 7(2), 199 – 220.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696 – 735.
Sacks, H. (1985). On doing “being ordinary”. In J. Atkinson (Ed.), Structures of Social Action (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction, pp. 413-429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, g., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference of self-correlation in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361 – 382.
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 2, 1–63.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in Conversation Analysis., vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitz, L. & Weber, W. (2014). Are Hofstede''s dimensions valid? A test for measurement invariance of uncertainty avoidance. Interculture Journal, 13(22), 11 – 26.
Schröder, U. (2010). Speech styles and functions of speech from a cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 466 – 476.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). Conversation analysis methodology. Language Learning 54 (supplement 1), 1– 53.
Shigemitsu, Y. (2005). Different interpretations of pauses in natural conversation-Japanese, Chinese and Americans. ACADEMIC REPORTS, 28(2), 8 – 14.
Stokoe, E. (2008). Dispreferred actions and other interactional breaches as devices for occasioning audience laughter in television ‘‘sitcoms.’’ Social Semiotics, 18(3), 289 – 307.
Strauss, S. (2005). The linguistic aestheticization of food: A cross-cultural look commercials in Japan, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1427 – 1455.
Tannen, D. (1981). The machine-gun question: An example of conversational style. Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 383 – 397.
Ten Have, P. (2002). The notion of member is the heart of the matter: On the role of membership knowledge in Ethnomethodological inquiry. Forum: Qualitative Social Research,3 (3). Available at:
http://www.qualitative‐research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/834/1813 (accessed November 2020).
Ting-Toomey, S. (2004). The matrix of face: An updated face negotiation theory. In William. B.G. (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp.71 – 92). Sage, Fullerton, CA.
Traugott, E.C. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (Ed.)., “Motives forLanguage Change” (pp. 124 – 139). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E.C. (2010). Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In K. Davidse., L Vandelanotte., & H. Cuyckens (Eds.)., “Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization” (pp. 29 – 70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tse, K-P. (1992). Production and perception of syllable final [n] and [ng] in Mandarin Chinese: An experimental study. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics 18, 143 – 156.
Van der Zee, T., Admiraal, W., Paas, F., Saab, N., & Giesbers, B. (2017). Effects of subtitles, complexity, and language proficiency on learning from online education videos. Journal of Media Psychology, 29(1), 18 – 30.
Wilkins, R., & Gareis, E. (2006). Emotion expression and the locution ‘‘I love you’’: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30, 51–75.
Würtz, E. (2006). Intercultural communication on web sites: A cross-cultural analysis of web sites from High-Context cultures and Low-context cultures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 274 – 299.
Zhang, Y., Weare, A. M., Koh, H., & Chen, L. (2016) Cultural trends of audience online interaction with vocal talent shows: A comparative study between China and the US. JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, 45(3), 196 – 213.
Zhu, W-H & Boxer, D. (2021). Turn-taking and disagreement: A comparison of American English and Madarin Chinese. CONTRASTIVE PRAGMATICS, 2, 227 – 257.