跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.235.56.11) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/29 09:53
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:王薔閔
研究生(外文):Wang, Chiang-Min
論文名稱:搭訕語境的語用策略研究
論文名稱(外文):A Study on Pragmatic Strategies to the Context of Picking-up
指導教授:洪嘉馡洪嘉馡引用關係
指導教授(外文):Hong, Jia-Fei
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:華語文教學系
學門:人文學門
學類:中國語文學類
論文出版年:2021
畢業學年度:109
語文別:中文
論文頁數:129
中文關鍵詞:搭訕語境語言策略語用
外文關鍵詞:Pick-upContextLanguage PolicyPragmatics
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:38
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:11
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
  於網路盛行的時代,人們的食衣住行皆能透過網路達成,加上各類社群媒體不斷竄起,連認識新朋友也因為各式交友軟體而變得速食。於是乎人人只關注自己手上的智慧型手機,卻時常忽略了身邊的人事物,這也使得人們於現實生活中的社交能力大幅降低,甚至不知道如何在真實的生活中結交新朋友,更不用說該如何踏出第一步與自己有好感的對象搭話。於是本研究想了解,在什麼樣的語境下,人們較願意與陌生人有更進一步的交流,以及在什麼樣的語境下,人們會採用何種策略來搭訕有好感的對象。
  本研究以Grice (1975) 的合作原則與Leech (1983) 的禮貌原則為架構設計實驗問卷中的語言策略,選項從直接的表達形式到委婉的回應與提問方法。此外,由於受試者過去被搭訕、搭訕他人及其性別都可能影響到語言策略的選定,因此也納入問卷的提問中。
  經過分析後發現,當受試者被人搭訕時,多數的回應都是不冷不熱以維護雙方的面子,不過當人們處於「輕鬆」、「愉悅」且「有共同話題」的語境時,便不排斥陌生人前來搭話與交流;若人們處於正在「移動」至特定地點或是「忙於特定事項」的語境時,採用的拒絕語言策略便相對直接。本研究也發現,當受試者搭訕他人時,在不同的語境下也呈現不同的語言策略選擇傾向。分析結果也呈現,除了受試者所處的語境外,性別與過去經驗在受試者作為搭訕者時,也會影響到語言策略的選定。
  Given the high popularity of the Internet, this is an era in which people’s basic needs can be solved simply by going on the Internet. Furthermore, social media has grown explosively, which causes finding potential romantic partners to be like searching for a casual relationship. This situation harms people’s social skills and causes them to have no idea how to engage people in relationships in reality. Some do not even know how to strike up conversations with people of interest
  This study analyzed the structure and choices regarding language policy based on the cooperative principles (Grice, 1975) and politeness theory (Leech, 1983). This work analyzed the reactions and questions of the direct type versus the indirect one in a questionnaire. Considering the effects subjects’ experience and gender would have in subjects’ choice in language policies, the two factors were assessed in the questionnaire on picking up.
  According to the results of this study, when subjects are picked up by someone, most reactions are lukewarm to maintain each others’ pride. However, when subjects are found to give off a “relaxing” or “pleasing” quality and “having something in common,” strangers would not reject having conversation with them. If people are “moving” to specific spots or “busy with something,” they would refuse directly. Furthermore, the subjects shifted their standpoint to be the pick-up persons. This study found that subjects have different tendencies regarding language polices. The results revealed not only that the context in which conversations are held influence the choice in language policy, but gender and experience also have an effect.
第一章
緒論 1
第1節 研究背景與動機 1
第2節 研究目的與議題 3
第3節 名詞解釋 4
第4節 研究架構 7

第二章 文獻探討 9
第1節 語言策略中的語用涵義 9
第2節 言語交際時的認知假設 23
第3節 跨文化與性別溝通的語言策略 37

第三章 研究方法 49
第1節 研究流程 49
第2節 實驗設計 50
第3節 資料分析工具與方法 ── SPSS 63

第四章 研究結果與討論 67
第1節 被搭訕者的回應語用策略 67
第2節 搭訕者的語用策略 79
第3節 搭訕者與被搭訕者不同立場的探討 103

第五章 結論與未來發展 107
第1節 研究結論 107
第2節 未來發展 108

參考文獻 111
附錄:問卷 117
江義平。(2007)。領導與人際溝通技巧課程自編教材。(未出版)。取自 https://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~ipchiang/
何兆熊 彙編 。(2000)。新編語用學概要。上海外語教育出版社
何自然、謝朝群和陳新仁。(2007)。語用三論:關聯論、順應論、模因論。上海 : 上海教育出版社
吳孟芬。(1997)。 服務情境中之溝通問題分析:以醫療服務為例 。中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文
宋振華、劉伶 主編 。(1983)。 語言理論。遼寧人民出版社。
紀曉岩。(2017)。社交媒體對傳統人際交往的影響研究。傳播力研究,10,46-46。
素虹。(1991)。親屬稱謂的特殊現象。漢語學習,(6),39-40。
教育部國語推行委員會。(2015)。教育部重編國語辭典修訂本(第五版)。中華民國教育部。
黃厚銘。(2002)。網路上探索自我認同的遊戲。教育與社會研究,(3),65-105。
鄭匡宇。(2007)。情挑 Everywhere:搭訕致勝21擊。台北市:好桔文化。
謝佳玲。(2015)。語用學課程自編教材。未出版。

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford At The Clarendon Press.
Blackmore, S. (1999). The evolution of meme machines. Oxford University Press.
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological bulletin, 119(1), 111.
Brodie, R. (1996). Virus of the mind: The new science of the meme. Seattle, Wash: Integral Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Studies in interactional sociolinguistics, 4.Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Carston, R. (2002). Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind & Language, 17(1‐2), 127-148.
Chu, S. C., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Electronic word-of-mouth in social networking sites: A cross-cultural study of the United States and China. Journal of Global Marketing, 24(3), 263-281.
Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the implications for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(11), 631-635.
Firth, J. R. (1950). Personality and language in society. The sociological review, 42(1), 37-52.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Speech acts (pp. 41-58). Brill.
Grice, H.P. (1967). Further notes on logic and conversation. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.
Gudykunst, W. B. & Lee, C. M. (2002). Cross-cultural communication theories. Handbook of international and intercultural communication, 2, 165-178.
Gudykunst, W. B. (Ed.). (1993). Communication in Japan and the United States. SUNY Press.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1994). Bridging Japanese/North American differences (Vol. 1). Sage Publications, Inc.
Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey, S., & Chua, E. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Sage Publications, Inc.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. Longman.
Heylighen, F. (1998). What makes a meme successful? Selection criteria for cultural evolution. Proc. 15th Int. Congress on Cybernetics (Association Internat. de Cybernétique, Namur, 1999), p.418- 423.
Johnson, D. I., Roloff, M. E., & Riffee, M. A. (2004). Politeness theory and refusals of requests: Face threat as a function of expressed obstacles. Communication Studies, 55(2), 227-238.
Keenan, E. O., & Keenal, E. O. (1976). The universality of conversational postulates. Language in society, 67-80.
Kim, U. E., Triandis, H. C., Kâğitçibaşi, Ç. E., Choi, S. C. E., & Yoon, G. E. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Sage Publications, Inc.
Kirkbride, P. S., Tang, S. F., & Westwood, R. I. (1991). Chinese conflict preferences and negotiating behaviour: Cultural and psychological influences. Organization studies, 12(3), 365-386.
Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York : Harper & Row.
Leech, G., Garside, R., & Atwell, E. S. (1983). The automatic grammatical tagging of the LOB corpus. ICAME Journal: International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English Journal, 7, 13-33.
Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of conflict avoidance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19(1), 125-136.
Levesque, R. J. (2011). Sex roles and gender roles. Encyclopedia of adolescence, 2622-2623.
Malinowski, B. (1923). Psycho-analysis and anthropology. Nature, 112(2818), 650-651.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological review, 98(2), 224.
Miller, J. G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the morality of caring: Individually oriented versus duty-based interpersonal moral codes. Cross-Cultural Research, 28(1), 3-39.
Okabe, R. (1983). Cultural assumptions of East and West. Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952). Structure and Function. Primitive Society, 3.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. Philosophy, 3, 143-184.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1982). Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. Academic.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (Vol. 142). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2006). A deflationary account of metaphor. UCL Work. Pap. Linguist, 18, 171-203.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management science, 32(11), 1492-1512.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1993). Communicative resourcefulness: An identity negotiation perspective.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323.
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college students' life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 14(4), 875-901.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. Publisher: Edward Arnold
Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T., & Bond, M. H. (1989). Collectivism-individualism in everyday social life: The middle kingdom and the melting pot. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 57(1), 79.
Wilson, D. (2004). Relevance and lexical pragmatics (Vol. 16, pp. 343-360). UCL Working Papers in Linguistics.
Zhang, Y. (1995). Strategies in Chinese requesting. Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language, 25, 23-67.
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