臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本篇論文意旨透過概念隱喻、批判性隱喻分析和框架理論的應用來分析台灣台語書寫系統中不同派別的支持者在論述中所使用的隱喻以及其背後的意識形態。此外，本研究使用半結構式訪談法來深入訪問台語教學第一線的老師對於台語書寫系統的使用不管在教學上還是推廣上有何見解與心聲。透過語料中隱喻的分析，我們試圖以認知語言學的觀點有系統性地來捕捉隱喻用法背後的意識形態的框架。
台語文字標準化的爭議已持續數十年，過往已有許多研究對於各派台語書寫系統做了詳盡的分析與歷史調查，然而，很少有人以認知語言學的方法來分析台語書寫系統中不同派別的人背後的意識形態。Lakoff 和 Johnson（1980）指出，我們使用的隱喻不僅反映了我們的思維機制，還反映了我們對世界的文化、社會和政治之意識形態，甚至認為我們使用的隱喻反映了我們落入的框架（Lakoff，2014）。 提出批判性隱喻分析的Charteris-Black (2004)進一步指出，隱喻分析應該是批判性話語分析的核心。因此，本論文將重點放在分析隱喻使用背後的意識形態上。本論文採用CMT、CMA和框架的認知概念並進一步提出了我們的新框架，即「意識形態隱喻框架」。 此外，我們將採集到的語料以不同主題的方式，呈現各派書寫系統的支持者對於漢字、羅馬字、甚至對於整個漢文化圈等主題所使用的隱喻為何。
透過「意識形態隱喻框架」的使用，我們分析出學術場域和教育場域中在不同主題下所使用的隱喻關鍵詞和隱喻表達式。根據我們結果，我們有主要三大發現，第一，在存在鎖鏈（Great Chain of Being）的概念下，我們發現不同的人在面對自己所支持和反對的書寫系時，在來源域的選擇上有向上映射（upward mapping）和向下映射 (downward mapping)的現象，此外儘管不同人使用同一個隱喻，他們從來源域中所提取的元素會受到他們的意識形態而有不同的選擇。最後，在眾多異質的聲音中，我們透過其所使用的隱喻發現到同質性意識形態。
總而言之，本論除了希望透過認知語言學的方式呈現各派台語書寫系統支持者的意識型態，我們更希望在這次的研究當中，透過訪談記錄和語料分析的結果為台語書寫系統的標準化提供新的見解角度。

This study aims to explore how the metaphors were used in discourse from different advocates of Taigi writing systems by adopting the concepts of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Critical Metaphor Analysis and frame. Specifically, we explore the ideological frame behind the metaphor keywords and metaphor expressions in the discourse. Furthermore, the study also investigates the current situation of Taigi and the metaphor usages in the educational field through semi-structured interviews. Through the analyzation of the metaphors in discourse, we endeavor to fill the gap of capturing the ideology behind the metaphorical usage critically and systematically with a cognitive linguistic view.
Controversies over the standardization of the Taigi writing system have continued for decades. Previous studies have investigated the historical background and the long-running disputes over Taigi writing systems, however, few of them analyzed the ideology of the proponents through a cognitive approach. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) pointed out that metaphors we use reflect not only the mechanism of our mind but also our cultural, social and political ideology towards the world. It is also indicated that the metaphors we use reflect the frame we fall into (Lakoff, 2014). Charteris-Black (2004), who proposed Critical Metaphor Analysis, further pointed out that metaphor analysis should be at the heart of critical discourse analysis. Thus, we find it important to put our emphasis on the study of metaphors used in the debate of the Taigi writing system. Adopting and modifying the concepts of CMT, CMA and frame, we further propose our new framework, that is, an “Ideological Metaphor Framework”. Moreover, we put emphasis on investigating various discourse data from the academic field and the educational field under several topics such as, Han character sphere, Han character, Roman alphabet (including Peh-oe-ji, and Tai-lo and other Taigi romanization systems), all Han character writing, all Roman alphabet writing, Han-lo writing, the process of writing Taigi, standardization of the Taigi writing system, and the relation between different factions of the Taigi writing system.
In our study, with the aid of the Ideological Metaphor Framework, we examine the metaphor keywords and metaphor expressions used by the academic representatives of all Han character writing, the representative of all Roman alphabet writing, the representative of all Han-lo writing, and the teachers who teach Taigi. According to our results, we have three major findings. First, with the concept of the Great Chain of Being, we found that there is downward mapping and upward mapping (Krzeszowski, 1997) among the mappings of metaphors used by advocates and teachers when it comes to the disagreeing with opponents’ views and persuading them regarding the Taigi writing system that they promote. Second, even though the same source domain is used by different people, the different elements in that source domain are chosen selectively by people who are influenced by their ideological frame. Last but not least, there is consensus among these different ideological frames.
In sum, our study not only gives a holistic picture of the metaphors used in Taigi orthography and the ideological frame from different voices in terms of Taigi writing system, but also shows the consensus in different opinions.

CONTENTS
口試委員會審定書 #
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
中文摘要 iv
ABSTRACT vi
CONTENTS viii
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
LIST OF TABLES xv
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Overview 1
1.2 Motivation and Background Information 3
1.2.1 Why investigate Taigi orthography? 3
1.2.2 Why use CMT and CMA as theoretical frameworks? 5
1.2.3 Why collect discourse data from the educational field? 7
1.3 Aims of the Study 8
1.4 Significances 9
1.5 Organization of the Study 13
Chapter 2 Background Information and Literature Review 15
2.1 Orthography: Morphograms and Phonograms 15
2.2 Han Character Sphere 17
2.3 The Development of Taigi orthography 19
2.3.1 The Development of Han Characters in the Taigi Writing System 19
2.3.2 The Development of the Roman alphabet in the Taigi Writing System 21
2.3.3 The Standardization of Taigi Orthography and Language Situation in Taiwan Society 23
2.4 The Cognitive Mechanisms behind Metaphor: Conceptual Metaphor Theory 26
2.4.1 Structural Metaphors 28
2.4.2 Ontological Metaphors 29
2.4.3 Orientational Metaphors 30
2.4.4 Metaphor and Metonymy 31
2.4.5 Frame 32
2.4.6 Orthography, Ideology and Metaphor 34
2.5 Critical Metaphor Analysis 35
2.6 The Great Chain of Being 37
Chapter 3 Methodology 39
3.1 Data Collection in the Academic Field 39
3.2 Data Collection in the Educational Field: Semi-structured Interviews 40
3.2.1 Interviewees 42
3.2.2 Interview Outline of the Current status in Taigi Teaching 43
To see the original online in Taiwan Mandarin version, please see Appendix B. The following interview questions are the translations of the outline from Taiwan Mandarin version. 43
3.3 Ideological Metaphor Framework: The Combination of CMT, CMA and Frame 44
3.4 Interim Summary 46
Chapter 4 Metaphor Analysis in the Academic Field 47
4.1 The Proponent of All Han Character Writing: Ui-jin Ang 48
4.1.1 General Background and Ideological Frame 48
4.1.2 Ang’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of the History of Taigi Orthography 49
4.1.3 Ang’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of the Han Character Sphere 50
4.1.4 Ang’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of Han Characters 51
4.1.5 Ang’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of the Roman Alphabet 56
4.1.6 Ang’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of All Han Character Writing 59
4.1.7 Ang’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of Han-lo Writing 60
4.1.8 Ang’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of the Process of Writing Taigi 61
4.1.9 Ang’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of the Standardization of Taigi Writing System 62
4.1.10 Ang’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of the Relation Between Different Factions of Taigi Writing System 63
4.2 The Proponent of All Roman Alphabet Writing: Wi-vun Taiffalo Chiung 64
4.2.1 General Background and Ideological Frame 64
4.2.2 Chiung’s Ideology Under the Topic of the History of Taigi Orthography 65
4.2.3 Chiung’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of the Han Character Sphere 66
4.2.4 Chiung’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of Han character 69
4.2.5 Chiung’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of Roman alphabet 71
4.2.6 Chiung’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of all Han character Writing, All Roman Alphabet Writing, and Han-lo Writing 73
4.3 The Proponent of Han-lo Writing: Robert L. Cheng 76
4.3.1 General Background and Ideological Frame 76
4.3.2 Cheng’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of the Han Character Sphere 77
4.3.3 Cheng’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of Han character 79
4.3.4 Cheng’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of Roman Alphabet 83
4.3.5 Cheng’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of All Han Character Writing 85
4.3.6 Cheng’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of All Roman Alphabet Writing 85
4.3.7 Cheng’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of Han-lo Writing 86
4.3.8 Cheng’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of the Standardization of Taigi Writing System 88
4.3.9 Cheng’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of the Process of Writing Taigi 90
4.4 Interim Summary: The Influence of Ideological Frame 91
Chapter 5 Metaphor Analysis in Educational Field 93
5.1.1 General Background and Ideological Frame 93
5.1.2 Teachers’ Metaphor Use Under the Topic of Teaching Taigi 94
5.1.3 Teacher’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of Han Character 95
5.1.4 Teacher’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of Roman Alphabet 102
5.1.5 Teacher’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of All Roman Alphabet writing 110
5.1.6 Teacher’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of Han-lo Writing 111
5.1.7 Teacher’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of the Standardization of Taigi Writing System 111
5.1.8 Teacher’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of the Relation Between Different Factions of Taigi Writing System 115
5.1.9 Teacher’s Metaphors Used Under the Topic of the Process of Writing Taigi 117
5.2 Interim Summary: The WAR and JOURNEY Metaphor 118
Chapter 6 Conclusion 123
6.1 Recapitulation of Major Findings 123
6.1.1 The Ideology Behind the Downward Mapping and Upward Mapping 123
6.1.2 The Choice of Elements in Source Domain Under Different Ideologies Frames 125
6.1.3 Consensus Among Different Ideological Frame 126
6.2 Significance and Future Directions 127
REFERENCES 129
APPENDICES 138
Appendix A: The Declaration from Ministry of Education 138
Appendix B: Interview Outline 140
Appendix C: The Discourse Context of (85) 142
Appendix D: The Discourse Context of (86) and (95) 143
Appendix E: The Discourse Context of (90) 145
Appendix F: The Discourse Context of (84) and (93) 147
Appendix G: The Discourse Context of (94) 150
Appendix H: The Discourse Context of (101) and (102) 151
Appendix I: The Discourse Context of (103) 152
Appendix J: The Metaphors Used in Discourse Under Different Topics 154

Ang, U. -J. (1986). 台灣禮俗語典. [Dictionary of Taiwanese etiquette]. Taipei: Independence Evening Post. (洪惟仁（1986）。台灣禮俗語典。台北：自立晚報。)
Ang, U. -J. (1992). 台語文學與台語文字. [Taiwanese literature and Taiwanese characters]. Taipei: Avanguard Publishing. (洪惟仁（1992）。台語文學與台語文字。台北：前衛出版社。)
Ang, U. -J. (1994, June). 論閩南語教材的文字問題. [The discussion on the problem of the writing in Minnan language teaching materials]. Paper presented at the meeting of台灣閩南語母語研討會, Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University. (洪惟仁（1994年6月）。論閩南語教材的文字問題。「台灣閩南語母語研討會」發表之論文，新竹清華大學。)
Ang, U. -J. (2008). 閩南語書寫法的發展. [The development of Minnanyu language writing system]. Paper presented at the meeting of the Seventh International Symposium on Taiwanese Languages and Teaching, Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University. (洪惟仁（2008）。閩南語書寫法的發展。「第七屆臺灣語言及其教學國際學術研討會」發表之論文，國立臺灣師範大學。)
Ang, U. -J. (2010). 閩南語書寫法的理想與現實. [The ideal and reality of the writing in Minnanyu language]. Journal of Taiwanese Languages and Literature, 5(1), 81-108. (洪惟仁（2010）。閩南語書寫法的理想與現實。臺灣語文研究，5：1，81-108。)
Ang, U. -J. (2019a). 臺灣語言的分類與分區:理論與方法. [Classification and regionalization of languages in Taiwan: Theories and methodologies]. Studies on social language geography of Taiwan, Vol. I. Taipei: Avanguard Publishing. (洪惟仁（2019a）。臺灣語言的分類與分區：理論與方法。台北：前衛出版社。)
Ang, U. -J. (2019b). 臺灣語言地圖集. [Language atlas of Taiwan]. Studies on social language geography of Taiwan, Vol. II. Taipei: Avanguard Publishing. (洪惟仁（2019b）。臺灣語言地圖集。台北：前衛出版社。)
Aquinas, T. (1948). Summa theologica. New York: Benziger Bros.
Bermel, N. (2007). Linguistic authority, language ideology, and metaphor: The Czech orthography wars. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. London: Polity Press.
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230000612
Chen, P. (1994). Four projected functions of new writing systems for Chinese. Anthropological Linguistics, 36(3), 366-381.
Chen, S. -C. (2007). Research on Taiwanese language vitality. In C. -C. Cheng, D. -A. Ho, S. -Y. Hsiao, M, -H. Chiang, & Y. -li. Chang (Eds.), Multicultural thinking of language policy (pp. 19-39). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. (陳淑嬌（2007）。台灣語言活力研究。載於鄭錦全等編著，語言政策的多元文化思考（19-39頁)。臺北市：中央研究院語言學研究所。)
Cheng, R. L. (1985). A comparison of Taiwanese, Taiwan Mandarin, and Peking Mandarin. Language, 61(2), 352-377.
Cheng, R. L. (1989). 走向標準化的台灣話文. [Essays on written Taiwanese]. Taipei: Independence Evening Post. (鄭良偉（1989）。走向標準化的台灣話文。臺北：自立晚報。)
Cheng, R. L. (1990). 演變中的臺灣社會語文:多語社會及雙語教育. [Essays on Taiwan's sociolinguistic problems]. Taipei: Independence Evening Post. (鄭良偉（1990）。演變中的臺灣社會語文 :多語社會及雙語教育。臺北：自立晚報。)
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, R. L. (2005). The structural beauty of the Holo Taiwanese as a marine culture. Performing Arts Journal, 11, 209-251.
Chiung, W. -V. (2005). 語言、認同與去殖民. [Language, identity and decolonization]. Tainan: National Cheng Kung University. (蔣為文（2007）。語言、認同與去殖民，臺南：成大。)
Chiung, W. -V. (2007). 語言、文學kap台灣國家再想像. [Language, literature, and reimagined Taiwanese nation]. Tainan: National Cheng Kung University. (蔣為文（2007）。語言、文學kap台灣國家再想像，臺南：成大。)
Chiung, W. -V. (2011). 民族、母語kap音素文字. [Nations, mother tongues and phonemic writing]. Tainan: National Cheng Kung University. (蔣為文（2011）。民族、母語kap音素文字，臺南：成大。)
Chiung, W. -V. (2014). 喙講台語‧手寫台文. [Introduction to Taiwanese language and literature]. Tainan: Asian A-tsiu International. (蔣為文（2014）。喙講台語‧手寫台文，臺南：亞細亞國際傳播社。)
DeFrancis, J. (1984). The Chinese language: Fact and fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
DeFrancis, J. (1989). Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
DeFrancis, J. (1990). The Chinese language: Fact and fantasy. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge University Press.
Dawson, H., & Phelan, M. (2016). Language files: materials for an introduction to language and linguistics. The Ohio State University Press.
Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325-340.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1994). Conceptual projection and middle spaces. San Diego: University of California.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222-253.
Fishman, J. (1967). Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 29-38.
Gelb, I. J. (1974). A study of writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). Figurative thought and figurative language. In Gernsbacker, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press.
Gillooly, W. B. (1973), The influence of writing-system characteristics on learning to read. Reading research quarterly 8 (2), 167-198.
Grivelet, S. (2001). Digraphia in Mongolia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 150, 75-94.
Huang, S. -F. (1995). 語言、社會與族群意識—臺灣語言社會學研究. [Language, society and ethnic consciousness: A study of the sociology of language in Taiwan] Taipei: Crane Publishing. (黃宣範（1995）。語言、社會與族群意識—臺灣語言社會學研究。臺北：文鶴出版社。)
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2015). The war on prevention: Bellicose cancer metaphors hurt (some) prevention intentions. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(1), 66-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214557006
Iunn, U. -G. (2002). 台語符號 ê 競爭─以TLPA kah 白話字做例. [The Competition of Taiwanese Symbols——Taking TLPA and Pe̍h-uē-jī as Examples]. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Conference on Taiwanese Romanization, Teachers College, National Taitung University. (楊允言（2002）。台語符號 ê 競爭─以 TLPA kah白話字做例。「台灣羅馬字教學 kap 研究國際學術研討會」發表之論文，台東師範學院。)
Iunn, U. -G. (2003). 台語羅馬拼音符號 ê 競爭. [Competition of the romanization in Taiwanese]. In Conference on standardization for written Taiwanese (pp. 155-170). Kaohsiung: Education Bureau of Kaohsiung City Government (楊允言（2003）。台語羅馬拼音符號 ê 競爭。台語文字化研討會論文集 (頁155-170)，高雄：高雄市政府教育局。)
Iunn, U. -G., Tiun, H.-K., & Li, B.-C. (Eds.). (2008). 臺語文運動訪談暨史料彙編. [Written Taiwanese movement: Interviews and the collection of historical materials]. Taipei: Academia Historica. (楊允言、張學謙、呂美親主編（2008）。臺語文運動訪談暨史料彙編。台北：國史館。)
Jaffe, A. M. (2012). Orthography as social action: Scripts, spelling, identity and power. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Khou, K. -T. (1992). 台語文字化的方向. [The direction of literalization of Taiwanese] Taipei: Independence Evening Post. （許極燉（1992）。台語文字化的方向。台北：自立晚報。）
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Krzeszowski, T. P. (1997). Angels and devils in hell: Elements of axiology in semantics. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Energeia.
Lakoff, G. (1987c). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Chelsea Green Publishing. (2014). Don't think of an elephant!: You’re your values and frame the debate. White River Junction, Vt: Chelsea Green.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar 2. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.
Li, K. -H. (2006). 母語教育政策及拼音規劃. [Mother tongue education: Policy and planning]. Tainan: Kai Lang. (李勤岸（2006）。母語教育政策及拼音規劃。台南開朗雜誌。)
Li, S. -H. (2007). 台語羅馬字拼音符號史論 [Historical review of the Taiwanese phonetic symbols] (Mater thesis, National University of Tainan Department of Chinese Language and Literature). Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/jh267n (李淑鳳（2007）。台語羅馬字拼音符號史論（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。(系統編號096NTNT5045001)
Li, Y. (2020). The Chinese writing system in Asia: an interdisciplinary perspective. London: Routledge.
Maccoby E., & Maccoby N. (1954) The interview: A tool of social science. In: G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Minichiello V., Aroni R., Timewell E., & Alexander L. (1995) In-depth interviewing. (2nd ed.). South Melbourne: Longman.
Mountford, J. (1996). A Functional Classification. In P.T. Daniels & W. Bright (Eds.), The world's writing systems (pp. 627-632). New York, N.Y: Oxford University Press.
Nerlich, B., Hamilton, C., & Rowe V. (2002). Conceptualising foot and mouth disease: The socio-cultural role of metaphors, frames and narratives. Metaphorik.de, 2, 90-108.
Norman, J. (1988). Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rojas-Sosa, D. (2014) Traditional and not so traditional metaphors of love in Spanish: A way to spread and create ideologies about romance and gender on the Internet. Metaphor and the Social World, 4, 199-224.
Sontag, S. (1978). Illness as metaphor (1st ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Rachelle C. D. (1992). The “real” Haitian Creole: Metalinguistics and orthographic choice. Pragmatics 2(3), 427-443.
Schieffelin, B. B. and Rachelle C. D. (1994). The “real” Haitian Creole: Ideology, metalinguistics and orthographic choice. American Ethnologist, 21, 176-200.
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Van Haren Publishing.
Semino, E. (2021) “Not soldiers but fire-fighters”– metaphors and Covid-19. Health Communication, 36(1), 50-58.
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6(2), e16782. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782
Tan, B. -C. (2015). 白話字的起源與在台灣的發展 [The origins of Pe̍h-ōe-jī and its development in Taiwan] (Doctoral Dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University Department of Taiwan Culture, Languages and Literature, Taipei). Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ch34f9 (陳慕真（2015）。白話字的起源與在台灣的發展（博士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。(系統編號104NTNU5642004)
Tan, T. -S (2019). Tâi-oân-ōe án-tsuánn寫－現今台灣話書寫系統ê整合過程kah各派立場ê比較分析. [How to write Taiwanese: Integration, ideology and comparison of various Taiwanese writing systems] (Mater thesis, National Taiwan Normal University of Department of Taiwan Culture, Languages and Literature, Taipei). Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/aj8gym (陳德修（2019）。Tâi-oân-ōe án-tsuánn寫－現今台灣話書寫系統ê整合過程kah各派立場ê比較分析（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。(系統編號107NTNU5642005)
Taylor, I. and Taylor, M. (1995). Writing and literacy in Chinese, Korean and Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Tiun, H. -K. (2001). 漢字文化圈的混合文字現象. [The Phenomenon of Mixed Characters in the Han Character Sphere]. In Lu, G. P. (Ed.), 文化密碼—語言解碼：第九屆社會與文化國際學術研討會論文集 [Cultural code—language decoding: The ninth international symposium on society and culture] (pp. 385-414). Taipei: Student Book. (張學謙（2001）。漢字文化圈的混合文字現象。載於盧國屏(主編)，文化密碼—語言解碼：第九屆社會與文化國際學術研討會論文集（頁385-414）。台北：學生書局。)
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: a multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.) (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Xi, R. (1997). 社會與行為科學研究方法. [Social and Behavioral Research Methods]. Taipei: Wu-nan Culture Enterprise. (席汝楫（1997）。社會與行為科學研究方法。臺北市：五南。)
Yap, K. -H. (2017). 臺灣民眾的家庭語言選擇. [Family Language Choice in Taiwan]. Taiwanese Sociological Association, 62, 59-111. (葉高華（2017）。臺灣民眾的家庭語言選擇。臺灣社會學刊，62，59-111。)
Yuan, F. (2002). 社會研究方法. [Social research methods]. Taipei: Wu-nan Culture Enterprise. (袁方（編）（2002）。社會研究方法。臺北市：五南。)