臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本論文藉由採集兩個知名台灣交友網站的語言 – 拓網交友（Top1069）以及女子拉拉學園（2Girl） – 觀察蘊含在語篇內的異性戀常規性（heteronormativity），並探討視異性戀為常態標準的價值觀如何影響台灣男女同性戀者對於情慾、交往偏好、以及伴侶相處模式的描寫。本研究採用語料庫語言學（Corpus Linguistics）的量化方式統計語料庫中的關鍵詞、搭配和索引，並以批判話語分析（Critical Discourse Analysis）的質化觀點來進一步剖析在交友網站中經由異性戀常規形塑而成的台灣男女性戀者。

近幾年來，異性戀常規性持續受到酷兒語言研究學者的關注，並且定義為一種以異性戀為標準的意識形態，將主流異性戀的性別觀念、情慾和性愛、生活模式等價值觀看成是正常、自然、且值得讚許的正統，也因此有許多研究藉此探討來揭露社會上對於生理性別（sex）、社會性別（gender）、以及性向（sexuality）的不平等對待（Warner 1993; Chamber 2003; Cameron & Kulick 2006；Motschenbacher & Stegu 2013）。然而大部分和異性戀常規性相關的語言學研究多以歐美文化為觀察重心，對於台灣男女同志交友場域的語篇鮮少著墨。除此之外，雖然質量化並重的研究方法可以提供酷兒語言學較全面的觀察角度，多數研究偏向純質性的篇章分析（Baker 2004; 2008; Milani 2013）。有鑑於此，本篇論文探討過往相關語言學研究較少談論的台灣文化圈，並綜合語料庫及批判話語的分析方法來觀察異性戀常規性。

研究結果顯示，在台灣男女同志交友語篇所使用的詞彙中，以四種語意分類的關鍵字使用最為頻繁：性/別身分、外表、興趣/活動、以及相處關係。而經由這些統計數據上顯著的關鍵詞搭配、索引等語料庫分析，本研究發現台灣男女同性戀者在網路交友的語境上不僅潛藏性/別的權力關係，而且形塑自我/喜好對象的語言和異性戀常規的價值觀有密切關聯。主要的分析結果有三項。第一點，性/別身分相關的關鍵詞和高頻詞彙具有二元搭配的特性，用以描寫在台灣男女同志圈內習慣採用的伴侶模式。從這些關鍵詞的使用情形上也可推論，在台灣男女同性戀者雙雙配對的關係上，有許多和主流異性戀交往關係相似之處，例如老公、老婆的互稱、性愛的掌控權、外表穿著的傾向、相處的分工方式、以及個性的對應。第二點，這些關鍵詞不僅在構詞、語意和搭配上產生二元對應，在網站使用者對於自我/理想對象的角色認定方面也有明顯的偏好配對關係，第三點，藉由對於「男」、「女」兩漢字的詞彙搭配以及各語意類型的關鍵詞分析，本研究發現在台灣男女同志交友場域的語言當中，傳統異性戀所規範的男性氣質和女性氣質扮演相當重要的角色。語料中的男同性戀者大多崇尚男子氣概並摒棄陰柔特質，而女同性戀者的趨向較為多元：資料顯示，許多女同性戀者偏好主流女人味並且排斥陽剛氣息，然而仍有不少人接受具有中性或陽剛特質的自我，抑或陽剛的他者。然而此流動在網路女同志圈的陽剛特質和T/P（婆）配對上有極顯著的關聯，造成許多自我認同為T的台灣女同志對於性別氣質感到焦慮，這也代表相較男同志而言性別展演較為多元的台灣女同志們，在網路交友的實際情況上卻不一定自由。

台灣交友網站的語言反映了台灣男女同志形塑自我和理想對象的多樣性。然而在大多數的情況下，帶有異性戀規範色彩的二元伴侶角色及男女性別氣質卻或多或少強化了性/別位階的影響力，並和同志運動人士所努力倡導的性/別平權相互牴觸。本篇論文發現，即便台灣男女同志努力爭取社會大眾對多元性別的尊重，其在網路交友的場域上仍受到異性戀常態化的影響，持續衝撞性/別展演自由的價值。

The present thesis aims to examine heteronormativity in the discourse collected from two same-sex dating websites popularized in Taiwan, Top1069 and 2Girl, in hope of analyzing how the heteronormative ideologies influence Taiwanese gays’ and lesbians’ linguistic construction of sexual desires, dating preferences, and forms of queer relationships. Meanwhile, a synergy between Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Corpus Linguistics (CL) is employed to investigate how Taiwanese gays and lesbians are heteronormatively portrayed on the two non-heterosexual online communities.

Heteronormativity has been the core concept heatedly investigated and discussed in Queer Linguistics (Motschenbacher & Stegu 2013). Defined as all the organizational patterns of thought, awareness, and belief around the presumption that heterosexuality is normal, natural, and desirable, heteronormativity is intensively analyzed with an aim of revealing problems on social inequality related to sex, gender, and sexuality (Warner 1993; Chamber 2003; Cameron & Kulick 2006). However, queer linguistic studies have long been culturally-biased because few data have been collected except the observation of queer language in Western societies. Moreover, most of the linguistic studies on heteronormativity are still conducted merely by qualitative textual analysis even if revealing ideologies in a discourse through the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods of linguistics has been advocated as a promising attempt (Baker 2004; 2008; Milani 2013) Thus, the present study not merely adds new empirical data from Taiwan to a body of scholarship that has thus far privileged Western-based discourses, but also analyzes the linguistically strengthened heteronormativity with the synergetic perspective of CDA and CL.

By scrutinizing four statistically salient groups of keywords in the corpora – IDENTITY-BASED ATTRIBUTES, APPEARANCE, INTEREST/ACTIVITY, and RELATIONSHIP, the results reveal that there are power relationships among, respectively, Taiwanese gays and lesbians who seek for love online, which are formed by heteronormative ideologies on body and gender in the scope of homosexuality. Firstly, the keywords in IDENTITY-BASED ATTRIBUTE contain a large number of binary roles which illustrate the conventionalized interactional modes for Taiwanese homosexual couples, which show great similarity to those in a heterosexual relationship, in terms of overt imitation of husband and wife, and several types of gender classification affected more or less by heteronormativity: dominance and submission in terms of sexual positions, appearance, the concept of protection and dependence, or in personality. Secondly, the salient mechanism of binary identity distinctions works not only in the semantic and concordant relations within the pairs of roles but also in the correlations between the descriptions of website users and their mate preferences. Thirdly, the nan/nü collocations and the keyword studies on APPEARANCE, INTEREST/ACTIVITY and IDENTITY-BASED ATTRIBUTES indicate that masculinity and femininity play a decisive role in mate matching but in different ways on Top1069 and 2Girl. While there are many cases indicating that Taiwanese gays and lesbians adore, respectively, heteronormative masculinity and femininity and reject queer features, some lesbians still embrace female masculinity in themselves or in other women. Nevertheless, the female masculinity on the website has been tightly connected with a relationship between a T and a P (or pó), making some lesbians who identify themselves as T feel anxious about whether or not their appearance, personalities, and behaviors fit in the norms on lesbian manliness in Taiwan.

The language in personal profiles reflects how Taiwanese gays and lesbians present themselves and expect their ideal mates diversely. In many cases, however, the strict conventions in pairing binary roles and privileging heteronormative masculinity/femininity may strengthen the influence of gender hierarchy and undermine the value of gender equality, which LGBTQIA activists have been endeavoring to advocate. While gays and lesbians in Taiwan have been striving to advocate the public respect of their sexual and gender identities, the problems which derive from heteronormative power relationships within the queer community are still waiting to be revealed and discussed; the majority on the dating websites still embrace heteronormative values at the expense of the freedom for a person to perform sexuality and gender.

Acknowledgement i
Abstract iii
摘要 v
List of Figures viii
List of Tables ix
Abbreviations and Transcription Conventions xi

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

Chapter 2 Literature Review 6
2.1 Sex, gender, sexuality 6
2.2 Heteronormativity 9
2.3 Queer and Queer linguistics 12
2.4 Queer linguistics on desire, identity, and online dating 14

Chapter 3 Data and Methodology 18

Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 22
4.1 A comparison between keywords of homosexuals and heterosexuals in online dating sites 22
4.2 Identity binarism and heteronormativity 27
4.2.1 Binary key terms of gays on Top1069 28
4.2.2 Binary key terms of lesbians on 2Girl 36
4.2.3 Summary 42
4.3 Pairing relations among binary identities and heteronormativity 44
4.3.1 The relation between yihao/linghao and ge/di 45
4.3.2 The pairing between yihao and linghao 49
4.3.3 The pairing between T and P 50
4.3.4 Summary 51
4.4 Masculinity, femininity, and heteronormativity 52
4.4.1 Gender performance of gays on Top1069 53
4.4.1.1 Collocation of nan 53
4.4.1.2 Masculinity in identity-based attributes 55
4.4.1.3 Masculinity in appearance 57
4.4.1.4 Masculinity in activities 60
4.4.1.5 Abjection of femininity 64
4.4.2 Gender performance of lesbians on 2Girl 66
4.4.2.1 Collocation of nü 66
4.4.2.2 Femininity in identity-based attributes and appearance 69
4.4.2.3 Female masculinity in identity-based attributes and appearance 73
4.4.3 Summary 78

Chapter 5 Conclusion 81
5.1. Recapitulation 81
5.2 Significance and contribution 85
5.3 Limitation and future studies 87

References 89
Appendix 94

English References
Association, A. P. (2012). Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. The American psychologist, 67(1), 10.
Atkinson, T. (1974). Amazon Odyssey. New York: Links Books.
Baker, P. (2003). No effeminates please: a corpus‐based analysis of masculinity via personal adverts in Gay News/Times 1973–2000. The Sociological Review, 51(1), 243-260.
Baker, P. (2004). Querying Keywords Questions of Difference, Frequency, and Sense in Keywords Analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 32(4), 346-359.
Baker, P. (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
Baker, P. (2008). Sexed texts: language, gender and sexuality. Sheffield: Equinox.
Bergling, T. (2001). Sissyphobia: Gay men and effeminate behavior. New York: Harrington Park
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Theorizing identity in language and sexuality research. Language in Society, 33(04), 469-515.
Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre journal, 40(4), 519-531.
Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2003). Language and sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2006). Heteronorms. In D. Cameron, D. Kulick (Eds.), The Language and Sexuality Reader (pp. 165-168). London: Routledge.
Chambers, S. A. (2003). Telepistemology of the closet; or, the queer politics of Six Feet Under. The Journal of American Culture, 26(1), 24-41.
Coates, J. (2013). The discursive production of everyday heterosexualities. Discourse & Society, 24(5), 536-552.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity rethinking the concept. Gender & society, 19(6), 829-859.
De Beauvoir, S. (1949). The Second Sex (H. Parshley, Trans.). London: Jonathan Cape.
Douglas, C. A. (1990). Love and politics: Radical feminist and lesbian theories. San Francisco: Ism Press.
Duggan, L. (2012). The twilight of equality?: Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack on democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Eguchi, S. (2011). Negotiating Sissyphobia: A Critical/Interpretive Analysis of One" Femme" Gay Asian Body in the Heteronormative World. The Journal of Men''s Studies, 19(1), 37-56.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., Hyams, N. (2011) An Introduction to Language. Australia: Wadsworth.
Gardiner, J. K. (2002). Introduction. In J. K. Gardiner (Ed.), Masculinity studies and feminist theory: New directions (pp. 1-29). New York: Columbia University Press.
Haig, D. (2004). The inexorable rise of gender and the decline of sex: Social change in academic titles, 1945–2001. Archives of sexual behavior, 33(2), 87-96.
Hall, S. (2001). The Spectacle of the Other. In S. Taylor, S. J. Yates, & M. Wetherell (Eds.), Discourse Theory and Practice (pp. 324-344). London: SAGE.
Halperin, D. M. (1995). Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haumann, G. (1995). Homosexuality, biology, and ideology. Journal of homosexuality, 28(1-2), 57-78.
Heasley, R. (2005). Queer Masculinities of Straight Men A Typology. Men and Masculinities, 7(3), 310-320.
Jacobs, A. (2014, October 29). For Asia‘s Gays, Taiwan Stands Out as Beacon. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
Jalas, K. (2005). Butch lesbians and desire. Women: A Cultural Review, 16(1), 52-72.
Jenkins, R. (2008). Social Identity. New York: Routledge.
Jordanova, L. J. (1989). Sexual visions: Images of gender in science and medicine between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Kimmel, S. B., & Mahalik, J. R. (2005). Body image concerns of gay men: the roles of minority stress and conformity to masculine norms. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 73(6), 1185-1190.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. J. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-variable dynamic process. Journal of homosexuality, 11(1-2), 35-49.
Koller, V. (2013). Constructing (non-) normative identities in written lesbian discourse: A diachronic study. Discourse & Society, 24(5), 572-589.
Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of Fear (Leon S. Roudiez, Trans.). New York: Colombia University Press.
Kulick, D. (2001). Queer Linguistics? In K. Campbell-Kibler, R. J. Podesva, S. J. Roberts, & A. Wong (Eds.), Language and Sexuality: Contesting Meaning in Theory and Practice (pp. 65-68). Standford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Landis, J. R. (1995). Sociology: Concepts and characteristics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Leap, W. L. (2013). Commentary II: Queering language and normativity. Discourse & Society, 24(5), 643-648.
Livia, A., & Hall, K. (1997). Queerly phrased: Language, gender, and sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Longacre, R. E. (1983). The Grammar of Discourse. New York: Plenum Press.
Louie, K., & Edwards, L. (1994). Chinese masculinity: Theorizing wen and wu. East Asian History, 8, 135-148.
Lovaas, K., & Jenkins, M. M. (2007). Sexualities & communication in everyday life : a reader. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.
McCreery, P. (1999). Beyond Gay: ''Deviant'' Sex and the Politics of the ENDA Workplace. Social Text, 17(4), 39-58.
McIlvenny, P. (2002). Talking gender and sexuality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mepschen, P., Duyvendak, J. W., & Tonkens E. H. (2010). Sexual politics, orientalism and multicultural citizenship in the Netherlands. Sociology, 44(5), 962-979.
Milani, T. M. (2013). Are ‘queers’ really ‘queer’? Language, identity and same-sex desire in a South African online community. Discourse & Society, 24(5), 1-19.
Milani, T. M. (2014). Queering Masculinities. In S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff, & J. Holmes (Eds.), The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality (pp. 260-278). Malden: Wiley Blackwell.
Money, J. (1955). Hermaphroditism, gender and precocity in hyperadrenocorticism: psychologic findings. Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, 96(6), 253-264.
Motschenbacher, H. (2009). Speaking the gendered body: The performative construction of commercial femininities and masculinities via body-part vocabulary. Language in Society, 38(1), 1-22.
Motschenbacher, H. (2011). Taking Queer Linguistics further: Sociolinguistics and critical heteronormativity research. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2011(212), 149-179.
Motschenbacher, H., & Stegu, M. (2013). Queer Linguistic approaches to discourse. Discourse & Society, 24(5), 519-535.
Myketiak, C. (2015). The co-construction of cybersex narratives. Discourse & Society, 26(4), 464-479.
Nguyen, A. (2008). Patriarchy, power, and female masculinity. Journal of homosexuality, 55(4), 665-683.
Phua, V. C. (2002). Sex and sexuality in men''s personal advertisements. Men and Masculinities, 5(2), 178-191.
Rifkin, L. (2002). The suit suits whom?: Lesbian gender, female masculinity and woman-in-suits. In M. Gibson & D. Meem (Eds.), Femme/butch: New considerations of the way we want to go (pp. 157-174). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Rose, J. (1985). Introduction-II. In J. Lacan (Ed.), Feminine Sexuality: Jacques Lacan and the ecole freudienne (pp. 27-57). New York: W. W. Norton.
Rosenlee, L. L. (2006) Confucianism and Women: a philosophical interpretation. New York: State University of New York Press.
Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: notes on the ''political economy'' of sex. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women (pp. 157-210). New York: Mothly Review Press.
Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex. In C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and Danger (pp. 267-319). Boston: Routledge.
Sedgwick, E. K. (1992). Epistemology of the Closet. New York: University of California Press.
Shiau, H. C. (2015). Lavender Mandarin in the sites of desire: Situating linguistic performances among Taiwanese gay men. Language & Communication, 42, 1-10.
Speer, S. A., Potter, J. (2002). From performatives to practices: Judith Butler, discursive psychology, and the management of heterosexist talk. In P. McIlvenny (Ed.), Talking gender and sexuality (pp. 151-180). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Storms, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(5), 783.
Tate, C. C. (2012). Considering Lesbian Identity from a Social–Psychological Perspective: Two Different Models of “Being a Lesbian”. Journal of lesbian studies, 16(1), 17-29.
Thorne, A. C., J. (1998). Articulations of Same‐sex Desire: Lesbian and Gay Male Dating Advertisements. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2(2), 233-257.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen : identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Udry, J. R. (1994). The nature of gender. Demography, 31(4), 561-573.
van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin. (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Walker, J. J., Golub, S. A., Bimbi, D. S., & Parsons, J. T. (2012). Butch bottom–femme top? an exploration of lesbian stereotypes. Journal of lesbian studies, 16(1), 90-107.
Warner, M. (1993). Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Weiss, J. T. (2001). The Gender Caste System: Identity, Privacy and Heteronormativity. Law & Sexuality, 123, 123-186.

Chinese References
力宏勳／Li, Hong-Xun（2014）。男同志的意象-台灣在地性的視野（碩士論文）。取自台灣博碩士論文系統。（系統編號102NCCU5100105）
王右君／Wang, Yiu-Jun（2009）。重訪網路上的身份展演：以同志論壇MOTSS為分析對象。新聞學研究，99，47-77。
吳佳原／Wu, Jia-Yuan（1998）。城市荒漠中的綠洲：台北男同志酒吧經驗分析（碩士論文）。取自台灣博碩士論文系統。（系統編號086NTU00225027）
邱偉淳／Qiu, Wei-Chun（2012）。男同志 App 交友的性別展演策略：霸權還是賦權？。中華傳播學會年會「跨域與轉型：變動時代中的傳播媒介與互動」，靜宜大學。
陳美華／Chen, Mei-Hua（1994）。從性別角色的觀點看女性參與運動。中華體育， 8(1)，17-23。
許瑩瑩／Xu, Ying-Ying（2010）。中華傳統女德的歷史建構與當代審觀。黑龍江史志，233，50-53。
黃道明／Huang, Dao-Ming（2012）。酷兒政治與台灣現代「性」。香港: 香港大學出版社。
楊美貞／Yang, Mei-Zhen（2003）。台灣地區女大學生性別角色與休閒運動之研究 （碩士論文）。取自台灣博碩士論文系統。（系統編號091MCU00571003）
趙彥寧／Zhao, Yen-Ning（2002）。性／別與國界。文化研究月報，12，取自http://www.cc.ncu.edu.tw/~csa/oldjournal/12/journal_park82.htm
蔡孟哲／Cai, Meng-Zhe（2009）。 躺在哥弟的衣櫃。載於何春蕤（主編），酷兒新聲（1-38頁）。中壢市：國立中央大學性/別研究室。
鄭美里／Zheng, Mei-Li（1997）。女兒圈－台灣女同志的性別、家庭與圈內生活。台北：女書文化。
謝文宜／Xie, Wen-Yi（2009）。衣櫃裡的親密關係：台灣同志伴侶關係研究。台北：心靈工坊。
蘇淑冠／Su, Shu-Guan（2009）。流動的性/別或僵化的分界？：西門 T，西門婆的性/別認同展現。載於何春蕤（主編），酷兒新聲（39-77頁）。中壢市：國立中央大學性/別研究室。