Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/134880| 題名: | 我們與書寫的距離：探索新舊書寫媒介科技的身體感 What is Called Writing? Investigating the Felt Sense of Traditional and Digital Writing Technologies |
作者: | 林熙堯 Lin, Hsi-Yao |
貢獻者: | 方念萱 Fang, Nien-Hsuan 林熙堯 Lin, Hsi-Yao |
關鍵詞: | 書寫科技 物質性 後現象學 交互關係存有論 身體感 體現認知 自我民族誌 召喚敘事 Writing technologies Materiality Postphenomenology Interrelational ontology Felt sense Embodied cognition Autoethnography Evocative narrative |
日期: | 2021 | 上傳時間: | 3-五月-2021 | 摘要: | 書寫是現代人主要溝通方式之一。長久以來，主流傳播媒介研究向來視書寫為文本內容，鮮少關注書寫科技物與使用者的緊密關係。此外，書寫科技物也普遍遭視作純粹工具，忽視書寫科技物與人類身體感知在書寫時的連動關係。\n\n 循此動機，本研究前半部分回顧書寫的原始定義，發現相關文獻多以工具觀點判定書寫科技之優劣，陷入科技與社會的分立觀點，並且忽略書寫過程與不同情境之間的緊密關係。是故，本研究引介美國科技哲學家Don Ihde的後現象學（postphenomenology）與國內人類學者余舜德等人提出的身體感理論，嘗試打造一個後現象學的身體感研究取徑。透過此觀點，探究書寫的身體感如何浮現於身心處於特定情境、周遭環境之中與不同書寫媒介科技物的互動過程。後半部分則根據該理論框架，採用自我民族誌書寫描述、反思研究者日常生活經驗裡身處三種書寫情境之中的身體感變化。\n\n 經由分析，本研究主張人的身心與新舊書寫媒介科技處於不同情境的交互關係具有歷時共同演化之特性。而身體感是身體技術、多重物質條件處於特定情境與周遭環境之中共同交互作用的結晶。它是時時處於轉變且瞬間難以捕捉、一旦聚焦才趨於穩定的感知流動。換言之，身體感、身體技術與書寫媒介科技具備的物質條件也有共變關係。此立論凸顯人與不同科技物之間存在更為深邃且持續浮動的權力關係，即人創造物，物不只影響人，而是進一步促使人之生成。 The analysis of writing has been mostly concerned with text and content in media and communication studies. Little thoughts have been given to the coordination between users and their writing tools. On the one hand, writing technologies are always regarded as purely pragmatic tools; on the other hand, the actions and feelings of using writing technologies had long been ignored.\n\nThis thesis tries to combine postphenomenology and the felt sense theory to construct an integrated theoretical structure, by which we can analyze how the felt sense emerges from the interrelation between human’s actions and technological artifacts in the specific environment and explore the dynamic interrelational networks between human’s perception, writing technologies, specific situations, and the surroundings. Based on this framework, the second half of the thesis uses autoethnography to describe and reflect on the researcher’s felt sense changes in the three daily writing situations.\n\nAccording to the analysis of the three situations, this thesis argues that the interrelation between humans’ body and mind, traditional and digital writing technologies within different situations has the characteristic of diachronic co-evolution. The felt sense is the intersection of the interaction of body techniques and technological artifacts within the specific situation and the environment. It is the perceptual flow that is constantly changing and difficult to capture in an instant. That is to say, the felt sense and the materiality of writing technologies have a covariant relationship. This argument highlights the deeper and continuously floating power relation between humans and technological artifacts; that is, “people make things, and we are also made by things” (Ihde & Malafouris, 2019). |
參考文獻: | Decode（2020年8月14日）。〈GPT-3走紅背後，AI正變成普通人玩不起的遊戲〉。取自「品玩」https://www.pingwest.com/a/215897\nMuzik Air編輯部（2016年3月2日）。〈精工細作 半速黑膠唱片挑戰發燒界〉。取自「Muzik Air」https://read.muzikair.com/tw/articles/8c189564-da04-4bc3-a82e-f3b86335affb\n丁亮（2009）。〈《老子》文本中的修身與無名〉，《臺灣人類學刊》，7(2): 107-146。http://dx.doi.org/10.7115%2fTJA.200912.0107\n丁亮（2011）。〈從身體感論中國古代君子之「威」〉，《考古人類學刊》，74: 89-118。http://dx.doi.org/10.6152%2fjaa.2011.06.0004\n丁亮（2015）。〈中國古文字中的身體感〉，余舜德（編）《身體感的轉向》，頁261-291。臺北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。\n于成（2016年6月）。〈「媒介是人的延伸」再思考：技術現象學的視角〉，「2016中華傳播學會年會」，嘉義縣民雄。\n于成（2019）。〈看指不看月：《留聲機、電影、打字機》方法論線索〉。《傳播研究與實踐》，9(2): 229-242。\n王年愷譯（2012/2019）。《網路讓我們變笨？數位科技正在改變我們的大腦、思考與閱讀行為》，臺北：貓頭鷹。（原書Carr, N. [2010]. The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. New York, NY: Brockman.）\n王定卿（2001）。《電腦寫作造成之疏離現象初探》。中正大學電訊傳播研究所碩士論文。\n王建設（2007）。〈「技術決定論」與「社會建構論」：從分立到耦合〉，《自然辯證法研究》，23(5): 61-64, 69。 https://doi.org/10.19484/j.cnki.1000-8934.2007.05.015\n王炳文譯（2001）。《歐洲科學的危機與超越論的現象學》。北京：商務印書館。（原書Husserl, E. [1954/1976]. Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie: Eine Einleitung in die phänomenologische Philosophie. Berlin, Germany: Kluwer.）\n全通翻譯社譯（2016）。《好音樂的科學：破解基礎樂理和美妙旋律的音階秘密》。臺北：大寫。（原書Powell, J. [2010]. How music works: The science and psychology of beautiful sounds, from Beethoven to the Beatles and beyond. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.）\n朱宥勳（2019年9月18日）。〈蘋中信：拒絕打字的教育世代〉，《蘋果日報》。上網日期：2020年4月29日，取自https://tw.appledaily.com/highlight/20190917/RWMBS7N2XK3XFBCCV7BZTL2CXI/\n江淑琳（2016）。〈探索數位即時新聞生產之物質性的可能研究取徑〉，《傳播、文化與政治》，4: 27-54。\n江灝譯（2014）。《符號帝國》。臺北：麥田。（原書Barthes, R. [1970/2005]. L’empire des signes. Paris, France: Éditions du Seuil.）\n何昭群譯（2011）。《社會科學哲學：邁向實用主義》。臺北：群學。（原書Baert, P. [2005]. Philosophy of the social sciences: Towards pragmatism. Cambridge, UK: Polity.）\n何粵東（2005）。〈敘說研究方法論初探〉，《應用心理研究》，25: 55-72。\n何粵東（2010）。《課程想像的自我民族誌：課程研究與實踐的自我經驗反思》。中正大學課程研究所博士論文。\n余培瑋（2016）。《比較手寫筆記與打字筆記對回憶表現的影響》。東華大學諮商與臨床心理學系碩士論文。\n余舜德（2006）。〈物與身體感的歷史：一個研究取向之探索〉，《思與言》，44(1): 5-47。\n余舜德（2008a）。〈從田野經驗到身體感的研究〉，余舜德（編）《體物入微：物與身體感的研究》，頁1-44。新竹：國立清華大學出版社。\n余舜德（2008b）。〈市場、價值建構與普洱茶交易中的陳韻〉，余舜德（編）《體物入微：物與身體感的研究》，頁355-403。新竹：國立清華大學出版社。\n余舜德（2009）。〈身體修練與文化學習：以學茶為例〉，《臺灣人類學刊》，7(2): 49-86。https://doi.org/10.6431/TWJHSS.200603.0005\n余舜德（2011）。〈身體感與雲南藏族居家生活的日常現代性〉，《考古人類學刊》，74: 169-202。http://dx.doi.org/10.6152%2fjaa.2011.06.0006\n余舜德（2015）。〈身體感：一個理論取向的探索〉，余舜德（編）《身體感的轉向》，頁1-36。臺北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。\n余舜德（2018）。〈「清香風味」作為研究主題：李亦園院士致力督促之身體感的研究取徑〉，《臺灣人類學刊》，16(2): 123-156。\n余德慧（2004）。〈序：現象學入門〉，李維倫（譯）《現象學十四講》，頁5-7。臺北：心靈工坊。\n吳忠信（2005）。〈蝙蝠的回聲定位〉，《科學教育月刊》，276: 11-15。\n宋文里（2015）。〈敘說方法論的再反思（一）：如果在雨天一個客人／敘說方法論的再反思（二）：敘事、意識與事事之法〉，《生命敘說與心理傳記學》，3: 1-24。\n宋偉航譯（2015）。《數位麥克魯漢》。臺北：貓頭鷹。（原書Levinson, P. [1999]. Digital McLuhan: A guide to the information millennium. New York, NY: Routledge.）\n宋灝（2015）。〈華語思維與文字動勢〉，《漢學研究》，33(2): 103-132。\n李尚仁（2008）。〈腐物與骯髒感：十九世紀西方人對中國環境的體驗〉，余舜德（編）《體物入微：物與身體感的研究》，頁45-82。新竹：國立清華大學出版社。\n李岳霞（2015年3月）。〈芬蘭取消草寫課，改教打字〉。取自「翻轉教育」https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/1763\n李秉樞（2020）。《畫符》。臺北：九歌。\n李姿慧（2017年3月28日）。〈手寫有溫度 方文山：手寫的比電腦打字有感情〉。上網日期：2021年4月6日，取自「蘋果新聞網」https://tw.appledaily.com/life/20170328/YHV52GOQC2HBRJLBGHMA3QJ4G4/\n李維倫譯（2004）。《現象學十四講》。臺北：心靈工坊。（原書Sokolowski, R. [2000]. Introduction to phenomenology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.）\n周佳欣譯（2017）。《老派科技的逆襲：黑膠、底片、筆記本如何面對數位狂潮還能屹立不搖》。臺北：行人。（原書Sax, D. [2016]. The revenge of analog: Real things and why they matter. New York, NY: Hachette.）\n周國正（1994）。〈漢字結構及其表意方式探究〉，《中國文化研究所學報》，34: 113-143。\n屈博洋（2019）。《「腐」蝕大眾文化：對「妄想」發生機制的初探》。政治大學傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程論文。\n林宗德譯（2007）。《科學與技術研究導論》。臺北：群學。（原書Sismondo, S. [2004]. An introduction to science and technology studies. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.）\n林淑蓉（2008）。〈食物、味覺與身體感：感知中國侗人的社會世界〉，余舜德（編）《體物入微：物與身體感的研究》，頁275-319。新竹：國立清華大學出版社。\n林翠儀（2016年12月2日）。〈日本自由行》日本年銷1億本的「手帳」〉。上網日期：2021年4月6日，取自「自由評論網」https://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/breakingnews/1905297\n阿潑（2013）。《憂鬱的邊界：一個菜鳥人類學家的行與思》。新北：八旗。\n侯吉諒（2011）。《如何寫書法：觀念心法與技術工具》。新北：木馬。\n柯裕棻（2012）。《浮生草》。新北：印刻。\n洪與成（2016年5月18日）。〈政大廣告系學生「以字寫身」 用筆尖傾聽他人心事〉。上網日期：2021年4月6日，取自「政大大學報」https://unews.nccu.edu.tw/unews/政大廣告系學生「以字寫身」-用筆尖傾聽他人心事/\n計海慶（2015）。〈後現象學思想解惑——唐・伊德技術哲學的實用主義與解釋學維度〉，《長沙理工大學學報（社會科學版）》，30(3): 27-32。\n唐士哲（2017）。〈作為文化技術的媒介：基德勒的媒介理論初探〉，《傳播研究與實踐》，7(2): 5-32。https://doi.org/10.6123/JCRP.2017.013\n孫周興譯（2018）。《瞧，這個人：人如何成其所是》。新北：大家。（原書Nietzsche, F. W. [1908/1988]. Ecce Homo: Wie man wird, was man ist. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.）\n徐湘芸、阮怡婷（2016年4月）。〈字成一格－CY ╳林熙堯〉，《政大學聲》，15: 18-27。\n尉遲秀譯（2010）。《別想擺脫書》。臺北：皇冠。（原書Eco, U., Carrière, J.-C., & Tonnac, J.-P. D. [2009]. N’esperez pas vous debarrasser des livres. Italy: Grasset & Fasquelle）\n崔綵珊（2020年5月11日）。〈母性的柔軟與堅韌：纏繞-武玉玲個展〉。取自「典藏ARTouch」https://artouch.com/views/exhibition/content-12573.html\n張可（2017年2月6日）。〈黑膠唱片的逆襲〉，《端傳媒》。取自https://theinitium.com/article/20170205-dailynews-vinyl/\n張君玫譯（2010）。《猿猴、賽伯格和女人：重新發明自然》。臺北：群學。（原書Haraway, D. J. [1991]. Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge.）\n張珣（2008）。〈馨香禱祝：香氣的儀式力量〉，余舜德（編）《體物入微：物與身體感的研究》，頁205-239。新竹：國立清華大學出版社。\n張珣（2015）。〈物與身體感理論：以香為例〉，余舜德（編）《身體感的轉向》，頁63-101。臺北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。\n張曼娟（2017）。《當我提筆寫下你：你就來到我面前》。臺北：麥田。\n張維中（2016年12月28日）。〈張維中：新年到了，日本的手帳文化為何持久不衰？〉，《端傳媒》。取自https://theinitium.com/article/20161228-city-column-tokyostory-notebooks/\n張瓊方（2016年5月）。〈3C年代 寫字靜心〉，《臺灣光華雜誌》。上網日期：2021年4月6日，取自\nhttps://www.taiwan-panorama.com/Articles/Details?Guid=7827e76b-4500-4727-bccb-f3418034e891&CatId=8\n《教育部重編國語辭典修訂本》（2015）。取自http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?o=dcbdic&searchid=Z00000133217\n曹家榮（2013）。〈理解技術實作：現象學取徑初探〉，《社會分析》，7: 1-43。\n曹家榮（2016）。〈混雜主體：科技哲學中的「後人類」〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》，57: 47-93。https://doi.org/10.6523/168451532016060057002\n曹繼東（2010）。〈唐・伊德的後現象學研究〉，《哲學動態》，6: 104-110。\n畢恆達（2019年9月21日）。〈〔生活筆記〕〉。【臉書動態更新】。取自https://www.facebook.com/hdbih/posts/2739517762738978\n畢恆達（2020）。《教授為什麼沒告訴我：2020進化版》。新北：小畢空間。\n章晉唯譯（2015）。《古騰堡的學徒》。臺北：寂寞。（原書Christie, A. [2014]. Gutenberg’s apprentice: A novel. New York, NY: Harper.）\n莊安華（2016年5月）。〈書寫的溫度〉，《康健雜誌》，210: 194-196。\n許小麗（2008）。〈脈，視覺到聽覺再到觸覺診查：運用「身體感」對漢代早期醫學手稿的新解讀〉，余舜德（編）《體物入微：物與身體感的研究》，頁135-164。新竹：國立清華大學出版社。\n郭文華（2008）。〈標準鍵盤：在科技與社會中擺盪的人間尺度〉，《科學月刊》，39(1): 32-37。\n郭文華（2015a）。〈解開鍵盤的身世密碼（上）：QWERTY與大易輸入的社會史〉。取自「歷史學柑仔店」https://kamatiam.org/解開鍵盤的身世密碼上/\n郭文華（2015b）。〈解開鍵盤的身世密碼（下）：倉頡與注音輸入的文化史〉。取自「歷史學柑仔店」https://kamatiam.org/解開鍵盤的身世密碼下/\n郭奇正（2008）。〈衛生、城市現代基礎建設與商品化過程中的身體經驗——上海里弄住宅的社會形構〉，余舜德（編）《體物入微：物與身體感的研究》，頁83-133。新竹：國立清華大學出版社。\n郭揚義（2019）。〈文獻遺產如何作為文化記憶：以身體感連結臺灣與世界之「居延漢簡」、「卑爾根漢生病檔案」及「波羅的海之路活動紀錄」的初探性研究〉，王志宇、李建緯（編）《文獻・文物的詮釋與歷史記憶》，頁325-354。臺中：逢甲大學歷史文物所。\n陳元朋（2008）。〈追求飲食之清——以《山家清供》為主體的個案觀察〉，余舜德（編）《體物入微：物與身體感的研究》，頁321-353。新竹：國立清華大學出版社。\n陳玉箴譯（2003）。《媒介概念十六講》。新北：韋伯文化。（原書Silverstone, R. [1999]. Why study the media? London, UK: SAGE.）\n陳廷彥、林冠廷、林昱帆（2017年6月13日）。〈自願被微軟綁架的台灣政府〉，《報導者》。取自https://www.twreporter.org/a/software-microsoft-tw-government\n陳京軍、許磊、程曉榮、劉華山（2016）。〈兒童漢字練習：紙筆手寫與鍵盤拼音輸入的效果比較〉，《心理學報》，48(10): 1258-1269。\n陳宛予（2018年12月19日）。〈機器難以取代 手寫美感的溫度〉，《臺北畫刊》，611。上網日期：2020年4月29日，取自「聯合新聞網」https://udn.com/news/story/6961/3543810\n陳岳辰譯（2021）。《忘了自己是動物的人類：重思生命起源的歷史與身而為人的意義》。臺北：商周。（原書Challenger, M. [2021]. How to be animal: A new history of what it means to be human. Edinburgh, UK: Canongate.）\n陳恒安（2009）。〈分類版總導讀，也是乖乖版總導讀〉，陳恒安、郭文華、林宜平編《科技渴望參與》，頁xii-xvi。臺北：群學。\n陳雅馨譯（2017）。《意識究竟從何而來？——從神經科學看人類心智與自我的演化》（改版）。臺北：商周。（原書Damasio, A. [2010]. Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. New York, NY: Pantheon.）\n陳瑞麟（2011）。〈英美哲學、STS、科技與社會〉，《人文與社會科學簡訊》，12(4): 13-24。\n陳鼓應（2005）。《尼采新論：修訂版》。臺北：臺灣商務。\n麥麗敏、陳智潔、廖美華、鍾麗琴、陳建瑋、祁業榮等編（2015）。《解剖生理學》（二版）。臺北，華杏。\n傅大為（2019）。《STS的緣起與多重建構：橫看近代科學的一種編織與打造》。臺北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。\n賀景濱（2020）。《我們幹過的蠢事》。臺北：春山。\n黃順星（2017）。〈媒介史的末世預言：基德勒與麥克魯漢論媒介技術〉，《傳播研究與實踐》，7(2): 63-92。https://doi.org/10.6123/JCRP.2017.015\n黃楷君譯（2018）。《手寫時代：從寫字到打字，一部五千年的人類書寫文明史及未來》。臺北：商周。（原書Trubek, A. [2016]. The history and uncertain future of handwriting. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.）\n黃韻文（2016年3月5日）。〈手寫風潮起 練字書增8倍〉。上網日期：2020年4月29日，取自「蘋果新聞網」https://tw.lifestyle.appledaily.com/daily/20160305/37094094/\n黃麗群（2019）。《我與貍奴不出門》。臺北：時報。\n黃馨弘譯（2018）。《大腦的悖論：一個神經心理學家眼中的老化大腦》。新北：八旗。（原書Goldberg, E. [2006]. The wisdom paradox: How your mind can grow stronger as your brain grows older. New York, NY: Avery.）\n福澤喬（2019年12月25日）。〈鋼筆手寫心靈雞湯上傳IG，粉絲好愛！拯救日本文具產業的神秘女子，是誰？〉，《商業週刊》。取自https://www.businessweekly.com.tw/international/blog/3001379\n臧國仁、蔡琰（2012）。《老人傳播：理論、研究與教學實例》。臺北：五南。\n劉昌德（2020）。〈新聞機器人為誰「勞動」？自動化新聞學引入新聞產製的影響及論述〉，《中華傳播學刊》，37: 147-186。http://doi.org/10.3966/172635812020060037005\n劉政偉（2016年8月24日）。〈寫字的力量 醞釀療癒商機〉，《中央社》。上網日期：2021年4月6日，取自「臺灣英文新聞」https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/ch/news/2970399\n劉紹華（2019）。《人類學活在我的眼睛與血管裡——從柬埔寨到中國，從「這裡」到「那裡」，一位人類學者的生命移動紀事》。臺北：春山。\n潘健文（2015年12月22日）。〈手機時代，你為什麼就是想買筆記簿！〉，《端傳媒》。取自https://theinitium.com/article/20151222-culture-feature-stationery/\n蔡怡佳（2008）。〈恩典的滋味：由「芭比的盛宴」談食物與體悟〉，余舜德（編）《體物入微：物與身體感的研究》，頁241-273。新竹：國立清華大學出版社。\n蔡璧名（2008）。〈疾病場域與知覺現象：《傷寒論》中「煩」證的身體感〉，余舜德（編）《體物入微：物與身體感的研究》，頁165-203。新竹：國立清華大學出版社。\n蔡璧名（2015）。〈當莊子遇見Tal Ben-Shahar：莊子的快樂學程——兼論情境、情緒與身體感的關係〉，余舜德（編）《身體感的轉向》，頁213-259。臺北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。\n衛生福利部疾病管制署（2020年4月27日）。〈嚴重特殊傳染性肺炎：疾病介紹〉。上網日期：2020年6月13日，取自https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/Page/vleOMKqwuEbIMgqaTeXG8A\n鄭煥昇譯（2015）。《誰把橡皮擦戴在鉛筆的頭上？——文具們的百年演化史》。臺北：時報。（原書Ward, J. [2014]. Adventures in stationery: A journey through your pencil case. London, UK: Profile Books.）\n盧瑛婷（2016年7月13日）。〈鍵盤世代，你還能好好手寫一個字嗎？〉，《端傳媒》。取自https://theinitium.com/article/20160713-city-hobbies-hk-western-calligraphy/\n蕭秀姍譯（2018）。《事物的奇怪順序：神經科學大師剖析生命源起、感覺與文化對人類心智發展的影響》。臺北：商周。（原書Damasio, A. [2017]. The strange order of things: Life, feeling, and the making of cultures. New York, NY: Pantheon.）\n賴怡潔（2012）。《書寫、經驗與身體感——以當代飲食書寫為考察核心》。政治大學新聞學系碩士論文。\n賴盈滿譯（2008）。《古騰堡星系：活版印刷人的造成》。臺北：貓頭鷹。（原書McLuhan, M. [1962]. The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto.）\n鍾蔚文（2005）。〈玩物之中見創意：以傳播工具為例〉，《淡江人文社會學刊：五十五週年校慶特刊》：1-16。\n鍾蔚文（2008）。〈體物入微，漸窺堂奧〉，余舜德（編）《體物入微：物與身體感的研究》，頁431-441。新竹：國立清華大學出版社。\n鍾蔚文（2015）。〈從行動到技能：邁向身體感〉，余舜德（編）《身體感的轉向》，頁37-61。臺北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。\n鍾蔚文、陳百齡（2012）。《身體感的前世今生：從親身互動到數位中介活動》。（科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告，NSC 97-2410-H-004-056-MY3）。臺北：政治大學新聞學系。\n鍾蔚文、陳百齡、陳順孝、江靜之（2014）。《傳播工具中的心智》。（科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告，NSC 100-2410-H-004-157-MY2）。臺北：政治大學新聞學系。\n鍾蔚文、陳百齡、陳順孝、江靜之（2017）。《探討實務智能之內涵：尋找新聞工作的專家》。（科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告，MOST 103-2410-H-004-199-MY2）。臺北：政治大學新聞學系。\n簡美玲（2015）。〈人類學與民族誌書寫裡的情緒、情感與身體感〉，余舜德（編）《身體感的轉向》，頁129-163。臺北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。\n顏學誠（2008）。〈專家、物性、身體感：茶葉比賽中的社會秩序〉，余舜德（編）《體物入微：物與身體感的研究》，頁405-429。新竹：國立清華大學出版社。\n顏學誠（2015）。〈酸的輪廓：變化中的身體感〉，《考古人類學刊》，82: 157-184。https://doi.org/10.6152/jaa.2015.06.0006\n蘇絢慧（2016年5月9日）。〈寫字的心靈力量〉。上網日期：2021年4月6日，取自「聯合元氣網」https://health.udn.com/health/story/6006/1679877\n龔卓軍（2006a）。〈身體感與時間性：以梅洛龐蒂解讀柏格森為線索〉，《思與言》，44(1): 49-100。http://dx.doi.org/10.6431%2fTWJHSS.200603.0049\n龔卓軍（2006b）。〈身體感：胡塞爾對身體的形構分析〉，《應用心理研究》，29: 157-181。\n宮川朋之（製作人）（2019年10月12日）。《日韓から「家族」を描く 是枝裕和✕ポン・ジュノ》【電視節目】。日本東京：日本映画放送株式会社。\nAagaard, J. (2017). Introducing postphenomenological research: A brief and selective sketch of phenomenological research methods. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(6), 519-533. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1263884\nAbid, A., Farooqi, M., & Zou, J. (2021). Persistent anti-Muslim bias in large language models. ArXiv. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.05783\nAdams, T. E., H. Jones, S., & Ellis, C. (2015). Autoethnography. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.\nAragón-Mendizábal, E., Delgado-Casas, C., Navarro-Guzmán, J., Menacho-Jiménez, I. & Romero-Oliva, M. (2016). A comparative study of handwriting and computer typing in note-taking by university students. Comunicar, 48, 101-107. https://doi.org/10.3916/C48-2016-10\nBalbi, G. (2015). Old and new media: Theorizing their relationships in media historiography. In S. Kinnebrock, C. Schwarzenegger, & T. Birkner (Eds.), Theorien des Medienwandels (pp. 231-249). Kolin, Germany: Halem.\nBalbi, G., & Magaudda, P. (2018). A history of digital media: An intermedia and global perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.\nBaudrillard, J. (1981/1983). Simulations. (P. Foss, P. Patton, & P. Beitchman, Trans.). New York, NY: Semiotext(e).\nBerninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Augsburger, A., & Garcia, N. (2009). Comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes in children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(3), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.2307/27740364\nBijker, W. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelite, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.\nBlair, D. (2015, February 5). Finland to teach typing rather than handwriting in schools. The Telegraph. Retrieved April 6, 2021, from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/finland/11391999/Finland-to-teach-typing-rather-than-handwriting-in-schools.html\nBochner, A. P., & Ellis, C. (2016). Evocative autoethnography: Writing lives and telling stories. New York, NY: Routledge.\nBoczkowski, P., & Lievrouw, L. (2009). Bridging STS and communication studies: Scholarship on media and information technologies. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lunch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed.) (pp. 949-977). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.\nBolter, J. D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.\nBolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, UK: The MIT Press.\nBouchy, K. (2018). Contemporary western calligraphy: Written marks as visible rhythms. In C. M. Johannessen & T. van Leeuwen (Eds.), The materiality of writing: A trace-making perspective (pp. 138-153). New York, NY: Routledge.\nBourdieu, P. (1972/1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\nBrandell, J. R., & Varkas, T. (2001). Narrative case studies. In B. A. Thyer (Ed.), The handbook of social work research methods (pp. 294-307). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.\nCambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved December 27, 2020, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/writing\nChan, M. (2020). Digital reality: The body and digital technologies. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.\nChandler, D. (1995). The act of writing: A media theory approach. Aberystwyth, UK: Prifysgol Cymru.\nChang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.\nChang, H. (2016). Autoethnography in health research: Growing pains? Qualitative Health Research, 26(4), 443-451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315627432\nChao, C. F. (2009). “Dynamic embodiment”: The transformation and progression of cultural beings through dancing. Taiwan Journal of Anthropology, 7(2), 5-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.7115%2fTJA.200912.0013\nChemin, A. (2014, December 16). Handwriting vs typing: is the pen still mightier than the keyboard? The Guardian. Retrieved April 6, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/16/cognitive-benefits-handwriting-decline-typing\nCheung, Y. L. (2016). A comparative study of paper-and-pen versus computer-delivered assessment modes on students’ writing quality: a Singapore study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0229-2\nChien, M. L. (2009). Cultivating the ethnographer’s ear. Taiwan Journal of Anthropology, 7(2), 87-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.7115%2fTJA.200912.0087\nChung, W. W. (2020). Words for the wordless: The tension between science and experience. In S. Daboos (Ed.), From science to beliefs: Between practices and theory (pp. 93-102). Strasbourg, France: Editions de L’Ill.\nClark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action & cognitive extension. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.\nClynes, M. E., & Kline, N. S. (1960, September). Cyborgs and space. Astronautics, 26-27 & 74-76.\nConnelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 479-492. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X116768\nConnerton, P. (1989). How societies remember. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\nCoole, D., & Frost, S. (Eds.). (2010). New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.\nCouldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge, UK: Polity.\nCowart, M. (2014). Andy Clark, Antonio Damasio and embodied cognition. In A. Bailey (Ed.), Philosophy of mind: The key thinkers (pp. 259-281). London, UK: Bloomsbury.\nCowart, M. (n.d.). Embodied cognition. In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved August 5, 2020, from https://iep.utm.edu/embodcog/\nCsikzentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper and Row.\nDahlström, H., & Boström, L. (2017). Pros and cons: Handwriting versus digital writing. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 12(4), 143-161. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN.1891-943X-2017-04-04\nDenzin, N. (2006). Analytic autoethnography, or déjà vu all over again. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 419-428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241606286985\nDerrida, J. (2005). Paper Machine (R. Bowlby, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.\nDoughty, D. (2003). Materiality is the message. Postmodern Culture, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1353/pmc.2003.0035\nEberwein, D., & Avnskog, S. (2006). The most famous of Rasmus Malling-Hansen`s inventions: The writing ball. The International Rasmus Malling-Hansen Society. Retrieved from http://www.malling-hansen.org/the-writing-ball.html\nEllis, C. S., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 733-768). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.\nEllis, C. S., & Bochner, A. P. (2006). Analyzing analytic autoethnography: An autopsy. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 429-449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241606286979\nEllul, J. (1954/1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage.\nEuropean Cooperation in Science and Technology. (2011). Memorandum of understanding for the implementation of a European concerted research action designated as COST Action FP1104: New possibilities for print media and packaging – combining print with digital. Retrieved from https://e-services.cost.eu/files/domain_files/FPS/Action_FP1104/mou/FP1104-e.pdf\nFarinosi, M., Lim, C., & Roll, J. (2016). Book or screen, pen or keyboard? A cross-cultural sociological analysis of writing and reading habits basing on Germany, Italy and the UK. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 410-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.09.006\nFeng, L., Lindner, A., Ji, X. R., & Joshi, R. M. (2019). The roles of handwriting and keyboarding in writing: a meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 32, 33-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9749-x\nFlores Morador, F. (2014). Postphenomenology vs postpositivism: Don Ihde vs Bruno Latour. SSRN. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2526672\nFortunati, L., & Vincent, J. (2014). Sociological insights on the comparison of writing/reading on paper with writing/reading digitally. Telematics and Informatics, 31(1), 39-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.02.005\nFortunati, L., Taipale, S., & de Luca, F. (2019). Digital generations, but not as we know them. Convergence, 25(1), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F1354856517692309\nFriedman, Z. (2020, May 8). Work from home for rest of year? Some tech companies say “yes.” Forbes. Retrieved May 10, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2020/05/08/google-facebook-amazon-work-home/#a54b542eaea1\nFuller, M. (2008). Introduction. In M. Fuller (Ed.), Software studies: A lexicon (pp. 1-13). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.\nGabrial, B. (2008). History of writing technologies. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 27-39). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.\nGane, N, & Hansen-Magnusson, H. (2006). Book review: Materiality is the message? Theory, Culture & Society, 23(7-8), 315-323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276406075080\nGeuss, R. (2010). Heidegger and his brother. In Politics and imagination (pp. 142-150). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.\nGibson, J. J. (1979/2015). The ecological approach to visual perception (Classic ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.\nGleick, J. (2011). The information: A history, a theory, a flood. New York, NY: Pantheon.\nGoody, J. (1993). The culture of flowers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\nGPT-3. (2020, September 8). A robot wrote this entire article. Are you scared yet, human? The Guardian. Retrieved January 5, 2021 from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/08/robot-wrote-this-article-gpt-3\nGuzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: A Human-Machine Communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 70-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691\nHaas, C. (1989a). Does the medium make a difference? Two studies of writing with pen and paper and with computers. Human-Computer Interaction, 4(2), 149-169.\nHaas, C. (1989b). How the writing medium shapes the writing process: Effects of word processing on planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(2), 181-207.\nHaas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. New York, NY: Routledge.\nHaas, C. (1999). On the relationship between old and new technologies. Computers and Composition, 16(2), 209-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(99)00003-1\nHaas, C., & Witte, S. P. (2001). Writing as an embodied practice: the case of engineering standards. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(4), 413-457. https://doi.org/10.1177/105065190101500402\nHall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (pp. 15-74). London, UK: SAGE & Open University Press.\nHassenzahl, M. (2013). Experiences before things: A primer for the (yet) unconvinced. In W. E. Mackay (Ed.), CHI `13 Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2059-2068). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468724\nHayles, N. K. (2002). Writing Machines. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.\nHayles, N. K. (2017). Unthought: The power of the cognitive nonconscious. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.\nHeidegger, M. (1927/1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.\nHeidegger, M. (1954/1968). What is called thinking? (J. G. Gray, Trans.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.\nHeidegger, M. (1954/1977). The question concerning technology and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.\nHeidegger, M. (1982/1992). Parmenides (A. Schuwer & R. Rojcewicz, Trans.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.\nHepp, A. (2020). Deep mediatization. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.\nHerzogenrath, B. (2015). Media matter: an introduction. In B. Herzogenrath (Ed.), Media matter: The materiality of media, matter as medium (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.\nHosie, E. (2017, November 9). The uncertain future of handwriting. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved April 6, 2021, from https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20171108-the-uncertain-future-of-handwriting\nHowes, D. (2003). Sensual relations: Engaging the senses in culture and social theory. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.\nHowes, D. (Ed.). (2009). The sixth sense reader. New York & London, UK: Routledge.\nHuhtamo, E., & Parikka, J. (2011). Introduction: An archaeology of media archaeology. In E. Huhtamo & J. Parikka (Eds.), Media archaeology: Approaches, applications, and implications (pp.1-21). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.\n\nHutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/S0038038501000219\nIhde, D. (1977/1986). Experimental phenomenology: An introduction. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.\nIhde, D. (1979). Technics and praxis: A philosophy of technology. Boston, MA: D. Reidel.\nIhde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.\nIhde, D. (1993a). Technology and cross-cultural perception. In P. Blosser, E. Shimomissé, L. Embree, & H. Kojima (Eds.), Japanese and western phenomenology (pp. 221-233). Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.\nIhde, D. (1993b). Postphenomenology: Essays in the postmodern context. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.\nIhde, D. (2002). Bodies in technology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.\nIhde, D. (2006). Forty years in the wilderness. In E. Selinger (Ed.), Postphenomenology: A critical companion to Ihde (pp. 267-290). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.\nIhde, D. (2008a). The corpus is not yet closed.... Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 12(2), 126-132. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne200812210\nIhde, D. (2008b). Aging: I don’t want to be a cyborg! Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7, 397-404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-008-9096-0\nIhde, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and technoscience: The Peking University lectures. Albany, NY: State University of New York.\nIhde, D. (2010). Heidegger’s technologies: Postphenomenological perspectives. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.\nIhde, D. (2012). Experimental phenomenology: Multistabilities (2nd ed.). Albany, NY: State University of New York.\nIhde, D. (2015). Preface: positioning postphenomenology. In R. Rosenberger & P. P. Verbeek (Eds.), Postphenomenology investigations: Essays on human-technology relations (pp. vii-xvi). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.\nIhde, D. (2016). Husserl’s missing technologies. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.\nIhde, D., & Malafouris, L. (2019). Homo faber revisited: Postphenomenology and Material Engagement Theory. Philosophy & Technology, 32(2), 195-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0321-7\nIngold, T. (2018). Touchlines: Manual inscription and haptic perception. In C. M. Johannessen & T. van Leeuwen (Eds.), The materiality of writing: A trace-making perspective (pp. 30-45). New York, NY: Routledge.\nInnis, H. A. (1951/2008). The bias of communication. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.\nJackson, M. (1989). Paths toward a clearing: Radical empiricism and ethnographic inquiry. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.\nJames, K. H., & Engelhardt, L. (2012). The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1(1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2012.08.001\nJohannessen, C. M., & van Leeuwen, T. (Eds.). (2018a). The materiality of writing: A trace-making perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.\nJohannessen, C. M., & van Leeuwen, T. (2018b). (Ir)Regularity. In C. M. Johannessen & T. van Leeuwen (Eds.), The materiality of writing: A trace-making perspective (pp. 175-192). New York, NY: Routledge.\nJohnson, M. (2007). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.\nKeim, B. (2013, September/October). The science of handwriting. Scientific American Mind, 24(4), 54-59.\nKerin, L. (2015, February 3). Finland scraps cursive writing lessons, sparking discussion over future of handwriting in classrooms. Australian Broadcasting Corporation News. Retrieved April 6, 2021, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-03/finland-scraps-cursive-writing-lessons-in-schools/6066826\nKidd, J., & Finlayson, M. P. (2015). She pushed me, and I flew: A duoethnographical story from supervisors in flight. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(1), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-16.1.2217\nKiefer, M., & Velay, J.-L. (2016). Writing in the digital age. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5(3), 77-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2016.07.008\nKiefer, M., Schuler, S., Mayer, C., Trumpp, N. M., Hille, K., & Sachse, S. (2015). Handwriting or typewriting? The influence of pen- or keyboard-based writing training on reading and writing performance in preschool children. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 11(4), 136-146. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0178-7\nKittler, F. A. (1985/1990). Discourse networks, 1800/1900 (M. Metteer & C. Cullens, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.\nKittler, F. A. (1986/1999). Gramophone, film, typewriter (G. Winthrop-Young & M. Wutz, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.\nKittler, F. A. (1996). The history of communication media. CTheory. Retrieved from https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ctheory/article/view/14325/5101\nKlein, H. K., & Kleinman, D. L. (2002). The social construction of technology: structural considerations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27(1), 28-52. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F016224390202700102\nKnapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1984). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.\nKonnikova, M. (2014, June 2). What’s lost as handwriting fades. The New York Times. Retrieved April 6, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/science/whats-lost-as-handwriting-fades.html\nKvåle, G. (2018). Expressing identity in Microsoft Word: A critical discussion of the stylistic normativity of templates and software. In C. M. Johannessen & T. van Leeuwen (Eds.), The materiality of writing: A trace-making perspective (pp. 157-174). New York, NY: Routledge.\nLagarrigue, A., & Longcamp, M. (2018). The production and perception of handwritten traces. In C. M. Johannessen & T. van Leeuwen (Eds.), The materiality of writing: A trace-making perspective (pp. 15-29). New York, NY: Routledge.\nLang, J. (1988). Symbolic aesthetics in architecture: toward a research agenda. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and applications (pp. 11-26). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\nLangsdorf, L. (2020). Relational ethics: The primacy of experience. In G. Miller & A. Shew (Eds.), Reimagining philosophy and technology, reinventing Ihde (pp. 123-140). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.\nLash, S. (2002). Critique of information. London, UK: SAGE.\nLeonardi, P. M. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday, 15(6-7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i6.3036\nLesage, F., & Natale, S. (2019). Rethinking the distinctions between old and new media: Introduction. Convergence, 25(4), 575-589. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1354856519863364\nLevinas, E. (1961/1969). Totality and infinity (A. Lingis, Trans.). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.\nLewis, S. C., Guzman, A. L., & Schmidt, T. R. (2019). Automation, journalism, and Human-Machine Communication: Rethinking roles and relationships of humans and machines in news. Digital Journalism, 7(4), 409-427. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1577147\nLiberati, N. (2016). Augmented reality and ubiquitous computing: The hidden potentialities of augmented reality. AI & Society, 31(1), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-014-0543-x\nLievrouw, L. A. (2014). Materiality and media in communication and technology studies: An unfinished project. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 21-51). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.\nLing, L. (2015). How touch impacts UX. Web Designer Blog. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from https://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2015/10/how-touch-impacts-ux/\nLister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., & Kelly, K. (2009). New media: A critical introduction: Second Edition. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.\nLongcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J. C., Anton, J. L., Roth, M., Nazarian, B., & Velay, J. L. (2008). Learning through hand- or typewriting influences visual recognition of new graphic shapes: behavioral and functional imaging evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(5), 802-815. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20504\nLongcamp, M., Zervato-Poudou, M. T., & Velay, J. L. (2005). The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychologica, 119(1), 67-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.019\nMacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (1985). The social shaping of technology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.\nMackenzie, N. M., & Spokes, R. (2018). Handwriting, keyboarding or both? In N. M. Mackenzie & J. Scull (Eds.), Understanding and supporting young writers from birth to 8 (pp. 137-164). Abingdon, OX: Routledge.\nMangen, A. (2018). Modes of writing in a digital age: The good, the bad and the unknown. First Monday, 23(10). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v23i10.9419\nMangen, A., & Balsvik, L. (2016). Pen or keyboard in beginning writing instruction? Some perspectives from embodied cognition. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5(3), 99-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2016.06.003\nMangen, A., & Velay, J. L. (2010). Digitizing literacy: Reflections on the haptics of writing. In M. H. Zadeh (Ed.), Advances in haptics (pp. 385-401). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.\nMangen, A., Anda, L. G., Oxborough, G. H., & Brønnick, K. (2015). Handwriting versus keyboard writing: effect on word recall. Journal of Writing Research, 7(2), 227-247. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.1\nManovich, L. (2013). Software takes command. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.\nMarx, L., & Smith, M. R. (1994). Introduction. In M. R. Smith & L. Marx (Eds.), Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism (pp. ix-xv). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.\nMauss, M. (1935/1979). Body techniques. In Sociology and psychology (B. Brewster, Trans., pp. 95-123). London, UK: RKP.\nMcLuhan, M. (1964/1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.\nMenary, R. (2010). Introduction to the special issue on 4E cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 459-463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-010-9187-6\nMerleau-Ponty, M. (1945/2012). Phenomenology of perception (D. A. Landes, Trans.). New York, NY: Routledge.\nMerriam-Webster Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved December 27, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensorial\nMitcham, C. (2006). From phenomenology to pragmatism: Using technology as an instrument. In E. Selinger (Ed.), Postphenomenology: A critical companion to Ihde (pp. 21-36). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.\nMueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159-1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581\nMuncey, T. (2010). Making sense of autoethnography texts: Legitimacy, truth and memory. In T. Muncey (Ed.), Creating autoethnographies (pp. 85-112). London, UK: SAGE.\nNatale, S. (2016). There are no old media. Journal of Communication, 66(4), 585-603. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12235\nNielsen, J. (1994). Usability engineering. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman.\nNoë, A. (2012). Varieties of presence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.\nO’Hara, K. P., Taylor, A., Newman, W., & Sellen, A. J. (2002). Understanding the materiality of writing from multiple sources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56(3), 269-305. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0525\nOng, W. J. (1982/2012). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. Oxford, UK: Routledge.\nOnline Etymology Dictionary. (n.d. a). Retrieved December 27, 2020, from https://www.etymonline.com/word/writing#etymonline_v_45214\nOnline Etymology Dictionary. (n.d. b). Retrieved January 3, 2021, from https://www.etymonline.com/word/medium#etymonline_v_12522\nPalm, M. (2019). Keeping what real? Vinyl records and the future of independent culture. Convergence, 25(4), 643-656. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1354856519835485\nPark, S., & Baron, N. S. (2017). Experiences of writing on smartphones, laptops, and paper in the digital age. In J. Vincent & L. Haddon (Eds.). Smartphone cultures (pp. 150-162). London, UK: Routledge.\nPensoneau-Conway, S. L., & Toyosaki, S. (2011). Automethodology: Tracing a home for praxis-oriented ethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(4), 378-399. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691101000406\nPhilosopher AI. (2020, September 12). Will artificial intelligence kill human? Retrieved from https://philosopherai.com/philosopher/will-artificial-intelligence-kill-human-48f947?fbclid=IwAR2QpgjJUZzwoGjGGj7VX-8jf-6XAe48jWme_PH7ZFOTxsVse3yaQml0OdU\nPinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: or How the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399-441. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F030631284014003004\nPlotnick, R. (2017). Force, flatness and touch without feeling: Thinking historically about haptics and buttons. New Media & Society, 19(10), 1632-1652. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444817717510\nPrensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Retrieved from https://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf\nRafaeli, A., & Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (2004). Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism of physical artifacts as triggers of emotion. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(1), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922031000086735\nReed-Danahay, D. E. (1997). Introduction. In D. E. Reed-Danahay (Ed.), Auto/ethnography: Rewriting the self and the social (pp. 1-20). Oxford, UK: Berg.\nReuters. (2020, May 13). Twitter to let some employees to work from home permanently. Retrieved April 6, 2021, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-twitter/twitter-to-let-some-employees-to-work-from-home-permanently-idUSKBN22O2S8\nRichardson, I., & Hjorth, L. (2017). Mobile media, domestic play and haptic ethnography. New Media & Society, 19(10), 1653-1667. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817717516\nRorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.\nRosenberger, R., & Verbeek, P. P. (2015). A field guide to postphenomenology. In R. Rosenberger & P. P. Verbeek (Eds.), Postphenomenological investigations: Essays on human-technology relations (pp. 9-41). Lanham, MD: Lexington.\nRyle, G. (1951). The concept of mind. New York, NY: Hutchinson’s University Library.\nShannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x\nSharr, A. (2006). Heidegger’s hut. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.\nShove, E. (2003). Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: The social organization of normality. New York, NY: Berg.\nSilverstone, R. (1994). Television and everyday life. London, UK: Routledge.\nSparkes, A. C. (2002). Autoethnography: Self-indulgence or something more? In A. P. Bochner & C. Ellis (Eds.), Ethnographically speaking: Autoethnography, literature, and aesthetics (pp. 209-232). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.\nTaipale, S. (2014). The affordances of reading/writing on paper and digitally in Finland. Telematics and Informatics, 31(4), 532-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.11.003\nTaipale, S. (2015). Bodily dimensions of reading and writing practices on paper and digitally. Telematics and Informatics, 32(4), 766-775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.04.001\nThelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.\nTrubek, A. (2009, December 17). Handwriting is history. Pacific Standard. Retrieved from https://psmag.com/education/handwriting-is-history-6540\nTsai, Y. J. (2009). Desert and spring: reading a saint’s body through the intertextual encounter between a Christian ascetic life and Daoist utopian writing. Taiwan Journal of Anthropology, 7(2), 147-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.7115%2fTJA.200912.0147\nTurkle, S. (Ed.). (2007). Evocative objects: Things we think with. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.\nVan Den Eede, Y. (2011). In between us: on the transparency and opacity of technological mediation. Foundations of Science, 16(2-3), 139-159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-010-9190-y\nVande Berg, L., & Trujillo, N. (2008). Cancer and death: A love story in two voices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.\nVannini, P., Waskul, D., & Gottschalk, S. (2012). The senses in self, society, and culture: A sociology of the senses. New York & London, UK: Routledge.\nVarela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.\nVerbeek, P. P. (2008). Cyborg intentionality: Rethinking the phenomenology of human-technology relations. Phenomenology and Cognitive Science, 7, 387-395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-008-9099-x\nVincent, J. (2016). Students’ use of paper and pen versus digital media in university environments for writing and reading - a cross-cultural exploration. Journal of Print and Media Technology Research, 5(2), 97-106. http://doi.org/10.14622/JPMTR-1602\nWajcman, J., & Jones, P. K. (2012). Border communication: media sociology and STS. Media, Culture & Society, 34(6), 673-690. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0163443712449496\nWang, G. (2018). Media communication research in the digital era: Moving beyond ontological dualism. Communication Theory, 28(3), 235-253. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qty011\nWeaver, W. (1949, July). The mathematics of communication. Scientific American, 181(1), 11-15.\nWellner, G. (2017). I-Media-World: The algorithmic shift from hermeneutic relations to writing relations. In Y. Van Den Eede, S. O. Irwin, & G. Wellner (Eds.), Postphenomenology and media: Essays on human-media-world relations (pp. 207-227). Lanham, MD: Lexington.\nWellner, G. (2018). From cellphones to machine learning: A shift in the role of the user in algorithmic writing. In A. Romele & E. Terrone (Eds.), Towards a philosophy of digital media (pp. 205-224). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.\nWellner, G. (2020). Material hermeneutic of digital technologies in the age of AI. AI & Society. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00952-w\nWilliams, R. (1974). Television, technology and cultural form. London, UK: Fontana.\nWilliams, R. (1976/1983). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. London, UK: Fontana.\nWiltse, H. (2014). Unpacking digital material mediation. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 18(3), 154-182. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne201411322\nWinkler, I. (2018). Doing autoethnography: Facing challenges, taking choices, accepting responsibilities. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(4), 236-247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417728956\nWinner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18(3), 362-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F016224399301800306\nWittgenstein, L. (1958/1986). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.\nWolf, M. (2008). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.\nWolf, M. (2018). Reader, come home: The reading brain in a digital world. New York, NY: Harper.\nWollscheid, S., Sjaastad, J., & Tømte, C. (2016). The impact of digital devices vs. pen(cil) and paper on primary school students’ writing skills - a research review. Computers & Education, 95, 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.001\nWollscheid, S., Sjaastad, J., Tømte, C., & Løver, N. (2016). The effect of pen and paper or tablet computer on early writing - A pilot study. Computers & Education, 98, 70-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.008\nWore, A. (2011, November/December). Handwriting: An elegy. 1843. Retrieved April 6, 2021, from https://www.1843magazine.com/content/ideas/ann-wroe/handwriting-elegy\nYurieff, K. (2020, May 8). Tech companies are letting employees work from home through 2020. CNN Business. Retrieved May 10, 2020, from https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/08/tech/tech-companies-working-remotely-2020/index.html | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程 107464005 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107464005 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 400501.pdf | 18.23 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.