Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/60379


Title: 官方消息來源之模糊傳播研究-以馬英九總統受CNN訪談內容為例
Equivocal communication of the official news sources:A discourse analysis of CNN’s interview with President Ma Ying-jeou
Authors: 劉伶伶
Liu Ling-ling
Contributors: 臧國仁
劉伶伶
Liu Ling-ling
Keywords: 模糊溝通
面子威脅
雙避衝突
框架
equivocal communication
face-threatening theory
avoidance-avoidance conflict
frame analysis
Date: 2011
Issue Date: 2013-09-05 14:39:09 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 長期以來,有關新聞訪問中的模糊語言實際運用並無具體化分析成果,本研究藉由現任總統馬英九接受國際媒體CNN專訪之研究,以論述分析法逐一分析問句及答句,具體歸納出了模糊語言之運用方式。
本研究在文獻回顧章節透過面子威脅、雙避衝突及組織框架等理論來探討官方消息來源如何使用模糊語言,再以論述分析法逐一探討提問者問句與受訪者答句間之對應情形,並納入語境因素,試圖尋找出官方消息來源常見之模糊語言形式。
本研究結果顯示,國內官方消息來源在衝突性提問中確實經常引用模糊語言作為回應媒體提問之方式,不論國內或是國外消息來源均偏愛採取「製造政策重點」之模糊語言方式回應,國內官方消息來源尤其青睞採取「製造政策重點」中之「提出新的論點」、「自我肯定」及「未來作法及期待」等項目,主要是基因於模糊語言類型的運用具有「看似言之有物」、「轉移焦點」、「離開情境」、「不冷場」及「較不容易出錯」等優點,至於負面效應則是引發媒體的「追問」,但由於問答劇本之設定及訪問時間等有利因素,消息來源之模糊語言並無礙於專訪之進行。
This study focuses on the concept of equivocal communication, especially on the effect of equivocal language and source credibility, ininterviews between the press and its official sources. An unedited version of CNN interview with President Ma Ying-jeou on April 30, 2011, was used in this study in order to find out how equivocal language, if any, was involved.
After going through the literature of face-threatening theory, avoidance- avoidance conflict and frame analysis, this research centers on two levels: first, how the officials choose/manipulate the wording of answers in interviews; and second, what the syntax differences are between questions and answers.
The results of the study show that official sources, when facing harsh questions, usually turn to equivocal language and intend to induce avoidance towards certain questions. The technique that an official frequently adopted is “making political points,” i.e., to divert attention by “presenting policies,” “talking up one’s own side,” and “making pie in the sky.”
The negative effects of equivocal language, therefore, are mainly resulted from the fact that it might trigger more aggressive follow-up questions from the press. Nevertheless, officials still maintain an upper hand over the pres in the wake of Q&A time restraints and the constant stress to beat deadline.
Reference: 中文參考書目
王德春主編(1987)。《修辭學辭典》。杭州:浙江教育出版社。
何兆熊(1992)。<〈語用、意義和語境>〉。西槙光正(編)。《語境研究論文集》。北京:北京語言學院出版社。頁301。
李金銓(1981)。《大眾傳播理論》。台北:三民。
林金池(2009)。〈「合作/非合作」語用原則:論記者與消息來源之語言互動策略〉。國立政治大學傳播學院在職專班碩士論文。
翁秀琪(1994)。〈我國婦女運動的媒介真實和「社會真實」〉,《新聞學研究》,48:193-236。
翁秀琪(1996)。〈消息來源策略研究--探討忠實、聯合兩報對婦運團體推動「民法親屬編」修法的報導〉。《新聞學研究》,52:121-148。
翁秀琪(1997)。《新聞與社會真實建構-大眾媒體、官方消息來源與社會運動的三角關係》。台北:三民。
翁維薇(2000)。〈新聞訪問之追問研究--以模糊及迴避回答為例〉。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
陳芸芸、劉慧雯譯(2008)Denis McQuail (2000)。《特新大眾傳播理論Mass communication theory: An introduction (4th Ed.)》。臺北:韋伯文化國際出版有限公司。
喻靖媛(1994)。<記者與消息來源互動關係與新聞處理方式關聯性研究>。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
臧國仁(1999)。《新聞媒體與消息來:媒介框架與真實建構之論述》。台北:三民。
劉蕙苓(1989)。報紙消息來源人物之背景與被處理方式之分析。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
鄭瑞城(1991)。〈從消息來源途徑詮釋媒體近用權〉。《新聞學研究》,45:39-56。
羅文輝(1995)。〈新聞記者選擇消息來源的偏向〉。《新聞學研究》,50:1-13。
蘇惠君(2003)。〈施惠語言在新聞訪談中的運用-再論其記者與消息來源之互動〉。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。



英文參考書目
Adoni, H., and S. Mane (1984). Media and the social construction of reality: Toward and integration of theory and research. Communication Research, 11, 323-340
Ball, S. T. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in policy sociology. New York: Routledge.
Bass, A.Z. (1969). Refining the “gatekeeper” concept: An UN radio case study. Journalism Quarterly, 46: 69-72.
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Bryson, L., & Mullett, J. (1988). Political equivocation: A situational explanation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 137-145
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., and Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Berger, P. & Luckman, T. (1971) The social construction of reality. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.
Bolinger, D. (1978). Yes-no questions are not alternative questions. In H. Hiź (Ed.), Questions (pp.87-105). Dordrecht. The Netherlands: D. Reidel.
Breed, W. (1955). Social control in the newsroom: A function analysis. Social Forces, 33: 326-335.
Brown, J. D. Bybee, C. R., Wearden, S. T. & Straughan, D. M. (1987). Invisible power: Newspaper news sources and the limits of diversity. Journalism Quarterly, 64(1), 45-54
Bull, P. (2000). Equivocation and the rhetoric of modernization: An analysis of televised interviews with Tony Blair in the 1997 British general elections. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 222-247
Bull, P. E. & Mayer, K. (1993). How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology, 14, 651-666.
Bull, P. E., Elliott, J., Palmer, D., & Walker, L. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 267-84
Bull, P. (1998). Equivocation theory and news interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 36-51.
Bull, P.E. (2003). The microanalysis of political communication: Claptrap and ambiguity. London: Psychology Press.
Bull, P.E. (2008). Slipperiness, evasion, and ambiguity: Equivocation and facework in noncommittal political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 333-344.
Burke, K. (1955). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.
Clark, H.H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002). The news interviews: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A.A. (Ed.) (1989). Future directions in TV news research. American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 135-268
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Epstein,. E. J. (1975). Between fact and fiction: The problem of journalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (2001). The discourse of new labour: Critical discourse analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 229-266). London : Sage.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258-284). London: Sage.
Foucault, M (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.
Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research, 2, 64-91
Gandy. O.H. Jr. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gans, H.J. (1979). Deciding what's news. New York: Vintage Books.
Gieber, W. (1964). News is what newspapermen make it. In L.A. Dexter & D.M. White (Eds.). People, society, and mass communication (pp. 173-182). New York: The Free Press.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.
Gnisci, A., & Bonaiuto, M. (2003). Grilling politicians. A study on politicians’ answer to questions comparing televised political interviews and legal examinations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 384-413.
Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual element in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231
Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction ritual. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books/ Doubleday.
Graber, D. A. (1989). Content and meaning: What’s it all about. American Behavioral Scientist 33 (2), 144-152
Greatbatch, D. (1986). Aspects of topical organization in news interview: The use of agenda shifting procedures by interviewees, Media, Culture and Society, 8, 441-455
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Haiman, J. (1998). Talk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hall, S., Chritcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clark, J., & Roberts, B. (1981). The social production of news: Mugging in the media. In S. Cohen & J. Young (Eds.). The Manufacture of news: Deviance, social problems, and the mass media (pp. 335-367). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hamilton, M. A., & Mineo, P. J. (1998). A framework for understanding equivocation. Journal of language and Social Psychology, 17, 3-35
Harcup, T. (2005). Journalism: principles and practice. London: Sage.
Harris, S. (1991). Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In P. Scannell (Ed.). Broadcast talk (pp. 76-99). London: Sage.
Haverkate, H. (1990). A speech act analysis of irony. Jorunal of Progmatics, 14, 77-109.
Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology. New York: Routledge.
Kennamer, J. D. (Ed.). (1994). Public opinion, the press, and public policy. Westpot, CO: Praeger.
Koch, T. (1990). News as myth: Fact and context in journalism. New York: Greenwood.
Kuznetsova, I. (2007). Dialogue Analysis XI . Proceedings of the 11th IADA Conference on ‘Dialogue analysis and rhetoric, University of Münster, Russia. March 26-30, 2007.
Lakoff, Robin (1973). The logic of politeness; or, minding your P’s and Q’s, in papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 292-305.
Lasswell, Harold D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society, in L. Bryson (Ed.). The communication of ideas. New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies.
Leege, D. C., & Francis, W. L. (1974 ) Political research: Design, measurement and analysis. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and measurement of psychological forces. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Lipman, B. L. (2006). Why is language vague? Working paper, December 2006, Department of Economics, Boston University.
Lupton, D. (1992). Discourse analysis: A new methodology for understanding the ideologies of health and illness. Australian Journal of Public Health, 16(2), 145-150.
Lutz, W. (1996). The new doublespeak: Why no one knows what anyone’s saying anymore. New York: Harper.
Nimmo, D. (1978). Political communication and public opinion. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Noelle-Neumann, E., & Mathes, R. (1987). The ”Event as Event” and the “Event as News”: The significance of “consonance” for media effects research. European Journal of Communication 2(4), 391-414
Obeng, S.G. (1997). Language and politics: Verbal Indirectness in political discourse. Discourse and Society, 8, 49-83.
Philips, E.B. (1977). Approaches to objectivity: Journalistic vs. social science perspectives. In P. M. Hirch et al. (Eds.). Strategies for communication research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes, and behaviour. London: Sage.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Rogers, E. M., Dearing, J. W., & Chang, S.(1991). AIDS in the 1980s: The agenda-setting process for a public issue. Journalism Monographs, no. 126
Rosengren, K. E. (1985). Communication research: One paradigm or four? In E.M. Rogers & F. Balle (Eds.). The media revolution in America and in Western Europe. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rosengren, K.E. (1970). International news: Intra and extra media data. Acta Sociologica, 13, 96-109
Rosengren, K.E. (1974). International news: Methods, data, and theory. Journal of Peace Research, 11, 145-156
Rosengren, K.E. (1976). International news: Time and type of report. In H. Fischer & J.C. Merrill (Eds.). International and intercultural communication. New York: Hastings House.
Ryan, C. (1991). Prime time activism: Media strategies for grassroots organizing. Boston: South End Press.
Sainsbury, R. M., (1990). Concepts without boundaries: Inaugural lecture, Kings College. Reprinted in R. Keefe and P. Smith (1996) (Eds.). Vagueness: A Reader, (251-264). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Sandman, P.M. (1987). Environmental risk and the press. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Schlesinger, P. (1990). Rethinking the sociology of journalism: Source strategy and limits of media centrism. In M. Ferguson (Ed.) Publiccommunication and the news imperatives. London: Sage.
Schudson, M. (1991). The sociology of news production revisited. In J. Curran and M. Gurevitch (Eds.). Mass media and society. London: Edward Arnold.
Schulz, W. (1982). News structure and people’s awareness of political events, Gazette, 30, 139-153
Shoemaker, P.J. (1991). Gatekeeping. Newburry Park, CA: Sage.
Shoemaker, P.J., & Reese, S.D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content. Now York: Longman.
Sigal, L.V. (1973). Reporters and officials: The organization and politics of newsmaking. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Smith, R.R. (1979). Mythic elements in TV news. Journal of Communication, 29(1), 75-82
Snow, D.A., Rochford,k E.B., Worden S.K., & Benford R.D.(1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 454-481.
Stewart, C.J., & Cash, Jr. W.B. (1988). Interview: Principles and practices. Dubuque, Iowa: WCB.
Turner, R. E., Edgley, C., & Olmstead, G(1975). Information control in conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy. Kansas Journal of sociology, 11, 69-89.
van Dijk, T. A. (1997). The study of discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (pp. 1-34). London, : Sage.
van Dijk, T. A.(1983). Discourse analysis: Its development and application to the structure of news. Journal of Communication, 33(2), 20-43.
van Turk, J. (1986). Information subsidies and media content: A study of public relations influence on the news. Journalism Monograph, 100.
Verschueren, J. (1985). What people say they do with words. Prolegomena to an empirical-conceptual approach to linguistic action. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Voakes, P. S., et al. (1996). Diversity in the news: A conceptual and methodological framework. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73 (3), 582-593.
Watson, James & Hill, Anniel. (1997). A dictionary of communication and media studies. London: Arnold.
White, D. M. (1950). The Gatekeeper. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383-390.
Whitney, D. C., Fritzler, M., Mazzarella, S., Lakow, L. (1989). Geographic and source bias in network TV news, 1982-1984. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 33(2), 159-174
Wodak, Ruth. (1997). Jazyk. Discurs. Politika. (Language. Discourse. Politics.) Volgograd, Russia: Peremena.
Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R.O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.
Zoch, L. M. & Galloway, E. A. (1997). Spokesperson as agenda builder: Framing the Susan Smith investigation. Paper presented at the AEJMC convention, Chicago.
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
傳播學院碩士在職專班
97941011
100
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097941011
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[傳播學院碩士在職專班] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
101101.pdf824KbAdobe PDF294View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing