1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. 傳播學院
  4. 學位論文
  5. Item

學術產出-學位論文

文章檢視/開啟

書目匯出

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

引文資訊

TAIR相關學術產出

題名 女性BBS社群的衝突處理--從符擔性概念談PTT「站崗的女人」版集體合作溝通行為
Conflict Tackling in Female BBS Communities -- Taking An Affordance Perspective on the Cooperative Communication Behavior of PTT`s GFonGuard Discussion Board
作者 王靜怡
Wang, Flora
貢獻者 方念萱
Fang, Leticia
王靜怡
Wang, Flora
關鍵詞 合作
站崗
符擔性
溝通目的
衝突處理
affordance
communication goals
conflict tackling
cooperation
girlfriends on guard
日期 2007
上傳時間 17-九月-2009 15:55:09 (UTC+8)
摘要 本文研究者採取合作原則與符擔性理論的觀點，以在台灣特有的徵兵制度下形成的「站崗的女人」版面為田野，探究其使用者面對衝突事件時採取高度合作溝通行為的原因，其中特別關注在使用者最後決定採取高度合作溝通行為之前，她們如何思考自己與環境（社群／介面）以及她們與其他社群成員的關係。研究發現，「站崗的女人」版成員面對衝突時，並不尋求長足的討論並推衍出結論以解決該衝突凸顯的問題，而是採取情感取向的方式，求急切、快速地平息衝突；採取此溝通模式的過程中，她們透過文章與推文的文字感知到社群的溫馨氛圍，並修正自身的溝通方式，集體追求在短時間內平抑衝突以確保個人層次與社群層次溝通目的的存續。本研究並且發現，在她們的思考過程中，人際的因素比介面的物理因素影響其溝通行為更甚。
This research aimed at taking an affordance perspective on the collective cooperative communication behavior of members of the GFonGuard discussion board amid conflicts in one of Taiwan’s most popular bulletin board systems (BBS). The researcher was most interested in the reasons behind the conflict tackling mode of members of the GFonGuard – an online community whose spaciotemporal peculiarity results from Taiwan’s compulsory military service – and how members of the community deliberate over their relations with the community/text-only medium and with other participants of the communication while deciding on how to tackle conflicts. The research found that members of the community sought to immediately quell the conflicts instead of seeking a lengthy discussion and a final resolution to the problems the conflicts highlighted. Throughout the deliberation process, the members perceived an amicable atmosphere via the choice of words and tone of articles on the discussion board. They modified their own communication style and pursued immediate appeasement of conflicts in an attempt to ensure the survival of their communication goals on the individual and community levels. The research also found that they were more concerned about “interpersonal” factors than about “medium” factors during their deliberation.
參考文獻 中文部分
谷玲玲 & 張惠蓉（2002）。〈網路社群的人際互動：以玉山虛擬航空公司為例〉，《新聞學研究》，72：55-84。
李美華等譯（1998）。《社會科學研究方法》。Earl Babbie原著。台北：時英。
林宇玲（2002）。《網路與性別》。台北：華之鳳科技。
林欣若（2003）。《網路中的女性情誼：以台大椰林站崗的女人版為例》。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
曹家榮（2008）。〈MSN Messenger的媒介訊息：從符擔性看MSN人際關係展演 〉，《資訊社會研究》，14：133-166。
黃振家等譯（2003）。《大眾媒體研究》。Roger D. Wimmer & Joseph R. Dominick原著。台北：學富。
英文部分
施玉惠. (1986). Conversational politeness and foreign language teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
張嘉華（1999）。《電腦媒介溝通的禮貌要素》。國立台灣師範大學英語研究所碩士論文。
Allwood, Jens. (1976). Linguistic communication as action and cooperation: a study in pragmatics. Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics 2, University of Goteborg, Dept. of Linguistics. Also available on http://www.ling.gu.se/~jens/publications/docs001-050/010.pdf.
Allwood, Jens. (1997.08). Notes on dialog and cooperation. Proceedings of the IJCAI-97 Workshop “Collaboration, Cooperation and Conflict in Dialogue Systems.” Also available on http://www.ling.gu.se/~jens/publications/index.html.
Allwood, Jens. (2001). Cooperation and flexibility in multimodal communication. In Harry Bunt & Robbert-Jan Beun (Eds.), Cooperative multimodal communication. Retrieved from http://www.ling.gu.se/~jens/publications/index.html.
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca. (2003). Face and politeness: new (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1453-1469.
Barnes, Sally. (2000). What does electronic conferencing afford distance education? Distance Education, 21(2), 236-247.
Baym, Nancy K. (1996). Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated
discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(4), 315-345.
Billett, Stephen. (2001). Learning through work: workplace affordances and individual engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(5/6), 209-214.
Bricken, William. (1990). Virtual reality: direction of growth, notes from the SIGGRAPH ’90 panel. Retrieved from http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/m-90-1.
Briton, Derek & Jeff Taylor. (2001). On-line workers` education: how do we tame the technology? International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(2), 117-135.
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. (1978，1987). Politeness: some universals in language use. United Kingdom: the Cambridge University Press.
Carnevale, Peter J. & Tahira M. Probst. (1997). Conflict on the Internet. In Sara Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chemero, Anthony. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181-195.
Chen, Ling & Donald J. Cegala. (1994). Topic management, shared knowledge, and accommodation: a study of communication adaptability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27(4), 389-417.
Culpeper, Jonathan. (1996). Toward an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349-367.
Culpeper, Jonathan & Derek Bousfield & Anne Wichmann. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545-1579.
Dickey, Michelle D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds for synchronous distance learning. Distance Learning, 24(1), 105-121.
Donath, Judith. (1999). Identity and deception. In Marc A. Smith & Peter Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp.29-59). London: Routledge.
Fairclough, Norman L. (1985). Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 739-793.
Gibson, James J. & Crooks L. E. (1938). A theoretical field-analysis of automobile-driving. American Journal of Psychology, 51, 453-471.
Gibson, James J. (1966). The sense considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gibson, James J. (1979，1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Goffman, Erving. (1967). Interaction ritual — essays on face-to-face behavior. Allen Lane: The Penguin Press.
Goodwin, Charles & Marjorie Harness Goodwin. (1990). Interstitial argument. In Allen D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk: sociallinguistic investigation of arguments in conversations (pp.85-117). Britain: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, Paul. (1975，1989). Studies in the way of words. USA: Harvard College.
Herring, Susan. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/herring.html.
Herring, Susan et al. (2002). Searching for safety online: managing “trolling” in a feminist forum. The Information Society, 18, 371-384.
Jones, Keith S. (2003). What is an affordance? Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 107-114.
Kasher, A. (1976). Conversational maxims and rationality. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Language in focus (pp.217-249). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
Kollock, Peter & Marc Smith. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In Susan Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: linguistics, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.109-128). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. USA: Longman Group Limited.
Leech, Geoffrey N. & Jenny A. Thomas. (1988). Pragmatics: the state of art. Lancaster papers in linguistics No.48. University of Lancaster.
Levinon, Stephen C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings (pp.66-100). New York: Cambridge University Press.
McLaughlin, M. L., Kerry K. Osborne & Christine B. Smith. (1995). Standards of conducts on Usenet. In Steven G. Jones (Ed.), Cyersociety: computer-mediated communication and community (pp.90-111). USA: Sage.
Mey, Jacob L. (1987). Poet and peasant. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 281-297.
Mey, Jacob L. (1993). Pragmatics: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Reid, E. (1995). Virtual worlds: culture and imagination. In Steve Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: computer-mediated communication and communicty (pp.164-187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sarangi, Srikant K. & Stefaan Slembrouck. (1992). Non-cooperation in communication: a reassessment of Gricean pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 117-154.
Stoffregen, Thomas A. (2003). Affordances as emergent properties of the animal-environment system. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 115-134.
Turvey, M. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: an outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4(3), 173-187.
Weger Jr., Harry & Mark Aakhus. (2003). Arguing in Internet chat rooms: argumentative adaptations to chat room design and some consequence for public deliberation at a distance. Argumentation and Advocacy, 40(1), 23-38.
Wilson, Thomas P. (1991). Social structure and the sequential organization of interaction. In D. Boden & Don H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk & social structure: studies in ethnomethodology and conversation. Britain: Polity Press.
Yano, Masaharu & Yuzo Seo. (2003). Conflicts among net news participants and cultural Background. Internet Research, 13(5), 386-399.
Zimmerman, Don H. & Deirdre Boden. (1991). Structure-in-Action: an introduction. In D. Boden & Don H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk & social structure: studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Britain: Polity Press.
網頁部分
維基百科（2008）。〈鄉民（網路用語）〉。下載於http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/鄉民_(網路用語)。
Campbell, Timothy. (2001). Internet Troll: http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
Campbell, Timothy. (2003). Flame Wars and Other Online Arguments: http://members.aol.com/intwg/flamewars.htm
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
新聞研究所
92451003
96
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0924510031
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 方念萱zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Fang, Leticiaen_US
dc.contributor.author (作者) 王靜怡zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) Wang, Floraen_US
dc.creator (作者) 王靜怡zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Wang, Floraen_US
dc.date (日期) 2007en_US
dc.date.accessioned 17-九月-2009 15:55:09 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 17-九月-2009 15:55:09 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 17-九月-2009 15:55:09 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0924510031en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/33262-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 新聞研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 92451003zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 96zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本文研究者採取合作原則與符擔性理論的觀點，以在台灣特有的徵兵制度下形成的「站崗的女人」版面為田野，探究其使用者面對衝突事件時採取高度合作溝通行為的原因，其中特別關注在使用者最後決定採取高度合作溝通行為之前，她們如何思考自己與環境（社群／介面）以及她們與其他社群成員的關係。研究發現，「站崗的女人」版成員面對衝突時，並不尋求長足的討論並推衍出結論以解決該衝突凸顯的問題，而是採取情感取向的方式，求急切、快速地平息衝突；採取此溝通模式的過程中，她們透過文章與推文的文字感知到社群的溫馨氛圍，並修正自身的溝通方式，集體追求在短時間內平抑衝突以確保個人層次與社群層次溝通目的的存續。本研究並且發現，在她們的思考過程中，人際的因素比介面的物理因素影響其溝通行為更甚。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) This research aimed at taking an affordance perspective on the collective cooperative communication behavior of members of the GFonGuard discussion board amid conflicts in one of Taiwan’s most popular bulletin board systems (BBS). The researcher was most interested in the reasons behind the conflict tackling mode of members of the GFonGuard – an online community whose spaciotemporal peculiarity results from Taiwan’s compulsory military service – and how members of the community deliberate over their relations with the community/text-only medium and with other participants of the communication while deciding on how to tackle conflicts. The research found that members of the community sought to immediately quell the conflicts instead of seeking a lengthy discussion and a final resolution to the problems the conflicts highlighted. Throughout the deliberation process, the members perceived an amicable atmosphere via the choice of words and tone of articles on the discussion board. They modified their own communication style and pursued immediate appeasement of conflicts in an attempt to ensure the survival of their communication goals on the individual and community levels. The research also found that they were more concerned about “interpersonal” factors than about “medium” factors during their deliberation.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Ch1 研究緣起…………………………………………………………................11
第一節 研究動機…………………………………………………………………12
壹、概述：衝突在面對面溝通與電腦中介傳播的普遍性……………………..12
貳、BBS上的衝突情況……………………………………………………………14
參、以「站崗的女人」版對比BBS上衝突情況的普遍性………………………15
第二節 研究問題……………………………………………………………………24
第三節 預期研究價值………………………………………………………………26
Ch2 文獻回顧…………………………………………………………................28
第一節 「談話」的概念…………………………………………………………29
壹、談話與互動機制：談話是社會互動，具有普遍的機制：談話展現了人我
相互了解的主體性………………………………………………………………..29
貳、談話機制隨情境不同而被形塑……………………………………………..30
第二節 Grice’s 合作原則（Cooperative Principles）……………………..31
壹、「合作」在「談話」中的概念……………………………………………..31
小結：對話與合作的關係………………………………………………………..36
貳、衝突V.S.合作……………………………………………………………......37
小結：合作原則與價值觀………………………………………………………...39
參、人性、反常的社會、禮貌與合作、威脅面子的行為與合作……………...40
一、關於人性良善、理性、正常等概念……………………………………….....40
二、合作原則描述的是一個反常的（atypical）社會…………………………...41
三、禮貌與合作………………………………………………………………….....43
四、面子、威脅面子的行為與合作…………………………………………….....46
小結：彼此計算的溝通過程與協商式的合作溝通…………………………....48
五、合作原則與相關理論總結……………………………………………….....49
第三節 Gibson的 符擔性（affordance） 理論.........................................54
壹﹑ 符擔性（affordance）的基本概念：從要求性特質到可被感知的特性…54
貳﹑ 環境與動物間的符擔關係…………………………………………………....61
一、媒介V.S.物質……………………………………………………………….....61
二、生物的學習與適應——環境符擔性與變色龍的隱喻……………………....62
三、動物與動物間的符擔關係…………………………………………………....62
小結：提供行為可能性與限制的環境特性…………………………………….....63
參、繼起的符擔性（affordance）理論…………………………………………63
小結：符擔性代表的是環境與動物以及動物與動物間的整體關係………….....66
肆、視覺作為符擔性作用的起點——視覺與純文字的電腦中介傳播環境….....68
第四節 衝突與電腦中介傳播………………………………………………………71
壹、經濟角度…………………………………………………………………….....71
貳、禮貌角度…………………………………………………………………….....72
參、從符擔性（affordance）角度看網路社群中的不合作或衝突現象…….....73
小結：延伸符擔性概念到純文字BBS，強調使用者與環境的整體關係…..........76
Ch3 研究方法………………………………………………………….................77
第一節 參與觀察…………………………………………………………………..77
壹、參與觀察法的特色：研究者的角色、研究者和被研究者的關係………...78
貳、本研究如何進行參與觀察：與研究對象建立關係………………………...79
第二節 深度訪談：深度訪談法的特色…………………………………………....80
第三節 個案選取的考量：「站崗的女人」版面的特殊性………………………..80
第四節 研究設計……………………………………………………………………..85
壹、訪談問題設計………………………………………………………………....85
貳、訪談對象……………………………………………………………………....87
參、訪談進行時間………………………………………………………………....92
肆、訪談記錄方式………………………………………………………………....92
Ch4 資料分析………………………………………………………….................93
第一節 「站崗的女人」版成員如何看衝突：衝突發生時所感受到的急切的不適感………………………………………………………………………………….....93
第二節 「站崗的女人」版上主要的衝突事件與衝突處理：快速處理衝突的急迫性……………………………………………………………….……………….......99
第三節 「站崗的女人」版成員為何以維繫情感為前提快速平息衝突？…….110
壹、溫馨的氛圍容納（afford）相互支持的溝通行為……………………….110
貳、「站崗的女人」版成員與社群的整體關係——維護社群與個人的溝通目標
的重要性………………………………………………………………….....114
一、受「溫馨」氛圍引領而將衝突列為不受歡迎的行為……………….....116
二、快速平息衝突以維護個人的溝通目標……………………………….....117
三、快速平息衝突以維護社群的溝通目標………………………………......119
參、感知整體風氣改變並衡量自身與社群的親近度………………………....122
肆、感知BBS介面功能…………………………………………………………..124
小結：從文字取得訊息，快速處理衝突以保個人及社群溝通目標………….126
Ch5 討論與未來研究建議…………………………………………................128
第一節 研究討論………………………………………………………………...129
壹、理論上的意涵——合作理論：情感取向的算計…………………………129
貳、 理論上的意涵——符擔性理論:從物理環境到虛擬環境…………………131
第二節 未來研究建議…………………………………………………………….133
壹、使用符擔性理論的挑戰…………………………………………………….133
貳、研究方法操作面向…………………………………………………………..134
一、研究方法的選擇——文字的侷限性……………………………………….134
二、MSN訪談的便利與限制……………………………………………………135
三、招募受訪者的困難度……………………………………………………….135
參考文獻…………………………………………………………......................137
附錄A………………………………………………………………….................142
附錄B………………………………………………………………….................148		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 94085 bytes-
dc.format.extent 240735 bytes-
dc.format.extent 130805 bytes-
dc.format.extent 204823 bytes-
dc.format.extent 613541 bytes-
dc.format.extent 1143573 bytes-
dc.format.extent 787389 bytes-
dc.format.extent 770851 bytes-
dc.format.extent 430192 bytes-
dc.format.extent 196383 bytes-
dc.format.extent 491936 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0924510031en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 合作zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 站崗zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 符擔性zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 溝通目的zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 衝突處理zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) affordanceen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) communication goalsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) conflict tacklingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) cooperationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) girlfriends on guarden_US
dc.title (題名) 女性BBS社群的衝突處理--從符擔性概念談PTT「站崗的女人」版集體合作溝通行為zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Conflict Tackling in Female BBS Communities -- Taking An Affordance Perspective on the Cooperative Communication Behavior of PTT`s GFonGuard Discussion Boarden_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文部分zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 谷玲玲 & 張惠蓉（2002）。〈網路社群的人際互動：以玉山虛擬航空公司為例〉，《新聞學研究》，72：55-84。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 李美華等譯（1998）。《社會科學研究方法》。Earl Babbie原著。台北：時英。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 林宇玲（2002）。《網路與性別》。台北：華之鳳科技。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 林欣若（2003）。《網路中的女性情誼：以台大椰林站崗的女人版為例》。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 曹家榮（2008）。〈MSN Messenger的媒介訊息：從符擔性看MSN人際關係展演 〉，《資訊社會研究》，14：133-166。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 黃振家等譯（2003）。《大眾媒體研究》。Roger D. Wimmer & Joseph R. Dominick原著。台北：學富。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 英文部分zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 施玉惠. (1986). Conversational politeness and foreign language teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 張嘉華（1999）。《電腦媒介溝通的禮貌要素》。國立台灣師範大學英語研究所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Allwood, Jens. (1976). Linguistic communication as action and cooperation: a study in pragmatics. Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics 2, University of Goteborg, Dept. of Linguistics. Also available on http://www.ling.gu.se/~jens/publications/docs001-050/010.pdf.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Allwood, Jens. (1997.08). Notes on dialog and cooperation. Proceedings of the IJCAI-97 Workshop “Collaboration, Cooperation and Conflict in Dialogue Systems.” Also available on http://www.ling.gu.se/~jens/publications/index.html.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Allwood, Jens. (2001). Cooperation and flexibility in multimodal communication. In Harry Bunt & Robbert-Jan Beun (Eds.), Cooperative multimodal communication. Retrieved from http://www.ling.gu.se/~jens/publications/index.html.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca. (2003). Face and politeness: new (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1453-1469.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Barnes, Sally. (2000). What does electronic conferencing afford distance education? Distance Education, 21(2), 236-247.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Baym, Nancy K. (1996). Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediatedzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(4), 315-345.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Billett, Stephen. (2001). Learning through work: workplace affordances and individual engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(5/6), 209-214.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bricken, William. (1990). Virtual reality: direction of growth, notes from the SIGGRAPH ’90 panel. Retrieved from http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/m-90-1.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Briton, Derek & Jeff Taylor. (2001). On-line workers` education: how do we tame the technology? International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(2), 117-135.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. (1978，1987). Politeness: some universals in language use. United Kingdom: the Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Carnevale, Peter J. & Tahira M. Probst. (1997). Conflict on the Internet. In Sara Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chemero, Anthony. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181-195.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chen, Ling & Donald J. Cegala. (1994). Topic management, shared knowledge, and accommodation: a study of communication adaptability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27(4), 389-417.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Culpeper, Jonathan. (1996). Toward an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349-367.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Culpeper, Jonathan & Derek Bousfield & Anne Wichmann. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545-1579.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Dickey, Michelle D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds for synchronous distance learning. Distance Learning, 24(1), 105-121.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Donath, Judith. (1999). Identity and deception. In Marc A. Smith & Peter Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp.29-59). London: Routledge.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fairclough, Norman L. (1985). Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 739-793.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gibson, James J. & Crooks L. E. (1938). A theoretical field-analysis of automobile-driving. American Journal of Psychology, 51, 453-471.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gibson, James J. (1966). The sense considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gibson, James J. (1979，1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goffman, Erving. (1967). Interaction ritual — essays on face-to-face behavior. Allen Lane: The Penguin Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goodwin, Charles & Marjorie Harness Goodwin. (1990). Interstitial argument. In Allen D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk: sociallinguistic investigation of arguments in conversations (pp.85-117). Britain: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Grice, Paul. (1975，1989). Studies in the way of words. USA: Harvard College.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Herring, Susan. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/herring.html.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Herring, Susan et al. (2002). Searching for safety online: managing “trolling” in a feminist forum. The Information Society, 18, 371-384.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jones, Keith S. (2003). What is an affordance? Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 107-114.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kasher, A. (1976). Conversational maxims and rationality. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Language in focus (pp.217-249). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kollock, Peter & Marc Smith. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In Susan Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: linguistics, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.109-128). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. USA: Longman Group Limited.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Leech, Geoffrey N. & Jenny A. Thomas. (1988). Pragmatics: the state of art. Lancaster papers in linguistics No.48. University of Lancaster.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Levinon, Stephen C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings (pp.66-100). New York: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) McLaughlin, M. L., Kerry K. Osborne & Christine B. Smith. (1995). Standards of conducts on Usenet. In Steven G. Jones (Ed.), Cyersociety: computer-mediated communication and community (pp.90-111). USA: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Mey, Jacob L. (1987). Poet and peasant. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 281-297.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Mey, Jacob L. (1993). Pragmatics: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Reid, E. (1995). Virtual worlds: culture and imagination. In Steve Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: computer-mediated communication and communicty (pp.164-187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Sarangi, Srikant K. & Stefaan Slembrouck. (1992). Non-cooperation in communication: a reassessment of Gricean pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 117-154.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Stoffregen, Thomas A. (2003). Affordances as emergent properties of the animal-environment system. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 115-134.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Turvey, M. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: an outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4(3), 173-187.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Weger Jr., Harry & Mark Aakhus. (2003). Arguing in Internet chat rooms: argumentative adaptations to chat room design and some consequence for public deliberation at a distance. Argumentation and Advocacy, 40(1), 23-38.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wilson, Thomas P. (1991). Social structure and the sequential organization of interaction. In D. Boden & Don H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk & social structure: studies in ethnomethodology and conversation. Britain: Polity Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Yano, Masaharu & Yuzo Seo. (2003). Conflicts among net news participants and cultural Background. Internet Research, 13(5), 386-399.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Zimmerman, Don H. & Deirdre Boden. (1991). Structure-in-Action: an introduction. In D. Boden & Don H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk & social structure: studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Britain: Polity Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 網頁部分zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 維基百科（2008）。〈鄉民（網路用語）〉。下載於http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/鄉民_(網路用語)。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Campbell, Timothy. (2001). Internet Troll: http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htmzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Campbell, Timothy. (2003). Flame Wars and Other Online Arguments: http://members.aol.com/intwg/flamewars.htmzh_TW