| dc.contributor.advisor | 詹惠珍 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Chan, Hui-chen | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | 游惠鈞 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | Yu, Hui-jyun | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 游惠鈞 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Yu, Hui-jyun | en_US |
| dc.date (日期) | 2010 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 5-Oct-2011 14:25:52 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 5-Oct-2011 14:25:52 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 5-Oct-2011 14:25:52 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) | G0965550011 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/51163 | - |
| dc.description (描述) | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 語言學研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 96555001 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 99 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 本論文藉由檢視臺灣政論節目中所使用的語用策略（直接或間接）、語言行為類別、及語言行為目的，探討政治意識型態對於語言行為產生的影響。本研究以Grice（1975）的合作原則與Searle（1969）的語言行為理論作為分析框架，並以Leech（1983）的禮貌原則解釋語用策略及語言行為在不同政論節目中的分布差異。 本研究從臺灣主流的政論節目當中，政治光譜兩極的政論節目「大話新聞」（泛綠）與「2100全民開講」（泛藍）採集語料；並以Searle（1965年）的語言行為理論進行分析，總共識別12類直接語言行為和26類間接語言行為。 研究結果顯示，（一）語用策略方面，說話者在政論節目中使用間接語言行為的頻率比直接語言行為頻繁。（二）語言行為類別方面，直接語言行為中，排序則為：斷言（Assertive）、表述（Expressive）、指示（Directive）；而間接語言行為中，各類別使用頻率由高至低排序為：表述（Expressive）、斷言（Assertive）、指示（Directive）。（三）在政治意識型態的影響方面，支持執政黨的政論節目行使較多「直接且事實導向」的語言行為，而支持反對黨的政論節目則有較多的「間接且評論導向」的語言行為。（四）「譴責」是政論節中最常使用的語言行為，並且以間接方式表達居多。（五）推論過程中，推論步驟較多的「間接譴責」語言行為在政論節目中較常被使用。（六）「大話新聞」與「2100全民開講」雖偏向不同的政治意識型態，但是它們皆以斷言類（Assertive）或指示類（Directive）的語言行為來包裝，藉以間接達到「譴責」執政黨疏失的目的。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | This thesis investigates the political-ideological influence on speech acts in Taiwan political talk shows by examining the pragmatic strategies (directness and indirectness), the speech act categories, and the illocutionary purposes performed in the talk shows. In this thesis, Gricean maxims (1975) and Searle’s theory of speech acts (1969) are adopted as the analytic frames to study how speech acts are conducted, and Leech’s (1983) notions of politeness are the theoretical basis for explaining the distributional difference of pragmatic strategies. The data analyzed in this study is composed of dialogues extracted from 6 episodes of two political talk shows with opposite stances on political issues, namely DaHuaXingWen (大話新聞), the pan-green talk show, and QuanMinKaiJiang (2100全民開講), the pan-blue one. Following Searle’s scheme of speech acts (1965), this study identifies the illocutionary act of every clause in the data and recognizes 12 types of direct speech acts and 26 types of indirect speech acts in the collected data. The results of quantitative analysis show that, (1) indirect speech act is generally performed more frequently than indirect speech act in political talk shows. (2) The order of frequency in direct speech acts represents as: Assertive > Expressive > Directive; and in indirect speech acts, the order of frequency is: Expressive > Assertive > Directive. (3) In terms of the political-ideological influence, the political talks show supporting the ruling party (QuanMinKaiJiang) performs direct fact-orientated speech acts more, while the show that standing in the opposition to the ruling party (DaHuaXingWen) has more indirect opinion-oriented speech acts. (4) Condemnation is the most often used illocutionary act in political talk shows, and mainly done indirectly. (5) Indirect condemnations with longer length of inferential process are preferred in political talk shows. (6) Despite that DaHuaXingWen and QuanMinKaiJiang held different political stance, they share the same pattern of expressing indirect condemnation—wrapping it in speech acts of Assertives or Directives. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | TABLE OF CONTENTSAcknowledgements ivTABLE OF CONTENTS vLIST OF TABLES ixLIST OF FIGURES xiChinese Abstract xiiEnglish Abstract xivChapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1. Backgrounds of Political Opposition in Taiwan 1 1.2. Political Bias in the News Media 2 1.3. The Problem 3 1.4. Research Questions and Hypotheses 4Chapter 2 Literature Review 6 2.1. Ideology 6 2.1.1. Epistemological Approach 6 2.1.2. Sociological Approach 7 2.1.3. Political Approach 8 2.1.4. Linguistic Association with Political Ideology 10 2.2. Speech Acts Theory 10 2.2.1. Austin’s Account 11 2.2.2. Searle’s Systematization 14 2.2.3. Indirect speech act and Inference 16 2.2.4. Grice’s Cooperative Principles (1975) 18 2.3. Politeness Theories 20 2.3.1. Lakoff (1975) 20 2.3.2. Brown and Levinson (1978) 22 2.3.3. Leech (1983) 23 2.4. Summary 24Chapter 3 Methodology 25 3.1. The Corpus 25 3.2. Data Transcription 26 3.3. Data Processing 26 3.4. Categorization and Subcategorization of Speech Acts 27 3.4.1. Definition of Direct and Indirect Speech Acts 27 3.4.2. Direct Speech Act 28 3.4.2.1. Expressives 29 3.4.2.1.1. Condemnation 29 3.4.2.1.2. Thanking 30 3.4.2.1.3. Praising 30 3.4.2.1.4. Sympathizing 31 3.4.2.2. Assertives 32 3.4.2.2.1. Informing 32 3.4.2.2.2. Confirmation 33 3.4.2.2.3. Correction 34 3.4.2.2.4. Justification 35 3.4.2.3. Directives 36 3.4.2.3.1. Request 36 3.4.2.3.2. Inquiry 37 3.4.2.3.3. Suggestion 38 3.4.2.3.4. Warning 38 3.4.3. Indirect Speech Act 39 3.4.3.1. Expressives 40 3.4.3.1.1. Condemnation 42 1. Indirect condemnation by informing 42 2. Indirect condemnation by clarification 45 3. Indirect condemnation by correction 46 4. Indirect condemnation by agreement 47 5. Indirect condemnation by concession 48 6. Indirect condemnation by apology 49 7. Indirect condemnation by praising 50 8. Indirect condemnation by sympathizing 51 9. Indirect condemnation by worrying 52 10. Indirect condemnation by defense 53 11. Indirect condemnation by suggestion 54 12. Indirect condemnation by request 55 13. Indirect condemnation by warning 56 3.4.3.1.2. Praising 57 1. Indirect praising by informing 57 2. Indirect praising by request 58 3.4.3.1.3. Sympathizing 59 1. Indirect sympathizing by informing 59 2. Indirect sympathizing by suggestion 60 3.4.3.1.4. Defense 61 1. Indirect defense by informing 62 2. Indirect defense by agreement 63 3. Indirect defense by request 64 3.4.3.2. Assertives 65 3.4.3.2.1. Informing 66 1. Indirect informing by confirmation 66 2. Indirect informing by inquiry 67 3.4.3.3. Directives 68 3.4.3.3.1. Request 69 1. Indirect request by informing 69 2. Indirect request by inquiry 70 3.4.3.3.2. Suggestion 71 1. Indirect suggestion by clarification 71 2. Indirect suggestion by request 72 3.5. Summary 73Chapter 4 Data Analysis 75 4.1. Quantitative Analyses of Speech Act 75 4.1.1. Direct and Indirect Speech Acts in The Talk Shows 75 4.1.2. Speech Acts Categories in the Talk Shows 77 4.1.2.1. Speech Acts Categories 77 4.1.2.2. Speech Acts Categories and Pragmatic Strategies 79 4.1.3. Illocutionary Purposes of Speech Act Categories in the Talk Shows 81 4.1.3.1. Illocutionary Purposes of Assertive 82 4.1.3.2. Illocutionary Purposes of Expressive 83 4.1.3.3. Illocutionary Purposes of Directive 85 4.1.3.4. Illocutionary Purposes of Speech Act Categories and the Pragmatic Strategies Related 86 4.2. Quantitative Analyses of Condemnation 89 4.2.1. Direct and Indirect Condemnations 90 4.2.2. Two-layered Condemnations and Multi-layered Condemnations 91 4.2.3. Secondary Speech Acts of Multi-layered Condemnations 92Chapter 5 Conclusion 96 5.1. Summary of The Major Findings 96 5.1.1. Speech Acts in General 96 5.1.2. Condemnation in Specific 99 5.2. Concluding Remarks 100 5.3. Limitations and Suggestions 101References 103 | zh_TW |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.source.uri (資料來源) | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0965550011 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 言語行為理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 意識型態 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 政論節目 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Speech Act Theory | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | ideology | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | political talk show | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 臺灣政論節目中的政治意識型態之社會語用學研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title (題名) | Political ideology in Taiwan political talk shows: a sociopragmatic analysis | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | thesis | en |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge : Harvard University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Barthes, R. (1973). Mythologies, London: Paladin Books. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Chang, C.-C., & Lo, H.-V. (2007). Zhuī qiú zhī shì, rèn tóng huò yú lè? zhèng lùn xìng tán huà jié mù de nèi róng yŭ yuè tīng zhòng shōu shì dòng jī de tàn tăo [The pursuit of knowledge, identification or entertainment? an exploration of political call-in program content and audiences` viewing motives]. Xin Wen Xue Yan Jiu [Mass Communication Research], 93: 83-139. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Chang, C.-C., & Lo, H.-V. (2009). Zhèng lùn xìng tán huà jié mù yǐng xiăng zhī tàn tăo [The influence of political call-in programs]. Xin Wen Xue Yan Jiu [Mass Communication Research], 98: 47-91. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Du Bois, John W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Susanna Cumming and Danae Paolino. (1993). Outline of discourse transcription. In Jane A. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert (ed.), Talking data: Transcription and coding methods for discourse research. (pp. 45-89). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts. (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Hawkes, D. (2003). Ideology (2nd ed.). USA and Canada: Routledge. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Kuo, S. (2001). Is there only one china?: Analyzing the rhetoric of chinese nationalism in a newspaper article. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 11(2), 287-303. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Kuo, S., & Nakamura, M. (2005). Translation or transformation? A case study of language and ideology in the taiwanese press. Discourse & Society: An International Journal for the Study of Discourse and Communication in their Social, Political and Cultural Contexts, 16(3), 393-417. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: or minding your p’s and q’s. In Proceedings of the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago linguistic society (pp. 292-305). Chicago: Department of Linguistics University of Chicago. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Lakoff, R. (1977). What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics and performatives. In Rogers, A., Wall, B. & Murphy, J. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas conference on performances, presuppositions and implicatures (pp. 79-105). Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Lay, J.G., Yap K.H., & Chen Y.W. (2008). The Transition of Taiwan`s Political Geography, Asian Survey, 48(5): 773–793. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Leach, R. (1993). Political ideologies: An Australian introduction (2nd ed.). South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Macridis, R. C., & Hulliung, M. L. (1996). Contemporary political ideologies: Movements and regimes. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and Utopia. London: Routledge. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | McLellan, D. (1995). Ideology. United States: University of Minnesota Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Roucek, J. S. (1944). A history of the concept of ideology. Journal of the history of ideas, 5(4), 479-88. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Sargent, L. T. (2006). Contemporary political ideologies: A comparative analysis (13th ed.). Illinois : The Dorsey Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Searle, J. R. (1965). What is a speech act? In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 254-264). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Davis, S (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 265-277). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture: critical social theory in the era of mass communication. Stanford: Stanford University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Structures of news in the press. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse and communication: New approaches to the analysis of mass media discourse and communication (pp. 69-93). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | van Dijk, T. A. (2007). Ideology and discourse analysis. In M. Freeden (Ed.), The meaning of ideology: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 110-35). USA and Canada: Routledge. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Wang, C. (1996). A pragmatic analysis of the political attitudes in Chinese newspapers. M.A. thesis. National Kaohsiung Normal University. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Wu, N. (1995). Shehui fenshi han zhengdang jingzheng: Jieshi guomindang weihe jixü zhizheng” [Social cleavages and political competition: Why is there no “stunt election” in Taiwan?], in Zhongyangyanjiuyuan minzuxüe janjiusuo jikan [Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica] 78, 101–30. | zh_TW |
