請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/63532
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 江文瑜(Wen-yu Chiang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Pei-Ci Li | en |
dc.contributor.author | 李珮琪 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T17:13:39Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-08-28 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2012-08-28 | |
dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2012-08-20 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Baider, F. 2003. Masculinist Metaphors, Feminist research. University of Cyprus.
Beauvoir, Simone de. 1961. The second sex. 1949. Translated by HM parshley. New York: Bantam. Bernard, J. 1974. Age, sex and feminism. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 415- 120. Boroditsky, L. 2001. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive psychology 43, (1), 1-22. Chiang, Wen-yu & KJ Nabashima. In preparation. Image metaphor in Chinese. Erikson, E.R. 1959. Identity and life cycle: Psychological issues I. New York: International Universities Press. Eckert, P. 1997. Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In: Coulmas, F. (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics. Blackwell Publishers, 151-167. Eysenck, H. J., & M. W. Eysenck. 1985. Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum. Fabes, R. A., & C. L. Martin. Gender and Age Stereotypes of Emotionality. 1991. Personality and Social Psychology 17 (5), 532-540. Fernando, C. 1996. Idioms and Idiomaticity, Oxford, oup. Fontecha A.F., & R. M. I. Catalán. 2003. Semantic derogation in animal metaphor: a contrastive-cognitive analysis of two male/female examples in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 35(5), 771-797. Gagnon, J., & W. Simon. 1973. Sexual Conduct. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. Goffman, E. 1979. Gender display, in Gender Advertisements. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Goldberg, L. R. 1990. An alternative 'description of personality': The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology bulletin 59, 1216-1229. Graziano, W.G., & N. Eisenberg. 1997. Agreeableness; A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, S. Briggs, & J. Johnson, (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology, San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hall, J. A., & M. S. Mast. 2008. Are women always more interpersonally sensitive than men? Impact of goals and content domain. Personality & social psychology bulletin 34 (1), 144-55. Hines, C. 1994. Let me call you sweetheart: The WOMAN AS DESSERT metaphor. In: Bucholtz, M. L., Sutton, A., Caitlin, L. H. (Eds.): Cultural performances, Proceedings of the Third Women and Language Conference. Berkeley Women and Language Group, University of California, Berkeley, California, 295-303. Hines, C.1996a. She-wolves, tigresses, and morphosemantics. In: Warner, N. A., Bilmes, J., Oliver, L., Wertheim, M. (Eds.), Gender and Belief Systems. Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley Women and Language Group. University of California, Berkeley, California, pp 303-311. Hines, C. 1999: Foxy chicks and Playboy bunnies: A case study in metaphorical lexicalization. In: Misako, K., Sinha H., Sherman, C. W. (Eds.), Cultural,Typological and Psychological Perspectives on Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam, Benjamins, 9-23. Hines, C. 2000. Rebaking the Pie: The ‘WOMAN AS DESSERT’ Metaphor. In: Bucholtz, M. L., Sutton, A. (Eds.), Reinventing Identities: The Gendered Self in Discourse. New-York and Oxford, Oxford University Press, 145-162. Holmes, J. 1992. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Longman, London. Holmes, M. 2007. What is gender? Sociological Approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Kittay, E. F. 1988. Women as metaphor. Hypatia, 3, (2), 63-86. Kövecses, Z. 2002. Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kövecses, Z. 2005. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and thought. In Ortony, A.(Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, G., & M. Turner. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G., & M. Turner. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. 1987. Image metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 2 (3), 219-222. Levenson, R. W. et al. 1991. Emotion, physiology, and expression in old age. Psychology and Aging 6, 28-35. McConnell-Ginet, S. 1988. Language and gender. In Frederick J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, IV: Language: The sociocultural context, Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 75-99. Mills, S. 1995. Feminist Stylistics. Routledge, London. Moon, R. 1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Nilsen, A. P. 1996. Of Ladybugs and Billy Goats: What Animal Species Names Tell About Human Perceptions of Gender. Metaphor and symbolic activity 11 (4), 257-271 Oakley, T., & S. Coulson. 1999. Blending and Metaphor. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Ed. Gerard Steen and Raymond Gibbs. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. On line: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Grady 99.html. Palmore. E. 1981. Social patterns in normal aging: Findings from the Duck Longitudinal Study Durham. NC: Duck University Press. Rodríguez, I. L. 2009. Of Women, Bitches, Chickens and Vixens: Animal Metaphors for Women in English and Spanish. Culture, Language and representation 7, 77-100. Robin, L. 1973. Language and Woman's Place. Language in society 2 (1), 45-88 Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In R. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Santrock, J. W. 2008. The Self, Identity, and Personality. In Mike Ryan (Ed.), A Topical Approach To Life-Span Development, New York: McGraw-Hill. Schmitt, D. et al. 2008. Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of personality and social psychology 94 (1), 168-82. Shinohara, K. et al. 2000. A study of metaphorical mapping involving socio-cultural values: How woman is conceptualized in Japanese. 14th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, Waseda University. Slobin, D. 1987. Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 13, 435–445. Slobin, D. 1996. From ‘‘thought and language’’ to ‘‘thinking for speaking.’’ In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press. pp 70–96. Wodak, R., & G. Benke. 1997. Gender as a sociolinguistic variable: new perspectives on variation studies. In: Coulmas, F. (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics. Blackwell Publishers, pp 127-150. Yu, N. 1995. Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbol 10 (2).59-92. Yu, N. 1998.The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 周靜佳。 2005。情與悟―《紅樓夢》「水」意象探討,漢學研究集刊 創刊號。 賀璋瑢。 2006。 兩性關係本乎陰陽─先秦儒家道家經典中的性別意識研究。四川出版集團。 楊婉瑩、林珮婷。 2011。 當「男女有別」變成「男女不平等」:性別角色認知與政治效能感。 女學學誌 29, 121-172 Online resource: The Revised Mandarin Chinese Dictionary of Ministry of Education: http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/ | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/63532 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本論文旨在探討性別隱喻在中文裡字典和透過問卷的呈現, 並加入性別和年齡兩個因素,試圖闡述不同年齡和不同性別對性別隱喻使用有何不同的觀點,進而彰顯性別隱喻如何影響我們對兩性的看法,及兩性權力在社會變遷之下對兩性隱喻的表達會如何改變。
隱喻不僅為人類思考及認知的重要機制,也為特定較有權力的群體對其他群體表達其價值判斷的工具。無論中西方,男性幾乎較女性有權力並主宰語言的創造,性別隱喻研究因此成為一個揭露以男性為主的社會投射對兩性看法的途徑。然而,此類研究多以歐美語言為主,對中文的性別隱喻研究鮮少著墨。此外,以往研究多以字典做為語料庫,反應的雖為此語言背後的文化價值,卻無法窺探性別隱喻在社會變化後的差異。有鑑於此,本篇論文不僅以教育部重編國語辭典為語料庫,並以問卷訪問不同年齡層和不同性別的中文母語者, 探討既定成俗(conventional)的隱喻會如何影響當今的語言使用者,並指出性別和年齡會如何對兩性隱喻產生不同的觀點。 研究結果發現,在以字典為語料庫的性別隱喻充滿了不對稱的現象和以男性為主的價值投射。描述女人的隱喻有女人是植物、女人是動物、女人是物質、女人是食物和女人是物品,然而描述男人所使用的來源域只有前三個。 描述女人時,最多使用的為女人是植物,強調的面向多以年齡,美貌,忠貞,同時也反應男性身為行為者的視角。而在描述男性上面最顯著的隱喻是男人是動物,只強調男人強壯高大的身體特徵。 問卷以三個層次來分析:來源域(Source domain)的類別、種類和目標域(Target domain)的特徵。結果顯示,除了既有的性別隱喻之外,還多出了其他八類新的(novel)來源域,也從原本不對稱的結構轉為較為對稱。其中原本有既定描述特定性別的隱喻時,使用這些隱喻來描述該性別的比例會比用來描述另一性別的比例來的高。而被描述的性別又會比另一性別使用描述該性別的隱喻頻率更高。此現象反應了兩點。第一,性別隱喻對兩性的刻板印象有很大的影響。其次,鑑於性別是社會所建構的,性別隱喻提供了一個劇本,使扮演該性別角色的一方會更加瞭解並遵守社會對此性別該扮演角色的規範。此外,有些並未出現於字典的表達因為文化背景,語言知識或生活經驗的關係成為顯著的隱喻,例如女人是水即為跨年齡跨性別形容女性最常用的隱喻。最後,在特徵的層次上,女性的外表被整個社會重視的程度較男性高,而男性在社會層次上的特徵被重視的程度較高。隨年齡的個性變化也反映在特徵描述的改變上。 本論文探討了性別隱喻在歷時性和共時性上的不同觀點,並補足了以歐美語系為主的性別隱喻研究。在歷時性上,本研究指出,性別隱喻在來源域及強調特徵的使用上有較以往對稱的改變,的確反映出現今兩性權力較為平等的社會。另一方面,也反映出仍有許多對性別的刻板印象。在共時性上,此研究探討不同年齡層和性別對性別隱喻的不同觀點,彌補了以往性別隱喻裡以男性為主的單一視角。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The present thesis aims to investigate gender metaphors in Mandarin Chinese by adopting corpus-based method and questionnaire in which two factors: gender and age are taken into account to examine how different gender metaphors would be in different times and from different perspectives of different ages and genders in present time.
Conceptual metaphor is not only regarded as an important mechanism of human thinking, but recognized as a device to reflect cultural values and norms which are often conveyed by speakers with more power toward other socially disadvantageous people. Men are usually those with power. Study on gender metaphor is thus considered as a manner to reveal the evaluations under the society of sexual inequality. However, little research of gender metaphor has been done except in European languages. Moreover, the data sources of previous studies are from the dictionaries, which are limited in reflecting the present values, and which lack different perspectives of different speakers. Via this study adopting two methodologies of corpus and questionnaire, we intend to fill the gap. The results based on dictionary show an asymmetrical structure of women metaphor and men metaphors. Besides, those metaphors are full of men’s values. The source domains describing women include PLANTS, ANIMALS, SUBSTANCE, FOOD, and OBJECT. However, only the previous three source domains are employed to refer to men. Among them, WOMEN ARE PLANTS is the most productive. Women’s age, beauty, and skittishness are highlighted. Otherwise, MEN ARE ANIMALS is the most prominent when men are the target domain. The tallness and the sturdiness are features emphasized. The questionnaire is analyzed from three levels: category of the source domains, types, and features of the target domains. The results show that other than the existed source domains found in the dictionary, there are eight novel source domains investigated. Besides, the asymmetrical structure has become more symmetrical. Among the categories, when there are conventional metaphors describing one gender in one category, the frequency of using this category to describe that gender is more prominent than to describe the other gender. Moreover, the speakers of one gender use more the conventional metaphorical expressions describing such gender to refer to themselves than speakers of the other gender do. Those findings show that gender metaphors have a great influence on the stereotypes of gender and that those metaphors describing two genders are regarded as an evidence for social construction of gender because each gender follows the society expects them to act, according to those metaphors. Otherwise, there are many types mentioned with high frequency not because of conventionality but of cultural background, language knowledge, and experience. For example, WOMEN ARE WATER is the conceptual metaphor of the highest frequency across genders and ages, which do not show in the dictionary. Finally, in term of selected features from the target domains, women’s appearance is more emphasized than that of men, while men’s social aspect are more focused than that of women. Furthermore, the differences of describing personalities reflect the change of personalities with ages. With ages, the focus of women’s tenderness increases, while the unpredictability of emotion decreases. On the other hand, the emphasis of men’s reliability decreases, whereas the impulsiveness decreases. By this study, we examine gender metaphors in Mandarin Chinese diachronically and synchronically, and complement the English-based literature on gender metaphors. Diachronically, the present study shows how gender metaphors change with the revolution of gender equality, but it also reveals that gender stereotypes are still entrenched in the society. Synchronically, we take age and gender into account to provide multiple perspectives in gender metaphors. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T17:13:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-101-R98142007-1.pdf: 2014113 bytes, checksum: a25f235f28dee3ce8bf3db2d36c17d47 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘要.......................................................i
Abstract.................................................iii List of Figures.........................................viii List of Tables.....................................................x Chapter 1 Introduction.....................................1 1.0 Overview...............................................1 1.1 Motivation.............................................4 1.1.1 Why gender metaphor?.................................4 1.1.2 Why Questionnaire?...................................5 1.2 Research questions and hypothesis......................7 1.3 Significance...........................................8 1.4 Organization of the thesis.............................9 Chapter 2 Literature Review ..............................10 2.1 Conceptual metaphor theory............................10 2.2 Previous studies of gender metaphor...................11 Chapter 3 Methodology.....................................14 3.1 The corpus-based approach.............................14 3.2 Questionnaire.........................................17 3.2.1 Categories..........................................20 3.2.2 Types...............................................22 3.2.3 Features............................................22 Chapter 4 Corpus result...................................25 4.1 PLANT AS THE SOURCE DOMAIN............................25 4.1.1 WOMEN ARE PLANTS....................................25 4.1.2 MEN ARE PLANTS......................................38 4.2 ANIMAL AS THE SOURCE DOMAIN...........................39 4.2.1 WOMEN ARE ANIMALS...................................40 4.2.2 MEN ARE ANIMALS.....................................45 4.3 SUBSTANCE AS THE SOURCE DOMAIN........................47 4.3.1 WOMEN ARE SUBSTANCE.................................47 4.3.2 MEN ARE SUBSTANCE...................................52 4.4 FOOD AS THE SOURCE DOMAIN.............................53 4.4.1 WOMEN ARE FOOD......................................55 4.5 OBJECT AS THE SOURCE DOMAIN...........................56 4.5.1 WOMEN ARE OBJECTS...................................56 4.6 Conclusion............................................58 Chapter 5 Questionnaire...................................61 5.1 Category..............................................63 5.1.1 ANIMAL..............................................65 5.1.2 PLANT...............................................67 5.1.3 SUBSTANCE...........................................69 5.1.4 FOOD................................................71 5.1.5 SUPERHUMAN..........................................72 5.1.6 HUMAN...............................................73 5.1.7 OBJECT..............................................75 5.1.8 NATURE..............................................77 5.1.9 WEATHER.............................................78 5.1.10 BODY PART..........................................79 5.1.11 SEASON.............................................80 5.1.12 LOCATION...........................................81 5.1.13 OTHERS.............................................82 5.2 Top five Types and Top five features..................84 5.2.1 Types describing women..............................85 5.2.2 Types describing men................................92 5.2.3 Source domains of the top five features from F-F....96 5.3 Features.............................................103 5.3.1 Features describing women..........................105 5.3.2 Features describing men............................113 5.4 Conclusion...........................................122 Chapter 6 Conclusion.....................................123 6.1 Summery and major findings...........................123 6.2 Implication and significance.........................124 6.3 Limitation and further study.........................125 Reference................................................129 Appendix.................................................132 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 水漾女人、動物男人、與隱喻:性別與年齡交互影響之性別隱喻研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Water Women, Animal Men, and Metaphor: A Gender Metaphor Study of the Interaction of Gender and Age | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 100-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 蘇以文(Lily I-wen Su),龔書萍(Shu-Ping Gong) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 性別隱喻,語言與性別,性別社會建構,概念隱喻, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | gender metaphor,language and gender,social construction of gender,conceptual metaphor, | en |
dc.relation.page | 170 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2012-08-20 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 語言學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 語言學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-101-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.97 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。