請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/70456
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 蔡宜妮(I-Ni Tsai) | |
dc.contributor.author | Hueijun Li | en |
dc.contributor.author | 李慧君 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T04:28:35Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-08-21 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-08-21 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-08-13 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 毛延生. (2014). 漢語不禮貌話語的語用研究. 語言教學與研究(2).
王楠. (2003). 「才」字句的句法語義分析. [Syntactic-semantic Analysis of 'cai' Sentences]. 中文信息學報, 17(1), 38-45. 王毅圓. (2012). 不禮貌策略的動態分析--以《泰坦尼克號》為例. 牡丹江大學學報, 21(90-98). 冉永平. (2010). 衝突性話語趨異取向的語用分析. 現代外語, 33(2), 150-157. 冉永平, & 楊巍. (2011). 人際衝突中有意冒犯性話語的語用分析. 外國語, 34(3), 49-55. 何自然, & 冉永平. (2001). 語用學概論(修訂本): 湖南教育出版社. 吳延平. (2011). 淺論奧斯汀和塞爾的言語行為理論探究. Retrieved from http://www.changhengqk.com/waiyu/wenhua/2013/1208/29129.html 宋红梅. (2008). 「都NP了」句式的句法語義分析. [A Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of the Structure '都+NP+le']. 雲南師範大學學報(對外漢語教學與研究版), 6(6), 46-50. 李成團, & 冉永平. (2014). 虛假禮貌的實現方鉀及語用特徵分析. 外國語(2), 42-51. 邵敬敏. (2013). 疑問句的結構類型與反問句的轉化關係研究. 漢語學習(2), 3-10. 俞東明, & 韓仲謙. (2007). 戲劇文本語用闡釋之理據說略. 理論語言學研究, 1(2), 129-138. 紀瑋翰. (2018). 漢語言談中的非禮貌現象. (碩士), 國立臺灣師範大學. 高丰. (2009). 英、漢禁忌語文化内涵趨同性研究. 湖北廣播電視大學學報, 29(8), 119-119. 戚國輝, & 楊成虎. (2010). 「最好」的詞義演變與主觀化. [Study of Semantic Evolution of zuihao from the Perspective of Subjectification]. 寧波大學學報(人文科學版), 23(2), 51-55. 畢永峨. (2007). 遠指詞「那」詞串在臺灣口語中的詞彙化與習語化. 當代語言學, 2, 128-138. 陳俊光, & 劉欣怡. (2009). 漢語「好」的多視角分析與教學應用. [A Multi-level Analysis of 'Hao' in Chinese with Pedagogical Applications]. 華語文教學研究, 6(2), 45-98. doi:10.6393/jclt.200912.0045 陳學志, 詹雨臻, Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. (2011). 被笑恐懼相關特質的測量與信度及效度之評估. [Evaluating the Reliability and Validity of a Traditional Chinese Version of the PhoPhiKat-45]. 測驗學刊, 58(1), 119-145. doi:10.7108/pt.201103.0119 陶紅印, & 劉婭瓊. (2010a). 從語體差異到語法差異(上)--以自然會話與影視對白中的把字句、被動結構、光桿動詞句、否定反問句為例. 當代修辭學(1), 37-44. 陶紅印, & 劉婭瓊. (2010b). 從語體差異到語法差異(下)--以自然會話與影視對白中的把字句、被動結構、光桿動詞句、否定反問句為例. 當代修辭學(2), 22-27. doi:10.16027/j.cnki.cn31-2043/h.2010.02.007 黃美齡. (2014). 台灣訪談節目之不禮貌策略研究: 以康熙來了為例. (碩士), 靜宜大學. 黃苕冠. (2014). 網路新聞讀者留言的不禮貌語言行為研究. (博士), 國立臺灣師範大學. 劉禹暘. (2011). 兩岸電視廣告規範研究:一個比較新聞學的觀點. (碩士), 中國文化大學. 劉運同. (2007). 會話分析概要: 學林出版社. 賴小玉. (2014). 家庭衝突中強勢反對的不禮貌研究. 現代外語, 37(1), 42-51. 謝洁. (2013). 漢語電視劇中不禮貌話語的研究:會話分析視角. (碩士), 福建師範大學. 顧曰國. (1992). 禮貌、語用與文化. 外語教學與研究(92), 10-17. Arroyo, J. L. B. (2001). 'No diga chorradas...' La descortesía del debate político cara a cara: Una aproximación pragma-variacionista. Oralia: Análisis del discurso oral, 4, 9-45. Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2078-2105. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 Austin, J. o. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words: Clarendon Press. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: new (insights) for old (concepts)☆☆I am indebted to Sandra Harris, Barbara Pizziconi and two anonymous reviewers for their encouragement and insightful comments. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10), 1453-1469. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00173-X Beebe, L. (1995). Polite fictions: instrumental rudeness as pragmatics and competence. Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and Linguistics. Paper presented at the Linguistics and the. Education of Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguistics and Sociolinguistic Aspects. Georgetown University Round table 46th on Languages and linguistics, Georgetown. https://contentstore.cla.co.uk//secure/link?id=83cf400f-c841-e611-80bd-0cc47a6bddeb Bennison, N. (2002). Accessing character through conversation: Tom Stoppard’s Professional Foul. In J. Culpeper, M. Short, & P. Verdonk (Eds.), Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context (pp. 67-82): Taylor & Francis e-Library. Birchler, G. R., Weiss, R. L., & Vincent, J. P. (1975). Multimethod analysis of social reinforcement exchange between maritally distressed and nondistressed spouse and stranger dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 349-360. doi:10.1037/h0076280 Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction: John Benjamins Pub. Bremond, C. (1966). La logique des possibles narratifs. Communications, 4, 4-42. Bremond, C. (1973). Logique du récit. Paris: Seuil. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this 'We'? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83-93. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83 Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambriege: Cambridge University Press. Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheore: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer. Chang, W.-L. M., & Haugh, M. (2011). Strategic embarrassment and face threatening in business interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 2948-2963. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.009 Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(1), 121-126. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 Clift, R. (2014). Conversation Analysis. In K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Pragmatics of Discourse (pp. 97-124): De Gruyter. Coulthard, M. (1977). An introduction to discourse analysis: Longman. Coulthard, M. (1985). Flow Measurement. Measurement and Control, 18(5), 164-165. doi:10.1177/002029408501800502 Craig, R. T., Tracy, K., & Spisak, F. (1986). The discourse of requests. Human Communication Research, 12(4), 437-468. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00087.x Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349-367. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 Culpeper, J. (2002). (Im)politeness in dramatic dialogue. In J. Culpeper, M. Short, & P. Verdonk (Eds.), Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context (pp. 83-95): Taylor & Francis e-Library. Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture (Vol. 1, pp. 35). Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3232-3245. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007 Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence: Cambridge University Press. Culpeper, J. (2016). Impoliteness Strategies. In A. Capone & J. L. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society (pp. 421-445). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10), 1545-1579. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2 Day, D., & Wagner, J. (2008). Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. In G. Antos, E. Ventola, & T. in cooperation with Weber (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 33-51). Germany: Walter de Gruyter Drew, P., & Wootton, A. (1988). Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Polity Press. French, J. R. P., Jr. , & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power (Vol. 6). Gardner, R. (2008). Conversation Analysis The Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 262-284): Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Giles, H., & Powesland, P. (1997). Accommodation Theory. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A Reader (pp. 232-239). London: Macmillan Education UK. Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work; an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18(3), 213-231. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual; essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Goffman, E. (1983). The Interaction Order: American Sociological Association, 1982 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1-17. doi:10.2307/2095141 Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure: University of Chicago Press. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In M. Ezcurdia & R. J. Stainton (Eds.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy (pp. 47): Broadview Press. Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 237-257. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold. Haugh, M. (2006). Emic perspectives on the positive-negative politeness distinction. Cultural Studies Journal of Universitat Jaume 1, 3, 17-26. . Haugh, M. (2010). Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2106-2119. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018 Haugh, M., & Bousfield, D. (2012). Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1099-1114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003 Hecht, M. L., Warren, J. R., Jung, E., & Krieger, J. L. (2005). A communication theory of identity: development, theoretical perspective, and future directions. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. (pp. 257-278). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistices: Selected Readings (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jay, T. (1992). Cursing in America: A psycholinguistic study of dirty language in the courts, in the movies, in the schoolyards and on the streets: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Jefferson, G. (1973). A Case of Precision Timing in Ordinary Conversation: Overlapped Tag-Positioned Address Terms in Closing Sequences. Semiotica, 9(1), 47-96. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13-31). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness:: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 193-218. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90080-W Kienpointner, M. (1997). Varieties of rudeness: Types and functions of impolite utterances. Functions of Language, 4(2), 251-287. doi:doi:10.1075/fol.4.2.05kie Kinnison, L. Q. (2017). Power, integrity, and mask – An attempt to disentangle the Chinese face concept. Journal of Pragmatics, 114, 32-48. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.015 Lachenicht, L. G. (1980). Aggravating language: a study of abusive and insulting language. International Journal of Human Communication, 13, 607-688. Lakoff, R. T. (1989). The limits of politeness: therapeutic and courtroom discourse Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication (Vol. 8, pp. 101). Leech, G. N. (1983). Pragmatics of Politeness. London: Longman. Leech, G. N. (1992). Pragmatic principles in Shaw's You Never Can Tell'. In M. Toolan (Ed.), Language, Text and Context: Essays in stylistics (pp. 257-278). London: Routledge. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Limberg, H. (2009). Impoliteness and threat responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1376-1394. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.003 Locher, M. A., & Bousfield, D. (2008). Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Vol. Language, power, and social process, pp. 1-13). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lorenzo-Dus, N., Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., & Bou-Franch, P. (2011). On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2578-2593. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.005 Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. . In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The Meaning of Meaning. A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. (pp. 296-336). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 451-486. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6 Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 403-426. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3 Montry, J. A. (2002). How To Be Rude! A Training Manual for Mastering the Art of Rudeness: Stairwell Press Myers, G. (2001). “I’m out of it; you guys argue”: making an issue of it on the Jerry Springer Show. In A. Tolsen (Ed.), Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle (pp. 173-192). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. O’Driscoll, J. (2013). The role of language in interpersonal pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 170-181. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.008 Penman, R. (1990). Facework & Politeness: Multiple Goals in Courtroom Discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(1-2), 15-38. doi:10.1177/0261927X9091002 Psathas, G. (1980). Early Goffman and the Analysis of Face-to-Face Interaction in Strategic Interaction. In J. Ditton (Ed.), The View from Goffman (pp. 52-79). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Raisen, A., Vergis, N., & Christianson, K. (2015). Using eye-tracking to examine the reading of texts containing taboo words. Rawls, A. W. (1987). The interaction order Sui generis: Goffman's contribution to social theory. Sociological Theory, 5(2), 136-149. Russell, B. (1959). My Philosophical Development. Les Etudes Philosophiques, 14(4), 558-558. Sacks, H. (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 325-345). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Sacks, H., Jefferson, G., & Schegloff, E. A. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735. Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in Conversational Openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075-1095. Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethedology and Conversation Analysis (pp. 44-71). Cambridge: Polity Press. Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Discourse, Pragmatics, Conversation, Analysis. Discourse Studies, 1(4), 405-435. doi:10.1177/1461445699001004002 Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-382. doi:10.2307/413107 Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. Semiotica, 8(4). Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65): Academic Press. Simon, B. (2004). Identity in Modern Society. A Social Psychological Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Simpson, P. (1989). Politeness Phenomena in Ionesco’s The Lesson. In R. Carter & P. Simpson (Eds.), Language, Discourse and Literature (pp. 170-193). London: Routledge. Smart, B. (1996). Facing the Body - Goffman, Levinas and the Subject of Ethics. Body & Society, 2, 67-78. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 11-46). Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(5), 529-545. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00039-X Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 639-656. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004 Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking : culture, communication and politeness theory (pp. 11-47). London; New York: Continuum. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. Philosophy, 3, 143-184. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York, NY, US: W W Norton & Co. Terkourafi, M. (2003). Generalised and particularised implicatures of linguistic politeness. In P. Kühnlein, H. Rieser, & H. Zeevat (Eds.), Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium (pp. 151-166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Terkourafi, M., & Kadar, D. (2017). Convention and Ritual (Im)politeness. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics: Longman. Viejobueno, M. (2005). How to be impolite: rating offensive strategies. (MA dissertation), Michigan State University, East Lansing. Wajnryb, R. (2005). Language Most Foul: Allen & Unwin. Watts, R., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (1992). Introduction. In R. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice (pp. 1-17). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Weber, T. (2008). Everyday communication and socializing. In G. Antos, E. Ventola, & T. in cooperation with Weber (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 397-429). Germany: Walter de Gruyter Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1992). On verbal irony. Lingua, 87(1), 53-76. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90025-E Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wu, R.-J. R. (2004). Stance in talk: a conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/70456 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本論文觀察不禮貌現象出現頻率較高的戲劇語言,利用會話分析概念處理中文日常會話中的語言行為,根據Culpeper(2011)對不禮貌的定義並仿其不禮貌策略建立分類架構,並以人際關係管理理論(Spencer-Oatey, 2008)中的「面子」與「社交權利義務」兩要素取代修正,檢驗理論適用性的同時也希望對不禮貌研究多元性有所貢獻。
「面子」為個人在互動中希望受他人肯定的正面特質,可從個人特質、關係角色、社會群體三層次來解讀,其中關係角色層次本論文再詳細定為以社會角色為標準、與重要他人共用、關係運作協商三面向。語料中出現的面子攻擊輸出策略為:明確批評、蘊含式批評、陳述譴責、負面預測、訓誡指導、諷刺、駁斥、拒絕、輕視嘲笑等。另一判定不禮貌的要素「社交權利義務」,指個人對於與他人互動的型態與自身權益的期待,細分為公平權與聯結權。公平權之下,妨礙自由的行為包含積極的命令要求與消極的威脅;妨礙利益的有直接的剝奪輕忽與間接的自利行為;同時妨礙自由與利益的則是操弄他人資訊與提及禁忌話題。聯結權之下,妨礙互動參與行為可從會話進行與社交禮節兩角度分類,妨礙情感參與的行為則多出自彼此關係認知不符。不當關切他人隱私則同時妨礙平等及聯結權。 從語料的推導與論述,上述各種具體行為個別與整體都呈現了中文不禮貌的具體構成形態,而透過整理與分類過程,本論文認為中文言語不禮貌現象中的行為動機與形成原因也確實能以「面子」與「社交權利義務」等概念為基礎來解釋,但需在定義上做細部的調整增修,才能更有效率地將行為歸類。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The present study examines cinematic language, where impoliteness is frequent, and analyzes the linguistic behaviors of ordinary language with Conversation Analytic methodology. This study follows Culpeper’s definition on impoliteness(2011), and adopts his Impoliteness Strategies, revised with the notions of face and sociality rights and obligations from Rapport Management (Spencer-Oatey, 2008), as the framework of analysis. While testing the applicability of existing theories, this study also hopes to contribute to the field of Linguistic Impoliteness with discoveries in the Chinese language.
Face is an image of self of approved positives attributes a person claims in interaction, and could be read on personal, relational, and social levels. Three subgroups are created on relational level to better explain the data: based on social role, shared with significant others, relation-work. Face-attacking output strategies in the data include: obvious criticisms, implied criticisms, condemnation, negative forecast, admonishment, sarcasm, revocation, refusal, and scorn. The violation of Sociality rights and obligations is another factor of forming impoliteness, which includes Equity and Association rights, referring to the entitlements people claim in interaction which in turn form expectations of interaction. With Equity rights, acts that infringe autonomy-imposition rights are orders/requests and threats; for cost-benefit rights, the acts are exploitation/indifference and self-benefiting; while information-meddling and speaking taboo infringe both rights. With Association, acts that infringe interactional involvement-detachment rights can be analyzed in terms of conversation engagement and social interaction. Acts that infringe affectional involvement-detachment rights often come from the mismatch of recognition of the relationship among interactors. Acts of prying into personal privacy infringe both Equity and Association rights. The nature and formation of linguistic impoliteness in Chinese are presented in this study by the analyzing and theorizing the various acts as individual and as a whole in the data. Through the categorizing process, it also appears that it is applicable to interpret the motives and causes of linguistic impoliteness in Chinese, but in order to serve as a more efficient sorting system, adjustments such as more specified definitions and clearer boundaries between each categories are needed. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T04:28:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R03146003-1.pdf: 12013446 bytes, checksum: 863a117d5e8459eb285155112264a5cd (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 i
謝辭 ii 中文摘要 iii 英文摘要 iv 目 錄 vi 圖目錄 viii 表目錄 ix 第一章 緒論 1 1.1 研究背景與動機 1 1.2 研究方法與範圍 3 1.3 研究問題 5 1.4 研究架構 6 第二章 文獻探討 9 2.1 日常生活會話與會話分析 9 2.2 (不)禮貌研究發展 16 第三章 研究方法 37 3.1 語料選擇說明 37 3.2 轉寫標記規則 41 3.3 語料處理方式 44 第四章 不禮貌現象的形成:威脅、攻擊面子 49 4.1 個人特質層次的面子威脅行為 50 4.2 關係角色層次的面子威脅行為 112 4.3 社會群體層次的面子威脅行為 128 4.4 本章總結與討論 132 第五章 不禮貌現象的形成:損害社交權利義務 139 5.1 損害公平權 141 5.2 損害聯結權 164 5.3 同時損害公平權與聯結權 185 5.4 本章總結與討論 188 第六章 結論 195 6.1 研究結果 195 6.2 人際關係管理與(不)禮貌 197 6.3 其他發現 199 6.3 研究限制與未來研究方向 206 參考文獻 207 附錄 216 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 中文言語不禮貌會話分析:以台灣電視劇為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Impoliteness Phenomenon in Chinese: A Study Based on Taiwanese TV Drama | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃惠如,呂佳蓉 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 不禮貌,人際關係管理,面子,社交權利義務,會話分析, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Impoliteness,Rapport Management,face,sociality rights and obligations,Conversation Analysis, | en |
dc.relation.page | 217 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201803070 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-08-13 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 華語教學碩士學位學程 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 華語教學碩士學位學程 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 11.73 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。