請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/87840
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 謝吉隆 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Ji-Lung Hsieh | en |
dc.contributor.author | 楊令瑜 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Ling-Yu Yang | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-07-19T16:47:45Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-11-09 | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2023-07-19 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | - |
dc.date.submitted | 2023-05-09 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、西文資料
Anagnost, A, Arai, A, & Ren, H. (2013). Global futures in East Asia : youth, nation, and the new economy in uncertain times. Stanford University Press. Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press. Bell, B. L. (2009). Youth socio-political participation in a context of change: Media representations of the young active citizen in Canada, 1960s to 2000s (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University). Bessant, J., & Hil, R. (1997). Youth, Crime & the Media: Media Representation of and Reaction to Young People in Relation to Law and Order. National Clearinghouse for Youth Studies, 252-64, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Brading, R. (2020). Generation Z in Taiwan: Low Salaries,‘Little Happiness’, and a Social-Media World in the Mix. In The New Generation Z in Asia: Dynamics, Differences, Digitalisation. Emerald Publishing Limited. Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The human consequences. Columbia University Press. Carlson, E. (2008). The lucky few: Between the greatest generation and the baby boom. Springer. Caplan, E. (2005). Brand loyalty. Dealerscope, 20(May), 60. Coupland, D. (2007). Generation X: tales for an accelerated culture. Teacher: The National Education Magazine, (Oct 2007), 59. Devlin, M. (2006). Inequality and the Stereotyping of Young People, The Equality Authority. Eckleberry-Hunt, J., & Tucciarone, J. (2011). The challenges and opportunities of teaching “Generation Y”. Journal of graduate medical education, 3(4), 458-461. Evert, S. (2005). The statistics of word cooccurrences: word pairs and collocations. Universität Stuttgart. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis. In The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. Routledge. 9-20. Fealy, G., McNamara, M., Treacy, M. P., & Lyons, I. (2012). Constructing ageing and age identities: a case study of newspaper discourses. Ageing & Society, 32(1), 85-102. Fürnkranz, J. (1998). A study using n-gram features for text categorization. Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence, 3(1998), 1-10. Foster, K. (2013). Generation and discourse in working life stories. The British journal of sociology, 64(2), 195-215. Francis, T., & Hoefel, F. (2018). True Gen’: Generation Z and its implications for companies. McKinsey & Company, 12. Fraser, K. C., Kiritchenko, S., & Nejadgholi, I. (2022). Extracting Age-Related Stereotypes from Social Media Texts. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 3183–3194. Gitlin, T. (2003). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Univ of California Press. Glenn, N. D. (2005). Cohort analysis (Vol. 5). Sage Publication, Inc. Green, A. (2017). The Crisis For Young People : Generational inequalities in Education, Work, Housing and Welfare. Saint Philip Street Press Griffin, C. (2004). Representations of the Young. Youth in Society, 2, 10-18. Groves, J. M., Siu, K., & Ho, W. Y. (2014). The ‘post-80s generation,’‘young night drifters,’and the construction of a generic youth subject in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth Studies, 17(6), 829-846. Jauregui, J., Watsjold, B., Welsh, L., Ilgen, J. S., & Robins, L. (2020). Generational ‘othering’: the myth of the Millennial learner. Medical Education, 54(1), 60-65. Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., Franz, G., & Martocchio, J. J. (2010). Unpacking generational identities in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 392–414. Kalleberg, A. L. (2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 1-22. Kim, Y., & Khang, H. (2014). Revisiting civic voluntarism predictors of college students’ political participation in the context of social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 114-121. Kitch, C. (2003). Generational identity and memory in American newsmagazines. Journalism, 4(2), 185-202. Krahn, H. J., & Galambos, N. L. (2014). Work values and beliefs of ‘Generation X’ and ‘Generation Y’. Journal of Youth Studies, 17(1), 92-112. Kuo, C. (1999). Consumer styles and media uses of generation Xers in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Communication, 9(1), 21-49. Lee, T. H. T. (1986). Studies On Quantification in Chinese (Syntax, Language Acquisition, Quantifier Scope, China). University of California, Los Angeles. Leppänen, S. (2007). Youth language in media contexts: Insights into the functions of English in Finland. World Englishes, 26(2), 149-169. Lepianka, D. (2015). How similar, how different? On Dutch media depictions of older and younger people. Ageing & Society, 35(5), 1095-1113. Levinsen, K., & Wien, C. (2011). Changing media representations of youth in the news–a content analysis of Danish newspapers 1953–2003. Journal of Youth Studies, 14(7), 837-851. Liu, M. C., & Chang, C. (2012). The degree-evaluative construction: Grammaticalization in constructionalization. In Janet Zhiqun Xing (Ed.), Newest trends in the study of grammaticalization and lexicalization in Chinese, 115-148. Liu, J., Zhou, Y., Jiang, X., & Zhang, W. (2020). Consumers’ satisfaction factors mining and sentiment analysis of B2C online pharmacy reviews. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 20(1), 1-13. Lissitsa, S., & Kol, O. (2016). Generation X vs. Generation Y–A decade of online shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 304-312. Long, T.J. & Long L. (1984). Latchkey children. In L. Katz (Ed.), Current Topics in Early Childhood Education, 5, 141-164.. Lyons, S. T., & Schweitzer, L. (2017). A qualitative exploration of generational identity: Making sense of young and old in the context of today’s workplace. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3(2), 209-224. Manning, C., & Schutze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. MIT press. Maier, D., Waldherr, A., Miltner, P., Wiedemann, G., Niekler, A., Keinert, A., ... & Adam, S. (2018). Applying LDA topic modeling in communication research: Toward a valid and reliable methodology. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2-3), 93-118. Mannheim, K. (1970). The problem of generations. Psychoanalytic Review, 57(3), 378-404. Ozkan, M., & Solmaz, B. (2015). The changing face of the employees–generation Z and their perceptions of work (a study applied to university students). Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 476-483. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2011). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. ReadHowYouWant.com. Protzko, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2019). Kids these days: Why the youth of today seem lacking. Science Advances, 5(10). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aav5916 Reisenwitz, T. H., & Iyer, R. (2009). Differences in generation X and generation Y: Implications for the organization and marketers. Marketing Management Journal, 19(2), 91-103. Ryder, N. B. (1985). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. In Cohort Analysis in Social Research. Springer. Sinclair, J., & Sinclair, L. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press, USA. Schuman, H., & Scott, J. (1989). Generations and collective memories. American Sociological Review, 54(3), 359-381. Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America's future. Quill. Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational identity: A reader. Oxford University Press. Twenge, Jean M., Stacy M. Campbell, Brian R. Hoffman, & Charles E. Lance. (2010). Generational Differences in Work Values: Leisure and Extrinsic Work Values Increasing, Social and Intrinsic Values Decreasing. Journal of Management 36 (5), 1117-1142. https:// doi.org/ 10.1177/0149206309352246. Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (Eds.). (1979). The social psychology of intergroup relations. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Thurlow, C. (2007). Fabricating youth: New-media discourse and the technologization of young people. Language in the media: Representations, Identities, Ideologies, 213-233. Shaw, T. A. (1994). " We Like to Have Fun" Leisure and the Discovery of the Self in Taiwan's" New" Middle Class. Modern China, 20(4), 416-445. Threadgold, S. (2020). Figures of youth: on the very object of Youth Studies. Journal of Youth Studies, 23(6), 686-701. Ural, H., Can-Mollaer, E., & Okan, C. (2022). Media representations of young people during pandemic times in Turkey. Journal of Youth Studies, 1, 1-16. Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college students' life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 14(4), 875-901. Vosko, Leah, ed. (2005). Precarious Employment: Understanding Labour Market Insecurity in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Wang, C. M. (2017). ‘The future that belongs to us’: Affective politics, neoliberalism and the Sunflower Movement. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 20(2), 177-192. Xu, J. L., & Hsu, Y. L. (2022). The impact of news sentiment indicators on agricultural product prices. Computational Economics, 59(4), 1645-1657. Zhang, Z., & Li, K. (2022). So you choose to “Lie Flat?”“Sang-ness,” affective economies, and the “Lying Flat” movement. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 108(1), 1-22. 二、中文資料 于治中(1989)。正文、性別、意識形態 — 克麗斯特娃的解析符號學。文學的後設思考。正中。 王維菁(2018)。勞動薪資議題之媒體再現與定錨影響初探:以人力銀行青年起薪調查新聞為例。中華傳播學刊,33,219-256。 牛志瑋(2017)。宅男的污名:臺灣新聞報導的內容分析。國立政治大學新聞學研究所碩士學位論文。 內田樹(2008)。下流志向:為什麼孩子不上學、不工作。麥田。 阮偉芳(2019)。我國近十年青年薪資與勞動力運用之影響因素對策。國家發展 委員會人力發展處。 李易駿、 古允文(2007)。機會開放或結構限制?臺灣青年從學校到職場轉銜過程中的Yo-Yo現象。臺灣社會研究季刊,67,105-152。 林怡岑(2021)。從量化到情態:副詞「都」的演變。臺大中文學報,75,105-149。 林宗弘、洪敬舒、李健鴻、王兆慶、張烽益(2011年11月12日)。崩世代:財團 化、貧窮化與少子女化的危機。臺灣勞工陣線協會。 林宗弘(2015)。再探臺灣的世代政治:交叉分類隨機效應模型的應用,1995–2010。人文及社會科學集刊,27(2),395-436。 林盈妤(2017)。從青年失業淺談新北市非典型勞動概況。數據分析,12(5),21-36。 周君蘭、畢盈、李盈諄(2001)。搖頭丸新聞報導之媒體建構—以中國時報, 聯合報、民生報與自由時報為例。傳播與管理研究, 1(1),121-143。 洪敬舒(2014)。失落的一代- 當前青年世代的結構性就業困境。社區發展季刊,146,65-76。 邱楷恩(2014)。草莓世代的建構與想像,國立政治大學新聞學研究所碩士學位 論文。 陳光興(1997)。青少年文化研究:回應林益民。台灣社會研究季刊,25,227-231。 陳婷玉、 張志遠(2013)。「尸位素餐」的大學生? – 大學生形象的媒體再現與 閱聽人解讀研究。傳播與管理研究,13(1),73-122。 陳雅君、黃雅慧(2003)。六年級與網路世代。網路社會學通訊期刊。 陳明輝、張昀徽(2021)。中國大陸「躺平主義」的興起與影響分析。展望與探索月刊,19(9),117-125。 張一彬(2019)。世代之間的正義與分配:年齡與經濟世代對薪資公平正義認知。臺灣政治學刊,23(1),103-158。 張宗坤(2021)。戰後臺灣青年論述的發展與流變。文化研究,32,308-341。 張宜君(2017)。高等教育報酬的世代差異:勞動市場結構轉型的影響。臺灣教育社會學研究,17(1),87-139。 張淑綺(2000)。我是誰?青少年的再現──以平面媒體為例。輔仁大學大眾傳 播學研究所碩士學位論文。 翁靜玉(1993)。辦公室物語。就業情報雜。 茂呂美耶則(2011)。乙男蟻女:106個世代標籤,深入你不知道的日本。麥田。 葉大華(2012年4月10日)。低薪青年囧世代 誰來幫幫忙?。新使者,129,12-15。 賈博婷、馬鋮(2022)。基於情感分析的旅遊體驗研究——以長白山風景區為例。 旅遊縱覽,87-96。 雷開春、林海超、汪星遙(2022)。主體的視角:青年真的想躺平?——基於微博 LDA 模型的數據分析。青年學報。 孫宇婷、梁朝雲(2020)。地域偏見中的他者與社會記憶: 自媒體語境下的東北人形象研究。傳播與社會學刊,52,27-55。 翁慧敏(1991)。鑰匙兒童問題研究。研考雙月刊,47-51。 蔡秀涓(2004),世代因素對公務人員工作價值觀影響之實證分析:以考試院暨所屬機關為例。東吳政治學報,18,41-67。 蔡雨真(2010)。臺灣民主學運的演變─以野百合學運和野草莓學運為中心。長榮大學臺灣研究所碩士班碩士學位論文。 謝文元、李易駿(2007),缺乏保障的就業:青年非典型工作經驗之探討。政大勞動學報,21,1-53。 游美惠 (2000)。內容分析,文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用。調查研究,8,5-42。 熊瑞梅、張峰彬、林亞鋒(2010)。解嚴後民眾社團參與的變遷:時期與世代的效應與意涵。臺灣社會學刊,44,55-105。 楊莉明(2009)。非主流與火星文的一代:90後網路媒體形象初探。中國青年 研究,74-80。 鄭亘良(2021)。看不見未來:臺灣「厭世代」的世代情感初探。文化研究,32,362-383。 燕道成、黃果(2013)。污名化:新聞報導對網遊青少年的形象建構。國際新聞界,1,110-117。 鍾曉芳、曾瑋庭(2022)。類別隱喻構式研究,中國語文通訊,101(2),193-212。 鍾蔚文、臧國仁、陳韻如、張文強、朱玉芬(1995)。新聞的框架效果,中文 傳播研究論述,243-256。 蕭阿勤(2008)。回歸現實:臺灣1970年代的戰後世代與文化政治變遷。群學出版有限公司。 臧國仁(1998)。新聞報導與真實建構:新聞框架理論的觀點。傳播研究集 刊 ,3,1-102。 蘇蘅(2002)。新聞裡的罪與罰-報紙與電視新聞如何再現青少年犯罪。新聞學 研究,70,59-96。 蘇金嬋、鄭維瑄(2014)。他們為什麼不工作?啃老族/尼特族現象國外經驗初探。社區發展季刊,146,138-148。 龍國富(2013)。「越來越……」構式的語法化——從語法化的視角看語法構式的顯現。中國語文, 1,25-34。 蕭遠(2011)。網際網路如何影響社會運動中的動員結構與組織型態?-以台北野草莓學運為個案研究。臺灣民主季刊 ,8(3),45-85。 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/87840 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 不論在哪個時空背景之下,在描述青年世代時,媒體在報導中經常使用各式標籤概括描述年輕族群。本研究分析近三十年報紙對年輕族群的各式標籤,包含其出現的時間點與近三十年的變動。並據此探究不同時期與年輕族群相關的報導如何反映當時的社會議題?再近一步觀察這些標籤所處的文本脈絡語言特徵。例如觀察主流媒體是否有透過特定詞彙加強這些標籤之於年輕人的框架?這些框架又如何呈現社會對於青年的正面與負面評論?
透過大量蒐集在1990年代至2022年間包含年輕人相關代稱的文本,本研究首先觀察不同標籤的首次出現時間,以及分佈的年份、文本數量起伏等,並分析各個標籤或代稱背後牽涉的集體記憶。接著,本研究進一步以半自動化主題建模的方式,梳理年輕人新聞報導文本在不同時期的內容,並分析各時期的主題、關鍵字以及相對應的刻板印象。最後,本文透過自動化文字探勘工具,利用情緒分析還有搭配詞分析方法,探討新聞報導如何透過特定的言語框架呈現出對年輕人的正、負面印象,並分析這些說法與哪些詞彙相近。 研究結果發現,臺灣主流媒體使用世代標籤從未間斷,且各標籤之出現時間點與銳減時期皆有所重疊,在1990年代有臺灣飲料廣告商創造了「新新人類」一說,並同時有「X世代」、「Y世代」等標籤被廣為運用;在2000年代,則轉換為「六年級生」、「七年級生」、「草莓族」等;在2010年後,則有「媽寶」、「靠爸族」、「躺平族」等標籤指涉年輕人。進一步推算上述各時期的年輕人代稱,「新新人類」、「X世代」等指涉的為現今50、60歲的族群,即將步入老年;「六年級生」、「七年級生」、「Y世代」、「草莓族」等則指涉現在35至50歲的族群,為社會重要的青壯年勞動力人口;「媽寶」、「Z世代」、「八年級生」、「躺平族」等則指涉現在正值 18至35歲的族群,是當代的年輕人。 接著,以主題模型方法對1990、2000、2010年代三個時期各建立12個主題,並以五大面向「工作職場」、「政治與社會環境」、「消費習慣」、「教育文化」、「科技」等對上述三個時期各12個主題進行整合。觀察各時期的主題,可發現年輕族群在消費行為與市場商機方面備受關注,但經常會與不善理財、只愛花錢的刻板印象連結。同時,研究者也發現,關於青年族群在性與犯罪方面的討論在各時期皆被高度討論。而1990年代的文本相較於2000年代及2010年代的文本,明顯較少提及年輕族群善用科技的文本,遂無形成科技主題。工作職場方面,則以世代管理及年輕人抗壓性差等內容為主軸。整體而言,各時期報導主題多能夠與時下社會、政治議題與經濟現狀呼應,也能對應新聞媒體和社會大眾對年輕族群既有的刻板印象與認知。 最後,透過情緒分析以及搭配詞分析方法,本研究以程度構式「越來越」、副詞「都是」以及社會慣用說法「現在年輕人」等三大類型的文本探討報導的態度再現。結果發現,在理當客觀、中立的新聞報導中,三種言語框架在與積極和消極的字詞搭配後,皆會形成對於年輕族群的特定評價,例如積極的評價會涉及創業、購屋、消費等面向,消極的評價則涉及不善理財、抗壓性低、沈迷玩樂等面向。研究者並觀察,這三種類型的言語框架皆顯示世代間他者化現象,也呈現出說話者把自己視為「上一代」、年輕族群為「下一代」,而蘊含的「一代不如一代」的批判。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | On newspapers, young people are often dubbed in certain umbrella terms, such as “Strawberries”, “Generation X” or “Mama’s Boy”, which are created by online forums, Taiwanese writers or foreign cultures. As the terms are deeply connected with young people, the motivation and context are not fully discussed and explored. To better understand the phenomenon, the research intends to find out the time, the themes and the positive and negative images of young people presented in the news stories.
The study collects data from United Daily News (聯合新聞網) from 1990 to 2022. For the first research question, the research applies quantitative analysis to explore the collective memories young people have in different time periods. Following the exploration, the research analyzes the data by automatic method topic modeling to construct topics and analyze the stereotypes against young people. Finally, the study adopts sentiment analysis and collocation analysis to examine three different types of linguistic patterns including“越來越”,“都/都是”and“現在年輕人”. The study uncovers that since the 1990s, terms such as “New New Human” and “Generation X” are widely used in news stories, followed by “Strawberries、Sixth Grader”, “Seventh Grader” and “Generation Y” in the 2000s. After the 2010s, “Mama’s Boy”, “Eighth Grader”, “Generation Z” and “Lying Flat Generation” are frequently used in news stories as well. The terms occur in news media continuously, indicating how Taiwanese media outlets tend to use umbrella terms to refer to young people in Taiwan. Meanwhile, the study discovers that the terms in 1990s are for the 50-60 year-old age group, which are in their late adulthood; the terms in 2000s are for the 35-50 year-old age group, which are the core labor force in society; the terms in 2010s are for the 20-35 year-old age group right now, which are the current younger generation. Then, 12 themes are established for each period through topic modeling. The results unveil that the themes mostly fall into five aspects: workplace, political and social environment, consumption, education and culture, and technology. While most topics are related to consumption, the study finds that the contents often build up a lazy and uncompetitive image of young people. Meanwhile, the study discloses that discussions about sex and crime among young people occur frequently in each period as well. Compared with the texts of the 2000s and 2010s, the texts in the 1990s have fewer texts mentioning young people’s excellence in technology. All in all, most themes in each period can echo the current social, political issues and economic status quo, and can correspond to the existing stereotypes and perceptions of young people by the news media and the general public. Finally, through sentiment analysis and collocation analysis, the study uncovers that the three construction“越來越”,“都/都是'' and “現在年輕人” indicate intergenerational othering that views young people as out-group are not as good as previous generations. In addition, the study finds that positive evaluations involve young people in entrepreneurship, home buying and consumption, as negative evaluations are associated with young people’s poor financial management, incapability to handle stress and indulging in leisure activities. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-07-19T16:47:45Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-07-19T16:47:45Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 i
誌謝 ii 中文摘要 iii 英文摘要 v 第一章 緒論 1 1.1 導言 1 1.2 研究問題與目的 4 1.3 研究貢獻 5 第二章 文獻探討 7 2.1 臺灣世代刻板印象與背景脈絡 7 2.1.1 臺灣的世代標籤 7 2.1.2 世代標籤與刻板印象 10 2.1.3 小結 20 2.2 年輕人與媒體再現 22 2.3 小結 25 第三章 研究方法 27 3.1 資料說明 27 3.2 資料分析方法 29 第四章 研究結果 38 4.1 年輕人標籤之時間性與集體記憶 38 4.2 梳理媒體中年輕人之討論主題及刻板印象 54 4.3 分析年輕人報導中之情緒與態度再現 81 第五章 結論 98 5.1 研究結論 98 5.2 研究建議 100 參考文獻 103 附錄 113 | - |
dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
dc.title | 從新新人類到躺平族 — 分析臺灣年輕人自1990至2022年在報導中的再現與轉變 | zh_TW |
dc.title | From “New New Human” to “Tang Ping Generation”: Analyzing the Changing Representation of Taiwanese Youth | en |
dc.type | Thesis | - |
dc.date.schoolyear | 111-2 | - |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 蔡蕙如;陳正賢 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Hui-Ju Tsai;Cheng-Hsien Chen | en |
dc.subject.keyword | 年輕人,臺灣,世代標籤,再現,集體記憶,文字探勘,主題分析,情緒分析, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Taiwan,Young People,Collective Memory,Representation,Generation,Topic Model,Collocation Analysis,Sentiment Analysis, | en |
dc.relation.page | 113 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202300761 | - |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
dc.date.accepted | 2023-05-10 | - |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 新聞研究所 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 新聞研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-111-2.pdf | 28.88 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。