國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	塗易浚 Yi-Jun Tu
論文名稱：	臉書塗鴉牆的異議語使用 Disagreements on Facebook Wall
指導教授：	張妙霞 Chang, Miao-Hsia
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2014
畢業學年度：	102
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	131
中文關鍵詞：	異議語、臉書、語用策略、電腦輔助溝通、社群網站
英文關鍵詞：	disagreement, Facebook, pragmatic strategies, CMC, SNS
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：290 下載：46
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

上一筆

異議語在人與人的互動之中是不可避免的語言產物，即便互動的模式有所差異，仍然是無法避免的。在對話過程中，雙方會提出各自的意見，這時另一方額可以選擇接受抑或持反對的立場。當其中一方提出相異的意見時，如何保留對方的面子/臉(face)是首要目標。本文旨在分析異議語在社群網站臉書(Facebook)的使用情形，以及臉書使用者如何藉由不同的異議語策略來弱化其威脅性的本質，並且將一般對話(Face-to-face communication)之中的異議語使用情形與電腦輔助溝通(Computer-mediated communication)中的異議語使用作對比分析。本研究根據前人研究中的異議語策略(Lin,1999)做了修改與增益，本文提出共11種不同的異議語策略，其中包含五項強異議語(strong disagreement)與六項弱異議語(weak disagreement)。
分析結果顯示臉書使用者多數使用強異議語而非弱異議語，表示多數使用者並不避諱使用較具攻擊性的語言。然而由於本文蒐集語料之情境(context)多是親朋好友間的對話，這樣的情境反而使得異議語成為情感聯繫上的重要工具。此外，多數使用者會藉由幽默詼諧的表達方式用以修飾強烈反對的語氣。而電腦輔助溝通所具有的幾項特性，包含不同步性(asynchronicity)、可回溯性(retrievability)，也會影響臉書使用者的異議語策略的選擇，在其表現上與一般對話中的策略選擇產生不同的結果。

Disagreement in human interaction is almost inevitable, no matter in what kind of interaction mode. During a conversation, interlocutors keep making assessments to one another, and every assessment of proposition could be either accepted or denied (Pomerantz, 1984). When a speaker attempts to dissent from an opposing viewpoint, to disagree without threatening the prior interlocutor’s face is the primary goal, in terms of Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Principle (1987). The present study aims to analyze how speakers on a social networking site, Facebook, disagree by the use of various types of strategies; and in comparison with traditional Face-to-Face communication, how speakers perform disagreement strategically in the new interaction mode of computer-mediated communication. Adopting Lin’s (1999) categorization of disagreement strategies, the present study proposes 11 types of categories, including five strong disagreement and six weak disagreement strategies.
The results indicate that speakers in FB tend to use more aggressive strategies while disagreeing, instead of weak disagreement strategies. However, the context of the data collected in FB is between friends with close-knit relation. This context allows speakers to employ disagreement as a means to enhance their rapport and intimacy with close friends instead of breaking the consensus (Lin, 1999). While using strong disagreement, the subjects also mitigate the aggressiveness with humor or incorporation of other strategies. Besides, the unique medium features of asychronicity and retrievability in CMC change the speakers’ habits of using disagreement strategies, in which the language use of disagreement differs from that in FtF interaction.

Chinese Abstract ........................................................................................................... i
English Abstract ........................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................ vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................. vii
Transcription Notations ........................................................................................... viii
Chapter One Introduction........................................................................................... 1
1 Background and Motivation ............................................................................ 1
2 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................ 3
Chapter Two Literature Review ................................................................................. 5
1 Turn-taking system, Preference organization and Disagreement .......... 5
2 Face and politeness ................................................................................ 9
3 Previous studies on disagreement ........................................................ 11
3.1 Disagreement in Face-to-Face Communication .................................. 11
3.1.1 Pomerantz (1984) ..................................................................... 11
3.1.2 Kotthoff (1993) ........................................................................ 16
3.1.3 Kakavá (1993, 2002) ................................................................ 18
3.2 Disagreement in EFL studies .............................................................. 20
3.3 Disagreement in CMC ........................................................................ 23
3.4 Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese .................................................... 27
3.4.1 Lin, Z.-Y. (1999) ...................................................................... 27
3.4.2 Chen (2006) ............................................................................. 32
3.4.3 Lin, M.-F. (2008)...................................................................... 34
3.4.4 Weng (2008) ............................................................................. 35
4 Interaction in CMC .............................................................................. 36
4.1 CMC, a new mode of communication ................................................ 37
4.2 Mobile Communication ...................................................................... 39
4.3 Hybridization of oral and written language ........................................ 41
4.4 Facebook ............................................................................................. 43
5 Summary ........................................................................................................ 48
Chapter Three Method & Classification.................................................................. 50
1 Data Collection .............................................................................................. 50
2 Classification Scheme .................................................................................... 53
v
2.1 Account ............................................................................................... 55
2.2 Correction ........................................................................................... 56
2.3 Challenge ............................................................................................ 57
2.4 Criticism .............................................................................................. 59
2.5 Minimal Disagreement Token ............................................................. 60
2.6 Dispute ................................................................................................ 61
2.7 Modesty............................................................................................... 62
2.8 Suggestion ........................................................................................... 63
2.9 Pure Humor ......................................................................................... 64
2.10 Clarification ...................................................................................... 65
2.11 Evasion .............................................................................................. 66
2.12 Disagreement with Defense .............................................................. 68
2.13 Disagreement with Humor ................................................................ 69
2.14 Strong and weak disagreements ........................................................ 70
3 Summary ........................................................................................................ 71
Chapter Four Results and Discussion ...................................................................... 72
1 Distribution of pragmatic strategies ............................................................... 72
1.1 Overall distribution of pragmatic strategies ........................................ 72
1.2 Account ............................................................................................... 73
1.2.1 Pure Account ............................................................................ 73
1.2.2 Account with Defense .............................................................. 75
1.2.3 Account with Humor ................................................................ 79
1.2.4 Account with Defense & Humor.............................................. 80
1.3 Correction ........................................................................................... 82
1.3.1 Pure Correction ........................................................................ 82
1.3.2 Correction with Defense .......................................................... 85
1.3.3 Correction with Humor ............................................................ 87
1.3.4 Correction with Defense & Humor .......................................... 88
1.4 Challenge ............................................................................................ 89
1.4.1 Pure Challenge ..................................................................... 89
1.4.2 Challenge with Defense ....................................................... 91
1.4.3 Challenge with Humor ......................................................... 91
1.5 Criticism .............................................................................................. 93
1.5.1 Pure Criticism .......................................................................... 93
1.5.2 Criticism with Defense ............................................................ 95
1.5.3 Criticism with Humor .............................................................. 96
1.6 Minimal Disagreement Token (MDT) ................................................ 97
vi
1.6.1 Pure Minimal Disagreement Token ......................................... 97
1.6.2 Minimal Disagreement Token with Defense ........................... 99
1.7 Dispute .............................................................................................. 100
1.7.1 Pure Dispute ........................................................................... 100
1.7.2 Dispute with Defense ............................................................. 102
1.8 Modesty............................................................................................. 104
1.9 Suggestion ......................................................................................... 106
1.10 Pure Humor ..................................................................................... 108
1.11 Clarification .................................................................................... 109
1.12 Evasion ............................................................................................ 111
1.13 Summary ......................................................................................... 112
2 Comparison of CMC and FtF Disagreements .................................... 113
2.1 Categorization on CMC .................................................................... 114
2.2 Comparison of distribution between CMC and FtF studies ............. 114
2.2.1 Correction .............................................................................. 115
2.2.2 Account .................................................................................. 116
2.2.3 Challenge ............................................................................... 116
2.2.4 Clarification ........................................................................... 117
2.2.5 Suggestion .............................................................................. 118
2.2.6 Evasion ................................................................................... 118
3 Aggressive Strategies vs. Passive Strategies ................................................ 118
4 Summary ...................................................................................................... 121
Chapter Five Conclusion ......................................................................................... 122
1 Summary of the Findings ............................................................................. 122
2 Implications and Limitations ....................................................................... 125
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 128

                                

REFERENCES
Albert, E. M. 1964. “Rhetoric,” “Logic,” and “Poetics” in Burundi: Culture Patterning
of Speech Behavior1. American Anthropologist, 66(6_PART2), 35-54.
Aschenbrenner, S. 1986. Life in a Changing Greek Village: Karpofora and its
Reluctant Farmers. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA.
Atkinson, M, & Heritage, J. 1984a. Preference organization. In Atkinson
& Heritage, eds. 1984b, 53-56.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Salsbury, T. 2004. The organization of turns in the
disagreements of L2 learners: A longitudinal perspective. In D. Boxer & A. D.
Cohen (Eds.) Studying speaking to inform second language learning, 199-227.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Barnes, S. B. 2003. Computer-Mediated Communication. Human to Human
Communication across the Internet. Boston: Pearson Education.
Baym, N. 1995. The performance of humor in computer-mediated communication
[Electronic version]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1,
retrieved June 1, 2014 from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1995.tb00327.x/full
Baym, N. 1996. Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated
discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (29), 315–345.
Beebe, L. M. & Takahashi, T. 1989. Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening
speech acts: chastisement and disagreement. In The Dynamic Interlanguage:
Empirical Studies in Second Language Variation, Eisenstein, Mirian R.(ed.),
199-218. New York: Plenum Press.
Bell, N. 1998. Politeness in the speech of Korean ESL learners. Educational
Linguistics, 14(1), 25–47.
Bilmes, J. 1988. The concept of preference in conversation analysis. Language in
Society 17, 161-81.
Bolander, B. 2012. Disagreements and agreements in personal/diary blogs: A closer
look at responsiveness. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1607-1622.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. D. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature.
In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy,
35-54. Nonvood, NJ: Ablex.
Chen, M.-T. 2006. An interlanguage study of the speech act of disagreement made by
Chinese EFL speakers in Taiwan. MA thesis. Kaohsiung: National Sun Yat-sen
129
University.
Coates, J. 1989. Gossip revisited: language in all- female groups. In Women in Their
Speech Communities, Jennifer Coates and Deborah Cameron (eds.): 94-121.
London: Longman.
Du Bois, J., Paolino, S. S. C. D., & Cumming, S. 1993. Outline of discourse
transcription. Talking data: Transcription and coding methods for language
research, ed. by Jane Edwards and Martin Lampert, 221-260.
Edstrom, A. 2004. Expressions of disagreement by Venezuelans in conversation:
Reconsidering the influence of culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(8), 1499-1518.
Ferrara, K., Brunner, H., & Whittemore, G. 1991. Interactive written discourse as an
emergent register. Written Communication, (8), 8-34.
Friedl, E. 1962. Vasilika: A Village in Modern Greece. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York.
García, C. 1989. Disagreeing and requesting by Americans and Venezuelans.
Linguistics and Education, 1(3), 299-322.
Georgakopoulou, A. 2001. Arguing about the future: on indirect disagreements in
conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 1881–1900.
Goffman, Erving, 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior. Anchor
Books, Garden City, NY.
Graham, S. L. 2007. Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a
computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 742-759.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and
Semantics, Vol 3. New York: Academic Press.
Gu, Y. 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14,
237-257.
Habib, R. 2008. Humor and disagreement: Identity construction and cross-cultural
enrichment. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 1117-1145.
Herring, Susan C. 2007. A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated
discourse. Language@Internet 4 (1), 1-37.
Holmes, J. 1995. Women, Men, and Politeness. New York: Longman.
Kakavá, C. 1993. Negotiation of disagreement by Greeks in conversations and
classroom discourse. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown
University.
Kakavá, C. 2002. Opposition in Modern Greek discourse: cultural and contextual
constraints. Journal of Pragmatics (34), 1537–1568.
Kotthoff, H. 1993. Disagreement and concession in dispute: On the context
sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society, (22), 193-216.
Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London.
130
Leech, G. N. 2005. Politeness: is there an East-West divide. Journal of Foreign
Languages, 6(3).
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lin, Z.-Y. 1999. Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese conversation. MA thesis.
Taipei: National Chengchi University.
Lii-Shih, Y. H. E. 1988. Conversational Politeness and Foreign Language Teaching.
Lii-Shih, Y. H. E. 1994. What do “Yes” and “No” really mean in Chinese? In
Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1994, James
E. Alatis (ed.), 128-149.
Liu, J.-Y. 2009. Disagreement in mandarin Chinese: a sociopragmatic analysis. MA
thesis. Taipei: National Chengchi University.
Mackridge, P. 1992. Games of power and solidarity—commentary. Journal of Modern
Greek Studies (10), 111–120.
Maíz-Arévalo, C. 2013. “Just click ‘Like”’: Computer-mediated responses to Spanish
compliments. Journal of Pragmatics (51), 47-67.
Maria, S. 2012. Disagreement, face and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics (44),
1554-1564.
Mao, L. R. 1994. Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of
Pragmatics, (21), 451-486.
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. 1998. Conversational structures and facework in arguing.
Journal of Pragmatics (29), 225-256.
Ong, W. 1982. Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London:
Methuen
Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessment: some features of
preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson & Heritage (eds.), Structure of
social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57-101. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. 1973. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in
conversation. Public lecture at the Linguistic Institute, University of Michigan.
In: Button, G., Lee, J.R.E. (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization. Multilingual
Matters, Clevedon, UK, pp. 54–69.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language (50): 696-735.
Savas, P. 2011. A case study of contextual and individual factors that shape linguistic
variation in synchronous text-based computer-mediated communication. Journal
of Pragmatics, (43), 298-311.
131
Schiffrin, D., 1984. Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13, 311–335.
Sifianou, M. 2012. Disagreement, face and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics (44),
1554-1564.
Smith, C. 2014, August, 7. By the Numbers: 130 Amazing Facebook User &
Demographic Statistics. Retrieved August 13, 2014, from
http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/by-the-numbers-17-amazing-facebook-s
tats/.
Tannen, D.1984. Conversational Style. Norwood, Ablex, NJ.
Tannen, D. 1986. That’s Not What I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or
Breaks Your relations with Others. New York: William Morrow; London: J. M.
Dent.
Tannen, D. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New
York: William Morrow.
Vassiliou, V., Triandis, H. C., Vassiliou, G., McGuire, H. 1972. Interpersonal contact
and stereotyping. In: Triandis, H.C., Vassiliou, V., Vassiliou, G., Tanaka, Y.,
Shanmugam, A.V. (Eds.), The Analysis of Subjective Culture. Wiley, New York,
89–115.
Vuchinich, S. 1988. The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict.
In Conflict Talk, A.D. Grimshaw (eds.): 118-138. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Watts, R. J., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (Eds.) 1992. Politeness in language: Studies in its
history, theory and practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Weng, M.-T. 2008. A Study of the Speech Act of Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese.
MA thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
West, L. 2013. Facebook sharing: A sociolinguistic analysis of computer-mediated
story telling. Discourse, Context & Media, 2(1), 1-13.
Wojcieszak, M. E., & Mutz, D. C. 2009. Online groups and political discourse: Do
online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of
Communication, 59(1), 40-56.
Yu, M. 2003. On the universality of face: Evidence from Chinese compliment
response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1679-1710.
Yus, F. 2011. Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated Communication in Context. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文