中文的可愛一詞，字典定義為「討人喜愛的」，通常直譯為英文的cute，但其語意及用法卻遠超出字典的定義及英文的cute。雖然已有文獻研究過日文kawaii的語意及中文可愛與日文kawaii的異同，但就我知識所及，目前仍無人探討過台灣中文裡可愛一詞的語意及用法，更無人研究過在此社交媒體平台普及的年代可愛的創新用法。鑑於此，此論文旨在探討 (一)中文可愛一詞的描述範圍，(二)可愛的語意及其語用功能，及 (三)可愛的語意及用法在社交媒體平台發明前及發明後的異同。
本研究以語料為依據，探討不同語境和不同年代下的可愛。總共收集了八百筆可愛的語料，四百筆來自中央研究院漢語平衡語料庫(第四版)，另外四百筆來自廣泛被使用的社交媒體平台—臉書及狄卡。漢語平衡語料庫的語料是來自1981至2007年間的文章，此組語料代表了社群網路尚未發達前的語料; 而取自臉書及狄卡的語料則代表2007至2017年間網路上的語言使用。本研究根據這兩組語料，調查分析可愛的描述範圍、語意、功用及其可能的改變。
本論文研究結果包含三個部分: (一)可愛的描述範圍,(二)可愛的語意,及(三) 可愛的語用功能。就(一)可愛的描述範圍來說，在漢語平衡語料庫及社交媒體平台當中，可愛主要用來形容人類，如小孩和大人，再者是非人類，如有生命及無生命的對象，最後是事件。但是，在兩組語料中，這些對象被形容為可愛的特質卻不盡相同。在漢語平衡語料庫中，超過半數的人類之所以被形容為可愛，是因為他們的外在特色；然而，在社交媒體平台中，大多數的人類會被稱作可愛，是因為他們的行為表現，像是他們的禮儀、行為、態度和個性。至於非人類部分，在兩組語料中均發現，當可愛用來形容無生命的對象時，大多是因為這些對象所擁有的外在特色。可愛形容的第三個類別是事件，兩組語料在此類別有明顯的差異，在社交媒體平台中，高達12.1%的可愛是用來形容一整個事件，然而，在漢語平衡語料庫中，這一類可愛的用法只佔了0.8%。就(二)可愛的語意來說，兩組語料中大多數的可愛是用來表達正面意思。但儘管有此相似之處，兩組語料仍有差異存在。在社交媒體平台中，可愛出現了新的語意—「有娛樂效果的」。除此之外，在漢語平衡語料庫中，最常見的三種可愛的語意是「討人喜愛的」(62.3%)、「值得稱讚的」(11.9%) 及「單純的」(8.6%)， 而在社交媒體平台中最常見的語意則為「討人喜愛的」(49.9%)、「有娛樂效果的」(12.1%) 及「好笑的」(10%)。就(三)可愛的語用功能而言，雖然可愛在兩組語料當中都可以被用來當作規避語，但在社交媒體平台中，可愛被發現有著另外一項功能：表達一個人驚訝的心理狀態。
期望透過本研究，我們能夠更了解可愛的各種語意及用法，也能對其在近十年間的改變有進一步的認識。

In Mandarin, the word kěài, literally meaning “lovable” or “adorable”, is usually translated into cute in English. In fact, the meaning and use of kěài is far beyond what is given in the dictionary or that of its English counterpart. Although there is literature explicating the semantics of the cuteness term kawaii in Japanese and there is a contrastive study comparing Chinese kěài and Japanese kawaii, no research has been devoted to thoroughly examining the meanings and uses of kěài in Taiwan Mandarin, let alone possible innovative usage of kěài after the popularity of social media platforms. In view of this, this study aims to detailedly examine (a) what Mandarin kěài can describe (i.e. its descriptive range), (b) the semantics of kěài, along with its pragmatic functions, and (c) whether the meanings and uses of kěài are different in different times – the time before and after the invention of social media platforms.

This study adopts the data-based approach to examine kěài in different contexts and different times. A total 800 tokens of kěài were collected – 400 tokens from the Sinica Corpus (fourth edition) and the other 400 tokens from two widely used social media platforms, Facebook and Dcard. The set of data from the Sinica Corpus, in which the texts were written from 1981 to 2007, represents the data before the invention and popularity of the social media platforms while the set of data from Facebook and Dcard gives us texts from 2007 to 2017. Based on the two sets of data, the descriptive ranges, meanings, and functions of kěài and its possible changes are investigated.
The results of kěài in this study consist of three parts: (a) the descriptive range, (b) the semantics, and (c) the pragmatic functions. In terms of (a) the descriptive range of kěài, what kěài most frequently describes in both the Sinica Corpus and the social media platforms is Human beings, such as children and adults, followed by Non-human beings, such as animate and inanimate objects, and finally Events. But the properties for those objects to be described as kěài in the two sets of data are different in some way. In the Sinica Corpus, over half of the Human beings to be described as kěài are due to their “external features”; however, in the social media platforms, most Human beings to be called kěài lie in their deportment, including their manner, behavior, attitude and personality. As to Non-human beings, the property of those inanimate objects to be called kěài is mostly their external features in both sets of data. The last main type that kěài describes is Events and there is an obvious difference between the two sets of data: in the social media platforms, up to 12.1% of kěài is used to describe the whole situation and the event; however, in the Sinica Corpus, such usage of kěài only takes up 0.8%. In terms of (b) the semantics of kěài, kěài is found to convey positive meanings most of the time in both the Sinica Corpus and the social media platforms. Despite the similarity, there are differences. Kěài is found to have a new meaning—“entertaining” in the social media platforms. Besides, the top three meanings of kěài in the Sinica Corpus is “adorable” (62.3%) “praiseworthy” (11.9%) , and “innocent” (8.6%) while in the social media platforms such ranking becomes “adorable” (49.9%), “entertaining” (12.1%), and “amusing” (10%). In terms of (c) the functions of kěài, although kěài is found to be used as hedges in both the Sinica Corpus and the social media platforms, among the data of social media platforms, kěài has another function: show a person’s surprised mental state.
Through this study, it is hoped that we can have a better understanding of the various senses of kěài and its functions that foreground aspects of communication in different social interactions.

Asano-Cavanagh, Yuko. 2014. Linguistic manifestation of gender reinforcement through the use of the Japanese term 'kawaii'. Gender & Language 8(3): 341-359.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, ed. by E. Goody, 56-310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987.Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burdelski, Matthew, and Mitsuhashi, Koji. 2010. ‘She thinks you’re kawaii’: socializing affect, gender, and relationships in a Japanese preschool. Language in Society 39(1): 65-93.
Chuang, Tzu-i. 2005. The Power of Cuteness: female infantilization in urban Taiwan. Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs 5(2): 21-28.
Farris, Catherine S. 1988. Gender and grammar in Chinese: With implications for language universals. Modern China 14(3): 277-308.
Farris, Catherine S. 1995. A semeiotic analysis of sajiao as a gender marked communication style in Chinese. Unbound Taiwan: Closesups from a Distance, eds. by M. Johnson & F. Chiu, Chicago, 1-29. Chicago: Center for East Asian Studies, University of Chicago.
Goddard, Cliff. 2011. Semantic analysis: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.
Goddard, Cliff. 2012. Semantic primes, semantic molecules, semantic templates: key concepts in the NSM approach to lexical typology. Linguistics 50(3): 711-743.
Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society 13:139-157.
Hopper, Paul J. 1988. Emergent Grammar. The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 155-175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Huang, Chu-Ren. 2000. From quantitative to qualitative studies: developments in Chinese computational and corpus linguistics. Special Issue of Chinese Studies 18: 473-509.
Huang, Shuanfan. 1998. Emergent lexical semantics. Selected Papers from the Second International Symposium on Languages in Taiwan, ed. by S. Huang, 129-150.
Hyland, Ken. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
McVeigh, Brian J. 1996. Commodifying affection, authority and gender in the everyday objects of Japan. Journal of Material Culture 1(3): 291-312.
Tao, Hongyin. 2000. Adverbs of absolute time and assertiveness in vernacular Chinese: A corpus-based study. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 2000(3): 53-73.
Tao, Hongyin. 2003. Toward an emergent view of lexical semantics. Language and Linguistics 4(4): 837-856.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: the Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yamauchi, tomoko. 2011. Han yu “ke ai” yu ri yu “kawaii” zhi bi jiao yan jiu [A contrastive study of cute in Chinese and in Japanese]. Modern Chinese 5: 152-156.
Yomota, Inuhiko. 2007. “Kawaii” ron [Theory of “kawaii”] (Chen, guang-fen, trans.). Tokyo: Chikuma Shinsho. (Original work published 2006).
Yueh, Hsin-I Sidney. 2017. Identity Politics and Popular Culture in Taiwan: A Sajiao Generation. Lanham : Lexington Books.