簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 張嘉華
Chia-hwa Chang
論文名稱： 電腦媒介溝通中的禮貌要素
The Politeness Factors in Computer-Mediated Communication
指導教授： 張武昌
Chang, Wu-Chang
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 英語學系
Department of English
論文出版年： 1998
畢業學年度： 87
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 366
中文關鍵詞： 電腦句媒介溝通 、禮貌 、權力 、距離 、遮罩
英文關鍵詞： CMC, politeness, power, distance, mask
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：164  下載：0 
分享至:
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

    • 電腦媒介溝通(CMC) 為一種新興的溝通方式,人們藉由電腦的連結和素未謀面的對方交談.在電腦媒介溝通中人的禮貌行為顯然和面對面的溝通(FFC)不同,其中最大的差異便是電腦交談中的"大膽"(inhibitedness).
    本研究旨在找出此種偏離常態的溝通行為的原因.研究結果顯示人們的禮貌行為受以下四種因素的影響:權力(power),距離(distance),侵犯等級(rank of imposition),以及遮罩(mask).由於電腦媒介溝通較難得知交者的實際社會背景,因此以上四個因素的值大部份取決於交談過程中互動的情況以及交談者當時的心理狀態.這四個因素可構成一個公式,交談者依此公式計算出在電腦媒介溝通中的合宜行為.公式如下:
    Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx –M(AS,RS)
    Wx代表某個"有損面子的行為"(FTA)x的嚴重程度;D(S,H)表示交談者之間的社會距離與心理距離,P(H,S)代表交談者之間的權力地位差距;Rx表示某行為x在該文化中被認為的侵犯等級;至於M(AS,RS)則代表說話者本身的"特定場合人格"與"真實人格"之間的差異程度.
    以此公式為基礎,本研究亦對電腦媒介溝通中的各種互動情況深入討論.最後作者也將此公式應用至面對面的溝通,其結果顯示面對面溝通中的禮貌行為也可用此公式予以解釋.

    Computer-mediated Communication (CMC) is a newly-sprung medium of communication, in which people interact without seeing or even knowing each other. People’s behavior in CMC has been observed to differ greatly from the norm in face-to-face communication (FFC), the most striking of which is the uninhibitedness demonstrated by CMC participants.
    This study aims to find out what reasons or rules lie behind these norm-deviating behavior, and it is found that there are four factors governing people’s performance of politeness. These factors are Power (P), Distance (D), Rank of Imposition (R) of a given act, and Mask (M). Since social cues are usually unavailable in CMC, the values of these factors are mostly determined by the interactional facts and the psychological state of the participants at the moment of communication. The four factors together form a formula according which people calculate their appropriate politeness behavior. The formula goes as follows:
    Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx –M(AS,RS)
    Wx is the value that measures the weightiness of the given FTA x; D(S,H) is the value that measures the social and psychological distance between the speaker and the hearer; P(H,S) is measures the power the hearer has over the speaker, and Rx is the ranking of imposition of this act x in the culture. Finally, M(AS,RS) measures the degree of difference between one’s Assumed Self and Real Self.
    Based on this formula, different interactional scenarios among CMC participants are discussed in detail. Finally, I make an attempt to apply this model to FFC and the result seems to be satisfactory.

    Table of Contents Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………i Abstract………………………………………………………………………ii List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………iii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………iv Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………1 1.1 Motivation…………………………………………1 1.2 Definitions of some terms……………………………………………………2 1.3 Objectives………………………………………3 1.4 Delimitations of the study……………………3 1.5 Methodology………………………………………4 1.5.1 The data…………………………………4 1.5.2 Research method………………………5 1.6 Characteristics of CMC………………………7 1.7 Organization of the study…………………10 Chapter 2 Literature Review and Theoretical Framework12 2.1 Literature review……………………………12 2.1.1 Previous studies on CMC…………………12 2.1.1.1 The communicative mode of CMC……12 2.1.1.2 “Democracy” in CMC………………14 2.1.2 Previous studies on politeness phenomena………………16 2.1.2.1 Politeness based on Gricean maxims17 2.1.2.1.1 Lakoff (1973)…………18 2.1.2.1.2 Leech (1983)…………19 2.1.2.1.3 Shih (1986)…………21 2.1.2.1.4 Brown and Levinson (1987) ........22 2.1.2.1.5 Fraser (1990)………25 2.1.2.1.6 Gu (1990) …………25 2.1.2.1.7 Scollon and Scollon(1995) ........26 2.1.2.2 Politness based on the Relevance Theory..............28 2.1.3 Politeness phenomenon in CMC (Widjaja 1996)…………30 2.1.4 Issues on conversational analysis ……………………32 2.1.4.1 Speech act theory ………………32 2.1.4.2 Turn-taking…………………34 2.1.4.3 Preference organization…………36 2.1.4.4 Topic management…………………37 2.2 Theoretical framework………………………………………39 Chapter 3 Politeness in CMC…………………………41 3.1 Observed conversational deviations in chatroom talk…41 3.1.1 Greater tolerance to imposing acts…………41 3.1.2 Attending to several topics at one time…47 3.1.3 Abrupt topic change……………………………54 3.1.4 Turn-taking—everyone get equal floor……57 3.1.5 Giving no response to other participants...60 3.2 Some reservations about Widjaja (1996)………………64 3.2.1 Omission of the P factor…………………65 3.2.2 Improper definition for the D factor..……71 3.2.3 Problem with the M factor……………………73 3.3 Applying Brown and Levinson model to CMC………………77 3.3.1 The advantage of B&L model…………………77 3.3.2 Some reservations about P and D in B&L model…78 3.3.3 Restoration of P and D in B&L model and their application to CMC.......79 3.4 Modification of B&L politeness model…………………86 3.4.1 Proposal of a new factor Mask …………86 3.4.1.1 Definition of Mask……………87 3.4.1.2 Two related issues about Mask..94 3.4.1.2.1 The use of pseudonyms…94 3.4.1.2.2 The validity of many selves…99 3.4.2 Formulation of the politeness formula……101 3.4.2.1 Power………………………………102 3.4.2.2 Distance………………………108 3.4.2.3 Rank of imposition …………109 3.4.2.4 Mask ……………………………111 Chapter 4 Application and Implication …………112 4.1 The application of the new politeness model ………112 4.1.1 How CMC participants se the variables…112 4.1.1.1 Independent setting…………112 4.1.1.2 Accommodated setting…………120 4.1.2 When CMC participants conflict…………121 4.1.3 The relationship between P and D………128 4.2 Existence of behavioral norm in CMC…………………134 4.3 Applying CMC politeness factors to FFC……………137 Chapter 5 Conclusion………………………………140 5.1 Major findings…………………………………………140 5.2 Limitations of the present study…………………144 5.3 Suggestions for further studies …………………145 References …………………………………………………147 Appendix I Penalties for Violating Chatroom Regulations…154 Appendix II The Data………………………………………………155

    References
    Adrianson, L. and E. Hjelmquist (1988). Users’ experiences of COM—A computer-mediated communication system. Behaviour and Information Technology 7:79-99. Cited from Eldred and Hawisher (1995:330-59)
    Austin J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Bach , K. and R. M. Harnish (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Bayraktaroglu, A. (1991). Politeness and interactional imbalance. International Journal of Society of Language, 92:5-34.
    Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Brown, P. and S. Levinson (1978). Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    --------(1987) Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Brown, G. and G. Yule (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Carlstrom, Eva-Lise (1992). Better Living Through Language. The Communicative Implications of a Text-only Virtual Environment, or, Welcome to LambdaMOO! FTP: parcftp.xerox.com in pub/MOO/papers.
    Chen, L. and D. J. Cegala (1994). Topic management, shared knowledge, and accommodation: a study of communication adaptability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27/4: 389-417.
    Chesebro, J. W. and D. G. Bonsall (1989). Computer-Mediated Communication: Human Relationships in a Computerized World. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
    Collins, R. (1988). Theoretical continuities in Goffman’s work. In P. Drew and A. Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Policy Press.
    Collot, M. and N. Belmore (1996). Electronic language, In S. C. Herring (ed.), Computer-mediated communication: linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    Cooper, M. And C. Selfe (1990). Computer conference and learning: authority, resistance, and internally persuasive discourse. College English, 52:847-69.
    Coulmas, F. (1981). Introduction: conversational routine. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton.
    Craig, R. T. and K.Tracy (eds.) (1983). Conversational Coherence, Beverly Hills and London: Sage.
    Cupach, W. R. and S. Metts (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Davies, E. E. (1990). Creativity and convention: some strategies of name-coining. Language & Communication, 10/1:207-18.
    de Beaufrande, R. and W. Dressler (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
    Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S. and B. Sethna (1991). The equalization phenomenon: status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6:119-46.
    Duncan, S. (1973). Toward a grammar for dyadic conversation. Semiotica, 9: 29-46.
    Duncan, S. and D. W. Fiske (1977). Face to Face Interaction: Research, Methods, and Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Feldstein, S. and J. Welkowitz (1978). A chronography of conversation: in defence of an objective approach. In A. W. Siegman and S. Feldstein (eds.), Nonverbal Behavior and Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 219-36.
    Foppa, K. (1990). Topic progression and intention. In I. Markova and K. Foppa (eds.), The Dynamics of Dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    Giddens, A. (1988). Goffman as a systematic social theorist. In P. Drew and A. Wootton (eds.), Erving Foffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
    --------(1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
    Grice, P. (1989 (1975)). Logic and conversation, in P. Grice, Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    Gu, Yueguo (1990). Politeness phnomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 237-57.
    Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
    --------(1985). Spoken and Written Language. Sydney: Deakin University.
    Heim, M. (1995). The design of virtual reality. In M. Featherstone and R. Burrows (eds.), Cyberspace/Cyberbodies/Cyberpunk: Cultures of Technological Embodiment. London: Sage.
    Herring, S. C. (1996) Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S. C. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Hiltz, S. R. (1992). Constructing and evaluating a virtual classroom. In M. Lea (ed.), Conexts of Computer-Mediated Communication. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8, 2/3: 223-48.
    Jary, M. (1998). Relevance theory and the communication of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 1-19.
    Kasper, G. (1997). Linguistic etiquette. In F. Coulmas (ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Keller, E. (1981). Gambits: conversational strategy signals. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton.
    Kiesler, S., J. Siegel and T. W. McGuire (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39:1123-34.
    Kiesler, S., D. Zubrow, A. M. Moses and V. Geller (1985). Affect in computer-mediated communication: an experiment in synchronous terminal-too-terminal discussion. Human-Computer Interaction, 1:77-104.
    Labov, W and D. Fanshel (1977). Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
    Lakoff, R. T. (1972). Language in context. Language, 48:907-27.
    --------(1973). The logic of politeness: or, minding your p’s and q’s. In Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: 292-305. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    -------- (1975). Language and Women’s place. New York: Harper and Row.
    Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
    Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Ma, R. (1996). Computer-mediated conversations as a new dimension of intercultural communication between East Asian and North American college students. In S. C. Herring (ed.), Computer-mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    MacKinnon, R. (1995). Searching for the Leviathan in Usenet. In S. G. Jones (ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity and Communication in Cybersociety. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage.
    Matsumoto, Y. (1989) Politeness and conversational universals: observations from Japan. Multilingua 8, 2/3: 207-21.
    McLaughlin, M. L. (1984). Conversation: How Talk Is Organized. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    McLaughlin, M. L., K. K. Osborne and N. B. Ellison (1997). Virtual community in a telepresence environment. In S. G. Jones (ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity & Communication in Cybersociety. London: Sage.
    Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: an introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    Ng, S. H. and J. J. Bradac (1993). Power in Language: Verbal Communication and Social Influence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Nwoye, O. G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18: 309-328.
    Richards, I. C. and R. W. Schmidt (eds.) (1983). Language and Communication. London: Longman.
    Rosaldo, M. Z. (1982). The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society 11:203-37
    Sacks, H. (Apr. 5, 1971). In G. Jefferson (ed.) (1995), Harvey Sacks: Lectures on Conversation, Vol. 2. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press.
    Scollon, R. and S. Scollon (1981). Narrative, Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    --------(1983). Face in interethnic communication. In I. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman.
    --------(1995). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    Searl, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Selfe, C. L. and P. R. Meyer (1991). Testing claims for on-line conferences. Written Communication, 8/2:163-92.
    Shih, Yu-huei (1986). Conversational Politeness and Foreign Language Teaching. Taipei: Crane.
    Siegel, J., V. Dubrovsky, S. Kiesler and T. McGuire (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behaviour and human Decision Processes, 37: 157-87.
    Smolowe, J. (1995). Intimate strangers. Time, May, 1995:20-22.
    Sperber, D. and W. Wilson. (1986) Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Street, R. L., Jr., and H. Giles (1982). Speech accommodation theory: a social cognitive approach to language and speech behaviour. In M. Roloff and C. Berger (eds.), Social Cognition and Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage.
    Thomas, J. A. (1989). Discourse control in confrontational interaction. In L. Hickey (ed.) The Pragmatics of Style. New York: Routledge.
    Voiskounsky, A. E. (1997). Telelogue conversations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2/4. Available on the World Wide Web at http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/voiskounsky1.html
    Watson, N. (1997). Why we argue about virtual community: a case study of the Phish.Net fan community. In S. G. Jones (ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity & Communication in Cybersociety. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage.
    Werkhofer, K. T. (1992). Traditional and modern views: the social constitution and the power of politeness. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, and K. Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Widjaja, Sumiaty (1996). A Study of Chat-Room Talk: Politeness System and Politeness Strategies. MA Thesis. Taipai: Fu-Jen University.
    Wilkins, H. (1994). Computer talk: long-distance conversations by computer. Written Communication, 8/1:56-78.
    Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: a corpus based study. In S. C. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
    Yus Ramos, F. (1998) A decade of relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 305-345.

    無法下載圖示
    QR CODE