現在位置首頁 > 博碩士論文 > 詳目
  • 同意授權
論文中文名稱:台灣電視談話節目之間接回應研究:以 [以論文名稱查詢館藏系統]
論文英文名稱:Indirect Responses in Taiwanese TV Talk Shows: a Case Study of Nánrén Lǎoshí Shuō [以論文名稱查詢館藏系統]
院校名稱:臺北科技大學
學院名稱:人文與社會科學學院
系所名稱:應用英文系碩士班
畢業學年度:103
畢業學期:第二學期
中文姓名:王家眉
英文姓名:CHIA-MEI WANG
研究生學號:102548003
學位類別:碩士
語文別:英文
口試日期:2015/06/12
指導教授中文名:洪媽益
指導教授英文名:Michael Tanangkingsing
口試委員中文名:黃希敏,黃舒屏
口試委員英文名:Michael Tanangkingsing
中文關鍵詞:問題與回應,電視談話節目
英文關鍵詞:speech act, question-response, face theory
論文中文摘要:在日常談話中,我們經常會遇到有人問我們不希望或不打算分享(如年齡和薪水)的一些敏感或機密信息,或當我們要對一個敏感的的議題發表評論。在這種情況下,說真話,或者直接拒絕回答都可能產生困擾。因此,間接回應可能會是更安全的選擇。本研究探討在台灣的電視談話節目中使用的間接應對策略。在過去針對間接應對(特別是迴避問題evasions)策略的研究,主要是在政治的語境。然而,對於非正式語境中的的間接回應策略的研究非常有限,例如,在電視談話節目的成員(有時演員,歌手,他們的家庭成員,或者一般素人)他們不像老練的政治家熟悉如何巧妙地回答面試問題。雖然這些人可能沒有回應複雜的問題的習慣,他們仍然有迴避他們不想回答的問題的方式,這種方式相較於政治人物,將展現不同的回應策略。由於本研究之語料來自於非正式的情境,所記錄的迴避問題的策略,可能和先前的研究有所不同。語料從一個台灣電視談話節目<私房話老實說>觀察,其節目中的一個專門問問題請來賓回答的單元<男人老實說>,蒐集約半年連續播出的間接問題回答內容。本研究蒐集到7種主要間接回答問題的策略,並分析這些策略的使用與facework的關係。
論文英文摘要:In everyday conversations, we often encounter situations wherein someone asks for some sensitive or confidential information that we do not want or intent to share (like age or salary), or when we have to comment on an unsatisfactory matter. In these situations, telling the truth or directly refusing to answer may be face-threatening. Therefore, indirect responses may seem a safer option, as one may not always have an appropriate indirect response at hand. This study examines the indirect response strategies used in Taiwanese TV talk shows. Indirect response strategies in interviews have been studied mostly within the context of political discourse. However, there is very limited research conducted on indirect interview responses in the context of a less formal register; for example, the TV talk shows where guests (sometimes actors/actress, singers, their family members, or average people who are not in show-business) are not seasoned politicians experienced in skillfully responding to interview questions. Although these people may not have to respond to complicated questions as politicians do, they still have to develop ways to
ii
evade questions they prefer not to respond to—their responses, compared to political discourse, will better reflect the talk of ordinary conversation. Because of the informal register, the strategies used to evade questions will vary from those recorded in earlier research. The data were collected from a section of a Taiwanese TV talk show: Sīfánghuà lǎoshíshuō私房話老實說 “Tell the truth” where the purpose of the section is to test the guests’ reaction to some difficult, face-threatening questions.
There were 7 major and 4 minor indirect response strategies collected, among which, the strategies of fabricating or exaggerating, complementing disguised as answering, and intentional misreading of the questions were new additions to the research on indirect or evasive question responses. Because of the contextual differences and other factors, these strategies were not observed in previous studies collecting data from political discourses or those collecting data from naturally occurring daily interactions. Finally, this study found several links between indirect question responses and facework. As to the positive face, the interviewees would generally like to save the positive face of the host, their wives, and their relatives. As to the negative face, they would also like to preserve their private thoughts or freedom for future actions when asked about some personal issues (such as questions asking them to specify a time when they were going to marry their present partner). That is, indirect question responses may be a way to preserve one’s negative face wants (i.e., to be free from imposition, in this case, not be forced to reveal their private thoughts or future decisions). To avoid directly answering these questions, they would use strategies like fabricating, exaggerating, complementing disguised as answering, or answering indirectly. Therefore, the data showed that facework and indirect question responses may be closely related.
論文目次:Table of Contents

ABSTRACT i
CHINESE ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 General Introduction of indirect responses 2
1.2 Objectives and significance of the study 3
1.3 Organization of the thesis 4
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 Speech acts 5
2.1.1. Speech act theory 5
2.1.2. Indirect speech acts 7
2.2. Grice’s cooperative principle and four conversational maxims 8
2.2.1. Observing the maxims 9
2.2.2. Non-observing the maxims 9
2.3 Face theory and Interview Questions 15
2.3.1. Face and Politeness theory 15
2.3.2. Researches on interview questions 16
2.3.3. Syntactic structure of questions and response in Chinese 23
2.4 Question Responses 30
2.4.1. Criteria for different types of responses 31
2.4.2. Direct and indirect responses to questions 35
2.4.3. Approaches to analyzing evasion 41
2.5 Information program and entertainment program 43
2.5.1 The different types of programs 44
2.5.2 The norms and practices of different types of interviews 45
2.5.3 The power dynamics between the interviewer and the interviewee 46
2.5.4. Explanations to face-threatening situations in political interviews 48
CHAPTER III: Methodology 52
3.1 Data 52
3.2 Procedures 55
3.3 Questions and response types 56
3.3.1. Questions types 56
3.3.2. Question responses 58
CHAPTER IV: Results and discussion 61
4.1 Indirect response strategies 62
4.1.1. Reforming/refuting the question 63
4.1.2. Selecting none/all/oneself 68
4.1.3. Proposing a new option 73
4.1.4. Fabricating or exaggerating 73
4.1.5. Adding other conditions 75
4.1.6. Questioning the question 79
4.1.7. Ansering indirectly 83
4.1.8. Other strategies 84
4.1.9. Using a combination of strategies 89
4.2 Results compared with previous studies 90
4.3 Indirect question responses and facework 93
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION 101
5.1 Findings and implications 101
5.2 Limitations and suggestions for further studies 103
References 106
Appendix 110
A 110
B 112
論文參考文獻:REFERENCES


Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bastien, F. (2009). Beyond sex and saxophones: interviewing practices and political substance on televised talk shows. Canadian Political Science Review, 3(2), 70-88.
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Bryson, L., and Mullett, J. (1988). Political equivocation: a situational explanation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology7, 137-146.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena In E.N. Goody (Ed.),Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,56-310.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987).Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bull, P. (1994). On identifying questions, replies and non-replies in political interview. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 115-131.
Bull, P. (2003). The microanalysis of political communication: Claptrap and ambiguity. London: Psychology Press.
Bull, P. (2008). ‘‘Slipperiness, evasion, and ambiguity’’: equivocation and facework in non-committal political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 333-344.
Bull, P., Elliott, J. (1996). A question of threat: face threats in questions posed during televised political interviews. Journal of Community &Applied Social Psychology, 6(1), 49-72.
Bull, P., Elliott, J., Palmer, D., & Walker, L. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 267-284.
Bull, P., Elliott, J. (1998). Level of threat: means of assessing interviewer toughness and neutrality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 17, 220-244.
Bull, P., Mayer, K. (1993). How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology, 14 (4), 651-666.
Clayman, S. (1993).Reformulating the question: A device for answering/not answering questions in news interviews and press conferences.Text13, 159-188.
Clayman, S. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language in Society [Online] 30 (3), 403-442. Available from: http://journals.cambridge.org/bin/bladerunner [May 11, 2004].
Clayman, S., Elliott, M., Heritage, J., & McDonald, L. (2006). Historical Trends in Questioning Presidents, 1953‐2000. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36(4), 561-583.
Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (2002).The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. (1987). The television news interview (Vol. 183). Newsbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
Dou, W.& Zhang, X. (2007). Cross-cultural pragmatic analysis of evasion strategy at Chinese and American regular press conferences-with special reference to the North Korean nuclear issue. Caligrama (São Paulo. Online), 3(2).
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 470-520.
Ekström, M. (2001). Politicians interviewed on television news. Discourse and Society 12, 563-584.
Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2010). Responses to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 133-156.
Galasinski, D. (1996). Pretending to cooperate. How speakers hide evasive actions. Argumentation, 10(3), 375-388.
Gnisci, A., Bonaiuto, M. (2003).Grilling politicians. Politicians’ answers to questions in television interviews and legal examinations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22, 384-413.
Gnisci, A., Zollo, P., Perugini, M., & Di Conza, A. (2013).A comparative study of toughness and neutrality in Italian and English political interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 152-167.
Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 18, 213-231.
Graber, D. A. (1994). The infotainment quotient in routine television news: A director&#39;s perspective. Discourse & Society, 5(4), 483-508.
Greatbatch, D. (1986). Aspects of topical organization in news interviews: the use of agenda-shifting procedures by interviewees. Media, Culture & Society, 8(4), 441-455.
Greatbatch, D. (1988). A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society 17, 401-430.
Grice, P. (1975). &quot;Logic and conversation.” In Cole, P., Morgan, J. Syntax and semantics. 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, 41-58.
Haley, J. (1959). An interactional description of schizophrenia. Psychiatry, 22(4), 321-332.
Hall, E. T. (1977). Beyond Culture .New York: Anchor Doubleday.
Harris, S. (1991). Evasive action: how politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In Scannell, P. (Ed.), Broadcast Talk. London: Sage, 76-99.
Hayashi, M. (2010).An overview of the question–response system in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2685-2702.
Khosravizadeh, P,Sadehvandi, N. (2011) International Conference on Languages, Literature and Linguistics 26, 122-128.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1989).Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. California: University of California Press.
Lloyd, J. (2004). What the Media are Doing to Our Politics. London: Constable &Robinson.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ng, S. H. and Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in Language. California: Sage Publications Inc.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J.(1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Essex: Longman.
Rasiah, P. (2010). A framework for the systematic analysis of evasion in parliamentary discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 664-680.
Raymond, G. (1998). The structure of responding: Conforming and nonconforming responses to yes/no type interrogatives. Paper presented at annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New York, 1998.
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68, 939-967.
Schegloff, E. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist70, 1075-95.
Searle, J. R. (1969).Speech Acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P., Morgan, J. (eds.). Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic, 59-82.
Shi, U.(1997). On the properties of the wh-elements in Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 25, 131-145.
Stivers, T. (2010).An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2772-2781.
Stivers, T., & Enfield, N. J. (2010). A coding scheme for question–response sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2620-2626.
Stivers, T., Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: one way to resist a question’s constraints. Language and Society 39, 1-25.
Stubbs, M. (1983).Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Thomas, J. A. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Essex: Routledge.
Walker, T., Drew, P., & Local, J. (2011).Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(9), 2434-2451.
Wilson, J.(1990). Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Woodbury, H.(1984). The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica 48, 197-228.
Yip, P, Rimmington, D. (1997).Chinese: An Essential Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
Yule, G. (1996). Oxford introductions to language study: Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Zhu, C. and Wu, X. (2011). A study of yes/no questions in English and Chinese: with special reference to Chinese EFL learners’ understanding of their forms and functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 632-647.
論文全文使用權限:同意授權於2015-06-23起公開