社交網站Facebook鼓勵使用者將真實世界中的人際關係串連至線上空間，與各種親疏遠近的朋友進行互動與維持情感交流。隨著社交規模與範圍的擴大，Facebook使用者需要透過規格化或公式化的互動，確保人際網絡的穩定交流。這些行為經過反覆實踐，發展為社交互動儀式。然而，互動行為本身卻與社交初衷逐漸背離。因此，本研究關注的正是Facebook上的互動儀式鏈如何呈現，以及使用者社交行為與意義之間產生落差，導致「行禮如儀」的原因。 本研究以社會學者Goffman（1955）互動儀式與Collins（2004）互動儀式鏈的理論為基礎，探討Facebook的網路中介儀式形成的契機與淪於形式的可能。研究方法方面，本研究選出四則關鍵個案，先以內容分析檢視互動儀式鏈中各項元素的組成；再從個案中選取具代表性的當事人與參與者進行深度訪談，進一步探究實踐互動儀式的原因、時機與對象等細節，並檢視互動儀式過程與結果。 研究結果顯示，雖然社交訊息事件都有機會發展為完整的互動儀式鏈，不過訊息事件的類型差異會影響互動儀式鏈的參與形式。此外，研究發現乍看毫無意義的網路互動行為（尤指按讚）並非如過往研究提到的扁平單一，甚至略帶貶意。這些互動其實乘載多重含意，例如：避免表錯情的慰問、掩飾內心掙扎的祝福、欲辯忘言的關注、對多義訊息的部分贊同等。每當使用者內心與行動不一致或脫鉤時，這些行為便成為每一次的緩衝，調解了「口不對心」的矛盾。 上述貌似「行禮如儀」的社交互動行為隨著訊息事件的種類而變化，行動意涵亦不停流動、轉變，逐漸成為眾人心照不宣的隱藏邏輯，內化成為使用者的行動策略。成為具有「僵固的儀式形式，多元流動的儀式意義」的互動行為，亦可作為網路世代專屬的行動符號。 / Social network sites, such as Facebook, enable users to interact with friends and maintain their relationship. The growing scope and scale of social network require users to cope with huge numbers of friends in formulated and standardized ways. These formulated actions practiced repeatedly on Facebook have become ritualized and thus shape the particular cultural landscape. However, these interaction actions gradually become alienated from original social intents. Facebook users tend to push “Like” bottom whenever they read friends’ news updates, but they just go through the motion without any meaning. This particular research applies sociologist Goffman’s interaction ritual theory and Collin’s interaction ritual chain theory to the context of Facebook behavior. The researcher attempts to answer 2 questions: 1. What a complete social interaction ritual chain would be like on Facebook? And what are its ritual ingredients and outcomes? 2. Does social interaction behavior mismatch its social intent? If the gap exists, why does it happen? This research collects data from researcher’s 750 friends’ information in time frame from March 2013 to April 2013. Four Facebook events are chosen as critical cases. Content analysis and deep interview are employed to discover the ingredients, process and outcomes of interaction ritual chains and every detail on Facebook. The result indicates it’s highly possible that every social information event would develop a complete interaction ritual chain. But the difference of event characters may have impacts on people’s forms of participation. Secondly, Facebook users often depreciate the meaning of “Like”, however “Like” turns out to show multiple meanings. Whenever Facebook users’ physical action couldn’t match attempts, “Like” would serve as the buffer solving the inconsistency. Finally, pushing “Like” bottom becomes “formulated but with multiple meanings”, and it also becomes exclusive action symbol of Facebook generation.

本研究從作者實務工作曾經遭遇的兩個「威嚇語言」互動策略為起點，發現過去相關研究多屬探討記者與消息來源互動社會結構層面之「靜態論述」，鮮少觸及「語言互動」策略與內涵。本研究改以語用學之言說行動、語境概念、禮貌原則以及社會心理學之面子、面子威脅等概念為基礎，歸納出人際溝通由核心到外圍的語言互動脈絡，並依合作程度高低推演出記者與消息來源間之「合作性語言互動」(cooperative verbal interaction)與「非合作性語言互動」(non-cooperative verbal interaction)兩種不同語言互動策略。 根據訪談與個案研究資料所示，記者與消息來源語言互動過程使用之各種不同手法（如婉言相勸、閃躲、打哈哈、口頭威嚇、直接修理等），均可歸納於「合作／非合作」語言互動策略範疇。整體而言，「合作語言策略」最常出現，「非合作語言策略」在互動過程只是施壓手段，但兩種策略若像「胡蘿蔔與棍子」般地交叉運用，則常有較佳效果。 本研究亦發現，消息來源並非記者隨意擺布的「掌中棋」，亦即記者若不當使用「非合作語言策略」而將消息來源逼至瀕臨壓力邊緣之際，消息來源亦會使用「非合作語言策略」嚴厲反擊而造成反效果。因此，語言策略的尺度拿捏與技巧等語境因素，常是互動雙方能否達成目標之微妙關鍵所在。 / As previous studies in this area have long emphasized more on the social levels of reporter-source interactions, this study, based on the literature of pragmatics, facework, and impoliteness, examined how the news reporters interact with their sources on a linguistic level trying to distinguish varied verbal strategies used by these two interactants in news reporting, such as exhorting, evasiveness, verbal threatening, and verbal attacking. Research result reveals that both cooperative/non-cooperative verbal interactive strategies are common and easily observable in news reporters’ routine meetings with their sources. In principle, the non-cooperative verbal interaction can be further divided into four sublevels according to the degrees of cooperation between the two interactants. In conclusion, it is confirmed that the cooperative/non-cooperative verbal interaction model developed in this study can be used not only as a research framework to examine the reporter-source interactions in a qualitative way, but also as a practical strategy which would show that both the reporters and sources may use the model to detect and challenge, and in the meantime to counterattack, the other side in their daily encounters.