国立情報学研究所で電子化したコンテンツを使用している。

Linehan（1993）、Krause等人（2003）發現童年在情緒無效環境中成長的個體會產生情緒調節困難，且情緒無效性常會惡化成人時期的心理及行為問題，包含自我傷害行為。據此，研究者試圖了解童年情緒無效性是否會造成個體無法接納其負向情緒，進而增加其自我傷害行為的發生機率。本研究的目的有二：一是發展「情緒不接納量表」，並初步驗證其信效度。二為探討「童年情緒無效性」與「情緒不接納」與「青少年自我傷害行為」三者的關連性。 　　本研究採問卷調查法，研究對象為478位高中職及國中學生。研究結果發現，情緒不接納量表可分為「對情緒的自我評價」及「對情緒的否定」兩個因素。負向情緒社會化與心理虐待會使個體較容易產生對情緒的自我評價。心理虐待能預測高中職學生自我傷害發生的有無及累積頻率；對情緒的自我評價能預測兩組學生自我傷害行為發生的有無。對情緒的自我評價及對情緒的否定在負向情緒社會化與自我傷害累積頻率、心理虐待與自我傷害累積頻率之間並無中介效果。最後研究者針對國中、高中職學生心理發展階段的不同、負向情緒社會化與心理虐待在概念上的差異，及對自我傷害的影響路徑進行討論。 / Linehan (1993), Krause et al. (2003) found individuals who grow up in an emotional invalidating environment during childhood may have difficulties in emotional regulation, and emotional invalidation often deteriorate both psychological and behavior problems later on in their adulthood, including deliberate self-harm behaviors. Therefore, this study tried to investigate whether childhood emotional invalidation can cause one’s emotional nonacceptance, and therefore can increase the probability of deliberate self-harm behaviors. The purpose of this study was to develop the scale of emotional nonacceptance, and to explore the relationship between childhood emotional invalidation, emotional nonacceptance and adolescents’ deliberate self-harm behaviors. The study was based on questionnaires, and the participants were 478 high school students in Taiwan. The main results were as follows: First, the scale of emotional nonacceptance can be divided into two factors: self evaluation of emotion and denial of emotion. Second, negative emotion socialization and psychological abuse can predict adolescents’ self evaluation of emotion. Third, psychological abuse can predict the occurrence and accumulative frequency of deliberate self-harm of senior high school students, and self evaluation of emotion can predict the occurrence of deliberate self-harm of all high school students. Finally, self evaluation of emotion and denial of emotion do not play as mediators between childhood emotional invalidation and the frequency of adolescents’ deliberate self-harm behaviors. The investigator discussed the different stages of psychological development between junior and senior high school students, the differences between negative emotion socialization and psychological abuse, and their paths that influence deliberate self-harm behaviors.

在1960年為《理性與革命》寫的序言中，馬庫塞就曾提過所謂的「既定事實的力量」(the authority of established fact)，他認為「這是一種壓迫的力量」。 馬庫塞在其著作當中已多次提及所謂「既定的現實」(the established reality)，所意指的不外乎是身處於先進工業社會中的個體受到既定體制的壓迫(oppression)與制約，換言之，先進工業社會充滿著非解放的因素。 「現今，自由(freedom)與奴役(servitude)的結合變得『理所當然』(“natural”)，它已成為進步的一種手段(a vehicle of progress)。」此一論點馬庫塞在《愛欲與文明》一書中已提出，並在《單向度的人》一書中更充分地開展。 《單向度的人》的主要論點在於整體社會的意識受制於後期資本主義社會的結構，致使人們的思維無法覺醒，「現實即是合理」已經成為社會的正常看法，也就是大多數人皆依循此種模式過生活，而不去變革現狀(the status quo)。因為這一種消費與生產已形成人們的固定思維模式，即單向度的思維，由於人們不再反省現實社會的單向度現象，因此人們無法從單向度的現象中解放出來，大多數人仍處於不自覺的狀態，受到操控，社會中的成員共同架構出壓迫性的思維方式(oppressive mode of thinking)，「人的意識受制於社會的存在」，人心加重現實的趨勢致使「單向度」(one-dimensionality)的態勢逐步成形。

本文旨在探討英語人士在中文否定句的習得過程中，是否呈現系統性發展。本研究以訪問的方式進行語料的收集，以比較性問題引導語者產製否定句型。受訪者中八位在國立政治大學語言視聽中心學習中文，二位為長期居住在台灣之英語語者。十位語者的語言表現將視為一個整體，以Implicational Scaling的方法進行結果分析。 中文最主要的否定詞為「不」與「沒」。中文否定句不同於英文否定句在於中文否定句除必需考量句法結構之因素外，否定詞的選用尚必需考量語意因素。除傳統所認為「沒」乃由「不」所衍生出來，且「沒」適用於變化後的（inflected）動詞外，根據石毓智（1992）的分析，「不」與「沒」的使用，具有清楚的分工，「不」用來否定具「連續量」的字詞（word of continuous quantity），而「沒」用來否定具「離散量」的字詞（word of separate quantity）。此外，否定詞的使用，尚受限於被否定的字詞，其定量（fixed quantity）與非定量（non-fixed quantity）的約束。 就表面結構而言，受訪者總共產製了四十二個句型。將這些句型歸納成深層結構而後進行Implicational Scaling。研究結果顯示，英語人士依一系統性的發展順序習得中文之否定句。同時結果亦顯示學習乃由易到難，由普遍到特殊的發展順序。 / The present study aims to explore the developmental sequences of Chinese negation by adult English speakers. The study collects data by interviewing and uses comparative questions to elicit negative structures. Ten adult English speakers are interviewed in which eight study Chinese in The Language Center in Chengchi University and two work in Taiwan over ten years. It is hypothesized that most learners develop a language in a common sequence of steps even though there are deviations of individual speakers. Therefore, the ten informants are regarded as a whole to explore the developmental sequence of Chinese negation by Implicational Scaling. Two main negators in Mandarin Chinese are bu and mei. Traditionally, it is proposed that the two negators are in complementary distribution. Bu becomes to mei when the following verb is you or as an "inflected verb." Besides, according to Shi (1992), the two negators have definitely different functions: bu is used to negate words of continuous quantity and mei words of separate quantity. In addition, whether a word or a phrase is fixed-quantity one or non-fixed-quantity one also influences the occurrence with the negators. Accordingly, It is obviously that Chinese negative structures differ from English and is much more complicated than English. There are 42 surface structures of negation produced by the informants which are generalized into eighteen ones based on the rules of deep structures. And then they are scaled into an implicational ordering. The results are valid and we can infer the development of negation into several stages. Furthermore, it shows that negative structures which are specifically used in Chinese are acquired latter. Therefore, it is proposed that adult English speakers acquire Chinese negation in a common sequence, developing from general structures to specific ones.

韓(1999)提出祈使句是指句中主要動詞是祈使情態(imperative mood)的句子，與其他句型相較下，在其他語言中祈使句具有特別的動詞構詞或句法表現；然而，中文祈使句並無任何構詞或句法機制以表現祈使情態，因此，中文祈使句的句法表現和直述句相似。本論文動機為觀察到中文祈使句與其他語言祈使句的相異處，進而研究中文如何區別中文祈使句與其他句型的差異。同時，前人對於中文祈使句的研究多從描述性觀點出發，缺理論辯證，以致分析上產生缺失；因此，本文試從衍生句法的觀點分析中文祈使句的句法結構。 本論文主要有三個研究目的: 首先，本論文研究中文祈使句的句法特徵。其次，本論文研究如何區別中文祈使句與其他句型的差異，並發現中文的附加問句可以用來區別祈使句與直述句。並且，本論文發現中文的否定祈使句“別”字句與義務性情態詞“要/不要”在句法表現上雖有相同處，但亦表現出多方面的句法相異處。再者，本論文從衍生句法的觀點研究中文祈使句的句法結構。因為中文缺乏句法標記與構詞變化，因此無法從句法層面看出中文祈使句的話語效力 (force)與情態(mood), 但藉由時制定位(tense anchoring)與祈使句的關係，本論文提出中文祈使句結構中具有祈使算子(imperative operator)。 / Han (1999) proposes imperatives are sentences whose main verbs are in the form of the imperative mood. Imperative sentences possess a distinct morphology within the verb or may be distinguished by their syntactic realization from other clause types. However, Chinese imperatives do not demonstrate verb-inflection nor do they impose morphological mechanisms to indicate mood; thus, it seems that imperatives in Chinese are similar to declaratives. This thesis observes the differences between imperatives in Chinese and in other languages, and these differences lead us to conduct a study on how Chinese distinguishes imperatives from other clause types. Moreover, this thesis finds that the previous analyses of Chinese imperatives lack theoretical grounds, as several problems and wrong prediction arise under those analyses. Thus, this study researches on the structure of Chinese imperatives from the perspective of generative grammar. The thesis has three main goals. First, this thesis investigates the syntactic characteristics of Chinese imperatives. Second, this thesis seeks to discern how Chinese distinguishes imperatives from other clause types. This study utilizes tag questions to distinguish imperatives and declaratives. Furthermore, this study finds that the imperatives bie1 and deontic Modalsobligation yao sentences are alike in some ways, but different in other ways. Third, from a generative perspective, this thesis proposes a syntactic structure of imperatives in Chinese. Although it seems difficult to find syntactic evidence of the imperative force and mood as well as a structure of imperatives because Chinese imperatives lack a morpho-syntatic strategy, this thesis proposes that Chinese possesses an imperative operator in imperatives, by examining the evidence from tense anchoring and imperatives.

No description available.

京都大学 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(人間・環境学) / 甲第24688号 / 人博第1061号 / 新制||人||249(附属図書館) / 2022||人博||1061(吉田南総合図書館) / 京都大学大学院人間・環境学研究科共生文明学専攻 / (主査)教授 小倉 紀蔵, 教授 細見 和之, 准教授 津守 陽, 准教授 福谷 彬, 非常勤講師 廖 欽彬 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Human and Environmental Studies / Kyoto University / DGAM

No description available.

本篇論文旨在探討，將尚．布希亞所觀察到的擬仿物應用到詹姆斯．喬伊斯的《都柏林人》之可能性。擬仿物是一種自我指涉、和真實脫離關係的符號，且擬仿物的誕生即代表了真實的死亡。擬仿物的論證有助於解釋《都柏林人》中二元對立的瓦解，例如真實∕想像，民族主義∕帝國主義，精神性∕物質性，加害者∕被害者，過去∕現今等。除此之外，其他和布希亞擬像理論相關的概念如墨比絲環迴繞的否定性、退卻的歷史，和內爆，都能闡釋都柏林中意義的蒸發。從＜會議室裡的常春藤日＞中的民主選舉擬仿物，＜賽車之後＞中的民族認同擬仿物，＜阿拉比＞中的商品擬仿物，＜伊芙琳＞中的父權擬仿物，＜一抹微雲＞中的國界擬仿物，到＜死者＞中的歷史擬仿物，喬伊斯的都柏林人在察覺真實的消失之後，感到震驚或無法反應。儘管喬伊斯典型的結局透露出一絲灰暗，將布希亞應用至喬伊斯，確實提供都柏林人從二元對立的結構中獲得自由的機會。

Fragen: Es gibt nach h.M. der deutschen Strafrechtswissenschaft drei Vorsatzformen: Absicht, sicheres Wissen und dolus eventualis. Soll unterschiedliche Vorsatzform, ceteris paribus, auch bei der Strafzumessung unterschiedlich bewertet werden? Warum? Methode: Diese Fragen werden in einem interdisziplinären Dialog zwischen Norm und Empirie untersucht. Neben der strafrechtlichen und verfassungsrechtlichen Ausführung bezieht sich diese Arbeit großenteils auf die Erkenntnisse aus den Bereichen Kriminalpolitik, Kriminologie, Psychologie, Verhaltensökonomie und Neurowissenschaft. Zur Auswertung der Erkenntnisse wird großer Wert auch auf Forschungsmethode gelegt. Ergebnisse: Zur ersten Frage: Die Schuldangemessenheit gebietet, unterschiedliche Vorsatzformen bei der Strafzumessung unterschiedlich zu bewerten, wenn sie quantitative oder qualitative beachtliche Unterschiede aufweisen. Zur zweiten Frage: Der in Kapitel 6 erarbeitete Maßstab, Vorsatzformen nach dem Risiko für die Tatbestandsverwirklichung abzustufen, erweist sich als am aussichtsvollsten, sich auf solide Grundlagen der Norm und Empirie zu stützen. Möglichkeiten für Vorsatzabstufung nach diesem Maßstab werden erörtert. Eine klare Antwort bedarf aber einer Anpassung der Vorsatzformen an empirisches Wissen, weil die Studien aus anderen Bereichen den Nuancen von rechtlichen Begriffen nicht genug Rechnung tragen. Ferner wäre eine Vorsatzabstufung nach dem Bedarf einer Straftäterbehandlung, wie in Kapitel 4 gezeigt, erfolgversprechend, sollte die Beziehung zwischen den Vorsatzformen und dem Rückfallrisiko festgestellt werden. Ausblick: Der Verfasser plädiert für eine normativ sowie empirisch fundierte Strafrechtsdogmatik. Das heißt, Strafrechtler sollen empirische Beweise vorbringen, nötigenfalls durch eigene Studien, soweit ihre Argumente empirische Thesen enthalten. Zum Schluss verweist der Verfasser auf die Erforderlichkeit, das Potenzial und die Grenzen dieses Ansatzes und die Herausforderungen auf diesem Weg. / Question: According to the prevailing view of German legal doctrines, there are three severe types of mens rea, collectively referred to as "Vorsatz," i.e., intent, knowledge, and dolus eventualis. This work examined two questions: Should criminal acts committed with different "Vorsatz" types, all other things being equal, be punished differently? Why? Method: This work answered these questions in an interdisciplinary discourse between jurisprudence and empirical research, based chiefly on knowledge from criminal and constitutional law jurisprudence, penal policy, criminology, psychology, behavioral economics, and empirical research methods. Conclusion: To the first question: The proportionality between the penalty and criminal act demands that criminal acts committed with different "Vorsatz" types shall be differently punished if they exhibit considerable qualitative or quantitative differences. To the second question: The state of research, as discussed in Chapter 6, indicated that a gradation of "Vorsatz" types according to the risk they pose for crime completion is the most promising guideline that could enjoy both normative and empirical justifications. Possibilities of "Vorsatz" gradation are suggested. However, revisions of the definition of "Vorsatz" types are prerequisite for all these possibilities, because the studies in other disciplines did not take sufficiently into consideration the nuances of legal notions. On the other hand, a gradation of "Vorsatz" types according to the requirements for successful offender rehabilitation, as shown in Chapter 4, would also be promising if the relation between "Vorsatz" types and recidivism risk could be proven. Prospects: The author called for a criminal legal dogmatics on both normative and empirical bases. It means that criminal law scholars should provide evidence for arguments comprising empirical hypotheses. The necessity, potential, and limitations of this approach and challenge toward it are discussed. / 問題：按照德國刑法學通說，故意有三種類型：意圖、明知、間接故意。假設其他條件相同，不同的故意類型在量刑時是否應做不同評價？ 方法：本文以規範與實證之間的對話來回答上述問題。除了刑法學和憲法學的辯證之外，本文大量援引數個領域的知識，例如刑事政策、犯罪學、心理學、行為經濟學及神經科學。為了適切評析實證知識，也注重實證研究方法的理解。 結果：回答第一個問題：罪刑相當原則要求，若故意類型之間具有量或質的重要差異，便應於量刑時做相應不同的評價。回答第二個問題：第6章提出的標準，亦即按照故意類型所代表的構成要件實現風險來做故意分級，是最有潛力同時具備堅實的規範基礎及實證基礎之標準。本章提出按照此標準來做故意分級的數種可能性。然而，必須先對故意類型的定義略做修改，才能得出明確的答案，這是因為其他領域做的研究不能充分顧及法律概念的細微變化。此外，若有朝一日能釐清故意類型與再犯風險之間的關係，則按照犯罪人矯治的需求來做故意分級，如同第4章所分析，也是很可能成功的。 展望：作者提倡「兼具規範與實證基礎的刑法釋義學」，此意味著，刑法學者應該提出經驗證據來支持自己論述當中的經驗命題，若有需要時，也應自己從事實證研究來達成此事。於論文結尾，作者提示這種研究取徑的必要性、潛力和界線，也指出追求此路徑之際可能面臨的挑戰。