本論文以1937年至1945年「中日戰爭」、「大東亞戰爭」時期為座標，透過考察大東亞共榮圈下的東亞經驗、記憶、文化與歷史的交錯問題。並試圖以宏觀的角度來檢視日本與亞洲各國的關係，從「跨界」的視域進行東亞文學與文藝體制之研究討論，探討關於日本的大東亞共榮圈之建構概念及其欲型塑的東亞文學觀，與大東亞共榮圈各地域對於此文學建構所衍伸出的知識、權力、文化關係的接受與質變。從日本因應戰爭的動員過程以及帝國主義思潮的發展脈絡中，可以窺見透過國家機器的運作模式，日本企圖在內地、殖民地及各佔領區中塑造「共同體」之想像，並欲透過此「共同體」的想像型塑出「大東亞共榮圈」的東亞一體之翼贊結構。另一方面，大東亞共榮圈中的各地域對於此「共榮想像」也各有不同的對應態勢，從中可以觀看出大東亞文學圈中的文學者們認同的游移，同時對於大東亞議題在不同的統治模式下所衍生出的不同之「協力」圖像。 本論文是以日本的帝國主義發展之脈絡為東亞文學圈的論述中心，並擇取大東亞共榮圈下的五個漢字使用地域為個案討論對象，包括了殖民地：台灣、朝鮮、傀儡政權：滿洲國、中國（華北、華中），以此討論日本文學共榮的表象與實際，以及東亞地區在大東亞想像下的文學樣貌。大東亞的文藝運動可以說是日本國家主義發展的衍生，包括文學者統合團體的誕生、筆部隊的派遣、報國文學的創作乃至於徵用作家的紀行報導，全都受到國家機器的操弄。「八紘一宇」支撐了日本的國體論述，在各個地域中並以日語教育取代血緣的系聯，欲藉由語言型構出「東亞民族」的一體性，同時透過各地域的日本文學者之創作，也顯現了此大東亞的視野，透過戰爭文學、勤勞文學、增產文學、國民文學各種文學書寫模式與文學生產過程，日本文學者們也從不同角度展現出帝國想像。此外，透過統合文學者的文學報國會之串連，也建構了大東亞文學圈的文學者們的「交流」系譜，各地域的文學者也在此文學場域中各自展開「文學共榮」的命題。 / This dissertation examines the entanglement of memory, history and cultural experience within the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere during the Second Sino-Japanese War or Greater East Asia War between 1937 and 1945. From a comprehensive perspective of boundary crossing, this dissertation intends to study the conceptualization and formation of a unified East Asian literary ideal and its literary and cultural institutions by examining the discourse of a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere in the context of Japanese Imperialism. It further explores the reception and transformation of knowledge, power, and cultural struggles shaped by this literary construction within the cultural sphere. Through the observation of the process of wartime mobilization and the development of imperial ideology, this dissertation reveals that the Japanese Empire intended to implant the image of an imagined community in Japan, the Japanese colonies, and occupied areas. By enlisting this imagined community, the Japanese Imperial would forge a cooperative institution, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, within which “Asia is One.” On the other hand, intellectuals in different parts of Japanese East Asia adopted different positions in response to the imposition of this imagined Co-Prosperity Sphere. By scrutinizing their responses, we will discern these writers’ shifting positions and diverse strategies of “collaboration” under different types of rule and across various regions. The dissertation traces the progress of Japanese Imperialism as the discursive center of the East Asia Literary Sphere. Five regions from the Chinese character-using portions of the empire were chosen as case studies: Japanese colonies such as Taiwan, Korea, as well as puppet regimes like those in Manchukuo, and occupied North and Central China. By surveying the literary performances in these East Asian regions that were under the influenced of the discourse of Great East Asia, we could get past the surface and scrutinize the reality of the ideology of the Japanese Literary Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Greater East Asian Literary Movement was a byproduct of the development of Japanese nationalism. All literary activities were manipulated by the Japanese state apparatus, including the establishment of writers’ alliance, the dispatching of the Pen Writers’ Brigade, the writing of Patriotic Literature, as well as the reportage from Conscript Writers. The discourse of Hakkō ichiu (All the world under one roof) became the core of Japanese national ideology. Japanese became the sole language taught in schools throughout the Japanese empire in an attempt to replace ties of blood and ethnicity with a linguistic affiliation. Through this linguistiunity, Imperial Japan fostered the unity of an “East Asian ethnicity.” Writing in diverse genres such as War Literature, Labor Literature, Increasing Production Literature and National Literature, Japanese writers in different parts of East Asia manifested the imperialist dream of a Greater East Asia. Moreover, through the establishment of organizations such as the Association of Literary Patriotism, writers in the Greater East Asia Literary Sphere gained a legitimate channel to communicate and exchange their ideas on literature. In other words, East Asian writers constructed and developed their own discourses of “Literary Co-Prosperity” within this context.

本研究旨在探討大學生不同依附風格與不同性別，對創造力情意之影響。研究過程採問卷調查法，研究對象為台北縣市八間大學的一到四年級學生，總共回收問卷370份。研究工具採用「依附風格量表」與自編之「創造力情意量表」，並將所得資料以SPSS統計軟體雙因子共變數分析進行分析處理。 本研究結果有以下五點：(一)新編「創造力情意量表」總共37題，整體信度為.893；(二)在性別與依附型態的分佈中，男大學生較多矛盾依附型，女大學生則有較多逃避依附型；(三)在「情意整體」與「好奇心」中，安全依附型與矛盾依附型的得分皆顯著高於逃避依附型，「想像力」之中三者並無差異，在「冒險性」與「挑戰性」中則是安全依附型高於非安全依附型；(四)不同性別只有在「好奇心」中有所差異，男大學生自認其好奇心高於女大學生。(五)依附風格與性別的交互作用並不會對創造力情意產生影響。 本研究根據上述結果提出建議，以供未來研究或教育心理及諮商輔導之參考。 / The purpose of this research was to assess the influence of attachment style and sex to creative affective among college students. In this research , questionnaire survey was adopted. The subjects consisted 370 valid sampling from eight Universities in Taipei. The tools adopted included Attachment Styles, Creative Affective Scale. The data was analyzed by descriptive statistics method,two-way Anova by SPSS. The major findings were as follows: 1.The new Creative Affective Scale had 37 items, and the reliability of this scale was .893 2.Among attachment style and sex, male students had much more ambivalent the female, and female had more avoidance attachment than male. 3.(1) The scores in secure and ambivalent attachment were remarkable higher than avoidance attachment in total creative affective scores and curiosity. (2) There was no remarkable differences between attachment style on “imaginative”. (3) The scores in secure attachment was remarkable higher than non-secure attachment in ”adventure”and “challenge”. 4.There were remarkable differences between different gender students only on “curiosity”. Male think they were more curious than female. 5.The interaction of attachment style and sex had no remarkable influence in creative affective. According to the findings, the study made suggestions to be referred to in the academic researches and the educational counseling in the futher.

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。

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。

因應未來社會，需要從教育的點滴工程著手。學校為教育的主要場域，教師的教學影響學生學習的成效與關鍵能力的養成。面對複雜而快速變遷的時代，需要培育出具有良好思考力、未來想像力以及團隊合作能力的下一代。本研究採取個案研究方法，以一所位於台北市區國小內高年級的班級做為研究對象，此班級利用綜合活動時間實施系統思考教學，當中包含任教教師與26位學生，利用教室觀察與訪談法、輔以影片分析、學生作品分析、系統思考活動評量、學生自陳式反思問卷、想像力測驗、時間觀量表等工具，探究實施系統思考教學的教師角色(包含教師個人特質、工作動機、專業知能、教學信念和教學技巧)與系統思考教學的交互影響；對於教師班級經營、師生互動與班級氣氛的營造，進一步探究綜合教學實施與經營，與學生對於系統思考的理解和養成之間的關係。再者探究教學活動與培養學生未來想像力之關聯，而課程當中融入小組討論和遊戲教學，藉此探究教學歷程與學生團隊合作能力培養的相關性。本研究以因果回饋圖呈現研究結果，主要發現有以下五點: 1.系統思考教師扮演教室的結構者、引導者，時時精進系統思考認知與教學技巧，帶領學生關注根本重要的事。 2.系統思考教學實施增進師生互動關係和班級正向氣氛，鼓勵學生討論、發表意見與想法，營造班級共同思考與學習的氛圍。 3.系統思考教學培養學生系統思考力，從小關注世界當中重要的事件，瞭解其趨勢變化與關鍵結構，嘗試根本解決問題。 4.系統思考教學實施幫助啟發學生未來想像力，鬆動思考開啟創意想像，展開未來行動具備未來時間觀。 5.系統思考教學當中活動的形態，有助於學生提升團隊合作技巧與能力進而建立共同願景。 由以上研究結果瞭解系統思考教學教師扮演重要的結構者，啟發學生展開思考、想像，進而自主學習創造未來。在未來若要讓系統思考教學更能培養學生面對未來的關鍵能力，教師在課程設計上應將系統思考和未來想像的精神相結合，並且拉長時間、擴大空間，讓學生擁有充分的自主空間，學習思考，掌握根本而重要的事。 / Nowadays schools are still playing an important role in our education. We have to improve our education to let our children adapt to their futures. The way of teaching will influence our students’ learning. In the future world, we should cultivate our children the abilities of thinking skills, future imagination, and teamwork. The current case study selected a sixth grade class in elementary school. There were two teachers and 26 students in this class. In this study, sources and analyses of the data included: classroom observations, interviews, video analyses, students’ work analyses, systems thinking assessments, imagination tests, and ZTPI. Through the data analysis process, it can be inferred that whether the teaching of systems thinking can influence the teachers and students in the class.The purpose of this research is to use the systems perspective on offering advice and ideas regarding how to use systems thinking teaching in class to improve the students’ learning.The results are listed below: 1.Teachers played a role of guiding students and leaded them to what concerns to the root of any given problem. 2.Teaching processes included enhancing good interactions between teachers and students, and building up the positive classroom climate.Through these processes, students had more chances to discuss and share with each others.At the same time, they showed much respect for others, such as listening to others patiently. 3.With the systems thinking ability, students started to care about what is happening around the world and to attend the changing trend.They try to find the important structure behind the problem and solve it with leverage solution. 4.This class inspired students’ future imagination, expanded their ways of thinking and encouraged them to take actions for the future. 5.Through this class, students gained more team work skills and built shared visions. To conclude, the teaching of systems thinking can help our children to think more deeply and systematically. This way of teaching encourages our children to broaden their minds and take actions for their futures.If teacher can combine systems thinking with future imagination in instructional design, students can have more opportunities and time to learn what is the most important value in their life.

本文主要從圖像著手討論18世紀以後西方的中國觀察。18世紀及其之前西方的中國圖像，與中國相距甚遠，後現代主義認為，此時期的中國形象被扭曲，甚至妖魔化。但18世紀以後，西方的中國圖像與前期有極大的差異，因此本文嘗試透過圖像來討論西方中國觀察的變化。 首先，從文本的記載到外銷瓷、外銷畫上的中國圖案，以及18世紀歐洲中國風所發展出的中國象徵符號，討論西方中國想像的形成。 其次，亞歷山大及湯姆遜二者所記錄的中國分別代表18世紀末、19世紀初及19世紀後半的中國，所採用的工具繪畫與攝影正好反映當代圖像記錄工具的變革，因此，透過對亞歷山大及湯姆遜作品的討論，期能理解西方的中國觀察及影響因素。 / This dissertation discusses China observation in the West after the eighteenth century. Before the eighteenth century, images about China in the West were very different from the real China. Post-modernists argue that in that period the images about China were distorted or even demonized. This dissertation tries to explore the changes of understanding of China through examining images about China in the West. First, to discuss the emerging of the imagination of China in Europe, it discusses Western texts about China, the images on the eighteenth-century China porcelain and exported paintings, as well as the symbols of the “Chinoiserie” style. Secondly, it examines the drawings of William Alexander in the late eighteenth century and the photographs of John Thomson in the nineteenth century. Not only do they represent the shift of media of image recording images but also the change of the understanding of China. In the conclusion, it tries to understand the factors that brought about the changes of China observations in the West.

本研究自語言的想像和傳承起興，探討新聞報導時間的變化。主採敘事學觀點，輔以語言學相關概念綜論新聞文本時間敘事的特色，並進而論及其時間想像及歷史感。 文本取材自人民日報和聯合報共十一則報導，逐篇進行言說模式及窗口分析，其結果說明新聞報導的歷史感非只憑敘述過去事件，更須著重過去和現在素材的連接，不同的連接形式，即敘事時間次序、頻率、節奏的變化各有其意義，並以指示語及各種資訊狀態縫合文本時間的跳躍和變動。而文本中的可然世界(作者或故事人物的精神活動之敘述)則在時間交錯處編織出可供讀者掌握過去、現在、未來時間的各種想像。 / This study, originated from imagination and inheritance of language, aims at examining features of narrative time. Taken a narratologic perspective with concepts borrowed from linguistics, this research discusses the narrativity in news text and also further explores temporarity and sense of history in news. A total of 11 news stories selected from the People’s Daily (Beijing) and the United Daily News (Taipei) were then analyzed by using the methods of discourse analysis and window analysis respectively. The results showed that the sense of history in news was more than simple description of the past events. In fact, it (the sense of history) could only be emphasized by connecting materials of both the past and the present. Further, with different forms of time connection, such as frequency, order, and tempo, news texts could be understood with the use of deixis and information status despite time fluctuation and change. Finally the possible world delineated in any news text would construct the readers’ imagination and allow them to hold the past, the present and the future all together. Keywords: time imagination, narrative theory, deixis, information status, discursive structure, here and now

對於俄羅斯與烏克蘭而言，由於兩國之間長久以來極為密切的歷史與文化關係，因此始終難以接受蘇聯瓦解之事實。迄今，許多俄羅斯人依然視基輔為羅斯民族之出生地，且不認為烏克蘭是一個主權獨立的國家。更確切的說，俄羅斯人認為基輔羅斯乃是導引東正教與俄語進入俄國之發祥地。儘管俄烏之間具有不可割捨的兄弟之情，但當兩個民族或想像共同體對於其彼此疆界、文化等存有歧見時，則仍無法避免各種紛至沓來的紛爭問題。就克里米亞之黑海艦隊為例，顯示俄烏對於塞瓦斯托波爾城之想像共同體的重疊。同時，亦攸關俄烏兩國對於領土與心理疆界，產生必須且窘困的界定過程。 克里米亞半島素有黑海”鑰匙”之稱，不但是烏克蘭通往世界之大門，亦是各國經黑海進入東歐和亞洲的良港。由於其戰略位置之重要性，致使各種不同的政治勢必，紛紛介入克里米亞半島領土歸屬問題。蘇聯崩解後，克里米亞半島動盪不安的情勢，已造成黑海地區俄羅斯與烏克蘭雙邊關係之威脅，並儼然形成如同納戈爾諾－卡拉巴赫或阿布卡齊亞緊張衝突之溫床。克里米亞在蘇聯繼承國家之中，雖然尚不足以列入族裔衝突之範疇。但隨著反對國家之間領土紛爭的自決主張之聲浪，及自蘇聯時期懸而未決的軍事政治問題遺緒之情況下。致使克里米亞問題，成為俄烏兩國與國際緊張關係之焦點。 簡言之，克里米亞問題之根源在於其地區的人口分佈與地緣政治歷史。一九四四年，史達林以串通納粹敵國之罪名，將所有克里米亞韃靼人（約二十萬人）集體驅逐遷往中亞地區。截至一九八Ｏ年代末期，在近五十年漫長歲月中，克里米亞韃靼人不但其基本文化權及族群認同遭到否決，甚至於在蘇聯的人口統計資料中，未曾出現克里米亞韃靼人。蘇聯瓦解後，克里米亞始終受到兩方面重疊勢力的控制：其一、克里米亞共和國當局，與要求承認其歷史及領土權利的克里米亞韃靼人；其二、尋求獨立並要求回歸俄羅斯的克里米亞共和國親俄領導人士，及反對克里米亞分離主義之烏克蘭當局。這些勢力圍繞著一個相同的基本政治問題：誰擁有克里米亞半島之主權？就目前情勢而論，克里米亞韃靼積極份子要求承認其國家地位；然而，克里米亞境內及外在的敵對勢力，則頗不以為然。無庸置疑，歷史爭論與目前克里米亞的情勢發展，實乃息息相關。 / For Russians and Ukrainians, the disintegration of the Soviet Union has been particularly difficult due to the extremely close historical and cultural ties between the two countries. Many Russians still view Kyiv as the birthplace of their nation（Rus’）and do not conceive of Ukraine as an independent country. Rather, they think of it as Kievan Rus’, the land that brought the Orthodox Christian religion and the Russian language to Russia. As relations between Russia and Ukraine reveal, however, problems can arise when two imagined communities, or nations, disagree over the boundaries（cultural or otherwise） that distinguish them. In the case of the Black Sea Fleet dispute, the imagined communities of Russia and Ukraine overlap at Sevastopol. Throughout Crimea’s complicated history, the peninsula’s strategic location on the Black Sea has made it a desirable military outpost and warm-water port, leading to territorial claims by a great variety of political forces. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the unstable situation in Crimea has threatened to turn the Black Sea region of Russia and Ukraine into a hotbed of tension similar to Nagorno-Karabakh or Abkhazia. While the Crimea still cannot be listed among the numerous areas of violent ethno-political conflict in the Soviet successor states, it has recently become a focus of domestic and international tension, with conflicting self-determination claims voiced against a background of interstate territorial disputes and an unsettled legacy of military-political issues from the Soviet period. Simply put, the conflict over Crimea has its roots in the region’s demographic and geopolitical history. In 1944, accused of collaboration with the Nazi invaders, the entire Crimean Tatar population（by then some 200,000） was deported, mostly to Central Asia. For over forty years, Crimean Tatars were denied basic cultural rights and even an ethic identity; until the 1980s, Crimean Tatars never appeared in Soviet population statistics. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Crimea has been the object of two overlapping rivalries for control: first between the Crimean Republic authorities and the Crimean Tatars, who demand recognition of their historic and territorial rights to the peninsula; and second between pro-Russian leaders of the Crimean Republic, who want either independence or reunification of the peninsula with Russia, and the Ukrainian authorities, who oppose Crimean separatism and insist that Crimea remain an integral part of Ukraine. These movements revolve around the same basic political question: who has sovereignty over the Crimean peninsula? Presently, Crimean Tatar activists regard the Crimean ASSR as a recognition of Crimean Tatar statehood, while their opponents in the Crimea and beyond are convinced that the autonomous formation was purely administrative. The historical controversy is, of course, highly relevant to the present situation in the Crimea.

主體性，是作為相對於客體性而言之主觀存在，且同時是作為在客體性中的客觀存在。如此一種普遍地可能存在於一切認識活動中的雙重存在狀態，正是所謂的「主體性的悖論」。而根據胡塞爾現象學式的沈思回溯考察，這樣一種可能的悖論形態之形成的原因，無非就出於主體多少偏執「客觀存在性先行存在」作為認識活動的理所當然性的前提之故。因為此種由主體對客體性存在與否具有著強烈興趣而產生出的偏執，總是讓主體在對「客觀存在性如何先行存在」此一問題少有深思的情形下，或是有所盲目或是有所扭曲地將自身多少誤解為關聯於客體而共同存在於客體性之中，且同時還多少將此種主體-客體的關聯當作兩者間具有某種平行類比意義的根據，甚而多少誤解主體是客體的類比存在性且可來自於對客體的存在性進行抽象而得之補充抽象的東西。如此一來，不僅主體固有的本質存在方式多少被化約遮蔽地客體化了，客體作為主觀的被給予東西的意義也多少被片面地簡化了，甚至還有那種由最深刻的不可理解的悖論危險性，所帶來之「客觀存在性如何能被主觀地認識」此一非比尋常的認識活動/知識（真理）之謎。而根據胡塞爾現象學式的沈思回溯考察，唯有通過徹底的「懸擱」來全面克制對客體性存在與否的強烈興趣，主體的目光才能完全解除指向客觀存在性的束縛，而以自由的反思活動來真正深入自身的主觀存在性之中，「無悖論地」揭示出自身「如何」以固有的本質存在方式主觀地認識到一切作為客觀存在性之主觀被給予的「事物本身」。

本論文以布里斯本澳籍台裔的族裔認同為研究對象，從符號互動論角度瞭解移民如何在傳播互動中建構認同並形成共同體，以此探討「認同」、「傳播」與「想像共同體」間之關係，在澳洲布里斯本台灣移民社區進行田野調查並深度訪談六十五位台灣移民，以實際的經驗研究和兩個本文欲互補或質疑的觀點展開對話：一為Anderson以媒介資本主義作為傳播構連想像共同體之核心角色，在傳播建構認同的過程中是否充分？二為離散理論當中的「母國導向」與「邊界維持」觀點，對澳籍台裔離散經驗的適用性為何？研究目的除了回饋符號互動論，重新思考該理論在探討當代跨國移民認同建構之不足，並增添一些在跨文化／國情境下影響移民認同建構之相關傳播因素，以符合跨國移民認同研究所需；而從符號互動論角度研究想像共同體之形成，其想像機制能夠與Anderson的鉅觀角度產生哪些互補？希望藉此提供思考「認同」、「傳播」與「想像共同體」三者關係新的想像視野。 本文在理論耙梳與田野來回交錯中，發現Mead符號互動論在互動中構連認同與想像共同體的關鍵傳播因素是「重要象徵符號」，不過，Mead似乎只考慮了一個共同體中個體「趨同」的重要象徵符號，但忽略和外部社群互動接觸的「區異」重要象徵符號也會形成自我所從出的共同體，這種由「區異」所形成的「重要象徵符號」，更具有以「想像」構成共同體之性質，雖然處在同一個共同體的成員並不相識，但是當我們和他群接觸有共同的差異感產生時，這種共同的「差異感」讓我們有同屬一個共同體的感覺。本論文於是結合Mead符號互動論與Barth族裔邊界理論，且不偏廢根基論的族裔認同，提出離散族裔的族裔認同來自族裔內根基（同一性）與邊界互動（差異性）所形成的重要象徵符號構成了族裔象徵邊界（symbolic boundary），正是這些被社群成員認為”重要”、”可區辨”不同族群的重要象徵符號，構成集體認同之基礎，提供族裔認同之來源。澳籍台裔離散認同是一個「混雜的想像共同體」，其中的族裔認同「想像共同體」是透過傳播互動中社群成員認為重要可區辨不同族裔的「重要象徵符號」實踐形成之邊界所構成，族裔邊界維持與變遷之機制，來自於對母國原生情感或宗主國情感的強弱、族裔評價之抉擇、家鄉情懷的強弱、宗主國溝通能力之具備與否以及在社會互動中自我與他者關係之多重匯聚。 台裔離散的族裔認同是由人際傳播與大眾傳播共同建構的，傳播科技連結了”根”與”路徑”，藉由個人對於母國強烈的原生情感和家鄉情懷作為觸媒，使得族裔媒介透過解鄉愁、更新家鄉記憶、增進母國和同族裔親友間交流而喚起族裔認同；對年幼移民後裔而言，由於自小離鄉或在澳洲出世，對於原鄉的記憶與感情變得遙遠模糊，族裔中重要他人的文化傳承以及對於媒介中母國風土民情的解釋互動，搭起了族裔媒介建構認同的橋。同樣的，宗主國的主流媒介建構跨界認同，是移民積極運用媒介內容作為和澳洲人建立友誼和相互交流的工具，在與宗主國人際互動中，跨界的認同在一來一往的認肯中逐漸形成。 本文認為，在應用Anderson「想像共同體」觀點解釋媒介內容建構或凝聚集體認同之推論應有所保留。形成族裔認同感的傳播機制，在Anderson那裡，是將現代時間觀念的改變與印刷資本主義和統一方言使用做了扣連，廣大的讀者同胞因而產生共時性的連結，形成想像共同體的胚胎（Anderson, 1991），在Mead這裡，形成共同體的語言過程，是一種「重要象徵符號」的溝通（Mead, 1934），個人即使沒有和共同體中的所有成員碰面，但認同也不可能在真空中產生，沒有社會互動，自我和共同體都不可能生成，是「重要象徵符號」構連了許許多多未曾謀面的共同體成員。象徵符號原本是具有多義性的，但「重要象徵符號」卻能在彼此之間形成共同的態度與反應，以致形成一個「想像共同體」。本研究發現族裔媒介引發族裔情感的方式其實還有「原生情感」、「濃烈鄉愁」、「同族裔同胞或母國親友交流」作為觸媒；主流媒介建構「澳洲人」認同也是透過人際傳播中介，受到互動中澳洲人的認肯，才引發「澳洲人」的認同感。因此，大眾媒介或許只是強化原有的族裔情感或是作為人際互動中促使認同更容易產生之內容來源，是和人際傳播互動共同建構了族裔認同，而非單一造就。 澳籍台裔的離散認同由三種族裔想像共同體組成：「Chinese共同體」、「台灣人共同體」與「澳洲人共同體」，源自三種共同體的自我認同有八種樣貌：「在澳洲的台灣人」、「也（不）是台灣人也（不）是澳洲人，或是不同比例的兩種組合」、「台裔澳洲人」、「華裔澳洲人」、「中國人 or Chinese from Taiwan」、「在哪裡就是哪裡人」、「國際人」與「亞澳居間人」。三個族裔想像共同體擁有各自分享的評價標準與重要象徵符號，形成族裔認同邊界：台灣人共同體主要是以「和來自中國大陸予人負面印象的Chinese不同」為核心評價；Chinese共同體多以策略性本質主義定義「Chinese」為「中華文化」、「華裔血緣」，作為提升己身認同以對抗環境中多數認為「Chinese=來自中國大陸」之意含；澳洲人共同體則多欣賞澳洲的價值觀和生活形態，如：平等、守法、輕鬆隨和、熱愛戶外運動、注重隱私、獨立自主、友善親切等。 台裔離散認同流動的大方向為：「中國人」的認同如同母國的流動方向一般，當面對真實而非課本上虛幻的中國人時，大部分會轉向「台灣人」；第一代移民大多停滯於「在澳洲的台灣人」；1.5世代認同以「半個澳洲人半個台灣人或也是澳洲人也是台灣人」居多，會逐漸流向「澳洲人」，但不會出現純粹的「澳洲人」認同；而中、英語流利且和多國人接觸的移民最終會流向「國際人」；在澳洲出生或三、四歲就移民澳洲的1.5代移民，其認同會從原本自以為是「澳洲人」回流為「台裔澳洲人」或「華裔澳洲人」。就台裔離散而言，「離散」有另一種新的詮釋，離散認同的邊界不盡然維持，也不盡然腐蝕，有的只是邊界的跨越、衝突、矛盾與協商。 過去離散研究強調離散族裔有共同鄉愁以及「母國導向」的論點並不適用於澳籍台裔離散。雖然對第一代台灣移民而言，台灣家鄉和原生情感以及族裔認同分不開，「出生地」、「成長地」、「父母家人都在台灣」、「台灣是我的國家」是其家鄉歸屬感之來源，但即使「家鄉」是台灣，由於這群移民當初選擇的是澳洲優質的生活環境，因此大多數仍會選擇在澳洲定居，回歸母國或落葉歸根的比例並不高，第一代僅18%表達會回台灣長住，後裔更僅有9%有此意願。雖然大部分1.5代高中以上年齡移民仍和第一代一樣，覺得「親情」、「家鄉」和「成長地」的構連形成強烈的台灣歸屬感，但傳播科技的發達以及大眾交通之便捷，打破了時空界線，使得「多重的家」、「跨國的家」逐漸取代單一「台灣是家鄉」的意義，「家鄉」象徵”多重的地方”，「台灣、澳洲都是家鄉」使得「家鄉」與「母國地域」的關係開始鬆動，「家鄉」成為一個連結母國和宗主國的空間；更年幼移民澳洲的1.5代，或是「澳洲人」認同感較多的移民後裔，大多會認為「家人在澳洲，澳洲就是我的家」，甚至直接稱澳洲是自己的家鄉，原本第一代「家鄉」、「母國親人」和「母國地域」三者構連的家鄉歸屬感開始解構，轉為「在澳洲親人」和「去母國地域」的家鄉。台裔離散的「家鄉」意義，已從第一代與「母國」、「出生地」、「成長地」、「國家」、「親人所在地」緊緊扣連，提供族裔認同重要來源，逐漸在後裔於澳洲久居生根之後，意義變遷為「多重的地方」、「跨國的家」，使得移民後裔的認同也有了多元的變貌，「從何處來」與「身在何處」兩者間的抉擇，在「台灣出生地」與「久居澳洲」、「家人在澳洲」兩方的牽引中，後裔逐漸選擇在澳洲的親情和經歷成長已習慣的澳洲生活作為「家鄉」意義之來源，「日久他鄉是故鄉」是離散後裔「澳洲人」認同漸多時家鄉意義的變貌，「台灣」對年幼移民後裔而言，漸漸只剩下「好吃、好玩、度假、買便宜東西的地方」。 / This dissertation aims to explore the relations among identity, communication and imagined community. Mead’s symbolic interactionism and Barth’s theory of ‘ethnic boundary’ have been employed as the main theoretical frames in this study. Furthermore, extended from Mead’s and Barth’s theory in assist with ethnographic observations and in-depth interviews with 65 Taiwanese immigrants in Brisbane, I argue that ethnic identity of diaspora is constructed by the symbolic ethnic boundary which is formed with identical ( primordialism ) and different ( boundary interactions ) significant symbols. The boundaries between ethnic groups are constructed through the internalized and externalized practice of these significant symbols. The results revealed from this research show that the Australian-Taiwanese diasporic identity is a ‘hybrid imagined community’ being constituted by Chinese, Taiwanese and Australian imagined communities. The transitional mechanism of ethnic boundary is driven by the convergence of attachments to homeland or host country, the choices of ethnic appraisals, the possession of the host communication competences, and the self-other relations within social interactions. The ethnic identities of Taiwanese diaspora are constructed by both interpersonal communication and mass media. This finding is complementary to Anderson’s stance that mass communication is central to the construction of the imagined communities in capitalism. Namely, only mass media isn’t sufficient enough for constructing the imagined community. Interpersonal communication is another concerned factor. Taiwanese diaspora cannot be simply viewed as a homeland-orientated ethnic group. The meaning of homeland has been changed among different generations. After staying longer in a place far away from home, gradually, young generations will identify this place as their homeland. For Taiwanese descendants who immigrated to Australia at their young age, when they grow up in Australia and become more Australian, they will feel Australia is their homeland.