本研究從Leech的「禮貌原則」和Grice的「合作原則」切入討論台灣著名的反迷（anti-fan）虛擬聚集處（virtual togetherness）「吐槽版」中的異議表達。研究者初步觀察吐槽版發現，該版呈現高度言論趨同的現象、鮮見異議表達。過往反迷相關文獻指出，相對於外在強勢的主流演藝圈文化，反迷意識到自己的小眾性、弱勢性，因而可能發展出成員間緊密的小團體情誼、友善互助的人際關係。研究者欲探究，在吐槽版高度趨同的發言氛圍下，版友該如何表達異議？什麼樣的異議表達方式符合吐槽版的禮貌標準？此外，吐槽版發言高度趨同、鮮見異議、鮮見網路戰火（flaming），確為出自於版友間同仇敵愾的團結情誼、友善的人際關係嗎？ 研究發現，吐槽版版友間人際關係淡漠，完全推翻研究者對於吐槽版反迷的想像。吐槽版版友雖偏好採用溫和、委婉的方式表其異見，但若時機適當，仍會出現相對尖銳的異議；且不乏針對第一輪發言者立論的「手法」表達異議，帶有「找碴」的意味。此外，版友在表達異議時，不時出現「非護航」自清，版友不自覺會將「表達異議」等同於「護航」。「禁止護航」這版規才是約束吐槽版版友異議表達的最主要力量，而非版內的人際關係。「禁止護航」保障了版友完整情緒發洩的權利，版友在此可單方面地表達對於演藝對象的厭惡之情而不會受到他人反駁。吐槽版版友無意與他人進行「雙向溝通」，完整的、單方面的「情緒宣洩」才是他們對於吐槽版的期待。版友無意集結版眾力量共同對抗演藝圈，他們對抗的其實是「理性溝通」的概念。研究者發現，在網路社群、虛擬聚集中，人們並非只需要理性溝通，「情緒發洩」也是人們重視的發言需求。

人們常因為禮貌或其他因素避免對立的情況發生。然而，異議在我們日常溝通中又扮演了不可或缺的角色。之前，眾多對於異議及其相關語言活動的研究均未曾探究異議內容的本質(對於事實內容的異議或對於議題評估的異議)與異議的建構有何關係。此外，台灣鮮少研究社會因素對異議建構方式的影響。基於上述不足，本研究旨在探討何種異議(內容異議或評估異議)在日常生活中較常出現，不同異議類別的語言形式與語用策略為何，以及年齡是否會影響異議的數量多寡與建構方式。本研究採用言談分析(conversational analysis, CA)作為研究框架，並以言語行為理論(speech act theory),合作原則(Cooperative Principles)及禮貌理論(Politeness Principles)為理論基礎。 本研究以12份日常交談為語料，進行異議分析。在這12份語料中，8組對話者為同齡(4組年長者，4組年輕者)，4組對話者為跨齡。在分析過程中，先依異議的本質進行分類，進而分析討論異議中所使用的語言形式、語用策略、社會因素(年齡)，以及四者彼此之間的互動。 研究結果顯示，第一，人們使用評估異議的頻率為內容異議的兩倍之多。個人主觀式遠多於社會文化評估的異議。第二，就語言形式而言，在異議的建構中，否定句、預告詞及肯定句(依此順序)的使用頻率高於其他語言形式。然而，語言行式的選擇會隨異議的本質而有所改變。內容異議通常使用直接句型，如否定句與肯定句；評估異議則平均使用直接性的否定句與間接性的預告詞。第三，就語用策略而言，更正、解釋與質疑(依此順序)的使用頻率高於其他語用策略。語用策略的選擇亦隨異議本質的不同而有所改變。超過一半的內容異議使用更正策略，但在評估異議中，更正、解釋與質疑的使用頻率相當。第四，在評估異議中，在各個語用策略中，語言形式的種類比內容異議多。這個結果影射著評估異議對面子的威脅程度可能比內容異議來得嚴重。因此，在進行評估異議時，語言形式與語用策略的挑選用必須格外注意。第五，年齡與異議的建構有顯著的相關性。同齡組比跨齡組更容易產生異議。最後，在異議中，聽話者的角色比說話者的角色更具有影響力。 / Although people try to avoid opposition for the sake of politeness or other reasons, disagreement, which may threaten interpersonal relationship and the success of communication, is inevitable in our daily life. Previous studies on disagreement (including dispute, argument, conflict, etc.) have not probe into the nature of the referential content—whether it is content-based (in this study, C-disagreement) or evaluation-based (in this study, E-disagreement), and the influences of social factors on disagreement have rarely been examined in Taiwan. Therefore, the purposes of this study are to see what type of disagreement are most likely to occur in daily conversations and to examine whether age is an influential factor on linguistic choices for in disagreement in Chinese society. This study uses the framework of conversational analysis (CA), and adopts speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1975), Cooperative Principles (Grice, 1975) and Politeness Principles (Brown and Levinson’s, 1978, 1987; Leech, 1983) as the theoretical foundations. 12 conversations by speakers of 8 same-age groups (including 4 old groups and 4 young groups) and 4 cross-age groups were examined for disagreement. Related data are categorized, analyzed, and discussed by types of disagreement, linguistic markers, pragmatic strategies, social variable (in this study, age), and the interaction among the four. The results of the data analyses show, first, people adopt nearly twice more E-disagreement than C-disagreement; moreover, E-disagreement based on personal judgment emerges more often than E-disagreement based on socio-cultural evaluation. Second, for linguistic markers, negation, pre-announcement marker, and affirmative (in this order) are adopted more in disagreement. However, preferences for linguistic markers change according to types of disagreement. In C-disagreement, direct syntactic markers, such as negation and affirmative, are used more frequently than the others; however, in E-disagreement, direct negation (syntactic) and indirect pre-announcement (lexical) are used with equal frequencies. Third, among pragmatic strategies, correction, account, and challenge (in this order) are adopted more frequently than the others. The usage of pragmatic strategies varies with types of disagreement. In C-disagreement, correction is highly adopted. But in E-disagreement, correction, account, and challenge are used with equal percentages. Fourth, the fact that more varieties of linguistic markers are used in each pragmatic strategy in E-disagreement than in C-disagreement may imply impoliteness, since face-threatening force is more serious in E-disagreement than in C-disagreement, which, in turn, indicates that more careful manipulation is needed in using E-disagreement. Fifth, age is influential in disagreement. More disagreements are found in the same-age groups than in the cross-age groups. Last, the hearer’s role is found to be more influential than the speaker’s role.

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.

國 立 政 治 大 學 研 究 所 碩 士 論 文 提 要 研究所別: 語言學研究所 論文名稱: 中文對話中的異議現象 指導教授: 李櫻 博士 研究生: 林智怡 論文提要內容: 共壹冊，分伍章 在日常對話中，我們觀察到衝突對話是避免出現的，而大致上人們較傾向給予同意，而不傾向行使異議對話。既然在中國社會裡，面子和禮貌是相當受重視的，因此在中文對話中避免行使異議對話尤其重要。雖然在很多情境下，禮貌意味著盡量給予同意而避免異議，但顯然人們並不總是在同意他人。如果一個人不同意他的談話對象所表達的意見，他可以用一些禮貌的方式來避免威脅到對方的顏面。本篇研究的重點就是在調查當說話者要行使異議時，他們對不同的語用策略(pragmatic strategies)及語言特徵(linguistic features)的運用，並將探討說話者對談話原則中的合作原則(CP)及禮貌原則(PP)的遵守或違反。在調查的過程中，性別差異也將列入考慮。 在這篇研究當中，我們收集了九筆日常面對面對話互動的語料：三筆男對男的對話，三筆女對女的對話，三筆男與女的對話。每筆語料都是錄音自兩位熟朋友間大約四十五分鐘的對話。在語料分析的過程中，我們同時採用質性與量化的探討來調查並解釋中文對話中的異議現象。 研究結果顯示在異議時所呈現的語用策略及語言特徵似乎互相矛盾。人們傾向使用較具侵略性及競爭性的糾正策略(correction)來行使他們的異議，反而傾向用較宛轉的語言特徵來表示異議。然而，這並不是一個真正的矛盾，相反的，它可能顯示出年輕的族群不只在乎禮貌的和諧關係，同時也用較直接的語用策略來表示他們之間的一致性(solidarity)。除了用較宛轉的語言特徵來緩和行使異議時所用的較直接的語用策略外，人們在行使異議時也違反一些合作原則來實行禮貌原則或其他對話原則。不論人們如何行使異議，表面上禮貌或不禮貌，違反合作原則來遵守其他的談話原則的最終目的都是得體合宜及禮貌。 至於異議表現的性別差異，雖然一般的印象中是男性的互動比女性較具競爭性、侵略性及好辯，然而我們這裡的研究並不完全和這樣的模式吻合。女性現在較主動表達她們的意見，然而她們自由表達她們的想法只侷限在同樣是女性面前。換句話說，雖然現在的女性比傳統女性受較好的教育，男性也已意識到表現騎士風範及尊重女性的重要性，然而男女之間的權力(power)差異，似乎仍在現代社會中有著影響力。 / Abstract In daily conversation, it can be observed that conflict talk is avoided and agreement is generally preferred over disagreement. Avoidance of disagreement plays an especially important role in Mandarin Chinese conversation, since face and politeness are valued high in Chinese society. Although in many contexts being polite means maximizing areas of agreement and minimizing disagreement, clearly people do not always agree; and if one does not agree with the views expressed by a conversational partner, there are polite options available for him to avoid any possible threat on the interlocutor’s face. The focus of this study is to investigate the speakers’ use of different pragmatic strategies and linguistic features when disagreement arises, and will also discuss the speakers’ observation or violation of the conversational principles of CP and PP. In the process of our investigation, gender difference will be taken into consideration. In this study, we collect 9 dyadic face to face daily conversations: three male-to-male conversations, three female-to-female conversations, and three mixed-gender conversations. Each conversation is given by two close friends and tape-recorded around forty-five minutes. In the process of data analysis, qualitative as well as quantitative analysis will both be adopted to investigate and explain the phenomenon of disagreement in Mandarin Chinese conversation. The results of this study indicate that the performance of the pragmatic strategies and the linguistic features in disagreement seems to be a contradiction. People tend to choose the aggressive and competitive strategy of correction to perform their disagreement, while they tend to choose mitigating features when performing their disagreement. However, this may not be a real contradiction. Instead, it may show that the young group’s concern is not only the harmonious relationships observed in politeness, but also the solidarity signaled by using direct pragmatic strategies. Besides using the mitigating linguistic features to tone down the direct pragmatic strategies in the performance of disagreement, people also violate some CP maxims to uphold the PP and other conversation principles when performing their disagreement. No matter how the disagreement is performed, superficially polite or impolite, the major concern and ultimate achievement of the CP violation for the sake of observation of other linguistic maxims is appropriateness and politeness. As for the gender differences in the performance of disagreement, though the overall impression is that male interaction is typically more competitive, aggressive and argumentative than female, our study here does not completely match with the general pattern. Females are now more active in expressing their opinions; however, they freely express their thought only in front of their own sex. In other words, the power difference between males and females still has its influence in this modern society though now females are better-educated than the traditional women and males have already known the importance of showing chivalry and respect to females.