本論文藉由檢視臺灣政論節目中所使用的語用策略（直接或間接）、語言行為類別、及語言行為目的，探討政治意識型態對於語言行為產生的影響。本研究以Grice（1975）的合作原則與Searle（1969）的語言行為理論作為分析框架，並以Leech（1983）的禮貌原則解釋語用策略及語言行為在不同政論節目中的分布差異。 　　本研究從臺灣主流的政論節目當中，政治光譜兩極的政論節目「大話新聞」（泛綠）與「2100全民開講」（泛藍）採集語料；並以Searle（1965年）的語言行為理論進行分析，總共識別12類直接語言行為和26類間接語言行為。 　　研究結果顯示，（一）語用策略方面，說話者在政論節目中使用間接語言行為的頻率比直接語言行為頻繁。（二）語言行為類別方面，直接語言行為中，排序則為：斷言（Assertive）、表述（Expressive）、指示（Directive）；而間接語言行為中，各類別使用頻率由高至低排序為：表述（Expressive）、斷言（Assertive）、指示（Directive）。（三）在政治意識型態的影響方面，支持執政黨的政論節目行使較多「直接且事實導向」的語言行為，而支持反對黨的政論節目則有較多的「間接且評論導向」的語言行為。（四）「譴責」是政論節中最常使用的語言行為，並且以間接方式表達居多。（五）推論過程中，推論步驟較多的「間接譴責」語言行為在政論節目中較常被使用。（六）「大話新聞」與「2100全民開講」雖偏向不同的政治意識型態，但是它們皆以斷言類（Assertive）或指示類（Directive）的語言行為來包裝，藉以間接達到「譴責」執政黨疏失的目的。 / This thesis investigates the political-ideological influence on speech acts in Taiwan political talk shows by examining the pragmatic strategies (directness and indirectness), the speech act categories, and the illocutionary purposes performed in the talk shows. In this thesis, Gricean maxims (1975) and Searle’s theory of speech acts (1969) are adopted as the analytic frames to study how speech acts are conducted, and Leech’s (1983) notions of politeness are the theoretical basis for explaining the distributional difference of pragmatic strategies. 　　The data analyzed in this study is composed of dialogues extracted from 6 episodes of two political talk shows with opposite stances on political issues, namely DaHuaXingWen (大話新聞), the pan-green talk show, and QuanMinKaiJiang (2100全民開講), the pan-blue one. Following Searle’s scheme of speech acts (1965), this study identifies the illocutionary act of every clause in the data and recognizes 12 types of direct speech acts and 26 types of indirect speech acts in the collected data. 　　The results of quantitative analysis show that, (1) indirect speech act is generally performed more frequently than indirect speech act in political talk shows. (2) The order of frequency in direct speech acts represents as: Assertive > Expressive > Directive; and in indirect speech acts, the order of frequency is: Expressive > Assertive > Directive. (3) In terms of the political-ideological influence, the political talks show supporting the ruling party (QuanMinKaiJiang) performs direct fact-orientated speech acts more, while the show that standing in the opposition to the ruling party (DaHuaXingWen) has more indirect opinion-oriented speech acts. (4) Condemnation is the most often used illocutionary act in political talk shows, and mainly done indirectly. (5) Indirect condemnations with longer length of inferential process are preferred in political talk shows. (6) Despite that DaHuaXingWen and QuanMinKaiJiang held different political stance, they share the same pattern of expressing indirect condemnation—wrapping it in speech acts of Assertives or Directives.

Fear is a challenge for European democracies today that is discussed in the same breath as rising populism and anti-immigrant speech. However, it seems that fear has also become a defining principle for Western (post)modern society in many other areas of life. This observation has been framed by the term culture of fear and described by recognized sociologists like Ulrich Beck, Zygmunt Bauman and Frank Furedi. They argue that changing social conditions like individualisation and globalisation have altered Western society’s preoccupation with security, uncertainty and risk. In consequence, Bauman and Furedi talk about a fear that has become “free-floating” and “liquid”. This research project asks about the implications of such a culture of fear for society and takes a closer look at what has been described as politics of fear. By conducting a critical political discourse analysis of the political talk show hart aber fair, this paper aims at tracing politics of fear in the German discourse over migration during the “refugee crisis” (2015-2017). In a three-tiered approach, the investigation embarks by defining culture of fear and its social premises, followed by a discussion of politics of fear theories drawing upon such concepts as precaution, prevention and securitisation. Emerging from this discussion, both a “traditional” politics with fear and a (post)modern politics of uncertainty are identified. The subsequent analysis of a selected hart aber fair episode from the 5th September 2016 bases on Siegfried Jäger’s approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and examines the argumentation and interaction of the guests in the debate. The findings indicate that in addition to the use of fear as a political means for populist politicians, the narrative of the “fearful society” has on a whole permeated the German political discourse over migration. Hence, culture of fear offers a new perspective for the understanding of political discourse and the current developments in political practice.