本文以研究華語與日語中的第一人稱複數代名詞「我們」，以「第一人稱複數指涉」(First person non-singular reference, Helmbrecht, 2002), 「人稱代詞用法」(Uses of person pronoun, Kitagawa and Lehrer, 1990, Biq, 1991 and Quirk et al., 1985)以及「集合名詞」(Radden and Dirven, 2007)為研究的理論基礎，比較華語與日語的「我們」的語意，語用以及搭配的名詞現象。研究的語料擷取分別來自「中央研究院現代漢語平衡語料庫」、「現代日語書寫語言均衡語料庫」。旨在討論以下三個層面: (一) 華語與日語的第一人稱複數在指涉範圍和論旨角色的分佈情形的不同之處 (二) 華語與日語的第一人稱複數在人稱代詞的用法中的使用頻率比較的不同之處。(三) 在華語與日語的第一人稱複數與名詞的搭配詞組中如何傳達文化的不同。
研究結果顯示: (一)日語在第一人稱複數的包括談話對方的雙數指涉百分比明顯高於多數指涉; 而華語在第一人稱複數的包括談話對方的指涉中，雙數(只包含說者和聽者)和多數(包含說者、聽者和其他多數第三者)呈現現同的百分比結果。另一方面，在不包括對話對方的單數與多數比中，華語與日語皆呈現出較多比例上的雙數指涉。而在論旨角色的比較中，研究發現華語的第一人稱複數在語料庫的例句中常作為主事者的角色; 然後日語的第一人稱複數則呈現出主事者與客體為同樣的百分比數字。(二) 命題用法的日語第一人稱複數呈現出比華語高的百分比; 然而非人稱用法在華語中卻比日語常用。而戲劇性用法在華語中的我們和日語中的おれたち都是常被發現用於假設性的情境。轉移用法除了發現從第一人稱複數轉移到第二人稱的用法之外，日語還比華語多了從第一人稱複數轉移到第三人稱和自稱的用法。(三) 在文化中，日語第一人稱複數與名詞的搭配詞可看見日系社會的階級和重視親疏遠近皆影嚮採用不同的人稱代詞，而對比中文的名詞搭配詞則呈現出整體性、團體的概念。
藉由研究華語與日語中的第一人稱複數代名詞「我們」，顯示在名詞搭配詞中可以協助有志於學習日語為第二外語的學習者更透徹的從搭配詞中看見的文化社會因素。除此之外，文中所得到的指涉及其用法上的頻率差異也可作為學習者或語料庫建構者的一項參考。

The purpose of this study was to compare and examine the reference, usage and collocation of the first person plural pronouns in Mandarin Chinese and Japanese wǒmen, zánmen, watashitachi, bokutachi and oretachi. The data in this study were retrieved from the Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Mandarin Chinese and Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese. Our data were examined by means of the referential values of the first person non-singular category (Helmbrecht, 2002), thematic roles (Andrews, 1985; and Radford, 1988), usage of personal pronoun (Kitagawa and Lehrer, 1990; Biq, 1991; and Quirk et al., 1985), and nominal collocation (Radden and Dirven, 2007).
The data were analyzed from three perspectives: (1) What are the differences of referential range and thematic roles distribution in the first person plural pronouns between Mandarin Chinese and Japanese? (2) What are the differences of frequency on the use of the first person plural pronouns between Mandarin Chinese and Japanese? (3) How does the collocation pattern in the use of the first person plural pronouns in Madanrin Chinese and Japanese reveal cultural differences? Results show that (1) the Japanese first person plural obtained higher proportions in dual inclusive interpretation, but equal proportions in inclusive plural readings in Mandarin Chinese. The exclusive dual and plural reference is proportionally different in usage for Mandarin Chinese and Japanese first person plural pronouns, respectively. In comparing the highest proportions, wǒmen obtained 40% on exclusive plural reference, which is contrary to bokutachi which received only 28% for the exclusive dual reference. Wǒmen and zánmen are frequently interpreted as having the thematic role of AGENT in sentences; nevertheless, only bokutachi featured a higher proportion in the thematic role of AGENT. The other two pronouns, watashitachi and oretachi reveal much more expositions on THEME among the other thematic roles. In addition, Mandarin Chinese has a higher subject hierarchy in thematic roles than Japanese based on our corpora analysis. Wǒmen and zánmen compared to watashitachi and oretachi are located at the frontal position as AGENT, while the latter two Japanese pronouns are located at the middle postion as THEME. (2) Japanese is prevalently used in propositional usage, while impersonal usage of wǒmen and zánmen was found to be in higher proportions than Japanese. Wǒmen and oretachi both received higher proportions in dramatic uses in hypothetical contexts (11% vs. 17%). This shifting usage is from the stance of first person to the second person. Japanese personal pronoun also demonstrates different topics of shifting usage. Shifting usage was found from first person to second person in both languages, but Japanese contains other ways of shifting. (3) Due to cultural differences in China and Japan, nominal collocation in wǒmen, zánmen reveal a strong tendency of person or group related noun combinations; however, watashitachi, bokutachi and oretachi display different choices of personal relation and topic based variation. Japanese social hierarchical differences manifest in the choice of pronoun collocation. Mandarin Chinese nominal collocation represents the characteristic of unity culture.
In sum, we provide a better understanding to curriculum planners of second language teaching of Japanese and Mandarin Chinese first person plural pronoun nominal collocations with multiple explanations. Through this thesis, we reveal the importance of corpus research and also bring us profound language and culture conservation.

Andrews, A. (1985). The Major Functions of the Noun Phrase. In S. Timothy (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Clause Structure (pp. 62-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finnegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written Language. London: Longman.
Biq, Y-O. (1991). The Multiple Uses of the Second Person Singular Pronoun ni in Conversational Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(4), 307-321.
Bond, M. H., and Cheung, T. S. (1983). College Students’ Spontaneous Self-Concept: The Effect of Culture among Respondents in Hong Kong, Japan, and the United States of America. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14(2), 153-171.
Borthen, K. (2010). On how we interpret Plural Pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(7), 1799-1815.
Brewer, M. B., and Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of Collective Identity and Self Representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83-93.
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chan, Hui-Chen (詹惠珍). (2000). Anaphoric Choice in Social Context. Chinese Studies, 18, 299-321.
Chan, M. K. M. (1998). Gender Differences in the Chinese Language: A Preliminary Report. In H. Lin (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics: Vol. 2, (pp. 35-52). Los Angeles: GSIL Publications.
Chang, Yu-Chien (張裕倩). 2008. The Comparison of Personal Pronouns in Mandarin and Hakka. MA Thesis of the Graduate Institute of Foreign Literature and Linguistics, Hsinchu, Taiwan: Hsuan Chuang University.
Chao, Yuen-ren. (1956). Chinese Terms of Address. Language, 32(1), 217-241.
Chen, Li-Chi (陳力綺) (2007). A Study of Chinese First Person Pronoun in Political Discourse. MA Thesis of the Graduate Institute of Foreign Literature and Linguistics, Hsinchu, Taiwan: National Tsing Hua University.
Cook, H. M. (1990). An Indexical Account of the Japanese Sentence-Final Particle no. Discourse Processes, 13(4), 401-439.
Davidson, B. (1996). ‘Pragmatic Weight’and Spanish Subject Pronouns: The Pragmatic and Discourse uses of ‘tú’and ‘yo’in Spoken Madrid Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(4), 543-565.
De Cock, B. (2011). Why we can be you: The use of 1st person plural forms with hearer reference in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2762-2775.
Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of 'We' in University Lectures: Reference and Function. English for Specific Purposes, 23(1), 45-66.
Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., and Lee, A. Y. (1999). “I” Value Freedom, but “we” Value Relationships: Self-Construal Priming Mirrors Cultural Differences in Judgment. Psychological Science, 10(4), 321-326.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In S. Robert (Ed.), Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language (pp. 271-287). Toronto: Broadview Press.
Haberstroh, S., and Kuhnen, U. (2004). Self-Construal Activation and Focus of Comparison as Determinants of Assimilation and Contrast in Social Comparisons. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 22(2), 289-310.
Helmbrecht, J. (2002). Grammar and Function of We. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Us and Others: Social Identities Across Languages, Discourse and Cultures.Pragmatics and Beyond New Series (pp. 31-50). USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hsieh, Shelley Ching-Yu. (謝菁玉) (2009). Taiwanese ‘I’: the Social Function of First Person Deixis. Journal of Taiwanese Languages and Literature, 3, 109-127。
Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hui, C. H., and Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-Collectivism A Study of Cross-Cultural Researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(2), 225-248.
Iljic, R. (2005). Personal Collective in Chinese. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 68(1), 77-102.
Ishiyama, O. (2008). Diachronic Perspectives on Personal Pronouns in Japanese Ph. D. Dissertation of the Philosophy of the Department of Linguistics, Buffalo, New York: State University of New York.
Kashima, E. S., and Kashima, Y. (1998). Culture and Language the Case of Cultural Dimensions and Personal Pronoun Use. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(3), 461-486.
Katagiri, Y. (2007). Dialogue functions of Japanese Sentence-Final Particles ‘yo’and ‘ne’. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(7), 1313-1323.
Kim, C. K. (2009). Personal Pronouns in English and Korean Texts: A Corpus-Based Study in Terms of Textual Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 2086-2099.
Kitagawa, C., and Lehrer, A. (1990). Impersonal uses of Personal Pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(5), 739-759.
Kondo, D. K. (1990). Crafting Selves: Power, Gender, and Discourses of Identity in a Japanese Workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuo, C-H. (1999). The use of Personal Pronouns: Role relationships in Scientific Journal Articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121-138.
Lakoff, R. T. (1990). Talking Power: The Politics of Language in our Lives.New York: Basic Books.
Lebra, T. S. (1992). Self in Japanese Culture. In R. R. Nancy (Ed.), Japanese Sense of Self (pp. 105-120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liceras, J. M., and Díaz, L. (1999). Topic-Drop versus Pro-Drop: Null Subjects and Pronominal Subjects in the Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German and Japanese Speakers. Second Language Research, 15(1), 1-40.
Li, C. N., and Thompson, S. A. (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. United States of America: University of California Press.
Lu, Li-Chun (蘆立軍). (2010). The Internal and External Awareness realization in Japanese Deixis- Analysis of Personal Pronoun. Investigation of Japanese Vocabulary Knowledge, 7, 9-11.
Martin, S. E. (1975). A Reference Grammar of Japanese. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
McCraw, M. (2011). First-Person Singular Pronouns in Japanese: How do they work in Conversation? Ph. D. Dissertation of the Philosophy of the Department of Educational Linguistics, Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico.
Methiesen, K. (2003). On Collective Identity. Protosociology, 18, 66-88.
Miyazaki, A. (2004). Japanese Junior High School Girls’ and Boys’ First-Person Pronoun use and their Social World. In S. Okamoto and J.S.S. Smith (Eds.), Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People (pp. 256-273). New York: Oxford University Press.
Molino, A. (2010). Personal and Impersonal Authorial References: A Contrastive Study of English and Italian Linguistics Research Articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 86-101.
Moravcsik, E. A., Greenberg, J. H., and Ferguson, C. A. (1978). Word Structure. California: Stanford University Press.
Mur Dueñas, P. (2007). ‘I/we focus on…’: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Self-mentions in Business Management Research Articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 143-162.
Na, J., and Choi, I. (2009). Culture and First-Person Pronouns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(11), 1492-1499.
Ng, S. H., and Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in Language: Verbal Communication and Social Influence. Newbury Park : Sage Publications.
Okamoto, S. (1997). Social Context, Linguistic Ideology, and Indexical Expressions in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(6), 795-817.
Okamoto, S. and Sato, S. (1992). Less Feminine Speech Among Young Japanese Females. In H. Kira, B. Mary and M. Birch (Eds.), Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 478-488). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
Ono, T., and Thompson, S. A. (2003). Japanese (w)atashi/ore/boku ‘I’: They are not just Pronouns. Cognitive Linguistics, 14(4), 321-348.
Ono, Y. (2007). Deixis, Person and Egocentricity Principle. In I. Yoshihiko, E-S. Viktoria and W. André (Eds.), Japanese Linguistics: European Chapter (pp. 131-154). Koishikawa: Kurosio Publishers.
Oyserman, D., and Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does Culture Influence what and how we think? Effects of Priming Individualism and Collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 311-342.
Po-ching, Y., and Rimmington, D. (2004). Chinese: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
Posio, P. (2012). Who are ‘We’ in Spoken Peninsular Spanish and European Portuguese? Expression and Reference of First Person Plural Subject Pronouns. Language Sciences, 34(3), 339-360.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.
Radden, G. and Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rounds, P. L. (1987). Multifunctional Personal Pronoun use in an Educational Setting. English for Specific Purposes, 6(1), 13-29.
Saeed, J. I. (2003). Semantics (2nd ed.). Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing.
Scheibman, J. (2004). Inclusive and Exclusive Patterning of the English First Person Plural: Evidence from Conversation. In M. Achard and S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture and Mind (pp. 377-396). California: Center for the Study of Language and Information publications.
Sew, J. W. (1997). Power Pragmatics in Asian Languages. Language Sciences, 19(4), 357-367.
Shibamoto-Smith, J. S., and Cook, H. M. (2011). Negotiating Linguistic Politeness in Japanese Interaction: A Critical Examination of Honorifics. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3639-3642.
Shibatani, M. (1990). The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, M. (2001). Pronouns of Power and Solidarity: The Case of Spanish First Person Plural Nosotros. Multilingua–Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 20(2), 155-169.
SturtzSreetharan, C. L. (2010). ’Ore’ and ‘Omae’: Japanese Men's Uses of First-and Second-Person Pronouns. Pragmatics, 19(2), 253-278.
Suzuki, T. (1986). Language and Behavior in Japan: The Conceptualization of Personal Relations. In T. S. Lebra and W. P. Lebra (Eds.), Japanese Culture and Behavior (pp. 142-157). Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
Tannen, D. (1993). The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies: Rethinking Power and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction (pp. 165-188). New York: Oxford University Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1997). Cross-Cultural Perspective on Personality. In H. Robert, J. A. John and B. R. Stephen (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 439-464). San Diego: Academic Press.
Van Kemenade, A. (1987). Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Netherlands: Foris Publications.
Van Compernolle, R. A. (2008). Nous versus on: Pronouns with First Person Plural Reference in Synchronous French Chat. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL)/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquée (RCLA), 11(2), 85-110.
Wang, He-Yan (王鶴巘). (2012). Basic Spanish Grammar. Taipei: Shu-chuan.
Wei, Hua-Hui (魏華慧). (2001). On the Referring Expression of Renjia-A Case Study of Second Language Acquisition of Chinese Pronoun Renjia. MA Thesis of the Graduate Institute of Chinese as a Second Language, Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University.
Whitman, J. (1999). Personal Pronoun Shift in Japanese. In A. Kamio and K. Takami (Eds.). Function and Structure: In Honor of Susumu Kuno (pp. 357-387). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Yamamoto, M. (1999). Animacy and Reference: A Cognitive Approach to Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.