簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 黃晨峰
Moran, Thomas J.
論文名稱： 政治辯論中之言談行為--以2016年美國和台灣總統之辯論為例
Speech acts in Political Debates: An Analysis of the 2016 American and Taiwanese Presidential Debates
指導教授： 李惠琦
Lee, Hui-Chi
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 文學院 - 外國語文學系
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
論文出版年： 2018
畢業學年度： 106
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 142
中文關鍵詞： 稱謂型式 、政治辯論 、言語行為 、客氣的語詞 、性別語言學
外文關鍵詞： Address forms, political debate, speech acts, politeness, gender linguistics
相關次數： 點閱：155  下載：11 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 本文中探討用英語和中文於政治辯論中的稱謂型式在語言行為中的類型，以及是如何禮貌溝通。在這項研究中，我們著重在男性和女性候選人在政治辯論中相互對立時，用稱謂型式之使用來決定禮貌的程度。(Lee, 2011）將稱謂型式定義為“按照傳統或法律，在提及擁有頭銜或職位的人或官職本身之前的標誌”。此定義延伸到任何使用的語言來稱呼在這些演講裡的成員，包括代名詞和專有名詞。通過收集和記述分析的這份資料，來對這些言語行為的客氣詞語進行了討論。

    對這些男女候選人的政治辯論演講的話語分析，採用了言語行為理論（Searle, 1969），禮貌理論（Brown & Levinson ,1987）以及合作原則（Grice, 1970）。此外，也討論了在辯論合作性質背景下的性別語言學（Lakoff, 1973, 2003）。在各種言語行為中，這個分析只涉及承諾性言語行為。在政治辯論中，承諾性言語行為是較為常見的（Al-Bantany, 2014）。這些類型的言語行為被解釋為發言者用來承諾未來行動的行為，包括承諾，威脅，拒絕，保證，志願服務和貢獻。這些言語行為被用來與稱謂型式結合使用，是為候選人在這類演講中禮貌的明確指標。

    數據是直接從辯論記錄副本中編輯的。調查結果顯示，在政治辯論中男性和女性言語的差異，特別是在客氣的詞語方面。這篇論文裡，提供了探究關於男女候選人在政治辯論中用英語以及用中文的差距。

    This thesis explores the types of address forms found speech acts of political debates in English and Mandarin Chinese and how politeness is communicated. In this study we focus on forms of address to determine the degree of politeness which is used by both male and female candidates when opposing one another in political debate. Lee (2011) defines address forms as “a marker, by tradition or law, which precedes a reference to a person who holds a title or post, or to the office itself.” This definition extends to any use of language to address members in these debates, including pronouns and proper nouns. Following the collection and descriptive analysis of this data, the politeness of these speech acts is discussed.

    The analysis of the discourse of these political debates between male and female candidates utilizes Searle’s Speech Act Theory (1969), Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory (1987), and Grice’s Cooperative Principles (1970). Additionally, the cooperative nature of the debates in the context of gender linguistics (Lakoff, 1973, 2003) is discussed. Within the variety of speech acts, this analysis is only concerned with commissive speech acts. Commissive speech acts are found to be more common in political debate (Al-Bantany, 2014). These types of speech acts are defined as the acts speakers use to commit themselves to some future action and include promises, threats, refusals, guarantees, volunteering, and offering. These speech acts used in combination with address forms are clear indicators of a candidate’s politeness in this type of discourse.

    The data is compiled directly from the transcripts of the debates. The findings show the differences in male and female speech in political debate especially with regard to politeness. This thesis provides for a gap in the research regarding politeness in political debates between male and female candidates in English and in Mandarin Chinese.

    ABSTRACT (Chinese) i ABSTRACT (English) ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v LIST OF TABLES vi Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Background and Motivation 3 1.3 Research Method 5 1.4 Research Questions and Scope of the Study 7 1.5 Organization of thesis 8 Chapter 2 Literature Review 10 2.1 Introduction 10 2.2 Defining Political Discourse 11 2.3 Speech Act Theory 12 2.3.1 Speech Act Analysis of Political Speeches 14 2.3.2 Speech Act Analysis of Political debate 15 2.4 Politeness Theory 16 2.4.1 Brown & Levinson and Culpepper 18 2.4.2 Cultural differences in politeness 23 2.4.3 Politeness in Multi-gendered Political Debate 24 2.5 Cooperative Principle 27 2.6 Language, Gender, and Politics 30 2.6.1 Sex vs. Gender 32 2.6.2 Interruptions 33 2.6.3 Dealing with conflict 34 2.6.4 Language and women’s place 34 2.7 Conclusion 36 Chapter 3 Analysis of the 2016 American Presidential Debates 38 3.1 Introduction: The 2016 Trump-Clinton Presidential Debates 38 3.2 Forms of reference and address used by American politicians in presidential debate 40 3.2.1 Pronouns 41 3.2.2 Proper Nouns 44 3.3 Speech Acts and politeness strategies used by the American candidates 47 3.4 Cooperative Principles 56 3.5 The influence of gender on politeness in the American debates 65 3.6 Conclusion 71 Chapter 4 Analysis of the 2016 Taiwanese Presidential Debates 73 4.1 Introduction: The 2016 Tsai-Zhu-Song Republic of Taiwan Presidential Debate 73 4.2 Forms of reference and address used by Taiwanese politicians in presidential debate 75 4.2.1 Pronouns 76 4.2.2 Proper Nouns 78 4.3 Speech Acts and politeness strategies used by the Taiwanese candidates 82 4.4 Cooperative Principle 93 4.5 The influence of gender on politeness in the Taiwanese debates 102 4.6 Conclusion 104 Chapter 5 Discussion 106 5.1. Introduction 106 5.2 Comparison of address forms found in the U.S. and Taiwanese debates 107 5.3 Comparison of speech acts found in the U.S. and Taiwanese debates 111 5.4 Comparison of cooperativeness and gender in the U.S. and Taiwanese debates 114 5.5 Discussion of research questions 116 Chapter 6 Conclusion 122 6.1 Summary of findings 122 6.2 Limitations and suggestions for future study 123 References 125 Appendix A: American Data 129 Appendix B: Taiwanese Data 134

    Adetunji, A. (2009). The speech acts and rhetoric in the second inaugural addresses of Nigeria’s president, Olusegun Obasanjo, and America’s president, George W. Bush. Odebunmi. A, Arua. E and Arimi. S.(Ed), Language, genre and politics.(A festschrift for YK Yusuf), 275-296.

    Akinwotu, S. A. (2013). A Speech Act Analysis of the Acceptance of Nomination Speeches of Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Chief MKO Abiola. English Linguistics Research, 2(1), p 43.

    Al-Bantany, N. F. (2013). The Use of Commissive Speech Acts and Its Politeness Implication: A Case of Banten Gubernatorial Candidate Debate. Passage, 1(2), 21-34.

    Austin, J. L., & Urmson, J. O. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955.[Edited by James O. Urmson.]. Clarendon Press.

    Blake, A. (2016, September 26). The first Trump-Clinton presidential debate transcript, annotated. Retrieved December 12, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/?utm_term=.b2e8120d0fe7

    Blake, A. (2016, October 19). The final Trump-Clinton debate transcript, annotated. Retrieved December 12, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the fix/wp/2016/10/19/the-final-trump-clinton-debate-transcript annotated/?utm_term=.5b5a0b4df583

    Boicu, R. (2014). Women in politics (Segolene Royal’s case). J. Res. Gender Stud., 4, 550.

    Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge university press.

    Bull, P., & Fetzer, A. (2006). Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews. Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies, 26(1), 3-37.

    Campbell, K. K., & Jamieson, K. H. (1990). Deeds done in words: presidential rhetoric and the genres of governance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chang, Yu-hsiu. (1998). The study of personal pronouns in Mandarin political discourse. M.A. Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.

    Cheng, M. (2006). Constructing a new political spectacle: tactics of Chen Shui-bian’s 2000 and 2004 Inaugural Speeches. Discourse & Society, 17(5), 583-608.

    Conley, J. M., O’Barr, W. M., & Lind, E. A. (1979). The power of language: Presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal, 1978(6), 1375-1399.

    Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of pragmatics, 25(3), 349-367.

    Culpeper, J. (2012). Impoliteness: using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge
    University Press.

    Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America’s most-trusted online dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved September 14, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/

    Fracchiolla, B. (2011). Politeness as a strategy of attack in a gendered political debate—The Royal–Sarkozy debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2480-2488.

    García, F. F. (2014). Impoliteness, pseudo-politeness, strategic politeness? On the nature of communicative behaviour in electoral debates. Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación, 58, 60-89.

    Grice, H. P. (1970). Logic and conversation (pp. 41-58).

    Gu, Yue-guo. (1990). Politeness phenomenon in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.

    Hart, R. P. (1984). Verbal style and the presidency: A computer-based analysis. New York: Academic Press.

    Jaworski, Adan. & Dariusz, Galasinsk. (2000a). Vocative address forms and ideological legitimization in political debates. Discourse studies 2(1): 35-53.

    Jaworski, Adan. & Dariusz, Galasinsk. (2000b). Unilateral norm breaking in a presidential debate: Lech Walesa versus Aleksander Kwasniewski. Research on Language and social interaction. 33(3):321-345.

    Kuo, S. H. (2001). Reported speech in Chinese political discourse. Discourse Studies, 3(2), 181 202.

    Kuo, S. H. (2003). The use of address forms in Chinese political discourse: Analyzing the 1998 Taipei mayoral debates. The Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series, 33(1), 153-172.

    Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in society, 2(01), 45-79.

    Lakoff, R. (2003). Language, gender, and politics: putting women and power in the same sentence. The handbook of language and gender, 161-178.

    Lee, W. T. (2011). Ideology in address forms: A case study of two political talk shows in Taiwan. In The 23rd North American Conference on Chinese Lingusitics (Vol. 2, pp. 133-150).

    Leech, Geoffrey. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.

    Leech, Geoffrey. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Obeng, S. (1997). Language and politics: Indirectness in political discourse. Language and Society 8.1:49-83.

    Romaine, S. (1999). Communicating gender. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Pyykko, R. (2002). Who is ‘us’ in Russian political discourse. Us and Others: Social Identities Across Languages, Discourses and Cultures, 98, 233.

    Salgueiro, A. B. (2010). Promises, threats, and the foundations of speech act theory. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 20(2), 213 228.

    Snyder, C. R., & Higgins, R. L. (1990). Reality negotiation and excuse-making: President Reagan’s 4 March 1987 Iran Arms Scandal Speech and other literature. In Michael J. Cody, & Margaret L. McLaughlin eds, The psychology of tactical communication. Monographs in social psychology of language 2: 207-228. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Stuckey, M. E. (1989). Getting into the game: the pre-presidential rhetoric of Ronald Reagan. New York: Praeger.

    Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (Vol. 626). Cambridge university press.

    Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts (pp. 59-82).

    Unger, R. K., & Crawford, M. E. (1992). Women and gender: A feminist psychology. Temple University Press.

    Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis. Belgian journal of linguistics, 11(1), 11-52.

    Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and Discourse Analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies: 11 (2), 115-140.

    Wei, Jennifer M. Y. (2001a). Virtual Missiles: Allusions and Metaphors in Taiwanese Political Discourse. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Wei, Jennifer M. Y. (2001b). Politeness and politics: Chen Shui-bian’s rhetorical strategies. Journal of Humanities, National Chengchi University 83:1-23.

    Wei, J. M. (2003). Codeswitching in campaigning discourse: The case of Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian. Language and Linguistics, 4(1), 139-165.

    Weirzbicka, Anna. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, (9), 145-178.

    Wilson, John. (1990). Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Wortham, S., & Locher, M. (1999). Embedded metapragmatics and lying politicians. Language & Communication, 19(2), 109-125.

    Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics: Oxford introductions to language study. Hong Kong: Oxford UP.

    Zimmermann, D. H., & West, C. (1996). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4, 211-236.

    Websites:

    Transcript of the Second Debate. (2016, October 10). Retrieved December 12, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/transcript-second-debate.html?_r=0

    台灣公共電視 網路直播頻道 (2015, December 27). 2016總統大選電視辯論_第一場. Retrieved July 10, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je8f4yfDUxo&t=2878s&index=12&list=LLKv6R 9TLIDvLvapb2xFkaA

    台灣公共電視 網路直播頻道 (2016, January 02). 2016總統大選電視辯論_第二場. Retrieved July 10, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hn7nNAJ0IY&list=LLKv6RW9TLIDvLvapb2xF aA&in ex=11&t=5107s

    下載圖示 校內：立即公開
    校外：立即公開
    QR CODE