進階搜尋


 
系統識別號 U0026-2006201411051800
論文名稱(中文) 迂迴語言策略:華語對老年族群稱呼的委婉語研究
論文名稱(英文) Roundabout Linguistic Strategy: The Elderly-referring Euphemisms in Mandarin Chinese
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 外國語文學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Foreign Languages & Literature
學年度 102
學期 2
出版年 103
研究生(中文) 張怡芬
研究生(英文) I-Fen Chang
學號 K26001154
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 180頁
口試委員 指導教授-謝菁玉
口試委員-高實玫
口試委員-謝麗雪
中文關鍵字 稱呼老年族群委婉語  老化社會  委婉性策略  語義韻律  中文動詞語意網  報紙標題 
英文關鍵字 elderly-referring euphemism  aging society  euphemistic strategy  semantic prosody  Mandarin VerbNet  newspaper headline 
學科別分類
中文摘要 本論文以老化社會為背景,聚焦於四項稱呼老年族群的委婉語-銀髮族,長青,人瑞,長者-以研究其語義及委婉機制。研究藉由「語義韻律」(Semantic Prosody, Sinclair, 1987) 以及「中文動詞語意網」(Mandarin VerbNet, Liu & Chiang, 2008) 為理論架構,分析取自於新聞知識庫 (Newspapers in Taiwan Database) 1990 至1992,1993 至 1995 及 2012 年三時段的語料。研究目的在於探討:(1). 稱呼老年族群委婉語的內部機制、論旨角色及詞組搭配的演化過程。(2). 選用不同稱呼老年族群委婉語的特定事件類型。(3). 新聞媒體的語言情境如何影響稱呼老年族群委婉語的使用及功能。
研究結果顯示:(l) 進入老化社會前,報紙標題較常使用譬喻性委婉語;但進入老化社會後,轉喻性委婉語的使用率大大提高。而使用雙重語言策略,亦即同時帶有模糊性及同義性之委婉語在現代老化社會最為常見。除此之外,對論旨角色的偏好演變顯示稱呼老年族群委婉語於進入老化社會前傾向落於客體(theme)的位置;進入老化社會後傾向平均分布於主事者(agent)及客體的位置,而在現代老化社會中,則集中於主事者的位置。(2) 雖然此四項委婉語均集中於正向的語義韻律,但銀髮族呈現語義偏中性化的傾向,而長者呈現語義偏負面化的過程。(3) 此四項委婉語的語義框架(semantic frame)顯示,銀髮族經常與附屬於經濟交易基本框架(Economy-Transaction Basic Frame)下的相關事件連結,而長青則常與附屬於競賽基本框架(Competition Basic Frame)及學習教育基本框架(Learning-Education Basic Frame)下的兩類事件相關。人瑞偏好安養照顧基本框架(Welfare-Care Basic Frame)及醫藥健康基本框架(Medicine-Health Basic Frame),而長者於 1993 年前後時期常在頌揚敬重基本框架(Praise-Esteem Basic Frame)中使用,然於 2012 年,只與安養照顧基本框架有顯著的連結。(4) 因銷售量對新聞報紙而言極其重要,於此語言情境中採用的措詞需顧及讀者大眾的感受及思維傾向,而稱呼老年族群委婉語的使用有助於同時保留讀者及報紙發行人雙方的面子。
經由本研究歷時性的分析四項常見的稱呼老年族群委婉語,其結果有助於理解語言使用者對於老年族群發展中的觀念模式及態度,同時反映了委婉語與其相對社會概況之間的緊密連結。
英文摘要 This study focuses on four elderly-referring euphemisms—yin2fa3zu2, chang2qing1, ren2rui4, and zhang3zhe3—by means of semantic prosody (Sinclair, 1987) and Mandarin VerbNet (Liu & Chiang, 2008) as theoretical framework. The data are taken from Newspapers in Taiwan Database over three periods of times: 1990 - 1992, 1993 - 1995 and 2012. We aim to answer: (1) What are the indigenous mechanisms and the developing process of thematic role and collocation of these euphemisms? (2) How do these euphemisms adopted to address elderly people differ for specific event types from the perspective of the multi-layered hierarchical model? (3) How does the linguistic context of press media influence the adoption and function of euphemisms?
The results include that (1) metaphorical euphemisms are trendy in the pre-aging society, while metonymic usage becomes more prevalent after transforming into an aging society. In contemporary society, the euphemism created by dual linguistic strategies is the most frequently adopted one, e.g., zhang3zhe3 generated through fuzzy words and synonymy. In addition, thematic role displays the developing preferred role of the elderly-referring euphemisms, which concentrates on theme before 1993 but develops to the balanced allocation of agent and theme after 1993. In 2012, agent becomes the most prevalent role. (2) Although these four euphemisms share a general centrality in positive semantic prosody, yin2fa3zu2 shows a more neutralized tendency from the most negative to a more neutral prosody; zhang3zhe3 presents fluctuation from the most positive to the most negative euphemistic alternative. (3) Yin2fa3zu2 is often connected with the Economy-Transaction Basic Frame to describe financially-associated events, and chang2qing1 exclusively anchors in certain vigorous events pertaining to the Competition Basic Frame and Learning-Education Basic Frame. Ren2rui4 pertains to the Welfare-Care Basic Frame and Medicine-Health Basic Frame, and zhang3zhe3 correlates with the Praise-Esteem Basic Frame around 1993 but is only adopted with Welfare-Care affairs in 2012. (4) Since circulation is important for newspapers, the adopted parlance needs to consider the feelings and mindsets of the readership. In this case, the elderly-referring euphemism is an efficacious avenue to save the face (Brown & Levinson, 1987) of both audiences and newspapers issuers themselves.
In sum, the diachronic investigation of the four elderly-referring euphemisms facilitates readers to comprehend language users’ developing mindsets and attitudes toward the elderly population. It is the reflection of the reciprocal relationship between linguistic euphemisms and the corresponding social condition.
論文目次 中文摘要 i
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Convention List ix
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation and purpose 1
1.2 Research questions 5
1.3 The organization of the thesis 6
Chapter 2 Literature Review 8
2.1 Euphemism 8
2.1.1 Definition of euphemism 9
2.1.2 The impact and power of euphemism 11
2.1.3 Strategies for euphemism 14
2.2 Collocation 19
2.3 Semantic frame 22
2.4 Interim Summary 29
Chapter 3 Methodology 32
3.1 Data collection 32
3.2 Research frameworks 34
3.2.1 Euphemistic strategy 35
3.2.2 Thematic role 36
3.2.3 Semantic prosody and semantic preference 39
3.2.4 Mandarin VerbNet 44
3.2.5 Politeness theory 50
3.3 Interim Summary 52
Chapter 4 Semantic-pragmatic Analysis of the Elderly-referring Euphemisms 54
4.1 The mechanisms, participant role and collocation of euphemisms 54
4.1.1 Distribution and euphemistic strategy 54
4.1.2 Thematic role 59
4.1.3 Semantic prosody and semantic preference 65
4.1.4 Interim Summary 79
4.2 The development of semantic frames of euphemisms 81
4.2.1 Frames in the pre-aging society 82
4.2.2 Frames in the initial stage of aging society 105
4.2.3 Frames in the contemporary aging society 123
4.2.4 Interim Summary 139
Chapter 5 Synthetic Discussion on Contextual and Social Accounts 141
5.1 Interaction of the integrated mechanisms for the elderly-referring euphemisms 141
5.1.1 yin2fa3zu2 銀髮族 'group of silver hairs' 142
5.1.2 chang2qing1 長青 'evergreen seniors' 144
5.1.3 ren2rui4 人瑞 'centenarians' 146
5.1.4 zhang3zhe3 長者 'elders' 148
5.1.5 Interim summary 151
5.2 Face and Politeness 152
5.2.1 Linguistic sphere 153
5.2.2 Interpersonal sphere 154
5.3 Reflection from social and cultural aspects 159
5.4 Interim Summary 165
Chapter 6 Conclusion 168
6.1 Summary of the findings 168
6.2 Contribution of the study 171
6.3 Suggestions for further research 174
References 176
參考文獻 Abrantes, Ana M. (2005). Euphemism and co-operation in discourse. In É. Grillo (Ed.), Power without domination, dialogism and the empowering property of communication (pp. 85-103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Allan, Keith. (1986). Linguistic meaning (Vol. 2). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Allan, Keith, & Burridge, Kate. (1991). Euphemism and dysphemism: Language used as shield and weapon. New York: Oxford University Press.
Allan, Keith, & Burridge, Kate. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Atkins, Beryl T. S. (1994). Analyzing the verbs of seeing: A frame semantics approach to corpus lexicography. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles J. Fillmore, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Ayto, John. (1993). Euphemisms. London: Bloomsbury.
Boas, Hans C. (2001). Frame Semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of English and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference, University Centre for computer corpus research on language, Lancaster.
Bowdle, Brian F., & Gentner, Dedre. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193-216.
Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burridge, Kate. (2012). Euphemism and language change: The sixth and seventh ages. Lexis(7), 65-92.
Chien, Man-ting (簡蔓婷). (2011). Verbal semantics and cross-frame Interaction: A study of Mandarin verbal evaluation verbs. M.A. thesis, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.
Cottle, Simon. (2000). Introduction media research and ethnic minorities: Mapping the field. In S. Cottle (Ed.), Ethnic minorities and the media: Changing cultural boundaries (pp. 1-30). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Craig, Robert T. (1990). Multiple goals in discourse: An epilogue. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(1-2), 163-170.
Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. (2006). The change of household composition (jiating zucheng xingtai bianqian 家庭組成型態變遷).
Dowty, David R. (1986). Thematic roles and semantics. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 12, 340-354.
Enright, Dennis J. (1985). Fair of speech: The uses of euphemism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fasold, Ralph W., & Connor-Linton, Jeff. (2006). An introduction to language and linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fernández, Eliecer C. (2005). Euphemistic strategies in politeness and face concerns. Pragmalingüística, 13, 77-86.
Fernández, Eliecer C, & Lirola, María M. (2012). Lexical and visual choices in the representation of immigration in the Spanish press. Spanish in Context, 9(1), 27-57.
Ferretti, Todd R., Gagne, Christina L., & McRae, Ken. (2003). Thematic role focusing by participle inflections: Evidence from conceptual combination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29(1), 118-127.
Fillmore, Charles J. (2003). Double-decker definitions: The role of frames in meaning explanations. Sign Language Studies, 3(3), 263-295.
Fillmore, Charles J., & Atkins, Beryl T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantics and Lexical Organization (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Firth, John R. (1968). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-1955. In F. R. Palmer (Ed.), Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952-59 (pp. 1-32). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, & Jirsa, Bill. (2006). The principle of indirect means in language use and language structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(4), 513-542.
Givón, Talmy. (1990). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gladney, George A, & Rittenburg, Terri L. (2005). Euphemistic text affects attitudes, behavior. Newspaper Research Journal, 26(1), 28-41.
Goffman, Erving. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. New York: Doubleday.
Hojati, Alireza. (2012). A study of euphemisms in the context of English-speaking media. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(4), 552-562.
Hsieh, Shelley Ching-yu (謝菁玉), & Kolodkina, Elena. (2006). The linguistic frame and semantic roles: Plant fixed expressions in Chinese and English. Odisea: Journal of English Studies, 7, 59-75.
Hudson, Grover. (2000). Essential introductory linguistics. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Hunston, Susan. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ifantidou, Elly. (2009). Newspaper headlines and relevance: Ad hoc concepts in ad hoc contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(4), 699-720.
Jackendoff, Ray S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kardes, Frank R., & Kimble, Charles E. (1984). Strategic self-presentation as a function of message valence and the prospect of future interaction. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 14(1), 2-11.
Leech, Geoffrey. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman Publishing Group.
Liao, Chao-chih (廖招治). (2000). A sociolinguistic study of Taiwan-Chinese personal names, nicknames, and English names. Taipei: Crane.
Liu, Mei-chun, & Chiang, Ting-yi (劉美君, 江亭儀). (2008). The construction of Mandarin VerbNet: A frame-based study of statement verbs. Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 239-270.
Lloyd, Peter. (1991). The empowerment of elderly people. Journal of Aging Studies, 5(2), 125-135.
Löbner, Sebastian. (2002). Understanding semantics. London: Arnold.
Louw, Bill. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair (pp. 157-175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Louw, Bill. (2000). Contextual prosodic theory: Bringing semantic prosodies to life. In C. Heffer, H. Sauntson & G. Fox (Eds.), Words in context: A tribute to John Sinclair on his retirement (pp. 48-94). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Ma, Hong-ji, & Chang, Qing-feng (馬宏基, 常慶豐). (1998). Appellation (chengwei yu 稱謂語). Beijing: Xinhua Press.
Ma, Yun-xia (馬雲霞). (2011). Cultural concepts and psychological tendencies in euphemisms. US-China Foreign Language, 9(12), 801-806.
McArthur, Tom. (1992). The Oxford companion to the English language. New York: Oxford University Press.
McGlone, Matthew S., & Batchelor, Jennifer A. (2003). Looking out for number one: Euphemism and face. Journal of Communication, 53(2), 251-264.
McGlone, Matthew S., Beck, Gary, & Pfiester, Abigail. (2006). Contamination and camouflage in euphemisms. Communication Monographs, 73(3), 261-282.
Moore, Kevin E. (2011). Ego-perspective and field-based frames of reference: Temporal meanings of FRONT in Japanese, Wolof, and Aymara. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 759-776.
Muñoz, Carmen P. (2011). Noun-noun euphemisms in the language of the global financial crisis. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 33(2), 137-157.
Neaman, Judith S., & Silver, Carole G. (1983). Kind words: A thesaurus of euphemisms. New York: Facts on File.
Partington, Alan. (1998). Patterns and meanings: Using corpora for English language research and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pinker, Steven. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W. W. Norton.
Pinker, Steven. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Penguin.
Qi, Guo (郭琦). (2010). Cultural differences in Chinese and English euphemisms. Cross-Cultural Communication, 6(4), 135-141.
Rabab'ah, Ghaleb, & Al-Qarni, Ali M. (2012). Euphemism in Saudi Arabic and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6-7), 730-743.
Rawson, Hugh. (1981). A dictionary of euphemisms and other doubletalk. New York: Crown Publishers.
Rawson, Hugh. (1995). Dictionary of euphemisms and other doubletalk. New York: Crown Publishers.
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Ellsworth, Michael, Petruck, Miriam R. L., Johnson, Christopher R., & Scheffczyk, Jan. (2010). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. California: International Computer Science Institute.
Saeed, John I. (2008). Semantics. Cornwall: Wiley-Blackwell.
Salama, Amir H.Y. (2011). Ideological collocation and the recontexualization of Wahhabi-Saudi Islam post-9/11: A synergy of corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 315-342.
Scollon, Ron, Scollon, Suzanne W, & Jones, Rodney H. (2012). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Shi, Ye-li, & Sheng, Jin-fang (施葉麗, 沈晶芳). (2011). The role of metonymy in the formation of euphemism in Chinese and English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 1175-1179.
Sinclair, John. (1987). Looking up: Account of the COBUILD Project in lexical computing. London: Collins.
Stubbs, Michael. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative methods. Function of Language, 2(1), 1-33.
Stubbs, Michael. (2001). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stubbs, Michael. (2002). Two quantitative methods of studying phraseology in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 215-244.
Stubbs, Michael. (2009). The search for units of meaning: Sinclair on empirical semantics. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 115-137.
Tenbrink, Thora. (2011). Reference frames of space and time in language. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 704-722.
Thompson, Geoff, & Hunston, Susan. (1999). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Timonen, Virpi. (2008). Ageing societies: A comparative introduction. New York: Open University Press.
Veisbergs, Andrejs, Riga, & Latvia. (2000). Euphemisms in general (monolingual and bilingual) dictionaries. In Proceedings of the Ninth European Association for Lexicography International Congress, Germany.
Wang, Mei-hua (王美華). (2013). Corpus analysis of English euphemism in College English. English Language Teaching, 6(8), 156-161.
Wardhaugh, Ronald. (1984). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Willis, Hulon, & Klammer, Enno. (1981). A brief handbook of English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Wu, Pei-yen, Chen, Po-heng, & Gong, Shu-ping (吳佩晏, 陳柏衡, 龔書萍). (2011, March). Collocation, semantic prosody and near synonymy: Verbs of “help” and “aid” in Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop, Taipei.
Xiao, Richard, & McEnery, Tony. (2006). Collocation, semantic prosody, and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 103-129.
Xue, Cheng-tai (薛承泰). (2008). The change of household composition and the living patterns of the elderly in Taiwan: The current status and the future (taiwan jiating bianqian yu laoren juzhu xingtai: xiankuang yu weilai 台灣家庭變遷與老人居住型態:現況與未來). Community Development Quarterly(121), 47-56.
Zhang, Yu-ping, Jiang, Yan-ping, & Yu, Nian-hu (張宇平, 姜艷萍, 于年湖). (1998). Euphemism (weiwan yu委婉語). Beijing: Xinhua Press.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2014-07-10起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2014-07-10起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw