政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/33198
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113451/144438 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51269843      線上人數 : 823
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋
    政大機構典藏 > 傳播學院 > 新聞學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/33198


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/33198


    題名: 新聞訪談提問之立足點研究
    作者: 俞明瑤
    Ming Yao Yu
    貢獻者: 臧國仁
    Kuo-Jen Tsang
    俞明瑤
    Ming Yao Yu
    關鍵詞: 高夫曼
    立足點
    角色
    立場
    新聞提問
    廣播新聞訪談
    日期: 2002
    上傳時間: 2009-09-17 15:46:17 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 論文摘要

    本研究旨在根據Goffman立足點理論中之角色與立場之概念，瞭解記者如何在正式新聞訪談中藉由提問建立與受訪者之互動關係。本文以語用學有關語言行為論的角度分析提問之角色與立場，瞭解新聞訪談如何透過提問發展立足點以建立問答中的人際關係。

    依「立足點相關研究」得知，所謂「立足點」意指互動中的說話者選擇面對自己與他人的說話角色與立場發展互動關係。而「角色」指說話方式，包括表演者、著作者與意見來源，而「立場」指說話位置，包括訪問者與受訪者一致或偏離等的位置。

    　　研究結果發現，提問立足點之角色包含訪問者表達私人意見的「著作者」、報導事實資訊的「報導者」與傳述消息來源意見的「傳述者」，此有別於Goffman的角色分類系統。在立場分類中包含「傾向」、「中立」與「偏離」於受訪者的立場表現，而透過角色與立場的結合發展不同情境下的提問立足點，因此角色與立場兩者應為相互合作的關係。

    提問立足點與訪談關係變化中，訪問者可表達「著作者傾向」立場以認同或補充受訪者的回答，此可發展彼此親近的關係。訪問者亦可以「著作偏離或對立」立場質疑受訪者觀點，藉此發展疏離的關係，或以建立受訪者人情面子的間接提問立足點來拉近互動等。

    　　從本研究結果可知，提問立足點係訪問者操控與受訪者關係變化的資源，因而訪問者不再僅是中立客觀的提問角色與立場，而是可在著作意見、報導事實資訊與傳述他人意見中表達特定立場，以於認同或質疑受訪者的立場間來回移動。
    參考文獻: 【參考書目】
    一、中文部分
    方怡文、周慶祥(1999)。《新聞採訪理論與實務》。台北：正中。
    王洪鈞(1990)。《新聞報導學》。台北：正中。
    石麗東(1991)。《當代新聞報導》。台北：正中。　
    李金銓 (1981)。《大眾傳播理論》。台北：三民。
    李森堙 (1998)。〈廣播call-in節目的對話文體分析〉。國立政治大學新聞所碩士論文。
    李茂政 (2000)。《當代新聞學》。台北：正中。　
    胡幼慧主編 (1996)。《質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例》。台北：巨流。
    高明凱、王安石主編 (1962)。《語言學概論》。台北：中華。
    康永欽（1997）。〈記實避禍的新聞處理策略之研究〉。國立政治大新聞所碩士論文。
    翁維薇（2000）。〈新聞訪問之追問研究--以模糊及迴避回答為例〉。國立政治大新聞所碩士論文。
    陳原 (2001)。《語言與社會生活》。台北：台灣商務。
    陳蕙芬（1999）。〈政治人物對話過程中用意行為之探究〉。中國文化大學西洋文學研究所德文組碩士論文。
    陳淑欣 (2000)。〈政治言談中的人稱代詞：1998年台北市長選舉辯論中之人稱代詞使用研究〉。國立清華大學語言學研究所碩士論文。
    喻靖媛 (1994)。〈記者與消息來源互動關係與新聞處理方式關聯性之研究〉。國立政治大學新聞所碩士論文。
    湯池亭（1981）。〈國語疑問句的研究〉。《師大學報》, 26, 1-56。
    黃光國 (1988)。《中國人的權力遊戲》。台北：巨流。
    張鐘尹（1997）。〈漢語會話中的疑問句〉。台灣大學語言所碩士論文。
    張瓊文(1998)。〈新聞用語中再現人際關係的語言策略：以第九屆總統直選報紙用語為例〉。國立政治大學語言所碩士論文
    臧國仁 (2000)。〈關於傳播學如何教的一些想法--以「基礎新聞採寫」課為例〉，《新聞學研究》, 65, 19-56。
    蔡曙山（2000）。《言語行為和語用邏輯》。北京：中國社會科學出版社。
    鍾蔚文\\臧國仁\\陳百齡\\陳順孝 (1997)。〈探討記者工作的知識基礎--建立分析架構〉，中華傳播學會1997年學術研討會宣讀論文(台北縣深坑鄉：世新會館)。
    謝國平 (1992)。《語言學概論》。台北：三民。
    二、英文部分
    Argyle, M.; Furnham, A., ;and Graham, J.A.(1979).《社會情境》。張君玫譯。台北：巨流。
    Augsburger, D. (1992). Conflict mediation across cultures: Pathways and patterns.
    Louisville, Kentucky: Westminister/John Knox Press.
    Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.
    Biagi, Shirley (1992). Interviews that work : A practical guide for journalists. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Pub.
    Briggs, C. L. (1986 ). Learning how to ask--A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. London : Cambridge University Press.
    Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1978). Universal in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Bull, Peter (1994). On identifying questions, replies, and non-replies in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13(2),115-131.
    Chang, H. C. (2001). Harmony as performance: The turbulence under Chinese interpersonal communication. Discourse Studies, 3(2), 155-179.
    Chung, W. W., Tsang, K. J., Chen, P. L., and Chen, S. H. (1998). Journalistic　expertise: Proposal for a research programme. Paper presented in the ICA Convention. Jerusalem, Israel, July: 20-24.
    Clayman, S. E. (1992). Footing in the achievement of neutrality: the case of news interview discourse. In P. Drew & J. Heritage. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings.
    London: Cambridge University Press.
    Clayman, S. E. & J. Heritage (2002). Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarial ness in the press conferences of U.S. presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication. 52(4), 749-772.
    Cohen, Akiba A. (1987) The television news interview. CA: Sage Publications.
    Collins, R. (1988). Theoretical continuities in Goffman’s work. In P. Drew & A. Wotton (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    De Fina, Anna (1995). Pronominal choice, identity and solidarity in political discourse. Text(15)3: 679-710.
    Dickerson, P. ( 2001). Disputing with care: Analyzing interviewee’s treatment interviewers prior turns in televised political interviews. Discourse Studies, 3(2) , 203-222.
    Dillon, J. T . (1990). The practice of questioning. London: Routledge.
    Drew, P. & J. Heritage. (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. London: Cambridge University Press.
    Drew, P. & Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. (1997). Institutional dialogue. In Teun A.van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction, 2, 92-118.
    Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
    Freed, Alice F. (1994). The form and function of questions in informal dyadic conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 621-644.
    Geis, M. L. (1995). Speech acts and conversational interaction. London: Cambridge University Press.
    Georgakopoulou, A. (2001). Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreements in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1881-1900.
    Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
    Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on the face to face behavior. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis : an essay on the organization of experience Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
    Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    Goody, E. N. (1978). Questions and politeness : Strategies in social interaction. London: Cambridge University Press.
    Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 3( Speech acts). New York: Academic Press.
    Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies . London: Cambridge University Press.
    Gumperz, J. J. (1992a). Contextualization revisited. In Peter Auer & Aldo Di Luzio (Eds.), The Contextulization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    Gumperz, J. J. (1992b). Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context (pp.229-252). London: Cambridge University Press.
    Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods. Newbury. Park, CA: Sage
    Publications.
    Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Chicago: Westview.
    Hasan, R. (1995). The conception of context in text. In P.H. Fries & M. Gregory (Eds.), Discourse in society: Systematic functional perspectives (pp.183-283).Norwood NJ: Albex.
    Harris, S. (1989). Defendant resistance to power and control in court. In Hywel Coleman (Ed.), Working with language. Berlin: Monton de Gruyter.
    Heller, Monica. (1988). Code-switching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Heritage, J. C. & Greatbatch, D. L. (1993). On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure--Studies in ethnomethdology and conversation analysis. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    Heritage, J. C. & Roth, A. L. (1995). Grammar and institution: Questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 28(1), 1-60.
    Hoyle, S. M.(1993). Participation frameworks in sports casting play: Imaginary and literal footings. In Deborah Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, 114-145.
    Huesca, R., & Dervin, B. (1996). Rethinking the journalistic interview: Empowering sources to name the world. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC.
    Jucker, A. (1986). News Interviews: A pragmalinguistic analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins Press.
    Kinney, Carolyn J. (1998). Role, stance, and footing: A frame analysis of leaders’ talk in a small group discussion. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation of the Graduate School of Georgetown University.
    Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman, NY: Linguistics Library.
    Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. London: Cambridge University Press.
    Levinson, S. C. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Studies in interact ional sociolinguistics. London: Cambridge University Press.
    Macaulay, M. (2001). Tough talk : Indirectness and gender in requests for information. Journal of Pragmatics , 33, 293-316.
    Malone, M. J. (1997). Worlds of talk. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    Matoesian, G. M. (1999). The grammaticalization of participation roles in the constitution of expert identity. Language in Society, 28, 491-521.
    Metzler, Ken (1989). Creative interviewing: The writer’s guide to gathering information by asking questions. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
    Morris, C. W. (1946). Signs, language and behavior. New York : Prentice-Hall.
    Renkema, Jan(1993). Discourse studies: An introductory textbook. John Benjamins Publishing Co.
    Schiffrin, D.(1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge: Blackwell.
    Scollon, R & Scollon, S.(1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.
    Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech act. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics . New York: Academic Press.
    Searle, J. R. (1998). Indirect speech act. In Asa Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics: Critical concepts. London: Routledge.
    Spencer-Oatey, Helen (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 9-20.
    Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Stewart, C.J & Cash, Jr. W.B. (1988). Interview：Principles and practices. Iowa : WCB.
    Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. London: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
    Tannen, D. (1979). What is in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Roy Freedle (Ed.), New Directions in Discourse Processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 137-181.
    Tannen, Deborah (1993). The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In Deborah Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction .Oxford University Press: New York, 165-188.
    Tannen, D. & Cynthia, Wallat (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination and interview. In Deborah Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, 57-76.
    Taylor, T. J. & Cameron, Deborah (1987). Conversation analysis: Speech act theory and conversation analysis. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Longman Group Limited.
    Thornborrow, J. (2001). Questions, control and the organization of talk in calls to a radio phone-in. Discourse studies, 3(1), 119-123.
    van Dijk, T. A. (1987). News Analysis: Case studies of international and national news in press. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum.
    van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum.
    van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as social interaction. London: SAGE Publications.
    Weizman, E. (1985). Towards an analysis of opaque utterances: Hints as a request strategy. Theoretical linguistics, 12(2/3), 153-163.
    Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
    Zonabend, F. (1992). The monograph in European ethnology. Current Sociology, 40(1), 49-60.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    新聞研究所
    88451013
    91
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0088451013
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[新聞學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    45101301.pdf15KbAdobe PDF2692檢視/開啟
    45101302.pdf17KbAdobe PDF2683檢視/開啟
    45101303.pdf17KbAdobe PDF2723檢視/開啟
    45101304.pdf20KbAdobe PDF2693檢視/開啟
    45101305.pdf37KbAdobe PDF21879檢視/開啟
    45101306.pdf90KbAdobe PDF22722檢視/開啟
    45101307.pdf74KbAdobe PDF21045檢視/開啟
    45101308.pdf99KbAdobe PDF2954檢視/開啟
    45101309.pdf89KbAdobe PDF2729檢視/開啟
    45101310.pdf37KbAdobe PDF21334檢視/開啟
    45101311.pdf94KbAdobe PDF2856檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋