政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/33259
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113392/144379 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51228388      線上人數 : 900
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 140.119/33259


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/33259


    題名: 符號互動、媒介、家鄉與離散認同：布里斯本澳籍台裔族裔邊界的形成與流動
    Symbolic Interactions, Media, Homeland and Diasporic Identities:The Fluid Ethnic Boundaries of Taiwanese immigrants in Brisbane
    作者: 蔡珮
    貢獻者: 郭良文
    Kuo, Liang-wen
    蔡珮
    關鍵詞: 符號互動
    族裔認同
    族裔邊界
    離散認同
    想像共同體
    台灣移民
    澳籍台裔
    symbolic interaction
    ethnic identity
    ethnic boundary
    diasporic identity
    imagined community
    Taiwanese immigrant
    Taiwanese diaspora
    日期: 2006
    上傳時間: 2009-09-17 15:54:44 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 本論文以布里斯本澳籍台裔的族裔認同為研究對象，從符號互動論角度瞭解移民如何在傳播互動中建構認同並形成共同體，以此探討「認同」、「傳播」與「想像共同體」間之關係，在澳洲布里斯本台灣移民社區進行田野調查並深度訪談六十五位台灣移民，以實際的經驗研究和兩個本文欲互補或質疑的觀點展開對話：一為Anderson以媒介資本主義作為傳播構連想像共同體之核心角色，在傳播建構認同的過程中是否充分？二為離散理論當中的「母國導向」與「邊界維持」觀點，對澳籍台裔離散經驗的適用性為何？研究目的除了回饋符號互動論，重新思考該理論在探討當代跨國移民認同建構之不足，並增添一些在跨文化／國情境下影響移民認同建構之相關傳播因素，以符合跨國移民認同研究所需；而從符號互動論角度研究想像共同體之形成，其想像機制能夠與Anderson的鉅觀角度產生哪些互補？希望藉此提供思考「認同」、「傳播」與「想像共同體」三者關係新的想像視野。

    本文在理論耙梳與田野來回交錯中，發現Mead符號互動論在互動中構連認同與想像共同體的關鍵傳播因素是「重要象徵符號」，不過，Mead似乎只考慮了一個共同體中個體「趨同」的重要象徵符號，但忽略和外部社群互動接觸的「區異」重要象徵符號也會形成自我所從出的共同體，這種由「區異」所形成的「重要象徵符號」，更具有以「想像」構成共同體之性質，雖然處在同一個共同體的成員並不相識，但是當我們和他群接觸有共同的差異感產生時，這種共同的「差異感」讓我們有同屬一個共同體的感覺。本論文於是結合Mead符號互動論與Barth族裔邊界理論，且不偏廢根基論的族裔認同，提出離散族裔的族裔認同來自族裔內根基（同一性）與邊界互動（差異性）所形成的重要象徵符號構成了族裔象徵邊界（symbolic boundary），正是這些被社群成員認為”重要”、”可區辨”不同族群的重要象徵符號，構成集體認同之基礎，提供族裔認同之來源。澳籍台裔離散認同是一個「混雜的想像共同體」，其中的族裔認同「想像共同體」是透過傳播互動中社群成員認為重要可區辨不同族裔的「重要象徵符號」實踐形成之邊界所構成，族裔邊界維持與變遷之機制，來自於對母國原生情感或宗主國情感的強弱、族裔評價之抉擇、家鄉情懷的強弱、宗主國溝通能力之具備與否以及在社會互動中自我與他者關係之多重匯聚。

    台裔離散的族裔認同是由人際傳播與大眾傳播共同建構的，傳播科技連結了”根”與”路徑”，藉由個人對於母國強烈的原生情感和家鄉情懷作為觸媒，使得族裔媒介透過解鄉愁、更新家鄉記憶、增進母國和同族裔親友間交流而喚起族裔認同；對年幼移民後裔而言，由於自小離鄉或在澳洲出世，對於原鄉的記憶與感情變得遙遠模糊，族裔中重要他人的文化傳承以及對於媒介中母國風土民情的解釋互動，搭起了族裔媒介建構認同的橋。同樣的，宗主國的主流媒介建構跨界認同，是移民積極運用媒介內容作為和澳洲人建立友誼和相互交流的工具，在與宗主國人際互動中，跨界的認同在一來一往的認肯中逐漸形成。

    本文認為，在應用Anderson「想像共同體」觀點解釋媒介內容建構或凝聚集體認同之推論應有所保留。形成族裔認同感的傳播機制，在Anderson那裡，是將現代時間觀念的改變與印刷資本主義和統一方言使用做了扣連，廣大的讀者同胞因而產生共時性的連結，形成想像共同體的胚胎（Anderson, 1991），在Mead這裡，形成共同體的語言過程，是一種「重要象徵符號」的溝通（Mead, 1934），個人即使沒有和共同體中的所有成員碰面，但認同也不可能在真空中產生，沒有社會互動，自我和共同體都不可能生成，是「重要象徵符號」構連了許許多多未曾謀面的共同體成員。象徵符號原本是具有多義性的，但「重要象徵符號」卻能在彼此之間形成共同的態度與反應，以致形成一個「想像共同體」。本研究發現族裔媒介引發族裔情感的方式其實還有「原生情感」、「濃烈鄉愁」、「同族裔同胞或母國親友交流」作為觸媒；主流媒介建構「澳洲人」認同也是透過人際傳播中介，受到互動中澳洲人的認肯，才引發「澳洲人」的認同感。因此，大眾媒介或許只是強化原有的族裔情感或是作為人際互動中促使認同更容易產生之內容來源，是和人際傳播互動共同建構了族裔認同，而非單一造就。

    澳籍台裔的離散認同由三種族裔想像共同體組成：「Chinese共同體」、「台灣人共同體」與「澳洲人共同體」，源自三種共同體的自我認同有八種樣貌：「在澳洲的台灣人」、「也（不）是台灣人也（不）是澳洲人，或是不同比例的兩種組合」、「台裔澳洲人」、「華裔澳洲人」、「中國人 or Chinese from Taiwan」、「在哪裡就是哪裡人」、「國際人」與「亞澳居間人」。三個族裔想像共同體擁有各自分享的評價標準與重要象徵符號，形成族裔認同邊界：台灣人共同體主要是以「和來自中國大陸予人負面印象的Chinese不同」為核心評價；Chinese共同體多以策略性本質主義定義「Chinese」為「中華文化」、「華裔血緣」，作為提升己身認同以對抗環境中多數認為「Chinese=來自中國大陸」之意含；澳洲人共同體則多欣賞澳洲的價值觀和生活形態，如：平等、守法、輕鬆隨和、熱愛戶外運動、注重隱私、獨立自主、友善親切等。

    台裔離散認同流動的大方向為：「中國人」的認同如同母國的流動方向一般，當面對真實而非課本上虛幻的中國人時，大部分會轉向「台灣人」；第一代移民大多停滯於「在澳洲的台灣人」；1.5世代認同以「半個澳洲人半個台灣人或也是澳洲人也是台灣人」居多，會逐漸流向「澳洲人」，但不會出現純粹的「澳洲人」認同；而中、英語流利且和多國人接觸的移民最終會流向「國際人」；在澳洲出生或三、四歲就移民澳洲的1.5代移民，其認同會從原本自以為是「澳洲人」回流為「台裔澳洲人」或「華裔澳洲人」。就台裔離散而言，「離散」有另一種新的詮釋，離散認同的邊界不盡然維持，也不盡然腐蝕，有的只是邊界的跨越、衝突、矛盾與協商。

    過去離散研究強調離散族裔有共同鄉愁以及「母國導向」的論點並不適用於澳籍台裔離散。雖然對第一代台灣移民而言，台灣家鄉和原生情感以及族裔認同分不開，「出生地」、「成長地」、「父母家人都在台灣」、「台灣是我的國家」是其家鄉歸屬感之來源，但即使「家鄉」是台灣，由於這群移民當初選擇的是澳洲優質的生活環境，因此大多數仍會選擇在澳洲定居，回歸母國或落葉歸根的比例並不高，第一代僅18%表達會回台灣長住，後裔更僅有9%有此意願。雖然大部分1.5代高中以上年齡移民仍和第一代一樣，覺得「親情」、「家鄉」和「成長地」的構連形成強烈的台灣歸屬感，但傳播科技的發達以及大眾交通之便捷，打破了時空界線，使得「多重的家」、「跨國的家」逐漸取代單一「台灣是家鄉」的意義，「家鄉」象徵”多重的地方”，「台灣、澳洲都是家鄉」使得「家鄉」與「母國地域」的關係開始鬆動，「家鄉」成為一個連結母國和宗主國的空間；更年幼移民澳洲的1.5代，或是「澳洲人」認同感較多的移民後裔，大多會認為「家人在澳洲，澳洲就是我的家」，甚至直接稱澳洲是自己的家鄉，原本第一代「家鄉」、「母國親人」和「母國地域」三者構連的家鄉歸屬感開始解構，轉為「在澳洲親人」和「去母國地域」的家鄉。台裔離散的「家鄉」意義，已從第一代與「母國」、「出生地」、「成長地」、「國家」、「親人所在地」緊緊扣連，提供族裔認同重要來源，逐漸在後裔於澳洲久居生根之後，意義變遷為「多重的地方」、「跨國的家」，使得移民後裔的認同也有了多元的變貌，「從何處來」與「身在何處」兩者間的抉擇，在「台灣出生地」與「久居澳洲」、「家人在澳洲」兩方的牽引中，後裔逐漸選擇在澳洲的親情和經歷成長已習慣的澳洲生活作為「家鄉」意義之來源，「日久他鄉是故鄉」是離散後裔「澳洲人」認同漸多時家鄉意義的變貌，「台灣」對年幼移民後裔而言，漸漸只剩下「好吃、好玩、度假、買便宜東西的地方」。
    This dissertation aims to explore the relations among identity, communication and imagined community. Mead’s symbolic interactionism and Barth’s theory of ‘ethnic boundary’ have been employed as the main theoretical frames in this study. Furthermore, extended from Mead’s and Barth’s theory in assist with ethnographic observations and in-depth interviews with 65 Taiwanese immigrants in Brisbane, I argue that ethnic identity of diaspora is constructed by the symbolic ethnic boundary which is formed with identical ( primordialism ) and different ( boundary interactions ) significant symbols. The boundaries between ethnic groups are constructed through the internalized and externalized practice of these significant symbols.

    The results revealed from this research show that the Australian-Taiwanese diasporic identity is a ‘hybrid imagined community’ being constituted by Chinese, Taiwanese and Australian imagined communities. The transitional mechanism of ethnic boundary is driven by the convergence of attachments to homeland or host country, the choices of ethnic appraisals, the possession of the host communication competences, and the self-other relations within social interactions.

    The ethnic identities of Taiwanese diaspora are constructed by both interpersonal communication and mass media. This finding is complementary to Anderson’s stance that mass communication is central to the construction of the imagined communities in capitalism. Namely, only mass media isn’t sufficient enough for constructing the imagined community. Interpersonal communication is another concerned factor.

    Taiwanese diaspora cannot be simply viewed as a homeland-orientated ethnic group. The meaning of homeland has been changed among different generations. After staying longer in a place far away from home, gradually, young generations will identify this place as their homeland. For Taiwanese descendants who immigrated to Australia at their young age, when they grow up in Australia and become more Australian, they will feel Australia is their homeland.
    參考文獻: Al-Ali, N. & Koser, K. (2002). Transnationalism, international migration and home. In N. Al-Ali & K. Koser (eds.), New approaches to migration: Transnational communities and the transformation of home. (pp.1-14). London: Taylor & Francis Books.
    Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York: Verso.
    Anderson, E. (1978). A place on the corner. Chicago：The University of Chicago Press.
    Ang, I. (2001). On not speaking Chinese: Living between Asia and the West. London: Routledge.
    Anthias, F. (1998). Evaluating ‘diaspora’: Beyond ethnicity? Sociology, 32(3), 557-580.
    Atkin, C. K. (1985). Informational utility and selective exposure to entertainment media. In D. Zillman & J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication (pp. 63-92). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Baran, S.J. & Davis, D.K. (2000). Mass communication theory: Foundations, ferment and future (2nd Edition). Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth.
    Barker, C. (2000). Cultural studies: Theory and practice. London: Sage.
    Barth, F. (1969). Introduction. In F. Barth (Ed.), Ethnic groups and boundaries ( pp.9-38). Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
    Becker, E. (1968). The structure of evil: An essay on the unification of the science of man. New York: Gourge Braziller.
    Bellak, L. (1992). Projective techniques in the computer age. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(3), 445-453.
    Berry, J. W. (1986). The acculturation process and refugee behavior. In C. L. Williams and J. Westerneyer (Eds.), Refugee mental health in resettlement countries. (pp. 25-37). Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
    Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 9-25). Boulder, CO: Westview.
    Bhabha, H.K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
    Brubaker, R. (2005). The ‘diaspora’ diaspora, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(1), 1-19.
    Burgress, R. (1989). Field research sourcebook and field manual. London: Unwin Hyman.
    Burns, L. D. & Lennon, S. J. (1993). Social perception: Methods for measuring our perception of others. International Textile and Apparel Association（ITAA） Special Publication, 5, 153-159.
    Butler, K. D. (2001). Defining diaspora, refining a discourse. Diaspora, 10, 189-220.
    Carbaugh, D. (1996). Situating selves: The communication of social identity in American Scenes. Albany: State University of New York Press.
    Cerulo, K.A. (1997). Identity construction: New issues, new directions. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 385-409.
    Chaliand, G. & Rageau, J. P. (1995). The penguin atlas of diasporas. New york: Viking Penguins.
    Charon, J. M. (2001). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration (7th ed.). Sydney: Prentice-Hall.
    Chatterjee, P. (1993). The nation and its fragments. New Jersey: Princeton University.
    Chen, L. J. (2000). Community formation and Taiwanese immigrant identity. In J. Docker & G. Fischer(Eds.), (2000). Race, colour and identity in Australia and New Zealand (pp.131-142). Sydney: UNSW Press.
    Cheng, S. H. & Kuo, W. H. (2000). Family socialization of ethnic identity among Chinese American pre-adolescents. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 31(4), 463-484.
    Chu, G. C. (1985). The changing concept of self in contemporary China. In Marsella et al. (Eds.), Culture and Self (pp.252-277). NY.: Tavistock Publications.
    Clifford, J. (1997). Routes: Travel and translation in the late twentieth century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Clifford, J. (1994). Diasporas. Cultural Anthropology, 9(3), 302-338.
    Cohen, R. (1997). Global diaspora: An introduction. London: University College London Press.
    Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 99-120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Constantinou, S., & Harvey, M. (1985). Dimensional structure and intergenerational differences in ethnicity: The Greek Americans. Sociology and Social Research, 69, 234-254.
    Cooley, C. H. (1983[1964]). Human nature and the social order. New Brunswick, N.J. : Transaction Publishers.
    Cooley, C. H. (1909). Social organization. New York: Scribner’s.
    Cronk, G. (1973). Symbolic interactionism: A “left-Meadian” interpretation. Social Theory and Practice, 2, 313-333.
    De Fina, A. (2003). Identity in narrative: A study of immigrant discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    Dewey, J. (1966 [1916]). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press.
    Dunn, R. G. (1998). Identity crisis: A social critique of postmodernity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    Eco, U.（1979）. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    Eisenberg, E. M. (2001). Building a mystery: Toward a new theory of communication and identity. Journal of Communication, 51(3), 534-552.
    Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.
    Fisher, A. T. & Sonn, C. C. (2002). Psychological sense of community in Australia and the challenges of change. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(6), 597-609.
    Fu, M. (2002). Acculturation, ethnic identity, and family conflict among first and second generation Chinese American. PhD dissertation of the faculty of the California school of Professional Psychology at Alliant International University.
    Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulty in foreign culture: An empirical analysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction (pp. 161-198）. New York: Pergamon Press.
    Fuss, D. (1989). Essentially speaking: Feminism, Nature, and difference. New York, Routledge.
    Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.
    Geertz , C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
    Georgiou, M. (2006). Diaspora, identity and the media: Diasporic transnationalism and mediated spatialities. Cresskill, N.J. : Hampton Press
    Georgiou, M. (2001). Crossing the boundaries of the ethnic home- Media consumption and ethnic identity construction in the public space: The case of the Cypriot community centre in North London. GAZETTE, 63(4), 311-329.
    Giffin, K. (1970). Social alienation by communication denial. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56, 247-257.
    Giles, H., Taylor, D. M., Lambert, W. E., & Albert, G. (1976). Dimensions of ethnic identity: An example from Northern Maine. Journal of Social Psychology, 100(1), 11-19.
    Gilroy, P. (1997). Diaspora and the detours of identity. In K. Woodward (Ed.), Identity and difference (pp.299-346). London: Sage.
    Gilroy, P. (1995). Roots and routes: Black identity as an outernational project. In H. W. Harris et al. (Eds.), Racial and ethnic identity: Psychological development and creative expression（pp.15-30）. New York: Routledge.
    Gilroy, P. (1993). Small acts: Thoughts on the politics of black cultures. London: Serpent’s Tail.
    Gilroy, P. (1990). It ain’t where you’re from, where you’re at…the dialectics of diasporic identification. Third Text, 13(4), 3-16.
    Gillespie, A. (2005). G. M. Mead: Theorist of the Social Act. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35(1), 21-39.
    Gordon, W. & Langmaid, R. (1988). Qualitative market research: A practitioner’s and buyer’s guide. Aldershot: Gower.
    Green, J. (1984). Approaching the core of consumer behaviour. Marketing Research, November, 19-20.
    Hage, G. (1994). Locating multiculturalism’s other. New Formations, 24, 19-34.
    Hall, S. (1996). Introduction: Who needs ‘identity’? In S. Hall and P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp.1-17). London: Sage.
    Hall, S. (1995). New cultures for old. In D. Massey and P. Jess (Eds.), A place in the world? Places, cultures and globalization (pp.175-213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Hall, S. (1992). The question of cultural identity. In S. Hall, D. Held and T. Mcgrew (Eds.), Modernity and its futures (pp.273-325). Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Hall, S. (1990). Cultural identity and diaspora. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity: Community, culture, difference (pp.222-237). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    Hanson, p. (1997). The truth, on Asian immigration, the Aboriginal question, the gun debate and the future of Australia. Ipwich: no publisher.
    Hecht, M. L., Warren, J. R., Jung, E., & Krieger, J. (2005a). The communicative theory of identity: Development, theoretical perspective, and future directions. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 257-277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L. II, & Pitts, M. J. (2005b). Culture: Intersections of intergroup and identity theories. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspective (pp.21-42). New York: Peter Lang.
    Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L., II, & Ribeau, S. (2003). African American communication: Exploring identity and culture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Hecht, M. & Faulkner, S. (2000). Sometimes Jewish, sometimes not: The closeting of Jewish American identity. Communication Studies, 51(4), 372-387.
    Hecht, M. L., Collier, M. J., & Ribeau, S. A. (1993). African American communication: Ethnic identity and cultural interpretation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Hecht, M. L. (1993). 2002 - A research odyssey toward the development of a communication theory of identity. Communication Monographs, 60, 76-82.
    Henderson, K. A. (1991). Dimensions of choice: A qualitative approach to research in recreation, parks, and leisure. College Park, PA: Venture Publishing.
    Hogg, M. A. & Mullin, B. A. (1999). Joining groups to reduce uncertainty: Subjective uncertainty reduction and group identification. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp.249-279). Oxford: Blackwell.
    Hogg, M. A. (1996). Intragroup process, groups structure and social identity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp.65-93). Bristol: Bristol University Press.
    Hsu, F. L. K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In Marsella et al. (Eds.), Culture and Self (pp.24-55). NY.: Tavistock Publications.
    Huang, L.L., Liu, J.H., & Chang, M. (2004). The “Double Identity” of Taiwanese Chinese: A dilemma of politics and culture rooted in history. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(2), 149-189.
    Ip, D., Wu, C. T., & Inglis, C. (1998). Settlement experiences of Taiwanese immigrations in Australia. Asian Studies Review, 22(1), 79-97.
    Jaret, C., & Reitzes, D. C. (1999). The importance of ratial-ethnic identity and social setting for Blacks, Whites, and Multiracials. Sociological Perspectives, 42(4), 711-737.
    Kalra, V. S., Kaur, R., & Hutnyk, J. (2005). Diaspora & hybridity. CA: Sage.
    Katz, E. & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New York: Free Press.
    KiBria, N. (2002). Of blood, belonging, and homeland trips: Transnaionalism and identity among second-generation Chinese and Korean Americans. In P. Levitt, & M. C. Waters (Eds.), The changing face of home: The transnational lives of the second generation (pp.295-311). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
    Kim. Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural. CA: Sage.
    Kim. Y. Y. (1991). Intercultural communication competence: A systems-theoretic view. In S. Ting-Toomey, & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural interpersonal communication (pp. 259-275). London: Sage.
    Kim, Y. Y. (1977). Communication pattern of foreign immigrants in the process of acculturation. Human Communication, 4(1), 66-77.
    Kwan, K. K. (2000). The internal-external ethnic identity measure: Factor-analytic structures based on a sample of Chinese Americans. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(1), 142-152.
    Leach, E. R. (1977). Political systems of highland Burma: A study of Kachin social structure. Atlantic Highlands, N. J.: Athlone Press.
    Lee, W. (1994). Communication about humor as procedural competence in intercultural encounters. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (7th ed.) (pp.373-382). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
    Levitt, P. & Waters, M. C. (2002). Introduction. In P. Levitt and M. C. Waters (Eds.) The changing face of home: The transnational lives of the second generation (pp. 1-30). New York: Russell Sage Foundations.
    Lien, P. T. (2005). Understanding the ethnic identity of Chinese and other Asian Americans at the Dawn of the 21st Century. In The National Identity of Overseas Chinese in Changing Times (pp.313-347). Taipei, Taiwan: The Society of Overseas Chinese Studies.
    Lien, P. T. (2004). Behind the numbers: Talking politics with foreign-born Chinese Americans. International Migration, 42 (2), 87–112.
    Lien, P. T., Conway, M. M. & Wong, J. (2003). The contours and sources of ethnic identity choices among Asian Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 84 (2), 461–481.
    Lindsley, S. I. (1999). Alayered model of problematic communication in U.S. owned maquiladoras in Mexico. Communication Monographs, 66, 145-167.
    Lo, J. (2000). Beyond happy hybridity: Performing Asian-Australian identity. In I. Ang et al (Eds.), Alter/Asians: Asian-Australian identities in art, media and popular culture (pp. 152-168). Sydney: Pluto Press.
    Loudon, D. L. & Della Bitta A. J. (1993). Consumer behaviour: Concept and application (4th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
    Lui, C. W. (2006). Transnational Chinese migration: An Australian profile. In D. Ip, R. Hibbins & W. Chui (Eds.), Experiences of transnational Chinese migrants in the Asia-Pacific (pp.17-39). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
    Luke, A. & Luke, C. (2000). The differences language makes: The discourses on language of inter-ethnic Asian/Australian families. In I. Ang et al (Eds.), Alter/Asians: Asian-Australian identities in art, media and popular culture (pp. 42-67). Sydney: Pluto Press.
    Martin, J. (2005). Perspectival selves in interaction with others: Re-reading G. H. Mead’s social psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35, 231-253.
    McLuhan, M.（2002 [1964]）. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York : Routledge.
    McLuhan, M. (1967). Explorations in communication: An anthology. Boston: Beacon Press.
    Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago press.
    Mead, G. H. (1922). A behavioristic account of the significant symbol. The Journal of Philosophy, 19(6), 157-163.
    Milan, N.（2001）.〈公共電視如何落實多族群服務之目標〉（專題演講中文譯稿），「新視野：公共電視的發展與未來」研討會（2 月 23日）。台北：公務人力發展中心。Available: http://www.pts.org.tw/~web01/rd_invitation/。
    Miller, W. L. & Crabtree, B. F. (1992). Primary care research: A multimethod typology and qualitative road map. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp.3-28). Newbury Park CA: Sage.
    Miller, J. M. (2000). Language use, identity, and social interaction: Migrant students in Australia. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(1), 69-100.
    Mullen, B. (1991). Group composition, salience, and cognitive representation: The phenomenology of being in a group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 297-323.
    Morley, D. (2000). Home territories: Media, mobility, identity. London: Routledge.
    Papastergiadis, N. (2000). The turbulance of migration: Globalization, deterritorialization, and hybridity. Cambridge: Blackwell.
    Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative research and evaluation method (pp.339-427). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Peirce, C. S. (1998). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce（Vol. 1-8）.（edited by C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss）Dulles, Va. : Thoemmes Press.
    Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34-49.
    Ricklefs, M. C. (1985). Why Asians? In A. Markus & M .C. Ricklefs (Eds), Surrender Australia? Essays in the study and uses of history: Geoffrey Blainey and Asian immigration (pp. 36-48). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
    Rogler, L., Cooney, R., & Ortiz, V. (1980). Intergenerational change in ethnic identity in the Puerto Rican family. International Migration Review, 14, 193-214.
    Rosenberg, M. (1973). Which significant others? The American Behavioral Scientist, 16(6), 829-860.
    Rosenthal, D. A., & Feldman, S. S. (1992). The relationship between parenting behavior and ethnic identity in Chinese-American and Chinese-Australian adolescents. International Journal of Psychology, 27(1), 19-31.
    Rouse, R. (1991). Mexican migration and the social space of postmodernism. Diaspora, 1(1), 8-24.
    Ruidl, R. (1982). Idiomatic communication behaviors as indicators of acculturation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(06), 1738A. (University Microfilms No. DA82-26594).
    Rumbaut, R. G.. (2002). Severed or sustained attachments? Language, identity, and imagined communities in the post-immigrant generation. In P. Levitt, & M. C. Waters (Eds.), The changing face of home: The transnational lives of the second generation (pp.43-95). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
    Rumbaut, R. G.. (1994). The crucible within: ethnic identity, self-esteem, and segmented assimilation among children of immigrants. International Migration Review, 28(4), 748-794.
    Safran, W. (1991). Diaspora in modern societies: Myths of homeland and return. Diaspora, 1(1), 83-99.
    Sampson, P. (1986). Qualitative research and motivation research. In R.M. Worcester & J. Downham (Eds.), Consumer market research handbook (pp.29-56) (3rd ed). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    Saussure, F. de. (2002[1983]). Course in general linguistics (12th Ed.)(R. Harris, Trans.). Illinois: Open Court.
    Schak, D. (1999). Middle-class migration and problems of adjustment: Taiwanese business migrants in Brisbane. In Y. F. Tseng, C. Bulbeck, N. Chiang, and R. Hsu (Eds), Asian Migration: Pacific Rim Dynamics, Monograph No.1 (pp. 117-148). Taipei: Interdisciplinary Group for Australia Studies, National Taiwan University.
    Sheffer, G.（2003）. Diaspora politics: At home abroad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Shi, Y. (2005). Identity construction of the Chinese diaspora, ethnic media use, community formation, and the possibility of social activism. Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 19(1), 55-72.
    Sebba, M. & Wootton, T. (1998). We, they and identity: Sequential versus identity-related explanation in code-switching. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity (pp.262-286). London: Routledge.
    Shibutani, T. (1961). Society and personality: An interactionist approach to social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
    Smith, A. D. (1995). Nations and nationalism in a global era. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1997). Choosing the right pond: The impact of group membership on self-esteem and group-oriented behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 146-170.
    Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2000). Social psychology (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
    Smith-Hefner, N. J. (1990). Language and identity in the education of Boston-area Khmer. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 21, 250-268.
    Snow, D., & Anderson, L. (1987). Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of personal identities. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1336-1371.
    Solomon, M. R. (1994). Consumer behaviour: Buying, having and being (2ed ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    Sonn, C.C. (2002). Immigrant adaptation: Understanding the process through sense of community. In A. T. Fisher, C. C. Sonn, & B. J. Bishop (Eds.), Phychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications (pp.205-222). New York: Plenum Publishers.
    Soysal, Y. (2000). Citizenship and identity: Living in diasporas in post-war Europe. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23(1), 1-15.
    Spicer, E. (1981). Persistent cultural system: A comparative study of identity system that can adapt to contrasting environments. Science, 174, 795-800.
    Spivak, G. (1991). The post-colonial critic: Interviews, strategies, dialogues. New York: Routledge.
    Spivak, G. (1988). Subaltern studies: Deconstructing Historiography. In G. Spivak, In other worlds: Essays in cultural politics (pp. 197-221). New York: Routledge.
    Stalker, P. (2000). Workers without frontiers: The impact of globalization on international migration. Geneva and Boulder, Colo.: International Labor Organization and Lynne Rienner Publishers.
    Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1973). Chinese-American personality and mental health. In S. Sue & N. N. Wagner (Eds.), Asian Americans: Psychological perspectives (pp. 111-124). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books, Inc.
    Sun, W. (2006). Media and the Chinese diaspora: Community, communications, and commerce. New York : Routledge,
    Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp.7-24). Chicago: Nelson.
    Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp.33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
    Tajfel, H. (1978). Interindividual and intergroup behaviour. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 27-60). San Diego: Academic Press.
    Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examing the politics of recognition (pp. 25-73). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    Thomas, N. (1996). Cold fusion, American Anthropologist, 98(1), 9-25.
    Thompson, J. B. (1995). The media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Oxford, England: Polity Press.
    Tian, G. (1999). Chinese-Canadian, Canadian-Chinese: Coping and adapting in North America. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
    Ting-Toomey, S. (1981). Ethnic identity and close friendship in Chinese-American college students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 5, 383-406.
    Tölölyan, K.（1996）. Rethinking diaspora(s): Stateless power in the transnational moment. Diaspora, 5(1), 3-36.
    Tölölyan, K.（1991）. The nation-state and its others: In Lieu of a preface. Diaspora, 1(2), 3-7.
    Tu, W. M. (1985). Selfhood and otherness in Confucian thought. In Marsella et al. (Eds.), Culture and Self (pp.231-251). NY.: Tavistock Publications.
    Tsagarousianou, R. (2004). Rethinking the concept of diaspora: Mobility, connectivity and communication in a globalised world. Communication and culture, 1(1), 52-66.
    Um, H. K.（2005）. Understanding diaspora, identity and performance. In H.K. Um（Ed.）, Diasporas and interculturalism in Asian performing arts（pp.1-13）. London: Routledge.
    Van Hear, N. (1998). New diaspora: The mass exodus, dispersal and regrouping of migrant communities. London: University College London Press.
    Vertovec, S.（1997）. Three meanings of “Diaspora”, exemplified among South Asian religions. Diaspora, 6(3), 277-300.
    Wang, G. (1999). A single Chinese diaspora? Some historical reflections. In G.. Wang & A. S. Wah (Eds.), Imaging the Chinese diaspora: Two Australian perspectives (pp.1-17). Canberra: CSCSD, Australian National University.
    Webb, J. R. (1992). Understanding and designing marketing research. London: Academic Press.
    Weber, M. (1922). Ethnic groups. In W. Sollors (Ed.), Theories of ethnicity: A classical reader (pp.52-66). New York: New York University Press.
    Wiemann, J. M. & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in communicative competence. Review of Educational Research, 50, 185-199.
    Wiesenfeld, E. (1996). The concept of “we”: A community social psychology myth? Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), 337-345.
    Wu, C. T. (2003). New middle-class Chinese settlers in Australia and the spatial transformation of settlement in Sydney. In L. J. C. Ma & C. Cartier (Eds.), The Chinese diaspora: Space, place, mobility, and identity (pp.359-378). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc
    Yeh, C. J., & Huang, K. (1996). The collectivistic nature of ethnic identity development among Asian-American college students. Adolescence, 31(123), 645-661.
    Zaharna, R. S. (1989). Self-shock: The double-binding challenge of identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 501-525.
    Zhou, M., Chen, W., & Cai, G. (2006). Chinese-language media and immigrant life in the United States and Canada. In W. Sun (Ed.), Media and the Chinese diaspora (pp.42-74). New York: Routledge.
    王明珂（2001）。《華夏邊緣》。台北：允晨。
    王甫昌（2003）。《當代台灣社會的族群想像》。台北：群學。
    王美珍（2006）。《文化「台」風意味著什麼？-「台客文化」的社會想像與認同形構》。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
    王美琇（2002年8月8日）。〈「想像共同體」的錯亂〉，《自由時報》。http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2002/new/aug/8/today-o1.htm#o4
    王泰升（2005）。〈台灣人民的「國籍」與認同—究竟我是哪一國人或哪裡人？〉，甘懷真、貴志俊彥、川島真（編）《東亞視域中的國籍、移民與認同》，頁：49-62。台北：台大出版中心。
    毛榮富（2002）。〈傳播研究「向人的維度轉」之必要〉，《中華傳播學刊》，2：101-107。
    田易蓮（2001）。《兩岸電視劇由抗爭到交流的歷史社會分析》。輔仁大學大眾傳播研究所碩士論文。
    朱全彬（1998）。〈由年齡、族群等變項看臺灣民眾的國家及文化認同〉，《新聞學研究》，56：35-64。
    江宜樺（1998）。《自由主義、民族主義與國家認同》。台北：揚智。
    朱柔若等（1999）。《建構高雄市與布里斯本城市外交新模式之研究：以高雄市、布里斯本移民為探討焦點》。高雄市：高雄市政府研究發展考核委員會。
    李丁讚、陳兆勇（1998）。〈衛星電視與國族想像：以衛視中文台的日劇為觀察對象〉，《新聞學研究》，56：9-34。
    李威宜（1999）。《新加坡華人游移變異的我群觀：語群、國家社群與族群》。台北：唐山。
    吳叡人（2001）。〈認同的重量：想像共同體導讀〉，吳叡人譯《想像共同體：民族主義的起源與散布》。台北：時報文化。
    昆士蘭時報（2007年2月8日）。〈公民考試「妖魔化移民」？議員稱測試內容荒唐，板球入題不合理〉，第三版。
    昆士蘭時報（2007年2月24日）。〈新移民政策強調「相互責任」，移民被要求回饋澳洲學英文〉，第三版。
    林文剛（1998）。〈卡拉OK在身份認同構成中的模糊特性〉，《新聞學研究》，56：65-83。
    林福岳（1998）。〈社區媒介定位的再思考：從社區媒介的社區認同功能論談起〉，《新聞學研究》，56：155-173。
    林福岳（2002）。〈認同建構為傳播基礎概念之初探：以美濃反水庫運動為例〉，《中華傳播學刊》，2：47-99。
    林濁水（2006）。《共同體：世界圖像下的台灣》。台北：左岸。
    林麗雯（2004）。《都會區域中流動遷移者的移民地認同意識─以台北縣市大陸女性配偶為例》。國立台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所碩士論文。
    邱承君（2000）。《想像「想像的共同體」—以《民報》社論為分析場域》。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
    周倩漪（1998）。〈從王菲到菲迷－流行音樂偶像崇拜中性別主體的搏成〉，《新聞學研究》，56：105-134。
    孟樊（2001）。《後現代的認同政治》。台北：揚智。
    俞可平（1998）。《社群主義》。北京：中國社會科學。
    施正峰（2001）。《族群與民族主義》。台北：前衛出版社。
    施正峰（2005）。〈評林修澈的《原住民的民族認定》〉。引言於「原住民族正名議題研討會」。台北：台灣大學法學院國際會議廳。
    胡幼慧、姚美華（1996）。〈一些質性方法上的思考：信度與效度？如何抽樣？如何收集資料、登錄與分析？〉，胡幼慧（編）《質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例》，頁：141-158。臺北：巨流。
    柯凱珮（2003）。《大陳人移民經驗的認同歷程》。國立花蓮師範學院多元文化研究所碩士論文。
    胡幼慧、姚美華（1996）。〈一些質性方法上的思考：信度與效度？如何抽樣？如何收集資料、登錄與分析？〉，胡幼慧（編）《質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例》，頁：141-158。台北：巨流。
    范麗娟（2004）。〈深度訪談〉，謝臥龍（編）《質性研究》，頁：81-126。台北：心理。
    姜蘭虹、徐榮崇（2003）。《澳洲台灣僑民現況之研究》。台北：中華民國僑務委員會。
    翁秀琪（2001）。〈集體記憶與認同構塑——以美麗島事件為例〉，《新聞學研究》，68：117-149。
    高宣揚（1994）。《實用主義和語用論》。台北：遠流。
    徐宗國（1996）。〈紮根理論研究法〉，胡幼慧（編）《質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例》，頁：47-73。臺北：巨流。
    夏誠華（2002）。〈台灣地區移民變遷之研究〉，張存武、湯熙勇（編）《海外華族研究論集─第一卷：移民、華商與經貿》，頁：169-186。台北：華僑協會總會出版。
    徐榮崇（2002a）。《澳洲台灣移民居住地的選擇與決策過程－以雪梨、布里斯本和墨爾本為例》。台北：中國文化大學地理研究所博士論文。
    徐榮崇（2002b）。〈澳洲移民政策的變遷與台灣移民〉，《市師學報》，33：379-388。
    徐榮崇（2002c）。〈當代澳洲的台灣移民—兼論香港與大陸移民〉，《地理研究報告》，15：135-155。
    徐榮崇、姜蘭虹（2004）。〈澳洲台灣移民的空間性與地方性：以居住地的選擇與決策思考〉，《人口學刊》，28：81-107。
    徐榮崇、姜蘭虹（2005）。〈近期澳洲台灣移民之生活現況分析及僑務政策上的涵意〉，《台北市立教育大學學報》，36(2)：155-172。
    徐榮崇、陳麗如（2005）。〈美國、澳洲、加拿大三國臺灣僑民比較研究〉。臺北市：僑務委員會。
    徐榮崇、葉富強（2006）。〈性別在跨國主義環境中所扮演的角色—以布理斯本的一點五代台灣移民為例〉，《人口學刊》，32：43-81。臺北市：國立臺灣大學。
    唐維敏譯（1998）。《文化研究：霍爾訪談錄》。台北：元尊。（原書Hall, S. & Chen, K. H. [1996]. Cultural studies: dialogues with Stuart Hall.）
    郭良文（1998）。〈台灣近年來廣告中認同之建構：解析商品化社會的認同與傳播意涵〉，《新聞學研究》，57：127-157。
    莊雪屏（1998）。《新聞再現、族群認同與想像社群：以報紙中「眷村」相關新聞議題為例》。輔仁大學大眾傳播學研究所碩士論文。
    黃若（2007年2月24日）。〈白肉乾藷〉，《昆士蘭時報》，第五版。
    黃淑貞（1997）。《前進澳洲》。台北：方智。
    黃惠真（2002）。《台中市外僑之生活風格研究》。南華大學亞洲太平洋研究所碩士論文。
    黃源深、陳弘（1994）。《從孤立中走向世界——澳大利亞文化簡論》。台北：淑馨。
    張玲（2001）。〈台灣新移民在美國的文化認同〉，盧漢超（編）《台灣的現代化與文化認同》，頁208-237。美國：八方文化。
    陳平之（2003）。〈台灣人在他鄉／澳洲篇：打造「台灣城」，鄉音處處聞〉，《自由時報電子新聞網》（2003.4.3.）。http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2003/new/apr/6/today-world1.htm
    陳奕麟（1999）。〈解構中國性：論族群意識作為文化作為認同之曖昧不明〉，《台灣社會研究季刊》，33：103-131。
    陳國明（2003）。《文化間傳播學》。台北：五南。
    陳韻如（2004）。《媒體公共論述中民族認同的變遷：八九年亞銀年會事件與「兩國論」事件》。國立政治大學新聞研究所博士論文。
    華友週報（2006年12月1日）。〈去年中國移民排名澳洲第三大〉，第五版。
    華商快報（2006年11月10日）。〈澳洲欲廢除「多元文化主義」〉，第七版。
    楊國樞（2002）。〈中國人的社會取向：社會互動的觀點〉，楊國樞（著），《華人心理的本土化研究》，頁：79-117。台北：桂冠。
    楊智翔、姜蘭虹、廖珮君（2005）。〈澳洲台灣移民相關議題之研究〉，《環境與世界》，11：33-64。
    楊智翔（2006）。《澳洲台灣年輕移民生活適應與身份認同過程之探討——以墨爾本為例》。國立台灣大學地理環境資源研究所碩士論文。
    廖立文譯（1986）。《當代社會理論：從帕深思到哈伯瑪斯》。台北：桂冠。（原書Craib, I. [1984] Modern social theories: From Parsons to Habermas. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.）
    廖炳惠（2003）。〈在全球化過程中的海外華人離散社群：視覺藝術中政治與文化公民權的分合〉，《中外文學》，32（4）：17-28。
    廖珮君、姜蘭虹、徐榮崇（2005）。〈年輕移民在台灣、澳洲兩地之間的流動原因、適應與自我認同〉。《中國地理學會會刊》，35：59-87。
    廖珮君（2005）。《澳洲回留台灣年輕移民在台、澳社會間的適應與自我認同》。臺北市立師範學院社會科教育研究所碩士論文。
    趙彥寧（1998）。〈看不見的權力：非生殖／非親屬規範性論述的認識論分析〉，《新聞學研究》，56：135-153。
    劉仲冬（1996）。〈民族誌研究法及實例〉，胡幼慧（編），《質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例》，頁：173-193。台北：巨流。
    蔡琰（1998）。〈消音的傳奇－電視古裝劇價值認同的啟示〉，《新聞學研究》，56：85-103。
    賴柏偉（2003）。《虛擬社群：一個想像共同體的形成—以線上角色扮演遊戲「網路創世紀」為例》。國立交通大學傳播研究所碩士論文。
    龍應台（2004年5月7日）。〈向核心價值邁進－超越台灣主義〉，《中時》人間副刊。
    羅世宏（2002）。〈台灣的認同／差異：影視媒體的局勢中介與雜存認同的形成〉，《中華傳播學刊》，2：3-40。
    羅世宏（1994）。《後蔣經國時代的國家、大眾媒介與反對運動：國家認同議題的媒介框架分析》。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
    嚴祥鸞（1996）。〈參與觀察法〉，胡幼慧（編）《質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例》，頁：195-221。台北：巨流。
    描述: 博士
    國立政治大學
    新聞研究所
    91451503
    95
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0914515031
    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
    51503101.pdf52KbAdobe PDF2698檢視/開啟
    51503102.pdf248KbAdobe PDF2660檢視/開啟
    51503103.pdf273KbAdobe PDF2912檢視/開啟
    51503104.pdf123KbAdobe PDF21310檢視/開啟
    51503105.pdf751KbAdobe PDF2725檢視/開啟
    51503106.pdf2429KbAdobe PDF21023檢視/開啟
    51503107.pdf4292KbAdobe PDF2895檢視/開啟
    51503108.pdf6434KbAdobe PDF21056檢視/開啟
    51503109.pdf2953KbAdobe PDF2769檢視/開啟
    51503110.pdf2170KbAdobe PDF2931檢視/開啟
    51503111.pdf380KbAdobe PDF22829檢視/開啟
    51503112.pdf196KbAdobe PDF2736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