政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/33325
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113656/144643 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51695952      線上人數 : 594
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


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/33325


    題名: 諷刺文理解的認知過程：以史威夫特的《一個謙遜提議》為例
    The Cognitive Process of Satire Comprehension in Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”
    作者: 林正福
    Lin ,Cheng-Fu
    貢獻者: 藍亭
    Lane,Tim
    林正福
    Lin ,Cheng-Fu
    關鍵詞: 諷刺文
    幽默
    娛樂
    詮釋
    意圖
    satire
    humor
    amusement
    interpretation
    intention
    日期: 2004
    上傳時間: 2009-09-17 16:15:54 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 本論文試圖設計一套讀者如何理解（強納生•史威夫特的）《一個謙遜提議》為諷刺文的認知過程。此認知過程包含兩個步驟：（A）推論出作者是諷刺的，（B）推論出作者意圖諷刺某真人。本論文分三部分來處理（A）與（B）。
    第一部分（第2至5章）處理（A），而（A）又可細分為：（a）判斷《謙遜提議》似乎為錯，（b）推論出作者意圖它為錯，（c）推論出作者意圖讀者發現它為錯。然而，（a）阻礙了（b）與接下來的（c），因為《謙遜提議》在讀者眼中是似乎為錯，而非應該為錯。因此，讀者有困難去最終詮釋《謙遜提議》為一諷刺文。然而，當讀者閱畢《謙遜提議》後若能感到極度被娛樂（feels extremely amused），他將比較容易有（b）與（c）的反應，因為他會推論出作者在開玩笑。
    第二部分（第6至7章）試圖設計一個娛樂（amusement）的認知理論與一個幽默（humor）的認知理論。我定義「娛樂」為一種情緒，成因是一個人在認知上評價「幽默」為愉悅的。而我定義「幽默」基本上是對失諧（incongruity）的反應。幽默可以是：（1）知覺到失諧；（2）知覺到失諧，並解困之；或（3）知覺到失諧，並求甚解地解困之。
    第三部分（第8章）則處理由（A）到（B）的認知過程。讀者於此階段理解到《謙遜提議》裡的虛構第一人稱是一個隱喻，隱喻對象為某個針對愛爾蘭問題提出殘暴荒謬解決辦法的真實權貴。
    終其此論文，我試圖拆解作者的《謙遜提議》（為一諷刺文），並藉由讀者的各種可能詮釋（《謙遜提議》是一個好計畫、偽善謊言等等）來重組之。有時，作者已死，而其身分不可辨認。於論文結論，我將運用此（對《謙遜提議》的）詮釋不穩定性，來解釋針對2004年台灣319（槍擊）案反應的意見分歧。
    This thesis aims to design a cognitive process of how the reader comprehends Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” as a satire. This cognitive process includes two steps: (A) to infer that the author is satirical, (B) to infer that the author intends to satirize some real person. This thesis is cut into three parts to tackle (A) and (B).
    The first part (Chapters 2-5) is on (A), and (A) is subdivided into: (a) to judge that AMP1 seems to be false, (b) to infer that the author intends it to be false, (c) to infer that the author intends the reader to find it false. However, (a) impedes (b) and the sequential (c), because AMP is seemingly false, not normatively false, in the eyes of the reader. The reader thus has the difficulty to eventually interpret AMP as a satire. However, when the reader feels extremely amused after reading AMP, he will more easily fulfill (b) and (c), because he will infer that the author is joking.
    The second part (Chapters 6-7) aims to design a cognitive theory of amusement and that of humor. I define amusement as an emotion, caused by the cognitive appraisal of the humor as pleasant. And I define humor as basically a reaction to incongruity. Humor can be: (1) the perception of incongruity, (2) the perception of incongruity and its resolution, or (3) the perception of incongruity and its resolution with comprehension.
    The third part (Chapter 8) is on the cognitive process from (A) to (B). The reader in this stage comprehends that the fictional speaker in AMP is a metaphor of some bigwig in reality who proposes an outrageous solution to the Irish problems.
    Throughout this thesis, I try to demolish the author’s AMP (that it is a satire) and restructure it with the reader’s interpretations (that AMP is a good plan, a hypocritical lie, etc.). Sometimes, the author is dead and his identity is unrecognizable. At the end, I will apply this interpretative instability (to AMP) to the dissension over the Taiwan 319 (gunshot) incident in 2004.

    ------------
    1 Herein Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” will be referred to as AMP.
    參考文獻: Works Cited:
    Abrams, M. H., et al., eds. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 6th ed. Vol. 1. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1993.
    Albano, Robert A. Lectures on English Literature. Vol. 3. Taipei: Bookman, 2001.
    Asch, S. E. “Opinions and Social Pressure.” Scientific American 19 (1955): 31-35.
    Beattie, James. “On Laughter and Ludicrous Composition.” Essays. Edinburgh, Creech, 1776.
    Booth, Wayne C. A Rhetoric of Irony. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1974.
    Chen, Xue-zhi (陳學志). The Cognitive Process of “Humor Comprehension” (「幽默理解」的認知歷程). Diss. Taiwan U, 1991.
    ---. “From ‘Hearing the Joke’ to ‘Making the Joke:’ Use the Humor Comprehension to See the Humor Creation” (從「聽笑話」到「鬧笑話」--由幽默理解看幽默創作). Fu Jen Studies: College of Liberal Arts 24 (1995): 240-261.
    Clore, Gerald L., Norbert Schwarz, and Michael Conway. “Affective Causes and Consequences of Social Information Processing.” Handbook of Social Cognition. Ed. R. S. Wyer and T.K. Srull. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Hillsdale NJ: L. Erlbaum, 1994. 323-418.
    Craig, Grace J., and Don Baucum. Human Development. 8th ed. New Jersey: Prentice, 1999.
    Emotions in Social Psychology: Essential Readings Ed. Gerrod Parrott. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 2001.
    “Fiji Apologised This Week for Killing and Eating a British Missionary 136 Years Ago” RedNova News. 18 Oct. 2003. 2 Mar. 2005 <http://www.rednova.com/ news/display/?id=22625>.
    Fiske, Susan T., and Shelley E. Taylor. Social Cognition. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
    Fredrickson, Barbara L. “Cultivating Positive Emotions to Optimize Health and Well-Being.” Prevention & Treatment 3 (2000). 26 April 2004 <http:// www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume3/pre0030001a.html>.
    Frijda, N. H. The Emotions. Cambridge [UK]: Cambridge UP, 1986.
    Gaunt, Simon. Troubadours and Irony. New York: Cambridge UP, 1989.
    Ghiselin, M. T. The Economy of Nature and the Evolution of Sex. Berkeley: U of California P, 1974.
    Griffin, Dustin H. Satire: A Critical Reintroduction. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1994.
    Hutcheon, Linda. Irony’s Edge: The Theory and Politics of Irony. New York: Routledge, 1994.
    Jakobson, R. Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Mounton and Co, 1956.
    Jeng, Heng-syung (鄭恆雄). “Linguistic Analysis and Literature Study” (語言分析與文學研究). Wenshan Review 1.2 (1998): 1-33.
    Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1987.
    Lakoff, G, and M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980.
    Latta, Robert L. The Basic Humor Process: A Cognitive-shift Theory and the Case against Incongruity. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
    Mead, S. et al. “Balancing Selection at the Prion Protein Gene Consistent with Prehistoric Kurulike Epidemics.” Science (2003). 2 Mar. 2005.
    Morreall, John. “Humor and Emotion.” The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor. Ed. John Morreall. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987. 212-24.
    New, Christopher. Philosophy of Literature: An Introduction. New York: Routledge, 1999.
    Nokes, David. Jonathan Swift, a Hypocrite Reversed: A Critical Biography. New York: Oxford UP, 1985.
    Ortony, Andrew, Gerald L. Clore, and Allan Collins. The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. New York: Cambridge UP, 1988.
    Orwell, George. 1984. 1948. The Literature Network. 1 Nov. 2004. <http:// www.online-literature.com/ orwell/1984/5/>.
    Pratt, Mary Louise. Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1977.
    Rothbart, M. K. “Incongruity, Problem-Solving, and Laughter.” Humor and Laughter: Theory, Research, and Applications. Ed. A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot. New Brunswick: Transaction, 1996. 37-54.
    Shultz, T. R. “A Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of Humour.” Humor and Laughter: Theory, Research, and Applications. Ed. A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot. New Brunswick: Transaction, 1996. 11-36.
    Strongman, K. T. The Psychology of Emotion. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 1987.
    Suls. J. “A Two-stage Model for the Appreciation of Jokes and Cartoons: An Information Processing Analysis.” The Psychology of Humor. Ed. J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee. New York: Academic Press, 1972.
    Swift, Jonathan. “A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public” 1729. The Art Bin Magazine. 1 Oct. 2003. <http:// art-bin.com/art/omodest.html>.
    Taylor, Shelley E., L. A. Peplau, and D. O. Sears. Social Psychology. 9th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991.
    Veatch, T. C. “A Theory of Humor.” Humor, the International Journal of Humor Research (1998). 2 April 2004 < http://www.tomveatch.com/else/humor/paper>.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    英國語文學研究所
    89551013
    93
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0089551013
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[英國語文學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    55101301.pdf12KbAdobe PDF2834檢視/開啟
    55101302.pdf10KbAdobe PDF2738檢視/開啟
    55101303.pdf14KbAdobe PDF2910檢視/開啟
    55101304.pdf9KbAdobe PDF2703檢視/開啟
    55101305.pdf46KbAdobe PDF21209檢視/開啟
    55101306.pdf29KbAdobe PDF2792檢視/開啟
    55101307.pdf51KbAdobe PDF2943檢視/開啟
    55101308.pdf31KbAdobe PDF2761檢視/開啟
    55101309.pdf78KbAdobe PDF2890檢視/開啟
    55101310.pdf41KbAdobe PDF2787檢視/開啟
    55101311.pdf61KbAdobe PDF2988檢視/開啟
    55101312.pdf22KbAdobe PDF21098檢視/開啟
    55101313.pdf36KbAdobe PDF2788檢視/開啟
    55101314.pdf17KbAdobe PDF21314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