先前對於語言行為(speech act)之研究多著重於其表現性動詞(performative verb)，然而大部分的語言行為表現為隱蔽性(implicit)，只研究動詞無法探究其言辭之外的表意行為(illocutionary act)，本論文主張言談情境(context)扮演決定語用張力(pragmatic force) 的重要角色，因而採用Mey(2001)的語用行為理論(pragmatic act theory)和Coupland (2007)的身分投射行為(projective acts of identity)做為主要的研究基礎以及曾(2010a)的語言行為表現鏈(performative chain)做為語用行為之闡釋。本論文取材自電視男女配對節目中的告白，以「探求同意(soliciting an agreement)」作為一個語用位(pragmeme)，所謂「探求同意」意指告白者試探並徵求聽者的同意，並視告白橋段為一個交談事件(speech event)，相親節目作為一個交談社群(speech community)，告白者在交談事件中使用適切語言行為(situated speech act)，組織一個完整的探求同意語用行為，進而建立關係、打動並說服聽者。研究結果顯示，「探求同意」此語用行為是由表現(expressive)、斷定(assertive)、約束(commisive)、指示(directive)這些適切語言行為所組成。再者，加上與曾(2010a)的混合語言行為(blended act)和Mey(2001)的後設語用重複(metaprgmatic repetition)和指稱(indexicality)這三個文本元素(textual element)的交互作用，一方面呈現出語用行為的語氣(voice)：連結(associating)、協商(negotiating)、匹配(matching)、自我推薦(self-promoting)、說服(persuading)。另一方面也投射出告白者的自我身分(projective acts of identity)，希望能被聽者甚至社會所認同。論文更進一步發現男女在探求同意的語用行為呈現三種差異，皆與中國社會的規範有關。第一，在讚美方面，男與女性的外貌、性格皆受到較多讚美，但兩者明顯較少接受到關於能力方面的稱讚。第二、在自我身分呈現，男性比較傾向於展現自我能力及其社會地位;而女性則是傾向於展現自我性格特質。第三、在承諾方面，男性傾向於表現自己能成為可靠的男性;女性則傾向於表現自己能成為包容並支持對方的另一半。綜合以上研究結果顯示，告白者選擇適切的語言行為時，不只受到交談事件的侷限，社會更是影響告白者語言的使用及個人身份的呈現。

Previous studies of what one can do with words have focused on the speech acts and their performative verbs. However, most speech acts are implicit and their illocutionary acts are not expressed by verbs. In response to this, this study adopts the view that context plays a crucial role in determining the pragmatic force. Hence, the present study focuses on the notion of pragmatic acts. It adopts Mey’s (2001) pragmatic act theory and Coupland’s (2007) projective acts of identity as the theoretical foundation and Tseng’s (2010a) performative chain as the illustration of the pragmatic act. Thus study uses examples from two Chinese love matching TV shows. In this study, soliciting an agreement is considered as a pragmeme (i.e. a generalized speech act), love proposal events as a speech event, and a love matching show as a speech community. Speakers use situated speech acts in the love proposal event to constitute an overall pragmatic act of soliciting an agreement and further to establish a relationship, to move, and to persuade the hearer. The results show that the pragmatic act of soliciting an agreement was composed of the situated speech acts of expressive, assertive, commisive, and directive. In addition, they are in interplay with blended acts (Tseng, 2010a) and metapragmatic repetition and indexicality (Mey, 2001) of the textual part of a pragmeme. On the one hand, this interplay reveals voices such as associating, negotiating, matching, self-promoting, and persuading. On the other hand, it reflects the speakers’ projective acts of identity, in which they want to be recognized by the hearer and even the society. And it further discloses the gender differences in the uses of their pragmatic act of soliciting an agreement—differences influenced by the Chinese society. First, among compliments to men and women, their appearance and personality were evenly praised. Nevertheless, both of them were less complimented for their ability. Second, while making a projective act of identity, men tended to show their ability and social status. Nevertheless, women tended to perform their personal traits. Third, when making a promise, men tended to present themselves as ones who would be reliable men for the women; women tended to show that they would be tolerant and supportive to their men. As the results, speakers who chose such situated speech acts as compliment, projective acts of identity, promise were not merely restricted by the speech event; the society also influences the speakers’ language use and their projective acts of identity.

Acknowledgement...........................................................................................................ii
摘要.................................................................................................................................iv
Abstract..........................................................................................................................vi
List of Figures................................................................................................................xi
List of Tables.................................................................................................................xii
Chapter 1 Introduction..................................................................................................1
1. 1 Background and motivation...................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose of the study...............................................................................................4
1.3 Overview................................................................................................................6
Chapter 2 Literature Review.........................................................................................7
2.1 Speech acts, situated speech acts and speech event................................................7
2.1.1 Speech acts and indirect speech acts...............................................................8
2.1.2 Speech acts reconsidered: situated speech acts..............................................11
2.1.3 Situated speech acts and speech events.........................................................13
2.2 Pragmatic acts and pragmemes.............................................................................14
2.2.1 Pragmatic act theory......................................................................................15
2.2.2 Approach of interpreting a pragmeme...........................................................18

2.2.3 The interaction between the two parts of a pragmeme..................................20
2.3 Why soliciting an agreement as a pragmatic act?.................................................26
Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework.............................................................................32
3.1 Situated speech acts and pragmatic force.............................................................32
3.2 The acts of identity and projective acts of identity...............................................35
3.3 Blended act...........................................................................................................39
3.4 Metapragmatic jokers and metapragmatic repetition...........................................42
3.5 Voice.....................................................................................................................43
3.6 Defining the pragmatic act of soliciting an agreement.........................................45
Chapter 4 Research data and Data Analysis..............................................................49
4.1 Research data........................................................................................................49
4.1.1 The reasons for adopting the two Chinese love matching TV shows............49
4.1.2 Data collection and rationale.........................................................................50
4.1.3 Data transcription..........................................................................................51
4.1.4 Research frame work and data analysis methods..........................................52
4.2 Data analyses........................................................................................................53
4.2.1 The pragmeme, pract and allopract: to illustrate the pragmatic force...........54
4.2.2 The pragmatic act of soliciting an agreement: situated speech acts..............56

4.2.2.1 Direcitves................................................................................................58
4.2.2.2 Expressives.............................................................................................60
4.2.2.3 Assertives................................................................................................62
4.2.2.4 Commissives...........................................................................................64
4.2.2.5 The overview of situated speech acts.....................................................66
4.2.3 The contextual elements and voicing of pragmatic acts ................................69
4.2.4 Projective act of identity and voicing of pragmatic acts...............................74
Chapter 5 Further Discussion......................................................................................85
5.1 Pragmatic act as social empowerment: the issue of gender and society..............85
5.1.1 Pragmatic acts in relation to gender..............................................................86
5.1.1.1 Compliments in relation to gender.........................................................87
5.1.1.2 Projective acts of identity in relation to gender......................................91
5.1.1.3 Promises in relation to gender................................................................93
5.1.1.4 A pragmatic act view of gender in Chinese society................................95
Chapter 6 Conclusion...................................................................................................99
6.1 A summary of the main findings...........................................................................99
6.2 Limitations and suggestions for further studies..................................................100
References....................................................................................................................102

Allan, K. (2010). Referring as a pragmatic act. Journal of pragmatics, 42(11), 2919-2931.
Attané, I. (2012). Being a woman in China today: A demography of gender. China perspectives, Dec, 2012, 5-15.
Atkinson, M. A., Cuff, E. C., Lee, J. R., (1978). The recommencement of a meeting as a members’ accomplishment. In: J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 133-153). New York: Academic Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do thing with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bach, K & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Bakhtin, M. (1986/1994). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, C, Emerson, M, Holquist (eds), V. W. McGee trans,. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bamberg & Michael, G.W. (1997). Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1-4), 335-342.
Bauman, R. and Sherzer, J. (eds) (1974). Explorations in the ethnography of communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blackwell, S.E. (2010). Evaluation as a pragmatic act in Spanish film narratives. Journal of Pragmatics. 42 (11), 2945-2963.
Bulum-Kulka, S & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns CCSARP. Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.
Capone, A. (2005). Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1355-1371.
Cheng, Ye, & Zhang. (1995). Refusing in Chinese. In Gabriel Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language (pp. 119-163). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dummnett, M. (Ed.) (2003). Mood, force and convention. The seas of language (pp. 202-223). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ehrlich, E., Flexner, S.B., & Hawkins, J.M. (1980). Oxford American Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goffiman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gumperz, J. (1977). Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. In M. Savillle-Troike (Ed.). Linguistic and anthropology (pp.191-211). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Holmes, J. (1986). Compliments and compliment response in New Zealand English. Anthropological Linguistics, 28, 485-508.
Holmes, J. (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential positive politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 445-465.
Hornby, A. S. (1995). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. 5th edition edited by J. Crowther. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D. H. (1972) 'Models of the interaction of language and social life', in J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds) Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. pp. 35-71.
Hymes, D. H. (1974) Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2005). Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2009). Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as Modality. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Johnstone, B. (1994). Repetition in Discourse: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. vols. I and II. Ablex, Norwood.
Kirkpatrick, A. (1991). Information sequencing in Mandarin in letters of request. Anthropological Linguistics, 33(2), 1-20.
La Page, R. B. & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S.C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17(5-6), 365-399.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). .Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mey, J. L. (2000). When voices clash: A study in literary pragmatics. Berlin & New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell publishers.
Mey, J. L. (2006). Pragmatic acts. In: E. K. Brown (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd ed.). (p. 5-11). Boston: Elsevier.
Mey, J. L. (2010). Reference and the pragmeme. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2882-2888.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. & Jefferson,G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organisation of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language 50, 696-735.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay on the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics & Philosophy, 25, 701-721
Tseng, M. –Y. (2010a). The pragmatic act of fishing for personal details: from choice to performance. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(7), 1982-1996.
Tseng, M. –Y. (2010b). Analyzing the discourse of job-application videos: Performance and relevance. Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 30(5), 571-589.
Verschueren, J. (1979). What people say they do with words. (Doctorial dissertation). Berkeley, Calif. The university of California, Los Angeles.
Wolfson, N. (1983). An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Ed.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 82-95). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Yang, Jia. (2008). How to say ‘no’ in Chinese: A pragmatic study of refusal strategies in five TV series. Proceding of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linugistics, 2, 1041-1058. Columbus: The Ohio State University.