近年來網絡溝通越來越普遍，與異國人士溝通也越來越方便。然而，即使對話者使用相同的語言，仍然必須了解對方文化圈的溝通模式，才能進行成功的溝通。目前已有不少研究指出美國以及東方文化之差別；主要發現為東方文化較多透過人際關係定義自我、較多執行合作性的行為、且傾向使用較為間接的溝通模式（Ma, 1996；Gao, 1998；Chang, 1999；Yang, 2009；許，1985；楊，1995）；而美國文化透過個體的特徵定義自我，且使用較為直接的溝通模式（Yu, 2005；Markus與Kitayama, 1991；Kanagawa, Cross與Markus，2001）。然而，許多研究依靠問卷以及其他非自然語料，且較少分析閒聊的溝通習慣。本研究目的為彌補此缺失，以來自社交網站臉書之語料分析台灣人以及美國人的溝通文化之異同。
筆者收集到133個台灣以及美國臉書使用者的近況更新以及針對更新之回應當語料，將近況更新及回應分類統計，再分析兩組數據所透露的文化異同。研究結果發現，台灣組以及美國組數據大致相似，僅有美國組較多針對社會議題發表意見、較多提出自己生活之正面事件以及自己的動作；而台灣組較多討論自己的生活哲理、生活中之負面事件以及自己遇到的事件。在兩組更新收到的回應中，發表意見的回應比其他類型多，但美國組收到的比例比台灣組更多，且台灣組收到較多表示親近感的回應。此結果顯示，美國人比台灣人願意忍受積極顏面威脅，但兩組對消極顏面威脅的容忍度無明顯差異。另外，兩組皆出現相似的間接性及合作性傾向。
在教學應用部分，本文提供一項粗略的教案，使用討論、觀察以及練習的方法，提高華語學習者對台灣溝通文化的意識，並讓學習者更理解如何在台灣社會中進行恰當、禮貌的人際溝通。

Online communication has made it far easier for people from different countries to communicate. However, for cross-cultural communication to be successful, interlocutors must have adequate cultural knowledge in addition to being able to speak the same language. Many studies have already compared the cultural differences between Westerners and East Asians, and most of these have found that East Asian cultures are more indirect, more cooperative and define self through relationships (Ma, 1996; Gao, 1998; Chang, 1999; Yang, 2009; Xu, 1985; Yang, 1995), while Western cultures are more direct and define self through innate characteristics (Yu, 2005; Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Kanagawa, Cross and Markus, 2001). However, this research frequently does not use naturally occurring language, and rarely focuses on casual conversation.
This study aims to use data collected from the social network website Facebook to analyze the differences between how Taiwanese and Americans conduct casual conversation. The author collected status updates and responses to those updates from the Facebook webpages of 133 Taiwanese and Americans. The updates and comments were sorted according to topic and the gaps between the two groups were analyzed to determine the differences between the two cultures they implied. The results show that Taiwanese and American communication on Facebook is similar overall, though Americans post more opinions about social issues, more positive updates about their lives, and more updates about their actions. Taiwanese post more philosophical updates, more updates about negative events in their lives and more updates about things that happened to them. Both groups’ comments expressed agreeing opinions more than any other behavior, but Americans tended to express more opinions while Taiwanese expressed more positive feelings about the poster. These results show that Americans have a higher tolerance for positive face threats than Taiwanese, but both groups have a similar tolerance for negative face threats. Both groups also show a similar tendency to be cooperative and indirect.
Finally, the author critiqued the presentation of casual Chinese-language conversation in three popular Chinese textbooks, and provided an outline for a lesson plan that uses brainstorming, exposing students to target language input and discussion to raise students’ awareness of cultural differences.

英文書目
1. Baek, K., Holton, A., Harp, D., & Yaschur, C. (2011). The links that bind: Uncovering novel motivations for linking on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2243-2248.
2. Baresch, B., Knight, L., Harp, D., & Yaschur, C. (2011, April). Friends who choose your news: An analysis of content links on Facebook. Paper presented at the 12th International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX. Retrieved May 30, 2013, from https://online.journalism.utexas.edu/2011/papers/Baresch2011.pdf
3. Barker, V., & Ota, H. (2011). Mixi diary versus Facebook photos: Social networking site use among Japanese and Caucasian American females. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 40(1), 39-63.
4. Bazarova, N. N., Taft, J. G., Choi, Y. H., & Cosley, D. (2012). Managing impressions and relationships on Facebook: Self-presentational and relational concerns revealed through the analysis of language style. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(2), 121-141.
5. Bouvier, G. (2012). How Facebook users select identity categories for self-presentation. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 7(1), 37-57.
6. Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44-58.
7. Boyd, B. (2006). The dotcomrade: The many faces of online friendship. The New Atlantis, 14, 124-126.
8. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
9. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
10. Carr, C. T., Schrock, D. B., & Dauterman, P. (2012). Speech acts within Facebook status messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(2), 176-196.
11. Chang, H.-C. (1999). The ‘well-defined’ is ‘ambiguous’- Indeterminacy in Chinese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 535-556.
12. Chen, Y.-S. (2006). EFL learners’ strategy use and instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics: The case of complaints. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei. Retrieved from http://ir.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/ir/handle/309250000Q/81429?locale=en-US
13. Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2010). Who interacts on the Web? The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 247-253.
14. DeAndrea, D. C., Allison S. S., & Levine, T. R. (2010). Online language: The role of culture in self-expression and self-construal on Facebook. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(4), 425-442.
15. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:" social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
16. Fernández, I., Páez, D., & González, J. L. (2005). Independent and interdependent self-construals and socio-cultural factors in 29 nations [Special issue]. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 18, 35-63.
17. Fukushima, S. (1990). Offers and requests: Performance by Japanese learners of English. World Englishes, 9, 317-325.
18. Gao, G. (1998). “Don’t take my word for it”: Understanding Chinese speaking practices. International Journal of Intercultural Communication, 22(2), 163-186.
19. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. New York, NY: Academic Press.
20. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psycological Review, 106(4), 766-794.
21. Hsieh, S.-C. (2009). (Im)politeness in email communication: how English speakers and Chinese speakers negotiate meanings and develop intercultural (mis)understandings. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
22. Hsu, F. L. K. (許烺光) (1985) The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G. De Vos, & F. L. K. Hsu (許烺光) (Eds.), Culture and Self: Asian and Western perspectives (pp. 24-55). New York, NY: Tavistock Publications.
23. Kanagawa, C., & Cross, S. E., Markus, H. R. (2001) “Who am I” The cultural psychology of the conceptual self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(1), 90-103.
24. Kasper, G. (1984). Pragmatic comprehension in learner-native speaker discourse. Language Learning, 34, 1-20.
25. Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
26. Katriel, T., & Philipson, G. (1981). “What we need is communication”: “Communication” as a cultural category in some American speech. Communication Monographs, 48(4), 301-317.
27. Kim, K.-H., & Yun, H. (2007). Cying for me, cying for us: Relational dialectics in a Korean social network site. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 298-318.
28. Kubler, C. C. (Ed.). (2006). NFLC Guide for Basic Chinese Language Programs. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University National East Asian Foreign Languages Resource Center.
29. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York, NY: Longman.
30. Li, H. Z. (2002). Culture, gender and self: close-other(s) connectedness in Canadian and Chinese sample. European Journal of Social Psycology, 32, 93-104.
31. Qiu, L., Lin, H., & Leung, A. (2013). Cultural differences and switching of in-group sharing behavior between an American (Facebook) and a Chinese (Renren) social networking site. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 106-121.
32. Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy, and self-expression. New Media and Society, 10(3), 393-411.
33. Lu, L. (陸洛), Gilmour, R., & Kao, S.-F. (高旭繁) (2003). Culture-based self-regulated ways to achieve SWB: A pan-cultural analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the CPA.
34. Ma, R. (1996). Saying "yes" for "no" and "no" for "yes": A Chinese rule. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 257-266.
35. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psycological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
36. Mishra, R. C. (1994). Individualist and collectivist orientations across generations. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and application (pp. 225-238). London: Sage.
37. Nguyen, T. T. M. (2011). Learning to communicate in a globalized world: To what extent do school textbooks facilitate the development of intercultural pragmatic competence? RELC Journal, 42(1), 17-30.
38. Rose, K., & Kwai-fun, C. (2001). Inductive and inductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In G. Kasper & K. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 145-180). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39. Sampson, E. E. (1989). The challenge of social change for psychology: Globalization and psychology’s theory of the person. American Psychologist, 44, 914-921.
40. Tanaka, N. (1988). Politeness: Some problems for Japanese speakers of English. JALT Journal, 9, 81-102.
41. Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In G. Kasper & K. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200-222). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42. Tatsuki, D. H., & Houck, N. R. (2010). Pragmatics from research to practice: Teaching speech acts. In D. H. Tatsuki & N. R. Houck (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts (pp. 1-6). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
43. Todd, R. W. (2011). Analyzing discourse topics and topic keywords. Semiotica, 184(1), 251-270.
44. Yang, K.-S. (楊國樞) (1996). Psychological transformation of the Chinese people as a result of societal modernization. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 479-498). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
45. Yang, K.-S. (楊國樞) (1995). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In W. S. Tseng (曾文星), T. Y. Lin (林宗義), & Y. K. Yeh (葉英) (Eds.), Chinese societies and mental health (pp. 19-39). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
46. Yang, R.-R. (2009). Other-repair in Chinese conversation: A case of web-based academic discussion. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(3), 315-343.
47. Yu, M.-C. (2005). Sociolinguistic competence in the complimenting act of native Chinese and American English speakers: A mirror of cultural value. Language and Speech, 48(1), 91-119.
48. Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816-1836.
中文書目
1. 范懿文、方毓賢、吳政杰、劉昌輝（2011）。虛擬社群持續參與因素之探討。電子商務學報，13(2)，413-434。
2. 陸洛（民92）。人我關係之界定—折衷自我的現身。本土心理學研究，20，139-207。
3. 黃光國（民84）。儒家價值觀的現代轉化：理論分析與實徵研究。本土心理學研究，3，276-338。
4. 蔣昕（民國99）。臉書上的一張臉譜：社交網站上的劃界與展演（未出版之碩士論文）。國立清華大學社會學研究所，新竹。