網路問卷已成為今日行銷的方式之一，然而今日線上的傳統型問卷只能間接地探知填答者的背景和想法，透過問卷做引導行銷的技術仍顯不足。本文旨在改良傳統型問卷所缺乏的「互動性」與「引導性」，藉由Web 2.0的互動功能，加上問句的語用功能(pragmatic function)，發展出一套具有互動性的引導型問卷。
問句設計以合作原則(Cooperative Principle)為基本準則，透過孔子、孟子、蘇格拉底、禪宗、教師、推銷員與其聽者的對話做言談分析(discourse analysis)，釐清其使用問句的語用功能、預設(presupposition)與問句順序(question sequence)。
研究結果發現，預設中的議題(agenda)和認知立場(epistemic stance)，皆會影響問句順序。議題廣的問句可作為對話的起頭，來獲取聽話者較多的資訊，議題窄的問句則可作為對話的總結。認知立場則決定問句的疑問程度，立場愈強，疑問程度則愈低。而議題和認知立場二者之間又互為相關，認知立場愈強的問句，議題廣度亦較窄，給予聽話者的選擇較少，壓迫性也較大。因此社會地位較聽話者高 (例如：孔子、禪宗)的引導者，較常使用認知立場強的問句來直接給予引導，反之亦然。
在引導的過程中，說話者常利用縮小議題來做為提示策略，並逐漸強化其認知立場來宣揚理念。另外，相較於孔子、孟子、蘇格拉底、禪宗、教師與聽話者之間僅為知識的傳遞，推銷員和顧客之間，更存在買賣上的利害關係。因此，除了須搭配不同語用功能的問句，在消費者的購買時的心理歷程上，更需以禮貌原則來減輕買賣時對消費者所造成心理壓力。
然而，問卷的引導性需要量化的數據來顯示成效。因此，本研究以「肌膚檢測」為主題，將引導型問卷應用在商品推薦的情境上，與現今網路的傳統型問卷，在二項指標「肌膚問題的自覺性」和「商品推薦的接受性」做比較。從二份問卷中皆發現，「肌膚問題的自覺性」可以提升填答者對「商品推薦的接受性」。而在二項問卷的比較上，引導型問卷比傳統型問卷在整體上更能提升填答者在「肌膚問題的自覺性」。再者，除了女性之外，引導型問卷在指標「商品推薦的接受性」與傳統型問卷並無顯著差異，不過，在引導型問卷中，女性在此指標上比男性高，有保養習慣者亦比無保養習慣者高，住都會者也比住鄉村者高，且都有顯著差異，代表這些族群較容易因引導型問卷的引導而趨向接受商品。
因此，和傳統型問卷相比，引導型問卷不但在整體上能有效提升填答者對肌膚問題的自覺性，在商品推薦上更能區分出不同族群的差異(例如：對女性、有保養習慣者、住都會區者更為有效)，此可做為未來引導型問卷在行銷上的參考方向。

Online questionnaires are a common way of marketing. However, most online questionnaires just indirectly gatherinformation.This research aims at improving the lack of interactivity and inductiveness in suchtraditionalquestionnaires. With the use of Web 2.0 technology and inductiveness based onintegrating the pragmatic functions of questions, an inductive questionnaire is thus developed.

Question design is based on the Cooperative Principle. Analyzing the forms of discourse used by Confucius, Mencius, Socrates, Zen masters, teachers, and salespeople, the pragmatic functions of questions, presuppositions, and question sequence are clarified, and then applied in this work.

The resultsshow that the agenda and epistemic stance of presuppositions influence question sequence. Questions with a broad agenda can initiate a conversation, while questions with narrow onecan be placed at the end of conversation as a conclusion. Epistemic stance decides the degree of doubt. Questions with a stronger epistemic stance have a lower degree of doubt. Moreover, agenda and epistemic stance are interrelated. Questions with a strong epistemic stance also have narrow agenda. Such questions give fewer choices for addressees, and thus havemore imposition. Therefore, inductors with higher social status, such as Confucius and Zen masters, often use questions with a strong epistemic stance to give direct inductions.

In the process of induction, the inductors often narrow the agenda as a hinting strategy, and gradually strengthen the epistemic stance to promotetheir ideas. Besides being information propagators like Confucius, Mencius, Socrates, Zen masters, and teachers, salespeople also need to make a bargain with customers. Thus, questions with different pragmatic functions should be integrated into consumer adoption process. In addition, the Politeness Principle is also used to reduce the imposition inherent in such forms of marketing.

However, the inductiveness of questionnaire needs to be examined based on statistical data. Thus, based on the topic of a skin test, we compare the inductive questionnaire with atraditional online questionnairewith regard to the two main indexes of“awareness of skinproblems” and “acceptance ofproduct recommendations.” Both questionnaires show that greater “awareness of skinproblems” can effectively increase “acceptance ofproduct recommendations.”
Moreover, the inductive questionnaire can more effectively raise“awareness of skin problems” than the traditional questionnaire, and the difference between them is significant. Except for females, the inductive and the traditional questionnaires have no significant differences with regard to“acceptance of product recommendations.” However, in the inductive questionnaire, females are more likely to accept product recommendations than males. People with skin care habits are also more likely to accept product recommendations than people without skin care habits. In addition, people living in urban areas are more likely to accept product recommendations than people living in rural areas. The results show that the inductive questionnaire can generally raise the“awareness of skin problems” and increase “acceptance of product recommendations” of specific groups which are more interested in the focal issue.These results can be referenced by future researchers and marketers who aim to develop inductive questionnaires.

Adler, Ronald B., and George Rodman. 2003. Understanding Human Communication. 8 ed. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
Brace, Ian. 2004. Questionnaire design : how to plan, structure and write survey material for effective market research. London ; Sterling, VA: Kogan Page.
Brazil, D. 1984. Tag questions. Ilha do Desterro A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies 5.11:28-44.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987a. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1987b. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Studies in interactional sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Browne, M. Neil, and Stuart M. Keeley. 2012. Asking the right questions: a guide to critical thinking. Boston: Pearson.
Buchanan, Tom, Tarick Ali, Thomas M. Heffernan, Jonathan Ling, Andrew C. Parrott, Jacqui Rodgers, and Andrew B. Scholey. 2005. Nonequivalence of on-line and paper-and-pencil psychological tests: The case of the prospective memory questionnaire. Behavior Research Methods 37.1:148-154.
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage. 2002. The news interview : journalists and public figures on the air, Studies in interactional sociolinguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coulthard, M. 1981. Developing the description. in Coulthard and Montgomery (eds.) 1981.
Cruse, D. Alan. 2011. Meaning in language : an introduction to semantics and pragmatics, Oxford textbooks in linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dachengxinzai, and Xiang-ping Li. 2004. Xujie Zhexue Rumen, Youqu de Xiyang Zhexue 圖解哲學入門 : 有趣的西洋哲學 (Introduction to illustrated philosophy: Interesting western philosophy). Taipei: jiu jing 究竟.
Deutskens, Elisabeth, Ad de Jong, Ko de Ruyter, and Martin Wetzels. 2006. Comparing the Generalizability of Online and Mail Surveys in Cross-National Service Quality Research. Marketing Letters 17.2:119-136.
Ekman, Alexandra, Paul W. Dickman, Åsa Klint, Elisabete Weiderpass, and Jan-EricLitton. 2006. Feasibility of Using Web-Based Questionnaires in Large Population-Based EpidemiologicalStudies. European Journal of Epidemiology 21.2:103-111.
Fan, Xiao 范曉. 1998. Hanyu de Juzi Leixing 漢語的句子類型 (mandarin sentence patterns). Taiyuan city 太原市: Shu hai 書海.
Feng, Xiao-tian 風笑天. 2001. Shehui Diaocha Zhong de Wenjuan Sheji 社會調查中的問卷設計 (Questionnaire designing in social researches). Tianjin city: Tianjin Renmin 天津人民.
Freese, Thomas A. 2000. Secrets of question based selling : how the most powerful tool in business can double your sales results. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
Fu, Da-wei 符達維. 1989. Buyi kuoda fanwenju de fanwei 不宜擴大反問句的範圍 (It is inappropriate to broaden the range of rhetorical questions). Zhongguo yuwen tiandi 中國語文天地 6.
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. Edited by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan. Vol. 3, Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press.
Hepburn, Alex, and Jonathan Potter. 2009. Interrogating Tears: Some Uses Of "Tag Questions" In A Child Protection Helpline. Edited by Alice Freed and Susan Ehrlich, Why Do You Ask: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk in action : interactions, identities, and institutions, Language in society. Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell.
Heritage, John, and Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2006. The structure of patients' presenting concerns: physicians' opening questions. Health Communication 19.2:89-102.
Huang, Han-Sheng 黃漢聲. 1981. Xiandai hanyu yufa xiuci 現代漢語語法修辭(Grammar and rhetoric in Contemporary Mandarin Chinese ). Beijing: Shumu wenxian publisher.
Huang, Zhe-han 黃哲翰. 2007. Tujie Xila Sanzhe 圖解希臘三哲 (Illustrated three Greek philosophers). Taipei: Easybooks Publications.
Hudson, Richard A. 1975. The Meaning of Questions. Language 51.1:1-31.
Jakob, Nielsen, and Pernice Kara. 2010. Eyetracking web usability. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
Jiang, lan-sheng, Cui-Zhen Li, and Pei-Yao Zhang. 1998. 100 excerpts from Zen Buddhist texts, 100 excerpts from Zen Buddhist texts. Taipei: Taiwan Commercial Press.
Jiang, Xun-jian 江訓兼. 1973. One hundred lessons for marketing 推銷百課, Economic times series 4. Taipei: economic times publisher.
Jiujinglong, 酒井隆. 2004. Wenjuan Sheji Shichang Diaocha yu Tongji Fenxi Shiwu Rumen 問卷設計.市場調查與統計分析實務入門 (Questionnaire designing: Introduction to market investigation and statistical analyses). Translated by Hong-yan Lai 賴虹燕. Sijhih Dist, New Taipei City: DrSmart Press.
Koshik, Irene. 2009. Questions that Convey Information in Teacher-Student Conferences. Edited by Alice Freed and Susan Ehrlich, Why Do You Ask: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, ching-wei. 2007. The study of science discourse that the teacher guided the students to proceed when teaching science inquiry, Graduate Institute of Mathematics and Science Education, National Pingtung University of Education, Pingtung city.
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics, Longman linguistics library. London: Longman.
Legge, James. 1893. Confucian analects, The great learning, and The doctrine of the mean. The works of Mencius, The Chinese classics : with a translation, critical and exegetical notes, prolegomena, and copious indexes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics(Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese : a functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mishler, Elliot G. 1975. Studies in Dialogue and Discourse: An Exponential Law of Successive Questioning. Language in Society 4.1:31-51.
Payne, Stanley L. 1951. The art of asking questions. Oxford, England: Princeton University Press.
Peterson, Robert A. 2000. Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Plato. 1997. Complete works/Plato. Edited by John M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 2010. A Comprehensive grammar of the English language. Edited by David Crystal. New York: Longman.
Randolph, Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding. American Sociological Review 68.6:939-967.
Rogers, Everett M. 1983. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Shao, Jing-min 邵敬敏. 1996. Xiandai Hanyu Yiwenju Yanjiu 現代漢語疑問句研究 (Research on contemporary mandarin questions). Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.
Sidnell, Jack. 2009. The Design and Positioning of Questions in Inquiry Testimony. Edited by Alice Freed and Susan Ehrlich, Why Do You Ask: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, Markku Haakana, Tuukka Tammi, and Anssi Peräkylä. 2006. Edited by John Heritage and Douglas W. Maynard, Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Speer, Susan A. 2009. Pursuing Views and Testing Commitments: Hypothetical Questions in the Psychiatric Assessment of Transsexual Patients. Edited by Alice Freed and Susan Ehrlich, Why Do You Ask: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taitianlongshu. 2011. shuo hua you zi xin, lao ban peng you dou ting ni, yi bai ge rangni bei zhu guan zan shang, peng you xin ren, ke hu mai dan de shuo hua ji qiao. (說話有自信，老闆、朋友都挺你：100個讓你被主管讚賞、朋友信任、客戶買單的說話技巧)(With confident speaking, your boss and friend are both on your side. One hundred speaking skills help you be praised by managers, trusted by friends and finally get orders. ). Translated by Yun-xin 游韻馨 You. Taipei: cai shi wen hua 采實文化.
Topp, Neal W., and Bob Pawloski. 2002. Online Data Collection. Journal of Science Education and Technology 11.2:173-178.
Tsui, Amy B. M. 1994. English conversation. Edited by John Sinclair and Ronald Carter, Describing English language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 1995. Introducing classroom interaction. London: Penguin English.
Wang, Li 王力. 1985. Zhongguo xiandai yufa 中國現代語法 (Chinese contemporary grammar). Beijing: shangwu yinshuguan.
Watase, Ken. 2011. san ge wen ti rang ta/ta shuo chu zhen xin hua, zhe yang jing ying ren ji guan xi, peng you bian ma ji, ke hu bian zhi ji 三個問題，讓她/他說出真心話：這樣經營人際關係，朋友變麻吉、客戶變知己！(Three questions make him/her say sincere words. Such relationship management makes friends become buddies and makes clients become bosom friend ). Taipei: da le wen hua 大樂文化.
Xu, Jie, and Lin-lin Zhang. 1985. Yiwen Chengdu han Yiwen Jushi 疑問程度和疑問句式 (The degree of doubtfulness and question patterns). Journal of Jiangxi Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 2.71 - 79.
Zhang, Mei-lan. 1998. Chanzong Yuyan Gailun 禪宗語言概論 (Introduction to Zen Buddhists' language). Taipei: Wu-Nan Book.
Zhang, Ping, Gisela M. von Dran, Paul Blake, and Veerapong Pipithsuksunt. 2001. Important Design Features in Different Web Site Domains: An Empirical Study of User. Perceptions e-Service Journal 1.1:77-91.
Zhang, Xiu-qin. 2003. Teacher's Questions as Feedback in an English Oral Test. General education eng, National Hualien Teachers College 1:197-225.
Zhou, Jia-fa周家發. 2010. Hanyu Yiwenju de Tiji Tuili 漢語疑問句的梯級推理 (Step inference of mandarin questions). In China's 13th International Conference on Contemporary Linguistics. Shanghai: East China Normal University.
Zhu, Xiao-ya 朱曉亞. 2001. Studies on Semantic Structure Patterns of Sentences in Modern Chinese. Beijing: Beijing University.