顺应论视角下英语政治语篇中的模糊语语用研究
|
摘要
准确与清晰一般被认为语言的基本特点。然而,模糊性也是语言的一种内在属性,模糊语言广泛地存在于自然语言中,模糊语是人类语言中不可或缺的组成部分,它是语言交际中的普遍现象。国内外许多学者从不同角度对模糊理论运用于各种文体进行了广泛的研究,取得了许多成果,但这些对模糊语的语用研究,大多是运用Grice的合作原则、Leech的礼貌原则或Wilson的关联原则来分析模糊语,而从Verschueren的顺应论角度来研究模糊语的则很少,基于这一理论研究英语政治语篇中的模糊语的则更少。政治语言作为最古老的语言形式之一,是表达某种政治诉求的特殊方式,无论在外交还是在社会文化和意识形态中都起着举足轻重的作用。而模糊语言的运用使得政治语言更具有灵活性,从而达到政治家的特定政治目的。因此模糊语被认为是政治语篇中广泛运用的一种交际策略。
本文从语用学的顺应理论出发,对模糊语产生的根源及其在英语政治语篇中的功能进行尝试性分析,论述了语用模糊在政治语篇中的独特效用以及语用模糊是如何通过语境和结构上的顺应得以实现的。
本文共分为五章。第一章引言部分介绍了本研究的研究意义和目的以及本文的组织结构。
第二章是文献综述。首先,对模糊语言进行总体描述。陈述了模糊语言存在的原因,是客观原因和主观原因共同作用的结果。接着从语义、认知和语用等角度介绍了国内外一些学者对于模糊语的定义。对于模糊语的分类,本文采取Prince等人提出的二分法。其次,对一些诸如fuzziness, generality和ambiguity的相关概念进行区别,并指出本文对于模糊语的界定,即包含模糊限制语在内的所有不精确、不确定的语言。再次,对本文的研究领域,即政治语篇中的模糊语,进行探讨。最后,回顾了国内外对于模糊语的研究。
第三章是本研究的理论框架：即维索尔伦提出的语言顺应理论。本章主要介绍了顺应论产生的根源及其发展过程。该理论认为语言的使用是在对交际策略和语言形式不断选择的过程,这是因为语言具有变异性、协商性和顺应性。语言的变异性是指能为语言选择提供可能性,商讨性是指语言形式选择的灵活性和策略性,顺应性是顺应论的核心,指语言使用者可做灵活变通,从而更好地满足交际需要。顺应论主要从语境关系的顺应、语言结构的顺应、顺应的动态性和顺应过程的意识程度这四个方面来描述和解释语言的使用。
第四章是本文的主体部分,主要运用顺应理论对英语政治语篇中的语用模糊现象进行了分析探讨。本章首先提出了文章的研究方法,然后以Channell对模糊语的语用功能分类为基础,探讨了政治语篇中模糊语的主要作用,即和谐礼貌的作用、避免承担责任、实现自我保护和采取灵活多变的策略等。其次,阐释了英语政治语篇中的模糊性可以从词汇、句法和语篇等语言结构层面上实现。最后,通过对丰富的案例分析,总结出政治语篇中模糊语言的使用正是对语言不断做出选择的结果,该选择顺应了语言使用者的心智世界、社交世界和物理世界。
第五章总结了本文的主要研究结果及实际意义,并指出文章中存在的不足,并对今后的相关研究提出建议。
本文旨在帮助人们更好地认识英语政治语篇中的模糊语用现象,并在交际中正确使用模糊语言,达到和谐的交际效果。同时希望更好的揭示顺应论对各种文体中语言使用的解释力。
It is generally accepted that the distinct characteristics of language are precision and clearness. However, vagueness is an intrinsic feature of natural language and an indispensable part of human languages. It is an extremely pervasive phenomenon in language communication. Many scholars both at home and abroad have studied the vagueness application to various styles from a variety of perspectives and made great achievements. However, the pragmatic studies of vague language are mainly conducted with the help of Grice's Cooperative Principle, Leech's Politeness Principle or Wilson's Relative Principle. The research on vague language from the perspective of Verschueren's Adaptation Theory is quite limited so far, even more limited on vague language in English political discourse. Being one of the oldest language forms, political language is a special way of expressing subtle political needs, which plays an important role not only in diplomacy, but also in social culture and ideology. And the employment of vagueness makes the political language more flexible and easier to achieve the politicians'political purposes. Therefore, vagueness is considered as a communicative strategy employed in political discourse, which is expected to achieve communicative needs.
This thesis attempts to make a tentative analysis of motives as well as the functions of the employment of vague language with Linguistic Adaptation Theory as the theoretical framework with the aims to explore how pragmatic vagueness in political discourse is realized through linguistic context and through structural objects of adaptation as well as how the adaptation to pragmatic vagueness affect political discourse.
The thesis consists of five chapters, including introduction and conclusion. The Introduction presents a general picture of the current study, including the need for and the objective of the study as well as the organization of the thesis. Chapter Two reviews the related literature. Firstly, a general view of vague language is given. The author states the reasons why vague language exists. There are objective and subjective reasons. And then some well-known definitions of vague language at home and abroad are introduced from semantic, cognitive and pragmatic aspects. As for the classification of vague language, Prince et al's taxonomy of hedges is adopted in the study. Secondly, some related confusing terms such as fuzziness, generality and ambiguity are distinguished because they are similar in conveying imprecise information. The author then points out the treatment of the term "vagueness" in this thesis, namely vagueness and hedges will be employed interchangeably, which encompass all kinds of imprecise meanings and uncertainty. Thirdly, vague language in political discourse, the focus of the study, is discussed. Finally, the previous researches on vague language abroad and at home are examined.
Chapter Three proposes the theoretical framework of the present study: Verschueren's Linguistic Adaptation Theory, which is introduced systematically in this thesis. In Verschueren's Linguistic Adaptation Theory, language use is continuous making of linguistic choices, i.e. the choices of communicative strategies and linguistic forms. The choice is feasible because natural language has three properties:variability, negotiability and adaptability. As one language phenomenon, the choice of pragmatic vagueness is also based on these three properties. As one language phenomenon, the choice of pragmatic vagueness is also on these three properties. Variability refers to the range of possibilities from which choices can be made. Negotiability indicates the dynamic process of choosing flexible principles and strategies, and embodying them in linguistic forms, thus meets the communicative need. Adaptability enables human beings to make negotiable linguistic choices from a variable range of possibilities so that communicative needs can be satisfied. So adaptability is the core of language use. And the adaptation is between language choices and circumstances. Adaptation Theory can be explained from four angles:contextual correlates of adaptability, structural objects of adaptability, dynamics of adaptability and the salience of the adaptation processes.
Chapter Four is the body part of the study, which devotes to the pragmatic vagueness in English political discourse. Based on Channell's classification as well as characteristics of political discourse, the paper analyses the pragmatic functions of vague language in English political discourse, which includes creating harmonious atmosphere & achieving politeness, shedding off responsibilities, self-protecting and being flexible and tactful. Under the guidance of Adaptation Theory, the author elaborates that linguistic realization of vagueness in English political discourse can be achieved at lexical, syntactic and discourse levels. Finally, by a detailed analysis of abundant examples, the present research concludes that the employment of vague language in English political discourse is the result of choice-making, which is adaptable to the mental world of both utterers and interpreters, to the social world in which social constraints play an important part, and to the physical world mainly of time and space.
The conclusion chapter summarizes this thesis, pointing out the major findings and implications of the present study. Besides, this chapter gives limitations and some suggestions for further researches.
This thesis aims at helping people have a right view on vagueness in English political discourse, and apply vague language to communication so as to achieve a better communicative effect. Theoretically, the present research hopes to better reveal the explanatory power of adaptation theory in various styles.
本文从语用学的顺应理论出发,对模糊语产生的根源及其在英语政治语篇中的功能进行尝试性分析,论述了语用模糊在政治语篇中的独特效用以及语用模糊是如何通过语境和结构上的顺应得以实现的。
本文共分为五章。第一章引言部分介绍了本研究的研究意义和目的以及本文的组织结构。
第二章是文献综述。首先,对模糊语言进行总体描述。陈述了模糊语言存在的原因,是客观原因和主观原因共同作用的结果。接着从语义、认知和语用等角度介绍了国内外一些学者对于模糊语的定义。对于模糊语的分类,本文采取Prince等人提出的二分法。其次,对一些诸如fuzziness, generality和ambiguity的相关概念进行区别,并指出本文对于模糊语的界定,即包含模糊限制语在内的所有不精确、不确定的语言。再次,对本文的研究领域,即政治语篇中的模糊语,进行探讨。最后,回顾了国内外对于模糊语的研究。
第三章是本研究的理论框架：即维索尔伦提出的语言顺应理论。本章主要介绍了顺应论产生的根源及其发展过程。该理论认为语言的使用是在对交际策略和语言形式不断选择的过程,这是因为语言具有变异性、协商性和顺应性。语言的变异性是指能为语言选择提供可能性,商讨性是指语言形式选择的灵活性和策略性,顺应性是顺应论的核心,指语言使用者可做灵活变通,从而更好地满足交际需要。顺应论主要从语境关系的顺应、语言结构的顺应、顺应的动态性和顺应过程的意识程度这四个方面来描述和解释语言的使用。
第四章是本文的主体部分,主要运用顺应理论对英语政治语篇中的语用模糊现象进行了分析探讨。本章首先提出了文章的研究方法,然后以Channell对模糊语的语用功能分类为基础,探讨了政治语篇中模糊语的主要作用,即和谐礼貌的作用、避免承担责任、实现自我保护和采取灵活多变的策略等。其次,阐释了英语政治语篇中的模糊性可以从词汇、句法和语篇等语言结构层面上实现。最后,通过对丰富的案例分析,总结出政治语篇中模糊语言的使用正是对语言不断做出选择的结果,该选择顺应了语言使用者的心智世界、社交世界和物理世界。
第五章总结了本文的主要研究结果及实际意义,并指出文章中存在的不足,并对今后的相关研究提出建议。
本文旨在帮助人们更好地认识英语政治语篇中的模糊语用现象,并在交际中正确使用模糊语言,达到和谐的交际效果。同时希望更好的揭示顺应论对各种文体中语言使用的解释力。
It is generally accepted that the distinct characteristics of language are precision and clearness. However, vagueness is an intrinsic feature of natural language and an indispensable part of human languages. It is an extremely pervasive phenomenon in language communication. Many scholars both at home and abroad have studied the vagueness application to various styles from a variety of perspectives and made great achievements. However, the pragmatic studies of vague language are mainly conducted with the help of Grice's Cooperative Principle, Leech's Politeness Principle or Wilson's Relative Principle. The research on vague language from the perspective of Verschueren's Adaptation Theory is quite limited so far, even more limited on vague language in English political discourse. Being one of the oldest language forms, political language is a special way of expressing subtle political needs, which plays an important role not only in diplomacy, but also in social culture and ideology. And the employment of vagueness makes the political language more flexible and easier to achieve the politicians'political purposes. Therefore, vagueness is considered as a communicative strategy employed in political discourse, which is expected to achieve communicative needs.
This thesis attempts to make a tentative analysis of motives as well as the functions of the employment of vague language with Linguistic Adaptation Theory as the theoretical framework with the aims to explore how pragmatic vagueness in political discourse is realized through linguistic context and through structural objects of adaptation as well as how the adaptation to pragmatic vagueness affect political discourse.
The thesis consists of five chapters, including introduction and conclusion. The Introduction presents a general picture of the current study, including the need for and the objective of the study as well as the organization of the thesis. Chapter Two reviews the related literature. Firstly, a general view of vague language is given. The author states the reasons why vague language exists. There are objective and subjective reasons. And then some well-known definitions of vague language at home and abroad are introduced from semantic, cognitive and pragmatic aspects. As for the classification of vague language, Prince et al's taxonomy of hedges is adopted in the study. Secondly, some related confusing terms such as fuzziness, generality and ambiguity are distinguished because they are similar in conveying imprecise information. The author then points out the treatment of the term "vagueness" in this thesis, namely vagueness and hedges will be employed interchangeably, which encompass all kinds of imprecise meanings and uncertainty. Thirdly, vague language in political discourse, the focus of the study, is discussed. Finally, the previous researches on vague language abroad and at home are examined.
Chapter Three proposes the theoretical framework of the present study: Verschueren's Linguistic Adaptation Theory, which is introduced systematically in this thesis. In Verschueren's Linguistic Adaptation Theory, language use is continuous making of linguistic choices, i.e. the choices of communicative strategies and linguistic forms. The choice is feasible because natural language has three properties:variability, negotiability and adaptability. As one language phenomenon, the choice of pragmatic vagueness is also based on these three properties. As one language phenomenon, the choice of pragmatic vagueness is also on these three properties. Variability refers to the range of possibilities from which choices can be made. Negotiability indicates the dynamic process of choosing flexible principles and strategies, and embodying them in linguistic forms, thus meets the communicative need. Adaptability enables human beings to make negotiable linguistic choices from a variable range of possibilities so that communicative needs can be satisfied. So adaptability is the core of language use. And the adaptation is between language choices and circumstances. Adaptation Theory can be explained from four angles:contextual correlates of adaptability, structural objects of adaptability, dynamics of adaptability and the salience of the adaptation processes.
Chapter Four is the body part of the study, which devotes to the pragmatic vagueness in English political discourse. Based on Channell's classification as well as characteristics of political discourse, the paper analyses the pragmatic functions of vague language in English political discourse, which includes creating harmonious atmosphere & achieving politeness, shedding off responsibilities, self-protecting and being flexible and tactful. Under the guidance of Adaptation Theory, the author elaborates that linguistic realization of vagueness in English political discourse can be achieved at lexical, syntactic and discourse levels. Finally, by a detailed analysis of abundant examples, the present research concludes that the employment of vague language in English political discourse is the result of choice-making, which is adaptable to the mental world of both utterers and interpreters, to the social world in which social constraints play an important part, and to the physical world mainly of time and space.
The conclusion chapter summarizes this thesis, pointing out the major findings and implications of the present study. Besides, this chapter gives limitations and some suggestions for further researches.
This thesis aims at helping people have a right view on vagueness in English political discourse, and apply vague language to communication so as to achieve a better communicative effect. Theoretically, the present research hopes to better reveal the explanatory power of adaptation theory in various styles.
引文
Aristotle. (1954). Rhetoric and poetics. New York:The Modern Library.
Arne, Nsess & Ingemund, Gullvag (2006). Vagueness and Ambguity. The Trumpeter, p56-74.
Brown,P. & S.C. Levison.(1987). Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Burns, L.C. (1991). Vagueness Language. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Teaching Press.
Chilton, P. & Schaffner, C. (1997). Discourse and Politics. London:Sage Publications Ltd., p206-230.
Crystal, D. & Davy, D. (1975). Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge:Polity Press.
Grice, P. (2002). Studies in the way of words. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hodge, Bob & Kam, Louie. (1998). The Politics of Chinese Language and Culture. London and New York:68-118
Joanna Channell.(2000). Vague language. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Kempson. Ruth M. (1977). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1972).Hedges:a Study in Meaning Criteria and Logic Fuzzy Concepts. Chicago Linguistics Society Papers. Chicago:Chicago Linguistics Society, 8:183-228.
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges:a Study in Meaning Criteria and Logic Fuzzy Concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2:458-508
Levinson, S. C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (2003). Merriam-Webster.
Max, Black. (1949). Language and philosophy:Studies in method, Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
Mathews, P.H. (1997). Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Mey, J.(2001).Pragmatics:an Introduction.Oxford:Blackwell.
Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse. English for Specific Purpose,13,149-170
Peirce, C.S. (1902). Vague, in Baldwin, J M (ed.) Dictionary of Philosophy and psychology,2 Volumes, London:Macmillan:748
Prince.(1982).On hedging in physician-physician discourse. Linguistics and the Professions. Norwood:Ablex.
Prince, E. Frader,J. & Bosk, C.(1982). On Hedging in Physician-physician Discourse. In R.D.Pietro(ed.). Linguistics and Professions.
Russell, B. (1923). Vagueness, Australasian Journal of philosophy and psychology 1.84-92
Scheffler, Israel. (1979). Beyond the Letter:A Philosophical Inquiry into Ambiguity,
Scott, N.(2001).Ambiguity versus precision:the changing role of terminology in conference diplomacy, in Language and diplomacy, Malta:Diplo-Foundation.
Sperber D. & Wilson D.(1986). Relevance:Cognition and Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thomas, J.(19950. Meaning in Interaction:An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Ullmann.(1962). Semantics. Oxford:Blackwell.
Van, Dijk. (2001).Critical Discourse. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford:Blackwell,352-371.
Verschueren, J.(2000). Understanding Pragmatics.Beijing:Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Wales, K. (1989). "Hedging; Hedge". In:A Dictionary of Stylistics. New York: Longman.
Watson, D. (2004). Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words, Contemporary Cliches, Cant & Management Jargon. Sydney:Random House Australia Pty Ltd,2004.
Williamson, T. (1994). Vagueness. London:Rout Ledge Publishing Press.
Wilson, J. (2001). Political Discourse. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell,398-415.
Wolff,J.G.(1973).Language, Brain and Hearing:An Introduction to the Psychology Of Language. London:Methuen & Co Ltd.
Zadeh. L.A. (1965).Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control.8:338-353.
Zhang Qiao. (1998). Fuzziness-Vagueness-Generality-Ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics,29,13-31.
蔡龙权、戴炜栋.关于限制语精确话语信息的可能性研究[J].大连：外语与外语教学,2002(8)：1-6.
郭鸿等.外交英语[M].北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社,1999.
郭鸿；英语作为外交语言的文体特征[J]；外语研究,1992年04期
郭浩然.英语政治语篇的模糊策略[D].长春理工大学,硕士论文,2009.
黄衍. Reflections on theoretical pragmatics [J]外国语,2001,(1)：2-14.
胡壮麟.语言学教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2006.
何自然,于国栋.语用学的理解—Verschueren的新作评介,现代外语[J],1999.
廖东平.模糊限制词和语义标准[J].当代语言学,1982年第02期.
李元胜.顺应论在中国的研究综述[J].成都大学学报,2007.
钱冠连.语用学：语言适应理论—Verschueren语用学新论评述[J].外语教学与研究,1991.
钱冠连.语用学：统一连贯的理论框架—Verschueren《如何理解语用学》述评[J].外语教学与研究,2000.
秦小锋.语用模糊一政治外交话语的策略[D].西南大学,硕士论文,2006.
宋志平.选择与顺应[D].东北师范大学,博士论文,2007.
谢宁.布什每周电台演讲中的模糊语言及其语用功能[D].山东科技大学,硕士论文,2009.
史煜；模糊语言语用分析[J].山东外语教学,2003年05期.
徐艳秋.政治外交语篇中的语用模糊分析研究[D].山东师范大学,硕士论文,2006.
伍铁平.语言的模糊性和多义性的区别[J].语文导报,1987.
伍铁平.模糊语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999.
伍铁平.模糊语言学综论[J].西南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)1997年第6期
武欣莉.从顺应论看动态语境对外交语言的解读[D].长春理工大学,硕士论文,2007.
吴勇.论外交辞令中的模糊策略[J].山东外语教学,2003第3期.
于国栋.The Chinese/English Codeswitching as Realization of Linguistic Adaptation[M].太原：山西人民出版社,2001.
朱捷.试论语言模糊的御用功能[D].复旦大学,博士论文,2009.
张乔.模糊语义学[M].北京：中国科学社会出版社,1998.
http://www.putclub.com
http://www.whitehouse.gov
http://philosophy.uoregon.edu/metaphor/lakoff-1.htm.
http://www.ugr.es/～jsantana/lies/metaphor_and_war_again.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/June 26,2007
Arne, Nsess & Ingemund, Gullvag (2006). Vagueness and Ambguity. The Trumpeter, p56-74.
Brown,P. & S.C. Levison.(1987). Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Burns, L.C. (1991). Vagueness Language. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Teaching Press.
Chilton, P. & Schaffner, C. (1997). Discourse and Politics. London:Sage Publications Ltd., p206-230.
Crystal, D. & Davy, D. (1975). Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge:Polity Press.
Grice, P. (2002). Studies in the way of words. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hodge, Bob & Kam, Louie. (1998). The Politics of Chinese Language and Culture. London and New York:68-118
Joanna Channell.(2000). Vague language. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Kempson. Ruth M. (1977). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1972).Hedges:a Study in Meaning Criteria and Logic Fuzzy Concepts. Chicago Linguistics Society Papers. Chicago:Chicago Linguistics Society, 8:183-228.
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges:a Study in Meaning Criteria and Logic Fuzzy Concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2:458-508
Levinson, S. C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (2003). Merriam-Webster.
Max, Black. (1949). Language and philosophy:Studies in method, Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
Mathews, P.H. (1997). Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Mey, J.(2001).Pragmatics:an Introduction.Oxford:Blackwell.
Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse. English for Specific Purpose,13,149-170
Peirce, C.S. (1902). Vague, in Baldwin, J M (ed.) Dictionary of Philosophy and psychology,2 Volumes, London:Macmillan:748
Prince.(1982).On hedging in physician-physician discourse. Linguistics and the Professions. Norwood:Ablex.
Prince, E. Frader,J. & Bosk, C.(1982). On Hedging in Physician-physician Discourse. In R.D.Pietro(ed.). Linguistics and Professions.
Russell, B. (1923). Vagueness, Australasian Journal of philosophy and psychology 1.84-92
Scheffler, Israel. (1979). Beyond the Letter:A Philosophical Inquiry into Ambiguity,
Scott, N.(2001).Ambiguity versus precision:the changing role of terminology in conference diplomacy, in Language and diplomacy, Malta:Diplo-Foundation.
Sperber D. & Wilson D.(1986). Relevance:Cognition and Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thomas, J.(19950. Meaning in Interaction:An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Ullmann.(1962). Semantics. Oxford:Blackwell.
Van, Dijk. (2001).Critical Discourse. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford:Blackwell,352-371.
Verschueren, J.(2000). Understanding Pragmatics.Beijing:Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Wales, K. (1989). "Hedging; Hedge". In:A Dictionary of Stylistics. New York: Longman.
Watson, D. (2004). Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words, Contemporary Cliches, Cant & Management Jargon. Sydney:Random House Australia Pty Ltd,2004.
Williamson, T. (1994). Vagueness. London:Rout Ledge Publishing Press.
Wilson, J. (2001). Political Discourse. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell,398-415.
Wolff,J.G.(1973).Language, Brain and Hearing:An Introduction to the Psychology Of Language. London:Methuen & Co Ltd.
Zadeh. L.A. (1965).Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control.8:338-353.
Zhang Qiao. (1998). Fuzziness-Vagueness-Generality-Ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics,29,13-31.
蔡龙权、戴炜栋.关于限制语精确话语信息的可能性研究[J].大连：外语与外语教学,2002(8)：1-6.
郭鸿等.外交英语[M].北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社,1999.
郭鸿；英语作为外交语言的文体特征[J]；外语研究,1992年04期
郭浩然.英语政治语篇的模糊策略[D].长春理工大学,硕士论文,2009.
黄衍. Reflections on theoretical pragmatics [J]外国语,2001,(1)：2-14.
胡壮麟.语言学教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2006.
何自然,于国栋.语用学的理解—Verschueren的新作评介,现代外语[J],1999.
廖东平.模糊限制词和语义标准[J].当代语言学,1982年第02期.
李元胜.顺应论在中国的研究综述[J].成都大学学报,2007.
钱冠连.语用学：语言适应理论—Verschueren语用学新论评述[J].外语教学与研究,1991.
钱冠连.语用学：统一连贯的理论框架—Verschueren《如何理解语用学》述评[J].外语教学与研究,2000.
秦小锋.语用模糊一政治外交话语的策略[D].西南大学,硕士论文,2006.
宋志平.选择与顺应[D].东北师范大学,博士论文,2007.
谢宁.布什每周电台演讲中的模糊语言及其语用功能[D].山东科技大学,硕士论文,2009.
史煜；模糊语言语用分析[J].山东外语教学,2003年05期.
徐艳秋.政治外交语篇中的语用模糊分析研究[D].山东师范大学,硕士论文,2006.
伍铁平.语言的模糊性和多义性的区别[J].语文导报,1987.
伍铁平.模糊语言学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999.
伍铁平.模糊语言学综论[J].西南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)1997年第6期
武欣莉.从顺应论看动态语境对外交语言的解读[D].长春理工大学,硕士论文,2007.
吴勇.论外交辞令中的模糊策略[J].山东外语教学,2003第3期.
于国栋.The Chinese/English Codeswitching as Realization of Linguistic Adaptation[M].太原：山西人民出版社,2001.
朱捷.试论语言模糊的御用功能[D].复旦大学,博士论文,2009.
张乔.模糊语义学[M].北京：中国科学社会出版社,1998.
http://www.putclub.com
http://www.whitehouse.gov
http://philosophy.uoregon.edu/metaphor/lakoff-1.htm.
http://www.ugr.es/～jsantana/lies/metaphor_and_war_again.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/June 26,2007
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |