【作者】 郑志进；

【导师】 许余龙；

【作者基本信息】 上海外国语大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 模糊限制语是语言交际中重要的语用标记语，是交际者常用的语用策略和手段。在口语交际和学术语篇等文本形式中，模糊限制语常常出现在话题敏感、说话人欲躲避自己责任，或令听话人不快或不利的语言交际场合。很多学者对这一语言现象从语义学和语用学的角度进行较为全面的分析。本论文作者拟从认知语用学的视角对英语交际中的模糊限制语的语用功能及其在话语生成和理解中进行较全面的探索性分析和研究，应用了Sperber & Wilson的关联理论（Relevance Theory）和Verschueren的元语用意识理论（Metapragmatic Awareness Theory）作为本论文的理论框架，对交际中经常出现的模糊限制语语用功能的认知性及其在话语生成和理解的具体语境中产生的认知机制、话语命题和认知语境的关系、语境效果与关联性的关系以及推断话语意义的努力程度与关联性的关系等进行分析和研究。按形式上划分，模糊限制语可分为词语形式模糊限制语和句法结构形式模糊限制语两种。从语义学的角度，模糊限制语可分为四类：第一类为某些形容词和副词构成（如：maybe,almost, somewhat, sort of, a little等）；第二类是指构成形容词或副词的后缀（如：-ish,-like等）；第三类是那些由连词as if, as though, so…that等引导的方式状语从句或程度状语，表达说话人对某事犹豫不决或不确定的情况；第四类由一些句法结构或短语构成（如：I think, I believe, as far as I know, according to, in my opinion, I may beconfused, but…等）。从语用功能上划分，模糊限制语被分为缓和型模糊限制语和变动型模糊限制语。前者用于说话人对话题内容直接做出主观推测，或引用他人之看法、观点，间接表达说话人的态度，使话语的语气趋于缓和；后者用于对话题的真实程度和涉及范围做出修正，改变话语结构的意愿。本文拟从认知语用学的视角对英语交际中的模糊限制语进行较全面的探索性分析和研究。从认知语言学的角度来看，语言的运用不能脱离人的认知；语言是认知的窗口。从这个窗口，我们可以深刻地了解到人们在运用语言进行交际时的心理状态、观点和态度等。人们对事物有所了解和意识才会运用语言进行恰当地表达。当说话人意识到某话题对听话人造成一定负面影响或担心自己会处于不利情况时，模糊限制语在言语交际中的应用常常表达说话人为了缓和话语造成的语气或出于礼貌等原因，同时又希望通过这种语言手段来表明自己对所谈及的话题的态度、观点。本研究运用了美国Brigham Young University的Mark Davies设计的“现代美国英语语料库”(CorpusofContemporaryAmericanEnglish),对英语中常用的模糊限制语在实际交际的语境中的应用,包括口语、小说、报纸、杂志以及学术语篇等进行了调查。论文中大部分的实例来源于此语料库。经过认真的分析和研究,我们得出如下研究成果:第一、在言语交际中,模糊限制语的语用功能是受到言语交际的认知性所驱动。说话人在开口说话之前,他必须考虑言语交际中的各种认知因素,比如:交际双方的社会关系、礼貌程度、承担责任的可能性、受批评的危险等等。在这种情况下,说话人就会小心地对语言手段进行选择。在言语交际中,从话语交际的间接性、负面礼貌以及面子威胁行为三个方面的分析论证表明,模糊限制语在用于遵守交际原则(会话合作原则和礼貌原则)时发挥了重要的作用。说话人和听话人的认知语境总是在相互影响、相互作用,相互趋同,进而实现交际意图。第二、在言语交际中,模糊限制语的应用明确了说话人的交际意图,发挥了语用标记语的功能,以一种明示的形式表达了说话人对谈论话题的态度或观点,从而,有助于改变听话人原先的认知语境;第三、模糊限制语的应用是受保护面子行为的考虑所驱动。几乎所有应用模糊限制语的言语交际总是与敏感的、直接的、令人不快的、难以接受的或说话人持有否定态度的话题有关。说话人总是运用一些类似模糊限制语的礼貌策略,实施维护面子的行为,以便使听话人有机会留住面子、摆脱困境;第四、模糊限制语在话语结构中实属一个相对独立的成分。它可以是一个词语,一个短语,也可以是一个句法结构。在话语中,它所出现的位置是灵活的:可能在句首、句中或句尾,即:模糊限制语具有语法结构多变性、句法结构的灵活性以及语用结构的可释性;第五、模糊限制语不仅有助于解码话语的概念信息,而且也传递了话语的程序信息。在交际中,模糊限制语不仅有助于使听话人了解话语的命题意义,也了解说话人的交际意图;第六、从语料库中对模糊限制语的应用频率调查来看,模糊限制语较多应用于口语语境,因为它们很敏感于语境;第七、模糊限制语在交际的话语理解中能够有助于减少话语处理时所做的努力。更多还原

【Abstract】 Linguistic hedges are important pragmatic markers in verbal communication. Inspoken communication and academic texts, linguistic hedges occur in those sensitivetopics, or on those occasions, in which the speaker tries to avoid his own responsibility,orinwhichthespeakerfearsthatthehearermayfeeluncomfortable.ManyScholarshavetried to make considerably comprehensive analysis of the language phenomena from theperspectives of semantics or pragmatics, etc. The researcher of the dissertation tries tocarry out the exploration and research of linguistic hedges in utterance production andcomprehension from the perspective of cognitive pragmatics, mainly of the cognitivefeatures and the cognitive mechanism, such as the relationships between the utteranceproposition and cognitive context, the relationships between the contextual effect andrelevance, etc. in the use of linguistic hedges in verbal communication, applying Sperber& Wilson’s Relevance Theory and Verschueren’s Metapragmatic Awareness Theory asthe theoretical framework of the research. In terms of the forms, hedges can be dividedinto word forms and syntactic forms. From the semantic perspective, hedges can beclassified into four types. The first type consists of some adjectives and adverbs likemaybe, almost, somewhat, sort of, a little, etc.; the second type refers some adjectives oradverbs containing such suffixes as“-ish”and“-like”; the third type includes thoseconjunctive phrases as“as if”,“as though”,“so…that”, etc. to indicate the speaker’shesitation; thefourthtypeis composedofsomesyntacticforms orsomeotherphrases. Interms of pragmatic functions, hedges are classified into shields and approximators.Shieldscanalsobedividedintoplausibilityshieldsandattributionshields;approximatorsinto adaptors and rounders. Shields are used by the speaker to make a direct inferenceabout the content of an utterance or to indirectly express the speaker’s attitude by usingothers’beliefs or opinions, so that the force of the utterance can be mitigated.Approximatorsareusedtomodifythetruthandscopeoftheutterance. Inthisdissertation, linguistic hedges in verbal communication are explored and analyzed from theperspective of cognitive-pragmatics.From the perspective of cognitive-pragmatics, language use cannot be isolated fromcognition. Language is considered as the window of cognition, from which we can knowthe psychological states, opinions and attitudes of the communicators. Only when thecommunicator knows what happens to the topic can he make certain expressions by usinglanguage or some linguistic devices. As we know, when the speaker is aware that acertain topic will cause a negative influence, or when he is worried that he will be in anunfavorable condition, the use of hedges in verbal communication is often made toindicate the speaker’s efforts for mitigation or politeness. At the same time the speakerhopes to express his own attitude, opinion, etc. The purpose of this research is mainly (1)to analyze the pragmatic functions of hedges; (2) to reveal how a communicativeintention is achieved by the use of hedges; (3) to explore the achievement of thecommunicative effect by the use of hedges; and (4) to provide L2 learners with someimportant communicative skills and improve their communicative awareness.To achieve this goal, Sperber & Wilson’s Relevance Theory is used as the theoreticalframework and hedges in verbal communication are analyzed and studied from theperspective of cognitive-pragmatics. In the research, the Corpus of ContemporaryAmerican English (COCA), an online corpus, is employed. It is designed and provided byMark Davies, a professor of corpus linguistics in Brigham Young University in USA.This research tries to investigate the commonly used hedges in English from spokendiscourse, fictions, newspapers, magazines and academic texts. Quite a number ofexamples in the dissertation are collected from this corpus. Through the careful analysisand investigation, we have made the following major findings. Firstly, in linguisticcommunication, pragmatic functions of hedges are cognition-driven. Before the speakerproduces any utterance, he has to take into consideration many cognitive factors, such asthe social relationship between the speaker and hearer, degree of politeness, thepossibility of responsibility or the danger of criticism, etc. In this case, he will make acareful choice in using some linguistic devices. Secondly, in verbal communication, it shows from the analysis and investigation of indirectness, negative politeness and FTAsof utterances that, when hedges are used to observe the communicative principles (e.g.the CP and the PP), the cognitive environments of the speaker and the hearer tend toinfluence each other, correlate to each other and agree with each other and in the end thecommunicative intention is realized. Thirdly, in verbal communication, the use of hedgesmakes clearer the speaker’s communicative intention. Hedges have actually functioned aspragmatic markers, indicating the speaker’s attitude or opinion about the topic in questionin an ostensive way, thus helping to change the original cognitive environment that thehearer has. Fourthly, the hedged interactions are usually FSA-driven. Almost all thehedged interactions are related to some sensitive, direct, unpleasant, unacceptable ornegative topics. From the analysis and investigation of hedged interactions, we find thatthe speaker always tries to observe some politeness strategies, such as hedging strategiesand perform saving face acts (FSAs) so that the hearer can possibly have chances to getout of a predicament or whatever in the sensitive, direct, unpleasant, unacceptable ornegative topics. Fifthly, in the analysis and investigation, we have found that hedges inthe structures of utterances are relatively the independent components. A hedge can be aword or a phrase or sometimes a syntactic structure. It can be put almost at any place inan utterance--at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end. They are grammaticallyoptional, syntactically flexible and pragmatically interpretable. Sixthly, the use of hedgesnot only helps encode the conceptual information, but accounts for the proceduralinformation as well. They are used to help the hearer understand the speaker’scommunicative intention. Seventhly, an analysis of the ratios and frequencies of linguistichedges in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) shows that linguistichedges are more often used in spoken contexts than in academic texts for the reason ofthe sensibility to a certain context. And finally, it is found that hedges can usually lessenthe processing effort in utterance comprehension.更多还原