本文研究中國法庭答話中的語用含糊策略。研究方法屬基于中國法庭庭審錄音的定量研究。理論框架依據Verschueren順應論,重點研究法庭答話方運用語用含糊策略的實現方式,順應過程,語用功能及應用規(guī)律。通過對法庭答話語料分析我們概括出法庭答話方有意運用語用含糊策略的方式:借助語境解讀和含糊表達。兩種方式包括具體的五種小類。法庭答話方運用語用含糊的機制是答話方對與法庭中的社會變量和答話方心理動機的順應結果。通過語料分析,我們總結出語用含糊在法庭答話中的四種功能:掩蓋負面信息、假裝滿足問話、減輕對事實承諾及減輕事實嚴重性。法庭答話中語用含糊策略同語用含糊實現方式之間沒有一一對應關系。在各類語用含糊策略實現方式中抽象表達,歧義表達,不定指示語和模糊限定語被法庭答話方用來實現隱藏于己不利信息。淡化策略及模糊限制語被法庭答話方用來減輕對某信息的責任。本研究期望對法庭答話語用含糊策略本質有所啟示。同時也期望對法庭中答話方通過語用含糊策略的法庭實踐有所貢獻。 

【文章來源】：廣東外語外貿大學廣東省

【文章頁數】：105 頁

【學位級別】：碩士

【文章目錄】：
摘要
Abstract
Contents
Chapter One Introduction
    1.1 Introduction
    1.2 Rationale of this research
    1.3 Objectives and research questions of this research
    1.4 Notes on methodology and data collection
    1.5 Structure of this thesis
Chapter Two Review of related literature
    2.1 Introduction
    2.2 Terminological issues
        2.2.1 Initiation and response,initiator and responder
        2.2.2 Distinctions between daily responses and courtroom responses
    2.3 Review of relevant studies on courtroom responses
        2.3.1 Social and anthropological approaches
        2.3.2 Pragmatic approach
        2.3.3 Legal approach
        2.3.4 Achievements and limitations of the previous approaches
Chapter Three A Description of Theoretical Framework
    3.1 Introduction
    3.2 The delimitation of pragmatic vagueness
        3.2.1 Vagueness,generality,ambiguity,fuzziness and indirectness
        3.2.2 Pragmatic vagueness,pragmatic ambiguity and pragmatic ambivalence
        3.2.3 Working definition of PV
    3.3 Verschueren's Linguistic Adaptation Theory
        3.3.1 LAT's pragmatic perspective
        3.3.2 The essence of the adaptation theory
    3.4 Chinese courtroom setting
        3.4.1 Courtroom participants
        3.4.2 Courtroom interaction
    3.5 Description of the theoretical framework of this research
    3.6 Summary
Chapter Four Realization of PV in Courtroom Response
    4.1 Introduction
    4.2 Turning to contextual interpretation
        4.2.1 Adopting deixis
        4.2.2 Understatement
    4.3 Resorting to vague expressions
        4.3.1 Ambiguity
        4.3.2 Hedges
        4.3.3 Abstract expressions
    4.4 Summary
Chapter Five Adaptability of PV in courtroom response
    5.1 Introduction
    5.2 PV as adaptation to courtroom contextual variables
    5.3 PV as adaptation to social world of courtroom
        5.3.1 PV as adaptation to imbalance of power
        5.3.2 PV as adaptation to legal rights and legal obligations
    5.4 PV as adaptation to courtroom responders' mental world
        5.4.1 PV as adaptation to motivation of presenting beneficial information
        5.4.2 PV as adaptation to motivation of denying damaging information
        5.4.3 PV as adaptation to motivation of maintaining good relationship
    5.5 Summary
Chapter Six Pragmatic functions and use of PV in courtroom
    6.1 Introduction
    6.2 Pragmatic functions of PV in courtroom response
        6.2.1 Masking negative information
        6.2.2 Reducing the commitment to the facts
        6.2.3 Pretending to satisfy courtroom initiators'questions
        6.2.4 Mitigate seriousness of the facts
    6.3 Variability and pragmatic functions of PV
    6.4 Courtroom responders' efficient use of PV as a strategy
    6.5 Summary
Chapter Seven Conclusion
    7.1 Introduction
    7.2 Summary of major findings
    7.3 Implications
    7.4 Limitations
    7.5 Suggestions for further research
References
Acknowledgements


【參考文獻】：
期刊論文
[1]刑事庭審會話中的閃避回答[J]. 胡桂麗.  修辭學習. 2006(04)
[2]含糊的語用學研究[J]. 吳亞欣.  外國語言文學. 2006(01)
[3]答話研究——法庭答話的啟示[J]. 廖美珍.  修辭學習. 2004(05)
[4]中國法庭互動話語對應結構研究[J]. 廖美珍.  語言科學. 2003(05)
[5]從問答行為看中國法庭審判現狀[J]. 廖美珍.  語言文字應用. 2002(04)
[6]再論語用含糊[J]. 何自然.  外國語(上海外國語大學學報). 2000(01)
[7]灰色信息的語用分析[J]. 陳忠.  修辭學習. 1998(04)
[8]語法歧義和語用模糊對比研究[J]. 俞東明.  外國語(上海外國語大學學報). 1997(06)



本文編號：3417595