【摘要】：作為模糊語言學(xué)中的一個(gè)重要成員,模糊限制語能改變被修飾語的模糊程度,使表達(dá)意義更加模糊或更趨于精確,或表達(dá)說話者的禮貌態(tài)度或意見。本研究以從中國(guó)法庭網(wǎng)轉(zhuǎn)寫的20場(chǎng)庭審案件(其中7場(chǎng)民事案件、8場(chǎng)刑事案件和5場(chǎng)行政案件)作為語料,基于Prince和何自然對(duì)模糊限制語的分類,采取定量和定性相結(jié)合的方法,對(duì)被告法庭辯論詞中模糊限制語的類型,特點(diǎn)及其語用功能進(jìn)行研究。數(shù)據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)結(jié)果表明,被告法庭辯論詞中所使用的模糊限制語有變動(dòng)型和緩和型兩類,其中變動(dòng)型模糊限制語占55.7%,緩和型模糊限制語只占44.3%。被告法庭辯論詞中所使用的模糊限制語在意思表達(dá)上具有準(zhǔn)確性和得體性、在語氣上具有委婉性和緩和性的特點(diǎn),這使得被告法庭辯論詞中的模糊限制語具有其獨(dú)有的語用功能。因此,被告往往偏向于選擇模糊限制語作為主要的語言策略來實(shí)現(xiàn)其法庭辯論的說服目的。研究發(fā)現(xiàn),被告法庭辯論詞中所使用的模糊限制語的語用功能有二:自我保護(hù)功能和禮貌功能。自我保護(hù)功能主要通過以下三種途徑實(shí)現(xiàn):一是從程度上降低模糊度、提供前提條件和否定問話人意思,使話語意義更加準(zhǔn)確,更趨向于事實(shí),從而更好地實(shí)現(xiàn)其說服目的。二是從范圍上使用概述詞、限定話題和模糊化精確詞語,使話語意義更為得體,從而避免因說話過于絕對(duì)而須承擔(dān)責(zé)任。三是從時(shí)間上強(qiáng)調(diào)或概括動(dòng)作發(fā)生的頻率,使話語意義更為真實(shí)和可信,更好地傳遞有利于自己的信息。禮貌功能則主要通過以下兩種途徑實(shí)現(xiàn):一是通過使用第一人稱表達(dá)、情態(tài)動(dòng)詞和條件句式的模糊限制語直接傳達(dá)被告委婉的意見。二是通過陳述客觀事實(shí)、引用法律文件和使用表拖延詞語的模糊限制語間接表明被告的態(tài)度,減輕強(qiáng)硬語氣,使語氣更加委婉或緩和,從而向法官表示禮貌,使其更易接受自己的觀點(diǎn)。本研究拓展了模糊限制語的研究范圍,具有一定的理論研究?jī)r(jià)值和實(shí)踐意義,但所分析的樣本不夠多,且研究的廣度和深度還遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠,希望能拋磚引玉,對(duì)法庭辯論詞的研究起到一定的促進(jìn)作用。
[Abstract]:As an important member of fuzzy linguistics, hedges can change the degree of vagueness of modifiers, make the meaning more vague or more precise, or express the speaker's polite attitude or opinion. In this study, 20 court cases (7 civil cases, 8 criminal cases and 5 administrative cases) transferred from China Court Network were used as corpus, based on the classification of hedges by Prince and he Nature. This paper studies the types, characteristics and pragmatic functions of hedges in defendants' courtroom arguments by combining quantitative and qualitative methods. The statistical results show that there are two types of hedges: variable hedges and extenuating hedges, of which the variable hedges account for 55.7, and the moderated hedges only account for 44.3. The hedges used in the adversaries of the defendant court have the characteristics of accuracy and appropriateness in the expression of meaning and euphemism and mitigation in the mood. This makes the hedges in the adversaries have their unique pragmatic functions. Therefore, the defendant tends to choose hedges as the main language strategy to achieve the purpose of persuasion. It is found that the pragmatic functions of the hedges used in the adversaries are self-protection and politeness. The function of self-protection is mainly realized through the following three ways: first, to reduce the degree of ambiguity, to provide preconditions and to negate the meaning of interrogators, so that the meaning of discourse becomes more accurate and tends to the facts, so that the purpose of persuasion can be better achieved. The second is to use general words to limit the topic and obscure the exact words so as to make the meaning of the discourse more appropriate so as to avoid taking the responsibility because the speech is too absolute. The third is to emphasize or generalize the frequency of action from time to time, so that the meaning of discourse is more authentic and credible, and the information that is beneficial to oneself is better transmitted. The function of politeness is mainly realized by the following two ways: one is to convey the euphemism of the defendant directly through the use of first person expression, modal verbs and the hedges of conditional sentences. Second, by stating the objective facts, quoting legal documents and using vague restrictive words to express the attitude of the defendant indirectly, reducing the tough tone, making the tone more euphemistic or softened, thereby expressing politeness to the judge. Make it easier to accept your point of view. This study expands the scope of the study of hedges and has some theoretical and practical significance, but the samples analyzed are not enough, and the scope and depth of the research is far from enough. To a certain extent, the study of the words of court argument plays a role in promoting.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南工業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：H136

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳成輝;肖輝;肖薇;;跨文化修辭視角下學(xué)術(shù)語篇模糊限制語探析[J];外語教學(xué)理論與實(shí)踐;2016年04期

2 王晶晶;呂中舌;;中國(guó)理工科博士生學(xué)術(shù)英語寫作模糊限制語研究[J];外語教學(xué);2016年05期

3 段士平;;復(fù)雜系統(tǒng)理論框架下中國(guó)大學(xué)生英語口語模糊限制語塊使用研究[J];外語界;2015年06期

4 王麗;李桃;;基于語料庫(kù)的漢英會(huì)議模糊限制語口譯研究[J];中國(guó)翻譯;2015年05期

5 翁向華;;莎士比亞戲劇文本模糊語言的語用分析[J];語文建設(shè);2015年02期

6 徐江;鄭莉;張海明;;基于語料庫(kù)的中國(guó)大陸與本族語學(xué)者英語科研論文模糊限制語比較研究——以國(guó)際期刊《納米技術(shù)》論文為例[J];外語教學(xué)理論與實(shí)踐;2014年02期

7 崔鳳娟;;庭審語篇中模糊限制語的順應(yīng)性[J];山東外語教學(xué);2012年04期

8 高潔英;;法庭回答中模糊限制語的關(guān)聯(lián)理論研究[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年06期

9 吳小芬;;模糊限制語使用的性別差異考察——基于網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播的視角[J];語言文字應(yīng)用;2012年02期

10 吳蕾;張繼東;;論模糊限制語使用的差異——基于COLSEC與COCA的對(duì)比分析[J];東華大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年01期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 楊晨;庭審模糊語的順應(yīng)性研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2015年

2 張志芳;英漢律師法庭辯論詞中的模糊限制語[D];西南政法大學(xué);2013年

3 張帆;《中華人民共和國(guó)刑法》中文文本之模糊限制語及其翻譯策略[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

4 曹妮;農(nóng)業(yè)科技英語中模糊限制語的語用功能及翻譯[D];西北農(nóng)林科技大學(xué);2010年

5 劉荷清;中國(guó)法庭話語中的模糊現(xiàn)象研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2007年

6 李麗;語義范疇中模糊限制語的認(rèn)知分析[D];西南師范大學(xué);2005年

，

本文編號(hào)：2331912