中国法庭答话中语用含糊策略的顺应性研究

论文摘要

本文研究中国法庭答话中的语用含糊策略。研究方法属基于中国法庭庭审录音的定量研究。理论框架依据Verschueren顺应论,重点研究法庭答话方运用语用含糊策略的实现方式,顺应过程,语用功能及应用规律。通过对法庭答话语料分析我们概括出法庭答话方有意运用语用含糊策略的方式:借助语境解读和含糊表达。两种方式包括具体的五种小类。法庭答话方运用语用含糊的机制是答话方对与法庭中的社会变量和答话方心理动机的顺应结果。通过语料分析,我们总结出语用含糊在法庭答话中的四种功能:掩盖负面信息、假装满足问话、减轻对事实承诺及减轻事实严重性。法庭答话中语用含糊策略同语用含糊实现方式之间没有一一对应关系。在各类语用含糊策略实现方式中抽象表达,歧义表达,不定指示语和模糊限定语被法庭答话方用来实现隐藏于己不利信息。淡化策略及模糊限制语被法庭答话方用来减轻对某信息的责任。本研究期望对法庭答话语用含糊策略本质有所启示。同时也期望对法庭中答话方通过语用含糊策略的法庭实践有所贡献。

论文目录

• 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