论文参考1

On Cooperative Principle & Politeness Principle in Diplomatic Language Strategy 　 　 A Thesis Submitted to the English Department of Anhui University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts 　 　 　 　By Li Qing 　 Supervisor: Zhu Yue 　March, 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been completed without much generous assistance, though the responsibility for its shortcomings rests with me alone. My first genuine thanks must be given to my supervisor, Professor Zhu Yue for his encouragement, supervision, illuminating guidance and constructive suggestions at various stages of the development of the thesis. First of all, he introduced me into the field of pragmatics; the courses he offered and the academic experience he imparted have enlarged my horizon and have imbued me with initiative and creativity. Moreover, he made language corrections, gave precious suggestions and refined some ideas in my paper. Without his supervising and urging, this thesis would never have come to the present form. I would also like to express my gratitude to all my respectable teachers in the School of Foreign Studies, to whom I owe much of my knowledge in the English language, linguistics, literature and translation theories during three-year graduate study. They are Prof. Hua Quankun, Prof. Hong Zengliu, Prof. Chen Zhengfa, Prof. Zhou Fangzhu, Prof. Tian Debei, Prof. Zhang Ming, associate Prof. Zhu Xiaomei, associate Prof. Hu Jian, and associate Prof. Chen Bing. Their earnest teaching and enlightening have benefited me a lot. Without their invaluable lectures during the past three years, the completion of this thesis would have been unimaginable. I am also grateful to my husband Shui Congrong and my daughter Shui Jingyuan who have shared my joys and frustrations in working on this subject. My equal thanks also go to my parents, sister and classmates for their support during my tedious writing process. Without their help, the paper would not have been finished. ABSTRACT This paper entitled “On Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle in Diplomatic Language Strategy” discusses “diplomatic language” with reference to linguistic theories, especially theories of pragmatics involving the Cooperative Principle, the Politeness Principle, yet the writer additionally introduces the concept of “face” by Brown and Levinson concerning “face threatening act”, “negative face”, “positive face”, i.e. “Face Saving Theory”, and illustrates through typical examples to analyze diplomatic language strategy in a new perspective: how a diplomatic spokesperson tries or manages to reduce face threatening symmetrically. The writer first makes a survey of documents available, briefing the present study on the diplomatic language field as well as introducing the main theories in pragmatic study, including pragmatic ambiguity, Cooperative Principle, Politeness Principle, face and politeness strategy, as well as the shortcomings and limitations of these theories involving the Grice’s Cooperative Principle, Leech’s Politeness Principle, Brown and Levinson’s Face Saving Theory. Then the writer implements the full analysis of the characteristics of the diplomatic language from such angles as the definitions of diplomacy, the register, the representation and the direction of the talk exchange in discourse, showing that indirectness is the important strategy for diplomatic language. Through the illustrations and analysis, the writer points out that negotiation and dialogue are playing such significant roles in present world that language matters a lot in diplomacy. The indirectness of diplomatic language brings about the intentional violation of the maxims of quantity, quality, relevance and manner under the Cooperative Principle, either in a separate way or in a joint way, giving rise to “Conversational Implicatures”. However, no matter what kind of specific linguistic strategy is taken, the purpose is either to reduce the face threat to “other” or to reduce the face threat to “self” or to both. In other words, the goal is either to maintain the face to “other” or to “self” or to both or all sides involved. Moreover, the writer illustrates some other diplomatic language strategies including politeness to a third party, guarded understatements, politeness shift, etc. to further elaborate that the face threat reduction or face saving is not only mono-directional, i.e. other-oriented, but also bi-directional or even “self”-oriented in some specific conditions, just because “self” occupies a significant position in diplomatic situations. In addition, the third party is also a factor to be taken into consideration. Hence the politeness is neither so absolute nor so asymmetrical so far as the diplomatic language strategy is concerned. The writer concludes that the maxims under Politeness Principle are so asymmetrically other-oriented that it may not account for the features of diplomatic language. It can only solve part of the problems that are unsolved by the Cooperative Principle. Finally, the writer winds up the whole paper by advancing an Interest Principle that may matter in the diplomatic language strategy through adjustment to Tact Maxim (Minimize cost to other; maximize benefit to other) under Leech’s Politeness Principle for further discussion. Maxim of Interest: Minimize cost to others; maximize benefit to self. In the maxim, “others” indicates not only the “hearer”, but the parties except for “self”. The writer holds that it is a parallel and simultaneous process, or they are premises to each other based on specific condition to achieve a trade-off in the end. Key Words: Cooperative Principle Politeness Principle Conversational Implicature face threatening act negative face positive face face saving diplomacy diplomatic language strategy 内容摘要 本文“论外交语言策略中的合作原则和礼貌原则”从语用学理论的角度探讨了外交语言的特点。这些理论包括格莱斯的会话合作原则和利奇的礼貌原则。作者还特地介绍了布朗和莱文森的面子保全论，涉及“面子威胁行为”、“消极面子”、“积极面子”、“面子保全”等方面。通过列举并 分析 定性数据统计分析pdf销售业绩分析模板建筑结构震害分析销售进度分析表京东商城竞争战略分析 典型事例，作者从新的视角分析外交人员怎样运用外交语言策略从而平衡地减少对各方的面子威胁。 作者首先给出中外文献查阅结果， 概括外交语言在语言学领域研究的现状，还简要概述了语用领域的主要理论，包括语用学和语用模糊，合作原则，礼貌原则，面子和礼貌策略理论等并指出这些理论的不足之处—不对称性，以他方为导向等。接着作者从外交的定义，外交语言语域，会话者所代 表 关于同志近三年现实表现材料材料类招标技术评分表图表与交易pdf视力表打印pdf用图表说话 pdf 利益，会话方向等角度对外交语言的特点作了全面分析，指出间接性是外交语言的重要策略，也就是对合作原则之下之数量准则，质量准则，关联准则，方式准则之一个或数个准则的故意违反从而产生字面意义之外的会话含义。作者通过具体典型事例说明准则违反的原因在于言者的意图，即尽量减小对他方，对己方，或对双方的面子威胁；换而言之，就是尽量维护他方，己方或双方的面子，包括各方的积极面子和消极面子，而不仅仅只考虑他方。作者同时列出有关语用领域的其他外交语言策略包括对第三方礼貌，委婉语，礼貌位移等，进一步说明在外交语言策略中，“己方”地位占重要分量，第三方也是需要考虑的因素。由于在外交领域，面子与利益之间成正比关系，因此维护了面子也就维护了国家利益，而外交的目的就在于维护各国之间和谐关系，获取利益，谋求双赢或共赢。 鉴于此，作者将利奇的礼貌原则之下的最重要准则“策略准则”即“(a)使他人受损最小，(b)使他人受惠最大”调整为“利益准则”以供进一步探讨。在外交语言策略中利益准则似乎更能体现外交语言策略的特性： 利益准则：使他人受损最小，使自己受惠最大。 看似一对矛盾，而解决这个矛盾正是外交之意义所在。典型事例说明有折衷途径。两者为并列关系，互为前提，共同作用，谋求双赢或共赢。 关键词: 合作原则 礼貌原则 会话含义 面子威胁行为 消极面子 积极面子 面子保全 外交 外交语言策略 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements………………………………………………………….….……...i Abstract (English)………………...………………………………………………..….ii Abstract (Chinese)…...……………………………………………………….……….iv Table of Contents …………………………………………………………….……….vi Chapter 1 A General Survey…………...…….…………..…..……………………1 1.1 Studies on Diplomatic Language………………………………….……...1 1.2 Purposes of This Paper..……………….………………………….………5 1.3 Structures of the Paper……………………………………….…….……...6 Chapter 2 Discussions of Main Theories Involved…………………….………..…8 2.1 Pragmatics and Pragmatic Vagueness……………………….…………....8 2.2 Cooperative Principle…………………………………………….…….....9 2.3 Politeness principle…………………………………………….………..12 2.4 Face and Politeness Strategies………………………………….……….14 2.5 Discussions on Above-Mentioned Theories…………………….………16 Chapter 3 Diplomacy & Features of Diplomatic language……….…….…...…..20 3.1 Diplomacy……………………………………………………….….…...20 3.2 Features of Diplomatic language……………………………….…….…23 3.2.1 Register……………………………………………….…….…23 3.2.2 Representation……………………………………….……..….24 3.2.3 Direction of Talk Exchange………………………….……..….25 Chapter 4 Cooperative Principle & Politeness Principle in Diplomatic Language Strategy……………………………….………………………………..….….……….27 4.1 Violation of the Maxim of Quantity……………………….…….………28 4.2 Violation of the Maxim of Quality………………………………..……..29 4.3 Violation of the Maxim of Relevance…………………………..….……31 4.4 Violation of the Maxim of Manner……………………………….….….33 4.5 Simultaneous Violations of Maxims under Cooperative Principle ……..36 4.6 Guarded Understatement……………………………….…………..……40 4.7 Politeness Shift…………..…………………………………………...….42 4.8 Politeness to a Third Party…………………………………………..…..43 Chapter 5 Conclusion………………..……………………...………………..……48 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..…...50 Appendix ……………………………………………………………………….…….52 Chapter 1 A General Survey 1.1 Studies on Diplomatic Language During fruitful study of theory of pragmatics in Anhui University, the writer, who has been working as an interpreter and translator in an institute for more than fifteen years, doubts whether Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Leech’s Politeness Principle account for the features of the diplomatic language, whether they hold true for diplomatic language strategy. So, the writer has consulted both the imported and domestic literature available, including Journal of Linguistics, Journal of Pragmatics, the Internet, etc. It is quite disappointing that no articles are found discussing the specific topic of diplomatic language in the perspective of pragmatics, say, Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle, despite the fact that there are magnitudes of articles dealing with either diplomacy or pragmatics separately. The studies on discussing the ambiguities in language use are also surveyed. Within Journal of Linguistics, among papers published from 20 years ago up to now, there is one article entitled “Purposive Vagueness: an evaluative dimension of vague quantifying expressions” by Mava Jo Powell (1985: 31). The article shows that some vague quantifying expressions may encode a speaker’s judgment. One typical book, entitled Vague Language, written by Joanna Channell (1994) discusses “what is vague language”, “theory and methodology of the study of vague language”, “approximating quantities with numbers and approximators”, “approximating quantities with round numbers”, “approximating quantities with non-numerical vague quantifiers”, “referring vaguely to categories”, and “the use of vague language”, etc. Channell points out that though for a long time, “explicitness” and “precision” are the criteria that should be observed both in speaking and writing, yet virtually, the vague language appears here and there, time and again. The book stresses on 3 categories of vague phenomenon: 1) the added words or expression in front of an explicit expression so that the expression as a whole becomes more or less vague; 2) the words or expression themselves are vague; 3) the implicatures and entailments of vague expression. In addition, Channell cites a great number of examples to illustrate and analyze the source and nature of the vagueness. Channell holds that some purposive uses of vague language lie in deliberate withholding information, using language persuasively, self-protection, power and politeness, etc. Channell writes “vagueness is used as one way of adhering to the politeness rules for a particular culture, and of not threatening face” (ibid: 190), no more related elaboration is given in this point. Comparatively, the domestic literature are more encouraging. When clicking “外交语言” or “外交辞令” as the title or key word，the writer finds that in the “Chinese Journal Net Data Base”, there are about 15 related articles, and the survey indicates that most articles searched are discussing “diplomatic language” in the aspect of conventional rhetoric, i.e. ambiguity, fuzziness, pun or logic etc., and only a few of them (see 马莉, 2003: 21-4; 黄强 & 梁颖, 2004:119-22; 零宏惠, 2000: 99-103; 零宏惠, 2004: 137-42) discuss the diplomatic language or its strategy from the pragmatic point of view, specifically from the angles of Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle. They think that the violation of any one or some of the maxims under the Cooperative Principle results from the need to be polite. The conclusion is that the Cooperative Principle in combination with the Politeness Principle account for the characteristics of the diplomatic language. In “Pragmatics Principle and Rhetoric in Diplomatic Language”, Ma Li (2003: 21-4) perceives that the diplomatic language reflects distinctly the Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle of pragmatics. And the paper discusses on how the different rhetoric devices are used for reflecting the principles, especially the Politeness Principle. In “Pragmatic Approach to Fuzzy Wording in the Diplomatic Language”, Ling Honghui (2004: 137-42) points out that diplomacy is the negotiation between international affairs, which takes diplomatic language as its carrier. However, different from the ordinary language, diplomatic language has its unique characteristics as a tactful and polite language. For this purpose, diplomats frequently take the advantage of diplomatic parlance to announce the outcome of a talk, to answer sensitive questions and to harmonize the atmosphere. Featured as terseness, flexibility and generality, fuzzy wording successfully meets the demand of the diplomatic language. Analyzed from the pragmatic points of view, fuzzy wording has its sensibility of existence in diplomatic context. In “Pragmatic analysis of diplomatic language” (外交模糊语言的语用分析)by Huang Qiang and Liang Yin (2004: 119-22), they note that the diplomacy is to deal with the affairs among different countries. As the carrier of the diplomatic work, the diplomatic language has its distinct features of being tactful and polite. Therefore, diplomats usually show the result of a meeting or negotiation with special diplomatic results, answer the questions with sophisticated sensitivity and alleviate the intensity in communication. The conciseness, flexibility and summation of ambiguous language just satisfy the critical requirements of the diplomatic language. In “Pragmatic Analysis of Diplomatic Euphemisms” (外交委婉语的语用分析) by Ling Hong-hui (2000: 103-7), the author indicates that euphemisms are abundant in our languages, and they are widely used in diplomatic language without exception. As one of the tactics and speech skills, appropriate euphemistic wording can meet the special requirements of social contact and accomplish the communicative task. Euphemisms have become an indispensable artistic skill for diplomatic personnel. In www.cnki.net, the Chinese Doctor and Master Dissertations Bank (CDMD, 中国优秀硕博士论文库), two relevant papers have been found penetrating into the field of diplomacy, especially the diplomatic language. One paper is “Function and Application of Vagueness in Political Diplomatic Language” （论政治外交场合模糊语言的功能及运用）written by Li Ying (李颖, 2003), who is from School of Foreign Languages, Central China Normal University (华中师范大学). Li Ying thinks that much progress has been made in the past years in the areas of vagueness study and its application to various styles. However, little work has been done in the interrelationship between vagueness and diplomatic language. In the dissertation the author focuses on a number of selected political diplomatic language materials to study the linguistic realization of vagueness in diplomacy and decodes what diplomats mean by using vague language purposefully. Li Ying (2003) points out that the use of “diplomacy” is confined to political diplomacy only, and “diplomatic language” is limited to oral and written practice in negotiations, speeches, addresses, telephones, telegraphs, agreements, treaties and even letters between diplomats or government leaders in dealing with political foreign affairs. The view that diplomatic language can be vague holds that there are statements having indeterminate interpretations because of the special purpose of diplomacy. The linguistic occurrence of vagueness is realized on lexical, syntactical and discourse level, which is based on the analysis of materials collected from the Internet, books, some newspapers, etc. From the linguistic realization of vagueness, the author tries to find some rules governing speaking and revealing the special use of vague words or sentences in specific situations. The other paper is written by Huang Liyun (黄里云，2002), who is from Guang Xi University. The title of the paper is “Stylistic analysis Of Diplomatic Language And Diplomatic Translation”(外交英语的文体分析与外交翻译). In the paper, Huang Liyun points out that the word diplomacy is an equivalent of Chinese Waijiao (外交), meaning interaction among different countries. Different diplomats and scholars gave various definitions to diplomacy, of which two main points are in common: first, diplomacy deals with relations between different countries and it is an important tool to defend a country’s national interests and realize its foreign policy; second, it acts as a peaceful means involving negotiations and dialogues in diplomatic activities. Therefore, language inevitably plays a very important role in diplomacy. Furthermore, when heads of states or diplomats from different countries who speak different languages are interacting with each other, translation is very important to ensure the smooth process of diplomatic activities. In this thesis, the author attempts to employ the theory of stylistics to analyze diplomatic language and deal with the translation of diplomatic language. It can be seen from the above survey that though quite a few articles discuss the subject concerning the features of diplomatic language in different perspectives, there are hardly any studies from abroad analyzing diplomatic language strategy with reference to pragmatics, few domestic articles relate the discussion of aspects of diplomatic language to pragmatics, none of the above discusses diplomatic language from “face saving theory”. 1.2 Purposes of This Paper This paper entitled “On Cooperative Principle & Politeness Principle in Diplomatic Language Strategy” also discusses “diplomatic language” and it discusses it in the aspect of linguistics theory, especially pragmatics involving the Cooperative Principle, the Politeness Principle. Additionally, the writer specifically introduces the concept “face” by Brown and Levinson concerning “face threatening act”, “negative face”, “positive face”, i.e. “face saving theory”, and illustrates through typical examples to analyze them in a new perspective: how a diplomatic spokesperson tries or manages to reduce the face threatening symmetrically. The writer implements a full analysis of the characteristics of the diplomatic language from angles of diplomacy including the register, the representation and the direction of the talk exchange in discourse, showing that indirectness is the important strategy for diplomatic language. Through the illustrations and analysis, the writer points out that negotiation and dialogue are playing such significant roles in present world that language matters a lot in diplomacy. The indirectness of diplomatic language brings about the intentional violation of the maxims of quantity, quality, relevance and manner under the Cooperative Principle, regardless of separate or simultaneous violation, giving rise to a series of “Conversational Implicatures”. However, no matter what kind of specific linguistic strategy is taken, the purpose is either to reduce the face threat to “other” or to reduce the face threat to “self” or to both. In other words, the goal is either to maintain the face to “other” or to “self” or to both or all sides involved. Moreover, the writer illustrates some other diplomatic language strategies including guarded understatements or euphemisms, politeness shift, politeness to a third party, etc. to further elaborate that the face threat