商务谈判中模糊语语用研究.docx

商务谈判中模糊语语用研究.docx

《商务谈判中模糊语语用研究.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《商务谈判中模糊语语用研究.docx（16页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

商务谈判中模糊语语用研究

　　　　JISHOU　UNIVERSITY

本科生毕业论文

题目：

商务谈判中模糊语语用研究

APragmaticstudyofHedges

InBusinessNegotiation

作者：

学号：

所属学院：

国际交流与公共外语教育学院

专业年级：

英语专业商务英语方向2010级

指导教师：

职称：

讲师

完成时间：

2013年11月

吉首大学教务处制

吉首大学教务处制

独创性声明

本人郑重声明：

所呈交的论文是本人在导师的指导下独立进行研究所取得的研究成果。

除了文中特别加以标注引用的内容外，本论文不包含任何其他个人或集体已经发表或撰写的成果作品。

对本文的研究做出重要贡献的个人和集体，均已在文中以明确方式标明。

本人完全意识到本声明的法律后果由本人承担。

学生签名：

日期：

年月日

论文版权使用授权书

本人完全了解吉首大学有关保留、使用学位论文的规定，即：

学校有权保留送交论文的复印件和磁盘，允许论文被查阅和借阅，可以采用影印、缩印或扫描等复制手段保存、汇编学位论文。

同意吉首大学可以用不同方式在不同媒体上发表、传播学位论文的全部或部分内容。

（保密的学位论文在解密后应遵守此协议）

学生签名：

日期：

年月日

导师签名：

日期：

年月日

目录

摘要I

AbstractII

1.Introduction..........................................................................................................3

1.1backgroundofthisstudy3

1.2significanceofthisstudy3

1.3outlineofthethesis4

2.LiteratureReview4

2.1definitionofhedges4

2.2claasificationofhedgesinbusinessnegotiation5

3.threetheoreticalframeworks7

3.1cooperativeprincipleinbusinessnegotiation7

3.2politenessprincipleinbusinessnegotiation8

3.3Politenessprincipleandfacetheory9

4.PragmaticFunctionsofHedgesinbusinessnegotiation.....................................10

4.1CreatingHarmoniousAtmosphere11

4.2AchievingPoliteness12

4.3BeingSelf-protecting………………………………………………………………12

4.4BeingFlexibleandTactful13

4.5AvoidingorShiftingResponsibility14

4.6AvoidingContradiction15

5.Conclusion16

Bibliography17

Acknowledgments19

摘要

随着全球经济一体化的不断发展，国际贸易往来也越来越频繁。

在国际贸易活动中，不可避免地要同外国企业和集团进行商务交流和谈判，以达成合作和双赢。

在商务谈判过程中，双方在利益上是对抗的，但在语言表达上双方都会表现地非常友好，所以双方都必须在复杂的情境中做出恰当的语言选择，因为在整个商务谈判过程中，语言上小小的失误可能会导致经济上的重大损失，人们普遍认为为了避免误解和争议，谈判中尽可能使用简洁明确、具体清晰的语言。

自1972年Lakoff提出模糊限制语这一概念以来，模糊限制语逐渐成为模糊语言研究的重要领域，研究学者从语义、语用、篇章、逻辑学等进行了卓有成效的研究。

然而模糊语在商务谈判中的语用研究却一直是被人们所忽视的领域，模糊语言在国际商务谈判过程中的使用确是非常普遍的现象，因此需要我们再做进一步的研究。

本文是在前人研究的基础上从语用学角度来研究其在商务谈判中的应用。

商务英语中模糊限制语的语用动因在于提高交际效率，增强可信度和客观性，提高灵活度及礼貌性。

关键词：

国际谈判；模糊限制语；语用学

Abstract

Withthedevelopmentoftheglobalizationoftheeconomy,itisbecomingmoreandmorefrequentininternationaltrade.Inordertomeetcooperationandmutualbenefits,thebusinessexchangeandnegotiationareinevitableduringthebusinesstransactiontoachievethegoalofwin-winsituation.Intheprocessofbusinessnegotiations,bothsidesistheconfrontationinthefieldofinterest,butonthelanguagebothperformanceareveryfriendly,sobothsidesneedtochoosetheappropriatelanguageinthecomplexsituation,becauseinthewholebusinessnegotiationprocess,thesmallmistakeofthelanguagecanleadtosignificanteconomiclosses,itiswidelybelievedthatinordertoavoidmisunderstandingandcontroversy,negotiationlanguageshouldbeconciseandclear,specificandclearlanguage.SinceLakoffputforwardtheconceptofhedges,hedgeshasgraduallybecometheimportantfieldoffuzzylanguagestudy,researchersfromsemantics,pragmatics,discourse,logicandsoonhascarriedonthefruitfulresearch.However,pragmaticstudyoffuzzylanguageinbusinessnegotiationhasbeenignoredbypeopleinthisarea.Itisaverycommonphenomenontousefuzzylanguageintheprocessofbusinessnegotiation,therefore,weneedtodofurtherresearch.Thisarticleisonthebasisofpredecessors'researchfromtheperspectiveofpragmaticstoresearchitsapplicationinbusinessnegotiation.PragmaticmotivationsofhedgesinbusinessEnglishistoimprovetheefficiencyofcommunication,enhancethecredibilityandobjectivity,improvetheflexibilityandpolite.

Keywords:

businessnegotiation；hedges；pragmaticalapplication

1.Introduction

1.1backgroundofthisstudy

Vaguenessisanaturalandessentialpropertyofhumanlanguageandhedgesisacommonphenomenonincommunication.Businessnegotiationasabasicforminthebusinessfield,needsamoreflexiblelanguagetoachievebettercommunicativeeffects.Duringtherecentyears,greataccomplishmenthasbeenacquiredintheresearchoffuzzylanguage.Fuzzylanguage,likepreciselanguage,isaneffectiveinstrumentforhumanbeingstoexchangeideas.Asaveryimportantpartoffuzzylanguage,hedgesarealsoworthreceivingourmoreattention.Hedgespalyaveryimportantroleinbusinessnegotiationasanimportantlinguisticstrategy.Generallyspeaking,businessnegotiationsarecloselyrelatedtoparticipants’interests.Manypeopleholdtheideathatthemoreexactandclearlanguageis,thebetterthecommunicationgoes.However,itismotexactlytrueinrealcommunicationsuchasbusinessnegotiation.

1.2Thesignificanceofthisstudy

Thisthesis,theauthorattemptstoresearchonthehedgesinbusinessnegotiationfromthepragmaticprospect.Themainpurposeofthisresearchistoattractmoreattentionofthenegotiatorstoapplyhedgesappropriately.Thiswouldenablethenegotiatorstogettherightinformationandmaketherightjudgmentontheirownandinordertoavoiddisputesinthefuture.Thestudycombiningbusinessnegotiationandhedgesmayhavesomepracticalmeanings.thestudyaimstoexploreapragmaticapplicationofhedgesinbusinessnegotiationandtriestoachieveabetteranddeeperunderstandingofit,whichmaygivesomehintstothebeginnersofnegotiatorsorinterestedstudentsabouthownegotiatorsusehedgesinvarioussituations.

1.3Outlineofthethesis

Thisthesiscoversfivechapters.

Chapteroneisanintroductionofthewholethesiswhichincludingthesignificanceofthestudy,thebackgroundofthestudyandtheoverallframeworkofthethesis.Chaptertworeviewstheformerstudiesonhedgesbothathomeandaboard.Inchapterthreeintroducesdefinitionsandtheclassificationsofhedge.Chapterfourmainlyintroducesthreetheoreticalframeworksinthebusinessnegotiation.Chapterfiveisthemajorpartofthethesiswhichmainlyillustratesthepragmaticalfunctionsofhedgesinbusinessnegotiationandsomeanalyzingabouthowthepragmaticalfunctionsapplied.Chaptersixistheconclusion,whichsummariesthemajorfindingsandlimitationsoftheresearchaswellassomesuggestionsforfurtherstudiesontherelatestopic.

2.Literaturereview

2.1Definitionofhedges

Hedgingisalinguisticdeviceusedtosignaldistanceandtoavoidabsolutestatements.ThenotionofhedginghasbeeninthelinguisticvocabularysincethetermwasintroducedbyLakofftodescribe“wordsorphrases,whosejobistomakethingsfuzzyorlessfuzzy”.Ithasbeenappliedtothelinguisticdevicesusedtoqualifyaspeaker'sconfidenceinthetruthofaproposition,thekindofwordslikeIthink,perhaps,mightandmaybewhichweusuallyaddtoourstatementstoavoidcommitmenttooabsolutely.Therefore,hedgesexpresspossibilityincommunication.Onecouldstateapropositionasafact,e.g.,thismedicinewillhelpyourecoverquickly,oronecoulduseahedgetodistanceoneselffromthatstatement,e.g.Ibelievethatthismedicinecouldhelpyourecoverquickly.

Interestingly,however,Lakoffalsopointsoutthepossibilitythathedgesmay“interactwithfelicityconditionsforutterancesandwithrulesofconversation”（Lakoff,1972:

213）.InaccordancewithLakoff'smainconcern,however,thetermhedgehaslaterbeendefined,forexamplebyBrownandLevinson（1983:

145）as“aparticle,wordorphrasethatmodifiesthedegreeofmembershipofapredicateoranounphraseinaset;itsaysofthatmembershipthatitispartialortrueonlyincertainrespects,orthatitismoretrueandcompletethanperhapsmightbeexpected”.TheyalsotreathedgesasapolitenessstrategyinthesocialinteractionsandnegotiationsbetweenspeakersHyland，forexample,assertsthathedgingexhibitsaleveloffrequencymuchhigherthanmanyotherlinguisticfeaturesthathavereceivedconsiderablymoreattention.

2.2classificationofhedgesinbusinessnegotiation

Asfortheclassificationofhedgeswhichisofvitalimportancefortheresearchofitsapplication,itisquitevagueandlacksunifiedcriteria,thoughmanyscholarshaveproposedtheircategorizationfromdifferentperspectives,suchasthesemanticcategorization,thegrammaticalcategorizationandthepragmaticcategorization,etc.Fromtheperspectiveofpragmatics,theclassificationsproposedbyPrinceetal.andHüblerareconsideredmoreauthoritativeandinfluential.

E.fandprincecolleaguesFraerandj.c.Boskwhohaveproposedthehedgesfromtheangleofpragmatics.Accordingtoitspragmaticfunctions,hedgescanbedividedintothesameDynamictype（approximators）andmoderatetypefuzzyhedges（shields）.

2.2.1Approximators

Prince,Bosk&Frader（1982）conductedanempiricalstudyofhedgesindiscourseamongphysiciansworkinginanintensivecareunit.TheauthorsstartfromLakoff’sdefinitionofhedgesasdevicesthatmakethingsfuzzyandreachaconclusionthatthereareatleasttwotypesoffuzziness.Oneisfuzzinesswithinthepropositionalcontent,theotherfuzziness“intherelationshipbetweenthepropositionalcontentandthespeaker,thatisthespeaker’scommitmenttothetruthofthepropositionconveyed”（Prince,Bosk&Frader,1982:

85）.Accordingly,therearetwokindsofhedges.Oneiscalledapproximatorthataffectsthetruth-conditionsofpropositions.Forexample:

Hisfeetweresortofblue.

（Hisfeetwerenon-prototypicalblue.Sortofisthetypeofhedgethataffectsthepropositionalcontentbutnotspeaker-commitment.）

2.2.2Shields

Shields,whichdonotaffectthetruth-conditionsbutreflectthedegreeofthespeaker'scommitmenttothetruth-valueofthewholeproposition（e.g.Ithinkhisfeetwereblue）.Mostfrequentlyusedexamplesare“Ithink”,“probably”,“itseemstomethat”,“inmypointofview”,“Ibelieve”,“Isuppose”,“asfarasIamcon