hedging模糊限制语
模糊限制词1分析
二、缓和型模糊限制语 缓和型模糊限制语(shields)是指不改变话 语结构的原意，而使其肯定语气趋向缓和 的词语。话语中加上缓和型模糊限制语相 当于增加了一个说明，指出话语是说话人 本人或第三者的看法。缓和型模糊限制语 也可以再分为两类：直接缓和语和间接缓 和语。
.
1．直接缓和语 (plausibility shields)
杨万里对江西派的批评没有明说，从他 的创作看来，大概也是不很满意那几点， 所以他不掉书袋，废除古典，真能够做到 平易自然，接近口语。
（钱钟书《宋诗选注》）
我们的行动，上头老早就知道了。可能 是这里的地头龙密报了上头，上头授意给 他来传达意见也说不定。好吧，来者不拒， 我们随机应变吧！
（黄谷柳《虾球传》）
.
间接缓和语是指引用第三者的看法，从而间 接地表达说话人对某事情的态度的词语。它 包括：according to one’s estimates，is well known，presumably，someone says that，it is said that，the possibility would be，the probability is … 等。
根据 H ． P． Grice 而划分的“真实情况表语 义、非真实情况表语用”的含意理论，变动 型模糊限制语按照实际情况改变对话题的认 识，应属语义范畴；而缓和型的模糊限制语 并不改变话题内容，只是传达了说话人对话 题所持的猜疑或保留态度，应属语用范畴。 在言语交际中，区分出两种作用不同的模糊 限制语，对运用和理解语言都是具有重要的 实践意义。
变动型模糊限制语还可以进一步分为两类： 一是根据实际情况对原话语意义作某种程 度的修正的词语，即“程度变动语”；二 是指给原话语定出一个变动范围的词语， 即所谓的“范围变动语”。在言语交际中， 正确地使用这两类变动型模糊限制语可以 避免说话武断，做到说话得体，从而顺利 地实现交际目的。
大学英语教学中模糊限制语的语用功能一、引言模糊限制语（Hedges）是...
大学英语教学中模糊限制语的语用功能一、引言模糊限制语（Hedges）是模糊语言的重要组成部分，在英语交际中恰当使用模糊限制语不仅不会影响我们对话语的理解，反而能增强语言表达的灵活性，提高语言的表达效果，使交际顺利进行，实现交际目的。
因此，对大学英语教学中出现的模糊限制语进行研究，分析模糊限制语在英语教学中的语用功能，颇有意义。
二、模糊限制语及其功能1972年美国语言学家拉科夫（GeorgeLakoff）在《语义标准和概念逻辑的研究》（AstudyinMeaningCriteriaandtheLogicofFuzzyConcepts）中提出了模糊限制语的概念，将模糊限制语定义为一些“把事情弄得模模糊糊的词语”。
我国最早的模糊限制语研究要追溯到20世纪70年代末，1979年伍铁平在《模糊限制语初探》中简单介绍了模糊限制语及其分类和语用功能，之后其他学者也认识到了世界中存在的各种模糊现象。
在某种程度上，模糊限制语表面上的模糊却显示了语言的客观性和严谨性，从而提高语言的可信度。
模糊限制语具有丰富的语用功能，在人们的日常交际中，为了使语言表达更委婉礼貌、客观得体、灵活有效，人们并不总是直接表述，而是通过言外之意来达到此效果。
这与语用学中的会话含义理论、合作原则、礼貌原则等有着密切的联系。
美国哲学家Grice总结指出，人们在言语交际中为保证交际顺利进行，达到成功的交际目的，交际双方之间存在着一种默契，共（二）营造轻松课堂同遵守一些原则，这即是合作原则。
在言语交际中，人们有时会使英语教学涉及人际间的互动，也就是师生之间的互动。
在教用模糊限制语，表面上看似乎没有遵守这些准则，实际上，说话人学中，恰当使用模糊限制语，改善师生间的语言表达，有利于活跃违背了其中的一个准则恰恰是为了更好地遵守另一个准则。
课堂气氛和英语教学的成功。
在教学过程中，为了避免武断或争锋礼貌原则是英国学者利奇（Leech），在格赖斯（Grice）提出相对的情绪，模糊限制语的使用就可以使得话语缓和、得体，考虑的合作原则的基础之上提出来的，并将这一原则划为六条准则:策到受话人的情绪和感受，其效果会大不相同。
商务英语谈判中模糊限制语的语用功能及策略
[摘要] 模糊语言特别是模糊限制语在语言使用中的重要性越来越为人们所认识。
本文主要以语用学原理为基础，分析了模糊限制语在商务英语谈判中的语用功能及其应用策略。
模糊和准确一样是语言的基本特性，绝对精确的语言时不存在的。
罗素(1923)曾经指出：“整个语言或多或少都是模糊的”。
美国数学家L.A.Zadeh(1972）在A Fuzzy-Set-Theoretic Interpretation of Linguistic Hedges 中提出了一个重要的概念: 模糊限制成分。
但是，模糊限制语作为一个全新的概念却是由 Lakoff提出的。
Lakoff (1972)认为“ 模糊限制语就是把一些事情弄得模模糊糊的词语”。
此后，对模糊语的研究主要是从语义﹑句法的角度研究模糊限制语。
从语言的使用和理解的角度去分析模糊限制语的应用却被忽略了。
本文主要论述了在商务英语谈判中模糊限制语的语用功能及语用策略。
一. 模糊限制语在商务英语谈判中的语用功能一般人们认为在商务英语谈判中, 谈判双方为了能够获得最大的利益履行最少的责任都倾向于明确的表明各自的立场﹑条件和责任。
然而，少了模糊语言的运用这些要求是无法达到的。
模糊语言特别是模糊限制语的使用往往可以起到意想不到的积极效果。
模糊表达能使谈判顺利地进行, 试探对方的真正意图, 从而达到最后的共识。
1. 模糊限制语使表达的信息更准确美国哲学家格莱斯认为，在所有的语言交际活动中会话双方都应该遵循合作原则。
合作原则主要体现为以下4 条准则： A.数量原则：使自己所说的话达到要求的详尽程度；使自己所说的的话不要超过要求的详尽程度。
B.质量原则：不说自己认为是不真实的话；不说自己缺乏证据的话。
C.关联原则：说话要贴切。
D.方式准则：避免使用晦涩的词语；避免歧义；说话要简洁；说话要有条理。
商务英语谈判中所使用的模糊语言看似违背了格莱斯的会话原则，实际上深层次地遵循了会话原则。
有时候描述中的不确定反而会提高表达的效率, 尽管模糊限制语看似含糊, 却更具客观性和精确性, 它们以一种笼统而综合的形式, 含蓄地传达丰富的信息。
Analysis of Hedges and Their Pragmatic Functions in News
Analysis of Hedges and Their Pragmatic Functions inNews摘要：模糊限制语，是现实世界中的语言现象。
新闻中使用模糊限制语，是其准确性、简洁性、时效性等决定的。
对BBC和NYT上的语料分析，笔者研究得出其语用功能：增强准确性；保持灵活性和提高可信度。
关键词：模糊语新闻语用功能1.Introduction Fuzziness is the nature of language，and hedging is a crucial part of fuzzy language. G. Lakoff （1972）first studies the fuzzy words in the field of linguistics and his focus is on the logical properties of hedges in their ability “to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy”.He also suggests that hedges are words whose job i s to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy （quoted from He Zi-ran，2003：141）. Now，many scholars start to inquire into the application of hedges in all kinds of genres，but the research findings of hedges in English news are not quite persuasive from pragmatics. Therefore，the writer explores the pragmatic functions of hedges in the online materials from BBC and New York Times by contextual analysis of the hedges to sum up their pragmatic functions and to make the readers understand the hedged sentence. From the above mentioned，it can be concluded that hedging，referring to those words and expressions making things fuzzier or less fuzzy，is a linguistic device to encode the speaker’s degree of commitment to the truth condition.2.Pragmatic Classification of Hedges Prince divides hedges into two types from the pragmatic view，approximators and shields. Approximators can be further classified into adaptors and rounders，while shields cover plausibility shields and attribution shields as their own subordinate members （Dong Chan，2006）.Approximators affect the truth conditions of the propositions associated with them but not the speaker’s commitment （He Zi-ran，2003：142）. This type of hedges also can change or even cancel the original meaning.One is adaptors，which can change the degree of truth condition of the statement，including sort of，somewhat，commonly，etc.The other type of approximators is rounders，which give a certain range to a proposition. There are rounders，such as around，roughly，etc..Shields do not affect the truth conditions of the propositions. With plausibility shields，speaker/writer makes his direct estimation or shows his hesitation towards the event，such as I think，probably，as far as I can，etc. Attribution shields are used to express the attitude of guess or doubt that is stated by a third person，though the writer also agrees with the same idea，such as presumably，someone says that.3.Characteristics of News Truthfulness and accuracy are the key elements in news and are essential for the information conveying. These require the pressman to report the facts accurately and objectively. Then，news information also needsconciseness. One of reporter’s purposes is to use the briefest words to provide the most information. Another aspect is that the value of news diminishes with time. So timeliness plays an important role in news reporting.4.Pragmatic Functions of Hedges in News Application of hedges plays a great role in the information propagation of news and strengthens the expressive force. Here the pragmatic functions list as follows.1.Achieving accuracy.When the writer edits the news report，it is impossible for him to provide the thorough knowledge of latest news. ①The leadership is planning to bring it back this week under the normal rules.（New York Times）“Under the normal rules”，indicates that the reporter confines his statement to a limited range，in which the truth-condition of the statement is assured.2.Improving flexibility.Reporters used hedges to avoid being too affirmative about the information conveyed through news，when they lack enough evidence②Currently there are some 100，000 United States forces in Afghanistan.（New York Times）“Some” makes the above example fuzzy but more flexible. Readers will not criticize the reporter even if the real number of United States forces in Afghanistan was not correct，for the use of hedge helps solve the problem on the point.3.Enhancing credibility.③The cabinet shake-up has long been demanded by Mr. Fayyad and others in the Fatah faction，according to Reuters news agency.（BBC）In order to improve the credibility of the news，the reporter states the source，by“according to”. Reuters news agency，as a renowned news medium，provides the relatively trustworthy news information. Though the reporter is in favor of the opinion of the reports show，to state the source can make the information objective and reliable.5.Conclusion As fuzziness is the nature of language，the application of hedges stands to reason. The plausible use of hedges can be of benefit for smooth communication. Hedging could moderate the speaker/writer’s language，and make clear his views. Hence，it is urgent for the scholars to explore and utilize the pragmatic functions of hedges.Bibliography：[1]G. Lakoff. Hedges： A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic Fuzzy Concepts [A]. Chicago：Chicago Linguistic Society，1972[2]董婵. A Pragmatic Analysis of Hedges in Journalistic English[D]. 广西大学，2006[3]何自然. Notes on Pragmatics[M]. 南京：南京师范大学出版社，2003[4]何自然，冉永平. 新编语用学概论[M]. 北京：北京大学出版社，2009。
模糊限制语及其语用功能
最早提出“模糊限制语”(Hedge)和“模糊限制运用”(Hedging)的是Lakof(1972)，他在论文”模糊限制语对意义标准及模糊概念逻辑的研究“(Hedges —A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Zogic of Fuzzy Concepts)中提到“那些有意把事物弄得模模糊糊的词语，我们把它们称为模糊限制语”⋯1。
模糊限制语可以就说话的真实程度或涉及范围对话语的内容做出修正，也可以表明说话人对话语内容所作的直接主观测度，或者提出客观根据，对话语做出间接的评估。
拉可夫对模糊限制语的诠释建立在“理想认知模式”(ICMs)的基础上，深深植根于语义学的范畴_2 J。
Brown和Levinson(1978)认为模糊限制语是模糊集合中的一个小品词、单词或词组_3 J。
韦氏词典第三版把模糊限制语定义为：有意使用的一种不明朗或模糊的表达，而这种不明朗或模糊是能被听者完全理解的，一般不会导致歧义或含糊。
本文拟对模糊限制语的类型及其主要功能作浅显的探讨。
二、模糊限制语的类型Prince等研究人员(1982)通过分析医生用语后提出来的对于模糊限制语的分类，他们从使用范畴上把模糊限制语分为两大类：变动型模糊限制语(approximators)和缓和型模糊限制语(shields)。
(一)变动型模糊限制语变动型模糊限制语可以改变话语原意，或者根据实际情况对原来的话语意义进行某种程度的修正，或者给原话定出一个大体的变动范围，属于语义范畴。
这类模糊限制语还可进以进一步分为两类即“程度变动语”(adaptors)和“范围变动语”(rounders)。
1．程度变动语程度变动语是指根据实际情况对原话意义做出某种程度的修正的词语，它能把一些接近正确，但又不敢肯定完全正确的话语说得得体一些，与实际情况更接近一些，避免过于武断。
如：sort of，kind of，almost，a little bit，to some extent，really等。
#hedging模糊限制语
A. Plausible shields (直接缓和语）： The plausible shield involves something related
to doubt or lack of certainty; it refers to the speaker’s subjective inference or judgment. Plausible shields are the expressions as: I think, probably, as far as I can tell, seem, wonder, hard to say, I believe, I suppose, I’m afraid, etc..
From (1b) and (1c) we see the two types of hedges mentioned above. Sort of and the like in (1b) are Approximators, which belong to truth-conditional semantics; while I think and others (such as I guess, according to sb’s opinion, etc.) are Shields, belonging to non-truth-conditional pragmatics.
e. He may come tomorrow.
B. Attributing shields（间接缓和语） The attributing shield attributes the speaker’s
belief to someone other than the speaker himself.
英汉模糊限制语在学术语篇中的差异
英汉模糊限制语在学术语篇中的差异模糊限制语是用来表示命题意义临时性、可能性及不确定性的话语标记，它们在学术写作中被广泛使用。
此前的研究表明，不同语言在模糊限制语的使用上存在差异。
这些差异在一定程度上将会影响二语写作中作者对模糊限制语语的使用。
本文从教学角度出发，试图分析英汉两种语言在学术语篇中的差异，从而对英语二语写作教学提出指导建议。
标签：英汉模糊限制语；学术语篇；差异1.模糊限制语简介模糊限制语这一概念最早由语言学家Lakoff 提出，他将模糊限制语定义为“那些使意思更加模糊或更不模糊的词”（1972，p. 195）。
自从这一概念被提出，学者们纷纷从多种角度对模糊限制现象进行了广泛研究。
Hinkel将模糊限制语定义为“作者避免对命题话语完全承诺的一种手段”（1997，p.361）。
Hyland则认为模糊限制语用于表示“缺乏对命题意义真值的完全承诺” （1996，p.251）。
目前为止，学者们普遍认为，在学术语篇中模糊限制语（如might，probably，seem）用于表示作者对所指信息有所保留的评估（Hyland & Tse，2004），量化作者对命题意义的认同程度（Vande Kopple，1985），从而保留一定的争论空间。
2.模糊限制语的分类一些学者基于自己对模糊限制语的定义，从不同角度对其进行分类。
其中Price 等人（1982），Salager-Meyer （1994），Hyland （1998）对模糊限制语的分类受到广泛认可。
Price 等人认为模糊限制语有两种，第一种叫做“接近型模糊限制语” （approximators），第二种叫做“掩饰型模糊限制语”（shields）。
”接近型模糊限制语”是指那些影响命题话语真值程度的词，如relatively，kind of，etc.。
而“掩饰型模糊限制语”不会影响命题意义本身，只是表明说话者对命题话语有所保留的认同或支持，如I think，as far as I know。
模糊限制词1分析
Shakespeare is par excellence the poet.
第十七页，编辑于星期日：二点 四十三分。
去快叫个人牙子来，多少卖几百两银子，
拔去肉中刺，眼中钉，大家过太平日子。 （曹雪芹《红楼梦》）
时代的轮子，毫无怜悯地碾毙了那些软脊 骨的！只有脚力键者能够跟得上，然而大半 还不是成了Outcast！
第二十二页，编辑于星期日：二点 四十三分。
以上各例中的直接缓和语表达了说话者本
人直接推测和犹疑。这类模糊限制语常常用
于说话人对某种事情的真实程度没有把握，
信心不足或不敢予以肯定。因此，在陈述这
样的事情时，总会加上“据我所知”、“可
能”、“大概”等模糊限制语，从而缓和对
该事情的肯定口
气。
.
第二十三页，编辑于星期日：二点 四十三分。
应该指出的是，有的程度变动的模糊限制语 揭示的程度差异是可以进行比较的，如： “It’s very good.” 比 “It’s rather good” 的程度 高一些。对英语中常见的副词性程度变动的模 糊限制语的模糊程度的差异可以用下列公式表 示：
very ＞ quite ＞ somewhat ＞ rather ＞ pretty ＞ a
near the specific situation goes to the topic, but he
can only consider the limits, for the specific
figures will be mentioned in the discourse. The
hearer can understand the meaning within some
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
II. Approximators（变动型模糊限制语） Approximators（变动型模糊限制语）
The approximator shows the difference or degrees of the (prototypical) proposition; it effects the truth condition of the proposition. (3)a. A robin is a bird. (True) b. A chicken is a bird. (True?) c. A bat is a bird. (False) d. A cow is a bird. (False) (4)a. A robin is a sort of a bird. (False) b. A chicken is a sort of a bird. (True) c. A bat is a sort of a bird. (False?) d. A cow is a sort of a bird. (False)
(14)a. He suffers from cancer. b. According to the doctor, he suffers from cancer. The higher the social rank is of the person cited by the speaker, the more the speaker believes it, and the more convincing the proposition is: (15)a. According to the doctor, John suffers from cancer. (?)b. According to the nurse, John suffers from cancer. (??)c. According to the little boy whom I met, John suffers from cancer.
Other adaptors are: sort of, kind of, somewhat, really, almost, quite, entirely, a little bit, to some extent, more or less, etc. B) Rounders（范围变动语）: It is common in Rounders（范围变动语）: the domain of measurements: (9)a. The book is this size. b. The book is about/ roughly this size.
This suggests that the speaker believes that the cited proposition is true, though he does not express his own belief directly (Someone says (Someone so-and-so conveys not only someone’s belief, so-andbut also the speaker’s confidence.). Attributing shields are those as according to one’s estimates, presumably, Someone says that…, As is well known, the possibility would be…, the probability is…, etc.. (13) a. He is crazy. b. Mary says he is crazy.
Hedging in Discourse
I. Defining Hedges
A hedge is a word or a phrase whose job it is to make things fuzzier. We can identify in discourse between 150 and 450 hedges per hour, or more than one every fifteen seconds. There are two types of hedges. One introduces, or is responsible for, fuzziness within the propositional content proper; the other correlates with fuzziness in the relationship between the propositional content and the speaker, ie. the speaker’s attitude towards the truth condition of the proposition conveyed.
(1)b. His feet were sort of blue. (1b): sort of affects the propositional content, thus making the original proposition slightly different. It means His feet were non-prototypically blue. The nonutterance still refers to the speaker’s knowledge, and “The speaker knows” can still be added to it. “The knows”
(7)a. (7)a. This is red. b. This isn’t entirely red. c. This is a little red. (8)a. The room is bright. b. The room is somewhat/ really/ quite bright, etc.
Compare the following utterances: (1)a. His feet were blue. (1)a. (1a) = the speaker’s knowledge + the fact (ie. proposition). “The speaker knows” can be “The knows” added to the utterance, and no hedges are needed. (1a) here means His feet were prototypically blue.
A. Plausible shields (直接缓和语）： (直接缓和语）： The plausible shield involves something related to doubt or lack of certainty; it refers to the speaker’s subjective inference or judgment. Plausible shields are the expressions as: I think, probably, as far as I can tell, seem, wonder, hard to say, I believe, I suppose, I’m afraid, etc.. (11)a. The cat is on the mat. b. I think/ I guess/ I suppose the cat is on the mat.
(12)a. Probably he will come tomorrow. b. As far as I can tell he will come tomorrow. c. I suppose he will come tomorrow. d. It’s hard to be certain he will come tomorrow. e. He may come tomorrow.
B. Attributing shields（间接缓和语） shields（ The attributing shield attributes the speaker’s belief to someone other than the speaker himself. Attributing shields show what the speaker says comes from others or from other obvious sources.
(5)a. In a manner of speaking, a robin is a bird. (5)a. speaking, (False) b. In a manner of speaking,在某种意义上 a chicken speaking, is a bird. (False?) c. In a manner of speaking, a bat is a bird. (True) speaking, d. In a manner of speaking, a cow is a bird. (False) speaking,
(1)c. I think his feet were blue. I think in (1c) does not effect the propositional content, but the truth value of the proposition is unstable -- his feet were blue may be true, may be false, because to this proposition the speaker’s inference has been added. I think his feet were blue may mean In my opinion, his feet opinion, were blue.