序
Chapter lIntroduction
1 .0 A General Introduction
1.1 The Rationale of the Present Study 4
1.2 Problems with Previous Studies
1.3 The Object of the Present Study
1.4 A Description of the Data
1.5 0utline of the Thesis
Chapter 2Literature Review
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Terminological Issue
2.2 Approaches to Mitigation"…，
2.2.1 The Sociolinguistic Approach
2.2.2 The Cross culturallnterlanguage Pragmatic Approach
2.2.3 The Pragmatic Approach
2.2.3.1 The Pragmalinguistic Trend
2.2.3.2 The Semanticopragmatic Trend
2.2.3.3 The Sociopragmatic Trend
2.2.3.4 The Psychopragmatic Trend
2.3 Achievements
Chapter 3The Conceptual Framework
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Definitions of Mitigation
3.1.1 Previous Definitions Revisited
3.1.2A Working Definition of Mitigation
3.2 Delimitation of Mitigation
3.2.1Mitigation and Indirectness
3.2.2Mitigation and PolitenessFacework
3.3 Theoretical Background
3.3.1 Linguistic Adaptation
3.3.2Empathy
3.4 Characterization of the Conceptual Framework
3.4.1Mitigating Strategies
3.4.2 Contextual Constraints on Mitigation
3.4.3Mitigating Functions
3.4.4Adaptation, Empathy and Mitigation
Chapter 4Mitigating Strategies
4.1Propositional Mitigation
4.1.2 Evidentials
4.1.3 Tag Questions
4.1.4Epistemic Modals
4.1.5Subjectivizers
4.2 Illocutionary Mitigation
4.2.1Disclaimers
4.2.1.1Intention disclaimers
4.2.1.2 Entitlement disclaimers
4.2.1.3 Knowledge disclaimers 102
4.2.3 Truth Claimers
4.3 Perlocutionary Mitigation
4.3. 1 Simple Anticipation 12
4.3.2 Concern Showing
4.3.3 Penalty Taking
4.3.4 Direct Dissuasion
Chapter 5Contextual Constraints on Mitigation
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Mitigation as Empathic Adaptation to Power
5.1.2 Empathic Adaptation to Power: An Analysis
5.2 Mitigation as Empathic Adaptation to Negative Emotions
5.2.1 Negative Emotions
5.2.2 Empathic Adaptation to Negative Emotions: An Analysis
5.3 Mitigation as Empathic Adaptation to Controversies
5.3.1 Controversies
5.3.2 Empathic Adaptation to Controversies: An Analysis
5.4 Mitigation as Empathic Adaptation to Taboo Topics
5.4.2 Empathic Adaptation to Taboo Topics: An Analysis
5.5 Mitigation as Empathic Adaptation to Social Values
5.5. 1 Social Values
5.5.2 Empathic Adaptation to Social Values: An Analysis"""''. 154Chapter 6Mitigating Functions
6. 1 Interpersonal Functions 1
6.1.1 Image Management
6. 1 .2 Pacifications 1
6.1.3 Solidarity Building
6.2 Communicative Functions
6.2. 1 Elaboration Invitation 1
6.2. 1 .2 Comment Invitation 1
6.2. 1 .3 Commitment Invitation 1
6.2. 1 .4 Negation Invitation 1
6.2.2 Floor Manipulations
6.2.2. Floor Keeping
6.2.2.3 Floor Termination 1
6.2.3 Persuasions
6.2.3.1 Compliance Enhancement
6.2.3.2 Credibility Enhancement
Chapter 7 Conclusion
7.0 Introduction 2 1
7.1 Major Findings
7.1.1 Mitigating Strategies
7.1.2 Contextual Constraints on Mitigation
7.1.3 Mitigating Functions
7.1.4 General Findings
7. 1 .5 Empathic Adaptation and Mitigation2 1 97.2Implications
7.3 Limitations of the Present Study
7.4 Suggestions for Future Research
Bibliography
Acknowledgements
內容試閱：
The variation of the illocutionary forces of speech acts is an inherentproperty of language use, as argued by Ca伍 2007:1:
_style is inherent in the use of language. However usefulheuristically, the neutral, grey expressions used as examples in linguistics,including pragmatics, do not exist but in the minds of linguists. In reallife, our utterances are usually modulated, i.e., stylistically ''colored'' inorder to fit different contexts and express our feelings.
Thus, the variation in illocutionary force is another dimension whichcontributes to the characterization of a speech act beyond its illocutionarypoint, direction of fit and psychological state. If saying is doing, thevariation of illocutionary force, either mitigation or reinforcement, is amodification of what is done in saying and thus merits investigation.
購物車/收銀台(0) | 在線留言板
| 付款方式
| 聯絡我們
| 運費計算
| 幫助中心 |
加入書簽
HOME
新書上架
