律师辩论中的模糊限制现象的语用分析
摘要
本文运用描述分析方法，对汉英两种语言的律师辩论中的模糊限制现象进行研究，旨在揭示律师辩论中模糊限制现象的特点和作用。
根据Hyland提出的模糊限制现象的分类模式，我们在汉英两种语料中辨别出三类模糊限制语：准确性指向类，说者指向类，听者指向类。这三类模糊限制语具有各自不同的语言实现方式和不同的作用。通过汉英法庭语言材料的对比分析，我们发现语言的不同会对模糊限制语的语言实现方式有所影响，但总体而言，两种语言中的模糊限制语存在较大的相似性。
本研究还表明，律师在辩论中经常使用模糊限制现象实现自己的交际目的，即最大限度地赢得听者对自己辩论观点的支持。模糊限制语可用于明确律师语言的准确性，保护律师在辩论过程中不受驳斥，表明律师对听者在辩论中的积极作用所持的态度。
我们希望，本文对律师辩论中模糊限制现象的探讨，能丰富现存的对模糊限制现象的研究，帮助了解律师语言的特性，进一步加深对律师的语言策略使用的认识。
Employing descriptive and analytical method, the present thesis probes into hedging in lawyers' arguments, in both Chinese and English contexts. The aim of the study is to describe routine practices of hedging in lawyers' arguments and demonstrate how hedging functions in the legal context.
Following Hyland's model, three types of hedges are identified in the Chinese and English data: accuracy-oriented hedges, speaker-oriented hedges, and hearer-oriented hedges. Detailed analysis suggests that there are different linguistic devices and different functions as to the three types of hedges. Although the difference between languages affects the linguistic devices, as a whole, however, there are great similarities in Chinese and English arguments.
The research also shows that lawyers frequently use hedging to achieve their communicative purposes in their arguments. Hedging can be used to display the lawyer's concern of precision, to protect the lawyer from possible negatabitility, and to convey the lawyer's attitude towards the hearer's active role in the argument.
It is hoped that the present study may add to the existing research on hedging, and may help to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of lawyers' arguments and the linguistic strategies lawyers used.
根据Hyland提出的模糊限制现象的分类模式，我们在汉英两种语料中辨别出三类模糊限制语：准确性指向类，说者指向类，听者指向类。这三类模糊限制语具有各自不同的语言实现方式和不同的作用。通过汉英法庭语言材料的对比分析，我们发现语言的不同会对模糊限制语的语言实现方式有所影响，但总体而言，两种语言中的模糊限制语存在较大的相似性。
本研究还表明，律师在辩论中经常使用模糊限制现象实现自己的交际目的，即最大限度地赢得听者对自己辩论观点的支持。模糊限制语可用于明确律师语言的准确性，保护律师在辩论过程中不受驳斥，表明律师对听者在辩论中的积极作用所持的态度。
我们希望，本文对律师辩论中模糊限制现象的探讨，能丰富现存的对模糊限制现象的研究，帮助了解律师语言的特性，进一步加深对律师的语言策略使用的认识。
Employing descriptive and analytical method, the present thesis probes into hedging in lawyers' arguments, in both Chinese and English contexts. The aim of the study is to describe routine practices of hedging in lawyers' arguments and demonstrate how hedging functions in the legal context.
Following Hyland's model, three types of hedges are identified in the Chinese and English data: accuracy-oriented hedges, speaker-oriented hedges, and hearer-oriented hedges. Detailed analysis suggests that there are different linguistic devices and different functions as to the three types of hedges. Although the difference between languages affects the linguistic devices, as a whole, however, there are great similarities in Chinese and English arguments.
The research also shows that lawyers frequently use hedging to achieve their communicative purposes in their arguments. Hedging can be used to display the lawyer's concern of precision, to protect the lawyer from possible negatabitility, and to convey the lawyer's attitude towards the hearer's active role in the argument.
It is hoped that the present study may add to the existing research on hedging, and may help to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of lawyers' arguments and the linguistic strategies lawyers used.
引文
Banks, D. 1994. Hedges and how to trim them [A]. in O.A.M. Brekke, T. Dahl & J. Myking (eds.), 9th European symposium of LSP [C].'589-92. University of Bergen.
Barlow, Prosecution opening argument, retrieved 2003, from http://www.weitzelcharts.com/prosecution.opening statementl.htm
Blasier, R. Closing argument in the Simpson Case, retrieved 2003, from http ://simp son. walraven, org/jan23-97. html
Bernick, D, Closing argument in Gladys J. Laas, Et Al Vs. Dow Coming Corporation, Et Al, retrieved 2003, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/implants/legal/defenseargue.html
Clementon, D.E Oral argument of Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, retrieved 2003, from http://www.supreraecourtus.gov/oral arguments/argument transcripts/02-749.pdf
Dudley-Evans, & T. Backhouse (eds.) Economics and Language [M], 153-169. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P 1991. Language and symbolic power [M]. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Brown, P & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology [M]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Channel, J.1994. Vague language [M]. Oxford: OUE
Coates, J. 1987. Epistemic modality and spoken discourse [J]. Transactions of the Philological society, 85:100-131.
Collins, E 1991. The modals of obligation and necessity in Australian English [A]. In K. Aijmer & B.Altenbert (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics[C], 145-165.London: Longman.
Crimore, A. & Markkanen, R. & Steffensen, M. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students [J]. Written
Communication, 10(1): 39-71.
Crystal, D. 1995. In search of English: a traveler's guide [J]. ELTJournal, 49(2): 107-121.
Crystal, D. & Davy, D. 1975. Advanced conversational English [M]. London: Longman.
Ernst, T.B. 1984. Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English [A]. Indiana Linguistics Club.
Farr, B.H. Oral argument of Olympic Airways v. Husain, retrieved 2003, from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral areuments/argument.transcripts/02-1348.pdf
Foucault, M. 1981. The order of discourse [A]. In R. Young (ed.) Untying the text: A Post Structuralist Reader[C]. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Galasinski, D.2000. The Language of deception: A discourse analytical study [M]. Sage Publication, Inc.
Garrison, J. Opening statement of State of Louisiana vs. Clay Shaw, retrieved 2003, from http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/garrisono.htm
Greenbaum, S. & Quirk, R.1990. A student's grammar of the English language [M]. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English [J]. Foundations of Language, 6: 322-361.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar (2nd Ed) [M]. London: Edvard Arnold.
Holmes, J. 1984. Modifying illocutionary forces. Journal of Pragmatics, 8:345-365
Hyland, K. 1996.Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles [J]. Applied Linguistics, 17:433-454. Oxford: OUP.
Hyland,K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles [A]. In Andre, as H.J.(ed), Pragmatic and Beyond New Series[C], John Benjamins.
Jacouemet, M. 1996. Credibility in Court: Communicative practices in the Camorra trials [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
James, A. 1983. Compromisers in English: A cross-disciplinary approach to their interpersonal
significance [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 7: 191-206.
Kelley, H .T. Closing argument of Commonwealth Vs Charles Robertson, retrieved 2003, from http://ydr.com/files/db/25.pdf
Kunstler, W. Closing argument of Chicago 7, retrieved 2003, from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrial s/Chicago7/Closin g.html
Kurzon, D.2001. The politeness of judges: American and English judicial behaviour [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 33:61-85.
Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts [A]. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers[C] 8:183-228.
Lakeoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman's place [M]. New York: Harper and Row.
Lakeoff, R. 1989. The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse [J]. Multilingua, 8(2-3): 101-130.
Lambert, T. Closing argument in the Simpson Case, retrieved 2003, from http://simpson.walraven.org/jan28-97.html
Lind, E. and O'Barr, W. 1979.The social significance of speech in the courtroom [A]. In Giles, H. and St. Clair, R.N. (eds.) Language and Social Psychology [C]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics Vols, l& 2 [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Maley, Y. 1994. The language of the law [A]. In John Gibbons(ed). Language and the Law [C], 11-50. London: Longman.
Mcdowell, B.B. Oral Argument Of Olympic Airways v. Husain, retrieved 2003, from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral arzuments/argument transcripts/02-1348.pdf
Myers, G. 1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles [J]. Applied Linguistics, 10: 1-35.
Myers, G. 1992. Textbooks and the sociology of scientific knowledge [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 11: 3-17.
Nash, W.1990. Introduction: The stuff these people write [A]. In W. Nash (ed.), The writing
Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse[C], 8-30. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage.
O'Barr, W.M. 1984.Asking the right question about language and power [A], In Kramarae, C., Schulz, M. & O'Barr, W. (eds.).
Palmer, F,1990. Modality and the English modals (2nd Ed.) [M]. London: Longman.
Perkins, M. 1983. Modal expressions in English [M]. London: Frances Printer.
Phillips, C.G. Oral argument of Green Tree Financial Corporation Versus Lynn W. Bazzle, retrieved 2003, from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral arguments/argument., transcripts/02-634.pdf
Phillips, C.G. Oral argument Of Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, retrieved 2003, from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral arguments/argument transcripts/02-749.pdf
Pindi, M. & Bloor, T.1987. Playing safe with predictions: Hedging, attribution and conditions in economic forecasting [A]. In T.Bloor & J. Norrish (eds.) Writing Language [C], 55-69.London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research/British Assn. of Applied Linguistics.
Powell, M. 1985. Purposive vagueness: An evaluation dimension of vague quantifying expressions [J]. Journal of Linguistics, 21:31-50.
Prince, E., Fradder, J. & Bosk, C. 1982. On hedging in physician-physician discourse [A]. In R.D.Pietro (ed.), Linguistics and professions[C], 83-97.Hillsdale, NJ: Albex.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, C. & Svartvik, J. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English [M]. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Radosh, R. Opening argument of Truman On Trial, retrieved 2003, from http://hnn.us/articles/173.html
Rounds, P.1982. Hedging in written academic discourse: precision and flexibility [M]. The University of Michigan Mimeo.
Selden, J. Opening Statement of United States vs Susan B. Anthony, retrieved2003, from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/defeopen.html
Skelton, J. 1997. The representation of truth in academic medical writing [J]. Applied
Linguistics. 18(2): 121-140.
Stirba, Defense opening argument, retrieved 2003, from http://www.weitzelcharts.com/defense .opening statementl.htm
Stubbe, M. & Holmes, J. 1995. You know, eh and other 'exasperating expressions': An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English [J]. Language and Communication, 15(1): 63-88.
Stygall,C. 1994. Trial language: differential discourse processing and discourse formation [A]. In Andreas H.J.(ed), Pragmatic and Beyond New Series [C], John Benjamins.
Turnbull, W. & Saxton, K. 1997. Modal expressions as facework in refusals to comply with request: I thiak I should say 'no' right now [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 27:145-181.
Zuck, J.G & Zuck, L.V. 1986. Hedging in news writing [A]. In A. -M. Cornu, J. Van Parjis, M. Delahaye & L. Baten (eds.), Beads or bracelets? How do we approach LSP,, Selected papers from the fifth European symposium on LSP [C], 172-180. Oxford: OUP.
Walter-Goldberg,B. 1985. The jury summation as speech genre: an ethnographic study of what it means to those who do it. Diss. U. of Pennsylvania, Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, 1985. 8603719.
陈林华，李幅印，1994，交际中的模糊限制语[J]。外国语(5)：55-59。
赵秉志，吕良贵，2000，叶会巨受贿案二审辩护词。http://www.criminallaw.com.cn.
高俊，1998，韩国双龙无单放货案代理词。http://www.why.com.cn.
何自然，1985，模糊限制语与言语交际[J]。外国语(5)：27-31。
何自然，1988，语用学概论[M]。长沙：湖南教育出版社。
何自然，1990，浅论语用含糊[J]。外国语(3)：28-32。
何自然，2002，语用学讲稿[M]，广东外语外贸大学外国语言学及应用语言学研究中心。
胡中安，1997，辩护技巧与方略[M]。北京：中央民族大学出版社。
黄锦如，陈桦，2001，模糊限制语的语用功能及对外语教学的启示[J]。北京第二外国语学院学报(1)：9-13。
梁国雄，2003，孙志刚案第二被告二审辩护词。http://www.lawsh.com/.
彭宣维，2000，英汉语篇综合对比[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
秦甫，2001，律师辩论的策略与技巧[M]。北京：法律出版社。
宋羽，2000，《图兰多》演出费担保案二审代理词。http://www.why.com.cn.
孙海龙，2000，恒升名誉侵权案代理词。http://www.yesky.com.
孙建荣，1987，模糊限制语的语用功能[J] 。外语教育(1)。
王建国，2003，试论模糊限制语的语用功能分类[J]。语言与文字研究(6)：82-83。
吴建新，1989，模糊语言的语用分析[J]。外语学刊(4)：7-13。
吴建新，1990，模糊语言在外贸谈判中的作用[J]。现代外语(4)：14-17。
伍铁平，1999，模糊语言学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
俞静尧，1999，律师实用心理[M]。北京：法律出版社。
游植龙，2000，变更上网包月制服务争议代理词。www.lawyer.foshan.net.
张敏泰，1996，律师辩护策略[M]。广州：广东高等教育出版社。
张乔，1998，模糊语言学论集[M]。大连：大连出版社。
江汉省清江律师事务所，2003，周林立赔偿案代理词。http://law163.net/zhuvue.
辽宁久鼎律师事务所，大东公司国际期货交易纠纷案代理词。http://www.lawyer.ln.cn/.
辽宁久鼎律师事务所，1998，赣江李深走私案辩护词。http://www.lawyer.ln.cn.
辽宁久鼎律师事务所，1999，谢建邦受贿案辩护词。http://www.lawyer.ln.cn/
Barlow, Prosecution opening argument, retrieved 2003, from http://www.weitzelcharts.com/prosecution.opening statementl.htm
Blasier, R. Closing argument in the Simpson Case, retrieved 2003, from http ://simp son. walraven, org/jan23-97. html
Bernick, D, Closing argument in Gladys J. Laas, Et Al Vs. Dow Coming Corporation, Et Al, retrieved 2003, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/implants/legal/defenseargue.html
Clementon, D.E Oral argument of Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, retrieved 2003, from http://www.supreraecourtus.gov/oral arguments/argument transcripts/02-749.pdf
Dudley-Evans, & T. Backhouse (eds.) Economics and Language [M], 153-169. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P 1991. Language and symbolic power [M]. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Brown, P & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology [M]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Channel, J.1994. Vague language [M]. Oxford: OUE
Coates, J. 1987. Epistemic modality and spoken discourse [J]. Transactions of the Philological society, 85:100-131.
Collins, E 1991. The modals of obligation and necessity in Australian English [A]. In K. Aijmer & B.Altenbert (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics[C], 145-165.London: Longman.
Crimore, A. & Markkanen, R. & Steffensen, M. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students [J]. Written
Communication, 10(1): 39-71.
Crystal, D. 1995. In search of English: a traveler's guide [J]. ELTJournal, 49(2): 107-121.
Crystal, D. & Davy, D. 1975. Advanced conversational English [M]. London: Longman.
Ernst, T.B. 1984. Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English [A]. Indiana Linguistics Club.
Farr, B.H. Oral argument of Olympic Airways v. Husain, retrieved 2003, from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral areuments/argument.transcripts/02-1348.pdf
Foucault, M. 1981. The order of discourse [A]. In R. Young (ed.) Untying the text: A Post Structuralist Reader[C]. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Galasinski, D.2000. The Language of deception: A discourse analytical study [M]. Sage Publication, Inc.
Garrison, J. Opening statement of State of Louisiana vs. Clay Shaw, retrieved 2003, from http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/garrisono.htm
Greenbaum, S. & Quirk, R.1990. A student's grammar of the English language [M]. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English [J]. Foundations of Language, 6: 322-361.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar (2nd Ed) [M]. London: Edvard Arnold.
Holmes, J. 1984. Modifying illocutionary forces. Journal of Pragmatics, 8:345-365
Hyland, K. 1996.Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles [J]. Applied Linguistics, 17:433-454. Oxford: OUP.
Hyland,K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles [A]. In Andre, as H.J.(ed), Pragmatic and Beyond New Series[C], John Benjamins.
Jacouemet, M. 1996. Credibility in Court: Communicative practices in the Camorra trials [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
James, A. 1983. Compromisers in English: A cross-disciplinary approach to their interpersonal
significance [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 7: 191-206.
Kelley, H .T. Closing argument of Commonwealth Vs Charles Robertson, retrieved 2003, from http://ydr.com/files/db/25.pdf
Kunstler, W. Closing argument of Chicago 7, retrieved 2003, from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrial s/Chicago7/Closin g.html
Kurzon, D.2001. The politeness of judges: American and English judicial behaviour [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 33:61-85.
Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts [A]. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers[C] 8:183-228.
Lakeoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman's place [M]. New York: Harper and Row.
Lakeoff, R. 1989. The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse [J]. Multilingua, 8(2-3): 101-130.
Lambert, T. Closing argument in the Simpson Case, retrieved 2003, from http://simpson.walraven.org/jan28-97.html
Lind, E. and O'Barr, W. 1979.The social significance of speech in the courtroom [A]. In Giles, H. and St. Clair, R.N. (eds.) Language and Social Psychology [C]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics Vols, l& 2 [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Maley, Y. 1994. The language of the law [A]. In John Gibbons(ed). Language and the Law [C], 11-50. London: Longman.
Mcdowell, B.B. Oral Argument Of Olympic Airways v. Husain, retrieved 2003, from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral arzuments/argument transcripts/02-1348.pdf
Myers, G. 1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles [J]. Applied Linguistics, 10: 1-35.
Myers, G. 1992. Textbooks and the sociology of scientific knowledge [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 11: 3-17.
Nash, W.1990. Introduction: The stuff these people write [A]. In W. Nash (ed.), The writing
Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse[C], 8-30. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage.
O'Barr, W.M. 1984.Asking the right question about language and power [A], In Kramarae, C., Schulz, M. & O'Barr, W. (eds.).
Palmer, F,1990. Modality and the English modals (2nd Ed.) [M]. London: Longman.
Perkins, M. 1983. Modal expressions in English [M]. London: Frances Printer.
Phillips, C.G. Oral argument of Green Tree Financial Corporation Versus Lynn W. Bazzle, retrieved 2003, from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral arguments/argument., transcripts/02-634.pdf
Phillips, C.G. Oral argument Of Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, retrieved 2003, from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral arguments/argument transcripts/02-749.pdf
Pindi, M. & Bloor, T.1987. Playing safe with predictions: Hedging, attribution and conditions in economic forecasting [A]. In T.Bloor & J. Norrish (eds.) Writing Language [C], 55-69.London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research/British Assn. of Applied Linguistics.
Powell, M. 1985. Purposive vagueness: An evaluation dimension of vague quantifying expressions [J]. Journal of Linguistics, 21:31-50.
Prince, E., Fradder, J. & Bosk, C. 1982. On hedging in physician-physician discourse [A]. In R.D.Pietro (ed.), Linguistics and professions[C], 83-97.Hillsdale, NJ: Albex.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, C. & Svartvik, J. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English [M]. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Radosh, R. Opening argument of Truman On Trial, retrieved 2003, from http://hnn.us/articles/173.html
Rounds, P.1982. Hedging in written academic discourse: precision and flexibility [M]. The University of Michigan Mimeo.
Selden, J. Opening Statement of United States vs Susan B. Anthony, retrieved2003, from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/defeopen.html
Skelton, J. 1997. The representation of truth in academic medical writing [J]. Applied
Linguistics. 18(2): 121-140.
Stirba, Defense opening argument, retrieved 2003, from http://www.weitzelcharts.com/defense .opening statementl.htm
Stubbe, M. & Holmes, J. 1995. You know, eh and other 'exasperating expressions': An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English [J]. Language and Communication, 15(1): 63-88.
Stygall,C. 1994. Trial language: differential discourse processing and discourse formation [A]. In Andreas H.J.(ed), Pragmatic and Beyond New Series [C], John Benjamins.
Turnbull, W. & Saxton, K. 1997. Modal expressions as facework in refusals to comply with request: I thiak I should say 'no' right now [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 27:145-181.
Zuck, J.G & Zuck, L.V. 1986. Hedging in news writing [A]. In A. -M. Cornu, J. Van Parjis, M. Delahaye & L. Baten (eds.), Beads or bracelets? How do we approach LSP,, Selected papers from the fifth European symposium on LSP [C], 172-180. Oxford: OUP.
Walter-Goldberg,B. 1985. The jury summation as speech genre: an ethnographic study of what it means to those who do it. Diss. U. of Pennsylvania, Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, 1985. 8603719.
陈林华，李幅印，1994，交际中的模糊限制语[J]。外国语(5)：55-59。
赵秉志，吕良贵，2000，叶会巨受贿案二审辩护词。http://www.criminallaw.com.cn.
高俊，1998，韩国双龙无单放货案代理词。http://www.why.com.cn.
何自然，1985，模糊限制语与言语交际[J]。外国语(5)：27-31。
何自然，1988，语用学概论[M]。长沙：湖南教育出版社。
何自然，1990，浅论语用含糊[J]。外国语(3)：28-32。
何自然，2002，语用学讲稿[M]，广东外语外贸大学外国语言学及应用语言学研究中心。
胡中安，1997，辩护技巧与方略[M]。北京：中央民族大学出版社。
黄锦如，陈桦，2001，模糊限制语的语用功能及对外语教学的启示[J]。北京第二外国语学院学报(1)：9-13。
梁国雄，2003，孙志刚案第二被告二审辩护词。http://www.lawsh.com/.
彭宣维，2000，英汉语篇综合对比[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
秦甫，2001，律师辩论的策略与技巧[M]。北京：法律出版社。
宋羽，2000，《图兰多》演出费担保案二审代理词。http://www.why.com.cn.
孙海龙，2000，恒升名誉侵权案代理词。http://www.yesky.com.
孙建荣，1987，模糊限制语的语用功能[J] 。外语教育(1)。
王建国，2003，试论模糊限制语的语用功能分类[J]。语言与文字研究(6)：82-83。
吴建新，1989，模糊语言的语用分析[J]。外语学刊(4)：7-13。
吴建新，1990，模糊语言在外贸谈判中的作用[J]。现代外语(4)：14-17。
伍铁平，1999，模糊语言学[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
俞静尧，1999，律师实用心理[M]。北京：法律出版社。
游植龙，2000，变更上网包月制服务争议代理词。www.lawyer.foshan.net.
张敏泰，1996，律师辩护策略[M]。广州：广东高等教育出版社。
张乔，1998，模糊语言学论集[M]。大连：大连出版社。
江汉省清江律师事务所，2003，周林立赔偿案代理词。http://law163.net/zhuvue.
辽宁久鼎律师事务所，大东公司国际期货交易纠纷案代理词。http://www.lawyer.ln.cn/.
辽宁久鼎律师事务所，1998，赣江李深走私案辩护词。http://www.lawyer.ln.cn.
辽宁久鼎律师事务所，1999，谢建邦受贿案辩护词。http://www.lawyer.ln.cn/
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |