英语论文网

e Rapport Management Theory as itstheoretical perspective,and the less studied spoken discourse of Business English as alingua franca discourse as the corpus to explore the use of mitigation strategies andtheir interpersonal pragmatic motivations.

Chapter TwoLiterature Review

2.1 Definitions of mitigation

So far,scholars have not reached a consensus on the definition and classificationof moderated languages.Fraser(1980),the first scholar to study mitigation and hasbeen widely recognized,initially applied the concept of mitigation to modernpragmatics in Conversational Mitigation and gave the relevant definitions andclassifications.Fraser holds that mitigation is not a type of speech act and to mitigateis closely related to some particular illocutionary act or perlocutionary act.He pointsout some features of mitigation:it can arise certain effects such as making utterancesmore soft or palatable,modify those effects which are unwelcome to hearers,and it isnot the same as politeness or hedging.Both Holmes(1984)and Blum Kulka et al.(1989)consider mitigation as the attenuation.Caffi(1999;2007)extends the conceptof mitigation,maintaining that as a synonym for attenuation,mitigation is the result ofa weakening of one of the interactional parameters,and a downgrading when theparameters involved are scalar,and it has the funtion of smoothing interactionalmanagement.She also presented a working hypothesis,attempting to establish linksbetween scopes of mitigation and their potential effects on the relational emotive level.Albelda and Estellés(2021)provide a definition of mitigation based on threeinterconnected dimensions:From a psychological perspective,they regards mitigationas a preservative force;from a socio-rhetorical perspective,mitigation is the result of a speaker reading the hearer’s mind and suspecting the image of the hearer in order toachieve interaction goals that are beneficial to the speaker;from a linguisticperspective,mitigation is often expressed by marked expressions and mechanismsthat minimize semantic or illocutionary intensity,increase vagueness,or defocalizethe sources of enunciation.In addition,they consider that semantic(not pragmatic)mitigation,politeness and intensification are not qualified as mitigation.

2.2 Classifications of mitigation

Scholars put forward the definition of mitigation,but also gave their ownclassifications of mitigation.Fraser(1980)pointed out that there are two kinds ofmitigation,namely self-serving mitigation and altruistic mitigation.Among them, there are two forms of self-serving mitigation.One is that the speaker will considerthe negative impact of his behavior on the speaker,and show the tendency to defendhis speech behavior,hoping to eliminate the negative feelings of the hearer.Thesecond is that the speaker needs to use mitigation to get out of the dilemma,namely,to imply his point of view or original intention through mitigation.He also proposessix specific strategies,indirect speech acts,distancing techniques or immediacies,parenthetical verbs,disclaimers,tag questions,and hedges.

Both Holmes(1984)and Blum Kulka et al.(1989)consider mitigation as theattenuation.Although their definitions are similar,they proposed the classification ofmitigation from different dimensions.Holmes pointed out that mitigation involvesweakening the illocutionary force produced by a specific sp本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。