英语论文网

eech act,and divides itinto four categories:prosodic devices,syntactic devices,lexical devices and discoursedevices.Classification of Blum Kulka et al.(1989)was also developed around speechacts,but they group mitigation into internal mitigation that occurs within the speechact and external mitigation that occurs outside the speech act.In addition,Holmes(1984)and Caffi(1999;2007)added psychological and emotional factors to thedefinition of mitigation.Based on“the proposition”,“the illocution”,and“theutterance source”on which mitigation can operate,Caffi(1999;2007)advances aclassification of mitigating mechanisms through extending Lakoff’s(1975)metaphor,namely“bushes”,“hedges”and“shields”.

Chapter Three Theoretical Framework.........................14

3.1 Rapport Management Theory......................14

3.1.1 Rapport Management Model.........................15

3.1.2 Rapport orientations.......................17

Chapter Four Research Methodology.........................22

4.1 Research questions................................22

4.2 Source of data.............................23

Chapter Five Results and Discussions.......................26

5.1 Frequency of three types of mitigation in BELF talks.................26

5.1.1 Bushes................................28

5.1.2 Hedges....................................32

Chapter FiveResults and Discussions

5.1 Frequency of three types of mitigation in BELF talks

Based on the transcription 23 business talks in the professional business domainin VOICE 3.0,the author analyzes the frequency of three types and several sub-typesof mitigation based on Caffi’s classification,that is,there are two sub-types as fuzzyterms and negative opposite in bushes;and two sub-types as downgrader andconsultative device in hedges;and five sub-types as first-person plural,perfectiveaspect,modal devices,quotational shields and strategic digressions in shields.Allthese will be explained in detail through examples.

The author calculates their proportions after collection and sorting.It isnecessary to note that the role of context should be taken into account,becausesometimes the same word may express different pragmatic meanings.For example,inone case,the first-person plural“we”indicates the solidarity and cooperative statusbetween the speaker and the hearers.However,in another case,it can also refer to thespeaker side.Therefore,the transcriptions need to be carefully filtered.

The table may help to better understand the frequency of different linguisticrealizations of mitigation in BELF talks.Quantitative results are as follows:

Chapter SixConclusion

6.1 Major findings and implications

This thesis aims to make an in-depth analysis of the mitigation used byparticipants in the BELF talks from the perspective of Rapport Management Theory.The main findings are as follows:

First of all,in the BELF talks,the linguistic realizations of mitigation used byparticipants include words,phrases,etc.In the quantitative study,according to thetranscribed data of the Professional Busines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。