合作原則視角下的外交模糊語言分析

黃珊　易春燕

中圖分類號： H059 文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識碼： A 文章編號： 2095-2457（2018）02-0087-002

【Abstract】Cooperative Principle calls for people to speak in such a way that is informative， truthful， relevant， clear and brief. However， in diplomatic circle，sometimes politicians do not obey the Cooperative Principle， frequently conveying indirectly their meanings by using vague expressions for various political purposes.This essay analyzes the vagueness in diplomatic language from the perspective Cooperative Principle， investigating how the use of vagueness violates the Cooperative Principle and how diplomats manage to achieve various pragmatic purposes.

【Key words】Cooperative Principle；Vagueness；Diplomatic language；Pragmatic purposes

1 Definition of Diplomatic Language

To put it in a simple way， diplomatic language can be defined as the language used in diplomatic work which covers a large field such as political negotiations between different countries， meetings between state leaders， press conferences and so on. In Guo Hong and Peng Xiaodongs （Guo， 1999：37） view， however， the phrase “diplomatic language” indicates three different denotations， the first being the actual language （Arabic， Chinese， French， English， etc. ） used by diplomats in their daily conversation and correspondence with each other， the second being the technical terms that have become diplomatic parlance over time， and the third being the remarks and statements used by diplomats and statesmen to say sharp things to each other without becoming provocative or impolite. The third meaning is the most related one to this essay. In this essay， diplomatic language is limited to remarks， statements， speeches， either in oral or written forms， in various diplomatic occasions.

2 Cooperative Principle

The Cooperative Principle was first proposed by Grice ， an American philosopher， according to which both the speaker and hearer should cooperate with each other in communication to make the communication go on smoothly， and they should speak in a way that is informative， truthful， relevant， clear and brief. The basic idea is that language-activity， most typically， is a kind of rational social interaction governed by Cooperative Principle. In what may now be regarded as his classic formulation of this principle， Grice recognized several kinds of cooperation which he grouped under the headings of quantity， quality， relation and manner. （Lyons， 2007：277）. The Cooperative Principle is expressed as follows：

Make your conversational contribution such as is required， at the stage at which it occurs， by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged （c.f.Yule：2006：37）.

In itself， the cooperation principle doesnt state exactly what is ‘required of a conversational contribution （Cummings， 2007：10）. Specification is conferred on this principle through a series of four maxims which participants normally obey， but may on occasion flout or violate. These maxims are as follows：

2.1 The maxim of Quantity

（1）Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange.

（2）Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

2.2 The maxim of Quality

Try to make your contribution one that is true， specifically：

（1）Do not say what you believe to be false.

（2）Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

2.3 The maxim of Relation

Make your contributions relevant.

2.4 The maxim of Manner

Be perspicuous， and specifically：

（1）Avoid obscurity of expression.

（2）Avoid ambiguity.

（3）Be brief （avoid unnecessary prolixity）.

（4）Be orderly.

These maxims can be viewed as follows： the listener will assume， unless there is evidence to the contrary， that a speaker will have calculated her utterance along a number of parameters： she will tell the truth， try to estimate what her audience knows and package her material accordingly， have some idea of the current topic， and give some thought to her audience being able to understand her. The Cooperative Principle is a kind of baseline for talking （Saeed， 2004：193）.

In short， these maxims specify what participants of a conversation have to do in order to talk in a maximally efficient， rational， cooperative way. They should speak sincerely， relevantly and clearly， while providing sufficient information （Levinson， 1983：102）.

According to Grices theories， if the speaker obeys the Cooperative Principle， no implication or， to use Grice term， conversational implicature would occur. If people flout or violate the maxims， their words would generate implication. As a matter of fact， in our daily communication， few people could strictly observe the maxims， not to mention diplomats who often violate the maxims for various purposes.

3 Vagueness in Diplomatic Language and the Cooperative Principle

Among the four maxims of Cooperative Principle， politicians mostly violate the maxim of quantity and the maxim of manner （Zhang & Hu， 2003：49-50）.

Example：

Question：“Can you give us any details about the discussions between DPRK leaders and Chinese officials on the Six-Party Talks and DPRK's planned satellite launch？ What did China's leaders say about these issues？”

Answer：“Representatives from two countries had extensive and in-depth exchanges on China-DPRK relations and other issues of common interest. Both agreed that consolidating and developing bilateral friendship and cooperation as well as strengthening communication and coordination in various fields is beneficial to their respective development and regional peace and stability.”

The maxim of quantity calls for people to provide efficient and a right amount of information as required. Providing less or more information than what is actually needed is regarded as violating the maxim of quantity. By the vague words “extensive” “in-depth” “other” and so forth， the spokesperson does not give enough information as needed and required by the journalist， apparently violating the maxim of quantity， for the journalist wants the details about the talks between the DPRK representatives and Chinese officials. The whole text is rather vague， a lot of vague expressions being used. DPRKs tough words on the Six-party talks aimed at resolving its nuclear issue and its planned satellite launch were extremely sensitive issues at that time. It is in this way that the spokesperson withholds the detailed information and avoids taking the responsibility arising from giving inaccurate information.

It should be noted that sometimes the use of vagueness in diplomatic language may violate more than one maxim of Cooperative Principle.

Example：

Question：“There are indications that Israel may launch large-scale attacks to the Gaza Strip soon. If that happened， which side would China take？”

Answer：“China welcomes and supports the efforts of Palestine and Israel to settle disputes through political negotiations， rather than the use of force. We follow closely the current peace process between Israeli and Palestine， and the developments in the Gaza Strip. We urge all parties concerned to take concrete measures so as to relieve the tensions between Palestine and Israel and the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. We support the efforts of the international community to promote the peace process， and look forward to substantial progress at an early date.” （Chinas Foreign Ministry Spokespersons Regular Press Conference， December 23rd， 2008）

We cannot tell from the above answer the clear position of China toward the indication， because there are many vague expressions. The journalist expects the spokesperson to specify which side China would take， but obviously， the spokesperson gives much more information than what is actually needed， flouting the maxim of quantity. Using a lot of vague words， the spokesperson also violates the maxim of manner which requires people to avoid obscurity and be specific， brief and orderly when conveying their meanings. The spokesperson does not give a direct answer to this sensitive issue. By this vague statement， the spokesperson avoids offending any other countries involved in the Middle East conflict， best safeguarding Chinas interests.

The example below shows the simultaneous violations of maxims of Cooperative Principle.

Example

Question：“Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei just concluded his visits to the ROK， US， Japan and Russia. When does he plan to visit the DPRK？”

Answer： “As you all know， Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei is now in Beijing after his visit to Russia， US， Japan and the ROK. He exchanged in-depth views with the four countries on the DPRK nuclear issue， the situation in Northeast Asia and the Six-Party Talks， among other issues of common interest. All parties agreed to working together for a peaceful resolution of issues through dialogue and consultations as well as committing themselves to the resumption of the Six-Party Talks.” （Chinas Foreign Ministry Spokespersons Regular Press Conference， July 16th， 2009）

Using some vague words， the spokesperson gives a lot of information on Mr. Wu Daweis visit to four relevant countries which is not required by the journalist， apparently violating the maxim of quantity. The journalist asks for the information of when Mr. Wu plan to visit the DPRK， but the spokespersons answer has nothing to do with this， violating the maxim of relation which requires people to provide relevant information and stick to words associated with the topic being discussed.

（下轉(zhuǎn)第95頁）

（上接第88頁）

4 Conclusion

The use of vagueness frequently flouts the Cooperative Principle，in particular，the maxim of quantity and the maxim of manner.Sometimes the vagueness may violate more than one maxim，which helps diplomats to withhold information，avoid making direct answer to sensitive issues and make the utterance more tactful.

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

[1]Cummings，Louise.2007.Pragmatics---A Multidisciplinary Perspective[M].Edinburgh： Edinburgh University Press.

[2]Grice， H.P. 1975. Logic and Conversation[A]. In P.Cole and J.L.Morgan，（eds）. Syntax and Semantic[C].New York： Academic Press.

[3]Levinson，S.C.1983.Pragmatics[M]. Cambridge University Press.

[4]Lyons，John.2007.Linguistic Semantics： An Introduction[M]. Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.

[5]Saeed，J.I.2004.Semantics[M].Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

[6]Yule，George.2006.Pragmatics[M].Oxford：Oxford University Press.

[7]郭鴻，彭曉東，1999，《外交英語（修訂版）》[M].對外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué)出版社。

[8]黃金祺，1993，《什么是外交—中英文對照外事知識》[M].知識出版社。

[9]張悅，胡志清，2003，官方新聞發(fā)布語言中的合作原則[J].《外語教育》第49-56頁.