淺論外交語(yǔ)言對(duì)于合作原則的違反

常 遠(yuǎn)

（北京林業(yè)大學(xué)外語(yǔ)學(xué)院 中國(guó) 北京 100083）

0 Introduction

Diplomacy as a worldwide phenomenon of great significance owns a history of thousands of years.From various aspects of study of diplomacy，it is easily seen that much effort has been devoted in the study of style of diplomatic language，especially concerning its“deviation”from usual norms，which refers to vagueness in opposition to exactness，clarity，and intelligibility.

The first thought given to vagueness is from the philosophical point of view by C.S Peirce in 1902，which indicates that the vagueness of language is actually derived from the vague mind of the language speaker.Over the latter years，hedging is viewed from various angles by lots of linguistic researchers.Numerous labels such as compromiser，downtoner，weakener，backgrouding term and pragmatic device show a continuing interest in this topic.

Domestically，Guo Hong，Wu Tieping，Jin Guihua and He Ziran are all famous scholars of the vagueness of language.Numerous academic papers such as Pragmatic Approach to Fuzzy Wording in Diplomatic Language and Pragmatic Analysis of Diplomatic Euphemisms by Ling Honghui，Pragmatic Analysis of Fuzziness in Diplomatic Language by Huang Qiang and Liang Ying are all successful attempts in this subject.

In my thesis I will first talk about definition of diplomacy，characteristics of diplomatic language as well as why the existence of vague language is reasonable and universal in diplomacy.Then a detailed analysis of diplomatic language’s violation of CP will be carried out.Finally，a conclusion will be achieved.

1 Chapter One Diplomacy

The word diplomacy，originally coming from the Greek word“diploma”，means“something written on paper or parchment and folded”.The word came into English vocabulary at the close of 18th century when intercourse with European countries fully developed.

There are various definitions of diplomacy.The New Oxford Dictionary gives its definition as follows：

Diplomacy is the profession,activity,or skill of managing international relations,typically by a country’s representatives abroad.

The Wikipedia English Dictionary’s definition is：

Diplomacy usually refers to international diplomacy,the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making,culture,economics,trade and war.

We can see that diplomacy，intimately connected with interstate relations，is the art of forwarding the interests of a state through negotiation and peaceful means，in which diplomatic language plays a vital role.

2 Chapter Two Main Features of Diplomatic Language

2.1 Diplomatic language

Diplomatic language is what a diplomat can say，mean and do verbally.It is a part of the substance of diplomacy which forms a part of the social system and has grown up in a certain culture.

2.2 The reasonable existence of vagueness in diplomacy

Diplomatic language is a formal，conservative，precise，intelligible，polite and tactful and persuasive language.In terms of politeness，language varies according to 1) the degree of intimacy between the addresser and the addressee;2) the degree of social distance separating the addresser and the addressee.Diplomats from different countries are strangers to each other.Even if they know each other，they are in the first place representatives of their countries.In this sense，they are least intimate to each other.Therefore，the language used in diplomacy tends to be more polite than used in other fields of life.However，international negotiations are full of contradictions and conflicts.Diplomats cannot avoid saying sharp things while contending for their national interests.This contradicts with the requirement of politeness determined by their least intimacy and greatest social distance.Therefore，diplomats sometimes employ vague language to achieve efficiency and flexibility of expression.This is often accomplished through flouting CP and its maxims.

3 Chapter Three Analysis of Diplomatic Language’s Violation of CP

3.1 Grice’s CP

CP was proposed by H.P Grice，who，at his time，had noticed that people do not usually say things directly but tend to imply them.Based on this，Grice proposed the famous Cooperative Principle.The vagueness of diplomatic language can be said to be the result of the contradiction between CP and Politeness Policy.

3.2 Diplomatic Language’s Violation of CP and Its Maxims

3.2.1 Diplomatic Language Flouting the Quantity Maxim

This maxim requires the conversers should give neither too little information nor too much unnecessary information than is required at the moment of interaction.However，this maxim tends to be violated by diplomats as diplomatic activities often involve crucial matters that relates to national interests.Under such circumstances，they will resort to violating the maxims to help them out of the dilemma.In the following examples，speakers flout the maxims of quantity deliberately by giving less information than was necessary.

（1）Observers believed it means there are some changes in Washington’s position on this issue.(China Daily，September 10，2009)

（2）It is still not clear if and when the US envoy would visit Pyongyang，but there is a chance that Washington will make a decision in the next few weeks.(ibid.)

The two excerpts are both sentences from news indicating the possibility of bilateral talks between US and DPRK.Obviously，the addressee need more information than provided by the interlocutors as to the changes in Washington’s position as well as when the decision will be made.In doing so，confidential information relating to national interests is reserved.

3.2.2 Diplomatic Language Flouting the Quality Maxim

The Quality maxim requires that we must provide true information and do not say any thing we lack evidence.However，violating Quality maxim sometimes can be said as interconnected with Leech’s politeness policy in that by concealing true diplomatic obstacles，a friendly diplomatic atmosphere is preserved.

（3）He said during a meeting with South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak that the situation on the peninsula was undergoing“a very big change”.(China Daily，December 19-20，2009)

（4）Wen then met US president Barack Obama for nearly an hour in what a White House official described as a“step forward”.

“They had a constructive discussion that touched upon ……all the key issues.”.(ibid.)

（5）The Presidents held in-depth,productive and candid discussions on U.S.-China relations and other issues of mutual interest.(U.S.-China Joint Statement)

By using words like“a very big change，”“step forward”，“constructive”，“in-depth”，“productive”，“candid”and“other issues of mutual interest”whose extents are hard to measure，the real outcome and situation of state of affair is reserved.A meeting is said as“constructive”when certain progress has been made but the two parties are still far from solving all disputes.The word“candid”shows that the two involving parties are well aware of their differences but have come to know their mutual stands.By using words like these，embarrassment of diplomatic failure is avoided，and a promising prospect for future meeting is created.

3.2.3 Diplomatic Language Flouting the Relation Maxim

This maxim requires utterances to be relative to the context of the speech or the topic of discussion.Grice believes that flouting this maxim is possible to achieve various intended goals.Nevertheless，it is contended that the seemingly flouting of this maxim rightfully proves our actual obeying of the CP，and the violation can be said to be simply literally irrelevant.

（6）“The Chinese people are wise enough to handle Hong Kong affairs according to the law，and any arbitrary comments are not necessary”，said Liu Jianchao (Spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry) (Beijing Review，March 2004)

Confronted by interference of our internal affairs from other governments，our diplomat implied our stand and attitude by the phrase“any arbitrary comments”and indicates our protest and dissatisfaction which successfully protected our national sovereignty and dignity.

3.2.4 Diplomatic Language Flouting the Manner Maxim

This maxim requires the utterances to be perspicuous.Sometimes people don’t speak clearly and simply，but obscurely and ambiguously on purpose，leaving the hearer in a situation of trying to understand the meaning behind it.In diplomatic communication，we note two inverse usage of euphemism：one is the longer euphemism the better;the other the shorter the euphemism the better.

（7）The US-China relationship is as important as it is hard work.(China Daily，September 10，2009)

This is an excerpt from a news delivery named Clean-tech push to lift Sino-US ties to new high.US and China have an opportunity to collaborate on a project of numerous bilateral and global significance：to lay the foundation for a vibrant and sustainable clean technology future.This sentence is employed to indicate the complexity of the relationship of the two countries.Both the countries are large and complex countries so it is not surprising that there are often differing views about their stands.

4 Conclusion

In this thesis，diplomatic vagueness of diplomatic language is viewed only in the perspective of its violation of CP and its maxims.Actually，there are still many aspects to be investigated but are left untouched due to the limitation of space.As a tentative attempt，it is hoped that this thesis can act as a stepping stone for further study.

［1］Beijing Review，March 2004.

［2］China Daily，September 10，December 19-20，2009.

［3］U.S.-China Joint Statement.

［4］郭鴻.外交語(yǔ)言[M].北京：對(duì)外貿(mào)易出版社，1993.

［5］何自然.語(yǔ)用學(xué)概論[M].長(zhǎng)沙：湖南教育出版社，2001.

［6］胡壯麟.語(yǔ)言學(xué)教程[M].3版.北京：北京大學(xué)出版社，2008，1.

［7］伍鐵平.模糊語(yǔ)言學(xué)[M].上海：上海外語(yǔ)教育出版社，2000.

［8］薛漢榮.英語(yǔ)語(yǔ)體學(xué)入門(mén)[M].西安：西安交大出版社，2003.