模糊限制语的语用研究
摘要
模糊现象客观地、广泛地存在于人类生活的方方面面。因此，在人类语言中，同
样存在着许多词语，它们所表达的概念都是没有明确外延的概念，即所谓的“模糊概
念”。人们对模糊现象的关注与研究已有很长历史了，但是对模糊语言进行专门的研究
却是最近二三十年的事。模糊语言学，作为一门新兴学科，开始只是一门研究语义的
学科，主要关照对象是作为概念的语言范畴，属于语义学的一个分支（Quantitative Fuzzy
Semantics）,其理论基础是美国加州大学控制论专家查德（L.A.Zadeh）的“模糊集”（fazzy
sets）理论。但是,人们发现，由于模糊语言在言语交际中大量的，频繁的使用，模糊
语言的研究还牵涉到语用问题，即要从语用的角度，也就是从语言的理解和使用的角
度去分析研究才有意义。因为，某个词汇意义的不确定性只有在语用中，即放到特定
的交际环境中才能解决。
本文旨在对那些看似词汇，实际上是话语的“模糊限制语”的使用进行详尽的语
用分析，从而指出，在言语交际中，模糊限制语的使用是为了更好地完成交际目的；
使用模糊策略的能力是交际能力的一个重要方面；模糊限制语的正确使用能大大地有
利于言语交际的成功进行；言语交际中如何正确地使用模糊限制语。本文分五章来阐
述自己的观点：
第一章勾勒出整篇论文的主题与框架。首先，作者介绍了模糊现象和模糊语言学
的研究与发展状况。交代了文章的研究背景；接着，举例说明了模糊限制语在言语交
际中的大量使用及其对言语交际的影响。指出模糊限制语的使用不是单纯的“好”与
“坏”，而是一个是否正确使用和如何正确使用的问题，提出了研究的必要性和意义。
第二章介绍了什么是模糊限制语（定义、分类、功能）和为什么要使用模糊限制
语（四大原因）。根据雷科夫（197）的定义，模糊限制语是一些“把事情弄得模模糊
糊的词语”。由于模糊限制语具有使精确的概念模糊化的特点，因此，在言语交际中，
为了达到某些交际目的，例如，为了避免说话武断，使其更客观或为了使话语更礼貌，
人们往往会使用一些模糊限制语。这些模糊限制语的使用有时是遵守会话原则的，有
时则违反了会话原则，对这种现象应作如何理解？在第三章中，作者运用语用原则对
其进行了语用分析。
第三章运用会话原则中的“合作原则”、“礼貌原则”和“面子威胁”理论对模糊
限制语在言语交际中的使用进行具体的语用分析。根据格赖斯的“合作原则”，为了保
证交际顺利进行，达到成功的交际目的，交际双方都需要彼此合作，遵循一定的准则
（数量准则，质量准则，关系准则，方式准则）。同时，由于交际目的的需要，说话者
有时会使用一些模糊限制语，它们的使用有时遵循合作原则中的某一准则而违背了其
他准则，论文举例分析说明了模糊限制语在四个准则方面是如何使用以达到交际目的
的：影响人们使用模糊限制语的另一个重要因素是“礼貌原则”，因为“礼貌原则”有
助于解释为什么人们在交际中喜欢用模糊限制语来间接表达会话意图，而“合作原则”
不能清楚地说明这一问题。因此，需用“礼貌原则”来拯救它的不足，作为对它的必
要补充。论文从“礼貌原则”的六个准则（得体准则、慷概准则，赞誉准则，谦逊准
则，一致准则和同情准则）方面对模糊限制语的使用进行了进一步的分析说明。
第四章研究的是模糊限制语的使用策略，即如何正确使用模糊限制语。论文从三
个方面（积极礼貌，消极礼貌，间接礼貌）提出了五种使用模糊限制语的有效方法。
这一章是第三章语用分析的应用。模糊策略的有效运用能大大提高我们的交际能力。
第五章是对全文的总结。首先总结出作者在论文中力图阐述的三个要点；其次提
出论文的不足和在以后的研究中值得继续关注的两个方面：模糊限制语研究在英语教
学中的应用和模糊限制语在言语交际中的消积方面以及如何避免交际失误的发生，使
言语交际更准确、更成功。
The Phenomenon of fuzziness exists objectively and widely in all aspects of human life.
Hence, in human languages, there is also a great number of words which express the concepts
that have not definite boundaries, namely "fuzzy concepts" Although there is a long history
that people pay close attention to fuzziness and study it, the special research about fuzzy
language just began twenty or thirty years ago. Fuzzy linguistics, as a new discipline, is just a
discipline that studies semantics at the beginning and belongs to a branch of semantics
(Quantitative Fuzzy Semantics), its basic theory is "fuzzy sets" which was pointed out by
L.A.Zadeh in 1965. However, since there is a large quantity and frequently use of fuzzy words
in verbal communication, the study of fuzzy language must involve the matter of pragmatics,
that is to say, the study of fuzzy language must be analyzed from the perspective of
pragmatics, from the perspective of language using and interpreting, as the indefiniteness of a
fuzzy word can be decided only if it is interpreted under a specific communicative situation.
The goal of this dissertation is to use pragmatic principles to analyze those words which
in fact are the "hedges" to discourses, then to reveal that, in verbal communication, the use of
hedges can help the participants achieve the communicative purpose successfully; the ability
of using strategies for being fuzzy constitutes an important aspect of the communicative
competence; the appropriate use of hedges can improve verbal communication greatly; and
how to use them appropriately. The author sets forth these viewpoints in five chapters:
Chapter One is the introduction. It sketches out the thesis and the plan of this
dissertation. Firstly, it introduces the study and developing situation of fuzziness and fuzzy
linguistics, which is the study background of this dissertation. Then, it illustrates through
examples that hedges are used enormously and frequently in verbal communication and
reflect communication greatly; the use of hedges is neither all 揼ood?nor all 揵ad? the matter
is that whether hedges can be used appropriately and how to use them appropriately. So the
study of hedges is a necessary and significant matter.
Chapter Two introduces what are hedges (definition, classification and function) and
why we use hedges (four main reasons). According to Lakoff抯 (1972) definition, hedges are
those words 搘hose job is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy? Since hedges have the
feature that can make a precise concept fuzzy, hence, in verbal communication, people often
like to use some hedges in order to achieve some communicative purposes, such as to avoid
being arbitrary and more objective or to be more polite. Conversational principles are usually
observed, but some times are violated by using hedges. How to explain this situation? In
Chapter Three, hedges are analyzed under pragmatic principles.
Chapter Three uses conversational principles: the Co-operative Principle, the Politeness
Principle and the FTA theory to analyze the use of hedges in details. According to Grice抯 Co-
operative Principle, in order to ensure the communication go on smoothly and achieve the
communicative purpose successfully, the participants must cooperate and adhere some
conversational principles (Quantity Maxim, Quality Maxim, Relevance Maxim, and Manner
Maxim). At the same time, because of the need of communication, the speaker have to use
some hedges which may observe one maxim but violate another. Through examples the
dissertation analyzes how hedges are used in four maxims. Another important factor that
reflects the use of hedges is the Politeness Principle. Because the Co-operative Principle can
not explain why people are often so indirect in conveying what they mean, the Politeness
principle rescues the Co-operative Principle and is a necessary complement to the Co-
operative principle. The dissertation analyzes the use of hedges in six maxims (Tac
样存在着许多词语，它们所表达的概念都是没有明确外延的概念，即所谓的“模糊概
念”。人们对模糊现象的关注与研究已有很长历史了，但是对模糊语言进行专门的研究
却是最近二三十年的事。模糊语言学，作为一门新兴学科，开始只是一门研究语义的
学科，主要关照对象是作为概念的语言范畴，属于语义学的一个分支（Quantitative Fuzzy
Semantics）,其理论基础是美国加州大学控制论专家查德（L.A.Zadeh）的“模糊集”（fazzy
sets）理论。但是,人们发现，由于模糊语言在言语交际中大量的，频繁的使用，模糊
语言的研究还牵涉到语用问题，即要从语用的角度，也就是从语言的理解和使用的角
度去分析研究才有意义。因为，某个词汇意义的不确定性只有在语用中，即放到特定
的交际环境中才能解决。
本文旨在对那些看似词汇，实际上是话语的“模糊限制语”的使用进行详尽的语
用分析，从而指出，在言语交际中，模糊限制语的使用是为了更好地完成交际目的；
使用模糊策略的能力是交际能力的一个重要方面；模糊限制语的正确使用能大大地有
利于言语交际的成功进行；言语交际中如何正确地使用模糊限制语。本文分五章来阐
述自己的观点：
第一章勾勒出整篇论文的主题与框架。首先，作者介绍了模糊现象和模糊语言学
的研究与发展状况。交代了文章的研究背景；接着，举例说明了模糊限制语在言语交
际中的大量使用及其对言语交际的影响。指出模糊限制语的使用不是单纯的“好”与
“坏”，而是一个是否正确使用和如何正确使用的问题，提出了研究的必要性和意义。
第二章介绍了什么是模糊限制语（定义、分类、功能）和为什么要使用模糊限制
语（四大原因）。根据雷科夫（197）的定义，模糊限制语是一些“把事情弄得模模糊
糊的词语”。由于模糊限制语具有使精确的概念模糊化的特点，因此，在言语交际中，
为了达到某些交际目的，例如，为了避免说话武断，使其更客观或为了使话语更礼貌，
人们往往会使用一些模糊限制语。这些模糊限制语的使用有时是遵守会话原则的，有
时则违反了会话原则，对这种现象应作如何理解？在第三章中，作者运用语用原则对
其进行了语用分析。
第三章运用会话原则中的“合作原则”、“礼貌原则”和“面子威胁”理论对模糊
限制语在言语交际中的使用进行具体的语用分析。根据格赖斯的“合作原则”，为了保
证交际顺利进行，达到成功的交际目的，交际双方都需要彼此合作，遵循一定的准则
（数量准则，质量准则，关系准则，方式准则）。同时，由于交际目的的需要，说话者
有时会使用一些模糊限制语，它们的使用有时遵循合作原则中的某一准则而违背了其
他准则，论文举例分析说明了模糊限制语在四个准则方面是如何使用以达到交际目的
的：影响人们使用模糊限制语的另一个重要因素是“礼貌原则”，因为“礼貌原则”有
助于解释为什么人们在交际中喜欢用模糊限制语来间接表达会话意图，而“合作原则”
不能清楚地说明这一问题。因此，需用“礼貌原则”来拯救它的不足，作为对它的必
要补充。论文从“礼貌原则”的六个准则（得体准则、慷概准则，赞誉准则，谦逊准
则，一致准则和同情准则）方面对模糊限制语的使用进行了进一步的分析说明。
第四章研究的是模糊限制语的使用策略，即如何正确使用模糊限制语。论文从三
个方面（积极礼貌，消极礼貌，间接礼貌）提出了五种使用模糊限制语的有效方法。
这一章是第三章语用分析的应用。模糊策略的有效运用能大大提高我们的交际能力。
第五章是对全文的总结。首先总结出作者在论文中力图阐述的三个要点；其次提
出论文的不足和在以后的研究中值得继续关注的两个方面：模糊限制语研究在英语教
学中的应用和模糊限制语在言语交际中的消积方面以及如何避免交际失误的发生，使
言语交际更准确、更成功。
The Phenomenon of fuzziness exists objectively and widely in all aspects of human life.
Hence, in human languages, there is also a great number of words which express the concepts
that have not definite boundaries, namely "fuzzy concepts" Although there is a long history
that people pay close attention to fuzziness and study it, the special research about fuzzy
language just began twenty or thirty years ago. Fuzzy linguistics, as a new discipline, is just a
discipline that studies semantics at the beginning and belongs to a branch of semantics
(Quantitative Fuzzy Semantics), its basic theory is "fuzzy sets" which was pointed out by
L.A.Zadeh in 1965. However, since there is a large quantity and frequently use of fuzzy words
in verbal communication, the study of fuzzy language must involve the matter of pragmatics,
that is to say, the study of fuzzy language must be analyzed from the perspective of
pragmatics, from the perspective of language using and interpreting, as the indefiniteness of a
fuzzy word can be decided only if it is interpreted under a specific communicative situation.
The goal of this dissertation is to use pragmatic principles to analyze those words which
in fact are the "hedges" to discourses, then to reveal that, in verbal communication, the use of
hedges can help the participants achieve the communicative purpose successfully; the ability
of using strategies for being fuzzy constitutes an important aspect of the communicative
competence; the appropriate use of hedges can improve verbal communication greatly; and
how to use them appropriately. The author sets forth these viewpoints in five chapters:
Chapter One is the introduction. It sketches out the thesis and the plan of this
dissertation. Firstly, it introduces the study and developing situation of fuzziness and fuzzy
linguistics, which is the study background of this dissertation. Then, it illustrates through
examples that hedges are used enormously and frequently in verbal communication and
reflect communication greatly; the use of hedges is neither all 揼ood?nor all 揵ad? the matter
is that whether hedges can be used appropriately and how to use them appropriately. So the
study of hedges is a necessary and significant matter.
Chapter Two introduces what are hedges (definition, classification and function) and
why we use hedges (four main reasons). According to Lakoff抯 (1972) definition, hedges are
those words 搘hose job is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy? Since hedges have the
feature that can make a precise concept fuzzy, hence, in verbal communication, people often
like to use some hedges in order to achieve some communicative purposes, such as to avoid
being arbitrary and more objective or to be more polite. Conversational principles are usually
observed, but some times are violated by using hedges. How to explain this situation? In
Chapter Three, hedges are analyzed under pragmatic principles.
Chapter Three uses conversational principles: the Co-operative Principle, the Politeness
Principle and the FTA theory to analyze the use of hedges in details. According to Grice抯 Co-
operative Principle, in order to ensure the communication go on smoothly and achieve the
communicative purpose successfully, the participants must cooperate and adhere some
conversational principles (Quantity Maxim, Quality Maxim, Relevance Maxim, and Manner
Maxim). At the same time, because of the need of communication, the speaker have to use
some hedges which may observe one maxim but violate another. Through examples the
dissertation analyzes how hedges are used in four maxims. Another important factor that
reflects the use of hedges is the Politeness Principle. Because the Co-operative Principle can
not explain why people are often so indirect in conveying what they mean, the Politeness
principle rescues the Co-operative Principle and is a necessary complement to the Co-
operative principle. The dissertation analyzes the use of hedges in six maxims (Tac
引文
Brown, G. and Yule, G. 1983． Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. 1979． Vocabulary: learning to be imprecise. Modern English Teacher 7(1) : 25-27．
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1974． A Theory of Prosodic Semantics. Unpublished MS, Language Behavior Research Lab, University of California, Berkeley.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1987． Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, L. C. 1991． Vagueness: An Investigation into Natural Language and the Sorites Paradox. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Channell, J. 1994． Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corrigan, R. et. al. (eds.) 1989． Linguistic Categorization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Corum, C. 1974． Adverb...long and tangled roots. In Papers from the tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 90-102．
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. 1975． Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman.
Davison, A. 1973． Performative verbs, adverbs and felicity conditions: inquiry into the native of performative verbs. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Dept of Linguistics, University of Chicago.
Davison, A. 1975． Indirect speech acts and what to do with them. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 143-185．
Foolen, A. 1991, Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity: some comments in a proposal by Laurence Horn. Pragmatics 1 (2) : 217-237．
Franken, N. 1997． Vagueness and Approximation in Relevance Theory. Journal of Pragmatics 28:135-151．
Fraser, B. 1975． Hedged performatives. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.: 187-210．
Fredsted, E. 1998． On semantics and pragmatic ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics 30:527-541．
Goffman, E. 1967． Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior. Garden City, New York.
Grice, H. P. 1967． Logic and Conversation. Unpulished MS. Of the William James Lectures. Harvard University.
Grice, H. P. 1975． Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic press.
Grice, H. P. 1978． Further notes on logic and conversation. In Cole, P. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 113-128．
Grundy, P. 1995． Doing Pragmatics. Edward Arnold.
Guilbaud, G. 1977． Mathematics and approximation. In Asher, H. and Kunle, (eds.) Proceedings of the Third Interactional Conference on Mathematics Education.
He Jisheng. 1992． On Hedges: A contrastive study of English and Chinese. Unpulished M.A. thesis. GIFL.
Heider, E. R. 1971． On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. Manuscript. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Heringer, J. T. 1972． Some grammatical correlates of felicity conditions and presuppositions. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University. Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 1-110．
Keenan, E. O. 1976． The university of conversational postulates. Language in Society 5: 67-80．
Kennedy, G. 1987． Quantification and the use of English: a case study of one aspect of the learner's task. Applied Linguistics 8 (3) : 264-286．
Lakoff, G. 1972． Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts, in Chicago Linguistic Society Papers. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Leech, G. N. 1983． Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. 1973． Felicity conditions as particularizations of Grice's maxims. Unpublished MS.: Language Behavior Research Lab. University of California. Berkeley.
Levinson, S. C. 1983． Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1977． Semantics 2 Vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matthews, P. H. 1997． Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.
McCawly, J. D. 1981． Everything that Linguists have Always Wanted to Know about Logic that but were Ashamed to Ask. Oxford: Blackwell.
Peirce, C. S. 1911． Vagueness. In Baldwin, J. M. (ed.) Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology Vol.2: 748． New York: Macmillan.
Prince, E. F. et. al. 1982． On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In Pietro, R. J. (ed.) Linguistics and Professions. Norwood: Ablex.
Sadock, J. M. 1977． Truth and approximations. Berkeley Linguistic Society Papers 3: 430-439．
Taylor, J. R. 1995． Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Thomas, J. A. 1995． Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Thorpe, W. H. 1972． The comparison of vebal communication in animals and man. In Hinde, R. A. (ed.) Non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 27-47．
Ullmann, S. 1962． Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wachtel, T. 1981． Distinguishing between approximations. Journal of Pragmatics. 5:311-322．
Wittgenstein, L. 1953． Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Yule, G. 1996． Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zadeh, L. A. 1975． Foreword to Kaufmann, A. (ed.) Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets. New York: Academic Press.
Zhang Qiao. 1998． Fuzziness-vagueness-generality-ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 13-31．
陈治安、冉永平，1995，模糊限制语及其语用分析，《四川外语学院学报》， 第1期：18-24。
陈治安、文旭、刘家荣，1997，《模糊语言学概论》。重庆：西南师范大学出 版社。
陈治安、刘家荣、文旭，2000，《语用学：语言理解、社会文化与外语教学》。 重庆：西南师范大学出版社。
何自然，1988，《语用学概论》。长沙：湖南教育出版社。
何自然，1990，浅谈语用含糊，《外国语》第3期。
何自然，2000，再论语用含糊，《外国语》第1期：7-13。
伍铁平，1999，《模糊语言学》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
俞东明，1997，语法歧义和语用模糊对比研究，《外国语》第6期。
Brown, J. 1979． Vocabulary: learning to be imprecise. Modern English Teacher 7(1) : 25-27．
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1974． A Theory of Prosodic Semantics. Unpublished MS, Language Behavior Research Lab, University of California, Berkeley.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1987． Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, L. C. 1991． Vagueness: An Investigation into Natural Language and the Sorites Paradox. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Channell, J. 1994． Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corrigan, R. et. al. (eds.) 1989． Linguistic Categorization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Corum, C. 1974． Adverb...long and tangled roots. In Papers from the tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 90-102．
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. 1975． Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman.
Davison, A. 1973． Performative verbs, adverbs and felicity conditions: inquiry into the native of performative verbs. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Dept of Linguistics, University of Chicago.
Davison, A. 1975． Indirect speech acts and what to do with them. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 143-185．
Foolen, A. 1991, Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity: some comments in a proposal by Laurence Horn. Pragmatics 1 (2) : 217-237．
Franken, N. 1997． Vagueness and Approximation in Relevance Theory. Journal of Pragmatics 28:135-151．
Fraser, B. 1975． Hedged performatives. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.: 187-210．
Fredsted, E. 1998． On semantics and pragmatic ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics 30:527-541．
Goffman, E. 1967． Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior. Garden City, New York.
Grice, H. P. 1967． Logic and Conversation. Unpulished MS. Of the William James Lectures. Harvard University.
Grice, H. P. 1975． Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic press.
Grice, H. P. 1978． Further notes on logic and conversation. In Cole, P. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 113-128．
Grundy, P. 1995． Doing Pragmatics. Edward Arnold.
Guilbaud, G. 1977． Mathematics and approximation. In Asher, H. and Kunle, (eds.) Proceedings of the Third Interactional Conference on Mathematics Education.
He Jisheng. 1992． On Hedges: A contrastive study of English and Chinese. Unpulished M.A. thesis. GIFL.
Heider, E. R. 1971． On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. Manuscript. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Heringer, J. T. 1972． Some grammatical correlates of felicity conditions and presuppositions. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University. Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 1-110．
Keenan, E. O. 1976． The university of conversational postulates. Language in Society 5: 67-80．
Kennedy, G. 1987． Quantification and the use of English: a case study of one aspect of the learner's task. Applied Linguistics 8 (3) : 264-286．
Lakoff, G. 1972． Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts, in Chicago Linguistic Society Papers. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Leech, G. N. 1983． Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. 1973． Felicity conditions as particularizations of Grice's maxims. Unpublished MS.: Language Behavior Research Lab. University of California. Berkeley.
Levinson, S. C. 1983． Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1977． Semantics 2 Vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matthews, P. H. 1997． Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.
McCawly, J. D. 1981． Everything that Linguists have Always Wanted to Know about Logic that but were Ashamed to Ask. Oxford: Blackwell.
Peirce, C. S. 1911． Vagueness. In Baldwin, J. M. (ed.) Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology Vol.2: 748． New York: Macmillan.
Prince, E. F. et. al. 1982． On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In Pietro, R. J. (ed.) Linguistics and Professions. Norwood: Ablex.
Sadock, J. M. 1977． Truth and approximations. Berkeley Linguistic Society Papers 3: 430-439．
Taylor, J. R. 1995． Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Thomas, J. A. 1995． Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Thorpe, W. H. 1972． The comparison of vebal communication in animals and man. In Hinde, R. A. (ed.) Non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 27-47．
Ullmann, S. 1962． Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wachtel, T. 1981． Distinguishing between approximations. Journal of Pragmatics. 5:311-322．
Wittgenstein, L. 1953． Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Yule, G. 1996． Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zadeh, L. A. 1975． Foreword to Kaufmann, A. (ed.) Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets. New York: Academic Press.
Zhang Qiao. 1998． Fuzziness-vagueness-generality-ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 13-31．
陈治安、冉永平，1995，模糊限制语及其语用分析，《四川外语学院学报》， 第1期：18-24。
陈治安、文旭、刘家荣，1997，《模糊语言学概论》。重庆：西南师范大学出 版社。
陈治安、刘家荣、文旭，2000，《语用学：语言理解、社会文化与外语教学》。 重庆：西南师范大学出版社。
何自然，1988，《语用学概论》。长沙：湖南教育出版社。
何自然，1990，浅谈语用含糊，《外国语》第3期。
何自然，2000，再论语用含糊，《外国语》第1期：7-13。
伍铁平，1999，《模糊语言学》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
俞东明，1997，语法歧义和语用模糊对比研究，《外国语》第6期。