学生视角的中国教师批评话语的功能—语用研究
|
摘要
《学生视角的中国教师批评话语的功能-语用研究》通过问卷调查收集语料，采用语料库分析方法研究具有中国特色的教师批评话语，透视师生的价值取向，情感态度，教育教学状况，关注和评价教师主体和学生主体，关注社会和教育的改革与发展。
全文共有七章。第一章引言简要概述教师批评话语在国内外的研究现状，及意义和目的等。第二章阐释该研究理论框架，突出系统功能语言学与批评语用学各自的优势及相互之间的互补性，两者合力对该研究的必要性和重要性。第三章阐释了问卷调查和语料收集及处理分析，归纳总结列出了10个A与C类词语对照表，为后面章节进行功能-语用分析提供翔实的数据和文字资料，为建构积极批评话语模式作强有力的支撑。第四章对A类教师批评话语和C类学生修改的批评话语进行功能分析与比较。①在概念功能部分，重点研究语场和及物性的三个过程：物质、心理和关系过程，从而透视语言背后所隐藏的态度、价值观念和意识形态等方面意义，揭示教学、教育等社会问题。②注重研究教师批评话语中体现人际意义的评价资源。重点分析显性或隐性、积极或消极、主观或客观情感、判定或鉴赏在两类不同批评话语中的趋势。分析研究情态、语气、评价词汇的级差，区别它们对实现人际意义所发挥的不同功能。③观察批评话语构篇中衔接词，以及主位和述位的不同选择如何突显、强调或弱化话语信息。基于第四章语篇分析发现的批评话语特点，第五章把他们简单划分为直言、反语、夸张和低调陈述四种基本语气类型，并对此语言现象进行了批评语用研究分析。语料研究表明，学生较倾向于用低调陈述评价。在第六章中，通过观察比较分析大量基于语料库处理的A与C类的批评话语实例，进行功能-语用分析，比较真实和客观地反映和揭示社会、教育、教学问题。同时，作者采取积极的姿态，提出解决问题的建议和措施：制定“四性”评价原则，并根据评价原则构建教师积极批评话语模式。第七章对研究结果进行了概述，突出了该研究的创新点，论及了理论与实践启示、该研究局限以及后续研究展望。
该研究和现有的教师批评话语研究成果相比，具有以下几个方面的创新点：
1）本论文采用学生视角，探讨中国的一种教书育人方式，即批评教育方式。通过调查问卷收集学生记忆中最为深刻或影响最大的教师批评话语（A类）和学生改写不当的教师批评话语（C类），使用ICTCLAS12011分词，Wordsmith4.0制作词表，经语料数据统计分析，找出学生最不喜欢的教师批评话语的言语特征和学生所期盼的教师批评话语的言语特征，尤其对一些隐性的批评言语构式（学生极为反感而老师没有意识到）进行了揭示。
2）融合系统功能语言学和语用学的理论与方法研究教师批评话语。利用系统功能语言学在语篇分析上的优势，对经语料处理的两类批评话语进行概念、人际、语篇功能互文分析，据实客观得出恰当与失当的教师批评话语的典型特征，并探析其折射的问题和引发的思考。利用语用学在探析语言使用者和接受者方面的优势，针对A与C类的言语特征及其出现的一些变异进行批评语用阐释，从而补充和深化教师批评话语研究。以丰富的例证表明批评话语语类因语域不同而有差异，批评者需根据体裁、目的、场合、对象变通选择话语。
3）基于学生反映出的教师批评话语的问题，制定了“四性”（针对性、导向性、多样性、得体性）评价原则，构建了积极批评话语模式（非人格化方式、辩证方式、修正方式、积极正面方式、委婉低调方式、自省方式和启迪式），指导人们正确认知、调控、有效运用批评。
今后我们还可在批评话题上做更多研究，比如中西教师批评话语对比研究等等。作者表示教育工作者需要以积极的态度对待各种社会、教育问题，担负起义不容辞的社会教育责任。作者期望人们善于批评和乐意接受批评，借助批评的智慧和力量促进个人和社会的发展与进步。借鉴西方批评文化的长处，革除中国批评文化的弊端，大大弘扬中国批评文化的智慧和宝贵经验。
The thesis “A Functional-Pragmatic Study of Chinese Teachers’ Criticism of Studentsfrom Students’ Perspectives details research into typical Chinese teachers’ critical remarksbased on the authentic data collected from questionnaires and processed by corpuslinguistics. Through this, the study investigates the underlying value orientation, feelingsand attitudes of teachers and students, and observes teaching and education, focusing onthe evaluation of teachers and students and looking toward the reform and the developmentof society and education.
The whole thesis falls into seven chapters. Chapter One introduces the background,significance and purpose of the research. Chapter Two relates the theoretical framework ofsystemic functional linguistics and critical pragmatics and it rationalizes the necessity andimportance of the functional–pragmatic research of Chinese teachers’ criticism, byhighlighting the respective advantages and complementarities. Chapter Three gives anaccount of the methodology, questionnaires-making and data-collecting and processing,provides a general objective and trustworthy picture of the basic investigation andcompiles ten different A-C types of Comparison tables for later discussion. Chapter Fourmakes a comparative functional analysis of A-type teachers’ critical remarks and C-typecritical remarks revised by students according to three meta-functions. In the ideationalanalysis, the author chooses those aspects related to field and material, mental andrelational processes for observation so as to reveal hidden values, attitudes and ideaologiesand to expose educational and social problems. As to the interpersonal function, we mainlyobserve three aspects of appraisal theory, with the special focus on the implicit or explicit,positive or negative affect, subjective or objective affect, judgement and appreciation intwo different types of criticism. Moreover, we explore the graduation in terms of modality,tone and evaluative words and expound how they achieve different interpersonal functions.Through the analysis of the theme system and cohesive devices of textual function, theauthor presents how to highlight, intensify and soften the information by making differentlinguistic choices. By discourse analysis, we find that the A-Type teachers’ criticism carries stronger negative overtones in more direct way whereas the C-Type students’ revisionconveys much more positive overtones in more indirect way. Chapter Five makes acritical pragmatic analysis of direct remarks, irony, overstatement and understatementseparately and comparatively, in complement to the previous functional study of similarphenomena like implicit or explicit, positive or negative affect, judgement and appreciation,softener and intensifier, etc. Such four tones are generally regarded as rhetorical devicesand studied much from the rhetorical perspective, but in our study they are viewed aspragmatic approaches and explored pragmatically. In general, our speech can be simply putinto four tones, which are employed in evaluation for expressing opinions, feelings,attitudes and the like. The study of special implicature, illocutionary force, indirect speechacts or pragmatic effects different tones convey is meaningful and useful. Substantialevidence has shown that the majority of students prefer understated criticism. In ChapterSix, the author advocates four principles for evaluation and constructs a model for positivecriticism based on analyzing and comparing a large amount of corpus-processed A-C typecritical remarks. Chapter Seven comes to a conclusion of the research.
In comparison with other achievements, this research shows its own originalities asfollows:
1） The research takes the students’ perspectives, not the teachers’ perspectives to studythe typical Chinese way of education---criticism. The shift in research perspective fromteachers to students manifests the respect for the subjectivity of students and theconsideration of students’ thoughts and needs for a humanitarian education. By collectingthe most influential and most unforgettable teachers’ criticism of students and students’revision of corresponding inappropriate critical remarks and by analyzing thecorpus-processed above-mentioned data, the author discovers the linguistic characterisiticsof teachers’ criticism students most dislike and those they expect and need, and especiallyreveals some hidden linguistic patterns for criticism which students disgust much butteachers haven’t been aware of.
2）By integrating systemic functional linguistics and critical pragmatics, the authormakes a relatively in-depth and complete study of teachers’ criticism of students fromstudents’ perspectives, based on data collection and corpus study. By taking advantage ofthe Systemic Functional Linguistics in the discourse analysis, the author analyzes the ideational, interpersonal and textual functions of two types of critical remarks, such as themost influential or unforgettable teachers’ criticism and students’ revised version, throughwhich the author obtains typical characteristics of teachers’ criticism and reveals theideaology, attitude, feeling, interpersonal relationship and power status those criticalremarks convey, and the problems they reflect and the thoughts they induce. Remarkably,some implicit critical patterns are found and presented. Besides, by taking advantage ofpragmatics in exploring users, both speakers and receivers, the author makes a criticalpragmatic interpretation of A-C types of criticism, especially of indirect or implicitremarks, so as to reveal their special implicature, illocutionary forces, speech acts orpragmatic effects. It is manifested by substantial evidence that the style of criticism differswith the change in genre and in register. The critic should be flexible in choosing languageaccording to a given genre, purpose, context and audience.
3）The study of teachers’ criticism from students’ perspectives helps teachers tounderstand students’ feelings, attitudes and points of view better, thus promoting thereform in teaching and education and enhancing the educational qualities. Based on theexisting problems in teachers’ criticism of students, the author establishes four principlesfor evaluation, namely, relevance, guidance, variety and appropriateness; and proposes apositive model for criticism, like using impersonal, dialectical, corrective, positive,down-toning, reflective and inspiring methods for criticism. It is multifunctional and fairlypractical.
However, there is still much left to be done on this topic, for instance, a comparativestudy of Chinese and Western teachers’ criticism of students. The author recommendstapping into the wisdom and precious treasures of the Chinese criticism culture whileabandoning its demerits and assimilating the nutriments from the western criticism culturein the future. The author also advocates that we should take a positive attitude towardsdifferent kinds of problems and make good use of criticism for personal and socialdevelopment.
全文共有七章。第一章引言简要概述教师批评话语在国内外的研究现状，及意义和目的等。第二章阐释该研究理论框架，突出系统功能语言学与批评语用学各自的优势及相互之间的互补性，两者合力对该研究的必要性和重要性。第三章阐释了问卷调查和语料收集及处理分析，归纳总结列出了10个A与C类词语对照表，为后面章节进行功能-语用分析提供翔实的数据和文字资料，为建构积极批评话语模式作强有力的支撑。第四章对A类教师批评话语和C类学生修改的批评话语进行功能分析与比较。①在概念功能部分，重点研究语场和及物性的三个过程：物质、心理和关系过程，从而透视语言背后所隐藏的态度、价值观念和意识形态等方面意义，揭示教学、教育等社会问题。②注重研究教师批评话语中体现人际意义的评价资源。重点分析显性或隐性、积极或消极、主观或客观情感、判定或鉴赏在两类不同批评话语中的趋势。分析研究情态、语气、评价词汇的级差，区别它们对实现人际意义所发挥的不同功能。③观察批评话语构篇中衔接词，以及主位和述位的不同选择如何突显、强调或弱化话语信息。基于第四章语篇分析发现的批评话语特点，第五章把他们简单划分为直言、反语、夸张和低调陈述四种基本语气类型，并对此语言现象进行了批评语用研究分析。语料研究表明，学生较倾向于用低调陈述评价。在第六章中，通过观察比较分析大量基于语料库处理的A与C类的批评话语实例，进行功能-语用分析，比较真实和客观地反映和揭示社会、教育、教学问题。同时，作者采取积极的姿态，提出解决问题的建议和措施：制定“四性”评价原则，并根据评价原则构建教师积极批评话语模式。第七章对研究结果进行了概述，突出了该研究的创新点，论及了理论与实践启示、该研究局限以及后续研究展望。
该研究和现有的教师批评话语研究成果相比，具有以下几个方面的创新点：
1）本论文采用学生视角，探讨中国的一种教书育人方式，即批评教育方式。通过调查问卷收集学生记忆中最为深刻或影响最大的教师批评话语（A类）和学生改写不当的教师批评话语（C类），使用ICTCLAS12011分词，Wordsmith4.0制作词表，经语料数据统计分析，找出学生最不喜欢的教师批评话语的言语特征和学生所期盼的教师批评话语的言语特征，尤其对一些隐性的批评言语构式（学生极为反感而老师没有意识到）进行了揭示。
2）融合系统功能语言学和语用学的理论与方法研究教师批评话语。利用系统功能语言学在语篇分析上的优势，对经语料处理的两类批评话语进行概念、人际、语篇功能互文分析，据实客观得出恰当与失当的教师批评话语的典型特征，并探析其折射的问题和引发的思考。利用语用学在探析语言使用者和接受者方面的优势，针对A与C类的言语特征及其出现的一些变异进行批评语用阐释，从而补充和深化教师批评话语研究。以丰富的例证表明批评话语语类因语域不同而有差异，批评者需根据体裁、目的、场合、对象变通选择话语。
3）基于学生反映出的教师批评话语的问题，制定了“四性”（针对性、导向性、多样性、得体性）评价原则，构建了积极批评话语模式（非人格化方式、辩证方式、修正方式、积极正面方式、委婉低调方式、自省方式和启迪式），指导人们正确认知、调控、有效运用批评。
今后我们还可在批评话题上做更多研究，比如中西教师批评话语对比研究等等。作者表示教育工作者需要以积极的态度对待各种社会、教育问题，担负起义不容辞的社会教育责任。作者期望人们善于批评和乐意接受批评，借助批评的智慧和力量促进个人和社会的发展与进步。借鉴西方批评文化的长处，革除中国批评文化的弊端，大大弘扬中国批评文化的智慧和宝贵经验。
The thesis “A Functional-Pragmatic Study of Chinese Teachers’ Criticism of Studentsfrom Students’ Perspectives details research into typical Chinese teachers’ critical remarksbased on the authentic data collected from questionnaires and processed by corpuslinguistics. Through this, the study investigates the underlying value orientation, feelingsand attitudes of teachers and students, and observes teaching and education, focusing onthe evaluation of teachers and students and looking toward the reform and the developmentof society and education.
The whole thesis falls into seven chapters. Chapter One introduces the background,significance and purpose of the research. Chapter Two relates the theoretical framework ofsystemic functional linguistics and critical pragmatics and it rationalizes the necessity andimportance of the functional–pragmatic research of Chinese teachers’ criticism, byhighlighting the respective advantages and complementarities. Chapter Three gives anaccount of the methodology, questionnaires-making and data-collecting and processing,provides a general objective and trustworthy picture of the basic investigation andcompiles ten different A-C types of Comparison tables for later discussion. Chapter Fourmakes a comparative functional analysis of A-type teachers’ critical remarks and C-typecritical remarks revised by students according to three meta-functions. In the ideationalanalysis, the author chooses those aspects related to field and material, mental andrelational processes for observation so as to reveal hidden values, attitudes and ideaologiesand to expose educational and social problems. As to the interpersonal function, we mainlyobserve three aspects of appraisal theory, with the special focus on the implicit or explicit,positive or negative affect, subjective or objective affect, judgement and appreciation intwo different types of criticism. Moreover, we explore the graduation in terms of modality,tone and evaluative words and expound how they achieve different interpersonal functions.Through the analysis of the theme system and cohesive devices of textual function, theauthor presents how to highlight, intensify and soften the information by making differentlinguistic choices. By discourse analysis, we find that the A-Type teachers’ criticism carries stronger negative overtones in more direct way whereas the C-Type students’ revisionconveys much more positive overtones in more indirect way. Chapter Five makes acritical pragmatic analysis of direct remarks, irony, overstatement and understatementseparately and comparatively, in complement to the previous functional study of similarphenomena like implicit or explicit, positive or negative affect, judgement and appreciation,softener and intensifier, etc. Such four tones are generally regarded as rhetorical devicesand studied much from the rhetorical perspective, but in our study they are viewed aspragmatic approaches and explored pragmatically. In general, our speech can be simply putinto four tones, which are employed in evaluation for expressing opinions, feelings,attitudes and the like. The study of special implicature, illocutionary force, indirect speechacts or pragmatic effects different tones convey is meaningful and useful. Substantialevidence has shown that the majority of students prefer understated criticism. In ChapterSix, the author advocates four principles for evaluation and constructs a model for positivecriticism based on analyzing and comparing a large amount of corpus-processed A-C typecritical remarks. Chapter Seven comes to a conclusion of the research.
In comparison with other achievements, this research shows its own originalities asfollows:
1） The research takes the students’ perspectives, not the teachers’ perspectives to studythe typical Chinese way of education---criticism. The shift in research perspective fromteachers to students manifests the respect for the subjectivity of students and theconsideration of students’ thoughts and needs for a humanitarian education. By collectingthe most influential and most unforgettable teachers’ criticism of students and students’revision of corresponding inappropriate critical remarks and by analyzing thecorpus-processed above-mentioned data, the author discovers the linguistic characterisiticsof teachers’ criticism students most dislike and those they expect and need, and especiallyreveals some hidden linguistic patterns for criticism which students disgust much butteachers haven’t been aware of.
2）By integrating systemic functional linguistics and critical pragmatics, the authormakes a relatively in-depth and complete study of teachers’ criticism of students fromstudents’ perspectives, based on data collection and corpus study. By taking advantage ofthe Systemic Functional Linguistics in the discourse analysis, the author analyzes the ideational, interpersonal and textual functions of two types of critical remarks, such as themost influential or unforgettable teachers’ criticism and students’ revised version, throughwhich the author obtains typical characteristics of teachers’ criticism and reveals theideaology, attitude, feeling, interpersonal relationship and power status those criticalremarks convey, and the problems they reflect and the thoughts they induce. Remarkably,some implicit critical patterns are found and presented. Besides, by taking advantage ofpragmatics in exploring users, both speakers and receivers, the author makes a criticalpragmatic interpretation of A-C types of criticism, especially of indirect or implicitremarks, so as to reveal their special implicature, illocutionary forces, speech acts orpragmatic effects. It is manifested by substantial evidence that the style of criticism differswith the change in genre and in register. The critic should be flexible in choosing languageaccording to a given genre, purpose, context and audience.
3）The study of teachers’ criticism from students’ perspectives helps teachers tounderstand students’ feelings, attitudes and points of view better, thus promoting thereform in teaching and education and enhancing the educational qualities. Based on theexisting problems in teachers’ criticism of students, the author establishes four principlesfor evaluation, namely, relevance, guidance, variety and appropriateness; and proposes apositive model for criticism, like using impersonal, dialectical, corrective, positive,down-toning, reflective and inspiring methods for criticism. It is multifunctional and fairlypractical.
However, there is still much left to be done on this topic, for instance, a comparativestudy of Chinese and Western teachers’ criticism of students. The author recommendstapping into the wisdom and precious treasures of the Chinese criticism culture whileabandoning its demerits and assimilating the nutriments from the western criticism culturein the future. The author also advocates that we should take a positive attitude towardsdifferent kinds of problems and make good use of criticism for personal and socialdevelopment.
引文
Aijmer, K.1986. Discourse variation and hedging. In Aarts, J.&W. Meijs (eds.), Corpus Linguistics11:New Studies in the Analysis and Exploitation of Computer Corpora (pp.1-18). Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Aijmer, K.&A. Stenstrǒm (eds.). Discourse Pattern. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Amante, D. J.1981. The theory of ironic speech acts. Peotics Today,2(2).
Annett, John.1969. Feedback and Human Behavior. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Arnold A.&H. D. Brown.1999. A map of the terrain. In J. Amold (ed.), Affect in Language Learning.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Askehave, I.2004. If language is a game—these are the rules: a search into the rhetoric of the spiritualself-help book. Discourse&Society,15(1):5-31.
Bakhtin, M.1994. Speech genres and other late essays. In P. Morris (ed.), The Dialogic Imagination(pp.81-87). London: Edward Arnold.(Original work published1986).
Bhatia, V. K.1993. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
Bhatia, V.2004. Worlds of Written Discourse. London and New York: Continuum.
Black, E.2006. Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
Blum-Kulka, S.1989. Playing it safe: the role of conventionality in indirectness. In S. Blum-Kulka, J.House&G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp.37-70).Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Brown, R.1989. Classroom pedagogies—A syllabus for the interactive stage?. The Teacher Trainer,(2):13-17.
Brown, G.&G. Yule.1983. Discourse Analysis. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Burnett, P. C.2002. Teacher praise and feedback and students’ perceptions of the classroomenvironment. Educational Psychology,22(1):5-16.
Blakemore, D.1992. Understanding Utterance: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: BasilBlackwell Publisher Ltd.
Blanck, P. D., H. T. Reis&I. Jackson.1979. The effects of verbal reinforcement on intrinsicmotivation for sex-linked tasks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association.
Bolinger, D.1972. Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton.
Breitenstein, R.1970. England heute. Wien/Düsseldorf: Econ.
Brophy, J. E.1979. Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology,71(6):733-750.
Brophy, J.1981. Teacher praise: a functional analysis. Review of Educational Research,51(1):5-32.
Brown, R.&A. Gilman.1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Stylein Language (pp.253-277). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Brown, P.&S. C. Levinson.1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In E.Goody(ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Brown, P.&S. C. Levinson.1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bruyn, S. T.1964. Rhetorical devices in sociological analysis. Sociological Quarterly,5(2):101-111.
Caffi, C.1999. On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics,31(7):881-909.
Caffi, C.2007. Mitigation. London: Elsevier.
Cameron, L.2003. Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London/New York: Continuum.
Cantrell, R., Stenner, A.,&W. Katzenmeyer.1977. Teacher knowledge, attitudes, and classroomteaching correlates of student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,69(2):172-179.
Carroll, S&M. Swain.1993. Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An Empirical study of thelearning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition15:357-386.
Chastain, K.1971. The Development of Modern Language Skills: Theory to Practice. Philadelphia:Center for Curriculum Development, Inc.
Chenoweth, N. A., R. R. Day, A. E. Chun&S. Luppescu.1983. Attitudes and preferences of ESLstudents to error correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition6:79-87.
Christie, F.1993. Negotiating school learning. Unpublished report funded by ARC grant1990-92.
Christie, F.2002. Classroom Discourse Analysis A Functional Perspective. London/New YorkContinuum.
Clark, H. H.&E. V. Clark.1977. Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Coffin, C.2002. The voices of history: theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses.Text,22(4):503-528.
Colston, H. L.2002. Contrast and assimilation in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics34(2):111-142.
Colston, H. L.&J. O’Brien.2000. Contrast of kind vs. contrast of magnitude: the pragmaticaccomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes,30(2):179-199.
Colston, H. L.&J. O’Brien.2000. Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: anythingunderstatement can do, irony can do better. Journal of Pragmatics,32(11):1557-1583.
Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W.,&R. L. Debus.1991. Effects of internally focused feedback andattributional feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of EducationalPsychology,83(1):17-27.
Crismore, A.&W. J. Van de Kopple.1997. The effects of hedges and gender on the attitudes ofreaders in the United States toward material in science textbook. In A. Duszak (ed.). Cultureand Style of Academic Discourse (pp.223-247). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cutting, A. L.&J. Dunn.2002. The cost of understanding other people: social cognition predictsyoung children’s sensitivity to criticism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,43(7):849-860.
Dik, S. C.1989. Functional Grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Doughty, G.2001. Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. Cognition and Second LanguageAcquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,206-257.
Dahl, O.2001. Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere. In J. Bybee&P. Hopper (eds.),Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (pp.471-480). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Derewianka, B.2009. Using appraisal theory to track interpersonal development in adolescent academicwriting. In Whitttaker, R., O’Donnel, M.&A. McCabe (eds.), Advances in Language andEducation. New York: Continuum.
Dews, S.&E. Winner.1995. Muting the meaning: a social function of irony. Metaphor and SymbolicActivity,10(1):3-19.
Eco, U. Kant&the Platypus.2000. Essays on Language and Cognition. Translated by Alastair McEwen.London: Vintage.
Edwards, D.&N. Mercer.1987. Common Knowledge: The Development of Understanding in theClassroom. London: Routledge.
Eggert, W.1977. A study of teaching behaviors as they relate to pupil behaviors, achievement andattitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta.
Eggins, S.2004. An Introduction of Systemic functional Linguistics. New York: Continuum.
Eggins, S.&D. Slade.1997. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.
Ellis, R.2005. Instructed Second Language Acquisition: A literature Review. Wellington: ResearchDivision.
Ellis, R. et al.2006. Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2grammar. SSLA,(28):339-368.
Ellis, R.2007. Corrective feedback in theory, research and practice. Paper presented at the5thInternational Conference on ELT in China&the1stCongress of Chinese Applied Linguistics,Beijing China.
Elwell, W. C.&J. Tiberio.1994. Teacher praise: what students want?. Journal of InstructionalPsycholog,.21(4):322-328.
Erickson, F.1996. Going for the zone: the social and cognitive ecology of teacher-studentinteraction in classroom conversations. In D. Hicks (ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling(pp.29-62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N.1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N.1992a. Introduction. In N. Fairclough (ed.). Critical Language Awareness (pp.1-29).London: Longman.
Fairclough, N.1992b. Critical Language Awareness. New York: Longman Publishing.
Fairclough, N.1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N.2003. Analysing Discourse. London: Routledge.
Ferguson, H.2000. Deception and despair: ironic self-identity in modern society. In J. E. Davis(ed.), Identity and Social Change. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Fowler, R.1991. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.
Fowler, R.1996. Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fowler, R.&G. Kress.1979. Critical linguistics. In R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress, T. Trew (eds.),Language and Control. London: Routledge.
Fowler, R., B. Hodge, G. Kress&T. Trew.1979. Language and Control. London: Longman.
Gable, R. A. et al.2009. Back to basics: rules, praise, ignoring, and reprimands revisited.Intervention in Scholl and Clinic,2009(4):195-205.
Gass, S.&L. Selinker,2001. Second Language Acquisition (2nded.). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc.
Gibbons, P.2003. Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a contentbased classroom. TESOL Quarterly,37(Summer2):247-273.
Gibbs, R. W.2000. Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor&Symbol,15(1&2):5-27..
Gibbs, R.W.&J. O’Brien.1991. Psychological aspects of irony understanding. Journal ofPragmatics,16(6):523-530.
Ginatt, H. G. Teacher and Child (老师怎样和学生说话).冯杨，周呈奇译,海口：海南出版社,2003.
Giora, R.1995. On negation and irony. Discourse Processes,19(2):239-264.
Givón, T.1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givón, T.2005. Context as Other Minds: The Pragmatics of Sociality. Cognition and Communication.
Goffman, E.1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior. New York: Garden City.
Graumann, C. F.1990. Perspective structure and dynamics in dialogues. In I. Markvova&K. Foppa(eds.) The Dynamics of Dialogue. Harvester Wheatsheaf,105-126.
Green, G. M.1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates Publishers.
Green, G.1996. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc.
Gregory, M.2001.“Phrasal Analysis” yesterday, today and tomorrow? In The28thInternationalSystemic Functional Grammar and Critical Discourse Analysis. Abstract Book. ISFC28,Ottawa: Carleton University.
Grice, H. P.1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole&J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semanticsvol.3(pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Grice, H. P.1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (ed.). Syntax and Semanticsvol.9. New York: Academic Press.
Gross, A.M.&M. Ekstrand.1983. Increasing and maintaining rates of teacher praise A studyusing public posting and feedback fading. Behavior Modification,7(1):126-135.
Gunha de Freitas, A.2000.“Neutral” ideational choices and interpersonality: special effects intourism pamphlets. Paper presented at11thEuro-International Systemic FunctionalLinguistics Workshop,21July2000, University Of Glasgow.
Hakansson, G.1986. Quantitative studies of teacher talk. In G. Kaasper (ed.). Learning, Teaching andCommunication in the Foreign Language Classroom. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press,83-89.
Halliday, M. A. K.1973. Explorations in the Function of Language. Elsevier North-Holland.
Halliday, M. A. K.1978. Language as Social Semiotic: the Social Interpretation of Language andMeaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: types of grammatical structure,and their determination by different semantic function. In D. J. Allerton, E. Carney&D. Holdcroft(eds.). Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis：Essays Offers to William Haas (pp.57-79).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in Halliday,2002:196-218.
Halliday, M.A.K.1985/1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K.1987. Spoken and written modes of meaning. In R. Horowitz, A. Durant&C.MacCabe (eds.), Comprehending Oral and Written Language. New York: Academic Press..
Halliday, M.A.K.1998. The notion of “context” in language education. In M. Ghadessy (ed.),Text and Context in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Halliday, M.A.K.2004. J.J.Webster (ed.). The Language of Science. London/New YorkContinuum.
Halliday, M. A. K.2006. Announcing the First HCLS Conference. The Halliday Centre for IntelligentApplications of Language Studies, City University of Hong Kong,.
Halliday, M. A. K.2008. Complementarities in Language. Shanghai: Commercial Press..
Halliday, M. A. K.&C. M. I. M. Matthiessen.1999. Construing Experience Through Meaning: ALanguage-based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.
Halliday, M.A.K.&C.M.I.M. Matthiessen.2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar.London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K., A.M. CIntosh&P. Strevens.1964. The Linguistic Sciences and LanguageTeaching. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K.&R. Hasan.1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in ASocio-semiotic Perspective. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University.
Hart, R. P.1990. Modern Rhetorical Criticism. New York: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown HigherEducation (Glenview, Ill.)
Haverkate, H. A.1990. Speech act analysis of irony. Journal of Pragmatics,14(1).
Hasan, R.1985. Linguistics, Language and Verbal Art. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
He, Agnes W.1993. Language use in peer review text. Language in Society (22):403-420.
Hicks, D.1996. Contextual inquiries: a discourse-oriented study of classroom learning. In D.Hicks (ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp.104-144). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Hoey, M.2000. Persuasive rhetoric in linguistics: a stylistic study of some features of the languageof Noam Chomsky. In S. Hunston&G. Thompson (eds), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stanceand the Construction of Discourse (pp.28-37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hood, S.2004. Appraising Research: Taking a Stance in Academic Writing.(unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Sydney: Faculty of Education, University of Technology).
Hübler, A.1983. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hunston, S.1994. Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M.Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp.191-218). London/New York: Routledge.
Hunston, S.2011. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. NewYork/London: Routledge.
Hunston, S.&G. Francis.2000. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus Driven Approach to the LexicalGrammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hunston, S.&G. Thompson (eds.).2000. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Constructionof Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K.1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, F.&K. Hyland.2001. Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal ofSecond Language Writing (10):185-212.
Ivanic, R.1998. Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing.Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
James, C.1998. Errors in Language Learning and User-Exploring Error Analysis. London: Longman.
Johnson, D. M.1992. Compliments and politeness in peer-review texts. Applied Linguistics (13):51-71.
Kasper, G.&K. R. Rose.2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: BlackwellPublishing Limited.
Kettemann, B.&G. Marko (eds.).2002. Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis. Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Kreck, M.1981. Communicative Acts and Shared Knowledge in Natural Discourse. New York:Academic Press, INC.
Kress, G&R. Hodge.1979. Language as Ideology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kreuz, R.1991. The use of verbal irony: cues and constraints. In J. S. Mio&A. Katz (eds.),Metaphor: Implication and Applications (pp.23-38). NJ: Erlbaum.
Kristeva, J.1986. The Kristeva Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lakoff, R. T.1990. Talking Power: The Politics of Language. New York: Basic Books.
Lasersohn, P.1999. Pragmatic halos. Language75(3):522-551.
Lassen, I., I. Strunck&T. Vestergaard (eds.).2006. Mediating Ideology in Text and Image—Tencritical studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Leech, G.1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leggitt, J. S.&R. W. Gibbs, Jr.2000. Emotional reactions to verbal irony. Discourse Processes,29(1):1-24.
Lemke, J. L.1992. Interpersonal meaning in discourse: value orientations. In D. Martin&L. Ravelli(eds.), Advances in Systemic Linguistics (pp.80-109). London&New York: Pinter.
Levinson, S. C.1989. A review of relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics (7)
Li, Guonan.2001. Figures and Vocabulary. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Littrnan, D. C.&J. L. Mey.1991. The nature of irony: toward a computational model of irony.Journal of Pragmatics,15(2):131-151.
Lyster, R.1998. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types andlearner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning,48(2):183-218.
Lyster, R.,&L. Ranta.1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition,19(1):37-66.
Lyster, R.&H. Mori.2006. Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. SSLA,(28):321-341.
Mackey, A&J. Philip.1998. Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts,responses and red herrings. The Modern Language Journal,(82):338-356.
Martin, J. R.1992. English Text, System and Structure. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martin, J. R.2000. Beyond exchange: appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston&G.Thompson (eds.). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse(pp.142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R.2006. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. Handout of the6thSystemic Functional Week.
Martin, J. R. forthcoming. What kind of structure?--Interpersonal meaning and prosodicrealization across strata. Word58(3)(Special Issue on ‘The realization of interpersonalmeaning’ edited by K. Davidse&A-M Simon-Vandenbergen).
Martin, J. R.&D. Rose.2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. London andNew York: Continuum.
Martin, J. R.&D. Rose.2007. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Martin, J. R.&D. Rose.2008. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, J. R.&P. R. R. White.2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York:Palgrave MacMillan.
Martin, J. R.&P. R. R. White.2008. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press..
Mauranen, A.2004.‘They’re a little bit different…’ Observations on hedges in academic talk. InK. Aijmer&A-M. Stenstrom (eds.), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora (pp.173-198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Maybin, J.&J. Swann.2007. Everyday creativity in language: textuality, contextuality, and critique.Applied Linguistics,28(4):497-517.
McCarthy, M.2002. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign LanguageEducation Press.
McDonald, S.2000. Neuropsychological studies of sarcasm. Metaphor&Symbol,15(1&2):85-98.
McDonough, K.2005. Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESLquestion development. Studies on Second Language Acquisition,(27):92-103.
Mercer, N.1992. Talk for teaching and learning. In K. Norman (ed.), Thinking Voices: The Work ofthe National Oracy Project (pp.215-223). Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder&Stoughton.
Mey, J.1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. London: Blackwell Publishers.
Mey, J.1998. Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Elsevier.
Mey, J.1999. When Voices Clash: A Study in literary pragmatics. Berlin: Moutlon de Gruyter.
Mitchley, N. J. J. Barber, J. M. Gray, D. N. Brooks&M. G. Livingston.1998. Comprehension of ironyin schizophrenia. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry,3(2):127-138.
Morgan, W.1996. Critical Literacy in the Classroom. London: Routledge.
Morris, C. W.1938. Foundation of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Myers, G.1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics,10(1):1-35.
Nabei, T.&M. Swain.2002. Leraner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of anadult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness,(11):44-46.
Nietzsche, F.2003. Writings from the Late Notebooks. R. Bittner (ed.), trans. by K. Sturge. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Nobuyoshi, J.&R. Ellis.1993. Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition.ELT Journal,47(3):203-210.
Nunan, D.1991. Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall Inc.
Painter, C.2003. Developing attitude: an ontogenetic perspective on appraisal. Text,23(2):183-210.
Partinngton, A.1998. Patterns and Meanings: Using Corpora for English Language Research andTeaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pēcheux, M.1982. Language, Semantics and Ideology. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Perkins, M.2007. Pragmatic Impairment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Potter, J.&M. Wetherell.2006. Discourse and Social Psychology Beyond Attitudes and Behavior.肖文明等译.语和社会心理学---超越态度与行为.北京：中国人民大学出版社.
Poynton, C.1989. Language and Gender: Making the Difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
QCA.1998, Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools (Crick Report).London: QCA.
Rerrott, C.1988. Classroom talk and pupil learning: guidelines for educators. In Action ResearchTools, Part3: Analysis of classroom discourse readings. Certificate of Teaching and Learning,NSW Department of School Education. Sydney: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Rice, P.&P. Waugh (eds.).2001. Modern Literary Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rothery, J.&R. Stenglin.2000. Interpreting literature: the role of Appraisal. In L. Unsworth (ed.),Researching Language in Schools and Communities (pp.112-36). London: Cassell.
Ruzaitè, J.2007. Vague references to quantities as a face-saving strategy in teacher-studentinteraction. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics,2007(3):157-178.
Santos, M.B.D.1996. The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text,(4):481-499.
Schmid, H.1999. Cognitive effects of shell nouns. In K. van Hock, A. A. Kibrik&L. Noordman (eds.)Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schmid, H.2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells, from Corpus to Cognition. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Schmidt, R. W.1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,11(2):129-158.
Scollon, R.&S. W. Scollon.1987. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. LookingUp: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing. London: Collins.
Seedhouse.1996. Classroom interaction: possibilities and impossibilities. English Language TeachingJournal,50(1):16-24.
Sharpe, T.2006.‘Unpacking’ scaffolding: identifying discourse and multimodal strategies thatsupport learning. Language and Education,20(3):211-231.
Sharpe, T.2008. How can teacher talk support learning?. Linguistics and Education19:132-148.
Shor, I.1992. Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Siewierska, A.1991. Functional Grammar. London&New York: Routledge.
Simpson, P.1993. Language, Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge.
Sinclair, J. M.1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair J. M. H.&R. M. Coulthard.1975. Toward an Analysis of Discourse: The English used byTeachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slimani, A.1992. Evaluation of classroom interaction. In Slimani, A.(ed.), Evaluating SecondLanguage Education (pp.197-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D.&D. Wilson.1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil BlackwellPublisher Ltd.
Sperber, D.&D. Wilson.1991. Irony and the use-mention distinction. In S. Davis (ed.), Pragmatics: AReader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D.&D. Wilson.1995. Relevance, Communication and Cognition (2ndedition). Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Stubbs, M.1995. Corpus evidence for norms of lexical collocation. In G. Cook&B. Seidlhofer(eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Studies in Honor of H. G. Widdowson(pp.245-56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stubbs, M.1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: on the cause of the trouble with quantitativestudies. Functions of Language,2(1):23-55.
Stubbs, M.2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies in Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Swales, J.1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic Research Settings. Glasgow: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Thomas, J.1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics,4(2):91-112.
Thomas, J.1991. You’re the greatest! A few well-chosen words can work wonders in positivebehavior reinforcement. Principal,71:32-33.
Thomas, J.1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Thompson, G.1996. Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
Thompson, G.2008. Introducing Functional Grammar (2ndedition). Beijing: Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press/Hodder Arnold.
Thompson, G.&S. Hunston.2000. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction ofDiscourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, G.&S. Hunston.2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston&G. Thompson (eds.).Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp.1-27). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Thorp, H. S., Bruden, R. L.,&B. J. Fraser.1994. Assessing and improving classroom environment.School Science Review,75:107-113.
Toplak, M.&A. N. Katz.2000. On the uses of sarcastic irony. Journal of Pragmatics,32(10):1467-1488.
Torres, C. A.(ed.).1998. Education, Power, and Personal Biography: Dialogues with CriticalEducators, New York: Routledge.
Tracy, K.&N. Coupland.1990. Multiple Goals in Discourse. Avon, England: MultilingualMatters Ltd.
Tsui, A. B. M.1995. Introducing Classroom Interaction. Penguin English.
Ungerer, F.&H. J. Schmid.1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Addison Wesley: Longman.
van Dijk, T. A.2006. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse&Society,17(3):359-383.
Verschueren, J. et.al.1995. Handbook of Pragmatics, Manual. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Verschuren, J.1999. Understanding Pragmatics. Arnold.
Verschueren, J.1999. Understanding Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and ResearchPress.
Walsh, S.2006. Investigating Classroom Discourse. New York: Routledge.
Weisinger, H.2000. The Power of Positive Criticism. New York: AMACOM.
White, P. R. R.1997a. The grammar of fact and opinion: authorial stance and the construction ofmedia objectivity. paper presented at the24thInternational Systemic Functional Conference,Toronto.
White, P. R. R.1997b. Dialogue and intersubjectivity: reinterpreting the semantics of modality andhedging. In M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill&F. Rock (eds.), Working with Dialogue (pp.67-80).Tubingen: Neimeyer.
White, P. R. R.2001. Standing with, against and over-solidarity and power in mass-mediadiscourse. Seminar handout, Hongkong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
White, P. R. R.2003. Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language ofintersubjective stance. Text,23(2):259-84.
White, P. R. R.2005. Appraisal: the language of attitudinal variation and intersubjective stance,Appraisal website. URL: www.grammatics.com/appraisal.
Whitttaker, R., O’Donnel, M.&A. McCabe (eds.).2009. Advances in Language and Education.New York: Continuum.
Whorf, B. L.1956. The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In J.B. Carroll(ed.), Language, Thought and Reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whoof (pp.134-159).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wilson, D.2005. New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity. Lingua,115(8):1129-1146.
Wu Yaxin.2000. Pragmatic vagueness as a strategy in verbal communication in his Ph.D proposal,In Pragmatics Newsletter for teachers and researchers,5(3).
Xu Xiaohui.2010. Analysis of teacher talk on the basis of relevance theory. Canadian SocialScience,2010(3):45-50.
Yukl, G.1999. An evaluation of the conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismaticleadership theories, Leadership Quarterly,10:285-305.
Young, L.&C. Harrison (eds.).2004. Systemic Functional Linguistics and Critical DiscourseAnalysis: Studies in Social Change. London/New York: Continuum.
Yuan, Yi.2000. Face-saving devices in peer reviews&their implications. Centre for Development ofTeaching and Learning4(2):527.
毕丽华，2008.评价分析学生英语口语样本及其对教学的启示[J].《教育科学》,第1期，70.
布鲁克斯，1988.反讽——一种结构原则[M].译者：赵毅衡.新批评.文集.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
常晨光，2001.英语中的人际语法隐喻[J].《外语与外语教学》，第7期，6-8.
常晨光，2008.评价意义的韵律性特征[J].《北京科技大学学报》(社会科学版)第3期,101-107.
常晨光，2009.评价意义的韵律性特征[A].收于李国庆，主编，系统功能语言学的研究与应用[C].广州:暨南大学出版社，11-21.
常晨光，廖海青，2010.系统功能语言学与实践的辩证关系[J].《外语与外语教学》，第5期，11-14.
陈功，2011.语料库检索的模式、问题及启示[J].《当代外语研究》，第10期:10-14.
陈丽江，2006.英语课堂的评价语言与性别差异[J].《湘潭师范学院学报》(社会科学版)，第6期,107-110.
陈望道，1976.修辞学发凡[M].上海：上海教育出版社.
陈新仁，2009.批评语用学：目标、对象与方法[J].《外语与外语教学》，第12期，10-12.
陈瑜敏，黄国文，2010.马丁的语篇分析观[J].《当代外语研究》，第10期，19-24.
程雨民，2010.“人本语义学“十论”Why “Human-Oriented Semantics”?[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
董敏，2010.从实践型社会符号观述评语类研究模式陈望道[J].《外语教学》，第1期，17-20，26.
丁金国，2009.语体风格分析纲要[M].广州:暨南大学出版社.
段成刚，2008.语类结构潜势、语义特征与语法体现——汉语同学间互评体裁研究[J].《西安外国语大学学报》，第3期，37-41.
冯光武，2008.弗雷格哲学思辨中的语用学元素[J].《西安外国语大学学报》，第3期，9-13.
龚敏律，2007.西方反讽诗学在现代中国的译介与影响[J].《文学评论》，第3期，46-52.
谷方，1994.主体性哲学与文化问题[M].北京:中国和平出版社.
郭爱萍，2002.语域与语域变异[A].收于朱永生，主编，世纪之交论功能---第六届全国功能语言学研讨会论文集[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社:204-208.
何兆熊，1997.九十年代看语用[J].《外国语》，第4期.
何兆熊，2000.新编语用学概要[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
何自然，陈新仁，2004.当代语用学[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
何自然，冉永平，2002.语用学概论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社.
胡丹，2007a.低调陈述---一种曲言、委婉、低调的评价[A].高校外语教学与研究，第2辑，183-186.
胡丹，2007b.多模式话语的社会符号学分析[J].《华东交通大学学报》，第3期,126-130.
胡丹，2007c.多模式话语分析Emmett Williams的诗“She love me not”[J].《外语与外语教学》，第11期,16-19.
胡丹，2006.语块与英语学习成效[J].《华东交通大学学报》，第6期,121-126.
胡丹，刘丽权，2009a.课堂教学评价语“四性”原则探索---基于英语写作课教学实践[J].《湖北第二师范学院学报》，第6期，101-103.
胡丹，刘丽权，2009b.双语课堂教学语言的问题与对策[J].《教育学术月刊》，第6期，104-106.
胡丹，2009c.双语教学方式与评价方式对学生主体性发挥的思考[J].《华东交通大学学报》，第6期,139-144.
胡丹，2009d.海明威小说“一个干净、明亮的地方”语言游戏探微[J].《华东交通大学学报》，第4期,115-120.
胡丹，2010a.课堂教学语言选择与言后取效研究[J].《教育学术月刊》，第8期，102-105.
胡丹，刘丽权,2010b.课堂教学语言调控和取效研究[J].《湖北第二师范学院学报》，第9期.
胡丹，2011.低调陈述修辞格的批评语用研究[J].《江西社会科学》，第5期，210-214.
胡壮麟，2002.对中国英语教育的若干思考[J].《外语研究》，第3期，2-9.
胡壮麟，朱永生，张德禄，李战子，2005.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
胡越竹，2009.课堂纠错：教师行为与学生需求的对比研究[J].《外语教学理论与实践》，第1期，48-56.
黄国文，2009.作为普通语言学的系统功能语言学[A].收于李国庆，主编《系统功能语言学的研究与应用》[C].广州:暨南大学出版社，2-10.
黄国文，2010.语篇分析与系统功能语言学理论的建构[J].《外语与外语教学》，第5期，1-4.
黄国文等主编.即将出版.系统功能语言学发展状况[C].
纪康丽，2008.学生如何看待教师评语[J].《外语与翻译》，第2期，69-74.
姜望琪，2003.当代语用学[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
金娜娜，2009.时态的评价功能研究[J].《外语与外语教学》，第8期，23-26.
鞠红，2002.低调陈述与会话含义[J].《山东外语教学》，第6期，62-65.
鞠红，2004.低调陈述推理机制的认知性透视[J].《外语教学》，第2期，26-31.
鞠红，2005.论低调陈述的特征和社会心理基础[J].《安徽大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)，第1期，113-116.
鞠红，戴曼纯，2006.低调陈述作为语用策略的顺应性研究[J].《外语教学与研究》，11-16.
李国庆，2009.系统功能语言学的研究与应用[C].广州:暨南大学出版社.
李鸿蕊，2011.基于语料库的莎士比亚戏剧汉译本中语气词“吧”的应用研究[J].《当代外语研究》，第1期，24-27.
李经伟，1996.英汉书评中的礼貌策略比较[J].《解放军外语学院学报》，第3期，1-8.
李军，2008.话语修辞理论与实践[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
李俊芬，2008.大学英语教学中有效教师反馈策略模式初探[J].《外语教学理论与实践》，第1期，49-53.
李力，2004.及物性理论应用在辨识个人语型上的可行性[J].《天津外国语学院学报》,第3期，33-36.
李瑞华，1994.语用的最高原则——得体[J].《外国语》，第3期，25-27.
李三福，2005.论西方近代教学语用学思想[J].《湖南科技大学学报》，第6期，115-119.
李鑫华，2000.英语修辞格详论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
李战子，2002.话语的人际意义研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
李战子，2004.评价理论:在话语分析中的应用和问题[J].《外语研究》，第5期，1-6，80.
梁茂成，李文中，许家金，2010.语料库应用教程[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
梁蕾，2007.汉语评价言语行为及其策略研究[D].暨南大学硕士学位论文.
廖益清，丁建新，2007.体裁结构潜势、语义特征与语法体现——格林童话的首尾研究[J].《外国语》，第4期，28-36.
林良章，2003.课堂教学中“评价语”发展性功效探微[J].《福建师范大学福清分校学报》，2003年增刊，114-119.
林大津，谢朝群，2005.论言语交际的得体原则：争议与意义[J].《外语教学与研究》第6期，419-424
刘安洪，2002.英语委婉语与暗指、低调陈述及其修辞效果之比较[J].《渝西学院学报》(社会科学版)，第3期，50-54.
刘承宇，2002.英语报刊语篇评价系统与批评性阅读[J].《山东师大外国语学院学报》，第4期，25-29.
刘飞兵，2007.反讽的语用阐释[J].《求索》，第3期，202-203.
刘军平，2008.从跨学科角度看译者主体性的四个维度及其特点[J].《外语与外语教学》，第8期，52-55.
刘丽静，2006.教师批评语违反礼貌原则语用失误分析[J].《广西教育学院学报》，第5期，43-45.
刘世铸，2010.评价理论在中国的发展[J].《外语与外语教学》，第5期，33-37.
楼敏盛，陈舜孟，2003.谈大学英语教学中的积极性评价[J].《湖州职业技术学院学报》，第2期，45-47.
吕长竑，黎斌，胡霞，2010.中西学者生命和材料科学英文学术语篇间接表达方式的对比研究[J].《外语与外语教学》，第5期，38-42.
陆俭明，2005.现代汉语语法研究教程（第二版）[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
马玉蕾，2010.马丁基于语类理论的写作教学框架[J].《当代外语研究》，第10期，50-54.
孟建钢，2005.试析自然会话中的反讽回应[J].《外语学刊》，第5期，12-17.
米克，1992.论反讽[M].周发祥译,昆仑出版社.
莫爱屏，2008.译者主体性与语篇中视角的互动研究[J].《外语教学》，第5期，86-90.
牟金江，2004.语言错误分类及其纠错策略[J].《西安外国语学院学报》，第2期，1-3.
牛保义，1997.整体思维与分析思维——谈中美两国人的思维模式差异[J].《四川外国语学院学报》，第2期，54-59.
庞建荣，2008.模糊语言及其语境依赖性[J].《外语与外语教学》，第7期，16-18.
戚健，2005.浅析英语书评中的评价[J].《东莞理工学院学报》，第2期，68-72.
钱冠连，2000.汉语文化语用学——人文网络言语学(第二版)[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
钱冠连，2008.语言学自选集——理论与方法[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
曲政，俞东明，2002.功能语体·跨文化交际·外语教学[J].《杭州教育学院学报》，第1期，112-115.
冉永平，2010.冲突性话语的语用学研究概述[J].《外语教学》，第1期，:1-6.
冉永平，2006.语用学：现象与分析[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
任绍曾，2002.语篇中语言型式化的意义——探索语篇主题的一种途径[A].收于朱永生，主编，世纪之交论功能——第六届全国功能语言学研讨会论文集[C].上海外语教育出版社，215-229.
任绍曾，2009.关注中心和基本主题[J].《外语教学》，第4期，6-10.
邵斌，2011.网络语料库检索：英语研究的方便之门---《运用网络语料库探索英语》述评[J].
《当代外语研究》，第11期:57-59.
施光，刘学惠，2008. EFL教学中的纠错——教师与学生的看法与纠错效果的关系[J].《外语教学理论与实践》，第2期，29-32.
司显柱，吴玉霞，2009.人际意义跨文化建构：比较与翻译[J].《西安外国语大学学报》，第4期，68-70，74.
孙汝建，2006.修辞的社会心理分析[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
孙燕青，2005a.第二语言学习中的反馈[J].《心理科学进展》，第2期，156-165.
孙燕青，2005b.第二语言学习中的重要反馈方式[J].《心理发展与教育》，第2期，116-121.
汤燕瑜，刘绍忠，2003.教师语言的语用分析[J].《外语与外语教学》，第1期，19-23.
唐青叶，2009.语篇语言学[M].上海：上海大学出版社.
唐燕玲，2008.论创新型人才培养与综合英语教学改革[J].《外语与外语教学》，第8期。30-33.
涂靖，2002.反讽的语用特征和限制条件[J].《外语学刊》，第1期，77-82.
涂靖，2004a.反讽的认知研究[J].《外语学刊》，第2期，7-9，73.
涂靖，2004b.论反语的本质属性[J].《外语教学》，第6期，28-31.
王寅，2008.认知语言学的“体验性概念化”对翻译主客观性的解释力——一项基于古诗《枫桥夜泊》40篇英译文的研究[J].《外语教学与研究》，第3期，211-217.
王振华，2001.评价系统及其运作[J].《外国语》，第6期，13-20.
王振华，2003. ENGAGEMENT in Interaction: An APPRAISAL approach [D].河南大学博士学位论文.
温家宝，2010.强国必强教强国先强教[N].光明日报（9月1日第2版）.
文军，1991.英语写作修辞[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社.
伍铁平，1999.模糊语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
向明友，2002.论言语的社会交际功能[A].收于朱永生，主编，世纪之交论功能——第六届全国功能语言学研讨会论文集[C].上海外语教育出版社，127-141.
熊沐清，2001.论语篇视点[J].《外语教学与研究》，第1期，21-28.
熊学亮，2000.认知语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
徐盛桓，2011.少壮功夫老未成[J].《当代外语研究》，第4期，1-8.
辛斌，2002.批评性语篇分析方法论[J].《外国语》，第6期，34-41.
辛志英，2008.韵律结构的隐喻模式建构[J].《西安外国语大学学报》，第4期，37-40.
杨德祥，赵永平，2011.内容依托式教学对英语专业学生思辨能力的影响[J].《外语教学》,，第5期，61-64.
杨信彰，2003.语篇中的评价性手段[J].《外语与外语教学》，第1期，11-14.
杨信彰，2006.英语学术语篇中的评论附加语[J].《外语与外语教学》,第10期，11-13.
杨信彰，2007.系统功能语言学与教育语篇分析[J].《四川外语学院学报》，第6期，17-20.
杨信彰，2010.马丁对语域理论的发展和应用[J].《当代外语研究》，第10期，39-42.
俞东明，1997.语法歧义和语用模糊对比研究[J].《外国语》，第6期，29-35.
俞东明，1998.《言语交际中的语义：语用学导论》评介[J].《当代语言学》，第4期，42-45.
俞东明，左进，2004.语用模糊、会话策略与戏剧人物刻画[J].《外语教学与研究》，第5期，379-384.
曾文雄，2009.语用学的多维研究[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社.
张德禄，1993.系统语法与语用学[A].收于朱永生，主编，语言·语篇·语境[C].北京：清华大学出版社.
张德禄，1998.论话语基调的范围及体现[J].《外语教学与研究》，第1期，8-14，80.
张德禄，2002.语类研究的范围及其对外语教学的启示[J].《外语电化教学》,第8期，59-64.
张德禄，2010a.适用性社会符号学的理论与实践研究[J].《外语与外语教学》，第5期，5-10.
张德禄，2010b.马丁的语类研究[J].《当代外语研究》，第10期，29-33.
张德禄，刘世铸，2006.形式与意义的范畴化——兼评《评价语言—英语的评价系统》[J]《外语教学与研究》，第6期，423-427.
张德禄，苗兴伟，李学宁，2005.功能语言学与外语教学[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
张福萍，2007.瑞特·巴特勒:反讽艺术的经典[J].《太原大学学报》，第1期，43-45.
张继云，张芸，2007.卡夫卡小说《变形记》的反讽结构芸[J].《辽宁大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)，第1期，54-57.
张克定，2002.句式变化的认知语用理据[A].收入朱永生，主编，世纪之交论功能——第六届全国功能语言学研讨会论文集[C].上海外语教育出版社，180-188.
张利，2008.浅析课堂语言教学中教师的纠正性反馈[J].《吉林省教育学院学报》，第3期，24-25.
张美芳，2002.语言的评价意义与译者的价值取向[J].《外语与外语教学》，第7期，15-18，27.
张倩，王健，2011.大学英语互动课堂教师纠错性反馈的研究[J].《西安外国语大学学报》，第1期，106-110.
张雪梅，戴炜栋，2001.反馈·二语习得·语言教学[J].《外语界》，第2期，2-8.
赵团员，2011.《语言文字学学术批评和批评文集》评介[J].《当代外语研究》，第9期，58-59.
赵晓红，1998.大学英语阅读课教师话语的调查与分析[J].《外语界》，第2期，17-22.
赵毅衡，1986.新批评——一种独特的形式主义文论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
周星，周韵，2002.大学英语课堂教师话语的调查与分析[J].《外语教学与研究》，第1期，61-62.
朱长河，2005.有标记的选择与意图义：标记模式的语言学理论探源[J].《外语学刊》，第5期，59-62.
朱嫣然，2001.及物性分析与批评性阅读[J].《浙江师大学报》（社会科学版），第3期，101-104.
朱晔，王敏，2005.二语写作中的反馈研究：形式、明晰度及具体效果[J].《现代外语》，第2期，170-180.
朱跃，2005.论交际者在非语言语境中的核心地位[J].《天津外国语学院学报》，第3期，39-43.
朱永生，2005.框架理论对语境动态研究的启示[J].《外语与外语教学》第2期，1-4.
朱永生，2007.多模态话语分析的理论基础与研究方法[J].《外语学刊》，第5期，82-86.
朱永生，2009.概念意义中的隐性评价[J].《外语教学》，第4期，1-5.
朱永生，2010.语篇中的意识形态与语言学家的社会责任——论马丁的相关理论及其应用[J].《当代外语研究》，第10期，25-28.
朱永生，严世清，2001.系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
批评要有建设性.《人民日报》，1999-6-8，第11版.
Aijmer, K.&A. Stenstrǒm (eds.). Discourse Pattern. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Amante, D. J.1981. The theory of ironic speech acts. Peotics Today,2(2).
Annett, John.1969. Feedback and Human Behavior. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Arnold A.&H. D. Brown.1999. A map of the terrain. In J. Amold (ed.), Affect in Language Learning.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Askehave, I.2004. If language is a game—these are the rules: a search into the rhetoric of the spiritualself-help book. Discourse&Society,15(1):5-31.
Bakhtin, M.1994. Speech genres and other late essays. In P. Morris (ed.), The Dialogic Imagination(pp.81-87). London: Edward Arnold.(Original work published1986).
Bhatia, V. K.1993. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
Bhatia, V.2004. Worlds of Written Discourse. London and New York: Continuum.
Black, E.2006. Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
Blum-Kulka, S.1989. Playing it safe: the role of conventionality in indirectness. In S. Blum-Kulka, J.House&G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp.37-70).Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Brown, R.1989. Classroom pedagogies—A syllabus for the interactive stage?. The Teacher Trainer,(2):13-17.
Brown, G.&G. Yule.1983. Discourse Analysis. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Burnett, P. C.2002. Teacher praise and feedback and students’ perceptions of the classroomenvironment. Educational Psychology,22(1):5-16.
Blakemore, D.1992. Understanding Utterance: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: BasilBlackwell Publisher Ltd.
Blanck, P. D., H. T. Reis&I. Jackson.1979. The effects of verbal reinforcement on intrinsicmotivation for sex-linked tasks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association.
Bolinger, D.1972. Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton.
Breitenstein, R.1970. England heute. Wien/Düsseldorf: Econ.
Brophy, J. E.1979. Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology,71(6):733-750.
Brophy, J.1981. Teacher praise: a functional analysis. Review of Educational Research,51(1):5-32.
Brown, R.&A. Gilman.1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Stylein Language (pp.253-277). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Brown, P.&S. C. Levinson.1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In E.Goody(ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Brown, P.&S. C. Levinson.1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bruyn, S. T.1964. Rhetorical devices in sociological analysis. Sociological Quarterly,5(2):101-111.
Caffi, C.1999. On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics,31(7):881-909.
Caffi, C.2007. Mitigation. London: Elsevier.
Cameron, L.2003. Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London/New York: Continuum.
Cantrell, R., Stenner, A.,&W. Katzenmeyer.1977. Teacher knowledge, attitudes, and classroomteaching correlates of student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,69(2):172-179.
Carroll, S&M. Swain.1993. Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An Empirical study of thelearning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition15:357-386.
Chastain, K.1971. The Development of Modern Language Skills: Theory to Practice. Philadelphia:Center for Curriculum Development, Inc.
Chenoweth, N. A., R. R. Day, A. E. Chun&S. Luppescu.1983. Attitudes and preferences of ESLstudents to error correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition6:79-87.
Christie, F.1993. Negotiating school learning. Unpublished report funded by ARC grant1990-92.
Christie, F.2002. Classroom Discourse Analysis A Functional Perspective. London/New YorkContinuum.
Clark, H. H.&E. V. Clark.1977. Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Coffin, C.2002. The voices of history: theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses.Text,22(4):503-528.
Colston, H. L.2002. Contrast and assimilation in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics34(2):111-142.
Colston, H. L.&J. O’Brien.2000. Contrast of kind vs. contrast of magnitude: the pragmaticaccomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes,30(2):179-199.
Colston, H. L.&J. O’Brien.2000. Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: anythingunderstatement can do, irony can do better. Journal of Pragmatics,32(11):1557-1583.
Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W.,&R. L. Debus.1991. Effects of internally focused feedback andattributional feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of EducationalPsychology,83(1):17-27.
Crismore, A.&W. J. Van de Kopple.1997. The effects of hedges and gender on the attitudes ofreaders in the United States toward material in science textbook. In A. Duszak (ed.). Cultureand Style of Academic Discourse (pp.223-247). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cutting, A. L.&J. Dunn.2002. The cost of understanding other people: social cognition predictsyoung children’s sensitivity to criticism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,43(7):849-860.
Dik, S. C.1989. Functional Grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Doughty, G.2001. Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. Cognition and Second LanguageAcquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,206-257.
Dahl, O.2001. Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere. In J. Bybee&P. Hopper (eds.),Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (pp.471-480). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Derewianka, B.2009. Using appraisal theory to track interpersonal development in adolescent academicwriting. In Whitttaker, R., O’Donnel, M.&A. McCabe (eds.), Advances in Language andEducation. New York: Continuum.
Dews, S.&E. Winner.1995. Muting the meaning: a social function of irony. Metaphor and SymbolicActivity,10(1):3-19.
Eco, U. Kant&the Platypus.2000. Essays on Language and Cognition. Translated by Alastair McEwen.London: Vintage.
Edwards, D.&N. Mercer.1987. Common Knowledge: The Development of Understanding in theClassroom. London: Routledge.
Eggert, W.1977. A study of teaching behaviors as they relate to pupil behaviors, achievement andattitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta.
Eggins, S.2004. An Introduction of Systemic functional Linguistics. New York: Continuum.
Eggins, S.&D. Slade.1997. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.
Ellis, R.2005. Instructed Second Language Acquisition: A literature Review. Wellington: ResearchDivision.
Ellis, R. et al.2006. Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2grammar. SSLA,(28):339-368.
Ellis, R.2007. Corrective feedback in theory, research and practice. Paper presented at the5thInternational Conference on ELT in China&the1stCongress of Chinese Applied Linguistics,Beijing China.
Elwell, W. C.&J. Tiberio.1994. Teacher praise: what students want?. Journal of InstructionalPsycholog,.21(4):322-328.
Erickson, F.1996. Going for the zone: the social and cognitive ecology of teacher-studentinteraction in classroom conversations. In D. Hicks (ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling(pp.29-62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N.1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N.1992a. Introduction. In N. Fairclough (ed.). Critical Language Awareness (pp.1-29).London: Longman.
Fairclough, N.1992b. Critical Language Awareness. New York: Longman Publishing.
Fairclough, N.1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N.2003. Analysing Discourse. London: Routledge.
Ferguson, H.2000. Deception and despair: ironic self-identity in modern society. In J. E. Davis(ed.), Identity and Social Change. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Fowler, R.1991. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.
Fowler, R.1996. Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fowler, R.&G. Kress.1979. Critical linguistics. In R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress, T. Trew (eds.),Language and Control. London: Routledge.
Fowler, R., B. Hodge, G. Kress&T. Trew.1979. Language and Control. London: Longman.
Gable, R. A. et al.2009. Back to basics: rules, praise, ignoring, and reprimands revisited.Intervention in Scholl and Clinic,2009(4):195-205.
Gass, S.&L. Selinker,2001. Second Language Acquisition (2nded.). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc.
Gibbons, P.2003. Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a contentbased classroom. TESOL Quarterly,37(Summer2):247-273.
Gibbs, R. W.2000. Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor&Symbol,15(1&2):5-27..
Gibbs, R.W.&J. O’Brien.1991. Psychological aspects of irony understanding. Journal ofPragmatics,16(6):523-530.
Ginatt, H. G. Teacher and Child (老师怎样和学生说话).冯杨，周呈奇译,海口：海南出版社,2003.
Giora, R.1995. On negation and irony. Discourse Processes,19(2):239-264.
Givón, T.1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givón, T.2005. Context as Other Minds: The Pragmatics of Sociality. Cognition and Communication.
Goffman, E.1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior. New York: Garden City.
Graumann, C. F.1990. Perspective structure and dynamics in dialogues. In I. Markvova&K. Foppa(eds.) The Dynamics of Dialogue. Harvester Wheatsheaf,105-126.
Green, G. M.1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates Publishers.
Green, G.1996. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc.
Gregory, M.2001.“Phrasal Analysis” yesterday, today and tomorrow? In The28thInternationalSystemic Functional Grammar and Critical Discourse Analysis. Abstract Book. ISFC28,Ottawa: Carleton University.
Grice, H. P.1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole&J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semanticsvol.3(pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Grice, H. P.1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (ed.). Syntax and Semanticsvol.9. New York: Academic Press.
Gross, A.M.&M. Ekstrand.1983. Increasing and maintaining rates of teacher praise A studyusing public posting and feedback fading. Behavior Modification,7(1):126-135.
Gunha de Freitas, A.2000.“Neutral” ideational choices and interpersonality: special effects intourism pamphlets. Paper presented at11thEuro-International Systemic FunctionalLinguistics Workshop,21July2000, University Of Glasgow.
Hakansson, G.1986. Quantitative studies of teacher talk. In G. Kaasper (ed.). Learning, Teaching andCommunication in the Foreign Language Classroom. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press,83-89.
Halliday, M. A. K.1973. Explorations in the Function of Language. Elsevier North-Holland.
Halliday, M. A. K.1978. Language as Social Semiotic: the Social Interpretation of Language andMeaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: types of grammatical structure,and their determination by different semantic function. In D. J. Allerton, E. Carney&D. Holdcroft(eds.). Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis：Essays Offers to William Haas (pp.57-79).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in Halliday,2002:196-218.
Halliday, M.A.K.1985/1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K.1987. Spoken and written modes of meaning. In R. Horowitz, A. Durant&C.MacCabe (eds.), Comprehending Oral and Written Language. New York: Academic Press..
Halliday, M.A.K.1998. The notion of “context” in language education. In M. Ghadessy (ed.),Text and Context in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Halliday, M.A.K.2004. J.J.Webster (ed.). The Language of Science. London/New YorkContinuum.
Halliday, M. A. K.2006. Announcing the First HCLS Conference. The Halliday Centre for IntelligentApplications of Language Studies, City University of Hong Kong,.
Halliday, M. A. K.2008. Complementarities in Language. Shanghai: Commercial Press..
Halliday, M. A. K.&C. M. I. M. Matthiessen.1999. Construing Experience Through Meaning: ALanguage-based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.
Halliday, M.A.K.&C.M.I.M. Matthiessen.2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar.London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K., A.M. CIntosh&P. Strevens.1964. The Linguistic Sciences and LanguageTeaching. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K.&R. Hasan.1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in ASocio-semiotic Perspective. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University.
Hart, R. P.1990. Modern Rhetorical Criticism. New York: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown HigherEducation (Glenview, Ill.)
Haverkate, H. A.1990. Speech act analysis of irony. Journal of Pragmatics,14(1).
Hasan, R.1985. Linguistics, Language and Verbal Art. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
He, Agnes W.1993. Language use in peer review text. Language in Society (22):403-420.
Hicks, D.1996. Contextual inquiries: a discourse-oriented study of classroom learning. In D.Hicks (ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp.104-144). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Hoey, M.2000. Persuasive rhetoric in linguistics: a stylistic study of some features of the languageof Noam Chomsky. In S. Hunston&G. Thompson (eds), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stanceand the Construction of Discourse (pp.28-37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hood, S.2004. Appraising Research: Taking a Stance in Academic Writing.(unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Sydney: Faculty of Education, University of Technology).
Hübler, A.1983. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hunston, S.1994. Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M.Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp.191-218). London/New York: Routledge.
Hunston, S.2011. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. NewYork/London: Routledge.
Hunston, S.&G. Francis.2000. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus Driven Approach to the LexicalGrammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hunston, S.&G. Thompson (eds.).2000. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Constructionof Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K.1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, F.&K. Hyland.2001. Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal ofSecond Language Writing (10):185-212.
Ivanic, R.1998. Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing.Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
James, C.1998. Errors in Language Learning and User-Exploring Error Analysis. London: Longman.
Johnson, D. M.1992. Compliments and politeness in peer-review texts. Applied Linguistics (13):51-71.
Kasper, G.&K. R. Rose.2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: BlackwellPublishing Limited.
Kettemann, B.&G. Marko (eds.).2002. Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis. Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Kreck, M.1981. Communicative Acts and Shared Knowledge in Natural Discourse. New York:Academic Press, INC.
Kress, G&R. Hodge.1979. Language as Ideology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kreuz, R.1991. The use of verbal irony: cues and constraints. In J. S. Mio&A. Katz (eds.),Metaphor: Implication and Applications (pp.23-38). NJ: Erlbaum.
Kristeva, J.1986. The Kristeva Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lakoff, R. T.1990. Talking Power: The Politics of Language. New York: Basic Books.
Lasersohn, P.1999. Pragmatic halos. Language75(3):522-551.
Lassen, I., I. Strunck&T. Vestergaard (eds.).2006. Mediating Ideology in Text and Image—Tencritical studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Leech, G.1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leggitt, J. S.&R. W. Gibbs, Jr.2000. Emotional reactions to verbal irony. Discourse Processes,29(1):1-24.
Lemke, J. L.1992. Interpersonal meaning in discourse: value orientations. In D. Martin&L. Ravelli(eds.), Advances in Systemic Linguistics (pp.80-109). London&New York: Pinter.
Levinson, S. C.1989. A review of relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics (7)
Li, Guonan.2001. Figures and Vocabulary. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Littrnan, D. C.&J. L. Mey.1991. The nature of irony: toward a computational model of irony.Journal of Pragmatics,15(2):131-151.
Lyster, R.1998. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types andlearner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning,48(2):183-218.
Lyster, R.,&L. Ranta.1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition,19(1):37-66.
Lyster, R.&H. Mori.2006. Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. SSLA,(28):321-341.
Mackey, A&J. Philip.1998. Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts,responses and red herrings. The Modern Language Journal,(82):338-356.
Martin, J. R.1992. English Text, System and Structure. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martin, J. R.2000. Beyond exchange: appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston&G.Thompson (eds.). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse(pp.142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R.2006. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. Handout of the6thSystemic Functional Week.
Martin, J. R. forthcoming. What kind of structure?--Interpersonal meaning and prosodicrealization across strata. Word58(3)(Special Issue on ‘The realization of interpersonalmeaning’ edited by K. Davidse&A-M Simon-Vandenbergen).
Martin, J. R.&D. Rose.2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. London andNew York: Continuum.
Martin, J. R.&D. Rose.2007. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Martin, J. R.&D. Rose.2008. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, J. R.&P. R. R. White.2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York:Palgrave MacMillan.
Martin, J. R.&P. R. R. White.2008. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press..
Mauranen, A.2004.‘They’re a little bit different…’ Observations on hedges in academic talk. InK. Aijmer&A-M. Stenstrom (eds.), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora (pp.173-198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Maybin, J.&J. Swann.2007. Everyday creativity in language: textuality, contextuality, and critique.Applied Linguistics,28(4):497-517.
McCarthy, M.2002. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign LanguageEducation Press.
McDonald, S.2000. Neuropsychological studies of sarcasm. Metaphor&Symbol,15(1&2):85-98.
McDonough, K.2005. Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESLquestion development. Studies on Second Language Acquisition,(27):92-103.
Mercer, N.1992. Talk for teaching and learning. In K. Norman (ed.), Thinking Voices: The Work ofthe National Oracy Project (pp.215-223). Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder&Stoughton.
Mey, J.1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. London: Blackwell Publishers.
Mey, J.1998. Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Elsevier.
Mey, J.1999. When Voices Clash: A Study in literary pragmatics. Berlin: Moutlon de Gruyter.
Mitchley, N. J. J. Barber, J. M. Gray, D. N. Brooks&M. G. Livingston.1998. Comprehension of ironyin schizophrenia. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry,3(2):127-138.
Morgan, W.1996. Critical Literacy in the Classroom. London: Routledge.
Morris, C. W.1938. Foundation of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Myers, G.1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics,10(1):1-35.
Nabei, T.&M. Swain.2002. Leraner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of anadult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness,(11):44-46.
Nietzsche, F.2003. Writings from the Late Notebooks. R. Bittner (ed.), trans. by K. Sturge. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Nobuyoshi, J.&R. Ellis.1993. Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition.ELT Journal,47(3):203-210.
Nunan, D.1991. Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall Inc.
Painter, C.2003. Developing attitude: an ontogenetic perspective on appraisal. Text,23(2):183-210.
Partinngton, A.1998. Patterns and Meanings: Using Corpora for English Language Research andTeaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pēcheux, M.1982. Language, Semantics and Ideology. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Perkins, M.2007. Pragmatic Impairment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Potter, J.&M. Wetherell.2006. Discourse and Social Psychology Beyond Attitudes and Behavior.肖文明等译.语和社会心理学---超越态度与行为.北京：中国人民大学出版社.
Poynton, C.1989. Language and Gender: Making the Difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
QCA.1998, Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools (Crick Report).London: QCA.
Rerrott, C.1988. Classroom talk and pupil learning: guidelines for educators. In Action ResearchTools, Part3: Analysis of classroom discourse readings. Certificate of Teaching and Learning,NSW Department of School Education. Sydney: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Rice, P.&P. Waugh (eds.).2001. Modern Literary Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rothery, J.&R. Stenglin.2000. Interpreting literature: the role of Appraisal. In L. Unsworth (ed.),Researching Language in Schools and Communities (pp.112-36). London: Cassell.
Ruzaitè, J.2007. Vague references to quantities as a face-saving strategy in teacher-studentinteraction. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics,2007(3):157-178.
Santos, M.B.D.1996. The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text,(4):481-499.
Schmid, H.1999. Cognitive effects of shell nouns. In K. van Hock, A. A. Kibrik&L. Noordman (eds.)Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schmid, H.2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells, from Corpus to Cognition. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Schmidt, R. W.1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,11(2):129-158.
Scollon, R.&S. W. Scollon.1987. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. LookingUp: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing. London: Collins.
Seedhouse.1996. Classroom interaction: possibilities and impossibilities. English Language TeachingJournal,50(1):16-24.
Sharpe, T.2006.‘Unpacking’ scaffolding: identifying discourse and multimodal strategies thatsupport learning. Language and Education,20(3):211-231.
Sharpe, T.2008. How can teacher talk support learning?. Linguistics and Education19:132-148.
Shor, I.1992. Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Siewierska, A.1991. Functional Grammar. London&New York: Routledge.
Simpson, P.1993. Language, Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge.
Sinclair, J. M.1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair J. M. H.&R. M. Coulthard.1975. Toward an Analysis of Discourse: The English used byTeachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slimani, A.1992. Evaluation of classroom interaction. In Slimani, A.(ed.), Evaluating SecondLanguage Education (pp.197-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D.&D. Wilson.1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil BlackwellPublisher Ltd.
Sperber, D.&D. Wilson.1991. Irony and the use-mention distinction. In S. Davis (ed.), Pragmatics: AReader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D.&D. Wilson.1995. Relevance, Communication and Cognition (2ndedition). Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Stubbs, M.1995. Corpus evidence for norms of lexical collocation. In G. Cook&B. Seidlhofer(eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Studies in Honor of H. G. Widdowson(pp.245-56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stubbs, M.1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: on the cause of the trouble with quantitativestudies. Functions of Language,2(1):23-55.
Stubbs, M.2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies in Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Swales, J.1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic Research Settings. Glasgow: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Thomas, J.1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics,4(2):91-112.
Thomas, J.1991. You’re the greatest! A few well-chosen words can work wonders in positivebehavior reinforcement. Principal,71:32-33.
Thomas, J.1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Thompson, G.1996. Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
Thompson, G.2008. Introducing Functional Grammar (2ndedition). Beijing: Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press/Hodder Arnold.
Thompson, G.&S. Hunston.2000. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction ofDiscourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, G.&S. Hunston.2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston&G. Thompson (eds.).Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp.1-27). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Thorp, H. S., Bruden, R. L.,&B. J. Fraser.1994. Assessing and improving classroom environment.School Science Review,75:107-113.
Toplak, M.&A. N. Katz.2000. On the uses of sarcastic irony. Journal of Pragmatics,32(10):1467-1488.
Torres, C. A.(ed.).1998. Education, Power, and Personal Biography: Dialogues with CriticalEducators, New York: Routledge.
Tracy, K.&N. Coupland.1990. Multiple Goals in Discourse. Avon, England: MultilingualMatters Ltd.
Tsui, A. B. M.1995. Introducing Classroom Interaction. Penguin English.
Ungerer, F.&H. J. Schmid.1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Addison Wesley: Longman.
van Dijk, T. A.2006. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse&Society,17(3):359-383.
Verschueren, J. et.al.1995. Handbook of Pragmatics, Manual. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Verschuren, J.1999. Understanding Pragmatics. Arnold.
Verschueren, J.1999. Understanding Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and ResearchPress.
Walsh, S.2006. Investigating Classroom Discourse. New York: Routledge.
Weisinger, H.2000. The Power of Positive Criticism. New York: AMACOM.
White, P. R. R.1997a. The grammar of fact and opinion: authorial stance and the construction ofmedia objectivity. paper presented at the24thInternational Systemic Functional Conference,Toronto.
White, P. R. R.1997b. Dialogue and intersubjectivity: reinterpreting the semantics of modality andhedging. In M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill&F. Rock (eds.), Working with Dialogue (pp.67-80).Tubingen: Neimeyer.
White, P. R. R.2001. Standing with, against and over-solidarity and power in mass-mediadiscourse. Seminar handout, Hongkong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
White, P. R. R.2003. Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language ofintersubjective stance. Text,23(2):259-84.
White, P. R. R.2005. Appraisal: the language of attitudinal variation and intersubjective stance,Appraisal website. URL: www.grammatics.com/appraisal.
Whitttaker, R., O’Donnel, M.&A. McCabe (eds.).2009. Advances in Language and Education.New York: Continuum.
Whorf, B. L.1956. The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In J.B. Carroll(ed.), Language, Thought and Reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whoof (pp.134-159).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wilson, D.2005. New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity. Lingua,115(8):1129-1146.
Wu Yaxin.2000. Pragmatic vagueness as a strategy in verbal communication in his Ph.D proposal,In Pragmatics Newsletter for teachers and researchers,5(3).
Xu Xiaohui.2010. Analysis of teacher talk on the basis of relevance theory. Canadian SocialScience,2010(3):45-50.
Yukl, G.1999. An evaluation of the conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismaticleadership theories, Leadership Quarterly,10:285-305.
Young, L.&C. Harrison (eds.).2004. Systemic Functional Linguistics and Critical DiscourseAnalysis: Studies in Social Change. London/New York: Continuum.
Yuan, Yi.2000. Face-saving devices in peer reviews&their implications. Centre for Development ofTeaching and Learning4(2):527.
毕丽华，2008.评价分析学生英语口语样本及其对教学的启示[J].《教育科学》,第1期，70.
布鲁克斯，1988.反讽——一种结构原则[M].译者：赵毅衡.新批评.文集.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
常晨光，2001.英语中的人际语法隐喻[J].《外语与外语教学》，第7期，6-8.
常晨光，2008.评价意义的韵律性特征[J].《北京科技大学学报》(社会科学版)第3期,101-107.
常晨光，2009.评价意义的韵律性特征[A].收于李国庆，主编，系统功能语言学的研究与应用[C].广州:暨南大学出版社，11-21.
常晨光，廖海青，2010.系统功能语言学与实践的辩证关系[J].《外语与外语教学》，第5期，11-14.
陈功，2011.语料库检索的模式、问题及启示[J].《当代外语研究》，第10期:10-14.
陈丽江，2006.英语课堂的评价语言与性别差异[J].《湘潭师范学院学报》(社会科学版)，第6期,107-110.
陈望道，1976.修辞学发凡[M].上海：上海教育出版社.
陈新仁，2009.批评语用学：目标、对象与方法[J].《外语与外语教学》，第12期，10-12.
陈瑜敏，黄国文，2010.马丁的语篇分析观[J].《当代外语研究》，第10期，19-24.
程雨民，2010.“人本语义学“十论”Why “Human-Oriented Semantics”?[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
董敏，2010.从实践型社会符号观述评语类研究模式陈望道[J].《外语教学》，第1期，17-20，26.
丁金国，2009.语体风格分析纲要[M].广州:暨南大学出版社.
段成刚，2008.语类结构潜势、语义特征与语法体现——汉语同学间互评体裁研究[J].《西安外国语大学学报》，第3期，37-41.
冯光武，2008.弗雷格哲学思辨中的语用学元素[J].《西安外国语大学学报》，第3期，9-13.
龚敏律，2007.西方反讽诗学在现代中国的译介与影响[J].《文学评论》，第3期，46-52.
谷方，1994.主体性哲学与文化问题[M].北京:中国和平出版社.
郭爱萍，2002.语域与语域变异[A].收于朱永生，主编，世纪之交论功能---第六届全国功能语言学研讨会论文集[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社:204-208.
何兆熊，1997.九十年代看语用[J].《外国语》，第4期.
何兆熊，2000.新编语用学概要[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
何自然，陈新仁，2004.当代语用学[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
何自然，冉永平，2002.语用学概论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社.
胡丹，2007a.低调陈述---一种曲言、委婉、低调的评价[A].高校外语教学与研究，第2辑，183-186.
胡丹，2007b.多模式话语的社会符号学分析[J].《华东交通大学学报》，第3期,126-130.
胡丹，2007c.多模式话语分析Emmett Williams的诗“She love me not”[J].《外语与外语教学》，第11期,16-19.
胡丹，2006.语块与英语学习成效[J].《华东交通大学学报》，第6期,121-126.
胡丹，刘丽权，2009a.课堂教学评价语“四性”原则探索---基于英语写作课教学实践[J].《湖北第二师范学院学报》，第6期，101-103.
胡丹，刘丽权，2009b.双语课堂教学语言的问题与对策[J].《教育学术月刊》，第6期，104-106.
胡丹，2009c.双语教学方式与评价方式对学生主体性发挥的思考[J].《华东交通大学学报》，第6期,139-144.
胡丹，2009d.海明威小说“一个干净、明亮的地方”语言游戏探微[J].《华东交通大学学报》，第4期,115-120.
胡丹，2010a.课堂教学语言选择与言后取效研究[J].《教育学术月刊》，第8期，102-105.
胡丹，刘丽权,2010b.课堂教学语言调控和取效研究[J].《湖北第二师范学院学报》，第9期.
胡丹，2011.低调陈述修辞格的批评语用研究[J].《江西社会科学》，第5期，210-214.
胡壮麟，2002.对中国英语教育的若干思考[J].《外语研究》，第3期，2-9.
胡壮麟，朱永生，张德禄，李战子，2005.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
胡越竹，2009.课堂纠错：教师行为与学生需求的对比研究[J].《外语教学理论与实践》，第1期，48-56.
黄国文，2009.作为普通语言学的系统功能语言学[A].收于李国庆，主编《系统功能语言学的研究与应用》[C].广州:暨南大学出版社，2-10.
黄国文，2010.语篇分析与系统功能语言学理论的建构[J].《外语与外语教学》，第5期，1-4.
黄国文等主编.即将出版.系统功能语言学发展状况[C].
纪康丽，2008.学生如何看待教师评语[J].《外语与翻译》，第2期，69-74.
姜望琪，2003.当代语用学[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
金娜娜，2009.时态的评价功能研究[J].《外语与外语教学》，第8期，23-26.
鞠红，2002.低调陈述与会话含义[J].《山东外语教学》，第6期，62-65.
鞠红，2004.低调陈述推理机制的认知性透视[J].《外语教学》，第2期，26-31.
鞠红，2005.论低调陈述的特征和社会心理基础[J].《安徽大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)，第1期，113-116.
鞠红，戴曼纯，2006.低调陈述作为语用策略的顺应性研究[J].《外语教学与研究》，11-16.
李国庆，2009.系统功能语言学的研究与应用[C].广州:暨南大学出版社.
李鸿蕊，2011.基于语料库的莎士比亚戏剧汉译本中语气词“吧”的应用研究[J].《当代外语研究》，第1期，24-27.
李经伟，1996.英汉书评中的礼貌策略比较[J].《解放军外语学院学报》，第3期，1-8.
李军，2008.话语修辞理论与实践[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
李俊芬，2008.大学英语教学中有效教师反馈策略模式初探[J].《外语教学理论与实践》，第1期，49-53.
李力，2004.及物性理论应用在辨识个人语型上的可行性[J].《天津外国语学院学报》,第3期，33-36.
李瑞华，1994.语用的最高原则——得体[J].《外国语》，第3期，25-27.
李三福，2005.论西方近代教学语用学思想[J].《湖南科技大学学报》，第6期，115-119.
李鑫华，2000.英语修辞格详论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
李战子，2002.话语的人际意义研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
李战子，2004.评价理论:在话语分析中的应用和问题[J].《外语研究》，第5期，1-6，80.
梁茂成，李文中，许家金，2010.语料库应用教程[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
梁蕾，2007.汉语评价言语行为及其策略研究[D].暨南大学硕士学位论文.
廖益清，丁建新，2007.体裁结构潜势、语义特征与语法体现——格林童话的首尾研究[J].《外国语》，第4期，28-36.
林良章，2003.课堂教学中“评价语”发展性功效探微[J].《福建师范大学福清分校学报》，2003年增刊，114-119.
林大津，谢朝群，2005.论言语交际的得体原则：争议与意义[J].《外语教学与研究》第6期，419-424
刘安洪，2002.英语委婉语与暗指、低调陈述及其修辞效果之比较[J].《渝西学院学报》(社会科学版)，第3期，50-54.
刘承宇，2002.英语报刊语篇评价系统与批评性阅读[J].《山东师大外国语学院学报》，第4期，25-29.
刘飞兵，2007.反讽的语用阐释[J].《求索》，第3期，202-203.
刘军平，2008.从跨学科角度看译者主体性的四个维度及其特点[J].《外语与外语教学》，第8期，52-55.
刘丽静，2006.教师批评语违反礼貌原则语用失误分析[J].《广西教育学院学报》，第5期，43-45.
刘世铸，2010.评价理论在中国的发展[J].《外语与外语教学》，第5期，33-37.
楼敏盛，陈舜孟，2003.谈大学英语教学中的积极性评价[J].《湖州职业技术学院学报》，第2期，45-47.
吕长竑，黎斌，胡霞，2010.中西学者生命和材料科学英文学术语篇间接表达方式的对比研究[J].《外语与外语教学》，第5期，38-42.
陆俭明，2005.现代汉语语法研究教程（第二版）[M].北京：北京大学出版社.
马玉蕾，2010.马丁基于语类理论的写作教学框架[J].《当代外语研究》，第10期，50-54.
孟建钢，2005.试析自然会话中的反讽回应[J].《外语学刊》，第5期，12-17.
米克，1992.论反讽[M].周发祥译,昆仑出版社.
莫爱屏，2008.译者主体性与语篇中视角的互动研究[J].《外语教学》，第5期，86-90.
牟金江，2004.语言错误分类及其纠错策略[J].《西安外国语学院学报》，第2期，1-3.
牛保义，1997.整体思维与分析思维——谈中美两国人的思维模式差异[J].《四川外国语学院学报》，第2期，54-59.
庞建荣，2008.模糊语言及其语境依赖性[J].《外语与外语教学》，第7期，16-18.
戚健，2005.浅析英语书评中的评价[J].《东莞理工学院学报》，第2期，68-72.
钱冠连，2000.汉语文化语用学——人文网络言语学(第二版)[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
钱冠连，2008.语言学自选集——理论与方法[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
曲政，俞东明，2002.功能语体·跨文化交际·外语教学[J].《杭州教育学院学报》，第1期，112-115.
冉永平，2010.冲突性话语的语用学研究概述[J].《外语教学》，第1期，:1-6.
冉永平，2006.语用学：现象与分析[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
任绍曾，2002.语篇中语言型式化的意义——探索语篇主题的一种途径[A].收于朱永生，主编，世纪之交论功能——第六届全国功能语言学研讨会论文集[C].上海外语教育出版社，215-229.
任绍曾，2009.关注中心和基本主题[J].《外语教学》，第4期，6-10.
邵斌，2011.网络语料库检索：英语研究的方便之门---《运用网络语料库探索英语》述评[J].
《当代外语研究》，第11期:57-59.
施光，刘学惠，2008. EFL教学中的纠错——教师与学生的看法与纠错效果的关系[J].《外语教学理论与实践》，第2期，29-32.
司显柱，吴玉霞，2009.人际意义跨文化建构：比较与翻译[J].《西安外国语大学学报》，第4期，68-70，74.
孙汝建，2006.修辞的社会心理分析[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
孙燕青，2005a.第二语言学习中的反馈[J].《心理科学进展》，第2期，156-165.
孙燕青，2005b.第二语言学习中的重要反馈方式[J].《心理发展与教育》，第2期，116-121.
汤燕瑜，刘绍忠，2003.教师语言的语用分析[J].《外语与外语教学》，第1期，19-23.
唐青叶，2009.语篇语言学[M].上海：上海大学出版社.
唐燕玲，2008.论创新型人才培养与综合英语教学改革[J].《外语与外语教学》，第8期。30-33.
涂靖，2002.反讽的语用特征和限制条件[J].《外语学刊》，第1期，77-82.
涂靖，2004a.反讽的认知研究[J].《外语学刊》，第2期，7-9，73.
涂靖，2004b.论反语的本质属性[J].《外语教学》，第6期，28-31.
王寅，2008.认知语言学的“体验性概念化”对翻译主客观性的解释力——一项基于古诗《枫桥夜泊》40篇英译文的研究[J].《外语教学与研究》，第3期，211-217.
王振华，2001.评价系统及其运作[J].《外国语》，第6期，13-20.
王振华，2003. ENGAGEMENT in Interaction: An APPRAISAL approach [D].河南大学博士学位论文.
温家宝，2010.强国必强教强国先强教[N].光明日报（9月1日第2版）.
文军，1991.英语写作修辞[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社.
伍铁平，1999.模糊语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
向明友，2002.论言语的社会交际功能[A].收于朱永生，主编，世纪之交论功能——第六届全国功能语言学研讨会论文集[C].上海外语教育出版社，127-141.
熊沐清，2001.论语篇视点[J].《外语教学与研究》，第1期，21-28.
熊学亮，2000.认知语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
徐盛桓，2011.少壮功夫老未成[J].《当代外语研究》，第4期，1-8.
辛斌，2002.批评性语篇分析方法论[J].《外国语》，第6期，34-41.
辛志英，2008.韵律结构的隐喻模式建构[J].《西安外国语大学学报》，第4期，37-40.
杨德祥，赵永平，2011.内容依托式教学对英语专业学生思辨能力的影响[J].《外语教学》,，第5期，61-64.
杨信彰，2003.语篇中的评价性手段[J].《外语与外语教学》，第1期，11-14.
杨信彰，2006.英语学术语篇中的评论附加语[J].《外语与外语教学》,第10期，11-13.
杨信彰，2007.系统功能语言学与教育语篇分析[J].《四川外语学院学报》，第6期，17-20.
杨信彰，2010.马丁对语域理论的发展和应用[J].《当代外语研究》，第10期，39-42.
俞东明，1997.语法歧义和语用模糊对比研究[J].《外国语》，第6期，29-35.
俞东明，1998.《言语交际中的语义：语用学导论》评介[J].《当代语言学》，第4期，42-45.
俞东明，左进，2004.语用模糊、会话策略与戏剧人物刻画[J].《外语教学与研究》，第5期，379-384.
曾文雄，2009.语用学的多维研究[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社.
张德禄，1993.系统语法与语用学[A].收于朱永生，主编，语言·语篇·语境[C].北京：清华大学出版社.
张德禄，1998.论话语基调的范围及体现[J].《外语教学与研究》，第1期，8-14，80.
张德禄，2002.语类研究的范围及其对外语教学的启示[J].《外语电化教学》,第8期，59-64.
张德禄，2010a.适用性社会符号学的理论与实践研究[J].《外语与外语教学》，第5期，5-10.
张德禄，2010b.马丁的语类研究[J].《当代外语研究》，第10期，29-33.
张德禄，刘世铸，2006.形式与意义的范畴化——兼评《评价语言—英语的评价系统》[J]《外语教学与研究》，第6期，423-427.
张德禄，苗兴伟，李学宁，2005.功能语言学与外语教学[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
张福萍，2007.瑞特·巴特勒:反讽艺术的经典[J].《太原大学学报》，第1期，43-45.
张继云，张芸，2007.卡夫卡小说《变形记》的反讽结构芸[J].《辽宁大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)，第1期，54-57.
张克定，2002.句式变化的认知语用理据[A].收入朱永生，主编，世纪之交论功能——第六届全国功能语言学研讨会论文集[C].上海外语教育出版社，180-188.
张利，2008.浅析课堂语言教学中教师的纠正性反馈[J].《吉林省教育学院学报》，第3期，24-25.
张美芳，2002.语言的评价意义与译者的价值取向[J].《外语与外语教学》，第7期，15-18，27.
张倩，王健，2011.大学英语互动课堂教师纠错性反馈的研究[J].《西安外国语大学学报》，第1期，106-110.
张雪梅，戴炜栋，2001.反馈·二语习得·语言教学[J].《外语界》，第2期，2-8.
赵团员，2011.《语言文字学学术批评和批评文集》评介[J].《当代外语研究》，第9期，58-59.
赵晓红，1998.大学英语阅读课教师话语的调查与分析[J].《外语界》，第2期，17-22.
赵毅衡，1986.新批评——一种独特的形式主义文论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.
周星，周韵，2002.大学英语课堂教师话语的调查与分析[J].《外语教学与研究》，第1期，61-62.
朱长河，2005.有标记的选择与意图义：标记模式的语言学理论探源[J].《外语学刊》，第5期，59-62.
朱嫣然，2001.及物性分析与批评性阅读[J].《浙江师大学报》（社会科学版），第3期，101-104.
朱晔，王敏，2005.二语写作中的反馈研究：形式、明晰度及具体效果[J].《现代外语》，第2期，170-180.
朱跃，2005.论交际者在非语言语境中的核心地位[J].《天津外国语学院学报》，第3期，39-43.
朱永生，2005.框架理论对语境动态研究的启示[J].《外语与外语教学》第2期，1-4.
朱永生，2007.多模态话语分析的理论基础与研究方法[J].《外语学刊》，第5期，82-86.
朱永生，2009.概念意义中的隐性评价[J].《外语教学》，第4期，1-5.
朱永生，2010.语篇中的意识形态与语言学家的社会责任——论马丁的相关理论及其应用[J].《当代外语研究》，第10期，25-28.
朱永生，严世清，2001.系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
批评要有建设性.《人民日报》，1999-6-8，第11版.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |