汉语会话中的照应修正研究
|
摘要
本文对汉语会话中的照应修正现象进行了系统研究。研究旨在对照应修正的结构特征进行系统的描述,并对其内在机制以及指称选择过程加以阐释。本项研究的语料是收集于汉语戏剧的总共280个照应修正的实例,论文采用会话分析的研究手段,结合定量和定性的研究方法,对照应修正现象进行了系统的探讨与分析。研究主要包括以下几个方面:
第一,本项研究首次对照应修正现象进行了定义和细致的分类,从而为这一领域的进一步研究奠定基础。为了探究照应修正的组织结构特征及修正机制,论文对照应修正的四种基本类型进行了细致的描述和统计分析。研究发现,汉语照应修正中所存在的结构偏好机制与谢格洛夫、杰斐逊、萨克斯建立在英语会话语料基础上的有关会话修正的总的结构偏好机制存在部分相同,但在许多方面具有差异。论文对这些异同进行了细致的描述,并对造成差异的原因进行了深入的分析。
第二,在现有语料的基础上,论文对照应修正的主要修正引导类型及手段以及修正执行策略分别进行了细致的描述及统计分析。其中,修正引导手段是修正引导类型的直接表现形式,而对于不同类型的照应修正,所使用的修正策略也可能有所不同。研究同时表明,照应修正的引导手段在指认待修正语方面存在着力度及能力的差异,并由此构成一个自然等级。通过对语料的统计分析,论文提出了一个“照应修正引导手段的自然等级”,并对这一等级进行了细致描述。
第三,为了进一步探究照应修正的内在机制以及照应修正中指称选择的内在规律,论文对照应修正中指称分布的总体情况进行了统计分析,并在此基础上提出了一个由明晰性、可理解性以及恰切性为主要准则的“指称合作原则”。
这一原则在总体上操纵着照应修正的产生和执行过程,不同类型的照应修正的产生实际上是由于说话者违反了这一原则的不同准则而导致的。论文同时设计并提出了一个用以描述照应修正过程的流程图,籍此能够对照应修正的产生及执行过程,照应修正出现的位置和时机提供充分的解释。
第四,论文分别从语用和认知角度对由代名语充当待修正语的修正类型进行了深入探讨。研究指出,照应修正产生的根本原因是由于说话人与听话人在对所指实体的可及性判断上存在差异,或由于说话人完全忽视了所指实体在听话人大脑中的可及性地位;经济原则和明晰原则直接控制着此类照应修正的产生和使用过程;而在具体的指称选择的层面上,此类修正直接反映为用较低可及性标示语对较高可及性标示语的修正。为了对此类照应修正现象提供一个更加充分的、综合性的解释,论文最终提出了一个“照应修正的语用认知模型”。
This dissertation reports on a systematic study of anaphoric repair in Chinese conversation. It aims to describe the routine practices that constitute anaphoric repair and account for both the mechanism and process of anaphoric repair and the referential choice in repair sequence. Altogether 280 instances of anaphoric repair from Chinese dramas were collected for our analysis. The dissertation takes a conversation analytic approach to anaphoric repair in data analysis, using both quantitative and qualitative methods. In this study, the following major works have been conducted:
Firstly, anaphoric repair has been defined and classified for the first time in our study, so as to lay a solid foundation for the further research in this field. A detailed descriptive study of the four basic patterns of anaphoric repair helps us achieve a full understanding of the organizational properties of anaphoric repair. Findings from our analysis of these data suggest that the structural preferences of anaphoric repair in Chinese conversation concur with the preference account proposed by Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks (1977) in some respects, but differ in many others. The commonalities and differences between the two preference accounts have been elaborated and the possible causes of the differences have been analyzed.
Secondly, a detailed survey of initiation types and techniques, and repair strategies has been carried out respectively on the basis of our data. It is argued that the initiation techniques are an overt manifestation of the initiation types, and different repair strategies may be adopted in different types of anaphoric repair. Detailed analysis shows that initiation techniques may differ with respect to the
strength or the capacity to locate the reparandum, and thus a scale of initiation techniques in anaphoric repair has been proposed and elaborated.
Thirdly, in order to probe into the mechanism of anaphoric repair and its referential choice, a statistical study of referential distribution in anaphoric repair has been conducted. On the basis of these analyses, we suggest the Cooperative Principle of Anaphoric Reference (CP of Anaphoric Reference for short), which is composed of three maxims, namely, Clarity, Intelligibility and Felicity. It is argued that this principle and its maxims manipulate anaphoric repair at every stage. Different types of anaphoric repair may be triggered by the violation of different maxims of the principle. In addition, a general procedure of anaphoric repair has been proposed in the form of a flow chart, which can adequately explain where and when anaphoric repair may occur.
And fourthly, repairs of pronominal forms are approached from both pragmatic and cognitive perspectives. It is found that this type of anaphoric repair results from either the discrepancy between the speaker’s assumption and the listener’s assessment of the accessibility status of the referent, or the speaker’s ignorance of its accessibility status. The Economy Principle and the Clarity Principle are governing the use of this type of repair. And on the linguistic level, repairs of pronominal forms are indeed a type of repair sequence in which a higher accessibility marker is repaired by a lower accessibility marker. Finally, a pragmatic and cognitive model of anaphoric repair is advanced for a comprehensive and synthetic interpretation of repairs of pronominal forms.
第一,本项研究首次对照应修正现象进行了定义和细致的分类,从而为这一领域的进一步研究奠定基础。为了探究照应修正的组织结构特征及修正机制,论文对照应修正的四种基本类型进行了细致的描述和统计分析。研究发现,汉语照应修正中所存在的结构偏好机制与谢格洛夫、杰斐逊、萨克斯建立在英语会话语料基础上的有关会话修正的总的结构偏好机制存在部分相同,但在许多方面具有差异。论文对这些异同进行了细致的描述,并对造成差异的原因进行了深入的分析。
第二,在现有语料的基础上,论文对照应修正的主要修正引导类型及手段以及修正执行策略分别进行了细致的描述及统计分析。其中,修正引导手段是修正引导类型的直接表现形式,而对于不同类型的照应修正,所使用的修正策略也可能有所不同。研究同时表明,照应修正的引导手段在指认待修正语方面存在着力度及能力的差异,并由此构成一个自然等级。通过对语料的统计分析,论文提出了一个“照应修正引导手段的自然等级”,并对这一等级进行了细致描述。
第三,为了进一步探究照应修正的内在机制以及照应修正中指称选择的内在规律,论文对照应修正中指称分布的总体情况进行了统计分析,并在此基础上提出了一个由明晰性、可理解性以及恰切性为主要准则的“指称合作原则”。
这一原则在总体上操纵着照应修正的产生和执行过程,不同类型的照应修正的产生实际上是由于说话者违反了这一原则的不同准则而导致的。论文同时设计并提出了一个用以描述照应修正过程的流程图,籍此能够对照应修正的产生及执行过程,照应修正出现的位置和时机提供充分的解释。
第四,论文分别从语用和认知角度对由代名语充当待修正语的修正类型进行了深入探讨。研究指出,照应修正产生的根本原因是由于说话人与听话人在对所指实体的可及性判断上存在差异,或由于说话人完全忽视了所指实体在听话人大脑中的可及性地位;经济原则和明晰原则直接控制着此类照应修正的产生和使用过程;而在具体的指称选择的层面上,此类修正直接反映为用较低可及性标示语对较高可及性标示语的修正。为了对此类照应修正现象提供一个更加充分的、综合性的解释,论文最终提出了一个“照应修正的语用认知模型”。
This dissertation reports on a systematic study of anaphoric repair in Chinese conversation. It aims to describe the routine practices that constitute anaphoric repair and account for both the mechanism and process of anaphoric repair and the referential choice in repair sequence. Altogether 280 instances of anaphoric repair from Chinese dramas were collected for our analysis. The dissertation takes a conversation analytic approach to anaphoric repair in data analysis, using both quantitative and qualitative methods. In this study, the following major works have been conducted:
Firstly, anaphoric repair has been defined and classified for the first time in our study, so as to lay a solid foundation for the further research in this field. A detailed descriptive study of the four basic patterns of anaphoric repair helps us achieve a full understanding of the organizational properties of anaphoric repair. Findings from our analysis of these data suggest that the structural preferences of anaphoric repair in Chinese conversation concur with the preference account proposed by Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks (1977) in some respects, but differ in many others. The commonalities and differences between the two preference accounts have been elaborated and the possible causes of the differences have been analyzed.
Secondly, a detailed survey of initiation types and techniques, and repair strategies has been carried out respectively on the basis of our data. It is argued that the initiation techniques are an overt manifestation of the initiation types, and different repair strategies may be adopted in different types of anaphoric repair. Detailed analysis shows that initiation techniques may differ with respect to the
strength or the capacity to locate the reparandum, and thus a scale of initiation techniques in anaphoric repair has been proposed and elaborated.
Thirdly, in order to probe into the mechanism of anaphoric repair and its referential choice, a statistical study of referential distribution in anaphoric repair has been conducted. On the basis of these analyses, we suggest the Cooperative Principle of Anaphoric Reference (CP of Anaphoric Reference for short), which is composed of three maxims, namely, Clarity, Intelligibility and Felicity. It is argued that this principle and its maxims manipulate anaphoric repair at every stage. Different types of anaphoric repair may be triggered by the violation of different maxims of the principle. In addition, a general procedure of anaphoric repair has been proposed in the form of a flow chart, which can adequately explain where and when anaphoric repair may occur.
And fourthly, repairs of pronominal forms are approached from both pragmatic and cognitive perspectives. It is found that this type of anaphoric repair results from either the discrepancy between the speaker’s assumption and the listener’s assessment of the accessibility status of the referent, or the speaker’s ignorance of its accessibility status. The Economy Principle and the Clarity Principle are governing the use of this type of repair. And on the linguistic level, repairs of pronominal forms are indeed a type of repair sequence in which a higher accessibility marker is repaired by a lower accessibility marker. Finally, a pragmatic and cognitive model of anaphoric repair is advanced for a comprehensive and synthetic interpretation of repairs of pronominal forms.
引文
Allerton, D. J. 1996. Proper names and definite descriptions with the same reference: a pragmatic choice for language users. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 621-633.
Ariel, Mira. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24: 65-87.
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
Ariel, Mira. 1991. The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 16: 443-463.
Bard, E. G. et al.. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 42: 1-22.
Botley, S., & McEntry, T. 1999. Discourse anaphora: the need for synthesis. In S. Botley & T. McEntry (eds.). Corpus-based and computational approaches to discourse anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Botley, S. & T. McEntry (eds.). 1999. Corpus-based and Computational Approaches to Discourse Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Botley, Simon, & Mcenery, Tony. 2001. Demonstratives in English: a corpus-based study. Journal of English Linguistics Vol.29/No.1: 7-13.
Buckwalter, Peggy Anne. 1997. Repair in Classroom Dyadic Talk-in-interaction: an exploration of an approach to the analysis of L2 learner/learner discourse. The University of Texas at Austin. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Buckwalter, Peggy. 2001. Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: a descriptive study. The Modern Language Journal 85: 380-397.
Cameron, Deborah. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. London: SAGE Publications.
Chafe, W. L. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. S. Tomlin.
(ed.). Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chan, Hui-chen. 2000. Anaphoric choice in social context. Chinese Studies (18): 299-321.
Chen, Ping. 1986. Referent Introducing and Tracking in Chinese Narratives. Unpublished PHD dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
Chui, Kawai. 1996. Organization of Chinese conversation. Text 16 (3): 343-372.
Day, Richard R., N. Ann Chenoweth, Ann E. Chun, & Luppescu Stuart. 1984. Corrective feedback in native-nonnative discourse. Language Learning 34: 19-45.
Dickey, Eleanor. 1997. Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics 33:255-274.
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Downing, P. A. 1996. Proper names as a referential option in English conversation. In B. A. Fox. (ed.). Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Dressler, de Beaugrande. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
Drew, Paul. 1997. ‘Open’class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69-101.
Egbert, M. M. 1997. Some interactional achievements of other-initiated repair in multiperson conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 611-634.
Egbert, M. M. 1998. Miscommunication in language proficiency interviews of first-year German students: A comparison with natural conversation. In R. Young & A. Weiyun He (eds.). Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency (pp. 147-169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fasulo, A., & Zucchermaglio, C. 2002. “My selves and I: identity markers in work meeting talk”. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1119-1144.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: The MIT press.
Fincke, Steven. 1999. “The syntactic organization of repair in Bikol”. In Barbara A. Fox, Dan Jurafsky and Laura A. Michaelis (ed.) Cognition and Function in Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Ford, C. E., & Fox, B. A. 1996. Interactional motivations for reference formulation: He had. This guy had, a beautiful, thirty-two O:lds. In B. A. Fox. (ed.). Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Fox, B. A. 1987. Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, Barbara. A., Hayashi, M., & Jasperson, B. J. 1996. “Resources and repair: a cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair”. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., and S. A. Thompson (eds.) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, Barbara. A. (ed.). 1996. Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fox, Barbara. A. 1987. Discourse Structure and Anaphora: written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gaskill, William H. 1980. Correction in native speaker-nonnative speaker conversation. In: D. Larsen-Freeman (ed.). Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research, 125-137. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Geluykens, Ronald. 1994. The Pragmatics of Discourse Anaphora in English: Evidence from conversational repair. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Givón, T. 1983. Introduction. In T. Givón (ed.). Topic continuitiy in discourse: A
quantitative cross language study. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 237-257.
Gundel, J., N. Hedberg, & Zacharski, R. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Languge 69: 274-307.
Hafex, O. M. 1991. Turn-taking in Egyptian Arabic : spontaneous speech vs. drama dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 59-81.
Have, Paul ten. 1999. Doing Conversation Analysis: A practical guide. London: SAGE Publications.
He, W. Z. 1994.(何文钊) A Soiciolinguistic Approach to the Term of Address. Shanghai International Studies University. Unpublished MA Thesis.
Huang, Yan. 1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: a study with special reference to Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Yan. 2000. Discourse Anaphora: four theoretical models. Journal of Pragmatics 32:151-176.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1995. Language of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation. Cambridge: The MIT press.
Jasperson, Robert Merchant. 1998. Repair After Cut-Off: exploration in the grammar of focused repair of the turn-constructional unit-so-far. The University of Colorado. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Jaszczolt, K. M. 2001. Referring expression: a unified approach. Journal of Foreign Lnaguages (2): 1-22.
Jefferson, G. 1987. On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (eds.) Talk and Social Organisation, pp 86-100. Clevedon: Multilingual Lingual Matters.
Jung, E. H. 1999. The organization of second language classroom repair. Issues in Applied Linguistics 10: 153-171.
Kasher, Asa (ed.). 1998. Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. Volume III: Indexical and reference. London: Routledge.
Kasher, Asa (ed.). 1998. Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. Volume V. Communication, Interaction and Discourse. London: Routledge.
Kasper, Gabriele. 1985. Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7: 200-215.
Kehler, Andrew. 2000. Coherence and the Resolution of Ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 533-575.
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2001. Confirming intersubjectivity through retroactive elaboration: organization of phrasal units in other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation. In Selting, M. & E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). Studies in Interactional Linguistics, pp 345-372. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Kormos, J. 1999. The effect of speaker variables on the self-correction behavior of L2 learners. System 27: 207-221.
Kronrod, Ann & Engel, Orit. 2001. Accessibility theory and referring expressions in newspaper headlines. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 683-699.
Kurhila, Salla. Correction in talk between native and non-native speaker. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1083-1110.
Lally Carolyn 1998. Friend or Foe: the use of direct pronouns by native English speakers in Both English and French. Reading Improvement 35, vno1:31-37.
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: A theory of topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leech, G. N., 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Lerner, G. H. 1989. Note on overlap management in conversation: the case of delayed completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication Vol. 53:167-177.
Lerner, G. H. 1996. On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson (eds.) Interaction and Grammar, pp 238-276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1991. Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27:107-161.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. Three levels of meaning. In Frank Palmer (ed.) Grammar and meaning, 90-115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Liebscher, Grit, & Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer. Conversational repair as a role-defining mechanism in classroom interaction. The Modern Language Journal 87: 375-390.
Markee, Numa. 2000. Repair in different speech exchange systems. In Conversation Analysis. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McHoul, A. W. 1990. The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society 19(3): 349-378.
Moerman, Michael. 1977. The preference for self-correction in a Tai conversational corpus. Language 53: 872-882.
Nakatani, C. & Hirschberg, J. 1993. A speech-first model for repair detection and correction [P]. In Proceeding of the 31st Annual Meeting, Columbus.
Association for Computational Linguistics.
Norrick, N. R. 1991. “On the organization of corrective exchange in conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics 16:59-83.
Porter, P. 1986. How learners talk to each other: input and interaction in task-centered discussion. In R. Day (ed.). Taking to Learn: conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 200-224.
Postma, Albert. 2000. Detection of Errors During Speech Production: a review of speech monitoring models. Cognition 77: 97-131.
Rieger, C. L. 2003. Repetitions as Self-repair Strategies in English and German Conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 35 : 47-69.
Sacks, H., & E. A. Schegloff. 1979. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.). Everyday language: studies in ethnomethodology. NY: Irvington Publishers.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50/4: 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. 1979. The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givón (ed.). Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Schegloff, E. A. 1982. Discourse as an international achievement: some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.). Geogetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics 1981 Analysing Discourse: Text and Talk, pp 71-93. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. 1987. Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics 25: 201-218.
Schegloff, E. A. 1988. Presequences and indirection: applying speech act to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 55-62.
Schegloff, E. A. 1989. Reflections on language, development, and the interactional Character of Talk-in-Interaction. In M. H. Bornstein and J. S. Bruner (eds.). Interaction in Human Development. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schegloff, E. A. 1991. Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In Resnick, L., Levine, J. M., & S. D. Teasley (eds.). Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Schegloff, E. A. 1992. Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97 (5) 1295-1345.
Schegloff, E. A. 1996. Practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: a partial sketch of a systematics [A]. In B. A. Fox. (ed.). Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Pusblishing Company.
Schegloff, E. A. 1997a. Practices and actions: boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23 (3): 499-545.
Schegloff, E. A. 1997b. Third turn repair. In Guy, G. R., Feagin, C., Schiffrin, D. & J. Baugh. (eds.). Towards a Social Science of Language 2. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Schegloff, E. A. 2000. When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics 21(2): 205-243.
Schegloff, E. A. 2002a. Overwrought utterances: ‘complex sentences’ in a different sense. In Bybee, J. L. & M. Noonan (eds.). Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Schegloff, E. A. 2002b. The surfacing of the suppressed. In LeBaron, P. G., LeBaron, C. & J. Mandelbaum (eds.). Studies in Language and Social Interaction: a festschrift in honor of Robert Hopper. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schegloff, E. A. Recycled Turn Beginnings. 1987. In G. Button & J. R.E. Lee (eds.). Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd..
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53 (2): 361-382.
Schwartz, Joan. 1980. The negotiation for meaning: repair in conversations between second language learners of English. In D. Larsen-Freeman (ed.). Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Scotton, Carol Myers. 1990. 会话中身份的协调:标记性和代码选择理论,《国外语言学》第一期,6-11页。
Selting, Margret. 1988. The role of intonation in the organization of repair and problem handling sequences in conversation. Journal of pragmatics 12: 293-322.
Selting, Margret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Shen, Chao-mei. 1998. Other-Initiated Repair in Native-Nonnative English Conversation and Its Interactional Consequences. The University of Taxas at Austin. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Shokouhi, H. 1999. Conversational strategies using full NP anaphors. In S. Botley & A. M. McEnery (eds.). Corpus-based and computational approaches to discourse anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pusblishing Company.
Smith, Ronnie & Steven Gordon, 1996. Pragmatic issues in handling miscommunication: Observations of spoken natural language dialog system. Proceedings of the AAAI 1996 Workshop. Detecting, repairing, and preventing human-machine miscommunication, 21-28. Portland, Oregon.
Takubo, Yukinori, & Kinsui, Satoshi. 1997. Discourse management in terms of
mental space. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 741-758.
Tao, Liang. 1995. Repair in natural conversation of Beijing Mandarin. The Yuen Ren Society Treasury of Chinese Dialect Data Vol.1: 55-77.
Tao, Liang, Fox, Barbara. A. & Jule Gomez de Garcia. 1999. Tone-choice repair in conversational Mandarin Chinese. In Fox, B. A., Jurafsky, D. & Laura A. M. (eds.). Cognition and Function in Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Tomlin, R. S., & Pu, M. M. 1991. The management of reference in Mandarin discourse. Cognitive linguistics 2-1: 65-93.
Uhmann, Susanne. 2001. Some arguments for the relevance of syntax to same-sentence self-repair in everyday German conversation. In Selting, M. & E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). Studies in Interactional Linguistics, pp 373-404. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Ulichny, Polly. 1997. The mismanagement of misunderstandings in cross-cultural interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 27:233-246.
van Hoek, K. 1997. Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
van Hoek, K., Kibrik, A. A., & Noordman, L. (ed.). 1999. Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
van Lier, Leo. 1988. The organization of repair in second-language classrooms. In The Classroom and the Language Learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom research. New York: Longman Group UK Limited.
van Riper, Charles. 1978. Speech Correction: principles and methods. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. 1985. Non-native/non-native conversations: a model for
negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics Vol. 6, No. 1: 71-90.
Wang, J. H. (王建华) 1999. Politeness and Distance in Dyadic Communication. Shanghai International Studies University. Unpublished PHD Dissertation.
Watson, C. M., Chenery, H. J., & Carter, M. S. 1999. An Analysis of Trouble and Repair in the Natural Conversations of People with Dementia of the Alzheimer’s Type. Aphasiology Vol 13, 3: 195-218.
Weber, E. L. 1993. Varieties of Questions in English Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Weber, Tilo. 1998. Shared Background and Repair in German Conversation. The University of Colorado. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Wales, Katie. 1996. Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, A. J. & Zeitlyn, D. 1995. The distribution of person-referring expressions in natural conversation. Research on language and social interaction 28 (1): 61-92.
Wong, Jean. 2000. Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker English conversation. Applied Linguistics 21/1: 244-267.
Xu, Y. L.(许余龙) 1995. Resolving Third-person Anaphora in Chinese Texts: Towards a functional-pragmatic model. Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Yang, C. L., Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. 1999. Comprehension of Referring Expression in Chinese. Language and Cognitive Process 5/6: 715-741.
Zeng, Z. H.(曾志红) 1992. A Sociolinguistic Approach to Role-negotiation. Shanghai International Studies University. Unpublished MA thesis.
Zhang, Wei. 1998 Repair in Chinese Conversation. The University of Hong Kong. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Ziv, Yael. 1991. Book review. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 487-502.
陈松岑,2001,《礼貌语言》,北京:商务印书馆。
陈一,2002,《现代汉语语误》,哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社。
何兆熊主编,2000,《新编语用学概要》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
姜望琪, 2003, 《当代语用学》,北京:北京大学出版社。
姜望琪,李梅,2003, 谈谈会话中的纠偏问题,《外国语》第四期,39—45页。
李经纬,1999,语码转换与称呼语的标记作用,《解放军外国语学院学报》第二期,8—10,18页。
李明洁,1996,称呼语的运用规则和协调理论,《汉语学习》第四期,57—60页。
李鑫华,2000,《英语修辞详论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
李月娥,1996,会话中的阻碍修正结构分析,《外国语》第五期,39—44页。
李月娥,范洪雅,2002,《话语分析》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
刘承宇,2003,话语角色冲突与转换,《四川外语学院学报》第一期,89—91页。
刘宏丽,2001,《现代汉语敬谦辞》,北京:北京语言文化大学出版社。
刘礼进,1997,英汉人称代词回指和预指比较研究,《外国语》第六期,40—44页。
陆镜光,张惟,2001,会话修补与句法结构的关系,载戴绍铭,陆镜光主编《语言学问题集刊》,长春:吉林人民出版社,171-185页。
马文,2002,会话照应修正的认知可及性分析,《解放军外国语学院学报》第六期,5—8页。
马文,2003a,会话照应语修正的语用原则,《外语教学》第二期,40—43页。
马文,2003b,会话照应语修正的语用阐释,《四川外语学院学报》第六期,87—90页。
马文,2004a,会话篇章中指称表达的选择与阐释,《外国语》(录用待发表)。
马文,2004b,会话照应语修正的语用原则及可恢复性分析。载《外语与文化研究》第三辑。上海:上海外语教育出版社,109-121页,
马文,2004c,汉语远近称指示语的认知可及性研究。载《外语与文化研究》第四辑,上海:上海外语教育出版社。(即将出版)
束定芳,2000,《现代语义学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
束定芳主编,2001,《中国语用学研究论文精选》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王灿龙,2000,人称代词“他”的照应功能研究,《中国语文》第三期,228—237页。
王得杏,1998,《英语话语分析与跨文化交际》,北京:北京语言文化大学。
王建华,2001,《礼貌的语用学研究》,长春:吉林人民出版社。
王宗炎,1994,英语人称代词he/she 能预指下文中的名词吗?,《外语教学与研究》第四期,36—45页。
许余龙,2000, 英汉指称词语表达的可及性,《外语教学与研究》第五期,321-328页。
许余龙,2002,语篇回指的认知语言学探索,《外国语》第一期,28—37页。
许余龙,2002,《对比语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
许余龙,2003,语篇回指的认知语言学研究与验证,《外国语》第二期,17—24页。
俞东明,1996,话语角色类型在言语交际中的转换,《外国语》第一期,19—22页。
赵宏,邵志洪,2002,英汉第三人称代词语篇照应功能对比研究,《外语教学与研究》第三期,174-179。
张谊生,2000,《现代汉语虚词》,上海:华东师范大学出版社。
Ariel, Mira. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24: 65-87.
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
Ariel, Mira. 1991. The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 16: 443-463.
Bard, E. G. et al.. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 42: 1-22.
Botley, S., & McEntry, T. 1999. Discourse anaphora: the need for synthesis. In S. Botley & T. McEntry (eds.). Corpus-based and computational approaches to discourse anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Botley, S. & T. McEntry (eds.). 1999. Corpus-based and Computational Approaches to Discourse Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Botley, Simon, & Mcenery, Tony. 2001. Demonstratives in English: a corpus-based study. Journal of English Linguistics Vol.29/No.1: 7-13.
Buckwalter, Peggy Anne. 1997. Repair in Classroom Dyadic Talk-in-interaction: an exploration of an approach to the analysis of L2 learner/learner discourse. The University of Texas at Austin. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Buckwalter, Peggy. 2001. Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: a descriptive study. The Modern Language Journal 85: 380-397.
Cameron, Deborah. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. London: SAGE Publications.
Chafe, W. L. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. S. Tomlin.
(ed.). Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chan, Hui-chen. 2000. Anaphoric choice in social context. Chinese Studies (18): 299-321.
Chen, Ping. 1986. Referent Introducing and Tracking in Chinese Narratives. Unpublished PHD dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
Chui, Kawai. 1996. Organization of Chinese conversation. Text 16 (3): 343-372.
Day, Richard R., N. Ann Chenoweth, Ann E. Chun, & Luppescu Stuart. 1984. Corrective feedback in native-nonnative discourse. Language Learning 34: 19-45.
Dickey, Eleanor. 1997. Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics 33:255-274.
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Downing, P. A. 1996. Proper names as a referential option in English conversation. In B. A. Fox. (ed.). Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Dressler, de Beaugrande. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
Drew, Paul. 1997. ‘Open’class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69-101.
Egbert, M. M. 1997. Some interactional achievements of other-initiated repair in multiperson conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 611-634.
Egbert, M. M. 1998. Miscommunication in language proficiency interviews of first-year German students: A comparison with natural conversation. In R. Young & A. Weiyun He (eds.). Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency (pp. 147-169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fasulo, A., & Zucchermaglio, C. 2002. “My selves and I: identity markers in work meeting talk”. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1119-1144.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: The MIT press.
Fincke, Steven. 1999. “The syntactic organization of repair in Bikol”. In Barbara A. Fox, Dan Jurafsky and Laura A. Michaelis (ed.) Cognition and Function in Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Ford, C. E., & Fox, B. A. 1996. Interactional motivations for reference formulation: He had. This guy had, a beautiful, thirty-two O:lds. In B. A. Fox. (ed.). Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Fox, B. A. 1987. Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, Barbara. A., Hayashi, M., & Jasperson, B. J. 1996. “Resources and repair: a cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair”. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., and S. A. Thompson (eds.) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, Barbara. A. (ed.). 1996. Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fox, Barbara. A. 1987. Discourse Structure and Anaphora: written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gaskill, William H. 1980. Correction in native speaker-nonnative speaker conversation. In: D. Larsen-Freeman (ed.). Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research, 125-137. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Geluykens, Ronald. 1994. The Pragmatics of Discourse Anaphora in English: Evidence from conversational repair. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Givón, T. 1983. Introduction. In T. Givón (ed.). Topic continuitiy in discourse: A
quantitative cross language study. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 237-257.
Gundel, J., N. Hedberg, & Zacharski, R. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Languge 69: 274-307.
Hafex, O. M. 1991. Turn-taking in Egyptian Arabic : spontaneous speech vs. drama dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 59-81.
Have, Paul ten. 1999. Doing Conversation Analysis: A practical guide. London: SAGE Publications.
He, W. Z. 1994.(何文钊) A Soiciolinguistic Approach to the Term of Address. Shanghai International Studies University. Unpublished MA Thesis.
Huang, Yan. 1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: a study with special reference to Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Yan. 2000. Discourse Anaphora: four theoretical models. Journal of Pragmatics 32:151-176.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1995. Language of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation. Cambridge: The MIT press.
Jasperson, Robert Merchant. 1998. Repair After Cut-Off: exploration in the grammar of focused repair of the turn-constructional unit-so-far. The University of Colorado. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Jaszczolt, K. M. 2001. Referring expression: a unified approach. Journal of Foreign Lnaguages (2): 1-22.
Jefferson, G. 1987. On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (eds.) Talk and Social Organisation, pp 86-100. Clevedon: Multilingual Lingual Matters.
Jung, E. H. 1999. The organization of second language classroom repair. Issues in Applied Linguistics 10: 153-171.
Kasher, Asa (ed.). 1998. Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. Volume III: Indexical and reference. London: Routledge.
Kasher, Asa (ed.). 1998. Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. Volume V. Communication, Interaction and Discourse. London: Routledge.
Kasper, Gabriele. 1985. Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7: 200-215.
Kehler, Andrew. 2000. Coherence and the Resolution of Ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 533-575.
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2001. Confirming intersubjectivity through retroactive elaboration: organization of phrasal units in other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation. In Selting, M. & E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). Studies in Interactional Linguistics, pp 345-372. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Kormos, J. 1999. The effect of speaker variables on the self-correction behavior of L2 learners. System 27: 207-221.
Kronrod, Ann & Engel, Orit. 2001. Accessibility theory and referring expressions in newspaper headlines. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 683-699.
Kurhila, Salla. Correction in talk between native and non-native speaker. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1083-1110.
Lally Carolyn 1998. Friend or Foe: the use of direct pronouns by native English speakers in Both English and French. Reading Improvement 35, vno1:31-37.
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: A theory of topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leech, G. N., 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Lerner, G. H. 1989. Note on overlap management in conversation: the case of delayed completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication Vol. 53:167-177.
Lerner, G. H. 1996. On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson (eds.) Interaction and Grammar, pp 238-276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1991. Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27:107-161.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. Three levels of meaning. In Frank Palmer (ed.) Grammar and meaning, 90-115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Liebscher, Grit, & Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer. Conversational repair as a role-defining mechanism in classroom interaction. The Modern Language Journal 87: 375-390.
Markee, Numa. 2000. Repair in different speech exchange systems. In Conversation Analysis. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McHoul, A. W. 1990. The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society 19(3): 349-378.
Moerman, Michael. 1977. The preference for self-correction in a Tai conversational corpus. Language 53: 872-882.
Nakatani, C. & Hirschberg, J. 1993. A speech-first model for repair detection and correction [P]. In Proceeding of the 31st Annual Meeting, Columbus.
Association for Computational Linguistics.
Norrick, N. R. 1991. “On the organization of corrective exchange in conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics 16:59-83.
Porter, P. 1986. How learners talk to each other: input and interaction in task-centered discussion. In R. Day (ed.). Taking to Learn: conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 200-224.
Postma, Albert. 2000. Detection of Errors During Speech Production: a review of speech monitoring models. Cognition 77: 97-131.
Rieger, C. L. 2003. Repetitions as Self-repair Strategies in English and German Conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 35 : 47-69.
Sacks, H., & E. A. Schegloff. 1979. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.). Everyday language: studies in ethnomethodology. NY: Irvington Publishers.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50/4: 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. 1979. The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givón (ed.). Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Schegloff, E. A. 1982. Discourse as an international achievement: some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.). Geogetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics 1981 Analysing Discourse: Text and Talk, pp 71-93. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. 1987. Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics 25: 201-218.
Schegloff, E. A. 1988. Presequences and indirection: applying speech act to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 55-62.
Schegloff, E. A. 1989. Reflections on language, development, and the interactional Character of Talk-in-Interaction. In M. H. Bornstein and J. S. Bruner (eds.). Interaction in Human Development. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schegloff, E. A. 1991. Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In Resnick, L., Levine, J. M., & S. D. Teasley (eds.). Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Schegloff, E. A. 1992. Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97 (5) 1295-1345.
Schegloff, E. A. 1996. Practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: a partial sketch of a systematics [A]. In B. A. Fox. (ed.). Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Pusblishing Company.
Schegloff, E. A. 1997a. Practices and actions: boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23 (3): 499-545.
Schegloff, E. A. 1997b. Third turn repair. In Guy, G. R., Feagin, C., Schiffrin, D. & J. Baugh. (eds.). Towards a Social Science of Language 2. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Schegloff, E. A. 2000. When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics 21(2): 205-243.
Schegloff, E. A. 2002a. Overwrought utterances: ‘complex sentences’ in a different sense. In Bybee, J. L. & M. Noonan (eds.). Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Schegloff, E. A. 2002b. The surfacing of the suppressed. In LeBaron, P. G., LeBaron, C. & J. Mandelbaum (eds.). Studies in Language and Social Interaction: a festschrift in honor of Robert Hopper. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schegloff, E. A. Recycled Turn Beginnings. 1987. In G. Button & J. R.E. Lee (eds.). Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd..
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53 (2): 361-382.
Schwartz, Joan. 1980. The negotiation for meaning: repair in conversations between second language learners of English. In D. Larsen-Freeman (ed.). Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Scotton, Carol Myers. 1990. 会话中身份的协调:标记性和代码选择理论,《国外语言学》第一期,6-11页。
Selting, Margret. 1988. The role of intonation in the organization of repair and problem handling sequences in conversation. Journal of pragmatics 12: 293-322.
Selting, Margret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Shen, Chao-mei. 1998. Other-Initiated Repair in Native-Nonnative English Conversation and Its Interactional Consequences. The University of Taxas at Austin. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Shokouhi, H. 1999. Conversational strategies using full NP anaphors. In S. Botley & A. M. McEnery (eds.). Corpus-based and computational approaches to discourse anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pusblishing Company.
Smith, Ronnie & Steven Gordon, 1996. Pragmatic issues in handling miscommunication: Observations of spoken natural language dialog system. Proceedings of the AAAI 1996 Workshop. Detecting, repairing, and preventing human-machine miscommunication, 21-28. Portland, Oregon.
Takubo, Yukinori, & Kinsui, Satoshi. 1997. Discourse management in terms of
mental space. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 741-758.
Tao, Liang. 1995. Repair in natural conversation of Beijing Mandarin. The Yuen Ren Society Treasury of Chinese Dialect Data Vol.1: 55-77.
Tao, Liang, Fox, Barbara. A. & Jule Gomez de Garcia. 1999. Tone-choice repair in conversational Mandarin Chinese. In Fox, B. A., Jurafsky, D. & Laura A. M. (eds.). Cognition and Function in Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Tomlin, R. S., & Pu, M. M. 1991. The management of reference in Mandarin discourse. Cognitive linguistics 2-1: 65-93.
Uhmann, Susanne. 2001. Some arguments for the relevance of syntax to same-sentence self-repair in everyday German conversation. In Selting, M. & E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). Studies in Interactional Linguistics, pp 373-404. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjiamins Publishing Company.
Ulichny, Polly. 1997. The mismanagement of misunderstandings in cross-cultural interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 27:233-246.
van Hoek, K. 1997. Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
van Hoek, K., Kibrik, A. A., & Noordman, L. (ed.). 1999. Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
van Lier, Leo. 1988. The organization of repair in second-language classrooms. In The Classroom and the Language Learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom research. New York: Longman Group UK Limited.
van Riper, Charles. 1978. Speech Correction: principles and methods. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. 1985. Non-native/non-native conversations: a model for
negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics Vol. 6, No. 1: 71-90.
Wang, J. H. (王建华) 1999. Politeness and Distance in Dyadic Communication. Shanghai International Studies University. Unpublished PHD Dissertation.
Watson, C. M., Chenery, H. J., & Carter, M. S. 1999. An Analysis of Trouble and Repair in the Natural Conversations of People with Dementia of the Alzheimer’s Type. Aphasiology Vol 13, 3: 195-218.
Weber, E. L. 1993. Varieties of Questions in English Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Weber, Tilo. 1998. Shared Background and Repair in German Conversation. The University of Colorado. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Wales, Katie. 1996. Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, A. J. & Zeitlyn, D. 1995. The distribution of person-referring expressions in natural conversation. Research on language and social interaction 28 (1): 61-92.
Wong, Jean. 2000. Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker English conversation. Applied Linguistics 21/1: 244-267.
Xu, Y. L.(许余龙) 1995. Resolving Third-person Anaphora in Chinese Texts: Towards a functional-pragmatic model. Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Yang, C. L., Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. 1999. Comprehension of Referring Expression in Chinese. Language and Cognitive Process 5/6: 715-741.
Zeng, Z. H.(曾志红) 1992. A Sociolinguistic Approach to Role-negotiation. Shanghai International Studies University. Unpublished MA thesis.
Zhang, Wei. 1998 Repair in Chinese Conversation. The University of Hong Kong. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Ziv, Yael. 1991. Book review. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 487-502.
陈松岑,2001,《礼貌语言》,北京:商务印书馆。
陈一,2002,《现代汉语语误》,哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社。
何兆熊主编,2000,《新编语用学概要》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
姜望琪, 2003, 《当代语用学》,北京:北京大学出版社。
姜望琪,李梅,2003, 谈谈会话中的纠偏问题,《外国语》第四期,39—45页。
李经纬,1999,语码转换与称呼语的标记作用,《解放军外国语学院学报》第二期,8—10,18页。
李明洁,1996,称呼语的运用规则和协调理论,《汉语学习》第四期,57—60页。
李鑫华,2000,《英语修辞详论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
李月娥,1996,会话中的阻碍修正结构分析,《外国语》第五期,39—44页。
李月娥,范洪雅,2002,《话语分析》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
刘承宇,2003,话语角色冲突与转换,《四川外语学院学报》第一期,89—91页。
刘宏丽,2001,《现代汉语敬谦辞》,北京:北京语言文化大学出版社。
刘礼进,1997,英汉人称代词回指和预指比较研究,《外国语》第六期,40—44页。
陆镜光,张惟,2001,会话修补与句法结构的关系,载戴绍铭,陆镜光主编《语言学问题集刊》,长春:吉林人民出版社,171-185页。
马文,2002,会话照应修正的认知可及性分析,《解放军外国语学院学报》第六期,5—8页。
马文,2003a,会话照应语修正的语用原则,《外语教学》第二期,40—43页。
马文,2003b,会话照应语修正的语用阐释,《四川外语学院学报》第六期,87—90页。
马文,2004a,会话篇章中指称表达的选择与阐释,《外国语》(录用待发表)。
马文,2004b,会话照应语修正的语用原则及可恢复性分析。载《外语与文化研究》第三辑。上海:上海外语教育出版社,109-121页,
马文,2004c,汉语远近称指示语的认知可及性研究。载《外语与文化研究》第四辑,上海:上海外语教育出版社。(即将出版)
束定芳,2000,《现代语义学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
束定芳主编,2001,《中国语用学研究论文精选》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王灿龙,2000,人称代词“他”的照应功能研究,《中国语文》第三期,228—237页。
王得杏,1998,《英语话语分析与跨文化交际》,北京:北京语言文化大学。
王建华,2001,《礼貌的语用学研究》,长春:吉林人民出版社。
王宗炎,1994,英语人称代词he/she 能预指下文中的名词吗?,《外语教学与研究》第四期,36—45页。
许余龙,2000, 英汉指称词语表达的可及性,《外语教学与研究》第五期,321-328页。
许余龙,2002,语篇回指的认知语言学探索,《外国语》第一期,28—37页。
许余龙,2002,《对比语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
许余龙,2003,语篇回指的认知语言学研究与验证,《外国语》第二期,17—24页。
俞东明,1996,话语角色类型在言语交际中的转换,《外国语》第一期,19—22页。
赵宏,邵志洪,2002,英汉第三人称代词语篇照应功能对比研究,《外语教学与研究》第三期,174-179。
张谊生,2000,《现代汉语虚词》,上海:华东师范大学出版社。