6-12岁汉语儿童反语理解研究
|
摘要
反语是间接言语行为的一种,根指使用与本意相反的字面形式表达本意的一种修辞形式。
反语对儿童来讲是难度最大的一种语言现象,研究儿童反语理解有助于了解儿童语言发展规律,揭示儿童社会认知发展机制。
本研究采用故事情境的实验方法,以144名6-12岁儿童为被试,探讨了以下两个方面的问题:(1)汉语儿童直接反语和间接反语理解能力发展趋势和错误类型以及原因;(2)知识经验对儿童反语理解的影响。主要研究结果如下:
1. 6-12岁儿童直接反语和间接反语理解能力发展不同步。10岁儿童直接反语理解能力显著高于间接反语理解能力,儿童直接反语理解能力在10岁接近成熟水平,间接反语理解能力在12岁接近成熟水平。
2. 6岁、8岁和12岁儿童对直接反语和间接反语的理解没有差异,而10岁儿童对间接反语的理解表现出更多困难。
3.儿童反语理解能力在不同方面表现出不平衡性。6岁儿童已经有部分儿童能够初步判断反语说话人的态度和真实含义,但基本不能正确解释说话人的话语目的;12岁儿童已基本能够正确判断说话人表达的态度和真实含义,并且能够正确解释反语的话语目的。
4.不同年龄儿童反语理解错误类型不同,较年幼儿童主要是将反语当作真诚话语;较年长儿童主要是把反语当作欺骗。
5.关于反语现象的知识经验的增加能够促进儿童反语理解能力的发展。这种促进作用在反语理解水平低的儿童更加显著。
Irony is one form of indirect speech and it is the most difficult linguistic phenomenon for children to understand. Irony is a form of rhetoric intending to express the original intention by the literal form which is contrary to the original intention.
Researching on children’s understanding of irony can help us to find out the developmental discipline of children’s language and to reveal the mechanism of cognitive development.
By means of situational story method, the present study investigated the 6-12-year-old Chinese children’s understanding of irony. The study is consisted by two parts: (1) to examine the developmental trends and mistake types in 6-12-year-old children’s understanding of direct and indirect irony; (2) to explore the role of related knowledge in children’s understanding of irony. The results mainly are as follows.
1. As for the developmental trends of children’s understanding of direct and indirect irony, we found that they are not in synchrony. Children’s ability to understand direct irony have appeared at 6 and rapidly developed at 8 and been reaching maturity at 10, but to indirect irony, appeared at 6 and slowly developed at 8 and rapidly developed at 10 and been reaching maturity at 12.
2. There is no significant difference between direct and indirect irony in 6-year-old and 12-year-old children, but it is more difficult for 8-year-old and 10-year-old children in indirect irony understanding.
3. The children showed developmental imbalance in different aspects of irony cognition. Some 6-year-old children had begun to understand the attitudes and the discourse meanings of the irony speakers initially, but could not explain the speech purpose of irony correctly. Most of the 12-year-old children could understand the attitudes and the discourse meanings of the irony and explain the speech purpose of irony correctly.
4. The main types of mistakes in 6-12-year-old children’s understanding of irony are as following: taking irony as sincere utterance, encouraging utterance, cheating words or no reason. The younger children mainly took irony as sincere utterance and the older children mainly took it as cheating words.
5. Children’s understanding of irony could be improved by knowledge training. One of the reasons of difficulty in children’s understanding of irony is that lack of relevant knowledge. As soon as the children gained relevant knowledge, their ability to understand irony would be improved greatly.
反语对儿童来讲是难度最大的一种语言现象,研究儿童反语理解有助于了解儿童语言发展规律,揭示儿童社会认知发展机制。
本研究采用故事情境的实验方法,以144名6-12岁儿童为被试,探讨了以下两个方面的问题:(1)汉语儿童直接反语和间接反语理解能力发展趋势和错误类型以及原因;(2)知识经验对儿童反语理解的影响。主要研究结果如下:
1. 6-12岁儿童直接反语和间接反语理解能力发展不同步。10岁儿童直接反语理解能力显著高于间接反语理解能力,儿童直接反语理解能力在10岁接近成熟水平,间接反语理解能力在12岁接近成熟水平。
2. 6岁、8岁和12岁儿童对直接反语和间接反语的理解没有差异,而10岁儿童对间接反语的理解表现出更多困难。
3.儿童反语理解能力在不同方面表现出不平衡性。6岁儿童已经有部分儿童能够初步判断反语说话人的态度和真实含义,但基本不能正确解释说话人的话语目的;12岁儿童已基本能够正确判断说话人表达的态度和真实含义,并且能够正确解释反语的话语目的。
4.不同年龄儿童反语理解错误类型不同,较年幼儿童主要是将反语当作真诚话语;较年长儿童主要是把反语当作欺骗。
5.关于反语现象的知识经验的增加能够促进儿童反语理解能力的发展。这种促进作用在反语理解水平低的儿童更加显著。
Irony is one form of indirect speech and it is the most difficult linguistic phenomenon for children to understand. Irony is a form of rhetoric intending to express the original intention by the literal form which is contrary to the original intention.
Researching on children’s understanding of irony can help us to find out the developmental discipline of children’s language and to reveal the mechanism of cognitive development.
By means of situational story method, the present study investigated the 6-12-year-old Chinese children’s understanding of irony. The study is consisted by two parts: (1) to examine the developmental trends and mistake types in 6-12-year-old children’s understanding of direct and indirect irony; (2) to explore the role of related knowledge in children’s understanding of irony. The results mainly are as follows.
1. As for the developmental trends of children’s understanding of direct and indirect irony, we found that they are not in synchrony. Children’s ability to understand direct irony have appeared at 6 and rapidly developed at 8 and been reaching maturity at 10, but to indirect irony, appeared at 6 and slowly developed at 8 and rapidly developed at 10 and been reaching maturity at 12.
2. There is no significant difference between direct and indirect irony in 6-year-old and 12-year-old children, but it is more difficult for 8-year-old and 10-year-old children in indirect irony understanding.
3. The children showed developmental imbalance in different aspects of irony cognition. Some 6-year-old children had begun to understand the attitudes and the discourse meanings of the irony speakers initially, but could not explain the speech purpose of irony correctly. Most of the 12-year-old children could understand the attitudes and the discourse meanings of the irony and explain the speech purpose of irony correctly.
4. The main types of mistakes in 6-12-year-old children’s understanding of irony are as following: taking irony as sincere utterance, encouraging utterance, cheating words or no reason. The younger children mainly took irony as sincere utterance and the older children mainly took it as cheating words.
5. Children’s understanding of irony could be improved by knowledge training. One of the reasons of difficulty in children’s understanding of irony is that lack of relevant knowledge. As soon as the children gained relevant knowledge, their ability to understand irony would be improved greatly.
引文
[1]蔡伟林. 8-12岁儿童和成人对反语的意义理解及情绪反应(D).华东师范大学2009届研究生硕士论文.
[2]陈静欣,苏彦捷儿童欺骗行为的发展[J].教育探索. 2005(10): 89-90.
[3]成伟钧等.修辞通鉴[M].北京:中国青年出版社,510, 1991.
[4]盖笑松,方富熹,黎兵.儿童反语理解的心理机制[J].心理科学进展, 11(5): 516-522, 2003.
[5]盖笑松.汉语儿童反语理解的研究(D).中国科学院2003届博士学位论文.
[6]李行德.语言发展理论和汉语儿童语言[J].现代汉语,1997(4): 58-91.
[7]罗贤.儿童对反语的意义理解及功能知觉(D).华东师范大学2007届研究生硕士论文.
[8]刘正光,崔刚.反语理解三假说.外国语,2003(2):32~38
[9]刘正光.反语理论综述.解放军外语学院学报,2002,25(4):16~2
[10]缪小春.小学儿童对虚假话语间接意义的理解[J].心理科学,18(2):65-69, 1995.
[11]沈秋.儿童中期利用人格特质线索理解反语的研究(D).华东师范大学2008届研究生硕士论文.
[12]孙鹏.英语irony与汉语反语的关系[J].山西大学学报(哲学社会科学版).1998,1:76-79.
[13]王金秀.反语生成和理解的心理透视(D).南京师范大学硕士学位论文,2003
[14]文旭.反讽话语的认知语用研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004,第一章.
[15]语言学概论[EB].华中师范大学文学院远程教育网络课程. http://elearning.ccnu.edu.cn/ermsweb/libs/cwlib/%E8%AF%AD%E8%A8%80%E5%AD%A6%E6%A6%82%E8%AE%BA/yyxgl43.htm
[16]曾文雄.反语的语用考察.曲靖师范学院学报,2002,21(4): 94-97.
[17]张萌,张积家.他人期望类型对6-10岁儿童不同类型反语认知的影响[J].心理学报,37(6):767-775, 2005
[18]张萌.汉语儿童反语理解的心理学研究(D).华南师范大学2006届博士毕业论文.
[19]张萌,张积家.语调在6~10岁儿童对不同类型反语认知中的作用[J].心理学报, 38(2): 197-206, 2006.
[20] Ackerman, B. P. (1981). Young children’s understanding of a speaker’s intentional use of a false utterance.
[21] Ackerman, B. P. (1982). Contextual integration and utterance interpretation: The ability of children and adults to interpret sarcastic utterances. Child Development, 53, 1075–1083.
[22] Ackerman B. P. Form and function in children's understanding of ironic utterances[J]. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 35, 487–508, 1983.
[23] Bara, Bruno G., Bosco, Francesca M., Bucciarelli, Monica, 1999. Simple and complex speech acts: what makes thedifference within a developmental perspective? In: Hahn, M., Stoness, S.C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st AnnualConference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J., pp. 55–60.
[24] Booth W. A rhetoric of irony[J]. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1974.
[25] Bosco, Francesca M., Bucciarelli, Monica, Bara, Bruno G., 2003. The fundamental context categories in understandingcommunicative intentions. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 467–488.
[26] Bosco, Francesca M., Bucciarelli, Monica, Bara, Bruno G., 2004. Literal meaning and context categories in theattribution of communicative intentions: a developmental study. In: Alterman, R., Kirsh, D. (Eds.), Proceedingsof the 22d Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society, Boston, pp. 162–167.
[27] Bosco, Francesca M., Bucciarelli, M., Bara, Bruno G., 2006. Recognition and recovery of communicative failures: a developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1398–1429.
[28] Bosco, Francesca M., Bucciarelli, Monica. Simple and complex deceits and ironies. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 583–607.
[29] Bucciarelli, Monica, Colle, Livia, Bara, Bruno G., 2003. How children comprehend speech acts and communicativegestures. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 207–241.
[30] Cain, Heyman&Walker. Preschoolers’ability to make dispositional prediction within and across domain. Social Development, 1997, 6(1): 53-75.
[31] Capelli C A, Nakagawa N, Madden C M. How children understand sarcasm: the role of context and intonation. Child Development, 1990, 61(6): 1824-1841.
[32] Chandler M,Fritz A S,Hala S.Small scale deceit:Deception as a marker of two-,three-,and four-year-olds’early theories of mind.Child Development,1989,60(6):1263～1277.
[33] Chandler M , Fritz A S . Fledgling theories of mind : Deception as a marker of 3-year—olds’understanding of false belief.Child Development,1991,61,83—97.
[34] Channon A, Pellijeff A, Rule A. Social cognition after head injury: sarcasm and theory of mind[ J]. Brain and Language, 2005, 93: 123 -134·
[35] Clark H, Gerrig R. J. On the Pretense Theory of Irony[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113(1):121-126, 1984.
[36] Creusere, M. A. (1999). Theories of adults’understanding and use of irony and sarcasm: Applications to and evidence from research with children. Developmental Review, 19, 213–262.
[37] Cutler, A. Beyond parsing and lexical look-up: An enriched description of auditory sentence comprehension. 1976.转引自Kreuz, R.., Robert,R. M. Two cues for verbal irony: hyperbole and the ironic tone of voice. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1995,10(l),21-31.
[38] Cutler, A. On saying what you mean without meaning what you say. In papers from the tenth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society(pp.117-127). Chicago: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago. 1974.转引自Kreuz, R., Robert, R. M. Two cues for verbal irony: Hyperbole and the ironic tone of voice. Metaphor and symbolic Activity, 1995, 10(l), 21-31.
[39] De Marco, Ivan, Colle, Livia, Bucciarelli, Monica, 2007. Linguistic and extralinguistic communication in deaf children. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 134–158.
[40] Dews, S., & Winner, E. (1995). Muting the meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,
[41] Dews, Shelly,Winner, Ellen, Kaplan, Joan, Rosenblatt, Elizabeth, Hunt, Malia, Lim, Karen, McGovern, Angela, Qualter,Alison, Smarsh, Bonnie, 1996. Children’s understanding of the meaningand functions of verbal irony. Child Development 67, 3071–3085.
[42] Dyer R, Shatz M, Wellman H M. Young children, storybooks as a source of mental state information. Cognitive Development, 2000(5): 17-37.
[43] Gibbs R W. On the Psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1986, 115(1): 3-15.
[44] Gibbs, R.W. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor & Symbol, 15, 5–27.
[45] Gibbs, R.W., & Colston, H.L. (2001). The risks and rewards of ironic communication. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri, & G. Riva (Eds.), Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication (pp. 188–200). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
[46] Gibbs, R.W., & Colston, H.L. (Eds.). (2007). Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[47] Giora R. On irony and negation[J]. Discourse processes, 19, 239–264.1995.
[48] Giora R., Fein O., & Schwartz T. Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation[J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 13, 83–101, 1998.
[49] Glucksberg, Sam, 1989. Metaphors in conversation: how are they understood? Why are they used?. Metaphor & Symbolic Activity 4, 125–143.
[50] Grice H P. Logic and conversation[J]. In Cole and Morgan, New York: Academic Press, 1975.
[51] Grice, Paul H., 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In: Cole, P. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics: vol. 9. Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York, p. 41.
[52] Grice, Paul H., 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. London.
[53] Happé, Francesca, 1993. Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition 48, 101–119.
[54]HappéF G. Understanding minds and metaphors: Insights from the study of figurative language in autism. Metaphor and Symbol, 1995,10(4):275~295
[55] Happe` F G, Winner E. The getting wisdom: Theory of mind in old age. Developmental Psychology, 1998(34):358-362.
[56] Hancock J. T., Dunham P. J., & Purdy K. Children's comprehension of critical and complimentary forms of verbal irony[J]. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1, 227–248, 2000.
[57] Heyman & Gelman. The use of trait labels in making psychological inference. Child Development, 1999, 70(3): 604.
[58] Heyman&Gelman. Preschool children’s use of trait labels to make inductive inference. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2000, 77,1-19.
[59] Kreuz R. J., & Glucksberg, S. How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 374–386, 1989.
[60] Kumon-Nakamura S., Glucksberg S., & Brown M. How about another piece of pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 3–21, 1995.
[61] Lazar, R T, et al. Elementary school teachers' use of multiple meaning expressions. Language, speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 1989(20): 420-430.
[62] Nakassis, C., & Snedeker, J. (2002). Beyond sarcasm: Intonation and context as relational cues in children’s recognition of irony. In A. Greenhill, M. Hughs, H. Littlefield, & H. Walsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Boston University conference on language development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
[63] Pexman, P. M., Ferretti, T. R., & Katz, A. N. (2000). Discourse factors that influence on-line reading ofmetaphor and irony. Discourse Processes, 29, 201–222.
[64] Pexman, P. M., & Olineck, K. M. (2002a). Does sarcasm always sting? Investigating the impact ofironic insults and ironic compliments. Discourse Processes, 33, 199–217.
[65] Pexman, P. M., & Olineck, K. M. (2002b). Understanding irony: How do stereotypes cue speaker intent?Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 245–274.
[66] Pexman, P. M.,&Zvaigzne, M. T. (2004). Does irony go better with friends? Metaphor and Symbol, 19,143–163.
[67] Pexman, P.M., Glenwright, M., Hala, S., Kowbel, S., & Jungen, S.(2006). Children’s use of trait information in understanding verbalirony. Metaphor & Symbol, 21, 39–60.
[68] Pexman, P.M., & Glenwright, M. (2007). How do typically-developing children grasp the meaning of verbal irony? Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 178–196.
[69] Springer, K. Children’s awareness of the biological implications of kinship. Child Development, 1992(63): 950-959.
[70] Searle, John R., 1975. Indirect speech acts. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts. Academic Press, New York.
[71] Searle, John R., 1979. Expression and meaning: studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[72] Thomas R K, Kathleen Q. Do young children use echoic information in their comprehension of sarcastic speech? A test of echoic mention theory[J]. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(Pt 1): 83-96, 1999.
[73] Winner E. The Point of Words [J]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.
[74] Winner E.and Leekam S. Distinguishing irony from deception: Understanding the speaker’s second-order intention [J]. British Journalof Developmental Psychology, 9:257-270,1991.
[75] Winner,E.,Brownell, H, Happe', F.,Blum, A,&Pincus,D.Distinguishing lies from jokes:Theory of mind deficits and discourse interpretation in fight hemisphere brain damaged patients.Brain and Language,1998,62,89-106.
[76] Yuill. English children as personality theorists: Accounts of the modifiability, development and origin genetic. Social &General Psychology Monographs, 1997, 123(1): 7.
[77] Yuill&Pearson. The development of bases for trait attribution: Children’s understanding of traits as causal mechanisms based on desire. Development Psychology, 1998, 34(3): 574-586.
[2]陈静欣,苏彦捷儿童欺骗行为的发展[J].教育探索. 2005(10): 89-90.
[3]成伟钧等.修辞通鉴[M].北京:中国青年出版社,510, 1991.
[4]盖笑松,方富熹,黎兵.儿童反语理解的心理机制[J].心理科学进展, 11(5): 516-522, 2003.
[5]盖笑松.汉语儿童反语理解的研究(D).中国科学院2003届博士学位论文.
[6]李行德.语言发展理论和汉语儿童语言[J].现代汉语,1997(4): 58-91.
[7]罗贤.儿童对反语的意义理解及功能知觉(D).华东师范大学2007届研究生硕士论文.
[8]刘正光,崔刚.反语理解三假说.外国语,2003(2):32~38
[9]刘正光.反语理论综述.解放军外语学院学报,2002,25(4):16~2
[10]缪小春.小学儿童对虚假话语间接意义的理解[J].心理科学,18(2):65-69, 1995.
[11]沈秋.儿童中期利用人格特质线索理解反语的研究(D).华东师范大学2008届研究生硕士论文.
[12]孙鹏.英语irony与汉语反语的关系[J].山西大学学报(哲学社会科学版).1998,1:76-79.
[13]王金秀.反语生成和理解的心理透视(D).南京师范大学硕士学位论文,2003
[14]文旭.反讽话语的认知语用研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004,第一章.
[15]语言学概论[EB].华中师范大学文学院远程教育网络课程. http://elearning.ccnu.edu.cn/ermsweb/libs/cwlib/%E8%AF%AD%E8%A8%80%E5%AD%A6%E6%A6%82%E8%AE%BA/yyxgl43.htm
[16]曾文雄.反语的语用考察.曲靖师范学院学报,2002,21(4): 94-97.
[17]张萌,张积家.他人期望类型对6-10岁儿童不同类型反语认知的影响[J].心理学报,37(6):767-775, 2005
[18]张萌.汉语儿童反语理解的心理学研究(D).华南师范大学2006届博士毕业论文.
[19]张萌,张积家.语调在6~10岁儿童对不同类型反语认知中的作用[J].心理学报, 38(2): 197-206, 2006.
[20] Ackerman, B. P. (1981). Young children’s understanding of a speaker’s intentional use of a false utterance.
[21] Ackerman, B. P. (1982). Contextual integration and utterance interpretation: The ability of children and adults to interpret sarcastic utterances. Child Development, 53, 1075–1083.
[22] Ackerman B. P. Form and function in children's understanding of ironic utterances[J]. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 35, 487–508, 1983.
[23] Bara, Bruno G., Bosco, Francesca M., Bucciarelli, Monica, 1999. Simple and complex speech acts: what makes thedifference within a developmental perspective? In: Hahn, M., Stoness, S.C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st AnnualConference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J., pp. 55–60.
[24] Booth W. A rhetoric of irony[J]. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1974.
[25] Bosco, Francesca M., Bucciarelli, Monica, Bara, Bruno G., 2003. The fundamental context categories in understandingcommunicative intentions. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 467–488.
[26] Bosco, Francesca M., Bucciarelli, Monica, Bara, Bruno G., 2004. Literal meaning and context categories in theattribution of communicative intentions: a developmental study. In: Alterman, R., Kirsh, D. (Eds.), Proceedingsof the 22d Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society, Boston, pp. 162–167.
[27] Bosco, Francesca M., Bucciarelli, M., Bara, Bruno G., 2006. Recognition and recovery of communicative failures: a developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1398–1429.
[28] Bosco, Francesca M., Bucciarelli, Monica. Simple and complex deceits and ironies. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (2008) 583–607.
[29] Bucciarelli, Monica, Colle, Livia, Bara, Bruno G., 2003. How children comprehend speech acts and communicativegestures. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 207–241.
[30] Cain, Heyman&Walker. Preschoolers’ability to make dispositional prediction within and across domain. Social Development, 1997, 6(1): 53-75.
[31] Capelli C A, Nakagawa N, Madden C M. How children understand sarcasm: the role of context and intonation. Child Development, 1990, 61(6): 1824-1841.
[32] Chandler M,Fritz A S,Hala S.Small scale deceit:Deception as a marker of two-,three-,and four-year-olds’early theories of mind.Child Development,1989,60(6):1263～1277.
[33] Chandler M , Fritz A S . Fledgling theories of mind : Deception as a marker of 3-year—olds’understanding of false belief.Child Development,1991,61,83—97.
[34] Channon A, Pellijeff A, Rule A. Social cognition after head injury: sarcasm and theory of mind[ J]. Brain and Language, 2005, 93: 123 -134·
[35] Clark H, Gerrig R. J. On the Pretense Theory of Irony[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113(1):121-126, 1984.
[36] Creusere, M. A. (1999). Theories of adults’understanding and use of irony and sarcasm: Applications to and evidence from research with children. Developmental Review, 19, 213–262.
[37] Cutler, A. Beyond parsing and lexical look-up: An enriched description of auditory sentence comprehension. 1976.转引自Kreuz, R.., Robert,R. M. Two cues for verbal irony: hyperbole and the ironic tone of voice. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1995,10(l),21-31.
[38] Cutler, A. On saying what you mean without meaning what you say. In papers from the tenth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society(pp.117-127). Chicago: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago. 1974.转引自Kreuz, R., Robert, R. M. Two cues for verbal irony: Hyperbole and the ironic tone of voice. Metaphor and symbolic Activity, 1995, 10(l), 21-31.
[39] De Marco, Ivan, Colle, Livia, Bucciarelli, Monica, 2007. Linguistic and extralinguistic communication in deaf children. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 134–158.
[40] Dews, S., & Winner, E. (1995). Muting the meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,
[41] Dews, Shelly,Winner, Ellen, Kaplan, Joan, Rosenblatt, Elizabeth, Hunt, Malia, Lim, Karen, McGovern, Angela, Qualter,Alison, Smarsh, Bonnie, 1996. Children’s understanding of the meaningand functions of verbal irony. Child Development 67, 3071–3085.
[42] Dyer R, Shatz M, Wellman H M. Young children, storybooks as a source of mental state information. Cognitive Development, 2000(5): 17-37.
[43] Gibbs R W. On the Psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1986, 115(1): 3-15.
[44] Gibbs, R.W. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor & Symbol, 15, 5–27.
[45] Gibbs, R.W., & Colston, H.L. (2001). The risks and rewards of ironic communication. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri, & G. Riva (Eds.), Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication (pp. 188–200). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
[46] Gibbs, R.W., & Colston, H.L. (Eds.). (2007). Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[47] Giora R. On irony and negation[J]. Discourse processes, 19, 239–264.1995.
[48] Giora R., Fein O., & Schwartz T. Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation[J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 13, 83–101, 1998.
[49] Glucksberg, Sam, 1989. Metaphors in conversation: how are they understood? Why are they used?. Metaphor & Symbolic Activity 4, 125–143.
[50] Grice H P. Logic and conversation[J]. In Cole and Morgan, New York: Academic Press, 1975.
[51] Grice, Paul H., 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In: Cole, P. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics: vol. 9. Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York, p. 41.
[52] Grice, Paul H., 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. London.
[53] Happé, Francesca, 1993. Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition 48, 101–119.
[54]HappéF G. Understanding minds and metaphors: Insights from the study of figurative language in autism. Metaphor and Symbol, 1995,10(4):275~295
[55] Happe` F G, Winner E. The getting wisdom: Theory of mind in old age. Developmental Psychology, 1998(34):358-362.
[56] Hancock J. T., Dunham P. J., & Purdy K. Children's comprehension of critical and complimentary forms of verbal irony[J]. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1, 227–248, 2000.
[57] Heyman & Gelman. The use of trait labels in making psychological inference. Child Development, 1999, 70(3): 604.
[58] Heyman&Gelman. Preschool children’s use of trait labels to make inductive inference. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2000, 77,1-19.
[59] Kreuz R. J., & Glucksberg, S. How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 374–386, 1989.
[60] Kumon-Nakamura S., Glucksberg S., & Brown M. How about another piece of pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 3–21, 1995.
[61] Lazar, R T, et al. Elementary school teachers' use of multiple meaning expressions. Language, speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 1989(20): 420-430.
[62] Nakassis, C., & Snedeker, J. (2002). Beyond sarcasm: Intonation and context as relational cues in children’s recognition of irony. In A. Greenhill, M. Hughs, H. Littlefield, & H. Walsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Boston University conference on language development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
[63] Pexman, P. M., Ferretti, T. R., & Katz, A. N. (2000). Discourse factors that influence on-line reading ofmetaphor and irony. Discourse Processes, 29, 201–222.
[64] Pexman, P. M., & Olineck, K. M. (2002a). Does sarcasm always sting? Investigating the impact ofironic insults and ironic compliments. Discourse Processes, 33, 199–217.
[65] Pexman, P. M., & Olineck, K. M. (2002b). Understanding irony: How do stereotypes cue speaker intent?Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 245–274.
[66] Pexman, P. M.,&Zvaigzne, M. T. (2004). Does irony go better with friends? Metaphor and Symbol, 19,143–163.
[67] Pexman, P.M., Glenwright, M., Hala, S., Kowbel, S., & Jungen, S.(2006). Children’s use of trait information in understanding verbalirony. Metaphor & Symbol, 21, 39–60.
[68] Pexman, P.M., & Glenwright, M. (2007). How do typically-developing children grasp the meaning of verbal irony? Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 178–196.
[69] Springer, K. Children’s awareness of the biological implications of kinship. Child Development, 1992(63): 950-959.
[70] Searle, John R., 1975. Indirect speech acts. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts. Academic Press, New York.
[71] Searle, John R., 1979. Expression and meaning: studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[72] Thomas R K, Kathleen Q. Do young children use echoic information in their comprehension of sarcastic speech? A test of echoic mention theory[J]. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(Pt 1): 83-96, 1999.
[73] Winner E. The Point of Words [J]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.
[74] Winner E.and Leekam S. Distinguishing irony from deception: Understanding the speaker’s second-order intention [J]. British Journalof Developmental Psychology, 9:257-270,1991.
[75] Winner,E.,Brownell, H, Happe', F.,Blum, A,&Pincus,D.Distinguishing lies from jokes:Theory of mind deficits and discourse interpretation in fight hemisphere brain damaged patients.Brain and Language,1998,62,89-106.
[76] Yuill. English children as personality theorists: Accounts of the modifiability, development and origin genetic. Social &General Psychology Monographs, 1997, 123(1): 7.
[77] Yuill&Pearson. The development of bases for trait attribution: Children’s understanding of traits as causal mechanisms based on desire. Development Psychology, 1998, 34(3): 574-586.