话语标记语语用研究概观
摘要
话语标记语(discourse markers)在日常语言使用中几乎无处不在，对其得体的使用和恰如其分的理解是语用能力中很重要的一个方面。因此，对话语标记语的研究有着重要的理论价值和实践意义。最近十多年来，话语标记语的研究成了语言研究中发展迅猛的一个领域，每年都有数十篇的论文发表(Fraser，1999：932)。把话语标记语从其所依附的话语中去掉并不影响该话语的语法正确性也不影响其命题内容，但却影响其语用得体性和社会层面上的人际适应关系；这一事实表明，话语标记语的使用不是出于句法或语义上的需要，而是出于语用方面的因素(Schourup，1999)。由此，对话语标记语的研究一直伴随着语用学的发展而发展可能就不是巧合了。无论是在句法学、语义学或是语用学领域，学者们都倾向于把话语标记语看作是主要出现于会话中且发挥一定的语用功能的语言现像。
虽然话语标记语研究的成果颇丰，但远不能说是彻底的、一致的。总的来说，在对话语标记语的研究中，有四种不同的视角，即以话语连贯为中心的研究视角、句法一语用视角、认知语用学的视角和把话语标记语看作元语用意识标识语的研究视角。“话语标记语”这一术语对不同的研究者而言有着不同的意义，对于一种语言中什么样的语言成分是话语标记语，可谓仁者见仁、智者见智。不同的研究者对自己的研究对象往往冠以不同的标签，这些标签的所指又常常互相重叠。此外，还没有哪一个研究系统连贯地讨论过下面这三个相互联系的问题：话语标记语为何被使用?它们在话语产出中是如何运作的?它们在话语理解中又发挥什么样的作用?基于已有的话语标记语研究，本文旨在论证评析各种研究的优点与缺陷，并尝试以
yi Prpatic Pempcttl．－rre on Discourse Marke
一
Verschueren的语言顺应理论为框架来阐释话语标记语，以期对话语标记语的进一步
研究有所贡献。
本文分五章，其中第一章是引言。
第二章中，在评析人们对话语标记语所下定义的基础上，考虑公认的话语标记
语的特征，并为话语标记语作出了一个工作定义。该定义几乎涵盖了为不同学者所
论及的话语标记语，使我们能在同一概念下讨论多种具有典型共性的语言成分。在
考察己有的话语标记语的定义的同时，本章还讨论了话语标记语研究的两个视角，
即以话语连贯为中心的研究视角和句法一语用视角。分析表明，从这两个视角出发
的研究尽管都考虑到了部分语用因素，但因其注意力分别集中在话语标记语如何用
于创造连贯和它们所标志的话语单位之间存在何种关系这两个问题上，所以都不能
回答上述关于话语标记语的三个相互联系的基本问题。
第三章考察了从认知语用学的视角出发的研究。结论指出，这些在关联理论的
框架内所作的研究以认知限制动机、语境或认知效果等为参数，就话语标记语在话
语理解中的作用作出了给人深刻印象的阐释。但因其过于强调使用话语标记语的认
知动机，因而无法就话语标记语为何被使用、如何在话语的产生和理解中运作这三
个问题作出全面的、令人满意的解释。
第四章讨论 Verschueren （ 999）对话语标记语的阐释。Verschueren把话语标记
语看作是元语用意识的标识语。他的阐释强调了话语标记语具有标志说话人做出语
言选择时的心智状态的功能。与从其他视角出发的研究一样，Verschueren简短的阐
释也只是突出了话语标记语的某一个方面。这是因为他主要关注的是构建一个全面
的语用学新视角，目的在于从认知的、社会的和文化的整体角度，对人类诸种行为
中的语言现像进行综观。Verschueren的语用观具体体现在他的语言顺应理论上。该
理论把语言的使用看作是不断地做出选择的过程。我们认为，尽管VerSChueren对话
语标记语所作出的的阐释远非全面，但他的语言顺应理论却极有可能对话语标记语
作出全面的语用学阐释。所以本章中，结合关于话语标记语的三个基本问题，我们
尝试应用这一理论对话语标记语作出阐释。
作为语言选择的结果，话语标记语可能被说话人用来满足各种各样的交际目的，
而不仅仅是像从认知语用学的视角出发的研究所认为的那样，说话者使用话语标记
语就是为了引导听话人得出其所意欲传达的意思从而节省听话人作出的推理努力。
换言之，言语交际中使用话语标记语的原因是多样的，无法穷尽。同时，并非所有
的话语标记语的使用都是同等地有意识的或同样地具有目的性，换言之，话语标记
语的使用涉及到语言使用过程中不同层次的意识突显性或元语用意识。在有的情况
——一一一——一P—一————————一二———————————————————－—－
AAsng Vi i
一
下，话语标记语的使用几乎是自觉的或潜意识的，而在另外的情况下则带有很强的
动机，即是高度有意识的。但是，无论话语标记语是说话人高?
Discourse markers are so pervasively used in daily language that the proper use and interpretation of them consist of a considerable part of pragmatic or communicative competence. The study of this linguistic phenomena thus bears both theoretic and practical significance. In the past ten years, the study of discourse markers turned into a growth industry in linguistics, with dozens of articles appearing yearly (Fraser, 1999: 932). The fact that taking a discourse marker away from the host discourse segment it is attached to does not affect the sentence's grammaticality judgments or its prepositional content but does affect the pragmatic appropriateness and interpersonal adaptation on the social level indicates that their employment is not syntactically or semantically oriented but pragmatically motivated (Schourup, 1999). It thus might not be a coincidence that the study of discourse markers emerges and grows with the development of pragmatics. Scholars, whether in syntax, semantics or pragmatics, tend to re
gard discourse markers as a linguistic phenomenon mostly appearing in conversational discourse and serving certain pragmatic functions.
However, researches on discourse markers, though rich and fruitful, are far from being homogeneous and complete. We identify four distinctive pragmatic perspectives on discourse markers, namely, the discourse-coherence-based perspective, the syntactic-pragmatic perspective, the cognitive-pragmatic perspective and the perspective which treats discourse markers as indicators of metapragmatic indicators. The term
discourse marker has different meanings for different groups of researchers, there is no agreement about what elements in a particular language should be referred to as discourse markers, and studies on discourse markers have been done under a variety of overlapping labels. In addition, the following three questions have never been discussed in a unified account: Why are discourse markers used? How do they function in utterance production? and What role do they play in utterance interpretation? The present research, assuming that a comprehensive account of discourse markers is supposed to answer all the questions raised above, conducts a general survey into the existing pragmatic perspectives on discourse markers and tentatively employs Verschueren's theory of linguistic adaptation to account for discourse markers, aiming at some findings which can shed light on further researches pursuing a comprehensive and thorough account of discourse markers.
The present dissertation consists of five chapters, with the introduction as Chapter One.
In Chapter Two, on the basis of a survey into the earlier attempts to define discourse markers, the present study, taking into account of their commonly cited features, sets forth a working definition of discourse markers, which, having a wider coverage of the expressions that have been treated as discourse markers by different scholars, enables the research to deal with a variety of elements under the same conceptual umbrella. In the process of examining the earlier definitions, the discourse-coherence-based perspective and the syntactic-pragmatic perspective are discussed. It is demonstrated that these two perspectives do take into consideration some pragmatic factors, but their attention is mainly concentrated respectively on how discourse markers are used to create coherence or what relationships they signal between discourse units. Neither of them can account for the three interrelated fundamental questions, which we assume any comprehensive pragmatic account of discourse markers is supposed to answer.
Chapter Three investigates the researches on discourse markers conducted from the cognitive-pragmatic perspective, which is based on a relevance-theoretic framework. It is concluded that these researches do give an impressive account for the role of discourse markers in utterance interpretation in terms of the motivations of cognitive constraints, contextual or cognitive effects, but fail to offer satisfactory account f
虽然话语标记语研究的成果颇丰，但远不能说是彻底的、一致的。总的来说，在对话语标记语的研究中，有四种不同的视角，即以话语连贯为中心的研究视角、句法一语用视角、认知语用学的视角和把话语标记语看作元语用意识标识语的研究视角。“话语标记语”这一术语对不同的研究者而言有着不同的意义，对于一种语言中什么样的语言成分是话语标记语，可谓仁者见仁、智者见智。不同的研究者对自己的研究对象往往冠以不同的标签，这些标签的所指又常常互相重叠。此外，还没有哪一个研究系统连贯地讨论过下面这三个相互联系的问题：话语标记语为何被使用?它们在话语产出中是如何运作的?它们在话语理解中又发挥什么样的作用?基于已有的话语标记语研究，本文旨在论证评析各种研究的优点与缺陷，并尝试以
yi Prpatic Pempcttl．－rre on Discourse Marke
一
Verschueren的语言顺应理论为框架来阐释话语标记语，以期对话语标记语的进一步
研究有所贡献。
本文分五章，其中第一章是引言。
第二章中，在评析人们对话语标记语所下定义的基础上，考虑公认的话语标记
语的特征，并为话语标记语作出了一个工作定义。该定义几乎涵盖了为不同学者所
论及的话语标记语，使我们能在同一概念下讨论多种具有典型共性的语言成分。在
考察己有的话语标记语的定义的同时，本章还讨论了话语标记语研究的两个视角，
即以话语连贯为中心的研究视角和句法一语用视角。分析表明，从这两个视角出发
的研究尽管都考虑到了部分语用因素，但因其注意力分别集中在话语标记语如何用
于创造连贯和它们所标志的话语单位之间存在何种关系这两个问题上，所以都不能
回答上述关于话语标记语的三个相互联系的基本问题。
第三章考察了从认知语用学的视角出发的研究。结论指出，这些在关联理论的
框架内所作的研究以认知限制动机、语境或认知效果等为参数，就话语标记语在话
语理解中的作用作出了给人深刻印象的阐释。但因其过于强调使用话语标记语的认
知动机，因而无法就话语标记语为何被使用、如何在话语的产生和理解中运作这三
个问题作出全面的、令人满意的解释。
第四章讨论 Verschueren （ 999）对话语标记语的阐释。Verschueren把话语标记
语看作是元语用意识的标识语。他的阐释强调了话语标记语具有标志说话人做出语
言选择时的心智状态的功能。与从其他视角出发的研究一样，Verschueren简短的阐
释也只是突出了话语标记语的某一个方面。这是因为他主要关注的是构建一个全面
的语用学新视角，目的在于从认知的、社会的和文化的整体角度，对人类诸种行为
中的语言现像进行综观。Verschueren的语用观具体体现在他的语言顺应理论上。该
理论把语言的使用看作是不断地做出选择的过程。我们认为，尽管VerSChueren对话
语标记语所作出的的阐释远非全面，但他的语言顺应理论却极有可能对话语标记语
作出全面的语用学阐释。所以本章中，结合关于话语标记语的三个基本问题，我们
尝试应用这一理论对话语标记语作出阐释。
作为语言选择的结果，话语标记语可能被说话人用来满足各种各样的交际目的，
而不仅仅是像从认知语用学的视角出发的研究所认为的那样，说话者使用话语标记
语就是为了引导听话人得出其所意欲传达的意思从而节省听话人作出的推理努力。
换言之，言语交际中使用话语标记语的原因是多样的，无法穷尽。同时，并非所有
的话语标记语的使用都是同等地有意识的或同样地具有目的性，换言之，话语标记
语的使用涉及到语言使用过程中不同层次的意识突显性或元语用意识。在有的情况
——一一一——一P—一————————一二———————————————————－—－
AAsng Vi i
一
下，话语标记语的使用几乎是自觉的或潜意识的，而在另外的情况下则带有很强的
动机，即是高度有意识的。但是，无论话语标记语是说话人高?
Discourse markers are so pervasively used in daily language that the proper use and interpretation of them consist of a considerable part of pragmatic or communicative competence. The study of this linguistic phenomena thus bears both theoretic and practical significance. In the past ten years, the study of discourse markers turned into a growth industry in linguistics, with dozens of articles appearing yearly (Fraser, 1999: 932). The fact that taking a discourse marker away from the host discourse segment it is attached to does not affect the sentence's grammaticality judgments or its prepositional content but does affect the pragmatic appropriateness and interpersonal adaptation on the social level indicates that their employment is not syntactically or semantically oriented but pragmatically motivated (Schourup, 1999). It thus might not be a coincidence that the study of discourse markers emerges and grows with the development of pragmatics. Scholars, whether in syntax, semantics or pragmatics, tend to re
gard discourse markers as a linguistic phenomenon mostly appearing in conversational discourse and serving certain pragmatic functions.
However, researches on discourse markers, though rich and fruitful, are far from being homogeneous and complete. We identify four distinctive pragmatic perspectives on discourse markers, namely, the discourse-coherence-based perspective, the syntactic-pragmatic perspective, the cognitive-pragmatic perspective and the perspective which treats discourse markers as indicators of metapragmatic indicators. The term
discourse marker has different meanings for different groups of researchers, there is no agreement about what elements in a particular language should be referred to as discourse markers, and studies on discourse markers have been done under a variety of overlapping labels. In addition, the following three questions have never been discussed in a unified account: Why are discourse markers used? How do they function in utterance production? and What role do they play in utterance interpretation? The present research, assuming that a comprehensive account of discourse markers is supposed to answer all the questions raised above, conducts a general survey into the existing pragmatic perspectives on discourse markers and tentatively employs Verschueren's theory of linguistic adaptation to account for discourse markers, aiming at some findings which can shed light on further researches pursuing a comprehensive and thorough account of discourse markers.
The present dissertation consists of five chapters, with the introduction as Chapter One.
In Chapter Two, on the basis of a survey into the earlier attempts to define discourse markers, the present study, taking into account of their commonly cited features, sets forth a working definition of discourse markers, which, having a wider coverage of the expressions that have been treated as discourse markers by different scholars, enables the research to deal with a variety of elements under the same conceptual umbrella. In the process of examining the earlier definitions, the discourse-coherence-based perspective and the syntactic-pragmatic perspective are discussed. It is demonstrated that these two perspectives do take into consideration some pragmatic factors, but their attention is mainly concentrated respectively on how discourse markers are used to create coherence or what relationships they signal between discourse units. Neither of them can account for the three interrelated fundamental questions, which we assume any comprehensive pragmatic account of discourse markers is supposed to answer.
Chapter Three investigates the researches on discourse markers conducted from the cognitive-pragmatic perspective, which is based on a relevance-theoretic framework. It is concluded that these researches do give an impressive account for the role of discourse markers in utterance interpretation in terms of the motivations of cognitive constraints, contextual or cognitive effects, but fail to offer satisfactory account f
引文
Andersen, Gisle.1998． The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. In Andreas H.Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.).Discourse Markers:Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.147-70．
Ariel, Mira.1993． Pragmatic operators.The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford:Pergamon Press.3250-53．
Bazanella, Carla.1990． Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian.Journal of Pragmatics, Vol.14, No.4:629-47．
Bell, D.1998． Cancellative discourse markers:a core/periphery approach.Pragmatics 8:515-41．
Blakemore, Diane.1987． Semantic Constraints on Relevance.Oxford:Blackwell.
Blakemore, Diane.1988． The organization of discourse.In Federick J.Newmyer (ed.).Linguistics:The Cambridge Survey IV.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 229-50．
Blakemore, Diane.1990． Constraints on interpretations.In Berkeley Linguistics Society (ed.).Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meetings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistics Society.363-70．
Blakemore, Diane.1992． Understanding Utterances.Oxford:Blackwell.
Blakemore, Diane.1996． Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics 32:325-47．
Brinton, Lauri J.1996． Pragmatic Markers in English:Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions.Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, G.& G.Yule.1983． Discourse Analysis.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, David.1985． A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics.New York:Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Crystal, David.1988． Another look at well, you know ...English Today 13:47-49．
Dreiser, Theodore.1964． An American Tragedy.New York:New American Library, Inc.
Erman, Britt.1987． Pragmatic Expressions in English:A Study of "you know ", "you see " and "Imean" in Face to Face Conversation.Stockholm:Almqvist and Wiksell.
Fraser, Bruce.1987． Pragmatic Formatives.In Jef Verschueren & Marcella Bertucelli-Papi (eds.).The Pragmatic Perspective.Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publ.179-92．
Fraser, Bruce.1990． An approach to discourse markers.Journal of Pragmatics, Vol.14, No.3 (14) :383-95．
Fraser, Bruce.1993． Discourse markers across language.In L.Bouton & Y Kachru (eds.). Pragmatics and Language Learning.1-16． Urbana-Champaign:IL:University of Illinois Press.
Fraser, Bruce.1996． Pragmatic Markers.Pragmatics 6:2, 167-90．
Fraser, Bruce.1998． Contrastive discourse markers in English.In H.Jucker & Ziv (eds.). Pragmatics and Beyond (No.57) :Discourse Markers.John Benjamins.301-26．
Fraser, Bruce.1999． What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, Vol.31:931-52．
Fuller, Janet M.2003． The influence of speaker roles on the use of discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol.35:23-45．
Halliday, M.A.K.& R.Hasan.1976． Cohesion in English.London:Longman.
Hu Haijuan.2002． Courtroom Questioning as a Dynamic Process of Linguistic Adaptation. Unpublished MA thesis.Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.
Jucker, Andreas H.1993． The discourse marker well:A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19:435-52．
Jucker, Andreas H.& Sara W.Smith.1998． Discourse markers as negotiating strategies.In Andreas H.Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.).Discourse Markers:Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.171-201．
Katriel, T.& M.Dascal.1984． What do indicating devices indicate? Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol.17, No.1:1-15．
Knott, Alistair & Robert Dale.1994． Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations.Discourse Processes 18:35-62．
Labov, W.& D.Fanshel.1977． Therapeutic Discourse.New York:Academic Press.
Lamiroy, Beatrice.1994． Pragmatic connectives and L2 acquisition:The case of French and Dutch.Pragmatics 4(2) :183-201．
Lenk, Uta.1998a.Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation.Journal of Pragmatics 30:245-57．
Lenk, Uta.1998b.Marking Discourse Coherence.Tubingen:Gunter Narr Verlag.
Levinson, Stephen.1983． Pragmatics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Mann, W.C.& S.A.Thompson.1987． Rhetorical structure theory:Description and construction of text structures.In Gerard Kempen (ed.).Natural Language Generation.Dordrecht:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.85-95．
Mey, J.L.2001． Pragmatics:An Introduction.Oxford:Blackwell.
Ostman, Jan Ola.1981． YOU KNOW:A Discourse Functional Approach.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ostman, Jan Ola.1982． The symbiotic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptu speech.In N.E.Enkvist (ed.).Impromptu Speech:A Symposium.Turku: Abo Akademi.147-77．
Polanyi, L.& R.J.H.Scha.1983． The syntax of discourse.Text, Vol.3:261-70．
Polanyi, L.1988． A formal model of the structure of discourse.Journal of Pragmatics 12:601-38．
Quirk, R.et al.1985 [1972] .A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London:Longman.
Redeker, Gisela.1990． Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure.Journal of Pragmatics 14:367-81．
Redeker, Gisela.1991． Linguistic markers of discourse structure.Linguistics 29:1139-72．
Risselada, Rodie.& Wilbert Spooren.1998． Introduction:Discourse markers and coherence relations.Journal of Pragmatics 30:131-33．
Rouchota, Villy.1996． Discourse connectives:what do they link? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, No.8．
Rouchota, Villy.1998． Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers.In Andreas H.Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.).Discourse Markers:Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.97-126．
Schiffrin, Deborah.1986． Functions of and in discourse.Journal of Pragmatics 10:41-66．
Schiffrin, Deborah.1987． Discourse Markers.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schourup, Lawrence.1985． Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation:like, well, y 'know.New York:Garland.
Schourup, Lawrence.1999． Discourse markers:tutorial overview.Lingua 107:227-65．
Sperber, D.& D.Wilson.1986． Relevance:Communication and Cognition.1st ed. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Sperber, D.& D.Wilson.1995． Relevance:Communication and Cognition.2nd ed.
Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Stubbs, M.1983． Discourse Analysis:The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language.Oxford:Blackwell.
Unger, C.1996． The scope of discourse connectives:implications for discourse organization.Journal of Linguistics 32:403-38．
Van Dijk, Teun.1979． Pragmatic connectives.Journal of Pragmatics 3:447-56．
Verschueren, Jef.1987． Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation.(IPrA Working Document 1) .Antwerp:International Pragmatics Association.
Verschueren, Jef.1999． Understanding Pragmatics.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Wilson, D.& D.Sperber.1993． Linguistic form and relevance.Lingua 90:1-25．
冉永平，2000,话语标记语的语用学研究，《外语研究》第3期。
Ariel, Mira.1993． Pragmatic operators.The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford:Pergamon Press.3250-53．
Bazanella, Carla.1990． Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian.Journal of Pragmatics, Vol.14, No.4:629-47．
Bell, D.1998． Cancellative discourse markers:a core/periphery approach.Pragmatics 8:515-41．
Blakemore, Diane.1987． Semantic Constraints on Relevance.Oxford:Blackwell.
Blakemore, Diane.1988． The organization of discourse.In Federick J.Newmyer (ed.).Linguistics:The Cambridge Survey IV.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 229-50．
Blakemore, Diane.1990． Constraints on interpretations.In Berkeley Linguistics Society (ed.).Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meetings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistics Society.363-70．
Blakemore, Diane.1992． Understanding Utterances.Oxford:Blackwell.
Blakemore, Diane.1996． Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics 32:325-47．
Brinton, Lauri J.1996． Pragmatic Markers in English:Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions.Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, G.& G.Yule.1983． Discourse Analysis.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, David.1985． A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics.New York:Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Crystal, David.1988． Another look at well, you know ...English Today 13:47-49．
Dreiser, Theodore.1964． An American Tragedy.New York:New American Library, Inc.
Erman, Britt.1987． Pragmatic Expressions in English:A Study of "you know ", "you see " and "Imean" in Face to Face Conversation.Stockholm:Almqvist and Wiksell.
Fraser, Bruce.1987． Pragmatic Formatives.In Jef Verschueren & Marcella Bertucelli-Papi (eds.).The Pragmatic Perspective.Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publ.179-92．
Fraser, Bruce.1990． An approach to discourse markers.Journal of Pragmatics, Vol.14, No.3 (14) :383-95．
Fraser, Bruce.1993． Discourse markers across language.In L.Bouton & Y Kachru (eds.). Pragmatics and Language Learning.1-16． Urbana-Champaign:IL:University of Illinois Press.
Fraser, Bruce.1996． Pragmatic Markers.Pragmatics 6:2, 167-90．
Fraser, Bruce.1998． Contrastive discourse markers in English.In H.Jucker & Ziv (eds.). Pragmatics and Beyond (No.57) :Discourse Markers.John Benjamins.301-26．
Fraser, Bruce.1999． What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, Vol.31:931-52．
Fuller, Janet M.2003． The influence of speaker roles on the use of discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol.35:23-45．
Halliday, M.A.K.& R.Hasan.1976． Cohesion in English.London:Longman.
Hu Haijuan.2002． Courtroom Questioning as a Dynamic Process of Linguistic Adaptation. Unpublished MA thesis.Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.
Jucker, Andreas H.1993． The discourse marker well:A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19:435-52．
Jucker, Andreas H.& Sara W.Smith.1998． Discourse markers as negotiating strategies.In Andreas H.Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.).Discourse Markers:Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.171-201．
Katriel, T.& M.Dascal.1984． What do indicating devices indicate? Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol.17, No.1:1-15．
Knott, Alistair & Robert Dale.1994． Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations.Discourse Processes 18:35-62．
Labov, W.& D.Fanshel.1977． Therapeutic Discourse.New York:Academic Press.
Lamiroy, Beatrice.1994． Pragmatic connectives and L2 acquisition:The case of French and Dutch.Pragmatics 4(2) :183-201．
Lenk, Uta.1998a.Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation.Journal of Pragmatics 30:245-57．
Lenk, Uta.1998b.Marking Discourse Coherence.Tubingen:Gunter Narr Verlag.
Levinson, Stephen.1983． Pragmatics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Mann, W.C.& S.A.Thompson.1987． Rhetorical structure theory:Description and construction of text structures.In Gerard Kempen (ed.).Natural Language Generation.Dordrecht:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.85-95．
Mey, J.L.2001． Pragmatics:An Introduction.Oxford:Blackwell.
Ostman, Jan Ola.1981． YOU KNOW:A Discourse Functional Approach.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ostman, Jan Ola.1982． The symbiotic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptu speech.In N.E.Enkvist (ed.).Impromptu Speech:A Symposium.Turku: Abo Akademi.147-77．
Polanyi, L.& R.J.H.Scha.1983． The syntax of discourse.Text, Vol.3:261-70．
Polanyi, L.1988． A formal model of the structure of discourse.Journal of Pragmatics 12:601-38．
Quirk, R.et al.1985 [1972] .A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London:Longman.
Redeker, Gisela.1990． Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure.Journal of Pragmatics 14:367-81．
Redeker, Gisela.1991． Linguistic markers of discourse structure.Linguistics 29:1139-72．
Risselada, Rodie.& Wilbert Spooren.1998． Introduction:Discourse markers and coherence relations.Journal of Pragmatics 30:131-33．
Rouchota, Villy.1996． Discourse connectives:what do they link? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, No.8．
Rouchota, Villy.1998． Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers.In Andreas H.Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.).Discourse Markers:Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.97-126．
Schiffrin, Deborah.1986． Functions of and in discourse.Journal of Pragmatics 10:41-66．
Schiffrin, Deborah.1987． Discourse Markers.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schourup, Lawrence.1985． Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation:like, well, y 'know.New York:Garland.
Schourup, Lawrence.1999． Discourse markers:tutorial overview.Lingua 107:227-65．
Sperber, D.& D.Wilson.1986． Relevance:Communication and Cognition.1st ed. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Sperber, D.& D.Wilson.1995． Relevance:Communication and Cognition.2nd ed.
Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Stubbs, M.1983． Discourse Analysis:The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language.Oxford:Blackwell.
Unger, C.1996． The scope of discourse connectives:implications for discourse organization.Journal of Linguistics 32:403-38．
Van Dijk, Teun.1979． Pragmatic connectives.Journal of Pragmatics 3:447-56．
Verschueren, Jef.1987． Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation.(IPrA Working Document 1) .Antwerp:International Pragmatics Association.
Verschueren, Jef.1999． Understanding Pragmatics.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Wilson, D.& D.Sperber.1993． Linguistic form and relevance.Lingua 90:1-25．
冉永平，2000,话语标记语的语用学研究，《外语研究》第3期。