模糊限制语的语用功能及其在话语生成和理解中的认知语用学研究
|
摘要
模糊限制语是语言交际中重要的语用标记语，是交际者常用的语用策略和手段。在口语交际和学术语篇等文本形式中，模糊限制语常常出现在话题敏感、说话人欲躲避自己责任，或令听话人不快或不利的语言交际场合。很多学者对这一语言现象从语义学和语用学的角度进行较为全面的分析。本论文作者拟从认知语用学的视角对英语交际中的模糊限制语的语用功能及其在话语生成和理解中进行较全面的探索性分析和研究，应用了Sperber & Wilson的关联理论（Relevance Theory）和Verschueren的元语用意识理论（Metapragmatic Awareness Theory）作为本论文的理论框架，对交际中经常出现的模糊限制语语用功能的认知性及其在话语生成和理解的具体语境中产生的认知机制、话语命题和认知语境的关系、语境效果与关联性的关系以及推断话语意义的努力程度与关联性的关系等进行分析和研究。按形式上划分，模糊限制语可分为词语形式模糊限制语和句法结构形式模糊限制语两种。从语义学的角度，模糊限制语可分为四类：第一类为某些形容词和副词构成（如：maybe,almost, somewhat, sort of, a little等）；第二类是指构成形容词或副词的后缀（如：-ish,-like等）；第三类是那些由连词as if, as though, so…that等引导的方式状语从句或程度状语，表达说话人对某事犹豫不决或不确定的情况；第四类由一些句法结构或短语构成（如：I think, I believe, as far as I know, according to, in my opinion, I may beconfused, but…等）。从语用功能上划分，模糊限制语被分为缓和型模糊限制语和变动型模糊限制语。前者用于说话人对话题内容直接做出主观推测，或引用他人之看法、观点，间接表达说话人的态度，使话语的语气趋于缓和；后者用于对话题的真实程度和涉及范围做出修正，改变话语结构的意愿。本文拟从认知语用学的视角对英语交际中的模糊限制语进行较全面的探索性分析和研究。从认知语言学的角度来看，语言的运用不能脱离人的认知；语言是认知的窗口。
从这个窗口，我们可以深刻地了解到人们在运用语言进行交际时的心理状态、观点和态度等。人们对事物有所了解和意识才会运用语言进行恰当地表达。当说话人意识到某话题对听话人造成一定负面影响或担心自己会处于不利情况时，模糊限制语在言语交际中的应用常常表达说话人为了缓和话语造成的语气或出于礼貌等原因，同时又希望通过这种语言手段来表明自己对所谈及的话题的态度、观点。本研究运用了美国Brigham Young University的Mark Davies设计的“现代美国英语语料库”(CorpusofContemporaryAmericanEnglish),对英语中常用的模糊限制语在实际交际的语境中的应用,包括口语、小说、报纸、杂志以及学术语篇等进行了调查。论文中大部分的实例来源于此语料库。经过认真的分析和研究,我们得出如下研究成果:第一、在言语交际中,模糊限制语的语用功能是受到言语交际的认知性所驱动。说话人在开口说话之前,他必须考虑言语交际中的各种认知因素,比如:交际双方的社会关系、礼貌程度、承担责任的可能性、受批评的危险等等。在这种情况下,说话人就会小心地对语言手段进行选择。在言语交际中,从话语交际的间接性、负面礼貌以及面子威胁行为三个方面的分析论证表明,模糊限制语在用于遵守交际原则(会话合作原则和礼貌原则)时发挥了重要的作用。说话人和听话人的认知语境总是在相互影响、相互作用,相互趋同,进而实现交际意图。第二、在言语交际中,模糊限制语的应用明确了说话人的交际意图,发挥了语用标记语的功能,以一种明示的形式表达了说话人对谈论话题的态度或观点,从而,有助于改变听话人原先的认知语境;第三、模糊限制语的应用是受保护面子行为的考虑所驱动。几乎所有应用模糊限制语的言语交际总是与敏感的、直接的、令人不快的、难以接受的或说话人持有否定态度的话题有关。说话人总是运用一些类似模糊限制语的礼貌策略,实施维护面子的行为,以便使听话人有机会留住面子、摆脱困境;第四、模糊限制语在话语结构中实属一个相对独立的成分。它可以是一个词语,一个短语,也可以是一个句法结构。在话语中,它所出现的位置是灵活的:可能在句首、句中或句尾,即:模糊限制语具有语法结构多变性、句法结构的灵活性以及语用结构的可释性;第五、模糊限制语不仅有助于解码话语的概念信息,而且也传递了话语的程序信息。在交际中,模糊限制语不仅有助于使听话人了解话语的命题意义,也了解说话人的交际意图;第六、从语料库中对模糊限制语的应用频率调查来看,模糊限制语较多应用于口语语境,因为它们很敏感于语境;第七、模糊限制语在交际的话语理解中能够有助于减少话语处理时所做的努力。
Linguistic hedges are important pragmatic markers in verbal communication. Inspoken communication and academic texts, linguistic hedges occur in those sensitivetopics, or on those occasions, in which the speaker tries to avoid his own responsibility,orinwhichthespeakerfearsthatthehearermayfeeluncomfortable.ManyScholarshavetried to make considerably comprehensive analysis of the language phenomena from theperspectives of semantics or pragmatics, etc. The researcher of the dissertation tries tocarry out the exploration and research of linguistic hedges in utterance production andcomprehension from the perspective of cognitive pragmatics, mainly of the cognitivefeatures and the cognitive mechanism, such as the relationships between the utteranceproposition and cognitive context, the relationships between the contextual effect andrelevance, etc. in the use of linguistic hedges in verbal communication, applying Sperber& Wilson’s Relevance Theory and Verschueren’s Metapragmatic Awareness Theory asthe theoretical framework of the research. In terms of the forms, hedges can be dividedinto word forms and syntactic forms. From the semantic perspective, hedges can beclassified into four types. The first type consists of some adjectives and adverbs likemaybe, almost, somewhat, sort of, a little, etc.; the second type refers some adjectives oradverbs containing such suffixes as“-ish”and“-like”; the third type includes thoseconjunctive phrases as“as if”,“as though”,“so…that”, etc. to indicate the speaker’shesitation; thefourthtypeis composedofsomesyntacticforms orsomeotherphrases. Interms of pragmatic functions, hedges are classified into shields and approximators.Shieldscanalsobedividedintoplausibilityshieldsandattributionshields;approximatorsinto adaptors and rounders. Shields are used by the speaker to make a direct inferenceabout the content of an utterance or to indirectly express the speaker’s attitude by usingothers’beliefs or opinions, so that the force of the utterance can be mitigated.Approximatorsareusedtomodifythetruthandscopeoftheutterance. Inthisdissertation, linguistic hedges in verbal communication are explored and analyzed from theperspective of cognitive-pragmatics.
From the perspective of cognitive-pragmatics, language use cannot be isolated fromcognition. Language is considered as the window of cognition, from which we can knowthe psychological states, opinions and attitudes of the communicators. Only when thecommunicator knows what happens to the topic can he make certain expressions by usinglanguage or some linguistic devices. As we know, when the speaker is aware that acertain topic will cause a negative influence, or when he is worried that he will be in anunfavorable condition, the use of hedges in verbal communication is often made toindicate the speaker’s efforts for mitigation or politeness. At the same time the speakerhopes to express his own attitude, opinion, etc. The purpose of this research is mainly (1)to analyze the pragmatic functions of hedges; (2) to reveal how a communicativeintention is achieved by the use of hedges; (3) to explore the achievement of thecommunicative effect by the use of hedges; and (4) to provide L2 learners with someimportant communicative skills and improve their communicative awareness.
To achieve this goal, Sperber & Wilson’s Relevance Theory is used as the theoreticalframework and hedges in verbal communication are analyzed and studied from theperspective of cognitive-pragmatics. In the research, the Corpus of ContemporaryAmerican English (COCA), an online corpus, is employed. It is designed and provided byMark Davies, a professor of corpus linguistics in Brigham Young University in USA.This research tries to investigate the commonly used hedges in English from spokendiscourse, fictions, newspapers, magazines and academic texts. Quite a number ofexamples in the dissertation are collected from this corpus. Through the careful analysisand investigation, we have made the following major findings. Firstly, in linguisticcommunication, pragmatic functions of hedges are cognition-driven. Before the speakerproduces any utterance, he has to take into consideration many cognitive factors, such asthe social relationship between the speaker and hearer, degree of politeness, thepossibility of responsibility or the danger of criticism, etc. In this case, he will make acareful choice in using some linguistic devices. Secondly, in verbal communication, it shows from the analysis and investigation of indirectness, negative politeness and FTAsof utterances that, when hedges are used to observe the communicative principles (e.g.the CP and the PP), the cognitive environments of the speaker and the hearer tend toinfluence each other, correlate to each other and agree with each other and in the end thecommunicative intention is realized. Thirdly, in verbal communication, the use of hedgesmakes clearer the speaker’s communicative intention. Hedges have actually functioned aspragmatic markers, indicating the speaker’s attitude or opinion about the topic in questionin an ostensive way, thus helping to change the original cognitive environment that thehearer has. Fourthly, the hedged interactions are usually FSA-driven. Almost all thehedged interactions are related to some sensitive, direct, unpleasant, unacceptable ornegative topics. From the analysis and investigation of hedged interactions, we find thatthe speaker always tries to observe some politeness strategies, such as hedging strategiesand perform saving face acts (FSAs) so that the hearer can possibly have chances to getout of a predicament or whatever in the sensitive, direct, unpleasant, unacceptable ornegative topics. Fifthly, in the analysis and investigation, we have found that hedges inthe structures of utterances are relatively the independent components. A hedge can be aword or a phrase or sometimes a syntactic structure. It can be put almost at any place inan utterance--at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end. They are grammaticallyoptional, syntactically flexible and pragmatically interpretable. Sixthly, the use of hedgesnot only helps encode the conceptual information, but accounts for the proceduralinformation as well. They are used to help the hearer understand the speaker’scommunicative intention. Seventhly, an analysis of the ratios and frequencies of linguistichedges in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) shows that linguistichedges are more often used in spoken contexts than in academic texts for the reason ofthe sensibility to a certain context. And finally, it is found that hedges can usually lessenthe processing effort in utterance comprehension.
从这个窗口，我们可以深刻地了解到人们在运用语言进行交际时的心理状态、观点和态度等。人们对事物有所了解和意识才会运用语言进行恰当地表达。当说话人意识到某话题对听话人造成一定负面影响或担心自己会处于不利情况时，模糊限制语在言语交际中的应用常常表达说话人为了缓和话语造成的语气或出于礼貌等原因，同时又希望通过这种语言手段来表明自己对所谈及的话题的态度、观点。本研究运用了美国Brigham Young University的Mark Davies设计的“现代美国英语语料库”(CorpusofContemporaryAmericanEnglish),对英语中常用的模糊限制语在实际交际的语境中的应用,包括口语、小说、报纸、杂志以及学术语篇等进行了调查。论文中大部分的实例来源于此语料库。经过认真的分析和研究,我们得出如下研究成果:第一、在言语交际中,模糊限制语的语用功能是受到言语交际的认知性所驱动。说话人在开口说话之前,他必须考虑言语交际中的各种认知因素,比如:交际双方的社会关系、礼貌程度、承担责任的可能性、受批评的危险等等。在这种情况下,说话人就会小心地对语言手段进行选择。在言语交际中,从话语交际的间接性、负面礼貌以及面子威胁行为三个方面的分析论证表明,模糊限制语在用于遵守交际原则(会话合作原则和礼貌原则)时发挥了重要的作用。说话人和听话人的认知语境总是在相互影响、相互作用,相互趋同,进而实现交际意图。第二、在言语交际中,模糊限制语的应用明确了说话人的交际意图,发挥了语用标记语的功能,以一种明示的形式表达了说话人对谈论话题的态度或观点,从而,有助于改变听话人原先的认知语境;第三、模糊限制语的应用是受保护面子行为的考虑所驱动。几乎所有应用模糊限制语的言语交际总是与敏感的、直接的、令人不快的、难以接受的或说话人持有否定态度的话题有关。说话人总是运用一些类似模糊限制语的礼貌策略,实施维护面子的行为,以便使听话人有机会留住面子、摆脱困境;第四、模糊限制语在话语结构中实属一个相对独立的成分。它可以是一个词语,一个短语,也可以是一个句法结构。在话语中,它所出现的位置是灵活的:可能在句首、句中或句尾,即:模糊限制语具有语法结构多变性、句法结构的灵活性以及语用结构的可释性;第五、模糊限制语不仅有助于解码话语的概念信息,而且也传递了话语的程序信息。在交际中,模糊限制语不仅有助于使听话人了解话语的命题意义,也了解说话人的交际意图;第六、从语料库中对模糊限制语的应用频率调查来看,模糊限制语较多应用于口语语境,因为它们很敏感于语境;第七、模糊限制语在交际的话语理解中能够有助于减少话语处理时所做的努力。
Linguistic hedges are important pragmatic markers in verbal communication. Inspoken communication and academic texts, linguistic hedges occur in those sensitivetopics, or on those occasions, in which the speaker tries to avoid his own responsibility,orinwhichthespeakerfearsthatthehearermayfeeluncomfortable.ManyScholarshavetried to make considerably comprehensive analysis of the language phenomena from theperspectives of semantics or pragmatics, etc. The researcher of the dissertation tries tocarry out the exploration and research of linguistic hedges in utterance production andcomprehension from the perspective of cognitive pragmatics, mainly of the cognitivefeatures and the cognitive mechanism, such as the relationships between the utteranceproposition and cognitive context, the relationships between the contextual effect andrelevance, etc. in the use of linguistic hedges in verbal communication, applying Sperber& Wilson’s Relevance Theory and Verschueren’s Metapragmatic Awareness Theory asthe theoretical framework of the research. In terms of the forms, hedges can be dividedinto word forms and syntactic forms. From the semantic perspective, hedges can beclassified into four types. The first type consists of some adjectives and adverbs likemaybe, almost, somewhat, sort of, a little, etc.; the second type refers some adjectives oradverbs containing such suffixes as“-ish”and“-like”; the third type includes thoseconjunctive phrases as“as if”,“as though”,“so…that”, etc. to indicate the speaker’shesitation; thefourthtypeis composedofsomesyntacticforms orsomeotherphrases. Interms of pragmatic functions, hedges are classified into shields and approximators.Shieldscanalsobedividedintoplausibilityshieldsandattributionshields;approximatorsinto adaptors and rounders. Shields are used by the speaker to make a direct inferenceabout the content of an utterance or to indirectly express the speaker’s attitude by usingothers’beliefs or opinions, so that the force of the utterance can be mitigated.Approximatorsareusedtomodifythetruthandscopeoftheutterance. Inthisdissertation, linguistic hedges in verbal communication are explored and analyzed from theperspective of cognitive-pragmatics.
From the perspective of cognitive-pragmatics, language use cannot be isolated fromcognition. Language is considered as the window of cognition, from which we can knowthe psychological states, opinions and attitudes of the communicators. Only when thecommunicator knows what happens to the topic can he make certain expressions by usinglanguage or some linguistic devices. As we know, when the speaker is aware that acertain topic will cause a negative influence, or when he is worried that he will be in anunfavorable condition, the use of hedges in verbal communication is often made toindicate the speaker’s efforts for mitigation or politeness. At the same time the speakerhopes to express his own attitude, opinion, etc. The purpose of this research is mainly (1)to analyze the pragmatic functions of hedges; (2) to reveal how a communicativeintention is achieved by the use of hedges; (3) to explore the achievement of thecommunicative effect by the use of hedges; and (4) to provide L2 learners with someimportant communicative skills and improve their communicative awareness.
To achieve this goal, Sperber & Wilson’s Relevance Theory is used as the theoreticalframework and hedges in verbal communication are analyzed and studied from theperspective of cognitive-pragmatics. In the research, the Corpus of ContemporaryAmerican English (COCA), an online corpus, is employed. It is designed and provided byMark Davies, a professor of corpus linguistics in Brigham Young University in USA.This research tries to investigate the commonly used hedges in English from spokendiscourse, fictions, newspapers, magazines and academic texts. Quite a number ofexamples in the dissertation are collected from this corpus. Through the careful analysisand investigation, we have made the following major findings. Firstly, in linguisticcommunication, pragmatic functions of hedges are cognition-driven. Before the speakerproduces any utterance, he has to take into consideration many cognitive factors, such asthe social relationship between the speaker and hearer, degree of politeness, thepossibility of responsibility or the danger of criticism, etc. In this case, he will make acareful choice in using some linguistic devices. Secondly, in verbal communication, it shows from the analysis and investigation of indirectness, negative politeness and FTAsof utterances that, when hedges are used to observe the communicative principles (e.g.the CP and the PP), the cognitive environments of the speaker and the hearer tend toinfluence each other, correlate to each other and agree with each other and in the end thecommunicative intention is realized. Thirdly, in verbal communication, the use of hedgesmakes clearer the speaker’s communicative intention. Hedges have actually functioned aspragmatic markers, indicating the speaker’s attitude or opinion about the topic in questionin an ostensive way, thus helping to change the original cognitive environment that thehearer has. Fourthly, the hedged interactions are usually FSA-driven. Almost all thehedged interactions are related to some sensitive, direct, unpleasant, unacceptable ornegative topics. From the analysis and investigation of hedged interactions, we find thatthe speaker always tries to observe some politeness strategies, such as hedging strategiesand perform saving face acts (FSAs) so that the hearer can possibly have chances to getout of a predicament or whatever in the sensitive, direct, unpleasant, unacceptable ornegative topics. Fifthly, in the analysis and investigation, we have found that hedges inthe structures of utterances are relatively the independent components. A hedge can be aword or a phrase or sometimes a syntactic structure. It can be put almost at any place inan utterance--at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end. They are grammaticallyoptional, syntactically flexible and pragmatically interpretable. Sixthly, the use of hedgesnot only helps encode the conceptual information, but accounts for the proceduralinformation as well. They are used to help the hearer understand the speaker’scommunicative intention. Seventhly, an analysis of the ratios and frequencies of linguistichedges in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) shows that linguistichedges are more often used in spoken contexts than in academic texts for the reason ofthe sensibility to a certain context. And finally, it is found that hedges can usually lessenthe processing effort in utterance comprehension.
引文
Abraham, W. (ed.) Discourse particles: descriptive and theoretical investigations on thelogical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German.Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1991.
Ariel, M.“Discourse markers and form-function correlations”. In Jucker, A.H. & Y. Ziv(eds.) Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1998.
Aijmer, K.“Now may we have a word on this?: The use of‘now’as a discourse particle”.In Kyto, M. O. Ihalainen & M. Rissanen (eds.) Corpus linguistics: Hard and soft.Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988.
Aijimer, Karin. English Discourse Particles. John Bnejamin Publishing Co., 2002.Aijmer, K. & A-M. Simon-Vandenbergen.“A model and methodology for the study ofpragmatic markers: the semantic field of expectation”, Journal of Pragmatics.36(2004): 1781-1805.
Andersen, G.“The role of the pragmatic marker like in utterance interpretation”. InAndersen, G. & T. Fretheim (eds.) 2000. Pragmatic markers and propositionalattitude. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000.
Andersen, G. & T. Fretheim (eds.) Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude.Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000.
Andersen, G. Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamin Publishing Co., 2001.
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words? Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1962.Bazanella, C.“Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian”.Journal of Pragmatics. 14(1990): 629-647.
Blakemore, D. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Blackwell, 1987.
Blakemore, D. Linguistic Form and Pragmatic Interpretation: the Explicit and the implicit.In The Pragmatics of Style by Leo Hickey (ed.). NY: Rouledge, 1989.
Blakemore, D. Understanding Utterances: The Pragmatics of Natural Language. Oxford:Blackwell, 1990.
Blakemore, D. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning, --the Semantic and Pragmatic ofDiscourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Brown, G. & G. Yule. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1983.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.“Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena”, inGoody, E. (ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction,pp56~311, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Bussmann, Hadumod. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Translated andedited by Gregory P. Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi. Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press & Routledge, 2000.
Campbell, Kim Sydow. Coherence, Continuity, and Cohesion Theoretical Foundationsfor Document Design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1995.
Carlson, L. Well in Dialogue Games: A discourse analysis of the injection well inidealized conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1984.Channell, Joanna. Vague Language. Oxford University Press, 2000.
Chen, Guo-ming & William J. Starosta. Foundations of Intercultural Communication.上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2007.Caffi, Claudia. Mitigation. Elsevier Ltd., 2007.
Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1965.Clark, H. & P. Lucy.“Understanding What Is Meant from What Is Said: A Study inConversationally Conveyed Requests”. Journal of Verbal Learning and VerbalBehavior, Vol.14 (1975): 56—72.
Clark, H. & C. Marshall. Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge. In Joshi Webber &Sag(ed.) 10—63, 1981.
Clark, H. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Clark, Eve V.“Making Use of Pragmatic Inferences in the Acquisition of Meaning”,from The Construction of Meaning, edited by Beaver et al. 2002. 45-58.
Clemen, C.“The Concept of Hedges Origins Approaches and Definitions”. In Markkanen,R. R. & H. Schrderc(ed). Hedging and Discourse. Berlin Walter de Gruyter & Co.236-237, 1997.
Coates, Jennifer, Sutton-Spence, Rachel.“Women's Speech, Women's Strength?”(1988)Journal of Sociolinguistics, v5 n4. 507-29. Nov. 2001.
Crystal, D. Another look at well, you know…English Today 13(1988): 47-49.
Cummings, Louise. Pragmatics, A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Edinburgh UniversityPress, 2004.
Cutting, Joan. Vague Language Explored. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Darian, Steven Hypotheses in Introductory Science Texts, IRAL, Vol. XXXIII/2, May1995: 83-108.
Ellis, Rod. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1994.
Ellis, Rod. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J.W.‘I very appreciate’: Expressions of Gratitude by Nativeand Non-native Speakers of American English, Applied Linguistics No.7, 1986.
Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J.W.“Expressing Gratitude in American English”, in G.Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds) Interlanguage Pragmatics, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1993.
Erman, B.“Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult andadolescent talk”. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2001): 337-1359.
Fillmore, C. J.“Verbs of Judging”. In Fillmore, C. & Langendoen, T. (eds.) Studies inLinguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.
Fillmore, C. J.“Topics in Lexical Semantics”in (ed.) R. W. Cole Current Issues inLinguistic Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University of California, 1977.
Frazer, Bruce. Hedged Performatives. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3(1975): 187-210.Academic Press.
Fraser, B. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, Vol.38(1988): 19-33.
Fraser, B. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(1990): 383-395.
Fraser, B. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(1996): 167-190.
Frazer, Bruce. What Are Discourse Markers? Journal of Pragmatics, the special issue tohonor Jacob Mey.
Gabriela Pohl.“Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure and Implications for LanguageTeaching”. In Second Language Learning & Teaching, Vol. 4, 2004.
Geis, Michael L. Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cambridge UniversityPress, 1995.
Goldberg, J. Discourse particles: An analysis of the role of `y'know', `I mean,’`well', and`actually' in conversation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cambridge University, 1980.
Goodenough, W.“Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics”. In P. Gavin, ed. Report of the7th Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Study. Washington:Georgetown University, 1957.
Green, G. M. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, N. J., 1989.
Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation, in Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax andSemantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
Grice, H. P. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, 1989.
Grundy, P. Doing Pragmatics, London: Edward Arnold, 1995.
Hansen, M. M. The function of discourse particles: A study with special reference tospoken structured French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998.
Holliday, M. A. K. Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton,1967.
Holliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976.
Horn, L. R.“Pragmatic Theory”. In F. Newmeyer (ed.) Linguistics: The CambridgeSurvey, Vol. 1:113--145. Cambridge University Press, 1988.
House, J. Toward a model for the analysis of inappropriate responses in native/nonnativeinteractions. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics161-183). New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriele.“Politeness markers in English and German”, inCoulmas, F. (ed.): Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton, 1981:157-185.
Hyland, Ken. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. John Benjamin Publishing Co.,1998.
Hyland, Ken. Disciplinary Discourse, --Social interactions in Academic Writing. PearsonEducation Ltd., 2000.Hymes 1972
Innes, Bronwen. Speaking up in Court: Repair and powerless language in New Zealandcourtrooms. M. University of Auckland, 2001.
Jackendoff, R. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Mass: The MIT Press,1972.
Jucker, A. H. The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account, Journal ofPragmatics. 19(1993): 435-452.
Katriel, T. & M. Dascal. What do indicating devices indicate? Philosophy and Rhetoric.Vol. 17(1984): 1-15.
Keller, E. Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. Journal of Pragmatics 3(1979):219-238.
Klinge, A. The English Modal Auxiliaries: from Lexical Semantics to UtteranceInterpretation. Journal of Linguistics, 1993: 315-357.
Labov, W.“The Study of Language in its Social Context”. In Giglioli, P. (ed.) Languageand Social Context, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.
Lakoff, G.“Hedges: A Study of Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts?”Papers from the English Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society, P.Peranteau, J. Levi and G. Phares (eds.). Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1972.
Leech, G. N. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Limited, 1983.
Levinson, S. Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Liddicoat & Crozet.“Acquiring French Interventional Norms through Instruction”. In K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2001.
LoCastro, Virginia. An Introduction to Pragmatics, Social Action for language Teaching.University of Michigan Press, 2003.
Locher, Miriam“A. Power and Politeness in Action Disagreements in OralCommunication”, Language, Power and Social Process, edited by Monica Heller &Richard J. Watts. Mouton de Gruyter, 2004.
Luke, K. K. Utterance particles in Cantonese conversations. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins, 1990.
Luukka, Minna-Riitta.“Social and Interpersonal Perspectives on Scientific Discourse”. InKnowledge and Discourse, toward an ecology of language by Barron et al.Language in Social Life Series. Pearson Education Ltd., 2002.
Lyons, J. Semantics, Vol. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Marmaridou, Sophia S. A. Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. John Benjamin PublishingCo., 2000.
Martinovski, Bilyana. A Framework for the Analysis of Mitigation in Courts: Toward atheory of Mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 38, issue 12(2006) 2065-2086.
McCawley, J.“Conversational Implicature and Lexicon”. In Cole, P. and J. L. Morgan(ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9. Academic Press, 1978.
Malcolm Coulthard. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman, 1985.
Markkanen, Raija and Schr?der, Hartmut“Hedging as a translation problem in scientifictexts”, in Laurén, C. and Nordman, M. (eds.): Special Languages: From HumanThinking to Thinking Machines. London: Multilingual Matters, 1989: 171-175.
Markkanen, Raija and Schr?der, Hartmut“Hedging and its linguistic realization inEnglish, German and Finnish philosophical texts: A case study”, in Nordman, M.(ed.): Fachsprachliche Miniaturen. Frankfurt/Main et al.: Peter Lang, 1992:121-130.
Matthews, P. H. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2001.
Mey, J. L. Pragmatics, An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press, 2001.
Morgan, J. L.“Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts”, in P. Cole (ed.)Syntax and Semantics (vol. 9): Pragmatics, New York: Academic Press, 1978.
Morris, C.“Foundations of the Theory of Signs”, in Carnap, R. et al (eds.) InternationalEncyclopedia of Unified Science, 2:1, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,1938.
Nicolle, S. A.“Relevance-Theoretic Account of Be Going to”. Journal of Linguistics,1997: 355-377.
Ostman, J. O. You know: A discourse functional approach. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. 1981.
Ostman, J. O.“The symbiotic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptuspeech”. In N. E, Enkvist (ed.) Impromptu Speech: A symposium. Abo Aademi:1982: 147-177.
Ostman, J. O.“Pragmatic particles twenty years after”. In Warik, B.&Tanskanen, S. K.&Hiltuen, R (eds.) 1995. Proceedings from the Turku conference, 1995.
Polanyi, L. & R. J. H. Scha. The syntax of discourse. Text 3 (3)(983): 261-270.
Prince, E., C. Bosk, and J. Frader“On Hedging in Physician-Physician Discourse?”Linguistics and the Professions, J. di Pietro (eds.). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.1982:83-97.
Redeker, G.“Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure”. Journal ofPragmatics 14(1990): 367-381.
Redeker, G. Linguistics markers of discourse structure. Linguistics 29(1991): 1191-1172.
Richards, Jack C., Platt, John & Platt, Heidi. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching& Applied Linguistics. Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press & Longman,2003.
Rintell, E. M.“Getting your speech act together: The pragmatic ability of secondlanguage learners”. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 17, 1979.
Rouchota, Villy.“Discourse Connectives: What Do They Link?”UCL Working Papersin Linguistics, No. 8, 1996.
Rowland, Tim.“Well Maybe Not Exactly, But It’s Around Fifty Basically?”VagueLanguage in Mathematics Classrooms in (eds.) Joan Cutting’s Vague LanguageExplored. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Russell, B.“Vagueness”. The Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, 1(June 1923): 84-92. This text taken from Collected Papers, vol. 9(1923) 147-154.
Sadock, J. M.“On Testing for Conversational Implicature”in (eds.) P. Cole's Syntax &Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 1978.
Salager-Meyer, F.“Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical EnglishWritten Discourse”. In English For Specific Purposes, Vol. 13 (2)(1994): 149-170.
Saussure, F. de. Course in General Linguistics. (trans. W. Baskin). London: Peter Owen,1960.
Schiffrin, D. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Schiffrin, D.“Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context”. In Schiffrin, D, D.Tannen, & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.) 2001.The Handbook of Discourse Analysis.Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
Schourup, L.“Discourse marker”. Linguistic 107(1999): 227-265.
Schourup, L.“Rethinking well”. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2001): 1025-1060.
Searle, J. R. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Searle, J. L.“Indirect Speech Acts”. In Cole P. & Morgan J. (eds.) (1975) Syntax andSemantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
Searle, J. L. Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Searle, J. L. Meaning, Communication and Representation. In Grandy, R & R. Warner(eds.), 1986: 209 --226.
Simpson, Rite. Hedges in Spoken Academic Language: Pragmatic Functions andTeaching Applications. University of Michigan, ELI Spring Colloquium, 2000.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition,北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001.
Strawson, P. F. Introduction to Logical Theory. London, 1952.
Stubbs, M. Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford:Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd., 1983.
Stalnaker, R. C.“Pragmatic Presupposition”. In: Andy Rogers, Bob Wall and John P.Murphy (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives,Presuppositions, and Implicatures. Washington, D. C.: Center for AppliedLinguistics, 1977.
Stubbs, Michael. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983.
Takahashi, Satomi. Pragmatic Transferability. Studies on Second Language Acquisition,18, 1996.
Thomas, J. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics, London: Longman,1995.
Tsui, Amy B. Sequencing Rules and Coherence in Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics15(2)(1991): 111-29.
Under, E. & H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Van Dijk, T. A. Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3(1979): 447-456.
Van Dijk, T.A. Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics ofdiscourse. London: Longman. 1977: 221.
Valdes, J. M. Culture Bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Verschueren, J. Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation, Working Document #1,Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, 1987.
Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics. Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd., 2000.
Waltereit, R. Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech-act-theoreticapproach. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2001): 1391-1417.
Watts, Richard J. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Wildner-Bassett, M. Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: 'Polite' noises for culturalappropriateness. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 3-17.Williamson,Eliana Santana. (2005) Are Non-Native Speakers Able to Converse? Proceedings ofthe CATESOL State Conference, 1994.
Wilson, D.“Relevance and Understanding”. In Language Understanding by GillianBrown et al. Oxford University Press &上海外语教育出版社, 1999.
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. Linguistic Form and Relevance. Lingua 90(1993): 1--25.
Wolfson, N.“An Empirically Based Analysis of Complimenting in American English”.In N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition.Rowley: Newbury House, 1983.
Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Zeevat, Henk.“A Dynamic Approach to Discourse Particles”, from Approaches toDiscourse Particles, edited by Karsin Fischer. Elsevier Ltd., 2006.
蔡龙权、戴炜栋.关于限制语精确话语信息的可能性研究[J]，《外语与外语教学》，2002(8): 1-6.
何兆熊.《新编语用学概要》[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002.
何兆熊.《语用学文献选读》[A]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2003.
何兆熊、蒋艳梅.语境的动态研究[J]，《外国语》1997(06):
何自然、阎庄.中国学生在英语交际中的语用失误—汉英语用差异调查[J]，《英汉对比研究论文集》，杨自俭、李瑞华编，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1990.
何自然.《语用学概要》[M]，湖南：湖南教育出版社.1987.
何自然. Grice语用学说与关联理论[J]，《外语教学与研究》，1995（04）.
何自然.《语用学与英语学习》[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1997.
何自然.推理与关联[J]，《外语教学》，1997（04）.
何自然.《语言学讲稿》[M]，南京：南京师范大学出版社，2003.
何自然、冉永平.《语用与认知—关联理论研究》[A]，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2001.
何自然、冉永平、莫爱屏、王寅.《认知语用学—言语交际的认知研究》[A]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2006.
姜望琪.《语用学—理论及应用》[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2000.
姜望琪.《当代语用学》[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
李萍、郑树棠.中英模糊限制语语用功能探究[J],《安徽大学学报》,2005(29-1):109-112.
刘家荣.话语相关与认知语境[J],《外国语》1997(03): 20-23.
刘绍忠.关联理论的交际观[J],《现在外语》,1997(02).
苗兴伟.关联理论与认知语境[J],《外语学刊》1997(04): 7-11.
曲卫国.也评“关联理论”[J],《外语教学与研究》,1993(02).
冉永平.《语用现象:现象与分析》[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
冉永平、张新红.《语用学纵横》[M],北京:高等教育出版社,2007.
束定芳.论隐喻的理解过程及其特点[J],《外语教学与研究》,2004(4):253-260.
熊学亮.单向语境推导初探[J].《现代外语》,1996(02\03): 1-4; 15-19.
熊学亮.《认知语用学概论》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
熊学亮、曲卫国.《语用学采撷》[M],北京:高等教育出版社,2007.
许嘉璐、王福祥、刘润清.《中国语言学现状与展望》[M],外语教学与研究出版社,1996.
俞东明.语法歧义和语用模糊对比研究[J].《外国语》. 1997(06): 29-35.
赵艳芳.语境效果的特征与最佳关联[J],《解放军外语学院学报》1998(02):
赵艳芳.最佳相关与语用推理机制的构拟[J],《山东外语教学》,1999(01).
赵艳芳.《认知语言学概论》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
郑志进.《语用学与英语教学》[M],北京:中国科学文化出版社,2006.
周建安.论语用推理机制的认知心理理据[J],《外国语》,1997(03).
Ariel, M.“Discourse markers and form-function correlations”. In Jucker, A.H. & Y. Ziv(eds.) Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1998.
Aijmer, K.“Now may we have a word on this?: The use of‘now’as a discourse particle”.In Kyto, M. O. Ihalainen & M. Rissanen (eds.) Corpus linguistics: Hard and soft.Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988.
Aijimer, Karin. English Discourse Particles. John Bnejamin Publishing Co., 2002.Aijmer, K. & A-M. Simon-Vandenbergen.“A model and methodology for the study ofpragmatic markers: the semantic field of expectation”, Journal of Pragmatics.36(2004): 1781-1805.
Andersen, G.“The role of the pragmatic marker like in utterance interpretation”. InAndersen, G. & T. Fretheim (eds.) 2000. Pragmatic markers and propositionalattitude. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000.
Andersen, G. & T. Fretheim (eds.) Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude.Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000.
Andersen, G. Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamin Publishing Co., 2001.
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words? Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1962.Bazanella, C.“Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian”.Journal of Pragmatics. 14(1990): 629-647.
Blakemore, D. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Blackwell, 1987.
Blakemore, D. Linguistic Form and Pragmatic Interpretation: the Explicit and the implicit.In The Pragmatics of Style by Leo Hickey (ed.). NY: Rouledge, 1989.
Blakemore, D. Understanding Utterances: The Pragmatics of Natural Language. Oxford:Blackwell, 1990.
Blakemore, D. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning, --the Semantic and Pragmatic ofDiscourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Brown, G. & G. Yule. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1983.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.“Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena”, inGoody, E. (ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction,pp56~311, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Bussmann, Hadumod. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Translated andedited by Gregory P. Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi. Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press & Routledge, 2000.
Campbell, Kim Sydow. Coherence, Continuity, and Cohesion Theoretical Foundationsfor Document Design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1995.
Carlson, L. Well in Dialogue Games: A discourse analysis of the injection well inidealized conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1984.Channell, Joanna. Vague Language. Oxford University Press, 2000.
Chen, Guo-ming & William J. Starosta. Foundations of Intercultural Communication.上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2007.Caffi, Claudia. Mitigation. Elsevier Ltd., 2007.
Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1965.Clark, H. & P. Lucy.“Understanding What Is Meant from What Is Said: A Study inConversationally Conveyed Requests”. Journal of Verbal Learning and VerbalBehavior, Vol.14 (1975): 56—72.
Clark, H. & C. Marshall. Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge. In Joshi Webber &Sag(ed.) 10—63, 1981.
Clark, H. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Clark, Eve V.“Making Use of Pragmatic Inferences in the Acquisition of Meaning”,from The Construction of Meaning, edited by Beaver et al. 2002. 45-58.
Clemen, C.“The Concept of Hedges Origins Approaches and Definitions”. In Markkanen,R. R. & H. Schrderc(ed). Hedging and Discourse. Berlin Walter de Gruyter & Co.236-237, 1997.
Coates, Jennifer, Sutton-Spence, Rachel.“Women's Speech, Women's Strength?”(1988)Journal of Sociolinguistics, v5 n4. 507-29. Nov. 2001.
Crystal, D. Another look at well, you know…English Today 13(1988): 47-49.
Cummings, Louise. Pragmatics, A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Edinburgh UniversityPress, 2004.
Cutting, Joan. Vague Language Explored. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Darian, Steven Hypotheses in Introductory Science Texts, IRAL, Vol. XXXIII/2, May1995: 83-108.
Ellis, Rod. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1994.
Ellis, Rod. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J.W.‘I very appreciate’: Expressions of Gratitude by Nativeand Non-native Speakers of American English, Applied Linguistics No.7, 1986.
Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J.W.“Expressing Gratitude in American English”, in G.Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds) Interlanguage Pragmatics, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1993.
Erman, B.“Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult andadolescent talk”. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2001): 337-1359.
Fillmore, C. J.“Verbs of Judging”. In Fillmore, C. & Langendoen, T. (eds.) Studies inLinguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.
Fillmore, C. J.“Topics in Lexical Semantics”in (ed.) R. W. Cole Current Issues inLinguistic Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University of California, 1977.
Frazer, Bruce. Hedged Performatives. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3(1975): 187-210.Academic Press.
Fraser, B. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, Vol.38(1988): 19-33.
Fraser, B. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(1990): 383-395.
Fraser, B. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(1996): 167-190.
Frazer, Bruce. What Are Discourse Markers? Journal of Pragmatics, the special issue tohonor Jacob Mey.
Gabriela Pohl.“Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure and Implications for LanguageTeaching”. In Second Language Learning & Teaching, Vol. 4, 2004.
Geis, Michael L. Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cambridge UniversityPress, 1995.
Goldberg, J. Discourse particles: An analysis of the role of `y'know', `I mean,’`well', and`actually' in conversation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cambridge University, 1980.
Goodenough, W.“Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics”. In P. Gavin, ed. Report of the7th Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Study. Washington:Georgetown University, 1957.
Green, G. M. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, N. J., 1989.
Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation, in Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax andSemantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
Grice, H. P. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, 1989.
Grundy, P. Doing Pragmatics, London: Edward Arnold, 1995.
Hansen, M. M. The function of discourse particles: A study with special reference tospoken structured French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998.
Holliday, M. A. K. Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton,1967.
Holliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976.
Horn, L. R.“Pragmatic Theory”. In F. Newmeyer (ed.) Linguistics: The CambridgeSurvey, Vol. 1:113--145. Cambridge University Press, 1988.
House, J. Toward a model for the analysis of inappropriate responses in native/nonnativeinteractions. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics161-183). New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriele.“Politeness markers in English and German”, inCoulmas, F. (ed.): Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton, 1981:157-185.
Hyland, Ken. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. John Benjamin Publishing Co.,1998.
Hyland, Ken. Disciplinary Discourse, --Social interactions in Academic Writing. PearsonEducation Ltd., 2000.Hymes 1972
Innes, Bronwen. Speaking up in Court: Repair and powerless language in New Zealandcourtrooms. M. University of Auckland, 2001.
Jackendoff, R. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Mass: The MIT Press,1972.
Jucker, A. H. The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account, Journal ofPragmatics. 19(1993): 435-452.
Katriel, T. & M. Dascal. What do indicating devices indicate? Philosophy and Rhetoric.Vol. 17(1984): 1-15.
Keller, E. Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. Journal of Pragmatics 3(1979):219-238.
Klinge, A. The English Modal Auxiliaries: from Lexical Semantics to UtteranceInterpretation. Journal of Linguistics, 1993: 315-357.
Labov, W.“The Study of Language in its Social Context”. In Giglioli, P. (ed.) Languageand Social Context, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.
Lakoff, G.“Hedges: A Study of Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts?”Papers from the English Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society, P.Peranteau, J. Levi and G. Phares (eds.). Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1972.
Leech, G. N. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Limited, 1983.
Levinson, S. Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Liddicoat & Crozet.“Acquiring French Interventional Norms through Instruction”. In K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2001.
LoCastro, Virginia. An Introduction to Pragmatics, Social Action for language Teaching.University of Michigan Press, 2003.
Locher, Miriam“A. Power and Politeness in Action Disagreements in OralCommunication”, Language, Power and Social Process, edited by Monica Heller &Richard J. Watts. Mouton de Gruyter, 2004.
Luke, K. K. Utterance particles in Cantonese conversations. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins, 1990.
Luukka, Minna-Riitta.“Social and Interpersonal Perspectives on Scientific Discourse”. InKnowledge and Discourse, toward an ecology of language by Barron et al.Language in Social Life Series. Pearson Education Ltd., 2002.
Lyons, J. Semantics, Vol. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Marmaridou, Sophia S. A. Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. John Benjamin PublishingCo., 2000.
Martinovski, Bilyana. A Framework for the Analysis of Mitigation in Courts: Toward atheory of Mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 38, issue 12(2006) 2065-2086.
McCawley, J.“Conversational Implicature and Lexicon”. In Cole, P. and J. L. Morgan(ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9. Academic Press, 1978.
Malcolm Coulthard. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman, 1985.
Markkanen, Raija and Schr?der, Hartmut“Hedging as a translation problem in scientifictexts”, in Laurén, C. and Nordman, M. (eds.): Special Languages: From HumanThinking to Thinking Machines. London: Multilingual Matters, 1989: 171-175.
Markkanen, Raija and Schr?der, Hartmut“Hedging and its linguistic realization inEnglish, German and Finnish philosophical texts: A case study”, in Nordman, M.(ed.): Fachsprachliche Miniaturen. Frankfurt/Main et al.: Peter Lang, 1992:121-130.
Matthews, P. H. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2001.
Mey, J. L. Pragmatics, An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press, 2001.
Morgan, J. L.“Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts”, in P. Cole (ed.)Syntax and Semantics (vol. 9): Pragmatics, New York: Academic Press, 1978.
Morris, C.“Foundations of the Theory of Signs”, in Carnap, R. et al (eds.) InternationalEncyclopedia of Unified Science, 2:1, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,1938.
Nicolle, S. A.“Relevance-Theoretic Account of Be Going to”. Journal of Linguistics,1997: 355-377.
Ostman, J. O. You know: A discourse functional approach. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. 1981.
Ostman, J. O.“The symbiotic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptuspeech”. In N. E, Enkvist (ed.) Impromptu Speech: A symposium. Abo Aademi:1982: 147-177.
Ostman, J. O.“Pragmatic particles twenty years after”. In Warik, B.&Tanskanen, S. K.&Hiltuen, R (eds.) 1995. Proceedings from the Turku conference, 1995.
Polanyi, L. & R. J. H. Scha. The syntax of discourse. Text 3 (3)(983): 261-270.
Prince, E., C. Bosk, and J. Frader“On Hedging in Physician-Physician Discourse?”Linguistics and the Professions, J. di Pietro (eds.). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.1982:83-97.
Redeker, G.“Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure”. Journal ofPragmatics 14(1990): 367-381.
Redeker, G. Linguistics markers of discourse structure. Linguistics 29(1991): 1191-1172.
Richards, Jack C., Platt, John & Platt, Heidi. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching& Applied Linguistics. Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press & Longman,2003.
Rintell, E. M.“Getting your speech act together: The pragmatic ability of secondlanguage learners”. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 17, 1979.
Rouchota, Villy.“Discourse Connectives: What Do They Link?”UCL Working Papersin Linguistics, No. 8, 1996.
Rowland, Tim.“Well Maybe Not Exactly, But It’s Around Fifty Basically?”VagueLanguage in Mathematics Classrooms in (eds.) Joan Cutting’s Vague LanguageExplored. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Russell, B.“Vagueness”. The Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, 1(June 1923): 84-92. This text taken from Collected Papers, vol. 9(1923) 147-154.
Sadock, J. M.“On Testing for Conversational Implicature”in (eds.) P. Cole's Syntax &Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 1978.
Salager-Meyer, F.“Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical EnglishWritten Discourse”. In English For Specific Purposes, Vol. 13 (2)(1994): 149-170.
Saussure, F. de. Course in General Linguistics. (trans. W. Baskin). London: Peter Owen,1960.
Schiffrin, D. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Schiffrin, D.“Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context”. In Schiffrin, D, D.Tannen, & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.) 2001.The Handbook of Discourse Analysis.Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
Schourup, L.“Discourse marker”. Linguistic 107(1999): 227-265.
Schourup, L.“Rethinking well”. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2001): 1025-1060.
Searle, J. R. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Searle, J. L.“Indirect Speech Acts”. In Cole P. & Morgan J. (eds.) (1975) Syntax andSemantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 1975.
Searle, J. L. Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Searle, J. L. Meaning, Communication and Representation. In Grandy, R & R. Warner(eds.), 1986: 209 --226.
Simpson, Rite. Hedges in Spoken Academic Language: Pragmatic Functions andTeaching Applications. University of Michigan, ELI Spring Colloquium, 2000.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition,北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001.
Strawson, P. F. Introduction to Logical Theory. London, 1952.
Stubbs, M. Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford:Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd., 1983.
Stalnaker, R. C.“Pragmatic Presupposition”. In: Andy Rogers, Bob Wall and John P.Murphy (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives,Presuppositions, and Implicatures. Washington, D. C.: Center for AppliedLinguistics, 1977.
Stubbs, Michael. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983.
Takahashi, Satomi. Pragmatic Transferability. Studies on Second Language Acquisition,18, 1996.
Thomas, J. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics, London: Longman,1995.
Tsui, Amy B. Sequencing Rules and Coherence in Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics15(2)(1991): 111-29.
Under, E. & H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Van Dijk, T. A. Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3(1979): 447-456.
Van Dijk, T.A. Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics ofdiscourse. London: Longman. 1977: 221.
Valdes, J. M. Culture Bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Verschueren, J. Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation, Working Document #1,Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, 1987.
Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics. Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd., 2000.
Waltereit, R. Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech-act-theoreticapproach. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2001): 1391-1417.
Watts, Richard J. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Wildner-Bassett, M. Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: 'Polite' noises for culturalappropriateness. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 3-17.Williamson,Eliana Santana. (2005) Are Non-Native Speakers Able to Converse? Proceedings ofthe CATESOL State Conference, 1994.
Wilson, D.“Relevance and Understanding”. In Language Understanding by GillianBrown et al. Oxford University Press &上海外语教育出版社, 1999.
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. Linguistic Form and Relevance. Lingua 90(1993): 1--25.
Wolfson, N.“An Empirically Based Analysis of Complimenting in American English”.In N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition.Rowley: Newbury House, 1983.
Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Zeevat, Henk.“A Dynamic Approach to Discourse Particles”, from Approaches toDiscourse Particles, edited by Karsin Fischer. Elsevier Ltd., 2006.
蔡龙权、戴炜栋.关于限制语精确话语信息的可能性研究[J]，《外语与外语教学》，2002(8): 1-6.
何兆熊.《新编语用学概要》[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002.
何兆熊.《语用学文献选读》[A]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2003.
何兆熊、蒋艳梅.语境的动态研究[J]，《外国语》1997(06):
何自然、阎庄.中国学生在英语交际中的语用失误—汉英语用差异调查[J]，《英汉对比研究论文集》，杨自俭、李瑞华编，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1990.
何自然.《语用学概要》[M]，湖南：湖南教育出版社.1987.
何自然. Grice语用学说与关联理论[J]，《外语教学与研究》，1995（04）.
何自然.《语用学与英语学习》[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1997.
何自然.推理与关联[J]，《外语教学》，1997（04）.
何自然.《语言学讲稿》[M]，南京：南京师范大学出版社，2003.
何自然、冉永平.《语用与认知—关联理论研究》[A]，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2001.
何自然、冉永平、莫爱屏、王寅.《认知语用学—言语交际的认知研究》[A]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2006.
姜望琪.《语用学—理论及应用》[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2000.
姜望琪.《当代语用学》[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
李萍、郑树棠.中英模糊限制语语用功能探究[J],《安徽大学学报》,2005(29-1):109-112.
刘家荣.话语相关与认知语境[J],《外国语》1997(03): 20-23.
刘绍忠.关联理论的交际观[J],《现在外语》,1997(02).
苗兴伟.关联理论与认知语境[J],《外语学刊》1997(04): 7-11.
曲卫国.也评“关联理论”[J],《外语教学与研究》,1993(02).
冉永平.《语用现象:现象与分析》[M],北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
冉永平、张新红.《语用学纵横》[M],北京:高等教育出版社,2007.
束定芳.论隐喻的理解过程及其特点[J],《外语教学与研究》,2004(4):253-260.
熊学亮.单向语境推导初探[J].《现代外语》,1996(02\03): 1-4; 15-19.
熊学亮.《认知语用学概论》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
熊学亮、曲卫国.《语用学采撷》[M],北京:高等教育出版社,2007.
许嘉璐、王福祥、刘润清.《中国语言学现状与展望》[M],外语教学与研究出版社,1996.
俞东明.语法歧义和语用模糊对比研究[J].《外国语》. 1997(06): 29-35.
赵艳芳.语境效果的特征与最佳关联[J],《解放军外语学院学报》1998(02):
赵艳芳.最佳相关与语用推理机制的构拟[J],《山东外语教学》,1999(01).
赵艳芳.《认知语言学概论》[M],上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
郑志进.《语用学与英语教学》[M],北京:中国科学文化出版社,2006.
周建安.论语用推理机制的认知心理理据[J],《外国语》,1997(03).