语境顺应论视角下汉语师生冲突话语的语用研究
|
摘要
冲突性话语是一种常见而又复杂的社会文化现象。在日常生活当中由于人们的观念、需求、价值观和社会地位等不同,在交流中,发生冲突是不可避免的。冲突通常会妨碍正在进行的沟通,破坏谈话的气氛,引起未知的后果。同样冲突性话语在师生的日常交际中也会常常发生,如果处理不当,很大程度上也会影响师生间的顺利沟通,不利于营造和谐的师生关系。许多学者从社会学、教育学、心理学等视角研究师生冲突这种现象,但是从语言学角度来研究师生冲突性话语很少。尽管已有许多国内外学者对许多种冲突性话语类型,如夫妻冲突,父子冲突,进行了研究,并已取得了一定的成果,然而调查发现,从顺应论角度研究师生间的冲突话语却很少。
本研究旨在分析汉语师生冲突话语的语言特点,探讨冲突性话语的发生是如何顺应语境关系要素中的心理世界、社交世界和物理世界；师生冲突性话语既有消极功能又有积极语用功能,由于师生冲突话语的消极功能已被多次研究,本研究重点研究其积极语用功能。并尝试探究师生冲突性话语的积极语用功能。本研究采用定性分析的研究方法。由于很难系统收集自然语料且可能会侵犯他人隐私,因此本研究的语料主要来自二手资料,少数来自电视剧(如《危险心灵》,《麻辣高校生》),还有部分来自网上的师生冲突的案例及本人教学实践。
通过仔细分析以上研究数据,结果表明：教师在师生冲突性话语中的语言特点是：直接否定或者否定性语言、讽刺、反问句、詈骂语、元语用评价语、命令句以及威胁性话语。学生在师生冲突性话语中的语言特点是：不服气的沉默、语气词、嘟囔、直接否定或否定性语言以及反问句；师生冲突话语的使用是师生顺应语境关系中心理世界、社交世界和物理世界诸要素的结果；师生冲突话语的积极功能如下：促进师生交流,增强班级凝聚力;维持班级秩序,促进共同发展;活跃师生思维,激发学生创造力：有助于师生发泄负面情绪,提高教学和学习效率。
本论文的研究意义如下：首先,由于很少有人从语言学的角度研究师生冲突性话语,本研究将会丰富语言学研究。其次本研究从顺应论的角度研究师生冲突话语,进一步增强顺应论的解释力,扩大其应用范围。再次,本研究也会对老师话语方式有一定的启发,有利于促进师生和谐。
Conflict talk is a common but complicated social and cultural phenomenon. In daily life, whenever people contact with each other, it's normal that people sometimes argue or quarrel with each other, which is caused by people's differences in ideas, needs, values and social status etc. It usually interrupts the flowing conversation, ruins the atmosphere of communication and brings uncertain consequences. Conflict talk is also an inevitable phenomenon in the teaching process between teacher and students. A failure to resolve their conflict talk may greatly affect and even hinder successful communications between them, which is detrimental to create a harmonious teacher-student relationship. Many researchers just study teacher-student conflict phenomenon from the perspectives of sociology, pedagogy, psychology and so on However, few studies of teacher-student conflict talk are carried out from linguistic perspective. Although linguists abroad and at home have carried out numerous studies of conflict talks, like martial conflict talk, parent-teenager conflict talk and great accomplishment has been achieved up till now, few work has been conducted to analyze the conflict talk on the basis of teacher-student conversation data from the perspective of Contextual Adaptation.
This present study aims at investigating the linguistic features of Chinese teacher-student conflict talk, how teacher-student conflict talk adapts to the contextual correlates in the mental world, the social world and the physical world and exploring the pragmatic functions of teacher-student conflict talk. teacher-student conflict talk also has negative functions and positive pragmatic functions. For its negative functions have been studied many times, thus the present study explores its positive pragmatic functions. The present study is based on the qualitative research method. With the difficulty of collecting the natural data systematically and possible infringement of other's privacy, the data of this study are mainly derived from second-hand examples provided by scholars who study the teacher-student conflict, some from TV series-Dangerous Mind and Ma La Gao Xiao Sheng, some from the internet and some from the author's teaching experiences.
The careful analysis of the data mentioned above indicates that the linguistic features of teacher in the teacher-student conflict talk are as follows:direct negation or negative language, irony, rhetorical questions, swear word, metapragmatic comment, imperative sentence, and threat utterance while the student's linguistic features in the teacher-student conflict talk are nonsubmissive silence, modal particles, mumble, direct negation or negative language and rhetoric questions; the occurrence or the use of teacher-student conflict talk is adapted to the contextual correlates, namely the mental world, the social world and the physical world; the positive pragmatic functions of teacher-student conflict talk are as follows:The use of conflict talk can motivate the teachers and students to promote the communication and strengthen class cohesion; what's more, the use of conflict talk helps people to maintain the classroom in order and promote common development; the use of conflict talk can also activate the student's mind and spur the student's creativity, finally the teacher-student conflict talk can help them vent their negative emotion and improve the effects of teaching and studying.
As for the significance of the study, three aspects are involved. Firstly, there are few studies studying the teacher-student conflict talk from the perspective of linguistics and this thesis will enrich the linguistic researches. Secondly, this thesis conducts teacher-student conflict talk under the guidance of Verschueren's Contextual Adaptation, and it can strengthen explanatory power of Adaptation Theory and extend its applicable scope. Thirdly, the present study gives some implications for the teacher's talk, which can help achieve teacher-student harmony.
本研究旨在分析汉语师生冲突话语的语言特点,探讨冲突性话语的发生是如何顺应语境关系要素中的心理世界、社交世界和物理世界；师生冲突性话语既有消极功能又有积极语用功能,由于师生冲突话语的消极功能已被多次研究,本研究重点研究其积极语用功能。并尝试探究师生冲突性话语的积极语用功能。本研究采用定性分析的研究方法。由于很难系统收集自然语料且可能会侵犯他人隐私,因此本研究的语料主要来自二手资料,少数来自电视剧(如《危险心灵》,《麻辣高校生》),还有部分来自网上的师生冲突的案例及本人教学实践。
通过仔细分析以上研究数据,结果表明：教师在师生冲突性话语中的语言特点是：直接否定或者否定性语言、讽刺、反问句、詈骂语、元语用评价语、命令句以及威胁性话语。学生在师生冲突性话语中的语言特点是：不服气的沉默、语气词、嘟囔、直接否定或否定性语言以及反问句；师生冲突话语的使用是师生顺应语境关系中心理世界、社交世界和物理世界诸要素的结果；师生冲突话语的积极功能如下：促进师生交流,增强班级凝聚力;维持班级秩序,促进共同发展;活跃师生思维,激发学生创造力：有助于师生发泄负面情绪,提高教学和学习效率。
本论文的研究意义如下：首先,由于很少有人从语言学的角度研究师生冲突性话语,本研究将会丰富语言学研究。其次本研究从顺应论的角度研究师生冲突话语,进一步增强顺应论的解释力,扩大其应用范围。再次,本研究也会对老师话语方式有一定的启发,有利于促进师生和谐。
Conflict talk is a common but complicated social and cultural phenomenon. In daily life, whenever people contact with each other, it's normal that people sometimes argue or quarrel with each other, which is caused by people's differences in ideas, needs, values and social status etc. It usually interrupts the flowing conversation, ruins the atmosphere of communication and brings uncertain consequences. Conflict talk is also an inevitable phenomenon in the teaching process between teacher and students. A failure to resolve their conflict talk may greatly affect and even hinder successful communications between them, which is detrimental to create a harmonious teacher-student relationship. Many researchers just study teacher-student conflict phenomenon from the perspectives of sociology, pedagogy, psychology and so on However, few studies of teacher-student conflict talk are carried out from linguistic perspective. Although linguists abroad and at home have carried out numerous studies of conflict talks, like martial conflict talk, parent-teenager conflict talk and great accomplishment has been achieved up till now, few work has been conducted to analyze the conflict talk on the basis of teacher-student conversation data from the perspective of Contextual Adaptation.
This present study aims at investigating the linguistic features of Chinese teacher-student conflict talk, how teacher-student conflict talk adapts to the contextual correlates in the mental world, the social world and the physical world and exploring the pragmatic functions of teacher-student conflict talk. teacher-student conflict talk also has negative functions and positive pragmatic functions. For its negative functions have been studied many times, thus the present study explores its positive pragmatic functions. The present study is based on the qualitative research method. With the difficulty of collecting the natural data systematically and possible infringement of other's privacy, the data of this study are mainly derived from second-hand examples provided by scholars who study the teacher-student conflict, some from TV series-Dangerous Mind and Ma La Gao Xiao Sheng, some from the internet and some from the author's teaching experiences.
The careful analysis of the data mentioned above indicates that the linguistic features of teacher in the teacher-student conflict talk are as follows:direct negation or negative language, irony, rhetorical questions, swear word, metapragmatic comment, imperative sentence, and threat utterance while the student's linguistic features in the teacher-student conflict talk are nonsubmissive silence, modal particles, mumble, direct negation or negative language and rhetoric questions; the occurrence or the use of teacher-student conflict talk is adapted to the contextual correlates, namely the mental world, the social world and the physical world; the positive pragmatic functions of teacher-student conflict talk are as follows:The use of conflict talk can motivate the teachers and students to promote the communication and strengthen class cohesion; what's more, the use of conflict talk helps people to maintain the classroom in order and promote common development; the use of conflict talk can also activate the student's mind and spur the student's creativity, finally the teacher-student conflict talk can help them vent their negative emotion and improve the effects of teaching and studying.
As for the significance of the study, three aspects are involved. Firstly, there are few studies studying the teacher-student conflict talk from the perspective of linguistics and this thesis will enrich the linguistic researches. Secondly, this thesis conducts teacher-student conflict talk under the guidance of Verschueren's Contextual Adaptation, and it can strengthen explanatory power of Adaptation Theory and extend its applicable scope. Thirdly, the present study gives some implications for the teacher's talk, which can help achieve teacher-student harmony.
引文
[1]Antaki, C. Explaining and Arguing:The Social Organization of Accounts [M]. London:Sage, 1994.
[2]Barki,H.,J.Hartwick, Conceptualizing the Construct of Interpersonal Conflict [J]. The International Journal of Conflict Management,2004(15):216-244.
[3]Boggs, S. T. The Development of Verbal Disputing inPart Hawaiian Children [J]. Language in Society,1978(7):325-344.
[4]Boxer, D. Nagging:The Familial Conflict Arena [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2002(34):49-61.
[5]Brenneis, D., Lein, L. Tom fruithead':A Sociolinguistic Approach to Children's Disputes[A].In S. Ervin-Tripp,&C. Mitchell-Kernan (eds.), Child Discourse New York:Academic Press,1997:49-66.
[6]Briggs, Charles. Disorderly Discourse:Narrative, Conflict, and Inequality[C]. Oxford: NewYork,1996.
[7]Brown, P.,S. Levinson. Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1987.
[8]Corsaro, W.A.,T.A. Rizzo. Disputes in the Peer Culture of American and Italian Nursery-school Children. [A]. In Grimshaw,A.D.,ed. Conflict Talk:Sociolinguistic Investigation of Arguments in Conversation Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1990:21-66.
[9]Deutsch.The Handbook of Conflict Resolution:Theory and Practice [M].Jossey-Bass Press, 2006.
[10]Eder, D.Serious and Playful Disputes:Variation in Conflict Talk among Female Adolescents[A]. In Grimshaw,A.D.,ed. Conflict Talk:Sociolinguistic Investigation of Arguments in Conversation Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990:67-84.
[11]Eisenberg, A.,C. Garvey. Children's Use of Verbal Strategies inResolving Conflicts [J]. Discourse Processes,1981(4):149-170.
[12]Farris, Catherine, S.Cross-sex Peer Conflict and the Discursive Production of Gender in a Chinese Preschool in Taiwan [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2000(14):318-448.
[13]Fasold R. The Sociolinguistics of Language [M].Beijing:Foreign Language and Research Press,2000.
[14]Gilmore, Perry, Silence and Sulking:Emotional Displays in the Classroom [A]. In Tannen, D., Saville-Troike, M.(Eds.), Perspectives on Silence. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ,1985:139-162.
[15]Goffman, E. Interaction Ritual [M]. New York:Doubleday,1967.
[16]Goodwin,M. H. Aggravated Correction and Disagreement in Children's Conversations [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1983(7):657-677.
[17]Goodwin, C., Goodwin, M. H.. Interstitial Argument [A].In A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.),Conflict Talk:Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversations Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press,,1990:85-117.
[18]Grimshaw, Allen. D. Conflict Talk:Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversation [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[19]Habib R. Humor and Disagreement:IdentityConstruction and Cross-cultural Enrichment [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2008 (6):1117-1145
[20]Honda,A.Conflict Talk Management in Japanese Public Affairs Talk Shows [J].Pragmatics,2002 (34):578-608.
[21]Kakava, Christina. Discourse Conflict [A]. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen &H. E. Hamilton (eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis [C]. Oxford; Blackwell,2001: 650-670.
[22]Kennon A. Some recent work from Italy on quotable gestures [J] Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,1992(2):92-108.
[23]Kuo, S. H. Formulaic Opposition Markers in Chinese Conflict Talk [A]. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics [C],1992.
[24]Lee, James Shinhee. The Battle of the Sexes in Korean Entertainment Media:Husband vs. Wife in TV Drama [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2008(40):2175-2196.
[25]Lewis A. Cose The Function of Social Conflicf[M].The Free Press,1956.
[26]Leung, Santoi. Conflict talk:A Discourse Analytical Perspective[A].http://journals. tc21ibrary. org/index.php/tesol/issue/view/4.2002.
[27]Mallory, H.L,McMurray,P. Conflict Strategies and Resolutions:Peer Conflict Integrated Early Chilhood Classroom. [J].Chilidhood Research Quarterly,1996(11):185-206
[28]Muntigl, P.,& Turnbull, W. Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1998(29):225-256.
[29]Nelson, C. K.. If it Sounds too Good to be True, it is A Wittengensteinian Approach to the Conflict [J].Literature. Language & Communication,2001.
[30]Philips, S.U. The Judge as Third Party in American Trial-court Conflict Talk[A]. In Grimshaw, A.D.,ed. Conflict Talk:Sociolinguistic Investigation of Arguments in Conversation Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990:197-209.
[31]Pomerantz, A. Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments:Some Features Preferred/ Dispreffered Turn Shapes [A]. In J. M. Atkinson &J.Heritage (eds). Structure of Social Action:Studies in Conversation Analysis[C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1984
[32]Sheldon, A. You can be the baby brother, but you aren't born yet:Preschool girls' negotiation for power and access in pretend play[J].Research on Language and Social Interaction,1996 (29):57280.
[34]Schiffrin, D. Everyday argument:The Organization of Diversity in Talk [A]. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.). Hand book of Discourse Analysis, Vol.3:Discourse and Dialogue[C]. London:Academic Press,1985:35-46.
[35]Tannen, D. Silence as Conflict Management in Fiction and Drama [A].In Allen D. Grimshaw (ed.). Conflict Talk:Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversation[C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990:260-280.
[36]Verschueren, J.Understanding Pragmatics [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.
[37]Wood, L. A., Kroger, R..The Analysis of Facework in Discourse:Review and Proposal [J].Language and Social Psychology,1994(13):248-277.
[38]白明亮.批判与反思：师生冲突的社会学分析[J].南京师范大学学报,2001(3)：85-89.
[39]宝贡敏,汪洁.人际冲突理论研究评述[J].技术经济,2007(11)：82-91.
[40]曹群英.顺应理论对翻译的解释作用[J].外语学刊,2007(6)：123-125.
[41]陈晓春.争论性对话中的连贯[J].外国语,2001(4)：33-37.
[42]陈振中.重新审视师生冲突——一种社会学分析[J].教育评论.2000：(1)：40-42.
[43]房风荣.正确处理师生冲突——兼论教师的心理素质[J].河南教育.2001(1)：16-17.
[44]戈玲玲.语境关系顺应论对词义选择的制约[J].中国科技翻译,2001,14(4)：27-29,39.
[45]何自然,于国栋.语用学的理解-一verschueren的新作评介[J]现代外语.1999.(4)：428-435
[46]贾婕婷A pragmatic study on conflict talk-An adaptation approach[D]山西大学硕士学位论文,2007.
[47]姜冒.从社会学角度审视师生冲突[J].引进与咨询.2003(3)：35-36.
[48]耶5夫.维索尔伦著.钱冠连,霍永寿译.《语用学诠释》[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003.
[49]李荣英,李随成.高校师生冲突的特点原因及对策[J].西北工业大学学报,2003：(32)：88-90.
[50]李祥云、张德禄：争吵话语结构特点研究[J].外语与外语教学,2007：4-7.
[51]廖巧云.合作·关联·顺应模式再探[J].外语教学.2006(3)：20-23
[52]刘忠,张秀萍.幽默——师生冲突的缓兵之计[J].现代中小学教育,2002(2)：37-38.
[53]马霞.口译：选择、协商与顺应——顺应论的语境关系在口译中的应用[J].中国翻译,2006(8)：53-57.
[54]冉永平,方晓国.语言顺应论视角下反问句的人际语用功能研究[J].现代外语,2008(4)：351-359.
[55]冉永平.冲突性话语趋异取向的语用分析[J].现代外语.2010(5)：150-157.
[56]冉永平,冲突性话语的语用学研究概述[J].外语教学,2010(1)：1-6.
[57]任干.解决师生冲突五忌[J].教学与管理,2003(1)：25.
[58]时盛荣,杨和平.论课堂师生冲突的成因及对策[J].重庆师专学报,1999：(12)：106-108.
[59]禹旭才,彭辉.师生冲突的再认识[J].煤炭高等教育,2002(1)：51-53.
[60]赵英玲.冲突性话语分析[J].外语学刊,2004(5)：37-42.
[61]赵忠德,张琳.从关联理论看话语冲突[J].外语教学,2005(1)：17-21.
[62]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Hymes
[2]Barki,H.,J.Hartwick, Conceptualizing the Construct of Interpersonal Conflict [J]. The International Journal of Conflict Management,2004(15):216-244.
[3]Boggs, S. T. The Development of Verbal Disputing inPart Hawaiian Children [J]. Language in Society,1978(7):325-344.
[4]Boxer, D. Nagging:The Familial Conflict Arena [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2002(34):49-61.
[5]Brenneis, D., Lein, L. Tom fruithead':A Sociolinguistic Approach to Children's Disputes[A].In S. Ervin-Tripp,&C. Mitchell-Kernan (eds.), Child Discourse New York:Academic Press,1997:49-66.
[6]Briggs, Charles. Disorderly Discourse:Narrative, Conflict, and Inequality[C]. Oxford: NewYork,1996.
[7]Brown, P.,S. Levinson. Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1987.
[8]Corsaro, W.A.,T.A. Rizzo. Disputes in the Peer Culture of American and Italian Nursery-school Children. [A]. In Grimshaw,A.D.,ed. Conflict Talk:Sociolinguistic Investigation of Arguments in Conversation Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1990:21-66.
[9]Deutsch.The Handbook of Conflict Resolution:Theory and Practice [M].Jossey-Bass Press, 2006.
[10]Eder, D.Serious and Playful Disputes:Variation in Conflict Talk among Female Adolescents[A]. In Grimshaw,A.D.,ed. Conflict Talk:Sociolinguistic Investigation of Arguments in Conversation Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990:67-84.
[11]Eisenberg, A.,C. Garvey. Children's Use of Verbal Strategies inResolving Conflicts [J]. Discourse Processes,1981(4):149-170.
[12]Farris, Catherine, S.Cross-sex Peer Conflict and the Discursive Production of Gender in a Chinese Preschool in Taiwan [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2000(14):318-448.
[13]Fasold R. The Sociolinguistics of Language [M].Beijing:Foreign Language and Research Press,2000.
[14]Gilmore, Perry, Silence and Sulking:Emotional Displays in the Classroom [A]. In Tannen, D., Saville-Troike, M.(Eds.), Perspectives on Silence. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ,1985:139-162.
[15]Goffman, E. Interaction Ritual [M]. New York:Doubleday,1967.
[16]Goodwin,M. H. Aggravated Correction and Disagreement in Children's Conversations [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1983(7):657-677.
[17]Goodwin, C., Goodwin, M. H.. Interstitial Argument [A].In A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.),Conflict Talk:Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversations Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press,,1990:85-117.
[18]Grimshaw, Allen. D. Conflict Talk:Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversation [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[19]Habib R. Humor and Disagreement:IdentityConstruction and Cross-cultural Enrichment [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2008 (6):1117-1145
[20]Honda,A.Conflict Talk Management in Japanese Public Affairs Talk Shows [J].Pragmatics,2002 (34):578-608.
[21]Kakava, Christina. Discourse Conflict [A]. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen &H. E. Hamilton (eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis [C]. Oxford; Blackwell,2001: 650-670.
[22]Kennon A. Some recent work from Italy on quotable gestures [J] Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,1992(2):92-108.
[23]Kuo, S. H. Formulaic Opposition Markers in Chinese Conflict Talk [A]. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics [C],1992.
[24]Lee, James Shinhee. The Battle of the Sexes in Korean Entertainment Media:Husband vs. Wife in TV Drama [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2008(40):2175-2196.
[25]Lewis A. Cose The Function of Social Conflicf[M].The Free Press,1956.
[26]Leung, Santoi. Conflict talk:A Discourse Analytical Perspective[A].http://journals. tc21ibrary. org/index.php/tesol/issue/view/4.2002.
[27]Mallory, H.L,McMurray,P. Conflict Strategies and Resolutions:Peer Conflict Integrated Early Chilhood Classroom. [J].Chilidhood Research Quarterly,1996(11):185-206
[28]Muntigl, P.,& Turnbull, W. Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1998(29):225-256.
[29]Nelson, C. K.. If it Sounds too Good to be True, it is A Wittengensteinian Approach to the Conflict [J].Literature. Language & Communication,2001.
[30]Philips, S.U. The Judge as Third Party in American Trial-court Conflict Talk[A]. In Grimshaw, A.D.,ed. Conflict Talk:Sociolinguistic Investigation of Arguments in Conversation Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990:197-209.
[31]Pomerantz, A. Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments:Some Features Preferred/ Dispreffered Turn Shapes [A]. In J. M. Atkinson &J.Heritage (eds). Structure of Social Action:Studies in Conversation Analysis[C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1984
[32]Sheldon, A. You can be the baby brother, but you aren't born yet:Preschool girls' negotiation for power and access in pretend play[J].Research on Language and Social Interaction,1996 (29):57280.
[34]Schiffrin, D. Everyday argument:The Organization of Diversity in Talk [A]. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.). Hand book of Discourse Analysis, Vol.3:Discourse and Dialogue[C]. London:Academic Press,1985:35-46.
[35]Tannen, D. Silence as Conflict Management in Fiction and Drama [A].In Allen D. Grimshaw (ed.). Conflict Talk:Sociolinguistic Investigations in Conversation[C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990:260-280.
[36]Verschueren, J.Understanding Pragmatics [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.
[37]Wood, L. A., Kroger, R..The Analysis of Facework in Discourse:Review and Proposal [J].Language and Social Psychology,1994(13):248-277.
[38]白明亮.批判与反思：师生冲突的社会学分析[J].南京师范大学学报,2001(3)：85-89.
[39]宝贡敏,汪洁.人际冲突理论研究评述[J].技术经济,2007(11)：82-91.
[40]曹群英.顺应理论对翻译的解释作用[J].外语学刊,2007(6)：123-125.
[41]陈晓春.争论性对话中的连贯[J].外国语,2001(4)：33-37.
[42]陈振中.重新审视师生冲突——一种社会学分析[J].教育评论.2000：(1)：40-42.
[43]房风荣.正确处理师生冲突——兼论教师的心理素质[J].河南教育.2001(1)：16-17.
[44]戈玲玲.语境关系顺应论对词义选择的制约[J].中国科技翻译,2001,14(4)：27-29,39.
[45]何自然,于国栋.语用学的理解-一verschueren的新作评介[J]现代外语.1999.(4)：428-435
[46]贾婕婷A pragmatic study on conflict talk-An adaptation approach[D]山西大学硕士学位论文,2007.
[47]姜冒.从社会学角度审视师生冲突[J].引进与咨询.2003(3)：35-36.
[48]耶5夫.维索尔伦著.钱冠连,霍永寿译.《语用学诠释》[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003.
[49]李荣英,李随成.高校师生冲突的特点原因及对策[J].西北工业大学学报,2003：(32)：88-90.
[50]李祥云、张德禄：争吵话语结构特点研究[J].外语与外语教学,2007：4-7.
[51]廖巧云.合作·关联·顺应模式再探[J].外语教学.2006(3)：20-23
[52]刘忠,张秀萍.幽默——师生冲突的缓兵之计[J].现代中小学教育,2002(2)：37-38.
[53]马霞.口译：选择、协商与顺应——顺应论的语境关系在口译中的应用[J].中国翻译,2006(8)：53-57.
[54]冉永平,方晓国.语言顺应论视角下反问句的人际语用功能研究[J].现代外语,2008(4)：351-359.
[55]冉永平.冲突性话语趋异取向的语用分析[J].现代外语.2010(5)：150-157.
[56]冉永平,冲突性话语的语用学研究概述[J].外语教学,2010(1)：1-6.
[57]任干.解决师生冲突五忌[J].教学与管理,2003(1)：25.
[58]时盛荣,杨和平.论课堂师生冲突的成因及对策[J].重庆师专学报,1999：(12)：106-108.
[59]禹旭才,彭辉.师生冲突的再认识[J].煤炭高等教育,2002(1)：51-53.
[60]赵英玲.冲突性话语分析[J].外语学刊,2004(5)：37-42.
[61]赵忠德,张琳.从关联理论看话语冲突[J].外语教学,2005(1)：17-21.
[62]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Hymes