级差含义实验研究
|
摘要
本研究旨在通过对汉语数量词“一些”的实验研究，解释在话语理解过程中该词项的级差含义的性质和特征，进而深入探究后格赖斯语用学关于语义-语用界面之争的理论问题。级差含义，作为一般会话含义的一种类型，由于涉及语义语用界面问题，近年来引起学界的广泛关注。对于级差含义的性质，现已提出了不同的理论解释模式，形成了两种相互对立的理论流派，即默认理论和关联理论。但无论哪种理论都是基于内省式的研究方法而缺少实证支持。虽然学界已有一些相关实验性研究并也有新的发现，但对于级差含义的性质仍未有一致性的结论。而且，迄今尚未发现基于汉语语料对级差含义的实验研究。因此，本研究对于深入认识级差含义的性质以及语义和语用之间的关系具有重要的理论意义。
本研究采用“被试内”设计的心理学实验方法，选择汉语母语者为被试。实验分为两个部分：真值判断任务和开放式问答。真值判断任务是要求被试在不同的数量条件情景下判断含有“一些”的句子与给定情景是否相符；开放性问答是要求被试在所给定的条件下完成指定的任务。基于实验数据，利用一般线性模型的重复测量和混合线性模型对被试刺激问题的肯定回答比例、做出判断的反应时，以及开放式问答的结果进行了统计分析。
本研究得出以下几点结论：
1.汉语级差词项“一些”的语义内容表达不确定的数量，下限大于零，上限可以包含“全部”。但在其表达数量的范围内，其最为核心的语义内容倾向于表达占全部较少的数量，而上限“全部”则处于语义内容的边缘位置。
2.“一些”的级差含义在上限语境中会普遍产生，但需要较长的反应时间。因此，就加工速度而言，级差含义并不具有默认性。
3.“一些”的语义内容越接近于核心的数量范围时，其级差含义产生的比例越低；其语义越边缘，级差含义的产生比例则越高。同时发现，级差词项因受不同限制性词语的影响所产生的级差含义，其性质也会因含有级差词项表达形式的语义内容的不确定程度而有所不同：语义内容的不确定性越大，级差含义的产生越需要语用因素的介入，其性质也就越偏向于一般的语用推论。
4.级差含义的性质表明，语义和语用表现为相互作用的关系，语义内容与语用扩充意义（含义）之间没有清晰的界线，呈现为一个连续统一体。
5.本研究结果对关联理论的观点提供了一定的支持，而对Levinson的默认理论的解释模式提出了挑战，同时也为反驳其他含义默认解释模式提供了证据。
Through experimental studies on Chinese quantifier yixie, this research aims toidentify the nature and characteristics of its scalar implicature during utteranceinterpretation, as well as to address the theoretical issues including thesemantics-pragmatics interface debates pertaining to post-Gricean pragmatics. In recentyears, as a type of generalized conversational implicature, scalar implicature has receivedincreased attention due to its two-sided nature. Among all the different theoretical modelsproposed in literature, default theory and relevance theory are two typical competingapproaches. Essentially, these models are all introspective philosophical theories requiringempirical support. Due to the limitation of traditional qualitative analysis measures, themore convincing quantitative investigation methods, such as psychology experiment, aresuggested, which utilize the objective modern statistics tools. Moreover, the existingconclusions regarding the nature of scalar implicature are not consistent across all thestudies. Although accumulated experimental conclusions come out with new ideas orsuggestions, still no results of scalar implicature based on Chinese data have been putforward at current stage. Under such circumstance, there is no doubt that my original studyin this dissertation will have significant theoretical implications for deeper understandingthe nature of scalar implicature and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics.
In this psychology experimental study, a with-in subject design was adopted. Theparticipants were native Chinese speakers. Each experiment is consisted of two parts, i.e. atruth value judgment task and an open questionnaire task. In the first part, the participantswere asked to judge whether a sentence containing yixie matched with a given quantityscenario in a certain way. While in the second one, the participants were required to provideanswers to assigned questions. The experiment data, including the rate of positive answersto stimulus questions, the reaction times of making judgments, and the answers to the openquestions were analyzed by performing a series of mixed linear models and repeatedmeasures analysis in general linear model.
The primary conclusions of this study are as follows:
1. The semantic content of Chinese quantifier yixie denotes indefinite quantity, whoselower bound is somehow greater than “zero”, and its upper bound can, to some extent,include “all”. Within this range, however, the kernel meaning of yixie mostly denotessmaller proportional quantity while its upper bound “all” is peripheral.
2. The scalar implicatures of yixie can be largely generated in upper bound contexts,but with longer reaction time. It suggests that, from the perspective of processing speed,scalar implicatures are not dufalt.
3. When the referent of yixie is getting closer to the quantity range of its kernelmeaning, a lower proportion of scalar implicatures are generated, and vice versa. Inaddition, the nature of scalar implicatures which is influenced by certain modifiers of scalaritems could vary when the semantic content of scalar expressions has different degree ofuncertainty. With a wider range of possibilities in semantic content, more pragmatic factorscould intrude into the calculation of scalar implicatures, indicating that the nature of them isbiased towards nonce pragmatic inferences.
4. The nature of scalar implicatures demonstrates that there is strong interactionbetween semantics and pragmatics, and the semantic content of an utterance and itsenrichment present a continuum without a clear borderline.
5. As the result, this study is prone to providing support to relevance theory, whereaschallenging the explanations of scalar implicatures in default theory. It can also be taken asexperimental evidence against other default models for implicatures.
本研究采用“被试内”设计的心理学实验方法，选择汉语母语者为被试。实验分为两个部分：真值判断任务和开放式问答。真值判断任务是要求被试在不同的数量条件情景下判断含有“一些”的句子与给定情景是否相符；开放性问答是要求被试在所给定的条件下完成指定的任务。基于实验数据，利用一般线性模型的重复测量和混合线性模型对被试刺激问题的肯定回答比例、做出判断的反应时，以及开放式问答的结果进行了统计分析。
本研究得出以下几点结论：
1.汉语级差词项“一些”的语义内容表达不确定的数量，下限大于零，上限可以包含“全部”。但在其表达数量的范围内，其最为核心的语义内容倾向于表达占全部较少的数量，而上限“全部”则处于语义内容的边缘位置。
2.“一些”的级差含义在上限语境中会普遍产生，但需要较长的反应时间。因此，就加工速度而言，级差含义并不具有默认性。
3.“一些”的语义内容越接近于核心的数量范围时，其级差含义产生的比例越低；其语义越边缘，级差含义的产生比例则越高。同时发现，级差词项因受不同限制性词语的影响所产生的级差含义，其性质也会因含有级差词项表达形式的语义内容的不确定程度而有所不同：语义内容的不确定性越大，级差含义的产生越需要语用因素的介入，其性质也就越偏向于一般的语用推论。
4.级差含义的性质表明，语义和语用表现为相互作用的关系，语义内容与语用扩充意义（含义）之间没有清晰的界线，呈现为一个连续统一体。
5.本研究结果对关联理论的观点提供了一定的支持，而对Levinson的默认理论的解释模式提出了挑战，同时也为反驳其他含义默认解释模式提供了证据。
Through experimental studies on Chinese quantifier yixie, this research aims toidentify the nature and characteristics of its scalar implicature during utteranceinterpretation, as well as to address the theoretical issues including thesemantics-pragmatics interface debates pertaining to post-Gricean pragmatics. In recentyears, as a type of generalized conversational implicature, scalar implicature has receivedincreased attention due to its two-sided nature. Among all the different theoretical modelsproposed in literature, default theory and relevance theory are two typical competingapproaches. Essentially, these models are all introspective philosophical theories requiringempirical support. Due to the limitation of traditional qualitative analysis measures, themore convincing quantitative investigation methods, such as psychology experiment, aresuggested, which utilize the objective modern statistics tools. Moreover, the existingconclusions regarding the nature of scalar implicature are not consistent across all thestudies. Although accumulated experimental conclusions come out with new ideas orsuggestions, still no results of scalar implicature based on Chinese data have been putforward at current stage. Under such circumstance, there is no doubt that my original studyin this dissertation will have significant theoretical implications for deeper understandingthe nature of scalar implicature and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics.
In this psychology experimental study, a with-in subject design was adopted. Theparticipants were native Chinese speakers. Each experiment is consisted of two parts, i.e. atruth value judgment task and an open questionnaire task. In the first part, the participantswere asked to judge whether a sentence containing yixie matched with a given quantityscenario in a certain way. While in the second one, the participants were required to provideanswers to assigned questions. The experiment data, including the rate of positive answersto stimulus questions, the reaction times of making judgments, and the answers to the openquestions were analyzed by performing a series of mixed linear models and repeatedmeasures analysis in general linear model.
The primary conclusions of this study are as follows:
1. The semantic content of Chinese quantifier yixie denotes indefinite quantity, whoselower bound is somehow greater than “zero”, and its upper bound can, to some extent,include “all”. Within this range, however, the kernel meaning of yixie mostly denotessmaller proportional quantity while its upper bound “all” is peripheral.
2. The scalar implicatures of yixie can be largely generated in upper bound contexts,but with longer reaction time. It suggests that, from the perspective of processing speed,scalar implicatures are not dufalt.
3. When the referent of yixie is getting closer to the quantity range of its kernelmeaning, a lower proportion of scalar implicatures are generated, and vice versa. Inaddition, the nature of scalar implicatures which is influenced by certain modifiers of scalaritems could vary when the semantic content of scalar expressions has different degree ofuncertainty. With a wider range of possibilities in semantic content, more pragmatic factorscould intrude into the calculation of scalar implicatures, indicating that the nature of them isbiased towards nonce pragmatic inferences.
4. The nature of scalar implicatures demonstrates that there is strong interactionbetween semantics and pragmatics, and the semantic content of an utterance and itsenrichment present a continuum without a clear borderline.
5. As the result, this study is prone to providing support to relevance theory, whereaschallenging the explanations of scalar implicatures in default theory. It can also be taken asexperimental evidence against other default models for implicatures.
引文
[1] Ariel, M.2003. Does most mean 'more than half'?[J]. Berkeley Linguistics Society,29:17-30.
[2] Ariel, M.2004. Most [J]. Language,80(4):658-706.
[3] Ariel, M.2006. A 'just that' lexical meaning for most [A]. In K. Turner&K. vonHeusinger (Eds.), Where semantics meets pragmatics (pp.49-91)[C]. Amsterdam:Elsevier.
[4] Atlas, J. D.,&Levinson, S. C.1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form:Radical pragmatics [A]. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp.1-61)[C]. New York:Academic Press.
[5] Bach, K.1984. Default reasoning: Jumping to conclusions and knowing when to thinktwice [J]. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly,65:37-58.
[6] Bach, K.1994. Conversational Impliciture [J]. Mind&Language,9(2):124-162.
[7] Bach, K.2006. The top10misconceptions about implicature [A]. In J. Birner&G.Ward (Eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning：Neo-Gricean studies in pragmaticsand semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp.21-30)[C]. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.
[8] Barwise, J.,&Cooper, R.1981. Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language [J].Linguistics and Philosophy,4(2):159-219.
[9] Bennett, J.1976. Linguistic behavior [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[10]Benz, A., J ger, G.,&Van Rooij, R.(Eds.).2005. Game theory and pragmatics [M].New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
[11]Bezuidenhout, A.,&Cutting, C.2002. Literal meaning, minimal propositions, andpragmatic processing [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,34(4):433-456.
[12]Bezuidenhout, A.,&Morris, R.2004. Implicature, relevance and default pragmaticinference [A]. In I. Noveck&D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp.257-282)[C]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
[13]Bonnefon, J. F., Feeney, A.,&Villejoubert, G.2009. When some is actually all: Scalarinferences in face-threatening contexts [J]. Cognition,112(2):249-258.
[14]Borg, E.2004. Minimal semantics [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[15]Borg, E.2006. Intention-based semantics [A]. In E. Lepore&B. Smith (Eds.), Oxfordhandbook of philosophy of language (pp.250-267)[C]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
[16]Bott, L., Bailey, T. M.,&Grodner, D.2012. Distinguishing speed from accuracy inscalar implicatures [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,66(1):123-142.
[17]Bott, L.,&Noveck, I. A.2004. Some utterances are underinformative: The onset andtime course of scalar inferences [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,51(3):437-457.
[18]Breheny, R.2008. A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numericallyquantified noun phrases [J]. Journal of Semantics,25(2):93-139.
[19]Breheny, R., Katsos, N.,&Williams, J.2006. Are generalized scalar implicaturesgenerated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generatingpragmatic inferences [J]. Cognition,100(3):434-463.
[20]Cappelen, H.,&Lepore, E.2005. Insensitive semantics: A defense of semanticminimalism and speech act pluralism [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[21]Carston, R.1988. Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics [A]. In R. M.Kempson (Ed.), Mental representations: The interface between language and reality (pp.155-181)[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[22]Carston, R.1990. Quantity maxims and generalized implicature [J]. UCL WorkingPapers in Linguistics,2:1-31.
[23]Carston, R.1995. Quantity maxims and generalised implicature [J]. Lingua,96(4):213-244.
[24]Carston, R.1998. Informativeness, relevance, and scalar implicature [A]. In R. Carston&S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (pp.179-236)[C].Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[25]Carston, R.2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication
[M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[26]Carston, R.2010. Explicit communication and 'free' pragmatic enrichment [A]. In B.Soria&E. Romero (Eds.), Explicit communication: Robyn Carston's pragmatics (pp.217-285)[C]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
[27]Chemla, E.2009. Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data [J].Semantics and Pragmatics,2(2):1-34.
[28]Chemla, E.,&Spector, B.2010. Experimental detection of embedded implicatures [A].In M. Aloni, H. Bastiaanse, T. de Jager&K. Schulz (Eds.), Logic, language andmeaning (Vol.6042, pp.53-62)[C]. Berlin: Springer.
[29]Chierchia, G.2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmaticsinterface [A]. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond (pp.39-103)[C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[30]Chierchia, G., Fox, D.,&Spector, B. to appear. The grammatical view of of scalarimplicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics [A]. In C.Maienborn, K. v. Heusinger&P. Portner (Eds.), Handbook of Semantics [C]: Moutonde Gruyter.
[31]Clark, H. H.,&Bangerter, A.2004. Changing ideas about reference [A]. In I. Noveck&D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp.25-49)[C]. Basingstoke, England:Palgrave Macmillan.
[32]Clifton, C.,&Dube, C.2010. Embedded implicatures observed: A comment on Geurtsand Pouscoulous (2009)[J]. Semantics and Pragmatics,3(7):1-13.
[33]Crain, S.,&Mckee, C.1985. The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora [C]//Proceedings of NELS; City.94-110.
[34]De Neys, W.,&Schaeken, W.2007. When people are more logical under cognitiveload dual task impact on scalar implicature [J]. Experimental Psychology,54(2):128-133.
[35]Degen, J.,&Tanenhaus, M. K.2011. Making inferences: The case of scalar implicatureprocessing [C]//; City.3299-3304.
[36]Dekker, P.,&Van Rooy, R.2000. Bi-directional optimality theory: An application ofgame theory [J]. Journal of Semantics,17:217-242.
[37]Feeney, A., Scrafton, S., Duckworth, A., et al.2004. The story of some: Everydaypragmatic inference by children and adults [J]. Canadian Journal of ExperimentalPsychology,58(2):121-132.
[38]Frege, G.1892. über Sinn und Bedeutung [A](M. Black, Trans.). In P. Geach&M.Black (Eds.), Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (2nd ed.,pp.56-78)[C]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[39]Gazdar, G.1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form [M]. NewYork: Academic Press.
[40]Geurts, B.1998. Scalars [A]. In P. Ludewig&B. Geurts (Eds.), Lexikalische Semantikaus kognitiver Sicht (pp.95-118)[C]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
[41]Geurts, B.2006. Exclusive disjunction without implicature [Z].
[42]Geurts, B.2010. Quantity implicatures [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[43]Geurts, B., Katsos, N., Cummins, C., et al.2010. Scalar quantifiers: Logic, acquisition,and processing [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,25(1):130-148.
[44]Geurts, B.,&Nouwen, R.2007. At least et al.: The semantics of scalar modifiers [J].Language,83(3):533-559.
[45]Geurts, B.,&Pouscoulous, N.2009. Embedded implicatures?!?[J]. Semantics andPragmatics,2(4):1-34.
[46]Gibbs, R. W.2004. Psycholinguistics experiments and linguistics-pragmatics [A]. In I.Noveck&D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp.50-71)[C]. Basingstoke,England: Palgrave Macmillan.
[47]Gibbs, R. W.,&Moise, J. F.1997. Pragmatics in understanding what is said [J].Cognition,62(1):51-74.
[48]Grice, H. P.1975. Logic and conversation [A]. In P. Cole&J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntaxand semantics (Vol.3: Speech acts, pp.41-58)[C]. New York: Academic Press.
[49]Grice, H. P.1978. Further notes on logic and conversation [A]. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntaxand semantics (Vol.9: Pragmatics, pp.113-128)[C]. New York: Academic Press.
[50]Grice, H. P.1989. Studies in the way of words [M]. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
[51]Grodner, D. J., Gibson, E.,&Watson, D.2005. The influence of contextual contrast onsyntactic processing: evidence for strong-interaction in sentence comprehension [J].Cognition,95(3):275-296.
[52]Grodner, D. J., Klein, N. M., Carbary, K. M., et al.2010.“Some,” and possibly all,scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment [J].Cognition,116(1):42-55.
[53]Guasti, M., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., et al.2005. Why children and adults sometimes(but not always) compute implicatures [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,20(5):667-696.
[54]Hansen, M. M.2008. On the availability of 'literal' meaning: Evidence from courtroominteraction [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,40:1392-1410.
[55]Harnish, R.1976. Logical form and implicature [A]. In T. G. Bever, J. J. Katz&D. T.Langendoen (Eds.), An integrated theory of linguistic ability (pp.313-391)[C]. NewYork: Crowell.
[56]Hendriks, P., Hoeks, J., De Hoop, H., et al.2009. A large-scale investigation of scalarimplicature [A]. In U. Sauerland&Yatsushiro.K (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics:From experiment to theory (pp.30-50)[C]. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
[57]Hirschberg, J.1985. A theory of scalar implicature [D]. University of Pennsylvania.
[58]Horn, L. R.1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English [D].UCLA.
[59]Horn, L. R.1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference [A]. In D. Schiffrin(Ed.), Form and use in context: Linguistic applications (GURT's84)(pp.11-42)[C].Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
[60]Horn, L. R.1988. Pragmatic theory [A]. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: TheCambridge survey (Vol.1, pp.113-145)[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[61]Horn, L. R.1989. A natural history of negation [M]. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.
[62]Horn, L. R.1992. The said and the unsaid [A]. In C. Barker&D. Dowty (Eds.),Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory Ⅱ (pp.163-192)[C]. Columbus, OH:Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.
[63]Horn, L. R.2001. A natural history of negation [M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
[64]Horn, L. R.2004. Implicature [A]. In L. Horn&W. Gregory (Eds.), The handbook ofpragmatics (pp.3-28)[C]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[65]Horn, L. R.2005. Current issues in neo-Gricean pragmatics [J]. InterculturalPragmaitcs,2(2):191-204.
[66]Horn, L. R.2006a. The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective [A]. In K. Turner&K.v. Heusinger (Eds.), Where semantics meets pragmatics (pp.21-48)[C]. London:Lesevier.
[67]Horn, L. R.2006b. More issues in neo-and post-Gricean pragmatics: A response toRobyn Carston's response [J]. Intercultural Pragmaitcs,3(1):81-93.
[68]Horn, L. R.2006c. Speaker and hearer in neo-Gricean pragmatics [J]. Journal ofForeign Languages,(4):2-26.
[69]Horn, L. R.2007. Neo-Gricean pragmatics: A Manichaean manifesto [A]. In N.Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp.24-44)[C]. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
[70]Horn, L. R.2009. WJ-40: Implicature, truth, and meaning [J]. International Review ofPragmatics,1(1):3-34.
[71]Huang, Y.2007. Pragmatics [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[72]Huang, Y. T.,&Snedeker, J.2009. Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insightinto the semantics-pragmatics interface [J]. Cognitive Psychology,58:376-415.
[73]Ippolito, M.2010. Embedded implicatures? Remarks on the debate between globalistand localist theories [J]. Semantics and Pragmatics,3(5):1-15.
[74]Jaszczolt, K.2005. Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts ofcommunication [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[75]Jaszczolt, K.2010a. Defaults in semantics and pragmatics The Stanford Encyclopediaof Philosophy [OL].(Winter2010Edition). fromhttp://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/defaults-semantics-pragmatics.
[76]Jaszczolt, K.2010b. Semantics-pragmatics interface [A]. In L. Cummings (Ed.), TheRoutledge pragmatics encyclopedia (pp.458-462)[C]. London: Routledge.
[77]Koenig, J.1991. Scalar predicates and negation: Punctual semantics and intervalinterpretations [J]. Proceedings of the Parasession on Negation of the27th Meeting ofthe Chicago Linguistics Society:130-144.
[78]Labov, W.1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings [A]. In C.-J. N. Bailey&R. W. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English (pp.340-373)[C].Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
[79]Levinson, S. C.1987. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: A partial pragmaticreduction of Binding and Control phenomena [J]. Journal of Linguistics,23(2):379-434.
[80]Levinson, S. C.1995. Three levels of meaning [A]. In F. Palmer (Ed.), Grammar andmeaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons (pp.90-115)[C]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
[81]Levinson, S. C.2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversationalimplicature [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[82]Lewis, D.1969. Convention: A philosophical study [M]. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.
[83]Lewis, D.1975. Languages and language [A]. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesotastudies in the philosophy of science (Vol. VII, pp.3-35)[C]. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.
[84]Morris, R.1938. Foundations of the theory of signs [M]. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
[85]Noveck, I.2001. When children are more logical than adults: Experimentalinvestigations of scalar implicature [J]. Cognition,78(2):165-188.
[86]Noveck, I.2004. Pragmatic inferences related to logical terms [A]. In I. Noveck&D.Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp.301-321)[C]. Basingstoke, England:Palgrave Macmillan.
[87]Noveck, I.,&Posada, A.2003. Characterizing the time course of an implicature: Anevoked potentials study [J]. Brain and Language,85(2):203-210.
[88]Noveck, I.,&Reboul, A.2008. Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the studyof language [J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,12:425-431.
[89]Noveck, I.,&Sperber, D.2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics: Thecase of 'scalar inferences'[A]. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp.184-212)[C].Basingstoke: Palgrave.
[90]Papafragou, A.,&Musolino, J.2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at thesemantics-pragmatics interface [J]. Cognition,86(3):253-282.
[91]Papafragou, A.,&Schwarz, N.2006. Most wanted [J]. Language Acquisition,13(3):207-251.
[92]Parikh, R.2001. The use of language [M]. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
[93]Pieterinen, A.(Ed.).2007. Game theory and linguistic meaning [M]. Amsterdam:Elsevier.
[94]Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I., Politzer, G., et al.2007. A developmental investigation ofprocessing costs in implicature production [J]. Language Acquisition,14:347-375.
[95]Recanati, F.2003. Embedded implicatures [J]. Philosophical Perspectives,17:299-332.
[96]Recanati, F.2010. Truth-conditional pragmatics [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[97]Reiter, R.1980. A logic for default reasoning [J]. Artificial Intelligence,13(1-2):81-132.
[98]Rescorla, M.2011. Convention The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [OL].(Spring2011Edition). fromhttp://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/convention/.
[99]Rosch, E. H.1973. Natural categories [J]. Cognitive Psychology,4(3):328-350.
[100] Sadock, J.1984. Whither radical pragmatics?[A]. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.),Georgetown university round table on language and linguistics (pp.139-149)[C].Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
[101] Sally, D.2003. Risky speech: Behavioral game theory and pragmatics [J]. Journalof Pragmatics,35:1223-1245.
[102] Sauerland, U.2010. Embedded implicatures and experimental constraints: A replyto Geurts&Pouscoulous and Chemla [J]. Semantics and Pragmatics,3(2):1-13.
[103] Schiffer, S.1972. Meaning [M]. Oxford:: Oxford University Press.
[104] Small, S. L.1997. Semantic Category Imprecision: A Connectionist Study of theBoundaries of Word Meanings [J]. Brain and Language,57(2):181-194.
[105] Snodgrass, J. G.,&Vanderwart, M.1980. A standardized set of260pictures:norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity [J].Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory,6(2):174-215.
[106] Sperber, D.,&Wilson, D.1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition
[M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[107] Stanley, J.2002. Modality and what is said [J]. Nous-Supplement: PhilosophicalPerspectives,16:337-344.
[108] Taylor, J. R.2006. Prototype Semantics [A]. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofLanguage and Linguistics (Second Edition)(pp.238-240)[C]. Oxford: Elsevier.
[109] Wason, P. C.1959. The processing of positive and negative information [J].Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,11(2):92-107.
[110] Wilson, D.,&Sperber, D.2004. Relevance theory [A]. In L. Horn&G. Ward(Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp.607-632)[C]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[111] Zipf, G. K.1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort [M]. Cambridge:Addison-Wesley Press.
[112]柏拉图.2002.克拉梯楼斯篇.彭文林，译[M].台北:联经出版社.
[113]冯光武.2007.格赖斯的意义理论—老话题新解读[J].外语学刊,(6):19-26.
[114]何自然.1999.语用学方法论刍议[J].解放军外国语学院学报,4:1-3.
[115]何自然,&冉永平.1998.关联理论—认知语用学基础[J].现代外语,(3):92-107.
[116]黄振荣,&蒋严.2011.贝叶斯概率模型及其在语用学上的应用[A]载蒋严（编）.走近形式语用学(pp.457-499)[C].上海:上海教育出版社.
[117]计琦,&张绍杰.2009.后格赖斯语用学——语境论视角下的语用过程研究[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,49(5):154-158.
[118]姜涛,&张绍杰.2009.后格赖斯语用学意义划分模式研究[J].外语学刊,(01):77-81.
[119]姜望琪.2003.当代语用学[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[120]沈家煊.1990.语用学和语义学的分界[J].外语教学与研究,(2):26-34.
[121]张清芳,&杨玉芳.2003.影响图画命名时间的因素[J].心理学报,35(4):447-454.
[122]张绍杰.2008.一般会话含义的“两面性”与含义推导模式问题[J].外语教学与研究,40(3):196-203.
[123]张绍杰.2010.后格赖斯语用学的理论走向——语义学和语用学界面研究的兴起[J].外国问题研究,(01):3-11.
[2] Ariel, M.2004. Most [J]. Language,80(4):658-706.
[3] Ariel, M.2006. A 'just that' lexical meaning for most [A]. In K. Turner&K. vonHeusinger (Eds.), Where semantics meets pragmatics (pp.49-91)[C]. Amsterdam:Elsevier.
[4] Atlas, J. D.,&Levinson, S. C.1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form:Radical pragmatics [A]. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp.1-61)[C]. New York:Academic Press.
[5] Bach, K.1984. Default reasoning: Jumping to conclusions and knowing when to thinktwice [J]. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly,65:37-58.
[6] Bach, K.1994. Conversational Impliciture [J]. Mind&Language,9(2):124-162.
[7] Bach, K.2006. The top10misconceptions about implicature [A]. In J. Birner&G.Ward (Eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning：Neo-Gricean studies in pragmaticsand semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp.21-30)[C]. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.
[8] Barwise, J.,&Cooper, R.1981. Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language [J].Linguistics and Philosophy,4(2):159-219.
[9] Bennett, J.1976. Linguistic behavior [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[10]Benz, A., J ger, G.,&Van Rooij, R.(Eds.).2005. Game theory and pragmatics [M].New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
[11]Bezuidenhout, A.,&Cutting, C.2002. Literal meaning, minimal propositions, andpragmatic processing [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,34(4):433-456.
[12]Bezuidenhout, A.,&Morris, R.2004. Implicature, relevance and default pragmaticinference [A]. In I. Noveck&D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp.257-282)[C]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
[13]Bonnefon, J. F., Feeney, A.,&Villejoubert, G.2009. When some is actually all: Scalarinferences in face-threatening contexts [J]. Cognition,112(2):249-258.
[14]Borg, E.2004. Minimal semantics [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[15]Borg, E.2006. Intention-based semantics [A]. In E. Lepore&B. Smith (Eds.), Oxfordhandbook of philosophy of language (pp.250-267)[C]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
[16]Bott, L., Bailey, T. M.,&Grodner, D.2012. Distinguishing speed from accuracy inscalar implicatures [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,66(1):123-142.
[17]Bott, L.,&Noveck, I. A.2004. Some utterances are underinformative: The onset andtime course of scalar inferences [J]. Journal of Memory and Language,51(3):437-457.
[18]Breheny, R.2008. A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numericallyquantified noun phrases [J]. Journal of Semantics,25(2):93-139.
[19]Breheny, R., Katsos, N.,&Williams, J.2006. Are generalized scalar implicaturesgenerated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generatingpragmatic inferences [J]. Cognition,100(3):434-463.
[20]Cappelen, H.,&Lepore, E.2005. Insensitive semantics: A defense of semanticminimalism and speech act pluralism [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[21]Carston, R.1988. Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics [A]. In R. M.Kempson (Ed.), Mental representations: The interface between language and reality (pp.155-181)[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[22]Carston, R.1990. Quantity maxims and generalized implicature [J]. UCL WorkingPapers in Linguistics,2:1-31.
[23]Carston, R.1995. Quantity maxims and generalised implicature [J]. Lingua,96(4):213-244.
[24]Carston, R.1998. Informativeness, relevance, and scalar implicature [A]. In R. Carston&S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (pp.179-236)[C].Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[25]Carston, R.2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication
[M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[26]Carston, R.2010. Explicit communication and 'free' pragmatic enrichment [A]. In B.Soria&E. Romero (Eds.), Explicit communication: Robyn Carston's pragmatics (pp.217-285)[C]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
[27]Chemla, E.2009. Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data [J].Semantics and Pragmatics,2(2):1-34.
[28]Chemla, E.,&Spector, B.2010. Experimental detection of embedded implicatures [A].In M. Aloni, H. Bastiaanse, T. de Jager&K. Schulz (Eds.), Logic, language andmeaning (Vol.6042, pp.53-62)[C]. Berlin: Springer.
[29]Chierchia, G.2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmaticsinterface [A]. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond (pp.39-103)[C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[30]Chierchia, G., Fox, D.,&Spector, B. to appear. The grammatical view of of scalarimplicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics [A]. In C.Maienborn, K. v. Heusinger&P. Portner (Eds.), Handbook of Semantics [C]: Moutonde Gruyter.
[31]Clark, H. H.,&Bangerter, A.2004. Changing ideas about reference [A]. In I. Noveck&D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp.25-49)[C]. Basingstoke, England:Palgrave Macmillan.
[32]Clifton, C.,&Dube, C.2010. Embedded implicatures observed: A comment on Geurtsand Pouscoulous (2009)[J]. Semantics and Pragmatics,3(7):1-13.
[33]Crain, S.,&Mckee, C.1985. The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora [C]//Proceedings of NELS; City.94-110.
[34]De Neys, W.,&Schaeken, W.2007. When people are more logical under cognitiveload dual task impact on scalar implicature [J]. Experimental Psychology,54(2):128-133.
[35]Degen, J.,&Tanenhaus, M. K.2011. Making inferences: The case of scalar implicatureprocessing [C]//; City.3299-3304.
[36]Dekker, P.,&Van Rooy, R.2000. Bi-directional optimality theory: An application ofgame theory [J]. Journal of Semantics,17:217-242.
[37]Feeney, A., Scrafton, S., Duckworth, A., et al.2004. The story of some: Everydaypragmatic inference by children and adults [J]. Canadian Journal of ExperimentalPsychology,58(2):121-132.
[38]Frege, G.1892. über Sinn und Bedeutung [A](M. Black, Trans.). In P. Geach&M.Black (Eds.), Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (2nd ed.,pp.56-78)[C]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[39]Gazdar, G.1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form [M]. NewYork: Academic Press.
[40]Geurts, B.1998. Scalars [A]. In P. Ludewig&B. Geurts (Eds.), Lexikalische Semantikaus kognitiver Sicht (pp.95-118)[C]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
[41]Geurts, B.2006. Exclusive disjunction without implicature [Z].
[42]Geurts, B.2010. Quantity implicatures [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[43]Geurts, B., Katsos, N., Cummins, C., et al.2010. Scalar quantifiers: Logic, acquisition,and processing [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,25(1):130-148.
[44]Geurts, B.,&Nouwen, R.2007. At least et al.: The semantics of scalar modifiers [J].Language,83(3):533-559.
[45]Geurts, B.,&Pouscoulous, N.2009. Embedded implicatures?!?[J]. Semantics andPragmatics,2(4):1-34.
[46]Gibbs, R. W.2004. Psycholinguistics experiments and linguistics-pragmatics [A]. In I.Noveck&D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp.50-71)[C]. Basingstoke,England: Palgrave Macmillan.
[47]Gibbs, R. W.,&Moise, J. F.1997. Pragmatics in understanding what is said [J].Cognition,62(1):51-74.
[48]Grice, H. P.1975. Logic and conversation [A]. In P. Cole&J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntaxand semantics (Vol.3: Speech acts, pp.41-58)[C]. New York: Academic Press.
[49]Grice, H. P.1978. Further notes on logic and conversation [A]. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntaxand semantics (Vol.9: Pragmatics, pp.113-128)[C]. New York: Academic Press.
[50]Grice, H. P.1989. Studies in the way of words [M]. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
[51]Grodner, D. J., Gibson, E.,&Watson, D.2005. The influence of contextual contrast onsyntactic processing: evidence for strong-interaction in sentence comprehension [J].Cognition,95(3):275-296.
[52]Grodner, D. J., Klein, N. M., Carbary, K. M., et al.2010.“Some,” and possibly all,scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment [J].Cognition,116(1):42-55.
[53]Guasti, M., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., et al.2005. Why children and adults sometimes(but not always) compute implicatures [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes,20(5):667-696.
[54]Hansen, M. M.2008. On the availability of 'literal' meaning: Evidence from courtroominteraction [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,40:1392-1410.
[55]Harnish, R.1976. Logical form and implicature [A]. In T. G. Bever, J. J. Katz&D. T.Langendoen (Eds.), An integrated theory of linguistic ability (pp.313-391)[C]. NewYork: Crowell.
[56]Hendriks, P., Hoeks, J., De Hoop, H., et al.2009. A large-scale investigation of scalarimplicature [A]. In U. Sauerland&Yatsushiro.K (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics:From experiment to theory (pp.30-50)[C]. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
[57]Hirschberg, J.1985. A theory of scalar implicature [D]. University of Pennsylvania.
[58]Horn, L. R.1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English [D].UCLA.
[59]Horn, L. R.1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference [A]. In D. Schiffrin(Ed.), Form and use in context: Linguistic applications (GURT's84)(pp.11-42)[C].Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
[60]Horn, L. R.1988. Pragmatic theory [A]. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: TheCambridge survey (Vol.1, pp.113-145)[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[61]Horn, L. R.1989. A natural history of negation [M]. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.
[62]Horn, L. R.1992. The said and the unsaid [A]. In C. Barker&D. Dowty (Eds.),Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory Ⅱ (pp.163-192)[C]. Columbus, OH:Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.
[63]Horn, L. R.2001. A natural history of negation [M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
[64]Horn, L. R.2004. Implicature [A]. In L. Horn&W. Gregory (Eds.), The handbook ofpragmatics (pp.3-28)[C]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[65]Horn, L. R.2005. Current issues in neo-Gricean pragmatics [J]. InterculturalPragmaitcs,2(2):191-204.
[66]Horn, L. R.2006a. The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective [A]. In K. Turner&K.v. Heusinger (Eds.), Where semantics meets pragmatics (pp.21-48)[C]. London:Lesevier.
[67]Horn, L. R.2006b. More issues in neo-and post-Gricean pragmatics: A response toRobyn Carston's response [J]. Intercultural Pragmaitcs,3(1):81-93.
[68]Horn, L. R.2006c. Speaker and hearer in neo-Gricean pragmatics [J]. Journal ofForeign Languages,(4):2-26.
[69]Horn, L. R.2007. Neo-Gricean pragmatics: A Manichaean manifesto [A]. In N.Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp.24-44)[C]. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
[70]Horn, L. R.2009. WJ-40: Implicature, truth, and meaning [J]. International Review ofPragmatics,1(1):3-34.
[71]Huang, Y.2007. Pragmatics [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[72]Huang, Y. T.,&Snedeker, J.2009. Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insightinto the semantics-pragmatics interface [J]. Cognitive Psychology,58:376-415.
[73]Ippolito, M.2010. Embedded implicatures? Remarks on the debate between globalistand localist theories [J]. Semantics and Pragmatics,3(5):1-15.
[74]Jaszczolt, K.2005. Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts ofcommunication [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[75]Jaszczolt, K.2010a. Defaults in semantics and pragmatics The Stanford Encyclopediaof Philosophy [OL].(Winter2010Edition). fromhttp://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/defaults-semantics-pragmatics.
[76]Jaszczolt, K.2010b. Semantics-pragmatics interface [A]. In L. Cummings (Ed.), TheRoutledge pragmatics encyclopedia (pp.458-462)[C]. London: Routledge.
[77]Koenig, J.1991. Scalar predicates and negation: Punctual semantics and intervalinterpretations [J]. Proceedings of the Parasession on Negation of the27th Meeting ofthe Chicago Linguistics Society:130-144.
[78]Labov, W.1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings [A]. In C.-J. N. Bailey&R. W. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English (pp.340-373)[C].Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
[79]Levinson, S. C.1987. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: A partial pragmaticreduction of Binding and Control phenomena [J]. Journal of Linguistics,23(2):379-434.
[80]Levinson, S. C.1995. Three levels of meaning [A]. In F. Palmer (Ed.), Grammar andmeaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons (pp.90-115)[C]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
[81]Levinson, S. C.2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversationalimplicature [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[82]Lewis, D.1969. Convention: A philosophical study [M]. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.
[83]Lewis, D.1975. Languages and language [A]. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesotastudies in the philosophy of science (Vol. VII, pp.3-35)[C]. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.
[84]Morris, R.1938. Foundations of the theory of signs [M]. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
[85]Noveck, I.2001. When children are more logical than adults: Experimentalinvestigations of scalar implicature [J]. Cognition,78(2):165-188.
[86]Noveck, I.2004. Pragmatic inferences related to logical terms [A]. In I. Noveck&D.Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp.301-321)[C]. Basingstoke, England:Palgrave Macmillan.
[87]Noveck, I.,&Posada, A.2003. Characterizing the time course of an implicature: Anevoked potentials study [J]. Brain and Language,85(2):203-210.
[88]Noveck, I.,&Reboul, A.2008. Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the studyof language [J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,12:425-431.
[89]Noveck, I.,&Sperber, D.2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics: Thecase of 'scalar inferences'[A]. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp.184-212)[C].Basingstoke: Palgrave.
[90]Papafragou, A.,&Musolino, J.2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at thesemantics-pragmatics interface [J]. Cognition,86(3):253-282.
[91]Papafragou, A.,&Schwarz, N.2006. Most wanted [J]. Language Acquisition,13(3):207-251.
[92]Parikh, R.2001. The use of language [M]. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
[93]Pieterinen, A.(Ed.).2007. Game theory and linguistic meaning [M]. Amsterdam:Elsevier.
[94]Pouscoulous, N., Noveck, I., Politzer, G., et al.2007. A developmental investigation ofprocessing costs in implicature production [J]. Language Acquisition,14:347-375.
[95]Recanati, F.2003. Embedded implicatures [J]. Philosophical Perspectives,17:299-332.
[96]Recanati, F.2010. Truth-conditional pragmatics [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[97]Reiter, R.1980. A logic for default reasoning [J]. Artificial Intelligence,13(1-2):81-132.
[98]Rescorla, M.2011. Convention The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [OL].(Spring2011Edition). fromhttp://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/convention/.
[99]Rosch, E. H.1973. Natural categories [J]. Cognitive Psychology,4(3):328-350.
[100] Sadock, J.1984. Whither radical pragmatics?[A]. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.),Georgetown university round table on language and linguistics (pp.139-149)[C].Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
[101] Sally, D.2003. Risky speech: Behavioral game theory and pragmatics [J]. Journalof Pragmatics,35:1223-1245.
[102] Sauerland, U.2010. Embedded implicatures and experimental constraints: A replyto Geurts&Pouscoulous and Chemla [J]. Semantics and Pragmatics,3(2):1-13.
[103] Schiffer, S.1972. Meaning [M]. Oxford:: Oxford University Press.
[104] Small, S. L.1997. Semantic Category Imprecision: A Connectionist Study of theBoundaries of Word Meanings [J]. Brain and Language,57(2):181-194.
[105] Snodgrass, J. G.,&Vanderwart, M.1980. A standardized set of260pictures:norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity [J].Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory,6(2):174-215.
[106] Sperber, D.,&Wilson, D.1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition
[M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[107] Stanley, J.2002. Modality and what is said [J]. Nous-Supplement: PhilosophicalPerspectives,16:337-344.
[108] Taylor, J. R.2006. Prototype Semantics [A]. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofLanguage and Linguistics (Second Edition)(pp.238-240)[C]. Oxford: Elsevier.
[109] Wason, P. C.1959. The processing of positive and negative information [J].Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,11(2):92-107.
[110] Wilson, D.,&Sperber, D.2004. Relevance theory [A]. In L. Horn&G. Ward(Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp.607-632)[C]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[111] Zipf, G. K.1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort [M]. Cambridge:Addison-Wesley Press.
[112]柏拉图.2002.克拉梯楼斯篇.彭文林，译[M].台北:联经出版社.
[113]冯光武.2007.格赖斯的意义理论—老话题新解读[J].外语学刊,(6):19-26.
[114]何自然.1999.语用学方法论刍议[J].解放军外国语学院学报,4:1-3.
[115]何自然,&冉永平.1998.关联理论—认知语用学基础[J].现代外语,(3):92-107.
[116]黄振荣,&蒋严.2011.贝叶斯概率模型及其在语用学上的应用[A]载蒋严（编）.走近形式语用学(pp.457-499)[C].上海:上海教育出版社.
[117]计琦,&张绍杰.2009.后格赖斯语用学——语境论视角下的语用过程研究[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,49(5):154-158.
[118]姜涛,&张绍杰.2009.后格赖斯语用学意义划分模式研究[J].外语学刊,(01):77-81.
[119]姜望琪.2003.当代语用学[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[120]沈家煊.1990.语用学和语义学的分界[J].外语教学与研究,(2):26-34.
[121]张清芳,&杨玉芳.2003.影响图画命名时间的因素[J].心理学报,35(4):447-454.
[122]张绍杰.2008.一般会话含义的“两面性”与含义推导模式问题[J].外语教学与研究,40(3):196-203.
[123]张绍杰.2010.后格赖斯语用学的理论走向——语义学和语用学界面研究的兴起[J].外国问题研究,(01):3-11.