交际博弈论
|
摘要
语言活动不仅传达信息,而且在传递信息的同时还调节人际关系,任何言说话语的行为都是传递信息和调节人际关系的复合行为。考察话语的意义必须结合微观的个体心灵的认知机制和宏观的社会文化系统。由于大脑和社会都是复杂系统,所以交际中的语言使用也具有根本复杂性。这样,基于还原主义的意义理论就不能充分解释话语意义的生成机制。目前的语用学理论,包括基于合作原则的经典格赖斯语用学、新格赖斯语用学,基于认知科学的关联理论,以及基于社会交往实践的言语行为理论,都没有将这一点纳入理论建构中。它们沿用笛卡尔的研究范式,从局部的视野分析、解释各种语用现象,因而不能解释具有根本复杂特征的语言使用以及与之相关的语用现象。交际者的言说行为除了其特有的集体性特征外,也具有其他行为的一般特征,他在遵守规约和挑战规约的夹缝中、在表达形式的最简化和传递信息的最大化的矛盾中,寻找一个使自己最大程度受益的安全地带。说明这一地带的拓扑结构,也就解释了交际者是如何使用语言的。因此,需要一个统一的、整合社会文化研究模式和认知研究模式的理论框架,对语用现象给予全景描写和解释。
认知语用学通过将认知语言学提供的概念化工具应用在语用学领域,对有关的语用知识系统进行的认知研究。认知语言学强调使用的重要性,这一主张也具有语用学含义:(1)使用语言本质上是集体行为,也是策略行为;(2)与语言使用相关的知识是个体涉身认知活动的结果,这种认知活动既有个体认知基础,又有集体认知基础;(3)使用语言在生物学方面是个体行为,但在社会学方面却是集体行为,所以交际者的交际行为必然受到他所处的社会文化的制约;(4)认知活动是开放的、动态的过程,使用语言的过程也是开放的、动态的,意义是在这一过程中涌现出来的。
交际的集体性特征为博弈论的应用提供了物质条件。兼顾博弈性特征的认知语用学理论框架中,交际者使用语言的行为具有活动类型(activity type)相关性特征。活动类型具有家族相似性,与之相关的知识是以心理模型的形式组织起来的。理解话语就是辨识出交际者言说话语所依托的活动类型。相关的认知活动是借助交际语境中的语境化提示(contextualization cues),进行信息更新,通过大脑的自组织产生最可能的活动类型。虽然这一过程具有偶然性,但是交际者对彼此的话语持有的善意态度,可以显著降低信息更新的复杂性;同时,他们的移情能力也使他们更有可能对彼此的行为做出预期。
博弈性交际中的交际者是有限理性的“经济人”,道德的力量对他选择策略产生的影响,足以使其牺牲个人的部分利益以完成博弈。在交际者看来,交际博弈是生存博弈在社会环境中的延伸,精神生存和肉体生存同样重要,但是,语言共同体的道德伦理并没有替代交际者个体的“利我”意识,只是使之潜藏于个体的行动中。“利我”引起的优化意识贯穿于交际者的全部行为过程,使用语言也不例外。所以,在交际博弈中,个体也必然选择最大程度利我的策略。做出话语选择的依据是话语产生的效用,因此,说明偏好的结构是解释语言行为的关键,换言之,要想说明交际者选择某些话语而放弃其他话语,只需说明所选择的话语如何产生了最大效用。本文将话语的效用分解为真实性效用和适当性的效用,二者分别来自话语的命题性信息和功能性信息,前者可以通过话语生成和理解中的优化特征得到说明,而后者需要从交际的宏观视野,也即交际者之间的社会关系方面加以说明。最后,本研究提出以下基于效用的认知语用学理论框架:
总则:交际者总是追求话语效用的最大化。
次则1:交际者总是追求真实性,除非有理由不。
次则2:交际者总是追求适当性,除非有理由不。
约束条件:当前话语是交际者的最优行动。
宽容条件:交际者具有移情能力。
总则不是指导人们交际行为的原则,而是贯穿于交际活动的全过程,具有普适性。次则分别涉及话语命题性信息和功能性信息。二者分别对应语用学的认知研究模式(次则1)和社会文化研究模式(次则2),二者结合的纽带是贯穿语言使用的全过程、用博弈论刻画出来的优化思维和优化行动策略。在交际过程中,解释话语的缺省前提是推定交际者是理性的,即交际者选择的是效用最大化行动(约束条件),而交际者之所以能够了解彼此的效用偏好,是因为他们具有移情能力(宽容条件)。
Language in communication serves to transmit information and regulate interpersonal relationship. Producing an utterance on any occasion is an act that integrates these two roles. To make sense of an utterance, it is necessary to combine the cognitive mechanism at the micro level and the social-cultural system at the macro level. Since brain and society are complex systems, using language is also a complex process. So the reductionism-based meaning theories cannot present any mechanism of meaning generation in communication. The present pragmatic theories, including Cooperative Principle-based classic pragmatics, neo-Gricean pragmatics, and the cognitive science-based Relevance Theory on the one hand, and the social communication protocol-based theories like Speech Act theory, Politeness- and face-based theories on the other, fail to capture this point in their respective theory construction. These theories adopt the Cartesian paradigm, approaching the pragmatic phenomena from a local perspective. Consequently, they cannot explain the use of language and the relevant phenomena that are fundamentally complex in nature. Saying is a collaborative act; it also shares some features with other ordinary human behaviors. In communication, people have to balance themselves in the safety zone defined by observing the linguistic convention and challenging the linguistic convention, while reconciling the contradiction between the minimization of formal composition and maximization of information. The zone, a topological structure, is communicators’strategy space. It is assumed it is necessary to have a uniform theoretical framework, integrating the two research modes (cognition-based mode and the culture-based mode), to provide for an overall description and explanation of pragmatic phenomena.
Cognitive pragmatics applies the tools provided by cognitive linguistics to pragmatics, and investigates the mechanism underlying language use from a cognitive perspective. Since cognitive linguistics is a usage-based interdiscipline, it has three-fold implication in pragmatic research: (i) Using language is a collective activity and thus involves strategy selection. (ii) The knowledge of using language is accumulated through embodied interaction with the world. (iii) Using language is an individual activity in terms of biology, but it is primarily a social activity in terms of sociology. So all the linguistic acts are exposed to cultural protocols of the language community to which the communicator belongs. (iv) Cognitive activity is open and dynamic, so is using language. The interpretation of an utterance in communication context should take into account the emergent nature of meaning generation.
In a game-theoretical cognitive pragmatic framework, using language demonstrates features of activity-type relatedness. Activity types are families of resemblance, and interpreting an utterance is to identify the activity type on the basis of which the utterance is produced. When communicators exploit the contextualization cues to update their beliefs, an activity type will emerge from the self-organizing process in the brain. The activity types are contingent, but normally they are predictable because in order to significantly reduce complexity in updating beliefs, communicators tend to‘hold true’what is said. Additionally, they may expect the activity type involved in virtue of their empathetic capacity.
Communicators in communicative games are‘economy man’with bounded rationality, whose choice of linguistic act is modified by moral force to the extent that they sacrifice part of their own interest to complete communication game. Communication game is the extension of survival game in cultural society where spiritual survival is no less important than physical survival; however, the ethical code of conduct does not expel egoism but only to suppress it in the unconsciousness. The egoism-motivated optimization governs the overall process of their interaction with the outside world, using language is not exception. To optimize an act is to produce most possible or actual benefit by taking the act. Since communicators prefer the act that produces the most benefit, the key to explaining a linguistic act is to find out the structure of one’s preferences, viz., to understand the reason that communicator selects one utterance instead of another is to show how the utterance selected produces the best utility. The theory is formulated by dividing the utility of a linguistic act into that of truthfulness, which derives from the propositional content, and that of appropriateness, which derives from the regulatory content. Given this formulation, the communicator’s preference over language acts can be accounted for by analyzing the sources of their compound utility. On the ground of the above account, a cognitive pragmatic theoretical framework combined with game theory is proposed as follows:
The general principle: Communicators attempt to maximize their utility in communication games
Maxim 1: Communicators pursue truthfulness unless reasonably indicated
Maxim 2: Communicators pursue appropriateness unless reasonably indicated
Constraint condition: The utterance made is the optimal act producing maximal utility
Charity condition: Communicators are capable of empathetic thinking
The general principle is not meant to guide communicators’act, rather it underlies the entire process of communication. It is universal. The two maxims relate to the propositional information and the functional information of an utterance. Obviously, they respectively correspond to the cognitive mode (maxim 1) and the social-cultural mode of pragmatic research (maxim 2). These two modes are bound by the optimal thought and optimal act that underlies each and every act of using language and is characterized by the game theory. The default presumption in interpreting an utterance is to take a‘hold-true’attitude to what is said, i.e., the linguistic act produced is assumed to be the strategy that produces the best utility (constraint condition). The communicators’preference over the strategies is available to each other due to the fact that they are capable of empathetic thinking (charity condition).
认知语用学通过将认知语言学提供的概念化工具应用在语用学领域,对有关的语用知识系统进行的认知研究。认知语言学强调使用的重要性,这一主张也具有语用学含义:(1)使用语言本质上是集体行为,也是策略行为;(2)与语言使用相关的知识是个体涉身认知活动的结果,这种认知活动既有个体认知基础,又有集体认知基础;(3)使用语言在生物学方面是个体行为,但在社会学方面却是集体行为,所以交际者的交际行为必然受到他所处的社会文化的制约;(4)认知活动是开放的、动态的过程,使用语言的过程也是开放的、动态的,意义是在这一过程中涌现出来的。
交际的集体性特征为博弈论的应用提供了物质条件。兼顾博弈性特征的认知语用学理论框架中,交际者使用语言的行为具有活动类型(activity type)相关性特征。活动类型具有家族相似性,与之相关的知识是以心理模型的形式组织起来的。理解话语就是辨识出交际者言说话语所依托的活动类型。相关的认知活动是借助交际语境中的语境化提示(contextualization cues),进行信息更新,通过大脑的自组织产生最可能的活动类型。虽然这一过程具有偶然性,但是交际者对彼此的话语持有的善意态度,可以显著降低信息更新的复杂性;同时,他们的移情能力也使他们更有可能对彼此的行为做出预期。
博弈性交际中的交际者是有限理性的“经济人”,道德的力量对他选择策略产生的影响,足以使其牺牲个人的部分利益以完成博弈。在交际者看来,交际博弈是生存博弈在社会环境中的延伸,精神生存和肉体生存同样重要,但是,语言共同体的道德伦理并没有替代交际者个体的“利我”意识,只是使之潜藏于个体的行动中。“利我”引起的优化意识贯穿于交际者的全部行为过程,使用语言也不例外。所以,在交际博弈中,个体也必然选择最大程度利我的策略。做出话语选择的依据是话语产生的效用,因此,说明偏好的结构是解释语言行为的关键,换言之,要想说明交际者选择某些话语而放弃其他话语,只需说明所选择的话语如何产生了最大效用。本文将话语的效用分解为真实性效用和适当性的效用,二者分别来自话语的命题性信息和功能性信息,前者可以通过话语生成和理解中的优化特征得到说明,而后者需要从交际的宏观视野,也即交际者之间的社会关系方面加以说明。最后,本研究提出以下基于效用的认知语用学理论框架:
总则:交际者总是追求话语效用的最大化。
次则1:交际者总是追求真实性,除非有理由不。
次则2:交际者总是追求适当性,除非有理由不。
约束条件:当前话语是交际者的最优行动。
宽容条件:交际者具有移情能力。
总则不是指导人们交际行为的原则,而是贯穿于交际活动的全过程,具有普适性。次则分别涉及话语命题性信息和功能性信息。二者分别对应语用学的认知研究模式(次则1)和社会文化研究模式(次则2),二者结合的纽带是贯穿语言使用的全过程、用博弈论刻画出来的优化思维和优化行动策略。在交际过程中,解释话语的缺省前提是推定交际者是理性的,即交际者选择的是效用最大化行动(约束条件),而交际者之所以能够了解彼此的效用偏好,是因为他们具有移情能力(宽容条件)。
Language in communication serves to transmit information and regulate interpersonal relationship. Producing an utterance on any occasion is an act that integrates these two roles. To make sense of an utterance, it is necessary to combine the cognitive mechanism at the micro level and the social-cultural system at the macro level. Since brain and society are complex systems, using language is also a complex process. So the reductionism-based meaning theories cannot present any mechanism of meaning generation in communication. The present pragmatic theories, including Cooperative Principle-based classic pragmatics, neo-Gricean pragmatics, and the cognitive science-based Relevance Theory on the one hand, and the social communication protocol-based theories like Speech Act theory, Politeness- and face-based theories on the other, fail to capture this point in their respective theory construction. These theories adopt the Cartesian paradigm, approaching the pragmatic phenomena from a local perspective. Consequently, they cannot explain the use of language and the relevant phenomena that are fundamentally complex in nature. Saying is a collaborative act; it also shares some features with other ordinary human behaviors. In communication, people have to balance themselves in the safety zone defined by observing the linguistic convention and challenging the linguistic convention, while reconciling the contradiction between the minimization of formal composition and maximization of information. The zone, a topological structure, is communicators’strategy space. It is assumed it is necessary to have a uniform theoretical framework, integrating the two research modes (cognition-based mode and the culture-based mode), to provide for an overall description and explanation of pragmatic phenomena.
Cognitive pragmatics applies the tools provided by cognitive linguistics to pragmatics, and investigates the mechanism underlying language use from a cognitive perspective. Since cognitive linguistics is a usage-based interdiscipline, it has three-fold implication in pragmatic research: (i) Using language is a collective activity and thus involves strategy selection. (ii) The knowledge of using language is accumulated through embodied interaction with the world. (iii) Using language is an individual activity in terms of biology, but it is primarily a social activity in terms of sociology. So all the linguistic acts are exposed to cultural protocols of the language community to which the communicator belongs. (iv) Cognitive activity is open and dynamic, so is using language. The interpretation of an utterance in communication context should take into account the emergent nature of meaning generation.
In a game-theoretical cognitive pragmatic framework, using language demonstrates features of activity-type relatedness. Activity types are families of resemblance, and interpreting an utterance is to identify the activity type on the basis of which the utterance is produced. When communicators exploit the contextualization cues to update their beliefs, an activity type will emerge from the self-organizing process in the brain. The activity types are contingent, but normally they are predictable because in order to significantly reduce complexity in updating beliefs, communicators tend to‘hold true’what is said. Additionally, they may expect the activity type involved in virtue of their empathetic capacity.
Communicators in communicative games are‘economy man’with bounded rationality, whose choice of linguistic act is modified by moral force to the extent that they sacrifice part of their own interest to complete communication game. Communication game is the extension of survival game in cultural society where spiritual survival is no less important than physical survival; however, the ethical code of conduct does not expel egoism but only to suppress it in the unconsciousness. The egoism-motivated optimization governs the overall process of their interaction with the outside world, using language is not exception. To optimize an act is to produce most possible or actual benefit by taking the act. Since communicators prefer the act that produces the most benefit, the key to explaining a linguistic act is to find out the structure of one’s preferences, viz., to understand the reason that communicator selects one utterance instead of another is to show how the utterance selected produces the best utility. The theory is formulated by dividing the utility of a linguistic act into that of truthfulness, which derives from the propositional content, and that of appropriateness, which derives from the regulatory content. Given this formulation, the communicator’s preference over language acts can be accounted for by analyzing the sources of their compound utility. On the ground of the above account, a cognitive pragmatic theoretical framework combined with game theory is proposed as follows:
The general principle: Communicators attempt to maximize their utility in communication games
Maxim 1: Communicators pursue truthfulness unless reasonably indicated
Maxim 2: Communicators pursue appropriateness unless reasonably indicated
Constraint condition: The utterance made is the optimal act producing maximal utility
Charity condition: Communicators are capable of empathetic thinking
The general principle is not meant to guide communicators’act, rather it underlies the entire process of communication. It is universal. The two maxims relate to the propositional information and the functional information of an utterance. Obviously, they respectively correspond to the cognitive mode (maxim 1) and the social-cultural mode of pragmatic research (maxim 2). These two modes are bound by the optimal thought and optimal act that underlies each and every act of using language and is characterized by the game theory. The default presumption in interpreting an utterance is to take a‘hold-true’attitude to what is said, i.e., the linguistic act produced is assumed to be the strategy that produces the best utility (constraint condition). The communicators’preference over the strategies is available to each other due to the fact that they are capable of empathetic thinking (charity condition).
引文
Agre, P. & D. Chapman. Pengi: An implementation of a theory of activity[A]. The Proceedings of the 6th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence[C]. American Association for Artificial Intelligence. Seattle: Kaufmann, 1987: 268-272.
Asher, N., I. Sher and M. Williams. Game-theoretical foundations for Gricean constraints[A]. van Rooij & Stokhof, M.(eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam Colloquium[C]. Amsterdam, 2001: 31-37.
Atlas, J. D. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantic Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Atlas, J. D. Philosophy without ambiguity[M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Atlas, J. D. The importance of being‘only’: Testing the neo-Gricean versus neoentailment paradigms[J]. Journal of Semantics, 1993, (10): 301-318.
Atlas, J. D. & S. C. Levinson. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: An introduction to radically radical pragmatics[A]. P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics[C]. New York: Academic Press, 1981:1-66.
Auer, P. Introduction: John Gumperz’Approach to Contextualization[A]. Auer, P. & A. D. Luzio, (eds.), The contextualization of language[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1992: 1-37.
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2002.
Bach, K. Default Reasoning: Jumping to Conclusions and knowing when to think twice[J]. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 1984, (65): 37– 58.
Bach, K. Pragmatics and the philosophy of language[A]. L. R. Horn and G. Ward, 2004: 463-487.
Banerjee, A. & J. W. Weibull. Evolutionary Selection with Discriminating Players[M]. Stockholm: The Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research, 1993.
Bartsch, R. Norms of Language [M]. London: Longman, 1987.
Bates, E. & B. MacWhinney. Functionalist approaches to grammar[A]. E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman, (eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982: 173-218
Battalio, R., Samuelson, L., van Huyck, J. Optimization incentives and coordination failure in laboratory stag hunt games[J]. Econometrica, 2001, (69): 749-764.
Baxter, L. A. A Dialectical Perspective on Communication Strategies in Relationship Development[A]. S. Duck (ed.), Hand book of Personal Relationships[C]. New York: Willey, 1988: 257-273.
Baxter, L. A. Dialectical Constructions in Relationship Development[J]. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1990, (7): 69-88.
Benz, A. Utility and Relevance of Answers[A]. Benz, A., G. Jager, and R. van Rooij (eds.), 2006: 195-219.
Benz, A., G. Jager, and R. van Rooij. Game Theory and Pragmatics[C]. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2006.
Bernardez, E. Social cognition: variation, language, and culture in a cognitive linguistic typology[A]. Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez & M. Sandra Pena Cervel, (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics[C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005: 191-222.
Berninghaus, S. K., K. M. Ehrhart, and C. Keser. Conventions and local interaction structures: experimental evidence[J]. Games and Economic Behavior, 2002, (39): 177-205.
Berthoz, A. The Brain’s Sense of Movement[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Black, M. Models and metaphors[M]. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962.
Black, M. More about metaphor[A]. Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979: 19-41.
Blackmore, S. The Meme Machine[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Blakemore, D. Understanding utterances[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Brooks, R. A. Intelligence without representation[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 1997, (47): 139-159.
Brown, G. & G. Yule. Discourse Analysis[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2000.
Brown, P. & S. C. Levinson. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena[A]. Goody, E. N. (ed.), Questions and politeness[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978: 56-310.
Brown, P. & S. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Bussmann, H. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001.
Capra, F. The role of physics in the current change of paradigms[A]. In R. F. Kitchener (ed.), The worldviews of contemporary physics[C]. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988: 144-155.
Capra, F. The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture[M]. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1982.
Carlson, L. Dialogue Games [M]. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983.
Carston, R. Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics[A]. R. M. Kempson (ed.), Mental representations: the interface between language and reality[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988: 155-181.
Carston, R. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication[M]. Malden: Blackwell, 2002.
Carston, R., Explicature and semantics[A]. Davis, S. & B. Gillon (eds.), Semantics: A Reader[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004: 817-845.
Chomsky, N. Aspects of the theory of syntax[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965.
Chomsky, N. Language and mind[M]. New York: Harcort, Brace & World, 1968.
Chomsky, N. Reflections on language[M]. London: Temple Smith, 1976.
Clark, H. H. Using Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Clark, H. H. & P. Lucy. Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study inconversationally conveyed requests[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1975, (14): 56-72.
Cole, P. & J. L. Morgan, (eds.). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts[C]. New York: Academic, 1978.
Coleman, L. & P. Kay. Prototype semantics: the English word‘lie’[J]. Language, 1981, 57 (1): 26-44.
Colleen M. Seifert, Situated Cognition and Learning[A]. Robert A. Wilson and Frank C. Keil, 2000: 767-769.
Colston, H. & J. O’Brien. Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: Anything understandment can do, irony can do better[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2000, (32): 1557-1583.
Cooper, R., D. V. Delong, R. Forsythe, and T. W. Ross. Communication in the battle of the sexes game: some experimental results[J]. RAND Journal of Economics, 1989 (20): 568-587.
Cooper, R., D. V. Delong, R. Forsythe, and T. W. Ross. Communication in coordination games[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1989, (107): 739-771.
Croft, W. Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach[M]. Harlow, Essex: Longman, 2000.
Croft, W. The relevance of an evolutionary model to historical linguistics[A]. Ole Nederg?rd Thomsen (ed.) Competing models of linguistic change: evolution and beyond[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006: 91-132.
Croft, W. & D. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Cummings, L. Pragmatics: A Multidisciplinary Perspective[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2005.
Dascal, M. Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind I: Thought in language[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1983.
Dascal, M. & E. Weizman. Contextual exploitation of interpretation clues in textunderstanding: an integrated model[A]. J. Verschueren & M. B.Papi, (eds.), The pragmatic perspective: selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1987.
Davidson, D. Radical Interpretation[J]. Dialectica, 1973, (27): 313-328.
Dawkins, R. The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Dekker, P. & R. van Rooy. Bi-directional optimality theory: An application of game theory[J]. Journal of Semantics, 2000, (17): 217-242.
Dennett, D. Intentional Stance [A]. Wilson, R. A. & Keil, F. C. (eds.), 2000: 412-413.
Dews, S. & E. Winner. Attributing meaning to deliberate false utterances: The case of irony[A]. Mandell, C. & A. McCabe (eds.), The problem of meaning: Behavioral and cognitive perspectives[C]. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1997: 377-414.
Dews, S., E. Winner, J. Kaplan, E. Rosenblatt, M. Hunt, K. Lim, A. McGovern, A. Qualter, and B. Smarsh. Children’s understanding of the meaning and functions of verbal irony[J]. Child Development, 1996, (67): 3071-3085.
Dillon, G. L., Coleman, L., Fahnestock, J. Agar, J. Review article[J]. Language, 1985, (61): 446-460.
Dirven, Rene. Major strands in Cognitive Linguistics[A]. de Mendoza, Ruiz & Jose, Francisco (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics[C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005: 17-68.
Elman, J. L. & J. L. McClelland. Exploiting lawful variability in the speech wave form[A]. J. S. Perkell & D. H. Klatt (eds.), Invariance and variability in speech processes[C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1986: 360-385.
Elman, J. L., E. Bates, M. H. Johnson, A. Karmiloff-Smith, D. Parisi, and K. Plunkett. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
Fairclough, N. Language and Power[M]. London: Longman, 1989.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. Blending as a central process in Grammar[A]. A. E. Goldbderg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language[C]. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 1996: 113-130.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. The way we think[M]. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
Foa, U. G. Interpersonal Economic Resources[J]. Science, 1971, (171): 345-351.
Fraser, B. Perspectives on politeness[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1990, 14, (2): 219-236. Gazdar, G. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form[M]. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
Gentner, D. & D. R. Gentner. Flowing waters or teeming crowds: mental models of electricity[A]. Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L. (eds.), Mental Models[M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983: 99-129.
Gibbs, R. W. Figurative thought and figurative language[A]. Gernsbacher, M. A. (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics[C]. New York: Academic Press, 1994: 411-446.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. Embodied action in thought and language[A]. Mendoza, F. J. De & M. S.Pena (eds.), 2005: 225-247.
Gibbs, R. W. What makes some indirect speech acts conventional[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1986, (115): 1-13.
Gibson, J. The ecological approach to visual perception[M]. Boston: Houghton, 1979.
Gibson, J. The theory of affordances[A]. Shaw, R. E. & J. Bransford (eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing[C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.
Giora, R. On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1999, (31): 919-29.
Giora, R. & O. Fein. Irony: Context and salience[J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 1999a, (14): 241-57.
Giora, R. & O. Fein. On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1999b, (31): 1601-18.
Giora, R., O. Fein, and T. Schwartz. Irony: Graded Salience and Indirect negation[J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 1998, (13): 83-101.
Glucksberg, S., P. Gildea, and H. B. Bookin. On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors?[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1982, (21): 85-98.
Goffman, E. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior[M]. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1967.
Grady, J. E., O. Todd, and C. Seanna. Blending and metaphor[A]. Gibbs, R. W. Jr. & G. J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive linguistics[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999: 101-124.
Green, M. Quantity, volubility, and some varieties of discourse[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1995, (18): 83–112.
Greeno, J. G. Gibson's Affordances[J]. Psychological Review, 1994, (2): 336-342.
Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation[A]. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 1975: 41-48.
Grice, H. P. Meaning[J]. Philosophical Review, 1957, (66): 377-388.
Grundy, P. Doing Pragmatics[M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1995.
Gumperz, J. & J. Cook-Gumperz. Ethnic differences in communicative style[A]. Ferguson, C. A. & B. Heath (eds.), Language in the USA[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981: 430-445.
Gumperz, J. Contextualization cues and metapragmatics: the retrieval of cultural knowledge[MS]. University of Berkeley, 1989.
Gumperz, J. Contextualization Revisited[A]. Auer, P. & di A. Luzio (eds.), The Contextualization of Language[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1992: 39-53.
Gumperz, J. Contextualization and understanding[A]. A. Duranti & Ch.Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context[C]. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Gumperz, J. Discourse Strategies[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Halliday, M. A. K. Functional diversity in language[J]. Foundations of Language, 1977, (6): 322-361.
Halliday, M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotic [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
Hansen, P. G. Evolutionary games and social conventions[A]. Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko (ed.), 2007: 61-88.
Hashida, K. Issues in communication game[A]. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics[C]. Copenhagen, 1996: 531-536.
Hintikka, J. Information-seeking dialogues: some of their logical properties[J]. Studia Logica, 1979, (32): 355-363.
Hintikka, J. On the logic of an interrogative model of scientific inquiry[J]. Syntheses, 1981, (47): 69-83.
Hintikka, J. & G. Sandu. Game-theoretical semantics[A]. van Benthem, J. and A. Meulen (eds.), Handbook of logic and language[C]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997: 361–410.
Hirschberg, J. A theory of scalar implicature[D]. University of Pennsylvania, 1985.
Hofbauer, J. & K. Sigmund. Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Holms, J. Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English[J]. Anthropological Linguistics, 1986, (28): 485-508.
Horn, L. & Ward, G. The hand book of pragmatics[C]. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.
Horn, L. Implicature[A]. L. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, 2004: 3-28.
Horn, L. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English[M]. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1972.
Horn, L. Pragmatic Theory[A]. F. J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey: Vol. 1. linguistics Theory: Foundations[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988: 113-145.
Horn, L. Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature[A]. D. Schiffrin (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984[C]. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1984: 11-42.
Howe, L. A.陈志刚译.哈贝马斯[M].北京:中华书局, 2002.
Huang, Y. Pragmatics[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Huang, Y. Reflections on theoretical pragmatics[J].外国语,2001, (3): 2-14.
Hutchins, E. Cognition in the wild[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995a.
Hutchins, E. How a cockpit remembers its speed[J]. Cognitive Science, 1995b, (19): 265-288.
Hymes, D. The ethnography of speaking[A]. T. Gladwin & W. C. Sturtevant (eds.), Anthropology and human behavior[C]. Washington, D.C.: Anthropological Society of Washington, 1962: 13-53.
Iacoboni, M., R. P. Woods, M. Brass, H. Bekkering, J. C. Mazziotta, and G. Rizzolatti. Cortical mechanisms of human imitation[J]. Science, 1999, (286): 2526-2528.
Jaszczolt, K. M. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse[M]. Beijing: Beijng University Press, 2004.
Jay, T. B. The Psychology of Language[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2004.
Johnson, M. H. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.
Johnson-Laird, P. Mental models in cognitive science[J].Cognitive Science, 1980, (4): 71-115.
Johnson-Laird, P. Mental Models of Meaning[A]. A. K. Joshi, B.L. Webber & I. A. Sag (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Johnson-Laird, P. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. Modularity of Mind[A]. R. A. Wilson & F. C. Kail (eds.), 2000: 558-561
Kasher, A. Cognitive Pragmatics. http://www.tau.ac.il/kasher/pprag.htm.1998.
Kasher, A. Conversational maxims and rationality[A]. A. Kasher (ed.), Language infocus: Foundations, methods and systems[C]. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1976: 197-216.
Kasher, A. Gricean inference revisited[J]. Philosophica, 1982, (29): 25-44.
Kelso, J. S. Dynamic Patterns: The Self-organization of Brain and Behavior[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
Knapp, M. L. & A. L. Vangelisti. Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships[M]. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1992.
Kohler, E., C. Keysers, M. A. Umilta, L. Fogassi, V. Gallese & G. Rizzolati. Hearing sounds, understanding actions: Action representation in mirror neurons[J]. Science, 2002, (297): 846-848.
Labov, W. Sociolinguistic Patterns[M]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972a.
Lakoff, G. The contemporary theory of metaphor[A]. A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993: 202-51.
Lakoff, G. Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. Metaphor we live by[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Lakoff, G. & M. Turner. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.
Lakoff, R. Language in context[J]. Language, 1972, (48): 907-927.
Lakoff, R. The logic of politeness; or minding your P’s and Q’s[A]. C. Corum et al.(eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting[C]. Chicago Linguistic Society, 1973. Leech, G. Explorations in semantics and pragmatics[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1980. Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics[M]. London: Penguin, 1983. Levinson, S. C. Minimization and conversational inference[A]. J. Verschueren and M.Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985: 61-129.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatic and the grammar of anaphora[J]. Journal of Linguistics, 1987, (23): 397-431.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001.
Levinson, S. C. Presumptive Meanings[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.
Levinson, S. C. Activity Types and Language[J]. Linguistics,1979, (17): 365-399.
Lewis, D. Convention: A philosophical study[M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.
Luhmann, N. Rechtssoziologie, Vol. I[M]. Reinbek: Rowohlt Verlag, 1972.
Lyons, J. Semantics, Vol. 1 [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Lyons, J. Semantics, Vol. 2[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Matsui, T. Bridging and Relevance[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000.
Matsumoto, Y. Reexamination of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japanese[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1988, (12): 403-26.
McClelland, J. L. Stochastic interactive processes and the effect of context on perception[J]. Cognitive Psychology, 1991, (23): 1-44.
McClelland, J. L. & J. L. Elman. The TRACE model of speech perception[J]. Cognitive Psychology, 1986, (18): 1-86.
McClelland, J. L. & D. E. Rumelhart. An interactive-activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1: An account of the basic findings[J]. Psychological Review, 1981, (88): 375-401.
Mehrabian, A. Nonverbal Communication[M]. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1972.
Mehta, J., C. Starmer, and R. Sugden. The nature of Salience: an experimental investigation of pure coordination games[J]. American Economic Review, 1994, (3): 658-673.
Mendoza, F. J. & M. S. Pena, (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics[C]. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter, 2005.
Miller, A. Philosophy of Language[M]. London: UCL Press, 1998.
Miller, G. A. Images and models similes and metaphors[A]. A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought[C]. Cambridge: CUP, 1979: 202-250.
Miyoshi, J. Building Game-theoretic Models of Conversations[A]. Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen (ed.), 2007: 119-133.
Morgan, J. L. Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts[A]. P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.), 1978: 261-280.
Mushin, I. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001.
Nicolis, G. & I. Prigogine. Self organization in Non-equilibrium Systems[M]. New York: Wiley, 1977.
Norman, D. A. Cognitive artifacts[A]. J. M. Carroll (ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface[C]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Norman, D. The Psychology of Everyday Things[M]. New York: Basic Books, 1988.
Nuyts, J. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization[M]. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001.
Nwoye, G. G. Linguistic politeness and sociocultural variation of the notion of face[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1992, (16): 309-28.
Ortony, A. Beyond literal similarity[J]. Psychological Review, 1979, (86): 161-80.
Ortony, A. Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice[J]. Educational Theory, 1975, (25): 45-53.
Osgood, C. E., Suct, G. J., and P. H. Tannenbaum. The Measurement of Meaning[M]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957.
Papafragou, A. Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface[M]. Amsterdam: ELSEVIER, 2000.
Parikh, P. Radical Semantics: A new theory of meaning[J]. Journal of PhilosophicalLogic, 2006, (35): 349-391.
Parikh, P. The Use of Language[M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2001.
Pietarinen, Ahit-Veikko. An invitation to Language and games[A]. Pietarinen, Ahit-Veikko (ed.), 2007: 1-15.
Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko (ed.). Game Theory and Linguistic Meaning[C]. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007.
Prigogine, I. From Being to Becoming[M]. New York: Freeman, 1980.
Prigogine, I. & I. Stengers. Order out Chaos[M]. Toronto: Bantam, 1984.
Quartz, S. R. & T. J. Sejnowsky. A neural basis of cognitive development: A constructivist manifesto[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1997, (20): 537-556.
Recanati, F. Literal Meaning[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004b.
Recanati, F. Pragmatics and semantics[A]. L. R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), 2004a: 442-462.
Richards, I. A. The philosophy of rhetoric[M]. Oxford: OUP, 1936.
Rizzolatti, Giacomo, and Michael Arbib. Language within our grasp[J]. Trends in Neural Sciences, 1998, 21, (5): 188-194
Rogers, W. T. & Jones, S. E. Effects of Dominance Tendencies on Floor Holding and Interruption Behavior in Dyadic Interaction[J]. Human Communication research, 1975, (1): 113-122.
Rosaldo, M. Knowledge and Passion: Ilongot Notions of Self and Social Life[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
Rosaldo, M. The ways we do things with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy[J]. Language in Society, 1982, (11): 203-237.
Rosch, E. Reclaiming concepts[J]. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1999, (6): 61-77.
Rose, R. Lifelines: Biology, Freedom, Determinism[M]. London: Lane, 1992.
Rosenschein, S. & L. Kaelbling. A situated view of representation and control[A]. P. A. Agre & S. Rosenschein (eds.), Special Issue on Computational Research onInteraction and Agency[C]. Artificial Intelligence January/February, 1995.
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., and the PDP Research Group. Paralleled distributed Processes: Vol.1: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.
Saarinen, E. Game-theoretical Semantics[C]. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979.
Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff & G. Jefferson. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation[J]. Language, 1974, (50): 696-735.
Sadock, J. On testing for conversational implicature[A]. Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics: Pragmatics[C]. New York: Academic, 1978: 281–297.
Sally, D. A general theory of sympathy, mind-reading, and social interaction, with an application to the prisoner’s dilemma[J]. Social Science Information, 2000, (39): 567-734.
Sally, D. On sympathy and games[J] Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2001, (44): 1-30.
Sally, D. Risky Speech: behavioral game theory and pragmatics[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2003, (35): 1223-1245.
Sally, D. Two economic applications of sympathy[J]. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 2002, (18): 455-487.
Schegloff, E. Between micro and macro: context and other connections[A]. J. C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Munch, and N. Smelser (eds.). The macro-micro link[C]. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987: 207-34.
Schiffer, S. Meaning[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Schmidt, D., R. Shupp, J. M.Walker, and Ostrom, E. Playing Safe in Coordination Games: The Role of Risk Dominance, Payoff Dominance, Social History, and Reputation[MS]. Indiana University Press, 2000.
Schuster, P. & K. Sigmund. Replicator dynamics[J]. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1983, (100): 533-538.
Schutz, W. C. FIRO: A Three-Dimension Theory of Interpersonal Behavior[M]. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1958.
Searle, J. R. Intentionality[M]. Cambridge University Press. 1983.
Searle, J. R. Metaphor[A]. A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979: 92-123.
Searle, J. R. Expressing and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts[M].北京: 外语教学与研究出版社, 2001a: 1-29.
Searle, J. R. Speech Acts: An essay in the Philosophy of Language[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001b.
Searle, J. R. What is a Speech Act?[A]. Max Black(ed.), Philosophy in America[C]. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1965: 221-239
Shimanoff, S. B. Communication Rules[M]. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1980.
Smith, B. C. Situatedness/Embededness[A]. R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (eds.), 2000: 769-771.
Smith, M. R. & G. R. Price. The logic of animal conflict[J]. Nature, 1973, (246): 15-18.
Smith, M. R. Evolution and the Theory of Games[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Sowa, J. F. Language games, a foundation for semantics and ontology[A]. Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen (ed.), 2007: 17-37.
Sperber, D & D. A. Wilson. deflationary account of metaphors[A]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2006, (18): 171-203.
Sperber, D & D. Wilson. Precis of Relevance[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1987, (10): 698-754,
Stalnaker, R. Saying and Meaning, Cheap Talk and Credibility[A], Benz, A., Gerhard J?ger, and R. van Rooij (eds.), 2006: 83-100.
Stamenov, M. & Gallese, V. Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002.
Straub, P. G. Risk dominance and coordination failures in static games[J]. QuarterlyReview of Economics and Finance, 1995, (35): 339-363.
Strawson, P. F. Intention and convention in speech acts[J]. Philosophical Review, 1964, (75): 439-460.
Suchman, L. A. Plans and Situated Action[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Taylor, P. D. & L. B. Jonker. Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics[J]. Mathematical Biosciences, 1978, (40): 145-156.
Thibaut, J. W. & H. H. Kelley. The Social Psychology of Groups[M]. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959.
Thomas, J. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics[M]. London: Longman, 1995.
Tomasello, M. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Tourangeau, R. & R. Sternberg. Understanding and appreciating metaphors[J]. Cognition, 1982, (11): 203-44.
Ullmann-Margalit, E. The Emergence of Norms[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001.
van Huyck, J. B., R. C. Battalio, R. O. Beil. Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure[J]. American Economic Review, 1990, (80): 234-248.
van Rooij, R. Different faces of risky speech[A]. Benz, A., G. Jager, and R. van Rooij (eds.), 2006: 152-173.
van Rooiy, R. Quality and quantity of information exchange[J]. Journal of Logic, Language, and Computation, 2003a, (12): 423-451.
van Rooy, R. Questioning and relevance[A]. Questions and Answers: Theoretical and Applied perspectives (Proceedings of 2nd CologNET-ElsNET Symposium),2003c: 96-107.
van Rooy, R. Questioning to resolve decision problems[J].Linguistics and Philosophy, 2003b, (26): 727-763.
van Rooy, R. Utility of Mention-some questions[J]. Research on Language and Computation, 2004, (2): 401-416.
van Rooy, R. Relevance and bi-directional optimality theory[A]. R. Blutner & H. Zeevat (eds.), Optimality Theory and Pragmatics[C]. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004: 245-259.
Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001.
Viney, W. & D. B. King. A History of Psychology: Ideas and Context[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2004.
von Neumann, J. & O. Morgenstein. The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1944.
Warneryd, K. Communication, Complexity and Evolutionary Stability[J]. International Journal of Game Theory, 1998, (27): 599-609.
Watzlawick, J. Beavin, D. & D. Jackson. Pragmatics of Human Communication[M]. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967.
Weibull, J. W. Evolutionary Game Theory[M]. MIT Press, 2002.
Wiener, M. & A. Mehrabian. Language within Language: Immediacy, a Channel in Verbal Communication[M]. New York: Appelton-Centruy-Crofts, 1968
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. On Grice’s theory of conversation[A]. P. Werth (ed.), Conversation and Discourse[C]. London: Croom Helm, 1981.
Wilson, R. A. & F. C. Keil, (eds.). The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences[C]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000
Yule, G. Pragmatics[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
Zhang, J. A distributed representation approach to group problem solving[J]. Journal of American Society of Information Science, 1998, (49): 801-809.
Zhang, J. Distributed representation as a principle for the analysis of cockpitinformation displays[J]. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1997a, (7): 105-121.
Zhang, J. The nature of external representations in problem solving[J]. Cognitive Science, 1997b, (21): 179-217.
Zhang, J. & D. A. Norman. Representations in distributed cognitive tasks[J]. Cognitive Science, 1994, 18, (1): 87-122.
Zhang, J. & V. L. Patel. Distributed Cognition, Representation, and Affordance[J]. Cognition & Pragmatics, 2006, (14): 333-341.
Zipf, G. Human behavior and the principle of least effort[M]. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1949.
埃科,王天清译.符号学与语言学[M].天津:百花文艺出版社, 2006.
玻姆,洪定国,张桂权,查有梁译.整体性与隐缠序[M].上海:上海科技教育出版社, 2004.
布尔迪厄,褚思真,刘晖译.言语意味着什么[M].北京:商务印书馆, 2005.
蔡曙山.逻辑、心理与认知[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2006, (3): 5-12.
陈嘉映.语言哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2006.
戴维森,牟博,江怡译.对真理与解释的探究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2007.
戴维森.真理和意义[A].牟博等译.语言哲学[C].北京:商务印书馆, 1998: 127-151.
杜威,傅统先译.经验与自然[M].南京:江苏教育出版社, 2005.
范冬萍.复杂系统的因果观和方法论[J].哲学研究, 2008, (2): 90-96.
海尔,高新民等译.当代心灵哲学导论[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2005.
何自然,谢朝群,陈新仁.语用三论:关联论、顺应论、模因论[M].上海:上海教育出版社, 2007.
何自然.语言中的摹因[A].《外国语言文学》编辑部,语用学研究[C].福州:福建人民出版社, 2006: 1-18.
江怡.维特根斯坦:一种后哲学文化[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社, 1998.
姜望琪.再评关联理论[J].外语教学与研究, 2002, (5): 301-308.
克拉默.混沌与秩序:生物系统的复杂结构[M].柯志阳,吴彤译.上海:上海科技教育出版社, 2000.
库恩.金吾伦,胡新和译.科学革命的结构[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2003.
蒯因.本体论的相对性[A].贾可春译,陈波、韩林合.逻辑与语言[C].北京:东方出版社, 2005: 409-448.
蒯因.陈启伟等译,语词和对象[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
蒯因.经验主义的两个教条[A].牟博等译.语言哲学[C].北京:商务印书馆, 1998: 39-65.
拉斯缪森.王晖等译.博弈与信息[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2003.
勒温.高觉敷译,拓扑心理学原理[M].北京:商务印书馆, 2003.
李曙华.当代科学的规范转换[J].哲学研究, 2006, (11): 89-94.
李醒民.从理论整体论到意义整体论[J].湖南社会科学, 2003, (5): 8-15.
廖巧云.言语交际的三维阐释[M].四川大学出版社, 2005.
刘放桐等.新编现代西方哲学[M].北京:人民出版社, 2000.
刘高岑.从语言分析到语境重建[M].太原:山西科学技术出版社, 2003.
鲁宾斯坦,钱勇,周翼译.经济学与语言[M].上海:上海财经大学出版社, 2004.
罗西.姜志辉译.分析哲学[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1998.
梅斯.《发生认识论原理》序,北京:商务印书馆, 1997.
皮亚杰,王宪钿译.发生认识论原理[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1997.
皮亚杰,加西亚.李其维译.走向一种意义的逻辑[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社, 2005.
钱冠连.言语功能假信息:兼论Grice“合作原则”的拯救[J].外国语, 1987, (5): 21-25.
钱冠连.“不合作”现象[J].现代外语, 1989, (1): 18-23
塞尔.李步楼译.心灵、语言和社会[M].上海:上海译文出版社, 2006.
塞尔.王巍译.心灵的再发现[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2005.
斯蒂芬等.联结主义,取消主义与命中心理学的未来[A].高新民,储昭华编,心灵哲学[C].北京:商务印书馆, 2002: 716-741.
苏波特尼克.史忠义译.言语行为哲学[M].天津:天津人民出版社。
索绪尔.高明凯译.普通语言学教程[M].北京:商务印书馆, 2005.
维果茨基.李维译.思维与语言[M].杭州:浙江教育出版社, 1997.
维特根斯坦.贺绍甲译,逻辑哲学论[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1994.
维特根斯坦.李步楼译.哲学研究[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1995.
吴炳章.常规关系和语言使用[A].束定芳主编,语言研究的语用和认知视角[C].上海外语教育出版社, 2008: 11-45.
吴炳章.生成整体论:语用学研究的新范式[J].外语学刊, 2008, (3): 65-68.
徐盛桓.新格赖斯会话含意理论和语用推理[J].外国语, 1993, (1): 7-14.
徐盛桓.论意向含意[J].外语研究, 1994, (1): 4-12.
徐盛桓.论荷恩的等级关系[J].外国语, 1995, (1): 11-17.
徐盛桓.含意本体论研究[J].外语教学与研究, 1996a (3): 20-27.
徐盛桓.话语的含意性[J].外语研究, 1996b, (3): 1-8.
徐盛桓.含意本体论论纲[J].外语与外语教学, 1997a, (1): 5-10。
徐盛桓.话语含意化过程[J].外国语, 1997b, (1).17-24.
徐盛桓.成语的生成[J].暨南大学华文学院学报, 2004, (2): 42-51.
徐盛桓.幂姆与文学作品互文性研究[J].暨南大学华文学院学报, 2005 , (1).
徐盛桓.语用推理的认知研究[J].中国外语, 2005, (5): 10-16.
徐盛桓.相邻和补足[J].四川外语学院学报, 2006a, (2): 107-111.
徐盛桓.相邻和相似[J].暨南大学华文学院学报, 2006b, (3): 33-41.
徐盛桓.常规推理与“Grice循环”的消解[J].外语教学与研究, 2006c, (3): 163-171.
徐盛桓.认知语用学研究论纲[J].外语教学, 2007, (3): 1-6
叶闯.理解的条件:戴维森的解释理论[M].商务印书馆, 2006.
于根元.动态:语言的本质[J].语文建设, 1997a, (8): 16-20.
于根元.动态:语言的本质[J].语文建设,1997b, (9): 21-25.
赵汀阳.民主的最小伤害原则和最大兼容原则[J].哲学研究, 2008, (6): 64-71.
周国梅,傅小兰.分布式认知[J].心理科学进展, 2002, (2): 147-153.
Asher, N., I. Sher and M. Williams. Game-theoretical foundations for Gricean constraints[A]. van Rooij & Stokhof, M.(eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam Colloquium[C]. Amsterdam, 2001: 31-37.
Atlas, J. D. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantic Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Atlas, J. D. Philosophy without ambiguity[M].Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Atlas, J. D. The importance of being‘only’: Testing the neo-Gricean versus neoentailment paradigms[J]. Journal of Semantics, 1993, (10): 301-318.
Atlas, J. D. & S. C. Levinson. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: An introduction to radically radical pragmatics[A]. P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics[C]. New York: Academic Press, 1981:1-66.
Auer, P. Introduction: John Gumperz’Approach to Contextualization[A]. Auer, P. & A. D. Luzio, (eds.), The contextualization of language[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1992: 1-37.
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2002.
Bach, K. Default Reasoning: Jumping to Conclusions and knowing when to think twice[J]. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 1984, (65): 37– 58.
Bach, K. Pragmatics and the philosophy of language[A]. L. R. Horn and G. Ward, 2004: 463-487.
Banerjee, A. & J. W. Weibull. Evolutionary Selection with Discriminating Players[M]. Stockholm: The Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research, 1993.
Bartsch, R. Norms of Language [M]. London: Longman, 1987.
Bates, E. & B. MacWhinney. Functionalist approaches to grammar[A]. E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman, (eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982: 173-218
Battalio, R., Samuelson, L., van Huyck, J. Optimization incentives and coordination failure in laboratory stag hunt games[J]. Econometrica, 2001, (69): 749-764.
Baxter, L. A. A Dialectical Perspective on Communication Strategies in Relationship Development[A]. S. Duck (ed.), Hand book of Personal Relationships[C]. New York: Willey, 1988: 257-273.
Baxter, L. A. Dialectical Constructions in Relationship Development[J]. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1990, (7): 69-88.
Benz, A. Utility and Relevance of Answers[A]. Benz, A., G. Jager, and R. van Rooij (eds.), 2006: 195-219.
Benz, A., G. Jager, and R. van Rooij. Game Theory and Pragmatics[C]. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2006.
Bernardez, E. Social cognition: variation, language, and culture in a cognitive linguistic typology[A]. Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez & M. Sandra Pena Cervel, (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics[C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005: 191-222.
Berninghaus, S. K., K. M. Ehrhart, and C. Keser. Conventions and local interaction structures: experimental evidence[J]. Games and Economic Behavior, 2002, (39): 177-205.
Berthoz, A. The Brain’s Sense of Movement[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Black, M. Models and metaphors[M]. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962.
Black, M. More about metaphor[A]. Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979: 19-41.
Blackmore, S. The Meme Machine[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Blakemore, D. Understanding utterances[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Brooks, R. A. Intelligence without representation[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 1997, (47): 139-159.
Brown, G. & G. Yule. Discourse Analysis[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2000.
Brown, P. & S. C. Levinson. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena[A]. Goody, E. N. (ed.), Questions and politeness[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978: 56-310.
Brown, P. & S. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Bussmann, H. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001.
Capra, F. The role of physics in the current change of paradigms[A]. In R. F. Kitchener (ed.), The worldviews of contemporary physics[C]. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988: 144-155.
Capra, F. The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture[M]. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1982.
Carlson, L. Dialogue Games [M]. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983.
Carston, R. Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics[A]. R. M. Kempson (ed.), Mental representations: the interface between language and reality[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988: 155-181.
Carston, R. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication[M]. Malden: Blackwell, 2002.
Carston, R., Explicature and semantics[A]. Davis, S. & B. Gillon (eds.), Semantics: A Reader[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004: 817-845.
Chomsky, N. Aspects of the theory of syntax[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965.
Chomsky, N. Language and mind[M]. New York: Harcort, Brace & World, 1968.
Chomsky, N. Reflections on language[M]. London: Temple Smith, 1976.
Clark, H. H. Using Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Clark, H. H. & P. Lucy. Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study inconversationally conveyed requests[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1975, (14): 56-72.
Cole, P. & J. L. Morgan, (eds.). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts[C]. New York: Academic, 1978.
Coleman, L. & P. Kay. Prototype semantics: the English word‘lie’[J]. Language, 1981, 57 (1): 26-44.
Colleen M. Seifert, Situated Cognition and Learning[A]. Robert A. Wilson and Frank C. Keil, 2000: 767-769.
Colston, H. & J. O’Brien. Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: Anything understandment can do, irony can do better[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2000, (32): 1557-1583.
Cooper, R., D. V. Delong, R. Forsythe, and T. W. Ross. Communication in the battle of the sexes game: some experimental results[J]. RAND Journal of Economics, 1989 (20): 568-587.
Cooper, R., D. V. Delong, R. Forsythe, and T. W. Ross. Communication in coordination games[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1989, (107): 739-771.
Croft, W. Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach[M]. Harlow, Essex: Longman, 2000.
Croft, W. The relevance of an evolutionary model to historical linguistics[A]. Ole Nederg?rd Thomsen (ed.) Competing models of linguistic change: evolution and beyond[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006: 91-132.
Croft, W. & D. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Cummings, L. Pragmatics: A Multidisciplinary Perspective[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2005.
Dascal, M. Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind I: Thought in language[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1983.
Dascal, M. & E. Weizman. Contextual exploitation of interpretation clues in textunderstanding: an integrated model[A]. J. Verschueren & M. B.Papi, (eds.), The pragmatic perspective: selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1987.
Davidson, D. Radical Interpretation[J]. Dialectica, 1973, (27): 313-328.
Dawkins, R. The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Dekker, P. & R. van Rooy. Bi-directional optimality theory: An application of game theory[J]. Journal of Semantics, 2000, (17): 217-242.
Dennett, D. Intentional Stance [A]. Wilson, R. A. & Keil, F. C. (eds.), 2000: 412-413.
Dews, S. & E. Winner. Attributing meaning to deliberate false utterances: The case of irony[A]. Mandell, C. & A. McCabe (eds.), The problem of meaning: Behavioral and cognitive perspectives[C]. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1997: 377-414.
Dews, S., E. Winner, J. Kaplan, E. Rosenblatt, M. Hunt, K. Lim, A. McGovern, A. Qualter, and B. Smarsh. Children’s understanding of the meaning and functions of verbal irony[J]. Child Development, 1996, (67): 3071-3085.
Dillon, G. L., Coleman, L., Fahnestock, J. Agar, J. Review article[J]. Language, 1985, (61): 446-460.
Dirven, Rene. Major strands in Cognitive Linguistics[A]. de Mendoza, Ruiz & Jose, Francisco (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics[C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005: 17-68.
Elman, J. L. & J. L. McClelland. Exploiting lawful variability in the speech wave form[A]. J. S. Perkell & D. H. Klatt (eds.), Invariance and variability in speech processes[C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1986: 360-385.
Elman, J. L., E. Bates, M. H. Johnson, A. Karmiloff-Smith, D. Parisi, and K. Plunkett. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
Fairclough, N. Language and Power[M]. London: Longman, 1989.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. Blending as a central process in Grammar[A]. A. E. Goldbderg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language[C]. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 1996: 113-130.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. The way we think[M]. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
Foa, U. G. Interpersonal Economic Resources[J]. Science, 1971, (171): 345-351.
Fraser, B. Perspectives on politeness[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1990, 14, (2): 219-236. Gazdar, G. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form[M]. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
Gentner, D. & D. R. Gentner. Flowing waters or teeming crowds: mental models of electricity[A]. Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L. (eds.), Mental Models[M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983: 99-129.
Gibbs, R. W. Figurative thought and figurative language[A]. Gernsbacher, M. A. (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics[C]. New York: Academic Press, 1994: 411-446.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. Embodied action in thought and language[A]. Mendoza, F. J. De & M. S.Pena (eds.), 2005: 225-247.
Gibbs, R. W. What makes some indirect speech acts conventional[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1986, (115): 1-13.
Gibson, J. The ecological approach to visual perception[M]. Boston: Houghton, 1979.
Gibson, J. The theory of affordances[A]. Shaw, R. E. & J. Bransford (eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing[C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.
Giora, R. On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1999, (31): 919-29.
Giora, R. & O. Fein. Irony: Context and salience[J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 1999a, (14): 241-57.
Giora, R. & O. Fein. On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1999b, (31): 1601-18.
Giora, R., O. Fein, and T. Schwartz. Irony: Graded Salience and Indirect negation[J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 1998, (13): 83-101.
Glucksberg, S., P. Gildea, and H. B. Bookin. On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors?[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1982, (21): 85-98.
Goffman, E. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior[M]. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1967.
Grady, J. E., O. Todd, and C. Seanna. Blending and metaphor[A]. Gibbs, R. W. Jr. & G. J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive linguistics[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999: 101-124.
Green, M. Quantity, volubility, and some varieties of discourse[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1995, (18): 83–112.
Greeno, J. G. Gibson's Affordances[J]. Psychological Review, 1994, (2): 336-342.
Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation[A]. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 1975: 41-48.
Grice, H. P. Meaning[J]. Philosophical Review, 1957, (66): 377-388.
Grundy, P. Doing Pragmatics[M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1995.
Gumperz, J. & J. Cook-Gumperz. Ethnic differences in communicative style[A]. Ferguson, C. A. & B. Heath (eds.), Language in the USA[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981: 430-445.
Gumperz, J. Contextualization cues and metapragmatics: the retrieval of cultural knowledge[MS]. University of Berkeley, 1989.
Gumperz, J. Contextualization Revisited[A]. Auer, P. & di A. Luzio (eds.), The Contextualization of Language[C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1992: 39-53.
Gumperz, J. Contextualization and understanding[A]. A. Duranti & Ch.Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context[C]. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Gumperz, J. Discourse Strategies[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Halliday, M. A. K. Functional diversity in language[J]. Foundations of Language, 1977, (6): 322-361.
Halliday, M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotic [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
Hansen, P. G. Evolutionary games and social conventions[A]. Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko (ed.), 2007: 61-88.
Hashida, K. Issues in communication game[A]. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics[C]. Copenhagen, 1996: 531-536.
Hintikka, J. Information-seeking dialogues: some of their logical properties[J]. Studia Logica, 1979, (32): 355-363.
Hintikka, J. On the logic of an interrogative model of scientific inquiry[J]. Syntheses, 1981, (47): 69-83.
Hintikka, J. & G. Sandu. Game-theoretical semantics[A]. van Benthem, J. and A. Meulen (eds.), Handbook of logic and language[C]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997: 361–410.
Hirschberg, J. A theory of scalar implicature[D]. University of Pennsylvania, 1985.
Hofbauer, J. & K. Sigmund. Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Holms, J. Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English[J]. Anthropological Linguistics, 1986, (28): 485-508.
Horn, L. & Ward, G. The hand book of pragmatics[C]. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.
Horn, L. Implicature[A]. L. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, 2004: 3-28.
Horn, L. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English[M]. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1972.
Horn, L. Pragmatic Theory[A]. F. J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey: Vol. 1. linguistics Theory: Foundations[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988: 113-145.
Horn, L. Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature[A]. D. Schiffrin (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984[C]. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1984: 11-42.
Howe, L. A.陈志刚译.哈贝马斯[M].北京:中华书局, 2002.
Huang, Y. Pragmatics[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Huang, Y. Reflections on theoretical pragmatics[J].外国语,2001, (3): 2-14.
Hutchins, E. Cognition in the wild[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995a.
Hutchins, E. How a cockpit remembers its speed[J]. Cognitive Science, 1995b, (19): 265-288.
Hymes, D. The ethnography of speaking[A]. T. Gladwin & W. C. Sturtevant (eds.), Anthropology and human behavior[C]. Washington, D.C.: Anthropological Society of Washington, 1962: 13-53.
Iacoboni, M., R. P. Woods, M. Brass, H. Bekkering, J. C. Mazziotta, and G. Rizzolatti. Cortical mechanisms of human imitation[J]. Science, 1999, (286): 2526-2528.
Jaszczolt, K. M. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse[M]. Beijing: Beijng University Press, 2004.
Jay, T. B. The Psychology of Language[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2004.
Johnson, M. H. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.
Johnson-Laird, P. Mental models in cognitive science[J].Cognitive Science, 1980, (4): 71-115.
Johnson-Laird, P. Mental Models of Meaning[A]. A. K. Joshi, B.L. Webber & I. A. Sag (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Johnson-Laird, P. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. Modularity of Mind[A]. R. A. Wilson & F. C. Kail (eds.), 2000: 558-561
Kasher, A. Cognitive Pragmatics. http://www.tau.ac.il/kasher/pprag.htm.1998.
Kasher, A. Conversational maxims and rationality[A]. A. Kasher (ed.), Language infocus: Foundations, methods and systems[C]. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1976: 197-216.
Kasher, A. Gricean inference revisited[J]. Philosophica, 1982, (29): 25-44.
Kelso, J. S. Dynamic Patterns: The Self-organization of Brain and Behavior[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
Knapp, M. L. & A. L. Vangelisti. Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships[M]. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1992.
Kohler, E., C. Keysers, M. A. Umilta, L. Fogassi, V. Gallese & G. Rizzolati. Hearing sounds, understanding actions: Action representation in mirror neurons[J]. Science, 2002, (297): 846-848.
Labov, W. Sociolinguistic Patterns[M]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972a.
Lakoff, G. The contemporary theory of metaphor[A]. A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993: 202-51.
Lakoff, G. Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. Metaphor we live by[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Lakoff, G. & M. Turner. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.
Lakoff, R. Language in context[J]. Language, 1972, (48): 907-927.
Lakoff, R. The logic of politeness; or minding your P’s and Q’s[A]. C. Corum et al.(eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting[C]. Chicago Linguistic Society, 1973. Leech, G. Explorations in semantics and pragmatics[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1980. Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics[M]. London: Penguin, 1983. Levinson, S. C. Minimization and conversational inference[A]. J. Verschueren and M.Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985: 61-129.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatic and the grammar of anaphora[J]. Journal of Linguistics, 1987, (23): 397-431.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001.
Levinson, S. C. Presumptive Meanings[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.
Levinson, S. C. Activity Types and Language[J]. Linguistics,1979, (17): 365-399.
Lewis, D. Convention: A philosophical study[M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.
Luhmann, N. Rechtssoziologie, Vol. I[M]. Reinbek: Rowohlt Verlag, 1972.
Lyons, J. Semantics, Vol. 1 [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Lyons, J. Semantics, Vol. 2[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Matsui, T. Bridging and Relevance[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000.
Matsumoto, Y. Reexamination of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japanese[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1988, (12): 403-26.
McClelland, J. L. Stochastic interactive processes and the effect of context on perception[J]. Cognitive Psychology, 1991, (23): 1-44.
McClelland, J. L. & J. L. Elman. The TRACE model of speech perception[J]. Cognitive Psychology, 1986, (18): 1-86.
McClelland, J. L. & D. E. Rumelhart. An interactive-activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1: An account of the basic findings[J]. Psychological Review, 1981, (88): 375-401.
Mehrabian, A. Nonverbal Communication[M]. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1972.
Mehta, J., C. Starmer, and R. Sugden. The nature of Salience: an experimental investigation of pure coordination games[J]. American Economic Review, 1994, (3): 658-673.
Mendoza, F. J. & M. S. Pena, (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics[C]. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter, 2005.
Miller, A. Philosophy of Language[M]. London: UCL Press, 1998.
Miller, G. A. Images and models similes and metaphors[A]. A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought[C]. Cambridge: CUP, 1979: 202-250.
Miyoshi, J. Building Game-theoretic Models of Conversations[A]. Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen (ed.), 2007: 119-133.
Morgan, J. L. Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts[A]. P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.), 1978: 261-280.
Mushin, I. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001.
Nicolis, G. & I. Prigogine. Self organization in Non-equilibrium Systems[M]. New York: Wiley, 1977.
Norman, D. A. Cognitive artifacts[A]. J. M. Carroll (ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface[C]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Norman, D. The Psychology of Everyday Things[M]. New York: Basic Books, 1988.
Nuyts, J. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization[M]. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001.
Nwoye, G. G. Linguistic politeness and sociocultural variation of the notion of face[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1992, (16): 309-28.
Ortony, A. Beyond literal similarity[J]. Psychological Review, 1979, (86): 161-80.
Ortony, A. Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice[J]. Educational Theory, 1975, (25): 45-53.
Osgood, C. E., Suct, G. J., and P. H. Tannenbaum. The Measurement of Meaning[M]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957.
Papafragou, A. Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface[M]. Amsterdam: ELSEVIER, 2000.
Parikh, P. Radical Semantics: A new theory of meaning[J]. Journal of PhilosophicalLogic, 2006, (35): 349-391.
Parikh, P. The Use of Language[M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2001.
Pietarinen, Ahit-Veikko. An invitation to Language and games[A]. Pietarinen, Ahit-Veikko (ed.), 2007: 1-15.
Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko (ed.). Game Theory and Linguistic Meaning[C]. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007.
Prigogine, I. From Being to Becoming[M]. New York: Freeman, 1980.
Prigogine, I. & I. Stengers. Order out Chaos[M]. Toronto: Bantam, 1984.
Quartz, S. R. & T. J. Sejnowsky. A neural basis of cognitive development: A constructivist manifesto[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1997, (20): 537-556.
Recanati, F. Literal Meaning[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004b.
Recanati, F. Pragmatics and semantics[A]. L. R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), 2004a: 442-462.
Richards, I. A. The philosophy of rhetoric[M]. Oxford: OUP, 1936.
Rizzolatti, Giacomo, and Michael Arbib. Language within our grasp[J]. Trends in Neural Sciences, 1998, 21, (5): 188-194
Rogers, W. T. & Jones, S. E. Effects of Dominance Tendencies on Floor Holding and Interruption Behavior in Dyadic Interaction[J]. Human Communication research, 1975, (1): 113-122.
Rosaldo, M. Knowledge and Passion: Ilongot Notions of Self and Social Life[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
Rosaldo, M. The ways we do things with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy[J]. Language in Society, 1982, (11): 203-237.
Rosch, E. Reclaiming concepts[J]. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1999, (6): 61-77.
Rose, R. Lifelines: Biology, Freedom, Determinism[M]. London: Lane, 1992.
Rosenschein, S. & L. Kaelbling. A situated view of representation and control[A]. P. A. Agre & S. Rosenschein (eds.), Special Issue on Computational Research onInteraction and Agency[C]. Artificial Intelligence January/February, 1995.
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., and the PDP Research Group. Paralleled distributed Processes: Vol.1: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.
Saarinen, E. Game-theoretical Semantics[C]. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979.
Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff & G. Jefferson. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation[J]. Language, 1974, (50): 696-735.
Sadock, J. On testing for conversational implicature[A]. Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics: Pragmatics[C]. New York: Academic, 1978: 281–297.
Sally, D. A general theory of sympathy, mind-reading, and social interaction, with an application to the prisoner’s dilemma[J]. Social Science Information, 2000, (39): 567-734.
Sally, D. On sympathy and games[J] Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2001, (44): 1-30.
Sally, D. Risky Speech: behavioral game theory and pragmatics[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2003, (35): 1223-1245.
Sally, D. Two economic applications of sympathy[J]. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 2002, (18): 455-487.
Schegloff, E. Between micro and macro: context and other connections[A]. J. C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Munch, and N. Smelser (eds.). The macro-micro link[C]. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987: 207-34.
Schiffer, S. Meaning[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Schmidt, D., R. Shupp, J. M.Walker, and Ostrom, E. Playing Safe in Coordination Games: The Role of Risk Dominance, Payoff Dominance, Social History, and Reputation[MS]. Indiana University Press, 2000.
Schuster, P. & K. Sigmund. Replicator dynamics[J]. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1983, (100): 533-538.
Schutz, W. C. FIRO: A Three-Dimension Theory of Interpersonal Behavior[M]. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1958.
Searle, J. R. Intentionality[M]. Cambridge University Press. 1983.
Searle, J. R. Metaphor[A]. A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979: 92-123.
Searle, J. R. Expressing and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts[M].北京: 外语教学与研究出版社, 2001a: 1-29.
Searle, J. R. Speech Acts: An essay in the Philosophy of Language[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001b.
Searle, J. R. What is a Speech Act?[A]. Max Black(ed.), Philosophy in America[C]. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1965: 221-239
Shimanoff, S. B. Communication Rules[M]. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1980.
Smith, B. C. Situatedness/Embededness[A]. R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (eds.), 2000: 769-771.
Smith, M. R. & G. R. Price. The logic of animal conflict[J]. Nature, 1973, (246): 15-18.
Smith, M. R. Evolution and the Theory of Games[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Sowa, J. F. Language games, a foundation for semantics and ontology[A]. Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen (ed.), 2007: 17-37.
Sperber, D & D. A. Wilson. deflationary account of metaphors[A]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2006, (18): 171-203.
Sperber, D & D. Wilson. Precis of Relevance[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1987, (10): 698-754,
Stalnaker, R. Saying and Meaning, Cheap Talk and Credibility[A], Benz, A., Gerhard J?ger, and R. van Rooij (eds.), 2006: 83-100.
Stamenov, M. & Gallese, V. Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002.
Straub, P. G. Risk dominance and coordination failures in static games[J]. QuarterlyReview of Economics and Finance, 1995, (35): 339-363.
Strawson, P. F. Intention and convention in speech acts[J]. Philosophical Review, 1964, (75): 439-460.
Suchman, L. A. Plans and Situated Action[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Taylor, P. D. & L. B. Jonker. Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics[J]. Mathematical Biosciences, 1978, (40): 145-156.
Thibaut, J. W. & H. H. Kelley. The Social Psychology of Groups[M]. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959.
Thomas, J. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics[M]. London: Longman, 1995.
Tomasello, M. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Tourangeau, R. & R. Sternberg. Understanding and appreciating metaphors[J]. Cognition, 1982, (11): 203-44.
Ullmann-Margalit, E. The Emergence of Norms[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Ungerer, F. & H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001.
van Huyck, J. B., R. C. Battalio, R. O. Beil. Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure[J]. American Economic Review, 1990, (80): 234-248.
van Rooij, R. Different faces of risky speech[A]. Benz, A., G. Jager, and R. van Rooij (eds.), 2006: 152-173.
van Rooiy, R. Quality and quantity of information exchange[J]. Journal of Logic, Language, and Computation, 2003a, (12): 423-451.
van Rooy, R. Questioning and relevance[A]. Questions and Answers: Theoretical and Applied perspectives (Proceedings of 2nd CologNET-ElsNET Symposium),2003c: 96-107.
van Rooy, R. Questioning to resolve decision problems[J].Linguistics and Philosophy, 2003b, (26): 727-763.
van Rooy, R. Utility of Mention-some questions[J]. Research on Language and Computation, 2004, (2): 401-416.
van Rooy, R. Relevance and bi-directional optimality theory[A]. R. Blutner & H. Zeevat (eds.), Optimality Theory and Pragmatics[C]. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004: 245-259.
Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2001.
Viney, W. & D. B. King. A History of Psychology: Ideas and Context[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2004.
von Neumann, J. & O. Morgenstein. The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1944.
Warneryd, K. Communication, Complexity and Evolutionary Stability[J]. International Journal of Game Theory, 1998, (27): 599-609.
Watzlawick, J. Beavin, D. & D. Jackson. Pragmatics of Human Communication[M]. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967.
Weibull, J. W. Evolutionary Game Theory[M]. MIT Press, 2002.
Wiener, M. & A. Mehrabian. Language within Language: Immediacy, a Channel in Verbal Communication[M]. New York: Appelton-Centruy-Crofts, 1968
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. On Grice’s theory of conversation[A]. P. Werth (ed.), Conversation and Discourse[C]. London: Croom Helm, 1981.
Wilson, R. A. & F. C. Keil, (eds.). The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences[C]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000
Yule, G. Pragmatics[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
Zhang, J. A distributed representation approach to group problem solving[J]. Journal of American Society of Information Science, 1998, (49): 801-809.
Zhang, J. Distributed representation as a principle for the analysis of cockpitinformation displays[J]. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1997a, (7): 105-121.
Zhang, J. The nature of external representations in problem solving[J]. Cognitive Science, 1997b, (21): 179-217.
Zhang, J. & D. A. Norman. Representations in distributed cognitive tasks[J]. Cognitive Science, 1994, 18, (1): 87-122.
Zhang, J. & V. L. Patel. Distributed Cognition, Representation, and Affordance[J]. Cognition & Pragmatics, 2006, (14): 333-341.
Zipf, G. Human behavior and the principle of least effort[M]. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1949.
埃科,王天清译.符号学与语言学[M].天津:百花文艺出版社, 2006.
玻姆,洪定国,张桂权,查有梁译.整体性与隐缠序[M].上海:上海科技教育出版社, 2004.
布尔迪厄,褚思真,刘晖译.言语意味着什么[M].北京:商务印书馆, 2005.
蔡曙山.逻辑、心理与认知[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2006, (3): 5-12.
陈嘉映.语言哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2006.
戴维森,牟博,江怡译.对真理与解释的探究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2007.
戴维森.真理和意义[A].牟博等译.语言哲学[C].北京:商务印书馆, 1998: 127-151.
杜威,傅统先译.经验与自然[M].南京:江苏教育出版社, 2005.
范冬萍.复杂系统的因果观和方法论[J].哲学研究, 2008, (2): 90-96.
海尔,高新民等译.当代心灵哲学导论[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2005.
何自然,谢朝群,陈新仁.语用三论:关联论、顺应论、模因论[M].上海:上海教育出版社, 2007.
何自然.语言中的摹因[A].《外国语言文学》编辑部,语用学研究[C].福州:福建人民出版社, 2006: 1-18.
江怡.维特根斯坦:一种后哲学文化[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社, 1998.
姜望琪.再评关联理论[J].外语教学与研究, 2002, (5): 301-308.
克拉默.混沌与秩序:生物系统的复杂结构[M].柯志阳,吴彤译.上海:上海科技教育出版社, 2000.
库恩.金吾伦,胡新和译.科学革命的结构[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2003.
蒯因.本体论的相对性[A].贾可春译,陈波、韩林合.逻辑与语言[C].北京:东方出版社, 2005: 409-448.
蒯因.陈启伟等译,语词和对象[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
蒯因.经验主义的两个教条[A].牟博等译.语言哲学[C].北京:商务印书馆, 1998: 39-65.
拉斯缪森.王晖等译.博弈与信息[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 2003.
勒温.高觉敷译,拓扑心理学原理[M].北京:商务印书馆, 2003.
李曙华.当代科学的规范转换[J].哲学研究, 2006, (11): 89-94.
李醒民.从理论整体论到意义整体论[J].湖南社会科学, 2003, (5): 8-15.
廖巧云.言语交际的三维阐释[M].四川大学出版社, 2005.
刘放桐等.新编现代西方哲学[M].北京:人民出版社, 2000.
刘高岑.从语言分析到语境重建[M].太原:山西科学技术出版社, 2003.
鲁宾斯坦,钱勇,周翼译.经济学与语言[M].上海:上海财经大学出版社, 2004.
罗西.姜志辉译.分析哲学[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1998.
梅斯.《发生认识论原理》序,北京:商务印书馆, 1997.
皮亚杰,王宪钿译.发生认识论原理[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1997.
皮亚杰,加西亚.李其维译.走向一种意义的逻辑[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社, 2005.
钱冠连.言语功能假信息:兼论Grice“合作原则”的拯救[J].外国语, 1987, (5): 21-25.
钱冠连.“不合作”现象[J].现代外语, 1989, (1): 18-23
塞尔.李步楼译.心灵、语言和社会[M].上海:上海译文出版社, 2006.
塞尔.王巍译.心灵的再发现[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2005.
斯蒂芬等.联结主义,取消主义与命中心理学的未来[A].高新民,储昭华编,心灵哲学[C].北京:商务印书馆, 2002: 716-741.
苏波特尼克.史忠义译.言语行为哲学[M].天津:天津人民出版社。
索绪尔.高明凯译.普通语言学教程[M].北京:商务印书馆, 2005.
维果茨基.李维译.思维与语言[M].杭州:浙江教育出版社, 1997.
维特根斯坦.贺绍甲译,逻辑哲学论[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1994.
维特根斯坦.李步楼译.哲学研究[M].北京:商务印书馆, 1995.
吴炳章.常规关系和语言使用[A].束定芳主编,语言研究的语用和认知视角[C].上海外语教育出版社, 2008: 11-45.
吴炳章.生成整体论:语用学研究的新范式[J].外语学刊, 2008, (3): 65-68.
徐盛桓.新格赖斯会话含意理论和语用推理[J].外国语, 1993, (1): 7-14.
徐盛桓.论意向含意[J].外语研究, 1994, (1): 4-12.
徐盛桓.论荷恩的等级关系[J].外国语, 1995, (1): 11-17.
徐盛桓.含意本体论研究[J].外语教学与研究, 1996a (3): 20-27.
徐盛桓.话语的含意性[J].外语研究, 1996b, (3): 1-8.
徐盛桓.含意本体论论纲[J].外语与外语教学, 1997a, (1): 5-10。
徐盛桓.话语含意化过程[J].外国语, 1997b, (1).17-24.
徐盛桓.成语的生成[J].暨南大学华文学院学报, 2004, (2): 42-51.
徐盛桓.幂姆与文学作品互文性研究[J].暨南大学华文学院学报, 2005 , (1).
徐盛桓.语用推理的认知研究[J].中国外语, 2005, (5): 10-16.
徐盛桓.相邻和补足[J].四川外语学院学报, 2006a, (2): 107-111.
徐盛桓.相邻和相似[J].暨南大学华文学院学报, 2006b, (3): 33-41.
徐盛桓.常规推理与“Grice循环”的消解[J].外语教学与研究, 2006c, (3): 163-171.
徐盛桓.认知语用学研究论纲[J].外语教学, 2007, (3): 1-6
叶闯.理解的条件:戴维森的解释理论[M].商务印书馆, 2006.
于根元.动态:语言的本质[J].语文建设, 1997a, (8): 16-20.
于根元.动态:语言的本质[J].语文建设,1997b, (9): 21-25.
赵汀阳.民主的最小伤害原则和最大兼容原则[J].哲学研究, 2008, (6): 64-71.
周国梅,傅小兰.分布式认知[J].心理科学进展, 2002, (2): 147-153.