元语言否定的认知语用研究
|
摘要
元语言否定不是一个非常热门的话题,但这并不意味着我们可以忽视它的存在。元语言否定在以往的研究中并没有获得真正独立的学术地位,对它的讨论要么从属于否定研究,要么依附于语义-语用界面问题。本文希望针对元语言否定进行较为完整、系统的研究。
本文主要致力于解决元语言否定的性质和元语言否定的解读两个问题。
元语言否定的性质牵涉两个方面,一是否定算子的性质,二是否定辖域内容的性质。Horn认为元语言否定中的否定算子不是标准真值函数性质的,是否定的一种歧义,因此在英语以外的某些语言中会存在不同于一般否定形式的元语言否定特有的形式标记。笔者从跨语言的角度,在汉语、韩语、阿拉伯语和希腊语中,对Horn等人所谓的“元语言否定形式标记”进行了考察,证明这些英语之外的语言中存在的所谓元语言否定的特有形式,不过是一般的语用标记。无论是元语言否定还是描述性否定都只有一个真值函数性质的否定算子,两者的区别在于否定辖域内容的性质：描述性否定辖域内容是对世界状态的描述,而元语言否定辖域内容是元表征成分或如Carston所说的回声性内容。
Carston的回声观点尽管是元语言否定研究的一个突破,但是她对元语言否定的回声性并没有深入研究,因此需要修正和补充。笔者在Carston的基础上对回声来源、回声的语用及认知特征进行了探讨。笔者认为元语言否定是一种双声语现象,回声来源就是隐在的他人话语,是回声存在的前提；通过回声话语,发话者意图使受话者注意言语表达延迟明示的除正常外延所指之外的内容,元语言否定所针对的也正是这一内容；回声是一种背景前景化机制,能够实现图形/背景关系的扭转,元语言否定是对原有背景内容的否定。
元语言否定的解读涉及三个方面的内容：(1)如何判断一句话语是元语言否定；(2)确定发话者所意谓的元语言否定的具体涵义；(3)元语言否定能够达到什么样的效果。元语言否定的解读,以元语言否定的辨识为起点,经过具体涵义的确定,最终达到某种交际效果。
元语言否定的辨识很大程度上依赖于语境,因此笔者对影响元语言否定的语境进行分类,并对其影响元语言否定解读的力度进行评估,在此基础上提出一个元语言否定辨识模式。元语言否定不具有概念意义而只有过程意义,元语言否定辨识出来以后,其具体意义,还必须通过和修正句或语境的对比来确定。这一处理过程笔者将在关联理论的框架中进行刻画,并给出一个确定元语言否定具体含义的图式。元语言否定能够达到纠偏、幽默、强调、改变话语权力、团结“圈内人”等效果。
This dissertation is intended to examine the nature of metalinguistic negation and its interpretation. The former involves two aspects, that is, the nature of negation operator and the nature of material falling in the scope of negation. As far as the nature of negation operator is concerned, contrary to Horn (1985), we agree with Carston (1996) on that the negation operator in cases of metalinguistic negation is exactly the same one as that in cases of descriptive negation:i.e. the standard truth-functional negation. The difference between the two possible interpretations of negative utterances lies with the way in which the material falling in the scope of the negation operator is being used:either it is descriptively used to represent states on the world or echoically used in the sense of Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995).
We have investigated four languages which are claimed to have exclusive operators of metalinguistic negation, and found them nothing but markers of ordinary pragmatic functions, such as focus markers, metarepresentation markers, contrastive markers, etc., which means there is no metalinguistic negation operator at all, and the negation operator in metalinguistic negation is no other than the standard truth-functional operator of negation.
Although Carston's implicit echoic analysis shed much light on the nature of metalinguistic negation, the notion of echo needs to be elaborated. In view of this, we have discussed the origin of echo, the pragmatic nature of metalinguistic negation and its cognitive nature as well. We consider metalinguistic negation as a kind of "double-voiced discourse", and thereby, the origin of echo, as an implicit other's voice, is the prerequisite of echo. By using an echoic expression, the addresser intends the addressee to select from its multiple ostensions something other than the customary referent (either instead of it or in addition to it), which is also the object of negation. As a foregrounding mechanism, the echoic expression can reverse figure/ground segregation, and therefore, it is the ground that is the object of metalinguistic negation.
We should bear it in mind that when we consider the interpretation of metalinguistic negation as an integrated process, it involves three aspects:(1) the identification of a discourse as metalinguistic negation (the process of recognizing metalinguistic negation as a type), (2) the determination of its intended meaning (the interpretation of its value), and (3) the effects achieved by metalinguistic negation (its pragmatic functions).
The identification of metalinguistic negation relies heavily on context, which requires classification of the contextual information and assessment of the influence of the context concerned. Metalinguistic negation doesn't have a conceptual meaning but rather only a procedural one, so we describe the successive cognitive states of an addressee when a metalinguistic negation utterance is processed to catch the procedural meaning of it. A comparison of the negated clause with the correcting clause leads to the determination of what is exactly negated. By metalinguistic negation, we achieve the pragmatic effects of correcting, humor, emphasizing, transiting of discoursive power, and establishing solidarity, etc..
本文主要致力于解决元语言否定的性质和元语言否定的解读两个问题。
元语言否定的性质牵涉两个方面,一是否定算子的性质,二是否定辖域内容的性质。Horn认为元语言否定中的否定算子不是标准真值函数性质的,是否定的一种歧义,因此在英语以外的某些语言中会存在不同于一般否定形式的元语言否定特有的形式标记。笔者从跨语言的角度,在汉语、韩语、阿拉伯语和希腊语中,对Horn等人所谓的“元语言否定形式标记”进行了考察,证明这些英语之外的语言中存在的所谓元语言否定的特有形式,不过是一般的语用标记。无论是元语言否定还是描述性否定都只有一个真值函数性质的否定算子,两者的区别在于否定辖域内容的性质：描述性否定辖域内容是对世界状态的描述,而元语言否定辖域内容是元表征成分或如Carston所说的回声性内容。
Carston的回声观点尽管是元语言否定研究的一个突破,但是她对元语言否定的回声性并没有深入研究,因此需要修正和补充。笔者在Carston的基础上对回声来源、回声的语用及认知特征进行了探讨。笔者认为元语言否定是一种双声语现象,回声来源就是隐在的他人话语,是回声存在的前提；通过回声话语,发话者意图使受话者注意言语表达延迟明示的除正常外延所指之外的内容,元语言否定所针对的也正是这一内容；回声是一种背景前景化机制,能够实现图形/背景关系的扭转,元语言否定是对原有背景内容的否定。
元语言否定的解读涉及三个方面的内容：(1)如何判断一句话语是元语言否定；(2)确定发话者所意谓的元语言否定的具体涵义；(3)元语言否定能够达到什么样的效果。元语言否定的解读,以元语言否定的辨识为起点,经过具体涵义的确定,最终达到某种交际效果。
元语言否定的辨识很大程度上依赖于语境,因此笔者对影响元语言否定的语境进行分类,并对其影响元语言否定解读的力度进行评估,在此基础上提出一个元语言否定辨识模式。元语言否定不具有概念意义而只有过程意义,元语言否定辨识出来以后,其具体意义,还必须通过和修正句或语境的对比来确定。这一处理过程笔者将在关联理论的框架中进行刻画,并给出一个确定元语言否定具体含义的图式。元语言否定能够达到纠偏、幽默、强调、改变话语权力、团结“圈内人”等效果。
This dissertation is intended to examine the nature of metalinguistic negation and its interpretation. The former involves two aspects, that is, the nature of negation operator and the nature of material falling in the scope of negation. As far as the nature of negation operator is concerned, contrary to Horn (1985), we agree with Carston (1996) on that the negation operator in cases of metalinguistic negation is exactly the same one as that in cases of descriptive negation:i.e. the standard truth-functional negation. The difference between the two possible interpretations of negative utterances lies with the way in which the material falling in the scope of the negation operator is being used:either it is descriptively used to represent states on the world or echoically used in the sense of Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995).
We have investigated four languages which are claimed to have exclusive operators of metalinguistic negation, and found them nothing but markers of ordinary pragmatic functions, such as focus markers, metarepresentation markers, contrastive markers, etc., which means there is no metalinguistic negation operator at all, and the negation operator in metalinguistic negation is no other than the standard truth-functional operator of negation.
Although Carston's implicit echoic analysis shed much light on the nature of metalinguistic negation, the notion of echo needs to be elaborated. In view of this, we have discussed the origin of echo, the pragmatic nature of metalinguistic negation and its cognitive nature as well. We consider metalinguistic negation as a kind of "double-voiced discourse", and thereby, the origin of echo, as an implicit other's voice, is the prerequisite of echo. By using an echoic expression, the addresser intends the addressee to select from its multiple ostensions something other than the customary referent (either instead of it or in addition to it), which is also the object of negation. As a foregrounding mechanism, the echoic expression can reverse figure/ground segregation, and therefore, it is the ground that is the object of metalinguistic negation.
We should bear it in mind that when we consider the interpretation of metalinguistic negation as an integrated process, it involves three aspects:(1) the identification of a discourse as metalinguistic negation (the process of recognizing metalinguistic negation as a type), (2) the determination of its intended meaning (the interpretation of its value), and (3) the effects achieved by metalinguistic negation (its pragmatic functions).
The identification of metalinguistic negation relies heavily on context, which requires classification of the contextual information and assessment of the influence of the context concerned. Metalinguistic negation doesn't have a conceptual meaning but rather only a procedural one, so we describe the successive cognitive states of an addressee when a metalinguistic negation utterance is processed to catch the procedural meaning of it. A comparison of the negated clause with the correcting clause leads to the determination of what is exactly negated. By metalinguistic negation, we achieve the pragmatic effects of correcting, humor, emphasizing, transiting of discoursive power, and establishing solidarity, etc..
引文
Amit Bajaj, Barbara Hodson, Marlene Schommer-Aikins, Performance on Phonological and Grammatical Awareness Metalinguistic Tasks by Children Who Stutter and Their Fluent Peers[J]. Journal of Fluency Disorders,2004(29):63-77
Biq, Yung-O. Metalinguistic Negation in Mandarin[J]. Journal of Chinese Linguistics,1989 (17):75-94.
Blakemore, D. Semantic Constraints on Relevance[M]. Oxford:Blackwell,1987.
Blosser, P. Principles of Gestalt psychology and their application to teaching junior high school science [J]. Science Education,1973 (57):43-53
Brownell H H, Carroll J J, Rehak A, et al. The Use of Pronoun Anaphor Comprehension and Other Figurative Language [J]. Brain and Language,1992 (43):121-147
Brustad, Kristen. The Syntax of Spoken Arabic:A Comparative Study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti Dialects [M]. Washington:Georgetown University Press,2000.
Burton-Roberts, N., On Horn's Dilemma:Presupposition and Negation[J]. Journal of Linguistics 1989 a, (25):95-125.
Burton-Roberts, N., The Limits to Debate [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1989 b.
Burton-Roberts, N. Presupposition-cancellation and Metalinguistic Negation:a Reply to Carston [J]. Journal of Linguistics,1999(35):347-364.
Bussmann, Hadumod. Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2000.
Carston, R. Implicature, Explicature and Truth-theoretic Semantics [A]. In:R. Kempson, ed., Mental representations:The interface between language and reality[C]. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1988:155-181
Carston, R. Metalinguistic Negation and Echoic use[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1996a, (25):309-330.
Carston, R.& Eun-Ju Noh. A Truth-Functional Account of Meatlinguistic Negation, with Evidence from Korean [J]. Language science,1996b(18):485-504.
Carston, R. Negation,'Presupposition', and the Semantic/Pragmatics Distinction [J]. Journal of Linguistics,1998(34):309-350.
Carston, R. Negation, "Presupposition"and Metarepresentation:a Response to Noel Burton-Roberts [J]. Journal of Linguistics.1999(35):365-389.
Chapman, Siobhan. Metalinguistic Negation, Sentences and Utterances [J]. Newcastle and Durham Working Papers in Linguistics,1993(1):74-94.
Chapman, Siobhan. Metalinguistic Negation, Sentences and Utterances[J]. Newcastle and Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 1996(1),74-94.
Cinque, G. Adverbs and Functional Heads:A Cross-Linguistic Perspective[M]. New York and Oxford:Oxford University Press.1999.
Croft W.& A. D. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2004.
Coulson, S.& Federmeier, K. D. Words in context:ERPs and the lexical/post lexical distinction. www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/～coulson/ipr.htm.2001
Dews S, Winner E, Kaplan J, Rosenblatt E. Children's understanding of the meaning and functions of verbal irony[J]. Child Development,1996(67):3071-3085
Dews, S.& Winner, E. Obligatory Processing of Literal and Non-literal Meaning in Verbal Irony[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1999 (31):1579-1599.
Fauconnier, G. Mental Spaces:Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1985/1994.
Fauconnier, G. Mappings in Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1997.
Fillmore, C. Scenes-and-frames Semantics [A]. In AZampolli (ed.) Linguistic Structure Processing [C]. Amsterdam:North Holland,1977:55-81.
Foolen, Ad. Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity:Some Comments on A Proposal by Laurence Horn.1991. http://elanguage.net/journals/index.php/pragmatics/article/view/350/281
Gazdar, G. Pragmatics [M]. New York:Academic Press.1979.
Geurts, Bart. The Mechanisms of Denial [J]. Language,1998(74):274-307.
Geurts, Bart. Presuppositions and Pronouns [M]. Elsevier, Amsterdam.1999.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency[M]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins.1998.
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Stavrou, Melita On Metalinguistic Comparatives and Negation in Greek, University of Chicago & Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, giannaki@uchicago.edu, melita@hol.gr, home, uchicago. edu/-giannaki/pubs/final.para.pdf
Gibbs, R. W. Spilling the Beans on Understanding and Memory for Idioms in Conversation[J]. Memory & Cognition,1980, (8):149-156.
Gibbs, R. W. On the Psycholinguistics of Sarcasm[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,1986 (115):3-15.
Gibbs, R. W. The poetics of Mind[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
Giles, H. and P. M. Smith. Accommodation Theory:Optimal Levels of Convergence [A]. In Giles and St. Clair, Language and Social Psychology. [C] Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1979:45-65
Giora, R. On Irony and Negation [J]. Discourse Processes,1995 (19):239-264.
Giora, R. Irony and Salience [J]. Metaphor and Symbol,1998 (13):83-101.
Giora, R. On the Priority of Salient Meanings:Studies of Literal and Figurative Language[J] Journal of Pragmatics,1999(31):919-929.
Giora R, Zaidel E, Soroker N, et al. Differential Effects of Right-and left-hemisphere Damage on Understanding Sarcasm and Metaphor[J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 2000(15):63-83
Giora,R. Literal vs. Figurative Language:Different or Equal?[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2002(34):487-506.
Gluksberg, S. Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons:Beyond Similarity [J]. Psychological Review,1990,97(1):3-18.
Gumperz, J.J. Discourse Strategies [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 1982
Grice, P. H. Logic and Conversation [A]. Cole, P.& Morgan, J. Syntax and Semantics[C]. London:Academic Press,1975(3):41-58.
Harris, Sandra. Pragmatics and Power [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1995 (23):117-135
Halliday, M.A.K. Explorations in the Functions of Language. (Exploratioons in Language Study.) [M] London:Edward Arnold,1973.
Haber, R.& Hershenson, M. The Psychology of Visual Perception[M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1980.
Horn, L. "Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity"[J]. Language,1985 (61):121-174
Horn, L. A Natural History of Negation[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.1989.
Horn, L. Showdown at Truth-value Gap:Burton-Roberts on Presupposition [J]. Journal of Linguistics,1990(26):483-503.
Huang, C.-T. J. Wo pao de kuai and Chinese Phrase Structure [J]. Language, 1988(64):274-311.
Iwata, Seizi. Some Extensions of the Echoic Analysis of Metalinguistic Negation[J]. Lingua,1998 (105):49-65.
Jakobson, Roman. Concluding Statement:Linguistics and Poetics [A]. In T. Sebeok (ed.)Style in Language[C]. Cambridge:MIT Press,1960:350-77.
Jaszczolt, K. M. Discourse, Beliefs, and Intentions:Semantic Defaults and Propositional Attitude Ascription [M]. Oxford:Elsevier Science,1999.
Jaszczolt, K. M. Default Semantics:Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005.
Jespersen, Otto. The Philosophy of Grammar[M]. London:Allen & Unwin.1924.
Johnson, M. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1987.
Johnson, M.& Lakoff, G. Why Cognitive Linguistics Requires Embodied Realism[J]. Cognitive Linguistics,2002(13):245-263.
Karttunen, L. and S. Peters. Conventional Implicature[A]. In C-K Oh and D.A. Dinneen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics Volume 11, Presupposition[C]. New York: Academic Press.1979:1-56
Kempson, R. Ambiguity and the Semantics-pragmatics Distinction [A]. C.Travis, (ed.), Meaning and interpretation,[C].Oxford:Blackwell,1986:77-104
Kim, D-B. Metalinguistic Negation, Neg Raising and nun in Korean [A]. Chicago Linguistic Society 27:The Parasession on Negation,1991:125-139.
Lee, H.-S., A Discourse-pragmatic Analysis of the Committal-ci in Korean:A Synthetic Approach to the Form-meaning Relation[J], Journal of Pragmatics 1999(31):243-275
Lakoff, G.& M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.1980
Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.1987
Lakoff, G. Cognitive Semantics [A]. U. Eco. M. Santambrogio & P. Violi, (eds.) Meaning and Mental Representation [C], In.:Indiana University Press,1988: 119-154
Lyons, John. Language and Linguistics [M]. Cambridge andNew York:Cambridge University Press,1981.
Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1[M]. California: StanfordUniversity Press,1987.
Langacker, R. Reference Point Constructions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1993(4): 1-38
Marconi, Diego. Lexical Competence[M]. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press.1997.
Marmaridou, Sophia S. A. Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing company.2000.
Mey Jacob. Pragmatics:An Introduction[M]. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,1993.
McDonald S. Exploring the Process of Inference Generation in Sarcasm:A Review of Normal and Clinical Studies[J]. Brain and Language,1999(68):486-506
McDonald S. Neuropsychological Studies of Sarcasm[J]. Metaphor and Symbol,2000, (15):85-98
McCawley, James, Contrastive Negation and Metalinguistic Negation[A]. Chicago Linguistic Society.1991.27(2):189-206.
Mitchley N, Barber J, Gray J, et al. Comprehension of Irony in Schizophrenia[J]. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry,1998,3(2):127-138
Mustafa Mughazy, Metalinguistic Negation and Truth Functions:the Case of Egyptian Arabic[J], Journal of Pragmatics.2003 (35):1143-1160
Mustafa Mughazy, The Negative Operator as a Discourse Marker in Egyptian Arabic [A], Zeinab Ibrahim,Sanaa A. M. Makhlouf(ed.). Linguistics in an age of globalization:perspectives on Arabic language and teaching [C]. Cairo:AUC Press,2008:91-104)
Noh, Eun-Ju. Echo questions:Metarepresentation and Pragmatic Enrichment[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy 1998 (21):603-628.
Noh, Eun-Ju. Metarepresentation:A Relevance-Theory Approach, [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company,2000.
Nunberg, G. The Pragmatics of Reference[M]. Bloomington, Ind.:Indiana University Linguistics club,1978
Ogden, C.K.& I.A.Richards.1923. The Meaning of Meaning[M]. London & New York:Roultedge & Kegen Paul.
Rakova, Marina. The Extent of the Literal:Metaphor, Polysemy and the Theories of Concepts[M]. Houndmills, UK:Palgrave. Macmillan,2003.
Russell, B. On denoting[J]. Mind,1905(14):479-493
Saka, P. Quotation and the Use-mention Distinction [J]. Mind,1998(107):113-133.
Saka, P. Quotational Constructions [A].In P. de Brabanter (ed.)Hybrid Quotations [C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005:187-212.
Searle, J. Expression and Meaning[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Sells, Peter. Three Aspects of Negation in Korean [J]. Journal of Linguistic Studies, 2001(6):1-15.
Sperber,D.& D.Wilson. Relevance:Communication and cognition[M].Oxford:Basil Blackwell.1986/1995.
Sperber, D.& D. Wilson. Preface [A].何自然冉永平编[C].北京：外语教研出版社,2001：1-16
Strawson, P. F. On Referring[J]. Mind,1950 (59):320-344.
Talmy, L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol.1:Concept Structuring Systems[M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press 2000a.
Talmy, L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol.2:Typology and Process in Concept Structuring[M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.2000b.
Teng, Shou-Hsin. Negation in Chinese[J] Journal of Chinese Linguistics,1974, (2):125-140.
Tompkins C N, Mateer C A. Right Hemisphere Appreciation of Prosodic and Linguistic Indications of Implicit Attitude[J]. Brain and Language,1985(24):185-203
Tunmer, W.,& Herriman, M. The Development of Metalinguistic Awareness:A Conceptual Overview[A]. In W. Tunmer, C. Pratt,& M. Herriman (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness in children:Theory, research and implications[C]. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.1984:12-35
Van der Sandt, R Denial. In Papers from CLS:the parasession on negation,1991(27): 331-344.
Van der Sandt, R Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution[J]. Journal of Semantics,1992(9):333-377.
Van der Sandt, R. Denial and Presupposition[A]. H.R. Peter Kuhnlein and H. Zeevat (Eds.) Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2003:59-77
Wible, David & Chen, Eva. Linguistic Limits on Metalinguistic Negation:Evidence from Mandarin and English[J]. Language and Linguistics,2000(2):233-255
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. Representation and Relevance[A]. In:R. Kempson, ed., Mental representations:The Interface between Language and Reality[C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1988:133-153.
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. On Verbal Irony[J]. Lingua,1992 (1):53-76.
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. Linguistic Form and Relevance[J]. Lingua,1993(2): 1-25.
Winner E, Leekam S. Distinguishing Irony from Deception:Understanding the Speaker's Second-order Intention. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1991,(2):257-270
Winner, E.& Gardner, H. Metaphor and irony:Two levels of understanding [A].Ortony. Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge:CUP,1979/93.:425-443
Winner E, Brownell H, Happ e F, et al. Distinguishing Lies from Jokes:Theory of Mind Deficits and Discourse Interpretation in Right Hemisphere Brain Damaged patients. Brain and Language,1998 (62):89-106
Yamaguchi, Haruhiko. How to Pull Strings with Words:Deceptive Violations in the Garden-Path Joke. Journal of Pragmatics,1988(12):323-337
Yoshimura, A.1998. Procedural Semantics and Metalinguistcs Negation [A] In: Carston, R.& Uchida, S. (eds.). Relevance Theory, Applications and Implications [C]. John Benjamines,105-122.
Yoon, H-J, Negation and NPI [A] Y.-S. Kim et al. (eds.), Explorations in Generative Grammar[C],1994:700-719
奥格登, C·K·、理查兹,I·A·.意义之意义：关于语言对思维的影响及记号使用理论科学的研究[M].白人立国庆祝译.北京：北京师范大学出版,2000.
奥托 叶斯柏森.语法哲学[M].何勇等译.北京：语文出版社,1988.
巴赫金.陀思妥耶夫斯基诗学问题[M].白春仁顾亚铃译.北京：三联书店,1988.
巴赫金.巴赫金全集第二卷[M].钱中文主编晓河等译,石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998.
曹合建,林汝昌.体势语在确立话语意义中的作用及其类别划分[J].现代外语,1993(4)：8-13
陈明远.语言学和现代科学[M].成都：四川人民出版社,1984.
杜国东.试论元语言否定[D].吉林：吉林大学,2007
董小英.再登巴比伦塔[M].北京：三联书店,1994.
董秀芳.“不”与所修饰的中心词的粘合现象[J].当代语言学,2003(1)：12-24
封宗信.元语言与外语教学[J].外语与外语教学,2005a(9)：24-27
封宗信.语言学的元语言及其研究现状[J].外语教学与研究,2005b(6)403-410
弗雷格.弗雷格哲学论著选辑[M].王路译.北京：商务印书馆,2001.
高航.元语言否定的认知语用分析[J].四川外语学院学报.2003(2)：98-102
何春燕.语用否定的类型和使用动机[J].解放军外国语学院学报.2002(3)：20-24。
何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.2000.
何自然.语用学与英语学习[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
何自然、冉永平.语用与认知：关联理论研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.2001.
黄斌.语言逻辑哲学———难题与解析[M].重庆：重庆出版社,1999.
黄斌.破解说谎者悖论[J].西南大学学报(社会科学版),2009(2)：59-65
黄喜宏. “什么”的否定用法研究[D].上海：上海师范大学,2008.
贾玉新.跨文化交际学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1997.
姜宏.现代俄语中的元语否定[J].中国俄语教学,1997(4)5-9
卡特琳娜·克拉克,迈克尔·霍奎斯特.米哈伊尔·巴赫金[M].语冰译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,1992.
康天峰.元语否定的制约条件[J].洛阳师范学院学报,2004(1)：126-128
孔庆成.元语否定的类型[J].外国语,1995(4)：11-16
李宝伦、潘海华.焦点与“不”字句之语义解释[J].现代外语,1999(2)：111-127
梁晓波.否定的认知分析.[J]外语研究,2004(5)：12-18
梁晓波.否定的语用认知分析.[J]外国语言文学研究,2005(3)：35-46
梁锦祥.元语言否定的否定对象[J].外语学刊,2000(3)：363-369
刘福长.语言学中的“对象语言”和“元语言”[J].现代外语,1989(3)：19-21
刘国辉.图形—背景空间概念及其在语言中的隐喻性表征[J].外语研究,2006(2)：23-29
刘乃实.先设和元语否定[J].外语学刊,2004(3)：30-34
刘鑫民.焦点、焦点的分布和焦点化[J].宁夏大学学报(社会科学版),1995 (1)： 79-84
吕叔湘.汉语语法论文集[M].北京：商务印书馆,1999.
玛丽亚·蒙台梭利.儿童之家(蒙台梭利早期教育方法与训练指南纪念版)[M].洪友、李艳芳译.天津：天津社科院出版社,2007.
欧文·洛克.知觉之谜[M].武夷山译.北京：科技文献出版社,1989.
钱敏汝.否定载体“不”的语义——语法考察[J].中国语文,1990(1)：30-37
冉永平.元表征结构及其理解[J].外语与外语教学,2002(4)：15-18
冉永平.认知语用学：诠释与思考[A].辛斌,严世清.当代语用学理论与分析[C],2003：122-137
沈家煊.“语用否定”考察[J].中国语文,1993(5)：321-331
沈家煊.不对称和标记论[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,1999.
史金生.语用疑问句[J].世界汉语教学,1995(2)：31-37
石毓智.语法的认知语义基础[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,2000.
石毓智.判断、焦点、强调与对比关系——“是”的语法功能和使用条件[J].语言研究,2005(4)：43-53
宋冬冬.元语言否定的认知语用分析[D].河北：河北师范大学,2007
宋铁民.元语言否定的认知语用分析[D].河北：河北师范大学,2005
王铭玉.对皮尔斯符号思想的语言学阐释[J].解放军外语学院学报,1998(6)：1-7
王小潞.汉语隐喻认知的神经机制研究[D].杭州：浙江大学,2007.
威廉·涅尔,玛莎·涅尔.逻辑学的发展[M].北京：商务出版社,1985.
文旭.图形——背景的现实化[J].外国语,2003(4)：24-31
文旭,刘先清.英语倒装句的图形一背景论分析[J].外语教学与研究,2004(6)：438-443
席建国、韦红.英汉语用和语义否定句的机理研究[J].山东师大外国语学院学报,2002(1)：10-12
辛斌.引语研究理论与问题[J].外语与外语教学,2009(1)：1-6
熊学亮.认知语用学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999.
熊学亮.单向语境推导初探(上)[J].现代外语,1996a(2)：1-4
熊学亮.单向语境推导初探(下)[J].现代外语,1996b(3)：15-20
徐盛桓.新格赖斯会话含意理论和含意否定[J].外语教学与研究,1994(4)：30-35
徐盛桓.句法研究的认知语言学视野[J].外语与外语教学,2005(4)：1-7
徐盛桓. “成都小吃团”的认知解读[J].外国语,2006a(2)：18-24
徐盛桓.相邻与补足—一成语形成的认知研究之一[J].四川外语学院学报,2006b(2)：107-111
杨先顺.语用否定的逻辑分析[J].自然辩证法研究,2005(1)：28-32
袁毓林.句子的焦点结构及其对语义解释的影响[J].当代语言,2003(4)：323-338
约翰·甘柏兹.会话策略[M].徐大明,高海洋译.北京：社会科学文献出版社,2001,.4
张和友. 差比句否定形式的语义特征及其语用解释[J]. 汉语学习,2002(5)：8-13
张克定.汉语语用否定的限制条件[J].河南大学学报(社会科学版),1999(39)：63-65
张逵.英汉元语言否定对比刍议[J].山西师大学报(社会科学版),1996(1)：87-89
张萌,张积家.反语认知的神经一心理机制研究及其进展[J].心理科学,2007,(4)：912-914
张楠,元语否定的认知分析[D].重庆：西南大学,2007.
张权,李娟.默认语义学对语义学、语用学界面的研究及其评价[J].外国语,2006(1)：69-73
张凤娟.从图形一背景论诠释非言语行为的认知功能[J].中国外语,2007(1)：66-69
赵虹.言语反讽的关联理论研究[M].山东：山东大学出版社,2007
赵旻燕.汉语元语否定制约[J].华中科技大学学报,2007(6)：58-64
赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2001.
周蓉.疑问代词“什么”各用法之间的关系新探[J].语文学刊,2007(7)：120-123
祝畹瑾.社会语言学概论[M].湖南：湖南教育出版社,1992
Biq, Yung-O. Metalinguistic Negation in Mandarin[J]. Journal of Chinese Linguistics,1989 (17):75-94.
Blakemore, D. Semantic Constraints on Relevance[M]. Oxford:Blackwell,1987.
Blosser, P. Principles of Gestalt psychology and their application to teaching junior high school science [J]. Science Education,1973 (57):43-53
Brownell H H, Carroll J J, Rehak A, et al. The Use of Pronoun Anaphor Comprehension and Other Figurative Language [J]. Brain and Language,1992 (43):121-147
Brustad, Kristen. The Syntax of Spoken Arabic:A Comparative Study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti Dialects [M]. Washington:Georgetown University Press,2000.
Burton-Roberts, N., On Horn's Dilemma:Presupposition and Negation[J]. Journal of Linguistics 1989 a, (25):95-125.
Burton-Roberts, N., The Limits to Debate [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1989 b.
Burton-Roberts, N. Presupposition-cancellation and Metalinguistic Negation:a Reply to Carston [J]. Journal of Linguistics,1999(35):347-364.
Bussmann, Hadumod. Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2000.
Carston, R. Implicature, Explicature and Truth-theoretic Semantics [A]. In:R. Kempson, ed., Mental representations:The interface between language and reality[C]. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1988:155-181
Carston, R. Metalinguistic Negation and Echoic use[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1996a, (25):309-330.
Carston, R.& Eun-Ju Noh. A Truth-Functional Account of Meatlinguistic Negation, with Evidence from Korean [J]. Language science,1996b(18):485-504.
Carston, R. Negation,'Presupposition', and the Semantic/Pragmatics Distinction [J]. Journal of Linguistics,1998(34):309-350.
Carston, R. Negation, "Presupposition"and Metarepresentation:a Response to Noel Burton-Roberts [J]. Journal of Linguistics.1999(35):365-389.
Chapman, Siobhan. Metalinguistic Negation, Sentences and Utterances [J]. Newcastle and Durham Working Papers in Linguistics,1993(1):74-94.
Chapman, Siobhan. Metalinguistic Negation, Sentences and Utterances[J]. Newcastle and Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 1996(1),74-94.
Cinque, G. Adverbs and Functional Heads:A Cross-Linguistic Perspective[M]. New York and Oxford:Oxford University Press.1999.
Croft W.& A. D. Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2004.
Coulson, S.& Federmeier, K. D. Words in context:ERPs and the lexical/post lexical distinction. www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/～coulson/ipr.htm.2001
Dews S, Winner E, Kaplan J, Rosenblatt E. Children's understanding of the meaning and functions of verbal irony[J]. Child Development,1996(67):3071-3085
Dews, S.& Winner, E. Obligatory Processing of Literal and Non-literal Meaning in Verbal Irony[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1999 (31):1579-1599.
Fauconnier, G. Mental Spaces:Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1985/1994.
Fauconnier, G. Mappings in Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1997.
Fillmore, C. Scenes-and-frames Semantics [A]. In AZampolli (ed.) Linguistic Structure Processing [C]. Amsterdam:North Holland,1977:55-81.
Foolen, Ad. Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity:Some Comments on A Proposal by Laurence Horn.1991. http://elanguage.net/journals/index.php/pragmatics/article/view/350/281
Gazdar, G. Pragmatics [M]. New York:Academic Press.1979.
Geurts, Bart. The Mechanisms of Denial [J]. Language,1998(74):274-307.
Geurts, Bart. Presuppositions and Pronouns [M]. Elsevier, Amsterdam.1999.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency[M]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins.1998.
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Stavrou, Melita On Metalinguistic Comparatives and Negation in Greek, University of Chicago & Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, giannaki@uchicago.edu, melita@hol.gr, home, uchicago. edu/-giannaki/pubs/final.para.pdf
Gibbs, R. W. Spilling the Beans on Understanding and Memory for Idioms in Conversation[J]. Memory & Cognition,1980, (8):149-156.
Gibbs, R. W. On the Psycholinguistics of Sarcasm[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,1986 (115):3-15.
Gibbs, R. W. The poetics of Mind[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
Giles, H. and P. M. Smith. Accommodation Theory:Optimal Levels of Convergence [A]. In Giles and St. Clair, Language and Social Psychology. [C] Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1979:45-65
Giora, R. On Irony and Negation [J]. Discourse Processes,1995 (19):239-264.
Giora, R. Irony and Salience [J]. Metaphor and Symbol,1998 (13):83-101.
Giora, R. On the Priority of Salient Meanings:Studies of Literal and Figurative Language[J] Journal of Pragmatics,1999(31):919-929.
Giora R, Zaidel E, Soroker N, et al. Differential Effects of Right-and left-hemisphere Damage on Understanding Sarcasm and Metaphor[J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 2000(15):63-83
Giora,R. Literal vs. Figurative Language:Different or Equal?[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2002(34):487-506.
Gluksberg, S. Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons:Beyond Similarity [J]. Psychological Review,1990,97(1):3-18.
Gumperz, J.J. Discourse Strategies [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 1982
Grice, P. H. Logic and Conversation [A]. Cole, P.& Morgan, J. Syntax and Semantics[C]. London:Academic Press,1975(3):41-58.
Harris, Sandra. Pragmatics and Power [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1995 (23):117-135
Halliday, M.A.K. Explorations in the Functions of Language. (Exploratioons in Language Study.) [M] London:Edward Arnold,1973.
Haber, R.& Hershenson, M. The Psychology of Visual Perception[M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1980.
Horn, L. "Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity"[J]. Language,1985 (61):121-174
Horn, L. A Natural History of Negation[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.1989.
Horn, L. Showdown at Truth-value Gap:Burton-Roberts on Presupposition [J]. Journal of Linguistics,1990(26):483-503.
Huang, C.-T. J. Wo pao de kuai and Chinese Phrase Structure [J]. Language, 1988(64):274-311.
Iwata, Seizi. Some Extensions of the Echoic Analysis of Metalinguistic Negation[J]. Lingua,1998 (105):49-65.
Jakobson, Roman. Concluding Statement:Linguistics and Poetics [A]. In T. Sebeok (ed.)Style in Language[C]. Cambridge:MIT Press,1960:350-77.
Jaszczolt, K. M. Discourse, Beliefs, and Intentions:Semantic Defaults and Propositional Attitude Ascription [M]. Oxford:Elsevier Science,1999.
Jaszczolt, K. M. Default Semantics:Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005.
Jespersen, Otto. The Philosophy of Grammar[M]. London:Allen & Unwin.1924.
Johnson, M. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1987.
Johnson, M.& Lakoff, G. Why Cognitive Linguistics Requires Embodied Realism[J]. Cognitive Linguistics,2002(13):245-263.
Karttunen, L. and S. Peters. Conventional Implicature[A]. In C-K Oh and D.A. Dinneen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics Volume 11, Presupposition[C]. New York: Academic Press.1979:1-56
Kempson, R. Ambiguity and the Semantics-pragmatics Distinction [A]. C.Travis, (ed.), Meaning and interpretation,[C].Oxford:Blackwell,1986:77-104
Kim, D-B. Metalinguistic Negation, Neg Raising and nun in Korean [A]. Chicago Linguistic Society 27:The Parasession on Negation,1991:125-139.
Lee, H.-S., A Discourse-pragmatic Analysis of the Committal-ci in Korean:A Synthetic Approach to the Form-meaning Relation[J], Journal of Pragmatics 1999(31):243-275
Lakoff, G.& M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.1980
Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.1987
Lakoff, G. Cognitive Semantics [A]. U. Eco. M. Santambrogio & P. Violi, (eds.) Meaning and Mental Representation [C], In.:Indiana University Press,1988: 119-154
Lyons, John. Language and Linguistics [M]. Cambridge andNew York:Cambridge University Press,1981.
Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1[M]. California: StanfordUniversity Press,1987.
Langacker, R. Reference Point Constructions [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1993(4): 1-38
Marconi, Diego. Lexical Competence[M]. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press.1997.
Marmaridou, Sophia S. A. Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing company.2000.
Mey Jacob. Pragmatics:An Introduction[M]. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,1993.
McDonald S. Exploring the Process of Inference Generation in Sarcasm:A Review of Normal and Clinical Studies[J]. Brain and Language,1999(68):486-506
McDonald S. Neuropsychological Studies of Sarcasm[J]. Metaphor and Symbol,2000, (15):85-98
McCawley, James, Contrastive Negation and Metalinguistic Negation[A]. Chicago Linguistic Society.1991.27(2):189-206.
Mitchley N, Barber J, Gray J, et al. Comprehension of Irony in Schizophrenia[J]. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry,1998,3(2):127-138
Mustafa Mughazy, Metalinguistic Negation and Truth Functions:the Case of Egyptian Arabic[J], Journal of Pragmatics.2003 (35):1143-1160
Mustafa Mughazy, The Negative Operator as a Discourse Marker in Egyptian Arabic [A], Zeinab Ibrahim,Sanaa A. M. Makhlouf(ed.). Linguistics in an age of globalization:perspectives on Arabic language and teaching [C]. Cairo:AUC Press,2008:91-104)
Noh, Eun-Ju. Echo questions:Metarepresentation and Pragmatic Enrichment[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy 1998 (21):603-628.
Noh, Eun-Ju. Metarepresentation:A Relevance-Theory Approach, [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company,2000.
Nunberg, G. The Pragmatics of Reference[M]. Bloomington, Ind.:Indiana University Linguistics club,1978
Ogden, C.K.& I.A.Richards.1923. The Meaning of Meaning[M]. London & New York:Roultedge & Kegen Paul.
Rakova, Marina. The Extent of the Literal:Metaphor, Polysemy and the Theories of Concepts[M]. Houndmills, UK:Palgrave. Macmillan,2003.
Russell, B. On denoting[J]. Mind,1905(14):479-493
Saka, P. Quotation and the Use-mention Distinction [J]. Mind,1998(107):113-133.
Saka, P. Quotational Constructions [A].In P. de Brabanter (ed.)Hybrid Quotations [C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005:187-212.
Searle, J. Expression and Meaning[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Sells, Peter. Three Aspects of Negation in Korean [J]. Journal of Linguistic Studies, 2001(6):1-15.
Sperber,D.& D.Wilson. Relevance:Communication and cognition[M].Oxford:Basil Blackwell.1986/1995.
Sperber, D.& D. Wilson. Preface [A].何自然冉永平编[C].北京：外语教研出版社,2001：1-16
Strawson, P. F. On Referring[J]. Mind,1950 (59):320-344.
Talmy, L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol.1:Concept Structuring Systems[M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press 2000a.
Talmy, L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol.2:Typology and Process in Concept Structuring[M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.2000b.
Teng, Shou-Hsin. Negation in Chinese[J] Journal of Chinese Linguistics,1974, (2):125-140.
Tompkins C N, Mateer C A. Right Hemisphere Appreciation of Prosodic and Linguistic Indications of Implicit Attitude[J]. Brain and Language,1985(24):185-203
Tunmer, W.,& Herriman, M. The Development of Metalinguistic Awareness:A Conceptual Overview[A]. In W. Tunmer, C. Pratt,& M. Herriman (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness in children:Theory, research and implications[C]. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.1984:12-35
Van der Sandt, R Denial. In Papers from CLS:the parasession on negation,1991(27): 331-344.
Van der Sandt, R Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution[J]. Journal of Semantics,1992(9):333-377.
Van der Sandt, R. Denial and Presupposition[A]. H.R. Peter Kuhnlein and H. Zeevat (Eds.) Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium[C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2003:59-77
Wible, David & Chen, Eva. Linguistic Limits on Metalinguistic Negation:Evidence from Mandarin and English[J]. Language and Linguistics,2000(2):233-255
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. Representation and Relevance[A]. In:R. Kempson, ed., Mental representations:The Interface between Language and Reality[C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1988:133-153.
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. On Verbal Irony[J]. Lingua,1992 (1):53-76.
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. Linguistic Form and Relevance[J]. Lingua,1993(2): 1-25.
Winner E, Leekam S. Distinguishing Irony from Deception:Understanding the Speaker's Second-order Intention. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1991,(2):257-270
Winner, E.& Gardner, H. Metaphor and irony:Two levels of understanding [A].Ortony. Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge:CUP,1979/93.:425-443
Winner E, Brownell H, Happ e F, et al. Distinguishing Lies from Jokes:Theory of Mind Deficits and Discourse Interpretation in Right Hemisphere Brain Damaged patients. Brain and Language,1998 (62):89-106
Yamaguchi, Haruhiko. How to Pull Strings with Words:Deceptive Violations in the Garden-Path Joke. Journal of Pragmatics,1988(12):323-337
Yoshimura, A.1998. Procedural Semantics and Metalinguistcs Negation [A] In: Carston, R.& Uchida, S. (eds.). Relevance Theory, Applications and Implications [C]. John Benjamines,105-122.
Yoon, H-J, Negation and NPI [A] Y.-S. Kim et al. (eds.), Explorations in Generative Grammar[C],1994:700-719
奥格登, C·K·、理查兹,I·A·.意义之意义：关于语言对思维的影响及记号使用理论科学的研究[M].白人立国庆祝译.北京：北京师范大学出版,2000.
奥托 叶斯柏森.语法哲学[M].何勇等译.北京：语文出版社,1988.
巴赫金.陀思妥耶夫斯基诗学问题[M].白春仁顾亚铃译.北京：三联书店,1988.
巴赫金.巴赫金全集第二卷[M].钱中文主编晓河等译,石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998.
曹合建,林汝昌.体势语在确立话语意义中的作用及其类别划分[J].现代外语,1993(4)：8-13
陈明远.语言学和现代科学[M].成都：四川人民出版社,1984.
杜国东.试论元语言否定[D].吉林：吉林大学,2007
董小英.再登巴比伦塔[M].北京：三联书店,1994.
董秀芳.“不”与所修饰的中心词的粘合现象[J].当代语言学,2003(1)：12-24
封宗信.元语言与外语教学[J].外语与外语教学,2005a(9)：24-27
封宗信.语言学的元语言及其研究现状[J].外语教学与研究,2005b(6)403-410
弗雷格.弗雷格哲学论著选辑[M].王路译.北京：商务印书馆,2001.
高航.元语言否定的认知语用分析[J].四川外语学院学报.2003(2)：98-102
何春燕.语用否定的类型和使用动机[J].解放军外国语学院学报.2002(3)：20-24。
何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.2000.
何自然.语用学与英语学习[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
何自然、冉永平.语用与认知：关联理论研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社.2001.
黄斌.语言逻辑哲学———难题与解析[M].重庆：重庆出版社,1999.
黄斌.破解说谎者悖论[J].西南大学学报(社会科学版),2009(2)：59-65
黄喜宏. “什么”的否定用法研究[D].上海：上海师范大学,2008.
贾玉新.跨文化交际学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1997.
姜宏.现代俄语中的元语否定[J].中国俄语教学,1997(4)5-9
卡特琳娜·克拉克,迈克尔·霍奎斯特.米哈伊尔·巴赫金[M].语冰译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,1992.
康天峰.元语否定的制约条件[J].洛阳师范学院学报,2004(1)：126-128
孔庆成.元语否定的类型[J].外国语,1995(4)：11-16
李宝伦、潘海华.焦点与“不”字句之语义解释[J].现代外语,1999(2)：111-127
梁晓波.否定的认知分析.[J]外语研究,2004(5)：12-18
梁晓波.否定的语用认知分析.[J]外国语言文学研究,2005(3)：35-46
梁锦祥.元语言否定的否定对象[J].外语学刊,2000(3)：363-369
刘福长.语言学中的“对象语言”和“元语言”[J].现代外语,1989(3)：19-21
刘国辉.图形—背景空间概念及其在语言中的隐喻性表征[J].外语研究,2006(2)：23-29
刘乃实.先设和元语否定[J].外语学刊,2004(3)：30-34
刘鑫民.焦点、焦点的分布和焦点化[J].宁夏大学学报(社会科学版),1995 (1)： 79-84
吕叔湘.汉语语法论文集[M].北京：商务印书馆,1999.
玛丽亚·蒙台梭利.儿童之家(蒙台梭利早期教育方法与训练指南纪念版)[M].洪友、李艳芳译.天津：天津社科院出版社,2007.
欧文·洛克.知觉之谜[M].武夷山译.北京：科技文献出版社,1989.
钱敏汝.否定载体“不”的语义——语法考察[J].中国语文,1990(1)：30-37
冉永平.元表征结构及其理解[J].外语与外语教学,2002(4)：15-18
冉永平.认知语用学：诠释与思考[A].辛斌,严世清.当代语用学理论与分析[C],2003：122-137
沈家煊.“语用否定”考察[J].中国语文,1993(5)：321-331
沈家煊.不对称和标记论[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,1999.
史金生.语用疑问句[J].世界汉语教学,1995(2)：31-37
石毓智.语法的认知语义基础[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,2000.
石毓智.判断、焦点、强调与对比关系——“是”的语法功能和使用条件[J].语言研究,2005(4)：43-53
宋冬冬.元语言否定的认知语用分析[D].河北：河北师范大学,2007
宋铁民.元语言否定的认知语用分析[D].河北：河北师范大学,2005
王铭玉.对皮尔斯符号思想的语言学阐释[J].解放军外语学院学报,1998(6)：1-7
王小潞.汉语隐喻认知的神经机制研究[D].杭州：浙江大学,2007.
威廉·涅尔,玛莎·涅尔.逻辑学的发展[M].北京：商务出版社,1985.
文旭.图形——背景的现实化[J].外国语,2003(4)：24-31
文旭,刘先清.英语倒装句的图形一背景论分析[J].外语教学与研究,2004(6)：438-443
席建国、韦红.英汉语用和语义否定句的机理研究[J].山东师大外国语学院学报,2002(1)：10-12
辛斌.引语研究理论与问题[J].外语与外语教学,2009(1)：1-6
熊学亮.认知语用学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999.
熊学亮.单向语境推导初探(上)[J].现代外语,1996a(2)：1-4
熊学亮.单向语境推导初探(下)[J].现代外语,1996b(3)：15-20
徐盛桓.新格赖斯会话含意理论和含意否定[J].外语教学与研究,1994(4)：30-35
徐盛桓.句法研究的认知语言学视野[J].外语与外语教学,2005(4)：1-7
徐盛桓. “成都小吃团”的认知解读[J].外国语,2006a(2)：18-24
徐盛桓.相邻与补足—一成语形成的认知研究之一[J].四川外语学院学报,2006b(2)：107-111
杨先顺.语用否定的逻辑分析[J].自然辩证法研究,2005(1)：28-32
袁毓林.句子的焦点结构及其对语义解释的影响[J].当代语言,2003(4)：323-338
约翰·甘柏兹.会话策略[M].徐大明,高海洋译.北京：社会科学文献出版社,2001,.4
张和友. 差比句否定形式的语义特征及其语用解释[J]. 汉语学习,2002(5)：8-13
张克定.汉语语用否定的限制条件[J].河南大学学报(社会科学版),1999(39)：63-65
张逵.英汉元语言否定对比刍议[J].山西师大学报(社会科学版),1996(1)：87-89
张萌,张积家.反语认知的神经一心理机制研究及其进展[J].心理科学,2007,(4)：912-914
张楠,元语否定的认知分析[D].重庆：西南大学,2007.
张权,李娟.默认语义学对语义学、语用学界面的研究及其评价[J].外国语,2006(1)：69-73
张凤娟.从图形一背景论诠释非言语行为的认知功能[J].中国外语,2007(1)：66-69
赵虹.言语反讽的关联理论研究[M].山东：山东大学出版社,2007
赵旻燕.汉语元语否定制约[J].华中科技大学学报,2007(6)：58-64
赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2001.
周蓉.疑问代词“什么”各用法之间的关系新探[J].语文学刊,2007(7)：120-123
祝畹瑾.社会语言学概论[M].湖南：湖南教育出版社,1992