汉英职业交往中的拒绝言语行为研究
|
摘要
“拒绝”,无论是发生在日常交际、职业交往、商务谈判还是政治协商中,都是一种需要言者谨慎处理、听者敏感释话的威胁面子的言语行为。而由于语言与文化背景的差异,在同一场景中,汉语使用者和英文使用者在实施拒绝和解译拒绝等方面会存在许多差异。
关于将拒绝作为一种言语行为的研究,主要集中在语用学、跨文化交际学和二语习得等方面。然而,大部分的研究存在单纯列举语料、直白描写语料和罗列对比数据等问题,缺乏解释性的研究、系统的言语行为策略分类和高度概括性的总结等。本研究不是单一文化背景下的拒绝言语行为研究,而是从汉英对比的角度出发,试图从多个理论视角,结合抽样语料,考查和探究汉英职业交往中拒绝言语行为的解译模式、策略偏好、及物性选择对比和文化语用原因等。
在开篇两章对研究目的、研究背景、基本理论和研究思路等作简要阐明之后,第三章详述了语料来源。语料的收集和取样也是本研究的特色之一,以往的研究多直接使用语篇补全测试(DCT)完成数据采集工作,本研究则不仅在问卷设计上大下功夫,更是通过一系列的情景调查、试点测试、反馈和面谈、按比例抽样等多种可控的实验方式来保证数据的真实有效,从而使其具有普遍性。另外,也利用现代职场剧中相关场景的视频转录方式,收集到另一组视频语料。为尽量避免随机采样的错误,同样将其按比例抽样,作为对第一组语料的补充,弥补DCT采集语料存在的若干弊端。
接着,从四个视角,即“言之解”、“言之行”、“言之法”和“言之因”对汉英语料进行观察、描写和解释,力求在一个更立体的多维平台上研究汉英职业交往中的拒绝言语行为。
视角一是从关联理论看“言之解”,关联理论指导下的明示——推理过程对间接言语行为具有很强的解释力,关联期待的满足甚至是放弃都是以言语行为得解为目的的。汉英拒绝言语行为关联意义的使用,是解译拒绝的关键。本研究中的拒绝,可以理解为职场人际交往时,会话互动中产生的针对一方提出的请求、邀请、提供和建议等给出的具有动态语境假设的选择。使用数理统计的方法观测三类关联意义在汉英拒绝释话中的使用频率,为的是对比汉语使用者和英语使用者在释义拒绝时的认知机制和心理过程,也为的是辅助解释汉英拒绝策略具有多样性和差异性的原因，更是为了印证“最佳关联”是在不同认知环境和文化环境中,想要获得交际成功而对一个语境假设集合做出的不同选择。
视角二是从言语行为的实施过程看“言之行”。在实施拒绝这样有损“面子”的言语行为之时必然要使用各类语用策略,这也是以往各项研究的重点。而本研究创新性地将拒绝语用策略做了“内容”和“形式”上的分类,提供了新的分类依据,总结了两类共46种拒绝行为策略,并——作描写分析。用数据和材料实证的方法对汉英样本进行数理统计,以社会权利为变量,归纳汉英拒绝言语行为实施的过程中的共性和个性。
视角三“言之法”是指使用功能语法中及物性过程的分析方式来对数据进行对比。通过对汉英拒绝语料的及物性过程标注、统计和分析,对六种及物性过程在汉英职业拒绝样本中的选择偏好和频率,以及以社会权利为变量,汉英数据变化规律等,都进行了充分的对比描写和语里解释。系统功能语言学在强调语言的功能、语境的重要、篇章的衔接等方面都与语用学理论暗相呼应。也早有学者提出两门学科之间可以互相支持的假说。本研究通过将语用学分析和及物性过程分析作用于同一研究客体——汉英拒绝言语行为,目的之一也是为了印证该假说的成立。在以实例为基础,以理论为纲要,综合分析了各方原因之后,我们得出如下结论：及物性过程的选择和语用策略的生成是“暗合”的,言者对于及物性过程的选择自动生成了其对于语用策略的使用。
视角之四,被称之为“言之因”,为的是探究汉英拒绝言语行为具有差异性的深层文化原因。文化语境差异、语用策略差异、语用主体差异等是构成本研究汉英拒绝言语行为差异的“因由”。文化语境是隐含在文化内部的不可量化的隐性语境,它包括传统文化、价值观、思维方式等,它隐蔽不显现,却强有力地控制着汉英拒绝言语行为的实施；语用策略中称呼、恭维、礼貌和方式等的汉英对比可以给汉英拒绝策略差异提供最直接的解释；而语用主体的核心地位决定了它与交际意图、文化语境和语用策略之间的密切联系,语用主体的个体差异对拒绝言语行为本身具有决定性的作用。
最后一章是结论部分。回顾和总结了研究内容和结论,提出了此项研究的研究价值并列举了不足之处和若干值得后续思考的问题。
"Refusal" which is a kind of speech act, arising in daily communication, occupational interaction, business or political negotiation, needs to be uttered carefully by speakers and interpreted alertly by listeners. Because of the differences in languages and cultures, Chinese native speakers and English native speakers show diversities in applying refusal strategies as well as interpreting them. The previous scholars have done a limited number of refusal studies from perspectives of pragmatics, cross-culture communication and second language acquisition. Most of them, however, with the problems of simply listing language examples, describing them and sorting out some insufficient data, are short of explanatory researches, a good system for strategy classification and a generalizable summary. Conducted from a contrastive angle between Chinese and English and based on sampling data, the present study, applying multiple theories, intends to discuss and compare the two parties' refusal interpreting pattern, the similarities and differences of refusal strategies, the choices of transitivity system and the cultural diversity.
After the first two chapters which present the theoretical background, the aims of this study, the orientation of it, and the layout of it, the third chapter explains the methodology of this study. The data-collection&sampling is one of the unique features of this study. The previous researches always adopt the discourse completion test, known as DCT alone to collect data. This study, however, attempts to do some modification of the DCT as well as many manageable experiment procedures, such as scenario investigation, pilot testing, interview and proportionate sampling, in order to guarantee the authenticity of the date collected. Besides, the other group of data, obtained from TV dramas, is transcribed into texts. Processed by proportionate sampling to avoid the random errors, the second group of data is also utilized to cover the shortage of the DCT.
Then, in order to provide a multi-angle platform to analyze the speech act of refusal in Chinese and English occupational interaction respectively and comparatively, this study gives a thorough and deeper insight into the following four perspectives:the interpretation of refusal, the speech act of refusal, the grammar of refusal and the cultural factors of refusal.
The first perspective is the "interpretation of refusal". The relevance theory makes revolutionary contributions to inferential studies. The concept of "ostensive-inferential" exhibits great advancement through expounding various indirect speech acts. The expectation of relevance which will be either satisfied or abandoned is produced for the sake of the interpretation of refusal speech act. The data in this study is classified into three broad categories in light of the meaning distinction in relevance theory which is the key leading to the comprehension on refusals. The purpose of this classification and statistical research is to describe and compare the generating mechanism, the understanding mechanism and the cognitive process between Chinese speakers and English speakers when they say "No" in occupational interaction. The refusal, in this study, can be seen as a choice in a dynamic context in response to a request, an invitation, an offer and a suggestion in an occupational interactive communication process. The whole process which applies a variety of refusal strategies can be regarded as an optimal relevance choice from a series of assumptions of context.
The second perspective is the "speech act of refusal". It makes use of speech act theory and indirect speech act in explaining how people apply pragmatic strategies in the scenarios of refusals. This study innovatively classifies the refusal strategies into two groups:strategies in content and strategies in form. At the meantime, it gives the clear definitions of the classification standard. Then, the46refusal strategies are fallen into those two categories with20in content and26in form. The contrastive descriptions of the similarities and differences of Chinese and English refusal strategies are followed. Under the conditions set in this study, our experiment data, with the variable of power held constant, shows a very diverse tendency between Chinese and English.
The third perspective which is called "the grammar of refusal" is based on the functional grammar approach. The data analysis is done under the theoretical guide of ideational function. It hopes to make a probe into the transitivity system by marking the transitivity processes in scenarios of refusals and doing statistic analysis after which come the measurable conclusions. The preference of choices from six types of transitivity processes in Chinese and English respectively and the regular pattern of the data changed with the variable of power held constant are fully discussed. Systemic functional linguistics is proved by some researchers to be supportive to Pragmatics in many ways. They both share the similarities like emphasizing the importance of function, the context and the discourse itself. This study attempts to testify this presumption by using both the pragmatics framework and a part of functional grammar theory to analyze the same two group subjects. This study is a combination of theoretical and experimental analysis which leads to the conclusion summarized as:the choice of transitivity processes works in cooperation with the generating of pragmatic strategies; the speaker's choice of transitivity processes automatically generates the existence of pragmatic strategies.
The last but not the least, the fourth perspective is "the cultural factors of refusal". Adopting the cross-cultural pragmatics approach is to study how people from different cultural backgrounds say "No" in the occupational interactive communication and to give the explanations based on the intercultural factors. The pragmatic environment, the pragmatic strategies and the pragmatic subject are three key aspects discussed to explicate the reasons why there are differences between Chinese and English in speech act of refusals. The pragmatic environment, including traditional culture, moral values, thinking mode, is a kind of invisible context in culture. It does not appear to catch, but it dominates the speech act in a strong way. The pragmatic strategies in address, compliment, politeness and patterns can provide the most direct explanation to the different refusal strategies between two languages. As for the pragmatic subject, it is in the core position in communication. So it is closely connected with other factors and is of decisive importance in strategy selection.
In the conclusion part of this study, it summarizes the full text. Then it points out the main achievements we have got here as well as the innovation of this study. With the shortcomings discussed, the further research topics are given to be a research reminder.
关于将拒绝作为一种言语行为的研究,主要集中在语用学、跨文化交际学和二语习得等方面。然而,大部分的研究存在单纯列举语料、直白描写语料和罗列对比数据等问题,缺乏解释性的研究、系统的言语行为策略分类和高度概括性的总结等。本研究不是单一文化背景下的拒绝言语行为研究,而是从汉英对比的角度出发,试图从多个理论视角,结合抽样语料,考查和探究汉英职业交往中拒绝言语行为的解译模式、策略偏好、及物性选择对比和文化语用原因等。
在开篇两章对研究目的、研究背景、基本理论和研究思路等作简要阐明之后,第三章详述了语料来源。语料的收集和取样也是本研究的特色之一,以往的研究多直接使用语篇补全测试(DCT)完成数据采集工作,本研究则不仅在问卷设计上大下功夫,更是通过一系列的情景调查、试点测试、反馈和面谈、按比例抽样等多种可控的实验方式来保证数据的真实有效,从而使其具有普遍性。另外,也利用现代职场剧中相关场景的视频转录方式,收集到另一组视频语料。为尽量避免随机采样的错误,同样将其按比例抽样,作为对第一组语料的补充,弥补DCT采集语料存在的若干弊端。
接着,从四个视角,即“言之解”、“言之行”、“言之法”和“言之因”对汉英语料进行观察、描写和解释,力求在一个更立体的多维平台上研究汉英职业交往中的拒绝言语行为。
视角一是从关联理论看“言之解”,关联理论指导下的明示——推理过程对间接言语行为具有很强的解释力,关联期待的满足甚至是放弃都是以言语行为得解为目的的。汉英拒绝言语行为关联意义的使用,是解译拒绝的关键。本研究中的拒绝,可以理解为职场人际交往时,会话互动中产生的针对一方提出的请求、邀请、提供和建议等给出的具有动态语境假设的选择。使用数理统计的方法观测三类关联意义在汉英拒绝释话中的使用频率,为的是对比汉语使用者和英语使用者在释义拒绝时的认知机制和心理过程,也为的是辅助解释汉英拒绝策略具有多样性和差异性的原因，更是为了印证“最佳关联”是在不同认知环境和文化环境中,想要获得交际成功而对一个语境假设集合做出的不同选择。
视角二是从言语行为的实施过程看“言之行”。在实施拒绝这样有损“面子”的言语行为之时必然要使用各类语用策略,这也是以往各项研究的重点。而本研究创新性地将拒绝语用策略做了“内容”和“形式”上的分类,提供了新的分类依据,总结了两类共46种拒绝行为策略,并——作描写分析。用数据和材料实证的方法对汉英样本进行数理统计,以社会权利为变量,归纳汉英拒绝言语行为实施的过程中的共性和个性。
视角三“言之法”是指使用功能语法中及物性过程的分析方式来对数据进行对比。通过对汉英拒绝语料的及物性过程标注、统计和分析,对六种及物性过程在汉英职业拒绝样本中的选择偏好和频率,以及以社会权利为变量,汉英数据变化规律等,都进行了充分的对比描写和语里解释。系统功能语言学在强调语言的功能、语境的重要、篇章的衔接等方面都与语用学理论暗相呼应。也早有学者提出两门学科之间可以互相支持的假说。本研究通过将语用学分析和及物性过程分析作用于同一研究客体——汉英拒绝言语行为,目的之一也是为了印证该假说的成立。在以实例为基础,以理论为纲要,综合分析了各方原因之后,我们得出如下结论：及物性过程的选择和语用策略的生成是“暗合”的,言者对于及物性过程的选择自动生成了其对于语用策略的使用。
视角之四,被称之为“言之因”,为的是探究汉英拒绝言语行为具有差异性的深层文化原因。文化语境差异、语用策略差异、语用主体差异等是构成本研究汉英拒绝言语行为差异的“因由”。文化语境是隐含在文化内部的不可量化的隐性语境,它包括传统文化、价值观、思维方式等,它隐蔽不显现,却强有力地控制着汉英拒绝言语行为的实施；语用策略中称呼、恭维、礼貌和方式等的汉英对比可以给汉英拒绝策略差异提供最直接的解释；而语用主体的核心地位决定了它与交际意图、文化语境和语用策略之间的密切联系,语用主体的个体差异对拒绝言语行为本身具有决定性的作用。
最后一章是结论部分。回顾和总结了研究内容和结论,提出了此项研究的研究价值并列举了不足之处和若干值得后续思考的问题。
"Refusal" which is a kind of speech act, arising in daily communication, occupational interaction, business or political negotiation, needs to be uttered carefully by speakers and interpreted alertly by listeners. Because of the differences in languages and cultures, Chinese native speakers and English native speakers show diversities in applying refusal strategies as well as interpreting them. The previous scholars have done a limited number of refusal studies from perspectives of pragmatics, cross-culture communication and second language acquisition. Most of them, however, with the problems of simply listing language examples, describing them and sorting out some insufficient data, are short of explanatory researches, a good system for strategy classification and a generalizable summary. Conducted from a contrastive angle between Chinese and English and based on sampling data, the present study, applying multiple theories, intends to discuss and compare the two parties' refusal interpreting pattern, the similarities and differences of refusal strategies, the choices of transitivity system and the cultural diversity.
After the first two chapters which present the theoretical background, the aims of this study, the orientation of it, and the layout of it, the third chapter explains the methodology of this study. The data-collection&sampling is one of the unique features of this study. The previous researches always adopt the discourse completion test, known as DCT alone to collect data. This study, however, attempts to do some modification of the DCT as well as many manageable experiment procedures, such as scenario investigation, pilot testing, interview and proportionate sampling, in order to guarantee the authenticity of the date collected. Besides, the other group of data, obtained from TV dramas, is transcribed into texts. Processed by proportionate sampling to avoid the random errors, the second group of data is also utilized to cover the shortage of the DCT.
Then, in order to provide a multi-angle platform to analyze the speech act of refusal in Chinese and English occupational interaction respectively and comparatively, this study gives a thorough and deeper insight into the following four perspectives:the interpretation of refusal, the speech act of refusal, the grammar of refusal and the cultural factors of refusal.
The first perspective is the "interpretation of refusal". The relevance theory makes revolutionary contributions to inferential studies. The concept of "ostensive-inferential" exhibits great advancement through expounding various indirect speech acts. The expectation of relevance which will be either satisfied or abandoned is produced for the sake of the interpretation of refusal speech act. The data in this study is classified into three broad categories in light of the meaning distinction in relevance theory which is the key leading to the comprehension on refusals. The purpose of this classification and statistical research is to describe and compare the generating mechanism, the understanding mechanism and the cognitive process between Chinese speakers and English speakers when they say "No" in occupational interaction. The refusal, in this study, can be seen as a choice in a dynamic context in response to a request, an invitation, an offer and a suggestion in an occupational interactive communication process. The whole process which applies a variety of refusal strategies can be regarded as an optimal relevance choice from a series of assumptions of context.
The second perspective is the "speech act of refusal". It makes use of speech act theory and indirect speech act in explaining how people apply pragmatic strategies in the scenarios of refusals. This study innovatively classifies the refusal strategies into two groups:strategies in content and strategies in form. At the meantime, it gives the clear definitions of the classification standard. Then, the46refusal strategies are fallen into those two categories with20in content and26in form. The contrastive descriptions of the similarities and differences of Chinese and English refusal strategies are followed. Under the conditions set in this study, our experiment data, with the variable of power held constant, shows a very diverse tendency between Chinese and English.
The third perspective which is called "the grammar of refusal" is based on the functional grammar approach. The data analysis is done under the theoretical guide of ideational function. It hopes to make a probe into the transitivity system by marking the transitivity processes in scenarios of refusals and doing statistic analysis after which come the measurable conclusions. The preference of choices from six types of transitivity processes in Chinese and English respectively and the regular pattern of the data changed with the variable of power held constant are fully discussed. Systemic functional linguistics is proved by some researchers to be supportive to Pragmatics in many ways. They both share the similarities like emphasizing the importance of function, the context and the discourse itself. This study attempts to testify this presumption by using both the pragmatics framework and a part of functional grammar theory to analyze the same two group subjects. This study is a combination of theoretical and experimental analysis which leads to the conclusion summarized as:the choice of transitivity processes works in cooperation with the generating of pragmatic strategies; the speaker's choice of transitivity processes automatically generates the existence of pragmatic strategies.
The last but not the least, the fourth perspective is "the cultural factors of refusal". Adopting the cross-cultural pragmatics approach is to study how people from different cultural backgrounds say "No" in the occupational interactive communication and to give the explanations based on the intercultural factors. The pragmatic environment, the pragmatic strategies and the pragmatic subject are three key aspects discussed to explicate the reasons why there are differences between Chinese and English in speech act of refusals. The pragmatic environment, including traditional culture, moral values, thinking mode, is a kind of invisible context in culture. It does not appear to catch, but it dominates the speech act in a strong way. The pragmatic strategies in address, compliment, politeness and patterns can provide the most direct explanation to the different refusal strategies between two languages. As for the pragmatic subject, it is in the core position in communication. So it is closely connected with other factors and is of decisive importance in strategy selection.
In the conclusion part of this study, it summarizes the full text. Then it points out the main achievements we have got here as well as the innovation of this study. With the shortcomings discussed, the further research topics are given to be a research reminder.
引文
① Thomas. Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics. P.205-206.1983.
② Thomas. Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics. P.205-206.1983.
1.陈融 1986 《面子、留面子、丢面子》[J],《外国语》(4)。
2.陈平 1985 《英汉否定结构对比研究》[J],《中国社会科学院研究生院硕士论文选》[C],北京：中国社会科学出版社。
3.方梦之 2010 《译学术语的的演变与创新》[A],胡庚申主编《翻译与跨文化交流：嬗变与解读》[C]。
4.费尔克拉夫 2003 《话语与社会变迁》(段晓蓉译)[M],北京：华夏出版社。
5.顾曰国 2002《.L.Austin How to Do Things with Words顾曰国导读》[M]北京：外语教学与研究出版社/牛津：牛津大学出版社。
6.顾曰国 1992 《礼貌、语用与文化》[J],《外语教学与研究》(4)。
7.桂诗春 1999 《再论语言学研究方法》[J], 《山东师大外国语学院学报》(1)。
8.公静、方琰 2005《英语法庭辩论语篇的概念功能分析》[J],《外语研究》(3)。
9.何兆熊 2002 《新编语用学概要》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
10.何自然 1988 《语用学概论》[M],长沙：湖南教育出版社。
11.何自然 2001 《什么是语用学》[J](原载于《外语教学与研究》1987(4)),《中国语用学研究论文精选》(转载),上海：上海外语教育出版社。
12.何自然 1997 《语用学与英语学习》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
13.何自然、冉永平 2001《D.Sperber & D.Wilson,关联性：交际与认知(导读)》[M],北京：外语教学与教研出版社。
14.何自然、吴亚欣 2004 《关联理论是一种“因错而‘对”的理论吗?》[J],《现代外语》(1)。
15.胡壮麟 1987 《系统功能语法概论》[M],湖南：湖南教育出版社。
16.胡壮麟、方琰 1997 《功能主义在中国的进展》[M],北京：清华大学出版社。
17.胡壮麟 2000 《功能主义纵横谈》[M], 北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
18.胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄 1989 《系统功能语法概论》[M], 长沙：湖南教育出版社。
19.胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄等 2005 《系统功能语言学概论(修订版)》[M],北京：北京大学出版社。
20.胡壮麟 2002 《语境研究的多样化》[J],《外语教学与研究》第14卷第3期。
21.黄光国 1989 《中国人的权利游戏》[M],北京：中国人民大学出版社。
22.黄国文 2008 《作为普通语言学的系统功能语言学》[J],(原载于《中国外语》2007/5).《功能语言学与语篇分析新论》[M](转载),北京：北京大学出版社。
23.黄国文 2001 《语篇分析的理论与实践》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
24.黄国文 2001 《语篇分析理论与实践：广告语篇研究》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
25.黄国文1999《英语语言问题研究》[M], 广州：中山大学出版社。
26.蒋严(译)2008《Sperber,D. & Wilson,D.关联：交际与认知》[M],北京：中国社会科学出版社.
27.贾玉新1997《跨文化交际学》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
28.贾莆田1986《现代汉语中形式上的否定与语义上的否定不一致的几种情况》[J],《汉语研究》)(1)。
29.姜望琪2001《关联理论质疑》[J],《外语研究》(4)。
30.蒋勇、马玉蕾2003《SB与RT的整合性研究》[J],《外语学刊》(1)。
31.孔庆成1995《元语否定的类型》[J],《外国语》(4)。
32.郎天万、蒋勇2002《SBT和RT在语用三角模型中的兼容性和互补性研究》[J],《四川外语学院学报》(6)。
33.李冬梅2002《近十年来关联理论在中国的研究》[J],《四川外语学院学报》(2)。
34.李国庆2005《试论及物性系统结构和语篇题材》[J],《外语教学》(6)。
35.李军、宋燕妮2004《面子理论在汉文化中的考查》[J],《修辞学习》(2)。
36.李景娜、王遥2007《新闻报道的及物性对比分析》[J],《四川教育学院学报》(23)。
37.廖巧云 2005(C-R-A模式：语言交际的三维阐释》[D],上海：上海外国语大学。
38.吕叔湘 1984《语文杂记》[M],上海：上海教育出版社。
39.吕叔湘 1985《疑问、否定、肯定》[J],《中国语文》(4)。
40.梁锦祥 2000《元语言否定的否定对象》[J],《外语学刊》(3)。
41.梁漱溟 1987《中国文化要义》[M],上海：学林出版社。
42.林语堂 1994《中国人》[M],郝志东、沈益洪(译),上海：学林出版社。
43.刘葆 2006《汉语诚意拒绝和虚假拒绝言语行为的礼貌性研究》[D],长春：东北师范大学硕士学位论文。
44.刘森林 2007《语用策略》[M],北京：社会科学文献出版社。
45.卢加伟 2006《英汉拒绝策略及其迁移的实证研究》[J],《河南科技大学学报》(8)。
46.马斯洛 1962《存在心理学》[M],昆明：云南人民出版社。
47.马月兰 1994《从语篇表层谈中、美拒绝策略》[J],《齐齐哈尔大学学报》(4)。
48.明恩溥 1998《中国人的特性》[M], 匡雁鹏(译),北京：光明日报出版社。
49.钱冠连 1997《汉语文化语用学》[M],北京：清华大学出版社。
50.钱钟书 1990《论学文选》[M],广州：花城出版社。
51.曲卫国 2005《论关联理论推理框架中的关联期待》[A],《外国语言文学论丛(秋季刊)》[C],上海：复旦大学出版社。
52.冉永平 2004《言语交际的顺应-关联分析》[J],《外语学刊》(2)。
53.冉永平2005《词汇语用学及语用充实》[J],《外语教学与研究》(5)。
54.萨姆瓦等1988《跨文化传通(中译本)》[M],上海：三联书店。
55.盛晓明2000《话语规则与知识基础》[M],北京：学林出版社。
56.史尘封2004《论语用否定》[J],《修辞学习》(2)。
57.沈家煊1993《“语用否定”考查》[J],《中国语文》(5)。
58.沈家煊2000《句式和配价》[J],《中国语文》(4)。
59.王爱华2001《英汉拒绝言语行为表达模式调查》[J],《外语教学与研究》(5)。
60.王彩丽2005《从及物过程类型透析语言对实现世界的重构——析“我为女儿吸烟而哭泣”中的及物过程运用》[J],《山东外语教育》(1)。
61.王得杏1998《英语话语分析与跨文化交际》[M],北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
62.王福祥1992《对比语言学论文集》[M],北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
63.王建华1993《语用学在语文教学中的应用》[M],杭州：杭州大学出版社。
64.王建华2002《汉英跨文化语用学研究》[D],上海：复旦大学。
65.王建华2002《关于语境的构成与分类》[J],《语言文字应用》(3)。
66.王力1955《中国语法理论》[M],北京：中华书局。
67.王宗炎1998《语言学和语言的应用》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
68.文贞惠2001《现代汉语否定范畴研究》[C],上海：复旦大学博士学位论文。
69.邢福义2000《文化语言学(增订本)》[M],武汉：湖北人民出版社。
70.熊学亮2006《试论关联期待的放弃》[J],《天津外国语学院学报》(3)。
71.徐国萍、周燕红《“再别康桥”之及物性系统分析》[J],《外国语文(四川外语学院学报)》(6)。
72.徐杰2001《“及物性”特征与相关的四类动词》[J],《语言研究》(3)。
73.徐杰2001《普遍语法原则与汉语语法现象》[M],北京：北京大学出版社。
74.徐盛桓1992《礼貌原则新拟》[J],《外语学刊》(2)。
75.徐盛桓2007(a)《自主和依存—语言表达形式生成机理的一种分析框架》[J],《外国语》(2)。
76.徐盛桓2007(b)《基于模型的语用推理》[J],《外国语》(3)。
77.徐盛桓1994《新格赖斯会话含义理论和含意否定》[J],《外语教学与研究》(4)。
78.杨国枢2006《中国人的性格》[M], 南京：江苏教育出版社。
79.杨海濒2001《前沿意识、学术积累与学术创新--社科类学术论文写作应注意的几个问题》[J]《江苏理工大学学报(社会科学版)》(4)。
80.杨丽2009《汉英描写体语篇及物性实现对比分析》[J],《现代语文(语文研究)》(1)。
81.杨平2001《关联—顺应模式》[J],《外国语》(6)。
82.杨子2008《言语交际的关联优选模式及其应用》[D].上海：复旦大学博士学位论文。
83.姚俊2003《从英汉拒绝策略的语用对比看中西文化差异》[J],《山东外语教学》(1)。
84.宗世海2000《汉语话语中误解的类型以及因由》[D],广东：广东外语外贸大学博士学位论文。
85.张伯江1994《汉语语法的功能透视》[J],《汉语学习》(3)。
86.张德禄2001 《系统功能语言学的多位思考》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
87.张新红2000《基于顺应理论的汉语拒绝语的语用研究》[D],广州：广东外语外贸大学博士学位论文。
88.张亚飞1992《关联理论评述》[J],《外语教学与研究》(3)。
89.朱永生、严世清2001 《系统功能语言学多维思考》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
90.朱永生2001《系统功能语言学与语用学的互补性》[J](原载于外语教学与研1996/1),《中国语用学研究论文精选》(转载)[G].
91.朱永生2005《语境的动态研究》[M],北京：北京大学出版社。
92.朱永生2002《世纪之交论功能》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
93.左思民2000《汉语语用学》[M],河南：河南人民出版社。
94. Arin, M. L.2003. Aspect, Tense and Mood:Context Dependency and the Marker LE in Mandarin Chinese [D]. Sweden:Lund University.
95. Austin J. L.1979. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Urmson and Marina Sbisa, Clarendon Press:Oxford.
96. Bach Kent & Robert M. Harnish.1982. Katz as Katz Can.[J]. Journal of Philosophy 79 (3).
97. Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, B.1991.Saying "no" in English:Native and nonnative rejections.[A] In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru(eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (monograph series 2). Urbana-Champaign, IL:Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
98. Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M.C.1996. Natural Speech act data versus written questionnaire data:How data collection method affects speech act performance. [A]In S.M.Gass & J. Neu (Eds.) Speech acts across cultures:Challenges to communication in a second language. Berlin: Monton de Gruyter.
99. Beebe, L.M. and M. Commings.1985. Speech act performance:A function of the data collection procedure. [C]Paper presented at TESOL 1985, New York, April.
100. Beebe, L. T. Takahash I & Uliss- Weltz.1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals [A]. In R. Scarcella E. Andersen & S.D. Krashen (eds). On the Development of communication competence in a Second Language [C], Cambridge, MA:Newbury House.
101. Bernstein, B.1971.Class, Codes and Control:Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology of Language. [M]London:Rutledge & Kegan Paul.
102. Blackemore, D.2002.Relevance and Linguistic Meaning:The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
103. Blutner.R.&H.Zeevat.2004. Optimality Theory and Pragmatics [M].Hampshire: Macmillan/Palgrave.
104. Blum-Kulka, S. & E. Olshtain.1984.Pragmatics and second language learning[J]. Applied Linguistics, Special Issue.5(2).
105. Blum-Kulka, S.1989. Playing it safe:The role of conversation in indirectness. [A].In S. Blum-Kulka, et al.(eds.).
106. Blum_Kulka, S. & E. Olshtain.1984. Requests and apologies:A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. [J]. Applied Linguistic 5(3).
107. Brown, P.& S. Levinson.1978.Universals in language usage:politeness phenomena. [A]. In E.N. Goody (eds.), Questions and Politeness:Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
108. Carston, R.1988.Language and cognition[A], in F.J.Newmeyer (ed.). Linguistics:The Cambridge Survey. Cambridge, New York:Cambridge University Press.
109. Carroll,S.E.1995. The irrelevance of verbal feedback to language learning[A]. In:L. Eubank, L. Slinker& M. Sharwood(eds.) The Current State of Interlanguage:Studies in Honor of William E. Rutherford [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
110.Chapman, S. & C. Routledge.1999. The pragmatics of detection:Paul Auster's City of Glass[J]. Language and Literature, (8)
111.Chen.X., Ye, L. & Zhang, Y.1995.Refusing in Chinese. [A]. In G. Kasper(ed), Pragmatics of Chinese as a Native and Target Language [C]. Honolulu, HI:University of Hawaii Press.
112.Clark, B.1996. Stylistics analysis and relevance theory.[J]. Language and Literature (5)
113.Clark, H. H. & D. H. Schunk.1980. Polite responses to polite requests [J]. Cognition (8)
114.Davidson, J.1987. Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection [A]. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
115.Eggins, S.1994.An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics.[M]. London:Pinter.
116.Escandell, V.1996. Towards a cognitive approach to politeness[J]. Language Sciences. (18).
117.Escandell, V.1998.Politeness:A relevant issue for relevant theory. [J]. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses. (11).
118.Firth, J. R.1957. Papers in Linguistics 1934-51. [G] London:Oxford.
119.Foster- Cohen, S. H.2004a. Relevance theory and second language learning/behaviour[J]. Second Language Research. (20)
120. Foster-Cohen, S. H.2004b. Relevance theory, action theory and second language communication strategies [J]. Second Language Research. (20).
121. Giora, R.1997. Discourse Coherence and theory of relevance:Stumbling blocks in search of unified theory [J]. Journal of Pragmatics. (27)
122. Giora, R.1998. Discourse Coherence is an independent notion:A reply to Deirdre Wilson [J]. Journal of Pragmatics. (29)
123. Grice, H.P.1975.Logic and conversation. [A] In Cole & Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics Vol.3 speech acts. New York:Academic Press.
124. Gu, Y. G.1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. [J]. Journal of Pragmatics. (14).
125. Gutt, E. A.1991. Translation and Relevance:Cognition and Context [M]. Oxford:Blackwell.
126. Halliday, M. A. K.1994.An Introduction to Functional Grammar. [M]. London:Arnold.
127. Halliday, M. A. K.1994/2000. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.) [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
128. Halliday, M. A. K.1978. Language as Social Semiotic:the social interpretation of language and meaning. [M].London:Edward Arnold.
129. Halliday. M. A. K.1976. Cohesion in English.[M]London:Longman.
130. Hall, E. T.1976. Beyond Culture. [M]. Anchor Press.
131. Hamamoto, H.1998. Irony from a cognitive perspective [A]. In:R. Carston & S. Uchida(eds.) Relevance Theory:Applications and Implications. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
132. Horn, L.1985. Metaliguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. [J]. Language. (67).
133. Horn, Laurence R.1989. A Natural History of Negation [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
134. House, J.2006. Constructing a context with intonation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (38).
135. Hymes, D.1972. On Communicative Competence.[A] In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes. (eds) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth:Penguin.
136. Jary, M.1998. Relevance theory and the communication of politeness [J]. Journal of Pragmatics. (30).
137. Kaplan,R.B.1966. Culture thought patterns in inter-cultural communication.[J] Language Learning, (1).
138. Kasper, G. & M. Dahl.1991. Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics.[M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
139. Labov, William.1972. Language in the Inner City. [M]. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
140. Lai, K.2006. World Renowned Linguist Professor Halliday Launches Halliday Centre at City University of HongKong Press Release,27 March.
141. Leech, G. N.1983. Principles of Pragmatics.[M]. London and New York:Longman.
142. Leech, G.1981.Semantics:the study of meaning.[M]. Harmondsworth:Penguin.
143. Levinson, S. C.1983. Pragmatics [M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
144. Levenston, E.1975. Aspects of Testing the Oral Proficiency of Adult Immigrants to Canada. [A]. In L. Palmer & B. Spolsky(eds.), Papers on Language Testing 1967-1974. Washington:TESOL.
145. Liao, Chao-chih,1994. A study on the strategies, maxims, and development of refusal in Mandarin Chinese. [M]. Taibei:Crane.
146. Liao, Chao-chih & Bresnahan, M. I.1996. A Contrastive Pragmatic Study on American English and Mandarin Refusal Strategies. [J].Language Sciences.18(3-4).
147. Lyuh, Inook.1994. A comparison of Korean and American Refusal Strategies [J]. English Teaching.
148. Mackenzie, I.2002. Paradigms of Reading:Relevance Theory and Deconstruction [M]. Hampshire:Palgrave.
149. Malinowski, B.1935. Coral Gardens and Their Magic. [M[. London:Allen and Unwin.
150. Matsui, T. Assessing a scenario-based account of bridging reference assignment [A]. In:R. Carston & S. Uchida (eds.) 1998.Relevance Theory:Applications and Implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
151. Mey, J. L.1993. Pragmatics. [M].Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.
152. Morris, C.1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. [M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
153. Noveck, I. A.2004. Pragmatic Inferences Linked to Logic Terms.[A]. In:I. A. Noveck & D. Sperber (eds.) Experimental Pragmatics [C]. Basingstoke:Palgrave/Macmillan.
154. Noveck, I. & D. Sperber.2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics:The case of 'Scalar inferences'[A]. In:N. Burton-Roberts (ed.) Pragmatics [C]. Basingstoke:Palgrave.
155. Papafragou, A.1995. Metonymy and relevance [J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics. (7).
156. Ray Jackendoff, Paul Bloomand & Karen Wynn (ed.).1999. Language, Logic and Concepts.[M]. MIT:the MIT Press.
157. Rubin, Joan.1983. How to Tell When Someone Is Saying "No".[A]. Revisited. In Wolfson, Nessa and Elliot Judd. (eds.) Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. London:Newbury House Publishers. Inc.
158. Searle, J.1975. Indirect Speech Acts.[A]. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3:Speech acts. New York:Academic Press.
159. Searle,J.R.1969. Speech Acts:An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
160. Searle,J.R.1976. A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.[J]. Language in society. (5).
161. Searle,J.R.1979. Expression and Meaning:Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. [M] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
162. Sperber,D. & D.Wilson.1986/1995. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
163. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson.2006. A deflationary Account of Metaphors [J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics (18).
164. Stevens, P.1993. The Pragmatics of "no ":Some Strategies in English and Arabic.[J]. Ideal. (6).
165. Takahashi, T. & Beebe, L.1987. The Development of Pragmatic Competence by Japanese Learners of English. [J]. JALT Journal. (8).
166. Takahashi Tomoko & Leslie M. Beebe.1986. Transfer and Pragmatic Competence in Second Language Acquisition [D]. Paper presented at the International TESOL convention Anaheim, California, March 6.
167. Tannen, D.1984. The Pragmatics of Cross-cultural Communication..[J]. Applied Linguistics. (3).
168. Thomas, J.1983. Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure. [J]. Applied Linguistics. (4).
169. Thompson, G.1996/2000. Introducing Functional Grammar [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
170. Ueda, Keiko.1974. Sixteen Ways to Avoid Saying No in Japan. [A]. In Condon, J. and M. Saito.(eds.) Intercultural Encounters with Japan.
171. Wilson, D. & D. Sperber.1998. Mood and the Analysis of Non-declarative Sentences [A]. In:A. Kasher(ed.) Pragmatics:Critical Concepts Vol.2 [C]. London:Rutledge.
172. Wilson, D.1999. Relevance and Relevance Theory. [A]. Entry in R. Wilson & F. Keil (eds.) MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences [Z]. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
173. Wilson, D.2004. Relevance, Word Meaning and Communication; the Past, Present and Future of Lexical Pragmatics [J]. Modern Foreign Languages. (1).
174. Wilson, D. & D.2004. Sperber. Relevence Theory. [A]. Entry in G. Ward and L. Horn (eds.) Handbook ofPragmatics[Z]. Oxford:Blackwell.
175. Wilson, D.2006. Lexical Pragmatics and the Literal-Figurative Distinction (handout 3) [Z].广东外语外贸大学：全国语用学讲习班及研讨会内部资料.
176. Wilson, D. & T. Wharton.2005. Relevance and Prosody [J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics (17).
177. Wilson, D.1998. Discourse, Coherence and Relevance:A reply to Rachel Giora [J]. Journal of Pragmatics. (29).
178. Wolfson, N.1989. Sociolinguistics and TESOL:Perspectives.[M].Newbury House Publishers.
179. Wood, L.A. & R. O. Kroger.1994. The analysis of facework in discourse:Review and proposal [J]. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. (13).
180. Yoshihiko, K.2005. The mental space structure of verbal irony [J]. Cognitive Linguistics. (16).
181. Yule, G.1996. Pragmatics.[M].London:OUP.
182. Zegarac, V.1993. Some observations on the pragmatics of the progressive. [J]. Lingua (90).
② Thomas. Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics. P.205-206.1983.
1.陈融 1986 《面子、留面子、丢面子》[J],《外国语》(4)。
2.陈平 1985 《英汉否定结构对比研究》[J],《中国社会科学院研究生院硕士论文选》[C],北京：中国社会科学出版社。
3.方梦之 2010 《译学术语的的演变与创新》[A],胡庚申主编《翻译与跨文化交流：嬗变与解读》[C]。
4.费尔克拉夫 2003 《话语与社会变迁》(段晓蓉译)[M],北京：华夏出版社。
5.顾曰国 2002《.L.Austin How to Do Things with Words顾曰国导读》[M]北京：外语教学与研究出版社/牛津：牛津大学出版社。
6.顾曰国 1992 《礼貌、语用与文化》[J],《外语教学与研究》(4)。
7.桂诗春 1999 《再论语言学研究方法》[J], 《山东师大外国语学院学报》(1)。
8.公静、方琰 2005《英语法庭辩论语篇的概念功能分析》[J],《外语研究》(3)。
9.何兆熊 2002 《新编语用学概要》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
10.何自然 1988 《语用学概论》[M],长沙：湖南教育出版社。
11.何自然 2001 《什么是语用学》[J](原载于《外语教学与研究》1987(4)),《中国语用学研究论文精选》(转载),上海：上海外语教育出版社。
12.何自然 1997 《语用学与英语学习》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
13.何自然、冉永平 2001《D.Sperber & D.Wilson,关联性：交际与认知(导读)》[M],北京：外语教学与教研出版社。
14.何自然、吴亚欣 2004 《关联理论是一种“因错而‘对”的理论吗?》[J],《现代外语》(1)。
15.胡壮麟 1987 《系统功能语法概论》[M],湖南：湖南教育出版社。
16.胡壮麟、方琰 1997 《功能主义在中国的进展》[M],北京：清华大学出版社。
17.胡壮麟 2000 《功能主义纵横谈》[M], 北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
18.胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄 1989 《系统功能语法概论》[M], 长沙：湖南教育出版社。
19.胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄等 2005 《系统功能语言学概论(修订版)》[M],北京：北京大学出版社。
20.胡壮麟 2002 《语境研究的多样化》[J],《外语教学与研究》第14卷第3期。
21.黄光国 1989 《中国人的权利游戏》[M],北京：中国人民大学出版社。
22.黄国文 2008 《作为普通语言学的系统功能语言学》[J],(原载于《中国外语》2007/5).《功能语言学与语篇分析新论》[M](转载),北京：北京大学出版社。
23.黄国文 2001 《语篇分析的理论与实践》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
24.黄国文 2001 《语篇分析理论与实践：广告语篇研究》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
25.黄国文1999《英语语言问题研究》[M], 广州：中山大学出版社。
26.蒋严(译)2008《Sperber,D. & Wilson,D.关联：交际与认知》[M],北京：中国社会科学出版社.
27.贾玉新1997《跨文化交际学》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
28.贾莆田1986《现代汉语中形式上的否定与语义上的否定不一致的几种情况》[J],《汉语研究》)(1)。
29.姜望琪2001《关联理论质疑》[J],《外语研究》(4)。
30.蒋勇、马玉蕾2003《SB与RT的整合性研究》[J],《外语学刊》(1)。
31.孔庆成1995《元语否定的类型》[J],《外国语》(4)。
32.郎天万、蒋勇2002《SBT和RT在语用三角模型中的兼容性和互补性研究》[J],《四川外语学院学报》(6)。
33.李冬梅2002《近十年来关联理论在中国的研究》[J],《四川外语学院学报》(2)。
34.李国庆2005《试论及物性系统结构和语篇题材》[J],《外语教学》(6)。
35.李军、宋燕妮2004《面子理论在汉文化中的考查》[J],《修辞学习》(2)。
36.李景娜、王遥2007《新闻报道的及物性对比分析》[J],《四川教育学院学报》(23)。
37.廖巧云 2005(C-R-A模式：语言交际的三维阐释》[D],上海：上海外国语大学。
38.吕叔湘 1984《语文杂记》[M],上海：上海教育出版社。
39.吕叔湘 1985《疑问、否定、肯定》[J],《中国语文》(4)。
40.梁锦祥 2000《元语言否定的否定对象》[J],《外语学刊》(3)。
41.梁漱溟 1987《中国文化要义》[M],上海：学林出版社。
42.林语堂 1994《中国人》[M],郝志东、沈益洪(译),上海：学林出版社。
43.刘葆 2006《汉语诚意拒绝和虚假拒绝言语行为的礼貌性研究》[D],长春：东北师范大学硕士学位论文。
44.刘森林 2007《语用策略》[M],北京：社会科学文献出版社。
45.卢加伟 2006《英汉拒绝策略及其迁移的实证研究》[J],《河南科技大学学报》(8)。
46.马斯洛 1962《存在心理学》[M],昆明：云南人民出版社。
47.马月兰 1994《从语篇表层谈中、美拒绝策略》[J],《齐齐哈尔大学学报》(4)。
48.明恩溥 1998《中国人的特性》[M], 匡雁鹏(译),北京：光明日报出版社。
49.钱冠连 1997《汉语文化语用学》[M],北京：清华大学出版社。
50.钱钟书 1990《论学文选》[M],广州：花城出版社。
51.曲卫国 2005《论关联理论推理框架中的关联期待》[A],《外国语言文学论丛(秋季刊)》[C],上海：复旦大学出版社。
52.冉永平 2004《言语交际的顺应-关联分析》[J],《外语学刊》(2)。
53.冉永平2005《词汇语用学及语用充实》[J],《外语教学与研究》(5)。
54.萨姆瓦等1988《跨文化传通(中译本)》[M],上海：三联书店。
55.盛晓明2000《话语规则与知识基础》[M],北京：学林出版社。
56.史尘封2004《论语用否定》[J],《修辞学习》(2)。
57.沈家煊1993《“语用否定”考查》[J],《中国语文》(5)。
58.沈家煊2000《句式和配价》[J],《中国语文》(4)。
59.王爱华2001《英汉拒绝言语行为表达模式调查》[J],《外语教学与研究》(5)。
60.王彩丽2005《从及物过程类型透析语言对实现世界的重构——析“我为女儿吸烟而哭泣”中的及物过程运用》[J],《山东外语教育》(1)。
61.王得杏1998《英语话语分析与跨文化交际》[M],北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
62.王福祥1992《对比语言学论文集》[M],北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
63.王建华1993《语用学在语文教学中的应用》[M],杭州：杭州大学出版社。
64.王建华2002《汉英跨文化语用学研究》[D],上海：复旦大学。
65.王建华2002《关于语境的构成与分类》[J],《语言文字应用》(3)。
66.王力1955《中国语法理论》[M],北京：中华书局。
67.王宗炎1998《语言学和语言的应用》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
68.文贞惠2001《现代汉语否定范畴研究》[C],上海：复旦大学博士学位论文。
69.邢福义2000《文化语言学(增订本)》[M],武汉：湖北人民出版社。
70.熊学亮2006《试论关联期待的放弃》[J],《天津外国语学院学报》(3)。
71.徐国萍、周燕红《“再别康桥”之及物性系统分析》[J],《外国语文(四川外语学院学报)》(6)。
72.徐杰2001《“及物性”特征与相关的四类动词》[J],《语言研究》(3)。
73.徐杰2001《普遍语法原则与汉语语法现象》[M],北京：北京大学出版社。
74.徐盛桓1992《礼貌原则新拟》[J],《外语学刊》(2)。
75.徐盛桓2007(a)《自主和依存—语言表达形式生成机理的一种分析框架》[J],《外国语》(2)。
76.徐盛桓2007(b)《基于模型的语用推理》[J],《外国语》(3)。
77.徐盛桓1994《新格赖斯会话含义理论和含意否定》[J],《外语教学与研究》(4)。
78.杨国枢2006《中国人的性格》[M], 南京：江苏教育出版社。
79.杨海濒2001《前沿意识、学术积累与学术创新--社科类学术论文写作应注意的几个问题》[J]《江苏理工大学学报(社会科学版)》(4)。
80.杨丽2009《汉英描写体语篇及物性实现对比分析》[J],《现代语文(语文研究)》(1)。
81.杨平2001《关联—顺应模式》[J],《外国语》(6)。
82.杨子2008《言语交际的关联优选模式及其应用》[D].上海：复旦大学博士学位论文。
83.姚俊2003《从英汉拒绝策略的语用对比看中西文化差异》[J],《山东外语教学》(1)。
84.宗世海2000《汉语话语中误解的类型以及因由》[D],广东：广东外语外贸大学博士学位论文。
85.张伯江1994《汉语语法的功能透视》[J],《汉语学习》(3)。
86.张德禄2001 《系统功能语言学的多位思考》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
87.张新红2000《基于顺应理论的汉语拒绝语的语用研究》[D],广州：广东外语外贸大学博士学位论文。
88.张亚飞1992《关联理论评述》[J],《外语教学与研究》(3)。
89.朱永生、严世清2001 《系统功能语言学多维思考》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
90.朱永生2001《系统功能语言学与语用学的互补性》[J](原载于外语教学与研1996/1),《中国语用学研究论文精选》(转载)[G].
91.朱永生2005《语境的动态研究》[M],北京：北京大学出版社。
92.朱永生2002《世纪之交论功能》[M],上海：上海外语教育出版社。
93.左思民2000《汉语语用学》[M],河南：河南人民出版社。
94. Arin, M. L.2003. Aspect, Tense and Mood:Context Dependency and the Marker LE in Mandarin Chinese [D]. Sweden:Lund University.
95. Austin J. L.1979. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Urmson and Marina Sbisa, Clarendon Press:Oxford.
96. Bach Kent & Robert M. Harnish.1982. Katz as Katz Can.[J]. Journal of Philosophy 79 (3).
97. Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, B.1991.Saying "no" in English:Native and nonnative rejections.[A] In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru(eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (monograph series 2). Urbana-Champaign, IL:Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
98. Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M.C.1996. Natural Speech act data versus written questionnaire data:How data collection method affects speech act performance. [A]In S.M.Gass & J. Neu (Eds.) Speech acts across cultures:Challenges to communication in a second language. Berlin: Monton de Gruyter.
99. Beebe, L.M. and M. Commings.1985. Speech act performance:A function of the data collection procedure. [C]Paper presented at TESOL 1985, New York, April.
100. Beebe, L. T. Takahash I & Uliss- Weltz.1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals [A]. In R. Scarcella E. Andersen & S.D. Krashen (eds). On the Development of communication competence in a Second Language [C], Cambridge, MA:Newbury House.
101. Bernstein, B.1971.Class, Codes and Control:Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology of Language. [M]London:Rutledge & Kegan Paul.
102. Blackemore, D.2002.Relevance and Linguistic Meaning:The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
103. Blutner.R.&H.Zeevat.2004. Optimality Theory and Pragmatics [M].Hampshire: Macmillan/Palgrave.
104. Blum-Kulka, S. & E. Olshtain.1984.Pragmatics and second language learning[J]. Applied Linguistics, Special Issue.5(2).
105. Blum-Kulka, S.1989. Playing it safe:The role of conversation in indirectness. [A].In S. Blum-Kulka, et al.(eds.).
106. Blum_Kulka, S. & E. Olshtain.1984. Requests and apologies:A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. [J]. Applied Linguistic 5(3).
107. Brown, P.& S. Levinson.1978.Universals in language usage:politeness phenomena. [A]. In E.N. Goody (eds.), Questions and Politeness:Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
108. Carston, R.1988.Language and cognition[A], in F.J.Newmeyer (ed.). Linguistics:The Cambridge Survey. Cambridge, New York:Cambridge University Press.
109. Carroll,S.E.1995. The irrelevance of verbal feedback to language learning[A]. In:L. Eubank, L. Slinker& M. Sharwood(eds.) The Current State of Interlanguage:Studies in Honor of William E. Rutherford [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
110.Chapman, S. & C. Routledge.1999. The pragmatics of detection:Paul Auster's City of Glass[J]. Language and Literature, (8)
111.Chen.X., Ye, L. & Zhang, Y.1995.Refusing in Chinese. [A]. In G. Kasper(ed), Pragmatics of Chinese as a Native and Target Language [C]. Honolulu, HI:University of Hawaii Press.
112.Clark, B.1996. Stylistics analysis and relevance theory.[J]. Language and Literature (5)
113.Clark, H. H. & D. H. Schunk.1980. Polite responses to polite requests [J]. Cognition (8)
114.Davidson, J.1987. Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection [A]. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
115.Eggins, S.1994.An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics.[M]. London:Pinter.
116.Escandell, V.1996. Towards a cognitive approach to politeness[J]. Language Sciences. (18).
117.Escandell, V.1998.Politeness:A relevant issue for relevant theory. [J]. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses. (11).
118.Firth, J. R.1957. Papers in Linguistics 1934-51. [G] London:Oxford.
119.Foster- Cohen, S. H.2004a. Relevance theory and second language learning/behaviour[J]. Second Language Research. (20)
120. Foster-Cohen, S. H.2004b. Relevance theory, action theory and second language communication strategies [J]. Second Language Research. (20).
121. Giora, R.1997. Discourse Coherence and theory of relevance:Stumbling blocks in search of unified theory [J]. Journal of Pragmatics. (27)
122. Giora, R.1998. Discourse Coherence is an independent notion:A reply to Deirdre Wilson [J]. Journal of Pragmatics. (29)
123. Grice, H.P.1975.Logic and conversation. [A] In Cole & Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics Vol.3 speech acts. New York:Academic Press.
124. Gu, Y. G.1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. [J]. Journal of Pragmatics. (14).
125. Gutt, E. A.1991. Translation and Relevance:Cognition and Context [M]. Oxford:Blackwell.
126. Halliday, M. A. K.1994.An Introduction to Functional Grammar. [M]. London:Arnold.
127. Halliday, M. A. K.1994/2000. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.) [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
128. Halliday, M. A. K.1978. Language as Social Semiotic:the social interpretation of language and meaning. [M].London:Edward Arnold.
129. Halliday. M. A. K.1976. Cohesion in English.[M]London:Longman.
130. Hall, E. T.1976. Beyond Culture. [M]. Anchor Press.
131. Hamamoto, H.1998. Irony from a cognitive perspective [A]. In:R. Carston & S. Uchida(eds.) Relevance Theory:Applications and Implications. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
132. Horn, L.1985. Metaliguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. [J]. Language. (67).
133. Horn, Laurence R.1989. A Natural History of Negation [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
134. House, J.2006. Constructing a context with intonation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (38).
135. Hymes, D.1972. On Communicative Competence.[A] In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes. (eds) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth:Penguin.
136. Jary, M.1998. Relevance theory and the communication of politeness [J]. Journal of Pragmatics. (30).
137. Kaplan,R.B.1966. Culture thought patterns in inter-cultural communication.[J] Language Learning, (1).
138. Kasper, G. & M. Dahl.1991. Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics.[M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
139. Labov, William.1972. Language in the Inner City. [M]. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
140. Lai, K.2006. World Renowned Linguist Professor Halliday Launches Halliday Centre at City University of HongKong Press Release,27 March.
141. Leech, G. N.1983. Principles of Pragmatics.[M]. London and New York:Longman.
142. Leech, G.1981.Semantics:the study of meaning.[M]. Harmondsworth:Penguin.
143. Levinson, S. C.1983. Pragmatics [M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
144. Levenston, E.1975. Aspects of Testing the Oral Proficiency of Adult Immigrants to Canada. [A]. In L. Palmer & B. Spolsky(eds.), Papers on Language Testing 1967-1974. Washington:TESOL.
145. Liao, Chao-chih,1994. A study on the strategies, maxims, and development of refusal in Mandarin Chinese. [M]. Taibei:Crane.
146. Liao, Chao-chih & Bresnahan, M. I.1996. A Contrastive Pragmatic Study on American English and Mandarin Refusal Strategies. [J].Language Sciences.18(3-4).
147. Lyuh, Inook.1994. A comparison of Korean and American Refusal Strategies [J]. English Teaching.
148. Mackenzie, I.2002. Paradigms of Reading:Relevance Theory and Deconstruction [M]. Hampshire:Palgrave.
149. Malinowski, B.1935. Coral Gardens and Their Magic. [M[. London:Allen and Unwin.
150. Matsui, T. Assessing a scenario-based account of bridging reference assignment [A]. In:R. Carston & S. Uchida (eds.) 1998.Relevance Theory:Applications and Implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
151. Mey, J. L.1993. Pragmatics. [M].Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.
152. Morris, C.1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. [M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
153. Noveck, I. A.2004. Pragmatic Inferences Linked to Logic Terms.[A]. In:I. A. Noveck & D. Sperber (eds.) Experimental Pragmatics [C]. Basingstoke:Palgrave/Macmillan.
154. Noveck, I. & D. Sperber.2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics:The case of 'Scalar inferences'[A]. In:N. Burton-Roberts (ed.) Pragmatics [C]. Basingstoke:Palgrave.
155. Papafragou, A.1995. Metonymy and relevance [J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics. (7).
156. Ray Jackendoff, Paul Bloomand & Karen Wynn (ed.).1999. Language, Logic and Concepts.[M]. MIT:the MIT Press.
157. Rubin, Joan.1983. How to Tell When Someone Is Saying "No".[A]. Revisited. In Wolfson, Nessa and Elliot Judd. (eds.) Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. London:Newbury House Publishers. Inc.
158. Searle, J.1975. Indirect Speech Acts.[A]. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3:Speech acts. New York:Academic Press.
159. Searle,J.R.1969. Speech Acts:An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
160. Searle,J.R.1976. A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.[J]. Language in society. (5).
161. Searle,J.R.1979. Expression and Meaning:Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. [M] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
162. Sperber,D. & D.Wilson.1986/1995. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
163. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson.2006. A deflationary Account of Metaphors [J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics (18).
164. Stevens, P.1993. The Pragmatics of "no ":Some Strategies in English and Arabic.[J]. Ideal. (6).
165. Takahashi, T. & Beebe, L.1987. The Development of Pragmatic Competence by Japanese Learners of English. [J]. JALT Journal. (8).
166. Takahashi Tomoko & Leslie M. Beebe.1986. Transfer and Pragmatic Competence in Second Language Acquisition [D]. Paper presented at the International TESOL convention Anaheim, California, March 6.
167. Tannen, D.1984. The Pragmatics of Cross-cultural Communication..[J]. Applied Linguistics. (3).
168. Thomas, J.1983. Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure. [J]. Applied Linguistics. (4).
169. Thompson, G.1996/2000. Introducing Functional Grammar [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
170. Ueda, Keiko.1974. Sixteen Ways to Avoid Saying No in Japan. [A]. In Condon, J. and M. Saito.(eds.) Intercultural Encounters with Japan.
171. Wilson, D. & D. Sperber.1998. Mood and the Analysis of Non-declarative Sentences [A]. In:A. Kasher(ed.) Pragmatics:Critical Concepts Vol.2 [C]. London:Rutledge.
172. Wilson, D.1999. Relevance and Relevance Theory. [A]. Entry in R. Wilson & F. Keil (eds.) MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences [Z]. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
173. Wilson, D.2004. Relevance, Word Meaning and Communication; the Past, Present and Future of Lexical Pragmatics [J]. Modern Foreign Languages. (1).
174. Wilson, D. & D.2004. Sperber. Relevence Theory. [A]. Entry in G. Ward and L. Horn (eds.) Handbook ofPragmatics[Z]. Oxford:Blackwell.
175. Wilson, D.2006. Lexical Pragmatics and the Literal-Figurative Distinction (handout 3) [Z].广东外语外贸大学：全国语用学讲习班及研讨会内部资料.
176. Wilson, D. & T. Wharton.2005. Relevance and Prosody [J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics (17).
177. Wilson, D.1998. Discourse, Coherence and Relevance:A reply to Rachel Giora [J]. Journal of Pragmatics. (29).
178. Wolfson, N.1989. Sociolinguistics and TESOL:Perspectives.[M].Newbury House Publishers.
179. Wood, L.A. & R. O. Kroger.1994. The analysis of facework in discourse:Review and proposal [J]. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. (13).
180. Yoshihiko, K.2005. The mental space structure of verbal irony [J]. Cognitive Linguistics. (16).
181. Yule, G.1996. Pragmatics.[M].London:OUP.
182. Zegarac, V.1993. Some observations on the pragmatics of the progressive. [J]. Lingua (90).