言语交际的关联优选模式及其应用
|
摘要
1986年Sperber & Wilson提出关联理论,将认知与语用研究结合对言语交际做出解释,描写自然语言的理解过程,在语用推理研究领域有不可撼动的地位,但本质上也存在一些问题,认知关联与交际关联两条指导原则过于宽泛、限制性极弱,导致理论笼统性与应用主观化,一方面无法在语言操作的微观层面给出具体操作方案,对现象的解释力不足,另一方面界定上的模糊引发追随者对该理论应用的随意性,对佳联假设的主观解释、在关联话语解读机制运作过程中的偷换概念等现象时有发生。
本研究以关联理论中的核心假设——最佳关联假设及其派生关联话语解读机制为出发点,旨在通过对语言学其它领域方法论的借鉴与融合,改良现有关联理论运作机制,并在此基础上提出一种关联优选推理模式,使其与原有关联理论相比,对言语现象具有更强的解释力,与现有关联推理机制相比,具有更高的可操作性,在理论精细化的道路上更进一步。
现有绝大多数关联理论与其它推理学说的整合研究从理论互补角度出发,避开各理论的内在问题,通过扬长避短的方式进行理论结合,能从真正意义上修正、完善关联研究的理论结合还较少见。而本研究有别于现有相关研究之处,就在于此处的理论结合不采取问题回避策略,不以理论融合为根本宗旨,而以对关联理论的修正为目的,因此本文建构的“关联优选推理模式”中关联与优选不是并列的成分,而应被理解为“关联话语解读之优选推理模式”。
概言之,本文的核心主要有两部分——对优选推理模式之关联前提的建构和对关联话语解读之优选模式的建构。
具体而言,本文首先将关联理论主观性强、可操作性差等宏观问题落实到微观操作层面,分析了关联理论对言语交际解释力的三大主要制约因素:由关联理论对格莱斯主义交际观的继承及其从释话人角度出发对话语解读的研究二者间矛盾造成的关联期待与说话人意图不一致问题;因为忽视释话人对话语隐含意图确定性程度这一问题,造成的对隐义界定的简化;由“关联”的对象与所指、“说话人的能力与喜好”等关键概念界定朦胧、严谨程度不够造成的关联解读机制中的多重矛盾问题。
对关联优选模式之关联前提的建构,一方面要确保将要建构的模式能够有效避免现有关联推理存在的上述问题,为对关联推理的优化以及基于关联优化的优选推理模式根本理念的提出做准备,另一方面要为关联优选模式生成、评估机制中各类具体制约条件及其等级排序的建构提供素材。这部分对被关联理论忽视或误视的、而在优选模式建构中又是举足轻重的三大关键概念进行精细化阐释及拓展性分析——关联期待的动态性及其在推理过程中的运作、认知效果性质分类的复杂性及其对推理性质的影响、语境假设调用的多元性及其在推理进程中的体现。
基于上述关联前提的建构,在优选推理模式中我们从释话人角度出发通过原型范畴概念对言语交际内容进行描述(对语用推理对象的重新界定);对最佳关联假设底线与上限假设分层分步进行具体化描述(修正原佳联假设中模糊含混及内部矛盾的问题);将修正后的佳联假设降级为释话人话语解读机制中的子原则(对关联话语解读机制与佳联假设间被派生与派生关系的更正)。这便是关联优选推理模式的根本理念。
鉴于动态在线推理与优选静态性的冲突,关联话语解读之优选推理模式的建构为优选方法作了变通,主要体现在生成机制的独立运作、评估机制中制约条件的动/静态性和相对/绝对性、生成机制与评估机制间的互动、候选项进入评估机制的顺序性、优选项的非唯一性。在此基础上对关联优选推理模式的建构主要分为以下几步:对生成机制内语境假设调用制约条件序列的建构;对评估机制内静态制约条件序列、动态制约条件变化方式及动静态条件间互动关系的描写建构;对生成机制与评估机制间互动关系的描写。如此建构的关联优选模式对语境假设调用中的协商性、认知效果候选项生成的有序性、认知效果优选项的产出及性质判定、认知效果数量的有定性、关联期待的动态满足方式、话语解读的终止位置及各类终止方式等均能做出确切描述。
最后,该模式被应用于对不同层面语言现象的分析,以检验其解释力。一方面探讨了词汇语用层面上关联理论无法解释、至少是无法解释透彻的在线交际中词义突变和词义增强现象,另一方面涉足了关联理论从未涉及过的句法—语用界面现象——论元结构构式。在此过程中本研究发现,由于关联优选模式涵盖了现有关联推理研究不具备的对认知效果性质的描写,因此对词汇语用学的解释力度超越了原关联理论,不但能实现后者在该领域无法兼顾的解释概括性与精细性的并重,还能为后者不能解释的临时词义突变现象及一类特殊的临时词义扩充现象做出解释;另外,关联优选对论元结构构式研究也有一定的启示,通过基于关联优选的线性构式分析,可以为构式的原型性研究提供新的解释,同时也能为构式语法难于解释的、句内语境或情境语境下同结构异构式现象提供描写与判定机制。
Relevance theory(RT) was first presented by Sperber & Wilson in 1986. Originating from Gricean studies on cooperative principles and conversional implicature,it exhibits great advancement through expounding verbal communication and the interpretation of natural language from the unprecedented perspective of cognitive pragmatics.It proposes to regard the context as cognition-oriented and mutual manifest,and divides cognitive effects into explicatures and implicatures.Besides,it also verifies contextual variability and the constancy of relevance,and identifies pragmatic inference as nontrivial,nondemonstrative and deductive.In a word,RT makes revolutionary contributions to inferential studies.In the past two decades, relevance theory has drawn much attention and been well discussed in the fields concerned.
Though no doubt has been cast on its achievements,RT is not as perfect as its cofounders have expected.One of the principal defects is that a communicative principle of relevance as generalized as the one offered in RT cannot provide specific and detailed description of the process of verbal comprehension at a microcosmic level. All kinds of relevance-oriented inference count on and only on the guidance of cognitive and communicative principles of relevance,which are not only too general but also too weak to regulate the real inferential process.And this leads immediately to the theory's interpretative subjectivity and inadequacy in its explanatory power.What's more,this defect also results indirectly in the randomness of the theory's application. Due to the lack of precise and clear restraints,the presumption of optimal relevance (POR) and the relevance-theoretic comprehension procedure(RTCP) have been employed subjectively by different users to meet different ends.Covert shifts in the reference of certain key notions are made,consciously or not,by RT followers in their studies from time to time.All the above induce to a certain degree the unjustified omnipotence and non-falsifiability of RT.
The present research takes as its study subjects the core claims of RT---POR and RTCP,the inferential mechanism derived from the former.Through adapting the research method of optimality theory(OT) in phonetics to the pragmatic field,it aims at constructing a highly-constrained relevance-theoretic inferential model based on an amended version of the original RTCP.It is expected that not only can RTCP's maneuverability and RT's explanatory power be promoted in this way,but also RT's applicability should be extended into an even larger range of linguistic phenomena owing to the newly proposed relevance-theoretic model.
Most integrated studies of RT with other inferential theories are conducted for the sake of their mutual complementarity.All of such studies exploit each theory's strengths while avoiding its weakness.Such studies cannot solve or remove the inherent problems with those theories fundamentally.Integrated studies towards the enrichment and refinement of RT are barely seen in a real sense.Compared with existing studies, our research on theoretical combination features a unique quality:instead of adopting the evading strategy as others do,it faces and confronts relevance-based theoretical problems in a direct way.Through locating then correcting or amending RT's internal defects,it seeks to improve the theory in a substantial way.Since the combination of RT with the other theory ---OT is mainly conducted here for the refinement of RT, relevance and optimality in the inferential model to-be-presented do not share equal status.It would be wiser to regard the model as optimality-based inferential model for relevance-theoretic verbal comprehension(ROIM).
Generally speaking,there are two principal issues to be settled for the comprehensive presentation of ROIM,the construction of relevance-concerned premises for optimality-based inferential model and the construction of optimality-based inferential model for relevance-theoretic verbal comprehension.
To be specific,the present study first addresses the issue of high-subjectivity and weak-maneuverability in RT.It attempts to settle these general problems in the specific operating level of RT.And during this process three sources of the theory's presented imperfectness are found:unconformity between the expectation of relevance(ER) and speaker's intention,simplification on defining implicit meaning,and contradictions inside RTCP.While the first problem reflects the mismatch between RT's elaboration on comprehension from the hearer's perspective and its inheritance of Gricean speaker-centered notion---implicature,the second one shows the lack of consideration in RT as to the properties of implicature.Actually,implicature forms a cognitive category with its own prototypicality,which is caused by various degrees of the interpreter's certainty towards an implicature.As to the contradictions inside RTCP, they have a common root,viz.the vagueness and ambiguity in defining the reference of certain key notions such as relevance,the communicator's abilities and preferences,etc.
Since the simplification or confusion in RT's key concepts is a main source of the problems with the theory,it is necessary to delve into these concepts and provide them with a refined analysis.Being part and parcel of the model-forming process,we call this part of the present research the construction of relevance-related premises for an optimality inferential model,where three decisive factors in a relevance-based inferential process are expounded,which are ER---the dynamic factor determining inferential directions,cognitive effects---the ultimate goal of pragmatic inference,and contextual assumptions---the materials employed in pragmatic inference.Special attention is given to the core functioning of these notions that is ignored or misunderstood by RT,i.e.the dynamicity of ER,re-categorization of cognitive effects, and factors other than accessibility that may affect the selection of contextual assumptions.Through a thorough inspection of these notions,the functions performed by them during the inferential process and their operating mechanisms,are revealed.In this way not only the general framework for pragmatic inference takes shape to a certain extent,but the attempt to solve the targeted problems of RT at the specific operational level also gets fully prepared.
Based on the above preparations,amendment to RT is conducted in the following three aspects:expansion of the original inferential range by viewing communication from the interpreter's perspective,enrichment of the extant POR by extending each of its two sub-presumptions into several maxims and corollaries at different directions so as to prevent the confusion and contradiction suffered by the original POR,and adjustment of the relationship between POR and RTCP from that of deriving and being derived to that of being dominated and dominating.The above also form the fundamental notions of our optimality-based inferential model for relevance-theoretic verbal comprehension.
In consideration of RT's subjectivity in application and weakness in its constraining capacity,the relevance-theoretic inferential model here is built in the framework of optimality theory(OT),which enjoys high objectivity and maneuverability thanks to its employment of an evaluating system made of a strict hierarchy of constraints according to their respective significance and suspendibility. However,since a conflict exists between the dynamicity of online inference and staticity of original OT,certain adaptation has to be made on the latter before it can be integrated into the construction of inferential model.To meet the current need,a specialized operating mechanism for the generator(Gen.) in an OT system is proposed, and the constraints in its corresponding evaluator(Eval.)are classified according to features such as dynamicity or relativity.Moreover,special emphases are laid on the interaction between Gen.and Eval.,on the candidates' sequential entrance into the latter from the former,and also on the non-uniqueness of the optimal candidates surviving the evaluation.
After the adaptation is completed,optimality-based inferential model for relevance-theoretic verbal comprehension is constructed according to the following steps:first,to construct in Gen.a hierarchical sequence of constraints on the selection of contextual assumptions to be employed in the inferential process;then to work out in Eval.an ordered set of static constraints according to their respective relativity for the verification of candidates produced by Gen.;thirdly,to figure out the transforming way of the Evaluator's dynamic constraint during the inferential process,and its interaction with other static constraints in Eval.;finally,to explain the overall interaction between Gen.and Eval..The Generator's inner operational mechanism explains the sequential generation of cognitive effect candidates;the linear sequence of static constraints in Eval.decides the selection of optimal candidates,and it also classifies those candidates according to the certainty of speaker's intention embodied in them.As to the third step in constructing the inferential model,it reflects the online satisfaction of the constantly changing ER.Last but not least,the interaction between Gen.and Eval.(the influence exerted by evaluation outcomes on the Generator's further production of candidates,to be specific),presents the various termination ways of pragmatic inference.After the step-by-step construction,a simplified diagram is given to display the integrated functioning of all these steps in an interpreter-centered inferential process.
As the last major part of the present research,the newly constructed inferential model is employed in the analysis of certain linguistic phenomena,such as online lexical replacing or intensifying which can not be explained or thoroughly explained by original RT,and argument constructions which have never been touched by RT before. Not only is the optimality-based relevance-theoretic model verified through this way, but studies on the target phenomena can also benefit from such discussions.To be specific,since the newly proposed inferential model contains the amendment on the nature of cognitive effects,its explanatory power in the field of lexical pragmatics surpasses that of the original.Linguistic phenomena such as ad hoc concepts undergoing online lexical substituting and a special case of lexical broadening,which used to be difficult to explain in the framework of RT,are easily analyzed and interpreted in our inferential model.In addition,the amended RT and its newly proposed inferential model offer a new analytical approach---linear analysis to the study of argument construction as well,which besides updating the previous explanation on constructional prototypicality,also provides a mechanism for the description and interpretation of a neglected phenomenon in the field of construction grammar---a single structure representing different constructions or various combinations of constructions.
本研究以关联理论中的核心假设——最佳关联假设及其派生关联话语解读机制为出发点,旨在通过对语言学其它领域方法论的借鉴与融合,改良现有关联理论运作机制,并在此基础上提出一种关联优选推理模式,使其与原有关联理论相比,对言语现象具有更强的解释力,与现有关联推理机制相比,具有更高的可操作性,在理论精细化的道路上更进一步。
现有绝大多数关联理论与其它推理学说的整合研究从理论互补角度出发,避开各理论的内在问题,通过扬长避短的方式进行理论结合,能从真正意义上修正、完善关联研究的理论结合还较少见。而本研究有别于现有相关研究之处,就在于此处的理论结合不采取问题回避策略,不以理论融合为根本宗旨,而以对关联理论的修正为目的,因此本文建构的“关联优选推理模式”中关联与优选不是并列的成分,而应被理解为“关联话语解读之优选推理模式”。
概言之,本文的核心主要有两部分——对优选推理模式之关联前提的建构和对关联话语解读之优选模式的建构。
具体而言,本文首先将关联理论主观性强、可操作性差等宏观问题落实到微观操作层面,分析了关联理论对言语交际解释力的三大主要制约因素:由关联理论对格莱斯主义交际观的继承及其从释话人角度出发对话语解读的研究二者间矛盾造成的关联期待与说话人意图不一致问题;因为忽视释话人对话语隐含意图确定性程度这一问题,造成的对隐义界定的简化;由“关联”的对象与所指、“说话人的能力与喜好”等关键概念界定朦胧、严谨程度不够造成的关联解读机制中的多重矛盾问题。
对关联优选模式之关联前提的建构,一方面要确保将要建构的模式能够有效避免现有关联推理存在的上述问题,为对关联推理的优化以及基于关联优化的优选推理模式根本理念的提出做准备,另一方面要为关联优选模式生成、评估机制中各类具体制约条件及其等级排序的建构提供素材。这部分对被关联理论忽视或误视的、而在优选模式建构中又是举足轻重的三大关键概念进行精细化阐释及拓展性分析——关联期待的动态性及其在推理过程中的运作、认知效果性质分类的复杂性及其对推理性质的影响、语境假设调用的多元性及其在推理进程中的体现。
基于上述关联前提的建构,在优选推理模式中我们从释话人角度出发通过原型范畴概念对言语交际内容进行描述(对语用推理对象的重新界定);对最佳关联假设底线与上限假设分层分步进行具体化描述(修正原佳联假设中模糊含混及内部矛盾的问题);将修正后的佳联假设降级为释话人话语解读机制中的子原则(对关联话语解读机制与佳联假设间被派生与派生关系的更正)。这便是关联优选推理模式的根本理念。
鉴于动态在线推理与优选静态性的冲突,关联话语解读之优选推理模式的建构为优选方法作了变通,主要体现在生成机制的独立运作、评估机制中制约条件的动/静态性和相对/绝对性、生成机制与评估机制间的互动、候选项进入评估机制的顺序性、优选项的非唯一性。在此基础上对关联优选推理模式的建构主要分为以下几步:对生成机制内语境假设调用制约条件序列的建构;对评估机制内静态制约条件序列、动态制约条件变化方式及动静态条件间互动关系的描写建构;对生成机制与评估机制间互动关系的描写。如此建构的关联优选模式对语境假设调用中的协商性、认知效果候选项生成的有序性、认知效果优选项的产出及性质判定、认知效果数量的有定性、关联期待的动态满足方式、话语解读的终止位置及各类终止方式等均能做出确切描述。
最后,该模式被应用于对不同层面语言现象的分析,以检验其解释力。一方面探讨了词汇语用层面上关联理论无法解释、至少是无法解释透彻的在线交际中词义突变和词义增强现象,另一方面涉足了关联理论从未涉及过的句法—语用界面现象——论元结构构式。在此过程中本研究发现,由于关联优选模式涵盖了现有关联推理研究不具备的对认知效果性质的描写,因此对词汇语用学的解释力度超越了原关联理论,不但能实现后者在该领域无法兼顾的解释概括性与精细性的并重,还能为后者不能解释的临时词义突变现象及一类特殊的临时词义扩充现象做出解释;另外,关联优选对论元结构构式研究也有一定的启示,通过基于关联优选的线性构式分析,可以为构式的原型性研究提供新的解释,同时也能为构式语法难于解释的、句内语境或情境语境下同结构异构式现象提供描写与判定机制。
Relevance theory(RT) was first presented by Sperber & Wilson in 1986. Originating from Gricean studies on cooperative principles and conversional implicature,it exhibits great advancement through expounding verbal communication and the interpretation of natural language from the unprecedented perspective of cognitive pragmatics.It proposes to regard the context as cognition-oriented and mutual manifest,and divides cognitive effects into explicatures and implicatures.Besides,it also verifies contextual variability and the constancy of relevance,and identifies pragmatic inference as nontrivial,nondemonstrative and deductive.In a word,RT makes revolutionary contributions to inferential studies.In the past two decades, relevance theory has drawn much attention and been well discussed in the fields concerned.
Though no doubt has been cast on its achievements,RT is not as perfect as its cofounders have expected.One of the principal defects is that a communicative principle of relevance as generalized as the one offered in RT cannot provide specific and detailed description of the process of verbal comprehension at a microcosmic level. All kinds of relevance-oriented inference count on and only on the guidance of cognitive and communicative principles of relevance,which are not only too general but also too weak to regulate the real inferential process.And this leads immediately to the theory's interpretative subjectivity and inadequacy in its explanatory power.What's more,this defect also results indirectly in the randomness of the theory's application. Due to the lack of precise and clear restraints,the presumption of optimal relevance (POR) and the relevance-theoretic comprehension procedure(RTCP) have been employed subjectively by different users to meet different ends.Covert shifts in the reference of certain key notions are made,consciously or not,by RT followers in their studies from time to time.All the above induce to a certain degree the unjustified omnipotence and non-falsifiability of RT.
The present research takes as its study subjects the core claims of RT---POR and RTCP,the inferential mechanism derived from the former.Through adapting the research method of optimality theory(OT) in phonetics to the pragmatic field,it aims at constructing a highly-constrained relevance-theoretic inferential model based on an amended version of the original RTCP.It is expected that not only can RTCP's maneuverability and RT's explanatory power be promoted in this way,but also RT's applicability should be extended into an even larger range of linguistic phenomena owing to the newly proposed relevance-theoretic model.
Most integrated studies of RT with other inferential theories are conducted for the sake of their mutual complementarity.All of such studies exploit each theory's strengths while avoiding its weakness.Such studies cannot solve or remove the inherent problems with those theories fundamentally.Integrated studies towards the enrichment and refinement of RT are barely seen in a real sense.Compared with existing studies, our research on theoretical combination features a unique quality:instead of adopting the evading strategy as others do,it faces and confronts relevance-based theoretical problems in a direct way.Through locating then correcting or amending RT's internal defects,it seeks to improve the theory in a substantial way.Since the combination of RT with the other theory ---OT is mainly conducted here for the refinement of RT, relevance and optimality in the inferential model to-be-presented do not share equal status.It would be wiser to regard the model as optimality-based inferential model for relevance-theoretic verbal comprehension(ROIM).
Generally speaking,there are two principal issues to be settled for the comprehensive presentation of ROIM,the construction of relevance-concerned premises for optimality-based inferential model and the construction of optimality-based inferential model for relevance-theoretic verbal comprehension.
To be specific,the present study first addresses the issue of high-subjectivity and weak-maneuverability in RT.It attempts to settle these general problems in the specific operating level of RT.And during this process three sources of the theory's presented imperfectness are found:unconformity between the expectation of relevance(ER) and speaker's intention,simplification on defining implicit meaning,and contradictions inside RTCP.While the first problem reflects the mismatch between RT's elaboration on comprehension from the hearer's perspective and its inheritance of Gricean speaker-centered notion---implicature,the second one shows the lack of consideration in RT as to the properties of implicature.Actually,implicature forms a cognitive category with its own prototypicality,which is caused by various degrees of the interpreter's certainty towards an implicature.As to the contradictions inside RTCP, they have a common root,viz.the vagueness and ambiguity in defining the reference of certain key notions such as relevance,the communicator's abilities and preferences,etc.
Since the simplification or confusion in RT's key concepts is a main source of the problems with the theory,it is necessary to delve into these concepts and provide them with a refined analysis.Being part and parcel of the model-forming process,we call this part of the present research the construction of relevance-related premises for an optimality inferential model,where three decisive factors in a relevance-based inferential process are expounded,which are ER---the dynamic factor determining inferential directions,cognitive effects---the ultimate goal of pragmatic inference,and contextual assumptions---the materials employed in pragmatic inference.Special attention is given to the core functioning of these notions that is ignored or misunderstood by RT,i.e.the dynamicity of ER,re-categorization of cognitive effects, and factors other than accessibility that may affect the selection of contextual assumptions.Through a thorough inspection of these notions,the functions performed by them during the inferential process and their operating mechanisms,are revealed.In this way not only the general framework for pragmatic inference takes shape to a certain extent,but the attempt to solve the targeted problems of RT at the specific operational level also gets fully prepared.
Based on the above preparations,amendment to RT is conducted in the following three aspects:expansion of the original inferential range by viewing communication from the interpreter's perspective,enrichment of the extant POR by extending each of its two sub-presumptions into several maxims and corollaries at different directions so as to prevent the confusion and contradiction suffered by the original POR,and adjustment of the relationship between POR and RTCP from that of deriving and being derived to that of being dominated and dominating.The above also form the fundamental notions of our optimality-based inferential model for relevance-theoretic verbal comprehension.
In consideration of RT's subjectivity in application and weakness in its constraining capacity,the relevance-theoretic inferential model here is built in the framework of optimality theory(OT),which enjoys high objectivity and maneuverability thanks to its employment of an evaluating system made of a strict hierarchy of constraints according to their respective significance and suspendibility. However,since a conflict exists between the dynamicity of online inference and staticity of original OT,certain adaptation has to be made on the latter before it can be integrated into the construction of inferential model.To meet the current need,a specialized operating mechanism for the generator(Gen.) in an OT system is proposed, and the constraints in its corresponding evaluator(Eval.)are classified according to features such as dynamicity or relativity.Moreover,special emphases are laid on the interaction between Gen.and Eval.,on the candidates' sequential entrance into the latter from the former,and also on the non-uniqueness of the optimal candidates surviving the evaluation.
After the adaptation is completed,optimality-based inferential model for relevance-theoretic verbal comprehension is constructed according to the following steps:first,to construct in Gen.a hierarchical sequence of constraints on the selection of contextual assumptions to be employed in the inferential process;then to work out in Eval.an ordered set of static constraints according to their respective relativity for the verification of candidates produced by Gen.;thirdly,to figure out the transforming way of the Evaluator's dynamic constraint during the inferential process,and its interaction with other static constraints in Eval.;finally,to explain the overall interaction between Gen.and Eval..The Generator's inner operational mechanism explains the sequential generation of cognitive effect candidates;the linear sequence of static constraints in Eval.decides the selection of optimal candidates,and it also classifies those candidates according to the certainty of speaker's intention embodied in them.As to the third step in constructing the inferential model,it reflects the online satisfaction of the constantly changing ER.Last but not least,the interaction between Gen.and Eval.(the influence exerted by evaluation outcomes on the Generator's further production of candidates,to be specific),presents the various termination ways of pragmatic inference.After the step-by-step construction,a simplified diagram is given to display the integrated functioning of all these steps in an interpreter-centered inferential process.
As the last major part of the present research,the newly constructed inferential model is employed in the analysis of certain linguistic phenomena,such as online lexical replacing or intensifying which can not be explained or thoroughly explained by original RT,and argument constructions which have never been touched by RT before. Not only is the optimality-based relevance-theoretic model verified through this way, but studies on the target phenomena can also benefit from such discussions.To be specific,since the newly proposed inferential model contains the amendment on the nature of cognitive effects,its explanatory power in the field of lexical pragmatics surpasses that of the original.Linguistic phenomena such as ad hoc concepts undergoing online lexical substituting and a special case of lexical broadening,which used to be difficult to explain in the framework of RT,are easily analyzed and interpreted in our inferential model.In addition,the amended RT and its newly proposed inferential model offer a new analytical approach---linear analysis to the study of argument construction as well,which besides updating the previous explanation on constructional prototypicality,also provides a mechanism for the description and interpretation of a neglected phenomenon in the field of construction grammar---a single structure representing different constructions or various combinations of constructions.
引文
[1]Allot,N.2006.Game theory and communication[A].In:A.Benz,G.Jager & R.van Rooij(eds.) Game Theory and Pragmatics[C].New York:Palgrave Macmillan,123-151.
[2]Ariel,M.1990.Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents[M].London:Routledge.
[3]Arin,M.L.2003.Aspect,Tense and Mood:Context Dependency and the Marker LE in Mandarin Chinese[D].Lund University.
[4]Bach,K.2006.The top 10 misconceptions about implicature[A].In:B.Birner & G.Ward(eds.) Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,21-30.
[5]Beaver,D.& H.Lee.2004.input-output mismatches in OT[A].In:R.Blutner & H.Zeevat(eds.) Optimality Theory and Pragmatics[C].Hampshire:Macmillan/Palgrave,112-153.
[6]Bever,T.G.1970.The cognitive basis for linguistic structures[A].In:J.R.Hayes (ed.) Cognition and Development of Language[C].New York:Wiley,279 - 352.
[7]Blackmore,D.1992.Understanding Utterances[M].Oxford:Blackwell.
[8]Blakemore,D.2002.Relevance and Linguistic Meaning:The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[9]Blutner,R.2000.Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation[J].Journal of Semantics 17:189-216.
[10]Blutner,R.2006a.Optimality Theoretic Pragmatics and the Explicature/implicature Distinction[A].In:N.Burton-Roberts(ed.) Advances in Pragmatics[C].Hampshire:Macmillan/Palgrave.
[11]Blutner,R.2006b.Embedded implicatures and optimality theoretic pragmatics[A].In:T.Solstad,A.Gronn & D.Haug(eds) A Festschrift for Kjell Johan Scebo[C].Oslo:Unipub forlag,11-29.
[12]Blumer R.& H.Zeevat.2004.Optimality Theory and Pragmatics[C].Hampshire: Macmillan/Palgrave
[13]Bresnan,J.1995.Lexicality and Argument Structure[A],In:Paris Syntax and Semantics Conference[C]:1-27.
[14]Carston,R.1996.Enrichment and loosening:Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed?[J].UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8:205-232.
[15]Carston,R.1998.Informativeness,relevance and scalar implicature[A].In:R.Carston & S.Uchida(eds.) Relevance Theory:Applications and Implications[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,179-236.
[16]Carston,R.2002.Thoughts and Utterances:the Pragmatics of Explicit Communication[M].Malden:Blackwell.
[17]Carston,R.& S.Uchida.1998.Relevance Theory:Applications and Implications [C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
[18]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,73-88.
[19]Chapman,S.& C.Routledge.1999.The pragrnatics of detection:Paul Auster's City of Glass[J].Language and Literature 8:241-253.
[20]Clark,B.1996.Stylistic analysis and relevance theory[J].Language and Literature 5:163-178.
[21]Cummings,L.1998.The scientific reductionism of relevance theory:the lesson from logical positivism[J].Journal of Pragmatics 29:1-12.
[22]Curl,T.S.,J.Local & G.Walker.2006.Repetition and the prosody-pragrnatics interface[J].Journal of Pragmatics 38:1721-1751.
[23]Davis,W.A.2005.Implicature.Entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[Z].http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/#3
[24]Escandell,V.1996.Towards a cognitive approach to politeness[J].Language Sciences 18:629-650.
[25]Escandell,V.1998.Politeness:A relevant issue for relevance theory[J].Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11:45-57.
[26]Firth,J.R.1957.Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951[M].London:Oxford University Press.
[27]Foster-Cohen,S.H.2004a.Relevance theory and second language leaming/behaviour[J].Second Language Research 20:189-192.
[28]Foster-Cohen,S.H.2004b.Relevance theory,action theory and second language communication strategies[J].Second Language Research 20:289-302.
[29]Giora,R.1997.Discourse coherence and theory of relevance:Stumbling blocks in search of a unified theory[J].Journal of Pragmatics 27:17-34.
[30]Giora,R.1998.Discourse coherence is an independent notion:A reply to Deirdre Wilson[J].Journal of Pragmatics 29:75-86.
[31]Givon,T.1985.Iconicity,isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax[A].In J.Haiman(ed.) Iconicity in Syntax[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,187-219.
[32]Givon,T.1993.English grammar:a function-based introduction Ⅱ[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
[33]Goatly,A.1994.Register and the redemption of Relevance Theory:the case of metaphor[J].Pragmatics 4:139-181.
[34]Goldberg,A.1995.Constructions:a Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure[M].Chicago:The University of Chicago Press
[35]Grice,H.P.1975.Logic and Conversation[A].In:P.Cole & J.L.Morgan(eds.)Syntax and Semantics volume 3:Speech Acts[C].New York:Academic Press,41-58.
[36]Gutt,E.A.1991.Translation and Relevance:Cognition and Context[M].Oxford:Blackwell.
[37]Hamamoto,H.1998.Irony from a cognitive perspective[A].In:R.Carston & S.Uchida(eds.) Relevance Theory:Applications and Implications.Amsterdam:John Benjamins,257-270.
[38]Horn,L.R.1984.Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference:Q-based and R-based implicature[A].In:D.Schiffrin(ed.) Meaning,Form and Use in Context:Linguistics Applications[C].Washington,DC:Georgetown University Press,11-42.
[39]Hom,L.R.1992.Pragmatics,implicature and presupposition.Entry in Bright(ed.)International Encyclopaedia of Linguistics[Z].Oxford:Oxford University Press, 260-266.
[40]House,J.2006.Constructing a context with intonation[J].Journal of Pragmatics 38:1542-1558.
[41]Huang,Yan.2001.Reflections on theoretical pragmatics[J].外国语(1):2-14.
[42]Jary,M.1998.Relevance theory and the communication of politeness[J].Journal of Pragmatics 30:1-19.
[43]Kager,R.1999.Optimality Theory[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[44]Kotthoff,H.2006.Pragrnatics of performance and the analysis of conversational humor[J].Humor 19:271-304.
[45]Leech,G.1981.Semantics[M].Harmondsworth:Penguin.
[46]Leech,G.1983.Principles of Pragmatics[M],London:Longman
[47]Levinson,S.C.1983.P.ragmatics[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[48]Levinson,S.C.1987.Minimization and conversational inference[A].In:J.Verschueren and P.Bertuccelli(eds.) The Pragmatic Perspective[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,61-129.
[49]Levinson,S.C.1989.A review of Relevance[J].Journal of Linguistics 25:455-472.
[50]Levinson,S.C.2000.Presumptive Meanings:the Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature[M].Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press.
[51]Littlejohn,S.W.1999.Theories of Human Communication[M].Belmont et al:Wadsworth Publishing Company.
[52]Lyons,J.1977.Semantics[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[53]MacKenzie,I.2002.Paradigms of Reading:Relevance Theory and Deconstruction [M].Hampshire:Palgrave.
[54]Martinet,A.1962.A Functional View of Language[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press.
[55]Matsui,T.1998.Assessing a scenario-based account of bridging reference assignment[A].In:R.Carston & S.Uchida(eds.) Re&vance Theory:Applications and Implications[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,123-159.
[56] Mey, J. L. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction[M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[57] Mey. J. & M. Talbot. 1988. Computation and the soul[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 743-789.
[58] Noveck, I. A. 2004. Pragmatic inferences linked to logical terms[A]. In: I. A. Noveck & D. Sperber (eds.) Experimental Pragmatics[C]. Basingstoke: Palgrave/ Macmillan, 301-321.
[59] 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, 184-212.
[60] Papafragou, A. 1995. Metonymy and relevance[J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 141-175.
[61] Pietarinen, A. 2005. Relevance theory through pragmatic theories of meaning[A]. Proceedings of the XXVII Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society[C]. Alpha: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1767-1772.
[62] Prince, A. & P. Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar[M]. University of Colorado.
[63] Ritchie, D. 2005. Frame-shifting in humor and irony[J]. Metaphor and Symbol 20: 275-294.
[64] Rouchota V. & A. Jucker. 1998. Current Issues in Relevance Theory[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[65] Smith, N.V. 1990. Observations on the pragmatics of tense[J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 82-94.
[66] Sperber, D. & D.Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[67] Sperber, D. & D.Wilson. 1996. Fodor's frame problem and relevance theory[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences Vol. 19: 529-532.
[68] Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 2006. A deflationary account of metaphors[J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 171-203.
[69] Talbot, M. 1998. Relevance[A]. In: J. Mey & R. Asher (eds.) Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics[C]. Elsevier: 775-778.
[70]van Rooy,R.2004.Relevance and bidirectional OT[A].In:R.Blutner & H.Zeevat (eds.) Pragmatics in Optimality Theory[C].Hampshire:Palgrave/Macmillan,173-210.
[71]Verschueren,J.1999.Understanding Pragmatics[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
[72]Wilks,Y.1986.Relevance and beliefs[A].In:T.Myers.K.Brown & B.McGonigle(eds.) Reasoning and Discourse Processes[C].London:Academic Press,265-289.
[73]Wilson,D.1998.Discourse,coherence and relevance:A reply to Rachel Giora[J].Journal of Pragmatics 29:57-74.
[74]Wilson,D.1999.Relevance and relevance theory.Entry in R.Wilson & E Keil (eds.) MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences[Z].MIT Press,Cambridge MA:719-22.
[75]Wilson,D.2004.Relevance,word meaning and communication:the past,present and future of lexical pragmatics[J].Modern Foreign Languages 1:1-13.
[76]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材料,10-17
[77]Wilson,D.& D.Sperber.1993.Linguistic form and relevance[J].Lingua 90:1-25.
[78]Wilson,D.& D.Sperber.1998.Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences[A].In:A.Kasher(ed.) Pragmatics:Critical Concepts Vol.Ⅱ[C].London:Routlege,262-289.
[79]Wilson,D.& D.Sperber.2002.Truthfulness and relevance[J].Mind 111:583-632.
[80]Wilson,D.& D.Sperber.2004.Relevance theory.Entry in G Ward and L.Horn (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics[Z].Oxford:Blackwell,607-632.
[81]Wilson,D.& T.Wharton.2005.Relevance and prosody[J].UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 17:427-454.
[82]Yoshihiko,K.2005.The mental space structure of verbal irony[J].Cognitive Linguistics 16:513-530
[83]Yus,F.1998.A decade of Relevance Theory[J].Journal of Pragmatics 30:305-345.
[84]Zeevat,H.2000.The asymmetry of optimality theoretic syntax and semantics[J].Journal of Semantics(17):243-262.
[85]Zegarac,V.1993.Some observations on the pragmatics of the progressive[J].Lingua 90:201-220.
[86]Zipf,G.K.1949.Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort[M].Cambridge,MA:Addison-Wesley Press.
[87]董燕萍、梁君英.2002.走近构式语法[J].现代外语(2):142-152.
[88]冯志伟.2003.花园幽径句的自动分析算法[J].当代语言学(4):339-349.
[89]冯志伟、许福吉.2002.花园幽径句初探[EB/OL].http://www.colips.org/conference/icicsie2OO2/papers/FengZhiwei.doc
[90]何自然、冉永平.2001.导读.In:D.Sperber & D.Wilson,《关联性:交际与认知》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,F23-F38.
[91]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):89-96.
[92]侯国金.2003.动态语境与语境洽商[J].外语教学(1):22-26.
[93]黄华新、胡霞.2004.认知语境的建构性探讨[J].现代外语(3):248-254.
[94]纪云霞、林书武.2002.一种新的语言理论:构块式语法[J].外国语(5):16-22.
[95]姜望琪.2001.关联理论质疑[J].外语研究(4):26-31.
[96]姜望琪.2002.再评关联理论--从“后叙”看Sperber和Wilson对关联理论的修改[J].外语教学与研究(5):301-308.
[97]蒋严.2002.论语用推理的逻辑属性--形式语用学初探[J].外国语(3):18-29.
[98]蒋勇、马玉蕾.2003.SB与RT的整合性研究[J].外语学刊(1):31-36.
[99]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):76-80.
[100]李兵.1998.优选论的产生、基本原理及应用[J].现代外语(3):71-91.
[101]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): 102-105.
[102]李淑静.2001.英汉语双及物结构式比较[J].外语与外语教学(6):12-14.
[103]廖巧云.2005.C-R-A模式:言语交际的三维阐释[D].上海外国语大学
[104]陆俭明.2004.词语句法、语义的多功能性:对“构式语法”理论的解释[J].外国语(2):15-20.
[105]马秋武、王嘉玲.2001.导读.In:R.Kager,《优选论》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,F24-F39.
[106]曲卫国.1993.也评“关联理论”[J].外语教学与研究(2):9-13.
[107]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.
[108]沈家煊.2000.句式和配价[J].中国语文(4):291-297.
[109]石毓智.2004.汉英双宾结构差别的概念化原因[J].外语教学与研究(2):83-89.
[110]冉永平.2002.论关联理论的社会维度[J].外国语(3):30-36.
[111]冉永平.2004.言语交际的顺应-关联性分析[J].外语学刊(2):28-33.
[112]冉永平.2005.词汇语用学及语用充实[J].外语教学与研究(5):343-350.
[113]谭弘剑、刘绍忠.2002.近年来国外语境研究综述[J].四川外语学院学报(6):106-110.
[114]熊学亮.1996a.单向语境推导初探(上)[J].现代外语(2):1-4.
[115]熊学亮.1996b.单向语境推导初探(下)[J].现代外语(3):15-19.
[116]熊学亮.1999a.《认知语用学概论》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[117]熊学亮.1999b.认知语境的语用可及程度分析[J].外国语(6):17-23.
[118]熊学亮.2005.对关联理论中逻辑的思考[J].外语与外语教学(10):1-6.
[119]熊学亮.2006.试论对关联期待的放弃[J].天津外国语学院学报(3):1-6.
[120]熊学亮.2007a.《语言使用中的推理》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[121]熊学亮.2007b.英汉语双宾构式探析[J].外语教学与研究(4):261-267.
[122]熊学亮、杨子.2007a.试论关联期待的三种运行方式[J].外语与翻译(1):9-14.
[123]熊学亮、杨子.2007b.关联期待的动态性及其对语用推理的启示[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版)(1):112-117.
[124]许力生.2006.语言学研究的语境理论构建[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)(4):158-165.
[125]徐盛桓.2002.关联原则与优化思维--关联理论的阐释与献疑[J].外国语(3):2-10.
[126]徐盛桓.2007.相邻关系视角下的双及物句再研究[J].外语教学与研究(4):253-260.
[127]严辰松.2006.构式语法论要[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4):6-11.
[128]杨春时.2002.文学理论:从主体性到主体间性[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版),(1):17-24.
[129]杨春时.2006.本体论的主体间性与美学建构[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(2):5-10.
[130]杨平.2001.关联-顺应模式[J].外国语(6):21-28.
[131]张伯江.1999.现代汉语的双及物结构式[J].中国语文(3):175-184.
[132]张伯江.2000.论“把”字句的句式语义[J].语言研究(1):28-40.
[133]张韧弦、刘乃实.2004.语境推导模式的“单向”到“整合”--.兼评熊学亮的单向语境推导模式[J].现代外语(4):419-423.
[134]张亚非.1992.关联理论述评[J].外语教学与研究(3):9-16.
[135]曾衍桃.2006.词汇语用学引论[J].外语学刊(5):59-64
[2]Ariel,M.1990.Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents[M].London:Routledge.
[3]Arin,M.L.2003.Aspect,Tense and Mood:Context Dependency and the Marker LE in Mandarin Chinese[D].Lund University.
[4]Bach,K.2006.The top 10 misconceptions about implicature[A].In:B.Birner & G.Ward(eds.) Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,21-30.
[5]Beaver,D.& H.Lee.2004.input-output mismatches in OT[A].In:R.Blutner & H.Zeevat(eds.) Optimality Theory and Pragmatics[C].Hampshire:Macmillan/Palgrave,112-153.
[6]Bever,T.G.1970.The cognitive basis for linguistic structures[A].In:J.R.Hayes (ed.) Cognition and Development of Language[C].New York:Wiley,279 - 352.
[7]Blackmore,D.1992.Understanding Utterances[M].Oxford:Blackwell.
[8]Blakemore,D.2002.Relevance and Linguistic Meaning:The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[9]Blutner,R.2000.Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation[J].Journal of Semantics 17:189-216.
[10]Blutner,R.2006a.Optimality Theoretic Pragmatics and the Explicature/implicature Distinction[A].In:N.Burton-Roberts(ed.) Advances in Pragmatics[C].Hampshire:Macmillan/Palgrave.
[11]Blutner,R.2006b.Embedded implicatures and optimality theoretic pragmatics[A].In:T.Solstad,A.Gronn & D.Haug(eds) A Festschrift for Kjell Johan Scebo[C].Oslo:Unipub forlag,11-29.
[12]Blumer R.& H.Zeevat.2004.Optimality Theory and Pragmatics[C].Hampshire: Macmillan/Palgrave
[13]Bresnan,J.1995.Lexicality and Argument Structure[A],In:Paris Syntax and Semantics Conference[C]:1-27.
[14]Carston,R.1996.Enrichment and loosening:Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed?[J].UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8:205-232.
[15]Carston,R.1998.Informativeness,relevance and scalar implicature[A].In:R.Carston & S.Uchida(eds.) Relevance Theory:Applications and Implications[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,179-236.
[16]Carston,R.2002.Thoughts and Utterances:the Pragmatics of Explicit Communication[M].Malden:Blackwell.
[17]Carston,R.& S.Uchida.1998.Relevance Theory:Applications and Implications [C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
[18]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,73-88.
[19]Chapman,S.& C.Routledge.1999.The pragrnatics of detection:Paul Auster's City of Glass[J].Language and Literature 8:241-253.
[20]Clark,B.1996.Stylistic analysis and relevance theory[J].Language and Literature 5:163-178.
[21]Cummings,L.1998.The scientific reductionism of relevance theory:the lesson from logical positivism[J].Journal of Pragmatics 29:1-12.
[22]Curl,T.S.,J.Local & G.Walker.2006.Repetition and the prosody-pragrnatics interface[J].Journal of Pragmatics 38:1721-1751.
[23]Davis,W.A.2005.Implicature.Entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[Z].http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/#3
[24]Escandell,V.1996.Towards a cognitive approach to politeness[J].Language Sciences 18:629-650.
[25]Escandell,V.1998.Politeness:A relevant issue for relevance theory[J].Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11:45-57.
[26]Firth,J.R.1957.Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951[M].London:Oxford University Press.
[27]Foster-Cohen,S.H.2004a.Relevance theory and second language leaming/behaviour[J].Second Language Research 20:189-192.
[28]Foster-Cohen,S.H.2004b.Relevance theory,action theory and second language communication strategies[J].Second Language Research 20:289-302.
[29]Giora,R.1997.Discourse coherence and theory of relevance:Stumbling blocks in search of a unified theory[J].Journal of Pragmatics 27:17-34.
[30]Giora,R.1998.Discourse coherence is an independent notion:A reply to Deirdre Wilson[J].Journal of Pragmatics 29:75-86.
[31]Givon,T.1985.Iconicity,isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax[A].In J.Haiman(ed.) Iconicity in Syntax[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,187-219.
[32]Givon,T.1993.English grammar:a function-based introduction Ⅱ[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
[33]Goatly,A.1994.Register and the redemption of Relevance Theory:the case of metaphor[J].Pragmatics 4:139-181.
[34]Goldberg,A.1995.Constructions:a Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure[M].Chicago:The University of Chicago Press
[35]Grice,H.P.1975.Logic and Conversation[A].In:P.Cole & J.L.Morgan(eds.)Syntax and Semantics volume 3:Speech Acts[C].New York:Academic Press,41-58.
[36]Gutt,E.A.1991.Translation and Relevance:Cognition and Context[M].Oxford:Blackwell.
[37]Hamamoto,H.1998.Irony from a cognitive perspective[A].In:R.Carston & S.Uchida(eds.) Relevance Theory:Applications and Implications.Amsterdam:John Benjamins,257-270.
[38]Horn,L.R.1984.Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference:Q-based and R-based implicature[A].In:D.Schiffrin(ed.) Meaning,Form and Use in Context:Linguistics Applications[C].Washington,DC:Georgetown University Press,11-42.
[39]Hom,L.R.1992.Pragmatics,implicature and presupposition.Entry in Bright(ed.)International Encyclopaedia of Linguistics[Z].Oxford:Oxford University Press, 260-266.
[40]House,J.2006.Constructing a context with intonation[J].Journal of Pragmatics 38:1542-1558.
[41]Huang,Yan.2001.Reflections on theoretical pragmatics[J].外国语(1):2-14.
[42]Jary,M.1998.Relevance theory and the communication of politeness[J].Journal of Pragmatics 30:1-19.
[43]Kager,R.1999.Optimality Theory[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[44]Kotthoff,H.2006.Pragrnatics of performance and the analysis of conversational humor[J].Humor 19:271-304.
[45]Leech,G.1981.Semantics[M].Harmondsworth:Penguin.
[46]Leech,G.1983.Principles of Pragmatics[M],London:Longman
[47]Levinson,S.C.1983.P.ragmatics[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[48]Levinson,S.C.1987.Minimization and conversational inference[A].In:J.Verschueren and P.Bertuccelli(eds.) The Pragmatic Perspective[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,61-129.
[49]Levinson,S.C.1989.A review of Relevance[J].Journal of Linguistics 25:455-472.
[50]Levinson,S.C.2000.Presumptive Meanings:the Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature[M].Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press.
[51]Littlejohn,S.W.1999.Theories of Human Communication[M].Belmont et al:Wadsworth Publishing Company.
[52]Lyons,J.1977.Semantics[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[53]MacKenzie,I.2002.Paradigms of Reading:Relevance Theory and Deconstruction [M].Hampshire:Palgrave.
[54]Martinet,A.1962.A Functional View of Language[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press.
[55]Matsui,T.1998.Assessing a scenario-based account of bridging reference assignment[A].In:R.Carston & S.Uchida(eds.) Re&vance Theory:Applications and Implications[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,123-159.
[56] Mey, J. L. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction[M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[57] Mey. J. & M. Talbot. 1988. Computation and the soul[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 743-789.
[58] Noveck, I. A. 2004. Pragmatic inferences linked to logical terms[A]. In: I. A. Noveck & D. Sperber (eds.) Experimental Pragmatics[C]. Basingstoke: Palgrave/ Macmillan, 301-321.
[59] 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, 184-212.
[60] Papafragou, A. 1995. Metonymy and relevance[J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 141-175.
[61] Pietarinen, A. 2005. Relevance theory through pragmatic theories of meaning[A]. Proceedings of the XXVII Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society[C]. Alpha: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1767-1772.
[62] Prince, A. & P. Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar[M]. University of Colorado.
[63] Ritchie, D. 2005. Frame-shifting in humor and irony[J]. Metaphor and Symbol 20: 275-294.
[64] Rouchota V. & A. Jucker. 1998. Current Issues in Relevance Theory[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[65] Smith, N.V. 1990. Observations on the pragmatics of tense[J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 82-94.
[66] Sperber, D. & D.Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[67] Sperber, D. & D.Wilson. 1996. Fodor's frame problem and relevance theory[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences Vol. 19: 529-532.
[68] Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 2006. A deflationary account of metaphors[J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 171-203.
[69] Talbot, M. 1998. Relevance[A]. In: J. Mey & R. Asher (eds.) Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics[C]. Elsevier: 775-778.
[70]van Rooy,R.2004.Relevance and bidirectional OT[A].In:R.Blutner & H.Zeevat (eds.) Pragmatics in Optimality Theory[C].Hampshire:Palgrave/Macmillan,173-210.
[71]Verschueren,J.1999.Understanding Pragmatics[M].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
[72]Wilks,Y.1986.Relevance and beliefs[A].In:T.Myers.K.Brown & B.McGonigle(eds.) Reasoning and Discourse Processes[C].London:Academic Press,265-289.
[73]Wilson,D.1998.Discourse,coherence and relevance:A reply to Rachel Giora[J].Journal of Pragmatics 29:57-74.
[74]Wilson,D.1999.Relevance and relevance theory.Entry in R.Wilson & E Keil (eds.) MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences[Z].MIT Press,Cambridge MA:719-22.
[75]Wilson,D.2004.Relevance,word meaning and communication:the past,present and future of lexical pragmatics[J].Modern Foreign Languages 1:1-13.
[76]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材料,10-17
[77]Wilson,D.& D.Sperber.1993.Linguistic form and relevance[J].Lingua 90:1-25.
[78]Wilson,D.& D.Sperber.1998.Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences[A].In:A.Kasher(ed.) Pragmatics:Critical Concepts Vol.Ⅱ[C].London:Routlege,262-289.
[79]Wilson,D.& D.Sperber.2002.Truthfulness and relevance[J].Mind 111:583-632.
[80]Wilson,D.& D.Sperber.2004.Relevance theory.Entry in G Ward and L.Horn (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics[Z].Oxford:Blackwell,607-632.
[81]Wilson,D.& T.Wharton.2005.Relevance and prosody[J].UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 17:427-454.
[82]Yoshihiko,K.2005.The mental space structure of verbal irony[J].Cognitive Linguistics 16:513-530
[83]Yus,F.1998.A decade of Relevance Theory[J].Journal of Pragmatics 30:305-345.
[84]Zeevat,H.2000.The asymmetry of optimality theoretic syntax and semantics[J].Journal of Semantics(17):243-262.
[85]Zegarac,V.1993.Some observations on the pragmatics of the progressive[J].Lingua 90:201-220.
[86]Zipf,G.K.1949.Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort[M].Cambridge,MA:Addison-Wesley Press.
[87]董燕萍、梁君英.2002.走近构式语法[J].现代外语(2):142-152.
[88]冯志伟.2003.花园幽径句的自动分析算法[J].当代语言学(4):339-349.
[89]冯志伟、许福吉.2002.花园幽径句初探[EB/OL].http://www.colips.org/conference/icicsie2OO2/papers/FengZhiwei.doc
[90]何自然、冉永平.2001.导读.In:D.Sperber & D.Wilson,《关联性:交际与认知》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,F23-F38.
[91]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):89-96.
[92]侯国金.2003.动态语境与语境洽商[J].外语教学(1):22-26.
[93]黄华新、胡霞.2004.认知语境的建构性探讨[J].现代外语(3):248-254.
[94]纪云霞、林书武.2002.一种新的语言理论:构块式语法[J].外国语(5):16-22.
[95]姜望琪.2001.关联理论质疑[J].外语研究(4):26-31.
[96]姜望琪.2002.再评关联理论--从“后叙”看Sperber和Wilson对关联理论的修改[J].外语教学与研究(5):301-308.
[97]蒋严.2002.论语用推理的逻辑属性--形式语用学初探[J].外国语(3):18-29.
[98]蒋勇、马玉蕾.2003.SB与RT的整合性研究[J].外语学刊(1):31-36.
[99]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):76-80.
[100]李兵.1998.优选论的产生、基本原理及应用[J].现代外语(3):71-91.
[101]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): 102-105.
[102]李淑静.2001.英汉语双及物结构式比较[J].外语与外语教学(6):12-14.
[103]廖巧云.2005.C-R-A模式:言语交际的三维阐释[D].上海外国语大学
[104]陆俭明.2004.词语句法、语义的多功能性:对“构式语法”理论的解释[J].外国语(2):15-20.
[105]马秋武、王嘉玲.2001.导读.In:R.Kager,《优选论》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,F24-F39.
[106]曲卫国.1993.也评“关联理论”[J].外语教学与研究(2):9-13.
[107]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.
[108]沈家煊.2000.句式和配价[J].中国语文(4):291-297.
[109]石毓智.2004.汉英双宾结构差别的概念化原因[J].外语教学与研究(2):83-89.
[110]冉永平.2002.论关联理论的社会维度[J].外国语(3):30-36.
[111]冉永平.2004.言语交际的顺应-关联性分析[J].外语学刊(2):28-33.
[112]冉永平.2005.词汇语用学及语用充实[J].外语教学与研究(5):343-350.
[113]谭弘剑、刘绍忠.2002.近年来国外语境研究综述[J].四川外语学院学报(6):106-110.
[114]熊学亮.1996a.单向语境推导初探(上)[J].现代外语(2):1-4.
[115]熊学亮.1996b.单向语境推导初探(下)[J].现代外语(3):15-19.
[116]熊学亮.1999a.《认知语用学概论》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[117]熊学亮.1999b.认知语境的语用可及程度分析[J].外国语(6):17-23.
[118]熊学亮.2005.对关联理论中逻辑的思考[J].外语与外语教学(10):1-6.
[119]熊学亮.2006.试论对关联期待的放弃[J].天津外国语学院学报(3):1-6.
[120]熊学亮.2007a.《语言使用中的推理》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[121]熊学亮.2007b.英汉语双宾构式探析[J].外语教学与研究(4):261-267.
[122]熊学亮、杨子.2007a.试论关联期待的三种运行方式[J].外语与翻译(1):9-14.
[123]熊学亮、杨子.2007b.关联期待的动态性及其对语用推理的启示[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版)(1):112-117.
[124]许力生.2006.语言学研究的语境理论构建[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)(4):158-165.
[125]徐盛桓.2002.关联原则与优化思维--关联理论的阐释与献疑[J].外国语(3):2-10.
[126]徐盛桓.2007.相邻关系视角下的双及物句再研究[J].外语教学与研究(4):253-260.
[127]严辰松.2006.构式语法论要[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4):6-11.
[128]杨春时.2002.文学理论:从主体性到主体间性[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版),(1):17-24.
[129]杨春时.2006.本体论的主体间性与美学建构[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(2):5-10.
[130]杨平.2001.关联-顺应模式[J].外国语(6):21-28.
[131]张伯江.1999.现代汉语的双及物结构式[J].中国语文(3):175-184.
[132]张伯江.2000.论“把”字句的句式语义[J].语言研究(1):28-40.
[133]张韧弦、刘乃实.2004.语境推导模式的“单向”到“整合”--.兼评熊学亮的单向语境推导模式[J].现代外语(4):419-423.
[134]张亚非.1992.关联理论述评[J].外语教学与研究(3):9-16.
[135]曾衍桃.2006.词汇语用学引论[J].外语学刊(5):59-64