《金婚》中夫妻间冲突话语的语用分析
|
摘要
冲突话语是一种很普遍的语言现象,在日常交际中随处可见。冲突话语这一概念是很笼统的,许多言语行为和言语事件,如争执、反驳、争吵、反对、争论等都包含在冲突话语之中。无论采取何种概念,冲突都有一个共同的特征,即：交际的一方反对另一方的言行、举止,或就某人某事双方持有不同的意见。许多学者已从不同的角度对冲突话语进行了研究,已取得了一定的研究成果,然而从现有的文献来看,有关汉语语境下夫妻间冲突话语的研究却很少。因此,本文旨在对汉语语境下的夫妻间的冲突话语进行语用分析。
本文在前人对冲突话语研究的基础上,以会话分析和礼貌原则为理论指导,对中国婚姻题材电视剧《金婚》中夫妻间的冲突话语展开了定性和定量的研究。定性研究界定了冲突话语中夫妻采取的反对形式以及这些反对形式所隐含的面子威肋、行为。定量研究分析了这些反对形式出现的频率以及夫妻在使用这些反对形式上有何异同。
经过研究,我们得出三个结论。第一,冲突话语中,夫妻经常采取否定形式(简单否定和强烈否定),问句形式,同意形式(部分同意和强烈同意)和重复形式来反对另一方的观点。第二,就面子威胁行为而言,这几种形式对面子威胁的程度从强到弱依次是：强烈否定形式,问句形式和强烈同意形式,简单否定形式和重复形式,部分同意形式。第三,在冲突中,夫妻大量使用问句形式和强烈同意形式来使得冲突升级,同时,妻子使用这两种形式的频率要高于丈夫。
本研究的发现有理论和现实意义。一方面,本研究的成果在一定程度上丰富了国内冲突话语的研究,对从其它角度对中国夫妻间的冲突话语进行研究提供了一些启示。另一方面,本研究启发人们在交际中要使用合理有效的冲突管理形式,只有这样,才能降低冲突话语的负面影响和破坏作用。
Conflict talk is a common language phenomenon in social interaction, observable in many spheres and aspects of life. The term of conflict talk can be used to refer to many speech acts and speech events, such as arguing, disputing, quarreling, opposing and squabbling. These terms have one core common feature, that is, participants oppose the utterance, actions or selves of one another in successive turns. Many researches have been conducted to analyze conflict talk from different perspectives. However, from the literature available, it is found that researches on conflict talk between Chinese couples are rather limited. Therefore, the present study is intended to make a pragmatic analysis of conflict talk between Chinese couples.
Based on a review of previous researches on conflict talk and the theory of Conversation Analysis and Politeness Theory, the present study integrates both qualitative and quantitative analysis to analyze the conflict talk in the data collected from Chinese television series Golden Wedding. Qualitative research is used to identify the opposition forms used by the couple and the face implication of each opposition form. Quantitative research concerns the frequency of each opposition form as well as the couple's differences in the use of opposition forms identified in the collected data.
Findings of the detailed studies are as follows. Firstly, the couple frequently uses four opposition forms in conflict talk:contradiction (simple negation & aggravated negation), rhetorical questions, agreement (partial agreement & upgraded agreement), and format tying. Secondly, in terms of their degree of aggravation to face, the ranking of these opposition forms from most to least face-aggravating is aggravated negation, rhetorical questions & upgraded agreement, simple negation & format tying, and partial agreement. Thirdly, most of the opposition is expressed by rhetorical questions or upgraded agreement, and the wife is more likely to use the two forms.
Findings of the study may provide some theoretical and practical implications. On the one hand, the findings of the study, to some extent, contribute to filling in a gap in the existing literature of Chinese conflict talk analysis and shedding some light on the future researches on conflict talk between couples with other approaches. On the other hand, the findings of the study have indicated that conflict talk itself is not positive or negative, and the ways of conflict management affect the outcomes of conflict talk. Therefore, one should learn to manage conflict effectively.
本文在前人对冲突话语研究的基础上,以会话分析和礼貌原则为理论指导,对中国婚姻题材电视剧《金婚》中夫妻间的冲突话语展开了定性和定量的研究。定性研究界定了冲突话语中夫妻采取的反对形式以及这些反对形式所隐含的面子威肋、行为。定量研究分析了这些反对形式出现的频率以及夫妻在使用这些反对形式上有何异同。
经过研究,我们得出三个结论。第一,冲突话语中,夫妻经常采取否定形式(简单否定和强烈否定),问句形式,同意形式(部分同意和强烈同意)和重复形式来反对另一方的观点。第二,就面子威胁行为而言,这几种形式对面子威胁的程度从强到弱依次是：强烈否定形式,问句形式和强烈同意形式,简单否定形式和重复形式,部分同意形式。第三,在冲突中,夫妻大量使用问句形式和强烈同意形式来使得冲突升级,同时,妻子使用这两种形式的频率要高于丈夫。
本研究的发现有理论和现实意义。一方面,本研究的成果在一定程度上丰富了国内冲突话语的研究,对从其它角度对中国夫妻间的冲突话语进行研究提供了一些启示。另一方面,本研究启发人们在交际中要使用合理有效的冲突管理形式,只有这样,才能降低冲突话语的负面影响和破坏作用。
Conflict talk is a common language phenomenon in social interaction, observable in many spheres and aspects of life. The term of conflict talk can be used to refer to many speech acts and speech events, such as arguing, disputing, quarreling, opposing and squabbling. These terms have one core common feature, that is, participants oppose the utterance, actions or selves of one another in successive turns. Many researches have been conducted to analyze conflict talk from different perspectives. However, from the literature available, it is found that researches on conflict talk between Chinese couples are rather limited. Therefore, the present study is intended to make a pragmatic analysis of conflict talk between Chinese couples.
Based on a review of previous researches on conflict talk and the theory of Conversation Analysis and Politeness Theory, the present study integrates both qualitative and quantitative analysis to analyze the conflict talk in the data collected from Chinese television series Golden Wedding. Qualitative research is used to identify the opposition forms used by the couple and the face implication of each opposition form. Quantitative research concerns the frequency of each opposition form as well as the couple's differences in the use of opposition forms identified in the collected data.
Findings of the detailed studies are as follows. Firstly, the couple frequently uses four opposition forms in conflict talk:contradiction (simple negation & aggravated negation), rhetorical questions, agreement (partial agreement & upgraded agreement), and format tying. Secondly, in terms of their degree of aggravation to face, the ranking of these opposition forms from most to least face-aggravating is aggravated negation, rhetorical questions & upgraded agreement, simple negation & format tying, and partial agreement. Thirdly, most of the opposition is expressed by rhetorical questions or upgraded agreement, and the wife is more likely to use the two forms.
Findings of the study may provide some theoretical and practical implications. On the one hand, the findings of the study, to some extent, contribute to filling in a gap in the existing literature of Chinese conflict talk analysis and shedding some light on the future researches on conflict talk between couples with other approaches. On the other hand, the findings of the study have indicated that conflict talk itself is not positive or negative, and the ways of conflict management affect the outcomes of conflict talk. Therefore, one should learn to manage conflict effectively.
引文
Antaki, C. Explaining and Arguing:The Social Organization of Accounts. London & Thousand Oaks:Sage,1994.
Austin, J. How to do things with Words. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1962.
Bhatia, V. K., J. Flowerdew & R. H. Jones. Approaches to Discourse Analysis. In Bhatia, V. K., J. Flowerdew & R. H. Jones, eds. Advances in Discourse Studies. London and New York:Routledge,2008:22-35.
Boggs, S. T. The development of verbal disputing in part-Hawaiian children. Language in Society 7,1978:325-344.
Brenneis, D. Language and disputing. Annual Review of Anthropology 17,1988: 221-237.
Brenneis, D. & L. Lein. "You fruithead":a Sociolinguistic Approach to Children's Dispute Settlement. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C. Mitchell-Kernan, eds. Child Discourse. New York:Academic Press,1977:49-65.
Brown, G. & S. Levinson. Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.
Cameron, D. Verbal hygiene for women:Linguistics misapplied? Applied Linguistics 15,1994:382-398.
Cheng, W. & M. Warren. Indirectness, inexplicitness and vagueness made clearer. Journal of Pragmatics 13,2003:381-400.
Corsaro, W. A. & T. A. Rizzo. Disputes in the peer culture of American and Italian nursery-school children. In Grimshaw, A. D., ed. Conflict talk:Sociolinguistic investigation of arguments in conversations. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990:21-66.
Donahue, R. T. & M. H. Prosser. Diplomatic Discourse:International Conflict at the United Nations-Addresses and Analysis. Greenwich:Ablex Publishing Corporation,1997.
Drew, P. & T. Curl. Conversation analysis:Overview and new directions. In Bhatia, V. K., J. Flowerdew & R. H. Jones, eds. Advances in Discourse Studies. London and New York:Routledge,2008:22-35.
Eder, D. Serious and playful disputes:variation in conflict talk among female adolescents. In Grimshaw, A. D., ed. Conflict talk:Sociolinguistic investigation of arguments in conversations. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990: 67-84.
Edwards, J. A. Transcription in discourse. In William Bright, ed. The Oxford Interactional Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford and New York:Oxford University Press,1992:367-371.
Eisenberg, A. R. & C. Garvey Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Process 4,1981:149-170.
Georgakopoulou, A. Arguing about the future:On indirect disagreements in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33,2001:1881-1900.
Goodwin, M. H. Processes of dispute management among urban black children. American Ethnologist 9,1982:76-96.
Goodwin, M. H. Aggravated correction and disagreement in children's conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 7,1983:657-677.
Goodwin, M. H. He-Said-She-Said:Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1990a.
Goodwin, M. H. & C. Goodwin. Children's arguing. In Philips, S. U., S. Steele & C. Tanz, eds. Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1987:200-248.
Gray, J. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. New York:Harper Collins,1992.
Grimshaw, Allen D., ed. Conflict talk:Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
Gruber, H. Quesitions and strategic orientation in verbal conflict sequences. Journal of Pragmatics 33,2001:1815-1857.
Gu, Y. G. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14,1990: 237-257.
Harris, Z. S. Discourse analysis. Language 28,1952:1-30.
Heritage, J. & Roth, A. L. Grammar and institution:questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28, 1995:1-60.
Honda, A. Conflict management in Japanese public affairs shows. Journal of Pragmatics 34,2002:573-608.
House, J. & G. Kasper. Politeness Markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas, ed. Conversational Routine:Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague:Mouton,1981:157-185.
Kakava, Chr. Discourse and Conflict. In Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. & Hamilton, H. E. eds. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford:Blackwell,2001:650-670.
Kasper, G. Linguistic politeness:Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 1990:193-218.
Knoblauch, H. The taming of foes:The avoidance of asymmetry in informal discussions. In Markova, I. & K. Foppa, eds. Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead:Barnes and Noble,1991:166-195.
Kotthoff, H. Disagreement and concession in disputes:On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society 22,1993:193-216.
Kuo, S. H. Conflict and its management in Chinese verbal interactions:Casual conversations and parliamentary interpolations. Unpublished PhD thesis, Georgetown University,1992.
Lakoff, Robin. What You Can Do With Words:Politeness, Pragmatics and Performatives. Berkley:University of California,1974.
Lakoff, Robin. Language and Women s Place. New York:Harper & Row,1975.
Lee, D. A. Frame conflicts and competing construals in Family Argument. Journal of Pragmatics 27,1997:339-360.
Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman and New York:Longman Group Limited,1983.
Lein, L. & D. Brenneis. Children's disputes in three speech communities. Language in Society 7,1978:299-309.
Levinson, Stephen C. Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1983.
Maynard, D. W. How children start arguments. Language in Society 14,1985:1-29.
Mitchell-Kernan, C. & K. T. Kernan. Children's Insults:America and Samoa. In Sanches, M. & B. G. Blount, eds. Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use. New York:Academic Press,1975:307-315.
Muntigl, P. & Turnbull, W. Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics 29,1998:225-256.
Paltridge, B. Making Sense of Discourse Analysis:Australia:Antipodean Educational Enterprises,2000.
Paltridge, B. Discourse Analysis. London:Continuum,2006.
Philips, S. U. The judge as third party in American trial-court conflict talk. In Grimshaw, A. D., ed. Conflict talk:Sociolinguistic investigation of arguments in conversations. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990:197-209.
Piazza, R. The representation of conflict in the discourse of Italian melodrama. Journal of Pragmatics 38,2006:2087-2104.
Richards. J. C. et al. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2005.
Ruhl, M. Arguing and Communicative Asymmetry:The Analysis of the Interactive Process of Arguing in Non-ideal Situations. Frankfurt:Peter Lang,2002.
Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff & G. Jefferson. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50,1974:696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. Sequence Organization in Interaction:a primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2007.
Schiffrin, D. Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13,1984:311-335.
Schiffrin, D. Everyday argument:The organization of diversity in talk. In T. A. van Dijk, ed. Handbook of Discourse Analysis (3 vols.). London:Academic Press, 1985:35-46.
Schiffrin, Deborah. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford:Blackwell,1994.
Tannen, D. Silence as conflict management in fiction and drama:Pinter's Betrayal and a short story, "Great Wits". In Grimshaw, A. D., ed. Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1990a:260-279.
Tannen, D. You Just Don't Understand:Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow,1990b.
Tannen, D. Interactional Sociolinguistics. In Bright, W., ed. Interactional Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford and New York:Oxford University Press, 1992:9-12.
Tannen, D. Taking from 9 to 5:How Women's and Men's Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Work. New York: Morrow,1994.
Tannen, D. The Argument Culture:Moving from Debate to Dialogue. New York: Random House,1998.
van Dijk, T. A. Critical discourse analysis. In Schiffrin, D., D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton, eds. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford:Blackwell,2001: 352-371.
Vuchinich, S. Sequencing and social structure in family conflict. Social Psychology Quarterly 47,1984:217-234.
Wood, L. A. & R. O. Kroger. The analysis of facework in discourse:Review and proposal. Journal of Language and social Psychology 13,1994:248-277.
Yule, G. Pragmatics. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2000.
Zhao, Y. L. A Pragma-rhetoric Study of Conflict Talk in Chinese. Unpublished PhD thesis, Northeast Normal University,2008.
Zhu, X. Q. Pragmatic Approach to Conflict Talk between Couples in Desperate Housewives. Unpublished MA thesis, Xiamen University,2008.
Zimmerman, D. H. & C. West. Sex Roles, Interruptions, and Silences in Conversation. In Barrie, T. & H, Nancy, eds. Language and Sex:Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA:Newbury House,1975.
《金婚》(电视剧),郑晓龙(导演)。北京：2007。
王宛平,《金婚》。北京：作家出版社,2007。
赵英玲,冲突话语分析,《外语学刊》第5期,2004：37-42。 Internet information:
Net.1. Conflict Talk:A Discourse Analytical Perspective. http://journals.tc-library.org/index.php/tesol/article/viewFile/20/27
Net.2. Top 5 Reasons for Marital Conflict. http://www.schaefersblog.com/top-5-reasons-for-marital-conflict/
Net.3. Deriving the Interpretation of Rhetorical Questions http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.56.2752&rep=rep1 & type=pdf
Austin, J. How to do things with Words. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1962.
Bhatia, V. K., J. Flowerdew & R. H. Jones. Approaches to Discourse Analysis. In Bhatia, V. K., J. Flowerdew & R. H. Jones, eds. Advances in Discourse Studies. London and New York:Routledge,2008:22-35.
Boggs, S. T. The development of verbal disputing in part-Hawaiian children. Language in Society 7,1978:325-344.
Brenneis, D. Language and disputing. Annual Review of Anthropology 17,1988: 221-237.
Brenneis, D. & L. Lein. "You fruithead":a Sociolinguistic Approach to Children's Dispute Settlement. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C. Mitchell-Kernan, eds. Child Discourse. New York:Academic Press,1977:49-65.
Brown, G. & S. Levinson. Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.
Cameron, D. Verbal hygiene for women:Linguistics misapplied? Applied Linguistics 15,1994:382-398.
Cheng, W. & M. Warren. Indirectness, inexplicitness and vagueness made clearer. Journal of Pragmatics 13,2003:381-400.
Corsaro, W. A. & T. A. Rizzo. Disputes in the peer culture of American and Italian nursery-school children. In Grimshaw, A. D., ed. Conflict talk:Sociolinguistic investigation of arguments in conversations. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990:21-66.
Donahue, R. T. & M. H. Prosser. Diplomatic Discourse:International Conflict at the United Nations-Addresses and Analysis. Greenwich:Ablex Publishing Corporation,1997.
Drew, P. & T. Curl. Conversation analysis:Overview and new directions. In Bhatia, V. K., J. Flowerdew & R. H. Jones, eds. Advances in Discourse Studies. London and New York:Routledge,2008:22-35.
Eder, D. Serious and playful disputes:variation in conflict talk among female adolescents. In Grimshaw, A. D., ed. Conflict talk:Sociolinguistic investigation of arguments in conversations. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990: 67-84.
Edwards, J. A. Transcription in discourse. In William Bright, ed. The Oxford Interactional Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford and New York:Oxford University Press,1992:367-371.
Eisenberg, A. R. & C. Garvey Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Process 4,1981:149-170.
Georgakopoulou, A. Arguing about the future:On indirect disagreements in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33,2001:1881-1900.
Goodwin, M. H. Processes of dispute management among urban black children. American Ethnologist 9,1982:76-96.
Goodwin, M. H. Aggravated correction and disagreement in children's conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 7,1983:657-677.
Goodwin, M. H. He-Said-She-Said:Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1990a.
Goodwin, M. H. & C. Goodwin. Children's arguing. In Philips, S. U., S. Steele & C. Tanz, eds. Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1987:200-248.
Gray, J. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. New York:Harper Collins,1992.
Grimshaw, Allen D., ed. Conflict talk:Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
Gruber, H. Quesitions and strategic orientation in verbal conflict sequences. Journal of Pragmatics 33,2001:1815-1857.
Gu, Y. G. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14,1990: 237-257.
Harris, Z. S. Discourse analysis. Language 28,1952:1-30.
Heritage, J. & Roth, A. L. Grammar and institution:questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28, 1995:1-60.
Honda, A. Conflict management in Japanese public affairs shows. Journal of Pragmatics 34,2002:573-608.
House, J. & G. Kasper. Politeness Markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas, ed. Conversational Routine:Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague:Mouton,1981:157-185.
Kakava, Chr. Discourse and Conflict. In Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. & Hamilton, H. E. eds. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford:Blackwell,2001:650-670.
Kasper, G. Linguistic politeness:Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 1990:193-218.
Knoblauch, H. The taming of foes:The avoidance of asymmetry in informal discussions. In Markova, I. & K. Foppa, eds. Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead:Barnes and Noble,1991:166-195.
Kotthoff, H. Disagreement and concession in disputes:On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society 22,1993:193-216.
Kuo, S. H. Conflict and its management in Chinese verbal interactions:Casual conversations and parliamentary interpolations. Unpublished PhD thesis, Georgetown University,1992.
Lakoff, Robin. What You Can Do With Words:Politeness, Pragmatics and Performatives. Berkley:University of California,1974.
Lakoff, Robin. Language and Women s Place. New York:Harper & Row,1975.
Lee, D. A. Frame conflicts and competing construals in Family Argument. Journal of Pragmatics 27,1997:339-360.
Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman and New York:Longman Group Limited,1983.
Lein, L. & D. Brenneis. Children's disputes in three speech communities. Language in Society 7,1978:299-309.
Levinson, Stephen C. Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1983.
Maynard, D. W. How children start arguments. Language in Society 14,1985:1-29.
Mitchell-Kernan, C. & K. T. Kernan. Children's Insults:America and Samoa. In Sanches, M. & B. G. Blount, eds. Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use. New York:Academic Press,1975:307-315.
Muntigl, P. & Turnbull, W. Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics 29,1998:225-256.
Paltridge, B. Making Sense of Discourse Analysis:Australia:Antipodean Educational Enterprises,2000.
Paltridge, B. Discourse Analysis. London:Continuum,2006.
Philips, S. U. The judge as third party in American trial-court conflict talk. In Grimshaw, A. D., ed. Conflict talk:Sociolinguistic investigation of arguments in conversations. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990:197-209.
Piazza, R. The representation of conflict in the discourse of Italian melodrama. Journal of Pragmatics 38,2006:2087-2104.
Richards. J. C. et al. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2005.
Ruhl, M. Arguing and Communicative Asymmetry:The Analysis of the Interactive Process of Arguing in Non-ideal Situations. Frankfurt:Peter Lang,2002.
Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff & G. Jefferson. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50,1974:696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. Sequence Organization in Interaction:a primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2007.
Schiffrin, D. Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13,1984:311-335.
Schiffrin, D. Everyday argument:The organization of diversity in talk. In T. A. van Dijk, ed. Handbook of Discourse Analysis (3 vols.). London:Academic Press, 1985:35-46.
Schiffrin, Deborah. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford:Blackwell,1994.
Tannen, D. Silence as conflict management in fiction and drama:Pinter's Betrayal and a short story, "Great Wits". In Grimshaw, A. D., ed. Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1990a:260-279.
Tannen, D. You Just Don't Understand:Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow,1990b.
Tannen, D. Interactional Sociolinguistics. In Bright, W., ed. Interactional Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford and New York:Oxford University Press, 1992:9-12.
Tannen, D. Taking from 9 to 5:How Women's and Men's Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Work. New York: Morrow,1994.
Tannen, D. The Argument Culture:Moving from Debate to Dialogue. New York: Random House,1998.
van Dijk, T. A. Critical discourse analysis. In Schiffrin, D., D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton, eds. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford:Blackwell,2001: 352-371.
Vuchinich, S. Sequencing and social structure in family conflict. Social Psychology Quarterly 47,1984:217-234.
Wood, L. A. & R. O. Kroger. The analysis of facework in discourse:Review and proposal. Journal of Language and social Psychology 13,1994:248-277.
Yule, G. Pragmatics. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2000.
Zhao, Y. L. A Pragma-rhetoric Study of Conflict Talk in Chinese. Unpublished PhD thesis, Northeast Normal University,2008.
Zhu, X. Q. Pragmatic Approach to Conflict Talk between Couples in Desperate Housewives. Unpublished MA thesis, Xiamen University,2008.
Zimmerman, D. H. & C. West. Sex Roles, Interruptions, and Silences in Conversation. In Barrie, T. & H, Nancy, eds. Language and Sex:Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA:Newbury House,1975.
《金婚》(电视剧),郑晓龙(导演)。北京：2007。
王宛平,《金婚》。北京：作家出版社,2007。
赵英玲,冲突话语分析,《外语学刊》第5期,2004：37-42。 Internet information:
Net.1. Conflict Talk:A Discourse Analytical Perspective. http://journals.tc-library.org/index.php/tesol/article/viewFile/20/27
Net.2. Top 5 Reasons for Marital Conflict. http://www.schaefersblog.com/top-5-reasons-for-marital-conflict/
Net.3. Deriving the Interpretation of Rhetorical Questions http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.56.2752&rep=rep1 & type=pdf