程式性言语事件—人类基本生存方式的语用学研究
|
摘要
语言学、语用学、人类学和社会学等领域的学者早就注意到乔姆斯基语言研究传统中对人类语言及语言使用中的创造性的强调并不能否认语言使用中的重复性。显而易见地，在重复出现的交际情景中，结构相似的、有时甚至是同样的语言表达被用来执行重复出现的交际任务。现有的对语言使用中的重复性的研究或强调所谓整体性提取的重复使用的语言表达或把把它们从实际的交际情景中割裂开来考察，从而不能对之做出真正意义上的语用学研究。本研究通过概括出一个新的语用现象范畴，即程式性言语事件，尝试性提出一个研究语言的重复性使用的新路子：在言语事件中研究重复使用的语言表达，揭示重复出现的言语事件的程式性倾向，从而加深人们对语用本质，尤其是对语言在人的基本生活方式中的运作的理解。本研究围绕以下四个问题展开：1)什么是程式性言语事件?2)是什么因素导致了程式性言语事件的生成并使之得以保持?3)程式性言语事件在人的社会文化存在中有何功用?4)程式性言语事件中的语用机制如何?
第一个问题在第三章中讨论。根据维特根斯坦的家族相似性理论，我们把程式性言语事件概括为这样一个范畴：发生在重复出现的交际情景中的言语事件，它们都有一定的程式性从而彼此相似。这些不同程度的程式性体现为以下三个方面：1)有相对稳定的一套重复使用的话语，2)有相对稳定的一套步骤顺序相对稳定的行为，3)上述话语与行为的相对稳定的配合。不同的程式性言语事件按其程式性的高低构成一个级阶，位于较高一端的是严式程式性言语事件，另一端是宽式程式性言语事件，但两者之间绝非泾渭分明。程式性言语事件要么是具有重大社会文化意义的言语事件(如婚礼、葬礼、法庭辩论等)，要么就是那些虽不重大却是构成人类基本日常生活内容的言语事件(如打招呼、生日聚会、讨价还价、医患交谈等)。它们是一个社团或文化的基本生活方式的直接体现，是人们实现生活中各种目的的主要方式。
第二和第三个问题在第四章中探讨。我们论证指出，程式性言语事件的产生和保持有其认知基础，即人们有在重复出现的交际情景中参照先前经验决定当前反应的能力和倾向，也有社会文化因素的推动，既人类社会行为的规约化、制度化，和最为根本的——人对有效参与生活的追求。概而言之，程式性言语事件的一般功能有以下三个方面：1)促进交际的有效进行，2)建立或维持语言使用者的社会文化身份，3)加强文化的稳定性。
第五章讨论第四个问题，探察程式性言语事件中的语用机制。从程式性言语事件中每一句话语的产出与理解都是参与者的交互作用的决策选择的结果这一事实出发，我们构建了一个以博弈论为基础的理论框架来解释程式性言语事件中的语言使用。程式性言语事件是非零和完美信息的重复性博弈；在博弈过程中，参与者根据他们对自己所处的情景的认知做出相互影响的理性选择，而他们对情景的认知受制于包括具体的场景、背景知识、个人信念、目的、预先期望和其他语境因素的综合作用。在这些语境因素中，目的的牵制和预先期望的引导最为重要，因为作为重复性博弈，程式性言语事件的顺利进展和完满实施取决于博弈参与者共享的关于进展中的事件的预先期望和在这些期望引导下朝着博弈的支配性目的的协同努力。为了有效地达到博弈的支配性目的，在重复性博弈中，理性决策者自然会选择经过时间检验的程式性决策。无论是在话语产出还是在话语理解中，偏离程式性的决策出现于以下两种情况：1)当决策者认为偏离程式性的决策更能有效实现各方为之协同努力的交际目的时，2)当参与者各方对进行中的事件或情景的认知出现偏差的时候。这种偏差的出现源于有限理性个体性差异。不管是哪种情况，偏离程式性的决策未必就能导致一个程式性言语事件的中止或崩溃。
除了通过概括出程式性言语事件这一新的语用现象范畴从而拓展了重复性语言使用的研究思路之外，本研究还有望在以下两个方面对语用学研究有所贡献。1)借用博弈论的基本观点和思想，但避开其标志性的形式化或数学手段，来分析程式性言语事件的语用机制的尝试可能对如何应用博弈论对一般意义上的语言使用的研究有所启发。2)鉴于语言使用中内嵌着文化差异，本研究主要从植根于汉语文化中程式性言语事件出发从而有望对完全建立在西方语言文化基础上的语用学研究有一定的补充作用。此外，本研究对外语教学有一定的启发意义。程式性言语事件是一个社团或文化的基本生活方式，以重复性的语言使用为特征；如果把程式性言语事件纳入课程设计、课堂教学和学生的日常练习中，可以有效地提高学生在目的语言和文化方面的交际能力。
Researchers from the fields of linguistics, pragmatics, anthropology, sociology,etc. have long noted that the emphasis of the creativity of human language andlanguage use in the Chomskyan tradition can by no means deny repetition inlanguage use. Noticeably, in recurring communicative situations, similar andsometimes identical expressions are used to perform repetitive tasks. Existing studieson repetitive language use fail to make a real pragmatic account for it, due to theiremphasis on the so-called holistically retrieved linguistic expressions and/or theirisolating the repeated expressions from the actual situations within which they areembedded. The present research blazes a trail in the study of repetitive language useby identifying a new category of pragmatic phenomena, formulaic speech event(FSE for short), so as 1) to provide a more comprehensive pragmatic perspective, i.e.,the event-oriented perspective, into repetitive language use than the previous studies,and 2), more significantly, to unveil the inclination of recurrent speech events tobecome formulaic, offering insight into the nature of language use and particularlyhow language functions in the basic ways of man's being in the world. The project isconducted around the four questions: 1) What are FSEs? 2) What are the causes ofthe emergence and maintenance of FSEs? 3) What functions do FSEs have in man'ssocio-cultural being? and 4) What is the mechanism of language use in FSEs?
The first question is addressed in Chapter Three. In line with Wittgenstein'stheory of family resemblance, formulaic speech events are categorized as thosespeech events embedded within recurring communicative situations, which resembleeach other in that they are all characterized by a certain degree of formulaicity whichis embodied by: 1) a relatively fixed set of recurrent phrasings, 2) a relatively fixedset of actions in relatively fixed move orders, and 3) relatively fixed co-occurrenceof the two. There are various degrees of formulaicity and hence a continuum offormulaicity along which all FSEs are located. FSEs are either the speech events thatare of great social-cultural significance (such as weddings, funerals, courtroominteractions, etc.) or the ones that constitute the essential aspects of human everyday life (such as greetings, birthday parties, bargaining events, doctor-patient interactions,etc.). They are the direct embodiment of the basic forms of life of a community orculture, and the principal means through which people attain various goals in life.
The second and third questions are tackled in Chapter Four. As to the emergenceand maintenance of FSEs, there are both cognitive foundations, i.e., the ability andtendency to consider the prior experiences in deciding the present reaction inrepetitive situations, and socio-cultural impetuses, namely, the conventionalizationand the institutionalization of human social behavior, with human pursuit forefficient participation in life being the root one. The general functions of FSEs areintegrated under three categories: 1) facilitating communication, 2) establishing orpreserving socio-cultural identity, and 3) reinforcing cultural stability.
Chapter Five is dedicated to the exploration of the pragmatic mechanism of FSEs.That both the production and the interpretation of each utterance in FSEs are the resultof interactive choice-making by the participants leads us to the development of agame-theoretic framework to account for the language use in FSEs. An FSE is arepeated positive-sum game of perfect information, in which agents make rationallinguistic choices (both in production and interpretation) on the basis of theirperception of the situation they are involved in, derived from a combination of setting,background knowledge, personal beliefs, goals, expectation and other contextualfactors. Among all the contextual factors, the constraint of goals and the guidance ofexpectation are of most prominent importance, for an FSE depends on the agents'collaboration oriented towards the dominant goal(s) pre-established by the respectivesituation and a commonality of expectations about the on-going game for its smoothprogress and completion. To reach their goals efficiently in a particular repeated game,the rational agents will naturally take the time-tested formulaic strategies. Deviationsfrom the formulaic elements of the event, either in utterance production or inutterance interpretation, may arise 1) when the agent believes his deviant choices canhelp attain the shared communicative goal of the event with higher efficiency, and 2)when the agents have different perceptions of the on-going game or the currentsituation, as a result of the individual differences in their bounded rationality. In either case, deviations from the formulaicity of an FSE will not necessarily lead to itsbreakdown.
In addition to identifying a new category of pragmatic phenomena, i.e. FSE, andthus broadening the horizon of the study of repetition in language use, the presentstudy also contributes to the pragmatic field in the following aspects. First, withoutusing the formal or mathematical tools that characterize game theory as well as theexisting studies applying game theory to pragmatic issues, our way of applying gametheory to account for the pragmatic mechanism of FSEs may yield some insights intohow it can be applied to the study of language use in general. Second, considering thatthere are cultural discrepancies embedded in language use, the present study,primarily based on reflections on the real-life FSEs embedded within the recurringcommunicative situations rooted in Chinese culture, may hopefully complement thepragmatic studies that are based ethnocentrically on Western languages and cultures.Besides, the present study may also yield some insights into foreign language teachingand learning. Now that FSEs, characterized by repetitive language use, are the basicforms of life of a community or culture, by incorporating FSEs in the foreignlanguage into curriculum design, classes, and students' everyday practices, teachersmay efficiently help the students increase their communicative competence in thetarget language and culture.
第一个问题在第三章中讨论。根据维特根斯坦的家族相似性理论，我们把程式性言语事件概括为这样一个范畴：发生在重复出现的交际情景中的言语事件，它们都有一定的程式性从而彼此相似。这些不同程度的程式性体现为以下三个方面：1)有相对稳定的一套重复使用的话语，2)有相对稳定的一套步骤顺序相对稳定的行为，3)上述话语与行为的相对稳定的配合。不同的程式性言语事件按其程式性的高低构成一个级阶，位于较高一端的是严式程式性言语事件，另一端是宽式程式性言语事件，但两者之间绝非泾渭分明。程式性言语事件要么是具有重大社会文化意义的言语事件(如婚礼、葬礼、法庭辩论等)，要么就是那些虽不重大却是构成人类基本日常生活内容的言语事件(如打招呼、生日聚会、讨价还价、医患交谈等)。它们是一个社团或文化的基本生活方式的直接体现，是人们实现生活中各种目的的主要方式。
第二和第三个问题在第四章中探讨。我们论证指出，程式性言语事件的产生和保持有其认知基础，即人们有在重复出现的交际情景中参照先前经验决定当前反应的能力和倾向，也有社会文化因素的推动，既人类社会行为的规约化、制度化，和最为根本的——人对有效参与生活的追求。概而言之，程式性言语事件的一般功能有以下三个方面：1)促进交际的有效进行，2)建立或维持语言使用者的社会文化身份，3)加强文化的稳定性。
第五章讨论第四个问题，探察程式性言语事件中的语用机制。从程式性言语事件中每一句话语的产出与理解都是参与者的交互作用的决策选择的结果这一事实出发，我们构建了一个以博弈论为基础的理论框架来解释程式性言语事件中的语言使用。程式性言语事件是非零和完美信息的重复性博弈；在博弈过程中，参与者根据他们对自己所处的情景的认知做出相互影响的理性选择，而他们对情景的认知受制于包括具体的场景、背景知识、个人信念、目的、预先期望和其他语境因素的综合作用。在这些语境因素中，目的的牵制和预先期望的引导最为重要，因为作为重复性博弈，程式性言语事件的顺利进展和完满实施取决于博弈参与者共享的关于进展中的事件的预先期望和在这些期望引导下朝着博弈的支配性目的的协同努力。为了有效地达到博弈的支配性目的，在重复性博弈中，理性决策者自然会选择经过时间检验的程式性决策。无论是在话语产出还是在话语理解中，偏离程式性的决策出现于以下两种情况：1)当决策者认为偏离程式性的决策更能有效实现各方为之协同努力的交际目的时，2)当参与者各方对进行中的事件或情景的认知出现偏差的时候。这种偏差的出现源于有限理性个体性差异。不管是哪种情况，偏离程式性的决策未必就能导致一个程式性言语事件的中止或崩溃。
除了通过概括出程式性言语事件这一新的语用现象范畴从而拓展了重复性语言使用的研究思路之外，本研究还有望在以下两个方面对语用学研究有所贡献。1)借用博弈论的基本观点和思想，但避开其标志性的形式化或数学手段，来分析程式性言语事件的语用机制的尝试可能对如何应用博弈论对一般意义上的语言使用的研究有所启发。2)鉴于语言使用中内嵌着文化差异，本研究主要从植根于汉语文化中程式性言语事件出发从而有望对完全建立在西方语言文化基础上的语用学研究有一定的补充作用。此外，本研究对外语教学有一定的启发意义。程式性言语事件是一个社团或文化的基本生活方式，以重复性的语言使用为特征；如果把程式性言语事件纳入课程设计、课堂教学和学生的日常练习中，可以有效地提高学生在目的语言和文化方面的交际能力。
Researchers from the fields of linguistics, pragmatics, anthropology, sociology,etc. have long noted that the emphasis of the creativity of human language andlanguage use in the Chomskyan tradition can by no means deny repetition inlanguage use. Noticeably, in recurring communicative situations, similar andsometimes identical expressions are used to perform repetitive tasks. Existing studieson repetitive language use fail to make a real pragmatic account for it, due to theiremphasis on the so-called holistically retrieved linguistic expressions and/or theirisolating the repeated expressions from the actual situations within which they areembedded. The present research blazes a trail in the study of repetitive language useby identifying a new category of pragmatic phenomena, formulaic speech event(FSE for short), so as 1) to provide a more comprehensive pragmatic perspective, i.e.,the event-oriented perspective, into repetitive language use than the previous studies,and 2), more significantly, to unveil the inclination of recurrent speech events tobecome formulaic, offering insight into the nature of language use and particularlyhow language functions in the basic ways of man's being in the world. The project isconducted around the four questions: 1) What are FSEs? 2) What are the causes ofthe emergence and maintenance of FSEs? 3) What functions do FSEs have in man'ssocio-cultural being? and 4) What is the mechanism of language use in FSEs?
The first question is addressed in Chapter Three. In line with Wittgenstein'stheory of family resemblance, formulaic speech events are categorized as thosespeech events embedded within recurring communicative situations, which resembleeach other in that they are all characterized by a certain degree of formulaicity whichis embodied by: 1) a relatively fixed set of recurrent phrasings, 2) a relatively fixedset of actions in relatively fixed move orders, and 3) relatively fixed co-occurrenceof the two. There are various degrees of formulaicity and hence a continuum offormulaicity along which all FSEs are located. FSEs are either the speech events thatare of great social-cultural significance (such as weddings, funerals, courtroominteractions, etc.) or the ones that constitute the essential aspects of human everyday life (such as greetings, birthday parties, bargaining events, doctor-patient interactions,etc.). They are the direct embodiment of the basic forms of life of a community orculture, and the principal means through which people attain various goals in life.
The second and third questions are tackled in Chapter Four. As to the emergenceand maintenance of FSEs, there are both cognitive foundations, i.e., the ability andtendency to consider the prior experiences in deciding the present reaction inrepetitive situations, and socio-cultural impetuses, namely, the conventionalizationand the institutionalization of human social behavior, with human pursuit forefficient participation in life being the root one. The general functions of FSEs areintegrated under three categories: 1) facilitating communication, 2) establishing orpreserving socio-cultural identity, and 3) reinforcing cultural stability.
Chapter Five is dedicated to the exploration of the pragmatic mechanism of FSEs.That both the production and the interpretation of each utterance in FSEs are the resultof interactive choice-making by the participants leads us to the development of agame-theoretic framework to account for the language use in FSEs. An FSE is arepeated positive-sum game of perfect information, in which agents make rationallinguistic choices (both in production and interpretation) on the basis of theirperception of the situation they are involved in, derived from a combination of setting,background knowledge, personal beliefs, goals, expectation and other contextualfactors. Among all the contextual factors, the constraint of goals and the guidance ofexpectation are of most prominent importance, for an FSE depends on the agents'collaboration oriented towards the dominant goal(s) pre-established by the respectivesituation and a commonality of expectations about the on-going game for its smoothprogress and completion. To reach their goals efficiently in a particular repeated game,the rational agents will naturally take the time-tested formulaic strategies. Deviationsfrom the formulaic elements of the event, either in utterance production or inutterance interpretation, may arise 1) when the agent believes his deviant choices canhelp attain the shared communicative goal of the event with higher efficiency, and 2)when the agents have different perceptions of the on-going game or the currentsituation, as a result of the individual differences in their bounded rationality. In either case, deviations from the formulaicity of an FSE will not necessarily lead to itsbreakdown.
In addition to identifying a new category of pragmatic phenomena, i.e. FSE, andthus broadening the horizon of the study of repetition in language use, the presentstudy also contributes to the pragmatic field in the following aspects. First, withoutusing the formal or mathematical tools that characterize game theory as well as theexisting studies applying game theory to pragmatic issues, our way of applying gametheory to account for the pragmatic mechanism of FSEs may yield some insights intohow it can be applied to the study of language use in general. Second, considering thatthere are cultural discrepancies embedded in language use, the present study,primarily based on reflections on the real-life FSEs embedded within the recurringcommunicative situations rooted in Chinese culture, may hopefully complement thepragmatic studies that are based ethnocentrically on Western languages and cultures.Besides, the present study may also yield some insights into foreign language teachingand learning. Now that FSEs, characterized by repetitive language use, are the basicforms of life of a community or culture, by incorporating FSEs in the foreignlanguage into curriculum design, classes, and students' everyday practices, teachersmay efficiently help the students increase their communicative competence in thetarget language and culture.
引文
Aitchison, J. (1998). The Articulate Mammal: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. London: Routledge.
Allott, N. (2003). Can Game Theory Do Pragmatics? Ph.D. Introductory Talks at the Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics, Cambridge Institute of Language Research, Cambridge, 2 pm, June 6. Retrieved on Nov. 18, 2003 from http://www.eurospp.org/2003/papers/Doc2003/AHott%20161 %20LIN.doc
Allott, N. (2005). Paul Grice, reasoning and pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 17:217-243.
Allott, N. (2006). Game theory and communication. In A. Benz, G. Jager & R. van Rooij (Eds.), Game Theory and Pragmatics (pp. 123-151). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Altenberg, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology (pp. 101-124). Oxford: Clarenden Press.
Arndt, H., & Richard, W. J. (1987). The biological and cultural evolution of human communication. In W. Lorscher & R. Shulze (Eds.), Perspectives on Language and Performance: Studies in Linguistics, Literary Criticism and Language Teaching and Learning (Vol. 1). Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bates, Elizabeth. (1976). Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
Bellomi, P. E. (2004). Welcome to WeddingOfficiants.org. Retrieved May 20, 2004, from The WebHome for Professional Wedding Ministers: http://www.weddingofficiants.org/
Benedict, R. F. (1934). Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Benz, A., J(?)ger G., & van Rooij, R. (Eds.). (2006). Game Theory and Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bicchieri, Cristina. (2004). Rationality and game theory. In Alfred R. Mele and Piers Rawling (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Rationality (pp. 182-206). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blasko, George D. & Connine, Cynthia. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 19(2): 295-308.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. London: Allen and Unwin.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, N.J.: Alex.
Bohn, Ocke-Swan. (1986). Formulas, frame structures, and stereotypes in early syntactic development: Some new evidence for L2 acquisition. Linguistics 24: 185-202.
Bolinger, D. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1: 1-14.
Bolinger, D. (1977). Idioms have relations. Forum Linguisticum 2(2): 157-169.
Bolinger, Dwight. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1: 1-14.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bradley, J. (2003). Formulaic Language in Learner Discourse: How Study Abroad Affects Oral Production. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Brewer, W. F. (1999). Schemata. In Robert A. Wilson and Frank C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 729-730). London: The MIT Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language use: politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, D. T. (1965). Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. In H. R. Barringer, G I. Blanksten, & R. W. Mack (Eds.), Social Change in Developing Areas: A Reinterpretation of Evolutionary Theory (pp. 19-49). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
Carroll, D. W. (1999). Psychology of Language (3rd edn). Pacific Grove, Ca.: Brooks-Cole Publishing Company.
Chen, Rong. (1993). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20: 49-75.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1969). Form and meaning in natural language. In J. D. Roslansky (Ed.), Communication (pp. 65-85). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Chomsky, N. (1979). Language and Responsibility. Sussex: The Harvester Press.
Cooren, F. & Sanders, R. E. (2002). Implicatures: A schematic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1045-1067.
Coulmas, F. (1979). On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 239-266.
Coulmas, F. (Ed.). (1981). Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Coupland, J. (2000). Introduction: sociolinguistic perspectives on small talk. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small Talk (pp. 1-25). London: Pearson Education Limited.
Craig, R. T. (1990). Multiple goals in discourse: An epilogue. In K. Tracy & N. Coupland (Eds.), Multiple Goals in Discourse (pp. 163-170). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Doyle, Jon. (1999). Bounded rationality. In Robert A. Wilson & Frank C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 92-94). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ejzenberg, Rosali. (1992). Understanding Nonnative Oral Fluency: The Role of Task Structure and Discourse Variability. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of New York at Albany.
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. (1972). On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrence. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (pp. 213-50). New York: Holt.
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5: 25-66.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Fasold, R. W. (1990). The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1976). The need for a frame semantics within linguistics. SMIL (Statistical Methods in Linguistics: Quarterly Journal of Linguistic Calculus), Skriptor, Stockholm: 5-29.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1977b). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic Structure Processing (pp. 55-81). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977a. "Topics in lexical semantics". In Roger W. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 76-138.
Fillmore, Charles, J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2): 222-254.
Firth, J. R. (1937/1964). The Tongues of Men and Speech. London: Oxford University Press.
Firth, J. R. (1952-9/1968). In Palmer, F. R. (Ed.), Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952-59. Harlow: Longman.
Forand, N. (2002). The language ideologies of courtship ritual: Maya pentecostals and folk Catholics. Journal of American Folklore 115(457/458): 332-337.
Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech (pp. 259-271). The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Gecas, Viktor. (2000). Socialization. In Edgar F. Borgatta & Rhonda J. V. Montgomery (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sociology (2~(nd) ed.) Vol. 4 (pp. 2855-2864). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Giora, Rachel. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8(3): 183-206.
Girard, M., & Sionis, C. (2003). Formulaic speech in the L2 classroom: An attempt at identification and classification. Pragmatics 13(2): 231-251.
Gmytrasiewicz, Piotr J. & Durfee, Edmund H. (2000). Rational coordination in multi-agent environments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems Journal, 3:319-50.
Gmytrasiewicz, Piotr J. & Durfee, Edmund H. (2001). Rational communication in multi-agent environments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems Journal, 4: 233-272.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goffman, Erving. (1967). Interaction Ritual. New York: Anchor.
Goffman, I. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, C. & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 283-307.
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review 67: 377-388.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.
Gumperz, J. J. (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. American Anthropologist, 66(6): 137-153.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization revisited. In P. Auer & A. di Luzio (Eds.), The Contextualization of Language (pp. 39-53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Giith, Werner & Kliemt, Hartmut. (2004). Perfect or bounded rationality? Some facts, speculations and proposals. Analyse & Kritik, 26 (2): 364-381.
Haberland, H. & Mey, J. (1977). Editorial: pragmatics and linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics 1(1): 1-16.
Hansen. J. G & Liu, J. (1997). Social identity and language: Theoretical and methodological issues. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3): 567-576.
Heidegger, M. (1982a). The way to language. In On the Way to Language (pp. 111-136). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers Inc.
Heidegger, M. (1982b). A dialogue on language. In On the Way to Language (pp. 1-54). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers Inc.
Himmelmann, N. P. (1998). Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics, 36: 161-195.
Hjelmslev, L. (1961). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, Trans. by Francis Whitfield. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Holmes, J. (2000). Doing collegiality and keeping control at work: small talk in government departments. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small Talk (pp. 32-61). London: Pearson Education Limited.
Hume, David. (1888). Hume's Treatise of Human Nature. Edited by L. A. Selby Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Originally published 1739-40.
Huo, Yongshou. (2004). Mitigation and Pragmatics as a Linguistic Regulation Theory: The Case of TCM Clinical Interviews. Kunming: Yunnan University Press.
Hymes, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking.In Thomas Gladwin & Willian C. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and Human Behavior (pp. 13-53). Washington, D. C: Anthropological Society of Washington.
Hymes, D. (1972a). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected Reading (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Hymes, D. (1972b). Models of the interaction of language and social life.In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Hymes, D. (1972c). Toward ethnographies of communication: the analysis of communicative events. In P. Giglioli (Ed.), Language and Social Context (pp. 21-44). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jacobs, Scott & Jackson, Sally. (1983). Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs 50: 285-304.
Jacquemet, M. (1992). "If he speaks Italian it's better": Metapragmatics in court. Pragmatics 2(2): 111-126.
Kahneman, Daniel. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review December, 93(5): 1449-1475.
Kasher, A. (1977). Foundations of philosophical pragmatics. In R. E. Butts & J. Hintikka (Eds.), Basic problems in methodology and linguistics: Part three of the proceedings of the fifth international congress of logic, methodology and philosophy of science, London, Ontario, Canada-1975 (pp. 225-242). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel. Kecsk(?)s, I. (2003a). Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances in L2, Marges Linguistiques (pp. 1-12): M.L.M.S. Publisher. Available on March 6, 2004, at http://marg.lng6.free.fr/documents/doc0160 kecskes i/doc0160.pdf
Kecsk(?)s, Istv(?)n. (1997). A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Paper presented to the Chicago linguistics Society, March 7, 1997.
Kecsk(?)s, Istv(?)n. (1999). Situation-bound utterances from an interlanguage perspective. In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics in 1998: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 299-310). Antwerp: IPrA.
Kecsk(?)s, Istv(?)n. (2000). A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 605-625.
Kecsk(?)s, Istv(?)n. (2003b). Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Roller, Daphne. (1999). Game theory. In Robert A. Wilson & Frank C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 338-340). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kripke, S. A. (1982). Wittgenstein: On Rules and Private Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kuiper, K. & Flindall, M. (2000). Social rituals, formulaic speech and small talk at the supermarket checkout.In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small Talk (pp. 183-207). London: Pearson Eduaton.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Leech, G N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types. Linguistics 17 (5/6): 365-399. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Littlejohn, S. W. (1996). Theories of Human Communication (5th Ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Lodge, D. (1980). Where it's at: California language. In L. Michaels & C. B. Ricks (Eds.), The State of the Language. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
L(?)ger, Heinz-Helmut. (1983). Some aspects of ritual communication. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 695-711.
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The Meaning of Meaning (pp. 296-336). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Malinowski, B. (1935/1978). Coral Gardens and Their Magic (Vol. 2). London: Allan & Urwin.
Manes, J. & Wolfson, N. (1981). The compliment formula. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech (pp. 115-132). The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Marcondes de Souza, D. (1983). Action-guiding language. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 49-62.
Marsden, P. V. (2000). Social networks. In Edgar F. Borgatta & Rhonda J. V. Montgomery (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sociology (2~(nd) ed.) Vol. 4 (pp. 2727-2735). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
Martinet, A. (1962). A Functional View of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
McClelland, James L. & Rumelhart, David E. (1987). Parallel Distributed Processing. The MIT Press.
McCrone, J. (1999). States of mind. New Scientist 2178 (20 March): 30-33.
Merin, A. (1994). Decision-Theoretic Pragmatics: Lecture Notes. Kobenhavn: Copenhagen Business School.
Merin, A. (1999). Information, relevance, and social decision-making. In L. Moss, J. Ginzburg, and M. de Rijke (Eds.), Logic, Language, and Computation, Vol. 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Micklus, L. (n.d.). Marriage Ministry. Retrieved June 5, 2004, from http://i4tb.com/ficotw/marriage/index.htm
Miljkovic, D. (2005). Rational choice and irrational individuals or simply an irrational theory: A critical review of the hypothesis of perfect rationality. The Journal of Socio-Economics 34: 621-634.
Miller, J. (1998). Acquiring spontaneous spoken language: The role of simple syntax and ready-made phrases. Paper presented at the 6th International Pragmatics Conference in Reims, France.
Minsky, Marvin. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. by Patrick Henry Winston, 211-277. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Moshman, D. (2005). Adolescent Psychological Development: Rationality, Morality, and Identity (2~(nd) ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Myers-Scotton, Carol. (1993). Social Motivations for Code-Switching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nash, J. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. PNAS 36:48-49.
Nilsenova, Marie. 2002. A Game-theoretical Approach to the Meaning of Intonation in Rising Declaratives and Negative Polar Questions. Retrieved on Nov. 18, 2003 from http://www.lpl.univ-aix.fr/sp2002/pdf/nilsenova.pdf
Nuyts, J. (1992). Aspects of a Cognitive-Pragmatic Theory of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(?)stman, J. (1988). Adaptation, variability and effect: comments on IPrA Working Documents 1 and 2. In Working Document #3 (pp. 5-39). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
Page, D. L. (1959). History and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Parikh, P. (1991). Communication and strategic inference. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14:473-513.
Parikh, P. (2000). Communication, meaning and interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23: 185-212.
Parikh, P. (2001). The Use of Language. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 191-226). New York: Longman.
Philipsen, G. (1998). Ethnography of speaking. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (pp. 284-289). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Pierce, B. Norton. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 1(29): 9-31.
Popper, K. R. (1968). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Raichle, M. E. (1998). The neural correlates of consciousness: An analysis of cognitive skill learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 353 (pp. 1889-1901).
Rescher, N. (1980). Induction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Robins, R. H. (1989). General Linguistics (4~(th) ed.). London: Longman Group Limited.
Ross, Don. (2006). Game Theory. In Edward N. Zalta(Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2006 Edition). Retrieved on July 12, 2006, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2006/entries/game-theory/.
Rubinstein, A. (1998). Modeling bounded rationality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Rumelhart, D. H. (1975). Introduction to Human Information Processing. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50: 696-735.
Sally, D. (2003). Risky speech: Behavioral game theory and pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1223-1245.
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Sspeech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language 5: 207-214.
Saussure, F. De. (1916/1966). Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sawyer, K. (1993). The pragmatics of play: Interactional strategies during children's pretend plays. Pragmatics 3(3): 259-82.
Sbisa, M. (2001). Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1791-1814.
Schank, Roger C. & Abelson, Robert P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schegloff, E. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 7(4): 289-327.
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361-382.
Schiffrin, D. (1996). Interactional sociolinguistics. In S. L. Mckay and N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp. 307-328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sent, E.-M. (2001). Game theorists versus Herbert Simon: playing games with bounded rationality. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 44: 129-143.
Shaw, B. (1916). Pygmalion. New York: Brentano.
Shimanoff, S. B. (1980). Communication Rules: Theory and Research. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Simon, H. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Simon, H. (1990). Alternative visions of rationality. In P. Moser (Ed.), Rationality in Action. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. McH. (1985). On the integration of linguistic description. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis Volume 2 (pp. 13-28). London: Academic Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Stein, N. & Trabasso, T. (1982). What's in a Story? An approach to comprehension and instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.). Advances in the Psychology of Instruction Vol. 2 (pp. 213-254). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13(2): 65-93.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. A. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London/New York: Longman.
Tracy, K. & Coupland, N. (1990). Multiple goals in discourse: An overview of issues. In K. Tracy & N. Coupland (Eds.), Multiple Goals in Discourse (pp. 1-13). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Tracy, K. and Naughton, J. M. (2000). Institutional identity-work: A better lens. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small Talk (pp. 62-83). London: Pearson Education Limited.
Traditional Vows. (n.d.). Retrieved June 5, 2004, from http://www.marthastewart.com/article/traditional-vows
Turocy, T. L. and von Stengel, B. (2003). Game theory. In Hossein Bidgoli (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Systems, Vol. 2 (pp. 403-420). Boston: Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997a). Discourse as Structure and Process. London: Sage. van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997b). Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage.
van Lancker, D. (2001). Is your syntactic component really necessary? Aphasiology 14: 343-360.
van Lancker-Sidtis, D., & Rallon, G (2004). Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech: Methods for classification and verification. Language & Communication 24: 207-240.
van Rooy, R. (2000). Decision problems in pragmatics. In M. Poesio and D. Traum (Eds), Proceedings of G(?)talog 2000 (pp. 151-58). Goteborg: Goteborg University.
van Rooy, R. (2001). Relevance of communicative acts. In J. van Benthem (Ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge; Proceedings of TARK 2001 (pp. 83-96). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
van Rooy, R. (2003). Conversational implicatures and communication theory. In. J. van Kuppevelt and R. Smith (Eds.), Current and New Directions in Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 283-303). Kluwer: Dordrecht.
Verbeek, B. and Morris, C. (2004). Game theory and ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2004 Edition). Retrieved on January 16, 2004 from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2004/entries/game-ethics/.
Verschueren, J. (1987). Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation (IPrA Working Document 1). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
Verschueren, J. (1995). The pragmatic perspective.In J. Verschueren, J. Ostman & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics: 1(pp. 1-19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.
Vickers, J. (2006). The problem of induction, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2006 Edition), E. N. Zalta (Ed.). Retrieved on December 1, 2006 from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2006/entries/induction-problem/.
Vine, Bernadette. (2004). Getting Things Done at Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Warner, R. (2001). Introduction: Grice on reasons and rationality. In R. Warner (Ed.), Aspects of Reason (pp. ⅶ-ⅹⅹⅹⅷ). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Whorf, B. L. (1940). Science and linguistics. Technology Review 42(6): 229-31, 247-248.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958) Philosophical Investigations (2~(nd) Ed.), trans, by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Wray, A. (1998). Protolanguage as a holistic system for social interaction. Language & Communication 18: 47-67.
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching 32 (4): 213-231.
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics 21(4): 463-489.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, Alison & Perkins M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication 20: 1-28.
白纯(Bai，Chun)．(2003)．简论抗战之前的新生活运动．党史研究与教学，2：56-62．
董哲(Dong，Zhe)．(2007)．横沥牛经纪申报国家级“非遗”．广州日报5月22日 A39．
方永刚(Fang，Yonggang)．(2007)．蒋介石：从溪口到慈湖．北京：华文出版．
黄国新，沈福煦(Huang，Guoxin & Shen，Fuxi)．(2003)．蒋介石婚史及他的上海官邸·徐汇区东平路9号．黄国新，沈福煦(著)，名人·名宅·轶事：上海近代建筑一瞥．上海：同济大学出版社．
裴庚辛(Pei，Gengxin)．(2006)．清末民初婚姻习俗的演变．华中师范大学研究生学报，1：11-16．
钱冠连(Qian，Guanlian)．(2002)．汉语文化语用学：人文网络言语学(第二版)．北京：清华大学出版社．
钱冠连(Qian，Guanlian)．(2005)．语言：人类最后的家园-人类基本生存状态的哲学与语用学研究．北京：商务印书馆．
曲彦斌(Qu，Yanbin)．(2000)．中国婚礼仪式史略．民俗研究，2：75-88．
汪化云，陈金仙(Wang，Huayun & Chen，Jinxian)．(2004)．“拜堂”释义商补．成都大学学报(社科版)，1：97．
向明友(Xiang，Mingyou)．(1998)．言语优化配置论纲．上海外国语大学博士学位论文．
向明友(Xiang，Mingyou)．(2002)．论言语配置的新经济原则．外语教学与研究34(5)：309-316．
云南省民政厅(The Civil Affairs Department of Yunnan Province)．(2003)．关于进一步做好婚姻登记等几项工作的通知．Retrieved on March 16，2004from:http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2003-01-11/0031869834.shtml
中华人民共和国民政部(The Civil Ministry of the State Council oIChina)．(2003)．婚姻登记工作暂行规范．Retrieved on March 16，2004 from：http://www.mca.gov.cn/artical/content/200422316445/200422494621.html
周继厚(Zhou，Jihou)．(1993)．毛泽东像章之谜：世界第九大奇观．太原：北岳文艺出版社．
Allott, N. (2003). Can Game Theory Do Pragmatics? Ph.D. Introductory Talks at the Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics, Cambridge Institute of Language Research, Cambridge, 2 pm, June 6. Retrieved on Nov. 18, 2003 from http://www.eurospp.org/2003/papers/Doc2003/AHott%20161 %20LIN.doc
Allott, N. (2005). Paul Grice, reasoning and pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 17:217-243.
Allott, N. (2006). Game theory and communication. In A. Benz, G. Jager & R. van Rooij (Eds.), Game Theory and Pragmatics (pp. 123-151). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Altenberg, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology (pp. 101-124). Oxford: Clarenden Press.
Arndt, H., & Richard, W. J. (1987). The biological and cultural evolution of human communication. In W. Lorscher & R. Shulze (Eds.), Perspectives on Language and Performance: Studies in Linguistics, Literary Criticism and Language Teaching and Learning (Vol. 1). Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bates, Elizabeth. (1976). Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
Bellomi, P. E. (2004). Welcome to WeddingOfficiants.org. Retrieved May 20, 2004, from The WebHome for Professional Wedding Ministers: http://www.weddingofficiants.org/
Benedict, R. F. (1934). Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Benz, A., J(?)ger G., & van Rooij, R. (Eds.). (2006). Game Theory and Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bicchieri, Cristina. (2004). Rationality and game theory. In Alfred R. Mele and Piers Rawling (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Rationality (pp. 182-206). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blasko, George D. & Connine, Cynthia. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 19(2): 295-308.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. London: Allen and Unwin.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, N.J.: Alex.
Bohn, Ocke-Swan. (1986). Formulas, frame structures, and stereotypes in early syntactic development: Some new evidence for L2 acquisition. Linguistics 24: 185-202.
Bolinger, D. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1: 1-14.
Bolinger, D. (1977). Idioms have relations. Forum Linguisticum 2(2): 157-169.
Bolinger, Dwight. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1: 1-14.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bradley, J. (2003). Formulaic Language in Learner Discourse: How Study Abroad Affects Oral Production. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Brewer, W. F. (1999). Schemata. In Robert A. Wilson and Frank C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 729-730). London: The MIT Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language use: politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, D. T. (1965). Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. In H. R. Barringer, G I. Blanksten, & R. W. Mack (Eds.), Social Change in Developing Areas: A Reinterpretation of Evolutionary Theory (pp. 19-49). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
Carroll, D. W. (1999). Psychology of Language (3rd edn). Pacific Grove, Ca.: Brooks-Cole Publishing Company.
Chen, Rong. (1993). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20: 49-75.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1969). Form and meaning in natural language. In J. D. Roslansky (Ed.), Communication (pp. 65-85). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Chomsky, N. (1979). Language and Responsibility. Sussex: The Harvester Press.
Cooren, F. & Sanders, R. E. (2002). Implicatures: A schematic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1045-1067.
Coulmas, F. (1979). On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 239-266.
Coulmas, F. (Ed.). (1981). Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Coupland, J. (2000). Introduction: sociolinguistic perspectives on small talk. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small Talk (pp. 1-25). London: Pearson Education Limited.
Craig, R. T. (1990). Multiple goals in discourse: An epilogue. In K. Tracy & N. Coupland (Eds.), Multiple Goals in Discourse (pp. 163-170). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Doyle, Jon. (1999). Bounded rationality. In Robert A. Wilson & Frank C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 92-94). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ejzenberg, Rosali. (1992). Understanding Nonnative Oral Fluency: The Role of Task Structure and Discourse Variability. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of New York at Albany.
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. (1972). On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrence. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (pp. 213-50). New York: Holt.
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5: 25-66.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Fasold, R. W. (1990). The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1976). The need for a frame semantics within linguistics. SMIL (Statistical Methods in Linguistics: Quarterly Journal of Linguistic Calculus), Skriptor, Stockholm: 5-29.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1977b). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic Structure Processing (pp. 55-81). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977a. "Topics in lexical semantics". In Roger W. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 76-138.
Fillmore, Charles, J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2): 222-254.
Firth, J. R. (1937/1964). The Tongues of Men and Speech. London: Oxford University Press.
Firth, J. R. (1952-9/1968). In Palmer, F. R. (Ed.), Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952-59. Harlow: Longman.
Forand, N. (2002). The language ideologies of courtship ritual: Maya pentecostals and folk Catholics. Journal of American Folklore 115(457/458): 332-337.
Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech (pp. 259-271). The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Gecas, Viktor. (2000). Socialization. In Edgar F. Borgatta & Rhonda J. V. Montgomery (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sociology (2~(nd) ed.) Vol. 4 (pp. 2855-2864). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Giora, Rachel. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8(3): 183-206.
Girard, M., & Sionis, C. (2003). Formulaic speech in the L2 classroom: An attempt at identification and classification. Pragmatics 13(2): 231-251.
Gmytrasiewicz, Piotr J. & Durfee, Edmund H. (2000). Rational coordination in multi-agent environments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems Journal, 3:319-50.
Gmytrasiewicz, Piotr J. & Durfee, Edmund H. (2001). Rational communication in multi-agent environments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems Journal, 4: 233-272.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goffman, Erving. (1967). Interaction Ritual. New York: Anchor.
Goffman, I. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, C. & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 283-307.
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review 67: 377-388.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.
Gumperz, J. J. (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. American Anthropologist, 66(6): 137-153.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization revisited. In P. Auer & A. di Luzio (Eds.), The Contextualization of Language (pp. 39-53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Giith, Werner & Kliemt, Hartmut. (2004). Perfect or bounded rationality? Some facts, speculations and proposals. Analyse & Kritik, 26 (2): 364-381.
Haberland, H. & Mey, J. (1977). Editorial: pragmatics and linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics 1(1): 1-16.
Hansen. J. G & Liu, J. (1997). Social identity and language: Theoretical and methodological issues. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3): 567-576.
Heidegger, M. (1982a). The way to language. In On the Way to Language (pp. 111-136). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers Inc.
Heidegger, M. (1982b). A dialogue on language. In On the Way to Language (pp. 1-54). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers Inc.
Himmelmann, N. P. (1998). Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics, 36: 161-195.
Hjelmslev, L. (1961). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, Trans. by Francis Whitfield. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Holmes, J. (2000). Doing collegiality and keeping control at work: small talk in government departments. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small Talk (pp. 32-61). London: Pearson Education Limited.
Hume, David. (1888). Hume's Treatise of Human Nature. Edited by L. A. Selby Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Originally published 1739-40.
Huo, Yongshou. (2004). Mitigation and Pragmatics as a Linguistic Regulation Theory: The Case of TCM Clinical Interviews. Kunming: Yunnan University Press.
Hymes, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking.In Thomas Gladwin & Willian C. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and Human Behavior (pp. 13-53). Washington, D. C: Anthropological Society of Washington.
Hymes, D. (1972a). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected Reading (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Hymes, D. (1972b). Models of the interaction of language and social life.In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Hymes, D. (1972c). Toward ethnographies of communication: the analysis of communicative events. In P. Giglioli (Ed.), Language and Social Context (pp. 21-44). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jacobs, Scott & Jackson, Sally. (1983). Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs 50: 285-304.
Jacquemet, M. (1992). "If he speaks Italian it's better": Metapragmatics in court. Pragmatics 2(2): 111-126.
Kahneman, Daniel. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review December, 93(5): 1449-1475.
Kasher, A. (1977). Foundations of philosophical pragmatics. In R. E. Butts & J. Hintikka (Eds.), Basic problems in methodology and linguistics: Part three of the proceedings of the fifth international congress of logic, methodology and philosophy of science, London, Ontario, Canada-1975 (pp. 225-242). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel. Kecsk(?)s, I. (2003a). Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances in L2, Marges Linguistiques (pp. 1-12): M.L.M.S. Publisher. Available on March 6, 2004, at http://marg.lng6.free.fr/documents/doc0160 kecskes i/doc0160.pdf
Kecsk(?)s, Istv(?)n. (1997). A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Paper presented to the Chicago linguistics Society, March 7, 1997.
Kecsk(?)s, Istv(?)n. (1999). Situation-bound utterances from an interlanguage perspective. In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics in 1998: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 299-310). Antwerp: IPrA.
Kecsk(?)s, Istv(?)n. (2000). A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 605-625.
Kecsk(?)s, Istv(?)n. (2003b). Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Roller, Daphne. (1999). Game theory. In Robert A. Wilson & Frank C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 338-340). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kripke, S. A. (1982). Wittgenstein: On Rules and Private Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kuiper, K. & Flindall, M. (2000). Social rituals, formulaic speech and small talk at the supermarket checkout.In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small Talk (pp. 183-207). London: Pearson Eduaton.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Leech, G N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types. Linguistics 17 (5/6): 365-399. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Littlejohn, S. W. (1996). Theories of Human Communication (5th Ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Lodge, D. (1980). Where it's at: California language. In L. Michaels & C. B. Ricks (Eds.), The State of the Language. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
L(?)ger, Heinz-Helmut. (1983). Some aspects of ritual communication. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 695-711.
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The Meaning of Meaning (pp. 296-336). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Malinowski, B. (1935/1978). Coral Gardens and Their Magic (Vol. 2). London: Allan & Urwin.
Manes, J. & Wolfson, N. (1981). The compliment formula. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech (pp. 115-132). The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Marcondes de Souza, D. (1983). Action-guiding language. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 49-62.
Marsden, P. V. (2000). Social networks. In Edgar F. Borgatta & Rhonda J. V. Montgomery (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sociology (2~(nd) ed.) Vol. 4 (pp. 2727-2735). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
Martinet, A. (1962). A Functional View of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
McClelland, James L. & Rumelhart, David E. (1987). Parallel Distributed Processing. The MIT Press.
McCrone, J. (1999). States of mind. New Scientist 2178 (20 March): 30-33.
Merin, A. (1994). Decision-Theoretic Pragmatics: Lecture Notes. Kobenhavn: Copenhagen Business School.
Merin, A. (1999). Information, relevance, and social decision-making. In L. Moss, J. Ginzburg, and M. de Rijke (Eds.), Logic, Language, and Computation, Vol. 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Micklus, L. (n.d.). Marriage Ministry. Retrieved June 5, 2004, from http://i4tb.com/ficotw/marriage/index.htm
Miljkovic, D. (2005). Rational choice and irrational individuals or simply an irrational theory: A critical review of the hypothesis of perfect rationality. The Journal of Socio-Economics 34: 621-634.
Miller, J. (1998). Acquiring spontaneous spoken language: The role of simple syntax and ready-made phrases. Paper presented at the 6th International Pragmatics Conference in Reims, France.
Minsky, Marvin. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. by Patrick Henry Winston, 211-277. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Moshman, D. (2005). Adolescent Psychological Development: Rationality, Morality, and Identity (2~(nd) ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Myers-Scotton, Carol. (1993). Social Motivations for Code-Switching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nash, J. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. PNAS 36:48-49.
Nilsenova, Marie. 2002. A Game-theoretical Approach to the Meaning of Intonation in Rising Declaratives and Negative Polar Questions. Retrieved on Nov. 18, 2003 from http://www.lpl.univ-aix.fr/sp2002/pdf/nilsenova.pdf
Nuyts, J. (1992). Aspects of a Cognitive-Pragmatic Theory of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(?)stman, J. (1988). Adaptation, variability and effect: comments on IPrA Working Documents 1 and 2. In Working Document #3 (pp. 5-39). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
Page, D. L. (1959). History and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Parikh, P. (1991). Communication and strategic inference. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14:473-513.
Parikh, P. (2000). Communication, meaning and interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23: 185-212.
Parikh, P. (2001). The Use of Language. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 191-226). New York: Longman.
Philipsen, G. (1998). Ethnography of speaking. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (pp. 284-289). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Pierce, B. Norton. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 1(29): 9-31.
Popper, K. R. (1968). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Raichle, M. E. (1998). The neural correlates of consciousness: An analysis of cognitive skill learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 353 (pp. 1889-1901).
Rescher, N. (1980). Induction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Robins, R. H. (1989). General Linguistics (4~(th) ed.). London: Longman Group Limited.
Ross, Don. (2006). Game Theory. In Edward N. Zalta(Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2006 Edition). Retrieved on July 12, 2006, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2006/entries/game-theory/.
Rubinstein, A. (1998). Modeling bounded rationality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Rumelhart, D. H. (1975). Introduction to Human Information Processing. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50: 696-735.
Sally, D. (2003). Risky speech: Behavioral game theory and pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1223-1245.
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Sspeech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language 5: 207-214.
Saussure, F. De. (1916/1966). Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sawyer, K. (1993). The pragmatics of play: Interactional strategies during children's pretend plays. Pragmatics 3(3): 259-82.
Sbisa, M. (2001). Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1791-1814.
Schank, Roger C. & Abelson, Robert P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schegloff, E. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 7(4): 289-327.
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361-382.
Schiffrin, D. (1996). Interactional sociolinguistics. In S. L. Mckay and N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp. 307-328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sent, E.-M. (2001). Game theorists versus Herbert Simon: playing games with bounded rationality. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 44: 129-143.
Shaw, B. (1916). Pygmalion. New York: Brentano.
Shimanoff, S. B. (1980). Communication Rules: Theory and Research. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Simon, H. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Simon, H. (1990). Alternative visions of rationality. In P. Moser (Ed.), Rationality in Action. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. McH. (1985). On the integration of linguistic description. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis Volume 2 (pp. 13-28). London: Academic Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Stein, N. & Trabasso, T. (1982). What's in a Story? An approach to comprehension and instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.). Advances in the Psychology of Instruction Vol. 2 (pp. 213-254). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13(2): 65-93.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. A. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London/New York: Longman.
Tracy, K. & Coupland, N. (1990). Multiple goals in discourse: An overview of issues. In K. Tracy & N. Coupland (Eds.), Multiple Goals in Discourse (pp. 1-13). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Tracy, K. and Naughton, J. M. (2000). Institutional identity-work: A better lens. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small Talk (pp. 62-83). London: Pearson Education Limited.
Traditional Vows. (n.d.). Retrieved June 5, 2004, from http://www.marthastewart.com/article/traditional-vows
Turocy, T. L. and von Stengel, B. (2003). Game theory. In Hossein Bidgoli (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Systems, Vol. 2 (pp. 403-420). Boston: Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997a). Discourse as Structure and Process. London: Sage. van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997b). Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage.
van Lancker, D. (2001). Is your syntactic component really necessary? Aphasiology 14: 343-360.
van Lancker-Sidtis, D., & Rallon, G (2004). Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech: Methods for classification and verification. Language & Communication 24: 207-240.
van Rooy, R. (2000). Decision problems in pragmatics. In M. Poesio and D. Traum (Eds), Proceedings of G(?)talog 2000 (pp. 151-58). Goteborg: Goteborg University.
van Rooy, R. (2001). Relevance of communicative acts. In J. van Benthem (Ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge; Proceedings of TARK 2001 (pp. 83-96). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
van Rooy, R. (2003). Conversational implicatures and communication theory. In. J. van Kuppevelt and R. Smith (Eds.), Current and New Directions in Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 283-303). Kluwer: Dordrecht.
Verbeek, B. and Morris, C. (2004). Game theory and ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2004 Edition). Retrieved on January 16, 2004 from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2004/entries/game-ethics/.
Verschueren, J. (1987). Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation (IPrA Working Document 1). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
Verschueren, J. (1995). The pragmatic perspective.In J. Verschueren, J. Ostman & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics: 1(pp. 1-19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.
Vickers, J. (2006). The problem of induction, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2006 Edition), E. N. Zalta (Ed.). Retrieved on December 1, 2006 from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2006/entries/induction-problem/.
Vine, Bernadette. (2004). Getting Things Done at Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Warner, R. (2001). Introduction: Grice on reasons and rationality. In R. Warner (Ed.), Aspects of Reason (pp. ⅶ-ⅹⅹⅹⅷ). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Whorf, B. L. (1940). Science and linguistics. Technology Review 42(6): 229-31, 247-248.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958) Philosophical Investigations (2~(nd) Ed.), trans, by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Wray, A. (1998). Protolanguage as a holistic system for social interaction. Language & Communication 18: 47-67.
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching 32 (4): 213-231.
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics 21(4): 463-489.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, Alison & Perkins M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication 20: 1-28.
白纯(Bai，Chun)．(2003)．简论抗战之前的新生活运动．党史研究与教学，2：56-62．
董哲(Dong，Zhe)．(2007)．横沥牛经纪申报国家级“非遗”．广州日报5月22日 A39．
方永刚(Fang，Yonggang)．(2007)．蒋介石：从溪口到慈湖．北京：华文出版．
黄国新，沈福煦(Huang，Guoxin & Shen，Fuxi)．(2003)．蒋介石婚史及他的上海官邸·徐汇区东平路9号．黄国新，沈福煦(著)，名人·名宅·轶事：上海近代建筑一瞥．上海：同济大学出版社．
裴庚辛(Pei，Gengxin)．(2006)．清末民初婚姻习俗的演变．华中师范大学研究生学报，1：11-16．
钱冠连(Qian，Guanlian)．(2002)．汉语文化语用学：人文网络言语学(第二版)．北京：清华大学出版社．
钱冠连(Qian，Guanlian)．(2005)．语言：人类最后的家园-人类基本生存状态的哲学与语用学研究．北京：商务印书馆．
曲彦斌(Qu，Yanbin)．(2000)．中国婚礼仪式史略．民俗研究，2：75-88．
汪化云，陈金仙(Wang，Huayun & Chen，Jinxian)．(2004)．“拜堂”释义商补．成都大学学报(社科版)，1：97．
向明友(Xiang，Mingyou)．(1998)．言语优化配置论纲．上海外国语大学博士学位论文．
向明友(Xiang，Mingyou)．(2002)．论言语配置的新经济原则．外语教学与研究34(5)：309-316．
云南省民政厅(The Civil Affairs Department of Yunnan Province)．(2003)．关于进一步做好婚姻登记等几项工作的通知．Retrieved on March 16，2004from:http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2003-01-11/0031869834.shtml
中华人民共和国民政部(The Civil Ministry of the State Council oIChina)．(2003)．婚姻登记工作暂行规范．Retrieved on March 16，2004 from：http://www.mca.gov.cn/artical/content/200422316445/200422494621.html
周继厚(Zhou，Jihou)．(1993)．毛泽东像章之谜：世界第九大奇观．太原：北岳文艺出版社．