汉语双关语的语用研究
|
摘要
本文拟在格赖斯的会话含义理论框架中探究汉语双关语的语用机制以及探讨如何在交际中更加有效合理地使用双关语(以下本文中所提及的双关语均指汉语双关语)。目前,对双关语的研究已经涉及到很多领域。这些对双关语的研究大多都关注双关语的分类、基本特征、修辞功能、理论理据以及双关语的表达效果等。虽然也有一些学者基于会话含义理论对双关语进行探索,但是他们的目的并不在于探究双关语的语用机制,而只是简单地讨论了某类双关语的含义,比如广告双关语等。
众所周知,语言可以“意会大于言传”。双关语能够达到“一箭双雕”的作用。正是由于这“一箭双雕”的作用,本文作者才钟情于双关语并以此为契机来探讨其背后的语用机制。
汉语双关语大体上分为三类:谐音双关、语义双关和混合双关。谐音双关是指利用声音相同或相近的条件构成的双关语。语义双关是指利用词语或句子的多义性构成的双关语。混合双关就是谐音双关和语义双关结合起来使用、在一个词语或句子中既有谐音双关又有语义双关。
与格赖斯的“非自然意义理论”一样,汉语双关语也同样与语境关系密切。为了探究双关语的语用机制,本文所采用的双关语语料均发生在交际语境中。基于格赖斯的会话含义理论,本文所研究的双关语的会话含义也被划分为三类:第一类,说话人没有违反合作原则的任何准则却传达了会话含义。第二类,说话人在说话时不得不违反某一项准则却是为了遵守另一准则而由此传达了某种会话含义。第三类,说话人故意不遵守某项合作准则而传达了会话含义。根据不同的语境,上述三类会话含义被逐一推理得出后,双关语的语用机制也随之得出。本文由五部分组成。
第一章是论文的概论,由五点内容组成。首先总览了汉语双关语的研究现状。接着是本文的研究动机和主要理论。另外,作者还提出了本文的研究目标。最后是本文的整体安排情况。
第二章分别从理论或理据的角度综述了现有在修辞学和语言学领域中对汉语双关语的研究情况。语言学领域包括语义学、认知语言学以及语用学等。第三章是论文的具体理论框架。在这一部分,作者详细地介绍了格赖斯的会话含义理论以及与之相关的意义理论。
第四章是论文的中心部分。在这一部分作者集中分析了双关语的会话含义。在对双关语的会话含义进行具体分析之前,作者首先探讨了双关语与语境的密切关系,从而在此基础上从三个方面对双关语进行分析。
最后一章是论文的结尾部分。通过前几章的分析探讨,作者总结出了汉语双关语的语用机制,并在此基础上,找出了如何在交际中更加有效地使用双关语的方法。最后,作者进一步提出建议,建议从一个新的角度对双关语进行深入研究。
以下是论文所得出的双关语的语用机制:
(1)双关语为交际者提供至少两层信息:表层信息和暗含信息。表层信息不是交际者的真正意图,它只是用来表达暗含信息的手段。从这点来讲,交际中的双关语违反了合作原则。事实上,交际者的真正意图是传达双关语的暗含信息,也就是本文中所指的双关语的会话含义,进而实现成功的交际。所以,交际中的双关语又是遵守合作原则的。
(2)在交际中,双关语的解码过程是这样的:说话者在合作的前提下,存在着两种情况:一种是说话人遵守了合作原则及其准则。另一种是说话人在交际中故意违反合作原则中的某项准则。在第一种情况中,双关语的双重信息均出现在会话中。听者通过习惯性思考可以了解双关语的表层含意。然后通过双关词或双关句,听者把明暗两层信息联系在一起,再根据暗含语境的提示即可推导出说话人所表达的会话含义。在这种情况下,听着易于推导出双关语的会话含义。在第二种情况中,说话人故意在明说的层面上违反合作原则的某项准则。所以说话人所说的话语超越了习惯上的说法,并且只为听者提供了这样的表层信息。从这些表层信息中,听者只能得到与之相关的、与习惯说法不一致的表层含意。由于说话人所说话语与习惯的不一致,听者只有通过双关词或双关句的引导去考虑双关语所处的暗含语境。了解了暗含语境,双关语的暗含信息便随之清晰,由此可得双关语的会话含义。在这种情况下,双关语的会话含义并不是很容易就能推导出的。
(3)说话人在交际过程中违反合作原则及其准则,这是为了适应交际环境的需要。暗含信息通过表层信息才能实现,这也是为了适应交际环境。同时,暗含信息的实现也离不开社会及文化因素。只有在交际环境中,才能解读出双关语的含义。
The paper attempts to explore puns in Chinese (We shall often refer to the notion“puns in Chinese”simply as“pun”as shorthand) within the theoretical framework of the Conversational Implicature theory, aiming at making a motivated explanation to pragmatic mechanism of puns in Chinese and solving the problem of how to use pun more effectively in communication. The present researches of puns in Chinese have been done from different perspectives. It is noted that these researches are mainly concerned with the classifications, properties, rhetorical functions, theoretical motivations, and expressive effects. Although some scholars have studied puns in Chinese based on the Conversational Implicature theory, they could not pay emphasis on the pragmatic mechanism of puns in Chinese and only have simply talked about the conversational implicature of advertising pun.
It is commonly acknowledged that language has a function of“one can mean more than one says”and that puns in Chinese could convey more information than what is said. As to these phenomena, the author chooses a universally-known figure of speech of puns in Chinese as a studying point to discover its pragmatic mechanism. Puns in Chinese are generally classified into three kinds: the homophonic pun, the homographic pun and the mixed pun. The homophonic pun is pun in which words having the same sound but differing in form and meaning when used. The homographic pun is pun in which the same word has different meanings, and polysemies are mainly used. The mixed pun means that there is a mixing of a homophonic pun and a homographic pun in a word or a sentence.
In line with Grice’s“non-natural meaning theory”, the meaning of puns in Chinese is included in it because pun is related to context closely. In order to uncover the pragmatic mechanism of pun, all the resource of pun in chapter four present in communicative environments. On the basis of Grice’s the Conversational Implicature theory, the conversational implicature of puns in Chinese is classified into three groups: Group A: conversational implicature arises but no maxim is violated or at least it is not clear which maxim is violated. Group B: the speaker faces a clash: he observes one maxim and has to violate the other maxim. Group C: the speaker violates or exploits blatantly one of maxims and Grice called this“flouting of the maxims”. According to the different contexts, the conversational implicature of puns in Chinese is worked out and upon which the pragmatic mechanism is summarized.
The paper is composed of five chapters.
Chapter One makes an introduction. There are five parts: Firstly, it is an overview of the present study of puns in Chinese. Secondly, it is the motives of the study. And following the main theory used in the paper. Fourthly, the author gives the purposes of the study. At last, it shows the general organization of the paper.
Chapter Two is a general survey of the present researches of puns in Chinese both in the Rhetorical approach and the Linguistic approach (such as Semantic approach, Cognitive approach and Pragmatic approach) from the perspective of theories or motivations.
Chapter Three is the paper’s theoretical framework. It is H. P. Grice’s the Conversational Implicature theory and the related Meaning theory. Chapter Four is centered on analyzing puns in Chinese. Before analyzing, the author gives a general description of the relationship between pun and context. On the basis of the Cooperative Principle and its maxims, the conversational implicature of pun is worked out from three aspects.
The last Chapter is the conclusion of the paper. On the basis of the preceding study, the author summarizes the pragmatic mechanism of puns in Chinese and upon which gives the ways of using pun more effectively. At the end of this chapter, the author gives suggestion to make further study. Now, the pragmatic mechanism of puns in Chinese is summarized as follows:
(i) Pun supplies two or more levels of information to the communicator, one is the surface information, and the other is the implied. The surface one is not the speaker’s real intention; it is a method of expressing the implied one. From this point, pun in communication violates the Cooperative Principle. But in fact, the final purpose of the communicator is intending to convey the implied information of pun, that is to say, the communicator conveys the conversational implicature of pun and thus realizes the successful communication. Therefore, it could be said that pun is cooperative in communication to some extent.
(ii) In communication, the decoding course of pun is as follows: under the assumption that the speaker is cooperative, there are two kinds of situation: one is that the speaker observes the maxim of the Cooperative Principle. The other is that the speaker deliberately violates the maxim of the Cooperative Principle. In the former situation, the double information of pun (surface and implied information) presents in the conversation. The hearer gets the surface meaning by way of the conventional thinking, then, by the hinge, the words or sentences of pun, the hearer relates the surface information to the implied information together, and according to the context of the implied information, he (or she) works out the conversational implicature of what the speaker utters. In this situation, the hearer is easy to work out the conversational implicature. In the latter situation, the speaker intentionally violates the maxim of the Cooperative Principle at the level of what is said. So what the speaker has said transcends the convention clearly and only supplies the surface information. From such surface information, the hearer gets the surface meaning which does not conform to the traditions. Then by the hinge, the hearer is induced to think about the implied context. With the help of the implied context, the hearer gets the implied information and then works out the conversational implicature of what the speaker intends to convey. So it is not easy to work out this kind of conversational implicature of pun.
(iii) The reason why the speaker violates the maxim of the Cooperative Principle in communication is that it is necessary to conform to the communicative environments. The implied information is realized by the surface information in order to conform to the communicative environments, and the realization of the implied information is dependent of the social and cultural elements. With the help of the communicative environments, the implied meaning of pun could be decoded.
众所周知,语言可以“意会大于言传”。双关语能够达到“一箭双雕”的作用。正是由于这“一箭双雕”的作用,本文作者才钟情于双关语并以此为契机来探讨其背后的语用机制。
汉语双关语大体上分为三类:谐音双关、语义双关和混合双关。谐音双关是指利用声音相同或相近的条件构成的双关语。语义双关是指利用词语或句子的多义性构成的双关语。混合双关就是谐音双关和语义双关结合起来使用、在一个词语或句子中既有谐音双关又有语义双关。
与格赖斯的“非自然意义理论”一样,汉语双关语也同样与语境关系密切。为了探究双关语的语用机制,本文所采用的双关语语料均发生在交际语境中。基于格赖斯的会话含义理论,本文所研究的双关语的会话含义也被划分为三类:第一类,说话人没有违反合作原则的任何准则却传达了会话含义。第二类,说话人在说话时不得不违反某一项准则却是为了遵守另一准则而由此传达了某种会话含义。第三类,说话人故意不遵守某项合作准则而传达了会话含义。根据不同的语境,上述三类会话含义被逐一推理得出后,双关语的语用机制也随之得出。本文由五部分组成。
第一章是论文的概论,由五点内容组成。首先总览了汉语双关语的研究现状。接着是本文的研究动机和主要理论。另外,作者还提出了本文的研究目标。最后是本文的整体安排情况。
第二章分别从理论或理据的角度综述了现有在修辞学和语言学领域中对汉语双关语的研究情况。语言学领域包括语义学、认知语言学以及语用学等。第三章是论文的具体理论框架。在这一部分,作者详细地介绍了格赖斯的会话含义理论以及与之相关的意义理论。
第四章是论文的中心部分。在这一部分作者集中分析了双关语的会话含义。在对双关语的会话含义进行具体分析之前,作者首先探讨了双关语与语境的密切关系,从而在此基础上从三个方面对双关语进行分析。
最后一章是论文的结尾部分。通过前几章的分析探讨,作者总结出了汉语双关语的语用机制,并在此基础上,找出了如何在交际中更加有效地使用双关语的方法。最后,作者进一步提出建议,建议从一个新的角度对双关语进行深入研究。
以下是论文所得出的双关语的语用机制:
(1)双关语为交际者提供至少两层信息:表层信息和暗含信息。表层信息不是交际者的真正意图,它只是用来表达暗含信息的手段。从这点来讲,交际中的双关语违反了合作原则。事实上,交际者的真正意图是传达双关语的暗含信息,也就是本文中所指的双关语的会话含义,进而实现成功的交际。所以,交际中的双关语又是遵守合作原则的。
(2)在交际中,双关语的解码过程是这样的:说话者在合作的前提下,存在着两种情况:一种是说话人遵守了合作原则及其准则。另一种是说话人在交际中故意违反合作原则中的某项准则。在第一种情况中,双关语的双重信息均出现在会话中。听者通过习惯性思考可以了解双关语的表层含意。然后通过双关词或双关句,听者把明暗两层信息联系在一起,再根据暗含语境的提示即可推导出说话人所表达的会话含义。在这种情况下,听着易于推导出双关语的会话含义。在第二种情况中,说话人故意在明说的层面上违反合作原则的某项准则。所以说话人所说的话语超越了习惯上的说法,并且只为听者提供了这样的表层信息。从这些表层信息中,听者只能得到与之相关的、与习惯说法不一致的表层含意。由于说话人所说话语与习惯的不一致,听者只有通过双关词或双关句的引导去考虑双关语所处的暗含语境。了解了暗含语境,双关语的暗含信息便随之清晰,由此可得双关语的会话含义。在这种情况下,双关语的会话含义并不是很容易就能推导出的。
(3)说话人在交际过程中违反合作原则及其准则,这是为了适应交际环境的需要。暗含信息通过表层信息才能实现,这也是为了适应交际环境。同时,暗含信息的实现也离不开社会及文化因素。只有在交际环境中,才能解读出双关语的含义。
The paper attempts to explore puns in Chinese (We shall often refer to the notion“puns in Chinese”simply as“pun”as shorthand) within the theoretical framework of the Conversational Implicature theory, aiming at making a motivated explanation to pragmatic mechanism of puns in Chinese and solving the problem of how to use pun more effectively in communication. The present researches of puns in Chinese have been done from different perspectives. It is noted that these researches are mainly concerned with the classifications, properties, rhetorical functions, theoretical motivations, and expressive effects. Although some scholars have studied puns in Chinese based on the Conversational Implicature theory, they could not pay emphasis on the pragmatic mechanism of puns in Chinese and only have simply talked about the conversational implicature of advertising pun.
It is commonly acknowledged that language has a function of“one can mean more than one says”and that puns in Chinese could convey more information than what is said. As to these phenomena, the author chooses a universally-known figure of speech of puns in Chinese as a studying point to discover its pragmatic mechanism. Puns in Chinese are generally classified into three kinds: the homophonic pun, the homographic pun and the mixed pun. The homophonic pun is pun in which words having the same sound but differing in form and meaning when used. The homographic pun is pun in which the same word has different meanings, and polysemies are mainly used. The mixed pun means that there is a mixing of a homophonic pun and a homographic pun in a word or a sentence.
In line with Grice’s“non-natural meaning theory”, the meaning of puns in Chinese is included in it because pun is related to context closely. In order to uncover the pragmatic mechanism of pun, all the resource of pun in chapter four present in communicative environments. On the basis of Grice’s the Conversational Implicature theory, the conversational implicature of puns in Chinese is classified into three groups: Group A: conversational implicature arises but no maxim is violated or at least it is not clear which maxim is violated. Group B: the speaker faces a clash: he observes one maxim and has to violate the other maxim. Group C: the speaker violates or exploits blatantly one of maxims and Grice called this“flouting of the maxims”. According to the different contexts, the conversational implicature of puns in Chinese is worked out and upon which the pragmatic mechanism is summarized.
The paper is composed of five chapters.
Chapter One makes an introduction. There are five parts: Firstly, it is an overview of the present study of puns in Chinese. Secondly, it is the motives of the study. And following the main theory used in the paper. Fourthly, the author gives the purposes of the study. At last, it shows the general organization of the paper.
Chapter Two is a general survey of the present researches of puns in Chinese both in the Rhetorical approach and the Linguistic approach (such as Semantic approach, Cognitive approach and Pragmatic approach) from the perspective of theories or motivations.
Chapter Three is the paper’s theoretical framework. It is H. P. Grice’s the Conversational Implicature theory and the related Meaning theory. Chapter Four is centered on analyzing puns in Chinese. Before analyzing, the author gives a general description of the relationship between pun and context. On the basis of the Cooperative Principle and its maxims, the conversational implicature of pun is worked out from three aspects.
The last Chapter is the conclusion of the paper. On the basis of the preceding study, the author summarizes the pragmatic mechanism of puns in Chinese and upon which gives the ways of using pun more effectively. At the end of this chapter, the author gives suggestion to make further study. Now, the pragmatic mechanism of puns in Chinese is summarized as follows:
(i) Pun supplies two or more levels of information to the communicator, one is the surface information, and the other is the implied. The surface one is not the speaker’s real intention; it is a method of expressing the implied one. From this point, pun in communication violates the Cooperative Principle. But in fact, the final purpose of the communicator is intending to convey the implied information of pun, that is to say, the communicator conveys the conversational implicature of pun and thus realizes the successful communication. Therefore, it could be said that pun is cooperative in communication to some extent.
(ii) In communication, the decoding course of pun is as follows: under the assumption that the speaker is cooperative, there are two kinds of situation: one is that the speaker observes the maxim of the Cooperative Principle. The other is that the speaker deliberately violates the maxim of the Cooperative Principle. In the former situation, the double information of pun (surface and implied information) presents in the conversation. The hearer gets the surface meaning by way of the conventional thinking, then, by the hinge, the words or sentences of pun, the hearer relates the surface information to the implied information together, and according to the context of the implied information, he (or she) works out the conversational implicature of what the speaker utters. In this situation, the hearer is easy to work out the conversational implicature. In the latter situation, the speaker intentionally violates the maxim of the Cooperative Principle at the level of what is said. So what the speaker has said transcends the convention clearly and only supplies the surface information. From such surface information, the hearer gets the surface meaning which does not conform to the traditions. Then by the hinge, the hearer is induced to think about the implied context. With the help of the implied context, the hearer gets the implied information and then works out the conversational implicature of what the speaker intends to convey. So it is not easy to work out this kind of conversational implicature of pun.
(iii) The reason why the speaker violates the maxim of the Cooperative Principle in communication is that it is necessary to conform to the communicative environments. The implied information is realized by the surface information in order to conform to the communicative environments, and the realization of the implied information is dependent of the social and cultural elements. With the help of the communicative environments, the implied meaning of pun could be decoded.
引文
Culler, Jonathan D., On puns [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd., 1988.
Davis, S., Pragmatics: A Reader [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Davis, Wayne A., Implicature: intention, convention, and principle in the failure of Gricean theory [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Fauconnier, G., Mapping in Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge: CUP, 1997.
Yule, George, Pragmatics [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Teaching Press, 2000.
Grice, H. P., Studies in the Way of Words [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.
Grundy, Peter, Doing Pragmatics [M]. (Second edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Leech, G. N., Principles of Pragmatics [M]. England: Longman Group Limited, 1983.
Levinson, Stephen C., Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000.
Levinson, S. C., Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Lyons, John, Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Mey, J. L., Pragmatics: An Introduction [M]. (Second edition) Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Peccei, Jean Stilwell, Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Radford, A., et al, Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Redfern, Walter, D., Puns [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd., 1984.
Saeed, J, L., Semantics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Searle, John R., Intentionality, an essay in the philosophy of mind [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Searle, John R., (On) Searle on conversation [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1992.
Sperber, D and Wilson, D., Relevance: Communication and Cognition. (Second edition) [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Turner, K., The Principal Principles of Pragmatic Inference: Cooperation: in He Zhaoxiong. A Selection of Pragmatics, 2003: 412-432, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Verschueren, J., Handbook of pragmatics: manual [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995.
Verschueren, J., Understanding Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Wilson, D., Relevance and Understanding: in He Zhaoxiong. A Selection of Pragmatics, 2003: 435-466, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
曹禺,《曹禺戏剧集·家》[M]. 成都: 四川文艺出版社, 1985.
陈汝东, 《当代汉语修辞学》[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2004.
陈望道,《修辞学发凡》[M]. 上海: 上海教育出版社, 2001.
程雨民, 《英语语体学》[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
戴维·克里斯特尔,《现代语言学词典》. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2000.
冯翠华,《英语修辞大全》[M]. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社, 1995.
甘容辉、易 华, “广告双关语的语用分析” [J]. 湖南经济管理干部学院学报, 2005 (5): 123.
郜元宝,《鲁迅精读》[M]. 上海: 复旦大学出版社, 2005.
何兆熊,《新编语用学概论》[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
何兆熊,《语用学文献选读》[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2003.
何自然, 《认知语用学》[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2006.
何自然、冉永平, “关联理论—认知语用学基础” [J]. 现代外语, 1998 (3): 93-106.
胡署中,《英语修辞学》[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2002.
胡壮麟、刘润清、李延福,《语言学教程》[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社, 1988.
惠宇,《新世纪汉英大辞典》. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社, 2003.
姜望琪,《语用学理论及应用》[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社, 2000.
姜望琪,《当代语用学》[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2003.
李晗蕾, 《辞格学新论》[M]. 哈尔滨: 黑龙江人民出版社, 2004.
李莉萌, “双关语理解的语用分析” [J]. 修辞学习, 2005 (3): 51-53
李庆荣,《现代实用汉语修辞》[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2002.
李鑫华,《英语修辞格详论》[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
黎运汉、 盛永生,《汉语修辞学》[M]. 广州: 广东教育出版社, 2006.
李亚舟、李定坤,《汉英辞格对比研究简编》[M]. 武汉: 华中师范大学出版社, 2005.
梁宁建,《当代认知心理学》[M]. 上海: 上海教育出版社, 2003.
刘家荣, “话语相关与认知语境” [J]. 外国语, 1997 (3): 20-23.
刘正光, “Fauconnier 的概念合成理论:阐释与质疑” [J]. 外语与外语教学, 2002 (10): 8-12.
鲁迅,《鲁迅杂文精选 1918-1935》[M]. 哈尔滨: 黑龙江人民出版社, 2005.
苗兴伟, “关联理论与认知语境” [J]. 外语学刊, 1997 (4): 7-11.
钱进, 《新世纪的修辞学》[M]. 南昌: 江西人民出版社, 2004.
束定芳, 《现代语义学》[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
束定芳, 《中国语用学研究论文精选》[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
索振羽,《语用学教程》[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2000.
田本相,《曹禺剧作论》[M]. 北京: 中国戏剧出版社, 1981.
王宏宇, “论三种语用理论中的会话含义” [J]. 四川外语学院学报, 2004 (1): 94-98.
王红孝, “空间映射论与概念整合的认知过程” [J]. 外语学刊, 2004 (6): 66-72.
汪丽炎,《汉语修辞》[M]. 上海:上海大学出版社, 1998.
王希杰,《修辞学导论》[M] . 浙江: 浙江教育出版社, 2000.
王希杰,《修辞学通论》[M] . 南京: 南京大学出版社, 1996.
熊学亮,《认知语用学概论》[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1999.
熊学亮,《语言学新解》[M]. 上海: 复旦大学出版社, 2003.
徐立新,《幽默语篇研究》[M]. 开封:河南大学出版社, 2003.
徐鹏,《英语辞格》[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1996.
徐盛桓,《语用问题研究》[M]. 开封: 河南大学出版社, 1996.
徐盛桓, “含意与合情推理” [J]. 外语教学与研究, 2005 (5): 163-169.
徐盛桓, “含意的两种形态” [J]. 外语与外语教学, 1997 (2): 6-10.
徐盛桓, “论意向含意” [J]. 外语研究, 1994 (1): 4-11.
徐盛桓, “含意运用与常规关系意识” [J]. 外语与外语教学, 1998 (3): 4-8.
徐盛桓,《会话含义理论的新发展》[M]. 开封: 河南大学出版社, 1996.
严敏芬, “双关语句的语用探析” [J]. 西安外国语学院学报, 2002 (6): 26-28.
杨鸿儒,《当代中国修辞学》[M]. 北京: 中国世界语出版社, 1997.
张克定,《英语语言学导论》[M] . 郑州: 河南人民出版社, 1991.
张雅娟, “论‘双关’修辞格与语境” [J]. 孝感学院学报, 2002 (4): 66-69.
张宗正,《理论修辞学》[M]. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2004.
赵元任,《赵元任全集》[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2002.
郑璐瑶, “双关语·会话含义理论·广告效果” [J]. 山东外语教学, 2005 (2): 111.
周明强,《现代汉语实用语境学》[M]. 杭州: 浙江大学出版社, 2005.
朱永生,《语境动态研究》[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2005.
朱永生、蒋勇, “空间映射论与常规含义的推导” [J]. 外语教学与研究, 2003 (1): 26-33.
现代汉语辞海编辑委员会,《现代汉语辞海》全新版, 北京: 中国书籍出版社, 2003.
中国修辞学会华东分会,《修辞学研究》第 1 辑 [M]. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 1983.
中国修辞学会, 《修辞学论文集》第三集 [M]. 福州: 福建人民出版社, 1985.
Davis, S., Pragmatics: A Reader [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Davis, Wayne A., Implicature: intention, convention, and principle in the failure of Gricean theory [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Fauconnier, G., Mapping in Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge: CUP, 1997.
Yule, George, Pragmatics [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Teaching Press, 2000.
Grice, H. P., Studies in the Way of Words [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.
Grundy, Peter, Doing Pragmatics [M]. (Second edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Leech, G. N., Principles of Pragmatics [M]. England: Longman Group Limited, 1983.
Levinson, Stephen C., Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature [M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000.
Levinson, S. C., Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Lyons, John, Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Mey, J. L., Pragmatics: An Introduction [M]. (Second edition) Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Peccei, Jean Stilwell, Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Radford, A., et al, Linguistics: An Introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Redfern, Walter, D., Puns [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd., 1984.
Saeed, J, L., Semantics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Searle, John R., Intentionality, an essay in the philosophy of mind [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Searle, John R., (On) Searle on conversation [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1992.
Sperber, D and Wilson, D., Relevance: Communication and Cognition. (Second edition) [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Turner, K., The Principal Principles of Pragmatic Inference: Cooperation: in He Zhaoxiong. A Selection of Pragmatics, 2003: 412-432, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Verschueren, J., Handbook of pragmatics: manual [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995.
Verschueren, J., Understanding Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Wilson, D., Relevance and Understanding: in He Zhaoxiong. A Selection of Pragmatics, 2003: 435-466, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
曹禺,《曹禺戏剧集·家》[M]. 成都: 四川文艺出版社, 1985.
陈汝东, 《当代汉语修辞学》[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2004.
陈望道,《修辞学发凡》[M]. 上海: 上海教育出版社, 2001.
程雨民, 《英语语体学》[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
戴维·克里斯特尔,《现代语言学词典》. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2000.
冯翠华,《英语修辞大全》[M]. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社, 1995.
甘容辉、易 华, “广告双关语的语用分析” [J]. 湖南经济管理干部学院学报, 2005 (5): 123.
郜元宝,《鲁迅精读》[M]. 上海: 复旦大学出版社, 2005.
何兆熊,《新编语用学概论》[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
何兆熊,《语用学文献选读》[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2003.
何自然, 《认知语用学》[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2006.
何自然、冉永平, “关联理论—认知语用学基础” [J]. 现代外语, 1998 (3): 93-106.
胡署中,《英语修辞学》[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2002.
胡壮麟、刘润清、李延福,《语言学教程》[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社, 1988.
惠宇,《新世纪汉英大辞典》. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社, 2003.
姜望琪,《语用学理论及应用》[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社, 2000.
姜望琪,《当代语用学》[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2003.
李晗蕾, 《辞格学新论》[M]. 哈尔滨: 黑龙江人民出版社, 2004.
李莉萌, “双关语理解的语用分析” [J]. 修辞学习, 2005 (3): 51-53
李庆荣,《现代实用汉语修辞》[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2002.
李鑫华,《英语修辞格详论》[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
黎运汉、 盛永生,《汉语修辞学》[M]. 广州: 广东教育出版社, 2006.
李亚舟、李定坤,《汉英辞格对比研究简编》[M]. 武汉: 华中师范大学出版社, 2005.
梁宁建,《当代认知心理学》[M]. 上海: 上海教育出版社, 2003.
刘家荣, “话语相关与认知语境” [J]. 外国语, 1997 (3): 20-23.
刘正光, “Fauconnier 的概念合成理论:阐释与质疑” [J]. 外语与外语教学, 2002 (10): 8-12.
鲁迅,《鲁迅杂文精选 1918-1935》[M]. 哈尔滨: 黑龙江人民出版社, 2005.
苗兴伟, “关联理论与认知语境” [J]. 外语学刊, 1997 (4): 7-11.
钱进, 《新世纪的修辞学》[M]. 南昌: 江西人民出版社, 2004.
束定芳, 《现代语义学》[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
束定芳, 《中国语用学研究论文精选》[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2001.
索振羽,《语用学教程》[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2000.
田本相,《曹禺剧作论》[M]. 北京: 中国戏剧出版社, 1981.
王宏宇, “论三种语用理论中的会话含义” [J]. 四川外语学院学报, 2004 (1): 94-98.
王红孝, “空间映射论与概念整合的认知过程” [J]. 外语学刊, 2004 (6): 66-72.
汪丽炎,《汉语修辞》[M]. 上海:上海大学出版社, 1998.
王希杰,《修辞学导论》[M] . 浙江: 浙江教育出版社, 2000.
王希杰,《修辞学通论》[M] . 南京: 南京大学出版社, 1996.
熊学亮,《认知语用学概论》[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1999.
熊学亮,《语言学新解》[M]. 上海: 复旦大学出版社, 2003.
徐立新,《幽默语篇研究》[M]. 开封:河南大学出版社, 2003.
徐鹏,《英语辞格》[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1996.
徐盛桓,《语用问题研究》[M]. 开封: 河南大学出版社, 1996.
徐盛桓, “含意与合情推理” [J]. 外语教学与研究, 2005 (5): 163-169.
徐盛桓, “含意的两种形态” [J]. 外语与外语教学, 1997 (2): 6-10.
徐盛桓, “论意向含意” [J]. 外语研究, 1994 (1): 4-11.
徐盛桓, “含意运用与常规关系意识” [J]. 外语与外语教学, 1998 (3): 4-8.
徐盛桓,《会话含义理论的新发展》[M]. 开封: 河南大学出版社, 1996.
严敏芬, “双关语句的语用探析” [J]. 西安外国语学院学报, 2002 (6): 26-28.
杨鸿儒,《当代中国修辞学》[M]. 北京: 中国世界语出版社, 1997.
张克定,《英语语言学导论》[M] . 郑州: 河南人民出版社, 1991.
张雅娟, “论‘双关’修辞格与语境” [J]. 孝感学院学报, 2002 (4): 66-69.
张宗正,《理论修辞学》[M]. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2004.
赵元任,《赵元任全集》[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2002.
郑璐瑶, “双关语·会话含义理论·广告效果” [J]. 山东外语教学, 2005 (2): 111.
周明强,《现代汉语实用语境学》[M]. 杭州: 浙江大学出版社, 2005.
朱永生,《语境动态研究》[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2005.
朱永生、蒋勇, “空间映射论与常规含义的推导” [J]. 外语教学与研究, 2003 (1): 26-33.
现代汉语辞海编辑委员会,《现代汉语辞海》全新版, 北京: 中国书籍出版社, 2003.
中国修辞学会华东分会,《修辞学研究》第 1 辑 [M]. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 1983.
中国修辞学会, 《修辞学论文集》第三集 [M]. 福州: 福建人民出版社, 1985.