汉语中非真诚性邀请行为语用研究
|
摘要
非真诚性邀请作为汉语种一种典型的言语行为多在跨文化领域进行探讨。本研究通过在言语行为理论框架内对这种言语行为的分析,旨在对Searle的言语行为理论中适切条件进行阐释与批判,进而说明这些条件未能解释言语交际中非真诚言语行为,提出对于言语行为,无论真诚还是非真诚,成功条件更具解释力。本论文首先对于邀请行为在言语行为中的分类进行了回顾和讨论,然后研究了汉语中非真诚邀请语用特征,以及这些语用特征和Searle的言语行为理论适切条件的关系。本文还探讨了作为交际中的佯装表达方式,非真诚性言语行为与其它语言的非严肃使用的不同。在实施非真诚性言语行为时,说话人传达不同的命题态度。
本论文由七章构成。第一章概述了本文的研究理论基础、研究目的、研究方法及论文的组织结构。本研究主要目的包括:(1)说明即使在传统言语行为理论框架下,根据Searle的分类标准,邀请行为也不能被划分为纯粹的指令性言语行为;(2)分析汉语中非真诚性邀请行为的语用特征及其与适切条件的关系;(3)对Searle言语行为理论适切条件进行阐释与批判,并基于对汉语非真诚性邀请的研究,对适切条件提出修订。具体的研究问题包括:(1)邀请行为的本质是什么?(2)非真诚性言语行为与其它语言的非严肃使用的差别是什么?(3)与真诚性相比,非真诚性邀请具有哪些语用特征?(4)为什么成功条件能够解释真诚与非真诚性言语行为,而适切条件只能解释真诚性言语行为?
第二章主要从人类学、社会学以及语言哲学对语言使用作为行为进行评述。本部分详细回顾了哲学家及语言学家对言语行为的不同分类,总结出虽然对于言语行为的种类划分存在或多或少的差异,大多分类依然遵循Searle的标准。本章探讨了按照Searle的分类标准,邀请行为同时具有指令性与承诺性言语行为的特征,因为在邀请中,邀请者一方面在请求被邀请者做某事,另一方面,他/她也同时(隐含地)承诺接受被邀请者出席所邀请的事件中。
第三章研究了汉语中非真诚性邀请的语用特征,通过对自然语料的分析,发现非真诚性邀请不同于真诚性邀请的六个特征,同时探讨了这些语用特征的作用和功能。不同于西方传统理论将邀请作为一种威胁面子的行为,在汉语文化中,邀请起到维护交际双方面子的作用。从邀请者的角度看,这些语用特征实际是他/她所采取的交际策略的体现,传递出其邀请不应按表面意义理解的意图。从被邀请者的角度看,它们也是被邀请者推测邀请者意图的理解策略,从而做出适当回应。
第四章讨论了非真诚性邀请语用特征与各适切条件的关系。虽然有研究表明在非真诚性邀请中预备条件不被满足,但未见充分解释。本章通过对这些语用特征的分析,总结出在非真诚性邀请中,除了真诚条件之外,至少有一个其它条件不被满足。而这些其它条件的不被满足恰恰是为了掩盖邀请者在实施邀请行为时其真诚条件不被满足的事实。通过上述分析,作者认为,Searle的适切条件不能解释像非真诚性邀请这样的非真诚性言语行为。
第五章研究语言非严肃使用的各种情形中的佯装表达问题。语言非严肃使用中的假装在哲学与心理学领域有深入的研究。在语言学领域,对于交际中的假装多见于对某些具体言语行为的研究,如反讽和夸张,在这些形式的言语交际中,通常认为说话人的假装是非欺骗性(non-deceptive)的。基于第三章的研究,本部分提出,作为语言非严肃使用的一种现象,在非真诚性邀请中既有非欺骗性的又有欺骗性的假装,虽然在后一种情况下,邀请者的意图并非要欺骗被邀请者,而是为了满足言语交际中的某些社会规约,即出于维系交际双方良好的社会关系的考虑。
第六章对Searle言语行为适切条件进行了系统的阐释和批判。对于语言的严肃使用,即Searle所言的“理想化”(idealized)使用,其适切条件是有解释力的,但对于像非真诚性邀请这样的非严肃使用,即言语行为的不适切或有缺陷(“infelicitous/defective”),虽然它们在交际中能被成功实施,这些条件则无法解释。本部分提出真诚条件言语行为成功实施中并非必要条件,一个言语行为即使有缺陷,依然可以成功实施;与言语行为适切条件相比,成功条件能够充分解释无论是适切的或不适切的言语行为,因为在实施这两种性质不同的行为时,说话人实际在表达不同的命题态度,前者表示意图做某事,而后者表示假装做某事。
第七章是本研究的结论部分。除了对本研究进行了简要的总结之外,指出其意义和贡献所在,并对研究中存在的问题和对于以后这个领域的发展研究进行了概括展望。本研究的主要贡献在于:第一,在言语行为理论的框架内对非真诚性言语行为,特别是非真诚性邀请进行了系统的研究;第二,发现了非真诚性邀请语用特征与各适切条件的内在关系,解释了这些条件的不被满足在言语行为实施过程中是如何体现的;第三,提出在言语行为中真诚条件并非必要条件,成功条件能够解释真诚性与非真诚性言语行为。
This study investigates insincere invitations, a typical case of insincere speech acts in the Chinese context, within the framework of speech act theory (hereafter referred to as SAT), with a view to offering a critique of the felicity conditions in the Searlean SAT. It starts with a discussion and revision of what type of speech act inviting is by nature and then the pragmatic features of insincere invitations are explored, followed by an investigation of the relations of these features and the felicity conditions. It argues that insincere speech acts as pretence in communication are different from other types of non-serious use of language, in which the intention to express demonstrates different attitudes, rather than the intention to do something, hence the felicity conditions in the Searlean tradition fail to account for insincere speech acts, as illustrated by the case of insincere invitations in Chinese (hereafter referred to as IICs). It is proposed that the felicity conditions have to be replaced by the success conditions so that both insincere and insincere speech acts will be accounted for.
The dissertation is composed of seven major chapters.
Chapter One provides a brief introduction of the objectives, the rationale, the significance, as well as the general layout of the study, stating that the current study aims to (1) elucidate that the act of inviting is not purely a directive act, as proposed in the traditional speech act theory, but rather a commissive directive, (2) analyze the pragmatic features of insincere invitations in Chinese and their relations with each of the felicity conditions, and (3) make a critical analysis of the felicity conditions in the Searlean speech act theory, and make tentative amendments according to what has been discovered in the analysis of insincere invitations in Chinese. The present research explores the following four questions: (1) What is the act of inviting by nature as one of the illocutionary acts? (2) How are insincere invitations realized, as apposed to sincere ones, with respect to their pragmatic features? (3) How are insincere speech acts manifested as pretence in communication? (4) Why do the felicity conditions in the Searlean speech act theory fail to explain ISAs?
Chapter Two reviews the history of using language as action in anthropology, sociology, as well as the philosophy of langauge. A detailed review is also made on the various taxonomies of speech acts. Although there have been different versions in the classification of speech acts, most of them have followed the Searlean tradition, with slight modifications and/or amendments. It is proposed in this chapter that, following Searle’s criteria, inviting bears the features of both directives and commissives, for in issuing an invitation, the speaker requests the hearer to do some future action on the one hand, and meanwhile commits himself/herself to the obligation of accepting the hearer’s presence on the other.
Chapter Three analyzes the pragmatic features of insincere invitations in Chinese. Based on the data collected from real life experience, a comparative analysis is made to find out in what aspects insincere invitations are distinct from sincere ones. Six features are concluded, and statistic analyses have indicated that all of them show significant difference. The general functions of insincere invitations are also discussed. It is indicated that, contrary to the western cultures in which they are taken as face-threatening acts, insincere invitations are in fact face-caring acts in the Chinese culture. These pragmatic features, seen from a communicative perspective, are actually communication strategies the inviters adopt to express propositional attitudes rather than to express the intention to do what is literally meant by the utterances. On the other hand, they also function as comprehension strategies by which the invitees make inferences about the inviters’intentions, according to which appropriate responses are made.
Chapter Four discusses the relationship between the pragmatic features of insincere invitations and the felicity conditions of the act of inviting. The discussions reveal that, besides the sincerity condition, at least one other condition is not satisfied in the performance of insincere invitations. The defectiveness of the other one or more conditions is employed to cover up the insincerity of the inviter’s performance of the act per se. This chapter draws the conclusion that the felicity conditions in the Searlean speech act theory fail to account for insincere invitations.
Chapter Five provides an analysis of pretence in various non-serious use of language, including insincere speech acts in specific. The study of pretence has long been explored in philosophy and psychology. Linguistic studies have focused on some particular types of the non-serious use of language, e.g. irony and/or hyperbole, which involve non-deceptive pretence. Contrary to the traditional view of taking insincere speech acts as involving non-deceptive pretence, it is found that, based on the analysis of insincere invitations in Chinese, insincere speech acts involve both deceptive and non-deceptive pretence, though the intention behind the pretence is not meant to deceive.
Chapter Six makes a critique of the felicity conditions in the Searlean speech acts theory. It is concluded that Searle’s felicity conditions have explanatory power in analyzing serious use of language, i.e. the“felicitous/non-defective”performance of speech acts, but fail to provide a sound account of the“infelicitous/defective”performance, which are nevertheless successful in communication. A comparison is made between the felicity conditions and the success conditions, which leads to the conclusion that sincerity of the speaker in the performance of illocutionary acts is not a prerequisite, i.e. a necessary condition. In performing speech acts, either sincere or insincere, the speakers actually express two different propositional attitudes. In the former case, it is the intention to do something, and in the latter, the pretence to do. A tentative revision of Searle’s felicity conditions is also made to account for both sincere and insincere speech acts.
Chapter Seven is the concluding part of the study, which points out the contributions the present study has made. It also summarizes the major findings of the research, the limitations, and gives a brief account of the possible trends and/or orientations in further studies in the topic explored in this research.
The following contributions have been made in the present study: First, it has provided a comprehensive analysis of insincere speech acts in general, and insincere invitations in particular, within the framework of speech act theory. Second, the study has found the interrelation between the pragmatic features and the felicity conditions, hence providing an account on how each of the conditions is violated in the case of insincere invitations. And third, the success conditions are proposed based on the tentative revision of the felicity conditions by claiming that sincerity is not a necessary condition for the performance of speech act.
本论文由七章构成。第一章概述了本文的研究理论基础、研究目的、研究方法及论文的组织结构。本研究主要目的包括:(1)说明即使在传统言语行为理论框架下,根据Searle的分类标准,邀请行为也不能被划分为纯粹的指令性言语行为;(2)分析汉语中非真诚性邀请行为的语用特征及其与适切条件的关系;(3)对Searle言语行为理论适切条件进行阐释与批判,并基于对汉语非真诚性邀请的研究,对适切条件提出修订。具体的研究问题包括:(1)邀请行为的本质是什么?(2)非真诚性言语行为与其它语言的非严肃使用的差别是什么?(3)与真诚性相比,非真诚性邀请具有哪些语用特征?(4)为什么成功条件能够解释真诚与非真诚性言语行为,而适切条件只能解释真诚性言语行为?
第二章主要从人类学、社会学以及语言哲学对语言使用作为行为进行评述。本部分详细回顾了哲学家及语言学家对言语行为的不同分类,总结出虽然对于言语行为的种类划分存在或多或少的差异,大多分类依然遵循Searle的标准。本章探讨了按照Searle的分类标准,邀请行为同时具有指令性与承诺性言语行为的特征,因为在邀请中,邀请者一方面在请求被邀请者做某事,另一方面,他/她也同时(隐含地)承诺接受被邀请者出席所邀请的事件中。
第三章研究了汉语中非真诚性邀请的语用特征,通过对自然语料的分析,发现非真诚性邀请不同于真诚性邀请的六个特征,同时探讨了这些语用特征的作用和功能。不同于西方传统理论将邀请作为一种威胁面子的行为,在汉语文化中,邀请起到维护交际双方面子的作用。从邀请者的角度看,这些语用特征实际是他/她所采取的交际策略的体现,传递出其邀请不应按表面意义理解的意图。从被邀请者的角度看,它们也是被邀请者推测邀请者意图的理解策略,从而做出适当回应。
第四章讨论了非真诚性邀请语用特征与各适切条件的关系。虽然有研究表明在非真诚性邀请中预备条件不被满足,但未见充分解释。本章通过对这些语用特征的分析,总结出在非真诚性邀请中,除了真诚条件之外,至少有一个其它条件不被满足。而这些其它条件的不被满足恰恰是为了掩盖邀请者在实施邀请行为时其真诚条件不被满足的事实。通过上述分析,作者认为,Searle的适切条件不能解释像非真诚性邀请这样的非真诚性言语行为。
第五章研究语言非严肃使用的各种情形中的佯装表达问题。语言非严肃使用中的假装在哲学与心理学领域有深入的研究。在语言学领域,对于交际中的假装多见于对某些具体言语行为的研究,如反讽和夸张,在这些形式的言语交际中,通常认为说话人的假装是非欺骗性(non-deceptive)的。基于第三章的研究,本部分提出,作为语言非严肃使用的一种现象,在非真诚性邀请中既有非欺骗性的又有欺骗性的假装,虽然在后一种情况下,邀请者的意图并非要欺骗被邀请者,而是为了满足言语交际中的某些社会规约,即出于维系交际双方良好的社会关系的考虑。
第六章对Searle言语行为适切条件进行了系统的阐释和批判。对于语言的严肃使用,即Searle所言的“理想化”(idealized)使用,其适切条件是有解释力的,但对于像非真诚性邀请这样的非严肃使用,即言语行为的不适切或有缺陷(“infelicitous/defective”),虽然它们在交际中能被成功实施,这些条件则无法解释。本部分提出真诚条件言语行为成功实施中并非必要条件,一个言语行为即使有缺陷,依然可以成功实施;与言语行为适切条件相比,成功条件能够充分解释无论是适切的或不适切的言语行为,因为在实施这两种性质不同的行为时,说话人实际在表达不同的命题态度,前者表示意图做某事,而后者表示假装做某事。
第七章是本研究的结论部分。除了对本研究进行了简要的总结之外,指出其意义和贡献所在,并对研究中存在的问题和对于以后这个领域的发展研究进行了概括展望。本研究的主要贡献在于:第一,在言语行为理论的框架内对非真诚性言语行为,特别是非真诚性邀请进行了系统的研究;第二,发现了非真诚性邀请语用特征与各适切条件的内在关系,解释了这些条件的不被满足在言语行为实施过程中是如何体现的;第三,提出在言语行为中真诚条件并非必要条件,成功条件能够解释真诚性与非真诚性言语行为。
This study investigates insincere invitations, a typical case of insincere speech acts in the Chinese context, within the framework of speech act theory (hereafter referred to as SAT), with a view to offering a critique of the felicity conditions in the Searlean SAT. It starts with a discussion and revision of what type of speech act inviting is by nature and then the pragmatic features of insincere invitations are explored, followed by an investigation of the relations of these features and the felicity conditions. It argues that insincere speech acts as pretence in communication are different from other types of non-serious use of language, in which the intention to express demonstrates different attitudes, rather than the intention to do something, hence the felicity conditions in the Searlean tradition fail to account for insincere speech acts, as illustrated by the case of insincere invitations in Chinese (hereafter referred to as IICs). It is proposed that the felicity conditions have to be replaced by the success conditions so that both insincere and insincere speech acts will be accounted for.
The dissertation is composed of seven major chapters.
Chapter One provides a brief introduction of the objectives, the rationale, the significance, as well as the general layout of the study, stating that the current study aims to (1) elucidate that the act of inviting is not purely a directive act, as proposed in the traditional speech act theory, but rather a commissive directive, (2) analyze the pragmatic features of insincere invitations in Chinese and their relations with each of the felicity conditions, and (3) make a critical analysis of the felicity conditions in the Searlean speech act theory, and make tentative amendments according to what has been discovered in the analysis of insincere invitations in Chinese. The present research explores the following four questions: (1) What is the act of inviting by nature as one of the illocutionary acts? (2) How are insincere invitations realized, as apposed to sincere ones, with respect to their pragmatic features? (3) How are insincere speech acts manifested as pretence in communication? (4) Why do the felicity conditions in the Searlean speech act theory fail to explain ISAs?
Chapter Two reviews the history of using language as action in anthropology, sociology, as well as the philosophy of langauge. A detailed review is also made on the various taxonomies of speech acts. Although there have been different versions in the classification of speech acts, most of them have followed the Searlean tradition, with slight modifications and/or amendments. It is proposed in this chapter that, following Searle’s criteria, inviting bears the features of both directives and commissives, for in issuing an invitation, the speaker requests the hearer to do some future action on the one hand, and meanwhile commits himself/herself to the obligation of accepting the hearer’s presence on the other.
Chapter Three analyzes the pragmatic features of insincere invitations in Chinese. Based on the data collected from real life experience, a comparative analysis is made to find out in what aspects insincere invitations are distinct from sincere ones. Six features are concluded, and statistic analyses have indicated that all of them show significant difference. The general functions of insincere invitations are also discussed. It is indicated that, contrary to the western cultures in which they are taken as face-threatening acts, insincere invitations are in fact face-caring acts in the Chinese culture. These pragmatic features, seen from a communicative perspective, are actually communication strategies the inviters adopt to express propositional attitudes rather than to express the intention to do what is literally meant by the utterances. On the other hand, they also function as comprehension strategies by which the invitees make inferences about the inviters’intentions, according to which appropriate responses are made.
Chapter Four discusses the relationship between the pragmatic features of insincere invitations and the felicity conditions of the act of inviting. The discussions reveal that, besides the sincerity condition, at least one other condition is not satisfied in the performance of insincere invitations. The defectiveness of the other one or more conditions is employed to cover up the insincerity of the inviter’s performance of the act per se. This chapter draws the conclusion that the felicity conditions in the Searlean speech act theory fail to account for insincere invitations.
Chapter Five provides an analysis of pretence in various non-serious use of language, including insincere speech acts in specific. The study of pretence has long been explored in philosophy and psychology. Linguistic studies have focused on some particular types of the non-serious use of language, e.g. irony and/or hyperbole, which involve non-deceptive pretence. Contrary to the traditional view of taking insincere speech acts as involving non-deceptive pretence, it is found that, based on the analysis of insincere invitations in Chinese, insincere speech acts involve both deceptive and non-deceptive pretence, though the intention behind the pretence is not meant to deceive.
Chapter Six makes a critique of the felicity conditions in the Searlean speech acts theory. It is concluded that Searle’s felicity conditions have explanatory power in analyzing serious use of language, i.e. the“felicitous/non-defective”performance of speech acts, but fail to provide a sound account of the“infelicitous/defective”performance, which are nevertheless successful in communication. A comparison is made between the felicity conditions and the success conditions, which leads to the conclusion that sincerity of the speaker in the performance of illocutionary acts is not a prerequisite, i.e. a necessary condition. In performing speech acts, either sincere or insincere, the speakers actually express two different propositional attitudes. In the former case, it is the intention to do something, and in the latter, the pretence to do. A tentative revision of Searle’s felicity conditions is also made to account for both sincere and insincere speech acts.
Chapter Seven is the concluding part of the study, which points out the contributions the present study has made. It also summarizes the major findings of the research, the limitations, and gives a brief account of the possible trends and/or orientations in further studies in the topic explored in this research.
The following contributions have been made in the present study: First, it has provided a comprehensive analysis of insincere speech acts in general, and insincere invitations in particular, within the framework of speech act theory. Second, the study has found the interrelation between the pragmatic features and the felicity conditions, hence providing an account on how each of the conditions is violated in the case of insincere invitations. And third, the success conditions are proposed based on the tentative revision of the felicity conditions by claiming that sincerity is not a necessary condition for the performance of speech act.
引文
1. 2000english Studio. English Classics 3000. 2000. Peking University Press.
2. Agerri et al, 2007. Default Inferences in Metaphor Interpretation. In B. Kokinov et al. (eds.). Context. 2007: 1-14.
3. Aldrich, V. C. 1966. Behavior, Simulating and Nonsimulating. The Journal of Philosophy 16: 453-457.
4. Al-Khatib, M. A. 2006. The Pragmatics of Invitation Making and Acceptance in Jordanian Society. Journal of Language and Linguistics 5: 272-294.
5. Allan, K. 2003. Meaning and speech acts. Available at http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/ling/staff/allan/papers/speech_acts.html [Date of access: August 27, 2004]
6. Allwood, J. 1977. A Critical Look at Speech Act Theory. In ?. Dahl (ed.). Logic, Pragmatics and Grammar. University of Gothenberg, Department of Linguistics. 53-69.
7. Alston, W. P. 1991. Searle on Illocutionary Acts. In Lepore and Gulick (eds.). 57-81.
8. Amante, D. J. 1981. The Theory of Ironic Speech Acts. Poetics Today 2: 77-96.
9. Anolli, L. et al. (eds.). 2002. Say Not to Say: New Perspectives on Miscommunication. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
10. Anscombe, G. E. M. 1958. Pretending. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 32: 279-294.
11. Attardo, S. 1997. Locutionary and Perlocutionary Cooperation: The Perlocutionary Cooperative Principle. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 753-779.
12. Austin, J. L. 1958. Pretending. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 32: 261-278.
13. Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Bach, K. 2006. Speech Acts and Pragmatics. In M. Devitt & R. Hanley (eds.). 147-167.
15. Bach, K. and R. M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
16. Bakhurst, D. 1992. On Lying and Deceiving. Journal of Medical Ethics 18: 63-66.
17. Barnden, J. A. and M. G. Lee. 2001. Understanding Open-Ended Usages of Familiar Conceptual Metaphors: An Approach and Artificial Intelligence System (Technical Report CSRP-01-05). School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham. Available at: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jab/ATT-Meta/Papers/attmeta.CSRP-01-05.pdf[Date of Access: November 7, 2008].
18. Barnden, J. A. et al. 2002. Asymmetry and Reverse Transfers in Metaphor (Technical Report CSRP-02-9). School of Computer Science, the University of Birmingham, UK. Available at: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jab/ATT-Meta/Papers/reversibility.CSRP-02-09.pdf [Date of Access: November 7, 2008].
19. Barr, D. J. 2003. Paralinguistic Correlates of Conceptual Structure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10: 462-467.
20. Barrett, C. 1969. Not Exactly Pretending. Philosophy 44: 331-338.
21. Beattie, G. 1983. Talk: An Analysis of Speech and Non-Verbal Behaviour in Conversation. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
22. Beaver, E. T. Wittgenstein’s Meaning and Use in Philosophical Investigations, Searle’s Speech Act Theory in“What is a Speech Act?’: An Exposition and Composition. Philosophy of Language. Available at http://www3.baylor.edu/~Elijah_Beaver/witterm.htm [Date of access: August 25, 2004]
23. Bilbow, G. T. 2002. Commissive Speech Act Use in Intercultural Business Meetings. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 40: 287-303.
24. Binkley, T. 1974. Real and Pretend. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4: 560-568.
25. Bird, A. 2002. Illocutionary Silencing. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 83: 1-15.
26. Blum-Kulka, S. 1985. Modifiers as Indicating Devices: The Case of Requests. Theoretical Linguistics 12: 213-229.
27. Boxer, D. 1993. Social Distance and Speech Behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics 19: 103-125.
28. Brennan, S. E. & M. Williams. 1995. The Feeling of Another’s Knowing: Prosody and Filled Pauses as Cues to Listeners about the Metacognitive States of Speakers. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 383-398.
29. Brodbeck, M. 1963. Meaning and Action. Philosophy of Science 30: 309-324.
30. Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Burkhardt, A. (ed.). 1990a. Speech Acts, Meaning and Intentions: Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John Searle. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, New York.
32. Burkhardt, A. 1990b. Speech Act Theory– The Decline of a Paradigm. In A. Burkhardt (ed.). 91-128.
33. Caldwell, R. L. 1968. Pretence. Mind 305: 48-57.
34. Campbell, J. G. 1992. A Critical Survey of Some Recent Philosophical Theories ofMetaphor. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Washington University in St. Louise.
35. Cappelen, H. and E. Lepore. 2002. Radical and Moderate Pragmatics: Does Meaning Determine Truth Conditions? In Z. Szabo (ed.). Semantics vs. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. 45-71.
36. Champlin, T. S. 1990. [Untitled Review Article of J. L. Austin by G. L. Warnock, 1989]. Philosophy 65: 526-528.
37. Chapman, S. 2000. Philosophy for Linguists: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
38. Chisholm R. M. and T. D. Feehan. 1977. The Intent to Deceive. Journal of Philosophy 74:143-159.
39. Chisholm, R. M. 1964. J. L. Austin's Philosophical Papers. Mind 73: 1-26.
40. Clark, H. H. 1979. Responding to Indirect Speech Acts. Cognitive Psychology 11: 430-477.
41. Clark, H. H. 1992. Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
42. Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Clark, H. H. and D. H. Schunk, 1980. Polite Responses to Polite Requests. Cognition 8: 111-143.
44. Clark, H. H. and R. J. Gerrig. 1990. Quotations as Demonstrations. Language 66: 764-805.
45. Clark, H. H. and R. J. Gerrig. 2007. On the Pretense Theory of Irony. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. and H. L. Colston (eds.). 25-33.
46. Cohen, L. J. 1964. Do Illocutionary Forces Exist? The Philosophical Quarterly 14: 118-137.
47. Cohen, L. J. 1970. Searle's Theory of Speech Acts. The Philosophical Review 79: 545-557.
48. Cole, P. & J. L. Morgan (eds.). 1975. Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3 Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.
49. Coleman, L. and P. Kay. 1981. Prototype Semantics: The English Word Lie. Language 57: 26-44.
50. Colston, H. L. & A. N. Katz (eds.). 2005. Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51. Coulthard. M. (ed.). 1992. Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. New York: Routledge.
52. Croddy, W. S. 1988. Meaning and Intention. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 1-11.
53. Crosby, J. F. 1990. Speech Act Theory and Phenomenology. In A. Burkhardt (ed.). 62-88.
54. Currie, G. 2005. Pretence and Pretending. Arts and Minds. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. 191-210.
55. Currie, G. 2006. Why Irony is Pretence. In S. Nichols (ed.). 111-133.
56. Davila1, J. C. 2004. Forgiveness as a Function of Offense Severity, Apology Extensiveness, and Perceived Sincerity: A Theoretical Model. Available at http://www.agrh2004-esg.uqam.ca/pdf/Tome2/Davila.pdf [Date of access: November 7, 2007].
57. Davison, A. 1979. On the Semantics of Speech Acts. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 413-429.
58. Devitt, M & R. Hanley (eds.). The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language. 2006. Oxford: Blackwell.
59. Duranti, A. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. 2002. Requesting Strategies in English and Greek: Observations from an Airline’s Call Centre. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 17: 17-32.
61. Ervin-Tripp, S. M. 1972. Sociolinguistic Rules of Address. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 225-239.
62. Escandell-Vidal, V. 1996. Towards a Cognitive Approach to Politeness. Language Sciences 18: 629-650.
63. Eslami, Z. R. 2005. Invitations in Persian and English: Ostensible or Genuine? Intercultural Pragmatics 2: 453–480.
64. Esposito, A. et al (eds.). 2007. Verbal and Nonverbal Communication Behaviours. Berlin: Springer.
65. Falkenberg, G. 1990. Searle on Sincerity. In A. Burkhardt (ed.). 129-146.
66. Fasold, R. W. 1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
67. Fein, G. G. 1981. Pretend Play in Childhood: An Integrative Review. Child Development 4: 1095-1118.
68. Felix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2003. Declining an Invitation: A Cross-Cultural Study of Pragmatic Strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish. Multilingua 22: 225-255.
69. Feng, Z. 2000. The Pragmatics of English Dialogues in the Chinese Context. Paper presented at the 4th workshop of Gotalog 2000. Gothenburg University.
70. Fleming, B. N. 1964. On Intention. The Philosophical Review 73: 301-320.
71. Flicker, S. 2004.“Ask Me No Secrets, I’ll Tell You No Lies”: What Happens When a Respondent’s Story Makes No Sense. The Qualitative Report 9: 528-537.
72. Fong, M. 2000.‘Luck Talk’in celebrating the Chinese New Year. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 219-237.
73. Frake, C. O. 1972. How to Ask for a Drink in Subanum. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 260-266.
74. Fraser, B. 1974. A Partial Analysis of Vernacular Performative Verbs. In R. Shuy, and C. Bailey (eds.). Towards Tomorrow’s Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 139-158.
75. Fraser, B. 1975. Hedged Performatives. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.). 187-210.
76. Fraser, B. 1990. Perspectives on Politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219-236.
77. Fussell, S. R. and R. J. Kreuz (eds.). 1998. Social and Cognitive Approaches to Interpersonal Communication. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
78. Gale, R. M. 1971. The Fictive Use of Language. Philosophy 46: 324-340.
79. Gao, H. 1999. Features of Request Strategies in Chinese. Working Papers 47: 73-86.
80. García, C. 1996. Teaching Speech Act Performance: Declining an Invitation. Hispania 79: 267-279.
81. Gardner, D. S. 1983. Performativity in Ritual: The Mianmin Case. Man 18: 346-360.
82. Garner, R. T. 1968. Utterances and Acts in the Philosophy of J. L. Austin. No?s 2: 209-227.
83. Gazdar, G. 1981. Speech Act Assignment. In A. Joshi, B. Webber and I. Sag (eds.). Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 64-83.
84. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1983. Do People Always Process the Literal Meanings of Indirect Requests?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 9: 524-533.
85. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1986. What Makes Some Indirect Speech Acts Conventional? Journal of Memory and Language 25: 181–196.
86. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1999. Interpreting What Speakers Say and Implicate. Brain and Language 68: 466-485.
87. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 2004. Intentions in the Experience of Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
88. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 2007. Irony in Talk Among Friends. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. and H. L. Colston (eds.). 339-360.
89. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. and H. L. Colston (eds.). 2007. Irony in Language and Thought: A Cognitive Science Reader. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
90. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. and H. L. Colston. 2002. The Risks and Rewards of Ironic Communication. In L. Anolli et al. (eds.). 181-194.
91. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. and J. F. Moise. 1997. Pragmatics in Understanding What Is Said. Cognition 62: 51-74.
92. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. and S. M. Delaney, 1987. Pragmatic Factors in Making and Understanding Promises. Discourse Processes 10: 107-126.
93. Glenn, P. J. 2003. Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP.
94. Goldkuhl, G. 2003. Conversational Analysis as a Theoretical Foundation for Language Action Approaches. Available at http://www.vits.org/publikationer/dokument/334.pdf [Date of access: July 17, 2006].
95. Green, O. H. 1969. Intentions and Speech Acts. Analysis 29: 109-112.
96. Grice, H. P. 1957. Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66: 377-388.
97. Grice, H. P. 1969. Utterer's Meaning and Intention. The Philosophical Review 78: 147-177.
98. Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way Of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
99. Grossmann, R. 1960. Propositional Attitudes. The Philosophical Quarterly 10: 301-312.
100. Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 237-257.
101. Gumperz, J. J. 1972. Sociolinguistics and Communication in Small Groups. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 203-223.
102. Habermas. J. 1991. Comments on John Searle:“Meaning, Communication, and Representation”. In E. Lepore and R. V. Gulick (eds.). 17-29.
103. Habermas. J. 1998. On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
104. Halion, K. 1992. Parasitic Speech Acts: Austin, Searle, Derrida. Philosophy Today 36: 161-172.
105. Hancher, M. 1972. Three Kinds of Intention. MLN 87: 827-851.
106. Hancher, M. 1979. The Classification of Cooperative Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society 8: 1-14.
107. Hancock, J. T. 2003. Some Pieces of the“Humor in the Interface”Puzzle: Expectations, Common Ground and Discourse Goals. Position paper in A. Nijholt et al. (eds.). Modeling Humor in the Interface. Workshop held at the ACM Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (CHI2003). Fort Lauderdale: Florida.
108. Hare, R. M. 1970. Meaning and Speech Acts. The Philosophical Review 79: 3-24.
109. Harnish, R. M. 1979. Meaning and Speech Acts. Lingua 49: 331-354.
110. Harnish, R. M. 1980. [Untitled Review Article of Words and Deeds: Problems in the Theory of Speech Acts by David Holdcroft]. The Journal of Philosophy 77: 495-501.
111. Harnish, R. M. 1990. Speech Acts and Intentionality. In A. Burkhardt (ed.). 169-193.
112. Haslett, B. 1987. Communication: Strategic Action in Context. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
113. Haverkate, H. 1990. A Speech Act Analysis of Irony. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 77-109.
114. Helm, P. 1971. Pretending and Intending. Analysis 4: 127-132.
115. Henry, R. 1996. Pretending and Meaning: Toward a Pragmatic Theory of Fictional Discourse. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
116. Hinde, R. A. (ed.). 1972. Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: CUP.
117. Holdcroft, D. 1979. Speech Acts and Conversation--I. The Philosophical Quarterly 29: 125-141.
118. Holdcroft, D. 1990. [Untitled Review Article of J. L. Austin by G. J. Warnock, 1989]. The Philosophical Quarterly 40: 522-524.
119. Holtgraves, T. 2002. Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
120. Holtgraves, T. 2005. The Production and Perception of Implicit Performatives. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 2024-2043.
121. Hymes, D. H. 1972. On Communicative Competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 269-293.
122. Isaacs, E. and H. H. Clark. 1990. Ostensible Invitations. Language in Society 19: 493-509.
123. Jarrold, C. et al. 1994. Pretend Play: Is it Metarepresentational? Mind and Language
9: 445-468. Available at http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/pcarruthers/Pretend-play.htm [Date of access: July 5, 2008].
124. Jaszczolt, K. M. 2004. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse. Beijing: Peking University Press. Longman: Pearson Education Limited.
125. Kasher, A. 1984, Are Speech Acts Conventional? Journal of Pragmatics 8: 85-69.
126. Kasher, A. 1986. Politeness and Rationality. In J. Dines and H. Sonne (eds.) in collaboration with H. Haberland. Pragmatics and Linguistics: Festschrift for Jacob L. Mey. Odense: Odense University Press. 103-114.
127. Kasher, A. 1998. Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. Volume II: Speech Act Theory and Particular Speech Acts. London and New York: Routledge.
128. Kasper, G. 1990. Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 193-217.
129. Katz, J. J. 1977a. Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force. New York: Crowell.
130. Katz, J. J. 1990. Literal Meaning and Logical theory. In A. Burkhardt (ed.). 229-258.
131. Katz, A. N. et al. 1998. Counterpoint Commentary. In A. N. Katz et al (eds.). 1998.Figurative Language and Thought. New York: Oxford University Press. 158-192.
132. Keating, E. & M. Egbert. 2004. Conversation as a Cultural Activity. In A. Duranti (ed.). A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 169-196.
133. Kelly, S. D. et al. 1999. Offering a Hand to Pragmatic Understanding: The Role of Speech and Gesture in Comprehension and Memory. Journal of Memory and Language 40: 577–592.
134. Key M. R. 1982. Non-verbal Communication Today. Berlin: Water de Gruyter.
135. Korn, J. H. 1997. Illusions of Reality: A History of Deception in Social Psychology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
136. Kreckel, M. 1981. Where Do Constitutive Rules for Speech Acts Come from?. Language & Communication: 1: 73-88.
137. Kumon-Nakamura et al. 2007. How About Another Piece of Pie: The Allusional Pretense Theory of Discourse Irony. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. and H. L. Colston (eds.). 57-95.
138. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
139. Lakoff, R. 1972. Language in Context. Language 48: 907-927.
140. Lampert, M. D. and S. M. Ervin-Tripp. 2006. Risky Laughter: Teasing and Self-Directed Joking Among Male and Female Friends. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 51-72.
141. Laver, J. 1981. Linguistic Routines and Politeness in Greeting and Parting. In F. Coulmas (ed.). Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton. 289-304.
142. Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
143. Leiber, J. 1971. [Untitled Review Article of Symposium on J. L. Austin by K. T. Fann, 1969]. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 32: 118-120.
144. Lepore, E. and R. V. Gulick (eds.). 1991. John Searle and His Critics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
145. Leslie, A. M. 1987. Pretense and Representation: The Origins of“Theory of Mind”. Psychological Review 94: 412-426.
146. Leslie, A. M. 1994. Pretending and Believing: Issues in the Theory of ToMM. Cognition 50: 211-238.
147. Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
148. Lillard, A. S. 1993. Pretend Play Skills and the Child's Theory of Mind. Child Development 2: 348-371.
149. Lillard, A. S. 1996. Body or Mind: Children's Categorizing of Pretense. ChildDevelopment 4: 1717-1734.
150. Link, K. E. & R. J. Kreuz. 2005. Do Men and Women Use Figurative Language Differently when They Talk About Emotions? In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (eds.). 53-180.
151. Link, K. E. 2001. The Comprehension and Use of Ostensible Speech Acts. Unpublished PhD dissertation. The University of Memphis.
152. Link, K. E. 2003. Pretense in Spoken and Written Language. Unpublished manuscript.
153. Link, K. E. & R. J. Kreuz. 2005. The Comprehension of Ostensible Speech Acts. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 24: 227-251.
154. Long, D. L. & A. C. Graesser. 1988. Wit and Humor in Discourse Processing. Discourse Processes 11: 35-60.
155. MacKinnon, E. 1973. Language, Speech, and Speech-Acts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 34: 224-238
156. Malcolm, N. 1965. Understanding Austin. The Journal of Philosophy 62: 508-509.
157. Malinowski, B. 1923. The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages. Supplement to C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and the Science of Symbolism. New York: Harcourt Brace. 296-336.
158. Mann, W. C. 2003. Models of Intentions in Language. In P. Kühnlei, H. Rieser and H. Zeevat (eds.). Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium. 165-178.
159. Mann, W. C. and J. Kreutel. 2004. Speech Acts and Recognition of Insincerity. Catalog 2004, The 8th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. Barcelona. July 19-21.
160. Mannison, D. S. 1971. Calden on“Pretence”. Mind 317: 96-99.
161. Marcu, D. 2000. Perlocutions: The Achilles' heel of speech act theory. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1719-1741.
162. Margolis, J. 1963. "Lying is Wrong" and "Lying is not Always Wrong". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 23: 414-418.
163. Martin, R. A. 2007. The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Burlington: Elsevier.
164. McHoul A. 2002. How to Do Things with Things other than just Words. Semiotica 142–1/4: 419–431.
165. McIntosh, M. 1972. Language and Style. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 241-251.
166. Meggle, G. 1985. To Hell with Speech Act Theory. In M. Dascal (ed.). Dialogue: AnInterdisciplinary Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 205-211.
167. Meibauer, J. 2005, Lying and Falsely Implicating. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1373-1399.
168. Mey, J. (ed.). 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. (Chap. 3)
169. Migotti, M. 2003. All Kinds of Promises. Ethics114: 60-87.
170. Miller, E. 2000. Speech Acts and Conventions. Language Sciences 22: 155-166.
171. Moon, K. Speech Act Study: Differences Between Native and Nonnative Speaker Complaint Strategies. Available at http://www.american.edu/tesol/Kyunghye_Moon.pdf [Date of access: July 17, 2006].
172. Nash, W. 1990. Introduction: The stuff these people write. In W. Nash (ed.) The Writing Scholar Studies in Academic Discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
173. Nichols S. and S. Stich. 2000. A Cognitive Theory of Pretense. Cognition 74: 115-147.
174. Nichols, S. (ed.). 2006. The Architecture of the Imagination: New Essays on Pretence, Possibility, and Fiction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
175. Nordenstam, T. 1966. On Austin's Theory of Speech-Acts. Mind 75: 141-143.
176. Nugroho, A. 2002. The Contradiction of Certainty and Uncertainty in Hedging and Its Implications to Language Teaching. k@ta 4: 17-22.
177. Nuyts, J. 1993. Representation and Communication: Searle's Distinction Revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 20: 591-597.
178. Ogiermann, E. 2009, On Apologizing in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins..
179. Olshtain, E. and A. D. Cohen. 1983. Apology: A Speech-Act Set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds.). Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 18-35.
180. Pan, Yuling. 2000. Politeness in Chinese Face-to-Face Interaction. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
181. Paret, H. (ed.). 1994. Pretending to Communicate. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
182. Poggi, I. and C. Pelachaud. 1998. Performative Faces. Speech Communication 26: 5-21.
183. Popkin, S. 1998. Taking Compliments: J. L. Austin with Madeleine de Scudéry. A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 10.3: 82-118.
184. Rajagopalan, K. 2000. On Searle [on Austin] on language. Language & Communication 20: 347-391.
185. Reboul, A. 1994. The Description of Lies in Speech Acts Theory. In H. Paret (ed.). 292-298.
186. Recanati, F. 1987. Meaning and Force: The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances. Cambridge: CUP.
187. Recanati, F. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
188. Rolf, E. 1990. On the Concept of Action in Illocutionary Logic. In A. Burkhardt (ed.). 147-165.
189. Rose, K. R. 1992. Speech Acts and Questionnaires: The Effect of Hearer Response. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 49-62.
190. Rosen, C. S. et al. 1997. Preschoolers' Attributions of Mental States in Pretense. Child Development 68: 1133-1142.
191. Rosenberg, J. F. and C. Travis (eds.). 1971. Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
192. Sadock, J. M. 1974. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
193. Saeed, J. I. 1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
194. Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. 2006. A Comparative Sociopragmatic Study of Ostensible Invitations in English and Farsi. Speech Communication 48: 903-912.
195. Sapir, E. 1927. Language as a Form of Human Behavior. The English Journal 16: 421-433.
196. Sbisà, M. 2001. Illocutionary Force and Degrees of Strength in Language Use. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1791-1814.
197. Scollon, R. and S. W. Scollon. 1995. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
198. Searle, J. R. 1962. Meaning and Speech Acts. The Philosophical Review 71: 423-432.
199. Searle, J. R. 1965.‘What is a Speech Act?’. In M. Black (ed.). Philosophy in America. London: Allen & Unwin and Cornell University Press. Reprinted in P. P. Giglioli (ed.). 1972. Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd. 136-154.
200. Searle, J. R. 1966. [Untitled Review Article of Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts: A Main Theme in J. L. Austin's Philosophy by Mats Furberg, 1963]. The Philosophical Review 75: 389-391.
201. Searle, J. R. 1968. Austin on Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts. The Philosophical Review 77: 405-424.
202. Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
203. Searle, J. R. 1975. The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse. New Literary History 6: 319-332.
204. Searle, J. R. 1976. A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society 5: 1-23
205. Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
206. Searle, J. R. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
207. Searle, J. R. 1991. Response: Meaning, Intentionality, and Speech Act. In Lepore, E. and R. V. Gulick (eds.). 81-102.
208. Searle, J. R. 2002. Consciousness and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
209. Searle, J. R. and D. Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
210. Shibles, W. 1973. [Untitled Review Article of Symposium on J. L. Austin by K. T. Fann, 1969]. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 33: 443-444.
211. Simpson, D. 1992. Lying, Liars and Language. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52: 623-639.
212. Skinner, Q. 1971. On Performing and Explaining Linguistic Actions. The Philosophical Quarterly 21: 1-21.
213. Smith, B. (ed.). 2003b. John Searle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
214. Smith, B. 1987a. Husserl, Language, and the Ontology of the Act. In D. Buzzetti and M. Ferriani (eds.). Speculative Grammar, Universal Grammar, and Philosophical Analysis of Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 205-227.
215. Smith, B. 1987b. On the Cognition of States of Affairs. In K. Mulligan (ed.). Speech Act and Sachverhalt: Reinach and the Foundations of Realist Phenomenology, Dordrecht/Boston/ Lancaster: Nijhoff. 189-225.
216. Smith, B. 1990. Towards a History of Speech Act Theory. In A. Burkhardt (ed.). 29-61.
217. Smith, B. 2003a. John Searle: From Speech Acts to Social Reality. In B. Smith (ed.). 1-33.
218. Smith, V. L. & H. H. Clark. 1993. On the Course of Answering Questions. Journal of Memory & Language 32: 25-38.
219. Sperber, D. 1984. Verbal Irony: Pretense or Echoic Mention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113: 130-136.
220. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1981. Irony and the Use-Mention Distinction. In P. Cole (ed.). Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 295-318.
221. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
222. Stern, L. 1967. On Make-Believe. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 28:24-38.
223. Stevens, P. 1970. [Untitled Review Article of Symposium on J. L. Austin by K. T. Fann, 1969]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 21: 387-388.
224. Strawson, P. F. 1950. On Referring. Mind 59: 320-344.
225. Strawson, P. F. 1964. Intention and Convention in Speech Acts. The Philosophical Review 73: 439-460. Reprinted in J. F. Rosenberg and C. Travis (eds.). 599-614.
226. Streeck, J. 1980. Speech Acts in Interaction: A Critique of Searle. Discourse Processes 3: 133-153.
227. Suzuki, S. 2001. Self-mockery in Japanese. Linguistics 40-1: 163-189.
228. Talisse, R. B. Misunderstanding Socrates. 2002. Arion 9: 46-56.
229. Tanck, S. 2002. Speech Act Sets of Refusal and Complaint: A Comparison of Native and Non-Native English Speakers’Production. Available at: http://www.american.edu/tesol/wptanck.pdf#search [Date of access: January 17, 2008]
230. Tiersma, P. M. 1986. The Language of Offer and Acceptance: Speech Acts and the Question of Intent. California Law Review 74: 189-232.
231. Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.). 1994. Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge.
232. Urmson. J. O and G. J. Warnock. 1961. J. L. Austin. Mind 70: 256-257.
233. Utsumi, A. 2004. Stylistic and Contextual Effects in Irony Processing. Available at: http://www.utm.se.uec.ac.jp/~utsumi/paper/cogsci2004-utsumi.pdf [Date of access: July 7, 2006]
234. van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Context and Cognition: Knowledge Frames and Speech Act Comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics 1: 211-232.
235. van Hees, M. 2001. Intentions, Utility and Rationality. Available at: http://www.eco.rug.nl/som/somsemc/Papers2002/5maa.pdf [Date of access: July 7, 2007]
236. van Mulken, M. 1996. Politeness Markers in French and Dutch Requests. Language Sciences 18: 689-702.
237. van Oort, R. 1997. Performative-Constative Revisited: The Genetics of Austin's Theory of Speech Acts. Anthropoetics 2. Available at: http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/anthropoetics/Ap0202/home.html [Date of access: June 27, 2004]
238. Vanderveken, D. 1990. Meaning and Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
239. Vanderveken, D. 1994. A Complete Foundation of a Simple Logic of ElementaryIllocutionary Acts. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (ed.) 1994: 99-131.
240. Vanderveken, D. and S. Kubo (eds.). 2002. Essays in Speech Act Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
241. Verschueren, J. 1985. What People Say They Do with Words. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
242. Wallington, A. M. et al. 2006. Considerations on the Nature of Metaphorical Meaning Arising from a Computational Treatment of Metaphor Interpretation. In proceedings of the International Workshop on Inference in Computational Semantics (ICoS-5). Buxton, England, 20-21, 2006. Available at: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/W/W06//W06-2912.pdf [Date of access: November 7, 2008].
243. Walton, M. D. 1998. Ostensible Lies and the Negotiation of Shared Meanings. Discourse Processes 26: 27-41.
244. Warnock, G. J. 1971. Hare on Meaning and Speech Acts. The Philosophical Review 80: 80-84.
245. Wharton, T. 2009. Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: CUP.
246. White, A. R. 1970. [Untitled Review Article of Symposium on J. L. Austin by K. T. Fann, 1969]. The Philosophical Quarterly 20: 181-182.
247. Wilson, D. 2006. The Pragmatics of Verbal Irony: Echo or Pretence? Lingua 116: 1722-1743.
248. Wittgenstein, L. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. G. E. M. Anscombe (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
249. Wolfson, N. 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge: Newbury House.
250. Woronov, N. and Y. F. Chi. 1981. Modern American English: Living & Learning in the West. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
251. Yu, M. C. 2003. On the Universality of Face Evidence from Chinese Compliment Response Behavior. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1679–1710.
252. Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
253. Zhan, Kaidi. 1992. The Strategies of Politeness in the Chinese Language. Berkeley, CA: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California at Berkeley.
254. Zhang, Shaojie and Yu Xiucheng. 2011. How Success Conditions Differ From Felicity Conditions. Manuscript.
255. Ziff, P. 1967. On H. P. Grice's Account of Meaning. Analysis 28:1-8.
256.毕继万,1996,““礼貌”的文化特性研究”,《世界汉语教学》,第1期,第51-59页。
257.蔡建平,李小平,1998,“论礼貌的恰当性”,《解放军外语学院学报》,第4期,第30-34页。
258.曹合建,1997,“副语言与话语含义”,《外国语》,第5期,第17-20页。
259.陈嘉映,2004,“我们怎么假装---介绍奥斯汀的一篇论文”,《中文自学指导》,第1期,第40-42页。
260.丁凤,2002,“汉语请求言语行为中的性别差异”,《西安外国语学院学报》,第1期,第46-50页。
261.杜士洪,2006,“我们无法“假装假装”---有感于奥斯汀和陈嘉映有关假装的论说”,《外语学刊》,第6期,第11-15页。
262.杜士洪,赖成彬,2007,“假装、连环假装与“假装假装”---从奥斯汀和陈嘉映谈起”,《自然辩证法通讯》,第1期,第28-34页。
263.冯友,2006,“英汉称赞语回应策略差异的优选论解释”,《外国语》,第4期,第27-32页。
264.顾曰国,1989,“奥斯汀的言语行为理论:诠释与批判”,《外语教学与研究》,第1期,第30-39页。
265.顾曰国,1992,“礼貌、语用与文化”,《外语教学与研究》,第4期,第10-17页。266.顾曰国,1994a,“John Searle的言语行为理论与心智哲学”,《国外语言学》,第2期,第1-8页。
267.顾曰国,1994b,“John Searle的言语行为理论:评判与借鉴”,《国外语言学》,第3期,第10-16页。
268.韩沁彤,2006,《3～5岁儿童假装认知发展研究》,长春:东北师范大学硕士论文。
269.何琳琳,李红,潘春妮,2005,“关于学前儿童假装研究综述”,《郑州航空工业管理学院学报》(社会科学版),第1期,第111-114页。
270.胡超,2001,“英汉赞语应答对比研究”,《西安外国语学院学报》,第3期,第44-47,48页。
271.何自然,1999,《语用学与英语学习》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
272.胡壮麟(主编),2001,《语言学教程》(修订版),北京:北京大学出版社。
273.胡壮麟(主编),2006,《语言学教程》(第三版),北京:北京大学出版社。
274.黄永红2001,“对言语行为“道歉”的跨文化研究”,《解放军外国语学院学报》,第5期,第33-36页。
275.姜孟,阚哲华,2005,“探析言语行为会话含义指示理论创立及成为语用学奠基理论的哲学语言学机缘”《四川外语学院学报》,第4期,第75-78页。
276.姜望琪,2000,《语用学---理论及其应用》,北京:北京大学出版社。
277.姜望琪,2003,《当代语用学》,北京:北京大学出版社。
278.李凤琴,2005,“身势语的本体论探索与解读”,《外语教学》,第3期,第32-35页。
279.李悦娥,马江鸿,2000,“析普通话话语中的赞扬及其应答”,《外语与外语教学》,第9期,第28-32页。
280.梁骏,2000,“塞尔言语行为理论探析”,《北京行政学院学报》,第2期,第70-73页。
281.卢伟,2002,““祝颂”言语行为的汉英对比”,《厦门大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),第3期,第115-122页。
282.倪伟,熊哲宏,2007,“假装游戏研究:过去、现在及未来”,《心理科学》,第4期,第1020-1022页。
283.钱冠连,1999a,“哲学轨道上的语言研究”,《外国语》,第6期,第9-16页。
284.钱冠连,1999b,“语用学的哲学渊源”,《外语与外语教学》,第6期,第4-7,11页。
285.钱冠连,2000,“哲学轨道上的语言研究”,《解放军外国语学院学报》,第1期,第21-23页。
286.权立宏,2004,“汉语中男女在称赞语和称赞语回应使用上的差异分析”,《现代外语》,第1期,第62-69页。
287.瓦诺克(G. J. Warnock),1969,“奥斯汀传略”(杨玉成摘译),载杨玉成,2002,第201-218页。
288.瓦诺克(G. J. Warnock),1973,“周六晨会”(杨玉成摘译),载杨玉成,2002,第219-226页。
289.王爱华,2001,“英汉拒绝言语行为表达模式调查”,《外语教学与研究》,第3期,第178-185页。
290.王桂琴,方格,2003,3-5岁儿童对假装的辨认和对假装者心理的推断《心理学报》,第5期,第662-668页。
291.王桂琴,方格,杨小冬,2003,“儿童对假装的认知发展的研究进展”,《心理科学》,第5期,第898-900页。
292.王建华,1998,“礼貌的相对性”,《外国语》,第3期,第18-22页。
293.王陆,2001,“汉英称赞应对模式比较”,《天津外国语学院学报》,第4期,第28-33页。
294.王天思,2005,“哲学研究中描述转向的语言哲学视域”,《江西社会科学》,第7期,第52-58页。
295.王西成,曾涛,2000,“也谈礼貌原则---兼与顾曰国先生商榷”,《湖南大学学报》(社会科学版),第2期,第80-84页。
296.王晓萍,1998,“当代语言哲学中句子意义论的发展---评奥斯汀、塞尔言语行为论的主要观点”,《学术研究》,第6期,第33-36页。
297.王燕,徐慧,2006,“现代汉语道歉言语行为策略研究”,《现代语文》(语言研究版),第11期,第92-93页。
298.肖亮荣,2000,“从间接言语行为理论看Searle的语言哲学观”,《山东外语教学》,第3期,第11-14页。
299.徐畅贤,“英语模糊限制语的语用功能”,《外语教学》,2006年第4期。
300.杨玉成,2002,《奥斯汀:语言现象学与哲学》,商务印书馆。
301.杨玉成,2003,“奥斯汀的语言探究和伦理问题”,《道德与文明》,第3期,第46-50页。
302.杨毓隽,2002,“模糊限制语与言语交际”,《外语教学》,第4期,第49-53页。
303.杨忠(主编),2002,《语言学概论》,北京:高等教育出版社。
304.于秀成,2002,《从塞尔的适切条件看汉语非真诚性邀请》,长春:东北师范大学硕士论文。
305.于秀成,张绍杰,2010,“汉语非真诚性邀请行为的语用特征”,《外语与外语教学》,第4期,第49-53页。
306.俞东明,1998,“语用学的哲学基础说略”,《浙江大学学报》,第2期,第102-105页。
307.张景华,“语言的模糊性和模糊限制语的语用功能”,《西华大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2008年第5期。
308.张绍杰,1994,“言语行为与施为动词”,《外语与外语教学》,第5期,第36-39页。
309.张绍杰,王晓彤,1997,“请求”言语行为的对比研究”,《现代外语》,第3期,第64-73页。
310.赵英玲,2003,“论英汉直接抱怨语”,《外语学刊》,第2期,第20-24页。
311.朱湘燕,2004,“汉语批评语用策略调查”,《语言文字应用》,第1期,第96-104页。
2. Agerri et al, 2007. Default Inferences in Metaphor Interpretation. In B. Kokinov et al. (eds.). Context. 2007: 1-14.
3. Aldrich, V. C. 1966. Behavior, Simulating and Nonsimulating. The Journal of Philosophy 16: 453-457.
4. Al-Khatib, M. A. 2006. The Pragmatics of Invitation Making and Acceptance in Jordanian Society. Journal of Language and Linguistics 5: 272-294.
5. Allan, K. 2003. Meaning and speech acts. Available at http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/ling/staff/allan/papers/speech_acts.html [Date of access: August 27, 2004]
6. Allwood, J. 1977. A Critical Look at Speech Act Theory. In ?. Dahl (ed.). Logic, Pragmatics and Grammar. University of Gothenberg, Department of Linguistics. 53-69.
7. Alston, W. P. 1991. Searle on Illocutionary Acts. In Lepore and Gulick (eds.). 57-81.
8. Amante, D. J. 1981. The Theory of Ironic Speech Acts. Poetics Today 2: 77-96.
9. Anolli, L. et al. (eds.). 2002. Say Not to Say: New Perspectives on Miscommunication. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
10. Anscombe, G. E. M. 1958. Pretending. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 32: 279-294.
11. Attardo, S. 1997. Locutionary and Perlocutionary Cooperation: The Perlocutionary Cooperative Principle. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 753-779.
12. Austin, J. L. 1958. Pretending. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 32: 261-278.
13. Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Bach, K. 2006. Speech Acts and Pragmatics. In M. Devitt & R. Hanley (eds.). 147-167.
15. Bach, K. and R. M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
16. Bakhurst, D. 1992. On Lying and Deceiving. Journal of Medical Ethics 18: 63-66.
17. Barnden, J. A. and M. G. Lee. 2001. Understanding Open-Ended Usages of Familiar Conceptual Metaphors: An Approach and Artificial Intelligence System (Technical Report CSRP-01-05). School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham. Available at: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jab/ATT-Meta/Papers/attmeta.CSRP-01-05.pdf[Date of Access: November 7, 2008].
18. Barnden, J. A. et al. 2002. Asymmetry and Reverse Transfers in Metaphor (Technical Report CSRP-02-9). School of Computer Science, the University of Birmingham, UK. Available at: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jab/ATT-Meta/Papers/reversibility.CSRP-02-09.pdf [Date of Access: November 7, 2008].
19. Barr, D. J. 2003. Paralinguistic Correlates of Conceptual Structure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10: 462-467.
20. Barrett, C. 1969. Not Exactly Pretending. Philosophy 44: 331-338.
21. Beattie, G. 1983. Talk: An Analysis of Speech and Non-Verbal Behaviour in Conversation. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
22. Beaver, E. T. Wittgenstein’s Meaning and Use in Philosophical Investigations, Searle’s Speech Act Theory in“What is a Speech Act?’: An Exposition and Composition. Philosophy of Language. Available at http://www3.baylor.edu/~Elijah_Beaver/witterm.htm [Date of access: August 25, 2004]
23. Bilbow, G. T. 2002. Commissive Speech Act Use in Intercultural Business Meetings. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 40: 287-303.
24. Binkley, T. 1974. Real and Pretend. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4: 560-568.
25. Bird, A. 2002. Illocutionary Silencing. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 83: 1-15.
26. Blum-Kulka, S. 1985. Modifiers as Indicating Devices: The Case of Requests. Theoretical Linguistics 12: 213-229.
27. Boxer, D. 1993. Social Distance and Speech Behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics 19: 103-125.
28. Brennan, S. E. & M. Williams. 1995. The Feeling of Another’s Knowing: Prosody and Filled Pauses as Cues to Listeners about the Metacognitive States of Speakers. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 383-398.
29. Brodbeck, M. 1963. Meaning and Action. Philosophy of Science 30: 309-324.
30. Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Burkhardt, A. (ed.). 1990a. Speech Acts, Meaning and Intentions: Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John Searle. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, New York.
32. Burkhardt, A. 1990b. Speech Act Theory– The Decline of a Paradigm. In A. Burkhardt (ed.). 91-128.
33. Caldwell, R. L. 1968. Pretence. Mind 305: 48-57.
34. Campbell, J. G. 1992. A Critical Survey of Some Recent Philosophical Theories ofMetaphor. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Washington University in St. Louise.
35. Cappelen, H. and E. Lepore. 2002. Radical and Moderate Pragmatics: Does Meaning Determine Truth Conditions? In Z. Szabo (ed.). Semantics vs. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. 45-71.
36. Champlin, T. S. 1990. [Untitled Review Article of J. L. Austin by G. L. Warnock, 1989]. Philosophy 65: 526-528.
37. Chapman, S. 2000. Philosophy for Linguists: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
38. Chisholm R. M. and T. D. Feehan. 1977. The Intent to Deceive. Journal of Philosophy 74:143-159.
39. Chisholm, R. M. 1964. J. L. Austin's Philosophical Papers. Mind 73: 1-26.
40. Clark, H. H. 1979. Responding to Indirect Speech Acts. Cognitive Psychology 11: 430-477.
41. Clark, H. H. 1992. Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
42. Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Clark, H. H. and D. H. Schunk, 1980. Polite Responses to Polite Requests. Cognition 8: 111-143.
44. Clark, H. H. and R. J. Gerrig. 1990. Quotations as Demonstrations. Language 66: 764-805.
45. Clark, H. H. and R. J. Gerrig. 2007. On the Pretense Theory of Irony. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. and H. L. Colston (eds.). 25-33.
46. Cohen, L. J. 1964. Do Illocutionary Forces Exist? The Philosophical Quarterly 14: 118-137.
47. Cohen, L. J. 1970. Searle's Theory of Speech Acts. The Philosophical Review 79: 545-557.
48. Cole, P. & J. L. Morgan (eds.). 1975. Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3 Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.
49. Coleman, L. and P. Kay. 1981. Prototype Semantics: The English Word Lie. Language 57: 26-44.
50. Colston, H. L. & A. N. Katz (eds.). 2005. Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51. Coulthard. M. (ed.). 1992. Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. New York: Routledge.
52. Croddy, W. S. 1988. Meaning and Intention. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 1-11.
53. Crosby, J. F. 1990. Speech Act Theory and Phenomenology. In A. Burkhardt (ed.). 62-88.
54. Currie, G. 2005. Pretence and Pretending. Arts and Minds. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. 191-210.
55. Currie, G. 2006. Why Irony is Pretence. In S. Nichols (ed.). 111-133.
56. Davila1, J. C. 2004. Forgiveness as a Function of Offense Severity, Apology Extensiveness, and Perceived Sincerity: A Theoretical Model. Available at http://www.agrh2004-esg.uqam.ca/pdf/Tome2/Davila.pdf [Date of access: November 7, 2007].
57. Davison, A. 1979. On the Semantics of Speech Acts. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 413-429.
58. Devitt, M & R. Hanley (eds.). The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language. 2006. Oxford: Blackwell.
59. Duranti, A. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. 2002. Requesting Strategies in English and Greek: Observations from an Airline’s Call Centre. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 17: 17-32.
61. Ervin-Tripp, S. M. 1972. Sociolinguistic Rules of Address. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 225-239.
62. Escandell-Vidal, V. 1996. Towards a Cognitive Approach to Politeness. Language Sciences 18: 629-650.
63. Eslami, Z. R. 2005. Invitations in Persian and English: Ostensible or Genuine? Intercultural Pragmatics 2: 453–480.
64. Esposito, A. et al (eds.). 2007. Verbal and Nonverbal Communication Behaviours. Berlin: Springer.
65. Falkenberg, G. 1990. Searle on Sincerity. In A. Burkhardt (ed.). 129-146.
66. Fasold, R. W. 1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
67. Fein, G. G. 1981. Pretend Play in Childhood: An Integrative Review. Child Development 4: 1095-1118.
68. Felix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2003. Declining an Invitation: A Cross-Cultural Study of Pragmatic Strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish. Multilingua 22: 225-255.
69. Feng, Z. 2000. The Pragmatics of English Dialogues in the Chinese Context. Paper presented at the 4th workshop of Gotalog 2000. Gothenburg University.
70. Fleming, B. N. 1964. On Intention. The Philosophical Review 73: 301-320.
71. Flicker, S. 2004.“Ask Me No Secrets, I’ll Tell You No Lies”: What Happens When a Respondent’s Story Makes No Sense. The Qualitative Report 9: 528-537.
72. Fong, M. 2000.‘Luck Talk’in celebrating the Chinese New Year. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 219-237.
73. Frake, C. O. 1972. How to Ask for a Drink in Subanum. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 260-266.
74. Fraser, B. 1974. A Partial Analysis of Vernacular Performative Verbs. In R. Shuy, and C. Bailey (eds.). Towards Tomorrow’s Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 139-158.
75. Fraser, B. 1975. Hedged Performatives. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.). 187-210.
76. Fraser, B. 1990. Perspectives on Politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219-236.
77. Fussell, S. R. and R. J. Kreuz (eds.). 1998. Social and Cognitive Approaches to Interpersonal Communication. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
78. Gale, R. M. 1971. The Fictive Use of Language. Philosophy 46: 324-340.
79. Gao, H. 1999. Features of Request Strategies in Chinese. Working Papers 47: 73-86.
80. García, C. 1996. Teaching Speech Act Performance: Declining an Invitation. Hispania 79: 267-279.
81. Gardner, D. S. 1983. Performativity in Ritual: The Mianmin Case. Man 18: 346-360.
82. Garner, R. T. 1968. Utterances and Acts in the Philosophy of J. L. Austin. No?s 2: 209-227.
83. Gazdar, G. 1981. Speech Act Assignment. In A. Joshi, B. Webber and I. Sag (eds.). Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 64-83.
84. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1983. Do People Always Process the Literal Meanings of Indirect Requests?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 9: 524-533.
85. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1986. What Makes Some Indirect Speech Acts Conventional? Journal of Memory and Language 25: 181–196.
86. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1999. Interpreting What Speakers Say and Implicate. Brain and Language 68: 466-485.
87. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 2004. Intentions in the Experience of Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
88. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 2007. Irony in Talk Among Friends. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. and H. L. Colston (eds.). 339-360.
89. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. and H. L. Colston (eds.). 2007. Irony in Language and Thought: A Cognitive Science Reader. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
90. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. and H. L. Colston. 2002. The Risks and Rewards of Ironic Communication. In L. Anolli et al. (eds.). 181-194.
91. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. and J. F. Moise. 1997. Pragmatics in Understanding What Is Said. Cognition 62: 51-74.
92. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. and S. M. Delaney, 1987. Pragmatic Factors in Making and Understanding Promises. Discourse Processes 10: 107-126.
93. Glenn, P. J. 2003. Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP.
94. Goldkuhl, G. 2003. Conversational Analysis as a Theoretical Foundation for Language Action Approaches. Available at http://www.vits.org/publikationer/dokument/334.pdf [Date of access: July 17, 2006].
95. Green, O. H. 1969. Intentions and Speech Acts. Analysis 29: 109-112.
96. Grice, H. P. 1957. Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66: 377-388.
97. Grice, H. P. 1969. Utterer's Meaning and Intention. The Philosophical Review 78: 147-177.
98. Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way Of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
99. Grossmann, R. 1960. Propositional Attitudes. The Philosophical Quarterly 10: 301-312.
100. Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 237-257.
101. Gumperz, J. J. 1972. Sociolinguistics and Communication in Small Groups. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 203-223.
102. Habermas. J. 1991. Comments on John Searle:“Meaning, Communication, and Representation”. In E. Lepore and R. V. Gulick (eds.). 17-29.
103. Habermas. J. 1998. On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
104. Halion, K. 1992. Parasitic Speech Acts: Austin, Searle, Derrida. Philosophy Today 36: 161-172.
105. Hancher, M. 1972. Three Kinds of Intention. MLN 87: 827-851.
106. Hancher, M. 1979. The Classification of Cooperative Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society 8: 1-14.
107. Hancock, J. T. 2003. Some Pieces of the“Humor in the Interface”Puzzle: Expectations, Common Ground and Discourse Goals. Position paper in A. Nijholt et al. (eds.). Modeling Humor in the Interface. Workshop held at the ACM Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (CHI2003). Fort Lauderdale: Florida.
108. Hare, R. M. 1970. Meaning and Speech Acts. The Philosophical Review 79: 3-24.
109. Harnish, R. M. 1979. Meaning and Speech Acts. Lingua 49: 331-354.
110. Harnish, R. M. 1980. [Untitled Review Article of Words and Deeds: Problems in the Theory of Speech Acts by David Holdcroft]. The Journal of Philosophy 77: 495-501.
111. Harnish, R. M. 1990. Speech Acts and Intentionality. In A. Burkhardt (ed.). 169-193.
112. Haslett, B. 1987. Communication: Strategic Action in Context. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
113. Haverkate, H. 1990. A Speech Act Analysis of Irony. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 77-109.
114. Helm, P. 1971. Pretending and Intending. Analysis 4: 127-132.
115. Henry, R. 1996. Pretending and Meaning: Toward a Pragmatic Theory of Fictional Discourse. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
116. Hinde, R. A. (ed.). 1972. Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: CUP.
117. Holdcroft, D. 1979. Speech Acts and Conversation--I. The Philosophical Quarterly 29: 125-141.
118. Holdcroft, D. 1990. [Untitled Review Article of J. L. Austin by G. J. Warnock, 1989]. The Philosophical Quarterly 40: 522-524.
119. Holtgraves, T. 2002. Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
120. Holtgraves, T. 2005. The Production and Perception of Implicit Performatives. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 2024-2043.
121. Hymes, D. H. 1972. On Communicative Competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 269-293.
122. Isaacs, E. and H. H. Clark. 1990. Ostensible Invitations. Language in Society 19: 493-509.
123. Jarrold, C. et al. 1994. Pretend Play: Is it Metarepresentational? Mind and Language
9: 445-468. Available at http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/pcarruthers/Pretend-play.htm [Date of access: July 5, 2008].
124. Jaszczolt, K. M. 2004. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse. Beijing: Peking University Press. Longman: Pearson Education Limited.
125. Kasher, A. 1984, Are Speech Acts Conventional? Journal of Pragmatics 8: 85-69.
126. Kasher, A. 1986. Politeness and Rationality. In J. Dines and H. Sonne (eds.) in collaboration with H. Haberland. Pragmatics and Linguistics: Festschrift for Jacob L. Mey. Odense: Odense University Press. 103-114.
127. Kasher, A. 1998. Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. Volume II: Speech Act Theory and Particular Speech Acts. London and New York: Routledge.
128. Kasper, G. 1990. Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 193-217.
129. Katz, J. J. 1977a. Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force. New York: Crowell.
130. Katz, J. J. 1990. Literal Meaning and Logical theory. In A. Burkhardt (ed.). 229-258.
131. Katz, A. N. et al. 1998. Counterpoint Commentary. In A. N. Katz et al (eds.). 1998.Figurative Language and Thought. New York: Oxford University Press. 158-192.
132. Keating, E. & M. Egbert. 2004. Conversation as a Cultural Activity. In A. Duranti (ed.). A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 169-196.
133. Kelly, S. D. et al. 1999. Offering a Hand to Pragmatic Understanding: The Role of Speech and Gesture in Comprehension and Memory. Journal of Memory and Language 40: 577–592.
134. Key M. R. 1982. Non-verbal Communication Today. Berlin: Water de Gruyter.
135. Korn, J. H. 1997. Illusions of Reality: A History of Deception in Social Psychology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
136. Kreckel, M. 1981. Where Do Constitutive Rules for Speech Acts Come from?. Language & Communication: 1: 73-88.
137. Kumon-Nakamura et al. 2007. How About Another Piece of Pie: The Allusional Pretense Theory of Discourse Irony. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. and H. L. Colston (eds.). 57-95.
138. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
139. Lakoff, R. 1972. Language in Context. Language 48: 907-927.
140. Lampert, M. D. and S. M. Ervin-Tripp. 2006. Risky Laughter: Teasing and Self-Directed Joking Among Male and Female Friends. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 51-72.
141. Laver, J. 1981. Linguistic Routines and Politeness in Greeting and Parting. In F. Coulmas (ed.). Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton. 289-304.
142. Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
143. Leiber, J. 1971. [Untitled Review Article of Symposium on J. L. Austin by K. T. Fann, 1969]. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 32: 118-120.
144. Lepore, E. and R. V. Gulick (eds.). 1991. John Searle and His Critics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
145. Leslie, A. M. 1987. Pretense and Representation: The Origins of“Theory of Mind”. Psychological Review 94: 412-426.
146. Leslie, A. M. 1994. Pretending and Believing: Issues in the Theory of ToMM. Cognition 50: 211-238.
147. Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
148. Lillard, A. S. 1993. Pretend Play Skills and the Child's Theory of Mind. Child Development 2: 348-371.
149. Lillard, A. S. 1996. Body or Mind: Children's Categorizing of Pretense. ChildDevelopment 4: 1717-1734.
150. Link, K. E. & R. J. Kreuz. 2005. Do Men and Women Use Figurative Language Differently when They Talk About Emotions? In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (eds.). 53-180.
151. Link, K. E. 2001. The Comprehension and Use of Ostensible Speech Acts. Unpublished PhD dissertation. The University of Memphis.
152. Link, K. E. 2003. Pretense in Spoken and Written Language. Unpublished manuscript.
153. Link, K. E. & R. J. Kreuz. 2005. The Comprehension of Ostensible Speech Acts. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 24: 227-251.
154. Long, D. L. & A. C. Graesser. 1988. Wit and Humor in Discourse Processing. Discourse Processes 11: 35-60.
155. MacKinnon, E. 1973. Language, Speech, and Speech-Acts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 34: 224-238
156. Malcolm, N. 1965. Understanding Austin. The Journal of Philosophy 62: 508-509.
157. Malinowski, B. 1923. The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages. Supplement to C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and the Science of Symbolism. New York: Harcourt Brace. 296-336.
158. Mann, W. C. 2003. Models of Intentions in Language. In P. Kühnlei, H. Rieser and H. Zeevat (eds.). Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium. 165-178.
159. Mann, W. C. and J. Kreutel. 2004. Speech Acts and Recognition of Insincerity. Catalog 2004, The 8th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. Barcelona. July 19-21.
160. Mannison, D. S. 1971. Calden on“Pretence”. Mind 317: 96-99.
161. Marcu, D. 2000. Perlocutions: The Achilles' heel of speech act theory. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1719-1741.
162. Margolis, J. 1963. "Lying is Wrong" and "Lying is not Always Wrong". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 23: 414-418.
163. Martin, R. A. 2007. The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Burlington: Elsevier.
164. McHoul A. 2002. How to Do Things with Things other than just Words. Semiotica 142–1/4: 419–431.
165. McIntosh, M. 1972. Language and Style. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 241-251.
166. Meggle, G. 1985. To Hell with Speech Act Theory. In M. Dascal (ed.). Dialogue: AnInterdisciplinary Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 205-211.
167. Meibauer, J. 2005, Lying and Falsely Implicating. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1373-1399.
168. Mey, J. (ed.). 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. (Chap. 3)
169. Migotti, M. 2003. All Kinds of Promises. Ethics114: 60-87.
170. Miller, E. 2000. Speech Acts and Conventions. Language Sciences 22: 155-166.
171. Moon, K. Speech Act Study: Differences Between Native and Nonnative Speaker Complaint Strategies. Available at http://www.american.edu/tesol/Kyunghye_Moon.pdf [Date of access: July 17, 2006].
172. Nash, W. 1990. Introduction: The stuff these people write. In W. Nash (ed.) The Writing Scholar Studies in Academic Discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
173. Nichols S. and S. Stich. 2000. A Cognitive Theory of Pretense. Cognition 74: 115-147.
174. Nichols, S. (ed.). 2006. The Architecture of the Imagination: New Essays on Pretence, Possibility, and Fiction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
175. Nordenstam, T. 1966. On Austin's Theory of Speech-Acts. Mind 75: 141-143.
176. Nugroho, A. 2002. The Contradiction of Certainty and Uncertainty in Hedging and Its Implications to Language Teaching. k@ta 4: 17-22.
177. Nuyts, J. 1993. Representation and Communication: Searle's Distinction Revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 20: 591-597.
178. Ogiermann, E. 2009, On Apologizing in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins..
179. Olshtain, E. and A. D. Cohen. 1983. Apology: A Speech-Act Set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds.). Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 18-35.
180. Pan, Yuling. 2000. Politeness in Chinese Face-to-Face Interaction. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
181. Paret, H. (ed.). 1994. Pretending to Communicate. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
182. Poggi, I. and C. Pelachaud. 1998. Performative Faces. Speech Communication 26: 5-21.
183. Popkin, S. 1998. Taking Compliments: J. L. Austin with Madeleine de Scudéry. A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 10.3: 82-118.
184. Rajagopalan, K. 2000. On Searle [on Austin] on language. Language & Communication 20: 347-391.
185. Reboul, A. 1994. The Description of Lies in Speech Acts Theory. In H. Paret (ed.). 292-298.
186. Recanati, F. 1987. Meaning and Force: The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances. Cambridge: CUP.
187. Recanati, F. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
188. Rolf, E. 1990. On the Concept of Action in Illocutionary Logic. In A. Burkhardt (ed.). 147-165.
189. Rose, K. R. 1992. Speech Acts and Questionnaires: The Effect of Hearer Response. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 49-62.
190. Rosen, C. S. et al. 1997. Preschoolers' Attributions of Mental States in Pretense. Child Development 68: 1133-1142.
191. Rosenberg, J. F. and C. Travis (eds.). 1971. Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
192. Sadock, J. M. 1974. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
193. Saeed, J. I. 1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
194. Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. 2006. A Comparative Sociopragmatic Study of Ostensible Invitations in English and Farsi. Speech Communication 48: 903-912.
195. Sapir, E. 1927. Language as a Form of Human Behavior. The English Journal 16: 421-433.
196. Sbisà, M. 2001. Illocutionary Force and Degrees of Strength in Language Use. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1791-1814.
197. Scollon, R. and S. W. Scollon. 1995. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
198. Searle, J. R. 1962. Meaning and Speech Acts. The Philosophical Review 71: 423-432.
199. Searle, J. R. 1965.‘What is a Speech Act?’. In M. Black (ed.). Philosophy in America. London: Allen & Unwin and Cornell University Press. Reprinted in P. P. Giglioli (ed.). 1972. Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd. 136-154.
200. Searle, J. R. 1966. [Untitled Review Article of Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts: A Main Theme in J. L. Austin's Philosophy by Mats Furberg, 1963]. The Philosophical Review 75: 389-391.
201. Searle, J. R. 1968. Austin on Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts. The Philosophical Review 77: 405-424.
202. Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
203. Searle, J. R. 1975. The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse. New Literary History 6: 319-332.
204. Searle, J. R. 1976. A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society 5: 1-23
205. Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
206. Searle, J. R. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
207. Searle, J. R. 1991. Response: Meaning, Intentionality, and Speech Act. In Lepore, E. and R. V. Gulick (eds.). 81-102.
208. Searle, J. R. 2002. Consciousness and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
209. Searle, J. R. and D. Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
210. Shibles, W. 1973. [Untitled Review Article of Symposium on J. L. Austin by K. T. Fann, 1969]. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 33: 443-444.
211. Simpson, D. 1992. Lying, Liars and Language. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52: 623-639.
212. Skinner, Q. 1971. On Performing and Explaining Linguistic Actions. The Philosophical Quarterly 21: 1-21.
213. Smith, B. (ed.). 2003b. John Searle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
214. Smith, B. 1987a. Husserl, Language, and the Ontology of the Act. In D. Buzzetti and M. Ferriani (eds.). Speculative Grammar, Universal Grammar, and Philosophical Analysis of Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 205-227.
215. Smith, B. 1987b. On the Cognition of States of Affairs. In K. Mulligan (ed.). Speech Act and Sachverhalt: Reinach and the Foundations of Realist Phenomenology, Dordrecht/Boston/ Lancaster: Nijhoff. 189-225.
216. Smith, B. 1990. Towards a History of Speech Act Theory. In A. Burkhardt (ed.). 29-61.
217. Smith, B. 2003a. John Searle: From Speech Acts to Social Reality. In B. Smith (ed.). 1-33.
218. Smith, V. L. & H. H. Clark. 1993. On the Course of Answering Questions. Journal of Memory & Language 32: 25-38.
219. Sperber, D. 1984. Verbal Irony: Pretense or Echoic Mention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113: 130-136.
220. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1981. Irony and the Use-Mention Distinction. In P. Cole (ed.). Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 295-318.
221. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
222. Stern, L. 1967. On Make-Believe. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 28:24-38.
223. Stevens, P. 1970. [Untitled Review Article of Symposium on J. L. Austin by K. T. Fann, 1969]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 21: 387-388.
224. Strawson, P. F. 1950. On Referring. Mind 59: 320-344.
225. Strawson, P. F. 1964. Intention and Convention in Speech Acts. The Philosophical Review 73: 439-460. Reprinted in J. F. Rosenberg and C. Travis (eds.). 599-614.
226. Streeck, J. 1980. Speech Acts in Interaction: A Critique of Searle. Discourse Processes 3: 133-153.
227. Suzuki, S. 2001. Self-mockery in Japanese. Linguistics 40-1: 163-189.
228. Talisse, R. B. Misunderstanding Socrates. 2002. Arion 9: 46-56.
229. Tanck, S. 2002. Speech Act Sets of Refusal and Complaint: A Comparison of Native and Non-Native English Speakers’Production. Available at: http://www.american.edu/tesol/wptanck.pdf#search [Date of access: January 17, 2008]
230. Tiersma, P. M. 1986. The Language of Offer and Acceptance: Speech Acts and the Question of Intent. California Law Review 74: 189-232.
231. Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.). 1994. Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge.
232. Urmson. J. O and G. J. Warnock. 1961. J. L. Austin. Mind 70: 256-257.
233. Utsumi, A. 2004. Stylistic and Contextual Effects in Irony Processing. Available at: http://www.utm.se.uec.ac.jp/~utsumi/paper/cogsci2004-utsumi.pdf [Date of access: July 7, 2006]
234. van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Context and Cognition: Knowledge Frames and Speech Act Comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics 1: 211-232.
235. van Hees, M. 2001. Intentions, Utility and Rationality. Available at: http://www.eco.rug.nl/som/somsemc/Papers2002/5maa.pdf [Date of access: July 7, 2007]
236. van Mulken, M. 1996. Politeness Markers in French and Dutch Requests. Language Sciences 18: 689-702.
237. van Oort, R. 1997. Performative-Constative Revisited: The Genetics of Austin's Theory of Speech Acts. Anthropoetics 2. Available at: http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/anthropoetics/Ap0202/home.html [Date of access: June 27, 2004]
238. Vanderveken, D. 1990. Meaning and Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
239. Vanderveken, D. 1994. A Complete Foundation of a Simple Logic of ElementaryIllocutionary Acts. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (ed.) 1994: 99-131.
240. Vanderveken, D. and S. Kubo (eds.). 2002. Essays in Speech Act Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
241. Verschueren, J. 1985. What People Say They Do with Words. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
242. Wallington, A. M. et al. 2006. Considerations on the Nature of Metaphorical Meaning Arising from a Computational Treatment of Metaphor Interpretation. In proceedings of the International Workshop on Inference in Computational Semantics (ICoS-5). Buxton, England, 20-21, 2006. Available at: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/W/W06//W06-2912.pdf [Date of access: November 7, 2008].
243. Walton, M. D. 1998. Ostensible Lies and the Negotiation of Shared Meanings. Discourse Processes 26: 27-41.
244. Warnock, G. J. 1971. Hare on Meaning and Speech Acts. The Philosophical Review 80: 80-84.
245. Wharton, T. 2009. Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: CUP.
246. White, A. R. 1970. [Untitled Review Article of Symposium on J. L. Austin by K. T. Fann, 1969]. The Philosophical Quarterly 20: 181-182.
247. Wilson, D. 2006. The Pragmatics of Verbal Irony: Echo or Pretence? Lingua 116: 1722-1743.
248. Wittgenstein, L. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. G. E. M. Anscombe (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
249. Wolfson, N. 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge: Newbury House.
250. Woronov, N. and Y. F. Chi. 1981. Modern American English: Living & Learning in the West. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
251. Yu, M. C. 2003. On the Universality of Face Evidence from Chinese Compliment Response Behavior. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1679–1710.
252. Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
253. Zhan, Kaidi. 1992. The Strategies of Politeness in the Chinese Language. Berkeley, CA: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California at Berkeley.
254. Zhang, Shaojie and Yu Xiucheng. 2011. How Success Conditions Differ From Felicity Conditions. Manuscript.
255. Ziff, P. 1967. On H. P. Grice's Account of Meaning. Analysis 28:1-8.
256.毕继万,1996,““礼貌”的文化特性研究”,《世界汉语教学》,第1期,第51-59页。
257.蔡建平,李小平,1998,“论礼貌的恰当性”,《解放军外语学院学报》,第4期,第30-34页。
258.曹合建,1997,“副语言与话语含义”,《外国语》,第5期,第17-20页。
259.陈嘉映,2004,“我们怎么假装---介绍奥斯汀的一篇论文”,《中文自学指导》,第1期,第40-42页。
260.丁凤,2002,“汉语请求言语行为中的性别差异”,《西安外国语学院学报》,第1期,第46-50页。
261.杜士洪,2006,“我们无法“假装假装”---有感于奥斯汀和陈嘉映有关假装的论说”,《外语学刊》,第6期,第11-15页。
262.杜士洪,赖成彬,2007,“假装、连环假装与“假装假装”---从奥斯汀和陈嘉映谈起”,《自然辩证法通讯》,第1期,第28-34页。
263.冯友,2006,“英汉称赞语回应策略差异的优选论解释”,《外国语》,第4期,第27-32页。
264.顾曰国,1989,“奥斯汀的言语行为理论:诠释与批判”,《外语教学与研究》,第1期,第30-39页。
265.顾曰国,1992,“礼貌、语用与文化”,《外语教学与研究》,第4期,第10-17页。266.顾曰国,1994a,“John Searle的言语行为理论与心智哲学”,《国外语言学》,第2期,第1-8页。
267.顾曰国,1994b,“John Searle的言语行为理论:评判与借鉴”,《国外语言学》,第3期,第10-16页。
268.韩沁彤,2006,《3～5岁儿童假装认知发展研究》,长春:东北师范大学硕士论文。
269.何琳琳,李红,潘春妮,2005,“关于学前儿童假装研究综述”,《郑州航空工业管理学院学报》(社会科学版),第1期,第111-114页。
270.胡超,2001,“英汉赞语应答对比研究”,《西安外国语学院学报》,第3期,第44-47,48页。
271.何自然,1999,《语用学与英语学习》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
272.胡壮麟(主编),2001,《语言学教程》(修订版),北京:北京大学出版社。
273.胡壮麟(主编),2006,《语言学教程》(第三版),北京:北京大学出版社。
274.黄永红2001,“对言语行为“道歉”的跨文化研究”,《解放军外国语学院学报》,第5期,第33-36页。
275.姜孟,阚哲华,2005,“探析言语行为会话含义指示理论创立及成为语用学奠基理论的哲学语言学机缘”《四川外语学院学报》,第4期,第75-78页。
276.姜望琪,2000,《语用学---理论及其应用》,北京:北京大学出版社。
277.姜望琪,2003,《当代语用学》,北京:北京大学出版社。
278.李凤琴,2005,“身势语的本体论探索与解读”,《外语教学》,第3期,第32-35页。
279.李悦娥,马江鸿,2000,“析普通话话语中的赞扬及其应答”,《外语与外语教学》,第9期,第28-32页。
280.梁骏,2000,“塞尔言语行为理论探析”,《北京行政学院学报》,第2期,第70-73页。
281.卢伟,2002,““祝颂”言语行为的汉英对比”,《厦门大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),第3期,第115-122页。
282.倪伟,熊哲宏,2007,“假装游戏研究:过去、现在及未来”,《心理科学》,第4期,第1020-1022页。
283.钱冠连,1999a,“哲学轨道上的语言研究”,《外国语》,第6期,第9-16页。
284.钱冠连,1999b,“语用学的哲学渊源”,《外语与外语教学》,第6期,第4-7,11页。
285.钱冠连,2000,“哲学轨道上的语言研究”,《解放军外国语学院学报》,第1期,第21-23页。
286.权立宏,2004,“汉语中男女在称赞语和称赞语回应使用上的差异分析”,《现代外语》,第1期,第62-69页。
287.瓦诺克(G. J. Warnock),1969,“奥斯汀传略”(杨玉成摘译),载杨玉成,2002,第201-218页。
288.瓦诺克(G. J. Warnock),1973,“周六晨会”(杨玉成摘译),载杨玉成,2002,第219-226页。
289.王爱华,2001,“英汉拒绝言语行为表达模式调查”,《外语教学与研究》,第3期,第178-185页。
290.王桂琴,方格,2003,3-5岁儿童对假装的辨认和对假装者心理的推断《心理学报》,第5期,第662-668页。
291.王桂琴,方格,杨小冬,2003,“儿童对假装的认知发展的研究进展”,《心理科学》,第5期,第898-900页。
292.王建华,1998,“礼貌的相对性”,《外国语》,第3期,第18-22页。
293.王陆,2001,“汉英称赞应对模式比较”,《天津外国语学院学报》,第4期,第28-33页。
294.王天思,2005,“哲学研究中描述转向的语言哲学视域”,《江西社会科学》,第7期,第52-58页。
295.王西成,曾涛,2000,“也谈礼貌原则---兼与顾曰国先生商榷”,《湖南大学学报》(社会科学版),第2期,第80-84页。
296.王晓萍,1998,“当代语言哲学中句子意义论的发展---评奥斯汀、塞尔言语行为论的主要观点”,《学术研究》,第6期,第33-36页。
297.王燕,徐慧,2006,“现代汉语道歉言语行为策略研究”,《现代语文》(语言研究版),第11期,第92-93页。
298.肖亮荣,2000,“从间接言语行为理论看Searle的语言哲学观”,《山东外语教学》,第3期,第11-14页。
299.徐畅贤,“英语模糊限制语的语用功能”,《外语教学》,2006年第4期。
300.杨玉成,2002,《奥斯汀:语言现象学与哲学》,商务印书馆。
301.杨玉成,2003,“奥斯汀的语言探究和伦理问题”,《道德与文明》,第3期,第46-50页。
302.杨毓隽,2002,“模糊限制语与言语交际”,《外语教学》,第4期,第49-53页。
303.杨忠(主编),2002,《语言学概论》,北京:高等教育出版社。
304.于秀成,2002,《从塞尔的适切条件看汉语非真诚性邀请》,长春:东北师范大学硕士论文。
305.于秀成,张绍杰,2010,“汉语非真诚性邀请行为的语用特征”,《外语与外语教学》,第4期,第49-53页。
306.俞东明,1998,“语用学的哲学基础说略”,《浙江大学学报》,第2期,第102-105页。
307.张景华,“语言的模糊性和模糊限制语的语用功能”,《西华大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2008年第5期。
308.张绍杰,1994,“言语行为与施为动词”,《外语与外语教学》,第5期,第36-39页。
309.张绍杰,王晓彤,1997,“请求”言语行为的对比研究”,《现代外语》,第3期,第64-73页。
310.赵英玲,2003,“论英汉直接抱怨语”,《外语学刊》,第2期,第20-24页。
311.朱湘燕,2004,“汉语批评语用策略调查”,《语言文字应用》,第1期,第96-104页。