《卖花女》话语文体研究
|
摘要
备受观众青睐的喜剧为什么在欢声笑语之后让观众陷入沉思?伟大的剧作家萧伯纳如何将他丰富深刻的思想寓于轻松幽默的喜剧对话中?本研究在对文体学进行综述的基础上,通过回顾戏剧文体和话语文体的发展,借鉴国内外系统功能语言学和会话分析的最新研究成果,尝试运用语域-话轮转换的话语文体研究框架解读寓于喜剧《卖花女》中的深刻内涵,填补喜剧鉴赏的空白拓展文学批评视角。
本研究基于语域学和话轮转换理论,采用定性分析与定量分析相结合、演绎法与归纳法相结合的方法,对文本进行系统科学的多层面的分析研究,旨在1)运用语域学理论解读萧伯纳戏剧《卖花女》的主题:通过Liza,Higgins,Doolittle的语域分析他们的身份、地位、家庭背景和教育背景,从而引发对社会问题的思考;由Liza接受语言培训前后的语域变化暴露上流社会的无知与虚伪,由身为教授的Higgins常常脱口而出下层社会的常用语域揭示中产阶级的冷漠自私与狂妄自大,通过析比Doolittle语域与身份的不一致指出在资本主义社会,金钱主宰一切,经济基础是划分社会阶层的唯一标准;运用语域学理论解读文本能体会作家的用心及其作品丰富而深刻的内涵。2)运用话轮转换理论解读作品的人物形象和人物间的权势关系:话轮长短、话轮中用词用句的难易程度等反映说话者的学识、经历、家庭、职业等信息;运用话轮分配原则以及分析话轮打断和话轮重叠,从全新角度欣赏、析比人物间的权势关系。
本研究的创新之处:1)语域-话轮转换研究模式为戏剧作品欣赏提供了新的视角,完善了戏剧的文学意义阐释,丰富了戏剧批评理论;2)将系统功能语言学中语域学的最新成果与会话分析中话轮转换的前沿研究相结合,对《卖花女》进行了系统、细致的研究,深化了对萧伯纳及其喜剧作品思想精髓和经典语言的阐释;3)在研究过程中发现:以单词的数量来计算的相同长度的话轮,由于单词构成音节不同、耗时不同,因而产生的效果大有差异。鉴于此,本文作者提出用音节数量代替单词数量来计算话轮长度;4)本研究提出将功能语言学的句子结构理论和构词理论用于对话轮结构进行深入、细致的分析,由此阐释人物个性以及人物之间的权势关系。
本研究具有一定的理论和实践意义:一方面,语域-话轮转换模式应用于戏剧对话研究,能深层地解释喜剧的内涵,补充和完善喜剧作品的文学意义的阐释。另一方面,本研究为语言学、文学、文体学课程的教学以及文学、戏剧爱好者提供借鉴,通过追踪语言线索并以此为依据理解和评价语域和话轮转换对于研究喜剧作品如何通过对话来刻画人物、表现人物的社会性、揭示作品主题、欣赏作品的美学价值等方面具有重要的意义。同时,也有助于语言学习者了解并有效地驾驭语言和语言的各种变体,培养他们根据场景选择最得体、最有效的语言形式的能力,提高语言使用效率,增强语言学习与交际的有效性。
Stylistics, a linguistic approach to the study of literary texts, explores language in different genres, including prose, poems and plays, resting on the assumption that the linguistic theories and methods can be applied to the study of literature. As the research advances, how dramatic effect is reached through dialogues and how the playwrights achieve the aesthetic values of language have been gradually uncovered. This thesis, a stylistic analysis of Pygmalion, tries out register and turn-taking model on this text, in the hope of interpreting what lies behind the humor and laughter so as to explain the properties of characterization, personal relationship, plot development and theme construction, and to gain a better appreciation of its peculiarities.
Comedy, a main type of drama, is mostly appreciated from a variety of perspectives, but it is seldom systematically studied from the perspective of discourse stylistics, namely, via register and turn-taking, which, among many linguistic theories that could govern conversations, are distinct and powerful in organizing dramatic dialogues. This thesis tries to solve the following problems:1) how a perspective of register analyis can explain the artistic accomplishments made by George Bernard Shaw in his comedy Pygmalion in light of the insights drawn from a deepened and enriched discourse analysis of drama texts; 2) how will the theory and methods provided by Sacks et al's turn-taking model facilitate the scientific interpretation of George Bernard Shaw's comedy Pygmalion; 3) should the present dramatic discourse stylistic analysis go further to integrate the achievements made in the domain of Conversational Analysis with those made in the domain of Systemic Functional Linguistics? 4) what different roles do they play respectively in serving as a supplement of comedy interpretation?
The discoveries of the thesis: 1) the discourse stylistic framework of register and turn-taking offers a new perspective of play analysis and serves as a better supplement of comedy interpretation. It enhances the explanations of literary meanings of Pygmalion written by Shaw, who uses comedy to explore social foibles and who, adopting the ironic comedy tone that would characterize all his works, deals with social and economic issues. Register analysis indeed facilitates the interpretation of the ironies and the social problems in Pygmalion which the theme and plot of the play suggests. Turn-taking model also contributes to better understanding of Shaw's comedies but it focuses on characterization and power relations among the characters. 2) The dramatic discourse stylistic analysis integrates the achievements made in the domain of Conversational Analysis with those made in the domain of Systemic Functional Linguistics, and the model well demonstrates the properties of characterization, personal relationship, plot development and theme construction of the play with a better appreciation of its peculiarities. 3) The author of the thesis has discovered a new method to measure the length of a turn: instead of measuring by words, she suggests measuring turn length by syllables, which proves more scientific. 4) Another discovery is a more detailed analysis of unit-type and its application to the text. The author focuses on sentential construction and lexical construction, and by analyzing the clauses of the sentences and measuring the length of the words of the turns in Pygmalion, she successfully reinterprets Liza's transformation from a new perspective, which reaches the similar conclusion as register analysis does.
The study is significant in two aspects: theory and practice. On the one hand, a systematic discourse stylistic approach to drama can demonstrate its strong interpretative power of the literary meanings of the play. Register and turn-taking framework used in dialogue analysis is powerful in analyzing comedies and the combination of the two approaches deepens the study of the literary work, which contributes to the academic exploration by adding comprehensiveness to the study of register and turn-taking and help to gain deeper insights into the nature of comedies and thus enhancing the research in the area of register analysis and turn-taking model. On the other hand, the study contributes to the teaching of such courses as linguistics, literature, stylistics and English language teaching. Students can better understand and evaluate the literary text through linguistic cues and evidences. Thirdly, the study offers the readers a new perspective of comedic understanding, which serves as a supplement of comedy interpretation. In addition to teachers and students, the study also benefits the readers and audience.
本研究基于语域学和话轮转换理论,采用定性分析与定量分析相结合、演绎法与归纳法相结合的方法,对文本进行系统科学的多层面的分析研究,旨在1)运用语域学理论解读萧伯纳戏剧《卖花女》的主题:通过Liza,Higgins,Doolittle的语域分析他们的身份、地位、家庭背景和教育背景,从而引发对社会问题的思考;由Liza接受语言培训前后的语域变化暴露上流社会的无知与虚伪,由身为教授的Higgins常常脱口而出下层社会的常用语域揭示中产阶级的冷漠自私与狂妄自大,通过析比Doolittle语域与身份的不一致指出在资本主义社会,金钱主宰一切,经济基础是划分社会阶层的唯一标准;运用语域学理论解读文本能体会作家的用心及其作品丰富而深刻的内涵。2)运用话轮转换理论解读作品的人物形象和人物间的权势关系:话轮长短、话轮中用词用句的难易程度等反映说话者的学识、经历、家庭、职业等信息;运用话轮分配原则以及分析话轮打断和话轮重叠,从全新角度欣赏、析比人物间的权势关系。
本研究的创新之处:1)语域-话轮转换研究模式为戏剧作品欣赏提供了新的视角,完善了戏剧的文学意义阐释,丰富了戏剧批评理论;2)将系统功能语言学中语域学的最新成果与会话分析中话轮转换的前沿研究相结合,对《卖花女》进行了系统、细致的研究,深化了对萧伯纳及其喜剧作品思想精髓和经典语言的阐释;3)在研究过程中发现:以单词的数量来计算的相同长度的话轮,由于单词构成音节不同、耗时不同,因而产生的效果大有差异。鉴于此,本文作者提出用音节数量代替单词数量来计算话轮长度;4)本研究提出将功能语言学的句子结构理论和构词理论用于对话轮结构进行深入、细致的分析,由此阐释人物个性以及人物之间的权势关系。
本研究具有一定的理论和实践意义:一方面,语域-话轮转换模式应用于戏剧对话研究,能深层地解释喜剧的内涵,补充和完善喜剧作品的文学意义的阐释。另一方面,本研究为语言学、文学、文体学课程的教学以及文学、戏剧爱好者提供借鉴,通过追踪语言线索并以此为依据理解和评价语域和话轮转换对于研究喜剧作品如何通过对话来刻画人物、表现人物的社会性、揭示作品主题、欣赏作品的美学价值等方面具有重要的意义。同时,也有助于语言学习者了解并有效地驾驭语言和语言的各种变体,培养他们根据场景选择最得体、最有效的语言形式的能力,提高语言使用效率,增强语言学习与交际的有效性。
Stylistics, a linguistic approach to the study of literary texts, explores language in different genres, including prose, poems and plays, resting on the assumption that the linguistic theories and methods can be applied to the study of literature. As the research advances, how dramatic effect is reached through dialogues and how the playwrights achieve the aesthetic values of language have been gradually uncovered. This thesis, a stylistic analysis of Pygmalion, tries out register and turn-taking model on this text, in the hope of interpreting what lies behind the humor and laughter so as to explain the properties of characterization, personal relationship, plot development and theme construction, and to gain a better appreciation of its peculiarities.
Comedy, a main type of drama, is mostly appreciated from a variety of perspectives, but it is seldom systematically studied from the perspective of discourse stylistics, namely, via register and turn-taking, which, among many linguistic theories that could govern conversations, are distinct and powerful in organizing dramatic dialogues. This thesis tries to solve the following problems:1) how a perspective of register analyis can explain the artistic accomplishments made by George Bernard Shaw in his comedy Pygmalion in light of the insights drawn from a deepened and enriched discourse analysis of drama texts; 2) how will the theory and methods provided by Sacks et al's turn-taking model facilitate the scientific interpretation of George Bernard Shaw's comedy Pygmalion; 3) should the present dramatic discourse stylistic analysis go further to integrate the achievements made in the domain of Conversational Analysis with those made in the domain of Systemic Functional Linguistics? 4) what different roles do they play respectively in serving as a supplement of comedy interpretation?
The discoveries of the thesis: 1) the discourse stylistic framework of register and turn-taking offers a new perspective of play analysis and serves as a better supplement of comedy interpretation. It enhances the explanations of literary meanings of Pygmalion written by Shaw, who uses comedy to explore social foibles and who, adopting the ironic comedy tone that would characterize all his works, deals with social and economic issues. Register analysis indeed facilitates the interpretation of the ironies and the social problems in Pygmalion which the theme and plot of the play suggests. Turn-taking model also contributes to better understanding of Shaw's comedies but it focuses on characterization and power relations among the characters. 2) The dramatic discourse stylistic analysis integrates the achievements made in the domain of Conversational Analysis with those made in the domain of Systemic Functional Linguistics, and the model well demonstrates the properties of characterization, personal relationship, plot development and theme construction of the play with a better appreciation of its peculiarities. 3) The author of the thesis has discovered a new method to measure the length of a turn: instead of measuring by words, she suggests measuring turn length by syllables, which proves more scientific. 4) Another discovery is a more detailed analysis of unit-type and its application to the text. The author focuses on sentential construction and lexical construction, and by analyzing the clauses of the sentences and measuring the length of the words of the turns in Pygmalion, she successfully reinterprets Liza's transformation from a new perspective, which reaches the similar conclusion as register analysis does.
The study is significant in two aspects: theory and practice. On the one hand, a systematic discourse stylistic approach to drama can demonstrate its strong interpretative power of the literary meanings of the play. Register and turn-taking framework used in dialogue analysis is powerful in analyzing comedies and the combination of the two approaches deepens the study of the literary work, which contributes to the academic exploration by adding comprehensiveness to the study of register and turn-taking and help to gain deeper insights into the nature of comedies and thus enhancing the research in the area of register analysis and turn-taking model. On the other hand, the study contributes to the teaching of such courses as linguistics, literature, stylistics and English language teaching. Students can better understand and evaluate the literary text through linguistic cues and evidences. Thirdly, the study offers the readers a new perspective of comedic understanding, which serves as a supplement of comedy interpretation. In addition to teachers and students, the study also benefits the readers and audience.
引文
An, G. 2004. On the Ideological and Artistic Features of Pygmalion. Journal of Xinyang Normal University 6.
Austin, J. 1962. How to Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bennison, V. 1993. Discourse Analysis and the Dramatic Character. Journal of Language and Literature 2.
Berman, R. A. 2005. Introduction: Developing Discourse Stance in Different Text Types and Languages. Journal of Pragmatics 37.
Berst, Charles A. 1995. Pygmalion: Shaw’s Spin on Myth and Cinderella. New York: Twayne.
Billig, M. 1999. Conversation Analysis and the Claims of Naivety. Discourse Society 10.
Birch, D. 1993. Drama Praxis and the Dialogic Imperative, in Kasper and Blumb-Kulka (eds.) Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Black, E. 2006. Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Blakemore, D.1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bloom, Harold, (ed.) 1988. George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion. New York: Chelsea House.
Bloom, Michelle E. 2000. Pygmalionesque Delusions and Illusions of Movement: Animation from Hoffmann to Truffaut. Comparative Literature 52.4 .
Brown, G. & Yule, G. 2000. Discourse Analysis. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Publishing House.
Burton, D. 1980. Dialogue and Discourse: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Modern Drama and Naturally Occurring Conversation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Byrne, Sandie, (ed.) 2000. George Bernard Shaw’s Plays By George Bernard Shaw. New York: Norton.
Carter, R. & Simpson, P. (eds.) 1989. Language, Discourse and Literature: an Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics. London: Unwin Hyman.
Chen Yuzhou. 2008. Turn-taking in English Talk Program-Dialogue. MA. diss. Shanghai International Studies University.
Cook, G. 1994. Discourse and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coulthard, M. 1985. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London & New York: Longman.
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. 1969. Investigating English Style. London: Longman.
Culpeper, J. et al. 1998. Exploring the Language of Drama: from Text to Context. London & New York: Routledge.
Culpeper, J. 2001. Language and Characterization: People in Plays and Other Texts. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge.
Duncan, S. D.1972. Some Signals and Rules for Taking Speaking Turns in Conversations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23.
Ducan, S and Niederehe. G. 1974. On Signaling that It’s Your Turn to Speak. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10.
Fei, F. 1998. Dramatizing the West in Chinese Spoken Drama. Asian Theatre Journal 15.
Feng, Z. X. 2002. Pragmastylistics of Dramatic Texts: The Play off the Stage. Beijing: Qinghua University Press.
Fowler, R. 1986. Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gee, J. P. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge.
George, K.1980. Rhythm in Drama. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.
Goffman, E. 1994. Form of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Goldschmidt, M. 1998. Do me a favor: A descriptive analysis of favor asking sequences in American English. Journal of Pragmatics 29.
Green, G. 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grene, Nicholas.1984. Bernard Shaw: A Critical View. London: Macmillan.
Grice, P. 1989. Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Grundy, Peter. 2000. Doing Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya.1975. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. 2001. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context and Text. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Hammersley, M. 2003. Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: Methods or Paradigms? Discourse Society 14.
Harris, S. 1995. Pragmatics and Power. Journal of Pragmatics 23.
Harris, Z. S. 1952. Discourse Analysis. Language 28.
Hayman, R. 1977. How to Read a Play. New York: Grove Press.
Herman, V. 1991. Dramatic Dialogue and the Systematics of Turn-taking. Semiotica 83.
Herman, V. 1995. Dramatic Discourse. London: Routledge.
Horgan, K. A. 2005. Talking to the Audience: Narrative Characters in Twentieth Century Drama. Unpublished Doctorate Thesis. New York: St John’s University.
Hornby, Richard. 1983. Beyond the Verbal in Pygmalion. In Shaw’s Plays in erformance, edited by Daniel Leary. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Hou Weirui. 2008. Literary Stylistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Huggett, Richard. 1969. The Truth About Pygmalion. New York: Random House.
Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. 1999. Conversation analysis: principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ivanchenko, A. 2007. An‘Interactive’Approach to Interpreting Overlapping Dialogue in Caryl Churchill’s Top Girls(Act 1).Language and Literature 16.
Jiao Jun-feng, Yao Xi-ming. 2004. Register Variation's Artistic Effects on Pygmalion. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University 3.
Joshua, Essaka. 2001. Pygmalion and Galatea: The History of a Narrative in English Literature. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kennell, Vicki. 2005. Pygmalion as Narrative Bridge between the Centuries. Annual ofBernard Shaw Studies 25.
Leech, G. & Jan, S. 1978. A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman.
Leech, G. 1969/2001. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G. 1992. Pragmatic Principles in Shaw's You Never Can Tell, in M. Toolan (ed.) Language, Text and Context: Essays in Stylistics. 259-78.
Leech, G. & Short. M. 1981. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London: Longman.
Lenk, U. 1998. Discourse Markers and Global Coherence in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30.
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. 2001. Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Li, H. 2007. A Pragmatic Perspective on Stage Directions of Drama. Beijing: Science Press.
Liu Haiping. 2004. British and American Drama:Plays and Criticisms. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Liu Jun. 2008. Analysis on FIDIC Contract Features in Terms of Functional Stylistics. MA. diss Southwest University of Finance.
Mandala, S. 2007. Twentieth-Century Drama Dialogue as Ordinary Talk: Speaking Between the Lines. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Martin, J. R.1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. 2001. Cohesion and Texture. In Schiffrin, D. Tannen, D.& H. E. Hamilton.(edt.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Martin, Sara. 2001. Resistance and Persistance: Pygmalion and My Fair Lady, Two Film Versions of G. B. Shaw’s Pygmalion. EnterText 12.
Martin & Rose. 2007. Working with Discourse—Meaning beyond the Clause. Peking University Press, Continuum.
McIntyre, D. 2004. Point of View in Drama: a Socio-pragmatic Analysis of Dennis Potter’s Brimstone and Treacle. Language and Literature 13.
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M & Carter, R. 1994. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Mey, J. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mey, J. 1998. When Voices Clash: A Study in Literary Pragmatics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Miller, Jane M. 1988. Some Versions of Pygmalion. in Ovid Renewed: Ovidian Influences on Literature and Art from the Middle Ages to the Twentieth Century. Ed. Charles Martindale. New York: Cambridge up.
Miller, J. Hillis.1990. Versions of Pygmalion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Mugglestone, Lynda. 1993. Shaw, Subjective Inequality, and the Social Meanings of Language in Pygmalion. The Review of English Studies 44.
Nash, W. 1989. Changing the Guard at Elsinore, in Carter, R. & Simpson,P. (eds.) Language, Discourse and Literature. London: Unwin Hyman.
Olohan, Maeve. 2004. Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
Orestrom. 1983. Turn一taking in English Conversation. Lund Studies in English. Liberforlag Lund,Malmo,Sweden 23.
Pratt, M. L. 1977. Toward A Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Psathas, G. 1995. Conversation Analysis: the Study of Talk-in-interaction. Qualitative Research Methods 35.
Sacks, H 1992. Lectures on Conversation,vol.2. Edited by Jefferson, G. Cambridge MS: Blackwell.
Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson.1974. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking in Conversation. Schenkein, J, (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversation Interaction. New York: Academics Press.
Schegloff, E. 2000. Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation. Language in Society 29.
Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8.
Schegloff, A. E. 1999. Discourse, Pragmatics, Conversation, Analysis. Discourse Studies1.
Schiffrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sell,R.D.1991. Literary Pragmatics. London: Routledge.
Semino, E. & J. Culpeper. 2002. Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shaw G. B. 1913. Pygmalion, in H. Liu (eds.), 2004. British and American Drama: Plays and Criticisms. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Shen, Dan. 1995. Literary Stylistics and Fictional Translation. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Short, Mick. 1989. Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama, in R. Garter and P. Simpson (eds.) Language, Discourse and Literature. London: Routledge.
Short, Mick. 1996. Exploring the Language of Poems,Plays and Prose. London & New York: Longman.
Short, Mick. 1998. From Dramatic Text to Dramatic Performance, in J. Culpeper et al. (eds.) Exploring the Language of Drama: from Text to Context. London & New York: Routledge.
Silver, Arnold. 1982. Bernard Shaw: The Darker Side. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Silverman, David. 1998. Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Simpson, P. 2004. Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. London & New York: Routledge.
Simpson, P. (ed.). 1989. Language, Discourse and Literature. London: Routledge.
Sinclair, J. and M. Coulthard. 1975. Toward an Analysis of Discourse. London: Oxford University Press.
Steiner, E. & Veltman, R. (eds.) 1988. Pragmatics, Discourse and Text: Explorations in Systematic Semantics. London: Frances Pinter.
Tannen, D. 1986. That's Not What I Meant! How Conversaational Style Makes or Breaks Relationships! New York: Ballantine Books.
Tannen, D.1989. Talking Choice: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Thornborrow, J. and Wareing, S. 1998. Patterns in Language–An Introduction to Language and Literary Style. London: Routledge.
Toolan, M.1996. Language in Literature: An Introduction to Stylistics. London: Arnold.
Toolan. M. 2000.‘What Makes You Think You Exist’: A Speech Move Schematic and Its Application to Pinter’s The Birthday Party in D. Shen (eds.) 2008. Recent Development in Western Stylistics, Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Valency, Maurice.1983. The Cart and the Trumpet: The Plays of George Bernard Shaw. New York: Schocken.
Van Dijk, T. A.1981 Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
Van Dijk, T. A.1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press Ltd.
Van Dijk, T.A.1999. Critical Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis. Discourse & Society 10.
Van Peer, W. 1991. But What Is Literature? Toward a Descriptive Definition of Literature, in R. Sell (ed.) Literary Pragmatics.
Vesonder, Timothy. 1977. Eliza’s Choice: Transformation Myth and the Ending of Pygmalion. Fabian Feminist: Bernard Shaw and Women. Ed. Rochelle Weintraub. University Park: Pennsylvania State.
Wang. R. 2008. A Drama-stylistic Approach to Characterization in the Situation Comedy—A Case Study: American Sitcom FRIENDS. MA. diss. Shanghai International Studies University.
Weber, J. J. 2004. A New Paradigm for Literary Studies: The Teething Troubles of Cognitive Poetics. Style 38.
Widdowson, H. G. 1975. Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature. London: Longman. Yin Mingxiang. 2001. Extortion of Spiritual Values by Trick and Force, Perfect Portrayal of Fabianism—Comments on George Bernard Shaw's Play Pygmalion. Journal ofTeachers’College of Shanxi University 3.
Yin Ming-xiang. 2004. Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion and His Ocular and Metaphorical Presentation of Contrastive Humour. Journal of Southeast China Normal University 7.
Yu, D. & Han, Z. 2008. Discourse Role Switching and Characterization in Drama. In Liu,
S, Lu, Z & Feng, Z. (et al). Stylistics: China and the World——Papers from the 1st International and the 5th National Conference on Stylistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Zhang Ke. 2010. Social-linguistic Interpretation of Pygmalion. Journal of Inner Mongolia Agricultural University 2.
Zhang Zhenbang. 1993. A New Course in English Grammar. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Zhang Xuelian. 2008. On Application of Cooperative Principle to Dramatic Discourse Analysis---in a Case Study of Pygmalion. Journal of Qiqihar Junior Teachers’College1.
陈世雄.1996.戏剧思维[M].福州:福建教育出版社.
封宗信.2002.文学语篇的语用文体研究[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
高剑妩、申丹.2006.礼貌策略、人物塑造理论与戏剧文体学[J].语教学与研究(6).
龚卫东、吴雪燕.2003.汉会话语篇中话轮沉默的认知解读[J].外语与外语教学(12).
何兆熊.2002.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
何兆熊.2003.语用学文献选读[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
洪增流、肖淑蕙.2003.英美戏剧[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社.
侯维瑞.1999.英语语体学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
侯维瑞.2008.文学文体学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
黄国文.1988.语篇分析概要[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社.
黄衍.1987.话轮交换系统[J].外语教学与研究(1).
姜望琪.2008.从《语用学手册》看语用学的最新发展[J].解放军外国语学院学报(2).
廖全京.2005.中国戏剧的现代传统与当代悖论[J].中国戏剧(8).
李华东.2006.戏剧舞台指令的语用文体研究D].中国博士学位论文全文数据库.
李华东,俞东明.2001.戏剧文体学的话轮转换量化分析方法[J].四川外语学院学报(3).
李华东、俞东明.2001.从话轮转换看权势关系、性格刻画和情节发展[J].解放军外院学报(2).
李军.2005.语用修辞探索[M].广州:广东教育出版社.
李润新.1994.文学语言概论[M].北京:北京语言学院出版社.
李悦娥,范宏雅.2002.话语分析[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
林伟、杨玉晨.2007.英语语篇分析[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.
刘虹.2004.会话结构分析[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
刘森林.2007.语用策略[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社.
刘世生.2002.文学文体学:理论与方法[J].外语教学与研究(3).
刘世生.2005.语言与文学的接面关系研究[J].外语研究(1).
刘世生、吕中舌、封宗信.2008.文体学:中国与世界同步——首届国际文体学学术
研讨会及第五届全国文体学研讨会文选[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
刘顺利.1998.文本时长[J].天津师大学报(2).
刘思.2005.语篇的语用宏观结构[J].外语学刊(1).
刘运同.2007.会话分析概要[M].上海:学林出版社.
卢莉.2003.话轮:英语会话的言语转换机制[J].深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版)(3).
梅美莲2006小说交际语用研究[D].上海外国语大学博士学位论文.
苗兴伟.2004.人际意义与语篇的构建[J].山东外语教学(1).
钱冠连.2002.汉语文化语用学[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
曲卫国. 2009.话语文体学导论:文本分析方法[M]上海:复旦大学出版社.
冉永平.2005.论语用元语言现象及其语用指向[J].外语学刊(6).
申丹.2008.西方文体学的新发展[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
申丹. 2006.及物性系统与深层象征意义——休斯《在路上》的文本分析[J].外语教学与研究(1).
施旭.1998.戏剧对话的话语分析[J].现代外语(4).
司建国.2008.从话语结构角度解读《雷雨》的戏剧冲突[J].北京第二外国语学院学报(外语版)(2).
司建国. 2006.话语结构学说视角下《沉默侍者》中的人物权势关系[J].天津外国语学院学报(3).
司建国(2006)关联理论对戏剧《沉默侍者》中非关联和无关联会话的阐释[J].外语研究(4).
谭霈生.1984.论戏剧性[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
涂靖. 2004.文学语用学:一门新兴的边缘学科[J].外国语(3).
涂靖. 2005.中国语用文体学研究发展态势[J].外语学刊(1).
王得杏.1998.英语话语分析与跨文化交际[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
王虹.2001.从会话分析的角度看《愤怒的回顾》中的人物关系与性格[J].现代外语(3).
王虹.2006.戏剧文体分析方法一话语分析的方法[M].上海:上海外语教育出版.
王佐良.1987.英语文体学引论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
王佐良.1994.论肖伯纳的戏剧艺术[A],王佐良文集[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
许朝阳.1999.语码转换的社会功能与心理[J].四川外语学院学报(2).
杨雪燕.1989.试论戏剧在语言文体学中的地位[J].外国语(l).
杨雪燕.1991.话语分析与戏剧语言文体学[J].外语教学与研究(2).
俞东明.1993a.英语戏剧文体学的范围、性质与方法[A].英语百人百论[C].成都:四川科技出版社.
俞东明.1993b.语用学定义与研究范畴新探[J].浙江大学学报(4).
俞东明.1996a.戏剧文体与戏剧文体学[J].浙江大学学报(1).
俞东明.1996b.话语角色类型及其在言语交际中的转换[J].外国语( 1).
俞东明.1997.语法歧义和语用模糊对比研究[J].外国语(6).
俞东明.1998.语用学的哲学基础说略[J].浙江大学学报(2).
俞东明.1999.会话活动类型的语用研究与跨文化交际[J].外国语(5).
俞东明、左进.2004.语用模糊、会话策略与戏剧人物刻画[J].外语教学与研究(5).
张荣建.2005.会话分析与批判会话分析[J].四川外语学院学报(2).
张廷国.2003.话轮及话轮的转换技巧[J].外语教学(4).
章以华.2005.话语概念在戏剧文体分析中的应用[J].四川教育学院学报(11).
赵霖,吴思军.2002.戏剧文体学研究与外语教学[J].山东外语教学(4).
Austin, J. 1962. How to Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bennison, V. 1993. Discourse Analysis and the Dramatic Character. Journal of Language and Literature 2.
Berman, R. A. 2005. Introduction: Developing Discourse Stance in Different Text Types and Languages. Journal of Pragmatics 37.
Berst, Charles A. 1995. Pygmalion: Shaw’s Spin on Myth and Cinderella. New York: Twayne.
Billig, M. 1999. Conversation Analysis and the Claims of Naivety. Discourse Society 10.
Birch, D. 1993. Drama Praxis and the Dialogic Imperative, in Kasper and Blumb-Kulka (eds.) Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Black, E. 2006. Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Blakemore, D.1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bloom, Harold, (ed.) 1988. George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion. New York: Chelsea House.
Bloom, Michelle E. 2000. Pygmalionesque Delusions and Illusions of Movement: Animation from Hoffmann to Truffaut. Comparative Literature 52.4 .
Brown, G. & Yule, G. 2000. Discourse Analysis. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Publishing House.
Burton, D. 1980. Dialogue and Discourse: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Modern Drama and Naturally Occurring Conversation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Byrne, Sandie, (ed.) 2000. George Bernard Shaw’s Plays By George Bernard Shaw. New York: Norton.
Carter, R. & Simpson, P. (eds.) 1989. Language, Discourse and Literature: an Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics. London: Unwin Hyman.
Chen Yuzhou. 2008. Turn-taking in English Talk Program-Dialogue. MA. diss. Shanghai International Studies University.
Cook, G. 1994. Discourse and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coulthard, M. 1985. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London & New York: Longman.
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. 1969. Investigating English Style. London: Longman.
Culpeper, J. et al. 1998. Exploring the Language of Drama: from Text to Context. London & New York: Routledge.
Culpeper, J. 2001. Language and Characterization: People in Plays and Other Texts. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge.
Duncan, S. D.1972. Some Signals and Rules for Taking Speaking Turns in Conversations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23.
Ducan, S and Niederehe. G. 1974. On Signaling that It’s Your Turn to Speak. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10.
Fei, F. 1998. Dramatizing the West in Chinese Spoken Drama. Asian Theatre Journal 15.
Feng, Z. X. 2002. Pragmastylistics of Dramatic Texts: The Play off the Stage. Beijing: Qinghua University Press.
Fowler, R. 1986. Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gee, J. P. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge.
George, K.1980. Rhythm in Drama. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.
Goffman, E. 1994. Form of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Goldschmidt, M. 1998. Do me a favor: A descriptive analysis of favor asking sequences in American English. Journal of Pragmatics 29.
Green, G. 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grene, Nicholas.1984. Bernard Shaw: A Critical View. London: Macmillan.
Grice, P. 1989. Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Grundy, Peter. 2000. Doing Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya.1975. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. 2001. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context and Text. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Hammersley, M. 2003. Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: Methods or Paradigms? Discourse Society 14.
Harris, S. 1995. Pragmatics and Power. Journal of Pragmatics 23.
Harris, Z. S. 1952. Discourse Analysis. Language 28.
Hayman, R. 1977. How to Read a Play. New York: Grove Press.
Herman, V. 1991. Dramatic Dialogue and the Systematics of Turn-taking. Semiotica 83.
Herman, V. 1995. Dramatic Discourse. London: Routledge.
Horgan, K. A. 2005. Talking to the Audience: Narrative Characters in Twentieth Century Drama. Unpublished Doctorate Thesis. New York: St John’s University.
Hornby, Richard. 1983. Beyond the Verbal in Pygmalion. In Shaw’s Plays in erformance, edited by Daniel Leary. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Hou Weirui. 2008. Literary Stylistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Huggett, Richard. 1969. The Truth About Pygmalion. New York: Random House.
Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. 1999. Conversation analysis: principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ivanchenko, A. 2007. An‘Interactive’Approach to Interpreting Overlapping Dialogue in Caryl Churchill’s Top Girls(Act 1).Language and Literature 16.
Jiao Jun-feng, Yao Xi-ming. 2004. Register Variation's Artistic Effects on Pygmalion. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University 3.
Joshua, Essaka. 2001. Pygmalion and Galatea: The History of a Narrative in English Literature. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kennell, Vicki. 2005. Pygmalion as Narrative Bridge between the Centuries. Annual ofBernard Shaw Studies 25.
Leech, G. & Jan, S. 1978. A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman.
Leech, G. 1969/2001. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G. 1992. Pragmatic Principles in Shaw's You Never Can Tell, in M. Toolan (ed.) Language, Text and Context: Essays in Stylistics. 259-78.
Leech, G. & Short. M. 1981. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London: Longman.
Lenk, U. 1998. Discourse Markers and Global Coherence in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30.
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. 2001. Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Li, H. 2007. A Pragmatic Perspective on Stage Directions of Drama. Beijing: Science Press.
Liu Haiping. 2004. British and American Drama:Plays and Criticisms. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Liu Jun. 2008. Analysis on FIDIC Contract Features in Terms of Functional Stylistics. MA. diss Southwest University of Finance.
Mandala, S. 2007. Twentieth-Century Drama Dialogue as Ordinary Talk: Speaking Between the Lines. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Martin, J. R.1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. 2001. Cohesion and Texture. In Schiffrin, D. Tannen, D.& H. E. Hamilton.(edt.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Martin, Sara. 2001. Resistance and Persistance: Pygmalion and My Fair Lady, Two Film Versions of G. B. Shaw’s Pygmalion. EnterText 12.
Martin & Rose. 2007. Working with Discourse—Meaning beyond the Clause. Peking University Press, Continuum.
McIntyre, D. 2004. Point of View in Drama: a Socio-pragmatic Analysis of Dennis Potter’s Brimstone and Treacle. Language and Literature 13.
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M & Carter, R. 1994. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Mey, J. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mey, J. 1998. When Voices Clash: A Study in Literary Pragmatics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Miller, Jane M. 1988. Some Versions of Pygmalion. in Ovid Renewed: Ovidian Influences on Literature and Art from the Middle Ages to the Twentieth Century. Ed. Charles Martindale. New York: Cambridge up.
Miller, J. Hillis.1990. Versions of Pygmalion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Mugglestone, Lynda. 1993. Shaw, Subjective Inequality, and the Social Meanings of Language in Pygmalion. The Review of English Studies 44.
Nash, W. 1989. Changing the Guard at Elsinore, in Carter, R. & Simpson,P. (eds.) Language, Discourse and Literature. London: Unwin Hyman.
Olohan, Maeve. 2004. Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
Orestrom. 1983. Turn一taking in English Conversation. Lund Studies in English. Liberforlag Lund,Malmo,Sweden 23.
Pratt, M. L. 1977. Toward A Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Psathas, G. 1995. Conversation Analysis: the Study of Talk-in-interaction. Qualitative Research Methods 35.
Sacks, H 1992. Lectures on Conversation,vol.2. Edited by Jefferson, G. Cambridge MS: Blackwell.
Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson.1974. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking in Conversation. Schenkein, J, (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversation Interaction. New York: Academics Press.
Schegloff, E. 2000. Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation. Language in Society 29.
Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8.
Schegloff, A. E. 1999. Discourse, Pragmatics, Conversation, Analysis. Discourse Studies1.
Schiffrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sell,R.D.1991. Literary Pragmatics. London: Routledge.
Semino, E. & J. Culpeper. 2002. Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shaw G. B. 1913. Pygmalion, in H. Liu (eds.), 2004. British and American Drama: Plays and Criticisms. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Shen, Dan. 1995. Literary Stylistics and Fictional Translation. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Short, Mick. 1989. Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama, in R. Garter and P. Simpson (eds.) Language, Discourse and Literature. London: Routledge.
Short, Mick. 1996. Exploring the Language of Poems,Plays and Prose. London & New York: Longman.
Short, Mick. 1998. From Dramatic Text to Dramatic Performance, in J. Culpeper et al. (eds.) Exploring the Language of Drama: from Text to Context. London & New York: Routledge.
Silver, Arnold. 1982. Bernard Shaw: The Darker Side. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Silverman, David. 1998. Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Simpson, P. 2004. Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. London & New York: Routledge.
Simpson, P. (ed.). 1989. Language, Discourse and Literature. London: Routledge.
Sinclair, J. and M. Coulthard. 1975. Toward an Analysis of Discourse. London: Oxford University Press.
Steiner, E. & Veltman, R. (eds.) 1988. Pragmatics, Discourse and Text: Explorations in Systematic Semantics. London: Frances Pinter.
Tannen, D. 1986. That's Not What I Meant! How Conversaational Style Makes or Breaks Relationships! New York: Ballantine Books.
Tannen, D.1989. Talking Choice: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Thornborrow, J. and Wareing, S. 1998. Patterns in Language–An Introduction to Language and Literary Style. London: Routledge.
Toolan, M.1996. Language in Literature: An Introduction to Stylistics. London: Arnold.
Toolan. M. 2000.‘What Makes You Think You Exist’: A Speech Move Schematic and Its Application to Pinter’s The Birthday Party in D. Shen (eds.) 2008. Recent Development in Western Stylistics, Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Valency, Maurice.1983. The Cart and the Trumpet: The Plays of George Bernard Shaw. New York: Schocken.
Van Dijk, T. A.1981 Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
Van Dijk, T. A.1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press Ltd.
Van Dijk, T.A.1999. Critical Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis. Discourse & Society 10.
Van Peer, W. 1991. But What Is Literature? Toward a Descriptive Definition of Literature, in R. Sell (ed.) Literary Pragmatics.
Vesonder, Timothy. 1977. Eliza’s Choice: Transformation Myth and the Ending of Pygmalion. Fabian Feminist: Bernard Shaw and Women. Ed. Rochelle Weintraub. University Park: Pennsylvania State.
Wang. R. 2008. A Drama-stylistic Approach to Characterization in the Situation Comedy—A Case Study: American Sitcom FRIENDS. MA. diss. Shanghai International Studies University.
Weber, J. J. 2004. A New Paradigm for Literary Studies: The Teething Troubles of Cognitive Poetics. Style 38.
Widdowson, H. G. 1975. Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature. London: Longman. Yin Mingxiang. 2001. Extortion of Spiritual Values by Trick and Force, Perfect Portrayal of Fabianism—Comments on George Bernard Shaw's Play Pygmalion. Journal ofTeachers’College of Shanxi University 3.
Yin Ming-xiang. 2004. Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion and His Ocular and Metaphorical Presentation of Contrastive Humour. Journal of Southeast China Normal University 7.
Yu, D. & Han, Z. 2008. Discourse Role Switching and Characterization in Drama. In Liu,
S, Lu, Z & Feng, Z. (et al). Stylistics: China and the World——Papers from the 1st International and the 5th National Conference on Stylistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Zhang Ke. 2010. Social-linguistic Interpretation of Pygmalion. Journal of Inner Mongolia Agricultural University 2.
Zhang Zhenbang. 1993. A New Course in English Grammar. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Zhang Xuelian. 2008. On Application of Cooperative Principle to Dramatic Discourse Analysis---in a Case Study of Pygmalion. Journal of Qiqihar Junior Teachers’College1.
陈世雄.1996.戏剧思维[M].福州:福建教育出版社.
封宗信.2002.文学语篇的语用文体研究[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
高剑妩、申丹.2006.礼貌策略、人物塑造理论与戏剧文体学[J].语教学与研究(6).
龚卫东、吴雪燕.2003.汉会话语篇中话轮沉默的认知解读[J].外语与外语教学(12).
何兆熊.2002.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
何兆熊.2003.语用学文献选读[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
洪增流、肖淑蕙.2003.英美戏剧[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社.
侯维瑞.1999.英语语体学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
侯维瑞.2008.文学文体学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
黄国文.1988.语篇分析概要[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社.
黄衍.1987.话轮交换系统[J].外语教学与研究(1).
姜望琪.2008.从《语用学手册》看语用学的最新发展[J].解放军外国语学院学报(2).
廖全京.2005.中国戏剧的现代传统与当代悖论[J].中国戏剧(8).
李华东.2006.戏剧舞台指令的语用文体研究D].中国博士学位论文全文数据库.
李华东,俞东明.2001.戏剧文体学的话轮转换量化分析方法[J].四川外语学院学报(3).
李华东、俞东明.2001.从话轮转换看权势关系、性格刻画和情节发展[J].解放军外院学报(2).
李军.2005.语用修辞探索[M].广州:广东教育出版社.
李润新.1994.文学语言概论[M].北京:北京语言学院出版社.
李悦娥,范宏雅.2002.话语分析[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
林伟、杨玉晨.2007.英语语篇分析[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.
刘虹.2004.会话结构分析[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
刘森林.2007.语用策略[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社.
刘世生.2002.文学文体学:理论与方法[J].外语教学与研究(3).
刘世生.2005.语言与文学的接面关系研究[J].外语研究(1).
刘世生、吕中舌、封宗信.2008.文体学:中国与世界同步——首届国际文体学学术
研讨会及第五届全国文体学研讨会文选[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
刘顺利.1998.文本时长[J].天津师大学报(2).
刘思.2005.语篇的语用宏观结构[J].外语学刊(1).
刘运同.2007.会话分析概要[M].上海:学林出版社.
卢莉.2003.话轮:英语会话的言语转换机制[J].深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版)(3).
梅美莲2006小说交际语用研究[D].上海外国语大学博士学位论文.
苗兴伟.2004.人际意义与语篇的构建[J].山东外语教学(1).
钱冠连.2002.汉语文化语用学[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
曲卫国. 2009.话语文体学导论:文本分析方法[M]上海:复旦大学出版社.
冉永平.2005.论语用元语言现象及其语用指向[J].外语学刊(6).
申丹.2008.西方文体学的新发展[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
申丹. 2006.及物性系统与深层象征意义——休斯《在路上》的文本分析[J].外语教学与研究(1).
施旭.1998.戏剧对话的话语分析[J].现代外语(4).
司建国.2008.从话语结构角度解读《雷雨》的戏剧冲突[J].北京第二外国语学院学报(外语版)(2).
司建国. 2006.话语结构学说视角下《沉默侍者》中的人物权势关系[J].天津外国语学院学报(3).
司建国(2006)关联理论对戏剧《沉默侍者》中非关联和无关联会话的阐释[J].外语研究(4).
谭霈生.1984.论戏剧性[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
涂靖. 2004.文学语用学:一门新兴的边缘学科[J].外国语(3).
涂靖. 2005.中国语用文体学研究发展态势[J].外语学刊(1).
王得杏.1998.英语话语分析与跨文化交际[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
王虹.2001.从会话分析的角度看《愤怒的回顾》中的人物关系与性格[J].现代外语(3).
王虹.2006.戏剧文体分析方法一话语分析的方法[M].上海:上海外语教育出版.
王佐良.1987.英语文体学引论[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
王佐良.1994.论肖伯纳的戏剧艺术[A],王佐良文集[C].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
许朝阳.1999.语码转换的社会功能与心理[J].四川外语学院学报(2).
杨雪燕.1989.试论戏剧在语言文体学中的地位[J].外国语(l).
杨雪燕.1991.话语分析与戏剧语言文体学[J].外语教学与研究(2).
俞东明.1993a.英语戏剧文体学的范围、性质与方法[A].英语百人百论[C].成都:四川科技出版社.
俞东明.1993b.语用学定义与研究范畴新探[J].浙江大学学报(4).
俞东明.1996a.戏剧文体与戏剧文体学[J].浙江大学学报(1).
俞东明.1996b.话语角色类型及其在言语交际中的转换[J].外国语( 1).
俞东明.1997.语法歧义和语用模糊对比研究[J].外国语(6).
俞东明.1998.语用学的哲学基础说略[J].浙江大学学报(2).
俞东明.1999.会话活动类型的语用研究与跨文化交际[J].外国语(5).
俞东明、左进.2004.语用模糊、会话策略与戏剧人物刻画[J].外语教学与研究(5).
张荣建.2005.会话分析与批判会话分析[J].四川外语学院学报(2).
张廷国.2003.话轮及话轮的转换技巧[J].外语教学(4).
章以华.2005.话语概念在戏剧文体分析中的应用[J].四川教育学院学报(11).
赵霖,吴思军.2002.戏剧文体学研究与外语教学[J].山东外语教学(4).