关于词义未完全表达的双向优选关联阐释
|
摘要
言语交际中许多词汇传递的实际信息并不等于它们的字面意义,这种现象称为词义的未完全表达。尽管这些词汇表面上看来意义不明确,释话人却总能够在瞬间推测到说话人的真实意义。Grice等语言学家提出了不同的机制来解释这种现象。其中Wilson等建立的基于关联理论的词汇语用学工程最有影响。
本文作者认为关联理论处理话语解读的机制不够精细客观,试图创建一个精细的,操作性强的话语理解机制。优选论对格式上精度的强调,可违反制约条件的明确说明,及对可违反度的严格排序成为它客观性和强操作性的来源。复旦大学的杨子基于单向优选论建立了关联优选模式。她的模式试图降低说话人意图的地位。然而,在语用学界说话人意图一直被看作话语理解的关键因素。杨子的单向优选模式未考虑说话人意图,并不可取。Blunter把双向优选论用于词汇语用学,非常有启迪作用。本文把双向优选论的解释机制和杨子关于认知效果候选项多次生成的观点结合起来,建立了双向优选关联模式。该模式的运行步骤如下:生成机制依据对语境假设的依次调用有序提供认知效果候选,以等级排列的四个制约条件对候选项进行优选。如果第一个候选项不能通过评估机制,生成机制要重新调用低一等的语境假设,再次生成其它候选项。评估机制内的三个绝对制约条件没有等级,候选项违反任何一个,都将被排除。如果候选项满足三个绝对制约条件,则作为最优释义被输出。
本文接着验证该模式确实比关联模式更精确,操作性更强。作者从美剧《绝望主妇》中收集了大量词义未完全表达的语料。通过用双向优选关联模式和Wilson的关联理论模式分别定性分析相同的语料发现:
如果最可及的语境假设生成的认知效果不符合释话人的关联期待或是不满足评估机制内的某一个绝对制约条件,关联理论得不出最优释义。相反,基于双向优选论的关联模式却能在所有的情况下为词义未完全表达的词汇和结构得出最优释义。因此,可以验证基于双向优选论的关联模式比关联话语理解模式更客观,更精细,操作性更强。
It is widely observed that information transferred by many words, phrases and structures is usually not equally to their literal meaning. Such a phenomenon is called lexical underspecification. Although they are underspecified semantically, addressees are often able to acquire the meanings intended by addressers in an instant. Various approaches have been proposed to explain this phenomenon, among which Relevance theorists Sperber, Wilson and Carston’s lexical pragmatic project based on relevance theory is the most influential one.
However, during the process of studying relevance theory, I find that relevance theory is vague and subjective in defining some key terms such as relevance, cognitive effects, and etc. To overcome the explanatory inadequacy of RT, a more precise and maneuverable mechanism of utterance interpretation is needed. Optimality Theory’s strong emphasis on formal precision, specification of violable constraints and strict ordering of violability is the source of its objectivity and strong maneuverability. Yang Zi in Fudan University proposed a unidirectional optimality-based relevance theoretic model to deal with utterance interpretation. Her model degraded the status of the speaker’s intention. However, intention was recognized as a decisive factor in utterance interpretation. Blunter’s bidirectional OT approach used in lexical pragmatic field is very enlightening. It dealt with lexical pragmatics form both the speaker and the interpreter’s perspective. I borrow the bidirectional OT approach and Yang Zi’s idea of regenerating candidates of cognitive effect, and finally construct a Bidirectional Optimality-based Relevance Theoretic Framework. The new framework works in the following steps. The activation and retrieval of contextual assumptions is determined by four hierarchically ordered constraints in GEN: MAX-Acces.CA > ACCORD-ER > High-Degr.Mm.CA > High-Stren.CA. Candidates of cognitive effect are then generated and submitted to EVAL for evaluation. The constraints in EVAL will check every cognitive effect candidate and decide whether it should be eliminated or kept as the optimal reading of the utterance. If a cognitive effect candidate satisfies the absolute constraints Stren.CE!=0, !CONTRA.Str-er.CA and !CONTRA.S’I, it will survive as the optimal reading. The relative constraint CE-I’E checks the nature of the cognitive effect candidate. Finally, the interpreter can check whether his expectation of relevance is satisfied.
When this new framework is constructed, its explanatory adequacy needs to be testified. A corpus of underspecified words collected from the TV series Desperate Housewives is build. A data-driven qualitative analysis approach is adopted in this study. Through the analysis of the comprehension procedure of underspecified word meanings, their superiority can be revealed. After the sample analysis by the two models, I find that when the first most accessible contextual assumption can satisfy the interpreter’s expectation of relevance and meanwhile satisfy the absolute constraints in EVAL, the relevance theoretic comprehension procedure is capable of dealing with such simple underspecified words. Otherwise, it can not produce an appropriate interpretation. On the contrary, the Bidirectional Optimality-based Relevance Theoretic Framework is able to deal with all the cases of lexical underspecification. Therefore, this Bidirectional Optimality-based Relevance Theoretic Framework is indeed more objective, precise and maneuverable than the relevance theoretic comprehension procedure.
本文作者认为关联理论处理话语解读的机制不够精细客观,试图创建一个精细的,操作性强的话语理解机制。优选论对格式上精度的强调,可违反制约条件的明确说明,及对可违反度的严格排序成为它客观性和强操作性的来源。复旦大学的杨子基于单向优选论建立了关联优选模式。她的模式试图降低说话人意图的地位。然而,在语用学界说话人意图一直被看作话语理解的关键因素。杨子的单向优选模式未考虑说话人意图,并不可取。Blunter把双向优选论用于词汇语用学,非常有启迪作用。本文把双向优选论的解释机制和杨子关于认知效果候选项多次生成的观点结合起来,建立了双向优选关联模式。该模式的运行步骤如下:生成机制依据对语境假设的依次调用有序提供认知效果候选,以等级排列的四个制约条件对候选项进行优选。如果第一个候选项不能通过评估机制,生成机制要重新调用低一等的语境假设,再次生成其它候选项。评估机制内的三个绝对制约条件没有等级,候选项违反任何一个,都将被排除。如果候选项满足三个绝对制约条件,则作为最优释义被输出。
本文接着验证该模式确实比关联模式更精确,操作性更强。作者从美剧《绝望主妇》中收集了大量词义未完全表达的语料。通过用双向优选关联模式和Wilson的关联理论模式分别定性分析相同的语料发现:
如果最可及的语境假设生成的认知效果不符合释话人的关联期待或是不满足评估机制内的某一个绝对制约条件,关联理论得不出最优释义。相反,基于双向优选论的关联模式却能在所有的情况下为词义未完全表达的词汇和结构得出最优释义。因此,可以验证基于双向优选论的关联模式比关联话语理解模式更客观,更精细,操作性更强。
It is widely observed that information transferred by many words, phrases and structures is usually not equally to their literal meaning. Such a phenomenon is called lexical underspecification. Although they are underspecified semantically, addressees are often able to acquire the meanings intended by addressers in an instant. Various approaches have been proposed to explain this phenomenon, among which Relevance theorists Sperber, Wilson and Carston’s lexical pragmatic project based on relevance theory is the most influential one.
However, during the process of studying relevance theory, I find that relevance theory is vague and subjective in defining some key terms such as relevance, cognitive effects, and etc. To overcome the explanatory inadequacy of RT, a more precise and maneuverable mechanism of utterance interpretation is needed. Optimality Theory’s strong emphasis on formal precision, specification of violable constraints and strict ordering of violability is the source of its objectivity and strong maneuverability. Yang Zi in Fudan University proposed a unidirectional optimality-based relevance theoretic model to deal with utterance interpretation. Her model degraded the status of the speaker’s intention. However, intention was recognized as a decisive factor in utterance interpretation. Blunter’s bidirectional OT approach used in lexical pragmatic field is very enlightening. It dealt with lexical pragmatics form both the speaker and the interpreter’s perspective. I borrow the bidirectional OT approach and Yang Zi’s idea of regenerating candidates of cognitive effect, and finally construct a Bidirectional Optimality-based Relevance Theoretic Framework. The new framework works in the following steps. The activation and retrieval of contextual assumptions is determined by four hierarchically ordered constraints in GEN: MAX-Acces.CA > ACCORD-ER > High-Degr.Mm.CA > High-Stren.CA. Candidates of cognitive effect are then generated and submitted to EVAL for evaluation. The constraints in EVAL will check every cognitive effect candidate and decide whether it should be eliminated or kept as the optimal reading of the utterance. If a cognitive effect candidate satisfies the absolute constraints Stren.CE!=0, !CONTRA.Str-er.CA and !CONTRA.S’I, it will survive as the optimal reading. The relative constraint CE-I’E checks the nature of the cognitive effect candidate. Finally, the interpreter can check whether his expectation of relevance is satisfied.
When this new framework is constructed, its explanatory adequacy needs to be testified. A corpus of underspecified words collected from the TV series Desperate Housewives is build. A data-driven qualitative analysis approach is adopted in this study. Through the analysis of the comprehension procedure of underspecified word meanings, their superiority can be revealed. After the sample analysis by the two models, I find that when the first most accessible contextual assumption can satisfy the interpreter’s expectation of relevance and meanwhile satisfy the absolute constraints in EVAL, the relevance theoretic comprehension procedure is capable of dealing with such simple underspecified words. Otherwise, it can not produce an appropriate interpretation. On the contrary, the Bidirectional Optimality-based Relevance Theoretic Framework is able to deal with all the cases of lexical underspecification. Therefore, this Bidirectional Optimality-based Relevance Theoretic Framework is indeed more objective, precise and maneuverable than the relevance theoretic comprehension procedure.
引文
[1] Beaver, D. & H. Lee. 2004. Input-output mismatches in OT[A]. In: Blutner, R. & Zeevat, H. (ed.) Optimality Theory and Pragmatics[C]. Hampshire: Macmillan/ Palgrave, 112-153.
[2] Blutner, R. 1998a. Lexical pragmatics[J]. Journal of Semantics 15: 115-162.
[3] Blutner, R. 1998b. Lexical underspecification and pragmatics[A]. In: Ludewig, P. & Geurts, J. (ed.) Lexikalische Semantik aus kognitiver Sicht[C]. Tübingen: 141-171.
[4] Blutner, R. 2000. Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation[J]. Journal of Semantics, 17: 189-216.
[5] Blutner, R. 2004. Pragmatics and the lexicon[A]. In: Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (ed.) The Handbook of Pragmatics[Z]. Oxford: Blackwell, 488-514.
[6] Blutner, R. 2006a. Optimality Theoretic Pragmatics and the Explicature/implicature Distinction[A]. In: N. Burton-Roberts (ed.) Advances in Pragmatics[C]. Hampshire: Macmillan/Palgrave.
[7] Blutner, R. & Zeevat, H. 2004. Optimality Theory and Pragmatics[C]. Hampshire: Macmillan/ Palgrave.
[8] Carston, R. 1996. Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed[A]. In: University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 8.
[9] Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances[M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[10] Carston, R. 2004. Review of Stephen C. Levinson Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature[J]. Journal of Linguistics 40, 181-186.
[11] Carston, R. & Powell, G. 2006. Relevance theory-new directions and developments[A]. In: Lepore, E. Smith, B. (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language[M]. Oxford University Press, 341-360.
[12] Dekker, P. & Van Rooy, R. 2000. Bi-directional Optimality Theory: An Application of Game Theory[J]. Journal of Semantics 17: 217-242.
[13] Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
[14] Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[15] Gibbs, R. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[16] Glucksberg, S., Manfredi, D.A. & McGlone, M.S. 1997. Metaphor comprehension: How metaphors create new categories[A]. In: Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M. & Vaid, J. (ed.) Creative Thought: An investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes[M]. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 327-350.
[17] Glucksberg, S. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[18] Glucksberg, S. 2003. The psycholinguistics of metaphor[J]. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7: 92-96.
[19] Goatly, A. 1994. Register and the redemption of Relevance Theory: the case of metaphor [J]. Pragmatics 4: 139-181.
[20] Grice, H. P. 1957. Meaning[J]. The Philosophical Review, 66: 377-388.
[21] Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation[A]. In Cole, Peter & Jerry L. Morgan (ed.) Syntax and Semantics[M]. Volume 3: Speech Acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Grice, H. P. 1989b, 22-40.
[22] Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words[M]. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
[23] Horn, L. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q- and R-based implicature[A]. In: Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, Form and Use in Context[C]. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
[24] Jaszczolt, K. M. 1999. Discourse, Beliefs, and Intentions: Semantic Defaults and Propositional Attitude Ascription[M]. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
[25] Jaszczolt, K. M. 2002b. Against ambiguity and underspecification: Evidence from presupposition as anaphora[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 829-849.
[26] Jaszczolt, K. M. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[27] Jaszczolt, K. M. 2006a. Defaults in semantics and pragmatics[OL]. URL =
[28] Jaszczolt, K. M. 2006b. Meaning merger: Pragmatics inference, defaults, and compositionality[J]. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(2):195-212.
[29] Kager, R. 1999. Optimality Theory[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[30] Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature[M]. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press.
[31] Markus Egg. 2010. Semantic Underspecification. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4: 166–181. Article first published online: 1 March, 2010. Pragmatics & Semantics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
[32] Piazza, R. 2006. The representation of conflict in the discourse of Italian melodrama[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 38: 2087-2104.
[33] Pietarinen, A. 2005. Relevance theory through pragmatic theories of meaning [A]. Proceedings of the XXVII Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society[C]. Alpha: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1767-1772.
[34] Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar[M]. Ms., Rutgers University, New Brunswick and University of Colorado, Boulder.
[35] Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
[36] Pustejovsky, J. 1998. The Semantics of Lexical Underspecification[J]. Folia Linguistica, 32(3-4): 323-348.
[37] Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In: Carruthers, P. & Boucher, J. (ed.) Language and Thought[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 184-200.
[38] Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance, Communication and Cognition[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
[39] Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 2001. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[40] Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 2006. A deflationary account of metaphors[J]. In: Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 171-203.
[41] Wilks, Y. 1986. Relevance and beliefs[A]. In: Myers, T., Brown, K. & McGonigle, B. (ed.) Reasoning and Discourse Processes[C]. London: Academic Press, 265-289.
[42] Wilson, D. 2003. Relevance and lexical pragmatics[J]. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15 (2): 273-291.
[43] Wilson, D. 2004. Relevance, word meaning and communication: the past, present and future of lexical pragmatics[J]. Modern Foreign Language, 27 (1).
[44] Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. 1994. Outline of relevance theory. Links & letters, ISSN 1133-7397, Número: 1, 85-106.
[45] Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance[J]. In: UCL Working Papers in Linguistics.
[46] Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. 2004. Relevance theory. In: Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (ed.) The Handbook of Pragmatics[Z]. Oxford: Blackwell, 607-632.
[47] Wilson, D. & Carston, R. 2007a. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts[A]. In: Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.) Pragmatics. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 230-259.
[48] Zipf, GK. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Press.
[49] UCL’S Lexical Pragmatics Website:.
[50] The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary. 2004. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press: (2255, 185).
[51]陈新仁. 2005.国外词汇语用学研究述评[J].外语研究, (5).
[52]何自然、冉永平. 2001.导读. In: Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, F23-F38.
[53]姜望琪. 2001.关联理论质疑[J].外语研究, (4): 26-31.
[54]姜望琪. 2002.再评关联理论—从“后叙”看Sperber和Wilson对关联理论的修改[J].外语教学与研究, (5): 301-308.
[55]姜忞. 2004.词义扩大与缩小的认知语义分析[D].桂林:广西师范大学.
[56]李欣. 2005.词义语用收窄的认知解释[J].重庆邮电学院学报, (5).
[57]林晶晶. 2008.语用充实视角下的一词多义现象研究[D].上海:复旦大学.
[58]罗琳. 2006.一词多义现象的词汇语用学优选语境充实模式研究[D].重庆:西南大学.
[59]曲卫国. 2005.论关联理论推理框架中的关联期待[A].外国语言文学论丛(秋季刊)[C].上海:复旦大学出版社.
[60]冉永平. 2000.语用过程中的认知语境及其语用制约[J].外语与外语教学, (8).
[61]冉永平. 2004.“话语理解中词义的语用收窄、语用扩充以及语用特指”摘要[A].福建语用学年会论文摘要汇编[Z].
[62]冉永平. 2005.词汇语用学及语用充实[J].外语教学与研究, (5).
[63]冉永平. 2008a.论词汇信息的松散性及其语用充实[J].外语研究, (l).
[64]冉永平. 2008b.词汇语用信息的临时性及语境构建[J].外语教学, (6).
[65]孙智慧. 2009.词汇语用学和多义词的语用充实[J].安徽农业大学学报(社会科学版), 18, (4).
[66]熊学亮.1999a.《认知语用学概论》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[67]熊学亮.1999b.认知语境的语用可及程度分析[J].外国语, (6): 17-23.
[68]熊学亮. 2005.对关联理论中逻辑的思考[J].外语与外语教学, (10): 1-6.
[69]熊学亮. 2006.试论对关联期待的放弃[J].天津外国语学院学报, (3): 1-6.
[70]熊学亮,杨子. 2007a.试论关联期待的三种运行方式[J].外语与翻译, (l): 9-14.
[71]熊学亮,杨子. 2007b.关联期待的动态性及其对语用推理的启示[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版), (l): 112-117.
[72]徐盛桓. 2002.关联原则与优化思维—关联理论的阐释与献疑[J].外国语, (3): 2-10.
[73]杨春时. 2006.本体论的主体间性与美学建构[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版), (2): 5-10.
[74]杨子. 2008.言语交际的关联优选模式及其应用[D].上海:复旦大学.
[75]曾衍桃. 2006.词汇语用学引论[J].外语学刊, (5): 59-64.
[76]张绍杰. 2008.一般会话含义的“两面性”与含义推导模式问题[J].外语教学与研究, (3).
[77]张权,李娟.默认语义学对语义学、语用学界面的研究及其评价[J].外国语, 2006, (1).
[78]周志远. 2007.认知语境:关联理论对词汇语用学的解释力[J].外国语言文学研究, (1).
[2] Blutner, R. 1998a. Lexical pragmatics[J]. Journal of Semantics 15: 115-162.
[3] Blutner, R. 1998b. Lexical underspecification and pragmatics[A]. In: Ludewig, P. & Geurts, J. (ed.) Lexikalische Semantik aus kognitiver Sicht[C]. Tübingen: 141-171.
[4] Blutner, R. 2000. Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation[J]. Journal of Semantics, 17: 189-216.
[5] Blutner, R. 2004. Pragmatics and the lexicon[A]. In: Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (ed.) The Handbook of Pragmatics[Z]. Oxford: Blackwell, 488-514.
[6] Blutner, R. 2006a. Optimality Theoretic Pragmatics and the Explicature/implicature Distinction[A]. In: N. Burton-Roberts (ed.) Advances in Pragmatics[C]. Hampshire: Macmillan/Palgrave.
[7] Blutner, R. & Zeevat, H. 2004. Optimality Theory and Pragmatics[C]. Hampshire: Macmillan/ Palgrave.
[8] Carston, R. 1996. Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed[A]. In: University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 8.
[9] Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances[M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
[10] Carston, R. 2004. Review of Stephen C. Levinson Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature[J]. Journal of Linguistics 40, 181-186.
[11] Carston, R. & Powell, G. 2006. Relevance theory-new directions and developments[A]. In: Lepore, E. Smith, B. (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language[M]. Oxford University Press, 341-360.
[12] Dekker, P. & Van Rooy, R. 2000. Bi-directional Optimality Theory: An Application of Game Theory[J]. Journal of Semantics 17: 217-242.
[13] Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
[14] Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[15] Gibbs, R. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[16] Glucksberg, S., Manfredi, D.A. & McGlone, M.S. 1997. Metaphor comprehension: How metaphors create new categories[A]. In: Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M. & Vaid, J. (ed.) Creative Thought: An investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes[M]. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 327-350.
[17] Glucksberg, S. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[18] Glucksberg, S. 2003. The psycholinguistics of metaphor[J]. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7: 92-96.
[19] Goatly, A. 1994. Register and the redemption of Relevance Theory: the case of metaphor [J]. Pragmatics 4: 139-181.
[20] Grice, H. P. 1957. Meaning[J]. The Philosophical Review, 66: 377-388.
[21] Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation[A]. In Cole, Peter & Jerry L. Morgan (ed.) Syntax and Semantics[M]. Volume 3: Speech Acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Grice, H. P. 1989b, 22-40.
[22] Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words[M]. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
[23] Horn, L. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q- and R-based implicature[A]. In: Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, Form and Use in Context[C]. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
[24] Jaszczolt, K. M. 1999. Discourse, Beliefs, and Intentions: Semantic Defaults and Propositional Attitude Ascription[M]. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
[25] Jaszczolt, K. M. 2002b. Against ambiguity and underspecification: Evidence from presupposition as anaphora[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 829-849.
[26] Jaszczolt, K. M. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[27] Jaszczolt, K. M. 2006a. Defaults in semantics and pragmatics[OL]. URL =
[28] Jaszczolt, K. M. 2006b. Meaning merger: Pragmatics inference, defaults, and compositionality[J]. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(2):195-212.
[29] Kager, R. 1999. Optimality Theory[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[30] Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature[M]. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press.
[31] Markus Egg. 2010. Semantic Underspecification. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4: 166–181. Article first published online: 1 March, 2010. Pragmatics & Semantics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
[32] Piazza, R. 2006. The representation of conflict in the discourse of Italian melodrama[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 38: 2087-2104.
[33] Pietarinen, A. 2005. Relevance theory through pragmatic theories of meaning [A]. Proceedings of the XXVII Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society[C]. Alpha: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1767-1772.
[34] Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar[M]. Ms., Rutgers University, New Brunswick and University of Colorado, Boulder.
[35] Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
[36] Pustejovsky, J. 1998. The Semantics of Lexical Underspecification[J]. Folia Linguistica, 32(3-4): 323-348.
[37] Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In: Carruthers, P. & Boucher, J. (ed.) Language and Thought[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 184-200.
[38] Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance, Communication and Cognition[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
[39] Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 2001. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[40] Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 2006. A deflationary account of metaphors[J]. In: Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 171-203.
[41] Wilks, Y. 1986. Relevance and beliefs[A]. In: Myers, T., Brown, K. & McGonigle, B. (ed.) Reasoning and Discourse Processes[C]. London: Academic Press, 265-289.
[42] Wilson, D. 2003. Relevance and lexical pragmatics[J]. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15 (2): 273-291.
[43] Wilson, D. 2004. Relevance, word meaning and communication: the past, present and future of lexical pragmatics[J]. Modern Foreign Language, 27 (1).
[44] Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. 1994. Outline of relevance theory. Links & letters, ISSN 1133-7397, Número: 1, 85-106.
[45] Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance[J]. In: UCL Working Papers in Linguistics.
[46] Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. 2004. Relevance theory. In: Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (ed.) The Handbook of Pragmatics[Z]. Oxford: Blackwell, 607-632.
[47] Wilson, D. & Carston, R. 2007a. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts[A]. In: Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.) Pragmatics. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 230-259.
[48] Zipf, GK. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort[M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Press.
[49] UCL’S Lexical Pragmatics Website:
[50] The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary. 2004. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press: (2255, 185).
[51]陈新仁. 2005.国外词汇语用学研究述评[J].外语研究, (5).
[52]何自然、冉永平. 2001.导读. In: Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, F23-F38.
[53]姜望琪. 2001.关联理论质疑[J].外语研究, (4): 26-31.
[54]姜望琪. 2002.再评关联理论—从“后叙”看Sperber和Wilson对关联理论的修改[J].外语教学与研究, (5): 301-308.
[55]姜忞. 2004.词义扩大与缩小的认知语义分析[D].桂林:广西师范大学.
[56]李欣. 2005.词义语用收窄的认知解释[J].重庆邮电学院学报, (5).
[57]林晶晶. 2008.语用充实视角下的一词多义现象研究[D].上海:复旦大学.
[58]罗琳. 2006.一词多义现象的词汇语用学优选语境充实模式研究[D].重庆:西南大学.
[59]曲卫国. 2005.论关联理论推理框架中的关联期待[A].外国语言文学论丛(秋季刊)[C].上海:复旦大学出版社.
[60]冉永平. 2000.语用过程中的认知语境及其语用制约[J].外语与外语教学, (8).
[61]冉永平. 2004.“话语理解中词义的语用收窄、语用扩充以及语用特指”摘要[A].福建语用学年会论文摘要汇编[Z].
[62]冉永平. 2005.词汇语用学及语用充实[J].外语教学与研究, (5).
[63]冉永平. 2008a.论词汇信息的松散性及其语用充实[J].外语研究, (l).
[64]冉永平. 2008b.词汇语用信息的临时性及语境构建[J].外语教学, (6).
[65]孙智慧. 2009.词汇语用学和多义词的语用充实[J].安徽农业大学学报(社会科学版), 18, (4).
[66]熊学亮.1999a.《认知语用学概论》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[67]熊学亮.1999b.认知语境的语用可及程度分析[J].外国语, (6): 17-23.
[68]熊学亮. 2005.对关联理论中逻辑的思考[J].外语与外语教学, (10): 1-6.
[69]熊学亮. 2006.试论对关联期待的放弃[J].天津外国语学院学报, (3): 1-6.
[70]熊学亮,杨子. 2007a.试论关联期待的三种运行方式[J].外语与翻译, (l): 9-14.
[71]熊学亮,杨子. 2007b.关联期待的动态性及其对语用推理的启示[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版), (l): 112-117.
[72]徐盛桓. 2002.关联原则与优化思维—关联理论的阐释与献疑[J].外国语, (3): 2-10.
[73]杨春时. 2006.本体论的主体间性与美学建构[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版), (2): 5-10.
[74]杨子. 2008.言语交际的关联优选模式及其应用[D].上海:复旦大学.
[75]曾衍桃. 2006.词汇语用学引论[J].外语学刊, (5): 59-64.
[76]张绍杰. 2008.一般会话含义的“两面性”与含义推导模式问题[J].外语教学与研究, (3).
[77]张权,李娟.默认语义学对语义学、语用学界面的研究及其评价[J].外国语, 2006, (1).
[78]周志远. 2007.认知语境:关联理论对词汇语用学的解释力[J].外国语言文学研究, (1).