英语专业学生书面语认识情态的语际语语用研究
|
摘要
作为情态系统一种重要类型，认识情态一直是逻辑哲学和语言学者的研究兴趣所在。认识情态手段不仅可以传达说话人对命题有效性的肯定程度，同时还可作为语用策略限制话语的言外之力以实现人际意义，例如，可以是一种维护面子的礼貌手段，也可以表达尊重、诚实、友好的态度，增强话语的协商性等。认识情态手段在学术语篇中尤为重要，因为作者需要借助这些手段区分事实与观点，以一种既能有效劝说又能让读者接受的方式作评价性表述。因此，恰当地使用认识情态手段，对于语言学习者尤其对于二语学生的语用能力发展至关重要。鉴于在语际语语用学领域，有关认识情态语用发展研究较为鲜见，开展针对中国学生使用情态手段的发展研究，对于改进外语教学和提高学生的语用能力显得十分必要。
本研究采用语料库语言学分析方法。受试为154名高校英语专业本科生。他们在大学1-4年每年以同一题目根据任务完成的英语议论文写作产生的语篇构成了本研究的纵向学习者语料。本文尝试通过比较学习者和本族语者以及不同学习者语料，旨在揭示英语专业学生笔语语篇中认识情态使用的非母语性特征和发展规律特点，并考查不同语言水平的二语学生使用和发展这些语用手段的异同。本文同时探究了导致学习者策略使用非母语化和发展特点的因素。本研究发现：
1．英语专业学生和本族语者除了在策略的总体使用数量和偏好使用一些常见表达方式有相似处外，表现出更多的差异性。大体上，中国学生表达认识情态意义时选词范围狭窄，尤其过度依赖口语中常见的几个词项。两类认识情态手段中增强语的使用频次在学生语料中超过半数，而本族语语料中大部分认识表达是对话语起限定作用的模糊语。对比结果表明，中国学生的议论性语篇的确比本族语语料具有较强的断言性和强烈的作者承诺特点。具体来讲，增强语中过度使用情态动词和动词，过少使用形容词和名词；模糊语中情态动词、动词和形容词的使用严重不足，多词表达方式过度使用。两类语料中副词的频次差异最小，但词汇多样性差异显著。
2．经过大学四年的学习英语专业学生使用认识情态手段有一些进步，但与本族语者相比仍差距明显。大体上，研究结果表明了一种非线性的发展模式，即在2-3年阶段学生使用认识情态手段的进步速度最快，3年级增强语和模糊语的使用频次较其他年级更接近本族语者水平，而4年级使用更多样化的词形。此外，这些词汇手段的发展速度不同。总体来说，增强语比模糊语朝向更接近于本族语者的趋势发展。在过度使用的手段中，增强语情态动词发展速度较快，某些副词和多词表达方式发展较慢、停滞或朝向偏离本族语者标准发展。另一方面，多数使用不足的表达手段如模糊语情态动词、模糊语动词、形容词和名词发展缓慢，与本族语标准相距甚远。此外，本研究发现随着语言学习的进步学生书面语的口语化倾向表现出些许减弱的趋势。
3.研究结果表明认识情态手段在不同语言水平的学习者语料中的分布不平衡。高水平的英语专业学生较低水平者相对更接近本族语者水平。高水平学生使用了更多的策略，词汇更富于变化，也能更好地平衡使用增强语和模糊语。然而，低水平学生文章中模糊语仅占总体手段的三分之一，使作者的表达过于强硬、武断。在发展路径方面，虽然不同语言水平的学生在增强语和模糊语的使用上都取得一定进步，但是高水平学生的进步更明显，发展也更有规律性。此外，本研究发现低水平学生更易受文章题目的影响，发展中遇到的困难也更多，这些都阻碍了他们进一步接近本族语者使用的规范。
4．本文发现英语专业学生和母语学生，不同水平学生内部使用认识情态手段的差异是由几种因素相互交织、共同作用的结果。其中，语言水平是一个最为重要的因素。其影响主要表现在，高水平学生较低水平者更为出色的表现，以及学习者有限的词项选择和过度依赖口语形式表达认识情态意义等。此外，学生使用认识情态手段的问题还与其他一些原因有关。例如：在使用某些情态动词和副词方面对题目的过度敏感性，来自教学环境的影响，口语风格语言使用模式向书面语的迁移作用，对明晰、直接的英语交际习惯的过度补偿，语法水平对二语语用能力发展的限制，以及缺乏“注意”和“控制”的认知处理能力等。
本文的理论意义在于为认识情态的词汇表达方式及其在母语与非母语语篇的分布研究提供依据，并发现学习者使用该策略的纵向语用发展模式。本研究验证了以往关于语际语语用能力习得研究的一些结论和假设,拓展了二语习得特别是语际语语用发展研究的范围。基于上述研究结果，本文就开展显性语用干预教学及在教材中加入完整的认识情态手段等提出了相应的建议。本研究结果期望能为开展更为细致的、基于大型纵向学习者语料库的语用能力发展研究提供一定的依据。
Epistemic modality, as an indispensable aspect of modal system, has attractedenormous attention which ranges from philosophy of logic to linguistic literature. Epistemicdevices–the linguistic means of expressing the extent of the speaker s confidence about thevalidity of a proposition (i.e. to express epistemic modality) may also function affectively aspragmatic devices modifying the illocutionary force of utterances for interpersonal reasonsof protecting “face”, showing deference, modesty, solidarity, and facilitating open dialogueand further discussion. Such epistemic devices are crucial to academic writing where authorshave to distinguish opinions from facts and evaluate their statements in acceptable andpersuasive ways. Therefore, the appropriate use of epistemic devices has been proved to beof great importance to language learners, particularly to second/foreign language learners.Since there is almost no longitudinal research on epistemic modality in the area ofinterlanguage pragmatics (ILP), it is very necessary to conduct such a study in expression ofepistemic modality by Chinese students in order to improve English language teaching andEnglish learners pragmatic competence.
The present study employs a corpus-based method to compile longitudinal learner datavia four argumentative writing tasks administered to the154Chinese English majors overthe four academic years. By way of comparing learner data with those of native speakerwriters and among learners, it aims at detecting the non-native features in the use ofepistemic devices by the Chinese English majors, tracing the general pragmatic developmentover the four years of undergraduate English studies, and identifying proficiency variationsin the use and development of these devices. Possible factors that influence the learners performances are also examined. Specifically, this study yields the following importantfindings:
1. Although the non-native speaker (NNS) and native speaker (NS) writers showsimilarities in the total number of devices employed and a preference for some commonlyused items, substantial differences are identified between the two speaker groups. Overall,the Chinese students tend to employ a more restricted range of epistemic modifiers anddepend far more heavily on several predominantly speech forms to express epistemicmeanings. As regards the two epistemic categories, over half of the devices in the NNS datafunction as boosters, while most items in the NS sample are hedges, marking qualification toclaims. This result demonstrates that the academic writing of Chinese students is indeedcharacterized by firmer assertions and stronger commitments than NS discourse. Specifically,among the boosters, modal verbs and lexical verbs are significantly overused, while adjectives and nouns are underused. In contrast, hedging modal verbs, lexical verbs andadjectives are markedly under-represented, but multiword expressions are noticeably morecommon in the English majors essays. In addition, adverbs of both categories are detectedthe least differences in frequency but great disparity in variety from the NS usage.
2. Some improvements in the use of epistemic devices are clearly observed in theEnglish majors data during the four years, while still distant from the NS norms. Generally,the findings seem to suggest a non-linear developmental path, with the fastest developmentobserved in the period from the second year to the third year, and more significantly, in thethird year the frequencies of both boosters and hedges approximating most closely towardsthe NS norms, but more lexical types are identified in the last year s essays. In addition,these devices also exhibit a varied speed of development. On the whole, boosters tend todevelop more closely towards the NS norms than do the hedging devices. Among theoverused, boosting modal verbs tend to move towards the NS norms faster, while someadverbs and multiword expressions remain invariant, changing slower or even away from theNS norm. On the other hand, most of the underused subcategories, such as hedging modals,hedging lexical verbs, adjectives and nouns tend to change in considerably slower pace andremain great disparity from the NS usage. It has also been found that the English majors spoken style tendency in their written English is somewhat weakened with the progress oftheir learning.
3. The study reveals an uneven distribution of items between ability bands, with highproficiency students approximating more closely to the NS usage. The high level Englishmajors employ more devices overall with a wider variety and they can make a balanced useof boosters and hedges, while only one third of the total devices in the low proficiencystudents essays serve to hedge, making their writings more forceful and assertive. Withrespect to the developmental path, both proficiency groups show some improvement in theuse of both boosters and hedges towards the NS norms. However, it appears that the highlevel group makes more progress and move more regularly towards the NS norms than thelow level peers. It is also detected that the low level students are more easily influenced byessay topics and experience more difficulties along the way to development, and thesegreatly restrict them from moving more closely towards the NS norms.
4. There are several possible intertwining factors that might explain the differencesbetween the English majors and the native speakers and between the learners themselves.Among these factors, language proficiency seems to have played a large part, as evidencedby high proficiency students better performances, and by the NNS students narrower rangeof devices and over-reliance on spoken style items for expressing epistemic meanings. Thelearners problems may also due to reasons such as a high degree of topic sensitivity in theuse of particular modals and adverbs, the influence of the pedagogical environment, transfer of patterns of use from spoken English into the written medium, overcompensation for whatthey see to be communicative conventions of explicitness and directness in English,grammatical constraints on L2pragmatic development, and even lack of cognitive abilitiesin “noticing” and “controlling” over language processing.
This thesis is of theoretical significance. It has shed light on the lexical forms that canbe used for expressing epistemic modality and their distributional information in the NS andNNS discourse, as well as the longitudinal developmental path in using these devices by thelearners. This study has empirically confirmed previous conclusions and hypotheses withregard to the acquisition of pragmatic competence and extended the small but fast growingbody of developmental ILP research in particular and second language acquisition in general.Based on these findings, pedagogical suggestions are offered concerning the necessity ofexplicit intervention and the inclusion of a whole range of epistemic devices in the learners teaching materials. Finally, this study may provide some evidence for a more focusedexamination of the development of English majors pragmatic abilities based on large-scalelongitudinal learner corpora.
本研究采用语料库语言学分析方法。受试为154名高校英语专业本科生。他们在大学1-4年每年以同一题目根据任务完成的英语议论文写作产生的语篇构成了本研究的纵向学习者语料。本文尝试通过比较学习者和本族语者以及不同学习者语料，旨在揭示英语专业学生笔语语篇中认识情态使用的非母语性特征和发展规律特点，并考查不同语言水平的二语学生使用和发展这些语用手段的异同。本文同时探究了导致学习者策略使用非母语化和发展特点的因素。本研究发现：
1．英语专业学生和本族语者除了在策略的总体使用数量和偏好使用一些常见表达方式有相似处外，表现出更多的差异性。大体上，中国学生表达认识情态意义时选词范围狭窄，尤其过度依赖口语中常见的几个词项。两类认识情态手段中增强语的使用频次在学生语料中超过半数，而本族语语料中大部分认识表达是对话语起限定作用的模糊语。对比结果表明，中国学生的议论性语篇的确比本族语语料具有较强的断言性和强烈的作者承诺特点。具体来讲，增强语中过度使用情态动词和动词，过少使用形容词和名词；模糊语中情态动词、动词和形容词的使用严重不足，多词表达方式过度使用。两类语料中副词的频次差异最小，但词汇多样性差异显著。
2．经过大学四年的学习英语专业学生使用认识情态手段有一些进步，但与本族语者相比仍差距明显。大体上，研究结果表明了一种非线性的发展模式，即在2-3年阶段学生使用认识情态手段的进步速度最快，3年级增强语和模糊语的使用频次较其他年级更接近本族语者水平，而4年级使用更多样化的词形。此外，这些词汇手段的发展速度不同。总体来说，增强语比模糊语朝向更接近于本族语者的趋势发展。在过度使用的手段中，增强语情态动词发展速度较快，某些副词和多词表达方式发展较慢、停滞或朝向偏离本族语者标准发展。另一方面，多数使用不足的表达手段如模糊语情态动词、模糊语动词、形容词和名词发展缓慢，与本族语标准相距甚远。此外，本研究发现随着语言学习的进步学生书面语的口语化倾向表现出些许减弱的趋势。
3.研究结果表明认识情态手段在不同语言水平的学习者语料中的分布不平衡。高水平的英语专业学生较低水平者相对更接近本族语者水平。高水平学生使用了更多的策略，词汇更富于变化，也能更好地平衡使用增强语和模糊语。然而，低水平学生文章中模糊语仅占总体手段的三分之一，使作者的表达过于强硬、武断。在发展路径方面，虽然不同语言水平的学生在增强语和模糊语的使用上都取得一定进步，但是高水平学生的进步更明显，发展也更有规律性。此外，本研究发现低水平学生更易受文章题目的影响，发展中遇到的困难也更多，这些都阻碍了他们进一步接近本族语者使用的规范。
4．本文发现英语专业学生和母语学生，不同水平学生内部使用认识情态手段的差异是由几种因素相互交织、共同作用的结果。其中，语言水平是一个最为重要的因素。其影响主要表现在，高水平学生较低水平者更为出色的表现，以及学习者有限的词项选择和过度依赖口语形式表达认识情态意义等。此外，学生使用认识情态手段的问题还与其他一些原因有关。例如：在使用某些情态动词和副词方面对题目的过度敏感性，来自教学环境的影响，口语风格语言使用模式向书面语的迁移作用，对明晰、直接的英语交际习惯的过度补偿，语法水平对二语语用能力发展的限制，以及缺乏“注意”和“控制”的认知处理能力等。
本文的理论意义在于为认识情态的词汇表达方式及其在母语与非母语语篇的分布研究提供依据，并发现学习者使用该策略的纵向语用发展模式。本研究验证了以往关于语际语语用能力习得研究的一些结论和假设,拓展了二语习得特别是语际语语用发展研究的范围。基于上述研究结果，本文就开展显性语用干预教学及在教材中加入完整的认识情态手段等提出了相应的建议。本研究结果期望能为开展更为细致的、基于大型纵向学习者语料库的语用能力发展研究提供一定的依据。
Epistemic modality, as an indispensable aspect of modal system, has attractedenormous attention which ranges from philosophy of logic to linguistic literature. Epistemicdevices–the linguistic means of expressing the extent of the speaker s confidence about thevalidity of a proposition (i.e. to express epistemic modality) may also function affectively aspragmatic devices modifying the illocutionary force of utterances for interpersonal reasonsof protecting “face”, showing deference, modesty, solidarity, and facilitating open dialogueand further discussion. Such epistemic devices are crucial to academic writing where authorshave to distinguish opinions from facts and evaluate their statements in acceptable andpersuasive ways. Therefore, the appropriate use of epistemic devices has been proved to beof great importance to language learners, particularly to second/foreign language learners.Since there is almost no longitudinal research on epistemic modality in the area ofinterlanguage pragmatics (ILP), it is very necessary to conduct such a study in expression ofepistemic modality by Chinese students in order to improve English language teaching andEnglish learners pragmatic competence.
The present study employs a corpus-based method to compile longitudinal learner datavia four argumentative writing tasks administered to the154Chinese English majors overthe four academic years. By way of comparing learner data with those of native speakerwriters and among learners, it aims at detecting the non-native features in the use ofepistemic devices by the Chinese English majors, tracing the general pragmatic developmentover the four years of undergraduate English studies, and identifying proficiency variationsin the use and development of these devices. Possible factors that influence the learners performances are also examined. Specifically, this study yields the following importantfindings:
1. Although the non-native speaker (NNS) and native speaker (NS) writers showsimilarities in the total number of devices employed and a preference for some commonlyused items, substantial differences are identified between the two speaker groups. Overall,the Chinese students tend to employ a more restricted range of epistemic modifiers anddepend far more heavily on several predominantly speech forms to express epistemicmeanings. As regards the two epistemic categories, over half of the devices in the NNS datafunction as boosters, while most items in the NS sample are hedges, marking qualification toclaims. This result demonstrates that the academic writing of Chinese students is indeedcharacterized by firmer assertions and stronger commitments than NS discourse. Specifically,among the boosters, modal verbs and lexical verbs are significantly overused, while adjectives and nouns are underused. In contrast, hedging modal verbs, lexical verbs andadjectives are markedly under-represented, but multiword expressions are noticeably morecommon in the English majors essays. In addition, adverbs of both categories are detectedthe least differences in frequency but great disparity in variety from the NS usage.
2. Some improvements in the use of epistemic devices are clearly observed in theEnglish majors data during the four years, while still distant from the NS norms. Generally,the findings seem to suggest a non-linear developmental path, with the fastest developmentobserved in the period from the second year to the third year, and more significantly, in thethird year the frequencies of both boosters and hedges approximating most closely towardsthe NS norms, but more lexical types are identified in the last year s essays. In addition,these devices also exhibit a varied speed of development. On the whole, boosters tend todevelop more closely towards the NS norms than do the hedging devices. Among theoverused, boosting modal verbs tend to move towards the NS norms faster, while someadverbs and multiword expressions remain invariant, changing slower or even away from theNS norm. On the other hand, most of the underused subcategories, such as hedging modals,hedging lexical verbs, adjectives and nouns tend to change in considerably slower pace andremain great disparity from the NS usage. It has also been found that the English majors spoken style tendency in their written English is somewhat weakened with the progress oftheir learning.
3. The study reveals an uneven distribution of items between ability bands, with highproficiency students approximating more closely to the NS usage. The high level Englishmajors employ more devices overall with a wider variety and they can make a balanced useof boosters and hedges, while only one third of the total devices in the low proficiencystudents essays serve to hedge, making their writings more forceful and assertive. Withrespect to the developmental path, both proficiency groups show some improvement in theuse of both boosters and hedges towards the NS norms. However, it appears that the highlevel group makes more progress and move more regularly towards the NS norms than thelow level peers. It is also detected that the low level students are more easily influenced byessay topics and experience more difficulties along the way to development, and thesegreatly restrict them from moving more closely towards the NS norms.
4. There are several possible intertwining factors that might explain the differencesbetween the English majors and the native speakers and between the learners themselves.Among these factors, language proficiency seems to have played a large part, as evidencedby high proficiency students better performances, and by the NNS students narrower rangeof devices and over-reliance on spoken style items for expressing epistemic meanings. Thelearners problems may also due to reasons such as a high degree of topic sensitivity in theuse of particular modals and adverbs, the influence of the pedagogical environment, transfer of patterns of use from spoken English into the written medium, overcompensation for whatthey see to be communicative conventions of explicitness and directness in English,grammatical constraints on L2pragmatic development, and even lack of cognitive abilitiesin “noticing” and “controlling” over language processing.
This thesis is of theoretical significance. It has shed light on the lexical forms that canbe used for expressing epistemic modality and their distributional information in the NS andNNS discourse, as well as the longitudinal developmental path in using these devices by thelearners. This study has empirically confirmed previous conclusions and hypotheses withregard to the acquisition of pragmatic competence and extended the small but fast growingbody of developmental ILP research in particular and second language acquisition in general.Based on these findings, pedagogical suggestions are offered concerning the necessity ofexplicit intervention and the inclusion of a whole range of epistemic devices in the learners teaching materials. Finally, this study may provide some evidence for a more focusedexamination of the development of English majors pragmatic abilities based on large-scalelongitudinal learner corpora.
引文
Abbuhl, R. J.2005. The effect of feedback and instruction on writing quality: Legal writingand advanced L2learners [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Washington, D.C.:Georgetown University.
Abbuhl, R. J.2006. Hedging and boosting in advanced-level L2legal writing: The effect ofinstruction and feedback [A]. In H. Byrnes, H. Weger-Guntharp,&K. A. Sprang (eds.).Educating for Advanced Foreign Language Capacities: Constructs, Curriculum,Instruction, Assessment [C]. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press,152-164.
Aijmer, K.2002. Modality in Advanced Swedish Learners Written Interlanguage [A]. In S.Granger, J. Hung&S. Petch-Tyson (eds.). Computer Learner Corpora, SecondLanguage Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching [C]. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins,55-76.
Allison, D.1995a. Assertions and alternatives: Helping ESL undergraduates extend theirchoices in academic writing [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing,4(1):1-15.
Allison, D.1995b. Modifying meanings: Modality and argumentation in students writtenanswers to a legal problem [J]. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and LanguageTeaching,18:59-72.
Austin, J. L.1962. How to do Things with Words [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bachman, L. F.1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F.&Palmer, A.1996. Language Testing in Practice [M]. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: Aresearch agenda for acquisitional pragmatics [J]. Language Learning,49:677-713.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.2000. Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition: Form, Meaning,and Use [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bardivi-Harlig, K.2001. Empirical evidence of the need for instruction in pragmatics [A]. InK. R. Rose&G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching [C]. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press,13-32.
Bardivi-Harlig, K.2002. A new starting point? Investigating formulaic use and input in futureexpressions [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,24:189-198.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.&Griffin, R.2005. L2pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESLclassroom [J]. System,33:401-415.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.&Hartford, B. S.1993. Learning the rules of academic talk: Alongitudinal study of pragmatic change [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,15:279-304.
Barron, A.2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to do Things in aStudy Abroad Context [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barron, A.2006. Learning to say “you” in German: The acquisition of sociolinguisticcompetence in a study abroad context [A]. In M. DuFon&E. Churchill (eds.).Language Learners in Study Abroad Context [C]. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,59-82.
Bataller, R.2010. Making a request for a service in Spanish: Pragmatic development in thestudy abroad setting [J]. Foreign Language Annals,43(1):160-175.
Beebe, L. M.&Cummings, M.C.1996. Natural act data versus written questionnaire data:How data collection method affects speech act performance [A]. In S. M. Gass&J.Neu (eds.). Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a SecondLanguage [C]. Berlin: Monton de Gruyter,65-86.
Beneniste, E.1970(1974). L appareil formel de I énonciation [J]. Languages,17:12-18.(Reprinted in Beneniste (1974:79-88) Problèmes de linguistique générale, II. Paris:Gallimard.
Bialystok, E.1991. Achieving proficiency in a second language: A processing description [A].In R. Phillipson, et al.(eds.). Foreign/Second Language pedagogy Research: ACommemorative Volume for Claus Farch [C]. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters,63-78.
Bialystok, E.1993. Symbolic representation and attentional control on pragmatic competence.In G. Kasper&S. Blum-Kulka (eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics [C]. New York:Oxford University Press,43-59.
Bialystok, E.1994. Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,16:157-168.
Biber, D. et al.1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English [M]. London:Longman.
Biber, D.2006. Stance in spoken and written university registers [J]. Journal of English forAcademic Purposes,5:96-116.
Blake, C. C. F.1978. Do “genes-in-pieces” imply proteins in pieces?[J]. Nature,273:267.
Bloor, M.&Bloor, T.1991. Cultural expectations and socio-pragmatic failure in academicwriting [A]. In P. Adams, B. Heaton&P. Howarth (eds.). Socio-cultural Issues inEnglish for Academic Purposes: Review of ELT [C]. Basingstoke: Modern EnglishPublications/British Council,1-12.
Blum-Kulka, S.1982. Learning to say what you mean in a second language [J]. AppliedLinguistics,3(1):29-59.
Blum-Kulka, S.1983. Interpreting and performing speech acts in a second language: Across-sectional study of Hebrew and English [A]. In N. Wolfson&E. Judd (eds.).Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition [C]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,36-55.
Blum-Kulka, S.1989. Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness [A]. In S.Blum-Kulka, J. House&G. Kasper (eds.). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests andApologies [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,37-70.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J.&Kasper, G.(eds.).1989. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requestsand Apologies [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bodman, J.&Eisenstein, M.1988. May god increase your bounty: The expression ofgratitude in English by native and non-native speakers [J]. Cross Current,15(1):1-21.
Brown, P.&Levinson, S. C.1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, C. S.1985. Systemic Linguistics: Theory and Applications [M]. London: BatsfordAcademic&Educational.
Bybee, J., Perkins, R.&Pagliuca, W.1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, andModality in the Language of the World [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bybee, J.&Fleischman, S.(eds.).1995. Modality in Grammar and Discourse [C].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Canale, M.1983. From communicative competence to language pedagogy [A]. In J. C.Richards&R. Schmidt (eds.). Language and Communication [C]. London: Longman,2-27.
Canale, M.1988. The measurement of communicative competence [J]. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics,8:67-84.
Canale, M.&Swain, M.1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to secondlanguage teaching and testing [J]. Applied Linguistics,1:1-47.
Chafe, W.1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing [A]. In W. Chafe&J. Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood,NJ: Ablex,261-272.
Cho, Y. Y.2003. Relationship between Grammatical Knowledge and Pragmatic Knowledge/Ability: The Case of Epistemic Modality [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. NewYork: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Chomsky, N.1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Churchill, E.2001. The effect of a study abroad program on request realizations by Japaneselearners of English [J]. Kanagawa University Studies in Language,24:91-103.
Clyne, M.1987. Discourse structures and discourse expectations: Implications forAnglo-German academic communication in English [A]. In L. E. Smith (ed.).Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes [C]. London: Prentice Hall,73-83.
Coates, J.1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries [M]. Harlow: Longman.
Coates, J.1987. Epistemic modality and spoken discourse [J]. Transactions of thePhilological Society,85:100-31.
Coates, J.1988. The acquisition of the meanings of modality in children aged eight andtwelve [J]. Journal of Child Language,15(2),425-434.
Coates, J.1995. The expressions of root and epistemic possibility in English [A]. In B. Arts&C. Meyer (eds.). The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description [C].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,145-156.
Coates, J.1998. Language and Gender: A Reader [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cobb, T.2003. Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Québec replications ofthree European studies [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review,59(3):393-423.
Cohen, A. D.1996. Developing the ability to perform speech acts [J]. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition,18:253-267.
Cook, M.&Liddicoat, A. J.2002. The development of comprehension in interlanguagepragmatics: The case of request strategies in English [J]. Australian Review of AppliedLinguistics,25(1):19-40.
Crismore, A.&vande Kopple, W.1997. Hedges and readers: Effects on attitudes andlearning [A]. In R. Markkanen&H. Schroder (eds.). Hedging and Discourse:Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts [C]. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter,83-114.
Cromption, P.1997. Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems [J]. English forSpecific Purposes,16:271-287.
Crystal, D.1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language [Z]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Crystal, D.&Davy, D.1975. Advanced Conversational English [M]. London: Longman.
Dagneaux, E.1995. Expressions of epistemic modality in native and non-native essay-writing[D]. Unpublished MA dissertation. Belgium: University of Louvain.
Davies, C. E.&Tyler, A. E.1994. Demystifying cross-cultural (mis)communication:Improving performance through balanced feedback in a situated context [A]. In C.Madden&C. Myers (eds.). Discourse and Performance of International TeachingAssistants [C]. Bloomington, IL: TESOL Publications,201-220.
DeCarrico, J.1986. Tense, aspect, and time in the English modality system [J]. TESOLQuarterly,20:665-682.
Declerck, R.1991. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English [M]. Tokyo:Kaitakusha Co., Ltd.
Downing, A.&Locke, P.2002. A University Course in English Grammar [M]. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
DuFon, M. A.1999. The acquisition of linguistic politeness in Indonesian as a secondlanguage by sojourners in a naturalistic context [D].(Doctoral dissertation, Universityof Hawaii.) Dissertation Abstracts International,60,3985.
Edmondson, W.&House, J.1991. Do learners talk too much? The waffle phenomenon ininterlanguage pragmatics [A]. In R. Phillipson, et al.(eds.). Foreign/Second LanguagePedagogical Research [C]. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters,273-286.
Ellis, R.1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Fairclough, N.1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of English [M]. London:Longman.
Fraser, B.1990. Perspectives on Politeness [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,14:219-236.
Fordyce, K.2007. A study on the use of stance forms by Japanese EFL learners in discursiveand descriptive writing [J]. Hiroshima Studies in Language and Language Education,10:145-158.
Gabriebatos, C.&McEnery, T.2005. Epistemic modality in MA dissertations [A]. In P. A.Fuertes Olivera (ed.). Lengua y Sociedad: Investigaciones Recientes en LinguisticaAplicada. Linguistica y Filologia No.61[C]. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid,311-331.
Gardner, R. C.&Lambert, W. E.1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second LanguageLearning [M]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Geyer, N.2007. Self-qualification in L2Japanese: An interface of pragmatic, grammatical,and discourse competence [J]. Language Learning,57(3):337-367.
Givon, T.2001. Syntax: An Introduction Vol.1[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.
Goffman, E.(ed.).1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-To-Face Behavior [C]. GardenCity, New York: Anchor Books.
Goffan, E.1974. Frame Analysis [M]. New York: Harper&Row.
Granger, S.1998a. Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations andformulae [A]. In P. Cowie (ed.). Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications [C].Oxford: Oxford University Press,145-160.
Granger, S.1998b. The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLAresearch [A]. In S. Granger (ed.). Learner English on Computer [C]. London: Longman:3-18.
Granger, S.(ed.).1998c. Learner English on Computer [C]. London: Longman.
Granger, S., Hung, J.&Petch-Tyson, S.(eds.).2002. Computer Learner Corpora, SecondLanguage Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching [C]. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
Granger, S.&Tribble, C.1998. Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom:Form-focused instruction and data-driven learning [A]. In S. Granger (ed.). LearnerEnglish on Computer [C]. London: Addison Welsey Longman,199-209.
Guo, J.1994. Social interaction, meaning, and grammatical form: Children’s developmentand use of modal auxiliaries in Mandarin Chinese [D]. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. California: University of California at Berkeley.
Hall, J. K.1995.“Aw, man, where you goin?”: Classroom interaction and the developmentof L2interactional competence [J]. Issues in Applied Linguistics,6:37-62.
Halliday, M. K.1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language [M]. London: EdwardArnold.
Halliday, M. K.1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Languageand Meaning [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. K.1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1st edition)[M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. K.1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edition)[M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Hartford, S.&Bardovi-Harlig, K.1992. Experimental and observational data in the study ofinterlanguage pragmatics [A]. In L. F. Bouton&Y. Kachru (eds.). Pragmatics andLanguage Learning, Vol.3[C]. Urbana, IL: Division of English as an InternationalLanguage, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,33-52.
Hasan, R.&Perrett, G.1994. Learning to function with the other tongue: A systematicfunctional perspective on second language teaching [A]. In T. Odlin (ed.). Perspectiveson Pedagogical Grammar [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,179-226.
Hassall, T.1997. Requests by Australian Learners of Indonesian [D]. Unpublished PhDdissertation. Canberra: Australian National University.
Hassall, T.2001. Modifying requests in a second language [J]. International Review ofApplied Linguistics in Language Teaching,39:259-283.
Hassall, T.2003. Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,35(12):1903-1928.
Hassall, T.2006. Learning to take leave in social conversations: A diary study [A]. In M. A.Dufon&T. E. Churchill (eds.). Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts [C].Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,31-58.
He, A. W.1993. Exploring modality in institutional interactions: Cases from academiccounseling encounters [J]. Text,13:503-528.
Holmes, J.1982. Expressing doubt and certainty in English [J]. RELC Journal,13(2):9-29.
Holmes, J.1983. Speaking English with the appropriate degree of conviction [A]. In C.Brumfit (ed.). Learning and Teaching Languages for Communication: AppliedLinguistic Perspectives [C]. London: Center for Information on Language Teaching andResearch,100-121.
Holmes, J.1984. Modifying illocutionary force [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,8:345-365.
Holmes, J.1986. Functions of “you know” in women s and men s speech [J]. Language inSociety,15(1):1-21.
Holmes, J.1988. Doubt and Certainty in ESL Textbooks [J]. Applied Linguistics,9(1):21-44.
Holmes, J.1990. Hedges and boosters in women s and men s speech [J]. Language andCommunication,10(3):185-205.
Holmes, J.1993. New Zealand women are good to talk to: An analysis of politenessstrategies in interaction [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,20:91-116.
Holmes, J.1995. Women, Men, and Politeness [M]. New York: Longman.
Horvath, J.2001. Advanced Writing in English as a Foreign Language. A Corpus-basedStudy of Processes and Products [M]. Pecs: Lingua Franca Csoport.
Hinkel, E.1995. The Use of Model Verbs as a Reflection of Cultural Values [J]. TESOLQuarterly,29(2):325-343.
Hinkel, E.1997. Indirectness in L1and L2academic writing [J]. Journal of Pragmatics，27(3):361-386.
Hinkel, E.2002. Second Language Writers’ Text [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hinkel, E.2003. Adverbial markers and tone in L1and L2students writing [J]. Journal ofPragmatics,35:1049-1068.
Hinkel, E.2009. The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1and L2academicwriting [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,41:447-683.
House, J.1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines andmetapragmatic awareness [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,18:225-252.
House, J.&Kasper, G.1981. Politeness markers in English and German [A]. In F. Coulmas(ed.). Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situationsand Prepatterned Speech [C]. New York: Mouton de Gruyter,157-185.
Hoye, L.1997. Adverbs and Modality in English [M]. New York: Longman.
Hu, Z. L., Brown, D.&Brown, L.1982. Some linguistic differences in the written English ofChinese and Australian students [J]. Language Learning and Communication,1:39-49.
Hübler, A.1983. Understatements and Hedges in English [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K.1994. Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks [J]. English for SpecificPurposes,13:239-256.
Hyland, K.1995. Getting serious about being tentative: How scientists hedge [J]. NewZealand Studies in Applied Linguistics,1:35-50.
Hyland, K.1996a. Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles [J].Applied Linguistics,17(4):433-454.
Hyland, K.1996b. Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum [J]. System,24(4):477-490.
Hyland, K.1998a. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K.1998b. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge [J]. TEXT,18(3):349-382.
Hyland, K.2000. Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academictexts [J]. Language Awareness,9(4):179-197.
Hyland, K.2002. Teaching and Researching Writing [M]. London: Pearson EducationLimited.
Hyland, K.2005. Metadiscourse [M]. New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K.2008. Scientific writing [J]. Annual Review of Information Science andTechnology,42(1):297-338.
Hyland, K.&Milton, J.1997. Qualification and certainty in L1and L2students writing [J].Journal of Second Language Writing,6(2):185-205.
Hymes, D.1972. On communicative competence [A]. In J. Pride&J. Holmes (eds.).Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings [C]. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin,269-293.
Jeon, E.&Kaya, T.2006. Effects of L2instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development:A meta-analysis [A]. In J. Norris&L. Ortega (eds.). Synthesizing Research onLanguage Learning and Teaching [C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins,165-211.
Kamimura, T.&Oi, K.1998. Argumentative strategies in American and Japanese English [J].World Englishes,17(3):307-323.
Kanagy, R.1999. Interactional routines as a mechanism for L2acquisition and socializationin an immersion context [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,31:1467-1492.
Kanagy, R.&Igarashi, K.1997. Acquisition of pragmatics competence in a Japaneseimmersion kindergarten [A]. In L. F. Bouton (ed.). Pragmatics and Language LearningVol.8[C]. Urbana, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University ofIllinois, Urbana-Champaign,243-265.
K rkk inen, E.1992. Modality as a strategy in interaction: Epistemic modality in thelanguage of native and non-native speakers of English [A]. In F. Bouton&Y. Kachru(eds.). Pragmatics and Language Learning Vol.3[C]. Urbana, IL: Division of Englishas an International Language, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,197-216.
Kasper, G.1990. Linguistic politeness: Current research issues [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,14:193-218.
Kasper, G.1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught?(NetWork#6). Honolulu, HI:University of Hawaii at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Kasper, G.1998. Interlanguage Pragmatics [A]. In H. Byrnes (ed.). Learning Foreign andSecond Languages [C]. New York: The Modern Language Association of America,183-208.
Kasper, G.2001. Four perspectives on L2pragmatic development [J]. Applied Linguistics,22:502-530.
Kasper, G.&Blum-Kulka, S.1993. Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction [A]. In G.Kasper&S. Blum-Kulka (eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics [C]. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,3-15.
Kasper, G.&Dahl, M.1991. Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics [J]. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition,13:215-247.
Kasper, G.&Rose. K.1999. Pragmatics and SLA [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,19:81-104.
Kasper, G.&Rose, K.2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language [M]. US:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Kasper, G.&Schmidt, R.1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics [J].Studies in Second Language Acquisition,18:149-169.
Kennedy, G.1998. An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics [M]. London: Longman.
Kim, I. O.2000. Relationship of onset age of ESL acquisition and extent of informal input toappropriateness and nativeness in performing four speech acts in English: A study ofnative Korean adult speakers of ESL [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York:New York University.
Kim, I. O.2001. Sex differences in social support, loneliness, and depression among Koreancollege students [J]. Psychological Reports,88(2):521-526.
Koike, D. A.1996. Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreignlanguage learning [A]. In S. M. Gass&J. Neu (eds.). Speech Acts across Cultures:Challenges to Communication in a Second Language [C]. Berlin, etc.: Mouton deGruyter,257-281.
Kondo, S.2008. Effects on pragmatic development through awareness-raising instruction:Refusals by Japanese EFL learners [A]. In E. Alcon&A. Martinez-Flor (eds.).Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing [C].Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,153-177.
Kondo, S.2010. Apologies: Raising learners cross-cultural awareness [A]. In A.Martinez-Flor&E. Uso-Juan (eds.). Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empiricaland Methodological Issues [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,145-162.
Konovalova, I. L.2006. Grammar and agency in L2pragmatic proficiency: Toward anintegrated view of L2pragmatics [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tuscaloosa,Alabama: The University of Alabama.
Lantolf, J. P.2000. Introducing sociocultural theory [A]. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.). SocioculturalTheory and Second Language Learning [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1-26.
Langton, N.2002. Hedging arguments in legal writing [J]. Perspectives,14(1):16-51.
Leech, G.1983. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. New York: Longman.
Leech, G.1987. Meaning and the English Verb2nd edition [M]. London: Longman.
Leech, G.1992. Corpora and theories of linguistic performance [A]. In J. Svartvik (ed.).Directions in Corpus Linguistics [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,105-122.
Leech, G.1998. Preface. In S. Granger (ed.). Learner English on Computer [C]. London:Longman.
Leont ev, A. N.1981. The problem of activity in psychology [A]. In J. V. Wertsch (ed.). TheConcept of Activity in Soviet Psychology [C]. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe,37-71.
Letica, S.2009. Use of epistemic modality by non-native speakers of English [A]. In R.Lugossy, J. Horvath&M. Nikolov (eds.). UPRT2008: Empirical Studies in EnglishApplied Linguistics [C]. Pecs: Lingua Franca Csoport,119-134.
Lewis, M.1993. The Lexical Approach [M]. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lim, D. S. J.1996. Cross-cultural Instruction and Classroom Discourse: A Study of theForeign Language Classroom Culture [D]. Unpublished MA thesis. Hawaii:Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Lin, Y. H.2009. Query preparatory modals: Cross-linguistic and cross-situational variationsin request modification [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,41:1636-1656.
Lo Castro, V.2001. Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes, learnersubjectivity, and pragmatic norms [J]. System,29:69-89.
Low, G..1996. Intensifiers and Hedges in Questionnaire Items and the Lexical InvisibilityHypothesis [J]. Applied Linguistics,17(1):1-37.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Lyons, J.1981. Language, Meaning and Context [M]. London: Fontana.
Lyons, J.1995. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Lyons, J.2000. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press.
Markkannen, R.&Schr der, H.(eds.).1997. Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to theAnalysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts [C]. Berlin/New York: Walterde Gruyter.
Matsumura, S.2003. Modeling the relationships among interlanguage pragmaticdevelopment, L2proficiency, and exposure to L2[J]. Applied Linguistics,24(4):465-491.
McEnery, T.&Kifle, N.2002. Epistemic Modality in Argumentative Essays of SecondLanguage Writers [A]. In J. Flowerdew (ed.). Academic Discourse [C]. London:Pearson Education Limited,182-195.
McKay, S. L.&Wong, S. C.1996. Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment andagency in second language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students [J].Harvard Educational Review,66(3):577-608.
Meisel, J. M., et al.1981. On determining developmental stages in natural second languageacquisition [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,3:109-135.
Mey, J.1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction [M]. US: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Meyerhoff, M.1992. A sort of something: Hedging strategies on nouns [J]. Working Paperson Language, Gender and Sexism,2:59-73.
Milton, J.2001. Elements of a Written Interlanguage [M]. Hong Kong: HKUST.
Milton, J.&Hyland, K.1996. Assertions in students academic essays: A comparison ofEnglish NS and NNS student writers [J]. HKUST Institutional Repository:147-164.
Morita, N.2000. Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESLgraduate program [J]. TESOL Quarterly,34:279-310.
Morris, C.1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs [M]. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.
Mushin, I.2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling [M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Myers, G.1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles [J]. Applied Linguistics,10:1-35.
Neff, J., et al.2003. Contrasting learner corpora: the use of modal and reporting verbs in theexpression of writer stance [A]. In S. Granger&S. Petch-Tyson (eds.). Extending theScope of Corpus-Based Research: New Applications, New Challenges [C]. Amsterdam:Rodopi,211-230.
Neff, J., et al.2004. Formulating writer stance: A contrastive study of EFL learner corpora[A]. In U. Connor, et al.(eds.). Applied Corpus Linguistics: A Multi dimensionalPerspective [C]. Amsterdam: Rodopi,73-89.
Nikula, T.1993. The use of lexical certainty modifiers by non-native Finish and nativespeakers of English [A]. In F. Bouton&Y. Kachru (eds.). Pragmatics and LanguageLearning, Vol.4[C]. Urbana: University of Illinois,126-142.
Nikula, T.1997. Interlanguage view on hedging [A]. In R. Markkanen&H. Schr der (eds.).Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon inAcademic Text [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,18-207.
Nogami, Y.2005. Native and nonnative speakers softener use in English [A]. In K.Bradford-Watts, C. Ikeguchi&M. Swanson (eds.). JALT2004Conference Proceedings[C]. Tokyo: JALT,452-465.
Nguyen, T. T. M.2008. Modifying L2criticisms: How learners do it?[J]. Journal ofPragmatics,40:768-791.
Nuyts, J.2001. Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization: ACognitive-pragmatic Perspective [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ochs, E.1988. Culture and Language Acquisition: Acquiring Communicative Competence ina Samoan Village [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E.1990. Cultural universals in the acquisition of language: Keynote address [J].Papers and Reports on Child Language Development,29:1-19.
Ochs, E.1993. Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective [J].Research on Language and Social Interaction,26(3):287-306.
Ochs, E.1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity [A]. In J. J. Gumperz&S. L.Levinson (eds.). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity [C]. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress,407-437.
Ohta, A. S.1994. Socializing the expression of affect: An overview of affective particle usein the Japanese as a foreign language classroom [J]. Issues in Applied Linguistics,5:303-326.
Ohta, A. S.1995. Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse:Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development [J].Issues in Applied Linguistics,6:93-121.
Ohta, A. S.1997. The development of pragmatic competence in learner-learner classroominteraction [A]. In L. F. Bouton (ed.). Pragmatics and Language Learning Vol.8[C].Urbana-Champaign, IL: Division of English as an International Language, Universityof Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,223-242.
Ohta, A. S.1999. Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style in adultlearners of Japanese [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,31:1493-1512.
Ohta, A. S.2001a. A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment inJapanese as a foreign language [A]. In K. R. Rose&G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics inLanguage Teaching [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,103-120.
Ohta, A. S.2001b. Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: LearningJapanese [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Paiva, B. M.2003. Pragmatic interactions in a second language [A]. In C. B. Grant (ed.).Rethinking Communicative Interaction: New Interdisciplinary Horizons [C].Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins,187-206.
Palmer, F.1979. Modality and the English Modals [M]. London: Longman.
Palmer. F.1983. Review of Coates1983[J]. Australian Journal of Linguistics,3:287-293.
Palmer. F.1986. Mood and Modality [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F.1990. Modality and the English Modals2nd edition)[M].London: Longman.
Palmer, F.2001. Mood and Modality2nd edition [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Papafragou, A.2002. Modality and theory of mind: Perspectives from language developmentand autism [A]. In S. Barbiers, F. Beukema&W. van der Wurff,(eds.). Modality andIts Interaction with the Verbal System [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,185-204.
Peirce, B. N.1995. Social identity, investment, and language learning [J]. TESOL Quarterly,29:9-31.
Perkins, M.1983. Modal Expressions in English [M]. London: Frances Printer.
Polanyi, L.1995. Language learning and living abroad: Stories from the field [A]. In B.Freed (ed.). Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context [C].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,271-291.
Poole, D.1992. Language socialization in the second language classroom [J]. LanguageLearning,42:593-616.
Quirk, R., et al.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. London:Longman.
Richards, J. C.1990. Language Teaching Matrix [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Robberecht, P.&van Petegem, M.1982. A functional model for the description of modality.Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Contrastive Projects,Jyvaskyla.
Rose, K. R.1999. Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong [A]. In E.Hinkel (ed.). Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,167-180.
Rose, K. R.2000. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmaticdevelopment [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,22:27-67.
Rose, K. R.2005. On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics [J]. System,33:385-399.
Rose, K. R.&Ng, C.2001. Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments andcompliment responses [A]. In K. R. Rose&G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in LanguageTeaching [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,145-170.
Salager-Meyer, F.1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical Englishwritten discourse [J]. English for Specific Purposes,13:149-170.
Salsbury, T.&Bardovi-Harlig, K.2000. Oppositional talk and the acquisition of modality inL2English [A]. In B. Swierzbin, et al.(eds.). Social and Cognitive Factors in SecondLanguage Acquisition. Selected Proceedings of the1999Second Language ResearchForum (SLRF). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press,57-76.
Salsbury, T.&Bardovi-Harlig, K.2001. I know you mean, but I don t think so:Disagreements in L2English [A]. In L. F. Bouton (ed.). Pragmatics and LanguageLearning Vol.10[C]. Urbana, IL: Division of English as an International Language,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,131-151.
Scarcella, R.&Brunak, J.1981. On speaking politely in a second language [J]. InternationalJournal of the Sociology of Language,27:59-75.
Schauer, G. A.2006. The development of ESL learners pragmatic competence: Alongitudinal investigation of awareness and production [A]. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C.Felix-Brasdefer&A. S. Omar (eds.). Pragmatics and Language Learning [C].Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,135-161.
Schieffelin, B. B.&Ochs, E.1986. Language socialization [J]. Annual Review ofAnthropology,15:163-191.
Schmidt, R.1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning [J]. AppliedLinguistics,11:17-46.
Schmidt, R.1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics [A]. In G. Kasper&S. Blum-Kulka (eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics [C]. New York: Oxford UniversityPress,21-42.
Schmidt, R.1995. Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role ofattention and awareness in learning [A]. In R. Schmidt (ed.). Attention and Awarenessin Foreign Language Learning [C]. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching andCurriculum Center, University of Hawaii,1-63.
Schmidt, R.2001. Attention [A]. In P. Robinson (ed.). Cognition and Second LanguageInstruction [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press,3-33.
Schmidt, R.&Frota, S. N.1986. Developing basic conversational ability in a secondlanguage: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese [A]. In R. Day (ed.). Talking toLearn [C]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,237-326.
Schumann, J. H.1978. The acculturation model for second language acquisition [A]. In R. C.Gringas (ed.). Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching [C].Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Schumann, J. H.1986. Research on the acculturation model for second language acquisition[J]. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,7:379-392.
Scott, K.2008. WordSmith Tools5.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J.1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language [M]. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.1975. Indirect speech acts [A]. In P. Cole&J. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics:Vol.3. Speech Acts [C]. New York: Academic Press,59-82.
Searle, J.1976. A classification of illocutionary acts [J]. Language in Society,5:1-23.
Searle, J.1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J., et al.1980. Introduction. In J. R. Searle, F. Kiefer,&M. Bierwisch (Eds.). SpeechAct Theory and Pragmatics [C]. Dordrecht: Reidel, vii-xii.
Selinker, L.1969. Language transfer [J]. General Linguistics,9:67-92.
Selinker, L.1972. Interlanguage [J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics in LanguageTeaching,10(2):209-231.
Shea, D. P.1994. Perspective and production: Structuring conversational participation acrosscultural borders [J]. Pragmatics,4:357-389.
Siegal, M.1994. Learning Japanese as a second language in Japan and the interaction ofrace, gender and social context [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. California:University of California at Berkeley.
Siegal, M.1996. The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguisticcompetency: Western women learning Japanese [J]. Applied Linguistics,17(3):356-382.
Simpson, P.1990. Modality in literary-critical discourse [A]. In W. Nash (ed.). The WritingScholar: Studies in Academic Discourse [C]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,63-94.
Smith, E. L.1986. Achieving impact through the interpersonal component [A]. In B. Couture(ed.). Functional Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives [C]. Norwood, NJ:Sage,108-119.
Stubbe, M.&Holmes, J.1995. You know, eh and other “exasperating expressions”: Ananalysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample ofNew Zealand English [J]. Language&Communication,15:63-88.
Taguchi, N.2008a. Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmaticcomprehension in a study-aboard context [J]. Language Learning,58(1):33-71.
Taguchi, N.2008b. Pragmatic comprehension in Japanese as a foreign language [J]. TheModern Language Journal,92(4);558-576.
Takahashi, S.1995. Pragmatic transferability of L1indirect request strategies perceived byJapanese learners of English [D].Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Hawaii: Universityof Hawaii at Manoa.
Takahashi, S.1996. Pragmatic transferability [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,18:189-223.
Takahashi, S.2001. The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence [A].In K. R. Rose&G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching [C]. New York:Cambridge University Press,171-199.
Takahashi, S.2005a. Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency?[J]. Applied Linguistics,26:90-120.
Takahashi, S.2005b. Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A qualitativeanalysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics [J]. System,33:437-461.
Taylor, T. J.&Cameron, D.1987. Analyzing Conversation: Rules and Units in the Structureof Talk [M]. Michigan: Pergamon Press.
Thomas, J.1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure [J]. Applied Linguistics,4:91-112.
Thompson, D. K.1993. Arguing for experimental facts in science [J]. WrittenCommunication,8:106-128.
Thompson, P.2002. Modal verbs in academic writing [A]. In B. Kettemann&G. Marko(eds.). Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis [C]. Amsterdam: Rodopi,305-325.
Traugott, E. C.1985. On conditionals [A]. In J. Haiman (ed.). Iconicity in Syntax [C].Amsterdam: John Benjamins,289-307.
Trosborg, A.1987. Apology strategies in natives/nonnatives [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,11:147-167.
Trosborg, A.1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Request, Complaints and Apologies [M].Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Turnbull, W.&Saxton, K. L.1997. Modal expressions as facework in refusals to complywith requests:“I think I should say no right now”[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,27:145-181.
Urmson, J.1963. Parenthetical verbs [A]. In C. Caton (ed.). Philosophy and OrdinaryLanguage [C]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press,220-240.
van der Auwera, Johan, V.&Plungian, V.1998. Modality s semantic map [J]. LinguisticTypology,2(3):79-124.
Varttala, T.2001. Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring VariationAccording to Discipline and Intended Audience [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Tampere, Fenland: University of Tampere.
Vassileva, I.2001. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing[J]. English for Specific Purposes,20(1):83-102.
Vazquez, I.&Giner, D.2008. Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers ashedges in research articles. A cross-disciplinary study [J]. Revista Alicantina deEstudios Ingleses,21:171-190.
Vitanova, G.2002. Gender and Agency Practices in the Second Language [D]. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Cincinnati, Ohio: University of Cincinnati.
Vygotsky, L. S.1981. The genesis of higher mental functions [A]. In J. V. Wertsch (ed.). TheConcept of Activity in Soviet Psychology [C]. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe,144-188.
W rnsby, A.2002. The use of modal expressions in English by native speakers of Russian [J].The department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics,11:1-17.
Weedon, C.1987. Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Weissberg，R.&Buker, S.1990. Experimental Research Report Writing for Students ofEnglish [M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wertsch, J. V.1981. The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: An introduction. In J. V.Wertsch (ed.). The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology [C]. Armonk, NY: M. E.Sharpe,3-36.
Whitworth, K. F.2009. The discussion forum as a locus for developing L2pragmaticawareness [A]. In L. B. Abraham&L. F. Williams (eds.). Electronic Discourse inLanguage Learning and Language Teaching [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjaminspublishing company,291-318.
Wierzbicka, A.(ed.).2006. English: Meaning and Culture [C]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Wishnoff, J.2000. Hedging your bets: L2learners acquisition of pragmatic devices inacademic writing and computer-mediated discourse [J]. Second Language Studies:Working Papers of the Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawaii,19(1):119-157.
Yoshimi, D. R.2001. Explicit instruction and JFL learners use of interactional discoursemarkers [A]. In K. R. Rose&G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching [C].New York: Cambridge University Press,223-244.
Zuck, J. G.&Zuck, L. V.1985. Hedging in news writing [A]. In A. M.Cornu&M. Delahaye(eds.). Beads or Bracelets: How do We Approach LSP [C]. Leuven, Belgium: OxfordUniversity Press,172-180.
程晓堂,裘晶.2007.中国学生英语作文中情态动词的使用情况[J].外语电化教学(6)：9-15.
冯茵,周榕.2007.学术论文摘要中模糊限制语的调查与分析–基于英语专业毕业论文与国外期刊论文的对比研究[J].外国语言文学(2):108-112.
洪岗,余泽超.2007.书面语际语中情态意义表达的语用分析[J].中国外语，4(6)：42-46.
蒋婷.2006.论学术英语中的情态模糊限制语：一项基于语料库的研究[J].外语电化教学(4)：47-57.
李萍,郑树棠,杨晓虎.2006.影响中美学生抱怨语严厉程度的因素分析[J].外语教学与研究,38(1):56-60.
梁茂成.2008.中国大学生英语笔语中的情态序列研究[J].外语教学与研究，40(1)：51-58.
刘红彦,李月娥.1999.接收及谢绝的过渡语语用调查[J].外语与外语教学(9):22-24.
刘思，刘润清.2005.对“道歉语”的语用定量研究[J].外国语(5):17-23.
刘华.2004.我国英语专业高年级学生的情态动词用法[J].宁波大学学报（教育科学版）(5)：121-125.
马刚，吕晓娟.2007.基于中国学习者英语语料库情态动词研究[J].外语电化教学（3）：17-21.
马广惠.2002.中美大学生英语作文的语言特征分析[J].外语教学与研究,34(5):345-349.
汪红.2004.中美大学生英语言语行为的对比分析[J].北京第二外国语学院学报(6):69-75.
王立非,马会军.2009.基于语料库的中国学生英语演讲话语立场构块研究[J].外语教学与研究，41(5)：365-370.
文秋芳，丁言仁，王文宇.2003.中国大学生英语书面语中的口语化倾向[J].外语教学与研究,35(4):268-274.
文秋芳.2006.英语专业学生口语词汇变化的趋势与特点[J].外语教学与研究，38(3)：189-195.
谢昂.2007.中国英语学习者议论文中的认识情态使用-一项基于语料库的中介语对比研究[D]:[硕士学位论文].洛阳：解放军外国语学院.
杨玉晨.1998.情态动词、模糊语言与英语学术论文写作风格[J].外语与外语教学(7):24-25,35.
余泽超.2002.从情态与礼貌之关系看英语写作教学[J].浙江师范大学学报（社会科学版），27(3)：50-53.
袁周敏，朱跃.2007.中美大学生抱怨策略对比研究[J].西安外国语大学学报，15(4)：34-38.
张振邦.2003.新编英语语法教程(第四版教师用书)[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
郑雯嫣.2003.学术论文中情态助动词的语用功能分析[J].山东外语教学(5)：56-58.
祝卫华.2004.用语料库方法对情态动词进行的对比研究[J].江苏外语教学研究(1):84-88.
Abbuhl, R. J.2006. Hedging and boosting in advanced-level L2legal writing: The effect ofinstruction and feedback [A]. In H. Byrnes, H. Weger-Guntharp,&K. A. Sprang (eds.).Educating for Advanced Foreign Language Capacities: Constructs, Curriculum,Instruction, Assessment [C]. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press,152-164.
Aijmer, K.2002. Modality in Advanced Swedish Learners Written Interlanguage [A]. In S.Granger, J. Hung&S. Petch-Tyson (eds.). Computer Learner Corpora, SecondLanguage Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching [C]. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins,55-76.
Allison, D.1995a. Assertions and alternatives: Helping ESL undergraduates extend theirchoices in academic writing [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing,4(1):1-15.
Allison, D.1995b. Modifying meanings: Modality and argumentation in students writtenanswers to a legal problem [J]. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and LanguageTeaching,18:59-72.
Austin, J. L.1962. How to do Things with Words [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bachman, L. F.1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F.&Palmer, A.1996. Language Testing in Practice [M]. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: Aresearch agenda for acquisitional pragmatics [J]. Language Learning,49:677-713.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.2000. Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition: Form, Meaning,and Use [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bardivi-Harlig, K.2001. Empirical evidence of the need for instruction in pragmatics [A]. InK. R. Rose&G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching [C]. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press,13-32.
Bardivi-Harlig, K.2002. A new starting point? Investigating formulaic use and input in futureexpressions [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,24:189-198.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.&Griffin, R.2005. L2pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESLclassroom [J]. System,33:401-415.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.&Hartford, B. S.1993. Learning the rules of academic talk: Alongitudinal study of pragmatic change [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,15:279-304.
Barron, A.2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to do Things in aStudy Abroad Context [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barron, A.2006. Learning to say “you” in German: The acquisition of sociolinguisticcompetence in a study abroad context [A]. In M. DuFon&E. Churchill (eds.).Language Learners in Study Abroad Context [C]. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,59-82.
Bataller, R.2010. Making a request for a service in Spanish: Pragmatic development in thestudy abroad setting [J]. Foreign Language Annals,43(1):160-175.
Beebe, L. M.&Cummings, M.C.1996. Natural act data versus written questionnaire data:How data collection method affects speech act performance [A]. In S. M. Gass&J.Neu (eds.). Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a SecondLanguage [C]. Berlin: Monton de Gruyter,65-86.
Beneniste, E.1970(1974). L appareil formel de I énonciation [J]. Languages,17:12-18.(Reprinted in Beneniste (1974:79-88) Problèmes de linguistique générale, II. Paris:Gallimard.
Bialystok, E.1991. Achieving proficiency in a second language: A processing description [A].In R. Phillipson, et al.(eds.). Foreign/Second Language pedagogy Research: ACommemorative Volume for Claus Farch [C]. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters,63-78.
Bialystok, E.1993. Symbolic representation and attentional control on pragmatic competence.In G. Kasper&S. Blum-Kulka (eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics [C]. New York:Oxford University Press,43-59.
Bialystok, E.1994. Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,16:157-168.
Biber, D. et al.1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English [M]. London:Longman.
Biber, D.2006. Stance in spoken and written university registers [J]. Journal of English forAcademic Purposes,5:96-116.
Blake, C. C. F.1978. Do “genes-in-pieces” imply proteins in pieces?[J]. Nature,273:267.
Bloor, M.&Bloor, T.1991. Cultural expectations and socio-pragmatic failure in academicwriting [A]. In P. Adams, B. Heaton&P. Howarth (eds.). Socio-cultural Issues inEnglish for Academic Purposes: Review of ELT [C]. Basingstoke: Modern EnglishPublications/British Council,1-12.
Blum-Kulka, S.1982. Learning to say what you mean in a second language [J]. AppliedLinguistics,3(1):29-59.
Blum-Kulka, S.1983. Interpreting and performing speech acts in a second language: Across-sectional study of Hebrew and English [A]. In N. Wolfson&E. Judd (eds.).Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition [C]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,36-55.
Blum-Kulka, S.1989. Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness [A]. In S.Blum-Kulka, J. House&G. Kasper (eds.). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests andApologies [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,37-70.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J.&Kasper, G.(eds.).1989. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requestsand Apologies [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bodman, J.&Eisenstein, M.1988. May god increase your bounty: The expression ofgratitude in English by native and non-native speakers [J]. Cross Current,15(1):1-21.
Brown, P.&Levinson, S. C.1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, C. S.1985. Systemic Linguistics: Theory and Applications [M]. London: BatsfordAcademic&Educational.
Bybee, J., Perkins, R.&Pagliuca, W.1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, andModality in the Language of the World [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bybee, J.&Fleischman, S.(eds.).1995. Modality in Grammar and Discourse [C].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Canale, M.1983. From communicative competence to language pedagogy [A]. In J. C.Richards&R. Schmidt (eds.). Language and Communication [C]. London: Longman,2-27.
Canale, M.1988. The measurement of communicative competence [J]. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics,8:67-84.
Canale, M.&Swain, M.1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to secondlanguage teaching and testing [J]. Applied Linguistics,1:1-47.
Chafe, W.1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing [A]. In W. Chafe&J. Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood,NJ: Ablex,261-272.
Cho, Y. Y.2003. Relationship between Grammatical Knowledge and Pragmatic Knowledge/Ability: The Case of Epistemic Modality [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. NewYork: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Chomsky, N.1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Churchill, E.2001. The effect of a study abroad program on request realizations by Japaneselearners of English [J]. Kanagawa University Studies in Language,24:91-103.
Clyne, M.1987. Discourse structures and discourse expectations: Implications forAnglo-German academic communication in English [A]. In L. E. Smith (ed.).Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes [C]. London: Prentice Hall,73-83.
Coates, J.1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries [M]. Harlow: Longman.
Coates, J.1987. Epistemic modality and spoken discourse [J]. Transactions of thePhilological Society,85:100-31.
Coates, J.1988. The acquisition of the meanings of modality in children aged eight andtwelve [J]. Journal of Child Language,15(2),425-434.
Coates, J.1995. The expressions of root and epistemic possibility in English [A]. In B. Arts&C. Meyer (eds.). The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description [C].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,145-156.
Coates, J.1998. Language and Gender: A Reader [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cobb, T.2003. Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Québec replications ofthree European studies [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review,59(3):393-423.
Cohen, A. D.1996. Developing the ability to perform speech acts [J]. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition,18:253-267.
Cook, M.&Liddicoat, A. J.2002. The development of comprehension in interlanguagepragmatics: The case of request strategies in English [J]. Australian Review of AppliedLinguistics,25(1):19-40.
Crismore, A.&vande Kopple, W.1997. Hedges and readers: Effects on attitudes andlearning [A]. In R. Markkanen&H. Schroder (eds.). Hedging and Discourse:Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts [C]. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter,83-114.
Cromption, P.1997. Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems [J]. English forSpecific Purposes,16:271-287.
Crystal, D.1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language [Z]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Crystal, D.&Davy, D.1975. Advanced Conversational English [M]. London: Longman.
Dagneaux, E.1995. Expressions of epistemic modality in native and non-native essay-writing[D]. Unpublished MA dissertation. Belgium: University of Louvain.
Davies, C. E.&Tyler, A. E.1994. Demystifying cross-cultural (mis)communication:Improving performance through balanced feedback in a situated context [A]. In C.Madden&C. Myers (eds.). Discourse and Performance of International TeachingAssistants [C]. Bloomington, IL: TESOL Publications,201-220.
DeCarrico, J.1986. Tense, aspect, and time in the English modality system [J]. TESOLQuarterly,20:665-682.
Declerck, R.1991. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English [M]. Tokyo:Kaitakusha Co., Ltd.
Downing, A.&Locke, P.2002. A University Course in English Grammar [M]. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
DuFon, M. A.1999. The acquisition of linguistic politeness in Indonesian as a secondlanguage by sojourners in a naturalistic context [D].(Doctoral dissertation, Universityof Hawaii.) Dissertation Abstracts International,60,3985.
Edmondson, W.&House, J.1991. Do learners talk too much? The waffle phenomenon ininterlanguage pragmatics [A]. In R. Phillipson, et al.(eds.). Foreign/Second LanguagePedagogical Research [C]. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters,273-286.
Ellis, R.1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Fairclough, N.1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of English [M]. London:Longman.
Fraser, B.1990. Perspectives on Politeness [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,14:219-236.
Fordyce, K.2007. A study on the use of stance forms by Japanese EFL learners in discursiveand descriptive writing [J]. Hiroshima Studies in Language and Language Education,10:145-158.
Gabriebatos, C.&McEnery, T.2005. Epistemic modality in MA dissertations [A]. In P. A.Fuertes Olivera (ed.). Lengua y Sociedad: Investigaciones Recientes en LinguisticaAplicada. Linguistica y Filologia No.61[C]. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid,311-331.
Gardner, R. C.&Lambert, W. E.1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second LanguageLearning [M]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Geyer, N.2007. Self-qualification in L2Japanese: An interface of pragmatic, grammatical,and discourse competence [J]. Language Learning,57(3):337-367.
Givon, T.2001. Syntax: An Introduction Vol.1[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.
Goffman, E.(ed.).1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-To-Face Behavior [C]. GardenCity, New York: Anchor Books.
Goffan, E.1974. Frame Analysis [M]. New York: Harper&Row.
Granger, S.1998a. Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations andformulae [A]. In P. Cowie (ed.). Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications [C].Oxford: Oxford University Press,145-160.
Granger, S.1998b. The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLAresearch [A]. In S. Granger (ed.). Learner English on Computer [C]. London: Longman:3-18.
Granger, S.(ed.).1998c. Learner English on Computer [C]. London: Longman.
Granger, S., Hung, J.&Petch-Tyson, S.(eds.).2002. Computer Learner Corpora, SecondLanguage Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching [C]. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
Granger, S.&Tribble, C.1998. Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom:Form-focused instruction and data-driven learning [A]. In S. Granger (ed.). LearnerEnglish on Computer [C]. London: Addison Welsey Longman,199-209.
Guo, J.1994. Social interaction, meaning, and grammatical form: Children’s developmentand use of modal auxiliaries in Mandarin Chinese [D]. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. California: University of California at Berkeley.
Hall, J. K.1995.“Aw, man, where you goin?”: Classroom interaction and the developmentof L2interactional competence [J]. Issues in Applied Linguistics,6:37-62.
Halliday, M. K.1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language [M]. London: EdwardArnold.
Halliday, M. K.1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Languageand Meaning [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. K.1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1st edition)[M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. K.1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edition)[M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Hartford, S.&Bardovi-Harlig, K.1992. Experimental and observational data in the study ofinterlanguage pragmatics [A]. In L. F. Bouton&Y. Kachru (eds.). Pragmatics andLanguage Learning, Vol.3[C]. Urbana, IL: Division of English as an InternationalLanguage, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,33-52.
Hasan, R.&Perrett, G.1994. Learning to function with the other tongue: A systematicfunctional perspective on second language teaching [A]. In T. Odlin (ed.). Perspectiveson Pedagogical Grammar [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,179-226.
Hassall, T.1997. Requests by Australian Learners of Indonesian [D]. Unpublished PhDdissertation. Canberra: Australian National University.
Hassall, T.2001. Modifying requests in a second language [J]. International Review ofApplied Linguistics in Language Teaching,39:259-283.
Hassall, T.2003. Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,35(12):1903-1928.
Hassall, T.2006. Learning to take leave in social conversations: A diary study [A]. In M. A.Dufon&T. E. Churchill (eds.). Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts [C].Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,31-58.
He, A. W.1993. Exploring modality in institutional interactions: Cases from academiccounseling encounters [J]. Text,13:503-528.
Holmes, J.1982. Expressing doubt and certainty in English [J]. RELC Journal,13(2):9-29.
Holmes, J.1983. Speaking English with the appropriate degree of conviction [A]. In C.Brumfit (ed.). Learning and Teaching Languages for Communication: AppliedLinguistic Perspectives [C]. London: Center for Information on Language Teaching andResearch,100-121.
Holmes, J.1984. Modifying illocutionary force [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,8:345-365.
Holmes, J.1986. Functions of “you know” in women s and men s speech [J]. Language inSociety,15(1):1-21.
Holmes, J.1988. Doubt and Certainty in ESL Textbooks [J]. Applied Linguistics,9(1):21-44.
Holmes, J.1990. Hedges and boosters in women s and men s speech [J]. Language andCommunication,10(3):185-205.
Holmes, J.1993. New Zealand women are good to talk to: An analysis of politenessstrategies in interaction [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,20:91-116.
Holmes, J.1995. Women, Men, and Politeness [M]. New York: Longman.
Horvath, J.2001. Advanced Writing in English as a Foreign Language. A Corpus-basedStudy of Processes and Products [M]. Pecs: Lingua Franca Csoport.
Hinkel, E.1995. The Use of Model Verbs as a Reflection of Cultural Values [J]. TESOLQuarterly,29(2):325-343.
Hinkel, E.1997. Indirectness in L1and L2academic writing [J]. Journal of Pragmatics，27(3):361-386.
Hinkel, E.2002. Second Language Writers’ Text [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hinkel, E.2003. Adverbial markers and tone in L1and L2students writing [J]. Journal ofPragmatics,35:1049-1068.
Hinkel, E.2009. The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1and L2academicwriting [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,41:447-683.
House, J.1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines andmetapragmatic awareness [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,18:225-252.
House, J.&Kasper, G.1981. Politeness markers in English and German [A]. In F. Coulmas(ed.). Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situationsand Prepatterned Speech [C]. New York: Mouton de Gruyter,157-185.
Hoye, L.1997. Adverbs and Modality in English [M]. New York: Longman.
Hu, Z. L., Brown, D.&Brown, L.1982. Some linguistic differences in the written English ofChinese and Australian students [J]. Language Learning and Communication,1:39-49.
Hübler, A.1983. Understatements and Hedges in English [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K.1994. Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks [J]. English for SpecificPurposes,13:239-256.
Hyland, K.1995. Getting serious about being tentative: How scientists hedge [J]. NewZealand Studies in Applied Linguistics,1:35-50.
Hyland, K.1996a. Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles [J].Applied Linguistics,17(4):433-454.
Hyland, K.1996b. Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum [J]. System,24(4):477-490.
Hyland, K.1998a. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K.1998b. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge [J]. TEXT,18(3):349-382.
Hyland, K.2000. Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academictexts [J]. Language Awareness,9(4):179-197.
Hyland, K.2002. Teaching and Researching Writing [M]. London: Pearson EducationLimited.
Hyland, K.2005. Metadiscourse [M]. New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K.2008. Scientific writing [J]. Annual Review of Information Science andTechnology,42(1):297-338.
Hyland, K.&Milton, J.1997. Qualification and certainty in L1and L2students writing [J].Journal of Second Language Writing,6(2):185-205.
Hymes, D.1972. On communicative competence [A]. In J. Pride&J. Holmes (eds.).Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings [C]. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin,269-293.
Jeon, E.&Kaya, T.2006. Effects of L2instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development:A meta-analysis [A]. In J. Norris&L. Ortega (eds.). Synthesizing Research onLanguage Learning and Teaching [C]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins,165-211.
Kamimura, T.&Oi, K.1998. Argumentative strategies in American and Japanese English [J].World Englishes,17(3):307-323.
Kanagy, R.1999. Interactional routines as a mechanism for L2acquisition and socializationin an immersion context [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,31:1467-1492.
Kanagy, R.&Igarashi, K.1997. Acquisition of pragmatics competence in a Japaneseimmersion kindergarten [A]. In L. F. Bouton (ed.). Pragmatics and Language LearningVol.8[C]. Urbana, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University ofIllinois, Urbana-Champaign,243-265.
K rkk inen, E.1992. Modality as a strategy in interaction: Epistemic modality in thelanguage of native and non-native speakers of English [A]. In F. Bouton&Y. Kachru(eds.). Pragmatics and Language Learning Vol.3[C]. Urbana, IL: Division of Englishas an International Language, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,197-216.
Kasper, G.1990. Linguistic politeness: Current research issues [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,14:193-218.
Kasper, G.1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught?(NetWork#6). Honolulu, HI:University of Hawaii at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Kasper, G.1998. Interlanguage Pragmatics [A]. In H. Byrnes (ed.). Learning Foreign andSecond Languages [C]. New York: The Modern Language Association of America,183-208.
Kasper, G.2001. Four perspectives on L2pragmatic development [J]. Applied Linguistics,22:502-530.
Kasper, G.&Blum-Kulka, S.1993. Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction [A]. In G.Kasper&S. Blum-Kulka (eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics [C]. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,3-15.
Kasper, G.&Dahl, M.1991. Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics [J]. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition,13:215-247.
Kasper, G.&Rose. K.1999. Pragmatics and SLA [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,19:81-104.
Kasper, G.&Rose, K.2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language [M]. US:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Kasper, G.&Schmidt, R.1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics [J].Studies in Second Language Acquisition,18:149-169.
Kennedy, G.1998. An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics [M]. London: Longman.
Kim, I. O.2000. Relationship of onset age of ESL acquisition and extent of informal input toappropriateness and nativeness in performing four speech acts in English: A study ofnative Korean adult speakers of ESL [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York:New York University.
Kim, I. O.2001. Sex differences in social support, loneliness, and depression among Koreancollege students [J]. Psychological Reports,88(2):521-526.
Koike, D. A.1996. Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreignlanguage learning [A]. In S. M. Gass&J. Neu (eds.). Speech Acts across Cultures:Challenges to Communication in a Second Language [C]. Berlin, etc.: Mouton deGruyter,257-281.
Kondo, S.2008. Effects on pragmatic development through awareness-raising instruction:Refusals by Japanese EFL learners [A]. In E. Alcon&A. Martinez-Flor (eds.).Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing [C].Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,153-177.
Kondo, S.2010. Apologies: Raising learners cross-cultural awareness [A]. In A.Martinez-Flor&E. Uso-Juan (eds.). Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empiricaland Methodological Issues [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,145-162.
Konovalova, I. L.2006. Grammar and agency in L2pragmatic proficiency: Toward anintegrated view of L2pragmatics [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tuscaloosa,Alabama: The University of Alabama.
Lantolf, J. P.2000. Introducing sociocultural theory [A]. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.). SocioculturalTheory and Second Language Learning [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1-26.
Langton, N.2002. Hedging arguments in legal writing [J]. Perspectives,14(1):16-51.
Leech, G.1983. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. New York: Longman.
Leech, G.1987. Meaning and the English Verb2nd edition [M]. London: Longman.
Leech, G.1992. Corpora and theories of linguistic performance [A]. In J. Svartvik (ed.).Directions in Corpus Linguistics [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,105-122.
Leech, G.1998. Preface. In S. Granger (ed.). Learner English on Computer [C]. London:Longman.
Leont ev, A. N.1981. The problem of activity in psychology [A]. In J. V. Wertsch (ed.). TheConcept of Activity in Soviet Psychology [C]. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe,37-71.
Letica, S.2009. Use of epistemic modality by non-native speakers of English [A]. In R.Lugossy, J. Horvath&M. Nikolov (eds.). UPRT2008: Empirical Studies in EnglishApplied Linguistics [C]. Pecs: Lingua Franca Csoport,119-134.
Lewis, M.1993. The Lexical Approach [M]. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lim, D. S. J.1996. Cross-cultural Instruction and Classroom Discourse: A Study of theForeign Language Classroom Culture [D]. Unpublished MA thesis. Hawaii:Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Lin, Y. H.2009. Query preparatory modals: Cross-linguistic and cross-situational variationsin request modification [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,41:1636-1656.
Lo Castro, V.2001. Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes, learnersubjectivity, and pragmatic norms [J]. System,29:69-89.
Low, G..1996. Intensifiers and Hedges in Questionnaire Items and the Lexical InvisibilityHypothesis [J]. Applied Linguistics,17(1):1-37.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
Lyons, J.1981. Language, Meaning and Context [M]. London: Fontana.
Lyons, J.1995. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Lyons, J.2000. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press.
Markkannen, R.&Schr der, H.(eds.).1997. Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to theAnalysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts [C]. Berlin/New York: Walterde Gruyter.
Matsumura, S.2003. Modeling the relationships among interlanguage pragmaticdevelopment, L2proficiency, and exposure to L2[J]. Applied Linguistics,24(4):465-491.
McEnery, T.&Kifle, N.2002. Epistemic Modality in Argumentative Essays of SecondLanguage Writers [A]. In J. Flowerdew (ed.). Academic Discourse [C]. London:Pearson Education Limited,182-195.
McKay, S. L.&Wong, S. C.1996. Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment andagency in second language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students [J].Harvard Educational Review,66(3):577-608.
Meisel, J. M., et al.1981. On determining developmental stages in natural second languageacquisition [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,3:109-135.
Mey, J.1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction [M]. US: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Meyerhoff, M.1992. A sort of something: Hedging strategies on nouns [J]. Working Paperson Language, Gender and Sexism,2:59-73.
Milton, J.2001. Elements of a Written Interlanguage [M]. Hong Kong: HKUST.
Milton, J.&Hyland, K.1996. Assertions in students academic essays: A comparison ofEnglish NS and NNS student writers [J]. HKUST Institutional Repository:147-164.
Morita, N.2000. Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESLgraduate program [J]. TESOL Quarterly,34:279-310.
Morris, C.1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs [M]. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.
Mushin, I.2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling [M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Myers, G.1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles [J]. Applied Linguistics,10:1-35.
Neff, J., et al.2003. Contrasting learner corpora: the use of modal and reporting verbs in theexpression of writer stance [A]. In S. Granger&S. Petch-Tyson (eds.). Extending theScope of Corpus-Based Research: New Applications, New Challenges [C]. Amsterdam:Rodopi,211-230.
Neff, J., et al.2004. Formulating writer stance: A contrastive study of EFL learner corpora[A]. In U. Connor, et al.(eds.). Applied Corpus Linguistics: A Multi dimensionalPerspective [C]. Amsterdam: Rodopi,73-89.
Nikula, T.1993. The use of lexical certainty modifiers by non-native Finish and nativespeakers of English [A]. In F. Bouton&Y. Kachru (eds.). Pragmatics and LanguageLearning, Vol.4[C]. Urbana: University of Illinois,126-142.
Nikula, T.1997. Interlanguage view on hedging [A]. In R. Markkanen&H. Schr der (eds.).Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon inAcademic Text [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,18-207.
Nogami, Y.2005. Native and nonnative speakers softener use in English [A]. In K.Bradford-Watts, C. Ikeguchi&M. Swanson (eds.). JALT2004Conference Proceedings[C]. Tokyo: JALT,452-465.
Nguyen, T. T. M.2008. Modifying L2criticisms: How learners do it?[J]. Journal ofPragmatics,40:768-791.
Nuyts, J.2001. Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization: ACognitive-pragmatic Perspective [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ochs, E.1988. Culture and Language Acquisition: Acquiring Communicative Competence ina Samoan Village [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E.1990. Cultural universals in the acquisition of language: Keynote address [J].Papers and Reports on Child Language Development,29:1-19.
Ochs, E.1993. Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective [J].Research on Language and Social Interaction,26(3):287-306.
Ochs, E.1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity [A]. In J. J. Gumperz&S. L.Levinson (eds.). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity [C]. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress,407-437.
Ohta, A. S.1994. Socializing the expression of affect: An overview of affective particle usein the Japanese as a foreign language classroom [J]. Issues in Applied Linguistics,5:303-326.
Ohta, A. S.1995. Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse:Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development [J].Issues in Applied Linguistics,6:93-121.
Ohta, A. S.1997. The development of pragmatic competence in learner-learner classroominteraction [A]. In L. F. Bouton (ed.). Pragmatics and Language Learning Vol.8[C].Urbana-Champaign, IL: Division of English as an International Language, Universityof Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,223-242.
Ohta, A. S.1999. Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style in adultlearners of Japanese [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,31:1493-1512.
Ohta, A. S.2001a. A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment inJapanese as a foreign language [A]. In K. R. Rose&G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics inLanguage Teaching [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,103-120.
Ohta, A. S.2001b. Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: LearningJapanese [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Paiva, B. M.2003. Pragmatic interactions in a second language [A]. In C. B. Grant (ed.).Rethinking Communicative Interaction: New Interdisciplinary Horizons [C].Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins,187-206.
Palmer, F.1979. Modality and the English Modals [M]. London: Longman.
Palmer. F.1983. Review of Coates1983[J]. Australian Journal of Linguistics,3:287-293.
Palmer. F.1986. Mood and Modality [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F.1990. Modality and the English Modals2nd edition)[M].London: Longman.
Palmer, F.2001. Mood and Modality2nd edition [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Papafragou, A.2002. Modality and theory of mind: Perspectives from language developmentand autism [A]. In S. Barbiers, F. Beukema&W. van der Wurff,(eds.). Modality andIts Interaction with the Verbal System [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,185-204.
Peirce, B. N.1995. Social identity, investment, and language learning [J]. TESOL Quarterly,29:9-31.
Perkins, M.1983. Modal Expressions in English [M]. London: Frances Printer.
Polanyi, L.1995. Language learning and living abroad: Stories from the field [A]. In B.Freed (ed.). Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context [C].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,271-291.
Poole, D.1992. Language socialization in the second language classroom [J]. LanguageLearning,42:593-616.
Quirk, R., et al.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. London:Longman.
Richards, J. C.1990. Language Teaching Matrix [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Robberecht, P.&van Petegem, M.1982. A functional model for the description of modality.Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Contrastive Projects,Jyvaskyla.
Rose, K. R.1999. Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong [A]. In E.Hinkel (ed.). Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,167-180.
Rose, K. R.2000. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmaticdevelopment [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,22:27-67.
Rose, K. R.2005. On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics [J]. System,33:385-399.
Rose, K. R.&Ng, C.2001. Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments andcompliment responses [A]. In K. R. Rose&G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in LanguageTeaching [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,145-170.
Salager-Meyer, F.1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical Englishwritten discourse [J]. English for Specific Purposes,13:149-170.
Salsbury, T.&Bardovi-Harlig, K.2000. Oppositional talk and the acquisition of modality inL2English [A]. In B. Swierzbin, et al.(eds.). Social and Cognitive Factors in SecondLanguage Acquisition. Selected Proceedings of the1999Second Language ResearchForum (SLRF). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press,57-76.
Salsbury, T.&Bardovi-Harlig, K.2001. I know you mean, but I don t think so:Disagreements in L2English [A]. In L. F. Bouton (ed.). Pragmatics and LanguageLearning Vol.10[C]. Urbana, IL: Division of English as an International Language,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,131-151.
Scarcella, R.&Brunak, J.1981. On speaking politely in a second language [J]. InternationalJournal of the Sociology of Language,27:59-75.
Schauer, G. A.2006. The development of ESL learners pragmatic competence: Alongitudinal investigation of awareness and production [A]. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C.Felix-Brasdefer&A. S. Omar (eds.). Pragmatics and Language Learning [C].Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,135-161.
Schieffelin, B. B.&Ochs, E.1986. Language socialization [J]. Annual Review ofAnthropology,15:163-191.
Schmidt, R.1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning [J]. AppliedLinguistics,11:17-46.
Schmidt, R.1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics [A]. In G. Kasper&S. Blum-Kulka (eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics [C]. New York: Oxford UniversityPress,21-42.
Schmidt, R.1995. Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role ofattention and awareness in learning [A]. In R. Schmidt (ed.). Attention and Awarenessin Foreign Language Learning [C]. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching andCurriculum Center, University of Hawaii,1-63.
Schmidt, R.2001. Attention [A]. In P. Robinson (ed.). Cognition and Second LanguageInstruction [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press,3-33.
Schmidt, R.&Frota, S. N.1986. Developing basic conversational ability in a secondlanguage: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese [A]. In R. Day (ed.). Talking toLearn [C]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,237-326.
Schumann, J. H.1978. The acculturation model for second language acquisition [A]. In R. C.Gringas (ed.). Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching [C].Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Schumann, J. H.1986. Research on the acculturation model for second language acquisition[J]. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,7:379-392.
Scott, K.2008. WordSmith Tools5.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J.1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language [M]. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.1975. Indirect speech acts [A]. In P. Cole&J. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics:Vol.3. Speech Acts [C]. New York: Academic Press,59-82.
Searle, J.1976. A classification of illocutionary acts [J]. Language in Society,5:1-23.
Searle, J.1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J., et al.1980. Introduction. In J. R. Searle, F. Kiefer,&M. Bierwisch (Eds.). SpeechAct Theory and Pragmatics [C]. Dordrecht: Reidel, vii-xii.
Selinker, L.1969. Language transfer [J]. General Linguistics,9:67-92.
Selinker, L.1972. Interlanguage [J]. International Review of Applied Linguistics in LanguageTeaching,10(2):209-231.
Shea, D. P.1994. Perspective and production: Structuring conversational participation acrosscultural borders [J]. Pragmatics,4:357-389.
Siegal, M.1994. Learning Japanese as a second language in Japan and the interaction ofrace, gender and social context [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. California:University of California at Berkeley.
Siegal, M.1996. The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguisticcompetency: Western women learning Japanese [J]. Applied Linguistics,17(3):356-382.
Simpson, P.1990. Modality in literary-critical discourse [A]. In W. Nash (ed.). The WritingScholar: Studies in Academic Discourse [C]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,63-94.
Smith, E. L.1986. Achieving impact through the interpersonal component [A]. In B. Couture(ed.). Functional Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives [C]. Norwood, NJ:Sage,108-119.
Stubbe, M.&Holmes, J.1995. You know, eh and other “exasperating expressions”: Ananalysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample ofNew Zealand English [J]. Language&Communication,15:63-88.
Taguchi, N.2008a. Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmaticcomprehension in a study-aboard context [J]. Language Learning,58(1):33-71.
Taguchi, N.2008b. Pragmatic comprehension in Japanese as a foreign language [J]. TheModern Language Journal,92(4);558-576.
Takahashi, S.1995. Pragmatic transferability of L1indirect request strategies perceived byJapanese learners of English [D].Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Hawaii: Universityof Hawaii at Manoa.
Takahashi, S.1996. Pragmatic transferability [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,18:189-223.
Takahashi, S.2001. The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence [A].In K. R. Rose&G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching [C]. New York:Cambridge University Press,171-199.
Takahashi, S.2005a. Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency?[J]. Applied Linguistics,26:90-120.
Takahashi, S.2005b. Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A qualitativeanalysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics [J]. System,33:437-461.
Taylor, T. J.&Cameron, D.1987. Analyzing Conversation: Rules and Units in the Structureof Talk [M]. Michigan: Pergamon Press.
Thomas, J.1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure [J]. Applied Linguistics,4:91-112.
Thompson, D. K.1993. Arguing for experimental facts in science [J]. WrittenCommunication,8:106-128.
Thompson, P.2002. Modal verbs in academic writing [A]. In B. Kettemann&G. Marko(eds.). Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis [C]. Amsterdam: Rodopi,305-325.
Traugott, E. C.1985. On conditionals [A]. In J. Haiman (ed.). Iconicity in Syntax [C].Amsterdam: John Benjamins,289-307.
Trosborg, A.1987. Apology strategies in natives/nonnatives [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,11:147-167.
Trosborg, A.1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Request, Complaints and Apologies [M].Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Turnbull, W.&Saxton, K. L.1997. Modal expressions as facework in refusals to complywith requests:“I think I should say no right now”[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,27:145-181.
Urmson, J.1963. Parenthetical verbs [A]. In C. Caton (ed.). Philosophy and OrdinaryLanguage [C]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press,220-240.
van der Auwera, Johan, V.&Plungian, V.1998. Modality s semantic map [J]. LinguisticTypology,2(3):79-124.
Varttala, T.2001. Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring VariationAccording to Discipline and Intended Audience [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Tampere, Fenland: University of Tampere.
Vassileva, I.2001. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing[J]. English for Specific Purposes,20(1):83-102.
Vazquez, I.&Giner, D.2008. Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers ashedges in research articles. A cross-disciplinary study [J]. Revista Alicantina deEstudios Ingleses,21:171-190.
Vitanova, G.2002. Gender and Agency Practices in the Second Language [D]. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Cincinnati, Ohio: University of Cincinnati.
Vygotsky, L. S.1981. The genesis of higher mental functions [A]. In J. V. Wertsch (ed.). TheConcept of Activity in Soviet Psychology [C]. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe,144-188.
W rnsby, A.2002. The use of modal expressions in English by native speakers of Russian [J].The department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics,11:1-17.
Weedon, C.1987. Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Weissberg，R.&Buker, S.1990. Experimental Research Report Writing for Students ofEnglish [M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wertsch, J. V.1981. The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: An introduction. In J. V.Wertsch (ed.). The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology [C]. Armonk, NY: M. E.Sharpe,3-36.
Whitworth, K. F.2009. The discussion forum as a locus for developing L2pragmaticawareness [A]. In L. B. Abraham&L. F. Williams (eds.). Electronic Discourse inLanguage Learning and Language Teaching [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjaminspublishing company,291-318.
Wierzbicka, A.(ed.).2006. English: Meaning and Culture [C]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Wishnoff, J.2000. Hedging your bets: L2learners acquisition of pragmatic devices inacademic writing and computer-mediated discourse [J]. Second Language Studies:Working Papers of the Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawaii,19(1):119-157.
Yoshimi, D. R.2001. Explicit instruction and JFL learners use of interactional discoursemarkers [A]. In K. R. Rose&G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching [C].New York: Cambridge University Press,223-244.
Zuck, J. G.&Zuck, L. V.1985. Hedging in news writing [A]. In A. M.Cornu&M. Delahaye(eds.). Beads or Bracelets: How do We Approach LSP [C]. Leuven, Belgium: OxfordUniversity Press,172-180.
程晓堂,裘晶.2007.中国学生英语作文中情态动词的使用情况[J].外语电化教学(6)：9-15.
冯茵,周榕.2007.学术论文摘要中模糊限制语的调查与分析–基于英语专业毕业论文与国外期刊论文的对比研究[J].外国语言文学(2):108-112.
洪岗,余泽超.2007.书面语际语中情态意义表达的语用分析[J].中国外语，4(6)：42-46.
蒋婷.2006.论学术英语中的情态模糊限制语：一项基于语料库的研究[J].外语电化教学(4)：47-57.
李萍,郑树棠,杨晓虎.2006.影响中美学生抱怨语严厉程度的因素分析[J].外语教学与研究,38(1):56-60.
梁茂成.2008.中国大学生英语笔语中的情态序列研究[J].外语教学与研究，40(1)：51-58.
刘红彦,李月娥.1999.接收及谢绝的过渡语语用调查[J].外语与外语教学(9):22-24.
刘思，刘润清.2005.对“道歉语”的语用定量研究[J].外国语(5):17-23.
刘华.2004.我国英语专业高年级学生的情态动词用法[J].宁波大学学报（教育科学版）(5)：121-125.
马刚，吕晓娟.2007.基于中国学习者英语语料库情态动词研究[J].外语电化教学（3）：17-21.
马广惠.2002.中美大学生英语作文的语言特征分析[J].外语教学与研究,34(5):345-349.
汪红.2004.中美大学生英语言语行为的对比分析[J].北京第二外国语学院学报(6):69-75.
王立非,马会军.2009.基于语料库的中国学生英语演讲话语立场构块研究[J].外语教学与研究，41(5)：365-370.
文秋芳，丁言仁，王文宇.2003.中国大学生英语书面语中的口语化倾向[J].外语教学与研究,35(4):268-274.
文秋芳.2006.英语专业学生口语词汇变化的趋势与特点[J].外语教学与研究，38(3)：189-195.
谢昂.2007.中国英语学习者议论文中的认识情态使用-一项基于语料库的中介语对比研究[D]:[硕士学位论文].洛阳：解放军外国语学院.
杨玉晨.1998.情态动词、模糊语言与英语学术论文写作风格[J].外语与外语教学(7):24-25,35.
余泽超.2002.从情态与礼貌之关系看英语写作教学[J].浙江师范大学学报（社会科学版），27(3)：50-53.
袁周敏，朱跃.2007.中美大学生抱怨策略对比研究[J].西安外国语大学学报，15(4)：34-38.
张振邦.2003.新编英语语法教程(第四版教师用书)[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
郑雯嫣.2003.学术论文中情态助动词的语用功能分析[J].山东外语教学(5)：56-58.
祝卫华.2004.用语料库方法对情态动词进行的对比研究[J].江苏外语教学研究(1):84-88.