英语广告语篇的主观性与交互主观性研究
|
摘要
在探求和解释人类语言普遍现象的过程中,出现了形式主义和功能主义两大思潮。形式主义注重从语言内部对语言结构进行描写,而功能主义则从语言外部探究语言事实。作为一种语言研究新范式,认知语言学为功能主义注入了新鲜血液。认知语言学强调概念化的重要作用,认为意义是概念内容和以特定方式对该内容识解的结果。既然是识解,必然涉及作为概念化主体的人的视角、认识、情感等方面因素,语言是这些因素作用下的有关特定内容的符号输出。
本研究选取广告语篇为对象,以自建小型语料库中商业广告为实例探究英语广告语篇的概念化问题,主要是作为概念化主体的广告人在对概念化客体——广告产品以及另一概念化主体——消费者识解时的主体因素。为此,我们以Verhagen(2005/2007)的识解构型为指导,构建了广告的识解构型,并对广告语篇的主观性和交互主观性进行了界定。将广告语篇的主观性定义为：作为概念化主体的广告人为了达到说服性目的,基于自己对概念化客体——广告产品的主观识解对产品进行语言编码,从而在广告语篇中留下的体现自我视角、认识、情感的主观印记；将广告语篇的交互主观性定义为：作为概念化主体的广‘告人在对广告产品的识解中,充分意识到同样作为概念化主体的消费者的存在,为了达到双方对广告产品的识解平衡,在广告语篇中留下的与消费者认知协作的主观印记。概括起来说,本研究主要想回答以下两个问题：
第一,为了达到说服消费者、最终促成其购买行为的目的,广告人对广告产品的识解如何体现广告人主观性?
第二,为了达到说服消费者、最终促成其购买行为的目的,广告语篇如何体现广告人与消费者的认知协作,即交互主观性?
“主观性”和“交互主观性”的概念源于哲学领域,后来在语言学“人文主义”复苏思潮下进入语言研究领域,并在不同语言研究范式下得到了发展性的阐释。哲学视域中的主观性强调人作为主体的自我意识,交互主观性强调自我对他我的意识以及自我与他我的关系问题。基于对主观性和交互主观性的这种哲学理解,结合语言学视域,尤其是认知语言学中的主观性和交互主观性研究,本论文关注了以广告人自我意识为主的广告语篇主观性,并将其延伸到以广告人他我意识为主的广告语篇交互主观性,即本研究不仅探析了广告语篇中广告人的自我表达,而且探析了广告人与消费者之间的认知协作。
围绕本研究提出的两个问题,在所构建的识解构型指导下本论文从视角、认识和情感三个维度研究了广告语篇中广告人的自我表达——广告语篇的主观性；从广告人对消费者认识自我关注和社会形象自我关注两个维度研究了广告语篇中广告人与消费者之间的认知协作——广告语篇的交互主观性。主要得到以下结论：
第一,在人称视角的选择上广告人既可以从内部视角出发突显自己对广告产品的熟知度,也可以从独立于广告产品的外部视角出发突显所提供产品信息的客观性。虽然内部视角确立了广告人与消费者之间的“我卖你买”关系,但人称代词“you”所创造的面对面对话语境减弱了这种对立关系。以外部视角安排广告语篇实际上是广告大借第三者之口表达自已意图、提高广告语篇可接受度的一种话语间视角的表达上广告人通过时态移位和时间副词的“非时间”用法突显消费者的重要性。这种虚拟的“我与你在此时”时间舞台通过使广告人与消费者以语言形式相遇缩短了双方之间的心理距离。由于广告语篇的接收者是潜在的分处不同空间的消费者,广告人很难与消费者达成空间的统一,因此,广告语篇中较少出现空间指示语。
第二,广告语篇中广告人通过情态动词、情态副词、情态动词与情态副词组合、非叙实动词结构等语言形式把自己对广告产品的主观认识附加到有关产品优越性能或所能提供服务的命题之上。一方面,通过认识情态对命题的限定作用广告人实现对命题所述内容真实性的不同承诺程度；另一方面,通过动力情态对命题情态力的提升广告人向消费者传递自己一方的主观意愿性。
第三,广告语篇中普遍使用表示积极意义的评价类形容词,而较少使用描述产品物理属性的形容词。因其论辩方向总是朝向积极一面,表示积极意义的评价类形容词实际上为广告人预期的特定结论提供了论据,是广告人情感的自我流露。广告语篇中大量使用的等级形容词以及他们的屈折形式因为缺少具体参照对象而意义模糊不清,对这些词的理解离不开广告人的主观构想。此外,形容词的跨域搭配现象在表达广告人情感倾向的同时增加了表达的形象性和生动性,使有关广告产品的描述富有感染力。
第四,广告语篇的交互主观性是在广告人与消费者主体层面进行的认知操作,表现之一为广告人通过特定语言形式引导消费者对广告产品进行识解,从而促成双方对产品认识的平衡。他体现了广告人对消费者认识自我的关注,是双方的认知协作在广告语篇中的具体体现,主要包括否定表达、跨小句连接成分和无疑而问的问句。通过否定表达广告人指导消费者放弃有关广告产品的某一认识立场,而接受另一认识立场。其中“No+NP”的否定形式更加强调广告产品与其他同类产品某一(些)方面的隐性对比。"more than (just)"的否定结构主要是指导消费者放弃有关广告产品的类属性陈述,而接受广告人认为更加精确、恰当的陈述。虽然受空间、经济等因素影响广告人往往是惜字如金,但是为了使消费者按其预期方式理解语句间的概念关系,广告人使用特定连接成分在小句间建立起联系。我们主要分析了语料中常见的连接成分"that's why"和"finally"。通常情况下,问句表示说话人对提问内容的无知或不确定以及对听话人提供相关知识的需求。但广告语篇标题中常用的问句却是广告人用以调控消费者认知状态的话语策略。他将消费者引向将要“广告”的产品,尤其是为消费者提供有关产品类属方面的信息；或者将消费者对产品的识解引向产品某一特定方面,并以此预告语篇正文的核心主题。
第五,广告人与消费者主体层而进行的认知协作还表现在广告人通过特定语言形式对消费者心理进行调控,从而促使消费者对广告产品的识解朝向有利于自己的方向发展。这种广告人与消费者之间的认知协作体现了广告人对消费者社会形象自我的关注,主要包括面子提升式" You deserve "结构和间接提议的购买行为。其中," You deserve "类结构通过满足消费者获得他人认可、赞许、欣赏等的心理维护了其正面面子,由此,给消费者带来了不一样的心理体验。而“号召型”与“邀请型”间接提议不仅从礼貌的层面,还从广告人把消费者看作是和自己一样平等的交际参与者层面体现了广告人对消费者社会形象自我的关注,是通过心理调控实现的交互主观性。
总之,本论文是基于前人研究基础将语言主观性研究拓展到语篇层面的一种积极尝试。受交际目的、交际对象、交际时空特征等因素制约,研究语篇中的主观性可以说是将主观性置于话语交际层面进行的动态立体研究。此外,本研究通过广告的识解构型将广告人、广告产品和消费者置于同一平面,这可以为一些看似零散的语言现象提供较为系统的认知阐释。主观性与交互主观性是非常复杂的认知现象,涉及哲学、心理学、社会学、语言学等多个学科领域,本论文主要是在已有相关学科文献基础之上对主观性和交互主观性的语言学研究,今后有必要进行跨学科研究。
There are two main ideological streams in the search for the nature of human language and its universals, one is Formalism and the other is Functionalism. The former approaches language from its inside with analyzing language structure as its focus while the latter tries to explain language facts from its outside, focusing on the motivation of language use from functional aspects. Cognitive linguistics, as a new paradigm of language research, contributes something new to Functionalism. This new paradigm stresses the importance of conceptualization, believing meaning results from the combination of certain conceptual content and some specific way of construing that content. As it is construal, it definitely involves something like perspective, epistemic state and affect of the conceptualizer. Language, we think, is the sign export of that certain content under the influence of these subjective factors.
The present research selects advertising, a special language style, as its object of study and explores its conceptualization based on analysis of real English commercial advertising discourses taken from the corpus set up by the author. To understand the subjective factors involved in advertisers' conceptualization of products and consumers, we constructed a construal configuration of advertising based on Verhagen's construal configuration in2005/2007and define subjectivity in advertising discourses as the advertiser's imprint of his or her perspective, epistemic state as well as affect when encoding in language his or her conceptualization of the product being advertised and define intersubjectivity in advertising discourses as the advertiser's imprint of his or her cognitive coordination with consumers bearing in mind the existence of this another conceptualzer when construing the product. In general, we want to find answers to the following two questions:
Firstly, to achieve the goal of persuasion how the advertiser's construal of the product reflects his or her subjectivity?
Secondly, to achieve the goal of persuasion how the advertising discourses reflects the cognitive coordination between the advertiser and the consumer?
The concepts "subjectivity" and "intersubjectivity", wchich originate from the field of philosophy and enter into linguisitic field with the revival of Humanism in linguistic study, undergo developments in different linguistic paradigms. In philosophical study, subjectivity highlights subject's self-awareness and intersubjectivity highlights subject's awareness of others and the relationship between self and others. Based on this understanding of the concepts and the relevant studies in linguistics, especially cognitive linguistics, the present study concerns itself not only with the self expression of the advertiser, mainly from the perspective of advertiser's self awareness but also with the cognitive coordination between the advertiser and the consumer, manily from the perspective of advertiser's awareness of others.
Bearing the two research questions in mind and guided by the construal configuration we constructed, the study analyzes subjectivity in advertising discourses from three dimensions, namely, perspective, epistemic state and affect and analyzes intersubjectivity in advertising discourses from two dimensions, namely, the advertiser's concern with the epistemic self of the consumer and the advertiser's concern with the image self of the consumer.
The major findings are as follows:
First, on the use of personal pronouns, an advertiser can approach the product either from an insider perspective to convey to consumers the message that he or she is very familiar with the product or from an outsider perspective to convey to the consumer the message that the description of the product is very objective. Use of the pronoun "you" mitigates the opposite relationship between the advertiser and the consumer brought by the insider perspective. And arranging advertising discourses from an outsider perspective is a discourse strategy of the advertiser to convey to the consumer his or her intent by way of a third voice and at the same time make the advertising more acceptable. As to time perspective, displacement of tense and "non-time" use of time adverbials help the advertiser create a virtual stage on which he or she and the consumer meet "here and now" by way of language, which actually shortens the psychological distance between them two. Due to the different locations, it is difficult for the advertiser and the consumer "meet" spatially, that's why space deixis is seldom used in advertising discourses.
Second, in advertising discourses the advertiser usually attaches his or her epistemic stance to propositions concerning products'features and the services products can offer through the use of modals including verbs and adverbs, the combination of these two and non-factive verb constructions. Different epistemic modals qualify the propositions differently which help the advertiser achieve the goal of making different commitments to the truth of the propositions. While dynamic modals by adding modal force to the propositions help the advertiser convey successfully to the consumer the message that he or she is quite willing and ready to provide excellent service.
Third, positive adjectives are commonly used in advertising while adjectives describing physical features of products seldom appear. Because of their argumentative orientation, these positive adjectives actually provide arguments to certain conclusions expected by the advertiser and are manifestations of the advertiser's positive affect. The meanings of gradable adjectives and their inflected forms common in advertising are very vague because they lack in specific references, the understanding of which must depend on the advertiser's subjective construct. Besides, the cross-domain match of adjectives with products is also a way of the advertiser's self expression, which can at the same time make the description more vivid.
Fourth, intersubjectivity in advertising is the cognitive operation at the level of subject of conceptualization, namely between the advertiser and the consumer. One way manifesting this operation is that certain language forms including negative expressions, inter-clause connectives and questions are motivated by the advertiser's providing guidance to the consumer as to the construal of products, which shows the advertiser's concern with the epistemic self of the consumer. By using negation, the advertiser guides the consumer to reject one epistemic stance towards the product and accept another one. One such negative construction "no+NP" emphasizes the implicit comparison between the product advertised and other ones of the same kind."More than (just)" construction guides the consumer to abandon the generic description about products and accepts the more appropriate and accurate one believed by the advertiser. Although it is common practice that advertisers use words stingily due to spatial and economic pressures, they use connectives to help consumers conceptualize the relationship between clauses the way they expect. We mainly analyzed "that's why" and "finally" since they are the frequently occurred ones in our corpus. As is known to us all, people ask questions when they don't know or are not sure about something. However, questions commonly used by advertisers in headlines are ways of regulating consumers' cognitive state. These questions actually inform consumers of the product being advertised either by providing generic information or by leading consumers' construal to a certain aspect thus foretelling the theme of the body part.
Fifth, another way manifesting the cognitive operation at the level of subject of conceptualization, namely intersubjectivity in advertising discourses, is that certain language forms including face heightening construction "you deserve" and indirect proposal of purchase are motivated by the advertiser's regulating of the consumer's psychology, which helps the construal develop in the direction advantageous to the advertiser. This cognitive coordination between the advertiser and the consumer shows the advertiser's concern with the image self of the consumer."You deserve" construction and the like maintains the positive face needs of the consumer by satisfying his or her want of being appreciated, granted and approved, which is usually a quite happy psychological experience for the consumer. The indirect proposal of purchase, including exhortative and invitational, is the advertiser's concern with the image self of the consumer in the sense of being polite and treating the consumer as an equal participant of the communication.
In conclusion, based on the stuides of other scholars, the present research makes an active attempt to extend the study of subjectivity to discourse level. Taking into consideration of factors like the goal of communication, partners as well as spatial and temporal features of the communication, study of subjectivity in discourse is thought to be a dynamic and full-dimensional research into the topic. Besides, the construal configuration we constructed put advertisers, products and consumers at one and the same plane, which allows a relatively systematic cognitive interpretation to some seemingly irrelevant language phenomena. Subjectivity and intersubjectivity are very complex cognitive phenomena which involve many disciplines, such as philosophy, psychology, sociology, linguistics and so on. This dissertation is mainly linguistically oriented based on relevant studies, and efforts should be made cross disciplinarily in the future.
本研究选取广告语篇为对象,以自建小型语料库中商业广告为实例探究英语广告语篇的概念化问题,主要是作为概念化主体的广告人在对概念化客体——广告产品以及另一概念化主体——消费者识解时的主体因素。为此,我们以Verhagen(2005/2007)的识解构型为指导,构建了广告的识解构型,并对广告语篇的主观性和交互主观性进行了界定。将广告语篇的主观性定义为：作为概念化主体的广告人为了达到说服性目的,基于自己对概念化客体——广告产品的主观识解对产品进行语言编码,从而在广告语篇中留下的体现自我视角、认识、情感的主观印记；将广告语篇的交互主观性定义为：作为概念化主体的广‘告人在对广告产品的识解中,充分意识到同样作为概念化主体的消费者的存在,为了达到双方对广告产品的识解平衡,在广告语篇中留下的与消费者认知协作的主观印记。概括起来说,本研究主要想回答以下两个问题：
第一,为了达到说服消费者、最终促成其购买行为的目的,广告人对广告产品的识解如何体现广告人主观性?
第二,为了达到说服消费者、最终促成其购买行为的目的,广告语篇如何体现广告人与消费者的认知协作,即交互主观性?
“主观性”和“交互主观性”的概念源于哲学领域,后来在语言学“人文主义”复苏思潮下进入语言研究领域,并在不同语言研究范式下得到了发展性的阐释。哲学视域中的主观性强调人作为主体的自我意识,交互主观性强调自我对他我的意识以及自我与他我的关系问题。基于对主观性和交互主观性的这种哲学理解,结合语言学视域,尤其是认知语言学中的主观性和交互主观性研究,本论文关注了以广告人自我意识为主的广告语篇主观性,并将其延伸到以广告人他我意识为主的广告语篇交互主观性,即本研究不仅探析了广告语篇中广告人的自我表达,而且探析了广告人与消费者之间的认知协作。
围绕本研究提出的两个问题,在所构建的识解构型指导下本论文从视角、认识和情感三个维度研究了广告语篇中广告人的自我表达——广告语篇的主观性；从广告人对消费者认识自我关注和社会形象自我关注两个维度研究了广告语篇中广告人与消费者之间的认知协作——广告语篇的交互主观性。主要得到以下结论：
第一,在人称视角的选择上广告人既可以从内部视角出发突显自己对广告产品的熟知度,也可以从独立于广告产品的外部视角出发突显所提供产品信息的客观性。虽然内部视角确立了广告人与消费者之间的“我卖你买”关系,但人称代词“you”所创造的面对面对话语境减弱了这种对立关系。以外部视角安排广告语篇实际上是广告大借第三者之口表达自已意图、提高广告语篇可接受度的一种话语间视角的表达上广告人通过时态移位和时间副词的“非时间”用法突显消费者的重要性。这种虚拟的“我与你在此时”时间舞台通过使广告人与消费者以语言形式相遇缩短了双方之间的心理距离。由于广告语篇的接收者是潜在的分处不同空间的消费者,广告人很难与消费者达成空间的统一,因此,广告语篇中较少出现空间指示语。
第二,广告语篇中广告人通过情态动词、情态副词、情态动词与情态副词组合、非叙实动词结构等语言形式把自己对广告产品的主观认识附加到有关产品优越性能或所能提供服务的命题之上。一方面,通过认识情态对命题的限定作用广告人实现对命题所述内容真实性的不同承诺程度；另一方面,通过动力情态对命题情态力的提升广告人向消费者传递自己一方的主观意愿性。
第三,广告语篇中普遍使用表示积极意义的评价类形容词,而较少使用描述产品物理属性的形容词。因其论辩方向总是朝向积极一面,表示积极意义的评价类形容词实际上为广告人预期的特定结论提供了论据,是广告人情感的自我流露。广告语篇中大量使用的等级形容词以及他们的屈折形式因为缺少具体参照对象而意义模糊不清,对这些词的理解离不开广告人的主观构想。此外,形容词的跨域搭配现象在表达广告人情感倾向的同时增加了表达的形象性和生动性,使有关广告产品的描述富有感染力。
第四,广告语篇的交互主观性是在广告人与消费者主体层面进行的认知操作,表现之一为广告人通过特定语言形式引导消费者对广告产品进行识解,从而促成双方对产品认识的平衡。他体现了广告人对消费者认识自我的关注,是双方的认知协作在广告语篇中的具体体现,主要包括否定表达、跨小句连接成分和无疑而问的问句。通过否定表达广告人指导消费者放弃有关广告产品的某一认识立场,而接受另一认识立场。其中“No+NP”的否定形式更加强调广告产品与其他同类产品某一(些)方面的隐性对比。"more than (just)"的否定结构主要是指导消费者放弃有关广告产品的类属性陈述,而接受广告人认为更加精确、恰当的陈述。虽然受空间、经济等因素影响广告人往往是惜字如金,但是为了使消费者按其预期方式理解语句间的概念关系,广告人使用特定连接成分在小句间建立起联系。我们主要分析了语料中常见的连接成分"that's why"和"finally"。通常情况下,问句表示说话人对提问内容的无知或不确定以及对听话人提供相关知识的需求。但广告语篇标题中常用的问句却是广告人用以调控消费者认知状态的话语策略。他将消费者引向将要“广告”的产品,尤其是为消费者提供有关产品类属方面的信息；或者将消费者对产品的识解引向产品某一特定方面,并以此预告语篇正文的核心主题。
第五,广告人与消费者主体层而进行的认知协作还表现在广告人通过特定语言形式对消费者心理进行调控,从而促使消费者对广告产品的识解朝向有利于自己的方向发展。这种广告人与消费者之间的认知协作体现了广告人对消费者社会形象自我的关注,主要包括面子提升式" You deserve "结构和间接提议的购买行为。其中," You deserve "类结构通过满足消费者获得他人认可、赞许、欣赏等的心理维护了其正面面子,由此,给消费者带来了不一样的心理体验。而“号召型”与“邀请型”间接提议不仅从礼貌的层面,还从广告人把消费者看作是和自己一样平等的交际参与者层面体现了广告人对消费者社会形象自我的关注,是通过心理调控实现的交互主观性。
总之,本论文是基于前人研究基础将语言主观性研究拓展到语篇层面的一种积极尝试。受交际目的、交际对象、交际时空特征等因素制约,研究语篇中的主观性可以说是将主观性置于话语交际层面进行的动态立体研究。此外,本研究通过广告的识解构型将广告人、广告产品和消费者置于同一平面,这可以为一些看似零散的语言现象提供较为系统的认知阐释。主观性与交互主观性是非常复杂的认知现象,涉及哲学、心理学、社会学、语言学等多个学科领域,本论文主要是在已有相关学科文献基础之上对主观性和交互主观性的语言学研究,今后有必要进行跨学科研究。
There are two main ideological streams in the search for the nature of human language and its universals, one is Formalism and the other is Functionalism. The former approaches language from its inside with analyzing language structure as its focus while the latter tries to explain language facts from its outside, focusing on the motivation of language use from functional aspects. Cognitive linguistics, as a new paradigm of language research, contributes something new to Functionalism. This new paradigm stresses the importance of conceptualization, believing meaning results from the combination of certain conceptual content and some specific way of construing that content. As it is construal, it definitely involves something like perspective, epistemic state and affect of the conceptualizer. Language, we think, is the sign export of that certain content under the influence of these subjective factors.
The present research selects advertising, a special language style, as its object of study and explores its conceptualization based on analysis of real English commercial advertising discourses taken from the corpus set up by the author. To understand the subjective factors involved in advertisers' conceptualization of products and consumers, we constructed a construal configuration of advertising based on Verhagen's construal configuration in2005/2007and define subjectivity in advertising discourses as the advertiser's imprint of his or her perspective, epistemic state as well as affect when encoding in language his or her conceptualization of the product being advertised and define intersubjectivity in advertising discourses as the advertiser's imprint of his or her cognitive coordination with consumers bearing in mind the existence of this another conceptualzer when construing the product. In general, we want to find answers to the following two questions:
Firstly, to achieve the goal of persuasion how the advertiser's construal of the product reflects his or her subjectivity?
Secondly, to achieve the goal of persuasion how the advertising discourses reflects the cognitive coordination between the advertiser and the consumer?
The concepts "subjectivity" and "intersubjectivity", wchich originate from the field of philosophy and enter into linguisitic field with the revival of Humanism in linguistic study, undergo developments in different linguistic paradigms. In philosophical study, subjectivity highlights subject's self-awareness and intersubjectivity highlights subject's awareness of others and the relationship between self and others. Based on this understanding of the concepts and the relevant studies in linguistics, especially cognitive linguistics, the present study concerns itself not only with the self expression of the advertiser, mainly from the perspective of advertiser's self awareness but also with the cognitive coordination between the advertiser and the consumer, manily from the perspective of advertiser's awareness of others.
Bearing the two research questions in mind and guided by the construal configuration we constructed, the study analyzes subjectivity in advertising discourses from three dimensions, namely, perspective, epistemic state and affect and analyzes intersubjectivity in advertising discourses from two dimensions, namely, the advertiser's concern with the epistemic self of the consumer and the advertiser's concern with the image self of the consumer.
The major findings are as follows:
First, on the use of personal pronouns, an advertiser can approach the product either from an insider perspective to convey to consumers the message that he or she is very familiar with the product or from an outsider perspective to convey to the consumer the message that the description of the product is very objective. Use of the pronoun "you" mitigates the opposite relationship between the advertiser and the consumer brought by the insider perspective. And arranging advertising discourses from an outsider perspective is a discourse strategy of the advertiser to convey to the consumer his or her intent by way of a third voice and at the same time make the advertising more acceptable. As to time perspective, displacement of tense and "non-time" use of time adverbials help the advertiser create a virtual stage on which he or she and the consumer meet "here and now" by way of language, which actually shortens the psychological distance between them two. Due to the different locations, it is difficult for the advertiser and the consumer "meet" spatially, that's why space deixis is seldom used in advertising discourses.
Second, in advertising discourses the advertiser usually attaches his or her epistemic stance to propositions concerning products'features and the services products can offer through the use of modals including verbs and adverbs, the combination of these two and non-factive verb constructions. Different epistemic modals qualify the propositions differently which help the advertiser achieve the goal of making different commitments to the truth of the propositions. While dynamic modals by adding modal force to the propositions help the advertiser convey successfully to the consumer the message that he or she is quite willing and ready to provide excellent service.
Third, positive adjectives are commonly used in advertising while adjectives describing physical features of products seldom appear. Because of their argumentative orientation, these positive adjectives actually provide arguments to certain conclusions expected by the advertiser and are manifestations of the advertiser's positive affect. The meanings of gradable adjectives and their inflected forms common in advertising are very vague because they lack in specific references, the understanding of which must depend on the advertiser's subjective construct. Besides, the cross-domain match of adjectives with products is also a way of the advertiser's self expression, which can at the same time make the description more vivid.
Fourth, intersubjectivity in advertising is the cognitive operation at the level of subject of conceptualization, namely between the advertiser and the consumer. One way manifesting this operation is that certain language forms including negative expressions, inter-clause connectives and questions are motivated by the advertiser's providing guidance to the consumer as to the construal of products, which shows the advertiser's concern with the epistemic self of the consumer. By using negation, the advertiser guides the consumer to reject one epistemic stance towards the product and accept another one. One such negative construction "no+NP" emphasizes the implicit comparison between the product advertised and other ones of the same kind."More than (just)" construction guides the consumer to abandon the generic description about products and accepts the more appropriate and accurate one believed by the advertiser. Although it is common practice that advertisers use words stingily due to spatial and economic pressures, they use connectives to help consumers conceptualize the relationship between clauses the way they expect. We mainly analyzed "that's why" and "finally" since they are the frequently occurred ones in our corpus. As is known to us all, people ask questions when they don't know or are not sure about something. However, questions commonly used by advertisers in headlines are ways of regulating consumers' cognitive state. These questions actually inform consumers of the product being advertised either by providing generic information or by leading consumers' construal to a certain aspect thus foretelling the theme of the body part.
Fifth, another way manifesting the cognitive operation at the level of subject of conceptualization, namely intersubjectivity in advertising discourses, is that certain language forms including face heightening construction "you deserve" and indirect proposal of purchase are motivated by the advertiser's regulating of the consumer's psychology, which helps the construal develop in the direction advantageous to the advertiser. This cognitive coordination between the advertiser and the consumer shows the advertiser's concern with the image self of the consumer."You deserve" construction and the like maintains the positive face needs of the consumer by satisfying his or her want of being appreciated, granted and approved, which is usually a quite happy psychological experience for the consumer. The indirect proposal of purchase, including exhortative and invitational, is the advertiser's concern with the image self of the consumer in the sense of being polite and treating the consumer as an equal participant of the communication.
In conclusion, based on the stuides of other scholars, the present research makes an active attempt to extend the study of subjectivity to discourse level. Taking into consideration of factors like the goal of communication, partners as well as spatial and temporal features of the communication, study of subjectivity in discourse is thought to be a dynamic and full-dimensional research into the topic. Besides, the construal configuration we constructed put advertisers, products and consumers at one and the same plane, which allows a relatively systematic cognitive interpretation to some seemingly irrelevant language phenomena. Subjectivity and intersubjectivity are very complex cognitive phenomena which involve many disciplines, such as philosophy, psychology, sociology, linguistics and so on. This dissertation is mainly linguistically oriented based on relevant studies, and efforts should be made cross disciplinarily in the future.
引文
Arens, W. F.2004. Contemporary Advertising (9th ed.) [M]. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Armstrong, J. S.2010. Persuasive Advertising:Evidence-Based Principles [M]. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Athanasiasou, A.2006. Adjectives and Subjectivity [A]. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis & B. Cornillie (eds.). Subjectification:Various Paths to Subjectivity [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.209-239.
Athanasiasou, A.2007. On the Subjectification of Intensifiers [J]. Language Science 29: 554-565.
Banfield, A.1982. Unspeakable Sentences:Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction [M]. Boston & London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Barthes, R.1977. Image-Music-Text. Translated by S. Heath [M]. London:Fontana Press.
Benveniste, E.1971. Problems in General Linguistics[M].Florida:University of Miami Press.
Besnier, N.1990. Language and Affect [J]. Annual Review of Anthropology 19:419-451.
Brierley, S.2008. Principles of Persuasion [A]. In G. Cook (ed.) The Language of Advertising:Major Themes in English Studies (Volume IV) [C]. London/New York: Routledge.243-256.
Brown, P.& S. Levinson.1987. Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bruthiaux, P.1996. The Discourse of Classified Advertising:Exploring the Nature of Lingusitic Simplicity [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bunnin, N.& Y. Jiyuan.2004. The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy [M]. Oxford:Blackwell.
Campos Pardillos, M. A.1995. Deixis as a Reference to an Alleged Shared Situation in Persuasive Discourse [J]. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 8:57-67.
Coats, J.1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries [M]. London/Canberra:Croom Helm.
Coelho, N. E.& L. C. Figueiredo.2003. Patterns of Intersubjectivity in the Constitution of Subjectivity:Dimensions of Otherness [J]. Culture and Psychology 9(3): 193-208.
Comrie, B.2005. Tense. [M]. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Cook, G.1992. The Discourse of Advertising [M].London/New York:Routledge.
Cook, G.2008. The Language of Advertising (Vol. I) [M]. London/New York:Routledge.
Cook, G.2008. General Introduction [A]. In G. Cook (ed.) The Language of Advertising: Major Themes in English Studies (Volume I) [C]. London/New York:Routledge.1-9.
Croft, W.& D. A. Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge:CUP.
Danesi, M.2004. Messages, Signs, and Meanings:A Basic Textbook in Semiotics and Communication Theory (3rd ed.) [M]. Toronto:Canadian Scholar's Press.
Dattamajumdar, S.2006. The Linguistic Patterns of Advertising Text:A Study in Kolkata [J]. Journal of Language and Linguistics 2:222-229.
Davidse, K., L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens.2010. Introduction [A]. In K. Davidse, L Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (eds.). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.1-26.
Dirven, R.& M. Verspoor.2004. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistcs (2nd Revised ed.)[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Dyer, G.1982. Advertising as Communication [M]. London/New York:Routledge.
Ehrlich, S.1990. Point of View:A Linguistic Analysis of Literary Style [M]. London/New York:Routledge.
Ensink, T.& C. Sauer.2003. Social-Functional and Cognitive Approaches to Discourse Interpretation:The Role of Frame and Perspective [A]. In T. Ensink & C. Sauer (eds.). Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.1-21.
Evans, V.& M. Green.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fairclough, N.1989. Language and Power [M]. New York:Longman.
Fauconnier, G.1994. Mental Spaces:Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Feng Jieyun.2008. Advertising Discourses and the Social Changes in China [D]. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., Velasco-Sacristan, M., Arribas-Bano, A.& E. Samaniego-Fernandez,2001. Persuasion and Advertising English:Metadiscourse in Slogans and Headlines [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 33:1291-1307.
Geis, M. L.1982. The Language of Television Advertising [M]. New York:Academic Press.
Goldman, R.1992. Reading Ads Socially [M]. London & New York:Routledge.
Haiman, J,1985. Iconicity in Syntax [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Han, Y,1991. The Language of Newspaper Advertising in Chinese [D]. The Ohio State University.
Israel, M.2004/2006. The Pragmatics of Polarity [A]. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. Malden/Oxford/Carlton:Blackwell Publishing. 701-723.
Ikegami, Y.2010.'Subject-Object Merger'and'Subject-Object Contrast'in Construal: A Modified Version of Subjective and Objective Construal in Cognitive Grammar from a Viewpoint of a Subjectivity-Prominent Language [R]. CLDC2010: Pragmatics & Cognitive Linguistics. Taipei:National Taiwan University.
Iten, C.2000. The Relevance of Argumentation Theory [J]. Lingua 110:665-699.
Iwasaki, S.1993. Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Iwasaki, S.2010. Typology of Subjectivity and Its Linguistic Manifestations [R]. CLDC2010:Pragmatics & Cognitive Linguistics. Taipei:National Taiwan University.
Jaszczolt, K. M.2009. Representing Time:An Essay on Temporality as Modality [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Kress, G.& T. Van Leeuwen.2006. Reading Images:The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd ed.) [M]. London/New York:Routledge.
Kuno, S.1987. Functional Syntax:Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy [M]. Chicago/London:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakhani, D.2005. Persuasion:The Art of Getting What You Want [M]. New Jersey: Wiley & Sons.
Langacker, R. W.1985. Observations and Speculations on Subjectivity [A]. In J. Haiman(ed.). Iconicity in Syntax [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins. 109-150.
Langacker, R. W.1987. Foudations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume I):Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol:The Cognitive Basis of Grammar [M]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.1999. Losing Control:Grammaticalization, Subjectification, and Transparency [A]. In A. Blank & P. Koch (eds.). Historical Semantics and Cognition. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.147-175.
Langacker, R. W.2004. Foudations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume II):Descriptive Application [M].北京：北京大学出版社.
Langacker, R. W.2006. Subjectification, Grammaticization, and Conceptual Archetypes [A]. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis & B. Cornillie (eds.). Subjectification:Various Paths to Subjectivity [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.17-40.
Langacker, R. W.2008. Cognitive Grammar:A Basic Introduction [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Leech, G. N.1966. English in Advertising:A Linguistic Study of Advertising in Great Britain [M]. London:Longmans.
Leech, G. N.1983. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London/New York:Longman.
Leech, G. N.& J. Svartvik.1975. A Communicative Grammar of English [M]. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C.1983. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C.2004/2006. Deixis [A]. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. Oxford:Blackwell.97-121.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics (Vol 2) [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lyons J.1982. Deixis and subjectivity:Loquor， ergo sum? [A]. In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (eds.). Speech, Place, and Action:Studies in Deixis and Related Topics [C]. Chichester/New York:John Wiley.101-124.
Lyons J.1995. Linguistic Semantics:An Introduction [M]. Cambridge:CUP.
Lyons J.2000. Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Matt, H. P.2006. Subjectification in Gradable Adjectives [A]. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis & B. Cornillie (eds.). Subjectification:Various Paths to Subjectivity [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.279-320.
Matt, H. P.& T. Sanders.2001. Subjectivity in Causal Connectives:An Empirical Study of Language in Use [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 12 (3):247-273.
Myers, G.1994. Words in Ads [M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Nuyts, J.2001. Subjectivity as an Evidential Dimension in Epistemic Modal Expressions [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 33:383-400.
Nuyts, J.2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Obermiller, C., E. Spangenber.& D. L. MacLachlan.2005. Ad Skepticism [J]. Journal of Advertising 1 (34):7-17.
Ochs, E.& B. Schieffelin.1989. Language Has a Heart [J]. Text 9 (1):7-25.
Packard, V.1957/1980. The Hidden Persuaders [M]. New York:Ig Publishing.
Pagano, A.1994. Negatives in Written Text [A]. In M. Coulthard (ed.). Advances in Written Text Analysis [M]. London/New York:Routledge.250-265.
Palmer, F. R.1974. The English Verb [M]. London:Longman.
Palmer, F. R.1986. Mood and Modality [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R.2001. Mood and Modality (2nd edition) [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Paradis, C.2003. Between Epistemic Modality and Degree:The Case of Really [A]. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug & F. Palmer (eds.). Modality in Contemporary English [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.191-220.
Pardillos, M. A. C.1995. Dexis as a Reference to an Alleged Shared Situation in Persuasive Discourse [J]. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 8:57-67.
Pateman, T.2008. How is Understanding an Advertisement Possible? [A]. In G. Cook (ed.) The Language of Advertising:Major Themes in English Studies (Volume III) [C]. London/New York:Routledge.153-170.
Portner, P.2009. Modality [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech.& J. Svartvik.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. New York:Longman.
Rojo, L. M.& C. G. Esteban.2003. Discourse at Work:When Women Take on the Role of Manager [A]. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (eds.). Critical Discourse Analysis:Theory and Interdisciplinaty [C]. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.241-271.
Rotzoll, K. B.1985. Advertisements [A]. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.). Discourse and Communication:New Approaches to the Analysis of Mass Media Discourse and Communication [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.94-105.
Rumsey, A.2003. Language, Desire, and the Ontogenesis of Intersubjectivity [J]. Language & Communication 23:169-187.
Rush, S.1998. The Noun Phrase in Advertising English [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 155-171.
Saeed, J, I.2009. Semantics (3rd ed.) [M]. Chichester/Malden:Wiley-Blackwell.
Sanders, J., T. Sanders & E. Sweetser.2012. Responsible Subjects and Discourse Causality. How Mental Spaces and Perspective Help Identifying Subjectivity in Dutch Backward Causal Connectives [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 44:191-213.
Saussure, F. D.1959. Course in General Linguistics [M]. Edited by Bally, C & A. Sechehaye in Collaboration with Reidlinger, A. Translated by Baskin W. New York: Philosophical Library.
Simpson, P.1993. Language, Ideology and Point of View [M]. London/New York: Routledge.
Smet, H. E.& J. C. Verstraete.2006. Coming to Terms with Subjectivity [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (3):365-392.
Smith, C, S.2003. Modes of Discourse:The Local Structure of Texts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stein, D.& S. Wright.1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation:Linguistic Perspectives [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Stern, B. B.1994. A Revised Model for Advertising:Multiple Dimensions of the Source, the Message, and the Recipient [J]. Journal of Advertising 23 (2):5-15.
Stubbs, M.1996. Text and Corpus Analysis:Computer Assisted Studies of Language and Culture [M]. Oxford/Cambridge:Blackwell.
Sweetser, E.1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L.1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12:49-100.
Talmy, L.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Vol.1) [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Tan, S. J.2002. Can Consumers' Scepticism Be Mitigated by Claim Objectivity and Claim Extremity? [J]. Journal of Marketing Communications 8 (1):45-64.
Tanaka, K.1994. Advertising Language:A Pragmatic Approach to Advertisements in Britain and Japan [M]. London/New York:Routledge.
Terkourafi, M.2008. Book review [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 40:1478-1485.
Tomlin, R. S., L. Forrest, M. M. Pu & M. H. Kim.1997. Discourse Semantics [A]. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.). Discourse as Structure and Process [C]. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi:SAGE Publications.63-111.
Traugott, E. C.1995. Subjectification and Grammaticalisation [A]. In D. Stein & S. Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation:Linguistic Perspectives [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.31-54.
Traugott, E. C.& R. B. Dasher.2002. Regularity in Semantic Change [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C.2004. From Subjectification to Intersubjectification [A]. In R. Hickey (ed.). Motives for Language Change [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 124-139.
Traugott, E. C.2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (Inter)subjectification:A Reassessment [A]. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (eds.). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.29-71.
Tribushinina, E.2011. Conceptual Motivation in Adjectival Semantics [A]. In K-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Motivation in Grammar and the Lexicon [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.215-231.
Vaicenoniene, J.2006. The Language of Advertising:Analysis of English and Lithuanian Advertising Texts [J]. Studies about Language 9:43-55.
van Dijk, T. A.2008. Discourse and Context:A Sociocognitive Approach [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
van Dijk, T. A.2009. Society and Discourse:How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Verhagen, A.1995. Subjectification, Syntax, and Communication [A]. In D. Stein & S. Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation:Linguistic Perspectives [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.103-128.
Verhagen, A.2005/2007. Constructions of Inter subjectivity:Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Verstraete, J. C.2001. Subjective and Objective Modality:Interpersonal and Ideational Functions in the English Modal Auxiliary System [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1505-1528.
Vestergaard, T.& K. Schr(?)der.1985. The Language of Advertising [M]. Oxford/Cambridge:Blackwell.
White, P. R. R.2003. Beyongd Modality and Hedging:A Dialogic View of the Language of Intersubjective Stance [J]. Text 23 (2):259-284.
Williamson, J.1978. Decoding Advertisements [M]. London/New York:Marion Boyars.
Williamson, J.2008. Decoding Advertisements [A]. In G. Cook (ed.) The Language of Advertising:Major Themes in English Studies (Volume I) [C]. London/New York: Routledge.63-89.
Zinkhan, G.2000. Advertising Research:The Internet, Consumer Behavior, and Strategy [M]. Illinois:American Marketing Association.
埃德蒙德.胡塞尔,2008,笛卡尔沉思与巴黎讲演[M]。张宪译,北京：人民出版社。
柴改英,2004,英语广告语篇的同一修辞研究[D]。上海：上海外国语大学博士学位论文。
陈其功,2002,广告英语话语基调分析[J]。 西安外国语学院学报(1)：55-58。
陈其功、辛春雷,2005,广告英语语篇的人际意义及其体现的劝说功能[J]。西安外国语学院学报(3)：7-9。
陈新仁,1998,论广告用语中的语用预设[J]。外国语(5)：54-57。
陈新仁,2009,新认知语用学：个案分析[R]。重庆：西南大学外国语学院。
成晓光,2009,语言哲学视域中主体性和主体间性的建构[J]。外国学刊(1)：9-15。
崔蕊,2008,“其实”的主观性和主观化[J]。语言科学(5)：502-512。
邓嵘,1998,英语广告标题的修辞特色[J]。中国科技翻译(4)：44-46。
邓志勇,2000,广告中的类比[J]。外语与外语教学(2)：38-42。
杜以芬,2009,后现代主义认识论批判研究[M]。天津：天津人民出版社。
段红萍,2010,从符号学的角度探析广告英语的语言特点及其翻译[J]。四川教育学院学报(4)：68-69。
冯德正、邢春燕,2011,空间隐喻与多模态意义建构——以汽车广告为例[J]。外国语(3)：56-61。
冯光武,2006,语言的主观性及其相关研究[J]。山东外语教学(5)：26-33。
符淮青、张万起,2010,现代汉语学习词典[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
富饶,2007,广告转述语言的语用认知分析[J]。外国学刊(4)：73-76。
高远、李福印,2007,罗纳德·兰艾克认知语法十讲[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
管彬尧、杨玉晨,2011,有形语篇中无声语言的不对称现象——对英汉招聘广告人际意义的多元文化差异探讨[J]。外国教学(2)：11-14。
何自然、冉永平,2002,语用学概论(修订本)[M]。长沙：湖南教育出版社。
候维瑞,1988,漫论广告英语(下)[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(2)：1-6。
候维瑞,1881,英语语体[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,1991,功能主义纵横谈[J]。外国语(3)：3-10。
黄国文,1997,广告语篇的会话含意分析[J]。外国语(2)：22-25。
黄国文,2001,语篇分析的理论与实践——广告语篇研究[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
金炳华等,2001,哲学大辞典(修订本)[M]。上海：上海辞书出版社。
乐耀,2011,从“不是我说你”类话语标记的形成看会话中主观性范畴与语用原则的互动[J]。世界汉语学习(1)：69-77。
李福印、高远,2010,伦纳德·泰尔米——认知语义学十讲[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
李桔元,2007,广告语篇中的意识形态研究[D]。上海：上海外国语大学博士学位论文。
李克兴,2010,广告翻译理论与实践[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
李凌燕,2010,新闻叙事的主观性研究[D]。上海：复旦大学博士学位论文。
李悦娥、范宏雅,2002,话语分析[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
李战子,2002,话语的人际意义研究[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
李中行,1986,广告英语[M]。长沙：湖南教育出版社。
刘瑾,2009,汉语主观视角的表达研究[D]。北京：首都师范大学博士学位论文。
刘瑾,2009,语言主观性的哲学考察[J]。外语学刊(3)：9-12。
刘正光,2011,主观化对句法限制的消解[J]。外语教学与研究(3)：335-349。
龙智华,1988,试论广告英语的语言特点[J]。现代外语(2)：62-67。
鲁克·杜邦,2002,1001条广告妙计[M]。杨兆宇、杨楠译,辽宁：辽宁教育出版社。
罗素梅,1992,广告英语辞格初探(上)[J]。现代外语(4)：55-59。
罗素梅,1993,广告英语辞格初探(下)[J]。现代外语(4)：50-54。
马丁·海德格尔,2012,存在与时间(修订译本)[M]。陈嘉映、王庆节译,北京：三联书店。
彭兵转,2011,从情态角度看语言意义的主观性[J]。外国学刊(3)：76-80。
沈家煊,2001,语言的“主观性”和“主观化”[J]。外语教学与研究(4)：268-275。
沈家煊,2006,认知与汉语语法研究[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
沈家煊,2009,汉语的主观性和汉语语法教学[J]。汉语学习(1)：3-12。
汤敬安、央泉,2008,英语情态范畴的多视角研究[M]。西安：西北工业大学出版社。
王红阳,2007,多模态广告语篇的互动意义的构建[J]。四川外语学院学报(6)：31-34。
王铭玉,2004,从符号学看语言符号学[J_]。解放军外国语学院学报(1)：1-9。
王沛、张国礼,2003,心理学研究中的科学主义取向和人文主义取向[J]。河西学院学报(6)：1-5。
王少琳,1994,符号学与广告语言[J]。外国语(6)：19-23。
王维国,2003,论知识的公共性维度[M]。北京：中国社会科学出版社。
王晓东,2004,西方哲学主体间性理论批判：一种形态学视野[M]。北京：中国社会科学出版社。
魏在江,2011,语用预设的构式研究——以汉语楼盘广告为例[J]。外语学刊(3)：19-23。
文旭,2005,左移位句式的认知解释[J]。外国语(2)：45-52。
文旭,2011,认知语言学事业[J]。外语与外语教学(2)：1-5。
文旭、黄蓓,2008,极性程度副词“极”的主观化[J]。外语研究(5)：9-13。
文旭、伍倩,2007,话语主观性在时体范畴中的体现[J]。外语学刊(3)：59-63。
吴福祥,2004,近年来语法化研究的进展[J]。外语教学与研究(1)：18-24。
吴一安,2003,空间指示语与语言的主观性[J]。外语教学与研究(6)：403-409。
肖唐金,2010,英语情态卫星副词的语篇功能[J]。吉首大学学报(社会科学版)(3)：109-114。
谢白羽,2011,“还”的主观性及其句法实现[J]。汉语学习(3)：65-70。
易仲良,1999,英语动词语义语法学[M]。湖南：湖南师范大学出版社。
曾立英,2005,“我看”与“你看”的主观化[J]。汉语学习(2)：15-22。
詹全旺,2009,英语增强词terribly的主观化[J]。外国语(5)：38-46。
张楚楚,2007,论英语情态动词道义情态的主观性[J]。外国语(5)：23-30。
张楚楚,2009,will是时态助动词吗?[J]。天津外国语学院学报(2)：7-14。
张楚楚,2009,英语情态动词认识情态的主观性[J]。西安外国语大学学报(3)：11-15。
张国才,2008, 《图文英语广告文案》[M]。厦门：厦门大学出版社。
张辉,1995,语言变异的审美心理探析——从广告语言的变异谈起[J]。现代外语(2)：43-46。
张辉、展伟伟,2011,广告语篇中多模态转喻与隐喻的动态构建[J]。外语研究(1)：16-23。
张旺熹、姚京晶,2009,汉语人称代词类话语标记系统的主观性差异[J]。汉语学(3)：3-11。
赵津晶、徐凤,2007,论广告的编码与解码[J]。武汉工程大学学报(人文社会科学版)(6)：47-49。
赵秀凤,2010,语言的主观性研究概览[J]。外语教学(1)：21-26。
周少青,2009,试论连字句的主观性和主观化[J]。东南学术(4)：159-165。
左岩,1995,广告英语“促购”动词新探[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(5)：13-18。
左岩,1996,广告语域的语旨三要素及其在广告语篇中的实现[J]。外国语(2)：46-50。
左岩,1997,Advertising Language:A Systemic-Functional Approach [A]载胡壮麟、方琰主编,功能语言学在中国的进展[C]。北京：清华大学出版社,259-261。
Armstrong, J. S.2010. Persuasive Advertising:Evidence-Based Principles [M]. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Athanasiasou, A.2006. Adjectives and Subjectivity [A]. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis & B. Cornillie (eds.). Subjectification:Various Paths to Subjectivity [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.209-239.
Athanasiasou, A.2007. On the Subjectification of Intensifiers [J]. Language Science 29: 554-565.
Banfield, A.1982. Unspeakable Sentences:Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction [M]. Boston & London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Barthes, R.1977. Image-Music-Text. Translated by S. Heath [M]. London:Fontana Press.
Benveniste, E.1971. Problems in General Linguistics[M].Florida:University of Miami Press.
Besnier, N.1990. Language and Affect [J]. Annual Review of Anthropology 19:419-451.
Brierley, S.2008. Principles of Persuasion [A]. In G. Cook (ed.) The Language of Advertising:Major Themes in English Studies (Volume IV) [C]. London/New York: Routledge.243-256.
Brown, P.& S. Levinson.1987. Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bruthiaux, P.1996. The Discourse of Classified Advertising:Exploring the Nature of Lingusitic Simplicity [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bunnin, N.& Y. Jiyuan.2004. The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy [M]. Oxford:Blackwell.
Campos Pardillos, M. A.1995. Deixis as a Reference to an Alleged Shared Situation in Persuasive Discourse [J]. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 8:57-67.
Coats, J.1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries [M]. London/Canberra:Croom Helm.
Coelho, N. E.& L. C. Figueiredo.2003. Patterns of Intersubjectivity in the Constitution of Subjectivity:Dimensions of Otherness [J]. Culture and Psychology 9(3): 193-208.
Comrie, B.2005. Tense. [M]. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Cook, G.1992. The Discourse of Advertising [M].London/New York:Routledge.
Cook, G.2008. The Language of Advertising (Vol. I) [M]. London/New York:Routledge.
Cook, G.2008. General Introduction [A]. In G. Cook (ed.) The Language of Advertising: Major Themes in English Studies (Volume I) [C]. London/New York:Routledge.1-9.
Croft, W.& D. A. Cruse.2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge:CUP.
Danesi, M.2004. Messages, Signs, and Meanings:A Basic Textbook in Semiotics and Communication Theory (3rd ed.) [M]. Toronto:Canadian Scholar's Press.
Dattamajumdar, S.2006. The Linguistic Patterns of Advertising Text:A Study in Kolkata [J]. Journal of Language and Linguistics 2:222-229.
Davidse, K., L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens.2010. Introduction [A]. In K. Davidse, L Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (eds.). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.1-26.
Dirven, R.& M. Verspoor.2004. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistcs (2nd Revised ed.)[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Dyer, G.1982. Advertising as Communication [M]. London/New York:Routledge.
Ehrlich, S.1990. Point of View:A Linguistic Analysis of Literary Style [M]. London/New York:Routledge.
Ensink, T.& C. Sauer.2003. Social-Functional and Cognitive Approaches to Discourse Interpretation:The Role of Frame and Perspective [A]. In T. Ensink & C. Sauer (eds.). Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.1-21.
Evans, V.& M. Green.2006. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fairclough, N.1989. Language and Power [M]. New York:Longman.
Fauconnier, G.1994. Mental Spaces:Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Feng Jieyun.2008. Advertising Discourses and the Social Changes in China [D]. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., Velasco-Sacristan, M., Arribas-Bano, A.& E. Samaniego-Fernandez,2001. Persuasion and Advertising English:Metadiscourse in Slogans and Headlines [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 33:1291-1307.
Geis, M. L.1982. The Language of Television Advertising [M]. New York:Academic Press.
Goldman, R.1992. Reading Ads Socially [M]. London & New York:Routledge.
Haiman, J,1985. Iconicity in Syntax [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Han, Y,1991. The Language of Newspaper Advertising in Chinese [D]. The Ohio State University.
Israel, M.2004/2006. The Pragmatics of Polarity [A]. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. Malden/Oxford/Carlton:Blackwell Publishing. 701-723.
Ikegami, Y.2010.'Subject-Object Merger'and'Subject-Object Contrast'in Construal: A Modified Version of Subjective and Objective Construal in Cognitive Grammar from a Viewpoint of a Subjectivity-Prominent Language [R]. CLDC2010: Pragmatics & Cognitive Linguistics. Taipei:National Taiwan University.
Iten, C.2000. The Relevance of Argumentation Theory [J]. Lingua 110:665-699.
Iwasaki, S.1993. Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Iwasaki, S.2010. Typology of Subjectivity and Its Linguistic Manifestations [R]. CLDC2010:Pragmatics & Cognitive Linguistics. Taipei:National Taiwan University.
Jaszczolt, K. M.2009. Representing Time:An Essay on Temporality as Modality [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Kress, G.& T. Van Leeuwen.2006. Reading Images:The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd ed.) [M]. London/New York:Routledge.
Kuno, S.1987. Functional Syntax:Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy [M]. Chicago/London:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakhani, D.2005. Persuasion:The Art of Getting What You Want [M]. New Jersey: Wiley & Sons.
Langacker, R. W.1985. Observations and Speculations on Subjectivity [A]. In J. Haiman(ed.). Iconicity in Syntax [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins. 109-150.
Langacker, R. W.1987. Foudations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume I):Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W.1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol:The Cognitive Basis of Grammar [M]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.1999. Losing Control:Grammaticalization, Subjectification, and Transparency [A]. In A. Blank & P. Koch (eds.). Historical Semantics and Cognition. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.147-175.
Langacker, R. W.2004. Foudations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume II):Descriptive Application [M].北京：北京大学出版社.
Langacker, R. W.2006. Subjectification, Grammaticization, and Conceptual Archetypes [A]. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis & B. Cornillie (eds.). Subjectification:Various Paths to Subjectivity [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.17-40.
Langacker, R. W.2008. Cognitive Grammar:A Basic Introduction [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Leech, G. N.1966. English in Advertising:A Linguistic Study of Advertising in Great Britain [M]. London:Longmans.
Leech, G. N.1983. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London/New York:Longman.
Leech, G. N.& J. Svartvik.1975. A Communicative Grammar of English [M]. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C.1983. Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C.2004/2006. Deixis [A]. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. Oxford:Blackwell.97-121.
Lyons, J.1977. Semantics (Vol 2) [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lyons J.1982. Deixis and subjectivity:Loquor， ergo sum? [A]. In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (eds.). Speech, Place, and Action:Studies in Deixis and Related Topics [C]. Chichester/New York:John Wiley.101-124.
Lyons J.1995. Linguistic Semantics:An Introduction [M]. Cambridge:CUP.
Lyons J.2000. Linguistics:An Introduction [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Matt, H. P.2006. Subjectification in Gradable Adjectives [A]. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis & B. Cornillie (eds.). Subjectification:Various Paths to Subjectivity [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.279-320.
Matt, H. P.& T. Sanders.2001. Subjectivity in Causal Connectives:An Empirical Study of Language in Use [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 12 (3):247-273.
Myers, G.1994. Words in Ads [M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Nuyts, J.2001. Subjectivity as an Evidential Dimension in Epistemic Modal Expressions [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 33:383-400.
Nuyts, J.2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Obermiller, C., E. Spangenber.& D. L. MacLachlan.2005. Ad Skepticism [J]. Journal of Advertising 1 (34):7-17.
Ochs, E.& B. Schieffelin.1989. Language Has a Heart [J]. Text 9 (1):7-25.
Packard, V.1957/1980. The Hidden Persuaders [M]. New York:Ig Publishing.
Pagano, A.1994. Negatives in Written Text [A]. In M. Coulthard (ed.). Advances in Written Text Analysis [M]. London/New York:Routledge.250-265.
Palmer, F. R.1974. The English Verb [M]. London:Longman.
Palmer, F. R.1986. Mood and Modality [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R.2001. Mood and Modality (2nd edition) [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Paradis, C.2003. Between Epistemic Modality and Degree:The Case of Really [A]. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug & F. Palmer (eds.). Modality in Contemporary English [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.191-220.
Pardillos, M. A. C.1995. Dexis as a Reference to an Alleged Shared Situation in Persuasive Discourse [J]. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 8:57-67.
Pateman, T.2008. How is Understanding an Advertisement Possible? [A]. In G. Cook (ed.) The Language of Advertising:Major Themes in English Studies (Volume III) [C]. London/New York:Routledge.153-170.
Portner, P.2009. Modality [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech.& J. Svartvik.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. New York:Longman.
Rojo, L. M.& C. G. Esteban.2003. Discourse at Work:When Women Take on the Role of Manager [A]. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (eds.). Critical Discourse Analysis:Theory and Interdisciplinaty [C]. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.241-271.
Rotzoll, K. B.1985. Advertisements [A]. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.). Discourse and Communication:New Approaches to the Analysis of Mass Media Discourse and Communication [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.94-105.
Rumsey, A.2003. Language, Desire, and the Ontogenesis of Intersubjectivity [J]. Language & Communication 23:169-187.
Rush, S.1998. The Noun Phrase in Advertising English [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 155-171.
Saeed, J, I.2009. Semantics (3rd ed.) [M]. Chichester/Malden:Wiley-Blackwell.
Sanders, J., T. Sanders & E. Sweetser.2012. Responsible Subjects and Discourse Causality. How Mental Spaces and Perspective Help Identifying Subjectivity in Dutch Backward Causal Connectives [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 44:191-213.
Saussure, F. D.1959. Course in General Linguistics [M]. Edited by Bally, C & A. Sechehaye in Collaboration with Reidlinger, A. Translated by Baskin W. New York: Philosophical Library.
Simpson, P.1993. Language, Ideology and Point of View [M]. London/New York: Routledge.
Smet, H. E.& J. C. Verstraete.2006. Coming to Terms with Subjectivity [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (3):365-392.
Smith, C, S.2003. Modes of Discourse:The Local Structure of Texts [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stein, D.& S. Wright.1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation:Linguistic Perspectives [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Stern, B. B.1994. A Revised Model for Advertising:Multiple Dimensions of the Source, the Message, and the Recipient [J]. Journal of Advertising 23 (2):5-15.
Stubbs, M.1996. Text and Corpus Analysis:Computer Assisted Studies of Language and Culture [M]. Oxford/Cambridge:Blackwell.
Sweetser, E.1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L.1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12:49-100.
Talmy, L.2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Vol.1) [M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Tan, S. J.2002. Can Consumers' Scepticism Be Mitigated by Claim Objectivity and Claim Extremity? [J]. Journal of Marketing Communications 8 (1):45-64.
Tanaka, K.1994. Advertising Language:A Pragmatic Approach to Advertisements in Britain and Japan [M]. London/New York:Routledge.
Terkourafi, M.2008. Book review [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 40:1478-1485.
Tomlin, R. S., L. Forrest, M. M. Pu & M. H. Kim.1997. Discourse Semantics [A]. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.). Discourse as Structure and Process [C]. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi:SAGE Publications.63-111.
Traugott, E. C.1995. Subjectification and Grammaticalisation [A]. In D. Stein & S. Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation:Linguistic Perspectives [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.31-54.
Traugott, E. C.& R. B. Dasher.2002. Regularity in Semantic Change [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C.2004. From Subjectification to Intersubjectification [A]. In R. Hickey (ed.). Motives for Language Change [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. 124-139.
Traugott, E. C.2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (Inter)subjectification:A Reassessment [A]. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (eds.). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization [C]. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.29-71.
Tribushinina, E.2011. Conceptual Motivation in Adjectival Semantics [A]. In K-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Motivation in Grammar and the Lexicon [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.215-231.
Vaicenoniene, J.2006. The Language of Advertising:Analysis of English and Lithuanian Advertising Texts [J]. Studies about Language 9:43-55.
van Dijk, T. A.2008. Discourse and Context:A Sociocognitive Approach [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
van Dijk, T. A.2009. Society and Discourse:How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Verhagen, A.1995. Subjectification, Syntax, and Communication [A]. In D. Stein & S. Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation:Linguistic Perspectives [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.103-128.
Verhagen, A.2005/2007. Constructions of Inter subjectivity:Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Verstraete, J. C.2001. Subjective and Objective Modality:Interpersonal and Ideational Functions in the English Modal Auxiliary System [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1505-1528.
Vestergaard, T.& K. Schr(?)der.1985. The Language of Advertising [M]. Oxford/Cambridge:Blackwell.
White, P. R. R.2003. Beyongd Modality and Hedging:A Dialogic View of the Language of Intersubjective Stance [J]. Text 23 (2):259-284.
Williamson, J.1978. Decoding Advertisements [M]. London/New York:Marion Boyars.
Williamson, J.2008. Decoding Advertisements [A]. In G. Cook (ed.) The Language of Advertising:Major Themes in English Studies (Volume I) [C]. London/New York: Routledge.63-89.
Zinkhan, G.2000. Advertising Research:The Internet, Consumer Behavior, and Strategy [M]. Illinois:American Marketing Association.
埃德蒙德.胡塞尔,2008,笛卡尔沉思与巴黎讲演[M]。张宪译,北京：人民出版社。
柴改英,2004,英语广告语篇的同一修辞研究[D]。上海：上海外国语大学博士学位论文。
陈其功,2002,广告英语话语基调分析[J]。 西安外国语学院学报(1)：55-58。
陈其功、辛春雷,2005,广告英语语篇的人际意义及其体现的劝说功能[J]。西安外国语学院学报(3)：7-9。
陈新仁,1998,论广告用语中的语用预设[J]。外国语(5)：54-57。
陈新仁,2009,新认知语用学：个案分析[R]。重庆：西南大学外国语学院。
成晓光,2009,语言哲学视域中主体性和主体间性的建构[J]。外国学刊(1)：9-15。
崔蕊,2008,“其实”的主观性和主观化[J]。语言科学(5)：502-512。
邓嵘,1998,英语广告标题的修辞特色[J]。中国科技翻译(4)：44-46。
邓志勇,2000,广告中的类比[J]。外语与外语教学(2)：38-42。
杜以芬,2009,后现代主义认识论批判研究[M]。天津：天津人民出版社。
段红萍,2010,从符号学的角度探析广告英语的语言特点及其翻译[J]。四川教育学院学报(4)：68-69。
冯德正、邢春燕,2011,空间隐喻与多模态意义建构——以汽车广告为例[J]。外国语(3)：56-61。
冯光武,2006,语言的主观性及其相关研究[J]。山东外语教学(5)：26-33。
符淮青、张万起,2010,现代汉语学习词典[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
富饶,2007,广告转述语言的语用认知分析[J]。外国学刊(4)：73-76。
高远、李福印,2007,罗纳德·兰艾克认知语法十讲[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
管彬尧、杨玉晨,2011,有形语篇中无声语言的不对称现象——对英汉招聘广告人际意义的多元文化差异探讨[J]。外国教学(2)：11-14。
何自然、冉永平,2002,语用学概论(修订本)[M]。长沙：湖南教育出版社。
候维瑞,1988,漫论广告英语(下)[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(2)：1-6。
候维瑞,1881,英语语体[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,1991,功能主义纵横谈[J]。外国语(3)：3-10。
黄国文,1997,广告语篇的会话含意分析[J]。外国语(2)：22-25。
黄国文,2001,语篇分析的理论与实践——广告语篇研究[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
金炳华等,2001,哲学大辞典(修订本)[M]。上海：上海辞书出版社。
乐耀,2011,从“不是我说你”类话语标记的形成看会话中主观性范畴与语用原则的互动[J]。世界汉语学习(1)：69-77。
李福印、高远,2010,伦纳德·泰尔米——认知语义学十讲[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
李桔元,2007,广告语篇中的意识形态研究[D]。上海：上海外国语大学博士学位论文。
李克兴,2010,广告翻译理论与实践[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
李凌燕,2010,新闻叙事的主观性研究[D]。上海：复旦大学博士学位论文。
李悦娥、范宏雅,2002,话语分析[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
李战子,2002,话语的人际意义研究[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
李中行,1986,广告英语[M]。长沙：湖南教育出版社。
刘瑾,2009,汉语主观视角的表达研究[D]。北京：首都师范大学博士学位论文。
刘瑾,2009,语言主观性的哲学考察[J]。外语学刊(3)：9-12。
刘正光,2011,主观化对句法限制的消解[J]。外语教学与研究(3)：335-349。
龙智华,1988,试论广告英语的语言特点[J]。现代外语(2)：62-67。
鲁克·杜邦,2002,1001条广告妙计[M]。杨兆宇、杨楠译,辽宁：辽宁教育出版社。
罗素梅,1992,广告英语辞格初探(上)[J]。现代外语(4)：55-59。
罗素梅,1993,广告英语辞格初探(下)[J]。现代外语(4)：50-54。
马丁·海德格尔,2012,存在与时间(修订译本)[M]。陈嘉映、王庆节译,北京：三联书店。
彭兵转,2011,从情态角度看语言意义的主观性[J]。外国学刊(3)：76-80。
沈家煊,2001,语言的“主观性”和“主观化”[J]。外语教学与研究(4)：268-275。
沈家煊,2006,认知与汉语语法研究[M]。北京：商务印书馆。
沈家煊,2009,汉语的主观性和汉语语法教学[J]。汉语学习(1)：3-12。
汤敬安、央泉,2008,英语情态范畴的多视角研究[M]。西安：西北工业大学出版社。
王红阳,2007,多模态广告语篇的互动意义的构建[J]。四川外语学院学报(6)：31-34。
王铭玉,2004,从符号学看语言符号学[J_]。解放军外国语学院学报(1)：1-9。
王沛、张国礼,2003,心理学研究中的科学主义取向和人文主义取向[J]。河西学院学报(6)：1-5。
王少琳,1994,符号学与广告语言[J]。外国语(6)：19-23。
王维国,2003,论知识的公共性维度[M]。北京：中国社会科学出版社。
王晓东,2004,西方哲学主体间性理论批判：一种形态学视野[M]。北京：中国社会科学出版社。
魏在江,2011,语用预设的构式研究——以汉语楼盘广告为例[J]。外语学刊(3)：19-23。
文旭,2005,左移位句式的认知解释[J]。外国语(2)：45-52。
文旭,2011,认知语言学事业[J]。外语与外语教学(2)：1-5。
文旭、黄蓓,2008,极性程度副词“极”的主观化[J]。外语研究(5)：9-13。
文旭、伍倩,2007,话语主观性在时体范畴中的体现[J]。外语学刊(3)：59-63。
吴福祥,2004,近年来语法化研究的进展[J]。外语教学与研究(1)：18-24。
吴一安,2003,空间指示语与语言的主观性[J]。外语教学与研究(6)：403-409。
肖唐金,2010,英语情态卫星副词的语篇功能[J]。吉首大学学报(社会科学版)(3)：109-114。
谢白羽,2011,“还”的主观性及其句法实现[J]。汉语学习(3)：65-70。
易仲良,1999,英语动词语义语法学[M]。湖南：湖南师范大学出版社。
曾立英,2005,“我看”与“你看”的主观化[J]。汉语学习(2)：15-22。
詹全旺,2009,英语增强词terribly的主观化[J]。外国语(5)：38-46。
张楚楚,2007,论英语情态动词道义情态的主观性[J]。外国语(5)：23-30。
张楚楚,2009,will是时态助动词吗?[J]。天津外国语学院学报(2)：7-14。
张楚楚,2009,英语情态动词认识情态的主观性[J]。西安外国语大学学报(3)：11-15。
张国才,2008, 《图文英语广告文案》[M]。厦门：厦门大学出版社。
张辉,1995,语言变异的审美心理探析——从广告语言的变异谈起[J]。现代外语(2)：43-46。
张辉、展伟伟,2011,广告语篇中多模态转喻与隐喻的动态构建[J]。外语研究(1)：16-23。
张旺熹、姚京晶,2009,汉语人称代词类话语标记系统的主观性差异[J]。汉语学(3)：3-11。
赵津晶、徐凤,2007,论广告的编码与解码[J]。武汉工程大学学报(人文社会科学版)(6)：47-49。
赵秀凤,2010,语言的主观性研究概览[J]。外语教学(1)：21-26。
周少青,2009,试论连字句的主观性和主观化[J]。东南学术(4)：159-165。
左岩,1995,广告英语“促购”动词新探[J]。解放军外国语学院学报(5)：13-18。
左岩,1996,广告语域的语旨三要素及其在广告语篇中的实现[J]。外国语(2)：46-50。
左岩,1997,Advertising Language:A Systemic-Functional Approach [A]载胡壮麟、方琰主编,功能语言学在中国的进展[C]。北京：清华大学出版社,259-261。