逻辑哲学视域的GCI理论研究
摘要
本文研究的主题是一般会话隐涵理论(The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature,以下简称GCI理论)。GCI是由话语表达式逻辑形式结构而来的一种假定意义,获得这种意义不依赖于话语发生的具体或特定语境。在反对传统的语义-语用二分法的基础上,GCI理论重审语言哲学中的意义理论研究,着力于话语类型意义研究,不仅为深化相关哲学论题的探讨开辟一条新进路,还可以为在意义理论核心论题视域下推进对话语类型意义的研究提供理论支撑。
GCI理论研究深受语用学的影响,其理论背景比较复杂,涉及到经典格赖斯“会话隐涵”理论、斯帕波和威尔逊的关联理论、罗素关于语词意义的摹状解释、意义组合性原则的思想以及维特根斯坦的语言游戏理论等。本文通过梳理GCI理论的哲学基础,分析格赖斯“会话隐涵”理论及其影响,揭示该理论对GCI生成机制的解释,解读GCI理论对支撑格赖斯“会话隐涵”理论之“合作原则”的改造,从中探讨GCI理论三原则的解释优势。
文章的研究表明,语义学着重从传统的真值条件、指称等视角来说明概念的语义,主张诉诸话语概念内容之间的推理关系解答话语的理解与表达问题；语用学则着眼于人们交际活动的实践性、规范性,探讨概念意义,认为概念拥有一个不可取消的常规语用意义。GCI理论则给出一个中间路径解释GCI,其基本预设是,语义学必须符合语用学,语用学是对语义学的补充。GCI理论受到新格赖斯语用学的高度关注,其原因在于格赖斯“会话隐涵”理论对GCI的解释存在缺憾。在应对“会话隐涵”理论面临的困难之际,GCI表现出会话含义和规约含义的双重特征,这种两面性使得语义-语用连续体的构成成为可能,同时,也为我们从语义-语用交互层面解读GCI理论的特征提供了可能。尤其是,通过回答指称歧义性、索引词指称、指称识别等问题,可以发现GCI理论在回应格赖斯循环问题方面的优势。
文章还分析了GCI理论与关联理论、语义论以及语用论是对意义理论具体内容的丰富和推进。我们认为,诉诸于意义组合性原则、并合表征、主要意义以及次要意义之分等相关意义理论研究的成熟结论,不仅可以论证GCI理论在分析语篇回指现象、诠释隐喻含义的可行性,还可以解决GCI理论遇到的一些认识论问题；从GCI理论关于知识及其可靠性之评价机制的可能解释来看,它在重审意义理论的基础上给出一条知识确证的中间路径。而从GCI理论对语言学传统问题的解答来看,该理论不仅可以从语用角度研究语篇回指现象,给回指现象以动态分析提供良好的理论基础,还可以给出对隐喻含义的独到解释,揭示借助语义特性解释话语隐喻含义的局限性；GCI理论借助角度理论(perspectival theory)给出一个语义-语用视角,将话语的隐喻含义视为由视角不一致所诱发的产物。上述论域和问题既自成一体又是GCI理论应用及解释的有机构成要素,与语义学、语用学之维的GCI理论一起构成对语言与世界之间关系的另类解读,展现出一幅全新的意义理论图景。
在一定程度上讲,与传统意义理论所依持并以之为主要特征的一些解释性、理论性及策略性的承诺不同,GCI理论对当代语言逻辑、分析哲学和认知心理学等领域的相关研究做出了整合,实现了对传统意义理论的超越,并为知识确证研究提供了新的思路。当然,GCI理论也有其不足。本文考查重审GCI理论过程中所关涉的主要纷争,试图发现GCI理论所遇到问题与该理论内在承诺之间的关联,这些努力将揭示进一步研究GCI理论的意义和价值。
The subject of my dissertation is the theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature (henceforth GCI theory). The GCI is a presumptive meaning, which is supported by the logic structure of linguistic expressions. And this meaning is independent of the particular context. Extracting the traditional dichotomy between semantics and pragmatics, the GCI theory reexamines the research of meaning theory of language philosophy, and focuses on utterance-type-meaning. Such researches, on one hand, can start a new approach for deepening its related topics; on the other hand, its can provides abundant theoretical supports to the researches about the utterance-type-meaning in the perspective of essential issues testing meaning theories.
Macro-pragmatics and micro-pragmatics effect the GCI theory, and make a complex context for understanding the theory, including the Grician conversational implicature theory, Sperber&Wilson's Relation Theory, Russell's description theory, Fodor's idea of compositionality principles, Wittgenstein's language game theory, etc.. To formulate the predominance of the principles of GCI theory, we collate the philosophical groundwork of GCI, analyze the thought and effects of the Grician GCI ideas of how to fix an expression's GCI, and lay out the improvement of the GCI theory.
The semantics explains mainly semantics domain of concepts from a perspective of traditional references, truth conditions, etc. Besides, it claims that we should understand or express an expression's meaning by means of the conceptual contents of a language. The pragmatics discusses in full practical characteristic and normalization of human communicative activity. It inquiries the conceptual meaning of expressions, and presupposes that concepts own certain normative pragmatic significance that can't be eliminated. The GCI theory gives a middle way in explaining GCI, but the theory presupposes that semantics should conform to pragmatics, and pragmatics plays the role of replenishing semantics. Neo-Grician Pragmatics cares about the GCI theory, because it encounters difficulties in explaining GCI. To answer the semantic questions traditional theory confronted in meaning interpreting, the GCI theory shows the attributes of both implicature meaning and conventional meaning. This dual character makes the possibility of forming a semantics-pragmatics continuum, and gives future of understanding the GCI theory from the perspective of semantics-pragmatics. Especially, we can find that the GCI theory shows some predominance in answering Grician Hermeneutic circle through explaining the matter of referential ambiguity, indexical reference and reference identification.
Besides the GCI theory, Meaning theories are enriched and pushed by the Relation Theory, semantics and pragmatics. Compositionality principles of meaning theories, merger representation, the division of primary meaning and second meaning, all these works can not only serve and justify the function of the GCI theory in explaining anaphora and metaphor phenomenon in discourse, but also solve other epistemic problems that the GCI theory encounters; according to the GCI theory's possible interpretation of the mechanism used in valuing knowledge and its liability, the theory gives a middle way in knowledge justification on basis of reviewing usual meaning theories. Seen from its reply to traditional linguistic problems, the GCI theory explores anaphora phenomenon in discourse from the view of pragmatics foremost, and provides a better theoretical basis for us in explaining anaphora dynamically. GCI plays a special role in interpreting metaphor meaning, which shows a better interpretation of metaphor which beyond traditional interactive theories'efforts. Thus, the GCI theory shows the deficiency of explaining metaphor meaning by means of semantic attributes. The GCI theory advocates a semantic-pragmatics perspective in view of the perspectival theory, and takes the metaphor meaning as a kind of meaning which results from disagreement of views. From all of the presents above, we might believe that those subjects and issues are not only independent, but also integral sections of the GCI theory. They, along with semantics and pragmatics, give an alternative interpretation of the language-world relationship and show a brand-new image of meaning theories.
The views of the GCI theory differ greatly from many of the explanatory, theoretical, and strategical commitments that have motivated and shaped traditional meaning theories. Dramatically, the GCI theory makes a contribution to integrating those trends:language logic, analytic philosophy and cognitive psychology. Meanwhile, the theory also surpasses traditional semantics theories, and reconstitutes a new way of knowledge justification. Of course, the GCI theory is not an overall perfect theory. By investigating on the essential debates in forming the GCI theory, we try to back up that the various issues of the GCI theory consist in its hidden commitments, and these efforts will show the significance and value of furthering studies of the GCI theory.
GCI理论研究深受语用学的影响,其理论背景比较复杂,涉及到经典格赖斯“会话隐涵”理论、斯帕波和威尔逊的关联理论、罗素关于语词意义的摹状解释、意义组合性原则的思想以及维特根斯坦的语言游戏理论等。本文通过梳理GCI理论的哲学基础,分析格赖斯“会话隐涵”理论及其影响,揭示该理论对GCI生成机制的解释,解读GCI理论对支撑格赖斯“会话隐涵”理论之“合作原则”的改造,从中探讨GCI理论三原则的解释优势。
文章的研究表明,语义学着重从传统的真值条件、指称等视角来说明概念的语义,主张诉诸话语概念内容之间的推理关系解答话语的理解与表达问题；语用学则着眼于人们交际活动的实践性、规范性,探讨概念意义,认为概念拥有一个不可取消的常规语用意义。GCI理论则给出一个中间路径解释GCI,其基本预设是,语义学必须符合语用学,语用学是对语义学的补充。GCI理论受到新格赖斯语用学的高度关注,其原因在于格赖斯“会话隐涵”理论对GCI的解释存在缺憾。在应对“会话隐涵”理论面临的困难之际,GCI表现出会话含义和规约含义的双重特征,这种两面性使得语义-语用连续体的构成成为可能,同时,也为我们从语义-语用交互层面解读GCI理论的特征提供了可能。尤其是,通过回答指称歧义性、索引词指称、指称识别等问题,可以发现GCI理论在回应格赖斯循环问题方面的优势。
文章还分析了GCI理论与关联理论、语义论以及语用论是对意义理论具体内容的丰富和推进。我们认为,诉诸于意义组合性原则、并合表征、主要意义以及次要意义之分等相关意义理论研究的成熟结论,不仅可以论证GCI理论在分析语篇回指现象、诠释隐喻含义的可行性,还可以解决GCI理论遇到的一些认识论问题；从GCI理论关于知识及其可靠性之评价机制的可能解释来看,它在重审意义理论的基础上给出一条知识确证的中间路径。而从GCI理论对语言学传统问题的解答来看,该理论不仅可以从语用角度研究语篇回指现象,给回指现象以动态分析提供良好的理论基础,还可以给出对隐喻含义的独到解释,揭示借助语义特性解释话语隐喻含义的局限性；GCI理论借助角度理论(perspectival theory)给出一个语义-语用视角,将话语的隐喻含义视为由视角不一致所诱发的产物。上述论域和问题既自成一体又是GCI理论应用及解释的有机构成要素,与语义学、语用学之维的GCI理论一起构成对语言与世界之间关系的另类解读,展现出一幅全新的意义理论图景。
在一定程度上讲,与传统意义理论所依持并以之为主要特征的一些解释性、理论性及策略性的承诺不同,GCI理论对当代语言逻辑、分析哲学和认知心理学等领域的相关研究做出了整合,实现了对传统意义理论的超越,并为知识确证研究提供了新的思路。当然,GCI理论也有其不足。本文考查重审GCI理论过程中所关涉的主要纷争,试图发现GCI理论所遇到问题与该理论内在承诺之间的关联,这些努力将揭示进一步研究GCI理论的意义和价值。
The subject of my dissertation is the theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature (henceforth GCI theory). The GCI is a presumptive meaning, which is supported by the logic structure of linguistic expressions. And this meaning is independent of the particular context. Extracting the traditional dichotomy between semantics and pragmatics, the GCI theory reexamines the research of meaning theory of language philosophy, and focuses on utterance-type-meaning. Such researches, on one hand, can start a new approach for deepening its related topics; on the other hand, its can provides abundant theoretical supports to the researches about the utterance-type-meaning in the perspective of essential issues testing meaning theories.
Macro-pragmatics and micro-pragmatics effect the GCI theory, and make a complex context for understanding the theory, including the Grician conversational implicature theory, Sperber&Wilson's Relation Theory, Russell's description theory, Fodor's idea of compositionality principles, Wittgenstein's language game theory, etc.. To formulate the predominance of the principles of GCI theory, we collate the philosophical groundwork of GCI, analyze the thought and effects of the Grician GCI ideas of how to fix an expression's GCI, and lay out the improvement of the GCI theory.
The semantics explains mainly semantics domain of concepts from a perspective of traditional references, truth conditions, etc. Besides, it claims that we should understand or express an expression's meaning by means of the conceptual contents of a language. The pragmatics discusses in full practical characteristic and normalization of human communicative activity. It inquiries the conceptual meaning of expressions, and presupposes that concepts own certain normative pragmatic significance that can't be eliminated. The GCI theory gives a middle way in explaining GCI, but the theory presupposes that semantics should conform to pragmatics, and pragmatics plays the role of replenishing semantics. Neo-Grician Pragmatics cares about the GCI theory, because it encounters difficulties in explaining GCI. To answer the semantic questions traditional theory confronted in meaning interpreting, the GCI theory shows the attributes of both implicature meaning and conventional meaning. This dual character makes the possibility of forming a semantics-pragmatics continuum, and gives future of understanding the GCI theory from the perspective of semantics-pragmatics. Especially, we can find that the GCI theory shows some predominance in answering Grician Hermeneutic circle through explaining the matter of referential ambiguity, indexical reference and reference identification.
Besides the GCI theory, Meaning theories are enriched and pushed by the Relation Theory, semantics and pragmatics. Compositionality principles of meaning theories, merger representation, the division of primary meaning and second meaning, all these works can not only serve and justify the function of the GCI theory in explaining anaphora and metaphor phenomenon in discourse, but also solve other epistemic problems that the GCI theory encounters; according to the GCI theory's possible interpretation of the mechanism used in valuing knowledge and its liability, the theory gives a middle way in knowledge justification on basis of reviewing usual meaning theories. Seen from its reply to traditional linguistic problems, the GCI theory explores anaphora phenomenon in discourse from the view of pragmatics foremost, and provides a better theoretical basis for us in explaining anaphora dynamically. GCI plays a special role in interpreting metaphor meaning, which shows a better interpretation of metaphor which beyond traditional interactive theories'efforts. Thus, the GCI theory shows the deficiency of explaining metaphor meaning by means of semantic attributes. The GCI theory advocates a semantic-pragmatics perspective in view of the perspectival theory, and takes the metaphor meaning as a kind of meaning which results from disagreement of views. From all of the presents above, we might believe that those subjects and issues are not only independent, but also integral sections of the GCI theory. They, along with semantics and pragmatics, give an alternative interpretation of the language-world relationship and show a brand-new image of meaning theories.
The views of the GCI theory differ greatly from many of the explanatory, theoretical, and strategical commitments that have motivated and shaped traditional meaning theories. Dramatically, the GCI theory makes a contribution to integrating those trends:language logic, analytic philosophy and cognitive psychology. Meanwhile, the theory also surpasses traditional semantics theories, and reconstitutes a new way of knowledge justification. Of course, the GCI theory is not an overall perfect theory. By investigating on the essential debates in forming the GCI theory, we try to back up that the various issues of the GCI theory consist in its hidden commitments, and these efforts will show the significance and value of furthering studies of the GCI theory.
引文
① Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole (ed) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975.
② Grice, H. P. Meaning. Philosophical Review,1957.
③ Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole (ed) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975.
④ Grice, H. P. Presupposition and conversational implicatures. In Syntax and Semantics 3:Speech Acts, ed. P. Cole & J.Morgan,1981.
⑤ Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole (ed) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, pp. 45-46.
⑥ Ibid..
① Lemann, D. Stereotypical reasoning:Logical properties. Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics,1998(6), pp.49-58.
② Blutuer, R., A. LeBmollmann & R. Van der Sandt. Conversational implicature and lexical pragmatics, www.soi.city.ac.uk.2002. pp.16-30.
① Grice, H. P. Meaning. Philosophical Review,1957.
② Brown, P & Levinson, S. Universals in language usage:politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (ed.) Questions and Politeness. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1978, p.25.
③ Ibid..
④ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000.
① Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford, Blackwell,1986, p.21.
② Ibid, p.24.
③ 严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005,第215-239页.
④ Levinson, S.C. Frames of reference and Molyneux's questions:Cross-linguistic evidence. In Bloom, Peterson, Nadel, and Garrett 1996, pp.109-170.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.11.
② Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, pp.45-46.
③ Ibid, pp.46-58.
④ Ibid, pp.64-70.
⑤ Kant, I. Critique of pure reason. (Trans. N. K. Smith). London:Macmillan,1933, p.5. [Translation of 1781, Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Riga Hartknoch.]
① Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W.. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York:Academic Press,1983, pp.55-58.
② Keenan, E.0. The university of conversational postulates.In language in society5,1976, pp.413-461.
③ Horn, L. R. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference:Q-and R-based implicature. In D. Shiffrin (ed.), Meaning form, and use in context. Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press,1984, pp.11-42.
④ Gazdar, G Pragmatics:Implicature, presupposition, and logic form. New York:Academic Press,1979, p.102.
⑤ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.101.
⑥ 徐盛桓.新格赖斯会话含意理论和语用推理[J].外国语,1993,(1),第9-17页.
⑦ Leech, G Principles of Pragmatics. London:Longman,1983, p.132.
① Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford, Blackwell,1995, pp.299-323.
② Mey, J. L. Pragmatics:An Introduction. Oxford:Blackwell,1993, p.103.
③ Sarangi, S. K. and Stefaan Slembrouch. Non-cooperation in communication:A reassessment of Gricean pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics,1992 (17), pp.117-154.
④ Harris, S. Pragmatics and power. Journal of Pragmatics,1995 (23), pp.117-135.
⑤ 胡壮麟.语用学[J].国外语言学,1980,(3),第46页.
① 程雨民.格赖斯的“会话含义”与有关的讨论[J].国外语言学,1983,(1),第19-25页.
② 沈家煊.语用学论题之二:会话含义[J].国外语言学,1986,(2),第68-75页.
③ 何自然.语用学概念[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,2006.
④ 何兆熊.语用学概要[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1989.
⑤ 姜望琪.语用学—理论及其应用[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
⑥ 索振羽.语用学教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
⑦ Jaszczolt, K. Salient meanings, default meanings, and automatic processing. In K. Jaszczolt & K. Allan (eds.) Salience and Default in Utterance Processing. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,2011, pp.11-33.
⑧ Jaszczolt, K. Meaning merger:Pragmatic inference, defaults, and compositionality. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2006, pp.195-212.
⑨ Carston, R. Explicit communication and "free" pragmatic enrichment. In B. Soria & E. Romero (eds.). Explicit Communication:Robyn Carston's Pragmatics. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan,2010, pp.217-185.
⑩ Noveck, I. & D. Sperber. The why and how of experimental pragmatics:The case of "scalar inference". In N. Burton-Roberts (ed.). Pragmatics. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan,2007, pp.184-212.
① Moreno, R. Creativity and convention:The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2007, p.42.
② Atlas, J. Logic, Meaning and Conversation. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005, p.176.
③ Recanati, F. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2010, p.33.
④ Garrett, M. & R. Harnish. Experimental pragmatics:Testing for implicature. Pragmatics and Cognition, 2007, pp.65-90.
⑤ Ibid..
⑥ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.67.
⑦ Levinson, S. Three levels of meaning. In F. Palmer (ed.). Grammar and Meaning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995, pp.90-115.
⑧ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, pp.1-8.
① Horn, L. R. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference:Q- and R-based implicature. In D. Shiffrin (ed.), Meaning form, and use in context. Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press,1984, pp.11-42.
② Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1980 (1962), p.13.
③ Searle, J. Speech acts. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1969, p.412.
④ 张绍杰.默认理论与关联理论——解释“一般会话含义”的两种对立方法[J].当代外语研究,2012,(7),第19-23页.
⑤ 张绍杰.一般会话含义的“两面性”与含义推导模式问题[J].外语教学与研究,2008,(5),第196-203页.
⑥ 同上.
⑦ 张韧弦.基于缺省逻辑的一般会话含义例证的形式处理[J].上海交通大学学报,2008,(2),第158-167页.
① 张韧弦.级差含义推导的缺省逻辑方案[J].外国语,2008,(7),第64-72页.
② 温金海,蒲婧新.从认知的角度解析将会话含义分为一般和特殊的理据[J].南京财经大学学报,2005(4),第101-104页.
③ 代礼胜.逻辑转喻与一般会话含义[J].外语教学,2009,(11),第85-89页.
④ 宋文辉.一般会话隐含的“信息原则”与动结式的配价[J].语言文字应用,2004,(4),第49-54页.
⑤ 彭家法.照应的一般模式及其语用解释[J].安徽大学学报,2006,(2), 第61-65页.
① Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, pp.45-46.
② Edmondson, W. Spoken Discourse:A Model for Analysis. Longman,1981, p.214.
③ Ibid..
④ 曹琪,唐晓嘉.“会话隐涵”研究的信念契合路径探析[J].哲学动态,2013,(3),第95页.
⑤ 张绍杰.一般会话含义的“两面性”与含义推导模式问题[J].外语教学与研究,2008,(5),第196页.
① Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, pp.45-46.
① Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, p.50.
② Lycan, W., Philosophy of Language. Taylor & Francis Group,2008, p.89.
③ 曹琪,唐晓嘉.“会话隐涵”研究的信念契合路径探析[J].哲学动态,2013,(3),第95页.
① Lycan, W., Philosophy of Language. Taylor & Francis Group,2008, pp.86-87. ② Ibid, p.90.
③ Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations, trans. G E. M. Anscombe. Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1953, p.216.
④ Lycan, W., Philosophy of Language. Taylor & Francis Group,2008, pp.88-89.
⑤ Ziff, P. "On H. P. Grice's Account of Meaning." Analysis,1967, pp.1-8.
⑥ Lycan, W., Philosophy of Language. Taylor & Francis Group,2008, pp.90-91.
① 曹琪,唐晓嘉.“会话隐涵”研究的信念契合路径探析[J].哲学动态,2013,(3),第95页.
② Sperber, D & D. Wilson. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1986, p.17-23.
③ Martin L. Jonsson. Compositionality:Doubts about the Structural Path to Meaning. Printed by Media-Tryck, Lund University, Lund,2008, pp.178-185.
① Devitt, M. and Sterelny, K., Language and Reality. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press,1999, p.92.
② 涂纪亮,陈波.皮尔斯文选[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006,第121页.
① 涂纪亮,陈波.皮尔斯文选[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006,第67-85页.
② 同上,第120页.
③ 同上,第226-227页.
④ Apel,K., Karl-Otto Apel:second Essayl:Towards a Transcendental semiotics. Atlantic Highlands:Humanities Press,1994, p.78.
① Eco.U., A theory of Semiotics. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.1976, pp.66-68.
② 张存建,何向东.个体确定名称之指称的推理特征[J].哲学研究,2012,(4),第93-94页.
③ Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation, In. P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, p.45.
④ Levinson, S. C. Presumptive Meanings:The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.201.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive Meanings:The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.76.
① Jerrold M. Sadock. On Testing for Conversational Implicature. In P. Cole,1978, p.91.
② Davis, W. Implicature, Intention, Conversation, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge:CUP, 1998, p.11.
③ Ibid,p.19.
④ 张绍杰.一般会话含义的“两面性”与含义推导模式问题[J].外语教学与研究,2008,(5),第196页.
⑤ 同上,第197-198页.
⑤ Atlas, J. & Levinson, S. C. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form[A]. In P. Cole(ed.). Radical Pragmatics. New York:Academic Press,1981, p.47.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive Meanings:The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.22.
② Levinson, S. C. Presumptive Meanings:The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.76, pp.114-115, pp.136-137.
③ Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora. A partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics,1987, pp.379-454.
④ Ibid, p.262.
① Sperber, D & D. Wilson. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1986, p.72.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.189.
② Grice, P. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1989, p.87
③ Ibid..
① Atlas, J. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation. Oxford:OUP,2005, p.175.
② Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.54.
③ 赵郭华.西方哲学简史[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001,第254-255页.
④ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.11.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge,2000, MA:MIT Press, p.16.
② Ibid, p.17.
① 张绍杰,张延飞,默认理论与关联理论——解释“一般会话含义”的两种对立方法[J].当代外语研究,2012,(7),第19-28页.
② 陈波.逻辑哲学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2005,第137-150页.
① Grice, H. P. Meaning. Philosophical Review,1957, p.385.
② Grice, H. P. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1989, p.91.
③ Avramides, A. Meaning and Mind. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1989, p.44.
① Bach, K. Default reasoning:Jumping to conclusion and knowing when to think twice. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly,1984,p.38.
② Ibid, pp.37-58.
③ 严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005,第29页.
Rescher, N. Plausible Reasoning. The Netherland, Assen:Van Gorcum & Company,1976, p.39.
① Ginsberg, M. Readings in Non-monotonic Reasoning. Los Altos, CA:Morgan Kaufman,1987 (ed.).
② Wohlrapp, Harald. Resolving the Riddle of the Non-deductive Argumentation Schemes, in Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), proceedings of 3rd ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol II,1995b, pp.55-62.
③ Stevenson, R. J., & Over, D. E. Deduction from uncertain premises. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,48A,1995, pp.613-643.
Josephson, J. & Josephson, S. Abductive inference. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994, pp.211-214.
② 何向东.逻辑学教程[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010,第136-159页.
③ 同上.
① Reiter, R. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence,1981, pp.81-132 (Reprinted in Ginsberg,1987, pp.68-93.)
② Holdcroft, D. Conversational Relevance. In Verschueren and BertuccelliPapi 1987, pp.477-496.
① 严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005,第219页.
② Blackmore, D. Constraints on interpretations. In K. Hall et al. (eds.). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society:General Session and Parasession on the Legacy of Grice. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society,1990, p.126.
③ Gazdar, G. Pragmatics:Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York:Academic Press,1979, p.37.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.62.
② 严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005,第203页.
③ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.30.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.35.
② Ibid, p.31.
③ Ibid, pp.36-37
④ Horn, L. R. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago/London:University of Chicago Press,1989, p.13.
① Zipf, G. K. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge:Addison-Wesley Press,1949, pp. 20-21.
② 姜望琪.语用学-理论及其应用[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
③ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.112.
④ Horn. L. Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Reference:Q-based and R-based Implicature. In Schiffrin, D., (ed), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context:Linguistics Applications, Washington D. C:Georgetown University Press,1983, p.13.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.25.
② Ibid, p.28.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.28.
② Ibid, p.41.
① Levinson, S. Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren Bertuccelli-Papi 1987a.61-129. [Reprinted in A, Kasher (ed.) 1998, Pragmatics:Critical concepts, Vol.4, pp 545-612. London:Routedge.]
② Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.31.
③ Levinson, S. From outer to.inner space:Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In E. Pederson and J. Nuyts (eds.), With language in mind:The relationship between linguistic and conceptual representation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1997, pp.13-45.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, pp.38-39.
② Levinson, S. C. Interactional biases in human thinking. In E. Goody (ed.) Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995, p.97.
③ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.39.
④ Horn, L. R. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference:Q-based and R-based implicature. In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context:Linguistic Applications. Ed. Deborah Schiffrin. Washington. DC:Georgetown University Press,1984,pp.11-42.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, pp.40-41.
① Carston, R., Book review on Levinson's Presumptive Meanings, www. phon. ucl, ac.uk.2002.
② 徐盛桓.常规关系语认知化[J].外国语,2001,(1),第16-24页.
② Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, and G. Lasper (ed.). Cross-cultural Pragmatics:Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex,1989, p.118.
① Escandell-Vidal, V. Norms and principles:Putting social and cognitive pragmatics together. In R. Marquez-Reiter & M.Elena Placencia (ed.). Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 2004, p.139.
② Wierzbicka, A. Cross-cultural Pragmatics:The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin:Mouton-de Gruyter, 1991, p.72.
③ Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1983, pp.142-144, pp.224-225.
④ Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan ed. Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3. New York:Academic Press,1975, p.57.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.39.
② Atlas, J. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005, p.176.
① 张延飞,张绍杰.新格赖斯语用学：含义默认解释模式综观.外语与外语教学,2009,(8),第1-6页.
② Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.94.
③ Brandom, R.. Articulating Reasons:An Introduction of Inferentialism. Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press,2000, p.327.
① Huang, Y.Pragmatics.Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007, p.214.
② Ibid..
③ Ruhl, C. On monosemy:A study in linguistic semantics. Albany, NY:SUNY Press,1989, p.116.
④ Grice, H. P. Meaning. Philosophical Review,1957, pp.377-388.
Chomsky, N. Aspect of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1965, p.61.
Fodor, J. The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1983, p.89.
① Bach, K. Conversational implicature. Mind and Language,1994, pp.154-156.
② Hobbs, J. Implicature and definite reference. Stanford, CA:CSLI Report,1987, pp.87-99.
③ Barwise, J. & Perry, J. Situation and attitudes. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1983, p.23.
④ Kamp, H. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof(eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, Vol.1. Amsterdam:Mathematisch Centrum,1981, pp.277-321.
① Grice, H. P. Utterer's meaning and intensions. Philosophical Review,1969, pp.147-211. [Reprinted in H. P. Grice(1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.]
① Recanati, F. The pragmatics of what is said. Mind & Language,1989, pp.295-329.
② Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. [C]//In P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, p.50.
③ Capone, A. On Grice's Circle (a theory-internal problem in linguistic theories of the Gricean type). Journal of Pragmatics,2006,38(5), pp.645-649.
① Brandom, R.. Articulating Reasons:An Introduction of Inferentialism. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2000, p.158.
② Ibid, p.159.
③ 罗素.数理哲学导论[M].晏成书译,商务印书馆,1982年,第159-160页.
④ 马蒂尼奇.语言哲学[M].牟博等译,商务印书馆,1998年,第475-516页.
③ Brandom, R.. Articulating Reasons:An Introduction to Inferentialism. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2000, pp.170-171.
① Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, pp.173-174.
① 吕叔湘,歧义类例[J].语境研究论文集,1992,(11),第308-309页.
② 同上,第308-309页.
③ 同上,第313-322页.
① Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.175.
① Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.163.
① 武庆荣,何向东.索引词研究的逻辑哲学意蕴及其启示[J].自然辩证法研究,2012,(8),第12-17页.
② 王超辉.语境条件下索引词和索引句的运用[J].沈阳农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(2),第95页.
③ Lewis, D. General semantics. In D. Davidson and G. Harman(ed.), Semantics of natural language, Dordrecht: Reidel,1972, pp.169-218.
④ Fillmore, C.Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Mimeo, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.[Reprinted as Fillmore, C.1997, Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA:CSLI Publications.],1975, pp.111-119.
① Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1983, pp.54-94.
① Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.179.
② 严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海外语教育出版社,2005,第124-135页.
① Russell, B. On denoting. Mind 14,1948, pp.479-493. [Reprinted in R. Marsh(ed.),1956, B. Russell:Logic and knowledge. London:George Allen and Unwin.]
① Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1983, p.75.
① Levinson, S. C. Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren and Bertuccelli-Papi 1987, p.403. [Reprinted in A. Kasher(ed.) 1998, Pragmatics:Critical concepts, Vol.4, pp.545612. London:Routledge.]
② Capone, A. On Grice's Circle (a theory-internal problem in linguistic theories of the Gricean type). Journal of Pragmatics,2006,38(5), pp.645-669.
③ Jaszczolt, K. Meaning merger:Pragmatic inference, defaults, and compositionality. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2006, pp.195-212.
① 这种区分不等于格赖关于“所言”和“所寓”的区分,它是从Recanati的主要-次要语用推理过程发展而来.
② Jaszczolt, K. Default semantics. In B. Heine & H. Narrog(eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2010, pp.209-211.
③ Fodor, J. and Lepore, E.. Brandom's Burdens:Compositionality and Inferentialism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,2011,pp.465-481.
④ Carston, R. Thoughts and Utterance:The Pragmatics of explicit Communication. Oxford:Blackwell,2002, p.80.
⑤ Carston, R. The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatic,2009, pp.35-62.
⑥ 张绍杰.默认理论与关联理论——解释“一般会话含义”的两种对立方法[J].当代外语研究,2012,(7),第21页.
① Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. [C]//In P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, pp.101-103.
② Grice, H. P. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1989, pp.47-48.
③ Wittgenstein, L. Philosophy and Language. London:George Allen & Unwin Ltd,; Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, Inc.,1972, p.206.
④ Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.19.
① 严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005,第157-169页.
② Austin, J. L., How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1980(1962), p.13.
① Atlas, J. Philosophy without Ambiguity. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1989, p.177.
② Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:.The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.24.
① Horn, L. R. Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Reference:Q-based and R-based Implicature. In Schiffrin, D.,(ed), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context:Linguistics Applications, Washington D. C:Georgetown University Press,1984, p.13.
② Horn, L. R. Economy and redundancy in a dualistic model of natural language. SKY 1993:1993 Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland,1993, pp.33-72.
③ Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press,1983, pp.122-126.
④ Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, pp.267-269.
⑤ Ibid..
① 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008,第88页.
② 同上,第89页.
③ Lycan, W. Philosophy of Language. Taylor & Francis Group,2008, p.28.
④ Geach, P. Reference and Generality. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press,1962, p.15.
⑤ Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, pp.261-265.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.267.
② Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole(ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, p.67.
③ Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press,1983, pp.284-369.
④ Horn, L. R. Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Reference:Q-based and R-based Implicature. In Schiffrin, D.,(ed), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context:Linguistic Applications, Washington D. C:Georgetown University Press,1982, pp.121-130.
⑤ 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008,第10-15页.
① 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008,第12-15页.
② Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge:The MIT Press,1965, p.159.
③ Chomsky, N. Some Concept and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Massachusetts, Cambridge:The MIT Press,1982, p.233.
④ 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008,第7-8页.
⑤ 同上,第9页.
① Bickerton, D. Some Assertions about Presuppositions about Pronominalization. In R. E. Grossman, L. J. San and T. Vance (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society,1975, p.15.
② 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008,第92页.
③ 同上,第100页.
④ Prince, E. F. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole(ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press,1981, pp.223-255.
① Prince, E. F. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole(ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press,1981, pp.223-255.
② 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008.
① Cornish, F. Anaphoric Relations in English and French:A Discourse Perspective. London:Croom Helm,1986, p.62.
② Ariel.M. Referring and Accessibility. Journal of Linguistics,1988,24:pp.65-87.
③ Ibid..
④ Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.267.
⑤ Ibid, pp.267-268.
① Keenan, E. L. & B.Comrie. Noun Phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry,1977, pp. 63-69.
② Huang, C.-T. J. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry,1984(15), pp.531-574.
③ 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008, 第135-154页.
④ 同上,第135-154页.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.268.
① Levinson, S. C. Generalized conversational implicature and the semantics/pragmatics interface. Mimeo, Linguistics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.1988b, p.108.
② Ibid..
③ Chen, Ping. Referent Introducing and Tracking in Chinese Narratives. Unpublished UCLA Ph. D. Dissertation, 1986, p.29.
④ 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008,第149-156页.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, pp.269-271.
② Ibid, p.271.
③ Ibid, pp.269-271.
Fox, B. Discourse structure and anaphora. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987, p.5.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.272.
② Zipf, G K. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort:An Introduction to Human Ecology. Cambridge, Mass.:Addison-Wesley Press,1949, p.310.
③ Ibid..
④ Catriona, T. & J. R. Hurford. Modelling Zipfian distributions in language, (paper presented at the Language Evolution and Computation Workshop/Course at the 15th European Summer School on Logic, Language and Information, Vienna, August 2003. from http://www. Ling.ed.ac.uk/-jim),2003, p.98.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.277.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.278.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, pp.278-279.
② Ibid, p.280.
① 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008,第149-156页.
② Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics,1991, p.111.
③ Ariel, Mira. Interpreting anaphora expressions:a cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics, 1994(30), pp.3-42.
④ Ibid..
① Carston, R. Implicature, explicature, and Truth-theoretic semantics. In R. Kempson (ed.). Mental Representations:The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge:CUP,1988, p.167.
② Aristotle. Rhetoric and Poetics. New York:The Modern Library,1954, p.9.
③ Lakoff, G & M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1980, pp.10-12.
④ 赵敦华.西方哲学简史[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2006,第67-94页.
① Searle, J. Metaphor, in Meaning and Expression. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1978, p.79.
② Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1983, pp.147-162.
③ Black, M. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca:Cornell University Press,1962, pp.106-112.
④ Ankersmit, F. R. & J. J. A. Wooij (eds.) Knowledge and Language, vol. iii:Metaphor and Knowledge. Dordrecht/Boston/London:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1993, p.65.
① Indurkhya, B. Metaphor and Cognition—An Interactionist Approach. Dordrecht/Boston/London:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1992, p.54.
② Gumpel, L. Metaphor Reexamined— A Non-Aristotelian Perspective. Indiana University Press,1984, pp.67-74.
③ Ortony, A. Metaphor and Thought. (2nd ed.) Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1993, p.90.
① Pagin, Peter and Dag Westersterstahl Compositionality II:arguments and problems. In:philosophy Compass, 2010 (3), PP-265-282.
② Lycan, W. Philosophy of Language, Routledge:Taylor & Francis Group,2008, pp.175-190.
③ Ibid..
① Davidson, D. What Metaphors Mean[M]. In S. Sacks (ed) On Metaphor. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Reprinted in D. Davidson (1984) Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1978, p.321.
② Davidson, D. What Metaphors Mean//Darragh Byrne and Max Kolbel. Arguing About Language. New York: Routledge Press,2010, p.466.
③ Ibid, p.472.
① Davidson, D. What Metaphors Mean//Darragh Byrne and Max Kolbel. Arguing About Language. New York:Routledge Press,2010, p.479.
② Davidson, D. Three Varieties of Knowledge//Donald Davidson. Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. New York:Oxford University Press,2001, p.176.
① Davidson, D. Three Varieties of Knowledge//Donald Davidson. Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. New York:Oxford University Press,2001, p.181.
② Searle, R. J. Metaphor//Andrew Ortony. Metaphor and Thought. London:Cambridge University Press, 1993, p.38.
③ Ibid..
① Searle, R. J. Metaphor//Andrew Ortony. Metaphor and Thought. London:Cambridge University Press,1993, p.90.
② Kittay, E. F. Metaphor:its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1987, p.22.
① Black, M. Metaphor in M. Bluck, Models and Metaphors. New York:Cornell University Press,1962, pp.25-47.
② Ibid, p.24.
③ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.220.
④ Halliday, M. A, K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London:Edward Arnold,1985, pp.3-19.
⑤ Hawkes, T. Metaphor. London:Methuen,1972, p.97.
① Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar.2nd edition. London:Edward Arnold,1994, p.170.
② Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London:Oxford University Press,1936, p.94.
③ Black, M. Metaphor in M. Bluck, Models and Metaphors. New York:Cornell University Press,1962, p.156.
④ Kittay, E. F. Metaphor:its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1987, p.144.
① Sperber, D & D. Wilson. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,1986, p.113.
② Taylor, J. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford:Claradon Press,1989, p.44.
③ Black, M. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press,1962, p.89.
④ 严世清.论关联理论的隐喻观[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2002,(3),第7-10页.
① Ogden, C. K. & Ⅰ. A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning:A study of the Influence of the Science of Symbolism Upon Thought (Tenth Edition). London:Routledge& Kegan Paul Ltd.,1952, pp.57-60.
② Sperber, D & D. Wilson. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,1986, p.124.
① Lakoff, G & M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago:The University of Chicago University Press,1980, p.67.
② Giora, R. Discourse coherence is an independent notion:A reply to Deidre Wilson. Journal of Pragmatics,1998, pp.75-86.
③ Grice, H. P. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In Syntax and Semantics 3:Speech Acts, ed. P. Cole & J. Morgan,1981, pp.183-198.
④ 严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005,第215-241页.
① Ziv, Y. On the rationality of "relevance" and the relevance of "rationality". Journal of Pragmatics,1988, pp.53-54.
② Berg, J. The relevant relevance. Journal of Pragmatics,1991(26), pp.411-425.
③ Brown, G., et al.(ed.). Relevance and Understanding, Language and understanding. Oxford University Press,1994, pp.37-57.
① LaPolla, R. J. Grammaticalization as the fossilization of constrains on interpretation, from UCL Working Papers. 1996, p.8.
② Wilson, D. Discourse, coherence and relevance. Journal of Pragmatics,1998(29), pp.57-74.
③ Wilson, D. Truth and relevance in communication and cognition, Paper Delivered at Keio International Conference on the Interface between Grammar and Cognition,1996a, pp.31-52.
① 涂纪亮.现代西方语言哲学比较研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1996,第6页.
① 涂纪亮.现代西方语言哲学比较研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1996,第7页.
② 同上,第29页.
③ 徐盛桓.常规关系语认知化[J].外国语,2001,(1),第16-24页.
① Wittgenstein, L..Philosophical Investigations. G E. M. Anscombe (trans.).2ed. Oxford:Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1958, p.224.
② Austin, J. L., How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1980(1962).
③ Ibid, p.13.
④ Searle, J. Metaphor, in Meaning and Expression. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1978, p.104.
① Nuyts, J. Cognitive linguistics (Review article). Journal of Pragmatics,1993, pp.269-290.
① Lakoff, G "Linguistics and natural logic", in semantics of natural language, Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman,1985, p.45.
② 王雨田.现代逻辑科学导引[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1998,第459-463页.
③ 同上.
④ 邹崇理.自然语言逻辑研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
⑤ 侯敏.计算语言学与汉语自动分析[M].北京：北京广播学院出版社,1999,第30页.
① Recanati, F. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2010, p.160.
② Jaszczolt, K. Salient meanings, defauult meanings, and automatic processing. In K. Jaszczolt & K. Allan (eds.). Salience and Default in Utterance Processing. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,2011, pp.141-142.
① 束定芳.语言的认知研究——认知语言学论文精选[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004,第59页.
② Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures. The Hague:Mouton Publishers,1957, p.72.
① 束定芳.语言的认知研究——认知语言学论文精选[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004,第59页.
② 同上,第61页.
③ Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol, Ⅰ:Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford:University of Stanford Press,1987, p.194.
④ Lakoff, G. The invariance hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics,1990(1), pp.39-74.
① Brandom, R.. Articulating Reasons:An Introduction of Inferentialism. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2000, pp.29-30.
② Holland, J. J., Holyok, K. J., Nisbett, R., and Thagard, P. R. Induction:Processes of inference, learning and discovery. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1989, pp.203-204.
Recanati, F. Literal Meaning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2004a, pp.295-329.
① Jaszczolt, K. Default Semantics:Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford:OUP,2005, p.5.
② Bezuidenhout, A. Generalized conversational implicatures and default pragmatic inferences. In J. Campbell, M. O'Rourke & D. Shier(ed.). Meaning and Truth:Investigations in Philosophical Semantics. New York/London:Seven Bridge Press,2002, pp.257-283.
③ Levinson, S. Three levels of meaning. In F. Palmer (ed.). Grammar and Meaning. Cambridge:CUP,1995, pp.90-115.
④ Jaszczolt, K. Default Semantics:Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication, Oxford: OUP,2005, p.5.
⑤ Bezuidenhout, A. Generalized conversational implicatures and default pragmatic inferences. In J. Campbell, M. O'Rourke & D. Shier(ed.). Meaning and Truth:Investigations in Philosophical Semantics. New York/London:Seven Bridge Press,2002, pp.246-273.
① Atlas, J. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation. Oxford:OUP,2005, p.57.
② Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, pp.188-232.
③ Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, pp.211-223.
④ Borg, E. Minimalism versus contextualism in Semantics. In G Preyer & G Peter (eds.). Context Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism:New Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford:OUP,2007, pp.339-359.
⑤ Borg, E. Intention-based semantics. In E. Lepore & B. Smith (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford:OUP,2006, pp.250-267.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive Meanings:The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.41.
② Gazda, G. Pragmatics:Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York:Academic Press,1979, p.97.
[1]柏拉图.泰阿泰德篇[M].北京：商务印书馆,1963.
[2]曹琪,唐晓嘉.“会话隐涵”研究的信念契合路径探析[J].哲学动态,2013,(3)：95-100.
[3]曹琪,唐晓嘉.GCI——优先解读理论的去语境解释[J].科学技术哲学研究,2014,(1)：16-21.
[4]陈波.逻辑哲学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2005.
[5]陈波,冯艳译.当代语言哲学导论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2011年.
[6]陈道德.周礼全对格赖斯隐涵理论的发展[J].重庆理工大学学报(社会科学版),2011,(8)：12-17.
[7]程雨民.格赖斯的“会话含义”与有关的讨论[J].国外语言学,1983,(1)：19-25.
[8]代礼胜.逻辑转喻与一般会话含义[J].外语教学,2009,(11)：85-89.
[9]高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008.
[10]禾木.有必要引入协议论吗?——评格莱斯意图意义理论[J].自然辩证法研究,2005,(6)：40-45.
[11]何向东.“归纳问题”的逻辑研究述评[J].哲学研究,2005,(12)：79-83.
[12]何向东.逻辑学教程[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010.
[13]何兆熊.语用学概要[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1989.
[14]何自然.语用学概念[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,2006.
[15]侯敏.计算语言学与汉语自动分析[M].北京：北京广播学院出版社,1999.
[16]胡壮麟.语用学[J].国外语言学,1980,(3)：46.
[17]姜望琪.语用学-理论及其应用[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
[18]姜望琪.关联理论质疑[J].外语研究,2001,(4)：26-31.
[19]姜望琪.当代语用学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2003.
[20]金立.合作与会话——合作原则及其应用研究[D].杭州：浙江大学,2005.
[21]鞠实儿.面向知识表示与推理的自然语言逻辑[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2009.
[22]李秀林,王于,李淮春.辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[23]吕叔湘.歧义类例[J].语境研究论文集,1992,(11)：308-309.
[24][美]罗蒂.真理与进步[M].杨玉成译.北京：华夏出版社,2003.
[25]罗素.数理哲学导论[M].晏成书译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.
[26]马蒂尼奇.语言哲学[M].牟博等译.北京：商务印书馆,1998.
[27]彭家法.照应的一般模式及其语用解释[J].安徽大学学报,2006,(2)：61-65.
[28]彭漪涟,马钦荣.逻辑学大辞典[M].上海：上海辞书出版社,2004.
[29]钱冠连.汉语文化语用学[M].北京：清华大学出版社,1997.
[30]沈家煊.语用学论题之二：会话含义[J].国外语言学,1986,(2)：68-75.
[31][联邦德国]施太格缪勒.当代哲学主流(上卷)[M].王炳文,燕宏远,张金言等译.北京：商务印书馆,1986.
[32][联邦德国]施太格缪勒.当代哲学主流(下卷)[M].王炳文,王路等译.北京：商务印书馆,1992.
[33]束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[34]束定芳.语言的认知研究——认知语言学论文精选[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[35]宋文辉.一般会话隐含的“信息原则”与动结式的配价[J].语言文字应用,2004,(4)：49-54.
[36]索振羽.语用学教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
[37]唐晓嘉,郭美云.现代认知逻辑的理论与应用[M].北京：科学出版社,2010.
[38]涂纪亮.现代西方语言哲学比较研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1996.
[39]涂纪亮,陈波.皮尔斯文选[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006.
[40]王超辉.语境条件下索引词和索引句的运用[J].沈阳农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(2)：95.
[41]王路译.弗雷格哲学论著选辑[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994.
[42]王雨田.现代逻辑科学导引[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1998,第459-463页.
[43][奥]维特根斯坦.逻辑哲学论[M].郭英译.北京：商务印书馆,1985.
[44][奥]维特根斯坦.哲学研究[M].李步楼译.北京：商务印书馆,2000.
[45]温金海,蒲婧新.从认知的角度解析将会话含义分为一般和特殊的理据[J].南京财经大学学报,2005,(4)：101-104.
[46]吴平.评莱文森的一般性谈话隐涵理论——新格赖斯理论发展进程中的一个里程碑[J].四川外语学院学报,2004,(2)：70-75.
[47]武庆荣,何向东.索引词研究的逻辑哲学意蕴及其启示[J].自然辩证法研究,2012,(8)：12-17.
[48]武庆荣.布兰顿推理论研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2013.
[49]熊学亮,张韧弦.试论条件句和结论句之间的逻辑规约[J].外国语,2005(2)：18-23.
[50]徐盛桓.新格赖斯会话含意理论和语用推理[J].外国语,1993(1)：9-17.
[51]徐盛桓.常规关系语认知化[J].外国语,2001(1)：16-24.
[52]严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005.
[53]严世清.论关联理论的隐喻观[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2002,(3)：7-10.
[54]杨翠.语言学中的预设分析[D].上海：上海师范大学,2006.
[55]杨平.关联-顺应模式[J].现代外语,2001,(6)：21-28.
[56]杨先顺.会话隐涵的语用逻辑研究[D].广州：中山大学,2009.
[57]张存建,何向东.个体确定名称之指称的推理特征[J].哲学研究,2012,(4)：93-94.
[58]张韧弦.基于缺省逻辑的一般会话含义例证的形式处理[J].上海交通大学学报,2008,(2)：158-167.
[59]张韧弦.级差含义推导的缺省逻辑方案[J].外国语,2008,(7)：64-72.
[60]张绍杰.会话隐涵理论的新发展——新Grice会话隐涵说述评[J].外语教学与研究,1995,(1)：28-37.
[61]张绍杰.默认理论与关联理论——解释“一般会话含义”的两种对立方法[J].当代外语研究,2012,(7)：19-23.
[62]张绍杰.一般会话含义的“两面性”与含义推导模式问题[J].外语教学与研究,2008,(5)：196-203.
[63]张延飞,张绍杰.后格赖斯语用学：含义默认解释模式综观[J].外语与外语教学,2009,(8)：1-6.
[64]张燕京.从意向到意义——评格赖斯方案及其影响[J].江西社会科学,2002,(5)：9-15.
[65]赵郭华.西方哲学简史[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
[66]周礼全.逻辑——正确思维和有效交际的理论[M].北京：人民出版社,1994.
[67]邹崇理.自然语言逻辑研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
[68]邹崇理.逻辑、语言和信息[M].北京：人民出版社,2002.
[69]Ankersmit, F. R. & J. J. A. Wooij (eds.) Knowledge and Language, vol. iii:Metaphor and Knowledge. Dordrecht/Boston/London:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1993.
[70]Apel,K., Karl-Otto Apel:second Essay 1:Towards a Transcendental semiotics. Atlantic Highlands:Humanities Press.1994.
[71]Ariel, M. Referring and Accessibility. Journal of Linguistics,1988.
[72]Ariel, Mira. Interpreting anaphora expressions:a cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics,1994.
[73]Aristotle. Rhetoric and Poetics. New York:The Modern Library,1954.
[74]Atlas, J. D. Logic, Meaning and Conversation. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005.
[75]Austin, J. L., How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1980(1962).
[76]Avramides, A. Meaning and Mind. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1989.
[77]Bach, K. Default reasoning:Jumping to conclusion and knowing when to think twice. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.,1984.
[78]Bach, K. Conversational implicature. Mind and Language,1994(9).
[79]Bataller, S. M. Lexical pragmatics:Relevance theory and generalized conversational implicatures. http://www.uv.es/anglogermanica/2003-2004/Maruenda.htm,2004.
[80]Berg, J. The relevant relevance. Journal of Pragmatics,1991(26).
[81]Bezuidenhout, A. Generalized conversational implicatures and default pragmatic inferences. In J. Campbell, M. O'Rourke & D. Shier(ed.). Meaning and Truth:Investigations in Philosophical Semantics. New York/London:Seven Bridge Press,2002.
[82]Bickerton, D. Some Assertions about Presuppositions about Pronominalization. In R. E. Grossman, L. J. San and T. Vance (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society,1975.
[83]Black, M. Metaphor in M. Bluck, Models and Metaphors. New York:Cornell University Press, 1962.
[84]Blackmore, D. Constraints on interpretations. In K. Hall et al. (eds.). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meetingof the Berkeley Linguistics Society:General Session and Parasession on the Legacy of Grice. Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistics Society,1990.
[85]Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, and G Lasper (ed.). Cross-cultural Pragmatics:Requests and Apologies Norwood:Ablex,1989.
[86]Blutuer, R., A LeBmollmann & R. Van der Sandt. Conversational implicature and lexical pragmatics, www.soi.citv.ac.uk,2002.
[87]Borg, E. Intention-based semantics. In E. Lepore & B. Smith (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford:OUP,2006.
[88]Borg, E. Minimalism versus contextualism in Semantics. In G. Preyer & G Peter (eds.). Context Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism:New Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford:OUP,2007.
[89]Brandom, R... Articulating Reasons:An Introduction of Inferentialism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,2000.
[90]Brown, P & S. Levinson. Universals in language usage:politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (ed.) Questions and Politeness. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1978.
[91]Brown, G, et al.(ed.). Relevance and Understanding, Language and understanding. Oxford University Press,1994.
[92]Capone, A. On Grice's Circle (a theory-internal problem in linguistic theories of the Gricean type). Journal of Pragmatics,2006,38(5).
[93]Carston, R. Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In R. Carston & S. Uchida(ed.), 1998.
[94]Carston, R., Book review on Levinson's Presumptive Meanings, www. phon. ucl, ac.uk.2002.
[95]Carston, R. Explicit communication and "free" pragmatic enrichment, In B. Soria & E. Romero (eds.). Explicit Communication:Robyn Carston's Pragmatics. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan,2010.
[96]Catriona, T. & J. R. Hurford. Modelling Zipfian distributions in language, (paper presented at the Language Evolution and Computation Workshop/Course at the 15th European Summer School on Logic, Language and Information, Vienna, August 2003. from http://www. Ling.ed.ac.uk/～jim),2003.
[97]Chen, Ping. Referent Introducing and Tracking in Chinese Narratives. Unpublished UCLA Ph. D. Dissertation,1986.
[98]Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures. The Hague:Mouton Publishers,1957.
[99]Chomsky, N. Aspect of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1965.
[100]Chomsky, N. Some Concept and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Massachusetts, Cambridge:The MIT Press,1982.
[101]Cornish, F. Anaphoric Relations in English and French:A Discourse Perspective. London: Croom Helm,1986.
[102]Davidson, D. What Metaphors Mean. In S. Sacks (ed) On Metaphor. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Reprinted in D. Davidson (1984) Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1978.
[103]Davidson, D. Three Varieties of Knowledge//Donald Davidson. Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective[C]. New York:Oxford University Press,2001.
[104]Davidson, D. What Metaphors Mean//Darragh Byme and Max Kolbel. Arguing About Language[C]. New York:Routledge Press,2010.
[105]Davis, W. Implicature, Intention, Conversation, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge:CUP,1998.
[106]Devitt, M. and Sterelny, K., Language and Reality. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge. MA:The MIT Press,1999.
[107]Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W.. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York:Academic Press, 1983.
[108]Eco,U., A theory of Semiotics. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.1976.
[109]Edmondson, W. Spoken Discourse:A Model for Analysis. Longman,1981.
[110]Escandell-Vidal, V. Norms and principles:Putting social and cognitive pragmatics together. In R. Marquez-Reiter & M.Elena Placencia (ed.). Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2004.
[111]Fillmore, C.Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Mimeo, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.[Reprinted as Fillmore, C.1997, Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA:CSLI Publications.],1975.
[112]Fodor, J. The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1983.
[113]Fodor, J. Language, Thought and Compositionality, Mind and Language,2001,16 (1).
[114]Fox, B. Discourse structure and anaphora. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.
[115]Garrett, M. & R. Harnish. Experimental pragmatics:Testing for implicature. Pragmatics and Cognition,2007.
[116]Gazdar, G. Pragmatics:Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York:Academic Press,1979.
[117]Geach, P. Reference and Generality. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press,1962.
[118]Ginsberg, M. Readings in Non-monotonic Reasoning. Los Altos, CA:Morgan Kaufman, 1987 (ed.).
[119]Giora, R. Discourse coherence is an independent notion:A reply to Deidre Wilson. Journal of Pragmatics,1998(29).
[120]Grice, H. P. Meaning. Philosophical Review,1957,66(1).
[121]Grice, H. P, Logic and conversation. In. P. Cole (ed) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975.
[122]Grice, H. P. Further notes on logic and conversation, In Cole 1978.
[123]Grice, H. P. Presupposition and conversational implicatures. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. P. Cole & J. Morgan,1981.
[124]Grice, H.P, Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1989.
[125]Gumpel,L. Metaphor Reexamined- A Non-Aristotelian Perspective. Indiana University Press,1984.
[126]Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London:Edward Arnold,1985.
[127]Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar.2nd edition. London:Edward Arnold,1994.
[128]Harris, S. Pragmatics and power. Journal of Pragmatics,1995 (23).
[129]Hawkes, T. Metaphor. London:Methuen,1972.
[130]Hintikka, J. On attributions of'self-knowledge'. The Journal of Philosophy,1970,67:73-87.
[131]Hirschberg. J. A theory of scalar implicature. Moore School of Electrical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Technical Report MS-CIS,1985. [Reprinted as Hirschberg, J. A theory of scalar implicature. New York,1991.]
[132]Hobbs, J. Monotone decreasing quantifiers in a scope-free logical form. In Van Deemter and Press,1996.
[133]Holdcroft, D. Conversational Relevance, In Verschueren and BertuccelliPapi 1987.
[134]Holland, J. J., Holyok, K. J.,Nisbett, R., and Thagard, P. R. Induction:Processes of inference, learning and discovery. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1989.
[135]Horn., L. Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Reference:Q-based and R-based Implicature. In Schiffrin, D.,(ed), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context:Linguistic Applications, Washington D. C:Georgetown University Press,1984.
[136]Horn, L. R. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago/London:University of Chicago Press, 1989.
[137]Huang, C.-T. J. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 1984,15(4).
[138]Huang, Y. "A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora", Journal of Linguistics,1991,Vol. 27 No.2.
[139]Huang, Y. A Pragmatic analysis of control in Chinese. In J. Verschueren (ed.) Levels of Linguistic Adaptation.Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1991a.
[140]Huang, Y. Anaphora:A cross-linguistic study (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory).Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
[141]Huang, YPragmatics.Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
[142]Indurkhya, B. Metaphor and Cognition- An Interactionist Approach. Dordrecht/Boston/ London:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1992.
[143]Jaszczolt, K. Default Semantics:Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford:OUP,2005.
[144]Jaszczolt, K. Meaning merger:Pragmatic inference, defaults, and compositionality. Intercultural Pragmatics,2006,3(2).
[145]Jaszczolt, K. Default semantics. In B. Heine & H. Narrog(eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2010.
[146]Jaszczolt, K. Salient meanings, default meanings, and automatic processing. In K. Jaszczolt & K. Allan (eds.). Salience and Default in Utterance Processing. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter, 2011.
[147]Jerrold M. Sadock. On Testing for Conversational Implicature. In P. Cole,1978.
[148]Josephson, J. & Josephson, S. Abductive inference. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[149]Kadmon, N. On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,1987.
[150]Kant, I. Critique of pure reason. (Trans. N. K. Smith). London:Macmillan,1933. [Translation of 1781, Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Riga:Hartknoch.]
[151]Keenan, E. L. & B.Comrie. Noun Phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry,1977.
[152]Keenan, E.O. The university of conversational postulates. In language in society5,1976.
[153]Kittay, E. F. Metaphor:its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1987.
[154]Lakoff, G & M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[155]Lakoff, G "Linguistics and natural logic", in semantics of natural language, Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman,1985.
[156]Lakoff, G The invariance hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics,1990(1).
[157]Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol, I:Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford:University of Stanford Press,1987.
[158]LaPolla, R. J. Grammaticalization as the fossilization of constrains on interpretation, from UCL Working Papers.1996, NO.8.
[159]Leech, G Principles of pragmatics. London:Longman,1983.
[160]Lemann, D. Stereotypical reasoning:Logical properties. Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics,1998(6).
[161]Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics and social deixis. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society,1919(5).
[162]Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2001/Cambridge University Press.1983.
[163]Levinson, S. C. Interactional biases in human thinking. In E. Goody (ed.) Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995.
[164]Levinson, S. Three levels of meaning. In F. Palmer (ed.). Grammar and Meaning. Cambridge:CUP,1995.
[165]Levinson, S.C. Frames of reference and Molyneux's questions:Cross-linguistic evidence. In Bloom, Peterson, Nadel, and Garrett 1996.
[166]Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature [M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000.
[167]Levinson, S. Space in Language and Cognition:Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003.
[168]Lewis, D. General semantics. In D. Davidson and G Harman(ed.), Semantics of natural language, Dordrecht:Reidel,1972.
[169]Lycan, W. Philosophy of Language, Routledge:Taylor & Francis Group,2008.
[170]Martin, L. Jonsson. Compositionality:Doubts about the Structural Path to Meaning. Printed by Media-Tryck, Lund University, Lund,2008.
[171]Mey, J. L.An Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford:Blackwell,1993.
[172]Moreno, R. Creativity and convention:The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2007.
[173]Noveck, I. & D. Sperber. The why and how of experimental pragmatics:The case of "scalar inference". In N. Burton-Roberts (ed.). Pragmatics. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan,2007.
[174]Nuyts, J. Cognitive linguistics (Review article). Journal of Pragmatics,1993 (20).
[175]Ogden, C. K. & Ⅰ. A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning:A study of the Influence of the Science of Symbolism Upon Thought (Tenth Edition). London:Routledge& Kegan Paul Ltd., 1952.
[176]Ortony, A. Metaphor and Thought. (2nd ed.) Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1993.
[177]Pagin. P and Dag Westersterstahl. Compositionality II:arguments and problems. Philosophy Compass,2010,5 (3).
[178]Prince, E. F. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole(ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York:Academic Press,1981.
[179]Recanati, F. The pragmatics of what is said. Mind & Language,1989 (4).
[180]Recanati, F. Literal Meaning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2004a.
[181]Recantati,F. "What is Said" and Semantics/Pragmatics. In C. Bianchi (ed.),2004b.
[182]Recanati, F. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2010.
[183]Reiter, R. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence,1986,13. (Reprinted in Ginsberg,1987.)
[184]Rescher, N. Plausible Reasoning. The Netherland, Assen:Van Gorcum & Company,1976.
[185]Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London:Oxford University Press,1936.
[186]Ruhl, C. On monosemy:A study in linguistic semantics. Albany, NY:SUNY Press,1989.
[187]Russell, B. On denoting. Mind 14,1905. [Reprinted in R. Marsh(ed.),1956, B. Russell:Logic and knowledge. London:George Allen and Unwin.]
[188]Sarangi, S. K. and Stefaan Slembrouch. Non-cooperation in communication:A reassessment of Gricean pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics,1992 (17).
[189]Searle, J. Speech acts:An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1969.
[190]Searle, J. Metaphor, in Meaning and Expression. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1978.
[191]Searle, R. J. Metaphor//Andrew Ortony. Metaphor and Thought[C]. London:Cambridge University Press,1993.
[192]Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford, Blackwell, 1986.
[193]Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford, Blackwell, 1995.
[194]Stevenson, R. J., & Over, D. E. Deduction from uncertain premises. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,48A,1995.
[195]Taylor, J. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory.Oxford:Claradon Press, 1989.
[196]Wierzbicka, A. Cross-cultural Pragmatics:The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton-de Gruyter,1991.
[197]Wilson, D. Truth and relevance in communication and cognition, Paper Delivered at Keio International Conference on the Interface between Grammar and Cognition,1996a.
[198]Wilson, D. Discourse, coherence and relevance. Journal of Pragmatics,1998(29).
[199]Wittgenstein, L. Philosophy Investigations, tran. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1958.
[200]Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1953.
[201]Wohlrapp, H. Resolving the Riddle of the Non-deductive Argumentation Schemes, in Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), proceedings of 3rd ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol II,1995b.
[202]Ziff, P. "On H. P. Grice's Account of Meaning." Analysis,1967 (28).
[203]Zipf, G. K. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort:An Introduction to Human Ecology[M]. Cambridge, Mass:Addison-Wesley Press,1949.
[204]Ziv, Y. On the rationality of "relevance" and the relevance of "rationality". Journal of Pragmatics,1988 (12).
② Grice, H. P. Meaning. Philosophical Review,1957.
③ Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole (ed) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975.
④ Grice, H. P. Presupposition and conversational implicatures. In Syntax and Semantics 3:Speech Acts, ed. P. Cole & J.Morgan,1981.
⑤ Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole (ed) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, pp. 45-46.
⑥ Ibid..
① Lemann, D. Stereotypical reasoning:Logical properties. Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics,1998(6), pp.49-58.
② Blutuer, R., A. LeBmollmann & R. Van der Sandt. Conversational implicature and lexical pragmatics, www.soi.city.ac.uk.2002. pp.16-30.
① Grice, H. P. Meaning. Philosophical Review,1957.
② Brown, P & Levinson, S. Universals in language usage:politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (ed.) Questions and Politeness. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1978, p.25.
③ Ibid..
④ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000.
① Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford, Blackwell,1986, p.21.
② Ibid, p.24.
③ 严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005,第215-239页.
④ Levinson, S.C. Frames of reference and Molyneux's questions:Cross-linguistic evidence. In Bloom, Peterson, Nadel, and Garrett 1996, pp.109-170.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.11.
② Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, pp.45-46.
③ Ibid, pp.46-58.
④ Ibid, pp.64-70.
⑤ Kant, I. Critique of pure reason. (Trans. N. K. Smith). London:Macmillan,1933, p.5. [Translation of 1781, Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Riga Hartknoch.]
① Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W.. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York:Academic Press,1983, pp.55-58.
② Keenan, E.0. The university of conversational postulates.In language in society5,1976, pp.413-461.
③ Horn, L. R. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference:Q-and R-based implicature. In D. Shiffrin (ed.), Meaning form, and use in context. Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press,1984, pp.11-42.
④ Gazdar, G Pragmatics:Implicature, presupposition, and logic form. New York:Academic Press,1979, p.102.
⑤ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.101.
⑥ 徐盛桓.新格赖斯会话含意理论和语用推理[J].外国语,1993,(1),第9-17页.
⑦ Leech, G Principles of Pragmatics. London:Longman,1983, p.132.
① Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford, Blackwell,1995, pp.299-323.
② Mey, J. L. Pragmatics:An Introduction. Oxford:Blackwell,1993, p.103.
③ Sarangi, S. K. and Stefaan Slembrouch. Non-cooperation in communication:A reassessment of Gricean pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics,1992 (17), pp.117-154.
④ Harris, S. Pragmatics and power. Journal of Pragmatics,1995 (23), pp.117-135.
⑤ 胡壮麟.语用学[J].国外语言学,1980,(3),第46页.
① 程雨民.格赖斯的“会话含义”与有关的讨论[J].国外语言学,1983,(1),第19-25页.
② 沈家煊.语用学论题之二:会话含义[J].国外语言学,1986,(2),第68-75页.
③ 何自然.语用学概念[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,2006.
④ 何兆熊.语用学概要[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1989.
⑤ 姜望琪.语用学—理论及其应用[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
⑥ 索振羽.语用学教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
⑦ Jaszczolt, K. Salient meanings, default meanings, and automatic processing. In K. Jaszczolt & K. Allan (eds.) Salience and Default in Utterance Processing. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,2011, pp.11-33.
⑧ Jaszczolt, K. Meaning merger:Pragmatic inference, defaults, and compositionality. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2006, pp.195-212.
⑨ Carston, R. Explicit communication and "free" pragmatic enrichment. In B. Soria & E. Romero (eds.). Explicit Communication:Robyn Carston's Pragmatics. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan,2010, pp.217-185.
⑩ Noveck, I. & D. Sperber. The why and how of experimental pragmatics:The case of "scalar inference". In N. Burton-Roberts (ed.). Pragmatics. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan,2007, pp.184-212.
① Moreno, R. Creativity and convention:The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2007, p.42.
② Atlas, J. Logic, Meaning and Conversation. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005, p.176.
③ Recanati, F. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2010, p.33.
④ Garrett, M. & R. Harnish. Experimental pragmatics:Testing for implicature. Pragmatics and Cognition, 2007, pp.65-90.
⑤ Ibid..
⑥ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.67.
⑦ Levinson, S. Three levels of meaning. In F. Palmer (ed.). Grammar and Meaning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995, pp.90-115.
⑧ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, pp.1-8.
① Horn, L. R. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference:Q- and R-based implicature. In D. Shiffrin (ed.), Meaning form, and use in context. Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press,1984, pp.11-42.
② Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1980 (1962), p.13.
③ Searle, J. Speech acts. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1969, p.412.
④ 张绍杰.默认理论与关联理论——解释“一般会话含义”的两种对立方法[J].当代外语研究,2012,(7),第19-23页.
⑤ 张绍杰.一般会话含义的“两面性”与含义推导模式问题[J].外语教学与研究,2008,(5),第196-203页.
⑥ 同上.
⑦ 张韧弦.基于缺省逻辑的一般会话含义例证的形式处理[J].上海交通大学学报,2008,(2),第158-167页.
① 张韧弦.级差含义推导的缺省逻辑方案[J].外国语,2008,(7),第64-72页.
② 温金海,蒲婧新.从认知的角度解析将会话含义分为一般和特殊的理据[J].南京财经大学学报,2005(4),第101-104页.
③ 代礼胜.逻辑转喻与一般会话含义[J].外语教学,2009,(11),第85-89页.
④ 宋文辉.一般会话隐含的“信息原则”与动结式的配价[J].语言文字应用,2004,(4),第49-54页.
⑤ 彭家法.照应的一般模式及其语用解释[J].安徽大学学报,2006,(2), 第61-65页.
① Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, pp.45-46.
② Edmondson, W. Spoken Discourse:A Model for Analysis. Longman,1981, p.214.
③ Ibid..
④ 曹琪,唐晓嘉.“会话隐涵”研究的信念契合路径探析[J].哲学动态,2013,(3),第95页.
⑤ 张绍杰.一般会话含义的“两面性”与含义推导模式问题[J].外语教学与研究,2008,(5),第196页.
① Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, pp.45-46.
① Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, p.50.
② Lycan, W., Philosophy of Language. Taylor & Francis Group,2008, p.89.
③ 曹琪,唐晓嘉.“会话隐涵”研究的信念契合路径探析[J].哲学动态,2013,(3),第95页.
① Lycan, W., Philosophy of Language. Taylor & Francis Group,2008, pp.86-87. ② Ibid, p.90.
③ Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations, trans. G E. M. Anscombe. Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1953, p.216.
④ Lycan, W., Philosophy of Language. Taylor & Francis Group,2008, pp.88-89.
⑤ Ziff, P. "On H. P. Grice's Account of Meaning." Analysis,1967, pp.1-8.
⑥ Lycan, W., Philosophy of Language. Taylor & Francis Group,2008, pp.90-91.
① 曹琪,唐晓嘉.“会话隐涵”研究的信念契合路径探析[J].哲学动态,2013,(3),第95页.
② Sperber, D & D. Wilson. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1986, p.17-23.
③ Martin L. Jonsson. Compositionality:Doubts about the Structural Path to Meaning. Printed by Media-Tryck, Lund University, Lund,2008, pp.178-185.
① Devitt, M. and Sterelny, K., Language and Reality. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press,1999, p.92.
② 涂纪亮,陈波.皮尔斯文选[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006,第121页.
① 涂纪亮,陈波.皮尔斯文选[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006,第67-85页.
② 同上,第120页.
③ 同上,第226-227页.
④ Apel,K., Karl-Otto Apel:second Essayl:Towards a Transcendental semiotics. Atlantic Highlands:Humanities Press,1994, p.78.
① Eco.U., A theory of Semiotics. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.1976, pp.66-68.
② 张存建,何向东.个体确定名称之指称的推理特征[J].哲学研究,2012,(4),第93-94页.
③ Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation, In. P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, p.45.
④ Levinson, S. C. Presumptive Meanings:The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.201.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive Meanings:The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.76.
① Jerrold M. Sadock. On Testing for Conversational Implicature. In P. Cole,1978, p.91.
② Davis, W. Implicature, Intention, Conversation, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge:CUP, 1998, p.11.
③ Ibid,p.19.
④ 张绍杰.一般会话含义的“两面性”与含义推导模式问题[J].外语教学与研究,2008,(5),第196页.
⑤ 同上,第197-198页.
⑤ Atlas, J. & Levinson, S. C. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form[A]. In P. Cole(ed.). Radical Pragmatics. New York:Academic Press,1981, p.47.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive Meanings:The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.22.
② Levinson, S. C. Presumptive Meanings:The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.76, pp.114-115, pp.136-137.
③ Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora. A partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics,1987, pp.379-454.
④ Ibid, p.262.
① Sperber, D & D. Wilson. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1986, p.72.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.189.
② Grice, P. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1989, p.87
③ Ibid..
① Atlas, J. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation. Oxford:OUP,2005, p.175.
② Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.54.
③ 赵郭华.西方哲学简史[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001,第254-255页.
④ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.11.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge,2000, MA:MIT Press, p.16.
② Ibid, p.17.
① 张绍杰,张延飞,默认理论与关联理论——解释“一般会话含义”的两种对立方法[J].当代外语研究,2012,(7),第19-28页.
② 陈波.逻辑哲学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2005,第137-150页.
① Grice, H. P. Meaning. Philosophical Review,1957, p.385.
② Grice, H. P. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1989, p.91.
③ Avramides, A. Meaning and Mind. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1989, p.44.
① Bach, K. Default reasoning:Jumping to conclusion and knowing when to think twice. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly,1984,p.38.
② Ibid, pp.37-58.
③ 严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005,第29页.
Rescher, N. Plausible Reasoning. The Netherland, Assen:Van Gorcum & Company,1976, p.39.
① Ginsberg, M. Readings in Non-monotonic Reasoning. Los Altos, CA:Morgan Kaufman,1987 (ed.).
② Wohlrapp, Harald. Resolving the Riddle of the Non-deductive Argumentation Schemes, in Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), proceedings of 3rd ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol II,1995b, pp.55-62.
③ Stevenson, R. J., & Over, D. E. Deduction from uncertain premises. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,48A,1995, pp.613-643.
Josephson, J. & Josephson, S. Abductive inference. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994, pp.211-214.
② 何向东.逻辑学教程[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010,第136-159页.
③ 同上.
① Reiter, R. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence,1981, pp.81-132 (Reprinted in Ginsberg,1987, pp.68-93.)
② Holdcroft, D. Conversational Relevance. In Verschueren and BertuccelliPapi 1987, pp.477-496.
① 严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005,第219页.
② Blackmore, D. Constraints on interpretations. In K. Hall et al. (eds.). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society:General Session and Parasession on the Legacy of Grice. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society,1990, p.126.
③ Gazdar, G. Pragmatics:Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York:Academic Press,1979, p.37.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.62.
② 严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005,第203页.
③ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.30.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.35.
② Ibid, p.31.
③ Ibid, pp.36-37
④ Horn, L. R. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago/London:University of Chicago Press,1989, p.13.
① Zipf, G. K. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge:Addison-Wesley Press,1949, pp. 20-21.
② 姜望琪.语用学-理论及其应用[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
③ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.112.
④ Horn. L. Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Reference:Q-based and R-based Implicature. In Schiffrin, D., (ed), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context:Linguistics Applications, Washington D. C:Georgetown University Press,1983, p.13.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.25.
② Ibid, p.28.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.28.
② Ibid, p.41.
① Levinson, S. Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren Bertuccelli-Papi 1987a.61-129. [Reprinted in A, Kasher (ed.) 1998, Pragmatics:Critical concepts, Vol.4, pp 545-612. London:Routedge.]
② Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.31.
③ Levinson, S. From outer to.inner space:Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In E. Pederson and J. Nuyts (eds.), With language in mind:The relationship between linguistic and conceptual representation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1997, pp.13-45.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, pp.38-39.
② Levinson, S. C. Interactional biases in human thinking. In E. Goody (ed.) Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995, p.97.
③ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.39.
④ Horn, L. R. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference:Q-based and R-based implicature. In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context:Linguistic Applications. Ed. Deborah Schiffrin. Washington. DC:Georgetown University Press,1984,pp.11-42.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, pp.40-41.
① Carston, R., Book review on Levinson's Presumptive Meanings, www. phon. ucl, ac.uk.2002.
② 徐盛桓.常规关系语认知化[J].外国语,2001,(1),第16-24页.
② Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, and G. Lasper (ed.). Cross-cultural Pragmatics:Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex,1989, p.118.
① Escandell-Vidal, V. Norms and principles:Putting social and cognitive pragmatics together. In R. Marquez-Reiter & M.Elena Placencia (ed.). Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 2004, p.139.
② Wierzbicka, A. Cross-cultural Pragmatics:The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin:Mouton-de Gruyter, 1991, p.72.
③ Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1983, pp.142-144, pp.224-225.
④ Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan ed. Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3. New York:Academic Press,1975, p.57.
① Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.39.
② Atlas, J. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005, p.176.
① 张延飞,张绍杰.新格赖斯语用学：含义默认解释模式综观.外语与外语教学,2009,(8),第1-6页.
② Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.94.
③ Brandom, R.. Articulating Reasons:An Introduction of Inferentialism. Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press,2000, p.327.
① Huang, Y.Pragmatics.Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007, p.214.
② Ibid..
③ Ruhl, C. On monosemy:A study in linguistic semantics. Albany, NY:SUNY Press,1989, p.116.
④ Grice, H. P. Meaning. Philosophical Review,1957, pp.377-388.
Chomsky, N. Aspect of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1965, p.61.
Fodor, J. The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1983, p.89.
① Bach, K. Conversational implicature. Mind and Language,1994, pp.154-156.
② Hobbs, J. Implicature and definite reference. Stanford, CA:CSLI Report,1987, pp.87-99.
③ Barwise, J. & Perry, J. Situation and attitudes. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1983, p.23.
④ Kamp, H. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof(eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, Vol.1. Amsterdam:Mathematisch Centrum,1981, pp.277-321.
① Grice, H. P. Utterer's meaning and intensions. Philosophical Review,1969, pp.147-211. [Reprinted in H. P. Grice(1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.]
① Recanati, F. The pragmatics of what is said. Mind & Language,1989, pp.295-329.
② Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. [C]//In P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, p.50.
③ Capone, A. On Grice's Circle (a theory-internal problem in linguistic theories of the Gricean type). Journal of Pragmatics,2006,38(5), pp.645-649.
① Brandom, R.. Articulating Reasons:An Introduction of Inferentialism. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2000, p.158.
② Ibid, p.159.
③ 罗素.数理哲学导论[M].晏成书译,商务印书馆,1982年,第159-160页.
④ 马蒂尼奇.语言哲学[M].牟博等译,商务印书馆,1998年,第475-516页.
③ Brandom, R.. Articulating Reasons:An Introduction to Inferentialism. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2000, pp.170-171.
① Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, pp.173-174.
① 吕叔湘,歧义类例[J].语境研究论文集,1992,(11),第308-309页.
② 同上,第308-309页.
③ 同上,第313-322页.
① Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.175.
① Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.163.
① 武庆荣,何向东.索引词研究的逻辑哲学意蕴及其启示[J].自然辩证法研究,2012,(8),第12-17页.
② 王超辉.语境条件下索引词和索引句的运用[J].沈阳农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(2),第95页.
③ Lewis, D. General semantics. In D. Davidson and G. Harman(ed.), Semantics of natural language, Dordrecht: Reidel,1972, pp.169-218.
④ Fillmore, C.Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Mimeo, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.[Reprinted as Fillmore, C.1997, Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA:CSLI Publications.],1975, pp.111-119.
① Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1983, pp.54-94.
① Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.179.
② 严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海外语教育出版社,2005,第124-135页.
① Russell, B. On denoting. Mind 14,1948, pp.479-493. [Reprinted in R. Marsh(ed.),1956, B. Russell:Logic and knowledge. London:George Allen and Unwin.]
① Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1983, p.75.
① Levinson, S. C. Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren and Bertuccelli-Papi 1987, p.403. [Reprinted in A. Kasher(ed.) 1998, Pragmatics:Critical concepts, Vol.4, pp.545612. London:Routledge.]
② Capone, A. On Grice's Circle (a theory-internal problem in linguistic theories of the Gricean type). Journal of Pragmatics,2006,38(5), pp.645-669.
③ Jaszczolt, K. Meaning merger:Pragmatic inference, defaults, and compositionality. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2006, pp.195-212.
① 这种区分不等于格赖关于“所言”和“所寓”的区分,它是从Recanati的主要-次要语用推理过程发展而来.
② Jaszczolt, K. Default semantics. In B. Heine & H. Narrog(eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2010, pp.209-211.
③ Fodor, J. and Lepore, E.. Brandom's Burdens:Compositionality and Inferentialism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,2011,pp.465-481.
④ Carston, R. Thoughts and Utterance:The Pragmatics of explicit Communication. Oxford:Blackwell,2002, p.80.
⑤ Carston, R. The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatic,2009, pp.35-62.
⑥ 张绍杰.默认理论与关联理论——解释“一般会话含义”的两种对立方法[J].当代外语研究,2012,(7),第21页.
① Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. [C]//In P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, pp.101-103.
② Grice, H. P. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1989, pp.47-48.
③ Wittgenstein, L. Philosophy and Language. London:George Allen & Unwin Ltd,; Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, Inc.,1972, p.206.
④ Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.19.
① 严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005,第157-169页.
② Austin, J. L., How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1980(1962), p.13.
① Atlas, J. Philosophy without Ambiguity. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1989, p.177.
② Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:.The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.24.
① Horn, L. R. Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Reference:Q-based and R-based Implicature. In Schiffrin, D.,(ed), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context:Linguistics Applications, Washington D. C:Georgetown University Press,1984, p.13.
② Horn, L. R. Economy and redundancy in a dualistic model of natural language. SKY 1993:1993 Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland,1993, pp.33-72.
③ Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press,1983, pp.122-126.
④ Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, pp.267-269.
⑤ Ibid..
① 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008,第88页.
② 同上,第89页.
③ Lycan, W. Philosophy of Language. Taylor & Francis Group,2008, p.28.
④ Geach, P. Reference and Generality. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press,1962, p.15.
⑤ Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, pp.261-265.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.267.
② Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In. P. Cole(ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975, p.67.
③ Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press,1983, pp.284-369.
④ Horn, L. R. Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Reference:Q-based and R-based Implicature. In Schiffrin, D.,(ed), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context:Linguistic Applications, Washington D. C:Georgetown University Press,1982, pp.121-130.
⑤ 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008,第10-15页.
① 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008,第12-15页.
② Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge:The MIT Press,1965, p.159.
③ Chomsky, N. Some Concept and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Massachusetts, Cambridge:The MIT Press,1982, p.233.
④ 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008,第7-8页.
⑤ 同上,第9页.
① Bickerton, D. Some Assertions about Presuppositions about Pronominalization. In R. E. Grossman, L. J. San and T. Vance (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society,1975, p.15.
② 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008,第92页.
③ 同上,第100页.
④ Prince, E. F. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole(ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press,1981, pp.223-255.
① Prince, E. F. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole(ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press,1981, pp.223-255.
② 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008.
① Cornish, F. Anaphoric Relations in English and French:A Discourse Perspective. London:Croom Helm,1986, p.62.
② Ariel.M. Referring and Accessibility. Journal of Linguistics,1988,24:pp.65-87.
③ Ibid..
④ Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.267.
⑤ Ibid, pp.267-268.
① Keenan, E. L. & B.Comrie. Noun Phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry,1977, pp. 63-69.
② Huang, C.-T. J. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry,1984(15), pp.531-574.
③ 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008, 第135-154页.
④ 同上,第135-154页.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.268.
① Levinson, S. C. Generalized conversational implicature and the semantics/pragmatics interface. Mimeo, Linguistics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.1988b, p.108.
② Ibid..
③ Chen, Ping. Referent Introducing and Tracking in Chinese Narratives. Unpublished UCLA Ph. D. Dissertation, 1986, p.29.
④ 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008,第149-156页.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, pp.269-271.
② Ibid, p.271.
③ Ibid, pp.269-271.
Fox, B. Discourse structure and anaphora. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987, p.5.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.272.
② Zipf, G K. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort:An Introduction to Human Ecology. Cambridge, Mass.:Addison-Wesley Press,1949, p.310.
③ Ibid..
④ Catriona, T. & J. R. Hurford. Modelling Zipfian distributions in language, (paper presented at the Language Evolution and Computation Workshop/Course at the 15th European Summer School on Logic, Language and Information, Vienna, August 2003. from http://www. Ling.ed.ac.uk/-jim),2003, p.98.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.277.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.278.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, pp.278-279.
② Ibid, p.280.
① 高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008,第149-156页.
② Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics,1991, p.111.
③ Ariel, Mira. Interpreting anaphora expressions:a cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics, 1994(30), pp.3-42.
④ Ibid..
① Carston, R. Implicature, explicature, and Truth-theoretic semantics. In R. Kempson (ed.). Mental Representations:The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge:CUP,1988, p.167.
② Aristotle. Rhetoric and Poetics. New York:The Modern Library,1954, p.9.
③ Lakoff, G & M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1980, pp.10-12.
④ 赵敦华.西方哲学简史[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2006,第67-94页.
① Searle, J. Metaphor, in Meaning and Expression. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1978, p.79.
② Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1983, pp.147-162.
③ Black, M. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca:Cornell University Press,1962, pp.106-112.
④ Ankersmit, F. R. & J. J. A. Wooij (eds.) Knowledge and Language, vol. iii:Metaphor and Knowledge. Dordrecht/Boston/London:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1993, p.65.
① Indurkhya, B. Metaphor and Cognition—An Interactionist Approach. Dordrecht/Boston/London:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1992, p.54.
② Gumpel, L. Metaphor Reexamined— A Non-Aristotelian Perspective. Indiana University Press,1984, pp.67-74.
③ Ortony, A. Metaphor and Thought. (2nd ed.) Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1993, p.90.
① Pagin, Peter and Dag Westersterstahl Compositionality II:arguments and problems. In:philosophy Compass, 2010 (3), PP-265-282.
② Lycan, W. Philosophy of Language, Routledge:Taylor & Francis Group,2008, pp.175-190.
③ Ibid..
① Davidson, D. What Metaphors Mean[M]. In S. Sacks (ed) On Metaphor. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Reprinted in D. Davidson (1984) Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1978, p.321.
② Davidson, D. What Metaphors Mean//Darragh Byrne and Max Kolbel. Arguing About Language. New York: Routledge Press,2010, p.466.
③ Ibid, p.472.
① Davidson, D. What Metaphors Mean//Darragh Byrne and Max Kolbel. Arguing About Language. New York:Routledge Press,2010, p.479.
② Davidson, D. Three Varieties of Knowledge//Donald Davidson. Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. New York:Oxford University Press,2001, p.176.
① Davidson, D. Three Varieties of Knowledge//Donald Davidson. Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. New York:Oxford University Press,2001, p.181.
② Searle, R. J. Metaphor//Andrew Ortony. Metaphor and Thought. London:Cambridge University Press, 1993, p.38.
③ Ibid..
① Searle, R. J. Metaphor//Andrew Ortony. Metaphor and Thought. London:Cambridge University Press,1993, p.90.
② Kittay, E. F. Metaphor:its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1987, p.22.
① Black, M. Metaphor in M. Bluck, Models and Metaphors. New York:Cornell University Press,1962, pp.25-47.
② Ibid, p.24.
③ Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2000, p.220.
④ Halliday, M. A, K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London:Edward Arnold,1985, pp.3-19.
⑤ Hawkes, T. Metaphor. London:Methuen,1972, p.97.
① Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar.2nd edition. London:Edward Arnold,1994, p.170.
② Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London:Oxford University Press,1936, p.94.
③ Black, M. Metaphor in M. Bluck, Models and Metaphors. New York:Cornell University Press,1962, p.156.
④ Kittay, E. F. Metaphor:its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1987, p.144.
① Sperber, D & D. Wilson. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,1986, p.113.
② Taylor, J. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford:Claradon Press,1989, p.44.
③ Black, M. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press,1962, p.89.
④ 严世清.论关联理论的隐喻观[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2002,(3),第7-10页.
① Ogden, C. K. & Ⅰ. A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning:A study of the Influence of the Science of Symbolism Upon Thought (Tenth Edition). London:Routledge& Kegan Paul Ltd.,1952, pp.57-60.
② Sperber, D & D. Wilson. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,1986, p.124.
① Lakoff, G & M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago:The University of Chicago University Press,1980, p.67.
② Giora, R. Discourse coherence is an independent notion:A reply to Deidre Wilson. Journal of Pragmatics,1998, pp.75-86.
③ Grice, H. P. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In Syntax and Semantics 3:Speech Acts, ed. P. Cole & J. Morgan,1981, pp.183-198.
④ 严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005,第215-241页.
① Ziv, Y. On the rationality of "relevance" and the relevance of "rationality". Journal of Pragmatics,1988, pp.53-54.
② Berg, J. The relevant relevance. Journal of Pragmatics,1991(26), pp.411-425.
③ Brown, G., et al.(ed.). Relevance and Understanding, Language and understanding. Oxford University Press,1994, pp.37-57.
① LaPolla, R. J. Grammaticalization as the fossilization of constrains on interpretation, from UCL Working Papers. 1996, p.8.
② Wilson, D. Discourse, coherence and relevance. Journal of Pragmatics,1998(29), pp.57-74.
③ Wilson, D. Truth and relevance in communication and cognition, Paper Delivered at Keio International Conference on the Interface between Grammar and Cognition,1996a, pp.31-52.
① 涂纪亮.现代西方语言哲学比较研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1996,第6页.
① 涂纪亮.现代西方语言哲学比较研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1996,第7页.
② 同上,第29页.
③ 徐盛桓.常规关系语认知化[J].外国语,2001,(1),第16-24页.
① Wittgenstein, L..Philosophical Investigations. G E. M. Anscombe (trans.).2ed. Oxford:Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1958, p.224.
② Austin, J. L., How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1980(1962).
③ Ibid, p.13.
④ Searle, J. Metaphor, in Meaning and Expression. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1978, p.104.
① Nuyts, J. Cognitive linguistics (Review article). Journal of Pragmatics,1993, pp.269-290.
① Lakoff, G "Linguistics and natural logic", in semantics of natural language, Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman,1985, p.45.
② 王雨田.现代逻辑科学导引[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1998,第459-463页.
③ 同上.
④ 邹崇理.自然语言逻辑研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
⑤ 侯敏.计算语言学与汉语自动分析[M].北京：北京广播学院出版社,1999,第30页.
① Recanati, F. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2010, p.160.
② Jaszczolt, K. Salient meanings, defauult meanings, and automatic processing. In K. Jaszczolt & K. Allan (eds.). Salience and Default in Utterance Processing. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,2011, pp.141-142.
① 束定芳.语言的认知研究——认知语言学论文精选[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004,第59页.
② Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures. The Hague:Mouton Publishers,1957, p.72.
① 束定芳.语言的认知研究——认知语言学论文精选[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004,第59页.
② 同上,第61页.
③ Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol, Ⅰ:Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford:University of Stanford Press,1987, p.194.
④ Lakoff, G. The invariance hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics,1990(1), pp.39-74.
① Brandom, R.. Articulating Reasons:An Introduction of Inferentialism. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2000, pp.29-30.
② Holland, J. J., Holyok, K. J., Nisbett, R., and Thagard, P. R. Induction:Processes of inference, learning and discovery. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1989, pp.203-204.
Recanati, F. Literal Meaning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2004a, pp.295-329.
① Jaszczolt, K. Default Semantics:Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford:OUP,2005, p.5.
② Bezuidenhout, A. Generalized conversational implicatures and default pragmatic inferences. In J. Campbell, M. O'Rourke & D. Shier(ed.). Meaning and Truth:Investigations in Philosophical Semantics. New York/London:Seven Bridge Press,2002, pp.257-283.
③ Levinson, S. Three levels of meaning. In F. Palmer (ed.). Grammar and Meaning. Cambridge:CUP,1995, pp.90-115.
④ Jaszczolt, K. Default Semantics:Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication, Oxford: OUP,2005, p.5.
⑤ Bezuidenhout, A. Generalized conversational implicatures and default pragmatic inferences. In J. Campbell, M. O'Rourke & D. Shier(ed.). Meaning and Truth:Investigations in Philosophical Semantics. New York/London:Seven Bridge Press,2002, pp.246-273.
① Atlas, J. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation. Oxford:OUP,2005, p.57.
② Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, pp.188-232.
③ Levinson, S.C. Presumptive meaning:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, pp.211-223.
④ Borg, E. Minimalism versus contextualism in Semantics. In G Preyer & G Peter (eds.). Context Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism:New Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford:OUP,2007, pp.339-359.
⑤ Borg, E. Intention-based semantics. In E. Lepore & B. Smith (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford:OUP,2006, pp.250-267.
① Levinson, S. C. Presumptive Meanings:The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000, p.41.
② Gazda, G. Pragmatics:Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York:Academic Press,1979, p.97.
[1]柏拉图.泰阿泰德篇[M].北京：商务印书馆,1963.
[2]曹琪,唐晓嘉.“会话隐涵”研究的信念契合路径探析[J].哲学动态,2013,(3)：95-100.
[3]曹琪,唐晓嘉.GCI——优先解读理论的去语境解释[J].科学技术哲学研究,2014,(1)：16-21.
[4]陈波.逻辑哲学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2005.
[5]陈波,冯艳译.当代语言哲学导论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2011年.
[6]陈道德.周礼全对格赖斯隐涵理论的发展[J].重庆理工大学学报(社会科学版),2011,(8)：12-17.
[7]程雨民.格赖斯的“会话含义”与有关的讨论[J].国外语言学,1983,(1)：19-25.
[8]代礼胜.逻辑转喻与一般会话含义[J].外语教学,2009,(11)：85-89.
[9]高卫东.语篇回指的功能意义解析[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008.
[10]禾木.有必要引入协议论吗?——评格莱斯意图意义理论[J].自然辩证法研究,2005,(6)：40-45.
[11]何向东.“归纳问题”的逻辑研究述评[J].哲学研究,2005,(12)：79-83.
[12]何向东.逻辑学教程[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010.
[13]何兆熊.语用学概要[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1989.
[14]何自然.语用学概念[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,2006.
[15]侯敏.计算语言学与汉语自动分析[M].北京：北京广播学院出版社,1999.
[16]胡壮麟.语用学[J].国外语言学,1980,(3)：46.
[17]姜望琪.语用学-理论及其应用[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
[18]姜望琪.关联理论质疑[J].外语研究,2001,(4)：26-31.
[19]姜望琪.当代语用学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2003.
[20]金立.合作与会话——合作原则及其应用研究[D].杭州：浙江大学,2005.
[21]鞠实儿.面向知识表示与推理的自然语言逻辑[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2009.
[22]李秀林,王于,李淮春.辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[23]吕叔湘.歧义类例[J].语境研究论文集,1992,(11)：308-309.
[24][美]罗蒂.真理与进步[M].杨玉成译.北京：华夏出版社,2003.
[25]罗素.数理哲学导论[M].晏成书译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.
[26]马蒂尼奇.语言哲学[M].牟博等译.北京：商务印书馆,1998.
[27]彭家法.照应的一般模式及其语用解释[J].安徽大学学报,2006,(2)：61-65.
[28]彭漪涟,马钦荣.逻辑学大辞典[M].上海：上海辞书出版社,2004.
[29]钱冠连.汉语文化语用学[M].北京：清华大学出版社,1997.
[30]沈家煊.语用学论题之二：会话含义[J].国外语言学,1986,(2)：68-75.
[31][联邦德国]施太格缪勒.当代哲学主流(上卷)[M].王炳文,燕宏远,张金言等译.北京：商务印书馆,1986.
[32][联邦德国]施太格缪勒.当代哲学主流(下卷)[M].王炳文,王路等译.北京：商务印书馆,1992.
[33]束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[34]束定芳.语言的认知研究——认知语言学论文精选[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[35]宋文辉.一般会话隐含的“信息原则”与动结式的配价[J].语言文字应用,2004,(4)：49-54.
[36]索振羽.语用学教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
[37]唐晓嘉,郭美云.现代认知逻辑的理论与应用[M].北京：科学出版社,2010.
[38]涂纪亮.现代西方语言哲学比较研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1996.
[39]涂纪亮,陈波.皮尔斯文选[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006.
[40]王超辉.语境条件下索引词和索引句的运用[J].沈阳农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(2)：95.
[41]王路译.弗雷格哲学论著选辑[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994.
[42]王雨田.现代逻辑科学导引[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1998,第459-463页.
[43][奥]维特根斯坦.逻辑哲学论[M].郭英译.北京：商务印书馆,1985.
[44][奥]维特根斯坦.哲学研究[M].李步楼译.北京：商务印书馆,2000.
[45]温金海,蒲婧新.从认知的角度解析将会话含义分为一般和特殊的理据[J].南京财经大学学报,2005,(4)：101-104.
[46]吴平.评莱文森的一般性谈话隐涵理论——新格赖斯理论发展进程中的一个里程碑[J].四川外语学院学报,2004,(2)：70-75.
[47]武庆荣,何向东.索引词研究的逻辑哲学意蕴及其启示[J].自然辩证法研究,2012,(8)：12-17.
[48]武庆荣.布兰顿推理论研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2013.
[49]熊学亮,张韧弦.试论条件句和结论句之间的逻辑规约[J].外国语,2005(2)：18-23.
[50]徐盛桓.新格赖斯会话含意理论和语用推理[J].外国语,1993(1)：9-17.
[51]徐盛桓.常规关系语认知化[J].外国语,2001(1)：16-24.
[52]严辰松,高航.语用学[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005.
[53]严世清.论关联理论的隐喻观[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2002,(3)：7-10.
[54]杨翠.语言学中的预设分析[D].上海：上海师范大学,2006.
[55]杨平.关联-顺应模式[J].现代外语,2001,(6)：21-28.
[56]杨先顺.会话隐涵的语用逻辑研究[D].广州：中山大学,2009.
[57]张存建,何向东.个体确定名称之指称的推理特征[J].哲学研究,2012,(4)：93-94.
[58]张韧弦.基于缺省逻辑的一般会话含义例证的形式处理[J].上海交通大学学报,2008,(2)：158-167.
[59]张韧弦.级差含义推导的缺省逻辑方案[J].外国语,2008,(7)：64-72.
[60]张绍杰.会话隐涵理论的新发展——新Grice会话隐涵说述评[J].外语教学与研究,1995,(1)：28-37.
[61]张绍杰.默认理论与关联理论——解释“一般会话含义”的两种对立方法[J].当代外语研究,2012,(7)：19-23.
[62]张绍杰.一般会话含义的“两面性”与含义推导模式问题[J].外语教学与研究,2008,(5)：196-203.
[63]张延飞,张绍杰.后格赖斯语用学：含义默认解释模式综观[J].外语与外语教学,2009,(8)：1-6.
[64]张燕京.从意向到意义——评格赖斯方案及其影响[J].江西社会科学,2002,(5)：9-15.
[65]赵郭华.西方哲学简史[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
[66]周礼全.逻辑——正确思维和有效交际的理论[M].北京：人民出版社,1994.
[67]邹崇理.自然语言逻辑研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
[68]邹崇理.逻辑、语言和信息[M].北京：人民出版社,2002.
[69]Ankersmit, F. R. & J. J. A. Wooij (eds.) Knowledge and Language, vol. iii:Metaphor and Knowledge. Dordrecht/Boston/London:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1993.
[70]Apel,K., Karl-Otto Apel:second Essay 1:Towards a Transcendental semiotics. Atlantic Highlands:Humanities Press.1994.
[71]Ariel, M. Referring and Accessibility. Journal of Linguistics,1988.
[72]Ariel, Mira. Interpreting anaphora expressions:a cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics,1994.
[73]Aristotle. Rhetoric and Poetics. New York:The Modern Library,1954.
[74]Atlas, J. D. Logic, Meaning and Conversation. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005.
[75]Austin, J. L., How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1980(1962).
[76]Avramides, A. Meaning and Mind. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1989.
[77]Bach, K. Default reasoning:Jumping to conclusion and knowing when to think twice. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.,1984.
[78]Bach, K. Conversational implicature. Mind and Language,1994(9).
[79]Bataller, S. M. Lexical pragmatics:Relevance theory and generalized conversational implicatures. http://www.uv.es/anglogermanica/2003-2004/Maruenda.htm,2004.
[80]Berg, J. The relevant relevance. Journal of Pragmatics,1991(26).
[81]Bezuidenhout, A. Generalized conversational implicatures and default pragmatic inferences. In J. Campbell, M. O'Rourke & D. Shier(ed.). Meaning and Truth:Investigations in Philosophical Semantics. New York/London:Seven Bridge Press,2002.
[82]Bickerton, D. Some Assertions about Presuppositions about Pronominalization. In R. E. Grossman, L. J. San and T. Vance (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society,1975.
[83]Black, M. Metaphor in M. Bluck, Models and Metaphors. New York:Cornell University Press, 1962.
[84]Blackmore, D. Constraints on interpretations. In K. Hall et al. (eds.). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meetingof the Berkeley Linguistics Society:General Session and Parasession on the Legacy of Grice. Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistics Society,1990.
[85]Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, and G Lasper (ed.). Cross-cultural Pragmatics:Requests and Apologies Norwood:Ablex,1989.
[86]Blutuer, R., A LeBmollmann & R. Van der Sandt. Conversational implicature and lexical pragmatics, www.soi.citv.ac.uk,2002.
[87]Borg, E. Intention-based semantics. In E. Lepore & B. Smith (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford:OUP,2006.
[88]Borg, E. Minimalism versus contextualism in Semantics. In G. Preyer & G Peter (eds.). Context Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism:New Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford:OUP,2007.
[89]Brandom, R... Articulating Reasons:An Introduction of Inferentialism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,2000.
[90]Brown, P & S. Levinson. Universals in language usage:politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (ed.) Questions and Politeness. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1978.
[91]Brown, G, et al.(ed.). Relevance and Understanding, Language and understanding. Oxford University Press,1994.
[92]Capone, A. On Grice's Circle (a theory-internal problem in linguistic theories of the Gricean type). Journal of Pragmatics,2006,38(5).
[93]Carston, R. Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In R. Carston & S. Uchida(ed.), 1998.
[94]Carston, R., Book review on Levinson's Presumptive Meanings, www. phon. ucl, ac.uk.2002.
[95]Carston, R. Explicit communication and "free" pragmatic enrichment, In B. Soria & E. Romero (eds.). Explicit Communication:Robyn Carston's Pragmatics. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan,2010.
[96]Catriona, T. & J. R. Hurford. Modelling Zipfian distributions in language, (paper presented at the Language Evolution and Computation Workshop/Course at the 15th European Summer School on Logic, Language and Information, Vienna, August 2003. from http://www. Ling.ed.ac.uk/～jim),2003.
[97]Chen, Ping. Referent Introducing and Tracking in Chinese Narratives. Unpublished UCLA Ph. D. Dissertation,1986.
[98]Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures. The Hague:Mouton Publishers,1957.
[99]Chomsky, N. Aspect of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1965.
[100]Chomsky, N. Some Concept and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Massachusetts, Cambridge:The MIT Press,1982.
[101]Cornish, F. Anaphoric Relations in English and French:A Discourse Perspective. London: Croom Helm,1986.
[102]Davidson, D. What Metaphors Mean. In S. Sacks (ed) On Metaphor. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Reprinted in D. Davidson (1984) Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1978.
[103]Davidson, D. Three Varieties of Knowledge//Donald Davidson. Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective[C]. New York:Oxford University Press,2001.
[104]Davidson, D. What Metaphors Mean//Darragh Byme and Max Kolbel. Arguing About Language[C]. New York:Routledge Press,2010.
[105]Davis, W. Implicature, Intention, Conversation, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge:CUP,1998.
[106]Devitt, M. and Sterelny, K., Language and Reality. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge. MA:The MIT Press,1999.
[107]Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W.. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York:Academic Press, 1983.
[108]Eco,U., A theory of Semiotics. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.1976.
[109]Edmondson, W. Spoken Discourse:A Model for Analysis. Longman,1981.
[110]Escandell-Vidal, V. Norms and principles:Putting social and cognitive pragmatics together. In R. Marquez-Reiter & M.Elena Placencia (ed.). Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2004.
[111]Fillmore, C.Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Mimeo, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.[Reprinted as Fillmore, C.1997, Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA:CSLI Publications.],1975.
[112]Fodor, J. The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1983.
[113]Fodor, J. Language, Thought and Compositionality, Mind and Language,2001,16 (1).
[114]Fox, B. Discourse structure and anaphora. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.
[115]Garrett, M. & R. Harnish. Experimental pragmatics:Testing for implicature. Pragmatics and Cognition,2007.
[116]Gazdar, G. Pragmatics:Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York:Academic Press,1979.
[117]Geach, P. Reference and Generality. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press,1962.
[118]Ginsberg, M. Readings in Non-monotonic Reasoning. Los Altos, CA:Morgan Kaufman, 1987 (ed.).
[119]Giora, R. Discourse coherence is an independent notion:A reply to Deidre Wilson. Journal of Pragmatics,1998(29).
[120]Grice, H. P. Meaning. Philosophical Review,1957,66(1).
[121]Grice, H. P, Logic and conversation. In. P. Cole (ed) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.9. Academic Press,1975.
[122]Grice, H. P. Further notes on logic and conversation, In Cole 1978.
[123]Grice, H. P. Presupposition and conversational implicatures. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. P. Cole & J. Morgan,1981.
[124]Grice, H.P, Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1989.
[125]Gumpel,L. Metaphor Reexamined- A Non-Aristotelian Perspective. Indiana University Press,1984.
[126]Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London:Edward Arnold,1985.
[127]Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar.2nd edition. London:Edward Arnold,1994.
[128]Harris, S. Pragmatics and power. Journal of Pragmatics,1995 (23).
[129]Hawkes, T. Metaphor. London:Methuen,1972.
[130]Hintikka, J. On attributions of'self-knowledge'. The Journal of Philosophy,1970,67:73-87.
[131]Hirschberg. J. A theory of scalar implicature. Moore School of Electrical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Technical Report MS-CIS,1985. [Reprinted as Hirschberg, J. A theory of scalar implicature. New York,1991.]
[132]Hobbs, J. Monotone decreasing quantifiers in a scope-free logical form. In Van Deemter and Press,1996.
[133]Holdcroft, D. Conversational Relevance, In Verschueren and BertuccelliPapi 1987.
[134]Holland, J. J., Holyok, K. J.,Nisbett, R., and Thagard, P. R. Induction:Processes of inference, learning and discovery. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1989.
[135]Horn., L. Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Reference:Q-based and R-based Implicature. In Schiffrin, D.,(ed), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context:Linguistic Applications, Washington D. C:Georgetown University Press,1984.
[136]Horn, L. R. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago/London:University of Chicago Press, 1989.
[137]Huang, C.-T. J. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 1984,15(4).
[138]Huang, Y. "A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora", Journal of Linguistics,1991,Vol. 27 No.2.
[139]Huang, Y. A Pragmatic analysis of control in Chinese. In J. Verschueren (ed.) Levels of Linguistic Adaptation.Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1991a.
[140]Huang, Y. Anaphora:A cross-linguistic study (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory).Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
[141]Huang, YPragmatics.Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
[142]Indurkhya, B. Metaphor and Cognition- An Interactionist Approach. Dordrecht/Boston/ London:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1992.
[143]Jaszczolt, K. Default Semantics:Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford:OUP,2005.
[144]Jaszczolt, K. Meaning merger:Pragmatic inference, defaults, and compositionality. Intercultural Pragmatics,2006,3(2).
[145]Jaszczolt, K. Default semantics. In B. Heine & H. Narrog(eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2010.
[146]Jaszczolt, K. Salient meanings, default meanings, and automatic processing. In K. Jaszczolt & K. Allan (eds.). Salience and Default in Utterance Processing. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter, 2011.
[147]Jerrold M. Sadock. On Testing for Conversational Implicature. In P. Cole,1978.
[148]Josephson, J. & Josephson, S. Abductive inference. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[149]Kadmon, N. On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,1987.
[150]Kant, I. Critique of pure reason. (Trans. N. K. Smith). London:Macmillan,1933. [Translation of 1781, Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Riga:Hartknoch.]
[151]Keenan, E. L. & B.Comrie. Noun Phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry,1977.
[152]Keenan, E.O. The university of conversational postulates. In language in society5,1976.
[153]Kittay, E. F. Metaphor:its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1987.
[154]Lakoff, G & M. Johnson. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[155]Lakoff, G "Linguistics and natural logic", in semantics of natural language, Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman,1985.
[156]Lakoff, G The invariance hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics,1990(1).
[157]Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol, I:Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford:University of Stanford Press,1987.
[158]LaPolla, R. J. Grammaticalization as the fossilization of constrains on interpretation, from UCL Working Papers.1996, NO.8.
[159]Leech, G Principles of pragmatics. London:Longman,1983.
[160]Lemann, D. Stereotypical reasoning:Logical properties. Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics,1998(6).
[161]Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics and social deixis. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society,1919(5).
[162]Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2001/Cambridge University Press.1983.
[163]Levinson, S. C. Interactional biases in human thinking. In E. Goody (ed.) Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995.
[164]Levinson, S. Three levels of meaning. In F. Palmer (ed.). Grammar and Meaning. Cambridge:CUP,1995.
[165]Levinson, S.C. Frames of reference and Molyneux's questions:Cross-linguistic evidence. In Bloom, Peterson, Nadel, and Garrett 1996.
[166]Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings:The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature [M]. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000.
[167]Levinson, S. Space in Language and Cognition:Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003.
[168]Lewis, D. General semantics. In D. Davidson and G Harman(ed.), Semantics of natural language, Dordrecht:Reidel,1972.
[169]Lycan, W. Philosophy of Language, Routledge:Taylor & Francis Group,2008.
[170]Martin, L. Jonsson. Compositionality:Doubts about the Structural Path to Meaning. Printed by Media-Tryck, Lund University, Lund,2008.
[171]Mey, J. L.An Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford:Blackwell,1993.
[172]Moreno, R. Creativity and convention:The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2007.
[173]Noveck, I. & D. Sperber. The why and how of experimental pragmatics:The case of "scalar inference". In N. Burton-Roberts (ed.). Pragmatics. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan,2007.
[174]Nuyts, J. Cognitive linguistics (Review article). Journal of Pragmatics,1993 (20).
[175]Ogden, C. K. & Ⅰ. A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning:A study of the Influence of the Science of Symbolism Upon Thought (Tenth Edition). London:Routledge& Kegan Paul Ltd., 1952.
[176]Ortony, A. Metaphor and Thought. (2nd ed.) Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1993.
[177]Pagin. P and Dag Westersterstahl. Compositionality II:arguments and problems. Philosophy Compass,2010,5 (3).
[178]Prince, E. F. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole(ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York:Academic Press,1981.
[179]Recanati, F. The pragmatics of what is said. Mind & Language,1989 (4).
[180]Recanati, F. Literal Meaning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2004a.
[181]Recantati,F. "What is Said" and Semantics/Pragmatics. In C. Bianchi (ed.),2004b.
[182]Recanati, F. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2010.
[183]Reiter, R. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence,1986,13. (Reprinted in Ginsberg,1987.)
[184]Rescher, N. Plausible Reasoning. The Netherland, Assen:Van Gorcum & Company,1976.
[185]Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London:Oxford University Press,1936.
[186]Ruhl, C. On monosemy:A study in linguistic semantics. Albany, NY:SUNY Press,1989.
[187]Russell, B. On denoting. Mind 14,1905. [Reprinted in R. Marsh(ed.),1956, B. Russell:Logic and knowledge. London:George Allen and Unwin.]
[188]Sarangi, S. K. and Stefaan Slembrouch. Non-cooperation in communication:A reassessment of Gricean pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics,1992 (17).
[189]Searle, J. Speech acts:An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1969.
[190]Searle, J. Metaphor, in Meaning and Expression. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1978.
[191]Searle, R. J. Metaphor//Andrew Ortony. Metaphor and Thought[C]. London:Cambridge University Press,1993.
[192]Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford, Blackwell, 1986.
[193]Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance:Communication and Cognition. Oxford, Blackwell, 1995.
[194]Stevenson, R. J., & Over, D. E. Deduction from uncertain premises. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,48A,1995.
[195]Taylor, J. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes in Linguistic Theory.Oxford:Claradon Press, 1989.
[196]Wierzbicka, A. Cross-cultural Pragmatics:The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton-de Gruyter,1991.
[197]Wilson, D. Truth and relevance in communication and cognition, Paper Delivered at Keio International Conference on the Interface between Grammar and Cognition,1996a.
[198]Wilson, D. Discourse, coherence and relevance. Journal of Pragmatics,1998(29).
[199]Wittgenstein, L. Philosophy Investigations, tran. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1958.
[200]Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1953.
[201]Wohlrapp, H. Resolving the Riddle of the Non-deductive Argumentation Schemes, in Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), proceedings of 3rd ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol II,1995b.
[202]Ziff, P. "On H. P. Grice's Account of Meaning." Analysis,1967 (28).
[203]Zipf, G. K. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort:An Introduction to Human Ecology[M]. Cambridge, Mass:Addison-Wesley Press,1949.
[204]Ziv, Y. On the rationality of "relevance" and the relevance of "rationality". Journal of Pragmatics,1988 (12).