电视访谈节目中缓和面子威胁行为作为语用策略的顺应性研究
|
摘要
近年来语言研究者对礼貌问题给予了极大的重视。在众多的礼貌理论中,布朗和列文森1978年提出的面子理论最具影响力。他们把“面子”定义为每个理性的成年社会成员意欲为自己争取的公共的自我形象。如果说话人的言语行为本质上威胁到听话人的面子,就是一种FTA (face-threatening act),即面子威胁行为。当不可避免要使用FTA时,说话人需要对言语进行缓和调控,以减轻对听话人的冒犯,进而向对方表示礼貌。
在电视访谈节目中,为了达到一定的交际目的,缓和FTA是主持人及被访者常用的语用策略。尽管如此,这一语言现象却几乎没有得到专门研究。并且,前人关于礼貌的理论研究或多或少得存在一定得不足之处,对FTA现象也不能完全做出令人满意的诠释。Vershueren在《语用学新解》中提出的语言顺应论(theAdaptation Theory)独辟蹊径,将语言使用过程中的认知、社会和文化因素融为一体,因而对语言选择(包括语言形式的选择和策略的选择)具有强大的解释力。鉴此,本论文拟以Vershueren的语言顺应论为理论框架,对电视访谈节目中关于FTA的语用策略进行较为全面的纵观分析。
在顺应论的理论框架下,本论文采用定性方法对口头语料进行了分析。这些语料主要来自电视访谈节目中,其可信度得到了极大的保证。在顺应论的基础上,根据所收集语料为前提,通过解决如下两个待研究问题而达到了本研究的目的：1)电视访谈节目中选择FTA的缓和策略的机制和动机是什么?2)FTA的语用策略在电视访谈节目中是怎么具体实现的?
就第一个问题,研究发现,电视访谈节目中FTA的缓和策略的机制和动机受到了访谈语言选择的固有要求的限制,即主持人／被访者在进行语言选择时,应极有意识地通过各种交际语境因素进行动态顺应。这些语境因素包括语言使用者、心理世界、社交世界、以及物理世界。需要指出的是,在实际的交际中,上述因素往往相互交织相互影响,而不是独立存在。
对第二个问题的解答实质上就是对电视访谈节目中FTA的语用策略进一步的子策略应用分析。本研究对缓和策略进行了详细的子策略分析,从而为电视访谈节目中说话人选择礼貌话语呈现了可能的语言表达方式,并在一定程度上为更好地理解电视访谈节目话语意图提供了理论依据和实际帮助。
Politeness has proved to be a universal topic for language researchers in recent years. Among abundant politeness theories, the Face Theory put forward by Brown and Levison (1978) stands out as the most influential. They define "face" as the public self-image that all rational adult members in society possess. They argue that if a demand or an intrusion needs to be made on another person's public self-image or autonomy, it is a potential face-threatening act (FTA). When faced with the problem of performing an FTA, speakers are supposed to perform it with redressive action to lessen the degree of offence to the hearer, thus achieving politeness.
In TV talk shows, interviewers/interviewees do perform mitigated FTAs to achieve communicative goals. However, little work has been done to account for such a phenomenon. Besides, the previous theories of politeness more or less fail to make a satisfactory explanation of FTAs. From a rather new perspective, Verschueren's Adaptation Theory (AT) integrates cognitive, social and cultural elements into investigation, so it is invested with a strong explanatory power to illuminate linguistic choice not only linguistically but also strategically. This thesis aims to make a relatively comprehensive investigation on pragmatic strategies concerning mitigated FTAs in TV talk show discourses with the AT as the theoretical framework.
In the light of the AT, this study, methodologically speaking, relies on the qualitative analysis of the data in oral forms, which are mainly accessed through the recording and transcriptions of authoritative TV talk shows. On the base of AT and on the premise of collected data, the present study has achieved some findings through answering the two questions:(1) What are the mechanisms and motivations behind the choice of mitigation strategies concerning FTAs in TV talk show? (2) How are pragmatic strategies concerning FTAs realized in concrete TV talk shows?
As to the first question, it is found that the mechanisms and motivations behind the choice of mitigation strategies concerning FTAs in TV talk shows lie in the innate demand of interviewers'or interviewees'linguistic choice--------making for dynamic adaptation to various communicative contextual correlates with high consciousness. Such correlates involve the roles of language users, the mental world, the social world, and the physical world, which are always interwoven in actual interaction instead of being independent from one another.
As far as the second question is concerned, a generalization on the sub-strategies has been made on the mitigation strategy in TV talk shows. In such a case, the speaker is provided with possible linguistic expressions to produce polite utterances strategically. Meanwhile it also facilitates a better understanding of interviewers'/interviewees' intension behind the choice of a specific strategy.
在电视访谈节目中,为了达到一定的交际目的,缓和FTA是主持人及被访者常用的语用策略。尽管如此,这一语言现象却几乎没有得到专门研究。并且,前人关于礼貌的理论研究或多或少得存在一定得不足之处,对FTA现象也不能完全做出令人满意的诠释。Vershueren在《语用学新解》中提出的语言顺应论(theAdaptation Theory)独辟蹊径,将语言使用过程中的认知、社会和文化因素融为一体,因而对语言选择(包括语言形式的选择和策略的选择)具有强大的解释力。鉴此,本论文拟以Vershueren的语言顺应论为理论框架,对电视访谈节目中关于FTA的语用策略进行较为全面的纵观分析。
在顺应论的理论框架下,本论文采用定性方法对口头语料进行了分析。这些语料主要来自电视访谈节目中,其可信度得到了极大的保证。在顺应论的基础上,根据所收集语料为前提,通过解决如下两个待研究问题而达到了本研究的目的：1)电视访谈节目中选择FTA的缓和策略的机制和动机是什么?2)FTA的语用策略在电视访谈节目中是怎么具体实现的?
就第一个问题,研究发现,电视访谈节目中FTA的缓和策略的机制和动机受到了访谈语言选择的固有要求的限制,即主持人／被访者在进行语言选择时,应极有意识地通过各种交际语境因素进行动态顺应。这些语境因素包括语言使用者、心理世界、社交世界、以及物理世界。需要指出的是,在实际的交际中,上述因素往往相互交织相互影响,而不是独立存在。
对第二个问题的解答实质上就是对电视访谈节目中FTA的语用策略进一步的子策略应用分析。本研究对缓和策略进行了详细的子策略分析,从而为电视访谈节目中说话人选择礼貌话语呈现了可能的语言表达方式,并在一定程度上为更好地理解电视访谈节目话语意图提供了理论依据和实际帮助。
Politeness has proved to be a universal topic for language researchers in recent years. Among abundant politeness theories, the Face Theory put forward by Brown and Levison (1978) stands out as the most influential. They define "face" as the public self-image that all rational adult members in society possess. They argue that if a demand or an intrusion needs to be made on another person's public self-image or autonomy, it is a potential face-threatening act (FTA). When faced with the problem of performing an FTA, speakers are supposed to perform it with redressive action to lessen the degree of offence to the hearer, thus achieving politeness.
In TV talk shows, interviewers/interviewees do perform mitigated FTAs to achieve communicative goals. However, little work has been done to account for such a phenomenon. Besides, the previous theories of politeness more or less fail to make a satisfactory explanation of FTAs. From a rather new perspective, Verschueren's Adaptation Theory (AT) integrates cognitive, social and cultural elements into investigation, so it is invested with a strong explanatory power to illuminate linguistic choice not only linguistically but also strategically. This thesis aims to make a relatively comprehensive investigation on pragmatic strategies concerning mitigated FTAs in TV talk show discourses with the AT as the theoretical framework.
In the light of the AT, this study, methodologically speaking, relies on the qualitative analysis of the data in oral forms, which are mainly accessed through the recording and transcriptions of authoritative TV talk shows. On the base of AT and on the premise of collected data, the present study has achieved some findings through answering the two questions:(1) What are the mechanisms and motivations behind the choice of mitigation strategies concerning FTAs in TV talk show? (2) How are pragmatic strategies concerning FTAs realized in concrete TV talk shows?
As to the first question, it is found that the mechanisms and motivations behind the choice of mitigation strategies concerning FTAs in TV talk shows lie in the innate demand of interviewers'or interviewees'linguistic choice--------making for dynamic adaptation to various communicative contextual correlates with high consciousness. Such correlates involve the roles of language users, the mental world, the social world, and the physical world, which are always interwoven in actual interaction instead of being independent from one another.
As far as the second question is concerned, a generalization on the sub-strategies has been made on the mitigation strategy in TV talk shows. In such a case, the speaker is provided with possible linguistic expressions to produce polite utterances strategically. Meanwhile it also facilitates a better understanding of interviewers'/interviewees' intension behind the choice of a specific strategy.
引文
Bernard, Timberg. The Unspoken Rules of Television Talk. In, Newcomb, Horace, editor. Television:The Critical View. New York:Oxford University Press.1994.
Brown, H.D. Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.1987.
Brown, P. Gender, politeness, and confrontation in Tenejapa. Discourse Processes,1990, (13),
Brown, P.,& Levinson, S. Politeness:Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1987.
Brown, P.,& Levinson, S. Universals in language usage:Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness:Strategies in social interaction (1978: 56-311). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Burke, Peter. The Art of Conversation [M]. Cambridge:Polity Press,1993.
Cao, Kefan.[曹可凡],Wang, Qun[王群].节目主持人语言艺术,上海：上海人民出版社.1997.
Cui, Jia.[崔佳].An adaptation theory-based study of questioning in TV interview programs. MA Thesis, Taiyuan:Shanxi University.2005.
Cutting, Joan. Pragmatics and Discourses. London:Routledge,2002.
Drew & Heritage, J. Talk at Work:Interaction in Institutional Settings [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1992.
Ducan, S. On the structure of speaker-----auditor interaction during speaking turns. Language in Society,1974:2.
Gu, Yuanguo.[顾曰国].礼貌、语用与文化[J].外语教学与研究.1992(4).
Gu, Yueguo.[顾曰国].Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Pragmatics,14, 1990:237-257.
Grice, H.P. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Volume 3, Speech acts,1975:41-58). New York:Academic Press.
Green, M. G. Pragmatics and natural language understanding. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.1989:89-112.
Goffman, E. Interaction ritual:Essays on face-to-face behaviour. New York:Anchor Books.1967.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to functional grammar [M]. (2nd ED). London: Edward Arnold.1994.
He, Ziran.[何自然].语用学概论[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1988.
He, Ziran.[何自然].言语交际中的语用移情[J].外语教学与研究.1996(4).
He, Ziran.[何自然]Ran, Yongping[冉永平].语用学概论[M].湖南教育出版社.2001.
He, Ziran[何自然],Yu Guodong.[于国栋].语用学的理解---Verschueren的新作评[J].现代外语.1994(4).
He, Ziran.[何自然].Notes on pragmatics. Nanjing:Normal College of Nanjing Publishing House.2003.
He, Zhaoxiong.[何兆熊].中美文化中的礼貌研究[J].外国语.1995(5).
He, Zhaoxiong[何兆熊].新编语用学概要[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
Hu Haijuan. Courtroom Questioning as a Dynamic Process of Linguistic Adaptation. MA Thesis, Guangzhou:Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.2002.
Hu, Zhuanglin.[胡壮麟].语用学.国外语言学,1980(3)
Hie, C. Semi-institutional Discourse:The Case of Talk Shows [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2001, (33):209-254.
Jacobsen, Jon Erik. A structural analysis of TV talk show interaction:similarities and differences to structures in naturally-occurring conversation. MA Thesis, English Language Institute, University of Surrey.http:// www.surrey.ac.uk/ALRG/dissertations/JacobsenJ1998.pdf1998
Jef, Verschueren. Understanding Pragmatics[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.2000.
Jiang, Wangqi.[姜望琪].语用学理论及应用[PRAGMATICS:Theory and Pragmatics].北京： 北京大学出版社,2000.
Kasper, G. Beyond reference [A]. In G., Kasper,& E. Kellerman (eds.), communication
strategies:psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives [C]. London: Longman.1997.
Lavob, W. Rules for ritual insults. In:D. Sudnow, ed., Studies in Social Interaction [C]. New York:Free Press,1972.
Lakoff, R. Hedge:A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In P. Peranteau, J. Levi,& G. Phares (Eds.), Papers from the eighth regional meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.183-228). Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.1972
Lakoff, R. The logic of politeness. In C. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark,& A. Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 1973:292-305). Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lakoff, R. Talking power:The polictics of language in our lives. New York:Basic Books.1990.
Lee, Benny, P. H. Mutual knowledge, background knowledge and shared beliefs:Their roles in establishing common ground. Journal of Pragmatics,33,21-44 2001.
Leech, G. Principles of pragmatics. London:Longman.1983.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Liao, Meizhen.[廖美珍].法庭问答及其互动研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
Liu, Na[刘娜].The contrastive analysis of conversation structure between Chinese. and American TV talk shows. MA Thesis, Shandong Normal University. 2005.
Liu, Ping.[刘萍].Responding as realization of adaptation in Chinese courtroom setting. MA Thesis, Guangzhou:Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.2003.
Livingstone, Sonia.& Lunt, Peter. Talk on television:audience participation and public debate. London:Routledge.1994
Longman Dectionary of contemporary English (4th Ed.). London:The Chaucer Press, 2003.
Mao, L. R. Beyond politeness theory:"Face" revisited and renewed. Journal of
Pragmatics,21,1994:451-486.
Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality. Beijing:China Social Sciences Publishing House, Chengcheng Books Ltd.1999
Mattews, P.H. Concise dictionary of linguistics. Oxford:Oxford University Press. 1997:160
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th Ed). Springfield:G.&C. Merriam Cooperation,2004.
Mey, J. L. Pragmatics:An Introduction [M]. Oxford:Blackwell.2001.
Myers, D. G. Exploring psychology. New York:Worth Publishers, Inc.1990:137.
Myers, D. G. Social Psychology [M]. (5th ED). New York:The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.1996.
Qin, Bo.[秦勃].顺应理论观照下礼貌原则的不足[D].安徽大学.2006.
Qin, Xiaojie.[秦晓杰].英文商务信函中的“合作”和“礼貌”.西安外国语学院学报,2001,(4).
Ran Yongping.[冉永平].言语交际中的FTA现象与调控策略[J].重庆大学学报.1996(2).
Ran, Yongping. Zhang Xinhong.[冉永平,张新红].语用学纵横[M].高等教育出版社.2007.
Richards, J. et al. Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. London:Longman. 1985:91.
Sanders, R.E.,& Cushman, D. P. Rules, constraints and strategies in human communication. In C. C. Arnold & J. W. Bowers (Eds.), Handbook of rhetorical and communication theory 1984:230-269. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Searl, J. R. Indirect speech acts, In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Volume3, Speech acts, pp.59-82). New York:Academic Press.1975
Seliger, H.,& Elana Shoharmy.1989. Second Language Research Methods [M]. Oxford University Press
Shang Xiaoming.[尚晓明].外语教学中的语用原则.黑龙江教育学院学报.1996(4).
Shen, Lu.[沈露].A Study on the questioning strategies of police interrogation-an adaptation-based approach to thematic choices. MA Thesis, Guangzhou: Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.2004.
Shen, Zhiqi(申智奇).Deliberate misrepresentation as a pragmatic strategy in verbal communication [D]. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.2004.
Sheng, Yongsheng(盛永生).电视谈话节目主持话语分析,中国国家图书馆博士论文文库.2004.
Sheng, Jiaxuan.[沈家煊].语用学理论.国外语言学,1991(2)-(4).
Sheng, Jiaxuan.[沈家煊].我国的语用学研究.外语教学与研究,1996,(1).
Singer, M. Answering questions about discourse. Discourse Processes,1990, (13).
Tanaka, L. Gender, language and culture:a study of Japanese television interview discourse [M]. Philadelphia, PA, USA:John Benjamins Publishing Company. 2004.
Tracy, Karen, ed. Understanding face-to-face interaction:issues linking goals and discourse. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 1991.
Thomas, J. A. Meaning in interaction:An introduction to pragmatics. London:Longman. 1995.
Wang, Chuanben.[王传奔].顺应理论对礼貌和不礼貌的阐释[D].上海外国语大学.2006
Wang, Dengyun.[王登云].A pragmatic study on address forms. MA Thesis, Taiyuan: Shanxi University.2006.
Wang, Qun.[王群].说话节目主持人的语言地位,语言文字应用,第4期：1997：13-17.
Wang, Qun.[王群].Cao, Kefan.[曹可凡].谈话节目主持人,上海：上海社会科学出版社.2002.
Wei, Yuehong.[魏月红].英语委婉语的顺应性研究[D].安徽大学.2006.
Worchel, S., J. Cooper& G. R. Goethals. Understanding Social Psychology [M]. California:Brooks/Cole Publishing Company Pacific Grove.1991.
Yao, Zheng.[姚争]. 电视谈话：现代媒介向传统媒介的一次回归,www.oursee.com. 2001.
Yu, Lishuang.[于丽爽].Song, Qian.[宋茜].谈话的力量[M],中央编译出版社,2004.
Yule, G Pragmatics. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2000.
Zhang, Guanwen.[张冠文].电视谈话节目的文化分析[J].理论学刊,2003(3)：128-129.
Zhong, Xin.[钟新].美国电视脱口秀主持人特征分析,中国青年政治学院学报,第4期：2000：77-82.
吉妮·格拉汉姆·斯克特著, 苗棣译,脱口秀：广播电视谈话节目的威力与影响,北京：新华出版社.2000：272.
Brown, H.D. Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.1987.
Brown, P. Gender, politeness, and confrontation in Tenejapa. Discourse Processes,1990, (13),
Brown, P.,& Levinson, S. Politeness:Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1987.
Brown, P.,& Levinson, S. Universals in language usage:Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness:Strategies in social interaction (1978: 56-311). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Burke, Peter. The Art of Conversation [M]. Cambridge:Polity Press,1993.
Cao, Kefan.[曹可凡],Wang, Qun[王群].节目主持人语言艺术,上海：上海人民出版社.1997.
Cui, Jia.[崔佳].An adaptation theory-based study of questioning in TV interview programs. MA Thesis, Taiyuan:Shanxi University.2005.
Cutting, Joan. Pragmatics and Discourses. London:Routledge,2002.
Drew & Heritage, J. Talk at Work:Interaction in Institutional Settings [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1992.
Ducan, S. On the structure of speaker-----auditor interaction during speaking turns. Language in Society,1974:2.
Gu, Yuanguo.[顾曰国].礼貌、语用与文化[J].外语教学与研究.1992(4).
Gu, Yueguo.[顾曰国].Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Pragmatics,14, 1990:237-257.
Grice, H.P. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Volume 3, Speech acts,1975:41-58). New York:Academic Press.
Green, M. G. Pragmatics and natural language understanding. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.1989:89-112.
Goffman, E. Interaction ritual:Essays on face-to-face behaviour. New York:Anchor Books.1967.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to functional grammar [M]. (2nd ED). London: Edward Arnold.1994.
He, Ziran.[何自然].语用学概论[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1988.
He, Ziran.[何自然].言语交际中的语用移情[J].外语教学与研究.1996(4).
He, Ziran.[何自然]Ran, Yongping[冉永平].语用学概论[M].湖南教育出版社.2001.
He, Ziran[何自然],Yu Guodong.[于国栋].语用学的理解---Verschueren的新作评[J].现代外语.1994(4).
He, Ziran.[何自然].Notes on pragmatics. Nanjing:Normal College of Nanjing Publishing House.2003.
He, Zhaoxiong.[何兆熊].中美文化中的礼貌研究[J].外国语.1995(5).
He, Zhaoxiong[何兆熊].新编语用学概要[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2000.
Hu Haijuan. Courtroom Questioning as a Dynamic Process of Linguistic Adaptation. MA Thesis, Guangzhou:Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.2002.
Hu, Zhuanglin.[胡壮麟].语用学.国外语言学,1980(3)
Hie, C. Semi-institutional Discourse:The Case of Talk Shows [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2001, (33):209-254.
Jacobsen, Jon Erik. A structural analysis of TV talk show interaction:similarities and differences to structures in naturally-occurring conversation. MA Thesis, English Language Institute, University of Surrey.http:// www.surrey.ac.uk/ALRG/dissertations/JacobsenJ1998.pdf1998
Jef, Verschueren. Understanding Pragmatics[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.2000.
Jiang, Wangqi.[姜望琪].语用学理论及应用[PRAGMATICS:Theory and Pragmatics].北京： 北京大学出版社,2000.
Kasper, G. Beyond reference [A]. In G., Kasper,& E. Kellerman (eds.), communication
strategies:psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives [C]. London: Longman.1997.
Lavob, W. Rules for ritual insults. In:D. Sudnow, ed., Studies in Social Interaction [C]. New York:Free Press,1972.
Lakoff, R. Hedge:A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In P. Peranteau, J. Levi,& G. Phares (Eds.), Papers from the eighth regional meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.183-228). Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.1972
Lakoff, R. The logic of politeness. In C. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark,& A. Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 1973:292-305). Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lakoff, R. Talking power:The polictics of language in our lives. New York:Basic Books.1990.
Lee, Benny, P. H. Mutual knowledge, background knowledge and shared beliefs:Their roles in establishing common ground. Journal of Pragmatics,33,21-44 2001.
Leech, G. Principles of pragmatics. London:Longman.1983.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Liao, Meizhen.[廖美珍].法庭问答及其互动研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
Liu, Na[刘娜].The contrastive analysis of conversation structure between Chinese. and American TV talk shows. MA Thesis, Shandong Normal University. 2005.
Liu, Ping.[刘萍].Responding as realization of adaptation in Chinese courtroom setting. MA Thesis, Guangzhou:Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.2003.
Livingstone, Sonia.& Lunt, Peter. Talk on television:audience participation and public debate. London:Routledge.1994
Longman Dectionary of contemporary English (4th Ed.). London:The Chaucer Press, 2003.
Mao, L. R. Beyond politeness theory:"Face" revisited and renewed. Journal of
Pragmatics,21,1994:451-486.
Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality. Beijing:China Social Sciences Publishing House, Chengcheng Books Ltd.1999
Mattews, P.H. Concise dictionary of linguistics. Oxford:Oxford University Press. 1997:160
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th Ed). Springfield:G.&C. Merriam Cooperation,2004.
Mey, J. L. Pragmatics:An Introduction [M]. Oxford:Blackwell.2001.
Myers, D. G. Exploring psychology. New York:Worth Publishers, Inc.1990:137.
Myers, D. G. Social Psychology [M]. (5th ED). New York:The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.1996.
Qin, Bo.[秦勃].顺应理论观照下礼貌原则的不足[D].安徽大学.2006.
Qin, Xiaojie.[秦晓杰].英文商务信函中的“合作”和“礼貌”.西安外国语学院学报,2001,(4).
Ran Yongping.[冉永平].言语交际中的FTA现象与调控策略[J].重庆大学学报.1996(2).
Ran, Yongping. Zhang Xinhong.[冉永平,张新红].语用学纵横[M].高等教育出版社.2007.
Richards, J. et al. Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. London:Longman. 1985:91.
Sanders, R.E.,& Cushman, D. P. Rules, constraints and strategies in human communication. In C. C. Arnold & J. W. Bowers (Eds.), Handbook of rhetorical and communication theory 1984:230-269. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Searl, J. R. Indirect speech acts, In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Volume3, Speech acts, pp.59-82). New York:Academic Press.1975
Seliger, H.,& Elana Shoharmy.1989. Second Language Research Methods [M]. Oxford University Press
Shang Xiaoming.[尚晓明].外语教学中的语用原则.黑龙江教育学院学报.1996(4).
Shen, Lu.[沈露].A Study on the questioning strategies of police interrogation-an adaptation-based approach to thematic choices. MA Thesis, Guangzhou: Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.2004.
Shen, Zhiqi(申智奇).Deliberate misrepresentation as a pragmatic strategy in verbal communication [D]. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.2004.
Sheng, Yongsheng(盛永生).电视谈话节目主持话语分析,中国国家图书馆博士论文文库.2004.
Sheng, Jiaxuan.[沈家煊].语用学理论.国外语言学,1991(2)-(4).
Sheng, Jiaxuan.[沈家煊].我国的语用学研究.外语教学与研究,1996,(1).
Singer, M. Answering questions about discourse. Discourse Processes,1990, (13).
Tanaka, L. Gender, language and culture:a study of Japanese television interview discourse [M]. Philadelphia, PA, USA:John Benjamins Publishing Company. 2004.
Tracy, Karen, ed. Understanding face-to-face interaction:issues linking goals and discourse. Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 1991.
Thomas, J. A. Meaning in interaction:An introduction to pragmatics. London:Longman. 1995.
Wang, Chuanben.[王传奔].顺应理论对礼貌和不礼貌的阐释[D].上海外国语大学.2006
Wang, Dengyun.[王登云].A pragmatic study on address forms. MA Thesis, Taiyuan: Shanxi University.2006.
Wang, Qun.[王群].说话节目主持人的语言地位,语言文字应用,第4期：1997：13-17.
Wang, Qun.[王群].Cao, Kefan.[曹可凡].谈话节目主持人,上海：上海社会科学出版社.2002.
Wei, Yuehong.[魏月红].英语委婉语的顺应性研究[D].安徽大学.2006.
Worchel, S., J. Cooper& G. R. Goethals. Understanding Social Psychology [M]. California:Brooks/Cole Publishing Company Pacific Grove.1991.
Yao, Zheng.[姚争]. 电视谈话：现代媒介向传统媒介的一次回归,www.oursee.com. 2001.
Yu, Lishuang.[于丽爽].Song, Qian.[宋茜].谈话的力量[M],中央编译出版社,2004.
Yule, G Pragmatics. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2000.
Zhang, Guanwen.[张冠文].电视谈话节目的文化分析[J].理论学刊,2003(3)：128-129.
Zhong, Xin.[钟新].美国电视脱口秀主持人特征分析,中国青年政治学院学报,第4期：2000：77-82.
吉妮·格拉汉姆·斯克特著, 苗棣译,脱口秀：广播电视谈话节目的威力与影响,北京：新华出版社.2000：272.