语用标记语动态研究及其对大学英语教学之启迪
|
摘要
语用标记语是一类特殊的语言表达式，在句中发挥着标记话语中序列关系的作用，该类语言成分不影响句子真值，只表达一种态度或程序意义。二十多年来，对语用标记语的相关研究如雨后春笋般发展起来，研究领域﹑范围不断扩大。当初曾一度被当作话语中的冗余成分，或口语中的“填充物”（fillers），然而越来越多的研究学者逐渐认识到这一类貌不惊人的语言项目在言语交际中有着不可低估的作用。本文旨在尝试对以往各种语用标记语相关研究做一系统总结以便对该类特殊语言现象获得更加宏观全面的了解，并且理论联系实际，借助于实证研究探讨其对中国英语教学的启示。
本文由六章组成，从第二到第五章是主体部分，重点围绕上文提及的文章主旨展开。具体各章主要内容如下：
开篇第一章是对语用标记语的初步形体探讨，以往对该主题的研究态度经历了从冷漠到热心的巨大转变。在这些成果颇丰的研究当中，由于研究角度及出发点各不相同，国内外学者赋予其不同的名称。此外，本章还论及在众多术语中作者唯独青睐“语用标记语”的几个原因，其中最重要的是此类语言表达式的首要功能是语用功能，而非其它功能。
承接第一章的简介，第二章对究竟何为语用标记语进行了系统勾勒，具体包括对其定义﹑特点﹑功能以及分类进行综合描述。不同的研究者给予该类语言现象不同的定义，但大多数都趋向于认为它们是交际中一种十分常见的话语现象，在话语中的主要作用是语用的﹑动态的。语用标记语的各类语言特点显而易见，然而无一研究者能够穷尽所有特点以对其进行明确划界。语言学界针对语用标记语的分类也一直众说纷纭，这主要是由于分类标准大相径庭。
相对篇幅较长的第三章主要针对语用标记语的理论研究进行详细
阐释。诸多研究者进行了林林总总的多角度研究，采用不同的语言学理论作为依托。本文尝试把连贯理论﹑关联理论以及语法化理论结合起来对语用标记语进行历时和共时的综合研究，结果说明三种理论对于解释该类语言现象各有千秋，互鉴互补，则相得益彰。
同其它语言大多数语言现象研究一样，对语用标记语的研究也可以从历时和共时的两种视角展开。最初对语用标记语的研究是从共时开始，历时性研究则起步较晚。对此类语言现象的共时性研究主要是利用连贯理论和关联理论来解释语用标记语的首要功能。而其历时研究主要依托语法化理论。“连贯派”（Schiffrin, Lenk, Redeker, Fraser等为代表）认为语篇中最重要的特性是连贯，交际双方通过语用标记语从宏观和整体上表示话语的意义连贯；而“相关派”（Blakemore, Rouchota, Andersen等为代表）则认为，语用标记语将受话者（听者或读者）引向发话者（说话者或作者）所期待的语境和语境效果，从而对受话者的话语理解过程进行制约以便促进交际的顺利开展。根据语法化理论，语用标记语是一些不断重复出现的﹑常规化的表达式，且在常规化过程中形成非命题意义，逐渐失却原有的词汇意义。语用标记语的语法化过程实际上就是从编码意义到程序意义的转变过程。
以过去的理论化研究作为基础，第四﹑五章探讨语用标记语的实际应用价值趋向。第四章简要回顾和总结以往该类语言项目对语言学习的影响的实证性研究，大多数研究都证明这些语言现象对于外语学习的各项技能的提高十分有益。然而综观各类研究，大部分都是在非汉语环境中进行的。为弄清这种特殊的语言符号对于中国英语学习者是否也起到同样的作用，笔者在第五章尝试对大学非英语专业两个年级的学生做一实证调查研究，并且分析了他们在语用标记语使用情况的差异。
本文进行的实证研究主要包括两种类型：作文分析和问卷调查。作者采用横断发展的研究方法，对两组大学非英语专业学生使用语用标记
语的情况进行分析和比较。本研究主要针对四个方面，即这些学生对该类语言现象的初步认知﹑掌握程度﹑实际操作使用情况以及教师们对它们的态度。为保证该研究的科学性和可靠性，作者对相关资料进行定量分析和定性分析。前者包括统计高年级学生作文中的语用标记语总数和每一个T单位（具体解释参见正文）所包含的语用标记语个数以及比较两组学生的问卷调查的平均分。后者就是联系英语学习进行详细数据分析阐释。整个研究结果表明，我们在英语教学中无论教师还是学生都需要更加重视此类语言项目，教师应当积极地帮助学生切实掌握语用标记语相关知识，以有效地加强他们地语言能力和交际能力。
最后，在作为结束语的第六章中，作者对全文内容做一总结性陈述，并且根据在笔者所设计的实证性研究中存在的局限性对将来开展相关研究提出了一些建议。
Pragmatic markers are a type of linguistic expressions that are used to signal sequential discourse relationship and that do not exert any effect on the truth value of the utterance but express attitudinal and procedural meanings. During the past two decades or so, research concerning the functions and use of “pragmatic markers” has developed into an impressive field of its own, resulting in extensive research on this topic in various languages and in multifarious respects. For a while, pragmatic markers of any kind were merely considered “fillers” used in spoken language, or optional items empty of lexical meaning that were assumed not to contribute anything to the proposition of the utterance or sentence in which they occur. Yet gradually they have been recognized as to fulfill important functions on the textual as well as on the interpersonal levels of discourse. The present thesis attempts to systematically summarize relevant researches to pragmatic markers to date with view to helping readers gain a full-scale and more macroscopic point of view of this special linguistic phenomenon and providing some implications for EFL instruction in Chinese environment through a case study.
This thesis consists of six chapters, centering around four main chapters, from 2 to 5, covering the issues revealed in the above research objectives to be obtained.
The first chapter serves as an introduction to the term “pragmatic markers” on the surface level. The preceding historical researches have undergone the diversion from torpor to fervor towards this special linguistic entity. In these fruitful studies, a host of different terms is used for those particular items under consideration on account of varied approaches and purposes. Additionally, in this chapter the author expounds several causes for the employment of the term pragmatic markers among the miscellaneous terminology, the most important one being the distinct and primary
pragmatic function of this group of linguistic expressions.
Following the brief introductory part, Chapter 2 is concerned with the panoramic delineation of pragmatic markers, addressing such issues as the definition, characterization, function and classification of these items. Heterogeneous definitions have been put forward in the past studies, dealing with multiple and various aspects of a group of similar items in discourses, with individual studies tending to focus on different pragmatic functions of the items under investigation. Almost all of the researchers have observed some of the features of pragmatic markers, whereas none has displayed all of them despite the fact that those features can in some sense be viewed to be the decisive tests for demarcating Pragmatic markers. In view of the differing roles that pragmatic markers play in different circumstances, researchers have provided varied taxonomic schemata, all of which prove to be constructive and informative.
The relatively long Chapter 3 deals with the theoretical approaches to the study of pragmatic markers. Scholars on pragmatic markers have conducted a lot of theoretical studies. Different linguistic theories are employed to account for pragmatic markers in one aspect or another. The present thesis attempts to combine the theory of coherence relations, relevance theory and grammaticalization theory which can constitute appropriate complementary frameworks with which to perform the analysis of Pragmatic markers comprehensively.
Generally speaking, research on Pragmatic markers can be mainly conducted synchronically or diachronically. The former is usually put within two major theories illustrating the interpretation of the primary function of the markers, namely the discourse coherence theory and the relevance theory. And the latter is in the theory of grammaticalization. According to coherence theorists (Schiffrin, Lenk, Redeker, Fraser, etc.), pragmatic markers contribute to discourse coherence as contextual coordinates,
anchoring an utterance into more than one discourse component and indexing utterances
本文由六章组成，从第二到第五章是主体部分，重点围绕上文提及的文章主旨展开。具体各章主要内容如下：
开篇第一章是对语用标记语的初步形体探讨，以往对该主题的研究态度经历了从冷漠到热心的巨大转变。在这些成果颇丰的研究当中，由于研究角度及出发点各不相同，国内外学者赋予其不同的名称。此外，本章还论及在众多术语中作者唯独青睐“语用标记语”的几个原因，其中最重要的是此类语言表达式的首要功能是语用功能，而非其它功能。
承接第一章的简介，第二章对究竟何为语用标记语进行了系统勾勒，具体包括对其定义﹑特点﹑功能以及分类进行综合描述。不同的研究者给予该类语言现象不同的定义，但大多数都趋向于认为它们是交际中一种十分常见的话语现象，在话语中的主要作用是语用的﹑动态的。语用标记语的各类语言特点显而易见，然而无一研究者能够穷尽所有特点以对其进行明确划界。语言学界针对语用标记语的分类也一直众说纷纭，这主要是由于分类标准大相径庭。
相对篇幅较长的第三章主要针对语用标记语的理论研究进行详细
阐释。诸多研究者进行了林林总总的多角度研究，采用不同的语言学理论作为依托。本文尝试把连贯理论﹑关联理论以及语法化理论结合起来对语用标记语进行历时和共时的综合研究，结果说明三种理论对于解释该类语言现象各有千秋，互鉴互补，则相得益彰。
同其它语言大多数语言现象研究一样，对语用标记语的研究也可以从历时和共时的两种视角展开。最初对语用标记语的研究是从共时开始，历时性研究则起步较晚。对此类语言现象的共时性研究主要是利用连贯理论和关联理论来解释语用标记语的首要功能。而其历时研究主要依托语法化理论。“连贯派”（Schiffrin, Lenk, Redeker, Fraser等为代表）认为语篇中最重要的特性是连贯，交际双方通过语用标记语从宏观和整体上表示话语的意义连贯；而“相关派”（Blakemore, Rouchota, Andersen等为代表）则认为，语用标记语将受话者（听者或读者）引向发话者（说话者或作者）所期待的语境和语境效果，从而对受话者的话语理解过程进行制约以便促进交际的顺利开展。根据语法化理论，语用标记语是一些不断重复出现的﹑常规化的表达式，且在常规化过程中形成非命题意义，逐渐失却原有的词汇意义。语用标记语的语法化过程实际上就是从编码意义到程序意义的转变过程。
以过去的理论化研究作为基础，第四﹑五章探讨语用标记语的实际应用价值趋向。第四章简要回顾和总结以往该类语言项目对语言学习的影响的实证性研究，大多数研究都证明这些语言现象对于外语学习的各项技能的提高十分有益。然而综观各类研究，大部分都是在非汉语环境中进行的。为弄清这种特殊的语言符号对于中国英语学习者是否也起到同样的作用，笔者在第五章尝试对大学非英语专业两个年级的学生做一实证调查研究，并且分析了他们在语用标记语使用情况的差异。
本文进行的实证研究主要包括两种类型：作文分析和问卷调查。作者采用横断发展的研究方法，对两组大学非英语专业学生使用语用标记
语的情况进行分析和比较。本研究主要针对四个方面，即这些学生对该类语言现象的初步认知﹑掌握程度﹑实际操作使用情况以及教师们对它们的态度。为保证该研究的科学性和可靠性，作者对相关资料进行定量分析和定性分析。前者包括统计高年级学生作文中的语用标记语总数和每一个T单位（具体解释参见正文）所包含的语用标记语个数以及比较两组学生的问卷调查的平均分。后者就是联系英语学习进行详细数据分析阐释。整个研究结果表明，我们在英语教学中无论教师还是学生都需要更加重视此类语言项目，教师应当积极地帮助学生切实掌握语用标记语相关知识，以有效地加强他们地语言能力和交际能力。
最后，在作为结束语的第六章中，作者对全文内容做一总结性陈述，并且根据在笔者所设计的实证性研究中存在的局限性对将来开展相关研究提出了一些建议。
Pragmatic markers are a type of linguistic expressions that are used to signal sequential discourse relationship and that do not exert any effect on the truth value of the utterance but express attitudinal and procedural meanings. During the past two decades or so, research concerning the functions and use of “pragmatic markers” has developed into an impressive field of its own, resulting in extensive research on this topic in various languages and in multifarious respects. For a while, pragmatic markers of any kind were merely considered “fillers” used in spoken language, or optional items empty of lexical meaning that were assumed not to contribute anything to the proposition of the utterance or sentence in which they occur. Yet gradually they have been recognized as to fulfill important functions on the textual as well as on the interpersonal levels of discourse. The present thesis attempts to systematically summarize relevant researches to pragmatic markers to date with view to helping readers gain a full-scale and more macroscopic point of view of this special linguistic phenomenon and providing some implications for EFL instruction in Chinese environment through a case study.
This thesis consists of six chapters, centering around four main chapters, from 2 to 5, covering the issues revealed in the above research objectives to be obtained.
The first chapter serves as an introduction to the term “pragmatic markers” on the surface level. The preceding historical researches have undergone the diversion from torpor to fervor towards this special linguistic entity. In these fruitful studies, a host of different terms is used for those particular items under consideration on account of varied approaches and purposes. Additionally, in this chapter the author expounds several causes for the employment of the term pragmatic markers among the miscellaneous terminology, the most important one being the distinct and primary
pragmatic function of this group of linguistic expressions.
Following the brief introductory part, Chapter 2 is concerned with the panoramic delineation of pragmatic markers, addressing such issues as the definition, characterization, function and classification of these items. Heterogeneous definitions have been put forward in the past studies, dealing with multiple and various aspects of a group of similar items in discourses, with individual studies tending to focus on different pragmatic functions of the items under investigation. Almost all of the researchers have observed some of the features of pragmatic markers, whereas none has displayed all of them despite the fact that those features can in some sense be viewed to be the decisive tests for demarcating Pragmatic markers. In view of the differing roles that pragmatic markers play in different circumstances, researchers have provided varied taxonomic schemata, all of which prove to be constructive and informative.
The relatively long Chapter 3 deals with the theoretical approaches to the study of pragmatic markers. Scholars on pragmatic markers have conducted a lot of theoretical studies. Different linguistic theories are employed to account for pragmatic markers in one aspect or another. The present thesis attempts to combine the theory of coherence relations, relevance theory and grammaticalization theory which can constitute appropriate complementary frameworks with which to perform the analysis of Pragmatic markers comprehensively.
Generally speaking, research on Pragmatic markers can be mainly conducted synchronically or diachronically. The former is usually put within two major theories illustrating the interpretation of the primary function of the markers, namely the discourse coherence theory and the relevance theory. And the latter is in the theory of grammaticalization. According to coherence theorists (Schiffrin, Lenk, Redeker, Fraser, etc.), pragmatic markers contribute to discourse coherence as contextual coordinates,
anchoring an utterance into more than one discourse component and indexing utterances
引文
1. Andersen, G. & T. Fretheim, 2000. Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. (eds.). Amersterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
2. Andersen, G. 1998. The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretical perspective. In Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, eds. Jucker, H. Anderson & Yael Ziv, 147-70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
3. Andersen, Gisle. 2001. Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: a relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents Amsterdam: Johm Benjamins Publishing Company
4. Blakemore, D. 1987. Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell
5. Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell
6. Blakemore, D. 1996. Are apposition markers discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 325-47
7. Brinton, J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English : Grammaticalization and discourse functions. New York : Mouton de Gruyter
8. Chaudron, C. & Richards, J. C. 1986. The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics 7: 113-27
9. Cheng, X. G. & Steffensen, M. S. 1996. Metadiscourse: A Technique for Improving Student Writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2): 149-81
Craig, C.G., 1991. Ways to go in Rama: A case study in polygrammaticalization. In: Traugott E.C., Heine B. (Ed.). Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1. Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Amsterdam: John Benjamins
11. Erman, B. 1986. Some pragmatic expressions in English conversation. In: Gunnel Tottie and Ingegerd B?cklund, eds., English in speech and writing: A symposium, 131-147. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 60. Uppsala: Textgruppen I Uppsala AB.
12. Erman, B. 2001. Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1337-59
13. Fraser, B. 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38 (1-4): 19-33
14. Fraser, B. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383-95
15. Fraser, B. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6: 167-90
16. Fraser, B. 1999. What are discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931-52
17. Goldberg, J. A. 1980. Discourse Particles: An analysis of the role of y’know, I mean, well, and actually in conversation. Unpublished Ph. D dissertation, Cambridge University.
18. Halliday, M. & R. Hasan, 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
19. Heine, B., Claudi, U., Hünnemeyer, F., 1991. From Cognition to Grammar: Evidence from AfricanLanguages. In: Traugott E.C., Heine B. (Ed.). Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1. Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Amsterdam: John Benjamins
20. H?lker, K. 1991. Franz?sisch: Partikelforschung. Lexikon der Romanistichen Linguistik, Vol V.1. Tübinggen: Niemeyer, 77-88
21. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott, 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
22. Intarapawat, P. 1988. Metadiscourse in Native English Speakers and ESL Students’ Persuasive Essays. Illinois State University
23. James, A. R. 1983. Compromisers in English: a cross-disciplinary approach to their interpersonal significance. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 191-206
24. Joseph D. Brian 2001. Is there such a thing as “grammaticalization?” Language Sciences 23 163-186
25. Jucker, Anderseas H., 1993. The discourse marker well: A relevance theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19: 435-52
26. Jucker, H. Anderseas & Sara W. Smith 1996. And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse marker as negotiating strategies. In Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, eds. Jucker, H. Anderson & Yael Ziv, 171-201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
27. Jucker, H. Anderson & Yael Ziv, eds., 1998. Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
28. Keller, E. 1979. Gambits: Conversational Strategy Signals. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 219-38
29. Lenk, Uta, 1998. Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 245-57
30. Levinson, S.C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. McMahon, 1995. Understanding Language Change. New York:Cambridge University Press
32. Risselada, R. & W. Spooren. 1988. Introduction: discourse markers and coherence relations. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 131-33
33. Rouchota, V. 1996. Discourse connectives: what do they link? In UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 1-15
34. Roulet, E. 1984. Speech acts, discourse structure, and pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics 8: 31-47
35. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. New York: Cambridge University Press
36. Schiffrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell
37. Schourup, L. 1999. Discourse Markers. Lingua 107: 227-65
38. Sinclair, John M. et al., 1987. Collis-COBUILD English language dictionary. London: Collins
39. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. (2nd ed.) Oxford: Blackwell
40. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Ekkehard K?nig, 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In: E.C. Traugott and B. Heine, eds., Approaches to grammaticalization, 189-218. Amsterdam: Benjamins
41. Vande Kopple, William. 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36: 82-93
42. Watts, Richard 1989. Taking the pitcher to the “well”: native speakers, perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 203-37
43. Wiezbicka, A. 1986. Introduction to special issue on “particles”. Journal of Pragmatics 10: 519-34
44. Zwicky, M. A. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61: 283-305
45. 曹合建 1997. 副语言与话语含义.《外国语》 第5期：17-20
46. 成晓光 1997.《亚言语研究》 大连：辽宁师范大学出版社
47. 成晓光 1999. 亚言语的理论与应用. 《外语与外语教学》第9期：4-7
48. 冯光武 2004. 汉语语用标记语的语义﹑语用分析. 《现代外语》第1期：24-31
49. 高 原 2003. 谈关联词的意义问题 《外语学刊》第1期:58-63
50. 郭玉玲 1999.《实用汉语口语五百句》 北京：新世界出版社
51. 韩宝成 2000.《外语教学科研中的统计方法》 北京：外语教学与研究出版社
52. 何自然，冉永平 1999. 话语联系语的语用制约性. 《外语教学与研究》第3期:1-8
53. 胡壮麟 1994. 《语篇的衔接与连贯》上海：上海外语教育出版社
54. 黄大网 1998. 《语用学》杂志话语标记专辑（1998）介绍. 《当代语言学》第2期：152-55
55. 黄大网 2001. 话语标记语研究综述.《福建外语》第1期：5-12
56. 李勇忠 2003. 信息短路下的话语标记. 《外语学刊》第3期：21-25
57. 李勇忠 2003. 语用标记与话语连贯. 《外语与外语教学》第1期：60-63
58. 李悦娥，范宏雅 2002. 《话语分析》上海：上海外语教育出版社
59. 刘礼进 2002. 话语生成与理解：语序标记语作用. 《外语教学与研究》第3期：167-73
60. 刘润清 1999.《外语教学中的科研方法》北京：外语教学与研究出版社
61. 冉永平 1995. 试析话语中well的语用功能. 《四川外语学院学报》第3期:
41-44, 106
62. 冉永平 2000. 话语标记语的语用学研究综述. 《外语研究》第4期：8-14
63. 冉永平 2003. 话语标记语well的语用功能. 《外国语》第3期：58-64
64. 冉永平 2003. 语用学与社会语言学之间的交叉研究. 《外语教学与研究》第1期：74-77
65. 吴亚欣，于国栋 2003.话语标记语的元语用分析. 《外语教学》第4期：16-19
66. 熊学亮 1999.《认知语用学概论》 上海：上海外语教育出版社
67. 于国栋，吴亚欣 2003. 话语标记语的顺应性解释. 《解放军外国语学院学报》第1 期：11-15
朱永生，严世清 2001.《系统功能语言学的多维思考》上海：上海外语教育出版社
朱嫣然 2001. 话语联系语与听力理解. 《外语研究》第4期：69-72
2. Andersen, G. 1998. The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretical perspective. In Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, eds. Jucker, H. Anderson & Yael Ziv, 147-70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
3. Andersen, Gisle. 2001. Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: a relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents Amsterdam: Johm Benjamins Publishing Company
4. Blakemore, D. 1987. Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell
5. Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell
6. Blakemore, D. 1996. Are apposition markers discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 325-47
7. Brinton, J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English : Grammaticalization and discourse functions. New York : Mouton de Gruyter
8. Chaudron, C. & Richards, J. C. 1986. The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics 7: 113-27
9. Cheng, X. G. & Steffensen, M. S. 1996. Metadiscourse: A Technique for Improving Student Writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2): 149-81
Craig, C.G., 1991. Ways to go in Rama: A case study in polygrammaticalization. In: Traugott E.C., Heine B. (Ed.). Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1. Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Amsterdam: John Benjamins
11. Erman, B. 1986. Some pragmatic expressions in English conversation. In: Gunnel Tottie and Ingegerd B?cklund, eds., English in speech and writing: A symposium, 131-147. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 60. Uppsala: Textgruppen I Uppsala AB.
12. Erman, B. 2001. Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1337-59
13. Fraser, B. 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38 (1-4): 19-33
14. Fraser, B. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383-95
15. Fraser, B. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6: 167-90
16. Fraser, B. 1999. What are discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931-52
17. Goldberg, J. A. 1980. Discourse Particles: An analysis of the role of y’know, I mean, well, and actually in conversation. Unpublished Ph. D dissertation, Cambridge University.
18. Halliday, M. & R. Hasan, 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
19. Heine, B., Claudi, U., Hünnemeyer, F., 1991. From Cognition to Grammar: Evidence from AfricanLanguages. In: Traugott E.C., Heine B. (Ed.). Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1. Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Amsterdam: John Benjamins
20. H?lker, K. 1991. Franz?sisch: Partikelforschung. Lexikon der Romanistichen Linguistik, Vol V.1. Tübinggen: Niemeyer, 77-88
21. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott, 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
22. Intarapawat, P. 1988. Metadiscourse in Native English Speakers and ESL Students’ Persuasive Essays. Illinois State University
23. James, A. R. 1983. Compromisers in English: a cross-disciplinary approach to their interpersonal significance. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 191-206
24. Joseph D. Brian 2001. Is there such a thing as “grammaticalization?” Language Sciences 23 163-186
25. Jucker, Anderseas H., 1993. The discourse marker well: A relevance theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19: 435-52
26. Jucker, H. Anderseas & Sara W. Smith 1996. And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse marker as negotiating strategies. In Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, eds. Jucker, H. Anderson & Yael Ziv, 171-201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
27. Jucker, H. Anderson & Yael Ziv, eds., 1998. Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
28. Keller, E. 1979. Gambits: Conversational Strategy Signals. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 219-38
29. Lenk, Uta, 1998. Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 245-57
30. Levinson, S.C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. McMahon, 1995. Understanding Language Change. New York:Cambridge University Press
32. Risselada, R. & W. Spooren. 1988. Introduction: discourse markers and coherence relations. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 131-33
33. Rouchota, V. 1996. Discourse connectives: what do they link? In UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 1-15
34. Roulet, E. 1984. Speech acts, discourse structure, and pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics 8: 31-47
35. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. New York: Cambridge University Press
36. Schiffrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell
37. Schourup, L. 1999. Discourse Markers. Lingua 107: 227-65
38. Sinclair, John M. et al., 1987. Collis-COBUILD English language dictionary. London: Collins
39. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. (2nd ed.) Oxford: Blackwell
40. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Ekkehard K?nig, 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In: E.C. Traugott and B. Heine, eds., Approaches to grammaticalization, 189-218. Amsterdam: Benjamins
41. Vande Kopple, William. 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36: 82-93
42. Watts, Richard 1989. Taking the pitcher to the “well”: native speakers, perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 203-37
43. Wiezbicka, A. 1986. Introduction to special issue on “particles”. Journal of Pragmatics 10: 519-34
44. Zwicky, M. A. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61: 283-305
45. 曹合建 1997. 副语言与话语含义.《外国语》 第5期：17-20
46. 成晓光 1997.《亚言语研究》 大连：辽宁师范大学出版社
47. 成晓光 1999. 亚言语的理论与应用. 《外语与外语教学》第9期：4-7
48. 冯光武 2004. 汉语语用标记语的语义﹑语用分析. 《现代外语》第1期：24-31
49. 高 原 2003. 谈关联词的意义问题 《外语学刊》第1期:58-63
50. 郭玉玲 1999.《实用汉语口语五百句》 北京：新世界出版社
51. 韩宝成 2000.《外语教学科研中的统计方法》 北京：外语教学与研究出版社
52. 何自然，冉永平 1999. 话语联系语的语用制约性. 《外语教学与研究》第3期:1-8
53. 胡壮麟 1994. 《语篇的衔接与连贯》上海：上海外语教育出版社
54. 黄大网 1998. 《语用学》杂志话语标记专辑（1998）介绍. 《当代语言学》第2期：152-55
55. 黄大网 2001. 话语标记语研究综述.《福建外语》第1期：5-12
56. 李勇忠 2003. 信息短路下的话语标记. 《外语学刊》第3期：21-25
57. 李勇忠 2003. 语用标记与话语连贯. 《外语与外语教学》第1期：60-63
58. 李悦娥，范宏雅 2002. 《话语分析》上海：上海外语教育出版社
59. 刘礼进 2002. 话语生成与理解：语序标记语作用. 《外语教学与研究》第3期：167-73
60. 刘润清 1999.《外语教学中的科研方法》北京：外语教学与研究出版社
61. 冉永平 1995. 试析话语中well的语用功能. 《四川外语学院学报》第3期:
41-44, 106
62. 冉永平 2000. 话语标记语的语用学研究综述. 《外语研究》第4期：8-14
63. 冉永平 2003. 话语标记语well的语用功能. 《外国语》第3期：58-64
64. 冉永平 2003. 语用学与社会语言学之间的交叉研究. 《外语教学与研究》第1期：74-77
65. 吴亚欣，于国栋 2003.话语标记语的元语用分析. 《外语教学》第4期：16-19
66. 熊学亮 1999.《认知语用学概论》 上海：上海外语教育出版社
67. 于国栋，吴亚欣 2003. 话语标记语的顺应性解释. 《解放军外国语学院学报》第1 期：11-15
朱永生，严世清 2001.《系统功能语言学的多维思考》上海：上海外语教育出版社
朱嫣然 2001. 话语联系语与听力理解. 《外语研究》第4期：69-72
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |