英语作为外语的课堂问答话语语用研究
|
摘要
英语课堂教学需要很多语言交流活动,即课堂言语互动。课堂教学的言语互动主要体现在师生言语互动上,而这种言语互动又往往通过问与答的形式来完成。本论文在运用话语分析的相关理论对课堂问答话语进行静态研究的同时,重点运用语用学的主要理论,诸如言语行为、语用前提、合作原则、礼貌原则等,对英语作为外语的课堂问答话语进行了动态研究。
语用学研究的是特定语境中的特定话语。在外语课堂教学这一具体语境中,教师的话语角色与他们的社会角色既相一致又相矛盾,这种矛盾统一在问答话语中得到充分的体现。一方面教师通过提问、反馈控制课堂话语和话轮;另一方面教师采用很多礼貌言语策略,鼓励学生参与课堂互动。在对课堂问答话语的理解与阐述上,英语作为外语的教学语境起着至关重要的作用。言语行为理论为课堂问答话语实施不同功能提供了理论依据。提问可以使言成功有所为,即通过说出(言内行为)“提问”(次要言外行为)这一言语,间接发出指令(主要言外行为),使听话人按照指令行事(提问的言后行为);“回答”(言内行为),如解释、造句、朗读等(言外行为),同样是按照提问的间接指令在以言行事,满足提问不同的语用前提,达到提问以言致效的结果。在课堂回答话语中,师生均有违背合作原则的言语。教师违反数量准则,提供比问题所要求更详尽的话语是在利用回答增加言语输入;学生对数量准则、质量准则、关联准则或方式准则的违反,源于语言知识或技能的欠缺。在礼貌原则方面,师生也有许多与社会角色相脱离、与礼貌原则相悖的言语现象。这种对礼貌原则的违反,在课堂教学语境下有助于完成教学任务。
在讨论了课堂提问的八种形式、五种功能和回答的三种类型后,我们认为受课堂语境制约,学生作出的非期待回答、零回答与期待回答一样都对教学具有反馈意义。课堂问答话语除了在交流信息、维持人际关系上互相配合外,还在实施启发、检查、操练等教育功能和求知、解惑等探索功能方面相互作用。本研究根据真实、自然的课堂语料,总结了六种课堂问-答话语结构,并分别对启始、回应、反馈话目进行了考察,认为IRF是课堂问-答话语的基本结构,其余四种(除IR结构外)结构是IRF结构的扩展结构。
本研究综合运用了话语分析和语用学两门学科的相关理论,采用定性分析的方法,以两种课型课堂教学语料为素材,对课堂问答话语进行了从静态到动态的实证研究,揭示了EFL教学中问与答言语互动的真实情况。论文从教师的权威性与学生的自主性,提高学生话语输出的质量与数量,反馈话目对学生学习动机和言语准确性的作用,以及培养学生语用能力四个方面讨论了问答话语互动对EFL教学的指导作用。这些结合英语教学实际的建议性意见将会对我国的英语教学有很大的指导意义。
EFL teaching comprises many kinds of classroom interactions. In classroom teaching, interaction usually takes place between the teacher and the students through question-answer discourse. The present study approaches the question-answer discourse from two perspectives: a static perspective by using discourse analysis and a dynamic perspective by applying the pragmatic theories, such as speech act theory, pragmatic presupposition, cooperative principle and politeness principle.
Pragmatics studies the utterance in context. In the context of EFL classroom teaching, teacher’s discourse role is identical to his or her social role in that the teacher keeps the discourse and turn allocation under control. But sometimes, it is different from his or her social role in that the teacher uses more polite and indirect directives than students in language teaching. It is the purpose and the context of EFL teaching that determine the teacher’s discourse strategies, and play an important role in the understanding and interpretation of the speech acts of question and answer. In the performance of an indirect directive, the locutionary act (the utterance), the secondary illocutionary act (asking a question), the primary illocutionary act (directive) and the perlocutionary act (the performance of the intended action by the hearer) are fulfilled via a single question. In responding, the speaker performs a locutionary act (the utterance), an illocutionary act, (complying with the teacher’s directive) and a perlocutionary act (reading, paraphrasing, or making a sentence, etc.). In his or her speech act of answering, the teacher may flout the quantity maxim by providing more information than required because he or she takes answering questions as a way to increase the student’s linguistic input. Sometimes, the students disobey the maxim of quantity, quality, relation or manner because of inadequate knowledge or skills in English. There are some utterances violating the politeness principle yet they are acceptable in the classroom and helpful to the fulfillment of the teaching tasks.
After discussing eight forms and five functions of questions and three categories of answers, we hold that students’dispreferred and zero second pair parts have reflective functions to teaching, as the preferred ones do. The classroom question and answer discourse serves the instructive and exploratory functions, in addition to the communicative and interpersonal functions. The present study summarizes six kinds of question-answer structures and examines the moves of initiation, response and feedback. It draws the conclusion that IRF is the skeleton structure and the others (except IR) are its extensions.
By combining the major theories of discourse analysis and pragmatics, this study makes an empirical research into the EFL classroom question-answer discourse, on the basis of naturally occurring first-hand data. It touches upon some major issues in actual teaching and reveals some important implications for EFL teaching. The balance between teacher’s authority and student’s autonomy, the increase of student’s talk in quantity and quality, the strategies to strengthen student’s motivation in learning English as well as the suggestions for the development of students’pragmatic competence, on the basis of their linguistic, interactional and communicative competences, will all benefit the fulfillment of the ultimate purpose of EFL teaching in China.
语用学研究的是特定语境中的特定话语。在外语课堂教学这一具体语境中,教师的话语角色与他们的社会角色既相一致又相矛盾,这种矛盾统一在问答话语中得到充分的体现。一方面教师通过提问、反馈控制课堂话语和话轮;另一方面教师采用很多礼貌言语策略,鼓励学生参与课堂互动。在对课堂问答话语的理解与阐述上,英语作为外语的教学语境起着至关重要的作用。言语行为理论为课堂问答话语实施不同功能提供了理论依据。提问可以使言成功有所为,即通过说出(言内行为)“提问”(次要言外行为)这一言语,间接发出指令(主要言外行为),使听话人按照指令行事(提问的言后行为);“回答”(言内行为),如解释、造句、朗读等(言外行为),同样是按照提问的间接指令在以言行事,满足提问不同的语用前提,达到提问以言致效的结果。在课堂回答话语中,师生均有违背合作原则的言语。教师违反数量准则,提供比问题所要求更详尽的话语是在利用回答增加言语输入;学生对数量准则、质量准则、关联准则或方式准则的违反,源于语言知识或技能的欠缺。在礼貌原则方面,师生也有许多与社会角色相脱离、与礼貌原则相悖的言语现象。这种对礼貌原则的违反,在课堂教学语境下有助于完成教学任务。
在讨论了课堂提问的八种形式、五种功能和回答的三种类型后,我们认为受课堂语境制约,学生作出的非期待回答、零回答与期待回答一样都对教学具有反馈意义。课堂问答话语除了在交流信息、维持人际关系上互相配合外,还在实施启发、检查、操练等教育功能和求知、解惑等探索功能方面相互作用。本研究根据真实、自然的课堂语料,总结了六种课堂问-答话语结构,并分别对启始、回应、反馈话目进行了考察,认为IRF是课堂问-答话语的基本结构,其余四种(除IR结构外)结构是IRF结构的扩展结构。
本研究综合运用了话语分析和语用学两门学科的相关理论,采用定性分析的方法,以两种课型课堂教学语料为素材,对课堂问答话语进行了从静态到动态的实证研究,揭示了EFL教学中问与答言语互动的真实情况。论文从教师的权威性与学生的自主性,提高学生话语输出的质量与数量,反馈话目对学生学习动机和言语准确性的作用,以及培养学生语用能力四个方面讨论了问答话语互动对EFL教学的指导作用。这些结合英语教学实际的建议性意见将会对我国的英语教学有很大的指导意义。
EFL teaching comprises many kinds of classroom interactions. In classroom teaching, interaction usually takes place between the teacher and the students through question-answer discourse. The present study approaches the question-answer discourse from two perspectives: a static perspective by using discourse analysis and a dynamic perspective by applying the pragmatic theories, such as speech act theory, pragmatic presupposition, cooperative principle and politeness principle.
Pragmatics studies the utterance in context. In the context of EFL classroom teaching, teacher’s discourse role is identical to his or her social role in that the teacher keeps the discourse and turn allocation under control. But sometimes, it is different from his or her social role in that the teacher uses more polite and indirect directives than students in language teaching. It is the purpose and the context of EFL teaching that determine the teacher’s discourse strategies, and play an important role in the understanding and interpretation of the speech acts of question and answer. In the performance of an indirect directive, the locutionary act (the utterance), the secondary illocutionary act (asking a question), the primary illocutionary act (directive) and the perlocutionary act (the performance of the intended action by the hearer) are fulfilled via a single question. In responding, the speaker performs a locutionary act (the utterance), an illocutionary act, (complying with the teacher’s directive) and a perlocutionary act (reading, paraphrasing, or making a sentence, etc.). In his or her speech act of answering, the teacher may flout the quantity maxim by providing more information than required because he or she takes answering questions as a way to increase the student’s linguistic input. Sometimes, the students disobey the maxim of quantity, quality, relation or manner because of inadequate knowledge or skills in English. There are some utterances violating the politeness principle yet they are acceptable in the classroom and helpful to the fulfillment of the teaching tasks.
After discussing eight forms and five functions of questions and three categories of answers, we hold that students’dispreferred and zero second pair parts have reflective functions to teaching, as the preferred ones do. The classroom question and answer discourse serves the instructive and exploratory functions, in addition to the communicative and interpersonal functions. The present study summarizes six kinds of question-answer structures and examines the moves of initiation, response and feedback. It draws the conclusion that IRF is the skeleton structure and the others (except IR) are its extensions.
By combining the major theories of discourse analysis and pragmatics, this study makes an empirical research into the EFL classroom question-answer discourse, on the basis of naturally occurring first-hand data. It touches upon some major issues in actual teaching and reveals some important implications for EFL teaching. The balance between teacher’s authority and student’s autonomy, the increase of student’s talk in quantity and quality, the strategies to strengthen student’s motivation in learning English as well as the suggestions for the development of students’pragmatic competence, on the basis of their linguistic, interactional and communicative competences, will all benefit the fulfillment of the ultimate purpose of EFL teaching in China.
引文
Allwright, D. & Bailey, K.M. 1991. Focus on the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allwright, R. L. 1980. Turn, Topics and Tasks: Patterns of Participation in Language Learning and Teaching. In Larsen-Freeman, D. (ed.) Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research 165-187. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
--- 1969. Constatives and Performatives. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Reading for Pragmatics 2234-236. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Barnhart, C. L. & Barnhart, R. K. 1981. The World Book Dictionary, Chicago: World Book-Childcraft International, Inc.
Blommaert, J & Bulcaen, C. 2000. Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Reviews Anthropol 29: 447-466
Bloor, T. & Bloor, M. 1995. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited.
Brown, B. & Levinson, S. 1978. The Argument: Intuitive Bases and Derivative Definition. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics 562-594. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Brown, G., Malmkj?r, K., Pollitt, A. & Williams, J. 1994. Language and Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, G. & Yule. G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzzelli, C. & Johnston, B. 2001. Authority, Power, and Morality in Classroom Discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education 17: 873-884.
Candela, A. 1999. Students’ Power in Classroom Discourse. Linguistics and Education 10/2: 139-163.
Christie, F. 2002. Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Functional Perspective. London·New York: Continuum.
Corder, S. P. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press Coulthard, M. 1985. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Essex: Longman Group Limited
Crystal, D. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (eds.) 1992. Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: the critical study of language. London and New York: Longman Group Limited.
Fairclough, N, Graham, P. Lemke, J. & Wodak, R. 2004. Introduction. Critical Discourse Studies 1/1: 1-7.
Fairclough, N & Wodak, R. 1997. Critical Discourse Analysis. In van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. London · Thousand Oaks · New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Fassinger, P. A. 1995. Understanding Classroom Interaction—Students’ and Professors’ Contributions to Students’ Silence. Journal of Higher Education 66/1: 82-96.
Francis, G. & Hunston, S. 1992. Analysing Everyday Conversation. In Coulthard, M. (ed.) Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis 107-148. London: Routledge Press.
Gee, J. P. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge Press.
Girard, M & Siouis, C. 2004. The Functions of Formulaic Speech in the L2 Class. Pragmatics 14/1: 31-53
Grenoble, L. A. Discourse Analysis. 2000. SLING2K Position Paper. P. 1-23.
Grewendorf, G. 1981. Answering as Decision Making: A New Way of Doing Pragmatics. In Parret, H., Sbisa, M. & Verschuren, J. (eds.) Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics 263-284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publication Company..
--- 1983. What Answers Can Be Given? In Kieferf, F. (ed.) Questions and Answers 43-84. Dordrech: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited.
--- Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Limited.
Hanrahan, M. U. 2005. Highlighting Hybridity: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Teacher Talk in Science Classrooms. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Wiley InterScience: www.interscience.wiley.com.
Ilatov, Z. Z., Shamai, S. Hertz-Lazarovitz, R. & Mayer-Young, S. 1998. Teacher-Student Classroom Interactions: the Influence of Gender, Academic Dominance, and Teacher ommunication Style. Adolescence, ProQuest Social Science Journals 33/130: 269-277.
Jones, R. & Thornborrow, J. 2004. Floors, Talk and the Organization of Classroom Activities. Language in Society 33: 399-423. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. & Johnson, H. 1998. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics: A Handbook for Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Kiefer, F. 1980. Yes-No Questions as Wh-Questions. In Searle, J. R., Kiefer, F, & Bierwisch, M. (eds.) Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics 97-119. Dordrech: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Kraker, M. J. 2000. Classroom Discourse: Teaching, Learning, and Learning Disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education 16: 295-313.
Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 1999. Critical Classroom Discourse Analysis. TESOL Quarterly 33/3: 453-483.
--- 1990. Ethnic Variation in Classroom Interaction: Myth or Reality. RELC 21: 45-54
Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman Group Limited.
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
--- 1979. Activity Types and Language. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics 884-928. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Long, M. H. & Porter, P. A. 1985. Group Work, Interlanguage Talk, and Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 19/2: 207-229.
Mao, L. R. 1994. Beyond Politeness Theory: ‘Face’ Revisited and Renewed. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics 595-644. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McKenna, B. 2004. Critical Discourse Studies: where to from here? Critical Discourse Studies 1: 9-39. Oxford: Routledge Tailor & Francis Group.
Mehan, H. 1985. The Structure of Classroom Discourse. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press.
Mey, J. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Morgan, J. L. 1978. Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nunn, C. E. 1996. Discussion in the College Classroom: Triangulating Observational and Survey Results. The Journal of Higher Education 67/3: 243-266.
O’Halloran, K. 2003. Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition. Edinburgh University Press.
Oxford, R. L. 1997. Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning, and Interaction: Three Communicative Strands in the Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal 81/4. (Special Issue: Interaction, Collaboration, and Cooperation: Learning Languages and Preparing Language Teachers, Winter: 443-456.)
Pearsall, J. (ed.) 1998. The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D. & Linnell, J. 1996. Language Learners’ Interaction: how does it address the input, output and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly 30/1: 59-84.
Poveda, D. 2005. Metalinguistic Activity, Humour and Social Competence in Classroom Discourse. Pragmatics 15/1: 89-107.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman Group Limited.
Rampton, B., Roberts, C., Leung, C. & Harris, R. 2002. Methodology in the Analysis of Classroom Discourse. Applied Linguistics 23/3: 373-392. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C. 1998. The Context of Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Richards, J. C. & Lockhart, C. 1996. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. & Platt, H. 1998. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Beijing: Addison Longman China Limited.
Rivers, W. M. 1997. Interactive Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Rouse, L. P. 1983. Social Power in the College Classroom: The Impact of Instructor Resource Manipulation and Student Dependence on Graduate Students’ Mood and Morale. American Educational Research Journal 20/3: 375-383.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. & Jefferson, G. A. 1974. Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation. In He, Z. (ed.) Selected Reading for Pragmatics 775-838. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Saeed, J. I. 1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Sapir, E. 2001. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Schegloff, E. A., 1992. On Talk and Its Institutional Occasions. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (eds.) 1992. Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
--- 1972. Sequencing in Conversational Openings. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Reading for Pragmatics 839-883. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. 1977. The Reference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language 53: 361-382.
Schleppegrell, M. J. 2003. Review on Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Functional Perspective (by Christie, F. 2002. London: Continuum)
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts—An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
--- 1972. What Is Speech Act? In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics 237-259. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
--- 1979a. A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics 260-281. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
--- 1979b. Indirect Speech Acts. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics 285-315. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Seedhouse, P. 2005. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Massachusetts and London: Blackwell Publishing Inc.
Sifianou, M. 1977. Strategic Politeness. In Jaworski, A. (ed.) Silence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives 63-84. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Song, L. & Fu, L. 2003. Report on an Investigation of Chinese English Learners’ Intercultural Competence. Intercultural Communication Studies XII-1: 41-66.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd
Stalnaker, R. C. 1974. Pragmatic Presuppositions. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics 737-759. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Sun, H. 2005. Collaborative Strategies in Chinese Telephone Conversation Closings: Balancing Procedural Needs and Interpersonal Meaning Making. Pragmatics 15/1: 109-128.
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman Group Limited.
Tsui, A. B. M. 1994. English Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vadeboncoeur, J. A. & Luke, A. 2004. Who’s/Whose at Risk? Answerability and the Critical Possibilities of Classroom Discourse. Critical Discourse Studies 1/2: 201-223. Oxford: Routledge Tailor & Francis Group.
van Dijk, T. A. 1975. Narrative Macro-Structures, Logical and Cognitive Foundation. Contributed to a Symposium Organized by the Linguistics Dept. of the University of Essex, England, February: 14-16.
--- 1993. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society 4: 249-283. --- (ed.) 1985. Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press.
van Els, T., Bongaerts, T., Extra, G., van Os, C. & Janssen-van Dieten, A. 1984. Applied Linguistics and the Learning and Teaching of Foreign Languages (English translation by van Oirsouw, R. R.). London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.
Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.
Widdowson, H.G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
--- 1990. Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilkes, G. A. & Krebs, W. A. 2000. Collins English Dictionary. London: Harper Collins Publishers (Limited).
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zuengler, J. &. Mori, J. 2002. Microanalyses of Classroom Discourse: A Critical Consideration of Method. Applied Linguistics 23/3: 283-288.
鲍明捷 1999 语境与话语分析,《江汉大学学报》第十六卷第二期,第 86-89 页
陈坚林 2004《现代外语教学研究—理论与方法》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
陈忠华 杨春苑 赵明炜 2002 批评性话语分析述评,《外语学刊》第一期,第 82-86页
陈中竺 1995 批评语言学述评,《外语教学与研究》第一期,第 21-27 页
冯江鸿 2004《反问句的语用研究》,上海:上海财经大学出版社
甘柏兹(著)徐大明 高海洋(译)2001《会话策略》,北京:社会科学文献出版社
何刚 1995《提问的语用学阐释》(博士论文),上海:上海外国语大学
何兆熊 1989《语用学概要》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
何兆熊 2000《新编语用学概要》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
何兆熊 2003《语用学文献选编》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
何自然 冉永平 2001《语用与认知—关联理论研究》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社
胡庚申 2004《国际交流语用学—从理论到实践》,北京:清华大学出版社
黄国文 2001《语篇分析的理论与实践》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
贾玉新 1997《跨文化交际学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
姜望琪 2000《语用学--理论与应用》,北京:北京大学出版社
李悦娥 范宏雅 2002《话语分析》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
路扬 1996 伯明翰学派话语分析及其发展,《外语研究》第四期,第 6-12 页
马博森 任绍曾 1995 话语分析及其应用,《现代外语》第一期,第 7-12 页
莫爱屏 1997 国外话语分析的发展及其研究,《衡阳师专学报》(社会科学)第一期,第 105-110 页
潘章仙 2002 多学科、多视角的语言研究—话语分析,《浙江师范大学学报》(社会科学版)第六期,第 109-113 页
裴文 2000 《现代英语语境学》,合肥:安徽大学出版社
戚雨村 1997 《现代语言学的特点和发展趋势》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
束定芳 2001 《中国语用学研究论文精选》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
索振羽 2000 《语用学教程》,北京:北京大学出版社
王德春 1997 《语言学概论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
王得杏 1998 《英语话语分析与跨文化交际》,北京:北京语言文化大学出版社
王庆新 纪卫宁 2000 批评话语分析及其应用,《山东外语教学》第一期,第 29-32 页
文秋芳 2001 《应用语言学--研究方法与论文写作》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社
吴建刚 2002 论批评话语分析,《华中师范大学学报》(人文社会科学版)第三期,第42-48 页
蕭政華 2005 英文课师生沟通模式—检视课堂论述形式,《康宁学报》(台湾)第七期,第 285-394 页
辛斌 2002 批评性语篇分析方法论,《外国语》第六期,第 34-41 页
许家金 2004 从结构和功能看话语分析研究诸方法,《解放军外国语学院学报》第二期,第 1-5 页
许余龙 2002 《对比语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
叶起昌 2004 批评话语分析与批评实在论,《外国语言文学》第一期,第 20-24 页
章振邦 1981 《新编英语语法》,上海:上海译文出版社
郑远汉 2003 问对结构,《语言文字应用》第三期,第 20-28 页
朱晓亚 1995 答句的语义类型,《语言教学与研究》第三期,第 47-59 页
---1996 试论两种类型的答句,《徐州师范学院学报》(哲学社会科学版)第二期,第 122-124 页
朱毅恒 周亚卉 2003 语境在话语分析中的作用,《长沙民政职业技术学院学报》第四期,第 53-55 页
Allwright, R. L. 1980. Turn, Topics and Tasks: Patterns of Participation in Language Learning and Teaching. In Larsen-Freeman, D. (ed.) Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research 165-187. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
--- 1969. Constatives and Performatives. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Reading for Pragmatics 2234-236. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Barnhart, C. L. & Barnhart, R. K. 1981. The World Book Dictionary, Chicago: World Book-Childcraft International, Inc.
Blommaert, J & Bulcaen, C. 2000. Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Reviews Anthropol 29: 447-466
Bloor, T. & Bloor, M. 1995. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited.
Brown, B. & Levinson, S. 1978. The Argument: Intuitive Bases and Derivative Definition. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics 562-594. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Brown, G., Malmkj?r, K., Pollitt, A. & Williams, J. 1994. Language and Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, G. & Yule. G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzzelli, C. & Johnston, B. 2001. Authority, Power, and Morality in Classroom Discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education 17: 873-884.
Candela, A. 1999. Students’ Power in Classroom Discourse. Linguistics and Education 10/2: 139-163.
Christie, F. 2002. Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Functional Perspective. London·New York: Continuum.
Corder, S. P. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press Coulthard, M. 1985. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Essex: Longman Group Limited
Crystal, D. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (eds.) 1992. Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: the critical study of language. London and New York: Longman Group Limited.
Fairclough, N, Graham, P. Lemke, J. & Wodak, R. 2004. Introduction. Critical Discourse Studies 1/1: 1-7.
Fairclough, N & Wodak, R. 1997. Critical Discourse Analysis. In van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. London · Thousand Oaks · New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Fassinger, P. A. 1995. Understanding Classroom Interaction—Students’ and Professors’ Contributions to Students’ Silence. Journal of Higher Education 66/1: 82-96.
Francis, G. & Hunston, S. 1992. Analysing Everyday Conversation. In Coulthard, M. (ed.) Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis 107-148. London: Routledge Press.
Gee, J. P. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge Press.
Girard, M & Siouis, C. 2004. The Functions of Formulaic Speech in the L2 Class. Pragmatics 14/1: 31-53
Grenoble, L. A. Discourse Analysis. 2000. SLING2K Position Paper. P. 1-23.
Grewendorf, G. 1981. Answering as Decision Making: A New Way of Doing Pragmatics. In Parret, H., Sbisa, M. & Verschuren, J. (eds.) Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics 263-284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publication Company..
--- 1983. What Answers Can Be Given? In Kieferf, F. (ed.) Questions and Answers 43-84. Dordrech: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited.
--- Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Limited.
Hanrahan, M. U. 2005. Highlighting Hybridity: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Teacher Talk in Science Classrooms. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Wiley InterScience: www.interscience.wiley.com.
Ilatov, Z. Z., Shamai, S. Hertz-Lazarovitz, R. & Mayer-Young, S. 1998. Teacher-Student Classroom Interactions: the Influence of Gender, Academic Dominance, and Teacher ommunication Style. Adolescence, ProQuest Social Science Journals 33/130: 269-277.
Jones, R. & Thornborrow, J. 2004. Floors, Talk and the Organization of Classroom Activities. Language in Society 33: 399-423. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. & Johnson, H. 1998. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics: A Handbook for Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Kiefer, F. 1980. Yes-No Questions as Wh-Questions. In Searle, J. R., Kiefer, F, & Bierwisch, M. (eds.) Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics 97-119. Dordrech: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Kraker, M. J. 2000. Classroom Discourse: Teaching, Learning, and Learning Disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education 16: 295-313.
Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 1999. Critical Classroom Discourse Analysis. TESOL Quarterly 33/3: 453-483.
--- 1990. Ethnic Variation in Classroom Interaction: Myth or Reality. RELC 21: 45-54
Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman Group Limited.
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
--- 1979. Activity Types and Language. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics 884-928. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Long, M. H. & Porter, P. A. 1985. Group Work, Interlanguage Talk, and Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 19/2: 207-229.
Mao, L. R. 1994. Beyond Politeness Theory: ‘Face’ Revisited and Renewed. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics 595-644. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McKenna, B. 2004. Critical Discourse Studies: where to from here? Critical Discourse Studies 1: 9-39. Oxford: Routledge Tailor & Francis Group.
Mehan, H. 1985. The Structure of Classroom Discourse. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press.
Mey, J. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Morgan, J. L. 1978. Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nunn, C. E. 1996. Discussion in the College Classroom: Triangulating Observational and Survey Results. The Journal of Higher Education 67/3: 243-266.
O’Halloran, K. 2003. Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition. Edinburgh University Press.
Oxford, R. L. 1997. Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning, and Interaction: Three Communicative Strands in the Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal 81/4. (Special Issue: Interaction, Collaboration, and Cooperation: Learning Languages and Preparing Language Teachers, Winter: 443-456.)
Pearsall, J. (ed.) 1998. The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D. & Linnell, J. 1996. Language Learners’ Interaction: how does it address the input, output and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly 30/1: 59-84.
Poveda, D. 2005. Metalinguistic Activity, Humour and Social Competence in Classroom Discourse. Pragmatics 15/1: 89-107.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman Group Limited.
Rampton, B., Roberts, C., Leung, C. & Harris, R. 2002. Methodology in the Analysis of Classroom Discourse. Applied Linguistics 23/3: 373-392. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C. 1998. The Context of Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Richards, J. C. & Lockhart, C. 1996. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. & Platt, H. 1998. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Beijing: Addison Longman China Limited.
Rivers, W. M. 1997. Interactive Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Rouse, L. P. 1983. Social Power in the College Classroom: The Impact of Instructor Resource Manipulation and Student Dependence on Graduate Students’ Mood and Morale. American Educational Research Journal 20/3: 375-383.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. & Jefferson, G. A. 1974. Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation. In He, Z. (ed.) Selected Reading for Pragmatics 775-838. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Saeed, J. I. 1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Sapir, E. 2001. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Schegloff, E. A., 1992. On Talk and Its Institutional Occasions. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (eds.) 1992. Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
--- 1972. Sequencing in Conversational Openings. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Reading for Pragmatics 839-883. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. 1977. The Reference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language 53: 361-382.
Schleppegrell, M. J. 2003. Review on Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Functional Perspective (by Christie, F. 2002. London: Continuum)
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts—An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
--- 1972. What Is Speech Act? In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics 237-259. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
--- 1979a. A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics 260-281. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
--- 1979b. Indirect Speech Acts. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics 285-315. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Seedhouse, P. 2005. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Massachusetts and London: Blackwell Publishing Inc.
Sifianou, M. 1977. Strategic Politeness. In Jaworski, A. (ed.) Silence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives 63-84. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Song, L. & Fu, L. 2003. Report on an Investigation of Chinese English Learners’ Intercultural Competence. Intercultural Communication Studies XII-1: 41-66.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd
Stalnaker, R. C. 1974. Pragmatic Presuppositions. In He, Z. (ed.) 2003. Selected Readings for Pragmatics 737-759. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Sun, H. 2005. Collaborative Strategies in Chinese Telephone Conversation Closings: Balancing Procedural Needs and Interpersonal Meaning Making. Pragmatics 15/1: 109-128.
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman Group Limited.
Tsui, A. B. M. 1994. English Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vadeboncoeur, J. A. & Luke, A. 2004. Who’s/Whose at Risk? Answerability and the Critical Possibilities of Classroom Discourse. Critical Discourse Studies 1/2: 201-223. Oxford: Routledge Tailor & Francis Group.
van Dijk, T. A. 1975. Narrative Macro-Structures, Logical and Cognitive Foundation. Contributed to a Symposium Organized by the Linguistics Dept. of the University of Essex, England, February: 14-16.
--- 1993. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society 4: 249-283. --- (ed.) 1985. Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press.
van Els, T., Bongaerts, T., Extra, G., van Os, C. & Janssen-van Dieten, A. 1984. Applied Linguistics and the Learning and Teaching of Foreign Languages (English translation by van Oirsouw, R. R.). London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.
Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.
Widdowson, H.G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
--- 1990. Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilkes, G. A. & Krebs, W. A. 2000. Collins English Dictionary. London: Harper Collins Publishers (Limited).
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zuengler, J. &. Mori, J. 2002. Microanalyses of Classroom Discourse: A Critical Consideration of Method. Applied Linguistics 23/3: 283-288.
鲍明捷 1999 语境与话语分析,《江汉大学学报》第十六卷第二期,第 86-89 页
陈坚林 2004《现代外语教学研究—理论与方法》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
陈忠华 杨春苑 赵明炜 2002 批评性话语分析述评,《外语学刊》第一期,第 82-86页
陈中竺 1995 批评语言学述评,《外语教学与研究》第一期,第 21-27 页
冯江鸿 2004《反问句的语用研究》,上海:上海财经大学出版社
甘柏兹(著)徐大明 高海洋(译)2001《会话策略》,北京:社会科学文献出版社
何刚 1995《提问的语用学阐释》(博士论文),上海:上海外国语大学
何兆熊 1989《语用学概要》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
何兆熊 2000《新编语用学概要》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
何兆熊 2003《语用学文献选编》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
何自然 冉永平 2001《语用与认知—关联理论研究》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社
胡庚申 2004《国际交流语用学—从理论到实践》,北京:清华大学出版社
黄国文 2001《语篇分析的理论与实践》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
贾玉新 1997《跨文化交际学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
姜望琪 2000《语用学--理论与应用》,北京:北京大学出版社
李悦娥 范宏雅 2002《话语分析》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
路扬 1996 伯明翰学派话语分析及其发展,《外语研究》第四期,第 6-12 页
马博森 任绍曾 1995 话语分析及其应用,《现代外语》第一期,第 7-12 页
莫爱屏 1997 国外话语分析的发展及其研究,《衡阳师专学报》(社会科学)第一期,第 105-110 页
潘章仙 2002 多学科、多视角的语言研究—话语分析,《浙江师范大学学报》(社会科学版)第六期,第 109-113 页
裴文 2000 《现代英语语境学》,合肥:安徽大学出版社
戚雨村 1997 《现代语言学的特点和发展趋势》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
束定芳 2001 《中国语用学研究论文精选》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
索振羽 2000 《语用学教程》,北京:北京大学出版社
王德春 1997 《语言学概论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
王得杏 1998 《英语话语分析与跨文化交际》,北京:北京语言文化大学出版社
王庆新 纪卫宁 2000 批评话语分析及其应用,《山东外语教学》第一期,第 29-32 页
文秋芳 2001 《应用语言学--研究方法与论文写作》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社
吴建刚 2002 论批评话语分析,《华中师范大学学报》(人文社会科学版)第三期,第42-48 页
蕭政華 2005 英文课师生沟通模式—检视课堂论述形式,《康宁学报》(台湾)第七期,第 285-394 页
辛斌 2002 批评性语篇分析方法论,《外国语》第六期,第 34-41 页
许家金 2004 从结构和功能看话语分析研究诸方法,《解放军外国语学院学报》第二期,第 1-5 页
许余龙 2002 《对比语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社
叶起昌 2004 批评话语分析与批评实在论,《外国语言文学》第一期,第 20-24 页
章振邦 1981 《新编英语语法》,上海:上海译文出版社
郑远汉 2003 问对结构,《语言文字应用》第三期,第 20-28 页
朱晓亚 1995 答句的语义类型,《语言教学与研究》第三期,第 47-59 页
---1996 试论两种类型的答句,《徐州师范学院学报》(哲学社会科学版)第二期,第 122-124 页
朱毅恒 周亚卉 2003 语境在话语分析中的作用,《长沙民政职业技术学院学报》第四期,第 53-55 页